Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-02-18 TranscriptionFebruary 18, 2003 Council Work Session Page 1 February 18, 2003 Council Work Session 5:30 PM Council: Champion, Kanner, Lehman, O'Donnell, Pfab, Vanderhoef; Wilburn arrived 5:35 Staff: Atkins, Dilkes, Franklin, Helling, Kart, Kelsay, Matthews, Winkelhake TAPES: 03-17, SiDE TWO; 03-18, SiDE ONE REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS Lehman/OK, folks, we need to get started. We're going to do the work session first. I don't see Karin here yet, so why don't we do the review of agenda items first, rather than Zoning items. Are there any comments on Agenda items? Atkins/Minor delay. Lehman/Well, the minor delay may take care of Agenda items. IP4 NEWSPAPER KIOSKS MEMORANDUM Champion/Well, I was going to ask Steve, and I don't think (can't hear) but if we have two minutes, I'll use it. About the kiosks downtown. Atkins/Uh-huh. Champion/Why don't we just offer those free and hope people will use them even though they're paying for them and not using them. Atkins/The only trouble we have, I think, with doing that is--- Kanner/I'm going to go recnse myself if Steve has a comment. Atkins/...he is managing them--- Franklin/Sorry, I got--- Atkins/If he put something in, I don't like what you--and I want your space, I take it out. It's not out of the question, Connie. Unless we're going to, again, I think as you understood the memo, unless we're willing to regulate news racks, we're simply not going to get anywhere with those. Champion/It's just a thought. Atkins/Oh, there's still there. They aren't going away and--- Lehman/ All right, we're going to take the five. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 18, 2003. February 18, 2003 Council Work Session Page 2 O'Donnell/Be very careful about--- Atkins/And we were not really going to rash out and make any dramatic changes. When is it up, Marian, August? What is it? Kart/No, March 1. Atkins/March 1 ? OK. Karr/I think the other thing is, Connie, they are secured with the coin mechanisms, and then you can't just leave them open, there has to be some--- Champion/Oh, no, they should still be secured. People could opt to have one. Kart/OK. Champion/Publication. Karr/And then how--- Champion/You just couldn't go and use them. Karr/And it would just be as Steve had said then, how would you regulate first-come, first-serve, and how many? Atkins/We'll have to think of some other ideas and I think that's what you're telling us, and we will. Chan~pion/A lottery. Pfah/Lottery, yeah. Atkins/Yeah, a lottery could do it. Yeah. It's just, we want someone to be responsible for it. Champion/Oh, right. Atkins/If they're not, then we will we be--- Champion/ Oh, it would have to be an acceptable publication. It can't be, you know. Atkins/You see, now you get yourself in trouble when you say "acceptable publication." (Laughter) Kan'/I think you should schedule it for a work session if you want to talk about it. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 18, 2003. Febmary 18, 2003 Council Work Session Page 3 Lehman/Any other Agenda items? 3. f.(4) CORRESPONDENCE. MARC MOEN (THE MOEN GROUP) OFFER TO PURCHASE VACANT LOT BETWEEN THE OLD CAMPUS AMOCO STATION AND THE MILL Vanderhoef/Yes. On the e-mails that we received from the public, there was an interest in purchasing the vacant lot between Campus Amoco and The Mill. Lehman/The parking lot. Vanderhoef/Uh-huh, the parking lot. And I would suggest perhaps that that be talked about at the Economic Development Committee and then brought to Council for looking at it or talking about it. Atkins/So you know where we are, we're having a meeting, in fact, tomorrow with staff, just to work up what the issues are and bring it to you. We were surprised to get the proposal and we will get you some information to you. Vanderhoef/OK. Atkins/We're not ready. I'm not ready to even recommend anything. Vanderhoef/No. I'm not either. It's just something I think we need to talk about. Atkins/We are following up, Dee, fairly shortly. Kanner/One of those potential issues are that if it were bought, they suggest that it remain a parking lot, which would mean we'd have to change zoning downtown, because you can't have a (can't hear)--- Atkins/(can't hear). That's right. Lehman/Well, Steve, I would suggest that's probably become a work session item. Atkins/Just give us a little time to look at it. Lehman/OK. OK, any other Agenda items? Council needs to--turn on the mic--I guess ~ve got them on. OK. We'll do Planning and Zoning items, Karin. PLANNING AND ZONING a. CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PtJBLIC HEARING FOR MARCH 11 REGARDING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 6, ARTICLE M, ACCESSORY USES AND BUILDINGS TO CHANGE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR CItILDCARE HOMES. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 18, 2003. February 18, 2003 Council Work Session Page 4 b. CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC ItEARING FOR MARCH 11 ON AN ORDINANCE REZONING 2.8 ACRES FROM FACTORY BUILT HOUSING RESIDENTIAL (RFBIt) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING OVERLAY 12 (OPDH-12) AND AN OPDIt PLAN FOR SADDLEBROOK ADDITION PART 2 LOCATED ON TItE EAST SIDE OF HEINZ ROAD EAST OF PADDOCK BOULEVARD. (REZ02-00019) c. CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC ItEARING FOR MARCH 11 ON AN ORDINANCE CItANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM CB-2, CENTRAL BUSINESS SERVICE ZONE TO CB-5, CENTRAL BUSINESS SUPPORT ZONE FOR BLOCK 67 OF THE ORIGINAL TOWN PLAT, EXCEPTING THE 6,000 SQUARE FOOT PROPERTY AT 130 NORTH DUBUQUE STREET. (REZ03-00006) Franklin/The first items are setting public hearings, the first one setting a public hearing for March 11 th with an ordinance amendment regarding childcare homes. The second is also setting a public hearing for March 11 th on a rezoning of 2.8 acres, you know, the Saddlebrook Development office, Heinz Road. The third setting a public hearing on March 1 lth on a rezoning from CB-2 to CB-5 of the block that is defined by Dubuque Street, Market Street, Linn Street, and Jefferson Street. d. CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR MARCH 11 ON AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM CB-2, CENTRAL BUSINESS SERVICE ZONE TO CB-5, CENTRAL BUSINESS SUPPORT ZONE, FOR A 6,000 SQUARE FOOT PROPERTY AT 130 NORTH DUBUQUE STREET. (REZ02-00021) Franklin/And them item d is--- Karmer/Karin, can you briefly explain that for the public so if someone wants to appear at the hearing they have some insight on that? Franklin/Yes. Let me go to the next item because the two--they're tied together. Which is a rezoning on a particular property from CB-2 to CB-5. That's 130 North Dubuque Street. That's the property that was a gas station. It's been kind of a parking lot for a little while. It's in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Dubuque Street and Market. We were approached by a potential buyer of that property who wishes to redevelop the site to put a building on the site--because o£the constraints on the site, has requested the CB-5 zoning. We then looked at that entire block. The staffhad been looking at the whole area as we go through our Development Code review as to whether CB-5 might be more appropriate for that are instead of CB-2. So, it was kind of a confluence of circumstances, and what has come out of the Planning and Zoning Commission's deliberations is that the entire block be recommended for rezoning from CB-2 to CB-5. It allows a greater intensity of development. The parking requirements are different in CB-5 than in CB-2. They are less constraining to development, and so that was the conclusion of the Planning This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 18, 2003. February l 8, 2003 Council Work Session Page 5 and Zoning Commission. Pfab/Karin, I don't know if this is the time to ask a question on that or not. Is parking, you say the parking will be less constrained? Franklin/Less constraining to development. That is, that the requirements are not as great in CB- 5 as they are in CB-2. Pfab/Where are the people going to park if it develops? How do you get around that? Franklin/Well, there are parking facilities fairly proximate in Plaza Towers, which is not that far away from this site. We have some public parking lots in the area, although I will admit that those are full. The question really comes down to whether on this particular, the particular piece of property in the comer, whether you want to have that developed, whether you want to have it retained as a surface parking lot or as development. And our approach was that development was in the greater public interest than leaving it as a parking lot. Pfab/I think you're right. And also I was just thinking--the University parking (can't hear) are not terribly far away. You have some--- Franklin/Yeah. Pfab/...like you go northwest. OK. Franklin/Yeah. I mean, it does add to some congestion but it's downtown or it's very close to downtown. We are looking more at the Northside Marketplace as a part of downtown as opposed to not. Pfab/I think that's a good idea. Kanner/And what is the, these perimeters of the block? Franklin/Market, Dubuque, Jefferson, Linn. So much of the property in that block is already developed and is unlikely to redevelop in the foreseeable future, because you've got churches and then Brewery Street. Kanner/Well, we lost one church. We could be losing another church. Franklin/It's possible. Kanner/A lot more pressure on (can't hear) think (can't hear) e. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE REZONING 1.6 ACRES FROM COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC-2) TO PUBLIC (P) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1828 LOWER MUSCATINE ROAD. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 18, 2003. February 18, 2003 Council Work Session Page 6 Franklin/Item e is a public heating on an ordinance to rezone 1.6 acres from Community Commercial to Public (P), Lower Muscatine Road. This is the old Hardee's property that was purchased by Kirkwood Community College. This just makes it consistent with our Zoning ordinance. f. PUBLIC HEARING ON A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO INCLUDE THE UPDATED JCCOG ARTERIAL STREET PLAN. Franklin/Item fis a public hearing on a resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan to include the updated JCCOG Arterial Street Plan. This is a housekeeping matter as much as anything. This has gone through JCCOG, has been adopted by JCCOG, and it makes it pan of our Comprehensive Plan. g. CONSIDER A PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING OVERLAY (OPDIt-5) PLAN FOR TItE PENINSULA NEIGHBORHOOD BY AMENDING THE PENINSULA NEIGHBORHOOD CODE. (REZ02-00024/SUB02-00027) (FIRST CONSIDERATION) Franklin/Item g is first consideration on the amendments to the Peninsula Regulating Plan and Peninsula Code that Bob went over the details of that with you last time. There was included in the packet the redefinition of"backyard." Vanderhoef/Thank you. h. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE VACATING PORTIONS OF MADISON STREET, DAVENPORT STREET, AND BLOOMINGTON STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY. (VAC02-00008) (PASS AND ADOPT) Franklin/Item h is pass and adopt on an ordinance vacating portions of Madison, Davenport, and Bloomington Street rights-of-way. This is in conjunction with our agreement with the University relative to the water plant property. i. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF RUPPERT HILLS, IOWA CITY, IOWA. (SUB02-00025) j. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF WINDSOR RIDGE, PART 17A, IOWA CITY, IOWA. (SUB02-00028) Franklin/Item i, Ruppert Hills final plat, and Item j, Windsor Ridge final plat, should both be deferred. Ruppert Hills deferred indefinitely, although we're hopeful that that will be resolved by the March 1 lth meeting, but they've requested indefinite referral; j, to defer to March 1 lth. Any questions? Lehman/Thank you, Karin. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 18, 2003. February 18, 2003 Council Work Session Page 7 Franklin/You're welcome. COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS a. AIRPORT COMMISSION Lehman/OK. Appointments. The first appointment that we have is the Airport Commission. I believe there were four applicants. O'DonnelI/I'd like Hartwig, I think--- Lehman/With Randy Hartwig? O'DonneI1/Right. Vanderhoef/I'll second that. Karmer/I thought Gene had a good presentation on the phone. I liked what he had to say. I think he's going to have a disinterested seat on the Airport. I think we need to have something not as directly involved with owning airplanes or flying out there. He's a little bit removed, but he still has that expertise. I think that's the kind of appointments we need out there. Lehman/OK. Anybody else? Champion/Who did he nominate? O'Donnell/Randy Hartwig. Lehman/Gene Greb--right, Steven? Kanner/Yes. Lehman/OK. Well, how many would support Randy Hartwig? Did you--and Gene? Randy will be our appointment. I don't disagree with your comment, Steven; I really feel that Randy is a very solid addition, be a really good Commission member. b. AIRPORT ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Lehman/Airport Zoning Board of Adjustment--we had no applications. Did we? c. AIRPORT ZONING COMMISSION Lehman/Airport Zoning Commission--no applications. d. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Io~va City Council Meeting of February 18, 2003. February 18, 2003 Council Work Session Page 8 Lehman/Historic Preservation Commission--no applications. AGE 21 AND OVER ENTRANCE TO BARS (1P1 UNDER 21 ORDINANCE MEMORANDUM) Lehman/OK. The next item is 21 Ordinance. Eleanor? And we have a memo from Eleanor in our packet. Dilkes/Well, you have a memo from me basically just outlining the bigger issues that I'm going to need some direction on if you decide to go with the 21 Ordinance. I don't know if you want to have a discussion generally about whether that's something that you want to do or not. I mean, I don't want to get into the details of it till you all have your philosophical discussion about it. Lehman/I think we really need to decide, number one, is this something that we would wish to pursue. If it is something we'd wish to pursue, I think we need to give Eleanor some indication of what sort of guidelines would be used and those I think you've identified in your memo to us. So, what's the pleasure of the Council? Champion/Well, I certainly have supported 21 for several years now, and I think it's time for us to stop and look at it seriously since we understand totally that we have an alcohol problem downtown, and we've tried to make ordinances to help correct that. And I think they're ordinances that really just skirt the issue to make us feel like we're doing something, and they make it complicated for everybody else involved whose not breaking the law. So, I definitely support the 21. i think it's a healthy approach for the community and for young people. Karmer/I would agree that I think we're skirting the issue although I would take a different approach. I think again the answer is not to ban adults from cultural gathering places, but to look at this as a public health issue that affects people of all ages. There's certainly some abuses of younger people that stand out, of alcohol and cigarettes, and I think we have to continue to put resources into that deal with those programs. So, I think the answer is not to ban people that under the age of 21 from the bars. I think we have to look at other approaches. I don't think that's going help in the long run. We've heard testimony that it could drive it and probably will to other places. And so we have to look at it in a holistic manner, I would say. Lehman/OK. It's one to one. Vanderhoef/In response to that, I want to keep reminding the citizens of Iowa City that, yes, we have a high population of young people in this town, but because we do allow young folk under 21 to be in our drinking establishments, we also seem to attract a lot of young people from other towns and other communities, who think if they get down here with a large group of people in the establishments that they, too, will be able to use their fake This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 18, 2003. February 18, 2003 Council Work Session Page 9 IDs and what-have-you to get alcohol. So I want to be real clear that this is not just a student issue, that this is an overriding issue for many communities around whose young people come this way. And when we first started talking about alcohol over-consumption about a year and a half ago, we did get a lot of e-mails from parents, in particular, from other communities that said this is not something that we want our young people to participate in; however, they do come in to use our theaters and so forth, so they are already in town and I have given the ordinances that we have made and the changes made, a year and a half in here, and yet the PAULAs are up considerably, which means more in my mind in the enforcement that we have insisted upon from our police department, not because they were shirking it before, but we were also trying to put some new things in place. At the time that that happened, we certainly heard from a lot of young people who were talking about moving parties out into the neighborhoods and we had done some addressing on nuisance problems in neighborhoods, so I think that can be addressed by an enforcement there. But one of the things that really struck me from the young people was that they want a place where they can dance. And, personally, I love to dance and I think it is a very healthy activity for young people, and the previous experience in this town and in other cities where they allowed young people into the bars, they chose to go dance in the places where there were bars, so any establishment that tried to come forward at that time and be a nonalcoholic venue couldn't make it as a profitable business. So I would hope that we could go forward with the 21 and that we could encourage a dance venue of some description in the downtown area for the under 21. Lehman/OK. Pfab/I can't see any other way, and it's not something that since I'm not, I wouldn't do a very good justice to the liquor industry if they had to depend on my business. But, so I don't pretend I'm an expert, but I see no other way. This, as much as I wish it wasn't necessary, but I think the necessity to stop the underage drinking in the taverns is, it's the only way to do it is stop it at the door. And, yeah, the other question I have is how, are we going to be able to make it unprofitable most to the people that try to get in that are under 21 and the business establishments that invite them and encourage them and assist them to get in. What are going to be the penalties? Lehman/Well, I think those are issues we have to deal with. All I want to know now is if we have a majority of the Council that's interested in pursuing the 21 ? Pfab/Because they, if they, they have to be substantial to make it work. Lehman/I don't think there's any question about that. Pfab/OK. Yes, I support. O'Donnell/This is an unusual position for me because everybody's said something that I may agree with. This has always been about with me, putting Iowa City on an even playing field with surrounding communities. I do feel that we have an Alcohol Ordinance in place This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 18, 2003. February 18, 2003 Council Work Session Page 10 right now. I read in the paper where we had 2600 PAULAs last year. Is that correct, Steve? Lehman/Twenty-two. Atkins/It was 2200 or 2300 at least, Mike, something like that. O'Dolmell/OK. One of the statistics vacant in that figure was the number of people picked up for fake I.D.s. I think that would tell us more of a story. I really don't think we've given this Alcohol Ordinance enough time to see if it is, indeed, going to work, and I think that we're really being kind of short-sighted if we don't understand that the same fake I.D. that buys you a beer inside will get you in the front door. I would like to not rush into this thing and let the Alcohol Ordinance that we do have in place have an opportunity to see what effect it shows on the conmmnity. Wilburn/I'm willing to go ahead and go for it with the 21 Ordinance. I see it as, you know, we've been discussing this for, you know, a couple years now, and I see it at this point as a question of role. There are others in the community that will play a role in terms of community values and parental role, that type of thing. But the question for me at this point is does the City Council allow our local law in this case to be out of sync with the State law. The State law that says point one. So the question is do we want to go ahead and look the other way with some of the enfomement issues that this brings up? We arrived at what we all agreed to try as a result of, I remember, Ernie, you asking the liquor license holders to come up with a solution and they could not and came back to us and said you'll have to pass something; we have tried this. And so since then it's been a time for the community to wrestle with this issue and decide, you know, what role they want the City to play. There's always going to be a role for, you know, parents and, you know, treatment facilities to deal with some of the other negative problems that arise out of this. But for us, you know, I think it's come down to whether or not we want to look that 18 to 21, overlook that folks having access, increased access. Will it create some other enforcement issues? I think throughout this process that we've gone through over the past year and a half, two years, of having law enforcement work a little bit more closely with the bar owners, I think that process can be helped carded out to some of the neighborhoods, if indeed more issues come up in the neighborhoods. And I think we've set the message that you will enforce folks that are having a problem with their drinking. So I would think that in terms of exemptions, that type of thing, to me, there have been many other things where if you've been accompanied by a parent, guardian or spouse that that term of responsibility has since traveled along with the parent. So that would be one thing that I would be willing to take a look at as this gets drafted. O'Donnell/I do want to make one thing clear. I do support enforcing the law, and it is against the law to drink until you're 21. Wilburn/Mm-hmm. O'Dormell/It's not against the law to be in a place to dance and have a burger. And I did, I was This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 18, 2003. February 18, 2003 Council Work Session Page 11 thinking about this over the weekend, and you know, an idea I had was that all the bars come up with kind of a uniform marking--a green band and a red band. Red band, you're of age; green band, you're not; or vice-versa, however you want to do it. But have them do that. I think it would be easier and the bands could even go from establishment to establishment. But, once again, Iowa City seems always to be on the cutting edge of everything and I wot[ld like to see this not just happen in Iowa City. Champion/Well, it feels like--- Wilburn/If I could finish speaking, I thought--- Champion/...I'm probably done. Wilburn/...and I'm sorry. The only other piece I would add is I know for some students it seems as if a right is being taken away, a right that they deserve. But it always hasn't been the case that the, you know, the age at which folks were allowed in has fluctuated over the years. I remember coming to town and there were fewer bars then, but if you were 18, 19, 20, you could not get in, or there were some folks would let you in after a certain hour. So at that time also there were some other venues for those who were not drinking. So perhaps the market will help take care and allow for this, kind of like what Dee was getting at. O'Dormell/Hope so. Wilbum/Yep. Lehman/When we did the last Alcohol Ordinance, it was after a tremendous amount of discussion. I believe at one time we had a meeting in this room with--we invited all the bar owners in Iowa City. And it was an interesting meeting. There ~vas a lot of discussion that took place among Council people and between University folks, bar owners, and whatever. And as I recall, the time that we passed the last ordinance ~ve were overrun with requests from the public, from parents of students, from the University to make that a 21 Ordinance. And I think our inclination at that point was to give this a try and if it worked, then we had basically solved the problem, and I don't disagree with you, Mike. I think anybody should be able to go in and have a burger and dance. I do have a problem with going in, having a burger, dancing, and drinking beer. That's obviously what is occurring, and I think we made it very clear that if it didn't work, that we would look at a 21. I think arresting 2,200 kids for PAULAs is awfully, awfully strong evidence that this ordinance that we have in place right now is not working, and I will support looking at a 21 Ordinance. O'Donnell/That's the wonderful thing, Ernie. I think we're all entitled to our opinion and I certainly respect yours. Lehman/Thank you, Mike. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 18, 2003. February 18, 2003 Council Work Session Page 12 O'Donnell/But, I think you're wrong. Lehman/Good. Everybody has the right to be wrong. So, where we are at this point is we need to address the issues that Eleanor has mentioned in her memo, give her some idea of what directions we would like her to go in the drafting of an ordinance that we can then discuss and change and rearrange and whatever else we want to do with it. Champion/I think we certainly don't want to stop young people from going into restaurants and eating that serve alcohol. And I think there's certain things that we don't want this ordinance to affect. (Can't hear) gave us all a copy of the Ames ordinance which I think is a good starting place. It defines pretty much when minors can be in a place where alcohol is sold. There's another thing that I thought of that--I don't know--I mean, I know we're not going to make any final decisions on the details tonight. But there are some of the larger bars in town that have dancing and live music and can easily be divided and call it one space number one and one space number two. I mean, I think you're going to have to use some imagination. People are going to have to use some thought at how they can handle this 21 Ordinance and still allow kids to do the things they like to do. And I did point out to Mike, when he mentioned that the kids in Madison, Wisconsin, and Bloomington, Indiana, and Rochester, Minnesota, in Chicago, in New York City, in Washington, D.C., they still dance and go to music and they can't get into a bar until they're 21. Lehman/Well, we don't want too-- Champion/ They're willing to accept it. Lehman/Well, one is very few University communities allow under-21 folks in bars, and a number of cities in the state of Iowa they're not even supposed to get into these also until they're 21. So I think Connie brought up the point, obviously we do not want to prohibit people from getting into restaurants. So it would seem that we would have to do some sort of a regulation that you would be allowed in a place that served alcohol and also food up until a certain time of the evening; at that time it would be prohibited. Eleanor? Dilkes/Well, I think--- Lehman/ Why don't you lead this discussion? Dilkes/Well, I think there are two different issues. I think the first one is what do you want the prohibition to apply to, which establishments do you generally want to cover? And I think that's the, as I understand the discussions, is the bar-restaurant distinction. Are there places that you think of more as restaurants and not bars that you never, no matter what the time of the day is, you don't want to prevent? Pfab/I would like to see that. That there are certain bars, no--- Dilkes/Certain establishments. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 18, 2003. February 18, 2003 Council Work Session Page 13 Pfab/...under-21 bars. Lehman/Well, that's not what she asked but I think that our definition--- Dilkes/Let me finish. For instance, the Linn Street Cafe. Is that an establishment that you're trying to target? O'Donnell/Haven't we already determined by the Smoking Ordinance what a bar and a restaurant is? Dilkes/Well, you determined that for the purpose of smoking, and I think the issues and your concerns with smoking are different than they are here. So I don't think necessarily that it has to be the same. As I told you in my memo, 50 percent is the line that you see drawn most frequently in the other ordinances in Iowa. There are some--Dubuque, I think--it draws it at 35 percent. Champion/But, Linn Street does not become a bar. Dilkes/And that's my first question. Champion/Yeah. I mean, and that has to be determined somehow what becomes a bar, where obviously, the Fieldhouse becomes a bar, but it's also a restaurant. Dilkes/And what the other cities do that have these types of ordinances and the only way I can think to do it is to set a definition based on the percentage of alcohol sales. Champion/Like we could do that if a percentage of time. If before nine o'clock the percentage of food sales outdo your--- Dilkes/What you typically see, the ordinances throughout Iowa are ail with some minor variations are pretty much the same. What you typically see is, OK, those places that have liquor licenses, you're not in if you're under 21 with some exceptions, parent- guardian, etc. You can get an exemption from that ordinance if you show that your food sales are, your non-alcohol sales exceed 50 percent, for instance. So, in other words, you're not covered at all unless your alcohol sales are more than 50 percent of your business. You're not covered at all. You're out. OK. Then for those establishments that are primarily bars or that primarily have an alcohol focus, in those establishments then, many of the ordinances set a time at which the prohibition kicks in. In Cedar Rapids, it's seven o'clock. In Des Moines, it's nine o'clock. In Ames, which is not something which I would recommend, they don't have a set time; you can submit a plan to the police chief to demonstrate that during certain hours your sales are primarily food sales and therefore you can get a permit to have people under 21 in during that time of day. That, to me, seems complicated. I would rather see you set a time for everyone. O'DonneI1/Like ten o'clock at night. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 18, 2003. February 18, 2003 Council Work Session Page 14 Dilkes/It seems to me that there's things to think about there in terms of setting the time. Are you wanting to get past the dinner hour? Do you want to do it at least before there's the bar crowd starts, is there already? And I don't know where that hour is and there's representatives from the police department you might want to rely on that for some help there. But those are the kind of issues I think you want to consider in setting the time. Wilburn/I have a (can't hear)just thinking of it in terms of that. My observation--and maybe law enforcement can correct me too--is, Dee is right, there, some of the problems are with some out-of-town folks. Many of those come from out of town. And it would seem to me, too, we might want to consider--and they're coming from some distance, you know, Cedar Rapids, Quad Cities. A consideration might be to match the time somewhat near those times so that, for example, they may not--well, we can come to Iowa City because we can stay out longer drinking, you know that type of thing. So, just something to think about. We might want to make it match those--- Champion/What time do most kitchens close in restaurants? O'Donnell/Eight o'clock. I think that's a--I know you can get--- Wilburn/Well, that may change too because we just passed, or the outdoor cafe--- Vanderhoef/Right. Wilbum/Get the kitchen open and you can--- O'Donnell/I think if we're not careful here, we will eliminate an opportunity for a restaurant during the day that becomes a bar at night. We'll eliminate an opportunity to serve a lunch and a supper. Champion/No, we're not (can't hear) in doing that. O'Donnell/Well, but kind of, I just heard what Irvin said, and another point is you know none of these places you named like New York and Chicago and Wisconsin and Bloomington, they may have another venue. We do not. Champion/Well, maybe it's been developed. O'Donnell/Well, for that, I'm just telling you, we are in a position here where we are going to create, I think, many, many neighborhood parties and think about the Nuisance Ordinance we just passed and also think about the Housing Relations Task Force that's coming up with suggestions on evicting kids that have parties. And to carry that farther, you evict a kid that has a party, can he get an apartment someplace else? Champion/Well, we haven't really talked about--- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 18, 2003. February 18, 2003 Council Work Session Page 15 O'Donnell/I know, I know, but I'm just babbling. I'm outnumbered here, but I can live with it. (Laughter) Pfab/I think there's a principle here that we may want to take a hard look at and that is, we can't take away the demand for a service that we want. Now, if we want restaurants and places for our people who do not wish to drink, wish to dance, socialize, whatever. We can't have them in and out of the bars, because the bar is going to be the bigger attraction. And if they're not going to be able to drink in the bars, then they shouldn't be in there, and it gives other businesses a chance to develop and grow, and I think that there's going to be taverns downtown. But I think there's places for a lot of other activities, if the crowd isn't always instead of going to these type of businesses are not at the bar. And they shouldn't be. And ! would say if you're going to do a part-time, I would have the closing offearly of underage, I would have it earlier than later. Wilburn/I guess I would--just to get us back to the question, a little closer to the question--I guess I would go ahead and support the 50 pement special. And I have a question. Maybe Officer Kelsey can answer. Kelsey/Yes, sir. Lehman/Come to the microphone. Wilbm'W What, in terms of some of the younger aged crowds, some of the folks coming from out of town, you know, the energy in the downtown area, what time in the evening--ballpark, I know it's going to fluctuate by whether it's cold or whether it's warm, summer type of thing. Kelsey/It fluctuates by--- Wilburn/But take a typical summer. Kelsey/It fluctuates by season. It fluctuates by special event, for instance, football. I think that nine o'clock, ten o'clock is about as late you'd want to go. I think there are other issues to deal with though, too, as far as, you know, is the grill on, is the grill off?. But nine o'clock, ten o'clock tends to be your turnover time. I think Mr. O'Donnell mentioned, somebody mentioned eight o'clock they typically shut the--you know, I know many of them that stay open much later than that and stay open until midnight. But as far as the bar crowd moving do~vntown, you typically see lots of people on the sidewalk starting around nine o'clock, ten o'clock, and especially after eleven. It really depends on what the event it. Football season, it's much, much earlier than that. Vanderhoef/What do you see in the late afternoon, early evening, ~vhen students get out of class and may be coming for a beer or two and dinner? Kelsey/And there are establishments that cater to that. When I was here, it was, for instance, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 18, 2003. February 18, 2003 Council Work Session Page 16 Joe's Place. And yes there are places the students, the 18-, 19-, 20-year-olds are still going to come down during that timeframe. They're going to sit in a booth whether it be at Joe's Place or the Que or perhaps Bo James or the Summit or any of those places. That tends to be more, from my personal experience and my observation as a police officer, more socialization. It doesn't make it any less illegal if they have a drink, but it is less. It isn't the quote-unquote "problem children," if you will. They aren't down there to drink and get drunk and go beyond that point of control. Again, it doesn't make it any less illegal if it's happening, but that is more--I'm going down to have a meal to unwind, to talk, and you know, if there's money on the floor and you tell half the people in the bar that they can't pick it up but the other half can, it's just too much of an opportunity for that half that's not supposed to pick it up to do it. And that's the same thing that you run into when you allow 50 percent, roughly, of your patrons to be underage at any given time whether they go down with the intent to drink or not. It's just too much of an invitation when it's right there in front of you. It's too hard to walk away from. Champion/Is it your--- Pfab/I want to draw the shot here and I don't know where it's going to go. O'Donnell/Shot of what? (Laughter) Pfab/Shot in the air. If the crowd that you're trying, that say and needs socialization in a place where there's no alcohol served, if they're already doing their thing in the tavern, another step and it doesn't have a chance to make it. And my point is if--let's do it at seven o'clock at the latest. Champion/That's too early. Kelsey/Well, I understand what you're saying, and business owners might be able to better address that than myself. Pfab/And then (can't hear) have a restaurant. Kelsey/I agree with you that, you know, if the choice is to go to an establishment that has a dance floor and a bar or just a dance floor, and the goal is socialization, let's say, not drinking--let's even just say it's just to go out and socialize, there's going to be more people because there's more potential customers that you know what people that are over the legal age and drink. I'm going to go in there. There's going to be more friends. There's also going to be more people for me to meet. Now, if you say all of a sudden that we are going to make it 21 only, this place over here that they have a bar and a dance floor, now is only 21-year-olds and above, 21 and under can't get in there unless they go specifically with the intent to break the law, this place that doesn't serve alcohol and has a dance floor that could not be competitive before, now maybe has found a niche. Maybe, but I'm not a businessman. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 18, 2003. February 18, 2003 Council Work Session Page 17 Pfab/But that's--by making it so easy to get into a bar and drink and get drinks there, we take away the potential customers for any place that is non-alcoholic and a very sociable place. O'Donnell/I would hate to sign on the dotted line for a loan based on that assumption. Kelsey/Well, you've all made very, very good points, everyone of you. I don't disagree with what you based your opinions on. I don't agree with everybody's opinion. There is no silver bullet. If there was, the seven of you or your predecessors would have come up with it a long time before this. I think that what you've done up to this point has made an impact. I hear that both from the people that I'm out policing and from the bar owners. I mean there is a responsiveness. Is it making a difference? I don't know. That's a subjective opinion and that's something you need to decide; like the mayor said, there's still a lot of PAULAs written, and I mean, they're out there. I don't know what the goal is, I guess. I like Mr. Wilburn's comment the best or observation the best, that the law is 21, whether I agree with the law being 21 or not. And personally I do not. But that is the law of the land. I'm not a legislator. You guys are lawmakers and the people that sit in Des Moines and Washington are those. They have passed a law that says it's 21. To me, it seems a little bit on the ridiculous side that the law being 21, but now you're allowing, again, for the sake of this conversation, 50 percent of the people in your bar to be potential violators. Pfab/Randy, for those who wish to get the law changed is enforce it real good. And, you know, under 21 and up. Kanner/A slight aside and gentle to this specific question. I would wish for, before we moved into this space, we did set some objectable goals that we wanted to fulfill with the ordinance. And I think that we need to do that with this ordinance. We need to work with staff to say these are ten measurable items. We have to find out what we want to measure and say are we having an effect? We, it might be scientific surveys to see if people are drinking less. It might be PAULA. But I think it's important that when we do pass the new ordinance that we set some measurable goals. I don't think we did that beforehand and so we don't have anything quantifiable to base what we're going. As Troy said, we're--we don't have the silver bullet. But we can be a little sharper in our focus, I think, and something at this time and then two years down the road. I did want to ask you, Troy. One of the things that I think is having an effect is we've fined more bar owners, is that correct? And suspended more licenses than we've had in the past? Champion/When have we suspended a license? Kanneff Not us per se, but as a result of (can't hear) operation--- Kelsey/The thrust of what you're saying is right. The staff, the individuals that are serving have been fined, the criminally fined. As a result of those, as a result of a conviction, the bar then itself is facing some sort of civil sanction from the Alcoholic Beverage Division. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 18, 2003. February 18, 2003 Council Work Session Page 18 That is a fine on the first offense and a fine and suspension of liquor license on subsequent offenses. That has happened. There have been some bar owners that have been responsive before any ordinahces were passed. But that has gotten the attention of other bar owners and they need it--for instance, the Bar Association for a long time, that's one of the things I've talked with them about is that they have so many different voice. They're part of the community, no doubt about it, and that's part of community policing, and we should be responsive to them. But they're only a part of it and now they have hopefully a better voice, that they have their association. But, yes, we are addressing that; one of you brought it up earlier as far as you'd like to see stiff penalties and stiff sanctions. They are there right now as far as compliance checks. PAULAs do nothing, absolutely nothing to liquor license. You guys might consider that or you, this, the honorable ladies and gentlemen who are sitting up here, might take that into account when you decide to renew liquor licenses but it has no direct effect, PAULAs. Lehman/We cannot take those into consideration. Kelsey/The compliance checks do, and there's meat there. There is. Lehman/We're going, I don't know where we're going with this, but I do know that it's almost 20 minutes after six. We do have another Agenda item. Do we wish to--I don't know if we can give you any direction, other, at all--or whether we should just postpone this conversation to another work session. Dilkes/That's fine. O'Donnell/I think we need a work session, Ernie; let's post it. Lehman/I think we really need to--- Vanderhoef/It's either that or have a draft drawn up and leave out the time of day, for instance. The percent, but get something that we can start--- Lehman/Filling in the blanks? Vanderhoef/...filling in the blanks of what is there and then that will also have, bring us more input from the community if we see a draft. Dilkes/Well, can I--these questions are really fairly simple. Vanderhoef/That's what I'm thinking. Dilkes/And I tried to ask them as simply as I could and frankly it won't take me that long to draft the ordinance once I get these questions answered. So if you all can have a work session and answer the questions, then I think that we can--- Lehman/Right. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 18, 2003. February 18, 2003 Council Work Session Page 19 O'Donnell/Let's have a work session. Dilkes/...get the thing. Champion/We might have time to answer them now. Lehman/Well, we have--- Vanderhoeff Let's try to answer them now and get them--- Lehman/All right, Eleanor. Dilkes/The first one is do you want the cutoff to be at 50 percent or do you want it at some other figure for which establishments are in and out of the Under-21 Prohibition. Vanderhoef/I would go from 50 to 60. Lehman/I'd leave it the same as you have right now. Dilkes/Fifty? Pfab/I believe the State is 50 now, right? A tavern. Dilkes/There's not State issue here. Pfab/I thought we only came into--- Dilkes/Are you thinking of Sunday liquor sales years ago? Pfab/OK, is that what that was? Champion/Eleanor, I mean, Dee, are you saying 60 percent of the sales in alcohol you're strictly a bar? O'Donnell/Fifty to 60 is what you're saying. Vanderhoef/No. Let me see, now I'm not--- Dilkes/What percentage of alcohol sales do you want? TAPE 03-18, SiDE ONE Dilkes/Is it over 50 percent? Is it over 60 percent? Is it over 30 percent? If it's over 30 percent, you're going to pull in a lot more establishments than if it's over 50 percent. If it's over 60 percent, you're going to pull in less than over 50. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 18, 2003. February 18, 2003 Council Work Session Page 20 Vanderhoef/And when I said 50 to 60, I was talking about food. I was talking 40 percent alcohol. Champion/So, 40 percent alcohol, 40 percent alcohol is a bar? Vanderhoef/Mm-hmm. Champion/And not a restaurant. I can live with that. Kanner/I think the same as the smoking basically--- Lehman/I do, too. Kanner/...and it goes up every four years and keep it simple. There are people who are trying to get away from being a restaurant. Well, I think this keeps everything level. Eventually, I'd like to get it I00 percent up there on a level field, but keep it at 50 percent, up to 65, and whichever way we have to term it for--- Dilkes/I think at least for now when the smoking is at 50 and I mean when it goes up to 65 in 2004, that's a whole other issue. But certainly now when it's at 50 percent, there's some, it's reasonable in having them the same. Pfab/I would support that. Lehman/All right. Let's do that. What's the next one? Vanderhoef/OK, let's go with 50. Dilkes/OK. All right, the next issue is what kind of proof you want to require. You know, with our smoking right now, we require that the establishment file an affidavit saying that their alcohol sales exceed 50 percent and that that is based on records they maintained in the course of their business. We do reserve the right in the ordinance to review those records. We have not done so, and I think that our position has been that absent, what appears to be something egregious we won't--- Pfab/One quick question, ifI could. Dilkes/Mm-hmm? Pfab/Is there any penalty for misrepresenting, if they say something and you go up and check the books and it's not what they say? Dilkes/Yes, they lose their exemption. Pfab/Pardon? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 18, 2003. February 18, 2003 Council Work Session Page 21 Dilkes/They lose their exemption. Pfab/OK. That's fine with me. Dilkes/The alternative and one I suggested in the memo is, and what you'll find in the Des Moines ordinances, is that they require a verified statement from an accountant, which puts the burden on the business. Perhaps there's more cost to that, I don't know, but that's, but then, I mean, there's issues to weigh, that you need to weigh there. One is the cost issue for the establishment; the other is having a more systematic and reliable source for the--- Champion/Eleanor, I think if we're going to leave it at 50 percent, then I think we already have that cutoff. People who--- Lehman/Same procedure. Champion/Yeah, same procedure, you already have it because if they want smoking, they've already said they're a bar. O'Donnell/It seems the simplest way. Champion/Yeah. Pfab/Yeah. Dilkes/OK. Well, I mean, we might want to change that for the smoking. I'm just suggesting-- this is something I noted in the Des Moines ordinance, it actually seemed to me to be fi'om a City perspective and from a staff perspective a much cleaner ~vay to have it established whether you are quote "a bar" or a "restaurant" under the ordinance. Right now, there's not much burden on a business to fill out that affidavit, but that's a question for you all to answer. Pfab/I'd make a quick suggestion that that's fine, it's just, I think you're working in the right area, and also I think maybe at the same time we would want to change this, eventually change the smoking thing to say identical method. Dilkes/OK. go, right now you're wanting to stick with the method we use in smoking? Pfab/Right. Champion/Yes. Wilburn/Yes. Dilkes/Yes. OK. OK, do you want to exempt persons under 21 who are accompanied by a This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 18, 2003. February 18, 2003 Council Work Session Page 22 parent, guardian, or spouse of legal age? Champion/No. Lehman/Yes. Vanderhoef/No. Kanner/Yes. Lehman/Absolutely. Champion/You mean, we want them? Yeah. Kanner/Yes. Vanderhoeff We want to exempt them. Lehman/Yes. Dilkes/And the last one is the time. Champion/Nine o'clock. Lehman/Nine o'clock. Vanderhoef/I would go eight o'clock. Champion/Eight's too early. Eight's way too early. I think nine o'clock's too early. O'Donnell/Nine's too early; ten's all right. Lehman/Now can we get any sort of--how many would--- Kanner/Ernie, can you start at ten and work your way down then? Lehman/I'd like to start at nine and see if I've got enough folks to do nine. How many would pick nine? I see one, two, three. O'Donnell/How many would do ten? Kanner/Ten. Lehman/I see two, no, three. We are deadlocked. Champion/How about nine-thirty? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 18, 2003. February 18, 2003 Council Work Session Page 23 Vanderhoef/Then, I'll go nine. Lehman/Put nine o'clock and we can change it if we need to. Three just turned into the four. O'Donnell/Oh, all right. Lehman/All right. All right. Champion/I don't know--what time can you get, you leave dinner at nine o'clock. That's awful early. PUBLIC POWER UTILITY JOINT FEASIBILITY STUDY 13. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF IOWA CITY TO PARTICIPATE IN AN AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES OF CONSULTANT REGARDING A JOINT STUDY OF FEASIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING MUNICIPAL UTILITIES AND AUTHORIZING THE IOWA ASSOCIATION OF MUNICIPAL UTILITIES TO SERVE AS AGENT FOR THE AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES. Lehman/All right. Public Utility Joint Feasibility Study, Dale? Helling/The items on your agenda. Given the time you may want to just talk about this when it comes up on the Agenda, because it's a matter of the resolution, whether or not you continue the study or not. If you want to spend a few minutes no,v, that's fine. Lehman/Well, are there questions from Council on this? Dale, if I'm not correct, tell me. Council directed staffto proceed with a RFP to do the study--- Helling/Through the coordination of the Iowa Association of Municipalities. Lehman/We have presently before us an agreement that is being presented to 18 different entities including the City of Iowa City and the University of Iowa. Our share of the cost of that, which would be split with the University, I believe, is $34,000. And the question that we have before us, or will have before us on the Agenda, is whether or not the agreement between Latham and Associates meets the guidelines and the information that we requested originally. This is (can't hear) it doesn't give us the information that we requested in the preliminary study. That is the question. Does this agreement do it? Helling/And if it does, and you want to proceed, that's fine. The exact amount if$17,557. That's half of the $34,000. That would be the City's share. Vanderhoef/OK. Is there any provision written in this that would make it very clear that if the University were to pull out of this agreement that it would be brought back to us for reconsideration and likewise if a number of the other communities pulled out and our This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 18, 2003. February 18, 2003 Council Work Session Page 24 share of the study could increase? Helling/My understanding is that this is a figure that will hold regardless of how many of the communities participate, number one. And number two, we will assume the cost for this area to $35,000, and University will reimburse us. They have agreed to do that in writing. Vanderhoef/They have agreed in writing? Helling/Yes. Vanderhoef/OK. So we have that assurance and even though some of the other communities aren't, if they would choose not to sign the agreement, they still are committed to those dollars? Helling/The $4,000, flat fee per community, would stand for every community this involved. And that doesn't change. The other factor is a per capita cost and that's going to be static as well, so--- Vanderhoef/So you're saying Latham and Associates will decrease the cost of the study if someone else pulls out. Helling/They will charge $4,000 per City plus a per capita fee of, I believe it's, 50 cents, and then based on how many cities participate and population of those cities. Vanderhoef/OK. So there isn't any escalation on ours? Helling/That's my understanding. Vanderhoef/OK. Just so that's clear. Lehman/Any other questions? Now we're going to get into that during the meeting tonight. But are there other questions for Dale? OK. We have a Conference Board meeting in three minutes. O'Donnell/Where are they? Lehman/Where are they? They're probably--- Vanderhoef/They're waiting in the hall because they've been--- O'Donnell/We have time for a break. Vanderhoef/Let's get our chairs up here for them so we can meet. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Meeting of February 18, 2003.