City Council - Regular Meeting

32:40 – 32:56•JUJustine Underhill

So I am on the listserv for the greening of Lincoln, but I didn't get a message about it. Andrew Oleson did send out a message to the neighborhood, but if you could just double check that a notice went out to the contacts that Tony has, that would be great. And it's possible I missed it.

I'm also on the Greening of Lincoln. I know the Greening of Lincoln has multiple phases and multiple parts. And can you clarify, are there any specific phases or parts that those meetings are going to address? And are there phases and parts that it will not address?

staying on the transportation topic um i had a conversation with a resident at broad and washington today there's still a lot obviously that is a difficult intersection there were some interesting ideas i'd like to get an update on when we think we'll be able to start implementing dynamic lighting something better for the the timing utilizing the smart cities functionality i know that's on the plan I'd like to understand when that is the other suggestion that came up is because East Broad backs up so much it blocks the exit from the Brown Washington building that maybe we could have DPW look a

I will say I attended that Planning Commission meeting I don't think the Planning Commission was as locked in on the specific wording as they were about the spirit of it and so I think I'm actually comfortable I think the public piece of it really caused a lot of issues because what does that mean and I think the language they've landed on, keeping it broad. And it does, I think, capture the spirit of what the Planning Commission was trying to say.

I think the word generally also, because you're not going to be able to hide these things from somebody standing 10 feet away. So there was a concern about that. the public one of the things they really had heartburn was public meant from the street but not in fact we even asked public view does not include from publicly accessible places such as the parking lots within winter hill so i think this now is actually encompassing that Because if it's generally hidden from the parking lots of Winter Hill, it's generally hidden from the buildings as well. So I think this actually captures the spirit

I don't think the small area plans should get too specific, but the line you were reading, it's not very specific.

Yeah, and that seems appropriate for a small area plan. And in fact, I would suggest that when we update other small area plans, maybe that line should be getting added into those. The fact that it's not in the other ones, Some small airplane has to be first. And I think it's generic enough, it's general enough that I think we're going to be okay with that.

1:03:19 – 1:03:40•JUJustine Underhill

Yes, I don't fully understand in terms of these small area plans. This is something that we need to stick to when planning, but it's mostly a guide. But does that open us up to any legal risk if for some reason, could someone come after us and say, well, you didn't do enough for the shadow and open space or whatever it is that we...

I think you have the best handle on it. Do you want to make a motion?

Just to add to what Council Member Downs said, one thing, going back to the buy-write, I think it's all, when you're updating that, I think it's important to be clear that nothing in the overlay eliminates the ability of a private property owner to develop buy right using the underlying zoning. So the RM that currently exists, they still have full buy right.

We just need to make sure that's clear. I guess I'll open up the discussion on the big issue. At last week's meeting, I raised the concern about eliminating the feet because I'm not, I'm never really that thrilled with using stories in zoning just because stories is a undefined standard. It's like how high is a story? That's why at last Monday's meeting, the 40 feet had been removed from from it. So when we said to put the 40 feet back, what we saw was coming into the work session, it had been four stories or 40 feet, whichever is less. And I was comfortable with that in the previous first rea

And I would argue that you're correct that four stories above grade is not possible in 40 feet. But when you bring in that partial below grade story, now that extra five feet is actually below grade. So it's kind of like 3 and 1 half stories 40 feet, but you're really getting four stories worth of units and housing.

1:40:49•JUJustine Underhill

I think there's more council discussion.

1:40:56 – 1:41:18•JUJustine Underhill

I was actually just curious because there was talk about putting things underground. Is underground really I know that there were talks about stormwater issues and water retention issues on this area. And so I was just wondering if underground is actually a realistic option on the site. Do we know?

1:41:36•JUJustine Underhill

So it would depend on the size of the project, just whether or not they could go underground.

I actually think Taking this 40 feet would encourage developers to do things with sloped roofs and dormers and gabled ends such that we may get more of a small town feel, more in keeping with what is there now. I think this would actually encourage them not to go the box on box architectural styling and be creative.

Yeah, I think it depends upon the change in slope. So if it was flat all the way to the property line, which we know it's not, it would be 35 the bulk plane would hit at 35 feet because it's a 35 foot step back so and i don't think the that rise is really more than five feet in most areas i think it's three or four feet so it would probably the bulk plane would probably be hitting at 40 feet and you'd see that step back yeah the grade does vary across the site uh it's highest at the west end and levels out uh the more east you go

I think that goes against what staff was trying to do to not have fixed things throughout so that if the state changed their rules and expanded it, we wouldn't have to change our code. Let me ask staff, is there a... Another part of the city code that could be referenced that then references more specifics. So it all stays. So it's not going directly to the state, but it's actually going to something within the city code.

I think I understand it. I think I'm okay with this change. But I also want to point out, this is a first reading. So if we're not changing the intent, but we're tweaking the language to make it work with the intent and what we're trying to do... between here and second reading. I mean, that's normal.

The other question I had on the way the open space has been pulled out, The way I read this, does this mean that if somebody wanted to take advantage of the open space prior to July 1st of 2027, they could, but they would have to go through the special exception process? So if they got everything together and did it in June?

Yes, but they would then have to go through the special exception, even if it was before July 1, because they're bringing in the open space requirement.

The challenge I'm having is actually in the standards of development, which is also in that first required consideration, which is basically saying through the SE process, we would consider whether they met the standards of development and the permitted uses, but basically saying that the SE process is giving a backdoor, basically saying you don't have to meet any of it. Setbacks, building heights. If you come through this SE, you could build a 20-story building if you can get the council at the time to approve it.

Oh, I don't think it was either. But I'm reading this. I'm thinking.

Yeah, I'm just, and I don't think it was the intent at all either.

yeah because i was looking at 544 which does say as a by right use which would be consistent with what the language is being proposed and then i'm like and i feel like it's give it the the intent here is to give us a little bit of flexibility so if they come in and they say we want in order to give you this you know a whole bunch of extra affordable housing we're going to ask for two feet more That's something we would discuss and we'd want that flexibility.

Yeah, I mean, I'm comfortable, especially in the affordable housing piece, I'm very comfortable with that because I'd like to have the flexibility for instance if somebody comes in with a project that's got a bunch of affordable two-bedroom and three-bedroom units but they're 80 percent am i i want to be able to i want the flexibility to approve that um that would be just a different type of need um it's i'm really trying to understand that 519 area where it It's basically saying, hmm, we considered it, and we're going to ignore it. And that is not the intent by anybody. Staff, council, absolu

I don't know how to make sure we're... Well, is there a way...

I would prefer to have permitted uses in the reasonable deviation, actually, because we just don't know with permitted uses. There may be something cool that somebody brings in.

um adjustment well i'd say standards of development would be open to minimal so if you were if there was some small change we'd have the discretion but you couldn't like blow up what's there so i think that sort of language it just kind of sets the tone for just what we could do so minor deviations from

I guess I'm thinking about if there was a warming center or just something that we just haven't thought about.

I'd like to point out that my feeling is that this is going to get restated and replaced by the urban design master plan when when that's completed in six months or whenever that is I assume the urban design master plan would apply to all districts including this one so and that that would be more specific and more are actually focused and have a lot of this stuff as well. In some ways, I feel like this is precarious until that comes into play. Is that right, or does that make sense?

Well, I know we're talking about somewhere in here it says it has to abide by our standards, our design standards. I guess that's where I'm getting to is that what we're talking about here is hard, needs its own discussion. It's going to take a lot of time. And we kind of got the mechanism to have that discussion separate from Virginia Village for the entire city.

Would it be something that the designated agent would refer to when evaluating site plans?

2:36:43 – 2:39:11•JUJustine Underhill

I just, I mean, I guess I generally have a question, which is, I guess my overall worry just generally is, well, I would love to have three stories or lower on the Winter Hill side. But I guess we need to take into account the entire picture as a whole. And maybe we're also capping the Maple Avenue side at six stories potentially. And so every time we... cap the height lower and lower. Let's say that 40 feet is indeed three stories. That then means that those town homes can only sell for a certain amount of money. And that means then that the city either needs to contribute more money to the p

I guess my concern is whatever we do we're going to get requests from some of the developers to go higher and go more and I'd rather hold the line now and then see what they come back with if they come back and say no I can't do it or I mean looking at the townhouses one huge thing that those have is garages and so you can't go down with a garage Wow I'm not really expecting the RFP response is to have garages in that same way. I just don't see it happening. So that's actually the biggest constraint on why you can't go down. The other piece of it I'd like to point out is with the RFP, we're on

Yeah, and it could be that it drives a mix of heights because nothing says that everything has to be even it might be some go down some go up some are you've got a mix of three and four I don't know I mean it's I would rather see what comes back from the RFP before we go that those extra feet and it may be that they come back and just say This is one of those things that you wanted to find out. And we kind of need 43 feet or something like that.

2:46:33 – 2:47:28•JUJustine Underhill

and so that kind of trade-off discussion i think is what you're kind of highlighting yeah i just i'd like to be able to understand the trade-offs um before sort of saying like we absolutely can't do this and so but i don't know maybe there's a way to get some of that information of the trade-offs even if we do set certain things and so i i don't want to limit us is is my main concern here and so Yeah, there probably are things where we're willing to make a trade-off where like, oh, maybe, you know, 65 or 70 feet is okay in one area. If that means that, you know, we get family-sized units, this

See, I would argue that we didn't have consensus on four stories. We had consensus on four stories or 40 feet, whichever is less, which to me was 40 feet because of these concerns with, and the four stories was just giving developers flexibility of how to use the 40 feet. So when I voted on the first reading prior, i was voting on the 40 feet not the four stories i don't think we really truly had consensus on four stories it was four stories or 40 feet whichever was less different people interpreted that differently but i was on board with the 40 feet maybe a lesson learned separate when we're

2:51:44 – 2:52:21•JUJustine Underhill

Is there a way that if we set this, how can we find out what the trade-offs are? Can we find out that this means that the city needs to meet our affordability goals? we'll need to contribute x more dollars, or how can we find out what the trade-offs are during this process? Or if, let's say, 45 feet would get us x much more floors such that the buildings would sell for that much more, and then we would need to contribute that much less.

2:53:46 – 2:54:06•JUJustine Underhill

So let's say they can make it work at 42 feet. Would we maybe get four stories work at 42 feet? Would we maybe get that feedback back such that and then if we were to get that feedback, could we then amend this to be 42 feet if that's what's needed to make the project more viable?

2:54:25 – 2:54:43•JUJustine Underhill

OK, so we could get that information. If we get that information, it comes back to really make this project viable. It needs to be 41 feet exactly. then can we go and amend this document? Or what is that process?

Correct. That was going to be my question as well, is these seem to be based on the maximum amount that you could do for a building, and buildings are not going to look like these boxes. They're going to be... something else, they might have sloped roofs. In fact, sloped roofs might actually lower the shade because sun's coming right along the roof. But I wanted to understand at what point during this process with the preliminary agreements and we've selected, are we going to get shade studies that reflect the actual proposal that we're interested in?

Number three, amend section- I think that needs to be from Gundry Drive property lines.

I'm looking at letter E, which might be at least 35 feet from any abutting property line From the property, from the, looking at E, at least 35 feet from the abutting property line of any property with a Gundry Drive address.

A landowner property in our name Okay, let's call roll then Mr. Agin sometimes I hate going first I feel like we have four representatives on here that are either an elected official or From outside of staff staff is only three members on here. So I I FEEL LIKE WE HAVE REPRESENTATION FROM THE PUBLIC AS PART OF THIS EVALUATION COMMITTEE, AND I THINK WE'RE MAKING THE MAXIMUM EFFORT WE CAN LEGALLY TO BE VERY OPEN AND TRANSPARENT, SO I AM GOING TO VOTE NO.

3:43:38 – 3:43:52•JUJustine Underhill

to adopt TR 2626 and appoint Ms. Connolly as the council representative. Is there a second? Second. Downs on the second. Call roll, please.

now for 11 through 13 do people have regional committee liaison reports councilmember comments just one thing real quick from the planning committee last planning commission meeting um i would draw the council's attention that there was a study that they did about east broad and um really basically traffic or road diet and i would encourage council to take a look if you're interested

Staff did a study on East Broad multimodal and options. I guess we were working with a consultant on that. And I just wanted to bring that to people's attention that exists.