Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-04-02 Transcription April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 1 April 2, 2001 Special Work Session 6:30 PM Council: Lehman, Champion, O'Donnell, Vanderhoef, Wilbum, Pfab, Kanner Staff: Atkins, Helling, Karr, Dilkes, Franklin, Winkelhake, Matthews, Mollenhauer TAPES: 01-37, BOTH SIDES; 01-38, SIDE ONE Plannin~ & Zonin~ A. CONSIDER A MOTION SETTiNG A PUBLIC HEARING FOR APRIL 17 ON AN ORDiNANCE CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (I-1) TO iNTENSIVE COMMERCIAL (CI-1) FOR APPROXIMATELY 12.09 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 1. Karin Franklin/First two items are setting public hearings for April 17, the first is on rezoning from I-1 to CI-1 for some property on Highway 1 near the airport. B. CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR APRIL 17 ON A RESOLUTION AMENDiNG THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO iNCLUDE THE NORTH DISTRICT PLAN. Franklin/The second is setting a public hearing on the north district plan and it's inclusion in the comprehensive plan. C. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING CODE ARTICLE (D), DEFINITIONS, AND ARTICLE (L) PROVISIONAL USES, SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS AND TEMPORARY USES, TO ALLOW ACCESSORY APARTMENTS iN ACCESSORY BUILDINGS. Franklin/Item C is a public hearing on an ordinance which allows accessory apartments in accessory buildings. Currently you can have an accessory apartment in a single family or duplex house or a single family house, it has to be owner occupied and at least the owner or the tenant must be elderly or a person with a disability. What changes with this ordinance is that you may have that accessory unit in an accessory building as opposed to in the principle building, such as you could have it in the garage. Champion/And how do we define elderly? Kanner/Yea (can't hear). This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 2 Franklin/I think it's 55 or older. You made me say it Connie didn't you? Kanner/Yea I didn't see that in the ordinance. Franklin/It's in the definitions section of the zoning ordinance. Karmer/And what is it for disabled? Franklin/Boy I'd have to look that up Steven, whatever you know is considered a disability which can be pretty broad. Dilkes/I think it probably tracks the language in the. Franklin/In the ADA? Dilkes/Yea I suspect that is something that substantially affects the major life activity or something like that but we have to look in the zoning code. Franklin/Okay. Kanner/And another question I had is it said the type of request happened in 98, what happened in 98 and why didn't this go through then? Franklin/Well at the time I don't know the composition of the people who were involved I suppose from the Planning & Zoning Commission. There is always been at least some reservation about accessory apartments in terms of what they might do to the character of a neighborhood and we have seen accessory apartments as being something which allows some more affordable traits. The reason that the elderly and disability provision was put in there at the time and continues is that allowing the accessory apartments was one way to enable people to stay in their homes or to have some kind of a living situation which there was a close proximity of an abled body or younger person. Kanner/So most likely you're saying it was that people at that time in Planning & Zoning or maybe Council also thought that it would be somewhat detrimental to the neighborhood (can't hear). Franklin/I think the acceptance of accessory apartments has broadened somewhat in recent years particularly as we've talked more about diversities in neighborhoods and diversity of housing types and maybe not having as much separation of uses as we used to have. Kanner/I'm going to vote for this tomorrow, I think it's a good idea but I was wondering in the future and maybe this would come up with our rezoning revisions if we This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 3 could talk about broadening who could be in it, it seems to me it makes sense, it's a good idea, we're talking about diversity. Franklin/Yea that' s something that was included in Duncan Associates review is to look at accessory apartments in a broader fashion, that is that would not have the elderly and persons with disabilities requirement attached to it. Wilburn/Didn't we talk about that too it was a possibility at the Peninsula site on, it was a certain style of?. Franklin/Yes, in fact in the Peninsula neighborhood you will be able to have accessory units over the garages so there will be some model of how that works or doesn't work when we do that. Dilkes/Elderly, Karin, you right is defined as a person of 55 years of age or elder, disability has a length year definition, I can read it to you if you'd like. Kanner/Not for me that's okay but it's basically ADA (can't hear) language? Dilkes/It is, I mean it doesn't track it exactly but it's kind of that same kind of. Wilbum/You okay with that Cormie. Champion/Absolutely, I love being classified as elderly. Lehman/Good thing. Franklin/An elder, an elder sounds better. Vanderhoef/Karin, with accessory buildings, I got something about how someone might choose to build the lower floor since only 50 percent of it a freestanding accessory building could be used for the apartment if it fit on and met the zoning laws to fit the lot, what kind of guidelines would we be talking about if we wanted the apartment there and quotes "the second floor" was just a storage unit not a garage? I think in most cases people think about doing it. Franklin/Garages are characterized as (can't hear). Vanderhoef/Would this be allowable? Franklin/I'm looking at, in your packet there' s the language that' s in the existing code which has all the other provisions that would apply. Vanderhoef/But there's nothing that says it would have to have street access or any of those kinds of things and as far as the parking space you could add one more This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 4 providing you had the space to do it. I was thinking just in terms of my lot because I'm on a corner and adding one more piece of concrete beside my driveway would allow access to the double garage and still have a parking place to meet the code for an additional. Franklin/Is your concern? Well one of the provisions here is that the ostensible use of the property has to look like its for a single family, is your concern that it will become congested? I'm not sure where your coming at that's from to understand your question. Vanderhoef/I'm not sure whether quote "I could build on my lot" because it wouldn't be attached but it would be, it would show from the street because of the configuration of my particular lot so I'm trying to figure out how that would appear or what would be allowed or what wouldn't be because it would be my side yard that would have the. Franklin/I don't think there' s anything in here that precludes it from being visible from the public street. And in fact the person who in your correspondence from Ann Bartels I believe in that particular circumstance that the accessory apartment there is not above the garage but is adjacent to it, yea. Vanderhoef/Behind the garage, an extended, so it's all one story. Franklin/Right. Vanderhoef/But I was thinking in terms of someone who might want to build something like this on their lot, the lot wouldn't be large enough to handle all of that space on the ground floor so if there were a two story situation what that might look like. Franklin/Well the accessory apartment can be if it's an accessory building, it can be no larger than 500 square feet, so there's a restriction right there that it has to be quite small. Now I suppose you could put a two story structure there as long as it didn't exceed the 500 feet, now you'd want to have at least 500 square feet for any kind of a dwelling space that's going to have a bedroom and a bathroom and a place to sit, and that' s about the size of a single, double car garage, yea about the size of a single car garage. So we're not talking about an enormous space here, there probably would be some economics that come into play here whether it would be worth it to put a second story on you know if that's what your thinking. Vanderhoef/Well but if you were going down to that small of footprint then you lose the 500 square feet, your required because you can only use 50 percent of the accessory building, you'd have to put the 50 percent on the second story, the other 50 percent, see what I'm saying, so it would be a pretty odd looking space, a small footprint but two stories tall. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 5 Franklin/But it would be about the size of a single car garage which is what this is is like putting an apartment up above a single car garage. Vanderhoef/Just curious you know, I'm trying to visualize. Franklin/What it would like yea. Vanderhoef/That could be. Franklin/I suppose if you had a ranch house it would look peculiar, I mean if you didn't have a two story house it would look quite peculiar. Kanner/But it also has to be subordinate to the main house, that' s part of the ordinance, so you couldn't build something that stood out, it wouldn't pass our building inspectors if something was going to stand out against a ranch house double story. Lehman/I'm not sure that's (can't hear). Franklin/Well, yea, I don't know Steven. Vanderhoef/I'm not sure it is either. Lehman/But it's subordinate by size I believe or footprint. Franklin/Yea I mean that' s usually, we usually measure that in terms of the square footage. Lehman/Right. Champion/You could get, you could do it on a ranch house and have it look right, you have a lot of two story houses with one story additions. Why couldn't you have a one story house with a two story addition? Franklin/I don't know, it would be a matter of scale and with, I don't know I'd have to put blocks together. Kanner/Dee are you worried about people abusing this in some way, I can't see that happening? Vanderhoef/I think there are some people who would like to do this and if they are on a small lot then the total use of the lot might preclude doing it all on one floor. Franklin/Yes it might because you then would be exceeding the area coverage for the zone. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 6 Vanderhoef/Right and that's where it started bringing it up and then when I started thinking in terms of my lot because it's a corner lot the setbacks on bigger on two sides, one side of the lot is buildable space. Franklin/In a circumstance like that which you might just decide to do is attach to the main house. Vanderhoef/That' s always possible too. Franklin/Yea, yea, I'm sure we haven't thought of everything with it you know how that goes. Vanderhoef/Well I just get a little visioning. Franklin/Anything more on that one? D. CONSIDER 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. (FIRST CONSIDERATION) Franklin/Item D is to consider an ordinance changing the zoning designation to conservation overly of the Governor Lucas neighborhood, you had your public heating on that, had input from the Historic Preservation Commission and the Longfellow Neighborhood Association that was in favor. E. CONSIDER 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 39 DWELLINGS 1N THREE BUILDINGS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HARLOCKE STREET (FIRST CONSIDERATION) Franklin/Item E is the rezoning of the property on Harlocke Street, you received, oh right, you've received a memorandum from the. Dilkes/Would you state for the record that Ernie is leaving due to a conflict of interest. Franklin/You received a memorandum from Eleanor about the parameters within which you appropriately look at this, that we are looking at a sensitive areas ordinance compliance and also that due to the fact that Ernie has had to recuse himself that there has been a request to set another public hearing for April 17th, you can do that by a motion tomorrow night when this item comes up to set the public hearing for April 17th and I think Eleanor has advised you that that would be a wise thing to do. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 7 Vanderhoef/And can we also at the same time vote to defer the? Dilkes/I don't think you need a vote to defer, I think the item gives notice of the subject matter and you can move to set the public heating and you can either tell us you want to put first consideration on the 17th after the public hearing or you want to wait until the next time. Vanderhoef/Personally I would like to go ahead with having the public hearing and voting first consideration on the same night since we will have had a considerable length of time to consider this. O'Donnell/I don't think anybody's got a problem with setting the public hearing, we had a flaw on the first one and I kind of concur with you Dee I think we owe it the neighborhood as well as the developers to know where we stand on this. Champion/It does three readings also. O'Donnell/It takes three readings. Kanner/Karin I had some questions about that. We had someone I believe in one of our notes from I think from the neighborhood saying that Benton Manor will get more drainage from the new development but we had staff saying that it would be less. Is that the case that there will be less drainage to Benton Manor with the new development? Franklin/What will happen with this is that there will be control through storm water detention facility which holds that water, what's coming down now as well as what would come from whatever is built on this site. So by that, in terms of total volume, there will be more water, but in terms of the amount of water over time, it will come at a slower rate. Does that make sense to you? Kanner/Yea it will be controlled because it's being released. Franklin/Right through a control structure. Kanner/And it slows it down. And again why there's just a note and not a permanent easement on the sensitive areas part, there was some discussion in the notes about there should be an easement, a permanent easement (can't hear) just putting in a note, and what' s the difference of why we're doing it that way? Franklin/In our code when you look at the specific provisions that relate to slope, there is nothing which specifically allows us to require a conservation easement, that is language which is included in the woodland areas part of the sensitive areas ordinance. We have discussed changing that such that our ability to require a This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 8 conservation easement carries through each of the different sections of the code. But that is why we changed that position, we believe that we in effect, the effect of the note on the plat will get us the same thing as an easement document, it's just a different tool. Kanner/And the developer's preferred to not have an easement and we asked to have the easements? Franklin/Initially yes. Pfab/My question would be if it's the same way, are the developer' s concerned about not given an easement? Franklin/You'll need to ask them that. Pfab/Okay that' s a question that would go, I think that this is what Dee mentioned here. I believe we have a situation here that has been tainted because of the first public hearing and I'm going to be very reluctant to have a vote on the at the end of this next public heating. I think. Franklin/On the 17th? Pfab/Right I will oppose that very strenuously. Franklin/Okay right now I'm hearing that them are two Council Members who wish to have the first consideration and the heating on the 17th, three. Kauner/This is just a simple majority to set the vote, we don't need the super majority to set the vote is that correct? Franklin/To set the public hearing is simple majority on a motion. The question now is whether on the agenda what Irvin has raised is whether on the agenda we have the public heating and first consideration on the April 17th agenda and I have three Council Members who are saying public heating first consideration on that agenda and one saying no. When you vote on the 17th or whatever day you vote on then you need an extraordinary majority vote 5 out of 6. Kanner/Let me ask you, we heard that the developer Southgate did not communicate with the neighborhood as recommended by the good neighbor policy perhaps in a timely fashion. Has there been any recent discussion? There was at least in my mind there was hope that perhaps developers and staff and representatives of the neighborhood would get together and in the last couple weeks and in the next couple weeks. Do you know of any discussion that's taken place? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 9 Franklin/I'm not aware of any Steven but that's a question you can ask the neighborhood and the developer tomorrow night too or whenever. O'Donnell/And as far as first consideration I mean we already have had one hearing, let me finish. We've had one hearing and there was a flaw in it, but we will hear, I assume basically the same thing on the 17th so and in a sense it's two and maybe we can disregard the first but we have had two hearings so I'm comfortable with it. I feel we owe the neighbors as well as the developers, we need to tell them where we stand on this, that's why I'll support first consideration. Pfab/I don't think we can ignore, I went back over the tapes, I don't think we can ignore that public hearing because that was, I think quite heavily tainted. O'Donnell/You don't think we can ignore. Pfab/I mean I don't think we can ignore that, I mean that. Wilburn/Tainted how? Pfab/In the sense that there was statements made that I think should not have been made and their out in the public and I believe those should be, have a chance to kind of settle, work themselves through. Wilburn/Should not have been made (can't hear). O'Donnell/Like we set the second public heating. Pfab/Okay, I made my point. O'Donnell/Well and I. Pfab/And I will vote, I will not support the voting at that time but that's my position. O'Donnell/Well that's fine. Wilburn/I'll support going ahead and having it the public had an opportunity to voice their concerns, they'll get so again, every time we bring something up for a consideration I'm sure that someone from the public will come up and have an opportunity then to say something so. Franklin/Okay. O'Donnell/Set it. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 10 Dilkes/I should report to you that this afternoon I received a letter from Joe Holland who's representing individuals in the Weeber-Harlocke neighborhood, taking some issue with my opinion on this and what the bounds of your discretion is. At first flush he raises an issue that I have considered and do not give a lot of weight to but he does say that he will be back in touch and will make his argument more detail and so we'll just take it and go from there. Pfab/Will we have access to that correspondence? Dilkes/You can get a copy of this correspondence if you like. Pfab/Yes I would very much like to see that, I don't know anything about that. Franklin/Anything else on this item? Vanderhoef/Proposed. Dilkes/Can we back up to the last, would you move? I think it would be helpful to have some indication as to how you plan to proceed tomorrow night so the neighborhood, and the developers and whoever else involved perhaps city engineers know whether they need to be here tomorrow. If it simply your intention to set the public hearing and hold that public heating on April 17th I think you need to say that, it seems to me that's what your doing is holding the public hearing on April 17th and not holding public hearing or some form of public hearing tomorrow. Champion/Right. O'Donnell/Tomorrow should be very quick, we'll just set the public hearing. Pfab/And that' s it. O'Donnell/And that's it. Pfab/I would agree to that. Vanderhoef/Yes, I was. O'Donnell/Somebody like to get. Are we finished would somebody like to get Emie? Franklin/I think Dee had. Vanderhoef/I just wanted to ask about the proposed park land. I walked the area again yesterday and it seems like a lot of that is sloped area and then I look at my map This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 11 again. Can you tell me what the drop off is and how much of the proposed park land is on the top flat area or relatively flat? Franklin/I don't have those numbers with me, it seems to me that is was about 30 percent of the area that is outlined for dedication meets the standards of the neighborhood open space ordinance so they can be counted toward that. Am I close Larry Glenn? Glen Siders/I can't remember (can't hear). Franklin/Yea I'm thinking it's about 30 percent of that whole area which meets the requirements of the neighborhood open space ordinance which is that it is less than I think a 15 percent slope. And the rest of it is that it exceeds that and is too steep to meet the parameters of neighborhood open space. Vanderhoef/And then how much of that gully when I'm looking at this map, I don't know if you have it, the protected slope, the, do we go all the way down to the bottom of that ravine then? There isn't just a line on the map to show me where the public land stops and where the other land that stays with the development. Franklin/Okay let me get that for you, you should have received a map that showed you the kind of dog legged shaped that was a square with a dog leg off to the. Vanderhoef/This is the map that I have. Karr/Dee that's the map that Glenn Siders gave you. I think, Karin is referring to the staff map. Franklin/Yea it was in, it would have been in the first time you got the stuff with this. Vanderhoef/In the packet which was too tiny to read. Franklin/Okay I'll get you a bigger map then. Karr/Or stop by and you can zoom in and blow that section up. Pfab/(can't hear). Karr/Pardon. Vanderhoef/I am just curious where that line is. Franklin/That distinguishes between the area that' s shown for open space and the area that stays with the development, you'll have to. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 12 Vanderhoef/That stays with the development, responsibility of the development. Glenn Siders/Karin roughly 33,000 square feet was required for the open space, 8,000 feet of that did not comply with the open space was the figure. Franklin/Okay. Vanderhoeff Was required. Siders/Roughly 33,000 and 8,000 approximately did not meet that requirement for (can't hear). Franklin/And what happens with that as I understand it is that 8,000 square feet you pay a fee in lieu of for that amount in addition to the dedication. Vanderhoef/Oh. But that does take us to the bottom of the ravine (can't hear). Franklin/It's hard to 'know where the bottoms are of these ravines. Siders/I'm not sure where the actual bottom of the ravine is in relationship to our property, it's going to be, according to the contours, it's going to be, our property line is going to be pretty close to right at the bottom, at least towards the west side of the property. Vanderhoef/And the parkland is going to go all the way down. Siders/Actually the parkland is goes like this, so it includes all this flat piece and this sloping piece, I believe this is 25 feet wide there. Franklin/What you need Dee I think is something that shows you where the south property line is in relation to what you were walking, right, isn't that kind of?. Vanderhoef/Well w hat I need to say, I was just presuming it was just this, on the. Franklin/No. Vanderhoef/West of the protected slope. Franklin/No, no. Siders/We dedicated 39,000 square feet. Franklin/Right. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 13 Siders/Which includes essentially this square piece plus they wanted 25 feet I think for the potential to connect the adjoining properties to these. Vanderhoef/Okay. Franklin/Yea, so there' s the 8,000 square feet that' s given, well, that really doesn't meet the open space qualifications so that's. Vanderhoef/Will be in lieu of land, only we've got land not. Franklin/Also, yes, right. Vanderhoef/Okay thank you. Franklin/Okay ready now. F. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING CODE, SECTION 16- 61 - 1 Q, TO ALLOW ADULT DAY CARE IN COMMERCIAL ZONES ON STREETS LESS THAN 28 FEET IN WIDTH. (SECOND CONSIDERATION) Franklin/Item F is second consideration on an ordinance to allow adult day care on commercial zones on streets less than 28 feet in width. Oh sorry, did you hear that first part what we're on? Pathways. And there's a request to expedite this. And that's it for zoning stuff. Lehman/Thank you. Pfab/Okay the request to expedite that is there, does anybody have a problem with that? Lehman/I don't. Pfab/I don't. Kanner/Well I'm in favor of, I don't think it's a good process. I'd like to see them go back and extend the deadline for another two weeks. Pfab/I have no problem with one way or the other, I don't have any concern of how the whole atmosphere of how it got there and why and what not. I don't think it's something that' s really applicable because of the business setting, that' s why I'm not concerned. Vanderhoef/I think time frame is important to the people who are remodel and get it ready to go. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 14 Pfab/I would say if it were in a neighborhood but the setting doesn't concern me at all, that' s my. Review Al~enda Items Steve Atkins/Emie I have one item for you, Lisa is here for deer management if you have any questions for her so she doesn't have to be here tomorrow night. ITEM NO. 11. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A DEER TASK FORCE. Lehman/Are there any questions or comments for Lisa? It's Item #11 on the agenda. Pfab/It has a sunset provision what 3 or 4 years? I'd. Vanderhoef/Three years, sunsets in 04. Pfab/As long as your aren't going to be able to be here tomorrow. Lisa Mollenhauer/The sunset clause would take a, well it would be on March 15 of 2004. Pfab/About 3 years. Kanner/It seems to me one the things, one the complaints, one of the drives, the problem with the deer is development issues and it seems it would be appropriate in some way to link this with Planning & Zoning, perhaps in a sense, I don't know how you would set it up, in a sense in a subcommittee of Planning & Zoning just as we have some historical commission decisions that go through Planning & Zoning. It seems to me that this would factor in also, was there any discussion about development issues and how that affects the deer population and how the connection ofPlauning & Zoning might be good? Mollenhauer/Development issues do come up in our discussion. I think the committee just takes you know what we have here in Iowa City and what we're given the various circumstances that arise with development each year we take those into consideration but we don't really feel that it's been a charge of the deer management committee to address development issues. Vanderhoef/Are you thinking Steven that that would be grounds to deny some development because it would take habitat? Lehman/Well all we're talking about here is whether or not we want to establish a deer task force and do we want to keep the work going of the deer committee. And this is a matter of form of the committee, is that correct? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 15 Mollenhauer/You have not ever formally set this committee up. Lehman/Right, so the question now is do we want to do that? Pfab/But where does the sunset part come in at? And I mean I think that Steve is onto something here, with the idea of, not necessarily a veto power on it but when you plan it. When you take into consideration into setting up a development that some consideration might be minor changes but it would help accommodate the deer. Champion/Well I certainly think, I think we need to have this deer task force so the question we have before us is do we want to continue a committee of some kind a task force (can't hear). Lehman/Do we establish? (All talking) Champion/That we absolutely do. Pfab/But the fact that you do that does that automatically lock you into the sunset clause? Lehman/If we don't want a sunset clause we don't have to have it, right? Mollenhauer/Well I think the point of the sunset clause is that a task force typically does not go on forever. Lehman/Indefinitely, right. Mollenhauer/And so this would give the Council a chance to reevaluate it at that time. Kanner/I think what we're doing here Counie and Ernie is that we are basically setting the course for the next few years. Lehman/Right. Kanner/And I'm saying that perhaps in that course we might want to look at this issue before we lay it down because it's very hard to change it once it becomes status quo, we're basically saying this is going to be the status quo with the ground rules that Lisa and the deer management committee (can't hear) and I'm saying that we ought to look at if we can tie it in in some way with development issues and I think there' s a definite connection between that and I think it behooves us to have Planning & Zoning and development issues be connected to the deer management in some way. In my mind that's the major thing that's probably driving it for good or bad whichever side you take on this. And I'm not saying we deny development but it should be part of the consideration. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2,2001 Special Work Session Page 16 Wilburn/But someone else might say that existing housing and business is the impetus and soume of all the complaints about deer so. Atkins/Emie can I suggest that? Lehman/Yes please. Atkins/That the item is the creation of the task force and having a sunset, it would appear to be appropriate that you make a work session out of it. If there are questions you would like the task force to address as long as we can reach sensus with you, we can, you can send virtually any question you like to the task force. Now I can't guarantee you they'll want to spend any time with it but you can ask them anything you want. Wilburn/Similar to the way we ask Parks and Rec. to take a look at this. Atkins/Absolutely, it's the same basic principle, that it is an extension of this body, if you want questions and policy recommendations from them, ask them. Pfab/Okay let me ask you this. Is this something that some questions should be asked before we proceed? Atkins/No. Pfab/It's in effect now, I don't see any panic on it but I'm a little reluctant to lock it in until we. Atkins/But the committee themselves would come back to you saying we wish to re- consummate ourselves in this fashion and we think it's more appropriate and I think your hearing their recommendation. Is that correct Lisa? Mollenhauer/Yes that's true. Dilkes/Can I just give you our perspective on it, my staffs perspective on it is that the long range deer plan already refers to a deer committee. A deer committee that has never really been formally established and so I think there is some need to establish as some kind of formal committee whether that be by task force or a full blown Board and Commission that we run like our other Boards and Commissions and I believe it was the deer conunittee's recommendation that that really isn't appropriate at this stage and that a task force would be a better idea so it's really more just a question of forrealizing that. Lehman/Right. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 17 Vanderhoef/They would be acting as a task force during these first three years and to formalize and recognize them in that respect is important both for legal status and for their status so I think we should go forward. Lehman/Any other committee we can ask them as they go along to look at whatever issues we want to, work with whatever Boards or Commissions they want to and whatever. Vanderhoef/And we can dissolve a task fome anytime we feel that they are not serving a purpose anymore, that's what is good in my mind about task forces, you give them a project and tell them what you would like them to accomplish and once it's accomplished they're gone. Pfab/Well maybe this isn't, maybe this is a case that we don't want it to be gone, this is, the deer are going to be around for quite a while, we can shoot a lot of them, but they seem to be pretty good at reproducing. Lehman/Well all this does is establishes a method of keeping the Committee functioning. Pfab/So maybe we shouldn't go at it as a task force way maybe we should go as it as a full blown commission or something. Lehman/We can always change that but this is the recommendation of the (can't hear). Vanderhoef/I would go with. Kanner/But before we vote on it we might want to consider having the work session before we do that and (can't hear). And Ross I just want to say, an example I think if we use your reasoning we would say that because there's buildings downtown that aren't accessible we shouldn't have new buildings be accessible and follow ADA regulations. We certainly have to accept what's here but I think we can talk about new development in terms of new things that we're discovering. Wilburn/I don't have, excuse me for interrupting, I have a problem with the latter part of your statement, it's that you were working on a premise that what is driving this is new development. Kanner/No I said in part. Wilburn/Then I misunderstood you. Kanner/This is part of it and I said it behooves us to perhaps have some connection between Planning & Zoning and the deer committee just like Historic Preservation Commission has some commission with Planning & Zoning on some items. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Cotmcil meeiing of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 18 Wilburn/Then I misunderstood you. Kanner/If we could work some weights to make that connection that work. Wilbum/Then I misunderstood your statement. Pfab/I think Steve your point is well made, and I think unless we figure on exterminating them all they're going to be around with us for quite a while and they have a pretty good resilience to come back and hold their own and so maybe we can figure out a way to accommodate them you know where anybody. Lehman/Well are there questions for Lisa tonight because we'll take this up tomorrow night? Pfab/No. Lehman/All right thank you. Other agenda items. ITEM NO. 4E(3). CONSIDER A RESOLUTION CHANGING THE NAME OF CAPTAIN IRISH PARKWAY TO SCOTT BOULEVARD. Champion/I think it's a great idea to change Captain Irish to Scott Boulevard and have one continuous name, I like that a lot. O'Donnell/I don't, I like Captain Irish Parkway. Pfab/Well then it's. Vanderhoef/So do I. Champion/It' s contrary. Vanderhoef/I guess what. O'Donnell/I like Captain Irish. Champion/Well I like it too but on a map it just looks a lot better if it' s just one street. Vanderhoef/What I'm curious about is when we sent the design, set the dollars for the design we requested to have the aligmnent for the extension piece for the future and where that road would go and depending on how that piece that might go up over Interstate 80 connects in would determine whether I would want to change the name of it or not. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 19 Lehman/Well the road goes straight across Rochester, are you going to change it where it changes Rochester? Vanderhoef/No what I'm saying is originally this was planned as Scott was North/South and whatever that road was going to be named which was finally named Captain Irish was going to T into. Franklin/And that was abandoned. Vanderhoef/And that was abandoned but when we sent it out for design the request went to engineering for them to also plot where they would be planning to put the road, the extension instead of the straight ahead but wherever the alignment could be. Depending on how that alignment look might determine what would be less confusing in the future. Franklin/That will be a T intersection. Lehman/Right. Franklin/With the road that we have already designed. Lehman/It will T into Scott. Franklin/It will T into Scott Boulevard not that we have already designed because it's still, that one phase is still in the design process but it will definitely be, I need crayons. Vanderhoef/The picture, because the curve, the way we have Captain Irish coming this way. Franklin/Okay this is Captain Irish Scott Boulevard, okay, there will be another road that will come offof it like this and it will be a T. Vanderhoef/I understand that but where, if it is very close to the straighter alignment of Scott as it presently sits now on Seven Sisters and so forth. Franklin/I don't see any way, no it won't be, there's no way that that could happen Dee. Vanderhoef/So your going to be around the curve with Scott extended and then your going to have T off and cut backwards. Franklin/Yea because Scott extended goes so far out of alignment with Seven Sisters and is on such an angle them because of all the discussion about it being a priority way for people to go that that curve is such that it's going to be a very distinct T intersection with. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 20 Vanderhoef/But it's going to be further west beyond the curve. Lehman/It's going to be on the curve. Franklin/Well it's a big curve. Lehman/In any event it's going to be a T intersection so (can't hear). Franklin/Yea it's going to be a T intersection, it will be a definite break such that the flow of traffic will go on Scott Boulevard and you will have to take a turn to go on this other road up over the Interstate. And you can call that one Captain Irish Parkway if you want to. Champion/And that's probably going to be 200 years away. Pfab/That's what I was going to say. O'Donnell/(can't hear) plan on being here. Pfab/Is there much possibility in the future of that road ever going over the Interstate? Franklin/Oh mercy, I don't know, you know it depends. Lehman/I don't think. Pfab/50 years, 20 years. O'Donnell/I think it's too close to the other bridge I don't think (can't hear). Franklin/Well I think what is going to drive it will be development on the noah side of Scott Boulevard and development on the north side of Interstate 80, the whole Northgate Corporate Park area which we'll get to talking about when we talk about the district priorities. Northgate Corporate Park is starting to go now, developers are looking at some potential changes in that area, one of the things that we've talked about starting to look at is exactly what that alignment is going to be to preserve the corridor as the road goes over the Interstate and connects with Highway 1. So if that were to pop for some reason and you know it's a commercial area or it's a research park or industrial area or whatever that may create an economic incentive to get that connection made but it may not. Pfab/I mean I don't think there' s any question that' s going to go and if that really does take off is there a, will that extension going over the Interstate will that be a very valuable thing to? Is that something? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 21 Franklin/I don't think it will be critical to it happening. Pfab/But is there enough benefit to cause it to be built? Franklin/It depends on how congested Noah Dodge Scott Boulevard intersection becomes because basically the only way you have, or the way that you will have to get from Highway 1 north to the east side and Scott Boulevard will be to come down Highway 1 turn onto Scott at the current intersection with Captain Irish. Pfab/What, okay so, I haven't. Franklin/I'd say 20 years. Pfab/In that case maybe Captain Irish, maybe Scott Boulevard should end if the potential is to go on and leave Captain Irish there. Franklin/No, no, no. Lehman/Captain Irish is going to be, it's going to be a homogenous road, it's going to suddenly change from Scott Boulevard to Captain Irish, no seam of any kind. Pfab/Yes the way it's developed now but maybe it shouldn't be developed if there really is a strong possibility that this is going to go through, maybe that should be designed where it. Atkins/Emie we're out to bid on that project. Lehman/I know we're bidding the project right now, I remember that. The bridge if it goes across the Interstate at some point in the future will T into Scott Boulevard. Pfab/Okay, all right. Lehman/So the question is whether you want to have two roads with two different (can't hear). Pfab/No we don't, I'm for one or the other. Lelmaan/All right, all right I think we're there, thanks for the drawing. O'Donnell/Thank you. Lehman/Other agenda items. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 22 Kanner/Well I had a question on this some agenda items. What's the history, I'd like to hear what the history of Captain Irish, the name is very quickly. I'm not familiar with that. Lehman/I don't know the history of them, I guess I do a little bit. The question really is do you want a road to switch at a seam in the pavement one linking to another? Pfab/No. Lehman/I think that's the whole question. Vanderhoef/Captain Irish was named because we were calling it an east west arterial and it was going to be T'ing straight into the north extension of Scott so it made sense but then as the Northeast district plan happened that road turned into a big curve rather than a T so now it is a continuous road. Karmer/I understand that. Lehman/The Captain Irish was a captain of a ship that was from Iowa City and I don't know what his claim to fame was but that' s where the road got it's name. Franklin/He was a whaler who came here from New England. He was a whaler on the Iowa River. Vanderhoef/Yes thank you Cormie. Pfab/Had been known to tip one. Lehman/He exterminated all of the whales. Franklin/And he owned a lot of property on the east side and he had some renown when he was alive. The story that I heard that I don't know if it's true or not but it's a good story is that he had an argument with some fellow and in order to get this guy to comply with his wishes he held him by his ankles on the Burlington Street bridge~ Lehman/Okay, maybe I'll change my mind and keep it. Kanner/Who was Scott7 Franklin/I don't know who Scott was, that' s an old one. Lehman/There are a lot of Scott' s. Franklin/We got a lot of Scott Boulevard already there. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 23 Lehman/Right. Champion/Right, it's been there a long time. Lehman/Okay. Franklin/I'1t try to think up a good story for Scott. Kanner/All right (can't hear) if you can. ITEM 15. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROV1NG AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY AND MCCLURE ENGiNEERiNG COMPANY CONSULTING ENGINEERS TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR THE IOWA CITY COURT HILL TRUNK SANITARY SEWER PROJECT. Kanner/I had a couple questions. We're hiring a consultant to do the Court Hill Trunk Sanitary Sewer upgrades, Item number 15 and my question is are we making this wider? I've been reading about how there's something that has sleeves that you can insert in some of these lines and. Atkins/Well this is a new sewer isn't it? Kanner/Well we're digging it. What I'm asking, are we, well it's replacing one, are we making it wider or can we do things? Atkins/Wider as in bigger around. Dilkes/I think there are capacity problems aren't there? Kanner/So we are making it bigger? Atkins/There are surcharging problems, yea there are surcharging problems off of this sewer, that I know, that's what lead to us to pursue the thing. Franklin/My understanding is that we are putting in like a parallel system that's going to increase the capacity of the Court Hill Trunk and that's needed for development that happens to the east of there. Now exactly whether it's two pipes running parallel or we're going to put in a bigger pipe where the existing pipe is now I'm not sure. Kanner/My impression is they're going to dig it out and. Franklin/Put in a brand new bigger one. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 24 Kanner/(Can't hear). (END OF 01-37 SIDE ONE) Dilkes/Here in some respects because we have property acquisition requirements (can't hear). Arkins/I'll have Public Works prepare a summary memo and have it for you tomorrow night just explaining the project, sure. Kanner/And the reason I'm asking is I've been reading, we get 5 different government magazines and there' s all these ads about these the sleeve you can insert and I'm wondering if that's something that' s worthwhile, it doesn't sound like it would fit for this project making it bigger. Atkins/I'll ask that question for you though. Lehman/The sleeve wouldn't increase the capacity but I think that' s in place of replacing old sewers they've been able to do this for economic. Kanner/Well that's why I'm asking if that's increasing, I couldn't tell. O'Donnell/That is increasing. Vanderhoef/Yea it is because that's the. ITEM NO. 7. CONSIDER AN ORDiNANCE AMENDiNG TITLE 1, ENTITLED "ADMiNISTRATION," CHAPTER 4, ENTITLED "GENERAL PENALTY," SECTION I(B) TO iNCREASE THE MAXIMUM CRIMiNAL PENALTY FOR SIMPLE MISDEMEANORS TO $500 AS AUTHORIZED BY STATE CODE. (FIRST CONSIDERATION) ITEM NO. 8. CONSIDER AN ORDiNANCE AMENDiNG THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, BY ENACTiNG NEW SECTIONS NUMBERED 4-2-3, ENTITLED "LOCAL REVIEW OF APPLICATION/iNVESTIGATION OF APPLICANT"; SECTION 4-2-4, ENTITLED "NOTICE AND HEARING"; AND SECTION 4-2-5, ENTITLED "CIVIL PENALTIES"; REVISiNG SECTION 4-5-4 ENTITLED "REGULATION OF PERSONS UNDER LEGAL AGE"; ENACTING A NEW SECTION 4-5-6 ENTITLED "SALES TO INTOXICATED PERSONS"; AND ENACTING A NEW SECTION 4-5-7 ENTITLED "LIMITATIONS OF SALES," ALL OF WHICH PROVIDE FOR THE REGULATION OF ALCOHOL SALES. (FIRST CONSIDERATION) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 25 Kanner/And I had some questions on the alcohol ordinances that I wasn't quite clear on and I'm having some trouble with some nomenclature that' s part of it, so this is #8. (can't hear) Atkins/It takes two of you. Kanner/This is, in our packets it's like page 133 or so and the thing, and I talked to Andy a little and I'm still a little confused about this, the civil penalties is one of the main things I'm not quite sure. In Section 4-2-5 civil penalties, it seems that Section H says civil penalties include suspension whereas Section C says it's suspension is not a civil penalty. I'm getting kind of hung up, I thought suspension was part of civil penalties but apparently they're separate items and I don't quite understand that. Dilkes/I think the words civil penalties is used as an umbrella term to refer to all the sanctions, all the civil sanctions including the fines, the suspensions, and the revocations as well as sometimes used to refer only to the monetary penalty and that may be, and that happens in the state code and much of the language we've simply mirrored here so but they're, but you know it may be more helpful if you refer to all the penalties as administrative penalties and think of the fine as the civil penalty. But I think the terms is used interchangeably which may cause some confusion. Kanner/Okay well then, moving Section A and C in that 4-2-5 seem to give us the fight to suspend licenses for any ordinance while Section D seems to limit suspensions to ordinances that have no counterpart under state law and I don't understand that. Dilkes/No what this does is t hat you will recall when we initially drafted this C which itemize those the grounds for imposition of a suspension revocation or civil penalty fine included we added to that list, that list comes out of state law, we added to that list violation of a city ordinance which the state code allows us to do. In further discussion with the alcoholic beverage, the staff at the Alcoholic Beverages Division and looking at another I think whatever referred to us quirky provision of the state code last time it is their opinion and they appear to be correct that when the basis of the administrative penalty is a city ordinance only i.e. specials, the regulations we're putting into place for specials the city does not have the authority to impose a civil penalty or a fine, it can only impose a suspension. Karmer/So for other ones that are state ordinances we can do a suspension or a fine. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 26 Dilkes/Unless it was a for a sale to minors was the basis of the administrative penalty and those penalties are specified particularly in I, 4-2-5 I which again comes directly from the state code. So let me give you an example, somebody an employee of a bar is convicted of sale to an intoxicated person, there is no specific administrative penalty that is required by state code or by the city ordinances, you would have in that situation, correct me if I'm wrong Andy, you would have the right to impose a civil penalty or a suspension because that's a violation of state law. Pfab/Do any of those have and/or is there an or, is them an and, is there an and/or, a suspension and a fine, are any of those stated in any of those? Dilkes/You mean could you impose a fine and a suspension in any particular case? Pfab/Yea a lot of ordinances are like that and I was just wondering if there was a reason why they were worded this way you know so many, fine us so much plus so many days in jail or whatever it is. Dilkes/I don't, I can't give you the legislative history of all these things, they've been in the state code for a number of years and I don't know what the thinking was behind some of them. Pfab/So at this point you went through that, you were not aware of any that and/or, they were either or but not and. Dilkes/I'd have to look at each particular situation Irvin. Pfab/But as you recollect, just guessing, but not guessing but your. Dilkes/I hate to guess on this stuff because it will be in the paper and then we'll have more misconception and more so I mean if you can flame a specific question I'd be happy to answer it and get back to you if I can but I don't want to make statements that are going to be misconstrued. Pfab/And I'm just like Steven I had some things that didn't quite, that seemed to be different, I thought well was that a typo? Lehman/Fve got a couple issues here, is it possible in the enforcement of the penalties that this ordinance would enable to have the I always say the wrong word but the Liquor Control (can't hear). Dilkes/Alcoholic Beverages Division. Lehman/Pursue those penalties for the City of Iowa City? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 27 Dilkes/Well as you've seen in the paper in the last week or so the Alcoholic Beverages Division has pursued administrative penalties against two bars in Iowa City, Bo James and Union Bar simply because you put these ordinances in place which give you the right to administer civil penalties, I'll try and quit using that word, to impose administrative penalties does not mean the Alcoholic Beverages Division does not have that right. Lehman/Could we ask them to administer our ordinance? And if they choose not to then we would have the option of doing that. Dilkes/Let me just give you a little bit of background, I think historically there have been a number of factors that have contributed to the situation that we have found ourselves in which has really been not much enforcement of the administrative penalties allowed by state code either by at the city level or at the state level by the Alcoholic Beverages Division. I think there are a number of factors that have contributed to that number 1 the criminal enforcement effort has been on those persons drinking the alcohol, the charging of possession underage charges as opposed to the charging of or the putting the focus on sales to minors, or sales to underage persons. And I think there's a long history there that RJ could probably address more than I, I think there have been staff changes at the Alcoholic Beverages Division that have led them to be more perhaps more aggressive recently. And then as well as I think an interest in their part of local, what's going on at the local level. So I think all of those things have kind of contributed to lack of enforcement of civil penalties, there are I think some benefits and you all need to talk about this about having the Alcoholic Beverages Division pursue those penalties when they see fit to do so, they are, I suspect a less political body than you are and that may have some benefit. I think you should still go ahead and put these ordinances in place so you have the option to impose those penalties in a couple of situations perhaps if you would prefer to see the ABD do it. The first being if the Alcoholic Beverages Division chooses not to proceed in a case that you think has merit and should be proceeded with and the second are in those circumstances where the Alcoholic Beverages Division will not have jurisdiction because it is a city offense only and not a state offense, for instance if there's a violation of the specials restrictions that you put into place. Lehman/Okay then, clarify this for me. If we look past this ordinance and the state chooses to enforcement the administrative penalties we of course would not have to, if they chose not to we could so the choice will be ours if we pass this? Dilkes/Yea you would have the choice, you could do something along the lines of a direction, it seems, the criminal enforcement effort, the enforcement effort that the PD will have to engage in is going to be the same regardless. Lehman/Right, right. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 28 Dilkes/I mean that's just, that's got to be there regardless. But you could direct staff to make sure there was a good process in place to communicate those criminal infractions to the Alcoholic Beverages Division and that your preference would be that they pursue the administrative penalties. Lehman/And that's an administrative for policies sort of decision on the part of Council that we would, okay. Dilkes/Right. Lehman/Now there are two other things I'd like to bring up, there may not be any interest on the Council but I've had some conversations with a number of folks. Some of the provisions that we have, we have put in the ordinance that I think if you want to take a second look at it fine if you don't that's okay too. But the idea of a person not being able to purchase two drinks to take one back to a table for the person they're with. I think the one drink, and I know why the arguments for why you only allow one drink but I think that may be just a little restricter than I'm interested in. You know if your with another person and you want to go pick up two drinks and go back to your table under this present ordinance the way we're talking about it, you could not do that, each person would have to go get their own drink. Pfab/Everyone in this room and watching this know that I'm not an expert on it but. Lehman/Neither are we. Pfab/But of how that protocol goes but it looks to me like if that was the case you would probably have a waitress delivering those drinks. Lehman/There are many situations where there are not enough waitresses and waiters, for example you get a bar particularly a sports bar if they're watching a football game, getting ready to go to a game, your in line waiting for your table to sit down in a restaurant, the bar is there, you can't find a place to sit and you'd like to have a beer and you want to pick up a glass of wine and you can not go to the bar and get a beer and a glass of wine with this ordinance. If you allow two drinks then you could go get yourselfa beer and bring the glass of wine for your wife. Pfab/Well is that something that could be managed by the alleviated by the management in such a way that it could? Lehman/Possibly, it also could be alleviated by removing the one drink restriction. Pfab/If you remember about my camel getting in the tent. Lehman/Camel was in the tent, I know that, I remember the camel in the tent. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 29 Pfab/That' s why I would not, I'm not interested in camels. Lehman/Is there anyone else interested in changing that? Champion/Yes I'm interested in changing it. O'Donnell/I'm interested also Emie and I would also like to bring up like a single pitcher. Dilkes/I'm sorry Mike I missed that. Lehman/I think your going to get in trouble on a single pitcher. Vanderhoef/Yea. Lehman/Because a single pitcher has four or five glasses in it and you can take it to a table and serve it to as many people as you want. Pfab/See there's, the camels already trying to get on the. Dilkes/I need. Lehman/We've got this, got to watch this camel. O'Donnell/But I see your point and we'll go with the two drinks. Lehman/Well I, does anybody else feel? O'Donnell/Two drinks or two beers, I think it's a good idea Ernie. Lehman/I don't have a problem with two, it seems too restrictive to have one. Pfab/I'm not willing to give on, myself, but that's just my vote that' s all. Lehman/Ross do you have a feeling on that? Wilbum/Not, I'm not willing to revisit the pitcher thing but I, even at the last work session where I thought about the two, I think I'd be willing to, and I'm thinking in terms of even folks getting dinner and when it is crowded having to give up your seat, those homecoming weekends and things like that. If we, a concern would be there' s still the possibility of the out of sight sale but given that we've got a little control on the pitcher and that type of thing, I'd be willing to. Lehman/Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 30 O'Donnell/How about a pitcher with two glasses? (All talking) Dilkes/I want to. Pfab/I would bet in reference to what Ross is saying and what you are saying that if it would be, if this was the case that it was not allowed to take that second one, I am quite sure the management would be acknowledgeable enough to figure out a way to get around that very quickly. Champion/We don't want them to figure out a way to get around it. Lehman/We know where the camel stands on this, okay. Pfab/He's sniffing. Lehman/Eleanor. Dilkes/I want to talk a little bit about the issue of pitchers and other alcohol that is typically sold in quantities such as bottles of wine. At your last meeting you decided that you did not want to exempt such things, pitchers and bottles of wine from the out of sight sales provision. Since that time we have gone, we have been struggling with the language and came up with what you see here at number 4. One of the concerns when you don't exempt out bottles of wine for instance is that two people are out to dinner, and they order a bottle of wine, and there's more than two glasses of wine in a bottle. Okay. So we have, I don't think that was the intended result so we struggled with some language, with god bless for Marian's help, and. Wilburn/I'm sorry is this section 6-4? Dilkes/Yea this is, what we finally ended up with was 4. Andy Matthews/4-6-7 number 4. Kanner/Page 135 in our packet. Dilkes/Marian's help and Annie's help in my office we were like working on this. We originally drafted it and tied it to the number of glasses, so the number of servings would be determined by the number of glasses so in other words if you take a bottle of wine and you take two glasses, no problem. But that doesn't solve the problem of the person going up to the bar and getting a pitcher and one glass and taking that back and okay so that didn't quite work. So what we ended up with This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 31 was a more general provision which I think sets forth what your intent is and that is that when a pitcher or a bottle of wine is served you want it to be delivered to the people who are going to be consuming it, and you want the person delivering it to make an attempt, you want them to confirm who is going to be drinking that and that those people are over age and that' s how we ended up with the language we've got. Champion/Right. Vanderhoef/That the responsibility falls on the server. Dilkes/Right, and however they choose to do that, I think we got to the point where it was going on and on and on and we were trying to respond to every particular situation and it just wasn't happening and we decided to leave how they choose to do that, how they choose to make that confirmation to the bars. Kanner/Just to clarify and repeat back what your saying, your understanding in writing is that if two people are 21 and older are sitting at a table and they order a pitcher that has let's say 6 servings, that would be allowed under this ordinance. Dilkes/If the pitcher is delivered. Karmer/Glasses and the pitcher can be brought to them at the table. Dilkes/Yes, yes. Kanner/And the same with wine. Dilkes/Yes. Pfab/So and in one sense you give the waitress the power and the obligation to keep an eye on that. Matthews/They' ve always had that, it's just, this better reminds them of that obligation. Pfab/Right, I think that's a great idea. Lehman/Okay now that' s the way it's written. Dilkes/Right. Lehman/If we are to change this from one to two drinks does that need to be an amendment tomorrow night? Dilkes/No we'll just change it before tomorrow night. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 32 Lehman/All right and there' s another item I'd like to bring up and again I don't have one strong feeling on this one way or the other. We are prohibiting drink specials, do we want to allow happy hour from let's say 4-7? Pfab/I smell the camel again. Lehman/I know the camel never left and his head is under the tent. Dilkes/So in other words let me just clarify what you would be doing is the specials restrictions would not be place for a certain period of time. Lehman/That's, I'm not advocating, I'm bringing it up. Dilkes/I know that' s what your just putting out. Lehman/Is there a feeling on that? Obviously we do not restrict pricing of alcohol so someone could price their beers at a nickel a glass or $5.00 a glass so I mean we're not talking about prohibiting someone from selling at a certain price. Dilkes/They do it all the time. Lehman/But right now we would be prohibiting a reduced price for a period of time that is customarily known as happy hour in a lot of restaurants and bars. Champion/Are we, why couldn't they just say from 4-6 a glass of wine is $1.25 instead of $2.507 Lehman/Because we prohibit that, those are drink specials. Champion/Oh. Dilkes/First of all we don't want to get into the pricing, your right, if they want to start charging five cents for every beer and they want to do it all the time then I don't know that there's a whole lot we can do about that and then you all need to take a look at it and say this isn't working. Champion/Well I was in favor of still having happy hour because I don't think that's when our problems are arising downtown, but remember the chief said that having different times of day were, it wouldn't be enforceable. Wilburn/Makes it difficult, yea. Champion/Would make it cumbersome, but I don't know is it anymore cumbersome where you used to have to take everybody' s wine at the table at 10:00 on Sunday This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 33 night because you couldn't sell alcohol after 10:00 on Sunday night. So you'd be eating dinner at a restaurant and they would whisk your wine away (can't hear) at 9:30, I mean that wasn't very long ago. Is that still in affect? Lehman/I don't know, I go to bed by 10:30 as long as we're not having a Council meeting. Champion/But you know, what we're really trying to do is, I mean let's be frank, what we're trying to do is control young people's abuse of alcohol. Lehman/Over indulgence. Champion/That' s what we're really after and those people are not, they're drinking after 9:00, I mean or maybe after 10:00 or after 11:00 1 don't know, I mean they're just going out when I'm getting ready to sit down and watch TV. So I mean are going to penalize the whole town who might use alcohol responsibility and enjoy going out after work for two drinks. Lehman/Or one. Champion/Or one. Lehman/I don't know, that's the question, are we interested in allowing happy hours, special prices for certain periods of the day7 That's real simple. Pfab/I'm going to speak against it for various reasons. Lehman/Right. Champion/Well I'm going to speak for it. Lehman/All right we've got a pro and a con. Wilburn/I'm saying no because I think it does make it difficult for enforcement and I do know some people who do the happy hour and then continue on through the night. Vanderhoef/I'll say no. Kanner/Yea I'm going to say no. Lehman/Okay it's over with we're not doing it but we are going to allow two drinks at once it sounds like, we'll be able to pick up two drinks at the bar. Dilkes/Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 34 Lehman/Now those are the concerns I had in the alcohol ordinance. O'Donnell/I want to bring one up also and again going back to the original intention of the ordinance it's to stop traderage drinking and excessive drinking. Vanderhoef/By all ages. O'Dormell/By all ages, right, and I just don't think we've taken into consideration private clubs that we have in town, like Elks, Eagles, Moose, you know any of the clubs where not only is the average age, well it is over 21. Champion/Elderly. O'Donnell/I wasn't going to say that Connie. Lehman/Mature. O'Donnell/But I think we need to take a look at that, on a golf course with people or you know that are obviously over 21 years of age probably I'm not going to say a word. Lehman/Well is that something we can look into Eleanor? Champion/Or are they already exempt? Kanner/Well they're subject to the same laws, are you saying that they need a special circumstance and maybe a happy hour would be good them? (can't hear). O'Donnell/No, I'm not saying a happy hour, but I'm saying I wonder if a private club, where people obviously, the intention is to stop the under 21 and excessive drinking. Pfab/Well I'm not sure if it's just for the under when it comes to excessive. O'Donnell/No well and we just said that, excessive drinking with you know you don't have to be 21 to get bombed or. Champion/I haven't read in the paper about the police being called to a local golf course to stop a riot from a. Wilburn/You've never been out there when Mike's been golfing so. Pfab/Well, okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 35 Champion/I mean I understand what your saying if there's a bunch of people golfing and they might all want to have a beer and all of them would have to go up. O'Donnell/One guy goes up or one girl goes up, I think it. Lehman/Well what happens if they go to the bar and pick up a 6-pack of beer to take on the golf cart with them, can they do that? That's not uncommon, golfers have been known to have a beer (can't hear). Dilkes/If there are six of them. O'Dounell/You know I'm not singling this out to only golfers. (All talking) Lehman/No but I'm just saying, would that be illegal under this ordinance if you went to the clubhouse and you asked to buy a 6-pack and take on your cart for your four some? Dilkes/It's an on premise consumption, that's the issue. Lehman/It wouldn't be, I suppose you consider the course on the premises or just the building? Dilkes/Well I think you could consider the course on the premises. Lehman/Or you could consider it take out. Dilkes/Yea, I've learned a lot about alcohol in the last few weeks, I don't know how one considers the 6-pack on the golf cart, do you? Pfab/Maybe there will be a sign end of premises. Dilkes/I don't know. Kanner/Well Emie I think so with the new exception that you've made they could take two per person and actually I think that's reasonable. Dilkes/Yea that's right they can take two per person now. Kanner/So I don't think that's out of hand and I think there are people getting pretty drunk at golf courses and. Champion/Have you seen it? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 36 O'Donnell/I've never seen a golfer inebriated. (All talking) O'Donnell/Now let's get serious. Vanderhoef/The 19th hole is a tough one. O'Dormell/No, you know that's a legitimate concern but again it's not against the law to stop at a Quik Trip or Kum-n-Go and buy a 6-pack. Pfab/But it's on the premises and unless it says off the premises. O'Dormell/Yea but I mean you've got to have some rationale to go back through the purpose. Lehman/Or you could buy your six pack at the Quik Trip and take it on the golf course with you. O'Donnell/I don't even drink Ernie so this is, I'm just (cant 'hear). Wilbum/Well given Steven's observation about how this would apply, but also in terms of whether it's a convenience store or even lugging something over to the golf course I mean if there's been problems with over consumption there's existing ways for law enforcement to address that whether it's disorderly house or that type of thing where I see Mike over on the golf course treading the golf course up then I can call PD and come get him so. Lehman/Call me too I want to see it. Is there interest in having our legal staff look at the ramifications of exempting private clubs? Kanner/I think we ought to try this and see how it goes. Champion/If we do that every bar downtown would become a private club. (All talking) Lehman/Okay for the time being we're going to let the camel sleep and we're not going to bother it, we're not going to look at it, but that may be something we may have to readdress later. Pfab/But now I was, I was caught off guard now, as of the present time it's two drinks, so the camel' s nose is under the tent. Lehman/Right, okay, we recognize the camel. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 37 Pfab/Okay but that is the way it is, is that right? It's two drinks. Lehman/Are there other comments about the alcohol ordinance that we need to discuss before tomorrow night' s discussion? Kanner/I had just to follow up, just to clarify again, sales to minors then it's, goes on that fine schedule (can't hear) as opposed to sale to intoxicated, we can do civil or suspension. Dilkes/Sales to underage people yes, is specifically regulated in that section, what the penalties are for first, second, third, fourth offense, etc. Kanner/Okay and from the other side of the table if the person is under 21 it looks like there' s wording here that says $ 100 penalty for the first offense. Dilkes/Right. Kanner/But then I also see it's a simple misdemeanor which are we raising, is that just the maximum to $500? Dilkes/No and I had a note to clarify that. I don't know how to say this any more simply but the increase in the maximum fine to $500.00 only affects those criminal simple misdemeanors that are not otherwise scheduled, i.e., otherwise do not have a fine specified so the possession of alcohol under legal ago the penalty for that crime is not affected by the increase in the maximum for unscheduled penalties to $500.00. Kanner/And I think one final thing on this, as far as pursuing administrative penalties from our perspective or perhaps the state' s perspective do we have to at the same time try to get a conviction court? I realize the standards are lower as far as proof or administrative penalties, they're not as strict as with criminal penalties, but do we, before we can pursue an administrative penalty do we have to try to prove, go to court? Or can we just say we're not even going to go to court, we're just seeing a pattern here we have these people observing these things and we're going to bring you in (can't hear). Dilkes/No the state code specifically provides that a criminal conviction is not a prerequisite to an administrative penalty, it has been our thinking that at least initially in the enforcement we will concentrate on getting the criminal enforcement in place because once you establish that, for instance on the sales to underage persons, once you get the criminal conviction the civil penalty or the administrative penalties are almost automatic. And I think particularly because we have not been devoting those resources to enforcement, it's, I think we need to focus on the criminal penalties to start with, follow up with t he administrative This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 38 penalties, either us or the Alcohol Beverages Division at least initially in terms of the enforcement, but no it is not a requirement that you have a criminal conviction. Lehman/Other questions for Eleanor. Thank you Eleanor. Dilkes/Thanks Andy, I appreciate it. Matthews/I didn't do anything. Wilburn/Especially for all your work on this. Vanderhoef/Thank you Andy. Wilburn/Yea thanks Andy. Vanderhoef/You both have worked very hard on this. Dilkes/He's been a big help, he knows more about alcohol than I do so. District Plannin~ Priorities (IP 1 of 3/29 info. packet) Lehman/Karin the District Planning Priorities, we got a memo from you if you'd like to describe that in 10 seconds or less. Franklin/Okay this came up as a request of Dee's to look at the southwest district as the next district that we do. What's up on the screen is the district's as outlined. In the memorandum from Bob as he points out the Planning & Zoning Comxnission discussed this is in terms of priorities, what they have on their plate as of now until you potentially change it is that the next district that would be done would be the central district. Possibly coupled with the downtown, but I think it's the central district that the commission was most concerned about and the central district is basically which embraces a lot of our older neighborhoods. And I, there is some fairly strong feeling within those neighborhoods about keeping that a priority. What was next on their plate was the southeast district and at that time one of the issues was the Sycamore Mall, I think that given what the Council, the actions that the Council has already taken on the Sycamore Mall and creating the urban renewal area in the First Avenue Mall Drive area has done something to address some of the issues there. But you know maybe not everything, certainly not everything. Noahwest came after the southeast, and this was prioritized based upon the discussion I think that we had of 965, the 218 intersections with Melrose and the Highway 1 but noah of there also the potential for development just east of 218 between Coralville and Iowa City and you know how fast that happens I don't know. Noah corridor which is north of the Interstate and southwest districts This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 39 were given lower priority, now it's the southwest district that has been suggested as being bumped up to be the high priority given the current discussion of Harlocke Weeber. The noah corridor as I indicated as we were talking earlier about Scott Boulevard and the road going over the Interstate, we are seeing some interest there and some potential changes in Noahgate Corporate Park and that surrounding area. It does not necessarily mean that we need to do the entire corridor study which is that whole expanse noah of Interstate 80 in our growth area there, we could look at that more in a microcosmic of just Noahgate Corporate Park. It's probably easy to say that there's something going on in each of the districts so hey it's your show or. Pfab/I would certainly recommend after we start poking around in the southwest area there with this development there are a lot of problems that just don't make any sense at all and I think that there should be some more interest and investigation of what's going on in that. Franklin/Now understand when we look at the southwest district we will be looking at this entire area, the neighborhood that your most concemed with right now is right in here and I'm not saying that by any means that what happens here does not have an impact on that neighborhood, that is true in every single district and is certainly true in the central area which is impacted by what goes on in these other districts outside of it. Lehman/Well let me suggest that we have two, we have two questions, first one from me is do we want to proceed with the priority as it has been set out by the Planning & Zoning Commission and staff to proceed with the central district plan as the next priority. I think we have to answer that question yes or no and if we say no then obviously we prioritize other districts. If we say yes we want to do the central plan next as it has been recommended by Planning & Zoning, do we then at the end of that time then perhaps reprioritize the other districts? Franklin/Yes. Lehman/But the first question is do we, are we changing the priorities so that the central district plan is not the next comprehensive area to be (can't hear)7 Wilburn/What preparation work if any has been done in terms of the central? Franklin/Nothing, we're just ending with the noah district, we do have a commitment to the people in the south district to go back and look at some issues there, we've met with them shortly, well not shortly after, after there was some discussion of development projects in that south district and they want us to take a reevaluation of some of the statements that are in that plan and kind of clarify by what we mean by diversity in that neighborhood. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 40 Wilburn/I guess I have two comments about the central plan in general, one I know we've had a lot ofconcem you know the Weeber Harlocke area now but we've also had several rezonings involved issues that were just as emotional controversial in the central district. The second would be, I know there was a recommendation or a possibility looking at the downtown in conjunction with the central, part of concem what folks have talked to me about over this last year and a half is that there' s been a lot of stuff done downtown and I know that may or may not be rotated to the planning process but it seems to me given some of the in light of those recent decisions in the central planning district that there might be some special things unique to central planning district that I wouldn't want to see you get lost in including downtown and I don't know if that makes sense to you or not. Franklin/I don't know whether I would go along with having the downtown as be part of the central planning district myself, I think we've done a lot as you say in the downtown, both with the downtown strategy and the near southside redevelopment plan so I guess I would question that coupling myself. I think there's different kinds of issues in the central district than there are in the downtown. Wilburn/Yea and I think we just need to show, continue to show, I mean we've done some work like with the southeast, you know we need to show the public that we are looking at more than downtown and I think since downtown is it's a nexus of Central Park that even the planning process and the public input would be a media, that would make a lot, perhaps make more headlines than some of the other areas and so I think it might take away the focus from us showing the public that we're interested in all of the community and not just one area so. Pfab/I just spent some time going across a number, quite a wide range of the city the other day, and I really was appalled when I got down into the southwest area, some of the problems that are there I just, I just think something has to be done to stop, not compounding some problems that are there and I can't believe and primarily in this, where this rezoning is in Harlocke, I mean you go back, I mean so me of the things that apparently got by Planning & Zoning are just appalling, and that really bothers me. And other things are finished to a T but I'm really concerned about what's going on in the southwest area. I would say that's number one in my book. Vanderhoef/Okay I've got a couple questions first, well first I'll agree with you Ross on separating central and business district, I think those are two separate things and I agree that neighborhoods are more important right at the moment than the downtown. Karin you said something about maybe the noah corporate park that, the TIF area and so forth out there, do you think we could take a closer look at that without going into the whole north corridor thing? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 41 Franklin/Yea. Vanderhoef/Okay that I would put at the top of my list as one of the things to do. Secondly in the southwest district what was pointed up in concerns of the neighborhood had to do with water run off and could we get an update from staff with information about storm sewer and water run off kinds of activities there? Apparently the rules were quite different for control of storm water when the early part of that area was developed. I'm not as concerned now with the secondary access until the whole area is built because the continuation from Benton Street down Weeber to Edingale to Wylde Green does give some secondary access into that hill side and the only place that is totally blocked right at the moment and still meets our laws is Harlocke Street which will extend at some point in time. Franklin/Maybe not, I mean there was one plan that ended in a cul de sac. Vanderhoef/Okay so that piece. Kanner/Down to Highway 1. Vanderhoef/There is a second connection to Highway 1 via Weeber Street and Edingale that goes over to Wylde Green to Sunset to Highway 1 so there is a. Lehman/So are you saying you think the central district should stay a priority with us? Vanderhoef/No I think we need to take a look at what we need to do in the small part of both the north corridor, Northgate Development Park and the immediate area of Weeber Harlocke as far as the water drainage and so forth. Then I could be convinced to look at the whole southwest at a slightly later date. Franklin/So can I, if I understand correctly Dee what your saying is that you would kind of look at micro studies of Northgate Corporate Park and of the Harlocke Weeber area or just the Harlocke Weeber drainage issue? Vanderhoef/The drainage issue at this point to get that taken care of and I think that's a public works kind of thing but that. Franklin/So your talking about smaller studies that are not whole district planning. Vanderhoef/The thing that crossed my mind big time when we were talking about the Weeber Harlocke area and knowing what the terrain is there in the southwest area is is there any possibility to do a similar kind of thing over there that we are doing on the south side with the South Sycamore drainage. Franklin/A regional detention basin. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 42 Vanderhoef/And that's a whole lot of study that needs to be done by staff long before it comes to us for discussion. And that's something I would be interested in at least having a preliminary look at it if anybody else is interested in looking at that. Franklin/So then your suggesting deferring the central district. Pfab/I would second Dee's concern about the drainage but that really, I don't think really the drainage si the biggest problem in that Harlocke area, there is some really, some engineering and layout there that really, it's like no place that I'm aware of in Iowa City and it's not just the drainage, I don't know how the number of things got into that area the way t hey are, I think it's a, it's something that needs some immediate attention and a lot of attention, that's my personal view and I spent a fair amount of time going through it and I just, I've been out there a number of years ago and I thought the same thing and I thought well, and all of a sudden that I saw back a number of years it all came back and hit me. For some reason it seems like there' s a lot of problems there, that are just built into those developments and with the narrow streets and this, and turns and what not. That thing seems to be a very neglected area as far as I'm concerned. Lehman/Connie. Champion/Well I don't think it's neglected I think it's got some problems but there is not an area of town that doesn't have problems. The central area we've done a lot of things in the past couple years trying to keep those neighborhoods in tact, the down zonings, the overlay zoning that we've done, the conservation areas. And the thing about the central area is those are strong neighborhoods and there' s not a lot ofdevelopable land left. Is there any? Franklin/I think maybe Chadek's is it. Champion/Yea, because the southwest part does have developable land that I would. Franklin/A lot the southwest, excuse me, is in our growth area. Champion/Right, I would like to see that done before the central district because it might prevent the problems that we're dealing with right now, and we seem to deal with specific problems in the central district, you know what I'm saying. So I would like to move the southwest district and unlike Dee Vanderhoef I'm not just interested in the drainage, I'd like to see a plan for that area to develop, before it develops without a plan. Franklin/Okay. Lehman/Mike. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 43 O'Donnell/I agree. Kanner/I had a question, you had given us a memo about a version of one of the staff doing a quarter time more (can't hear) historic preservation. Franklin/Yes and I wanted to bring that up, thank you for raising it. Kanner/That will just delay all of this process according to what your saying so we're really not dealing so much with that issue (can't hear). Franklin/Tonight we're, I mean tonight what we're dealing with is the priorities with that other issue of the increased quarter time for historic preservation and a quarter time coming out of long range planning that means that the, all the district planning work is going to go slower than it already is and I guess I wanted confirmation from you that' s in fact what you want to do. Champion/Well that will also help protect the central district. Wilburn/I was going to ask will having that person work on some of those issues relate to some of the remaining issues left in the central district or? Franklin/That is where most of that work is going to occur sure. Wilbum/Okay. Franklin/Because that's where our older neighborhoods are. Champion/(Can't hear) to allow the central district to have a little more protection because that's where most of the historic preservation is anyway so. Franklin/From that perspective yes, I mean historic preservation deals with certain things having to do with design and rebuilding and demolition it does not address traffic circulation, zoning, drainage, any of those other things that. Lehman/Karin how much time would be required to finish, or to do the central district? Franklin/Well we figure that it takes about 6 months to a year to do a district. Lehman/Would this be more or less time consuming do you suspect than some of the others? Franklin/Well I'm thinking that it may be more time consuming because it is already developed and there are then the complexities of a complete population, what it is you want to do with the area, I mean I'm sure one of the issues in the central planning district is going to be traffic. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 44 (END OF 01-37 SIDE TWO) Franklin/Really house types of things. Lehman/Are those really part of the comprehensive plan for that area? Franklin/Those are the issues that are going to come for~vard in terms of that district and what some of the issues there that have to do with zoning, that have to do with how the city manages those districts to the extent that we do manage them. Lehman/Well my only concern is that we've done and I think we've paid some attention to the central area, Lucas Governor Street zoning, the zoning we did on that property adjacent to Iowa Avenue, the, our looking at historic and conservation districts. It seems to me that from a concern for frugality ifthere's such a word, that that area probably is in the biggest danger of some really bad things happening in that area of the community. And I hate to see us having gone as far as we have not complete that, that. Champion/Are you talking about the central district? Lehman/Yea I am because there are some beautiful homes, there are lots and lots of trees, there' s all kinds of things that we want to maintain in there and I think our actions have pretty much indicated that over the last year and a half, two years, with the down zonings with the conservation district, with the historic, I mean thaCs been pretty high priority, I hate to see that priority change and that' s not to say we can't address pockets in other districts that may need attention more quickly perhaps than the entire district. But I think the central district is one that really, it's a high priority for me. Franklin/Okay I will remind you that the people who are doing the long range planning and working through the district planning process are the same people who will do these pocket studies. So just to say. Lehman/Can they be done? Let me just ask you this. Franklin/Everything can be done it's just a matter of time and how quickly it gets done and that's why we ask you for priorities. Lehman/I appreciate that, but if we decide to address the entire southwest, southeast, north corridor whatever district, we're going to do the entire district, we're going to spend six months to a year and we're basically jumping on some of this because of a problem that' s a very small portion of that district. Can we address a couple This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 45 of those small problems while we're doing the central district without an inordinate amount of energy and time being spent? Franklin/I don't want to be difficult but. Lehman/Be difficult go ahead. Franklin/You define this. the Harlocke Weeber area as a small problem within a larger district, I would think that a number of people in the district would tell you that the issue is a consequence of the larger district and development on the west side because they are like the central district feeling the impact of the development on the edges coming to the employment centers. Lehman/True, well what do we want to do guys and gals? Pfab/I'm proposing we head to the southwest. Kanner/First ofalI we have to look out for University Heights maybe taking us over now. Lehman/Oh I thought maybe you were going to suggest we do that one next. Kanner/No I saw those flyers, I didn't see those flyers but I read about those flyers last year but my issue and I don't know if this is shared by the majority is to look at density and how we can think about density as we go further out perhaps in the southwest and maybe get a bit higher density which would maybe relieve some pressures perhaps in the inter city part that I'd like to see us, if we're going to develop out in the southwest how we can get perhaps a few more apartments or. Lehman/So your saying you want, the southwest is a priority for you. Kanner/I guess I'm leaning that way. Lehman/Okay. Kanner/And another question just to, I want to find out, Hawkeye Court is in the northwest is that correct? Franklin/Yes. Lehman/That's right. Kanner/I think that' s a concern that we also have to talk about because there has been talk from the University about a year ago about maybe doing away with that or refurbishing them, in any case we need to work with the University perhaps a little This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 46 more in these developments. Is that something that's taking into account of how we can work with the University on these comprehensive plans? Lehman/Not really, I don't think really. Franklin/That' s a tough one Steven, University as an entity has not been, has not always been involved in the district plans, they have had some participation from people from the University, I don't mean faculty or staff, people in the administration of the University coming to the district planning sessions, I mean mostly in the body of Larry Wilson who is very interested in this type of thing. So there is some connection there but to say that our district planning process is going to alter the direction of the policies of the University I think would be going a little far but we can certainly talk to them about issues and we do have fairly frequent communications with them in terms of what projects they are planning at an administrative level, staff level. Kanner/Yea so I'm not sure in my mind how it fits in with priority, prioritization of this. Franklin/I mean Hawkeye Court and that issue is one that obviously is geographically in the northwest district but it is also something that as the University looks at how they're going to provide housing we do have conversations with them about that. I have about four people who have indicated that the southwest should become a priority. Lehman/Okay let' s count noses, how many want southwest to be a priority? Wilbum/Hold on a second Ernie, if I'm remembering right what you said, probably the unresolved issue that will come out of the central minus the historic preservation stuff is the transportation stuff is that correct? Franklin/Yes. Wilburn/Now if there' s questions with rezoning and all that stuff people will still come to us with? Franklin/Sure, I mean when we focus on a planning district it isn't as if we ignore all the other sections of town obviously, them are applications that come before us, there are neighborhood associations that bring certain issues to us, so we're always going to be dealing with those things to various degrees. Wilburn/But if we go to the southwest, I really would like to just, I really would like to finish up the central so that I can just, not that anything's ever done with but you can feel like you kind of wrestled with that. Lehman/That' s how I feel, I think we have to do the central. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 47 O'Donnell/We've done a great deal in the central Ernie but. Lehman/I know but I think we should finish it, I think we started a really good job that there' s some really fragile areas there although I don't there are nearly as many as there were a year ago even but that's, we can argue this all night. How many want to do the southwest as a top priority? In other words that's number one, I see one, I see two, I see, we've got it, you've got it Karin, as you get close to the end of the southwest come back to us and we'll then tell you what we want to do next. Okay. Vanderhoef/If you can work in the pocket piece of the north corridor. Franklin/Well I think we'll probably have a rezoning request which will mean we will have to address it. Schedulin~ of PCRB Joint Meeting Lehman/Okay now we need to schedule a meeting with the PCRB to discuss the sunset clause or any proposed changes that we might to make in that ordinance. Champion/Can we do it before any work session that' s already scheduled? Lehman/I think we probably can, we need to give Marjan some dates. Karr/Well you had talked the last time about scheduling it before a work session and when we started taking a look at your upcoming work sessions they were pretty full and then also going into when we'd be advertising for replacements to the PCRB and so that's why Ernie put it back on the agenda, the 16th you've got a City Conference Board and a fairly heavy agenda that evening and if your going into May then you've got three readings on your PCRB ordinance before you advertise for vacancies. Lehman/Could we do it a week from tomorrow night the 10th? Does the PCRB have a meeting on the 10th? Champion/Sure. Vanderhoef/I'm out of town as of Wednesday through the following (can't hear). Pfab/That's Tuesday, the 10th is Tuesday. Karr/PCRB meets on the 10th. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 48 Champion/Well they'd probably like to (can't hear). Kanner/Yea I'm not going to be here either. Lehman/All right can't do it on the 10th. Vanderhoef/I'm out this Wednesday through the 1 lth. Champion/How about a morning meeting? Lehman/Well what we need to do is select some dates and give those to the PCRB and let them select a date that we can all get together. Your leaving this Wednesday all right. Vanderhoeff And coming back the 1 lth. Karr/The 1 lth, I've got those dates. Lehman/All fight guys, the 10th is shot down, what are other dates are a possibility? Sooner the better I believe. Pfab/How soon is it too soon? Karr/It isn't too soon. Lehman/Nothing is too soon. Pfab/Tomorrow I mean just for instance. Karr/Well you need 24 hours notice. Champion/Tomorrow is not a possibility. Pfab/So how far out? Karr/Well Dee Vanderhoefjust mentioned she' s gone the 4th through the 10th so it would be after the 1 lth, to have all seven of you it would have to be after the 1 lth. Pfab/What about the 12th, 13th? Lehman/Will you be here from the 1 lth (can't hear). Champion/It is the 12th. Lehman/We may just have to have this without you. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 49 Karr/12th is a Thursday. Lehman/12th is a Thursday. O'Donnell/RJ is out of town then. Lehman/RJ's out when? Atkins/11 through 17. Lehman/all right then we're talking about the earliest the 18th or later, 18th is a Wednesday. Pfab/Oh my god. Champion/You know what happens, why can't we expedite the third reading, we do it for other things, can we expedite that third meeting? Karr/Of course that's already available to you. Lehman/Is the 18th? Pfab/No the 18th is. Wilburn/No I'm out on the 18th. Pfab/I'm out of it. Lehman/18th's gone, 19th. Champion/What day of the week is that on? Karr/19th is a Thursday. Champion/Okay that would work for me. Karr/19th, Thursday. Pfab/That sounds, that looks good. Karr/19th, Thursday is an option. Pfab/19th your talking 19th right. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 50 Karr/Correct. Lehman/How about a moming does that work7 Champion/Moming. Karr/19th, AM option okay. Kanner/I'm going to go to some of the HUD conference I mean I could step out from that. Karr/Yea the HUD conference is. Lehman/If we met like at 8:00. Karr/The HUD conference. Kanner/You like these early. Lehman/I would meet at 7:00 if we could. Champion/So would I. Karmer/No, no, no, no. Lehman/No it won't work for, would 8:00 work? Wilburn/8:30 would work. Lehman/8:30 on the 19th. Karmer/That' s sounding better, no one like' s 9. Champion/That's too late. Lehman/He's half gone, 8:30 on the Thursday the 19th is a option Marian. Karr/Option got it. Champion/Okay should we make that evening also an option? Lehman/Make that Thursday evening an option as well. Champion/Like 5:00, 5-6:30. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2,2001 Special Work Session Page 51 Vanderhoef/What time does the conference get over Steven? Kanner/Well I can leave I think, I'm not sure of the schedule. Lehman/Okay Thursday morning or evening. Pfab/And what time of the evening? Lehman/5:00 I'm sorry, morning or afternoon. Karr/I will call Mr. Watson who is the chair and maybe get something back in the mail to you. Lehman/Can we do that right now, you can talk to John tomorrow, if that doesn't work tomorrow night after the meeting we'll do this. Karr/All right. Lehman/So tentatively the 19th morning or evening. Champion/And even evening, even evening, just have one day when we're going to be available they can find time on that day. Lehman/If it doesn't work we' 11 try to pick another time tomorrow night. Karr/All right. Champion/Okay I'm already five minutes late. Summer Schedule Lel'cman/Know summer schedule, are we going to do that tonight or tomorrow night? Kanner/Tonight. Karr/That's up to you. Champion/I'm flexible except I'm always gone the first Sunday of August, what's that date for a week. Lehman/Who does not have their calendar with them? Vanderhoef/Me, I forget it. Champion/Should we feel them out? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 52 Lehman/Could you bring them tomorrow night? O'Donnell/Why can't this be done at the following work session? Lehman/I don't know. Karr/It can wait until April 16 but we are setting projects and it is going to affect some project bid lettings and stuff if you do schedule. Lehman/I will not be here the first meeting of June as of presently proposed. Champion/I will not be here, I leave the first Sunday of August, I don't know what the date is, I'm gone for a week. Karr/How about this, why don't you do this, why don't you call me with your absences, and let me see what they hit and then I can get back to you with some conflicts. Champion/That would be good. Karr/And then we'll do it on the 16th, how' s that. Lehman/All right. O'Donnell/Things used to be a lot easier. Lehman/Things always used to be, all right. We didn't get anything done there either. Champion/Can we go? Council Time Lehman/No Council time, I have one thing I'd like to bring up, there' s been a lot of discussion around the community and some unhappiness and a great deal of misunderstanding when it came to the assessment done by Vanguard of property. You know we've been aligned aligned by the press and by everybody else, this is something the city did, this is not something the city had anything to do with, it's mandated by state law. If the Council concurs I would propose that we contact the school district and the County Board of Supervisors and try to set up a public meeting with representatives with each of the neighborhoods who with Dan Hudson and perhaps Vanguard if possible to explain the procedure, how we arrived at the calculations that are there, what the process is, if people are not pleased, or unhappy enough because I think there's a lot of questions. There are plenty of answers it just doesn't seem that the right people are getting the answers. So if it's all right with the Council. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 53 O'Donnell/I think that's (can't hear). Champion/I think it's a great idea and I'll be part of the audience because I'm very unhappy. Lehman/All right well then Steve we will contact the President of the School Board and also the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors. Pfab/Is this something that we can hold like in the public library as a public forum? Karr/Excuse me is this a Conference Board meeting? Atkins/Yea that's, you have the Conference Board on the 16th. Karr/You see you've got. Lehman/We want the concurrence of the Board because Dan Hudson is an employee of three of them. Karr/You'll be meeting with them the 16th. Atkins/You'll see them on the 16th. Karr/Next Monday, the. Lehman/That isn't going to serve the purpose of this meeting. Karr/No, I'm just asking as far as posting are you asking for a Conference Board meeting or are you just asking for representatives? Lelunan/That' s a decision to be determined by the City Clerk and concurrence with the City Attorney, I don't know what it is. Vanderhoef/But there' s a time constraint in here if we wait that late to set that because these people have to file their objections. Lehman/Objections. Vanderhoef/And the Conference Board meets starting when, middle of April to middle of May? Karr/You don't mean the Conference Board you mean the Appeals Board. Lehman/The Appeals. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 54 Vanderhoef/The Appeals Board. Dilkes/Are you talking about the appeals to the Board of Review? Atkins/Yea. Karr/Yea. Dilkes/Yea I mean I think you need to think about the timing of that and the scheduling of this meeting. Vanderhoef/It needs to be sooner. Lehman/it needs to be as soon as we can have it, it's not the sort of thing that all of us have to be at, it's just something that needs to be available for the public and I think it would probably would be appropriate if it were covered by the press. Pfab/Is that something that would be better putting in the public library or a larger forum where more people can? Arkins/Okay now that's where, folks my advice to you be very very cautious about that, you get 50 to 100 people in a room and everybody is going to be worded about their assessment and not the other guys. I would strong encourage you to tell Dan and I think you just tell Dan Hudson you want a forum that allows him to explain the process. Now I'm not here to debate yours or yours or yours, they're everybody is entitled to the Board of Review but it's a legal process and it also a very technical process, that' s why the assessors have to have licenses, you need to be real careful about the kind of meeting you conduct if it turns into a public hearing your not going to accomplish anything. Champion/Your right. Dilkes/Or any expectation that you create that this is some kind of forum for address and they don't need to do w hat they need to do with the Board of Review and that kind of thing, I agree with that you need to be careful. Pfab/Well maybe no public, maybe just an information. Arkins/And that would be fine. O'Donnell/What's the purpose bringing some representatives, (can't hear) from the neighborhoods. Pfab/No, no, no, make it an information forum. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 55 Atkins/Yea the important thing I think there' s merit to that Irvin, I think the important thing is that folks understand the law, understand the process, and understand the consequences of it because as you know, you know a good of the assessment process is directly driven by the school aid formulas that have to be put together and that's why we do what we have to do and I really believe if you can put together, or have Dan put together a process that explains to people, they can also go to the Board of Review well armed with information on how they can appeal their particular assessment if they would choose to do so. Champion/Maybe this needs to be done so it doesn't turn into a my backyard type thing. Lehman/No your right, it needs to be an information meeting. Champion/Maybe it needs to be done on a video tape (can't hear). Pfab/(can't hear) the public lacks information. Champion/Be available at the library so people get an explanation about what's happening because everybody is upset and frankly I don't blame them, I said the assessor that I now am sitting on a $180,000 lot and I asked if they were going to bring the Atlantic Ocean to Summit Street. Atkins/And the problem Cormie is that's what the meeting will turn into and you won't accomplish a thing. Champion/I know it, you can't do that, that' s right, but maybe we need to ask him, because they have not gone to any meetings and I don't blame them but maybe we need to ask the assessor if they'd be willing to do a videotape that could be put on public TV and be available at the library to explain to people how this assessment took place and why their assessment seem weird to them because they are weird. Pfab/Well I don't think they're weird, I think for a long time that the land value was not. Lehman/Right, we're not going to discuss land value, we have a consensus that it would be nice to get more information out, let' s work on it, but we will try to schedule some sort of informational meeting. Pfab/Or a presentation. Lehman/Well same thing. Pfab/Or maybe like a videotape. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 56 Atkins/That does not prevent the assessors office from meeting with neighborhood groups if they were to wish to do so. Lehman/Oh no, no, I'm well aware of that. Atkins/Because each neighborhood is going to believe and probably rightfully so that they have a unique set of circumstances with respect to how their assessment process affects each and every property in the neighborhood but the thing that's most important I believe is that folks simply don't understand. Lehman/I think that' s true. Pfab/What about our TV unit here putting together something. I mean there's some marvelous. Atkins/You can not do it independent of the decision of the school board and the county, they have got to. Pfab/Right, yes. Lehman/We will contact them and we'll go from there. Pfab/Okay I think that' s a great idea. Council Time Lehman/All right other Council time. Pfab/Okay I would just like to ask Steve how things are going over at Weber School the sidewalk and7 Arkins/I contacted the principal I'm waiting to hear back from them, I did that same day you called. I haven't heard back from them. Kanner/Irvin what did you say? Pfab/Okay. Arkins/Irvin called in a school crossing (can't hear). Pfab/Okay is there any possibility of just putting school crossing signs up, something to alert those people that those kids are going out? Atkins/Not if it's not a school crossing. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 57 Pfab/Pardon. Atkins/Not if it's not a school crossing, you want to do it officially, you don't want to sign something because there' s a, basically you create a false sense of security. Pfab/Okay. Atkins/That's part of what I'm proposing to them Irvin. Pfab/But okay so there' s movement on it. Atkins/I've contacted the schools I'm waiting to hear back from them, I did that the same day. Pfab/There' s also a developer out there right? Atkins/Yes. Vanderhoef/Do I get? Pfab/No as long as your not going to be here we aren't going to listen. Champion/I'm sorry Dee's not done, no, go ahead. Lehman/Wait a minute we've got, Dee' s got something else. Vanderhoef/Actually I had two quick things for tonight. Number one the bottle bill that came out of committee to be debated on the floor and there is a rally going to happen is it tomorrow or Wednesday, anyway I can't attend that but Ernie said he might go. I want to make sure this Council is still in favor of the "Beautiful Land" bill that we did our letter originally and I think it would be appropriate to recontact the legislatures and let them know that we don't approve, the new, the bill that came out of committee is the one that takes the responsibility away from the retailers, it will be set up with approximately 100 recycle centers spaced some place around the state, they don't have any plan yet on how to do that. They're probably going to set up some sort of a board to do this and what it really amounts to is that it will become so inconvenient that the bottle bill will basically die in my estimation and I still support the original "Beautiful Land" bottle bill and I hope you do too and (can't hear). Lehman/Okay. Kanner/So Dee what are you asking of Council? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 58 Lehman/Contact your representative. Vanderhoef/Just to contact the legislatures and let them know that we don't support the bill that's out on the floor and that we do support the one that didn't make it out of committee and that we would be happier to wait another year and bring back the "Beautiful Land" bottle bill. Pfab/So at this point. Karmer/Hold on a second Irvin, did we, when we passed that resolution before did we send it to the Speaker of the House or Senate leader? I'm thinking that maybe we can send a letter now. Vanderhoef/I think we need to reremind them. Lehman/It's going to be. Kanner/With the mayor' s sign. Lehman/It's got to be an e-mail because that' s going to come up too quickly. Kanner/Or an e-mail from the Mayor on the behalf of the Council. Lehman/I can do that. Kanner/To remind you about our resolution to the Speaker and the Senate. Vanderhoef/And it can be done tomorrow because we've got it all on (can't hear). And do you concur that we do not want to support the bill that' s on the floor? Pfab/Right, right. Champion/Right. Pfab/Okay so maybe we ought to fax every, everyone in the house. Champion/(can't hear) local legislatures. Vanderhoef/So if we can get that out. Pfab/I would propose that. Champion/Did you have a second one? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 59 Vanderhoef/Yes I do have a second one. When we as Councilors are appointed to represent the Council in other government business whether it be SEATS, whether it be CVVB, whether it be EICOG, whether ifs the CEO's, whether ifs JCCOG, the philosophical question that I have for all of you is who do we individually represent when we go to those larger regional kinds of activity? Champion/I think we obviously represent the Iowa City Council. Vanderhoef/Okay. For my part I see I'm representing both the Cotmcil but I'm also there because I am representing the whole region and when I go and do a vote at ECICOG like the bottle bill, I brought it here first, knew that you folks supported it, took it to the COG, the original COG and got support. But when I vote whether I vote at JCCOG, whether I vote at CVVB, whether I voted at ECICOG or the Chief Elected Officials I'm voting for the region so I had a real concern and I guess I have to ask you Steven who were you voting for when we were at JCCOG last Wednesday and you voted no on the movement of STP funds from the South Sycamore Road over to the Mormon Trek and you chose not to support the Council majority? Kanner/I was voting on behalf of the citizens of Iowa City and also for the greater region. Vanderhoef/But you voted for that in my eyes at City Council and the majority of the City Council said we support the movement of those funds from South Sycamore to Mormon Trek and the arguments that I heard from you both at Council and at JCCOG had to do with I don't support any roads, that' s what you were saying, that' s what I thought I was hearing you say, I don't support roads, I support all those money' s being put into transit. Kanner/No I didn't say all into transit, I support some roads, but I think that. Vanderhoef/But the point I'm. Kanner/If your getting at who do we represent I think the whole reason we have six people that go to JCCOG's because we're not having one person representing the majority, we're having six people representing the point of view of Iowa City, so I certainly think we're free to vote who we want. Just as when you voted ECICOG's you vote on not always necessarily for Iowa City but for other reasons but I feel quite comfortable voting the way I did Dee I think I'm representing what I feel are the best interests of Iowa City and obviously it's different from majority at times and I think that's fine. Lehman/I think that JCCOG representatives are representatives of the Council and I really have no difficulty whatsoever in your expressing your disagreement with the position taken by the City, but I think as a representative of the City you should vote the way the Council has voted. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 60 Kanner/Oh I disagree fully, I would love to have a work session on this and really get into it because I'm not prepared right now. Lehman/Well it just came up. Kanner/There' s some great philosophical questions and I think it's good you brought those up Dee and in general I think the whole idea of voting and who we represent and how (can't hear) I think would be great to talk about it (can't hear) discussion. Lehman/I wouldn't mind talking about it but let me ask you this if we talked about those at a work session and the Council decided that a representative will vote as the Council did would you go along with that? Kanner/Ernie let me ask you. Lehman/No, no, no, let me ask you that because there' s no point in talking about it. Kanner/Ernie when you talk about Iowa Child and your support of it, who do you represent? When Steve Atkins talks about his position on the Chamber of Commerce or ICAD or so forth, who does he represent? We haven't taken positions on those things. Lehman/And I don't represent the Council when I speak either. Kanner/What's that? Lehman/I don't represent the Council when I speak for Iowa Child or against it or either one. Kanner/I think you speak as the Mayor and that's in the same line as the philosophical who we represent, there' s nothing legal about the way I vote. Lehman/No, no, I know. Kanner/People are not locked into a vote and Emie if you want to have this discussion I think now when I'm caught without the knowledge. Lehman/No, no, I don't want the discussion now, I don't want it now, now is obviously not going to work because it's not on the agenda and the City Attorney is going to tell us we can't talk about it. Kanner/But I think in the broader sense of who, how we vote and what's majority and get back to that what's the team player, I think it would be great to have that general discussion. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001. April 2, 2001 Special Work Session Page 61 Lehman/I don't have any problem with putting that on a work session. Pfab/I would go for that that' s fine. ???/And some. Champion/Well I do have a problems putting it on the work session if it's not going to have a productive end. O'Donnell/And you can't see it possibly (can't hear). Lehman/Well if the Council decides, well that's something we can talk about. Dilkes/Well I don't think, I think you can't get there until you talk about it and if your going to talk about it in depth you need to give notice to public that your going to do that and put it on. Lehman/Because you won't let us. O'Donnell/Let' s go, let' s go home and watch TV. Lehman/All right tomorrow night. Vanderhoef/Okay. Adjourned 8:35 PM This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City Council meeting of April 2, 2001.