HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-08-06 TranscriptionPage 1
ITEM 3. COMMUNITY COMMENT (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA).
Hayek: This is the opportunity at each City Council meeting for members of the public to
address the Council on items that are not on the agenda. So if there's something
not on tonight's agenda that you'd like to bring to our attention, we invite you to
step forward. We ask that you sign your name and also verbally give us your
name and uh, to keep your comments to five minutes or less.
Browne: (clears throat) Good evening, Council. I'll be brief. Uh, I just want to make a
few comments tonight. First of all I'd like to thank the City Clerk for helping me
compile my appellate brief. She was very helpful in doing so. I saw that she
recently got a raise, and it was well deserved. Uh...
Hayek: Could you give us your name too... first.
Browne: Anthony Browne.
Hayek: Thank you, Sir!
Browne: Uh, you should also give a raise to the staff who helped me compile this brief.
Uh, we had to go through a lot of records that dated well back to, uh, 82 to
compile this brief, but I would like to serve tonight the City Council, and I ask
that you accept a copy of the appellate brief for the record and enter it into the
record tonight. (away from mic) ...this to go into the record, uh, just so that the
city can read what ... what the appeal is all about. Thank you.
Karr: Can we have a motion to adopt, or a motion to accept (mumbled)
Throgmorton: So moved.
Champion: Second.
Hayek: Moved by Throgmorton, seconded by Champion. Discussion? All those in favor
say aye. Opposed say nay. Motion carries 7 -0. It'll be accepted into the record.
Gravitt: My name is Mary Gravitt and I'm here again about some quality of life issues.
I've noticed we're losing ground here, the citizens are losing ground. I wrote my,
uh, three points down that I want to talk about (mumbled) get `em over with.
When I was a student at the University... at Temple University in Philadelphia, I
had Sonya Sanchez as a teacher, and one night she said to us, you know, you're...
everybody in America is a Negro. And I thought, you know, was pejorative, was
a mixed class — white, black, Asians — but what she was talking about was how
you get treated in America, and ... and that's what counts as to who and what you
are. Because the United States, prior to 1954, uh, it was defacto that Negros did
not walk on the sidewalk in the Jim Crow south, or they had to get off to let a
white person pass. Now we have a post- brown, uh, situation here, where the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 6, 2013.
Page 2
citizen, where the sidewalks are blocked, and privatized, and the citizens are
eventually going to have to walk in the street to get from corner A, which is
Burlington, to corner B, which is Washington. Because that restaurant has
opened a... an extended onto the sidewalk, blocking the sidewalk, two - thirds of
the sidewalk. Only part left is the part that slants down to the street. Now if a
person is in a manual wheelchair, they're going to tip over into traffic. Now, they
already have a outside, uh, seating arrangement in the ped mall itself. So what
gives them the right to come out and block the sidewalk? And it ... it's ... it's very
annoying, and as a Negro, I can say we didn't become citizens until the Voting
Rights Act of 1965. Now we got one man, one vote ... until we allow the Tea
Party Republicans to take it back. And even in the Nazi era, Jews weren't
allowed to walk on the sidewalk. And then ... they, because they were not
considered white. They were not considered citizens, and then when Hitler
decided to kill six million, the West dithered as to whether these Jews were
human or not. Sidewalks are about freedom. And, freedom is what I'm talking
about, not that a merchant has, doesn't have the right to extend his business, but
the sidewalks belong to the people, and that's what freedom is about. And drivers
are still driving down, uh, Clinton, no, that extension of Washington to Madison.
They're still driving down there! And they're still speeding up! And we need
cameras down there to protect the citizens. If you don't care about us, please care
about the Chinese students because when they walk across the street, they never
look up. All they're doing is texting, texting, texting. Now one of `em gets
killed, you have a whole lot of explaining to do. You have to say how nice we are
and how freedom and this and that, but the parents won't care. Their child'll be
dead. And whoever gets killed here, I guess we don't count cause we're citizens,
and finally... school's gonna be starting to let in, so they're going to let the
students out. On that corner, in front of the Mall, there needs to be stationed a
policeman in uniform and a dog, and a policeman without a hat is not in uniform.
The people ... the students get on that corner and they're rowdy. The policeman is
to make sure you're out of school, your bus is coming, you're on the bus. Not
standing on the corner creating situations. And if he's there from 2:00 to 5:00.
That's all you need. You don't need a whole lot, just that policeman and a dog.
And, like I say, if they don't respect the cop, they'll respect the dog. But it's no
excuse for any business taking up two - thirds of the sidewalk. I can understand
that bar, uh, Bo James. Might as well name it. They ... they got that little side
thing on the curb and ... and in front of that store, and it still shouldn't be there, but
it's there. But it's that Vitro, or whatever you call that, had ... that has moved out
next to the Library where mother's come with their baby coaches and their
toddlers, and they can't get by, and ... and the disabled people have to be on the
other side of the street. It's ... it's not right, and even the way the arrangement of
the park benches going down towards Clinton. Those benches shouldn't be stuck
out in ... in ... in the sidewalk like that. They should be against the curb, like
benches are on the other side. So that's all I have to say. Thank you.
Hayek: Thank you for your comments.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 6, 2013.
Page 3
Stoller: Good evening, uh, my name is Kira Stoller and I'm here representing Iowa City
Our Power, a project of the Iowa City Summer of Solutions Program, which is a
local non - profit here in town. And, Iowa City Our Power began last summer in
2012 with the goal of increasing awareness of energy efficiency resources in the
community so that people could reduce their energy usage and save some money
on their utility bills. Last summer, um, our group identified a split- incentive issue
that exists within the rental housing market here in town and that became our
project's main focus for this year. Um, the split- incentive basically comes
because of the nature of landlord /tenant relationships, and it is such that only one
of the two parties can ever benefit from the efficiency upgrades that are made to a
property. Um, if tenants are the ones who are normally bearing the utility
expenses but they can't make the improvements necessary to significantly reduce
their bills, and then the landlords don't have an incentive to make those upgrades
if the return is going to go to the tenants. So, um, in the cases where landlords do
pay for utilities, um, tenants then have no incentive to, um, use their energy in a
responsible manner. So basically the split- incentive is currently hindering the
City's efforts to reduce its carbon footprint and ... we are trying to develop a
solution to, um, overcome this barrier. So last month Iowa City Our Power held
two public forums in which we brainstormed solutions to the split- incentive. And
based on the feedback that we received, we determined that a comprehensive
solution must have two components. The first is it must influence the market to
create a demand for energy efficient housing in Iowa City; and second, it must
incentivize energy efficiency by making it a financially sound option for
landlords. Um, because of this, Iowa City Our Power is requesting that Council
take an active role in addressing the issue of energy efficiency in local properties
and proposes a two -fold solution to deal with the split- incentive. Our first
recommendation is that Council develop a standard form that discloses a rental
property's utility consumption history and describes any completed energy
efficiency projects. This could then be used to develop a certification, um, that
designates the multiple levels of energy efficiency in different properties. This
would allow, um, landlords then to differentiate their units based on such
upgrades. Our second recommendation is that Council establish an energy
improvement fund to aid landlords in making properties more efficient. The
intent of this is to encourage upgrades, even if the landlords don't receive the
benefit of lower utility bills. We are making these recommendations based on the
fact that Iowa City has a long commitment to energy conservation, and currently
four of the six indicators that the City uses to, um, measure progress (mumbled)
related to energy and climate performance, are below the desired level. One of
these is community -wide CO2 emissions. Um, the residential sector is a
significant contributor of this type of emission and renter... rental housing is a
major component of this. Therefore, meeting Iowa City's energy and climate
goals may be difficult, if not impossible, without addressing rental housing
market and finding an iss ... a solution to the split- incentive. So, overall we ask
that Council review our proposal and move forward with the adoption of the
aforementioned measures. Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 6, 2013.
Page 4
Hayek: Thank you, and I ... I would suggest that, uh, your group send in these
recommendations in written form to the Council so that we can (both talking)
Stoller: We did send something last ... week, I believe, on Thursday, so...
Hayek: Okay.
Stoller: (both talking)
Hayek: So we'll get that, and then I would also encourage you to follow up with the City
Manager's office.
Stoller: Okay!
Hayek: There may be some things staff can look into.
Stoller: All right. Thank you.
Hayek: Thank you.
Ross: (noise on mic) Hi, this is Brandon Ross. Um ... I would like to bring up a couple
of concerns, um... some actually related to what, uh, the woman before me spoke
on. Um, first of all the ... the packet (clears throat) which, uh, which I read, um,
and makes for, uh, great literature, uh, for those of you who haven't seen it yet.
Uh, actually has on it, uh, primarily, usually, uh, things to do with zoning and
private real estate interests, and things of this nature. And ... um ... I think that, uh,
I would like to see, I'm ... I'm sure that others would, uh, some more focus in the
packet, uh ... on the scheduling for four more things like environmental, uh,
interests, and uh, housing, uh, especially affordable housing, uh ... in Iowa City
right now we're going through a ... a great growth spurt of high- rises, um ... but...
how many units, uh, in those high -rises are ... are affordable housing? Any
guesses? There's none! Uh ... single bedroom apartments are going for $1,000.
Uh, and two bedroom apartments and three bedroom apartments are going
upwards of that, and the person ... the common person in this town is having a
hard time, I believe, of... of making ends meet. They're not going to be able to
afford those. And I would like to see the Council take more consideration,
concern for mixing in not only the upper - middle class people who may be renting,
uh, in these apartments or the middle class, but also the people who are the
working class, uh... some are called the working poor, uh, the middle class, and
the poor, uh, who are part of the whole picture. So whenever 50 units go in, and
yet not everybody is taken care of but only a small class, that hurts the
community. And it's not only hurting the community as far as just the poor and
the working class, the majority of the town, but it also hurts businesses and other
things because, uh, this is money that's no longer in the pockets of the, uh, of
those people who make up the majority. Um ... a lot of, uh, considerations for
those things, uh, maybe things like rent control, uh ... building things like the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 6, 2013.
Page 5
Ecumenical Towers, uh, little more consideration for mixing in all the groups,
instead of one. I grew up to believe that the government, if it is anything it is for
the people. It is not business. It's not the Chamber of Commerce, but the City
Council seems to be, uh, predisposed to speak about matters primarily to do with
Chamber of Commerce matters, and uh, I think that's lacking. Aside from the
downtown, uh, aspects, the housing tracts that are ... that continue to be built are
also things that do not serve, uh, serve the working class, cause often times they
are a number of units — maybe 30, 40 units off by themselves — same income
group of people can move in there. There's no transportation. There's usually no
businesses around there. You have to have a car or two. It's an environmental,
uh, black eye for carbon footprint, and uh... and I think that's important, as well.
Um ... environmentally I think also is another area and all these buildings that are
being put up, uh, I don't think were the best choices as far as, uh, environmental
concerns, and that other projects even had better finan ... uh, environmental
concerns but they weren't used. Tall buildings are tough, uh, to be good
environmentally. Uh, glass buildings are not insulated as well as ... as other
materials, and yet these are the ones that we're using. And projects that had, uh,
sound environmental concerns were refused, uh, in favor of some of these. So for
my couple of points I would just say that, uh ... I believe that we can do better. I
believe we can do better, including uh, the more greater group of people, uh, the
working class — not only for downtown. I don't want to, you know, why should
we just be talking about downtown businesses all the time? You know? We have
a great deal of people out in the south side who never hear a word about their
living situations, and I think ... was I pointing to the south side? And I think that,
uh, that that's something that, uh, that is important for... for us to remember.
So ... more inclusivity. Thank you.
Hayek: Thank you for your comments. Is there anyone else during community comment?
Okay. We'll move on to Item 4, Planning and Zoning Matters.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 6, 2013.
Page 6
ITEM 4. PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS.
ITEM 4a BILLION AUTO WETLAND AMENDMENT —
CONDITIONALLY REZONING 7.13 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 2845 MORMON TREK BLVD IN THE INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL
(CI -1) ZONE. (REZ13- 00018) [Discussion only at formal meeting]
1. PUBLIC HEARING
Hayek: This is a public hearing. The public hearing is open. (bangs gavel) Uh, I need to
check for any ex parte communications. Okay. Staff!
Davidson: Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council. I'm Jeff Davidson,
the Director of Planning for the City. Uh, Item 4a on your agenda is a request
from Dealer Properties LLC. Uh, this is the group that owns the Billion Auto
Complex on, uh, Mormon Trek Boulevard, near the, uh, Highway 1, uh,
interchange. Uh, they have requested an amendment to their sensitive areas plan.
Uh, for the property located behind the new Kia dealership, uh, along Mormon
Trek Boulevard. Uh, let's see, I don't ... nope. Sorry! Just to orient you, uh, the
...the interchange, Highway 1, is up in this area. This is the existing, uh, Billion
Auto Chevrolet, uh, General Motors dealership. The new Kia dealership. Uh,
right off the map here is ... is, uh, Highway 218. Um, this should be a little bit
familiar to you in March we did approve a, uh, request from the same applicant to
reduce the buffer area of the wetland that is to be established in this area behind,
uh, the dealership. Basically between the dealership and, uh, Highway, uh, 218.
Uh, and you did approve that request. It still, uh, left the buffer area larger than is
required, uh, with the ... with the modification. Um, the applicant is then getting
ready to, uh, re- establish the wetland, per the requirements of the conditional
zoning ordinance, and has decided to request a change in the technique for doing
that, and that ... that's basically the ... the question that's before you this evening.
The issue is the reed canary grass that is in the area now, they need to eradicate
that and establish the property wetland features, uh, for the wetland. Uh, the...
uh, there's a letter from the applicant's expert on wetland restoration, which you
hopefully have had the opportunity to look at. If I was to summarize the change
in what's proposed, the current method for establishing the wetland involves
removing the top soil, uh, from the area where the reed canary grass is located,
which unfortunately would also ... take with it some things that we want to keep in
the wetland area. Uh, and then bringing in new top soil and basically starting
from scratch and re- establishing the wetland. Uh, according to the modification
that you're being asked to approve, it would involve, uh, a combination of
chemical treatments and mowing over several years to re- establish the wetland.
Um... staff has had discussions with both the applicant's expert, uh, Miss Maas —
whose letter is in your packet, as well as the Army Corps ... U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. They both believe that the proposed method that you're being asked to
consider, uh, is the preferred method, and so staff, Planning and Zoning
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 6, 2013.
Page 7
Commission, are prepared to recommend that to you. The other slight
complication is the aspect of it taking multiple years, and for that what we're
suggesting as a condition is an escrow fund be established to assure that over the
next several years the ... the proper techniques are used to establish the, uh ... uh,
wetland. Uh, if you need any more detail than that, uh, probably the applicant's
representative should provide that, and I don't know if they're present tonight.
Uh, if they are not, we can ... you can either defer action until they're present to
explain further, or we can, uh, have them show up for, uh, second, third
consideration and provide additional information, uh, if you require that. The
recommendation from Planning and Zoning on a, uh, vote of 7 -0 was to approve
(coughing, unable to hear speaker) Uh, any questions of what's being, uh ... uh,
asked this evening?
Payne: So, in March when we talked about this change that we made to this CZA then,
they didn't know this then?
Davidson: Apparently.
Payne: Just kind of frustrating that it's back again. Is it going to come back again? And
again and again, and ask for something different (laughs) every time?
Davidson: No. They have indicated that they, uh ... um, the suggestion for the modification is
how they would like to proceed.
Champion: I agree with the way they're going to proceed. I think that is the proper way now.
I just don't know if they're going to do it.
Davidson: Well, they'll be required to do it, and, um...
Champion: But they were required before to do it and (both talking)
Davidson: That is correct.
Champion: ...didn't do it! So how are we going to guarantee that they're going to do it?
Dilkes: The ... the escrow is ... is being required to address that.
Champion: Oh, okay! Okay.
Davidson: Right.
Throgmorton: Jeff, I read the minutes of the July 18th Planning and Zoning Commission, uh,
meeting. Uh, and I noticed that Phoebe... Phoebe Martin asked some pretty
interesting questions having to do with the use of Roundup and whatever else. So
I ... I don't see Liz Maas in the room. I don't know if she's here but I (both
talking)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 6, 2013.
Page 8
Davidson: I didn't either.
Throgmorton: ... I'd be curious to know, I'd like to have somebody tell us about Roundup, how
much, how it's going to be used, why it's not thought to be a ... a significant
problem in this particular instance given the plan for its use.
Davidson: Yeah, I read ... I read the meeting minutes as well, and I would like to have Liz be
the one to address that with you. Uh, if she's not present tonight ... I didn't see
her, um, again, as I said, you could either defer your vote or take first
consideration this evening and we'd make sure she attended for, uh .... uh, second
consideration.
Throgmorton: Yeah, I ... I'd be okay with that, but I'd like to hear Liz talk about (both talking)
Davidson: Right.
Throgmorton: ...the use of Roundup.
Davidson: Any other questions for me before you continue your hearing? Thank you.
Hayek: Thanks, Jeff. This is a public hearing. Would anyone like to address the
Council?
Herbst: Uh, Nate Herbst, H &R Construction. Uh, representing Billion Automotive. Liz
Maas is not here tonight but I thought I would try to answer a few questions for
you regarding the, uh, the reason why we're back. Basically at some point in the
process when we came through P &Z and City Council the first time, we had
touched base with Liz Maas and found out that she was the person that ... was
originally responsible for this wetland. And Liz, uh, touched base with me and
basically explained, uh, what we thought was a better alternative for the residents,
for ... for Billion Automotive, and for timing for this project. And, that's
essentially why we're back through here tonight. So ... the ... the Roundup
question, um ... basically there's a, uh, environmentally - friendly form of Roundup
called Rodeo. That's what Liz was proposing to use for this wetland. And I can
tell you that we met with the residents on Dane Road and they had a ton of
questions for Liz regarding Roundup, Rodeo, uh, phosphates and different
chemicals. And I ... I couldn't speak intelligently about some of those items, but
the residents were very pleased that we came back with this plan. And I can
speak to that.
Throgmorton: It ... it's helpful to hear that, but I ... I certainly would like to hear Liz, uh, speak
directly about it, cause she's the expert.
Herbst: Sure! (both talking) I couldn't agree with you more!
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 6, 2013.
Page 9
Hayek: Well, this is first consideration. If you can come back at the second or third. All
right, any other questions here? Okay. Anyone before I close the public hearing?
And, before I do so I need to take the temp of the Council. Are we inclined to go
against P &Z? All right, I will close the public hearing. (bangs gavel)
2. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE (FIRST CONSIDERATION)
Dobyns: Move first consideration.
Dickens: Second.
Hayek: Moved by Dobyns, seconded by Dickens. Discussion? I ... I note that the CZA on
this issue of chemicals to be used as part of the treatment ties directly to the, uh,
letter from the ecological expert and, which ... which itself indicates that in the
wetlands area, a wetland safe, uh, product, uh, sh ... uh, will be used. So ... I ... I
noted that, and I ... I appreciate P &Z's, uh, attention to this issue. I noticed that in
the minutes, as well. Further discussion? Roll call, please. First consideration
passes 7 -0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 6, 2013.
Page 10
ITEM 4b OLDE TOWNE VILLAGE MIXED USE — CONDITIONALLY
REZONING 1.12 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL (CC -2) ZONE TO MIXED USE (MU) ZONE LOCATED
ON EASTBURY DRIVE NORTH OF MIDDLEBURY ROAD. (REZ13-
00016) [Discussion only at formal meeting]
1. PUBLIC HEARING
Hayek: This is a public hearing. The public hearing is open. (bangs gavel) Any ex parte
communications? Okay. Jeff!
Davidson: Item 4b is a request by Larry Bell of West Branch, Iowa. Uh, Mr. Bell has asked
that the property you see here, located in the Olde Towne Village, uh, commercial
subdivision, uh, that a portion of it that you see outlined in blue here, uh, be
rezoned from CC -2, uh, and CO -1 to, uh, MU, the mixed use zone. Uh, and I...
you can see here the lot basically where Mr. Bell would like to build, uh, an eight -
plex building and a 10 -plex building. Uh, this line right here is the property line,
uh, which comes right down here. You can see that this small triangle which is
zoned CO -1 is part of the Iowa City Care Center, uh, complex here. Uh,
apparently Mr. Bell has not finalized his negotiations with the care center and so
has asked for that small sliver to be removed from your consideration tonight. So
what you'll be considering tonight is the CC -2 part, which is the much larger part
here, uh, again, to allow, uh, the two buildings that you see here to be constructed.
Um ... the property is, uh, 1.17 acres, uh, total. 1.12 acres is the portion that will
be under consideration tonight from CC -2, uh, to MU. The, uh, buildings being
proposed and there is a, oops, I guess we ... we didn't include ... in ... in your
materials that you have in your packet are some, uh, fayade, uh, proposals for the
buildings. They will ... there are ... they are required by the conditional zoning
agreement to go through design review. Because of that I didn't include `em on
the slides, cause I didn't want anybody to have the impression that exactly those
buildings are ... are what would be, uh, constructed, but they will go through
design review. That's the basic, the basic concept is what ... is what you saw in
the ... in those materials. The, uh, the principal difference between the two zones
is the requirement for the first floor to be a commercial use. That is required in
the CC -2 zone. In the Mixed Use zone, there's a requirement to have those first
four ... first floor spaces be constructed to commercial standards, but they do not
have to be in commercial use. They can be in residential use, and that is Mr.
Bell's desire. To be able to ... he is ... he is agreeable to constructing those first
floors to commercial use ... to commercial standards, but he would like to have the
ability to have the ... in all 18 units basically, uh, be leased as, uh, residential units.
So that's the ... that's the principal difference in what is currently in place and
what you're being asked to, uh, consider this evening. Um ... let's see, uh, we do
feel, I mean, you can ... you can see the layout here. We ... we feel that the
principals of the, uh, Olde Towne Village subdivision, uh, in terms of having a
mix of uses — residential, commercial, office — within one subdivision, the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 6, 2013.
Page 11
walkability that ... that results from that, uh, we believe there's no change in that,
uh, with the proposed, uh, rezoning, should you, uh, choose to approve first
consideration this evening. You can see the, uh, sidewalk system that goes
around, uh, the property here. Again, no change from, uh, the previous zone to
this zone. (noises in background) Uh, it's principally, uh, you can see the, uh,
garage units, uh, behind, uh, a good... good street, uh, presence with the units
here, uh, so we feel that the, uh, remains consistent to the ... the vision of the
approved, uh, Olde Towne Village plan. Uh, the recommendation from Planning
and Zoning, uh, was to approve on a 6 -0 vote, and as I mentioned, uh, you're
being asked to take, uh, small triangle here out, uh, pending completion of those
notify, uh, negotiations. Any questions?
Dickens: How will that affect the possible commercial building across the street?
Davidson: Um...
Dickens: Certain uses ... like (both talking)
Davidson: Yeah, there were some... some comments received from those, um ... uh, office
uses across the street. You know, expressing, um ... you know, a desire for there
to still be other commercial uses in the neighborhood. It wasn't a vehement
opposition or anything like that, but they, you know, they were consulted as
property owners within, uh, 200 feet of the proposed rezoning.
Payne: Can you go back to the prior map that's kind of the ... yeah.
Davidson: Uh huh.
Payne: Thank you.
Davidson: Yes, Terry was alluding to, you know, these are, uh, office and commercial use,
uh, a combination of office and commercial uses here, um ... and ... and of course
these are all, um (mumbled) yeah, these are all commercial buildings.
Dobyns: But there's still opportunity for commercial across the...
Davidson: Right, there still will be the opportunity in those first -floor uses they'll be
constructed. The mixed use zone allows either /or.
Dobyns: I think it's a nice transition from a long -term care facility to peer commercial,
so ... I like that.
Hayek: I think what, uh, Terry, I don't know — I don't want to speak for you. I think
what ... what my sense is what you might have been referring to, in least at part,
has to do with some of the ... the use restrictions. We had an issue out there with
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 6, 2013.
Page 12
outdoor seating in proximity to residential. I don't know if that's what you were
getting at (several talking)
Dickens: (both talking)
Hayek: ...that didn't seem to have come up at the P &Z (both talking)
Davidson: Yeah, the ... the same issue that we have with the outdoor area at this business
right here being basically too close to these residential units, and therefore not
allowed. Uh, that would be... if there was a commercial use, uh, you know, if
there was ... oops. If there was a commercial use on the first floor, down in this
area... which is right here, uh, you'd have that same restriction due to the
adjacency of these residential units. Uh, one up at this end, similar. Up at this
end, Short's has an outdoor, uh, patio area because they're far enough from the
residential units. Um, the juxtaposition of this building and the juxtaposition of
this building is you ... you'd have pretty much the same situation. Uh...
Hayek: I guess I'm thinking about the area (several talking) a square in between the CC -2
across the street to the west.
Mims: Right.
Dickens: Anything there north of that is that within the...
Davidson: Right, yeah, it's ... it's basically a distance requirement from those outdoor service
areas to any residential use, and these are all residential uses under residential
zoning... down in this area (several talking)
Hayek: I guess what I'm saying is ... do...
Dilkes: Yeah, so absent a change in that provision, which isn't a zoning provision. It's a
sidewalk cafe... cafe provision. If there was a commercial use established on the
CC -2 there ... you couldn't have an outdoor service area within 100 feet of the
residential use ... that's being rezoned (both talking)
Hayek: ...be a potential impact to ... to that (mumbled)
Davidson: Okay. Now that ... now that I understand the comment (laughs)
Hayek: Sorry!
Davidson: ...yes, a commercial use in this vicinity, okay, would be too close to a residential
use.
Mims: But it wouldn't matter whether the residential's on first floor ... or upper floors.
Okay. So it's...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 6, 2013.
Page 13
Dilkes: (mumbled)
Mims: ...so it'd be the same impact, whether ... it was mixed use and they had
commercial on the first floor or residential on the first floor, if I'm understanding
it correctly.
Champion: But that's (both talking)
Dilkes: I don't think that 100 -foot provision makes a distinction between first and second
floor. I can pull it out and look at it.
Payne: So ... your comment is it's going to ... it may limit...
Mims: Right.
Payne: ...what could be built on that inside square, facing the new building.
Dickens: And even catty- corner...
Hayek: ...that's a question that, you know (several talking)
Dickens: ...on Eastbury and Westbury. It could affect that (mumbled) too.
Davidson: Yeah, our... our... what we think, subject to Eleanor's research here, is that there'd
be no difference between the existing zoning and the proposed zoning. In terms
of your decision this evening.
Payne: But that ... the, that inside square, the... north... yeah, the north lot on the east side.
Right, yeah, right where your cursor is.
Davidson: Okay.
Payne: That lot is probably more than 100 feet away. So today it could have outdoor use.
But putting the new, rezoning it to MU, would limit it to not being able to have an
outdoor cafe.
Davidson: Yes.
Hayek: Is ... is any residential allowed in CC -2?
Davidson: Uh, second floor.
Champion: Second floor. So that's my ... that's ... bring it back to this business sidewalk cafes
and first and second floor. I don't think it ... does it make any difference, because
we have a lot of sidewalk cafes with residential second floor, on the second floor.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 6, 2013.
Page 14
Davidson: Yeah, you know it may be (both talking)
Hayek: You may have...
Davidson: ...it may ... I think what Eleanor's going to find is that it's the distance from a
residential zone. Is that ... Marian's nodding. I think that's what we're going to
find. So...
Payne: MU is not a residential zone?
Davidson: No.
Payne: Cause it doesn't (several talking)
Davidson: Right, doesn't have an R. (laughter)
Dickens: That'll make a difference! (laughter)
Payne: That makes it easy!
Hayek: But is ... but is CC -2 a, considered a residential zone?
Davidson: No.
Hayek: But if you could end up with ... if you could ... it's CC -2 right now, the subject
property that we're being asked to rezone. And CC -2 could ... result in second
floor residential?
Davidson: Yes. But, not that 100 -foot spacing rule, because it's not distance from
a ... (several talking) to a residential zone. So I think my statement earlier that the
difference between the CC -2 zone and the MU zone, I think that was an accurate
statement. Cause neither are residential zones, so the 100 -foot spacing would not
apply.
Hayek: I guess I'm thinking about the property across the street, that ... where the, two...
the C -2 is, or the two, the number 2 is there and then the CC -2, it would ... it
would, I guess what I gather from this is that you would have the same potential
restriction on that, whether the property that we're talking about tonight is CC -2
or MU.
Davidson: Yes.
Hayek: Because under either situation, you could have residential.
Payne: It ... but it wouldn't have the restriction because it's not residential.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 6, 2013.
Page 15
Davidson: Wouldn't have the 100 -foot spacing restriction.
Dilkes: It ... it's residential zone. Not residential use. (several talking)
Champion: Okay.
Payne: It's on those south lots because they're within 100 feet of the residential (several
talking) on the other side of the street.
Mims: Right. South of Middlebury.
Davidson: So a ... a commercial use in this area, until it gets 100 -feet from this residentially
zoned property, okay, would be allowed an outdoor service area.
Mims: Okay.
Davidson: Um ... the distance from this property wouldn't matter because it's not a
residential zone, either currently or under what you're being asked to approve this
evening.
Dickens: Okay. I was...
Champion: Well good, I'm glad you clarified that, because I thought it was kind of a good
transition for kind of that nursing (both talking)
Davidson: ... clarified it for all of us (laughter)
Dobyns: And, Jeff, I acknowledge when you have an interface between residential and
commercial it creates certain planning and zoning tensions, but overall it...it
creates a, uh, walkable environment.
Davidson: That's the idea, Rick! That's the idea, yes.
Throgmorton: I'd like to ... I'd like to pick up on that point, uh, I hadn't seen this particular aerial
photograph before. So I'm kind of struck by the ... the oddity of the MU zone
being inserted in the middle of a CO -1, CC -2 area, which makes me wonder,
because I wasn't paying attention a few years back, why the area was zoned CC-
2, CO -1 in the first place, but I want to skip over that cause that becomes a big
long, and ... and instead focus on the ... what I take to be the purpose of Olde
Towne Village, which is to be a pedestrian- oriented, main street, town square
ty... style development. Now if that's the case what I want to know is how is this
development, proposed development, going to enhance the attractiveness of
walking... in that, uh, in that village -type area, so that people really would want to
be walking instead of doing what I do when I go to Blackstone's, which is drive,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 6, 2013.
Page 16
park in one of those... face -in kinds of lots and ... and, or spots, and walk into the
restaurant, and then drive away. So...
Davidson: Yeah, I think ... I think the answer to that question (both talking) Jim, or at least an
answer to that question is that the residential uses established in this area will
have a sidewalk system connecting them to the ... uh, commercial uses.
Blackstone's being one of those, uh, enabling walkability within the subdivision.
And there's actually fairly good sidewalk system connecting the surrounding
neighborhoods as well to those commercial areas. I wouldn't say that the action
you're being taken... that... that you're being asked to take this evening enhances
it beyond the existing zoning. The existing CC -2 zoning. Uh, our ... our
estimation is that it basically remains the same. Uh, we want it ... we want it to
state in the staff report that we felt it didn't detract from the walkability, um... the
action you're being asked to take.
Throgmorton: One of the concerns that was expressed during the relevant Planning and Zoning
Commission had to do with, uh, head -in parking. I don't know, I think that's the
right way to describe it.
Champion: Right.
Throgmorton: Which, uh, in the view of one of the commissioners would be inappropriate for
the residential uses on, that would occur on the first floor. Uh, and that sounds
right to me. It doesn't sound like something that's going to enhance walkability
at all. Seems to me instead what one would want is parallel parking on the street.
So ... what's to keep, uh, that from happening?
Davidson: I don't think ... let's see ... yeah, it looks like the ... the proposal, you know, any on-
street parking in this vicinity... would be parallel parking. It's not ... it's not being
accommodated for, uh, angled - parking. It doesn't look to me ... unless there's
something with the eventual site plan that would allow the, you know, the,
basically the park ... the parkway area to be carved into. As a general rule, we find
that on- street parking, whether it's, uh, parallel or angle, uh, has a traffic calming
effect, uh, on streets. Uh, both the restricting the width of the travel -way of the
streets, sometimes reducing it to a give -way type of situation which really calms
traffic. Um, but at the very least providing some friction for a vehicle as it travels
along the street, uh, that does have the effect of slowing people down. I mean, we
see the results of that all over town.
Payne: All of those...where the trees are out front and around the corner... are those
parking spots?
Davidson: No, no. That's a, um...
Payne: ...not how I interpreted it when I looked at it.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 6, 2013.
Page 17
Davidson: Uh... okay, all right, yeah. Now, all right, I apologize. I ... I was looking at this
wrong. This is the sidewalk area, and this ... this is a parking area, right. Okay.
...I'm sorry. I was misreading that. Uh, so it is head -in parking, and I guess the
...the, that explains then the (both talking)
Throgmorton: ...my recollection is in the Planning and Zoning Commission the suggestion was
made that it be all, um, parallel parking, as a condition for the rezoning. And it,
the Commission chose not to do that (both talking)
Davidson: right, I was going to say, that's not a condition (both talking) Yeah, I'm ... I'm
sure that (both talking) some of the ... some of the motivation there, Jim, is that the
remainder of this area is zoned CC -2 and the notion is that there be, you know,
similar to the layout of this commercial building, with the ... the parking behind it,
uh ... this is a better example here with the buildings at the front of the street and
the parking behind it. If you have that model here, it results in an amount of
parking that even though it may ... it may technically meet our requirements, we
find that practically businesses want to have more parking, and for that reason that
accommodation of on- street parking is intended to enhance the overall parking
supply for the commercial uses. The residential uses will have all of their
required parking provided, uh, on -site, uh, at the back here in these garages, and
then in these surface spaces at the rear of the units.
Champion: The only problem I have with this whole thing, it sounds really good on paper,
and I like it and I'm probably going to support it, but I think it's going to be
developed as totally residential, and it's ... that's what it's going to be. Uh,
because obviously the developer doesn't really want to take the chance that it
might not rent as commercial, and he probably doesn't want to sell it as
commercial. So the ... my only problem is he really just wants to build residential
property.
Davidson: That's correct.
Champion: And I don't know ... that kind of bothers me.
Throgmorton: I don't know that that's a problem in itself, Connie.
Champion: No, I don't either! But...
Throgmorton: ... part ... part of what I think is that ... if...if the purpose is to have a ... a much
more pedestrian- oriented, village type, main street type, uh, commercial mixed
use development, then adding... providing more parking space than is required,
now works against that purpose. It undermines it. So ... why would we want to do
that?
Davidson: Yeah, and I ... and I do want to emphasize that until we know exactly what the
commercial uses are that would be established here, there's different parking
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 6, 2013.
Page 18
requirements for different commercial uses, um, until we know exactly what the
uses are we don't know for certain that there would be an over - supply of parking.
Um, but certainly the on- street parking layout there is intended to maximize the
amount of parking.
Champion: If there is an over - supply of parking, that's going to be a first in Iowa City. I hope
I'm around to see that!
Payne: And ... and, Jim, I think that ... making it walkable, there aren't enough people that
live close enough for ... to not drive there. I mean, it's like you said, you drive
there cause it's a destination. You're not going to walk there. It's too far. So
have ... having more residential there to try to draw some commercial stuff in, I
think is a ... is a good plan.
Throgmorton: Yeah, I (both talking) don't object to the residential use of these buildings (both
talking)
Payne: I would much rather have commercial down below, but I understand the thought.
We don't want empty build ... we don't want empty storefronts sitting there either
so (both talking)
Hayek: Let's ... let's just ... hold on a second, let's just make ... we're still in a public
hearing so we want to try to direct this to (laughter)
Payne: Sorry!
Hayek: ... questions more than discussion (several talking and laughing)
Champion: We've already discussed it! (laughter)
Hayek: Are there more, uh, questions for, uh, Jeff?
Throgmorton: Is ... is there anything prohibiting us, if we chose to do it, to, uh ... attach a ... a
conditional... a condition to the rezoning that would require on- street parallel
parking?
Davidson: Eleanor, does that require it to go back to P &Z if they modify the CZA?
Dilkes: Um ... we probably want to ask, um ... and we'd have to defer ... we'd have to
continue the public hearing anyway because we can't close the public hearing if
we're going to (both talking)
Davidson: The only two...
Dilkes: ...changes to the CZA.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 6, 2013.
Page 19
Davidson: The only two CZA conditions currently in what you're being asked to approve is
general adherence to the submitted site plan, which we've been looking at, and
approval of the building design by the Design Review Committee. Those are the
two conditions in the CZA currently.
Payne: And (several talking) Sorry! I'll wait. I was going to ... talk to Jim, but I'll wait
til we close the public... public hearing.
Dilkes: Well I think ... if...if you're contemplating a change to the CZA we don't want to
close the public hearing.
Payne: Okay.
Dilkes: So you need to work that out before we close the public hearing (both talking)
Payne: My comment would be the rest of the whole subdivision is face -in parking. It
doesn't really fit to have parallel parking on just that one little part ... with the rest
of the subdivision. I mean, in front of Dairy Queen it's face -in parking. In front
of Blackstone's it's face -in parking.
Davidson: There's a ... there's a mix, Michelle, in the neighborhood. For example,
Middlebury here is all parallel parking. (mumbled) it and ... and then as you
pointed out there's angle parking here at ... along the Dairy Queen.
Payne: But it doesn't say parallel parking only, and there's not lines on the street. People
just park like that because there isn't enough places to park (laughs)
Davidson: It's just allowed, right.
Throgmorton: What makes this unique I think for the development is that apparently either all or
most of the space in the proposed buildings would be residential. So ... you've got
headlights...
Markus: Right into the units.
Throgmorton: I mean, that...
Payne: But... that... that's his choice. He doesn't have to have those bottom units
residential. They could be commercial if he wanted them to be.
Dickens: Does that go through Design Review? Can they ask that...
Davidson: It'd be part of site plan review, yes.
Dickens: Site plan.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 6, 2013.
Page 20
Markus: How ... how many residential units?
Davidson: Eighteen (several responding)
Markus: Eighteen, and what's the ... what's the ration of parking requirement?
Davidson: Um, depends on the number of bedrooms per unit, but it's basically one per
bedroom.
Payne: And all of the parking for the units, for the residential units, are really to the back.
They're not counting any of that along the street, right?
Davidson: That's correct.
Payne: So basically what's along the street is for the commercial property.
Davidson: Commercial that will eventually be across the street. That's correct.
Markus: Somebody indicated though that ... that the intention is to build mainly residential
units.
Champion: Yes.
Davidson: The ... the proposed, that you see outlined in blue here, yes entirely residential
units. But the CC -2 area, all of this vacant property right here is intended for CC-
2 uses, and remember CC -2 is our principle commercial zone. It's intended to be
for commercial development of ... of property. (both talking)
Markus: Are ... are the ... (both talking)
Davidson: ...this property down in here is all CC -2.
Markus: So are they over - parked on the blue area?
Davidson: Not on the blue area. They... there... well, I apologize, I can't answer exactly.
They might be over - parked a few spaces, uh, but basically they're meeting their
part ... parking requirement on -site.
Markus: I think Jim makes a good point about head -in parking, especially in the residential
units, and ... and I'm getting confused because I think Michelle is saying that the
first floors are going... going to be commercial, but you're making it sound like
they're going to be residential.
Payne: Well, they could be commercial. In ... in MU they could be commercial, but he's
going to make them (several talking) residential.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 6, 2013.
Page 21
Markus: Yeah, and... and ... I have to agree, I don't think that's a good design at all, to have
head -in (several talking)
Davidson: There are no ... a lot of times you will see conditions requiring a berm or plantings
to address that issue. There are none associated with this.
Champion: There wouldn't be enough room.
Throgmorton: Yeah, you don't want to have a berm to enhance walkability in ... in the area so...
Davidson: Right. Yeah, berms tend to hide stuff.
Payne: And to me if you're going to require it to be parallel parking, because of the
bottom floor being residential, you might as well not approve the zoning and just
leave it CC -2 and have `em, have the bottom floor be commercial. And leave it
head -in parking so there's plenty of parking. For those people that drive there.
Throgmorton: Then ... then maybe he won't build it. So ... Matt, can we hear from somebody else
if anybody else wants to speak in the public hearing?
Hayek: Yeah, if there's someone else who wants to address us, um...
Barten: My name is Pat Barten. I'm with Build -a -Suit, uh, I'm the developer and
contractor representative. Um, first what I'd like to talk about is the, uh, head -in
parking. Um, that issue was brought up early and ... all the streets and the parking
in that area's private, and I went to the, uh, owners association for Olde Towne
Village and gave them the option, or asked... requested that we could do parallel
parking on the street, but the problem would be that we would lose 10 parking
spaces. Um ... they didn't like that idea. I personally built Blackstone years ago,
and uh, that was the biggest issue when they opened ... was the parking. And, it's
just going to continue in that area. I've tried developing several lots in that area
as well and uh... Shive has done parking, um... scenarios (several talking) on that
property and it's really tight parking in that area ... to put commercial space on
there. The other items we've run into trying to develop that property is, uh,
offices or commercial spaces actually going out there because of the population.
There's not a lot of traffic out there. Um, I guess my point is that, uh, a mixed use
which I think, uh ... people will use, that they'll... an attorney or a, uh, an
insurance agent or jeweler or ... items like that would have the possibility of
hanging a (clears throat) shingle outside that ... their house and allowing people in
to, uh, purchase. The other issue about parking, getting back to parking, we did
increase all the landscaping and bushes in front of the cars when they pull in.
We've also elevated the lot as high as we can to still maintain, uh, handicap
accessibility.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 6, 2013.
Page 22
Mims: So would the planting that you are proposing here between the sidewalk and the
building, are you implying that that would screen the headlights from shining into
those units?
Barten: Sure (mumbled) there we go. (laughter) Um, that's a pretty wide planting area,
and if you...look at it real close, each one of those circles in front of there are
bushes.
Mims: Uh huh.
Barten: So there's quite a bit of planting in there.
Hayek: Yeah, it would ... I mean, the sidewalk's spec'd at 8 -feet and the plantings appear
to be at least... 10 or 12 in width. Is that right?
Barten: Yep. They're 10 -feet.
Hayek: Ten feet.
Mims: In an area like this, would you ... would you typically see in that first floor, with it
being built to commercial standards, would that typically, I mean, obviously it
depends on demand... generated more rent than if it was rented as a residential
unit?
Barten: I would like to say yes but I doubt it. I don't think we're going to get any more
rent from them. Pretty much, uh (clears throat) we'll have to establish a lease
rate, and that'll have to hold true throughout the complex. So ... I think it's a great
opportunity for somebody who wants to open up in their... physical therapist was
brought up at one of the Council meetings. That would be good that they could
bring somebody in ... into their house and actually, um, treat those person ... those
people.
Throgmorton: I'd like to see parallel on the street parking.
Mims: I...
Hayek: It's not on street. This is private property, on which parking would be
constructed. Ju ... just so we're clear. All right.
Dilkes: Sounds like it.
Barten: I mean, I ... I can only go to the, uh, association and request that they allow us to
do parallel parking in that area. They were not interested at this point.
Champion: Terrible shortage of parking there.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 6, 2013.
Page 23
Mims: Yeah, I think with the shortage of parking, uh, I agree that typically that, you
know, head -in design is not great when you're talking about residential, but I
think with the plantings there, urn ... hopefully people go in with eyes wide open
on those first -floor units to realize (laughter)
Dobyns: (mumbled)
Mims: Yeah. There's a real shortage there of parking (several talking)
Throgmorton: Yeah, as long as we understand what ... what we will be producing. It won't be
a ... a, kind of old town center, walkable kind of area.
Champion: Why?
Throgmorton: I don't think that's...
Champion: Why?
Throgmorton: Cause it's auto - oriented. I mean, if you're talking about there being a shortage of
parking out there, we need more parking spaces, you're not talking about
something (both talking)
Champion: But there's not enough of a town around there that people can ... won't have ... you
have to drive to get there! And there's not enough population. There is not going
to be enough population. (several talking)
Payne: And I'm talk ... I'm thinking, Jim, people drive there and park and then walk to all
the places.
Champion: Right.
Payne: You might walk, you know, depending on what's there. If there's a shoe store
there and a, I don't know, a little grocery store there, you know, you walk to all
those places. It's like a downtown... setting, but you park ... when I drive, when I
go downtown I drive and then I walk. You know? I mean that's how I get
downtown cause I'm too far to... so I think ... I'm picturing it more of the same...
the same concept. You drive there, you park, you walk, you do your business.
Dobyns: Like the north side where you park and walk.
Payne: Uh huh.
Hayek: Eleanor, the CZA requires the developer to comply with the... concept plan
attached and also, uh, to go through Design Review. Do these issues of screening
and the height of the building, vegetation, light, etc., is that within the purview of
that process or...?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 6, 2013.
Page 24
Dilkes: I...
Hayek: Does that make sense?
Dilkes: I think it ... I think it could be (both talking) I'm not sure about the parking on the
private.
Davidson: Yeah, those are typically site -plan issues.
Dilkes: But...
Hayek: Right, but we have two separate issues, I guess, and you know, the ... the parking
is one issue, but also assuming we stick with the proposed parking, the issue of
screening, etc., and I ... my question is, can those be addressed through the design
review process without appending the CZA that already went through Planning
and Zoning?
Dilkes: Either through the design review process, or the... site plan review process.
Between the two of `em I think we'd probably be covered, although I do ... I don't
know about the parking on the private street. I ... I don't know that we're ... that
would give you any control over that, or on that.
Davidson: TheAhe parking as ... as it's shown on the proposed plan will be part of that CZA
condition to be consistent with the plan as it's ... as it's shown. The ... my ... my
understanding is that the location of the plantings that the gentleman pointed out
between the sidewalk and the building, that would be a site plan issue that would
be scrutinized administratively, uh, as a site plan issue. Design review, I think, is
principally the building is ... is what they...
Dilkes: Right, but I ... I just don't want there to be any confusion that we have a way to
arrive at parallel parking.
Mims: Right, yeah (several talking)
Dilkes: Okay.
Payne: And typically when we ... talk about headlights and residential, we're talking
about existing residential buildings where we're going to put something where the
headlights are going to shine in. For example, the residential buildings that are
around the corner where ... where we rezoned for Casey's. You know, there's
existing residential, we were talking about the headlights shining on it. He's
building a building where he knows he's putting in head -in parking. If ... if he
can't rent the unit because it has head -in parking, he's making his own problem.
We're not making a problem for somebody else. So ... he designed it (laughs)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 6, 2013.
Page 25
Mims: Yeah, I'm comfortable with the head -in parking (several talking) such a shortage
out there. If it's not well screened you're probably not going to be able to rent
those first floor units as residential units.
Hayek: As am I but my understanding is that while ... while the CZA would not, um,
permit staff to alter the parking arrangement.. .
Mims: Right.
Hayek: ... it does allow staff to review...
Mims: Screening.
Hayek: ... scrutinize, approve, etc., the screening, the vegetation area...
Davidson: That's correct.
Hayek: So based upon that I'm ... I'm comfortable going forward.
Champion: Okay.
Hayek: Jim, you probably still have con...
Throgmorton: Oh, I was ... just kind of think ahead 20 or so years, 25 years. Yeah, I mean...
Hayek: It's an 8 -foot sidewalk.
Throgmorton: I want to see the site developed. I don't object to the two buildings that are being
built. I hope that ... that the middle portion will be built out. I want to see it be a
walkable, attractive environment that people will want to live in and go to and
walk around 25 years from now! And tomorrow for that matter I mean.
Payne: And I don't think that prohibits that.
Champion: Uh huh.
Mims: I don't either.
Hayek: Okay. So, unless there's anyone else who wants to weigh in during this public
hearing. I'd like to bring it to a close, and before I do so, I think I have the
temperature. It doesn't sound like we're inclined to go against Planning and
Zoning. So I will close the public hearing at this time. (bangs gavel)
2. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE (FIRST CONSIDERATION)
Dobyns: Move first consideration.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 6, 2013.
Page 26
Payne: Second.
Hayek: Moved by Dobyns, seconded by Payne. Discussion?
Throgmorton: I ... I'm going to vote against it, simply to express the objections that I've had in
mind, but I do want to see the area developed. I'm glad ... are the, I'm sorry, I've
forgotten your name, Larry is that right? Sorry! I'm glad you're here and spoke
about the development.
Hayek: Okay. Further discussion? Roll call, please. Pas, uh, first consideration passes 6-
1, Throgmorton in the negative.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 6, 2013.
Page 27
ITEM 4c ZONING CODE AMENDMENT — AMENDING TITLE 14:
ZONING CODE TO ALLOW THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO
GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR A NON - CONFORMING USE OR
OTHER UNPERMITTED USE THAT HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR
OVER 25 YEARS TO BE REBUILT UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS,
EVEN IF IT IS DESTROYED OR DAMAGED TO MORE THAN 75% OF
ITS ASSESSED VALUE.
1. PUBLIC HEARING
Hayek: This is a public hearing. The public hearing is open. (bangs gavel)
Davidson: Uh, the request for this zoning ordinance text change has been received from, uh,
Mike Hartley, whose family owns the dental studio that was destroyed by fire,
um, on Jackson, uh, Avenue in the ... that's between the Longfellow and the, uh,
Creekside neighborhood. Um, under our existing ordinance because it has been
destroyed beyond 75% of its, uh ... uh, usefulness, it is not allowed to be, uh,
reconstructed. The ... the existing ordinance does allow something that a ... a non-
conforming use that is, uh, destroyed to 75% or less of its value, to be re-
established. That's allowed under the existing, uh, ordinance. But 75% or
greater, completely destroyed in the case of this one — if you've been by there,
there's nothing but the ... the foundation on the property — uh, is not allowed. You
know, the impetus of this is that you have a building that has been in commercial
use in this neighborhood for a long time. I can tell you based on personal
experience that in the 1960s it was a egg hatchery, uh, that was there. Um, and so
the notion is that you may have a nonconforming use or even an illegal use that is
still considered a neighborhood, uh, attribute. Uh, a positive aspect to the
neighborhood that through scrutiny on a case -by -case basis by the Zoning Board
of Adjustment could be allowed to continue. That's basically what's before you
is to allow that, uh, on a case -by -case basis by ... uh, action of the Board of
Adjustment. This does not approve anything for the Hartley's. Okay? That
would have to go through the Board of Adjustment. What you are doing is
enabling them to go through this process, uh, at the Board of Adjustment. Uh,
you had the information that's basically being, uh, proposed, uh, to the text
language in terms of the conditions that the Board of Adjustment would, uh, they
would ... it would ... you would have to file your request within a year. Uh, the
...the use could not be expanded beyond what it was prior to being destroyed.
Um, would have to be generally compatible to the, uh, with the surrounding
neighborhood. Um, and ... and it would also retain its nonconforming status. Uh,
if it had ... had the unfortunate circumstance of burning down a second time, it
would have to go through this process again. It doesn't become a legal use by...
by the Board of Adjustment's action. So, any question on what, uh, what you're
being asked to consider? Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 6, 2013.
Page 28
Hayek: Can you, uh, the ... within one year provision ... is that within one year of the
damage? Is that within one year of...
Davidson: Within one year of the date the structure was destroyed.
Champion: But this is going to be more than a year before they can do that.
Davidson: Uh, no it wouldn't. I don't think it would be. I think it was in the fall. So...
Champion: This is only the first consideration.
Davidson: Yeah, I believe it accommodates them ... making their request. I think they're all
set to go.
Champion: Okay, cause that's what this is all about, really! (laughs)
Davidson: Yes. True.
Hayek: Okay, thanks, Jeff!
Mims: (mumbled)
Hayek: This is a public hearing, if anyone else would like to weigh in.
Champion: We could expedite it the next time.
Hartley: Good evening. My name is Mike Hartley and uh, I'm the owner of the dental lab
that is now, um ... at a different location while we're trying to, um, have this work
out for us. And um ... I don't know that I need to say much. I think you probably
know as much as I do about this, but we're ... we would like to rebuild there. We
would like to make this, uh, copasetic with the neighborhood and let the
Historical Society and ... and do everything that we can to, um ... urn ... make it
more suitable for the area that it was in. I think we're, uh, well liked by our
neighbors, and um, we've um, well I think you've received all the other letters.
My son was here a couple months ago and ... and spoke to this. The building burnt
down on January 22 "d. So we're, uh, trying to, uh, have things happen so that...
we'd like to be in a ... in a brand -new building that fits in the residential area, um,
and if something should happen that the lab would no longer exist there, I
understand that a year later it ... with this grandfather clause, a year later it would
be ... have to conform to the local zoning and ... and the building that would be
built would be a building that would conform to that local zoning. So it wouldn't
go back as looking like it did before, and it wouldn't have an apartment in it any
longer and ... and it would just be a ... a building that could become a single- family
dwelling should we decide to leave, but if there are any other questions about
things of that nature I might be able to answer.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 6, 2013.
Page 29
Hayek: Thanks for coming down. Anyone else during this public hearing? Okay, I'll
close it. (bangs gavel)
2. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE (FIRST CONSIDERATION)
Dobyns: Move first consideration.
Mims: Second (noises on mic)
Hayek: Moved by Dobyns, seconded by Mims. Discussion?
Champion: I just want to say that the Hartley's have been very patient about this and very
pleasant about it, and even though they were very hopeful, there wasn't this kind
of apprehension like, oh, is the Council going to screw me over here. It was
really a pleasure to deal with your family.
Hayek: yeah, and L .. and I think it's also important to point out that while the impetus
may be a ... an individual structure, an individual property owner, you know, this
is a ... a change that applies community -wide (both talking) to ... to everyone, and I
think it's illustrated an interesting dynamic that some nonconforming uses may
actually conform more than we think, uh, despite a change in zoning, and I think
it sets up a reasonable approach to vetting those situations and making a decision
based on our protocol as to whether that should be the case. So...
Payne: It's ... it is interesting to note that a nonconforming use is a good neighbor, you
know, it doesn't make it a bad neighbor.
Mims: Exactly!
Payne: So ... and ... and it's good that it's going through the Board of Adjustment. So it's
reviewed on a case -by -case basis, so it's not just an automatic thing, so...
Hayek: Yeah.
Champion: Some conforming neighbors aren't necessarily good neighbors either (laughter)
Hayek: That's what they say about you, Connie! (laughter)
Champion: They're right! (laughter)
Hayek: Uh, further discussion? Roll call, please. First consideration passes 7 -0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 6, 2013.
Page 30
ITEM 4d CHEZIK- BELL AUTO DEALERSHIP REZONING -
CONDITIONALLY REZONING 2.3 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED
SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 1 AND SUNSET
STREET IN THE INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL (CI -1) ZONE. (REZ13-
00014) [Discussion only at formal meeting] (SECOND CONSIDERATION)
Hayek: This is second consideration and expedited action has been requested. Get our
your sheet!
Mims: Get my little blue card. I move that the rule requiring that ordinances must be
considered and voted on for passage at two Council meetings prior to the meeting
at which it is to be finally passed be suspended, that the second consideration and
vote be waived, and that the ordinance be voted on for final passage at this time.
Champion: Second.
Hayek: Motion to collapse from Mims, seconded, uh, by Champion. Discussion? Any ex
parte communications... since the last? Is there anyone from the public to address
us? Okay. Further discussion by Council? Roll call, please.
Mims: I move that the ordinance be finally adopted at this time.
Dickens: Second.
Hayek: Pass and adopt moved by Mims, seconded by Dickens. Discussion? Roll call,
please. Passes 7 -0.
Karr: Motion to accept correspondence.
Mims: So moved.
Payne: Second.
Hayek: Moved by Mims, seconded by Payne. Discussion? All those in favor say aye.
Opposed say nay. Motion carries 7 -0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 6, 2013.
Page 31
ITEM 4f AMENDMENT TO MODIFY AREA SPACING BETWEEN
DRINKING ESTABLISHMENTS - AMENDING TITLE 14: ZONING
CODE TO MODIFY THE REGULATIONS REGARDING THE SPACING
OF DRINKING ESTABLISHMENTS SO THAT THE 500 -FOOT
SPACING RULE WOULD ONLY APPLY TO THE UNIVERSITY
IMPACT AREA AND THE RIVERFRONT CROSSINGS DISTRICT.
(SECOND CONSIDERATION)
Payne: Move second consideration.
Dickens: Second.
Hayek: Moved by Payne, seconded by Dickens. Discussion?
Mims: I will just comment. I voted against this last time and it is ... and I will again at
this time. It's not that I disagree with, uh, loosening the rule, but I think we
should have put some restrictions on it, rather than just totally eliminating it.
Hayek: Any further discussion?
Champion: (mumbled)
Mims: A density, you know, some sort of density...
Champion: Right, right. Okay, sure.
Mims: ...type of thing. Um...
Hayek: Roll call, please. Second consideration passes 6 -1, Mims in the negative.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 6, 2013.
Page 32
ITEM 4g STONE BRIDGE ESTATES, PART 10 — EXTENDING THE
TERM OF THE APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAT
Davidson: Uh, there's the location.
Hayek: Let's get it on the floor first, please.
Davidson: I'm sorry!
Mims: Move (mumbled) approval, whatever.
Payne: Second.
Hayek: Moved by Mims, seconded by Payne.
Mims: What are we doing here? (laughter)
Hayek: Discussion?
Mims: Move to extend it! (laughter)
Davidson: Here's the location, far east Iowa City, Taft Avenue. Basically the corporate
limits, uh, out here and ... there's the subdivision. There's the bridge over the
creek right here and developer just hasn't... hasn't gotten to it yet. This would
extend it by 24 months.
Payne: May I ask Eleanor a question? I voted on this when I was on Planning and
Zoning. Does that matter at this point?
Dilkes: No.
Payne: Okay. It's, I mean, it's...
Dilkes: It's okay!
Payne: Okay (laughs)
Hayek: Better safe than sorry! (laughs)
Payne: Yep! I thought I better ask.
Hayek: Any further discussion? Roll call, please. Passes 7 -0.
Karr: Motion to accept correspondence.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 6, 2013.
Page 33
Champion: So moved.
Dobyns: Second.
Hayek: Moved by Champion, seconded by Dobyns. Discussion? All those in favor say
aye. Opposed say nay. Motion carries 7 -0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 6, 2013.
Page 34
ITEM 6. NORTH AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION PURCHASE
AGREEMENT - APPROVING A PURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND GARY J. HARAPAT FOR LOT 9 OF
THE NORTH AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION AND
AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE IN ACCORDANCE THEREWITH.
a. PUBLIC HEARING
Hayek: This is a public hearing. The public hearing is open. (bangs gavel) For the
public's information this involves the sale of lot #9 for $228,500. Uh ... and the
Airport Commission has recommended approval. Public hearing is closed.
(bangs gavel)
b. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION
Mims: Move the resolution.
Payne: Second.
Hayek: Moved by Mims, seconded by Payne. Discussion?
Champion: Will this money go to pay off the Airport's debt?
Markus: A portion of it does, yes.
Champion: Okay.
Markus: There's an ... an agreed upon formula that we use to pay it off.
Hayek: Further discussion? Roll call, please. Passes 7 -0. Thanks for being in the crowd,
Mike!
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 6, 2013.
Page 35
ITEM 7. SOLID WASTE COLLECTION FEES - AMENDING TITLE 3, ENTITLED
"FINANCES, TAXATION & FEES," CHAPTER 4 ENTITLED
"SCHEDULE OF FEES, RATES, CHARGES, BONDS, FINES AND
PENALTIES," SECTION 5 ENTITLED "SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL," OF
THE CITY CODE TO INCREASE OR CHANGE RESIDENTIAL SOLID
WASTE COLLECTION FEES.
a. PUBLIC HEARING
Hayek: This is a public hearing. The public hearing is open. (bangs gavel)
Bockenstedt: (clears throat) Good evening, I'm Dennis Bockenstedt, Finance Director for the
City. Uh, the proposal before the Council is to increase a variety of solid waste,
uh, fees for the city. Uh, those are currently proposed to take effect October 1st
with the exception of the, uh, yard waste container fee, which will take place, uh,
which will take effect, uh, April 1st of 2014. Some of those fees, which I'll kind
of list some of the major ones for you that ... that are included in those
amendments to the ordinances, uh, include the yard waste container sticker, which
will increase from $20 to $25. Uh, the yard waste bag, which will increase from
$1 to $1.25. Uh, the bulk item pick -up, which will increase from $10 to $12.50.
Um, there's also included increases for tire and tire rim disposals. Um, an
increase, and this was for Landfill charges, for compost, which will go from $10
per ton to $20 per ton, and the wood chip mulch which currently there is no fee
for, which will go to $10 per ton, and then there's also certain increases to
electronic, uh, disposals. Um, and those are the proposed fees. Uh (mumbled)
public hearing, uh, those are expected to take effect October 1st, with the
exception of the yard waste, uh, container sticker fee. And I'll try to answer any
questions.
Throgmorton: I ... I asked about this during our work session, Dennis, but, uh, it strikes me these
are very modest increases in fees, but people might, uh, who are watching might
want to, uh, have some idea of why the fee increases are being proposed. Could
you help us understand that?
Bockenstedt: Well, uh, there are (mumbled) operational fees. It's been three years since the last
increase and of course, you know, costs have increased for that time, um, wage
costs, fuel costs, insurance costs, and the like and ... um, it's been the City's
practice to review those fees, uh, periol ... periodically, uh, to make sure they're
adequate and ... and so at this time, uh, we feel this is a proper increase, uh, to
address those increases in operational costs.
Hayek: Dennis, is this consistent with the discussions we held at budget time a few
months ago?
Bockenstedt: Yes. Yes, and these were all derived through the budget process.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 6, 2013.
Page 36
Hayek: Any other questions for Dennis? Thank you. Would anyone from the public like
to address the Council during this public hearing? Okay, I'll close the public
hearing. (bangs gavel)
b. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE (FIRST CONSIDERATION)
Mims: Move first consideration.
Dobyns: Second.
Hayek: Moved by Mims, seconded by Dobyns. Discussion? Roll call, please. First
consideration passes 7 -0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 6, 2013.
Page 37
ITEM 9. BAR ENTRY BALLOT QUESTION - AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING
THE JOHNSON COUNTY AUDITOR TO PLACE THE QUESTION OF
WHETHER TO REPEAL ORDINANCE NO. 10 -4388, WHICH AMENDED
THE BAR ENTRY AGE FROM NINETEEN (19) YEARS OF AGE TO
THE "LEGAL AGE ", WHICH IS CURRENTLY TWENTY -ONE (21)
YEARS OF AGE, BEFORE THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY
OF IOWA CITY, IOWA AT THE REGULAR CITY ELECTION ON
NOVEMBER 5, 2013.
Mims: So moved.
Payne: Second.
Hayek: Moved by Mims, seconded by Payne. Discussion?
Champion: Eleanor, will this ... ballot, I mean, it always confuses ... we vote yes does that
mean we're going to keep 21, or we vote no? Do you know?
Dilkes: If ... this, you'll vote no against a repeal of 21.
Champion: Right.
Dilkes: You'll vote yes to repeal 21.
Champion: So it's going to be the same as the last (several talking)
Dilkes: It's the same as the last time.
Mims: (both talking)
Champion: Okay, great. I'll get my signs back out! (laughs)
Mims: I still have some too! (laughs)
Hayek: Any further discussion? Roll call, please. Item passes 7 -0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 6, 2013.
Page 38
ITEM 10. SUPPORT OF CURRENT BAR ENTRY ORDINANCE - IN SUPPORT OF
THE CURRENT BAR -ENTRY AGE OF TWENTY -ONE (21) AFTER 10:00
P.M. AND AGAINST THE REFERENDUM SEEKING ITS REPEAL
Throgmorton: Move the resolution.
Dobyns: Second.
Hayek: Moved by Throgmorton, seconded by Dobyns.
Champion: You aren't going to read it?
Hayek: Discussion ... I ... I can.
Champion: Well I think you should. It's well done!
Hayek: Sure! Here's how it reads. Okay, hang tight.
Payne: You're going to read the whole...
Hayek: I'll read it if you like!
Champion: He didn't have any proclamations at the beginning! I think it's well worth
reading!
Dobyns: Yes!
Mims: I think at least the whereas, I mean...
Dilkes: Remember we made that one Chan... change.
Hayek: Yeah. (reads resolution)
Champion: Thank you.
Dobyns: Hear, hear!
Payne: I ... I do have a question though. In the item as it's written on our agenda, it says,
`and against the referendum seeking its repeal.' So ... if you vote yes that means
you support the ordinance and you're against the referendum. Cause it says `and
against the referendum seeking its appeal.'
Dilkes: Well that's the title. You're actually doing what's ... what you resolve to do in the
final paragraph.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 6, 2013.
Page 39
Payne: Okay. Which doesn't say...
Dilkes: But you can certainly remove that part of the title if you want to. You could ... it
could be resolution's part of the current bar entry age of 21 after 10:00 P.M. I ... I
don't know how you supart ... support the bar entry age of 21 and... and be in favor
of its repeal.
Payne: It's not in being in favor of its repeal. It's ... I don't care if there's a referendum or
not. I mean, so ... but if I say ... yes, then I'm saying I'm against the referendum.
Well, if say no I'm say I'm against the referendum, well I'm not necess ... let the
people decide. That's ... I ... I just don't like that in there (laughs) I mean...
Dilkes: ...can address that with the other Council Members. That wasn't the intention. I
mean I think you... you expressed your vote on the referendum in the preceding
item by putting it on the ballot. This is expressing your support for 21, which
means you are against its repeal, and that's what the title is meant to say.
Payne: Okay.
Dilkes: But that's certainly up to you all.
Hayek: I see what you're saying. I think it's, uh, semantic, urn ... but I see what you're
saying.
Mims: Yeah. I ... I don't have a problem with it.
Dobyns: Eleanor, if the referendum succeeds, and uh, the ordinance as currently written is
repealed, when does it go ... when would the new ordinance go into effect?
Dilkes: The new 19, or the ... going back to 19?
Dobyns: The November 5th election... yep.
Dilkes: Yeah, I think so. When the election results are certified.
Champion: Oh! Oh, about a week.
Dilkes: Which is shortly after the election, so pretty much...
Dobyns: That weekend.
Dilkes: Very quickly. Maybe not that ... what, I don't know what day the 5th is on (several
responding) a Tuesday obviously. Yeah.
Karr: It'd probably be the next...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 6, 2013.
Page 40
Dilkes: ...it'd probably be the next weekend.
Hayek: Further discussion?
Dilkes: So are we... are we leaving the title as is or are we changing it?
Champion: I like it.
Dilkes: Okay.
Payne: You're going to leave the referendum in there? (several talking) No, I'm going
to vote against it then if we leave those words in there (laughs)
Throgmorton: Well let's change the words.
Champion: What are (mumbled)
Dilkes: ...how about we say `and against its repeal'...
Payne: That's perfect!
Dilkes: Okay.
Payne: If we take the words `the referendum' out.
Dilkes: ...that'll work.
Mims: Okay.
Champion: Okay.
Throgmorton: Do we need to amend (both talking)
Dobyns: I second the amendment. (laughter and several responding)
Hayek: We'll consider this is a friendly (several talking)
Dilkes: I think there was an ... yeah, a motion and a second for amendment.
Hayek: All right, it was moved by whom?
Dilkes: Payne and...
Hayek: Seconded by Dobyns.
Dilkes: ... Dobyns.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 6, 2013.
Page 41
Hayek: To remove...
Payne: The...
Mims: ...referendum seeking.
Hayek: Okay, those three words (several talking) `the referendum seeking.' Further
discussion?
Throgmorton: Yeah. Oh, for that.
Hayek: Yeah. All those in favor say aye. Opposed say nay. Do we have seven ayes for
that motion? For the record? Okay.
Throgmorton: So ... so it's interesting and not ... not trivial, I think, to note that there were, uh,
articles in today's newspaper about the University of Iowa being number one
party school in the country, uh, and for what it's worth I sent out a Tweet earlier
today saying this is just really bad news, I mean, you know, I think it's
methodologically irrelevant. I mean, it's a bad piece of research, but, uh, setting
that aside it's ... it's bad for our reputation. It's bad for the University. It's bad for
the City of Iowa City. And so on. So it's ... it's not irrelevant that we're making
this vote tonight at the ... on the same day that that report came out.
Champion: I thought that was really interesting too, but ... I think it's going to ... I said earlier
today, I would like not to be number one in that category. But ... it's going to take
years to change it.
Payne: Well and it's interesting since the 21 ordinance has been in effect, we've went
from five to three to one. We've actually gotten all the way to one since this
ordinance been in .... in effect. So...
Mims: Well, I think as Jim referred to, uh, you need to look at the methodologically of
how they come up with those listings.
Payne: It's just a vote. I mean, anybody can vote so if the ... you can vote 100 times if
you want (laughs)
Throgmorton: (mumbled) I'm of course going to vote for this (mumbled) processed it a little bit
earlier, uh, and the resolution identifies all sorts of good reasons why one should
do it, but for me the most important reason is that the incidences of high risk
drinking and negative consequences of that drinking in the student population
have decreased dramatically. That for me is absolutely crucial, and I speak as a
person who used to drink too much. You know, I kinda know what it's like. I
know the attraction. I know the consequences, etc. It's high risk. It's something
that is not good for young people in our community to engage in, and we should
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 6, 2013.
Page 42
do what we can to minimize the risk to their health associated with that kind of
behavior.
Champion: Well it wasn't just young people in our community. People were coming from all
over the state.
Throgmorton: Sure. Right.
Champion: And ... it got to be a dangerous situation.
Mims: I think you make a critically important point there, Connie, that this ... with the 21
has really diminished our status as a destination for underage people to come and
drink, and people drunk on the roads, etc. So I think that is ... is a crucial part as
well.
Champion: Crucial!
Hayek: And I would say as somebody who lived through it three years ago, this ordinance
to my recollection, um, that ... the one we passed in 2010, placed us, uh,
with ... with most Big Ten schools. Most college communities ha ... have ... have
this kind of arrangement, and it is hardly draconian. I mean, it's only after 10:00.
There are these exceptions to promote the entertainment sector, uh, etc., and I...
and I think the ... the positive progress downtown in just the last three years is
remarkable, um ... and uh ... and from my perspective repeal is ... hardly the answer.
Dobyns: I worry about this though cause, Matt, that was 2010. That was a general election
with a higher turnout of the electorate. This is an off and a City election, uh,
2013, so the numbers are going to be less. You know that the demographic in our
community that will be excited about a repeal the 21, um, alcohol and money will
get them out to vote. Um, get out the vote for the other members of the
community, um, that's going to be tough.
Mims: It's going to be important!
Hayek: Yep! Okay. Roll call, please. Passes 7 -0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 6, 2013.
Page 43
ITEM 14. CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION.
Hayek: Jim, why don't we start down on your...
Throgmorton: Nothing!
Champion: Nothing. Thank you for reading that.
Mims: Nothing.
Dickens: Just like to thank Andre at the Englert for putting on some great shows over the
last month and he's done it again, brining the Blues Travelers to Iowa City later
this month, so ... it's just a great, uh, venue to go see. Great talent.
Payne: Nothing from me.
Hayek: I just want to remind the public that there is a public meeting, uh, scheduled for
tomorrow between 10:00 and 11:00, um, in ... right here in City Hall, uh, this has
been called by the United States Postal Service, um, and it is a meeting open to
the public. They are going to discuss a proposed, uh, project, uh, regarding their
current space at, uh ... uh, 400 S. Clinton Street, um, and they've indicated that the
current main Post Office space in the federal building is too large for the needs of
the Iowa City office. The U.S. Postal Service would like to vacate the existing
space and reloo ... relocate in a smaller space nearby. I encourage the public to
attend that meeting. Again, uh, 10:00, uh, tomorrow morning, uh, here at City
Hall.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
formal meeting of August 6, 2013.