Loading...
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.