Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-04-02 Transcription Page 1 Council Present: Cole, Mims, Salih,Teague,Taylor,Thomas,Throgmorton Staff Present: Fruin, Monroe,Andrew, Dilkes, Fruehling, Budding, Seydell-Johnson, Knoche, Havel, Hightshoe, Russett, Nagle-Gamm, Ralston, Sitzman, Heitner, Foelsch(Intern NDS) Others Present: Stewart,Wu (UISG) Discuss future City actions in response to the home at 101 Lusk 11P31: Throgmorton/All right, so we're gonna start our City Council work session for Tuesday,April the tad, 2019. First topic is to discuss future City actions in response to the home at 101 Lusk. Anne, are you gonna....guide us through this or is....you gonna introduce Luke or what're you gonna do? Russett/ I was gonna introduce Luke. Um,Anne Russett with Neighborhood and Development Services. Luke did most of the work on this analysis. He's our Planning intern, which he'll be finishing up his year next month. So I'll turn it over to Luke. Throgmorton/Good deal! Welcome, Luke! Foelsch/Hello. Hello, everybody! Throgmorton/We're gonna have to dim the lights. Foelsch/Okay, urn....can everyone hear me all right? So, as Anne said my name is Luke and I've spent, urn, a while now working on this residential infill comparative analysis that I'll now kinda go through and try to explain some of....some of what I did and some of what I found. So, uh, little bit of background. So, kinda split it into two different analyses, so the first was a citywide analysis and this looked at 20 of the most recent residential infill projects, all of them within the last decade. Um, and this only....this only looked at detached, single-family homes, and duplexes and additions were excluded from this first one. Um, the second one was very similar,but it just focused on the Manville Heights neighborhood, and this just looked at 10 of the most recent residential infill projects, um, going back no earlier than 2005, and for this one we did include single-family homes and duplexes and additions,but all of these are infill projects that have been done. So, there are four variables that we looked at for all of these. So the first one,um, and all this is publicly available information we got off of the Assessor's report. So first one's lot coverage and that's just, um, percentage of a lot that's covered by the footprint of built structures. Next is total living area, which is a measure of square footage. It's an estimate that's included in assessors' reports. Next is building width,which was measured at the widest point of the building, and then number of stories. So we wanted to look at the specific height in feet, but that information isn't really cataloged anywhere, so we couldn't analyze it. So this was the closest approximation we can do, and this is This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 2, 2019. Page 2 included in the Assessor's report. So as you can see here on the right, this isn't raw data, so I think an important aspect of this analysis is that it is comparative, so, urn, for each of these infill projects, their figures were normalized to the neighborhood around them that they're built in the existing housing....housing stock around them. Um, I'll explain a little bit about what...what that means. So this is an example of....of what was done for each, um, property. So you can see the subject infill property there in the red rectangle, it's 2014 Ridgeway Drive, and then the ones it was compared against were the ones that are circled with the blue circle there. So you can see (mumbled) lot coverage, total living area,building width. So that was found for the infill project and then for all of the surrounding properties, and then you can see there it says 'average of surrounding properties.' So, all these figures were averaged, so you can get one baseline number to compare the infill property to, and then you get the difference down at the bottom. So if you look at lot coverage for the infill project, it's about 27%. The average of all the ones around it that were already in existence, there's about 15%. So the total difference the infill project had, um, bout 12 'h% greater lot coverage than the existing housing stock around it. So you can see that was done for all these, and then I compiled all of this into an overall table, it looked like this, and what's really important to look at here are the colors. So you see the lot coverage, the total living area, and the building width. So anything that's in green, it means that that infill property was built larger than the average of the adjacent houses around it. Anything in red means the infill property had a smaller value for that. So you can see in lot coverage, and again this is the citywide analysis, the 20, um, as it says there at the top. So for lot coverage, 18 out of the 20 infill projects are all built with a greater lot coverage than the adjacent houses around it. For total living area, 16 out of the 20 had a greater total living area, square footage, than the houses around them, and then interestingly for building width, you can see that across the city the majority of infill projects are actually built more narrow than the average of, urn, the existing housing stock around them. So, again this same process was repeated for Manville Heights and the results for that are here. Um, there're similar patterns in lot coverage. You can see infill lot coverage is a lot higher than the houses around them, same thing with total living area but, um, a difference in the Manville Heights analysis was that the infill in Manville Heights is actually being built wider than the houses around them, which as we saw before isn't the case with other parts of the city. So, this is informative because it tells you whether the infill was above or below the houses that are around it but I think what's....what's important is how far or the extent to which the infill property is above or below in these categories than...than the houses around them. So basically what I did is I took these columns that are green and red here and I....I plotted them on a scatter plot, which looked like this. There are a few of these and they're all gonna be kinda displayed in the same way, so again this is citywide lot coverage. It says it there at the top. So all of these blue dots, each one represents a, uh, an infill property and the numbers on these dots correspond to the tables included in the memo. Um, so then down there you have the blue line. That's at 0%. So, uh, a property on that line would mean that for lot coverage it has a perfectly equivalent lot coverage to the neighbors around it and therefore you would assume that it's built kinda at the same scale as the houses around it. So, that orange line there, that is the average of, urn, all the infill projects. So what we're looking at here is on average the infill development across the city, urn, is being built about 9 1/2%....with about 9 '/z% greater lot coverage than the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 2, 2019. Page 3 houses around them and you see, urn, two outliers here. Number one, that's 101 Lusk, and then number 17 over there. So yeah.....so, a quick thing again to kinda emphasize the point that this is comparative. So number one there it says...it's about 31%. So that doesn't mean that it has a 31% lot coverage. It means that its lot coverage was 31% greater than the lot coverage of all of the houses around it, and number six down there, it was built with a 3% smaller lot coverage than those around it. So, what I'm gonna do next is for....I'm gonna present these and then for each one I'm gonna cycle through pictures of the houses that are included here, notable ones, urn, along with pictures of the houses that they're compared to so you can kinda get a sense visually. So you can see here on paper(mumbled) number one looks like it's....it's out of scale in lot coverage, but visually does it also seem out of scale,because I think that that's also an important thing to consider. So....right here this is property number six and this was built at a 3% smaller lot coverage compared to these three houses that it was compared to. Urn, this one is number two. This is almost 10% greater lot coverage than these houses that you're looking at her; but visually does this look out of scale to you all? Um, this one's number seven and this has almost 15% greater lot coverage.....than these ones here. Urn, oh, and for this one and some of'em, they're so new that the Assessor didn't have pictures of them up yet, so I just used the project plan drawings that we had access to. And then this is 101 Lusk, and then the four houses closest, um, adjacent....the closest adjacent houses around them. So again, this is at a 31% greater lot coverage compared to these houses you're looking at, so it is still within the 45%maximum lot coverage that is allowed in the City code. So it ....it complies with that, urn, but again compared to these ones it's ....it's....covers much more of the lot than the houses that are around it. So, this is the same thing but just for the Manville Heights and you see number one is still included there because Lusk....Lusk Avenue is in Manville Heights. I included it in both, urn, so you can see here the average is about the same. So it kinda is the same pattern in Manville Heights, um, as in the rest of the city. Infill projects are being built with about a 9% greater lot coverage than the houses, urn, closest to them, and again you see here 101 Lusk is the significant outlier. So this is number 28,um, this actually has only a 4% greater lot coverage compared to these houses that you're looking at here. Um....here's number 26. This has double that, so this has 8% greater lot coverage compared to the one that we just looked at,um,but visually I don't know if you think this looks more out of scale than this,but if you're just looking at lot coverage, this...would imply that it's twice as out of scale. Urn, and then here's number 23. This has, uh, 17% greater lot coverage compared to these houses that you're looking at. So moving on to total living area, so (clears throat) again this is an approximation of square footage of the houses,um...so the average for the citywide infill projects are just under 670 square feet greater than the houses that they're being built around. Urn, you see here there's a lot less kind of spread and variability. Most of these houses are kind of right along the same, uh, height...there. So outliers again include 101 Lusk at the top left there and then property number 12. Urn, so let's take a look at that. So this is property number four. This is just kind of as a base line. This had almost exactly the same amount of total living area, square footage as these houses around it. So this is what one looks like when it's built at pretty much the exact same, um, scale in terms of total living area. So,moving on to property number five. This has over a 1,000 square feet more of total living area than these houses here, but visually, I mean, does that look out of scale to you all? And what about this one, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 2, 2019. Page 4 number 12. This was the other outlier with 101 Lusk, and this is built with over 3,000 more square footage than, um, these houses that you're looking at here. So....continuing on, this is the same thing done for Manville Heights. Urn, so the average in Manville Heights is...you can see there, urn, 1,400 square feet greater,which is....which is over twice, um, as high as it is in the rest of the city, in terms of the scale of total living area for these infill projects. Um....yeah, and then again you see the outlier, 101 Lusk there. So, this is property number 24. Again this has 1,000 square feet more of total living area compared to these houses that you're looking at,but visually would you consider this out of scale? And then what about this one—remember this one had 4%....only a 4% greater lot coverage. If you're just looking at lot coverage, this one looked like it fit right in, but if you're looking at total living area, this has over 2,000 more square feet than the average of the rest of these houses you see on the right. Moving on to building width, so this is citywide, again, presented in the same way. So this was actually....so this is for the citywide, so the majority of the citywide infill projects are actually built more narrow than the houses around them. So 14 out of these 20 fall in the negative on this graph, um, again, notable outlier, 101 Lusk—theirs actually built 46 feet wider than the average of....of its neighbors. (mumbled) example of this one. This is property 13. This is 20 feet wider than the average of these around here, urn,but does it look like, I mean I know it's a drawing, but based on that does it look like it's gonna be really, you know, out of scale with these houses that already exist. So, again, same thing, same format, but looking at Manville Heights. So as I mentioned earlier, the infill in Manville Heights is being built much wider on average than the infill in the rest of the city, when you're looking at the existing housing stock in the neighborhoods in which they are being built. Um, the average here, remember the average around the city was less than a foot greater width. In Manville Heights it's over 14 feet greater width, um, of these infill projects, compared to the houses around them. And again, you see here 101 Lusk coming in at the top. This was an example of property number 30 on North Street. This is actually 20 feet wider than the average of these houses here, and if you look at the....the building footprint on the map on the bottom left here, urn, it shows just how much larger this structure's footprint is compared to the houses around it, but I think based on the Assessor's picture, if you were driving down the street, would it stick out as being particularly out of scale to you. Um, and then this is another one that was in the,kind of a, at the top of the graph there for Manville Heights. This is on Park Road and this is over 40 feet wider, urn, than these houses that are around it, but I think it might seem out of scale based on its height rather than its width. When you're just looking at it visually, and so that brings me to height. Now, again it's....it's kind of a shame we didn't get....we don't have access to the, um, specific height and feet,because that would have been a lot more precise than doing it this way, but this was....this was what we had available to us. So on average, if you're looking at number of stories,both analyses averaged out to about zero. Again you're looking at kind of a wide spread,but when you average it out, for both Manville Heights and the city as a whole, urn, infill projects are being built on average pretty much the same number of stories as the houses around them. Um, again this is kind of imprecise because,urn, you know, it doesn't account for the variation in height between houses that are the same story, um, but again....the are the results that we got. So this is the one....let me back up here. As you see on the blue one, for the city wide, the tallest one, the most out of scale according to this, is number 18 and that is this This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 2, 2019. Page 5 structure here on 2 Wellesley Way. Urn, you can see it's a two-story building and pretty much all the houses it was compared to are one-story ranch-style houses, which explains that. So....uh, summary of all of that, basically overall residential infill is being built larger than the existing neighborhood stock, urn, around it in terms of both lot coverage and total living area, square footage. Urn, infill in Manville Heights is being built larger in terms of total living area, square footage than infill in other parts of the city, urn, also infill Manville Heights is being built more wide than, urn, infill outside of Manville Heights. Urn,but also I think an important thing to look at is that looking at just one of these variables in isolation isn't always enough and there's a,kind of an example of why. So back to the first lot coverage map of the city. That's 101 Lusk there and I mentioned earlier,number 17, that's 1317 Rochester Avenue. So I think if you're looking at this just on paper, you would think, 'Okay, wow, that number 17 there is also very out of scale, urn, according to its neighbors,' but....lot coverage doesn't always tell the whole story. So, this is that property, number 17— 1317 Rochester. I don't know visually if this appears out of scale to you all but, um, the high lot coverage that this....that this property has is due to an abnormally small lot, as opposed to an abnormally large house. Um, so it's....it's kind of a.....a different situation, urn,that causes it to have such a high lot coverage, cause if you look at the other factors, like building width and total living area, it's actually smaller than the average. Um, so yeah, so blue on the left, that's the infill property. The the white is the average of the surrounding properties. So for lot coverage, again, it's much higher, but for width and total living area, square footage, it's.....it's lower. (mumbled) compare that to 101 Lusk, which is much higher in all three of those categories, urn, and visually....I don't....visually it....it looks a bit different than the houses around it. So...and this is another, um, property that's kind of similar to 101 Lusk in that, um, it's an outlier when it comes to total living area and it's....it's also much higher in lot coverage and building width than the houses around it. Um, it has over 3,300 more square feet of total living area than the houses around it, and again, urn, this is what it looks like in comparison to those houses. So, uh, couple of potential policy options. One would be to tailor requirements for, um, infill projects to the surrounding neighborhoods in which they're being built. So that would be like limiting infill to only 20%taller or 20%wider or 20%high lot coverage than the average of the neighbors around it. Um...pros with that would be efficient, transparent, and explicit. Urn, cons would it...if....if you're looking at just one of those metrics at a time, um, it....isn't always enough, like that example I just showed. Urn, another option would be just having uniform maximum heights or additional landscaping or open space requirements. (mumbled) the City did recently amend the zoning code to require more open space, which is worth mentioning. Urn,pros to this kind of thing, again it's uniform. It would be a lot easier to apply in practice, um,but again cons, it doesn't take into account the specific context of the neighborhoods in which these houses are being built. It's not tailored to the area like option one would be. So,urn, another thing to mention is, in that box on the right there, best practice research does recommend targeting these types of policies to specific areas in the city that are ripe for redevelopment. So,here's a map that was done by the intern before me named Sylvia. So what she looked at...she looked at a similar thing so (mumbled) looking at here is that these areas in red are areas that are most ripe for infill development, and that's because, um, the land value in these areas have a dis....disproportionately high....the....the land value is disproportionately high This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 2, 2019. Page 6 compared to the structure value on top of them. So that's an indication, according to the APA, that infill development is likely to happen there. Urn, so again high land value, low structure value, and you can see Manville Heights is one of those areas, along with the neighborhood where that 2014 Ridgeway Drive was. So the black,um, areas there with the hash marks, those are historic and conservation districts. So that...those areas where there is already design review required for developments,but anywhere not in those areas, urn, does...doesn't have such a design review like that would. So, almost done here, so very quickly going to go through some hypotheticals. So basically think of this like if....if you were to implement some of these....some of these options and then go back in a time machine 15 years ago, which of these properties we've already looked at would have been disallowed, if these policies had been implemented, you know, 10, 15 years ago. The first hypothetical would be a policy that limits infill to within 15% greater than the neighborhood average around it. So you see here that red line there is where that cut-off line would be. So had this been in place, there would have been three projects disallowed. So that would have been 101 Lusk, this one here on Rochester, and then this one on East Bloomington Street. So again, same thing but specific to Manville Heights, um, 101 Lusk wouldn't have been built, and this one would not have been allowed to be built either. So another policy, um, infill must be within 15 feet of average neighbor building width. So again, similar concept but just applying it to building width. So had this been in place, there would have been four infill projects that would have been disallowed. Again, 101 Lusk, uh, this one here on Ridgeway, um, this one on East Bloomington Street, and then this one on Wellesley Way. Same policy, 15 feet of building width,but applied to Manville Heights. Again would have disallowed Lusk,but also this one on Ferson, this one on Park Road, and this one on North Street. So, next steps, urn, the staff analysis will be sent to Opticos Design, the staff is....your staff is working with, along with any feedback that Council provides tonight,urn, and then staff will work with Opticos to recommend specific policies tailored to Iowa City back to you all. So, what feedback are we looking for, what constitutes out of scale infill in your opinions, which variables that we've looked at or maybe some that we haven't, you think are of most concern—lot coverage, height, width, urn, and then if there are specific neighborhoods that you think are at risk that these polishes...policies should be targeted towards. Um.....yeah, and that's it. Thank you for....for listening! Throgrnorton/Terrific analysis, Luke. Uh, it's really nice to see such good quantitative and qualitative comparisons. So....do anybody, does any of our Council Members, do any of our Council Members have questions, uh, or reactions to what you've heard from Luke? Salih/I just wanna understand the difference between total lot coverage and total, uh, living area. You mean like if there is a garage or a storage building count as a lot covering, a living area? Foelsch/Yeah, so I talked with the Assessor about specifically how they....get these....these.... these, uh, these numbers. So if lot coverage....it's, um, like a framed structure, so an open deck wouldn't count or a patio wouldn't count,but a garage would. Salih/Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 2, 2019. Page 7 Foelsch/And so then it's....it's all that added up and divided by the total, you know, area of the entire lot,but for total living area, the way that the Assessor, urn, estimates that. So they look at the total livable area of the ground floor. So that would exclude the garage.... Salih/Okay. Foelsch/ ...and then they multiply it by the number of stories of the house, which is kind of a little convoluted way of doing that, but um, yeah, there....there is a slight....a slight difference there. Salih/Okay. Thanks! Cole/Currently it's my understanding that for residential structures there's no requirement for a site plan to be completed for residential structures. Is that....is that correct? Foelsch/ I believe that is the case(mumbled) Russett/Um, typically for single-family, no but we're looking at implementing a new process for infill development that would go through a more thorough review. Cole/As opposed like for example our multi-family, you'd have to have a....a robust site plan and that sort of thing. (unable to hear response) Thomas/One....one of the things I'm interested in is (clears throat) it seems like Lusk, across.... pretty much across the board is an outlier and um (clears throat) part of that seems to me to be just....it's absolute size, I mean it's, uh.....something like 6,000....6,000 square feet or is it even larger than that? Foelsch/Um, of total living area? Thomas/Yeah. Foelsch/Let's take a look here. Um....I.....I don't know off the top of my head. It is quite large, yes (both talking) Thomas/It's very, very large. And I....it seems to me that, you know, with our current code, if you live on a large lot, that's a Lusk type of structure as possible, cause you're....you can meet the lot coverage maximums. Even with the setbacks you still have quite a bit of area. I think the, um, that lot is about .4 acres. So...that seems to be one of the issues, is when you have a large lot, how do you control the size, the outcome in terms of size. Foelsch/Right, yeah, so I mean....as it stands, I mean, it's limited by, as you said, urn, setback requirements and lot coverage restrictions and things like that,but I think what's particular to the Lusk situation is that those are generally rather large lots in that particular area and the houses built on them are kind of, um, of an era that's, I don't know, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 2, 2019. Page 8 a little bit older, so they're a little bit,urn, smaller houses on larger lots, and so then I think it....it stands out in a much more real, visceral way when you see such a large house next to such a small house. Ur.....but yeah, I....I.....I think that's why I think, um, like that first, um,policy option of tailoring something like this to this specific, to maybe one of these metrics, to a specific neighborhood would kind of get at that issue, because if you just have a uniform, um, requirement across the board, then it wouldn't take into account kinda the specific, context-specific situations like you see on, uh, 101 Lusk Avenue, but as you see as it stands, I mean that was built legally and it fully complies with all the requirements. Thomas/I mean it does seem that if we can have some....and it's good to hear that, you know, staff is thinking about, uh, looking at this in more detail,but if we had....measures such as these that are triggers for further analysis, that would be useful. Um, because it....it's sort of interesting that the Rochester house also pops up because I....I view that as actually being the direction we wanna go in the sense that it's very efficient, com.... compact, um....without seeming in any way out of scale. Uh, so....I....I would think Opticos and...and kind of that form based approach, if you will, would be....we would find Rochester to be something we would try to encourage. Cole/Geoff, and maybe you could comment, I mean this conversation was obviously generated by Manville Heights, but if we do get beyond the scope of, for example, a tailored response to Manville Heights, how much are we looking at? Significant cost esc.... escalation if we get beyond Manville Heights? You know, in terms of Opticos. Do we have a sense of that or(both talking) Fruin/I think the Opticos contract, I mean, uses the Lusk, urn, development as a....as kind of the illustrative example, but it's....it's meant to cover a broader (both talking) Cole/Okay, so we wouldn't be looking at a significant cost (both talking) Fruin/No. No, it's....it's in the contract that you've already approved. Cole/Okay. I'm curious about the question of best practices. You sort of framed this as one of potentially prohibiting over a certain percentage in terms of lot coverage. Are there best practices in terms of these extraordinary coverages in terms of notice to adjacent neighbors, because it seems that that was one of the issues that came up in this particular case is people were so surprised,urn, that it was going to be built. So are there any best practices that are recommended for these sort of extraordinary structures....that you're aware of? Foelsch/In terms of notifying the(both talking) Cole/ ...yeah. Foelsch/Not that I have read (both talking) sure there's probably some literature out there but none that we've, I believe, looked at up to this point. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 2, 2019. Page 9 Cole/ Okay. Mims/ I think it's clear that...this, I think we've known this for a long time, is incredibly complex, because as you look at these different....forms of measurement, you know, where things exceed, you know, in one area but not in another, and the size of lots makes a huge difference, you know, and the...the history of the neighborhood can make a huge difference. It seems to me that some, you know, some methodology of....if multiple of these, um, data points exceed by a certain percentage, then it....it triggers some sort of a design review. Um....and that way....and.....and maybe those percentages are...different in different parts of the community, as....as we look at the areas, and that might be something that Opticos would recommend. But I don't think one,just one is necessarily enough to trigger it. So that's what I would be interested in kind of seeing come back from Opticos, is when you....one, are there other....are there other variables that we should be looking at other than these four? What would these four, would it be if two or three, you know, if at least two or three, and I don't know which is right—two or three— you know, exceed whatever percentages are set, then that, um, triggers some sort of a design review,because any one in and of themselves may or may not make it....you know, a house that you wouldn't wanna see built....um, depending on lot sizes, etc., so... Teague/I found it interestin' the....old intern that, um, did the graph about the, all the red that was the infill (clears throat) of the properties that, if I understood correctly(clears throat) the property land was greater than the....they can build somethin'that would be appropriate for the property land cause the current structure was probably under-valued, if I understood that correctly. Foelsch/Yeah, it's just that the ratio was off compared to other parts where the (both talking) Teague/ Sure! Foelsch/ ....land is worth much more than that. Teague/Sure. Foelsch/In general. Teague/So it....it appears that there's a lot of neighborhoods or communi....communities within our city that could potentially, you know....tear down a structure and do some more infills, is that....what that kinda showed is a....is likely that that could happen? Foelsch/Yeah, I mean if you're....if you're looking at those metrics as the APA recommends to do in order to target areas where this exact type of thing is likely to happen, then I think that based on that spatial analysis that the other intern did, those are the areas where(both talking) Teague/Okay, it was right (both talking) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 2, 2019. Page 10 Russett/If I could just add to that, urn, so the potential is there for more in....more tear downs and infill development in those red areas. I guess based on data historically we've had about five infill projects over the last....couple decades. So.... Teague/ Okay. All right. Mims/Five per year(several talking) Well I think if you look at those red areas, that's the core of the city. I mean those are....those are the older neighborhoods. Those are the older houses that...stock that may or may not have been maintained or just,you know, they're... some of'em 50-plus years old and....so....plus, it was interesting in all of these, urn, when you look at Manville Heights, that is a very desirable neighborhood for a lot of people. It's within walking distance of the hospital, you know, that sort of thing. So you have people who wanna be close in and in many cases people who have a fair amount of money if there're doctors and stuff over there, and so you're getting some bigger, more expensive homes being built, and so to me that....really kind of feeds into the character that sticks with our community. Teague/Uh huh, and if, you know, for that lot size, the first thing I thought about or for the structure,um, if we're talking about diversity, that could have been a two-plex, a four- plex, somethin' like....or.....or a duplex, four-plex, urn, and I think that's somethin'that, urn, is important when we're, you know, when they're lookin' at how to do all this is that, um, all these neighborhoods that are historically single-family homes,that may not be... you know, what it....what the infill could look like and so I....I would assume that they would take that into account. Thomas/ I think it would...it would have been interesting to....and I don't (clears throat) have the opportunity really to look at heights,but uh, I think height is an important factor too, and I was....I was looking at some work that Portland is doing and they....they changed how you measure the height, and it was based on the lowest point, rather than the highest point. Uh.... Foelsch/Yeah, I....I believe currently how we measure height, because yeah, I think we looked at the same thing, is from, um, the mid-point of the grade, up the lot, and then the mid- point of the roof also. So yeah, I think Portland went from, um, the highest point to the lowest point, in an effort to try to combat(both talking) Thomas/Yeah, I mean, some of these images that....the sense of being out of scale was...was just the height of the structure, not necessarily the square footage. Cole/I'm curious if you looked at the question of use. Um, we've had a lot of discussion about differences in terms of scale and lot width and coverage, but I think part of the residents' concerns, as I understand it, is they were very concerned with the property itself would not be used as a single-family and that it would be used as....for some other purpose. Um, so that's obviously hard to predict on the front end, and I think in this particular case we relied on an affidavit from the family to say'Yep, we're gonna use it as a single-family This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 2, 2019. Page 11 home.' Are there any regulatory tools that would be available that would....help us, help the staff level to make that decision,because in defense of our staff, that's a really hard thing to do is to predict how someone tends to use the property. Um, did you look at that particular issue, and are there any, urn,tools that we could use to....to more precisely address that on the front end, in terms of how the property would be used. Russett/Um, I think that this is something that staff looked at prior to me joining the City Planning staff,but I know with Lusk and for any other projects that we receive, we do a use analysis to determine what....what use is being proposed. So that's something that's already a part of the....the permitting process. Taylor/I think Susan made a, uh, a good point about that....that red area is kind of the heart of the....of our community and, uh, particularly some historical neighborhoods, and of course that does make it more desirable for people wanting to move there, uh, if they don't want to move into these cookie-cutter homes, as I call 'em, that are....that are springing up in the newer neighborhoods, so that does make it more desirable, but I think it's important that they......a new building in that area still remains compatible, uh, with the surrounding structures that are there, to keep that, uh,that character of the neighborhood. That's important(both talking) Teague/ I do think that, um, keepin' the structure of the neighborhood is important,but I also think that there is opportunities for ensure then....ensurin' that other people have an opportunity to live in that community. Um, you know, in a affordable unit of some type. It may not be a house. You know, it could be a duplex, dependin'on if the lot size is right. So I'm not, um, disagreein' with you. I do think that that's somethin' that needs to be accounted for as well because oftentimes the NIMBY comes into play,not in my backyard, where everybody want their neighborhood to look exactly...while keep the same people in their neighborhood or same financial level in their neighborhood, and I do believe that that's somethin'that we do need to consider on some level when we're, you know, lookin' at this. Throgmorton/I....I agree with you, Bruce, and I....but it's important to know that that's part of what we're asking Opticos to look at with regard to the area around Alexander Elementary, and the form based code development there. And if we're lucky we'll be able to extrapolate from that and apply it to other neighborhoods as well. It's gonna take time. It would happen gradually, I think,but uh,but that's part of what this missing middle concept's all about and I think you're seeing that very clearly now. So I have a, I guess, a couple questions. It....it seems to me that....very few of us have any long-term personal memory about how many, uh, infill developments have come to the city that have, uh, engendered as much opposition as the Lusk Avenue building did. I personally don't know of any other infill development, and there're only a few people, like Eleanor, who's been around for a long time....no offense(laughter) Teague/ I didn't say that! (laughter) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 2, 2019. Page 12 Throgmorton/So I'm wondering, Eleanor, if you have any memory of any other infill, uh, residential project that has engendered as much opposition as the Lusk Avenue project did? Yeah, I'm not aware of any either. So part of what I think is Lusk Avenue is clearly an outlier, given the objective, quantitative data you've presented to us. So we should take strong signals from that, it seems to me, in terms of tryin' to figure out whether we should do anything different with regard to infill developments. Exactly how to do that, I don't know,but I do have a few thoughts about things that should be thought about as we're pursuing this. One is, if we're making comparisons with the surrounding neighborhood or seeking to make sure the project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, then it becomes really important to define the surrounding neighborhood clearly, and I think that won't be an easy thing to do. So that's the first thing. The second is, right now the State Legislature is on the verge of taking away our rental cap ordinance. Or....taking action that will force us to completely revise our approach to this. Our approach to, um....the problem that the rental cap ordinance sought to address. So we need to think about how whatever we do with regard to this particular question, takes into account the concern that was being addressed by the rental cap ordinance. Uh,hate to...I probably sound more convoluted than I meant it to be,but I think you get what I mean. We....we need to look carefully at the connection with....the rental cap replacement (laughs) and the third thing has to do with Opticos and the work they're doing down at Alexander Elementary with regard....and, uh, whether we can learn from it and they can learn from this particular experience and the analysis that Luke and Anne did so skillfully. So....that doesn't lead to any specific conclusion, but those are thoughts that I have with regard to responding to your analysis. Salih/ I just have a question. I wanna ask you, you k now,the....the....the Manville Height project that people come and oppose it. Is that now considered the largest one in the whole of Iowa City or there is a larger(unable to understand) than that? Foelsch/Based on the ones....based on the ones that I...that we looked at, I mean it's....it's by far the largest in terms of how it compares to the houses around it. Um, I think....I don't have it in front of me, but uh.... Throgmorton/But you're referring to infill development(both talking) Foelsch/Yes (several talking) specifically infill developments. Salih/Yes. Foelsch/Yeah, I mean it's by far, uh, the largest compared to the neighborhood it's built in. Um....but again I don't know off the top of my head if it's....strictly the largest overall in terms of, you know (mumbled) square footage (both talking) Throgmorton/ Seems like they're really....there were three things involved that...that caused Lusk Avenue, I think that....become such a....a topic of controversy. One is the objective data you've presented about the total lot area and, um.....I.....I'm sorry (laughs) lot area covered and the total (several talking) the width and whatever the other(several talking) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 2, 2019. Page 13 total living area, thank you. That's one thing. The second had to do with Roc... what Rockne referred to, which is what the neighbors perceive the real use was gonna be, de....despite the affidad....affidavit and all that. Uh, and the third is, uh,it's distinctively different appearance.....when compared to other buildings in the area. So I think those three things came together to create this, uh, hail storm of....of objection. Cole/I....I guess for me, we....it is true we are dealing with an outlier structure. Urn, but we are dealing with an outlier structure that did occur and so I think part of the issue that we faced was is we didn't have the regulatory tools to review that. Urn, so at least in terms of where I'm coming from, this is posed as a question of limiting such structures, if they're beyond a certain percentage. Instead of that, what I would propose is that if it exceeds 20% of one of those metrics, I think lot coverage makes sense to me. As Susan points out it may be some other variable, but that would essentially trigger a site plan review, a more robust review process, and we would couple that with a notice provision,um, and finally would it be pou....possible in those extraordinary cases to have Council review of the site plan that's presented. Um, so that.....that would be what I would propose. So you would still be able to do these large structures. There still would be the ability to do them,but they would essentially have a more robust planning process that provides additional notice, additional review, and under those extraordinary circumstances, Council review. So what do people think about that? Throgmorton/There'd have to be criteria involving the....the design review itself, if you shifted to that level. So we can't just say to staff review (both talking) Cole/Well I'm saying for the broader contours, urn, and I....and I think we're basically trying to give, urn, some direction on this. The other thing too is in terms of starting point, it did pop up in the Manville Heights neighborhood. I'm hoping that there would be a charrette with the neighborhood. So that we've identified those three variables, they could give impact as well, input as well, and we could start in this neighborhood to get started, and then evaluate whether we'd need to, urn, go into other neighborhoods, but that would seem to still give us the flexibility because I know historically, um, the neighborhood has not been supportive of a heavy regulatory approach,urn, or heavy limitations on what can be done, um,but I think really this would give more, um, ability for review, and then to the extent that we can....evaluate standardized criteria on use, it still seems to me that there was concerns about what it'd be used for and it may just be too hard to put that into a regulatory form,but to the extent we can I'd like to see greater ability to challenge the use classification. Mims/I have a question historically. On the Lusk project, was that originally two separate lots that were combined for that project? Cole/(mumbled) understanding. Fruin/I....I don't recall. Mims/Okay. I was just.... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 2, 2019. Page 14 Russett/We can look into that but I don't....I don't believe so, but we'll look into it. Mims/Okay. Salih/And when you....I guess I hear you saying that the current City code is allow 40%...you know, of the, like the lot coverage or comparing to the area? I don't understand that. Foelsch/ So the current City code is 45% lot coverage,just by itself(both talking) Salih/By itself,without comparing it to any....okay. And the....the Manville Height is not exceeding the 45% from the.... Foelsch/I believe it's at 44% (both talking) Salih/Okay(both talking) Throgmorton/It seems to me that....the design kind of work that's embedded in form based code which seeks to accomplish what we're trying to figure out how to accomplish right now, so if we had the equivalent of a form based code for our existing neighborhoods, we wouldn't need to go through all the rigmarole, that there would be parameters already set out in the code that would have to do with...the comparative size, etc., of infill projects, relative to surrounding properties. Mims/It....I don't know. I.....I guess I just don't know enough about form based code in residential areas. When you look at different parts of this city that have such totally different lot sizes,um, I....I, yeah, I don't.....I just....I don't understand it well enough to know if you could get one form based code that could cover.....successfully address the uniqueness of different areas. I mean you take(both talking) Throgmorton/It would have to be(both talking) Mims/Yeah, because you've, you know, you've got Manville Heights is very old, um, some larger lots, some smaller lots there,but you know, again a lot of large, old, expensive homes because of location. You can go to the extreme of Walnut Ridge,where you've got acre lots with....400 probably a minimum maybe $400,000 houses out there, and up. Um, you can go out on the north side in a new development where you've got quarter acre or less lots that are.....I'd be amazed, I guess they're not exceeding(laughs) 45% lot coverage, but you've got some absolutely huge houses on these very small lots. Urn, so you just....you just have such variability, um, in the lot sizes and the types of housing, um, across the city, and....and to your point, Rockne, I'm not sure that I would be comfortable, and I guess it, you know, like we say—the devil's always in the details— if....if it....it a permit request, and you know,just give their....what they wanna do in terms of the house, and it only exceeds one of these parameters, I'm not sure that's enough to trigger a design review. I....I..... This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 2, 2019. Page 15 Cole/ I mean a site plan (both talking) Mims/ ...site plan, I mean I (both talking) Cole/I mean my thought process is that....is that these are extraordinary projects, and so the run of the mill infill development would not be affected and it would be ordinary(mumbled) and so I....I think we need a tool for the extraordinary (both talking) Mims/Oh, I agree! (both talking) Cole/ ....and so I think to your point, Jim, though is that I think, I mean what begs the question what would of happened if this would have been, you know, a 1920s-style, um, sort of re- imagining of very similar design standards, but in every....in every respect, except it had the same scale. Would there have been the same opposition? I think scale alone is an issue in this particular....because it's so much bigger. I think there would have been less opposition,but there still would have been concerns. I think there's issues with drainage and all those different things. So....it's only gonna affect a very limited set of properties, and they'll still be able to do it. You're not prohib...we're not prohibiting or limiting. So I like it for the extraordinary case, to give sort of, for lack of a better term, sort of an extraordinary remedy in terms of a site plan and Council review, for those extraordinary, um, differences in scale. Throgmorton/One other thought comes to my mind and it has to do with historic preservation districts. Isn't there al....there already design standards built in to historic preservation districts, aren't there for properties.....developments or infill developments that would take place right next to an historic landmark? Russett/It would....it would need to be either locally designated or within a district for the additional design review to apply. So if it was a....a property next to a landmark, the regulations would not apply. Throgmorton/I thought there was something about compatibility. Is there not? Maybe (both talking) Dilkes/Are you talking outside the district or inside of the district? Throgmorton/I....well (both talking) Dilkes/ ....non-historic structures (both talking) Throgmorton/I'm talkin' about inside the historic preservation district. But what I really...I was thinking about was local historic landmarks, buildings that are local historic landmarks. Isn't there some standard havin' to do with, uh, requiring any new development next to those landmarks have....havin' to be compatible with the landmark somehow? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 2, 2019. Page 16 Dilkes/I think what you might be thinking of is those situations like we had over here with the Unitarian Church, where the....part of the new development was actually sitting on the historically designated landmark lot. And so in that case, yes, it had to (both talking) Throgmorton/Well I'm thinkin' about some things I've heard with regard to....the proposed development at 400 N. Clinton Street, which is right next to 410, 412 and...yeah, I mean I can't remember the exact thing, what I precisely heard,but I've heard, or read, uh, some language about compatibility. Mims/ If it's not in a district(several talking) Fruin/I don't think it's a requirement, Mayor. I think at....at times the City's been opportunistic and the 400 Clinton one would be one where we could require that through a CZA, um, or a development agreement or somethin' like that. Throgmorton/Okay, I guess I'm misremembering. Taylor/ I...I was kind of thinking the same as you, Jim, I thought like(mumbled) the Tate Arms, uh, preservation of that and the apartment building that was built up next to that. I thought there were some guidelines as far as.... Mims/But you're talking rezonings, right? See if you get into rezonings, we can make all kinds of requirements on rezonings,but to me what Jim is saying is.....just design requirements, based on that location outside of any zoning issue. That's where I'm saying I don't think there is if it's not in the historic district(several talking) conservation district. Yeah. Cole/It doesn't address this issue. Mims/No. Throgmorton/So.....we are now 50 minutes into our work session. I personally am not prepared to agree with Rockne's suggestion. I think it's an interesting suggestion. I might be willing to agree with it,but at the moment I'm not prepared to do that. I don't know where the rest of you arc. My sense is that we are ambivalent about what specifically, or feeling ambivalent about what specifically should be done or what we want staff to pursue. Cole/Can I give an amendment to that suggestion? Throgmorton/Yeah. Cole/Um, why don't we just kick it out for a month or so and reconvene in a 20 minute work session in the future, so we can get feedback from the residents who are sitting here that were directly affected. Staff can generate additional commentary based on our discussion. Then we can get more into the details. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 2, 2019. Page 17 Throgmorton/It would be helpful to have some written feedback from the staff so that we have a memory of the conversation we just had. Yeah, you know, cause we have a lot to think about and it's easy to forget the details. Cole/What do people think of that? Fruin/We're gonna come back to ya fairly quickly. Do....Anne,do you know where this, urn, particular project sits in the Opticos'workload? Are....is this at the front end of their contract with us? Russett/Well I talked to....Opticos about it and it's at the back end,but they would be willing to move it up if it's something we want to move forward quicker than was originally anticipated. Fruin/We can....we can try to return to you with their suggestions in....in pretty close time to what you're talking about(both talking) Cole/Four to six weeks, somethin'like that. Fruin/Yeah. Cole/I'd be fine with that. Fruin/And...and we can, you know,just based on your discussion here, even though there's not agreement, uh, and that's not really what we were hoping for tonight. We were just hoping for feedback. We can take the comments that you have and start to craft something, and then work with Opticos to refine those based on their experience in other communities. So I think we've....I think we've heard what we need to hear to move forward. I think you found this useful, as....as did we as a staff, and....and,urn, we have an idea of what, you know,where those lines should be drawn, if this is indeed the right approach, and....to your point, Rockne, um, if we do....if we do decide to draw those lines somewhere,urn,it doesn't have to be a hard no. We can develop some type of process, uh, in which if you cross those lines,there's gonna be some more notifications, some more public discussion, you know,where that fits in terms of Council approval versus staff, and appeal rights. We just have to kind of sort some of that stuff out. Cole/Will there be a charrette with the residents or...how will that process work? Fruin/(mumbled) I mean...any time we're gonna go in and amend the...an ordinance, uh, there'd be(both talking) You're talkin'three readings and we can certainly....I can certainly reach out and get....get their input,urn(mumbled) I'm just not sure what a charrette would result in,but to....to your point,we'll seek their(both talking) Cole/ ....feedback. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 2, 2019. Page 18 Throgmorton/Well that sounds like a reasonable approach to me. How bout the rest of you? (several responding) Thomas/Yeah I think we really need to hear from Opticos, cause it....it's part of the anticipating, you know, what the form based code issues will be as well. Throgmorton/Okay. Luke, thanks so much for such a good job on the report, and the presentation of it. (several talking) Anne, are you gonna help us with the next topic or is that somethin' Geoffs gonna do or we're gonna wing it on our own or what (laughs) Discuss Northside Marketplace Form Based Code FIP41: Froin/Well,urn, we'll move quickly on it. Uh, so a couple of,um,meetings ago,uh, you had requested this as a work session item. Uh, this would be the Northside Marketplace form based code. Um, this was during the budget deliberations. Um, as a reminder, we don't have, uh, funds in the budget for this purpose. Our original plan was to,uh, take up the question of a....of a Northside form based code after the South District, uh, code, uh, was, uh, completed. Um,but nonetheless it came up in the budget deliberations and you asked, uh, to have a.....a deliberative conversation about that. Uh, Mayor Throgmorton and Council Member Thomas joined some of our Planning staff on a....on a conference call with Opticos so that,um, they could share their insights into what, uh,may be desired by the neighborhood, uh,but also hear from Opticos on what they would envision that process bein'. So that's what my memo lays out. Um, you can see, um, what Opticos laid out would be a process to get us all the way to a written form based code. Uh, what my recommendation was in the memo was that we....we kind of take that in two pieces and if you do wanna go forward, uh, that we start with just a visioning piece, and I don't know exactly what that looks like now,but if I...if you were all in that same spot, we would work with Opticos and....and come back with a contract that limits it to just a visioning exercise with the....with the businesses and the....and the surrounding neighborhood. Mims/I'm just really concerned with, you know, the commitments that our staff has and I think you laid out here really well, Geoff, I mean how, you know, we've turned over a majority of...of that staff in the last year and I don't know,there's....maybe 10 bullet points here of the other current commitments and I thought we were pretty well set when we had gone through the form based code that we really felt from a staff perspective and from a financial perspective that we really had to prioritize what we were going to do in terms of form based code, and we decided that to go with that South District because we wanted to get that in before it's all built up and then it's too late, you know. It's greenfield now and we can have the most impact with missing middle and really diverse housing stock, and so we decided that that would be our....our priority, and I guess I would like to see us.... stick with that and I....I think, you know, talking about the dollars, as well as the....the burden on staff, who I think are....pretty overworked probably at this point, that I....I'd still like to see this one wait. Throgmorton/What do the rest of you think? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 2, 2019. Page 19 Thomas/Well I....I tend to agree with Geoff s recommendation at the end. I think it does speak and respond to questions of, related to...to the, uh, work that staff has, uh, looked....is looking forward to in the coming year, uh, as well as addressing the....the budget issues. I think Geoff and Jim and I were talking about how the, you know, the figure for the visioning is itself flexible. I think it can be refinement in the scope in terms of what it would cost. Uh, so the cost issue,the....the burden on staff, I think would be minimized with that. And then speaking from the standpoint of what I've heard from the neighborhood and also (mumbled) Linda McGuire and Susan(can't hear) and I attended a Downtown District meeting. I think there is interest in, from both the merchants and the landlords, as well as the neighborhood, to continue making progress. You know, we...we did have that preliminary work that was done in the Northside, which included Northside Marketplace. And if....if we were to drop both Northside Marketplace and the Northside neighborhood form based code study, we would just be at a, kind of a dead stop. So it seemed like this was an opportunity to...at a....at a minimum cost, uh, maintain a focus,particularly in the area that seemed to be the most, um, dynamic in terms of land use. As....as I mentioned in a previous meeting,just in the last I would say eight years, there've been three rezonings of three distinct properties, all of which had controversies associated with them. So it seemed like there was a need....uh, to address that threat. You know, that's another issue that the neighborhoods....neighborhood has felt, is there going to be yet another property that's...where we see development and that it may not be quite the right fit. So this seemed to be a way of trying to....make progress at a reasonable cost, uh, keep....keep a focus, and then let the visioning generate...hopefully a level of enthusiasm and interest to move forward to the next step. Mims/I would just make one comment in response to that, John. You....your comment was that you agreed with the City Manager's recommendation. If you read the first part of that first sentence, it says, 'The recommendation is prefaced on if the Council determines that there is urgency to initiating Planning work in the Northside Marketplace.' So the City Manager's recommendation is not necessarily to do that. It is prefaced on if we determine there is urgency. I just think that's a important clarification. Salih/I...I think....I also (mumbled) agree with Geoff recommendations on developing a community, you know, visioning process and including the Downtown District and others, community association, before we can come up with like full court, you know, revision process. Yeah. Mims/I'm sorry, Maz, I didn't....I wasn't quite clear on what your position was in terms of agreeing or not agreeing with (both talking) Salih/I'm agreeing with the City Manager because he said we need to have....that what you said, right? (laughs) I guess that what I understood. Mims/(both talking) So I guess my question is, do you see an urgency? Salih/No I don't see an urgency. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 2, 2019. Page 20 Mims/Okay! Salih/That's why I'm agreeing with him. Mims/Not agreeing (laughs) There's two different pieces here. There's one—do we have a sense of urgency? And then if we have that sense of urgency, do we agree with the City Manager's recommendation, or do we agree with a more...robust process in terms of dollars and timeframe? Salih/(several talking) Can you just (laughter) ask Geoff to ask,just tell us clearly what your recommendation is. Fruin/Okay. I....I'll do my best here. What I tried to do in the memo is lay out all the wor....the workload that we have. We are.....we....we've got enough on our plate right now, and we've got some very important things that we're making prog...progress on. Adding another task is difficult for us. Urn, part of your all role as the policy makers is to decide, you know, what...what is the most urgent need. If we limit it to visioning, and we're really....what we'd be looking at in my mind, from a visioning exercise, is a....let's say a....what they scoped out was a three-day charrette. Um, I don't think we need three days. Um, if we limit it to visioning and we're really bringing Opticos in to say, you know, 'Here's some concepts that we could look at in the district,'um, you know, they're sketching up proposals for.....what our parking lot may look like if it's ever redeveloped or used for open space. Um, then I don't think it's a...a whole lot, it's not a huge ask of the staff. Um, the more we layer on top of that if we're doing,uh, parking analysis, if we're starting to do some exploratory form based code work, then my concerns ratchet up a little bit. Urn, so I definitely don't think we're in a position to take on another form based code, what Opticos has laid out. If you wanna do the visioning, I think we can do that. You just have to realize that some of these other tasks that are bulleted there, those are gonna be delayed a little bit,um,because we've got somethin' else in front of that now. Taylor/ I don't know that I would, uh, term it as urgent, but I do think it is almost as important as the South District. Yes the South District's growing, but as we've seen over the last couple years, uh, there's development,uh, demolition and then development, redevelopment, of areas in....in the Northside Marketplace. Most recently the one on the, uh, Market Street corner. Um, I would agree with a public, uh, visionary session. Um, I....I didn't like to hear it referred to as just a public visionary, ' cause I think it would be important. It's important to get, uh, input, uh, from the, uh, district and,uh, so I....I would agree with that. But I also think parking, the parking analysis was mentioned. I think that is, or would be important, very important, down the road. I think it can't be forgotten. I think we need to keep that in the back of our minds to do that at some point. Salih/ Sure. Yeah. I....I guess I....I said the same thing, I'm agreeing with the visioning and reaching out. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 2, 2019. Page 21 Throgmorton/So ideally I would like to see us move ahead on developing a form based code for that area,but when I read the memo from Anne, that we're now talking about in one way or another, and saw that it would cost$175,000, I thought, 'No, I....I cannot commit to that,' and I won't commit to that. But I think....working with Opticos to develop a vision based on a two or three-day charrette with neighbors, landlords, businesses, and so on, would be a significant step that would help us move in the direction that we need to be going for that area. At minimal cost and minimal intrusion on staff time. So, I....I'm completely supportive of that. I....I certainly do not see urgency at this moment, given the other things we have to do, to...proceed with developing a form based code for the Northside area, cause we'd already did process that, and....and that would be very intrusive. So I wanna agree with Susan about that particular point. Cole/And in terms of, um, we've talked a lot about Opticos being probably one of the more expensive consulting, uh, organizations. Is there any way to explore, um, less expensive alternatives, um, and do you have any sense of what that would cost (mumbled) Fruin/Well we....we certainly could and there would be less expensive options. The issue that you get into now is they're developing...well, one, they've already done the feasibility study. So they've put a lot of time and effort into studying this district already. Um, and....and that's something that, uh, we might have to pay another firm to....to do. Um, but they're developing the South District code for us now and I...what I don't want to see happen is for us to get a new consultant every time we're gonna tweak a part of our code cause then they're not gonna speak to each other as well (mumbled) Cole/ So....my position is, I think to follow up with what Jim had said in reference to the visioning. I think that's going to be very important, um, moving forward. I also think it's a little bit of the tail wagging the dog here, but this issue of parking is a big issue. I think we(both talking) Throgmorton/It's a very big issue actually(laughs) Cole/ ...I think we need to move forward on a parking study for this area. I don't know, Geoff, if we can do that as a standalone manner. I mean I say for example,um, it'd be very hard, you know we all love Hamburg Inn, right? It'd be very hard to recreate those sorts of buildings with the current parking requirements, um, that we have in that area. I think because there's a certain number of parking spaces that you had. I won't mention the business, but I know that there was another business that was evaluating one of the, um, empty storefronts that really was inhibited from occupying that because of the parking requirement associated with that. So I actually do....do feel a sense of urgency related to that, so I'd like to see the charrette and I'd like to see the parking study, um, move forward. Froin/Now what you're....you're talkin' about with the parking though you're talking about our code requirements for new development, and what you have to include with....with that. Cole/Yeah!\ This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 2, 2019. Page 22 Fruin/I think,and....and others can correct me if I'm wrong,but I think the, what Opticos has suggested you need to look at your parking, it's more gettin' into the neighborhoods to understand the capacity of parking on the streets,maybe looking at our decks to see how we manage those, urn, because I....I don't think anybody, uh, I don't think what we'll....I don't...well, I certainly wouldn't recommend it. I don't think Opticos would recommend it, to where we're putting an additional parking burden on new development. Urn, that's gonna lead...that's gonna help drive the form of those buildings, particularly on those small lots, and it's probably not gonna be something that...that folks like to see because you're gonna....redevelopment's gonna require the assemblage of multiple lots. You're gonna get larger developments. So in my view, our goal should be to remove the parking requirements on the Northside, and I think for people to get comfortable with that, there has to be a corresponding form based code that we can all....or a vision,that we can all agree to. Cole/Yeah. (mumbled) Teague/I think the South District, movin' forward, urn, with that is very important, and of course the Northside is very important as well, urn, I think given the fact that the funds are 175,000, that's somethin' that I don't think we can, uh, really....I......I wouldn't be able to commit to that, um, so I...and I don't feel the urgency,um, and so doin' the vision is great. I did have a question, because....I think I remember staff mentioning, you know, the different form based codes, and the challenge, um, with so many different codes, not only for staff but for developers and stuff like that. I don't totally know all about this, but is there any....are there options for....u....doin' somethin' uniformally and then....breakin' it down a little bit by district, urn.... Fruin/Yeah, and I....I.....I, um, tried to get at that with the, um, kind of the scope of the study area. I....and I....I think you're right, we do share your concern of developing these pockets of different codes, and what I was trying to suggest is that at some point you need to take the leap and redo the entire zoning code. Um, or at least do a thorough analysis and make sure that all the different components are speaking to each other using the same terminology, um, are easy to understand from both the staff and developers standpoint. I don't know that we're there yet. We're hoping that what's produced in the South District will get us to the point where we can start to adapt that to our existing neighborhoods. Um,but some communities do, uh, when they overhaul their....they'll just do a complete overhaul of their entire zoning code at one time. Uh, Cedar Rapids just went through that. Anne was a part of that process, uh, during her time with Cedar Rapids. Urn, I think Danielle's also had experience, uh, doing a complete overhaul to a form based code. So we're choosing to go about it kind of district-by-district, but at some point we're gonna need to, um, do a comprehensive. Teague/Is there an interim that we can....thought of what can be done? Fruin/Urn....I don't....I don't think (both talking) You may see...well, for example, what we're doing now in the Opticos, with the Opticos contract. We're having them look at the This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 2, 2019. Page 23 Riverfront Crossings code. Urn,part of the intention of that is to....to fine-tune anything that may not be producing the results that we want,but also we want what they develop in the South District to somewhat match up, again, terminology-wise,urn, with what we've done in the Riverfront Crossings area. So we want them to be familiar, so they can build something similar,uh, even if it's not perfect. Throgmorton/Also, Bruce, when we commissioned Opticos' work for the area around Alexander Elementary, we had extensive discussion about how....the results of that study and the development of that code could probably be applied to other emerging neighborhoods, and the one that comes to mind at the moment for me is the area around new Hoover Elementary....especially in light of the trailer court, uh, Sun...Sunset....(several talking) Sunrise (laughs) Sony! Sunrise Trailer Court, uh.....and I have in front of me, uh, a Google image of the area around that school. There's a lot of'undeveloped' land there, so it's a....a perfect location for extrapolating, or extending, the Opticos work at Alexander Elementary, extending it to another emerging neighborhood. So that's definitely something I hope we will be able to do. All right. So, uh, we need a decision here, I think. I believe,tell me if I'm wrong, I believe I've heard that there's at least a majority of people in favor of moving ahead with the visioning exercise with Opticos,not more than three days, probably less. That means less than the $40,000 I think, uh, which is....they say is required for a three-day visioning exercise. Mims/Are you talking visioning or charrette? I mean....(several talking) Fruin/The charrette would produce a vision. Mims/ (mumbled) Throgmorton/Yeah, it's community visioning but of course they're....they would be helping...to produce that, alternatives and sort through the alternatives. Okay, uh....anything else we need to do on that? Fruin/Just clarification on whether now's the time to bring in the parking question or not. Throgmorton/Well am I correct in understanding that....that would cost, what, 10 to $50,000, I can't remember exactly what the memo says. Fruin/Uh, it would be 45,000 with a contingency of 10 to 50 on top of that, depending on data collection needs. Throgmorton/And a lot would depend on the boundary of....of the study that we give them, right? And am I right in thinking that....funds for that could come out of, what's... parking and transit, is that what it's called? Fruin/We could probably use the parking fund, yes. Throgmorton/All right, what do y'all think? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 2, 2019. Page 24 Teague/I think Geoff mentioned it wasn't really associated with the business areas. It's associated with the neighborhoods. Fruin/Well it would be associated with the businesses but the...the geographic area of study would be, uh, greater than what you see in the green on...in the memo. So the green in the memo's kinda where the....the built environment vision would take place, but in order for, you know,um, you could think of; if you're gonna go to one of these businesses on the Northside, you may be comfortable parking two or three blocks away and walking. Uh, so the parking....uh, study area would need to expand a little bit to understand the surrounding neighborhoods, including the downtown and some residential areas. Thomas/Well I....I certainly think, you know, and....and the cost of this I would hope, like with the visioning, we can negotiate that. Um, but I....I do feel, and I've expressed this to Geoff,that I think we....we need to keep in mind, um, particularly in these....these areas where we're developing at a higher intensity, the relationship of that development to parking requirements, and so....and I think we're a little bit....a little bit behind in that regard. We focused a lot on development and need to be paying equal attention to the parking demand that that development may generate. So I do think....it would certainly be a valuable piece to include that, uh, so that we understand that relationship of land use....and parking. Taylor/I also think,uh, something to consider if they're doing the parking study is that they do it when,uh, the University's in session and students are there, cause makes a lot of difference trying to find some place to park around that area when the students are here. No offense to the students! (laughs) Thomas/One anecdote on that regard, in that regard,was,uh....when....when we're meeting about this, I've always felt(mumbled)you know, some of the....the parking demand associated with Northside Marketplace could be accommodated at the ramp on Iowa Avenue. And Geoff mentioned that that's approaching capacity, or at capacity. So I wasn't aware of that, you know, I thought....I thought those ramps had additional capacity, and um, so I...it seems like we're at,reaching a point where we...we need to more carefully evaluate how we use our street parking, our ramp capacity, you know, all of these inner-related things, uh, that make up....our supply of parking in the greater downtown area. Throgmorton/Yeah, one other relevant point is when we were discussing the north...... development of the northeast corner of the intersection of Market and Linn Street,where a proj....a building is going up right now. A key part of that discussion had to do with parking. So we can't....im....improve the quality of the place while also enhancing modest increases in density to provide....development opportunities in....in a way that really enhances the whole....we cannot do that unless we deal with the parking challenge. We....we have to figure out a way to deal with that, and my own personal view is that we, there's a short-term problem, which is figuring out where people can park, and there's a longer-term problem,which is to get away from that...that kind of total reliance on,uh, This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 2, 2019. Page 25 automobiles and trucks and the whatever. We....we need both, but....in the short run, it seems to me,that we do need a parking study, and if it can be paid for out of the...the parking fund, um, I....I think that would be a good thing to do. It would help people really do the visioning for the area, without gettin' all the way into the form based code. Mims/I'll just make one last comment and obviously the majority has agreed to go ahead with this visioning and the parking, and I agree. The parking's incredibly important and needs to be coordinated with the other things we're doing. But when I look at the 10 bullet points that are in this memo, on the current commitments, urn,just ignoring for a moment the first three that are Opticos,but I realize that staff is also very involved in the, with Opticos and their work,um, you know, you talked earlier, Jim, about in all likelihood the Legislature is going to pass law, or pass a law that will,uh,take out our rental cap ordinance, and so we're gonna have to have some sort of response to that, and we know how long it took staff to generate that ordinance, and now trying to figure out how we're going to respond to that. We've, you know, certainly had a lot of discussion, and I think everybody agrees on the importance of looking at this downtown national historic district. We've talked about the conflict with the County and redrafting that fringe agreement needs to get done. Um, forget the permitting of the...the permitting software for just a second,but we've had major discussions about, you know, land development process and the expectations in terms of, you know, site plans and elevations before P&Z or Council will approve rezonings, and I think it....and rezoning, or reviewing the zoning code for affordable housing. These are all important things that we have said(mumbled) are a priority, and my concern is that we sit here as a Council and.....and we can't really prioritize. We simply just keep adding things to the list without really deciding what are the most important priorities and what do we need to get done before we just drop more and more stuff into the lap of our staff Throgmorton/Okay, do I see a majority in favor of proceeding with the parking part of this as well? Cole/Yep! Clarification of Agenda Items: Throgmorton/Okay. So, uh, I....Susan raises an important point and it....I'm gonna count on Geoff. We should count on Geoff to....help make sure that, uh...the scheduling of this is accomplished in a way that is....is....is doable from a staff point of view. Okay, I....let's move ahead to clarification of agenda items. I want to get into Item 11 a and 11 b,without discussing the substance of either one of'em. I wanna be clear about the process for tonight. So, Eleanor, would you please explain the super-majority requirement as it applies to the comp plan, and then as it applies to the zoning,the rezoning? And....and where we stand with regard to the petition and so on. Dilkes/ Sure. So, um, with the comprehensive plan amendment, which precedes the rezoning, there's a provision in our code that...that says if you are going to, um, if you're inclined to vote differently than the Planning and Zoning Commission then it requires a super- This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 2,2019. Page 26 majority vote. Or you have to....you can't....you can't do something different than they recommended, except by super-majority. So that's the comp plan amendment. The.... the rezoning,urn, piece is we now have,uh, petitions,protest petitions, and we got those late today and we won't have lime to,urn, do the calculations to determine whether, urn, those protest petitions trigger a super-majority requirement on the rezoning. Um, and that is triggered by, if you take the area,uh,within 200 feet of the area to be rezoned, um, and if there's 20% objection within that area, then,urn, then it triggers (both talking) Throgmorton/And if owners of 20% or more of the land in that area you just described, if the owners of that amount of land object,then,urn, a super-majority is required. It's not the number of people object. Dilkes/No, it's not the number of people. No. Throgmorton/Okay. Dilkes/So, and then one other piece, as I told the Mayor earlier, urn, you can.....you can proceed with the comp plan amendment tonight, should you so choose,um,there's nothing holding you up from doing that, as there is with the rezoning piece. Throgmorton/Yeah, I guess my personal inclination is....probably...is to proceed with the comp plan vote tonight,but we can discuss that more thoroughly during the formal meeting. (several talking in background) What are you wondering, Maz? Salih/Yeah....no (laughs) I'm sitting by Geoff for a reason(laughter) Throgmorton/I know! Salih/I ask him a lot of questions. Throgmorton/Okay. All right. So, also with regard to 11b, I....I want to express a certain concern I have,but without going into any substantive discussion about it. I just wanna let you know, give you a heads up that I have concerns about the proposed rezoning with regard to climate action and adaptation. I will explain those during the meeting, during the formal meeting, and....and make some suggestions. So don't be surprised if....if I do that. All right. Salih/(both talking) defer this, right? Throgmorton/Sorry? Salih/That means we gonna defer the rezoning? Throgmorton/Well we're gonna have to defer the rezoning anyhow because of the petition. We haven't....staff hasn't....has not had time to calculate (both talking) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 2, 2019. Page 27 Salih/ .....take time to find out the 20% of the (both talking) Throgmorton/Right. Salih/ Sure. Understandable. Throgmorton/Okay, any other items, uh....uh,that need clarifying with regard to the agenda? Salih/Uh, yes. I have Item 9b and 9c. For 9b the letter from, I just would....cause I don't see any staff respond, and I would appreciate it if you can respond. (several talking in background) B and c. Taylor/9b and 9c? Salih/Uh huh. Throgmorton/You said 9 what? (several responding) Fruin/So on....on 9b, urn, we, uh, had our Police Department follow up on that. Urn, because it was just a matter of, um....concerns about parking that may not be legal on that. So I asked the Police Department to respond to that. And...what was the other one? Salih/9c, I'm askin'the Council are you interest in considering that. Pruitt/ I understand. Okay. Throgmorton/Well I think that's an interesting idea, to have a poet laureate (both talking) Mims/ I think it should go to our commission or committee. Salih/Yeah! Mims/ City of Literature(several talking) Cole/I was just gonna say, should I bring this up on the City of Literature agenda and get their feedback, as far as that(several talking) Okay! (several talking) ...will take it to the City of Literature board. Salih/All right, that's it for me! Throgmorton/Excellent! All right, any other agenda items? Cole/Urn, 9e,urn, we've obviously had some very detailed correspondence on the ongoing issue related to the deer issue. Any update, Geoff, in terms of where we're at? They're sticking fast with the bow hunt,urn, any additional details? I know that one of the emails had brought up....even a suggestion of a privately-managed,um, gun hunt, urn, is that This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 2, 2019. Page 28 something that is now....it's Mr. Thompson's, I think that he refers a page.....five of his email, a property controlled firearm hunt, is that something that they have talked about as well in terms of the State board or are we just limited right now to the one sharpshoot with four subsequent bow hunts, is that.... Fruin/We don't really know what we're limited to now. That's the advice that we've been given is to go back to them and request one sharpshoot, followed by four, urn, public hunts. Um, the....all the public hunts that we're aware of in the state of Iowa are bow hunts. Um, but I think technically the code would allow the commission to approve a....a hunt with some sort of firearm, and I don't know any other cities that....that do that, but basically manage a process in which not necessarily your trained sharpshooters like White Buffalo are coming in,but experienced hunters with firearms could accomplish the same thing as a bow hunt would. Urn....I.....we haven't really given that serious consideration. We don't even know if a bow hunt is gonna be acceptable to the Council. At your last Council meeting you asked for this to be placed on the regular agenda of your April23`d meeting. So what we're gonna do after tonight's meeting is over, um, soon after this meeting we'll put out public information to let folks know that this will be a topic of discussion. Um, we'll update you, you know, I can provide my memo again to you from a couple weeks ago,but we'll update that based on some questions you asked at your last meeting, and I think the question that's' going to come to you is do you want staff to go back to the NRC with a proposal for a single sharpshoot or a sharpshoot in one season, urn, followed by bow hunts in the next four seasons. Throgmorton/And we'll discuss that on the 23h (several talking) So I wanna mention one thing, havin'to do with Mr. Thompson. Uh, we all recall that there's the lengthy, I don't know, five-page email from him that expresses pretty strong views. I phoned Mr. Thompson, had a lengthy conversation with him, and I think it was a very productive conversation. I'm really pleased that he was willing to talk with me about it. One of the things he.... did if you read the....the email, it's very clear, is that he tried to quantify the extent to which the public had expressed opposition to bow hunting....because he watched us on TV and read the transcript I guess and heard Susan and me and I don't know who else, Rockne I guess, you, saying, 'Oh, you know, there's....the public is almost unanimously opposed to bow hunting.' So, he tried to quantify that himself and found that's not quite the case. So if staff could quantify the extent to which emails and....letters that have come to us, I don't know if you can do this, you know. If....if you can quantify the extent to which....uh,people opposed bow hunting, you know....I don't know,basically what fraction of.....response (several talking) Froin/ ....we could do it but, um, we get a lot of emails that you don't see necessarily. They'll come into just our office or Animal Services, Police. It'd be quite an undertaking to go through all those emails and do that. If you find it...if you really find it valuable we could do it but (several talking) Throgmorton/Yeah, yeah, I don't want to impose excessive work. I just wanna feel confident that our statements....about the extent of opposition we were hearing, or reading, are... are fair and valid. And I....I mean that's certainly,those statements were consistent with This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 2, 2019. Page 29 what I read and heard, and so on, and I'm sure the same's true with Susan. I'm sure the same's true with Rockne, but.... Dilkes/I think they're also consistent with the history of...of the community response to this issue, you know, going back however many years ago when we did the first full-blown, um, deer management committee and....the conversation that occurred in(mumbled) Cole/And I know we'll fully develop it on April 23`d and this may be something that we talked about before,but again I think this question of for the bow hunts, um.....the effectiveness and a quick....kill, for lack of a better term, and two, the remedial measures that can be taken for, to prevent the deer that are injured from wondering around the community, uh, you know, that was certainly my perception. Um, so whether that may be not supported by empirical evidence(coughing, difficult to hear speaker) think to get more detail on that would be helpful for our decision. Information Packet Discussion (March 14, March 21,March 281: Throgmorton/Okay. Uh.....any other items....on the agenda? Needing clarification? Uh, if not we can take another 10 minutes or so to discuss the first, maybe the second, information packets. So on, for the March 14 information packet. Anybody wanna say anything about any of those? How bout the March 2 packet, which has to do with the proposed.... bills in the State Legislature, havin'to do with, uh, net metering and solar energy and the electric utility and all of that. So I'm not exactly sure where this stands now. I don't know that bill has been passed by the Senate and House. Simon, do you know? Andrew/Yes, uh, Senate File 583 was passed by the Senate, um, March 18th,uh, 29 to 18 I think was the vote, 28 to 18, urn, it is on the calendar in the House. It's come out of committee. They have amended it to match the Senate version, uh,but it has not been voted on by the full House yet. Throgmorton/So it's hard to be optimistic about anything. Well given that situation, do you....first of all, would you favor expressing our opposition to the bill or whether it's not really worth doin'it at this moment? Mims/I quite frankly don't know enough about the details, I mean I certainly have read that anybody who strongly supports solar says it's bad. Um....but I haven't been able to...take the time to do the deep dive in terms of the research of what I would end up believing would be the real impact. I understand, obviously, that the utility company is supporting it, of course, cause it's more money for them. Philosophically, I don't think there's anything wrong with people having to pay for the basic access to the electrical grid, but I don't k now if the numbers they're putting in there are fair or reasonable, so I'm not prepared to take a position against it when I don't have a full enough understanding. Throgmorton/Yeah, I understand. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 2, 2019. Page 30 Cole/I ordinarily wouldn't want us to take positions on State level matters,but I do think this is going to, urn, I've consulted a lot of people on this issue, obviously advocates. There's obviously two sides to every story. But I would like us to take a position. I think we have. We live in an era of climate change,urn, this is gonna significantly impede the solar industry, urn, opportunities. We do have a lot of....I don't know if we have any local,uh,providers here, but certainly North Liberty I know there's several, um, so I would like us to take a position. It could be relatively short. It may not sway the Legislature(laughter) to say the least(several talking) to say the least,but I do think there is something where it's like, well, you know what, here we stand. We are gonna take a position on this. They're doin'the wrong thing, urn.....you know. Teague/(several talking) I think I'm with Susan, I don't know enough about this, urn, I....I guess what I do know is that even houses that have solar access, you know, Mid American or whomever, and so havin'that, you know, a fraction of a cost, you know, it would be appropriate(mumbled)percentage and that type stuff. I don't know enough about it to...if it's fair, so.... Throgmorton/They're just proposing to change the rules. Teague/Yeah, so I don't know that I....I'm prepared to make a informed statement. Salih/Well I think I disagree with Rockne because I think even though if we cannot change the way that the Legislation thinks, we just have to have our position clear. And,uh....not supposed to be tonight, if not....you know, people need time to (both talking) Throgmorton/ ...vote on it before we meet next. Salih/Yes! Throgmorton/So if we have any hope of influencing their decision, you know, we need to say something tonight, or decide tonight. Salih/(mumbled) Taylor/Do we have a feel for how our local legislators, I think, from what I've heard they're all against it. Cole/Bolkcom is adamantly opposed. (several talking) Adamantly,very vocally. Thomas/Yeah, I'd have to say that....that those people whose, um, perspective on this issue I have a great deal of respect for are opposed to it. Salih/Uh huh. Throgmorton/Yeah, I personally oppose it, partly for that reason and partly.....on the basis of experience,but I also recognize what Susan and Bruce have said about not feelin'they This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 2, 2019. Page 31 know enough about the bill to be prepared to say one way or the other. Um.....and I'm skeptical about our ability to influence the decision. I, well so I personally would favor expressing our opposition. Sarni/Okay. Thomas/Yeah, I do too. Throgmorton/I wanna acknowledge what you said. Teague/ Sure! Throgmorton/All right, I'm seein' a majority, five I think(several responding) Yeah, okay. Fruit)/ So by expressing our opposition, I assume you're asking us to register an oppose to the bill. So it'll read City of Iowa City opposed? (several responding) Throgmorton/All right, any other items in that packet? Salih/Yeah, 3/14, IP3. I guess, uh, I....the letter from Council Thomas. I....I wasn't here last meeting, but I think the way that I just going and looking at the, you know, the video, I saw that the majority of the Council indicate....(mumbled) you know the last meeting that you do not want to pursue any of this because of the School District, is well on the way to (unable to understand) for the drop area at Mann,but this is here now. Is that means we gonna talk about it again or.... Throgmorton/Action's already being taken, uh, as a result of the School District's consideration and so on. Geoff, can you bring us up to date on that? Fruin/Yeah, I've been havin' some conversations with the School District and....and I have to apologize because, um, some of what prompted this was, urn, a....a lack of, urn, accurate information that I gave Councilman Thomas. So that caused some....some probably unneeded, um,public discussion about this, but nonetheless there were some....some concerns raised, uh, about the, uh, size of the drop off and some of the config... reconfiguration of the sidewalk, uh, after the new drop off area is to be constructed. I was able to meet with the School District officials today and, uh, I think, urn, we've come to a compromise. I just shared that with Councilman Thomas as he walked in here this evening, so um, I think it addresses all the concerns,but I wanna make sure that you're comfortable with the solution that's been.... Thomas/Well as....Geoff sent me an email earlier today that he had met and that the concerns had been addressed and the, you know, the suggestion of a change to the drop off and the sidewalks and planting areas were....were moving in the direction that I was encouraging the District to take. And, uh, you know, what I said to Geoff was all's well that ends well, um (laughs) this was one where, you know, we....we actually had a situation at our last meeting where we were discussing the merits of a,uh, proposal, which (clears throat) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 2, 2019. Page 32 Geoff understood to be the last, uh, version and in fact it had been superseded. We weren't even looking at the correct version. So things got a little bit....there was some miscommunication and disconnect and so forth. I think we're all on the same page now. So.... Cole/And just to clarify too, I didn't have any opposition to your design preference. My concern was is that if that design preference required significant delay or cost, I was going to be adamantly opposed. If it was a simple fix, relatively smooth transition, I would not have been opposed,but I did not want a delay of this project. Thomas/ So, yeah we are...it's a simple fix and uh, there won't be any delay. Throgmorton/Okay, any other comment on that particular item? Cole/Nope! Throgmorton/Okay. We're not gonna be able to proceed, so let's, uh, return to the work session, uh, with the March 215`packet, or well...we can pick up at March 14th, if...if people have something they wanna say about that packet. So let me change that..... Okay, so we're gonna adjourn the work session. (BREAK FOR FORMAL MEETING) (RECONVENE AFTER FORMAL MEETING) Information Packet Discussion [March 14,March 21, March 28] (cont.): Throgmorton/Okay, so we're now in our work session, reconvened the work session. What's on your mind, Caroline? Dieterle/You have simply got to do something about the....I noticed that in your packet there were several, three at least, um (clears throat) fairly eloquent letters on the problem. I've set up recently a trail camera in my backyard and I found last night when I looked at the images in there that I had three deer, uh, walking through my backyard, and I've gardened on my lot for 48 years, and I have consistently fed my family, taken food to the Food Bank(clears throat) tried to plant insect-friendly, bee-friendly plants, tried to put in, urn, natives because they're asking...they're endangered too. I have milk weeds and I have all other kinds of..I won't list everything I have, but the point here is is that none of it is going to mean anything because it'll all be eaten, and I question whether I should even bother to plant anything this time, and I think a lot of other people are thinking that too. And this doesn't fall into your goals of sustainability. Because people plant gardens for a reason. This isn't just for flowers. People eat the stuff that they grow, and whether it's beans, peas, tomatoes, peppers, you know, chard, you know, the list of crops is pretty long, and we have people interested in the community gardens, and unless the City is This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 2, 2019. Page 33 willing to put up 10 or 12-foot fences around these gardens, their food's gonna get eaten by these deer as well. Now not only this, but you know,the....the population is exploding. The substrate for these deer is not going to be sufficient, so we're going to be having starving and diseased deer all over the place and basically I've started to think of them as rats with hooves, because they're not controlled. They're a blight on the city, and I don't....I've never, I've been watching. Have you got any kind of hunting set up, at all? None? Throgmorton/This is....there's a complicated answer to that question. What I can tell you simply is that....we proposed something to the State,Natural Resources Commission,uh, essentially they said, 'No, you cannot do that.' We have, in our most recent communications, they said, 'You....you....we'll permit you to proceed if you give us a plan which says sharpshooting for a year, in the first year, followed by four years of bow hunting.' And on the 23`d of this month, we will be holding a....a public hearing focused on how the public wants us to respond to those instructions from the Natural Resources Commission. Is that close enough? That's the way I understand it. Dieterle/Well I'd like to know who's making the presentation to the Natural Resources Commission. I went to the trouble of getting the minutes from the last time around when they turned down your proposal. And (clears throat) I....I think that it has to be, you know, reiterated to them that bow hunting enough isn't going to do it. It's not going to, you know, the statistics from other cities in the state that have tried to rely on bow hunting are very discouraging. Because they just aren't making the number of kills that are going to be necessary to prevent further increase in the population. And I...I'd like to know what kind of risk do we run if we simply just do what we think is the sensible thing to do here and let them sue us! Because really, you know,people here I think would solidify behind you that this is an untenable situation we're in here! It's really getting to be pretty....critical! Throgmorton/Got it! You're not alone in thinking that. Thank you for staying and expressing your view, Caroline. The 23rd of April,right here, we will have a more extended discussion and then we'll give clear instructions to our City Manager about how to proceed. Dieterle/Have you invited any of the members of this commission to come and attend our hearings, so they can hear what's going on for themselves? Throgmorton/I haven't. Dieterle/Well I think it'd be a darn good idea,because(both talking) Throgmorton/Caroline, we can't control what the State does or the State commission(both talking) Dieterle/Of course not,but you can at least ask them to come and listen! Because their plan isn't going to cure the problem. Essentially it's one of these bait and switch things. Well, we'll This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 2, 2019. Page 34 let you do the sharpshooting for one year and then you're back to bow hunting for four years and we'll be in worse shape at the end of that than we are now! Throgmorton/Okay. I think we understand. Thank you. Okay, so we were in the March 14th information packet. Is there any, are there any other items that anybody wants to bring up for the March 14th packet? I....I'm gonna move quickly unless y'all respond quickly. March 21'packet? I wanna draw your attention to IP#2,which is an email conversation between a woman named Helen Schneblen and me concerning our climate action plan and,uh, if you read it, uh, you know she's very critical of the work we have or have not done, and, I....I take her criticism to heart and it's worth thinking about. I....I would like to know what you think about her critique, and my response,but I wanna be fair to everybody here and not really expect you to do that right here and now. But if you have feedback to me, I'd like to hear it. I have, uh,just as a sidelight to that, I have asked Geoff(noises on mic) asked Mid American some questions about their plans, havin'to do with capacity, electric power generating capacity, electric power generation, uh, in terms of kilowatt hours, megawatt hours, and so on,uh, four different questions. Anything else in that information packet? Thomas/Thanks to Mark Signs for IP6, his,uh,his letter on the rental caps. Throgmorton/Yeah, Mark's been solid. And thanks have been conveyed to him. Okay, I'm gonna move on. March 28th packet? Taylor/IP8,1 we probably have to do the KXIC and could I make a request that we go day by day instead of kind of hodge-podge, somebody pick this date, somebody else pick that date, could we just go date by date(both talking) Throgmorton/Okay, what's the first date we have to fill? Taylor/Uh,April 17th. Or is it May 17th? No! April,April 17th. Yeah. Mims/I'll take it. Fruehling/April 24th. Throgmorton/I can do that, or May 1, either one. So April 24th, me. Fruehling/May 1st. Salih/May lSt I can do. Let me see....is a Wednesday? Yeah, I can do that. Fruehling/May 8th. Taylor/I'll do it. Fruehling/May 15th. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 2, 2019. Page 35 Teague/I can do it. Fruehling/May 22"d Thomas/I'll do that one. Fruehling/May 29a'. Cole/I suppose I could do it. (laughter) Thomas/Mr. Enthusiasm (laughter) Throgmorton/Yeah, let's not try to fill out the whole thing. Taylor/(mumbled) everybody now's got one. Throgmorton/Yeah, we...we filled out the what, the next seven weeks or something like that? Cole/Who's doing tomorrow, by the way? Taylor/Yeah (several talking) ...through May 29`s. Fruehling/Yep! Throgmorton/Maybe we could have a staff person do the....the next one after (several talking) Taylor/June 5's and June 12a'. The 29th, Rockne. Cole/Yeah. Teague/And that time is 8:15, is that correct? (several responding) Uh huh. Throgmorton/Okay, are we good to go on that? All right, uh, the pending work session topics things somehow did not get into our, the last Thursday's information packet, but you probably noticed it's in our late handout, late-late handout. Which gets us to Council updates, unless I'm speeding along too quickly here. (several talking) Fruehling/IP7 is the joint meeting(several talking) topics. Throgmorton/Oh! I'm sorry,joint meeting,joint meeting.....yeah, okay, I have some possible topics. All right. Possible topics for the joint entities meeting. State actions including the rental cap program and the property tax cap, if in fact they're moving along with that. This year's property tax assessments. Salih/Yeah! This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 2, 2019. Page 36 Throgmorton/The trailer court situation. I know the purchase of trailer courts. Salih/Yes! Throgmorton/I've got deer management here but let's leave that off. So,just those things. Any other topics y'all can think of? Fruin/For the assessments'piece, are you wantin' us to request that the Assessors,both Johnson County and Iowa City, attend or....you jut wanna have a discussion with your peers on that? Throgmorton/Um...it seems....I was just thinkin' it's a topic (laughs) that surely is getting the public's attention. Uh, do y'all have ideas? About that, about what our expec...expectation should be? Salih/ If there is any way for the...for the, like buying a mobile home, the park and I don't know I just wanna ask (mumbled) if there is a way of finding like some legal thing that the City can do, in order to prevent, uh, you know, a developer or the owner, the new owner, from raising the....I....I (mumbled) you cannot control rent. I know(unable to understand) I just....and also what about that I hear before they try to annex to the City. That is still, uh, like gonna happen or.... Throgmorton/Have what? Salih/The Sunrise, I heard long time ago (both talking) Frain/We had advanced discussions with them and then, uh, we were shocked as anybody to learn that they sold. So, we don't know if the new buyer will want to annex or not. Salih/But the old buyer, the old owner was trying to annex to the City. I'm just like thinking if they are gonna do that, if there is like certain way, a legal way to ask like the, about certain things? Dilkes/Yes, if they wanna annex, that would be our best....time to ask for those kind of concessions. Salih/Yeah, because now is outside the city limit, I can understand that,but I'm really meant if they annexed to the City, if you can find something legal for us to do. Throgmorton/There are things we can do. If that's the case. Uh, with regard to your question, Geoff, about property,uh, tax, uh, assessments. I guess what I'm curious about is....what the....what the Assessors are doing with regard to our city, the county, Coralville,North Liberty. I don't know how that's broken down,uh,by the Assessors. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 2, 2019. Page 37 Mims/I guess I don't...I mean we have a City Assessor. All the rest of'em use the County Assessor(both talking) Throgmorton/They use the County, okay, so it's (both talking) Mims/ So I guess, are you just wanting to share with everybody how much ours went up or are you looking for information from the County Assessor on.... Throgmorton/(mumbled) ....I....I guess what I was thinking is....these increases in assessments are gonna get the public's attention. I'm wondering is this is a shared phenomenon and if it is, what....nobody can do anything really immediately. I don't....I don't know. I'm too tired to really sort that out. Thomas/I mean what came to my mind was....you know,what....what impacts might this have on property taxes. Levy and so forth. Throgmorton/Well it has implications, and this is related to the State property tax cap topic. Teague/I think it could be a opportunity for Brad to just come and maybe just give some basic, uh, educational pieces on...you know, what goes into doin'property tax, so that elected officials are aware. Throgmorton/If we do that, I would think the County Assessor should be invited also. (several talking in background) Okay. Uh.....is there anything else we need to deal with? I don't think so. I think we're done with the work session. Thank you everybody! It's been a long night. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work session of April 2, 2019.