Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-11-08 TranscriptionNovember 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 1 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session 6:50 PM Council: Lehman, Champion, Kubby, Norton, O'Donnell, Thornberry, Vanderhoef Staff.' Atkins, Dilkes, Schmadeke, Franklin, Rockwell, Helling, Karr, Scott, O'Neil, Davidson, Fowler, Winkelhake. Tapes: 99-98 Side 2; 99-103 All; A complete transcription is available in the City Clerk's office. Norton: Oh, there it goes. Lehman: You dropped it. It isn't going to go off. Thornberry: Throw it on the floor- get it going. Norton: That is how you make it work. Review Zoning Items 99-98 Side 2 a. Consider an ordinance amending Title 14, Chapter 6, Zoning, to amend the provisions relating to home occupations. (Pass and adopt) b. Consider an ordinance amending Title 14, Chapter 6, Zoning, to allow public utilities in commercial and industrial zones. (Pass and adopt) c. Consider a resolution approving the final plat of Galway Hills Subdivision, Part Six, a 4.82-acre, 13-1ot residential subdivision located west of Melrose Avenue and Kearney Lane. (SUB99-0020) Franklin: Okay, this isn't going to be as long as it seems. Lehman: It's already taken longer than you thought. Franklin: Pardon me? You've waited longer than you thought? Lehman: Never mind. Franklin: Anyway. Item A is pass and adopt on the ordinance amendments relating to home occupations. Item B is pass and adopt on the public utilities in commercial and industrial zones. Item C is a new item, it is a resolution approving the final plat of Galway Hills subdivision off of Melrose Avenue. This is Galway Hills, part six, a 13-1ot subdivision recommended for approval on a vote of 7-0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 2 Norton: Kubby: Norton: Franklin: Lehman: Norton: Franklin: Norton: Franklin: Norton: Franklin: Atkins: Norton: Franklin: Atkins: Franklin: Lehman: Norton: Kafin, regarding that one. Didn't we have- I know that you've got a tap- on fee for sewer and water and I thought that there was, years ago now, a considerable issue over the tap-on fee. Was it this section? We've got a big legal hassle .... presumably it is all resolved. You mean all of that stuff about the University? That is fight. Going across that property and Chuck Mullen was involved, I think. I don't think that is this. That is a different deal. There is no problem here in other words? There is no problem with this one, no. Is there a tap-on fee for sewer for other sections of Galway? Chuck Schmadeke? Do you know? We can't hear you Chuck. It is not the same district as Walnut Ridge though. We had a, if you recall, there was a little controversy when we were doing the Walnut Ridge. We were extending the sewer and basically in effect the policy was to cause that development to occur. How did Galway factor into that? It is inside of that. It is a different watershed than Walnut. But all of that was cooking about the same time. By now we have resolved all of those issues. Yeah- we did. Thanks Chuck. So we don't expect problems... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 3 Lehman: All you guys stand up and it is over. Norton: We've got a whole bunch of tap-on issues coming and I didn't know whether they were all in that- many of them are kind of old issues, fight? Franklin: Well as you get to the end of the development in the watershed yeah, that will happen. You're dealing with a tap-on that has been there for while. Are you talking about the ordinances that are on the agenda now? Norton: Well, yeah. Franklin: Okay. I think Eleanor can address that. Dilkes: I don't think that any of those are controversial. Norton: I didn't want to get blind-sided with this. As they say. d. Consider a resolution approving the final plat of Village Green, Part Seventeen, a 15.16 acre, 2-1ot residential subdivision located at Village Road. (SUB99-0023) Franklin: Is there anything else on Galway? Okay. The next item is a resolution approving the final plat of Village Green, part 17. This is more the Village Green condominiums. Does everybody know where those are? Any questions on that one? No? This is so easy. There is one more fight? One more section? Outlot A? Well, we started talking with the developer about the... Like those serial movies, you know, Halloween 13. Kubby: Vanderhoef: Franklin: Kubby: (All talking) Franklin: Thornberry: Lehman: Franklin: I don't have it. Oh, here it is. That is why you don't have it. I didn't bring it. I did. We are talking about this part in here, right now. We've had discussions with the developer about the development of this and about possible development down in here. We may see a little bit more of this This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 4 condominium development because it is selling so well. It is very, very popular. But that is something that is just in the discussion stages now and we haven't even gotten to a preliminary plat on it. So in answer to your question, it may not be the last one. Norton: Where is Outlot A? Well, you can't see it on that one anyhow. Vanderhoef: It is on the little one. Norton: Yeah. Shows the status of Outlot A though. Franklin: That is the one where we would consider. That is along Scott Boulevard. That is where we would be looking at what that future development is going to be. We've looked at a possibility of more condominiums or possibly some townhouse type of buildings. The issue that you've got there is trying to fit it in between Scott Boulevard and the development that is there already. And what is facing what. And having a sense of what that place is. So it is a tough one. Norton: There is an issue ofbackyards to the arterial and so forth. And accessing .... Never tried to resolve that, in other words, it is hard. Franklin: It is hard because either you've- either you've got garages or you've got fences. Usually you don't just have the front yard. I mean, even when the front yard is facing the arterial street like with Mormon Trek Village- when you go in the back of those buildings it is problematic. So that is our tough design question. Vanderhoef: When you are facing to the street then everybody enters via the back door of the property. Franklin: Right. Norton: The only way I see out, which is tricky, is places where you have a small frontage road. And then the houses face on the frontage road and there can be two rows of trees and they are blocked from the arterial and it takes a lot of space but it really makes it nice because you have two rows of trees and kind of a private- and then there is a very short small front yard but they are set back from the main drag. And that really works. I keep siting Washington DC with six lanes of heavy traffic and houses facing the arterial. Kubby: We don't have space to do that now. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 5 Norton: Never been able to admit- I guess it is expensive or something to... ee Consider a resolution approving a final plat of Windsor Ridge, Part Ten, a 19.40 acre, 32-1ot residential subdivision with three outlots located at the north terminus of Arlington Drive. Franklin: Well it is taking quite a bit of that frontage space out of production so to speak. It really has to be well thought out ahead of time so that you're sure that you have got enough ground to work with. Next are the Windsor Ridge plats and we have a request for deferral of this because they wish to eliminate three lots in part 11 somewhere, I don't know exactly which three it is. And, probably these three here, and then spread these out so that they are a little bit bigger which means that all of the lots in all of the parts have to be renumbered. So it's kind of a minor little thing but they want to do this before it is final platted. And so I would just request that you defer that to November 23. Lehman: Defer Item F? Is that what we are talking about? Franklin: You want to defer E, F, G, H, and I. Lehman: That is why you said... Vanderhoef: Oh, all of them. Kubby: With the preliminary plats, was that pond part of the preliminary? Franklin: The pond up here? Which, that pond? Kubby: I was getting very confused reading this because there was some talk about interrupting the stream corridor to create the pond. Franklin: Okay, where ... Kubby: I am really concerned about that. Franklin: Where that is is up here and there was some thought by the developer of putting in a pond with a fountain in it, to kind of mark the place. And at that point they were asking that that be dedicated to the city. Well, Parks and Rec review and then our review also through planing and zoning commission, the decision was not to look at the dedication of that at the preliminary stage because it was very ambiguous as to what was going to happen with this. You know, what was it really was going to be? There was also the issue of the stream corridor in the sensitive areas and that This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 6 pond being in that stream corridor. What has happened with this is through the final platting Outlot K, which is that part in part 10, and... Kubby: Can you flash the red light where the creek is? Franklin: I am fight in here, would be the drainage way. I have to look at the big one I can't read these little ones. (All talking) Lehman: Oh, welcome to the club. Norton: We are all in the same boat. Franklin: 0h, and of course I have the finals which don't have the... on it. Kubby: Doesn't the sensitive- will you explain that? Franklin: Okay- what happened was that this whole notion of dedicating Outlot K to the city- we rejected that. We had not committed to it at the preliminary stage, did not want to at the final stage because there is so much ground at Windsor Ridge that is being dedicated to the public. A lot of which was a commitment during the preliminary which was way before the neighborhood open-space ordinance. So there is that issue of not dedicating it to the public. They will have to take care of it themselves, whatever they put on it. Also, we had them do a sensitive areas overlay site plan, not a re-zoning, but a site plan review because of the lack of magnitude of the impact on the sensitive areas. What they have shown on that sensitive areas site plan is a pond there but then it also has plantings around the pond that will act as a filter and allows the stream to flow as it would normally flow, to an extent. The pond is formed so there's going to be some delays, I suppose, similar to a storm water detention basin where it is held for a while and then it flows on. It will be held enough to form that pond but then it has the plantings around for the filtering. And that went to the sensitive areas site plan review. Kubby: I just have some environmental concerns- we've got a stream and people may be relying upon that stream upstream and downstream. I mean, it's a creek. And then it's interrupted with some storm water management. When there hasn't been rain like now and the water is really low, what does that do upstream and downstream? When we have interrupted it when we don't really need it for storm water management. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 7 Franklin: Kubby: Franklin: Kubby: Franklin: Kubby: Franklin: Kubby: O'Donnell: Dilkes: Franklin: Kubby: Franklin: Well, I'm sure that what is happening fight now is that the whole thing is dry, just because it is so dry. And that will happen. It's not dry. It's not? And actually I'm, I guess I want to leam some more about the sensitive areas site plan because I was out there this weekend and this afternoon and took some pictures and we need to do some soil erosion control out there. I will pass the pictures around. There's no soil erosion fencing anywhere, stuff is being graded and pushed into the creek. Dead trees, bulldozed trees. They've dug a hole and are burying huge trees that have been felled, into the hole on the site. That just doesn't seem like we would approve of that. So I guess I want us to check it out. Well, why don't we check- I will check with Julie. There should be a grading plan. If they have been grading there should be a grading plan. Yeah. We just need to do some enforcing because I am sure that this wasn't- putting all of this stuff in and it is fairly clear that you can see stuff just being- the creek is being (can't hear) and before we've approved this pond thing that's how they were going to stop the flow of the water creek to creek...pond- we need to improve that before they start filling it in. Well, whatever they are doing- if there is a sensitive area- well, the sensitive area site plan is reviewed administratively and they may be doing work in conjunction with that sensitive area site plan approval. I don't know, I will check on that, Karen. Well, it just doesn't seem very engineered. I am sorry... ...flow in, form the pond and it's going to flow out, fight? I think we need to take a look at the sensitive areas site plan. We are sort of talking without having sufficient knowledge here it sounds like to me. Yes, and I also want to check with Julie. Are there other entities that we need to talk with about interrupting the creek like that? Whatever requirements there are on the sensitive area site plan they would have been met before those were approved. I do not know off the top of This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 8 my head whether this was a blue line or not, it probably was in order for us to even look at it as a sensitive areas the site plan. But, it depends on the watershed that it drains and how much upstream- how many acres you are draining, whether you have to go to the DNR or not. And, I just don't know that. I would have to check with Julie (several talking) Thornberry: What is a blue line? Franklin: A blue line on the USGS map. That is one of the measures that we use as to whether there is a sensitive feature there or not because if something is real intermittent it doesn't even show up on the USGS map. Lehman: I think what Karen is asking, we need to find out to make sure that they are operating in compliance with the approval they have gotten or not. And you'll check that with Julie? Norton: That is pretty heavy-duty. They are good pictures. Champion: Yeah they are. Kubby: I guess there's just kind of the philosophical question about whether we should interrupt a natural stream or a long-standing stream flow with something like a pond if it's not necessary for storm water management because it will have effects on, maybe positive maybe negative I don't know, either upstream or downstream. I guess before- maybe Scott can just explain what the process was, the thinking process was with this, the site plan. This sensitive areas site plan. So we could understand that better because we may say that as a policy that we would like to direct staff to continue to do that or not to continue to do not. Frmkklin: We will get that for you. Lehman: Doesn't the state have regulations regarding the streams? Franklin: It depends upon the size of the watershed that that stream is draining. Lehman: So this, whatever is happening out there would have had to have met state regulations, is that correct? Franklin: I don't know because I do not know the size of the watershed. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 9 O'Donnell: Lehman: Franklin: Lehman: Vanderhoef: Franklin: Vanderhoef: Franklin: Vanderhoef: Franklin: Vanderhoef: Franklin: Vanderhoef: Franklin: Supple: Franklin: Vanderhoef: Franklin: Unless they just did it but I do not think they could have for...because there's just absolutely nothing there. No, I mean as far as the creek is concerned. As soon as I talk with Julie and see the whole review process I can let you know. Good, good. Thanks. ..not why you are here though- I have another question, a couple of them actually. Is Cardigan Lane going to go all the way through? That's the one that you wanted to keep a private street rather than a... Yes, it does go through. It goes all the way out to Scott? Yep. As a private drive. As a private drive. Are the garages on that, from that... I'm looking for the overhead Dee. Well, of course I don't have that...it goes all the way through, Dee. I'm trying to remember now, the garages are off of the back. Off of Cardigan Lane? As I recall from the plan development that was, it was OPDH, re-zoning. That there is a drive that comes off of Cardigan, comes down and accesses the garages at the back. Then, along Cardigan there is angle parking along the town square. Oh, but that still would be a private drive? Yes. Lea am I right? That is the way I remember it. Okay. But, there is another curb cut out to Scott? Yes. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 10 Vanderhoef: Franklin: Lehman: Vanderhoef: Norton: Lehman: Franklin: Vanderhoef: Norton: Vanderhoef: Norton: Vanderhoef: Franklin: Vanderhoef: Franklin: Lehman: Champion: Lehman: Vanderhoef: Franklin: And how far is that from Court? Oh, let's see. Dee, is that street already there? I don't think so. 13. Yeah. This is the one that we're deferring right? Yep, we are deferring all of them. Yes, but I thought that as long as she was here I thought I'd ask these questions up-front. Yeah, you don't want to wait. As long as I have the opportunity. That is what I was trying to say, you don't want to wait until the end. Then it's too late. Because then when 14 comes along there, it is still not showing that Cardigan the goes all the way out to... No, that is because Cardigan is part of... 13. Yes. I need another overhead here, this is just not confusing enough. Okay these two go together... Yes they do. Well they sure do. Hey, that is cool. And they fit. Okay now, the distance from Court Street is about 580 feet. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 11 Lehman: Franklin: Norton: Franklin: Vanderhoef: Franklin: Vanderhoef: Franklin: Norton: Franklin: Vanderhoe~ Franklin: Kubby: A little over a block. Or, about a block. Yeah, two blocks. That is two. Well, almost two blocks. Two blocks would be 640 feet. But 14 is all commercial. That is commercial yes. Fourteen is- this is commercial, this is the town square, this is the townhouses and here, remember we had a debate about a duplex over or not and we don't have one over here that is all burreed and landscaped. The drive comes in here and goes back in here to the garages. And then around the square is the opportunity for parking around the square. And then there'll be another drive- there'll be another drive and parking area in here for the commercial development that occurs here. So this commercial development will have access here and over here. Is there another curb cut into that commercial other than between Court and Cardigan? We haven't laid that out yet but it's likely not- that you'll have your buildings wrapping around here for your commercial and your access will come off of here because this is neighborhood commercial. The access is not offof Court, in other words. Right. And you don't want it close to the comer. I know that we have some site distance issues here, of course. When we do Court and Taft those issues are going to have to be dealt with in terms of cutting off the top of the hill here. But when we lay out Lot 260 is when we're going to have to look very closely at that. But that is probably many years off because there's just not enough out here at this point to support commercial. It has to do, my question in looking at all of that is- is Cardigan going to turn into being more than just a private drive- to make that commercial accessible from both Taft and from, what is that, Barrington? Yeah, Barrington. Because, people will take whatever the shortest route is. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 12 Vanderhoef: If they're coming in on a arterial from the East I don't think they'll go up and around comer to come into the commercial. Norton: Well how else will they- they'll cut through Court Street. Vanderhoef: I think they'll use Cardigan Lane is what I'm concerned about- and if it's only built as a neighborhood street vs .... Franklin; Yeah, they will come in here. Norton: Does Cardigan go out onto Taft? Vanderhoef: Yeah, that is what I had asked about. And why this was going to be a private drive rather than a regular street. Lehman: What is the width of Cardigan? Do you know off-hand? Franklin: No, but I bet that I've got it here. As I recall and we talked about this at staff, one of the thoughts was that, you know, within our commercial development we don't have the responsibility for maintenance and taking care of the driveways within a commercial development. And that basically that's what we're talking about in here is circulation for this commercial development. That it is really for this private development and in turn to it and that was how we were coming out with a private lane. Twenty-five feet wide. Which is as wide as- now that is... Vanderhoef: That is not the twenty-eight though that... Franklin; That is the public access easement. 25 ft. wide. And 25 feet wide is what many of our streets are. Vanderhoef: The neighborhood streets are, others are 28. Norton: That is right many of them are 28. Franklin: The newer ones are 28, the older ones are 25. Vanderhoef: And the 25, I have some problem with 25's. In particularly if that is going to be outlet onto Taft. Kubby: Well, because it is neighborhood commercial, theoretically, people that live within that area of town who might be walking or biking or driving This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 13 there- it shouldn't be something that is a huge magnet like a Hy-Vee- except that Fareway is in... Franklin: Neighborhood commercial. Kubby: So there could be a grocery store right? Franklin: Hy-Vee on North Dodge is a neighborhood commercial. Well, one thing that you have here is... Vanderhoef: This is the secondary access in there. The Fareway area out there they have one access from Mormon Trek and then they have one- is that... Lehman: Westwinds Drive. Vanderhoef: Westwinds Drive is a regular street so there are two accesses into that neighborhood commercial. Franklin: But within the neighborhood commercial there is drives. Between the parking areas. Vanderhoef: Oh yeah. Franklin: My thinking is that that is somewhat how this is going to function. If you have that as a local street instead of a 25 t~ easement you would have a 50 ft easement and 25 ~ of paving. There is a remarkably different standard that would have to be applied. Not that you shouldn't be thinking about this now but do be aware that this is all- this is to be public space and this is the commercial space yet to be developed. If this were to go forward there still would be an opportunity, although I would not recommend it, to increase this to a public street with a 50 ft access easement, taking it out of here. Do you understand what I am saying? In terms of time... Kubby: Will we be... Vanderhoef: We would end up taking some out of the commercial at the time that the commercial area was developed. Franklin: That is correct. That is correct. That this development could go forward with this in place and at the time that this commercial development was done, the notion of this being a public street could be reconsidered and you'd have enough room there to get it. Vanderhoef: That is true. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 14 Franklin: But I am not saying that you shouldn't consider that now- I am just saying that you do have that opportunity in the future. Kubby: Will they be able to come in and ask for another drive in between Cardigan Lane and Court Street? In that two block area? Franklin: Here? Or on Taft? Lehman: On Taft. Kubby: On Taft in between Cardigan and Court. Norton: That second access. Vanderhoef: That is the second access that I am talking about. Franklin: I don't know. I mean, at this point I would not be inclined to give them another access point. Norton: You think about it coming off of Cardigan... Vanderhoef: I would rather see it come in offof Cardigan than to have another curb cut and drive between Cardigan and Taft. Franklin: But the question is whether this needs to be a public street. And this is going to have angle parking on it on the square onto 25 ft of paving. Essentially what this becomes is an entry into a parking area which includes this whole thing. If this were all laid out in some kind of scheme I think you could see it more in that it would be a part of this entire square. Now that is not to say that there won't be some people who will cut through. As there won't be some people who will cut through here and out this way if it is becomes a congested intersection for some reason a hundred years from now. Kubby: And actually, having that narrow with the angle parking makes it a little more pedestrian. Franklin: Well, that is the idea arotmd town square. Vanderhoef: The pedestrian part I like it's just that the secondary access into a commercial area that I'm .... Kubby: This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 15 Franklin: I guess if it is, what is the harm? I mean, if people come in this way and use this commercial, is that necessarily problematic? Vanderhoef: It may not be, I don't know. Franklin: Because, this will all be owned by a single entity which could take responsibility for that. Kubby: If it is a private road and the neighbors eventually want some traffic calming, do we do that on a private road? Champion: No. (Several talking) Vanderhoef: If it is a private road we have nothing to say about it. Franklin: And then we would probably put in speed bumps. O'Donnell: That is true, we have nothing to say about it. Franklin: Well, that is an option that most people go to. Lehman: It would probably be easier for them to do something about traffic calming on a private street then it would be for us to do anything. Is there any question about that? If they want it they will get it. They don't have to meet any standards whatsoever, they can just do it. Vanderhoef: They can close a private drive. Kubby: But, that is just, I mean... Vanderhoef: Right? Franklin: Uh-huh. No- no they couldn't because this is a public access easement over it. No. They couldn't close it. Kubby: So then maybe it really is a policy question about does it make sense to have a commercial area having a secondary access come onto a private street? No matter what width we decide we might argue about 25 or 28 but I think it is a valid question. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 16 Franklin: Champion: Franklin: Lehman: Franklin: Lehman: Kubby: Lehman: Franklin: Lehman: O'Donnell: Norton: Lehman: Norton: Lehman: But it depends if whether you use this as a part of the drive and a part of this whole parking lot system and that the secondary access is onto Taft, well, the tertiary access, because you have Taft, Barrington, probably another one up here at BatTington. So this is basically the parking area around the square for the commercial properties with your access points being on arterials and collector streets. It would be just like that road in Sycamore Mall. Basically people use that as a road that goes through... Yeah, I guess so. Karin, what 's the width of the- do we have the width typically of the curb cut out to Cardigan Lane? The width of the curb cut? Yeah, the entrance onto... It is standard. Well, what is standard? Well, let's see. How much? How many years is this away? I think that it is 17, I'm pretty sure. Seventeen feet for a twenty five foot street? No, for a 25- that is an alley I am talking about. No, no. All I am saying is that basically looking at those lines and we are imagining that being a street. That is one huge parking lot and if the cut onto Taft is a 30 ft. entrance, I mean heavens, that is a big entrance to a big parking lot. That is not really a street, in effect it is part of a big parking lot. Champion: Right. Franklin: Yeah. Yes, that was my point. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 17 Lehman: Franklin: Lehman: Vanderhoef: Lehman: Vanderhoef.' Lehman: Champions: Norton: Franklin: Norton: Franklin: Thornberry: Champion: Vanderhoef: Franklin: (Several talking) Vanderhoef: We delineated on there with lines so we don't visualize- that is a huge parking lot. It is not a street. That is what I'm saying. When this is all laid out- I think that is when you want to be thinking about those decisions. So the size of the curb cut... Is the question. The size of the curb cut is the critical thing. Is there room to get in and out? Right. I see no problems. I don't have any problems. What are we doing two weeks from now? What aspects of this will be considered then or considered before then? It is the final plat and so... We want to be cleared up then. Yeah. If you feel that you need to decide- if this is an issue for a majority of you and you need to make a decision about it right now, what it is being presented to you as is a 25 foot wide public access easement and it will be a private drive. Not a problem. Not a problem. And it could be widened in the commercial area at a later time? Yes. And then one other question. Some place in the staff report they were talking about that the trails within these areas are to be maintained by the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Franklin: Vanderhoef: Franklin: Vanderhoef: Franklin: Vanderhoef: Kubby: Franklin: Kubby: Franklin: Kubby: Franklin: Lehman: Franklin: I(alT: Council Work Session Page 18 homeowner association, however, there is a bunch of the land that is being dedicated to the city. They city maintains the land around the trail, how does that work? Not exactly. These are the trail segments here.. There is one and twelve. Yeah, up there. This one is different. But, this one here and this one here- they will be dedicated to the city. They are treated just as the sidewalk in front of your house is treated. That is that it is owned by the public, however, the property owner is expected to maintain the space by it, the parking and shovel it. And it is the same arrangement as the sidewalk in front of your house. This one is part of a larger open space. And that open space is one that is being dedicated to the city and we will have to maintain the grass and... Yeah, that was way back from when we started all of this. That one got in there before...open space was in. So, could we just get some more info on the sensitive areas site plan? You bet. Thanks. And I need to give these to you. Oh yeah. When did you take these- today? Today. Okay. Thank you Karin. You are welcome. Mr. Mayor. I would just like to note that that could be one motion tomorrow night- to defer items E-I. Review Agenda Items 99-98 Side 2 Lehman: Okay. Review Agenda Items. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 19 Atkins: Lehman: Atkins: Lehman: Norton: Thornberry: Karr: Lehman: Champion: Lehman: Atkins: Lehman: Errde, I have two items... Yes, okay. ...two items for you on the agenda. One is the consent calendar. Note that we have changed, it is item e(8) page 4. We changed the bid time from 10:30 until 2:00 on the water plant. That is not a big deal it is to the prospective bidders. And, Sylvia is in her office if anybody has questions on the CDL and the drug testing policy. So, I don't have to bring her out tomorrow night she is here if you have any questions for her. And then a third item also on page 4, f(2), the resolution setting public hearing to acquire property rights for the Longfellow Twain Pedestrian trail. That public heating date should be December 7 and not November 23. Also on the consent calendar. Thank you. Which one was yours? On page 47 r(2) It affected the comment. Other agenda items? Nope. I just wanted to bring up something I thought we should talk about may be while Karin is here and that is the business with Bud Louis's driveway. Bud is going to be visiting with us tomorrow night during public discussion. Well, Chuck is here also. Chuck is familiar with it too. Well, I don't have a problem with that. Bud called me and I indicated to him to write us a letter which he did. And he said that he wanted to come to the Council tomorrow night during public discussion and bring it up for us and I really hate to bring it up without him being here. Champion: Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 20 Lehman: I mean, I don't have any problem discussing it but I just think that it would be better if he were here. Champion: I agree. That is fine. Thornberry: I think that Eleanor was probably going to say something. Lehman: I am sorry. Eleanor? Thornberry: I meant that she was going to say that if we started talking about this and it is not on the agenda. Dilkes: No, you are okay. It is on the agenda. Lehman: But I think that would be more appropriate when he is here tomorrow night. But he is going to bring it up. O'Donnell: I would also like to encourage everybody to go out and drive and take a look at that situation out there. Norton: It is interesting. O'Donnell: Drive by it. Lehman: Okay. Any other agenda items? Airport Master plan Lehman: Rick. Mascari: Hello everybody. I want to talk a little bit about the runway 17/35. I guess I said before and I guess I want to say it again that we are all on the same team. We are all working for the same goal and that is to provide a safe environment for the people of Iowa City. One of the main advantages of having the third runway is the fact that it is for wind direction. Ideally, it would be great if we had 50 runways, but we don't. Instead, we have just the three. Now, it has been brought up that the FAA has said that they will only help support financially just two runways. The reasons why that is is because they have a guideline that says that if the wind direction is, or rather the wind component is within 95 percent or better then they will only financially support to runways. Right now our two runways are at the 94.3 percent, I'm sorry 94.6 percent. So we're just shy of that 95 percent rule. Yet, they rounded us off and they went ahead and brought us up to 95. With the third runway, we actually have 100 percent wind This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 21 direction coverage, which is ideal. That is an ideal situation. As a matter of fact I contacted the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association and they told us that between the years 1982 and 1993 there was 2872 wind related accidents nationwide. That is most recent figures that we have. But in the Iowa City airport with the 60 years, over 60 years, of the runways being in the configuration that it is fight now, we have had zero wind related accidents at our airport. So, is it because of the third runway? We think so. We really do. So, it is a matter of safety. This whole issue here is safety. Ernie was quoted in the paper by saying that one of the reasons why the runway should be closed is in regards to safety. The airplanes flying over the town. But, another way of looking at that is the fact that the shortest point between two, or the two points is a straight line. So, if an airplane was to come from the Noah say from Minneapolis, typically they would be about five miles north of the airport which is right around Interstate 80. Then, if we have a nice subtly flowing wind like we had today, what an airplane would do is he would land directly straight in to runway 17. Now, that would give us maybe about five seconds over the town that the airplane would actually be over the city. Maybe five seconds. Now, if runway 17\35 wasn't there, what would have to happen is five miles noah over Interstate 80 say, what the airplane would have to do is he would have to make a choice whether he is going to use runway 24 or runway 12 from the East or the West. So, at five miles noah he would have to make a left turn at a low altitude, and make a fight turn again at a low and slow altitude because he's preparing to land. And then land on runway one, I'm sorry runway 24. That would actually triple the amount of exposure over the town by 15 seconds at least. So in actuality it is safer to have a third runway. That is the reason why we are asking you to consider our offers. Back over 60 years ago the federal government actually installed three runways to our location. They did it for a reason, it is because they evaluated the winds and the wind direction at our airport in that is the reason why they put it in. Now, it was brought up at the reasons why we should consider closing the runway is because the FAA doesn't require us to have it. Well, that is true they don't require us to have it- but on the other hand they are not asking us to close it either. They are not telling us that we have to close this runway. They are not saying that they are recommending closing it. They don't say that either. All they are saying is that we are not going to financially help support it. They realize like anybody else, that the more runways you have the better and safer it is. And that is what we are here for- to be safe. The master plan when it was originally written, when it was originally accepted by the FAA, specifically says that it is a local decision as to whether we should close that runway or not. That we can maintain it if we can maintain it ourselves. That we should or we can actually keep it open. There is alternatives to whether or not we should close it or whether we should This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 22 keep an open by using the different areas, different thresholds, different means- or whether we can either put in roads or get around obstacles or things like that. There are other options that the FAA has in fact agreed upon. So these are things that we need to consider. But one of the biggest things that needs to be addressed and that is there is an instrument approach into the runway 35. This is a big deal. Just to give you a little briefing as to what is going on in and what an instrument approach is- is that these are maneuvers or procedures that are designed by the FAA to allow airplanes to transition from instrument conditions, and in other words just flying on the gauges, to get into visual conditions that you can actually see the airport and land. Now, right now Iowa City has three different types of instrument approaches. The first one is called an NDB approach which stands for non directional beacon. This was installed back in the 1940s. It is ancient, it is not very accurate. It requires lots of maneuvers. There is a lot of room for error. And is being phased out by the FAA. As a matter of fact the instrument that you need on the airplane is not required anymore by the FAA to be installed in order for you to fly in instrument conditions. It is obsolete and is being phased out. We have two of those. The other kind of instntrnent approach is called a GPS approach. You have all heard of that. You can buy GPS's at sporting goods stores. Cars have them. But the GPS required in the airplane in order to do an instrument approach is a special GPS instrument. It is very accurate. It is very expensive. It has to be certified by the FAA and has to have backup systems. And quite frankly is relatively new as you all know. And not very many airplanes have it. So, consequently the GPS approach is not used very often. I like to look at it this way- that NDB approach, you can probably count on both hands as to how many times somebody has used the NDB approach at the Iowa City airport in the last year. The GPS approach, you could probably count on both hands and both feet as to how many times that was used in the last year. The third in the most common approach is called the VOR 35 approach. Very omni range. What that means- there is a transmitter, a much more sensitive transmitter than the NDB is. It is located about seven miles south of the airport near Riverside. And what happens is when the airplane flies towards this VOR transmitter and then flies away from it at a certain direction till he gets to the airport. Now, using this procedure that the FAA has designed he can actually descend down to an altitude of about 500 feet above the ground. Whereas he can transition fi'om instruments to the visual conditions in which ease he will land straight in to runway 3 5. Now, if runway 3 5 wasn't there what would have to happen is the airplane would have to go down to still 600 feet, a little that higher than 5 but still pretty low to the ground, and then maneuver at the slow and slow altitude around over our city and then land at another runway. Again, not the safest thing, not the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 23 safest procedure. As a matter of fact the FAA regards this as the least safe instrument approach. Thornberry: Low and slow is not good. Mascari: Low and slow is not good. It raises the amount of exposure that the airplane has over our town. So, the runway 35 serves a purpose in that regard. How many times has a VOR 35 approach been used? If we all counted on our hands and feet that is about how many times it has been used in this last year. So, it is absolutely the most... You don't believe so Steve? Atkins: Oh no, something else. I just wasn't going to look around the room and count on everybody's toes. Lehman: That is because you only have three toes on your left foot. Atkins: I would never argue with those other things. I will not count on anyone's feet. Mascari: Quite a few. But it is that many- it is used all of the time. It is most widely used instrument approach. As a matter of fact this is the approach that is used by most of the airplanes that come in our town when the conditions are less than ideal like today. If we close that runway we will essentially slam the door shut on our airport during less than ideal conditions. And this is not desirable. Now, I was also quoted in the paper at arriving at a compromise. And I think there is a compromise here, something that we should all consider. I contacted Jerry Searle today and unfortunately he can't make it but we, the airport commission, has hired Jerry Searle to revise the master plan so that way we can move forward quickly on the north commercial area. But also we asked him as part of the contract to look into...(changed tapes)...and three quarters of a mile visibility. According to Jerry Searle that will probably take about six to eight years to install. According to the master plan, if you all looked at the area- the section that deals with the closure of runway 17/35, it says in there specifically that we should keep 17/35 open until the improvements to runway 6/24 are completed. I think we should stay with that. I also think we should consider keeping it open until the improvements to runway 30/12 are completed. This way- you can assume that those runways are going to be closed during the construction- we won't be down to just one runway. I think we need to do that. I also think we also need to keep that runway open until the other instrument approach is up and rtmning. This will keep our door open. It won't be slammed shut for all This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 24 kinds of corporate or airplanes- it just will keep us safe. And that is what our whole main goal is. Lehman: Rick, let me respond briefly. The perception from the public on planes approaching from the North to runway 17/35 is that planes come too close to the ground. I am not saying that it is safe- unsafe otherwise, but the perception is that. I don't- and I will just briefly go through this and all of us were on the Council when Searle first started the master plan and had an opportunity to meet with him prior to his work on the master plan and at that point he indicated that runway 35 would be closed at some point. He also said, and I don't think that anybody quibbles with that, that 35 would not be closed until 24 was completed. And I think we all know that. My understanding is from your communications to the Council or to Melody Rockwell I believe is that you would like to keep runway 17/35 open indefinitely. Mascari: We would like to. I am sorry... Lehman: I realize that. However, the last 4 or 5 years the planning department I am sure, the Council, all of those associated with the master plan, had been under the impression that runway 17/35 would be closed at such a time as runway 24 had been improved or whatever. In reliance on that, and I think with the full knowledge of the airport commission you knew the same things that we knew. You saw Searle's report that that would open until such time that runway 24 was closed. In reliance on that the planning staff and whatever have gone through a lot of work and spent a lot of money designing that road along the Southern portion of the runway. We have been in discussions about commercial property to the Noah of the runway. All of that discussion has been predicated at some point by that runway being closed. I don't see us changing that fight now. Mascari: In response to that Eruie. I have to say that the North Commercial Area- the plans for that- did not require the closure of 17/35. We had relocated the threshold to accommodate the development to go forward. In regards to the road going to the South, I have to say that I personally, and I can also speak for the rest of the commission, they have not heard about that until just weeks ago. Now, why that happened I don't know. But this was discussed at the planning and zoning commission meeting located in this room and we were told that in fact the planner, the company who did this, actually went ahead and contacted our airport manager. Our airport manager has no recollection of that. Whether it happened or not we don't know. But let's just assume that there was no runway there at all. Never was. There was never ever any runway there. Clearly, the road goes fight through airport property. Don't you think it would've been a good idea This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 25 for somebody from planning and zoning to contact us and tell us this was what was happening? What if we were planning to put a T hanger there? What if we had that leased out? What if we're going to make that our wetlands? Something - some communication needed to be made. Now, if that had happened we wouldn't all be here discussing this. We would have had this settled interdepartmentally- however you say that. It would have been handled. But it didn't happen that way and so now here we are. Rockwell: I would like to make a clarifying comment. Hi, I am Melody Rockwell. I think that it is unfair to say that there was no knowledge of this road being in place in that position in relation to 17/35. By the airport commission and by any number of people who received the draft plan in July of 1998, it is shown in that position at that time. So, for almost a year and a half that road has been shown in that location and to say that there was no knowledge of it is a little surprising. I would also like to say that I did meet with Jerry Searle and a representative of MMS on Friday morning along with Ron O'Neil. And we were discussing the airport Noah Commercial Area. In discussion of that Jerry Searle did say that two runways are sufficient and in fact in situations like this his company, an airport planning agency such as his, often recommend one runway as being sufficient requiring less maintenance. Lehman: Karin? Franklin: Well, I just was in support of Melody's comments. I mean, you know that we get the information out to people who are going to be involved in these kinds of efforts. And this planning effort for the South Central District has been going on for over a year, the notifications have been sent to the airport manager, and they were also sent to the chair of the commission at that time before we even hired the consultant to look at the road fight-of- way. So, if any of the commissioners currently sitting don't have that information that is regrettable. Kubby: Well it seems like what really is being asked for is not a huge adjustment. That the road- we are not going to be ready for the road for a while. That we had said we would keep that runway open until the maintenance was such that it wasn't safe to have planes land on it. Lehman: Or until 24 was extended. Kubby: Right. Then it is just an adjustment for that other runway, the third one having a different instrument approach. And if that is all within the san~e time frame, it doesn't seem like much change in our plan. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 26 Lehman: I don't know that is any change at all. I think keeping it opened indefinitely is a definite change in our plans. And that is where I'm - that is what I object to. Kubby: I would not be interested in having the airport commission and/or the city doing any major maintenance of 17/35. Norton: We did agree that 17/35 would close. Let me go over a number of arguments. The safety is a huge concern and the FAA is in the business, I mean if safety were absolutely primary they would speak right into the microphone about that. If they are not interested in financing it, we've got ninety-five percent coverage for the wind ninety-five percent of the time or something like that. Or better. Mascari: We are concerned about the five percent. Norton: And the technology of landing in these various techniques is going to be different between 2005 and 2010. Isn't that when we're talking about this thing perhaps- planning it? Lehman: Probably. Norton: So we hardly know how that will go. That will leave you certainly six years to install the same system or adapt a new system. And the people at the south end of the airport were concerned- the property owners at the south end were concerned about that runway. And I can't understand why you say the North end doesn't affect the Noah Commercial Areas because not the runway itself but the protection zones or clear zones and all ofthat- I think those could begin to affect it if you keep using the 17/35. Don't those RPZ's somehow affect what could be done in the north end? Mascari: No we moved the threshold for runway 17 down. Norton: So that covers everything including all of the protection zones that are now required? Mascari: That is correct. Norton: I just find the argument that because now the North Commercial Area has the potential to help make the airport rather more self-sufficient, or self- sufficient I should say, that doesn't seem to me to be justification for financing another runway when it seems a little bit like guilding the lily when we can cover the same- without going to the expense of maintaining that in perpetuity. At our own expense. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 27 Champion: But aren't they asking really- they aren't asking to maintain it at- aren't you just asking that it be maintained as long as possible to renew... ? Mascari: As long as possible. Of course, let me- please. Let me say this, ideally - ideally it would be great if it were there forever. Champion: But that probably isn't going to happen though. Mascari: I don't think it's going to. You know, I have to say this, this the Iowa City Municipal airport. It belongs to the people. And you represent the people. If you feel that should be closed, it will be closed. That is all there is to it. Just tell us what you want us to do. But you asked us to represent the city in regards to the airport, to use our expertise and to try to help guide you in decisions and things like this. And, going back to the facts and looking at all of the research we have done, the safest thing would be to keep the runway open. That is the safest thing. Champion: I have the same problem that Ernie brought up-it is that we have discussed this airport at great lengths. And we have not heard this before. Thomberry: We discussed it during the time of the master plan. Champion: To great lengths. Mascari: Connie, do you... ? Lehman: Let me say this- just that I am very sympathetic to the airport. I am a very strong supporter of the airport and I think is very important economic tool for the community. I remember six years ago, and I have lived in Iowa City 39 years so I've been around awhile, the airport has been a source of some agitation for a lot of people in Iowa City. And you have fortunately had Council over the years that have been dedicated to the importance of that airport to the community. We have financed T hangers for you, we are redoing the terminal building, and I think it is a very very friendly Council to the airport. Mascari: No question. Lehman: I view the request, and I don't disagree with you philosophically- it would be great to keep it opened forever. But I believe, that that request is going to be so poorly received by the public that it isn't possible. It isn't from my perspective. As far as keeping it open until the things were done that This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 28 Jerry had said, I think, is a given anyways. That we wouldn't close it until .... Norton: Well, we are not going to jack hammer it tomorrow. Lehman: But, you know your letter indicated, and I agree with you that might be a wonderful thing to have happen. But politically, I think it would be a big mistake on the part of this Council to tell you that we can keep that runway opened indefinitely. I think that the FAA, and Searle master plan that indicated it would stay open until such time that the other runways are completed, probably is palatable to the public. And for us to engage in further discussion as to whether or not that's going to be open forever is really going to be counterproductive. Mascari: Well, and that is fine. That is fine. Vanderhoef: I just want- a couple of things. When we went over the master plan it was real apparent from the FAA that they chose the two runways that they wanted to keep open. That they felt that 35 was the one to close out of the three. Correct? Mascari: I think, and you are testing my memory now, but I think that was our decision as to which two. Vanderhoef: Okay. Mascari: We looked at the potential for growth and we thought that 17/35 was the least... Norton: Looked at the best for wind coverage. Vanderhoef: Okay, so you looked at it in the potential for growth and not in the potential of safety? Is there another combination of two runways... ? Mascari: No, no. Vanderhoef: Okay. Mascari: Again, I like I say... Vanderhoef: That is what I am saying then is that the master plan said the two runways that they were going to support did not include 35. Mascari: That is exactly correct. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 29 Vanderhoef: Mascari: Vanderhoef: Mascari: Vanderhoef: Mascari: Vanderhoef: Mascari: Norton: Kubby: Thornberry: Okay, that is true. Then tell me this. If the road were put in the place where it is presently drawn in on the plan, what does that do to the possibility of 35? Well, as a matter-of-fact, I was going to bring that up. In talking to Jerry Searle today, there are ways that we can work around that. What we can do is we could lower the elevation of the road five feet. If we did that then we can displace the threshold of runway 35 400 feet, still giving us about a 2200 foot runway. That would be the best of both worlds. And if we can somehow reach that kind of compromise that would be terrific. Again, if we can't, we can't. We are talking about wetlands down in that area. Well, and that is another issue. As we sink a road. That is another issue. Okay. Just checking. Thank you. Again, I just want to make sure that you realize that the FAA says "Yes, two runways are sufficient." And that is true. However, if we had five runways they would love it. Unfortunately they are only going to help support two. I understand that but there is a diminishing returns question. That is the issue, we are on the top of a curve and that is not going very far. And that is where the judgement comes in. I mean, a lot of our decisions are that we are weighing different kinds of risks. Public safety vs. public cost and what is the inconvenience when that 5 percent of the time- it might be an inconvenience but to avoid that safety issue that five percent of the time the people can go to Cedar Rapids...so it might be a inconvenience for that small percentage. And we have to weigh that inconvenience with the safety and with the cost of paying for that runway yourself... What time flame are we talking about as far as- can that road be put across there- the road is not going to go there for quite some time anyway. What are you looking for Karin on a time frame on... ? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 30 Lehman: Kubby: Lehman: Franklin: Lehman: Mascari: Lehman: Mascari: Lehman: Champion: Thornberry: Lehman: Thornberry: Probably ten years. Eight, ten years? Well, the minimum is when we close the runway. Yeah- it is our call. It kind of depends on- this is part of our growth area and it is also an area where we have an opportunity for some quasi industrial sorts of development and it kind of depends on what you all decide you want to do in terms of encouraging that part of town to grow. We have just completed, or almost completed, with the Willow Creek interceptor which is the sewering mechanism. The other big thing that we put in that encourages growth to occur is roads so it is going to be a decision on your part. Part of it too, may have to do with how much you want to control that area in terms of what kinds of development is going on. What sort of time flame is there for the extension of 24? Jerry Searle indicated six to eight years. What is the determining factor? If we decided we wanted to do that today- are you saying that it is going to take six to eight years? Why wouldn't it take two years? I think it has to do with the reimbursement of FAA funds. Federal funding, okay. Well what I would like to do with the permission of the Cotmcil is for us to forward a letter to the Commission indicating pretty much- do we have agreement on the Council that we have no problem with abiding by the recommendation of the, of Searle and his group or the master plan which says that runway will stay open until such time as 24 is done. Right. I am asking this- does it just matter about 6/24 or does it make a difference on 30? Probably both. There is two different runways there and you've only talked about 24. Well, the other one is just the intersection there on 30 and shouldn't we wait to close 35 until 30 is done? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Lehman: Mascari: Thomberry: Council Work Session Both of them are done. Also the instrument approach is very important. Lehman: Mascari: O'Neill: Lehman: Norton: Lehman: Norton: Mascari: Norton: Mascari: Lehman: Mascari: Page 31 Because 35 and 30- you really wouldn't want to close that runway without 30 being... Are we talking basically the same time frame for the completion of the runway- 10 years for both 30 and 24? Can you help me there Ron? I am sorry? It would probably be at least 10 years. Ten years. If we do this Ernie- this letter- this entails a commitment to our share of the support for installing the new approach system, the radio- the landing system on 24, right? Good, I don't know what that tab is going to be but that does entail several things- closing this and you want to put in that system don't you? On that other runway, on 24? Yes, that is a 90/10 again. That will be 90/10. I mean, that entails that increase in our commitment. I don't know, maybe there is other commitments. Let me ask you quickly- if you did some fiddling with the threshold down there, lowering the road and stuff, would that entail anything on the North end? No. By lowering that road five feet you would be well below the 100 year flood plain. In fact you would probably be in the water table wouldn't you? You would have to have a ferry boat to get to drive it most of the time. Jerry Searle said if we kept it at the elevation proposed then we would have to move the threshold of that runway up 500 feet. If we lowered it 5 feet it would just be 400. So, if we were to move it up- if the road were to stay at the same elevation as proposed and we can move it up 500 feet This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 32 we'd wind up with a 2100 foot runway. Good enough for small airplanes. Small airplanes being airplanes weighing 12500 pounds or less. And still keep our instrument approach- very important. And still have the active runway. So, it would be the best of both worlds. If that is a possibility we would like to see that. Kubby: That is a long long-term commitment of 100 percent financing. Lehman: Well, I am personally not willing to- and I'm a very strong supporter of the airport- but I just think from the years I've been in Iowa City I remember the Ranshaw problems with the apartments on the North side, I have heard the complaints about how close the airplanes come to Reinow Hall. The plane that crashed on Myrtle had nothing to do with the airport but it is coming in low over residential areas and the perception from the public, and it is a perception but perception is as good as reality, that that is a hazard. And I don't mind maintaining that runway and keeping it open in accordance with the master plan, but if it isn't- if the FAA doesn't feel it's important enough to fund it and we have been working under the assumption for the last three or four years that it was going to be closed, and obviously there has been time and money spent in reliance to that, I don't see that we should change that. And, incidentally, at least one of your board members agrees with that. I got a phone call from one board member saying that he is in full agreement with what was proposed five years ago. Thornberry: I would like to have a commitment from this Council anyway that we would keep that open until the other two runways are completed. (several talking) Kubby: I mean, we are talking 10 years, if that means 10 years. If that is what it means and it means there is an economic development opportunity in that area in terms of the zoning, that is a big commitment that you are making in saying no to some of the possibilities of things that we have been working on. Lehman: Well, let me ask this question. Kubby: Trying to have that land there... O'Donnell: You mean on the North side? Lehman: South. If the completion of six to eight years on those runways is because of federal funding and we were to come across this company that is going This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 33 Mascari: Lehman: Kubby: Lehman: Mascari: Thornberry: Mascari: Thornberry: Mascari: Thornberry: Mascari: Thornberry: Mascari: Thomberry: Mascari: Norton: to spend 100 million dollars to build a plant on the South side of the airport, we could use, basically borrow, and use the federal funds to repay ourselves and do it sooner. Is that correct? Yes. So I mean, that is an option that could happen. No, I know that. I am just saying that I don't see that being a possibility. We are a team player. And the GPS approach to 24, the 90/10 split- the FAA is paying the 90 and we so local 10- when could that be put in? Six to eight years. You say six to eight years because of the funding but what if we wanted to close that road sooner- like you said this big plant comes in and we want to get the two rimways done and to close 35? This is a new technology instrument approach, it is called a WAS approach. It is not even available yet. It is not available yet. You are saying eight to ten years? Six to ten. Six to eight. Then you don't know. If you are relying on the FAA it may be... They are predicting something like 2003 so we are being realistic. I think that letter is in order Emie but I think it is tricky to consider all the implications because, you know, we are already committing ourselves to maintain that runway. Suppose it does start to crumble and we haven't finished 6/24 yet- we have to do that maintenance. We are committing ourselves to maintaining it for five years probably minimum but.. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 34 Mascari: Let me interrupt you, sorry. We are hoping that the income that we'd realize with the North Commercial Area would be enough, or sufficient funds, to maintain that runway without using any public funds. Norton: Yeah, I understand that we are tapped into that well. Kubby: There are other airport expenses that you need to pay for first so that... (several talking) Lehman: How soon will the FAA refuse to maintain that runway? Will they wait until the other ones- the extension is completed before they..? Mascari: Refuse to maintain the runway? I don't believe they are maintaining it at this point. Is that correct? No, I am sorry. Ron? They are not, no they are not. Vanderhoef: So we are paying for it. Mascari: But I do think... Lehman: Is there an agreement on the Council that we do not agree that that runway will stay open in perpetuity? Champion: I do agree with that. O'Donnell: I think so... Kubby: I am hesitant to say the 10 year thing because even though, you know, there is the team player here, it does place us in a position that we made a commitment and that even though future Council can certainly change that based upon circumstances is makes it hard...I am hesitant... Lehman: Well I do think we should refer to the completion of runways 30 and 24. That is the time that Searle said that... Norton: And the re-establishment of some kind of landing system. Lehman: Yeah, except that I can tell you that six years ago I flew to Kansas City and talked to Jan Monroe, who I don't know if he is still the Commissioner. The first thing that he told us when we went in, Sue Horowitz and myself and two members of the Commission, was don't even think of an instrument approach to that airport. It isn't going to happen. That is how much technology has changed in six years. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 35 Mascari: Exactly correct. Lehman: Okay, we will let you know. Franklin: Can I make a suggestion just for clarity? I hope, because I'm trying to understand this so we can do our planning down there. This is that 35 will stay open until 24 and 30 are fixed to, extended or whatever they need to be done, and there is an instnunent approach. Champion: I am not obligated to that. (several talking) Franklin: What about if you said those things, whatever those things are, or a set number of years- which ever comes first? Champion: That is a good idea. Vanderhoef: Well, the point is that our road may go in sooner than that. Mascari: If that is the case then we can compromise by moving the threshold up. Thornberry: Move the threshold up and you still have to... Mascari: So that way the road can still go through and we still have an answer. (several talking) Vanderhoef: It would have a shorter runway and still have the instrument approach only for the small airplanes? Mascari: I am sorry? Vanderhoef: If I understand this correctly, you would change the threshold and move it farther North, however you would have a shorter runway, but that would be the runway that could only then handle the smaller airplanes and that would be the runway that had the instrument approach. That is correct. And then it would be closed down eventually after the other two runways and the instrument approach. Mascari: Kubby: This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 36 Norton: Could only get to land light planes, small planes. Vanderhoef: Yeah, so the larger planes are still going to get diverted... Mascari: Over the city. Vanderhoef: ...if they need the instrument approach. Alright, in drafting this note, we will get together so we all know what we are talking about and then we'll see to it that Council gets an opportunity to read it before we send it. So we all know .... (Several talking) Mascari: If there are any more questions that I can answer, please call me. Lehman: Alright, thanks Rick. Mascari: Thank you. Transit Methane Abatement Lehman: Transit Methane Abatement. O'Donnell: It is fairly difficult when none of us really know anything about flying. Champion: I know. Fowler: I would like to give you a brief summary, and Dan Scott from Public Works and Michael Donnelly from Terracon are here and they can answer any technical questions that you have. When we started this project we knew that we had the methane and we had to get it out from under the building. Our main goal as we began to look this process was, can we capture this gas and use it productively to offset some of our costs? And we found out that we couldn't do that. We looked at different options to flare off like they do at the sewer plants. And we found out that we have too low of a concentration to do that. We would have to mix it with natural gas, and the mixing it with natural gas would cost us about $50,000 a year in operating expense to supplement that burning. And so then we looked at other options as far as releasing the gas into the atmosphere. We could legally just release the gas. Our concem was that we wanted to be a good neighbor, so for that reason we decided we needed to treat the gas to remove the odor. We could set the stack high enough so that it would not affect our operation but it would bother somebody This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 37 Thomberry: Lehman: Thomberry: Donnelly: Lehman: Donnelly: Thomberry: Lehman: Thomberry: Donnelly: Vanderhoef: Donnelly: Vanderhoef: Lehman: else. So that was one of our concerns, not our concems- our main concern- when we got into that. So then we went into looking at ways to treat the odor and we came up with the carbon filtering. It was an inexpensive initial cost. The carbon filtering requires that we go in periodically and change filters and change the carbon. But we found that to be the most economical at this point to achieve what we wanted to, or what we could- not necessarily what we wanted to, but what we could with this project. So, I will tum it over to these guys for technical answers. How often is periodically? You have to speak in the mic please. If you stated your name first for the record it would be nice. My name is Mike Donnelly. I work for Terracon. Basically the carbon change-outs are a function ofwhat's coming out in the off-gas vapor. We can make the best guess kind of judgments and I think what we're going to see is probably two change-outs during the first year followed by perhaps one change-out annually thereafter. For how many years? For as long as the system is operating. Forever. Forever- alright. What does it cost to change-out a carbon filter? This time we're looking at- for a total 100 percent change out for both of the units- around $7000. Each? Or for one? That is for both of the units. OK, so in years forward then it would be half that? No, $7000 for each change. /$7000 per change-out. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 38 Vanderhoef: $7000 per change-out so we are talking $14,000 for the first year and $7000 thereafter. Donnelly: Right. Vanderhoef: Thank you. Lehman: There is no cheaper way of doing this- that works? Champion: I think that it is pretty cheap. Norton: You have a comment in here somewhere in this report that this technology is likely to reduce odors in the discharge. We recommend (can't hear) analysis of various samples to confirm the applicability of the carbon treatment- is this an experiment? Donnelly: No, this has been used in similar applications for many years. So it is a proven technology. I think what we're looking to do with that statement in our planning process was just to confirm what size carbon vessels will be required to address those kinds of concems. Norton: That is something that is not calculable exactly? You mean, you have to try that out? Donnelly: The better data that we have, the better design it will have. So, I think what we would be looking for is a little better chemical data to confirm to make the best design possible. Norton: Are there installations like this? Donnelly: Yeah, there are many installations like this to treat similar types of situations. Kubby: What is the biological filtering? Are there the same kind of change-outs? Donnelly: It is a significantly different system and the technology isn't what I would call a proven technology. It had been used for similar types of applications and is somewhat problematic because you are relying on biological activity. Carbon is more certain to address the kind of concerns we're dealing with. Kubby: I'm just trying to kind of assess the ongoing and life cycle concept things that the change-out for carbon- if they are both kind of determined to be This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 39 Donnelly: Lehman: Donnelly: Norton: Lehman: Donnelly: Vanderhoef: Donnelly: minimal but it is $14000 or $7000 a year for the change-out I was just trying to figure out what the biological ongoing might be. Right. If you're going to figure a baseline you have to make some assumptions about operations and maintenance and reliability of the biological system because it is an unproven technology. It is likely to incur higher operations and maintenance costs. Say the system crashes or all of the bugs die and you would have to go in. Right. Joe? Joe, you also say you have to change the filters when needed. So, you may change them twice the first year, once the second year, and it is conceivable that after four or five years they may go a couple three years without changing? Right. One of the significant factors to consider here is that methane is produced, and that is what we're trying to address here and remove from underneath of the building, is it is produced in an anaerobic environment. Once the system is up and running we're likely to see more of an aerobic environment- so we can expect to see less methane. And we also, because there would be less methane, we would be pumping less air from underneath of the building so the carbon life would be likely to be extended. What do you have to do- how do you get rid of the carbon that is loaded now with methane? Put it back in and get it again? Put it back in the dump and get it again? Bum it. There are several different ways to address and manage the carbon. Essentially, it gets an organic load and at that point it needs to be disposed or re-generated. It can be regenerated and then reused, and that can be managed contractually with the vendor or it could be disposed in a landfill. And that would be a choice about whether or not- what the economics were. Right. And there is one thing too that I wanted to mention about the construction and configuration of the system- it is set up for redundancy. So there would be two dual vessels and when one required regeneration the air stream would be plumbed through the other so that the odor concerns would be managed in that way while the spent vessel was being regenerated. Do you have a cost on regeneration? That is the change-out cost that we mentioned. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 40 Vanderhoef: Okay. You said that you could reuse them? Donnelly: Right. Regeneration typically is a little bit more expensive than disposing and replacing. It is typically a philosophical- it is determined by transportation costs. And it is a philosophical decision often-times. Norton: You could sell it for instant burning charcoal. Literally. Lehman: Okay. Do we have other questions? Thornberry: Is it going to have any odor at all when this is filtered? Will the neighbors notice the smell? Donnelly: Based on what we have seen, we think that you could likely direct or discharge this with minimal concerns. So the carbon is really a piggy back system- what you might call belt and suspenders- to ensure that you are not going to see any kind of foul or organic compounds distributed through the neighborhood and downstream. You know, it is hard to guarantee but this is the best system as far as odor control to address those kinds of concems. Other waste products- there really wouldn't be significant generation of waste products by this process. You can see in our diagram what we would call a knockout pot there because there's a little bit of vapor, or fluid in the vapor that is extracted from underneath of the building. That knockout pot is intended to collect that vapor rather than run it through the carbon. And then that vapor condensates and discharges to the publicly owned treatment works. Kubby: And then we get some biological stuff going on. Donnelly: Right. Champion: It would be nice to try biological stuff- I don't think that this is the place to try it. You can try that in the country. /In the county. Lehman: Other questions. O'Donnell: This is the best system available? Donnelly: I believe that it is the best. We looked at every applicable technology that has been employed successfully- and some emerging technologies for this application. Looking at it from the standpoint of your objectives here for This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 41 O'Donnell: Donnelly: O'Donnell: Donnelly: Norton: Kubby: Donnelly: Kubby: Donnelly: Kubby: Donnelly: Kubby: Lehman: Thornberry: Kubby: the project as well as the costs and potential energy costs of looking at the thermal system, we felt that it was the fight choice. You said this was used in other areas? Right. Have you had any odor complaints from these other areas? No. And it is- one of the applications it is used in, and it is going to be used more and more, is in the confined animal feeding operations activities. You generate a significant amount of odor type concerns, so. If for some reason there are some complaints about odors is there kind of a plan B to tack on here? Or a thicker filter or some other supplement? What we would do in the design would be to do a twofold- one would be to over-design each one of the vessels so we would have plenty of carbon capturing any of these foul or organic odor causing compounds. The redundancy in the system would be to run through both of the vessels prior to discharge. So that would be that the fail-safe methodology. So, where again will the stack be located? I will kind of show you here how this would be configured. Maybe I could move this out of the way a little bit. Because I know for example at the McDonald's near Sycamore Mall there is a stack there. And it is kind of disconcerting. Just because it is not very tall, it is fight there and it is a food place. It may be perfectly safe but it just doesn't feel quite fight. Dirty ground from- there was a gas station there. It is just aerating, it is not burning... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 42 Donnelly: This represents schematically how this would be constructed. What we have our three horizontal extraction (can't hear) located underneath the existing Transit Facility Building here. If you can imagine this, this would be Riverside Drive out here, and Highway 6 in this location. The bus bam here, and then the fire training area in this location here. One thing the engineering staff and the transit staff was sensitive to was impact on future development. And so they wanted to keep this visually as low-key as possible. This treatment system, represented right here, would be housed in a steel building and then with a 25 ft. tall stack coming out the top. So the only thing that you would see as a casual observer here would be a steel- similar to say a butler building type construction with a 25 ft. stack coming out the top of it. Lehman: Now, is that 25 from the base of the building or from the roof? Donnelly: Twenty-five from the base of the building. Lehman: So you would only have 10 feet sticking out of the roof?. Donnelly: Some 10 to 15 feet. Lehman: All right, so it isn't going to be... (several talking) Donnelly: In terms of visibility, you would really have to look to see it. Lehman: Okay. Other questions? :No. Lehman: Thank you. We are going to take a quick break. Public Works Project Atkins: I'll start. Lehman: Yes. Thank you. Atkins: In case anyone doesn't know, the Public Works Buildings are built on a landfill. Kubby: Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 43 Atkins: Kubby: Atkins: You're welcome. That site has served as our Public Works Yard to the best of our knowledge for 40 to 50 years. It is a landfill. The Transit Building, you know is the newest of construction I believe built in 1983 or 1984 thereabouts- has the proper pilings, has everything that is necessary to allow for that building to remain on that site. We have done a lot of analysis to try to determine what is the best use of that site in anticipation of someday moving the Public Works Yard out of there. Again, with the understanding that the B would stay. This group is certainly aware of the temporary buildings that we use for the assembly of our employees in the offices. They were urban renewal temporary buildings then- we estimate they are probably 25 to 30 years old also. They simply cannot be maintained anymore. The expense to prepare the site for a Public Works Yard involved a couple of options. One was actually digging out a good portion of the waste. And another option was to actually compact building sites. That is just pound it into place. The estimate of cost to do that was well over $3 million. And when we were done what we had was a building site and nothing more. So we were buming up our budget just preparing the site. We then chose- oh and also keeping in mind that on Gilbert Court we have our water distribution warehouse which used to be the old bus bam. Once we do move that building would also be closed, put on the market. It has it's own set of environmental issues that we might have to deal with at that time. We then moved to the site on the Airport Southeast comer. We looked at the site, it was about 17 acres. It needed about four feet of fill. We had to bring utilities in. We were going to fill it in with dirt from the road that we were going to locate down there. The estimated cost to prepare that site was also approaching $1 million. I am sorry, how much? A million dollars. We had also made the assumption that 17-35 would be closed and that we were going to invest in the site with anticipation of moving to the West when that ranway was closed. Also, at least informally, I think the Airport Commission expected to be compensated in some fashion for that site because they had envisioned it being an economic development parcel. All of those things in mind, that site also began to be so expensive that we really weren't getting anywhere knowing full well that we had to continue to pursue to find a Public Works site. We learned of a site coming available which is adjacent to Napoleon Park. We have a map that we drew up. The individual was interested in selling. It is a 21 acre site. It is ready, it's buildable, utilities are available, we believe the price is good to excellent, it is located along an arterial street, and it is remote enough that we believe that it will not cause a conflict with any surrounding uses. The parking lot for the Napoleon Park also provides an opportunity for some joint use of the facilities thereby This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 44 Schrnadeke: Vanderhoef: Lehman: Vanderhoef: Schmadeke: Vanderhoef: Schmadeke: Kubby: Schmadeke: Kubby: Schmadeke: Atkins: minimizing our pavement requirements. We can work around some of the other issues. And, what we did, or what Chuck did, was talk to the property owner. We had some appraisals done and I authorized a purchase agreement. Obviously with your approval- we would like your approval this evening for us to proceed with purchase of that site. Chuck? Have at it. This shows how the facility will sit on the site as we have developed them so far. This is the Napoleon Lane parking lot that Steve alluded to in Napoleon Park. The Sand Pit property would be the South property line. This shows the future South artefial street as it would tie in with Gilbert Street. There is actually 23 acres there and the property owner would like to retain a 2 acre parcel and that is located at the intersection of the new arterial on Gilbert Street. The green section down there at the bottom that d6esn't have anything on it...? Soybeans. Right in there. That would be for a future- could be for a future expansion of the site. And that is all above the floodplain? The floodplain line is- the elevation is 642.5 and this is 645 down through here. So everything in the floodplain would be west of this property. And those flood (can't hear) are commercial and not residential? That is fight. There is three commercial businesses in those (can't hear). That are on the property. They are fight in this area. And what are our responsibilities to them? Their leases I believe expire in July. The longest lease would be next July. Karen, I don't believe that is a problem. This is going to be staged over a number of years. We just simply don't have the financing to do this all at once and there is probably no reason why those businesses cannot remain there for some time and move more naturally. I don't think we are going to have to force them out. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 45 Kubby: Because they are there because the nature of their businesses and because it is cheaper to be there than someplace else. Atkins: Yep. Absolutely. Kubby: And I don't want to cause those three entities any kind of hardship. Giving them lots of time to maneuver. Atkins: I believe that they will have lots of time and that is an issue that we discussed. It is a good setting for them and we don't anticipate having them move out for some time. Norton: Did that tie in with their completion of dredging in that area? I mean, presumably that will run out at some point. The dredging on the side of the road- on that side. Is that outrageous? Lehman: That is way south. (Several talking) Norton: If you look at that in terms of traffic- pretty heavy burden. Of course depending on where you put it there is going to be a burden on a road. Gilbert and Hwy 6 comer is already pretty heavy duty. Schmadeke: The Sand Pit has about two years operation left, they expect. So that traffic then would move to the west side of the river to the new... Norton: Okay, that was my question. By the time you are in there they would be phasing out. Schmadeke: That is fight. Norton: So that- that would be a blessing because it is pretty tough now. Atkins: ...also provides a very nice feature for our property. South of us there- that Sand Pit. Norton: The Sand Pit Lake, yeah. Atkins: I would suspect, and I don't believe that it is this Council or even the next Council, but before long those owners are going to be coming to you. They have a burden of maintaining that property for a long long time. And I think that they will probably come to... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 46 Norton: They have already spoken about it, yes. Atkins: About- isn't this a nice recreational facility? (several talking) Atkins: I think you will hear about that. Lehman: Chuck, getting back to Karen's questions. It would be possible it would seem to me, that for even a number of years that the folks that are currently there... (change tape side)... landlords. Schmadeke: That is right. Kubby: I have a couple of questions along a different line. One is kind of a process one. Is there a reason why this wasn't brought to us as a real conceptual thing before we had consultants draw something up? Atkins: Well, there were a couple of things. One is that the airport site and the expense and a number of issues seemed to be dragging on. It was at my request, and I asked Chuck, is there anything else in that part of town generally speaking that you think we could locate a Public Works building on? And we looked at across the street. There is a parcel of ground that I think they want to mine a portion of that. The answer is no, Karen. Other than I said "Chuck go out and see if you can find another site that you can locate a Public Works Building on". Within the criteria. Kubby: I guess- I guess I wouldn't prefer just to- cause we had a lot of informals lately that were very short to just say "we are at a stand still here and it is getting really expensive. Can we look at other options and if so, if there is one that looks good, can we pursue it?" Atkins: This site... Kubby: I just feel- this sounds really- I just felt lost in reading this information. Atkins: This site had- and I guess it is all public record- we had an appraisal done. The property owner had an appraisal. The price is well under the appraised value. It was being appraised for the purposes of apartments. The property owner doesn't want to build apartments. We were a cash sale if we could put it together. The person was at a point in his life that I think he wants to move on with it. There were certain opportunity costs that I believe we had to take advantage of. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WS 110899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 47 Norton: I agree with that but I want to second- I was still laboring under the assumption that we were looking to the south of the airport despite 6000 loads of dirt or something. So it would have been nice to say that we have given up on that. That is a little surprising. Atkins: We had not given up on it because at the time, Dee, it was really the only kind of option that we had available to us. We could not find a site without the- thinking about condemnation. And this was something that you were not interested in pursuing if we could avoid it. Kubby: So, are you saying that this site became available and it was like "A-ha. We could abandon the airport idea and come..." Is that what you're telling us? Atkins: I have to defer to Chuck. Schmadeke: I think it was only two or three weeks ago that we actually sat down and finned up a price. Up until that point we thought the cost of this property was probably more than developing the airport property based on our appraisal. Atkins: Our appraisal, and it is public record, is 1.2 million. Kubby: So, the other thing that comes to mind is that we just built a kind of vehicle storage and maintenance building for Parks and Recreation further down the road- or further up the road. Kind of up and down depending. And that if we didn't have that building there, that it certainly could be incorporated into this site. Atkins: You can do that. We talked about that. Traditionally interdepartmental issues occur. We are proposing on this, and Chuck can take over a little more detail, we provide the fuel now for schools and the county and we would continue to be the fueling location. We just finished an agreement with the schools. They are going to go to diesel and we are going to provide a fuel stop for them. Chuck is working with the University- we want to sell them salt and sand rather than they provide their own. So we are trying to make it as joint use as possible. We want to put our police storage building out there. We do not have a police storage building now to speak of. Champion: What is a police storage building? Atkins: Basically bicycles, stolen cars .... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 48 Norton: That is where you store police. Atkins: Champion: Kubby: Lehman: Schmadeke: Lehman: Atkins: Lehman: Atkins: Lehman: Champion: Vanderhoef: Kubby: Any large evidence, Connie, that has to be kept. And often it has to be kept for a year or more before somebody goes to trial. And we now have garages. That is part of the plan. The first thing we want to do is just simply build the general administration building. Well, I think it is something that is really needed. Those buildings are pathetic. They are not safe. The location of this building in relationship to the South Sewer Plant, the pump station and also the maintenance facility for Parks would appear to me is pretty handy. If I remember correctly, the last time we looked at the sewer plant expansion there is going to be a fairly good size maintenance facility associated with that plant. Is it at all possible to incorporate any of that into this facility now that it is closer? Well, this is a vehicle. I mean, this facility. Theirs is totally different. Alright. Now Ernie- we do plan with your approval to sell Gilbert Court for water distribution. I mean that is where the large pipes and big meters are. It is a little blue building that used to be a bus bam. And we would like to get rid o f that. We'd do that work here? Yes, we would like to bring that work down here at part of the Public Works department. I like the location personally. I do to. I like the location. The only thing that strikes me with the plan- with that open area to the south rather than to the north- it changes the possibilities when I think about the parkland to the north and expansion or whatever might happen there. Napoleon Park gets... To get a parking lot in between there? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 49 Vanderhoef.' Norton: Lehman: Norton: Vanderhoef: Champion: Vanderhoef: Norton: Champion: Vanderhoef: Lehman: Thornberry: Vanderhoef: Atkins: Thornberry: Vanderhoef: Thornberry: Lehman: Thornberry: But redesign kind of things that that open area may well have some opportunities for both ways if you moved the whole site down. But you can't move south because you are in the Sand Pits. You'll get wet. Well, but we've got some open area down there to the south. It is pretty small. Just to put the open area at the noah end. Was there a plan to expand Napoleon park or park space in that area? I didn't know that. No. No, there isn't. It is just that this little parcel is sitting out there by itself. We need expansion space though. Dee, I agree with you to a point but just south of the parking lot area on the other side of that road- that is the prettiest part of that facility. And the further south you go the uglier it gets. That is true. Also, folks... So that prettier part is up closer to the park. Of the building. You know, where would they put the big sand mound and stuff like that. With the sand and- it would be down there and I wouldn't want.. That is pretty park like with all of the trees. I think that is okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Norton: Thornberry: Norton: Schmadeke: Lehman: Schmadeke: Lehman: O'Donnell: Vanderhoef: Champion: Thornberry: Champion: Lehman: Thomberry: Lehman: Schmadeke: Council Work Session Page 50 Well, they are dredging it back. That Sand Pit will be dredged back to look pretty nice. It will show off pretty well. You bet. Will this shielded in such a way that it won't- it will be compatible with the kind of development that might occur across the road? Because there is I take it, some pretty nice development property across the way that you wouldn't want to put your- this will be pleasant? Right. We show three (can't hear) along Gilbert Street and folded back away from Gilbert Street... It will be far enough back from the street so that when that goes four lanes in fifty years we won't have to sue ourselves to get property for a wider street? That is fight. We have accommodated the (can't hear) fight-of-way. Okay. I think it is a great idea. I do too, I have been waiting for this one. I think it is great. I think you could have a great big skateboard park down there. I am not going to comment on the landscaping yet because I think that we are a long way away from worrying about that. But I would like to see us use more evergreens as shelter- as greens- because they stay there all year around. If we approve this, which it sounds like we kind of like it, how soon can get started on this project? We have got to buy the land first. I know that but I think that is what we are deciding right now. Probably next spring we'd like to start with the Administration Building portion of it. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 51 Lehman: Kubby: Lehman: Schmadeke: :Pardon? Lehman: Atkins: Lehman: Atkins: Lehman: Thornberry: Lehman: Vanderhoef: O'Donnell: Norton: Champion: Atkins: Norton: Vanderhoef: Now, let me ask you this. The ones down here with the roofs that leak. Are they an Administration Building? Yes. The people down here with the roofs that leak- Streets? That is the Administration Building, yes. They get moved first? Yes. Thank you very much. I think that is a "go". Do we have consensus this is a "go"? Go for it. Absolutely. It is excellent. Rapid decision that we have got to put it somewhere. I am concerned that this is becoming or will become over the years of substantial interest. And we have got to be careful because there is a mixed use area. We have got to become careful to keep it as nice as we can. Because it is really quite attractive. It is a beautiful area. I think that, you know we have talked about burming along the road, there is- our plan is to make it industrial parkish looking. In the sense of making it look nice so I think I can assure you that is certainly the intent. And then it would have a lake on the south or... And the river. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 52 Norton: It could be very nice. Vanderho ef: And the trail will come along the river. Norton: It will be compatible with whatever might come across the road. Atkins: And it gives us great future access with the road coming around. We've got ways to get in and out now, and again remote enough that I think- this is clearly a generational issue. This is something that our children will probably be the ones seeing the final plan. Lehman: Thank you Chuck. (several talking) Living In a Legally Parked Vehicle 99-103 side 2 Lehman: Ok, living in an illegally parked vehicle. Eleanor- Dilkes: Legally parked. Lehman: Legally- or illegally. Living in a vehicle. Eleanor, we got a memo from you. Would you like to kind go through this? Go through that briefly? Dilkes: You've got the memo and I am not going to go into the detail that is in the memo. And frankly I simplified it and condensed it as best I could. There is a lot of sort of complicated law out there about this stuff. But just to summarize, currently I think as you all know the man as I understand it has been living in the van on or near Brown Street and has not been doing anything that is in violation of state or local code. The vehicle is legally parked. His behavior or his actions have not been illegal. So the question that was posed to me is whether the City Council can pass some kind of regulation that addresses that situation. You have seen e-mails from the neighbors addressing their concerns. Basically, what I told you in the memo is that you may draft an ordinance that prohibits habitation in a vehicle if you believe it is a hazard to public safety, health and welfare and you articulate what that hazard is. There was a mistake in The Press Citizen that said I had identified this as being a hazard to public health, safety and welfare. That is not my job and that is not what my memo said. So I think the best I can do is kind of provide you with a framework in which to look at this. I think you have to ask whether there is a problem that requires such legislation. And as you usually do, you need to look at the nature of the problem, the magnitude of the problem, and I think you This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 53 Thornberry: Dilkes: Lehman: Dilkes: Lehman: Dilkes: need to decide what the harm is. Although I can certainly understand that the situation that the neighbors described may be disconcerting or uncomfortable or scary, we can't regulate that. We can't regulate that feeling. Just like you might walk down to the Ped Mall and feel uncomfortable by somebody with spiked hair or somebody who 's doing something that you might not do, as long as that behavior is legal we can't regulate that. So I think you need to identify what you think the hazards are. Such as like living above a gas tank or something like that? I think somewhere in the case law, if you look at the cases- as I told you in the memo there have been some cases- but none in our jurisdiction- that have looked at similar ordinances. Most of them looked at ordinances that prohibited lodging or sleeping in a vehicle and I think that a prohibition on sleeping in a vehicle is not allowable. It just encompasses too much behavior that is not- that is constitutionally protected. And behavior that you would not want to regulate. There have been cases that have upheld ordinances that prohibit habitation in a vehicle on public health, safety and welfare grounds by prohibiting the living in a structure without adequate sanitation facilities. For instance, there is one case that relied on the city's interest in regulating the density of a particular use. One thing that is complicated about this is that in one of the words of caution that I have is that it is not clear whether if challenged this ordinance would be subjected to what we call heightened scrutiny or a sort of rational basis review. It would depend on whether the court identified a constitutional issue or not. So, I think we need to shoot for articulating what our reasons are and doing it more carefully than just saying there is a public-health, safety and welfare problem here and we will do that. You really have to identify specifically what... ? Well, I think you need to say what the harm is. No, no. Yeah- I think that you really have got to say what the problem really is to justify an ordinance. Let me just note that there is- I know in some 0fray discussions the issue about motor homes parking on the street has come up and we do have a parking regulation that prohibits vehicles from parking that are too wide to- you know I think it is more than seven feet high more than eight feet wide more than 20 feet long or something to that effect- and we do have an ordinance of parking- or a nuisance ordinance- that defines as a nuisance obstruction of the right-of-way. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 54 Norton: So in some sense we do ban vehicles in which one might live with sanitation facilities, fight? Dilkes: Yes. Norton: Which is kind of odd. I want to ask a couple of questions, I'm sure that everybody has got some. Does the state or the federal ban sleeping or living in a vehicle at a rest stop? Champion: Yes. Norton: That is not legal is it? Dilkes: I don't know. O'Donnell: Don't those big trucks pull in? Lehman: You can spend the night there. Norton: That is my question. Can you? Certainly plenty of people sleep there but is it legal? Dilkes: Well, I think that brings up the sleeping issue. One of the- for instance one of the things that courts have cited in validating those types of ordinances is we know about the person who pulls off the side of the road and because they are about ready to fall asleep at the wheel and they sleep for a number hours- that kind of thing. It would just be too over broad. Norton: Do we presently ban parking or sleeping or living in parks after 10:007 Dilkes: We have some- one of our parks closed at 10:00. But in that case the vehicle would not- I mean you couldn't have the vehicle there either. And there have been- I mean camping reg- you know "no camping" regulations have been upheld for a number of reasons. Champion: I think that the rest stop counts for camping. Dilkes: One of the things and I think, I am sorry Karen, RJ is here if you want to have him address it. You might want to hear what he has to say from an enforcement perspective. So, because I think, you know I think we would have to craft it such that there had to be objective evidence or obviously evidence of habitation. That can be a number of things I would imagine. But, he might want to address that. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 55 Kubby: Champion: Norton: Champion: Kubby: Dilkes: Kubby: Lehman: O'Donnell: Lehman: Champion: L ehm an: I guess I would like to hear from people and constituents that this has been a problem. I think this is a problem and this is the first time I have heard of it. We have three letters. Yeah- but this one incident. I mean, not to say that it is not a valid concern, maybe or maybe not. In terms of- have there been other incidences that people have heard about? I did ask Jim Steffin at the PD and he said that- I have asked Jim Steffin at the Police Department and his recollection is that in the last three years this is the second complaint. Apparently there was a couple that was living in a van after they were no longer welcome at EHP. That he recalls. And dispatch doesn't recall a lot of complaints. They couldn't scan it because vagrancy and loitering type complaints would get all mixed up in it or something. As part of my concern about- I think that the neighbors are having some feelings of feeling unsafe. They are feeling uncomfortable, and I want to somehow address those feelings but I don't want to paint with such broad brush one that doesn't seem to be a consistent thing that creates those feelings all over town, especially when there all of these constitutional issues. I just want to maybe broaden the discussion out to say- besides an ordinance change are there other ways of approaching it? I know that people have tried to talk to this person and they have been unresponsive and I just don't know what the other options are to try to deal with, you know to try to articulate what the fears are and concerns. What are the other options besides an ordinance? And I would also like to hear the Council member's response to what are the identifiable hazards. I would like to hear RJ first. I would too. You deal with this so I guess I would like to hear your input. When I first heard about this that, you know, the interesting thing is a book is out now on how to live in your car. Oh yeah? Where do you get it? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 56 Champion: Thomberry: Champion: Lehman: Champion: Thornberry: Lehman: Winkelhake: I am sure you can get it at Prairie Lights. Iowa Book. They look at it as an adventure, you know how to live in your car for a year and they talk specifically about sanitary facilitates that you can buy at sporting goods stores and things. I think that is a major concern. People do have to go to the bathroom and if you're living in your car and you're living in a neighborhood, where are you doing that? I think that is a definite concern. That is probably a major concern. And then because it is an unknown I think creates the fear. That is the big fear. That is the big fear. I mean, I agree with you in some ways Karen, that's not been a major problem and it would be nice if there were some way to address it without an ordinance. But I don't know what that would be. Would that be a new department under housing and inspection services? All fight, RJ.? Tell us about it. The kind of thing that you are talking about, Eleanor, is correct. There are only two that I recall. One was I think about two years ago when we had a man and woman living in a van and they eventually left. But they had been in the van and they did not want to go anywhere else. They were not interested in a shelter or any of that. And much the same as this individual, I believe- we never had any- between those two these are the only two that have been ongoing for a long period of time. You will have complaints about somebody being in a van or a travel trailer or whatever and those usually in a couple days they are gone. These are the only two that have been long-term. The thing that we have tried to do is talk to the individual. He is not interested in going anywhere from the officers who have talked to him at different times. As far as we know, he is not engaged in any illegal activity. The thing that we ran into with the van and we looked at two years ago was: "what is it that we can do with the vehicle that is legally parked?" And there isn't a whole lot you can do with that. The concern that I have with an ordinance is that we have to be able to very clearly articulate why- what ever the action is that we're going to take- why we're taking it. And it has to be clear in the ordinance. And I think that is one of the concems that you have. What exactly is it that we're going to deal with? I understand the people that live in the community in that particular area feel very tincomfortable with that. But This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 57 Lehman: Winkelhake: Lehman: Winkelhake: Lehman: Winkelhake: Norton: Thomberry: Norton: that can be in any area as well. We have to be able to identify and articulate why we're going to take whatever action it is if we expect the ordinance to be upheld. And I think that is going to be a real problem as far as writing one. And then I will be- it'll be necessary to be sure that I can explain it to the officers in a very clear, understandable set of circumstances for when they can take action. And I think that is pretty much, people are shaking their heads yes, you are in agreement with that. As a law enforcement officer, what problems does this present for public safety? Well, I would be concerned for instance with it getting colder. Starting the car to stay warm- I am going to end up with a body someday. There is a possibility of that. Those are the kind of concems... But that is not public safety though. That is the safety of the person that chooses to live in the vehicle. It is a problem for me because I have to deal with it. No, no. I appreciate that. But I am just trying to think what danger does that present for the people of the community? Which is why we have ordinances. I think that the main thing for the community is a feeling of uneasiness. Having an individual there and not knowing for sure who that is. In this particular case I understand that a number of people in the neighborhood have attempted to make contact with the person and as far as I know that has been unsuccessful. If that had happened, maybe the feelings would be different, I don't know. That discomfort is a real phenomenon. I mean, not to be ignored. I think I would find it mildly disconcerting to say the least- I think if this were happening in front of my house. To articulate exactly why is not easy. But let me try this- suppose the guy was living there without a car? Just a homeless person which we have after all living under bridges and everywhere else. 32 of them or whatever the numbers might be, the census is looking for them- but they are not hassled are they? Well, that is camping isn't it? That would be camping. I don't know, but suppose there is somebody sleeping under the bridge on Burlington Street, do we hassle them? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Lehman: Norton: Thomberry: Norton: Winkelhake: Norton: Winkelhake: Norton: Winkelhake: Thomberry: Winkelhake: Thornberry: Winkelhake: Thornberry: Champion: Norton: Champion: Norton: Council Work Session Page 58 What if they are sleeping in from of your house on the sidewalk? Well, I mean- my point is if they are sleeping on the street without a car they are not hassled. That is called camping then, isn't it? I don't know. I don't know. But there is no sense in that is there? Well hopefully they are not going to be on the street. I mean, because that is a public safety issue. If they are underneath the bridges- we have people under bridges, we go down there, we do check on them. I understand that. But they are not arrested? Usually not unless there is some illegal activity. If they are doing something. So just simply because they are there, no. If they are under a bridge and they are drunk is that public intoxication? It can be. It can be. It may not be? It is a public area. You could arrest them. It is a public area. Yes. Well, it is their home- it is not public. I don't know what- but if the neighbors have tried to approach him and- I am assuming it is a he- and he hasn't been willing to contact them, that would even make me more uneasy. You know? Well, take an extreme case. Suppose on your stretch of Summit Street there were a dozen people living on the street legally parked. They do in my house. I understand- but a dozen cars. I mean, what would be the limit of this problem? At some point it would be a real concern, a real hassle I think. If there were a dozen people living on the street- on Summit Street. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 59 Kubby: That would say that we really have a housing problem. Norton: So there is a point here at which .... Champion: This person doesn't want help finding another place to live Karen. Norton: ...you would want the ordinance. Kubby: I'm not saying that he does. He is saying that if it becomes that they have a problem it might be- Norton: Then an ordinance would be written. Kubby: I don't know if there would be. It may be an indicator of bigger problems in our community. O'Donnell: I think that people have the fight to be in their own home that they are paying taxes for- they are coming in and out, they have children, and they have the fight to feel safe and secure in their own property. Lehman: Let me ask you this. If we knew that we had a (can't hear) living in front of a house with children in a car- is that illegal? Kubby: They would be registered. (several talking) Dilkes: There are a number of circumstances that, as RJjust said to me, that come into play there. But I think that if you have- one of Karen's questions was what other ways can you deal with this besides this type of regulation and I think because we have a single man or single person living there there are options that aren't available that there would be if there were children involved. I mean, certainly, if there were children living in a van with no sanitation facilities the first thing you would probably do is call DHS. O'Donnell: Wouldn't that be a safety factor Eleanor? If this guy is going to be in the van and it were starting to get cold in the evenings if it gets colder and he does start the car- isn't he presenting a safety concern to himself?. Thornberry: Then would he be called public? Dilkes: Would he be called what? Thornberry: He is part of the public, so it is public safety. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 60 Dilkes: Thornberry: Dilkes: Kubby: Thornberry: Dilkes: Norton: Dilkes: Norton: Dilkes: O'Donnell: Dilkes: Thomberry: There are regulations that are put into place to protect the person who is being regulated. That is true. I mean, seatbelts. Right. So we could- you could- draft an ordinance for us to look at? I need you all to tell me what you think. So the car would have to be running and only if their car was running- No, not necessarily.. I am not- I am really not inclined to do this job for you. I know that you are not. I am inclined to have you all decide if this is a problem and why, and then I think that we can draft an ordinance that can subject some challenge. I can't say for sure because I don't have any law in my jurisdiction and I am just- I wouldn't be doing my job to say to you all that everything is fine and dandy and then the first time that we try to prosecute it we have someone coming in making these types of defenses. But I think you all need to decide. But no matter what we did we would undoubtedly be under (can't hear) challenge and I think that we have to accept that. My question is this- I am not saying that is a reason to not do it, I am just telling you that is risk. I didn't get an answer to my question. Is it a safety issue with this man living in a van- we are soon to be below the fleezing mark- is it a safety issue for this guy to be in the car with the car running? I think you could say that that, you could identify that as a safety issue. I mean, I say that with some caution because- Anything could be challenged though Eleanor. We can't draft something that couldn't be challenged. I'm willing to try to draft something just to get rid of the problem. Basically. And one of them is wintertime, one of them is even summertime. If the gas tank is full and it gets real hot- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Dilkes: Champion: Lehman: Champion: Lehman: Dilkes: Thornberry: Lehman: Dilkes: Lehman: Dilkes: Lehman: Dilkes: Norton: Lehman: Norton: Council Work Session Page 61 Well let's do it this way. Do you believe that there- it is a hazard to public health safety etc. to have someone, as this man allegedly has been, living in a van without sanitation facilities? Okay. That is number one. That is number one. Let me ask a question because I have a real problem with the safety issue. I do too. Is it possible to require that people living on a street or in a vehicle register? Register? What do you mean? Is it possible in order to have the vehicle on the street we require that person to register in some way that we know who they are and we know where they are? Why would you do that? Well, first of all you would know who he was or who that person was. You would know whether or not they had a criminal record. Okay. So wait a minute. The person who is in the car outside your house has to register so we can run a criminal law check on that person? What about the person who moves in next door to you? He doesn't live on the street. But the fact that somebody lives on the street is not in and of itself mean that that person has a greater propensity to be a criminal. Should we consider providing a place for people who wish to live that can do so? I think that we do. Well, what is it called? If this person wants to park their car some place so we give them a little parking area where they can. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 62 Kubby: You know, if people's interests really is just this incident maybe it would be a motivation for the North Side who has rejected the residential permit parking to want to look at that issue again. That you have to have a- Lehman: A permit. Kubby; Right. I don't know what the details of what we were talking about in terms of nighttime parking but that might be another way- Thornberry: But what if you have guests coming to your house, where then- they have to park in the street so where do they..? Kubby: Then you call the police and you say- there are communities all over the country that have those systems and there are ways to accommodate guests and special events by calling the police and saying that I am expecting x number of cars extra in this neighborhood because I am having an event in my home. Thomberry: We need to hire some more people. O'Donnell: There are so many cars in that area Karen. (several talking) Lehman: One at a time please. Champion: ...move the car that is not going to solve it. Vanderhoef: And if the car would move it would become obvious. Champion: It would just move the problem and we would be dealing with it again. So I think that we need to deal with this head-on because if we just do that we just move that problem to another part of town and we have to deal with it again. Norton: I understand that but if we could define a place for people. Lelunan: We have to identify a problem first and I am not sure that we have done that at all. Thornberry: Well, I think, Dee, if you did that then you would say that it is not unsafe to live in a car. In the wintertime when they start it and the possibility... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 63 Norton: We don't enforce people to wear helmets remember Dean, anymore. So if the guy wants to take that kind of risk that is their nickel. Lehman: That is true. I don't know. What are the problems associated with living in his vehicle? Vanderhoef: The sanitation thing. Norton: The only one that you can identify is discomfort for the neighbors which is manifest. So I don't know- is that a problem or not? Vanderho ef: So, if we are talking about the discomfort- what we are really talking about is fear. And what are their fears? Their fears are for their children. Their fears are for the sanitation because there aren't any obvious ones in the vehicle. Those would be, those would be the health and fear. But, you can't regulate or do anything about fear. Thomberry: Well, if you had someone out there for long-term Dee- try to sell your house. Would that affect property values? Norton: Damn fight. Vanderhoef: It is just like the ordinances next-door. You know, if they don't keep their property up it turns into a... Lehman: I think that you have to decide- is the fear rational? Champion: Yes. O'Donnell: How do you decide? Lehman: If there is a rational reason- how can you... Kubby: Just to understand it better. Lehman: I think that you have to come up with some rational reason- why are folks- Not that I- listen, I would be one of them. :It is perception. Dilkes: I don't know that you have to decide whether the fear is rational or not. I mean. Lehman: A lot of things we do aren't rational. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 64 Dilkes: Thornberry: Dilkes: O'Donnell: Dilkes: Norton: Thornberry: Champion: Lehman: Norton: O'Donnell: Lehman: I think that- well, enough said about that. I think that you just need to focus on the harms that you have the capability to regulate, you know. I think that the sanitation facilities is one. There is some indication in the case law- one case that I read- that sort of the city's general ability to regulate density of residential use. You require residential uses to be so far apart etc. You can see if you had a whole lot of people living in their vehicles along the street then you have a lot more density in residential use there. What if you only had one? Well that gets back to- is there a problem issue? What if this guy- Eleanor you talked about sanitation issues- what if this guy goes down to Fin and Feather and buys one of these port-a-potties and he has addressed that problem? Well, there is a case that actually said that even though the city's interest might have been in regulating sanitary facilities they also could have had this interest in regulating the density of the use and therefore even if there are sanitation facilities in the vehicle we can still regulate it. But one of the things you could do is say- if there are sanitation facilities in the vehicle and it is small enough then it doesn't violate the other restrictions. If it is permitted it is a precedent for more than one to do that and therefore to really butcher the density issue. That is the whole purpose of that. I don't know about taxation and so on. It is very very delicate, I understand, because clearly if the person is otherwise living outside or in an odd circumstance it is not forbidden. Just depends on where they do it. I don't think that it is appropriate on a city street. But we have a law about car storage on a street. We do, but he moves the car so he complies with the law. How they manage that on the north side is already pretty magical. Is there any way to address- I believe that the fear that these neighbors are expressing here is very real. I don't think you can rationalize that Ernie. No, I don't think you can either and that bothers me. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 65 O'Donnell: Lehman: Thomberry: Kubby: Thomberry: Norton: O'Donnell: Kubby: Norton: But does anybody think that we should get into this? I think that is the whole question. Is there interest from the Council in trying to regulate or prohibit people from living in their cars on the street? I do. I really do. You know, they could have a communicable disease. You know, a lot of different things. I don't know. You could have one walking down the street. Being here in this room. There are probably one or two of us that have one. But I don't want them living in front of my house. If you want to say I'm a nimbi, I will be a nimbi. I don't want it in front of my house. Give them your address- well what is your address? Mile marker 27 I don't think so. I am inclined to try to find a way to draft one that is delicate but reasonable and that gets the job done. I guess, I reluctantly feel that way. I think that we have to address the neighbors' concems. But I don't think that is the discussion. I believe that everybody here including myself, even though I might not be interested in going this route, wants to understand that the neighbors have concerns. I'm just saying that there is a bigger palette of options out there than just an ordinance because it is fraught with so many other things that I am not interested in getting in to. I'm not sure, I don't necessarily think that I have all the answers. Maybe some of the neighbors have some answers. Maybe some of the social work folks in our community have some answers. Since we're having a hard time articulating more than one particular hazard maybe there can even be a parallel track. That if a majority of the Council thinks that the sanitary facilities hazard is something we want to go for and had Eleanor start writing an ordinance, but then on parallel track try to find another avenue because we can always put a stop on the work- or to say that we want to put a stop on the work- we don't want to go ahead for two weeks to try to explore some out other avenues. I just don't want to say this is the way. I would like to find a way to- you know, for the neighbors to not feel uncomfortable. Whether that is a combination of things, not necessarily that just that this person goes away. There may be more than one way. I am trying to figure what that is. I guess I don't see where that is going. I don't see where you are going with that. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 66 Vanderhoef: Champion: Lehman: O'Donnell: Thornberry: Norton: Thomberry: Norton: Dilkes: Norton: Dilkes: Vanderhoef: If there was the opportunity to find a living arrangement for this person that that would be another option. He is not interested. There is that option. Is there interest in trying to draft- I think that Eleanor has pretty well put it. I think that you have to come up with some logical- l think density and perhaps sanitation though- the fact that they have sanitation facilities that are appropriate I'm not so sure that that is one of why either. I don't think it is. Well, then they would have to be inspected. Has anybody tried the distress issue? Get housing inspection services. Has anybody in the communities tried the distress? What did they use for an argument? San Francisco did something fight? Distress? I mean, the distress of the neighbors. Which is as I say, manifest and palpable. Has that been tried? It may be a weak read- I don't know. Well, there have been- if you note the cases on the lodging in vehicles are- most of them if not all of them have been- in beach communities. And I think that they have made some arguments based on the lack of sanitation facilities, etc. in these beach communities heavily visited by, or heavily trafficked by visitors and tourists. There is actually a case where they cleared for economic purposes and tourism purposes- cleared a section of the beach and said that homeless people can't be there. Can't sleep there etc.. But the reason the court upheld it is that they had provided an alternative space. But I am just cautioning you that the homelessness issue is that those cases are based on a finding that- of evidence that the homeless had no where else to go. Statistical evidence that the number of homeless outweighed or exceeded the number of beds. And that is an applied tax so, it is a potential challenge and it is difficult because that body of case law is just developing. Well, the density also was also pretty much in the beach communities where there would be a number of them on a regular basis which is not This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 67 what we are seeing in our community. So I wonder if density would have any appeal here in this city. I don't see that it might. Dilkes: I have some concern about both those reasons given that we haven't seen a whole lot of incidences. Lehman: Where do we want to go with this? Vanderhoef: I want to think about it a little longer. Thomberry: You have everybody speak on it Eleanor, can we do anything about this or not? Legally? Kubby: If we come up with an outline she will write something. Champion: I am not a lawyer, I don't what the law... O'Donnell: What can we do? Champion: Maybe the neighbors have an idea. There are some here tonight. Lehman: Well, given that we think that this is probably a less than desirable activity. And I think that we would probably agree on that. Is there a way that we can regulate this? Dilkes: I have told you that if you tell me what you think the harm is I will draft an ordinance. Thornberry: Ernie, I think that we have got to give a lot of credit, and I really do, to the neighbors for trying to get it done through us and legally as opposed to taking the problem into their own hands. I do commend them because there would be areas of town that they may do that. Dilkes: That may be one reason why the man is here and not there. You know? Thornberry: I don't know but you know there are parts of other cities that you wouldn't be there that long and wouldn't have to spend any time at all drafting an ordinance or worrying about anything- they would be gone. But they're trying to get it the done right way and I think it is responsible for us to try to alleviate this problem. Norton: I've got to find out, if that strikes me as impossible- nobody would try to live in their car on the street in Chicago. I can't- you did a Web search and this is it? Pompano Beach and these places are all? Nobody else- Des This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WS 110899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 68 Dilkes: Lehman: Thornberry: Norton: Thornberry: Kubby: Thornberry: Kubby: Dilkes: Thornberry: Dilkes: Moines doesn't have this problem? LaCrosse, Wisconsin? Are we the only ones? I actually got a survey, I don't think- actually we talked to Des Moines and the Assistant City Attorney that advises the police department in Des Moines (because that was what people said to me- oh, this has been done-) his initial reaction was "no, you can't regulate that". So, we found these cases and I think it is a possibility and I think- I don't know what else to tell you. I think we would be well advised to take this home with us and think about it. Do our homework, try to come up- Eleanor is exactly right. You have to have some basis to try to do it and we're going to have to come up with some basis. I don't want it to be put off for a long long period of time. It has been going on for so long now and they are trying to.. He is talking two weeks. Well, they are tired of it. The want the problem to go away. Can we ask Linda Severson to help brainstorm some- while we are thinking about the ordinance route- have Linda Severson brainstorm a social service rome or a communications route? Maybe, at this point if it has been police officers knocking on the window that might be very intimidating. The neighbors have tried. And the neighbors coming in- if they have been getting a snippet of the news at the Rec center or reading the newspaper or something they might feel intimidated on their end because they know that people are fearful of them and scared of him. That maybe there is some other... Let me interrupt you for a minute. We have talked to Linda Severson and she actually, and I understand from talking to her today, she had a mental- health professional go up there and leave a note on the van asking if you want help here is a number to call. I don't believe there was a response. Maybe he didn't have a phone. No, they put it on the van. Taped it on the van. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899 November 8, 1999 Council Work Session Page 69 Norton: Lehman: Thomberry: Dilkes: Champion: Lehman: Dilkes: Norton: Thomberry: Dilkes: Thornberry: Vanderhoef: Norton: Lehman: Emie, are we going to let it stir for a couple of weeks? Well Dean doesn't want to and I understand what he is saying but I don't see us getting anywhere. I think there is a consensus to do something and doing it public safety- wise, personal safety of the individual- we don't want that on our conscious. So, we are- like Connie said- we are not attorneys and we can't draft an ordinance and say here go. I am not asking you to drab the ordinance. Wait a minute- We have identified some harms that you can regulate. Right? Let' s ask some of the neighbors that are here. I think that is fight. Are there four of you that want to regulate... I am not ready yet because I think that anything you do will have to be done to just anybody sleeping out. Anybody- and we don't have laws that say you can't sleep under the bridge so I don't see... No, but we have laws that say you can't sleep in a motor home in front your house. Dean, because of size and visibility. I understand. ...difference between lodging and sleeping. Well I mean, just living there- many of them are living there. They have a cardboard box down there. Yeah, but it has got a smoke alarm so we...(change tape)... Tape problem. No tape available. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of November 8, 1999. WSl10899