Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-09-18 Transcription September 18, 2000 Special Work Session Page 1 September 18, 2000 Special Work Session 6:40 PM Council: Lehman, Champion, O'Donnell, Vanderhoef, Wilbum, Pfab, Kanner Staff: Atkins, Helling, Karr, Dilkes, Franklin, Boothroy Tapes: 00-86 Side One; 00-91 Side Two Plannin~ & Zonin~ Karin Franklin/Thank you Grampa Lehman. Lehman/Your welcome. A. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE CONDITIONALLY AMENDING THE APPROVED SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR LOT 52 OF WALDEN HILLS, A 4.89 ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF SHANNON DRIVE, SOUTH OF WILLOW CREEK. (REZ00-0005/SUB000- 0016) (FIRST CONSIDERATION) Franklin/First consideration for Lot 52 Walden Hills, this was the change from townhouses to single family lots. And Dee in answer to your question about the sight distance, we checked that out and that's fine. Vanderhoef/Thank you. B. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13 S. LINN STREET AS AN IOWA CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK. (REZ00- 0019) (FIRST CONSIDERATION) Franklin/Item B is first consideration on the designation of 13 S. Linn Street as a historic landmark. C. CONSIDER AN ORDNANCE REZONING 20.78 ACRES FROM INTERIM DEVELOPMENT MULTI-FAMILY (ID-RM) TO PUBLIC (P) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF GILBERT STREET SOUTH OF NAPOLEON LANE. (REZ00-0017) (PASS AND ADOPT ) Franklin/Item C pass and adopt on the final consideration on the rezoning for the public works facility. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 18, 2000. WS091800 September 18, 2000 Special Work Session Page 2 D. CONSIDER AN ORDNANCE REZONING 35.14 ACRES FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING OVERLAY (OPDH-1) TO SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY (OSA-1) AND APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR WALNUT RIDGE, PART 8-10, A 22- LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON KENNEDY PARKWAY. (REZ00-0013) (PASS AND ADOPT) Franklin/Item D is the final consideration on the rezoning for Walnut Ridge Parts 8-10. E. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF WALNUT RIDGE, PARTS 8, 8, AND 10, A 35.14 ACRE, 22-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON KENNEDY PARKWAY. (SUB00-0010) Franklin/And then E is the resolution for the preliminary plat for that same area. F. CONSIDER A LETTER TO THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A REZONING OF 125.43 ACRES LOCATED WITHIN FRINGE AREA C EAST OF DANE ROAD AND WEST AND SOUTH OF THE LAKERIDGE MOBILE HOME PARK FROM COUNTY A1 RURAL AND RS SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL TO COUNTY RMH MANUFACTURED HOUSING RESIDENTIAL. (CZ0027) Franklin/And Item F a request to defer until August, yea, August 2001, no October 3rd. Lehman/OK. Are we making progress there? Franklin/I'm not sure Emie. Lehman/OK but I mean obviously things are still moving? Franklin/Yes, we're still talking. Karr/I'm sorry Lakeridge is deferred until when? Franklin/October 3rd. Lehman/October 3rd, I'll show you my copy of it. Oh my lordy are you done? Franklin/I'm done. Lehman/You and Schmadeke are on the same track tonight, yea. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 18, 2000. WS091800 September 18, 2000 Special Work Session Page 3 Champion/Can she leave already, don't we have to have questions? Franklin/No. Lehman/Well, OK, we're going to review. O'Donnell/We're talking about (can't hear). Lehman/Oh Council Appointments, Airport Commission. Champion/We have one application. Vanderhoef/One. Wilburn/One. Lehman/Well I don't have that one. Champion/I can't remember the name. Vanderhoef/Oh I've got it written down here. John Rile or John Ruyle. Lehman/John Ruyle, John is a pilot. Champion/He is a pilot. Lehman/And I think he' s a former manager of Owens Brush. O'Donnell/Oral B. Lehman/Or Oral B. Champion/I nominate John Ruyle. Kanner/(can't hear). Lehman/OK, are there? Do we agree on John? Vanderhoef/Yes. O'Donnell/Fine. Lehman/OK tomorrow night we will appoint John. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 18, 2000. WS091800 September 18, 2000 Special Work Session Page 4 Aaenda Items Lehman/OK Agenda Items. ITEM 14. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION REPEALING THE RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE IOWA CITY RIVERFRONT AND NATURAL AREAS COMMISSION. Kanner/I've got a question. Well I'll go forward and then back the one. There was a resolution to abolish the Riverfront and Natural Areas Commission and we received a letter from the chair and the vice chair with the new proposal I would recommend that we would recommend that we meet with them and the remaining members of the commission. I think there' s some interesting ideas with their proposal and we should see if it's worthwhile pursuing at least before we finalize the abolition of this commission. Vanderhoef/What in particular peaks your interest about the letter that we aren't presently taking care of?. Kanner/Well they're talking about one group that's looking at environmental concerns on an overall basis and sort of a report card and also a goal setting. And so I think they're able to the possibility is there that they would step outside of different commissions and look at some of these areas and say this is what we're trying to achieve in this area, this is what we're trying to achieve in this area and after a year we can see did we reach that goal. And also help to set goals. Champion/I agree the letter was interesting but I think that it's a whole different goals for that commission so my feelings would be dissolve the commission as it is now and if we wanted to talk about starting a new commission and deal with the ideas that they brought forth and I think people should rather reapply than start over from scratch. Lehman/Can I suggest that this discussion be better tomorrow night so the public can hear it? Dilkes/Can I, I just want to point out though that the letter that you're talking about was dated May 3, quite some time ago and we've since gotten a resignation by one of the authors of that letter so. Karr/And Jeff Gilltzer has moved away from Iowa City so both of them. Champion/OK. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 18, 2000. WS091800 September 18, 2000 Special Work Session Page 5 Vanderhoef/OK. Lehman/OK Steven what else do you have? ITEM 2e (3)(a). ACTING TRAFFIC ENGINEERING PLANNER a. INSTALLATION OF NO PARKING HERE TO ALLEY AND NO PARKING ALLEY TO HERE SIGNS ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE 400 BLOCK OF SOUTH JOHNSON STREET. Kanner/And then just a small thing on from the correspondence from our Acting Traffic Engineer. No parking on the street near the alley of 413 and 419 Johnson. And just some clarification of why that's needed. I didn't quite understand the explanation that was given. So this is in the correspondence, in the consent calendar and it's on page 37 of our packet. Vanderhoef/Oh they were talking about the reason is that people use that alley and people are parking and blocking the alley so you can't get into the alley. Kanner/Is it illegal now and there's just no sign? I, that' s what I didn't quite understand, it's illegal to park there now but people are parking there? Vanderhoef/That was my interpretation of that. Champion/Because who park (can't hear). Lehman/If it isn't posted then probably. O'Donnell/I understood it wasn't posted at all. Kanner/So I don't understand why it hasn't been posted if it's been illegal. Vanderhoef/Well to me it's common sense you don't block an alley but maybe that isn't always what happens. Champion/And it's 2:00 and you're looking for a parking place that's the furthest thing from your mind. Kanner/But it's saying more than just the alley ways. Franklin/I think maybe what is happening here is that these no parking here to alley and no parking alley to here it's to demarcate exactly where you can pull up to and park and no further. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 18, 2000. WS091800 September 18, 2000 Special Work Session Page 6 Lehman/Which gives you room to turn out of the alley. Franklin/Right as oppose to just a general no parking sign that it's to delineate exactly where the parking will end. Kanner/Do we have laws now that say you can't park within so many feet of a comer or of an alley? Vanderhoef/The experience I've seen. Dilkes/We have some regulations, I don't know what specific regulation there is on alleys but I know when we had, we had another circumstance like this where and I can't remember the specifics but we ended up define, putting up a sign or defining the distance by signs so it was clear to everybody what was prohibited and what wasn't because it certainly makes it easier to enforce and prosecute if we end up having (can't hear). Vanderhoef/And part of it too is for sight distance like the one Connie had brought up not too long ago that people were parking so far near the street that then there wasn't the sight distance that people pulling out could see. Champion/And if you have an alley on those arrow street then if somebody has to pull out of the alley it can be really difficult to make that turn, parking on one side of the street. Well I think the signs are a good idea. Lehman/Other agenda items. ITEM 4(B). CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13 S LINN STREET AS AN IOWA CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK. Vanderhoef/Karin you maybe can just answer this for me. On the Historic Landmark, I forgot to ask it last week I'm sorry I should have asked then. What action would have to happen to have someone choose to tear down a historic, a building that' s already on historic registry and/or what recourse would the city have if for some reason they wanted to condemn for public purpose a historic building? Franklin/OK when you say National Register, when you say register, do you mean the National Register? Vanderhoef/Yea. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 18, 2000. WS091800 September 18, 2000 Special Work Session Page 7 Franklin/National Register designation does not prevent a building from being a tom down. I mean it's not a law that says you can not tear the building down. So there would have, I don't know exactly what the process is when a building is being contemplated for demolition. This is about the landmark, the Iowa City landmark designation. Designating a landmark underneath our code not the National Register. OK. We have the local landmark designation under our code and when it's designated as a local historic landmark before you can demolish a building you have to go before the Historic Preservation Commission and plead your case that, for whatever reasons and their usually going to be economic reasons that the building needs to be tom down. The Commission can deny the permit for demolition and then it's appealed to the City Council. Lehman/Is this requested by the? Franklin/If the city, if the city wanted to condemn because I think that was the third part of your question. If the city wanted to condemn a building I think legally they would be able to even though as designated a landmark but it would be the Historic Preservation Commission evaluating it, making a determination, the City Council presumably could legally override that but then you've got all the political issues that surround it. Lehman/Is this the request of the owner? Franklin/Yes. Lehman/OK. Dilkes/I think that' s one of the reasons that there's an evaluation of whether it fits with the comprehensive plan too just because the city is, I mean I think you should presume the city is not going to get to that building. Vanderhoef/Because this building is being nominated for National Historic. Franklin/Yes but that's a different, that's a whole different beast than a local landmark designation. Vanderhoef/And I guess before it goes on the National Registry I was just curious what could and couldn't be done. Franklin/Yea the National Register designation we really have very little to say about. The local landmark designation is what you're being asked to vote on. Vanderhoef/OK. Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 18, 2000. WS091800 September 18, 2000 Special Work Session Page 8 Lehman/Thank you Karin. Any other agenda items? Vacant Buildin~,s ( 1P 1 & 1 P2 of 9/14 packet) Lehman/Who is going to talk to us about vacant buildings? Atkins/Doug is. Boothroy/Me. Lehman/Doug you're up. Boothroy/I think in your packet there was the petition from the neighborhood concerning 300 McLean Street which is the empitus for the memorandum I sent to you suggesting a process that we could use. We have about 12 1 guess they're all single family, well they're not all single family, 11 single family homes that are abandoned or vacant at this point in time in Iowa City in various states of repair. Some are to a point of like Bayard Street or one over on Rochester which are to a point of considering demolition and others are in much better condition. The memorandum basically spells out that neither the Housing Code nor the Dangerous Building Code really gets at this issue of maintaining properties before they get to a dangerous condition or to a situation which requires extreme measures and there's a long period of time in which building will stand empty and all kinds of problems will develop but you might not wish to demolish it because of it fitting in with the neighborhood or it's got some features about it that are particularly nice and you want to preserve it. This is really a fairly unassuming ordinance I would say in that the city would like to know for the police, fire, NHIS, where these buildings are in case there are emergencies, in case there are problems, we would like to know who to contact. Part of the problem we have vacant buildings is that we spend a lot of time chasing around trying to find ownership and that can, particularly during certain types of the season like when we have a lot of heavy snow fall or something like that that can be real disconcerting to the neighborhood when the sidewalks aren't being shoveled and their concerned about the use of those type of things. And we're asking that the exterior of the house as well as the interior which wouldn't be much on the interior but at least the exterior be maintained so that it is presentable and is not deteriorating, in other words prevention. So this is a proactive ordinance, trying to get on top of it before it has run it's course. Now likely what will happen with the use of this ordinance is we will get a complaint and then we'll investigate that complaint and we will find that the building has been vacant for probably over a year. All of the ones that we presently know of have been vacant for well quite a This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 18, 2000. WS091800 September 18, 2000 Special Work Session Page 9 long time, years and years and years, none of them are even close to the one year bench mark that I put in the memorandum so. I guess that's essentially it, Irvin. Pfab/What is the definition of vacant? Boothroy/Well I've proposed one here. Pfab/I don't remember seeing it in here. Boothroy/Well maybe I don't have it, there is one in the, if we need a definition I'll put one in, I guess vacant seemed to be fairly, I guess it was understood but maybe it's not. Pfab/Well I know the insurance industry has a variant way that they call it a vacant building and the reason I say that is I think a year is way too long to be vacant in a city limits without notifying the police or someone and if your going to register I would say I think the maximum should be six months if it's vacant you know, for what it's being used it's just basically a shell. It isn't somebody that's away for awhile it's a building where the machinery is taken out it's no longer, it can't be started up into, it takes work to get it back to work again. Boothroy/Yea. Pfab/And I think for police and fire and you know nuisance affects, well police would cover that because I think a year is way too long. Lehman/The only problem with that is what happens if you have a new home that' s on the market it's obviously vacant. Pfab/No that's not vacant, see that is counting for a home and it's for sale. Boothroy/Well maybe we can address this issue with a definition of vacant, I can look at that definition because I think we all know where we want to get to as far as that's concerned and I think there, you know you have the snowbirds and of course a year would. Pfab/Those homes are not vacant, they're just not occupied, they're. Boothroy/I understand the distinction you're trying to make. Pfab/Vacant homes are taking all the furniture out and. O'Donnell/I think abandoned. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 18, 2000. WS091800 September 18, 2000 Special Work Session Page 10 Dilkes/I don't think. O'Donnell/Would be a better word for it. Pfab/No, no, no. O'Donnell/No that's not the word. Boothroy/Not necessarily, some of these homes that we're talking about well I would say almost all of the ones that I mentioned tonight are probably more on the abandoned side as opposed to the vacant side so it's not a gray area but I know what Irvin is talking about there will be some that would kind of fit in between, and you've got to make that call. We don't have any of those that I know of anyway. Pfab/Especially if it' s no cost or anything to register them and at least it gives the heads up to the police and the fire departments. Kanner/Well there is. Vanderhoef/There is going to be a cost. Lehman/There is going to be a cost. Kanner/There is a proposed cost. Boothroy/Yea I'm going to want to cover the administrative, the inspection process, whatever it costs to run an inspector out back and some paperwork so it will be, I don't know how much it will be but it would be, well you'll approve it anyway so. Pfab/Well I would say it should be minimal if you know to encourage it, you know if there's a cost there. Boothroy/There will be some cost. Vanderhoef/Somehow or another in this whole identification or classifying them it seems to me that any house that doesn't have water and sewer and electricity, and those are services are shut off they should be immediately be registered with the city and that might take care of our time frame that we're talking about. Pfab/We're also talking more than just homes, we're talking buildings. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 18, 2000. WS091800 September 18, 2000 Special Work Session Page 11 Vanderhoef/Well the same thing though. Pfab/Right, right I agree. Vanderhoef/They still have those three services and if those. Pfab/I'm not uncomfortable with that. Boothroy/Yea that could be one of the measures. Dilkes/I think in drafting the ordinance and I mean this is just an idea at this point I think in drafting the ordinance I think we're going to have to think about what our purpose is here and essentially that' s having buildings where there' s nobody attending to them and their likely to become in disrepair and that leads to extemal conditions that affect the neighborhood but we have to keep that in mind when we're drafting our definition of vacant and when we're considering the amount of time we're talking about. Pfab/Well isn't the primary concem here the public safety. Boothroy/Right. Lehman/All right let me ask two questions, first one what degree of maintenance would be required by the inspection? In other words I know the rental inspections require a different level than I would perceive for a vacant home. For example if there' s a little paint peeling somewhere on that building I don't necessarily think that it would have to be necessarily repainted, on the other hand if the porch is falling down and it's a danger for someone walking up on it I can certainly see that. Boothroy/Well definitely it would have to be weather tight. Lehman/Right but I do think that there needs to be a different level of compliance required on a vacant building, I don't know that a person who owns a vacant building should be required to maintain that building in the same mind condition that his neighbor might. Boothroy/I don't think, I would argue that the rental housing code doesn't require mint maintenance, it does minimal maintenance but it doesn't require mint maintenance, it' s kind of a double m word your talking about. Lehman/Sometimes it's close to mint. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 18, 2000. WS091800 September 18, 2000 Special Work Session Page 12 Boothroy/It depends on your perspective I guess. Lehman/The other thing that I would and I'm just throwing this out, if someone owns a piece of property in the outskirts of town and it's 300 yards away from anybody else's house are we going to want to enforce this or do we want some kind of distance requirement? In other words if it's far away where it doesn't really bother anybody is it still something we want to? Boothroy/Yes it's a problem, it can become a problem, I think of two instances where. Lehman/OK that's all I ask. Boothroy/They were isolated and in both cases we had people living in there, having fires inside the structures, one of those structures is gone today, it's been demolished, it was tom down this spring, there wasn't a house within 1,000 feet of it or maybe even farther, maybe a quarter of a mile. Lehman/What you're asking from us tonight is whether or not we would like to proceed with the new ordinance. Boothroy/Correct, that's all, that's all. Lehman/Obviously there' s a lot of details you would have to be worked out but conceptually we agree, I think we agreed, pursue it. Do you have the next one too? Boothroy/Yes. Kanner/Before you go on Doug could you bring some examples of how other cities are doing with this down the road? Boothroy/Well actually what you see here are the six points with the exception of the annual housing inspection is very similar to what their doing in St. Paul. They have a registration program there, the, in St. Paul they require, or they can require inspections on demand. I just changed it to talk about annual inspections, and there are some other cities like Los Angeles and places like that communities that are usually perceived to have more of a vacant building problem than we have been. I think that, I used to say that in Iowa City that there were very few vacant buildings where we didn't have problem because I'd go to a meetings in Waterloo or Cedar Rapids or Des Moines and they were taking down buildings and getting rid of them. But over the last few years we've seem to have grown a few and in this community you know where you can rent just about everything it's amazing but there are buildings out there. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 18, 2000. WS091800 September 18, 2000 Special Work Session Page 13 Pfab/Well the other thing they, not only are they a public safety issue they're also an attracted nuisance sometimes, I mean I think that. Boothroy/Yea people break into them and use them for you know different types of things. Lehman/All right you've got a go on that Doug. Why don't we worry about storing cars llOVq. Vehicle Stora~,e In Residential Areas (1P3 of 9/14 packet) Boothroy/Well the second one was an issue that is also a neighborhood related issue that came up here well it's been going on for over, definitely over a year. Vanderhoef/Three. Boothroy/We have had problems in the past with storage of vehicles but not to the extent that this particular issue has raised and thus the proposal to control it and what this particular ordinance would do is it builds in a limit on the number of motor vehicles that could be parked or stored outside a structure to four, that' s a number that' s very flexible of course. Lehman/That's on the property. Boothroy/On the property, on the premises. Vanderhoef/Licensed. Boothroy/Licensed vehicles, and then it also adds in a provision for the large family that says that if you have licensed drivers you can have more vehicles stored out according to the number of licensed drivers you have so we don't, we don't discriminate, because I've said to others we don't discriminate against the Brady family and. Champion/(can't hear). Boothroy/The Brady Bunch I should say. Lehman/Now that doesn't require that they, the vehicle, it's just vehicles period, not licensed, it doesn't make any difference whether they're licensed or not they can not be. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 18, 2000. WS091800 September 18, 2000 Special Work Session Page 14 Boothroy/Inoperable vehicles presently are prohibited. Lehman/OK I guess I knew that. Boothroy/Those are unlicensed, they can be, unlicensed is one standard for being inoperable and that would be you know you can look like a completely wonderful vehicle but if it didn't have a license, current license it would be considered inoperable. And then the third part of what I'm suggesting is that we would apply some provision for temporary parking so that I've seen it spelled it as least as 24 hours, the minimal being 24 hours used to say 48 or 72 hours so there are a couple different ordinances and their, and they go anywhere along. Wilbum/I was going to ask about that because I, I mean I know some people that have you know some weekend gatherings and that' s certainly more than 24 hours where. Boothroy/So we could go up a little higher. One thing you have to remember about this benchmark is that it's like snow removal, it's more than 24 hours, it's 24 hours after we get the violation so they could be sitting there for two weeks and we still give them another 24 hours because it's based on the inspectors observation so you know we can go to 24 hours I think that' s fine or 72 1 don't really have a strong feeling one way or the other I just want to point out that it's not that tight a number when you in practicality when you actually get into enforcing it. It's a sort of what we give people 24 hours to move in other words. Vanderhoef/I talked to you about this earlier what came to mind for me were boats as part of those and Doug had commented that most of them are sitting on trailers and if the trailer is licensed then that would cover it. Boothroy/It would define it that way. Vanderhoef/But somehow or another I want boats recognized in the statement so there's no misinterpretation of what that would amount to because that would be considered one of the four, because truly boats even though they're on licensed trailers can be storage for nine months out of the year and go out occasionally during the season and to store boats consistently like that I would those counted. Boothroy/Right and we define motor vehicle in two different parts of the code that include any boats as well but I would point out that under the zoning ordinance in the special vehicle section your not allowed to store recreational vehicles in the front of your building, you can only store them in the side or rear yard and then if you can't store them there you can come to the city for special consideration for storing them in front of your house. And that is for really large boats though, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 18, 2000. WS091800 September 18, 2000 Special Work Session Page 15 that's, the boats would have to be on that trailer, they'd have to be taller than 7 ½ feet and not or and longer than 20 so if your looking at the smaller boats then we would have to include that in the definition of motor vehicle because they're right now excluded out of that provision. We also by the way in case you're not aware of this we prohibit commercial vehicle parking or storage on any residential lot in Iowa City. Any commercial vehicle taller than 7 ½ feet and that was something that was put in the ordinance about 10 years ago so. Lehman/But I don't see including boats and motor homes as a real problem because they would be within that four vehicle total. So you could still store your boat. Boothroy/True. Lehman/Year round and still be within the four vehicle total. Boothroy/And if it exceeds. Vanderhoef/Well if it's counted in but what I was saying is that if we're talking about vehicles a lot of people will not necessarily think about boats being one of them. Lehman/No but I think they should be I agree with you. Boothroy/If we define them in then they're part of the exception of. Champion/I have problems with this whole thing. Boothroy/OK. Champion/I mean I have problems with four cars as being the limit I mean. Lehman/No, no. Boothroy/Exterior. Lehman/Outside parked, stored on the property. Vanderhoef/You still have garages. Lehman/You can have four, you can have six if you've got six drivers plus the two in the garage, if you've got eight drivers you can have eight cars outside. Pfab/Plus two in the garage he said, I mean that' s what you were saying. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 18, 2000. WS091800 September 18, 2000 Special Work Session Page 16 O'Donnell/Say that again. Champion/Are we starting to get really (can't hear) petty here? Lehman/I don't think so. Champion/I mean we really have to wonder about the controls we're starting to put on neighbors I mean maybe there ought to be a fencing ordinance or something if you don't want to look at it but to tell somebody they can't have more than 4 cars on their property I really have trouble with that, I can't support that I. Lehman/Storage, storage is the key term here. Champion/It's a licensed car that runs. Lehman/It's stored on the property, that doesn't mean it's parked there over night or for two or three nights, that means that your neighbor decides they're going to store six cars in their front yard. Vanderhoef/And then another four in their backyard. Champion/I thought you can't park cars in your from yard at all. O'Donnell/You can't now can you? Pfab/Listen (can't hear). Boothroy/Let me finish, the required parking in a single family zone you can have a tandem parking, you can have one parking space behind another so you could have one in a single family zone one of your required parking in the front yard. In other words if you have a single car garage and the house is set back 20 feet from the street you have one in the garage and one in front of the house. Champion/So you can't park four cars in your front yard anyway. Boothroy/In that scenario no, but it depends on the size of your property and how much space you have. The, if you have, if your house is set back 100 feet from the street the ordinance only regulates the first 20 feet so anything in that last 80 feet if you will can be paved, as long as it's paved can be vehicle storage. So that's essentially where we're coming from. I've looked at a lot of ordinances, some ordinances, it's not uncommon for ordinances to prohibit any parking between the building and the street because of the concern of what we, we don't go that far, we only go for the first 20 feet, because I think the presumption is that everybody' s This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 18, 2000. WS091800 September 18, 2000 Special Work Session Page 17 built pretty much to the 20 foot setback and it's unusual to have people set back more than 20 feet but as I mention in the ordinance the primary concern is vehicle storage lot, the appearance and the impact that that has on the neighborhood. I've seen, I've modeled this after a couple nuisance ordinances so it's not, it has been done in other communities, it's also been done as a zoning violation, it's been done both ways but it's not common but it has been done in other jurisdictions. Pfab/I guess I would ask Connie can you think of an example where this would cause difficulty? I think the fact that when you make the exception if there are additional drivers you know. Boothroy/A resident. Pfab/A licensed driver at that address then I think it's, I don't have any difficulty but if you just said there was, it was so many cars and say you have a lot more drivers a young family growing up or something like that then I would be concerned. Lehman/This licensed drivers that live at that address. Boothroy/Right. Lehman/OK. Champion/I mean the reason that I think it's strange is that obviously we have a complaint and that's why we're dealing with this. Boothroy/Well it's multiple complaints I should say. Champion/Multiple complaints, but you know I was thinking about Elvis Presley, he had a lot more than four cars in his backyard and they weren't in garages and they weren't, there weren't four licensed drivers in his house, I mean his car collection, and we all go down and say isn't that a wonderful car collection and so I mean I don't know, I have problems with kind of this, I don't like what your doing in your backyard. Pfab/Well it may be, well maybe there should be an exception for a person that, we take exceptions under. Champion/I don't know, I have to really think about this. Boothroy/I'm not sure we'll iron it out tonight what I need to know is whether or not it's where you, if you're interested in regulating it in the general sense that we're going if you're not then we just drop it and go on. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 18, 2000. WS091800 September 18, 2000 Special Work Session Page 18 Champion/(can't hear). Kanner/I've got a question for you, you said there were multiple complaints. I don't like legislating if it's one place and then making a law for maybe one problem. How many, like you said there are 12 vacant buildings in Iowa city, how many places are there that exceed the proposed four cars? Boothroy/At this point I'm only aware of one, that' s not to say there aren't more, I'm just aware of one, only one that' s been complained to me. Kanner/And so the complaints, the many complaints are generated by this one place, it's not by multiple locations that are generating complaints. Boothroy/Correct. Kanner/Have there been other complaints in the past about other locations? Boothroy/And most of that has been covered with inoperable vehicle ordinance to be honest with you, generally speaking when you get a lot of vehicles often times they're not all licensed and so people can't afford to keep them licensed generally and they've had, that' s taken care of the problem. We deal with vehicle storage, it's our third most frequent complaint in this community. Snow and weeds are one and two, so that kind of gives you kind of a feeling of where we are with this, a junk and debris comes in a real close, tie, almost a tie with inoperable vehicles but it's a major work item for us. Most of the time it's handled with inoperable as I said you know (can't hear). In this case it is one particular property because we're dealing with licensed vehicles only but you know, if there is a problem I think we need to address it, if there isn't a problem then I guess we need to go on, (can't hear) it makes any difference if there' s one or multiple complaints. Kanner/Well I don't know what the problem is, is it a public safety problem or is it just an appearance thing? Boothroy/Well I think it's a problem, very specifically where the neighbors have feel that there's a vehicle storage lot, that' s a commercial like activity. It contributes from their perspective to blight in the neighborhood because of tandem parking of lots of vehicles, it's like looking out on a used car parking lot and they're in a residential neighborhood and they feel they have some right to having a residential neighborhood because that's what they bought into. And the ordinance does not really address vehicle storage lots as completely as it probably should and in this case this is one way to address it. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 18, 2000. WS091800 September 18, 2000 Special Work Session Page 19 Kanner/One other thing. Wilburn/Go ahead and finish. Kanner/I'm a little weary of going down this road but I'm willing to do that but also I think just like we need to define vacant in the other proposed ordinance we need to have some clear definitions of what it means to store cars there and what that time period is. Does it mean cars moving on and off in a certain amount of period and how do you constitute how many? So I think we need clarification on that definition. Boothroy/Well one of the things that obviously we have to define storage, the amount of time, presently the zoning ordinance talks about storage as being more than 48 hours. We may not want that same standard in this particular section of the code. Again I mentioned that earlier if four is not a comfortable number maybe you want six, those are numbers that can be plugged in. Kanner/Within a period, if these are moving cars which is different that inoperable cars we have to define that. How many cars can move in and out? What if the cars are constantly moving all 187 So we have to define that, do you follow what I'm saying? Boothroy/Well I'm sure what we would do is take, well we'll define that but I think from an enforcement point of view we would track it by license plate numbers and make a determination in that fashion as to what' s there and what' s not there and what' s been. Champion/Do the neighbors feel because I've not looked at this property but are the neighbors concerned that these cars are being bought and sold off this property? Boothroy/I don't think that' s the case, I think that may have been an earlier assumption but I don't know that that' s widely shared at least not with the couple people I've talked to but I haven't talked to everybody. (can't hear). Wilburn/I guess I'm trying to, I'm thinking the issue that you brought up Connie about someone with a unique habit or collection, I was thinking, when you mentioned you know the grass and weeds and the length that we've monitored on that it would seem to me that a unique situation is someone who likes to have the prairie grasses and things like that in their yard that there would be in one persons mind that's weeds and things like that. So I don't, if we're going it seems to me we do need to tie it down to a number to make it more easily enforceable for staff but I guess I'm just (can't hear). This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 18, 2000. WS091800 September 18, 2000 Special Work Session Page 20 Boothroy/Now we're only talking about exterior storage. There is some ability to build an accessory building as long as it's not you know bigger than the house to store some of these vehicles in sight. Even with the inoperable vehicle ordinance we say that you can have as many inoperable vehicles you want on your property as long as their out of sight and in a building. Wilburn/That was my next, this is my last one Irvin. You're getting to what my question was going to be, what our options were for a person that is a car collector or whatever, you said if someone were to build a garage, what are the dimensions can you? Boothroy/Well the position that we've taken is the garage has to be subordinate to and an accessory to the principle structure so if you were to choose to build a garage or a warehouse type building that was let's say half again bigger than your entire house we would argue that that' s no longer an accessory structure that's a commercial like building that should have been built someplace else to house those vehicles as many collectors do. I mean there are other collectors that do have warehouses but they're not in residential zones. So it's a little more expensive maybe to do it that way but it is being accommodated presently so you could build a garage that' s accessory that might house six vehicles possibly but you couldn't get a garage I would guess in most situations that would house 24. Wilburn/Right. Boothroy/That would be a large building. Champion/Are there ordinances controlling how much of your property can be covered with building? Boothroy/Yes there is a coverage already in the zoning ordinance that' s 30 percent of the rear yard, I believe and we don't, we don't which is you know our ordinance has I think a flaw and that is we don't regulate the percent of impervious service. Champion/That's right. Lehman/Right. Boothroy/The front yard basically has a requirement for parking that says not more than 50 percent but you can literally pave the entire back and side yards and under the present ordinance you can park them completely full of vehicles bumper to bumper and I think all of us in this room would probably think of that as being as nuisance if that were in your neighborhood so there is a point where you say it's too much because it is no longer residential. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 18, 2000. WS091800 September 18, 2000 Special Work Session Page 21 Champion/Right, I agree. Boothroy/And by the way it's very common to regulate the amount of paved services in residential (can't hear) and we just don't have that provision in our ordinance in the rear or side yards. Lehman/So you're asking the council if we would like you to proceed and draft such an ordinance? Boothroy/I want to make sure there' s majority before we. Pfab/I would encourage it, do it. Vanderhoef/Yes. Lehman/How are we? How many? Vanderhoef/Yes I am. Lehman/Would favor are of proceeding with this? O'Donnell/It was my concem Emie that we were going to double up an ordinance, we've got the disabled car ordinance and. Lehman/It's a different. O'Donnell/I know but that covers a lot but you know I really don't want to enter into what somebody does with their own driveway but I wouldn't want cars parked in the backyard not next door to me. Lehman/So your saying proceed? O'Donnell/Proceed. Lehman/And you saying? Pfab/Right and I mean at some point in time we may change our mind. Lehman/Well we, right, when you get through with it we may all look at it and say no we don't like it. Boothroy/Well you can't change your mind. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 18, 2000. WS091800 September 18, 2000 Special Work Session Page 22 Pfab/We reserve the rights. Vanderhoef/While you're there though, may I? Boothroy/Yes. Vanderhoef/When you brought up the impervious zone to me this is one of the things that maybe coming towards us anyway in our storm water management kind of ordinance and how to charge for storm water run off and as we all know vehicles tend to leak occasionally and you put it on concrete and then we have impervious zone and all of this rushing down to the street. I would be willing to look at something along the amotmt of impervious surface on a residential lot. Boothroy/I, we're in the process of, you know we hired a consultant, Duncan and Associates to look at our code. Actually when I got their comments back I don't recall them addressing that particular issue but we'll bring it up with them and we may just do that when we do that whole piece if that's OK instead of breaking it out and doing it ahead of time. Vanderhoef/Yea I would like to take a look at it at least. Boothroy/We've been at least 25 years without it so it might be able to, but I'll put that down as a thing to do for that particular study. Lehman/OK Irvin. Pfab/Are we finished with that because I'd like to go back to some of these, I realized my page is open here. And that is we were talking about earlier about these signs around the alley, and I think that I thought it said no parking but it says no parking here to alley, I think we have to be more concerned about putting those up and that' s for safety reason because when you come out of some of those you can not see. Lehman/That' s exactly what we were saying. Wilburn/I have one last question related to this. Pfab/I thought it was because of blocking them though, that' s (can't hear). Wilburn/How soon do you anticipate having a draft in front of us? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 18, 2000. WS091800 September 18, 2000 Special Work Session Page 23 Boothroy/Oh I think it well I think, hopefully within a month but it won't before your next meeting. Wilburn/OK and so at that time. Boothroy/It would be a public hearing and public comment. Wilbum/(can't hear) is here he'll have an opporttmity and neighbors or anyone concerned would have an opportunity for a public hearing so about a month at our Tuesday night meetings right. Boothroy/Right. Kanner/Also if he's very eager to come tomorrow to speak at public discussion he can always come to public discussion. Wilburn/Since it's not, it won't be on the agenda tomorrow night. Lehman/Although it probably would be a much more appropriate time when there' s really something to talk about. O'Donnell/We really don't know what we're talking about. Lehman/Yea. OK. Boothroy/OK. Thank you. Lehman/Thank you. Champion/Thanks. Public Hearings Lehman/Public hearings and I believe this is on, correct me if I'm wrong but I think is on because of some concern on the part of some council folks about voting on items upon which we have just concluded a public hearing at the same meeting. And this rarely occurs, it does on specifications for contracts and so on and in some cases where we have some sort of time constraints but I guess we all have to recognize and we'll discuss this as long as you guys want to. As long as there are four people on the council that would that choose to vote we will vote. I mean that's a democracy, that's a majority, now, seldom does this ever occur and I think that in most cases since I've been on the council items that have a great deal of public input or have a great deal of controversy are seldom if ever voted on at the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 18, 2000. WS091800 September 18, 2000 Special Work Session Page 24 same time you have the public hearing, in fact occasionally public hearings are even continued but I think we all have to remember that if four people on the council, the majority of the council wants to vote we will vote. Champion/I do think too Ernie that a lot of times especially when we do our summer meeting schedule like we had a meeting last week and we have one this week and then we can go three weeks without a meeting so sometimes it's really expedient to vote that night because especially if it's something that' s going to be prolonged because of our immediate schedules but it rarely, it rarely happens that we vote after a public heating on anything that would be really having a lot of public input. Lehman/Generally we don't yea. Champion/And so generally I have no problems with the way we've been doing it. Pfab/So there' s no assurance that if there' s a public hearing on a public issue that will involve a fair amount of public people not just a limited part of the population that we will not be able to count on that not having a space in between the end of the public hearing before we vote, time wise. Lehman/Generally speaking I think we always, we almost always have that space. But I think you always have to remember it doesn't make any difference if it's this council or the next one or the one that we had three or four years, if the majority of the council chooses to vote on something we will vote, I mean that' s. Pfab/Oh I'm not, but I'm talking about scheduling in the agenda. Lehman/I don't know that the scheduling and somebody help me on this if you will. Dilkes/Well I think what is likely to happen is if we put the public hearing on the agenda without for example the first consideration of the ordinance then you don't vote. Lehman/Right. Dilkes/It's when you put it, when we have first consideration right after the public hearing on. (END OF 00-86 SIDE TWO) Karr/Date sensitive matters in there that are different than the routine matters that I believe are being discussed here, that one was a different situation because it was established the procedure by state law. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 18, 2000. WS091800 September 18, 2000 Special Work Session Page 25 Kanner/Clarify the resolution on the necessity. Karr/The resolution of necessity Irvin is referring to is on the urban renewal. Pfab/Public hearing. Karr/Public, it was a resolution deter., a resolution necessity, setting a public hearing which was done and the same night as the public hearing council then had the option of proceeding with the resolution as presented or deferring it. Council at that point decided to proceed with it that then kicked in first consideration of the ordinance which then had three readings, OK. There was no public hearing of the ordinance per se. The public hearing was on the resolution of necessity. Pfab/OK, OK. I guess that' s a, I still, that one's still, I can't sort that one out but if everybody else is happy that's fine. Lehman/Other, or Steven. Kanner/From this memo here I see three issues and so I didn't know exactly which issue was directed at, there' s the issue of noting why we're voting the same day from a public hearing first consideration and so I don't know, I assume that's not part of this issue right here because at the last, last week it seemed that there was a consensus that staff will put a notation on why we're voting that same day because that is out of the norm. Is that correct? Lehman/Well no not quite, because I think when your voting on specifications and whatever we will vote on that resolution the same night as the public hearing and that is the norm. Dilkes/I think your talking about ordinances aren't you Steven? Lehman/Ordinances OK which is a different situation. Dilkes/We, as far as I know since I've been here because I think I made that comment when we're having a public heating on an ordinance it is practice to put the public hearing on and not put the first consideration on until the next meeting unless there' s a reason for needing to expedite the process. Lehman/In which case it would be (can't hear). Dilkes/With an ordinance yea. Lehman/I'm sure it would be noted as to why we would be voting that night. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 18, 2000. WS091800 September 18, 2000 Special Work Session Page 26 Karr/Often the applicant requests expedited action, often you'll get a letter from the applicant requesting it. Lehman/Right. Pfab/All right but, I can understand why we voted on the zoning south of Burlington because there was a permit or drop dead something had to proceed at a certain time. OK that but that was all out in the public, before that and we knew when we came to the meeting that that there was a pressure point, I think it was the building permit or something like that that would expire or something. Dilkes/No I think your talking about the setting of the public hearing on the rezoning kicks in a moratorium (can't hear). Pfab/OK it was a moratorium, that's what it was. OK but I couldn't see anything that was pushing this vote after the public hearing that was the part that caught me totally off guard. Champion/(can't hear). Pfab/Pardon. Champion/What vote? Pfab/The vote on the urban renewal. Champion/Oh. Pfab/See because the other one I could see that, that was pretty obvious because there was something but this thing looked like we were just marching along and we decided to get way out of step and vote right away when normally I thought there was a timing between the public hearing and the first (can't hear). Dilkes/The two, I'm sorry, the two situations are not comparable, all we did was set a public hearing in one instance you're talking about which kicked in the moratorium. We didn't, we haven't even held that public hearing yet. Pfab/I beg your pardon. Dilkes/The rezoning, or are you talking about the one, we just set the public hearing on that one. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 18, 2000. WS091800 September 18, 2000 Special Work Session Page 27 Champion/He's talking about a different (can't hear). Pfab/No, no, no, OK. Lehman/I think as a general rule, zoning ordinances when we have public hearings generally speaking unless there's some particular reason why we do not vote the same night we have a public hearing, I think that's been that way ever since I've been on the council. When we have public hearings on contracts and whatever we generally do vote the same night we have them, but usually when we vote the same night we have a public hearing other than a contract there is a reason partially spelled out. Pfab/And this one did not appear to have one and that was what, that was what I couldn't process. Lehman/Steven. Kanner/OK so, well for me the more clarification of why we're voting or not voting is good for the public I think so the more we can do is better. So that was one issue, then there' s a second issue that I think Irvin was bringing up about voting the same night in general and I think your point is well taken if there's a majority that wishes to proceed they'll proceed and we can offer a deferment if we want. The third issue that I see this is and this I brought up to a certain extent last week was the amount of time that we have from the release of information to the public to the public hearing and I'm pushing for saying that it is good practice to have more time than just for instance the Thursday that the information was released for the agreement with Sycamore Mall to the public hearing. You're making the argument that there' s three considerations often times and people have a chance to study information but I think the first time that it comes before the Council that' s when a lot of momentum is gathered and I think it's appropriate to have more time on these issues especially for something like this where there's a lot of information and I think as a practice it would be good in general to have more than just five days for this consideration to have at least a week. Vanderhoef/But the thing that comes up for me on this is that we even note them in our consent calendar when we're setting a public hearing so that's the first notice and that' s still two weeks or at least one meeting prior to having the public hearing so there is a week or two weeks laps from the time we set the public hearing. And when we set public hearing we usually are pretty well in order with what the hearing is about. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 18, 2000. WS091800 September 18, 2000 Special Work Session Page 28 Lehman/Well even this one that we're talking about now which is the one with MGD and the city, we set the hearing, we had the contract, the final forms available a week ago last Thursday is that correct? I think that' s right. Pfab/A week ago this Thursday. Kanner/No last Thursday. Lehman/No last Thursday. Vanderhoef/A week ago last Thursday. Lehman/Right so there was like 4 days or 5 days before the public hearing. Pfab/But would a weekend? Lehman/First consideration of that didn't take place for another 7 days so there was like 12 days after the contract was made, the final contract was a public document for everybody to see, there were like 12 days before we vote the first time. Pfab/No. Lehman/And normally it's more than that, normally you've got 5 days plus two weeks, you've got like 19 days. I don't know how much time you need. Kanner/Ernie I would still argue that if the purpose of a public hearing is to have informed people or uninformed whatever the case may be, but preferably informed people come to us and express positions one way or another and where how they feel about it, it would be good for them to have more than two and a half business days to have this information available to them. And I think it would make for a better process that we keep that in mind. Champion/Well I think in some ways I agree with you Steven in other ways I don't in the sense that by the time we set a public hearing public interest is always been involved and people who are interested in that subject are already informed. Lehman/Well let' s go back to this MGD one, we set that public hearing what three weeks ago tomorrow night is that correct? Champion/I don't remember. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 18, 2000. WS091800 September 18, 2000 Special Work Session Page 29 Lehman/I believe we set the hearing three weeks ago tomorrow night, we held the heating a week ago tomorrow night. The first vote is tomorrow night, now that is since the time. Karr/It's the only vote. Dilkes/Only vote. Karr/It's a resolution. Lehman/All right, all I'm saying is that it has taken basically the MGD the idea of this contract has been before the public for four weeks. The contract itself has been before the public for a minimum of 12 days by the time we vote on it. Pfab/No I don't think there's any problem with the MGD contract because. Lehman/(can't hear) Pfab/No, no, wait, because there was a public hearing and no vote it was the urban renewal operation and a vote right away. Lehman/We've talked about that one that' s not what you're saying. You're saying that you don't feel that the 12 days was long enough for the contract before we vote. Kanner/I think that we could have released the information on the same day and had the public hearing for instance tomorrow and then the vote could have been at our October, at our next meeting. Lehman/Are we in some, and I don't know this for sure but on this urban renewal project are there certain time frames that we need to meet? Do you know? Dilkes/Well there are a number of time flames under the urban renewal state code that we rely on our bond council to tell us about. I haven't been involved in those decisions. Lehman/OK, OK. Vanderhoef/We've got that time table in the sched. Lehman/It's in there. Vanderhoef/It was in the packet so that was published how many weeks ago. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 18, 2000. WS091800 September 18, 2000 Special Work Session Page 30 Lehman/I don't know but in order to make the time. Vanderhoef/Three weeks, four weeks ago it had the whole time schedule of when we would get certain things and had to be acted upon and so that was another public notice of what was coming up. Pfab/Well I think that the lack of pressure on time pressure here was because the property was bought 5 to 6 months ago and you know there was no big rush then and so that' s not part of the issue. Now if somebody would have come to us and said you know we are thinking of buying this but we need to have an answer I think that's an entirely different matter and I think we have every obligation to accommodate people where we can you know it's to encourage this. Champion/The truth of the matter is Irvin that you know people have ample time and I think the problem here is you didn't like that vote, I mean. Pfab/No, no, Connie, I don't care which way or the other, I have, I do not have a dog in this fight except that the public should have the fight to know what' s going on. I really don't care, I would like to see a great mall down there. I'm not. O'Donnell/And we hope there will be. Lehman/But you know generally speaking. Pfab/I think them will be. Lehman/The council is not a great deal different than the public is, and when an item comes up that we happen not to agree with suddenly we want more public input so we can rally our troops, bring them in try to convince the rest of the council that are position is correct. It happens all the time you hear the public and I think we're doing the same thing here. Pfab/No, I think that if you, if you think that's the case I think your wrong. I know, all I wanted is the public to know, if, so, but there's another, you bring up another interesting point so now we as a council figure out a deal and we have the votes should we just go ahead and do it because the citizens elected us or should, if something comes up that we think might be a good deal do we have any obligation to try to inform the public and bring them along before (can't hear). Lehman/Sure we do. Pfab/That's, I think that's what it's all. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 18, 2000. WS091800 September 18, 2000 Special Work Session Page 31 Champion/We always do that. Lehman/And I think you'd be hard pressed to say that the public wasn't fully aware of that entire project, this council, and I'm not sure this discussion is appropriate at this, because this Sycamore thing isn't on the agenda so if you don't want me to talk about it tell me to be quite. Dilkes/Well you probably should wrap it up. Lehman/All right. Dilkes/For all (can't hear). Lehman/All right we indicated to the public that was an area we were willing to do something with and the public's been fully aware of what was going, what the thoughts were in that area so I don't think there' s any problem with public notice and I think the action that we took wasn't without public notice. Pfab/Well my understanding and maybe I was way wrong was that this was a going to be an injection of economic development funds but this. Dilkes/If we're talking, I'm sorry if we're talking substance of the agreement then we need to move on, if your using it as an example of the public hearing debate your having then that's one thing but substance is a different thing altogether. Kanner/I was looking at Texas and their economic development programs that they have, tax abatements and TIFs and I believe it said that after a proposal was put out there there's 60 days that the public has, this is under state code and I think something like that sounds reasonable for something for these kind of things that significant. Champion/I might wait for 120 days in Texas where everybody has a gun. Kanner/Well I would think even as a conservative place like Texas in many ways they have what seems to be a somewhat progress amount of time. Lehman/Well I hear you and I understand what your saying, if there's one criticism that I've heard about the city long before I ever got on the council is that you can't get any, it takes forever to get anything done. And what we're talking about here basically is the public notice know about something three weeks, four weeks, five weeks before we have a public hearing and suddenly we have the public hearing and that's not good enough, now we need to get more and more folks to encourage us to do what we were elected to do. Now I think as public hearings This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 18, 2000. WS091800 September 18, 2000 Special Work Session Page 32 are concerned, we generally and I think it's a rule of thumb we aren't going to vote the same night if it's a resolution, or an ordinance unless there is a compelling reason that we need to generally speaking that's going to be in the, it will tell us why. On contracts yea we probably will and I think that's pretty much. Pfab/Right and I think when there' s a necessity to accommodate something that people have no control over I think we ought to bend over backwards. Lehman/But I think that' s where we are is. Wilburn/I was just going to say it's been my experience so far we don't seem to have trouble getting people at public hearings. Lehman/Generally if they're interested they're there. Dee. Vanderhoef/Right and as long as we stay consistent with announcing anything that's on the consent calendar about upcoming public hearings. Lehman/Which is not something that I always do, you're right I should do that. Vanderhoef/And that's one of the things that I would like to have watched and we can help you with that if you would like. Champion/Or maybe we could list a simple thing to do might be to list a consent calendar A and B and B the all public hearings (can't hear). Lehman/We just, no, in all faimess those should be pointed out. A lot of public hearings are no big deal but there are some that are a big deal and we can certainly. O'Donnell/It's not a problem. Vanderhoef/And people will hear it on the broadcast so they have that additional notice and I think that's appropriate. Lehman/OK. Council Time Pfab/I just want to make a comment I asked the City Manager oh a couple weeks ago about a parking problem along the entrance, Van Buren entrance into the Credit Union where there's no sign, no a no parking sign, it wasn't there and I come by This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 18, 2000. WS091800 September 18, 2000 Special Work Session Page 33 every time I walk by there there' s a bunch of tickets on the car and I have to report that the job has been done very great, wonderfully. Lehman/Great. Vanderhoef/The letter from Sally Stutsman, Board of Supervisors on the parking, the request from the Nutrition Committee and advising that maybe the city should be giving parking rather than the nutrition folks do the parking for their program. I think we should have a response and whether it comes from our Senior Center Commission or whether it comes from Council they deserve a response so they can move forward. Atkins/We are preparing a response with a meeting tomorrow morning on that very topic so I'll have something prepared for you very shortly. Lehman/OK. Kanner/Yea, I second, what does it mean purchase 100 spaces available for senior dining participants? What does that mean we need to clarify this. Atkins/Linda and Joe will be coming over tomorrow we'll have something for you. Pfab/So as I understand it and I don't think I'm speaking out of anything wrong here those are, those can be metered and tabulated by computer when those people are in there using those and when they're, when the people are taking part of the dining program are gone those spaces will be released for city use. Atkins/I'm not sure of that Irvin, that's Linda had a meeting with the Counsel of Elders, called their speak easy or something such as that and I need for her to come over and explain that to me and we'll answer those questions for you. Pfab/And I think we have an obligation to help those people over that lunch hour but as long as, it looks like the computer it's going to be in the system, the gates are going to be manned, or personed I guess, not manned. Lehman/Personed there you go. Pfab/Staffed but anyway so and by identifying that they are, we know if they're in there or they're out and they could be I guess a lot of different places. Champion/Well I think (can't hear). Atkins/I'll get you an answer. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 18, 2000. WS091800 September 18, 2000 Special Work Session Page 34 Champion/Have to be careful how many parking places they tie up in that ramp because that means that when the ramp has 100 spaces that aren't billed they're going to close the ramp and so your going to lose a lot of revenue for a two hour period. Even if we have to close the ramp at 9:00 in the moming for a two hour period anyway I think it's a lot more complicated than it appears. Vanderhoef/Yes. Champion/My only question is. Am I right about that? (can't hear) Atkins/Well, without giving you a full report they wish to have a 100 spaces reserved for a period of 11:00 to 1:30. Now the only problem is to guarantee 100 spaces between 11:00 and 1:30 you've got to start at 8:00 in the morning. Champion/That's what I said. Vanderhoef/Yea. Kanner/Did you say this would be on a work session, our next work session? Atkins/I would hope to have it done by then Steven there's no reason why I shouldn't have it finished. Kanner/So can we agree then that we want to have it at a work session? Atkins/Because I'd like to bring in. Lehman/Let's see what Joe comes in. Atkins/Yea I want to bring in, well and Linda, I want to bring in everyone. Dilkes/Steve if you're going to talk about it, yea we should put it on a work session. Lehman/OK. Atkins/And I'll put a report together for you so something you can wack at. Vanderhoef/OK and. Champion/Oh I'm sorry I didn't mean to (can't hear). This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 18, 2000. WS091800 September 18, 2000 Special Work Session Page 35 Vanderhoef/Well, okay I have one more thing in the public hearing the other night on the deer committee there was some references to 8 foot fences and it quotes "it takes an 8 foot fence I guess to keep deer out of your garden or whatever". I guess there may be some confusion in the public of what can and can not be done and I think we need to have that addressed tomorrow night if someone who could address that for us so that the public is real clear what they can and can't do in terms of fences. Atkins/Sure. Pfab/Are you asking whether (can't hear) open or blinding fences? Vanderhoef/No I'm just asking what our fence law is in terms of an 8 foot fence so that we can respond to the public with accurate information rather than leave it out there, well I think this and I think that. Pfab/Well I think a good example is up on Whiting Avenue I was coming through there and there' s some people who are trying to protect some certain I guess there were some prize pieces of vegetation and they had chain link fence I believe it was, a chain link fence 8 feet high and you know it' s. Vanderhoef/I just want to know what the law is. Lehman/Find the regulation. Atkins/I'll get that for you. OK. Vanderhoef/Find the regulation and have that put out tomorrow night. Lehman/All right. Pfab/So I was going to say that might be a place you might want to take a look at and maybe. Lehman/Well we'll get the regulation and find out what it is. Vanderhoef/Let' s find out what the regulation is and then we'll see whether there' s a request for changes if there needs to be a change. That' s all. Lehman/Connie. Champion/OK I just had a question and it's nothing I really have to have answers tonight but I'm just curious about what we're going to do with the Foster Road/Dubuque Street intersection. Does anybody know off hand? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 18, 2000. WS091800 September 18, 2000 Special Work Session Page 36 Atkins/Foster Road/Dubuque Street intersection is in the capital plan in the out years and it's about a $1 million dollars, it's a big project yea. Champion/OK. Lehman/It is in the plan but there's no date put on it. Atkins/It's not funded yet. O'Donnell/Nothing tonight. Lehman/Steven. Kanner/Oh I just wanted to mention I'll be attending to see if anyone else is attending, there' s the USDA, we're meeting at the USDA service center to get a tour of a couple erosion prevention projects in the county and that should be interesting, that' s from 9-12 and. Champion/Tomorrow. Kanner/Is anybody else planning to go to it? Lehman/I can't go but I wanted to. Kanner/I think people are still welcome to go. And then our Council Member Ross is going to be hosting a tour at the Crisis Center and it's a kickoff for the hunger project, student. Wilburn/The students are doing a food drive, a hunger drive. Kanner/Yea and so there 's a tour of the Crisis Center and a kick off of that and I think we all probably received invitations to that, I'm going to be going to that one also so I look forward to seeing that. Vanderhoef/I'll be going to that. Kanner/And one other thing is I was also curious, I assume Dee's going and I'm going to the State League of Cities, is anyone else planning to go? Pfab/I'm planning to go (can't hear). Wilburn/Is this for one day? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 18, 2000. WS091800 September 18, 2000 Special Work Session Page 37 Lehman/I just have one comment and I guess it's for you Steven in view of your article that you gave the Gazette referencing statistics that had best for questioning. Are you going to do anything to at least indicate that those numbers might have been incorrect? Kanner/Well there was a memo in our packet about how they're incorrect and there' s a number of people that stand by those figures and there was a recommendation that we not have any type of public or city council sponsored thing and I guess I'll try to attend the debates that are going to be taking place, the League of Women voters and for now I'm going to stand by those figures. Lehman/Yea but don't you think as a council person that you have a bit of an obligation to the public to tell them that your own staff that provided you with those numbers say that those numbers aren't right? Not necessarily that you buy them but at least that their is some doubt that those numbers are right? Kanner/I'll take that into consideration Emie and. Lehman/I mean I'd appreciate that personally because I do think that council people when you write a letter or say something there's a certain credibility coming from a council person and who has direct contact with staff people. And when staff people indicate that this information is erroneous you don't have to agree that it's erroneous even though apparently it is whatever but I do think we need to recognize the fact that the numbers you used according to our own staff probably aren't right. Kanner/Well that' s why I do think it would be important, I would disagree with the memo and that we ought to have some sort of presentation to hear different sides before city council on this issue because there is some question about the validity of both sides figures, those who are for the extension and those who are against it. Lehman/But the only numbers, the only side, the only group that came up with the numbers that you used have said that those numbers are incorrect, that' s the only group that came up with that, that's our own staff who said this was done on a model, it was not right, and they have said the maximum total is something like 12. Kanner/I. Lehman/No one else has come up with those numbers. The people who use those numbers are saying they're wrong, but anyway, if you think about it I think it would be nice to at least point that out. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 18, 2000. WS091800 September 18, 2000 Special Work Session Page 38 Pfab/There' s one other thing I tried to send e-mail to a lot of different people here in the city and that city just stops it, it's just plain simple e-mail and it goes every place else but I mean there is a, there is a iron curtain around the city to get e-mail. Lehman/Well can you check the address to make sure the address. Karr/I want to check the addresses because we have e-mail's coming in all the time and I, but I do want to check the e-mail addresses with you afterwards. Lehman/Make sure their right. Pfab/Well I sent one to the city council, I did send one to Emie, it came back, I sent one to Ross, I sent one to Dee, I sent one to Connie and. Karr/That's what I. Pfab/To Steve Atkins to Eleanor. Karr/We'll check it. Champion/I got e-mail's from all over so you must have the wrong address. Lehman/Could have some. Pfab/No, no, see it has to go through the city system and bang there's a wall there. Champion/Well if it you do it with the right e-mail. Pfab/I know I'm beginning to wonder. Lehman/All right check that with, check that with Marian. All right guys tomorrow night. Adjourned 7:55 PM This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of September 18, 2000. WS091800