HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-04-02 Transcription Page 1
Council Present: Cole, Mims, Salih,Teague,Taylor,Thomas,Throgmorton
Staff Present: Fruin, Monroe,Andrew, Dilkes, Fruehling, Budding, Seydell-Johnson,
Knoche, Havel, Hightshoe, Russett, Nagle-Gamm, Ralston, Sitzman,
Heitner, Foelsch(Intern NDS)
Others Present: Stewart,Wu (UISG)
Discuss future City actions in response to the home at 101 Lusk 11P31:
Throgmorton/All right, so we're gonna start our City Council work session for Tuesday,April
the tad, 2019. First topic is to discuss future City actions in response to the home at 101
Lusk. Anne, are you gonna....guide us through this or is....you gonna introduce Luke or
what're you gonna do?
Russett/ I was gonna introduce Luke. Um,Anne Russett with Neighborhood and Development
Services. Luke did most of the work on this analysis. He's our Planning intern, which
he'll be finishing up his year next month. So I'll turn it over to Luke.
Throgmorton/Good deal! Welcome, Luke!
Foelsch/Hello. Hello, everybody!
Throgmorton/We're gonna have to dim the lights.
Foelsch/Okay, urn....can everyone hear me all right? So, as Anne said my name is Luke and
I've spent, urn, a while now working on this residential infill comparative analysis that I'll
now kinda go through and try to explain some of....some of what I did and some of what
I found. So, uh, little bit of background. So, kinda split it into two different analyses, so
the first was a citywide analysis and this looked at 20 of the most recent residential infill
projects, all of them within the last decade. Um, and this only....this only looked at
detached, single-family homes, and duplexes and additions were excluded from this first
one. Um, the second one was very similar,but it just focused on the Manville Heights
neighborhood, and this just looked at 10 of the most recent residential infill projects, um,
going back no earlier than 2005, and for this one we did include single-family homes and
duplexes and additions,but all of these are infill projects that have been done. So, there
are four variables that we looked at for all of these. So the first one,um, and all this is
publicly available information we got off of the Assessor's report. So first one's lot
coverage and that's just, um, percentage of a lot that's covered by the footprint of built
structures. Next is total living area, which is a measure of square footage. It's an
estimate that's included in assessors' reports. Next is building width,which was
measured at the widest point of the building, and then number of stories. So we wanted
to look at the specific height in feet, but that information isn't really cataloged anywhere,
so we couldn't analyze it. So this was the closest approximation we can do, and this is
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 2, 2019.
Page 2
included in the Assessor's report. So as you can see here on the right, this isn't raw data,
so I think an important aspect of this analysis is that it is comparative, so, urn, for each of
these infill projects, their figures were normalized to the neighborhood around them that
they're built in the existing housing....housing stock around them. Um, I'll explain a little
bit about what...what that means. So this is an example of....of what was done for each,
um, property. So you can see the subject infill property there in the red rectangle, it's
2014 Ridgeway Drive, and then the ones it was compared against were the ones that are
circled with the blue circle there. So you can see (mumbled) lot coverage, total living
area,building width. So that was found for the infill project and then for all of the
surrounding properties, and then you can see there it says 'average of surrounding
properties.' So, all these figures were averaged, so you can get one baseline number to
compare the infill property to, and then you get the difference down at the bottom. So if
you look at lot coverage for the infill project, it's about 27%. The average of all the ones
around it that were already in existence, there's about 15%. So the total difference the
infill project had, um, bout 12 'h% greater lot coverage than the existing housing stock
around it. So you can see that was done for all these, and then I compiled all of this into
an overall table, it looked like this, and what's really important to look at here are the
colors. So you see the lot coverage, the total living area, and the building width. So
anything that's in green, it means that that infill property was built larger than the average
of the adjacent houses around it. Anything in red means the infill property had a smaller
value for that. So you can see in lot coverage, and again this is the citywide analysis, the
20, um, as it says there at the top. So for lot coverage, 18 out of the 20 infill projects are
all built with a greater lot coverage than the adjacent houses around it. For total living
area, 16 out of the 20 had a greater total living area, square footage, than the houses
around them, and then interestingly for building width, you can see that across the city
the majority of infill projects are actually built more narrow than the average of, urn, the
existing housing stock around them. So, again this same process was repeated for
Manville Heights and the results for that are here. Um, there're similar patterns in lot
coverage. You can see infill lot coverage is a lot higher than the houses around them,
same thing with total living area but, um, a difference in the Manville Heights analysis
was that the infill in Manville Heights is actually being built wider than the houses
around them, which as we saw before isn't the case with other parts of the city. So, this is
informative because it tells you whether the infill was above or below the houses that are
around it but I think what's....what's important is how far or the extent to which the infill
property is above or below in these categories than...than the houses around them. So
basically what I did is I took these columns that are green and red here and I....I plotted
them on a scatter plot, which looked like this. There are a few of these and they're all
gonna be kinda displayed in the same way, so again this is citywide lot coverage. It says
it there at the top. So all of these blue dots, each one represents a, uh, an infill property
and the numbers on these dots correspond to the tables included in the memo. Um, so
then down there you have the blue line. That's at 0%. So, uh, a property on that line
would mean that for lot coverage it has a perfectly equivalent lot coverage to the
neighbors around it and therefore you would assume that it's built kinda at the same scale
as the houses around it. So, that orange line there, that is the average of, urn, all the infill
projects. So what we're looking at here is on average the infill development across the
city, urn, is being built about 9 1/2%....with about 9 '/z% greater lot coverage than the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 2, 2019.
Page 3
houses around them and you see, urn, two outliers here. Number one, that's 101 Lusk,
and then number 17 over there. So yeah.....so, a quick thing again to kinda emphasize
the point that this is comparative. So number one there it says...it's about 31%. So that
doesn't mean that it has a 31% lot coverage. It means that its lot coverage was 31%
greater than the lot coverage of all of the houses around it, and number six down there, it
was built with a 3% smaller lot coverage than those around it. So, what I'm gonna do
next is for....I'm gonna present these and then for each one I'm gonna cycle through
pictures of the houses that are included here, notable ones, urn, along with pictures of the
houses that they're compared to so you can kinda get a sense visually. So you can see
here on paper(mumbled) number one looks like it's....it's out of scale in lot coverage, but
visually does it also seem out of scale,because I think that that's also an important thing
to consider. So....right here this is property number six and this was built at a 3% smaller
lot coverage compared to these three houses that it was compared to. Urn, this one is
number two. This is almost 10% greater lot coverage than these houses that you're
looking at her; but visually does this look out of scale to you all? Um, this one's number
seven and this has almost 15% greater lot coverage.....than these ones here. Urn, oh, and
for this one and some of'em, they're so new that the Assessor didn't have pictures of them
up yet, so I just used the project plan drawings that we had access to. And then this is
101 Lusk, and then the four houses closest, um, adjacent....the closest adjacent houses
around them. So again, this is at a 31% greater lot coverage compared to these houses
you're looking at, so it is still within the 45%maximum lot coverage that is allowed in
the City code. So it ....it complies with that, urn, but again compared to these ones it's
....it's....covers much more of the lot than the houses that are around it. So, this is the
same thing but just for the Manville Heights and you see number one is still included
there because Lusk....Lusk Avenue is in Manville Heights. I included it in both, urn, so
you can see here the average is about the same. So it kinda is the same pattern in
Manville Heights, um, as in the rest of the city. Infill projects are being built with about a
9% greater lot coverage than the houses, urn, closest to them, and again you see here 101
Lusk is the significant outlier. So this is number 28,um, this actually has only a 4%
greater lot coverage compared to these houses that you're looking at here. Um....here's
number 26. This has double that, so this has 8% greater lot coverage compared to the one
that we just looked at,um,but visually I don't know if you think this looks more out of
scale than this,but if you're just looking at lot coverage, this...would imply that it's twice
as out of scale. Urn, and then here's number 23. This has, uh, 17% greater lot coverage
compared to these houses that you're looking at. So moving on to total living area, so
(clears throat) again this is an approximation of square footage of the houses,um...so the
average for the citywide infill projects are just under 670 square feet greater than the
houses that they're being built around. Urn, you see here there's a lot less kind of spread
and variability. Most of these houses are kind of right along the same, uh, height...there.
So outliers again include 101 Lusk at the top left there and then property number 12.
Urn, so let's take a look at that. So this is property number four. This is just kind of as a
base line. This had almost exactly the same amount of total living area, square footage as
these houses around it. So this is what one looks like when it's built at pretty much the
exact same, um, scale in terms of total living area. So,moving on to property number
five. This has over a 1,000 square feet more of total living area than these houses here,
but visually, I mean, does that look out of scale to you all? And what about this one,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 2, 2019.
Page 4
number 12. This was the other outlier with 101 Lusk, and this is built with over 3,000
more square footage than, um, these houses that you're looking at here. So....continuing
on, this is the same thing done for Manville Heights. Urn, so the average in Manville
Heights is...you can see there, urn, 1,400 square feet greater,which is....which is over
twice, um, as high as it is in the rest of the city, in terms of the scale of total living area
for these infill projects. Um....yeah, and then again you see the outlier, 101 Lusk there.
So, this is property number 24. Again this has 1,000 square feet more of total living area
compared to these houses that you're looking at,but visually would you consider this out
of scale? And then what about this one—remember this one had 4%....only a 4% greater
lot coverage. If you're just looking at lot coverage, this one looked like it fit right in, but
if you're looking at total living area, this has over 2,000 more square feet than the average
of the rest of these houses you see on the right. Moving on to building width, so this is
citywide, again, presented in the same way. So this was actually....so this is for the
citywide, so the majority of the citywide infill projects are actually built more narrow
than the houses around them. So 14 out of these 20 fall in the negative on this graph, um,
again, notable outlier, 101 Lusk—theirs actually built 46 feet wider than the average
of....of its neighbors. (mumbled) example of this one. This is property 13. This is 20
feet wider than the average of these around here, urn,but does it look like, I mean I know
it's a drawing, but based on that does it look like it's gonna be really, you know, out of
scale with these houses that already exist. So, again, same thing, same format, but
looking at Manville Heights. So as I mentioned earlier, the infill in Manville Heights is
being built much wider on average than the infill in the rest of the city, when you're
looking at the existing housing stock in the neighborhoods in which they are being built.
Um, the average here, remember the average around the city was less than a foot greater
width. In Manville Heights it's over 14 feet greater width, um, of these infill projects,
compared to the houses around them. And again, you see here 101 Lusk coming in at the
top. This was an example of property number 30 on North Street. This is actually 20 feet
wider than the average of these houses here, and if you look at the....the building
footprint on the map on the bottom left here, urn, it shows just how much larger this
structure's footprint is compared to the houses around it, but I think based on the
Assessor's picture, if you were driving down the street, would it stick out as being
particularly out of scale to you. Um, and then this is another one that was in the,kind of
a, at the top of the graph there for Manville Heights. This is on Park Road and this is
over 40 feet wider, urn, than these houses that are around it, but I think it might seem out
of scale based on its height rather than its width. When you're just looking at it visually,
and so that brings me to height. Now, again it's....it's kind of a shame we didn't get....we
don't have access to the, um, specific height and feet,because that would have been a lot
more precise than doing it this way, but this was....this was what we had available to us.
So on average, if you're looking at number of stories,both analyses averaged out to about
zero. Again you're looking at kind of a wide spread,but when you average it out, for
both Manville Heights and the city as a whole, urn, infill projects are being built on
average pretty much the same number of stories as the houses around them. Um, again
this is kind of imprecise because,urn, you know, it doesn't account for the variation in
height between houses that are the same story, um, but again....the are the results that we
got. So this is the one....let me back up here. As you see on the blue one, for the city
wide, the tallest one, the most out of scale according to this, is number 18 and that is this
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 2, 2019.
Page 5
structure here on 2 Wellesley Way. Urn, you can see it's a two-story building and pretty
much all the houses it was compared to are one-story ranch-style houses, which explains
that. So....uh, summary of all of that, basically overall residential infill is being built
larger than the existing neighborhood stock, urn, around it in terms of both lot coverage
and total living area, square footage. Urn, infill in Manville Heights is being built larger
in terms of total living area, square footage than infill in other parts of the city, urn, also
infill Manville Heights is being built more wide than, urn, infill outside of Manville
Heights. Urn,but also I think an important thing to look at is that looking at just one of
these variables in isolation isn't always enough and there's a,kind of an example of why.
So back to the first lot coverage map of the city. That's 101 Lusk there and I mentioned
earlier,number 17, that's 1317 Rochester Avenue. So I think if you're looking at this just
on paper, you would think, 'Okay, wow, that number 17 there is also very out of scale,
urn, according to its neighbors,' but....lot coverage doesn't always tell the whole story.
So, this is that property, number 17— 1317 Rochester. I don't know visually if this
appears out of scale to you all but, um, the high lot coverage that this....that this property
has is due to an abnormally small lot, as opposed to an abnormally large house. Um, so
it's....it's kind of a.....a different situation, urn,that causes it to have such a high lot
coverage, cause if you look at the other factors, like building width and total living area,
it's actually smaller than the average. Um, so yeah, so blue on the left, that's the infill
property. The the white is the average of the surrounding properties. So for lot coverage,
again, it's much higher, but for width and total living area, square footage, it's.....it's
lower. (mumbled) compare that to 101 Lusk, which is much higher in all three of those
categories, urn, and visually....I don't....visually it....it looks a bit different than the
houses around it. So...and this is another, um, property that's kind of similar to 101 Lusk
in that, um, it's an outlier when it comes to total living area and it's....it's also much
higher in lot coverage and building width than the houses around it. Um, it has over
3,300 more square feet of total living area than the houses around it, and again, urn, this
is what it looks like in comparison to those houses. So, uh, couple of potential policy
options. One would be to tailor requirements for, um, infill projects to the surrounding
neighborhoods in which they're being built. So that would be like limiting infill to only
20%taller or 20%wider or 20%high lot coverage than the average of the neighbors
around it. Um...pros with that would be efficient, transparent, and explicit. Urn, cons
would it...if....if you're looking at just one of those metrics at a time, um, it....isn't always
enough, like that example I just showed. Urn, another option would be just having
uniform maximum heights or additional landscaping or open space requirements.
(mumbled) the City did recently amend the zoning code to require more open space,
which is worth mentioning. Urn,pros to this kind of thing, again it's uniform. It would
be a lot easier to apply in practice, um,but again cons, it doesn't take into account the
specific context of the neighborhoods in which these houses are being built. It's not
tailored to the area like option one would be. So,urn, another thing to mention is, in that
box on the right there, best practice research does recommend targeting these types of
policies to specific areas in the city that are ripe for redevelopment. So,here's a map that
was done by the intern before me named Sylvia. So what she looked at...she looked at a
similar thing so (mumbled) looking at here is that these areas in red are areas that are
most ripe for infill development, and that's because, um, the land value in these areas
have a dis....disproportionately high....the....the land value is disproportionately high
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 2, 2019.
Page 6
compared to the structure value on top of them. So that's an indication, according to the
APA, that infill development is likely to happen there. Urn, so again high land value, low
structure value, and you can see Manville Heights is one of those areas, along with the
neighborhood where that 2014 Ridgeway Drive was. So the black,um, areas there with
the hash marks, those are historic and conservation districts. So that...those areas where
there is already design review required for developments,but anywhere not in those
areas, urn, does...doesn't have such a design review like that would. So, almost done
here, so very quickly going to go through some hypotheticals. So basically think of this
like if....if you were to implement some of these....some of these options and then go
back in a time machine 15 years ago, which of these properties we've already looked at
would have been disallowed, if these policies had been implemented, you know, 10, 15
years ago. The first hypothetical would be a policy that limits infill to within 15% greater
than the neighborhood average around it. So you see here that red line there is where that
cut-off line would be. So had this been in place, there would have been three projects
disallowed. So that would have been 101 Lusk, this one here on Rochester, and then this
one on East Bloomington Street. So again, same thing but specific to Manville Heights,
um, 101 Lusk wouldn't have been built, and this one would not have been allowed to be
built either. So another policy, um, infill must be within 15 feet of average neighbor
building width. So again, similar concept but just applying it to building width. So had
this been in place, there would have been four infill projects that would have been
disallowed. Again, 101 Lusk, uh, this one here on Ridgeway, um, this one on East
Bloomington Street, and then this one on Wellesley Way. Same policy, 15 feet of
building width,but applied to Manville Heights. Again would have disallowed Lusk,but
also this one on Ferson, this one on Park Road, and this one on North Street. So, next
steps, urn, the staff analysis will be sent to Opticos Design, the staff is....your staff is
working with, along with any feedback that Council provides tonight,urn, and then staff
will work with Opticos to recommend specific policies tailored to Iowa City back to you
all. So, what feedback are we looking for, what constitutes out of scale infill in your
opinions, which variables that we've looked at or maybe some that we haven't, you think
are of most concern—lot coverage, height, width, urn, and then if there are specific
neighborhoods that you think are at risk that these polishes...policies should be targeted
towards. Um.....yeah, and that's it. Thank you for....for listening!
Throgrnorton/Terrific analysis, Luke. Uh, it's really nice to see such good quantitative and
qualitative comparisons. So....do anybody, does any of our Council Members, do any of
our Council Members have questions, uh, or reactions to what you've heard from Luke?
Salih/I just wanna understand the difference between total lot coverage and total, uh, living area.
You mean like if there is a garage or a storage building count as a lot covering, a living
area?
Foelsch/Yeah, so I talked with the Assessor about specifically how they....get these....these....
these, uh, these numbers. So if lot coverage....it's, um, like a framed structure, so an
open deck wouldn't count or a patio wouldn't count,but a garage would.
Salih/Okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 2, 2019.
Page 7
Foelsch/And so then it's....it's all that added up and divided by the total, you know, area of the
entire lot,but for total living area, the way that the Assessor, urn, estimates that. So they
look at the total livable area of the ground floor. So that would exclude the garage....
Salih/Okay.
Foelsch/ ...and then they multiply it by the number of stories of the house, which is kind of a
little convoluted way of doing that, but um, yeah, there....there is a slight....a slight
difference there.
Salih/Okay. Thanks!
Cole/Currently it's my understanding that for residential structures there's no requirement for a
site plan to be completed for residential structures. Is that....is that correct?
Foelsch/ I believe that is the case(mumbled)
Russett/Um, typically for single-family, no but we're looking at implementing a new process for
infill development that would go through a more thorough review.
Cole/As opposed like for example our multi-family, you'd have to have a....a robust site plan
and that sort of thing. (unable to hear response)
Thomas/One....one of the things I'm interested in is (clears throat) it seems like Lusk, across....
pretty much across the board is an outlier and um (clears throat) part of that seems to me
to be just....it's absolute size, I mean it's, uh.....something like 6,000....6,000 square feet
or is it even larger than that?
Foelsch/Um, of total living area?
Thomas/Yeah.
Foelsch/Let's take a look here. Um....I.....I don't know off the top of my head. It is quite large,
yes (both talking)
Thomas/It's very, very large. And I....it seems to me that, you know, with our current code, if
you live on a large lot, that's a Lusk type of structure as possible, cause you're....you can
meet the lot coverage maximums. Even with the setbacks you still have quite a bit of
area. I think the, um, that lot is about .4 acres. So...that seems to be one of the issues, is
when you have a large lot, how do you control the size, the outcome in terms of size.
Foelsch/Right, yeah, so I mean....as it stands, I mean, it's limited by, as you said, urn, setback
requirements and lot coverage restrictions and things like that,but I think what's
particular to the Lusk situation is that those are generally rather large lots in that
particular area and the houses built on them are kind of, um, of an era that's, I don't know,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 2, 2019.
Page 8
a little bit older, so they're a little bit,urn, smaller houses on larger lots, and so then I
think it....it stands out in a much more real, visceral way when you see such a large house
next to such a small house. Ur.....but yeah, I....I.....I think that's why I think, um, like
that first, um,policy option of tailoring something like this to this specific, to maybe one
of these metrics, to a specific neighborhood would kind of get at that issue, because if
you just have a uniform, um, requirement across the board, then it wouldn't take into
account kinda the specific, context-specific situations like you see on, uh, 101 Lusk
Avenue, but as you see as it stands, I mean that was built legally and it fully complies
with all the requirements.
Thomas/I mean it does seem that if we can have some....and it's good to hear that, you know,
staff is thinking about, uh, looking at this in more detail,but if we had....measures such
as these that are triggers for further analysis, that would be useful. Um, because it....it's
sort of interesting that the Rochester house also pops up because I....I view that as
actually being the direction we wanna go in the sense that it's very efficient, com....
compact, um....without seeming in any way out of scale. Uh, so....I....I would think
Opticos and...and kind of that form based approach, if you will, would be....we would
find Rochester to be something we would try to encourage.
Cole/Geoff, and maybe you could comment, I mean this conversation was obviously generated
by Manville Heights, but if we do get beyond the scope of, for example, a tailored
response to Manville Heights, how much are we looking at? Significant cost esc....
escalation if we get beyond Manville Heights? You know, in terms of Opticos. Do we
have a sense of that or(both talking)
Fruin/I think the Opticos contract, I mean, uses the Lusk, urn, development as a....as kind of the
illustrative example, but it's....it's meant to cover a broader (both talking)
Cole/Okay, so we wouldn't be looking at a significant cost (both talking)
Fruin/No. No, it's....it's in the contract that you've already approved.
Cole/Okay. I'm curious about the question of best practices. You sort of framed this as one of
potentially prohibiting over a certain percentage in terms of lot coverage. Are there best
practices in terms of these extraordinary coverages in terms of notice to adjacent
neighbors, because it seems that that was one of the issues that came up in this particular
case is people were so surprised,urn, that it was going to be built. So are there any best
practices that are recommended for these sort of extraordinary structures....that you're
aware of?
Foelsch/In terms of notifying the(both talking)
Cole/ ...yeah.
Foelsch/Not that I have read (both talking) sure there's probably some literature out there but
none that we've, I believe, looked at up to this point.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 2, 2019.
Page 9
Cole/ Okay.
Mims/ I think it's clear that...this, I think we've known this for a long time, is incredibly complex,
because as you look at these different....forms of measurement, you know, where things
exceed, you know, in one area but not in another, and the size of lots makes a huge
difference, you know, and the...the history of the neighborhood can make a huge
difference. It seems to me that some, you know, some methodology of....if multiple of
these, um, data points exceed by a certain percentage, then it....it triggers some sort of a
design review. Um....and that way....and.....and maybe those percentages are...different
in different parts of the community, as....as we look at the areas, and that might be
something that Opticos would recommend. But I don't think one,just one is necessarily
enough to trigger it. So that's what I would be interested in kind of seeing come back
from Opticos, is when you....one, are there other....are there other variables that we
should be looking at other than these four? What would these four, would it be if two or
three, you know, if at least two or three, and I don't know which is right—two or three—
you know, exceed whatever percentages are set, then that, um, triggers some sort of a
design review,because any one in and of themselves may or may not make it....you
know, a house that you wouldn't wanna see built....um, depending on lot sizes, etc., so...
Teague/I found it interestin' the....old intern that, um, did the graph about the, all the red that
was the infill (clears throat) of the properties that, if I understood correctly(clears throat)
the property land was greater than the....they can build somethin'that would be
appropriate for the property land cause the current structure was probably under-valued,
if I understood that correctly.
Foelsch/Yeah, it's just that the ratio was off compared to other parts where the (both talking)
Teague/ Sure!
Foelsch/ ....land is worth much more than that.
Teague/Sure.
Foelsch/In general.
Teague/So it....it appears that there's a lot of neighborhoods or communi....communities within
our city that could potentially, you know....tear down a structure and do some more
infills, is that....what that kinda showed is a....is likely that that could happen?
Foelsch/Yeah, I mean if you're....if you're looking at those metrics as the APA recommends to
do in order to target areas where this exact type of thing is likely to happen, then I think
that based on that spatial analysis that the other intern did, those are the areas where(both
talking)
Teague/Okay, it was right (both talking)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 2, 2019.
Page 10
Russett/If I could just add to that, urn, so the potential is there for more in....more tear downs
and infill development in those red areas. I guess based on data historically we've had
about five infill projects over the last....couple decades. So....
Teague/ Okay. All right.
Mims/Five per year(several talking) Well I think if you look at those red areas, that's the core
of the city. I mean those are....those are the older neighborhoods. Those are the older
houses that...stock that may or may not have been maintained or just,you know, they're...
some of'em 50-plus years old and....so....plus, it was interesting in all of these, urn,
when you look at Manville Heights, that is a very desirable neighborhood for a lot of
people. It's within walking distance of the hospital, you know, that sort of thing. So you
have people who wanna be close in and in many cases people who have a fair amount of
money if there're doctors and stuff over there, and so you're getting some bigger, more
expensive homes being built, and so to me that....really kind of feeds into the character
that sticks with our community.
Teague/Uh huh, and if, you know, for that lot size, the first thing I thought about or for the
structure,um, if we're talking about diversity, that could have been a two-plex, a four-
plex, somethin' like....or.....or a duplex, four-plex, urn, and I think that's somethin'that,
urn, is important when we're, you know, when they're lookin' at how to do all this is that,
um, all these neighborhoods that are historically single-family homes,that may not be...
you know, what it....what the infill could look like and so I....I would assume that they
would take that into account.
Thomas/ I think it would...it would have been interesting to....and I don't (clears throat) have the
opportunity really to look at heights,but uh, I think height is an important factor too, and
I was....I was looking at some work that Portland is doing and they....they changed how
you measure the height, and it was based on the lowest point, rather than the highest
point. Uh....
Foelsch/Yeah, I....I believe currently how we measure height, because yeah, I think we looked
at the same thing, is from, um, the mid-point of the grade, up the lot, and then the mid-
point of the roof also. So yeah, I think Portland went from, um, the highest point to the
lowest point, in an effort to try to combat(both talking)
Thomas/Yeah, I mean, some of these images that....the sense of being out of scale was...was just
the height of the structure, not necessarily the square footage.
Cole/I'm curious if you looked at the question of use. Um, we've had a lot of discussion about
differences in terms of scale and lot width and coverage, but I think part of the residents'
concerns, as I understand it, is they were very concerned with the property itself would
not be used as a single-family and that it would be used as....for some other purpose.
Um, so that's obviously hard to predict on the front end, and I think in this particular case
we relied on an affidavit from the family to say'Yep, we're gonna use it as a single-family
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 2, 2019.
Page 11
home.' Are there any regulatory tools that would be available that would....help us, help
the staff level to make that decision,because in defense of our staff, that's a really hard
thing to do is to predict how someone tends to use the property. Um, did you look at that
particular issue, and are there any, urn,tools that we could use to....to more precisely
address that on the front end, in terms of how the property would be used.
Russett/Um, I think that this is something that staff looked at prior to me joining the City
Planning staff,but I know with Lusk and for any other projects that we receive, we do a
use analysis to determine what....what use is being proposed. So that's something that's
already a part of the....the permitting process.
Taylor/I think Susan made a, uh, a good point about that....that red area is kind of the heart of
the....of our community and, uh, particularly some historical neighborhoods, and of
course that does make it more desirable for people wanting to move there, uh, if they
don't want to move into these cookie-cutter homes, as I call 'em, that are....that are
springing up in the newer neighborhoods, so that does make it more desirable, but I think
it's important that they......a new building in that area still remains compatible, uh, with
the surrounding structures that are there, to keep that, uh,that character of the
neighborhood. That's important(both talking)
Teague/ I do think that, um, keepin' the structure of the neighborhood is important,but I also
think that there is opportunities for ensure then....ensurin' that other people have an
opportunity to live in that community. Um, you know, in a affordable unit of some type.
It may not be a house. You know, it could be a duplex, dependin'on if the lot size is
right. So I'm not, um, disagreein' with you. I do think that that's somethin' that needs to
be accounted for as well because oftentimes the NIMBY comes into play,not in my
backyard, where everybody want their neighborhood to look exactly...while keep the
same people in their neighborhood or same financial level in their neighborhood, and I do
believe that that's somethin'that we do need to consider on some level when we're, you
know, lookin' at this.
Throgmorton/I....I agree with you, Bruce, and I....but it's important to know that that's part of
what we're asking Opticos to look at with regard to the area around Alexander
Elementary, and the form based code development there. And if we're lucky we'll be able
to extrapolate from that and apply it to other neighborhoods as well. It's gonna take time.
It would happen gradually, I think,but uh,but that's part of what this missing middle
concept's all about and I think you're seeing that very clearly now. So I have a, I guess, a
couple questions. It....it seems to me that....very few of us have any long-term personal
memory about how many, uh, infill developments have come to the city that have, uh,
engendered as much opposition as the Lusk Avenue building did. I personally don't know
of any other infill development, and there're only a few people, like Eleanor, who's been
around for a long time....no offense(laughter)
Teague/ I didn't say that! (laughter)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 2, 2019.
Page 12
Throgmorton/So I'm wondering, Eleanor, if you have any memory of any other infill, uh,
residential project that has engendered as much opposition as the Lusk Avenue project
did? Yeah, I'm not aware of any either. So part of what I think is Lusk Avenue is clearly
an outlier, given the objective, quantitative data you've presented to us. So we should
take strong signals from that, it seems to me, in terms of tryin' to figure out whether we
should do anything different with regard to infill developments. Exactly how to do that, I
don't know,but I do have a few thoughts about things that should be thought about as
we're pursuing this. One is, if we're making comparisons with the surrounding
neighborhood or seeking to make sure the project is compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood, then it becomes really important to define the surrounding neighborhood
clearly, and I think that won't be an easy thing to do. So that's the first thing. The second
is, right now the State Legislature is on the verge of taking away our rental cap ordinance.
Or....taking action that will force us to completely revise our approach to this. Our
approach to, um....the problem that the rental cap ordinance sought to address. So we
need to think about how whatever we do with regard to this particular question, takes into
account the concern that was being addressed by the rental cap ordinance. Uh,hate to...I
probably sound more convoluted than I meant it to be,but I think you get what I mean.
We....we need to look carefully at the connection with....the rental cap replacement
(laughs) and the third thing has to do with Opticos and the work they're doing down at
Alexander Elementary with regard....and, uh, whether we can learn from it and they can
learn from this particular experience and the analysis that Luke and Anne did so
skillfully. So....that doesn't lead to any specific conclusion, but those are thoughts that I
have with regard to responding to your analysis.
Salih/ I just have a question. I wanna ask you, you k now,the....the....the Manville Height
project that people come and oppose it. Is that now considered the largest one in the
whole of Iowa City or there is a larger(unable to understand) than that?
Foelsch/Based on the ones....based on the ones that I...that we looked at, I mean it's....it's by far
the largest in terms of how it compares to the houses around it. Um, I think....I don't
have it in front of me, but uh....
Throgmorton/But you're referring to infill development(both talking)
Foelsch/Yes (several talking) specifically infill developments.
Salih/Yes.
Foelsch/Yeah, I mean it's by far, uh, the largest compared to the neighborhood it's built in.
Um....but again I don't know off the top of my head if it's....strictly the largest overall in
terms of, you know (mumbled) square footage (both talking)
Throgmorton/ Seems like they're really....there were three things involved that...that caused
Lusk Avenue, I think that....become such a....a topic of controversy. One is the objective
data you've presented about the total lot area and, um.....I.....I'm sorry (laughs) lot area
covered and the total (several talking) the width and whatever the other(several talking)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 2, 2019.
Page 13
total living area, thank you. That's one thing. The second had to do with Roc... what
Rockne referred to, which is what the neighbors perceive the real use was gonna be,
de....despite the affidad....affidavit and all that. Uh, and the third is, uh,it's distinctively
different appearance.....when compared to other buildings in the area. So I think those
three things came together to create this, uh, hail storm of....of objection.
Cole/I....I guess for me, we....it is true we are dealing with an outlier structure. Urn, but we are
dealing with an outlier structure that did occur and so I think part of the issue that we
faced was is we didn't have the regulatory tools to review that. Urn, so at least in terms of
where I'm coming from, this is posed as a question of limiting such structures, if they're
beyond a certain percentage. Instead of that, what I would propose is that if it exceeds
20% of one of those metrics, I think lot coverage makes sense to me. As Susan points out
it may be some other variable, but that would essentially trigger a site plan review, a more
robust review process, and we would couple that with a notice provision,um, and finally
would it be pou....possible in those extraordinary cases to have Council review of the site
plan that's presented. Um, so that.....that would be what I would propose. So you would
still be able to do these large structures. There still would be the ability to do them,but
they would essentially have a more robust planning process that provides additional
notice, additional review, and under those extraordinary circumstances, Council review.
So what do people think about that?
Throgmorton/There'd have to be criteria involving the....the design review itself, if you shifted
to that level. So we can't just say to staff review (both talking)
Cole/Well I'm saying for the broader contours, urn, and I....and I think we're basically trying to
give, urn, some direction on this. The other thing too is in terms of starting point, it did
pop up in the Manville Heights neighborhood. I'm hoping that there would be a charrette
with the neighborhood. So that we've identified those three variables, they could give
impact as well, input as well, and we could start in this neighborhood to get started, and
then evaluate whether we'd need to, urn, go into other neighborhoods, but that would
seem to still give us the flexibility because I know historically, um, the neighborhood has
not been supportive of a heavy regulatory approach,urn, or heavy limitations on what can
be done, um,but I think really this would give more, um, ability for review, and then to
the extent that we can....evaluate standardized criteria on use, it still seems to me that
there was concerns about what it'd be used for and it may just be too hard to put that into
a regulatory form,but to the extent we can I'd like to see greater ability to challenge the
use classification.
Mims/I have a question historically. On the Lusk project, was that originally two separate lots
that were combined for that project?
Cole/(mumbled) understanding.
Fruin/I....I don't recall.
Mims/Okay. I was just....
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 2, 2019.
Page 14
Russett/We can look into that but I don't....I don't believe so, but we'll look into it.
Mims/Okay.
Salih/And when you....I guess I hear you saying that the current City code is allow 40%...you
know, of the, like the lot coverage or comparing to the area? I don't understand that.
Foelsch/ So the current City code is 45% lot coverage,just by itself(both talking)
Salih/By itself,without comparing it to any....okay. And the....the Manville Height is not
exceeding the 45% from the....
Foelsch/I believe it's at 44% (both talking)
Salih/Okay(both talking)
Throgmorton/It seems to me that....the design kind of work that's embedded in form based code
which seeks to accomplish what we're trying to figure out how to accomplish right now,
so if we had the equivalent of a form based code for our existing neighborhoods, we
wouldn't need to go through all the rigmarole, that there would be parameters already set
out in the code that would have to do with...the comparative size, etc., of infill projects,
relative to surrounding properties.
Mims/It....I don't know. I.....I guess I just don't know enough about form based code in
residential areas. When you look at different parts of this city that have such totally
different lot sizes,um, I....I, yeah, I don't.....I just....I don't understand it well enough to
know if you could get one form based code that could cover.....successfully address the
uniqueness of different areas. I mean you take(both talking)
Throgmorton/It would have to be(both talking)
Mims/Yeah, because you've, you know, you've got Manville Heights is very old, um, some
larger lots, some smaller lots there,but you know, again a lot of large, old, expensive
homes because of location. You can go to the extreme of Walnut Ridge,where you've got
acre lots with....400 probably a minimum maybe $400,000 houses out there, and up.
Um, you can go out on the north side in a new development where you've got quarter
acre or less lots that are.....I'd be amazed, I guess they're not exceeding(laughs) 45% lot
coverage, but you've got some absolutely huge houses on these very small lots. Urn, so
you just....you just have such variability, um, in the lot sizes and the types of housing,
um, across the city, and....and to your point, Rockne, I'm not sure that I would be
comfortable, and I guess it, you know, like we say—the devil's always in the details—
if....if it....it a permit request, and you know,just give their....what they wanna do in
terms of the house, and it only exceeds one of these parameters, I'm not sure that's
enough to trigger a design review. I....I.....
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 2, 2019.
Page 15
Cole/ I mean a site plan (both talking)
Mims/ ...site plan, I mean I (both talking)
Cole/I mean my thought process is that....is that these are extraordinary projects, and so the run
of the mill infill development would not be affected and it would be ordinary(mumbled)
and so I....I think we need a tool for the extraordinary (both talking)
Mims/Oh, I agree! (both talking)
Cole/ ....and so I think to your point, Jim, though is that I think, I mean what begs the question
what would of happened if this would have been, you know, a 1920s-style, um, sort of re-
imagining of very similar design standards, but in every....in every respect, except it had
the same scale. Would there have been the same opposition? I think scale alone is an
issue in this particular....because it's so much bigger. I think there would have been less
opposition,but there still would have been concerns. I think there's issues with drainage
and all those different things. So....it's only gonna affect a very limited set of properties,
and they'll still be able to do it. You're not prohib...we're not prohibiting or limiting. So I
like it for the extraordinary case, to give sort of, for lack of a better term, sort of an
extraordinary remedy in terms of a site plan and Council review, for those extraordinary,
um, differences in scale.
Throgmorton/One other thought comes to my mind and it has to do with historic preservation
districts. Isn't there al....there already design standards built in to historic preservation
districts, aren't there for properties.....developments or infill developments that would
take place right next to an historic landmark?
Russett/It would....it would need to be either locally designated or within a district for the
additional design review to apply. So if it was a....a property next to a landmark, the
regulations would not apply.
Throgmorton/I thought there was something about compatibility. Is there not? Maybe (both
talking)
Dilkes/Are you talking outside the district or inside of the district?
Throgmorton/I....well (both talking)
Dilkes/ ....non-historic structures (both talking)
Throgmorton/I'm talkin' about inside the historic preservation district. But what I really...I was
thinking about was local historic landmarks, buildings that are local historic landmarks.
Isn't there some standard havin' to do with, uh, requiring any new development next to
those landmarks have....havin' to be compatible with the landmark somehow?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 2, 2019.
Page 16
Dilkes/I think what you might be thinking of is those situations like we had over here with the
Unitarian Church, where the....part of the new development was actually sitting on the
historically designated landmark lot. And so in that case, yes, it had to (both talking)
Throgmorton/Well I'm thinkin' about some things I've heard with regard to....the proposed
development at 400 N. Clinton Street, which is right next to 410, 412 and...yeah, I mean I
can't remember the exact thing, what I precisely heard,but I've heard, or read, uh, some
language about compatibility.
Mims/ If it's not in a district(several talking)
Fruin/I don't think it's a requirement, Mayor. I think at....at times the City's been opportunistic
and the 400 Clinton one would be one where we could require that through a CZA, um,
or a development agreement or somethin' like that.
Throgmorton/Okay, I guess I'm misremembering.
Taylor/ I...I was kind of thinking the same as you, Jim, I thought like(mumbled) the Tate Arms,
uh, preservation of that and the apartment building that was built up next to that. I
thought there were some guidelines as far as....
Mims/But you're talking rezonings, right? See if you get into rezonings, we can make all kinds
of requirements on rezonings,but to me what Jim is saying is.....just design
requirements, based on that location outside of any zoning issue. That's where I'm saying
I don't think there is if it's not in the historic district(several talking) conservation district.
Yeah.
Cole/It doesn't address this issue.
Mims/No.
Throgmorton/So.....we are now 50 minutes into our work session. I personally am not prepared
to agree with Rockne's suggestion. I think it's an interesting suggestion. I might be
willing to agree with it,but at the moment I'm not prepared to do that. I don't know
where the rest of you arc. My sense is that we are ambivalent about what specifically, or
feeling ambivalent about what specifically should be done or what we want staff to
pursue.
Cole/Can I give an amendment to that suggestion?
Throgmorton/Yeah.
Cole/Um, why don't we just kick it out for a month or so and reconvene in a 20 minute work
session in the future, so we can get feedback from the residents who are sitting here that
were directly affected. Staff can generate additional commentary based on our
discussion. Then we can get more into the details.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 2, 2019.
Page 17
Throgmorton/It would be helpful to have some written feedback from the staff so that we have a
memory of the conversation we just had. Yeah, you know, cause we have a lot to think
about and it's easy to forget the details.
Cole/What do people think of that?
Fruin/We're gonna come back to ya fairly quickly. Do....Anne,do you know where this, urn,
particular project sits in the Opticos'workload? Are....is this at the front end of their
contract with us?
Russett/Well I talked to....Opticos about it and it's at the back end,but they would be willing to
move it up if it's something we want to move forward quicker than was originally
anticipated.
Fruin/We can....we can try to return to you with their suggestions in....in pretty close time to
what you're talking about(both talking)
Cole/Four to six weeks, somethin'like that.
Fruin/Yeah.
Cole/I'd be fine with that.
Fruin/And...and we can, you know,just based on your discussion here, even though there's not
agreement, uh, and that's not really what we were hoping for tonight. We were just
hoping for feedback. We can take the comments that you have and start to craft
something, and then work with Opticos to refine those based on their experience in other
communities. So I think we've....I think we've heard what we need to hear to move
forward. I think you found this useful, as....as did we as a staff, and....and,urn, we have
an idea of what, you know,where those lines should be drawn, if this is indeed the right
approach, and....to your point, Rockne, um, if we do....if we do decide to draw those
lines somewhere,urn,it doesn't have to be a hard no. We can develop some type of
process, uh, in which if you cross those lines,there's gonna be some more notifications,
some more public discussion, you know,where that fits in terms of Council approval
versus staff, and appeal rights. We just have to kind of sort some of that stuff out.
Cole/Will there be a charrette with the residents or...how will that process work?
Fruin/(mumbled) I mean...any time we're gonna go in and amend the...an ordinance, uh, there'd
be(both talking) You're talkin'three readings and we can certainly....I can certainly
reach out and get....get their input,urn(mumbled) I'm just not sure what a charrette
would result in,but to....to your point,we'll seek their(both talking)
Cole/ ....feedback.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 2, 2019.
Page 18
Throgmorton/Well that sounds like a reasonable approach to me. How bout the rest of you?
(several responding)
Thomas/Yeah I think we really need to hear from Opticos, cause it....it's part of the anticipating,
you know, what the form based code issues will be as well.
Throgmorton/Okay. Luke, thanks so much for such a good job on the report, and the
presentation of it. (several talking) Anne, are you gonna help us with the next topic or is
that somethin' Geoffs gonna do or we're gonna wing it on our own or what (laughs)
Discuss Northside Marketplace Form Based Code FIP41:
Froin/Well,urn, we'll move quickly on it. Uh, so a couple of,um,meetings ago,uh, you had
requested this as a work session item. Uh, this would be the Northside Marketplace form
based code. Um, this was during the budget deliberations. Um, as a reminder, we don't
have, uh, funds in the budget for this purpose. Our original plan was to,uh, take up the
question of a....of a Northside form based code after the South District, uh, code, uh,
was, uh, completed. Um,but nonetheless it came up in the budget deliberations and you
asked, uh, to have a.....a deliberative conversation about that. Uh, Mayor Throgmorton
and Council Member Thomas joined some of our Planning staff on a....on a conference
call with Opticos so that,um, they could share their insights into what, uh,may be
desired by the neighborhood, uh,but also hear from Opticos on what they would envision
that process bein'. So that's what my memo lays out. Um, you can see, um, what Opticos
laid out would be a process to get us all the way to a written form based code. Uh, what
my recommendation was in the memo was that we....we kind of take that in two pieces
and if you do wanna go forward, uh, that we start with just a visioning piece, and I don't
know exactly what that looks like now,but if I...if you were all in that same spot, we
would work with Opticos and....and come back with a contract that limits it to just a
visioning exercise with the....with the businesses and the....and the surrounding
neighborhood.
Mims/I'm just really concerned with, you know, the commitments that our staff has and I think
you laid out here really well, Geoff, I mean how, you know, we've turned over a majority
of...of that staff in the last year and I don't know,there's....maybe 10 bullet points here of
the other current commitments and I thought we were pretty well set when we had gone
through the form based code that we really felt from a staff perspective and from a
financial perspective that we really had to prioritize what we were going to do in terms of
form based code, and we decided that to go with that South District because we wanted to
get that in before it's all built up and then it's too late, you know. It's greenfield now and
we can have the most impact with missing middle and really diverse housing stock, and
so we decided that that would be our....our priority, and I guess I would like to see us....
stick with that and I....I think, you know, talking about the dollars, as well as the....the
burden on staff, who I think are....pretty overworked probably at this point, that I....I'd
still like to see this one wait.
Throgmorton/What do the rest of you think?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 2, 2019.
Page 19
Thomas/Well I....I tend to agree with Geoff s recommendation at the end. I think it does speak
and respond to questions of, related to...to the, uh, work that staff has, uh, looked....is
looking forward to in the coming year, uh, as well as addressing the....the budget issues.
I think Geoff and Jim and I were talking about how the, you know, the figure for the
visioning is itself flexible. I think it can be refinement in the scope in terms of what it
would cost. Uh, so the cost issue,the....the burden on staff, I think would be minimized
with that. And then speaking from the standpoint of what I've heard from the
neighborhood and also (mumbled) Linda McGuire and Susan(can't hear) and I attended
a Downtown District meeting. I think there is interest in, from both the merchants and
the landlords, as well as the neighborhood, to continue making progress. You know,
we...we did have that preliminary work that was done in the Northside, which included
Northside Marketplace. And if....if we were to drop both Northside Marketplace and the
Northside neighborhood form based code study, we would just be at a, kind of a dead
stop. So it seemed like this was an opportunity to...at a....at a minimum cost, uh,
maintain a focus,particularly in the area that seemed to be the most, um, dynamic in
terms of land use. As....as I mentioned in a previous meeting,just in the last I would say
eight years, there've been three rezonings of three distinct properties, all of which had
controversies associated with them. So it seemed like there was a need....uh, to address
that threat. You know, that's another issue that the neighborhoods....neighborhood has
felt, is there going to be yet another property that's...where we see development and that it
may not be quite the right fit. So this seemed to be a way of trying to....make progress at
a reasonable cost, uh, keep....keep a focus, and then let the visioning generate...hopefully
a level of enthusiasm and interest to move forward to the next step.
Mims/I would just make one comment in response to that, John. You....your comment was that
you agreed with the City Manager's recommendation. If you read the first part of that
first sentence, it says, 'The recommendation is prefaced on if the Council determines that
there is urgency to initiating Planning work in the Northside Marketplace.' So the City
Manager's recommendation is not necessarily to do that. It is prefaced on if we
determine there is urgency. I just think that's a important clarification.
Salih/I...I think....I also (mumbled) agree with Geoff recommendations on developing a
community, you know, visioning process and including the Downtown District and
others, community association, before we can come up with like full court, you know,
revision process. Yeah.
Mims/I'm sorry, Maz, I didn't....I wasn't quite clear on what your position was in terms of
agreeing or not agreeing with (both talking)
Salih/I'm agreeing with the City Manager because he said we need to have....that what you said,
right? (laughs) I guess that what I understood.
Mims/(both talking) So I guess my question is, do you see an urgency?
Salih/No I don't see an urgency.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 2, 2019.
Page 20
Mims/Okay!
Salih/That's why I'm agreeing with him.
Mims/Not agreeing (laughs) There's two different pieces here. There's one—do we have a
sense of urgency? And then if we have that sense of urgency, do we agree with the City
Manager's recommendation, or do we agree with a more...robust process in terms of
dollars and timeframe?
Salih/(several talking) Can you just (laughter) ask Geoff to ask,just tell us clearly what your
recommendation is.
Fruin/Okay. I....I'll do my best here. What I tried to do in the memo is lay out all the wor....the
workload that we have. We are.....we....we've got enough on our plate right now, and
we've got some very important things that we're making prog...progress on. Adding
another task is difficult for us. Urn, part of your all role as the policy makers is to decide,
you know, what...what is the most urgent need. If we limit it to visioning, and we're
really....what we'd be looking at in my mind, from a visioning exercise, is a....let's say
a....what they scoped out was a three-day charrette. Um, I don't think we need three
days. Um, if we limit it to visioning and we're really bringing Opticos in to say, you
know, 'Here's some concepts that we could look at in the district,'um, you know, they're
sketching up proposals for.....what our parking lot may look like if it's ever redeveloped
or used for open space. Um, then I don't think it's a...a whole lot, it's not a huge ask of
the staff. Um, the more we layer on top of that if we're doing,uh, parking analysis, if
we're starting to do some exploratory form based code work, then my concerns ratchet up
a little bit. Urn, so I definitely don't think we're in a position to take on another form
based code, what Opticos has laid out. If you wanna do the visioning, I think we can do
that. You just have to realize that some of these other tasks that are bulleted there, those
are gonna be delayed a little bit,um,because we've got somethin' else in front of that
now.
Taylor/ I don't know that I would, uh, term it as urgent, but I do think it is almost as important as
the South District. Yes the South District's growing, but as we've seen over the last
couple years, uh, there's development,uh, demolition and then development,
redevelopment, of areas in....in the Northside Marketplace. Most recently the one on the,
uh, Market Street corner. Um, I would agree with a public, uh, visionary session. Um,
I....I didn't like to hear it referred to as just a public visionary, ' cause I think it would be
important. It's important to get, uh, input, uh, from the, uh, district and,uh, so I....I
would agree with that. But I also think parking, the parking analysis was mentioned. I
think that is, or would be important, very important, down the road. I think it can't be
forgotten. I think we need to keep that in the back of our minds to do that at some point.
Salih/ Sure. Yeah. I....I guess I....I said the same thing, I'm agreeing with the visioning and
reaching out.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 2, 2019.
Page 21
Throgmorton/So ideally I would like to see us move ahead on developing a form based code for
that area,but when I read the memo from Anne, that we're now talking about in one way
or another, and saw that it would cost$175,000, I thought, 'No, I....I cannot commit to
that,' and I won't commit to that. But I think....working with Opticos to develop a vision
based on a two or three-day charrette with neighbors, landlords, businesses, and so on,
would be a significant step that would help us move in the direction that we need to be
going for that area. At minimal cost and minimal intrusion on staff time. So, I....I'm
completely supportive of that. I....I certainly do not see urgency at this moment, given
the other things we have to do, to...proceed with developing a form based code for the
Northside area, cause we'd already did process that, and....and that would be very
intrusive. So I wanna agree with Susan about that particular point.
Cole/And in terms of, um, we've talked a lot about Opticos being probably one of the more
expensive consulting, uh, organizations. Is there any way to explore, um, less expensive
alternatives, um, and do you have any sense of what that would cost (mumbled)
Fruin/Well we....we certainly could and there would be less expensive options. The issue that
you get into now is they're developing...well, one, they've already done the feasibility
study. So they've put a lot of time and effort into studying this district already. Um,
and....and that's something that, uh, we might have to pay another firm to....to do. Um,
but they're developing the South District code for us now and I...what I don't want to see
happen is for us to get a new consultant every time we're gonna tweak a part of our code
cause then they're not gonna speak to each other as well (mumbled)
Cole/ So....my position is, I think to follow up with what Jim had said in reference to the
visioning. I think that's going to be very important, um, moving forward. I also think it's
a little bit of the tail wagging the dog here, but this issue of parking is a big issue. I think
we(both talking)
Throgmorton/It's a very big issue actually(laughs)
Cole/ ...I think we need to move forward on a parking study for this area. I don't know, Geoff, if
we can do that as a standalone manner. I mean I say for example,um, it'd be very hard,
you know we all love Hamburg Inn, right? It'd be very hard to recreate those sorts of
buildings with the current parking requirements, um, that we have in that area. I think
because there's a certain number of parking spaces that you had. I won't mention the
business, but I know that there was another business that was evaluating one of the, um,
empty storefronts that really was inhibited from occupying that because of the parking
requirement associated with that. So I actually do....do feel a sense of urgency related to
that, so I'd like to see the charrette and I'd like to see the parking study, um, move
forward.
Froin/Now what you're....you're talkin' about with the parking though you're talking about our
code requirements for new development, and what you have to include with....with that.
Cole/Yeah!\
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 2, 2019.
Page 22
Fruin/I think,and....and others can correct me if I'm wrong,but I think the, what Opticos has
suggested you need to look at your parking, it's more gettin' into the neighborhoods to
understand the capacity of parking on the streets,maybe looking at our decks to see how
we manage those, urn, because I....I don't think anybody, uh, I don't think what we'll....I
don't...well, I certainly wouldn't recommend it. I don't think Opticos would recommend
it, to where we're putting an additional parking burden on new development. Urn, that's
gonna lead...that's gonna help drive the form of those buildings, particularly on those
small lots, and it's probably not gonna be something that...that folks like to see because
you're gonna....redevelopment's gonna require the assemblage of multiple lots. You're
gonna get larger developments. So in my view, our goal should be to remove the parking
requirements on the Northside, and I think for people to get comfortable with that, there
has to be a corresponding form based code that we can all....or a vision,that we can all
agree to.
Cole/Yeah. (mumbled)
Teague/I think the South District, movin' forward, urn, with that is very important, and of course
the Northside is very important as well, urn, I think given the fact that the funds are
175,000, that's somethin' that I don't think we can, uh, really....I......I wouldn't be able to
commit to that, um, so I...and I don't feel the urgency,um, and so doin' the vision is great.
I did have a question, because....I think I remember staff mentioning, you know, the
different form based codes, and the challenge, um, with so many different codes, not only
for staff but for developers and stuff like that. I don't totally know all about this, but is
there any....are there options for....u....doin' somethin' uniformally and then....breakin' it
down a little bit by district, urn....
Fruin/Yeah, and I....I.....I, um, tried to get at that with the, um, kind of the scope of the study
area. I....and I....I think you're right, we do share your concern of developing these
pockets of different codes, and what I was trying to suggest is that at some point you need
to take the leap and redo the entire zoning code. Um, or at least do a thorough analysis
and make sure that all the different components are speaking to each other using the same
terminology, um, are easy to understand from both the staff and developers standpoint. I
don't know that we're there yet. We're hoping that what's produced in the South District
will get us to the point where we can start to adapt that to our existing neighborhoods.
Um,but some communities do, uh, when they overhaul their....they'll just do a complete
overhaul of their entire zoning code at one time. Uh, Cedar Rapids just went through
that. Anne was a part of that process, uh, during her time with Cedar Rapids. Urn, I think
Danielle's also had experience, uh, doing a complete overhaul to a form based code. So
we're choosing to go about it kind of district-by-district, but at some point we're gonna
need to, um, do a comprehensive.
Teague/Is there an interim that we can....thought of what can be done?
Fruin/Urn....I don't....I don't think (both talking) You may see...well, for example, what we're
doing now in the Opticos, with the Opticos contract. We're having them look at the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 2, 2019.
Page 23
Riverfront Crossings code. Urn,part of the intention of that is to....to fine-tune anything
that may not be producing the results that we want,but also we want what they develop
in the South District to somewhat match up, again, terminology-wise,urn, with what
we've done in the Riverfront Crossings area. So we want them to be familiar, so they can
build something similar,uh, even if it's not perfect.
Throgmorton/Also, Bruce, when we commissioned Opticos' work for the area around Alexander
Elementary, we had extensive discussion about how....the results of that study and the
development of that code could probably be applied to other emerging neighborhoods,
and the one that comes to mind at the moment for me is the area around new Hoover
Elementary....especially in light of the trailer court, uh, Sun...Sunset....(several talking)
Sunrise (laughs) Sony! Sunrise Trailer Court, uh.....and I have in front of me, uh, a
Google image of the area around that school. There's a lot of'undeveloped' land there, so
it's a....a perfect location for extrapolating, or extending, the Opticos work at Alexander
Elementary, extending it to another emerging neighborhood. So that's definitely
something I hope we will be able to do. All right. So, uh, we need a decision here, I
think. I believe,tell me if I'm wrong, I believe I've heard that there's at least a majority of
people in favor of moving ahead with the visioning exercise with Opticos,not more than
three days, probably less. That means less than the $40,000 I think, uh, which is....they
say is required for a three-day visioning exercise.
Mims/Are you talking visioning or charrette? I mean....(several talking)
Fruin/The charrette would produce a vision.
Mims/ (mumbled)
Throgmorton/Yeah, it's community visioning but of course they're....they would be helping...to
produce that, alternatives and sort through the alternatives. Okay, uh....anything else we
need to do on that?
Fruin/Just clarification on whether now's the time to bring in the parking question or not.
Throgmorton/Well am I correct in understanding that....that would cost, what, 10 to $50,000, I
can't remember exactly what the memo says.
Fruin/Uh, it would be 45,000 with a contingency of 10 to 50 on top of that, depending on data
collection needs.
Throgmorton/And a lot would depend on the boundary of....of the study that we give them,
right? And am I right in thinking that....funds for that could come out of, what's...
parking and transit, is that what it's called?
Fruin/We could probably use the parking fund, yes.
Throgmorton/All right, what do y'all think?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 2, 2019.
Page 24
Teague/I think Geoff mentioned it wasn't really associated with the business areas. It's
associated with the neighborhoods.
Fruin/Well it would be associated with the businesses but the...the geographic area of study
would be, uh, greater than what you see in the green on...in the memo. So the green in
the memo's kinda where the....the built environment vision would take place, but in order
for, you know,um, you could think of; if you're gonna go to one of these businesses on
the Northside, you may be comfortable parking two or three blocks away and walking.
Uh, so the parking....uh, study area would need to expand a little bit to understand the
surrounding neighborhoods, including the downtown and some residential areas.
Thomas/Well I....I certainly think, you know, and....and the cost of this I would hope, like with
the visioning, we can negotiate that. Um, but I....I do feel, and I've expressed this to
Geoff,that I think we....we need to keep in mind, um, particularly in these....these areas
where we're developing at a higher intensity, the relationship of that development to
parking requirements, and so....and I think we're a little bit....a little bit behind in that
regard. We focused a lot on development and need to be paying equal attention to the
parking demand that that development may generate. So I do think....it would certainly
be a valuable piece to include that, uh, so that we understand that relationship of land
use....and parking.
Taylor/I also think,uh, something to consider if they're doing the parking study is that they do it
when,uh, the University's in session and students are there, cause makes a lot of
difference trying to find some place to park around that area when the students are here.
No offense to the students! (laughs)
Thomas/One anecdote on that regard, in that regard,was,uh....when....when we're meeting
about this, I've always felt(mumbled)you know, some of the....the parking demand
associated with Northside Marketplace could be accommodated at the ramp on Iowa
Avenue. And Geoff mentioned that that's approaching capacity, or at capacity. So I
wasn't aware of that, you know, I thought....I thought those ramps had additional
capacity, and um, so I...it seems like we're at,reaching a point where we...we need to
more carefully evaluate how we use our street parking, our ramp capacity, you know, all
of these inner-related things, uh, that make up....our supply of parking in the greater
downtown area.
Throgmorton/Yeah, one other relevant point is when we were discussing the north......
development of the northeast corner of the intersection of Market and Linn Street,where
a proj....a building is going up right now. A key part of that discussion had to do with
parking. So we can't....im....improve the quality of the place while also enhancing
modest increases in density to provide....development opportunities in....in a way that
really enhances the whole....we cannot do that unless we deal with the parking challenge.
We....we have to figure out a way to deal with that, and my own personal view is that we,
there's a short-term problem, which is figuring out where people can park, and there's a
longer-term problem,which is to get away from that...that kind of total reliance on,uh,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 2, 2019.
Page 25
automobiles and trucks and the whatever. We....we need both, but....in the short run, it
seems to me,that we do need a parking study, and if it can be paid for out of the...the
parking fund, um, I....I think that would be a good thing to do. It would help people
really do the visioning for the area, without gettin' all the way into the form based code.
Mims/I'll just make one last comment and obviously the majority has agreed to go ahead with
this visioning and the parking, and I agree. The parking's incredibly important and needs
to be coordinated with the other things we're doing. But when I look at the 10 bullet
points that are in this memo, on the current commitments, urn,just ignoring for a moment
the first three that are Opticos,but I realize that staff is also very involved in the, with
Opticos and their work,um, you know, you talked earlier, Jim, about in all likelihood the
Legislature is going to pass law, or pass a law that will,uh,take out our rental cap
ordinance, and so we're gonna have to have some sort of response to that, and we know
how long it took staff to generate that ordinance, and now trying to figure out how we're
going to respond to that. We've, you know, certainly had a lot of discussion, and I think
everybody agrees on the importance of looking at this downtown national historic
district. We've talked about the conflict with the County and redrafting that fringe
agreement needs to get done. Um, forget the permitting of the...the permitting software
for just a second,but we've had major discussions about, you know, land development
process and the expectations in terms of, you know, site plans and elevations before P&Z
or Council will approve rezonings, and I think it....and rezoning, or reviewing the zoning
code for affordable housing. These are all important things that we have said(mumbled)
are a priority, and my concern is that we sit here as a Council and.....and we can't really
prioritize. We simply just keep adding things to the list without really deciding what are
the most important priorities and what do we need to get done before we just drop more
and more stuff into the lap of our staff
Throgmorton/Okay, do I see a majority in favor of proceeding with the parking part of this as
well?
Cole/Yep!
Clarification of Agenda Items:
Throgmorton/Okay. So, uh, I....Susan raises an important point and it....I'm gonna count on
Geoff. We should count on Geoff to....help make sure that, uh...the scheduling of this is
accomplished in a way that is....is....is doable from a staff point of view. Okay, I....let's
move ahead to clarification of agenda items. I want to get into Item 11 a and 11 b,without
discussing the substance of either one of'em. I wanna be clear about the process for
tonight. So, Eleanor, would you please explain the super-majority requirement as it
applies to the comp plan, and then as it applies to the zoning,the rezoning? And....and
where we stand with regard to the petition and so on.
Dilkes/ Sure. So, um, with the comprehensive plan amendment, which precedes the rezoning,
there's a provision in our code that...that says if you are going to, um, if you're inclined to
vote differently than the Planning and Zoning Commission then it requires a super-
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 2,2019.
Page 26
majority vote. Or you have to....you can't....you can't do something different than they
recommended, except by super-majority. So that's the comp plan amendment. The....
the rezoning,urn, piece is we now have,uh, petitions,protest petitions, and we got those
late today and we won't have lime to,urn, do the calculations to determine whether, urn,
those protest petitions trigger a super-majority requirement on the rezoning. Um, and that
is triggered by, if you take the area,uh,within 200 feet of the area to be rezoned, um, and
if there's 20% objection within that area, then,urn, then it triggers (both talking)
Throgmorton/And if owners of 20% or more of the land in that area you just described, if the
owners of that amount of land object,then,urn, a super-majority is required. It's not the
number of people object.
Dilkes/No, it's not the number of people. No.
Throgmorton/Okay.
Dilkes/So, and then one other piece, as I told the Mayor earlier, urn, you can.....you can proceed
with the comp plan amendment tonight, should you so choose,um,there's nothing
holding you up from doing that, as there is with the rezoning piece.
Throgmorton/Yeah, I guess my personal inclination is....probably...is to proceed with the comp
plan vote tonight,but we can discuss that more thoroughly during the formal meeting.
(several talking in background) What are you wondering, Maz?
Salih/Yeah....no (laughs) I'm sitting by Geoff for a reason(laughter)
Throgmorton/I know!
Salih/I ask him a lot of questions.
Throgmorton/Okay. All right. So, also with regard to 11b, I....I want to express a certain
concern I have,but without going into any substantive discussion about it. I just wanna
let you know, give you a heads up that I have concerns about the proposed rezoning with
regard to climate action and adaptation. I will explain those during the meeting, during
the formal meeting, and....and make some suggestions. So don't be surprised if....if I do
that. All right.
Salih/(both talking) defer this, right?
Throgmorton/Sorry?
Salih/That means we gonna defer the rezoning?
Throgmorton/Well we're gonna have to defer the rezoning anyhow because of the petition. We
haven't....staff hasn't....has not had time to calculate (both talking)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 2, 2019.
Page 27
Salih/ .....take time to find out the 20% of the (both talking)
Throgmorton/Right.
Salih/ Sure. Understandable.
Throgmorton/Okay, any other items, uh....uh,that need clarifying with regard to the agenda?
Salih/Uh, yes. I have Item 9b and 9c. For 9b the letter from, I just would....cause I don't see
any staff respond, and I would appreciate it if you can respond. (several talking in
background) B and c.
Taylor/9b and 9c?
Salih/Uh huh.
Throgmorton/You said 9 what? (several responding)
Fruin/So on....on 9b, urn, we, uh, had our Police Department follow up on that. Urn, because it
was just a matter of, um....concerns about parking that may not be legal on that. So I
asked the Police Department to respond to that. And...what was the other one?
Salih/9c, I'm askin'the Council are you interest in considering that.
Pruitt/ I understand. Okay.
Throgmorton/Well I think that's an interesting idea, to have a poet laureate (both talking)
Mims/ I think it should go to our commission or committee.
Salih/Yeah!
Mims/ City of Literature(several talking)
Cole/I was just gonna say, should I bring this up on the City of Literature agenda and get their
feedback, as far as that(several talking) Okay! (several talking) ...will take it to the City
of Literature board.
Salih/All right, that's it for me!
Throgmorton/Excellent! All right, any other agenda items?
Cole/Urn, 9e,urn, we've obviously had some very detailed correspondence on the ongoing issue
related to the deer issue. Any update, Geoff, in terms of where we're at? They're sticking
fast with the bow hunt,urn, any additional details? I know that one of the emails had
brought up....even a suggestion of a privately-managed,um, gun hunt, urn, is that
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 2, 2019.
Page 28
something that is now....it's Mr. Thompson's, I think that he refers a page.....five of his
email, a property controlled firearm hunt, is that something that they have talked about as
well in terms of the State board or are we just limited right now to the one sharpshoot
with four subsequent bow hunts, is that....
Fruin/We don't really know what we're limited to now. That's the advice that we've been given
is to go back to them and request one sharpshoot, followed by four, urn, public hunts.
Um, the....all the public hunts that we're aware of in the state of Iowa are bow hunts.
Um, but I think technically the code would allow the commission to approve a....a hunt
with some sort of firearm, and I don't know any other cities that....that do that, but
basically manage a process in which not necessarily your trained sharpshooters like
White Buffalo are coming in,but experienced hunters with firearms could accomplish the
same thing as a bow hunt would. Urn....I.....we haven't really given that serious
consideration. We don't even know if a bow hunt is gonna be acceptable to the Council.
At your last Council meeting you asked for this to be placed on the regular agenda of
your April23`d meeting. So what we're gonna do after tonight's meeting is over, um,
soon after this meeting we'll put out public information to let folks know that this will be
a topic of discussion. Um, we'll update you, you know, I can provide my memo again to
you from a couple weeks ago,but we'll update that based on some questions you asked at
your last meeting, and I think the question that's' going to come to you is do you want
staff to go back to the NRC with a proposal for a single sharpshoot or a sharpshoot in one
season, urn, followed by bow hunts in the next four seasons.
Throgmorton/And we'll discuss that on the 23h (several talking) So I wanna mention one thing,
havin'to do with Mr. Thompson. Uh, we all recall that there's the lengthy, I don't know,
five-page email from him that expresses pretty strong views. I phoned Mr. Thompson,
had a lengthy conversation with him, and I think it was a very productive conversation.
I'm really pleased that he was willing to talk with me about it. One of the things he....
did if you read the....the email, it's very clear, is that he tried to quantify the extent to
which the public had expressed opposition to bow hunting....because he watched us on
TV and read the transcript I guess and heard Susan and me and I don't know who else,
Rockne I guess, you, saying, 'Oh, you know, there's....the public is almost unanimously
opposed to bow hunting.' So, he tried to quantify that himself and found that's not quite
the case. So if staff could quantify the extent to which emails and....letters that have
come to us, I don't know if you can do this, you know. If....if you can quantify the extent
to which....uh,people opposed bow hunting, you know....I don't know,basically what
fraction of.....response (several talking)
Froin/ ....we could do it but, um, we get a lot of emails that you don't see necessarily. They'll
come into just our office or Animal Services, Police. It'd be quite an undertaking to go
through all those emails and do that. If you find it...if you really find it valuable we could
do it but (several talking)
Throgmorton/Yeah, yeah, I don't want to impose excessive work. I just wanna feel confident
that our statements....about the extent of opposition we were hearing, or reading, are...
are fair and valid. And I....I mean that's certainly,those statements were consistent with
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 2, 2019.
Page 29
what I read and heard, and so on, and I'm sure the same's true with Susan. I'm sure the
same's true with Rockne, but....
Dilkes/I think they're also consistent with the history of...of the community response to this
issue, you know, going back however many years ago when we did the first full-blown,
um, deer management committee and....the conversation that occurred in(mumbled)
Cole/And I know we'll fully develop it on April 23`d and this may be something that we talked
about before,but again I think this question of for the bow hunts, um.....the effectiveness
and a quick....kill, for lack of a better term, and two, the remedial measures that can be
taken for, to prevent the deer that are injured from wondering around the community, uh,
you know, that was certainly my perception. Um, so whether that may be not supported
by empirical evidence(coughing, difficult to hear speaker) think to get more detail on
that would be helpful for our decision.
Information Packet Discussion (March 14, March 21,March 281:
Throgmorton/Okay. Uh.....any other items....on the agenda? Needing clarification? Uh, if not
we can take another 10 minutes or so to discuss the first, maybe the second, information
packets. So on, for the March 14 information packet. Anybody wanna say anything
about any of those? How bout the March 2 packet, which has to do with the proposed....
bills in the State Legislature, havin'to do with, uh, net metering and solar energy and the
electric utility and all of that. So I'm not exactly sure where this stands now. I don't
know that bill has been passed by the Senate and House. Simon, do you know?
Andrew/Yes, uh, Senate File 583 was passed by the Senate, um, March 18th,uh, 29 to 18 I think
was the vote, 28 to 18, urn, it is on the calendar in the House. It's come out of committee.
They have amended it to match the Senate version, uh,but it has not been voted on by the
full House yet.
Throgmorton/So it's hard to be optimistic about anything. Well given that situation, do
you....first of all, would you favor expressing our opposition to the bill or whether it's not
really worth doin'it at this moment?
Mims/I quite frankly don't know enough about the details, I mean I certainly have read that
anybody who strongly supports solar says it's bad. Um....but I haven't been able to...take
the time to do the deep dive in terms of the research of what I would end up believing
would be the real impact. I understand, obviously, that the utility company is supporting
it, of course, cause it's more money for them. Philosophically, I don't think there's
anything wrong with people having to pay for the basic access to the electrical grid, but I
don't k now if the numbers they're putting in there are fair or reasonable, so I'm not
prepared to take a position against it when I don't have a full enough understanding.
Throgmorton/Yeah, I understand.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 2, 2019.
Page 30
Cole/I ordinarily wouldn't want us to take positions on State level matters,but I do think this is
going to, urn, I've consulted a lot of people on this issue, obviously advocates. There's
obviously two sides to every story. But I would like us to take a position. I think we
have. We live in an era of climate change,urn, this is gonna significantly impede the
solar industry, urn, opportunities. We do have a lot of....I don't know if we have any
local,uh,providers here, but certainly North Liberty I know there's several, um, so I
would like us to take a position. It could be relatively short. It may not sway the
Legislature(laughter) to say the least(several talking) to say the least,but I do think there
is something where it's like, well, you know what, here we stand. We are gonna take a
position on this. They're doin'the wrong thing, urn.....you know.
Teague/(several talking) I think I'm with Susan, I don't know enough about this, urn, I....I guess
what I do know is that even houses that have solar access, you know, Mid American or
whomever, and so havin'that, you know, a fraction of a cost, you know, it would be
appropriate(mumbled)percentage and that type stuff. I don't know enough about it to...if
it's fair, so....
Throgmorton/They're just proposing to change the rules.
Teague/Yeah, so I don't know that I....I'm prepared to make a informed statement.
Salih/Well I think I disagree with Rockne because I think even though if we cannot change the
way that the Legislation thinks, we just have to have our position clear. And,uh....not
supposed to be tonight, if not....you know, people need time to (both talking)
Throgmorton/ ...vote on it before we meet next.
Salih/Yes!
Throgmorton/So if we have any hope of influencing their decision, you know, we need to say
something tonight, or decide tonight.
Salih/(mumbled)
Taylor/Do we have a feel for how our local legislators, I think, from what I've heard they're all
against it.
Cole/Bolkcom is adamantly opposed. (several talking) Adamantly,very vocally.
Thomas/Yeah, I'd have to say that....that those people whose, um, perspective on this issue I
have a great deal of respect for are opposed to it.
Salih/Uh huh.
Throgmorton/Yeah, I personally oppose it, partly for that reason and partly.....on the basis of
experience,but I also recognize what Susan and Bruce have said about not feelin'they
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 2, 2019.
Page 31
know enough about the bill to be prepared to say one way or the other. Um.....and I'm
skeptical about our ability to influence the decision. I, well so I personally would favor
expressing our opposition.
Sarni/Okay.
Thomas/Yeah, I do too.
Throgmorton/I wanna acknowledge what you said.
Teague/ Sure!
Throgmorton/All right, I'm seein' a majority, five I think(several responding) Yeah, okay.
Fruit)/ So by expressing our opposition, I assume you're asking us to register an oppose to the
bill. So it'll read City of Iowa City opposed? (several responding)
Throgmorton/All right, any other items in that packet?
Salih/Yeah, 3/14, IP3. I guess, uh, I....the letter from Council Thomas. I....I wasn't here last
meeting, but I think the way that I just going and looking at the, you know, the video, I
saw that the majority of the Council indicate....(mumbled) you know the last meeting
that you do not want to pursue any of this because of the School District, is well on the
way to (unable to understand) for the drop area at Mann,but this is here now. Is that
means we gonna talk about it again or....
Throgmorton/Action's already being taken, uh, as a result of the School District's consideration
and so on. Geoff, can you bring us up to date on that?
Fruin/Yeah, I've been havin' some conversations with the School District and....and I have to
apologize because, um, some of what prompted this was, urn, a....a lack of, urn, accurate
information that I gave Councilman Thomas. So that caused some....some probably
unneeded, um,public discussion about this, but nonetheless there were some....some
concerns raised, uh, about the, uh, size of the drop off and some of the config...
reconfiguration of the sidewalk, uh, after the new drop off area is to be constructed. I
was able to meet with the School District officials today and, uh, I think, urn, we've come
to a compromise. I just shared that with Councilman Thomas as he walked in here this
evening, so um, I think it addresses all the concerns,but I wanna make sure that you're
comfortable with the solution that's been....
Thomas/Well as....Geoff sent me an email earlier today that he had met and that the concerns
had been addressed and the, you know, the suggestion of a change to the drop off and the
sidewalks and planting areas were....were moving in the direction that I was encouraging
the District to take. And, uh, you know, what I said to Geoff was all's well that ends well,
um (laughs) this was one where, you know, we....we actually had a situation at our last
meeting where we were discussing the merits of a,uh, proposal, which (clears throat)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 2, 2019.
Page 32
Geoff understood to be the last, uh, version and in fact it had been superseded. We
weren't even looking at the correct version. So things got a little bit....there was some
miscommunication and disconnect and so forth. I think we're all on the same page now.
So....
Cole/And just to clarify too, I didn't have any opposition to your design preference. My concern
was is that if that design preference required significant delay or cost, I was going to be
adamantly opposed. If it was a simple fix, relatively smooth transition, I would not have
been opposed,but I did not want a delay of this project.
Thomas/ So, yeah we are...it's a simple fix and uh, there won't be any delay.
Throgmorton/Okay, any other comment on that particular item?
Cole/Nope!
Throgmorton/Okay. We're not gonna be able to proceed, so let's, uh, return to the work session,
uh, with the March 215`packet, or well...we can pick up at March 14th, if...if people have
something they wanna say about that packet. So let me change that..... Okay, so we're
gonna adjourn the work session.
(BREAK FOR FORMAL MEETING)
(RECONVENE AFTER FORMAL MEETING)
Information Packet Discussion [March 14,March 21, March 28] (cont.):
Throgmorton/Okay, so we're now in our work session, reconvened the work session. What's on
your mind, Caroline?
Dieterle/You have simply got to do something about the....I noticed that in your packet there
were several, three at least, um (clears throat) fairly eloquent letters on the problem. I've
set up recently a trail camera in my backyard and I found last night when I looked at the
images in there that I had three deer, uh, walking through my backyard, and I've gardened
on my lot for 48 years, and I have consistently fed my family, taken food to the Food
Bank(clears throat) tried to plant insect-friendly, bee-friendly plants, tried to put in, urn,
natives because they're asking...they're endangered too. I have milk weeds and I have all
other kinds of..I won't list everything I have, but the point here is is that none of it is
going to mean anything because it'll all be eaten, and I question whether I should even
bother to plant anything this time, and I think a lot of other people are thinking that too.
And this doesn't fall into your goals of sustainability. Because people plant gardens for a
reason. This isn't just for flowers. People eat the stuff that they grow, and whether it's
beans, peas, tomatoes, peppers, you know, chard, you know, the list of crops is pretty
long, and we have people interested in the community gardens, and unless the City is
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 2, 2019.
Page 33
willing to put up 10 or 12-foot fences around these gardens, their food's gonna get eaten
by these deer as well. Now not only this, but you know,the....the population is
exploding. The substrate for these deer is not going to be sufficient, so we're going to be
having starving and diseased deer all over the place and basically I've started to think of
them as rats with hooves, because they're not controlled. They're a blight on the city, and
I don't....I've never, I've been watching. Have you got any kind of hunting set up, at all?
None?
Throgmorton/This is....there's a complicated answer to that question. What I can tell you
simply is that....we proposed something to the State,Natural Resources Commission,uh,
essentially they said, 'No, you cannot do that.' We have, in our most recent
communications, they said, 'You....you....we'll permit you to proceed if you give us a
plan which says sharpshooting for a year, in the first year, followed by four years of bow
hunting.' And on the 23`d of this month, we will be holding a....a public hearing focused
on how the public wants us to respond to those instructions from the Natural Resources
Commission. Is that close enough? That's the way I understand it.
Dieterle/Well I'd like to know who's making the presentation to the Natural Resources
Commission. I went to the trouble of getting the minutes from the last time around when
they turned down your proposal. And (clears throat) I....I think that it has to be, you
know, reiterated to them that bow hunting enough isn't going to do it. It's not going to,
you know, the statistics from other cities in the state that have tried to rely on bow
hunting are very discouraging. Because they just aren't making the number of kills that
are going to be necessary to prevent further increase in the population. And I...I'd like to
know what kind of risk do we run if we simply just do what we think is the sensible thing
to do here and let them sue us! Because really, you know,people here I think would
solidify behind you that this is an untenable situation we're in here! It's really getting to
be pretty....critical!
Throgmorton/Got it! You're not alone in thinking that. Thank you for staying and expressing
your view, Caroline. The 23rd of April,right here, we will have a more extended
discussion and then we'll give clear instructions to our City Manager about how to
proceed.
Dieterle/Have you invited any of the members of this commission to come and attend our
hearings, so they can hear what's going on for themselves?
Throgmorton/I haven't.
Dieterle/Well I think it'd be a darn good idea,because(both talking)
Throgmorton/Caroline, we can't control what the State does or the State commission(both
talking)
Dieterle/Of course not,but you can at least ask them to come and listen! Because their plan isn't
going to cure the problem. Essentially it's one of these bait and switch things. Well, we'll
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 2, 2019.
Page 34
let you do the sharpshooting for one year and then you're back to bow hunting for four
years and we'll be in worse shape at the end of that than we are now!
Throgmorton/Okay. I think we understand. Thank you. Okay, so we were in the March 14th
information packet. Is there any, are there any other items that anybody wants to bring up
for the March 14th packet? I....I'm gonna move quickly unless y'all respond quickly.
March 21'packet? I wanna draw your attention to IP#2,which is an email conversation
between a woman named Helen Schneblen and me concerning our climate action plan
and,uh, if you read it, uh, you know she's very critical of the work we have or have not
done, and, I....I take her criticism to heart and it's worth thinking about. I....I would like
to know what you think about her critique, and my response,but I wanna be fair to
everybody here and not really expect you to do that right here and now. But if you have
feedback to me, I'd like to hear it. I have, uh,just as a sidelight to that, I have asked
Geoff(noises on mic) asked Mid American some questions about their plans, havin'to do
with capacity, electric power generating capacity, electric power generation, uh, in terms
of kilowatt hours, megawatt hours, and so on,uh, four different questions. Anything else
in that information packet?
Thomas/Thanks to Mark Signs for IP6, his,uh,his letter on the rental caps.
Throgmorton/Yeah, Mark's been solid. And thanks have been conveyed to him. Okay, I'm
gonna move on. March 28th packet?
Taylor/IP8,1 we probably have to do the KXIC and could I make a request that we go day by day
instead of kind of hodge-podge, somebody pick this date, somebody else pick that date,
could we just go date by date(both talking)
Throgmorton/Okay, what's the first date we have to fill?
Taylor/Uh,April 17th. Or is it May 17th? No! April,April 17th. Yeah.
Mims/I'll take it.
Fruehling/April 24th.
Throgmorton/I can do that, or May 1, either one. So April 24th, me.
Fruehling/May 1st.
Salih/May lSt I can do. Let me see....is a Wednesday? Yeah, I can do that.
Fruehling/May 8th.
Taylor/I'll do it.
Fruehling/May 15th.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 2, 2019.
Page 35
Teague/I can do it.
Fruehling/May 22"d
Thomas/I'll do that one.
Fruehling/May 29a'.
Cole/I suppose I could do it. (laughter)
Thomas/Mr. Enthusiasm (laughter)
Throgmorton/Yeah, let's not try to fill out the whole thing.
Taylor/(mumbled) everybody now's got one.
Throgmorton/Yeah, we...we filled out the what, the next seven weeks or something like that?
Cole/Who's doing tomorrow, by the way?
Taylor/Yeah (several talking) ...through May 29`s.
Fruehling/Yep!
Throgmorton/Maybe we could have a staff person do the....the next one after (several talking)
Taylor/June 5's and June 12a'. The 29th, Rockne.
Cole/Yeah.
Teague/And that time is 8:15, is that correct? (several responding) Uh huh.
Throgmorton/Okay, are we good to go on that? All right, uh, the pending work session topics
things somehow did not get into our, the last Thursday's information packet, but you
probably noticed it's in our late handout, late-late handout. Which gets us to Council
updates, unless I'm speeding along too quickly here. (several talking)
Fruehling/IP7 is the joint meeting(several talking) topics.
Throgmorton/Oh! I'm sorry,joint meeting,joint meeting.....yeah, okay, I have some possible
topics. All right. Possible topics for the joint entities meeting. State actions including
the rental cap program and the property tax cap, if in fact they're moving along with that.
This year's property tax assessments.
Salih/Yeah!
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 2, 2019.
Page 36
Throgmorton/The trailer court situation. I know the purchase of trailer courts.
Salih/Yes!
Throgmorton/I've got deer management here but let's leave that off. So,just those things. Any
other topics y'all can think of?
Fruin/For the assessments'piece, are you wantin' us to request that the Assessors,both Johnson
County and Iowa City, attend or....you jut wanna have a discussion with your peers on
that?
Throgmorton/Um...it seems....I was just thinkin' it's a topic (laughs) that surely is getting the
public's attention. Uh, do y'all have ideas? About that, about what our
expec...expectation should be?
Salih/ If there is any way for the...for the, like buying a mobile home, the park and I don't know I
just wanna ask (mumbled) if there is a way of finding like some legal thing that the City
can do, in order to prevent, uh, you know, a developer or the owner, the new owner, from
raising the....I....I (mumbled) you cannot control rent. I know(unable to understand) I
just....and also what about that I hear before they try to annex to the City. That is still,
uh, like gonna happen or....
Throgmorton/Have what?
Salih/The Sunrise, I heard long time ago (both talking)
Frain/We had advanced discussions with them and then, uh, we were shocked as anybody to
learn that they sold. So, we don't know if the new buyer will want to annex or not.
Salih/But the old buyer, the old owner was trying to annex to the City. I'm just like thinking if
they are gonna do that, if there is like certain way, a legal way to ask like the, about
certain things?
Dilkes/Yes, if they wanna annex, that would be our best....time to ask for those kind of
concessions.
Salih/Yeah, because now is outside the city limit, I can understand that,but I'm really meant if
they annexed to the City, if you can find something legal for us to do.
Throgmorton/There are things we can do. If that's the case. Uh, with regard to your question,
Geoff, about property,uh, tax, uh, assessments. I guess what I'm curious about is....what
the....what the Assessors are doing with regard to our city, the county, Coralville,North
Liberty. I don't know how that's broken down,uh,by the Assessors.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 2, 2019.
Page 37
Mims/I guess I don't...I mean we have a City Assessor. All the rest of'em use the County
Assessor(both talking)
Throgmorton/They use the County, okay, so it's (both talking)
Mims/ So I guess, are you just wanting to share with everybody how much ours went up or are
you looking for information from the County Assessor on....
Throgmorton/(mumbled) ....I....I guess what I was thinking is....these increases in assessments
are gonna get the public's attention. I'm wondering is this is a shared phenomenon and if
it is, what....nobody can do anything really immediately. I don't....I don't know. I'm too
tired to really sort that out.
Thomas/I mean what came to my mind was....you know,what....what impacts might this have
on property taxes. Levy and so forth.
Throgmorton/Well it has implications, and this is related to the State property tax cap topic.
Teague/I think it could be a opportunity for Brad to just come and maybe just give some basic,
uh, educational pieces on...you know, what goes into doin'property tax, so that elected
officials are aware.
Throgmorton/If we do that, I would think the County Assessor should be invited also. (several
talking in background) Okay. Uh.....is there anything else we need to deal with? I don't
think so. I think we're done with the work session. Thank you everybody! It's been a
long night.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of April 2, 2019.