Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-11-06 Bd Comm minutesAsa MINUTES • PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE July 5, 1973 The Project Area Committee met in regular session on July 5, 1973 at 3:30 p.m. in the Conference Room of the Urban Renewal Office. Members Present: Henry Linder Tom Wegman Byron Ross Kent Braverman Les Moore Pearl West Pat Carney Glen Roberts Russell Mann Walter Chudwick Members Absent: Helen Louis Dick Feddersen Ray Mossman George Crawford John Williamson Helen McGreevy Staff: Jack Klaus Pat Wilson Mike Jones Guests: Robert Downer Joseph Kinney Harold Donnelly press Mr. Mann moved, seconded by Mr. Moore, that the minutes be approved as distributed. The motion carried unanimously. Discussion began on the grievance filed by Mr. Joseph Kinney, owner. of The Annex tavern. Mr. Robert Downer, attorney for Mr. Kinney, opened discussion by saying that successful,relocation of The Annex was'a matter of opinion, Mr. Kinney being of the opinion that the business.could not be successfully relocated and therefore filing for a payment in lieu of moving expense with the Department of Urban Renewal. Some important factors considered by Mr. Kinney in the relocation of his business were: proximity to downtown because of the clientele which were mostly University -oriented persons faculty and 'students -- and the space available for relocation. • Mr. Linder stated that the PAC was under, the impression that The Annex was in fact being relocated to the property at 126 South Project Area Committee • July 5, 1973 page two Clinton the former location of the Dotty Dunn Hat Shop. Mr. Kinney emphasized that this was not the present Annex, that in fact, it was a tavern being opened under the name,"The Annex" nnex" by an employee of the present Annex tavern in conjunction with Mr. George Nagle who is purchasing the building. Mr. Kinney also stated that Mr'McLaughlin had never, discussed this development with Mr. Kinney and that the old.corporation was still in effect as long as it operates, then it is dissolved. Mr. Moore!Iasked whether the stockholders were the same in the pre- sent corporation as in the future business. Mr. Downer answered no. Mr. Braverman wondered about the dollar differential between what Mr. Kinney would receive either way, as'a relocatee and as'a dis- placed business who receives a payment in lieu of moving. The payment in lieu of moving was stated as being from $2,500 to $10,000. Jack Klaus reemphasized that, based on other cases and the fact that another tavern was indeed being placed in the downtown, i.e., the new Annex, the Department of Urban Renewal felt"that the busi- ness can be successfully relocated and therefore would not qualify for a payment in lieu of moving. He also emphasized that the business itself does not have the option unless they qualify and in the opinion of the Department, The Annex did not qualify. Mr. Mann wondered if the Project had purchased the property yet. Jack Klaus replied, "No." Mr. Kinney stated that the purchase was dependent on the outcome of the hearing. Mr. Mann wondered how many places cited in the letter from Mr. Jones to Mr. Kinney were available at the present time. No answer was given. Mr. Braverman asked if a rent supplement would be available to Mr. Kinney if,a new place would mean a considerable boost in rent. The answer was no. Mr. Mann asked if Mr. Kinney had been offered any other place in downtown iowa city. Mr. Roberts stated that the Department of Urban Renewal, as he understood its function, was not responsible for find- ing another place of business for businesses being displaced, that the Department would generally assist, however. Jack Klaus again emphasizedthat the point in question was whether or not the business could be successfully relocated. Mr. Braverman stated that there should bel some type of determination as to whether or not Mr. Kinney wants to be relocated. I Mike Jones stated that Mr.McLaughlin felt that the business can be successfully relocated as evidenced by the fact that he is reloca- ting a tavern to the previously -mentioned address on Clinton Street. Mr. Ross stated that there was a difference of, opinion. Mr. Roberts stated that he was under the impression at the time the Project Area Committee voted on the plans for the tavern to be located at 126 South Clinton, The Annex was moving to that location. Mr. Kinney blamed the useof the', same name on Mr. Nagle. Mr. Linder wondered why The Annex was not equated to Michael's Tavern which received a payment in lieu ofmoving. Mr'. Moore stated that the owner of Michael's was in ill health and advised'not,to enter into anew business. Mr. Mann stated that it was a, matter of exposure -- that is, where can Mr. Kinney go so that,,,the exposure is the same as it is now. Mr. Ross wondered where there would be comparable square footage in the downtown area. Mr. Roberts again emphasized, that it was not the responsibility of the Urban Renewal Department to relocate any commercial business. r Mr. Linder stated that he felt Mr'. Kinney would qualify for a pay- ment in: lieu of moving under sections "b" and "c" of'the HUD require- ments. Jack Klaus emphasized that HUD would not concur in a pay- ment in lieu of moving, therefore, local money would ',be,necessary to reimburse Mr. Kinney and the Council would have to concur in the figure. Mr. Ross stated that based on the letter from HUD of January 10th, that he felt HUD should re-examine their decision. The ,Committee then went into closed session to determine whether or not they should concur on Mr. Kinney's'grievance. By a vote 6 for and 3 against, the PAC recommended that Mr. Kinney's claim for a payment in lieu of moving expenses be denied. The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:30 p.m. Resped'Kfully submitt Pat Wilson for R. Patrick Carney, Secret of -0, MINUTES • PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE The Project Area committee met in regular session on October 24, 1973, at 7:30 p.m. in the Conference ROOM Of the Urban Renewal Office. Members Present: Kent Braverman: Patrick Carney Walter Chudwick: Richard Feddersen Henry Linder Helen Louis Russell Mann Ray Mossman Les Moore Glen Roberts George Crawford John Williamson Members Absent Byron Ross Pearl West Tom Wegman (excused) Helen McGreevy staff: Jack Klaus Pat Wilson Nancy Nelson (See attached sheet for members of the press and other guests) The meeting was called to order by Chairman Linder. Approval of the minutes of the last meeting of July 5, 1973, was deferred to the next meeting. This was moved by Mr. Mann and seconded by Mr. Braverman. Jack Klaus stated that Mr. Wegman would not be present, but he was Alliance's not resigning because of pressures from the People because of a possibleabsence at the conflict of interest. His meeting was because of a previous commitment. Mr. Linder recognized Michael Pill, a representative of the People's f and Ms. Patricia Alliance, who read a letter signed by himsel Anderson, stating their opposition to Mr. Wegmanis remaining on the Project Area committee and the Design Review Board and Mr. Fedder- sen's close connection with a member of the Old Capitol group while he sat on the Project Area committee. The letter is filed on record, as accepted by Mr. Linder. Mr. Feddersen questioned why he was named in the letter. Mr. Pill Project Area Committee • October 24, 19713 page two answered that Mr. Feddersen holds stock in the company and there- fore, his opinion might be biased in their favor. Mr. Feddersen emphatically stated that he had no money invested personally, that his wife was a stockholder and he had absolutely no control over his wife's actions in the group. Mr. Williamson pointed out that Mr. Feddersen had been involved in the downtown and its development approximately 20 years before any money had been invested, and therefore he saw no conflict of interest. Mr. Linder then turned the 'meeting over to Jack Klaus who presented the pro . posal of the Old Capitol Business Center Company. Questions that arose during the presentation were asked and answered as they arose. Mr. Braverman asked if there was a limit to the amount of City dollars that would be used in the Project. Jack Klaus stated that commit- ments were made by the City Council when they approved the 1973- 1977 Capitol:Improvements Program!. He stated that a total of $5.150 million was committed to the building of parking facilities. During the presentation of the maps outlining the condominiums to be built, Mr. Carney wondered about the possibility of low income housing being built somewhere in the Project Area. The answer was that unless and until the federal government released housing funds, there would not be a possibility of such housing since the cost would not allow it. Mr. Moore wondered whether there would be a market for these townhouses with Univer sity-oriented people or even townspeople in general. Jack answered that Link!Programs, Inc. had surveyed people in downtown Iowa City as well as hospital and University people and determined that many would prefer living close to downtown. Mr. Moore then asked whether the developer can sell pieces of un- developed land to private families or'individuals. Mr. Klaus answered no. Mr. Crawford asked about the possibility of low income housing in the future. Mr. Klaus stated that there was a section of the Project that could be converted into low income housing along with some of the condominiums if the funds were available. Mr. Braverman wondered where the City's portion of the financing for parking facilities would come from. Mr. Klaus stated thatt most likely the funds would come from revenue bonds. Mr. Roberts wondered if the bus depot would be owned by Old Capitol. The answer was yes, probably leased to the person who runs it. lie also wondered about the possibility of land ownership by small businesses. He was told this would not be possible. Jack Klaus stated that the total completion time for the project would be 6 years from January 1, 1974, to December 31, 1980, or thereabouts. He also stated that the squarefootage of the mall would be 308,350 retail/office space. Mr: Braverman brought, up recent reports that the Clinton Street Mall .tenants were in jeopardy by Old Capitol's plan requiring the modulars be moved prior to previously planned times.'' He was 're- assured by Mrs. Freda` Hieronymus, representative from Old Capitol that the development, would just have to work around the modulars y y p Table in the new devel and that the would stay until space was available opment. Mr. Roberts wondered if the developer cared that Burlington would '. bisect the project area. Jack stated that Burlington was the only, major 'east -west arterial street downtown and would have to remain open. Henry suggested that the committee defer recommendations and a final decision until the Redevelopment' subcommittee had a chance to'meet and make its recommendations He suggested that they try to get back to the Council with a recommendation within 10 days. Mr. Braverman suggested that they then turn the plans over to the Redevelopment subcommittee. Mr. Mann wondered if the City Attorney had made an interpretation as to the legality of the plans.,, Jack Klaus stated that he had and had found no major problems with the plans., The recommendation' was made that the subcommittee should meet and then call the PAC together for a final decision. Jack stated that the first recommendation would probably be'the 'first of many and that after modifications, if any, the PAC would again meet and make recommendations regarding plans and specifications for 'speci- fic parts of the redevelopment. Mr. Feddersen reported on the meeting of the general public held the 'night before the PAC meeting. He stated that he saw the plan: as an incorporation of many previous plans, using the best of each one, with many new innovations. Henry wondered if there had been any objections from the public at that meeting. Mr. Feddersen answered that he thought mostly there were just questions, no serious objections. Mr. Moore thought that ■, Project Area Committee • October 24, 1973 page four there had been one objector. Henry stated that one objective of this plan was to,raise the tax base fasterthanpiecemeal development would have done. Mr. Braver- man didn't agree with that premise. He stated that he felt it important to satisfy the committee with alconcentrated effort to get the job of redevelopment done. Mr. Feddersen stated that the ,final decision was the Council's'. The ownership of small businesses was then discussed in_great detail. Mr. Bravermanstatedthat the Project hadWhichlthel.beensmallbursented to the small business owners as a way by owners could own -a part of the newly -developed downtown, and that the City would be real estate brokers. Mr. Klaus stated that this conhethept had beenthatntimemore than a year ago and had been discussed wit * Mr. williamson moved that, subject to the review of the committee, the PAC should relay to the Council that its initial impression of the plans was 'favorable. The motion died for lack of 'a second. Mr. Moore stated that he wanted to wait until after the election to:. make a recommendation'to the Council. Mr. Feddersen disagreed with dn't really ',make any difference. Mr. this idea, stating that it di Linder wanted to make sure'the general public's impressions were: de. known before a final recommendation was ma Jack suggested the PAC could write the Council a letter making this clear. Mr. Braverman stated there was no rush. Chairman Linder suggested that they report to the Council that the PAC had seen the entire presentation and had referred the matter to the Redevelopment subcommittee for its report. * Feddersen moved that the Chairman be instructed to refer the plans to the Redevelopment Subcommittee for its review who''is-in turn in- structed to return promptly with its recommendation to the full Project Area committee so that the PAC may make a recommendation to the Council. Mr. Braverman seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Mr. Crawford wondered when the Redevelopment'subcommittee would meet. was Mr. Moore's responsi Mr. Linder answered that that bility as he was chairman: The Chairman then called for New Business. There was none presented. • The Chairman called for old Business. None was presented. r�Uj=�L area committee . October 24, 1973 page five Mr. Ken Haldeman from,Buc's Leathers then made a statement on behalf of the small businesses in downtown Iowa City, particularly those in the Mall who were fearful of being ein lost in the shuffle" of 4 a large corporation and overshadowed 9 P in the covered mall by large ar e chain '.corporations. Jack Klaus responded byat the Cit was committed to a sal b Y the small uai- nesses'as illustrated by initial n developer solicitation. Mr. Carney stated that the Committee itself was not very informing with regard to when and where meetings would be held and solicitation, of ,public input. Mr. Linder stated 'that `all they could do was to pub- lish meeting ublish,meeting times and places and the public couldn't be forced to attend. Mr. Braverman suggested that before any, decision by the PAC was made, they should actively solicit public input, particularlythat of the businesses downtown. Mr. 'Mann then moved that the meeting be adjourned and Mr. Braverman seconded. The meeting was adjourned at; 10:25 p.m. Respe tfully submitted, Pat Wilson for R. Patrick Carney, ecretary