Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-03-11 TranscriptionMarch 11, 2003 Council Work Session Page March 11, 2003 Council Work Session 5:30 PM Council: Staff: Champion, Kanner, Lehman, O'Donnell, Vanderhoef, Wilburn; Pfab arrived 5:35 Atkins, Davidson, Dilkes, Helling, Karr, Klingaman, Nasby TAPES: 03-22, BOTH SIDES TAPE 03-22, SIDE ONE REVIEW OF PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS Lehman/You're going to do the Zoning items, I see. a. CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR APRIL 8 ON AN ORDINANCE FOR A REZONING TO AMEND A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING OVERLAY (PDH-8) PLAN FOR WINDSOR RIDGE, PART 12, LOT 255, A 7.93-ACRE DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT COURT STREET AND ARLINGTON DRIVE. (REZ02-00022) b. CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR APRIL 8 ON AN ORDINANCE FOR A REZONING FROM NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION RESIDENTIAL (RNC-12 AND RNC-20) HIGH DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM-44) AND MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-8) TO CONSERVATION DISTRICT OVERLAY (RNC- 12/OCD, RNC-20/OCD, RM-44/OCD AND RS-8/OCD) FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE COLLEGE HILL CONSERVATION DISTRICT WITHIN THE COLLEGE HILL NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH WILL CONSIST OF PROPERTIES ALONG THE FOLLOWING STREETS: IOWA AVENUE, WASHINGTON STREET AND COLLEGE STREET BETWEEN VAN BUREN STREET AND MUSCATINE AVENUE; BURLINGTON STREET BETWEEN SUMMIT STREET AND MUSCATINE AVENUE; AND JOHNSON STREET, DODGE STREET, LUCAS STREET, GOVERNOR STREET, AND SUMMIT STREET BETWEEN IOWA AVENUE AND BURLINGTON STREET. (REZ03- 00005) c. CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR APRIL 8 ON AN ORDINANCE FOR A REZONING TO DESIGNATE THE PROPERTY AT 30 SOUTH GOVERNOR STREET AN IOWA CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK. (REZ03-00001) d. CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR APRIL 8 ON AN ORDINANCE FOR A REZONING TO DESIGNATE THE PROPERTY AT 802 WASHINGTON STREET AS AN IOWA CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK (REZ03- 00002) e. CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR APRIL 8 ON AN This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 11, 2003. March 11, 2003 Council Work Session Page 2 ORDINANCE FOR A REZONING TO DESIGNATE THE PROPERTY AT 726 IOWA AVENUE AS AN IOWA CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK (REZ03-00003) Davidson/Item a is setting a hearing on a PDH plan for Windsor Ridge. Items b, c, and d and e are also setting hearings; b is the College Hill Conserv.ation District and then c, d, and e are proposed landmark designations in that area. Lehman/Right. f. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 6, ENTITLED "ZONING," ARTICLE B, ENTITLED "ZONING DEFINITIONS," AND ARTICLE M, ENTITLED "ACCESSORY USES AND BUILDINGS," SECTION 1, ENTITLED "PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES AND BUILDINGS." Davidson/Item f is a public hearing on proposed change regarding child-care homes--I guess what we used to call daycare centers. The essence of this is to make the City Code consistent with State law, and the major change is that the inconsistency there currently is that State law now permits up to six--with certain provisions--allows up to 16 children in a home-based childcare situation, and the City's Ordinance does not. The City's Ordinance allows up to 11. So that's really the essence of the change here is to make it consistent with the State law. You have quite a bit of information, some questions that were raised at Planning and Zoning Commission, but that's really the essence of it. Above 16 would still require a special exception. Right now, over 11 requires a special exception for the City. So it would allow us a provisional use up to 16. And if you read the fine print in some of this, the way the State Law is set out--the 16 wouldn't be there all at once because of the provisions that you have to have. Some would be just for after- school care, and so you wouldn't have all 16 there at once. So, any questions about that? Wilburn/Jeff, the Department of Human Services, they do the actual licenses? Davidson/They do the licensing, right. Wilburn/And they then notify the--- Davidson/Oh, yes, right. They're definitely, I mean, basically endorsing us doing it. Wilburn/OK. g. REZONING 2.8 ACRES FROM FACTORY BUILT HOUSING RESIDENTIAL (RFBH) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING OVERLAY 12 (OPDH-12) AND AN OPDH PLAN FOR SADDLEBROOK ADDITION PART 2 LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HEINZ ROAD EAST OF PADDOCK BOULEVARD. (REZ02-00019) Davidson/Item g is a rezoning from factory-built housing to planned development, basically to This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 11, 2003. March 11, 2003 Council Work Session Page 3 go to townhouses for a parcel of property that you see there at Saddlebrook Subdivision. This is an area that, as you can see here, we're talking about, let's see, right there that parcel, you can see was proposed for factory-built housing and then I believe this area up here was for possible commercial, possibly a daycare type of thing. They are now proposing that this entire parcel be, as you see here, a total of--I believe there's 26 townhouses. Dilkes/Yes. Davidson/OK, and you can see the configuration there, you know, staff is recommending approval of this. We believe the way it's laid out here with the single entrance. I'm not exactly Mr. PowerPoint here. Here we go, a single entrance point here. Basically the fronts of the units similar to Scott Boulevard or Mormon Trek Village where the fronts of the units present themselves onto the street. There are a few units here, four to the rear, oops, four to the rear there that you see that are configured slightly differently with the access to the front of the interior road there. There is then area of open space, ifI can make my arrow come back, area of open space here and in the back, oops, and I'm trying to think if there was a, there is a little bit of additional density over what would be allowed under the RFBH Zoning, but because of the clustering of the units and the provision of the open space, staff feels OK about this, provides an additional type of housing in this area. Initially, the developer did propose more 12-plexes for this area. We kind of felt that there was getting to be a lot of that out there. There's obviously established a great deal of RFBH, too. So this is something, kind of an another type of housing which the Comprehensive Plan says in a single area you try and shoot for. Steven? Kanner/So you're saying this is replacing proposed commercial space? Davidson/It was a space that had been tentatively identified as a possibility for a daycare. There are certain types of commercial uses that are allowed in RFBH, and if you go to the Zoning Ordinance, they are laid out. So it isn't like a CC-2 Zone or something like that where there's a whole array of commercial uses. There's a very limited amount that are--I think mini storage units are another thing that's allowed in RFBH. Things that oriented to the RFBH type development, and the proposal now is to have the entire here be townhouses. Champion/Was there any discussion about leaving enough space for a public acre? There's such a highly developed area with quite intense population. Davidson/There is a CN-1 Zone directly adjacent to this area--- Champion/OK. Davidson/...that it has partly, it is not completely developed. So it wouldn't totally eliminate the possibility for that. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 11, 2003. March 11, 2003 Council Work Session Page 4 Champion/OK. Vanderhoef/Did you get any indication from a developer at the speed that he felt all of those units that have already been approved will be completed? Davidson/I didn't, Dee. Vanderhoef/My concern is--- Davidson/Things are obviously happening pretty fast out there. Oh, and one thing, Dee, you reminded me that I did want to add is that we still have the existing arrangement with respect to secondary access where they're limited to 460 units whether it's the 12-plexes, the manufactured housing, or these townhouses, they still can't go over 460 units without the secondary access being provided. Vanderhoef/If you could get some follow-up on it, because that was the reason for my question. Davidson/OK. And tell me again specifically, Dee, what the question is? Vanderhoef/Well, how soon they expect to reach the 480? Davidson/OK. Vanderhoef/...because that will entail some plarming by the City to come through with more streets. Davidson/Yeah, the developer, Dee, actually could on their own, extend a street to connect with, I believe, Whispering Prairie Drive, to allow access through the Lakeside Drive intersection to Highway 6 from this property. So they could on their own provide secondary access. The City will provide it when the south arterial comes up through. Vanderhoef/Right. And I don't want to be rushed to put in the arterial. Davidson/Right. The developer--and I've emphasized when I've gotten calls from folks out here about the notion of a traffic signal up on the highway that it is possible for the developer to extend roads through their own property to connect up with Whispering Prairie Subdivision, sooner than the City project might come through. Vanderhoef/How close are they to being built out to the west of the Saddlebrook presently where they would be at that juncture with that cut-through? Davidson/My recollection, Dee, is that they can still go further south. They've got the portion, the area that would have the street extended over through their RS-8 area, has already been developed, but they've let a lot or two open there so the street could be extended. Vanderhoeff Would there be any way that we could put a condition on this proposal, that if we're This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 11, 2003. March 11, 2003 Council Work Session Page 5 adding this many more units and we're reaching that 460 number of approved units, that we could get them to get that street in sooner rather than later, just because of the safety issue on Highway 6 and the increased traffic? Davidson/Yeah, the way it sits right now, Dee, is that where the building permits are issued, they're keeping the tally and it was 200 and some the last time--that was probably six months ago--once they hit 460, they're done until secondary access is provided either by the City or by themselves. I guess we haven't--there's nothing in the existing arrangement that we have with them that would mandate that they do it at any point. It's just that at 460 they're done until it's provided. Vanderhoef/Well, I don't know that there's any sentiment on the Council, I haven't talked to anyone about this, but my concern is that the request is going to keep coming in, and typically it comes in when the citizens are starting to say I don't feel safe coming out onto Highway 6 from this location. Davidson/Yeah, now we have studied the situation out there on the highway, and it's actually, as far as we're concerned, not an issue of a traffic signal. It's an issue of left turn lanes on the highway that is what is really needed there. And we are working with Iowa DOT to, in the next year or two hopefully, be able to use some maintenance money that they've got scheduled for that, to overlay that and restripe it as a three-lane section between Scott Boulevard and where it goes to four lanes at Lakeside. Hopefully in the next couple of years but DOT has got to cooperate with us on that. So that will be a tremendous help, even more than a signal would be, once we can get that done. Vanderhoef/Right. Well, the cut-through right now and send people, give them the option of whether they want to pull out onto Highway 6 from Heinz Road or whether--- Davidson/Yeah, we have seen some concept plans from the developer for that RS-8 area to the west that the Saddlebrook people own but it hasn't been more than that as far as I'm aware. Irvin? Pfab/I had a question--it's been a few days since I read this--but it looked to me like what was going to happen, the potential for a smaller footprint for a building site and more open spaces. Is that--is my understanding of that correct or not? Davidson/Well, that was discussed. Reducing the density was discussed at the Planning and Zoning Commission. In fact, there was one Commissioner that voted against it because she felt it was too dense. But the majority of Planning and Zoning and staffis saying that this is, we're recommending approval of this plan. Pfab/Right, but I'm saying is, does this allow more, a greater space, some open space or is it just--- Davidson/I can't say that it's greater. It's just configured differently so that it's a larger single space. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 11, 2003. March 11, 2003 Council Work Session Page 6 Pfab/Right. Davidson/With the RFBH units, you would have had a small space associated with each unit. Pfab/Yeah. So there's now a single larger space? Davidson/Right. Pfab/Now, does this count, I can't--- Davidson/Actually, it looks like there's two spaces there. Lehman/Right. Pfab/Now, does this, does the plan that was approved--it took away the clubhouse though or---? Davidson/There is still a clubhouse across the road as you go into the RFBH area, there's a larger clubhouse for this development. Pfab/How far away will that be from these units? Davidson/It's just right on Rodeo Lane there. Pfab/Halfa block? Block? Davidson/Oh, a block, I suppose, it depends on which unit. But a block or so. Pfab/OK. All right. Lehman/All right. Davidson/Anything else on this? h. CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM CB-2, CENTRAL BUSINESS SERVICE ZONE TO CB-5, CENTRAL BUSINESS SUPPORT ZONE FOR BLOCK 67 OF TItE ORIGINAL TOWN PLAT, EXCEPTING TItE 6,000 SQUARE FOOT PROPERTY AT 130 NORTH DUBUQUE STREET. (REZ03- 00006) i. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE CONDITIONALLY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM CB-2, CENTRAL BUSINESS SERVICE ZONE, TO CB-S, CENTRAL BUSINESS SUPPORT ZONE, FOR A 6,000 SQUARE FOOT PROPERTY AT 130 NORTH DUBUQUE STREET. (REZ02-00021) Davidson/Item h, and actually h and i kind of go together, so why don't we discuss them This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 11, 2003. March 11, 2003 Council Work Session Page 7 together, is a proposal for block 67 in the near north side. The initial proposal that was received--- Kanner/Steve, is there any light that we could have overhead? It's a little difficult to read some of my notes and stuff. Davidson/The initial proposal that was received by the City was for that property right there, the comer of Market Street and Dubuque Street, and it was for a proposed rezoning from CB- 2 to CB-5. And staff considered this in conjunction with what the Comprehensive Plan has to say about the area surrounding downtown and did determine that we would support going to CB-5 zoning, and let's talk in a second about some of the distinctions between CB-2 and CB-5. What we further decided was that it made sense rather than to do what we would call in the business a "spot zone," do the whole block. And in fact with the Code review that you're aware is ongoing, we may have a much larger--there's a basically a proposal to eliminate the CB-2 Zone because it really isn't accomplishing in the area right surrounding downtown what we think is the vision for the support area around downtown, similar to what, the rezoning that took place south of Burlington where it's now CB-5 and PRM, which is a high-density zone. We're thinking similarly about this and so we have proposed going ahead now with the entire block and it may be even more extensive once we get the entire Code for your review. But we're considering now an entire block. And so the two items on your agenda, item h, is the City-initiated remainder of the block, and item i is the private development rezoning. They need to be considered separately. The private development rezoning, because it is a specific project, we are recommending some conditions with that, having to do with the design of the structure that would be placed there. Irvin? Pfab/It's certainly, it didn't, from the information that I had, it certainly didn't seem there was much opposition except the one person that whose stmcture might be, there was a concern maybe in the construction process if it wasn't carefully done, it might be a problem. Davidson/Yeah, since you are going to have heating on this matter, I, you know, won't pretend to speak for people, but I think, what this issue comes down to is just a good old- fashioned what-is-your-view of what should happen in this part of town. What the Comprehensive Plan has to say is where staff is coming from on it. I think you may hear from some people in this vicinity who, their vision for the property, is that it should be a surface parking lot. And that is not the vision of staff. And that is obviously not the proposal that the private developer has come up with here. But I think there are some people in the area, because of the parking concerns that they have. Parking is the big--I mean, let's get right into it. Parking is the big distinction between CB-5 and CB-2. CB-2 allows auto-oriented uses and has much higher parking requirement than CB-5 does. CB- 5 allows a little higher density type development but more of an urban type development, such as you have seen in the past five, six years in the area south of Burlington Street. Those kinds of buildings are the kinds of buildings that in CB-5 you will see. A good example of the kind of building you would see under CB-2 is the Dairy Queen-Pizza Pit building across the street, where you have the building and then a large surface parking This represents only a reasonably accurate t~anscription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 11, 2003. March 11, 2003 Council Work Session Page 8 lot in front of it. And that is not really--those kinds of surface parking lots--that's the big change if you buy into that vision for CB-5. CB-5 does not allow surface parking lots. Parking has to be subterranean or behind the building so that it's out of view. It's more of an urban style development, and it then, the City becomes a partner in the provision of parking, such as we are doing now with the transportation center in the near south side. That will be a catalyst for further development that doesn't have the surface parking lot associated with it at a little higher density scale. What is proposed for this property here is a building that would have 10 subterranean spaces with commercial on the first floor, and then apartments above. Lehman/Jeff?. Excuse me. Davidson/Yes, Ernie. Lehman/Item h basically rezones the entire block except for that one small parcel, and then item i deals with that one parcel only. Davidson/That is correct. Lehman/So, if we choose to change the zoning in h for the balance of the block, that would be all CB-5 except for that one little part that is presently CB-2. Davidson/Right. It would probably make sense to do all one way or all the other way. Vanderhoef/OK, so tell me, by keeping the two issues separated, does that give us the privilege of putting the Design Review standards on it versus if we did the whole thing together, including the small parcel, then we'd lose that Design Review? Davidson/Well, we--my understanding is--correct me if I'm wrong--is that they need to be considered separately because they're basically separate applications. Vanderhoef/Well, that I understand. Davidson/That they have to be considered separately. Because we have a specific project for the one smaller parcel and the developer has agreed to the Design Review conditions--we are recommending those conditions be part of your consideration of that item. Vanderhoef/And we would lose that if we--- Davidson/There are no similar conditions on the City-initiated one because there are no projects from which to hang those conditions on. Lehman/Right. Vanderhoef/But within that zone, if we rezone it, would we have that--- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 11, 2003. March 11, 2003 Council Work Session Page 9 Davidson/Yes, you would, but the CB-5 Zone encourages that type of design review because you get additional size allowed to your structure if you do things like a brick facade and streetscaping treatments and those sorts of things requiring, you know, review by the City. That then gets you additional density of development. You can go up to a floor area ratio of 5. Three is the basic provision in the CB-5, and then with the, and typically, we have found in the near south side that developers want those additional floor area ratio and so they do the treatments that the Zone calls for to make a nicer looking structure. Vanderhoef/OK. Davidson/This is also--another consideration is a gateway, you know, into town, and we feel once again that's kind of consistent. Just, you know, we don't need to belabor the parking issue although I think in your hearing, you'll hear a number of comments about that. But the notion here is that there may be, even in this area of town, eventually the need for the City to provide structured parking. And we have looked into that, just preliminarily, the City does own two small lots. One is about 30 spaces, and one is about 40 or 45 spaces down next to Gilpin Paint. It is possible to build a small structure of about 250 spaces on that site. There is also the opportunity--that site joins a parcel that is a privately owned parking area that is across from Pagliai's Pizza, and it would be possible to do a joint venture. You know, these are things that we haven't explored very far but that is where ultimately, as this area redevelops with higher density development, where some of the parking supply would come from from the City. We also have a quite adequate supply of on-street parking in this area. On Sundays we bolster that even more for the churches. But we feel that that's consistent with the type, the style of development in the near north side. You have buildings that occupy the entire lots; they do not have surface parking; I'm talking about the historical buildings now, and that this is consistent with that. Irvin? Lehman/OK. Pfab/Are comments in order here or not? Lehman/Well, they are, Irvin, but we have a regular meeting at 7:00 and we need to move on. Pfab/OK. All right, that's fine. I just want to say that to me it'looks like you have such a high density of walk traffic there, that it just does, I can't see anything else they're going to say. Davidson/Well, the high density of walk traffic, as you put it, Irvin, decreases your parking demand because you have a certain number of people that aren't taking cars to the area, that's true. Dilkes/There was a--JeWs probably not aware of this--but there was a protest filed late this afternoon by Wesley Foundation and First United Methodist. Are you aware of that, Jeff?. Davidson/I was aware it was coming. I don't--- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 11, 2003. March 11, 2003 Council Work Session Page 10 Dilkes/OK. It states on the face of it that they have 20 percent of the property within the area to be rezoned. I don't think that we've been able--have we even looked at that yet? Davidson/We have not looked at that. Dilkes/So, I don't know that we can proceed with first consideration tonight as requested because I don't know what it takes to pass. Lehman/Eleanor, is that relative to the entire block or just to the one parcel under it? Dilkes/No, to both. Lehman/To both. In other words--- Dilkes/So I think you probably can hold the public hearing tonight but we're going to have to hold off on the first consideration. Lehman/But number h doesn't call for a public hearing so that would just be a deferral? Davidson/It was the intention there to take them both, consider them at the one heating for both, that's what I understood. Dilkes/Yeah, there's a public hearing for both. Davidson/Yeah. Dilkes/And expedited action has been requested on the smaller piece and we need to give expedited action on the bigger piece if we're going to do the smaller. But the bottom line is, we can't do first consideration tonight because we don't know what it takes to pass. Lehman/What we're going to have to do is deferral on both. Dilkes/Just hold your public hearing and defer the first reading. Kanner/Eleanor, was there any other written word on why they were protesting that? Dilkes/I haven't--it's, you've got it in front of you and I just got it when I got here tonight, too. So I haven't--- Davidson/I think you may hear from them tonight, Steve. I would anticipate they'd be at the heating. Lehman/OK. j. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE REZONING 1.6 ACRES FROM COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC-2) TO PUBLIC (P) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1828 This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 11, 2003. March 11, 2003 Council Work Session Page 11 LOWER MUSCATINE ROAD. (FIRST CONSIDERATION) Davidson/I also--I'm sorry, I meant to mention under item g they have also requested expedited action since you only have one meeting in March. Should I go into item j, Mr. Mayor? Lehman/Please. Davidson/Item j is first consideration of an ordinance for Kirkwood Community College to rezone some property that they have purchased, right there, from CC-2 to P, pretty standard, a public entity. Lehman/Right. k. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING OVERLAY (OPDH-5) PLAN FOR THE PENINSULA NEIGHBORHOOD AND AMENDING THE PENINSULA NEIGHBORHOOD CODE. (REZ02-00024) (SECOND CONSIDERATION) Davidson/Item k is second consideration of Peninsula Zoning Code. Do we need to talk about that at all? I think Bob explained that to you pretty well. I. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF THE REPLAT OF THE PENINSULA NEIGHBORHOOD FIRST ADDITION, IOWA CITY, IOWA. (SUB02-00027) Davidson/Item 1 is a resolution approving a preliminary and final plat ofa replat of the Peninsula Neighborhood First Addition. Just real quickly--do you want me to go through what the changes are just real quickly? Vanderhoef/That would be good. Davidson/OK. This property fight there goes from four townhouses to nine apartments. And this property right there goes from the opposite--from nine apartments to two townhouses and two row houses, so it's kind of a swap. The parcel right there, five townhouses replaced with four row houses and one single family, and then up here there were formerly three lots that have now been narrowed and a lot added so there's a total of four lots. So, the changes are still quite consistent with the Peninsula Development Plan that you've seen, just some slight modifications. Lehman/OK. m. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE VACATING THE NORTHERNMOST 60 FEET OF THE DEAD-END ALLEY ALONG THE WEST PROPERTY LINE OF 405 SOUTH SUMMIT STREET. (VAC00-00001) (PASS AND ADOPT) Davidson/Item m, I guess, we're recommending deferral. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 11, 2003. March 11, 2003 Council Work Session Page 12 Lehman/Right. Davidson/Is that right? OK. n. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF WINDSOR RIDGE, PART 17A, IOWA CITY, IOWA. (SUB02-00028) Davidson/Item n is a final plat right there for Windsor Ridge--this is a single lot--part of the PDH plan that you've already approved and they've just broken out a single lot so that they can put in a condominium development that I believe is eight duplexes in this area. Any questions about that? O. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO INCLUDE THE UPDATED JCCOG ARTERIAL STREET PLAN. Davidson/Item o is making the Comprehensive Plan consistent with the JCCOG Arterial Street Plan. Are there any questions about that? Lehman/OK. Thank you, Jeff. Davidson/Thank you. REVIEW OF AGENDA ITEMS 4(e)2. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A POLICY FOR THE RECAPTURE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (HOME) FUNDS. Wilbum/Let's have on the Consent Calendar item 4(e)2, under Resolutions, removed out of conflict of interest and put it on for separate consideration. Champion/I'm sorry--what number was it? O'Dounell/4e(2). Wilbum/4e(2) under resolutions. 4(b) RECEIVE AND FILE MINUTES OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS (RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL BECOME EFFECTIVE ONLY UPON SEPARATE COUNCIL ACTION). Pfab/OK. I believe there is a part of Consent Calendar, ifI recall correctly, is acceptance of some minutes from several Commission meetings. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 11, 2003. March 11, 2003 Council Work Session Page 13 Vanderhoef/Yes. Lehman/Do you want to make that? Pfab/OK. There's one or two I'd just like to paw for just a real short comment on them. And I think it was the, I believe it was the--I don't think it's the library--I think it was the. We may have to just let it go. 4(e)5. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE WORK OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HICKORY HILL TRAIL PROJECT. Kanner/But, while you're looking, Irvin, I'll also open that up and ask to withdraw from Consent (e)5. Champion/What is it, Steven? Kanner/That's the Hickory Hill Trail system, acceptance of that work. Champion/You're asking to have it pulled offthe Consent Calendar? Kanner/Yeah, and voted on separately. Pfab/OK. One of them was, it seemed to me it was the, no. And there was two of them where the minutes were extremely late, several months, and I think one might have been the, I see here's one for the Board of Appeals, now that's a final. Now there might have been a preliminary one there. But I'm not sure. I didn't catch that if it was. And then the other was, I think it was, it wasn't Planning and Zoning, it was the Human Rights, were extremely late coming and I'm just wondering what can be done about those, so they'd be published sooner. And you know, it's not a criticism, I'm just saying that if that information is pretty stale by the time it gets here. Dilkes/You very well may have gotten draft minutes. Under our new procedure, the draft minutes are coming to you. I suspect, particularly if you got those draft minutes, that the reason these are coming when they are is because they need to have a meeting to approve them before they come in final form. Pfab/OK. All right. So I guess--I made my point so forget it. Lehman/Well, we may have already received a draft, I mean, we did get--- Pfab/But, when I looked at this, when I read this, I couldn't recall so. I withdraw that comment. Vanderhoef/I've got two questions and it happens to be on the two items that we're pulling for discussion, but in accepting the work on Hickory Hill, does that include the repair of the washed-out areas that didn't hold the first time on the build? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 11, 2003. March 11, 2003 Council Work Session Page 14 Atkins/As I understand it, it is complete-complete and if there was any other work, the retainage would--there's been retainage set aside. If you were to approve this tonight, it would release the final retainage. My understanding, Dee, is it was corrected. Vanderhoef/OK. So, under the original agreement? Atkins/The original agreement, that's correct. Yes. Vanderhoef/And dollars. And then the other one, item 4 there on the property at--and it was the first buyers were to sign an agreement to sell it to another low-income family. Was the same agreement put in the resale of this property now or not? Dilkes/Which item are you on? Vanderhoef/4(a), too. Lehman/Page 4, item 4. Vanderhoef/It's e(4). Atkins/Pine Street? Vanderhoef/The Ed Hopp house that we sold it once, that people now are selling it and they sold it to a low-income family, which is what was required of them when they bought it originally. I just wonder if this second owner now has the same requirement. Dilkes/Typically, yes. Atkins/Typically. Dilkes/I mean, I haven't looked at this one specifically, but that is almost always the case unless the affordability period or the resale period has expired. It continues and a new agreement is signed by the new buyer. Vanderhoef/So they will also have the same agreement. Dilkes/Yes. Vanderhoef/That was what wasn't clear to me whether the same agreement went through then with the resale. Dilkes/That's because this is simply a release of the mortgage. Lehman/OK, any other agenda items? HIGH VISABILITY PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK PILOT PROJECT This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 11, 2003. March 11, 2003 Council Work Session Page 15 Lehman/OK, Jeff, crosswalk. Davidson/I probably don't need to say too much about this item because it's been so well reported in the media, which we appreciate. But just real quickly, we didn't want to, to bring you up to speed. You know, periodically there are issues, particularly in neighborhoods and around the downtown, having to do with pedestrian safety. You probably have seen my name taken in vain a few times in neighborhood group meeting minutes or something because we were unwilling to do something in the name that was, that had been put forth in the name of pedestrian safety, but in fact, we felt would create some new problems or not be an effective solution. And we just wanted to let you know that we are working on some things that hopefully will be effective, and we're going to be testing them in the upcoming year. There's been--you probably saw--most of the attention has been paid so far to the impavement crosswalk lights which we did get a grant that will allow us to do that for one or two locations. I think you received some materials for me. I didn't bring any display things, but that is something that, you know, since we had the money to test it, our test of it will then be distributed to the rest of the state as part of our agreement with DOT, but we're happy to do that. We'll just be looking at before and after and seeing the durability of the things. Now, the other two things that we're going to be testing are not nearly as attention getting, but they are much less expensive. One are these babies right here. I thought I'd have one made just so you could see what it looked like. We're going to find maybe 5, 10, 12 locations where we know there have been some pedestrian-vehicle conflicts and there are high volumes of both pedestrians. This is mainly meant for the person in a vehicle who does not yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk when turning right at a comer. And when I was in Madison, Wisconsin, I thought these were very effective because, boy, they're right in front of the motorist, right there, reminding them. And that's all this is is a reminder. You know, when you take your driver's exam, you're supposed to know that a pedestrian in a crosswalk always has the right-of-way, and this just reinforces that. The other thing we're going to do is some pavement markings. They're usually called the shark tooth pavement markings or something that's new for the manual and uniform traffic control devices as of 2000 and they're a series of isosceles triangles that basically point in the direction of the oncoming traffic, and they're like I say, a pavement marking. You put them right on the edge of the pedestrian crosswalk and once again, hopefully, it will give some key to a motorist that this is a crosswalk and you need to proceed with caution. We're going to do before and after testing of the locations. The cable TV people will film the locations and then we will look at the film and see if there's a difference before and after what the motorists' behavior is at the location when there's a pedestrian present. So, just wanted to kind of let you know that we're going to be doing it. There's no local match or anything to the grant funds. It's 100 percent state money. Irvin? Pfab/I would like to see what was done out in Salt Lake City where they paint two eyeballs looking at you when you walk off the thing and basically remind you. I think it was put up, I think, prior to the Olympics, so I presume it has some kind of a universal application, and it looks to me like it's a relatively inexpensive--and I was the one that came up when a person brought it up about coming out by--- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 11, 2003. March 11, 2003 Council Work Session Page 16 Davidson/I do not recall seeing eyeball pavement markings in the manual and uniform traffic control devices, but we will double-check. We have typically refrained from using things that were not approved of markings. O'Donnell/What time of day did you see these, Irvin? (Laughter) Pfab/No, no, no. It's like happy faces, only they're just eyes. And basically it tells you when you step there, the eyes are looking at you, and it reminds you that there's traffic. Davidson/Why don't you let us see if that's an approved pavement marking? Pfab/I would imagine if it is, it was put in all over downtown Salt Lake City. Davidson/I'll check it out. Champion/Probably these roads are four times as wide as ours, and you need a little of everything. Pfab/But it was also the site of the Olympics, so I have a feeling it probably has some universal acceptance. Davidson/We will check that out, Irvin, and we'll probably come back to you before we put any of those down. Pfab/Yeah, but--- Lehman/IfI understand, for that you're going to put up some of these signs, 8 or 10 or 12, and we're also going to do this lighted sort of thing that we have the grant for. Davidson/One or two locations, yeah. Lehman/OK. Kanner/Jeff, are we limited to what the manual says? Can we go beyond that? Is there an international manual that perhaps Salt Lake City was using that's not included in the standard U.S. manual? Davidson/Well, we'll try and see, Steven. You know, the 2000 manual is about that thick and we haven't looked at every single page of it since it became effective about three or four months ago. So, we will check. It could be something that we're just not aware of. You know, we do try and limit ourselves because of the liability issues when you get beyond those standards. We do typically try and limit ourselves to those things. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 11, 2003. March 11, 2003 Council Work Session Page 17 Kanner/OK. A couple of other things. One is a few meetings ago Irvin brought up the concern of, especially the alleyway onto Lirm Street between Market and Jefferson coming up from these buildings. And perhaps we can use a sign like that, ask the private building owner if we can eliminate the first word, and just say "Traffic must yield to pedestrians" and put it on a bracket on the building. I think that's what Irvin was getting at. There's a few of those dangerous spaces. Davidson/Is this at a location where there's a crosswalk? Kanner/No, there's no crosswalk. Lehman/Sidewalk. Kanner/So I would assume they have to yield to sidewalk people coming out of alleys and let that be a state--- Davidson/I mean, they should. I think actually it's a designated crosswalk, Steven, is what the State law says. Karmer/So they don't have to yield to people on a sidewalk coming out of an alleyway? Davidson/Like I say, my recollection is that it is a marked crosswalk; that's at least what the police have told me, that they're willing to enforce because that's what the State law says. Vanderhoef/But we don't mark them in our downtown area. Davidson/Yeah, you sure could, I suppose, if you wanted to make them a designated cross. Again, we have refrained from putting additional signage in alleys because the issue you run into is ifa motorist sees a sign in one alley and not in all 6,000 alleys in the City, then it's like, oh, I have to yield here but I don't in any of the other alleys. And that's the issue. You need to be consistent when you put up signage like that. And that's why, for example, when we develop the criteria for the installation of these things, we'll have criteria so that it's put up consistently, and you know, I suppose, if Council in the future wanted to do something like paint crosswalks across all those alleys to make sure that, you know, you were having people adhere to that law, that's something we could consider. Karmer/And maybe we should see if there's any accidents, breaks at some of these alleys and that could be our criteria for that. Davidson/The saving grace downtown is that fortunately, even though there's a lot of traffic and a certain amount of congestion, it moves relatively slowly most of the time. Kanner/The final thing on this project. It seems like a good project. My concern is what it usually is about privacy invasion when you're using video cameras. And are there going This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 11, 2003. March 11, 2003 Council Work Session Page 18 to be any standards for who views it and confidentiality clauses. I know that in Iowa you cannot use video for traffic offenses, but I assume it can be used to catch for a number of other offenses from things that are potentially not too harmful to other crimes that are very harmful. So I'm wondering what are the standards for viewing this videotape and who gets to see it. Is it going to go to the police? Would they be able to view it? Davidson/Well, I suppose they'd be able to view it if they wanted to view it. But you know the only thing we will do is we'll be videotaping the vehicles. We're not videotaping the license plates or the people in the vehicles. Just to see what the vehicle does. We'll be far enough back that it'll just be the vehicle, the relationship with the crosswalk that we'll be observing. Kanner/I thought you were going to be observing whether or not the person turned their head or not. Davidson/Yeah. You know, we'll have to see how detailed an image we can get. I think we're actually more concerned, Steven, with what the vehicle does. You know, you can tell, if you're far enough back, you can tell what that vehicle does. Was it coming up and did it yield to a pedestrian that was there. That's the main thing we're checking. Kanner/Do people who view this have to sign any kind of forms saying that they won't release this information or anything? Dilkes/I don't know that we could do that. I think there are public records issues with that. And in a specific confidentiality privilege of the public records law is not coming to mind. So, we'd have to look at that. Davidson/Yeah, certainly if we're doing something illegal, we'd want to know about it but our impression was, you know. For example, we have done a research project out here on Van Buren Street where we set a video camera for a couple of hours to see what the cars were doing out there and that, it didn't cause any problems. Kanner/Thank you. Lehman/Anything else for Jeff?. Davidson/Thank you. O'Donnell/Think we can put an eyeball there. Lehman/Camera on opposite. NEIGHBORHOOD ART PROJECT 18. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A NEIGHBORHOOD ART PROJECT AS PART OF THE IOWA CITY PUBLIC ART PROGRAM. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 11, 2003. March 11, 2003 Council Work Session Page I9 Lehman/We have on the agenda--is that on the agenda tonight for the public arts for neighborhoods? Vanderhoef/Public arts. Mm-hmm. O'Donnell/Yes. Lehman/I think what is it, a presentation. Before we start the presentation, does Council have questions on this item? It's item number 18 on page 15 of your agenda. Pfab/I did not have any questions on it. It looked good to me. Lehman/The reason I'm asking, there is--you have a 15-minute--- Klingaman/Fourteen minutes. Lehman/A 14-minute film on this, which Council, in view of the timeframe, if we don't have questions on it, would Council like to proceed with the rest of the work session or do we want to take the 14 minutes and look at this film. O'Donnell/I don't think there's a problem here, Ernie. Pfab/Is this something that could come up at the regular Council meeting if it's not shown here? Klingaman/You're going to be asked to approve a resolution this evening adopting the program. Pfab/I liked what I saw. I mean is this something that could be shown at the public, at the formal meeting? Lehman/I doubt that we're going to have time for that, Irvin. If you want to take the time to look at it. Pfab/No. I think it's a great idea unless you want to--- Klingaman/The main reason that we wanted you to see it this evening was because we'd like to start showing it on Government Access. We don't want you to see it for the first time there necessarily. But I think you get a general gist of the program from the information I provided. It's just the video, there was a lot of investment by the neighborhood people who are initially involved in the program and they were proud of it and wanted you to see it. Lehman/Let's get started with it. We may not see it all. But let's go. Vanderhoef/Let's see it. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 11, 2003. March 11, 2003 Council Work Session Page 20 (Video is shown) TAPE 03-22, SIDE TWO Vanderhoef/That was nice. Klingaman/That was produced by Ty Coleman of the Community Television Service. He was wonderful to work with, and lot of neighborhood participation in the meantime. Lehman/Very nicely done. Champion/Wonderful. Vanderhoef/Uh-huh. Klingaman/That will be shown at neighborhood association meetings to get people interested and informed of what the concept is. We're real proud of it. Kanneff Marcia, I just have two questions for you. It says it's going to solicit input or give the opportunity to all residents of the neighborhood. How will they be informed or what are the boundaries that information will be sent out? Klingaman/The boundaries are the same as what the neighborhood association boundaries are. I don't have a map here. I apologize for that. Longfellow, Northside, Goosetown and Wetherby are all the initial neighborhood associations that will be involved. They are using their neighborhood newsletters as a vehicle for getting out the information. As neighborhoods adjoining them get involved in a subsequent year or so, they'll be using their newsletters as well. It could be the reason for them rejuvenating and getting reorganized. Kanner/So, it won't necessarily go to every housing unit in the neighborhood? Klingaman/To the extent possible. Again, we use the water billing mailing list program. So there's some limitations to that. If you do not pay your water bill, you wouldn't necessarily get a newsletter although the option is there for them to sign up for the newsletter. Kanner/Yeah, for instance, I'm in Longfellow and I don't pay water and I don't get the newsletter although I did ask once for it. I think we might want to consider other ways. There's a lot of renters. Homeowners tend to dominate the association, which is not good or bad necessarily. But I think it would be worthwhile to get the input of renters and to feel more a part of the community and find a way to do that. Klingaman/OK. Kanner/I would hope you would do, take that and--- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 11, 2003. March I 1, 2003 Council Work Session Page 21 Klingaman/Yeah, some press releases or that type of thing that reach more people. Kanner/Or maybe, you know, the association could help drop off flyers in every door that's not getting. And how much staff time will be devoted to this? Is it going to be you or Karin? It says, for instance, if decision can't be reached a consensus on what art they want, staff will come in to help facilitate a decision. Klingaman/Depending upon where all the neighborhoods are, it could be that some of them are working parallel with each other, Karin and I will split up our time. I would suggest that I'm going to be primarily for that since I already work with the neighborhood associations. Karin will be available when she's, when necessary. Kanner/Yeah, but a ballpark figure--a couple of hours a week average it might be from your schedule? Klingaman/Actually, probably the planning process and what you've seen already has taken the significant amount. We're probably talking about a half dozen meetings over the course of the next two or three months. A couple hours apiece. Kanner/And last year we cut the public art budget down to $50,000. Has that affected the program, the Neighborhood Art Project program, from what it was originally envisioned? Klingaman/Certainly, I think once the Neighborhood Art Project was conceived at the point at which the budgets had already been cut, so I think scale-wise, it's always been within that realm of the $50,000 rather than the original budget. You know, I can't hypothesize on how a full budget would have done. Champion/The important thing is that there is still money allocated. It just may take longer to get it done. Klingaman/Or the scale of the projects might be smaller. Champion/Right. Karmer/And then the last question is how are you going to, how do artists apply to be concept artists, which is going to be a paid position to a certain extent? Klingaman/How would they apply for it? Karmer/Yeah, how are you soliciting--and how can they apply, someone that reads about this, wants to apply to be a concept artist. We've got a lot of talented people here. Klingaman/The specifics of how that would evolve, I guess, we haven't determined. We know that there's a number of available public lists that have been compiled by the Department of Cultural Affairs and probably by other agencies. Getting out that information and This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 11, 2003. March 11, 2003 Council Work Session Page 22 soliciting would be an open process. The process of actually making the selection or applying to and making the selection would run through the neighborhoods with staff support or staff review. Kanner/And that would be publicized and it would be open to more than just people on lists. It could be--anyone would be able to apply in the neighborhood. Klingaman/Mm-hmm. If that's the course that the neighborhood decides to go through. What I'm hearing right now is that a lot of them feel very comfortable with working through that process independently at this point until they get into some technical issues and then working with the artist. It's very specifically related to the type of art that they're looking at. Kanner/Thank you. Lehman/Thank you. It's very nicely done. TIF DISTRICTS Lehman/OK, Mr. Nasby. 4 d (1) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION DETERMINING THE NECESSITY AND SETTING DATES OF A CONSULTATION (APRIL 17) AND A PUBLIC HEARING (MAY 6) ON A PROPOSED HIGHWAY 6 COMMERCIAL URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR A PROPOSED URBAN RENEWAL AREA IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY. 4 d (2) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION SETTING DATES OF A CONSULTATION (APRIL 17) AND A PUBLIC HEARING (MAY 6) ON A PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE SYCAMORE AND FIRST AVENUE URBAN RENEWAL AREA FOR THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA. Nasby/I'm glad we have technology working on our side this evening. On the Council Agenda are two Consent Calendar items for setting the public heating on a proposed TIF district south of Highway 6, and I'll get into that in a moment. The other item is for amending the Sycamore-First Avenue TIF District that you already have in place. Let me get into the right spot here. The first one is the proposed Highway 6 Commercial TIF District. In February, the Council Economic Development Committee heard a request from the owners of Pepperwood Mall, Southgate Development. They are looking at doing a renovation of their facilities, and they approached the Council ED Committee and asked them if they would consider a TIF district. So the three members of the Council ED Committee instructed the staff to look at an area for a TIF district. And what we did as staff is we kind of looked at it the same way that we did the Sycamore-First Avenue TIF as it's not just a single parcel, but rather a district. And there's some benefits to doing that. The district, or the proposed boundaries that we came up with, were represented on this map. The eastern border would be Broadway Street. The western border is obviously This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 11, 2003. March 11, 2003 Council Work Session Page 23 the Iowa River and railroad track. The north boundary is Highway 6 and the southern boundary is Crosspark Avenue and then it goes north and along Southgate. And we would also include the parcels just to the south of Southgate Avenue. So that is the proposed area, and the Council Economic Development Committee did vote on that and recommend that to you. Some of the things that we looked at in this area were that there were opportunities for redevelopment. There are a number of sites that had physically obsolete buildings or there were some sites that were vacant. And those are not really just in one particular part of this district but are kind of scattered throughout. So there are some opportunities there. There are some opportunities for redevelopment, I guess, that have some existing parcels, one of which is the Pepperwood Mall that initiated this. And also we looked at, as the area south of Gilbert Street continues to grow with residential development, there may be some new commercial development that is needed along South Gilbert. So we want to include part of that area within this district. One of the other things that we looked at is possibly making public improvements. Again, Gilbert Street we can look at making some public improvements along that roadway or putting the trail in on the east bank of the Iowa River. So those are some possible public improvements that we might want to undertake with this. So, now let's see. We can go on. Here's a--this is kind of an aerial view of the area, and you can see kind of the outline of it, and you can see where there's a number of vacant parcels and some of the buildings in there. Obviously, the larger ones on this bottom portion of the screen are the Pepperwood Plaza and then KMart building. Kanner/Basically, the proposal for the TIF for Pepperwood is to enhance their parking lot--is that right? Nasby/Right now what we're looking at is creating a TIF district. Once you would get a TIF district in place, then we would start to talk about the development agreement which is where those things would come into play. Kanner/But that's what's driving it, isn't it? Nasby/Yeah, the Pepperwood request was what initiated the Council ED Committee to look at it. The Pepperwood renovation that they presented to the Committee included some facade improvements, parking lot improvements, an access off of Highway 6 into the KMart site and then an internal traffic network within there with landscaped islands, and those types of improvements, walkways so that you could get from the trail along the road back into the shopping area. Those were all on their initial plans. Vanderhoef/Well, there's a bit more, too, because their proposal is showing that with this new stoplight and entrance into the property that they can more densely use the property and that they are considering building another building in the parking lot area up close to the street. They're also looking at reconfiguring another building that's on the location and looking at expanding then on that property, to take one building down that presently doesn't face the interior of the site, put a new building in there and make it larger. Nasby/And those are all things that we would get to when we start working out a development This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 11, 2003. March 11, 2003 Council Work Session Page 24 agreement. Kanner/Didn't we, as a Council, agree before that we would OK the traffic light, that they pay for it? Vanderhoef/Mm-hmm. Nasby/I believe that was the discussion that Council would be supportive of the access which would be roughly right in here, at Southgate's expense. And those are the conversations that we've been having with Southgate, along those lines. Kanner/They're asking for a TIF, in part, to pay for that. Nasby/The TIF actually would be like we did with Sycamore Mall, which would be a tax rebate to them, which then enables them to get their financing in place to pay for it. We wouldn't be issue City debt or TIF debt to pay for that access and paying it off with TIF. We wouldn't be at risk for that. It would be the developer and, you know, if they generated the increment off the TIF they would then have the financing to pay for that. If they don't do the development or they don't get the increments with the increase in the assessed value, we're not on the hook to pay for that improvement; they still are. Anybody else? OK. The next one is the amendment to the Sycamore-First Avenue TIF District, and this one was basically driven for the need to make some public improvements on Lower Muscatine. We've had some staff discussions and the results of some discussions that the Council Economic Development Committee about some public improvements we'd like to see in the area. Basically, the parcels, the large parcels that are added in blue, are Oral B, right here, and this is MidAmerican. Those are the main parcels and this is a residential intersection off of DeForest and Lower Muscatine Road. In order to be consistent with how this area may develop and maybe make some intersection improvements over there, this was included in this proposed amendment. Also, Kirkwood is looking at doing some expansion on their site, which may need, for some pedestrian improvements. And also, if we expanded it to include those two industrial parcels, there would be some opportunity maybe down the road if Oral B looked at an expansion, you know, we would have a 2:1 place to assist them, if that day came. So that is the proposal for this district. And this would be an amendment of an existing district. Lehman/Right. OK. Any questions for Steve? Now these appear later tonight, one of these is on the agenda. Nasby/Both of them are on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Lehman/Are there questions for Steve? If not, do we feel it's necessary for him to stay for the meeting? O'Donnell/I don't have any questions. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 11, 2003. March 1 I, 2003 Council Work Session Page 25 Lehman/I have no questions. Pfab/I have some questions, but I don't want to take them now. I think we're looking at an awful time crunch here. Lehman/Are they questions that can be answered without Steve being here? Pfab/I'm not sure if he can answer them. No. Is this going to be hearing or is there going to be a resolution? Nasby/This is a resolution setting a public hearing. Pfab/No, but I mean--setting a public hearing. Nasby/Yeah, you have a public hearing. Pfab/I have no questions. Lehman/The process takes so--- Nasby/Yeah, this is just initiating the process. Pfab/OK. That's wonderful, I think. Get the information out to the public. Nasby/OK. Kanner/Then I'm going to pull this from the Consent, so highlight the hearing and hopefully get some people to talk about these two items from the Consent Calendar. Vanderhoef/Well, if we don't pull it though, we could highlight it--we can just request Ernie to highlight the public hearings that we're setting and so we can move our meeting along too. Lehman/Well, I think Steven wants to discuss it; that's why you want to remove it, is that correct? Kanner/Well, I would perhaps like a little discussion but also to read it out and highlight it so that people are aware of this. Lehman/OK. Nasby/Thank you. Lehman/Thank you. PEACEFUL RESOLUTION WITH IRAQ This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 11, 2003. March 11, 2003 Council Work Session Page 26 Lehman/OK. The next item is one that I'm sure we're all very familiar with. We have been asked as a Council and I think we've all been asked individually over the last month or so about the possibility of doing a resolution by the City of Iowa City relative to the conflict, potential conflict with Iraq. The first time that issue came to Council there were two Council people who felt that we should do such a resolution. At the last Council meeting there was a third Council person who said they'd like it placed on the agenda for a work session, and that's where we are. So I suspect that perhaps the best way to handle this; ! would like each Council person if they would to state their position on this and how their, what their feelings are. And I don't care--we can start, Steven? Champion/Maybe I should start since I was--- Lehman/Connie, go ahead. Champion/...the third person to say where I was coming from. It was my feeling that there is not support for an anti-war resolution from enough members of the Council to have any more discussion about that particular item. It was (can't hear---by for the???) to know that as a Council, we could do a resolution that dealt with that we hope that all peaceful means would be looked at before we went to war and also support for our troops. I thought that would be--it wouldn't make everybody happy--but it certainly couldn't offend anybody. And I certainly don't have any problems doing that. So I would like to see us, since we know there's not support for an anti-war resolution, that we don't waste time discussing that. But that we possibly do discuss a peace resolution or a peace proclamation, if any of that would be acceptable to the Cotmcil. Pfab/I would certainly support that. I think, Connie, you are staking out a position that is more agreeable and it certainly should be enough to get a majority of the Council to vote on, to approve it, I do believe, and I would strongly support what you're doing. Lehman/Well, Connie mentioned two things. One was a peace resolution; one was a proclamation. A proclamation doesn't require the vote of the Council. Pfab/OK. I--so, you're not saying a resolution then? Champion/I said a resolution or a proclamation. Pfab/I would say a resolution, but I think as you rephrase it, I think it should be in a position where it should garner support for those people who are concerned about some of the things that were brought up. Lehman/Mike? O'Donnell/Well, I think there's certain things a City Council should handle and certain things that should be left to the national level, and this is one of them. I was asked to put on a ribbon tonight to support solidarity of the United Nations, and I wonder how many This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 11, 2003. March 11, 2003 Council Work Session Page 27 people approve of charging Libya to oversee human rights worldwide? Not many, I don't think. I wonder how many people approve of charging Iraq to oversee disarmament? I don't believe very many. Once again, this is a national issue, not a local issue, and I'm not going to support it. Audience Female/This is not a local issue? O'Donnell/That's exactly what I said. Lehman/Dee. Vanderhoef/Connie, I respect the direction you're coming from. As I started thinking about the peace resolution and then I started thinking about a proclamation for peace, I start thinking about we have a World Day of Peace that is celebrated every year. And I think about the various places in the world that there are conflicts that come up intermittently and we never know which one is which. I don't think we should be doing resolutions, number one. I think proclamation is probably the right way to go, and the way that I would support this is to support a proclamation for peace in the world. I don't choose to identify one area versus another. It is one of those things that I'm not going to discriminate on which group of people or what country should have peace and others not. O'Donnell/That's a good point. Wilburn/I'm going to refer back. Some members in the audience may not be familiar with this and so I apologize to the Council for refreshing your memory about a February 12th note I sent to you. In it, I described basically, just to sum it up, that I certainly don't support the current events that are leading towards war. I also said that I took informal action, because I don't believe that Council should take formal action on discussing this. In it, I said, as I stated at a prior Council meeting, "In general, I do not support City Council passing resolutions for national and state issues for which we have no jurisdiction." And in it I referred, for example, I would not support Council discussing a resolution against abortion or a resolution for the death penalty. Some people may feel that circumstances require further action, but I would put out that for people who have those particular views they are just as important and pressing. I was willing to take informal action. I wrote our Iowa delegation in Washington, D.C. I also approached a couple of them when they were in the area, and I approached other Council members to do so. In the memo I also said I supported to discuss resolutions that we did have some type of local authority, and I referred to the Racial Profiling Resolution, which I whole-heartedly supported because law enforcement are police, which we do have jurisdictional control over. We were taking efforts on a local level to match what I thought were some of the things parallel going on, concerns in the national arena. You know, I've heard from both sides of this issue, and as with all issues, you know, we listen to folks who are present; we also listen to folks who approach us in the community through e-mail, at the grocery store, and everywhere else. And indeed there are folks on both sides of this issue. But even to those folks who felt that we should be taking this action, I said, that on the local level here, I, for prior stated reasons, do not believe that Council should take formal action. In terms of This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 11, 2003. March 11, 2003 Council Work Session Page 28 a proclamation, I would certainly not work against a proclamation because there are, it's not a formal vote for Council, it's more ora ceremonial. There's no vote by Council. The mayor issues all kinds of proclamations. In fact, there will be a proclamation tonight which some local organizations are participating in. But, on the other hand, I don't want to be in a position on voting on whether or not we should have a mayor's proclamation, because we don't do that for other proclamations. So, I will, again I wouldn't work or encourage you not to do a proclamation, Mr. Mayor, but--- Lehman/OK. Steven? Karmer/First, I think the connection was made quite eloquently by a number of people that came to our meeting and in the papers and through letters of this national issue and how it affects us locally. And two immediate things are potential lives lost and disrupted locally, statewide and nationally and internationally; and the amount of dollars that will be spent, that is being spent to fuel the military machine. It will be accelerated to hundreds of billions of dollars. And already we're getting shortchanged from the feds in a number of different ways with money coming back to us. It makes it difficult for our budget. This is going to make it more difficult and it's going to affect people directly in terms of how they live their lives. So I think there is that connection, and in the past, as I mentioned before, there's been proclamations for Korean War veterans and JCCOG, which all of us I think, except Ernie, voted for a resolution to support AmTrak putting a rail line. A high- speed rail line is a federal issue that has some effect on us locally. A bottle bill, a state bottle bill to strengthen that was voted on, and that's a state issue that affects us. So, I think we should be involved. I think resolutions actually we should be voting on the proclamations and resolutions. I think they would be more than a just a PR stunt, which has some good value. But it would be good to have debates, a small amount of debate and also empower the resolutions and proclamations that are passed. And then we do have, when we do vote on something as a Council, it gives it more weight. There is some collective power of organized bodies saying that something is right or wrong. If we pass a resolution, to sum up, it might not make a difference but there's a chance it might make a difference. There's a thing called the 100th monkey phenomenon, where you don't know if you're monkey 99 and the next monkey's about to learn to wash that banana, and then it explodes, and everyone does it. We could be that 100th monkey that's ready to make the difference. It could change the perception of the United States and make a difference about whether or not we should invade Iraq. And so I think we should take that chance, go down that road. Connie, if you want to have something that's perhaps, you consider less strident, I would consider voting for the resolution that was submitted, the revised resolution that most of us got, I think. I'm not too crazy about it, but I think it is better than nothing. It would add our names to the list of people on the Key Cities list. I think there's close to 200 cities now with a significant portion of the Earth population. So, is--I would ask you, Connie, is this a resolution, the shorter one, that says "resolved the City Council of Iowa City declares a sense of the people of the City of Iowa City that the conflict between the government of the United States and the government of Iraq be resolved by peaceful means and in accordance with the U.N. Charter and international law generally. The residents of Iowa City affirm their concern for the well-being of our military personnel and hope for their safe return to their families and loved ones." This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 11, 2003. March 11, 2003 Council Work Session Page 29 Champion/Well, I don't think we have to put it all for a resolution. So I think that's a waste of our time to discuss it. I've already discussed this in the press and with a lot of people, a shorter resolution, which I think does get rid of a lot of my concerns about the original resolution. But I can't really speak for the people of Iowa City. I think the only person I can speak for is myself, and I think the Council could only speak for the Council. So that kind of wording would have to be changed. But we don't have the votes necessary for a resolution. So I'm hoping we can at least talk about a proclamation, although it isn't a formal thing, and it isn't a legal thing, it's still a gesture. A positive gesture. Lehman/Well, let me just--I basically concur with you, Ross. I don't think there's anybody who on this Council who doesn't have a tremendous amount of concern for that national events and what's happening in this country right now. And I think there isn't uny one of us that doesn't pray for peace, and our greatest hopes are for peace. I do not feel that the Council is the agenda for discussing that. I have no problem with the public approaching us. I would be more than happy to prepare a proclamation, if that is the will of the Council. I would be very frustrated; oh, obviously, we cannot do a resolution without enough votes to put it on the agenda, but I'd be very frustrated if we put a resolution on the agenda and then did not pass it. What's your feeling? Pfab/I'd like to make a couple of comments here. Maybe--are we opposed to supporting our troops in Iraq, our military? Lehman/I think we're talking about the process of a resolution. That's the only thing we're talking about at this point. Pfab/I'm going to tell you something that I discovered, and I just want to read it, and the similarity between what Ross is working at, what Mike is working at, a memo that presented to the City Council and this memo that keeps coming up in all the cities across the country--I talked to people from probably 30 or 40 different cities, and this same thing keeps coming up. Now, I don't know where it's coming from and some person said it's almost like coming from the Department of Propaganda. Anyway hem's what it says. City Councils shouldn't be getting involved in international topics. We should be minding our own business and we should just not let everybody go. It's kind of like the saying was when they came for the Conununists, I wasn't a Communist so we let them go. They came for the next person and I wasn't that, so they let it go. I was trying to bring it up on my little Palm Pilot but it just refused to do it. So then they came for the Catholics and I wasn't a Catholic so I let them go. So now they came for me and there was nobody there to stand for me. So, that's--what it is it says we have a representative form of government, individuals with concerns about our national action really should make their feelings known to elected officials in D.C. I think if we pass up the opportunity to state what we hear the public saying here, I think we are going to be derelict in it, but that's my feeling and I think we will live to regret the day we didn't do it. (Applause) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 11, 2003. March 11, 2003 Council Work Session Page 30 Lehman/What's the Council's pleasure? Do you wish that I prepare a proclamation? O'Donnell/I don't. Champion/I would like to see you do one. Wilburn/I've already said that if that's something that you're, I would not argue against one. Lehman/Well, let's just for the record, are there three or four people who will support putting a resolution on the agenda as opposed to a proclamation? I don't think that there are. Wilburn/No. Vanderhoef/No. Lehman/Then, in lieu of that, I will prepare a proclamation for your review prior to the next meeting. We are going to take a break for about five minutes because that's when the next meeting is. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of March 11, 2003.