Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-09-27 TranscriptionSeptember 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 1 of 52 September 27, 1999 Council: Staff: Visitors: Tapes: Council Work Session 6:30 PM Lehman, Champion, Kubby, Norton, O'Donnell, Thornberry, Vanderhoef Atkins, Davidson, Dilkes, Fosse, Franklin, Helling, Karr, Yapp Ann Bovbjerg, Planning and Zoning Commission 99-92 all, 99-93 S 1 A complete transcription is available in the City Clerk's office. Lehman: Okay, you guys. Karin, you're up. Review Zoning Items, 99-92, S1 a. Public hearing on an ordinance amending Title 14, Chapter 6, Zoning, to allow banner signs in shopping centers. Franklin: Okay. We have three public hearings on tomorrow night on ordinance amendments. The first one is to allow identification banner signs. And this is quite specific in terms of where these are allowed and what they are. Basically it must be an area which has 200 parking spaces just to start out, and that's to establish a size for the shopping area. And the banner is for the shopping center, not for the individual businesses, not for sale items, but for the center. You can have two per pole, and they can be on existing or light poles. The poles should be there for the purpose of the lights, not for the purpose of the sign. Yes? Lehman: Karin, I got a little problem, just a little problem. It says it will be allowed~nly the name of the shopping center and a logo. I have a problem with that. If someone wants to do "Swing into Spring" or "Fall into Fall" or something that is .... Kubby: Noncommercial. Lehman: Yeah, I mean, it's not a sale, and it's not a store .... Kubby: Or if they want to put a United Way. Lehman: Or United Way. Or "Go Hawkeyes." You know, I just think that that' s too restrictive. It has to be something that' s4o you see what I'm saying? Franklin: Ann, was there any discussion of this at Planning and Zoning? Bovbj erg: It wasn't one we brought up. We did discuss celebratory ones we have around, and no one has a problem with that. Lehman: Okay. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 2 of 52 Bovbjerg Lehman: Bovbjerg Lehman: I think you'd want to watch for (can't hear) particular kinds of (can't hear) (Can't hear). (Can't hear) on one side of the pole and (can't hear) on the other. But don't put them on the same side! Thomberry: Say, "Happy Winter." Franklin: Okay, somehow in the definition, then, we would have to incorporate something that would allow these kind of celebratory. But I don't know exactly what to call. Champion: (Can't hear). Lehman: Well, you work on that, but I think you know .... Do other folks agree? [Several talking at once] Lehman: Assuming if we're going to discuss doing this, I just think it's too restrictive. Champion: I think that's a really good point. O'Donnell: We are going to discuss .... Norton: I don't know how you will restrict it at all, though, but that's the only question I have. Lehman: Well, sales events and store names and whatever. I don't think you want to allow (can't hear). Champion: I think you can define that pretty easily. Franklin: I mean, maybe what we say is what it cannot be. Norton: Ooh! That's a long list. Franklin: Well, but it's not store names, it's not sale ....I don't know. Kubby: Except that people will become very creative and find a way to meet the letter of the law and do what we do not want them to do. So, I prefer us to try to find a way to define what we (can't hear). Norton: Yeah. What's permitted, yeah. Me too. Bovbj erg As I recall, when we were looking at it, the question was that the shopping center itself would advertise itself. So my guess is that the cost of the banners and the purpose for This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 3 of 52 the banners would probably be mostly for that shopping center. They might really not have a whole bunch of problems. Janitor: I don't want to interrupt anybody, but these were right out here in the lobby. Did anyone recognize them? Lehman: Steve? Franklin: In the parking lot? Janitor: Yeah, right out by the door here. [Laughter] Lehman: All right. Marian, thank you. Kubby: Are there any shopping centers that only have one store that have 200 parking spaces? That the signs would then be advertising the store? Thomberry: Unless you call Hy-Vee a shopping center. Vanderhoef: Walgreen's. Does it have? .... Franklin: Hy-Vee does. Well, those are listed in your .... The First Avenue Hy-Vee, the Waterfront Drive Hy-Vee, all have over .... Kubby: What page is that on? Vanderhoef: 119. Lehman: Kubby: Franklin: Kubby: Franklin: Lehman: Franklin: Several: 119 and 120. Thank you. But, you know, the way it's defined right now, which identifies a multi-business shopping center .... So they would not qualify? Not an individual business. Hy-Vee would be an individual business, so you couldn't put Hy-Vee up, because that's not .... But they could put a banner that says "Swing into Spring," or whatever. With the change that you're suggesting, yeah. Yeah. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 4 of 52 Thornberry: Or they could participate in United Way, for example--put United Way banners on there for their parking lot. Why not? Franklin: Mm-hm. Norton: What are you particularly concerned~r was the Commission particularly concerned to keep signs out of individual business situations like Hy-Vee? Franklin: The idea was not to create a proliferation of these banner signs. But basically it was the example of Gateway Center that had some banners up, and they were cited for having the banners up in violation of the sign ordinance. And the question was then raised is well, what is the problem with these banners, given that we have banners all downtown? Why shouldn't some of the other commercial areas be able to have these promotional banners, too? And to try to contain it, but allow something to happen. Kubby: I understand that Walgreen's had called about whether it was legal or not, because I thought it looked very cluttered. There are six poles at the Walgreen's. Franklin: Walgreen's is too small under this .... Lehman: They wouldn't qualify. Franklin: Because it only has 78 spaces. Kubby: Well, I don't know. Because it matters if the light poles are the same distance apart at Hy-Vee as they are at Walgreen's, it will look just as cluttered. So I'm concerned about that look. I feel that they shouldn't be allowed on every light pole, but on 50% of them or some easy number. Because I am scared about (can't hear) visual, blocking the vision in terms of--I don't know if they would create any kind of safety hazard, but mostly aesthetic. Vanderhoef: Well, I had that question to ask tonight about how many light poles, and are there per parking space. Is there any rule along that line? Franklin: No, it's .... Vanderhoef: So if somebody really wanted to put a lot of banners up, then they could add additional light .... Franklin: But it's unlikely you would do that at the cost of a light pole. Lehman: Nooo, too expensive. Franklin: I mean, you're going to make your decision about the light poles separately, and maybe add banners to them, and that's one reason why this is about putting them on light poles. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 5 of 52 [Several talking at once] Vanderhoef: But we've got something else coming up with lights that we haven't truly addressed with new construction hardly, and that is our light pollution. And if we start lowering the poles .... Franklin: Lehman: We did that already. Then you eliminate the banners, because they've gotta be 15 feet up in the air. Even the new lights on Iowa Avenue will not accommodate banners, because you gotta be high enough for a truck to go under. The bottom's got to be 15 feet up. Ten feet? It's ten, it's only ten. But they won't be (can't hear). Here, in the shopping center, yeah. We did the lighting standards already. I know we did the lighting standards, but we haven't really had, other than Walgreen's, any new .... Franklin: You mean an example of it. Vanderhoef: An example of how they might choose to redesign their lighting because of our new standards. And if they lowered the lights to keep the lot lit and to avoid the pollution of light up above and spill out over the street where they're not supposed to have it, they may choose to have smaller lights and more of them. And ten feet isn't very tall. Franklin: Although, Hy-Vee, the First Avenue Hy-Vee, does comply with the footcandle requirements of our--and so does Walgreen' s. Kubby: And the technology is improving all the time, because cities all over the country are having these kinds of standards, and want to make it more stringent. And so people in developing lights that need not so many lights to light where you want. Champion: But we're talking about banners in a multi-business facility. Lehman: Generally. [Several talking at once]. Vanderhoef: No, in big parking lots. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 [Several talking at once]. Lehman: Vanderhoef: Lehman: Franklin: Vanderhoef: September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 6 of 52 Lehman: Champion: Lehman: Franklin: Lehman: Franklin: Lehman: Kubby: Champion: Thornberry: Champion: We're talking about situations with parking lots of 200 cars or more. Right. And usually that'll be multi. Originally, Connie, you're correct. But now with the change here to include celebratory language or something, the threshold may be the 200 car .... Couldn't we, as far as numbers go, how far apart the lights are downtown in the streets. A hundred feet? I don't know. I'd have to .... I mean, I don't think you can't have more than so many feet apart, so they can put in all the poles they want and still have only a certain number of banners. (Can't hear) Coralville. I really like that there's a lot of Coralville pride, but I think there are way too many banners. Oh, they have way too many lights (can't hear) banners. And way too much pride! Too much pride! [Several talking at once]. Franklin: Okay, I'm hearing a general concern about the number of banners that might be permitted by this. I think this probably needs to go back to Commission. Because these--well, I'm not as concerned about the celebratory language--but it seems like the focus with the Council is a little bit different, that we need to address the celebratory language, where precisely they're going to be. If it isn't anywhere that there are 200 parking spaces, in any commercial development that's 200 or more? Norton: (Can't hear) multipurpose to single. Franklin: Right. Norton: Like Hy-Vee. Franklin: Correct. Lehman: Would it also apply to United Technologies if they want to put up a sign for United Way in their parking lot? This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 7 of $2 Franklin: Lehman: Norton: Franklin: Norton: Lehman: Franklin: Lehman: No, this fight now is only commercial zones. Okay. All right. But does it have to go back to them before? .... Can we go ahead with the hearing7 Yes, that's on your agenda. But then you need to? .... So then we may learn something that (can't hear). Then I will continue it. Yeah. You can either continue it, well, probably continue, but it may be so changed that you're going to have to set it again by the time it comes back to you. All fight. [Several talking at once] Franklin: But what I'm also hearing is that want some kind of a distance or number requirement, so it's not just on any light pole, that there's a certain .... Thornberry: Well, I think it's kind of up to us to talk to them. I don't think they want ajunky parking lot. [Several talking at once]. Thornberry: Well, you know, you think that it's too many signs up for Coralville. I think it looks okay. Franklin: I heard four that were concerned about the numbers. [Several talking at once]. Norton: I'm concerned. Franklin: Maybe five. Champion: I'm totally in favor of the banner signs. I think it's a good idea. Lehman: All right. O'Donnell: Who's concerned about the numbers? Franklin: Dee, Connie, Ernie, Karen (can't hear). This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 8 of 52 Lehman: O'Donnell: Lehman: O'Donnell: Lehman: Franklin: Lehman: All right. Fine. [Several talking at once]. Norton: Franklin: Norton: Franklin: Kubby: Lehman: Kubby: I think eventually you could have a problem (can't hear). If you get banner that's ten feet up in the air, it's three feet out from the pole, I really don't have a problem with that. I don't think you're going to run-- (Can't hear). I think any restriction we have on numbers is going to be small and isn't going to affect anybody anyway, but it will prevent new things from occurring that could be objectionable. Okay, so you'll have the heating tomorrow. Great. Will you summarize that at the end of the hearing, some of the issues, so that we can (can't hear)? Oh, sure, I can. Tomorrow night? Yeah, tomorrow night. Some of the issues that were brought up that. That may lead some viewers to consider other aspects that we haven't even thought of. That's the point of a public hearing, after all. Okay, I can do that. A process question. And I don't know, there was some mention that this issue came about, Emie, because some people had contacted you on that one (can't hear). I was told there was a letter sent regarding Gateway, and I went down and looked at Gateway, and I came back and discussed it with some of the people in Housing Inspection Services, because I thought the banners were very attractive, and I don't think we should have written a letter telling them they were illegal. But they were illegal. Well, I guess my process question is, with this issue and the amendment to the Southside Urban Revitalization Plan were both things that you asked staff to do, and then like the first time we saw them was when staff kind of had been put into them. And I always thought that if staff time was going to be used to develop something that was brought to us, that was suggested by a Council member, that we needed to come here and kind of bat it around a little bit. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 9 of 52 Lehman: I think you're right, although in this case I think that staff was in total agreement that we had a problem. Kubby: And you just alerted (can't hear). Lehman: I suspect that we would have received that from staff as a recommendation whether or not I brought it to their attention. I don't know .... Franklin: The banner signs, yeah. Lehman: I really do. I mean, I think that was so outrageous that I think that could have .... Kubby: Was it the tone of the letter that was? .... Lehman: No. (Can't hear). Franklin: (Can't hear) inequity, Karen, between what we do and what we were saying the private sector could not do. Kubby: Thank you. Franklin: Okay, should we go on to the next item then? [Murmurs of assent] b. Public hearing on an ordinance amending Title 14, Chapter 6, Zoning, to amend the provisions relating to home occupations. Franklin: The next item is amendments relating to home occupations. This began with a couple of letters from Bill Nowysz and then his issue of having commercial in the RM-12 zone got on the never-ending pending list--which actually is ending, but it changes over time. Anyway, we finally got to it, and the conclusion that we came to as a staff was that it really was not appropriate to insert the commercial uses in the residential zones. That you have circumstances in which you've got commercial zones in which you can have residential, but that in the residential zones, when you start putting commercial uses there, there's a lot of negative consequences of that may have a negative impact on the residential. So we didn't recommend that that go forward. But that we do loosen up a bit how we treat home occupations where the person who has this business lives there and runs this business out of their home. So what is in the ordinance amendment before you... there's a prohibition on certain activities that's in one section of this, like motor- vehicle repair, machine shops, medical and dental offices, kennels, welding and mini- storage facilities are just prohibited straight out by this ordinance, which is not the case now for home occupations. The other significant change here is that this would allow for one nonresident employee going through a minor modification. Now, be aware that home occupations right now do not require any permit from the City. Anybody can have a home occupation. It is This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 10 of 52 only when there is a complaint and we have to deal with it that we then go back to the code and see if they're doing everything that's supposed to be done. However, if you were going to have one nonresident employee, you would need to go to Housing and Inspection Services and request a minor modification, which they would then be enabled to grant if it was appropriate to have this slightly larger business going on in this home. Champion: I think that's good. Vanderhoef: Tell me what the criteria is at the minor modification. Because it sounds like it's a real subjective kind of thing as far as inspectors. Franklin: Well, there is a paragraph at the beginning of the code--let me see ifthat's reiterated in the staff report. Eleanor, do you have the code there in which you could find a minor mod for me? There's some general criteria for minor modifications, generally speaking, which have to do with context, so there is judgment on the part of the building official when they grant these minor modifications within the context of the criteria that are listed under minor modifications. O'Donnell: But that's only if you have one full-time employee. Franklin: Right, who is not a resident. O'Donnell: What if you have two half-time that aren't residents? Champion: It'd be the same thing. O'Donnell: You have to have (can't hear). Kubby: Does it say full-time in there or does it just say employee? Dilkes: No it doesn't. Kubby: Because the issue is traffic (can't hear). Franklin: Right. One nonresident employee. Now, I would read that to mean one person, whether it's 10 hours a week, 40 hours a week or 60 hours a week, that that's one person. It's not FTEs. And we're taking this gradually in terms of opening up the home occupations. Kubby: And it makes sense 'cause the (can't hear) how people work. Norton: (Can't hear). Champion: Well, one employee is not going to be coming (can't hear). Thomberry: Well, let me ask you this. It's one employee on premises? This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 11 of 52 Norton: Plus one nonresident .... Thornberry: I understand. But what if it's like three people, but they only work one at a time. Champion: No. Norton: She says fight now it's just two people, the owner and the employee. Thornberry: I understand that. You've only got one employee there, but it may not always be the same person. You see what I mean? [Several talking at once]. Champion: This point is that there could only be one nonresident employee. Thornberry: That's what I'm saying. I mean, this one nonresident employee is there, but they're sick, and they get a replacement for themself, and that person comes in. Is that two people? Or is that one person? Franklin: We're talking about one person. At this point in time, with a home occupation, you may have no employees who are not residents. And remember again, this is a matter that is enforced on a complaint basis. That is, there would have to be some activity that caused the neighbors to be concerned about this, because we know there are a number of home occupations out there who have employees in their homes. Thornberry: Let me see if I've got this fight. And I guess I still don't understand your answer. You've got a husband and wife that have a home that have a little business in their home--tax business or something like this. And they have one employee, and that's okay? Say that employee gets sick. Can they call their next-door neighbor who also does taxes and say, "I'm sick--I can't go in to work today to that house"? Franklin: They probably could and they wouldn't go to jail. Lehman: That's probably the same employee. Franklin: I mean, it's just a matter there, Dean, of--I shouldn't say this--who's going to know? But .... O'Donnell: Well, that's exactly fight because you're not going to do anything unless you get a complaint. Franklin: That's fight. But the law will say that for you to have a nonresident employee, that you must get a minor modification from the City. Thornberry: Yeah. Got it. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 12 of 52 Franklin: Now, in answer to Dee' s question. Because these minor modifications are for a number of things like parking, and height of a wall, and height of a building, and side yards, the building official needs to make the following findings. Do special circumstances apply to the property, such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings? The minor modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or be injurious to other property improvements in the vicinity and in the zoning district in which the property is located. The minor modification does not exceed the minor modification standards when there are specific things in the code related to that. The minor modification's conforming with the intent and purpose of the chapter does not in any way alter the applicant's obligation to comply with other applicable statutes. They're very general standards. Vanderhoef: Real subjective. Kubby: So if(can't hear) any kind of parking is available for that person .... Franklin: And I think they would look, too, at the sort of activity that was .... For instance, if you have a beauty salon, and you've got one chair, you can probably do eight people in a day--maybe more than that. If you've got two chairs, then you can do twice the amount of business. And is it in an area where that kind of traffic is going to make a big difference? Have there been traffic complaints in the neighborhood already? You know, I think it's something where we will see how this works. It is something that we took before--I think it's called the Small Business--there's something in the Chamber of Commerce. They have a committee about .... Norton: Home Business Subcommittee or something. Franklin: Yeah, Home Business Committee or something or other who looked at it. And, of course, would like to have more employees permissible. They would like to have two. But we felt, given the fact that we don't require any permits for home occupations, that we started out gradually. Vanderhoef: So in this case, what Mr. Nowysz [?] was asking for was to have one more architect to work with him? Franklin: Well, Bill was not going to live on the premises. Lehman: (Can't hear). Franklin: No, that's not going to work for him anyway, because he wanted a commercial establishment in a residential zone. Norton: He wanted to convert that thing to an office. Vanderhoef: They wanted to convert a house into an office in the middle of a residential zone (can't hear). This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 13 of 52 Franklin: Right. Actually, it was a carriage house. Yeah, yeah. Norton: But here we're going with one employee, and it's not an FTE; Dean, let us try it out. If something needs to change later, we can look at it again. Lehman: All fight. Franklin: Okay? Thornberry: As far as .... You can't have an office in a residential (can't hear), even by special exception. Lehman: Home office you can. Thornberry: Allowing office usage in an RM-12 zone or other residential zones even if by special exception and on a limited basis is contrary to the policy. Franklin: Mm-hm. Thomberry: To focus commercial uses. Kubby: Unless it's a home-based .... Thornberry: Allowing office use in an RM-12 zone could put pressure on the (can't hear). So you can't have an office, basically. Franklin: Not unless it 's a home occupation, yeah. And I mean, if you all want to reconsider that in terms of allowing offices .... Thornberry: No, that's okay. Norton: Well, there is a residential office zoning classification, too, isn't there? Franklin: Yep. An RO zone. Lehman: But you can have an office in your home. It's okay. c. Public hearing on an ordinance amending Title 14, Chapter 6, Zoning, to allow public utilities in commercial and industrial zones. Franklin: Okay, next one. The next one is about utilities. And this is to allow utility substation facilities in commercial and industrial zones. Let me just show you what precipitated this. [Several talking at once]. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 14 of 52 Franklin: It's called a remote terminal, and basically what it is, it's a substation in which information, either digital data or voice, comes in, and some quantity is split up and goes out to the businesses and vice versa. Right, John? [Laughter]. It controls the flow of information. Lehman: It' s a junction box. [Several talking at once]. Franklin: Yeah, it's an operator with no operator. Right now US West has put most of these inside of buildings as opposed to out and about. Prior to 1983 the zoning ordinance had (can't hear) for public utilities. In '83, that was taken out of the zoning ordinance. And given that we're going to see many of these remote terminals and even later on you'll be getting something about smaller terminals in residential areas. Because now, with the number of phone lines that people have, it's necessary to have another kind ofjtmction box in residential areas. But we'll get to that. Right now what this is about is just in commercial and industrial areas. And basically what the code says is that in this amendment, if they are within buildings, they are provisional uses, and they just get the building permit. If they are outside, then it goes through a special-exception process. In most of the commercial zones, like the retail commercial and downtown and around the downtown, and the commercial office and commercial neighborhood zones, goes through special-exception process. And the sorts of things the Board of Adjustment would be looking at would be screening between this and whatever is around it. The concern most often is probably going to be between this building and the public right-of- way. In CI-1, the commercial-intensive and industrial zones, they would be provisional uses with screen requirements. Now, remember that provisional uses are uses that you can establish by right as long as you meet certain provisions. Special exceptions go before the Board of Adjustment and allow that public hearing for a little bit extra scrutiny. And those are in the more highly visible, less industrial, less intensive commercial zones. Okay? So that's the proposal before you. Kubby: In that particular building--'cause this will apply to a lot more than just (can't hear). Franklin: Oh, yes, it does. Kubby: Is that like ten feet high, twelve feet high? Lehman: The door is probably six-and-a-half, seven foot, so it's eight or nine feet. Franklin: Manufactured in many sizes--six feet to eighteen feet in width, six feet to 46 feet in length, eight feet to ten feet in height. Kubby: (Can't hear). Franklin: They make them in gray and brown and gray-brown. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 15 of 52 Lehman: Franklin: Lehman: Franklin: Norton: Franklin: Norton: Franklin: Lehman: Champion: Franklin: We don't get to choose the colors, okay? The Board of Adjustment may have some influence there. For instance, remember that this is, as Karen says, not just for this thing. It's for electric substations, gas-regulator stations, telecommunications switching and relay facilities, which is what you're seeing. And water and sewer pumps or lift stations. In certain areas, there may be some requirements in terms of materials for construction. Okay. Okay? Do you think the Board of Adjustment can (can't hear). I think in certain circumstances they will. If they decide a brick facade is appropriate in that location, they might make that (can't hear). Yep. Okay. And will we see that before it's approved then? Because I think that public utilities aren't a whole lot interested in how they appear to the public. Well, you won't see them, but the Board of Adjustment will. They'll come before the board .... Champion: I mean before this is approved. [Several talking at once]. Kubby: We won't see each one, no. Lehman: No. Champion: I don't want to see each one. Franklin: Champion: Lehman: You misunderstand my question. I guess I do. Will there be provisions in the ordinance to have what we're talking about, some kind of aesthetic review where it's going to be built? There is. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 16 of 52 Champion: I mean, ifit's in an alley, I don't care. Franklin: For utility structures located in highly visible areas, the board may consider requiring a brick fagade. The Board shall consider the compatibility of the facility in terms of size, scale, location, and design in relation to surrounding structures (can't hear). Kubby: 'Cause that's what they'll look at to gauge what that job is when it (can't hear). Champion: Okay. 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 second consideration on Windsor Ridge, Part 13. 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 pass and adopt on Windsor Ridge, Part 12, which is the 18-unitjobbies. 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: And item f is pass and adopt on the vacation of Virginia Drive. And that's it for me. Lehman: Okay, thank you, Karin. Franklin: You're welcome. Review Agenda Items 99-92 S1 (Agenda #3.e(1) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION TO APPLY FOR A PRESERVATION SERVICES FUND (PSF) GRANT FROM THE NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,500 TO ASSIST IN PLANNING FOR THE REHABILITATION OF THE MONTGOMERY-BUTLER HOUSE. Lehman: Review Agenda Items. (Can't hear), I've got one that I'd like to just--it's in the consent calendar. It's e(1 ) that would authorize the application of a grant that would require us to matchqthe amount is $2,500, which I have no problem withbUt I don't want this to be construed as our, at least from my perspective--I don't want this to be an indication that our intention to spend large amounts of money to restore his other house. Norton: That's for sure. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 17 of 52 Lehman: I have no problem with the grant. I mean, maybe there' s private funds and whatever to this. Kubby: This grant is to help identify other groups that would (can't hear). Lehman: No, no, I know that. But by agreeing to match, which I think we ought to do I really do--I don't want that to be interpreted as an indication that a Council of our agreement or inclination to spend large amounts of money to restore that house. That's my only concern. Norton: I think you should make that point, but, remember, we spent 65K to mothball it, didn't we (can't hear). [Several talking at once]. Norton: She was pretty nervous about going down the primrose path with this. We don't want to further down it, I mean, yeah. Lehman: Well, I personally, I guess I'd have to be convinced that we should spend a lot of money to do that. At this point in time I'm not interested in doing it, but I am interested in seeing if there's a way of getting it privately. Atkins: Ernie, as I understand it, this is clearly supporting your policy decision was that... Norton: New money. Atkins: Yeah. That you sent us out to find other than public monies--our public monies--to restore this property. [Several talking at once]. Vanderhoef: And I think it's been real clear all along from the Historic Preservation group that they knew the support was not (can't hear) probably to put money forward on that project. And they don't have to time to fund the project themselves. Lehman: Okay. (Agenda #3.e(4): CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST AN AGREEMENT FOR THE RELEASE AND SUBSTITUTION OF A PEDESTRIAN USE EASEMENT LOCATED WITHIN PLAZA CENTRE ONE, IOWA CITY, IOWA.) Kubby: I have another consent-calendar one. It's right on the next page, number e(4) about the change of where the public easement is for people to have a second way to get into Plaza Centre One now. I'm just a little confused. It would be helpful for me to see a picture or some further explanation of (can't hear). This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 18 of 52 Norton: Kubby: Norton: Atkins: Norton: Lehman: Atkins: Franklin: Lehman: Franklin: Norton: Franklin: Kubby: Several: Kubby: Norton: Atkins: Norton: Lehman: Atkins: Well, what's the plan there? Anyone have any detail? Well, that little vacant entranceway there? What is he going to do?. Go ahead, Karin. (Can't hear) updates the notch that you're familiar with that enters into what is now Hardee's. (Can't hear) the vacant walls? Right. Yes. That's where the public-access easement is now. And where it would be is basically coming into where Eby's was, a hallway that would go through there and connect with the hallway that is between Hawkeye World Travel and Leach's office. But it would meet fire code, which is what egress has to do. I mean, that's the point I think. Yeah, yeah. What happens to that area that's now vacant. That would be redeveloped in some manner. But it's owned privately, the public easement? Right. So they're going to exercise their right to use their property but provide another easement. It's now Chewing-Gum City. I think the bottom line is that there is a new purchaser or lease for that property, and they wish to use that, incorporate into the development. Hardee's won't be visible from the street I take it. There'll be some changes. There'll be some changes. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 19 of 52 Norton: That's their problem, yeah. Lehman: Okay. Other agenda items. (Agenda #11: CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND LEPIC-KROEGER REALTORS OF IOWA CITY, IOWA.) O'Donnell: I have another question on 11, (can't hear) this. I have real problems with signing over the real estate, or signing any type of agreement with one realtor. Thornberry: What would be your suggestion? O'Donnell: I think it should be a multiple listing. Champion: It will be. O'Donnell: No, it's not. It's a single listing with one person and anybody else can sell it, but one person is going to get whatever the percentage is, half of it, regardless if they sell it or not. And we have many good real-estate firms in town, and I would like to see a joint listing. I'd like to take the top four commercial realtors. I'd like a joint listing with two of them, put a time period on it, and then if it expires, give it to the other two. How would you select the two? How would you select the two then? Then you're leaving two out anyway. (Can't hear) smaller ones. Lehman: Champion: Kubby: [Several talking at once]. Norton: Champion: O'Donnell: Champion: I thought we went over this (can't hear). If we call a plumber, if the City hires somebody to work on the City plumbing, we give it to one plumber. We don't give it to four plumbers. Who gets the job done? We've gotta have somebody. The buck stops here. At least they have an opportunity to bid on that. This one is not. This is, we're going to give several million dollars worth of real estate to somebody, and regardless if they sell it or not, they're going to get 3% of it. And I think that there are many fine realtors in this town. I think you need a joint listing. And I think you need to have a time period on it, and what that expires, you give it to the other two. (Can't hear). I don't think it gets promoted if you do that. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 20 of 52 Thornberry: All right, here's a suggestion if you can think about this. Lepic-Kroeger and Ambrose, for example, have done co-listings together before, and it's worked out to everybody's advantage. I would suggest a co-listing of Ambrose--it's not Ambrose, what is it? Prudential and Lepic-Kroeger do a co-listing for 6% as opposed to 6.5% for a period of.... Does that start now or does that start when the project is completed? Lehman: When we sign the contract. Thornberry: And this is just a proposal, for a year ada half. What do you think? Lehman: How are the other two going to feel who are not parties to the co-listing? Lehman: I don't see any difference. I don't see that we gain anything if we're .... If we list it with one, we make three mad. If we list it with two, we probably make four mad, because one of the two listing would each like to have the. But in any event, we're going make a minimum of two unhappy. There' s no way in the world .... O'Donnell: Maybe that's why you do a joint listing and do it for six months, and at the end of the six months you (can't hear). [Several talking at once]. Thornberry: Like I said, this is not virgin territory here. O'Donnell: But it doesn't have (can't hear). Thornberry: The two businesses have worked together before successfully. That's the only reason I suggested it. You can shoot it down; you can say "no." It's just a suggestion. Norton: (Can't hear) I agree with Ernie that it's difficult, but we do it with other kinds of contracts, like architects and engineers, where we have to make a choice, and we do, and just (can't hear). Thornberry: So you're not interested in doing (can't hear). Norton: Well, I'm thinking about it. I'm not totally against that possibility, but (can't hear) Emie's point is well taken. We're still making a choice. Vanderhoef: One of the things that has bothered me fight away when I read the proposal, the contract, was the 6% plus the ½%, and the ½% is listed specifically for advertising and marketing, which I always thought came out of the original percentage. So, I did talk with at least one other realtor today, and they all negotiate, it appears, for the percentage. And if we were to do any other looking, I guess what I would like to look at is that percentage, and I still would be okay since all four of the companies are very reputable, that if we could negotiate a 6%, and all four wanted to drop their names in the hat, I still would draw a This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 21 of 52 name out of the hat. They've got a 25% chance of being the awarded bidder, and it would be easier than the duo. Kubby: Where did that ½% come from? Was that just part of?. .... Atkins: I think it's an industry... Jeff will tell us. Davidson: Somebody just mentioned it 's a negotiated-type thing, and that 's basically what the company came to us with as their price for doing it. Thornberry: Would they do it for six? Kubby: Yeah, that's (can't hear). Davidson: I mean, what they expressed to us is that there is some variation on commercial real estate, that this is a large enough size that they feel like they are going to be using some strategies that they would not use for a smaller property, such as doing extensive marketing and advertising in Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, and the Quad Cities. Thornberry: I understand that it's anywhere from five to seven. It's all over the board. I talked to one this afternoon that said a particular project you might do for five. Cedar Rapids does it every day for seven. I negotiated when I sold my house, for example, in Iowa City .... I negotiated with a realtor, and I negotiated him down a half. I wanted 1% down, and we negotiated a half. So it's like an interest rate. If you're good for the money and you don't need the money, you can get a lower interest rate. Kubby: Yeah, I think that because there are other qualified, reputable folks, that that's our negotiating .... Thornberry: (Can't hear). Kubby: To do it with who we're proposing, but to do it for six. And if they can't do it for six, we go somewhere else. Norton: I thought we talked last time about their being some advantage to getting somebody's full attention. It'd be a primary thing for them, they wouldn't be (can't hear). It'd all be (can't hear). There was some virtue I thought, perhaps, to having somebody's sole attention here. Vanderhoef: I agree with the sole attention. O'Donnell: I just have a problem with picking one person or one group and listing. I just have a problem with that. Thornberry: Well, you really don't. You're on multi-list anyway. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 22 of 52 O'Donnell: You're on multi-list. Real estate is (can't hear) listing for 6%, the listing office is automatically entitled to 3% if they do nothing towards the sale. Thornberry: They'd better do something else for that 3%, because they're supposed to be marketing it. O'Donnell: That's fight. But I'm just--you know, we pick one firm over all the others--I just disagree with it. I (can't hear) easily outvoted by four people here. [Several talking at once]. Lehman: It's an awfully big project from the City's perspective, and we've got--part of a lot bigger problem, when you look at Iowa Avenue and the (can't hear). I think that project needs to be marketed as energetically as we possibly can, get that thing sold. It would be nice to have it sold when it's built and ready to be occupied. So, I mean I think we need the best effort that we can possibly put forth. Jeff, you were involved in the negotiations as far as, and in the recommendation. Can you shed some light on how you arrived at the recommendation (can't hear)? Davidson: Certainly I would concur with many of the comments that have been expressed here, and certainly the other firms in the community, I'm sure, would do an excellent job for us. The folks at the firm we are recommending had expressed some interest in working with us. We began to just have some discussions with them, you know, and we discussed it at the last work session, we sort of wanted to see where you all were with respect to .... You know, I think what you said earlier, Emie, is exactly fight, and we, at staff, we were just kind of struggling on how to do it differently and not make more people mad. We're certainly open to suggestions, but we just couldn't figure out a way to do it that was any better. Thomberry: Well, I think the City initiated the call to Lepic-Kroeger and said what are we going to do here? How (can't hear). I don't know who initiated the call. If you had called another company, they would have probably give you information also. (Can't hear) because they came first, I guess. Davidson: As has been stated earlier, when we have, for example, engineering or architecture contracts that are of a more modest scale, we typically just try and spread those around to local firms. We just find somebody who we've worked with that we know can do the job, and we give them a particular job. And over the course of time, we try and spread the work around. Maybe if there's a particular firm we've had a bad expefience with a particular project we have, we wouldn't throw their way. We just kind of try to use our judgment, and over time make sure the work gets spread around. We would do that also with this type of work, except rarely are we in the business of selling City property like we are here. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 23 of 52 Thornberry: Well, like I said, I've got no problem with this company at all. I just thought since I had heard that the two companies had co-listed commercial property before and it worked well, I just thought I'd bring it up (can't hear). Champion: (Can't hear), Dean, is this is not like you're selling, let's say Plaza Centre One. You're not selling a single building here. Where I could see where two of them get together would take a minimum amount of promotion promoting one building. This is actually going to be a lot of work to sell, 'cause you're promoting a lot of spaces probably. So you're going to have to promote it differently. You're going to have to probably do a brochure. You're probably going to have to talk about it. And so it's not like one building that's going to sell for $6 million or 20 million or 30 million. It's not going to be that much space, and it's going to be probably a lot of individual sales. So I think to try to divide it is going to make it inadequate. It's going to make the promotion of it inadequate. Kubby: And to understand the document about the (can't hear). I agree (can't hear). Thornberry: Okay, that's fine. But can we have some kind of time limit here? CHANGE TAPE TO REEL 99-92 SIDE 2 Lehman: How did we arrive at twelve months? Because the conclusion of that contract is going to be .... We don't even have the (can't hear). Davidson: Well, we certainly could extend it beyond a year, but within a year we're going to be able to tell if that firm is making satisfactory progress in our opinion. Lehman: Okay, all right. Karen? Kubby: I'd like us to negotiate to six. [Several talking at once]. Thornberry: I wouldn't want to go over six. Vanderhoef: I would too. I'd go with six if we can .... Atkins: Okay, but the question is then, if they say no? Kubby: We go to the, we (can't hear) the other reputable .... Atkins: But you're talking, if they will not accept 6% or less, can we open up and talk to other firms? We start this process all over? This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 24 of 52 Dilkes: Thornberry: I think you might be a little bit concerned about doing that if you're concerned with generating good will, starting to play realty firms off against each other, when we've got a percentage that' s in the ballpark and does not seem unreasonable. What would you say? .... This is the project. If you'd like to do--you haven't got a contract with them yet? Atkins: No, not until tomorrow night. Thornberry: Here's the deal. We'll let you do this for a year. They might want a year-and-a-half, they might want two years, they might want 6 ½ %. This is the deal: you've got a year, you've got 6%, we negotiate after twelve months. Atkins: Okay, and they say "no," and I then I go call the next firm and see what they can do, find out what they (can't hear). Thornberry: I think there's one out there that is interested in doing it for six. Norton: Would this be headed off by going for two for 6%? Would that avoid the problem? Atkins: Well, the only difficulty that I have with the co-listing is that if I'm not happy with their production, who do I talk to? Lehman: Co-listing I don't think is going to .... [Several talking at once]. O'Donnell: You know, I didn't have any problem with the six and a half, because this is going to take a lot of work, there' s a lot of professionalism involved here, they're going to have to do brochures (can't hear). Thomberry: There'd better be, even with my house. O'Donnell: My sole problem was I did not want to list it exclusively with one realtor. Thornberry: Let me ask you this. When they were going out for bids on the Coralville mall--or not bids, to acquire businesses for the Coral Ridge Mall--what'd they get, do you know? Atkins: That' s proprietary information. Thomberry: I know. Everybody knows that 6% (can't hear). O'Donnell: Well, if everybody's comfortable with one realtor, then .... Lehman: Mike, I don't think anybody's comfortable with one. But I don't know that we're more comfortable with any other solution. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 25 of 52 Norton: I like one, and if it's not by lot, this is as good as any, so .... Thornberry: But just because they came to us with six and a half doesn't mean we have to accept six and a half, does it? Champion: No. Atkins: I assume tomorrow night on the floor you could amend it to six. Lehman: I made a couple calls today. Apparently six and a half--the half percent is not unusual on a project like this. I mean, there is no industry standard. Thornberry: No, that's correct. Lehman: But that this is not uncommon for a large commercial project to have the ½%. Because, you called me today. I hadn't read it that closely, and I thought, "What the heck's the deal? We've got 6%. Now there's an extra half." Well, apparently that is fairly standard (can't hear). [Several talking at once]. Kubby: Well, for the privilege of being the one out of four, then it's six. I mean, that's what I would (can't hear). Norton: We'd like to offer them, but then he doesn't know where to take the next step. That's the problem. You drive a hard bargain tomorrow night, Steve? Champion: How many square feet are we talking about? Lehman: 27,000 square feet. [Several talking at once]. O'Donnell: We're talking approximately $3 million. Atkins: Oh, yeah. It's 2.8 million (can't hear). [Several talking at once]. Atkins: Folks, I would prefer you not offer. I would prefer you just simply tomorrow night make a motion, amend it to six, and say "That's the deal." If they don't like it (can't hear). Thornberry: If they're not interested in it, they'll tell you they're not interested. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 26 of 52 Atkins: Okay. Thornberry: Then, yeah, you go to the next guy. [Several talking at once]. Thornberry: What the heck to you mean? If you offer somebody something for a car, and they say "no," do you say, "Well, okay, I'll give you what you want." Or do you go to the next dealer and say, "Hey." And if he says "yes," you've got the car. Atkins: I'm trying to respect their professionalism. Thornberry: They should respect ours too. Atkins: And secondly, if you want me to negotiate openly and through Jeff and the staff, we're never going to get anywhere. Because they know full well .... I mean, you could tomorrow night pick a number, sign a contract, and they'll say "no way." Well, we'll be back in two weeks to get more direction from you. What do you want done? I don't care. My understanding from you is you want someone to aggressively market this property. The selection process is far from perfect. Thornberry: Will they market it better at six and a half than they will at six? Lehman: I think they would. Atkins: (Can't hear), Dean, I don't know. Thornberry: Then give them seven! We'll get it done next week! Lehman: I would ifI could get it done next week. Thomberry: You would not. You wouldn't pay for another (can't hear). Norton: We're not offering them five, you know. done with it. Thomberry: I think you're just giving money away. Champion: I'll go with you. I mean, I'll support it. Thornberry: I'll vote against it. Champion: Okay. Atkins: Come on, let's go with six and a half and be I'd like to see less, but (can't hear). Understand, if it's defeated tomorrow night, we have .... This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 27 of 52 Thornberry: It's not going to be defeated, but it's not going to be unanimous. [Several talking at once]. Lehman: All fight. May I suggest that tomorrow night there will be someone here from Lepic- Kroeger and that we ask them precisely what we are getting for the ½%. Let's ask! Champion: That's good. (Can't hear). Lehman: Let's ask, let's just ask what the difference is between a 6 and a 6 ½% listing, and just see what they .... [Several talking at once]. Atkins: I would remind you that you have an effect then if you don't hear what you want to hear. This person has played out their ability to ever negotiate, because they're standing in a public meeting with a microphone in front of them .... Thornberry: Yeah, that' s too bad. Atkins: And I don't know ifthat's fair. Thornberry: I don't either. Atkins: I don't think that's fair. Kubby: But that's part of the downside, maybe, of working with a public entity who we don't really have any other way of doing it. And so if they want our business .... There's some treasure at the end of the road if we can figure something out, but in the meantime there might be a little bit of uncomfortableness. And so we need to mitigate as much of that as possible. O'Donnell: You know what, though? There's also a lot of risk in this, because they're going to be spending a lot of money marketing this. There's going to be a lot of money spent. There's going to be brochures, and the time of many people in that office. Thornberry: They're not the only one doing it. It's on multi-list. There's going to be an awful lot of people trying to sell that thing if it's on multi-list. It's not going to be up to one company. O'Donnell: My only problem is we're going to list with one person. That's my problem. Lehman: Well, we're going to have a problem .... [Several talking at once]. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 28 of 52 Norton: Well, let's don't get into a thing tomorrow night where we put somebody on the spot trying to debate a half a percent. I think that's terrible. Lehman: I don't care to do that. Thomberry: We're not going to do that with this--this is just a resolution of our intent. It doesn't name anybody---or does it? Lehman: It does. We're authorizing Rus to sign a contract. [Several talking at once]. Kubby: I don't think that it locks us in the way that described, because if there should be an amendment to six and it passes, and they say "no," next week we can put it back to six and a half. There' s more than one option of a place to move, no matter what we do, no matter what their response to what .... Lehman: But I believe that you may find tomorrow night that there may be an explanation that's acceptable to the Council as to why that ½% is there. I'm willing to ask them why the half, and I think that there may be (can't hear). [Several talking at once]. Thornberry: When I buy a car, they say "It's this much because." Don't tell me that you can't go back. I mean, they can justify the sticker price of a car. Lehman: The next guy gives you the price, but you don't get the wheels. Thornberry: No, I get the same car. It's just that he takes maybe less in profit. And I just don't think that we need to give away the farm. It's not that it's seven, but it's not five either. Like I said, they wanted six to sell my house. I said, jeez, I'd like to give you five. They said, "Hey, how about five and a half." Kubby: All right, we'll get some information tomorrow night (can't hear). Lehman: We'll get some information. We'll talk about it tomorrow night and let the chips fall. Champion: I do hope that somebody will call the realtor in question that these questions are going to Atkins: Champion: O'Donnell: come up. Yes. We'll notify them. So that they have time to prepare. I did not get my question answered. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 29 of 52 Lehman: What? O'Donnell: Is everybody content with listing this one office? Kubby: Yes, I think (can't hear). Lehman: I don't think any of us are content, but I don't see any other way of doing it. Thornberry: Well, I wanted a co-listing, but I suggested that, and there wasn't enough people to (can't hear). Lehman: All fight. Is there other agenda items? (Agenda #3: CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 8, POLICE, CHAPTER 6, ENTITLED "PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE," SECTION 1, ENTITLED "SALE TO AND/OR POSSESSION OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND CIGARETTES: UNDERAGE PERSONS," SUBSECTION B, "EMPLOYEE EDUCATION - CIGARETTE SALES," TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIRMENT THAT EMPLOYEES SIGN AN AFFIDAVIT AND ADD A REQUIREMENT THAT BUSINESS/RETAILERS ENSURE THAT THEIR EMPLOYEES ARE EDUCATED ABOUT THE PROHIBITION ON SALES TO MINORS.) Kubby: Item 13, with the tobacco stuff, the education of employees. (Can't hear) who this responsibility is to show, to prove that employees have been educated KalT: The business affidavit will indicate that the business owner or retailer is responsible. Norton: Will that be described tomorrow night? Will you describe the process how it will actually happen? Because we just got a letter from the State, you remember, saying we've got to step up our enforcement of this thing, and I talked with some people today who were very delighted with this change. But the point is, is it going to be described in some detail tomorrow night? Karr: Well, I think you had a memo from the Assistant City Attomey explaining that we are far below quota in this community, anyway. That is not to say that we shouldn't adhere to that, but I think the understanding is that that enforcement will not change just because of the employee affidavits. Norton: But the employer will have to testify every year, certify every year that he's done the educational job? Karr' The employer, the retailer fight now signs a business affidavit. We will add that business affidavit another statement indicating it is his obligation to do that, and he will sign each year. That is something he or she does now. Norton: That's going to be much appreciated, I'll tell you. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 30 of 52 Champion: Karr: Kubby: ICalT: Kubby: Champion: Dilkes: Norton: Kubby: Lehman: Nortoil: Several: Nortoil: KalT: Lehman: Right. Well, we will certainly miss the 2800 employee affidavits out of our office, but .... My question was, was the tobacco coalition to create less access to that (can't hear). Have they been communicated with about this change, and did we get any feedback? I've not heard from them. I certainly can, do you want me to see if I could reach them tomorrow? Yeah, I would. What was this, Karen? I think they're the Johnson County Coalition for Tobacco-Free Youth. But what is their concem here? It's not facilitating anything, is it? Just to make sure, because they're interested in these issues, to get some feedback from them like we would any known organization. Okay. Other agenda items? I have one question about the Longfellow tunnel and (can't hear). That's on the agenda. Oh, I'm sorry. (Can't hear). Could I just note, you have before you this evening a resolution that was omitted from your packet. It's item number 20. And it's rejecting the bids for the Chauncey Swan fountain. The resolution is in the affirmative. As you've done in the past, we ask that you reject these. Vote it down, and it'll come back to you next Spring. All fight. (Agenda #26: CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN EASEMENT AGREEMENT FOR TEMPORARY USE OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND GENE, L.L.C.) Kubby: I have one question about--I'm not quite sure whether it's number 25 or 26 about the new apartment building on the comer of Linn and Court. It's the one about using the fight-of-way for the (can't hear)--it's number 26. And I'm concerned about this. I know that we allow people to use the right-of-way for ramps. I think that that is a very good policy. I'm not sure that I agree that .... I think that their apartment building, including their major access, should be on their own property. I guess I'm wondering why we're doing this. And do we do this very often? This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 31 of 52 Franklin: That was after much work with the developers of this property, and it was basically .... What we were trying to do was to get a building in which we could maximize the intensity of development on this site. I mean, it is an urban downtown area. On Court Street, because of the change in grade, there are certain difficulties in putting together a building that big and having the necessary--by our code and our design standards-- doorways and windows and breaking up of the fagade along Court Street. And so the solution that we collectively came to--that is, the developers and the staff in working through this--was to do two things on Court Street. One was to put planters along the wall from Court down to the alley. And the other was to get an entrance to the building on Court Street. Now, in order to do this... there's parking underneath. We wanted them to have some kind of access off of Court so you engage the street with the building--you know, it's one of those principles. At that point in the building, there's a indentation, there's a little courtyard that is in the design of this structure. And to put in the stairs, initially it was a bit farther out into the public right-of-way. We had them push it back as far as it possibly could without cutting off the ceiling of the parking area underneath. Their first proposal came back to us with a ramp going along Court Street so that you would access--you'd have the doorway there--but you would access it by a ramp that went to Court Street and went out to the Court-Linn intersection just about. However, that left you still with a very blank space on the Court Street sidewalk as you were walking by it. And so rather than have that ramp, we suggested to them that they put the stairs out, and so that's how we came to that. And the use of.... Kubby: Is there a ramp at that entry at all? Franklin: No, the accessibility point is on Linn Street. That's their main entrance. Lehman: Is this pretty much a design question in order to make the building a more aesthetically pleasing building? Franklin: It's a design question and it's--yeah, it's a design question. But it's also allowing them to maximize use of the property, too. Lehman: I realize that, but .... Franklin: I mean, you could push the whole thing back, but if you did, that would be diminishing the building. Norton: You could make it for compact cars under there. Vanderhoef: So, you're saying that temporary is actually forever. Dilkes: Well, it's not under the terms .... Franklin: Well, unless you restrict, I mean you wouldn't have that access point then for the building. Yeah. I mean, we always write them up as temporary--Bruegger's is This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 32 of 52 temporary use of the sidewalk for their little stairs that go up, but if the stoop wasn't there, it'd be hard to get in the door, so .... Dilkes: We have to write them that way. I mean, we can't allow somebody perpetual use of the .... Lehman: Yes. I understand that. Right. Kubby: You're not going to take their stairs to their apartment building away. Lehman: No, but if the building goes away, the next owner may not have the same easement. Vanderhoef: We retain the ownership. Franklin: Yes, yes. Lehman: Does that answer your question, Karen? Kubby: (Can't hear). Franklin: It's a judgment thing, Karen, and it's weighing off, you know, maximizing use of that property and also these design issues. Vanderhoef: Have they worked out the traffic pattern and so forth to use then the alley for the construction? .... Dilkes: Let me, I can address that. You've got the, I think what's before you, what you were handed out tonight, the agreement for the use of the alley. That' s because we've been negotiating this thing up until the last minute. I think, at least as of about 4 o'clock this afternoon, everybody had agreed to this. So I'm hoping to get signatures tomorrow morning. Vanderhoef: Summarize it quickly please. Dilkes: Well, one of the main contentions of the property owners was that an additional utility pole had to be removed. So now all utility poles in the alley right-of-way are going to be removed. There is going to be a widening of the alley as you enter from Court Street, and then two of those parking spaces in Jay Honohan's lot will be taken, and the property owner, Gene Kroeger, will pave to replace those spaces across the street. Kubby: (Can't hear). So Jay's allowing the use of his property to be used as alley (can't hear). Dilkes: No, no. They're widening that entryway a little bit just temporarily. But the property owners believe that people will naturally will not come straight through the alley because it will be so obstructed but rather want to enter through the parking lot and go This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 33 of 52 down. And so those two spaces that sit right on the comer, they're going to vacate, and they're going to be replaced in the Maiden Lane right-of-way at the owner's expense. Kubby: Is that for the long term or for the short term? Dilkes: No, it's just for during the time that the alley is closed. The utility relocation will take place prior to the closing of the half of the alley. So those are the major things that have been talked about since .... Vanderhoef: (Can't hear) one way? Dilkes: No, I think that the final decision made was that it would be--two cars won't fit through there, or two vehicles won't fit through, but that there isn't as much of a need to make it one way now. You can go both ways through it. Lehman: Good show. [Murmurs of agreement] Dilkes: Well, we'll see, sign tomorrow. Lehman: Other agenda items? Dilkes: Oh, I have one other... on the Drollinger agreement. The Drollingers have signed it. You've gotten a new one tonight. There are a couple changes from the one that was in your packet. The date by which they have to remove the remaining equipment has changed from October 15th, when we're going to close on this agreement, till April 1 st. Terry had agreed to that because he thought they might need some time to sell those. And so we just added some liability insurance requirements because of that. That was about it. 28E with Coralviile--Subdivision Review 99-92 S2 Lehman: 28 E. Jeff. Is this the thing we already thought was okay, and now we can say "Move forward"? Davidson: This agreement should seem like an old friend to you. Lehman: It seems like an old friend. Davidson: I believe this is the fourth time we've talked about it. This agreement, and I've got the overheads if you'd like to refresh your memory real quickly, this agreement is identical to the one you approved in January except Oakdale Boulevard preservation between Dubuque Street and Prairie du Chien is in. And our understanding is that that will now be acceptable to Coralville and .... Norton: What do we get for being so agreeable. Davidson: A Hee Haw salute. [Laughter] This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 34 of 52 Lehman: One of the things we get, Dee, is we don't have to discuss it for an hour and a half. That's worth a lot. Okay, thank you, Jeff. Lontfellow-Twain Pedestrian Tunnel 99-92 S2 Lehman: Okay, Longfellow-Twain Pedestrian Tunnel. Who's going to talk about the tunnel? Yapp: Tomorrow night you have a public hearing on the Longfellow-Twain Pedestrian Tunnel. Just a little background: this project was originally requested by the Longfellow neighborhood in about 1994. It's intent is to provide a safe place to cross the tracks between the Longfellow School and Mark Twain School neighborhoods. There's about a mile and a quarter between Summit Street and First Avenue where there's no place to cross the tracks. Aid as I said, if you live in this neighborhood or this neighborhood, you have to walk a half mile either to Summit or three-quarters of a mile over to First to cross the tracks. Because of that, most people just walk right over the tracks. And people who live along here and railroad employees have told us it's getting to be quite a problem. The two options we have, option one would connect to the Longfellow Nature Trail and Park on the noah side and some old Kirkwood Avenue fight-of-way on the south side, and we would need an easement through--this is Church of Christ property here. Church of Christ has stated they would be willing to work with us on that. You have a letter in your packet. We've met with them and have described the project to them. We also have an alternative option to facilitate the flow of traffic to Sycamore Mall right here. We've also met with the property owner of these homes here--it's a single property owner; those are rentals--and he's also said he'd be willing to work with us. Kubby: So we're thinking about doing both of them? This one for sure. This we would develop as an alternate and get a price on it. Norton: That might come later, you mean, something like that. Yapp: We would get a price on it at this point and take it from there. Norton: It's not within the number you're quoting now, though. Yapp: No, that' s correct. Option number 2 would connect to H Street on the north and Mid- American Energy property on the south. A few neighborhood residents like this option because we could do a bridge over the creek to Seventh. Seventh goes all the way to Hickory Hill Park on the north and almost to the south soccer fields on the south, so there's kind of a north-south access you could create there. However, we believe that most of the traffic will not be from the north side of the city to the south side of the city. Most of the traffic will be between these two neighborhoods. That's why we're recommending this option here. Also, the affected property owners at this option have This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 35 of 52 said they'd be willing to work with us. The property owners for this option have said they would strongly object to a pedestrian tunnel being built in this area. Lehman: Isn't option one far more of a kind of a pedestrian-friendly area than number two7 Yapp: I think so, yes. There's much more of a sidewalk system already in place, it connects to an existing trail, it's much more visible from the street. We would design this so it's visible from Kirkwood, which has a lot of patrol cars and other cars on it. It will be illuminated. We designed it so someone driving on Kirkwood could just turn their head and look right into it. Vanderhoef: John, tell me about the general trail plan in that area south of the railroad tracks and, in particular, I'm thinking about Lower Muscatine, which is still the narrow street that we haven't improved it, and it's very difficult to do bicycles and so forth, and I wondered if we were considering bringing the sidewalk, to widen the sidewalk down in that area7 Yapp: There's not a project for that at this time, is there, Rick? Fosse: No. Yapp: No there' s not. Norton: That'll be on the books (can't hear). Yapp: It's in our arterial street standards for eight-foot sidewalks along all arterial streets, but we don't have a project at this time for this area. Norton: Is Lower Muscatine not in our CIV within the out years? Vanderhoef: Yeah, it is in the out years. Atkins: Way out. Norton: Everything's in the out years. Atkins: We took the Lower Muscatine project to Council in '93 .... Norton: It got shot down. Atkins: That was an understatement. Yeah. Lehman: It hasn't come up since I've been on Council. Norton: Well, I remember there was a lot of heat since that's .... But there was somebody under water out there at the time, and so we've got to go back. I remember they were under water. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 36 of 52 Lehman: The water's gone down now. Vanderhoef: Sooner rather than later, I'd like to get that as a safe corridor in there. Lehman: What are the disadvantages of option one? [Several talking at once]. Yapp: There's a concern by, and you have a letter in your packet. There's a concem by a few people that this pedestrian tunnel would attract crime .... Lehman: But that doesn't make any difference which location. Yapp: No, it doesn't. That's if you want to do the project or not. Norton: Yeah. Yapp: And that's something, you know, when you vote on the resolution tomorrow night, if you don't want to do the project at all, you would vote against that resolution. But the other thing we're asking you to do is choose a location if you decide to do the project. Kubby: In terms of money, H Street seems like it would be more expensive, because you need the underpass and the bridge. (Can't hear) Yapp: Yeah, just for the .... H Street is slightly less expensive just for the tunnel. But if you include a bridge and also you'd need a very long trail through Mid-American Energy property, adding all that in, I think it would be a little more. Thornberry: I've got a question. Why is it more expensive to do a tunnel there as it is to do a tunnel up there? Yapp: The tunnel needs to be a little longer here. Vanderhoef: They're both about equal distance from the closest bridge whether it's (can't hear). Yapp: The embankment is a little bit wider at that point. Champion: Well, option one is closer to Longfellow School, which I think is a real plus since a lot of people drive to Longfellow school because there's no good way to get there. [Several talking at once]. Vanderhoef: It follows the neighborhood open-space plan in that the tunnel goes and connects a park with a school with another school. So that follows that plan. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 37 of 52 Yapp: Yeah, Twain School is right down Franklin Street. Norton: You know, it's one of those things that seems pretty logical. If you were really, really strapped for money .... I get a little nervous. I live in that neighborhood, and I know how separated those two neighborhoods have been. On the other hand, what's the pressure here? Yapp: Well, we do have--this is 80% federally funded. We do have an enhancement grant for approximately 80% of the cost. Norton: Supping with the devil, you gotta have a long spoon, you remember. [Laughter] Kubby: (Can't hear) heard from the Longfellow neighborhood over the years about traffic within the neighborhood, and this is one way to help reduce traffic between two neighborhoods where people don't have to go, you know, down to First and around or up to Summit and around, and go through a couple of neighborhoods to get kids to school Vanderhoef: My concem on this whole plan is that no one is addressing is how we're getting young folks across Kirkwood and to Franklin Street. Norton: Yeah. Vanderhoef: Particularly because it's at that bend with Lower Muscatine, which is a horrible, horrible comer. Yapp: Yeah, that's something we would look at when we do a design. We have not yet done a design plan. Vanderhoef: That worries me a lot. And for that, then I could think about going the altemate trail earlier. Kubby: So that we do a pre-design meeting for these two neighborhoods, because it is such a .... Yapp: We could offer them, yes. Kubby: I mean, I think that would make a lot of sense to deal with some of those issues. People will have ideas, they'll know the pattems of where kids are crossing now, and where they .... Because I know there's a gap study done at some point, although maybe it was further down on Lower Muscatine to get kids over to Pine. Maybe that's (can't hear). Yapp: These two locations are the two spots where the embankment is tall enough that we can get under it with a runnel. Kubby: I'm not interested in doing that to Pine; that's not workable, no. Yapp: Oh, okay. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 38 of 52 Vanderhoef: Norton: Yapp: Champion: Norton: Lehman: Norton: Lehman: John, running the trail down to Lower Muscatine and having them cross at Ash Street versus fight up there where the three .... Well, they're still going have to get across it some place or another. But I'm concerned that we're not thinking that there's a lot of school traffic here, because the school attendance lines don't lie there. I mean, I don't think you have many kids from that side going across to Mark Twain. Not currently, no. Yeah, but you have a lot of kids on this side of the railroad tracks going to Longfellow. And if Sycamore were more active commercially .... Which is probably will be. It would be even more important then. If it were to help facilitate the revitalization of that area, that would be a great virtue, because that other has been totally cut off from shopping in this particular area by inconvenience. John, you asked two things. Tell me if I'm correct. First of all, if we are inclined to do the tunnel. And if we're inclined, which of the two options we would like to do. If we tell you we are interested and option one is the one we prefer, then you go back and do the neighborhood things and come back to us later with .... Yapp: Lehman: Champion: I want to do it. [Several voices in agreement] Lehman: Several: Lehman: Yapp: Lehman: Yapp: We would start the design process, correct. How does Council feel about doing it in the first place? Okay, you got a yes. Do we prefer one over two? One. You got a yes on number one. And you'll have a public heating tomorrow night. That's fine, but at least we've got an indication from ourselves. And we did do some neighborhood outreach. We sent a newsletter to 1700 households on either side, and 84% of those households preferred option one as well. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 39 of 52 Norton: Lehman: Lehman: Seems the logical one. Thornberry: I was going to ask you a question for both one and for two, but I thought it'd be better for me to listen to public input. Yeah, fight. Thanks, Dean! [Several talking at once]. Lehman: Thank you, John. Council Time 99-92 S2 Lehman: All fight. Cotmcil Time. Champion: I want everybody to know that I know that I now can get to my e-mail and to respond to somebody who's e-mailed me. But I haven't figured out how to respond to somebody .... You never responded to me. Just initiate. Well, I'm not as far as she is yet. I can't initiate it. I've never looked at mine, so don't e-mail me. All fight. Mike. I went to a solid-waste management meeting the other night. I believe in 1996 or 1997, we came up with the idea of having a solid waste advisory committee. And they gave us a chart the other night, and like 32 or 34% of the waste going into landfill is still paper. And, you know, I think this advisory group, if we could put this together, I think it's a no-lose situation. I think that we need to do something like this, especially multi-family, like the big apartments. We need to come up with a way to educate the kids on how to recycle. This is a very important thing to do fight now. And I would like to suggest we do something on an advisory committee. Good idea. What's been the objection to forming that committee. We discussed it at JCCOG, haven't we? This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 Kubby: Vanderhoef: Thornberry: Champion: Norton: Lehman: O'Donnell: Champion: Norton: September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 40 of 52 Kubby: We discussed it here. Norton: And why haven't we ever had such a commission? Thornberry: I don't know. Atkins: I think the history of the thing is that the--I think you had to define exactly what you wanted them to do. I would encourage you to be cautious about turning over operational decisions to them because of the huge financial consequences that we have. Secondly, we have chosen to take liability by charging the premium per ton to the folks that are nonresidents, and assuming that liability, I want to make sure that folks that are advising us don't us don't get a little careless, increasing liability. As far as the programming standpoint, I think that as Mike has suggested, if you define it (can't hear), I think that those are generally the issues. Norton: Well, before we make another commission, I would like to be absolutely clear what it's purview is. For example, we've discussed the ban around cardboard here, remember? We've made a big feature out of that, and now we've decided we can't do it because we can't handle multi dwelling units. O'Donnell: We can't do it the way we're doing it (can't hear). Maybe we can come up with a better idea. Norton: Well, I mean, are you thinking a commission should sit and think about single problem for a long time. I guess I don't see what they're going to do. O'Donnell: There's a lot of other things we can do. That's one. Kubby: It can be promotional materials, giving us communities in the county to work together to have similar materials in the (can't hear) program. Vanderhoef: I'd like to see added into that, because of the article that I read in the paper these last few days, anyway, about the concems of the school and the lack of recycling in some of the schools fight now, and that they're trying to pick up and do it on their own. So anything that we could do to help them get organized and promote the recycling (can't hear) school. Norton: Well, would it be a City commission or what kind of a---county commission or--what kind of a commission? Kubby: I think (can't hear) JCCOG, because .... Norton: JCCOG, I would guess. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 41 of 52 Atkins: It would seem to be a logical extension of JCCOG. What I was going to suggest to you. If you want to send me back, I'll work with Fred--we'll write up a definition of an advisory group, send it to you and let you beat it around. Norton: They would advise JCCOG, though? Kubby: (Can't hear) take it to JCCOG and ask JCCOG (can't hear). Lehman: I think that's a good idea. Kubby: It's been way too long since we had the idea. I'm glad you brought it up. Champion: Well, I would think that we would want to look at controlling our own paper going into the landfill first. O'Donnell: This is what the advisory committee can do is people that are very interested--recycling experts is what we need right now. Atkins: One of the things that, I mean, for all practical purposes, the County has not really waded in on regulating recycling. You have 18 to 20,000 souls that live outside the corp limits that we don't .... Well, they don't have refuse picked up; we don't have any of those programs offered to them. I think that's a pretty good size. And I think that's where if you can talk to these other governmental jurisdictions into expanding their roles. O'Donnell: But they're putting the County-wide recycling (can't hear). Vanderhoef: In a place that we're not using enough, to my way of thinking, is our regional COG. And this is where the recycling and the solid waste and all of those things are done in a larger area with a lot more input from counties and see the problems that are sitting out there in counties, versus just in cities. So somehow or another, working with the regional COG I think is real important. Lehman: I think we gotta get a county one going first. Vanderhoef: But I think the region could help the county. That's what they're there for. O'Donnell: As long as we're in agreement that we should do something. [Several talking at once]. Norton: Let's don't create three more bureaucracies, that's all. O'Donnell: Well, I think this is important, this is an advisory committee; it's just there to advise. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 42 of 52 Kubby: Norton: O'Donnell: Lehman: O'Donnell: Norton: Lehman: Atkins: Norton: It's part of our solid-waste planning document that says that we want (can't hear) that we passed five years ago. I think there's a committee structure already in place. Also, we all went to the fountain. Oh, Lord, yes. We wanted an interactive fountain, and about 30 seconds at~er we all walked under it, I bet there were a hundred young people there. And it was tremendous. Yeah, but I got a lot of calls on Saturday that the water wasn't on. Sunday. (Can't hear). Ooh, the kids were screaming. [Several talking at once]. Atkins: Norton: Atkins: Norton: Atkins: Lehman: What we're going to do, is we're going to turn it--it has a wind meter on it, and there's tweaking that has to be done. We're going to turn it on 7:00 in the morning and run it until midnight up until Homecoming, and let' s just see how it goes. I mean, we're just going to have to (can't hear). Are we happy with the recycling feature? Is the water collecting in a decent way? To my knowledge it is working satisfactorily (can't hear). It was heading down towards the library the last I saw. Well, the only real problem is capturing some of the water. Yeah. And I think those things are going to happen (can't hear). Well, we also had an unusual situation Saturday night with--I mean, they were spraying that water all over the place. Kubby: The lights were really great, too, in the jets. Vanderhoef: Just one thing: City Hall Day 1999. November 10. It's Iowa City's tum to host it, and I told the State League of Cities that we would host. The thing I need to know is what time you think would be the most appropriate. The last three or four years, three years at least that I have attended, there has been small participation .... This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 43 of 52 Lehman: Very small. Vanderhoef: Uh huh. And so they were suggesting moderator; I would probably suggest more a round table or get our legislators here and a microphone and let people come forward and just ask their questions. Kubby: If we started a little earlier and had a little reception so there was some talk time in between and some little snacks, some hors d'oeuvre snacks. Vanderhoef: What time do you suggest? Kubby: I don't know. A lot of people will need a little bit of travel time from (can't hear), so maybe 5:30? 'Cause traditionally it's at 7 o'clock (can't hear). Vanderhoef: Traditionally it's been 7 o'clock, and that's not necessarily working, so anything new and different would be .... Kubby: Lehman: Norton: Lehman: (Can't hear). What about 5:30? ..... Too early. That's too early. When do you eat dinner? Yeah. I mean 6 o'clock, even 6:30, if you want a little visiting time, 6:30 and then the meeting at 7:00. Okay, just to try something different. Maybe a little bit of a reception (can't hear). Kubby: Vanderhoef: 6:30 reception? Lehman: I think that's fine. Vanderhoef: Okay. Lehman: You won't need a lot ofhors d'oeuvres, I don't think. [Several talking at once]. Lehman: All fight, 6:30 on November 10th. All fight. Vanderhoef: Anybody want to consider it on television? Lehman: No. Costs too much to do that. And nobody comes. If you had more interest in the dam thing, then I wouldn't have a problem with that. But I sure don't see spending the money to televise something and nobody's interested in coming to it. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 44 of 52 O'Donnell: I agree. Vanderhoef: Okay, whichever. I thought we'd get more of the legislators here. Lehman: Okay, Connie do you have anything? Dean? Thomberry: No, I'll pass. Kubby: Norton: Dilkes: Norton: Dilkes: Karr: Norton: Dilkes: Norton: Kubby: Dilkes: Norton: Champion: Norton: Atkins: [Laughter] No, nothing. Well, I have a couple of questions. One, are you still looking at this issue of camping out in your van? Because it just seems to me that those letters are painful to read, and the fact that we are not doing anything about it. I thought that maybe we could figure out how to do something about it. Is that a possibility? Well, we're looking at it. I think I'm shooting for the second meeting in October to have something to you. That's what I talked to Dennis about. Have those people been apprised that we're aware? I know if they've inquired, that's what they've been told is that we (can't hear). I told them as soon as we'd have something we'd forward it. Okay. It's not an easy issue. No, I understand it's not easy, but I just want to let them assure that we agree it's a problem. Second meeting in October? Second meeting in October is what I'm shooting for. I don't know who to ask this. But I was looking through some old notes and wondering if, have we got any plans going along for Taft Speedway area? Remember where that building was proposed along Taft Speedway? Right. And it's still kind of an eyesore along there (can't hear). Taft Speedway has been one of those issues, and I'll try to in as short a time as possible kind of reconstruct this history. One time when Idyllwild was going in, there was talk about reconstructing it and so forth. That went away. (Can't hear). The flood came. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 45 of 52 Kubby: Atkins: Kubby: Atkins: Norton: Atkins: Norton: Atkins: Most of those folks resolved that issue. In the meantime, there have been, I think, two possible development proposals, one of which is the Chamber has expressed some interest in that Chamber of Commerce Convention Bureau--realtors, home builders, whatever (can't hear). They did some very preliminary engineering work. I haven't seen much more than that. And we also understand that in that general area the University has always expressed some interest in a parking lot. And I have told both of them that's a critical entranceway issue. We want to know what's going. We have proposed on occasion, if you do anything on Taft, the street has to be raised. If you raise the street, you have to raise Dubuque. If you raise Dubuque, you have to--and on and on and on. I mean, it's millions of dollars of a potential City expense. And I told them both that we do not have that kind of project budget. And that's what I know right now. A University parking--they don't own property there, do they? (Can't hear). I don't want a parking lot as the entranceway to the City. We're working on that. The other thing I wanted to raise (can't hear). I found the racial profiling and the traffic profiling issue. I thought (can't hear) to make much out of, and I understand they want a year, but it still seems to me that there's not enough detail evolving there to (can't hear) even after a year without adding more information. Is that being looked at more--I'm going to have to use the word--"sophisticatedly"? Yes. Let me tell you what happened. We received a Freedom of Information request from the press asking for the information. We have an obligation to provide it. We told them at the time, this is only two months, we've not done any analysis, we have a number of plans, we'd like to spend several more months collecting the data. RJ has talked to the folks at the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives. We've also communicated with .... There's someone at Iowa State University who we're going to ask about statistically validating. What do these numbers mean to us? All of those things are in the (can't hear). You're fight. We need to spend a lot more time collecting a lot more data. We did find that the data was coming together than we thought. Okay, yeah. I was going to say (can't hear) Dave Baldus .... Dave Baldus has had a good deal of experience in this particular area in Philadelphia in earlier years with respect to other matters. He might be of some .... The reason we chose .... We talked about that, and quite frankly (can't hear) said we want to go outside the area. We don't want somebody locally doing that. Let's have somebody do who doesn't know anything about this town. And just tum the data over to them and see what they have to say. So that's where we are. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 46 of 52 Lehman: Atkins: Norton: Atkins: Norton: Atkins: Kubby: Atkins: Kubby: Atkins: Thomberry: Kubby: Steve, you had a letter in our packet to Bogdon Consulting. Oh, yeah. I inadvertently didn't place that as a formal discussion item, but what I wanted to mention to you is that I have this request. I am of the opinion that we should wait to hear what we hear from the library. Then you all can make your decisions, and I'd like to communicate that to Bogdon Consulting is that we're not saying "no" to 64- 1A or your development, but we need another 60 days or so until you get your library issue presented to you, and you all decide something. You may make a selection that (can't hear) it. You may make a selection that opens up. I just simply don't know that now. But I felt compelled to point that out to you because of the fact that it's in the letter to ..... But we want to be careful not to tum off such interest. Oh, I didn't intend to do that (can't hear). (Can't hear). We would hope some time in mid-November or thereabouts. The Library Board, in fact, is looking for some dates right now. I think I'm going to be meeting with the architect .... CHANGE TAPE TO REEL 99-93 SIDE 1 On the same subject, the one thing I want to make sure we don't do is when we meet with the library, change the rules of the game again. Because every time--they pointed that out last time, that it's something that has become a pattern. And not by design, but it's just circumstances created that different views of different councils were .... You know, we ask 10,000 questions and give them some direction, and they act upon that, and then they come back and then we change the rules, and I don't want us to end up... I hope we don't end up doing that. I can assure you, I don't intend to change the rules, and they're fully aware of the fact that there are seven very distinctive opinions. And I've encouraged them to, you bring it as a package to the whole group and let them work on it as a group. (Can't hear) that you forwarded in that letter, just so they can see the interest. Susan and I talked in detail about it, and I told her what I was going to propose to you all before I sent it. What rules were we changing. Well that, you know, how much land they can have or what the options might be that they could bring back to us. Because of this letter, whether they can have all or part of This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 47 of 52 Norton: Thomberry: Kubby: Norton: Lehman: Atkins: Lehman: Norton: Kubby: Lehman: Kubby: Champion: Lehman: Norton: Lehman: 64-1A or whether it's a standalone thing or whether it's a joint project with some (can't hear). Or expansion. What are they under the impression that they can have on 64-1A now? What's that rule? Well, I think the rule is that to use or to go off. I don't think they--that doesn't preclude expansion, does it? No. Here' s what I've shared with them. discussed very clearly with you all. That 64-1A is available for a project plan. That was However, the Council preference was that the existing site, what are the options available for building on that site. That you wanted to know both of those. And that's what (can't hear). I think that' s right. Does this preclude, now, using the present building plus some expansion into (can't hear)? But it's a different project than what the agreement with the architect is and where we're at with what the direction they're looking at. The agreement with the architect is for consulting services. Period. They're using him on the old building. They may or may not use him for design on 64-1A. But they're getting some cost estimates for a library that is not a multipurpose or that is not using the current building and expanding over onto 64-1A. That's not part of the game plan fight now. I thought we made it pretty clear we wanted to two sets of plans. Number one, we wanted to see the possibility of expanding the present library. They are going to give us that before they give us .... They were talking about that (can't hear) but not across, yeah. And we're scheduling a meeting with the library board at which time we will discuss nothing except the architect's recommendation and the .... And that's not a meeting before a regular meeting and before a work session. That's a meeting where we will calmly visit with the library board. We're not going to have any time constraints where we have to go someplace else. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 48 of 52 Thomberry: And you say that's the middle of November? Lehman: We've asked them to pick a date in November, aside from the nights that we have Council meetings or legislative (can't hear) that's acceptable to us and to the architect. We've asked for three dates, I believe. Karr: Correct. But they responded back and gave you the choice of the 8th prior to starting earlier prior to a work session or the 15th. Vanderhoef: The 15th iS the one that doesn't have another meeting. Karr: That' s correct. Vanderhoef: Okay. [Several talking at once]. Lehman: Well, is it appropriate to set that date down? Karr: Well, they have asked for those two dates. Those are on the .... Lehman: Is the 15th a date that is acceptable to Council? Champion: November 15th? Lehman: November 15th is a Monday. At .... Karr: It can be any time after 5 o'clock. Lehman: How about 6:30? 6:30 on thel5th with the library board. That's a done deal. Champion: Do you know, I mean, could we it 7:00. It's November, it starts to get busy. I really need to eat dinner before that meeting. Vanderhoef: 15th of November, do we have a meeting? Thornberry: No. Lehman: Dilkes: O'Donnell: Lehman: 7 o'clock, all right. I will be there. 7 o'clock on the 15th. I've got one more thing. I've got one more thing too. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 49 of 52 Vanderhoef.' O'Donnell: Norton: O'Donnell: Champion: Lehman: Arkins: Lehman: So do I. Terrill Mill, that park down there. We have to take a look at that parking in there. You can never get in there, and now they're parking along the road coming out. If you want to use a shelter down there, you're just out of luck because you'll have to park on the highway to get in now. We've got to figure that out. It's become a public lot you mean, yeah. It's full all the time. Maybe you've got to put a two-hour limit. Well that's something that---can Terry look at that? Terry already is. I can mention, and I have, and it is a problem down there. All fight. We also received a letter from Jeff Gillitzer relative to Kirkwood, and with the completion of the Summit Street bridge. Are there four people who are interested in re- looking at Kirkwood with the possibility of signalization? Vanderhoef: Yes. Norton: Right. Vanderhoef: Yup. Thornberry: I'll take a look at it. Champion: I'm not willing to. Lehman: Well, there's four. Anything else? Vanderhoef: Yeah. I'm curious. Lehman: If we could do that sometime in November at a work session? Did anyone on Council notice the new stencils on the sidewalks entering the Ped Mall? Yes, and I've talked to (can't hear) about it. Wish they were a little bigger. But they're effective. Thornberry: Hard to see when you're tiding your bike, though? Vanderhoef: I like that fact that we've consolidated a lot of signs down in that Linn Street and College, near the library (can't hear). Okay, so at least people are noticing them. I have visited with just a few bikers, down there to see if they've noticed them, and mostly they have, so .... This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 50 of 52 Lehman: Police officers are happy with those--think that they are more effective than signs that are up on posts, because people don't seem to look up. Vanderhoef: Well, the skaters definitely tend to look down more than up, it seems like. And the other thing was the native species. Champion: Oh, that woman? Vanderhoef: The call about the various height ofplantings and .... Norton: Oh, the weed ordinance. Yes, I said I'd bring it up tonight. Oh, boy, I forgot I promised. Vanderhoef: Well, I get it for you. Norton: Thank you. Vanderhoef: We're okay. Atkins: I don't know anything about this. Was the letter to you all? Vanderhoef: There was a letter, yes, and then we've been having phone calls that this woman received a letter that she had to mow and cut down her quote weeds. Norton: (Can't hear). Thornberry: (Can't hear) plant it. O'Donnell: (Can't hear). Thornberry: Yeah. Vanderhoef: Fourteen inches is what they said .... O'Donnell: We checked. They have to be five feet back (can't hear). Vanderhoef: Five feet is what they allowed her in the letter, the second letter, but I think the ordinance says ten is what she had told .... I don't know. I think we need to review and at least know what we're talking about (can't hear). Norton: We ought to review it enough to see, yeah. Vanderhoef: And maybe to see even how they fit on the lots. I understand that there are several other places, including folks with .... This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 51 of 52 Lehman: Has anybody talked to Housing Inspection Services? O'Donnell: I have. Lehman: O'Donnell: Okay. And it has to be five feet back, and you can't obstruct sidewalk. You can't let it overgrow between the sidewalk and the street. I drove by this, and it is ve~ overgrown. Vanderhoef: On Oakcrest. O'Donnell: It's like you (can't hear). Lehman: Oh, I know what .... Champion: I mean, the problem is that, again, it's not something the City has initiated, it's neighborhoods. Vanderhoef: And there are some other sites (can't hear) and there's one big one on Bloomington that I enjoy, and I know it's .... Norton: O'Donnell: Lehman: O'Donnell: Lehman: O'Donnell: Lehman: Kubby: Lehman: O'Donnell: Lehman: Well, we've had one on Kirkwood for years. Well, the concern is things live in here, and people are concerned about walking (can't hear). (Can't hear). It is a concern. I know. And it's also a regulation. Yeah. It's (can't hear) a good idea to review that stuff, because (can't hear) trends in landscaping. If the trend goes to native species, we need to alter how we view it and talk about it without becoming a public health (can't hear). This particular one is far more than landscaping issues. This is just overgrown and out of hand. Right. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799 September 27, 1999 Council Work Session Page 52 of 52 Adjourned 8:15 PM. This represents a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of September 27, 1999. WS092799