Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-03-19 Transcription March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 1 March 19, 2001 Work Session 6:30 PM Council: Lehman, Champion, O'Donnell, Vanderhoef, Wilbum, Pfab, Kanner Staff: Atkins, Helling, Karr, Dilkes, Franklin, Davidson, Miklo, Knocke, Winkelhake, Craig TAPES: 01- 32 BOTH SIDES; 01-33 BOTH SIDES Lehman/Karin you're up first, as usual. O'Dormell/As it should be. Planninl~ & Zoninl~ A. CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR APRIL 3 ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING CODE, SECTION 14-6-B2 AND 14-6L-1A, TO PERMIT ACCESSORY APARTMENTS IN AN ACCESSORY BUILDING. Karin Franklin/The first item is setting a public hearing for April 3 on an ordinance to permit accessory apartments in accessory buildings, we'll get into details of that on the 2nd. B. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION BY ESTABLISHING A CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE FOR PROPERTIES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF BURLINGTON STREET ALONG GOVERNOR AND LUCAS STREETS. Franklin/The next item is a public hearing that you'll have tomorrow night on the conservation overlay zone for Governor, Lucas and Bowery Streets. What's up on the screen is the area that is covered by this conservation district. Conservation districts are enabled by our zoning ordinance, this is the very first one that we've ever actually adopted for a specific site. These districts are a neighborhood conservation tool, what happens is the district is drafted initially through the Historic Preservation Commission, what they're looking is architectural elements and styles within the neighborhood that identify that neighborhood and are worthy of preservation. After it goes through Historic Preservation, it goes to the Planning and Zoning Commission to see whether the district is consistent with the comprehensive plan, that has happened, the district has been recommended by both the Historic Preservation and Planning & Zoning. There was a public hearing at each of those bodies, all of the property owners within the district and This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 2 within 300 feet were notified. The difference between a conservation district and the residential neighborhood conservation zone is the difference between looking at the design of buildings and looking at zoning. That's just, these two terms are similar and so they're often confused, but don't confuse this with the RNC zones, this will not change the density requirements on these properties, we'll be looking at design issues when a building has an addition or is being constructed. Steven. Kanner/About the design when it talks about new housing or new structures being put in, it talks about five choices of styles that are compatible with current styles, are those suggestions or is mandated that a person must have some sort of form of those five styles? Franklin/They're suggestions and you can take characteristics of the styles, that is it doesn't have to be exactly a Queen Anne, and Bob Miklo is here and I don't, yea Mike Gunn is here also from the Historic Preservation Commission ifthere's anything that I'm saying guys that's wrong just holler. They'll be looking at the massing of the building, that' s one of the particulars in the guidelines, you look at the kind of lines that you would find in those architectural styles and it doesn't mean you pick from one and pick from another and kind of mush it all together. But that it doesn't have to be exactly that style but it has some of the lines and characteristics of that style. The most important thing is that it fits into the neighborhood and that's where the Historic Preservation Commission looks at it very carefully in terms of trying to identify the characteristics of the neighborhood. Lehman/Steven would you ask that question tomorrow night because I think that's something the public ought to hear to, I mean at the public hearing, I think that' s a good question for the public hearing. Franklin/The guidelines that we're talking about, there's basically two sets but they are going to be melded. This document is the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, and sometime ago, let's see it was adopted June of 2000, you adopted guidelines for Historic Preservation Review as well as general guidelines for conservation district review. And there's a matrix in here if you don't have copies, we'll get you copies, there' s a matrix in here that indicates when these different guidelines are used. Added to this for this Governor, Lucas, Bowcry district will be specific items that are in your packet, the exhibits that are in your packet that are the guidelines for this particular district. Because there's going to be some characteristics, say porches that are more important in one place than they are in another. And so that kind of thing will be called out, the setbacks will be called out in the specific district guidelines how you calculate those. So what will happen is that if this conservation district is adopted by you these guidelines This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 3 will be incorporated into this handbook and they will be specifically for the Governor, Lucas, Bowery district. Kanner/Karin can I follow upon that? Franklin/Yes. Kanner/So if someone comes, there's an empty lot they're building in this district now, the conservation district, if they don't come up with a plan that meets those guidelines and it's accepted by the appropriate people by our commission and staff, they have to do it again, they just can't build what they want. Is that correct, is that what Fm hearing your saying? Franklin/That' s correct. Kanner/They have the power to say no, the staff or the commission has the power to say no that's not acceptable and then the builder would have a chance to appeal that still to (can't hear)? (someone coughing) Franklin/To the Board of Adjustment. Kanner/Board of Adjustment. Franklin/Yea, when you look at the levels of review that are in the packet there are three levels of review, the first level which is a minor review is staff, the second is staff and members of the Historic Preservation Commission and the third is the entire Historic Preservation Commission. If you do the first two levels and there's not success there, if the applicant wishes to appeal it, they go to the full commission then it goes to the Board of Adjustment. Dilkes/I think it goes directly to Council. Appeals of Certificates, denials of certificates of appropriateness, is that what we're talking about? Franklin/That's not, no, this is, no, that's not what it says in here. Kanner/It~s for new structures in the conservation district. Champion/Or addition. Franklin/Yea. Dilkes/Well I just know the last appeal we had from a decision of the Historic Preservation went to the Council. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 4 Champion/Yea it did. Franklin/I know but that's not what this is. Dilkes/Okay. Franklin/It's 14-4-C-7G, the citation for the appeal. Dilkes/I'll go get it. Franklin/Well I have the code here I can look it up. Nope I don't have it, I only have the zoning ordinance. Dilkes/I'll check it Karin. Franklin/Okay. Okay that's really I have, I mean you've got all the specifics of it in your packet as to what the different guidelines are and if there's just questions, I'll take questions. Kanner/And this is the state' s first conservation district I noted here. Vanderhoef/Yes. Franklin/The first one that we have that the state also, could be. Vanderhoef/Well this letter that Bob received. Franklin/Oh from (can't hear) yea. Vanderhoef/From Kerry McGrath, there' s a little confusion in my mind. Franklin/From her letter Dee. Vanderhoef/That comes out in this letter and how it relates to the contributing and non contributing and whether then they can be on the contributing, whether they can or can not be on the National Historic Registry as an individual and what kinds of protection they do or don't have if they're in a conservation district versus historic district. Franklin/If they are on the register they have the same protections as any other building that is on the national register, I think what Kerry is saying is that she's encouraging us to look at these contributing structures and when appropriate This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 5 nominate them with the consent and cooperation of the property owners, nominate them for the national register. Vanderhoef/Is that because she doesn't feel there is the same protection for the under the conservation district they don't have the same protection from demolition as they do in historic district? Champion/They wouldn't have the same protection. Franklin/I don't know. Champion/It wouldn't, they couldn't have the same protection. Vanderhoef/(couldn't hear). Franklin/They wouldn't have the same rights certainly in terms of taxes and Mike do you want to address this? Lehman/You need to speak in the microphone. Vanderhoef/Come on up. Lehman/Or this is fine too. Michael Gunn/I think the State Historical Society has concerns that our guidelines are at times less stringent than the Secretary of Interior's standards that the, I think the concern is not so much for demolition because we don't make contributing structures in historic districts and conservation districts are protected from demolition pretty carefully. But as far as what modifications can be done, the state is concerned that we are not stringent enough in places in both historic districts and conservation districts. So they're concern is to get properties that are eligible for the register that are in conservation district to get those named as landmarks so they're better protected than conservation district property. Vanderhoef/What' s the better protection then? Gunn/Well contributing properties in historic district get higher guidelines as we (can't hear) there are tighter restrictions on construction in this book for contributing structures in historic districts than in conservation district. So they are after, in their eyes significant properties thereafter our most stringent guidelines to those properties and that would come with landmarks. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 6 Vanderhoef/And might they also be concerned that if someone has a home in a conservation district they think they will be, have the same guidelines as in a historic district an they don't and that the alterations could happen? Gtmn/Who' s concern is that now the state' s historical society is concerned? Vanderhoef/Yes that the property owner really doesn't understand the difference between the two and think they have the same coverage. Gunn/It could be I don't remember that in particular but they could very well be (can't hear). Vanderhoef/Okay thank you. Dilkes/Just to clarify on the appeal Karin is right it is to the Board of Adjustment, which differs from the appeal when it's a certificate of appropriateness when it's a certificate of appropriateness issued in a historic district, that' s to the Council but by ordinance in a conservation district it's to the Board of Adjustment. Lehman/Okay. Franklin/Anything else on that? C. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, RM-44 TO SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY, OSA-44, FOR APPROXIMATELY 4.01 ACRES OF PROPERTY TO ALLOW 30 DWELLINGS IN THREE BUILDINGS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HARLOCKE STREET. Franklin/Okay the next item then is also a public hearing on the zoning designation change from RM-44 to OSA which is overlay sensitive areas 44 for approximately 4.01 acres off of Harlocke Street and the overhead shows you the location of this property which I think most of you are familiar with. Basically what this is that it's an infill project development of 39 units on this 4 acres which is zoned RM- 44, the 39 units would come out to approximately 9.7 units per acre as opposed to the almost 44 units per acre that would be allowed under the zoning. This 9.7 units per acre is roughly equivalent to a little bit less than RM-12 and could be done under an RS-8 with a PDH at the Council' s discretion. Kauner/Karin. Franklin/Yes. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 7 Kanner/For that density of 9.5 or 9.7 does that include the sensitive areas that are? Franklin/Yea that was calculated on the whole thing. Kanner/The whole property. Franklin/The 4 acres, yea. Kanner/That includes the sensitive areas. Franklin/What the question is before you is not about the density although you will hear arguments otherwise, it is about the sensitive areas ordinance compliance, that is why it has come before the Planning & Zoning Commission and the City Council is because the sensitive areas on this property were being affected in such a way that it required to go through the overlay zone process as opposed to being done by a staff review. And it is the storm water detention basin in the noaheast part of the property in this area in which the detention basin will affect those slopes and that was the area of review for the Planning & Zoning Commission and for yourselves. So basically what your looking at with this is whether the project complies with the sensitive areas ordinance and that ordinance addresses steep slopes, woodlands, wetlands, archaeological sites and stream corridors. Lehman/Well whether or not it meets the qualifications of the sensitive overlay is basically a technical question is it not? Franklin/Yes it is pretty much a technical question, and in fact one of the things that we have talked about with the development code review is whether we do the sensitive area overlays through this process or not in the future. When the ordinance was being drafted I think it's safe to say that this was a way that it gave assurance to a number of people who were concerned about when there was a certain threshold of impact on the sensitive areas that there would be this public process for review. Lehman/And someone will be here tomorrow night to, at the start of the public hearing to say basically what you've just said? Franklin/Yes, Bob will be here unless I get back in time. Lehman/Okay. Vanderhoef/Just in the discussion of this property and this area and the zoning and so forth I see that this is one of the cases where the southwest district comprehensive This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 8 plan might be very useful since we have considerable acreage there ofinfill. And this would be a high priority for me to get working on this particular district as the next district that comes up for plarming to look at, I think this is a prime example of where we need to have the plan, at some point in time yes we will have to address secondary access, yes we do have to look at the critical slopes and the whole storm water run off issue and I would like to do it comprehensively as the whole area and not be taking it piece meal. Franklin/Yea, what I would like to do and I didn't mention it to you this aftemoon when we were talking, if ~ve could when we're, well it doesn't have to wait until we're done with the north district, but basically if we could put out for you the districts that we have left and some of the issues that we see with each district, I think it would be helpful for us if we can get a priority from the Council on how you want us to go through those planning districts. Because we had intended to do the central which is just outside the downtown, it's the old part of the city, next but it's whatever your priorities are, but I think I'd like to look at all the districts we have left and you can tell us what you'd like to do and you know this may be the next one. Vanderhoef/Okay, because I know we have some other dilapidated areas that may be sooner other than later. Franklin/Yea we do, we do. Vanderhoef/Maybe sooner than later, this is one I would wish to be done sooner than later. Franklin/Well and I think when there was discussion about Benton Street too there was talk about doing this one. Karmer/Karin where are we at in the property owners that have protested the rezoning? The last we looked in our packet was 18 percent. Franklin/I think we're at 18.9, 5, 18.5 percent. Karmer/And when do they have to reach 20 to kick in the super majority vote? Franklin/They would have to reach 20 by the end of your public hearing and I do need to tell you that we are waiting for the erosion control plan, the grading erosion control plan from the developer that we're assured it's going to get in here, if it didn't get in this afternoon, tomorrow afternoon, try to have it reviewed by 5:00. It is not a particularly complex grading and erosion control plan but it was a subject to of Planning & Zoning Commission' s recommendation and I think an This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 9 important thing to have all tied up before you folks vote on it. That would mean potentially continuing the public hearing. Lehman/But I don't see, nor do I expect that we will vote on this tomorrow night. Franklin/No, no. Lehman/This is just a public hearing. Franklin/The subject to is prior to Council' s consideration so it will be before you vote. Lehman/Okay. Champion/Karin there is a tremendous amount of (can't hear) on this, this large of a development at the end of that street. What, can you give a little breakdown of the history of that area, (can't hear) gives me a (can't hear), under a lot of consideration a lot of different ways. Franklin/Yea, well I'll try to, this is, I'm not going to give you dates and stuff because I just don't remember. We've looked at this area at least two if not three times, this may be the 4th I don't know, the 4th Bill is that right? Because I think Bill has been in it from the beginning. It has been looked at for, well initially there was a development project that was brought in that was much closer to the RM-44 zoning designation on this property a number of years ago, I mean it's probably 10-15 years ago now. When that happened there was concern on the, by the neighborhood of the traffic on Harlocke and Weeber. We went through extensive discussions of the area potentially down zoning it, it's gotten to the Council at least a couple of times to look at the potential of down zoning of the area. At one point the last time this went through with some other project that was being proposed here, we looked at the entire area of this whole RM-44, not Benton Manor but what was then the Viggo Jensen property, this RM-44, all of this property along the highway and the Ruppert property that's upon Miller and Benton. And had a development plan which when we got to the Council seemed to be agreeable to the property owners here as well as a potential buyer and to the neighborhood. It was not agreeable to the owners of this property at the time and that they did not want to have this property down zoned to RS-5 which was part of the proposal. When we got to the Council the property owners of this property change their minds and indicated that it was not acceptable to them. So the whole thing kind of fell apart. Pfab/I'm sorry I interrupted, who changed their mind? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 10 Franklin/The property owners of this property here, the Miller, the Ruppert's that own Miller Orchard and the property along the highway and down here. All of this except for some right here is owned by the Ruppert's so they own the RM-44, CI- 1 and this is RS-8 in here. Over the course of these multiple considerations of this, the comprehensive plan and this was at this last iteration, the comprehensive plan was changed to indicate 2 to 8 dwelling units per acre were appropriate in here. The property owners at the time did not agree with that, the zoning never went through, it was, I mean obviously it's still RM-44 even though it's been considered for various zoning categories from RS-5 to RM-20, no Council has finally chosen to rezone the property. Champion/(Can't hear). Franklin/I think the competing pressures of the people who own the property in the neighborhood and when this compromise of development of this whole area seemed to be coming together that might have done it but then it all fell apart at the last minute. Lehman/Connie this hasn't come up except for the project that Karin referred to where we really did think we had a project that was going to take the entire area and that one fell apart kind of at the eleventh hour but aside from that it hasn't been before Council since 94. It has not been before Council since I've been on Council. Franklin/It just seems like yesterday. Lehman/Except for that one project that was and that was a good p.roject. Vanderhoef/Yea and one of the, part of that project you hear or read a little bit about and when they're talking about making this trail over to the new Benton park and that was trying to connect through the back of the property there and then a gifting of some properties. But Parks and Recreation was working on it at the same time as all this but now there' s been more development and there's a whether that trail possibility is left who knows. Kanner/Can I see top of lot, they were saying there's difficulty in doing the trail through the ravines. Franklin/Yea, this is all as you can see ~n this area, this yellow outlined area is basically what would be dedicated as open space. The trail if I can just go back for a second, was to connect at that time, one thing that was being talked about was this whole thing being a park, there being some ground dedicated by the Busses on the southern part of their property. And then I think the vision was that when the Ruppert property was developed there would be some flat land down here that This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 11 would be dedicated as part of that project and these would be connected by some sort of trail system that would get you over to Harlocke. Well we have never purchased this property. Vanderhoet7 Tried to. Franklin/Yes but the price was just very high, very high and I think maybe, Dee I don't know if you were on Parks and Rec. then or. Vanderhoef/(Can't hear). Wilburn/(Can't hear) when I was. Franklin/Yea, and it was just very very expensive so we didn't get it. We did get some property over here on Benton Street from Southgate Development but that's also in a different location than what was originally envisioned for this connection so the likelihood of a trail here, it' s, it's just, it's steep, it's not going to, we're going to have problems meeting you know ADA kinds of requirements but also just getting something that' s workable with that (can't hear) terraine. Kanner/And there was an initial report or letter from the archaeologist, we didn't get a final result ofthat. What's the reason? Franklin/They have not ruled on that yet because of the snow, they want to, all the snow has to be gone, they don't want to determine that a snow bank is a burial mound, that wouldn't be too cool. Lehman/It would be cold. Vanderhoef/It would be cold. Franklin/Anyway they'll be looking at that we hope shortly and giving us a determination, if they determine there's a burial mound, it doesn't make any difference what we do. Lehman/Right. Franklin/Then the property owners, the developers are going to have be dealing with the state archaeologists, there' s state law about burial mounds and what you can do or not do. If that changes this whole project but still allows something to happen then we'll have to revisit this. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 12 Kanner/And the report on the water and soil corrosion possibilities did they take into account this letter from Johnson County Soil and Water Conservation District? Franklin/Bob can you answer that? You'll have to come up. Kanner/It's on page 144 in our packet. Franklin/You know the one he's talking about? Bob Miklo/Yea when the concept plan was first submitted we sent this to the soil conservation service and they sent back similar comments which we did pass onto the applicant to consider when doing their grading and erosion control plan. Pfab/And basically, what were the comments? I believe I've seen them but just to, if you could give a quick summary. Miklo/They're in your packet in a letter dated. Lehman/You say it's page 144. Kanner/144 1 think. Pfab/I remember seeing it but I just. Miklo/Would you like me to read them or? (All talking) Pfab/Summarize a little bit. Miklo/There was questions about erosion control and suggestions. Pfab/What was your understanding of what was in that letter? Miklo/There was suggestions about how to control the erosion on the property to assure it didn't cause problems for the neighboring properties. Our Public Works office did review the erosion and control and the storm water management plan and found it acceptable and that it meets our code, it would actually improve the situation from what's there now, from the natural run off. Pfab/So in other words it did get the go ahead then? Franklin/For the storm water management yea. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 13 Miklo/Right it satisfies our storm water management ordinance. Kanner/Well two things that they asked in the letter was that I'm curious about. They asked about permeable parking lots, is that possible to do that? Lessen the impact of the run ofF?. Miklo/It's a, it wouldn't be in this case because our code requires a concrete pavement or an asphalt pavement. They have however directed the run off to a storm water detention facility and they are not proposing any grading in the critical or protected slopes except that which is necessary to create the storm water facility. Kanner/And what about their question about native plants with long roots and plants? Miklo/That wasn't addressed. Lehman/Okay. Franklin/Okay, done with that for now? D. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING CODE, SECTION 14-61-1Q, TO ALLOW ADULT DAY CARE IN COMMERCIAL ZONES ON STREETS LESS THAN 28 FEET IN WIDTH. (FIRST CONSIDERATION) Franklin/The next item is first consideration on the ordinance amending the zoning ordinance regarding adult day care and being on streets that are less than 28 feet in width. E. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE EXTRA-TERRITORIAL FINAL PLAT OF PRAIRIE VIEW ESTATES PART 4, A 30.86 ACRE, 21- LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION WITH TWO OUTLOTS LOCATED EAST OF PRAIRIE DU CHIEN ROAD IN JOHNSON COUNTY. Franklin/The last item is a resolution approving the final plat of Prairie View Estates Part 4, 30 acre, 21-lot subdivision that you've seen the preliminary plat on already, this is in order and ready to go. Done. Lehman/Thank you. Dodl~e Street Capital Proiect Lane Con~l~uration (IP1 of 3/15 info. packet) Jeff Davidson/We've talked about this project a couple of times and we're just at another decision point now for you. I think most of you are aware that we have been This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 14 conducting an environmental assessment as kind of a first step in a project that we are teaming with the Iowa Department of Transportation on, it is to reconstruct Highway 1, Dodge Street and between Governor Street and Interstate 80. This is a project that's sort of looking at your capital improvement program, as most of you are aware we have the extension of First Avenue and a portion of Captain Irish Parkway scheduled for this upcoming construction season, we have the remainder of Captain Irish Parkway down to Rochester Avenue scheduled for the 2002 following construction season and then this project is 2003, the year after that and that' s kind of how the things are fitting together in the northeast area with respect to arterial streets. This is something that we are teaming with Iowa DOT on, the funding for this project is approximately 6.6 million, it is a very expensive project, if you've been out there, you know the topography of what we're dealing with in much of the area. The funding breaks down approximately $5 million dollars from the Iowa DOT, state funding, there's approximately $900,000 dollars that through the JCCOG, those of you who participate in JCCOG have been allocated for this project, and then there' s approximately $700,000 that has been, that is local city funds. I know there has been some discussion by at least some of you about possibly using these funds for other projects, not doing this project, that $700,000 is the only portion of the $6.6 million that you all have a hundred percent control of, the $5 million from the state is exclusively for this project, the funds through JCCOG could be reallocated to other projects but you'd simply have to go back through JCCOG. Excuse me, as I mentioned we are 98 percent done with the environmental assessment and can certainly answer any questions you have about that, it is a process that has been conducted by Earth Tech, a consulting firm out of Waterloo, Bob Lentz is here if you have any tough questions about the details of the environmental assessment I'll turn those over to Bob since he's much more familiar with the analysis that has taken place there. We did have the public hearing a few weeks ago and I think some of you at least took advantage of getting a copy of the transcripts and you've had the benefit of seeing what some of the public comments were. And there has been extensive public comment on this. We're at the point that basically a decision needs to be made about the design configuration we're going to use so that we can then start the process of property acquisition and final design of it. As you know with the projects that are funded with state and federal funds do take a little bit longer, we need a little bit, longer lead time on this, so we're pretty much staying on schedule by asking you to make a decision on this matter at this time. The decision is with respect to a three lane or four lane alternative, there have been some other altematives considered and we can elaborate on those if you'd like but the process has pretty much come down to three lane or four lane cross section. The portion of the corridor between Governor Street and Captain Irish Parkway is what is really under consideration, we are proposing a four lane corridor from Irish Parkway out to Interstate 80 for either of the alternatives. Now I have a brief presentation I can run through, you have a long agenda tonight and you have a lot This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 15 of people in the audience here for other items. Mr. Mayor would you just like to answer questions or how would you like to do this? Lehman/What's your pleasure guys? Pfab/I would like the gentleman on the environmental impact work, if we could talk to him. Davidson/What would you like? Sure Bob would you like to come forward. Is there a particular question you have Irvin? Pfab/No, I'm interested in what the overall, what was his, what did he see as possible problems. Where did he see strong points? Davidson/There's a slide that I have here and let me put this up. As you can see this is the summary of the environmental impact, put it in focus here, for either of the alternatives, the three lane or the four lane cross section, the conclusion which has been reached is what' s called "A finding of no significant impact" for either one of the alternatives. Now there are certainly impacts, there are impacts to doing anything and you can see some of them summarized here. The three lane alternative affects 23 properties, the four lane 28 properties, remember when we say affect, that means we would have to acquire property to complete the project. The nature Bob correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the nature of the property acquisitions are in terms of slivers of property offof the front yards. There is one dwelling unit as a rental unit, we've talked to the owners of it that would need to be acquired, in the Conklin Road area in order to get that realigned, that occurs under one of the alternatives. But otherwise we're talking basically about strips of a few feet of somebody' s front yard but as you can see there are five more affected properties with the four lane alternative. Lehman/Jeff is this the assessment the project from Captain Irish to Dodge or is this the entire? Davidson/This is the whole thing, this is the entire. Lehman/But you don't have it broken down as to what the impact would be if you took out that section from? Davidson/No it assesses the whole corridor. As you can see there are woodland impacts, wetland impacts, and I would ask Bob to summarize those more specifically but basically there are things that the process has determined are manageable and in case of the wetlands can be mitigated through some type of mitigation plan. So that' s kind of a summary Irvin, I think the important thing is that there was, the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 16 conclusion reached by the consultant is that the finding of no significant impact is the appropriate conclusion for either one of the design altematives. Pfab/Okay now does this, this does not take into affect, this si environmental, and it does not affect opinions or the input from the people that are affected? Davidson/The environmental assessment certainly takes into consideration the impact on people who live in residential dwelling units in the corridor. For example, noise impacts are evaluated and that's summarized in the environmental assessment. Pfab/So what I understand your saying the noise impact will not, it will be insignificant. Davidson/The noise impact, Bob can you maybe summarize that better than I can, was determined to be not significant, I believe that is correct. Okay while Bob is looking for that answer, yes so, there' s a separation here between the public comments that we received, that's a separate portion of the process and the assessment that was made of impacts to people who live along the corridor. In fact the impacts were assessed were not only people who live along the corridor but the commercial businesses along the corridor, basically anything that is along the corridor. The natural features, whatever it might happen to be. Pfab/Was there much discrepancy between the Bob's group and what the people living in that area have to say? Or what the people, the citizens that are impacted is their comment, insig. of no part of the decision making? Davidson/No, no, no, the comments of, that were received are part of the permanent report that is signed off by the Federal Highway Administration, basically the people who authorize the project to proceed have the benefit of all that input now whether or not a particular individual takes that into consideration more or less is up to that individual reviewing the report. But the process certainly is very inclusive with respect to people who live in the corridor. Pfab/So you say so, I'm having trouble sorting something out here, your saying that when all of this is taken into consideration there's really no impact or of no consequence. Davidson/I think it would, to any individual living in the corridor Irvin they are going to perceive more or less how they are affected. Pfab/Right. Davidson/Someone who lives in an area where there would be more or less property acquired because they happen to be adjacent to an intersection is going to feel, and This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 17 any individual is going to have an individual perception on how much that and I think if you read the public comments that's reflected there. Some people who live in the corridor believe the improvement project should go forward, others are very concerned like noise, how much of my front yard, are you going to take the tree that's here and that kind of thing, that's an individual perception that you have to gauge on each individual. Pfab/So when you balance it out your saying it's a wash. Davidson/Well I think that' s maybe a little bit of an over simplification but the conclusion of the consultant based on the assessment and it's a very kind of a cookbook type of assessment that is a requirement of the NEPA process federal process, the determination has been that the impact is not significant. Pfab/Okay will they be here tomorrow? Davidson/The consultant, that we weren't planning on having them here no. Lehman/I don't know that they need to be here. Pfab/I was hoping to get a chance to talk to him but if that's not going to work. Davidson/Are they, Bob did you have any? Sure you need to come up to the microphone yes. Bob Lentz/You did have one question about the noise levels and I think this maybe puts it a little bit into perspective about how the impacts really are on this project. In the environmental assessment it records here the summary of our findings, the noise evaluations were done at about 30 locations on the project, these are typically going to be the fronts of homes and various receptors along that project and compared to the existing conditions the noise levels that will be there after the project is completed generally are going to be about 1 decibel higher than what they are now that's just because we have a marginally closer traffic stream than what you have today when you widen that road out a little bit and that's well within the limits that are considered non significant. Pfab/Okay your impact statement went from highway or the interstate down to how far? Lentz/Down to Governor Street. Pfab/To Govemor, all right, all right. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 18 Davidson/Thanks Bob. And Bob did mention you know the impact of traffic volumes and obviously that's the impact that everybody who lives in the corridor is well aware of. You'll recall from our First Avenue extension discussions that the, we do forecast, for the short range say the next 10 year period that from Captain kish Parkway to Interstate 80 there is an increase of 10-15 percent forecast in traffic but initially after First Avenue is constructed for the portion of Governor and Captain Irish there' s actually a slight reduction if you recall we think it's in the vicinity of 3,000 vehicles a day. But that is also the more heavily traveled portion of the corridor so if you look at the entire thing the increase down in this are and the slight decrease in the other half sort of evens it out through the entire corridor. Wilburn/Jeff I'm sorry I should know this but in either the 3 or the 4 main options, do the sidewalks go all the way to the Interstate both of the (can't hear)? Davidson/Yes in both of the sidewalk, the provisions of sidewalks is the same in either one of the alternatives and the will be on both sides of the street. The one on the noah side of the street which will be the wider sidewalk will actually extend out over the Interstate and tie into the NCS Northgate Corporate Park area out that, we are working with the state on that. The state has specific pedestrian and bicycle accommodation guidance that they have developed just in the last few years that we hope to take advantage of to be able to get a safe corridor out to that area. Now the sidewalk on the south side we are showing terminating it at ACT property but we think that as long we allow the other one it's appropriate. Lehman/You have not as staff made a recommendation as far as? Well okay let me back. From Captain Irish to the Interstate you are, at least I'm hearing, maybe I'm hearing wrong, but that's a four lane recommendation. Davidson/Yes it is. Lehman/From Captain Irish towards city can be three or four. Do you have a recommendation? Davidson/We have discussed it as staff and also with the DOT Ernie and I think all of us concur that the three lane alternative in that area is an appropriate compromise. If you were to assess this based solely on the movement of traffic, I think it would be reasonable to say you would want a four lane street in that portion as well. But as we all know we don't plan in a vacuum like that and if the neighborhood considerations are taken into consideration we do believe the three lane concept because of all the turning lane movements in that area is appropriate and I guess if you want to call that a recommendation we would make that a recommendation. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 19 Lehman/Well then of course First Avenue/Captain Irish is going to be completed which means that a lot of that traffic is not going to make the completion. Davidson/That's right. Vanderhoef/The through traffic is going to First Avenue, the local traffic to the commercial areas in that corridor will probably stay similar. Davidson/Yea the thing we all to remember Dee is that we have a strong commuting pattern into downtown I mean we have 10,000 jobs in downtown and University Hospital area, and so there is still going to be a lot of traffic on the Govemor Dodge conidor because of that employment center. Vanderhoef/So my question to you when I look at the cost estimates and we're $325,000 difference between the three lane and the four lane. Davidson/And those are very preliminary estimates by the way. Vanderhoef/Certainly I understand that. First question is this is concrete so I am presuming they are looking at the 40-50 year life on the concrete. Davidson/I think we generally consider more like 25-30 Dee. Vanderhoeff Are you going that low? Davidson/25-30 before you start considering some major type maintenance at that point. Isn't that right Ron typically? Yea. Vanderhoef/Okay then my question is when do you feel that the section between Governor and Captain Irish will reach it's capacity? Davidson/We show in the, our model Dee shows it in the short range, we're in pretty good shape because we think it's going to be relatively stable because of the First Avenue extension. In the longer range we are going to see increases in traffic that will get above what we consider the capacity of a two lanes, excuse me, a three lane street. But you know what you have to consider then is that in spite of that you still have the neighborhood considerations that are going to be there and I think some thought has to be given to are we going to basically constrain the amount of traffic, or who's going to travel in that corridor in those longer far out periods of time. That's something very similar with decisions that have been made on First Avenue, Kirkwood Avenue and some of the other, Melrose Avenue for example, and we feel it's consistent in this case. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 20 Vanderhoef/Well just in, you didn't put a year, your saying short range and long range. Davidson/Generally Dee we consider short range to be about 8-10 year period, long range to be the 20-25 year period. Vanderhoef/So 8-10 years which is exactly what we were told on the First Avenue back in 96. Davidson/That's right. Vanderhoef/And then we have seen additional commercial development in there and it's getting close to the constraint right now and we're at the five year so are we pound foolish to go with three lane when we know within 10 years or less we will be at constraint again? Davidson/And I would answer that Dee that it depends on how you make that wait between traffic service and neighborhood concems. Vanderhoef/Well I understand that. Well I've been looking at my capital improvement plan and the dollars available to do these things and at this point in time it just, I think I can make a real argument that if that is proportional whether it's $325,000 or whatever, the small difference between at this point in time and let it go to a full use of (can't hear). Davidson/And I would emphasize Dee we do not feel the four lane will. (END OF 01-32 SIDE ONE) Davidson/Feel that it will have inordinately negative impacts on the neighborhood but it clearly will impact the neighborhood more than the three lane. Vanderhoef/It will be a different pattern. Lehman/Now the four lane would not have a turn lane? Davidson/Now that would be a design issue for us Emie. Lehman/A turn lane in there would be a significant impact. Davidson/Yea at intersections we would try and get turn lanes in because to make those intersections work we would really need to try and do that. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 21 Lehman/What is the difference in capacity between a three and four lane if you had a percentage number? Davidson/That happens to be something we're evaluating right now, we have a technical advisory conunittee next week to talk about roadway capacities. Generally two lane road around 12,500, and that's a little bit higher than you've heard me say in the past because we're reassessing some of these capacity notions that we've had. But generally in the 12,000 to 12,5000 range, you start adding turn lanes and that boosts you up to about 15,000, you start getting into 4 and 5 lane facilities and that' s when your up around the 18,000 to 20,000, you know significantly higher than we are now in that corridor. Lehman/Well now, yea but you said, 15,000 for a three lane. Davidson/I think that's approximately right. Lehman/Okay then you said 18 for a four lane, I don't know that that, I find that terribly significant, but the other thing, what are the, what is it, way out there, you really have to stretch to reach this one. Do you think there's any possibility that in some time in the future Highway 1 may proceed west on Interstate 80 and use old 965 following 965 extended and catch Highway 1 south of town and not go through the city at all? Davidson/That has been discussed. Lehman/I mean that to me is. Davidson/In fact that came up at the environmental assessment a few weeks ago at Shimek school. The state does feel that it is appropriate a noah south highway through, to provide traffic service Iowa City. The majority of traffic coming in from either end of Iowa City does not go all the way through it but it does have an origir~ or designation within the city. And Highway 1 is on the national highway system which is a significant distinction that occurred when the national highway system was designated in something like 89 1 can't remember just exactly when. And there are significant improvements, millions and millions of dollars of improvements currently being planned right now by Iowa DOT between Mount Vernon and Kalona, actually Washington that acknowledge that importance. And so that is something we would want to consider very carefully Ernie because we have some significant maintenance benefits from having that being a designated state highway. Lehman/Well it was just a thought. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 22 Champion/Well back to the question, I see absolutely no reason to make that four lane, I don't think it handles enough extra cars, and I don't think the need is there and I would support this feeling because turn lanes of some kind is necessary there but I have no desire to put four lanes in. Davidson/Irvin. Pfab/Your talking with three lanes there would be turn signals? Davidson/Yes. Pfab/But it's a four lane then you start really pushing. Davidson/Yea like I said we would still at the major intersections still and try and work turn lanes into the design. Lehman/So there would be 5 lanes at the intersections. Davidson/Right, right. Pfab/Or maybe 6. Davidson/It would not be a continuous turn lane like the 3 lane will throughout the entire corridor. Pfab/I guess the point I was going to ask, I was going to ask a question as soon as Ernie finished but he asked it about why don't we take Highway 1 and go down the Interstate. Well I believe, I guess this is kind of delicate and maybe we shouldn't be talking this with the lights on is that we, if we keep it Highway l the state brings in a lot more money, so we are at a, we are kind of torn between whether we really want them to go down Interstate 80 because we lose a lot of dollars. Davidson/I mean there' s both a functional reason and a practical reason with respect to the maintenance of it. Pfab/Because you know after, if Highway 1 did go down Interstate 80 we would just have city limits and any city traffic would come in the city but we'd also lose 5-6 million bucks. Lehman/But that's not even an issue right now, that's something that might be 25-30 years down the road. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 23 Pfab/Well but maybe we aren't pushing very hard to have them take the Highway 1 down on 380. They're going to make that what 4-6 lanes? Lehman/I don't know but when you look at the building 965 extended, that's 8 or 10 or 15 years away so certainly something that's not going to affect this project immediately. Pfab/But what it does it also shows why we don't want to invest in a four lane here if we don't have to. Davidson/Yea probably if you want to seriously consider that state would like to know since they're getting ready to spend $5 million dollars. Lehman/No we're not interested in doing that. Pfab/Until we cash the check it looks like. Lehman/Well I guess what your really looking for from is from Captain Irish, the present Captain Irish on into the city are we interested in seeing that 3 or 4 lanes. Davidson/That is the question. Lehman/And you need that to work from here and I think. Pfab/Three from me. O'Donnell/I think considering the neighborhood, three is fine. Kanner/I had, actually I wanted to make a case, I think that spot improvements is something that was not considered. Lehman/I think he said they just considered them and felt they weren't, they weren't, because it was a major reconstruction, I read it. Kanner/Well it's estimating at 70 percent of being three lanes if you go with spot improvement but even that would be okay, but I think actually we could do less. I've looked through some of the testimony and letters and I think there's a fair amount ofpe0ple for three lanes and also for spot improvements. I have some concerns that one myself and a couple other people brought up the lack of how public transportation would have an impact on this and you stated that Jeff that you see it as flat public transportation, but perhaps it's flat because it's been discouraged. So the question is if it were encouraged what would happen and so I would still like to see what would happen, we do have those 10,000 people like This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 24 you said coming in from outside the area and what would be the impact on North Dodge and that stretch if we had a commuter especially like some people have asked from outlying areas, and so we don't have the answers to that Davidson/Yea we have actually just this year I think you recall when we went through all the transit changes last years increased service to the NCS/ACT area. I haven't heard how that' s doing but we did just do that last year. Kanner/But that wasn't part of the impact site to look at that, and another thing is we didn't look at, there wasn't environmental impact on the deer environment. There was talk about that how the policy is to kill the deer and reduce their numbers that way but I think it would be important to have that impact of when we have three or tBur lanes for most of that I think non rush hour we're going to go faster, we're going to have cars going faster and that leads to a possibility of more accidents with deer. Davidson/After the public hearing Steven we did point out to Earth Tech that we wanted the deer thing addressed specifically and they are preparing a report, isn't Terry working on that Bob? He called me last week with some questions and they are preparing kind of a side report specifically dealing with the corridor and deer, we don't have that yet but we will have that eventually. Kanner/Yea I think we need to look at that and then a number of neighbors looked at the trees that were going to be lost and I think that' s important consideration too and the quality of life in the neighborhood even with the three lanes going most of the way. And so I think most people agree that a stop light perhaps at Prairie Du Chien and something done at Conklin and Dubuque Street. I think we're pretty much on agreement with that, so I don't see that there's really a need to go to three or four lanes at this time especially when it's projected that the traffic between Governor and Captain Irish is going to go down up to 20-25, so that's not short term, that's long term projection, it's projected to go down from there and so I question the need for that. Pfab/Well I support what your saying and I think there' s also something else we need to take into consideration here and that is how much has the technology in operating signals at intersections improved to increase traffic flow say over the last five years and what can we anticipate in the? Davidson/Well we do anticipate that signal at Prairie Du Chien will definitely facilitate traffic flow through that intersection Irvin. Pfab/And I mean even as we start putting TV cameras on it and things like that to anticipate where the traffic is coming from so I mean that I'm like Steven on this one, I'm saying you know do we even need the three because when you go out and This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 25 talk to the people out in that area and you look at the possible designs there and especially it's a one way street as you get, after you go on, after you (can't hear) there, anyway. Kanner/This is, I was just going to say from Robert White from Hilltop Sinclair he seems to feel there's no need for turn lanes the whole length of the street. As traffic turning into private drive does not seem to be a great problem. Turn lanes as you approach the intersection would be sufficient and would not have the adverse affect on the homeowners along Dodge that widening the whole street would. There also should be tum lanes and a stop light along with the realignment of the Dodge Street and North Dubuque Road Conklin lane intersection. Lehman/How wide is that street now from? Davidson/Do you recall is that a 31 foot wide street? I believe it's a 31 foot wide street. Lehman/And width do you need for a three lane? Davidson/Let's see, 12, 12, and 16 so 24 it would be 40. Lehman/Yea but the paved portion is how wide? Davidson/Is it 45? Excuse me Ron is correcting its 45 with the. Lehman/So we'd go from 31 feet to 45 foot of paving. Pfab/Half again. Davidson/Yea that' s were recalling yes. Lehman/Russ what's your opinion. Wilburn/I'm willing to go with three. Davidson/Sounds like a majority. Lehman/You have a majority for three lane. Davidson/All right we will go ahead then and prepare the finding of no significant impact, finish the environmental assessment the rest of the way out and then get going on the property acquisition and the final design in the next year or so, great, thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 26 Lehman/Thank you. Who's going to? Karin's going to do Development Code Review. Develol~ment Code (1P6 of 3/8 info. packet) Karin Franklin/This is a project that we started some time ago and have been working through if you recall in the memo from Bob it outlines why we were doing this, looking at inconsistency between our code and the comprehensive plan, compliance with state and federal regulations, looking at the issue of how affordability might be affected by our local regulations and then looking at some of the state of the art development practices. This is a, it's a two phase project, the first part is where we're toward the end of right now and that is to have an outside consultant, it was Duncan Associates and Kirk Bishop from Duncan Associates is here tonight. It was to get their view after they did interviews with a number of people in the community, looked at our codes from their experiences with codes elsewhere, what are some of the things that we should look at for potential change and that's what this report is about. It has been reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Commission, we've sent it to the Homebuilder's Association, neighborhood associations and others who was interested and anybody who was interviewed for comments. What we'd like to do tonight is Kirk will give you a presentation on the report so that it's clear what is being suggested, then what we'd like to accomplish and I'm not sure we can accomplish it all tonight but the idea is we that we get an idea from you whether you find this report acceptable, that is, is it okay to proceed with looking at the particulars because phase II is actually doing the specific research, ordinance amendments, taking it through Planning & Zoning and the City Council to make those changes and that' s where we will get into the substantive parts on this of exactly what we want to do. That' s not what we need to discuss tonight, those substantive parts because that' s going to be a long process but is there anything in this report that hits you that you just say no way do I even want to consider that because then there's no sense of our proceeding if you feel that way. Also is there anything that is not in here that you want us to look at that has come to mind? And if you don't have all that tonight it's not critical but as you think about this and something comes to mind let us know. And then the third thing is if we can get to that point is if you have any priorities with this where you want us to focus on particular thing right away. So let' s start with Kirk giving his presentation and then questions and then if we can get into these other things fine if not we'll schedule it again. Okay. Lehman/Thank you. Kirk Bishop/Thank you Karin, good evening Mayor, members of the Council. As Karin said my name is Kirk Bishop and I am here representing Duncan Associates from our Chicago offices. Duncan Associates is a plan implementation related consulting firm that was fortunate enough to be retained last year about this time This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 27 by the City of Iowa City to do this first phase analysis of the existing Iowa City development code. We were given four marching orders as we set out on this assignment and Karin briefly went over them. The identification of conflicts that exist between the existing development regulations in Iowa City and the comprehensive plan that was recently prepared by the city to identify possible barriers to the provision of affordable housing. Identify revisions that in general might help reduce development cost and to identify any other actions that might be necessary to improve sort of efficiency the way development process works in the community. The process went on in Ernest for about 6 months, we began by coming to the community and holding a number of what we call stake holder interview sessions where we sat down and talked to dozens of people both on the development side and the neighborhood side and the environmental fronts to sort of get their feel for perceived shortcomings with the existing regulations and highlights that they wouldn't want to see go away. Having digested all that, gotten kind of the lay of the land spiritually from talking to people we then went back to our office and performed a fairly in-depth independent analysis of the regulations using those four bench marks that I mentioned before. In doing that we also looked to see what was going on nationally in terms of other communities that were addressing some of the same development and growth related issues that you as a community face. In February, last month, we presented our final recommendations and observations to the Planning & Zoning Commission and the final stop of this journey is tonight when we formally present again those observations and recommendations to the City Council to you all. As I mentioned consistency with the comprehensive plan, how well the existing regulations implement and ensure consistency with adopted policies in the contmnnities was one of the real hallmarks of this study, they're identified by reviewing the plan. Four sort of central themes stabilization and improvement of older neighborhoods, commercial areas, the notion of encouraging mixed use pedestrian oriented development in new areas as well as in the older areas of the community that fit plan goals for the community. Promotion of affordable housing and the projection of environmental resources, strong themes that run throughout the plan. As we look to the neighborhood commercial front comprehensive plan sits out a number of goals again the number of mixed use, pedestrianism, the building and site design should respect neighborhood character, and the notion of live work space, the notion of being able to offer opportunities through the development code for people to not only shop near they live but to go to the work place without necessarily always getting in the automobile. We identified in the regulations as we looked at your neighborhood commemial district, CN-1 district, a number of things you might want to consider as you bark on the revision of the development code. We suggest based on our experience in other communities that neighborhood commercial districts that are defined by use types have been less than successful, as we try and identify this very narrow range of business types and use types that are appropriate in neighborhood settings we find that you may This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 28 not offer flexibility in the marketplace to accommodate what can be neighborhood serving retail and even employment opportunities and that what you should indeed focus on instead is the site design standards and building design standards within the neighborhood district as an alternative to trying to identify those particular business and use types again that fit that scale. We also suggested in the report that the CN-1 district it now requires a special exception if you want to put residential above the ground floor of retail uses within that district. We see the requirement for the special exception and additional process as a sort of disincentive for encouraging the very thing your plan talks about and that is the ability to live and work on the same site perhaps. And that by allowing residential uses above the ground floor as a matter of right might be a better way to encourage the type of thing the plan talks about. As we look to the residential and housing front again taking our cues from the plan, plan talks about housing diversity a notion of smaller lot sizes to accommodate a variety of lifestyles and housing choices. The notion of when we get to multiple family and multi unit designs to encourage smaller scale type developments that might better fit within existing neighborhoods with respect to character with those neighborhoods with regard to scale and impacts. And the notion of allowing a fairly flexible approach in terms of alternative layouts. A number of suggestions in the report, the first of which is a kind of trend we see in other communities and that is to allow or consider at least allowing duplexes and single family attached style units on comer lots. The idea is on a comer lot you have two block faces and that if each unit faces a, it's respective street the character of that street face isn't by all appearances single family detached in nature. We in fact learned in the stake holder interview process, or we think we learned that Iowa City at one time permitted that sort of housing arrangement and several years ago through an amendment did away with that approach but we see that a number of communities are experiencing with and we lay it out on the table as an option for you all to consider. We also suggested in the report that there may be a need within the code for a zoning category that allows smaller lot, single family detached development in a district that doesn't bring with it the some times perceived negative baggage of allowing duplexes in the same district and in talking through it with staff our recommendation is that the RS-8 which now allows single family detached, attached single family townhouse lifestyle and duplex district be recrafted into a small lot single family detached district that might be easier to establish to the rezoning process because it doesn't raise the specter of duplexes which in some situations are perceived as a threat to single family detached areas, residential areas. Pfab/Can I interrupt you a second? Bishop/Yes sir. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 29 Pfab/On when you get to the smaller units are you talking about also facing the two of them or would that take away your facing one house on the comer of the street, at the comer facing two houses at opposite or kitty comer across? Do you understand my question? Bishop/I don't think so. Pfab/Okay, we talked, all right, I was again thinking it wasn't working very good. Okay your talking about facing houses or duplexes on one street and then on the other so driving by it looks like a single family. Bishop/I'm with you so far. Pfab/Now when you get to a smaller size and a higher utilization of ground on square footage of ground that you can, will that also allow you to do that same thing or would that exclude that? Bishop/No I think it would, I think we recommended that you combine those approaches in that district. Pfab/So it looks like no matter which way we go here we've got to find a higher utilization of ground space. And it's something that over as you look across the nation that is acceptable way of improving a development. Bishop/It's something many communities are considering, the idea of it being accepted, I'm not saying this is an easy sale, some people perceive smaller lot, more compacted development as a threat to the character of those areas, this is not a slam dunk in terms of community perception but it is certainly consistent with the broad things of smart growth back to the city compact development and those themes and I know your all familiar with. Pfab/And it also allows a less costly development, cost of home. Bishop/I think it's going to have some impact and is much as land is consumed so much of the price of housing will have some impact I'm sure. The RS-12 district then jumping up from the RS-8 would continue to be a district that accommodates a broader range of use types including duplex and single family attached. Maybe an opportunity through the amendment process to consider if the small scale multi- family might be appropriate in that district which allows the density of 12 units per acre but in any case there is a need for both a district that both insures single family detached product and one that allows a broader range of use types. The plan also suggests that the code could go farther in terms of encouraging and even in some communities even requiring that a new subdivision above some minimum This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meetin g of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 30 size that there is a choice and a mix ofhousing types within that district. Some codes use a sort of average density approach and require that you have some small lots, some large lots, the notion being that you'll have different size houses, more of a diversity of housing types and more of a sharing of the community wide responsibility for accommodating a broader range of housing types. I heard mentioned that your going to be considering at some point in the future some amendments to your accessory housing units, accessory dwelling unit, accessory building maybe out ahead of us as a consultant team but we saw that as another opportunity just another small way that you can make a dent at accommodating a broader range of housing types. Finally in the residential and housing (can't hear) and theme what we'll come back to in this what I hope is a brief presentation the notion of using more objective by right standards as a way to accommodate housing rather than foming anything other than single family detached products on flat sites into a process, into a be at the sensitive areas overlay plan development process, we're suggesting that this is a front that a lot of communities are trying to chip away at and that is the using of objective up front standards that are predictable both for the development community and for the neighborhood as opposed to sort of discretionary case by case reviews of every housing development that comes down the pike. A number of technical issues regarding set backs, lot width, nearly all the single family districts require 20 foot front yard setback, here's an opportunity to both address pedestrianism, streetscape, and efficiency in use of land in one full swoop by in some districts at least allowing houses to move a little closer to the street with the front porch or whatever. The notion of reduced lot width standards, another possibility for somewhat reducing the cost of development because of being able to reduce the amount of street frontage. And of course when we talk about moving structures closer to the street we need to be mindful of the impact on the street that garages the place on us so we understand that if you were to consider those types of setbacks you need to be coupled with some standards to ensure that garages can be accommodated on the lot without disrupting the character of the street base. As we look to the connections between commercial areas and residential areas, we looked at a number of policies, again looking to the plan, the plan talks about better connectivity between residential neighborhoods, between residential neighborhoods and the work place and the shopping place. The notion of access management as a way to preserve street capacity, accommodating of means of transportation other than the single use automobile, transit, bicyclists, pedestrians. The notion of some flexibility with regard to local street and access needs through revised local street standards, provision of alleys, private access lanes, loop streets, any number of alternatives being addressed by communities around the country. We recommended consideration of a number of things on the street front, we see in the plan really nothing that addresses this notion of con activity and this is another area that' s going to be a hard sell. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 31 Atkins/Kirk can I ask you a quick question? It's killing me, what's a snout house? Bishop/Yes sir. A snout house, think of the big nose that sticks out from the pig or whatever, it's a term that's been coined to characterize a house where all you see is the garage sticking out from the front. Atkins/Thank you. Champion/That's a great description. Bishop/We see nothing in the existing regulations that really address this notion of con activity and as I was mentioning this is another area where the planners have sort of out fronted the community on this issue because this can be a hard sell as we open up people' s neighborhoods to cross traffic and the sharing of connections, that's not always an easy policy sale in communities. Similarly the notion of access management isn't aggressively addressed in the development code, and here we're talking about the limitations of number of curb cuts onto streets as a way to preserve capacity, ensure better traffic safety type issues. We talked about sidewalk standards and the notion of buffers between residential areas and arterial streets, right now the burden is kind of placed on individual homeowners to have a large setback whenever a residential butts arterials and we're suggesting maybe a better way to do that would be through the subdivision process and the installation of buffers at the time of residential subdivision. The notion of a more flexible menu of options when it comes to local street design, we don't have a silver bullet for you here, I know you've all considered and heard a lot about skinny streets and the notion of whether or not the 28 foot local street cross section is the end all to be all the end all when it comes to that. We see communities grappling with that issue trying to balance neighborhood character issues with storm water issues, engineering design issues, public safety, fire access issues, it's a delicate balance but we think that there may be a way to at least reach a compromise where maybe streets of a certain length, maybe streets in certain topographically challenged sites could adhere to a different standard, that was somewhat reduced from your existing requirements. We heard some about the notion that a new residential subdivisions were not seeing sort of the canopy tree lined street front that we see in older areas of the community, and what we heard from the engineers was that the location of sidewalks relative to curb and the sort of 6 foot window that exists there doesn't lend itself easily to canopy tree planning's because of root and maintenance issues and just simply space issues and we're suggesting that as you proceed if you do with the code amendment process you might investigate some alternatives with regard to sidewalk placement or fight of way width. And again the greater use of alleys, rear access lanes, some techniques that I know you've tried and approved in some developments around the community as I've toured as another way to This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 32 accommodate local street needs. On the housing cost front, we like you had to approach that as a kind of balancing equation, we looked to the code, we were asked to identify unnecessary obstacles to the provision of affordable housing. Clearly any community that's got a zoning or land development code has added requirements that have some affect on the cost of housing. The question we were asked though was whether or not those were unnecessary relative to the goals that you've set out as a community with regard to environmental protection, community appearance, the preservation in a neighborhood character. And on that front we don't see that the development code is the villain in that equation. Having said that we suggest as we do in a number of contmunities some things to consider as you move forward, land supply being cheap among them, in other words it may not be what's in the book but what' s on the zoning map may have some affect on the ability to provide higher density somewhat more affordability housing in a community. Again back to this notion of relying on discretionary open ended review processes to accommodate new housing developments, time is money, you've heard it all before, it's a clich6, but there is some truth to it in development economics as in all economics and this is an area where again we're suggesting that more alliance on objective standards and less reliance on discretionary review processes might be a benefit to everyone concerned. Kanner/Kirk. Bishop/Yes. Kanner/On the first point land supply, does that mean looking at land that' s on the perimeter as perhaps up zoning that density? Bishop/Well I think that' s you know part of the equation. I'm not suggesting it, we didn't do it, we weren't asked thankfully to do a careful audit of your zoning map and to recommend the appropriate ratio of all the given zoning districts but in our view and our experience the availability of sites that are pre zoned to accommodate whatever product is out there is going to have more affect than tweaking some technical standard in the code. So it could be annexation opportunities land on the periphery that' s been in the holding pattern at a low density classification, it plays into to this last point, and I think this Weeber subdivision that we had on the screen is a case in point. We have zoned, we have land that's zoned, it looks like it's zoned 44 units an acre multi-family and as a result of their being environmental constraints on that property that project is automatically kicked into a planned development sensitive areas overlay, where the issues, your not alone here, the issues in the debate, the public hearing that ensues because of the plan development designation, because of the need to get rezoning are sometimes completely unrelated to the environmental factors that are supposedly in play. We've suggested that the community consider implementing This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 33 the framework of it's environmentally sensitive lands ordinance through technical standards and administrative review through the site plan process. We think you'll be assured of the same level if not a height in level of environmental protection because everything is not up for play in a sort of discretionary review process while offering the predictability of the zoning map to ensure both the developer and the neighborhood knows what's coming. Now the neighborhood is going to tell me that that' s a bad idea because that site is zoned RM-44 but that's an issue, that's a rezoning issue, I mean that' s a zoning, that' s a land use policy issue that you all have to grapple with. But the environmental issues are fairly cut and dry, you use an approach that we favor in terms of doing the site capacity analysis, protecting certain slopes, protecting woodland areas, wetlands, flood plains and so forth. But the features of your ordinance are sound, we just believe that the process that you use involves a lot of brain damage and we suggested that it may be, it may be, have a small role in housing prices but more importantly it has a role in how predictable your regulations are, more importantly for us. Because we believe that an ordinance should be predictable. The zoning map should be predictable, the zoning map may be wrong but it should be predictable. Kanner/So your saying these environmental regulations would be perhaps would implement them and they would be for the whole city and it's just there, and that you have to conform to is. Is that basically what your saying? Bishop/Yes, that's another, yes, absolutely, they're there, they're a standard, we review for compliance, if you've got a problem there will be an appeal process. The staff is unfairly administering them, had made some sort of misinterpretation of a standard, I assume them would be an appeal process but yes it becomes a sign off like do you have the number of parking spaces just like a number of development standard issues are in your code. Kanner/Is there an appeal process, I just want to finish this, is there an appeal process from the other perspective, that the staff was not strong enough in implementing them? That perhaps the concern. How do you get to that saying things are, we're letting things slide, we have these standards so the person that's doing the building can appeal saying this is too tough. I'm assuming they're not going to say it's too soft, so how do you get the other side, how do you protect that other side? Bishop/Well that' s really a question, I mean the question is what does the appeal provision look like in this animal I'm trying to sell you which is a ministerial review alternative to your plan development and sensitive areas overlays approach. What does the appeal process look like? I don't want to get out front of your City Attorney or our team's legal advisors on how you ought to structure that, I think it's partly policy and partly a legal matter but we've certainly worked This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 34 in communities where agreed parties be they the developer or the surrounding neighborhood have the right to appeal on the record, I mean did they follow the ordinance. This isn't a question of should they have imposed some ad hoc standards as part of the review it's a question of did they follow the ordinance and ensure that these protected slopes, these protected woodlands and other environmental features were protected. I think your ordinance sets out some fairly objective, I mean some objective standards on that front. Lehman/What your saying if I'm not mistaken is that these things can be administratively applied without going through a political process. Bishop/Yes. Kanner/Yea so it's basically the same, it takes away that (can't hear) review of the rezoning. Lehman/Well in this case we talked about it here earlier tonight, review of technical standards of which we have no knowledge. Kanner/Well actually there' s different standards that are talked about in the environmental sensitive areas both and so I would say we do have knowledge about that that it takes into affect the community and other issues like pedestrian access and those things and that' s why we're involved in the process. Lehman/Well that's another story, go ahead. Bishop/I'm just about done. A number of recommendations in this report it runs to about 100 pages and like well in zoning in particular got us into details, them are a lot of detailed requirements, we tried to address a number of them, we've included some suggestions for making the process as efficient as possible. Frankly your doing a number of things right on that front, our list was much longer until staff looked at it and checked off that they were doing 50 percent of them. We threw another half a dozen on the table, a number of other recommendations, the plan talks about a number of kind of community design, building site design issues that we don't see carried to their full fruition in the ordinance and so the imposition of character standards that help the ordinances achieve the kind of vision for the community that you all talk about in the comprehensive plan. A number of technical recommendations regarding the use classification, that is the definition of all the land use types, some alternatives for modernization there. It's been over 20 years since you've comprehensively looked at your zoning ordinance, they tend to get a little dated at times. Although you've done a good job through the piece meal process keeping it up to date and responding to evolving issues. Clearly implementing through zoning the zoning and development related policy and This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 35 vision statements from the comprehensive plan, it is something we would advise you to do. And a number of opportunities for adding some flexibility to the ordinance, I mention off street parking on this slide, talking about greater use of shared parking arrangements with uses that have off peak operating hours. The notion of maybe some additional flexibility with regard to off site parking, additional flexibility for large employers, and through transit, and preferred parking programs, a number of approaches going on out there. The number of reorganization issues addressed in the code, I won't go into them in detail as well as a number of very technical standards with regards to signs and adult use regulations. We have some real radical recommendations regarding organization and format, we suggested for example, the use of a table of contents that has page numbers as a way to make the ordinance a little easier to pick up and use and find information they're looking for in the ordinance. Kanner/What year were page numbers (can't hear)? Bishop/I'm like AI Gore I invented table of contents with page numbers. Maybe a how to guide up front that kind of helps people who don't come into contact with zoning on a daily basis find their way through the process and find their way through the regulations. Better use of page layout techniques, tables, charts, as ways to convey information regarding the types of uses that are permitted in the minimum lot size and setbacks that apply. These are techniques that you ought to embrace, I know you will as you embark on that. Clearly illustrations and graphics help people understand what these sometimes arcane regulations are talking about. Yea. Kanner/Kirk your putting out the sort of new urbanist kind of thing and one of them Kunstler he talks about simplifying it even more, is there a way in a complex city like Iowa City to simplifying the code so that anybody one of the newspapers that are 6th grade level or 8th grade level or whatever they are that anyone at that level can read them, it's like reading the newspaper, is that possible? Bishop/Well we maintain that it's possible, it would, it's up to our client communities to decide if we've actually gotten there when we get done, but surely I mean plain English, the use of plain English writing style, some of these techniques with regard to page layout and graphics, they all help. This is still complex information, I mean there are still provisions of any zoning and development code that are going to be lost on those of use who don't come into contact with the regulations on a daily basis but absolutely radical strides can be made with regard to how simple this information is to process and understand. Kanner/I mean just the names of the different zone, when we have CN-I, why isn't it NC-I? And how can we simplify that even? Are there ways to do that? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 36 Bishop/The naming conventions can, yea it can be made easy, I think there's a logic to CN-1 I understand it but that doesn't mean it's right for you all, it's fairly common place, for example, we don't want to get into this obviously but for the C it indicates it's the commercial district, the second letter what intensity level of commercial and with the alpha numeric N-1 with it but I've got clients, communities that use any number of naming conventions to better present sort of an intuitive designator for their zone designations. I can't give you all my trade secrets as part of the first phase but it's certainly something we'd explore with you. Lehman/You mean there' s a Phase II. Bishop/No sir not on your watch, that' s the question before you as I understood Karin, we were fortunate to be selected to do this front end piece, the development code analysis. When the city originally went out with it's request for proposals it talked about a two phase process and what the city elected to do and it's something that a number of communities do is let's say do this diagnostic kind of audit first and see if we really need to do this and if so at what level and so we prepared our report. We have suggested it's time after 20 years to sort of comprehensively go in reorganize, reformat, make the thing a little more customer friendly and some substantive issues while your at it and that question is now on the table before you and we wish you the best of luck with whatever you choose. We do do that sort of work and we'd probably be happy to help you in that regard. Lehman/It was nice to be able to understand everything you said. Very good presentation, I think we all enjoyed that. Bishop/Well thank you very much, it's been a pleasure to work with you. O'Dounell/Everything except the snout house. Lehman/The snout house we have a problem with, we'd like that removed, put that in the NC-1 zone. Thanks a lot. (END OF 01-32 SIDE TWO) Franklin/Through all of this if we're not going to do anything with it. Lehman/So what's your recommendation? Franklin/Well my recommendation is that we continue to work with Duncan Associates, that will get it done sooner than later, I mean there's a lot of changes that we're This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 37 talking about happening here, we have not changed our subdivision regulations totally since 1962 and the zoning ordinance (can't hear) points out we're not looking at approaching 20 years with that base ordinance so I think it's time to look at seriously. So I would suggest that we proceed with Phase 15I and the question before you now is there anything here that you have heard tonight that it is just an anathema to you, you do not want anything to do with it because it's? Lehman/Snout house. O'Dormell/Second. Franklin/Now is it that you want snout houses or you don't want snout houses? O'Donnell/No I seconded Emie. Kanner/I do remember 1962 as being a good year. Franklin/Very good year but a long time ago, getting longer all the time Steven. Champion/It wasn't that long ago, I like the idea of moving forward with it. Wilburn/Sooner rather than later. Champion/Yea, go, go for it. Vanderhoef/It's certainly time to bring us up to date and reorganization of the code, sometimes it's much easier for me to pick up the phone and call you than it is to search about myself. Lehman/That' s always going to be the case. O'Donnell/What's going to change? Vanderhoef/Maybe I'll be able to read it and save a few phone calls for Karin. Pfab/I think it's a good idea and I think our Peninsula project is going to give us a chance to open up some ideas that we kind of an experimental place, not that it's an experiment but it's a chance to on a relatively controlled amount of property to try some very innovative ideas. Champion/(Can't hear) talks about how space (can't hear) neighborhoods and that and how to design neighborhoods that are space, I think it's a lot of good things. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 38 Lehman/I also think it's pretty complimentary on the way we're doing things. Franklin/Yea. Lehman/No I really do I mean I, obviously we're doing a lot of things right. Franklin/There are some things to do but there' s things that we're doing okay. Lehman/Is there a priority in this as to what ~ve want to do first or second or third? Do we want to go after anything in particular more quickly than? Franklin/This is my question to you, you have been lobbied by at least one person to put some priorities on the neighborhood commercial area. Lehman/I know and this is the second or third problem we've had with the CN-1 zone in the last few years or three years so it might be a priority. Vanderhoef/That' s one I think we have talked about, the other one I think we talked about was some of this infill property and in residentials the number of bedrooms and the footprint of the buildings on those large lots and the setbacks on them that they just over power. Franklin/So some of the housing issues that Kirk talked about. Pfab/I think it's time we take a look at higher utilization of grounds, surface space and also being looking harder at neighborhood friendly zoning and development, in other words it supports a neighborhood more so than it has in the past by various little techniques. Franklin/Okay, any other input. Kanner/Well, yea, I like most of what's in here, although I have to say quite frankly I didn't get to look at all this and I hope that we proceed a bit slowly in this in that we get a chance to thoroughly look through this, there's a lot of good information and I'd like to have that. And one of my major concerns is when we're taking away Council review it might be that we want to do that but anytime we take that away I think we have to proceed cautiously. Lehman/What do you mean take away Council, oh? (All talking) Franklin/Do things administratively rather than. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 39 Karmer/In rezoning issues and if we're going to take that away I think we have to have some good debate on that and see how that plays out. Lehman/But I think. Vanderhoef/Well I think is where the "by rights" standards go in there will take away a lot of that flexibility or what may be perceived as discretionary on the part of Council or on staff as developers work through the processes and I think that' s where we have received some criticism in the past and that they didn't understand specifically. If we have good standards there then we can turn it over to the "by rights". Lehman/But I think Steven before we do any of this we have to concur that these particular things will be "by right", in other words if we don't want them to be "by right" we can continue to have those things come before us for our review so we will have the decision of whether or not we feel it should be reviewed before we act on the changes of the code. Franklin/Every single change that will occur. Lehman/Will require CounciI's approval. Franklin/Will require Council action, and no doubt we will have repeated debates about this balance between flexibility and being prescriptive, I mean that' s something that goes on the time and it kind of depends upon which end of the stick your on as to whether you want to be flexible or not. Lehman/Right. Pfab/And i think that we talked somewhere in his presentation there about the appeal process and how that is balanced so that if parties agreed that they have access one way or the other and not just one side or the other. Franklin/Right, right. Kanner/As far as the process I think it's good to go ahead but I would also ask the Council that we perhaps in a month from now get asked this same question, we don't have to have Duncan Associates here but we do that and we say is there anything in here that we want to get rid of or are there anything that we want to add and that we have this discussion and I think we're probably going to have a number of these discussions over the next year or so. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 40 Franklin/Yea, I was just thinking what we do is put together a work program, these are the things that we're looking at addressing and then have that discussion with you to see if that's where you want to go. Lehman/Well I think if Steven's right if we and I'm sure we have not studied this cover to cover as we do that and if we have a concern certainly I think we should bring it up whether that be at Council time or whatever and but I agree I think. Pfab/Is this a time to maybe put it on a work session maybe a month or two? Lehman/There' s nothing to put on a work session. Pfab/No but I mean with the idea to take a look at it. Lehman/Not until they give us something to talk about. Pfab/Okay. Kanner/Well actually it might not be a bad idea if we say we want it in a month or so to have a work session to look at it in a general sense and/or a more specific sense with what we get from staff at that time. Lehman/Well are we going to have anything from staff in a month? Franklin/The only thing that you would have in a month would be how we're going to approach this in terms of the specific things that we would do first. Lehman/All right I ~vould just suggest that with Council's concurrence that you keep us updated, this can very well be an agenda item on the work session. Franklin/Okay. Lehman/And you can bring us an update, we can discuss it as briefly, if it's going to be extensive discussion we can schedule it for a major part of a work session but if you just periodically keep us updated on what's going on and we can ~vork from there. O~Donnell/Fine. Franklin/Okay and I mean we'll be coming back to you for direction on various things, the large philosophical issues. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 41 Kanner/Okay not too large. Two things that I wanted to bring up. From chair person of historic preservation commission he had brought up the idea when they reviewed it looking out for economic hardship in historic preservation districts and he asked that that be addressed and I didn't have a chance to look through this. And where' s Kirk? I don't know if that was addressed in here or not, did that end up making this? Franklin/No. Kanner/So that's maybe something that I would like to have looked at. And the other thing was about zoning for alcohol licensees and if we want to consider that because that's one method that was put out there as a possibility to deal with proliferation of establishments. Franklin/Okay, got. Lehman/Okay, thank you. Franklin/Thank you. Lehman/We're going to take a break folks. A~enda Items Lehman/Anybody have any agenda items? IP4 of 3/15 of info packet. Karmer/What's in the info. packet #4 pending development issues, what's the Preucil special exception in the Northgate Corporate Park? Where is that? Vanderhoef/The pending item, it's on the pending item list. Kanner/Steve would you like? Arkins/No I think I can handle this, Karin would you answer this. Franklin/That is for a private school's specialized construction which is a special exception use in the RDP zone, Research Development Park zone which is what the property's zoned. Atkins/I knew that. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 42 O'Donnell/I think I did too. Lehman/I think we figured that one out. Kanner/Where is that at? Franklin/It's on Northgate Drive, it's right on the very end of where the road goes to now, and on the north side. Pfab/Up towards, back to 1-80 is that what your saying? Franklin/It's noah of 1-80. Pfab/Yea but I mean as it goes back to 1-80. Franklin/Yea you take Northgate Drive you go all the way in and it's on the north side of the street. Kanner/Is that the kind of thing we' 11 look at in the development code to see if we want to expand the uses in something like an RDP? Lehman/It would be a special exception wouldn't it? Franklin/We don't have that specifically called out in the development code, expand the potential uses in RDP. Kanner/Perhaps yea. Franklin/Could, I mean one of the things that we can look at it is when you want to have something a special exception and when you don't because a special exception is that extra process. Yep we could do that. Lehman/Any other agenda items? ITEM NO. 10. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 6, CHAPTER 1 (NUISANCES) OF TIlE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY BY ADDING STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES TO CONTROL THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES PARKED, STORED, PLACED OR KEPT OUTSIDE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. (SECOND CONSIDERATION) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 43 O'Donnell/I think we should bring up on Item 10, both papers reported last week, this is vehicle storage in the yards. Both papers reported last night or gave the insinuation that this is an ordinance that's coming down because of one problem and we have between 70 and 80 complaints on this a year so it, I think we need to point that out to them. I mean this, this is certainly not an ordinance based on one problem, there are numerous complaints a year and that should be made clear. Lehman/Okay other agenda items. Okay let's do appointments. ADDointments Lehman/I don't have my list. Historic Preservation. Champion/Wc have one applicant. Vanderhocf/No applicants for Historic Preservation. Lehman/Didn't we have one? Kanner/No. Lehman/Okay Planning & Zoning Commission, there are two different appointments, one to fill an unexpired term and one to fill a new term. The unexpired as I remember there are four or five applicants for that one, let' s do that first. Someone to replace Norm Osland. O'Donnell/Fd like to nominate Anciaux. Lehman/Anciaux. What's his first name? Vanderhoef/Don. Pfab/I'd like to nominate Charles Eastham. Champion/And I like Hertry Madden. Lehman/We only can appoint one. Okay. Do we have any other? Well let's take a straw vote, first how many would like Don Anciaux for the appointment. Okay Mr. Madden, okay and Charlie Eastham. Now we've got three to three, now we're going to eliminate Mr. Madden. Now how many want Mr. Anciaux? Champion/Well I'll support Mr. Anciaux, he's my second choice. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 44 Lehman/All right then the new term, how many applications for that new term, I don't have that. Vanderhoef/All of the same again. Champion/All the same. Lehman/Well not all the same because. Vanderhoef/With the added exception we have added Ben Chait. Lehman/Ben Chaet has completed one term on the P & Z, traditionally we reappoint if there' s not been a problem, your not (can't hear) Mr. Chaet, is there any. Wilburn/I'd like to nominate Charlie Eastham and I'll just throw in that he did apply prior to, he was encouraged to apply again, not that's a reason you have to, but given his involvement with housing issues and this be our concern then I think it would be important to have Charlie on. Kanner/Yea it is pretty impressive what he lists here for his involvement, he's been on HCDC, Habitat for Humanity, Housing Fellowship, Johnson Cotmty Empowerment Board, the Eagles Flight, a lot of community groups and he seems to be well versed and we did appoint someone the last time and we said because he applied a number of times that we're going to appoint you this time so. Champion/We didn't say that. Kanner/Well actually someone did say that. Champion/We did not say that, the Council did not say that. Lehman/I think we have appointed people who, we have not appointed people and when we have the opportunity at some time in the future if they continue to reapply we occasionally do appointment them but it isn't just because they reapply. But in any event. Pfab/I would certainly strongly recommend Charlie Eastham. Lehman/How many would vote for Charlie Eastham. How many for Ben Chait? All fight Don Anciaux and Ben Chait. The Public Art Advisory Committee. Champion/I'd like to nominate Barbara Camillo. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 45 O'Donnell/I'll second that one. Vanderhoef/I kind of like Connie Peterson, and I was going to ask because I'm not sure how many art professionals we have on the committee right now as compared to at large. Lehman/The requirement is that we have a minimum of 3 but they can as many as five, they can all be art professionals if we want them to be but there has to be a minimum of three as I remember. Vanderhoef/Well I was looking at both Connie Peterson and Charles Felling in that they are not both making their living in art, Charles Felling is a citizen who has an interest in art who may have a different perspective than someone who is an art professional. The other part that I liked about Cormie Peterson is that she is a graphic artist and is experienced in the photography area that is different from what I saw on other' s members of the committee. Wilburn/I liked Barb Camillo, I liked her international experience, (can't hear) too and SO. O'Donnell/I did too. Lehman/All right how many would like Barb Camillo? Barb Camillo is appointed. Kanner/One thing we've been seeing the last few months is a lot of strong candidates. Champion/A lot. Lehman/Yes. Vanderhoef/I agree. Kanner/It's really good to see and we're picking from strength and we ought to keep encouraging that. O'Donnell/And we've been mentioning that in our Tuesday night meetings and I think that does bring people out, good applicants. Vanderhoef/All right let's get one now for the Civil Service Commission for readvertising for that. Lenoch and Cilek Buildinl~ Occupancy This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 46 Lehman/Lenoch and Cilek building occupancy, who is going to speak to this? Atkins/You are, you asked for it to be back on the agenda. Lehman/Okay we asked for it to be on the agenda. Wilbum/I wanted to definitely see it on there because I think, I understand the attempt that was made to reach out to some of the, to see that leases were extended there but given the emphasis that was placed on a lot of the downtown activities, the Friday nights, the Art' s Fest, the Jazz Fest, I think that for the short term or actually, in the long term I think just the impression the appearance of having nothing be there would be a detriment so there was a letter from Gary, there' s also a letter from Susan. Lehman/Right. Wilburn/I spaced on your name, sorry about that. I would like to know if Susan Craig could come forward so we I could ask just for a little more detail about the conversations you've had with Arts Fest, Jazz Fest, what I'm looking for specifically is what, have you had conversations about the amount of coverage throughout the summer that those (can't hear) may or may not be able to provide. Just give me a little background. Susan Craig/I left a message on Steve Grismore's machine, I have not talked to him and he's the organizer for Jazz Fest, I have talked on the phone to Vicki Jennings, she was thrilled at the notion of having some space and was going to talk to some people and see what could be arranged to locate some kind of headquarters for Arts Fest downtown as near the area as she could get it. She's looking at it, again we had a brief conversation I said well we'll wait until this is settled and I'll get back to you. A place, a headquarters where they can store their chairs and tables and t-shirts and sort of a staging area whether people would actually come into that space to purchase perhaps t-shirts or something you know we hadn't gotten to the details like that. My notion was that you could certainly use the window space in the Mind Matters area which are long narrow windows to put some banners up, advertising Arts Fest, Jazz Fest, the Friday night concerts, the things that go on in the downtown area and make it an attractive looking space even if there isn't a business operating out of that space if you know for a few months here. Vanderhoef/We're you visioning that they would have office space? Craig/No not office space, more staging area kind of space. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 47 Vanderhoef/So that would be just a very short period of time. Craig/Right just for this summer. Vanderhoef/Well but I mean for 2 or 3 days or what? Craig/I would say a matter of weeks before the individual festivals as they do their organizing and people come and pick things up and then during the actual Arts Fest and then Arts Fest would be over and Jazz Fest would be next, like I said I have not Steve Grismore yet, just left a message on his machine. Vanderhoef/If your talking 2 to 3 weeks then I'm saying that' s office space you ~know if they're working out of there, if there' s someone there that opens the door everyday so people can come in and out that is an office space. Craig/Well we had not, Vicki and I had not gotten to the particulars of, but I think she was envisioning something for some period of days before whether it would have regular hours or anything I don't know. Wilbum/I guess more concern is more of those high visibility times, Friday night, Saturday, people coming in and out of town, and again those festival times as to, I mean when demolition occurs and there' s construction they've going for a library and people are coming into town or something else is going there but someone coming down from Chicago, Quad Cities, Des Moines, friends coming in internationally they come and see an empty space, or no activity whether that' s an art display or something but the library may have the rotating art exhibit the library may have or even a proposal from someone for some type of activity, it leaves a dift~rent, at least there' s understanding that there' s some type of activity going there as opposed to nothing during that time so that' s where my concern is. Vanderhoef/I don't disagree with you Ross, I think them is a perception just in general of empty spaces or very obvious banners there, above ground art. Lehman/Did I see in your letter Susan that you might be using part of that window space to promote the architectural drawings whenever of the library? I mean what? Craig/The former Freshens space does have large windows and you know did they not renew their lease and I thought the floor plans, the plans that you all saw at the joint meeting with the architect you know let' s get those up and say coming soon you know which is what you do when something exciting is happening around it. Lehman/Well I think and I think Ross has a good concern and I'm sure you share that concern. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 48 Craig/I do. Lehman/An empty window and empty space probably it isn't really putting our best foot forward so if something, your planning for something to be in those windows and something to be utilizing that space on and off during the summer is that correct? Craig/Right. Karmer/We're talking through the end of July is that correct? Craig/July 31 st is the end date so talk about the summer, Friday night concerts we, May, June and July three months is what we're talking about. Lehman/What's wrong with August, September, October? Champion/Right. Kanner/Well I thought we're starting to. Lehman/Demolition starts in November doesn't it? Craig/The architect said that he needed to have possession of the site, the building in order to begin to prepare for demolition on October 15. When the contracts to extend the leases were drawn up we worked back from that date and worst case scenario which you always have to plan for if someone had to be evicted we had to have enough time after their lease expired to evict somebody so that' s where the August 1 date come right Eleanor. Lehman/But realistically. Craig/Realistically if we had something in the windows people would be looking at it until the first of October or the middle of October when construction fence went up. Lehman/Until such time, all right, all right. Vanderhoef/What would be wrong with since we're talking about two of our summer festivals and one being art and one being Jazz having Arts Iowa City have some space to display art in there for the short term. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 49 Craig/I think the space that would be appropriate to that would probably be the Mind Matter's space and it's not as big as the space they were in over on Washington Street. Vanderhoef/But whatever. Craig/Whatever. Vanderhoef/If we're having an Arts Fest why not. Craig/If the time frame is so short to plan something and then get it in there and have it open you know, and I know there' s been some inquiries about leasing the Freshens space too, again my concem is the time frame is pretty short and by the time you negotiate and make arrangements so it's, you know I think it's in the best interest of the city too to have something visible there that if not actually drawing people into that building is saying something neat is going to happen here so. Pfab/I would ask a question, how many alternatives do we have and how many of them are mutually exclusive, what possibilities do we have now? Craig/Well the possibilities are endless Irvin. Pfab/But I mean what do have on the table or what are we aware of?. Craig/What I know that we're aware of, the contact I have made is with Arts Fest and a phone call to Jazz Fest which I have not talked to them. Pfab/Okay. Craig/And I talked to David Schoon about the Friday night concert stuff, there is an, there has been interest expressed from Gary Sanders to come back in there with the used book store in the Freshens area but that would require negotiating a lease and you know. Pfab/So of those four. Craig/So there's commercial use, there's festival use, I have heard you know I think Ross and Dee both now have talked about the Arts use kind of thing, some kind of exhibit or something like that, festival use, commemial use, the arts use. Kanner/The library use, you were talking about displaying. Craig/Right, the display in the windows kind of thing. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 50 Lehman/Is the concern on the part of Council I mean we need to tell Susan what we're thinking. First of it is the library's basically it's their property and our concern is as I think Fm hearing it is we do not have anymore than we have to have empty space and that we would like to convey to the library folks that we would like see something in those windows or some at your, I think it has to be at your discretion, it's your building, to see to it that as much as possible that we have that property being utilized, occupied, displayed whatever so it doesn't appear to be an empty building. Is that accurate on the concern of the Council? Champion/I think it's nice to have something nice in them, I frankly. Lehman/That's the library's call. Champion/Don't understand our obsession with not having an empty building, I think it might be the only empty building downtown right now. Lehman/Across the street from me there's a lot of vacancies. Champion/Well that' s not you know. Lehman/Do we want to leave it that with Susan? Pfab/I would encourage something to happen but if it's Susan call then she, we would encourage her to go ahead. Lehman/I think that' s your call Susan in as much as you can we'd like to see something in that building. O'Dormell/By tomorrow. Lehman/Whether it's a beautiful picture of the proposed library, which I think is a marvelous thing to put in there as well, but just as much as we can utilize it obviously it's in the library's best interest and the city and everybody so. Thank you very much. Craig/Thank you. Alcohol (IP3 of 3/15 info packet) Lehman/You folks may think it's time for a drink but this is just to discuss alcohol issues. As you're all aware we had public discussions for two meetings about the proposed change or the proposed adoption of an ordinance that would make the possibility of civil penalties available to us for a number of infractions and I think This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 51 tonight we've got, the first question that we need to answer before we go any further is are we interested in pursuing the ordinance that has been proposed to us al~er we answer the questions that Eleanor has put up to us or are we not interested in pursuing this? Pfab/Absolutely as they are or just. Lehman/No, no, if wear interested in pursuing and this ordinance or some variation of this ordinance then we can proceed to answering the questions that Eleanor has. Pfab/Let's go. Lehman/If we are not interested in pursuing it we've wasted a lot of time. Wilburn/Let's do it. Lehman/Are we interested in pursuing this? Vanderhoef/Go for it. Lehman/Eleanor your meeting, we have some questions we need to answer and if you would lead us through. Dilkes/I'm going to kind of break. Lehman/Let me have a handout by the way tonight from Eleanor. Karr/It's the same handout you received in your packet by the way, it's not a new one, okay, it's a hard copy. Lehman/Right. Dilkes/I'm just going to track the questions that I posed in that memo. As you know the ordinance has a number of different provisions, the two main ones being the implementation of the civil penalties or administrative penalties that are authorized by state law and the second real substantive change is the legislation about drink specials. So I guess the first question would be do you want to pursue the administrative penalties. Pfab/Yes. Wilburn/Yes. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 52 Champion/Yes. Lehman/You have a concurrence. Dilkes/All right then moving to the limitations on specials or sales there are a number of different aspects of that section of the ordinance. Let me just mn through those, those are found Section 4-6-7 of the proposed ordinance, number' s 1-6, they generally prohibit 2 for 1 specials, all you can drink specials, increasing the volume in alcohol in a drink without proportionally increasing the price. Number 4 is a prohibition of out of sight sales. Are you finding that Emie? Page 4. Vanderhoef/Section 6. Dilkes/There you go you've got it. Lehman/I've got it, sorry. Dilkes/Number 5 is not allowing the use of alcohol in games and number 6 is the dispensing or pouring of alcohol directly into someone's mouth which is part of a kind of a game that goes on at least one bar that we're aware of. So let's address the out of sight sales first, do you want to prohibit out of sight sales in some manner? Vanderhoef/Yes. Wilburn/Yes. Champion/Yes I do, I have some problems on how your going to implement that, I mean I, one thing that I thought about today and I guess maybe we talked about and is, I don't know you separate bars from restaurants but if you have, if your bar only allows people 21 and above then I don't have any problem with out of sight sales so I don't think that's a bad stipulation to have in there. If your bar only allows 21 and older then I don't have any problem with that. Also I have some problems with how to enforce it or how to write it so that, I mean what if I want to go up and get two pitchers of beer for my family, well maybe 10 pitchers of beer for my family. Lehman/They're going to have to deliver them Connie, you're not going to be able to go up and get it. Champion/I couldn't carry them anyway could I? Dilkes/You have to take people with you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 53 Lehman/Even if Craig helped you you couldn't. Karmer/And actually I don't think that's such a bad idea to say, that means the establishment has to make sure they have enough people to serve people. What happens is in some of these bars there's chaos going on. Champion/I know. Kanner/And so I don't think it's such a bad idea to say you have to go to the table and they don't look old enough you check the ID's of the people that are there. O'Donnell/I think the out of sight sales is specifically to stop someone from getting a half a dozen pitchers, and unfortunately we're all going to live by this ordinance, and does this include like a golf course, a private club? I believe it does but the intention of ordinance is to, that's, we have to remember we have to stop young people from getting alcoholic beverages and to do that I think you have to. Lehman/And Mike it's more than that, it's to see that people who are not intoxicated, who are intoxicated do not get more alcohol and I do not believe it is a real burden on an establishment to require them to deliver the pitcher of beer to the table to the folks that are going to be consuming it. O'Donnell/I agree. Lehman/And to look and see that those folks are not inebriated and are of a legal age. Wilburn/And I think Steven's point is a good one too that you have to make sure you have adequate staff to, you 'know control it, monitor what's going on and then it's a matter of okay Ernie wants to buy a round, let' s see some ID's, you know. Dilkes/How many drinks should one person be allowed to pumhase? Should it be one, should it be two? Vanderhoef/That's an out of sight sales also in my eyes too. Dilkes/That's what we're talking about is the out of sight sales, right now. Vanderhoef/The pitchers that, those are real obvious, but more than one drink is a real problem also so I think if it's more than one why then you have the wait staff come to the table. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 54 Dilkes/It's all the same, it's all out of sight sales whether your pumhasing a pitcher which could serve 5 people or your purchasing two separate drinks that serve two people. So the question is do you want to allow? Do you want to be able to go up to the bar and purchase just one serving? Vanderhoef/Yes. Pfab/That' s what I would recommend. Dilkes/Or do you want to be able to purchase two for you and your date for instance. Vanderhoef/One for me. Champion/This is where the ordinance gets touchy because, but then I'm not, I guess most of the time I'm going somewhere to have a drink someone's waiting on me, but if I were 21 and even on a date then I see, this is why I have problems with part of the ordinance although I think we need it. Pfab/Well then let's do it. Vanderhoef/That, I agree with you Connie, but I don't know any fair way and appropriate way to do it than one for the person who' s buying. O'Donnell/Yea we can split hairs here we can go two drinks or two pitchers. Lehman/No, no a pitcher is multiple drinks. O'Donnell/Well it's one item you've purchased and we'll get into this later, the 2 for 1. Lehman/We'll get into that later too. O'Donnell/Well exactly. Lehman/But I don't think a pitcher, a pitcher does to me selling a pitcher I don't think you can sell a pitcher to one person that are multiple drinks and it must be served because it's more than one serving. Champion/Well basically, I'm sorry I didn't mean to interrupt. Well basically, what we're saying is that if you need to buy more than one drink then somebody comes to bring that to your table. Lehman/Serve you, that's what Dee is saying. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 55 Kanner/Or both people have to go up to the bar and if they look young enough they're ID'd or they look at their stamp. Wilburn/That's fine. Lehman/All right. O'Donnell/I think that's fine. Kanner/So are we saying two? Pfab/One. Vanderhoef/One. Pfab/That's four for one. Lehman/We haven't even got 2 for 1 's, now that's a special. Vanderhoef/Aren't we lucky? Lehman/All right how many folks object to serving more than one drink per person? In other words how many want to go for one drink, no more than one drink per person, you can't be served more than one drink? Champion/I don't know if I can handle that one. Lehman/Well it doesn't make a difference Connie because the majority said that that's okay. Champion/Oh good. Kanner/Yea I would have gone for two. Champion/But I don't have to handle it. Lehman/So no person may purchase more than one drink if we adopt the ordinance as we're now doing it. Champion/Oh my gosh we sound like we're going back to first grade. Lehman/Now wait a minute, now just as you said Connie most people, you go for a, they serve you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 56 Champion/Right. Lehman/All we're doing is going to ask them Steven and Ross as well. Champion/Okay. O'Donnell/Or have Steven and Ross go up to the bar with you and you can buy three drinks. Lehman/Okay next item. Dilkes/Do you want to go through each of the special provisions individually, or can I assume when you say you want to adopt those provisions that then we can move to the exceptions, which exceptions you want to implement? Lehman/I think number two is acceptable as far as I'm concemed, read it, sale off, sale offer to sale dispense or serve for on premises consumption and unlimited number of servings of alcohol, liquor, wine or beer for a fixed price. That is an all you drink special, I think we do want to prohibit that. Correct? Champion/Yes. Dilkes/Okay so let's go through them. Number 1 is aimed at the 2 for 1 's, is that, you want to prohibit that? Vanderhoef/Yes. Pfab/No. Vanderhoef/You want to prohibit. Lehman/I do, I do not feel that a person should be required to get two drinks if they want to buy one. If we allow 2 for 1 specials which we may at some point, I do not believe that you should be required to get drinks when you buy your drink. During happy hour a lot of restaurants and bars, you order a drink they bring you two drinks, they will not sell you one drink. Dilkes/Well this would prohibit them from doing those 2 for 1 specials. Lehman/Well is there something that prohibits the serving of one drink at a time? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 57 Dilkes/Number one prohibits serving for on premises consumption two or more servings of drinks to one person for the price of one such drink. Pfab/That's what we wanted to do. Dilkes/I thought that was pretty essential to the. Lehman/That's right, all right. Kanner/The way you were talking it sounded Ernie, like two at the same time that if we allow 2 for 1 that it would be, they couldn't serve them all at once. Dilkes/No you can go up and buy two drinks for the price of two drinks, not two drinks for the price of one drink, that special would be prohibited. Lehman/You can't buy two drinks either because we just said you can't. Vanderhoef/Right, I'd have to go with him to get. Dilkes/Yes, your right. Lehman/So we've taken care of, thank you very much, we've done one and we've done two. Pfab/Spiking them. Dilkes/Number three is directed is increasing the amount of alcohol in a drink and not proportionally increasing the price. Champion/Same thing, 2 for 1. Lehman/That's okay. Kanner/Do we need to do a corresponding ordinance for retail outlets off site? Champion/We need to finish this first. Lehman/Well let' s do this first, but I do think these regulations would apply to any place that sells alcohol. Kanner/But I'm talking about if there's specials on a 6 pack or something do we need something corresponding. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 58 Lehman/No, this is for consumption on site. Dilkes/These are dealing with on premises consumption. Lehman/On site consumption. Kanner/Well I'm thinking of it because people have talked about it's not fair that the majority of people buy their large quantities of alcohol at off site premises. Lehman/Which means they don't have to sit there and drink it and go home drunk. Kanner/And so they're saying that well they could have specials there but the bars can't have specials. Lehman/No it doesn't say bars can't have specials in here, it says t hey can't have 2 for 1 specials. Kanner/Well whatever the special is they're saying that these retail outlets are able to discount it and so. Lehman/So can a bar. Vanderhoef/On a single. Lehman/There's nothing that says a bar can't sell a pitcher for 50 cents. Kanner/No but they have to keep it at that price that' s their price, they can't be that special. Lehman/Well we'll get to that. Kanner/So I'm saying do we need corresponding specials for retail outlets. Champion/That's a whole different. Lehman/That' s a whole different. Dilkes/I understand that that question has been raised and I think that' s a whole different ball of wax and would be I think much trickier in terms of avoid the price legislation but if you all want to look at that we can. Pfab/Is that basically a red herring to take us what we're really trying to do here? I think it is. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 59 Karmer/I think when you get figures that. Pfab/I mean not to point out you but it's a tactic. Kanner/Over (can't hear) percent get their alcohol from that I think it's something we need to consider. Pfab/Well how many of them stagger home? Lehman/Well, no, no, hold it, we'll deal with that separately, we're going to do this one now. Vanderhoef/Right. Dilkes/Okay number 4 we dealt with which was the out of site sales. Number 5 is. Lehman/Prohibits prizes of games. Dilkes/The use of alcohol in games. Champion/I have one question about our out of site sales though. What about that bar that you pay $5.00 and you get all you can drink. Lehman/We just prohibited that. Dilkes/That' s number two. Champion/Okay I just wanted to make sure we covered that. Kanner/Unless they do that as a regular. Lehman/No, they can't do it at all. Kanner/But they could do $5.00 for 50 ounces or 100 ounces as a regular price. Pfab/I'm sure there will be very creative ways of trying to get around this, don't you think? Lehman/We may have to deal with that but this is a start. Dilkes/Yea there may be and we'll just, we may have to amend the ordinance and deal with those things but. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 60 Lehman/Okay. Dilkes/Okay and is number 6 is okay. Champion/Tell me (can't hear). Lehman/Well you can't pour. Wilburn/You can't pour it in their mouth. Lehman/Pour directly down the mouth. Champion/Right. Lehman/All right. Vanderhoef/All 6. Dilkes/Let's move to the exceptions then, or the potential exceptions and these came from other legislation, most of the legislation you see at the state level but other legislation that we have looked at and just included, these were not uncommon exceptions that were included. So remember we're looking at these as if for instance there is a potential violation by a hotel that offers drinks as part of the hotel package that that might be a potential violation of the restrictions we just looked at, these would accept these out of there so it would not be a violation and so that' s how you need to look at these exceptions. Pfab/On this first one I'm really, I'm uncomfortable with it and is there a big demand to do this? Wilbum/Well for number 1 and 2 I'm thinking of you know I'm planning a conference and or some type of banquet and so whether or not, well some folks don't have alcohol as part of that but it, I mean it seems to me. Pfab/Are you basically forcing the people to buy but don't want alcohol to take it? Champion/No they don't have to take it. Wilburn/No. Pfab/Well if your going to put it as a package are you going to unpack it? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 61 Wilburn/They can offer it without. Pfab/Well they can put it on the side. Champion/No a lot of times you buy a meal at a. Lehman/It comes with a bottle of wine or something. Champion/It comes with a bottle of wine, or if you do a catered party for 20 people it will usually include two drinks per person I mean so that's all this is saying. Pfab/But does it have to? Champion/No it doesn't have to. Lehman/It doesn't have to. Vanderhoef/You make it possible to do it either way. Lehman/We don't make it illegal is what she's saying. Pfab/Well what is the big demand here if we're really working, in a sense your saying well you don't have to buy two drinks for the price of one or you don't have to take two drinks. Here you have to take the drinks with the food. Champion/No you don't. Lehman/You don't have to drink them. Vanderhoef/You don't, you don't. Champion/You don't have to take them at all. Pfab/Well it's as a package. O'Donnell/You can substitute a coke. Pfab/Okay. Dilkes/The question is on these exceptions is for instance, is the including alcohol as part of a meal package, is that something you are concerned about? Champion/No. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 62 O'Donnell/No. Pfab/Is is, okay, let me ask you this. Is this something that's done an awful lot, is there a lot of demand for it? Is the hospitality industry carming for this? Dilkes/I can't answer that question for you. (END OF 01-33 SIDE ONE) Dilkes/That these are common exceptions we found in other legislation, and so whether there's a demand for it locally I can't answer that. Pfab/I think I would want some proof that there was some demand for this locally. Champion/Well you know we don't, we support it. Lehman/Well my only concern is if for example number one ifI were a bar downtown and basically we're talking about that's the area we're having the problems with. I perhaps could advertise a burger/fries and 3 beers for $2.00. And that becomes the special included with a meal and circumvents what we're trying to do so number one I really I'm not sure should be in there. And I think that will be the first thing we would see happen. Dilkes/Well I think you may be right. Lehman/As part of a hotel package I do not have a problem with that whatsoever. Wilburn/That' s a good point about number 1. Lehman/But number 1 I think we should not allow alcohol as part of a meal. Pfab/Okay let me ask you this, by tomorrow how hard would it be to check with the local hotel people here and see if this is a big issue, a hotel package? Lehman/What difference does it make? Pfab/Well is it, is it again it's a case of whether is it forcing people that don't want to take it as. Lehman/We're not telling them they even have to offer it, they don't have to offer it but if they do offer it it's legal, that's what we're saying. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 63 Pfab/No, no, but I'm saying so, but, I'm the hotel person and your a customer and you come in and you don't want that in that package so am I basically forcing you to take it if you don't want the package. Lehman/No, I don't have to buy it. Pfab/Well you don't have to buy it well why is it in it then? O'Dormell/Have you ever seen that bumper sticker that says "Just say No?" Lehman/It allows it to be legally offered. Is that correct? That's the only thing that does, it allows. Dilkes/It will not violate our ordinance under specials. Lehman/Doesn't violate our ordinances, it says the hotel if they want to can offer it, it doesn't mean they have to. Pfab/Well then your going to have the bar owners saying hey if they can offer it why can't I. Lehman/Because we said they could. Pfab/Well maybe we ought (can't hear). Lehman/(can't hear) we just said that. Okay Kanner/Well what I have a question about that hotel package I assume we mean catering, hotel might be a bad word for use. Lehman/No because places offer it as, you know you get a weekend, that includes Saturday night a meal and a bottle of wine, that' s part of the package. Kanner/So we're not talking about catering then if you have a catering. Lehman/It would include catering. Dilkes/Number 5 is set out here separately, number 5 deals with catered events, it's something separate you need to consider. Karmer/So this is specifically with hotel room rental packages for number 2, maybe we should be a little more specific in saying hotel room rental package. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 64 Lehman/Well it could be hotel room, it could be hotel room restaurant, it could be hotel restaurant. Champion/Conference, dinner. Kanner/Well then I'm wondering is them a bit of hypocracy there that you can get sloshed in this hotel conference thing. Champion/They're not giving you that much to drink, your not going to get sloshed. Kanner/Well sometimes there is and I think that we should be consider, consider being more specific if this is what we want, as an exception. Pfab/I think this puts the camel's nose under the tent. Lehman/It's a good place for a camel' s nose, I like that. Pfab/Well it's as important as his mouth. (All talking) Wilburn/Why don't we look at the things that have applied to the environment of the bars as encouraging some part of moderation and consuming food with alcohol, and alcohol with food as another form of drinking moderation (can't hear). Will that help you with that then? Kanner/Well that' s the first one, the second one it just seems that their number 2 is more of a problem I guess in my mind in that I'm not quite sure where I fall down on that if we, if we're saying this is a problem here we ought to look at the holistic problem because there's a lot of people t hat are getting drunk and excessive drinking at other venues besides just these 4 or 5 bars that are a problem downtown. Dilkes/I think the hotel package, the number 2 is meant to address the you know included with in an ovemight stay, not just renting a room for a conference room area and maybe we need to clarify that so you know it's tied into the overnight stay. Lehman/Fine do that. Dilkes/Does that help you with that? Kanner/I think that would. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 65 Pfab/But just the other thing, let me give you another example, okay also you get a carton of cigarettes, why don't you do that? Lehman/We're not working on that. Pfab/No but I'm saying to you is the people that don't want the alcohol is it basically is it basically saying I if want to get my money's worth I've got to take it, maybe I have an alcohol, maybe I have a drinking problem, so why not just throw in some cigarettes too then? Champion/(Can't hear). Lehman/All right but your going to make that, when accompanied by at least one night's lodging. Pfab/IfI was a marketer for the alcohol industry I would love this. Lehman/Okay. Pfab/But I'm not, so I don't love it. Dilkes/It sounds like from your earlier discussion that you do not want to accept pitchers, carafes, or other bottles or other types of alcohol that are typically sold in that kind of quantity. Pfab/Right. Champion/I think you have to, I mean (can't hear). Lehman/Well I think we said we can sell pitchers, carafes, but they have to be served. Dilkes/Right they have to be served to the people who are going to be drinking them. Lehman/Right. Dilkes/You do not want to accept for instance, this exception would allow somebody to go up and buy a pitcher by themselves and take it back to the table, you don't want to allow that. Lehman/We're not going to allow that. Pfab/That's out. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 66 Dilkes/You don't want to allow somebody to go up and buy a bottle of wine by themselves. Pfab/That's out. Lehman/They can serve it to their table, that's no problem. Dilkes/Fine, that's what I thought. Kanner/Well this said two or more persons at one time and you were. Vanderhoef/Even so. Lehman/It just makes (can't hear). Dilkes/No, no, it's talking, it's describing the way the alcohol is sold in a bottle, in a pitcher, in a carafe, and it's suggesting a possible exception for those but what I'm saying is it sounds like you don't want to accept that. Pfab/So what's, so how are we going, what's the feeling here on this one? Dilkes/No, to number 3. Lehman/Well just a minute though, it says and are delivered to two or more persons at one time, we said we'd do that. Champion/That's okay. Pfab/I would not. Lehman/We won't let one person walk up and buy the pitcher but if we serve those folks, we said they could serve a pitcher of beer or a carafe of wine, as long as the establishment serves it we assume their serving it to people who are not inebriated and who are of legal age. Wilburn/That' s what I thought we said. Dilkes/Now that's not what this exception is directed to. What this exception is directed to is accepting out from any prohibitions on out of site sales, carafes, pitchers and bottles of wine. Lehman/Your right, right, right. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 67 Dilkes/You do not want to do that. Lehman/That's exactly right. Pfab/I would make an exception to this here, I would take the pitchers out because you can recap the bottles and the other thing. Lehman/We just took the whole thing out, it's not going to be an exception. Pfab/Oh okay so it's all going to be out, okay that's fine, that' s better than that. Dilkes/Okay do you want to do any time restrictions on happy hour, drink special? In other words allow the drink specials during particular times of the day, that's not an uncommon thing to see. Pfab/Well again if I was marketing for the alcohol industry I would think these are great. Champion/You know there' s no. Dilkes/My question to you is whether you think they're. Pfab/I'm against it. Champion/It seems to strange to me to take happy hour away from Iowa City but their trying to control abusive alcohol, by I think it's still a number of people. What do you think? Vanderhoef/There were a couple of states that I read early on in some of the stuff that passed over our desk from outside sources and it had to do with if you had a special, the special had to run for 24 hours. Does that interest anybody? Pfab/Okay if you have to do a special, yes I think it should be about a week. Dilkes/I've seen those to. Lehman/Well the question is do we want to prohibit happy hours? Pfab/Yes. Champion/No. Dilkes/No we are prohibiting happy hours, in other words do you want to allow a happy hour? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 68 Lehman/We want to allow happy hour? Pfab/No. Dilkes/For a particular period of time. Lehman/I don't have a problem with allowing happy hours. Champion/I don't either. Kanner/Because the affect is that they'll have to use other things like food, snacks, or whatever to entice people instead of lower price alcohol. Champion/They can lower prices. Dilkes/The question is do you want to suspend the prohibitions on specials during particular hours of the day? Lehman/If we want to allow happy hours, if we do, that' s the first question, if the answer to that is yes, do we want to restrict them to a certain amount of time. Kanner/I was just answering yours Connie that there' s other ways they can attract instead of lowering prices so we don't necessarily need to make this exception. Dilkes/I'm assuming you have to, this is really not an exception. Lehman/Right. Dilkes/Your prohibiting drink specials. Do you want to allow them for any part of the day? Pfab/That' s a camel under the tent again. Lehman/Right, that camel, we've got to get the camel out of the tent. What do we want to do? Do we want happy hours or not? Pfab/No. O'Donnell/I don't think so. Vanderhoef/I don't either. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 69 Kanner/Connie you were making a case before, can you make the case, maybe I might. Champion/Well you know, I don't, I mean I don't ever go to happy hour but it is kind of an American institution and I don't think it's our problem. I don't think happy hour is our problem. Pfab/So is binge drinking a custom. Champion/Well you know, come on just be a little bit serious here. Pfab/No, no, I am serious. Champion/No your not. Pfab/I am. Champion/So you know it seems to me that we could allow happy hour from when, when does happy hour take place? 4 to 7 or 4 to 6 or. O'Donnell/What is a happy hour? Dilkes/Let's forget the reference to happy hour, let' s say do you want your drink special prohibitions to apply only at certain times of the day, like only 7, only after 6, only after 8. Champion/Yes, that's great, that's perfect. Dilkes/That' s the question that' s being asked here. Vanderhoef/The drink special to me is what contributes to overindulgence in a short period of time. Wilburn/You want a free for all during a focused period of the day. Vanderhoef/That' s what I don't want. Kanner/7 AM. Dilkes/I do that the enforcement issues will be tougher if we have a period of the day where these are allowed and when they're not. Are you nodding at me RJ? Wilburn/I agree. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Conncil meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 70 Dilkes/Do you agree with me RJ? RJ Winkelhake/Yes. Lehman/RJ agrees that happy hours are an unhappy event. Now do, how many folks would like not to have happy hour specials? I see one, I see two, I see three. Pfab/These two are sleeping over here. Lehman/Are you two having a happy hour? Kanner/We're in agreement. Lehman/You want to eliminate happy hours, there will be no specials, you got it. Champion/I feel like the mother superior. Lehman/By the time we get through your going to be the mother inferior. Dilkes/Okay and the last exception for your consideration is fixed prices at catered events. Lehman/Is that specific enough? Champion/I don't think it's necessary. Lehman/Well no I think that' s a sort of thing, you know like you have a wedding reception, which I'm familiar with. Champion/Right. Lehman/And means, I, well I guess that wouldn't quite be the same, yes it would be the same, where you have an open bar and it's a fixed price. Pfab/(can't hear). Lehman/Are you going to make that illegal? I don't think you are. Champion/No, no. Dilkes/This exception would say it wasn't. Lehman/That exception, that would be an exception and so I would. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 71 Champion/Right, okay. Pfab/Okay where else besides Ernie's wedding does it go on here. Vanderhoef/So that' s a by invitation only. Lehman/Private parties basically. Vanderhoef/When you have a catered event. Champion/Parties. O'Dormell/I think that's fine. Pfab/While as long as it's a catered is it a private catered event? Champion/Right, of course, it could be, of course, it could be in my front yard. Pfab/Well we had pizza in here, the employees had pizza in here, that was a catered event, that wasn't by invitation only. Champion/But we didn't have any beer. Lehman/Yea I think it was Irvin. Dilkes/We can work with the language a little bit. (All talking) Pfab/Right as long it's. Vanderhoef/Marian says that was an invitation only. Lehman/That's right. Karr/That was an invitation only. Pfab/All right, but anyway if you can keep people from wandering in that' s fine. Kanner/So private catered events. Pfab/Private, catered, invitational catered event. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 72 Lehman/All fight you know the intent. Okay. Champion/Now can I speak about this for one minute? Are we done going through these? Dilkes/i'm not through with my questions but I'm done with the specials. Lehman/Go ahead. Pfab/Finish up. Dilkes/Okay, one of the ordinances that you have in front of you would increase the maximum penalty for simple misdemeanors to $500.00 as I said in the memo and as I've said before that doesn't apply just to alcohol offenses, it applies to everything in the city code that is a simple misdemeanor and is unscheduled or does not have a specific penalty attached to it. For instance, the specials, the prohibitions on specials, currently under the city code they're going to have a minimum penalty of $50.00 and a maximum of $500.00 or a maximum of $100.00 at the discretion of the magistrate okay. If you pass the ordinance implementing the $500.00 maximum, the maximum will be $500.00 on those unscheduled offenses. Lehman/But is the minimum still $50.00? Dilkes/The minimum is still $50.00. Lehman/The discretion is to the judge. Dilkes/And the discretion is with the judge. Lehman/Then I would certainly, I would (can't hear). (All talking) Dilkes/This was made a change at the state law, a couple years ago state law was changed to increase the maximum for simple misdemeanors to $500.00, they brought the cities, the maximum for cities simple misdemeanors in line with that to $500.00 so that's what this. Pfab/So which is a new idea, I wasn't aware of that so before it was a minimum of $50.00 and a maximum of $ 1 00.00. Now ifs a minimum of $50.00 and a maximum of $500.00? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 73 Lehman/Right. Dilkes/Authorized by state law. Pfab/But the minimum hasn't change? Lehman/Right. Dilkes/The minimum has not changed. Pfab/Okay then that' s fine. Lehman/I think it's fine too. Pfab/I wasn't aware that there was a minimum like that. Kanner/For PAULA's, this is. Dilkes/No, no. Lehman/PAULA's are fixed by law. Dilkes/PAULA's have a specified fine, these are only for unspecified fines. Now one problem with not making this change at the local level that' s already been made at the state level is that if you have an unscheduled offense that's both a city offense and a state offense it will not have the same maximum fine and that' s not a good idea. For instance, serving of intoxicated persons are simple misdemem~ors under both state and city law, currently under city law it would be a $100.00 maximum, under state it would $500.00 and that's really not a good situation to get into so. Lehman/This would make it consistent with state law. Dilkes/Yea. Lehman/And still give the judge the discretion. Pfab/Right, as long as the judge has the discretion to not you know. Lehman/(can't hear). Pfab/The maximum, the maximum. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 74 Dilkes/That's right. Kanner/Is there a misdemeanor for the person who' s drinking that this would apply to, is there a case? What would be a case where this would apply? Dilkes/Person who's drinking. Pfab/I think that's a scheduled. Vanderhoef/Underage you mean. Pfab/Yes. Kanner/Underage or whatever the case might be, we have PAULA is already a $100.00 fine, fight. Vanderhoef/With a schedule that' s move it up. Kanner/That moves up. Vanderhoef/Second offense. Kanner/How would this apply to? Pfab/Dee that's a scheduled, that's scheduled, this is tinscheduled. Kanner/Right, how would this apply to someone who is another situation that would be a misdemeanor that this might apply to? Purchaser. Dilkes/It would apply for instance to the open, having an open container of alcohol in public. Pfab/Well that's fine. Vanderhoef/(can't hear). Lehman/But it still has, the judge has the discretion. Dilkes/Right. You know I can give you an example, it would apply to disorderly house. Magistrates do not levy the maximum, the maximum fine is currently $100.00, they do not always levy that maximum fine for disorderly house they look at the facts of the case. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 75 Pfab/I'm supportive as long as it doesn't take away the minimum if the judge decides it. Lehman/Right. Okay. Dilkes/Then the follow up to that is if we're going to implement that the $500.00 maximum with respect to the specials do you want to just keep it as an unscheduled offense meaning the judge will have discretion to impose a fine between $50.00 and $500.00? O'Donnell/I think so. Dilkes/Or do you want to specify a particular fine? Pfab/I would say at this point let' s go as an unspecified but keep an eye on it. Lehman/Unspecified would mean a minimum of $50.00. Vanderhoef/That' s (can't hear). Pfab/But the judge has the discretion also though to $500.00. Vanderhoef/Our choice is having the $50.00 to $500.00 or setting a straight out amount for each one. Dilkes/ThaCs right. Kanner/But if there are violations of some of these amendments that we just said we wanted by the licensee even if their given a $50.00 fine we could administer civil penalties. Dilkes/That' s right, we're just talking about. Kanner/That' s the hard hitting thing that we're going to get people with. Dilkes/Right we're just talking about the criminal penalties right now. Lehman/I'd leave it that way. O'Dormell/I think it's fine. Pfab/That's fine here. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 76 Lehman/And I would guess that about the third or fourth time that someone appears for offering specials the judge probably is. Wilburn/It's going to be a judge (can't hear). Lehman/Not going to be $50.00 anymore it's probably going to be $500.00. Dilkes/Well and I think, only to the extent that the fine imposed by the judge reflects the egregious of the circumstance. Lehman/Right. Dilkes/Will it play into the administrative penalty, but the actual fine itself would not. Pfab/I would say that this would be one thing that we would want to keep an eye on say 6 months or a year from now. Lehman/Oh I'm sure we will, no I'm sure we will this whole thing. Pfab/And no I don't think we have to you know come down like a sledgehammer but at the same time we want to. Dilkes/And the final question I had are there additional changes the Council desires to make in light of the public comments or otherwise? Lehman/Connie's got an alcohol she (can't hear). You've got three minutes. Champion/Because I wouldn't take three minutes. There's been a tremendous amount of public input, I've hurt a tremendous amount of comments from friends, people downtown, telephone calls, letters, here, teachers I run into, that now you know, I really wish that somehow I could would tour through the process faster than I do and because of some of the comments I've heard there are some things that I'm willing to talk about that I was not willing to talk about before. And number one I'm willing to talk about changing the age to get into bars. Fm thinking that maybe 20 is a great age because that keeps the high school kids out and there' s a big difl~rence between maturity between 18 and 20 1 mean I'm just throwing this out, I'm not saying we should discuss it tonight. But I never thought I would get to that point. I'm also willing to talk about zoning liquor licenses which I never thought I'd be willing to talk about since I grew up in Chicago with such a terrible problem but I think there' s are some things that I'm seriously ready to look at. I'm done, that's it, I'm done. Lehman/Oh thank you Connie, I happen to feel the same way. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 77 Champion/I mean I really have not heard such an outcry from the public, and I'm not, I'm talking about the public that feels (can't hear) by our alcohol situation downtown. I'm not talking about the people who are getting drunk downtown, I'm talking about I guess these people feel their the victims of that. Vanderhoef/The consequences. Champion/The consequences that. Vanderhoef/That happen from the bars sometime. Champion/I think I even had a dream about this one night, which is really pathetic but I think I did, but those are things that I a year ago I said I was absolutely not interested in and those are things I'm willing to talk about now. Lehman/Well why don't we see what happens with this ordinance, see what kind of impact it has. Champion/See 1 don't think it's going to have any impact at all. Lehman/If I didn't think it had any impact. Champion/The bar owners are going to get richer because they're not going to have any specials anymore. Lehman/I don't, ifthat's. Champion/I mean I don't care if they get rich, I didn't mean that negatively but I really don't think that it's going to be very effective and I think we're going to get, I think it's putting Band-Aids on a big problem, I mean it really needs to be (can't hear). Wilbum/I guess I was planning. Vanderhoef/But you know what I see on that Connie is I think this Council has really listened, I think they have digested it, you have moved along a continuum here but I really see is this is the opportunity for the young people who say we want a place to go be with our friends, we want to dance, we want to do these things. This is their own opportunity to show their own maturity. This is the opportunity for our bartenders to also step forward and say we are going to get a handle on what's happening in our establishment and if they don't take advantage of this opportunity I'll talk with you also about moving the age up. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 78 Wilburiv I'd also like to point out that you know this time last year when we first started talking about it, I was willing to move it up and I may be in the future but for the past several months we've had this on the table and upping the age was not a component of that and so after having the hearings and comments what was in front of people I guess I would feel like I was changing you know, changing. Pfab/Going from where to where? I thought I understood you but. WilburiV We'd be changing, we told the public, in fact several of the University student folks, people in general said because the press kept coming back to us are you going to be 217 Are you going to be 217 We had said no, this is what is on the table right now, this set of ordinances. Upping the age is not part of the ordinances, and in light of comments I've made in response to people asking me about that if I were to go right now and change that I would feel like I misled them, I would have lied to them. Lehman/We said we would try other things, 21 would be an option and I feel that we need to try this and I am encouraged for what you said Eleanor from the outset and I think the response that I think I've seen from RJ that this does give us some tools to address a problem that we are currently being fairly unsuccessful in addressing it and I think we need to try this and see if it works. O'Donnell/This is also if you read this everything right on the bars, this is asking the bars to be more responsible. Lehman/Right, we've never done that. O'Donnell/We have never done that so, Connie I agree with you, I was thinking myself 21 after 10:00 but maybe we'll get in that down the road. Lehman/All right we go with this for the time being. Pfab/I'm just going to make a comment here, I think eventually we will end up going to 21, it would be nice if we didn't have to. Champion/I'm not at the 21 yet. Pfab/No, no, but I mean, that's the law, you can't drink so why should you be there. Lehman/Right. Steven. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 79 Kanner/I just needed some clarification on the civil penalties, I'm still a little confused because I see one pan where it says we give a dollar amount fine and then there' s another part that says we can suspend a license for up to a year and I was wondering if you could tell us again if it's okay with the Council where, how that's going to play out and exactly when is it that we can give the suspension of the license and when is it when we have to give a fine of money? Dilkes/The state code and the city ordinance will track that provision, provides for specific civil penalties when it's based on the conviction for sale to minors. Okay that's set forth on page three, and they're very specific, upon a first conviction. Pfab/Which line? Where at? Dilkes/Page 3,H A-D. Pfab/I,A-B. Dilkes/Yea I'm looking at my old one, A-D and do you see those there Steven? Kanner/yea. Dilkes/They just specify what the penalties are for that. Those are the penalties we're going to have to administer for that offense. With respect to other behavior that you believe warrants an administrative penalty, if it is a violation of state code you have available to you a fine, a suspension, revocation. Obviously your going to look at those as graduated penalties. The only exception to that and that's a change I've made recently you can see in my memo is that if it's based on a violation only of city code which doesn't have a corresponding state offense you are limited to suspension and that is due to kind of a quirky little provision in the state code and that's just kind of the way it is. We've been in touch with the Alcoholic Beverages Division about that because we noticed some discrepancy in the language and after some looking at it they concurred. So, not, and that doesn't specify the length of the suspension but your limited to suspension. And for instance with a drink special, if you were looking at administrative penalties because you had a licensee where there had been violations of the drink specials then you would be limited to suspension of some sort. Karmer/But if we find that there's a pattern of abuse by allowing underage drinkers and excessive drinking when people are drunk, that comes under the state code and that would give us a choice of a civil penalty of a fine or suspension is that what your saying? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 80 Dilkes/If it's based on a conviction for sales to minors your going to have to follow those, in fact you have to follow those. Pfab/The steps that we have put together. Dilkes/The ones in I,A-D. Karmer/Right. Lehman/And that' s set by state code. Dilkes/And indeed it's stated again in G, that's the other change I made, the state was just changed to make the two fines consistent $500.00 so it doesn't matter whether it's conviction or just, it's based on that offense, your stuck with an initial civil penalty of $500.00. In the case of I think maybe the question you were asking me was, if the penalty is based on a variety of things, or if the, what your concerned is a variety of things we're going to just have to take a look at that. You know ifit's based on a conviction for sales to minors and it's based on, I think your probably going to have to address those separately. Lehman/How soon will we get this back? Dilkes/I'll put it on your next agenda. Lehman/It will be on for two weeks from. Dilkes/Yep. Wilburrd April 3rd. Lehman/April 3rd on the formal agenda. Karr/I would like to talk to the City Attorney regarding it's going to be afl~ct about publication or giving some notice because there' s been a lot of discussion, there' s a lot of confusion, there's a lot of education, and there' s a lot of people in the process right now renewing so I think we want to give ample notice. Lehman/Fine, fine. Karr/You can certainly proceed but the affectlye date may not be as quickly. O'Donnell/I agree. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 81 Champion/Good point. Dilkes/Well why don't we talk about that now because we can include that in the ordinance itself. Champion/But what do we give as time? Dilkes/How much time do you want to give before this would, these would be effective? Lehman/Well if we vote on it the third of April, the second reading would be on the 17th, the third reading the first par of May, the effective date would then be the first part of June. Karr/No the effective date. Dilkes/The effective is publication. Karr/The efl~ctive date as we currently do would be a week later, I'm suggesting at least, that would be what we typically do with all of our ordinance. Lehman/We could make it June 1st (can't hear). Karr/We could make it July 1 st. Vanderhoef/July 1 st. Lehman/July 1 st. Champion/Or August. Kanner/August, why not August. Pfab/No, no, wait, can we make it June lst? Karr/You can make it effective, it's effective upon publication typically and I'm saying that ~vould not be recommended here I would put a date in it, and I would suggest, again I would not suggest any earlier, I would like July 1 at the earliest. Lehman/I would think July would be a good month so that the bartenders have an opportunity to live, deal with this prior to the rush of fall. Vanderhoef/Students coming back to. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 82 O'Donnell/They can get their help in place then. Lehman/Right. Pfab/Okay that's one of the reasons I was going to suggest June 1 to give them a little more time. Vanderhoef/There isn't time to get it published. Pfab/But is June 1 not possible? Lehman/That's too soon. Champion/That' s too soon. Karr/We can get it published within three days after the date, it's not the publication, I don't believe that's enough time personally of defer to you to educate, get the forms ready, and get. We already have people right now coming in for papers for May. Pfab/That's fine, I have no problem, a July 1. Lehman/Do we have consensus on July lst? Vanderhoel7 Yes. Pfab/That's good. Lehman/We have that, okay. Thank you Eleanor. Vanderhoef/Yes thank you. Senior Center Accreditation Lehman/Okay Senior Center Accreditation appointments, is this for the 28 of women, they need two Council folks to be on that accreditation committee and I think working on the 28E with the county. Two Council members. Pfab/I'll be one if something. Lehman/I would like to, and of course we, the Council can appoint whoever they want but I would like Mike and Counie to serve on that, you both worked with the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 83 county and with Senior Center I'm certainly willing to listen to anybody else' s recommendation. Vanderhoef/If you guys have the time to put, do it. Pfab/I made the offer. O'Donnell/I would like to. Lehman/Is that all fight with Council? Champion/I mean as far as (can't hear). Lehman/You don't want to do it either. Champion/lt's not easy. Lehman/All right, then will we get those names to the appropriate people? Okay. Schedulin~ of PCRB Joint Meetin~ Lehman/We need to schedule a meeting with the PCRB. Champion/Can we do it before a regular work session? Lehman/Well here' s the, the purpose of the meeting with the PCRB is to address the sunset clause that comes up this fall, as to whether or not the PCRB will remain in existence after the first of the. Karr/August. Lehman/After the first of August? Karr/Correct it's an August I st sunset clause. Lehman/Their charge ends the first of August when the absence of that being renewed by the Council. Karr/We have two vacancies coming up on PCRB September 1, we would typically be advertising in June and July so obviously the future of that needs to be addressed. Lehman/Now we can, we can schedule the meeting and address the sunset clause or if we have a consensus on the sunset clause we don't have to schedule a meeting. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 84 Pfab/I'm opposed to a sunset clause. Lehman/We have the sunset clause. Pfab/I mean I'm opposed to putting it, I think it's something, all you have to do is keep reading the papers and from my experience in police work I know it's kind of a pain in the butt to them but I think it's a safety valve and I strongly recommend that we continue (can't hear). Karr/Irvin can I just clarify? The question before you is not the sunset clause, the sunset clause says that unless you readopt the ordinance the entire ordinance ceases to exist August 1st. So what we need to do is figure out, again the ordinance, if you take no action. Lehman/It goes away. Karr/It goes away, not the sunset clause, the entire ordinance. Lehman/That's, I didn't know that. Karr/Yes the chapter, the sunset clause governs (can't hear). (All talking) Pfab/Well I think we ought to take action. Champion/I think we ought to listen to the PCRB, then I think we ought to hear from somebody else (can't hear). Kanner/Why don't we have a June meeting with them or May meeting. Lehman/I have no problem with that, I'm just saying that if we choose, the purpose of that meeting is to decide whether or not we want to continue the PCRB. If we have a consensus that we do want to continue the PCRB then we don't have to schedule the meeting anytime soon, we might want to meet with them anyway, but if there are 4 or 5 people on the Council or 6 or 7 that want to continue the PCRB we can schedule the meeting at our convenience rather than scheduling it sooner because of the sunset clause. Karr/Council can act on the readoption of the ordinance without meeting with them jointly if that's your wishes to do it. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 85 Lehman/Right, right. Wilburn/I'd like to continue. Lehman/You'd like to continue the PCRB, in other words we'd like to re. Karr/Readopt the ordinance. Lehman/Reopt. Kanner/Well I'd like to meet. Lehman/The meeting, I think the meeting we can have in any event. Karmer/Well I'm not sure, I'd like. Lehman/So you don't know whether you want to consider the PCRB or not. Kanner/Right. Lehman/Your uncertain? Champion/I would say that I'm leaning toward not continuing it but I certainly want to hear what they have to say. Lehman/All right we're going to have a meeting. Karr/Do you want to do it prior to like 6:30 on one of your regular scheduled meetings? Atkins/A work session time. Champion/Yea that's what I. Lehman/All right needs to be a work session, is this an ordinance that requires three readings? Karr/All ordinances require three readings. But your not rewriting the ordinance necessarily, your simply taking. Vanderhoef/Action to keep it in fome. Lehman/So that action would require three readings. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 86 Karr/Absolutely. Lehman/And that's going to take a minimum of six weeks. Karr/Yes. Champion/We could forego one of those can't we? Karr/You can collapse. Vanderhoef/You can collapse. O'Donnell/We need to, when we get together we need the cost broken down by year. Lehman/Well we can get that. O'Donnell/But I mean that' s very important Ernie. Lehman/But there' s a much bigger issue than cost. O'Donnell/Well you didn't let me finish, I'm not finished. Pfab/You just wanted (can't hear). Vanderhoef/Thank you very much for Mr. O'Donnell. Lehman/We need to know. O'Donnell/Part of it Ernie is we need to know the cost and the efi~ctiveness and that' s what I'm after. Lehman/Okay. Vanderhoef/And how much is happening there. Lehman/When do we want to meet with the PCRB? I am not going to be around the first 10 days of June. Karr/I don't think it can wait until June with all due respect, if you want to meet I think it's got to be. Lehman/Second meeting of May. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 87 Atkins/No I'd do April. Pfab/Or April. Lehman/The second meeting of April. Atkins/I'll check with them, Marian and I will talk with them but I think the sooner you get it scheduled (can't hear). Lehman/The second meeting of April. Karr/We could offer them both meetings in April. Lehman/Either meeting in April works. Karr/We could offer. Vanderhoef/Second meeting (can't hear). (All talking) Pfab/I think there' s a new appointments I think they have a right to know as soon as we can I think we ought to do it, as soon as possible whatever we do. O'Donnell/Okay at 7:00 we'll meet tomorrow night. Pfab/(can't hear). Summer Schedule Karr/Could I very quickly could you bring your schedules the next time, we'll have to talk about summer scheduling because we are backing into it with vacations and things. Joint Meetinl~ with County Karr/And also the county has asked if we'd like to have a joint meeting with them on May 9, that would be a Wednesday after your Monday Tuesday first meeting in May. Pfab/May 9. Karr/And I'll put a memo in the packet but. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901. March 19, 2001 Work Session Page 88 Vanderhoef/For what. Champion/It's what now? Karr/A joint meeting with the County. Vanderhoef/The joint with the school board and the (can't hear)? Karr/Yes. Pfab/And what time of day is that generally? Karr/I'm just, it's generally 4:00. Lehman/4:00. Pfab/No I mean I'm just. Karr/And so I'll put a memo out and we'll talk about it next time. Lehman/All right. Vanderhoef/Is it our time to host? Karr/No it's their turn that' s why they're offering the date. Lehman/All right do we want to do any Council time tonight? Champion/No. O'Donnell/No let' s do it tomorrow night. Lehman/Steve I've got one and this is tinofficial Council time, when are the signs going up on the ped mall for bikes. Karr/Are we adjoumed? Is this unofficial business? Lehman/The only reason I ask is I see now. Adjourned 9:45. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of March 19, 2001 WST031901.