Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-08-15 Transcription Page I Council Present: Alter,Bergus,Dunn (via Zoom),Harmsen, Taylor, Teague, Thomas Staff Present: Jones,Kilburg, Goers, Grace (via Zoom),Platz,Knoche,Havel, Sovers, Clark,Dannen,Rummel, Sitzman,Pierson Others Present: LeFevre,USG Liaison, Monsivais,Alternate Liaison 1. Call to Order: Teague: It is now 6 P.M. on August 15, 2023. And I'm going to call the City of Iowa City Formal Agenda Meeting to order. Roll-call,please. (Roll Call) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 15,2023. Page 2 9. Planning& Zoning Matters 9.a.Rezoning—614,622,and 630 Orchard Court—Ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 1.63 acres of land located at 614,622,and 630 Orchard Court from Low Density Single-Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5)to Riverfront Crossing—Orchard (RFC-O). (REZ23-0004) Teague: We're going to move on to planning and zoning matters. 9a,Rezoning - 614, 622, and 630 Orchard Court- Ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 1.63 acres of land located at 614, 622, and 630 Orchard Court, from Low Density Single-Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay to Riverfront Crossing—Orchard. And I'm going to open up the public hearing. 1. Public Hearing Goers: Mayor,before Ms. Sitzman proceeds, I believe a couple of the Council members may wish to make a statement about their participation in this hearing. Teague: Great. Okay. Taylor:Now? Thomas: Yes. I'd like to-to- to state that I'm aware that the property owner's attorney has asked for my recusal based on discussions I had with the developer following the last rezoning application. And I would like to say that I have not prejudged this rezoning application and can remain fair and impartial in its considerations and thus will not be recusing myself. I do,however, look forward to hearing from the staff,the developer,and the public before making my decision. Taylor: Thank you, Councilman Thomas for your comments. I appreciate what Councilor Thomas has to say because,uh,the property owner's attorney has also asked for my recusal in this matter based on discussions I had with the developer following the last rezoning application. Councilor Thomas and I did indeed meet in good faith with the developer to share thoughts about the project. I believe that I can be fair and impartial in consideration of this application. For that reason, I will not be recusing myself from voting on this and will be voting without prejudice. I will seriously consider what I hear from staff,the developer, and the public when making my decision. Teague: Thank you. We're going to,uh, get comments from our staff and if the developer or the applicant wants to come up after,they can certainly come up at that time. So,um, welcome,Danielle. Sitzman: Thank you Mayor, Council. Danielle Sitzman,Neighborhood and Development Services. So as the Mayor read,the title of this action is for a rezoning of 614, 622, and 630 Orchard Court, shown here in the white outline. The applicant is Ryan Wade of This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 15,2023. Page 3 M&W Properties and they're requesting the rezoning of the remaining 1.63 acres of the Orchard Subdistrict for future redevelopment. The property cur- currently contains three multi-family buildings constructed in the early 1980s prior to the adoption of the form- based code. Um,this shows the current zoning of the property and the property surrounding it. The areas in purple are form-based code districts. There's two different ones represented in here, although they're both shown in purple. So the Orchard District is the RFC-O zoning,which is immediately to the east and south of the subject property. A little bit farther east of that also in purple is RFC West Riverfront. So the WR, if you can see that in the very small yellow labeling, is a different subdistrict. Um, each sub- district in the form-based code has slightly different,um, form regulations. Some have slightly different use regulations. They definitely all have a different height regulations. So we'll just be talking about the Orchard District tonight. Um, the application represents a smaller portion of an area recently requested for rezoning. The rezoning,uh,will complete the land use vision for the adopted downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan for the Orchard district, as I mentioned that,uh, O district.No concept for redevelopment is included in this request. The subject property does not contain any sensitive land or features regulated by the city code such as woodlands, slopes,wetlands, stream corridors,prairie-prairie remnants or arc- or archaeological sites. Again,talking a little bit about the past history of the property,um, in 2016,this area was included in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. It was an amendment to that plan to add the Orchard District, and in on this map, it's shown as a kind of,uh,mustard yellow color on the far west side. Uh,you can see it,uh,just, uh,towards the middle as it follows the rail line there. Um,because it's a form-based code district it actually needed to have a code language adopted specifying what those form-based code regulations would be. Those were added to the City Zoning Ordinance in 2017. Um, at about the same time, one of the properties in the district was rezoned to Orchard District,that's 627 Orchard Court. So as shown here,the,just to the east of the subject property is that property that was developed under the new regulations. In 2018, a portion of Orchard Court and Benton Street was also rezoned to Riverfront Crossings-Orchard,uh,that's the area to the south. And then in 2022,there was a request to include that portion, as well as the subject portion in a re-rezoning for the southern part and a rezoning just for the northern part as well. That did not pass City Council. It needed a super majority to pass. So just a little visual history again,uh,the property to the east was rezoned in 2017,here on the left-hand side shown an outline. The property to the south was rezoned in 2018 and still has a valid Riverfront-Orchard rezoning placed upon it. The failed rezoning on the left-hand side here was both the south and northern portions. And tonight's rezoning is simply the northern portion. As with,um,rezonings-most rezonings that are not OPD rezonings,there are two general cri- criteria that are reviewed, consistency with the comprehensive plan and compatibility with the neighborhood. In regards to,um, comprehensive plan consistency,the current vision-uh, district vision for this planned area is the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. If there are previous plans or maybe there are studies that have been done in this area,they were overwritten by that comprehensive plan process and as it was adopted in 2016 for the subject property. The district was specifically adopted to incentivize redevelopment of this area,um, encourage redevelopment,to address conditions of the area which were negatively impacting the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 15,2023. Page 4 public reahn for walking and biking, as well as,um, other folks living in the area. The conditions at the time included duplexes along Orchard having very auto-oriented frontages with large garages and driveways, older single-family homes having no street frontage or pedestrian access. Um,you can see that probably a little bit on this slide, there's some houses of just no-not along Benton Street,but just the next row in from that, north of Benton Street,that are nestled behind it. Uh the neighborhood frontages,they have actually no access to streets. And abrupt changes in low-scale development from the single-family neighborhood to the west to very high-intensity,uh,West Riverfront form- based code districts that were developing in 2016 along Riverside Drive. So this Orchard District was intended to be a transition between those two,um, and to incorporate forms that were appropriate for a transition. The rezoning would encourage redevelopment, create a transition and improve design quality,um,based on the elements that were incorporated into the regulating plan and the code language itself for the form-based code. And those transitions are expressed in the form through limits on height. There's a limit of three stories in height in this district with no option for bonus height to be added to that. It does restrict the forms of the buildings to more,um, smaller forms. Forms such as the,um- I think I'll talk about those a little bit more with the exist,with the compatability of the existing neighborhood. But it also includes stringent design requirements. So form-based code does require design review and has some very specific elements that are reviewed. Um, for elements of buildings that address the street,the frontage-the fronts of the buildings,their entrances,um, and the layout of, of course, parking and things like that. The subject property could not be redeveloped under its current OPD zoning. Um, and in this case,the present application,the rezoning will specifically implement the master plan. So the consistency with the comprehensive plan is baked into its design and, in fact,would be the only zone that staff feels is consistent with the comprehensive plan. So moving on to the second tri- criteria,which is com- compatibility with existing neighborhood. By design of the regulating plan and the text of the zoning code, any code compliant development that follows through on this Riverfront Crossing-Orchard zone would be compatible with existing development based on again, as I said,those design elements that are baked into the code. And there are fewer uses allowed,uh, in this Orchard subzone than other Riverfront Crossing zones. The allowable building forms include cottage homes,rowhomes,townhomes, live-work townhomes, and low-rise multifamily buildings, all which are meant to be on the scale closer to single-family forms. There is, as I said, a three-story height maximum-maximum with a 10-foot step back above the second story. Um, and then again, as I said,no bonus height is allowed. There's also an enhanced or a greater setback required when adjacent to RS-8 zones, and there's some limitations on the number of bedrooms and the mix of three- bedroom units that would be allowed. Um, in 2018,there was a traffic study completed to look at the impact of the redevelopment potential of the southern property adjacent to this and how it would impact both the immediate intersection and the intersection slightly to the east of Benton and Riverside Drive. At that time, it was determined for the southern rezoning that it would be an acceptable amount of change,not to nece-necessitate any changes. However,with the addition of this additional land to the rezoning,um,there is a need for signalization at this time based on that traffic study. So with the development- full development of the rest of the Orchard District,there would be a need for traffic This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 15,2023. Page 5 signal at the intersection of Orchard Court and Benton Street. So included in the conditions of- of the rezoning are,uh,public improvements on- at the deve-that the developer will need to complete at the time of that development. And I'll go through those conditions a little closer to the end. So just a little bit of a background review again and where we're at in the process, as I said,there was a master plan adopted for the vision. There was implementation that master planned through the Riverfront Crossings form-based code district, specifically the Orchard Subdistrict and following that. There was this two rezonings and the third one,um,that just recently failed. And then in blue is the rezoning of the, only the northern portion as I mentioned. All of the conditions that passed on the southern portion will still be infect- in effect for the southern portion and the conditions written for this rezoning would only apply for the subject property. After the rezoning is completed,the steps that would be,uh, in the development process would include primarily administrative and staff rev-review steps. Those include a site plan and a form-based code design review, as well as building permits. Um, we have received a signed CZA from the applicant tonight. So um,the approval,um,was based on, or the recommendation was based on a review of the relevant criterias I've gone through tonight. Staff did recommend approval and at their meeting on July 19,the Planning and Zoning Commission concurred with staffs opinion and voted 5-0 to also recommend approval of the rezoning.Now that CZA does include several conditions,they are related to the construction of public improvements. Specifically a five-foot wide sidewalk along Orchard Street or Orchard Court frontage and, as I mentioned,the traffic signalization at West Benton and Orchard Street and reconstruction of Orchard Street as necessary with those improvements. That concludes staff,uh,report and I'm happy to answer any questions. Teague: I have a question about,um,the traffic study for signalization. What was the tipping point that took the fust recommendation from no signal to signaling? Sitzman: So traffic studies are based on traffic counts and traffic counts and traffic trips are based on unit counts or estimates of those. So with only the southern portion developing, the number of trips generated was such that the level of service of those intersections was still acceptable, adding in the additional units and the additional trips those units might generate degraded that level of service down below the-the threshold to warrant a signal. So it may have been-you know, it's always an estimate, so it may have been even with some development necessary,but it was clearly necessary what the additional development proposed with this rezoning. Teague: The types of,uh,people anticipated to occupy a unit., does that go into effect at all? Because if these are gonna be students,we-there could be a decrease. Sitzman: The estimates are very generally,um, calculated. They're not as fine-tuned to specific demographics. Um,you might see a difference in trip generation for folks that just don't drive as much period. Um,but I don't think that a student population necessarily versus a typical apartment,um,would have a distinction built into it. So,um,they're very general estimates and they tend to be based on worst-case. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 15,2023. Page 6 Teague: And then another- last question. Because there's a signed CZA um, for this condition, there will be- let me see, so there is kind of a-you know, Orchard is kind of tucked away from the- from Benton Street. So the signal- signalization doesn't have to be done at the same time because there's no other improvements right there. Has there any been-has there ever been a time where, or is it possible to have that condition,um,present but only used after the fact to see if it's actually needed? Sitzman: Uh, I suppose it could be wordsmithed that way,but it's much more difficult to have a developer remobilize resources,um, once they've left a site and have already developed. So they tend to be timed with,you know, cost-savings for construction and impact on the neighborhood. You don't necessarily want to disrupt everybody's lives again once they've moved in with having to have a pretty major intersection,um, shut down or restricted to make those improvements. There are lane changes and curb,uh, changes that have to go with the signals. So it's not just a matter of putting a pole and some lighting in. Um, it is an offsite improvement,which is why it's in this conditional zoning agreement because it will take a little bit of thought for them to do potentially if the northern and southern portions eventually develop at separate times. But this is our opportunity to-to tie it to the rezoning at this point,kind of the last chance with the rezoning. Teague: Thank you. Hearing no other questions. Thank you. Anyone from the development,um, group would like to speak? Wade: Can I wait to speak until I hear this Council's rebuttal? Teague:No,you'll be allowed to speak at this time. Wade: I have nothing to say then. Thank you. Teague: Okay. Great. And just for the record,will you state your name and who you're with? Wade: Ryan Wade with M&W Properties. Teague: Thank you. All right. So I'm assuming that there's no comments from the developer. Anyone from the public like to address this topic. Um, if you're present,um, I ask that you come to the podium. There is a sign-in sheet,please give your name and,uh,the city you're from. Seeing no one in Council Chambers and seeing no one online,before I close the public hearing, I will give one more opportunity for anyone to make comment from the public. Seeing no one in-person or online. Goers: I just want to make sure you weren't going to close the public hearing until you look for an informal consensus. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 15,2023. Page 7 Teague: Yes. All right. So I wanted to just talk to my Councilors now. Uh, Councilor Dunn, I can't see you. I'm just wondering if people are inclined to vote with P&Z. I just wanted to get,um, all right. so I do see a majority here and I'm going to close the public hearing. 2. Consider an Ordinance (first consideration) Teague: And all right, can I get a motion to give fust consideration? Alter: So moved,Alter. Bergus: Second,Bergus. Teague: All right. Council discussion. Thomas: Well, I'll start off the Council discussion. I will be supporting the project. It's, uh,with the support, of course, as it's the way we're moving forward, it would be a staff review of any site plan developed for a subsequent project. As of now,we have no project. So there's nothing--this rezoning is not conditional on a site plan. Um, so in terms of looking forward to a future project, I did want to mention some thoughts I've had regarding that process since the Council will not be involved with this approval with that future development. And,you know, it has,there are concerns and comments related to the site plan. Because the site plan in my view, is kind of critical to the-to the outcome of the project and there are a number of elements that go into the site plan. I think that most of our discussions to this point have focused on the buildings. Particularly with respect to the,this notion of the,that the project be compatible in massing and scale with the residential neighborhood to the-to the west and that this project would serve as a transition. And,you know, as was noted with the previous application,the code,the zoning code requires that no building exceed three,uh,three stories in height. So it's height limitation,uh, and the comprehensive plan is speaking about massing and scale. So they're-they're two different means of evaluating building size with-with that. So there's a certain,um, lack of clarity, if you will, in terms of how that transition is made. A comprehensive plan is talking about mass and sea- scale,the zoning code is talking about building height. This is a residential zone. Um, it's not mixed-use like- like the other sub- districts within Riverfront Crossings and- and subsequent to this rezoning of Riverfront Crossings with the South District and the Rohret District, issues related to mass and scale were integrated into the zoning code. So there was a- a greater emphasis on the-the means by which the comprehensive plan was asking for a transition. So what that suggests to me is where we are,where staff will be, and where the developer will be, is trying to understand through using judgment,how that transition can apply to this-to this-to this project. So there's some flexibility there in other words. The-the other, some of the other elements that I think make up a site plan that I would like to emphasize would be the question of open space. And it really wasn't clear in the previous proposal if open space had been,um, included in the site plan. And I just want to emphasize that in my view that the open space is a critical element with this project and it actually is written into the code. There is a 10-foot per square-foot requirement for every bedroom This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 15,2023. Page 8 that's included in the project. So there is that requirement. I certainly would emphasize the need to not waive that requirement,partly because of the high density that's being proposed. I would also add that if in using the open space,tha-that can be a way of designing the buildings so that their mass and scale can be,um,modified, if you will, modulated in a fashion to reduce its sense of mass. One example is directly to the east of the Orchard District,the project that's facing Riverside Drive. The building is designed in a U-shape. Um,the building wings that enclose an outdoor space, and what that does is it satisfies the open space requirement,but it also breaks up the mass of the building and, um, for the, also increases the natural light that can access the dwelling units and provide views as well. So there's-there's opportunities, in short,with the open space to begin to address the massing and scale question that was raised in the comprehensive plan. And then lastly,the pedestrian circulation and amenities, I think are really important as well. Uh,that's, I think that's covered in the- in the comprehensive plan in the- in the guidelines. Again, it wasn't clear to me in the previous proposal the extent of the pedestrian circulation,uh,but I think moving forward, I would certainly encourage, again, given the scale and density of this project,that we need-we need to have that pedestrian circulation and amenities included in the project. I would just mention, for example, I was looking at the Central District Plan,which was developed back in, I think, 2007. Portions of Riverfront Crossings used to be in Riverfront,Riverfront Crossings, portions of that used to be in the Central District. In one of the maps in that plan,uh,they indicated an area which-which was scheduled or defined as redevelopment,high-density, multifamily. And one of the reasons that was stated for why that area--and this would be the area outh of Burlington Street,the student apartments there--was the lack of open space and pedestrian circulation and amenities. So I think that speaks to the importance of those two features in any site plan. But I think particularly when you're talking about a high-density development,um, are especially critical. So I'll leave it at that. You know, I look forward to see how-how the staff work with the developer in coming up with a plan that,um,has an opportunity to be something that does match up as I think we would all like with the comprehensive plan and the zoning code and create a high-quality living environment for the residents. Taylor: I have very similar concerns,uh,with Councilor Thomas,particularly about the open and outdoor space and- and the pedestrian circulation,the walkability. We, as a Council and a City,have been all about,uh,walkability and, and trails in, in the community, in the area. So I think it's, it's very important to,to keep that in mind with this development,um, and the mass of the building. He mentioned that too. Um, otherwise I-I was- I'll just leave it at that. Teague: So I had,um, questions about,you know,the traffic light signaling. Um, I- I still have concerns mainly because it is,you know,the fust street after a stoplight on,uh,Riverside Drive. So it's the first street west. If, if, if a signal, signal was going to be even two streets west,um, of Riverside, I wouldn't have any concerns. But I, I do worry that a, a signal there is, it may not be in the best interest. So I don't know if there's any thoughts or suggestions from any of my Councilors of what-what could be done,you know. Of course, I would propose that we kind of get the commitment. I understand the,um, issues, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 15,2023. Page 9 that it could be more cost to the developer,um, and,you know, once they finish a project, I don't know if there's a way for us to have them figure out what the cost is, we put money somewhere,um,reserve for that and,you know, and if we go through a period of time and we're looking at the actual counts,um,to determine if that's needed,then either we,um, if it's, if it is needed then,you know,the City agree to pay the difference because,you know,new construction costs will be more or we return it, and if it's not needed,we return the money. I, I do have concerns about the signaling. So if people have thoughts,you can certainly share that. Harmsen: I remember the last time we-we talked about this and so- imperfectly,because it's been a few months,uh,but actually, I had similar concerns and asked questions and I remember that Kent Ralston came up and - and I don't remember all the specifics of his answer. But I remember in part he talked about the studies and that they did believe that they could,that that would work,being so close because I remember we talked about that. Um, I don't remember the specifics, I remember being satisfied with his answer though,um,which-which led me to the-the vote the last time around. So it at least contributed to that the last time around. So I mean,nothing has changed for me since then. So I don't know,that's not probably as much detail as, as, as you were looking for, but that's as much as I can remember from a few months ago on specifics. Teague: I do see Councilor Dunn's hand raised. Dunn: Yeah. Uh,thank you,Mayor. I guess this is a-a question for,uh,Eric in the context of- of this conversation we are currently having about signalization. Um, given what,um,has happened in, in, in previous zoning requests, I don't know that we're even in a position to change anything at this point since the public hearing has been closed. So I don't know that technically, if I'm understanding,you know,the past decisions as well as what is in front of us right now, I don't know that we are in any position to change,uh,whether or not it's signalized, or how that's arranged. Could you confirm more or clarify that? Goers: Yes. Thank you, Councilor Dunn. Uh,you're correct in that the public hearing has been closed and so we are past the time to change,um,the conditional zoning agreement,um, I think that's what you're referring to. And on that topic, I would just indicate that,um, at the time-well, the conditional zoning agreement just requires the construction of the signalization at the time of the building permit being issued. And that's of significance because, of course, at the time the building permit is issued, it'll be clear what the density is and what we would expect for traffic counts as a result of that density. And- and that would be certainly a time when there would be presumably confirmation that it will, in fact,be required. I too remember,uh, some of Mr. Ralston's comments,um, like Councilor Harmsen. Certainly. I, I assume, Mayor,your concern is that it's a short block between,uh,Riverside Drive and Orchard Street or Orchard Court to the north, and I believe his comments was- or comments were that we would need to certainly time the light so that you didn't have traffic,westbound traffic being allowed at Riverside Drive but being stopped at Orchard Court because that would create quick problems. But again, with today's technology in traffic controls, I, I think they're able to,um,handle that. Uh, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 15,2023. Page 10 but to address your last point, in the event that,you know,there would be something with incredibly low density,um,put forth as a development, certainly the staff could review and could waive a requirement if it looked like for whatever reason it wasn't going to be necessary. But I got the impression that,more or less, any increase in density at this location,which would normally be the reason why you would do a redevelopment,would require,um, signalization. Dunn: Just a clarification on that particular point. Um, given the language of the,uh, conditional zoning agreement, is shall, I don't see, is there something that's not there as to allow City staff to annul that agreement. Because it, it seems pretty clear to me, it says the public improvements shall include,but not be limited to, and then it increases, it's talking about sidewalks, it talks about signalization, and a reconstruction of the street.. So then in, in that way, if we are bound to approve what is in front of us right now, I don't see how a lower density project could even result in a lack of signalization. I'm, I'm just doing clarity of all the technicality stuff here. Goers: Right. I, I guess I've never encountered a situation in which density,um,you know,um, went backward. Um, and so to be clear, I'm, I'm laying out a hypothetical that I think has almost zero chance of coming to fruition. But you are correct, Councilor Dunn, I mean, the language shall is being used and in the event that staff decided that it was no longer necessary, I suspect we would want to come back to Council and explain why,um, and, you know, at least give you notification,perhaps seek your approval, for being able to waive that. Um,that said, I'm also aware that, for example,the earlier rezoning application for the what I'll characterize as a southern portion of this area, included things such as a thirty-foot wide pedestrian easement walkway and so forth. That will kind of depend on the site plan layout. It might be that ultimately that's really not the,um, the best way to approach this,um, and that kind of thing is the kind of thing that staff considers with some frequency and,you know,that's why they're the experts and so forth. So I mean, I think they do have some ability to,um,be flexible. Teague: Well I, I just want to maybe bring my comments to a close. So thanks for all the input and reminding me what Kent said. I'm comfortable with that. I'm comfortable in knowing that our staff, if they were,um,moving forward with this project and saw that,you know, the signalization may not be,um,needed,that they would,you know,bring it back to Council's attention, so I'm comfortable with that. Otherwise, I will be supporting this project. Taylor: Mayor, I just wanted to add that I appreciate you bringing the comments up and I, I appreciate you,Eric, and your comments about the traffic signalization because it had been a concern of mine,uh, one of my concerns, especially in light of recent traffic fatalities we've seen in the city here. But you talking about that perhaps they could be synchronized that-that helped alleviate that for me,because I- I know the City and the Traffic Division can do that. So I think that-that would be,uh, an excellent answer to that situation. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 15,2023. Page 11 Alter: I just wanted to,uh, say that this has my support,um, and in a slightly different,um, perspective in reading the P&Z notes where the presentation was given, as well as,uh, the one that Danielle just provided, I feel like at the same-the-the flexibility actually Is- is a real positive here,um, and that there are parameters. I mean- again,we all can look at the same-read the same things, and- and come away with a different perspective. But to- to my way of thinking, I thought there are two ways to understand transition in that it is both mass and scale and height,that that's providing some guidance. Um, additionally, taking into account what the neighborhood is and the language of transition,um,that there are some hard stops there about what can go in,um,what can't,that there are no height,height bonuses. These are all things that I think,um, are going to make for a good project and will be good for the area. Um,you know, certainly we- I think the developer, um,whoever that ends up being,uh,will have a good sense of sort of how the neighborhood,um, looks and feels and the fact that there,um, are explicit things to make it more walkable,to make it- to-to do these sort of public improvements,um,that are in the CZA, as well as the things that are in the comp plan and the master plan,I think are- are really good touchstones for the development. And I just wanted to say that I'm supporting this and,um, I, I feel like on balance,these are-these are things that can- can help create something that will be useful.Notwithstanding that,that there can be certainly different perspectives on this. But,um, to my way of thinking, I felt that this-this was kind of helpful without being prescriptive, so I'll be supporting this. Teague: Hearing no other comments,roll call,please. (Roll Call) Motion passes 7-0. Can I get a motion to accept correspondence? Taylor: So moved, Taylor. Alter: Second,Alter. Teague: All in favor say aye. (Voice Vote). Aye. Any oppose?Motion passes 7-0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 15,2023. Page 12 10. Regular Formal Agenda 10.a. 2023 Equipment Shop Roof Replacement—Resolution approving project manual and estimate of cost for the construction of the 2023 Equipment Shop Roof Replacement Project,establishing amount of bid security to accompany each bid, directing City Clerk to post notice to bidders,and fixing time and place for receipt of bids. Teague: Item number 10.a is,um, 2023 Equipment Shop Roof Replacement—Resolution approving project manual and estimate of cost for the construction of the 2023 Equipment Shop Roof Replacement project, establishing amount of bid security to accompany each bid, directing the City Clerk to post notice to bidders, and fixing time and place for receipt of bids. I'm going to open the public hearing, and welcome. 1. Public Hearing Clark: Hi. Good evening. So this project is um,to replace the roof on the Equipment Shop Building. It's located at the southeast corner of Highway 6,Riverside Drive. Um, it's just a- it's just a simple project to replace the roof that was damaged during the storms last spring. We have,uh, funding in their replacement account and also what we'll get from our insurance settlement. So our project are to,to take bids at the end of the,by the end of the month and then have,have the roof substantially complete by the end of the year. So, any questions? Harmsen: You said the insurance is still yet to be determined. Do we have an idea of when they're going to decide? Clark: Um, so we'll,you know,we'll pay our deductible for sure and then we're still sort of negotiating with,um,the amount that they'll cover. But one of the things that we need to do is actually get the bids and have them review the bids that we receive. Harmsen: And do I remember that the time is a bit of a factor on this because of the use of this facility with the upcoming winter weather? Clark: Correct. Alter: Okay. Teague: Thank you. Anyone from the public like to address this topic? Seeing no one in person or online, I will close the public hearing. 2. Consider a Resolution Teague: Can I get a motion to approve,please? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 15,2023. Page 13 Taylor: So moved, Taylor. Harmsen: Second,Harmsen. Teague: Council discussion. Alter: Get a roof on before winter. Taylor: Yeah. Teague: All right. Agreed. Harmsen: Yeah. Absolutely. Teague: Roll call,please. (Roll Call) Motion passes 7-0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 15,2023. Page 14 10.b. Sturgis Ferry Park Improvements and Southside Recycling Center- Resolution approving project manual and estimate of cost for the construction of the Sturgis Ferry Park Improvements and Southside Recycling Center Project, establishing amount of bid security to accompany each bid, directing City Clerk to post notice to bidders,and fixing time and place for receipt of bids. Teague: Item 10b, Sturgis Ferry Park Improvements and Southside Recycling Center- Resolution approving project manual and estimate of cost for the construction of the Sturgis Ferry Park Improvements and Southside Recycling Center Project, establishing amount of bid security to accompany each bid, directing City Clerk to post notice to bidders and fixing time and place for receipt of bids. I'm going to open the public hearing, and welcome. 1. Public Hearing Dannen: Good evening. My name is Bryan Dannen. I am a Senior Engineer with the City of Iowa City. I'm going to talk about are Sturgis Ferry Park Improvements and the Southside Recycling Center Project. Our project location is on 1700 South Riverside Drive. That's just south of Highway 1 and 6, east of Riverside Drive and west of the Iowa River near the Iowa City Airport. I'd like to go through just a quick project description for everyone on what's going to be included in this project. The existing Sturgis Ferry Park is hard for first-time visitors to navigate and is currently lacking in amenities. This project will enhance the usability of the park. Some of the improvements that we are proposing are a paved and accessible parking lot,which you can see here in the light gray, a pavilion shown here in the dark gray, a drinking water fountain and portable restroom, also shown in dark gray here. We're improving access to the boat ramp by paving the parking lot access and then also providing dedicated parking for vehicles and trailers. Bioswales are included to improve water retention and filtration. We're including provisions for a future trail connection going through our entrance. We also have the recycling site included here,which is on the south side of the location. This will include a cardboard compactor and roll-off recycling containers for paper, glass,plastic, and metal. Construction phasing for the project will include,uh, closing the park and the boat ramp for the dura- duration of construction. Coordinations occurred between many different departments and agencies, including here at Iowa City,Parks, Landfill and Waste Management, Streets, Wastewater,Water, ITS, Fire and Safety, and then also coordinations occurred with the FAA, Iowa DNR, and the US Army Corps of Engineers. This project fits in with Iowa City's strategic plan, in specific, the neighborhood and housing and mobility sections, creating an inviting and active outdoor space with unique and engaging recreation offerings as part of the neighborhoods and housing. This is being provided by the improved boat ramp access to the river, and also the addition of the pavilion, drinking water, and portable restroom facilities. We're also working to grow and prioritize bike and pedestrian accommodations by including access for the bike and pedestrian trail in the future. They will also have access to the pavilion,the water, and the restroom facilities. Estimated construction costs for the project are $790,000. Funding sources for this come from the Sturgis Ferry Boat Drop Improvements, and Southside Recycling Site This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 15,2023. Page 15 funds. Schedule for the project is a bid opening on September 12, award at the September 19 Council Meeting. Construction start date is October 16 of this year, and it's anticipated to complete construction in spring of 2024. And again,my name is Bryan Dannen with the City of Iowa City Engineering Division. My contact information here- is here as needed. Can I answer any questions? Alter: Is the expectation on the timeline that there will be work over the winter or it's just going to start and then there'll be a pause and finished in the spring? Dannen: There will likely to be a pause over wintertime. Um, they will, however, get-hopefully, get started here yet this fall. Alter: Okay. Bergus: Thank you,Bryan. I had a question. I was at this park recently and very excited about the amenities, and just to orient kind of the scale of this project, it looks like it's overlaying mostly the gravel parking lot area,because I know there's a like a prairie area to the north that's not being impacted. Is that right? Dannen: Yes. Ah, and, I've got kind of a view I can show. Um,this is the existing site,um, the portion where you can see coming in here,this is where the boat ramp is still going to be. This area will be kind of the parking area with our pavilion will sit over here.Nothing over up here further to north who we impacted, and the Recycling Center site will kind of sit here in- in this grassy area. Bergus: Thank you. Teague: Great. All right. Thank you so much. Dannen: Thank you. Teague: Anyone from the public like to address this topic? Seeing no one in-person or online, I'm going to close the public hearing. 2. Consider a Resolution Teague: Can I get a motion to approve,please? Taylor: So moved, Taylor. Thomas: Second, Thomas. Teague: Council discussion. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 15,2023. Page 16 Taylor: I'm just really happy to see this project. I used to live in that,very close to that neighborhood and, and would drive by it all the time, and it was kind of a joke that it was called a park,but it was used a lot. Boaters there constantly, including the water safety rescue folks utilize that site. So I'm glad to see that you con- con- continue to have the boat ramp there,but to add the amenities uh, and I think you called it and make it more inviting space, ah,because as she'd mentioned, currently it's just a gravel drive into there and it just-just- that's big open space,but really not much to it. So,uh, I'm- I'm just happy to see this and look forward to seeing the final project. Teague: Roll call,please. (Roll Call). Motions passes 7-0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 15,2023. Page 17 10.c.Wastewater Roof Improvements -Resolution approving project manual and estimate of cost for the construction of the Wastewater Roof Improvements Project, establishing amount of bid security to accompany each bid, directing City Clerk to post notice to bidders,and fixing time and place for receipt of bids. Teague: Item IOC,Wastewater Roof Improvements -Resolution approving project manual and estimate of cost for the construction of the Wastewater Roof Improvements Project, establishing amount of bid security to accompany each bid, directing City Clerk to post notice to bidders, and fixing time and place of receipt of bids. And I'm gonna open the public hearing, and welcome again. 1. Public Hearing Clark: More roofs. This time they'll be at the Wastewater Treatment Facility down by the soccer complex and then we've got one small roof just off McCollister on a stormwater pumping station. So the project is a mix of complete tear-off and replacements and then also some patching. So we've got three buildings with a complete tear off. So that'd be the gas metering building, sludge processing building, and then the South McCollister pump station,which is not shown on this picture. And then the other buildings just have miscellaneous patching and sealing. Estimated cost is $335,000 and there is a CIP account for this project. It's got the same schedule as the-the other project. Any questions? Teague: Hearing no questions,tshank you. Anyone from the public like to address this topic? Seeing no one in person or online, I'm going to close the public hearing. 2. Consider a Resolution Teague: Can I get a motion to approve,please? Bergus: So moved,Bergus. Taylor: Second Taylor. Dunn: Dunn Teague: Moved by Taylor. I'm gonna give that to Dunn. We heard you. Seconded by Dunn. Council discussion. Roll call,please. (Roll Call) Motions passes 7-0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 15,2023. Page 18 10.d. Code Amendment to extend the time a site plan remains valid- Ordinance amending Title 18,entitled "Site Plan Review," Chapter 2,entitled "Procedures and Submittal Requirements," to extend the time a site plan remains valid. (First Consideration) Teague: Item 10d, Code Amendment to extend the time a site plan remains valid - Ordinance amending Title 18 entitled "Site Plan Review," Chapter 2, entitled "Procedures and Submittal Requirements,"to extend the time a site plan remains valid. This is fust consideration. 1. Consider an Ordinance(first consideration) Teague: Can I get a motion,please? Alter: So moved to Alter. Bergus: Second Bergus. Teague: And welcome,Danielle. Sitzman: Thank you Mayor. Danielle Sitzman,Neighborhood and Development Services. This is for a code amendment to Title 18,which is part of the code that my division administers, but is not zoning code, so it does not go through the Planning and Zoning Commission. Um, currently the amendment would change the approved,the time that it takes for an approved site plan before it expires. Currently, if a building permit is not issued with when-within one year of the, of the approval of a site pla-plan,the applicant is required to reapply. The amendment proposed extends the time frame from one year to three years. After that three years,the applicant would then need to go and reapply if they had not already commenced construction or had the building permit issued and commenced construction. The time frame that we're requesting grants additional time for development. We found over the last several years that it's taking longer for developments to get through the stages that you need to go through internally once they get a site plan approved to actually commence construction and get their building permit. It's not necessarily that our issuance of building permits is taking longer,but there are many other factors in development that are. Anything from the design and materials and delays that we've just seen kind of become more of the normal. So this request would extend that period to a three-year time frame instead. We feel like that's the right amount of time, it's not too much, and a greater than three-year span is possible. The City might adopt new codes that would affect site planning and we would want those new codes to be applied to new development. So we're fairly certain that three years is enough time, but not too much. Teague: Any questions? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 15,2023. Page 19 Harmsen: Are there currently any places in Iowa City that this would, like how many this would impact, like current site plans that are out? Sitzman: There has been several that have gotten close and one that has actually just changed ownership over the time, and so it's a little unique. But we found that we've had to remind folks that their-their one-year is getting close and we've had two or three in the last two or three years,which is a lot more than we've ever seen have that problem. So- Teague: And waivers were allowed?You could waive-you could extend, I guess extensions? Sitzman: I don't believe there's an extension allowed for a site plan. You either do it within the time-frame or it expires. And so then they're reapplying for the exactly the same plan and we're spending staff time to review it. And the fee structure is not such that it's really makes much difference. We don't do plan reviews to make money. So it's really just been more of a waste of time for everybody to re-review something that's just simply a little stale but not needing to be changed yet. Teague: All right. Thomas: Is this comparable Danielle,to say Coralville and North Liberty? Sitzman: I'm not sure that we've checked every jurisdiction to see how they do it. Every jurisdiction's got a slightly different process for site plan review. So like I said, I don't think it's an extremely long period of time. If anything, one-year might have been shorter than average period of time for a site plan. Bergus: I have a really ignorant question. You said one year and three years,and in the resolution is 18 months and 42 months. Sitzman: So there's two things that can trigger it to be okay. Either you get your building permit or you get your building permit and you start your construction. So we're just moving all of those brackets forward to add time to them. Bergus: Okay. That makes sense. Thank you. Teague: All right,thank you. Anyone from the public like to address this topic? Seeing noone in- person or online, Council discussion. Harmsen: I think that obviously some of the reasons given make sense. The only thing that gives me a little bit of pause is we're getting ready to do a comprehensive plan,which may involve us changing up some of,you know, could have some impact on what we have, maybe current site plans. So things like three years out from now, I'm a little concerned that that might be,we might be tripping over, over some stuff that we-we may change. We may want to change and have the flexibility to be able to change. So if it's, I don't know that we're talking probably a huge number of projects or maybe the handful that This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 15,2023. Page 20 would have that. That's the one thought that I had when I was reading this. It's like,you know,with the comp plan review coming up starting,you know,January or whenever. Sitzman: If- if you'd like,the comp plan process would be a multi-year process itself. Simply changing the comp plan wouldn't change any of the site development standards. That would be zoning code changes. So that would be time on top of after comp plan is finished. So anything likely approved during the comp planning process is going to probably be built by the time we get to changing the site development standards to reflect anything that the comp plan may have said the vision should be different for. They're kind of independent components of the development process. I don't know if that allays your concerns,but I think the timeline for the comp plan changes is going to be much longer than any project that's in the pipeline while that's happening. Harmsen: Sure. I just want to make sure we weren't like,you know, chaining ourselves to something that may be 18 months or two years from now we'd be like,we want to do something different with that part of the city,you know, especially since we're talking about stuff like that already earlier tonight. Sitzman: So those kinds of visioning changes have to trickle down through zoning. So something that's zoned for that use, even if you change the vision for that area, it's still allowed to be that use. So it wouldn't really,the comp plan wouldn't affect those things anyway. Harmsen: Okay, allright. Bergus: I guess asked a different way,Danielle, if we if we implement significant zoning code changes because of the changes to the comp plan,which I understand would be years down the road, as we approach that we could change this timeframe at some point in the future. Sitzman: Right or depending on the code changes you're considering,there's moratoriums that could go into effect to forestall something getting approved when we know it's going to be impacted by the kinds of things that might be under consideration at that time. But I don't think a comp plan are the kinds of things that a moratorium would need to be involved with. Bergus: Okay,thank you. Teague: Okay. Any other comments by Council? Great question. Roll call,please. (Roll Call) Motion passes 7-0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 15,2023. Page 21 10.e. Setting Fines for Criminal Disorderly House Violations - Ordinance amending Title 8,Entitled "Police Regulations," Chapter 5,Entitled "Miscellaneous Offenses," to specify the criminal penalty for disorderly house violations. (Second Consideration) Teague: Item number 10e, Setting Fines for Criminal Disorderly House Violations - Ordinance amending Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations," Chapter 5, entitled "Miscellaneous Offenses,"to specify the criminal penalty for disorderly house violations. This is the second consideration. Teague: Could I get a motion please? Alter: So moved to Alter. Thomas: Second Thomas. Teague: Anyone from the public like to address this topic? Seeing no one in-person or online, Council discussion. Roll call,please. Goers: Taylor? Teague: Oh, sorry. Alter: I do apologize. I just, I had a question because I was looking at- sorry, let me get to the right page. Um,this is my own faulty memory. Did we land on just keeping the fines as were proposed or,because I know we had a long discussion and I thought we had actually moved them down some. Goers: There was quite a bit of discussion,but the Council eventually settled on just keeping them as it was. Alter: Okay. Thank you for the reminder. I apologize for- Goers: That's fine. Alters: -for my memory. Teague:No worries. Roll call,please. (Roll Call) Motion passes 6-1. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 15,2023. Page 22 10.f.Adding New Fee for Electric Vehicle Charging- Ordinance Amending Title 3, Finances, Taxation and Fees,Chapter 4, Schedule of Fees,Rates, Charges,Bonds, Fines and Penalties, Section 8,Parking to add a new fee for electric vehicle charging. (Second Consideration) Teague: Item number 1Of,Adding New Fee for Electric Vehicle Charging - Ordinance Amending Title 3,Finances, Taxation and Fees, Chapter 4, Schedule of Fees,Rates, Charges,Bonds,Fines, and Penalties, Section 8,Parking to add a new fee for electric vehicle charging. This is the second consideration. Teague: Can I get a motion,please? Bergus: So moved Bergus. Alter: Second Alter. Teague: All right and welcome. Rummel: Hello, everyone. Mark Rummel,Associate Director for Transportation Services. Uh, so Darian explained this item for you a couple of weeks ago. There was just a couple of questions that popped up so I was here to try and help answer some of those. One question was about the $0.16 fee per kilowatt hour and just a breakdown of that. So that will break down to $0.09 for the electricity, $0.04,this is by kilowatt-hour, $0.04 uh, for the ChargePoint fees that we'll be paying them,uh, and $0.03 for the state tax. That's, that's the new tax that's kind of the drive on this one. Another question was just kind of a breakdown of what a parker will experience for charge, I guess, on this. So if someone parks for four hours--which right now our maximum limits are four hours in each of these spots--four hours, a four-hour session will cost the driver $4 and that breakdown would be $2.25 for the electricity, $1 for the ChargePoint fees, and $0.75 for the tax. So in addition to the fee for the electricity,basically,we also charge a fee for the parking. So depending on where they're parked, if it's one of our gated facilities,um, that's,the fust hour is free and then it's $1 an hour after that. So again, if someone's there four hours, if they go over that four hours,well, if they're there for four hours, it'd be the $3 fee for parking. If they go slightly over that, it'd be $4. The other two facilities that are not gated, the Chauncey Swan facility and the Harrison Street, um, are $0.75 an hour. So again, a four-hour charge on that would be $3. Another question was about the breakdown for the kilowatt hours. I think it was just kinda the-the charging,uh,break down. So just kind of rough numbers on this one. If it's a plug-in hybrid,those would be-uh--and that's a vehicle that has gas power and- and electricity combination--so that would be about,um, a two to four hour charge to get it to 100 percent. Where an all-battery vehicle, it depends on the vehicle and the battery sizes,but they could get between like a 30 and 60 percent charge over that same four-hour span. And the plug-in hybrids usually get about 20, 25 to 50 miles on that range,where the all-battery is more like an 80-100 mile which is, again, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 15,2023. Page 23 dependent on the vehicle itself. I think those were the specific questions from last- from the last Council meeting. I'm happy to help answer any other questions if anyone has any. Taylor: I just have kind of a crazy question showing my lack of knowledge on the exact state tax rules now. We have our charging stations that we have our electric vehicles plugged into. Are we paying ourselves for the electricity?We probably have to pay that state tax then on those charging stations and our vehicles. How's that going to work? Goers: My memory is that if it's for kind of fleet use for your own vehicle,that they are not. I believe that we've-that those charges are all separate. Taylor: Okay. Goers: Is that right? Rummel: Right. Yeah. As far as I understand too, it's public charger- charging stations and it is not something that we pay for the City fleet vehicles either, so- Goers: Right. So in summary,we don't pay the tax to charge our own vehicles on our own dedicated charges. But if we were to pull in for whatever reason, in one of those public spots to charge one of our vehicles,we would be paying tax. Taylor: Okay. Thank you. Teague: Because it's a place where we're selling? Taylor: Right. Goers: Yeah. Taylor: Right. Right. Right. Okay. Goers: Well, and frankly, even if we were giving it away,we would still be charged that tax. Taylor: The tax,right. Teague: Any other questions? I think you're good. Thank you. Rummel: Thank you. Teague: Anyone from the public like to address this topic? Seeing no one in person or online, Council discussion. Harmsen: This is one of those like issues that,this hits me as very strange because we-we're in a state that like subsidizes to a great deal ethanol. And without saying whether I'm,you This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 15,2023. Page 24 know, for or against that, it seems a little bit annoying to me that the State is doing - putting this tax on when,you know, something that's greener than ethanol, I think for the most part. And then so kind of going back and forth like on one hand, it's about $10,000 I think a year was if I remember that number right from the discussions and from the materials. You know, I don't know. It's not that I think we're doing the wrong thing, it just annoys me to be put in the place of doing it,having to do it in the fust place, um,you know, and so kind of hoping that,yeah, it's just a weird- a weird thing that- that a function of being in the State of Iowa I guess that,uh,you know,they're putting this on electric vehicles and yet we spend oodles of money on ethanol under the logic of it being a renewable fuel, it seems a little bit annoying that the State is like now going to be charging for this instead of just subsidizing it with the huge-huge surplus we hear about in Des Moines. Goers: If I may,just everything you said it's true. But since the Public Works folks are well, only one Public Works folks person is still here. If they were here,they would probably point out that we are the beneficiaries of much of that road use tax. And as the shift goes from gasoline powdered-powered vehicles to electric vehicles,we would otherwise-that fund would be depleted, diminishing. Harmsen: And a fair point. But we subsidize through the tax on the pump,the State,yeah. This is kind of what I'm saying. So yes,now that's that's a fair point and well-taken Teague: Roll call,please. (Roll Call) Motion passes 7-0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 15,2023. Page 25 10.g. HOME-ARP Amendment#2 to FY21 Annual Action Plan -Resolution approving Substantial Amendment 92 to Iowa City's FY21 Annual Action Plan. Teague: Item Number 10g,HOME-ARP,Amendment#2 to fiscal year- fiscal year 2021,Annual Action Plan -Resolution approving Substantial Amendment#2 to Iowa City's fiscal year 2021 Annual Action Plan. 1. Consider a Resolution Teague: Can I get a motion to approve please? Thomas: So move Thomas. Bergus: Second,Bergus. Teague: All right, and welcome. Pierson: Hello, Cassandra Pierson, Grant Specialist. Um, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 allocated HOME-ARP funds,um,to address the needs of households experiencing homelessness and other at-risk and vulnerable populations. The City of Iowa City was allocated just under $1.8 million in HOME-ARP funds to carry out those same activities. Substantial Amendment#1 containing the initial draft of the HOME-ARP allocation plan was reviewed and subsequently approved by Council,August 16 of 2022, so almost one year ago to the day. Um, after review by,uh,HUD,we received recommendations for modifications. Specifically,um, in the prioritization and preferences section just for clarification,um, as well as the needs analysi-needs and gaps analysis,um, again,just for clarification of- of some of the pieces there for compliance. Um,there's no modifications to any funding recommendations or actual,um, implementation of the program. Um, however,those-those, ah, changes as mentioned, are presented to you today. Thank you. Teague: Any questions for Cassandra?Hearing none,thank you. Anyone from the public like to address this topic? Seeing no one in-person or online, Council discussion. Roll-call, please. (Roll Call) Motions passes 7-0. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 15,2023. Page 26 13. City Council Information Teague: Item Number 13 is City Council information,. Bergus: I just had one,um, item, a plug for the Diversity Market final,uh,market this Saturday, I believe it is, isn't it? Two more. Okay, second-to-last. Sorry, I missed the last one, got confused. Um,we will be having our Transit staff and,um, some volunteers, -uh, I know I'm volunteering—don't know if other Councilors are volunteering to help table,uh, for- to promote our Fare Free Transit at the market, and that will be for the full duration of the market, and we will also be having a City Council listening post from 5-7 at the market. Teague: Great. Thomas: I just learned of some sad news earlier today. Carolyn Dieterle passed away,um,who I- I kind of think of as a sort of a permanent fixture in Iowa City and I think all of us are- that know her- or that knew her are very saddened by that, and um- so I just wanted to mention that to you. Teague:Nothing? Alter: I was just going to say that the- I think it is well sold out by this point, but the Farm to Street celebration is going to be at the Northside Marketplace this Thursday,uh, for those who want to get amazing food and good company. Um, additionally,that same night, there is kind of a get-together sponsored by 4Cs out at Urban Acres,um, and they just do tremendous work in the area,um,regarding childcare, and so um, if anyone is interested in that,that's going to be going on at the same time,um, on Thursday out at Urban Acres. So lots of stuff going on even in late- late August. Teague: Yes. And of course the students are back, so welcome to the students and faculty. Taylor: And U-Hauls. Teague: And U-Hauls. Rockstar parking is-has officially ended. All right. Alter: Yeah. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular formal meeting of August 15,2023.