Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-05-19 TranscriptionMay 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 1 May 19, 2003 Council Work Session 6:58 PM Council: Champion, Kanner, Lehman, Pfab, O'Donnell, Vanderhoef, Wilburn Staff: Atkins, Helling, Dilkes, Voparil, Franklin TAPE: 03-48, BOTH SIDES REVIEW PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS a. CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR JUNE 10 ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING OVERLAY (PDH-5) PLAN FOR THE PENINSULA NEIGHBORItOOD LOCATED ON FOSTER ROAD. (REZ03-00016) Franklin/The first one is an ordinance amending the planned development housing plan for the Peninsula Neighborhood. There are some Code changes that are included here. You will also be getting the plat for Phase 2. (see discussion after b) b. CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR JUNE 10 ON AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 1.1 ACRES FROM CB-2, CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SERVICE, TO PR/M, PLANNED HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF SOUTH DUBUQUE STREET SOUTH OF COURT STREET. (REZ03- 00012) Franklin/Item b is setting a public hearing for June 10th on a zoning change from CB2 to PRM for property on the south side of Court Street. Basically, it's south on Court and along Dubuque Street. Franklin/Item c--- Kanner/Karin? Kanner/I had a question about that. Franklin/Uh-huh? Kanner/I was reading the minutes from Planning and Zoning when they talked about this a couple meetings ago, and they, one of the people there, Dan Brayer or something? Franklin/Dan Bray? Yes? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19, 2003. May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 2 Kanner/Right. He talked about how it was rezoned originally to encourage a building that he had. Franklin/Yes. Kanner/Or U.C. had. Franklin/Well, on his particular property. He owns the older house on the comer of Linn Street and Court, which is across the street and down a block from, well, across Linn Street--- Pfab/Oh, OK, yeah. Franklin/...from the property in question, and at that time when his property was zoned CB-2, it was at his request so that he could have his office in there and the reason was based upon that being an historic structure and the desire to preserve that structure. But, generally speaking, the Near Southside Redevelopment Plan advocates zoning south of Court Street for high-density multi-family, which is the PRM zone. The property that's being requested for rezoning, now the elderly housing, and the apartments to the south of that were left in CB-2 because of existing uses there at the time. The elderly housing, which at that time was consistent with the CB-2 zoning. There was also some other commercial property as you proceed down Dubuque Street that is commercial, now a law office, there was a vet's office there that has since moved. So, some of these properties when we did the Near Southside rezoning stayed CB-2 because they had some commercial uses going on or uses that were consistent with CB-2, but not with the PRM. So this rezoning to PRM brings us closer to the vision of the Near Southside Redevelopment Plan than does the CB-2. And Mr. Bray's circumstances were unique to that particular property and were at his request. And the Council at the time honored his request. Pfab/I read that the last Planning and Zoning meeting that (can't hear) Franklin/I expect they will, too. Or not tomorrow but June 10th. Lehman/Irvin, why don't you talk in your microphone? Pfab/Sorry about that. I (can't hear), is--it appears that if you rezone it, it basically puts that elderly housing or senior housing, however you want to say it, at risk. Franklin/Well, that's really a market determination because what will happen with the rezoning to PRM is the elderly housing can continue but the option that's opened up is that it also can be for anyone. It doesn't restrict it to elderly housing. Pfab/But as it is now, it is restricted, however? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19, 2003. May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 3 Franklin/Yes. Yes. a. CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR JUNE 10 ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING OVERLAY (PDH-5) PLAN FOR THE PENINSULA NEIGHBORHOOD LOCATED ON FOSTER ROAD. (REZ03-00016) Vanderhoef/Karin, I also had a question on a. And you just--- Franklin/Oh. Vanderhoef/...I didn't get my paper opened up with my question. Franklin/OK. Vanderhoef/Down in the comments there's a list of the various things, and I wondered on number 3, the changes in grade to make it easier to--- Franklin/ To provide access for people with disabilities? Vanderhoef/Yeah. What does that look like? Franklin/Currently, there is a requirement that the entry or the first part of the building be 30 inches above grade, which does not allow for stepless entry. What this does is it modifies that so that it's not required in all circumstances to allow for a stepless entry for people with disabilities. And it won't be in every single cimumstance. Vanderhoef/Because that's a requirement that we put on our Housing Code for anything that got CDBG or Home Funds. Franklin/Correct. That's correct. Vanderhoef/OK. Excuse me. Then the home occupation on the upper floor, does that mean only work space or does that entail having an elevator? Franklin/What that is about is--an elevator? I don't understand that--- Vanderhoef/Allowing home occupations--- Franklin/Yeah. Vanderhoef/...to occur on the upper floors. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19, 2003. May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 4 Franklin/Home occupations now can occur in any residential dwelling unit and I would have to go back and look at the Code, but evidently, home occupations were restricted to the first floor, and this just makes it more liberal and allows them also to occur on the second floor if you've got a flat one over the other, that you could have the home occupation on the second floor as well as the first floor. I don't think it relates to the--this does not relate to the requirement for an elevator. That may come into play with the Building Code. Vanderhoef/Well, that's the question that I asked. Franklin/But a home occupation does not require a permit at this point in time. Home occupations are dealt with on a complaint basis, that basically with a home occupation, the residence has to be ostensibly from the outside from all behavior a residence. So. Champion/It wouldn't have to be (can't hear) some type of an elevator because a lot of home occupations don't have customers going to the house. Franklin/Yeah. Vanderhoef/Well, but that--you know, I would have to see--- Franklin/It would have to kick in, possibly when a building permit was being issued. But because of the way we handle home occupations, I don't think it's going to require an elevator because there's not necessarily, we're not going to know exactly when one is established. Vanderhoef/OK, then,--- Franklin/So, I don't know if that answers your question or not. Vanderhoef/It allows some things there that it's OK, but it may bring in, like you say, the Housing Code then. Franklin/I don't think this is any different from what we would allow or require in any other place in the City. For some reason there was a restriction to home occupations being on the ground floor in the Peninsula Code. This enables it to be on the second floor; just as in my home right now I could have a home occupation on my second floor if I wanted to. Dilkes/Yeah, I don't think it's going to bring the accessibility issues into play because when the building permit is issued, it's going to be for a residential structure not a commercial structure. Franklin/Right. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19, 2003. May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 5 Vanderhoef/OK. Dilkes/And so they're not even going to look at--- Vanderhoef/Then, I've one more. Removing the requirement for balconies for these apartments. Is that strictly a cost thing? Because in my mind I think of the balconies as being a fire safety kind of thing that one can move out onto a balcony. Franklin/Well, no. Right now, we don't require balconies on other buildings in the City and in fact when this was in the original Peninsula Code, we brought it to the developer's attention. We didn't think the requirement for a second floor balcony was something that was common in Iowa City. We have them on a number of apartment buildings, but usually it's for an air conditioning unit or a cooker or a keg. The balcony requirement was not something--it was an architectural style type of thing that was in the Code, that became problematic and so we had always wanted to have it out of the Code and finally they agreed that it should be out of the Code. It's not a requirement that you have to have a balcony on the second floor. It doesn't preclude you from having one. It just doesn't require it. Kanner/Was that a new urbanist thing to have balconies that it would give them more community feel? Was that why it was included? Franklin/It was included, well, because of the, I believe, architectural taste of the person who was writing the Code. Vanderhoef/Because a lot of the old houses have that balcony out over the front porch kind of thing. Franklin/It's kind of a more Southem thing or the widow's walk in New England. Champion/I have a second floor balcony at the back of my house. Franklin/Mm-hmm. Sure. It's not--- Vanderhoef/It's not what I'm thinking of--- Champion/ There's not very many houses in--- Franklin/ But see what this did is it required you to have one. And there are some apartment buildings, you don't want that balcony up there. Well, we, you know what, we're going to have all the detail of this at the next meeting when it's on the public hearing. Can we talk about it then? Lehman/Right, right. That's a good time to do it. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19, 2003. May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 6 Franklin/OK. Lehman/Irvin? Pfab/I was going to say I think that came from the request of the (can't hear) Franklin/(Can't hear---Radar?) of the City Housing Fellowship, yes. Pfab/And this one (can't hear) Kanner/To put a balcony? Franklin/To not have to have a balcony. Pfab/(Can't hear) O'Donnell/Irvin, your microphone is, I can't hear. Pfab/Thank you. Does the home occupation require that it has public access? Champion/No. Franklin/No. Pfab/OK. Well, that's, yeah, so that was my, the elevator thing, I didn't think it did. Franklin/Mm-hmm? b. CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR JUNE 10 ON AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 1.1 ACRES FROM CB-2, CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SERVICE, TO PRM~ PLANNED HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF SOUTH DUBUQUE STREET SOUTH OF COURT STREET. (REZ03- 00012) Kanner/For number b? Franklin/Yes. Kanner/I just want to clarify something in the Planning and Zoning April 17th minutes, it said at first, it said staff felt, staff said the, McCafferty said that staff felt that the applicant's reason for rezoning was not compelling. Then it said in reviewing the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19, 2003. May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 7 1992 Near Southside Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan, at that time, because of the adjacent land uses, they felt there was sufficient reason for approving the rezoning. Would it be correct to say it overrode the first part? Franklin/Yeah. Kanner/I'm just trying to get (can't hear) Franklin/The argument, I believe, and Ann and Jerry, correct me if I'm wrong in what was stated at the Commission meeting. I believe the argument of Mr. Clark was that he was having trouble leasing the property for elderly residents. And so therefore he wanted to change it. What Shelley was saying was not a compelling argument, but the fact that it was consistent with the Near Southside Redevelopment Plan was the reason that the staff could support this rezoning request. Kanner/OK. Lehman/OK? Franklin/OK. O'Donnell/OK. c. CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC ItEARING FOR JUNE 10 ON AN ORDINANCE REZONING 6.91 ACRES FROM MEDIUM-DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY (RS-8) TO SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY MEDIUM- DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY (OSA-8) AND A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF DONAItUE SUBDIVISION, A 6.91-ACRE, 2-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 1515 N. DUBUQUE ROAD. (REZ03-00010/SUB03-00002) Franklin/Item c. Setting a public heating for June 10th on an ordinance amending the zoning on 6.91 acres from RS-8 to OSA-8 for the preliminary and final plat of Donahue Subdivision. It's a two-lot subdivision on North Dubuque Road. I don't think you've seen this at all yet. It's a little odd, but we'll see it in detail next time. It's a two-lot subdivision. Lehman/We're going to see that on the 10th. Franklin/Yes, you are. d. CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC ItEARING FOR JUNE 10 ON AN ORDINANCE REZONING 6.92 ACRES FROM INTERIM DEVELOPMENT (ID-RS) TO LOW DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY (RS-5) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19, 2003. May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 8 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF CUMBERLAND LANE SOUTH OF SCOTT PARK. (REZ03-00014/SUB03-00013) Franklin/D is setting a public hearing again on the 10th, rezoning 6.92 acres from ID-RS to RS-5. This is just west of Windsor Ridge at the extension of Cumberland Lane. e. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE SOUTH CENTRAL DISTRICT PLAN TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM OFFICE PARK / COMMERCIAL TO INTENSIVE OR HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF MORMON TREK BOULEVARD EXTENDED. Franklin/Item e is to consider a resolution that amends the South Central District Plan to change the future land use designation from Office Park/Commercial to Intensive or Highway Commercial. And you have had your public hearing on this. It is this portion of--- Lehman/ Right. Franklin/...the area around the Mormon Trek project, so--yes? Pfab/OK. Go back (can't hear). Can we go back over why that (can't hear) Franklin/OK, initially, this Office/Commercial was in this plan because there was concern about strip development of commercial along the highway. Since then the airport has acquired property along the highway. The concern about strip development has kind of dissipated in terms of it being an issue along Highway 1, because all this development is down in this area. And so, what this does is it changes this part to the public for the airport and then this other part becomes an intensive or Highway Commercial. Lehman/Irvin, you need to speak in your mike. Pfab/But for practical purposes, now what is allowed or not allowed? The fact that the airport owns it really doesn't change. Franklin/Well, the airport property, the difference in terms of the airport owning it is that the airport owns along the highway. And so the concern about the strip commercial is no longer a concern because it's not privately owned along the highway. Pfab/Now, what--but can't the airport put whatever it wants in there anyway? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19, 2003. May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 9 Franklin/The airport won't. That's in a runway protection zone; it will not be developed. Yes, they can, but it will not be developed. It's a runway protection zone. So the property at the airport is really out of the question. Pfab/OK, so no matter who owns it, it's in the flight way. Franklin/That's correct. Pfab/So, whether the airport owns it or not, so what, and no matter what it's zoned, it can't be--- Franklin/ That's not the part that's going to be zoned commercial. That's going to be zoned P. What we're talking about is property south of there. Pfab/OK, so--- Franklin/ Right hem. Lehman/The arrow's right on it. Franklin/This area right in here. Pfab/OK. Franklin/And what we're talking about is conceptually changing that from Office Commercial to Highway Commemial and Commercial/Intensive, because that is more consistent with the industrial development to the east here, that we're trying to do with this Mormon Trek project. Pfab/And that does not, is not affected by airport flight restrictions. Franklin/No. Pfab/So this is just a, so the only part that has any flight contingency on it--- Franklin/ Is the blue part. Pfab/OK. OK. Kanner/But they can put some commercial in there, can't they? Franklin/In the airport property? Kanner/Yeah. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19, 2003. May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 10 Franklin/No. Nothing. Only up here. All the blue is airport, nmways, open space. That's it. Kanner/OK. f. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ANNEXING APPROXIMATELY 150 ACRES OF PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF HIGHWAY 218~ WEST OF THE IOWA CITY AIRPORT, AND BOTH NORTH AND SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 1. (ANN03-00001~ ANN01-00004) Franklin/OK. Item fis a resolution that annexes the 150 acres, this whole shaded area hem. With this, there's one issue that I need to raise because I understand that you didn't have discussion of it prior to your public hearing, and that has to do with the tax transition. On all of the properties on which the City approached the private property owners to request their consent to annexation, we used as an incentive to that consent a tax transition that is allowed by the state, and enables us to transition the taxes over five years. This property right here which is owned by John Dane and Dave Larson, we have an application already on file from a couple of years ago, which had been tabled indefinitely because of the time this property was not contiguous to Iowa City's corporate limits. So, we have not included in the resolution the tax transition for this property since it was at their behest that it was being annexed. Mr. Dane has requested that he also has the tax transition that was given to the other properties and that's a decision for the City Council to make. If you do wish to grant Mr. Dane that same tax transition, we'll need to, I believe, make an amendment to the resolution that's before you. But we can do that before tomorrow night. Kanner/How much, do you know approximately how much we've spent in property acquisition for Mormon Trek? Franklin/Oh, my. Not off the top of my head. Kanner/Or what we plan to spend in the next fiscal year? Franklin/Lots of money. Atkins/We can find out. I don't know. Kanner/Yeah, if you could for tomorrow (can't hear) Atkins/Can you give me the question specifically, Steven, so I can make sure I know what we're looking for? Kanner/For Mormon Trek extended--- Atkins/Mormon Trek extended. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19, 2003. May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 11 Karmer/...in the previous years and in the next, current and the next year, how much--- Atkins/For land acquisition? Kanner/...for land acquisition. Atkins/I'll see what I can do. Kanner/And right of, and easement right-of-way. Atkins/That kind of thing, yeah. Franklin/Mm-hmm. I believe you received a memo in your last packet or maybe two packets ago, a confidential memo--- Lehman/Right. Franklin/...from the attorney's office regarding the acquisition prices. Kanner/Yeah, from--- Dilkes/There's probably also a budgeted amount, I would assume for--is there? Franklin/There's a budgeted amount for the entire project. I won't break it down for land acquisition. Atkins/Before you go further, since those acquisitions are concluded, then there's no confidentiality problems or anything. Dilkes/Or we can get that amount--- Atkins/That's what I thought. OK. Vanderhoef/And would you break out then also when you start totaling all this up, then tell us what the FFA is paying us to help build that road, which is the money for the relocation of Dane Road. Pfab/You mean how much is offset by the federal government? Vanderhoef/Well, how much they're giving us for that. Atkins/I'll get what you want. Franklin/OK. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19, 2003. May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 12 Vanderhoef/So that we know exactly what ours is. Franklin/OK. Lehman/OK. g. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 6.1 ACRES FROM COUNTY RS, SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL, TO CI-1, INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF DANE ROAD, EAST OF MORMON TREK BOULEVARD EXTENDED. (REZ01-00017) (FIRST CONSIDERATION) h. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 144 ACRES FROM COUNTY CH, C2, R1A, RS & A1 TO P, PUBLIC, CH-l, HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL, CI-1, INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL, AND ID-RS, SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL, FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF HIGHWAY 218, WEST OF THE IOWA CITY AIRPORT~ AND BOTH NORTH AND SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 1. (REZ03-00013) (FIRST CONSIDERATION) Franklin/Then the next two, the next two items are ordinances which take in the zoning of this property. The first one is for what I've just described of the Dane property. Because that was a separate application, we have it on a separate item from RS to CI-1 for that property that Mr. Dane and Mr. Larson own. And then Item h is the rezoning for the remainder of the property throughout the 150 acres, which is explained by this diagram. Vanderhoef/So it's g that we would have to amend for tomorrow night? Franklin/No, it would be f, because it's the resolution of annexation in which you would want to make that tax transition applicable to all properties if you also want it to apply to the Dane's. Champion/How do people feel about that? I think it ought to apply to all properties. Vanderhoef/I do, too. So, if there's four of us and then if it were written so that we could just refer to it--- Franklin/ Yeah, if you can make a decision or give us some direction tonight, we'll change the resolution. O'Donnell/I don't have a problem with it. Kauner/OK. Vanderhoef/OK, there's four. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19, 2003. May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 13 Franklin/OK, we'll make that change. i. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE COMBINING THE LONGFELLOW HISTORIC DISTRICT AND THE MOFFITT COTTAGE HISTORIC DISTRICT INTO ONE HISTORIC DISTRICT NAMED TItE LONGFELLOW HISTORIC DISTRICT. (REZ03-00004) (SECOND CONSIDERATION) Franklin/Item i, second consideration on the Moffitt District being included with the Longfellow District. j. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM CB-2, CENTRAL BUSINESS SERVICE ZONE, TO CB-S, CENTRAL BUSINESS SUPPORT ZONE, FOR BLOCK 67 OF THE ORIGINAL TOWN PLAT, EXCEPTING THE 6,000 SQUARE FOOT PROPERTY AT 130 NORTH DUBUQUE STREET. (REZ03-00006) (PASS AND ADOPT) Franklin/Itemj is pass and adopt on the rezoning of block 67 from CB-2 to CB-5. k. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE CONDITIONALLY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM CB-2, CENTRAL BUSINESS SERVICE ZONE, TO CB-5, CENTRAL BUSINESS SUPPORT ZONE, FOR A 6,000 SQUARE FOOT PROPERTY AT 130 NORTH DUBUQUE STREET (REZ02-00021) (PASS AND ADOPT) Franklin/Item k is pass and adopt on the rezoning of the comer lot in block 67 from CB- 2 to CB-5. I. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM HIGH DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY / SENSITIVE AREA OVERLAY (RS-12/OSA) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING OVERLAY (OPDIt-12/OSA) FOR 2.12 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MEADOW RIDGE LANE AND NORTH DUBUQUE STREET. (REZ03-00009) (PASS AND ADOPT) Franklin/Item 1 is pass and adopt on Meadow Ridge. Those are the three items. Pfab/I have a question. Franklin/Yes. Pfab/They said that there wasn't enough objections, but it appears--is that reaching the 20 percent? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19, 2003. May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 14 Franklin/No, 19.78 percent. Pfab/No, no, but it requires 20 percent? Franklin/Yes. Pfab/OK. Is that ever going to be possible or is that because there--are there people that are not objecting or there's people? Franklin/Yes. Pfab/There is no 20 percent? Franklin/Yes. You know, you can achieve 20 percent. Kanner/It reached 20 percent but too late for the deadline. So it is possible. Pfab/OK. All right, because I see different objections and I was wondering is it a case where there is no 20 percent? Franklin/No, it could have achieved a 20--- Pfab/It could have but it--- Franklin/ Yes, but it did not in time. m. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION RESIDENTIAL (RNC-12 & 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 & RS- 8/OCD) FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE COLLEGE HILL CONSERVATION DISTRICT WITHIN THE COLLEGE HILL NEIGHBORHOOD. (REZ03-00005) (PASS AND ADOPT) Franklin/OK, Item m is the Conservation District, the College Hill Conservation District, pass and adopt. n. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION RESIDENTIAL (RNC-12) TO OVERLAY HISTORIC PRESERVATION (OHP/RNC-12) DESIGNATING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 30 SOUTH GOVERNOR STREET AN IOWA CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK. (REZ03-00001) (PASS AND ADOPT) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19, 2003. May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 15 o. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE CHANGING TIlE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION RESIDENTIAL (RNC-20) TO OVERLAY HISTORIC PRESERVATION, (OPH/RNC-20), DESIGNATING THE PROPERTY AT 802 WASHINGTON STREET AS AN IOWA CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK (REZ03-00002) (PASS AND ADOPT) p. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION RESIDENTIAL, (RNC-20), TO OVERLAY HISTORIC PRESERVATION, (IHP/RNC-20), DESIGNATING THE PROPERTY AT 726 IOWA AVENUE AS AN IOWA CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK. (REZ03-00003) (PASS AND ADOPT) Franklin/Item n is the landmark at 30 South Governor; o, landmark at 802 Washington; p, landmark at 726 Iowa Avenue. q. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING A FINAL PLAT OF HOLLYWOOD MANOR, PART 8. (SUB03-00012) Franklin/Item q--well, all right. I don't have one for item--shoot. Dilkes/It's going to be deferred until June 10th anyway. Franklin/Yeah, that's why I didn't have one. Sorry about that. r. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE EXTRATERRITORIAL FINAL PLAT OF WINDY MEADOWS ADDITION, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA. (SUB03-00010) Franklin/Item r is a resolution approving the extraterritorial final plat of Windy Meadows Addition. This is one we've talked about a number of times with rezoning preliminary plat and now the final plat. This is a county subdivision, two lots. I think we've been over it before. Lehman/Right. Vanderhoef/It is in a different watershed. Franklin/Yeah. Old Man's Creek. s. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDED FINAL MANUFACTURED HOUSING SITE PLAN OF SADDLEBROOK ADDITION, PART 2, LOTS 4, 5, 6, 7, & 8, IOWA CITY, IOWA. (SUB03- 00015) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19, 2003. May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 16 Franklin/Item s is a resolution amending the final manufactUred housing site plan for Saddlebrook. The only reason we didn't do this administratively is because with a manufactured housing site plan, it has to go through you if there's a change. Lehman/All right. Franklin/And this is just a change in the intersection at Shire's, Shire Lane and Paddock Circle. Pfab/Could you go over that? I'm aware of what it is. I just would like to refresh some of it. Franklin/OK, what this is is this is the current configuration of Shire Lane and Paddock Circle. And right now Paddock Circle comes around like this and Shim Lane comes into it straight on, which creates confusion in terms of street naming. So what's proposed is that Shire Lane will T into Paddock Circle and Paddock Circle will continue on around like this. Pfab/OK. Now does that change the number of lots available? Franklin/No. Pfab/OK. No, I think this is a great idea. It certainly would cut down confusion. I think it's a great idea. Lehman/Thank you, Karin. Franklin/Well, 7:20. Not my fault. O'Donnell/Good job. REVIEW AGENDA ITEMS ITEM 5. A CIVIL PENALTY OF EITHER $1500.00 AGAINST OR A THIRTY (30) DAY SUSPENSION OF TIlE RETAIL CIGARETTE PERMIT OF TIlE AIRLINER, PURSUANT TO IOWA CODE SECTION 453A.22(2). ITEM 6. A CIVIL PENALTY OF $1500.00 AND A THIRTY {30) DAY RETAIL CIGARETTE PERMIT SUSPENSION AGAINST A & J MINI MART, INC., PURSUANT TO IOWA CODE SECTION 453A.22(2). Lehman/OK. Agenda items? I have one question I guess, item 5 and 6. What are--what's the option of the Council? It appears to me that they can either have their permit revoked or pay $1,500. Pfab/Yes. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19, 2003. May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 17 Lehman/Are we supposed to decide whether they're guilty or not? Dilkes/No, we're doing it the same thing we've always done. They have a right to--you know, notice and an opportunity to be heard. We're doing the same procedure we had before; the penalties have changed as a result of the State Code. Lehman/OK, but the--OK. Dilkes/No, and so the resolution will simply read within 10 days they're either to suspend their permit or pay the $1,500--- Lehman/Oh. Champion/Oh, OK. Dilkes/...just leave; you don't have to pay the--- Lehman/No, it's still their choice. Dilkes/That's number 5. Number 6 is the third penalty. Vanderhoef/So, it's automatic. Dilkes/It is the third time and it's an automatic suspension and a penalty. Lehman/OK. Pfab/And a penalty? Vanderhoef/Yes. Dilkes/Mm-hmm. Lehman/All right. Pfab/OK, so the second time they have an option; the third time they have a whammy. Lehman/Right. Pfab/The suspension and the $1,500. Dilkes/Right. Pfab/That wasn't the way I read it so--- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19, 2003. May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 18 Dilkes/Well, though, you got a memo from us, I think sometime in the last month, the state law has changed the graduated penalty. Lehman/OK. ITEM 7. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE REPEALING TITLE 6, "PUBLIC HEALTH," CHAPTER 7, "SMOKING IN FOOD ESTABLISItMENTS" OF TItE CITY CODE. Vanderhoef/And I have a question on 7. What is our legal status if we don't rescind it? Dilkes/Well, it's an unenforceable ordinance that's on the books. Vanderhoef/OK. Dilkes/And if opposed, potentially subject to challenge. Vanderhoef/Even though we're not enforcing it? Dilkes/Well, it doesn't say that. Lehman/Your recommendation is that we rescind it, is that correct? Dilkes/I think it should be repealed. The Iowa Supreme Court has spoken and I think it should be repealed. Vanderhoef/OK, second question then. Would there be a way that we could suspend the ordinance? And what I'm thinking is down the road, if we finally get our home rule, which we ought to get as our home rule, then we could reinstate the suspended--- Dilkes/I'm aware of no procedure for suspension of an ordinance. I know Eileen Fisher called me from CAFE saying that the Attorney General had made mention of that. I have been in contact with the Attorney General since the Supreme Court's ruling, and they haven't contacted me about some potential for a suspension. I am aware of no procedure for suspending an ordinance. The best I think is you would add some kind of provision that says, Due to--actually by ordinance--Due to the Supreme Court's decision, this ordinance is unenforceable. I guess I just, you know, I go back to the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that the ordinance is invalid and unenforceable; it shouldn't be on our books. Lehman/But we could very easily turn around and pass the same ordinance again. Dilkes/ If the Legislature changes the law, you can pass the same ordinance again. Kanner/I have a question for you, Eleanor. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19, 2003. May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 19 Dilkes/Uh-huh? Karmer/Is this ruling by the State Supreme Court appealable to the Federal Court system at all? Dilkes/No. Lehman/OK. Any other agenda items? Pfab/OK, one comment before this one. Are you saying you're waiting to hear back from the Attorney General? Dilkes/No. What I'm saying in response to Dee's question is this--some kind of mechanism for suspension of an ordinance was mentioned to me by Ilene when she called and she had told me that she had heard of that from the attorney general. There is no statutory procedure for suspension of an ordinance. I don't know what that reference is to and I have not been contacted by the attorney general. Pfab/OK, so you're--there's no communication (can't hear) at this point for with you and the attorney general? Dilkes/There's no what, Irvin? Pfab/There's no communication that's in limbo. Dilkes/No. Pfab/OK. Kanner/Irvin, were you done with it? Pfab/Yes, I'm finished. ITEM 2. b RECEIVE AND FILE MINUTES OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS (6) POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD: APRIL 9. Kanner/In regards to Consent Calendar, 2B, Minutes of Boards, number 6, PCRB from April 9th. They had a statement, a comment in regards to case number 02-01, and they said that allegation number 2, failure for the police to provide for the safety and protection of an arrested person while they did not sustain it, recommended the topic be addressed in training if it is not already being done. So this is specifically regarding protecting handcuffed arrestees. That was the partial basis of the complaint. And I was wondering if Council would agree that we should get a report on this as to what the response is of the Police Chief and the City This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19, 2003. May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 20 Manager. I think it would be appropriate to hear from them their response to this comment. Atkins/I have no trouble with that. Lehman/You can give us a memo on that. Atkins/Oh, sure. Lehman/OK. Pfab/So, do you want to take it out of Consent Calendar then? Kanner/No, this is just the minutes. Maybe I'll bring this up tomorrow. Atkins/We'll prepare something for you. Kanner/This is a concern with a police procedure and I think it's appropriate to hear a response from our staff. Pfab/So, we, I'm just trying to set the, figure out here. So you're saying that you should be able to come up with a memo prior to this? Atkins/Your action is adopting the minutes. Steve is raising the issue of training concerning handcuffed arrestees and what we did in response to the PCRB, and I'll prepare something for you on that. Karmer/It won't come out tomorrow, but I'm commenting on the minutes. Pfab/OK, OK. Kanner/We're accepting the report essentially from them. And one thing that perhaps we can talk about sooner or budget time is expanded bus service. We got a letter again for wanting service on the outskirts, and we know it's difficult to provide that service when there's not the mass of people there. But I think I mentioned this before. I think we really need to look at development, some sort of fee, if it's possible legally, and we should look into this to see if we can get a transportation fee so that we can provide bus service sooner. If we're going to have developments out on the fringe, I don't think we should have to wait 20 or 30 years until there's appropriate mass of people. And I was wondering what folks thought about that? This is in regard to--- Lehman/ Is there interest in putting an item like that on a work session? Pfab/I'd suggest we do. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19, 2003. May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 21 Dilkes/I think, just that's given the Supreme Court's most recent ruling on park impact fees and their analysis of what, of when a fee constitutes a tax; that's going to be very difficult. Lehman/I don't sense that there's interest in putting it on a work session anyway. Karmer/I would say though one of the things we might want to discuss is if there's a way, if we can't do it directly, look at options of what can we do to encourage that? I think there probably are a range of things that we could work into our development and rezoning and so forth. Champion/All right, you know, I think the idea's great. It'd be nice if we had more public transportation. But public transportation is very costly and doesn't come anywhere near paying for itself, let alone taking it into an area where there aren't very many people. I just don't think we can possibly afford that. We're already taxing our transit levy to our absolute maximum, putting state dollars and federal dollars, and I think we just have to continue doing as best as we can, and that's probably not going to function in a remote area. Kanner/Well, that's why I say we might need to have public-private cooperation because we subsidize the roads to a great extent that go out there. Champion/Some of us use the roads, too. Kanner/What? Yeah. Not, but certainly not the same as the car at the same impact that the cars have. But I would say is let's look and see if there's ways that we can get the private developers and perhaps the residents to help contribute and make it possible a little sooner than otherwise would happen. Pfab/I think another thing that what it would do--it would probably promote the development on a faster base once you start pointing out the public facilities, infrastructure, would help the City, you get refund, or you recapture the investment on it. I think it'd be something to look at. I don't know if there's a solution, but it would encourage. I think it would be beneficial to make the offer, it'd be beneficial to the City, and I think it's a win-win. That would be my thoughts. Lehman/Is there interest in putting that on as an agenda item? Wilbum/I don't see how you'd do it without side-stepping the issue of taxing--- Lehman/ Right. Wilburn/...which is (can't hear) Lehman/All right. Are there any other agenda items? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19, 2003. May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 22 COUNCIL TIME Lehman/Well, we'll go to Council time. Kanner/I'll state--in our info packet we got our second report on the budget, on the Iowa City actual money spent versus the budget. I think that this is a (can't hear) thing that Kevin and his staff are doing, and I appreciate for this, and I think it's good for the City to be able to have this and see where we're at and be able to question certain items. There were a few items that I had that probably we'd want Kevin here and don't--I might talk to him--- Atkins/OK. Kanner/...privately and try to get some of the information--- Atkins/He's off all this week so--- Kanner/...yeah, so try to figure out how to best do that. Atkins/Just let us know. Kanner/Some of the figure--there's some things that I think we--- Atkins/What we're trying to accomplish is a narrative description for historical purposes as well as the numbers and so someone can go back and that's the plan. Vanderhoef/Well, what it is pointing out in many cases that we're still under budget--- Atkins/Yes. Vanderhoef/...and that people are working really hard to keep us that way so we can say thank you to our staff for all the--the little things do add up, and apparently they're working on a bunch of those little ones, and thank you. Kanner/Let me ask you one of them and throw this out to Council. Atkins/OK. Karmer/In the landfill enterprise, which is in our info pack was on page 48, it appeared that they want--the tipping fees revenue, tipping fee revenue went up on '02 and then '03, we projected them to go down. Atkins/Mm-hmm. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19, 2003. May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 23 Kanner/So the question is why did we project them to go down and then the second question is we have larger than expected reserves. Can we use the money for more service? For instance, we take plastics 1 or 2; there are some cities that take more plastics. Another thing we talked about, Dee and I, with the students is recycling at some of the private apartment buildings. Maybe we can do a test pilot. Can we use some of the reserves for that? I don't want to necessarily lower the price of tipping fees because that encourages more waste. Atkins/Right. Kanner/So, if we have this excess and we're going beyond our state-required reserve fund, can we use some of that? Are you talking about what do we do with that extra money if we' re getting more, if more waste haulers are coming to Iowa City landfill than we expected, maybe we can use that to put it back into the City to encourage more recycling. Atkins/And I think my answer is yes to all of those. The landfill reserve position and the financing is very much a matter of Council policy and that you have discretion to use those monies if you wanted to, you know, kick off some sort of a recycling program. It's usually the difficulty of have us sustaining it over a period of time, because often right upfront it doesn't come close to paying for itself. Vanderhoef/The reserve fund is not--- Atkins/Yes, Steven, we get it--- Vanderhoef/...not showing our cell closing fee money, too, isn't it? Atkins/No. We have a reserve account. There's a couple of things. One is that it allows us to buy additional land if necessary. Secondly, it's a cash position that we have to maintain to satisfy DNR regulations. But what we have also done in order to keep our rates down, to keep our reserves at some reasonable number is we've also pledged our debt service, if we ever had to do it and they allowed us to do that also. We don't expect we'll have to do that, but that--- Champion/We don't want to do that. Atkins/No, we do not want to do that. No. Vanderhoef/Matter of fact. Atkins/That's the only real options they gave us and it's, you know, personally, it's difficult to be accumulating dollars in that magnitude and not being able to use them productively on other City projects, but that's the State law. But if we wish to expand something, Steven, the answer is, I believe, yes, we could do that. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19, 2003. May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 24 Vanderhoef/Do we typically get quarterly payments for our parking contract with the hotel? Atkins/Yes. There's a note--- Vanderhoef/So when the comment is January and February are still due--- Atkins/Mm-hmm. Vanderhoef/...it's just because--- Atkins/Yes. Vanderhoef/...the quarter hasn't come in. OK. Atkins/Yes, to my knowledge, the hotel remains current. Kanner/But the question, Dee, is why is it--I look at compared to the previous year--why is it down compared to the previous year? They would expect that--- Atkins/At the hotel? You're not going to park in there? Kanner/Well, in general for these figures, but--so it doesn't tell us so much what is the budget, what is the actual compared to budget so much. But we knew that they paid quarterly last year unless that's a new procedure, so why would it be down? Atkins/Oh, hotel occupancy is down. Kanner/No, the payment of the--- Atkins/Yeah, but people park at the hotel and then the hotel pays us for a certain number of hours for parking. Yeah, that's how it works. Lehman/I think the occupancy is actually up. Atkins/I mean these are--you know, when you see these things, flag them. Often in landfill, a couple of years ago, there's a big spike. Well, we had a terrible storm. Lehman/Yeah. Atkins/All of that stuffgoes to the landfill. Vanderhoef/Often occupancy can be up, but if they don't bring cars. Pfab/You're right. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19, 2003. May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 25 Atkins/Yeah. Vanderhoef/Then they don't have that fee. Lehman/That's correct, but I think that the percentage of people who bring cars probably doesn't change that much. Atkins/They have a fixed number that they have to pass. Pfab/They what? Atkins/They have a fixed amount they have to pass. Lehman/All right. Atkins/Yeah, OK. Kanner/But just to finish on the landfill--- Atkins/Yep. Kanner/...we had a--Becky Soglin, I think came before us--and I forgot what we resolved with that. Atkins/She asked us to look at Santa Cruz and the various bin sizes, which are there. Kanner/(Can't hear) gave us a memo on that. Atkins/Yeah, and Santa Cruz is very, very expensive curbside service. I don't think you could justify it, even though we are going to buy some smaller bins as a courtesy to folks who just simply don't use the larger ones. Particularly some single-person households. Pfab/Do we get--it's my understanding that some people don't use them. Is there an advantage to just the one size? Atkins/Oh, there's always an advantage because we get inventory though and we have, you know, pumhasing contracts with folks. It makes it a little easier. Lehman/I think if we're going to discuss this, we'd better put it on an agenda. Dilkes/Yeah, we're getting kind of--~ Lehman/The City Attorney is getting antsy, I can see that. (Laughter) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19, 2003. May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 26 Lehman/We're going to have to keep on our--- Atkins/There's a practical side to it. Lehman/All right. Atkins/If you have questions about the report, which is in the packet here, please just give us a call. Because sometimes I have to go back to the Director, what caused this spike, what caused this drop, and usually we have a very easy explanation for it. Pfab/Now, we're on Council time? Lehman/Yes, we are. Pfab/We've got things that we're not allowed to ask or not ask? Lehman/No, no, we--my understanding, we can discuss at Council time concerns each individual Councilperson has. We cannot get into a discussion of the merits of something one of us has an interest in unless it appears on the agenda. Pfab/OK. Could we put this on a work session? Lehman/About what? Pfab/About the--- Kanner/The landfill or--- Pfab/Landfill. Let's just, the minor things that are there, so we could discuss them in a little more detail if we're not, we shouldn't be doing it. Atkins/If you'd like an update on the landfill, we'll prepare something. Lehman/Why don't, Steve, why don't you prepare an update addressing at least the possibilities of some of the things we've discussed. We can look at that and decide whether or not we want to make an agenda. Atkins/OK. That's easy enough to do. Lehman/OK. Vanderhoef/I have a request just for information and it has to do with budget, but it might take a little while to prepare. I would like to know where we are on our storm water utility and the dollars that are coming in. I know we're still into the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19, 2003. May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 27 planned piece of it, but when I'm thinking about budget, I'm thinking about the number of things that we pay out of the general fund through public works and various places--- Atkins/You're correct about that. Vanderhoef/...that affect storm water, so my request is going to be to look at whether we need to increase the storm water or whether we can increase the storm water. Atkins/I hear it. Dilkes/I think we're in the process of putting a system in place to determine how we equitably charge for that. Vanderhoeff How soon? Dilkes/We can't just take the amount of money we want and divide it by the number of users. That has been my opinion. So we're in the process of--I know. Vanderhoef/Well, originally, say four years ago or so, the national average for startup of a storm water utility was about $7.50 per unit, just for startup costs. And I know when we started, we were talking in the $2.00 range, and if there's a way that I can justify paying for some of these things that we do automatically and have done for a number of years out of storm water, then it would help my general fund. Pfab/Is that something they put together? Lehman/Well, I think--- Vanderhoef/Information. Dilkes/I think that's just a question of what we determine to be the cost that we want to recover from the storm water utility. Atkins/I know Rick is working on it. I'll see the summary memo from him, see what that does for you. Then we can pick it up from there. Lehman/All right. Vanderhoef/Thank you. Lehman/OK. Anything else from Council time? APPOINTMENTS This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19, 2003. May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 28 Lehman/OK, appointments. SEATS PARATRANSIT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (1) Lehman/OK, SEATS Paratransit Advisory Committee, we have one vacancy for a Councilperson. Mike O'Donnell, your term expired. Vanderhoef/Do you want to do it again? O'Donnell/I have no problem doing that again? Champion/Well, it might cut into your vacation time. O'Donnell/No. (Laughter) Lehman/Now you have time, is there--- O'Donnell/Now I have more time. No, I have no problem. Lehman/Is that, do we have concurrence? Mike, you're back. You never left. AIRPORT ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (1); AIRPORT ZONING COMMISSION (1); HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (1); LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES (3) Lehman/Airport Zoning Board of Adjustment, there's nobody. Zoning Commission nothing. Historic Preservation nothing. Library Board of Trustees. O'Donnell/Linda Dellsperger. Lehman/We have three vacancies. We have three people who have applied. Kanner/They all look pretty good. Lehman/Do we have consensus on the three that applied? Vanderhoef/Fine. O'Donnell/Yes. Wilbum/Yes. Lehman/Thank you very much. Can anybody pronounce Shaner's last name? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19, 2003. May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 29 Wilburn/(Can't hear) His kids would yell at me i£I said it that way but that's the--- Lehman/I'm not even sure that Shaner can pronounce it. Wilbum/It's a Brazilian name. Lehman/Yes. TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (1) Lehman/The Telecommunications Commission, I believe there's one appointment and I believe there are two applicants. Champion/I would like Brett Custillo. Kanner/Yeah, especially because he's younger, we need that with--- Lehman/Wait a minute, age discrimination. Champion/Well, a lot of people in our Commissions are not necessarily young. Kanner/And he seems to know the computer lingo, which even though waiting for court decisions on impact fees and such, it's a big thing with telecommunications, it's going to be, and I think to have him there, I think is a good thing. He's shown some interest. He's addressed Council. Lehman/Do we have consensus? O'Donnell/Yeah. Lehman/We have consensus. Pfab/Yes. Lehman/Good. We don't often have that. TAPE 03-48, SIDE TWO Karmer/Dee's making a statement on--- Lehman/ All right. (Laughter) Kanner/(Can't hear) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19, 2003. May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 30 PROPOSED ALCOHOL COMMITTEE Lehman/The proposed Alcohol Committee, Steven? Kanner/Well, I was going to let Dee lead that, but I will throw out--there was a memo that Dee had proposed. Basically, we had talked with the students and they were going to propose a memo and they didn't quite get to that; ! guess things got a little hectic for them. So this is something we talked about in terms of having some oversight, a citizens' committee to get some measurable outcomes that we prefer from our ordinances in the past. Whether you're for it or against it, we want to see if it's having effects. That would be one of the major things that would be part of a committee appointed by Council. It would be an ad hoc conunittee; it wouldn't be a permanent committee. It would only be advisory. But those are some of the major points that are part of it. And so we're throwing this out to Council with some suggestions on who might make up this committee. We want to get a variety of voices. We certainly need to have the student voice have a significant voice. Champion/You know, when I first brought up the idea of a committee at the meeting that Mike and Dee and I were at with the bar owners, I thought it was very important that there be some kind of committee if we were going to accept their offer. I didn't anticipate it being a Council committee. I anticipated it being a bar owner committee, but we would recommend who we wanted on it because I hate to tie it to the Council. I think a Council member ought to be on it. I think, I mean, I think the people they've listed here are good, and I think we can recommend who's on it but it is their proposal, and then, if it's a Council committee, then we need to have a minute taker there, it needs to be all that posting of meetings and stuff. So what are we really interested in? We're interested in an oversight committee that can come back to the Council or a Council Member on it coming back to the Council, kind of like the Jail Task Force thing, but not an official Council committee where we tie up staff time, we have to have--follow the open meetings laws, we have to post the meetings. I think that's going to be hard to do. It'd be easier for those bar owners to call the Student Senate or the representatives that are going to be on this conunittee and say we're going to meet every Tuesday at 3:00 o'clock. Lehman/They'll be there anyway. Champion/Right. Pfab/I think that this is--I would take a different stand than you do on this, Connie. I think that the bar owners came to us and said we want to clean our act up, and I think this is something that the public has a right to know and I think it should be out in the open. Champion/Oh, I think it will be out in the open. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19, 2003. May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 31 Pfab/Well, so, it's public meeting in law, so I think it's very definitely should be a City Council appointment. Lehman/Well, let me. I visited with Nate briefly about this and he was going to stop back and talk to me and at least from our preliminary discussion, Nate pretty much is of the same opinion as Connie, that this is--I personally feel that the committee is going to have a lot more credibility, particularly if they come up with a recommendation that's not particularly palatable to the bar owners or to student body, if it is not a committee that is set up by Council and someone comes back and says well, hell, the Council set it up, what do you expect? And Nate indicated an interest in this being something that the students would set up and certainly would have representation similar to those that are indicated here. But that it would meet--I'm sure on the same sort of basis. But I think that it would an independent committee, independent of Council, I think has more credibility than one that we set up. Pfab/I would disagree with you on this. Lehman/You just did. Pfab/I mean in the sense that this is a public problem and I think the public has a right to know how it's being solved. Lehman/I'm sure they will. Pfab/And I--and they came to us with this offer and suggested give us a chance. OK, fine, but I think they ought to be able to be monitored as they go along. Lehman/I think we're talking about doing that. Pfab/So then, what, why the opposition? Lehman/Oh, no, no, no--I think Connie gave part of is. But I also think we would have some representative from Council serving on that Committee, so Council would be aware at all times about what's going on. Pfab/So, we think we'd expect a report every Council meeting? Lehman/Could have. We'd have the minutes and the meetings, the same as we get from any other Board and Commission if we want them. Champion/No, there wouldn't be, there might not be minutes. Pfab/See, this is, I think, it was one of those few times when the people that were, where the problem was causing them the most difficulties there, and they came to the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19, 2003. May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 32 public and said, let's work this out. So I think that the public has a right and would be expected to be aware of what's going on. Champion/There would be public people. Lehman/All right. Pfab/Well, I mean, I think that this is, we're definitely making a U-turn here if we do not have a Council-appointed meeting. Lehman/I would really like this to wait until at least the next meeting and get some input from--this Committee if it's going to be an effective committee, if it's going to have any credibility whatsoever, is going to have to have input from students. They're going to have to feel that this is not something that's mn by the City Council--- Pfab/All right. Lehman/...not something that's run by the City staff, but something that they have a genuine hold on, and I think the same is true of the bar owners. I think that the ability of those people to function outside the realm of Council looking over their shoulder is a very important issue for them. And it's an important issue from my perspective as well. So I would prefer that we wait, get a chance to talk to Nate, get his thoughts, and discuss this again at the next meeting. Pfab/That's fine with me, but at the same time, no, I don't want it to be a Council meeting--- Lehman/That's what this is, a Council Committee. Champion/That's what you're asking. Pfab/Well--- Lehman/ Well, let's--- Pfab/I'm for your proposal. Lehman/Let's just, I will try to get--- O'Donnell/Do you agree with Ernie? Pfab/Yes. Lehman/No. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19, 2003. May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 33 O'Donnell/Then that's four of us. Lehman/All right. I will try to have gotten ahold of Nate, or you may as well. You guys can talk, too. But at least from the conversation that I had, we shared some of the same concems, that it needs to be a student committee. Champion/Well--- Lehman/ That includes all of these folks. Champion/OK, and--- O'Donnell/Well, it should be their ideas, not our ideas. Lehman/Well, it needs to be all of our ideas. O'Donnell/Well, no, Emie, the solution came from the bar owners through Connie. They contacted Connie, and I think they were very workable with her. At least, we're going to give them a chance, and I think this is just an extension of it. Lehman/All right. Well, it's going to be on the hopefully the next work session. Pfab/One piece of information here. Other cities have done this and apparently it has worked. Can we get some input or some feedback on what has worked for other cities? Lehman/Oh, I'm sure. I'm sure--- Pfab/I mean, based on this, this idea came out of what other cities were doing. Can we get some input as what they did and what works and didn't work? No, I'm--who's on it or how it works--I don't, I don't have a big concem about, but I think it's a chance for a public problem to get some public input--- Champion/We agree. Pfab/...and hopefully get it solved. Lehman/Steven? Kanner/The reply to your and Connie and other concerns here, yeah, I'm for it, we'll discuss it at the next meeting; but, Connie, I think even if we have this committee that we appoint, I think that students, bar owners are going to do their thing to a certain extent, and I think it's valid what you're saying to a certain extent, that they're going to proceed in a certain direction. But we have certain things that we were talking about whether or not we should maybe make amendments. For instance, whether or not we want to have some sort of uniform way of This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19, 2003. May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 34 determining who's of a certain age, when they go in, the wristband proposal or not. And also, we ourselves want to perhaps put an amendment to see how is it going to measure the outcome. So those are things that I think we want to look at. Champion/I agree. Those are things the Council needs to discuss. I agree. But I think overseeing this and checking on it, I don't think needs to be a Council Committee. I also think we have to be careful. We don't want to really write ordinances that everybody has to have. I mean, we can't just say we want something. It has to be an ordinance. We don't want an ordinance that says everybody under 21 has to have a red band, everybody over 21 has to wear a green band. Because that would affect every bar in town. You can't start nitpicking the few downtown bars that are--- Kanner/But that~-- Dilkes/Well, I think it's also counterproductive because it increases the possibility that they will be easily produced, if the identification is the same. Kanner/We're not talking in specifics right now. The point is that that was, when we talked with Nate and came up with this idea, we didn't come up with this in a vacuum. Champion/Well, the bar owners came up with that originally. Kanner/No, no. No, I'm talking about our meeting with the student government leaders about this committee and this Commission, was that they would discuss these things and we would certainly run it through legal and they would have the resources of legal, and they would nominate people from their groups to be part of it. Champion/Well, you know, I guess I have a little bit of problems with the whole process because it seems to me if you were going to get together and decide if this committee should be formed, you should have invited the bar owners. This was their original proposal and it seems to me that they need to be much more involved in this committee than they are at this point. I mean, you've already made a list of who you think should be on it, and you've left--the bar owners weren't even there. Kanner/No, this is for discussion. That's why it's a good idea that we're going to talk about it at the next meeting to bring up. But also, I would argue that I heard about it the first, when the students, the student proposal, they brought it. I never heard a bar owner proposal. So I look at it as the student proposal. That's where it came from. Lehman/In any event--- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19, 2003. May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 35 Dilkes/Can I make just one suggestion? Lehman/Yes. Dilkes/The committee that you're kind of talking about has two very different functions, and maybe they're not appropriate for the same group. One is to, you know, the stuff the bar owners came to you--they're going to do this and that and they're suggesting ways for making things better. The other is how you all are going to evaluate the 19 ordinance you just put into place. Champion/Right. Dilkes/And that is much more a function of, I think, a discussion perhaps between you and the police department, for instance. Now, what kind of checks they do, what kind of criteria you're going to put in place to evaluate that; that's a very different thing, a very different discussion. Lehman/I would think the evaluation is one that--- Champion/It's ours. Lehman/...well, it's something that we have got to set up with you and the police department to set up the criteria. Dilkes/I think so. Lehman/Yeah, I do too. Well, listen, I will get a hold of Nate in the next day or two and try, if possible, I'll try to have him at the work session and we can discuss that with him as well. All right? Vanderhoef/Before we get off of this, I think this has been real healthy discussion, and I think that Eleanor is right that we've got two different things happening here. I would like to get some information from the Police Chief and get going on it because I would like to have some sort of standards put in place relatively soon so that when the ordinance goes into effect, we're not telling them after the fact how we're going to, how to grade this. So, let's have a work session as soon on--- Dilkes/Dee, do you want, I mean, the PD and my office can talk about what, and make some proposals about what criteria you would use to evaluate. Vanderhoef/(Can't hear) and then let's have a work session on some standards. Lehman/But, my suspicion is that the measurement of that ordinance is going to be best left to the, I mean, the measurement is going to be best evaluated by the police department and the City Attorney's office. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19, 2003. May 19, 2003 Council Work Session Page 36 Dilkes/Well, I think it's, it would be helpful to identify, you know, are we going to do it based on the number of possession of alcohol under legal age arrests or are we going to do it on the sales, I mean--we need to talk, and have everyone on the same page when we start. Lehman/Well, we can, to start with we could get some sort of a memo from you and R.J., and then we've got something to talk about. All right. Champion/And then, Ernie, if you're going to invite Nate, I think you also need to invite one of the bar owners that originally was on that. Lehman/Mm-hmm. Kanner/Don, why don't you invite Don? Lehman/OK. Pfab/But, while you're putting this together, isn't this kind of a (can't hear) you're trying--- Champion/ No, two different committees. Lehman/No, this is not going to be, evaluation's not going to be by the committee. Guys, we're out of here. O'Donnell/Hallelujah. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council Work Session of May 19, 2003.