Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-05-17 TranscriptionPage 1 Council Present: Alter, Bergus, Harmsen, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Weiner Staff Present: Fruin, Jones, Kilburg, Goers, Fruehling, Liston, Knoche, Sovers, Lehmann, Fleagle, Ford, Nagle-Gamm Others Present: Miglin (USG), Zeimet (USG Alternate) Teague: [MUSIC] It is now and 6:00 p.m. and I want to welcome everyone to your Iowa City City Council Meeting, uh, here in City Hall. It is May 17th, 2022 and we're going to start with a roll call, please. [Roll Call] 2. Proclamation 2.a. National Gun Violence Awareness Day Teague: All right. Well, I hope everyone is enjoying the warm weather. Not so hot, not so cold. We're going to start with item Number 2 which is proclamations. The first one is National Gun Awareness Day. (reads proclamation). And accepting this proclamation is Karen Greenleaf and Temple Hiatt on behalf of Moms Demands Action. [APPLAUSE] [BACKGROUND] Hiatt: Thank you to Mayor Teague and the Council for this proclamation. Um, my name is Temple Hiatt and I'm a volunteer with Johnson County Group of Moms Demand Action for Guns Sense in America. Uh, I'm a veteran and I became a gun violence survivor when my nephew died by gun suicide. Gun violence uh, has increased when COVID-19 pandemic struck, and those impacts continue to devastate our communities. 2021 was the deadliest -was one of the deadliest years on record for the United States, with an estimated 20,700 people killed in gun homicides, or non -suicide -related shootings, a 6% increase over 2020. And I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the heinous act of hate in Buffalo, New York. I spent two hours on a call this afternoon uh, with fellow coworkers all across the country, and they expressed sentiments of fear, disheartens, they were saddened, they were broken, some of them felt numb, felt a deep heaviness, some were paranoid, exhausted, and some just aren't surprised. Here in Iowa, black people are 16 times more likely than white people to die by gun violence. To our BIPOC community, to our black leaders, we see you, we love you. And I'm sorry that our country empowers white supremacy with easy access to guns. But as incidents of gun violence have grown, so too has the movement to stop it. We continue to educate, raise awareness, organize, advocate, and rally for safer communities. This year, we invite the community to our wear orange event on Saturday, June 4th, at 2:00 p.m. at Wetherby park. There'll be speakers, kids' activities, and an opportunity to place a remembrance rock in the edible gardens. We'll conclude with a peace walk through the neighborhood, past the mural on Broadway, and into the diversity market at Pepperwood Plaza. Together we'll work to make this country safe for everyone. From intimate partner violence to police violence, gun suicides, gun This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of May 17, 2022. Page 2 homicides, and unintentional shootings. We demand a bold plan that must address it all. Together we can, and we must build a future free from gun violence. Thank you. Teague: Thank you. [APPLAUSE] This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of May 17, 2022. Page 3 2.b. National Police Week Teague: Item 2.b is National Police Week. (reads proclamation) And to receive this as our very own Police Chief, Dustin Liston. [APPLAUSE] Liston: Dustin Liston, Iowa City Chief of Police. Uh, I first wanna acknowledge Moms Demand Action for all the hard work you do. I'm an honored- I'm honored to be here when- when they're here, I think it's pretty appropriate. Um, I'd also like to thank the Mayor and the City Council for your acknowledgment of National Police Week. I also want to personally acknowledge the officers of the Iowa City Police Department for the hard work they do. We've got a couple of them with us here today. Thank you for being here. Um, the last two years have been exceedingly challenging for the entire country, but it's been specifically hard for law enforcement. Um, COVID 19 and the social unrest surrounding the murder of George Floyd, um, had put an enormous strain on law enforcement. And while many in the country were able to stay home and work remotely, uh, men and women in law enforcement were not able to do that. So, unfortunately, that didn't come without a cost. Uh, since this pandemic began, over 600 law enforcement officers have lost their lives because of COVID alone. So we need to really acknowledge the sacrifice that has been made during the pandemic. Um, I- I hope the community has noticed the positive changes we've ma- the Iowa City Police Department have implemented to rebuild trust. Uh, with the guidance of the city managers preliminary plan to accelerate community policing, we're well on our way to building a better relationship with the entire community as we continue to uphold the highest standards the Iowa City has come to expect. So thank you for the acknowledgment. Teague: Thank you. [APPLAUSE] This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of May 17, 2022. Page 4 8. Community Comment (Items not on the Agenda) Teague: Item Number 8 is community comment. Uh, this is an opportunity for folks to come up and speak about anything that is not on the council agenda. Um, three minutes will be provided to each speaker. And there's a timer that down there. So keep watch on it. We will end our, um, time today at 7:00 PM, the latest. And also I ask that you keep your, um, comments directed to the council. Welcome. Ross: Thank you so much. Every time I come up here, you should just tell me it's the wrong item. First of all, the gun violence issue is- has- has been drawn to our international violence, uh, issue. Uh, Medea Benjamin of CodePink, uh, has often said that our international policy also reflects our domestic policy. And that we tend not to negotiate, we tend to shoot. For some reason, we're taught to do that. Um, she would also encourage negotiations instead of conflicts militarily. And she has in places like Iraq or Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Ethiopia, Syria, and other such places where people are starving from warfare. Uh, they're starving- they're- they're- they're hungry, they're, uh, they're refugees. And, uh, [NOISE] right now, uh, Ukraine would be the same situation. Instead of, um, instead of militarizing it, uh, sending $40 billion, uh, worth of weaponry which we pay for, uh, from our taxes. Voted for by all Democrats, three- quarters of Republicans in Congress. Uh, I believe that we should be negotiating and not sending those weapons. And that everybody here is responsible to communicate with President Biden, and senators and congressmen to encourage, I believe, uh, a negotiations which would help, uh, Ukrainian people not die in swaths. Because half the people dying are- are with US military weaponry, uh, going through NATO, uh, and also prevent, uh, the horrible situation of a nuclear war. And [NOISE] I think we are on the brink right now. And we want to support people in Ukraine, but we wanna support everybody. Um, but I do believe that it's a very complex situation with a long history. Uh, the Ukrainian crisis has been going on, at least since 2014, excuse me, eight years. And not all players, you know, in Ukraine are good player, not all players in Russia are bad players, not all players in the US and NATO are good players. Uh, you know, Ukraine was found by international, uh, Jewish organization to be the most anti-semitic, uh, in Eastern Europe in 2018 study. Also a high, uh, incidence of violence against Roma people and LGBTQ people. There's a lot of, uh, rough stuff that is in Ukraine. At any rate, I- I hope that all of you will use your telephones, your typewriters, and please tell your congress people and President Biden to stop and negotiate. Thank you. Teague: Welcome. Please state your name and city. Jordan: Hello. I'm Angie Jordan. I'm Iowa City. Iowa. All right, I'm gonna stick to my script. Dear city councilors, city staff, and public listening, on behalf of the team I'm on, um, as part of the Kearns in West proposal for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, we, Angie Jordan, V. Fixmer-Oraiz, and Annie Tucker want to share publicly that we have paused. We've paused on moving forward with the current proposal due to concerns we have as a team regarding specifically the current budget. We want to remain local community members engaged through the TRC effort to bring truth and reconciliation to This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of May 17, 2022. Page 5 our community. And at this time, within this pause, we are continuing to come around our roles we want to play in the process that brings more local entities and partners together around a shared vision to ensure lasting healing and lasting healing practices in our community. Thank you. Teague: Thank you. Anyone else likes to address? Sure. Porter: Welcome, thank you. [LAUGHTER] Royceann, for the Iowa city to city council from the Black Voices Project, May 17th, 2022. The Iowa City, City Council created a Truth and Reconciliation Commission in fall, 2020 and gave it a charge of fact-finding and truth - telling, and reconciliation. We are now approaching the summer of 2022 and m the last 18 months, this commission has yet to engage in any of this work. We laid these months of false starts and ill-conceived budgets directly at the feet of the city council. You created this commission and select the volunteers to serve on it. You offered no structure or guidance for their work. You did nothing in the face of their clear, floundering, misdirection, and misunderstanding of the charge you gave them. Even when some members initially felt empowered to rewrite their charge, you sat in silence. When we spoke to you in March of 2021, we noted watch your step, that the lack of direction from the council resulted in a significant misunderstanding about the funding available to the Commission. Your resolution 20-228 to create the commission clearly states that the city allocated funds for the resolution 20-159, initial commitments addressing the Black Lives Matter movement and syst- styst- systemic racism in the wake of the murder of George Floyd by the Minneapolis Police and calls for action from po- protesters and residents, which includes a variety of nit- initiatives, among them, the Truth and Reconciliation. [NOISE] And yet here we are 14 months later looking at a proposed budget even higher than the one you previously rejected. We were shocked to see the latest budget proposal from the TRC still enlisting an out-of-state company to facilitate the work. Given that the council has already rejected a budget based on this firm's work, we acknowledged that the new budget incorporates local community members into their plans, but we continue to question the exorbitant sum directed to the external firm. Our tax pa- our taxpayer dollars should not be lining in the pockets of high-priced consultants when we have members of our community who are prepared to offer their expertise in leadership. Our membership has deep roots in the Iowa City area and can say with confidence that an out- of-state firm will not be able to learn- to earn the trust needed to engage the community in this work. And if they aren't doing the boots on the ground work, they shouldn't be collecting the paycheck. We have many local community members, black and white, who have relationships with each other and deep ties to the community who would be trusted to lead the work of fact- finding, truth -telling, and reconciliation. It is no wonder that com- that the commission has yet to produce any work or community engagement. You did this, you set them up to fail. We call on you to admit- to admit your own missteps and apologize to the commissioners for your lack of leadership. We further call on you to return to the drafting table and reconstitute a commission charged with fact-finding, truth telling, and reconciliation with an emphasis on local - Teague: Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of May 17, 2022. Page 6 Poter: - voices and leadership. [NOISE] Teague: Thank you. [BACKGROUND] Thank you. Thank you. Porter: Thank you. Teague: Welcome. Kauble: Hi. My name is Dan Kabul and I'm from Iowa City. Um, I would just like to first say, um, publicly thank the members of the TRC for all the hard work that they've done. And, um, anybody who's been paying attention knows that they've been engaging with the community and working th- their butts off to make the community a better place. And any shortcomings that they have for folks who've been paying attention are directly - directly attributable to the City Council not helping them. As for comments about an out- of-state organization that they wanna come and help, we're talking about a world renowned organization that will help make the- the- our community a great place. Now, um, regarding the Iowa City Police Department earlier tonight, the City Council recognize National Police week and, er, the members of the City Council like to think that they're very progressive. Y'all aren't. I'm just going to say that because, um, on the one hand, you talk about, "Oh, we're making Iowa City a welcoming place." On the other, you enable the police to abuse children, um, mentally disabled folks, and, um, talking about how great our police department is. And the chief was talking about all the improvements that they've made. Where Iowa City police are no different than they were before 2020. Um, anybody who's made- been paying attention is aware of that, whether it's arresting, um, er, um, a child with whose differently-abled for touching a traffic cone or beating suspects up and being captured on videotape doing so. Iowa City police have not made the change. Furthermore, the City Council continues to enable them. This is evident from the way you all don't even move a finger with the way that the police department uses armored vehicles to just other issues regarding their personnel and also more specifically, the CPRB. [NOISE] Now recently, you were- er, you were voting for people to be on the CPRB. And, um, several candidates, most notably, Yasmina Salih, were rejected by the Council because they expressed abolitionists beliefs. Now, that's very interesting to me given that the same council and the same people who explicitly, um, rejected Yasmina for her ab- abolitionists beliefs were also enthusiastically saying, "Hey, we should have former officers on ICPD on this board." I mean, anybody who pays attention to the functionings of CPRBs knows the presence of former officers, especially officers who have been within that same department hinders the functioning of CPRBs. Now, I mean, I just hope that the council does what it takes to help protect the community from ICPD. Thank you. Teague: Thank you. [NOISE] Welcome. Petersen: Hello. Er, my name is Noah as you all know. Um, so the three of you all that did response via emails, I will get back to you. I've been in the- a depressive state, so it's not - This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of May 17, 2022. Page 7 not really been mentally capable for responding, but I will respond to you shortly. Er, to the four of you, John, Laura, Pauline, Janice, you didn't bother to answer my email and that's really disrespectful. And you get mad at me if I come in here and break your rules but you can't even talk to me outside of meetings. Make it make sense. You can't make it make sense. To Geoff and Redmond, er, do you- do you just like not respond. I know you and why don't you respond to emails yourselves? [NOISE] Just showing your whole ass. And to the comments that your proclamation that you started the meeting out with thanking ICPD for I don't know what? Um, to harassing the houseless community, arresting housesless community, demonizing housesless communities, that's what ICPD does. They don't help them. Um, I mean, I've talked to up such that they just say that, just very disturbing stuff about my, say that they don't want help or whatever. Like that's just like that's- just saying like people are just- ICPD does not know how to interact with the housless community at all and they don't view them. I- I- I don't understand you- hope they're not here anymore. Oh, well, um, just like he said, like you all like to call yourself progressives but you fully support the cops that gas people in the street and harass and [NOISE] the houseless community and assult everyone else, everyone, but also other people. Um, it's just really insulting that you- that you would do that. And the chiefs to one that accepted your proclamation saying that the struggles- ICPD has struggled because of the George Floyd uprising. When ICPD was ones that gas and attack protesters that were non-violently standing in the street and nothing has been done to fix. The calls from within the department of sense then. I mean, when people asked- when I asked for videos of the complaints, the city lies about what state code does and doesn't allow to be disclosed. I- I'm not really sure what to- else to say so I'm just going to end with this. [MUSIC] Fuck ICPD. Teague: Thank you. Anyone else like to address an item that is not on the agenda? Welcome. Ricks: Thanks for welcoming me. Phil Ricks, I'm in Iowa City. Um, and I- I'm- I was wanting to speak today about, um, some talk that's going- I live on the north side neighborhood and there's some talk going on about whether or not to keep the one -ways or get rid of the one ways. And I just wanted to put my, um, support behind retaining the one -ways as they are. Um, there's a questionnaire being sent around. Um, I- I think the question here is a little bit biased in favor of removing the two -ways. I think that questionnaire could have been written a little bit better. But I think just in general, living on Dodge Street is pretty tricky because we have- we're highway exit and it's a one-way. And so there's certain sections of the town that have alleys and certain sections that do not. If you live on Dodge Street and don't have an alleyway like I do, it can take awhile to get out in the morning. But if I were dealing with two-way traffic, it would take arguably twice as long, potentially even longer. If I'm looking at traffic going two ways, you know, when there's a gap in one way, then maybe there isn't a gap in the other way. Um, I don't think it's super inconvenient to live on one ways. Um, I don't think it's hard. The questionnaire compares it to navigating a maze, which is hyperbolic at best. I mean, if anything, what we need are some street signs that say wrong way for the people that are going the wrong way. I noticed that- because, you know, I've been living there for almost 10 years now, I mostly noticed people going the wrong way. It's like game days, weekends, things like This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of May 17, 2022. Page 8 that, you know, it's out-of-towners and stuff. So if we can make our signage clearer, I think it'll be a lot easier for people to get around. Um, and I think, you know, especially when you think about North of Brown Street on Dodge there, most of the folks there are lower-income and also don't have alleyways. So the idea that we're gonna, you know, change them to both is just going to make it really inconvenient for everybody who doesn't, you know, live on an alleyway already. Of course, if you do, you know, there's - you can get in and out. You can kinda pulling your driveway turned around, um, but for me I always have to back out just one way. I don't really mind it. Um, what I would mind is, um, having to take more than twice as long to get out. So nothing earth -shattering here about, you know, nuclear war or all the various other problems that we have nationally and internationally. Just a guy living on a street trying to keep it that one way. So thank you for taking the time. I know it's not the most significant thing, but I also know it's something that is really within your grasp. So I wanted to at least put that out there and thank you for your time. Teague: Thank you. I'm gonna have you sign in right there, please. Ricks: Oh, I already did. Teabue: Oh, you did. Awesome. [OVERLAPPING] Great. Thank you. Ricks: Put on the sticker and on the things. Teague: Thank you. Anyone else like to address a topic that is not on our agenda? Welcome. Tucker: Thank you. Um, good to see you all. Um, so dear city councilors, city staff and community members, Angie Jordan and V Fixmer-Oraiz and I came together to approach the TRC about the possibility of using circles for healing as part of the truth and reconciliation process. And, um, we've provided some circles for folks who are involved in the community and some of the TRC members and some of the, um, BVP members. And, uh, people found them- people came out and felt like they were calmer. They connected with people that they'd known for a few years in different levels. So that was a- a worthwhile experiment. Uh, in the meantime, with the help of TRC Commissioner Sikowis, we've been in contact with three Native American folks who are willing to work on this process within the TRC process to provide something that is consistent with indigenous practices that Iowa City- Iowa City community members can benefit from. So we're really looking forward to that possibility. And as- as Angie said earlier, we've recently put our work with Kearns & West on pause. We're con- we have some concerns about their budget and we are consulting. So we're going to continue to work to encourage local organizations and communi- and community members to be involved in the truth and reconciliation process so that the important local work can be done. The hearing of the truths of our community members and the healing that is possible. Thank you. Teague: Thank you. Anyone else like to address a topic that is not on the council agenda? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of May 17, 2022. Page 9 Fruehling: Yeah. We do have one online. Teague: I don't see a hand raised. Oh, let me see something here. Is their hand raised? Okay. Fruehling: Taylor Khan. Teague: Welcome, Taylor. Kahn: Hi there. Can you hear me? Teague: Yes, I can. Kahn: Hi. I just wanted to point out in light of your police proclamation that in a couple of weeks on June 3rd, there will have been exactly two years since your police department attacked a group of protesters who were protesting for racial justice in your community. Um, and, ah, we've seen by, you know, but- today's proclamation and other things that you never intended to make good on anything you said after that event happened. You always intended to hold off the, um, unrest in the city until you could ignore it again. Um, and so I just want to speak to anyone listening, um, in the community and, um, just, uh, just to point out that nothing has changed in Iowa City's Police Department and Iowa's Police Department is not better than the Minneapolis Police Department. I currently live in Minneapolis and, um, I was really disgusted. You hear the chief invoke the name of George Floyd. If you talk to people here, especially black people here, they are absolutely sick of people invoking that man's name in bad faith to reform the system, to pre - preserve the system, to protect the system that killed him. It is disgusting. And another thing you'll hear if you talk to people here is that all cops are Derek Chauvin. The problem in the Minneapolis Police Department was not one cop. It was the entire system and it was the city that supported it, and it was a non -profits that supported it. There is an entire system here and there's a similar one in Iowa City. You recently fired an officer who violently assaulted someone. [NOISE] I apologize. In the video of that man's arrest, you see other officers standing by and letting it happen. And that is the problem. It is not just one officer. You cannot solve this problem by just getting rid of the one who got caught. They all support the system. They are all violent. So I- I would just ask because I know that it's wasting breath to talk to you, the city council, um, I'm just asking the community to keep that in mind. And, um, yeah, I'm really as always disgusted with Iowa City on this issue. Thank you. Teague: Thank you. Anyone else like to address this topic or address an item that is not on our agenda? Seeing no one, I'm gonna close the community comment. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of May 17, 2022. Page 10 9. Planning & Zoning Matters 9.a. Zoning Code Amendment — Private Utilities in P-1 Zones 1. Public Hearing Teague: We're gonna move on to item number 9, which is planning and zoning matters. 9.a, zoning code amendment, private utilities and P1 zones. This is an ordinance amending Title 14 zoning code to allow private basic utilities uses m P-1 zones to standardize the public zone section and to amend basic utility approval criteria. I'm gonna open the public hearing [NOISE] and I'm gonna welcome Kirk Lehmann. Lehmann: Thank you, Mayor. Kirk Lehmann, associate planner and development services. Uh, tonight we're talking about, uh, the zoning code amendment to allow private utilities in P- 1 zones. So just to give some background, I wanted to start by talking about P-1 zones and basic utility uses and then work up from there. So the P-1 zone is the neighborhood public zone. That is the zone that is used by the city, the county, the school district, and typically it's used, uh, to show local public ownership, uh, and public use of land. So even though that's its primary use, that's been its historical use, it does allow some private uses, either provisionally, which is by staff review or by special exception, which is by the review of the board of adjustment. Now, basic utility uses are allowed in P1 zones if they are publicly owned, but it does not allow them if they are privately owned. Uh, and basic utility uses just to take- to take a step back, are public or private infrastructure services that must be near the area where the service is provided. So like I said, public utilities are allowed in public zones but private utilities are not. Uh, they are also allowed in most other non-residential zones, uh, again, either provisionally or by special exception. So depending on, uh, which zone you're in, there are some different criteria so I just wanted to briefly touch on those as well. So the more restrictive one, uh, is in most commercial zones, in research park zones, uh, in RFC, and some interim development zones. Uh, they are allowed provisionally. So again, without board of adjustment review, uh, if they are enclosed in a building that also contains another use allowed in the zone. So if it's a stand-alone use, I can't use that provisional permit. Uh, similarly, water and sewer, uh, pumps or lift stations are also allowed provisionally if they're approved through a separate process like site plan review or- or subdivision review. Now, if you have either an enclosed use or use that doesn't have another use that's allowed in the zone within the building, then it requires a special exception in those zones. Uh, that requires some additional standards including screening, including compatibility with adjacent uses, and it has to meet general approval criteria that all special exceptions must meet. So it's pretty general stuff, things like consistency with a comprehensive plan. Things like, uh, effects on neighboring properties, utilities, uh, all of that sort of stuff. Now, industrial zones also allow, uh, basic utility uses and they're a bit more generous in their standards. So they are provisionally allowed if you're 200 feet from a residential zone and you have some screening. If you can't meet that standard, you require a special exception using the same, uh, standards as commercial zones, uh, but generally it's a more permissive a way of doing things. Uh, when it comes to public zones, there are no standards that are This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of May 17, 2022. Page 11 associated with them for public uses. Uh, but what we are proposing, uh, is to allow private basic utility uses in the public zone, similarly to as they're allowed in a commercial zone. So that would require, uh, if it's enclosed, it would be allowed provisionally. If it's an enclosed, it would require a special exception reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. Uh, there are also some additional standards that are being modified through the proposed amendment and a lot of them are kind of code cleanup because the public zone is unusual and that it's focused on ownership rather than on use. So one of the standards that it's proposing to revise is to strike the standard requiring an enclosed utility to have another use allowed in the zone within that same building. So what we've seen, the picture there is an Im On utility Hub. What we see is that often you have an enclosed use, it's relatively small, it doesn't have much of an impact, but it requires a special exception because it's a standalone utility use as a private utility. And so what we're looking at doing is striking that provision which would allow administrative review of enclosed utilities within those zones, uh, and you would instead rely on the existing standards that- that guide all uses in that zone, uh, seeing as an enclosed use is very similar to any other use that you'd have in the zone. And then finally, it does harmonize some changes to the public zone section that tried to bring it more in line with other zones sections. So that includes adding a use table which the public zone does not have because it's unique. I'd ad- adjust the language regarding purpose and public ownership, uh, and then it also, uh, with some of these changes, tries to move the public zone to be more aligned, uh, with other zones that you see in our zoning code with a use based form rather than an ownership based form. In terms of the analysis staff conducted, uh, to- to come to these conclusions to- to review the impacts, uh, what you see before you is a map included in the staff packet. Uh, the red zones are commercial and research zones, which are the more restrictive zones that allow basic utility uses. The purple zones are those industrial zones which are a bit more permissive, but they still allow basic utility uses. And if you look at the map, you'll see that there are large areas of the city that don't allow basic utility uses, uh, including all residential zones. Uh, the map also shows P1 zones in blue, and so you'll see that those are a bit better dispersed throughout the city. And that's one of the reasons why staff is recommending this change is because there are gaps within our current system, uh, which is especially noticeable in developing areas, uh, especially to the south, the southwest, the east and it can really become, uh, a problem when you're expanding infrastructure into those areas and there aren't commercial zones that are prepared for that. Uh, so the- the P-1 zone, uh, would be - would be added to that as you see in this map, which would provide better geographic distribution in addition to some other benefits. Uh, we also looked at what other cities are doing with regards to how they regulate utilities. Um, Des Moines and Cedar Rapids do allow basic or allow utility uses in all zones, either as a permitted use if it's a minor, uh, utility or with a conditional approval which requires Board of Adjustment approval. But that's in all zones. And Davenport administers it differently where private and public u - utilities are actually exempt from zoning and they follow a different process, uh, to permit it through the- the, uh, the, uh, the city engineer. So that- that one's a little different. Uh, but typically what you see in other cities is the higher level of impacts, uh, the more standards that come into play, the more review that you have like the Board of Adjustment. So it's somewhat similar to what we do with- with enclosed and unenclosed, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of May 17, 2022. Page 12 but they distinguish between minor and major utilities. Uh, but because they can allow basic utility uses in all zones, it does avoid some of those issues that we face with gaps in our- in our current zoning where it's not loud. So what- some of the reasons that we wanna do this, like I said, it opens up those additional areas for, uh, basic utility uses, uh, and it uses standard similar to the commercial zones the staff doesn't anticipate, uh, any substantial impacts from this. But there's also an additional benefit that when you have a new area that's being brought into the city, uh, if you need to accommodate basic utility uses, you would have to zone it commercial currently, which may not be compatible with surrounding land uses, especially if that use moves in the future. So the proposed amendment would allow that to be zoned public instead, uh, which if that moved in the future, is a much more restrictive zone and then what would be allowed, so it would avoid some of those conflicts that might arise otherwise, uh, but that's one of the additional benefits. In terms of its consistency with the comprehensive plan, many of the goals, uh, are- are broad, they're focused on growth and infrastructure less so on the specific placement of basic utilities. But really what they're prioritizing is, uh, investment in areas that are best served by current and planned infrastructure with really the goal of having, um, high levels of service at the most efficient cost possible. So most of the strategies in the comp plan that are related to utilities are along those lines, including focusing on infill, uh, focusing on contiguous development. Uh, and with the proposed amendment, uh, it does improve coordination of public and private utilities and that private utilities would be allowed, uh, on public land potentially or in a public zone, uh, and it does also provide greater flexibility in placing those services that you can make sure that they end up in the place that, uh, has the- the most efficient services, the highest - the highest level of service at the most efficient costs. So in terms of next step, should the proposed amendment be approved? Uh, if- if a private utility wanted to use this amendment, uh, in an existing zone, it would require, uh, either staff review if it's enclosed within a building. If it's not enclosed within a building, it would require a review by the board of adjustments, uh, and then there would also still be your typical staff reviews like site plan review and building permit review, uh, at later stages as the developments progress. So based on review of, uh, this criteria and the anticipated impacts, the proposed change, staff does recommend the proposed change to the zoning code text, uh, and that it's April 20th meeting Planning & Zoning Commission by a vote of 7-0, concurred with staffs opinion and also recommended, uh, the approved change. Uh, we did get some public comment as part of that P&Z meeting. MidAmerican Energy actually came and spoke and they had some slight revisions to the language that they wanted to see, uh, but ultimately, the planning and zoning commission didn't believe that that language was necessary, uh, to achieve the goals. Um, and with that- that rec- that, um, concludes my presentation for this. So if you have any questions about the proposed amendment, uh, I'm happy to answer them. Bergus: Is there ever, um, land that is zone P-1 that isn't owned by the city? Lehmann: Yeah. So land owned by the county or school district are also zoned P-1. Typically, you do not see private ownership, except in some cases such as private communications transmission facilities are allowed in P-1 zones. I think most of those are zoned This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of May 17, 2022. Page 13 commercial, that they can be P-1. Agricultural uses are also allowed as our solar, uh, solar utilities- utility -scale solar, excuse me. Bergus: Thank you. Thomas: With- with that being the case, did you discuss this with the school district and the county? Lehmann: This was not discussed with the school district and county. Thomas: But it's possible that these utility facilities may be located on- on their properties? Lehmann: If- if they opened up their land to utilities, it could be allowed, yeah. Fruin: Yeah, only with their permission, Lehmann? Lehmann: Uh-huh. Teague: Questions related to, um, since this is for private- this is a private company. We don't know who that wanted to come and do something, is there a price or, associated with that and can you speak to that? Lehmann: Sure. So it would be the same as- as the use of any public lands, so it would come before council and I think Eric might be able to speak a bit better than that. Goers: Right again, to kinda echo Geoff's point, this would only be with the permission of the property owner or be it the city, the county, the school district, the university, um, they would be free to negotiate whatever price they want, much like we in the past, have negotiated cell phone tower antenna is on top of our parking ramps, that kind of thing and if the, uh, public entity does not wish for the private utility to be present, they can just say no and be done. Teague: Great, I think you're good. Thank you. Lehmann: Thanks. 2. Consider an Ordinance (First Consideration) Teague: Anyone from the public like to address this topic? If so, please come forth to the podium. I can't see anyone online. Okay. Great. Seeing no one, I'm going to close the public hearing that I get a motion to give first consideration. Thomas: So move Thomas. Weiner: Second Weiner. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of May 17, 2022. Page 14 Teague: And council discussion. [NOISE] Thomas: Make sense to me? [LAUGHTER] Teague: Yeah. Thomas: I mean, it does seem we just don't have enough, urn, lands, uh, available for these facilities or so the best distributed lands we have in- in the city would be the- the public lands to kind of fill in those gaps, um, and then I think as we just- we just heard staff noted it's with the permission only anyway so it- it does seem there's controls on- on- on the distribution in that way as well. Teague: All right. Roll call, please. [Roll Call] Motion passes 7-0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of May 17, 2022. Page 15 9.b. Zoning Code Amendment — Drinking Establishments 1. Public Hearing Teague: Item 9.b is Zoning Code Amendment, drinking establishments ordinance to a main Title 14, zoning regarding drinking establishments. I'm gonna open the public hearing, and I'm gonna invite Kirk Lehmann back again. Lehmann: Thanks still Kirk Lehmann, associate planner with development services. [LAUGHTER] This time talking about drinking establishments. So to start, I'd like to just take a step back since, uh, this started in 2009, when the city established its 500 -foot minimum separation distance between drinking establishments within the city. Uh, the purpose of that was to combat an over -concentration of these uses downtown, uh, which also, uh, can lead to alcohol overconsumption, underage drinking, and nuisances. And so the goal is really to crack down on- on some of those activities that we saw. However, in 2013, uh, the city restricted that a little bit more. So it wasn't citywide, instead, it was just focused on the university impact area and the front crossings area that you can see in your map there. Um, the change was mostly due to economic impacts that were unexpected, uh, in businesses and the outside. And those areas weren't really where we were seeing the biggest problems and so really focusing down the- the standards to where those problems were the greatest. Now, if there was an existing drinking establishment, it is allowed to continue, uh, until the use lapses, uh, and the liquor license is discontinued for the period of a year. Uh, it also does restrict expansions of- of these non -conforming drinking establishments except for specifically listed circumstances and the code. Uh, for example, we've talked, cafes were allowed in 2015, sidewalk cafes are allowed as- and not- not called an expansion. There's some expansions to kitchens that you can do, for example, uh, there are some expansions, but they're very limited in what- what can be expanded. Uh, last year, the city, uh, again adjusted this slightly for the tailwinds project, which was downtown on the pad mall. It's part of a historic preservation projects and - and, uh, adjacent residential tower. So that amendment changed it so that, uh, a non- conforming drinking establishment may continue if there hasn't been, uh, an economically viable business substitute, uh, within that building and it has to be in a- in a local, uh, historic building. So it is a very specific standard, uh, that was made to enable this project and move forward, uh, with a reunion brewery that's proposed, uh, for a certain space in the building. And so this proposed amendment is a continuation of that tailwinds project, uh, and specifically it's looking at, uh, 11 or 111 east called street and 115th east co- college straight. So 111 is where that proposed reunion brewery is downtown, uh, that is allowed to move forward. But what they're asking is for a door into the adjacent space to the East, which is gonna be a sales -oriented retail use, uh, with merchandise for example, uh, and typically adore like that would be considered an expansion. So this proposed amendment, uh, would allow that to move forward with a door between the two spaces. Just to give you a better idea, because it's hard to describe with worms. You can see the map up there, the duly block building to the west, uh, and the Sears Building, the 1929 Sears Building or the two, or the reunion brewery is This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of May 17, 2022. Page 16 currently planned. The duly block building to the east highlighted in red dashed lines, uh, that is the proposed sales use and so there'll be a door between that proposed reunion brewery, uh, and the proposed sales next door. So the amendment itself makes a couple different changes. Uh, the first is which to- is- is which excludes a door between a drinking establishment and a sales -oriented retail use from being classified as an expansion. So like I said, normally that would be considered an expansion, uh, in this case, it would be excluded from that. And then second at establishes some criteria about what would be required for that to be exempt from being, uh, an expansion. So first, the door must be ADA compliant and match the same fire -resistance rating as the wall. Second, a notice must be posted for patrons that they cannot carry there, uh, any alcoholic beverage into the adjacent building, uh, and then third the owner must provide staff to monitor that and if there are repeated violations of open container laws, uh, then the- the fire or excuse me, the chief of police may permanently close that door. So again, as you can tell, this is a very narrowly focused amendment, um, and sales -oriented retail uses are not allowed to have a liquor license for on -premises consumption. So there is no way for - for someone to- to work around that and try to make it so you can have people carrying alcohol into the store. Uh, that being said, alcohol may be sold at that store- at that store as an accessory, alcohol sales, um, as long as it's less than 25 percent of the total sales, and that's only for off-site consumption. So there is possible to have alcohol that store, they would have a liquor license, but it wouldn't be for on-site consumption. And then again, I wanted to reiterate that the police chief does have authority to close that door if there are violations. So in terms of consistency with the comprehensive plan, uh, the plan does encourage the retention and expansion of businesses in Iowa City and it seeks to attract businesses that have growth potential. It also encourages new businesses in the core of Iowa City, uh, and all of these goals staff believes, uh, are being furthered by the proposed amendment. So in terms of next steps then, uh, if the Zoning Amendment is- is adopted, then it would go to building permit review and also liquor licensing review, which are both staff processes. So based on a review of relevant criteria and the anticipated impacts of the proposed change, staff recommended the proposed changes to the zoning code text, and at its April 20th meeting, by a vote of 6-0, the planning and zoning commission concurred with staffs opinion and also recommended approval, uh, and with that, that concludes staffs presentation and happy to answer any questions. Teague: So I'm assuming there's no current establishment that has a similar, uh, set up in the City of Iowa City or- and, um, I'm referring to the entire city. Lehmann: Are- are you referring to a non -conforming, drinking establishment or to one with a door into a sales -oriented retail? Teague: Yes, the latter. Lehmann: No, Not that we're aware of, or at least not within the 500 -foot rule where that would not be allowed. So university impact area, riverfront crossings. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of May 17, 2022. Page 17 Alter: So really the zoning actually, just to go full circle, this zoning is very specific to a particular area because it has that 500? Lehmann: That is correct. Alter: And while you call this- this is- it's pretty narrow, narrowly focused, but I'm thinking of and this is gonna date me, but something like hard rock could come in, have their restaurant, and then, I mean this is something that other places could- could take advantage of potentially, right? If somebody came in and wanted to open a rest- a bar, right, but then have other merchandise and stuff. They could come in conceivably and - and do that within this impacted area? Lehmann: So within this area, you would not be able to have a new business established unless it was replacing an existing non -conforming drinking establishments. So conceivably, an existing non -conforming drinking establishment could have a door into an adjacent sales - oriented retail but - Alter: Those- those actual opportunities are fairly limited is what you're saying because of the non -conforming that's not many of them? Lehmann: That is correct. And drinking establishments. I didn't mention this, but drinking establishments are any- any eating or drinking establishment that has a liquor license for on-site consumption and is open past midnight. So you could also have a restaurant that does this, that closes at midnight and that would not be a drinking establishment those - those establishments would be exempt from this so if it closed at midnight, it is conceivable that that could happen, but that could happen now anyway. 2. Consider an Ordinance (First Consideration) Teague: All right, Thank you. Anyone from the public like to address this topic? Seeing no one online or in-person, I want to just, uh, get head nods from council if they're inclined to vote with us before I close the- all right. I'm gonna close the public hearing. [NOISE] Can I get a motion to give for its consideration, please? Taylor: So moved, Taylor. Alter: Second, Alter. Teague: All right. Council discussion. Weiner: I Just- I mean I- I presume this is gonna go forward it's just- it's just sort of add to create ordinances that are aimed specifically at one business. It's like- like they're almost like you're a little special interests ordinance. I have nothing against being brewery and I think it's just sort of when we're thinking about general policies that there's something that just This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of May 17, 2022. Page 18 rubs me the wrong way about doing like the ordinances that are really only for- for one specific business, um, like understand why it's happening still, yes. Fruin: It- if I- if I may add, it is I mean, I think you have the right feeling, um, I- I often tell people that 500 foot rule is a very imperfect solution to a very complex problem and, um, unfortunately, in my view, at least, um, in- in Iowa cities don't have much control over liquor licenses. So we had a situation in the- in the 2000s in which the overconsumption, kind of, atmosphere that we had was creating all kind of negative externalities downtown and really forcing other businesses out retail, office, and- and causing a problem and ideally, the simplest thing to do is be able to regulate liquor licenses and for those businesses contributing to the problem in some way, shape, or form, um, you revoke that liquor license, you suspend it, you correct that activity. We can't do that, we really struggled with that, um, historically as- as all cities do. And so you start to look to imperfect solutions, which is the 500 foot rule and, um, it's- it's just a tool that, uh, has - has worked okay for us. But we occasionally have find where, I would say- I would argue some common sense fixes like this, you know, in this case, you're just creating retail space for- for it. I don't think that goes against the intent of the 500 foot rule, um, you know, we found success by doing the rooftop solution as well and cafe solution. So sometimes you have to get that scalpel out and say, yes, this makes sense and it'll be good for the overall downtown, um, but it is a bit awkward and I would expect that we might continue to, you know, to- to look at these minor changes as, um, we work in, um, in a- in a downtown that has a lot of old buildings that don't have a lot of flexibility. You sometimes have to get a little bit more creative on the- on the code side to accommodate new ideas. Weiner: That- that context is very helpful, thank you. Harmsen: And I think this does a nice job of maintaining the whole purpose behind like of the 500 separation and helping increase retail downtown. So- so that seems like jumps out at me, is there's some real positives for this proposal. All right. Roll call, please. [Roll call] Motion passes to 7-0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of May 17, 2022. Page 19 9.c. Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Plan of Sandhill Estates — Part 5 Teague: Item number 9.c is preliminary plat and sensitive areas plan of Sand Hill Estates part 5, resolution approving the preliminary plan and sensitive areas plan of the Sand Hills Estates part 5 subdivision, Iowa City, Iowa. Can I get a motion to approve please. Weiner: To move, Weiner. Bergus: Second, Bergus. Teague: All right. Then we're going to invite Kirk backup. Lehmann: Thank you, Mayor. Kirk Lehmann, I'm associate planner in development services. We're talking about Sandhill States part 5, which was a preliminary plat submitted by Hall and Hall engineers on behalf of Prairie Heights Land LLC, uh, the area is south of Wetherby Park and east of Covered Wagon Drive, as you can see in the map here, and it is a 8.88 acre subdivision, uh, with 18 residential lots, uh, and one outlet for stormwater management. So this is a continuation of the Sand Hills Estates subdivision, which was an originally approved in 2004, uh, which includes land to the, uh, southwest and to the - to the northwest. It was a pretty large area, uh, 379 lots, approximately 120 acres, and it was rezoned, uh, to OPD RS5 so it was part of a planned development overlay. Uh, the most recent subdivision, uh, it has been subdivided several times since then we're obviously on part 5 now, the most recent subdivision was completed in 2016, so it's been an ongoing process as this neighborhood has developed. The current preliminary plat, uh, or excuse me, Sand Hill Estates required that plan development overlay due to sensitive features that were on the site. So there was a need for conservation cluster design and 17.4 acres of open space, uh, were dedicated to the city, uh, which is now called Sand Perry Park as- as part of that process, uh, the OPD also allowed some narrow were lots which allowed the protection of that, uh, well still allowing development of the area. With that 2004 zoning ordinance, there was also a conditional zoning agreement, uh, it has four conditions. I'll get into those a bit later, uh, but there's only one that's still, uh, applies to this subdivision. So you can see the actual plot on your screen right now with the 18 lots and single outlet. So preliminary plats are reviewed by three general criteria. The first of which is consistency with comprehensive plan that includes the South district plan of which this is apart. So the coverts a plan shows this area as being 2-8 dwelling units in acre. And it encourages an interconnected system of open space with wide sidewalks and trails, uh, it also includes compact and connected neighborhoods and safe and, uh, pedestrian friendly streets. Now the south district plan, that was, uh, it's a part of the comprehensive plan and was recently updated in 2021. And with amendments to incorporate few foreign-based land use districts, uh, that shows this area as being transect 3, neighborhood edge and so you'll notice that they're still using their existing RS5 zoning, uh, they are not using the foreign-based, uh, standards or the foreign-based zones for their development, uh, primarily because this is a continuation of an existing neighborhood, uh, so they're using the existing zoning of the rest of that neighborhood. Uh, the RS5 is roughly proportional to what you see in terms of allowed uses in a T3 This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of May 17, 2022. Page 20 neighborhood edge zone, uh, but staff does anticipate that future development in the area, uh, will comply with those foreign-based, uh, future land use categories. So generally, the preliminary plat is consistent with the current zoning, uh, and it does also incorporate some other aspects that you see in the plan, uh, such as sidewalk and street connections, uh, that encourage conductivity and pedestrian friendly streets and support other calls. Now moving on, conditional zoning agreement is that second, uh, criteria by which we review preliminary plats. So in this case, we're looking at the 2004, uh, conditional zoning agreement that was approved. Uh, there are four conditions, the first, uh, has already been addressed, which is adding a left turn lane to the southbound South Gilbert Street, so that has already been built. Uh, the second two are related to specific lots within the subdivision, uh, those are in a different part, uh, and they're related to design criteria into narrower lots, uh, requiring alley access, and that was part of what allowed the preservation of that prairie. Um, those don't apply to this, uh, preliminary plat, however, and so that leaves one which is that for lots less than 60 feet in width without alley access, they needed 25 foot, uh, front setback. So based on that, the preliminary plat does meet, uh, the applicable required conditions. And then fmally, when we talk about preliminary plats, you know, there are a number of things that we'd like to discuss, things such as streets and circulation, sidewalks, blocks and lots, uh, this proposal does extend two streets Covered Wagon Drive and Sand Prairie Drive, uh, and it includes stubs for future connectivity, uh, where they join there's a traffic roundabout which is, uh, for traffic calming in the future, uh, and it also creates a frontier loop off of Sand Prairie Drive on the east side of the preliminary plat, and that's the area where you see those lots that are less than 60 feet, they require the- the wider setback. Uh, as far as sidewalks, we see five-foot sidewalks being extension or being extended from existing stubs and they stopped out at, uh, the end of the subdivision, uh, in addition to an eight -foot sidewalk that extends along the north side of covered wagon drive. So all of these provide opportunities for future connectivity, and the block lengths that we see are right in the city sweet spot that we aim for, which is around 300 and 600 feet. In terms of open space, that was satisfied as part of that 17, uh, acre Sand Prairie Park but that has already been dedicated to the city. So when that was dedicated, it- it provides enough open space for all future, uh, Sand Hills estate, uh, development. Uh, in terms of utilities and infrastructure, uh, it's an easy location where it can- can be provided an extended, uh, with sanitary sewer tap fees, uh, and water main extension fees being collected and final platting. And then fmally for Stormwater, there's one outlet, Outlet A which is provided for the purpose of a retention basin, and that's been reviewed by public works, uh, so the preliminary plat does satisfy all those necessary subdivision, uh, and zoning standards that you see? I did want to touch on that preliminary plat it's a bit of an annuity or excuse me, on the outlet because it's a bit of an unusual situation. So the- the Outlet A does contain some sensitive features including some wetlands and some hydrates soils, uh, but the city code in Section 14 -5I -2C-4 does exempt areas within man-made Stormwater management facilities so these sensitive features are not actually subject to our sensitive areas ordinance which allowed the development to- to move forward as proposed. Uh, there was also an archaeological study that was conducted in 2002 that one ended with a finding that- that no additional work was needed on the site. So in terms of next steps, as you can see, it's been a process starting with that 2004 preliminary plot and subsequent This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of May 17, 2022. Page 21 plots that have occurred with the most recent in 2016, uh, should this be approved, um, then a final plat would come back to you in the future, uh, for approval and then there'll be a final sensitive areas development plan and site plan that would be reviewed by staff. And then finally, building permits would also be reviewed by staff. So based on a review of the relative or relevant criteria and subdivision codes, uh, staff does recommend approval without conditions, uh, and after May 4th meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission, uh, concurred with staffs opinion by a vote of 6-0. Uh, the applicant did hold a good neighbor meeting on April 12th, uh, and got some feedback that way. That concludes staffs presentation and I believe that the applicant is here to answer any questions. Teague: Great. Any questions for Kirk? Thomas: I just have one on that- on that condition you mentioned with the- I think the lot with less than 60 feet require 25 foot setback and the reason for that is what? Lehmann: Uh, I believe that you typically see those on the bulb of cold air sacs and we have similar standards like that in our zoning codes. So I imagined that because this was 2004, just before the- the current zoning code was adopted, I imagine that that was incorporated to reflect the standards that we anticipated adopting. Thomas: So- so what I'm just trying to understand is there are some practical reason for that 25 feet? Is that have to do with off street parking or? Lehmann: I would believe that it has to do with lot frontage, making sure that you have adequate space for a house. Thomas: Okay. Oh, I see. Lehmann: [OVERLAPPING] And the further set back wider it is called the sack yet. Thank you. Teague: Thank you. And I don't know if the deve- if the applicants have any comments or. [BACKGROUND]. Okay. Any questions, councilors. All right. Hearing none, thank you for being here. Anyone from the public like to address this topic? So there are 10 days aren't coming up. Let me know if there's a hand raised. Okay. And council discussion no one from the public wants to speak. Taylor: It's nice to see this proposal, um, especially earlier, we saw the- the data that showed, uh, very concerning, significant drop in, uh, development of single-family residences in- m the area, uh, so it's- it's great to see that the plan is for 18 residential homes. And, uh, considering the surrounding areas, I- I know some people that live in that covered wagon area, it, uh, they're- they're nice family home. So they're not high-end, which I think we've seen a lot of that development which I don't personally think we need that many more of those. We- we always talk about affordable housing and this will be affordable probably to- to middle income folks. It's still not to the bar where we'd like, uh, lower - This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of May 17, 2022. Page 22 income folks to be able to afford these homes, but- but still it will be- they'll be comfortable homes and, uh, add to our residential properties in the city so I'm- I'm in favor of it. Thomas: I wanted to thank Kirk. I- I appreciate your presentation going through all the line items that we- we have to comply with. It was very thorough presentation, thank you. And I'll be supporting it although I must say I'm looking forward to some form -based code applications. [LAUGHTER]. Fruin: Yeah. I will say the- the applicant also owns a significant amount of property to the north and to the west surrounding whether it be park and where I'm working very closely with them as they- we're gonna have to take a step back and masterplan in their own way, uh, with the form -based code. So we're- we're excited to be working with them on the next phase. And I think when that comes forward, um, uh, the community and the council will be excited too. Bergus: And thank you, Kirk, for the showing kinda how it fit in with the transect that was noted in the- in the form based code, that was helpful to see. Teague: All right. I think we're ready for roll -call. [Roll Call] Motion passes 7-0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of May 17, 2022. Page 23 10. FY2022 Budget Amendment and Public Hearing 1. Public Hearing Teabue: Item Number 10 is fiscal 2022 budget amendment, public hearing resolution, amending the current budget for fiscal year ending June 2022. And I'm gonna open the public hearing. And I'm gonna welcome Jacklyn. Welcome. Fleagle: Hello. Jacklyn Fleagle, assistant fmance director m finance department. I'm talking about the third and fmal budget amendment for FY -22. Just kind of an overview of the budget process that, uh, FY -22 budget was originally approved m March of 2021. The year runs from July 1st to June 30th. Uh, previous amendments were in September of 2021 and then March of 22. Uh, city policy currently allows for amendments for emergent situations, transfers from contingencies, expenditures with offsetting revenues or fund balance, and then carry over or prior year budget authority. Uh, it can amend any time other than the last 30 days of the fiscal year so once we get into June, we cannot do any more amendments and the city typically averages three amendments a year so this is the third and final. Uh, this amendment consists of amendments to capital improvement plan projects, emergency type repairs, uh, the transfer of the tailwinds affordable housing fee -in -lieu of to reimburse the general fund for purchase of the south district duplexes, uh, a receipt of a request, and then other small amendment items. On the revenue side, uh, and the state forum you see under miscellaneous is the bequest and then donation and then transfers m is the 1.5 million of the transfer of the fee -in -lieu of. Uh, the other hand of expenditures by the state program levels, uh, government capital projects as the CIP amendments and engineering, and consisting of engineering remodel, library rarely and then a Catio and then the other side of the transfer in of that 1.5 million. And then the business type expenditures are amendments to for a water main, Clinton to church, uh, spiral heat exchanger pair and then landfill bird assessment. Um, the overall total impact to the fund balance is a decrease of over 400,000. It's covered through excess fund balances and bonds and will not affect property tax levies. Any questions you'll have me? Bergus: I'm just really intrigued by the [OVERLAPPING] request- the- the request. Was that allocated for a specific purpose or just to the city generally? Fleagle: Um, so I'm not sure if it was for a specific purpose, but, um, it was for the- to the animal shelter. Um, and they are using it to help fund the Catio along with the matching donation from the foundation. Bergus: Thank you. Fleagle: Thanks. 2. Consider a Resolution This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of May 17, 2022. Page 24 Teague: Thank you. All right. Anyone from the public like to address this topic? And let me know if anyone is online they wanna speak. Seeing no one, I'm gonna close the public hearing. Can I get a motion to approve, please? Bergus: So moved Bergus. Weiner: Second Weiner. Teague: All right. Council discussion. Weiner: So I probably should have asked for him and it's not gonna change anything. But I wonder what's a landfill bird assessment? Fruin: We've had some complaints from neighboring property owners about, um, birds at the landfill, which, um, you might imagine my birds might congregate at a landfill. Um, but - but neighboring property owners have had concerns about the impact on their property. So the- the DNR, the State Department of Natural Resource, um, required us to do a bird assessment, which is basically to bring in an expert that can help us, um, identify the extent of the issue and- and any solutions that may be required to help, uh, mitigate some of those, uh, some of those challenges. Weiner: Thanks. Fruin: The joys of owning a landfill. We could- we could go for hours on it. [LAUGHTER]. Teague: Yes. Alter: I hope it's sort of a root cause thing as opposed to just getting rid of the birds? The birds. Fruin: Yeah, no, exactly and there's so many variables. I mean, migratory patterns, you know, may change seasonally and that could be- it could just be was, um, a different year in terms of migratory patterns because it's not something that- that has been a recurring issue year after year. It was a fairly new challenge for us. Teague: All right. Any other comments? Roll call, please? [Roll Call] Motion passes, 7-0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of May 17, 2022. Page 25 12. Council Appointments 12.a. Airport Commission Teague: Item 12 is Council Appointments. Applicants must reside in Iowa City and be 18 years of age, unless specific requirements- unless specific qualifications are stated. 12.a is Airport Commission. And we'll probably discuss all of the appointments together today. Harmsen: Are you sure? Teague: No. It's too many. [LAUGHTER] Yeah, I don't think we'll go - Weiner: Maybe we could do all the historic preservation. Teague: Yeah, [OVERLAPPING] well do that one. Yeah, we'll do that together. Yes. Um, so we'll do air- we'll start with Airport Commission. And there is two vacancies to fill a four-year term, July 1, 2022 through June 30th, 2023. And this has a female requi- gender balance requirement. Taylor: And a non. Weiner: And one female, one non. Teague: And a non, yes. Taylor: But we happen to have, um, two of the applicants are- are current members, and both of them- I always look at the attendance records, and both of them have excellent record atten- of attendance. Um, so I would move to- to reappoint Warren Bishop and Judy Pfohl. Thomas: I agree. Alter: I agree with those. Weiner: I mean, the other person who is, um, who- who could really bring something to it I think was Ryan Story. I would defmitely agree with- with reappointing Judy because I think she filled a partial- she filled the position partway- partway through, so she's not- hasn't yet served the full term. Teague: I think we've in the past tried to, um, share opportunities with other people in the community, if they've served a full term. Um, we do know the Airport Commission. There's a few commissions that are a little specialized in- in, you know, in my opinion, um, that may have a little more technical [LAUGHTER], um, needs. Um, and reading through the, you know, application, I think I could agree with, um, Ryan Story as being appointed. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of May 17, 2022. Page 26 Alter: He was one who stood out to me as well. Um, and I was thinking along the same lines that I know that- actually we had a really robust kind of pooled applicants for several commissions, but, um, it did seem to me that kind of in the spirit of how commissions have done before that to- to kind of share the opportunities. So I would be perfectly fine with Gerald as well, um, but, um, if we're thinking along- er, I'm sorry. Teague: You're thinking of Warren. Alter: Yes, I apologize. Teague: So Ryan- Ryan is- sorry. Alter: Yeah. Anyway, I'm going to stop speaking, but I just- [LAUGHTER] but no, I'm fine with Warren again, but, um, if we wanna kind of share the wealth, then I would also recommend- I would recommend Ryan. Taylor: I- I- I agree with that. I mean, he's a commercial pilot, but I'm- I also think that it is important also for- just continue and so on, on a board or commission to have that knowledge base that, ah, that Mr. Bishop has with that. Ah, I- I- I believe we got a letter saying that Ryan would be- if we don't put- select the other two, that he would be good. Ah, so I think, you know, keeping him for further, um, consideration, um, when openings come up again. And I think he would probably- he's young and gonna be in the community. He probably still be consi- interested in serving. Teague: So I do hear three- um, as I hear, three for Ryan so far and two for Warren. Thomas: I- I supported Warren and Judy. Teague: Okay. Bergus: I did as well, Judy. Teague: So I hear a three and a three for - Alter: I can switch. That's fine. Teague: Okay. Harmsen: But I was just gonna say, I think I agree with Pauline's take. I think it- it's great to have this problem to have some really good candidates, um, but it does make some sense for the continuity. And again, the way commissions work, we periodically have somebody. So, you know, openings pop up and so, um, I think hopefully they're listening or- or will be watching this and that- that Ryan will keep their application in, um, you know, for that. Yeah, I think that would be, um, reasonable to me as well. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of May 17, 2022. Page 27 Teague: All right. Any other comments on this? We will appoint Warren Bishop- reappoint Warren- Warren Bishop and Judy Pfohl to the Airport commission. All right. We're gonna move on to the - Harmsen: [OVERLAPPING] vote on that? Teague: Uh, well, we can just- we can do it all at one time. Taylor: Do it in bulk. Teague: Yes. Goers: Yeah, that's fine, if you wanted to- we need a vote at some point, but if- if you- yeah. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of May 17, 2022. Page 28 12.b. Board of Appeals Teague: We'll do it all at one time. All right. We're gonna move on to Item 12.b, which is Board of Appeals. This is a one vacant seat to fill a five-year term, January 1st, 2022 through December 31st, 2026. And this is a non -gender balance requirement. And we only have one applicant. Weiner: Right, for a building design professional. For a building design professional, I- I presume an architect qualifies. Taylor: Right. But I believe it said after three months, that doesn't- that doesn't apply. Is that true with this as well as gender balance? That it can be anyone. Fruehling: I wanna say with- with the specialized, urn, it's either a build- building design professional or with some experience. Eric? Goers: Yeah. It says a building design professional or a qualified trade representative with experience and training. Is that what you're asking? Fruehling: Yes. Thank you. Taylor: And Thomas - Weiner: I would think that architect qualifies. Bergus: Yeah. Building design, yeah. [OVERLAPPING] Taylor: Although it- it- the balance is odd. One female, three males currently. So I'd love to see a female, [LAUGHTER] but we didn't have female applicants, so- and they- they need someone. So I- I- I would say, I'm fine with Thomas. Bergus: I agree. Teague: Yeah. I'm seeing nods- nods of head of the majority. So we will appoint, Thomas McInerney, for the Board of Appeals Building Design Professional. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of May 17, 2022. Page 29 12.c. Historic Preservation Commission — At -Large Teague: We're gonna move on to a few that we may- well, we can take them all one by one still even here. So we'll do 12.c Historic Preservation Commission at large. And this one- Fruehling: Mayor, and if I can point out the other- Brown Street and Summit Street each just have one applicant that are both females. So - Weiner: Yeah. Okay. Teague: All right. So we may have some challenges, um, there. We- we won't have enough- we don't have enough applicants for the openings. Taylor: For the Jefferson Street. Weiner: For the three, we have- we have one for at -large. I mean, we have some for at large, one for Brown Street, and one for summit. Teague: Correct. Harmsen: I was looking at that too Mayor with the two Brown Street and Summit Street, that we only had one applicant. But again, those are fairly specialized and I thought both applicant I mean- I was impressed with both applications. So normally I kind of would do that even with our last one that had that specialized, normally one applicant doesn't scream, make a decision with just one applicant. But some of the circumstances here and in this case, I was you know -I was also really impressed with their applications, so. Teague: Awesome. Harmsen: So I am already comfortable with those- with those- on those two. Teague: All right. we 11 talk about, uh, 12.c, which is going to be Historic Preservation Commission at large and so um, since they're all female, um, we have to appoint a female. Weiner: I mean, I would be fine- I would be fine with either based on their applications with either Laura Routh or Jordan Sellergran who's the incumbent, both are females. Both seem to have a reasonable amount of either interest or expertise. I don't know if we want to reappoint or we want to have somebody new, in which case we wanted somebody who knew them. We could be looking at Laura Routh for example. Harmsen: And not to complicate, but I thought that Talitha also had a pretty strong application. [OVERLAPPING] I would defmitely- I would also say in my mind, Jordan Sellergran and Talitha jumped out at me. So some overlap there if that's helpful. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of May 17, 2022. Page 30 Weiner: Right. I don't a minute and- the other thing that I look at and I don't know, to the extent that people are really paying atte-, still pay attention. But some of the- but some of these applications are a year old. Um, and the last two are pretty- almost brand new. So the Routh and Sellergran application was brand new the- the others are from June 21 and July 21. Teague: I can respect that logic, that they are old and- but the city clerk does send out emails to each individual, um, letting them know that we're going to be voting. This is going to be coming before council. So in- individuals have that opportunity to say remove my name if they're not interested. So I do think we should, you know at least for our conversation, [OVERLAPPING] treat them as if they're still there. Yeah and if- if we learn that they're not which we have in the past, you know, that has been a long time. They didn't notice the email. We've had to re -vote. Um, I'm a little partial to always looking at new voices and new opportunities. Um, so Talitha speaks to me. But I can go wherever people want to go with either of the ones that's been suggested so far. Bergus: I like Talitha and Jordan Sellergran. Those were the two that jumped out at me. Thomas: I'm I- I like newness. I'll select continuity. [LAUGHTER] uh, Jordan. Jordan was my preference. Taylor: I also liked Jordan. As I said before, I- I always look at their attendance and she had excellent attendance. I don t think she'd missed a meeting and I- I think that shows dedication and that would be good to have her continue on there for the at -large position. Teague: All right. It sounds like we have majority for Jordan Sellergran. For the Historic Preservation Commission at large. [NOISE] This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of May 17, 2022. Page 31 12.d. Historic Preservation Commission — Brown Street Teague: We are moving on to item Number 12.d, which is the Historic Preservation Commission, Brown Street. Historic Preservation Commission Brown Street has one vacancy to fill a three-year term, July 1st, 2022 through June 30th, 2025. Bergus: I think we should go with the one applicant [LAUGHTER] Christina Reynolds. Taylor: She lives on Brown street. Thomas: Really thrilled to see Chris Welu Reynolds apply for this position. She's very passionate about the neighborhood, about historic preservation, but she also has experience doing renovations, so she understands that game as well. Teague: All right. Majority for Christina Welu Reynolds for Historic Preservation Commission, Brown Street, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of May 17, 2022. Page 32 12.e. Historic Prevervation Commission — Summit Street Teague: and then we're moving on to item Number 12.e, Historic Preservation Commission Summit Street. Historic Preservation Commission Summit Street has one vacant seat to fill a three-year term, July 1st, 2022 through June 30th, 2025, and again, we have one applicant. Weiner: Also seems more qualifying. Taylor: And lives on Summit Street. All right. Teague: All right. Taylor: Villanueva is how she said she pronounce her name. Villanueva Nicole. Teague: Villanueva. All right. So Nicole Villanueva has majority support for Historic Preservation Commission Summit Street. [NOISE] This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of May 17, 2022. Page 33 12.f. Housing Community and Development Commission Teague: Moving onto 12.f. Housing Community and Development Commission. Housing Community and Development Commission, three vacancies to fill a three-year term, July 1st, 2022 through June 30th, 2025 Weiner: One female, one male, one nun. Teague: Yeah, We have three positions one female, one male, and one nun Bergus: I'll just throw it out. Oh, go ahead mayor. Teague: Go right ahead. Bergus: I was just going to start throwing out names. [LAUGHTER] Teague: Oh, before we do that, I have to make mention that Tanya Moore should have not been in our packet because she's over one year. We will find out why the name wasn't removed from the system, so we cannot, um, consider, Tanya Moore. Bergus: I was just going to suggest Maryann Dennis, Jennifer Hayllet, and Zachary Slocum. Weiner: Those are three people that I have in mind. [OVERLAPPING] Thomas: My list as well. Teague: So Maryann Dennis, Zachary Slocum, and which was her. Bergus: Jennifer Hayllet. Taylor: Jennifer Hayllet. Teague: Okay. I'm seeing majority for those three and we have our balance according to the requirements. So based on what she said, we will make that appointment for the Housing and Community Development Commission. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of May 17, 2022. Page 34 12.g. Library Board of Trustees Teague: We are onto 12.g, which is the lib- library board of trustees. One vacancy to fill an unexpired term upon appointment through June 30th, 2027, and this has one female. I'm sorry. Um, just one male. [BACKGROUND] Alter: I would throw out John Raeburn. Sony, put him into the ring not throw [LAUGHTER] out opposite. I would throw out. I'm just going to start over. I think that John Raeburn would be an excellent choice. Taylor: I like John Raeburn, I liked what he said that libraries are a jewel in the City's Crown. I like that, so I- I think he would be good, although it's tough, there was good applicants. Harmsen: It was real tough and I tell you as commensurate with a city of literature and considering the attacks that libraries are on under in this state, the fact that we had a pool of people ready to step into that position. I mean, that speaks, I think really well, of our community. Teague: I would agree. Weiner: The other person that I was very interested in is- is Daniel Smith. Thomas: I like them both too. Taylor: I liked him too. Weiner: [OVERLAPPING] There's a lot of training and- and library science and so forth. Teague: So far I've heard John and Daniel. Alter: Those are the only two men. Teague: So then I think I've heard three for John so far. Bergus: I'd go John. Teague: And I can support John. So we have a majority for John Raeburn, for a library trust of. Taylor: I would encourage Daniel Smith to keep his hat in the ring and keep an eye on openings. Teague: Yes. Taylor: He would also be very good. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of May 17, 2022. Page 35 Teague: Yes. [BACKGROUND] So for the library board of trustees who will appoint Daniel Smith? Taylor: No, John Raeburn. Teague: Oh, [LAUGH 1 ER]. Taylor: I confuse them too. Teague: No, I just heard you say the name. John Raeburn. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of May 17, 2022. Page 36 12.h. Planning & Zoning Commission Teague: All right. We're on to, 12.h is planning and zoning commission. Planning and zoning commission with one vacancy to fill a five-year term. And this has no, um, gender requirement. I have to tell you again that Doug Boudreau application is over a year old, so we cannot consider that. Bergus: Then I'd suggest Maggie Elliott. Weiner: She also filled in an unexpired term and, um, I like what she said about it being actually a really- a really positive learning experience. Learning as [OVERLAPPING]. Thomas: I appreciated that she not only learned from her co- commissioners, but followed up on these [OVERLAPPING] applications with council comments. Alter: Yeah, I agree. Teague: And I can support Maggie. It sound like we have majority support for Maggie Elliott for the planning and zoning commission. All right. We are- [LAUGHTER] we're there [OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER]. I think I get it. I think I have it. Okay. Oh, you have it? Goers: I was- I just want to make sure that someone doesn't make a motion for those [OVERLAPPING] Maybe they put you are about to read Mr. Mayor in a second and a vote, okay. Great. Teague: Yes. So can I get a motion to appoint? Now, this is where you have to check me. Warren Bishop, Judith Pfohl, Ryan Story to the airport co- commission. Weiner: No, there's only two, Warren Bishop and Judy Pfohl. Teague: Oh, yes. Warren Bishop and Judith Pfohl to the airport commission for the board of appeals, building design professional, Thomas McInerney to the historic preservation- to the historic preservation commission at large, Jordan Sellergran. To the Historic Preservation Commission, Brown Street. Christina Reynolds, historic preservation - Preservation Commission Summit street. Nicole Villanueva, Housing and Community Development Commission. Maryann Dennis, Jennifer Hayllet and Zachary Slocum. Library board of trustees, John Raeburn and planning and zoning commission, Maggie Elliott. So can I get a motion, please? Weiner: So moved. Taylor: Second. Taylor. Teague: Moved Weiner, seconded by Taylor. All in favor say aye, [Voice Vote] Aye. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of May 17, 2022. Page 37 Any oppose? Motion passes 7-0. We made it through. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of May 17, 2022. Page 38 15. City Council Information Teague: And we're at item number 15, which is city council information. So any upcoming events, meetings, anything you've attended? Weiner: Upcoming were doing the- the- the Public Works open houses this Saturday and we're doing a series of rolling, um, council forum. Teague: Yes. Bergus: Will you be on rollerskates? [OVERLAPPING]? [LAUGHTER] You could do that. Teague: So, yeah. That would be nice [LAUGHTER]. Harmsen: The one time I've had a cast was from rollerskating. Oh, oh no wheels on this guy. Weiner: Are we supposed to take questions, while rollerskating? Yeah [LAUGHTER]. Alter: Actually, I also have, um, a bit more than myself are going, but, um, the downtown district is having their annual meeting on Thursday, right? So that should be cool. It's gonna be in the Johnson- at the Chauncey park. And then little bit of a plug because my girl is doing it, but it's also- it is an amazing community event. Um, the girls on the Run are having their 5K on Sunday. Um, oh my gosh, I'm blanking on the park. I can see it. It's a wonderful new part [OVERLAPPING]. Thank you. Thank you. Riverfront crossing and that's the- the beginning of it at 11:30. So anyway, it's gonna be a big weekend. Roller skating, run jogging [OVERLAPPING]. Weiner: And the farmers market has been great so far?Very-very well attended. Thomas: I had an- an opportunity over the weekend to see the Red Cedar Chamber Music, um, Quartet, I believe at least that's how were they were playing that night. They are an outstanding entity of music [LAUGHTER]. They were accompanying, urn, silent films from the Britain collection, which is also a fascinating body of work. And that combination which I- after we saw them in Cedar Rapids, we watch the saving Brenton film, the documentary which came out for maybe four years ago, which is a wonderful expression of things Iowa. I mean, it's really a remarkable film, very inspiring. And they played in that documentaries well, so it was interesting to see them there, but I highly recommend them. They're really fme, fme musical group. Teague: Tomorrow we have our 09:00 AM to 04:00 PM Strategic Planning. Harmsen: At 9:30 [OVERLAPPING]. Teague: Oh, 9:30, oh, extra 30 minutes. Perfect [LAUGHTER]. I had it to be there at nine for myself. I won't be late. All right, so we have a little homework for that and there's a lot of This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of May 17, 2022. Page 39 opportunity for us to really great- set a nice vision for our community. If no more comments, we will go to reports from the city manager's office. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of May 17, 2022. Page 40 16. Reports on Items from City Staff Fruin: Uh, just real quick on the Public Works open house, I had previously communicated to you that we were gonna do a ribbon cutting for the, um, for the building at 12:30. We decided to scrap those plans. Uh, there's just so much on the agenda, um, that we didn't think we could- we could do it justice and do it the right way. So we're not gonna do the building, urn, ribbon -cutting. So don't plan your day around that necessarily. If you can stop by anytime between 8:00 and 5:00, that would be, ah, fantastic. We'll have all kinds of activities and vehicles on display for you [OVERLAPPING]. Teague: And there'll be listening sessions from I think it's 9:00 to 11:00. Alter: I'm doing 9:00, 9:00 to 10:30. Teague: Nine to 10:30 is gonna be a Mayor Pro Tem altar, and then I'm doing 12:00 to 2:00. And then we have Councilor Weiner doing 3:30 to 5:00. Weiner: Yes. When you get to engage with a four-year-old at same time. Teague: Yes [LAUGHTER]. All right, we're gonna go on to our city Attorney's Office. Goers: Nothing for me today. Thank you, Mayor. Teague: All right. And what about the city Clerk? Fruehling: Nothing for me. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of May 17, 2022. Page 41 17. Adjourn Teague: Great. Item number 17? Weiner: Redmond? Teague: We're now doing, um, like city manager's office. Weiner: Okay [OVERLAPPING]. Teague: And so [OVERLAPPING] yeah, we come back. Fruin: We're gonna shave these meeting times down. [LAUGHTER] [OVERLAPPING]. Harmsen: That's where the problem was [OVERLAPPING]. Teague: So he'll still get his comments when he has sound. He's not short of words if you ever have that one-on-one with him [LAUGHTER]. All right. Item number 17. Can I get a motion to adjourn? Taylor: So move, Taylor. Weiner: Second [OVERLAPPING]. Teague: All right. I'm gonna give, uh, um, moved by Taylor, seconded by Weiner. [Voice vote] Any oppose? We are adjourned for the evening. At 7:45 pm [MUSIC]. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of May 17, 2022.