Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-06-06 Transcription Page 1 Council Present: Alter,Bergus,Harmse, Taylor, Teague, Thomas,Dunn Staff Present: From,Jones,Kilburg, Goers, fruehling, Platz, Rummel,Havel, Sovers Others Present: LeFevre,USG Liasion 1. Discussion of an Amendment to the RNS-12 Zoning Code Teague: All right. It is June 6th, 2023, and the council is just coming back from an executive session in which we have recessed. We're going to now go into our work session for today,which is June 6th, 2023. And the fust item is the discussion of an amendment to the RNS-20 zoning code. And so we will- Alter: RNS-12. Teague: RNS-12,what did I say 20? Alter: You said-you said 20. Teague: Interesting. All right, RNS-12. And we have essentially- did you want to start us of? Goers: I was waiting for you to finish and then I want to make some introductory comments before council gets heard. Teague: All right. We'll turn it over to our city attorney. Goers: All right. Well,thank you. So just to be clear, because any rezoning has a process laid out by ordinance which includes a staff report with a recommendation,planning and zoning recommendation, and of course, all the public input that goes with the planning and zoning process. And then to the council for public hearing, of course,the council members are not to make a decision- a final decision about anything until the close of the public hearing at that meeting. So I just want to make sure that it's clear that at this point, what I think council is discussing is whether to invest the staff time to move forward with the proposal as suggested,without taking any position on whether each council member would ultimately vote in favor or in opposition to it down the road. Does that all make sense in track with your expectations?All right. Teague: Thank you. All right. So we'll turn it over to any councilor that wants to make comments at this point. Thomas: Well, as as Eric mentioned the,you know,what we're being asked to do is direct staff to invest the- in the process of considering whether in the RNS-12 zone to reduce the maximum building height for single-family and duplex residential structures from 35 feet to 27 feet. And we received a letter from the North side neighborhood associations This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of June 6, 2023. Page 2 steering committee regarding this request. I want to thank the steering committee,this was a pretty impressive document. I think gives us a very good- if we are to move forward on this a very good foundation in terms of the relationship of this request to our comprehensive plan,the central district plan, and the current strategic plan in terms of its relevance there, gives a detailed rationale for amending the building height in their view. Also gave-the letter also gave examples of buildings that would comply with the proposed amendment just for clarification. And then aside from the letter,we received some letters from Ann Ferks and Nancy Carlson,both of whom live either in or in the vicinity of the RNF zone and have a long standing understanding of how the RNF-12 zone was developed as a zone to help stabilize those areas where it was applied. So I- I certainly feel we have an argument that has been well-made and I do think the idea of investing the time by staff in this is merited. Dunn: I would share a similar- similar feelings, I guess, I'll put it up to- to this. You know we have a department that's dedicated to providing developers services relating to rezoning requests and the-the process but in our- in our city code gives ways for anyone to request a zoning be redone. So I think if we're allowing developers to do this, I think that there shouldn't be any reason why we wouldn't again,just start the process through a very detailed formal request from the north side neighborhood, so I will support. Again, support starting the process. Taylor: I also would support that process and also echo Councilor Thomas's comments about the steering committee really appreciated the data and the pictures. And it seemed to me that that was a step that would be even helpful to our staff if we're wanting our staff to look into this because it's helpful,they won't have to go back through and look into all these and find homes that would fit into that. So I think that was very helpful. Harmsen: I think in order to evaluate the-the request,the process makes sense and we can let other stakeholders have the opportunity through public hearings to come forward and voice support or opposition. And we can hear that as well. So yeah. So I think this would be,you know, I would- I would welcome the information that would come from the process before it would get to us. Teague: It looks like we have a majority at this time. Fruin: If- if I may just so I can meet expectations on- on this item. Um,the- the staff will start with our own analysis and we'll put forward a recommendation. Does the council want to rely on just the traditional public hearings to-to engage the public and welcome public comments on this? Or would you like us to go any step further with,uh,uh, specific outreach to property owners, community engagement meetings,uh, all those types of things that may accompany text amendments. In- in other words,how much of that-how much staff time do you want us to put in- into this process?Knowing that there are public opportunities specified in the code? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of June 6, 2023. Page 3 Alter: I- it seems to me as you just said,that there are opportunities because this is public as is right now, and that staff would be providing this analysis,there would be opportunities for public and- and we could use our own networks to make sure that this is known so that people can provide input. I would hate to put more burden on staff to go those extra lengths given what we have in our strategic plan already. Um,but I want to make sure that the public knows about it. So I think it's fair once we,you know, as we get this information or know that it's coming up,that we can share this with our own networks, um, so that that kind of outreach doesn't have to be on staffs. I would-that's-that's the preferred way I would want to go, I don't know how others feel. Teague: It is- Bergus: Oh, I'm sorry, Mayor. I was just gonna say, I think a this standard process makes sense if what we're being asked to do is initiate the process than I think doing it the way we normally do it is what I'd advocate for. Teague: One of the questions I was gonna ask is if we weren't to do it the you know, full normal process in lieu of some of these opportunities for,um,the various ways the public engaged, is there a way that,um,we can,um, still invite the public to,uh,when the staff is going to present just target mailings to those that normally would have been invited to something different where they're actually invited to the council meeting, er,where those conversations are being had. Fruin: Yeah,the-the-the-the trick me and you don't want to unintentionally leave anybody out, uh, of a- a- a mailing for example. So if we were to do a mailing,that's typically what I will do some type of radius, either around a project site or within a,you know, all properties within the zoning code. But yes,we can-we can do our best to promote to people we think would be stakeholders. Just generally speaking,that-this planning and zoning commission meeting is coming up on X date and this item is on their agenda. There's a staff report. Feel free to come and share your thoughts. Same with council meeting. So we wouldn't necessarily- I don't believe we'd-we'd-we'd get into a mass mailing of sorts on an issue like this. Teague; So staff still needs direction from this council because I don't think it's been made clear. Dunn: I think we just- I think the consensus is just the standard process and make sure that it's our- our responsibility to reach out more to people. And then you will bring in other stakeholders. Harmsen: Quick question about what number of properties currently would be directly affected by this. It's not a huge number, if I remember from- Fruin: Yeah,there's-there's certainly properties within a zoning code. So anybody living within an RS-RNS-12 zoning code would be one option,but obviously,people living around This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of June 6, 2023. Page 4 those areas may be impacted as well. So it's hard,you know,there's-there's some subjectivity to-to determining what that impact would be. Teague: Okay. From: Well, so I interpret standard pro- er- er,you're looking for staff analysis and recommendation and moving right into the publishing on the agenda,uh, of future, er, planning and zoning commission agenda. That's my- I'm seeing those head nods. That's- From: That's fair. Teague: All right. From: Thank you. Teague: Anything else on this agenda item?All right. We're gonna move on- and thanks to everyone that has patiently waited that are in the audience. 2. Clarification of Agenda Items Teague: So we're gonna move on to item Number 2,which is the clarification of agenda items. 3. Information Packet Discussion [May 25,June 11 Teague: Moving on to item number 3, information packet discussion,May 25b. June 1st, information packet. And IPS,there was a memo from our city manager. Did you wanna- From: This is the transit study so the council's aware that the MPO has gone through a- a process and securing a consultant,uh,to evaluate bus rapid transit along the, er- er, Crandic rail corridor. This would allow us to compare what we might expect from a- a cost and ridership standpoint with the previously completed studies on passenger rail. The cost is about 250,000 and divided amongst the five entities that have been cost-sharing in these studies, it would be 50,000 each. Er, so, er, I'm just seeking your informal approval to-to move forward with that level of contribution. Teague: Yep. You have majority support. From: Thank you. Teague: All right. Any other items from June 1st information packet? Bergus: We have the ABPA update memo in there and I just know,uh,the underestimated business support. Just- it- it said it was-will be sort of under reviewed. Do we have any very quick updates as to the status of that? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of June 6, 2023. Page 5 Fruin: I believe all the applications are being reviewed. Er,there's some, er, clarifications that are being sought with some of the applicants, and I think those are taking place within the next week or two, er,this week and next week. Er, so we should have a- a more clear picture after we get through those, er, clarification exercises. Bergus: Great. Thank you. 4. Univeristy of Iowa Student Government(USG) Update Teague: Item Number 4. University of Iowa USG updates. Welcome. LeFevre: Hi council. Yeah, it's nothing too special this time. We're just kinda planning,um, our current agenda and what,um,the Winterlin administration wants to get done. Governmental relations is working on how we can help,um, alleviate some of the worries about DEI programs, er,possibly being taken away through the board of regents and through the state. Um,but there's nothing really big happening so far for us besides agenda setting for the next semester. So thank you, guys so much. Have a good week. 5. Council Updates on Assigned Boards, Commissions and Committees Teague: Thank you. All righty. Item Number 5 is Council Updates on Assigned Boards, Commissions, and Committees. And Geoff kind of just gave my update on the ABPA ones,which is fine Alter: Um, so I am continuing on with UNESCO City of Literature board. Er, so that's exciting. Um, I didn't ask permission from anyone else. So I just got the invitation and I was like, sure I'd love to do it. So if anybody wants to arm wrestle me,we can go forward. Er, yeah. Teague: Alright. Hearing no other updates. We are adjourned This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of June 6, 2023.