HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-03-20 Transcription#2 Page 1
ITEM NO. 2. SPECIAL PRESENTATION: OUTSTANDING STUDENT
CITIZENSHIP AWARDS- Roosevelt Elementary.
Lehman: So if those folks would come forward please. You know, you are right in
the middle of my neighborhood. My kids went to Roosevelt. That is a
pretty cool school. If each of you would give your name and then read
what you have please.
Schuette: I am Kfisti Schuette. I am a fifth grader in Ms. Anderson's class. I am the
Corresponding Secretary for the Student Council. I am going to tell you
about how you get elected to a position in Student Council and what they
are. Once you are elected to the Student Council you get elected to one of
the of~ce's responsibilities. You do that by putting your name on a piece
of paper and the rest of the Student Council votes on the people that are
interested in that position. The officers in the positions are- Alex Lamb is
the President. He organizes the meetings and makes the agenda. Sasha
(can't hear) is the Vice President. She takes roll call and fills in whenever
the President cannot do so. Christina Lee and Chester (can't hear) are the
Historians. Their responsibility is to take pictures when needed. The
Treasurer keeps track of all of the money. She is Catherine (can't hear).
Margaret (can't hear) is the Recording Secretary. She writes down the
minutes for each meeting and puts information in the newsletter when
needed. I am the Corresponding Secretary. My job is to write hand
written thank-yous to people. Everybody in the student council is an
ambassador to their class and to a buddy class that is in a lower grade level
than third grade. Being an ambassador you need to share information with
your class and the buddy class.
Harder: Hi, my name is Gmgg Harder. I am in Ms. Saunder's class. I will be
talking about the Student Council activities. One of the first activities that
the Student Council did was Red Ribbon Week. Red Ribbon Week
emphasizes drag prevention. We had themes for each day Monday
through Friday. They were Brace Yourself Against Drugs, Readers are
Leaders with Better Things To Do Than Drugs, Team Up Against Drugs,
Put a Cap on Drags, and Turn Your Back on Drugs. Another activity the
Student Council is in charge of is collecting box tops for education and
collecting Campbell Soup labels. Each box top is worth ten cents and you
get them on the top of cereal boxes. The school also has a school store.
There are pencils, notebooks, folders, and other stuff for the students to
use. It is also run by the Student Council and the students that wrote a
speech and did not get on the Student Council. Close to the end of the
school year the Student Council sells popsicles. We donate the money to
the Raptor Center. The Student Council also decides a spirit day for each
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#2 Page 2
month for all the students to participate in. So far the spirit days were
Green and Gold Day, where everybody wore green and gold, PJ Day, Hat
Day, and our last spirit day was Wacky Hair Day. This year Roosevelt
and the Student Council participated in Relay for Life. We raised money
by bagging groceries at Cub Foods. We also had a penny drive and
collected pop cans. On the day of Relay for Life we had someone from
Roosevelt walk on the track for 12 straight hours. The most recent thing
we have done is Valentine's Day sales and we sold kisses and hugs. We
also donated books to students in classes during our Reading Incentive
Program. Those are the activities that the Student Council has been in
charge of this year.
Lamb: Hi, my name is Alex Lamb. I am a sixth grade student at Roosevelt
Elementary. I am going to tell you about the election process of the
Student Council at our school. There are two Student Council members
chosen from each third/fourth grade class and three from each fifth/sixth
grade class. This is because there are more third/fourth grade classes than
there are fifth/sixth grade classes. If you want to run for Student Council
you are required to write a speech. It must state why you want to be on
the Student Council, why you think you would be a good Student Council
member, and what you would like to do while on the Student Council.
And then you hand your speech into the teacher and she assigns it a
number. All the speeches are anonymously read aloud to the class and the
students vote on which speech they thought was the best. Then the teacher
tallies the votes and the two or three kids with the most votes are the new
members of the Student Council. The Student Council representatives for
the 2000/2001 school year are: Kristi Schuette, Alex Lamb, Gregg Harder,
Chet (can't hear), (can't hear), Maria Hill, Haley Courtney, Carrie (can't
hear), Margaret (can't hear), Gordon (can't hear), Sasha (can't hear),
Christina Lee, Caroline (can't hear), Clara Hogan, Katherine (can't hear),
Dean Lamb, and Gretchen (can't hear).
Lehman: We have an award Kristi for your Student Council, which reads, (reads
award).
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#3 Page 3
ITEM NO. 3. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS
PRESENTED OR AMENDED.
Champion: Move adoption.
Vanderhoef: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion?
Kanner: Yeah, I am going to ask that the renewal, license renewal, for Sports
Column be removed from the consent calendar and considered separately.
Lehman: Okay. Other discussion? Roll call on the consent calendar as amended.
Motion carries. Do we have a motion to approve the Sports Column?
Champion: Move approval of Sports Column.
O'Donnell: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion?
Karmer: I am going to move an amendment that it be considered at our next
meeting so we have time to discuss it. I will put that out there.
Lehman: You are making a motion to defer it?
Kanner: To defer it to our next meeting.
Lehman: Is there a second for the deferral?
Pfab: I will second it so (can't hear).
Lehman: We have a motion and a second for deferral. All in favor of deferring say
"aye". Opposed? Irvin did you vote?
Pfab: No.
Lehman: You voted no? The motion was defeated 5-1, Kanner voting in the
affirmative. Discussion on the- I am sorry, 6-1. Discussion on the
amendment- or on the motion?
Kanner: I pulled that out because there is concern, like I mentioned in the past, that
the number of arrests for people under the legal age compared to the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#3 Page 4
number of visits by our police officers to the Sports Column- they have a
rate of 1.94 arrests per visit which is way above our total rate for the
whole city of .94 arrests per visits. And as you mentioned before Emie
there could be a number of factors. They themselves could be calling to
get people removed from the bar that are drinking illegally. But I think
that is the type of thing we ought to look at a little more in depth. When
these figures come up we ought to see if there are some other factors that
are not too healthy for our community in terms of alcohol abuse.
Lehman: I don't disagree with you Steven, but I do believe that we can not legally
refuse to renew their license. So deferring it for a week or two weeks isn't
really going to change anything.
Kanner: We could if we find there are other factors. There are a number of factors
that are involved. We can- we have a number of options I believe that we
can look at.
Wilbum: But many of us are looking at- part of a discussion we had last night as
many people know is the proposed alcohol ordinance that we are putting
forward with an implementation date, should they pass, of around the 1 st
of July. Part of that includes some of the sanctions- starter sanctions
against some of the liquor license holders. We in past discussions when
you have brought this up I have been at the period between discussions we
have had about alcohol and beginning that ordinance was a period (can't
hear) education to all the liquor license holders in the public as to what is
going to happen should there be any infraction and what will be legal if so.
I think we are all looking at that as the point where we can start looking at
whether or not some of these can be rejected or not.
Lehman: Other discussion?
Pfab: I believe even if we don't defer it until the next meeting it gives a chance
to put this out in the public so people can be aware and the public can ask
questions of themselves and of the people that mn it. So I think you
basically accomplish what you set out to do. I think that is fine.
Lehman: Well, we voted against the motion to- did we do roll call on this?
Karr: No.
Lehman: All in favor of approving the liquor license for the Sports Column say
~aye'? Opposed? The motion carries 6-1, Karmer voting in the
descending.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#4 Page 5
ITEM NO. 4. PUBLIC DISCUSSION. (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGE1NDA).
[UNTIL 8 PM].
Lehman: This is a time reserved on the agenda for items that are not otherwise
included on the agenda. If you wish to address the council please sign
your name, give your address, and limit your comments to five minutes or
less.
Schoenfelder: Good evening. My name is Deborah Schoenfelder. And I am here to
present on behalf of the Senior Center Commission. We met this
aBemoon. We had a full meeting. First of all, the volunteer recognition
event has been set for Tuesday April 24. That is from 2:30 to 4:30 in the
afternoon at the Senior Center. The keynote speaker will be a (can't hear)
from Des Moines whose name is Dr. Robert Bender. And he will be
speaking on keys to healthy aging. And just as a note of interest, I took
this down as our volunteer specialist was telling us over an 18-month
period the volunteers that will be recognized- that includes 617 volunteers.
And that also included 44,037 hours of volunteer time. So, I find that
rather incredible that that is happening at the Senior Center. Next I would
like to tell you what we approved today. First of all, there were extensive-
or at least quite a few changes made to the bylaws of the Commission.
They were amended last year at the end of last year as a result of one of
the subcommittees- the Accreditation Subcommittee's meeting- and made
several amendments to that. And we approved that today. Along with
that we approved the formation of three advisory committees to become
the new grass roots bodies for the Senior Center. I will tell you just briefly
what those are and you will be getting this information in writing as well.
They will include what is called a Participant Advisory Committee, there
will be a Program Advisory Committee, as well as a Volunteer Advisory
Committee. The last two will be more focused in nature having to do with
programs as well as volunteer programs and efforts. The first one, which
was named the Participant Advisory Committee, will be more general in
nature looking at the general operations of the Senior Center. Some of the
issues that might come up with that group for instance, that committee,
might be parking or facility management operations etc. The hope is to
bring back more interest for participants to take part in these committees
and to have more interest in that and to increase that participation. There
have b~en and are several construction projects that have been going on.
Most recently we are nearing completion on an extensive renovation of the
Senior Dining Kitchen area. Quite a bit was done to that and that is just
about done. There is a waterproofing project on the southwest comer of
the Senior Center. That was postponed. That was supposed to be done
last year but as the cold weather set in that was postponed. They will be
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#4 Page 6
picking that up again this spring. Also sometime this year, sometime
probably starting in the spring, we will be looking at replacing the doors
on the north side of the building. We were waiting to see what was going
on with the ramp and what was going on with the skywalk and whether or
not those doors would stay or go. And indeed they will be staying and
they need to be replaced. So that will be happening as well. Just a couple
more things. A Strategic Plan for the Senior Center for the years 2001-
2004 is close to being printing and made accessible for review. Meaning,
any participant that would like to review or read that Strategic Plan and of
course the City Council, the Board of Supervisors, anybody interested in
those. It will of course be a work in progress as it is a Strategic Plan. But
there has been a lot of effort put into this as well with the accreditation
process. And finally, programs continue to be a very strong area at the
Senior Center. It was very exciting to see what is coming up in April at
the Senior Center. Lots of different programs going on there. And that is
the end of my report.
Lehman: Thank you.
Kanner: I had a question for you Deborah. I read, I think it was in the Post
perhaps, a report from the Council of Elders. There was some talk among
some of them perhaps to empower that group or people participating in
one of the grass roots groups to talk about having one of those people be
appointed perhaps to the Senior Center Commission. Perhaps an
automatic seat of some sort that would, upon approval of the City Council,
would be on the Commission. Did you give any thought to that kind of
discussion?
Schoenfelder: We did not today. If that happened within the accreditation process- there
was a governant subcommittee that may have been discussed but I don't
know. And we did not approve such a seating today of that sort and we
did not discuss it.
Kanner: It seemed like a good idea on the surface and I think it might bear some
more investigation. I know I have talked to a lot of people on the Council
of EIders and there has been discussion about what is there purpose.
Schoenfelder: Yes.
Kanner: And if they had one person that was on the Commission at least I think
that is a form of empowerment that makes them feel that they have more
of a say.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#4 Page 7
Schoenfelder: And these, if you understand, these three new committees that have been
approved will be in place (can't hear) the Council of Elders. So if we
were to go forth with that discussion it would have to be our participant
from one of those committees.
Kanner: And that might be something- I think it would be worthwhile for the
Senior Center and Council to look at.
Schoenfelder: Okay, I will take that back to the commission. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
Soglin: Hi, I am Becky Soglin. I am with Environmental Advocates and I would
like to follow up the issue of citizen input into solid waste and recycling
issues. I understand you have been pretty busy with the budget these last
few weeks but it has been a good four months or so since the Council
voted to dissolve the Citizen's Solid Waste Advisory Commission and
instead form a staff committee. And at the time of that vote a number of
you acknowledged the need for and even supported some type of citizen
involvement. There was also some pretty clear interest on the part of a
number of us who came and later wrote that we did want to give our input.
But since then there has been no plan or invitation for public input. Ross
has helpfully offered to keep me personally informed of possible items of
interest but this obviously doesn't address the larger and critical issue of
creating some venue for everybody in Iowa City. So I am here in person
to ask you to do that without further delay and to inform the public of
those options whether it is committees, public forums, or other methods.
Lehman: Thank you. Could we have- I know that there is work being done in this
area- could we get an update at our next work session?
Atkins: Right, certainly. And Becky, if you will leave your address I will copy
you on the update.
Soglin: On the update?
Atkins: Yes.
Soglin: Okay.
Lehman: Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#4 Page 8
Hansen: Myname is Jerry Hansen. I live at1237 Burns Avenue. Andlwanted
you to know that I have been approached by the Iowa City Police
Department to write a letter of support for the Edward Bryne Memorial
Grant Fund and that I did so. I said absolutely in a heart beat to this. And
I want those of you on Council to know, the ones that opposed this grant
and the ones that have said that our police department should be cut and
anybody else in town that takes that stand, that I take extreme exception to
this. I had an opportunity this aRemoon as I have many times in the past
to go to talk to victim advocate panels through the DCS. And I think that
this is an absolutely needed program. The impact that has come down on
my neighborhood because of the drags and problems in this town has yet
to be resolved. And it is pushing almost three years old now since we
started this fight. I just want you to know how strongly that I stand behind
this. I don't think our police department should be cut and I don't think
that that fund should be dried up. I too have a large problem with what
they call the "knock and talks". But I also have a larger problem with cars
being shot up in the street, apartments being shot into from the street,
people dying in fires, fights, businesses leaving our area. That is where I
have a huge problem. And if anything I want to see the police force in this
town enlarged. Thank you.
Kanner: Are you speaking on behalf of the Wetherby Association or just as an
individual?
Hansen: On behalf of Wetherby for the letter and as an individual I want you to
know that that is where I stand. It is no secret that I am an advocate of
police in this town. And it is because of the problems that have been
ongoing and unresolved for so Iong that we need action.
Kanner: But the letter is on behalf of the Wetherby (can't hear).
Hansen: On behalf of Wetherby.
Kanner: Okay. Are we going to get a copy of that?
Hansen: I can get you a copy of that.
Karmer: I would appreciate it.
Lehman: Thank you.
Champion: Thanks Jerry.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#4 Page 9
Feick: Jerry Feick, Iowa City. Since alcohol isn't being voted on I guess it can
be talked about in this session tonight. Next week- by next week you will
receive in your correspondence a copy of Chapter 657 of the Iowa Code.
It is in reference to nuisances. I don't think you need another ordinance.
That section of the Iowa Code in particular is 657.2(6), about the last half.
I will read what applies. It is pretty easy to understand. "Houses where
drunkenness, quarreling, fighting, or breeches of the peace are carried on
orpermittedtothedisturbanceofothers". Sometimes in law there is a
Catch 22. There is a Catch 22 in that language and it is the last phrase "to
the disturbance of others". What you need is a complaining party for your
police department to go into a bar and make it that a bar is a public
nuisance. Apparently, and I think my figures are correct and if not please
correct me, in your agenda tonight you have some 13 bars you are going to
renew their license. Maybe this was discussed at last night's meeting. I
heard little to no discussion as to the activities that these- problems that
these bars create in the community. I guess the real (can't hear) in this
town is this- set up even just a small bar and you can gross $1 million a
year. But the real downfall of the public nuisance of that is the following-
that the taxpayers have to foot the bill. The taxpayers of the city and the
county have to foot the bill. I think we all know what the vote was on the
$20 million jail. Now, to some extent and I got these figures this
afternoon from the Police Chief of Iowa City Mr. Winkelhake, last year
you had arrest in Iowa City for public intoxs of 1356. Do the math. How
many is that a day? That is not the direct public intox- of course, there are
other alcohol related arrest of course- that is not the problem. But when
we read the Iowa Code, many sections of that nuisance section have been
on the statute and unchanged since 1887. I think that when you sit there as
council people- and I don't happen to agree with Mr. Kanner on much of
anything, I will publicly state it, he knows it-
Kanner: Thank you.
Feick: But when you don't want to discuss what amounts to the criminal
activities of these businesses that end up hoodwinking the taxpayer's
pocket books I think you are wrong. I think you need to revisit it. And I
think that maybe when you review a liquor license you should be forced to
look at the police records of everything that goes on at that bar. If you can
come up with a better way, do it. Next item, several months ago I came to
the Council and the Mayor turned and looked to the City Manager and
promised that it was going to be looked into. I haven't heard a word since
and I don't think I will. Maybe the Mayor forgot. I will give him that
option. Maybe the City Manager forgot. I will give him that option. But
I don't believe that is the truth. It involves the tax fraud at Elderly
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#4 Page 10
Services. Go down to your public library and look in the documents of the
Internal Revenue Service. The Mayor knows of this because over about
three summers ago I brought the Mayor to his business the general session
laws of the state of Iowa that requires the payment of taxes on these wages
at the Senior Citizen Center. You just keep giving them money when they
just keep committing their fraud. They have paid no taxes on those (can't
hear) service employees since they started in 1980. You get the IRS
documents down at the public library. I am going to submit it so you
won't have to go down. Maybe you will read it. I have it circled. The
facts are this, even if the public gets these employees through an agency
they have to report the wages, they have to pay the taxes. Why do you just
keep walking in their same direction of fraud? The last item ties in with
both that I previously mentioned. I am going to give you a copy of the
minutes which happened to be posted on the internet on yahoo.com. If
you type in the phrase "Jerry Feick". The minutes of the Johnson County
Board of Supervisors from March 9 of 2000- I think that probably I was
one of the very early ones that opposed the jail but for particular reasons
why- what I have just stated. To get to the source of the problem, quit
ballyhooing around the edges. I think that you are aware that you have got
a University population here. They should be studying. How can you
possibly study and remember anything when you are inebriated? And
while I am here at the mic give Mary Sue Coleman a little crap too. She
deserves it since she has entered the fray it has only gotten worse. And it
will only continue to get worse if you keep nibbling around the edges
instead of admitting to the problem. You have too much accessibility to
alcohol. You have got ninety some businesses- correct me if I am wrong-
in the immediate downtown area with liquor permits.
Lehman: You need to wrap this up Jerry.
Feick: I am going to submit the documents. I would like a response. Now
maybe what you want to do is do as you have done in the past- ivalk in the
same direction of the tax fraud of Elderly Services. There are penalties
that can be imposed for that. Maybe you want to just kind of piss away
the taxpayer's money and let these bar owners control the town. But
maybe you should also decide why don't we have business customers
downtown? You might hire some marketing people to find that out.
People don't want to come downtown. All them is is bars. I am done.
Marian, here is the documents.
Lehman: Thank you Jerry.
Feick: Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#4 Page 11
Karr: Motion to accept correspondence?
Feick: I also will submit this.
Vanderhoef: So moved.
Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef.
Champion: Second.
Lehman: Seconded by Champion. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries.
Barbara Canin: Hi, I am here to address item 12 and I am wondering if you want me to
wait to do that?
Lehman: You have to wait until it comes up on the agenda. Other public
discussion? Item 5- I am sorry.
Ricci: Sorry. Hi, my name is Dave Ricci and just a quick note on a traffic
intersection that is on Dubuque Street and Chumh. That first intersection
at the top of the hill. I come in from the north end of town quite often at
five and people are always cutting through the north side there or taking
the back road. Just a quick suggestion to adjust that light to have a turn
arrow to go down Church. That way people could get down towards the
one way a little bit easier. I have been thinking about that for a while.
Lehman: As you are coming into town on Dubuque?
Ricci: Yeah, as you are coming in from the north side. Adjust that light at the
top of the hill to have an arrow to turn to the left and that would maybe
stop people from cutting through the alley or taking that back road even
before Park Road.
O'Donnell: It is a great idea.
Champion: You know, I avoid that intersection from the direction (can't hear).
Lehman: Well, we can have our traffic folks take a look at that.
Ricci: Yeah, that is- I just wanted to bring it up and put it forth as a suggestion.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#4 Page 12
Pfab: Okay, so you are suggesting that there be a separate turn signal so people
can turn left?
Ricci: Yeah, just an arrow to allow people to rum left for a little while before you
proceed south on Dubuque.
Pfab: I think it is a great idea. I just came through there trying to figure out how
I was going to get through at 5:00 today.
Ricci: Yeah, I have cut through the alley a few times too and it is like, there has
got to be a better way. Thanks.
Lehman: Thank you.
Pfab: I didn't find the alley yet there.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#5b Page 13
ITEM NO. 5b. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE
ZONING DESIGNATION BY ESTABLISHING A
CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE FOR PROPERTIES
GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF BURLINGTON STREET
ALONG GOVERNOR AND LUCAS STREETS.
O'Dormell: Move to set public-
Lehman: The public hearing is open.
O'Donnell: Oh, this is the public hearing?
Lehman: Yes.
Gunn: Hello, I am Michael Gunn of the Iowa City Historic Preservation
Commission, Chair of the Commission. And the residents of this
neighborhood and the rest of Longfellow Neighborhood have been
interested in preserving the character of this neighborhood for a long time.
Last year the rezoning effort, which was an important step, limited the
density that is possible in that neighborhood. What is before the public
tonight is the establishment of a conservation district, which will preserve
the architectural character of that neighborhood. This is accomplished in
two ways. First by reviewing construction projects that will affect the-
significantly affect the exterior of a property. This occurs in historic
districts about once every fifteen years for a property. The expectation
would be about the same for a conservation district. The other method that
it controls the character- it preserves the character of a neighborhood by
preventing the demolition of sotmd historic properties. This is now the
third public hearing on this, the first being before the Historic Preservation
Commission and the second before the Planning and Zoning Commission
and now this one before the council. In that time there have been a
number of people- a significant number of people who have spoken in
favor of establishing this district. There have been a few who have
brought concerns and questions to us that we have been able to answer and
explain to those people. And just a single person has spoken against the
establishment of this conservation overlay zone. So, given the support
that we have seen for this proposal and the importance of preserving the
character of the neighborhoods we ask you to establish this conservation
district. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you. Before we ask- we need to clear the area in front of the door.
If you are sitting there in a chair or sitting on the floor you need to move.
The fire regulations prohibit blocking the doors. So you can move your
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#5b Page 14
chairs or you can stand along over here to my left. There are a couple of
chairs up front here. Or, of course, there is sound in the lobby. But we
can't block the doorway for fire reasons. I am sorry, go ahead Steven.
Kanner: Thanks. Not only was there one person that spoke against it but also one
of your members- not your members, Planning and Zoning- voted against
this ordinance which usually it is a unanimous vote. So I have a little bit
of concern about it. I think overall it is pretty good. One of the concerns
that I have is with the idea that if one is to build a new structure in the
conservation district it has to conform to basically five styles- five
different styles that are laid out in the guidelines. I wonder if you could
address this and tell me how strict those guidelines are for having to
conform to them?
Gunn: Within the Governor/Lucas/Bowery conservation district, there were
several styles that were common at the time that the district- at the time
that most of the buildings were built. And they are listed as Vernacular,
Gable, Italianate, Queen Anne, Four Square, and Bungalow. What the
guidelines say is that new single family or duplex structures in this district
should reflect one of these styles in its size, mass and architectural details.
That is the method by which a building is made to be compatible with the
district. It does not say it should be an exact replica. It does not say it
should duplicate exactly. It says that a new structure should reflect one of
the styles. And reflect is a term that probably means more to Historic
Preservation Commission members than the general public. But to us it
means that it should fit in, it should be compatible. It is also possible that
it will not be confused for an old building. So when we say reflect we
mean it should have a basic look- a certain roof pitch and a style that is
compatible. It is not- I would point to one recently done on Summit Street
where it is compatible. It is not a replica of an old building but it is- I
can't remember the address but it is on the Southern end of the district.
Kanner: The duplex?
Gunn: Yes, the duplex. And there is a building that reflects the style of the
neighborhood without mimicking it exactly. So that is what we mean.
Lehman: That would have been allowed under the conservation overlay zone?
Gunn: Yes.
Lehman: Okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#5b Page 15
Champion: You are really talking about things like roof lines, setbacks, general
appearance? It doesn't have to be exact. And it actually- it enhances the
neighborhood. It doesn't detract from it, that is all. It is not that
complicated.
Pfab: Let me ask you a question. Does that have any-what was the term you
used?
Gurm: Reflect?
Pfab: Reflect- is that something like our new parking ramp tower place reflects
what was there some years ago?
Gram: I don't know if I would quite use it in those- it seems more of a symbolic
use with the parking ramp.
Pfab: So this would be a stretch?
Gunn: Yes, I would say.
Pfab: (Can't hear)
Gunn: We spend quite a bit of time talking about roof pitches, porches, basic
details, verticality, proportion of windows. None of these things stop
buildings from going up. They only- when choices are made they are
made to be sympathetic to the neighborhood. It is more basic that it is
roof lines and proportion of windows, porches, sidewalks, access- that sort
of thing.
Kanner: What about people putting in new windows for energy efficiency? How
will the Commission look at that?
Gunn: If those windows resemble closely original windows then they would be
approved. We have done that in a number of cases. As far as I know
there are energy efficient windows that look like old double-hungs. We
are not opposed to new materials. We just want them to look reasonably
close to the old ones. But we would not prevent windows from being
replaced in a conservation district.
Kanner: Do you think it adds significant cost to have to get those special energy
efficient windows that might look a little more compatible as opposed to
some other form?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#5b Page 16
Gunn: There are the triple glazed efficient windows that are available in all
different styles, as far as I know. They are available in double-hung, as
awnings, as casements. They are already manufactured in compatible
forms to what is built in historic areas. So I don't think that there would
be significant additional costs. I can't say there will be no additional costs
but energy efficient windows are fairly expensive. So, yeah, I don't think
we will add to the cost significantly in a conservation district. We at times
recommend adding storm windows as a way to increase the efficiency.
And that is a very inexpensive method and also a very effective method.
The old sashes can be left in if the storm windows are installed.
Kanner: One other thing, you had mentioned- I read in the minutes- in regards to
the zoning overview that we are doing and that signed off- that your
commission signed off on from Duncan Associates was wanting to look
into the issue of economic hardship that might come up in historic
preservation and I assume also in conservation districts. I am sort of in the
middle on liking this conservation district but if we work hard to put some
items in our zoning that we are going to be talking about over the next
year or so that deal with economic hardship in the overview of the zoning,
I think I would lean in that direction. That is one of my concerns of
gentrification in a conservation or historic district that tends to drive out
lower income people- lower to moderate income people- and tends to
make it inaccessible because of some of these things that you have to go
through.
Gurm: At our last meeting we added the economic hardship issue to those things
to be reviewed and maybe that is what you are referring to. We were
looking for a demolition by neglect position or proposal or guideline. And
also accompanying that should be an economic hardship clause because
we realize particularly in some of the conservation districts that we are
looking at we are looking at small inexpensive properties. And we have to
realize that the people who are in those smaller inexpensive properties-
some of them because that is all they can afford. So we have to be aware
of that. So, yes, we are aware of that and we will add an economic
hardship clause to our guidelines.
Kanner: Thanks Mike.
Lehman: Thank you. Other questions for him?
Kuenzli: I am Cecile Kuenzli, the current president of the Longfellow
Neighborhood Association. I left my prepared statement at home so I will
just sort of speak off the cuff. First off, I do want to applaud Mike Gurm
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#5b Page 17
and the Historic Preservation Commission for the enormous amount of
work that they put into considering the preparation of this overlay for the
conservation district. We in the Neighborhood Association are very
excited about its coming into the neighborhood. We see it really as the
counterpart to the down zoning that occurred this summer. That affected
only the density on individual lots. This will guarantee that new structures
or renovated older structures will be in keeping with the character of the
neighborhood, which is an asset and pan of Iowa City's history. But I
think most importantly what this two-pronged- if you put this thing
through it is a two-pronged effort. And I think what it will do will be to
confer a degree of stability to these neighborhoods which are at the
moment notoriously precarious that will encourage people to come into
these neighborhoods to buy these homes which don't cost buckets of
money and to have confidence that they can invest their limited incomes in
these properties and invest their sweat and labor in them and know they
are not putting their investment at risk. They will have some stability that
this neighborhood is going to remain a neighborhood and not revert to a
place where they wouldn't want to live. And that is why I think it is
important that you adopt it. It is really a two-pronged effort. Thank you.
Wilbum: You gave me a call this weekend didn't you?
Kuenzli: Pardon me?
Wilbum: You gave me a call this weekend didn't you?
Kuenzli: Yes.
Wilburu: I have been sick this weekend and I want to apologize for (can't hear).
Kuenzli: That is okay.
Lehman: Does anyone else wish to speak on this issue at the public hearing? The
public hearing is closed.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#5c Page 18
ITEM NO. 5c. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE
ZONING DESIGNATION FROM HIGH DENSITY MULTI-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, RM-44, TO SENSITIVE AREAS
OVERLAY, OSA-44, FOR APPROXIMATELY 4.01 ACRES OF
PROPERTY TO ALLOW 39 DWELLINGS IN THREE BUILDINGS
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HARLOCKE STREET.
Lehman: The public hearing is opened. Bob, would you like to (can't hear)?
Miklo: I am Bob Miklo, Department of (can't hear) and Community
Development. I would like to give you a quick introduction to this
particular project. The application before you is an application for a
Sensitive Areas overlay zone. It differs from a typical rezoning in that you
are not being asked to change the land use or the density of development.
Rather, you are being asked to determine whether the plan complies with
the Sensitive Areas ordinance. It also differs from a typical planned
development and most Sensitive Areas plans that you have reviewed in
that in this particular case there are no variances or waivers being
requested from the underlying RM-44 zone. The proposal complies with
all the requirements of the zoning ordinance. In fact, the plan is well
under the density that the RM-44 zone allows. The RM-44 zone would
allow up to 172 dwelling units on this particular property. This particular
proposal is for only 39 units. So considerably less. The staff, the
Planning and Zoning Commission, have reviewed the plan and found that
it does comply with the overlay- or, excuse me, the Sensitive Areas
ordinance and have recommended that it be approved subject to approval
of the grading and erosion control plan. The grading and erosion control
plan was reviewed by the Public Works office today and was found to
comply with our requirements.
Lehman: Bob, while you are there, what you are telling us is the purpose of the
public hearing is to determine whether or not the proposal complies with
the Sensitive Areas Overlay zone?
Miklo: Right.
Lehman: Okay.
Kanner: In the-
Lehman: I am sorry, go ahead.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 21}, 2001.
FO32001
#5c Page 19
Kanner: In the zone- in the code that we have for Environmental Sensitive Areas
ordinance it says, "encourage development, which provides for easy
access and circulation for pedestrians and bicyclists'. Is that part of that
also? Am I reading that correctly.
Miklo: (Can't hear). In terms of the property does- the proposal does include
sidewalks as would any other development on this site.
Kanner: What about the increase in traffic and how that affects pedestrian use? It
is projected that it will go up to about 500 trips per day which is getting
close or past the limit of what is recommended for secondary access.
Miklo: In this particular case the actual zoning would allow much more than that
in that you could develop potentially 172 dwelling units. And our
estimates were that it could result in actually over 1000 vehicle trips per
day. So, in terms of this- the question before you about environmental
impacts I don't believe that is relevant.
Kanner: Shouldn't we then consider that maybe 1000 is too high and maybe 500 is
too high and maybe we have to say because of this Sensitive Areas
ordinance that we have to look at something that is lower. Perhaps two
buildings instead of three.
Lehman: Bob, before you answer, Eleanor would you give us an opinion of
precisely what we are going to be deciding on this before we continue the
public hearing? What is the position? What is the responsibility of the
Council and what options does the Council have?
Dilkes: Well, I think Bob framed the question correctly. (Changed tape sides).
Does the plan that is being presented comply with the Sensitive Areas
ordinance? I think that if you identify and articulate grounds on which it
does not comply with that ordinance then you are in a position to deny it.
If you cannot do that then I don't think you are in a position to deny it.
Lehman: Okay, go ahead Steven. Sorry, I interrupted you. I am sorry.
Karmer: No, I might have other questions.
Lehman: Okay.
Pfab: Do we have a- we are told that it now complies with the-
Lehman: Erosion control.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#5c Page 20
Pfab: With the erosion control?
Miklo: Yes.
Pfab: What does it comply with in that sense?
Miklo: The erosion- the grading and erosion control ordinance requires that
before you develop a site you have to have plans for controlling
stormwater runoff, runoff during construction. There are techniques
required such as silt fencing and grading specifications. Our engineers
have reviewed the plans put together by the applicant' s engineers and
found that those do comply with our requirements.
Pfab: That is for construction?
Miklo: Right.
Pfab: What about long-term?
Miklo: And then after that would be a separate ordinance. That is our stormwater
management ordinance and it does comply with that as well.
Pfab: Okay, and you say that happened today?
Miklo: The grading plan was approved today. The stormwater management plan
was approved several weeks ago.
Kanner: Then what is the protest percentage up to for the number of property
owners?
Miklo: I believe the protest petition represents 23% of the property within 200
feet. Therefore it does require an extra majority of the Council.
Kanner: That would be 6 Council Members have to vote for it?
Lehman: That is correct.
Kanner: Thanks Bob.
Lehman: Okay. We will take public comment. If you would like to comment on
this please sign in, give your name and we will have to ask that you limit
your comments to five minutes or less.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#5c Page 21
Tulley: (Reads presentation). We would also like to thank the Council for the
opportunity to share some photos with you this evening. (Continues to
read presentation, starting with slide 2). I can't get the mouse to click on
the video. (Continues to read presentation, starting with slide 10).
Kanner: Where is that? At Weeber and where?
Tulley: Weeber near Weeber Circle. Weeber Circle. (Continues to read
presentation, starting with slide 12). I have lost a photo in this. Could you
check? It is in your notes, I am sorry. I am sorry, a photo has been
accidentally deleted from this. You have it in your notes in the package
that you are all reading. (Continues to read presentation, starting with
slide 15). It got out of sequence. This is the shot actually of the standing
water near Benton and immediately downhill from the proposed
development. (Continues with presentation). Please don't let the sun go
down on this. Thank you for your time. (Can't hear) help to take it off the
screen?
Knabe: My name is William Knabe. I live at 1101 Weeber Circle. I am speaking
tonight as an area property owner and as a representative of the Weeber
Harlocke Neighborhood Association. Again, let me say how much I
appreciate the opportunity to speak about this issue which is so much an
intricate part of the past, present and future of our neighborhood. I would
like to stop for a minute and acknowledge the many people who have
come tonight to show their support and opposition of this rezoning.
Would you please stand? Thank you. You are most fortunate that we
have not decided to speak each and every one of us our five minute time.
Steve has provided you with a visual monologue of our neighborhood and
the area where the development is to be located. He has described for you
many of the problems that neighbors and other area property owners will
face even if this tract of land is developed at the proposed density level.
By now it should be clear to you that we are most interested in preserving
the quality of life in our neighborhood. Its scenic beauty, the longevity
and spirit of togetherness among its neighbors, and its continued service
and support of this community. I do not wish to belabor these points. I
have already provided you with electronic documents that one, describe
the history of this property. Two, documents that attest to our
neighborhood concems as well as those raised by representatives of the
Johnson County Soil and Water Conservation district, whose opinion I
might add, the neighborhood has solicited, not the developer. And three,
documents that demonstrate our willingness to work with land owners and
developers to find a mutually acceptable solution to problems inherent in
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#5c Page 22
this area due to limited access and the need for continued neighborhood
integrity. Indeed tonight I want to focus my remarks on three main points.
One, it is our belief that this property should be developed. Certainly we
would prefer to see it remain open space or become a neighborhood park.
This would benefit all area residents. Nevertheless we accept the fact that
the property will most likely be developed. We just do not want to see it
developed at a level that will seriously affect our neighborhood and other
area property owners. At this point I wish to convey to you a story that
was recently shared on the media which I refer to as the parable of two
brothers. There were two brothers, one of which owned a piece of
property in the city. This property was adjacent to two vacant lots. A
neighbor approached the brother who owned the property and asked,
"What are we going to do- what are we going to do about keeping this
land from being developed?" After consultation with his older and wiser
brother, the one who owned the property replied to the neighbor, "You can
purchase it'. If we apply this parable to our current situation one might
conclude the solution to our problem is very simple. If the neighbors
don't like it, buy the property. But that may not be as easy as it appears.
On two separate occasions the city tried to purchase this property for a
neighborhood park but on both occasions the asking price was too much. I
do not know the price but I can give you a personal example in which I
also tried to apply this lesson of this parable. My wife and I own four
acres of undeveloped land zoned RS-5 behind on Weeber Circle. We
purchased this property because we like open space. Our land is adjacent
to a large tract of land at the end of Harlocke Street located on a bluff
overlooking Highway 1. This land is presently zoned RM-44. I know
because I see the sign every day I drive down Highway 1. Although it has
been approved by previous Council action for development at only 2 to 8
density units per acre. Over the years we have been very concerned about
what is to be built on this property. Will it be a large high density
apartment complex at the RM-44 level? Or will it be something that we
can tolerate at a 2 to 8 density level? Several years ago we tried to buy
two acres of this property to protect ourselves and the rest of the neighbors
from the unknown. We expressed our interest to the owners.
Lehman: Bill, you need to start winding it up.
Knabe: We were told the purchase price would be $500,000, or $250,000 per acre.
I don't think they wanted to sell it, do you? What we would like to have
talked to you about with regards to this whole issue is the fact that we feel
that the issue that is before you pertains to the Sensitive Areas rezoning
but in our view it pertains to something that is far deeper than this. It
pertains to the actual issue, which we have seen related in terms of
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#5c Page 23
whether or not we can as a neighborhood have future planning. You see,
we have this very difficult situation. Some of the people have compared
us to the neighbors in the First Avenue project. We like that comparison
because we like our neighbors. But on the other hand we are quite
different from these neighbors. And the difference is very simply this- we
are talking about a situation where we do not know what is the result. We
look at our property outside our window and we see RM-44 and we don't
know what it is going to be developed at because we read in the Sensitive
Areas zone, we read in the Comprehensive Plan that it is not going to be
developed or should not be developed at that density. So we would raise
to you these questions or issues and hope that you would concur with us
that this issue needs to be directly planned out more before we can select
an appropriate type of development for this piece of property. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you Bill.
Kanner: Is it Bill?
Knabe: Yes.
Kanner: I have two questions for you. Looking at the Johnson County Soil and
Water Conservation district letter I noticed it was mostly in the form of
questions. I didn't see statements. Do you have something that says that
they feel this should be this way or that way? I don't see any strong
suggestions from them for the most part.
Knabe: The particular purpose of that organization is at your request to make
some or to raise some questions about the particular way that you are
handling the problems with regards to soil erosion and flood control. And
if the developer is interested in pursuing those questions then they are
interested in doing a site visit to the property and actually giving some
further recommendations. But it is only something that they do as a
service to point out the potential problems in the area.
Kanner: So what I have heard from our staff is that basically developers have met
and answered these questions in a satisfactory manner.
Knabe: Johnson County Soil Conservation does not agree if you look at the
questions they raise.
Kanner: Well, what I am saying is that it appears that our staff has said that these
types of questions- that it is satisfactory and you are saying no. And I
would like you to maybe answer a couple of these here that they bring up.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#5c Page 24
Do you have a copy of this before you? Because it appears you and the
staff have a difference of opinion and I would like to hear more about that.
Knabe: Okay. The first question they ask is what kind of installation of erosion
and sediment control practices will be installed? They want some
evidence or proof of the fact that erosion will be controlled.
Lehman: Excuse me just a moment. Bob, would you please- were those- was the
report you received today addressing the questions that are being asked
here?
Miklo: Not necessarily these that were raised by the Johnson County Soil
Conservation Service. The report or the plan we received today complies
with our city ordinances, which address many of these same issues. I
believe these questions probably would be best asked of the applicant' s
engineer who designed the erosion control plan.
Lehman: Who I believe is here. Larry? And Larry, if you could give your name.
Schnittjer: I am Larry Schnittjer from MMS consultants. I am not an engineer but I
work with a lot of them.
Lehman: Could you answer the questions that were raised by the Johnson County
Soil Conservation folks?
Schnittjer: I have not seen this until right now. Nobody has forwarded a copy to us.
Lehman: So then it perhaps would not be quite fair to ask you to respond to those
without first having had an opportunity to analyze them.
Schnittjer: In answer to the first question, the erosion sediment control practices- the
plan that was- we have had several plans submitted to the engineering
department and they have made several minor revisions and today we
have submitted a final plan and reviewed that with Mr. (can't hear) this
atlemoon. The type of erosion and sediment control practices are there is
seeding involved and also silt fences around the perimeter of the grading
areas. How stable are the current drainage ways? They have been about
in its current condition for a long time. They have been there since- I
worked on Benton Manor years ago and that particular drainage area
hasn't changed that much. How will the surface mnoff be addressed in the
area of the 15-unit apartment building and parking spaces to the southeast
comer of the lot? That drainage system there is all designed to drain to the
stormwater basin. And that will- the storm flows will go into the basin
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#5c Page 25
and be mitigated with the outlet control structure of the stormwater basin.
And there is a (can't hear) area at the outlet so it will slow down any
erosion that might come off of the outlet works of the (can't hear).
Lehman: That is part of our stormwater management ordinance.
Schnittjer: It is part of the stormwater management.
Lehman: Right. Okay. Well I don't know that it is necessary to go through these. I
think that, from my understanding at least from Eleanor at the beginning
of the hearing is that we need to know that the project meets the
requirements that the city has regarding these Sensitive Areas ordinance
and whatever other building regulations it would apply to this particular
piece of property. And I suspect most of the concern by Johnson County
Soil and Water are probably addressed but they are not required to be
addressed. Okay. Thank you.
Knabe: Did you have any other questions Steve?
Kanner: Well, I would like to see some stronger positions from your group in
regards to this. And all I see are questions here. And perhaps in reply to
what we just heard.
Knabe: We are kind of in a difficult situation because we cannot ask them to come
in without violating or trespassing on the property. If you read the report
you notice that they said they would be willing to come in a do a site visit
but we cannot ask that because we are not the owners of the property. If
the owners of the property would like to have them come in and do a site
visit and provide more information about it then we are strictly at the
mercy of the owners in that regard.
Kanner: And have you asked the owners to do this?
Knabe: We have not asked the owners because we have been told as you have
been told that they have got everything under control. But we don't see
that that is necessarily tree because we have not been in contact with the
owners. The owners reportedly have not been interested in being in
contact with us. So because the owners, I don't think, see this as any
opportunity for them to try to reach some kind of a compromise with the
neighbors they see this as having already compromised because of the fact
that the piece of property was originally zoned and left to be zoned as RM-
44. And we have great issue with that original zoning but that is nothing
that we can do anything about at this point.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#5c Page 26
Karmer: One other question, Bill. In the past numerous folks have tried to see if
we can get Benton Drive which is private now to have some public access
as a secondary road access. Have you made an attempt (can't hear)?
Knabe: It is my understanding- there are many people here from the Benton
Manor association and they could probably address this better than I, but it
my understanding that the Benton Manor Owner's Association met and
the owner of this piece of property approached them about using this as a
secondary access street. And the Association said absolutely,
unequivocally not.
Lehman: Okay. Thank you Bill.
Chaven: My name is Terri Ventura Chaven. I live at 1124 Harlocke. I hadn't
planned to speak but after watching Mr. Tulley's display and responding
to Mr. Kanner's request for more solid information about how this might
impact us I would like to ask you to think back to the picture of Weeber
and Weeber Circle during the rain and during the snow where it fills up.
My question is, I suspect that that area probably passes code. I suspect
that that was probably built and is said in the books and in the plans and
on the maps to function. But in reality what you saw in those pictures and
what we see every day when there is a lot of rain, when there is a lot of
runoff, when there is snow- excuse me- is that the drainage there simply
doesn't work. Our neighbors who live one house closer to where this
development will be have recently began experiencing flooding problems
in their basement. Pat, I hope you don't mind my telling everyone about
that. One house had been built next to their house (can't hear) vacant lot.
There had never been any drainage or any flooding problems. This house
was built, it was built to code, everything was fine and all of a sudden
their house floods. I don't know if them is a cause between the building of
the house and the flooding. It does suggest some problem to me. And I
think it is very easy to talk about looking at the code, looking at the law
and saying does it need it. But until you have been on Weeber Street or
Harlocke Street when it is plowed up with snow, when the cars can't get
past each other, when the road is filled with water and you are trying to
live there and you think about 500 more cars coming by there how that is
going to impact our neighborhood. My biggest worry is the runoff that
comes down now comes down at a very heavy rate and fills up down at
Weeber and Weeber Circle. If you were to stand in Pat and Jenny's yard
or my yard and watch the water go by and watch it create a pool you
would have a hard time believing what seems like the masonable
statement that this is going to work that we are going to put in silt fences,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#5c Page 27
that it meets code. It doesn't. I live there. You saw the pictures. It is not
working now. It is not going to work when you add more density there.
Kanner: Did we not hear either orally or in written form that this- that someone
said this might improve the drainage?
Champion: I was going to ask that same question.
Lehman: I think that is correct. Bob?
Miklo: Actually Weeber Street was built prior to our stormwater management
ordinance and that is one of the reasons we have a stormwater
management ordinances too. So that situations like that don't occur in the
future. Our engineers do believe that the stormwater facilities built with
this particular development as proposed will improve the situation and that
they will provide more retention than is currently available in that
neighborhood.
Pfab: In what way, if I might ask you, will that improve it?
Miklo: Right now there is no retention for the properties to the west because that
was built before we had an ordinance and so the water flows naturally to
the east to the Benton Manor development. With this proposal there will
be a stormwater facility built on the northeastern portion of the property
which will retain that water and slow it down.
Chaven: I would ask this Council in its responsibility to the citizens that live in that
neighborhood to take an independent look at that. If that is true, my
concerns aren't so great. But the difference between having somebody
who has a vested interest in building that there who says it will fix it and
the difference between- and I don't know what the rules are. I don't know
if you all can do this but I am just saying this is what I would like. Look
into it and see if it is so. Help us out. We are tired of our neighborhood
flooding. If it is going to make it better that will be a good thing. But I
would like you to help us out and see if it will make it worse. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you. I really would appreciate it if you would not applaud. I mean,
it really doesn't add anything to the meeting. I realize your- and we
appreciate your being here. It shows, I think, your support for each other
but I think it probably would add to the decorum if you didn't applaud.
Ruhlow: I am not sure how you guys are going to see this. Can I come up- can I set
this up there so guys can see it better?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#5c Page 28
Lehman: You may.
Ruhlow: Thank you.
Lehman: And I might add- let me suggest to you- it is pretty important from my
perspective as a Council person and as I think the other Council folks, we
need to know how this plan is deficient. Because according to code if this
plan meets the zoning- it meets all of the regulations that the city has put
upon this piece of property- we cannot legally deny it. We need to know
how it is deficient. If someone can speak to that it would really make life
a lot simpler for us. Go ahead.
Ruhlow: I understand the question and I think there is probably some people that
area going to address that but my personal view is it is still going to have a
huge impact on our neighborhood whether it meets code or not.
Lehman: No question.
Ruhlow: And that is why l am here. My name is Melissa Ruhlow and l live at 911
Weeber Street.
Lehman: You need to speak in the microphone.
Champion: If you could turn around (can't hear).
Lehman: You can hold the microphone.
Ruhlow: All right, I will do that since everybody can see this now. These two are
my children, John and Jeff. My husband and I bought our house almost
two years ago. When we decided to buy our house we both agreed that it
should be on the west side. We both grew up here and want to raise our
kids here. Our realtor was Mark Camps. He used to live on the comer of
Weeber Street and Harlocke, which is where (can't hear) lives now. After
we moved in we received a flier for a neighborhood picnic. When we got
there we found people in different stages of their lives. There were people
who raised their children and are now being blessed with grandchildren.
Some had kids in Junior High and High School. And then there were
those ofus who werejust getting started raising our family. Shortlyafter
we moved in I found our boys playing down at Dan Kellerman's house
which was fine except that he didn't have any kids our kids' age. When
they came around the comer I found him in the yard with a child' s size set
of golf clubs teaching my kids to play golf. They had known each other
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#5c Page 29
less than a month and my kids had no reason to be up there. Another time
one of our boys fell riding his bike up the hill. The neighbor came out,
bandaged him up, cleaned him up, wiped away the tears and sent him on
his way down the hill. One time Dan caught one of our sons trying to get
a ball out of the storm sewer. The same one that floods. He told him to
stop and explained to them why they shouldn't play near the drains, and
then canoe down to my house to tell me what he had told my kids. At any
given time in the summer we have between four and eight kids in our
driveway or in our backyard. Sometimes the kids gather at the top of the
hill for a game of soccer. Mike, our next door neighbor, has a fishing boat
and he lets the kids play in it. He gives them poles and lets them pretend
that they are fishing. We have watched our neighbors houses while they
are on vacation. There is a girl up the street that played on my son's
soccer team and my husband was the coach. Jenny and Pat go to our
church. They just had their first daughter. Tracy runs the before and after
school program. This is her son Jackson on the far side. This community
has a long history and I want to see it have a future history. And that is
why we moved to this neighborhood, so that we can make our own history
on Weeber Street. There are currently 45 kids in our neighborhood. We
live four blocks from an elementary school. There are 5 houses on our
blocks for sale right now. Potentially 5 to 10 more kids could move into
our area. We have had 4 kids move into the neighborhood in the last six
months. Two have been bom into the neighborhood in the last six months.
This neighborhood will always have kids. We are not a bunch of number
on (can't hear). We are families regardless of what stage in life we are. I
am a mom speaking as a mom. We have a wonderful neighborhood.
Please use your best judgement when deciding the future of our
neighborhoods tonight. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
Chaven: My name is Georgeann Chaven. I live at 1124 Harlocke. When you ask if
there are flaws in the plan we can't really address that because the builders
didn't really notify us that they were going to do this. It kind of sprung up
on us. They didn't bother to notify us until after it had already been in the
works. We haven't had the opportunity to really review the plans. So, no,
we can't give you hard cold facts about what the plans are. But if you
look- and I have looked through this thing and I see where Planning and
Zoning votes pretty much unanimously when they refer something to you
folks- if you look at the one for us it is a 3-2 vote. And it was a very close
vote. It almost went the other way. Why would that be? Maybe there is
some problem with this. Maybe it needs to go back to Planning and
Zoning because this area- the entire southwest area really does need to
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 21}, 21}01.
FO32001
#5c Page 30
have a plan. I mean, think about it. Would you build a house if you didn't
have plans? Would you build a city if you didn't have plans? I mean, that
is what our neighborhood looks like right now, especially with Lamp' s
house in between two 8-plexes. There was no planning. You are looking
at something very short-sightedly if you allow this plan to go through
because there really needs to be a full plan for this neighborhood. A full
plan for this entire area before any other development goes in like this.
Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you.
Graf: I am Bill Graf. I live at 1123 Harlocke Street. I own a house that has big
fir trees that I put up as defense for traffic sliding into my lawn. But
Mayor Lehman raises a point. And yes, I think there is one serious very
definite flaw and that is the increased traffic on a street that cannot handle
it. when that area was rezoned RM-44 it was not done so with the intent
that that would be the only access would be via Harlocke Street. There
was no development to the west of that and- which is now Benton Manor-
has been developed. So, therefore, I don't care if they built 185
apartments in that block as long as they don't increase the traffic on
Harlocke Street past the maximum that it is built for. And that is what
they are going to do. They are going to increase it past the maximum that
it can handle and that I believe is a definite problem and is a definite
safety concern to the children to our neighborhood and is a definite safety
concern to the property owners and the apartment people that live in our
neighborhood. We may do (can't hear) you heard, there has been some
planning- probably faux pas in the past. We have got through those. In
1984 1 believe, I was before the same City Council, obviously you were
probably in grade school at the time but that City Council listened to the
same type of arguments and agreed that it should be referred back and
rezoned to RS-5 and developed. We are not in disagreement with that.
We want a planned agreement that is responsible and meets the needs of
that neighborhood and all the elements in the neighborhood, including all
of the apartment people and all of the residential families. We are not
opposed to development of that neighborhood as William said. But we are
opposed to irresponsible unsafe development of that plot of land.
Shrader: Hi, my name is Robynn Shrader. I live at 1104 Weeber Circle. At the
beginning of the discussion this evening the City Attorney told you that
unless you find an error in the plan you really can't deny this. I think, for
me, the underlying issue really is the zoning and I would like the City
Attorney to correct me ifI am wrong. But my understanding is that
zoning is not a right of a property owner. Zoning is a fluid thing that is
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#5c Page 31
designed to flex and shift with the overall needs of the community at large.
And for this piece of property to have remained at RM-44 after all of the
discussion that has happened over the last fifteen years really has been an
oversight on the part of past Councils and past staff. And what I would
like to see happen here is some strong leadership by this Council to correct
this problem and fix it. The developer wants us to be grateful that he is
only building 39 units on a piece of property where he could have had 100
and some and I think everyone in this room who has seen a picture of
Harlocke Street or who has driven down Harlocke Street knows that that is
simply ludicrous to think that 100 and some units could go back in that
piece of property. So I am not in a position to feel grateful that he is only
proposing 39, because I do believe as my neighbor just stated that another
39 families is simply too much traffic for the neighborhood and for
structure- particularly Harlocke Street. And I ask you to look at the
underlying problem and not approve this on a technicality of meeting each
of the requirements of an overlay zone but look at the zoning in
comparison to the whole neighborhood and please look at this as a big
picture plan. Thank you.
Kanner: Robyrm, what would you and your Association feel is an environmentally
appropriate number of units there?
Shrader: Boy, that is a good question that- for myself I am also in agreement that
this should be and could be developed. Yes, I think RS-5, which is the
lowest designation that would allow the lowest number of cars to continue
to travel down Harlocke Street- that would be appropriate. You know, I
personally would not be up here opposing this if there was some other way
to get traffic to and from this piece of property other than simply along
Harlocke Street. But my kids are going to cross Harlocke Street to get to
Roosevelt Elementary and to get to every bus stop they are going to take
to school for the next 18 years. So I am extremely opposed to any
development back there that is not the minimum amount of increased
traffic on an already overburdened street as possible.
Lehman: Thank you Robyrm. We are going to take a quick break here. We will
return at- how much time do you want? All right, at 20 minutes to 9:00
we will resume.
(Break)
Lehman: All right folks, we are going to continue the public hearing. As a point of
information Council will not be voting on this tonight. There may be
questions. I think obviously there are questions that are being raised by
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#5c Page 32
the hearing that we are going to want some answers to so don't be
concerned about us acting on this tonight. That is not going to happen.
Now, I would like to wrap this up by 9:00. That is 20 minutes more. So,
Glenn, I guess you are next.
Siders: Thank you. My name is Glenn Siders. I am with Southgate Development.
We are the applicant for this rezoning request. We are here requesting that
the property be rezoned to a Sensitive Area Overlay Zone. That means
that the property will be rezoned from RM-44 to OSA-44. We are not
asking for any density changes. And that is the only reason we are here, to
talk about Sensitive Areas. This is a four-acre parcel of land. It is an infill
parcel with the potential for development. I mention the word infill
because I think it is important. It affords the opportunity to develop a
piece of property within the city limits that already has infrastructure
provided to the site and will cost the city very little if any expense to
service that area. You already have your major services- your tim
protection, buses, that sort of thing going by this area. It allows us to, as I
mentioned, stay within the city limits and does not infringe on the outside
of an area where infrastructure and services are costly and difficult to
achieve. This proposed development, as mentioned before, meets all the
zoning requirements and all of the engineering design standards required
by the City of Iowa City. You have heard that it has potential
development of 172 units and we are proposing 39. That is a little less
than 23% of the potential density. 78 parking stalls are required and we
are providing 79. We have complied with your ordinances regulating
dumpsters, enclosures of those dumpsters, parking for bicycles, sidewalks,
landscaping. This site is approximately 70% unencumbered by buildings
or hard surfaced areas. That includes the hard surfacing for the dumpster
pads. It is about-
Champion: What percentage did you say? I am sorry.
Siders: I am sorry?
Champion: What percentage did you say?
Siders: It is just a little less than 70% open space. We have dedicated 39,000
square feet as a city park. Along with that there will be a monetary
reimbursement because by your ordinance, I believe- it is 15% Bob? 15%
can- how does that go?
Miklo: (Can't hear).
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#5c Page 33
Siders: No more than 10% of the land can have a slope. We did not comply with
that so monetarily we need to reimburse that. This site will have the
benefit of wooded areas. It has the benefit of slopes. It has the benefit of
wildlife and it has a park on this four-acre tract of land. We think it is a
good proposal for infill development. This development has a minimum
disturbed area as far as grading. We have to provide a stormwater
detention basin by your regulations. And because of that detention basin
and the construction of that basin we are encroaching a little bit of a
protected slope- we are encroaching the outer edge of a critical slope. And
we are crossing through a little bit of the steep slope. That plat that I just
gave you- the red areas and kind of the yellowish areas indicate the
Sensitive Areas on (changed tapes) the limits of our grading on this site.
If you will note, none of our grading encroaches the Sensitive Areas. We
do encroach the steep slope a little bit. That grading is permitted by your
ordinance. The protected slope that we encroach is with a storm sewer
pipe. That you will see is a red line about midway in the page on the fight
hand side. That is a storm sewer pipe that goes into the stormwater
detention facility that we are required to erect. Yes, we are going across
the protected slope. But again, that encroachment with that storm sewer
pipe is permitted by your Sensitive Areas ordinance. We have yet to find
any area where we are not in compliance with your rules and regulations.
We have an erosion control plan. There have been questions concerning
the Soil Conservation letter from Amy (can't hear). I know Amy and I
have talked with Amy. That letter was generated approximately a week
after we were approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. That
letter was generated from a Sensitive Areas site plan review and she did
not have the benefit of looking at an erosion control plan. I asked her if
she had looked at an erosion control plan if the letter would have been
different and she said yes. She said, "probably most of those questions
that I generated in that letter would have been answered". And I said, "if
you had a question what would you have done?" She said, "I would have
picked up a phone and called you or your engineer to get an answer". She
has no jurisdiction in Iowa City. We are not saying that she is not allowed
on our property or she shouldn't. Iowa City regulates their own erosion
control and has done so through the Department of Housing and
Inspection Services with an inspector named Julie Tallman. The drainage
that you saw pictures of, the ponding on Weeber Circle- Weeber Street or
Weeber Circle- is not caused by this development. The drainage that this
site occurs goes the other direction than the ponding than the ponding that
you viewed in the video. We think that this development is one of the best
developments you could put on an infill parcel. Very low density- the
density actually equates to 9.5 or 9.6 units per acre. It is just a little bit
higher than an RS-8 density.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#5c Page 34
Kanner: What would it be if you took away the Sensitive Areas? What would the
density be if you took away the Sensitive Areas that are protected?
Siders: You know, I don't know because I don't know how large the Sensitive
Area- how many square feet the Sensitive Area is. Let's assume that the
Sensitive Area is 50%. That would reduce your density potential to-
Kanner: It would be about 20 then per acre?
Siders: Yeah, 22 per acre. Right. I don't even think the Sensitive Area is 50%
but we will just say it is 50%.
Champion: It is not.
Siders: And we are well below that. I would be happy to answer any questions
that you have. I appreciate the council trying to stay focused on the issue
at hand.
Pfab: I have a question for you. You say there is no-
Karr: (Can't hear) mic.
Pfab: Glenn, I have a question and that is, you say that there is no cost to the
city. I have a question. What is the cost to the neighborhoods and their
safety and their peace and well being for this development? What is that
going to do to the neighbors? I mean, maybe no dollar cost but this is
really going to upset this neighborhood. Now, I look at it- I see it and I
don't know where all the roles are going to be (can't hear) but I see that
the way- the access that you have there is a road that is really, I don't
know how it ever got by engineering, but it is there. And it is a fact of
life. Now, I don't see how you can change and I don't see how anybody
else can change it. And all this is going to do is create a lot of havoc and a
lot of- it is going to take away a lot of peace of mind for these people in
this neighborhood. How do you address that? I don't know. Maybe you
don't have to.
Siders: I don't know that I can address that Irvin.
Pfab: That is the problem that bothers me.
Lehman: Any other questions for Glenn?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#5c Page 35
Kanner: Yeah, Glenn, how many people do you anticipate living in each of the
units on average?
Siders: Probably 2. They are all 2-bedroom units.
Karmer: You don't feel there will be 3 or 4 doubling up in the rooms?
Siders: I am sure there will probably be three in some but I have no idea Steve. I
wouldn't think-
Kanner: Do you own other properties in the area that are similar 2-bedroom ones
and going on that past history what would you figure?
Siders: No, I really don't. Not in that area.
Kanner: And, so you- let me see if I heard you right. You are agreeable to Johnson
County Soil and Water Conservation folks coming on the property and
trying to answer some of those questions? They can call you and you
would let them come on there?
Siders: What I would offer as a suggestion is if the neighborhood would like
Johnson County Soil Conservation to critique the erosion control
ordinance, they would submit her a copy of the erosion control ordinance
that has been approved by the city and let her critique that. I think your
questions are going to by minimized and changed.
Kanner: You won't allow them to come on the property?
Siders: I didn't say that. I know Amy very well.
Kanner: Okay, so I am not following what you are saying if they can come or not
come.
Lehman: That is because he didn't say.
Kanner: I assume you are saying you can't do that? (Can't hear).
Lehman: Thank you Glenn.
Gelman: I am Tom Gelman. I am here as legal counsel for Southgate. I also
appreciate the Council's effort to focus on the issues before you. And I
would like to try to do that also. This plan would not be before the
Council and it wouldn't have any scrutiny by Planning and Zoning but for
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#5c Page 36
the intrusion into the Sensitive Areas. And as Glenn just described for
you, the intrusion is quite modest and quite minor here. The intrusion is
simply an underground drainage pipe and then the construction of the
stormwater maintenance facility. That is the sole and narrow question
before the Council. The ordinance itself, 14(6)k-le subparagraph 3, tells
us what your standard for review is. And it specifically allows essential
public utilities to be placed in Sensitive Areas, naming specifically
stormwater detention facilities. In connection with your scope of review,
it charges you with determining whether it has been designed and
constructed to minimize the impact upon the protected Sensitive Areas and
associated buffers. That is the narrow question that you have. That is the
only reason why this design is before the Council. To answer that
question- has the intrusion into the Sensitive areas been done in a way to
minimize the impact upon the protected Sensitive areas and the associated
buffers? I think the design clearly indicates that that is in fact the case.
That what we have here is a minimal intrusion by a stormwater detention
line running underground and a minimal facility that meets the standard
requirement of the City of Iowa City. And that is it. That is the standard
review. Now, the density is not an issue. The street access is not an issue
for your review. The density may be relevant because it has permitted the
intrusion into the Sensitive Areas to be much more minimal than it might
otherwise have been had this been a higher density development. But in
fact the developer here understanding the history of the site, understanding
the history of the area, has chosen to have a very low density development
for the site and by doing so has in fact minimized even more the potential
impact on the Sensitive Area. So really what you are looking at here is
that underground line and the actual facility built in the bottom of the
ravine as your scope of review. And I think the plans are very clear that it
is a minimal intrusion.
Pfab: I have a question. How is your development have changed in such a way
that you would not have had to intrude into this protected area?
Gelman: It could not have, Irvin, as far as I understand. The area required because
of the amount of housing and because of the ordinance, required a
stormwater detention facility.
Pfab: Because of the number of units that you are planning to build here?
Gelman: Any development would have required that.
Pfab: One would have required it?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#5c Page 37
Gelman: I don't think-
Pfab: You said any number so I am just starting with a low number to see if that
would work.
Gelman: I think a lower density may not have triggered it. I don't know where the
number is.
Pfab: Okay, had you ever considered building- using the development here that
would not have required you to trip this trigger?
Gelman: You are asking the wrong person. I am sorry.
Pfab: But you are the counsel.
Gelman: I don't know the answer to the question. Okay, thank you. Anything over
two acres requires stormwater detention. Any development over 2 acres.
Lehman: Regardless of the density of the development?
Gelman: Somebody who knows- I don't want to tell you (can't hear).
Pfab: It looks like here you are pushing the envelope and when you pushed it, it
got (can't hear). That is why I asked the question.
Gelman: To the contrary.
Dilkes: Bob, can you clear that up? Let's clear that up.
Miklo: Any development over two acres requires stormwater management. In
this case it is one tract consisting of four acres. They could build a duplex
on it. If they wanted to do anything over a duplex they would have to go
through subdivision and require stormwater management, I believe. I can
check with the Public Works department, but that is my understanding.
That it would be very limited before they would have to provide
stormwater management.
Pfab: So in other words it could be developed without tripping that trigger?
Champion: A duplex- with one duplex.
Miklo: With very limited development.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#5c Page 38
Pfab: What would happen if you didn't take the whole four acres and just
developed the part that would not cause the problem?
Miklo: If you developed less than two acres then you would not need to provide
stormwater management, which would not be a good situation because
you would continue to have stormwater that would runoff uncontrolled.
Pfab: Okay.
Gelman: I am hearing from all sources that whatever we would have done here
would have triggered stormwater detention. The other thing I will say is
that the reduced density has minimized that intrusion. The other thing that
we have learned through this process is that the stormwater management
facility placed at this location has really enhanced the stormwater
management for the area. It actually enhances the stormwater
management because there is none there now. And it helps all of the
stormwater running off from this facility in its natural course of flow. Any
other questions?
Kanner: Yes, help me with- a little deeper into the Sensitive Areas ordinance, 14-
6(k) 1. It talks about Sensitive Areas development planned design
guidelines. And there it talks about encouraging development, which
provides for easy access and circulation for pedestrians and bicyclists. We
have heard testimony to there being only one accessible road into the
development and already it is somewhat treacherous. And the argument is
being made that the addition of 39 units that may hold up to perhaps 4
people per unit could go way above the 500 mark that is deemed
acceptable by staff. That is the estimate that we used. Bob, before you go
(can't hear) let's suggest a point of fact. I would like Tom to answer the
question that (can't hear).
Miklo: I can address the 500 mark.
Kanner: What?
Miklo: The 500- the number of (can't hear).
Kanner: That is not really the question unless you have a different figure.
Miklo: You had stated that that is what is acceptable to staff. And that is the 500
vehicles- at that point we start looking to see if secondary access is
necessary.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#5c Page 39
Kanner: Right.
Miklo: A local street typically can carry 250-1000 vehicles a day.
Kanner: Okay, I am glad you clarified that. So, 500 is when we start looking at
secondary. So we are talking about if there are up to 4 people going way
over that 500 potentially. And so I think that the Sensitive Areas
ordinance does address this problem of pedestrian and traffic through
there.
Gelman: I think it does Steven, but not applicable to this situation in this regard. If
the developer here was building an infrastructure that would be dedicated
to the city, I think it would be applicable. In this case it is an existing
infrastructure. The roads that are involved here are only internal
driveways for the parking facilities. And I think the provision that you
read is not relevant to the discussion. I think what is relevant to the
discussion is the reason that triggered the developer to be here in the first
place. And the sole and narrow issue that triggered the developer to be
here today was the intrusion of the Sensitive Areas with the stormwater
pipe and a facility at the bottom of the ravine. And that is it.
Kanner: I would make two points. One, I think that one of the things that kicks in
here- this section n- probably does it regardless of whatever triggers it.
And this is a complicated case. The history- we have heard the history is a
long and complicated history. And so that goes into my second point. We
also have a Comprehensive Plan that says it should be a much lower
density. And so while you say there is the Sensitive Areas ordinance that
is very narrow and focused, I think one can look at it with all these other
factors that says there is a bigger focus.
Gelman: I think that is correct Steven but I think also that the specific zone of a
particular parcel supercedes the Comprehensive Plan. And I think that is
our circumstance.
Kanner: I think it does for density but I think for Sensitive Areas I think there is a
broader scope that can be looked at.
Gelman: But I think it-
Kanner: Section "n" allows us to look at a broader scope in guidelines. There is a
number of other provisions in here- for instance it says, "strive for
development solutions that best promote the spirit, intent, and purpose of
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#5c Page 40
the Sensitive Areas ordinance while permitting development of the
property for reasonable beneficial uses".
Gelman: I think that is precisely what the developer has done here. They have
minimally intruded into the Sensitive Areas- extremely minimally intruded
as a result of their voluntarily low reduction of the density and the
minimum structures in the Sensitive Areas that have been identified. I
think they are precisely following the spirit, intent, and the letter of the
ordinance in each and every regard. And in an exemplary way.
Pfab: Tom?
Gelman: Any further questions?
Pfab: I would question if you are following the spirit because if you are doing it-
if you are following the spirit why are all of these people here?
Lehman: Irvin-
Pfab: I am serious. You are saying you are following the spirit of trying to make
this work.
Gelman: Irvin, it is because people are here for what they believe to be their
legitimate concerns and reasons of the neighborhood. They are not-
Audience: We are not getting paid Tom.
Gelman: They are not specifically here in connection with the very narrow issue
that is before the Council. And we are trying to keep the Council focused
upon what is before the Council, which is whether or not the intrusion in
the Sensitive Areas is within the scope of the ordinance. And we believe
that we have demonstrated clearly that it is.
Pfab: But at the same time that could have been developed without tripping that
Sensitive Areas.
Gelman: I think we have heard tonight Irvin that it could not. That in fact that is
not the case. That you could have put a single house there or a single
duplex there and that would have been the only development you could
have had that would not have triggered it. If you would trigger- if you
would have developed it as RS-5 or RS-8 you would have triggered it.
Pfab: What would happen if you-
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
~5c Page 41
Gelman: And in fact I have heard a member of the community suggest that this
should be developed somewhere between RS-5 to RS-8. And it is being
developed now at essentially RS-9.6, which is very, very close to what I
have heard a member of the commtmity suggest should be an appropriate
development size.
Pfab: I think- but if you have- if you exclude the Sensitive Area it gets up close
to 20.
Lehman: The purpose of a public hearing is to take testimony, not to argue among
ourselves. So, thank you very much.
Gelman: Thank you.
Buss: Am I supposed to sign something here?
Lehman: You need- is there- there should be a paper there.
Buss: There is a pad but there is nothing on it. It will take me longer to sign in
then to give my comments.
Champion: But then we will like you a whole lot.
Pfab: Are you going to ask a question?
Buss: My name is William Buss. I live at 747 West Benton Street. I really
hadn't planned to speak but I got interested in the meeting so here I am. I
knew about this project because I am the bottom of the trough. When all
of the water runs out from this project down the hill it comes out on our
land. And I spoke to Denny Gannon about this and despite the fact that
we do see some erosion arotmd our property that is adjacent to us, but with
presumably putting dirt down into property, he assures me that this will
not make it worse but it will make it better. And I believe Denny Gannon
when he tells me that. But then I got to looking at the Sensitive Areas
ordinance and I hope- do I have the right one Eleanor? Is it effective of-
amended on October 22, 19967
Miklo: Yes, that is the correct one.
Buss: Okay. I am looking at, I guess this is sub-pan 'T' where it says,
"Regulated Slopes". And my question is what exactly is the Council's
role and what it is supposed to be looking at? And I think in the end it is
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#5c Page 42
going to be a legal question to Eleanor. But at the very beginning of
regulated slopes it says, "Purpose" and it lists several things the last of
which is "Preserve the scenic character of hillside areas, particularly
wooded hillsides". Now, maybe this is irrelevant and we can just ignore
the purposes. But if indeed this is in fact part of what the Council is
supposed to take into account in making a decision, I don't see how it can
do it without looking at the plan. And without looking at actually what
has happened or will happen under this plan to the land. And I have only
looked at a big plan- I can't read these plans- but at least it looked to me
like there was a tremendous amount of excavation on this property that
removed a great deal of trees and was going to change considerably the
scenic character of the hillside. So, I am going to stop unless someone has
a question to me. But my question is, is this relevant for the Council?
And if it is, how can the Council make a decision without looking into this
particular factor?
Kanner: I think we are told that them is a certain amount of trees that can be
removed. Correct, Bob?
Miklo: I would say, yes, this is a relevant question and when you look at the plan
the hillsides where there are woodlands there is minimal amount of tree
removal. There am some areas that are flat, which will be developed
where there is tree removal.
Buss: Right, and I am not purporting to answer the question, I just- I guess I
would wonder whether the fact that you say it is minimal is meaningful in
terms of what the Council is able to evaluate without actually seeing a
picture of what is happening to the land.
Karmer: What is the amount there that was removed? We had (can't hear).
Miklo: In this case there is not a woodland present on the site. A woodland is an
area of two acres or more of consistent woods.
Buss: My point has nothing to do with (can't hear).
Miklo: If them was a woodland on the site then they could remove up to I believe
it is 70% of the woodland. Even though it is not- there is not a woodland
on this site we did investigate that and I believe they are removing 20% of
the trees on the site. So it is well within- if they were regulated, which
they are not, well within what the ordinance would require.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#5c Page 43
Kanner: William? We are told that the water flows the other way so it is not part
of the problem that is flowing into the picture that we sa~v.
Buss: Right.
Kanner: Do you disagree with that?
Buss: No, no. I said I am at the bottom of the hill where it does flow.
Lehman: He is on the other side.
Buss: I am east.
Kanner: East. Okay, so you are wear the water flows?
Buss: Yes. And I am not making- I was just explaining why I happen to be here
and looking at this.
Champion: We appreciate it.
Lehman: Thank you.
Buss: Yeah.
Eccher: Hi, I am Daniel Eccher. I live at 904 Benton Drive, Apartment 23. And I
too got interested in the comments made here tonight. The most important
one was made by our Mayor. He said the Council cannot legally deny this
proposal if it meets the requirements of the Sensitive Areas ordinance.
And I firmly disagree with Emie Lehman on that point.
Lehman: That by the way was not my opinion. I believe we were told that.
Eccher: Well-
Lehman: That is from our attorney.
Eccher: I guess the way I disagree with it is in the definition of cannot legally,
okay? You can legally do whatever the heck you want here.
Lehman: That is not true and we have found that out in court a lot of times.
Eccher: I-
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#5c Page 44
Lehman: And I am sure we will again.
Eccher: I understand that. Your point is that you are going to get sued. Okay?
You think you are going to get sued if you send this back to Planning and
Zoning and I disagree. And what I am trying to get at is that there is no
automatic fine by the state. I mean, there is a legal process that would
have to be pursued that I doubt would be. So I just wanted to make that
point to the rest of the folks on the Council that your hands aren't tied
here. You do have an option. And I want pick on Robynn's comment that
zoning is fluid. Even at this level zoning still can be fluid. It is your job
to do- sorry- what you judge to be what should be done. Okay? And I
also want to repeat another comment from my friend Jim Walters and his
comment was zoning is political. So zoning is supposed to be set by
elected officials who are supposed to be accountable to their electorate.
Okay? And another thing I wanted to talk about was the issue at hand that
a lot of people seem to keep repeating here. The issue at hand in the
Sensitive Areas overlay and I kind of disagree. I could also argue the
other point but the issue at hand here is how much the neighborhood is
going to be disrupted by this proposed development. It is going to- it is
undoubtedly going to increase traffic on that narrow road considerably and
I recall to you that video of the dump truck that had to back up. And with
39 units that is going to be a major increase in utility traffic that is going to
have to go up there. And I also want to make the point about the spirit of
the ordinance as Steve referred to earlier. The spirit of the ordinance is to
preserve Sensitive Areas for their aesthetic appeal as well as their
importance to the neighborhood. I mean, you must have to- I know you
don't live there but as a member of the neighborhood, it is a very highly
developed area already and it has got a lack of green space and we need
more. And I just- I think the spirit of the ordinance inherently has density
kind of in there. Okay? Density has to be an issue here. And I think the
underlying zoning is too high density and all you can ask- all that is
responsible to have on there is RS-5. So, thank you very much.
Lehman: Thank you.
Patrick Geasland: Hi, my name is Patrick (can't hear). I live at 1118 Harlocke Street.
I just want to reiterate some points that they just brought up recently here.
We really can't argue too much about what they want to do. They want to
build some beautiful buildings, they want to preserve the area. You know,
that is great. The only problem is that the Zoning Comn~ission sent the
plan to you for you to decide on and that plan is flawed. The street that
this is all a part of- Harlocke Street- they want to build these buildings
there and they want to increase the traffic. The problem is that street was
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#5c Page 45
never designed to handle this kind of traffic. You might say this is not
something for you guys to decide hem. Planning and Zoning should have
decided that and they did but they did that with a flawed plan. And we are
asking you to send it back to them and say, hey, you guys need to look at
this again and really make sum this is what needs to be done here. We
challenge the interpretation of what is to be decided here. And
wholeheartedly we really think that that is the major- one of the major
issues- traffic congestion, the road that is existing and the traffic that is
going to be put on that road. And you can't deny those facts. This road is
a narrow road that was never designed to handle this kind of traffic. Now,
if you want- if you can ignore that fact, but it is a fact, you have the ability
to tell the Zoning and Plarming Commission to reevaluate this and think
about it a little bit further. Thank you.
Lehman: Thank you. We are going to take about one more and then we are going to
move on with the agenda. Go ahead.
Garther: My name is Jeff Garther. I live at 1108 Weeber Circle. Sitting here
reminds me that this four acres is merely a small portion of what is up
there on that bluff. And having recognized Mr. Ruppert here who owns
many of those acres whom we dealt with somewhat contentiously several
years ago over the same developmental issues and pleaded with the
Planning and Zoning Commission to take the broader view here. And
what are you going to do with those acreages? And how are they going to
be developed and how are they going to relate to the existing
neighborhood? What is the plan for ingress and egress of much traffic,
knowing that there is many limitations of getting to Highway 1. There is
limitations going noah to Benton. And it seems to me that what is
missing is planning. And to exacerbate the situation by allowing the
developer to move forward though he clearly in his defense has tamed it
somewhat, still leaves many, many unanswered questions that are going to
come back to haunt you or your folks that succeed you in future years
perhaps. And clearly haunt the neighborhood as it continues to try to exist
in the community. And so I really would hope that you would find some
legal and appropriate mechanism to put some rational planning as priority
and call time out and take a look at the bigger issue of Harlocke to
Highway 1 to Miller to Benton. And we would be happy, I think I can say
this for the Association, to work with them with some idea of mixed
development that would include buffer areas, green spaces, single family,
and multi-family. That would really maximize the utility of that area and
at the same time afford the preservation of the amenities of what a
neighborhood is all about in the City of Iowa City. Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#5c Page 46
Lehman: Thank you.
Kanner: Bob? We were told that the amheological survey is waiting for the snow
to melt. Will we be getting that survey, do you anticipate, before we vote
on this?
Miklo: It depends on the weather conditions. I would assume most of the snow is
melting so if the state archeologist can get out there in the next 2 weeks
we should have a response.
Kanner: If not, would you recommend that we defer voting on this until we hear
that report?
Lehman: Doesn't that have precedence over anything we do?
Miklo: Yeah, the situation is that the state would regulate this if they determine
that there was an Indian burial ground on the property. If not, then they
could ask for time to study the site before development actually occurred.
That would not affect the form of this plan. If they do find an Indian
mound on the site then regardless of what you do they have control over it.
So I would see no need for you to defer this. They would have control one
way or the other.
Lehman: Thank you Bob. The public hearing is closed.
Karr: Can we have a motion to accept correspondence?
Vanderhoef: So moved.
Champion: So moved.
Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by Champion to accept correspondence.
All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. Item d-
Champion: Are we- we are not going to discuss when we might want further
information on this before we move forward?
Lehman: Well, yeah, are we prepared to discuss that?
Champion: Yes, I think we should.
Lehman: Okay, what would you like to hear further?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#5c Page 47
Champion: I have a couple of things that I think the plan-
Lehman: Bob, you might want to stick around for a second. Council has a couple of
questions I think you may want to address or at least make note of. Not
necessarily answer tonight but get answers back for us.
Champion: I mean, if somebody showed me this plan I would think it was wonderful
and it is. I drove down that neighborhood today and I am bothered by a
couple of things. If there is one thing I could get developers to do it would
be to meet with neighborhoods before they put a lot of money and energy
into a plan and get some input. And I know this is probably not the fight
time to discuss this but I think we have a Sensitive Area here but I think
we also have a very sensitive neighborhood. And I have to admit that I am
very pro-neighborhood. I am also very pro-development. And I think this
area should be developed. I am not so sure that this should be developed
at this density when you look at the other land around it that could be
developed at this density. And I am wondering if the Council is interested
at all in discussing the actual zoning that takes place on all of that property
and not just this four acres? I am concerned about making a major
mistake that can't be corrected. I am hoping that we can come up with
some rational solutions before we vote on this and some questions that
need to be answered about the street size, about how this street is going to
eventually extended or moved for another access point. And I think Dee
Vanderhoef said last night something I think is really crucial, this area
hasn't been planned. And I think it needs to be planned. So, that is just
kind of my statement about what I saw today and what I have heard
tonight. And I don't know where you want to go with it but I think those
are questions we need to have answered.
Lehman: Are there any specific questions that we have for staff that we would like
them to get back to us on? I am sorry that I may have kept you in vain.
Pfab: I have one and that is how did it ever get zoned with such a high density
for that type of land?
Lehman: That is a good question.
Vanderhoef: That is ancient history.
O'Donnell: Good question (can't hear).
Pfab: You know, do we want to make the same mistake?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#5c Page 48
Lehman: That is one I am not sure we are going to have an answer for. That has
been before the Council I don't know how many times. Bill has got the
history on it.
Kanner: That was 19877
Lehman: This particular area-
Kanner: The RM-447
Lehman: -has been before the Council many different times and the bottom line is
that the density of the zoning has never been changed in spite of the fact
that it has been before the Council on several occasions. The latest one
was, I believe, in 1994.
Vanderhoef: And it has been recommended by staff to change it and Councils have not
changed it.
Kanner: It would be, though- following up on what Irvin said, it would be I think
important to a certain degree to find out the history of who put it to RM-
44, which was '877 87, and if-
Miklo: Actually I believe this area has been zoned- the Jensen tract has been
zoned RM-44 or the equivalent since the early 1960's. The Ruppert tract
was rezoned RM-44, and the Ruppert tract is the area to the south, I think
in '83.
Lehman: So this has been that way for 40 years?
Miklo: Correct.
Lehman: Right.
Miklo: Back when Seville Apartments were built.
Lehman: Okay, thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#6 Page 49
ITEM NO. 6. THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION WITH THE IOWA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR FY2002 IOWA DOT
STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE AND FEDERAL TRANSIT
ADMINISTRATION FUNDING.
a. Public Hearing
Lehman: The public hearing is open. This involves a great deal of money, $9.9
million in DOT STA formula funds. And I think the total for the city is-
Champion: I can't remember.
Lehman: I don't have the attachment in front of me. Anyway, the public heating is
opened.
Atkins: Ernie, the $9.9 is the total for the city. Just remember, the biggest portion
of that is the Near Southside Transportation Center.
Lehman: Right. Of which how much of that is federal?
O'Donnell: 80%.
Atkins: The program is approximately an 80/20 program.
Lehman: Right, okay.
Vanderhoef: There is the combination of FTP funds and the other funds.
Atkins: Yes.
Lehman: Right. If you wish to address the Council- pardon?
Atkins: There is a memo in the packet. Kevin is here- it is replacement buses,
maintenance at the- that is the kind of thing we apply for routinely.
Doyle: I might just mention that these are just projects that are prograrmmed. And
most of them are carried over from last year. This is really dependent on
the availability of Federal Transit Administration funding. And like Steve
said, the first project is the- the $8 million is for the last two years for the
Near Southside Transportation Center. We are just asking for both of
those years. It depends on the congressional earmarks. We are likely to
only get about half of that or less depending on how the money flows.
The other projects- the only one I wanted one to add which wasn't in our
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#6 Page 50
notice that we are supposed to say is that they added a replacement photo
copying machine that wasn't in our Public Hearing notice. I had to
mention that. The other projects are the bus replacements- they all would
be dependent on federal earmarks.
Kanner: Kevin? I had a question for you.
Doyle: Sure.
Kanner: It says that IDOT will submit the application to the Federal Transit
Administration and we will probably know about its availability in the fall
of 2001?
Doyle: Yeah, this fall. Usually we have a meeting after they have made the
national- the appropriations are made and the new federal and fiscal year
starts after October 1, and we have a meeting. Then we have a better idea
of what kind of earmarks we are looking at and what other funding for
formula ftmds. Traditionally we have had the formula funds for the
urbanized areas of $50,000-$200,000. We take about 20% off the top,
which is about $200,000-$250,000 and divide it up depending on the
needs of these five or six urban areas in Iowa. So that between the
$50,000 and $200,000 we kind of look at the priorities and try to kind of
divvy the money up from year to year. There was some money we get by
formula that we use for operating assistance for Iowa City Transit and
Coralville Transit and the University of Iowa Cambus.
Kanner: So if people wanted to comment on the appropriateness of the- for
instance the $8 million for the ramp, they could write to the Federal
Transit Administration if they feel it is appropriate-
Doyle: Yeah, sure.
Karmer: And they will accept that in the written record?
Doyle: I am not-
Kanner: Is there any kind of written record that they keep on testimony?
Doyle: Not per se. I mean- like this hearing do you mean or something?
Kanner: No, well, when they make their decisions do the listen to any (can't hear)?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#6 Page 51
Doyle: Not really, it is kind of done at the congressional- you know, the make
earmarks for various projects depending on what Congress people we have
sitting on. Right now we have Senator Grassley as the head of the Finance
Committee so we have maybe a little better chance of getting some more
money for Iowa. But basically it is- you know how politics are, it depends
on who is on the committee and who owes who favors. That is how it
works in Washington even with the earmarks.
Atkins: I think I can assure you that if someone writes a letter to the FTA about
the project we will hear about it.
Doyle: Well you know, as we have just dealt with the issue with the lawsuit there
that that did have some impact and caught some people' s ears if you write
some letters. Particularly with this project. Yeah, they could write to their
congressman that they oppose a particular project. Does that answer your
question?
Kanner: Sure.
Doyle: They don't know until they sit down and kind of go through all of the
projects and all of the requests from all over the country what the requests
are going to be and how much money is available for earmarking. So it is
kind of hard to say. Are there any other questions?
Champion: I would just like to comment on that that part of this thing will be used for
the parking ramp that will house the buses and-
Doyle: That is the $8 million.
Champion: Right, so I know that Steven doesn't approve of this parking ramp but I
would just like to point out to him that he is very pro-childcare and very
pro-public transportation and parking ramps, I am sorry but they make
money. And all of the profits in this parking ramp will go into public
transit. And we already have subsidized public transit heavily and this
will help public transit even more. And you want more public transit but I
don't know how you are going to finance it unless you have some way to
finance it. This is a boom for public transit and childcare. So I just want
to point that out.
Doyle: I believe the laws require them to go back into the transit fund. I don't
know if that can offset- do you know Steve- offset the local transit levy? I
think it is capital that can only be used for capital replacement. If you are
looking here we are talking about-
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#6 Page 52
Atkins: After the project is paid for the income generated by the Near Southside
Transportation Center- the income, revenue, profit or whatever you want
to call it, accrues to the transit fund.
Champion: Right.
Kanner: Connie, actually we put in from the General Fund about- what is it,
$400,000?
Atkins: For transit?
Kanner: For public transit, $300,000 to $400,0007
Champion: It is a lot more than that.
Atkins: No, about $1.8 million. For everything.
Doyle: With the levy and the General Fund.
Atkins: With the levy and the General Fund it is about $1.8 million.
Karmer: No, not the levy. I am talking outside of the levy. There is an additional
from the General operating funds about $300,000 to $400,000 that we
have budgeted each year.
Atkins: We have two levies to finance transit- a 95 cent property tax levy which
generates $1.4 million-S1.5 million, and then from our 8/10, if that is what
you are talking about-
Kanner: Right.
Atkins: -that is correct, it is about $400,000.
Kanner: $8.10, which is separate. Now, if- Connie, if you say that that money that
we budgeted if we are going to keep it at that level in addition to the
amount that we are going to get from this parking ramp will stay the same
I would be a lot less wary of this project. What I think I have heard being
said is that this money that is coming out of $8.10 we are going to be
getting other money that is targeted for public transit by law and we are
going to diminish that amount per year- that $400,000 per year-
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#6 Page 53
Champion: Well, you must have a great ability to see into the future because I can't
promise you one way or the other. I probably will not be on the City
Council when this building is done and either will you. So, you know, I
don't think you can promise that at all.
Kanner: No, I can read that the majority does not have a commitment to that. And
that is why I am wary of- even though there will be money from the
parking lot I am arguing your point that this is money for public transit.
And I think we need to have a subsidy equal to what we have subsidized
in general for private transportation. And so the subsidy we put in doesn't
even come close. And so to argue that this money from this project is
going to be the savior of public transportation or to-
Champion: I didn't use that word. You are putting words in my mouth. I didn't use
that word.
Kanner: I won't use the savior.
Champion: Okay, good.
Kanner: But the intention of Council is- I heard discussed earlier at our budget
talks- is to be able to reduce that $8.10 amount because we are going to be
getting other money from this ramp. And so there won't be any gain
perhaps from the ramp.
Lehman: Steven that is tree but this Council is not going to encumber any future
Council nor probably should we. The future Council may choose to make
that in addition to parking and they may choose in fact to make that a
lesser contribution from the General fund. That is not something that we
know. (Can't hear).
Kanner: I am saying this is response to comments by Conhie.
Lehman: I know that.
Kauner: And so they are not quite true. I would say we are encumbering future
Councils by building this parking ramp in the first place.
Lehman: But we are not telling them where to spend the money.
Kauner: What?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#6 Page 54
Lehman: We are not telling them how they are going to appropriate the money.
Whether it is going to be increased transit or it is going to be decrease in
the-
Vanderhoef: We can't.
Kanner: What we are doing is saying build a parking lot for 500 and spend the
money for that and that is what I object to.
Lehman: That is right. And we recognize your objection.
Walters: I am Jim Walters. I live 1033 E. Washington. I am curious about the
marriage of the parking ramp and the daycare and how this came about.
Could anybody from staff or Council enlighten us on exactly the genesis
of how a public daycare got wedded to the idea of a parking ramp? And
whether there is any other instance in the United States where we have a
parking ramp and a daycare center together?
Atkins: I will take a stab at it for you Jim. The legislative program that authorized
this program had some long name- Intermodal Multi-purpose
Transportation whatever. And as a component of that federal legislation it
was intended that a variety of transportation related issues would be
brought together. And to my knowledge there are other facilities similar
to this. And the daycare issue evolved out of the fact that someone can
take a bus, get out of the bus, drop their children off at the daycare, go on
about your work, and drive a car and do the same things. And that the
daycare is one of the probably more important components of our
receiving the federal funding. And without having the specific legislation
in front of me it had been my understanding really from the get-go that we
had to have a component similar to that in this project.
Vanderhoef: From the perspective- go ahead.
Doyle: I just wanted to add that the city of Des Moines is doing this and we are
kind of using them as a model. It used to be called the- I think it was a
livable communities initiative (changed tapes) earmarked funding. So it is
another one of these earmarks that came about. But this livable
communities was the idea.
Atkins: At one time we were discussing with St. Pat's about buying their property.
We were going to put recreation facilities into the thing and that project
went away and then this was (can't hear).
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
' #6 Page 5 5
Doyle: They don't call it that anymore. It is the same idea. They just changed the
name. Yeah, the city of Des Moines does have a parking facility with a
daycare in the downtown that they use for people there commuting in and
use the daycare.
Lehman: Thank you.
Vanderhoef: There is a huge concern nationally, for daycare number one, by HUD and
the dollars that are spent there. And the other concern nationally is the
Workforce Development and to get people to jobs and to get them into
jobs we have to provide some place for these families to go during the
workday. And they are very interested in providing additional dollars to
make this happen to get people off of welfare and get them into good
paying jobs and moving forward.
Karmer: Just to add to what Steve was saying, I agree mostly with what he was
saying and I looked at the application that the city submitted and it talks
about promoting neighborhoods. That is the intent of the grant from the
federal government and a walkable, livable neighborhood. I think that is
used quite often in the grant application and in the criteria for awarding
this money from the feds. And because the federal government approves
it doesn't necessarily make it right. They approve a lot of things that we
don't necessarily agree with or don't have to agree with. I think the idea
of a childcare center is a fine idea. And some parking is a fine idea. But I
think we have it reversed. This is parking with a few nice things instead
of nice things with a little need of parking.
Walters: I guess I would agree with that and I would make the additional comment
that the Iowa City School District came down to you at budget time and
asked for $25,000 to ask for a Family Resource Center and that was too
much for this Council to consider. And that was to help families in need
in this city too.
Vanderhoef: I will just respond to that one Jim in that the dollars that they were asking
for came out of our General Fund dollars. They were not out of
Transportation or federal community development kinds of funds.
Lehman: We are not going to get into a discussion of Family Resource Centers. We
are talking about-
Walters: That is fine. I will respond to the point that you are putting down $3
million of taxpayer money on this as well.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#6 Page 56
Lehman: That is correct. Would anyone else like to address this item for the public
hearing? The public hearing is closed.
b. Consider a Resolution Authorizing
Lehman: Do we have a motion?
Champion: Move the resolution.
Lehman: Moved by Champion.
O'Donnell: Second.
Lehman: Seconded by O'Donnell. Council discussion?
Kanner: I would like to offer an amendment to remove $8,039,979 from the
application for the Burlington Parking Ramp for fiscal year '02.
Lehman: Is there a second to that amendment?
Pfab: I will second it for discussion.
Lehman: It has been moved and seconded that we remove approximately $8-
whatever the number was. Discussion? All in favor of the amendment
say "aye". All opposed say "aye". The motion is defeated. Kanner
voting in the affirmative. Is there a roll call on the original motion?
Kanner: I have discussion.
Lehman: I am sorry, go ahead.
Kanner: Even though I approve the rest of the $1.4 million for the buses for seats I
am going to have to vote against this because the vast majority of this is
for the Burlington Street Parking Ramp.
Lehman: Okay. Roll call. Motion carries, 6-1, Kanner voting in the negative.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#7 Page 57
ITEM NO. 7. PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND ESTIMATE OF COST FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE MORMON TREK BOULEVARD
IMPROVEMENTS- MELROSE AVENUE TO THE IOWA
INTERSTATE RAILROAD BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT, STP-U-3715(618)--70-52, AND DIRECTING CITY
CLERK TO PUBLISH ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS.
b. Consider a Resolution Approving
Lehman: Do we have a motion?
Vanderhoef: Move adoption of the resolution.
Wilbum: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by Wilburn. Discussion?
Karmer: I had a question. The bid deadline is being done in Ames and it said April
3 is the deadline. It seems awfully quick to have something right after we
are approving. It.probably won't be published for what- a couple of days?
And that is less than two weeks for the bids to get in.
Atkins: I am not sure Steve. We don't even publish these do we Marian?
Karr: No, it is all handled through the state.
Atkins: It is all by the state.
Kanner: No, I mean publish our results of our vote on this. I assume there has to
be official publication of it before they can-
Karr: Do you mean if the resolution- if you deny the resolution tonight?
Kanner: No, no. We are approving- let's say we approve the resolution- or forget it
about publishing- in any case it is awfully quick, April 3. I assumed there
might be a couple of days you have to publish it first. But regardless of
that April 3 is awfully quick and I don't understand how you could have a
deadline like that.
Atkins: My impression is that they have a bid letting schedule on the part oflDOT
and that our legislative action- our city legislative action- is intended to
accommodate their bid letting schedule.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#7 Page 58
Knoche: Yes, that is correct. The DOT already has these plans out for bid to the
contractors. They put it out for bid 5 months prior to the bid date. So this-
or I am sorry, not 5 months, 5 weeks. But this is kind of a formality for us
to go through in a DOT project of this nature.
Atkins: If they were to- if the Council was to defeat this motion what would
happen?
Knoche: We would have to pull it from the letting, if that would be the decision of
the Council at this time.
Atkins: They would pull the item? Okay. Thank you.
Knoche: Yeah.
Lehman: Thank you. Other discussion? Roll call. Motion carries 6-1, Kanner
voting in the negative.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#8 Page 59
ITEM NO. 8. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS,
SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT, AND ESTIMATE OF
COST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SOUTH SYCAMORE
REGIONAL GREENSPACE AND STORMWATER PROJECT,
ESTABLISHING AMOUNT OF BID SECURITY TO
ACCOMPANY EACH BID, DIRECTING CITY CLERK TO
PUBLISH ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, AND FIXING TIME
AND PLACE FOR RECEIPT OF BIDS.
a. Public Hearing
Lehman: The public hearing is open. This project has an estimated cost of $1.5
million. The first comprehensive stormwater project and one that we have
really been looking at for-
Arkins: It is a long time coming.
Lehman: -four or five years. The public hearing is closed.
b. Consider a Resolution Approving
Lehman: Do we have a motion?
Vanderhoef: So moved.
Wilbum: So moved.
Lehman: Moved by Wilburn, seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion?
Vanderhoef: I think this is such a wonderful program and I look forward to having it
completed and I would hope that we could go forward with a couple more
of these in Sensitive Areas like the one we talked about tonight.
Lehman: Other discussion? Roll call. Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#10 Page 60
ITEM NO. 10. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 6, CHAPTER
1 (NUISANCES) OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY
OF IOWA CITY BY ADDING STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES
TO CONTROL THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES PARKED,
STORED, PLACED OR KEPT OUTSIDE ON PRIVATE
PROPERTY. (SECOND CONSIDERATION).
Vanderhoef: Move adoption.
O'Donnell: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by O'Donnell. Mr. Thomas, I need to
explain to the Council- I have- Mr. Thomas came in today and asked if he
could make a presentation to the Council and I agreed that he could have a
five-minute presentation. I was probably incorrect in doing that in that we
have had a public hearing and everyone has had an opportunity to speak to
this issue. And those folks who would represent the other side of this
issue do not have that same opportunity. But irregardless I have never
since I have been Mayor given- or refused to give someone a right to
speak to the Council. So, I guess the only different here is that Mr.
Thomas wishes to use an overhead and make a five-minute presentation. I
would ask the Council if you have questions of Mr. Thomas to wait until
after his presentation and then those questions can take place. So if you
would like to go ahead.
Thomas: Let me just take a couple of minutes to organize my thoughts and catch
my breath. I came up to the Planning office earlier today and happened
across an article that was in the Wall Street Journal about the numbers of
retiring persons across the country that are finding Iowa City a desirable
place to live. And I, too, thought 17 years ago that Iowa City could
possibly be a desirable place to live. I only came here 3 years for law
school and decided l would go back to my native Florida. 17yearslater
we are still here. I also have reason to pause in terms of why. And there
seems to be a fundamental lack of neighborhood because one of the things
I would ask each Councilperson tonight- you saw a very proactive
neighborhood association, Harlocke, tonight. Have you had the pleasure
of anyone from the Rochester Place Neighborhood, the Rita Lynn
subdivision? There has been much talk about many complaints and
because of that the city has engaged in an anonymous complaint process
that sort of emerged in '97 because of parking on grass, which I did not
know was a violation- about many complaints being filed. But to date no
one can tell me whom filed any complaints. Now, what seems to have
happened in the meanwhile is the city has become the champion of the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20,2001.
FO32001
#10 Page 61
advocate for this effort based on aesthetics. Now, I understand the
beautification process across the country. But aesthetics also is subjective.
And if your thoughts about my cars, which I think are beautiful- you may
think I have a used car lot Mr. O'Dormell. I don't. I own classics. And
just the front row, the first four, are probably worth in excess of $50,000.
Now, there also was a memo that Steve Atkins created back in 1991 that
talked about neighborhood participation and the process. I still challenge
you to tell me whom from Rochester Place has come forward and
complained. You can just say it was from Rochester Place. That hasn't
happened. The way it has been conducted is a very cowardly way in order
to create an ordinance that is going to have impact on everyone. There
was even discussion from the standpoint of grandmothering or
grandfathefing me in, so I am the source of the ordinance that you will
vote on. I don't want you to grandmother or grandfather me in because
then what takes place is you create an ordinance without a basis for it. Do
you understand what I am saying? If you grandmother me in you are
basically saying yeah you offended our sensibilities. Because I can't think
of any public, health, safety or welfare concerns. There are some public
safety and welfare concerns that are associated with this issue. Back in
September- September the 18th to be exact- I gave each Councilperson a
copy of this document and provided a copy to the clerk. In here are
affidavits from every resident at 131 in terms of the abuse and other things
that have happened at that address and also police reports. I noticed also
in this chronologically of events compiled by the City Manager' s office, it
is devoid of a letter furnished by the Chief of Police. It is also in error
when it says that- portions of it there was- and I think one of the
Councilperson's requested an update to try and figure out what was going
on out there- that I was not receiving any support from the police. Well,
the only support I have ever gotten has been from the police who had even
offered to provide surveillance cameras to sort of find out who was
creating the vandalism at that address. You know, I also realize that that
land has character. All of it does whether you live on Summit Street,
Wylde Green, Post Road, or Tudor. You may have next door neighbors
and in most cases I think the neighbors are somewhere between 15 and 25
feet of you. I don't have that. My nearest neighbor, Montclair
Apartments, is about 250 feet away. To the south of me my nearest
neighbor is 500 feet away. My nearest neighbor to the rear is 500 feet
away. And my nearest neighbor across the street is 300 feet away. The
property sits on 1.5 acres. And like you Mr. O'Donnell, my property rises
sharply. You have to be looking to find vehicles when you pass it.
Otherwise all you are going to see is midway up the hill. So ifI want to
know if there is a car parked in your garage I have to take the time to train
my eyes. The other thing too is when that walkway was agreed upon by
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#10 Page 62
the City Council in October 1987, those covenants provided for a
~valkway. It didn't provide, Councilman Vanderhoef, for you to come and
make inventory of what is in my backyard. It is there as a walkway. And
the only purpose was to connect Rita Lynn with First Avenue. I don't
know what is in your backyard because if I came to your backyard I would
be trespassing. I couldn't come in your backyard either Mr. Lehman. I
would be trespassing. You commit a trespass when you use the walkway
yet your eyes capture something and you form some kind of an opinion in
terms of something you like or don't like. Aesthetics is a fimny thing. I
could very well say that I don't like wagon wheels in my front yard. I
would (can't hear) fences. It may be wood chips or wood blocks. You
know, it gets really ridiculous when I think about all of the work that has
gone on to create an ordinance that is not based on safety, health or
welfare concerns. Thank you for your time.
Lehman: Thank you. Questions from Council?
Kanner: What did the letter from the- James?
Thomas: Yes?
Kanner: (Can't hear) letter that was missing. What does the letter from the Police
Chief say?
Thomas: I have it here. Oh, yeah, by the way- this letter was written September 26.
Should I put it on here?
Lehman: We probably won't be able to read it up there but if you would like to tell
us what it says go fight ahead.
Thomas: It says, "over the last couple of years we have had private conversations
about the above incidents and others such as damage to various vehicles
parked on the property. And these incidences start in June of 1997. Hot
air balloon landed in yard. Presence of 75-100 people on property." Who
is liable? Are they invitees? Are the trespassers? It makes a difference in
terms of if someone had been hurt, a dog would have bitten a child- and
there were dogs out there, Pitbulls and Rottweillers, because people came
to see the carnival. A hot air balloon coming down in the basin. "6/19/98-
people coming across property." And by the way, being abusive while
doing so. "12/2/98- 2 males stated they were looking for a cable TV box".
That they were cable employees, what they were doing was looking at the
classics that was in the backyard. "8/8/99- Man and dog on property".
The dog was taking a dump on the top of the burm. "8/17/99- Kids in area
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#10 Page 63
using bats to destroy mailbox". "10/1/99- Vehicles blocking exit from the
property. 11/1/99-". These are all investigated by the City Police
Officers. "Water balloons, fruit, thrown against house". "4/9/00- Joggers
trespassing on property". As a matter of fact, I saw this jogger at the VA-
he works there and he came out and he said, "do you remember me?" I
said, "no, I don't" and he said, "I am the guy that you thought was on your
property". And I said, "but you were". And he said, "no, I was on the
burm'. In other words the rise where the basin is he cut across the
property. I said, "well, that is my property". You see, he had already
defined for himself like a lot of people do when they come through there.
Like a lot of people come through there and make assumptions about
things they know nothing about. As a matter of fact, as I have said, I have
a sworn affidavit that says in the ten years I have been there I have never
had a complaint from a neighbor about cars or anything else. Now people
are too cowardly to complain to me and then Council people are called
and have many complaints. Why didn't you say something to me? This is
in the video from the March 5 meeting. If someone is complaining to you
about things in the last three years, why haven't you said anything? Also,
I think as a result of Steve Atkin's efforts in 1990, the community
neighborhood officer position grew out of that. I only learned her name
today because it was my understanding that she is the person that might be
the liaison ~vhen problems come up in the community because after all you
do want neighborhoods and neighborhood associations to help the city do
the very thing that you are trying to decide now. And that is whether or
not it is reasonable to create an ordinance when you don't have a basis.
The rest of the letter goes this way- "a good deal of concem has been
expressed about the sidewalk to the north of the property and the easy
access it provides to the property and vehicles making an easy target for
vandals. An example of vandalism is a recent slashing of a tire on a
pickup parked in the driveway." That was August of 2000. "The photos
we have discussed in the past are attached and show some of the damage
that has been done to your property. One photo shows the cement work
done to the rear of the residence which was put in as a parking pad, where
the vehicles were damaged almost immediately". That is the time frame.
"At one point we spoke about placing surveillance cameras on the
property with the intent to document whoever is responsible for the acts of
vandalism to the property". Now, you know, this is one of those Catch 22
situations. I did what I needed to do to comply to not be illegally parked
but at the same time I had a problem with how the ordinance is enfomed.
You have selective enforcement. Unless someone makes an anonymous
complaint you don't respond. The problem is that every time someone
calls there was a response. In that chronology of events someone points
out the fact that I applied for a building permit and didn't pick it up. Well,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#10 Page 64
what was not said was that I was told that because I wanted to change the
size of the garage I would have to reapply and go through the whole
process again. Plus there was a question in 1995 whether or not we were
even going to stay in Iowa City. But this all comes from the covenants of
the William Ambrose era. In '87 it was signed with Dean Oakes, which
agrees to put that sidewalk in between Rita Lynn Court and First Avenue.
And the burden for that sidewalk- the burden of maintenance, repair and
upkeep was supposed to fall on the 22 lot owners in Rita Lynn
subdivision. And guess what people? The neighborhood association
never got off the ground. So for ten years guess who has been
maintaining, repairing, mowing and doing snow removal on that 300 feet
of sidewalk? Yeah, yours truly. There is no neighborhood association.
Lehman: Let me ask you something James. If you had been approached by your
neighbors and asked not to park so many cars in your yard or whatever
would you have responded in the affirmative?
Thomas: I probably would explain to them what I was doing.
Lehman: Okay, and the cars would have remained in your front yard or in your back
yard?
Thomas: No, no. As I said, that is the assumption you are making.
Lehman: I am asking that.
Thomas: What I am saying is that I would explain to them what I was doing. Now,
do you want to know what I was doing?
Lehman: Yeah. Go right ahead.
Thomas: All fight. I commuted from Iowa City to Madison, Wisconsin for seven
years.
Lehman: I am aware of that.
Thomas: So let me finish.
Lehman: Go ahead.
Thomas: I had several cars in Madison that I worked on. Those cars were never in
Iowa City (can't hear) Wisconsin plates, which show up in this chronology
of events. The whole idea was either to sell those cars or build a structure
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#10 Page 65
to house them. I never got a chance to do that because every time I got
ready to do something about a permanent shelter there was either a
complaint- and I am in court saying, hey, this doesn't make sense first of
all to have someone trigger an investigation based on an anonymous
complaint. I have said to every one who is involved in the Housing office-
and the police are well aware of it- what I was doing. I was bringing
everything that I own home so that I could sort it out. Someone made the
comment about 22 cars. I don't know how many cars I own. But I know
it is not 22. And since this whole thing has started I am probably down-
and I won't count the cars- about $9000 because I let some of them go.
Lehman: You still- I don't think I understand. If your neighbors-
Thomas: In other words what I am saying is that it is not a long-term problem. It
has become a long-term problem because once I realized that- if I can say
it this way- the city was agent for whomever is the complaining party.
Because it can't be the Rita Lynn subdivision because otherwise someone
from Rita Lynn would be here saying yeah, we agree. I haven't heard
from anyone from Rita Lynn. So my point is I want to know who it was.
I don't think there is anything wrong with that. I think that even in
criminal cases you have a right to face your accused. I want to know who
it was because no one, as I will say again, no one ever asked me what the
plan was. No one ever asked me what the purpose was. Suppose you had
a neighbor that said, Ernie I really don't like that wagon wheel in the front
of your yard. Would you move it?
Lehman: I might because I don't know if I like it so well either. But my wife really
likes it.
Thomas: But you understand what I am saying?
Lehman: We would have a problem. Let's proceed with this- what- I am going to
be your neighbor right now- what are your plans for those cars? I mean,
obviously you know as we all do that for a significant period of time there
have been some folks, anonymous as they may be, who have found that
those cars parked in your yard to be offensive.
Thomas: I don't know that.
Lehman: Yeah you do know that or we wouldn't bother.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#10 Page 66
Thomas: Understand what I am saying. I don't know that for a fact. It may very
well be the city saying that and complaining about the cars because they
don't like it. I don't know.
Lehman: Be that as it may-
Thomas: Listen, no one has said anything to me. And unless someone confronts me
what am I supposed to do?
Lehman: What are your plans for the cars?
Thomas: I am going to store them within a garage unit. The ones that I will keep.
Right now I am sorting through the ones that I am getting rid of.
Lehman: So how many cars do you intend to keep on that property outside?
Thomas: You mean outside?
Lehman: Yeah.
Thomas: Probably no more than 2 or 3. Visibly showing? Maybe 2 or 3. No more
than 2 or 3.
Lehman: And what time frame do you expect to get down to 2 or 37
Thomas: Within the next year.
Lehman: Which means this ordinance would have no effect on you whatsoever.
Thomas: Why create it?
O'Donnell: Because this isn't the only complaint.
Champion: Right.
O'Dormell: There is like 70 or 80 complaints throughout the city on this a year. It was
put in the paper- both local papers- that this is the only complaint and that
is just not tree. Throughout the city we average between 70 and 90
complaints per year.
Kanner: I heard- when we started this we asked our staff and we were told that this
basically was the only one. If we have a change saying that there is 70 or
80 1 have (can't hear).
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#10 Page 67
O'Donnell: No, that is not correct Steven. What they said is they believe the
ordinance is created for this but what I am telling you is I am correcting
what was put out in the paper saying that there is only this complaint
because it is just not true.
Lehman: But this one had the most cars.
O'Donnell: This one had the most cars but we have 70 to 90 complaints per year.
Kanner: Mike, if I find the transcript will you change your vote because I
specifically remember asking this question is this the only complaint that
we have had on this issue? Are there other complaints throughout the city
and we were told no, there are no other complaints.
O'Donnell: No, I am not going to change my vote Steven because I believe the
ordinance is fight. And I made the call and found out myself how many
complaints we have a year. And it is between 70 and 90.
Lehman: Are there any other questions for Mr. Thomas?
Thomas: I have a couple of comments. I am really sincere about this too. That
covenant that was created in 1987 took a lot of work.
Champion: I couldn't hear you.
Thomas: I am sorry?
Champion: I couldn't hear you.
Thomas: I said the covenant that was- I think was called Resolution 300 which
created the burden of that sidewalk- Resolution 300, Declaration of
Covenants- and in it (can't hear) of a residential subdivision as Rochester
Place is related. And it is related because a lot of this is coming from the
fact that none of my neighbors had been responsive to letting me know
what they planned to do when repairs were needed on the sidewalk. That
is not- that is my sidewalk because it is on my property. I should not bear
the cost when the covenant clearly says each lot owner has a 1/22
responsibility. The other part of it is suppose someone slips and falls on
the sidewalk now.
Lehman: This really isn't relevant to what we are talking about.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#10 Page 68
Thomas: But it is relevant.
Lehman: How is it relevant?
Thomas: It is relevant because if- this is what I am saying to you- if the city puts
itself (can't hear) to look at ordinances that are based on public safety,
health and welfare issues, I am talking about a public safety, health and
welfare issue related to the same neighborhood that basically put forth the
seed for an ordinance based on public safety or health or welfare. But see,
that didn't happen here. This is being based on aesthetics. And someone
said "beautification of Iowa City". My point is this is something that has
no way of saying where you pin the tail on this donkey because if this
covenant in itself does not have any effect and there is no way to attach
expenses to the lot owners then I am left to my own devices again to
determine how I will go about collecting what needs to be collected for the
past ten years.
Lehman: No-
Thomas: No, let me finish. Because, you see, if the sidewalk wasn't there the
Councilman to your right wouldn't have been able to walk through my
property anyway and know what is in my backyard. She couldn't count
what is in my backyard.
Lehman: If you have a covenant- and again we really need to move on- but if you
have a covenant that requires them to participate in the maintenance of the
sidewalk don't you have a civil remedy to require that they all pay for
that?
Thomas: Why should I have to reach that if-
Lehman: If you signed the agreement, that is not a city agreement is it?
Thomas: Listen, would the city have granted approval for that subdivision to be
developed and adopted had it not been for Oakes determining he would in
fact put that sidewalk there?
Lehman: I have no idea. I don't know that.
Thomas: That is the question that you should ask yourself.
Lehman: That isn't relevant to this.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#10 Page 69
Thomas: You may not think it is but what I am- I am sorry, go ahead.
Lehman: We have covenants all over this community within neighborhoods. Some
of those are well enforced and worked with and some of them are not. But
that really is the responsibility of the property owner to deal with the other
parties to that covenant. That is not something the city is even a part of.
Is that correct? Isn't this a covenant among the homeowners?
Thomas: If the Association fails, the city-
Lehman: I don't think so-
Thomas: That is the way this one reads.
Lehman: Is that right?
Thomas: If you want to take a look at it.
Lehman: I don't have time now.
Thomas: You are more than welcome to take a look at it. If the Association fails
the city has to step in and take the appropriate steps and then bill the
appropriate property owners. So do you want me to send you the bill?
Lehman: That is another discussion but thank you very much.
Thomas: All right.
Lehman: Discussion on part of Council?
Wilburn: I would like to ask a question. I don't see anyone from Housing here but
maybe I can ask Eleanor. In your conversations with Housing about
crafting this ordinance there was a discussion or disagreement about how
many complaints- have there been more than one complaint about the
number of vehicles stored on any property?
Dilkes: Are you talking about at different locations than Mr. Thomas's property?
Wilbum: Yes.
Dilkes: Not that I am aware of. But I-
Wilburn: Okay, there was no one from Housing here so-
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 21}, 21}01.
FO32001
#10 Page 70
Dilkes: But in crafting the ordinance it has been my understanding that the
primary problem being addressed is the problem of Mr. Thomas' s
property.
Pfab: Would you change that to the only problem?
Dilkes: Possibly, yes. That has been my understanding. I can't speak to that
directly because I don't receive complaints in Housing. But it has been
my understanding, yeah.
Lehman: Other discussion?
Karmer: Yeah, Mike, I looked up here on the transcripts from January 8, 2001 and I
can see where there could be some disagreement on what is meant. Doug
in reply to your question of "is this a frequent problem" he says, "we have
had frequent complaints on this one particular situation. Vehicles storage
is a frequent problem but most of these issues deal with inoperable
vehicles. Most people don't go to the expense of keeping them all
licensed and operable. We deal with, you know, I don't know, over 100
complaints of inoperable vehicles". So the 100 figure is of a different
situation. They are inoperable. This is a law that is not dealing with
inoperable vehicles. This is dealing with operable licensed vehicles so on
that matter we haven't had other complaints.
O'DonnelI: We have Steven. This is about cars stored in the front yard. This is about
cars stored in a rear yard. We have had complaints. Whether they start or
not is really immaterial. This is also about are we ready to put out to the
city that if you have a construction company that you can park your
vehicles in your front yard if you pour a pad. And for that matter- pontoon
boats. We have complaints on this every year. This is residential, not
commercial. I have said before and I will say it again, I would not like
this next door to me and I don't think any property owner in Iowa City
would. Mr. Thomas here has just said that in approximately one year that
he is going to remedy his own problem. And this is simply a mechanism-
a tool the city has. If we get a complaint then we have a mechanism we
can use. And that is what I said. I spoke with Doug Boothroy specifically
to find out if we do have more than one complaint and we do. It is cars
parked in the yard. Whether they start or not they are parked in the yard.
Kanner: I think most of us would agree inoperable cars are a problem from a
variety of different angles- from an environmental perspective of possibly
having leaking oil-
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#10 Page 71
O'Donnell: That can happen.
Kanner: But I think from- this is operable licensed and I think we need to separate
that. And so then we have to question is it in the best interest of the city to
make a law regarding this one instance of operable cars and vehicles?
Even though we might not like the idea.
O'Donnell: Well, I am not buying the one instance Steven.
Dilkes: This is a- can I suggest- this is a second reading. Maybe you can get some
clarification to that question from Housing before you vote and do your
final reading.
Champion: I have tried to avoid making this a personal issue with Mr. Thomas but I
don't- I have deliberately avoided him because of that. I don't consider
this a personal thing or a one time issue. I have had several phone calls
since I have been the "swing vote" on this, from people who have
complained to the city in the past about neighbors of theirs with this same
problem. And so I am totally confident that this is not a single-issue
problem. And I think sometimes- so it isn't just Mr. Thomas that I am
willing to grandmother in. I honestly feel that people need to have time to
take care of a situation when there is an ordinance. You can't pass an
ordinance one day and enforce it the next. It just isn't possible on this
particular thing. So I am still going to support this ordinance but I would
like a clearer answer to Mike's statement. But on the other hand I
personally have had at least seven phone calls this past week about people
telling me that they have problems in their neighborhood with this same
thing. So I don't think it is an isolated incident like most of us would like
to think it is.
Lehman: Other discussion?
Dilkes: Can I just clarify that there has been discussion about grandfathering in
Mr. Thomas and that is not how the statute reads. The ordinance will not
take effect for a year.
Champion: That is right. Which is the best way to do it.
Dilkes: Right.
Champion: And that is the way it should be done.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
# 10 Page 72
O'Donnell: I agree with you.
Kanner: I thought it does take effect but except for those who are not in compliance
with it when it is enacted after the third reading?
Dilkes: With respect to violations that are in existence May 1, 2001 there will be
no action to abate the nuisance until May 1, 2002.
Kanner: Right. So it does take effect for other people after May?
Dilkes: If the- yes.
Kanner: If there is someone else that is in violation it does take effect after May 1
for all other people?
Dilkes: For new violations, correct.
Karmer: Exactly, that is it. That is not what you had said before.
Champion: Yeah.
Pfab: In effect it is a grandmothering/grandfathering-
Dilkes: My clarification- the point of my clarification was that we are not
directing it specifically at Mr. Thomas. It applies to all violations in
existence on the date of May 1, 2001.
Lehman: Okay, further discussion? Roll call. Motion carries 4-3, Kanner, Pfab and
Wilburn voting in the negative.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#11 Page 73
ITEM NO. 11. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST AN AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND THE IOWA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE
INSTALLATION OF VIDEO TRAFFIC SIGNAL DETECTION
EQUIPMENT ON U.S. HIGHWAY 6 BETWEEN GILBERT
STREET AND FAIRMEADOWS BOULEVARD.
Vanderhoef: Move adoption.
O'Donnell: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion?
Kanner: I had a question on this. Is there anyone that can answer-
Atkins: Ask the question and then we will let you know.
Kanner: That is probably a good idea. Where does the video feed from this go?
Does it go to the computers or does it go to police officers or to anyone
else? I have some concern about that.
Atkins: As I understand it, this video is in effect pointed at a spot in the street and
rather than the magnetic tripping it, it sees the car- there is no feed to
anything that I know of. It is isolated to that particular intersection. That
is how it works.
Lehman: It regulates the traffic light.
Arkins: All it does is regulate the traffic. So if it feeds to anything it goes into the
signal and/or the control box that sits on the corner. But there is nothing
in the police department or cable tv or anything such as that.
Kanner: But it does have the capability of us to easily access that if we wanted to?
Atkins: I don't know what good it would do because it is basically a motion
detector.
Vanderhoef: This saves us from having to do the underground loop.
Kanner: I understand that but my concern is with video presence throughout the
city that I think that is a bad road to go down. And right now in Iowa we
have a good law that says you cannot use video cameras to give out tickets
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#11 Page 74
and we are not going to use this to give out tickets. But the more cameras
you have in a community and in public spaces- and this is happening all
over the country- especially in states that don't have the laws that protect
us like in Iowa, it is more of an invasion of privacy. And it is something
that I am concemed about. And so right now we say the cameras only go
to this computer equipment that is going to trip the light but the whole idea
of cameras on the street that can be hooked up to a government entity is
something that I don't feel is a good route to go even though we do gain
some engineering efficiency, the possible negative consequences are
something that I am wary of.
Champion: I think it is a really good question.
Lehman: (Can't hear) now and the second reading.
Atkins: There is no second reading Ernie. This is a grant application.
Vanderhoef: I would speak to what you are saying. So, for instance, the Church and
Dubuque Street ones you would rather not have a camera there and then
do a rebuild there to put in additional lanes of traffic so that we can have a
left hand turn lane and protect everything and widen the road and street in
that area?
Kanner: I would say there might be other ways to look at reducing traffic in that
area to take a more global sense. It is certainly something to weigh-
certainly we have been told that it is going to be more efficient but I think
it has to be weighed about that potential for abuse and I think we have to
be ever vigilant to make sure that government does not intrude upon the
privacy of individuals any more than necessary. And I know it probably
doesn't go to anywhere directly that is going to be seen but there is the
possibility for abuse and it is easy once it is up there to take that abuse.
And it makes it easier- not that it is going to happen today but it could
happen down the road. It leads us down a slope that I am not comfortable
(changed tapes) that is what we are told.
Lehman: It says video traffic signal detection equipment.
Kanner: What?
Lehman: It says video traffic signal detection equipment. It does not say camera.
Vanderhoef: No cameras.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#11 Page 75
Wilbum: (can't hear).
Lehman: I don't know what it is, I am just telling you what it says.
Champion: You know, I agree with you Steven- oh, I can't believe I said that- but, I
think that is a really valid point. And I assume that this does not take
pictures so I am willing to vote on this only on the condition that it doesn't
take a picture because I agree with you. I think would be an incredible
invasion of privacy. What if I am picking my nose at the stoplight?
Atkins: We don't want you to do that.
Lehman: You don't need a camera to see that.
Arkins: How about this- it is an application and applications traditionally are time
sensitive. We would recommend that you approve the application so that
we can proceed for the monies. I will have a memo prepared, bring it
back to you at the next meeting, if for any reason you are not happy you
can make a motion to undo what we did and we will quit.
Lehman: All right.
P fab: I would like to just make a kind of a tangent comment here. I don't know
if you happened to be listening to NPR radio about cameras that they have
used in Brazil to reduce the horrific amount of traffic deaths and whatnot
and they just install a lot of cameras. The cabbies used to call them
sparrows because they put them up in trees and all kinds of places like
that. But it was an awful change for those people that were driving like
maniacs. But it has apparently done a lot of very good things.
Lehman: Well, this is only going to change the signal.
Pfab: It has nothing to do with this.
Lehman: This is just going to change traffic lights.
O'Donnell: On Highway 6.
Champion: This is the United States of America, Irvin.
Pfab: I know.
Lehman: Roll call. Motion carries 6-1, Kanner voting in the negative.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#12 Page 76
ITEM NO. 12. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING
THE SOLICITATION OF OFFERS TO PURCHASE URBAN
RENEWAL PARCEL 64-1A FOR A PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT.
Lehman: Do we have a motion7
Vanderhoef: So moved.
Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef.
Champion: Second.
Lehman: Seconded by Champion.
Canin: Hi, my name is Barbara Canin and I live at 210 Richards Street. I am here
representing a large group of families, many of whom have emailed and
written you about this parcel, the parking lot across from the library, and a
number of whom are here tonight to show their concern. You also have a
letter from me in your packet. Though it is not as impressive a show as
that of the Weeber Harlocke Neighborhood Association, it is this group of
us here and some of us who had to go home because we have small kids
and had to put them to sleep. If the city is intent on selling this significant
piece of Pedestrian Mall real estate for development, we just want to urge
you to do it wisely and carefully. This is the time the Council and we as
citizens have some say in how the Ped Mall looks and feels at its critical
east end, the Lirm Street entrance to the mall and the entrance to the new
public library. We strongly urge you to amend the RFP before it is sent
out to developers to include two items that the Planning staff had
originally included but that I understand were removed at a working
session. And those are one, to include some public space at the front of
this development, preferably green space adjacent to the Ped Mall so that
the new development is set back a bit offof the Pedestrian Mall. And
related to that is to have it built with sensitivity to the amount of sunlight
on the Pedestrian Mall and the wonderful new playscape outside the
Library that so many people with young families use. Both of these would
enhance the quality of life for those using the east end of the Pedestrian
Mall and would also enhance the new entrance to the Public Library which
we are spending a lot of money on and in which this parcel is perhaps
being sold in pan to finance. Two items included in the RFP but that we
would like to add our voices in support of and which we would like you to
emphasize in evaluating any proposals you receive are that the
development is number one aesthetically in keeping with the beautiful
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#12 Page 77
original architecture that makes downtown Iowa City so distinctive and
two that the developers include or that it is recommended that they include
some kind of public parking for Library users on the site. One other
request that I have of Council Members is if you could please go down to
the playscape in the Pedestrian Mall sometime on a sunny Saturday
morning and see how inviting a place it is with sun shining on it that can
get there through the open space of the parking lot and then go at 4 in the
afternoon when the enormous shadow of the Sheraton covers the
playscape. If the new development is built right up against the Ped Mall
and it is built to the maximum height allowed in the code without
consideration for sunlight on the Mall it will feel rather like a darkened
tunnel rather than the bright inviting place it is now. Thank you so much
for considering our concerns before sending out the RFP. And one
member of our coalition was unable to get her letter to you over email and
would like to read it into the record now if you would allow that. Thanks.
Lehman: Thank you.
Kanner: Barbara?
Canin: Can I sign her in since (can't hear)?
Champion: Sure.
Kanner: While you are switching- go ahead and do that. The proposal that came to
us, some of those- although I might agree with you on some of them- they
were not necessarily from the Planning staffs recommendations. They
came from things that individual members threw out and so it was still up
for debate at that time.
Canin: Okay. I have kind of come in on this process a little late so I might have
had the history a little bit off. But those are things that we think would be
very important for the health of downtown.
Champion: And your letters were all very well written and I think we share some of
your concerns.
Jensen: Hi, I apologize- SheraI Jensen, 225 River Street- I apologized, I was
unable to get through the email somehow and so I am going to quickly
read my letter and then submit it I guess. We are writing this letter in
response to the recent discussion about possible development of the
parking lot aetjacent to the Public Library in downtown Iowa City. We are
a family of six with four young children and use the downtown area
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#12 Page 78
regularly throughout the year. We have recently retumed to Iowa City and
have been concerned by some of the changes in the downtown area that
we see. We encourage you to move forward very cautiously and
thoughtfully in development of this area. And ask that you please
consider the following: that the Pedestrian Mall and Library are two of the
cornerstones of the downtown and any development should enhance these
features. Please give serious consideration to include a component of
public green space in this area. This would certainly enhance the
Pedestrian Mall and beautify the Library entrance. 3- any development
must be sensitive to the adjacent library to allow adequate exposure to
southern windows in the original building and the new addition.
Commercial development should give special consideration to family
friendly businesses and businesses which add to the diversity of retail,
dining, entertainment, and experiences available. These businesses would
bring back families to downtown and enhance the atmosphere and
opportunities for everyone downtown. Next, although parking has been
and always will be a contentious issue in downtown Iowa City we feel that
additional parking does not necessarily have to be a component of this
parcel but that consideration must be made and given to parking access for
Library patrons and especially with small children. Attention also must be
given to the facade of any structure built to enhance the look and feel of
downtown. My husband and I know that many families share similar
feelings about these issues and we thank you very much for your serious
consideration of these ideas. This was written by myself and my husband.
I will give that to you. And just one additional comment I would like to
make is that it seems like before anything is decided you really have to
know what you are doing and not get yourself into a position where you
have to say yes to a developer because you don't have the rules laid out
ahead of time. And so I would urge you to go slowly and consider some
of these additional things that may have been pulled out and that you
won't act so quickly and then we have regrets later on.
Lehman: Sheral, I want to point something out to you. What we are doing is we are
asking for a proposal.
Jensen: Right, I know that.
Lehman: We can reject every proposal that we get. In other words, we give
earmarks- if for whatever reason Council or staff decides they don't like
what they saw we don't have to take any proposals. We are not locked
into anything.
Jensen: Okay. I understand that.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#12 Page 79
Lehman: I think you should know that. Most of the things that you have talked
about are concerns that I think the Cotmcil shares and so does staff.
Jensen: Right. My understanding though that if you don't have things laid out that
you can't deny or that it will make it difficult to deny proposals. I
understand that you are in the just gathering.
Lehman: My understanding is we can deny any proposal that we choose because we
don't like it.
Wilburn: Because the city owns the property.
Lehman: Yeah, we don't happen to like it. Or if we accept a proposal we can after
that proposal is accepted we can work with that proposer and incorporate
other things in that proposal as long as we can work it out. We have a lot
of latitude on this.
Jensen: Good. And I guess I would then reiterate that I hope you will get public
opinion once you get proposals maybe to lay them out so that the public
can also voice their opinions and be involved in that.
Lehman: That is part of the process.
Kanner: But the Council majority, and I was part of that on some of these things
and some I didn't agree with- we did set a direction and so I think you are
right in that sense. This is- we are putting our view out that this is what
we want and this is what we feel is the best for the community. So we did
set a direction.
Jensen: And if you look at the- I have looked at the RFP that the- I mean, there are
a few issues that aren't laid out like the density. You know, you could
have a very tall building placed there. Them is nothing that says that you
couldn't. And that would be a detriment to that area.
Lehman: Except the Library wants it.
Champion: The Library wants it.
Lehman: They do. They don't want the sunlight.
Champion: They want to keep the sunlight out of the windows.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#12 Page 80
Lehman: Irvin?
Pfab: Your first name is Sheral?
Jensen: Yes.
Pfab: Sheral, I think that input at this point is critical and I really thank you for
coming and speaking very strongly what your thoughts and positions are.
I appreciate it.
Jensen: Thanks. And I hope that it has some impact. Thank you.
Champion: You've had to wait a long time.
Lehman: Any other discussion?
O'Donnell: And be very patient.
Lehman: Roll call. Did I hear 6 yes and a no by Wilbum?
Wilbum: I said in the work session I just don't support (can't hear).
Karr: Can we have a motion to accept correspondence?
O'Donnell: So moved.
Champion: Second.
Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Champion to accept correspondence.
All in favor say aye? Opposed same sign. Would you guys like to take a
break? We are going to take about 5 minutes.
Champion: I am sorry, I just have to get out of here for (can't hear).
(Break)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#13 Page 81
ITEM NO. 13. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND JUSTINE ZIMMER,
SCULPTOR, FOR A SCULPTURE TO BE PLACED ON THE
ROTATING SCULPTURE PROGRAM PAD IN THE DOWNTOWN
PEDESTRIAN MALL AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE AND CITY CLERK TO ATTEST THE SAME.
Champion: Move the resolution.
O'Dormell: Second.
Lehman: Moved by Champion, seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion?
Pfab: As I was listening to you read the ordinance I was thinking of like putting
them in the- what is it, the protection plan? The Witness Protection Plan
for (can't hear).
Lehman: Is that an amendment?
Pfab: No. (Can't hear).
Lehman: Any other discussion? Roll call.
Pfab: What are we voting for, to accept this?
Dilkes: The Zimmer contract.
Lehman: Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#15 Page 82
ITEM NO. 15. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING, AUTHORIZING
AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AND THE CITY
CLERK TO ATTEST AN AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE
CITY OF IOWA CITY AND THE DUNBAR/JONES
PARTNERSHIP OF DES MOINES TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING
CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR THE HICKORY HILL PARK
TRAIL IMPROVEMENT.
Lehman: The estimated fee on this is- the negotiated fee is $66,461.
Wilburn: So moved.
Pfab: Move the resolution.
Lehman: Moved by Wilburn, seconded by Pfab. Discussion?
O'Donnell: I would like to say this- this is really tremendous and this is what the city
is all about. This is a park and it should be accessible.
Lehman: Tell them what it is. This is to make the park accessible for people with
disabilities.
O'Donnell: Exactly.
Champion: And plus it was worked out with the groups.
Pfab: And I think there is another part that is also part of it. It is relatively
unintmsive.
Lehman: Right.
Pfab: Limited intrusiveness.
Lehman: Further discussion? Roll call.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#16 Page 83
ITEM NO. 16. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST AN ADDENDUM TO
A LEASE FOR BUSINESS PROPERTY WITH THE JOHNSON
COUNTY AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION FOR RENTAL OF
THE JOHNSON COUNTY 4-H BUILDING IN IOWA CITY, IOWA
FOR PURPOSES OF STORAGE OF CITY EQUIPMENT.
Vanderhoef: Move adoption.
Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef.
O'Donnell: Second.
Lehman: Seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion?
Pfab: I am proposing that we no longer lease this after we build a basement in
the Parking Ramp on Burlington Street.
Lehman: That is another amendment that probably won't get a second. Is there any
other discussion?
Karmer: Yeah, I have something perhaps not as serious as Mr. Pfab's question. I
have a concern about the big increase in price going from $4000 to $5600
for the first renewal to $7200. The first one is a 40% increase and then a
28% increase. I realize we are going perhaps to the shorter leases with the
option to bow out and that might increase the price but is that hot property
out there?
Atkins: I am just kind of afraid to comment publicly, but you asked. It is a real
deal. And it.just went up this year after years of being in the- I think it
was $4000 or $5000 a year. This is a really good deal for us.
Pfab: But it still goes back if we had our own facility we wouldn't have to worry
about it.
Atkins: And we are on our way to doing.just that. That will be incorporated into
our Public Works pro.ject.
Lehman: I guarantee you we will never build one and own it for what we could pay
for this.
Atkins: We won't even come close. No, it is a really good deal.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#16 Page 84
Lehman: Other discussion? Roll call. Motion carries.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#20 Page 85
ITEM NO. 20. COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Lehman: The Historic Preservation Commission has one appointment for which we
have received no applications. The Planning and Zoning Commission has
two appointments. One for an unexpired term ending May 1, 2001 in
addition to a five year term May 2001-May 1, 2006. Council last night
agreed to appoint Don Anciaux to that one and a one five-year term of
May 1, 2001 through May 1, 2006. This term for Benjamin Chait expires.
He has reapplied and we have agreed to reappoint him. The Public Art
Advisory Committee has one appointment for an unexpired term January
1, 1999 to January 1, 2002. Again, several people applied. We have
agreed to appoint Barb Camillo. Is there a motion to approve those
appointments?
O'Donnell: So moved.
Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Pfab. All in favor?
Pfab: No, no, just a second. I would like to go on record as saying I think we
are missing an opportunity here when didn't appoint Charlie Eastham
because of his abilities and his dedication to service in this area. That is
my comment.
Lehman: Did I get a second from you or not?
P lab: No.
Lehman: Okay, I have a moved by O'Donnell-
Champion: I will second it.
Lehman: -and seconded by Champion. All right, other discussion?
Kanner: Yeah, I want to second what Irvin said. With all due respect to the other
majority of appointees I think there is something amiss that when we pass
up Charles Eastham. His qualifications are overwhelming and we passed
him up a number of times. And I wonder if there is something else that is
stopping the majority from appointing him. I think we have a person who
is a member of the Iowa City Greater Housing Fellowship, a former
member of the Housing and Community Development Commission,
involved with Habitat for Humanity, a computer consultant at UI, he
served on Vision 2000 for the Comprehensive Plan. He is a member of
the Johnson County Empowerment Area Board and the Eagles (can't
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#20 Page 86
hear). And I think we really need to get him on board here for Planning
and Zoning.
Lehman: Let me just say that I think when you get really good people you can't
appoint all of them. And we certainly did have a good group to choose
from. These are the ones that were selected by the majority of the
Cotmcil. All in favor of those appointments say aye. Opposed? Motion
calTies.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#22 Page 87
ITEM NO. 22. CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION
Lehman: Irvin?
Pfab: Zero.
Lehman: Connie?
Pfab: Wake her up.
Champion: Nothing.
Lehman: Mike?
O'Donnell: Nothing tonight.
Lehman: Dee?
Vanderhoef: Not a thing.
Lehman: Ross?
Wilbum: I will just point out that coming up April 8 the 2001 Crop Walk to fight
world hunger starts at the Iowa City Rec Center. It takes a little tour
around south central Iowa City there. It is to fight world hunger but one
quarter of the proceeds generated from that help fight hunger here locally.
(Can't hear) paper for information.
Lehman: Steven?
Kanner: I have a few things. Just real quickly I want to point out that I was
watching the ducks on Ralston Creek right next to the New Pioneer and it
is just a great place to hang out and beautiful ducks with green on the back
there- I don't know if you call those mallards or what- but it is a neat
place. I would like to bring to the attention of the Council the Supreme
Court ruling recently having to do with the Corps of Engineers jurisdiction
over isolated wetlands. And I think it is something that we need to look at
as a Council and how it affects us because my understanding is that part of
what kicks in some of our Sensitive Areas ordinances is whether or not the
Corps has designated a portion as wetlands. And since they don't have
that ability to do that anymore we are perhaps going around the spirit and
intention of the Sensitive Areas ordinance. And so we might- I think we
are going to look at it in the long-term with our Zoning (can't hear)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#22 Page 88
overview but I think in the short-term we have to look to see if there is
anything that we have to do to modify our ordinances so that we can have
protectionofthewetlands. So l would ask that that be put on a work
session in the near future.
Lehman: Could we- I think- I guess I would like some comment from Housing and
Inspection services. Julie Tallman for example would probably be able to
respond to that.
Atkins: Julie would be and I think also some folks from Public Works.
Lehman: Could we get a response from them (can't hear).
Dilkes: Chuck Schmadeke and I have discussed the opinion and we can give you a
little summary of what the opinion says.
Lehman: If we could just have a memo and then based on that memo we could
decide whether or not we choose to put it on the work session.
Atkins: As I understand it Ernie it doesn't prohibit us from dealing with issues of
isolated wetlands. We simply do not have to get a Corps of Engineers to
come in-
Dilkes: No, no. The Supreme Court decision dealt with- it dealt with Interstate- I
am sorry, I am tracking a bug here.
Lehman: Good luck.
Dilkes: It dealt with when the Corps has jurisdiction and the Corps has jurisdiction
if there is some interstate commerce connection. And my recollection of
that opinion is that the mere fact that you have a migratory bird on a body
of water does not make it a jurisdictional wetland.
Lehman: Even if it is a green-headed mallard?
Dilkes: Even-
Kanner: The concern on my part is whether or not we have ordinances that kick in
because of the wording of Corps of Engineers and so if we can get a
memo on how that might interact with any wording in any of our
ordinances and if we might have to change that technicality.
Lehman: Okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#22 Page 89
Atkins: We will prepare that.
Kanner: Thank you. Then also I noticed that we have- I have a concem- I think we
all have a concern we are not getting ramp funding for the City Park trails
which was I think to take half of the cost of the $440,000. And so that
was something I think we also have to discuss of where we are going to
get that $220,000 or if we want to make that project a lower priority.
Lehman: I think the memo indicated that (can't hear) that now. I am sure we will
get (can't hear).
Atkins: We are going to look to other projects. This is when we get good bids it
opens other opportunities for you. Terry is pretty concerned about this
one. He thinks this is something that we really have to do and I think the
Commission made it recently a high priority also. You can expect to hear
back from us on that one.
Karmer: Okay, thank you. And also we all received notices in our packet about a
workshop that is happening with HUD and an Iowa City Housing
Conference- The National Association of Housing and Redevelopment
Officials- and it looks like there is some pretty good workshops there
happening in Iowa City at the Sheraton. I talked to Maggie and she said
there is some workshops that might be of interest to City Council
members. And I think I would like to attend some of the workshops. The
cost is $200 for 3 days or $100 a day. It takes place April 18-20. And I
talked to Maggie and she said that no one can get a free ride on this.
Atkins: And since we are the sponsor or one of the major sponsors if any of you
would like to go it would really be kind of nice. I mean, it is not a real
expensive big ticket item because we don't have the meal and the hotel
expenses and so forth. But if you would like to think about going-
Lehman: And I think you said Steven you would like to attend?
Kanner: Yeah, at least one day and it might be worthwhile just to sign up for all
three.
Atkins: And Ma~an is nodding. She will take care of it for you if you want to see
her about it later. Thank you.
Lehman: Very good. That is it? Just for your information we did give folks the
opportunity to ride the buses free if they had a ticket from the NCAA
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001
#22 Page 90
Wrestling event. 2,220 people rode the buses last weekend with a ticket
from the wrestling event. And on Saturday 581 people who wore green
rode the buses for free. And I think-
Champion: And they all came to my house for dinner.
Lehman: -terribly, terribly remiss in not recognizing the tremendous achievement of
the University of Iowa Basketball Teams, both men and women.
O'Donnell: As well as the wrestlers.
Lehman: Yes. Great, great performance. You've got to be really proud of them.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council
meeting of March 20, 2001.
FO32001