Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-04-27 Bd Comm minutesr MINUTES HOUSING APPEALS BOARD MARCH 9, 1982 8:00 AM MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: e Goldene Haendel, Mike Farran, Rachel Dennis, Mark Koenig. Carol Karstens. David Brown, Michael Kucharzak, Kelley Vezina, Judy Hoard, Larry Kinney. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION AND ACTION TAKEN: Goldene Haendel called the meeting to order. Rachel Dennis moved that the minutes from the previous Board meeting be approved, this motion was seconded by Mike Farran. The motion carried. APPEAL OF MR. ALEX GILLETT: Others present: Alex Gillett Kelley Vezina reported that he did a complaint inspection at 728 Bowery on December 8, 1981. He received Mr.' Gillett's appeal request on December 30, 1981, in which Mr. Gillett was appealing three violations. Inspector Vezina dismissed one of these violations, Chapter 17-7.L ,, heating or cooling equipment not maintained in good condition, as after returning to the pdiscussed was roperty he decided that this was not an actual violation. The first violation west room of apartpment 3ter 7is deteriorat dn'9 on west and northwest windows in the Mr. Gillett raised the question as do this inspection wto whether Inspector Vezina has the right to ithout notifying him and asked to see the record concerning who filed this complaint. Mr. Kucharzak explained that the inspector does have the right to do the inspection without the owner being notified and that the inspector can cite violations in any area the tenant has control of. Mr. Gillett explained further that he had personally taken all of the windows Out of this unit to clean and replace broken panes. He felt that there were no significant amounts of glazing missing, although there might have been a few cracks in the putty. Mr. Gillett brought a window from this unit in for the Board to review. Mr. Kucharzak reading from the property record not habitable and that because of this fact the violation w uld not, ointed Out attbe required. Mr. Mr. Kucharzak then read from the record the account of the complaint by the tenant in which she was complaining of lack of heat in this room. Mark Koenig made a motion to re -define this room as a non -habitable room and therefore dismiss this violation. Rachel seconded the motion. violation was dismissed. Motion carried, 1 141CROFIL14ED BY I I. "JORM MICROLAB - .I j CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MDI YES 665 _V Housing Appeals Board March 9, 1982 Page 2 The next appeal discussed was Chapter 17-7.0. burners on stoves will not light when gas is turned on. Inspector Vezina pointed out that the pilots were not lit, requiring a match to light the burner. Mr. Gillett explained that the stove was not being kept in a clean condition and the pilots were plugging up. Therefore when the tenant turned the burner on it would not light. Mr. Gillett turned off the pilots and posted a sign that the burners must be lit with a match. Larry Kinney commented that this was a very unsafe situation. The possibility of the burner being turned on without knowing it and then lighting a match or a cigarette. Rachel Dennis made a motion to uphold the violation. Mark Koenig seconded the motion. Motion carried. The last appeal to be discussed, Chapter 17-5.I.(2)(f), insufficient means of egress, was withdrawn by Mr. Gillett. APPEAL OF MR. RICHARD FOX: Others present: Richard'Fox Kelley Vezina reported that he did a licensing inspection at 946 Iowa Avenue on January 4, 1982. He received Mr. Fox's appeal of Chapter 17-5.N(4), lack of required ceiling height, on January 21, 1962. This appeal concerns a basement unit in which the southwest bedroom has a ceiling height of 619", the northeast bedroom has a ceiling height of 6'9k", the kitchen and living room have a ceiling height that ranges from 6'6h". Mr. Fox felt that this was a minor deficiency. He explained that two persons currently rent this room and they have. no problems with the height of the ceiling. He mentioned that part of the ceiling in the kitchen and living room was tiled, and that this could be removed which would leave the ceilig height at about 619". Mark Koenig made a motion to grant a variance concerning the ceiling height in both the bedrooms and to grant a continuance so that Mr. Fox can look into the possibilities of raising the ceiling in the kitchen and living room. Rachel Dennis seconded the motion. Motion carried. APPEAL OF MR. & MRS. ALFRED HULSE: Others present: Mr. & Mrs. Alfred Hulse Judy Hoard reported that she did a licensing inspection at 712-12h Woodside Drive on January 18, 1982. Mr. & Mrs. Hulse were appealing three violations that were cited at that inspection. Two of these violations related to a room in the basement which contained no windows. These violations were Chapter 17- S.J.(1), lack of required natural light and Chapter 17-5.K.(2)(b), lack of required natural ventilation. Inspector Hoard explained that Mr. & Mrs. Hulse planned to convert this room to their own use once the present tenants left, which will be some time in June of this year. 665 I4ICROFILI4ED BY JORM 'MIC R+LA9 CEDAR RAPIDS DES MOIYES li _ •� �- r r-. Housing Appeals Board . March 9, 1982 Page 3 Mr. Hulse pointed out that they planned to make this room into more storage space for themselves, but if they did not, could this room be declared non - habitable and still be used by the tenants? Mr. Kucharzak pointed out that the room could be declared non -habitable and be used for storage by either the tenants or the Hulses'. Mark Koenig made a motion to uphold the violation and to grant an extension to Mr. & Mrs. Hulse until June 15, 1982. Rachel Dennis second the motion. The peal was of haper Judy Hoard aexplained thatCthetceiling 17-5.N.4), ln(the other bedroomiof the basement unit had a ceiling height of 619h". Mr. Hulse pointed out that the heating duct work was directly above the ceiling and that it would be impossible to correct this violation. Mark Koenig made a motion to grant a variance. Rachel Dennis seconded the motion. Motion carried. APPEAL OF MR. MARSHALL HUNTER: j Others present: Marshall Hunter I Judy Hoard explained that the Board had heard an appeal of Mr. Hunter in January and at that time had dismissed the violation. Inspector Hoard then recited the violation under Chaper 17-7.A.(5), second floor unit lacks keyed lock entry door. Mr. Hunter is appealing this violation. She explained that the second floor apartment does not have its own door. Mr. Hunter pointed out that he has had no complaints from the tenants nor has he ever had any problems with this situation. The outer door. into the common hallway is always locked. He also mentioned that putting a door in at the top of the stairway would inhibit movement of large objects or furniture in and out of the apartment. He also mentioned that it could be a possible fire hazard since the tenant would have to go through two locked doors in order to get of the building. Rachel Dennis made a motion to uphold the violation. Mark Koenig seconded the motion. Mark Koenig pointed out that the Board would be glad to work with Mr. Hunter and grant him an extension of time to complete the work, if needed. Motion carried. At this time David Brown reported that after reviewing the Housing Appeal Board By -Laws, he found that Goldene Haendel as the chairperson, was not prohibited from making motions or participating in the voting. Mark Koenig made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mike Farran seconded the motion. Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned. it J o ene aen e 1 mcRof ILMED BY JORM MICR+LAI3 j CEDAR RAPIDS - DES MOINES M 1 J _y S _y MINUTES .. HOUSING APPEALS BOARD i APRIL 13, 1982 -- 8:00 AM MEMBERS PRESENT: Goldene Haendel, Mike Farran, Rachel Dennis, Mark Koenig MEMBERS ABSENT: Carol Karstens STAFF PRESENT: David Brown, Michael Kucharzak, Kelley Vezina, Judy Hoard, Larry Kinney SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION AND ACTION TAKEN: Chairperson Haendel called the meeting to order. Mark Koenig moved that was the minutes from the previous Board meeting be approved, this motion seconded by Dennis. The motion carried. APPEAL OF MR. JAMES HINSHAW: Others present: Joe Raftis, Eric Danielson Mr. Hinshaw is no longer house manager at 724 N. Dubuque; Mr. Raftis was from the Appeals present to testify in his place.. This case was continued February 11, 1982, the violation that was continued was Board hearing on Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of required ceiling height in a basement sleeping room at 619h". This was a suspended ceiling and the Board wanted to know the of raising what was under the ceiling tile to investigate possibility the ceiling. Ms. Hoard presented pictures of the ceiling which showed a network of heating pipes. Mr. Raftis commented that it would be very difficult to raise the ceiling j because of the existence of the pipes. Koenig made a motion to grant a variance of Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of required ceiling height. Dennis seconded the motion. Motion carried. Inspector Hoard pointed out that Mr. Raftis had done some investigating of methods to raise the door into the basement rooming unit. They wanted the door jamb and thereby feelings of the Board concerning removing. the the door height to 612". The Board gaining 2 more inches, raising responded that they would like to see what the advice of a contractor or architect would be concerning the removal of the door jamb. They invited Mr. Raftis to report back to them with his findings. i i 66$ Id ICROFI LI1ED BY L` I CORM MICRbLAB j CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES I _y MINUTES HOUSING APPEALS BOARD APRIL 13, 1982 PAGE 2 APPEAL OF MS. MARQUERITE WELTER Others present: Marquerite Welter Inspector Kelley J. Vezina reported that a licensing inspection was done at 926-26h N. Dodge on October 28, 1981. On December 4, 1981, an appeal request was received concerning three violations. The first violation was Chapter 17-5.J. lack of required natural light in unit 926h in the east bedroom. Ms. Welter pointed out that several of the violations cited and appealed were violations that occur in her owner -occupied unit. The second violation discussed was Chapter 17-5.N.(4) lack of required minimum ceiling height in the kitchen in unit 926h at WW'. This is a "step up" kitchen which consequently reduces the ceiling height. The third violation was 17-5.I.(1) lack of required means of egress in the second floor sleeping rooms. This violation occurs in unit 926 which. is a two story unit; it was over, a 9' drop from the windows to the ground level. At this time, Kucharzak pointed out that the Council is taking under consideration the inspection of owner -occupied portions of duplexes. Since a decision has not been made by Council on what code violations should apply to owner -occupied units and coupled with that there is a code amendment to define the number of required exits for duplexes differently, the Board may wish to defer any decision until the Council advises the staff of their intent concerning duplexes. Mr. Kucharzak went on to. explain that the City Council is proposing that rather than enforcing the minimum structural standards against the owner -occupied portion, they are considering granting an exemption and not mandating an inspection of those items. But should this unit become tenant occupied it would have to meet all current structural standards. All health and safety violations would be cited. Dennis moved that the Board defer this matter until the decision from the Council has been rendered. Farran seconded that motion. Motion carried. APPEAL OF MR. DEAN OAKES Others present: Mr. Marion Neely Inspector Hoard reported that she did a licensing inspection at 624 S. Clinton on December 31, 1981, and on January 11, 1982. April 12, 1982, she performed a reinspection at this property and a number of the appealed violations have been corrected. There were two remaining violations that he wished to appeal. The first violation was Chapter 17-5.K.(3)(c) lack of adequate ventilation in the kitchen in apartment N2. This kitchen is an inner room, there are no outside walls and there is no mechanical ventilation. Mr. Neely requested that the Board grant a variance with the stipulation that Mr. Oakes place a ventless fan in the kitchen. It would be very costly to attempt to put in a fan vented to the outside and as of this time there have been no complaints from the tenants concerning the kitchen. 66S MICROFIL14ED BY j -CORM MIC R#LAB 1 i CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOIYES i _y MINUTES HOUSING APPEALS BOARD APRIL 13, 1982 PAGE 3 Koenig made a motion to grant a variance of Chapter 17-5.K.(3)(C) lack of adequate ventilation, with the stipulation that a ventless fan be installed. Mike Farran seconded the motion. Motion carried. The second violation being appealed is Chapter 17-5.M.(1) lack of required electrical outlet. This is in apartment #3, the bedroom lacks the second convenience outlet. When the reinspection was done the second convenience outlet had been installed, however, it was not the required distance apart. Mr. Neely explained that the electrician had probably put the outlets where they were the most accessible. He requested that the Board would grant a variance as Mr: Oakes was attempting to comply although the outlet was not the correct distance apart. Koenig made a motion that the Board defer action on this violation until the reason for this placement of the outlet could be discovered. Rachel Dennis seconded the motion. Motion carried. APPEAL OF MR. GARY GRANTHAM Others present: Mr. 3 Mrs. Gary Grantham Vezina reported that he did a licensing inspection at 841-43 St. Ann's Drive on January 28, 1982. On March 3, 1982, an appeal was filed concerning three violations, all of which were cited in unit 841, in the basement. All three violations tie in together, the first, Chapter 17- 5.I.(2)(e) basement lacks adequate egress and the second, Chapter 17- 5.J.(1) lack of required natural light, pertain to both the northeast and southeast bedrooms. The third violation was Chapter 17-5.L.(4) improper location of heating unit, pertains to the northeast bedroom only. Mr. Grantham pointed out that this unit was rented as a two bedroom apartment and both of the bedrooms are upstairs. The rooms in the basement that are being used as sleeping rooms were not intended for that purpose. Koenig made a motion that the two basement bedrooms be considered non - habitable and therefore uphold the violations, forcing the tenants to vacate those rooms. Rachel Dennis seconded the motion. Motion carried. Attorney Brown pointed out that if after 90 days, the time for reinspection, the tenants have not vacated it, would still be the owner's responsibility to correct these violations or remove the tenants. APPEAL OF MR. STEVE ISSEN Others present: Mr. Steve Issen, Mr. William Kelley, Mr. Gene Kroeger. Hoard reported that she did a licensing inspection at 508 N. Dubuque on February 2, 1982. This is a seven rooming unit and one dwelling unit. The first violation, Chapter 17-5.I.(1) Lack of Required Means of Egress. The rooms in question are on the second and third floors on the west side of the structure. There is a fire escape on the east side of the structure 6G6 141CROFILRED BY JORM MICR6LA13 CEDAR RAPIDS - DES MOIRES L J_ -A rr. MINUTES HOUSING APPEALS BOARD APRIL 13, 1982 PAGE 4 which is outside of the rooming units on that side of the building, therefore, the roams on the west side do not have access to that fire escape. Mr. Kelley pointed out that this violation was not cited previously in an inspection done in 1979. Mr. Issen explained that he did not feel break away doors were a safe alternative. He felt that he could issue keys to the neighboring tenants allowing them access to the fire escape in an emergency. Kinney noted that in an emergency using a key to unlock an access to a fire exit is not efficient or'advised. Mr. Issen pointed out that they had asked that an inspection of the property be done before they purchased it, but that the Housing Inspection Department was unable to do so due to staffing reasons. They obtained a copy -of the 1979 inspection letter and used it for a means to decide whether they wanted to buy the property. Haendel made a motion to uphold the violation, Chapter 17-5.I.(1) Lack of Required Means of Egress, with the suggestion that the owners could meet with Larry Kinney concerning alternatives. Mike Farran seconded the motion. Motion carried. The next two violations were discussed together as they are in conjunction with one another. Chapter 17-5.J.(1), Lack of Required Natural Light, and Chapter 17-5.K.(2)(b), Lack of Required Natural Ventilation, in the basement rooming unit. Mr. Issen questioned the Board as to why these violations were not cited during the 1979 -inspection. He also reiterated that they had requested an inspection before they purchased the property and this request was denied. Kucharzak agreed that the staff was reduced and that for this reason an inspection request may have been denied. The Housing Inspection Division is not obligated to do request inspections. These inspections are done if time permits. He also pointed out that the violations cited at this time may not have been violations in 1979. Farran made a motion to uphold both violations; Chapter 17-5.J.(1), Lack of Required Natural Light, and Chapter 17-5.K.(2)(b), Lack of Required Natural Ventilation, in the basement rooming unit. Rachel Dennis seconded the motion. Motion carried. The next violation was Chapter 17-5.K.(3)(a), Lack of Required Adequate Mechanical Ventilation, in the basement bathroom. There is no window in the bathroom and the Code requires mechanical ventilation. Mr. Kelley. and Mr. Issen's argument was again that this violation was not cited in 1979. Haendel made a motion to uphold the violation, Chapter 17-5. K. (3) (a), Lack of Required Adequate Mechanical Ventilation. Dennis seconded the motion. Motion carried. 616,51 MICROFILMED BY ---�. JORM MICR6LA13 j v 1 1 CEDAR RAPIDS - DES MOINES -V J�,J r L MINUTES HOUSING APPEALS BOARD APRIL 13, 1982 PAGE 5 The next violation was Chapter 17-5.M.(1), Lack of Required Electrical Outlet. This violation was found in the first floor apartment in the bedroom. The convenience outlets were not spaced adequately. Mr. Issen reiterated that this was not cited in 1979. He also felt that the difference in a few feet was not a major health and safety factor. Kucharzak pointed out that this Code section was not in the previous Housing Code. Kinney commented that the purpose for this Code section was to prevent the need and use of extension cords. A motion was made by Farran to grant a variance; however, there was no second and he withdrew his motion. Haendel made a motion to uphold the violation, Chapter 17-5.M.'(1), Lack of Required Electrical Outlet. Farran seconded the motion. Motion carried. The last violation discussed was Chapter 17-S.N.(4), Lack of Required Ceiling Height, in the basement rooming unit. The ceiling height for part ' of this unit is 612" and the rest of the unit is at 71. There was discussion on possible alternatives. Dennis made a motion to uphold Chapter 17-5.N.(4), Lack of Required Ceiling Height. Farran seconded the motion. Motion carried. Kucharzak remarked that it was obvious that the property owners were agitated by Code changes and previous inspection records that do not tell the whole story. For their information, this problem is not unique to this structure. As a result, when the new Code was written the task force suggested a Certificate of Structure Compliance be issued which would deal once with the issues of ceiling height, window size, etc. Once the building was certified and if the Code would change, these issues would be "grandfathered" in. Mr. Kucharzak added that there have been changes in procedures for file 'documentation. If a room is unoccupied at the time of the inspection there are no Cade violations cited. At this time the inspectors mark the floor plans or make a note in the file that a particular room was unoccupied or non -habitable at the time the last inspection was done. Dennis made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Farran seconded the motion. Motion carried, meeting was adjourned. Chairperson I r• _. 1 MICROFILMED BY 1 "JORM MICR#LAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES 6&5 1 I[ _�M E S MINUTES ' RESOURCES CONSERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1982 7:00 PM CIVIC CENTER ENGINEERING CONFERENCE ROOM 19 MEMBERS PRESENT: Fett, Gartland, Sheehan, Singerman. MEMBERS ABSENT: Hamilton, Hotka. STAFF PRESENT: Tinklenberg, Webb. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL: None. REQUESTS TO THE CITY MANAGER: None. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION AND FORMAL ACTION TAKEN: Singerman called the meeting to order. He welcomed Pat Fett back to the Commission.' The minutes of March 22 were approved as'read. There was a short discussion of the amount of time that the. members are willing to put into the Commission and a discussion of the objectives listed in the FY83 Goals and objectives. Gartland will report next time on what possibilities exist and what the expense would be of utilizing Cable TV to promote energy awareness. Community Energy Use Report The purposes for the report were again reviewed and a decision was made to write the report in an outline format. Sheehan will draft the second half of the report for the next meeting. Singerman will rewrite the first section of the report to integrate information on local employment back into the report. Iowa -Illinois Gas & Electric Company Franchise Renewal Sheehan volunteered to call the City Manager and the City Council members dealing with the franchise to find out the current status. The next meeting is scheduled for April 15, at 7:00. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 PM. Respectfully submitted, Roger Tinklenberg: Tony Hamilton, Secretary. 1 141CROFILMED BY "JORM " MICR¢LAB j CEDAR RAPIDS • DES M01NES i .r 1, 14_ J _� r '3 MINUTES CITY ASSESSOR PANEL MARCH 31, 1982 CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Dickson, Phelps, Sehr STAFF PRESENT: Carroll GUESTS PRESENT: Don Reed, Iowa Department of.Revenue 1. The meeting was called to order at 4:00. 2. The Committee purpose, which is to thoroughly evaluate the qualifications of applicants for the position of City Assessor and forward recommendations to the Conference Board, was discussed. 3. Mr. Don Reed, from the Iowa Department of Revenue, who was responsible for Assessor testing was introduced and discussed the duties of a City Assessor: general management of the Assessor's office; establishing valuations of- residential, commercial, and industrial property (Mr. Reed noted that previous industrial experience was necessary for the Iowa City position, and that personal property valuations were being phased out); administration of exemptions - homestead, Veterans; providing assistance to the Board of Review; budget development and administration for the Assessor's office and Boards; participating in legal appeal procedures; and the supervision of office staff, which requires abilities to schedule workload, work with deadlines and work under pressure. Mr. Reed was asked about the relationship between the Assessor and the Board of Review (which hears appeals of the valuations established by the Assessor) and stated that the Assessor provides information and some administrative support - scheduling hearings, etc. Mr. Reed was asked about the relationship between the City Assessor and the County Assessor, and stated that although there was no formal relationship (the positions do not work together) consistency of procedure and valuations, as well as a harmonious working relation- ship were important. 4. The qualifications necessary for the position of City Assessor as proposed by Carroll and Reed, were discussed by the Committee as a whole and included: i 14ICROFILMED BY "JORM - MICR6LA13 I CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES i GG 7 1 J_, _Y I MINUTES CITY ASSESSOR PANEL MARCH 31, 1982 PAGE 2 A. Experience performing residential, commercial and industrial assessment (experience must include establishing the final valuation, rather than just data collection or related duties). B. Public contact experience especially in dealing firmly and fairly with the public. C. Supervisory experience or ability. 0. Office management experience including work planning and budget development. The Committee decided that the following areas, which are not absolute requirements for the job, would be given additional credit: A. Experience/knowledge of computerized record systems, especially if they apply to an Assessor's office. B. Experience coordinating the work of a mass appraisal company, or previous experience working for an appraisal company. C. Knowledge of the Iowa, City area and properties. 0. Experience working with a legal staff in case preparation and court testimony. E. College degree in business administration, economics or related area. F. Record of continuing education, especially at a level above that required, or attained prior to the requirement. G. Employment stability. H. Recognition by professional peers - i.e., a leadership position in a professional association. I. Professional certification (listed in order of importance): CAE - Certified Assessment Evaluator (International Association of Assessing Officials) - only 13-14 CAE in Iowa ASA - American Society of Appraisers - Senior membership designation RES - Residential Specialist (International Association of Assessing Officers) only 10-12 in Iowa i I4ICADFILMED BY ' "JORM - MICR4LAB "._1 - 1 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES WINES a47 11 _y MINUTES CITY ASSESSOR PANEL MARCH 31, 1982 PAGE 3 ICA - Institute of Iowa Certified Assessors - only 30 in Iowa. Evaluation of applicant's personal integrity and "common sense" was discussed, and it was decided that these areas would attempt to be covered through hypothetical situation questions. Scores of the applicants an the Department of Revenue Assessor test will not be considered, as they do not differ significantly. 5. The issue of salary requirements of the applicants was discussed briefly, with the decision to leave salary to the discretion of the Conference Board. None of the applicant's requirements exceeded the salary approved for the position for July 1, 1982 - $34,600. 6. Anne Carroll will prepare a structured interview format for the Co®ittee to use in interviewing applicants. The format will incorporate the position qualifications as listed above. Applicants will receive a copy of the questions, excluding any hypothetical situation questions, prior to the interview and may be asked to submit further written inforfiation regarding continuing education, etc., at the time of the interview. Applicants will be advised of their rights under Section 28A - Open Meetings Law - to request a closed meeting. 7. The Comittee decided to offer an interview opportunity to all applicants still interested in consideration for the position. Interviews will last approximately 45 minutes. 8. Interview dates and times, as revised following the meeting, are as follows: Monday, April 26, 8:30-12:30, City Manager's Conference Room, Civic Center (Committee will meet at 8:00 a.m.) Wednesday, April 28, 8:30-12:30, Iowa City Recreation Center, Room A - interviews may also continue into the afternoon depending upon the number of applicants requesting interviews. 9. The meeting adjourned at 5:40. 141CROFILMED BY j -- -"DORM MICR46LA13 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES I '.... - - 667 ti MINUTES HOTEL/DEPARTMENT STORE DEVELOPMENT COORDINATING COMMITTEE MARCH 17, 1982 7:00 PM CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: McDonald, Perret, Amert, Eckholt, Berlin, Hayek MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Boothroy, Hauer, Helling, Schmeiser, Strader (Zuchelli, Hunter & Associates) GUESTS: Tom Muller, members of news media DISCUSSION: . (At the March 3, 1982 City Council meeting, the Council indicated approval ,of the creation of a six member steering committee composed of two members each from the Council, City staff, and the Design Review Committee. This committee was created to comment on and to review preliminary plans and designs for the hotel/department store complex that will be located on urban renewal Parcels 64- 1 and 82-l.b. ) The meeting was called to order at 7:01 P.M. Strader presented schematic representations of the department store and hotel. He stated these drawings represent the second iteration of design and thus were more detailed than what had been shown the Council on March 3rd. The department store was placed on the east end of the parcel and extended 10 feet into the College Street right-of- way. The store has two entrances on City Plaza; one was on the Linn -College Street intersection and the other was near the wooden play sculpture on City Plaza. The hotel site is on the west end of the parcel with its dormitory block set on the south portion of the parcel by the Block 82 alley. The set back of the dormitory block will allow for more sunlight on the City Plaza. A 24 foot wide walk-through in the hotel structure was shown for the pedestrian traffic travelling on Dubuque Street. Strader said the major difference between this schematic and the one shown to Council on March 3rd was a 10,000 square foot decrease in small store retail space. He then concluded his presentation with additional details on the locations of different items (restaurant, back -of -the -house functions) within the hotel parcel. Hayek began the discussion by asking why all of the detailing for the hotel parcel was necessary. Strader replied that it was necessary for the determination of the building envelope. Hayek then asked if a developer would accept this degree of essentially a pre planned interior. Strader said there would probably be high acceptance because of Zuchelli, Hunter and Associates' previous experience in hotel development. Hayek concluded by saying he would like to be persuaded that this approach will work. i - MICROFILMED BY -JORM-MICR46LA13 I j CEDAR RAPIDS - DES MOINES _y r Steering Committee for Hotel/Department Store March 17, 1982 Page 2 McDonald indicated that he agrees with Hayek's concern. Berlin said Zuchelli will be contacting hotel developers in the next week and detailing the City's ideas regarding design and procedures (prospectus and contract requirements). The feedback from these discussions will give the City an idea as to whether this approach is on- or off-track. Berlin remarked that he had talked to a hotel developer who would only be interested in this project if the design parameters had already been determined. Perret wanted to know if Strader was still fluid in the design and was able to refine the schematics as per developer comments. He also wanted to know if this procedure of allowing a potential developer to say what he/she did or did not like about the schematic was giving the developer "veto power". Strader responded that the design was still fluid and changes could be made in the design. Secondly, the communication with a developer, rather than giving them "veto power", was really incorporating their retailing expertise into the design. Berlin stated this design process does not preclude the ability to use the space in the development for other uses. This was in reference to Perret's concern that the previously proposed small retail stores on the northern flank of the department store were not in 'this design because of adverse remarks from an interested department store developer. Strader said the design approach for the site was not market-based in that the amount of small retail store space was determined from a market analysis but rather, design was a "fall -out" from space requirements for the department store and hotel and the space limitations of the site. Perret then asked if the interested department store had indicated satisfaction with the additional small retail stores, would the small stores have been included in the design? Strader replied affirmatively, but that the deleted retail space (approximately 6,000 to 8,000 square feet) was quite small in terms of the whole development. McDonald stated his concern of not flooding the downtown market with additional retail space. Tom Muller, a member of the audience, asked if the hotel restaurant which was presently placed on the ground floor, could be moved to the top floor so as to create additional ground floor retail space. Strader indicated it could be, but his present desire was to keep the restaurant on the street level. Perret indicated his pleasure with this new design and that he liked the additional angles in the hotel portion. Strader said he wanted to amend his previous remark of the design being fluid; some portions of the hotel design were already fairly fixed because of their space requirements. Perret then asked if the hotel dormitory block could be moved to a north -south orientation or placed on a diagonal. Strader said this could be done; however, he thinks the present design matches the geometry of other buildings in the downtown. Also, the more angles a building has, the more difficult and expensive it is to construct. Berlin stated the purpose of the meeting tonight was essentially to set where the line of demarcation between the hotel/department store was to be and also to approve the general concept of design as it had been presented by Strader. 1 MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR4�LAB 1 j 1 CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES 6d;7 J_. r Steering Committee for Hotel/Department Store March 17, 1982 Page 3 Hayek said it was difficult to dispute whether this demarcation line should be placed exactly where Strader had shown or if it should be moved somewhat to the east or to the west. McDonald wanted to know if the interested department store liked the idea of being placed on the east end of the site. Strader stated that they seemed to be very pleased, especially because of the close placement next to the parking ramp entrance. Perret wanted to know how the proposed Linn Street curb design for the department store would affect Linn Street. Strader said the City's streetscape design will be extended around the department store site onto Linn Street which will allow for uniform treatmeht of the curb line. Berlin stated one of the major concerns of this committee will be the decisions regarding exterior material options. Strader said at this time he was most interested in using brick for the department store exterior, with precast concrete or other masonry treatments as a second option. With regard to the hotel, he had no strong ideas other than wanting the department store and hotel exterior treatments to be compatible. He thought precast concrete, which has the advantage of being very amenable to articulation, was a likely material for the hotel exterior. Strader said he preferred to discuss this topic at a later stage with total cost estimates (labor, material, installation) given then. Perret wanted to know if the Committee's approval of the schematic concept will determine interior configurations. Strader replied the concept basically determines the building envelope; some interior configurations for the hotel will be set, however. Perret requested an explanation of the mechanics of the Dubuque Street walk- through. Strader reviewed the dimensions and said that it should be maintained as a public right-of-way. The Committee indicated general approval. Amert was concerned about the possibility of the west 195 feet of the department store wall appearing as. a "monolithic" blank wall if the hotel was not constructed concurrently with the department store. She wanted to know what could be done if this occurred. Strader said hopefully this would not be a problem; temporary landscaping or a mural could mitigate the blank wall. If it becomes clear that there would not be hotel constructed in the near future, he said the City should perhaps consider redesigning this parcel for another use such as office space, rather than retaining it for hotel usage. Amert then wanted to know who were the principals in carrying out negotiations with the developers. Berlin responded it was Zuchelli and he, with Hayek when legal issues are raised. Berlin elaborated upon the negotiations procedure. All developers who have ever evinced interest in of the site, in addition to developers Zuchelli knows, are being contacted. Concurrently, a prospectus and other documents for the site are being developed. The following step will then be Committee review of the prospectus and associated documents, especially with regard to design language. The meeting waaaj.s� adjourned by general acclaim at 8:25 P.M. Taken by: Ae— //L�� Andrea Hauer r 1 141CROFIL14ED BY JORM MICR46LAB j CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MOINES 1 J r PRELIMINARY Subject to Approval MINUTES HOTEUDEPARTMENT STORE DEVELOPMENT COORDINATING COMMITTEE APRIL 9, 1982 4:00 P.M. CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Perret, Amert, Eckholt, Berlin, Hayek MEMBERS ABSENT: McDonald STAFF PRESENT: Boothroy, Hauer, Helling GUESTS PRESENT: Members of the news media RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL: 1. The bid period for the parcel be 50 days in length (a minimum 30 days with an additional 20 day extension period). DISCUSSION: The meeting was called to order at 4:14 P.M. Berlin indicated his desire to have the materials for site disposition out as soon as possible and the purpose of this meeting is to review the prospectus for Parcel 64-1a. Perret requested information on what will be the process for the land disposition; specifically, he wanted to know if it would be in the form of a prospectus, land contract, and other documents used by the City in the past. Berlin replied affirmatively. Perret began the discussion by asking why this prospectus was so different from former prospecti issued by the City. Berlin stated that this would be explained as this document was reviewed on a point -by -point basis. Perret questioned the bid period length and whether it should be 30 or 50 y days. Perret reiterated that the Council had, at its meeting on March 3, unanimously made the decision that the bid period should be 50 days. He further explained he did not support the 30 day bid period as suggested by the draft prospectus because he felt that it gave an unfair advantage to Armstrong's, Inc. (the department store which has publicly indicated its desire to bid on this site). Berlin replied that under Chapter 403 of the Code of Iowa, a 30 day bid period is legal. Hayek confirmed this fact but felt the 30 day bid period was too short. Hayek stated that Zuchelli, Hunter & Associates (ZHA) had previously recommended a 50 day bid period as being optimal and thus, Hayek does not see anything to justify decreasing the bid period length. Berlin replied that Zuchelli feels the completed design work has made the previously recommended longer bid period unnecessary. Perret repeated the Council had specifically agreed on a 50 day bid period as being a compromise between 30 days (the shortest possible bid period) and 90 days (the traditional bid period length for urban renewal parcels). In addition, he did not feel that substantitive design work for the department store had been done. MICROFILMED BY JORM MICR6LAB j CEDAR RAPIDS • DES 1401NES 1 1 J r HOTEL/DEPARTMENT STORE DEVELOPMENT COORDINATING COMMITTEE APRIL 9, 1982 PAGE 2 Berlin said the details of the disposition process had changed somewhat since the last meeting of the Committee in that more specific information• is available than was before. Eckholt then asked about the list of addresses of department stores attached to the draft prospectus. Berlin stated the list contained department stores in the region as well as other entities which had indicated a possible interest in the development. Perret stated that the disposition process is three weeks behind time as measured by the ZHA contract's work schedule. According to the schedule, the prospectus was to have been done by March 22. He was not happy with ZHA because the prospectus seems to have required a good deal of City staff work while the ZHA contract states it will do the prospectus. Also, he was concerned about the lack of contact with the different department stores; he thought Zuchelli had told the Council that he (Zuchelli) would be contacting department stores immediately after the March 3rd Council meeting. Perret concluded by stating he thinks there has been a change in the work program, and that this change has not been reviewed by the Committee and was of concern to the Committee. Berlin replied that Perret should not lose sight of the Committee's objective of getting a department store on the site and in operation as soon as was possible. Hayek stated the Committee should decide 'whether or not to make a recommendation to the Council after the length of the bid period. Eckholt was not sure if the 50 day bid period would be too long or too short given there had not been personal contact made with the different department stores. Discussion ensued over whether the Committee should recommend a bid period length or whether this was entirely a City Council prerogative. Hauer questioned the problem of a 30 day bid period with a 15 day extension period. Perret replied that it puts a burden on the applicant requesting the extension and could put the applicant at a slight disadvantage because the City staff and Council could feel that the redeveloper was not competent because of his/her inability to put a bid together in 30 days. Berlin cited the example of the Old Public Library in which a bidder had requested an extension. Berlin did not feel this extension had created any of the problems that Perret raised. Perret said another concern of his was that the other Council members may feel that the 30 day bid period cited in the draft prospectus was a set date and could not be changed. He then recommended a 50 day bid period. Eckholt supported this proposal. The Committee further discussed this issue. The major points were: (1) whether a shorter bid period allowed an unfair advantage to Armstrong's; and (2) whether the shortened bid period was due more to the fact that ZHA was behind schedule rather than any changed circumstances such as design schematics. Hauer suggested lengthening the extension period to 20 days. MICROFILMED By -JORM MICR4�LAB _1 CEDAR RAPIDS • BES M01nES i 00 1 J�, _y HOTEUDEPARTMENT STORE DEVELOPMENT COORDINATING COMMITTEE APRIL 9, 1982 PAGE 3 Hayek moved that the bid period be set at 30 days with a 20 day extension period possible if the developer requests an extension. Eckholt seconded. There were four ayes (Berlin, Hayek, Amert, and Eckholt), one nay (Perret), and one absent (McDonald). Perret questioned why the prospectus stated that no elaborate models or displays would be accepted by the City. The question was answered in a roundabout fashion with a discussion on the design work done to date and what a schematic does and does not represent. All Committee members agreed that the schematics shown to the Committee by ZHA detailed the basic shapes, locations, and the footprints of the hotel and department store. The Committee diverged as to whether the schematics shown at its March 17th meeting were of a very general nature or represented a reasonable rendering of what the building would look like when built. Hayek felt that this difference of opinion arose because City staffinembers (Berlin and Hauer) thought ZHA was to provide the building design and its details as a given to prospective developers while he and Perret thought ZHA was to provide preliminary design work prior to the bidding of the parcel, and then, when a preferred developer was selected, ZHA and the preferred developer were to work together on a specific design. Thus, Hayek said, bidders for the site would have to present some sort of plan, design, or narrative detailing their choice of facade materials, size of windows and the like. Eckholt replied that he thought the City was playing the role of "super developer" and the building facade and other details would already be designed at the time of the bid period with the developer not permitted to deviate from the ZHA design. Hayek felt since the Committee had only met once and that meeting's purpose was only to approve a general concept for the site, the decisions necessary for the "super developer" approach could not have been made. Perret's understanding was the City would "call the shots" for the basic design work and the exact details of the final design would be left up to the developer. Amert stated a way to work out this issue was to approach it from the viewpoint of how much information the Council will require in order to differentiate among bids. In other words, if more than one bid was received for this site and each bid was equally strong in terms of developer's reputation, financial capability and the like, then the design information would become relevant. Hauer stated that the basic issue appeared to be when the design work occurs; should it occur before the bids period or after the bids are in? The Committee indicated that language should be inserted in the prospectus stating the City will provide design schematics of a general nature to the developer but specific details, such as facade materials and the like, should be included as part of the developer's bid narrative. Eckholt left at 5:45 p.m. Berlin stated it was very important the Committee indicate when it is making decisions and exactly what the decision is. MICROFILMED BY � JORM MICRbLAB CEDAR RAPIDS • DCS MOINES I 1 J _y HOTEUDEPARTMENT STORE DEVELOPMENT COORDINATING COMMITTEE APRIL 9, 1982 PAGE 4 Hayek felt the Committee should make its decisions in the future by using motions. Perret favored this procedure and also indicated there should be a secretary present to take minutes and to tape-record the meeting. Several other members of the Committee indicated their assent. Perret suggested that language be inserted into the prospectus stating the schematics represent the City's desire for the building design and the developer should work from this design. Hayek moved that the Committee favor a process where ZHA works with the developer on design issues after the designation of the preferred developer. Eckholt seconded and the motion passed unanimously. There were four ayes (Berlin, Hayek, Amert, and Perret) and two absent (McDonald and Eckholt). Perret and Hayek discussed the desirability of maintaining a written record of developer requests, contract interpretations and the like. Perret favored having a written record as has been done in the past while Hayek favored a more flexible method of using verbal responses for minor issues and written responses for major issues. The Committee indicated Hayek's approach was desirable and language to this effect will be inserted in the prospectus. Perret and Amert indicated concern with the lateness of the ZHA work and that they would like an accounting of why ZHA was -behind its work schedule. Perret compared this prospectus to previous prospecti issued for other urban renewal parcels. The following items will be inserted in this prospectus as per the Committee's direction. (1)' A description of the schematic in narrative form. (2) Language regarding the adjacent hotel development. (3) Graphics showing the site plan and the urban renewal project area. It was moved by Hayek and seconded by Perret to approve the preliminary minutes from the March 17, 1982, meeting. Motion passed unanimously with four ayes (Amert, Berlin, Hayek and Perret) and two absent (McDonald and Eckholt). Perret again stated his desire to have a secretary at these meetings. The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. by general acclaim. Submitted by: 1� Andrea Hauer 1 i 141CROFILMED BY I_ JORM MICR46LAB _f j CEDAR RAPIDS • DES MONE5 I alp J_. _y