Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-01-08 Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. 02-3994 Prepared by: Shelley McCaffer[y, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5243 (REZ01-00019) AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE FROM MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY (RS-8) TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY (RS-81OHP) FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE LONGFELLOW HISTORIC DISTRICT WITHIN THE LONGFELLOW NEIGHBORHOOD. WHEREAS, the Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan, contained in the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan, recommends consideration of the designation of historic districts within the Longfellow neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan recommends the preservation of the integrity of historic neighborhoods, the stabilization of neighborhoods, and supports efforts of the Historic Preservation Commission; and WHEREAS, the Iowa City Municipal Code authorizes the Historic Preservation Commission to nominate and the City Council to designate historic districts, where deemed appropriate, as a means of preserving the neighborhood character of traditional Iowa City neighborhoods, or for preserving areas that exemplify unique or distinctive development patterns; and WHEREAS, the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission has completed a study of the Longfellow neighborhoods and has found that portions of this neighborhood retain substantia[ integrity to meet the criteria for designation as a historic district; and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission feels that designation of the Longfellow Historic District within the Longfellow neighborhood will help stabilize property values and encourage reinvestment in older neighborhoods by providing for design review of new construction or alterations of existing buildings to assure compatibility with the existing character of the district, and will encourage the retention of existing contributing structures within the Longfellow neighborhood; and WHEREAS, at its August 9, 2001 public hearing, the Historic Preservation Commission nominated said district for designation as a historic district; and WHEREAS, at its September 20, 2001 rneeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the proposed historic district designation and the District Guidelines for the Longfellow Neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the State Historical Society of Iowa has reviewed the proposed nomination and concurs with the recommendations contained within the historic district report; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA Cli~', IOWA: SECTION I. APPROVAL. The Longfellow Historic District, legally described below and illustrated on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby designated as a Historic Preservation Overlay (OHP) Zone and subject to the provisions and guidelines contained within the District Guidelines for the Longfellow Neighborhood, which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference: Beginning at the northwest corner of lot 22, in Kauffman's Addition, Iowa City, Johnson County, iowa, Section II, Township 79 North, Range 6 West; Thence easterly 214.23 feet to the northeast corner of lot 21, Kauffman's Addition; Thence easterly 15 feet to the northwest corner of Cakes First Addition; Thence easterly 360 feet to the northeast corner of lot 22, Cakes First Addition: Thence easterly 20 feet to a point on the east line of the alley belween Burlington and Court Streets; Thence northerly 7 feet to a point on the eastern boundary of the 20 foot alley west of Muscatine Avenue between Cour~ and Burlington Streets; Thence easterly 92.2 feet and southerly 35.3 feet to the northwest corner of lot 1, Koser's Subdivislon; Thence easterly 145 feet to the western R.O.W. line of Muscatine Avenue; 'thence easterly to a point on the centerline of Muscatine Avenue that intersects the projected north boundary line of Koser's' Subdivision; Thence southeasterly to ~ point where said centerline intersects with the projected centerline of the 20 foot alley between Rundell and Dearborn Streets; Thence southerly along the centedine of said alley to a point where centerline intersects with the projected south boundary line of lot 11, block 9, Rundell Additions; Thence southwesterly to the centerline of tile '16 foot alley between Rundell and Dearborn Streets at the south R.O.W. of Sheridan Avenue; Thence southerly atong Ordinance No. 02-3994 Page 2 centedine of said 16 foot alley to where said centerline intersects with the eastward projected south boundary line of lot 2, block 8, Rundell Addition; Thence westerly 133 feet to the southwest corner of said lot 2; Thence northerly 50 feet along the east R.O.W. line of Rundell Street; Thence westerly 60 feet to the west R.O.W. line of Rundell Street; Continuing westerly 125 feet to the southwest corner of lot 18, block 6, Rundell Addition; Continuing westerly 8 feet to the centerline of the 16 foot alley running along the western boundary of the propedies fronting the west side of Rundell Street; Thence southerly 75 feet along the centerline of said alley; Thence westerly to the southwest corner of lot 1, block 6, Rundell Addition; Thence northwesterly along the west boundary of said lot 1 to the centerline of Sheridan Avenue; Thence westerly along the centerline of Sheridan Avenue to a point 148 feet east of where said centerline intersects with the projected east boundary line of lot 17, block 2, Reagan's Second Addition; Thence southerly to the south R.O.W. line of Sheridan Avenue; Continuing southerly 91 feet; Thence westerly 98 feet to a point on the east R.O.W. line of Maggard Street; Thence westerly 25 feet to the centerline of Maggard Street; Thence northerly to a point where said centerline intersects with the projected south boundary line of lot 17, block 2, Reagan's Second Addition; Thence westerly 25 feet to the southeast corner of lot 17, block 2, Reagan's Second Addition; Thence westerly 236.1 feet to the southwest corner of lot 1, block 2, Reagan's Second Addition; Thence westerly 30 feet to the centedine of Roosevelt Street; Thence southerly 60 feet to a point where said centerline intersects with the projected south boundary line of lot 2, block 1, Reagan's Second Addition; Thence westerly 30 feet to the southeast corner of lot 2, block 1 of Reagan's Second Addition; Thence westerly 140 feet to the southwest corner of said lot 2; Thence westerly 10 feet to the centerline of the alley between Roosevelt Street and Clark Street; Thence northerly to a point where said centerline intersects with the projected south boundary line of lot 1, block 3, Reagan's First Addition; Thence westerly 10 feet to the southeast corner of lot 1, block 3 of Reagan's First Addition; Thence westerly 60 feet along the south boundary of said lot 1; Thence northerly 220 feet to a point on the north boundary of lot 5, block 2 of Reagan's First Addition; thence easterly 60 feet to the northeast corner of said lot 5; Continuing easterly 10 feet to the centerline of the alley just east of Clark Street, between Sheridan Avenue and Seymour Avenue; Thence northerly 500 feet to the south boundary line of lot 14 of Coldren's Addition; Thence easterly 12 feet to the southeast corner of said lot 14; Thence northerly 156 feet to the northeast corner of lot 15 of Coldren's Addition; Thence easterly 61 feet to a point on the west boundary of the property belonging to Longfellow School; Thence northerly to the northeast corner of lot 37 of Cakes Second Addition; Thence westerly 235 feet to the northwest corner of said lot; Thence westerly 30 feet to the centerline of Clark Street; Thence northerly 9.83 feet along said centedine; Thence westerly 139.17 feet; Thence northerly 168.26 feet to the centerline of Court Street; Thence easterly 23.44 feet along said centerline; Thence northerly 30 feet to the southeast corner of lot 23 of Kauffman's Addition; Thence northerly 162.2 feet to a point on the western boundary of the vacated alley east of Summit Street between Court Street and Burlington Street, in Kauffman's Addition; Thence easterly 15 feet to the point of beginning. SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance as provided by law. SECTION Ill. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval ,of the Ordinance, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and to record the same at the office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, all as provided by law. SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION V. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION VI. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this 8th day of Januar.y ,2002 Ordinance No. 02-3994 Page. 3 CITY ~LERK Approved by Ci(y Attorney's Office Ordinance No. 02-3994 Page 4 It was moved by Pfab and seconded by 0' Donnel 1 that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: X Champion X Kanner X Lehman X O'Donnell X Pfab X Vanderhoef X Wilbum First Consideration 11/27/01 Voteforpassage:AYES: Lehman, O'Donnell, Pfab, Vanden'hoer, t~lbut~n, Champ'ion, Kannet-. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration 12/11/01 Voteforpassage: AYES: Kanner, Lehman, O'Donne]], Pfab, Vanden'hoer, Wilbur'n, Champion. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Date published ~./16/02 (These guidelines Will be included Within the Iowa City Histodc Preservation Handbook upon designation of these districts. All five districts in the Longfellow neighbod~ood share many similar charectedstics, The guidelines pertain to all districts except where otherwise noted. These guidelines replace, Without substantive change, the guidelines already adopted for the Govemor-Lucas-Bowary Conservation District.) DISTRICT GUIDELINES FOR THE LONGFELLOW NEIGHBORHOOD (Appendix A) (Single-Family and Duplex Buildings) Including: Summit Street Histodc District, Longfellow Historic District, Lucas-Governor Street Conservation District, Clark Street Conservation District, and Dearborn Street Conservation District. Site and Scale Guidelines (Additions~ New Primary Structures, and Outbuildinqs) Setback, Front: For new primary structures, the building setback from the street should be established based upon the setbacks of existing buildings located adjacent to the proposed building. The setback of the new primary structure should conform with the average of the setbacks of the four nearest primary structures located within the same block and along the same street frontage. The setbacks of existing buildings shall be measured at the first floor wall of the main living area of the building, excluding a covered or enclosed porch. Front porches are prevalent on existing buildings within the districts. New buildings may contain covered front porches that extend into the front yard, provided they are located no closer to the street than any of the other porches along the same street frontage. Building additions should be placed at the rear of a property if possible. Additions at or near the front of an existing building shall be set back at least 18 inches from the front plane of the existing building and shall be differentiated by a change in the roofline or other means. On Summit Street only: The rear wall of the primary structures must not extend deeper than 125 feet from the front street. This restriction preserves the openness of the rear yards. Building Facade: The total surface area of the street elevation of a new primary structure should be no more than 800 square feet. Existing primary structures should not be expanded in such a manner that the total surface area exceeds 800 square feet. For the purposes of enforcing this guideline, the total surface area of the street elevation shall be defined as a figure derived by calculating the surface area of all wall and roof surfaces, including window and door openings, that are visible in an accurate street elevation drawing of the building. On Governor, Bowery, and Court Streets only: The total surface area of the street elevation should be no more than 1200 square feet for a new building or for an existing building including a new addition. On Summit Street only: The total surface area of the street elevation should be no more than 1500 square feet for a new building or for an existing building including a new addition, and not less than 750 square feet for a new building. A-1 Outbuildings: Outbuildings, including garages, should be placed to the rear of the primary building whenever possible. Attached garages are discouraged, but if constructed should be set back at least 20 feet from the front plane of the building. In the Summit Street Historic District only: Attached garages are not allowed. Garages must be located at the rear of the property wherever possible. Garages and other outbuildings should be dearly subordinate in size to the primary structure. Pedestrian Access: A sidewalk shall be provided that connects the entrance door or porch to the public sidewalk. Vehlqular Access: Vehicular access should be provided from an alley if available. Driveways leading from the street to garages or parking at the rear of the property should be one-lane in width, but can be widened toward the back of the lot to provide access to multi-stall garages or parking spaces. Parking: Parking spaces are not permitted between the primary structure and the street. Parking should be provided behind the primary structure on a lot wherever possible. If parking must be located along the side of an existing or new primary structure, it shall be set back from the front plane of the building a minimum of 10 feet and be screened by a decorative fence, landscaping, or a combination of a decorative fence and landscaping, and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. Architectural Guidelines for New Outbuildings Building Styles: New outbuildings behind contributing'primary structures should reflect the style of the primary structure. New outbuildings behind noncontributing primary structures should reflect histodc outbuilding styles in the neighborhood. Garage Doors: Garage doom visible from the street should be simple in design. Smooth or simple panel-type garage doom may be used. Garage door openings should be trimmed to match other doom and windows in the building. Single-stall garage doom am preferred to double-stall garage doors. Architectural Guidelines for New Primary Structures Building Styles: Architectural style is a defining characteristic for historic and conservation districts. A new pdmary structure should reflect the histodc ,styles of its neighborhood. Although new construction may adapt and mix some elements of different styles, a single style should dictate the height and mass, rooflines, fenestration, and overhangs for the new building. Please refer to the section entitled "Architectural Styles in Iowa City" for examples of historic building styles. The architectural styles representative of each distdct are given below. In the Summit Street Historic Distdct only: A new building should reflect Italianate, Colonial Revival, Queen Anne, Vernacular, Foursquare, or Eclectic style. A-2 In the Lon.qfellow Historic District only: A new building should reflect Colonial Revival, Queen Anne, Vernacular, Foursquare, Bungalow, Craftsman, Period Cottage, or Eclectic style. In the Lucas-Govenor Conservation District only: A new building on Governor Street should reflect tta/ianate, Queen Anne, Vernacular, or Foursquare style. A new structure on Lucas Street should reflect Queen Anne, Vernacular, Foursquare, Bungalow, or Craftsman style. In the Clark Street Conservation District only: A new building should reflect either Colonial Revival, Queen Anne, Vernacular, Foursquare, Bungalow, or Craftsman style. In the Dearborn Street Conservation District only: A new building should reflect Vernacular, Foursquare, Period Cottage, Bungalow, Craftsman, or Eclectic style. Building Height and Mass: New single-family houses or duplexes shall be one, one- and-a-half, or two-stories in height. In the Summit Street Historic District only: New single-family houses shall have two full stories in the principle portion of the building. Rooflines: Rooflines should follow one of the historic building styles identified as appropriate for this district. Dormers: Dormers must be in proportion to the roof's overall size. Cumulatively, they should interrupt the roof plane no more than one third of the length of that roof measured at the eave. They should be no closer than 3 feet to an existing gable end or hip. The face of the dormer should be narrow, rather than wide, and be composed primarily of window area. Dormers in new construction should have roof pitches similar to the pitch of the main roof. Overhangs: New construction should include overhangs appropriate to the historic style guiding the overall design of the building. Windows/Fenestration: Window placement on the fac,,ade a new building should follow patterns established by contributing structures within the district. Window shape and placement must be consistent with other elements of the building style of the new structure. Long wall spaces without windows are inappropriate. Small decorative windows in the attic level of front gable ends are encouraged. Window trim shall be between three to four inches in width. Shutters are discouraged. In historic districts only: Windows must be double-hung or fixed-sash with an appearance and profile similar to those windows original to the district. Window design should be appropriate to the building style. Doors: Exterior doors on front or side elevations of new single and duplex structures must include half or full lights and/or raised panel construction in keeping with the historic building style of the new structure. Sliding patio doors are uncharacteristic of any of the historic styles of the neighborhood and should appear only on rear elevations. A-3 In historic districts only: Sliding patio doors may not be used. Other more appropriate door styles that accommodate large glass area are available. Porches and Balconies: Single-story, covered front porches are a key element in the Longfellow neighborhood. New single-family and duplex structures should include a porch typical for the style of the house. Front porches must be roofed and supported with posts or pillars of appropriate dimensions. They may be partially screened or unscreened, but shall not be entirely enclosed with walls and/or windows. Porch flooring should be vertical-grained fir porch flooring. Posts and other accents may be wood or other durable material that accepts paint. Where a spindled railing is used, therers must be a top and bottom rail and the spindles must be centered on the horizontal rails. If the space below the porch floor and above the grade is greater than 24 inches, the porch must be skirted with lattice or grilles. In conservation districts only: Dimensional lumber may be used, but the gaps between the floorboards should not exceed one-eighth inch. In conservation districts only: Poured concrete floors arem permitted within conservation districts preovided that the porch floor is not morere than 18 inches above grade. In conservation districts only: Porches on rear elevations need not reproduce historic details. Balconies: Balconies that protrude from the walls of buildings without vertical support were not common in the Longfellow neighborhood, and should not be included on the front or sides of buildings. If second-story porches am included, they must be placed above first-story poreches or first-floor interior spaces. Wood Substitutes: Substituting a material in place of wood is acceptable only if the substitute material retains the appearance and function of the original wood. The substitute material must be durable, accept paint, and be appreoved by the Historic Preservation Commission. Siding: Horizontal siding like clapboards or cedar shingles are the prreferred cladding materials for new buildings. Wood products for siding include shakes, shingles, and painted horizontal clapboard siding from three to six inches in width. Fibrous cement siding is an acceptable substitute for wood siding. Brick was sometimes used in the Longfellow neighborhood and may be an acceptable siding material where historic brick buildings are nearby. Synthetic masonry surfaces such as artificial stone are not acceptable. In conservation districts only: Synthetic siding may be used on new structures and on noncontributing structures. A-4 Longfellow Historic District Exhibit BURLINGTON ST HENRY LONGFELLOW SCHOOL SE YM OUR AVE :, 7n m ?n z 728 72~ ~ 727 747 ~~ . . SHERIDANiAVE August 2001 Contr~uting stmc~re Noncontributing st~cmre ~ ORDINANCE NO. 02-3995 Prepared by: Shelley McCaffer~y, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5243 (REZ01-00019) AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE FROM MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY (RS-8) TO CONSERVATION DISTRICT OVERLAY (RS-8/OCD) FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE CLARK STREET CONSERVATION DISTRICT WITHIN THE LONGFELLOW NEIGHBORHOOD. ' WHEREAS, the Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan, contained in the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan, recommends consideration of the designation of conservation and historic districts within the Longfellow neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan recommends the preservation of the integrity of historic neighborhoods, the stabilization of neighborhoods, and supports efforts of the Historic Preservation Commission; and WHEREAS, the Iowa City Municipal Code authorizes the Historic Preservation Commission to nominate and the City Council to designate conservation districts, where deemed appropriate, as a means of preserving the neighborhood character of traditional Iowa City neighborhoods, or for preserving areas that exemplify unique or distinctive development patterns; and WHEREAS, the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission has completed a study of the Longfellow neighborhood and has found that portions of this neighborhood retain substantial integrity to meet the criteria for designation as a conservation district; and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission feels that designation of the Clark Street Conservation District within the Longfellow neighborhood will help stabilize property values and encourage reinvestment in older neighborhoods by providing for design review of new construction or alterations of existing buildings to assure compatibility with the existing character of the district, and will encourage the retention of existing contributing structures within the Longfellow neighborhood; and WHEREAS, at its August 9, 2001 public hearing, the Historic Preservation Commission nominated said properties for designation as a conservation district; and WHEREAS, at its September 20, 2001 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the proposed conservation district designation and the District Guidelines for the Longfellow Neighborhood; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CiTY QF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. APPROVAL. The Clark Street Conservation District, legally described below and illustrated on Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby designated as a Conservation District Overlay (OOD) Zone and subject to the guidelines of the ~owa City Historic Preservation Handbook including Appendix A, District Guidelines for the Longfellow Neighborhood hereto attached, incorporated herein by this reference: Beginning at the intersection of the centerlines of Court and Summit Streets; Thence southerly along said centedine 168 feet; Thence easterly 202 feet to the point of beginning; Thence easterly 160.24 feet to a point on the centerline of Clark Street; Thence southerly along said centedine 9.83; Thence easterly 265 feet to the northeast corner of lot 37 of Oakes Second Addition; Thence southerly 654.9 feet to a point on the west boundary of the property belonging to Longfellow School; Thence westerly 61 feet to the northeast corner of lot 15 in Coldren's Addition; Thence southerly 156 feet to the southeast corner of lot 14 in Coldren's Addition; Thence westerly 12 feet to the northeast corner of lot 13 in Coldren's Addition; Thence southerly 500 feet to a point on the centerline of the alley just east of Clark Street between Sheridan Avenue and Seymour Avenue; Thence westerly 10 feet to the northeast corner of lot 5 in Reagan's First Addition; Continuing westerly 60 feet along the north boundary of said lot 5; Thence southerly 220 feet to a point on the north line of lot 2 in Reagan's First Addition; Thence easterly 70 feet to the centerline of the 20 foot alley between Clark and Roosevelt Streets: Thence southerly to a point on said centerline intersecting tile westward projected south boundary of lot 2, block 2 in Reagan's Second Addition: Thence easterly 10 feet to the southwest corner of said lot 2; Thence easterly 170 feet to the centerline of Roosevelt Street; Thence Ordinance No. 02-3995 Page 2 northerly 60 feet to a point on said centerline intersecting the projected south boundary of lot 1, block 2 in Reagan's Second Addition; Thence easterly 291.1 feet to the centerline of Maggard Street; Thence southerly along said centerline to the north boundary of the R.O.W. of the Heartland Rail Corporation, also known as Iowa Interstate Railroad; Thence northwesterly along north boundary of said R.O.W. to a point on the intersection of the railroad R.O.W. end the projected centerline of the original 20 foot alley between Summit and Clark Streets, now the projected east boundary of lot 5, block 1 in Reagan's First Addition; Thence northerly 601 feet; Thence easterly 33.5 feet; Thence northerly 200 feet; Thence easterly 11 feet; Thence northerly 60 feet; Thence easterly 20 feet; Thence northerly 211.75 feet to a point on the south boundary of lot 1, block 4 in Summit Hill Addition, which is also the north boundary of the Bowery Street R.O.W.; Thence westerly 61 feet; Thence northerly 200 feet; Thence easterly 35.0 feet; thence northerly 100.48 feet; Thence westerly 26.56 feet; Thence northerly 58.09 feet; Thence easterly 27.63 feet; Thence northerly 58.1 feet; Thence easterly 32.0 feet; Thence northerly 52.5 feet; Thence westerly 2.0 feet; Thence northerly 53.84 feet; Thence westerly 16.6 feet; Thence northerly 80.33 feet; Thence westerly 12.0 feet; Thence northerly 45.0 feet; Thence westerly 2.0 feet; Thence northerly 107.88 feet to the point of beginning. SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance as provided by law. SECTION III. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and to record the same at the office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, all as provided by law. SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION V. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION VI. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shell be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this 8th dayoL ~anuar.y ,2002 MAYOR ATTEST: CITY C'LERK Approved by City Attorney's Office Ordinance No. 02-3995 Page 3 Itwas moved by Vanderhoef and seconded by Pfab that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: X Champion X Kanner X Lehman X O'Donnell X Pfab X Vanderhoef X Wilbum First Consideration ].1/27/01 Voteforpassage:AYES: O'Donne]l, Pfab, Vanderhoef, Wi]burn, Champion, Kanner. Lehman. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration 12/11/01 Voteforpassage:AYES: Lehman, O'Donnell, Pfab, Vanderhoef, Wilburn, Champion, Kanner. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Date published 1/16/02 O'hese guidelines will be included within the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook upon designation of these districts. A~I five districts in the Longfellow neighborhood share many similar characteristics. The guidelines pertain to all disMcts except where otherwise noted. These guidelines replace, without substantive change, the guidelines already adopted for the Govemor-Luces-Bowery Conservation DisMct.) DISTRICT GUIDELINES FOR THE LONGFELLOW NEIGHBORHOOD (Appendix A) (Single-Family and Duplex Buildings) Including: Summit Street Historic District, Longfellow Historic District, Lucas-Governor Street Conservation District, Clark Street Conservation District, and Dearborn Street Conservation District. Site and Scale Guidelines (Additions, New Primary Structures, and Outbuildinqs) Setback, Front: For new primary structures, the building setback from the street should be established based upon the setbacks of existing buildings located adjacent to the proposed building. The setback of the new primary structure should conform with the average of the setbacks of the four nearest primary structures located within the same block and along the same street frontage. The setbacks of existing buildings shall be measured at the first floor wall of the main living area of the building, excluding a covered or enclosed porch. Front porches are prevalent on existing buildings within the districts. New buildings may contain covered front porches that extend into the front yard, provided they are located no closer to the street than any of the other porches along the same street frontage. Building additions should be placed at the rear of a property if possible. Additions at or near the front of an existing building shall be set back at least 18 inches from the front plane of the existing building and shall be differentiated by a change in the roofline or other means. On Summit Street only: The rear wail of the primary structures must not extend deeper than 125 feet from the front street. This restriction preserves the openness of the rear yards. Building Facade: The total surface area of the street elevation of a new primary structure should be no more than 800 square feet. Existing primary structures should not be expanded in such a manner that the total surface area exceeds 800 square feet. For the purposes of enforcing this guideline, the total surface area of the street elevation shall be defined as a figure derived by calculating the surface area of all wall and roof surfaces, including window and door openings, that are visible in an accurate street elevation drawing of the building. On Governor, Bowery, and Court Streets only: The total surface area of the street elevation should be no more than 1200 square feet for a new building or for an existing building including a new addition. On Summit Street only: The total surface area of the street elevation should be no more than 1500 square feet for a new building or for an existing building including a new addition, and not less than 750 square feet for a new building. A-1 Outbuildings: Outbuildings, including garages, should be placed to the rear of the pdmary building whenever possible. Attached garages are discouraged, but if constructed should be set back at least 20 feet from the front plane of the building. In the Summit Street Historic District only: Attached garages are not allowed. Garages must be located at the roar of the property wherever possible. Garages and other outbuildings should be clearly subordinate in size to the primary structure. Pedestrian Access: A sidewalk shall be provided that connects the entrance door or porch to the public sidewalk. Vehlc. ular Access: Vehicular access should be provided from an alley if available. Driveways leading from the street to garages or parking at the rear of the property should be one-lane in width, but can be widened toward the back of the lot to provide access to multi-stall garages or parking spaces. Parking: Parking spaces are not permitted between the primaP/structure and the street. Parking should be provided behind the primary structure on a lot wherever possible. If parking must be located along the side of an existing or new primary structure, it shall be set back from the front plane of the building a minimum of 10 feet and be screened by a decorative fence, landscaping, or a combination of a decorative fence and landscaping, and approved by the Historic preservation Commission. Architectural Guidelines for New Outbuildinqs Building Styles: New outbuildings behind contributing' primary structures should reflect the style of the primary structure. New outbuildings behind noncontributing primary structures should reflect histodc outbuilding styles in the neighborhood. Garage Doors: Garage doom visible from the street should be simple in design. Smooth or simple panel-type garage doors may be used. Garage door openings should be tdmmed to match other doors and windows in the building. Single-stall garage doom are proferrod to double-stall garage doom. Architectural Guidelines for New Primary Structures Building Styles: Architectural style is a defining characteristic for historic and conservation districts. A new primary structuro should reflect the historic ,styles of its neighborhood. Although new construction may adapt and mix some elements of different styles, a single style should dictate the height and mass, rooflines, fenestration, and overhangs for the new building. Please refer to the section entitled "Architectural Styles in Iowa City" for examples of histodc building styles. The architectural styles representative of each district are given below. In the Summit Street Histodc District only: A new building should reflect Italianate, Colonial Revival, Queen Anne, Vernacular, Foursquare, or Eclectic style. A-2 In the Lonqfellow Historic District only: A new building should reflect Colonial Revival, Queen Anne, Vernacular, Foursquare, Bungalow, Craftsman, Period Cottage, or Eclectic style. In the Lucas-Govenor Conservation Distdct only: A new building on Governor Street should reflect Italianate, Queen Anne, Vernacular, or Foursquare style. A new structure on Lucas Street should reflect Queen Anne, Vernacular, Foursquare, Bungalow, or Craftsman style. In the Clark Street Conservation District only: A new building should reflect either Colonial Revival, Queen Anne, Vernacular, Foursquare, Bungalow, or Craftsman style. In the Dearborn Street Conservation District only: A new building should reflect Vernacular, Foursquare, Pedod Cottage, Bungalow, Craftsman, or Eclectic style. Building Height and Mass: New single-family houses or duplexes shall be one, one- and-a-half, or two-stories in height. In the Summit Street Historic District only: New single-family houses shall have two full stories in the principle portion of the building. Rooflines: Rooflines should follow one of the historic building styles identified as appropriate for this district. Dormers: Dormers must be in proportion to the roof's overall size. Cumulatively, they should interrupt the roof plane no more than one third of the length of that roof measured at the eave. They should be no closer than 3 feet to an existing gable end or hip. The face of the dormer should be narrow, rather than wide, and be composed primarily of window area. Dormers in new construction should have roof pitches similar to the pitch of the main roof. Overhangs: New construction should include overhangs appropriate to the historic style guiding the overall design of the building. Windows/Fenestration: Window placement on the fac.~ade a new building should follow patterns established by contributing structures within the district. Window shape and placement must be consistent with other elements of the building style of the new structure. Long wall spaces without windows are inappropriate. Small decorative windows in the attic level of front gable ends are encouraged. Window trim shall be between three to four inches in width. Shutters are discouraged. In historic districts only: Windows must be double-hung or fixed-sash with an appearance and profile similar to those windows original to the district. Window design should be appropriate to the building style. Doors: Exterior doors on front or side elevations of new single and duplex structures must include half or full lights and/or raised panel construction in keeping with the historic building style of the new structure. Sliding patio doors are uncharacteristic of any of the historic styles of the neighborhood and should appear only on rear elevations. A-3 In historic districts only: Sliding patio doors may not be used. Other more appropriate door styles that accommodate large glass area are available. Porches and Balconies: Single-story, covered front porches are a key element in the Longfellow neighborhood. New single-family and duplex structures should include a porch typical for the style of the house. Front porches must be roofed and supported with posts or pillars of appropriate dimensions. They may be padially screened or unscreened, but shall not be entirely enclosed with walls and/or windows. Porch flooring should be vedical-grained fir porch flooring. Posts and other accents may be wood or other durable matedal that accepts paint, where a spindled railing is used, there must be a top and bottom rail and the spindles must be centered on the horizontal rails. If the space below the porch floor and above the grade is greater than 24 inches, the porch must be skirted with lattice or grilles. In conservation districts only: Dimensional lumber may be used, but the gaps between the floorboards should not exceed one-eighth inch. In conservation districts only: Poured concrete floors are permitted within conservation districts provided that the porch floor is not more than 18 inches above grade. In conservation districts only: Porches on rear elevations need not reproduce historic details. Balconies: Balconies that protrude from the walls of buildings without vedical support were not common in the Longfellow neighborhood, and should not be included on the front or sides of buildings. If second-story porches are included, they must be placed above first-story porches or first-floor interior spaces. Wood Substitutes: Substituting a material in place of wood is acceptable only if the substitute material retains the appearance and function of the original wood. The substitute material must be durable, accept paint, and be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. Siding: Horizontal siding like clapboards or cedar shingles are the preferred cladding materials for new buildings. Wood products for siding include shakes, shingles, and painted horizontal clapboard siding from three to six inches in width. Fibrous cement siding is an acceptable substitute for wood siding. Brick was sometimes used in the Longfellow neighborhood and may be an acceptable siding material where historic brick buildings are nearby. Synthetic masonry surfaces such as artificial stone are not acceptable, In conservation districts only: Synthetic siding may be used on new structures and on noncontributing structures. A-4 Clark Street Conservation District Exhibit B COURT ST MAPLE ST ~ ~ GRANT CT s~ HENRY LONGFELLOW 52O SCHOOL ~- -- CENTER A\ SEYMOUR AVE SHERIDA I Illll August 2001 Contributing structure Noncontributing structure ~ ORDINANCE NO. 02-3996 Prepared by: Shelley McCafferty, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5243 (REZ01-00019) AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE FROM MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY {RS-8) TO CONSERVATION DISTRICT OVERLAY (RS-8/OCD) FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE DEARBORN STREET CONSERVATION DISTRICT WITHIN THE LONGFELLOW NEIGHBORHOOD, WHEREAS, the Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan, contained in the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan, recommends consideration of the designation of conservation and historic districts within the Longfellow neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan recommends the preservation of the integrity of historic neighborhoods, 'the stabilization of neighborhoods, and supports efforts of the Historic Preservation Commission; and WHEREAS, the Iowa City Municipal Code authorizes the Historic Preservation Commission to nominate and the City Council to designate conservation districts, where deemed appropriate, as a means of preserving the neighborhood character of traditional iowa City neighborhoods, or for preserving areas that exemplify unique or distinctive development patterns; and WHEREAS, the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission has completed a study of the Longfellow neighborhood and has found that portions of this neighborhood retain substantial integrity to meet the criteria for designation as a conservation district; and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission feels that designation of the Dearborn Street Conservation District within the Longfellow neighborhood wi[[ help stabilize property values and encourage reinvestment in older neighborhoods by providing for design review of new construction or alterations of existing buildings to assure compatibility with the existing character of the district, and will encourage the retention of existing contributing structures within the Longfellow neighborhood; and WHEREAS, at its August 9, 2001 public hearing, the Historic Preservation Commission nominated said properties for designation as a conservation district; and WHEREAS, at its September 20, 2001 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the proposed conservation district designation and the District Guidelines for the Longfellow Neighborhood; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE iT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, iOWA: SECTION I. APPROVAL. The Dearborn Street Conservation District, legally described below and illustrated on Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby designated as a Conservation District Overlay (OCD) Zone and subject to the guidelines of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook including Appendix A, District Guidelines for the Longfellow Neighborhood hereto attached, incorporated herein by this reference: Beginning at the northwest corner of lot 24, block 10, Rundell Addition, Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa, Section III, Township 79 North, Range 6 West; Thence 10 feet westerly to the centedine of the 20 foot wide alley between Dearborn and Rundell Street; Thence northerly to the centedine of Muscatine Avenue and the point of beginning; Thence southeasterly along the centerline of Muscatine Avenue to the centerline of Seventh Avenue; Thence,southerly to the northern boundary of the R.O.W. of the Heartland Rail Corporation, also known as the Iowa Interstate Railroad; Thence northwesterly along said railroad R.O.W. to a point on the intersection of the railroad R.O.W. and the projected centerline of the 16 foot alley west of Rundell Street between the railroad and Sheridan Avenue; Thence northerly along said centedine to the intersection of said centerline and the westward projected southern boundary line of lot 18, block 6 in Rundell Addition; Thence easterly 8 feet to the southwest corner of lot 18, block 6 of Rundell Addition; Thence easterly 185 feet to the southwest corner of lot 1, block 8 of Rundell Addition; Thence southerly to the souti~west corner of lot 2, block 8 of Rundell Addition; Thence easterly 125 feet to the southeast corner of said lot 2; Thence easterly 8 feet to a point on the centerline of the 16 foot alley between Rundell and Dearborn Streets south of Sheridan Avenue; Thence northerly 100 feet to the intersection of the ce,qterline of said 16 foot alley and the south R.OW. Ordinance No. 02-3996 Page_ 2 line of Sheridan Avenue; Thence northeasterly to the centerline of the 20 foot alley between Rundell and Dearborn Streets at the north R.O.W. of Sheridan Avenue; Thence northerly to point of beginning. SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance as provided by law. SECTION Ill. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and to record the same at the office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, all as provided by law. SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION V. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION VI. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this ~th day of January ,2002 MAYOR CITY 'GLERK' Approved by S h ar edJpcd~hist pr e s/Icng f etlow~'long feltow ordinanc~ doc Ordinance No. 02-3996 Page 3 It was moved by Pfab and seconded by Champi on that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: X Champion X Kanner X Lehman X O'Donnell × Pfab X Vanderhoef X Wilbum First Consideration :11/27/01 Voteforpassage: AYES: Pfab, Vandet'hoef, Wilbutm, Champion, Kanne~', Lehman, O'Donnell. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration 12/:11/01 Voteforpassage:AYES: O'Donnel'l, Pfab, Vanderhoef, Wilburn, Champion, Kannet-, Lehman. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Date published 1/].6/02 (These guidelines will be included within the Iowa City Histohc Preservation Handbook upon designation of these districts. All five disthcts in the longfellow neighborhood share many similar characteristics. The guidelines pertain to all districts except where other,Vise noted. These guidelines replace, without substantive change, the guidelines already adopted for the Governor-Lucas-Bowery Conservation District.) DISTRICT GUIDELINES FOR THE LONGFELLOW NEIGHBORHOOD (Appendix A) (Single-Family and Duplex Buildings) Including: Summit Street Historic District, Longfellow Historic District, Lucas-Governor Street Conservation District, Clark Street Conservation District, and Dearborn Street Conservation District. Site and Scale Guidelines (Additions, New Primary Structures, and Outbuildings) Setback, Front: For new primary structures, the building setback from the street should be established based upon the setbacks of existing buildings located adjacent to the proposed building. The setback of the new primary structure should conform with the average of the setbacks of the four nearest primary structures located within the same block and along the same street frontage. The setbacks of existing buildings shall be measured at the first floor wall of the main living area of the building, excluding a covered or enclosed porch. Front porches are prevalent on existing buildings within the districts. New buildings may contain covered front porches that extend into the front yard, provided they are located no closer to the street than any of the other porches along the same street frontage. Building additions should be placed at the rear of a property if possible. Additions at or near the front of an existing building shall be set back at least 18 inches from the front plane of the existing building and shall be differentiated by a change in the roofline or other means. On Summit Street only: The rear wall of the primary structures must not extend deeper than 125 feet from the front street. This restriction preserves the openness of the rear yards. Building Facade: The total surface area of the street elevation of a new primary structure should be no more than 800 square feet. Existing primary structures should not be expanded in such a manner that the total surface area exceeds 800 square feet. For the purposes of enforcing this guideline, the total surface area of the street elevation shall be defined as a figure derived by calculating the surface area of all wall and roof surfaces, including window and door openings, that are visible in an accurate street elevation drawing of the building. On Governor, Bowery, and Court Streets only: The total surface area of the street elevation should be no more than 1200 square feet for a new building or for an existing building including a new addition. On Summit Street only: The total surface area of the street elevation should be no more than 1500 square feet for a new building or for an existing building including a new addition, and not less than 750 square feet for a new building. A-1 Outbuildings: Outbuildings, including garages, should be placed to the rear of the primary building whenever possible. Attached garages ara discouraged, but if constructed should be set back at least 20 feet from the front plane of the building. In the Summit Straet Histodc Distdct only: Attached garages ara not allowed. Garages must be located at the rear of the property wherever possible. Garages and other outbuildings should be clearly subordinate in size to the primary structura. Pedestrian Access: A sidewalk shall be provided that connects the entrance door or porch to the public sidewalk. Vehicular Access: Vehicular access should be provided from an alley if available. Driveways leading from the street to garages or parking at the rear of the property should be one-lane in width, but can be widened toward the back of the lot to provide access to multi-stall garages or parking spaces. Parking: Parking spaces are not permitted between the pdmary structure and the street. Parking should be provided behind the primary structure on a lot wherever possible. If parking must be located along the side of an existing or new primary structura, it shall be set back from the front plane of the building a minimum of 10 feet and be screened by a decorative fence, landscaping, or a combination of a decorative fence and landscaping, and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. Architectural Guidelines for New Outbuildin.qs Building Styles: New outbuildings behind contributing-pdmary structures should reflect the style of the primary structure. New outbuildings behind noncontributing primary structures should reflect historic outbuilding styles in the neighborhood. Garage Doors: Garage doors visible from the street should be simple in design. Smooth or simple panel-type garage doors may be used. Garage door openings should be trimmed to match other doors and windows in the building. Single-stall garage doors are preferred to double-stall garage doors. Architectural Guidelines for New Primary Structures Building Styles: Architectural style is a defining characteristic for historic and conservation districts. A new primary structure should reflect the historic ,styles of its neighborhood. Although new construction may adapt and mix some elements of different styles, a single style should dictate the height and mass, rooflines, fenestration, and overhangs for the new building. Please rarer to the section entitled "Architectural Styles in Iowa City" for examples of historic builcling styles. The architectural styles representative of each district are given below. In the Summit Street Historic District only: A new building should reflect Italianate, Colonial Revival, Queen Anne, Vernacular, Foursquare, or Eclectic style. A-2 In the Lonqfellow Historic District only: A new building should reflect Colonial Revival, Queen Anne, Vernacular, Foursquare, Bungalow, Craftsman, Period Cottage, or Eclectic style. In the Lucas-Govenor Conservation District only: A new building on Governor Street should reflect Italianate, Queen Anne, Vernacular, or Foursquare style. A new structure on Lucas Street should reflect Queen Anne, Vernacular, Foursquare, Bungalow, or Craftsman style. in the Clark Street Conservation District only: A new building should reflect either Colonial Revival, Queen Anne, Vernacular, Foursquare, Bungalow, or Craftsman style. In the Dearborn Street Conservation District only: A new building should reflect Vernacular, Foursquare, Period Cottage, Bungalow, Craftsman, or Eclectic style. Building Height and Mass: New single-family houses or duplexes shall be one, one- and-a-half, or two-stories in height. In the Summit Street Historic District only: New single-family houses shall have two full stories in the principle portion of the building. Rooflines: Rooflines should follow one of the historic building styles identified as appropriate for this district. Dormers: Dormers must be in proportion to the roof's overall size. Cumulatively, they should interrupt the roof plane no more than one third of the length of that roof measured at the eave. They should be no closer than 3 feet to an existing gable end or hip. The face of the dormer should be narrow, rather than wide, and be composed primarily of window area. Dormers in new construction should have roof pitches similar to the pitch of the main roof. Overhangs: New construction should include overhangs appropriate to the historic style guiding the overall design of the building. Windows/Fenestration: Window placement on the fac,,ade a new building should follow patterns established by contributing structures within the district. Window shape and placement must be consistent with other elements of the building style of the new structure. Long wall spaces without windows are inappropriate. Small decorative windows in the attic level of front gable ends are encouraged. Window trim shall be between three to four inches in width. Shutters are discouraged. In historic districts only: Windows must be double-hung or fixed-sash with an appearance and profile similar to those windows original to the district. Window design should be appropriate to the building style. Doors: Exterior doors on front or side elevations of new single and duplex structures must include half or full lights and/or raised panel construction in keeping with the historic building style of the new structure. Sliding patio doors are uncharacteristic of any of the historic styles of the neighborhood and should appear only on rear elevations. A-3 In historic districts only: Sliding patio doors may not be used. Other more appropriate door styles that accommodate large glass area are available. Porches and Balconies: Single-story, covered front porches are a key element in the Longfellow neighborhood. New single-family and duplex structures should include a porch typical for the style of the house. Front porches must be roofed and supported with posts or pillars of appropriate dimensions. They may be partially screened or unscreened, but shall not be entirely enclosed with walls and/or windows. Porch flooring should be vertical-grained fir porch flooring. Posts and other accents may be wood or other durable material that accepts paint. Where a spindled railing is used, there must be a top and bottom rail and the spindles must be centered on the horizontal rails. If the space below the porch floor and above the grade is greater than 24 inches, the porch must be skirted with lattice or grilles. In conservation districts only: Dimensional lumber may be used, but the gaps between the floorboards should not exceed one-eighth inch. In conservation districts only: Poured concrete floors are permitted within conservation districts provided that the porch floor is not more than 18 inches above grade. In conservation districts only: Porches on rear elevations need not reproduce historic details. Balconies: Balconies that protrude from the walls of buildings without vertical suppod were not common in the Longfellow neighborhood, and should not be included on the front or sides of buildings. If second-story porches are included, they must be placed above first-story porches or first-floor interior spaces. Wood Substitutes: Substituting a material in place of wood is acceptable only if the substitute material retains the appearance and function of the original wood. The substitute material must be durable, accept paint, and be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. Siding: Horizontal siding like clapboards or cedar shingles are the preferred cladding materials for new buildings. Wood products for siding include shakes, shingles, and painted horizontal clapboard siding from three to six inches in width. Fibrous cement siding is an acceptable substitute for wood siding. Brick was sometimes used in the Longfellow neighborhood and may be an acceptable siding material where historic brick buildings are nearby. Synthetic masonry sudaces such as artificial stone are not acceptable. In conservation districts only: Synthetic siding may be used on new structures and on noncontributing structures. A-4 Dearborn Street Conservation District Exhibit C -- GRANT CT - CENTER AVE I q9 SHERIDAN AVE i~'~ ST B August 2001 Contributing structure Noncontributing structure Prepared by: John Yapp, Assoc. Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5247 (VAC01-00005) ORDINANCE NO. 02-3997 AN ORDINANCE VACATING 11,800 SQUARE FEET OF UNDEVELOPED KIRKVVOOD AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED SOUTH OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST PARKING LOT AT 1320 KIRKWOOD AVENUE. WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City has received a request from the Church of Christ to vacate undeveloped Kirkwood Avenue right-of"way south of the Church of Christ parking lot at 1320 Kirkwood Avenue; and WHEREAS, the subject right-of"way is undeveloped as a street or alley and does not provide access to any adjacent properties; and WHEREAS, the right-of"way contains Mid-American Energy utilities for which an easement will be obtained; and WHEREAS, it is the City's intent to convey a small portion of the right-of"way to the adjacent Church of Christ property, and to retain the remainder as public open space with a paved trail; and WHEREAS, it is in the City's interest to vacate right-of"way that is not intended to be used for access to adjacent properties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. VACATION. The City of Iowa City hereby vacates the right-of"way legally described as follows: The 35-foot wide Kirkwood Avenue right-of"way located south of Lots 32, 33, 34, and 35 of Hill Crest Price's Addition, and west of the Iowa Interstate Railroad right-of-way. SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provi- sions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION Ill. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or uncenstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconsti- tutionaL SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. C.~/P~~...~and approved this R th day of ,lanl,ar'? ,20 02 AY6F~ -- . ' CITY Approved by ppdadmin~or¢1320kirkwood doc O~inanceNo. 02-3997 Page 2 It was moved by Wilburn and seconded by Vanderhoef that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: X Champion X Kanner X Lehman ~' O'Donnell X Pfab X Vanderhoef X Wilbum First Consideration A w~]./27/01 Voteforpa~'a~g~e': Vanderhoef, l~i]burn, Champion, Kanner, Lehman,0'Donne'l], Pfab. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration 12/11/01 Voteforpassage:NAY$: Kannet-, Pfab. AYES: Wi]burn, Vanderhoef, Lehman, O'Donne]], Champion. ABSENT: None. Date published 1/16/02 Prepared by: Robed Miklo, Senior Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5240 ORDINANCE NO. 02-3998 AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF 4.01 ACRES LOCATED EAST OF HARLOCKE STREET FROM HIGH-DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM-44) TO SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY-44 (OSA-44). WHEREAS, Southgate Development has made application for a Sensitive Areas rezon~ng and approval of the Sensitive Areas Development Plan for 4.01 acres located east of Harlocke Street; and WHEREAS, the property contains steep, critical, and protected slopes; and WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a Sensitive Areas Development Plan which minimizes disturbance of the critical and protected slopes; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the Sensitive Areas Development Plan and found it to be in compliance with the Sensitive Areas Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Sensitive Areas Development Plan also complies with the development regulations of the High-Density Multi-Family (RM-44) zone. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. APPROVAL. The property legally described below is hereby redesignated from its current zoning of RM-44 to OSA-44 and the associated development plan is approved: LOT 25, WEEBER'S THIRD ADDITION TO IOWA CITY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 9, AT PAGE 14, OF THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE. SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The Building inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance as provided by law. SECTION Ill. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and to record the same at the office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, all as provided by law. SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION V. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION VI. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. CIT',.k4~_ E RK City Attorney's Office ppdadm/ord/ha rlocke doc Ordinance No. 02-3998 Page 2 t was moved by 0'Donne11 and seconded by Champion that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTATN: (6/0 In accordance with Resolution #00-117. ) X Champion Kanner X X Lehman X O'Donnell Pfab . X X Vanderhoef X Wilbum First Consideration 1/4/n? (6/0 Tn ~r,'n-a~-Ce with Resolution # 00-117.) Voteforpassage:AYES: O'Donnell, Vanderhoef, Wilburn, ChampiOn. NAYS: NONE. ABSENT: Lehman. ABSTAIN: Pfab, Kanner. Second Consideration 1/7/02 (6/0 In accordnace with Resolution # 00-117.) Voteforpassage:AYES: Champion, 0,'Donnell, Vanderhoef, Wilburn. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Lehman. ABSTAIN: Kanner, Pfab. Date published 0/16/02 Prepared by: Marian Karr, City Clerk, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5041 ORDINANCE NO. 02-3999 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 5, "BUSINESS AND LICENSE REGULATIONS," CHAPTER 2, "VEHICLES FOR HIRE," OF THE CITY CODE CLARIFYING DEFINITION OF VEHICLES FOR HIRE, AND ADDING REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFIED STATE OF IOWA CRIMINAL HISTORY INFORMATION PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY APPLICATION AND/OR DRIVING BADGE. WHEREAS, the term "taxicab" should be replaced by the more generic term of "Vehicles for Hire"; and WHEREAS, a review of an individual State Criminal History is necessary to ensure public safety of citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. The Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa is hereby amended by deleting Title 5, Chapter 2, in its entirety and replacing it with the following: 5-2-1: DEFINITIONS: As used in this Chapter, the following definitions shall apply: APPLICANT: An individual or company wishing to operate vehicles for hire within the corporate City limits. DECAL: A license issued by the City Clerk which must be attached to each Vehicle for Hire for identification. DRIVER: A person authorized by the City to drive a Vehicle for Hire. DRIVING BADGE: A card or badge issued by the City Clerk to each driver authorized to operate a Vehicle for Hire. HORSE-DRAWN VEHICLE: Any vehicle operated or pulled by a horse, furnished with a driver and carrying passengers for hire within the City. PEDICAB: A vehicle propelled exclusively by human power through a belt, chain or gears, having two (2) or more wheels, furnished with a driver and carrying passengers for hire. It shall be equipped with properly functioning front and rear lights for nighttime operation, right and left rearview mirrors and right and left turn signals. RATE CARD: A card to be displayed in each Vehicle for Hire containing the maximum fare rates then in force. STREET: Any street, alley, court, lane, bridge or public place within the City. 0~-di nance No. 02-3999 Page 2 VEHICLE FOR HIRE: Includes all vehicles furnished with a driver and carrying passengers for hire for which public patronage is solicited within the City. A vehicle used exclusively for hotel or motel business shall not be considered a Vehicle for Hire within the meaning hereof, nor shall a vehicle commonly known as "rent-a-car", for which a driver is not furnished, be considered a Vehicle for Hire, nor shall a bus operating over a fixed route in the City be considered a Vehicle for Hire within the meaning hereof. Charter transportation provided with or without drivers on a written contract or written lease basis with an organization or person(s) shall not be considered a Vehicle for Hire within the meaning hereof. In addition, vehicles owned or operated by State or local government entities which provide transportation to the public shall not be considered a Vehicle for Hire. Includes but not limited to taxicabs, limousines, pedicabs and Horse- Drawn vehicles. 5-2-2: APPLICATION: A. Vehicle for Hire: Each applicant of a Vehicle for Hire shall file an application with the City Clerk on forms provided by the City, shall be verified and shall furnish the following information: 1. The name and address of each person with an ownership interest in the company wishing to operate a Vehicle for Hire. 2. The experience of the applicant in the transportation of passengers. 3. Repealed. 4. The record of convictions of misdemeanors and/or felonies, including moving and nonmoving traffic violations, and certified State of Iowa Criminal History and certified State of Iowa Drivers Record for each person identified in subparagraph 1 hereof. 5. Such further pertinent information as the City may require. B. Decal: 1. Application Forms: Each applicant of a Vehicle for Hire shall also file an application for decal with the City Clerk on forms provided by the City, per each vehicle. 2. Attachment Of Decal: No Vehicle for Hire shall be operated on any street within the City unless a decal has been issued by the City Clerk. The decal shall be attached to the lower corner of the front windshield on the passenger side. Pedicabs or Horse-Drawn vehicles shall display the decal on the left rear of the vehicle. 3. Issuance Or Denial Of Decal; Nontransferability: 2 Ordinance No. 02-3999 Page 3 a. The City Clerk shall issue a decal to each applicant when the Police Chief determines that there is no information which would indicate that the issuance would be detrimental to the safety, health or welfare of residents of the City. The decal shall be nontransferable as between vehicles and applicants. b. The refusal to issue a decal may be based on an adverse driving record, conviction of other crimes or when the applicant's prior experience demonstrates a disregard for the safety of others and/or a lack of responsibility. 5-2-3: LIABILITY INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: A. Requirements: i. As a condition to granting a decal to operate a Vehicle for Hire in the City, the applicant shall file with the City Clerk evidence of liability insurance coverage via a certificate of insurance which shall be executed by a company authorized to do insurance business in this State and be acceptable to the City. 2. Each certificate shall also provide ten (i0) calendar days' prior written notice of any nonrenewal, suspension, cancellation, termination or bankruptcy of the Vehicle for Hire. 3. The minimum limits of such policy shall be determined by City Council resolution. B. Failure To Obtain Insurance: Failure of any applicant to maintain such coverage in full force and effect throughout the life of the decal shall constitute immediate revocation of the decal with no further notice required. 5-2-4: VEHICLE INSPECTION REQUIRED: A. Each applicant for issuance or renewal of a Vehicle for Hire decal shall submit with the application a current certificate of inspection issued by the Chief of Police or the Chief's designee. The Chief of Police or the Chief's designee will establish standards of mechanical fitness for such vehicles and will examine and certify vehicles for mechanical fitness. B. The Chief of Police or the Chief's designee may require reinspection of a vehicle on belief that a vehicle is not mechanically fit. In the event any Vehicle for Hire is determined by the Police Chief or the Chief's designee not to be mechanically fit, the decal shall be confiscated by Police and returned to the City Clerk. After reinspection and determination that the Vehicle for Hire meets the standards of mechanical fitness a new decal will be issued and charged as established by Council resolution. 3 Ordinance No. 02-3999 Page 4 5-2-5: STATE CHAUFFEUR'S LICENSE REQUIRED: No person shall operate a motorized Vehicle for Hire on the streets of the City, no person who owns or controls a motorized Vehicle for Hire shall permit it to be so driven, and no motorized Vehicle for Hire licensed by the City shall be so driven for hire unless the driver of such motorized Vehicle for Hire shall have first obtained and shall have then in force a chauffeur's license issued under the provisions of the Code of Iowa, as amended. 5-2.6: DRIVING BADGE REQUIREMENTS: A. Badge Required: No person shall operate a Vehicle for Hire on the streets of the City, no person who owns or controls a Vehicle for Hire shall permit it to be so driven, and no Vehicle for Hire licensed by the City shall be so driven at any time for hire unless the driver of such vehicle shall have first obtained and shall have then in force a driving badge issued by the City Clerk. B. Application For Badge: Each person desiring to drive a Vehicle for Hire shall file an application for a driving badge with the City Clerk. Such application shall be verified under oath and shall furnish the following information: 1. The name and address of the person. 2. The experience of the person in the transportation of passengers. 3. Repealed. 4. The person's record of convictions of misdemeanors and/or felonies, including moving and nonmoving traffic violations, and certified State of Iowa Criminal History and certified State of Iowa Drivers Record. 5. Motorized Vehicle for Hire drivers shall possess a currently valid Iowa chauffeur's license. 6. Such further pertinent information as the City may require. C. Issuance Or Denial Of Driving Badge: 1. The City Clerk shall issue a driving badge to each person when the Police Chief determines that there is no information which would indicate that the issuance of such badge would be detrimental to the safety, health or welfare of residents of the City. 2. The refusal to issue a driving badge may be based on an adverse driving record and/or conviction of other crimes or, in the case of a Horse-Drawn vehicle operator, failure to demonstrate ability to control the animal and vehicle in traffic. 4 Ordinance No. 02-3999 Page 5 D .Badge To Be Displayed: Each person, while operating a Vehicle for Hire in the City, shall prominently wear on the driver's person the driving badge showing the full name of the driver and the driver's photograph. The badge shall be provided by the City Clerk. 5-2-7: VEHICLE FOR HIRE RATES: A. Display Of Rate Card And Disclosure And Estimate Of Rate: 1. Each Vehicle for Hire shall have prominently displayed a fare rate card visible to all passenger seats, and each driver shall provide a copy of the fare rate card to a passenger, when requested. A copy of the fare rate card shall be filed with the City Clerk. 2. A passenger of a Vehicle for Hire may request from the driver an estimate of the fare to be charged, and the driver may provide such an estimate based on the fares displayed on the rate card. The driver of a Vehicle for Hire shall then charge a fare not to exceed the estimate given plus the rate card fare for one- half (1/2) mile. B. Receipts For Fare; Contents: A Vehicle for Hire driver shall provide a written receipt to a paying customer, on request. Each receipt shall contain the name and signature of the driver, the City decal number, the total amount paid, the date of payment and the name of the vehicle owner. C. Right To Demand Prepayment Of Fare; Obligation To Carry Passengers: The driver of a Vehicle for Hire shall have the right to demand payment of the legal fare in advance and may refuse employment unless so prepaid, but no driver shall otherwise refuse or neglect to convey any orderly person, on request, anywhere in the City, or in the case of horse drawn vehicles, on the route filed with the City Clerk, unless previously engaged or unable to do so. 5-2-8: VEHICLE FOR HIRE REQUIREMENTS: A. Lettering Required: Each Vehicle for Hire shall have the name of the owner or the operating company thereof on each side of the vehicle in letters at least two inches (2") in height. Pedicabs and Horse-Drawn vehicles may use lettering smaller than two inches (2"). Removable lettering shall not be allowed. B. Distinctive Color Scheme Required: Each vehicle for hire shall be finished in a distinctive color so that it may be readily and easily distinguished as a vehicle for hire which color scheme shall and must at all times meet with the approval and requirements of the City Clerk. 5 Ordinance No. 02-3999 Page 6 C. Interior Lights: Each motorized Vehicle for Hire shall be equipped with an interior light of sufficient candlepower to amply illuminate the interior of the Vehicle for Hire at all times. The light shall be so arranged as to be easily accessible to and operable by passengers; however, interior lights may be disconnected at any time after sunrise and before sunset. 5-2-9: VEHICLE FOR HIRE STAND: A. Application For Use Of Stand: The owner or operator of a Vehicle for Hire licensed pursuant to this Chapter may apply for the exclusive use of a designated parking space for the Vehicle for Hire. The location of a parking stand shall be determined and approved by the City Manager, or designee, as provided in Title 9 of this Code B. Fee: The City Council shall determine by resolution the fee for a parking stand. C. Authorization: The City Clerk shall authorize a parking stand after the location has been determined by the City Manager, or designee, and after the applicant has paid the required fee to the City Clerk. 5-2-10: TERMS OF DECALS AND BADGES; RENEWALS: A. Driving badges shall be valid for a period of one year from date of issuance or the remaining period of chauffeur's license if under one year. B. Decals shall be valid for one year and shall commence March 1, or on the date the operations are started, and shall terminate the last day in February. C. Renewals shall follow the same procedure as set for initial issuance. 5-2-11: HORSE-DRAWN VEHICLES: A. Routes: A Horse-Drawn vehicle applicant must adhere to the routes specified in the application for a license. A new or temporary route must be filed with the City Clerk before an applicant may use such route. B. Removal Of Animal Waste: 1. All horses pulling Horse-Drawn vehicles shall be equipped with adequate devices to prevent manure and other excrement from falling on the streets of the City 2. Any excrement which falls on the City streets shall be removed immediately at the applicant's expense. 6 Ordinance No. 02-3999 Page 7 3. All animal waste for disposal shall be transported to sites or facilities legally empowered to accept it for treatment or disposal. C. Animal Treatment And Health 1. Treatment Of Animals: a. Applicants shall assure adequate rest periods, feeding schedules, health and related animal performance and well-being for each animal under the applicant's ownership, care or control. This responsibility shall include carriage load limits, hours of operation and daily hours of animal usage. b. The feeding of an animal drawing a Vehicle for Hire from a feed bag or bucket along any street or alley is permitted so long as the animal is not permitted to graze. c. No animal shall be left unattended while in service. 2. Health Certificate: a. For each animal that will be pulling a Horse-Drawn vehicle, the applicant shall provide to the City Clerk a certificate of soundness, issued by a veterinarian licensed by the State, finding each animal to be free from infectious disease, in good health and fit for hack and carriage service under this Chapter. b. After initial inspection, each animal shall be reinspected at intervals of no more than six (6) months, and a certificate of soundness shall be issued by a veterinarian and filed with the City Clerk in order for each animal to remain in service. D. Equipment Requirements: 1. Every Horse-Drawn vehicle shall conform to such requirements as may be imposed by State law with respect to equipment. 2. Each vehicle shall be equipped with rubber tires. 5-2-12: REVOCATION OF LICENSES AND PERMITS: License and permits issued under this Chapter may be revoked as provided in Section 5-1-5 of this Title. SECTION I1. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. 7 Ordinance No. 02-3999 Page 8 Section III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part therefore not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be effective March 1, 2002. ~ ATTEST: 2~'~'~2 ClTY'"6L E RK City Attorney's Office 8 Ordinance No. 02-3999 Page 9 It was moved by O' Donne11 and seconded by ChamDi on that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: X Champion X Kanner ~ Lehman X O'Donnell X Pfab X Vanderhoef X Wilbum First Consideration Voteforpassage:AYES: Pfab, Vanderhoef, Wi'~burn, Champion, Kanner, Lehman, 0'Donne1'[. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration 12/ll/O1 Voteforpassage:AYES: Kanner, Lehman, O'Donnel'l, Pfab, Vanderhoef, t~ilburn, Champion. NAYS: NOne. ABSENT: None. Date published 1 /1 6/0~, Prepared by: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5030 ORDINANCE NO. 02-4000 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 6 OF THE CITY CODE BY REPEALING CHAPTER 7, ENTITLED "SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES" AND ENACTING A NEW CHAPTER 7, ENTITLED "SMOKING IN FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS" WHEREAS, "smoking areas" may be designated, pursuant to Subsection 142B.2(2) Code of Iowa, by persons having custody or contrel of public places except in places where smoking is prohibited by ordinance; and WHEREAS, there exists a significant body of scientific research demonstrating that smoking and the effects of second hand smoke pose significant health hazards to persons who are in the presence of smokers; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the citizens of Iowa City that designation of smoking areas be prohibited in food establishments within Iowa City: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. AMENDMENT. Title 6 of the City Code, entitled "Public Health and Safety" is amended by repealing Chapter 7 of Title 6, entitled "Smoking in Public Places", and adding a new Chapter 7, entitled "Smoking in Food Establishments", as follows: Section 6-7-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of this Chapter is to protect the public health, comfort and environment by prohibiting smoking in food establishments as defined herein and preventing the designation in such food establishments of any smoking area in accordance with Section 142B.2(2) of the Code of Iowa. Section 6-7-2: FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS WHERE SMOKING IS PROHIBITED: Smoking, as defined by Subsection 142B.1(4) Code of Iowa, is prohibited in any establishment that is a "public place", as defined by Subsection 142B.1(3) Code of Iowa, where food is prepared or served for consumption on the premises of the establishment. Section 6-7-3: DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN SMOKING AREAS PROHIBITED: The person having custody and control of any establishment that is a "public place", as defined by Subsection 142B.1(3) Code of Iowa, where food is prepared or served for consumption on the premises of the establishment shall not designate any part or portion of that establishment as a smoking area pursuant to Section 142B.2(2) of the Code of Iowa. Section 6-7-4: RESPONSIBILITIES OF PROPRIETORS: The person having custody or control of a food establishment where smoking is prohibited hereunder shall make reasonable efforts to prevent smoking in the establishment by posting appropriate signs indicating that smoking is not allowed in the establishment. Section 6-7-5: EXCEPTION: A. The provisions of Section 6-7-2, 6-7-3 and 6-7-4 shall not apply to those establishments with sales of alcoholic beverages on premises which exceed 50% of gross receipts for food, beverages and alcoholic beverages sold for consumption on premises, as shown by records made in the regular course of that establishment's business. To be excepted, an establishment must file with the City Clerk an affidavit of the person in custody and control of the establishment that the establishment has monthly sales of alcoholic beverages, as defined by Section 123.3(4) of the Code of Iowa, for consumption on the premises of that establishment that, on average over a calendar year, amount to more than 50% of the average monthly gross revenue of the establishment for food, beverages and alcoholic beverages sold for consumption on premises, as shown by records made in the regular course of, that establishment's business. The affidavit shall state the actual percentage of such sales. Such records shall be made available to the City Clerk for inspection and review upon request. If such records are not made available for inspection and review, or if such inspection and review do not support the exception, smoking in and designation of part or portions of that food establishment as a smoking area shall not be permitted. The form of affidavit for filing such an exception shall be available at the office of the City Clerk. B. A temporary one-year exception from the provisions of Section 6-7-2, 6-7-3, and 6-7-4 will be granted to a new establishment which reasonably expects to have sales of alcoholic beverages as required by subsection A hereof or to an establishment making a change in operation which is reasonably expected to result in a change in the percentage of alcoholic beverage sales such that the establishment will have sales of alcoholic beverages as required by subsection A. With respect to such establishments, the affidavit required by subsection A shall detail the nature of the new establishment or the change in operation and the anticipated percentage of sales of alcoholic beverages. Ordinance No. 02-4000 Page 2 C. On March 1, 2004, the percentage of sales of alcoholic beverages required for an exception pursuant to subsection A hereof shall increase to 65%. All other provisions of this Section 6-7-5 shall remain the same. Section 6-7-6: PENALTY: A. Smoking in violation of section 6-7-2 shall be a municipal infraction punishable by a penalty of $25.00. B. Violations of Section 6-7-3 and 6-7-4 shall be considered a municipal infraction punishable as provided for in Title 1, Chapter 4 of this Code. SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudicated invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect on March 1, 2002. City Attorney's Office Andy/oral/Smoking Ord. 11-5-01 doc Ordinance No. 02-4000 Page 3 It was moved by Pfab and seconded by Wi 1 burn that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: X Champion X Kanner Z Lehman x O'Donnell X Pfab X Vanderhoef X Wilbum First Consideration 11 / 27 / 01 Voteforpassage:AYES: Vanderhoef, Wilburn, Kanner, Pfab. NAYS: Champion, Lehman, 0'Donnell. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration 12/11/01 Voteforpassage:AYES: Pfab, Vanderhoef, Wilburn, Kanner. NAYS: Lehman, 0'Donnell, Champion. ABSENT: None. Date published 1/16/02 Prepared by: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5030 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 6 OF THE CITY CODE BY REPEALING CHAPTER 7, ENTITLED "SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES" AND ENACTING A NEW CHAPTER ENTITLED "SMOKING IN FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS" -tEREAS, "smoking areas" may be designated, pursuant to Subsection 142B.2(2) Cod by having custody or control of public places except in places where smoking by and ',EAS, there exists a significant body of scientific research demonstrating g and the effects hand smoke pose significant health hazards to persons who the presence of smokers WHERE it is in the best interests of the citizens of Iowa City that desi ~g areas be prohibited :~ establishments within Iowa City: NOW, THE --FORE, BE iT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL I'HE CITY OF IOWA CITY, iOWA: SECTION I. IENDMENT. Title 6 of the City Code, entitled "Pu .~alth and Safety" is amended by repealing 7 of Title 6, entitled "Smoking in Public PI~ and adding a new Chapter 7, entitled "Smoking in Establishments", as follows: Section 6 POSE: The purpose of ~hapter is to protect the public heal comfort and environment by prohibiting smoking in food hments as defined herein an( the designation in such food establishments of any area 142B.2(2) of the Code of Iowa. Section PROHIBITED: Smoking, as defined b' 142B.1(4) Code is prohibited in any establishment that is a "public place", as defined by rbsection 142B.1(3) Iowa, where food is prepared or served for consumption on the premises he establishmen Section 6-7-3: DE,~ I OF CERTAI AREAS PROHIBITED: The person having custody an~d control c establishment that is a "public place", as defined by Subsection 142B.1(3) Code of or served for consumption on the premises of the establishment shall not desi part or portion of that establishment as a smoking area pursuant to Section 142B.2(2) of the C, ~f Iowa. Section )F PROPRIETORS: The person havir food establishment where smoking is prohibited hereunder shall make reasonable efforts to rooking in the establishment by posting appropriate signs indicating that smoking is not Section 6-7-$: EXCEPTIOt '~ A. The I: 6-7-3 and, 6-7-4 shall not apply to those establishments with sales of alcoholic beverages on which exceed 50% of gross receipts for food, beverages and alcoholic beverages sold ption on premises, as shown by records made in the regular course of that establishment's To be excepted, 'an establishment must file with the City Clerk an affidavit of the person custody and control of the'~stablishment that the establishment has monthly sales of alcoholic as defined by Section 123~:.3, (4) of the Code of Iowa, for consumption on the premises of that on average over a Calendar year, amount to more than 50% of the average monthly of the establishment for food,, beverages and alcoholic beverages sold for consumption or as shown by records made in .the regular course of that establishment's business. The =idavit shall state the actual percentage of s. Hch sales. Such records shall be made available toCity Clerk for inspection and review upon reques~t~ If such records are not made available for im and review, or if such inspection and review do not~upport the exception, smoking in and designati of part or portions of that food establishment as a smoEi0g area shall not be permitted. The form of lavit for filing such an exception shall be available at the off}ce of the City Clerk. temporary one-year except[on from the provisions of Sectio~n~6-7-2, 6-7-3, and B 6-7-4 be gran~ to a new establishment which reasonably expects to have sa'l~s of alcoholic beverages as rec~zfirby subsection A hereof or to an establishment making a change in ~eration which is reasonably e/x'pe¢ :1 to result in a change in the percentage of alcoholic beverage sales ~ch that the establishment ,Will have sales of alcoholic beverages as required by subsection A. With respe0~.to such establishments, the affidavit required by subsection A shall detail the nature of the new establish~nent or the change in operation and the anticipated percentage of sales of alcoholic beverage~ ~ C. On March 1, 2004, the percentage of sales of alcoholic beverages required for an exception pursuant to subsection A hereof shall increase to 65%. All other provisions of this Section 6-7-5 shall remain the same. Section 6-7-6: PENALTY: Smoking in violation of section 6-7-2 shall be a municipal infraction punishable Violations of Section 6-7-3 and 6-7-4 shall be considered a municipal infraction punish; as )rovided for in Title 1, Chapter 4 of this Code. :CTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the repealed. III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or pad of the Ordinance ed to be invalid Jnconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordi as a whole or any section, ' ' part thereof not adjudicated invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect after its fi ge, approval and publication law. Passed and a ~is day of ,2001. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK r ved by City Attorney's Office Andy/ord/Smoking Ord. 11-5-01 doc.  01-08-02 ~ Marian Karr 12 From: Yank, Ted [ted-yank@uiowa,edu] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 11:36 AM To: 'cou ncil@iowa-city.org' Subject: Smoke Free Ordinance, Pass it as written with No-Delay Dear Council, As a resident of Iowa City, I would like to see the smoke free ordinance passed without delay. In my position, I have the opportunity to see and discuss with the experts the research related to the effects of smoking and second hand smoke on people's health and there really is nothing positive about it. As a father of three children who frequently eats out, I appreciate environments that are smoke free and avoid establishments where there is smoking. I can only believe that such an ordinance would increase the likelyhood of our family going to other establishments. I fully support the immediate adoption of the ordinance as written. Ted Yank Theodore J. Yank Associate Director for Administration Holden Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Iowa Office (319)356-2367 Fax (319)353-8988 Marian Karr From: ELIZABETH MACKENZIE [EAM727@UIHCJES2.UIHC.UIOWA. EDU] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 11:13 AM To: cou nciI@IOWA-CITY.O RG Subject: smoke free restaurants!!!! Please pass the ordinance the way it is currently written. The ordinance as written is a strong,easy to understand ordinance. The time is now-I support the councilors in their work to make a difference in our community-smokefree dining and workplaces. Elizabeth Mackenzie. Marian Karr From: McLaughlin, Kelley [kmclaugh@razi.surgery.uiowa.edu] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 10:36 AM To: 'cou ncil@iowa-city.org' Cc: 'renee-gou[d@uiowa.edu' Subject: Smoking Ordinance Dear City Council Members: Once again i would like to commend you on the strong work the council has promoted to make our city a better place to live by supporting the smoke ordinance as it now stands. I have written to ask your continued support on this issue as the vote comes up again on 1/8. As our state strives to continue its status as one of the Nations top "healthiest states" in the country, this ordinance can only help promote what many of us regard as the healthiest way for our community to live. Smoking is a health risk, as well as the second hand smoke precipitated in our environment, keeping this health risk outside our establishments gives the message to our community that we care about them. Please continue to do the right thing for our city, community and state on 1/8. Thank You for consideration, Kelley Kelley McLaughlin RN Thoracic and Cardiothoracic Clinical Coordinator 1604 JCP Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics 200 Hawkins Dr., Iowa City, lA 52242 Phone: 319-384-7917 Fax: 319-356-3891 Email:kelley-mclaughlin@uiowa.edu Marian Karr From: McLennan, Geoffrey [geoffrey-mclennan@uiowa.edu] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 10:25 AM To: 'council@iowa-city.org' Cc: Gould, Renee hi - just letting you know that the smoke free ordinance should be strongly supported. there is compelling scientific evidence for this from many many studies, the debate about this has occurred on all continents over the last 15 years, with similar spurious arguments being put as to why NOT to pass such an ordinance, as are being put here. the United States is generally lagging behind other western countries in implementing these sort of protective controls, largely because of the intense pressure here from the tobacco industry. it is an interesting social dilemma - one of controlling the use of a legal substance, this has arisen because when first introduced smoking tobacco was not known to be harmful, although it was quickly known to be highly addictive, since 1954 we have known that smoking is extremely harmful to ones health if used as is most co~only the case to maintain blood nicotine levels, since this on average requires 20 cigarettes, the industry provides a convenient daily pack of 20. iow tar cigarettes in the US are also iow nicotine, so these are packaged in packs of 30; again to satisfy the daily addiction, no other substance when used as intended/directed/packaged by the manufacturer causes significant premature death and disease. we now know that passive smoking is harmful; that children smoke if they see role models, such as adults in resturants smoking; and that voluntary restraint from smokers, or the tobacco industry does not work. smoking is therefore a unique problem, not to be confused with other legal substances, but we also recognise the dilemma faced by the tobacco industry. I spend a good deal of my medical practice telling patients and families that they have smoking related lung disease, either cancer or emphysema, or both. Usually these diseases are not curable. Prevention is therefore the only effective therapy we have. Part of prevention is good and well reasoned local govt. stewardship, as being demonstrated here, in keeping with the public trust. thanks Geoffrey McLennan, MBBS, PhD, FRACP Department of Internal Medicine Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242 Tel: (319) 356-3603. 1691 Polk Ave NE Solon IA 52333-8933 December 31,2001 Iowa City Council 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Members of the Council: The recent article by Mike Deupree (copy enclosed) seems to me to sum up succinctly the aspects of the restaurant "smoking/non-smoking" issues. We eat out often at restaurants in both Iowa City and Coralville and there are many where we enjoy our outing without being offended by smoke. If we know there is a smoking problem at a particular restaurant, we do not go there. This seems to be a logical response to such a problem and by letting the owner know that we will not come back, he or she has customer feedback for consideration in determining their operational policies. I feel that the current situation is somewhat like what you might find existing in a "dysfunctional" family or group - that is, the problem of"triangulation." A person (or an entity) has a problem with another person (or entity) that they cannot resolve on their own so they search for a third party to take up their cause and to intervene for them in an attempt obtain their goal. The Council should not be a part of this activity but should be encouraging the complainers to resolve the smoking issue directly with the restaurant owners. If this group is large enough, they should be able to have some influence about the smoking policies of at least some restaurants! This observation is summed up well in the last four paragraphs of the editorial. 2A * The Gazette, Thurs., Dec. 13, 2001 II1'1 Unfazed by logic, anti-smokers advance T he anti-smoking crusaders are on scrutiny, something like: "I have a right to eat my _the march again, the fire of Take the health argument, which meal in the restaurant of my choice. righteousness blazing in their eyes starts with the assertion that without having smoke in my face, my like a Zippo with an untrimmed wick, government already regulates sanitation lungs, my hair and my clothes." blinding them to the rights and wishes of in restaurants, and the principle here is The response is simple: No, you don't. those who disagree with them. no different. You also don't haye the right to Not that the Of course it's different. The difference conlrol the menu, ~e dress code or the crusaders aren't nice, is that if you s]J.p a little E. coli into a obnoxious patter recited by the wait well-meaning people. To healthy person's burger or add a dash of staff. Nor does the smoker have a right the contrary, the ones I salmonella to his omelet, he's going to to control those things or to puff away know are both. They're get sick. On the other hand, if you war whenever and wherever he chooses. The just misguided. Also, some smoke past his nose, he's gqing to only person who has the right to make they are destined to wrinkle it and glare at you, but that's those decisions ks the guy whose win, primarily because about it. livelihood depends on how wen he they care more about (Allergic reactions are another matter, knows and treats his customers. the issue than the whether the reaction is to cigarette This doesn't mean the anti-smokers people on the other side. smoke or to seafood, perfume or have no rights in this battle. Far from it. Mike Deupme They'll get their way anything else a person might encounter They not only have a right, they have Gazette columnist eventually, which in a restaurant that hasn't been banned the ultimate right, a right so powerful I means eventually the there. Yet.) have never understood why they refuse air will be a tiny bit In fact, the health issue works against to exercise it. They have the right to cleaner.., and considerably less free. people who want to ban smoking in take their business elsewhere. The most recent sortie in the battle to restaurants, because ff their facts are This is how the situation in make personal preference a correct such a ban should be the last restaurants differs from that in cases misdemeanor is occurring in Iowa City, priority, not the lb-st, where the person has no reasonable where the City Council is in the process All the medical evidence I've seen option, such as public conveyances. If of banning smoking in restaurants, identifying second*hand smoke as a you don't l~ke something about a Like-minded reformers in Cedar Rapids health hazard involves prolonged, restaurant -- whether it's the presence are demanding their leaders make the frequent and/or heavy exposure, of smokers, the decor, the prices, the same mistake, and the sooner the better. Assuming this evidence is accurate, background music or the suspicious As regular readers know from smokhlg should be illegal everywhere. At absence of stray cats around the alley previous rants here on this subject, I am the very least, it should be illegal in any door of a place that features rabbit stew a former chain-smoker who has nothing home where children live. Far down the -- don't spend your money there. ' good to say about the habit or the people list, after you've removed the danger This leads us to the I'm, al argument, who profit from it. If I had my druthers, where people can't avoid it, you could the will of the majority. The banning every restaurant I entered would be get to places where it affects only those brigade claims three out of four diners smoke-free, who expose themselves voluntarily, like prefer non-smoking restaurants. So what separates me from the restaurants. That's great. If it's Irue, pretty soon crusaders? Simple. I don't believe my As long as the anti-smokers have their three out of four restaurants will ban druthers should dictate everybody else's priorities precisely backward, it's smoking, or three out of four restaurants personal or business decisions, difficult to take their health-based that allow it will go out of business. And The crusaders do. They make three argument seriously, nobody will have to pass any laws. arguments, one based on health, one on That might be one reason the health ~- Mike Oeupree's column appea~s Sundays, Tuesdays and Thursdays. He can be reached at (319) 398.8452 or freedom of choice and one on the will of argument isn't heard nearly as often as miked~iow~.com (Previous columns at the majority. None of the three stands the choice argument, the one that goes www.gazetteonline.com) Marian Karr From: Baurnler, Sharon [sharon-baumier@uiowaedu] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 9:22 AM To: 'cou ncil@iowa-city.org' Subject: Smoke Free Ordinance Dear Mr. Wilburn: I request that you please pass the smokefree restaurant ordinance the way it is currently written. The way the ordinance is presently written, is a strong, easy to understand ordinance. The time is now for this to come to be! I support you in all the work you are doing to make a important difference in our co~unity by providing smokefree dining and workplaces. Thank you so very much! Sincerely, Sharon Baumler 1969 S. Ridge Dr. Coralville, IA 52241 P.S. Happy New Years! Marian Karr From: Kernstine, Kemp [KKernstine@razi.surgery. uiowa.edu] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 10:01 AM To: 'council@iowa-city.org' Subject: Smoking Ordinance To all City Council Hembers: Please help us. Hake e difference in our lives. Please pass the No-Smoking Ordinance as written. It is unfair to our society to allow smoking in public places. We know that there are people in the restaurant who are very sensitive to the material in cigarette smoke and are going to get cancer and emphysema from the exposure. It is not fair to them. Thanks, Kemp H. Kernstine, HD PhD Associate Professor of Surgery Division of Card±othoracic Surgery The University ef Iowa Hospitals and Clinics 200 Hawkins Drive Room 16168 JCP Iowa City, Iowa 52242 Office Phone 319-356-3407 Secretary Phone 319-356-4518 (Becky Litwiller) Email kemp-kernstine@uiowa.edu Toll Free 1-800-322-8442 Page 1 of 1 Marian Karr From: fuortes [fuortes@home.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 8:43 PM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: Smoking Ordinance Dear City Councilors, Thank you for voting "Yes" twice on the smokefree restaurant ordinance. I enjoy taking my family to downtown restaurants and bars that provide music and food but am met by resistance by my teenage daughter who refuses to go to certain places because they are not smoke free. i look forward to patronizing these establishments more frequently when they are smokefree. Providing smokefree public places is recomended by the Centers for Disease Control as the second most effective way to reduce tobacco-related death and disease. Smokefree public places help to denormalize smoking among the adult population, which in turn keeps children and young adults from starting. I applaud you for your efforts to make our community a leader in fighting the number one cause of preventable death in this country. Please vote "Yes" for health on Jan. 8th. Lar and Sue Fuortes 1119 East Court St. Iowa City, IA 52240 1/2/02 Marian Karr From: RhysBJones@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 8:07 PM To: cou ncil@iowa-city.org Subject: Tobacco Ordinance Suppor~ Iowa City Council: We urge you te continue te support the strong ordinance to prohibit smoking in IC restaurant with more than 50% sales in feed. I was amazed with the publication of the restaurants in lC that still allow smoking. A number of these promote themselves as "family restaurants" and one that actually had "family restaurant" in its name! What other business that promotes their services or products to families allows indoor smoking? You can't go into a bank, a downtown coffee house, a grocery store, an insurance office, Carver Hawkeye, Kinnick Stadium, a women's clothing stere, Old Capitol Hall, the library, a bookstore, Sycamore Hall, a hotel, a council meeting, Oaknoll Retirement Center, a hardware stere, a furniture stere, a fabric stere, and many mere businesses and light up a cigarette. The owners, employees, and patrons Mould remind you that the entire building is smokefree. They would ask you to leave if you refused te comply, Yet, restaurants in IC advertise their establishments as "family restaurant" and allow smoking in the presence of children. Do the right thing, council. Thank you for your action for the health of the citizens of Iowa City Rhys Jones Valerie Chittick 708 HcLean St. IC, IA 52246 319-351-2144 Marian Karr From: Eileen Fisher [fishy33@zeus.ia.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 4:11 PM To: iccitycouncil Subject: Pass smokefree ordinance January 1, 2002 Dear City Councilors, Life is full of choices. We are free to choose to smoke or not to smoke. However, most smokers began at a young age, never thinking that they would be smoking for the next 20 or 30 years. Once addicted to nicotine it becomes very hard to exert your freedom to choose to be a non-smoker. Smokers are not dumb, they are addicted. Seventy percent say they want to quit. Most now realize that secondhand smoke is hazardous to the health of others; a fact that the tobacco industry has spent years trying to hide from the general public. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of the smokefree restaurant ordinance. For those of you who want a level playing field for all businesses, I urge you to vote "Yes" on the third reading of the current ordinance as proposed without amendnent and then propose an ordinance that will make all workplaces smokefree. I will fully support an strong 100% smokefree workplace ordinance. Making public places smokefree protects workers and helps prevent children from becoming smokers. Sincerely, Eileen Fisher 3722 Hummingbird Ln SE Iowa City, IA 52240 338-1494 Page 1 of 1 Marian Karr From: Dave Gould [sbproductions@home.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 4:24 PM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: Smokefree Restaurant Ordinance Dee, Ross, Irvin and Steve, Thank you or your support of the current smokefree ordinance. While I think there are many citizens in Iowa City who would like to see al! public places prohibit smoking, I think this is a wonderful first step toward that goal. I encourage you to continue on this path through the final vote and applaud you for your courage. Ernie, Connie and Mike, Thank you also for your interest in this issue, I often listen to Ernie's weekly radio show and understand how draining and emotional these discussions can be. I also understand and share Ernie's stated goal of all eating establishments being smokefree. I ask you, however, to not prolong the current discussion, but instead, to join your four colleagues and pass the current ordinance. Once passed, you can then immediately begin to address a 100% ban, if you believe there is support. This last election I enthusiastically voted for all three of you to retain your positions on the City Council. I strongly believe that you care about Iowa City and the health of its citizens. After this discussion, I have been disappointed that after an almost two year city-wide dialogue over the smokefree restaurant issue, that you, at this late date, are standing behind an all or nothing position. It is my opinion that if we derailed the current ordinance and began new readings on a 100% ban, that the fear of now only two or three business owners would become a fearful cry of many more. Let's allow the businesses under the current ordinance to understand that their fears unfounded. I hope that on January 8th you will join the votes on this current ordinance. I certainly would not understand this ordinance not passing and beginning anew. I certainly would not understand this ordinance, that appears to have a majority of Iowa City support, being watered down. I look forward to the January 8th vote and truly hope that our very progressive city will continue being progressive. Sincerely, David Gould 2923 Radcliffe Ave iowa City 12/26/01 Marian Karr From: Gould, Renee [renee-gould@uiowa.edu] Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 4:45 PM To: 'cou ncil@iowa-city.org ' Subject: Smokefree Restaurant Ordinance Dear Iowa City City Council, Thank you for your continued support of a smokefree restaurant ordinance. This ordinance will put Iowa City out front as a leader in the state. I urge Dee, Ross, Irvin and Steven to stay strong in their support of this well-written ordinance - one that will have an impact on the number of restaurants banning smoking. A big step toward all public places being smokefree. I urge Ernie, Connie, and Mike to understand that what we are seeing in our community is textbook reaction to a strong smokefree ordinance - "ban smoking in bars," "allow smoking after 8:30pm", "accommodate smokers", "ventilation", "separate rooms", "my business will go under", "wait for the lawsuit to get settled" - all things to stop or delay the ordinance! These are all common reactions. Go to reputable sources and learn that smokefree ordinances improve the health of workers, decreased their risk for lung cancer and cardiovascular diseases and have NO economic impact on businesses. Ail of downtown IC business WILL NOT run to Coralville. Go to the tobacco papers and learn how the tobacco industry uses lawsuits to scare co~nunities from moving forward on ordinances, or how they will do what they can to stop ordinances because it affects their $$$ - fewer cigarettes smoked; more people quitting (and for IC, fewer college students STARTING!). Most of us are fortunate to work in smokefree places - employees of restaurants should not have to risk their health for their job. Below is a large study recently published in the Lancet discussing respiratory problems in ADULTS. Thank you again for supporting smokefree restaurants in Iowa City. When the ordinance passes, my family will be able to chose restaurants for their menus and not on whether they are allowing smoking or not. Sincerely, Renee Gould, RN, MS Advanced Practice Nurse Holden Comprehensive Cancer Center at The University of Iowa Thoracic Oncology Program Subject: Another Study Links Passive Smoking to Respiratory Problems LONDON {Reuters) - One of the largest studies of passive smoking found that it increases the risk of asthma and other respiratory problems in people who are exposed to tobacco smoke. The study, reported in the Lancet medical journal on Friday, analyzed data on nearly 8,000 people in the United States, 16 European countries, Australia and New Zealand. ''It is important to avoid passive smoking and especially passive smoking in workplaces,'' Dr. Christer Janson, an epidemiologist at 1 Akademiska Sjukhuset in Uppsala, Sweden, told Reuters. The study showed the proportion of people who regard themselves as exposed to passive smoking varied from a high of 53 percent in Spain to less than three percent in Sweden. Janson said his colleagues analyzed information on nearly 8,000 men and women questioned about their exposure to secondhand smoke and given a physical examination to determine its impact on their health. In 12 of the 36 centers included in the study more than half of those questioned reported being exposed to secondhand smoke. The prevalence of passive smoking was directly related to the level of smoking in each country. ''The main findings in this investigat±on of adults who had never smoked are that reported passive smoking was common in all centers,'' the scientists said. They found passive smoking had a strong effect on asthma and respiratory symptoms such as breathlessness, chest tightness and lung function in adults. ''It (passive smoking) has been described in many other publications in children but it hasn't been studied to that extent in adults,'' said Janson. The variation among countries also surprised the researchers. Regulations and the prevalence of smoking were the biggest factors determining the number of people exposed to secondhand smoke. Italy, Spain and other southern and central European countries, which have a higher prevalence of smokers, have more passive smokers while Scandinavian nations, Australia, New Zealand and the United States had the least. ''We found a positive association between passive smoking in the workplace and current asthma,'' the researchers said. ''Decreasing involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke in the community, especially in workplaces, is likely to improve respiratory health.'' I%' Ib-o~ 30 YEARS i lOWA CITY FREE MEDICAL CLINIC Board of Directors December 21,2001 George Bergus Robert Boyd Dear Members of the City Council: Graham Dameron Richard Ferguson Nona France The board and staff of the Free Medical Clinic wish to thank the Civic val Lembke Gretchen Rice Center employees for their generous donation to our program. "The David Rosenthal pop fund" money will be used to buy glucose monitoring equipment Sally Weyer Bill Wirth and supplies for our clients with chronic diabetes. We unfortunately see a growing number of people each year at Free Medical Clinic who have this illness. Being able to provide the appropriate tools for self care is very important for the patient's over-all health and wellbeing. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Co-Direc'~or Cc: Stephen Atkins Steve Long P.O. Box 1170, Iowa City, Iowa 52244 O 120 North Dubuque O 319-337-4459 O FAX 319-341-0054 Marian Karr From: Murray, Jeff [jeff-murray@uiowa.edu] Sent: Wednesday, December lg 2001 6:33 AM To: 'cou ncil@iowa-city.org' Cc: 'Eileen Fisher' Subject: RE: Letters to city council City Council Thanks for your support of the no smoking ordinance. Our family and friends are delighted by the opportunity to not only eat ourselves in this cleaner environment but even more pleased by your efforts to remove the burden of smoke from workers and patrons in these establishments. It is clear the future is to remove this pollutant from public spaces of all kinds. Please continue to support full attention to no smoking in Iowa City public eating areas. Jeff Murray 2104 Glendale Kd Iowa City lA 52242 338 8155 Marian Karr From: Barnes, Ike [ibarnes@razi.surgery.uiowa.edu] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 9:23 AM To: 'cou ncil@iowa-city.org' Subject: Smoking ordinance Hello City Council members, I am writing to thank you for moving forward on the smoking ordinance, and to tell you ~hat I think that it is a good thing. And I look forward to dining in smoke-free restaurants in Iowa City. Thanks again, -Ike Barnes Marian Karr From: John Williams [JohnWi@law.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 3:37 AM To: cou ncil@iowa-city.org; Lisa-Mollenhauer@iowa-city.org Subject: Smoke-free Ordinance I want to express my sincere thanks to the members of the council who voted to support a smokefree ordinance. I am disappointed that O'Donnel and Champion have not put the health of their community first. I recall Mrs. Champion requesting that the smoking ordinance not be an election issue. Mow I know why. Both O'Donnel and Champion vowed during the election that they would support a strong smoke-free ordinance. I would like to publicly know at the 3rd reading why they have not kept their word. John Williams Iowa City Sent by Law Mail December 19, 2001 Iowa City Councilors Civic Center 410 E. Washington St. Iowa city, IA 52245 Dear Iowa City Councilors, I have been following the efforts of the members of CAF~ in their work for a smoke free ordinance. I am very supportive of their efforts and applaud not only their work but the work of the council in supporting the campaign. Change of any kind is difficult for everyone and can cause a great deal of anxiety for those involved in directing the change. I understand how stressful a change of this magnitude can be when you are trying to represent the desires of all the constituents in Iowa City. However, in this instance there can be little question as to what course of action you should take. Please continue to support and vote for the current smoke-free ordinance. I have lived in Iowa City for the past fifteen years. Even in my years as a college student I hated walking out of restaurants/bars smelling of smoke. In the winter my friends and I would leave our coats in the car so there would be one less thing needing washed as soon as we got home. Today I limit the majority of my eating out to restaurants that are smoke-free. Occasionally I will eat somewhere smoking is permitted but I always try to get a table as far from any smokers as possible. Having someone at a table next to me light up is the best way to ensure a hasty exit from the establishment. I look forward to the day when my choice in eating establishments is guided by where I want to eat instead of where I won't end up smelling like an ashtray. Please support the strong smoke-free ordinance at the final reading to make Iowa City a continued leader in promoting a healthy lifestyle for all Iowans. Sincerely, Jean Arndt 412 Elmridge Avenue Iowa City Page ] o£ ] Marian Karr From: SUEPPEL@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 10:18 AM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: Smoke-free ordinance Dear City Council Members: I just wanted to thank you for taking on the challenge of passing the smokefree ordinance in the Iowa City area. I am very allergic to smoke. When I go out to eat or for a drink I always have to take into consideration the discomfor~ I must deal with if I choose to go somewhere that allows smokin9. This will open up new doors for me. Thanks again, Robin Sueppel 631-0522 12/19/01 Marian Karr From: Corwin, Claudia [CCorwin@razi.surgery.uiowa.edu] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 12:05 PM To: 'cou ncil@iowa-city.org' Subject: smoke-free ordinance To the city councilors, I thank you for the significant steps you have made towards a smoke-free ordinance for Iowa City. I strongly encourage you to vote in favor of the ordinance at the third reading which is soon to occur. I personally look forward to frequenting the smoke-free restaurant of Iowa City in the future. Hore importantly, as a citizen of Iowa City, a surgeon who practices in Iowa City, and as a parent, I believe this ordinance is an important step towards improved public health for our entire community. Sincerely, Claudia Corwin HD A COMMUNI~ AND CAMPUS COALITION TO REDUCE BINGE DRINKING ~ C) -- llxccutive December 19, 2001 Members Iowa Ci~, Ci~, Council Carolyn Cavitt 410 E. Was~gton S~eet Iowa Ci~', IA 52240 Jim Clayton Dear Councilors, Mary Suc Coleman 2~s a coah~on concerned with the harm~l effects of dangerous &mMng, Stepping Up is reluctant to make a recommendation regar~ng the smo~ng ordinance. We (J~lrolv,1 (:olvin are well aware ~at you have a tough decision before you. There is s~ply no easy answer that w~ please eye,one. Unfortunately, pubhc he~ and econo~c Sarah I lanstm freedom ~e often opposite sides of the same com. We do ask that you take into consideration the possib~u, ~at the proposed l)alc HcBing 0r~ance co~d lead some restaurant mvners to seek escape from the smo~g restriction by se~g more alcohol. The prohferafion of bars ~ indeed, more smoky Phdlip I,; ones bars ~ is m no one's best interest. Man, Khowassah Some people have su~esred that going to the 35% definition in ~o ),ears wffi enco~age the bars to go back to being restaurants. However, we are concerned that t;mic I,chma~ t~s ass~p~on fats to reco~ze ~at we akeady have a culmre of restaurant/bars and that getCng any of those estabhshments to give up the~ bar revenues to be Steve Parrott solely a restaurant is si~ficanfly harder than vice versa. If the current 50% or~ance passes, we wo~d ask that &e Cin, Clerk momtor fl~e Dan Pattctso~ hcensed estabhsNnents closely to see if a switch from restaurants to bars occurs. If it does, we hope you w~ consider tang another look at tMs issue m the future. Julic Phvc We ~ow there are no easy answers on this issue. We certainly appreciate and Lane Pluggc support your interest in pubhc health and m a doxvntown that at,acts aH people. Cathy ~o]()~r Sincerely, I Panick \Vhitt Carolyn Cavitt ,e Chair, Executive Conmaittee Project Coordinator I00 Ct~rrier Hail, [!tmersity of Iowa. Iowa Cil?r, lA 55242,319)335q340 Page 1 of 1 Marian Karr From: DANIEL SCHWEER [daniel.schweer@gte.net] Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 3:28 PM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: Smoke-free Restaurant Ordinance Dear Council Members: Thank you so much for moving ahead with the smoke-free restaurant ordinance. Protecting the health of restaurant workers and patrons is certainly one of the most important ways you can contribute to our community. I'm looking forward to a wider choice of restaurants in which to take my family, so I urge you pass the smoke-free ordinance on January 8, 2002. Thank you. Sincerely, Diane K. Schweer. R.N. 12/26/01 Marian Karr From: Phearman, Laura [laura-phearman@uiowa.edu] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 8:53 AM To: 'cou ncil@iowa-city.org' Subject: smoking ordinance Thank you so much for going ahead with the smoke free ordinance for the restaurants in Iowa City. I appreciate your work on this situation and it is a bold move that is truly needed in our community. My family and friends are looking forward to smoke free dining. Happy Holidays. Laura Phearman December 14, 2001 ~II)[Cl7 /2'i11:13 The Honorable Ernest W. Lehman 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, lA 52240 IOW/~, CITY, IOWA Dear Mr. Lehman, The purpose of my letter today is to present to you the position of the Iowa Hospitality Association regarding the proposed smoking ordinance in Iowa City The Iowa Hospitality Association is the professional association of the restaurant and retail beverage industries in Iowa. The Association represents an industry that employs over 91,000 Iowans. The industry pays annual wages in excess of $750 million with estimated 2001 annual statewide sales over $2.8 billion. The Iowa Hospitality Association supports the individual rights of businesses to establish their own smoking policies for their customers and their employees. Many of our businesses invest significant resources in the air quality their establishments provide which may, in fact, be a smoke-free environment. It is important to note this is decided by the demands of the people they serve, not government mandates Whatever your views may be about tobacco, the issue at stake is that local government determining how a private business owner chooses to accommodate his A,o.,o,,o~ o~ or her patrons is of very grave concern to the business community. ~h~ Re,, ..... , o~d I am writing to urge you to oppose the proposed ban on smoking in Iowa City's ~o, sev~o~o restaurants and uphold the business owners' rights to choose the environment thei~ ,~d~,,,~, patrons demand. In addition, I want to share with you a summary ora study done by Dr Michael Marlow of California Polytechnic State University, which sheds light on the effects of smoking bans on the restaurant and hospitality industry. Dr. Marlow's study-- "An Economic Analysis of the Maine Smoking Ban: Evidence from Patrons and Owners of Businesses" --provides evidence that imposed smoke-free policies on restaurant and hospitality business operators have numerous adverse effects on such businesses. Thank you for your consideration of this important issue. Sincerely, as2s oooo[^~ Aw~[ Doni J. DeNucci su,,~ ~7 Executive Director and CEO 50322 515.276 l asa Enclosure 80O 747 1453 ~x 515 276 3660 iha_moil@netins net Executive Summary This Study Examines the Smoking Ban in Maine. The economic effects of the Maine smoking ban (implemented on September 18, 1999) are examined in this study of patrons and businesses. State law forbids smoking in restaurants and restaurant bars, but exempts stand-alone bars such as Class A lounges, hotel lounges and taverns that primarily provide liquor sales. Economic Model Predicts That Smoking Bans Impose Adverse Effects on Many Businesses. An economic model is developed that provides testable hypotheses concerning the impact of a smoking ban on pa~ons and businesses. The model demonstrates that business owners adopt smoking policies that eater to customer preferences and therefore owners do not adopt uniform policies when customer preferences vary with regard to the issue of smoking. A smoking ban mandates the same policy (i.e., no smoking) for all owners and therefore bans are predicted to exert differential effects on businesses which simply means that some will gain, some will lose, and still Others will experience no economic effects. Previous Literature Demonstrates that Smoking Bans, Harm Many Businesses. Previous empirical evidence supports the predictions of the economic model. This study contains a comprehensive review of past studies that conclude that gmoking bans exert differential effects on businesses. While several studies have been published that conclude that bans do not harm businesses, a thorough assessment of the literature indicates that such claims are unsupported by the economic theory and evidence. These studies are shown to contain critical flaws in their statistical methodologies. Maine Smokers Out-Spend Non-Smokers By Almost Double. A comprehensive survey of 1,200 customers of restaurants and restaurant bars in Maine indicates that smokers not only frequent restaurants and restaurant bars more often, they spend more on a per visit basis than do non-smokers. Average weekly spending in restaurants by smokers is $73.28, and for non-smokers it is $51.50 - smokers out-spend nonsmokers by roughly 42% in restaurants. Average weekly spending in restaurant bars by smokers is $73.25, and for non-smokers it is $25.22 - smokers outspend non-smokers by roughly a factor of 3 in bars/lounges in restaurants. When tabs for restaurants and restaurant bars are added together, smokers spend $146.53 per week versus $76.72 per week by non- smokers - a factor of almost two. Smoking Ban Adversely Affects Patrons Who Smoke. Data on actual changes in patron behavior indicate the following effects fi.om the smoking ban. · Fewer Visits. While most non-smokers (80%) have not lowered visits to restauran~..,ts, roughly 40% of smokers ate out less often (average of 60% f~er vi.~). Approximately one-half of smokers made fewer visits to restaurant b~ag,.~,~ f 60% fewer visits), while up to one-third of non-smokers made more v~s~ts~('a~v~..rag~e~of 30% more visits). .. · Less Time Dining. Slightly more than one-half of smokers spent tess time dining per visit, with average reductions of 46% per visit. Only 22% of non-smokers increased dining time per visit, with an average increase of 26%. Higher Purchases of Take-Out Food. While most non-smokers did not change their purchases of take-out food, roughly one-third of smokers purchased more take-out food following the ban. The average smokers purchased 45% more take-out food. Maine Businesses Provided a Diverse Set of Smoking Policies Prior to the Smoking Ban. An examination of a sample of 45 Maine restaurants indicates that 23% of these businesses provided from 0%-25% of their seating for non-smoking use, 22% provided between 26%-50%, 11% provided between 51%-75%, and 43% provided between 76%- 100%. Araple choices were therefore available for patrons with strong no-smoking preferences, as 15 of 45 (33%) businesses forbid smoking within their establishments. Obviously, businesses did not find it profitable to offer identical smoking policies because they served customer bases with varying preferences toward smoking. Smoking Ban Exerts Adverse Effects on Many Businesses. Adverse effects are consistent with the evidence demonstrating that ownm-s serve customer bases with varying smoking preferences. The evidence indicates the following adverse impacts exerted on businesses. · 15% of Restaurants Experience Lower Revenues. For restaurants, roughly the same number of businesses realized higher revenues as did lower revenues (roughly 15% in each category). However, while revenue gains averaged 8%, revenue losses averaged 20.4% thus suggesting that adverse effects outweighed positive effects on revenues when we view the experience of all restaurants. · 30% of Restaurant Bars Report Revenue Losses. Average declines of 29% are reported. Only 12% reported revenue gains (average gain of 14%). Adverse effects therefore appear to outweigh positive effects for both restaurants and restaurant bars when we view the experience of all restaurants. · Restaurant Bars Are More Adversely Impacted Than Restaurants. Twice-as- many restaurant bars reported revenue losses than did restaurants, thus demonstrating that the adverse effects of the smoking ban are more directly focused on restaurant bars, · 12% of Restaurant Bars Report Lower Wages and Salaries. Average reductions are 21%. Only 6% of restaurant bars report increases, with an average gain of X9%. The evidence suggests that employees lose wages and salaries whence v~ex~the experience of all restaurant bars. ~. ~ '~ · 9% of Restaurant Bars Report Lower Numbers of Employees. 3.~o reported higher numbers of employees. Gains averaged about 3.3%, _w~il~,'! los_~s. !~'' averaged about 3.7%, thus suggesting that losses outweighed gains when we view the experience of all restaurant bars. · 13% of Restaurants and 25% of Restaurant Bars Report Lower Tips. Only 5% of restaurants, and 6% of restaurant bars, report higher tips. For restaurants, average gains were 8.7%, while average losses were 17.8%, thus indicating an overall adverse effect on tips. For restaurant bars, average gains were 8%, but average decreases in tips were 25%, thus indicating a much greater negative effect on tip income for restaurant bar employees. Lower Revenues Most Often Experienced by Businesses Serving Many Smokers. · Lower revenues are experienced by 30% of owners providing 0%-25% non-smoking seating, by 40% of owners providing 26%-50% non-smoking seating, and by 60% of owners providing 51%-75% non-smoking seating. · In sharp contrast is the experience of owners who previously provided mostly non- smoking seating (between 76%-100%): only 5% of this group experienced lower revenues. · These results are entirely consistent with the economic model of how smoking bans affect businesses because they confirm that owners who serve relatively many smokers are most often harmed by smoking bans. Higher Revenues Most Often Experienced by Businesses Serving Few Smokers. · Owners who had previously served relatively few smokers experience higher revenues. Twenty-percent of businesses who provided above 50% of their seating for non-smoking use experienced revenue gains. In sharp contrast, only 10% of businesses that provided below 50% of their seating for non-smoking use experience revenue gains. · These results are entirely consistent with the economic model of how smoking bans affect businesses because they confirm that owners who serve relatively few smokers are the ones least often harmed by smoking bans. FILED City Council of Iowa City December 5, 2001 410 East Washington St. 2~1~1 l]El~ 1 7 mit I1.' 12 Iowa City, Iowa 52242 CITY ~"' r:' f Dear Iowa City City Council: IOWA CITY, IOWA Iowa City has provided numerous activities for people of all ages for many years. It is a place where people can go to have fun, socialize, and enjoy themselves. The ways in which they can do this are endless; from dining to dancing, walking and talking, people are out to have fun. But what about smoking? VVhile it may seem like the legitimate choice to make, I feel that the proposed smoking ban in Iowa City needs to be reconsidered. It has been brought to my concern that this smoking ban may cause more problems than it might solve. Not only will it eliminate a place for people to go to have fun and relax and have a cigarette, but it will also change the overall atmosphere of bars and restaurants, along with a possible loss of business. First of all, there are a number of people who enjoy meeting with friends and coworkers, sit down at a restaurant or in a bar and enjoy a cigarette. In an article titled "Spending the Tobacco Money" in the Star Tribune from November 29, 2001, a 74-year-old woman named Betty Bothofs has been a regular customer in Carmen's Dry Dock West, a bar in Cloquet, Minnesota, for a long time. A smoking ban was established in the fall of this year for the town. Betty stated that she felt this ban was a violation of freedom for those who do smoke. "We pay taxes and we should be entitled to freedom, but we're losing it." Although smoking has been proven to be hazardous to one's health, it can still be thought of as a social activity, and it should be allowed just as much as anything else. For example, people who enjoy swimming go to a pool; those who dislike swimming don't go to the pool. This can be applied to bars and restaurants. Those people who wither like smoking, or who just don't mind it go to the bars and sit in the smoking sections of restaurants. Then the people who can't stand smoke don't have to go to bars of sit in the smoking sections of restaurants. In an article celled "Workers Cool to Smoking Ban" from the Daily Iowan dated November 27, 2001, Laci Leaders, a bartender at Bo James, a bar in Iowa City, speaks from an employee's point of view. "If you're bothered by smoke that much, then you don't get a job in a bar of restaurant." This is common sense. People enjoy smoking just as people enjoy various other activities, so it should be treated as anything else. Second, putting a smoking ban on Iowa City will alter the overall atmosphere of these restaurants and bars. Smoking is obviously something that people do at bars, along with drinking. That's what bars are for: they are meant to provide people with a place to kick back, socialize, and smoke a cigarette without having to worry about getting asked to leave. This is just something that people accept in our society. Kristin Bermudez, a bartender and waitress at Mondo's, a bar/restaurant in downtown Iowa City, said in an article titled "Workers Cool to Smoking Ban" in the November 27th, 2001 issue of the Daily Iowan,"[Smoking] bothers me somewhat - but it's a part of the whole atmosphere." This is what it's all about. If there was no smoking ANYWHERE, think about what these booming bars and restaurants would be like. VVhere would these smokers go? I feel that the most important aspect concerning this smoking ban in Iowa City that you need to closely consider is the money. Iowa City is known for it's busy bars and state of the art restaurants. I feel as if the smoking ban could possibly put a damper on these successful places. There is a great deal of smokers in our society today, and a reasonable portion of the business of the bars and restaurants come from these people. In an article from the Star Tribune, titled "Spending the Tobacco Money," Carmen Zezulka, the proud owner of Carmen's Dry Dock West, has worked hard to make her restaurant/bar successful. Her sole income comes from her bar. She anticipates that the smoking ban that was established in Cloquet, Minnesota this past fall will hurt her. "1 have everything to lose," she says. Interestingly enough, Scott Hage, an Iowa City resident, wrote an editorial titled "Let Establishment Owners Decide on Their Own Smoking Regulations" in the November 27th issue of the Daily Iowan. In the article he made a legitimate point: "Let those who pour their hearts and souls and hard work, as well as their personal tastes and beliefs, into these establishments stand ultimately responsible for making these decisions." If the owners of these establishments feel that they will lose business by driving their smoking customers away, then they should be entitled to make that choice. In the previous article addressed, one of the restaurants in Cloquet, Minnesota, called Grandma's, "said it's bar business was down by a third," after one month of the city's smoking ban. If it has happened in other places, it can easily happen in Iowa City, and result in a loss of business, publicity, money, and the gaining of a poor reputation. From reading this letter, it should be clear that the smoking ban in Iowa City calls for a need to be reconsidered. I see nothing wrong with the way things are Jn this prosperous city, so why should anything change? I understand that a smoking ban can promote better health, however, I feel that those who dislike smoky atmospheres should stay away from them. It's plain and simple. Eliminating this smoking ban could mean a city that will continue to grow and provide all types of people with all types of satisfaction. This includes smoking being permitted. Not only will it give those who smoke a chance to kick back and enjoy themselves, however it will continue to create the atmosphere that everyone is used to and also continue to provide money and support to a city filled with everything one can possibly imagine. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincere. ly Yqurs, . Student, University of Iowa FILED DEC I~/ ~M I1: crr¥ cumx ~ow^ crrx ~ow~ Marian Karr From: Kathy Winkelhake [winkelhake.rj@mcleod.net] Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2001 10:55 AM To: cou ncil@iowa-city.org Subject: Smoking Ban In Restaurants Council Members, I want to add my name to citizens who support a 100% smoking ban in restaurants. As a health care provider/eduator, a parent, a grandparent, and a concerned citizen I believe the only way to go is with the total ban. I thank you for your concerned deliberations. Kathleen Winkelhake Marian Karr From: john yutzy [wirdmanyutz@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 12:03 PM To: cou ncil@iowa-city.org Subject: smoke free resaurants I've been unable to make the recent city council meetings but wanted to voice my opinion via e-mail. Thank you for protecting our health by drafting a strong smoke free restaurant ordinance that protects children, customers and employees 24 hours a day. Please do not allow amendments to the ordinance to weaken the strong stance you take. Keep our children, customers and employees safe all the while they visit our restaurants. Thanks for your continued efforts ih this matter. Do You Yahoo!? Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com Marian Karr From: Smaldinger@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 6:23 PM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: Smoking Ban - Connie Champion Connie Champion, What is there about second hand smoke causing cancer that you do not understand? Please let me know and I will try to help you. Stan Aldinger 507 Meadow Iowa City, IA 52245 338-0732 Stan Aldinger MR. MAYOR & COUNCIL MEMBERS of IOWA CITY DECEMBER 12, 2001 WHAT FOLLOWS ARE THE REMARKS I INTENDED TO MAKE AT LAST NIGHT,S SESSION OF THE IOWA CITY COUNCIL. THEY WERE MY RESPONSE TO WHAT I HEARD AT THE NOVEMBER 27 MEETING. BY THE TIME I APPROACHED THE MICROPHONE LAST NIGHT, THE MAYOR CALLED FOR REMARKS TO BE LIMITED TO 2 MINUTES, AND IN LIGHT OF YOUR PRIOR DISCUSSION REGARDING MOVING TO A TOTAL SMOKING BAN, I WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MAINTAIN MY COMPOSURE FOR THE 5-6 MINUTES IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN ME TO MAKE THE PRESENTATION I ORIGINALLY PLANNED. I HOPE THAT YOU ALL WILL TAKE THE TIME TO READ THIS, WHICH HAS BEEN MODIFIED SLIGHTLY IN LIGHT OF LAST NIGHT'S PROCEEDINGS. AS A FINAL "INTRODUCTORY REMARK", MY POSITION AS A REGIONAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE AFGE REGULARLY TAKES ME OUT OF TOWN TO WORK THROUGHOUT THE POPULATION CENTERS OF IOWA, MINNESOTA, & THE DAKOTAS. I SPEND ROUGHLY 1/3rd OF MY TIME AWAY FROM IOWA CITY. IT AGGRAVATES ME IMMENSELY THAT IN THE TOWN WHERE I'VE INVESTED VIRTUALLY MY ENTIRE ADULT LIFE, I AM TREATED THE WORST WITH REGARD TO CIVIL LIBERTIES AND RESPECT FOR THE CHOICES I MAKE ABOUT MY LIFE. I RELOCATED MANY TIMES AS A YOUNG MAN BEFORE SETTLING HERE. I AM NOT TOO OLD TO RELOCATE ONE MORE TI t_if SINCERELY, /,7 /._~ ALAN E. ACHTNER co 1413 FRANKLIN STREET IOWA CITY, IA 52240-2710 354 4834 VOICE/FAX MR. MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBERS. I'M AL ACHTNER, AND I BELIEVE I HAVE SEVERAL UNIQUE PERSPECTIVES FOR YOU TO CONSIDER. I WORK FOR AFGE- THAT'S THE AMERICAN FEDERATION of GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO- A UNION REPRESENTING FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES- 600,000 NATIONWIDE. IN 1993, NEWLY-ELECTED PRESIDENT CLINTON ISSUED AN EXECUTIVE ORDER TO REMOVE SMOKING FROM FEDERAL BUILDINGS. HOWEVER, RECOGNIZING THAT "ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL", AND THAT THERE IS A GREAT VARIETY OF CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH PEOPLE FIND THEMSELVES IN FEDERAL BUILDINGS, THE ORDER ALSO PROVIDED THAT BEFORE ANY SMOKING BAN WENT INTO EFFECT, IT HAD TO BE NEGOTIATED WITH THE FEDERAL WORKERS' UNIONS. AS A RESULT, A GOOD CHUNK OF MY TIME FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS WAS TAKEN UP NEGOTIATING THE SMOKING ISSUE. AFGE HAD MEMBERS TOTALLY OPPOSED TO A SMOKING BAN, AND MEMBERS WHO SUPPORTED IT 100%. I KNOW HOW DIFFICULT IT CAN BE TO REACH CONSENSUS ON THIS ISSUE. BESIDES BEING CONTENTIOUS, IT WASN'T A SIMPLE ISSUE EITHER. THERE ARE A LOT OF DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES RELATING TO FEDERAL BUILDINGS. WHEN I SAY "FEDERAL BUILDING", YOU PROBABLY THINK OF AN OFFICE BUILDING SUCH AS WE HAVE AT 400 S. CLINTON. PRIMARILY, STAFF COME IN TO WORK AT OFFICES WHICH ARE OPEN 9-5 TO SERVE THE PUBLIC, AND THEN THEY GO HOME. NEARLY EVERYONE WOULD AGREE THAT THE PUBLIC SHOULDN'T HAVE TO EXPERIENCE CIGARETTE SMOKE TO CONDUCT THEIR GOVERNMENT BUSINESS. IT'S NOT HARD TO CONCLUDE THAT SMOKING HAS NO PLACE. BUT WHAT ABOUT, FOR EXAMPLE, AN AIR FORCE BASE, WHICH OPERATES 24/7, AND DOESN'T HAVE WALK-IN "CUSTOMERS" PER SE? WITH THE NUMEROUS BUILDINGS AT SUCH AN INSTALLATION, WHY CAN'T A FEW OF THEM HAVE SMOKING ROOMS OR BECOME SMOKING SHELTERS? HOW ABOUT THE VARIOUS CLUBS WHERE OFFICERS GO FOR OFF-DUTY MEALS, DRINKS, AND ENTERTAINMENT? MOST DOD INSTALLATIONS HAVE THEIR OWN FIRE DEPARTMENTS, STAFFED BY FIREFIGHTERS WHO WORK 24 HOUR SHIFTS- FOR SEVERAL DAYS A WEEK, THE FIREHOUSE IS THEIR HOME, NOT JUST WHERE THEY WORK. MAYBE SOME PROVISION SHOULD BE MADE FOR THEM? MANY VA MEDICAL CENTERS OFFER SMOKING ROOMS OR SHELTERS FOR PATIENTS AND THEIR VISITORS- WHY SHOULDN'T STAFF BE ABLE TO USE THEM AS WELL? "ONE SIZE DOESN'T FIT ALL" BUT WE RESOLVED THESE SITUATIONS & THINGS FINALLY DID SETTLE DOWN. WHAT'S BECOME THE NORM AT FEDERAL FACILITIES IS FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE OUTDOOR SMOKING SHELTERS WHEREVER THERE ARE SUBSTANTIAL NUMBERS OF STAFF OR CUSTOMERS WHO SMOKE, SHELTERS WHICH ARE ENCLOSED ON AT LEAST 3 SIDES. IN NORTH DAKOTA AND MONTANA, THEY MIGHT BE FULLY ENCLOSED AND HEATED. IN FLORIDA AND TEXAS, THEY MIGHT BE AIR-CONDITIONED. AND, IF YOU LIKE, YOU CAN EAT AND DRINK IN THEM. WHAT I WANT TO SUBMIT TO YOU, AND THIS IS MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION, NOT THAT OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, IS THAT IN IOWA CITY THERE ARE A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE, SUCH AS MYSELF, WHO WANT SMOKING SHELTERS WHICH SERVE GOOD FOOD AND DRINK. WHAT'S MORE, THERE ARE A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF RESTAURANT OWNERS WHO WANT TO OFFER SUCH A VENUE, AND THERE ARE ALSO A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF WAITSTAFF AND BARTENDERS WHO WANT TO WORK IN SUCH A VENUE. SINCE THIS BECAME AN ISSUE, I'VE MADE IT A POINT TO ASK THESE EMPLOYEES THEIR OPINION ON THIS MATTER. MOST ALL OF THEM ARE WORKING WHERE THEY DO BECAUSE THEY WANT TO, AND THEY WANT YOU TO LEAVE THEM ALONE. THE CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES US, AMONG OTHER RIGHTS, FREE SPEECH OF COURSE, AND THE RIGHT TO FREELY ASSEMBLE AND TO ASSOCIATE WITH WHOM WE PLEASE. SO LONG AS THERE ARE LIKE-MINDED PEOPLE, THOSE WHO WANT TO PROVIDE A VENUE TO SMOKE AND EAT, THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO WORK THERE, AND THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO PATRONIZE SUCH VENUES, THOSE OF US- ADULTS- WHO HAVE FREELY CHOSEN SUCH A COURSE OF ACTION- WE SHOULD CONTINUE TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASSOCIATE AMONGST OURSELVES AS WE SEE FIT. THESE RIGHTS HAVE BEEN WITH US FOR OVER 200 YEARS, AND THEY SHOULD NOT DEPEND ON WHETHER OR NOT WHAT WE CHOOSE TO DO IS POPULAR OR IN THE MINORITY. WHILE I HAVE LITTLE CHOICE BUT TO CONCEDE THAT THINGS ARE NOT GOING TO REMAIN THE SAME, WHAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO DO GOES TOO FAR. I DON'T BELIEVE YOU WILL HAVE THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED. YOU WILL HAVE CREATED A SITUATION RIPE FOR ECONOMIC DISLOCATION & FOR ENMITY AMONG THE CITIZENRY, LEADING TO THE POTENTIAL FOR CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE. FROM THE CRUSADES TO THE SPANISH INQUISITION, FROM THE VATICAN'S TREATMENT OF GALILEO TO THE KKK, FROM THE NAZIS TO THE McCARTHY HEARINGS & RIGHT UP TO TODAY WITH THE TALIBAN (WHO BANNED SMOKING IN CASE YOU DIDN'T KNOW), HISTORY IS REPLETE WITH EXAMPLES WHICH SHOW US THAT WHEN POLITICIANS PURSUE PERFECTION WITHOUT EXCEPTION, INNOCENT PEOPLE GET HURT. FOR SOCIETY TO WORK- WHEN THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE, WITH DOZENS IF NOT HUNDREDS OF PREFERENCES AND PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOR, COME TOGETHER SUCH AS HERE IN IOWA CITY- FOR THAT SOCIETY TO WORK, WE MUST HAVE TOLERANCE FOR ONE ANOTHER. YOUR ORDINANCE DOES NOT PROVIDE ENOUGH TOLERANCE. PERHAPS THE AMES ORDINANCE PROVIDES SEVERAL EXCEPTIONS AS RECOGNITION OF THE SIMPLE REALITY THAT THERE ARE A VARIETY OF TASTES & CIRCUMSTANCES, AND PERHAPS THEIR CITY COUNCIL RECOGNIZES THE NEED TO REPRESENT ALL THE CITIZENRY, NOT JUST A WELL- ORGANIZED VOCAL MINORITY? OR ARE THOSE WITH THE LOUDEST MEGAPHONES ENTITLED TO DECIDE WHICH OPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE TO THE REST OF US? WHAT I ASK OF YOU IS THIS- AT YOUR NOVEMBER 27 MEETING, MS. VANDERHOEF SAID THAT A 50/50 SPLIT ON THE REVENUE ISSUE WAS LOGICAL. IT SHOULD ONLY TAKE MORE FOOD THAN LIQUOR, SHE SAID, NOT TWICE AS MUCH, TO MAKE YOU A RESTAURANT. WELL, IF I AM TO ACCEPT THAT LOGIC, YOU NEED TO ACCEPT THAT IT WORKS THE OTHER WAY AROUND. IF 50/50 IS SOUND LOGIC TO DISTINGUISH A BAR FROM A RESTAURANT, THEN YOU HAVE NO GROUNDS FOR REQUIRING, IN 2 YEARS TIME, THAT IT'S GOING TO TAKE TWICE AS MUCH LIQUOR THAN FOOD TO MAKE YOU A BAR. SO FIRSTLY, THROW OUT THE AMENDMENT WHICH CHANGES THE REVENUE SPLIT IN 2 YEARS. I OBJECT TO THE SENTIMENTS EXPRESSED BY MOST OF YOU ABOUT USING THIS ORDINANCE TO GET YOUR FOOT IN THE DOOR TO EVENTUALLY BAN ALL SMOKING. MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS DON'T HAVE AN EXPIRATION DATE TO THEM, AND PURITANISM IS NOT THE RELIGION I'VE CHOSEN TO PRACTICE. SECONDLY, IN ADDITION TO THE 50% REVENUE EXEMPTION, ALSO PROVIDE AN 8 PM RED LITE/GREEN LITE EXEMPTION. 8 PM IS PLENTY LATE ENOUGH FOR OZZIE & HARRIET TO TAKE LITTLE RICKY & DAVID OUT FOR BURGERS AND MALTS AND ESCAPE HOME BEFORE THE VAMPIRES COME OUT. THIRDLY, ALSO PROVIDE AN EXEMPTION FOR VENUES WHICH HAVE PRACTICALLY-SEGREGATED NON-SMOKING AREAS SUCH AS "THE 126" OR "THE SANCTUARY" OR "THE PARTHENON". ONLY THE MOST ZEALOUS OF PEOPLE CAN COMPLAIN ABOUT THE MINOR INFILTRATION OF SECOND-HAND SMOKE WHICH MAY RESULT FROM MY 2nd & 3rd PROPOSALS. "PERFECTION WITHOUT EXCEPTION." SO BE TOLERANT, COME UP WITH SOMETHING FAIR, WHICH YOU HAVEN'T YET, AND THEN LEAVE IT BE. IF YOU ADOPT MY PROPOSALS, I BELIEVE YOU WILL HAVE THE BASIS FOR AN ARRANGEMENT OVER WHICH THE COMMUNITY CAN ARRIVE AT CONSENSUS. NOBODY WILL GET ALL THEY WANT- EVERYONE WILL GET SOMETHING- AND YOU WILL STILL HAVE DRASTICALLY DECREASED THE AMOUNT OF SECOND-HAND CIGARETTE SMOKE CONSUMED BY THOSE UNWILLING. YOU MAY EVEN AVOID THE PROTRACTED LEGAL BATTLE YOU ARE MOST ASSUREDLY GOING TO HAVE IF YOU CONTINUE ON YOUR CURRENT PATH. "A BIRD IN THE HAND IS WORTH 2 IN THE BUSH." THANK YOU ALAN E. ACHTNER 1413 FRANKLIN STREET IOWA CITY, IA 52240-2710 354 4834 VOICE/FAX Marian Karr From: lu~run@avalon.net Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2002 4:00 PM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: urgent addition to smokefree ordinance To members of the City Council of Iowa City: Please read this essay, which was sent as a letter to the editor but may not be printed before Tuesday, 8 January. Bear in mind that nicotine is a potent neurotoxin (i.e. it poisons the nervous system), approximately twice as poisonous as strychnine. About 90% of the nicotine in a cigarette is 'lost' to the environment, where it can enter the bodies of non-smokers via their lungs (inhalation), digestive tracts (when smoke settles on their food or in their drink), and even via skin. Nicotine is readily absorbed through skin. Nicotine enters the bloodstream from many routes, and also crosses the placenta and causes brain damage in unborn babies. Both ADD and ADHD can be caused by prenatal exposure to nicotine. Here's the essay: To the editor: The smoking debate is NOT about choice. It is about the line between two competing freedoms. People have the right to freedom of choice. People also have the right to freedom from harm. One person's right to freedom of choice ends where it encounters another person's right to freedom from harm. One argument against banning smoking is that cigarettes are legal. So is spray paint. You can buy spray paint, and use it wherever you please--except you may NOT spray it in my face, on my clothes, or in my food. No business owner has the right to allow some customers to cause direct and deliberate harm to other customers and employees, not even with a legal product. A restaurant owner COULD allow customers to buy their own knives (sold legally) and use them in the restaurant, but COULD NOT allow these same customers to use these knives to slash the bodies of other customers. The same is true of nicotine. Nicotine addicts can purchase their drug and use it in any manner that does not interfere with the right of other citizens to be free of harm. The obvious solution is one that NO ONE has yet proposed! Ban smoking in restaurants. Allow nicotine addicts to use chewing tobacco, chew nicotine gum, suck on nicotine lollipops, or wear nicotine patches. They don't really want to shove a pile of burning leaves into their mouths--they want the nicotine. If they just wanted burning leaves, they would save the high cost of cigarettes and roll their own from mint, maple, or other free plant species available locally. They purchase cigarettes for the nicotine. They can get nicotine in other forms for use in public. Ban smoking in restaurants, but allow non-shared forms of nicotine for use in public. Then nicotine addicts will have freedom to poison themselves, and the rest of us will have freedom from being poisoned by our fellow citizens. Why didn't someone think of this sooner? Martha Rosett Lutz 302 Richards Street Iowa City IA 52246 (319) 337-7967 Marian Karr From: John Ferguson [ferguson@inav.net] Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2002 12:59 PM To: cou ncil@iowa-city.org Subject: City Council Correspondence: local smoking in restaurants ordinance - Ames Tribune: Owners: Business falling due to tobacco ordinance 1/5/02 To: City Council, Iowa City From: John Ferguson, 14 Norwood Circle, 351-3714 Re: Local Smoking in Restaurants Ordinance Note: Although only 25% of the total Iowa adult population smokes, the prevalence of smoking among university-aged people is HIGHER. For your information, the attached story was published this Saturday in the ~es Tribune. I'm very thankful that the Council is not considering a "smokers' rights ordinance" that would require restaurants to have a smoking section. The current Iowa state clean indoor air law seems quite appropriate in that it permits a business to choose to prohibit smoking AND it requires regulated restaurants to accon~odate nonsmokers by setting aside a section where smoking is prohibited. Although it is well-publicized that approximately 25% of the TOTAL adult population of Iowa are smokers, there has not been as much publicity concerning the prevalence smoking estimates for the 18-25 year old demographic stratum -- university students being mostly drawn from this group. However, given Federal government data from the 1999 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, any restaurant with a substantial number of potential customers from the 18-25 years old group should anticipate these young adults to be somewhat MORE likely to be smokers than those 26 years old and older. It is no wonder that some of the business owners potentially affected by the proposed ordinance would have grave concerns about its potential impact. Consider the following: Less than a month ago, there was the 'shocking' news in Minnesota: "State's Youth Smoking Rate Proves Startling" [WCCO-Channel 4000 (Tuesday, December 18, 2001) http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/wcco/20011218/lo/lOl1573_l.html] .... In news that caught most of the state's health care experts by surprise, a new report shows that Minnesota has the second-highest rate of smoking by young adults in the nation, trailing only tobacco-rich Kentucky. .... The news caught many off-guard, principally because the state routinely rates well in rankings of health of residents, the Twin Cities has tough smoking regulations and a portion of massive tobacco lawsuit settlement has been set aside to lower the rate of youth smoking." You might be surprised to learn that the MN prevalence estimate was about 50%. It is no secret [although I don't believe it is 'common knowledge'] that estimated national prevalence of past month smoking by persons 18-25-years olds is on the order of 40%. [See Table 9B, Youth Substance Use: State Estimates from the 1999 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse; Use Related Measures for the 50 States and District of Columbia, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse {NHSDA) http://www.samhsa.gov/oas/NHSDA/99StateTabs/lot.htm#TopOfPage ] Owners: Business falling due to tobacco ordinance By: David Grebe, Staff Writer January 05, 2002 ~nes Tribune http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=2906515&BRD=2035&PAG=461&dept_id=2 38101&rfi 6 Several Ames restaurant owners say their businesses are hurting - and may close - as a consequence of the Ames ordinance restricting tobacco in restaurants. These restaurants - Cafe Lovish, Cafe Beaudelaire and Boheme Bistro - are located near Iowa State University and cater, in large part, to foreign students and other smokers. The three businesses are taking different approaches to challenging the smoking restrictions. While Cafe Lovish and Cafe Beaudelaire are fighting the ordinance in court, Boheme Bistro is looking to become a private club. After the ordinance went into effect Aug. 1, "Our day business went from modest to essentially nil," says Peter Sherman, the owner of Boheme. Sherman refused to say when the issue of Boheme's status as a private club will be resolved but said he is abiding by the smoking ordinance for now. City Attorney John Klaus has said a business cannot designate itself a private club for the sole purpose of avoiding an ordinance. As for the lawsuit challenging the ordinance, Iowa District Court Judge Carl Baker is expected to rule on a motion for su~aary judgment in the next two weeks. Eight ~aes businesses are part of the suit and are receiving financial help from tobacco company Philip Morris. Sherman says one consequence of the ordinance is that next semester his business will open at 4:30 p.m. instead of 11 a.m. And Sherman, a statistician, gives short shrift to anti-tobacco activists' data that business will improve over time. "My customers tell me that's why they don't come," Sherman said. "If these guys want to get rid of smoking, don't pick on the little guy." Sherman said closure was a "distinct possibility." At Cafe Beaudelaire, lunchtime and dinner business has dropped off by 50 percent since the ban passed, according to Leo DePaula, who's run the establishment for 2 1/2 years. "I lost my regulars," DePaula said. DePaula also said that many students and professors used to cross Lincoln Way to smoke and eat - something they can't do anymore. Asked whether the smoking ordinance was hurting his business, Lovish Bederazack, owner of Cafe Lovish, gazed out on his empty restaurant and said, "Look at that." Bederazack attempted to restrict smoking in his establishment several years ago but found it cost too much money. Sherman and DePaula said it takes time to build up a clientele, and customers are hard to replace once they're gone. Both business owners said smokers made up the majority of their business. DePaula said he lost $20,000 in the third quarter of last year. And Sherman said that even though smokers make up 25 percent of the population, they go out more often than non-smokers. DePaula noted that George Belitsos, a co-chairman of the Ames Tobacco Task Force, arrived at Cafe Beaudelaire shortly after the smoking ban passed and commented on how much he enjoyed the smoke-free atmosphere. "He hasn't been back since," DePaula said. Belitsos said he's been there three times since the smoking ban went into effect. But, "I'm not going there now because they're involved in the lawsuit ... that's a personal choice," Belitsos said. He also said the tobacco ordinance shouldn't be blamed for every change that local businesses are facing. DePaula disagreed. "The economy can bring you down 5 percent ... but 15 to 30 percent, something's changed," he said. He said Cafe Beaudelaire won't close down, but it has cut back on staff. Sherman also questioned why the smoking ordinance, which was approved as a public health issue, has exemptions for some places but not others. The ordinance, for example, allows smoking in private clubs and establishments where food sales are less than 10 percent of revenues. 2 Limited exemptions are also given for truck stops and bowling alleys. Otherwise, smoking is not allowed in restaurants before 8:30 p.m. Belitsos, however, argued against any kind of exemption for businesses catering to international students. "Foreign students need to realize that in this country we're much more concerned with public health and exposure to second-hand smoke," he said. "We want to make sure our foreign students feel welcome in this country and are treated with dignity. Itbink the way to do that is to make sure all laws are applied equally." Sherman warned that "if Belitsos is successful" in passing a complete smoking ban, several local businesses will be forced under. Iowa City may soon join Ames in the smoldering tussle over smoking in restaurants. An ordinance limiting smoking may come before the City Council for final adoption on Tuesday. Marian Karr From: Nelson, Gayle [gayle-nelson@uiowa.edu] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 8:32 AM To: 'council@iowa-city.org' Subject: Tobacco ordinance Please support this ordinance as written! Our children deserve it. Thanks. Gayle Nelson, M.S., R.N.C. Staff Nurse II TB Surveillance Program Coordinator Student Health Service 4189 WL The University of Iowa Iowa City, IA 52242 Telephone: 319-335-8362 Fax: 319-335-7247 God Bless America!