Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-12-12 Transcription #2 ITEM 2 Lehman: Allen: Lehman: Allen: Lehman: Allen: Lehman: Allen: Page I AMENDING TITLE 14 ENTITLED "UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE" BY: REPEALING CHAPTERS 4, 6 AND 9 AND REPLACING THEM WITH THE NEW TITLE 14 ZONING CODE, AMENDING PORTIONS OF CHAPTERS 1, 5 AND 7, RENUMBERING CHAPTERS 1,2,3,5,7,8,10 AND 11, AND REPEALING CHAPTER 12. 1. PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED FROM 10/5, 10/10, 10/18, 11/1, 11/7, 11/15) (pounds gavel) Public hearing is open. Go ahead. Do you have something new? This is, yeah...is this on the new zoning code? That's correct. Do you have something to add to what you've already said...go ahead. Did everyone get a copy there? Okay, I'll try and take about two minutes of your time here. I have something I don't understand. The first page.:. Give your name first. . . thank you. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm Greg Allen. Thank you, Greg. The first page you have is a page out ofthe City Zoning Ordinance book. This is taken right out of the existing City Code. If you look under the definition ofrezoning, that's the first part highlighted in yellow here on your front page. It says, "A change in land use regulations." That's the definition of rezoning. Underneath there, if you look at Item B, it says, "A text change in zone requirements"; okay? That's one of the three lives that rezoning can take on, is the text change in the zoning requirements. Okay, if you go to the next page, the part that's highlighted in yellow, it says, "Public input is important to the process, so with any request for rezoning, the public is notified by a number of means. When a rezoning application is submitted, City staff sends a notification by letter to all the owners of the property located within 300 feet of the boundaries." I want to know why, if this is a change in text, how this cannot be considered rezoning, and if you go above that highlighted area, it says, "A change in zoning will typically affect density, intensity, or permitted use ofthe property," which is exactly what is being done here. This is taken out of the Iowa City City Zoning, Rezoning process. This is exactly what is being done and I was told that this was a change oftext in the Code and we're telling... but it is not a rezoning. If you go to the last page where This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription ofthe Iowa City City Council meeting of December 12, 2005. #2 Dilkes: Allen: Dilkes: Page 2 you have two yellow areas on there, it says, "Under Iowa Law, if20% of the owners located within 200 feet of the property oppose it, it will require a Super Majority." We have been told by the Legal staff that this is not a rezoning. We have been told that we cannot force a Super Majority by getting our protest forms, and if you look up here it says "who can sign the petitions." "Property owners within 200 feet of the subject property," and it also says an owner list is available from the Department of Planning, which we tried to obtain, but they said since this covered such a large area, they would not be able to provide that for us. So, I want to know how this cannot be considered a rezoning when it clearly affects the density, the permits, and everything else. That's my question. I don't think you need to answer that question. We have had, my office has had, several conversations with Mr. Allen and the gentleman he's been working with. These are legal issues. I am comfortable with the process to date. What we have told them, contrary to what he just told you, is that they should submit whatever protests they feel is appropriate, not that they can't do that, but it has been unclear to us in all our conversations what it is exactly that they want to protest, and so what we have told them is go ahead and file your protests and we will take a look at them. You still didn't answer the question of how you can say this is not a rezoning. This says, under your rules, and I had one conversation with one attorney, one time. I had many calls to get a hold of you, one conversation. I talked to Mitch Behr. He told me that the reason this is not considered a rezoning is because it is a change of text. That is exactly what he told me. A change of text. The own City Code, right here on the front page, says "A change of text." You cannot deny this. The people were never informed. We're supposed to go out and get protests? Everybody we go and talk to tells us, number one, we didn't know anything about it; number two, they tell us, you know, when I go in and I want to get a different setback, I want to add a deck on that sticks out.. . Clark did this over the last couple years. We get a letter - every single person in the City gets a letter that says, you know, it might be 300 feet away, but Clark is going to put these decks a foot into the setback. Usually it doesn't bother us - that's fine. People are telling me that if the City was going to downzone our property, which is what they're doing in three out of four zones, if they're going to downzone our property, they would have informed us. They would have to send us a letter, but they're saying we don't have to do that. Their own Code says they have to do that. I've communicated in writing with Dennis Mitchell who made a similar argument, and I can certainly provide you with a copy of that letter. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of December 12, 2005. #2 Allen: Lehman: Cox: Page 3 I would like to point out that the letter she has cites the Iowa Code 414.5. It also says the City Code 414-6U-6D. I have found nothing in 414-6U or 414-6D that has anything to do with this. What I've read you, what you have in your hands, is what deals with this. 414-6D is the entire Zoning Code they're trying to change. 414-6U the only thing in there that has anything to do with this is about amending the Code, not changing the text. So these things in this letter, which I received, are not (can't understand). Thank you for your consideration. Thank you, Greg. Hi, my name's Jeff Cox. I'm here about the downzoning of my property on Dodge Street, which I just found out about, and there, you know, I'm not (can't understand), but I think there are a couple of things you should be aware of before voting on this change in the ordinance. I bought my house facing College Hill Park, or we bought it, in 1980. At that time, there were four houses facing College Hill Park and one directly behind us, and four of the five were owner-occupied. And the one that wasn't owner-occupied was owned by an owner-occupier. Now our house is the only owner-occupied house of those five houses, that is, there are students in all the other four houses that surround us. Now, that's fine. This is, you know, it's a risk buying a house in a transitional neighborhood. One ofthe consequences of this though is that it has no market value as an owner-occupied house because nobody wants to live surrounded by students. That's just the way it goes, and so the, one of the calculations involved in buying an owner-occupied property in a transitional neighborhood is 'well maybe it won't work out as an owner-occupied house but at least we can rent it', that is if we decide to say retire, or move out because the neighbors are just too loud, or start shooting at us with paintball or something, that we can rent it. Now, the fact is that the value of our house is tied almost exclusively now to the level of rent, and reducing the number of unrelated people who can live in this four- bedroom house from four to three is a 25% cut in the rental income that can come from the house. That's basically what you're voting to do by downzoning, maybe it isn't downzoning, but by changing the text of this. It's a 25% reduction from one person in each of four rooms to one person in each of three, with the fourth room for what? I don't know, a bar or something. I don't know what will happen to it. So this is, and my guess is that I'm not the only person who is affected by this, but that most of the others probably get their information about Iowa City politics from the New York Times and are unaware that we are facing this kind of change in use, which I think is a big hit. It's... now it may well be that this, it's just money, that this is the sacrifice that's needed for the greater good, but I hope you will at least consider some other ways to maintain the value of the housing stock and the property in these transitional neighborhoods where they're really very few owner-occupiers left. They're just a handful This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Couucil meeting of December 12, 2005. #2 Page 4 of us left around College Hill Park, and if you go down College Street, there're more, but right around the park, they're very few of us left. One of them I would suggest is really instead of reducing the number of unrelated occupants from fonr to three is working with the landlords, and the reason I know this could be effective is because I done it. I mean, we have had to the north of us, to the south of us, to the east of us, in different times over the last ten years, tenants that required the intervention of the police. And I should say that the Iowa City Police Department has been terrific on this. They show up - these are Iowa undergraduates or maybe from Chicago. They take orders from the police; they disperse; they shut up - the police are keeping the peace. They're not arresting everybody in sight. They're doing a great job on this, but the real key to maintaining the quality here is working with the landlords, and landlords will tell you there's nothing I can do about my tenants. I know that's not true because we have worked with landlords to the north of us, to the south of us, to the east of us, to make sure they're tenants behave themselves, and Iowa undergraduate tenants and also some working people - it's not just students - will respond to an undergraduate who works with them to maintain peace and quiet in the neighborhood, and to stop parties from being party houses. I've seen it happen. I know it happens. It's the reason I'm still in my house instead of moving out, because we've managed to work with the landlords. They're really good landlords in onr neighborhood; they're really bad landlords. I don't know who owns 107 and III S. Lucas, but those people run disastrous houses, that are just party houses, and we haven't been able to do anything about it except call the police, but the people who live adjacent to us have been extremely cooperative, and so I would like you to consider two things. First, the consequences ofthis knockdown zoning - whatever it is - on the handful of owner-occupiers who are scattered around in onr neighborhood and also perhaps some alternatives, that is dealing with landlords and police, to try to maintain the quality of the housing stock and peace and quiet in the neighborhood. So, thank you. Lehman: Thank you. McLaughlin: My name's Mike McLaughlin. Pnrsuant to my presentation November 15th, very similar to Greg's regarding the change in the definition of the word "household,", 14-9A, reducing the roomers and/or nonrelated occupants by one individual with this proposal. Our position was at that time, still is, that change in text, change in the definition ofthe word "household" is a one of the forms ofrezoning in the current City Code, as well as the proposed Code, that we're discussing this evening. With onr belief that this is rezoning, we have over the course of the last two weeks, signed, collected protest signatures from 94 parcel owners in the RNC-20 Zone, 17 parcel owners in the RM-12 Zone, and then some, six roughly, parcel owners in various other zones. And I would like to submit those This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of December 12, 2005. #2 Page 5 this evening. Those protest signatures are submitted on our behalf as an effort to follow the State ofIowa Code, as well as the...what's stated as our right in the handout pamphlet, the Citizen's Guide to Rezoning, and not only is it our position that this process, the redefinition of the word "household" and then also the new definitions and existing definitions to nonconforming, these being nonconforming residential properties in the section on nonconforming situations, is all a result of what we believe is rezoning, and therefore, with that and with submitting those protest forms, we believe that we have the right to, with those, request an extraordinary majority of the Council in order to pass this, and we also believe that similar to the CB-2 Zones that were on the table to be eliminated in conjunction with this proposal, that the zones should be, the noncontiguous zones, should be considered and read separately as opposed .to the entire zone over the City overall. Thank you. Lehman: Thank you. Karr: Motion to accept correspondence. Vanderhoef: So moved. Champion: Second. Lehman: All in favor? Motion carries. Franklin: I just would like to bring to your attention two editorial changes that were brought to my attention today. Lehman: Okay. Franklin: In amendment 3, which relates to Standards for Attached Single-Family Dwellings and two-family uses. In the section that deals with two-family uses in the RS-5, RS-8, RS-12, RNS-12, RM-12, RM-20, and RNS-20 and MU Zones access. For clarification in F2 that we reference the definition of "lot width" to enable people to understand that particular provision regarding access. Elliott: Karin, again...I just found my, how do you identify this? What page? Franklin: Okay, I wish I had page numbers, but I don't. It is in the amendment to l4-4B-4A-5, so it would be under Amendment Number 3, Bob. Elliott: Gotcha. Franklin: Okay, and then there's a Number 5, two-family uses? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of December 12, 2005. #2 Elliott: Franklin: Lehman: Page 6 Uh-huh. Then the next page, F, Access, and Number 2, it refers to certain provisions; when a lot width is less than 80 feet, and the suggestion has been made to reference the definition of "lot width" to enable people to understand this provision. That would just be a parenthetical statement at the end of that. The other editorial comment is on Table 5A-2, which is minimum parking requirements for all zones. And in the office uses, in the shaded provision in which it states, "In the MU and CB-2 Zones, no additional parking is required for that area, exceeding 8,000 square feet. The suggestion is to interject floor before area to clarify that that's floor area and not lot area. So those are not substantive changes, but editorial changes. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak at the hearing? (pounds gavel) Public hearing is closed. 2. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE (First Consideration) Champion: Move first consideration. Bailey: Second. Lehman: Moved by Champion; seconded by Bailey. Discussion? Elliott: I'd like to ask either Karin or Eleanor the gentleman who spoke seemed to when they talk about text changes there certainly are text changes, so having no legal mind nor legal background, I need to maybe talk with you tomorrow or something because I need to get a clarification because what they said seems to make sense to me. Dilkes: The issue is whether something is subject to protest under the State Code. And, generally where we see this is we do a rezoning of a particular area. Let's just look at it out.. . something that you're familiar with. We do a rezoning outside the context of big zoning code change, and you get protests signed by 20% of the owners representing 20% of the properties within the area, or within 200 feet of the area. The issue becomes then when you have, when you have text changes that are creating changes in multiple areas, how do you deal with those protests? And, because it has been unclear to us, frankly, what it is they intend to protest, we have told them that they need to submit those protests and we will look at them, and it looks like that's what they've done. Elliott: So, you need to be aware of precisely what the protest is about. And my understanding, without saying that, was that if it had to do with lowering the number ofrenters that could be in any given structure. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of December 12, 2005. #2 Dilkes: Elliott: Dilkes: Elliott: Dilkes: Elliott: Dilkes: Page 7 And that applies to a nwnber of different areas. I don't know if they are protesting with respect to all areas in which that change will apply; with respect to one area in which that change will apply; that's not clear to me, and I'm not going to know that until I take a look at these, so I don't think really the issue is as it was framed by Mr. Allen. I think the issue is we have a code provision that says what you have to do to protest a particular change and we have to determine whether - there's two things we have to determine: whether they have challenged something that we think is legally subject to protest, and then nwnber two, if they have, whether they've got the requisite nwnber of signatures, and neither...I don't know the answers to either of those questions. Just because of this rezoning, doesn't - in your opinion - doesn't make it available for challenge, or a protest? I don't think that somebody has the right to frame, let me give you an example. Eleanor? I was just, I don't know if anyone else has an interest in it. This is the first vote tonight so we have two other votes. Perhaps the others would like to hear this also, but I certainly want to. Let me, I mean, that involves, I mean I'm going to have to look at their, I can't tell you the answer to that until I look at them and give you an opinion, my opinion, my legal opinion, and then we're going to have to do the calculations for nwnbers, assuming I think it's a valid protest. But an approval of the first vote tonight would not impact that positively or negatively in any way? Let me tell you what I think your options are in terms of voting now that we have these protests. Typically we have protests well in advance ofthe close of the public hearing and you get that information and we've done those calculations, etc., etc., and you know that before you vote. Seems to me that the options at this point are, number one, you give it first consideration, you take your first vote. If it passes by at least 6 to I, you've got a super majority vote and the issue is moot, asswning you get that same super majority vote on the next two readings. Okay? If it doesn't pass by at least a 6-1 margin, we will have to defer subsequent readings until we can work through this. Ifwe work through it and determine that yes, they appropriately triggered a super majority vote and you didn't get a super majority vote, then it is dead. It was dead when you voted, because when an ordinance reading fails, that's it. Okay? If you didn't give it a super majority vote and we go through that process, and it This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of December 12, 2005. #2 Page 8 turns out that we don't think there was a valid protest, then we'll just move on to the subsequent readings. Lehman: But a super majority vote on three readings makes it a moot issue. Dilkes: Yes. Elliott: But not on the first one? Bailey: Super majority makes it moot. (several talking at once) Dilkes: Because, I mean, even if it's a valid protest, you only need 6 to 1. The other option is to defer it indefinitely while we sort through it. Lehman: Okay? Other discussion? Champion: I think we should vote. Bailey: I just wanted to say I think this represents some of our best work. I don't think it's anybody's ideal, certainly not my ideal zoning code, but we all compromised and we have something that we can all, I think, that we all agreed upon, and so I think it's interesting that.. .it was a good process, as far as I reflect upon the Council process. Elliott: At this point, and this has been raised previously, that I'm not the quickest (can't hear) but just tonight seems like a legitimate concern to me, and I think it needs to be looked at. Champion: But the concern is, if they have a valid protest, it requires the Council's super majority. That's all it does. It's not going to change the Code. So I think we can vote tonight. If you decide you don't want to vote yes the next meeting, you can, but all it does, all their protests do ifit's valid is force a super majority. That means it has to be at least 6 to 1. Elliott: Well, Eleanor said if it's a 6 to I vote tonight, then the point becomes moot. Dilkes: Assuming you've got the 6 to I on the remaining two votes. I think what you need to think about is whether you are, I mean, it's clear from their previous comments that they are concerned about the reduction in occupancy, and so you need to ask yourselves is that, how you feel about that. Lehman: Eleanor, you're right. If the Council is comfortable with the reduction in occupancy from four to three, that is the issue, that is the issue that would be the subject of a protest if there were enough filed. Whether or not This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of December 12, 2005. #2 Page 9 there's a protest or not, if Council is comfortable with what the Planning and Zoning Commission and the staff and... worked out that this is a good thing for those zones, then it is moot, because if we agree with the concept it would, we would, it wouldn't make any difference if it's triggered or not. Elliott: I'm not comfortable with the people in these homes that have not been notified. Champion: We heard from them for two months. Elliott: But they haven't received... Lehman: You're not going to get everybody, Bob. Dilkes: You know, the notification argument Mr. Allen makes taken to its, well, logical extreme, is that you would have to notify every person in the City by mail, and secondly, that's not a Code requirement - it's a policy provision. Lehman: Well, I think... Champion: Is there anybody else who might not support this? Lehman: No, I would support this wholeheartedly, and... Bailey: I thought we had a very thorough discussion about this reduction... Champion: I did too! Bailey: .. . and occupancy, and it was my understanding that we were in, I thought, unanimous agreement about this. Elliott: And we were, until tonight. Because I think this is a legitimate point. Bailey: But this isn't the first time we've heard this point. Lehman: But, Bob, I don't disagree it's a legitimate point raised. Does that change how you feel about the change from four to three? Elliott: I need some time to think about that. Lehman: Like Regenia said, I thought we were all rather convinced that the change from four to three was the best thing for those neighborhoods. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of December 12, 2005. #2 Page 10 Elliott: Except that I think that whenever you diddle, I think that's... .with the value ofan individual's home, which was mentioned tonight, that the City needs to make an effort to make sure that each of those people see the value of their respective homes will be perhaps changed. In whatever area, anybody with a rental permit. Lehman: Bob, the same argument could be made that those properties would increase in value because they then become more liable to stay single- family, so it becomes more valuable. Elliott: Which seems highly unlikely. Champion: Well, not that particular street, but we're talking about... Elliott: Go ahead and vote. If it's 6 to 1, then this becomes, as Eleanor said, moot. Lehman: I agree, Regenia. I do think this has been a good process. I think we all made little changes that we don't see in the Code. It's an incredible amount of work by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the staff, who were (can't hear) three years, of, I don't think anybody can comprehend the amount of work that's gone into this, and we have had I believe, one, two, three, four, five, seven public hearings. I don't know how much more notice and how much more opportunity we need to give. I am very proud of this document. Although I agree that perhaps there are things, but we have made seventeen changes, which I think are probably varying opinions as to whether or not those changes were good or bad, but overall I think we've got an extremely comprehensive document, very, very well done, and I will support it enthusiastically. Vanderhoef: I too will be supporting this. The process has been arduous, to say the least. Elliott: I agree on that. Vanderhoef: It certainly has taken a lot of thought by a lot of different people from a lot of different perspectives, and I keep coming back to the objective of what my City should be like, not a perspective of what I would like, not a perspective ofwhat individual people would like in this community. It is collectively, I think, with differences of opinion, that's been good in that we have put forth a vision for the City and we have not targeted any group that I can identify in this process that got more, got less, in, out, whatever. I'm willing to go forward with this document. As we all know, codes can be changed, but I wouldn't look to change this, probably for a year or two, on any issue. I mean, if we made a glaring mistake, it'll show up in that first year, but other than that, I think we've got to put it in place and let it This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of December 12, 2005. #2 Page 11 have time to work, and then we can let another Council take a look at it, if there are things that don't work. Champion: Well, I hope another Council four years from now takes a look at this, and not during the next four years. (laughter) Lehman: Any other discussion? Roll call. O'Donnell: I'm going to have to support this. I...there's been a lot of work done on this. The question raised tonight is valid in my mind. I don't know how I would, I'm going to have to vote yes right now. Lehman: Motion carries. Do we have a motion to adjourn the Special Meeting? Elliott: So moved. Lehman: Second. Vanderhoef: Second. Lehman: All in favor? Special Meeting is adjourned. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council meeting of December 12, 2005.