HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-08-31 Info Packet4.
•City of Iowa Cite
DATE: August 26, 1976
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
RE: As Listed
Bikeway Grant
The Fink -bine Bikeway Grant application has been forwarded to the Kansas
City Federal Highway Regional Office from the Iowa Department of Trans-
portation. The Iowa DOT Office of Planning and Research Program Manage-
ment in Ames was very impressed with our application and forwarded the
grant with high recommendations to Kansas City. The application will be
forwarded to Washington, D.C., in early September. We will keep you
informed of its progress.
Parking Charges
In the discussion of the revision of parking charges at the last Council
meeting, the difference in revenue was estimated to be $25,000. This figure
is incorrect. The correct figure, as it appears on page 2 of the budget,
is approximately $100,000. The $25,000 figure represented the net revenue
in the current fiscal year and not the gross.
Landfill Charges
I?ecently the City Council received a memorandum from the Director of Public
Works dated July 29, 1976, suggesting that participating communities would
pay on a per capita, per day usage rather than on a so-called honor system
which tends to apparently distort actual usage. As the revision in the
contracts appears to be desirable, I have directed the Public Works Depart-
ment to proceed with that change. If for any reason the Council deems
such action to be undesirable, please respond accordingly.
Travel Expenses
On several occasions City Council members have inquired about travel expenses.
The Manager approves all travel expenses for City personnel. This approval
is based upon the information submitted with the budget, including a detailed
listing of the programs. However, for the City Council there is no such
information and the City Manager has been automatically approving all travel
requests for City Council members. If the City Council is concerned about
travel expenses for the City Council, it certainly would be appropriate for
the City Council to adopt a policy whereby the Council would authorize
travel expenses for Council persons or provide the City Manager with guide-
lines for approval. In the interim, the Manager will continue to authorize
travel expenditures for Council members without question as long as the
money requested does not exceed the budget appropriation.
ivyy
Dennis Kraft DATE: August 27, 1976
TO: , Director of Community Deve
Neal Berlin, City ManagerPment
FROM: Paul Glaves, Redevelopment Specialist
RE: Urban Renewal Activities, Weekly Progress
1. Following is a listing of Urban Renewal activities carried out this week:
a. filet with the City Council to review the recamnendations concerning the
Urban Renewal Plan which were made by the Planning and Zoning
the University of Iowa.
8 Commission and
b. Received and reviewed the draft
Zuchelli, Hunter and Associates.form of contract for services with
C' Drafted the notice for publication, and the resolution to set a
on the Urban Renewal Plan, Did additional review of the Plan
Of Council action Monday, hearing
Y, and continued to draft the as a result
d. Completed amending resolution.
P the drafting of the form of contract for appraisal services.
e. Met with the Iowa State Bank and Perpetual Savings and Loan representatives
concerning the sale of land on Block lol.
f. Performed routine administrative tasks including the review of several
bills, responding to public inquiries regarding the marketing
the Urban Renewal Plan, and continuing work on the
Labor Standards provisions set forth by y� Program and
Equal Opportunity and
PG/ssw
CChMI7Th1: ON CQtiAtUNITY NEEDS
SEI'TE1�g'R 1, 1976
IO{VA CITY RECREATION CENrl:
MEETING ROOM A
SPEAKERS:
4:00 Parks Improvement & Additions Project Status Update
by Dennis Showalter, Director of Parks $ Recreation
4:30 Ralston Creek Flood Control Project Report
by Dick Plastino, Director of
and Public Works, and Ed Brinton,
Powers -Willis Associates
BUSINESS MEETING:
L Approve minutes of August 4, 1976,
2• Receive comments from meeting.
guests or visitors.
3. Reports from subcommittees:
a. Human Needs
b. Communications
c. Comprehensive Plan
d. Coordination
e. Housing Rehabilitation
f. Monitoring
4. Election of Chairperson.
5. Other business.
6. Adjournment.
MEETING OBJECTIVES:
1. To better understand the Park and Ralston Creek programs.
2. To adopt a communications plan.
141 z16
*city of Iowa C��
EMORAN
DATE: August 26, 1976
TO: Neal Berlin, city Manager
FROM: Dennis E. Showalter, Director of Parks 6 Recreation n
RE: Leisure Needs Survey, Summer 1976 N{'/
Attached are excerpts from the Leisure Needs Survey which was
conducted by two (2) recreation interns this past summer.
There was $16,000 budgeted in FY 76 for such a survey, but the
money was diverted to other uses (the purchase of Northeast
Park, I think).
The survey areas were selected with the assistance of Johnson
county Regional Planning and Rena Weerts, University Examination
Services. The latest computer data was used to properly identify
the survey areas. This survey meets all criteria for an accurate,
scientific instrument.
It is my intention to continue the survey process in the coming
semesters, again using recreation interns and asking the same
questions. We expect to get a different response from a winter
survey when people are thinking about ice skating, skiing, etc.
We will use different areas of the city, scientifically selected.
The major portion of the credit for the success of this project
should go to the interns, Bob Lee and the Recreation Education
Department of the University of Iowa.
/ef
l qq 7
0 0
P U R P O S E
The main purpose of the Leisure Needs Survey thar.was done this summer
for the Iowa City Parks and Recreation Department was to try to find from the
citizens of Iowa City whether they were pleased with the services being offered
at the present time. Also, by doing this survey, we wanted to find out if the
Department was meeting the needs of the citizens of Iowa City. If this was not
the case, we wanted to find out some ways that would perhaps be beneficial in
serving the people living in Iowa City.
The questions (please refer to the Leisure Needs Survey Questionnaire on
the following page) that were used in our survey were developed after having
conferences with Mr. Dennis Showalter, Mr. Lee, and Dr. Ben Hunnicutt. We
also decided the following: (1) Do the Leisure Needs Survey in eight different
blocks of Iowa City that contained people who are classified in the High Income,
Middle Income, and Low Income bracket (The eight blocks were randomly selected.)
and (2) Each intern was responsible for administering the survey in a four
block area. Because of the length of time that we had to do the Leisure Needs
Survey, we were not able to survey the entire city of Iowa City.
The survey was administered on a door to door basis, and all of the questions
were asked to the person who answered the door first. Each intern was responsible
for writing down the responses from the people. We decided upon using a short
survey format, because we felt that people would cooperate with us better, and
perhaps the Leisure Needs Survey would be more beneficial to the Iowa City Parks
and Recreation Department.
After the Leisure Needs Survey was completed over the eight blocks that were
selected, all of the responses were separated into three groups (High Income,
Middle Income, and Low Income). Each question was tabulated on an individual
basis, and conclusions were drawn from it.
Howard W. Batts
Summer Recreation Intern
P U R P O S E
The purpose of the Leisure Needs Survey was to find out if the Iowa City
Parks and Recreation Department is offering the right services to the general
public of Iowa City. It was also necessary to ask if there were services that
weren't being programmed, if they should be programmed for the benefit of the
public.
The questions were prepared by the following people:
1. Mr. Dennis Showalter - Director of Parks and Recreation.
2. Mr. Robert A. Lee - Superintendent of Recreation.
3. Dr. Ben Hunnicutt - Instructor of undergraduate studies at the
University of Iowa.
The questions asked on the Survey came from a mutual agreement of the people
listed above. They felt those questions would draw the best and most needed
responses necessary to improve the Parks and Recreation Department in Iowa City.
The Survey was selected on a basis of Random Sampling. We selected 8
separate blocks in 8 separate sections of the City to get all levels of income,
to become as diversified as we possibly could and that hopefully we Would be
as non -biased as possible also.
The questions were presented by going door-to-door and asking the questions
to the person that first answered the door. We went_during the hours we felt
most of the public would be home to get the highest percentage of responses
possible. It was suggested that we not return to a home a second time due to
the lack of time we had to conduct the Survey.
The questions were compiled by tabulating the responses from the four
questions and drawing as many conclusions as we possibly could for the benefit
of the Parks and Recreation Department.
Tom Lang
Recreation Intern
I0,4A CITY P,1 -!LKS AND REC2EATIOy DBPAR ME1;T
Leisure heeds Survey Questionnaire
DemooraDhLc Data
Block No.
Age Group
18
- 21
years
Under 6_years
22
- 39
years
6 - 12 years
40
- 59
years
13 - 17 years
60
and
over
Male Female
1. What do you do during your leisure tine?
Rank Top three activities
2. Are you satisfied with the services of the Iowa City Parks and Recreation
Department?
Yee No
3,_What services would you like to have the Parks and Recreation Department
offer?
4. Would you care to make any cocments or suggestions regarding the Iowa City
Parks and Recreation Departoent?
0
Conclusions
Question H1
In rrsponse to question number one, "What do you do during your leisure
time?" fifty three Afferent activies were mentioned by one -hundred and eighteen
people. The number of respondents in each age group was:
Under 6 years 2 1.7%
6 - 12 years 1 .8%
13 - 17 years 7 6.0%
18 - 21 years 5 4.2%
22 - 39 years 53 45.0%
40 - 59 years 28 23.7%
60 and over 22 18.6%
118 Grand Total
Each person listed as many as three of their leisure time activities.
These answers are listed in order of preference with the number of responses in
each case following in parentheses.
1. Swimming (45)
2. Reading (38)
3. Watching Television (22)
i
4. Gardening and Socializing (20)
5. Bicycling (19)
6. Tennis and Fishing (17)
7. Volleyball (16)
8. Golfing (15)
9. housekeeping (14)
10. Baseball (12)
11. Card Games (10)
12. Traveling (9)
13. Drawing and Softball (7)
14. Boating, Dancing, and Studying (6)
15. Basketball, Bowling, Camping, Playging Chess, Hunting, Jogging, Listening
to Radio and Stereo, and Walking (5).
16. Cooking, Crafts, Driving, Gymnastics, Horseback Riding, Movies, Skiing,
Wu ightlitting (4)
17. R•_sting-:sleeping, Sewing, Restoring Cars, and Writing (3)
0
18.
Sailing, Singing, Coaching,
Hiking, and
Ice Skating
(2)
19.
Itndminton, Croquet, Frisbee,
Knitting,
Photograpby,
Raquetball., and
SighLta•cin}; (1)
The most popular activities by age groups were:
Under 6
years
Gymnastics
6 -
12 years
Bicycling
13
- 17
years
Volleyball
18
- 21
years
Volleyball
22
- 39
years
Swimming
40
- 59
years
Swimming
60 and over Gardening and Watching Television
The most popular activities by income levels:
High: Reading and Swimming
Middle: Swimming and Reading
Low: Reading, Swimming, and. Watching Television
The people were asked to rate their responses to question number one by
indicating the order of importance to them in a 1, 2 and 3 manner. Our survey
responses indicate that Reading, picked by 22 people, was ranked first more than
any other activity followed by swimming that was ranked second by 7 people and
also third by 12 others.
0
Conclusions
Question #2
The following are responses to question two, "Are you satisfied with the
services of the Iowa City Parks and Recreation Department?"
I. Out of the 118 total responses, 105 people (89%) indicated that
they were satisfied.
2. 4 people (3.3%) said they were not satisfied.
3. 9 people (7.7x) chose to give no opinion.
When you look at the Survey based on income levels, you will find that
the majority of the people came from the medium class of living. Other conclusions
drawn are as follows:
1. 50 middle class citizens responded yes.
2. 36 low to middle class responded yes.
3. The majority of the people that responded no or gave no opinion were
of the low and middle classes of incomes.
When looking at the different age groups, the 22-39 age group (456) were
the ones that responded the most from the survey. Following them were the 40-59
i
age group (23.7%).
The age group that was least responded to was that of the 6-12 age group
Conclusions
Question S3
The following are responses to question three: "What services would you
like to have the Parks and Recreation Department offer?"
1. 21 people indicated that they could not think of any thing in regards
to what they would like the Iowa City Parks and Recreation Department
to offer.
2. 10 people responded that there should be more bike paths in the City of
Iowa City.
3. 9 people responded that they would like to see more tennis courts
built and centrally located in the City of Iowa City.
4. 6 people indicated that the tennis courts needed to be lighted for late
evening play.
5. 8 people felt that the Iowa City Parks and Recreation Department should
keep offering the present services.
About 50 different responses were given to this question; 29 by one person
only and 9 other items by two people. Some of the answers given obviously have
nothing to do with the Parks and Recreation Department. A listing of all responses
is available and on file in the Parks and Recreation Department office.
Conclusions
Question #4
The following are responses that were given to question four: "Would you
care to make any comments or suggestions regarding the Iowa City Parks and
Recreation Department".
1. 21 citizens of the City of Iowa City chose to express no opinion.
2. 21 people indicated that the Iowa City Parks and Recreation Department
was doing an excellent job, and everything seems to be running smoothly.
3. 10 people responded that they really disliked the closing of the zoo
at City Park_
4. 5 people pointed out that the parks in the City of Iowa City are kept
very clean.
Some 80 different answers were given to this question some of which may
prove to be ideas of value to the City. A listing of all responses is available
and on file in the Parks and Recreation Department office.
0 City of Iowa Ci#
?• jam: ;-�} ._.'<.
DATE: August 27, 1976
TO: Neal Berlin, City Manager
FROM: Dennis E. Showalter, Director of Parks 6 Recreation
RE: Status of H.C.D.A. Projects --City Park Funds
1. PLAYGROUNDS, LOWER PARK, $30,000, UPPER PARK, $3,500 --the
specifications are ready to go out on bid as soon as the En-
vironmental Review is approved, which should be by October 15.
The probable delivery date is November 15. The installation
dates will be between November 15 and April 30, 1977, depending
on winter soil moisture and frost conditions. The guaranteed
completion date is April 30, 1977.
2. TREES, $15,000 --the specifications can go out on bid October 15.
We intend to plant some of the trees in November and December
this year, with the balance to be planted in the spring of 1977.
The approximate completion date is May 31, 1977.
3. LOG CABIN RESTORATION, $2,500 --this project is 80% completed
and will be finished by September 30.
4. PARKING LOT B, $3,530 --we didn't use H.C.D.A. money for this
lot; we used re -cycled asphalt from Krikwood Avenue. The
project is completed.
5. CITY PARK POOL LIGHTS, $12,000—the specifications will be
ready to go out on bid by October 15. The approximate com-
pletion date is May 27, 1977.
6. CITY PARK TENNIS COURT LIGHTS, $12,500 --the specifications will
be ready to go out on bid by October 15. The approximate com-
pletion date is April 15, 1977.
7. MERCER PARK TENNIS COURT LIGHTS, $12,500 --the specifications
will be ready to go out on bid by October 15. The approximate
completion date is April 15, 1977.
8. POND BANK STABILIZATION, up to $27,500--I would like to discuss
this and reach a decision in September on what method to use;
I prefer grass paver blocks. The probable cost of this method
is $12,000. The installation date would be between October 15
and March 31, 1977, with the grass to be seeded in the spring
of 1977. The approximate completion date is May 15, 1977.
9. SPRAY POOL, $7,500 --no action yet; we intend to have it in
operation by next June 15.
/ef
/ `1"f $
0 City of Iowa Citt
3
DATE: August 26, 1976
TO: Neal Berlin, City Manager
FROM: Dennis E. Showalter, Director of Parks & Recreation
RE: Status of II.C.D.A. Projects --$80.000 Neighborhood Projects
1. NORTHEAST PARK --trees have been planted and the bids on play
equipment and picnic tables were opened July 30, 1976. We
have asked the bidders to "hold" their bids until the proper
Environmental Review process has been completed. Even with
compression of the time schedule, a realistic date for com-
pletion of this document is October 15. The probable delivery
date for play equipment would be November 15. Installation
dates will depend on moisture and frost conditions of the
soil; we will work on it in the winter as we can. A "guaran-
teed" completion date would be April 30, 1977.
2. WILLOW CREEK PARK --trees and shrubs have been planted and
bids on play equipment were opened July 30. We are holding
on them as described above. The installation date will be
between November 15 and April 30, 1977. The bridge across
Willow Creek has been installed. The nature trail/walk is
scheduled for construction in May, 1977.
3. VILLA PARK --trees have been planted. We are holding the bids
on play equipment and tables. The installation date will be
between November 15 and April 30, 1977. The gazebo will be
constructed by January 31, 1977.
4. SOUTH HOLLYWOOD MANOR --trees have been planted, the grass seeded
and we are holding on bids for the backstop, bleachers, play
equipment and tables. The installation will be between
November 15 and April 30, 1977.
5. MERCER PARK BALL DIAMOND LIGHTS --specifications will be ready
when the Environmental Review process is completed. The
completion date is approximately April 30, 1977.
/ef
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
TO: Neal Berlin, City
FROM:
RE.
DATE:
Manag r
Don Schmeiser, Senior Plan I
Extension of a Sanitary Sewer across Scott
August 20, 1976 �/� •(�
Bouleva \l
Iv
The Planning and Zoning Commission at a regular meeting
held on August 5, 1976, considered the extension of a
sanitary sewer across Scott Boulevard permitting development
beyond the present urbanized area. While the Commission
did express concern, they felt they were not in a position
to recommend for or against the extension of said sewer
because of inadequate information regarding the implications
involved. Rather, they felt this is something that should
be addressed in the Comprehensive Plan under Development.
They voted, therefore, to inform the Council that they were
unable to make a recommendation on the extension of a
sanitary sewer across Scott Boulevard permitting development
beyond the present urbanized area.
If you have any questions regarding this subject matter,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
cc: Dennis Kraft
DS:sc
City 01:
DATE: August 25, 1976
TO: Neal Berlin, City Council, and Dennis Kraft
FROM: Lyle Seydel, Housing Coordinator -
RE: Fair Market Rents for Existing Units, Section 8
Some time in the last six months information was distributed
concerning increases in Fair Market Rents (FMR).
Proposed rules were published in the Federal Register
July 2 with a comment period to July 28 before making the
schedule effective. The FDIR for Johnson County as published
differs from those previously distributed. The F6IR we are
utilizing effective August 1st are as follows:
D bedroom -- 145
It 1 170
2 -- 199
3 -- 230
.1+
-- 249
Efforts will be continued to get the FMR for 2, 3and 4+
bedroom units increased to a more realistic level. Until
this occurs, there can be little activity within the program
for units in this group.
LS:sc
/SSS/
e
POWERS o WILLIS AND ASSOCIATES
PLANNING ENGINEERING- ARCHITECTURE
-
August 3, 1976
-
Mr. Richard Plastino
-;
Public worksDirector
-IASIFS W. voweas..r.F
Civic Center.:-
-
Iowa .City, IA 52290
Re: Ralston Creek Watershed Management, Plan
- IVAN C. ORFl.11p, 1>.F_
- -
-
_
Dear Mr. Plastino: _
IOHN F. PFwFNRR• A.I.A.
This is our, progress report for the month Of June, 1976.
FM L MAYNARD. A.I P.,
A.s.VA.
I. on June 3 we had a meeting with the Ralston Coordinating
ED'•ICtRD 11. RRI
.Creek
Committee to discuss _revision s in funding for the construction
ruNv. P.F
Of the improvement proiect5 resulting-from':the-:interim
_
'PEN RARvr-r-r.n.IP.
report .
A letter of recommendations was presented t - n •
o Mrs._Roxanne:Haldema,._-
- Chairman of the
-
... - ._
committ_ee,..and.later..-forwarded to the City st-af£
- - for -budget - revisions..
I_ coir. P.F_._
-
_
2. On June 7, BillLindleywas in town to attend the public hearing
on the storm water management- ordinance. In the .same afternoon
W e met with staff members on Community Development to discuss
-work
-.
thee plan and, schedule for the comprehensive plan. development
In the
-
east end of Iowa cityas it relates to Ralston Creek'Storm
Water I•lan3gement Plan,
We also met with mr-.= Bruce `G3.asgow:-and `
discus ,ed storm
:Dater storage proje,:i_s on land which he has under
control.
f3.
Dr. Donald McDonald and his staff completed the preliminary field
survey:,. for the vegetation and Wildlife habitats in t-heRalston
Creek Watershed.
_
Siy/nnccce'erely,
i
-
Rdwa cd If. Brinton,
}
Powers-;'Iil.lis and.A!ssociates
1
s -
All EAST SV 15IIING CON S-FRI 10\VA C t 1 Y,:(O1VA 5i? 0 1
-
0� 1 IfON1' 310 333 7878
- .� - _ Sys
e � •1/'j� ��� Ci VIC CENTER <IO �N
h
��.INuiON ST.
nn .. iow[.�osaw
August 25, 1976
-+aw.
YgvDR
"" NEUNgU�ER
COUwq M�yµRE
JDMN flgU.EN
CANOL WUMDs ii
v. EOE EER
DAYID YENuc E
MAX EEE2ER
nOOEREVEVER,
Senators Clark and Culver
Peprosentative Hezvinsky
I appreciate.your support of Iowa City's Innovative Project Grant_
has notified Iowa City that We are one of eighteen cities out of 300
applicants to receive funding_ ii[tD
Tile Innovative Project Grant tJill complement the Iowa City's A'eighborhood
Rehab.i.litation Programa Past observations have indicated that many
Potentially viable neighborhoods have been destroyed by a lack of
Of the neighborhood impact process and the inability
to preserve these neighborhoods, understanding
Will be utilized to evaluate aspectsofne Innovative
o Project changeGan funds policies
focus on performance standards as a means of controlling�'d will
and enhancing the process of neighborhood preservation.land use impacts
Thank you for your assistance. J
Sincerely yours,
Diary C. Neuhauser
Dlayor
Is
0
JOHNSON
PPrF[UFn A11r* 19/b
COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
PHONE 351.3085
August 13, 1976
Neal G_ Berlin, City Manager
City of Iowa City
Civic Center, 410 E. Washington St.
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear Mr. Berlin:
The Johnson County Boardregu
lar meetincl of Health held their
on A
mentugust 10, 1976 and took under advise -
your letter of July 21, 1976
The Board understands that Carol Barker was granted
Permission to hook on to the city sewer, subject to the
terms required by the City Council. The Board would like
to reiterate their position as stated in a letter to the
City Council on July 19, 1976.
cc: Carol S. Barker
202 Dunlap Court
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Sincerely,
Evelyn C. Weeber, Chairman
Johnson County Board of Health
Mr. William Meardon
Meardon, Sueppel, Downer & Hayes
100 S. Linn
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
ECW/LGD/mek
0 0
MINUTES OF STAFF MEETING
August 25, 1976
Agenda items from the meeting of August 24, 1976, were discussed:
Community Development (Dennis Kraft or Paul Glaves) was asked to develop
an amendment to the zoning ordinance regarding parking on land south of
Burlington.
An amendment to the campaign finance ordinance is being provided by the
Legal Department.
The Civil Rights Specialist or Director of. Human Relations.is 'to meet
with the City Manager regarding the lawsuit against Westinghouse.
Public Works was requested to prepare a memo to the City Council regarding
the Slurry Seal Project.
The Legal Department is preparing an amendment to the ordinance removing
single family dwellings from inspections.
Questions have arisen about Committee on Community Needs Newsletter.
The pending item list is to be added to the informal agenda for Monday;;
August 30.
Thegroundbreaking ceremony for elderly housing will be held next_,Monday„
August 30, at 1:15 P.M., at the site.
In the future the City Council would like to review and discuss labor
contracts before being presented for approval. .
The cooperative agreement for housing is to be added to the agenda for
the August 31 meeting.
The Administrative Assistant was asked to call Senator Clark's office
to check the status of the revenue sharing bill.
Public Works was requested to erect signs on Kirkwood Avenue advising
of construction work and drivers should proceed at their own risk.
Councilman Balmer indicated that semi -trailers are using Kirkwood Avenue.
The Legal Department is to check to determine if the City has an ordinance
which prohibits this traffic on Kirkwood and also on First Avenue. Furnish
reply to the City Manager.
The Director of Parks and Recreation is to prepare a memo to be included in
Friday's packet which gives an update on projects in Block Grant Program.
Give expected completion date for each element.
The Council had a request from Johnson County Health Department to post
signs in buses about swine flu which the Council approved. The Transit
Superintendent will develop a written policy for posting signs on buses.
The Administrative Assistant was asked to check about a hand rail on Brown
Street."
0 0
A discussion was held regarding City employees who take classes during
working hours. A policy should be written to cover this matter in order
to avoid problems and criticism in the future.
The Stormwater Management Ordinance was discussed. The Director of Public
Works is to advise when the rules and regulations will be ready. :Mr.
Plastino was also asked to attend the August 31 Council meeting to discuss
this subject, including the short course to be available to developers.
Councilman Vevera expressed concern about the level of inspection., He
cautioned that the lift station project should receive adequate inspection
before the work is approved.
The Council approved the Muscatine Avenue Project proposal. The Director
of Public Works is to consider the extension onto lst Avenue.
The Administrative Assistant is to send a copy of the Department of Trans-
portation Agreement to Frieda Hieronymus.
The Wayor's Youth Employment Program will begin next week. Linda Schreiber
will contact department heads to determine the number of jobs available for
this program. It was requested that specific information be made available
regarding the hours and duties of each position.
Linda Schreiber was asked to contact the Planning and Zoning Commission and ask
that the City Council be invited to their meeting when the tree planting plan
is to be discussed.
Employee identification was discussed. Linda Schreiber will put together a
list of what the City is actually going to do and discuss this with the City Manager.
The Director `of Parks and Recreation commented that several employees had asked
about a tax shelter for employees and a payroll deduction for the same. June
Higdon and Linda Schreiber will investigate into this matter.
COMMENCE_
CNIC CEMER p0 E N
E5 S rte' • =`+GiDN ST.
• ; !/���/V W IOWA CITU. IO WA 521G0
i
e � e 019.35e-1800
•
,,qq CRf; loft:
- Iw NE10' -
NOTICE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF IOWA CITY IS CONSIDERING APPOINTMENTS TO
THE FOLLOWING BOARD:
UNITED ACPION FOR YOUTH BOARD
Two vacancies - One-year terms
July 13, 1976 - June 30, 1977
United Action for Youth is an agency which plans and conducts
an Outreach Program to locate youth who are alienated from the
traditional approaches to youth services and helps them identify
their individual needs and facilitates meeting the same in the
best interest for the individual and the community,
Iowa City appointed members of Boards and Commissions must be
qualified voters of the City of Iowa City.
This appointment will be made at the September 28, 1976, Council
meeting at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers. Persons interested
in being considered for these positions should contact the City
Clerk, Civic Center, 410 East Washington. Application forms are
available from the Clerk's office upon request.
DATE: August 25, 1976
TO: City Council
FROM: City DIanager 1-/
RE: Transit Anniversary
September 1 is the fifth anniversary of Iota City's transit system.
bus rides on this date has been a suggested method of promoting the system Free
and thanking our patrons who have supported the buses. Over 6 1/2 million
Passengers rode the bus, traveling 2 1/3 million miles during the past five
years.
The City took over the transit operations five years ago in order
a bus system to Iowa City residents and University students. to provide
An estimated loss of $800 revenue will result from this promotion. Council
approval is necessary to suspend fares, if there is interest.
172:
r r
IQi'rfA ("
r
�I
r;1�77Yh��
`r/A
Tentative Agenda
Planning and Zoning Commission
Iowa City, Iowa
August 30, 1976 -- 7:30 p.m.
City Manel;erls Conference Room
A. Call to Order
B. Roll Call
C. Consideration of minutes of meetings:
I. Plinutes of August 16, 1976
2. Minutes of August 19, 1976
D. Zoning Items:
1. Z-7611. Application submitted by Heritage Systems, Scott Barker,
Attorney, for rezoning a tract of land, R3A to PC. Located on
800 block of Rest Benton Street. Date filed: 7/26/76; 45 -day
limitation: 9/9/76.
2. Z-7612. Application submitted by American College Testing
Program, Inc., Robert W. Jansen, Attorney, for rezoning two
connected tracts of land, RIA to ORP. 'The two land tracts
measure 8 acres and 40 acres, both more or less, and are
located south of Old Dubuque Road and cast of Highway kl.
Date filed: 8/17/76. 45 -day limitation: 10/1/76.
3. Z-7613. Application submitted by Plum Grove Acres, Inc.,
for rezoning a tract of land known as Court Bill -Scott Boulevard
Addition, Part 5; Edward 11. Lucas, Attorney. Rezoning requested
is for:
a. RIA to RIB
b. RIA to R3A
C. R3A to RIB
Located west of Scott Boulevard and north of eastern extension of
Washington Street. Date filed: 8/17/76. 45 -day limitation:
10/1/76.
E. Subdivision Items:
I. S-7616. Woodland lulls Addition, preliminary plat, located approxi-
mately two miles north of Interstate 80 and east of Highway xl in
Section 30 of Newton Township i.n Johnson County. Submitted by
Schintler Bros., Ralph Neuzil, Attorney. Date filed: 6/18/76.
45 -day limitation: waived.
2. S-7624. Woodland Ilills Addition, final plat. See S-7616 above.
Date filed: 8/6/76. 45 -clay limitation: 9/20/76.
3. S-7621. Court Hill -Scott Boulevard, Part 5, preliminary plat.
Submitted by Plum Grove Acres, Inc., Edward Lucas, Attorney.
Located west of Scott Boulevard and north of eastern extension
Of Washington Street. Date filed: 7/22/76. 45 -day limitation:
9/5/76.
-2-
4. S-7622. Heritage Square, a Planned Commercial (PC), Large Scale
Non -Residential Development (LSNRD), submitted by Heritage Systems,
Scott Barker, Attorney. located on 800 block of Nest Benton
Street. Date filed: 7/26/76. 45 -day limitation: 9/9/76.
S. S-7623. Village Green South, preliminary plat, submitted by Village
Green South, Inc., Charles A. Mullen, Attorney. Located cast of
Dover Street and south of Parkviow and extends south to Rock Island
R.R. ROW. Referred to Parks and Recreation Commission. Date filed:
8/3/76_ 45 -day limitation: 9/17/76.
6. S-7626. Eastdale Mall, preliminary plat, submitted by Dave Cahill
and Pat (larding, Don Hoy, Attorney. Located on cast side of First
Avenue north of Lower Muscatine Road. Date filed: 8/19/76. 45 -day
limitation: 1.0/3/76.
7. S-7625. Orchard Court Subdivision, preliminary Planned Area
Development (PAD), submitted by Mary and Alvin Streb, Robert M.
Downer, Attorney. Located west of a northern extension of Orchard
Street and south of Rock Island R.R. ROW. Date filed: 8/18/76.
45 -day limitation: 10/2/76.
8. S-7627. Orchard Court Subdivision, final plat. See S-7625 above.
Date filed: 8/19/76. 45 -day limitation: 10/3/76.
9. S-7628. A F,11 Apartments. Revised preliminary and final Large
Scale Residential Development (LSRD) and Planned Area Development
(PAD). COR -DOR Apartment Site -- Lot -23, Part 1, MacBride Addition.
Date filed: 8/25/76. 4S -clay limitation: 10/9/76.
F. Vacation Item:
V-7602. Request for vacation of McLean Street between Hutchinson and
Lexington Avenues. Submitted by Robert N. Staley. Date filed: 8/12/76.
G. Comprehensive Plan Items:
.Referred back to Planning and Zoning Commission by City Council of Iowa
City.
Consideration of the following:
1. An ordinance creating Section 8.10.40 of the Municipal Code of Iowa
City, Iowa, which would establish regulations for the planting and
preservation of trees.
2. Adoption of a Tree Planting Plan as an element of the Comprehensive
Plan of Iowa City.
3. An ordinance repealing sections of the Forestry Ordinance (3.38) and
aniendi.ng same in order to make consistent the requirements for the
placement of trees in the Forest Ordinance (3.38) and the Zoning
Ordinance (8.10).
r1
U
H. Other Item:
-3-
0
Consideration of proposed ordinance establishing requirements for sub-
dividing lots into two parcels.
I. ]'ending item to be considered for deletion:
5-7510. Large Scale Residential Development -- Preliminary and Final
Plats. Housing for Elderly Project on northeast corner of Dubuque
and Court Streets. Submitted by Old Capitol Associates. Date filed:
7/2/75. 45 -day limitation: waived.
J. Discussion Item:
HyVec Food Stores will have a representative present to discuss placement
of a supermarket.
K. Other Business
L. Adjournment
Regular meeting -- September 2, 1976
Ll
SUBJECT:
the present ACT site
STAFF
ANALYSIS:
0
STAFF REPORT
Planning anA, Zoning.Commission
September 2, 1976'
Z-7612. Application submitted by
American College Testing Program,
Inc. to rezone a tract of land from
R1A to ORP, located southeast of
Date filed: 8/17/76. 45 -day limitation: 10/1/76.
range of 2 to 45 percent
development.
The request area of approximately
48 acres is undeveloped and zoned
R1A. The topography of the area
is hilly to steep with a slope
Much of the area cannot support extensive urban
The rezoning is being requested to provide American College Testing Program,
Inc. with more space to expand their present facilities located at Highway 1
and Interstate 80 in Iowa City. This site was rezoned from an R1A classifi-
cation to a new Office and Research Park classification which was approved
by the City Council August 6, 1973. The primary purpose of the ORP Zone
is to allow for the development of areas in the City that would be occupied
by restricted low intensity research uses. These uses are service industrial
uses which include basic research in physical, biological and social sciences.
Although research uses such as ACT are industry -related, they can be made
compatible with residential uses when adequate buffering is provided.
The proposed location of the ACT site which is located near the present
facility is consistent with the preliminary Comprehensive Plan land use
intensity policies presently being prepared by the Planning Staff. The
intensity policy which covers the subject area and its immediate vicinity
states that only moderate to low intensity uses should be allowed to develop
in this area with a gradation of intensities extending south from the
Highway 1 -Interstate 80 interchange.
The primary concern of the staff with the rezoning request is the location
of the ACT site in the center of an undeveloped area that may someday develop
as a low to medium density residential neighborhood. Planning standards
indicate that research and office facilities, restricted by the ORP Zone,
can be incorporated into residential neighborhoods. With adequate controls
these types of facilities often contribute additional open space and generally
are not inimical to residential use. Their location, access and size,
however, must be considered relative to the surrounding area as well as the
neighborhood itself.
As mentioned above, the development and location of moderate to low intensity
uses such as the subject request is desirable in the area. Nevertheless,
research and office facilities should be located, if possible, in a more
capacious area either near Highway 1 and Interstate 80 or near the boundaries
of an established neighborhood. If these facilities are placed centrally in
an area that may in the near future develop as a residential neighborhood,
0 0
-2-
they may become an obstacle to a more desirable development pattern and
to free circulation within the area.
STAFF Based upon the foregoing analysis,
RECOMMENDATION: it is the staff's recommendation
that consideration of the rezoning
time
ferred
as the applicant, Commission and staff canrdiscussbtheepossibilitylofuch selecting
an alternative development pattern and zoning scheme that would better fit
the needs of the applicant and the City.
STAFF The staff reaffirms the use of the
CONVENT: neighborhood concept for the planning
of new and developed areas of the
City. t
recognizes the elementary school/park playground asltheoncecentralrfocuslof
the neighborhood. The use of this concept will allow for areas of the City
to be planned in a manner more consistent with community as well as neighbor-
hood needs.
I
t
9 6PO 12010 i$QO
Y
FILE
NUMBER:
NORTH
GRAPHIC SCALE: 1"z660
I
t
0
0
STAFF REPORT
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 30, 1976
SUBJECT: Z-7613. Application submitted by
Plum Grove Acres, Inc. to rezone a
tract of land referred to as Court
Part 5 from R1A to RIB and R3A and from R3Alto RIBt(seeulevard attacheddZoning,
map),
located west of Scott Boulevard and north of Washington Street. Date filed:
8/17/76. 45 -day limitation: 10/1/76.
STAFF
ANALYSIS• The subject property consists of
about 9.6 acres of vacant land.
As mentioned previously in Staff
August 2,
1976) the request area is located in the soutthrRalstonlCreekowatershed.
New development in this area will have little impact upon the water run-
off problems. New single family developments zoned RIB are found to the
north and south of the request area. An arterial street, Scott Boulevard,
abuts the property to the east.
The present zoning scheme of the subject property is not conducive to desirable
land use patterns as high density 113A zoned land abuts low density areas zoned
RIA. The proposed zoning would do little to improve the present zoning scheme,
and may create a more undesirable zoning pattern for the following reasons:
(1) the rezoning request would increase the area of the 113A Zone by more than
one acre, (2) allow for the lineal development of an extensive area of high
density residential uses along an arterial street, and (3) the request would
permit low density single family areas to front upon a high density multi -family
development.
In addition to the above, the staff reiterates its opinion stated previously
in Staff Report Z-7608, dated July 1, 1976, (application submitted by Court
Crest, Inc.) that future proposals for 113A zoning should be delayed until
such time as the forthcoming Comprehensive Plan or new and revised zoning
regulations for the City are completed.
STAFF Based upon the foregoing analysis,
RECOMENDATION: the staff recommends that the area
requested to be rezoned from RIA
to 113A
have no objection to rezoning the areas requestedbtodbelrezon defromfRlA tod
RIB and from 113A to RIB.
STAFF
CODMNT: The Staff recommends the use of
the Planned Area Development concept
for the development of the subject
proe analysis
above, the present zoning scheme of the area isrundesirabletioAn areatdevelop-
ment plan for the subject property would help provide for a more desirable
zoning and development pattern.
REQUEST
AREA
4 j
0
d2RTH
1200Q 600 1800
GRAPHIC SCALE : 1"-- 660'
FILE
NUMBER:
.Z-703
6T.
-
It
d2RTH
1200Q 600 1800
GRAPHIC SCALE : 1"-- 660'
FILE
NUMBER:
.Z-703
0
•
STAFF REPORT
Planning and Zoning Conmission
SUB-) ECT:September 2, 1976
S-7624. Final plat of Woodland Hills
subdivision, located two miles north
of 1-80, cast of Highway 1 in Section
30 of Newport Township in Johnson
County. Date filed: 8/6/74; 45 -day
STA FF limitation: 9/20/76,
ANALYSIS: The subject 19.2 acre subdivision
submitted by Ronald and ,James Schintler
consists of ]l large lots of one
cre ordivision is located north of the corporate3limits ofrIowa Cite- Ibis sub-
y.Accoring
section 409.19 of the Iowa Code, City approval is required for a subdivisiono
within two miles of the City limits.
1110 subject plat is submitted in two parts
a subdivision. While a -- as an auditor's plat and as
tracts or parcels, n auditor's plat is a subdivision of land into lots,
.i.t is requirod by the County Auditor only for recordation
Purposes when such lots cannot b0 described except by metes and bounds
description. 'Me front five lots included in auditor's plat No. 29, as
illustrated on the subdivision plat, were prov.iously sold by metes and bounds
description. it is the County Attorney's opinion, therefore, that an auditor's
plat should be submitted for approval by the County and also by the City.
In regulations this case it would be most difficult
reto enforce the City's subdivision
upon an already platted area since ownership lines have been
established and the subdivider obviously does not have title to the lots
in question. Through negotiation with the
has acquired rights lot owners, however, the subdivider
to the private street within the auditor's plat, for
dedication to the City, upon annexation by the City for public access to the
lower six lots of Woodland Hills subdivision. The subdivider has submitted
an assessment waiver for reconstruction of the
Addition to comply with the City's street within Woodland Hills
s
p0cificatioupon annexation by
t
City. An assessment waiver has not, however, been submitted for thatportion
Of tile -street treet within the auditor's plat since they do not have title to the
adjoining lots. It would appear, however, that the value of these lots
would support reconstruction of that portion of the street by special assess-
ment procedures.
The Planning and Engineering
found it to be .in general Divisions have reviewed the subject plat and
for approval compliance with the revised preliminary plat submitted
with the final plat. Discrepancies with Chapter 9.so of the
Dlunicipal Code were noted and the following changes should be made.1. The lot markers should be 24" in length.
2. the plat should include signatures from the utility companies indicating
their approval of the location of utility casements.
0
-2-
0
3. The plat should be drawn 1" = So' on
a sheet no larger than 24"
x 361.
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
It is the staff's recommendation
that consideration of the subject
plat be deferred pending submittal
and correction of the information
requested above and comments from
the Legal Staff.
STAFF
COM --ENT:
It is the City Engineer's ineer's opinion
that all county subdivisions within
the jurisdiction of Iowa City should
Subdivision Code including the construction
meet all the requirements of the
of streets which meet City
specifications. Their concern is that upon annexation of such subdivision
the City would not be financially capable
of reconstructing streets through
assessment procedures since the City must
"put up the front end money".
0
I NEWPORT �l
TOWNSHIP - - - -
1
%/o
--11 IN
?114v�
Z8
STAFF REPORT
Planning and Zoning Commission
SUBJECT: September 2, 1976
S-7626. Preliminary plat of Eastdale
Mall located southeast of First
Avenue and northeast of Lower
Muscatine Road;
STAFF date filed: 8/19/76;
45 -day limitation: 10/3/76.
ANALYSIS: Mr. Dave Cahill and Mr. Pat Harding
propose to subdivide the 10.06 acre
tract previously owned by Victor
commercial development of stores under separateetalsownershipinto 13linterconnectedts for an ebyated
an open pedestrian mall. The conceptual plan has merit and should prove to
be very successful.
A major obstacle in what would appear as a rather unique planned commercial
development is a requirement of the Zoning Code that all lots front directly
upon a public street or upon an officially approved place.
The oard of
submitted Adjustment
on August 4, 1976, tted to designatethe drigranted approval of an application
driveways upon which the lots would front, as
Officially approved places. A staff analysis of that application was presented
in a Staff Report dated August 4, 1976 which is attached as a supplement to
this Staff Report.
The Planning and Engineering Divisions reviewed the subject plat and noted
several discrepancies with the Subdivision Code enumerated as follows:
I. The plat should be designated as a replat of all (or part) of Lot 2
of Ohls Subdivision.
2. The original lot lines of Lot 2 of Ohls Subdivision should be indicated.
3. The subdivision should indicate 13 lots and be. numbered in numerical order.
4. Private drives should be labelled as officially approved places.
5. The chord bearing and distance, radius and the arc length should be
indicated on the plat and in the description for the curve in the
boundary along First Avenue.
6. Easements should be shown for all existing and proposed public utilities.
7. A graphic scale should be provided.
8. The width of the right-of-way and paved surface of existing streets abutting
the subdivision should be indicated.
9. The lot dimensions of Lots 1, 11 and 12 should be shown.
0
-2-
•
10. A signature block should be provided for the City Clerk's later
certification of the approval of the plat.
11. The distance to the southeast boundary line of an existing sanitary
sewer paralleling the boundary line should be indicated.
12. The monument at the southeast corner of Section 14 should be re-established
with a permanent monument offset from an existing storm sewer.
13. The words "to be enlarged" should be added to the note "24 inch concrete
pipe" shown at the termination of the existing storm sewer through the
subdivision.
STAFF
RECOHMENDATION: It is the Staff's recommendation
that approval of the subject plat
be deferred pending revision of
the above noted discrepancies.
0
RIA
REQUEST
AREA
B
M1
9200pFILE
GRAPHIC SCALE : 9"= N BER:
--- 66�' S- 7626
.,
R3A:
MERC
I
r]
I1®
•
STAFF REPORT
Board of Adjustment
August 4, 1976
SUBJECT: V-7607. Application submitted by
Mr. Dave Cahill and Mr. Pat
Harding to permit lots at 1705
First Avenue to front upon a
private drive or an "officially approved place" in lieu of upon a public
street; date filed: 7/14/76.
STAFF According to Section 8.10.3A.48
ANALYSIS: of the Zoning Code, a lot is
"a parcel of land, adequate for
occupancy by a use permitted
under this Chapter (8.10), which provides the yards, area, and off-street
parking herein required under this Chapter, and which fronts directly
upon a public street or upon an officially approved place". A lot is
also a parcel for the purpose of transfer of ownership or building develop-
ment as established in an approved and recorded subdivision plat. The
applicants propose to subdivide part of a 9.47 acre tract located north
of Lower Muscatine Road and east of First Avenue (see attached plan)
into lots for disposition to potential commercial buyers for development
in accordance with a preconceived development plan. The lots, however,
could not be subdivided without frontage upon a public street unless
the Board of Adjustment "interprets the provisions of the Zoning Code
in such a way as will riot be contrary to public interest where owing to
special conditions a literal enforcement of the provisions of this
Code will result'in unnecessary hardship, and in such a way that the
spirit of the Code shall be observed and substantial justice done
(8.10.28H.1.D)". The Board's interpretation of the ordinance would
constitute permission to allow the lots to front upon an officially approved
place. This analysis, then, will address the "special conditions" and
"public interest" in this case to determine whether there is sufficient
grounds in granting such approval.
The applicants, purchasers of the Victor Metals estate, propose to convert
the existing building into an enclosed mall and, in addition, to construct an
open mail with stores linked to the enclosed mall by an exterior pedestrian walkway.
In shopping center developments, this is the most desirable method of
providing an integration of various types of retail stores for customer
convenience. Such planned developments can most effectively be accomplished
if the shopping center is'under single ownership. That is not to say,
however, that a planned shopping center cannot be developed under multiple
ownership if tight restrictive covenants are established..
The applicant's dilemma is the development of a planned shopping center
under the multiple ownership of lots having frontage upon a public street.
They have been informed by the City that cars would not be allowed to
back out from parking stalls onto a public street, and it was suggested
that all parking spaces and driveways be private.
The proposal of a planned commercial shopping center incorporating the
design features contemplated would definitely be in the public interest,
and this situation is sufficiently unique that relief would be warranted.
STAFF Based upon the above analysis,
RECOMENDATION: it is the staff's recommendation
that the Zoning Code be inter-
preted in such a way as will
not be contrary to public interest where owing to special conditions by
permitting lots to front upon a driveway designated as an officially approved
place.
4.
JUL 14 19!6
D
ABBIE STOLFUS
CITY CLERK
APPEAL TO THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
DATE July 14, 1976
We, Dave Cahill and Pat Harding of 1705 1st. Ave. Iowa City ,
having met with the City Planning Staff, Traffic Engineer and the
Planning and Zoning Commission for discussions and their recommend-
ations regarding the desirability of dedicated streets versus
private drives in the proposed Eastdale Mall Addition to Iowa City.
The proposed Eastdale Mall adjacent to the southeast side of
First Avenue, the former Victor Metals site, would accommodate
retail businesses and professional services.
The traffic generated by the development would require parking
/j spaces in the proposed streets in addition to off-street parking.
`J The City Staff, considering the importance of traffic movement
on First Avenue, along with additional street maintenance on the
proposed streets and the needs of the developer, advised the
Owners of the proposed Eastdale Mall to provide access to the
development via private drives from First Avenue and Lower Muscatine
Road.
Therefore it would be necessary to deviate from the requirement
of the Zoning Ordinance wherein each lot must front on a public
street.
Therefore in accordance with Section 8.10.28.H.1.D of the Zoning
Ordinance, "To interpret the provisions of this Chapter in such a
way as will not be contrary to public interest where owing to
special conditions a literal enforcement of the provisions of this
Chapter will result in unnecessary hardship, and in such a way that
the spirit of this Chapter shall be observed and substantial justice
done," it will be necessary for the Board of Adjustment to interpret
and if necessary, grant a variance of lots fronting on public streets.
0 0
STAFF REPORT
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 2, 1976
SUBJECT: S-7628. Application submitted by
Gary Albertson and Gary Hamdorf for
approval of a preliminary and final
Large Scale Residential Development
plan and Planned Area Development plan of AP,H Apartments; date filed:
8/25/76; 4S -day limitation: 10/9/76.
STAFF On May 18, 1976, the City Council
ANALYSIS: had approved a preliminary and final
LSRD and PAD plan of Cor -Dor Apart-
ments, a revised LSRD and PAD plan
of a portion of Lot 23 of Placbride Addition, Part 1. The subject
application for development of a 36 unit apartment complex east of
Westgate Street and north of Calvin Court is a revision of the plans
approved for Cor -Dor Apartments.
According to Section 8.10.2011 of the Zoning Code, any changes to an
approved final plan, including changes in building arrangements must
"be considered and voted upon by the Planning and Zoning Commission
and the City Council prior to issuing building permits related to such
changes" (whatever that means). The Staff frankly questioned whether,
in this case, an owner is again subjected to the submittal of a revised
LSRD and PAD plan meeting all of the requirements and procedures because
of a modification in the location or arrangement of the building in a
LSRD and PAD plan previously approved.
The only changes incorporated in the subject combined plan are the
following:
1. A decrease in the number of buildings from four to three,
2. A consequential change in the location of the three buildings,
3. The owner,
4. The owner's attorney, and
5. The name of the development.
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
It is the Staff's recommendation
that the subject revised LSRD and
PAD plan be approved as presented.
STAFF Upon the recognition that the City's
COMENT: LSRD and PAD ordinances need to be
revised because of such problems the
Staff is currently in the process
of constructing a new PAD ordinance to essentially reduce the "red tape"
involved and encourage development via the planned concept intended.
R AREA ST I I FIRE I , , � � -j
Q_FILE
0
SUBJECT:
�J
STAFF REPORT
Planning and
September 2,
Zoning Commission
1976
V-7602. Application submitted by
Mr. Robert N. Staley to vacate
McLean Street between Hutchinson
and Lexington Avenues; date filed:
8/12/76.
STAFF
ANALYSIS: The reasons for the subject request
are presented in a letter from the
isplicant attachedotohthistStaffncil Reportich
Hu indicated in the letter, the street was never constructed between
Hutchinson and Lexington Avenues nor does it exist between Magowan and
Hutchinson Avenues. The right-of-way is presently used by abutting
property owners as if it was part of their property. Nevertheless,
the iasis for considering the vacation of street right-of-way depends
upon whether or not it may eventually be needed for access to abutting
property and to the general area.
The Manville heights area was subdivided according to the old traditional
"gridiron"
street pattern. Long continuous straight north -south a
west streets are not uncommon in this area. Fortunately,
the many disadvanta es of and east -
with short- g such a street pattern, p in recognition rof
i
curvilinear streets. p development is now occurring
act
constructed, it obviously wasn't needed,fmuchttottheLdesireean roftrwas esidentsr
in the area who are perfectly content with the inconvenience
travel patterns in any direction. It also is of direct
not surprising, that many
other streets within the area have been vacated resulting in a short -straight
street pattern.
Although the vacation of McLean Street would not provide direct access to
all property, as it now doesn't,
prohibited. there is no property to which access would
would severely And, the construction of McLean Street now or in the future
woeffect an otherwise complacent high quality residential area.
STAFF
RECOhC.1ENDATION:
STAFF
COMMENT:
extremely opposed to opening i.t up
indicative of the desire for short
It is the Staff's recommendation that
McLean Street be vacated between
Hutchinson and Lexington Avenues.
Hutchinson Avenue has been barricaded
in the approximate vicinity of McLean
Street because of a deep ravine.
Residents on Hutchinson Avenue are
to through traffic which is rather
discontinuous streets.
211 Highland Drive
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
August 12, 1976
L E
The Honorable Mayor Mary Neuhauser and City Council Mc3nbess AUG 12 1976 I«<---I���
Iowa City, Iowa . B B 1 E S T O L F U S
Dear Mayor Neuhauser and Council Members: CITY CLERK
I recently purchased a lot .in the Manville addition subdivision
which faces Hutchinson Avenue right of way on its east side and McLean
Street right of way on its south side. I plan to build a one family
hare on this lot.
I am respectfully submitting a request to vacate McLean Street
between Hutchinson and Lexington Avenues. I wish to have the 300
foot length of McLean Street right of way vacated for two reasons.
First, the City planning and zoning regulations require that a
house built on the lot which I o=wn must be set back 30 feet from the
north edge of McLean Street right of way. This set back requirement
would endanger the existence of a very large oak tree situated about
50 feet from the north edge of McLean Street in the middle of the lot.
Vacating McLean Street would allow for the construction of a house
without endangering any of the large trees on the lot which I own.
I have attached to the vacating application a map of the trees located
on both the lot I own and on the McLean Street right of way. I do
not wish to disturb any of the large, healthy trees located on the
lot I own as well as on the McLean Street right of way.
The second reason for the vacating request is to allow the
Construction of a driveway between the south east corner of the lot
I own and Hutchinson Avenue.
I£ the McLean Street right of way were vacated, I would want to
Purchase half of the street along my property line.
I have visited with the other property owners adjacent to McLean
Street right of way between Lexington and Hutchinson Avenues. None of
these Property owners wishes to have McLean Street built in this
location.
On this 300 foot length of McLean Street right of way, I have
counted 11 very large healthy hardwood trees which tower 100 feet into
the air. The preservation of these trees is in itself a good reason
for the City to vacate this street.
I thank you for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely
yours,
Robert-N. Staley
n
u
1. Legal description of the lot which I awn:
0
Cpm--ncing at the Southeast corner of block 2 in Manville
addition Johnson County, Iowa according to the plat thereof
-recorIowa; thence
in plat book 1, page 149, Plat Record of Johnson County
thence North 80 feet, then 1,6bst 150 feet, then South 80
feet, thence East 150 feet to the place of beginning (outlined
in red on the attached gyp)
2. part of McLean Street for which vacating is requested:
A 300foot length of Mean Street which is 50 feet wide
and located between the west right of way of Hutchinson Avenue -
and the east right of way of Lexington Avenue (marked blared
arl:ow on the attached map) .
19
oLF0
AUG 12 76
.31E STOLFUS
CITY CLERK
P-P0.�T11�
ni
NORTH
r
ROAD
ra�I
L
w
S
Q
RIVER
Q 64P0 1200 18Q0
GRAPHIC SCALE : 1"= 660'
z
Z
I-
X
W
U
I—
ST
FILE
NUMBER:
V-7602
c
c
foot
0
-hidkory
0
wi.UOw
IU E
CONTRACT FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES
FOR THE CITY -UNIVERSITY URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT I (IOWA R-14)
BY AND BETWEEN THE
CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA
AND
ZUCHELLI, HUNTER & ASSOCIATES, INC.
THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into as of the day of
1976, by and between the City of Iowa City, Iowa (here-
inafter referred to as "City"), and Zuchelli, )(unter & Associates,
Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant"), a corporation
incorporated in the State of Maryland.
W I T N E S S E T Fl T H A T:
WHEREAS, the City, a municipal corporation of the State of Iowa,
is acting for the purpose of replacing and rebuilding slum, blighted,
and other areas pursuant to state and local law; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to carry out a program for the rede-
velopment of the City -University Urban Renewal Project I (hereinafter
referred to as the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the City requires the services of a consultant to
assist in predevelopment programming for and marketing certain land
in the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to engage the Consultant to obtain
certain services in connection with the aforementioned subject.
r�
u
-2-
0
NOW, TIIImn'ou, the City and the Consultant- for the considera-
tion and under the conditions hereinafter set forth, do agree as
follows:
Section 1. Employment of Consultant. The City hereby engages
the Consultant and the Consultant hereby agrees to
perform the services hereinafter set forth.
Section 2. Scope of Services. The Consultant shall do, perform
and carry out the services as specified below in a
satisfactory and proper manner with the understanding
that the City shall (1) through its attorney be respon-
sible for legal•aspects of the Consultant's work spe-
cified in this Scope of Services; (2) perform all
required public works and engineering analysis and
costing; (3) carry out reuse appraisals; and (4) assist
the Consultant in and perform particular work items
within tasks as specified in Part B below.
A. Objectives
The Consultant shall assist the City in developing; a marketable
reuse Plan for unsold Project land, including establishment of a
disposition strategy or method, preparation of implementation
and funding schedules, identification of potential Project
developers, and establishment of redevelopment controls.
The Consultant- shall also provide technical services to and
zssist the City in negotiating, by solicitation of offers, the
sale or lease of the parcels of land designated in the Plan
(hereinafter referred to as the Sites) to a qualified redeveloper
- 3 -
or redevelopers for development in accordance with the Plan, at
the earliest possible date.
The particular Sites covered in this Scope of Services are
Block 93, parcels 1, 2, 3; Block 84, parcel 1; Block 83, parcel 1;
Block 101, parcel 2; Block 81, parcel 1; Block 82, parcel 1; Block
102, parcels 1, 2, 3, 4; Block 65, parcels 2, 3, 4; Block 64,
parcel 1; Block 103, parcel 3.
Assistance shall include, but not be limited to, technical
services to enable the City to:
a) evaluate the present reuse program for the Project and
confirm it or make changes to ensure marketability,
indicating the character and extent of reuses;
b) package the Sites for disposition, as individual Sites,
or groups of Sites with legal feasibility established;
C) devise a scheduling and staging of disposition and/or
development- of the Sites either separately or in groups
in a manner consistent with the Plan and the policies
and powers of the City;
�) prepare a funding schedule related to the disposition
schedule indicating the timing requirements for public
funds for the Project and potential funding sources;
e) develop a Disposition Program, alternatives and methods
therefore and develop a Prospectus(es) in connection
therewith, if appropriate;
f) present information supplemental to the Prospectuses)
as required or desired preparatory to the offering or
negotiation of the Sites for disposition;
g) establish a process for review of potential redevel-
opers' submissions and the selection of the best sub-
missions) for these Sites and assist in the review of
submissions and selection and selection of redeveloper(s).
The Scope of Services is divided into three phases. The
first, lasting five to eight weeks from contract execution, is
designed to allow a decision to be made on the method of Site dis-
position (bidding procedures, relative to individual or combined
Sites). The second phase, about three months in duration, is a
detailed disposition programming stage in which specialized market-
ability investigations to reaffirm that a proper mix of reuses
are undertaken, along with scheduling of disposition activ-
ities, designation of public and private participants, and setting
forth of financing and funding requirements. The purpose of this
phase is to establish an achievable disposition program for the
Project and to resolve remaining questions relating to market,
timing, and funding feasibility. The third phase will include
preliminary identification of potential developers and preparation
of site development standards and controls and solicitation docu-
ments for redevelopers, assistance to the City in marketing activ-
ities to inform prospective redevelopers of Project investment
opportunities, presentations to redevelopers, and review and eval-
uation of developer proposals.
In alljthe three phases are scheduled to be accomplished within
nine months and to bring the City to the point of selecting a
developer(s) for Sites to be marketed. Negotiations and execution
of a Land Disposition Agreement can then be completed in the fol-
lowing two to three months.
The work tasks are arranged to allow several checkpoint
sessions in which decisions can be made on proceeding with sub-
sequent tasks. Three decision points will be provided for during
the first two phases of contract performance, following the pre-
para Lion of (1) an integrated work schedule for the Project, (2)
a recommended disposition method, and (3) a public improvements
Program and funding schedule. At each of these three checkpoints
to occur in approximately the first, second and fourth or fifth
months of contract performance, the City Council shall have the
Option of directing the Consultant to continue work, to continue
work under a modified Contract reflecting special problems that
may arise, or to terminate work in accordance with Section 6,
Paragraph E. Decisions to terminate work shall be based on feas-
ibility issues raised at each checkpoint session by the Consultant
and/or City Council members. Similarly, two checkpoints will
occur in the third phase, following (1) preparation of a ?rospectus
to be issued to potential developers describing investment oppor-
tunities, and (2) recommendations on developer selection.
IL is expressly understood that an objective of the Scope
of Services is to retain in as much substance as possible the current
adopted Urban Renewal Plan, consistent with marketability, dispo-
sition feasibility, and legal findings of the Consultant. Should —
deficiencies in the current Reuse Plan be found by the Consultant
to be so great as to necessitate substantial Plan revision and/or
the preparation of a new Environmental Impact Statement, it is
understood that this Contract shall be renegotiated as to Scope
Of Services, Time of Performance, and Compensation. Such deter-
urination shall be made at the end
be based of Task 4, Part B below and shall
upon notification in writing to the City by the Consultant.
B. Detailed Scope of c•
=erviaes
"'he following tasks are structured
t
Of the state
Conthe responsibilities
Both
sulCant and those of the city for work to be performed.
the or
and the City shall be bound by these task
assignments.
PHASE l: DISPOSITION METHOD
;
TI10D
T,lsk 1• Pro2are Integrated Work
Schedule
The Consultant will prepare a work schedule
in modified for this Contract
PERT chart form showing the timing and duration
Of and interrelationship among, all tasks described in this
Scope of Services. Further, responsibilities
parti-
cipants .in the work of all Parti_
process will be indicated, as well as
the timing of checkpoint meetings with the City Council.
At the completion of
will be held with this task, the first checkpoint meeting
the City Council
the schedule will be Pre-
sented, and modifications made where appropriate as a result
Of Council review.
City Staff Responsibilit
Y- Advise Consultant upon request
on matters of timing relative to the schedule, review sche-
dule, and participate in checkpoint meeting.
Task 2. Assess Marketability _ y of Current Reuse Plan
As a Prerequisite to structuring alternative methods of
disP°sing of Project Land, the Consultant must first deter-
mine that the Project lands proposed for disposition are
marketable. Factors affecting marketability include econ-
omic support for the
types and amounts of development
allowed
•
or sought and the location of uses now reflected in the
Land Use Plan, as well as the individual Site configurations.
Sufficient investigation will take place in this task to
confirm or question marketability; more detailed economic
analysis needed for structuring disposition financing terms
will be performed subsequently, if required.
In determining marketability the Consultant will examine the
current Urban Renewal Plan, previous and recent market studies,
the development proposal of the previously designated rede-
veloper and other relevant documents to understand redevelop-
ment potentials under the present Plan. Interviews will also
be conducted with key public officials and private entrepre-
neurs in the real estate and development field to assess
marketability. •rhe access to and location and configuration of
each Site for intended use and any other constraints affecting
the use of the Sites, such as utility services, parking, ped-
estrian ways, compatibility with neighboring uses and the like,
will also be examined to assess acceptance to potential devel-
opers; the Consultant will rely on past experience and inter-
views in these assessments.
Finally, to the extent deemed necessary for this task and
phase of the Scope, field work and analysis will be performed
to update prior market work where it is judged that current
information and interviews are insufficient to establish
market support.
Following this analysis, conclusions will be made on an over-
all Project- basis and on a Site by Site basis as to the
marketability of uses and Sites
as currently
gested modifications Proposed. Sug-
made will be --
where deemed necessary. Care
wil] be taken to will
suggested changes to the Urban Renewal
P:1an, consistent with market
feasibility, since it is recognized
that a substantial revision
of the Plan and the time-consuming.
Preparation of
a new Environmental Impact Statement is to be
avoided if at all possible.
City staff SPonsibilit
--� Y= Provide background briefings upon
request; furnish
a complete data
include sheet and maps on each Site to
information to be requested b
affect.in Y the Consultant on factors
g disposition (such as site size
and carr utility service, etc.)-
Y out any field work and tabulation of data, under the
Consultant's direction
necessary to the satisfactory completion
Of this task including the provision
required public of information relative to
site improvements and
Tusk 3. Structure and Evaluate similar features.
Disposition Options
Based on the results
Of Task 2, the Consultant will propose
alternative methods for Project disposition. Considered will be
the possibilities of complete disposition to a single
investor/develo
per, offerings of several conbined Sites to
facilitate coordinated development of compatible Properties,
sale of each Site on an
individual basis, or a combination of
the last two. Potential
S of disposition will also be
addressed. The alternative dis
uated Position methods will be eval-
for marketability, ease of development, dispos
tuning considerations, ition perceived developer interest and
similar factors relating to the
future character and quality
Of the development. They will also be evaluated from the
0
0
standpoint of legal feasibility based on Iowa's Chapter 403
Urban Renewal Law and any other relevant state, local or
federal law.
City Staff Responsibility: Perform, through the city attorney,
a legal evaluation of the feasibility of alternative disposi-
tion methods proposed by the Consultant. Assess implications
of alternatives as to changes that will be required to the
Urban Renewal Plan. Present findings and conclusions to the
Consultant in memorandum form.
Task 4. Recommend Preferred Disposition Method
Following the development feasibility and legal feasibility
analyses, the Consultant will recommend a preferred approach,
and present this recommendation and the basis for it to the
City Council_ at a second checkpoint meeting. The meeting will
take place five to eight weeks from Contract execution, if
no unforeseen delays occur beyond the control of the Consul-
tant. Exhibits necessary to facilitate understanding of
the recommendation will be employed: charts and/or memor-
anda as appropriate. It is expected that, at this meeting,
the Council will approve the recommended approach, with
modifications it may suggest. If for any reason outstand-
ing questions remain, a second meeting will be scheduled for a
Council. review/adoption after such questions are resolved.
Po.l.lowing approval of a recommended approach, the Consultant
will detail all programmatic aspects of the Plan (public
improvements, funding, implementation schedules, urban desion
controls, etc.) that are prerequisites to making an offering
to de-,;lopers. If. the disposition method approved involves
substantial. rovssion of the Urban Renewal Plan and a new
PHASE II:
Task 5
•
-1.0-
0
Environmental Impact SLatement, the Consultant will so
notify the City prior to or at the second meeting, and state
the need for a Contract modification.
City Staff Responsibility: Critique the Consultant's recom-
mended disposition method prior to the second checkpoint
meetinc,. Participate in the second checkpoint meeting and
prepare presentation charts upon request of the Consultant.
if minor revisions are required to Urban Renewal documents
(e.g., revised parcel disposition map), prepare modifica-
tions and secure authorization, following Council approval
of a disposition method.
DISPOSITION AND REDEVELOPMENT
Prepare Protect Development Program
Utilizing previous marketability studies for the Project,
with supplementary field work and analysis as required, the
Consultant will detail the development program for the Pro-
ject. Within defined tire periods, the program will specify
Project retail. uses that can be developed in terms of store
types and sizes, supportable floor space and annual sales
volumes, and required land area. Conclusions will also be
presented on probable sales and rent -ail yields for Project
net retail uses, during the initial year of operation, along -
with information regarding assumptions on leasing terms, annual
gross sales by store type and gross income before operating
and debt service costs. Similar analysis may be performed for
related Project elements, such as housing, office and ancillary
ret -ail uses. Public facilities including library, educational
Task 6
E
-11-
•
and special purpose uses, which would form part of the
Project development program, will also be included as estab-
lished by local officials. on the basis of the reuse pro-
gi:am, previous estimates of the need for parking facilities
will be confirmed or modified. The program developed in this
task will be utilized in subsequent tasks for preparing a
Project execution schedule,
and funding schedules.
City Staff Responsibility:
financial feasibility analysis,
Confirm or revise public use
components of development program, along with intended
sites, building dimensions and parking needs. Furnish such
information to the Consultant. Conduct the field work, data
collection and tabulation under. the Consultant's direction,
needed to complete the above task.
Dimension Project Reuse Plan
Based on Phase I recommendations, the development program
prepared in Task 5, and information from City officials to
identify required public inputs (such as parking, utilities,
and open space or pedestrian amenities),Ithe_Consultant will
dimension the Project Reuse Plan indicating parcelization
and the location and character of proposed reuses and public
improvements. The Plan will be in sufficient detail to
facilitate an understanding of the three-dimensional form
of the proposed development. It will be used as a basis for
conveying proposed reuse concepts to potential developers,
and for the preparation of redevelopment controls in Task 11.
The Reuse Plan will be reviewed with the City's design review
committee.
-12-
City_Staff Responsibility: Conduct engineering analysis
to identify the location and character of such site pre-
paration and capital improvements as are needej, including
ground level and structuralarkino,
P Transmit in map and
memorandum form information requested by the Consultant on
public improvements and work with the Consultant in devel-
opinq the Reuse Plan or modifying the existing Plan documents.
Task 'l. Prepare Project Execution Schedule
Upon completion of Tasks 5 and 6, the Consultant will
prepare a Project- execution schedule. The schedule will
identify by time period specific predevelopment, disposi-
tion, and development activities required to complete Pro-
ject redevelopment. Responsibilities of public and private
actors in carrying out each activity will be made explicit.
The significance of each activity in achieving successful
disposition will be explained in conjunction with the sche-
dule. In addition to identifying activities and respon-
sible participants, the schedule will be used to prepare
a financing and funding program for the site.
City Staff Responsibilit_y: Furnish such timing information
as the Consultant may request relative to satisfaction of
mandated procedural requirements or City ability to perform
that will affect the scheduling of disposition and the
provision of Project improvements.
Task 8. Undertake Pro Forma Financial Analyses
The Consultant will prepare pro forma financial analyses
of the private market components of the Project, including
-1.3 -
also the previously proposed housing project for the elderly
or other residential use of the Site (Block 103, 3). The
p.ro forma analyses will measure building and land develop-
ment costs, likely operating income and costs, probable
financing terms and debt service costs, required private
equity investment and probable returns on that investment.
They will indicate the supportable residual land value and
identify the extent to which any land sales price "write-
down" or other municipal financial incentive would be re-
quired to attract private venture capital. The pro forma
analysis will be used also as a subsequent marketing tool
to display the financial viability of the Project to poten-
tial private developers and as a guide for the range of
possible land prices of the reuse appraisals in the next
task.
City Staff Responsibility: Liaison only.
Task. 9. Assemble Estimates of Public Improvements
Costs and Market Value of Sites
The Consultant will assemble City estimates of the cost of
each public improvement (including site preparation, utility
and related item;;) by time period and in relation to each
Site. In addition, the Consultant will provide guidance to
an appraiser, to be retained by the City, who will estimate
the value of each Site in the Reuse Plan to derive fair market
value for sale, as required by federal statute. The Consul-
tant will advise the City on selection of an appraiser and
ensure that the appraiser fully understands the proposals for
each disposition Site so that reuse appraisals will reflect
values commensurate with the Plan and pro forma analyses.
Task: l.o
0
-i4-
Ci S_ taff Responsibil.i_ty: Estimate public improvements
costs by Sites and by time periods as specified by the
Consultant. Provide reuse appraisals for Project disposi-
tion Sites.
Complete Financing Program and Funding Schedule
Also prepared for the Project will be a cash flow analysis
based on costs and revenues attributable to the Project by_
time period (and Fiscal Year) and by Sites; The purpose
of the analysif; .is to determine timing requirements for
public or related funds to implement Project development
activities -.Following the designation of costs by time
Period, the impacts on the City capital and operating
budgets will be identified. Potential funds to pay for
certain Project activities from state and federal sources
will be identified, as well as the use of revenue bonds
and the rolling over of net Project land sales proceeds in
stages for project improvements. A schedule of required
local and federal funds will be developed by source, along
with a strategy for obtaining such funds.
Upon completion of this task, a third checkpoint meeting
will be held with the City Council to review findings of
previous tasks, particularly as they relate to financing
of the Project. Similarly to the first two meetings, the
outcome will be a decision to proceed with or terminate or
modify Contract tasks based on issues raised regarding
feasibility of execution.
0
-15-
0
City Staff Responsibility: Analyze capital and operating
budget impacts, under the Consultant's direction, and par-
ticipate in the third checkpoint meeting. If necessary,
prepare any required Urban Renewal modifications (e.g., pro-
ject improvements schedule) and secure authorization follow-
ing Council acceptance of Task 10 results.
PHASE III. DEVELOPER SELECTION
Task 11
Task 12.
Establish Project Redevelopment Controls
The Consultant will prepare physical development standards
including FAR controls, setback and height limitations, park-
ing and open space requirements and similar guidelines to
ensure adequate health and safety provisions and a high
quality of development for the Project, based on inputs
from Task 6. The applicability of current zoning districts
to the Project will be assessed and recommendations for
change drafted if required. Following review and approval
by City Staff., these standards will. be incorporated in soli-
citation documents to developers and reflected, if necessary,
in revisions to the Urban Renewal Plan. Every attempt will
be made to minimize possible revisions so long as disposi-
tion feasibility is not affected.
City Staff Responsibility: Review, approve or modify, and
incorporate into the Urban Renewal Plan any changes in
redevelopment controls proposed by the Consultant. Carry
out procedural steps necessary for authorization of changes.
Prepare Solicitation Documents
The Consultant will, in this task, prepare solicitation
documents for prospective redevelopers establishing the
-16 -
is
general terms and conditions under which the Project
parcels will be offered. Also prepared will be an outline
of the solicitation process to be utilized including
methods for contacting prospective developers, require-
ments for developer proposals, procedures and timing for
review and evaluation of developer proposals, an_appro
.nriate panel to select developers, and similar matters.
The solicitation documents will be prepared in a manner
suitable for reproduction through printing or other means
and will include all graphics necessary to facilitate an
understanding of Project reuse proposals, improvements to
be furnished by the City and controls governing redevelop-
ment. The prime document will be a prospectus to be used
in the solicitation of offers for Project Sites. Supple-
mental materials may include sales promotional materials,
such as brochures, and other literature likely to stimu-
late potential developer interest in the land offering.
These documents will be transmitted to the City Council
members prior to a fourth checkpoint meeting and will be
described by the Consultant and discussed at the fourth
checkpoint meeting. Following City Council approval,
with suggested modifications if any, they will be printed
or otherwise reproduced by the City. It is understood
that the City will bear all costs, including supervision
and arrangements, in the reproduction of solicitation
documents.
Tisk 1.3
T.i::k 1.4
0
-17-
City Staff Responsibility:
0
Review and suggest revisions
to the proposed solicitation process and documents within
an agreed-upon ti.me schedule as set forth in Task 1.
Participate in the fourth checkpoint meeting. Authorize
and arrange for and supervise the reproduction or printing
of solicitation documents.
Assemble List of Prospective Redevelopers
As part of the preparations for land disposition market-
ing, the Consultant, working with the City staff, will
assemble and maintain a current list of prospective devel-
opers for the Project. The Consultant will draw upon pre-
vious experience and contacts of the City and Consultant in
suggesting likely prospects.
The list of prospective redevl.eopers and their prior exper-
ience will be presented to the City Council for review and
recommendations at the fourth checkpoint meeting along with the
draft solicitation documents and the proposed solicitation
process. This fourth checkpoint session will provide a
further and final opportunity to evaluate the advisability
of proceeding with Project disposition activities. .
City Staff Responsibility: Furnish to the Consultant a
list of suitable redevelopers for the Project, with per-
tinent information on experience, organization, location,
etc., to supplement the Consultant's own list. Discuss
City recommendations at the fourth checkpoint meeting.
Participate in Solicitation Presentations
The Consultant will advise and assist the City on issuance
and distribution of the prospectus and related documents.
The Consultant will participate in the
the prospectus presentation of
to potential developers, investors, and
Other interested parties at the request of the City, pro-
varied such presenf:ations to not exceed an aggregate of
ten (10) working clays for preparation and presentation.
Cit_ y Staff ; Responsibilit
__--Y Distribute solicitation doc-
uments. Arrange presentations to potential developers
and investors and coordinate Consultant participation.
Task 15.Iielp Revand Evaluate Responses
Upon request, the Consultant will advise the City on
developer submissions to ensure compliance with specifi-
cations established by the prospectus. Also, the Consul-
tant will advise the City on the financial feasibility of
each submission to ensure that the City's financial interest
is protected.
City Staff Responsibilit
Y: Conduct evaluation of developer
submissions. Coordinate Consultant participation.
Task 16. Assist in Selection Process
Upon completion of the review of responses in conjunction
with the City, the eligible bidders will be interviewed
in accordance with the terms adopted through the prospectus.
It is the intent of the Consultant to act in an advisory
capacity only during the formal selection process, pre-
senting briefings and Plan concepts to the designated
selection panel to aid in evaluating various proposals.
The Consultant will participate, as requested by the panel,
in any discussions or interviews, but will not vote on the
selection of the redeveloper(s).
_19-
0
City Staff Responsibility: Present evaluation of proposals
Lo selection panel and otherwise assist, advise and make
arrangements for the panel. Coordinate Consultant parti-
cipation.
Section 3. Materials to be Provided by the City. In order to assist
the Consultant to perform the tasks specified in Section
2 above, the City shall furnish to the Consultant back-
ground reports, memoranda and correspondence as may
reasonably be required by the Consultant.
Section 4. Time of Performance. The services of the Consultant are
to commence upon execution of the Contract and shall be
completed within nine (9) months from the date of said
execution: Provided that the City shall have the right
to extend this Contract for such additional time periods
as it may require by so notifying the Consultant in writ-
ing not less than thirty (30) days before this Agreement
is terminated pursuant to the terms set forth herein.
The Consultant shall not be held responsible for delays
in performance which occur through no fault of the Con-
sultant; and further provided, that any such additional
time periods shall not exceed two (7.) months unless
mutually agreeable to Consultant.
Section 5. Compensation.
A. Compensation for Consultant's Services
The City shall pay the Consultant for actual professional time
charged at the Consultant's normal billing rates, not to exceed
$47,100 for the Consultant's services. Of the $47,100, $38,900
shall be for Zuchell.i, hunter. & Associates (the Consultant) and
•
-20-
0
$8,200 for Lawrence Elal.pri.n Associates, the Consultant's Subcon-
tractor specified in Section 6, Paragraph B1. Compensation for
professional services will be paid in the manner hereinafter set
forth, in every case subject to a requisition for payment from
the Consultant specifying that he has performed the work under
this Contract in conformance with the Contract and that he is
entitled to receive the amount requisitioned under the terms of
the Contract. The Ci.t-y shall pay the aforesaid requisitioned
amounts to Consultant, in monthly installments, such install-
ment's in each instance being based upon actual professional and
support staff time expended for Contract work as certified by
Consultant and approved by the City.
B. Reimbursement for Expenses
In addition to the compensation for services above set forth,
the City shall reimburse Consultant forttravel and subsistence
_expenses incurred, in connection with this Contract, outside the
Cities of Baltimore and Annapolis, Maryland, and for the Con-
sultant's Subcontractor, San Francisco, California. Further,
the City shall reimburse Consultant for long-distance telephone
calls and technical supportive work ordered by him for graphics
work or reproduction. Such technical and supportive work shall
be on the basis of work orders approved by Consultant, subject
to budgetary limitations hereinafter set forth. The total reim-
bursement to be made by the City to Consultant for travel and
subsistence expenses and for miscellaneous direct expenses shall
not exceed in aggregate the sum of $8,200, of which $6,300 shall
be for Zuchelli, Hunter & Associates, Inc. (the Consultant) and
$1,900 for Lawrence Halprin Associates (the Consultant's Subcon-
-21-
0
tractor.). Consultant shall bill the City for reimbursement
for travel and subsistence expenses and for technical supportive
work on a monthly basis.
C. Total. of Compensation for Services and Reimbursement
It is expressly agreed and understood that the total for compen-
sation for Consultant's services in A, above, and reimbursement
for travel and subsistence and related direct expenses in B,
above, shall not exceed in aggregate the sum of $55,300 of which
$45,200 shall be for 7.uchelli, Hunter & Associates, Inc. (the
Consultant) and $10,100 for Lawrence Halprin Associates (the
Consultant's Subcontractor).
Section 6. Terms and Conditions. This agreement is subject to the
following terms and conditions:
A. Changes
The City at any time, by written notice to the Consultant, may
modify the scope or quantity of the services to be furnished
under this Contract. If such changes cause an increase or de-
crease in the amount of services to be provided by the Consultant
or in the time required for their performance, equitable adjust-
ment shall be made in the provisions of this Contract for pay-
ment to the Consultant for the services or for the time for
performance of the services or for both, and this Contract shall
be modified by agreement of the parties accordingly.
B. Personnel and Equipment
1. The Consultant represents that it has secured or will
secure, at its own expense subject to budget in Section 5,
all personnel and equipment required in performing the
services under this Contract. Such personnel shall not
-22 -
be employees of or have any contractual relationship with
the City. The firm of Lawrence Halprin Associates (called
the Subcontractor) shall be retained by the Consultant to
perform certain urban design, redevelopment controls draft-
ing, graphics, and design review committee liaison tasks
within this Contract. The City shall review and approve
the subcontractual agreement prior to its execution.
2. All of the services required hereunder will be performed
by the Consultant under his supervision. All personnel
engaged in the work shall be fully qualified and shall be
authorized or permitted under law to perform such services.
Mr. Donald R. Zuchelli, President of Zuchelli, Hunter 5
Associates, Inc., shall be responsible for directing and
supervising the work of the Consultant and shall personally
represent the Consultant in interviews with key members of
the local business community and public officials, as well
as in interviews and negotiations with prospective rede-
velopers.
3. No person who is serving sentence in a penal or correctional
institution shall be employed or work under this Contract.
C. Findings Confidential
The Consultant agrees that its conclusions and any reports are
for the confidential information of the City and that it will
not disclose its conclusions in whole or in part to any person
whatsoever other than to submit its written report to the City
and will only discuss the same with it or its authorized repre-
sentatives. Upon completion of this Contract term, all docu-
ments, reports, data and studies prepared by the Consultant
-23 -
pursuant thereto shall become the oroperty of and be delivered
to the City.
D. Termination of Contract for Cause
If, through any cause, the Consultant shall fail to fulfill in
timely and proper manner his obligations under this Contract,
or if the Consultant shall violate any of the covenants, agree-
ments or stipulations of this Contract, the City shall there-
upon have the right to terminate this Contract by giving written
notice to the Consultant- of. .such termination and specifying the
effective date thereof, at least five (5) days before the effec-
tive date of such termination. In such event, all finished or
unfinished documents, data, studies and reports prepared by
the Consultant under this Contract shall become the property
of the City and the Consultant under this Contract shall be
entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any
satisfactory work completed on such documents. Notwithstanding
the above, the Consultant shall not be relieved of liability
to the City for damages sustained by the City by virtue of any
breach of the Contract by the Consultant and the City may with-
hold any payment to the Consultant for the purpose of set-off
until such time as the exact amount of damages due the City
from the Consultant- is determined.
E. Termination for Convenience of City
The City may terminate this Contract at any time by a notice
in writing to the Consultant. If the Contract is terminated
by the City as provided in this Paragraph E, the Consultant
will be paid an amount which bears the same ratio to the total
compensation as the services actually performed bear to the
-24 -
total services of the Consultant covered by this Contract,
less payment of compensation previously made: Provided, that
if less than sixty per cent (602) of the services covered by
this Contract have been performed upon the effective date of
such termination, the Consultant shall be reimbursed (in addi-
tion to the above payment) for that portion of the actual out-
of-pocket expenses not otherwise reimbursed under this Contrast and
for actual costs (including standard overhead and profit)
incurred by the Consultant during the Contract period which are
directly attributable to the uncompleted portion of the services
covered by the Contract. If this Contract is terminated due
to the fault of the Consultant, Paragraph D hereof, relative
to termination, shall apply.
F. Consultant to Cooperate with Other City Consultants
The City may undertake or award other contracts for additional
work, and the Consultant shall fully cooperate with such other
consultants and City employees and carefully fit his own work
to such additional work as may be directed by the City. The
Consultant shall not commit- or permit any act which will inter-
fere with the performance of work by any other consultant or by
City employees.
G. Covenant Against Contingent Fees
The Consultant warrants that no person or selling agency has
been employed or retained to solicit- or secure this Contract
upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage,
brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or
bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained
by the Consultant for the purpose of securing business. For
® -25- •
breach of violation of this warranty the City shall have the
right to annul this Contract without liability or in its discre-
tion to deduct from the Contract price or consideration the
full amount of such commission, percentage, brokerage or con-
tingent fee.
Ii. Interest of Certain Federal Officials
No Member of or Delegate to the Congress of the United States
and no Resident Commissioner shall be admitted to any share or
part- of this Contract or to any benefit to arise therefrom:
Provided, That the foregoing provision of this paragraph shall
not be construed to extend to this Contract if made with a
corporation for its general benefit.
I. Interest of Members of. the Ci
No elected official or City employee, who exercises functions
or responsibilities in connection with the carrying out of the
Project to which this Contract pertains, and no other officer
or employee of the City who exercises any such functions or
responsibilities shall have any private interest, direct or
indirect, in this Contract which is incompatible or in conflict
with the discharge or fulfillment of his functions and respon-
sibilities in connection with the carrying out of the Project
to which this Contract pertains.
J. Subcontractin
The Consultant shall not subcontract any part of the work covered
by this Contract• except- as herein stated or permit subcontracted
work to be further subcontracted without the City's prior written
approval of the subcontractor. The City will not approve any sub
contractor for work covered by this Contract, who is at the time
U
-26- •
ineligible under the provisions
of any applicable regulations
issued by the Secretary of Labor
United States Department of
Labor, to receive an award
of
the such subcontract. Notwithstanding
foregoing, Consultant may order graphics work, reproduction
and printing and related technical supportive work on the basis
of purchase orders approved by him, subject, however, to bud-
getary limitations as described in Section S(B) hereof.
li. l\ssignabili
The Consultant shall not assign or transfer whether by an
assignment or novation, any of its
rights, obligations, benefits
or. other interest under this Contract with the ,
liabilitiess
written consent of the City: Provided
however, that claims
for money due or to become due the
Consultant from City under
this Contract may be assigned to a bank,
other financial trust company, or
institution, including any federal lending in-
stitution, or to a Trustee in
Bankruptcy, without such approval.
Notification of any such assignment or transfer shall be fur -
Wished promptly to the City. No assignment or novation of this
Contract shall be valid unless the assignment or novation ex-
pressly provides that the assignment of the Consultant's rights
or benefits under the Contract- is subject to a prior lien for
services rendered and materials, tools and equipment
for the performance supplied
Of the work under this Contract in favor
of all persons, firms or corporations rendering such services
or supplying such materials,
L. tools, or equipment.
�ualEmPloYment Opportunit
During the p
as follows: erformance
of this Contract, the Consultant agrees
(1) the Consultant will not discriminate against
-27 -
any employee or applicant for employment because of race,
creed, color or national origin. The Consultant shall take
affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed,
and that employees are treated during employment, without
regard to their race, creed, color or national origin. Such
action shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer; recruitment ad-
vertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms
Of compensation; and selection for training, including appren-
ticeship. The Consultant agrees to post in conspicuous places,
available to employees and applicants for employment notices
to be provided by the City setting forth this nondiscrimin-
ation clause. (2) The Consultant will, in all soliciat-ions or
advertisements for employees placed by qualified applicants,
receive consideration for employment without regard to race, sex,
creed, color, or national origin. (3) The Consultant will
cause the foregoing provisions to be inserted in all subcon-
tracts for any work covered by the Contract so that such provi-
sions will be binding upon each subcontractor, provided that
the foregoing provisions shall not apply to contracts or sub-
contracts for standard commercial supplies or raw materials.
hi. Anti -Kickback Rules
Salaries of architects, draftsmen, technical engineers, and
engineers, and technicians performing work under this Contract
shall be paid unconditionally and not less often than once a
month without deduction or rebate on any account except only
such payroll deductions as are mandatory by law or permitted
by the applicable regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor
0
-28-
0
pursuant to the "Anti -Kickback Act" of June 13, 1934 (48
Stat. 948; 62 Stat. 740; 63 Stat. 108; title 18 U.S.C., section
874, and title 40 U.S.C., section 276c). The Consultant shall
comply with all applicable "Anti -Kickback" regulations and shall
insert appropriate provisions in all subcontracts and covering
work under this Contract to ensure compliance by subcontractors
with such regulations, and shall be responsible for the submis-
sion of affidavits required of subcontractors thereunder except
as the Secretary of Labor may specifically provide for varia-
tions of or exemptions from the requirements thereof.
N. withholding of Salaries
If, in the performance of this Contract, there is any underpay-
ment of salaries by the Consultant or by any subcontractor there-
under, the City shall withhold from the Consultant out of pay-
ments due to it an amount sufficient to pay to employees underpaid
the difference between the salaries required hereby to be paid
and the salaries actually paid such employees for the total num-
ber of hours worked. The amounts withheld shall be disbursed
by the City for and on account of the Consultant or subcontractor
to the respective employees to whom they are due.
O. Claims and Disputes Pertaining to Salary Rates
Claims and disputes pertaining to salary rates or to classifica-
tions of architects, draftsmen, technical engineers, and tech-
nicians performing work under this Contract shall be promptly
reported in wriLinq by the Consultant to the City for the latter's
decision which shall be final with respect thereto. Nothing
herein, however, shall be construed as relieving the Consultant
from its responsibilities as primary contracting party with
-29-
subcontractors.
P. Discrimination Because of Certain Labor Matters
No person employed on the work covered by this Contract shall
be discharged or in any way discriminated against because he
has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be insti-
tuted any proceeding or has testified or is about to testify
in any proceeding under or relating to the labor standards
applicable hereunder to his employer.
Q. Publication, Reproduction and Use of Material
No material produced in whole or in part under this Contract
shall be subject to copyright in the United States or in any
other country. The City shall have unrestricted authority to
publish, disclose, distribute and otherwise use, in whole or
in part, any reports, data, or other materials prepared under
this Contract.
R. Audits and Inspections
At any time during normal business hours and as often as the
City may deem necessary, there shall be made available to the
City for examination all of its records with respect to all
matters covered by this Contract and will permit the City to
audit, examine and make excerpts or transcripts from such
records, and to make audits of all contracts, invoices, mater-
ials, payrolls, records of personnel, conditions of employment
and other data relating to al] matters covered by this Contract.
-30 -
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this
Contract to be executed in five (5) counterparts on the day and
Year above first written.
ATTEST:
ATTEST:
CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA (City)
By
APPROVED AS TO FORM
City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO FUNDS
Director of Finance
APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
Contract Compliance Coordinator
ZUCIIELLI, HUNTER & ASSOCIATES, INC_
(Consultant)
President
C7% InAwNF,
ro
CDWW J0) Ln
ro
AWNH
ro
IxhYb
to
0MCh10ro
tail
Wto yoro
cn
(n
tj m
En N n firm fD rt
M
W
0 In M N 5(D
M
n M N
M
C.
P -'CJ rt (D " w
H
G
rt
b F• (D 10 (D 'o
H
UI
C
(HD
O (D 1O
H
O
tr
In Y• tl w U•
H
tY
H g Di On
H
G
H
.•
rO
rt
rt � O ED- K H
(D
H
rt
"
(D Gt rHt NE
rfrt
P rt En raj
cu
' O N a
O
rt a rt (D F• (D
0
fD C (D
rt
F1- (~n•
w to ;-r
rt
w
(D ID X O
rt
7 K ',.T,
u
F'
N rt t'1 0
(D M O O
k (D
d
a
P. (D a E
H
(n£ (D F•Nd
M
r-C'om w<
H
w
N
t7 t7 YK
ro
(D to F1• (D
(-' F'• rt 0 :
C
M
J tr H O (D (D
w O
ro
r• F1• (D x
0
H 0 r. H
ts I'• rt (n o
O
m
N (u rt
told w rn
En
(a] (On 0 r~t 1a-
�
ij O M w O
0
o n 1.1 P. (D a
H
0 0 tY Ort
H
y
P. O o rt 10
M
N• O O n
:3'0 ID
3
H
H
In to P. 7
r• F- H (D
H
O
0 HH•�
7 a
:U
� � I- :j
O
rt rt ),-a
z
7 to ~• (D 0 (D
fJ 0 01 Z 7
En
ro w to a rt
ro H
z
P. H. rt 0
N
0 o
H O Y a 10o
\
0 0 1G H
g
g
ki rt
N 0
0 C :T (D K
tri0
0 N
a C)
0
trig
30
H
rt C
H
H
N n
<
in 0 ortH
•G
:3 (n
nHt
roO
rt
ox
O m j
O
CD a
t
O• P. G
K� 0
z
N to
O(11
O H
ro N rt H
N fD
K N N
tj
fD N
°m
z
rt
O
w
H
ro
rt
r
rt
0rt
P.
GD
O
U)
U)
�
N
O
O
V
J
1H H N
IW InNJJ W
-J
D1
IN H F1 I,
10 OD W Lno
O H
J
IV7OJN
N',!
IQ
1
N I
N
IH H o1 H co
W
J
IN W 01 A
0 FFrog�
�0 O
1,
N
H
I J ID A to LnH
A
101 N A 01 (n H
y
I" D1 tD A
F'L
!n
x
IJt
I
N
1 r
N
1
H
1
(O H
ryt
m
N
v
IH I,N W Ln I
In
V
ILn N Inm l Ln
H
IF,N to (A
G (D
(D
INKK
to
w
to
F1
1
1
^
to
I to
+n
1 to
G1
y
m
A
IHHAHAF-+
I.
H
A
1
IW HNN W
O
I1
H N W N
G H
a
N
O
H
Im-1 Nr0 H
O1
1•
101 W A -1%D0
O
IN �1mH
(D y
(0I
In
Ian W F1 O W Ln
v
IH W W W N ID
N
I N v m J
rt
O
v
ItnOlnO 0 L
n
IW OIn O Ino
O
10OUI to
xro
OI
N
....
I I I I I WtD
_
m
I I 11 Non I
O
INNAN
0 P.
r
I
H:3
In
£
K
(D
H
^
trop
H
m
w
m
I
I I I I I Om
O H
o
O
a
N
II J I O Ln I
m
IJ �iNN
tj
H
a
H
roH
A
N
1 1 t
1v
x H
F
I I O N
O
I I 1 1 0 0 1
N
I Ln O
G.
H
:Do
to H
N
H
to
O
to
m
to
W
1 to
1
to
t - Li
to
I -to
I -
Y -
H H
1
W
1 N
N
t
C H
a
N
O
11 I 1 I tI
1
i t I co O I
O
1
Q a
rt
O
J
1
A
N
101N O N
(D xN
v
O O
O
1 In O Ln
O
IW InOO
rt
a
to
H
I to
I
to
I to
to
I to
lD H H
J
J
IHHAH Ln to
H
J
I
IwN N W N W
H
N
1
IH W A N
03 0
In rt
H
11
Im J to H W W
'CO
101 O A Ln ID O
O
101 O V In
[D H
O
H
lot Vt H O Vl w
H
IF, J m m ID IO
_j
100%0()% N
rt
O
V -t
IVl O In O O Ur
U1
ILn Ul In Co O O
O
Itn to In In
DATE: August 26, 1976•
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
RE: Agenda for Fleeting of August 27, 1976
Following is the agenda for the meeting to be held on Friday, August 27, 1976,
at 4:00 F.M. in the ConEerence Room:
5th Anniversary of Iowa City Transit System Promotion
Urban Renewal