HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-02-18 TranscriptionPage 1
Council Present: Bergus, Mims, Salih, Teague, Taylor, Thomas, Weiner
Staff Present: Fruin, Monroe, Dilkes, Fruehling, Hightshoe, Sitzman, Russett, Knoche,
Havel, Nagle-Gamm, Rummel, Bockenstedt, Seydell-Johnson, Fleagle
Others Present: Lenkaitis (UISG)
Discuss development proposal on 400 block of N. Clinton 1041:
Teague/ And over to the City of Iowa City .... City Council, um, work session for February 18,
2020, and um, our first item on the agenda is the discussion of the development proposal
on 400 block of N. Clinton Street, which is IP4. And hello!
Russett/ Good afternoon, uh, Mayor and Council, Anne Russett with Neighborhood and
Development Services. As the Mayor mentioned, this is a discussion on the 400 block of
N. Clinton Street. Here's an overview of my presentation. This site actually has quite a
bit of background, so I'm gonna go over the history of this site and where we're at today
and .... and why we're .... why we're discussing it now. Um, I'm gonna share some images
of the existing development on these sites, as well as the proposed development. I'll
cover the comments that we've received to date, um, from some stakeholder groups in the
community, including the Preservation Commission and Friends of Historic Preservation.
I'm gonna go over a summary of the existing conditions, kind of what's on the ground
now today and what could be built under the current zoning, and then what has been
proposed for the site, and then we have some questions for Council, and what we're
really looking for from the Council tonight is some direction moving forward on next
steps. So this is an aerial of the site. It's 410, 412 N. Clinton Street. It's identified in
red, and then 400 N. Clinton Street, and 112 E. Davenport Street. Uh, this is Currier
Residence Hall to the west. In terns of background, this started back in 2018 where the
City Council considered a local landmark designation for 410, 412 N. Clinton Street.
They then deferred the decision on that local landmark designation to January, 2019,
while staff explored a citywide transfer of development rights ordinance. And the
purpose of the TDR program was to explore if there was interest in creating a citywide
policy where property owners could locally landmark a historic property and then transfer
some of the development potential from that historic site to an alternative site, a receiving
site where the development was more appropriate. Staff spent some.... several months
working on that ordinance. Um, the ordinance ultimately was not passed. So, um, in
January of 2019 Council reconsidered the local landmark designation and although there
was support for the designation, the vote required a super -majority and it failed at
Council. After the failed vote, um, staff reached out to the property owner of 410, 412 N.
Clinton Street to explore options for a voluntary local landmark designation, and the
property was .... property owner was open to exploring a scenario where the City would
grant extra development potential for 400 N. Clinton and 112 E. Davenport Street in
exchange for the local landmark designation of 410, 412 N. Clinton Street. Um, we have
received some concepts for that redevelopment, which I'll share. Um, last month staff
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
session of February 18, 2020.
Page 2
presented this redevelopment option to the Commission, Historic Preservation
Commission received some comments, and then a few weeks ago the property owner
submitted a demolition application for 410, 412 N. Clinton Street. So again the proposal
is to locally landmark 410, 412 in exchange for, uh, extra development potential for these
two sites here, 400 N. Clinton and 112 E. Davenport. Here are some images of what's on
the ground today. This is the historic property at 410, 412. This is the .... the building at
400 N. Clinton Street. And the building at 112 E. Davenport Street. And here's a view
from the southwest corner looking at 410 and 400 N. Clinton Street. And then across the
street to the west is Currier Residence Hall. Next I'm gonna share the plans, which have
been submitted by the property owner for the redevelopment of 400 N. Clinton and 112
E. Davenport. Here is the .... here's 410, 412, the historic property, and then this is the
proposed redevelopment right here. This is showing, um, the underground parking, 21
parking spaces that would be provided underground. Um, in total it's a six -story block -
scale building with a total of 30 dwelling units. Access to the parking is provided via the
alley to the north, through the 410, 412 property. Here's an elevation, uh, the Clinton
Street elevation. And the Davenport Street elevation. So again this is, uh, six .... 71
bedrooms, 300 units .... or 30 units, excuse me. So some of the comments that we
received, um, since staff has started exploring this with the property owner. Uh, we
presented this to Council several months ago, the previous City Council, and there was
interest in exploring a four-story structure that was similar to Currier Hall, and um, there
was interest in having a high level of design review to ensure that the development would
be compatible with the existing neighborhood. Staff also received comments from
Friends of Historic Preservation. They were concerned about the demolition of 400 N.
Clinton Street, but they also felt that 410, 412 was too important not to try to save. Um,
however they wanted us to consider some additional provisions. Um, one of which was
the .... the rehab of 410 N. Clinton Street in compliance with the Secretary of Interior's
standards for the exterior, um, ensuring a compatible adjacent use; a design review on the
rehab work by the Historic Preservation planner and the Historic Preservation
Commission; a discussion of listing in the National Register and tax credits; and design
review of the new building, um, to maybe include the Preservation Commission, and then
lastly any salvage of any buildings that would be demolished. Staff presented this
concept at the Commission's meeting last month and, um, Friends of Historic
Preservation were also at this meeting and they reiterated the importance of 410, 412 N.
Clinton Street. Um, they did recommend some design changes to the proposed building,
that was, um, that I, uh, just showed to you. They recommended removing the six....
sixth story; um, allowing the fifth story to be built without a step -back; and replacing the
gabled roof with a flat roof to ... to help reduce the scale. Um, we also discussed this with
the Historic Preservation Commission. Um, there was .... there was some concern that the
properties, that historic properties are being held hostage, that urn .... that the history of
the community is being leveraged for private gain; and ideally that they'd also like to see
400 N. Clinton Street saved, but they also, urn .... the main takeaway was that they
thought it was important to work with the property owner to achieve an Iowa City
landmark designation for 410, 412 N. Clinton Street. They were interested in exploring
the recommended changes to the design that Friends of Historic Preservation outlined.
They also expressed a need similar to Friends of Historic Preservation for rehab on the
historic structure. They recommended transparency in the process in terms of the public
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 18, 2020.
Page 3
benefits that would be received versus the bonus heights or the ... the private gains that
would be received by the property owner. And that there was a concern that certain
features of the buil .... built environment, such as height, um, that those need to be, um,
carefully considered. There was also, um, an interest in exploring a more comprehensive
solution, um, something similar maybe to a transfer of development rights ordinance, um,
instead of negotiating these on a case-by-case basis. One of the questions that was raised
by the Commission, um, was what could be built on the sites right now, what's there
currently, and so I'm gonna share a few slides, um, that outline what's there now and
what could be redeveloped. This was .... this was not shared with the Commission at the
time though. Um, so let's start with 410, 412 N. Clinton Street. In terms of existing
conditions, it's zoned RM -44, which is high-density, multi -family. There are currently 18
dwelling units and nine parking spaces. In terms of maximum redevelopment potential,
the maximum number of units would be 24. Um, that's just based.....that's a
straightforward density calculation. It doesn't incorporate any of the other zoning
regulations -- setback, uh, building coverage, open space, parking. Um, the open space
requirement for 24 units is 2,400 square feet and 24 parking spaces, and the maximum
height would be 35 feet. Looking at 400 N. Clinton Street and 112 E. Davenport Street to
the south, it's also zoned RM -44. There are 11 units there currently and seven parking
spaces. If it was redeveloped under the existing zoning, RM -44, it could get a maximum
of 24 units. Again, um, that's not incorporating other zoning regulations. Um, there
would be a minimum open space requirement of 2,400 square feet, 24 parking spaces,
and the maximum height would be 35 feet. If this site was rezoned to PRM, they could
get a few more units, up to 27, but they would also need, uh, more open space and more
parking. The PRM zone does have bonus provisions that allow increases in height, uh,
reduced setbacks. So the .... the PRM zone, uh, with the current bonus provisions allows
up to 65 feet with those bonuses. This slide summarizes, uh, what the property owner has
proposed. So it would be a rezoning to PRM. The number of units proposed is 30, that's
71 bedrooms. Um, there's currently no open space shown on the plan. There are, uh, 21
parking spaces. It's a six -story structure, and based on these plans, urn .... they would
sh.... they show that the following would need to be .... the following zoning regulations
would need to be waived and modified. So it'd be reduced setbacks, increased height,
increased density, increased building coverage, reduced parking, and reduced open space.
So this would require a text amendment to our zoning code, to allow more than what the
current PRM zoning provisions allow. And this .... this table is just kind of a summary of
the existing conditions versus potential redevelopment, um, just all in one slide. So with
that, urn .... we have several questions for the City Council tonight, um, which are up on
the screen right now. I'll just walk through those. Um, we ... we wanna know if the City
Council wants staff to continue coordinating with the property owner on the design of the
building and draft the necessary code changes. Um, we're interested to know if there are
certain code changes that the City Council would not support, for example reduced
parking, increased density, reduced open space. Urn ... we're interested to know what type
of design process the City Council envisions if this property is rezoned to PRM. That
would allow multi -family building to be built there through a staff level, administrative
review. So if there is more process that the Council envisions, we'd kind of like to know
what that would look like. Um, there would be obviously a rezoning process, so that
would be a discretionary review that would come to .... to the City Council, as well. And
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 18, 2020.
Page 4
then if there are any other factors that City Council would like staff to consider. Um, just
to give some examples, there have been several items that have come up through this
discussion on the rehab of 410, 412 N. Clinton Street, salvage of, uh, building materials,
that type of thing. So that concludes my presentation. Thank you.
Teague/ Okay. Any... questions (mumbled) for Anne? So ... we have questions before us that staff
want .... so maybe we'll start with number one, and that is .... does the staff want staff to
continue coordinating with the property owners on this design of the building' and draft
the necessary code changes. And we might, I don't know if people have comments just
on ... in general about the project itself that you wanna throw out there first.
Mims/ Yeah, to me .... there's some other issues that need to be answered before that first question
can be answered, and in terms of what kind of code changes that we could agree to
(mumbled) agree to for ...400, um, N. Clinton and 112, uh, E. Davenport. When I look at
that, um, the proposed building there, to me it doesn't fit at all in that neighborhood. Um,
you know, most of those are two, two and a half story, I think, buildings around there,
more house .... style dimension buildings. Um, when we had talked about it before we
had talked about, you know, if we were going to support something like that then
certainly nothing taller than Burge. This is significantly taller than that, and just
(mumbled) block -long building to me doesn't fit, and so I .... I feel like we're in a ... I feel
like we're in a real quandary, um, in terms of where do people put more priority, and that
is in preserving, uh, 410, 412, um. .... versus .... this, I mean cause to preserve that, at this
point with what's being proposed, we're, you know, what's being asked is something I
wouldn't support. So I .... I'll just leave it at that for this point.
Taylor/ I think in response to that, Susan, I think it was described pretty clearly, uh, as those
properties being held hostage, uh, for the approval of...of this property, and when I first
saw the pictures I .... I was exciting, having lived in Currier many, many years ago, I
thought, `Oh, that looks just like Currier,' and then I realized, no, this is much taller, this
six stories, and I thought we'd made it clear and one of the points was that we'd made it
clear that perhaps four stories at the max. Uh, I do feel it's important to preserve 410,
412 and I would wish and hope that the developer and property owner would act in good
faith and .... and work with us on that.
Fruin/ If I could just comment on that. I think I .... I wanna stress to you that staff initiated this
discussion, so the Council .... the Council had a chance to designate it and it was a very
high threshold to do so. A super -majority's very hard, but um, I personally don't think
it's fair to characterize this particular example as .... as holding a.....a property hostage.
Um, the owner doesn't even own or control this property. This would involve the owner
buying this property in order to preserve that. So from my standpoint, we as a city had a
chance to preserve that. We decided not to for .... for good reason, um, and I think that the
developer has invested time and money in developing a concept that would work
for .... for them. Um, you know they have to look at the economics of it and I think that's
what has led to this .... this point. So I just wanna be cautious about you ... urn .... looking at
it like .... like it's being held hostage (mumbled) hostage. There's a solution out there. It
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 18, 2020.
Page 5
may not be a great solution, it may not be a solution worth pursuing, but I do appreciate
the fact that the ... the owner was willing to work with us to this point.
Thomas/ Yeah, I certainly appreciate the effort everyone has put into this to try to come to a...
you know, resolution that would be satisfactory to all the concerns, and so in a way
my .... one of my concerns with respect to that is, you know, is referenced in the staff
presentation, the question of ...uh, transparency in the process, because I ... I'd like to
have, insofar as I view this, um, as .... as a negotiation that's being driven by in a sense a
transfer of development rights, on a kind of-uh, case basis, uh, how .... how do we go
through that negotiation? You know, what is .... you know, staff did, and this is the first
time I'd seen kind of a .... a matrix indicating, you know, what could happen under current
zoning, what could happen under PRM, and so forth. You know, to try to, uh, in good
faith negotiate alternatives for the design, uh, based on .... how we .... would, the City
through staff and .... and the....the developer find a mutually satisfactory solution with
respect to how both sides can feel whole at the end of that process, and you know, I ... I'm
not clear how .... the proposal as developed... reflects that because, you know, we .... we
don't know what the, um, I....I don't know what staff's response is in terms of what...
what ... bow we would estimate the value of that development to be. I think it would be
important to have an understanding, kind of like we would with a TIF process, in a sense.
Um, you know, try to monetize what it is that's being negotiated so we have a better idea
of what the options are. Um ... and how they benefit, uh, all of the parties. So .... so that's
something I ... I kind of see as missing, you know, how do we, um ... bow do we on the City
side, with staff, understand.... the.... that kind of cost analysis that ... I think I .... I would
think we could easily translate from various proposals as to what, you know, what the
value of what the land is now, monetarily, and what the value would be with different...
with different options. I'm personally willing to .... in terns of some of these questions,
explore, urn ... the parking requirement and this is a transit corridor, in my view. It is
something where I think, uh, it would be worth considering whether we could waive the
parking requirement and .... and let that be determined by the developer, uh, given that
there is considerable transit running through this corridor, and we're looking, you know, I
tentatively wanna be looking forward in terms of issues related to transportation, because
I .... I do tend to think the way we view the world is changing (laughs) and that, how that
would be reflected in our parking requirement, especially in a location where it seems,
um, we .... we might be able to accept a lower level of par .... off-street parking, to .... to put
that on the table.
Teague/ This was a project that I was really interested in preserving, uh, historically and we
didn't get the ... uh, super -majority vote and so I'm happy to actually see this back, um,
before Council, uh, just for the possibility of it potentially bein' preserved. Um, when I
think about the area, and I know that some Councilors have already talked about like the
area, um, it....it really is an area that when we're lookin' at, um, high density and the
proposed project, um, I don't think it's appropriate, and so that's where my interest in
tryin' to figure out how can we reserve, um, you know, 410, 412, uh, to be historic. One
of the questions that I do have, I know that the Historic Preservation did do a
presentation, um, or, you know, submitted some stuff. Has the developers actually
responded in any fashion to any of their request?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 18, 2020.
Page 6
Russett/ Um, not that I'm aware of, no.
Teague/ Okay. Cause sometimes I think that could be, you know, maybe we'll make some
comments and hopefully, um, staff can navigate with the developers .... kinda what we're
thinkin', and for me this isn't a .... uh, the end of the conversation. I would hope that the
developer would be willin' to come back and talk to us about this, um, that this is just the
start of the dialogue, um, just to get what Councilors are thinkin' and then maybe, you
know, go back, think about it, and then come back with, urn .... you know, ways of how
they see that they can move forward, uh, you know, with this project, with some of the
things in mind. Of. ... of course, you know, I would be, um, not realistic if I was to
believe that everything that we said they would, you know, actually do, but I think it's an
opportunity to have a great conversation and, um, you know, it did lack super -majority,
but there's some positives for this particular project that I think the Council is interested
in. For me the .... again, um, I think some of the Historic Preservation, um, comments,
um, I .... I really agree with, um, at least two of them that I wanted to at least point out.
Um, that is .... you know, maybe goin' down to five stories, um, and the other is, you
know, that setback, um, and so .... um ..... those are the two, and when it comes down to
the parking, I think when we're talkin' about climate action and that type stuff, um, this
might be a project where, um, I will be willing .... to decrease the parking requirements.
Um, we have a .... our transit study, which is actually on our agenda, uh, to get an update
about today. Um, climate action, you know, that's somethin' that is, you know, the
Council's really dedicated to. So for me, those are probably the three things that, uh, I
just wanted to make mention here today.
Salih/ I also agree with most of what my fellow Council said, um, to me it's really big change
from the current existing like design and like building there to suddenly see six -story
building. This is concern for me, and I think, uh, I wanna say like four to five, maybe,
uh, but it is for good idea to just go back to the property owner and sit down and talk with
him, see if he can agree to do this.
Bergus/ Yeah, I'd also be interested in the context of when the Council previously was talking
about transfer of development rights that the conversation was like, okay, maybe
something up to four that would match Currier. That was in the context of still
preserving and transferring rights, right? At that time?
Russett/ Not as ... not as part of this citywide ordinance, but after .... for this (both talking)
Bergus/ Okay, so ... is there any insight as to how we got from that sort of guidance that the
Council provided at that time to the six -story kind of full block proposal?
Russett/ Um, well we provided those comments to the property owner and they proposed a, the
six -story building which is before you.
Fruin/ So we ... we've had a couple of, uh, back and forths as staff with the .... with the property
owner to try to, um, bring him more in line with the Council direction from that, uh, work
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 18, 2020.
Page 7
session that's bein' talked about now. Uh, at the end of the day I think the message that
we've gotten back for the economics to work they need X number of units and right now
that puts them at six stories. So .... if, and I think what we're trying to gauge here is .... is
six, is there a hard no on six, then that's good to know. We'll go back and say, if there's
any way to make five work, four to five, whatever..... whatever you feel is appropriate
then we'll give it a go. Council just needs to understand that if that's a hardline at six, it
may not go forward, and that of course could put both properties in jeopardy, uh, in terms
of, uh, demolishing the existing structures.
Bergus/ Are they willing to give any transparency as to that economic analysis?
Fruin/ We certainly haven't required them to submit any economic analysis, uh, I ... I don't know
if they'd be willing to do that or not. You, we can look at the, uh, the matrix that
you ... you put up, maybe if you could put the summary matrix up. I think you can get a ... a
decent sense, uh, for.... for the potential for units. So, you know, if you just look across
the yellow column there is what they're, uh, proposing, which'd be 30 units, and uh, with
the, uh, redevelopment, uh, you're gonna get, uh, a max of 48. Realistically it'll be some
number smaller than that because of all the other regulations, urn .... but I .... I don't think
what they're asking for far exceeds, certainly if it exceeds at all, what the potential would
be if both those properties were razed and .... and developed under the current zoning
code. Is that.... accurate, Anne?
Russett/ So, um, if the .... if all of the properties are razed (both talking)
Fruin/ ....410, 4...uh, 12, 400, and 112 are all razed, they're likely .... I shouldn't, maybe that's
not... that's not (mumbled) It's ... it's probable that they could get more than 30 units.
Russett/ With all of those sites combined, yeah.
Fruin/ Right. But, again, to circle back to your direct question, no we haven't requested any type
of economic analysis.
Russett/ And .... and if I could just add regarding the six stories versus the five, um....the, and the
plans show that those upper units are two story units. So I'm not sure what, if...if it
would be a great reduction in the number of units if the .... if the sixth story was removed,
so.....um.... that's something that we could ask the developer about.
Thomas/ I .... I did a little bit of looking at, you know, I ... was looking at some of the background
information on this and there was some discussion of form based coding. We don't have
it for this particular area. I .... I did look at some other draft form based codes in other
cities and they have.....code requirements for any .... any building proposed adjacent to an
historic resource. So there are ways in which we could access some of that information
just by, you know, kind of looking at other codes where such a requirement is .... is
identified. But this .... this project has this issue again of height and mass, I mean this is a
very, you know, it's a six -story building, but it's also kind of a massive building, and with
limited amount of articulation to break up that mass, and that's part of what I think the,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 18, 2020.
Page 8
you would find with these form based codes is that they would identify ways in which the
massing of the building could be articulated in a way where it wouldn't quite seem like
such a block, you know, it's .... it's (laughs) kind of a block form and a block shape and
how do we .... break down that massing so it doesn't seem quite so large. That .... that
might have an impact in addition to changing the roof design to reducing the impact of
six stories. Another thing I might be thinking about is .... is these, this building is to the
south of our historic resource, so the height of it will have an impact in terms of sunlight,
uh, reaching the structure. So if there were a way of. ... and again, this is kind of part of a
massing study, to .... to ..... to mass it in such a way that that's acknowledged, so that
the .... the, this .... the impacts on sun access would be considered in the .... in the massing
of the project. (several talking)
Salih/ I just have a question on this like there, uh, this is, um .... a little bit confusing to me.
When you say redevelopment rezoning to PRM and... and their height, you say 35 feet, up
to 65 with bonuses. Like how many stories is that? Like .... and you say six story, that
what they propose, and here you just don't tell us the story and it's just like height. Is
that the same, like 60 story also?
Russett/ Yeah, you could probably get a six -story building with 65 feet. Yeah.
Salih/ Okay. And the 35 is?
Russett/ That's the.... that's the base. (both talking) Three, yes, three stories. Yeah.
Thomas/ Do we have an actual, um, dimension on the six stories to....
Russett/ I don't know the height and feet, just in stories. Yeah.
Thomas/ Cause that matters too, I mean....
Russett/ Yeah.
Thomas/ Ultimately what we're talking about is the actual height of the building, not the floors,
in my view.
Salih/ And also for the ... for the bedrooms number, I really wanna compare, if we redevelopment,
to like rezoning to PRM, how many bedroom will be there, and the ask is 30 unit, 71
bedroom, but what about the PRM? How many bedroom will be?
Russett/ So the .... the PRM zone without any bonus provisions would be 27 units maximum.
Salih/ Uh huh.
Russett/ Um .... so even with the bonus provisions in the PRM zone, you couldn't get ... what they
have proposed. So that's why we would need the additional text amendments to the code,
that would allow them to go above and beyond what the current bonus provisions allow.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 18, 2020.
Page 9
Salih/ Yeah, but is there different like really big different, because I wanna compare it is like
really huge different or...just....
Russett/ Um, let me see here. I thought I had a summary. So they'd be asking for more units.
So three more units. So it'd be an increase in density. Um, they'd be asking for a
reduction open space. Currently there isn't that type of bonus provision offered, so that
would be new. They're asking for a parking reduction, um, which is also new, something
that isn't currently allowed by the code. Um .... they're asking for reduced setbacks,
beyond what the current bonus provisions allow. Um, and.... increased, kind of along
with that, increased building coverage.
Salih/ (mumbled) Okay.
Russett/ So the .... the exact numbers I don't have, but generally that's what they.... they would be
required, based on what has currently been proposed.
Salih/ Okay.
Teague/ I think for the benefit of the new Council and maybe even for the public's sake, can you
just talk about, um, what it entails to rezone from the 44 to the, um, PRM?
Russett/ Yeah, that would ... that would have to go to, uh, the City Planning and Zoning
Commission for a review and recommendation to City Council. So it would be....it
would be an amendment to our map, our zoning map, and then a text of the code, as well.
So it would be two separate rezonings, um, that would pro .... that would go together
through that same process through.....through Planning Commission and to City Council.
Bergus/ Really basic question about the textual amendment to the zoning code, is it specific to
just that property? So it wouldn't be applied throughout the PRM zone?
Russett/ Um, we haven't really gotten into the details of what the amendment would look like,
but it would be .... we would wanna keep it narrow, so it would be associated with the
preservation of a historic structure, is the .... is the thought at this point.
Bergus/ But in theory then that maybe could be applied to other similar scenarios where you had
someone wanting to do something like this?
Russett/ I .... I guess if that's something the Council doesn't want us to explore we could ... we
could get it as narrow as possible.
Fruin/ And that's also one of the reasons why we like the PRM zone better than the, uh, the
current zone, is because the PRM is kind of a .... there's not a whole lot of PRM left. It's
a .... it's a zoning classification that's largely been phased out of the community, uh,
whereas the RM -44 is still widely used throughout the city. So I think we could tarrow it,
uh, narrow it, um, enough to where in all likelihood it would just apply to this property.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 18, 2020.
Page 10
Thomas/ And .... and PRM is planned residential multi -family, is that....
Russett/ Yeah, that's correct.
Mims/ Anne, can you tell me ..... I just got two or three questions here. By right the property
owner could raze all four of these properties, correct?
Russett/ Yes.
Mims/ Okay. And so with the grid that you had up there, keeping them separate.... they could
redevelop 410, 412 with a maximum of 24 units and they could redevelop 400 N. Clinton
and 112 E. Davenport with 24 units, correct?
Russett/ That's right, not considering... the other zoning regulations, such as parking and open
space.
Mims/ So those .... okay, so those could very well be reduced (both talking)
Russett/ Yes!
Mims/ (both talking) ...once you start getting into the nitty gritty of those issues. Okay. What .
about, um, would there be any restrictions in terms of how large that building is? In other
words, could somebody combine these say four parcels and put one huge building on
there, accommodating the parking and open space requirements.
Russett/ Yeah, they could. It could be a block scale building. That's 35 feet height maximum.
Um, it would be subject to our multi -family site development standards, but um, it could
be one building.
Thomas/ Was there any discussion of demolishing the apartment building behind the historic
building, as part of. ... (mumbled) scenario or was that ... not considered?
Russett/ We discussed that with the property owner very early on and there wasn't an interest to
do that.
Bergus/ Just so we don't lose site of it, I am interested in the, um, rehabilitation and salvage
recommendations from, um, I think .... was that the Friends of Historic Preservation that
brought that up? I don't know how other people feel (mumbled) those details.
Salih/Yeah, sure.
Thomas/ Yeah, I .... I thought there were a number of good recommendations without going
through them. I don't know that any of them .... I would say I disagreed with. I think
they're all worth considering. Personally.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 18, 2020.
Page 11
Teague/ So I know that, again, you have some questions for Council, and....
Fruin/ Well I think ... I think maybe the first one that could .... could end it all is are you
comfortable with the mass and scale as presented now, and if the answer is no, um, do
you think you could get comfortable with a .... a five -story or a four, you know, at what
point do you think you become comfortable? Is it three, four, five? Um, because I think
the rest is .... will kind of fall into place once we get a sense of your willingness to accept
scale.
Teague/ And I guess I .... I did state, you know the three things and that was one, goin' to the
five..... stories.
Mims/ Yeah, I'm not comfortable with six.
Taylor/ I'm not either.
Thomas/ I'm .... I'm not comfortable as it's presented. Again I don't know (laughs) you know, it
may be possible....with.... with a very different approach, in terms of building
articulation, the use potentially of open space to help with that articulation, but as
presented I ... I think it clearly would require, uh, a re.....a reworking.
Mims/ I guess where I also come down is, and this, you know, involves negotiation obviously,
is .... I .... I would hate to see us make a decision that, okay, you know, here .... here's our
line and the developer says, okay, forget it, I can't work with that, and then we end up
with all four of these properties razed, and end up with a 35 -foot high block scale
building, because I think then you're probably almost as bad off as anything else that
could be. So I guess I say that to say .... (mumbled) .... a whole lot of guidance, see what
else you can negotiate (laughs) I mean....
Thomas/ Yeah, I .... what you just described is .... is really the worst scenario, and uh, as much as I
think those of us who would like to preserve the building have, um, concerns about what
goes up next to it, the thought of that is even more problematic. So it ... you know, I have
been concerned, sort of a citywide basis, with the loss of our lot size type development,
and the more we end up consolidating and seeing block form buildings, that's a
transformational change. So I .... I do wanna try (laughs) aside from preserving this
building, the .... the scale of smaller buildings, I think, is an important .... uh, strategy we
should be exploring. And that can be accomplished in a larger project.
Teague/ From my perspective I really feel like, um, I would hope that the staff can convey that
this is just the start of the conversation. Hopefully with whatever we've talked about
today, uh, the developers clearly hear, um, you know, the many voices of Council and
that, um, they can find a .... a way to, um, maybe .... a path to give us somewhat what we
want, um.....for the community, you know, and um, so hopeful that you all will be able to
navigate.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 18, 2020.
Page 12
Bergus/ Did we give enough direction or did we have enough conversation among ourselves
about these specific things, like density, parking, and reduced open space? Should we
articulate that a little better?
Mims/ Yeah, I don't have a problem with reduced parking, particularly given the proximity to the
University. Um .... with the right design, I don't have a problem with increased density. I
do .... I'd be concerned about how much open space reduction we would give, cause I
think it is important for people to have some place, some space outside, so .... it's a bit iffy
for me on that one.
Bergus/ That's pretty much where I would be as well. I'd be okay reducing parking. My
concern, I would correlate my concern with the height and the scale of this building with
the lack of open space, right? It looks like they're just really trying to maximize no
setbacks, no open space, you know, less parking, um, and that .... that seems, um, too
extreme to me, so you know, I'd be willing like the height consideration has to relate, I
think, to that open space, like the concept of a taller building, as John was saying, maybe
done in a way that isn't so .... extreme.
Weiner/ I would agree with Susan and Laura. In some ways when I step back from this I look
and say, well, the .... the previous Council made a decision, and now we're in this
somewhat awkward position looking at those .... at those two buildings, because the
previous Council couldn't muster a super -majority for whatever reason, because of
property rights, so .... we .... we need to look at that and think about that as well, and I
agree with what the Historic Preservation Commission stated, which is I think that going
forward we should consider perhaps a more holistic approach to this sort of issue,
because this is not the first time it's come up. It won't be the last time it comes up.
Teague/ I do wonder if we have a little more discussion on increased density because, um, you
know, now .... they could go and .... you know, the square footage becomes really small in
order to in .... increase the number of occupants, um, so I don't know if people have any
comments about... about that. I .... you know, on one level I hear students saying, you
know, give me a closet (laughs) and I'll sleep in it, you know, as long as the rents are, you
know, low. Um,so I .... I think at least .... from my perspective, just to have some type of
intentionality about the conversation when it comes down to increased density, of course.
I don't know if they know what their market rate will be or the rates they'll have for the
properties, but I think that is somethin' that I ... I at least wanted to mention, that it is
important, um, the .... the density. I a1 .... I do foresee this always bein' a student, um...
you know, run and lived in, uh, property, and so, urn .... it's just the density, just need to
have a little intentional conversation surroundin' that.
Thomas/ Density's kind of a .... it's a complicated .... it's not even clear to me what... what....
what's the intent there when we say increase density, what are we .... what does that
mean? Do you have a .... did you have something....
Mims/ I mean I guess the way I would look at it is ... is staff is asking us are we willing to look at
density higher than what the current code is, and to me (both talking)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 18, 2020.
Page 13
Thomas/ How are we measuring density?
Russett/ Dwelling units per acre.
Thomas/ Units per acre (both talking)
Taylor/ Not the size (both talking)
Thomas/ ... the ... another way of measuring density would be occupancy levels, I mean there are a
number of three-bedroom units in these, in this proposal, which means fewer units, but a
fairly large number of occupants. So are we talking occupant density or unit density
(laughs) urn .... it's just a little unclear to me.
Russett/ It's dwelling units per acre.
Thomas/ Right.
Russett/ And, um....
Thomas/ Under the PRM and RM -44?
Russett/ Yeah, and ... and it...it does change, um .... the size of the unit.... changes. The density
calculation changes based on whether it's a one -bedroom, two-bedroom, or three-
bedroom unit. So the one -bedroom is .... allows the highest density, um, versus a three-
bedroom, which would be a lower density.
Teague/ Anything else? For staff? All right, thank you! All right! Any other comments on this
from Councilors? All right, we are going to move on to transit study! We're excited to
hear about this.
Transit Study Update:
Nagle -Gamin/ All right, thank you, Mayor. Good evening, Councilors. Darian Nagle-Gamm,
Transportation Services Department. I'm here to provide you with a brief update on the
transit study. If you can believe it, we're about halfway through the planning process. So
I'm excited to share some updates with you about where we're at and where we're going
from here!
Teague/ Great!
Nagle-Gamm/ First and foremost, just to revisit who's all involved in the transit study. So of
course Iowa City is lead agency, but we have partnered with Cambus, with the University
of Iowa, and with the City of Coralville. We've also reached out to many different
stakeholder groups in the community, and that's, uh, advocacy groups, um, economic
development organizations, schools, civic organizations, uh, various committees,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 18, 2020.
Page 14
sustainability groups. There's really been a lot of folks that we've reached out to in the
community who have, um, who have helped us along in this process. Nelson\Nygaard is
our consultant team that's been helping guide us through this process. Um, they've got
experience across the United States in helping communities just like ours, um, walk
through their transit studies and a revision of their transit system. And last but not least,
uh, the public has been a very important, uh, participant in the study, and we'll walk
through a little bit more about, um, what our public outreach has looked like. Um, also
I'd like to just revisit some of the goals with the transit study, um, to bring these to the
forefront of your mind and of course first and foremost we're really looking at ways that
we can increase ridership. So that means making transit more dependable for those who
rely on it every day, and we're making .... our goal is to make transit an easier choice for
those that have more mobility options, and we .... even laid down a very explicit goal, um,
and a .... and a high -reaching goal, but um, a .... doubling our ridership over the next 10
years. So it's pretty lofty, but uh, we think with the correct service design, um, and some
new initiatives, we ... we can ... we can get there. We also have a goal of working better
across our agencies. Of course we're really a three agency system, transit system in the
metro area, and we're increasingly connected and we have people traveling across our
metro area, um, every single day, so we're really trying to create a more streamlined
experience for our customers and make it, uh, easier and make things more similar across
our agencies. I would say one of our .... one of our biggest goals, um, besides increasing
ridership, you know, the question of how do you get to that increased ridership is really
removing barriers to transit use. So that's anything from improving our service levels, to
actually making it a service that meets people's needs, or better meets people's needs, to
improving our trip planning capabilities, um, improving information distribution, making
transit easier for people to understand, easier to access, um, you know, getting that data
out there, um, so the people don't have to memorize the system. They can, you know,
dial it up on their phone, it can be very easy, for people to choose transit. We also want to
make our transit stops more comfortable, and that could be anything from amenities like
benches or trash cans, some shelter, um, some of our new bus shelters have solar lighting
at night. That's been really well received from the community. So just how can we
improve those things so people are comfortable when they're at transit stops, and I would
say the last barrier that we're really looking to tackle is simplifying the system. Again, so
when people look at transit and it seems so complicated to them, so how can we
structurally make our transit system easier for people to use, easier for people to
understand. Course another goal ties right in with our climate action initiatives and our
climate action plan and that's just reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We all know that
transportation is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in this community, and
the climate action plan calls for us to enable a shift of 55% of vehicle trips to more
sustainable modes — biking, walking, transit comes to mind, um, to meet our greenhouse
gas reduction goals by the year 2050. And we don't wanna forget supporting the local
economy. I mean that's .... the transit system connects people to jobs, people to shopping
trips, people to social activities, every single day. Um, that keeps our local economy
running strong. So we wanna make sure that we are building a system for the future that
helps support that and grow that aspect, and then last but not least, leveraging emerging
technology. This is where things get kind of exciting because, um, you know, we're in, as
Councilman Thomas mentioned earlier, we're in a pretty exciting time in terms of
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 18, 2020.
Page 15
transportation, and things are going to look very different in the next few years. We're in
a time of transition and so it's a good point to stop and evaluate what sort of emerging
technologies are out there right now that we can leverage today to help make public
transportation and mobility better for our community. So those are our goals. I'm just
gonna quickly transition to what is included in ICATS, that's the Iowa City Area Transit
Study. You might see that acronym a few times. Uh, just to briefly sort of run down the
process here, but .... first and foremost, public outreach has occurred throughout the
process and I'll get a little bit more into detail on that ... on the next slide, but we've also
conducted a market analysis to understand where our transit riders are, uh, where our
potential transit riders are across the community. We have analyzed our existing service
levels and we've also developed some fixture service options and scenarios. Our
consultant team has taken a lot of that feedback we've heard from the community, and
we'll talk a little bit more about what those service scenarios might look like, and really
right now where we're at in the process is we are evaluating some future service options
and scenarios. So we're asking the community to do some .... some tough work and really
evaluate the system and some.... some actual alternatives, and let us know what, um, what
they think. And from that, we'll be developing recommendations for what the transit
system of the future might look like. So, public outreach, phase one. So I'm going to
rewind, take us all back in time to last fall, um, just to give you an update of, you know,
where.... how.... how we got to where we're at today. Um, so basically from September
to December we held approximately 20 -some stakeholder, outreach meetings. We had
three very well attended public open house meetings. We were able to sit down with
1,000 Iowa City transit riders, while they're on the bus, and talk to them about how, um,
how they use transit today, where're they going, um, what are the gaps they see in service
or what service improvements would they like to see. We were able to get one .... 1,300,
excuse me, uh, members of the public to submit a `design your own transit system'
survey, which was, um, really great. It helped us understand what the community's
priorities are for transit system enhancements relative to each other. Of course we all
know, um, any one of us could design the ultimate transit system with unlimited funds
and blank checks, but you know we .... we live in a world where we have, you know,
limited access to financial resources, so we really need to prioritize, and the community
really helped us walk through, uh, the 1,300, um, submissions. We were thrilled to see
that kind of participation. And then last but not least, operator and staff interviews. So
we sat down with our transit staff and said what do you think, I mean these are the people
that are on the road every day that talk to customers every single day. What do you see as
some things that we really need to take a hard look at in terns of our transit system. And
on top of those meetings, um, and those public outreach events, we got a lot of
communications and marketing. We put together a study website, an email list, um, did
many group presentations, just like this with anybody who would listen to me talk about,
uh, transit. Uh, we reached out to some social service agencies and advocacy partners
and had them, um, we had actually a partnership with the mobility coordinator at Johnson
County and the Community Transportation Committee, who actually took iPads out into
the community to our underserved folks, who are probably the hardest people to reach in
terms of getting that feedback, um, about transit, about transit use, and they were able to
bring back 125 surveys out of those `design your own system' surveys, which was about
10% of those. So we were really thrilled about that. We also had an extensive media
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 18, 2020.
Page 16
campaign. You probably saw some Facebook, Twitter, um, and also City media
campaign. The communications, uh, crew did an excellent job. There's many videos that
were out there that highlighted our transit system and our study and, um, really helped get
the word out, and of course we had legacy press, you know, the print and typical, uh,
historical news, television news and print, um, to get that word out, and really the goal for
all of that, uh, outreach last fall was really to just understand the community's mobility
priorities, um, currently, and where they wanted to go. So, what you see up here on the
computer is just an overview, uh, of. .... and I know it's sort of hard to read, so I'll read
some of the top ones to you, but this really summarizes the feedback we got from the
`design your own' uh, transit system survey, and this ... this is really kind of the one graph
that really shows you, that highlights, uh, what the community's desires are, sort of
stacked ranked from that first big public outreach...... push and I think the best way to
summarize it would be better weekend service was really a most desired improvement.
Uh, you could see Sunday service was at the top of the list. But also earlier and later
Saturday service. Uh, route and schedule information at stops, that one ranked very high.
Um, they want, the public wants to see more information, so they can walk up to a stop
and have some information there about when the buses are going to be coming. Uh,
another one, uh, that I was, uh, a little bit surprised at but also not surprised I suppose —
more lighting at major stops. Uh, judging by how well received the lighting in our new
transit shelters has been received by the community, uh, that one, you know, it's a clear
indicator that we need to do ... to be doing more of that. Frequent week day or rush hour
service, um, we did hear at .... both in the onboard survey and through the `design your
own system' survey that frequent service is, uh, the top of people's list. More frequent
service, so you think less about when the next bus is coming. You know you just get to a
stop and a bus is going to be there before too long. So that was at the top of both surveys.
Of course later week day service. We did hear from the community that they wanna be
able to take buses more places in the evenings, and then direct service from outlying
residential areas also was ranking high. More frequent Saturday service, more benches,
shelters. It's again those transit amenities, and I won't read `em all to you, but just to
give you a sense of what's sort of at the top of, um, the public's mind from that first big
public outreach push. So that brings us to today. So we're... right now we're in our
public outreach phase two, and that's really from January, um, until March, and really
what we're asking the public to do now is to review three alternate service scenarios and
then one sort of vision scenario, and I'll take you through `em on the next slide briefly,
but in terms of the outreach, we've presented those scenarios online. We've also, we had
three very well attended, um, public open house meetings. You can tell that the public
really cares. There was lines three, five, six people deep, um, from every Transit staffer
and every consultant that was in the room, um, and every City staffer who was in the
room to ask questions, um, give feedback. So we were really thrilled to have that kind of
engagement. We've also published all those meeting materials online for anyone to
review who wasn't able to attend. We have a formal survey online as well, where the
public can ... it's a lot to digest and I'll show you the maps in the next slide, but uh, it's a
lot for the public to digest even in one meeting. A lot of folks asked some questions,
pointed out some things, but they really needed to take those maps home and just study
them, which we understand. So we've provided an online survey, um, that's linked to our
website, where the community can take some time, review, respond to both the scenarios,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 18, 2020.
Page 17
or just individual route changes that they had comments on. We've also had, uh, for the
second, um, outreach push, we've had extensive social and City media campaign. Again,
the Communications' team has done a really great job getting that word out, and we're
again working with our community partners, as we did in the first round, to help make
sure those, uh, who may be .... who aren't gonna be the ones who come attend the
meetings or don't have easy access to, um, you know, a mobile device to take the survey
on that we're getting, uh, those folks ... we're getting those folks to the survey, to help `em
take it. So, in terms of those three scenarios, that we have, uh, we're asking the public
now for feedback on. They were developed based on the feedback that we heard
from .... from the community during our first public outreach push, and based on expertise
of our transit consultant staff and they basically.... each scenario has a different theme.
The first scenario's theme, and I know this is very small font, but the first one is
"frequency." So really the goal of that was to increase the frequency on the routes, um...
uh, to a point where 15 -minute service is what you could provide on some of our, uh,
most important arterial streets, in terms of transit service. I should, before I go any
further, I should mention too. All of these three scenarios were developed using our
current funding available. So basically what our consultant team did is they took our
current budget, they took all that feedback that we got from the community, uh, and all
their knowledge and expertise from .... from doing this across the country, and they ...they
developed these three scenarios, based on the financial resources we have available to us
today. So, it's sort of reimagining our transit system and these would ... Us would be no
additional dollars, um, this is what we could do today. So again, frequency, the theme of
the frequency service was really to provide more frequent service, and a couple things
you'll see between all the themes. It's kind of a theme that carries between the themes, if
you will, is that the .... the actual service was focused on arterials and our major streets,
um, to help get that frequency, which the community was asking for. Um .... you will also
notice that in some areas where we probably maybe had .... (mumbled) consider
overlapping routes or areas that were served by multiple routes, you could of seen those
combined to, um, to create more efficient transit system. And in some areas where
service was very low and ridership, that service has been reallocated to other areas. So
those are ways in which they took our existing finances and then they resorted them out,
based on the community priorities as they heard. Second, uh, scenario is, I think the
theme of that would be, uh, `simplified coverage,' and that's again trying to .... there's not
as much frequency as in the `frequency' scenario, but it's also trying to make, uh, routes
easier, simpler, uh, for .... and more efficient, but also easier for the community to
understand. And then the theme of the third scenario was, uh, `restructuring and
improving weekends and, uh, evening service.' So we did hear loud and clear that, um,
additional weekend service and weekend, excuse me. Additional weekend service and
evening service, later service during the evenings, was, um, towards the top of people's
lists. So this gets at that particular, um, this is a way to get at, um, increasing that service
level at night and on the weekends. In addition, this is the only scenario in which, um,
ha.....there is a Sunday service component to it. The Sunday service component that was
built in to this, in .... with using our existing finances, was a .... is a demand -response
service, where the City is more or less split into four quadrants, and um, to ... briefly give
you a .... a service overview, you would call for the service up to an hour before, you need
a little time, and there'd be one vehicle running in each quadrant of the city, and they
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 18, 2020.
Page 18
would all meet back at the downtown interchange once an hour. So that's how... that's
how, uh, that's how transfers would happen. So this was the only scenario under which
our current resources, we were able to fit a type of Sunday service into it, and we'll talk
more about some of those other options, but this is again, these are the three scenarios
that we took to the public and .... and they've been providing us feedback, um, on what
their thoughts are. So we also, and I've mentioned this a few times as well, but we also
asked the consultant team to help us walk through what we could .... what we could do to
enhance our services, if we had additional financial resources, um, allocated, uh, towards
our system, and they came up with all of these options on the screen. The first one that
you all know that we've been evaluating is zero fare transit. Um, the second one is
they... they came up with a scenario where they placed 15 -minute service on I I different
corridors, which would be pretty remarkable level of service. You really wouldn't have
to think a lot about transit service. You just have to be able to get to your nearest arterial
street. Um, so it'd be 15 -minute service during the day and the 30 -minute service during
the evening. That would be very, uh, high level, high quality, um, frequency of service.
Another option would be providing full fixed route service on Sundays, from 7:00 A.M.
to 9:00 P.M. and every 30 minutes. Uh, taking that service so it operates to midnight
daily. That would require additional resources, but again that was something that we
heard from the community. Another option would be to provide some sort of an on -
demand night owl, uh, service, uh, from 11:00 A.M. to 6:00 A.M., and this is for the folks
in the community that we heard from that have third -shift jobs. They don't necessarily
have .... transit system closes down at night and this would be an alternative, uh, for those
folks. Another enhanced service option is to provide some on -demand service in areas
that are not within a quarter mile of fixed routes. So one aspect of those three scenarios,
if you look at the maps a little closer, you will notice that it does, uh, in order to provide
the frequency, um, of service. Some .... the coverage area somewhat retracts from our
current coverage areas. So this is a way to help support those who live, uh, a greater
distance from .... from, um, the proposed transit system designs. Another service is a 30 -
minute Saturday service, from 7:00 A.M. until midnight. So that's every half an hour.
That would increase our, um, service levels to what we have today. And then it would go
later in the evenings, and then last but not least, a new cross-town route that connects,
um, key destinations in south and west Iowa City, without requiring a transfer downtown.
So those are .... those are things we heard from the community and the consultant team
has, uh, preliminarily begun to evaluate some potential options, um, for add-on services.
The startup capitol costs for all of these combined, um, is estimated conservatively and
preliminarily to be at 12 million at this point, and that's capitol costs. So that's what we
would need .... those buses that we would need to .... to get the full program rolling, and in
addition, um, all of those (mumbled) items would require about 18 million in ongoing
operational costs. That would be annual operational costs, and to put that into
perspective, our operational costs are between 7 and 8 million per year currently. So
it's .... it's, um, 100..... it's double, slightly over double, um, in terms of what our
operational costs are currently to date, to give you sort of a framework. All of this will
be, um, we'll be providing more details as we .... as we move through the transit study, on
the individual costs and the ridership benefits for each one of these so that, uh, you know,
we can sit down and.... and put some deliberation to each one of these and determine if
any of these are options that we wanna pursue for the community. Really quickly I'll...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 18, 2020.
Page 19
I'll zip through this, but other items. We aren't just evaluating the transit system design,
although that's the biggest part of it and that's what's occupying most of our time for the
last few months, but we're also again looking at ... we're doing a fare analysis, um,
including zero fare. We are, of course, developing strategies to improve our inter -agency
coordination, how can we work better with Coralville and Cambus in order to provide
service in our community. We are, um, asking the consultants to help us develop, uh,
electric vehicle or alternate fuel vehicles, um, there's multiple options out there currently.
A no or low -emission vehicle transition plan, so we're very excited about that. We're
also looking at interchange improvements. That's one thing we're hearing from the
community, um, is that, you know, we need more amenities and our interchange may be
....it's a great location but there's also some drawbacks to that location. So they're
helping us look at pedestrian access, um, operational flow, um, bus capacity, and you
know, that location in general, is that the ideal location for us. We're also looking at bus
stop improvements. Uh, both evaluation of what amenities are out there and what exists
at current bus stops, and also bus stop spacing guidelines. There's a .... there's a balance
between access and providing efficient transit, um, and so they're helping us to figure out
what that .... where that should be. We're also looking at just some general policies and
procedures, especially as they connect to our other community partners, and then of
course, um, you know, we're really curious about the innovative transit solutions that are
out there today and what we can do, um, how we can leverage those, and .... and provide
better transit. So, last slide, next steps! So phase two of public input, which is what
we're in right now, wraps in late February. So .... basically at the end of the week. Um,
so far we've had 800, um, people, uh, weigh in to our survey online, give us some
detailed feedback. So we're really looking forward to startin' to dig into that. Um, from
that point, we're.... once we get through all of the feedback that we've received and that
we've got from the public meetings and from our surveys on line, we'll be working with
the consultant team to develop a preferred scenario, uh, with the final recommendations
coming this summer and we expect to bring a plan to you this summer, uh, for your
consideration. I would say the earliest that the community could see any changes would
be fall of 2020, but that... seems like a really lofty goal. Speaking of lofty goals, that
might be a stretch. There's a lot that would have to go into, even implementing some of
these pieces, and it just ... it might be more realistic to think 2021, but um, but ... we're not
....we're not countin' it out yet. So we're still optimistic. And then of course depending
on what those priorities are that we identify, uh, implementation could ultimately be
phased. So it just....it's really going to depend on what we determine at the end of the
day is the right way forward, and what we can do, and uh, how .... how funding aligns
with all those things. So thank you for being so patient. I appreciate it. Let me know,
uh, if there's any questions I can answer for you.
Salih/ Uh, I really, you know, I'm very glad that you are at this step. This is really moving
forward and .... very happy to see this like moving. Um, my question is, just remind me
how many language you use for the survey?
Nagle -Gamin/ So, for ...for the survey, so the onboard survey, we had a print-out that we handed
out that was in English and Spanish. For the online surveys, they're Google Translate
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 18, 2020.
Page 20
translatable. So it was, uh, you could provide feedback, um, you could review using the
Google Translate option in ... any of a hundred languages, is my understanding.
Salih/ But why don't have Arabic language when you know that you have a big community who
speak Arabic in this community, and all of them, most of them, I can't say 99%, they use,
uh.... you know, the .... the pass to go to Kirkwood Community College and do this, and
by the way, I don't .... how many .... how many pages is survey?
Nagle -Gamin/ The survey .... this round of the survey is long. The pages ... is long, because we
offer an opportunity, uh (both talking)
Salih/ No, the first one, the one that (both talking)
Nagle -Gamin/ The first one, oh goodness, I don't remember. Maybe .... 10 pages, because it's
printing off a web form, so there's a lot of space in between them, but the actual content, I
would say, is probably ...a couple pages long, two, three. Sort of a multiple choice(both
talking)
Salih/ Because this is really not .... like a lot money to translate those kind of document. We ... we
translate.... one hour of translation is cost $25 .... and I don't know why the City is not
doing that. If we wanna include everyone. I ... I ask you before, I guess long time ago, I
said we (unable to understand) meeting at the County, and I said we should include some
kind of language, Arabic language, Spanish language, and I said if you need.....like
people who can translate, we have, and I guess this, you know, kind of study have a lot of
budget into it and I thinks that you can include the survey. Now we are missing really
people who don't speak English and they ride the bus. And this is not fair, and I
(mumbled) somebody else told me that when they went to this kind of meeting, those
people wasn't there. Because I don't know, and you are not providing translation. We
talked about this a lot. I don't know why the City's not moving forward on that. But this
is something that you need to like keep in mind on it. Right now those three senarios you
know, it is very important for those people to choose one of them and now you are really
far away in the process. I don't know how you can include those people right now. But
my recommendation is to reach out to those people.
Nagle -Gamin/ Absolutely! We did have, um, if I can.....if I may respond, we did have, um,
instructions for using Google Translate for our first round of public outreach on the
website. So .... we did, we did put some posters up for this round of public, um, for this
round of public input for transit study. We did have flyers on the buses in Arabic,
Chinese, Spanish, French.....and there was one more that's escaping me right now. So
....so yes, while it's .... it's much.....it proved to be very difficult to translate in a time
sense to individually translate each one of those documents that were online for our
surveys, but we were hoping to rely on the use of Google Translate, which sort of does it
automatically.
Salih/ That doesn't make sense for Arabic. Because Arabic is from left to right. It can make
sense for Spanish. Uh, it can make sense for other language, but for Arabic, because
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 18, 2020.
Page 21
Arabic is like from right to the left. It really mix up the word and you cannot do it, and I
guess City need to spend money for that! There is people here, professional on
translating document. If you don't know them I can show it to you. You know, or I can
give you the contact information. We at the Center for Worker Justice, we do that. We
pay them money so they can translate document for us and I think the City better do that,
if that organization can do it. Those people are taxpayer. They need to be included, and I
guess if they are paying taxes we can spend little bit money so we can reach out to them.
Teague/ I don't know, I wanted to at least make some comments on the study. This is very
(laughs) uh, lofty (laughs) to say the least. Very, um, a lot of the things that you've
mentioned, um, were some of the things that I didn't even think was a part of the study.
So I do appreciate that. I was happy to hear about the 11 corridors with 15 -minute, uh,
service during the day. And 30 at night. Um .... just in theory initially that makes a lot of
sense tome. Um .... one of the things that I'm hopin', and I .... and I think, um .... urn....
Maz, do bring up a important, you know, concern is, um .... along the way, you know, she
mentioned, you know, individuals that were potentially excluded because of language.
One of the things that .... is.....that I kinda zone in on is just, um, what .... what is
somethin' in the study that I really wanna make sure is kind of like central, uh, to staff's
knowledge and to,uh, even our consultant's, uh, knowledge, and so that's somethin' that I
do think that the Council, uh, really should be considerin', if there is a hot topic item that
you really want to see a part of this transit study, or you really want, um, maybe there's
somethin' that hasn't been mentioned, that you want to talk about, um, that you kinda
make sure that it's in the mix, and on the, urn .... that staff is aware, so that our consultants
could at least navigate that, um, on some level. Now of course individual Councilors,
you know, there's somethin' to be said about that, except, um, I do believe that we don't
wanna come to, um, on the study as bein' presented this summer and then there's a whole
new thought process, that kinda, um, either the full Council get .... get onboard with or
we're having, um, individuals kinda, you know, um.....present a new, uh, item that might
be of interest to navigate. Nevertheless, uh, I'm very pleased to hear, um, the public
engagement, the transit riders, um, we're also, you know, bein' on the bus, engagin' with
the transit riders. Um, I think that's positive. I was really impressed that the staff was
actually a part of this, cause sometimes I think, um, we might, um, rely on consultants,
you know, to give us data, um, and .... and they do great from statistical data, but this was
actually including the staff, and so I just appreciated that aspect as well. Um, one of the
things that I saw, and it was at the bottom, and of course, um, it...it kind of hurt my heart
a little bit, where it talked about, um .... improve access to stops, and so when I hear the
word `access' I think of ADA and so of all that list, ADA was at the bottom, and so, um,
that's somethin' that I think that, and I don't know, who, you know, who took the polls,
but I think that ADA is somethin' that we must plan for, and so .... that's my comments.
Nagle -Gamin/ Any other comments?
Thomas/ One .... one question I have is, you know, the .... the goal of the increased ridership,
doubling in 10 years. Is .... is that being tracked, and the alternatives, and .... you know, all
the thinking that's going into how we revise the system?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 18, 2020.
Page 22
Nagle -Gamin/ Yes. I would say one of the explicit goals is to create, uh, a system that has the
service levels that will enable a doubling of our ridership. Another factor, so ... yes, so
increasing frequency is .... is a big piece of that, um, that's a .... it's a clear winner in terms
of improving, uh, and increasing ridership levels. But also, um, zero fare is another, um,
way that communities across the country are really taking a hard look, um, at
reevaluating their transit systems, and the preliminary estimates we're seeing from
communities who have transitioned in the last 10 years, or transitioning now is we could
expect 40 to 60 to 70% ridership increases, and sometimes it's pretty .... it's usually pretty
quick. Um, there's a quick, um, increase when .... when the fares are eliminated and then
there's.... there's been a steady increase in the data I've seen. Um, so I think those two
things, and providing the service at the right locations is also another piece of it. So it's
that, uh, market analysis that we did is not just telling us where our transit riders are at
now, but also where our potential transit riders are at and providing the right level of
service, uh, at the right places, um .... would also go a long way towards helping us reach
that goal.
Thomas/ Is it, yeah I mean .... we're not spread out over the 25 -square miles of Iowa City evenly,
so .... I mean there's... there are inherent advantages to try to ... in my mind, improve service
where you have the higher densities. You know, so it's .... it's, and then also projected
growth. You know, we had a presentation by staff recently about where can we
anticipate, um ... at least potentially, where .... where within the current limits of Iowa City
now can we expect to see growth, and at what levels, and I ... I was astonished to hear that
over, I think, 50% of our potential growth within the city limits is within the Riverfront
Crossings area. So I mean in terms of looking ahead, the way in which our population is
distributed in Iowa City could change dramatically. So how that might be reflected in...
at least our understanding of our mobility options, of which transit is one of them.
Nagle-Ganun/ Right. I .... I think to that point specifically, you see an increased level of service
on Gilbert Street.
Thomas/ Uh huh.
Nagle-Gamm/ Um, specifically to help cant' that forecasted growth, um, from Riverfront
Crossings District into the downtown.
Thomas/ Uh huh.
Nagle-Gamm/ So you'll see that theme, um, throughout.
Thomas/ Okay.
Fruin/ Just say real quick as we wrap this up, um, as you start to plan ahead for your
deliberations on this, this is probably one of those very rare items that will require, uh, a
special meeting of Council. We'll see how it all comes to ... to .... to be at the end, but I
don't think this is the type of item that you would put on an agenda, um, and .... and ask
folks to come and, you know, wait an hour or two for that agenda item to be called.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 18, 2020.
Page 23
You're probably going to look at a special work session, uh, maybe two, uh, to be able to
fully receive the report, allow the public to receive the report, and then I fully expect
there will be a lot of public comment on this. Um, and probably a lot of emotion behind
that public comment. So we'll have to get into that ... that as the report wraps up, but um,
as we look into summer and fall, just know that we may need, um, some special
meetings, uh, when .... I'd say when the full Council's here, to ... to be able to, um, fully
consider that and take that public input.
Teague/ Anything else?
Weiner/ With respect to languages, um, I ... I think there are ways to .... to approach it even now,
which could include reaching out to certain community.... community leaders or
community groups, uh, the .... the Sudanese community, the ... the Congolese community,
others, if we believe, if we have reason to believe that they've, uh, been in particular
under -represented and they are probably heavy users of the community. I think there are
also ways to ameliorate that.
Salib/ I can help you on that for those communities if you want to.
Nagle -Gamin/ Thank you!
Clarification of Agenda Items:
Teague/ Great. Thank you so much! Yes! All right, let's move on to clarification of agenda
items.
Thomas/ I have notes here about, um .... Item .... 9.h. and 91, which are the .... parking restrictions
in, um, on Raven Street and Elmridge, uh, had some questions about that. So I don't
know if perhaps pulling them from the consent calendar so we could.... discuss them
separately?
Teague/ We can certainly do that. Is there anything you want to mention now?
Thomas/ Well I .... I'm .... concerned with the process (mumbled) that was taken in terms of....
outreach and engagement with those residents on those two streets, and .... um.....
understanding better what that .... what that process was.
Taylor/ We certainly received a lot of, um, info .... emails from .... from residents, so I think it
would be logical to pull it and discuss it.
Teague/ And that would be 9.g. and 9 .... wait.
Thomas/ (several talking) H and I.
Teague/ H and I.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 18, 2020.
Page 24
Salih/ (unable to understand) I will be recuse myself from Item #14. (mumbled) Center for
Worker Justice is one of the (mumbled)
Teague/ Okay. Any other items? I did just wanna mention, um, not to get into any discussion on
Item l l.c., but just 12 E. Court Street. I warm just mention to the Councilors that, um,
you may have received, um, four.... potential, um, amendments to the resolution before
you, so this might be your first time kinda seein' the language, just to look over it, see if
there's any concerns with the language. We will navigate that in our meeting, but I just at
least wanted to mention that, um .... before we go into the meetin', but of course
discussions on any of this, I really think we should wait for the public, um, so that they
can hear it as well.
Salih/ Sure!
Information Packet Discussion [February 6, February 13:
Teague/ All right! Seein' there is nothin' else on .... the formal agenda, um, info packet for
February 6`".
Mims/ I'll just mention IP3, the budget, um, compliance document. There's a lot of, if you take
a few minutes even just to skim through that, there's a lot of information there. Um...
you know, just property valuations, largest property tax payers, etc., um, just.... there's a
lot of really good statistics in there, I think especially if you go back .... I don't know...
how long have we been doing this, Geoff? Have we .... has this been a long time, annual
thing?
Fruin/ I don't know. I'd have to defer to the Finance staff (laughter)
Bockenstedt/ We started that when we adopted the new debt, uh, management policy.
Mims/ Okay.
Bockenstedt/ Guessin' it was about four years ago maybe.
Mims/ Yeah, thanks, Dennis, but I think if you go back and look at it annually, and just kinda
look at `em side by side and do some comparison, it just gives you a good idea of how
some of these statistics change in terms of, you know, our valuations and, you know, our
gross numbers in terms of property taxes, etc., so .... definitely worth spending a little time
on.
Teague/ All right, moving on to IP .... for February 13a'.
Mims/ Just a reminder, IP6. Is the whole Council involved in that meeting tomorrow?
Fruin/ Yes.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 18, 2020.
Page 25
Mims/ Okay, that's what I thought. (mumbled) so the ... with the School District on the form
based code. Just a reminder to everybody.
Council updates on assigned boards, commissions, and committees:
Teague/ Anything else from IP? February 13'? All right! Movin' on to Council updates, on
assignment.... on assigned boards, commissions, and committees, and if I am correct,
we're gonna start with Councilor Bergus today!
Bergus/ All right, well, uh, you know I serve on the board for the UNESCO City of Literature,
and um, the One Book, Two Book Festival is happening this weekend. There is a
banquet recognizing student authors on Friday evening, and then festivities all day
Saturday, and then additional, um, student authors speaking on Sunday at Macbride
Auditorium. So .... um, definitely check out the City of Literature's website for the
schedule of that, but that .... that I think was the majority of what we've covered in our
last meeting. Um .... and also, uh, the .... serve on the ICAD board and we have the, um,
State of the Schools informational session on the 27th at the Englert. Um, which is just an
update for the entire community. Any... any member of the public is welcome to attend
that.
Thomas/ Nothing for me.
Mims/ Nothing for me either.
Salih/ Yeah, nothing for me. Haven't met.
Taylor/ Nothing for me.
Weiner/ I sat in on a meeting of the Police Community Review Board, release the portion of it
that I could sit in on before they went into executive session, just to have a chance to
meet the people and introduce myself as the liaison. (mumbled)
Teague/ All right! And I don't, there's nothin' for me, except I will be part of the One Book, Two
Book on ... on Sunday, and so lookin' forward to that opportunity, so ... (both talking) Yeah!
If there's nothin' else then we will see you at 7:00! Yes!
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of February 18, 2020.