HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-09-06 TranscriptionPage I
ITEM 2. PROCLAMATIONS
ITEM 2a Suicide Prevention Week — September 5-11
Throgmorton: (reads proclamation)
Karr: (both talking) Here to accept .... here to accept the proclamation, representing
NAMI, is Mary Issah. (applause)
Throgmorton: Thank you, Mary. It's nice to see you. (mumbled)
Issah: I'm Mary Issah. I'm with NAMI Johnson County and I, um, serve as the
representative on the Johnson County, um, Suicide Prevention Coalition. So I am
one of like 30 representatives of the Coalition. And we're putting on, um, couple
of events, uh.... to, urn.... commemorate this week, and the first one is this
Thursday, September 8th, 6:30 to 8:30 in the Murph, uh, Building on UI campus.
Kevin Briggs will be here and he will be, um, speaking, uh, his topic is `Bridge
Between Suicide and Life,' and he is an officer, a retired officer, with the, uh, San
Francisco Police Department and has talked over 200 people off the Golden Gate
Bridge. So, please come out and, um.....hear what he has to say. And then on
September 1 I`h, this Sunday evening, uh, we're having the `Out of the Darkness'
walk, which is a walk to, uh, remember those, uh, loved ones we've lost and to
help prevent future loved ones from being lost, and that's out at Terry Trueblood.
Registration 5:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M., walk at 6:00 P.M. so .... thank you for having
me!
Throgmorton: Thank you very much. (applause)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of September 6, 2016.
Page 2
IML u���7.ZiZ��7Mt1[i��6�
ITEM 2b Preventing Lost Potential Day 2014— September 19
Throgmorton: (reads proclamation)
Karr: Here to accept the proclamation, representing HAVlife Foundation, Zach Kenyon.
(applause)
Kenyon: Uh, my name is Zach Kenyon. I'm the Chairman of the HAVlife Foundation here
in Johnson County, um, and on behalf of all our Board of Directors, I'd like to
thank you for, uh, your support in continuing our mission here and preventing lost
potential. Urn .... HAVlife's mission acknowledges, uh, the great opportunities
here in Johnson County and in Iowa City specifically, uh, for.....that are
presented, uh, and provided to our youth, and also recognizes the barriers that
these, uh, some of our youth in the community face on a day-to-day basis in
accessing these resources. Um, the same barriers that HAVlife is, uh, going to,
uh, hopefully eliminate here, um, by fundraising and uh.... also partnering with
(coughs) Excuse me! Urn.... partnering with schools, community members, and
uh, those programs. So, um ... if you'd like to find out more about HAVlife, uh,
we have our, uh, web site. It's www.havlife.orS. That's H -A -V -l -i -f -e dot org.
Um, but again, on behalf of all of our Board of Directors, I'd really like to thank
you for your continued support in our mission. Thank you!
Throgmorton: Thank you, Zach. (applause)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of September 6, 2016.
Page 3
ITEM 2. PROCLAMATIONS
ITEM 2e PLAYvolution — September 11-24
Throgmorton: I'd like to note that our colleague from Coralville City Council, Jill Dodds, is in
the room. It's nice to see you, Jill! All right, so I'll read the proclamation. (reads
proclamation)
Karr: Here to accept the proclamation is a PLAYvolutionist. (laughter and applause)
Throgmorton: (unable to hear) Great to see you! (noises in background) (several talking and
laughing) (bells jingling and people talking)
(Playvolunist member): We're gonna go through a chant. We're gonna count to 10, and our
chant goes with counting 10. We're gonna do it twice in two time. So, if you
wanna listen the first time, go ahead and stay quiet, and then follow ... join in the
second time. We'll play a little bit and do the whole thing two more times.
(thumping and bells jingling in background) (several talking and laughing)
(chanting and music sounds in background) (applause)
Dunkhase: My name is Deb Dunkhase and I am representing the PLAYvolutionist tonight.
Thank you so much for your support for our PLAYvolution that we're getting
ready to kick off. Um, as Mayor Throgmorton said, we all know how incredibly
valuable ... I have to stop doing this or I'll play with `em (laughter) how incredibly
valuable play is to child development, and we're all kids. We all need play in
every part of our day. So we are representing the local libraries, the Rec Center,
Simple Abundance Childcare, Four Cs of Johnson County, and the Iowa
Children's Museum, and I think other partners as well, and we are filling the
community for the next two weeks with all kinds of play activities for adults and
kids. Every single event is free. You can find out everything about our unlimited,
unstructured play on the PLAYvolution.org web site. Check our Facebook page,
and ... make sure you play! Thank you so much! (applause)
Throgmorton: (several talking) Very nice! I'm feeling more relaxed already! (several talking
and laughing) Thanks! Okay, well gosh! Back to work, I guess! (laughter)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of September 6, 2016.
Page 4
ITEM 3. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS
PRESENTED OR AMENDED
Throgmorton: And I should tell you we're going to pull Item 3d(3), which has to do with traffic
calming.
Botchway: So moved.
Tbrogmorton: Uh, for separate discussion. So .... moved by Botchway.
Thomas: Second.
Throgmorton: Seconded by Thomas. All in favor say aye. No, we gotta do a motion (several
talking) (mumbled) whatever, it's a roll call.
Karr: Roll call.
Throgmorton: Motion carries 7-0. Uh, now Item 3d(3), Neighbor.... Neighborhood Traffic
Calming. Is there a motion to approve?
ITEM 3d(3) NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING POLICY
REVISIONS — RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESO 11-294 AND
ADOPTING EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR THE IOWA CITY
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM
Cole: So moved.
Botchway: Second.
Throgmorton: All right, moved by Cole, seconded by Botchway. Uh, discussion? I think maybe
it would be wise to start with Kent. Kent, could you briefly describe what's
contained in .... uh, the recommendations from the staff?
Ralston: Yeah, thank you. Kent Ralston, Transportation Planner. Uh, briefly, uh, what is
before you in the resolution.... includes, uh, the following evaluation criteria for
the traffic calming policy. The Neighborhood Traffic Calming policy for Iowa
City. First and foremost would be a petition requirement of 50%. So these are of
the affected ... the abutting properties affected by said traffic calming solution.
Throgmorton: Yeah, Kent, is that property owners .... (both talking)
Ralston: That would .... that would be a residence.
Throgmorton: Residence.
Ralston: Correct!
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of September 6, 2016.
Page 5
Throgmorton: Yeah.
Ralston: Um, the following then has to occur is that you must meet, uh, volume thresholds
of 500 vehicles a day, or more on a local street. A thousand vehicles a day or
more on a collector street, but not to exceed 3,000 vehicles. Uhl and/or you can
meet a, uh, speed threshold of five -miles -per -hour over the 85th percentile speed.
So, if the posted speed is 25 -mile -per -hour, the 85a' percentile speed must exceed
30 -mile -per -hour. So if you meet either the volume threshold or the speed
threshold, you then essentially, uh, pass that threshold. It's .... it's or. Uhl you
would have to have 75% of the abutting properties, again, being developed, uh,
and this largely came from the most recent traffic, the approved traffic calming,
um, solution on Langenberg, where there's quite a few empty lots. The idea
being that we want the neighborhood to fill in a little bit more before we move
forward with speed humps or whatever else, uh, it might be. Uhl next we would,
uh, discuss with, uh, all the emergency responders, uh, the Engineering
department, Public Works department, and so forth to find out what the solution
might be for that neighborhood, then we would hold a neighborhood meeting, uh,
discuss that with the neighborhood, a menu of options available to them, and then
finally there would be a survey where 60% of the respondents. You have to have
a 50% response rate requirement, 60% of that 50% then needs to be in favor of
the traffic calming solution for us to bring it to you all for approval.
Throgmorton: Okay!
Ralston: In a nutshell!
Throgmorton: Thanks! So, I'd like to say ... (mumbled) We discussed this during our work
session and I .... I now understand it's 60% of the 50% or more that respond. !
thought it was 60% of the residents. That... that ... I want to be clear about that!
Ralston: Right. So it's that person living in that household would be the person voting
for .... well, they would have the survey. That's correct — voting in favor (both
talking)
Throgmorton: Right, but... but.... but that final threshold, I want to be clear, uh, that I'm
understanding correctly. Does....does it require that 60% of the residents on the
affected road must support the traffic calming, or is it 60% of the 50% or more
that responded?
Ralston: Correct, the latter. It would be.....you have to have 50% response rate. So if we
only get 30% response rate of those surveyed, we would let you all know that and
we would not be recommending a .... a traffic calming for that neighborhood. So
if you meet that 50% threshold, in the response rate, then you need to have a 60%,
uh, approval rate, or in favor of that traffic calming solution. (both talking)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of September 6, 2016.
Page 6
Throgmorton/ Yeah, but I'm .... I'm still not hearing this clearly enough, Kent.
Ralston: I think it .... I think it's 60% of the 50% (both talking)
Throgmorton: If only ... let's say 55% of the people respond, is it only they who have a ... a,
basically a vote, in whether to do the traffic calming or not, and (both talking)
Ralston: Yes, that's correct! (both talking)
Throgmorton:.... you gotta have at least 60% of them (both talking)
Ralston: Correct! Something else we do is .... and it wouldn't.... something else we would
also do is we put in essentially real estate signs in the right-of-way during the
process. So we would also be letting the general public know, via .... well, that'd
be one of the mechanisms, but we would actually post real estate signs, in the
right-of-way, notifying the public of the Council meeting in which it would be
decided. So we would also be collecting written responses for you all to also
have. So the survey.....we would make a recommendation, but you don't
necessarily have to approve that project because it has that 60% response rate, or
50% response rate, 60% approval rate (laughter) um, but we would also have
written comments for you, as well. And that's always been the way, uh, the
traffic calming program has worked in the past is that we would just simply tell
you if they meet those criteria. The Council has the final decision obviously.
Throgmorton: Okay, I'm sure others have questions for Kent, so....
Botchway: So, I think Jim's point is one of the points I had prior to ... in our work session. I
have problems with that .... with that threshold. I think that .... and I think you
mentioned thinking about it from rental agreement standpoint, but then when
Kent .... when you asked a question and Kent said `residents,' I'm not as inclined
with the rental agreement piece because it wouldn't be the actual owners of the
property. It would be the actual residents that are, um, taking the survey, so to
speak. Um, so that's one concern, and then the other concern.... well, that's a
huge concern, but the other concern is, um, neighborhood, uh.... discussion. So
you're saying that you're gonna.....first you know vet it through the entire City
department, or multiple City departments, and then have that neighborhood
meeting. And this is kind of a concern I have in general, but since we're talking
about I'm going to focus on this is .... we consistently get feedback from groups
that say that, you know, they haven't been.... haven't been a part of the
neighborhood discussion. What type of notification .... are we putting, you know,
mail or some type of notification in every .... in everybody's, um ..... mailbox or is
it just that real estate sign that's there?
Ralston: No, for the actual neighborhood meeting and for the actual survey, there would be
an actual letter that goes to the affected property.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of September 6, 2016.
Page 7
Botchway: Okay.
Ralston: Again though, the resident, not the owner, and the idea behind that has always
been that the resident is the person affected by the high speeds, if...if that was the
case or the high volumes, not the property owner that may live out of state, for
instance. That's the rationale behind that.
Mims: I don't have any questions for Kent. I'll just speak to my view on this. I'm going
to vote against this, and .... and the reason I'm going to vote against it is I think the
reduction in the threshold is too low. I think 60% of only 50% that have to
respond to the survey gets you down to theoretically as low as 30% of the
residents that are affected can generate the traffic calming. So you've potentially
got 70% of the people either who don't care, are just uninvolved and/or actively
against it, and I think that's too low of threshold. I preferred what the staff had
originally brought to us.
Throgmorton: Sue, if we wanted to, could we amend this on the floor?
Dulek: Yes.
Throgmorton: Yeah, so you don't have to vote against it. You can.....
Mims: Well, I'm just stating at this point where I'm at. If ...if there's not enough people
that feel the same way it's... it'll get ... it'll pass the way it is. If there's enough
people then we can amend it, but might as well wait and see how people feel.
Throgmorton: Yeah, well let's see if there are other questions (both talking)
Cole: (mumbled) Kent, let me just clarify this question because I think that we ... we've
discussed a lot about this, sort of this preliminary threshold in terms of the
petition and the percentage of residents. That is just the very first step to even
warrant staff intervention, right?
Ralston: The petition?
Cole: The petition.
Ralston: Correct! Correct.
Cole: So staff could then, um, you could get ... meet the requisite threshold and staff
could recommend against it. In which case, you know, and then ultimately then it
would still have to come to us and so if we have a situation where there's a highly
unpopular decision that's made by let's say a very small number of stakeholders,
and we still have to go through the public process of the real estate signs. We
would ultimately have to come before a public meeting. So it'd be ample
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of September 6, 2016.
Page 8
opportunity between the time of the change before it comes for Council
intervention. I mean am I understanding that correctly?
Ralston: Yeah, the way .... yes, I think you are. That I think is a decision though that
between the City Manager and the Council we can make, whether or not .... we
want it to be where .... say we get a petition or the .... the petition comes in and we
have five signatures, which maybe represents 10% of the affected property.
Cole: Yeah.
Ralston: In that case I think I would go to the City Manager and say we've got a petition.
We had 10% on that petition, and I .... I don't know that we would want to go
through the rest of the process just because of the time it would take. I think the
idea is that we would actually say they're not even close, and in that case we
would .... I would discuss it with the City Manager's office and that would
probably be the end of that project. You know, if it came back in at 49%, on a
petition rate not 50, then I think we'd clearly move forward. You know,
it ... there ... it's a policy. It's not set in stone, but I think we'd have that discussion
with the City Manager's office and then decide if....if he believes we should take
the entire (several talking)
Dickens: So we could ... it comes to us anyway. So if. ... if. ... after it comes back with the
60% approval rating, we can still turn it down if we feel (several talking) people
coming to us, talking to us....
Ralston: Correct!
Dickens: ...that are adamantly opposed to it, we still have the right of refusal there.
Ralston: Correct. And .... and that's the idea behind these changes, is to make sure this
thing's front -loaded. We're really getting that neighborhood support and then
directing the appropriate resources to projects in neighborhoods that really want it
or really need it. So I think .... so I think for the Council's sake, we would not
want to bring.... forward proposals that you all are going to likely deny because it
only had a 10% petition rate for....for.....for instance.
Thomas: Yeah I .... you know and .... before meeting with staff, um ..... you know looking at
the current policy, currently you don't need any percentage. There's no threshold
to cross whatsoever, and .... and I did before meeting with staff talk to a few
people in the neighborhood who are active and interested in traffic calming,
and... and they too had concerns, uh, with the .... the 67% because of the fact that
in certain parts of Iowa City, uh, such as the Northside, um, it may be difficult to
cross that 67% because you have students who really .... the question of traffic
calming and they may not be opposed to it, but it's not something.... they
necessarily are interested in (laughs) They ... they may be living in another
neighborhood the next year. So .... it seemed at least as a .... as a change to go from
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of September 6, 2016.
Page 9
none to 50% .... seemed like a reasonable, uh, step to make, to give some threshold
but .... you know, to go from zero to 50 and ... at this point.
Throgmorton: Didn't quite follow the 67% that you just referred to. Can you explain how that
(both talking)
Thomas: Well that .... in the staff proposed policy it was going to be (several talking)
Throgmorton:.... was reduced to (both talking) Right, and....
Thomas: And the 60 is what we have now.
Throgmorton: Yeah. Yeah (both talking)
Thomas: So that remains the same.
Throgmorton: Yeah. Yeah, okay. Any other, uh, questions for Kent or discussion among the
Council Members? (mumbled)
Taylor: No I just said ... yeah it was originally what they had proposed and then when we
discussed (mumbled) we came up with the 50. The other concern we had was
the .... we don't want .... of course the police would love to hear this, then we don't
want folks to think that the five -mile -per -hour means that it's acceptable to go
five -miles -per -hour over, uh, nothing, you know. The speed limit is speed limit
for a reason and ... and it's a safe -set limit, uh, so that does not necessarily mean
that we approve of folks driving five miles over but it was certainly we thought a
safer margin than seven miles per hour over.
Botchway: So I'm going to step in here. And, um.....so there were a couple things. One, um,
as it's currently proposed I'm going to vote no. Not because I'm against traffic
calming but because I'm against the kind of percentage.... piece so to speak. I ... I
agree with your point, Rockne, that in ... I think Terry mentioned this as well, that
ultimately it comes back to us, but .... you know.....I would .... I would like to get
some of the contentiousness out of, you know, our public meetings, and so if there
is an unfavorable, uh, situation, I don't want it deliberated, you know, here just
because, I mean, at times it could be, I mean, good but .... if there's an ability to,
you know.... spend that time on the front end, working with your neighborhoods
and uh, figuring out a particular situation, I feel like that's the better way of
handling things and coming before, you know, um, us from a ..... in a judge
situation and making us be the individuals who would be the, you know, the
potential sayers of how this is going to potentially go and.... that.... that's
problematic to me. Um, I agree with your .... I agree and disagree with your
statement about students, um, you know, being not so long removed. It's starting
to creep away! Birthday is September 28 — remember. Um .... a student, you
know, the transient population I understand but .... even more so I think that would
have been great if, you know, one of my, you know, neighbors in Gilbert Street
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of September 6, 2016.
Page 10
would of come up to me and said, you know, hey .... and I might not have been
interested maybe in the first (mumbled) but hey, I'm interested in putting a .... a
....a, uh, speed hump on Gilbert Street, and I would have been like, "No!" You
know, how can I, you know, speak against that and I feel like we're .... we would
be ..... you know, decreasing, um, the transient population or students or
whoever's voice by, you know, not necessarily giving them an opportunity to
chime in from that perspective. Um, so again, that's my .... I would like to change
it back to the 67. Um, I'm even less in favor of it simply because of, again, as I
was trying to draw it in my mind, if you have a, you know, two separate sides of a
street and 50% decide that they want something one way, and then only ..... 50%
you can get that signature requirement and also 50%, you know, response to the
particular survey, only 60% of that, um, group could decide what it is for the
particular street, I ... I just .... I don't like that. It just doesn't ..... it doesn't make
sense to me from that standpoint and so, um, I would.....again, my proposal
would be to put it back to the overall 67%. I know that does.... does put a little bit
of work on the residents to .... to talk with their neighbors, meet with their
neighbors, and talk through some issues. Um, but I don't necessarily see the
difference, um, in a situation where, you know, and I think about a campaign from
the standpoint you might get a signature from somebody that you would like to be
elected, but that doesn't mean that they would vote for you, and so I mean I can
get the signature, you know, initial threshold and some other things but .... I just
have problems with the .... the response rate approval.
Throgmorton: So let me see if I'm understanding you. You're agreeing with the 50%
requirement for the first part of it.
Botchway: No, no, no! I'm not. I'm .... (both talking)
Throgmorton: You want the 67% for the first part? What are ... what are you saying?
Mims: I think that's what he's saying, back to what the original (both talking)
Botchway: Back to what the original is, yeah (several talking) I would just (mumbled) in my
head as far as the (both talking)
Throgmorton: Okay.
Mims: And I, I mean, I agree with Kingsley. I'll just make it really brief. I mean to me
that's what staff is trying to do in bringing this to us in the first place was they
said front -loading this from the standpoint of making sure that you've got really
high neighborhood support for this before staff puts in a bunch of time. I realize
it can still come to Council, we can still make the decision, but the idea of trying
to save staff time by making sure there's a high level of support in the
neighborhood, and I agree with Kingsley. I would rather see the percentages as
originally proposed.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of September 6, 2016.
Page 11
Cole: I'm supportive of these changes. I think the key thing for me is this question of
lowering barriers to citizen participation. And I think that's precisely what this
does. Um, as Councilor Thomas mentions, that right now there's no threshold
whatsoever, and I'm sure there's, you know, staff probably gets a lot of feedback
from the public they don't necessarily share with us, um, but at least so far I have
not heard that staff has been deluged with unreasonable requests. So I think the
question before us tonight is what is the marginal burden on staff when we're
distinguishing between a 67 and 50% threshold. To me that's a relatively modest
difference, and I think most importantly it represents a compromising consensus
based upon some feedback that we've received. So I am gonna support this,
and .... but I would like to note that if, you know, Kent, if. ... if you get deluged
with requests and you feel that this is unreasonable, you're not able to do your,
you know, job. I know you're a great person. You'll.... you'll try to
accommodate those requests, but if there is the deluge, um, let us know. Um, this
is not something that I think that, um, you know, strikes me as a .... a major public
policy question. We can tweak this, um, relatively soon. So .... hopefully if we
could get an update if this passes in six months or to see how we're doin', um, we
can tweak it.
Throgmorton: Okay, there's a motion on the floor. Roll call. Motion carries 4-3, uh, with, uh,
Mims, Botchway, and Dickens in, uh, negative.
Karr: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to note that on the Consent Calendar Item 3d(8) was the
assessment schedule ... and this is, um, an .... an annual, um .... adoption that
(mumbled) scheduled for unpaid mowing, cleaning up of properties, sidewalk
repairs, etc. If there is anyone in the audience who wishes to comment on .... on
this subject, this would be the time to do so. If not we'll proceed with the next
step.
Throgmorton: Thank you, Marian. I did forget that. Is there anybody who would like to ... uh....
respond to the assessment on their property? Uh, I ... I don't see anybody, but
thank you, Marian. Okay, so we will move on to Item 4, Community Comment.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of September 6, 2016.
Page 12
ITEM 4. COMMUNITY COMMENT (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA). [UNTIL 8
PM]
Throgmorton: So anyone who would like to, uh, make a brief comment about any item that's not
on the formal meeting agenda can do so now and we could do this, uh, until 8:00,
at which time we'd have to stop. Uh.... uh, and if you do want to speak, please
limit your comments to not more than, uh, five minutes. So would anybody like
to address us during this public discussion period? Wow! How exciting! U...
usually somebody, uh, you know, has good reason to speak about something.
Okay! We'll move on to Item 5, Planning and Zoning Matters.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of September 6, 2016.
Page 13
ITEM 5. PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS
ITEM 5a EASTSIDE MIXED USE FORM -BASED CODE — ORDINANCE
AMENDING TITLE 14: ZONING TO ESTABLISH FORM -BASED
ZONING STANDARDS FOR THE EAST SIDE MIXED USE ZONE AND
TO CLARIFY AND REFINE CERTAIN PROVISIONS THAT APPLY
DOWNTOWN AND IN THE RIVERFRONT CROSSINGS DISTRICT
1. PUBLIC HEARING
Throgmorton: I need to open the public hearing. (bangs gavel) Would anybody like to address
this topic, and I think the first person will be Karen Howard. Good evening,
Karen!
Howard: Good evening! I'm Karen Howard, the Neighborhood and Development
Services, uh, Department. We get our technology working here. I have a few
slides to present to you on this item. So this is creating a new zoning district in
Iowa City. Um, this is a form -based zoning district, and this comes to you, um...
uh, because of a Comprehensive Plan amendment change that you adopted last
year. Um, this is a slide that shows.... excuse me (mumbled)... shows the area for
this proposed east side mixed-use district. Um, this is the area that's bounded
basically by, uh, the alley .... uh, south of Jefferson Street, uh, down to Burlington
Street, generally west of Johnson Street, and east of Van Buren Street. This is the
area as you can see from the aerial photograph here that's just east of the area
we ... where City Hall is here, east of downtown, and part of that transition area
between downtown and the east side neighborhoods. So as you recall in 2015, the
City central planning district was amended to include this particular area, and the
idea is to create a better transition from downtown Iowa City to the east side
residential neighborhood, and establish zoning standards to ensure that
redevelopment is compatible with the character and scale of the surrounding
neighborhood. So a form -based zoning district is a pretty good tool. I know that
you have discussed this, um, this type of zoning tool, uh, recently for other areas
of the city, uh, and it's already been adopted in Riverfront Crossings and the
Peninsula neighborhood. So we felt like this was a good tool and a good fit for
this particular area. One of the first things that we do when we look at a form -
based zoning district is to really look at the neighborhood character that we're
considering and this particular area is....has tree -lined streets, landscaped front
yards, parking's lo ... located generally in the back of the lots. It's.... it's generally
single-family homes that were constructed around a hundred years ago with porch
frontages that predominate and many of these homes have been divided into
apartments over the years, but retain that original single-family character. But
some of the original homes have been extensively remodeled so the building form
is no longer recognizable and some homes have retained their original character
but are used for business purposes or for small businesses. Uh, there is also some
in -fill apartments of more modern design in this area. So a real mix. Now the
commercial buildings in this area are all clustered along Van Buren Street. There
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of September 6, 2016.
Page 14
aren't any, uh, commercial buildings. They may front on other streets, but largely
they're clustered along Van Buren Street. This would be, you know, the Co -Op
and ... and, uh, the, uh, credit union, the gas station on Burlington Street. And then
there's a new, larger mixed-use building that was recently constructed on
Washington Street, according to the central business 2 zoning standards. So you
can see what the current zoning allows to occur, uh, right now is .... is a more
urban, uh.... uh.....standard, um .... similar to downtown. So here's the current
zoning of all those properties. You can see that they're all either zoned CB -5,
central business 5; central business 2; um .... and then there's a couple properties
that we are suggesting be included in this district because those properties have
developed, um, with, uh, buildings that are not, um .... similar to other buildings in
the neighborhood and could potentially benefit from redevelopment. And there's
a number of reasons I think that both the Planning and Zoning Commission and
the City Council in their discussions about the Comprehensive Plan last year, um,
reasons that the current zoning is not a particularly good fit for this area. It forces
developers to build commercial and mixed-use building types in an area where
demand for commercial is limited. This is more appropriate in the downtown
setting where we require commercial on the ground floor with mixed-use above.
Um, and so with the current zoning, residential uses, um, are not allowed on the
ground floor, which is counter to what a lot of the buildings in the area have been
traditionally in the past. It also forces buildings to be built lot line to lot line, with
little or no green space in an area where landscaped front yards are the norm.
And here you can see some of the photographs of. ... of. ... how that CB -2 building,
uh.... built to the standards of the current zoning standards, appropriately to the
current standards, but how it interfaces with the building that was built in the
more traditional neighborhood fashion. (mumbled) ....also should be noted that
most of the existing buildings are non -conforming with the current zoning. So,
because the current zoning requires buildings to be mixed-use pulled to the front
lot line, a lot of the existing buildings are already non -conforming. So the
benefits of adopting a form -based code in this area is that the form -based code is
organized around form and character rather than the land use and the density. So,
the idea is that this new east side mixed-use, or EMU district, um, would have
similar residential densities allowed as the current central business zoning while
ensuring that the building form fits into the residential character of the
neighborhood, with the mix of uses possible, but fine-tuned to ensure a better
transition from downtown. And the code is tailored to ensure that the size and the
placement of the buildings and parking are consistent with the ... with the existing
neighborhood. So similar to Riverfront Crossings, because this is a fairly small
district and probably most efficiently we could just interface this right into the
Riverfront Crossings code as a new form -based district. A lot of the, uh,
standards because it is a downtown area, a more urban neighborhood, um, really
fit pretty well with some of the Riverfront Crossings form -based districts. So we
took the most similar one, which is this central Crossings district in Riverfront
Crossings, and fit the EMU district into that part of the zoning ordinance. So it
has it's own intent, and then it has specific standards in the form -based code that
just apply to this district, but some of the same .... the things that are most relevant
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of September 6, 2016.
Page 15
to all of these districts would then remain the same so we don't have to reinvent
the wheel. So the regulating plan for this district basically is very simple. Um, it
just shows the primary streets would be, um, the .... the east -west streets — Iowa,
Washington, College, and Burlington Street. There's only one north -south street,
and that's Van Buren Street. That would be considered a secondary street.
And... I won't go through these, uh, in detail, but basically.... unless you have
questions, the building placement then is similar to what we observe in the current
neighborhood, as far as the building set -backs and the building height, which
would be three stories maximum, and then the parking, again, would be similar to
the existing neighborhood. There's alleys in this whole neighborhood and so, um,
having access, parking off the alleys behind buildings. And then as far as the land
uses that are allowed, form -based codes do have land use regulations as far as
uses that are allowed, and so what we've done, uh, in Riverfront Crossings is you
remember, uh, allow the same .... mix of uses as allowed in our central business 5
zone. But then for each one of those sub -districts, we've taken those land uses
and said what's most appropriate? Are there things that shouldn't be allowed in
this particular area, or maybe we want to add something that should be allowed,
um, because of the certain characteristics of the area. So what we did is we took
that and we said these are the things that we need to be, um, specific about. So no
drinking establishments or alcohol sales -oriented retail uses, no animal related
commercial or repair -oriented retail, quick vehicle servicing only allowed at the
corner of Burlington and Van Buren, where there is currently a gas station, um,
drive-through facilities not allowed, and I just want to make a note that the bank is
currently non -conforming with the CB -5 zoning .... on the property, um, it has a
drive-through now. It's grandfathered in, um .... but the non -conformity won't
change with this zoning change. Uh, commercial recreational uses, eating
establishments, sales -oriented retail, and personal service-oriented retail uses have
a limit on the open hours to the public. Now they can have other things
happening in their businesses during the off -hours, but when they're open to the
public, the idea is that they, um, they are closed during the hours of 11:00 P.M. to
6:00 A.M. And this was expressed as a concern at the Planning and Zoning
Commission, uh... uh, a resident of the area spoke about this. There's one
particular business that's open till 3:00 and 4:00 A.M. with, um, people lining up
outside and causing sometimes a disturbance in the neighborhood. So the idea
is .... is we shouldn't allow more of those types of businesses. I think because it's
often a travel route between downtown and the residential neighborhoods to the
east, after the bars are closed, you know, if you have an eating establishment that
is looking to attract the bar crowd, um, this may not be the appropriate location.
Cole: Karen, will that business be, um, grandfathered?
Howard: It will be grandfathered, but uh.....anything... if they change or move out, um, a
new one wouldn't be able to open during those hours. Um .... or they could have a
similar business move in, but they just would be restricted as far as their hours
would go. Uh, uses can be mixed both vertically and horizontally. So the idea is
that you can have a business in a single-family home. You can convert some of
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of September 6, 2016.
Page 16
the existing structures into a small business. That's a nice place for incubator
type businesses, um, but the .... the residential character of the neighborhood
would remain the same. And then the residential density itself, rather than a per -
acre, so many units per acre, it would really be controlled similar to Riverfront
Crossings by, uh, the building height standard, the set -backs, and, urn .... the
amount of parking that can be achieved on a site. Um, one thing to note is that
we .... in .... in the downtown zones, in the south downtown and Riverfront
Crossings, the densist part of the downtown, we have a limit on the number of
three-bedroom units which are typically mostly geared toward student rentals.
Um .... we have a limit on 30%, uh, just to .... to give a little bit more balance in
this particular neighborhood, um, we've reduced that, uh, suggestion to 20%.
Um, we've had sort of a .... a.....trying to catch up to 15 years of building four and
five -bedroom apartments. I think until that's .... we catch up to that, um, trend, uh,
there have been a lot more one and two -bedrooms, uh, being built in ... in the last
few years when we changed the density formula. So, this is attending toward, uh,
that direction. Uh, the typical building types allowed in Riverfront Crossings, we
took those same building types, um, and tried to find the ones that are most
appropriate for this location. It should be noted that mixed-use buildings, new
mixed-use buildings and commercial buildings would only then be allowed.
Those building types would only be allowed along Van Buren and Burlington
Streets. Now you could have a small business move into .... an existing house or
something like that. So we're talking about the buildings, the new buildings
themselves, not the use. Um, and then all the typical building standards that apply
in Riverfront Crossings would also apply here, but I wanted to pull one out,
specifically the facade composition, the articulation of modulation standard. Um,
we set that in this particular district to respond specifically to the rhythm and the
scale of the buildings in this neighborhood. And .... this neighborhood is part of
the central planning district. In 2005 we adopted the central planning district
multi -family site development standards, because we had a lot of problems with
buildings, um, not fitting into these neighborhoods. And just as a refresher, um,
I'll give ya.... these are buildings that all have been built since 2005, according to
the central district stan .... central, uh, planning district standards. Um, but this is
kind of the thing that we were getting before those were adopted. Buildings were
out of scale with the surrounding development. We had buildings that had blank
street facing facades, little articulation of the facades, so not very welcoming, not
very pedestrian -friendly, and then also some basic safety and security issues
occurring, um, hard to find the front door if you live here. You have to walk back
beside the building to get into the building. So a lot of complaints about safety
and security of some of the things that had been built in the past. Um .... exterior
stairways that are often treacherous in the winter time, and sliding glass doors that
aren't particularly secure as entrances. So those are the kinds of things that the
community had told us when we rewrote the code in 2005 that were problems and
the central planning district standards were there to address. That's been fairly
well received and I think, um .... because there have been some, uh, inappropriate
redevelopment in this particular area, um, we felt like it makes sense to adopt
similar standards in the EMU district as a central planning district standard. So
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of September 6, 2016.
Page 17
this is, uh, the central planning district standard. Helps break up those buildings.
You have entrances that face the street. You can't have blank front facades. And
then there's a maximum building width so the ... the idea of the scale of the
building, um, would fit better into the neighborhood. And then the finally there is
an architectural style standard that just applies in the central planning district, so
applies in this area as well for new multi -family buildings and duplexes to help
buildings meet a style of architecture that fits in with the historic character of the
neighborhood. So once again, these are buildings that were built after the
standards were in place, and we feel like they've been working fairly well. So no
need to reinvent the wheel. With regard to parking standards, urn .... uh, the
parking standards are a bit lower than, uh, what would be applied on the outlying
areas of Iowa City, that is to reflect its central city location, similar to the central
business 2 standard that applies to most of these properties now, and similar to
Riverfront Crossings as far as the parking standards go. And then something that
applies.... would apply here that doesn't apply now would be an open -space
requirement for each new multi -family building that would .... would be built in
the area. Um, there are other standards that are associated with adopting this new
code ... new, uh, district into the zoning ordinance, um, that we have to amend
other parts of the zoning ordinance in order to make this apply, and so I've lifted
....listed those here and unless you have questions about those I won't go into
details. Uh, there's a .... there's a tweak to the downtown and Riverfront
Crossings parking district that I wanted to note. Um (mumbled) delete a
requirement that a project must qualify for bonus height, bonus FAR, or other
financial assistance from the City to qualify to pay a fee in lieu of parking. Uh,
we felt like, um, that was .... that was putting an onerous burden on people that
might have small projects that they want to just do one or two apartments, um,
that they don't need financial assistance from the City, but they need help,
urn .... because they can't fit in a small amount of parking, so that's the reason
that .... just allows them to qualify for paying that fee. There are other revisions,
uh, while we were in the middle of....of doing this, um, since we've adopted the
form -based code in Riverfront Crossings over the last couple years we've had the
chance to use that code. These are a few tweaks that we wanted to make just
based on our experiences, input we've received from developers, and from ... from
other folks. Uh, and so I ... I no .... I pulled out a few things to note. Um, it's all in
the staff memo, uh, and I would go into details on these if you have questions.
But otherwise I won't .... I won't go into those details. Um ... so I'd just entertain
any questions that you have about .... about the code amendments.
Dickens: I just have a question on the map itself. Why is that section cut out between
Burlington and College, and also why does it not go all the way to Johnson Street,
the .... the district. (both talking) Just kinda goes half way (both talking)
Howard: ....let me pull up a map here. The reason .... is because this was the area that was
added to the central planning district. These properties are already zoned
residential. So they already have, you know, appropriate zoning, um .... it was... it
was the .... the properties that were zoned central business...
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of September 6, 2016.
Page 18
Dickens: Okay.
Howard: ...that seemed out of sync with the rest of the neighborhood.
Dickens: Thank you.
Thomas: Is there a minimum size on the apartments?
Howard: Minimum size, no. Oh, John noted that that ... the boundary's also the boundary of
the, uh, College Green Historic District.
Throgmorton: I guess I do have a question which is not central to what you've presented us with,
but ... you now have gotten, I don't know, two year's experience in, uh, helping to
implement the form -based code to the Riverfront Crossings District. Uh, and I ... I
see that you've suggested some tweaks and you're recommending them to us.
Uh, but how ... how do you think that's going so far in the Riverfront Crossings
District? The form -based code that is. Do you think it's working well? Uh, and
then you know you think there are these minor things that need to be changed and
so on.
Howard: Yeah, I think in general the form -based code has been working well. I think it
allows redevelopment to occur. It has encouraged some properties to redevelop
that weren't obviously redeveloping, um .... uh, there was planning efforts south of
Burlington Street in the past and not .... there weren't any zoning standards, uh,
adopted to sort of kick-start that and so I think ..... I think the form -based code has
allowed some of that to occur. Um ... course there's always room for
improvement, so we're always looking for opportunities to make it better, so....
Throgmorton: Okay, good. Thanks. Any other questions for Karen? Hearing none, thank you,
Karen! Would anybody else like to address this topic? Okay, I'm going to close
the public hearing. (bangs gavel)
2. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE (FIRST CONSIDERATION)
Botchway: Move first consideration.
Dickens: Second.
Throgmorton: Moved by Botchway, seconded by Dickens. Discussion?
Botchway: John, why'd you ask that question?
Thomas: Huh?
Botchway: Why'd you ask that question about size of the apartments?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of September 6, 2016.
Page 19
Thomas: Well we could have micro -housing, um (laughter)
Throgmorton: Which is not a bad thing!
Thomas: No, no. I wasjust....wanted to see if that was an option.
Botchway: Seemed like a positive, so I wanted to know (mumbled)
Cole: Well I would just like to comment. I'm extremely impressed with this proposal.
Um, really excited about this neighborhood commercial. I think, you know, form -
based code, it's one of those things that sounds sort of boring, form -based code,
um, but I actually think it's really exciting because it's going to allow all sorts of
uses that are much more, uh, more compatible with a neighborhood and I think it
will sort of bring us back to some of the original characteristics of Iowa City that
we saw, you see in the historic neighborhoods, where they did commercial
development so well without it being, uh, a blight to the neighborhood. I think
this is going to be a real asset, um, I only wish we could have done this 25 years
ago, um, but I really am in favor of this and I'm very impressed with this
proposal.
Botchway: I would agree as well. I think that, urn .... just ..... you know, you don't think about
some of the pictures that you showed of the buildings that, you know, almost have
no face so to speak, and how problematic that is and you know, you're walking by
it and how more inviting it would be to walk by and....and interface with those,
maybe not only as a .... um, a resident walking by, but also, uh, a resident of the
actual particular building as well, and so I think the comment that I liked that Jim
had kind of asked, um, as far as Riverfront Crossings District was that... actually
encouraging some business or some redevelopment to occur, and I think frankly
when we had first discussed it, I was a little bit scared from the Riverfront
Crossings side and now moving into this I always get, not necessarily as .... bored
was the first part but scared just from the standpoint of, you know, it's setting
restrictions on a particular development so to speak, and so you worry about how
development will occur and whether or not people will be interested, but every
time I see this, and as you had experienced, seems to be working well more and
more. So, I really enjoy it and really like it!
Mims: I just want to say thank you to Karen and all the rest of the staff. I mean, I look at
this from my perspective and it's like .... there is so much detail here .... trying to
get a handle on what it really means is really hard. And so having, you know,
good concise PowerPoint and presentation, to kind of focus us on what is really
happening, um, is really helpful, but obviously you guys spent hours and hours to
get all those details, so thank you very much!
Taylor: I was also impressed, I mean talk about details, right down to the type of
windows, uh, that are... are, would be necessary, and then seeing the photos of
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of September 6, 2016.
Page 20
some of the ones that don't quite fit into that you can really get a picture of .... of
what your intent is. So I apply.... applaud all the work you put into it also.
Thomas: Yeah I .... in ... in our work session Lucy Lorian made the comment about using
staff and, um .... I don't think there's a better example of..of how staff (laughs)
you know, with a form -based code you really have to know the landscape, the
character of...of a particular neighborhood in order to develop it right. So I think
it was a great use of our staffs understanding, Karen's understanding, of the
neighborhood. Uh, I would just want to point out some of the things which I
think really are good foundation for transition zones, uh, with.... between, you
know, commercial and ... or mixed-use, and urn .... residential. The three-story
height limit I think has always been, uh, it seem .... on my ob.....based on my
observations a critical condition, urn .... I'm really happy to hear about the
incorporation of the usable open space requirement, and ... and the lastly the
maximum length. I think that is a really critical, uh, aspect of good form -based
coding, you know, we've been focusing on heights, but I think.... it's..... in most
of our conversations but I ... I think length is something that's equally as important,
not only from an urban design standpoint, but I'm inclined to think it has
economic benefit too because it's ... it's making the increment of development
smaller. I think that makes it more, urn .... the increment allows for a wider range
of ownership. The bigger the building, the fewer, you know, the owners of that
building can be. So I think, you know, on a number of levels, economic urban
design, you know, is a vast improvement over what we have.
Throgmorton: Well I'm very pleased to .... oh, I just got a cramp! Sorry! (mumbled) (laughter
and several talking)
Botchway: Um .... I'm, you know, as I was sitting here thinking about it, being so excited and
hearing everybody talk, I was thinking about, um ..... I can't remember the two
names of the individuals that always bring this up, um, but accessibility, because I
know that it was brought up in the Riverfront Crossings District, um, form -based
code presentation discussion, and .... you know, now I.'m.....(several talking) and
then somebody else.....Harry Olmstead (several talking) but there was somebody
else too that we met. Um, but anyways, um, so.....does this plan, you know....
appreciate that kind of, um .... discussion or does it, you know, incorporate what it
needs to be from an ADA accessibility standpoint?
Howard: So all the same accessibility standards would apply here that would apply across
the city. So same thing in Riverfront Crossings. Um, we have standards in place
that allow, um, you know, adjustments if something doesn't, you know, if you got
a slopping site, that's one thing you can adjust it for accessibility purposes. Um,
so there's quite a bit of flexibility, I think, built into the .... into the form -based
code that allows administrative adjustment if there's any issues.
Botchway: Okay. I think, um, Reverend Walsh's biggest concern was .... it was around the
pictures, but as it was, you know, the entrances to the back were what was more
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of September 6, 2016.
Page 21
accessible than the entrances to the front. So you're saying that there is going to
be flexibility within the entrances to the front? To allow for some exceptions as
far as somebody using it that needs a wheelchair, some other accessible needs?
Howard: Right.
Botchway: Okay.
Throgmorton: So I'm back, and I know several of you in the audience are students, and I have
some advice for those of you who are thinking of becoming a mayor sometime.
Don't get a leg cramp (laughter) in the middle of a meeting! Oh my gosh! All
right, so what I was saying, uh, starting to say is I'm very pleased to see this
appear, especially its intent to improve the transition between downtown and
neighborhoods to the east. Now many of you don't know this but, uh, the .... this
topic of transition was enormously important in a controversial discussion about
another building that had been proposed nearby. Uh, so it's pleasing to see
transition becoming a key part of, uh, what's being proposed here. Also, uh, I
observed that the building types, uh, in the proposed form -based code exemplified
the missing middle concept that we've discussed in previous meetings, and that,
uh, that urban designer Dan Parolek has mentioned to us. So it's pleasing to see
them and knowing.... seeing how they fit in to our city. Lastly, I noticed that, uh,
this particular, um .... uh, proposal has engendered no opposition and has been
unanimously recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission. So .... uh, I
obviously will support it. So with that, uh.... roll call. Motion carries 7-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of September 6, 2016.
Page 22
ITEM 5. PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS
ITEM 5b REZONING TO EAST SIDE MIXED USE (EMU) —
ORDINANCE REZONING MULTIPLE PROPERTIES ENCOMPASSING
PORTIONS OF THE 500 BLOCKS OF IOWA AVENUE, COLLEGE
STREET, WASHINGTON STREET AND BURLINGTON STREET FROM
CENTRAL BUSINESS SUPPORT (CB -5), CENTRAL BUSINESS
SERVICE (CB -2) AND NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION
RESIDENTIAL (RNS-20) TO EASTSIDE MIXED USE (EMU) (REZ16-
00006)
1. PUBLIC HEARING
Throgmorton: I'm going to open the public hearing. (bangs gavel) Karen Howard!
Howard: Okay, this is basically implementing the zoning district that you just, uh, voted
for, the EMU district, and this would rezone all the properties in that district to
that new zoning designation. Um, I don't have anything to add, but if you have
questions.
Throgmorton: Thank you, Karen! Would anybody else like to address this topic? Hearing none
I'm going to close the public hearing. (bangs gavel) Discussion (both talking)
2. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE (FIRST CONSIDERATION)
Dickens: Move first consideration.
Botchway: Second.
Throgmorton: Moved by Dickens, seconded by Botchway. Discussion? (several talking and
laughing) Okay (several talking) Roll call. Motion carries 7-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of September 6, 2016.
Page 23
ITEM 6. SYCAMORE STREET AND LOWER MUSCATINE ROAD LANDSCAPE
IMPROVEMENTS — APPROVING PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM
OF CONTRACT, AND ESTIMATE OF COST FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE SYCAMORE STREET AND LOWER
MUSCATINE ROAD LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 2016,
ESTABLISHING AMOUNT OF BID SECURITY TO ACCOMPANY
EACH BID, DIRECTING CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH NOTICE TO
BIDDERS, AND FIXING TIME AND PLACE FOR RECEIPT OF BIDS
a. PUBLIC HEARING
Throgmorton: I'll open the public hearing. (bangs gavel) Geoff, do you plan for .... to have
anybody speak to this?
Frain: Well, you've seen this before. Real quick, we've had to reject bids on this project
a couple of times. Um, this time around we are pushing, uh, the majority of the
work to the spring, which seemed to be the issue with the contractors, with just
havin' enough time and being able to access the diversity of trees and plantings
that we wanted, uh, for this fall. So, um .... this time around we're going to try to
get the roundabouts done this fall, but .... most of the other plantings would be
pushed to the spring.
Throgmorton: Okay. Would anybody like to address this topic? Hearing none I'm going to
close the public hearing. (bangs gavel)
b. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION
Mims: (both talking) Move the resolution.
Botchway: Second.
Throgmorton: Moved by Mims, seconded by Botchway. Discussion?
Botchway: Real quickly, urn ... every time I think about like trees and, you know, landscape, I
think about John (laughter) so I appreciate that!
Mims: Every time we mention roundabouts I think of Michelle! (laughter and several
talking)
Thomas: Trees are infrastructure (several talking)
Botchway: l look at it now as, you know, if I don't see it I'm worried about, you know,
what's going to happen (laughter and several talking)
Throgmorton: Well, I'm looking forward to seeing the landscaping and tree planting take place.
Any other discussion? Okay, um, roll call. Motion carnes 7-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of September 6, 2016.
Page 24
ITEM 7. ICAD FUNDING - RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO BUDGET $70,000 IN
ANNUAL FUNDING FOR IOWA CITY AREA DEVELOPMENT GROUP
FOR THE FOUR FISCAL YEARS 18-21 AND UP TO AN ADDITIONAL
$100,000 FOR THE MERGE BUILD OUT IN FISCAL YEAR 2017
Mims: Move the resolution.
Botchway: Second.
Throgmorton: Moved by Mims, seconded by Botchway. Discussion?
Mims: I'm just happy to support this. I think that the work that ICAD does for our
community is just phenomenal and the extra 100,000 for the build out of the
Merge space I think is absolutely essential. The partnerships have been
developed there between ICAD, the City, the University. Lot of exciting stuff
that's going to be going on there, so .... glad to support it.
Throgmorton: Hold on, I ... I was going to ask Mark Nolte from ICAD if you wanted to say
anything about this, Mark. Yeah. (several talking and laughing)
Nolte: Uh, good evening, Mark Nolte with the Iowa City, uh, Area Development Group,
and for the public's benefit, we're a 501c(6) non-profit, uh, publicly and privately,
uh, funded, uh, formed in 1985 to grow the interstate commerce sector of the
economy. So those businesses that can locate anywhere, but bring outside
revenue into the community, uh, and so that could be Procter and Gamble, Oral-
B, ACT, down to the small companies that we're incubating in the Co -Lab and
the future Merge space, so.....uh, we generally operate in five-year funding
cycles. We are in year five of this current funding cycle and so now is the time
when we come out, uh, and ask for new funding. Generally we hire an outside
firm who comes in, does the ask for us. Last time we did that we spent about
$200,000 on that, and so what I've asked our Board is that we dispense with that
this time, seemed counter -intuitive to be sending that money outside the
community when our job is to bring money in, and so as staff we are doing the
campaign this time. We're doing a four-year campaign to get us through 2020,
um, and so what we're actually asking the City to do right now is decrease their
involvement in ICAD for the next four years, uh, and then augment that with
funding for the Merge space. So, um .... uh.... happy to answer any questions,
but .... in what's been a jobless recovery, this community continues to fight above
its waist in terms of job creation. In the past four years we've helped, uh, the
companies we work with create over, uh, 1,450 jobs, uh, right now and so that's a
mix of new companies starting, companies moving to the area, and then our
existing companies expanding. So, proud of the work that we get to do, really
honored to .... to represent this community and the area, uh, nationally and
globally, and appreciate the support of the City.
Fruin: Mark, would you provide just a .... a quick, uh, timeline on the Merge space?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of September 6, 2016.
Page 25
Nolte: Yeah! So we have let bids publicly now, uh, because we're taking, uh, public
funding it is a public bidding process that opened, uh, last week. Uh, bids close
on September 20a'. There is a pre -bidding conference tomorrow afternoon at 3:00
P.M. for any builders that are interested in this project. But what we anticipate is
that there will be a gap in what the funding that we have available and where we
anticipate the bids coming in. That's where the request to the City, uh, to help
with up to $100,000 for some of the HVAC, uh, the .... the entry vestibule that will
help make the building more energy efficient and safe, uh, and then maybe, um,
the other thing was some of the, uh....
Fruin: I think there were some electrical components (both talking)
Nolte: ....connecting this new HVAC system to the existing systems. So, the Library
staff has been phenomenal to work with and partner with, uh, but we anticipate a
gap in that and so that's kind of where the ask to reduce the funding to our
organization directly but augment that with funding for the Merge space. So our
hope would be construction could start in October, uh, with it finishing in
January.
Throgmorton: Any other questions for Mark? Thank you, Mark! So I agree with Susan, uh, it's
a terrific collaboration between the City, ICAD, and the University, has a great
deal of potential, so I'm looking forward to seeing Merge, the space, built out and
be used and be very successful.
Botchway: I want to mention two things. One, um, a lot of things were amazing, things that
were created in 1985, and so, um, remember that, John, for your, uh, your thing
(several talking and laughing) I'm not saying, I'm just lettin' you know a lot of
things were created (several talking) and then the other thing is I think the
$100,000 ask, um, could seem, you know, problematic for some viewing it from
the public's standpoint, but you know I think it's definitely necessary. I think
Merge is going to be an amazing space. I know that, um, Council Member Cole
and I were at some conversations there from a social justice standpoint that I
frankly didn't envision being in a Merge space, but since that's occurred, uh, I'm
excited about, you know, kind of the collaboration from, um, even a social justice
standpoint and how that can be creative and .... be created and you know continue
in that space. So, I'm very supportive, so just wanted to make sure that people
were aware that that was happening as well.
Nolte: We anticipate that space being part of the living room of the community, and
having that .... using that space to have those conversations. We haven't even
done the remodeling and we've already got some great, uh, opportunities to use
the space for that. Um, with the Soul Fest we had a number of events that were
going on in there, so .... we're just....every day we're like just wait till we get it
built! Right? Like ... cause there's still the kitchen of the old space sittin' there,
unusable space right now, so ... um, just for the public's .... uh, the public, the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of September 6, 2016.
Page 26
building is owned by the City of Iowa City and so any, um, expenditures that we
would make on this would be things that would stay with the building in
perpetuity, like the heating and ventilation of the vestibule and that sort of thing.
Cole: There's also going to be some micro -manufacturing there too, isn't there (both
talking) so that's really exciting.
Nolte: Yeah, on the lower level, so the State of Iowa has, uh, provided $1.5 million for
the equipment, uh, through the University of Iowa. So, uh, 3-D printing, some
C&C fabrication really high tech, uh, it's not duplicative... duplicative with what
UNI's doing. They're doing like big tractor parts, but if you wanted to make like
a wearable device or some really, um, creative, uh, medical device or something
like that, we would have the .... kind of the only equipment in the state that would
be able to do some of that.
Cole: Wow, that's great!
Nolte: So that'll be on the lower level, uh, and then there'll be about 18 rentable offices
on the lower level, uh, for start-up companies to use, and then at street level,
where you come in the old Capana/Wedge space, that's really where we'll
have.... that's all the collaborative things will go on there, so that's where the
meetings and events will be, and we anticipate doing more things like this — start-
up weekends and tech conferences and that sort of thing, but .... really allowing,
you know, especially in the evenings for the community to use that for public
space and .... and there's certain things that, urn .... we'd be able to do there that the
Library can't current.... can't currently do in its iteration. So we really want to
partner with the Library and be that kind of third space for the community to use,
but .... that's the goal is we get artists, writers, entrepreneurs, you know, young
people, old people, uh, in there learning to code, learning to connect, doing
different things, so.....
Cole: That's great!
Nolte: We're excited! We gotta get the thing built out, so ..... (several talking)
Throgmorton: Fabulous! Any other discussion?
Cole: And to Kingsley's point, quick, I mean this is a big investment but I think the
multiplier effect of ICAD and what you guys are doing with Merge is
phenomenal, so .... we'll get a great return on the investment (mumbled) really
enthusiastic support this.
Throgmorton: Okay! Roll call. Motion carries 7-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of September 6, 2016.
Page 27
ITEM 8. UNDER 21 EXCEPTION CERTIFICATE REVOCATIONS - ORDINANCE
AMENDING TITLE 4, ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, CHAPTER 5,
PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS, SECTION 8, PERSONS UNDER
THE LEGAL AGE IN LICENSED OR PERMITTED ESTABLISHMENTS,
SUBSECTION B, PARAGRAPH B, REFERENCING THE CITY'S UNDER
21 LAW, TO SHORTEN THE REVIEW AND REVOCATION PERIODS
FOR COMPLIANCE CHECK FAILURES FOR HOLDERS OF
EXCEPTION CERTIFICATES. (FIRST CONSIDERATION)
Mims: Move first consideration.
Dickens: Second.
Throgmorton: Moved by Mims, seconded by Dickens. Discussion? Geoff, please!
Fruin: I'll give a brief overview and ask the, urn .... uh, City Clerk and, uh, City Attorney
to ... to help fill in any gaps, um.....so you understand what's in front of you today.
We are looking at the penalties for compliance checks. A compliance check is
when our Police Department, uh, works with an underage individual, um, who
enters an establishment and attempts to buy alcohol. And so we're really testing
whether the liquor license holder, um, is, um ... taking the steps necessary to make
sure they're only selling to, uh, of -age individuals. Uh, when you.... under ... uh,
what happens when you fail a compliance check, uh, there's two things that are
set in motion. The first is a State penalty, uh, so we report the failure to the State
of Iowa. Uh, they review it and can take action against the liquor license, uh,
itself. The State governs the liquor license. We have no ability to, um, regulate,
uh, the, uh.... based on liquor license. The local action deals with the exception
certificate. The exception certificate is granted, uh, to those businesses, urn .... uh,
that, urn .... do not, uh, whose business is primarily not in the sales of alcohol. So
if you're primarily a .... a food, uh, purveyor, then, urn .... you can have an
exception certificate that allows underage individuals into your establishment
after, uh, 10:00 P.M. So when you fail a compliance check, um .... you face both
the State and the local, uh, penalties and what we're looking here tonight is, um,
at some revisions to the local penalties. Currently if you have two or more
failures in a five-year period, you lose your, uh, exception certificate. Uh, so in
that case, uh, you can no longer, um, allow, uh.... folks that are under 21 into your
establishment after 10:00. Urn .... the, uh, penalty ... the way it's structured can
vary in length. So if you were to get, um, if you were to fail compliance checks,
uh, in, uh, consecutive months, say on an extreme example, you may be without,
uh, you may lose your ability to have the certificate, uh, for over four years. So a
pretty stiff penalty. Um, if they're spaced out differently, um, the minimum
amount of time would be 12 months. So your ..... your penalty can range from
anywhere from 12 months to, uh, really just under five years under the current
system. Um, we have some examples, um, you know, now that we've had several
years of, uh, of experience with this regulation and the businesses, uh, that have
failed, uh, on two or more occasions, uh, I think most people would agree are not,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of September 6, 2016.
Page 28
um, the ones in which most of the underage, uh, drinking is ..... is occurring. So,
um, you know, some examples — Colonial Lanes, Blackstone, Sam's Pizza,
Airliner, Pancheros, um, those are the businesses that have been penalized on
a .... on a local level. And, um .... what we're suggesting, uh, tonight is a move
from the two and five-year penalty structure, uh, to one that, um .... would look at
a two-year window, instead of a five-year window, and have a set schedule as
opposed to, um, a .... a more flexible penalty, uh, so the proposal before you would
be, um, a warning on your first, uh, violation or your first failure, which is the
way it is now. That's no change. Your second, uh, failure within a two-year
window would result in a 30 -day loss of your exception certificate. And then the
third and subsequent failures within a two-year window would be a 90 -day loss,
uh, for, um, your exception certificate. So, um .... you know, what we look for in
any, uh, with any penalties on regulations is what is needed to really correct, uh,
the behavior, um, and .... urn, in reviewing this, I ... I personally believe that the
penalties are .... are, um, excessive and beyond what is needed to correct, um,
behaviors, so that's why you're seeing us recommend to you a .... a dialed back
version of those penalties. It is very important to keep in mind that, urn ... again,
these local penalties are just...are in addition to what the State of Iowa is going to
do to those liquor license holders.
Throgmorton: Geoff, am I right in thinking that you've talked about this with Tom Rockland
over at the University?
Fruin: I did have a brief conversation with Tom Rockland a few weeks ago and um,
Simon has forwarded the information on to the Partnership for Alcohol Safety,
and we expect to discuss that with them at their next meeting. Um, ideally, um,
we would of vetted this through the PAS prior to coming to you, um, however,
this month there was two more businesses that were going to fall subject to
this .... this penalty and, uh, we felt it was, um ... it was better to come to you sooner
rather than later, so they didn't have to start the, uh, start the process of turning in
their, um, exemption certificate.
Throgmorton: Okay, uh.... anybody in the audience want to discuss this particular topic? Jake!
Simpson: I .... get a little worried that this hasn't gone to the Partnership for Alcohol Safety
yet. Just... just as any business would have had an issue in the past if they've
come up against a policy and they need to have the punishment that every
business in the past has had. I would hope that the group that's been created to
kind of vet these issues would look over the policy now, um.....or would vet it
first before it's actually passed. Um .... but otherwise I .... feel like it's okay.
Mims: Geoff, when is the next Partnership for Alcohol Safety meeting?
Fruin: The 22"d
Mims: So that would come up before we got through the third reading anyways.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of September 6, 2016.
Page 29
Frain: That's correct.
Mims: Okay.
Throgmorton: Yeah, that's good to know. I actually won't be able to attend that meeting. Y'all
know I'm co-chair of the Partnership, and I won't be able to attend that meeting.
Frain: I .... I'll be present at that one to present this and discuss it and .... see if there's any
issues.
Throgmorton: Yeah, so I guess to your point, Jake, yeah. Any other discussion?
Mims: I'm supportive of it. I ... I know Geoff kind of gave us a little bit of background on
this before, you know, before the meeting and I think that the inequity for the
businesses, depending upon when their second failure was within a five-year
period in terms of how long their penalty was really that first of all spoke to the
need to make a change, and then secondly the fact that this is really happening,
for the most part, at venues that are not what we look at as being the big alcohol
problems. It's not the big bars, um, it's places where we really do want young
people to be able to go, um .... and hopefully these penalties will impact these
businesses enough to be more careful in their serving policies.
Taylor: I do agree with ... Susan on that. Don't be too surprised (laughs) uh, says .... she
said we kind of talked to Geoff about this and I certainly would rather see, uh, the
under -21s at such places as Colonial Lanes and Pancheros and Sam's Pizza, that
some of ...rather than some of the ones we've constantly seen on the list of bars
that are, uh.... don't necessarily follow the rules and you see a larger number of
students, uh, partaking of the alcohol, so .... I'm in favor of this.
Botchway: I'm going to be in favor for, I mean (mumbled) public for, you know, this initial
voting. Um .... I think that, uh.....I think, you know, there's a good point raised
about it not going to the committee and that actually wasn't a point of reference
beforehand, but I think that that will, you know, help me make a better kind of
consideration at the third reading. Um, I do have issues with this and I .... I do
understand the business implications, but.....you know, and I do think that there is
a .... there is a difference between some of the, you know, big bars, establishments
compared to some of the, you know, more community, young people gathering
establishments, but I still feel like it's, you know, if you're not .... if you're
breaking the law, there's a consequence, especially when it comes to selling
alcohol to minors and we are, you know, making it more flexible for businesses,
um, in that consideration. So .... I .... I didn't get a chance to vet this with like, you
know, people that, you know, students, other folks, business folks, and so I'm
gonna take the time in between the first consideration and the second
consideration and do so, um, but I do have some concerns that I ... I don't feel
comfortable .... I feel comfortable moving forward now because I think that some
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of September 6, 2016.
Page 30
of the points Susan (mumbled) and Pauline expressed are valid. I just ... I still have
concerns about, you know, the greater implication of what we're saying, um,
about this policy.
Mims: I think one thing, Kingsley, too is, you know, there's always the ability to come
back if ...if we see that this is not working the way it's intended, there's always
ability to come back and make these penalties longer. You know, if what's being
currently proposed by staff and that we're voting on, you know, isn't going to
deter these businesses, then we can always make the penalties longer, but I think
at least this way it's.... regardless of how far apart those are, you know, now with
a two-year window instead of five, there's a set time that they lose, um .... you
know, lose ... or are penalized, so I think that's important.
Taylor: If it's consistently the same businesses over and over again then we certainly can
revisit that with those businesses.
Fruin: Yeah, and again just keep in mind, if. ... if there's continued failures on .... on, uh,
any one particular business, the penalties that will come from the State will likely
be a lot harsher than the loss of the exception certificate.
Throgmorton: Yeah, so I'm going to vote for this tonight but I think it's important not to
consider collapsing the second and third readings. So .... so we can get time to talk
(several talking)
Mims: I would agree.
Throgmorton: Okay, uh, roll call. Motion carries 7-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of September 6, 2016.
Page 31
ITEM 9. FARMERS MARKET VENDORS - ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10
OF THE CITY CODE, ENTITLED "USE OF PUBLIC WAYS AND
PROPERTY," CHAPTER 11, ENTITLED "FARMER'S MARKET," TO
REQUIRE THAT THE RULES ADDRESS VENDOR SELECTION AND
TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT THAT GRILLING VENDORS
PROVIDE SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT FOODS. (FIRST
CONSIDERATION)
Botchway: Move first consideration.
Dickens: Second.
Throgmorton: Moved by Botchway, seconded by Dickens. I hope we're not gonna be grilling
vendors. (laughter) Only kidding! So, uh, would anybody like to address this
topic? Julie!
Johnson: Just very briefly. This is really just housekeeping, um, of the rules and the
ordinance regarding Farmers Market. We're in the, you know, we're lucky we
have enough vendors, more vendors than we have spots for. This will allow for
administrative rules to help us in choosing those vendors to fill those spots in the
future and then just to take away the rule of they must have a significantly
different grilling item. Um, we haven't followed that for some time, so it's really
housekeeping.
Throgmorton: Okay, thanks! Bye, Troy! (laughs) Okay, so any discussion? Roll call. Motion
carries 7-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of September 6, 2016.
Page 32
ITEM 13. CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION
Throgmorton: Uh, I guess I'd just like to mention this, uh, I did during the work session that for
the next few weeks that the .... the next few weeks we'll see many exciting grand
openings at the University of Iowa. Uh, the, uh, ribbon cuttings for Hancher,
Children's Hospital, Voxman Music Building, and the Visual Arts Building. And
for anybody who lived through the 20....2008 flood, this is really an exciting
moment, especially if you were affiliated with the University, like Susan and I
both are, or, uh.... were involved in the sandbagging or were (laughs) involved in
any aspect of flood, the flooding .... the flooding itself, the flood recovery (laughs)
and all that, I mean it's been a long haul, and I think especially of former
President Sally Mason who I talked to many, many times about this. I ... I hope
she's going to be able to attend these, uh, ribbon cuttings, uh, because, uh.... she
labored mighty hard to get this done. Uh, and uh, I certainly want to extend our
congratulations to the University of Iowa and to her and to President Harreld.
Okay, anybody else?
Dickens: I'd just like to bring up that, uh, we dropped to number sixth in the party schools.
Throgmorton: Yeah! (laughter)
Dickens: And it's partly .... partly because of the partnership for alcohol safety and the
University, Tom Rockland, uh, former Mayor Hayek, when we did
the.... changing the law to 21, and I guess you're continuing that now, so .... let's
just hope it keeps dropping because that's a significant drop.
Throgmorton: We're shooting for number 10! (laughter)
Dickens: Keep goin' down! (laughter)
Botchway: I had a couple items, uh.... Englert Theater on Friday, they're gonna have a
comedian, um, by the name of Hasan Minhaj, I think I'm saying that right. He's,
um .... now I can't remember the particular show that he was a part of, um ... but
anyways, um, I'm just continually impressed by what the Englert can kind of
bring to the community. I wish I could remember the name of the show that he's
from. Um, I went to the CR farmers market. Doesn't necessarily have any
bearing on Iowa City but I .... I didn't go to the CR farmers market, excuse me. I
wanted to go to the CR farmers market at night, that type of thing that they did. It
was amazing last year, cause I went then, um, I'm assuming it was amazing this
year because I talked to Nancy. We need to do something along those lines.
That's why I wanted to, you know, throw that in there and Julie just ran out
(laughter) um, I want to hope that, Geoff, you got a picture of Jim standing up,
you know, using the thing.
Fruin: I think I got that.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of September 6, 2016.
Page 33
Botchway: Was there any video? (several talking) Okay, no video. (several talking and
laughing) And I do need that video ASAP (several talking) um, couple (several
talking) I would agree, and I think it was actually kind of excellent. Anyways, um,
I'm going to be participating from 9:00 to 11:00 tomorrow. I totally forgot about
this, uh.... gonna be there, sorry. Hunger is not a game, um, over at the Johnson
County Fairgrounds. Um, Patti Fields and the work that she does with United
Way and so it's just volunteer efforts, you know, really putting together food
packages (several talking) Good! So, um, are you going to be a volunteer or a
leader?
Mims: Leader ... well, I'm not sure!
Botchway: Okay. I'm not sure either (laughter)
Mims: I volunteered to be a leader but then I .... we didn't coordinate so I'm not sure. I'm
just going to be there. (several talking)
Botchway: So I'm excited about that opportunity, and then the 30 community teach -in. Um,
I kind of gave a topic that I was, um, partial to when we initially discussed this, so
I do want to quickly read the, urn .... uh..... yeah ..... (laughs) um, the 30 Iowa City,
a community teach -in, 30 hours, 30 opportunities, a world of possibility. The 30
is a call of action, 30 hours of thinking, talking, workshopping the challenges in
our community to create a vision for action. While topics may at first glance
seem unrelated, when you peel back the layers of conversation and content, you
can see interconnected web of humanness. This is why 30 hours matter. We find
commonality and community in the 30 and so .... it's kind of more of a broad-
based discussion but I spoke to particularly topics I wanted to address. That's it!
Throgmorton: Thanks. Anything else?
Cole: I briefly mentioned this earlier. Backyard Abundance is hoping ... is having a
grand opening, September 17a' at 10:00 at the south side of the Robert A Lee
Center. Um, that was sort of a totally unused space and it's now going to be an
edible landscaping center. So I'm really excited about that!
Throgmorton: Excellent! Okay, I (mumbled) hear anything else so we need a motion to adjourn.
Botchway: So moved.
Thomas: Second.
Throgmorton: Moved by Botchway, seconded by Thomas. All in favor say aye. Opposed.
Motion carries. We're done for tonight!
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council
regular formal meeting of September 6, 2016.