The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2005-10-18 Transcription#2a Page 1 ITEM 2 PROCLAMATION. a. Change Your Clock, Change Your Battery Day: October 30, 2005 Lehman: (reads proclamation) Karr: Here representing the Iowa City Fire Department is Captain Larry Kahler. (applause) Kahler: Mr. Mayor and Council, I'd like to thank you for this proclamation, and just take one moment of your time to remind all of us here and all of us at home working smoke detectors save lives. There have been numerous events in Iowa City where that has been proven, and I would just take a moment to encourage everyone to listen to the words of the Mayor and change your clock, change your battery. Thank you very much. (applause) Lehman: And just so we can keep the Fire folks happy and all of us safe, we have to clear that door back there. So if you folks would like to move up along the wall, there's plenty of room to stand, but we cannot stand in front of the door. That's a fire exit, and as soon as all of you folks move, we'll start the meeting. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #2b Page 2 ITEM 2 PROCLAMATION. b. United Nations Day: October 24, 2005 Lehman: (reads proclamation) Karr: Here to accept the proclamation is Wayne Osbom, President of the Johnson County United Nations Association. (applause) Osbom: I want to thank the Mayor and the City Council and observe that this is the 60th Anniversary of the founding of the United Nations. Johnson County has one of the long-live UNA chapters in the United States. Virginia Spalding was one of the, I call her Charter Members, she recalled that Eleanor Roosevelt came in the 1950's and helped build a fire of interest for supporting the United Nations. So, Virginia Spalding is our Honorary Chair for this year. Thank you again. (applause) Lehman: Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #2c Page 3 ITEM 2 PROCLAMATION. c. Domestic Violence Awareness Month: October 2005 Lehman: (reads proclamation) Karr: Here to accept thc proclamation is Linda Severson representing the Johnson County Coalition Against Domestic Violence. (applause) Severson: The Johnson County Coalition Against Domestic Violence would like to thank the City of Iowa City for their support of the Coalition through staff participation and funding of services for domestic violence survivors. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. (applause) This represe~ts only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #3 Page 4 ITEM 3 OUTSTANDING STUDENT CITIZENSHIP AWARD - WEBER ELEMENTARY Lehman: So, if the young folks from Weber would come forward, please. Everybody gets all nervous up here - don't be nervous! This is really one of the high points of our Council meetings. We've been doing this for nine, ten years I think, something like that, and it's certainly something that we as a Council really enjoy doing. It's something I'm sure that your parents really enjoy being here to see you, and I can tell you without any doubt that your grandparents are absolutely proud of you. I know 'cause I'm a grandpa, so, if you would like to give us your name and why you were nominated. Baumert: I'm Brock Baumert and I'm a 6th grader at Weber Elementary. At Weber, I'm a Conflict Manager Captain and I'm on Safety Patrol. I also work as a Media Helper and a School Store employee. I am a Student Council Representative for my class and a very hard worker in the classroom. Outside of school I play percussion in Advanced Band, as well as Level One piano. I also play basketball, baseball, flag football, and I have earned a Blue Belt in Tae Kwon Do. Every day I try to follow the core virtues of Weber, especially respect, compassion, and giving. Whenever I have the chance to help someone, I take it. I would like to thank my mom and dad for instilling these values in me and for allowing me to do all these things. They are always willing to help me whenever I need it. Thank you to my wonderful teacher Ms. Kertz for nominating me and the Iowa City Council for selecting me for this award. Thank you all very much. (applause) Kirk: Hi, I'm Tony Kirk and the core virtues are standards Weber students try to live by. Life's many challenges give us opportunity to apply these virtues every day. I'm the oldest of four kids and the family is the basis from which my personal virtues evolved from. It takes a lot of perseverance for me to maintain my grades so I can play the saxophone; I'm on the basketball team; (can't understand); or read a book. I have a lot of responsibilities, but the greatest responsibility I've ever had is when my neighbor asked me to watch her two twin boys while she rested. Since then...well, she trusted me and I didn't let her down. Since then I've watched (can't understand) and watered plants for my neighbors while they are away. My name is Tony Kirk and I am in Mrs. Henney's 6th grade class. I would like to thank Mrs. Henney for nominating me for this award and I would like to thank my parents for supporting me for all my life. I am honored to be the recipient of this award. (applause) Lofgren: I'm Olivia Lofgren. I would like to thank you and my teacher, especially Mrs. Kertz, for the opportunity to be chosen for this award. I am hard working and try to use the core virtues that I have learned at Weber in This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #3 Page 5 every part of my life. I walk through the halls at Weber with a smile on my face, because I like to make people happy. I volunteer with the Special Ed classes and I've learned patience and not to rush through things, that life is not a race. The sports I participate in include tennis, softball, basketball, and running. My hobbies are Girl Scouts, knitting, singing in the Iowa City Girls' Choir, and babysitting for the kids in my neighborhood. I have life goals. I'm going to go to Iowa State to become a veterinarian, but will remain a Hawkeye fan with my dad. (laughter) (can't hear)...so I can see my family when I graduate. I think I'm a successful student because I have good study habits. I try to review my homework at least once a day and try my hardest, whether I think the work is easy, is hard or easy. Thank you again for this honor, and I will promise I will always try to do my very best and do what is right as a student citizen of Iowa City. (applause) Lehman: You are very politically correct! Always be a Hawkeye! You know, we always wonder about what's going on in the world and right now things seem to be going wrong, but as long as we've got young folks like this, I don't think we've got to worry too much. (applause) I'll read one of these (reads Citizenship Award). Thanks, guys! (applause) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #5 Page 6 ITEM 5 COMMUNITY COMMENT (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA) Lehman: This is the time reserved on the agenda for folks to address the Council on items that do not otherwise appear on the agenda. If you wish to address the Council, sign in, give your name, and limit your comments to five minutes or less. Welsh: My name is Bob Welsh. In serving as Chair of the first Cable Television Commission in Iowa City, the question back then was, 'Should Iowa City have cable television?' The answer was 'Yes.' The Commission recommended a state-of-the art telecommunications system. We recommended that the City not grant a franchise. We said it was like granting some group the right to print money, and that the City should maintain ownership of the cable system. Unfortunately, the City Manager, not our present one, by the way, persuaded the City Council that cable was an entertainment industry and one that, thus, the City should not be involved in, and we all know what happened. Those awarded the franchise soon sold it and through the years, it has been sold many times and millions and millions of dollars have left this town. I'm a strong supporter of private enterprise, but private enterprise works only when there is competition. When there is no competition, I believe it is best for the business to be owned by all of us. I am a supporter of public power, not because I'm unhappy with Mid-American. I support public power because I believe that the money that's going out of this community as profit can better be used in this community. I believe history has proven that the citizens of Iowa City would have been better off with a City- owned cable system, and I am confident that history will prove that the City will be better off if it owns its own electrical power system. And you and I on November 8th have the opportunity to keep open this possibility. The feasibility study, using the most conservative assumptions, conducted on behalf of eighteen communities and the University of Iowa, did not result in finding that all eighteen would save money, but in Iowa City it was found that this community would save not less than 2 to $3 million dollars a year. The fact is that Ames and Cedar Falls have lower rates than we do. Let me clarify, we are not promising that we can match those rates at this time. We are saying that municipally run utilities, whether they be in Iowa, Nebraska, California or wherever, traditionally have lower rates than we have in Iowa City. I know you, as Members of the Council, were surprised to learn that the citizens of Iowa City were paying the highest rates of any Mid-American customers in Iowa. We are saying, that based on all known facts, we believe that our rates can be reduced by 10% or more, and could have local control. The fact is that the City cannot present a plan to the Iowa Utility Board without citizens' approval. I trust the citizens on November 8th, we will give the City that approval. A key question in all this is what is the worth of the infrastructure that the City would buy. The fact is, we do not know until the Utility Board makes that This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #5 Page 7 determination. The fact, the good news is, that other communities have already voted "yes." The goods news is that eight other communities are already moving forth based on the Latham report, and this will enable Iowa City to know the basis the Utility Board is using in considering the value of the existing infrastructure. I am not asking you or the other citizens to vote "yes" to give you the Council a blank check. I am asking the citizens to vote "yes" so the next logical step can be taken. On this issue, I disagree with some of you. I believe a more detailed study will verify the essence of the Latham report, that the citizens of this community would benefit if the City owned its own utility. A newspaper referred to this as a battle between David and Goliath. That's a story I'm familiar with. (laughter) It is true that Mid-American has spent what seems like an unlimited budget on this campaign and why not? They risk losing millions. I've been amazed to learn that the company that owns Mid-American also owns companies whose employees are in key positions in groups advocating a "no" vote. I was disappointed that no media picked up and ran a headline story on the recent order, audit by the Federal Government that found Mid-American broke power transmission rules. Persons have said this is a complicated issue. As Mr. Latham said to the Mayor, I know it's very simple - it's a matter of economics. I'm proud to be a member of the core group that is promoting public power. I assure you I have no motive, except what I believe is best for the citizens of Iowa City, and I truly think it's in the best interest of the citizens and the economic future of this city, for each of you and all of the citizens to vote "yes" on November 8th. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you, Bob. Zoeckler: Hi, my name's Susan Zoeckler. I'm a student at City High. Right now I'm in a state and local government class, and in it we are required to do a civics' project. I decided to do mine on the Skate Park. The Skate Park is a great place to skate and hang out and meet fun people. It's a great place to escape from everyday life. My brother and I go the Skate Park about once a week. A lot of people I know go there almost every day. Skating takes a lot out of you. It's like running. Like runners, skaters need water. Right now there is no water fountain at the Skate Park, so many people go across the street to the Mayflower dorms. When someone goes to skate at the Skate Park, they are usually there for a while, ranging from one to five hours, or until it's dark, but yet there are no restrooms at the Skate Park, so once again, people are going across the street to the Mayflower, which is why I feel the need for restrooms and a drinking fountain at the Skate Park. I typed up a survey and handed it out to 24 people. Question one asked, 'Do you believe restrooms are needed at the Skate Park?' 83 responded, 'Yes.' Questions two asked, 'Do you feel that a water fountain is needed?' 95 said, 'Yes.' Question three asked, 'Do you think that kids would be less likely to go to the Mayflower if they had facilities at the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #5 Page 8 Park?' 96 percent answered, 'Yes.' Question four asked, 'Do you think that crossing the street over the Mayflower is dangerous?' 83 percent answered, 'Yes.' Question five asked, 'Have you or someone else ever been hurt or have come close to being hurt when crossing the street to the Mayflower?' 63 answered yes. People were asked to share examples relating to question number five. One incident that was recalled many times over was when a boy fell crossing the street and a car sped up and almost ran over his foot. This is not unusual for cars to speed up or even swerve towards us. I myself recall an incident when a car swerved towards me and feeling as though it was so close I could reach out and touch it. People have reported drivers being careless and not looking out for them and almost being hit. Some times things are even thrown. One kid was hit in the head and it was a full can of pop. Another time someone was hit by someone on a Moped. In the following days to come, I hope to meet with the Superintendent of the Recreation Center and discuss the idea of restrooms and a water fountain at the Skate Park. The Skate Park is a great place to go and skate and a safe environment for skating. If it had restrooms and a drinking fountain, it would be even better. We appreciate all the time and money that went into the Skate Park and believe that restrooms and a water fountain would be a good and necessary addition. I also have here information from the survey and stories that I have told you of tonight. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. Wilburn: Move to accept correspondence. Bailey: Second. (applause) Lehman: Motion and a second to accept correspondence. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. Metcalf: Mr. Mayor, Council, I have been unclear about the language... Lehman: Give your name first, Alex, thank you. Metcalf: Alex Metcalf, I'm sorry. I'm unclear about the language in the Public Power Ballot. If I vote "yes" for that, am I only voting to fund a study, or am I voting for something else? Thank you. Lehman: Eleanor, would you like to say what a "yes" vote is on that ballot? I think it's pretty simple, but if you could just verbalize it. Dilkes: The Iowa Code requires that before a city can petition the Utilities Board to establish a municipal electric utility that there must be authorization by This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #5 Page 9 vote of the people. So... a "yes" vote would authorize the City to proceed to the Public Utilities Board. Lehman: Okay. Does that answer your question? Champion: ...if the City would do a business plan? Isn't that correct? Dilkes: Well, there's no requirement that the City do a business plan. The City could do a business plan and the City could do a study without a vote of the people. Lehman: Okay. Any other public comment? Okay, Item 6 are Planning and... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #15 Page 10 Bailey: Mr. Mayor? Lehman: Yes? Bailey: Before we move on to Item 6, I would like us to consider agenda Item 15. I'd like to make a motion. Elliott: Second. Lehman: Okay, good idea...motion. All in favor? Opposed? Then we shall move directly to Item 15, providing I can find it ITEM 15 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA. Vanderhoef: Move the resolution. Bailey: Second. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef; seconded by Bailey. Discussion? Malatek: Good evening, my name is Danielle Malatek and I'd just like to say that I really believe that the new Commission will improve Iowa City as a whole, and it will create a foundation for youth in this area to become future leaders of tomorrow and future leaders of this community. I just think it would really benefit Iowa City and I encourage each of you to support it. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. Other discussion? Roll call. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #6 Page 11 ITEM 6 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS. a. REZONING PROPERTY FROM CENTRAL BUSINESS SERVICE (CB-2) ZONE TO CENTRAL BUSINESS SUPPORT (CB-5) ZONE, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (CN-1) ZONE, MIXED USE (MU) ZONE AND PUBLIC (P) ZONE, FOR AREAS CURRENTLY ZONED CB-2 LOCATED SOUTH OF DAVENPORT STREET AND NORTH OF JEFFERSON STREET. 1. PUBLIC HEARING Lehman: (pounds gavel) Public hearing is open. Kammermeyer: John Kammermeyer, 116 Ferson and my office is the comer of Bloomington and north Gilbert at 404 E. Bloomington. My office property is not directly involved in this rezoning, but I feel strongly enough about it that I have decided to make a statement, and I did submit a letter earlier to the Commission and the Council concerning this matter. I'm talking about the area that's now CB-2 that will be, proposed, to be down-zoned to CN-1, and I'm going to read some of this briefly. In the second part of my letter dated August l0th, I brought to the attention of the Council the injustice that would be imposed on a number of local business men with properties near my office, based on the proposed zoning ordinance. This abolishes the CB-2 Zone, which has been in place for at least 25 years. Part of the CB-2 Zone is recommended to be up-zoned to CB-5, but a large part of the CB-2 northside commercial is proposed to be down-zoned to CN-1. As an example of the impact of this down-zoning, Mr. Armand Pagliai owns a quarter block of undeveloped land currently zoned CB-2. Originally the staff recommendation was to down-zone this all the way to Mixed Use, but more recently has recommended only to down-zone to CN-1. Due to reduced density regulations, this would reduce the property value of this property significantly and there will be more information coming forth on that. This would treat a long-standing businessman, I think, if we do this, in a very shabby manner. Another example is John Logan who bought Russ' Northside Service from Rosalie Hancock last year. The gas station and garage he now owns has been conforming use for 50 years, and of immense help and a resource to the people on the northside. Also a resource for my patients and families and friends of patients at Mercy. Originally this proposed Russ' Northside would be down-zoned to Mixed Use and that would make it non- conforming. However, now it's proposed to be down-zoned to CN-1. The irony is that the Handimart station, three blocks away, is being proposed to be up-zoned to CB-5. This again would significantly hurt a local businessman economically in an unfair and unjust manner. It is my understanding recently that 22 of 27 commercial property owners in the northside commercial area representing 85% of the private property is designated for down-zoning have submitted a signed and notarized statements opposing that down-zoning. I personally think since part of the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #6 Page 12 area was proposed to be up-zoned to CB-5, that all of it should have been up-zoned to CB-5, but that's another issue perhaps. In addition, there is an area of CB-2 east of Van Buren Street, about half of that is being recommended to up-zone to CB-5, and that's coming up in the next hearing, but I had to mention that those properties are recommended to be down-zoned from CB-2 to Mixed Use, and again, this has a negative impact for those property owners, and I'm sure they'll be speaking tonight. But, I'm sorry to have to say this, but if we want to encourage economic development in Iowa City, then to say the least, it is extremely undesirable to lower anyone's property value, especially commercial property. I believe this proposed significant down-zoning is unacceptable, but what upset me most is what I'm afraid I must call the callous disregard the City Planning staff and the majority of the P&Z Commission have shown for the economic well-being of hard-working business people in this community, when they made and approved this proposed down- zoning. To me this is actually frightening to see and it scares me, and it would, I suspect, scare a number of business and professional people in this community, as well, and discourage economic development, driving it elsewhere. I urge you, the Council, to not down-zone any of the CB-2 Zones and maintain it with the same intensity of development it now allows. Thank you. Lehman: Let me just say, John, the folks in the Planning Department and the Planning and Zoning Commission are good people who do what they believe is right, and I don't think they're callous and insensitive. Now they may not have the same conclusion that you do, but that sort of statement is really inappropriate. Kammermeyer: It's my opinion. Lehman: I realize that, but you stated that...never mind. Go ahead. Light: Okay; my name is Marc Light. I live at 225 E. Davenport Street, and I'm assuming, I tried to read this letter last week, or two weeks ago, inappropriately at the wrong time (laughter) so I'm back again, and I'll be short. I'd like to state my support for the rezoning as given in the, by the staff for the commercial areas, exactly what our previous speaker talked about, and North Market Square, and actually I believe it's crucial for economic development that we follow the recommendations. It's exactly the sort of area that needs to be nurtured for economic growth to the City. Iowa City is an attractive place for professior~als and business people, and I think we need to ask why that is. One reason becomes clear when you consider where the job candidates are often taken for dinner. Where do they go? They often go to the North Market Square, they go to the restaurants there because those are good places to go to eat, it's a neat environment, it has good shops and businesses, and general atmosphere is This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #6 Page 13 obviously positive or candidates would not be taken there. So a growing town like Iowa City needs more downtown than just the Ped Mall. It needs places like the Northside, okay? The North Market Square. So if you go to other cities that are commonly considered great places to start a business, such as Madison or Ann Arbor, and what you're going to find is blocks and blocks of districts like North Market Square. Now, in contrast, if you go to ones, to cities that are struggling to encourage economic growth, what you're going to find is only really large office buildings downtown with very large parking lots, and that's it. There's nothing else there. There's no restaurants. There's no exactly the kind of thing that's trying to be encouraged by going to a CN-1 or an MU. So in the short run, some business owners will have their property, you know, they will stand to make a lot of money by putting a very large business, very large office building and so it's going to make money for some landowners and developers, but in the long-term everyone in the City's going to loose, and I believe in the economic development side, we're all going to loose because it's going to become like those cities that just have large office buildings downtown and nothing else. People drive in and then they drive out again. So, thank you very much. Lehman: Thank you. Pagliai: Armond Pagliai, owner of Pagliai's Pizza. Pagliai's Pizza rents and operates in its current location. We do own the lot across the street. We have been informed that the City of Iowa City is proposing to eliminate the CB-2 Zone and down-zone a major portion of the CB-2 Zone in the northside commercial area to CN-1. There are 22 of 27 private property owners that are against this proposal, which equals, as Dr. Kammermeyer said, 85% of the privately owned land will be affected in this area. When this all came about, first we were told we were being down-zoned to Office/Residential. At that time, this zone did not permit a restaurant. When I called P&Z, it was told that restaurants could be added and the new name for this area is Mixed Use. At that time, I even wondered if P&Z wanted us there. We like Iowa City, but we do not like our property values being down-zoned and having our properties be devaluated. Some properties in our area are up-zoned, are being up-zoned, to CB-5: Handimart, Phelan Tucker, the Dairy Queen. We were told by the staff that these businesses are on a major arterial street. I'm asking the Council if George's Buffet, John's Grocery, Rentertainment, the book store on the comer are not on the same streets? I spoke with Gary Kroeger, the Iowa Representative for QuikTrip. He told me that after a long conflict with P&Z over the inside remodeling of a store that they were so frustrated that they sold every store to Handimart in Iowa City. A small business in Iowa City gives a great deal back to the community in donations, schools, arts, churches. Small businesses are the ones that are called on repetitively. I urge the Council to reject the proposal for down-zoning the current CB-2 This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council mee~¢ing of October 18, 2005. #6 Page 14 northside commercial area to CN- 1. If CB-2 is eliminated, I request my property be zoned CB-5 as this zone is the most similar to the CB-2 Zone. Thank you very much. Lehman: Thank you. Buss-Paulson: Sarah Buss-Paulson. I live...thank you...I live at 416 N. Linn Street, very near the area that we're talking about, and ! just want to second what Marc Light said. I very much support the proposal that the City staff has made regarding this area. I don't think it's a bit ironic that some areas are given one zoning and some another. That's how city zoning works. I'm also here on behalf of the Northside Neighborhood Association, which supports the City staff recommendation and a couple of us took just a few hours in the last couple days to go around talking, not to property owners, but to the owners of the businesses in this area to ask them what they thought about the proposal and, oh we met with great enthusiasm and we received lots of signatures on a petition in support of the City staff's proposal. I agree with Mr. Pagliai...I didn't, by the way, go to Pagliai's because I knew what their view was and I didn't want to waste his time, but we do agree that small businesses are a very vital part of Iowa City and these small business owners think so too and they like very much the environment in which they work. They like the character and the vitality of this very unique little region in Iowa City, and they.., some of them actually said, make sure you tell them that, you know, we really do like things the way they are. So...is it okay if I actually submit this? I had one more procedural question. I wanted to say a little bit more about some of the issues that came up before, and I thought that Ernie said that there would be a chance sometime. Is that right or not? A continuation time at some point later? Lehman: The text? That comes up later. Buss-Paulson: Okay, so I'll just sit here. Dilkes: Yes, I. Wilburn: : Move to accept correspondence. Vanderhoefi Second. Lehman: All in favor? Motion carries. Corcoran: Hello. My name is Tom Corcoran. I have a business at 215 N. Linn. I'm going to be a business that's going to be affected by the down-zone and I'm just here to say I'm against it. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #6 Page 15 Lehman: Thank you. Downes: Good evening, my name is Greg Downes. I'm a real estate appraiser in Iowa City. My office is at 870 Capitol Street. I was asked by Dr. Kammermeyer, and also by Armond Pagliai, to do some review of the proposed zoning change from CB-2 to CN-1 in the neighborhood. Specifically looked at Armond Pagliai's lot. Couple things, one thing I was asked to do was to consider any sales that might demonstrate an impact on value. The only CB-2 sale I was able to find is at 512 S. Dubuque Street. A parcel of land, 13,500 square feet, sold in December of 03 for $33 per square foot. CN-1, there's just a few small pockets of CN- 1, which I'm sure you're familiar with. For instance, around the hilltop area on North Dodge Street. I think there's some up towards Hy-Vee up in there, and there's some around Eagle's, now the True Value Hardware, and also on the east side of town, on Scott Court, and so the only sales I was able to find of land in the CN-1 district were the ones on Scott Court. There were two sales out there, 370 a square foot, and again, I'm not trying to tell you that that' s a comparable piece of ground. I think what you would have to do to make a comparison would probably be to pick up some sales of CI-1 or CC-2 ground, but we're in proximity of the downtown area. My experience has been those tend to range at about $18 to 24 a square foot depending upon location and amenities. So I guess what I'd like to say is that ! feel that there is a significant difference in the value of the site from CB-2 to a zone, for instance, CN-1 or we'd have to make the comparison of CI-1 or CC-2. We did some review of the actual differences between the CB-5 and the CN-1 and I'd like to present this for your review at your leisure. A couple of the key points that stuck out is one that in the proposed CN-1 there's no permitted uses defined. All uses are provisional. In the current CB-2, all the permitted uses in the CB-10 Zone are allowed; auto and truck oriented uses are allowed; hotels, motels, convention center, transient housings. Provisional uses in the CB-2 are dwellings above the ground floor at a density of one dwelling unit per 875 square feet of land area. This compares in the CN-1 Zone, based upon textual information - now I understand there's some consideration changing the density, but to the best of my knowledge, it today exists as 2,705 square feet per dwelling unit, provided the first floor is 14 feet. In CB-2, elder housing's permitted; adult daycare; childcare; utility substation - those are provisional uses. Additional provisional uses in the CN-1 are animal related commercial uses; indoor recreation limited to 5,000 square feet; eating, drinking establishments limited to 100 seats; office uses - medical, dental; office uses limited to 5,000 square foot of which no more than 2,400 square feet may be on the ground floor. As I see this, you're going to run into some expense trying to comply with the American's With Disabilities Act because they will say that if you have access on two floors, you're going to have to provide handicap accessibility. Retail sales up to 2,400 square feet. There are provisions This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #6 Page 16 for grocery stores. All the stuff is outlined in my notes, so I guess I would like to ask you to review that. In my opinion, CN-1 is most parallel, as I said, to CI-1, CC-2, and to be honest, it's more restrictive than those zones, in my opinion. CB-2 probably compares best with CB-5 and I guess my personal opinion would be I think it would be more reasonable if you are going to eliminate the CB-2 Zone that you consider making properties in this area CB-5. I'd also like to say, and this is on an unrelated matter that my knowledge of the Zoning Code is it goes back to approximately 1960. Our Central Business District, I believe, is the same size that it was in 1960, while our population's doubled. I really think that there ought to be some effort considered to try to enlarge the Central Business District, and then we can have the complimentary uses around it. I really think that our town could support a larger Commercial Business District. CB-10 should be enlarged, in my opinion. Please consider my comments this evening. Thank you for your time. Wilbum: I'm sorry, are you, you say, are you a real 'estate appraiser? Downs: I am a real estate appraiser, yes. Wilbum: Okay, and you talked about comparisons to sales in the past. Can you succinctly state how you feel if a zone is removed - it's not available - what impact that has on future sales? Downs: Well, excuse me, there has not been a great deal of CN-1 Zone, period. There's just not many areas of it, and there's really no areas that are comparable in location to this location. They're more outlying areas. So it's difficult really to say. I don't think that there's any impact from dropping it, per se. I think the impact is what you allow to happen in that area. Value comes from utility - what can I do with the space? And there's give and take. You probably wouldn't put a building in there today at the maximum allowed density as stated because it'd be impractical. It'd just be cumbersome. It would be difficult to utilize it. I always tell people that parking regulations from zoning codes are minimums, and you should consider them that, and then if you're going to plan for a business and you're interested in the success of that business, you should plan to provide the parking that the business dictates, rather than the City minimums, and I think realistically a property would not be developed to the standards of the current zoning, 800 and some units - 800 and some square foot per dwelling unit. So I guess I would say I can understand your interest in simplifying the code and getting rid of a zone that's not that popular anyway, but I think that you ought to try to replace it with a zone that's, that has more similarity than what's been proposed. Wilbum: Thank you for your opinion. This represe:~ts only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #6 Page 17 Downs: Thank you. Lehman: Thanks, Greg. Sponsler: Hello, I'm Clare Sponsler. I live at 413 N. Gilbert Street. I'd like to support the down-zoning to CN-1. While I believe that an important reason to support this proposed rezoning is to make sure that the North Market area remains compatible with the northside residential area that it's a part of, I'd like to take a minute to address economic issues since that's a concern of property owners and developers. In my view, the proposed rezoning from CB-2 to CN-1 reflects a very good understanding of the way in which the unique character of older commercial areas contributes to their economic vitality, which good planning can encourage and enhance. Many cities now recognize this fact and actively work to maintain the appeal of older business districts and I'd like to site just a few examples for you. The state of Rhode Island says that good development plans for historic/commercial areas can help insure their economic vitality and visual quality. The Berkland, California, Department of Planning and Development says that when public policy clearly favors preservation and good design, this gives a level of stability that helps attract (TAPE ENDS) spaces that are especially suited to small companies and start-ups, a strong visual identity helps attract visitors, customers, and businesses, and last of all, the Kirkwood, Missouri, downtown urban design plan established a series of aims to maintain the traditional downtown as the focus of the Kirkwood community for its commercial and cultural life; to develop sustainable relationships between the downtown commercial core and the surrounding residential area, and to establish design strategies and guidelines that support the concept of pedestrian-oriented and appropriately scaled development. I believe that by emphasizing an appropriate scale consistent with older buildings, by preserving a pedestrian-friendly street-scape, by protecting the strong visual identity that attracts customers, and by encouraging the good design that's a magnet for small businesses and investment, the proposed rezoning to CN- 1 will strengthen the economic vitality of the North Market Business District. I hope you agree and will vote to support it. Thank you. Nowotny: Dennis Nowotny, I live at 511 E. Washington Street. I do have a duplex up there by Bloomington Street, overlooks Pagliai's parking lot. I would love to see some development in there that basically would enhance the view instead of a parking lot. I guess down-zoning definitely would not enhance the possibility that he's going to develop his lot. So, I'm not in support of down-zoning basically his parking lot because I'd like to see something that...instead of in-fills to that parking lot, to sort of make that area a nice antiquey-sort of commercial area. And so, I don't like to see someone's density requirements like decrease by about two and a half times and things like that to maybe make his parking lot more unusable. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #6 Page 18 So I'd like to see his business expand and that whole area, even though it's...I'm in RNC-12 right next to what they call CB-5, or it's going to be CB-5, and I don't see that as a detriment. Where I live, which is right over here basically, they want to go down to something like MU and they basically can't stand to have CB-5 right next to an RM-12, which is a higher density than RNC-12 which is up on Bloomington Street. So, all I see is contradiction and I just prefer on the northside there a continuation of what looks like really commercial area. Pagliai's building is very commercial looking. The launderette is too, and obviously a gas station. So basically I'd much prefer to see something other than a parking lot up there. That's means in-fill, and not down-zoning and hindering him from working on his property like he should have the right to do anyway. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. Skarda: Mayor Lehman and the Council of Iowa City, my name is Val Skarda. My wife and I own the historic commercial building known as Olive Apartments and the home of Pagliai's famous pizza, and let it go on the record that we are seriously against any down-zoning of the area. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. Light: Can I just add one thing to my comments? Lehman: Sure. Light: I mean, what we're talking about here is a 9-story hospital building. That's what we're talking about and we all know that. It's the big white elephant. We're talking, we're not talking about a nice thing that's antiquey. We're talking about a 9-story hospital building that's going to just take that entire area, just...it's just going to be an extension of Mercy. That's what we're talking about, okay? Neades: Hi. I'm Rebecca Neades. I live at 3341 Rohret Road and I'm actually here on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce, and I have to tell you I'm not very happy about being here tonight. We've talked about zoning, we're talking about zoning tonight, and the fact that I have gotten multiple phone calls about this down-zoning of CN-2 to CB-l, or I'm sorry. CB-2 to CN-1 upsets me. We're not talking about a 9-story hospital building. I mean, that could be very potentially...the hospital could move that direction, but I think it would be quite nice because originally we wanted, originally in Iowa City, we talked about that area, way before my time. When I was a little kid, we talked about that area being a medical kind of area, like ~i'owncrest was, and we talked about bringing that back to the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #6 Page 19 downtown, and so right now, I guess I'll get back on topic. Right now we're talking about down-zoning people's commercial buildings and area. We have people in this community that have been in our community for a, you know, many, many years that I grew up with, and it's upsetting to me to think that you can throw your life blood into a building and into a business, and some of you, several of you, a couple of you, are small business owners. So you understand what a small business owner does. You go in, you sometimes are the only ones there, you skip lunch, you skip holidays, you skip weekends, because you work, and in diminishing someone's property value, increasing their insurance, because you know, part of this is, what do you call it? 75% assessed valuation so you can rebuild with a, what are we calling that? Help me, John, what's that called? Non-conforming, thank you. That's a big deal. That's a lot. If you get hit by straight-line winds or a fire and you can only rebuild to 75% with non-conforming, that's quite a bit. So you're really telling those people they're no longer welcome, and as the Chamber of Commerce, I take great offense to neighborhoods that have existed, and small businesses by the way, are the good kind of neighbors that you want. Those are the neighbors who sweep their sidewalks every day. Those are the neighbors who keep up their properties. So, I have some strong concerns, very strong concerns, and I'm upset that we're even at this point that this is being discussed. If you want to do something, look at up- zoning that or keep it the same, but don't down-zone 'em! Thanks. Lehman: Thank you. Wright: Good evening, I'm Michael Wright. I lived at 815 Roosevelt Street. My phone's been ringing a lot this week too and I've gotten a few emails, but I'm here to speak in favor of the down-zoning of this district because I also like small businesses. We love the North Market area. We actually spend a fair amount of money in that vicinity. We try and buy a lot of groceries at John's, stop in at Artifacts, we just bought quite a bit of paint across the street. To allow this neighborhood to be converted from its rather low-key use, I think, would do a great disservice to a number of small businesses. Small businesses use this area as a start-up base. Some of them come in, some of them really take off. Look at the Motley Cow Caf6, for example. We're also talking about a matter of scale. To allow this neighborhood to be home to 7-story buildings, or perhaps 9-story buildings, would be a very jarring transition for the residential neighborhood to the north. Right now it's a good step-down from the downtown, where we do have some height, we step-down a little bit more on the north side, and we step into the residential neighborhood of the north side. I'd also like to point out to the Council that the entire North Market commercial district, as well as much of the northside residential district, has been identified as part of the Iowa City Cultural District, the Old Capitol Cultural District abuts this. It's a neighborhood we really This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #6 Page 20 need to look at maintaining and nurturing, and not changing it's zoning to allow it to be completely, to allow its character to be completely changed. So I really do hope you'll support the down-zoning in this area. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. McCallum: Mark McCallum, 811 College Street. I had a question, as I make a statement, and if I'm understanding the current CB-2 zoning with residential uses, you only need 875 square feet per unit of lot area for a unit, for a residential unit. Under the new, what is it CB-1 Zone? CN-1, what will that lot usage increase to? Is it 2,800... someone from Planning, could they tell me what is proposed on that? So, it doesn't seem to me...well, what is the required in the...okay? 1 per 1,8007 So it seems to me they're discouraging residential redevelopment in this area, as well. And I, you know, I hear a lot of people talk about high buildings and things like that. I would argue that some of our great high buildings, things like Summit Street Apartments, Woodlawn, my building on College Street, which is only three stories, are things that were built in the 20's, at that time were built at a density that would allowed higher, that many people like myself consider them as treasures of the city and perhaps...okay, I'm sorry (laughter and noise at mic). I would suggest that they are treasures of the city and I see this area as being perfect areas for that kind of development to occur where you have little shops and stores and residential housing up above. So, anyway, I just wanted to make those comments. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak? Kammermeyer: ...make a rebuttal on the question that the hospital building (can't hear). Lehman: John, you need to speak into the mic. Kammermeyer: I'm aware of the 50-year plan at Mercy Hospital and Mercy Hospital does not have any visions of going west (can't hear). There is no (can't hear). Lehman: Thank you. (pounds gavel) Public hearing is close. 2. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE (FIRST CONSIDERATION) Karr: Can we have a motion to accept remaining correspondence? Elliott: So moved. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #6 Page 21 Vanderhoef: So moved. Lehman: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. We're going to, I'm sure, defer the first consideration, but I do believe, there are 85% or so of the property owners in this area who have objected. If we are in fact...it requires a 6 to 1 super majority in order to approve of the rezoning as proposed. Are there six Council people, I'm just taking a straw vote, who will support this rezoning? (Council members responding.) Okay, that's enough of an indication. Okay? Do we need a motion to defer the first consideration? Dilkes: Well, are you going to close the public hearing? Lehman: I did. Dilkes: Oh, I didn't hear that. Yes. Lehman: We need a motion to... Vanderhoef: Move to defer indefinitely, is that what I... Franklin: You still have two parts of this. Now, are you saying you're rejecting the entire rezoning proposal from CB-2 to CB-5 and CN-1... Lehman: No. Dilkes: No, I think they're just talking about CN-1. Franklin: Okay, that was not clear. So, we're still procedurally open for a first consideration, either tonight or subsequently on CB-5 and the MU. Dilkes: Right, we'll have to split them up into separate ordinances at the next meeting. Franklin: Okay. Lehman: Okay. Dilkes: So just defer it to the next meeting. Lehman: We have a motion to defer to November 1st.9 O'Donnell: So moved. Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #6 Page 22 Elliott: Second. Lehman: Seconded by Elliott. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #6 Page 23 ITEM 6 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS. b. REZONING PROPERTY FROM CENTRAL BUSINESS SERVICE (CB-2) ZONE TO CENTRAL BUSINESS SUPPORT (CB-5) ZONE, MIXED USE (MU) ZONE AND HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM-44) ZONE, FOR AREAS CURRENTLY ZONED CB-2 LOCATED SOUTH OF JEFFERSON STREET AND EAST OF GILBERT STREET. 1. PUBLIC HEARING Lehman: (pounds gavel) Public hearing is open. Haug: My name is Nila Haug. I live at 517 E. Washington Street, and I am against changing the zoning from CB-2 to MU just because it will devalue my property, and also because the proposal is to have the New Pioneer Co-op up-zoned to CB-5 and they're the ones who need the parking and I provide lots of parking for my guests at my bed and breakfast. I would prefer if it's Mixed Use that you don't change the density. The Mixed Use title and benefits are fine, but I don't want to have the density devalue my property. So, if you could consider the Mixed Use without the density increase I would appreciate that. Lehman: Thank you. Holtkamp: Hi, I'm Mark Holtkamp and I'm with NNW Engineers and we own the building at 506 E. College Street and I'm...we're also against the down- zoning from CB-2 to Mixed Use. We feel that the rezoning would decrease our property value and also decrease likelihood that anything in this neighborhood would ever be redeveloped. Really on both sides of it, you have the Mytee shop on the comer - they're getting up-zoned to CB-5 and also New Pioneer and Community Credit Union, they're getting up- zoned to CB-5, as well. It kind of makes more sense to me that our area, the bumper strip in between those two, should also be up-zoned to CB-5 because we're actually even closer to the parking lot across the street and it just kind of seems more like it would be a better transition for the whole area and everyone should be treated the same in our neighborhood. We also turned in petitions, and we had seven out of the eight property owners in our neighborhood that opposed the rezoning. You should have those, as well. That's all I have to say. Lehman: Thank you. Vanderhoefi Excuse me? Were those just a petition, or did each one of you come in and sign an official protest? Holtkamp: Yep, each one came in and signed the... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #6 Page 24 Dilkes: We've got 85%. Lehman: Right (can't hear) 85%. Dilkes: Okay. Trefz: Good evening. You have quite a task and I don't envy any of you, but... Lehman: Give us your name... Trefz: Oh, Stephen Trefz. Lehman: Thank you. Trefz: And I'm the Executive Director of the Community Mental Health Center. We own property on the comer of College and Van Buren, and I don't envy your task. I appreciate your time. The effort that's been put into this. I would just concur with my fellow neighbors, we would prefer to stay CB-2. If CB-2 goes away, we would prefer CB-5. I think we're a little different than some of the other folks that spoke. We're a not-for- profit agency. Our assets are our property, and it has quite an effect on our bottom line and what we can do as a not-for-profit agency. Good luck. Thank you. (laughter) Lehman: Thank you. Vanderhoef: What does it change for you? You say it affects what you can do. Trefz: It would affect primarily the property value. They are our assets, so if we were wanting to sell the property and move out of the property to some place that perhaps is more efficient, more convenient for our clients, the resale value of the property would go down, hence, buying other property, we wouldn't have as much revenue to do that. Vanderhoef:: Okay, I thought you were saying that there was something specifically that you couldn't do on your property right now, but it's just resale value? Trefz: Yes, ma'am. Vanderhoef: Okay. Trefz: Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #6 Page 25 Nowotny: I'm Dennis again; I'm at 511 E. Washington Street, and like I said, in fact, some other issues have come up. Basically, we are literally 100 feet closer to this parking ramp across the street here than any other possible business could be downtown, and yet, some reason or another, we are not.., granted we don't have the I guess first dibs on that parking or anything, nor do we even need it because we've got enough ground and that sort of thing to have parking on, but it just seems like we're being pushed away from that for some reason or another. That being one of the first issues that we have against this CB-2 to MU sort of change. The other thing being obviously the density as being two and a half times...being cut by two and a half times. The rumors going from five down to three, and RM-44, for heaven's sake which is residential density, is five and the whole east side of Iowa City over here -- RNC-20 -- is five and we're going down to three? And we're right across the street? It just doesn't make sense. They talk about MU and CN-1 in the same breath; they have similar densities. I can't imagine CN-1... I always think of CN-1 as being out there in those suburban areas, sort of, and MU in the same breath as suburban densities in downtown here? Basically an example was brought about Summit Street Apartments being the crown of that area- I don't know why in the world, that's a pretty tall building, I can't even imagine. That seems pretty high even for down here, but it seems like it would fit in because it's very residential, obviously, being way out on Summit Street, for heaven's sake, and then...some of the things that have come up during these past meetings, you know, we've really only got involved in about probably the last part of spring, I suppose, in this zoning issue and that sort of thing, and gee that's awfully late in the game. I'd say...all of four months ago, and things that are going to cut our value by quite a bit, people have been paying commercial property taxes for 20-some odd years and all of a sudden get chopped down to a MU, which is a residential zoning? If that's not a taking, I don't know what is! And, basically, we're thinking about it, basically other places like Des Moines, I brought this up to the Planning and Zoning Commission basically about Des Moines' zoning code and one of my friends was holding out on me and says...he shows me the zoning code and I look at it and say, "250 pages?" And then I look at ours, "423?" And I wonder, 'Well, they must be taking lessons from the I.R.S. !" You know, because they've basically almost doubled the doggone Code of Des Moines, no less! Des Moines is a 250-pages? Come on now! Lehman: We're talking about the zoning, not the Code, okay? Nowotny: Okay, yeah, well, it's a code all right! Lehman: We're talking about the map here. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #6 Page 26 Nowotny: Oh, we're talking about the map, okay. So now we're getting...we're cutting this up to this is not about the literature or the rhetoric in it. Lehman: That's coming up! Later! Nowotny: Okay. This is about the map only. Lehman: Right, map only. Nowotny: Okay. Good to know. Okay. Well, what else can I say? That's it. Thanks. Lehman: Okay, thank you. Anyone else wish to speak? Burford: My name is Helen Burford. I live at 528 E. College, which is three doors down from the proposed change zone from CB-2 to MU, and I'm here to express my support for the MU Zone. I think it's a very creative, or has a lot of foresight, on how the property can be developed into a very strong transition zone from the downtown neighborhood. It provides, recognizes that people or people who buy properties in the area and convert them back to residences and create cottage industries, it breathes a new type of life into the community, and I think it should be considered before just addressing the possible potential height of a building that could be developed on the property, based on the size of the property. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. (pounds gavel) Public hearing is closed. 2. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE (FIRST CONSIDERATION) Karr: Motion to accept correspondence. O'Donnell: So moved. Vanderhoef: Second. Lehman: A motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. Again, this one will require an extraordinary of authority. Are there six votes that will support this rezoning? Dilkes: And again you're just talking about the CB-2 to MU. Lehman: CB-2, on the MU, I'm sorry. (several talking at once) No, we do not. Okay. We need a motion to defer first consideration to November 1 st. Vanderhoef: Move to defer to November 1. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #6 Page 27 Elliott: Second. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef; seconded by Elliott. All in favor? Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #6 Page 28 ITEM 6 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS. c. REZONING PROPERTY FROM CENTRAL BUSINESS SERVICE (CB-2) ZONE TO CENTRAL BUSINESS SUPPORT (CB-5) ZONE AND PLANNED HIGH DENSITY MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (PRM) ZONE FOR THE AREAS CURRENTLY ZONED CB-2 LOCATED SOUTH OF BURLINGTON STREET AND WEST OF LINN STREET. (REZ05-00016) 1. PUBLIC HEARING Lehman: (pounds gavel) Public heating is open. Public hearing is closed. 2. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE (FIRST CONSIDERATION) Vanderhoef: Move first consideration. O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: Moved by Vanderhoef; seconded by O'Donnell, first consideration. Discussion? Elliott: This...the explanation said this recommendation is based on the proposal to eliminate the CB-2 Zone from the Zoning Code. We have just indicated informally that we aren't in favor of that, or it would indicate that. So, where does this leave this recommendation? Bailey: Did you indicate that you weren't in favor of eliminating the CB-2 Zone, or you weren't in favor of .... no, I'm asking you personally what you were indicating, because you indicate that you weren't in favor of eliminating the CB-2 or that you wanted it zoned to something else. Elliott: No, I'm not in favor, I'm not saying I'm not in favor of eliminating the CB-2 Zone, per se. I'm not in favor of down-zoning those two items that we had just heard about from CB-2 to something else. So, I'm not saying that we can't have CB-2 eliminated other places, but I don't want those two items that we just heard down-zoned from CB-2 to something else. Champion: We made that quite clear. Bailey: No, I'm just suggesting that if we are... I was just clarifying if you were interested in eliminating CB-2, or if we're going to have to have a discussion about what the future of CB-2 will look like. That's what I'm trying to do... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #6 Page 29 Lehman: Well, I guess, and that's a legitimate question. My question to you, Karin, is whether or not we eliminate CB-2 Zone, is this recommendation still valid? Franklin: Yes. The Planning and Zoning Commission considered all of the areas that were zoned CB-2 and what the most appropriate zoning would be if that zone were not available. I think that the deliberation that they went through on these areas south of Burlington gave validity to the recommendation that they're giving to you. Even if you put CB-2 back in the Zoning Code, this would still be more appropriate. Lehman: Okay. Elliott: So, if we approve this, this does not restrain us from not approving... Franklin: Absolutely. Elliott: Okay, good. Lehman: Other discussion? Roll call. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #6 Page 30 ITEM 6 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS. REZONING PROPERTY FROM MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE- FAMILY (RS-8) TO HIGH DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY (RS-12) FOR LOTS LOCATED ON DODGE STREET COURT WITHIN THE JACOB RICORD'S SUBDIVISION. (REZ05-00011) 1. PUBLIC HEARING Lehman: (pounds gavel) Public hearing is open. Public hearing is closed. 2. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE (FIRST CONSIDERATION) Karr: Motion to accept correspondence. Bailey: So moved. Wilburn: Second. Lehman: We have a motion and a second to accept correspondence. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. Bailey: Move first consideration. O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: Moved by Bailey; seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Champion: Ernie, this was the area where there's already duplexes and... Lehman: Right. Champion: ... and there was the in-fill duplexes, right? Okay, make sure I'm in the right area. Lehman: Other discussion? Roll call. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #6 Page 31 ITEM 6 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS. g. REZONING PROPERTY FROM MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE- FAMILY (RS-8) TO HIGH DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY (RS-12) FOR LOTS LOCATED ON CATSKILL COURT WITHIN THE EAST HILL SUBDIVISION. (REZ05-00012) 1. PUBLIC HEARING Lehman: (pounds gavel) Public hearing is open. Been asked to have a motion to defer this to November 1st. O'Donnell: So moved. Vanderhoef: So moved. Lehman: Have a motion and a second to defer to November 1st. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. 2. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE (FIRST CONSIDERATION) Lehman: Do we have a motion to defer first consideration? Bailey: So moved. Elliott: So moved - second. Lehman: A motion and a second to defer to November 1st. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #6 Page 32 ITEM 6 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS. i. ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14 ENTITLED "UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE" BY: REPEALING CHAPTERS 4, 6 AND 9 AND REPLACING THEM WITH THE NEW TITLE 14 ZONING CODE, AMENDING PORTIONS OF CHAPTERS 1 AND 5, RENUMBERING CHAPTERS 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10 AND 11, AND REPEALING CHAPTER 12. 1. PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED FROM 10/5 AND 10/10) Lehman: (pounds gavel) Public hearing is open. And this will be continued by the way, folks, so if we don't get, obviously we won't get through this tonight, but if you don't get to say what you want to say tonight, there'll be another opportunity. Kammermeyer: If anybody doesn't know, it's John Kammermeyer. (laughter) O'Donnell: Hi, John. Kammermeyer: And, my comments here will be maybe a little bit less controversial than earlier. I have two specific requests to the Council concerning the text that I'm going to hand in a copy of my comments here in a few minutes. First, I would request that you please keep the level of damage or destruction that can occur to a structure before a non-conforming building has to meet the new Code, at 100% of the assessed valuation. This has been a rule in Iowa City for more than 25 years. Please do not lower this threshold to 75% of the assessed valuation. If you do lower this threshold, the assessed value...to 75% of the assessed valuation, then insurance costs for many structures will increase. And I give an example because I've talked with people here and I know a lot of people aren't quite clear on this. As an example, I manage Phiro-Sigrna, Medical Fraternity building on Ferson Avenue. It's a non-conforming use and building. The building's current assessed value is about, assessed value is $500,000. The actual replacement costs by A. W. Lambrusco and Assessors privately, like Greg Downes, is that the replacement cost is at least $700,000. So if the damage or destruction to the building by fire or act of God is less than $500,000, we can rebuild as is right now. If the damage or destruction is more than $500,000, we have to meet the new Code and the reality is we're out. Under the new proposed Code, the building's assessed value is still $500,000 by the City and County Assessor. The actual replacement cost is still $700,000. If damage or destruction now is less than $375,000, we can rebuild as is, but if the destruction is more than $375,000 to rebuild, we're out. So the difference is from $500,000 to $375,000 - from 100% of the assessed value to 75%. Remember the structure's non- conforming. It could be because of building placement on the lot, minimum yard requirements, parking requirements, building design This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #6 Page 33 requirements, density requirements, or that the use is no longer allowed in a given zone, but the use is grandfathered in. Therefore, if enough of the structure is damaged or destroyed to bring it into play non-conformity and require the rebuilt structure to meet the new Code, either the cost of the rebuilding will be higher or the building may not be able to be rebuilt at its present location, meaning the use has to buy new land and move elsewhere. The other request is to eliminate and remove any additional restrictions as to building placement, parking placement, or yard requirement in a CO Zone if the CO Zone is next to a Residential Zone. Also, please allow full parking in front of any office building in a CO Zone. Again, almost all of the CO Zone around Mercy is next to a Residential Zone. As I understand the new proposed Zoning Code, it would apply additional restrictions on office development in any CO Zone adjacent to a Residential Zone, above and beyond what would be true in a CO Zone elsewhere. In recent years, we have seen the policies discouraging, as I've reiterated before, new office development around Mercy. It's desirable to have a healthcare core around Mercy and encourage office development there, and in fact, I would hope policies and codes should encourage this development around Mercy. Also, it's highly desirable to keep in mind for patients who may be ill or convalescing, to be able to pull in and park directly in front of a medical office building off the street. As such, patient parking should be readily allowed in front of any new medical office or healthcare building, especially around Mercy. That's my comments. I have, Will also mentioned, I have enlisted Tom Gelman and the Phelan-Tucker firm to do a detail side-by-side comparison of the present and the new Code for the CO Zone. I've received part of that; I will receive it shortly, and I plan to give that to you in the future, in the next week or two, and there are several things in there that I think you will need to look at and address. There are differences. Lehman: Thank you. Bailey: Mr. Mayor, can I ask Planning and Zoning a question? Lehman: Certainly! Bailey: Bob, why did we change the percentage? Actually I was asking you, Bob Brooks. I was asking you. (laughter) Brooks: Too many Bobs in a row there. That was changed, again, on a staff recommendation, and it was based on what is normal across the country in similar zoning codes, and they range from 55% to 75%. If we had set it at 70%, we bumped it up to the maximum of 75%. That seems to be the norm across the country. Bailey: Okay, thanks. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #6 Page 34 Carlson: My name is Nancy Carlson. I live at 1002 E. Jefferson, where I have resided for 25 years in February. I'm here to discuss the change in the occupancy rate or level for single-family houses in our area. I would like to start by reading a quote from Iowa City Beyond 2000. In here, in housing goals and strategies, it is stated, 'Preserve the integrity of existing neighborhoods and the historic nature of older neighborhoods. The first point under there is to develop neighborhood plans which help to insure the continuation of a balance of housing types with a neighborhood, particularly in older parts of the City.' I am here to support the reduction of the number of unrelated people who can live in a single-family dwelling from four to three. In the fall of 1992, our neighborhood was concerned with the direction that our neighborhood was going. As a result of this, we spent much time with the Planning and Zoning Commission and with the City Council. The Zoning Commission developed the RNC-12 Zone which was approved by them and approved by the City Council, and as a result, our neighborhood went from an RM-12 to an RNC-12 Zone. At that time, I came to realize the importance of each and every facet of the Zoning Ordinance. The number of people that can live in a single-family house and in a duplex has been discussed over and over and over again in our neighborhood. At the time that our neighborhood was rezoned, we asked for three, but at that time the City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission felt that that was a step that they were not willing to go to, and that possibly further down the road, that could be dealt with. The vast majority of building stock in our neighborhood are single-family houses. At the time that they were built, most of them had two or three bedrooms. So by going down to two or three, we have the stock to allow that to happen. When you move up to four, I believe that we cultivate what I call the red-green aspect. I don't know how many of you watch the Red-Green Show on Saturdays, okay? But it's really funny there, but when the red- green aspect starts to happen in your neighborhood, you know, it's a little harder to laugh, and what I'm referring to when I refer to the red-green aspect is you have a house that's got three bedrooms, but you can have four roomers. That means you want to find another bedroom, and so rooms or areas that were not designed to be bedrooms, suddenly become bedrooms, sometimes on a permanent basis. When a lot of our, when a lot of our houses were built, they didn't have bathrooms. My house was built in the 1880's. Bathroom was something that had not been heard of. Eventually, you know, they were retrofitted and most houses now have usually one bath, or a bath and a half. A bath or a bath and a half would adequately, to some extent, will deal with three people. When you start to get to four people, then you're starting to look at 'okay, maybe we need some more bathrooms in here,' and so then the red-green aspect comes in again. What happens with those types of buildings is once those things happen on the inside, they are forever more that type of rental unit. As I said, as it says in here, you want to insure the continuation of a balance of This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeing of October 18, 2005. #6 Page 35 housing, so first I would like to approach this from a rental point of view. If you have a house that has two or three bedrooms, you can appeal to a much larger audience than you can four bedrooms. It is much more affordable for single-families, for students, young married students who are going to school, for young professionals who are just starting out. For example, the house next to me is a very small, one-bedroom house. Over the 25 years, I believe, there have been six residents. The young couple moves in, then they either have a pet or they acquire a pet. Then they stay there a little bit longer. They end up with a kid, maybe another one, and then they save enough money that they can move on and buy their own house, and the cycle starts all over again. I have one neighbor who lived in the house, rented out the house, and has two other houses on either side who are rental units, four families. This summer two of our old residents died. The one house was sold to a single mother and her children. The other house was sold to a young married couple just starting out. They've been doing a lot of work on it. Another house in our neighborhood... Lehman: You need to wrap this up soon. Carlson: Okay, um, I'll just come back next week. Anyway, if the City is concerned in maintaining a wide variety of housing, then we need to make sure that the people at the bottom end are protected so they can still rent, so they can still come in and buy housing. If we go to four, I'm afraid we're going more towards a lot of single people and a very transient population. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. Pugh: Good evening. My name is Mike Pugh. I'm here on behalf of the Greater Iowa City Homebuilder's Association. I have a few general comments to 'make and then I want to talk specifically about the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. First of all, I want to commend the City staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission for all of their hard work in connection with preparing the proposed draft of the Zoning Code which is before you. We do recognize the significant amount of hard work that has gone into preparing that document. It has been 22 years since the existing Zoning Code was enacted. Although there have been several amendments to the Zoning Code over the years, such as inclusion of Historic Preservation overlays and Sensitive Areas overlays and other amendments, we do believe, contrary to what other speakers may have suggested, that it is appropriate to have this Code updated and implemented. The proposed draft does reflect some valuable organizational changes that in many respects make it much easier to read than our existing Zoning Code. However, there are several substantive changes reflected in the proposed Code that will have a significant economic impact on consumers and building industry in Iowa City. Very early on in the process, the Land This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #6 Page 36 Development Council (TAPE ENDS) rather than have to take issue with every single drafting item that may of concern in a proposed draft. One such area is the proposed change being made to the application of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. The proposed Code is a significant departure from the current Code by requiring any land containing a Level Two Sensitive Area is to be developed according to the criteria of a Planned Development overlay rezoning. Section 14.6.J. of the current Code, which contains the overlay zones, provides for five types of overlay zones. Each for a different, specific purpose. Generally, the function of an overlay zone is to provide flexibility in developing real estate by modifying the underlying development requirements applicable to that zone when consistent with an identified public interest. When a Sensitive Areas development plan is required, such a plan is to delineate the protective, sensitive features and associated buffers and otherwise demonstrate compliance with the ordinance. Under the current Code, the Sensitive Areas development plan is to be submitted and approved as part of a Sensitive Area, or OSA, rezoning. Once that's approved, the Sensitive Areas development plan becomes the substantive part of that rezoning, and thereafter dictates development requirements that supercede all, or at least some, of the portion of the requirements of the underlying base zone, controlling the development of real estate, it contains environmentally sensitive features. The approval of a Sensitive Areas development plan in an OSA rezoning is to be by ordinance and in accordance with the Planned Development Housing overlay zone, or OPDH or OPD. The procedures of that zone, as specified in 14.6.J.2.d. of our current Zoning Ordinance. Subsection 6, 14.6.J. 1., which is the Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone, provides in part the definitions, procedures, requirements, and exemptions for the Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone, the OSA, are set forth in Article K of this chapter, entitled "Environmental Regulations," Section 14.6.K. 1., Sensitive Areas Ordinance. The review and approval of a Sensitive Areas overlay rezoning shall be in accordance with the procedures and regulations governing Planned Development Housing overlay rezonings as specified in Subsection 14.6.J.2.d. of that article. As this subsection clearly states, the substantive requirements of the OSA Zone are set forth among the environmental regulations of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. While the procedures for review and approval of an OSA rezoning are the same as those to be used for an OPDH rezoning, it is important to emphasize that only the review and approval procedures of an OPDH Zone and not its substantive provisions are applicable to an OSA rezoning. In the current Sensitive Areas Ordinance, there is no indication that the substantive requirements of an OPDH Zone are applicable As a result, for a Sensitive Areas rezoning, the substantive requirements are specifically, exclusively within the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. There are specific guidelines, design guidelines, for Sensitive Areas development plans contained in Section N of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. The portions of Section N, if any, that are applicable to a particular Sensitive Areas This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #6 Page 37 development plan depends on the specific environmentally sensitive features of the property, as well as the nature and extent of the proposed development activities that may affect those environmentally sensitive features. Specifically, under the current Code, Section N, which contains some design features, is only to be used if the applicant wishes to modify the requirements of the underlying zoning district. Now, under the proposed Code, it is a significant departure from the existing ordinance. On page 316 of the proposed Code, Section 14.5.1.3.b.3. provides, a Level Two Sensitive Areas review is considered a type of Planned Development and as such, must comply with the approval criteria set forth in Article 14.3.A. Planned Development Overlay. And if you want specifics, look on page 316 and under that 14.5.I.3.b.3., an underlying must comply with the approval criteria set forth in Article 14.3.A. It goes on to state that it will be reviewed according to the approval procedures for a Planned Development overlay rezoning as set forth in Article 14.8.D., Planning and Zoning Commission Approval Procedures. A Level Two Sensitive Areas review, which requires approval of a Sensitive Areas development plan is currently approved in accordance with the approval procedures contained within the Planned Development overlay rezoning. However, requiring a Level Two Sensitive Areas Review to also meet the approval criteria set forth in the Planned Development Overlay is a significant and material departure from the current Code. Specific reference to requiring a Level Two Sensitive Areas review to meet the approval criteria of a Planned Development is also mentioned in the new proposed Planned Development Overlay Ordinance. The result of this change is that in the event that property contains environmentally sensitive features which requires a Level Two Sensitive Areas review, the applicant will not only have to meet the objective substantive requirements of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, which are located on pages 317 to 330 of the proposed code, but the applicant will also have to comply with the substantive requirements set forth in the Planned Development Overlay Zone, and those standards are set forth on page 113 to 124. This is in addition to having to comply with the applicable requirements of the underlying base zone. The approval criteria set forth in Article 14.3.A. Planned Development Overlay contains several design standards that have nothing to do with protecting environmentally sensitive features. These design standards include, by the way, encouraging the use of front porches, that's on page 118. It is the Land Development Council's recommendation that all Sensitive Areas Development be approved in accordance with Article 14.8.B., the Administrative Approval Procedures. This administrative review of a Sensitive Areas development plan would be consistent with a site plan or permit review. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance contains very detailed requirements for delineating and protecting sensitive features and should, therefore, be applied as an administrative review, rather than a rezoning process. And as an administrative review, rather than.., an OSA rezoning should only be applicable if a specific development plan also This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #6 Page 38 include elements of a Planned Development Housing Overlay, Historic Preservation Overlay, a Conservation Overlay, or a Design Review Overlay, which are frequently not applicable to many developments that have environmentally sensitive features. The design criteria found in Section N of the current Code which are only applicable if the applicant wishes to modify the underlying zoning or subdivision requirements should also remain. These are much more specific criteria that are applied in the context of protecting environmentally sensitive features, which the OPDH Ordinance does not provide. A broad exercise of legislative discretion should not be permissible in the context of a Sensitive Areas Ordinance. The City's review of a property containing sensitive features should be merely administrative and not legislative. The City's Council review of a Sensitive Areas development plan should be substantively an administrative or quasi judicial review, similar to the administrative review process in connection with a site plan. Based on this retain administrative oversight, the City will be bound to comply with the provisions of the ordinance, which do not provide the City with unlimited discretion to impose additional requirements upon its applicant, that although may be contained in the requirement of an OPDH, have nothing to do with protecting environmentally sensitive features. Duncan Associates, the City's own zoning experts consultant, recognize the City's review of these matters as subsequently administrative, and if you look at the Duncan report on pages 38 and 39, you will see a discussion of that. Duncan Associates recommended that the Sensitive Areas Ordinance should be implemented through a development standards approach, while retaining the OPDH Zone as a voluntary right for developers with unique, innovative proposals. And I quote from page 39 of the Duncan report, which states, 'This recommendation stems largely from our belief that the use of objective development standards will result in a more predictable outcome for all concerned - developers, neighborhoods, and the City. It is also our observation that the existing process tends to result in issues being raised in the overlay rezoning process that are sometimes completely unrelated to the site's environmental characteristics. The Council should look to the purpose of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, which is to protect environmentally sensitive features. Allowing broad legislative discretion is not consistent with the purposes of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. There is no need nor basis to rely on broader power zoning or subdivision considerations when no typical issues pertaining to zoning or subdivision' are at issue, such as use, density, yard requirements, or new public infrastructure. Rather, the City has already exercised its legislative discretion by adopting a Sensitive Areas Ordinance as part of the general zoning ordinances of the City. In doing so, the Council fully considers the broad pubic interest and adopt the rules and regulations applicable to properties containing identified environmentally sensitive features. Lehman: You need to wrap this up, Mike. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #6 Page 39 Pugh: I'm almost done. Lehman: Okay, thank you. Pugh: Allowing a city broad discretion to oppose its own development guidelines from time to time for specific properties creates an impossible scenario for reasonable notice to the public and invites decisions that are arbitrary, discriminatory, and contrary to expressed ordinances. Again, I very much appreciate your time and attention to these issues. Champion: So, Mike, with all your letters and numbers and all that, you're basically saying the Sensitive Areas zoning should not go through the OPDH? Pugh: That' s right, unless there' s some sort of modification. Champion: Exactly. Pugh: Right, and I mean, there's two issues here. One issue is, is whether it should go through the process itself, okay? And Duncan Associates, and we also believe it, it really should be a development standards approach like a subdivision, where you have...like any other site plan review, because that's essentially what it is. It's the preparation of a site plan. The new proposed Code goes even beyond that, where it says 'We're going to continue with the OPDH procedures, but we're also going to include, bring in all those OPDH criteria... Champion: Right, I know what you're saying. Pugh: ...as part of the Sensitive Areas, which is, I'm going to tell you, is a drastic, drastic change from the existing ordinance. Allen: Hi, my name is Greg Allen. I live in Tiffin. I own quite a bit of property here in town, a few houses, mostly up in the Lucas and Governor Street area and also some over around Ronald Street, Church Street, that area. I would hope that we could find a way to protect, as this lady said, some of our houses, you know, one, two, and three-bedroom houses on Bloomington Street, without doing this drop in the occupancy. On those two and three-bedroom houses, you know, it's not going to have a huge affect, but on like Lucas Street, which is now probably the most regulated street in this city with the overlay zone, it's already been down-zoned to RNC-12, and now you're proposing that we're going to make a roomer, you know, take roomers out ofRNC-12, RNC-20, RM-12, almost all of the rental housing zones. I will propose a little bit later a much better way to do that, but here's what happens on these...most of the houses up on Lucas are not three-bedroom houses; they're four-bedroom houses. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #6 Page 40 They're some five-bedroom houses. There's some nine-bedroom houses which, you know, have been rooming houses which are a huge problem for everybody. The Zoning staffhas spent, you know, after 20 years of no changes, have spent an immense amount of time on this proposal. After 20 years, there's no change in any parking requirements. These houses that are four-bedroom houses now, if you, on Lucas Street, let this go through as it is, every house between Burlington and Bowery that does not have a rental permit, or that does have a rental permit, will be grandfathered in - the entire street. There's many, many streets where the entire street is going to be grandfathered in. There's three owner-occupied houses on Lucas, which will not be grandfathered in, and their value is going to drop about $40,000. If you're a single-family and you buy a house with a permit, as soon as you move in, the value's going to drop $40,000. If they decide to move out and buy a house and they want to rent that house, they're going to lose $400 a month rent. That's where the value comes from. That'd be $160,000 house; with that fourth bedroom it's worth about $220,000. I had the City Assessor call me about a month ago and talked to me for about two hours because of the property we sold that he couldn't understand the ridiculous price on it. It's a close-in, downtown, grandfathered in house with a permit. House right beside it has no permit. There was $180,000 disparity in between two houses which are very similar houses. This is going to be a huge problem for the assessors. The students, they have rights to live in these houses. The City shouldn't be trying to force them into apartments, and that's what's happening, you know. We're building more RM-44, we're cutting down the down-zoning; we're going to grandfather them in and then every time a single-family person buys a house, the students are going to be out because it can't go back to being a rental. What you're doing is, it's a discrimination against landlords; it discriminates against owner-occupied people because if a single-family person buys a house, they're going to take a huge hit when they try and sell it. A lot of these people come in from out of town, have no idea this is going to happen. It discriminates against the students, and reducing the roomers, you're going to have four- bedroom houses that are going to have three people in them, if they ever do go back to a rental. Then you've got an extra room. Then it's a terrible headache for the rental housing department because if they have extra rooms, they will put people in them, or they will put a bar in them. I had a five-bedroom house - four guys wanted to rent it. They just paid the five- bedroom rate. I went over there -- they set up a bar. They were selling beer hand over fist. If we want to solve these problems, and I have some correspondence here I hope that you guys can read through because I don't want to take all your time now and then I'll try and meet and talk with some of you, but if we want to solve the problems with the partying and the problems with the occupancy, we need to do it two ways. One, they raised our rental permits and they said they were going to hire another housing inspector, which I don't believe they did, but housing inspectors This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #6 Page 41 go home at 5:00. We have 11,000, 12,000 people on Thursday nights and Saturday nights, freshmen and sophomores, wondering up and down the streets, looking for a place that sells alcohol. They have cell phones. As soon as they find a house, within an hour there's a 150 people there. These kids are making $800 to $1,200 a night selling beer out of a house, and the rental housing people and the Zoning people, they're at home. So, they go ahead. They call the police. They complain. They come. They give them a "disorderly house;" they fine them $100, and they punish us, and it does nothing, and they move to the next house, and the next house. If we want to solve this problem, we should take that extra money for a permit and hire an officer that works from 9:00 P.M. to 3:00 A.M. and has the sole job of driving around and keeping these parties dispersed. Some nights when, you know, before a football game or something, there's so many parties going on at so many places, if they have an accident, you might wait two hours to get somebody to come and break up this party. The other thing is, in 20 years we have not increased our parking requirements. They've made a few changes which has required more spaces, but you have 12-plexes that have 36 people in them that have 24 parking spaces required. Lucas Street and Dodge Street are parked, packed full of cars, because they, all of the overflow from those 12-plexes comes over. I have four-bedroom houses with four parking spaces, but the whole street is lined up with cars. The houses aren't filling those streets, okay? Also, down on Lucas Street, number 23, a new building, nice new building that's packed on that little tight lot, brand new building, just put in this year. It's all done with the new codes, very nice looking, has no yard, paved the backyard, has 12 people in it, nine parking spaces. As soon as he got his permit and got the people moved in, we now have three cars parked in the yard. This is a brand-new building. If we address the parking issue, so that we have more required parking in all zones, because all these rental people have cars, you know. Huge, larger number than did 20 years ago or even five years ago, then these small lots, like this lady has on Bloomington Street, and these smaller houses that have smaller bedrooms and most of those other houses are on smaller lots, are never going to meet the criteria to be torn down, upsized, changed, the lots just won't allow it, and those houses will also be protected. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. Johnson: Hi, my name is Gwen Johnson. I live in Iowa City and I'm really nervous and I know why I flunked public speaking. So... Lehman: We're easy, relax! Johnson: Oh yeah, I heard that. I was like looking at thoSe kids going 'I wish I had that much...'. What I would like to talk about is affordability, and I have watched this at home and had a couple conversations with folks and what This represe ~ts only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #6 Page 42 I've prepared is a document that I hope is okay ifI hand this to you, but it's regarding affordability. If I can quit shaking long enough to .... the first point I want to bring up is that I sell real estate here in Iowa City for Lepic Kroeger and I am sometimes the first contact people have when they come to Iowa City to look for housing. Okay, and one of the things in that, you'll see the household income and you'll also see what is the medium income of somebody who can afford a house here in Iowa City, and in that there's a list of 111 homes that are currently on the market between $100,000 and $180,000 that are, right this minute today's date, I pulled them off of the Multiple Listing Service. The reason I did that is because I want you to see what the addresses are of those houses and really what is affordable in terms of when you're looking at the medium income here in Iowa City and what people can afford. So a three-bedroom home for a person coming in, getting in the back of my Jeep, and we're driving around looking at houses. The reason I bring this up is because it is my belief, and as I would talk to any builder about wanting to list their properties, as I'm talking to them I'm discussing with them things that are going to be desirable for the public, and I always say things, as they will attest. I say things like, 'Gosh, it'd be great if we had brick, and granite counter tops, and great appliances,' and all those things and it always comes down to the bottom line is affordability. We cannot afford to build these houses and sell them and make a profit, and we want our builders to make a profit because builders who make profits stay around, do their warranty work, and are productive members of our community. The same thing is true for business owners, people who go to school here, we all make up, and I have to be honest with you, I'm very grateful that all of us have differencing of opinions and that we're here to talk about this because in other parts of the world you can't do that. So, it's great that we all have a differing opinion. But the issue is that when you look at what a family, and family of one or two people or even just a couple or one single person, what they can actually afford in Iowa City is very limited, extremely limited. So, and it always comes down to whether we like to believe this or not, it comes down to the bottom line: it's what the bank is going to loan this person for the mortgage on their property. So when you look at that and you look at affordability, when you have what I call legislative design features and you're causing things that don't have to do with the safety of the house, that don't have to do with the actual construction of the house, whether it's safe and whether it's a property that can be lived in, then it starts affecting the bottom line, and I would like to challenge each of you. I'm more than willing to take some time, go show you some houses and some price ranges so you can actually see what's out there and what's affordable for a family, and let's go look at really what's out there and what people can afford, and what you're asking is the financial impact of what this is going to do to the consumer. Not to you and me, but the consumer. The person coming into Iowa City who's making $42,000 a year in their household income and what can they This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #6 Page 43 actually afford. That's the bottom line, and I, you know, I would love to have all brick homes and beautiful things and all that stuff, but the reality is every single thing that we add to these codes that has to do with the financial impact to a builder, will be filtered down to the consumer. So that's it. I did pretty good. I don't think I stuck this thing on here right though, so...hold on, can I just set it here? Bailey: Gwen, I have a question. In your experience, I mean, are people voluntarily building homes that this 40, 35, 30 thousand dollar income can afford. I mean, we seem to have a limited number. We heard last night from Scattered Site that the private market really has to do some of this and we need to incentivise that, but is it really happening out there? Johnson: Well, here's .... this is my own opinion, okay, so don't...I don't want to speak for every real estate agent in town or every builder or anything - just my opinion, okay? So that could be wrong for all we know, but anyway, the issue that I think is that these, what people can afford now - everybody wants a three-bedroom house on an acre with a two-car garage, with lovely big trees, and we all want that, but the reality is what happens is I have the really hard part of saying to people, you can't afford it. Bottom line, you can't afford it, and I can't take you to a house you can't afford. It's not ethical for me as a licensed realtor in the state of Iowa. So what ends up happening is, the only thing that they can afford are zero-lot lines, condominiums, things like that, and what I'm afraid of, and again, it's not that, I really truthfully would love it if you would mandate that all builders had to build brick and that it all has granite counter tops, and there's some builders in town that could tell you that's what I ask them to do, but the reality is, they can't afford to build it, and if you can't afford to build it, then what happens is people say 'look I want to go out further; I want to go to other areas; I want to go to...' and you know, I've seen that. It's very disheartening, and as you can look at that list of what's actually available in Iowa City, between that, you know, I've got the list of how many bedrooms, what the price is. That's the current market; that's exactly what's on the market right now and I think you'll be able to see what frustrating issues we're up against, and so when you start restricting that and being very prescriptive in regards to design features and things like that. Not that I don't like it, it's just that it's not...people can't afford to build that and the public can't afford to pay for it. All right, so that's why the financial impact, bottom line, I think you have to ask yourself, 'Does this code actually have a financial impact to the consumer?' and then you have to ask 'Okay, if that translates to $3,000 or $1,000, am I willing to redesign a code that is going to impact our economic development here in Iowa City, and I love Iowa City! I own property here. I love it here. I love everything about it, but we have to keep it fluid. We have to keep people coming in and buying property and that's the American Dream. Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #6 Page 44 Lehman: Thank you again. Pardon? Buss-Paulson: I don't sign it again do I? I do? Okay. Sarah Paulson again. 416 N. Linn Street. I just wanted to speak to a few issues that kept being raised in the last couple of meetings, and I drafted a letter to the Council and I just decided oh I'll just come read it. So I basically had three points that I wanted to speak to. The first, protecting the interest of homeowners. I've heard several developers argue that the restrictions in their covenants protect the value of the houses to which these restrictions apply, and that makes sense. I just think it's very important to recognize that the very minor restrictions proposed in the new zoning code serve the very same purpose. Someone who buys in the neighborhood that is protected by these restrictions is someone who has good reason to believe that the neighborhood will not significantly change its character after she's made her investment. Same idea, and I just wanted to add parenthetically that from what I can tell, most of these new restrictions in the Code are tied to changes that actually give developers greater flexibility, builders as well, and it seems to me that to complain to have to work within such reasonable, minor limits is like complaining about having to eat a few peas in order to get your dessert. Point two, affordability. I'm no expert, but it seems to me from what I've been able to gather, that if you take the Code as a whole, the revised Code will not decrease the supply of affordable homes, and I think to verify this you have to compare the Code in its entirety as it is now to the Code in its entirety as in its revised form. You can't just pick some little part and compare that region in the two Codes, the current and the revised. I think it's also important to keep in mind that it's the building restrictions in developer covenants that have prevented Habitat for Humanity from building modest, single-family homes in many subdivisions in Iowa City. If developers are truly concerned about affordability, they should loosen up their own regulations. This is somewhat speaking to the question that Regenia asked. I just wanted to add in response to the remarks made about houses that can perhaps fit four people unrelated, rentals. The point was made it gets a lot more expensive when you're trying to buy a house when there's competition for people who want it just to put a lot of renters in there, and if again we're thinking about affordability, we want to be able to have young families being able to buy houses in our neighborhoods, especially our older neighborhoods, it seems to me that the proposal that the City staffers have made furthers that objective. Finally point three, preserving old neighborhoods. People who object to restrictions on duplexes often seem to forget the special vulnerability of older neighborhoods. This came up a couple times back and forth between people up here and members of the Council. It seems to me that if there were no restrictions on what gets plopped down in the middle of a block of old houses, the integrity of a neighborhood could very easily be undermined. You don't need much imagination to know This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #6 Page 45 what I'm talking about..No only would this be bad in itself, but again, single families would become less willing in investing in the neighborhood, even if it contained some of the City's most affordable houses. So I ended the letter by just saying that I very much support the City staff's recommendation. I think that the expertise and hard work that these people whom we pay with our taxpayer money and the Planning and Zoning people deserve a lot of respect and our support. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. McLaughlin: My name is Mike McLaughlin. I spoke last week, and again tonight I'm going to hand out a copy of my presentation, and I also have an updated copy of the City zoning map. I mistakenly grabbed one about two years old and made copies and handed those out last week. So, that one can be superceded. (reads handout) Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. Schreiber: Hello everyone. You all know my name, it's Jeremy Schreiber. I'm the Student Council, Iowa City Council Student Liaison, and I've heard some people on this same issue talk about the consideration of affordable housing for young families and for new families in the area, but the student population in this town is no more and no less a part of this community than young families and low-income families, and the consideration for affordable rent for those students is every bit as important, and I currently live in a five-bedroom house, and the rent is considerably less than it would be to live in a two-bedroom apartment near downtown, and that's very important because students are struggling to pay back student loans. They're struggling to pay with rising tuition fees, and rising costs of living everywhere. So the ability for students to live close to downtown, without needing a car, is very important, and to live in a house where you can put four people and pay $325 a month per person instead of living in a apartment where you have to pay over $400 per person for the same number of people, or for living in a two-bedroom where you have to pay $450 to $500 a month, that's very important to keep in mind, and I hope that you guys consider that when thinking about the change in zoning. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. Swartzendrut,er: Good evening. I'm Sarah Swartzendruber and I'm also here on behalf of the Land Development Council. I have two topics that I'd like to discuss tonight; the first being Planned Development Overlay Zone and the second being open spaces. I know and I appreciate the time limits, so when I finish the Planned Development, I will leave it to your discretion whether you'd like me to continue or let someone else speak and then This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #6 Page 46 come back later. Regarding Planned Development Overlay Zone, which begins at page 111 in the proposed Zoning Code. The Land Development Council had some concerns. We believe that the Planned Development Overlay process should be a process that should be used to permit a developer and the City to have flexibility in the design, I'm sorry, in the development process. It should give the developer the ability to create new and innovative types of developments, to preserve natural amenities, maybe efficiently use the topography of the land, facilitate affordable development, and make accommodations where the type of project that they want to do doesn't specifically meet the underlying requirements of the zoning code. It should not ever be used as a requirement to pull a development into OPD that otherwise meets the underlying requirements of the Code. Section 14.3.A.2, on pages 112 and 113, lists categories of planned development, and it's unclear from the Code what this means. There's a number of types (can't understand) in there, sensitive areas development, conservation development, neo-traditional, in-fill development, mixed use development, manufactured housing parks, and condominium development. You can't tell from reading this provision whether these types of developments are just an option or some categories of developments that may benefit from the OPD process, or whether those types of developments are now going to be required to go through the OPD process, just by nature of the type of development they are. If these developments are required to go through the OPD process, even though they may meet the requirements of the underlying or the base zone, that's a very significant change to the zoning code. If that was not the intent, then we would request that that provision be clarified to show that those are just merely examples of how the OPD process may be used, but if the intent was that condominiums and the other types of developments I discussed are required to go through OPD, as I said, that's a very, very significant change, and we believe an inappropriate one. There's not any justification, I believe, for requiring developments, as I said, that meet the underlying zoning criteria, or the underlying street standard or subdivision requirements to go through an OPD process. In addition to some of these specific requirements of OPD that I will discuss, the Section, the language at the very end of this article gives the City some very broad discretion and says that in addition to the requirements imposed in this section, the City may impose other conditions necessary to protect and promote the best interests of the surrounding property, and that it is required to be in harmony with the purpose intent of the Code, enhance the proposed planned development, does not have an impact on physical, visual, spatial characteristics, does not detract from the appearance of the proposed development - these are fairly vague considerations and I think we could probably debate about whether our group believes that some of those are appropriate for a planned development, but I can say that they're certainly not appropriate if you're talking about rolling other types of development into OPD, again, where I say there are no deviations required from the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #6 Page 47 underlying code, or no changes being requested from the underlying code, just because they are a particular category of listed developments. One way for the City to impose design standards in a zoning code is to require design standards - the kind of standards that our group's talked to you about - the garage placement standards or the design standards on attached dwellings. Another type is to roll significantly more property into the OPD process - require different types and additional types of developments to go through that process, because as you know, the City has much more discretion in the OPD process than it does in other types of development. So, Section 14.3.A.4.k, and I'm going to give you these code sections tonight, but I should also let you know that we will be submitting these written comments to you shortly, as well. Lehman: Good. Swartzendruber: This section talks about modified development, and it talks about what sort of standards a city can impose if the developer comes in and requests changes from the underlying zoning. So you want a density change or you want to have a modified setback, or you want to have modified side yard requirements, we think that this modified development where you're requesting something other than what you're permitted to do by right is the only situation where OPD should be required. It shouldn't be required, as I said, where you don't need any modifications. However, we have some concerns about this section, this modified development section. On pages 118 and 119, the Code discusses garage placement standards and encourages use of porches in planned developments. Land Development Council is opposed to both of those provisions. Page 118 says if you are going to reduce the front setback, then the developer needs to take measures to preserve privacy within the dwelling and provide a transition between the public view and the private property. It requires that the first floor elevation be 30 inches above the sidewalk, and then also provides the use of porches is encouraged, with a request that the language "use of porches is encouraged" be deleted because over time, things that are encouraged in codes sort of have a way of being mandatory and so we would request that that be deleted. The second request is page 19. If the minimum lot area, lot width or lot frontage is going to be reduced, one of the conditions is that garages and off-street parking must be located so they don't dominate street-scape. This is the garage placement issue again. Alleys or private rear lane access will be required unless garages are recessed behind the facade of the house, in a manner that allows the residential portion of the dwelling to predominate the street. Page 120 shows you the examples of those types of dwellings, and it's the same where the garage is recessed behind the house or where the garage may be flush with the front of the house, but there's a porch in front of the house, or it requires alleys and rear access. You have heard that this Code does not require porches on any dwellings, and while that may be technically This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #6 Page 48 true, I can tell you that it will be very difficult for developers to build lots less than 60 feet wide or to do a planned development and not be required to have a porch in there to accommodate that type of development. There's a couple of different options that are given, but it's really realistically not going to be possible to do that without having some porches. So again, as I said, we recommend that the alley requirements and garage placement standards in this section be deleted. As Mike indicated, we also recommend that Level Two Sensitive Areas not be required to go through the planned development process. Okay, I'I1 speed it up. Lehman: You're getting past your time. Swartzendruber: Can I finish planned development if I do it in two minutes? Lehman: How much time...two minutes? Go ahead. Swartzendruber: Okay. The last two concerns are, there's a new section. It's 14.3.A.4.j. that talks about, I'm sorry, it's j.l.b., it's on page 117. In addition to the open space that's required to be dedicated, the City may require certain amenities to be installed by the developer, with the cost shared jointly between the City and the developer, or essentially residents, of a development. We believe that's an unfair burden on developments that go through the OPD process to not only have to dedicate land or funds under the Neighborhood Open Space, but then also provide additional dedication. I suppose meaning most likely trails. And the last issue, and you're going to hear more about this as well, is that the proposed Code proposed that a two-thirds (TAPE ENDS) required I suppose to obtain a favorable recommendation from Planning and Zoning. It will no longer be a simple majority, it will be two-thirds vote, and I don't... Lehman: Do you have where that is in the Code? Swartzendruber: I do. It is... for planned development overlays, it's on page 381. And this is true on a number of different types of developments. It's amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Map, and (can't understand); Level Two Sensitive Areas Review; and also Planned Development. You have this two-thirds vote required to have a favorable recommendation. It's on page 381, it's that little subsection B, about halfway down the page. We just believe it's an inappropriate requirement and demonstrates a certain hostility or disfavor to these types of development. Again, recommended that be eliminated. Elliott: Sarah, you'll submit that information at a later point? Swartzendruber: We will, and I'll be back to talk about open spaces, as well. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #6 Page 49 Lehman: Thank you. Well, we've been doing this for an hour. One more. Dan, and then we're going to continue the public hearing until the 1 st of November and proceed with the rest of our meeting. Smith: Good evening. My name is Dan Smith, and as one of the Council members can attest to, I live at 905 Wylde Green Road. I'm here tonight to represent the Land Development Council and if it's okay with the Council I'm going to dispense with too many numbers and throwing out too many of them. In general, I'll be addressing Chapter 8, Review and Approval Procedures, and there's really three items. The first one is this notion of mandatory neighborhood meetings. We oppose that for a couple of reasons. First of all, we think they're unnecessary. We think it will add undue burden and additional costs and delay. The proposed code requires a mandatory meeting of residents who live within 300 feet of a proposed development under the following circumstances: a request for annexation, an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, a rezoning that would change from single-family residential to any other zone, a rezoning of five acres or more, any planned development overlay, or any Level Two Sensitive Areas review. This provision requires the following. These are reporting requirements: a notice to residents, a meeting of residents; a follow-up report to the City which must include a copy of the notice sent; a list of person to whom the notice was mailed; a list of persons attending, including a count of those who chose not to disclose identities; a copy of any materials handed out at the meeting; a summary of questions concerns and discussions at the meeting; the developer's response to any neighborhood questions, concerns, or issues, including identification of any changes made to the proposed project as a result of the meeting. What is troubling about some of these reporting requirements, aside from the sheer magnitude, is that there is no indication of how they will be used. In light of what Sarah's already mentioned, it's particularly problematic in the planned development rezoning, where it's uncertain what will apply and what will be required of the developer. That's not to say that citizens do not have a voice in this. We all know that Iowa Code provides statutory rights, to a notice - and I apologize for this one number - Iowa Code Chapter 414, requires notice and opportunity to speak at a public hearing and we obviously support that. Citizens have the right and they should exercise that when they oppose something. Iowa Code adds an additional level of protection, and I apologize, 414.5, which requires an additional, requires a super majority vote of Council if a requisite number of neighbors file a written complaint against the rezoning application. Developers can and do have neighborhood meetings. You can't possibly address every concern. This Council has seen plenty of developments come forward after a number of neighborhood meetings, and there are still going to be people who oppose it. (can't understand) it won't always be successful. Making it mandatory deprives a neighborhood meeting of any This represe:~ts only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #6 Page 50 legitimacy and any claim to good will. The next topic I'd like to address briefly is 14.8.D.5 - it's the only number I'm going to throw out on this one. This is a, this requires a... Council currently has a policy in place where if it appears there's an informal consensus, we're going to disagree with the recommendation from the P&Z Commission. You sit down and meet with them and discuss it. This provision would make that a law, and we propose that because we think it's unnecessary. We support it as an informal policy, but this should not bind the current or future Councils. What they may decide on their own discretion is simply unnecessary to meet with P&Z. The third issue, as Sarah's (can't understand) alluded to, is a change from simple majority vote on certain items at the Planning and Zoning Commission to a super-majority vote. Those items are: amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Map and text amendments, Level Two Sensitive Areas, and planned development overlay rezoning. We feel that this demonstrates a base-level hostility to development and growth. It's unnecessary, and it's just simply a super- majority vote at Planning and Zoning. Now ifI may, I think I have at least one more minute, if you take a step back by illustration, the Level Two Sensitive Areas, you could have a mandatory neighborhood meeting, comply with the Corp of Engineers, comply with the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, go through a Planned Development, and still yet have to have a super-majority vote by Planning and Zoning Commission. If you have not complied, if you've not satisfied at that point, at a bare minimum you should simply require a super-majority. That's just to give you a little perspective. Numbers and more specific comments will be in the written documentation. Any questions I can... Lehman: Well, I just would comment. It says that two-thirds vote of the Commission, or but not less than four votes. Four votes is a majority of P&Z. What you're saying is that if we only have three people there, that two people should be able to make the decision. Smith: Well, we're interpreting it as the majority. Two-thirds vote. Lehman: Right, and two-thirds is... Dilkes: It's two-thirds of those present, not two-thirds of the body. Lehman: · Right. Smith: Thank you. Bailey: Dan, I have a question. May I? Smith: I'll do my best. I'm not a developer so... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #6 Page 51 Bailey: Well, I don't think the point of a neighborhood meeting is to actually quell opposition, but to actually help people understand what's going to happen. I've read minutes of Planning and Zoning where there have been neighborhood meetings. Meetings seems to go a little bit smoother than they do when people are still concerned and confused about what the project is. So, I'm going to take a risk and ask you, what's your compromise position on this? I mean, would you, would the Land Development Council be willing to have a mandatory public notice of the public hearing, because as you and I both know, the public pays attention to things often later in the game than might be beneficial to the process. This is about public process and I'm concerned to have good public process. So, how can we develop that? Smith: Well, ! think .... I hesitate without talking to our (can't understand) but Iowa Code does require a notice to residents. If you're talking about a notice from the developer himself... Bailey: I think that would be beneficial that the developer could lay out his or her plans so there was a greater understanding when people arrived at the meeting, so there wasn't a presumed opposition but a presumed coming together to understand, and I think that that is what you prefer to create. Smith: You raise a good point, and we do encourage our members to engage in neighborhood meetings, neighborhood dialogue, but we do think it's discretionary on a case-by-case basis. You raise a very good point though, that developers do like to be able to control sort of how their projects are laid out. So, we are just opposed to making in mandatory across the board. Bailey: How many developers have neighborhood meetings on developments? Can you bring me the percentages? Smith: I'd have to look and see. I don't know. The one I was thinking on the top of my head was, to illustrate the point we're making, is Sand Hill, where a number of neighborhood meetings were held. I mean, it's obviously high profile, but there's still opposition, even after countless number of neighborhood meetings. So... Bailey: But the process resulted in a good project. Smith: Right, and it was done without a law requiring it. Bailey: Right, but there was a lot of notice. I mean, I think that there can be a better process if developers have some (can't hear). This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #6 Page 52 Champion: Well, I think with controversial projects, too, that neighborhood meetings quell a lot of the rebel-rousing from the neighbors when they understand what's going to happen, and I think most developers, that's the time when they do a neighborhood meeting, when there's going to be...when they know there's going to be an uproar. And sometimes it isn't...because they don't understand what's going to happen. Bailey: But I think that we should step into that. Let's not presume opposition. Let's just standardly provide this and the opportunity for the developer to present his or her project to the public. I think it could create a better process that would actually support development more than you think it's happening now. Smith: It's a valid point, but I guess we're also saying that by making a law it sets the presumption that there's going to be something wrong with the development project. Bailey: Well, maybe our local developers are very good about this, but not all of our developers are local. So if somebody comes into our area, we want them to understand how to make good process. Smith: If an outside developer comes in, we should definitely keep an eye on 'em! (laughter) Lehman: All right. Thank you, Dan. Elliott: Dan? Dan, just a minute. Picking up on what Regenia said, am I reading you right when I think...you're not, the main opposition you have to the required meeting is the extensive reporting, not so much as the required meeting? Smith: Well, we don't, of course, we don't like either really, but the extensive reporting requirements raise a number of problematic issues. Both the extent and the amount of reporting and what happens once you've got this information. I mean, developments sometimes are a fluid process. You may not have it set in stone; maybe you talked to a citizen who thinks they have some agreement, and it just isn't feasible. I mean, it's very problematic to submit information, particularly in a planned development context, without knowing how it's going to be used. Elliott: As usual, though, we're kind of looking for common ground, and if there is some common ground, one way, you have to have the meeting, you have to report all this information. The other way is no meeting at all; there's no common ground there. Could there be, we'd like to hear from you, what you think would be appropriate from your point of view. This represelJts only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #6 Page 53 Bailey: And my intent with this, is to create good community process and recognize that not all developers will be as responsive to our community because not all developers live here. And we've got to recognize that. Smith: Absolutely, and we created the Land Development Council to provide solutions, we want to provide solutions, and we will take this up and we will consider what we think is a workable solution. Thank you for your time. Lehman: Thank you. Pugh: I just have one comment on that and I think it's applicable. One of the things we've discussed in the context of the signs that go up and other notices that do go onto the public, it always gives a number to the Planning staff if you want additional information, and one thing that I think would be helpful is also give the number for the project applicant or the developer to also call to give information because that's also a way for the developer to be able to discuss the project with the people in the neighborhood, and I think at a minimum that should be done, and I think that and the State Law requirement and the public notice requirement and the open meetings and everything else, that should be sufficient. I don't think you're going to get the Land Development Council onboard to say yes to mandatory meetings. It really, it really...you loose any good will when you're required to do it, and any good developer that senses, senses that he will have a problem at Council level for approval because of neighborhood problems will be wise to sit down and have a neighborhood meeting ahead of time. That just makes good business sense. Lehman: Thank you. Do we have a motion to continue the public hearing to the first of November? Elliott: So moved. Lehman: And a second? Vanderhoef: Second. Lehman: All in favor? Motion carries. Karr: Accept correspondence. Champion: So moved. Lehman: And a second? O'Donnell: Second. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #6 Page 54 Lehman: All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. We're going to take another quick break. (TAPE OFF) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #6 Page 55 ITEM 6 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS. k. APPROVING THE VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 51.9 ACRES LOCATED ON AMERICAN LEGION ROAD. (ANN05-00002) 1. PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED FROM 10/4) Lehman: (pounds gavel) Public hearing is open. Dilkes: We don't have a signed CZA so you'll need to continue this one and the next one. Lehman: Do we have a motion to continue to November lSt? O'Donnell: (can't understand) Bailey: Second. Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell; seconded by Bailey. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. 2. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION (DEFERRED FROM 10/4) Lehman: Do we have a motion to defer the resolution? Champion: Move to defer. Lehman: Moved by Champion. Bailey: Second. Lehman: Second by Bailey. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #6 Page 56 ITEM 6 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS. 1. CONDITIONALLY REZONING APPROXIMATELY 51.9 ACRES FROM JOHNSON COUNTY RESIDENTIAL (R) TO LOW DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-5) SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON AMERICAN LEGION ROAD (REZ05-00018) 1. PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED FROM 10/4) Lehman: (pounds gavel) Public heating is open. Do we have a motion to continue? Champion: Move to continue the public hearing. Lehman: Moved by Champion. Vanderhoef: Second. Lehman: Second by Vanderhoef. All in favor? 2. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE (FIRST CONSIDERATION) (DEFERRED FROM 10/4) Champion: Move to defer first consideration. O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: Moved by Champion; seconded by O'Donnell to defer first consideration. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #6 Page 57 ITEM 6 PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS. n. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF CARDINAL RIDGE - PART TWO AND THREE, IOWA CITY, IOWA (SUB05-00022) Dilkes: You need to split these out. Just do two first... Lehman: We need an amendment to delete part three, or defer part three indefinitely and we'll act on part two. Bailey: So moved. Elliott: Second. Lehman: Moved by Bailey; seconded by Elliott. Discussion? Roll call. Dilkes: Are you doing both or...or is this a motion to defer? Lehman: We really need to vote on the amendment first. All in favor of the amendment? Opposed? Motion carries. Discussion of the motion as amended? Elliott: Which is parts one and two. Lehman: The motion as amended is to pass part two and defer part three indefinitely. Roll call. Motion carries. This represe ~ts only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #7 Page 58 ITEM 7 APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO A PURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND WAL- MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST FOR APPROXIMATELY 21.76 ACRES OF PROPERTY LYING WITHIN LOTS 10 THROUGH 17 OF NORTH AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION AND LOTS 2, THROUGH 4 OF THE NORTH AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION - PART TWO. 1. PUBLIC HEARING Lehman: (pounds gavel) Public hearing is open. Sanders: I'm going to wait on my 500-page document for just a minute. Since I'm one of the few people Who was around to see the 59 Soxs in person, I want to say 'go Soxs' and I just hope some day that other Chicago team learns how to play solid baseball, and since it's so late and there's nobody in the audience and the press is mostly gone, I know that most of you will vote 'no' on this resolution, but first I'm going to let our lawyer do a little talking and then I'll finish up real fast. Thank you. Taylor: Good evening. My name's Wally Taylor. I'm an attorney from Cedar Rapids, and it isn't clear to me exactly what contingencies Wal-Mart claims they haven't been able to meet that they need an extension for. I know there is one contingency that they have not met and that has to do with the flood plain. In your agreement for purchase of the land with... Wal-Mart, the City agreed to cooperate with Wal-Mart in having the flood plain boundary modified by FEMA on the flood plain map, not changing the flood plain but changing the map, and on September lst, FEMA issued a determination that they're not going to change the map - that the area still is in a flood plain, and to show you where the flood plain is, this is a map of the area. Here's Ruppert Road here. Now, the agreement with Wal-Mart proposed that the City would relocate Ruppert Road to up around here, and the Wal-Mart property is in here. The flood plain is marked by this pink boundary line and everything below the boundary line is a flood plain. So you can see that a good portion of this area is in the flood plain, and to give you an idea of where this is in relationship to the Wal-Mart proposal, this is the area here and the Wal- Mart building would be essentially where the main part of the flood plain is. Even if Wal-Mart were somehow able to convince the City Planning and Zoning or Building Department to approve putting fill in that wetland and raising the Wal-Mart structure up, if they could make you do that, that doesn't solve the problem. The problem with building in a flood plain, aside from flooding the structure that's being built on it, is that that flood water has to go somewhere. It's either going to back up like a funnel on some other property, back up in this area, or it's going to flood more downstream. The water has to go somewhere, and so by Wal-Mart This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #7 Page 59 building up on the flood plain, it's going to further injure other properties, either upstream or downstream. Wal-Mart has had, or as of November 6th when the current deadline expires, will have had about nine months to satisfy the contingencies. I don't see how they can satisfy this flood plain contingency and it just seems to us that the Council should not grant a further extension. They've had nine months, they can't do it, that should be the end of it. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. Dilkes: Just to clarify. The contingencies, the significant contingencies that have not been met, are those contingences that must be met by the City, including the rezoning that has now been challenged by Mr. Sanders, the BOA action, and in addition to that, the subdivision. So, we're not talking just about the flood plain contingency. Taylor: Well, may I clarify that the zoning and the special exception are still there. They have not been stopped. We're challenging it, but the Court has not issued any kind of a stay on the zoning or any kind of an injunction to stop the rezoning. It's still there. Dilkes: I think the issue for the Council is whether you want to...whether you want the agreement with Wal-Mart to continue and allow additional time for those contingencies to be met or you don't. Lehman: Right. Sanders: I'll be very brief. I just want to read two sentences from the agreement · because I think...it's a 25-page document, the purchase agreement, which is available from the City, you know, and it says, and maybe, Eleanor, you want to clarify this for us, but Item G, which is on Page 9 of the 25-page document, says the Seller, which is Iowa City, shall agree to cooperate reasonably with Buyer, Wal-Mart, upon written request but at buyer's cost in having the flood plain boundary on the property modified and relocated through the letter of map amendment - LOMA process - with the Federal Management Agency, FEMA, and it seems to us that what this is saying is that even though Mother Nature has decreed this area to be in a flood plain, that Wal-Mart wants you folks to help out changing this flood plain map in Washington D.C., that this property would not be on the flood plain according to the federal government, and that would lessen what Wal-Mart would have to do to build anything on this, and I just think it's, am I wrong, Eleanor? Dilkes: Uh-huh. Sanders: Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #7 Page 60 Dilkes: Um... Sanders: Well, hey, you know... (laughter)'. Dilkes: That's not the intent of that contingency. It has been our understanding that because of the fill that's been brought into that area, that land is no longer in the flood plain and therefore a map amendment is necessary. But, my earlier...the point of my earlier response was, I'm not disputing that the flood plain contingency, the map change, is a contingency to the agreement, but the primary contingencies that have been a problem are the rezonings and the BOA action that Mr. Sanders is currently challenging in the district court. Sanders: But it is true, this will be my final thing, that I don't think people understand that the property is in reality in a flood plain, and that this is something that the City and Wal-Mart, in this agreement, want to get out of a flood plain designation. Dilkes: It's a map change. Sanders: Map change? And that's what's kind of goofy to me, and maybe, cause... Dilkes: Flood plain maps are changed all the time so that they conform with the actuality of what is happening on the ground. Sanders: And what happens ifFEMA says no to this flood plain change? Dilkes: Then we have a problem with that contingency. Sanders: Ahhh, okay, so it hasn't been settled. That's the key thing, right? Okay. Just so we're all on the same page with that. We'll find out if it's a flood plain or not a flood plain, I guess, and it just, I just don't think it's something that's been made very public, that's all. Partially through our, you know, negligence of not publicizing it, but we are now. Thank you very much. Lehman: Thank you, Gary. Discussion? Wilburn: It's not uncommon for the City to give extensions to different contracts and rezonings. Lehman: Let me close the public hearing. 2. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeJng of October 18, 2005. #7 Page 61 Karr: Motion to accept correspondence. Vanderhoef: So moved. Wilbum: Second. Lehman: All in favor? Motion carries. Now discussion. ! totally agree... Wilbum: I think we've done some tonight. Lehman: Right, right. That's not an uncommon thing to ask for an extension. Any other discussion? Roll call. Oh .... (several talking at once) Let's have a motion so we have something to vote on. O'Donnell: So moved. Wilbum: Second. Lehman: Moved by O'Donnell; seconded by Wilburn. Now, roll call. Right. The motion carries 5 to 2; Bailey and Champion voting in the negative. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #10 Page 62 ITEM 10 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN A LETTER OF SUPPORT TO FULFILL THE THRESHOLD REQUIREMENTS OF THE LOW-INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT APPLICATION. Bailey: Move the resolution. Lehman: Moved by Bailey. Vanderhoef: Second. Lehman: Seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion? Wilbum: I will be abstaining due to a conflict of interest with this item. Lehman: Okay. Roll call. Motion cames 6 to 1 abstention from Mr. Wilbum. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #11 Page 63 ITEM 11 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST A CONTRACT WITH TODD HACKETT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DUPLEX HOME UNDER THE AFFORDABLE DREAM HOME OPPORTUNITIES PROGRAM. Champion: Move the resolution. Lehman: Moved by Champion. Vanderhoef: Second. Lehman: Seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion? O'Donnell: I'm going to have...I will not be supporting this. This is $70,000 over our estimate and to me that doesn't resemble affordable housing so I will be voting no. I'd like to see this thing go out for rebid. Lehman: Other discussion? Bailey: Mike, I agree with you. I'd like to see it go out for rebid. I can't support this. Elliott: I am...I have been debating in my mind about this. IfI approve, ! would really want the City to monitor the situation because I have serious concerns about whether this will represent affordable housing, and I' probably not going to know how I'm going to vote until I do it. Champion: They're going to be able to keep it affordable by not selling the land with the duplex, and so the land will be in trust from the City, isn't that correct? Vanderhoef: It's the third. Lehman: Third mortgage. Dilkes: No, they'll meet.., silent mortgages will make up the difference. Champion: But we won't get any money for it until the house is sold or turned over, so actually .... so I won't support it because that would bring the cost down to an affordable level. Lehman: Well, except that the land is not included in that $288,000. That's strictly construction costs. Land's on top of that. Champion: Oh, land's on top of that? Oh... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #11 Page 64 Atkins: Doug did speak with, I think it was Mr. Hackett, about the basement and that could not be, we couldn't justify that, but he did come up with a couple other cost reductions. One we should have made you aware of last night, is the sales tax. We're entitled to a reimbursement on that. That's $7,000 estimated. And really, that area's fill, and as Mr. Hackett said, until ! get out on the site, I can't really you exactly, but we have, like we do some of our unit charges, he fully expects to save some money on the site. Doug indicated a reduction in some of the features inside. For example, we had overhead fans. Those are $400 and $500 apiece. Take a few of those... I mean, the outside of it, no, but the inside he was planning to reduce some of the features on the property, the project. O'Donnell: And I appreciate that, but in my mind when we ask for $220 and it comes in at, $220,000 and it comes in at $288,000. Atkins: Yeah, as you know we rarely have one that's this far off. I think, you know, as Doug pointed out to you last night, this is a project we'd like to do, and of course if you chose not to do it, I certainly understand that, but bottom line is I don't think we're going to get any other bids. O'Donnell: I would like to see, I'd like to see it go out to bid and I'd like to see some local builders... Bailey: Well, I would like to see it done - no question. I agree with Mike. I think we should try and rebid it, or I mean, we'll have a better idea of the land that we're working with. Elliott: Could we defer this? I certainly like to see - this is 144 grand a unit, and I'd at least like to know how this compares with other similar... Atkins: I think we can go two weeks. I mean, I don't think this contractor's going to sit back and wait, assuming they want to move on the site before the snow flies. Yeah. Lehman: But you could, we could live with two weeks. Atkins: Two weeks, and I suspect we could. Lehman: I sense... Atkins: I can summarize some of this... Lehman: ...might be a lot better if we deferred this to the first of November. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #11 Page 65 Atkins: Well, normally I would say rebid it, but Doug is just .... I mean, he's talked to local builders and they're just not interested. They're busy and... Bailey: Well, it's that time of year though. Atkins: Yeah... Dilkes: Well, it's not just that. It's the bonding requirement and under Iowa Law, and with these projects we just don't get, we don't get a lot of bids. You get one bid if you're lucky. O'Donnell: There may be four votes to pass it right now. Atkins: No, I understand, Mike. Lehman: You know, if I recall correctly in the past, more construction many times was the only bid. I think he did it as kind of a favor to the community. Elliott: I think we're going to find that these bids, don't you think, Steve, aren't going to be coming in? We've had the luxury of bids coming in surprisingly low. Atkins: This...this type of bid particularly housing related and the kind of materials that are used, we call it the Katrina Factor. Dilkes: It's a very, I mean, it's a very odd...we've determined that it's a public improvement under the law so it has to be bid in this way in accordance with all the bonding requirements, etc., but it's not a typical public improvement and it's...so it's a... Elliott: I would feel comfortable having us a little more time to talk about...I'm not sure it's going to make a difference, but... Atkins: I don't think much beyond two weeks, if... Bailey: If you'd prefer to defer, I think it will go through. I mean, I don't see...I mean I think Mike's right. There's probably... O'Donnell: ...there's probably four votes to approve this. I just will not approve it. Vanderhoef: Who's building the other homes in there? Who's the contractor? Because Greater Iowa City has a fellowship.., some in there. Atkins: We own four or five more lots in there, I believe. We'll be building some other units. We the City. This represe its only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #11 Page 66 Lehman: Right. Atkins: In a similar fashion as this. I'm sorry, Dee. I just don't know. I know there was a number of builders. I don't believe it was just one or two. Dilkes: Greater Iowa City doesn't operate under the same requirements. Atkins: Yeah. O'Donnell: We just had a real good comparison given to us by Gwen Johnson, and we're taking a price from $110,000 to $144,000. That's a substantial increase from what we were looking at... Vanderhoef: For affordability it is. O'Donnell: ...for affordability it is. Champion: According to her, someone with a household income of $45,000 could, somewhere between $40,000 and $45,000, could afford that house. Atkins: She's talking conventional financing. We're talking about, you know, these are incentives, remember, to bring down this per unit cost. Lehman: What's your pleasure, folks? Elliott: I prefer to defer. Lehman: Is that a motion? Elliott: I would move that we defer. Lehman: Is there a second? Elliott: To the next meeting two weeks from now - whenever that is. Vanderhoefi I'll second. Lehman: We have a motion and a second to defer. All in favor of deferring say "aye." Opposed? All right. Let's do a raise of hands for the motion to defer. I see 5 to 2. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. # 12 Page 67 ITEM 12 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CALL TO ARTISTS FOR THE WETHERBY FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS NEIGItBORItOOD ART PROJECT. Wilburn: Move adoption of the resolution. Bailey: Second. Lehman: Moved by Wilbum; seconded by Bailey. Discussion? Elliott: I'm going to vote yes on this because of some things that have happened in the past but I do it rather grudgingly. (laughter) Regenia almost fell off her chair. Bailey: I did! I did! I'm shocked! Champion: You're growing up! Bailey: Absolutely shocked! (laughter) Lehman: Okay. Roll call. The motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #13 Page 68 ITEM 13 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND JOHNSON COUNTY DoGPAC FOR CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS FOR A DOG PARK WITHIN THE PENINSULA PARKLAND. Bailey: Move the resolution. O'Donnell: Second. Lehman: Moved by Bailey; seconded by O'Donnell. Discussion? Bailey: Way to go dog park, DOGPAC. Lehman: Anybody want to say something? Elliott: Yeah, I want to say thanks to Dean Thornberry. O'Donnell: I'd like to hear about the donation. I think that's wonderful. Shields: Hello, Beth Shields from Iowa City, President of DOGPAC. Do you have a question for me? Lehman: Where are we? Tell us where we are. Shields: Well, as you all know Dean Thomberry has made a very generous donation to DOGPAC. An amount that will allow us to construct the park, beginning as soon as we get this approval and a permit from the DNR, including our much-desired pond. So, yeah, we were very excited about that, so we will begin construction as soon as possible, and have a grand opening ceremony, we believe, in the spring. We are prepared to enter into a contract at this point with All American Concrete who was the company who did submit the one bid in... when we went through the City's bidding process. We've gone back to them, reworked some numbers, and are prepared to enter a contract with them, and then we will be entering a contract with another company to do the fencing, but All American will do all the work except the fencing. Wilbum: Very good. Champion: That's interesting. DOGPAC's going...you're going to take over the contracts and the construction isn't that correct? Shields: Yes. Champion: I think that's terrific. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #13 Page 69 Elliott: We are happy for you. Shields: Thank you. We're very happy too. It's an amazing, amazing gift for us. So... Lehman: Well, a big thank you to Dean! Shields: Absolutely, absolutely! Bailey: And thanks for your hard work too. That shouldn't go unnoticed. Lehman: Roll call. Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #14 Page 70 ITEM 14 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT'S MEMORIAL DONATION POLICY. Bailey: Move the resolution. Vanderhoef: Second. Lehman: Moved by Bailey; seconded by Vanderhoef. Discussion? Roll call. Champion: Can I ask a question? Because I'm concerned about this angel, approving this policy, is that going to move the angel forward? Lehman: No. Dilkes: No, we're going to have, you decided last night you were going to do a formal review of the angel... Champion: Okay, yes. Lehman: Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #18 Page 71 ITEM 18 CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION. Elliott: I'm prepared to articulate a very exciting bit of information but I'm afraid Connie will shoot me if I do, so (laughter) I pass. Lehman: All right. Connie? Champion: Thank you, Mr. Elliott. O'Donnell: I had three things but Elliott threw me off. Lehman: Dee? Vanderhoef: Uh, nothing thank you. Lehman: Thank you. Ross? Wilburn: The Convention and Visitors Bureau is establishing the Iowa City/Coralville Sports Authority Advisory Committee, and they have asked a Coralville City Council member to repre...to be representative on that advisory group, and I've been asked to be a representative on that Committee, so I guess I'm just asking for the blessing of Council (several talking at once). All right. Lehman: Okay, Regenia? Bailey: I just want to say I'm really excited about the dog park and the Youth Advisory Commission, and Bob's new-found public art appreciation. (laughter) Lehman: That probably only happens after 10:00 (laughter). Oh, Mike has a couple things. O'Donnell: Well, first of all, we had a young person talk tonight about a water and a restroom facility down in the skateboard park, and I would like to (can't hear; several talking at once), but I think we need to watch that. Atkins: We will do an estimate for you on that. I assure you it's pretty pricey! O'Donnell: I also, we had a gentleman talk about a bus stop out on Scott Boulevard, the senior housing. I'd also like to put that on a work session and see what we can work out there. If we have any support for that, I think that's a very important issue. (several talking at once) If we can, I'd like to move that up and address that, and I wanted to thank Dean. I think that was incredibly great thing for him to do. That's it. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #18 Page 72 Lehman: Relative to the bus stop out there, I understood that was going to be discussed when we talk about transportation generally. Is there anyone else who wants to put that on a work session before we get into the... (several talking at once). Atkins: Depending on the work sessions, 31st. O'Donnell: When is the work session? Atkins: 2:00 to 5:00 on the 31st. Bailey: I thought that was all zoning. Lehman: Well, it'll be a work session plus .... (several talking at once) Atkins: I completely forgot what I was talking about. (laughter) Lehman: It's okay. Hold it, we're not quite through. Mr. Helling, I think you have something to share with us. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of October 18, 2005. #19 Page 73 ITEM 19 REPORT ON ITEMS FROM CITY STAFF. Helling: I do. This being Domestic Violence Awareness Month which was just proclaimed, I just want to call your attention to the fact that this afternoon, the community television service, which is the function within our cable division, received an award. It's the 7th Annual Pat Meyer Vision Award for outstanding commitment to end domestic violence, and this was presented at Uptown Bill's this afternoon, to the CTS group. Ty Coleman is the staff person who heads that up, and you've heard, I know, a lot of good comments about Ty's work, and so we just wanted to call that to your attention as we want to congratulate Ty and his staff and all the staff in the cable station. Lehman: Steve? Atkins: Nothing, sir. Lehman: Eleanor? Marian? Do we have a motion to adjourn? O'Donnell: So moved. Vanderhoefi Second. Lehman: All in favor? We are adjourned. Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeing of October 18, 2005.