Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-01-28 CorrespondenceJanuary 13, 1997 Mayor and City Council City of Iowa City Civic Center Richard E. Gibson 903 Highwood Street Iowa City, Iowa 52246 ~, JAN15 )997 J, CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE Dear Mayor Novick and Council Members: I wish to share with you some thoughts and observations concerning the options under consideration for the expansion of the library and the provision of a number of other community facilities. I wish to begin with some observations about the undated draft "Area Chamber Library Task Force Proposal" and then turn my attention to the initial proposal for the expansion of the library. Conceming the draft proposal, it could accurately be described as a visionary concept that would respond to a number of identified needs for new and expanded community facilities. This would not happen, however, without considerable expense, and it is far from certain that the community is ready or would be willing to support a significant expansion in community facilities of the sort proposed. In fact, it has been proposed as an alternative to what is supposedly a too expensive proposal to expand the library. I am concerned that the proposal is dependent upon a number of assumptions concerning costs and revenue opportunities that may or may not be accurate. I will turn to these observations in the order they appear in the draft document. I will comment on the initial library proposal at the end of this document. "VVhy not make marginal improvements to the existing library and make it last 5 to 10 years?" I agree that only marginal improvements to the library should be avoided. "Is a mixed-use library/residential/office/theater complex really the best use of parcel 64-1A?" The underlying assumption of this response is that there is no demand for the commercial development of this parcel so it should be used for a community purpose. At the same time, it contemplates a market for the air space above the community development and (later) a reuse opportunity for the existing library across the street. The response also implies that the use of the property would be without cost to the project. This ignores the fact that this parcel has value, if as yet undetermined, and dismisses the opportunity costs of the site. Mayor and City Council Page 2 January 13, 1997 "The Library Board's proposal would have resulted in a 79,000 sq.ft. library. Why is the Chamber suggesting that fewer square feet could possibly be enough?" The proposed reduction in required space is to come about as the result of providing the deleted facilities in the proposed multi-purpose project or for them to remain in the existing library. Would the costs for the relocated, not eliminated, facilities be lower? Not necessarily a good assumption! "How does the Chamber proposal compare to the Library Board's proposal in terms of cost?" First bullet: As noted eadier, ignores the opportunity costs associated with the use of parcel 64-1A. Second bullet: Parking in a below ground structure costs in excess of twice the cost of above ground parking structures. It is extremely doubtful that such a facility would ever produce revenue to support the other costs of the project, in fact, this parking would almost certainly have to be subsidized. Third bullet: If parcel 64-1A air dghts have considerable value for pdvate development, why does the ground site not have an even higher value? Fourth bullet: This proposal simply transfers the cost of the disputed facilities and does not eliminate them. Fifth bullet: Does the City presently contemplate the need for construction of additional municipal office space? This statement implies that the cost of using the existing library for this purpose is without cost. Again, if nothing else, continued use of the existing library has opportunity costs to say nothing of the costs to develop the library for a different use. (A basic principle for rouse of space is to never attempt to upgrade the basic space when reusing; it costs too much. The reused space should always be downgraded. Library space is one of the simplest and least costly space types among institutional space.) Sixth bullet: Does the existing library site have value while Parcel 64-1A does not? Summary paragraph. There is no sound reason to believe that a library on Parcel 64- 1A would be lower in cost than the initial library proposal, unless, the size is smaller, the quality is lower, or the cost is somehow subsidized. I predict that the marginal differences in cost between the two proposals will be sufficiently minimal on a per Mayorand CityCouncil Page 3 January 13,1997 square foot basis to be almost non-existent. Without question, the cost to construct an entirely new library will be significantly higher than the cost to construct only the required expansion space plus the cost to remodel the existing library. This difference will not be offset by the reuse options for the existing library. Deciding the appropriate location for the library is complex and I have no advice to offer on that decision. The Chamber proposal seemingly assumes that the library should remain in a central downtown location, so this is really not an issue between the competing proposals. In closing my comments about the Chamber's draft proposal, I will make the general observation that the proposed facility would be difficult to design on the proposed site, if it would, in fact, ~. The prospect for the need to coordinate the planning, financing and construction of the probable different timing of the library, the parking, the Center Space facilities, to include a large legitimate theater and additional private development above is sufficiently intimidating as to legitimately call into question the viability of the entire concept. I wish now to turn my attention to the initial Library Board proposal. I believe that the initial proposal was an extremely good one in terms of the issues now under consideration, and perhaps the best plan that can be expected given present circumstances, and I compliment the Library Board, the staff and their consultant, for their proposal. I understand that it has been rejected as being: 1) too costly, 2) an unpopular design, and 3) too disruptive of existing commercial activity. I would observe that there is nothing inherent in the proposal that would make the alternative too costly, unless it is that it requires the replacement of a one-story high commercial property that has remaining economic life. If the detailed costs for the library itself are too high that can be rectified with a different set of aspirations and continued planning. There is no reason to assume that a library on the site across the street would be materially cheaper on a per square foot basis. As for the design, it is admittedly controversial, and perhaps not appropriate for downtown Iowa City. This is a matter for individual taste, but not a wise reason for rejection of the underlying concept. Again, this is not an inherent characteristic of the proposal and is easily rectified. Finally, the proposal would disrupt the businesses presently located in the property to be acquired and razed. This is inescapable. It is not unlike what happened during the extremely successful Downtown Urban Renewal plan of the 70's however, and it is not Mayorand CityCouncil Page 4 January 13,1997 an option impossible to contemplate. One factor in its favor would be the replacement of a building that does not use this very central location efficiently or contribute to the character of the "heart" of the downtown commercial district and pedestrian mall. As for the overall cost of the proposal, have all the alternatives for dealing with this been considered? Would it be possible for the City to acquire the commercial property, raze the property, and then receive development proposals for the construction of the new building to include the new library space, which might be leased from the developer on a lease-purchase agreement lasting 15 to 20 years? Or, could the City retain air rights over the redeveloped commercial property on which it would construct the library expansion, thus keeping the commercial property on the tax rolls and increasing its value? Or, could the City develop the underlying commercial property and then sell or lease it to new users? I am certain there are other equally viable options. The only "extra" costs associated with these approaches would be the short period of down time for the commercial property during reconstruction. In retum, commercial property and the tax rolls would be enhanced, this area of downtown would be improved and of no small importance, the library could expand in what is probably the least costly manner that is going to be discovered. Also of relevance, Parcel 64-1A would still remain for construction of Center Space, if adequate support and financing for the proposal can be developed. I would be happy to expand on any of these comments, observations and ideas in person if that is your wish. Regards, Richard E. Gibson 903 Highwood Street Iowa City, IA 52246 c: John Beckord, Chamber of Commerce Susan Craig, Iowa City Library IOWA CITY P.O. Box 64 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244-0064 (319) 354-0863 CIPI MANAGER'[; OFFICE January 19, 1997 TO: Iowa City City Council Members FROM: Downtown Association of Iowa City Board of Directors Iowa City Public Library location & CenterSpace Concept The Downtown Association of Iowa City supports the idea of keeping the public library at a location that allows the library to continue to be a primary component of the downtown hub. The Downtown Association does not believe the two proposed stand alone sites accomplishes this goal. The DTA strongly endorses the development of a multi-use facility on 64-1A that includes a new library. This type of facility would provide a variety of cultural and educational activities for area residents and visitors and would attract people of all ages, races, religions, income levels, and interests, to the downtown area. The current library could be renovated to include proposed concepts of CenterSpace, such as meeting rooms and a Discovery Center. The DTA believes incorporating a new library as part of a multi-use facility such as CenterSpace will be a significant investment toward the future vitality of the downtown area, and combining the two projects would be a great value for the citizens of Iowa City. JAN 15 1997 CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE r January 22,1997 CITY OF I0 WA CITY Mr. David Graw 836 Clark Street Iowa City, IA 52246 Dear Mr. Graw: I am writing in response to your letter dated January 15, 1997 regarding transit service. I have reviewed this matter with Joe Fowler, Director of Parking & Transit, and he has informed me of the reason this stop is being allowed at this time. The City of Iowa City provides no rest room facilities for employees working in the central business district. Public facilities in businesses and University of Iowa buildings are used. Currently Schaeffer Hall is being remodeled and is not available. There are no commercial establishments in the area served by this bus. Without the availability of this residence the driver would be forced to walk several blocks to reach an open facility. This would make the bus late. It is the opinion of transit management that use of a private residence and remaining on schedule is preferable to departure delays and behind time arrivals. Plans are currently being developed to redesign the transit interchange and install facilities. We would hope to complete this project this summer and at that time we will eliminate the use of facilities at a pdvate residence by the driver. Until that time this alternative best serves the nccds of both the transit system and the dders. Sincerely, City Manager cc: City Council Joe Fowler 410 EAST WASHINGTON STREET · IOWA CITY. IOWA 52240-1826 · (319) 356-$000 · FAX (319) 356-5009 To: Iowa Oty City Council, - Iowa City City Council From: Gerald A. Carroll, Citizens Against Cable Abuse (Ca, CA) - WORLD PREMIERE MOVIE JAN. 18 ON PATV Iowa C'i~' IA ~2d'-' Spit into the Face of Tyranny: View 'Absolutely Fabulous' Movie One Day Before National Debut! Jam 16, 19gq: citizens Against CableAbuse (CACA), based in Iowa City, has made arran§cments with cable charnel Comedy CenWal to air 'The Last $houL' a brand-new motion p/cture, on Jait 18 -- the day before the movie is to be pr~niered nalionally. Air time on Saturday. Jan. 18. is 9 p.m. on public access channel 2. The film is made by the same cast featured on the ouWagcous British sil~m. "Absolutely Fabulous." whose reruns have been running on Comedy Omlral. Comedy Central was one o~ the channds eliminated by local cable provider Telc-Commumcauons Inc. (TCI) as of Dec. 31, 1996. However, TCI, made the swilches two days early, further antagon/ving loyal Comedy Central viewers and fueling m ongo/ng controversy about lhe abuse of ~e power exerc/sed by TCI. · This [movie premiere] is Iowa City's v~sion of a gala Hollywood event." said Gerald A. Carroll. founder of CACA. "Plans are also to televise other Comedy Cen~al shows on public access as well. TCI needs to know that we wa~t Comedy C3entral and VH- 1 back." Comedy CentraPs vice president of communications. Tony Fox. said that TC1 viewers who have bccn denicd acccss to Comedy Cm~tral across the cottatry will bcndit from CACA's offotis. "Comedy CenWal viewers have spoken," Fox said. "It is a voice !lint needs to bc hcarcL" CACA: (319) 354-2433 ~]JAN 161997 ~ 5281 Wapsi Avenue, S.E. Lone Tree, IA 52755 January 25, 1997 JAN 2 4 1997 CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE TO; Larry Baker, Karen Kubby, Ernie Lehman, Dec Norton, Naomi Novick, Dean Thomberry, Dee Vanderhoef, Linda Woito, J. Patrick White I have questions that relate specifically to pages 47 - 50 of Jeffrey Gfllaspie's statement to Mr. DeRooi, of the DCI. They are as follows, (any emphasis is mine): JG: A: 'Our standard operating procedure on open doors is for our personal safety and stuff we don~ - if there is a bad guy and stuff, we don~ announce that the police are here and we are corning in, and the reason we don't do that is because we don~ want to give them the opportunity to - the oportunity to, I guess, have a tactical upper hand on us and - hurt us if they know weffe coming in.' DCI Q: 'Is that a written policy?' JG A: 'I don't know.' DCI Q: You just said it was your policy; you'd call it that, Jeff, if you could? JG A: 'I donY know/f there - if it~ written policy. I don~ believe it~ written policy on every open door that we go to, when we're after - we lniti~11¥ go in, we don~ - we don~ stand outside the door and announce "Police Officers" and then wa/k/n. I guess the reasoning behind it is we want to determine what's going on inside, if we can, you know, before we make our presence known, for our safety." My ?s: Was a standard policy on all open doors, just some open doors, or was there not such a policy on any and or all open doors? If the answer is that there was a written policy, then why did Officer Gillaspie not know it? If the answer is that there was a policy but it was not written down, how are officers reasonably and uniformly expected to know exactly what the policy is? If there was NOT such a policy, written or offher, then who is responsible for there not being a policy?. And, in any event, were our officers of the la~, either with a written policy on all or some open doors, or an unwritten policy on all or some open doors, or in the absence of any generally understood policy on all or some open doors, allowed to enter with guns pulled any and all open doors to property as they saw findividuall¥ fit, in an attempt to ascertain what was happening inside such property?. Were the officers of the ICPD entering private property with guns pulled and without warrants and on only the least possible suspicion that a bad guy might be inside, as a matter of routine? Is it true or false that the County Attorney's office provides workshops pertaining to such matters of law as search warrants? These questions should lead you to ask more of your own. Carol deProsse ~ ~.~,~~ City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: Re: January 24, 1997 The Honorable Mayor Naomi Novick and Members of the City Council Sarah E. Holecek, Assistant City Attorney ~~ Dennis J. Mitchell, Assistant City Attomey ,~u[ One-Eyed Jake's: Non-Conformance with Uniform Fire Code and Recommended Denial of Liquor License (and Dancing Permit) One-Eyed Jake's has applied for a renewal of its liquor license and dancing permit for its business located on the second and third floors at 18-20 South Clinton Street. The current establishment does not meet the Uniform Fire Code fire exit requirements, and the proprietor has been on notice of this deficiency for over two years. The owner has now proposed an expansion of the business which does add additional fire exits, however, due to a local ordi- nance regarding the location of liquor establishments above ground floor, and the non-compli- ance of the front entrance/exit with the Uniform Building Code, City staff is recommending denial of this application for health, safety and welfare reasons. HISTORY: On December 12, 1994, Mike Porter, proprietor of One-Eyed Jakes, was notified by correspon- dence from Steve Stimmel, Iowa City Fire Department Inspector, that the building housing his business did not meet minimum requirements for exiting under the 1991 Uniform Fire Code adopted by the City on May 11, 1993. Under such Code, all buildings were to submit and obtain approval of plans for compliance within 18 months of the adoption of the Code, and '~vithin 18 months thereafter the work shall be completed or the building shall be vacated until made to conform." Uniform Fire Code, Appendix I, (1991). However, as the owner was not notified of this deficiency until December 1994, it was agreed that he would be allowed 18 Months from December 1994 (until June 1996) to submit approvable plans, with the cautionary statement that he was not in compliance with the Fire Code, and that he may be liable for any deaths or injudes that may occur as a result of the lack of exits. Prior to the passage of that date, Mr. Porter was again notified and reminded of his obligations by the Iowa City Fire Marshall. Although structural sketches were submitted in June 1996, Mr. Porter was notified in July 1996 by the City Attorney's Office that the sketches which were submitted were incomplete and not approvable due to lack of a third floor exit, lack of internal floor plans for access to the pro- posed external exits as well as the lack of architect or engineer certification. Further, the owner was advised that he needed to apply for a building permit to establish whether the plans were approved under the Building and Fire Code requirements. Mr. Porter was further advised that due to the imminent life, health and safety issues presented by this matter, if steps for compli- ance were not submitted by August 25, 1996, a municipal infraction citation would issue and all legal remedies pursued. On August 26, 1996, another set of plans which included an expansion of the business premises as well as additional external exits were submitted and a building permit applied for. However, upon review, this set was found insufficient for lack of a site plan. On October 23, 1996 a site plan was submitted to complete the application, but due to the Owner's representa- tion that he would not be building in the near future the review of the application was given a lower priority. Upon review of the plans, it was determined that the expansion of the business would not be allowed under Iowa City Code ,~4-2-2, which prohibits the location of liquor establishments above the ground floor, but which "grandfathered" those establishments that had been licensed prior to 1980. After verbal notification of the requirement to submit certified approvable plans addressing the fire exit issue without expansion, and the upcoming expiration of his liquor license and City Staffs intention to recommend denial should these requirements not be met, Mr. Porter was further notified in writing of these requirements on December 9, 1996. While debating the issue of whether the proposed expansion would indeed be prohibited under City Code, after further review of the expansion plans, Mr. Porter was advised by the Building Official in early January 1997 that the front entrance to his establishment was insufficient to accommodate such an expansion under the Uniform Building Code. Thus, staff is recommend- ing denial of the of the requested renewal on the basis of life, health, safety and welfare issues due to the non-compliance with Uniform Fire Code exiting requirements. ANALYSIS: Under Iowa City Code Title 4, Chapter 2, Section 2, (4-2-2), "No liquor control license or beer permit shall be approved for premises which do not conform to all applicable laws, provisions of this Code and other ordinances, resolutions and health and fire regulations". Under Iowa City Code Title 4, Chapter 4, Section I(B), (4-4-1(B)), an application for a dancing permit shall contain "a statement form the Chief of Police, the Fire Chief and the Building Inspector that the premises comply with the ordinances of the City and statutes of the State." While the current premises comply with the Building Code, they do not comply with the Uniform Fire Code exiting requirements. Thus, the Iowa City Fire Department is recommending denial of the applications for failure to address Fire Code exiting requirements and the imminent life, health and safety issues such a deficiency presents. The applicant contends that the plans which include an expansion of the premises satisfy the Fire Code exiting requirements, and thus the applications should be approved. The establishm- ent was allowed under r:j4-2-2(A) which states that the ground level provision, "shall not be applicable to establishments which were licensed pdor to March 1, 1980." In addition to running afoul of Iowa City Code Section 4-2-2(A) on an "expansion of a non-conforming use" theory, the expansion is prohibited under the Uniform Building Code and the Uniform Fire Code, whose provisions are designed to ensure safety. While the proposed expansion plans include second and third floor external exits, the expansion would increase capacity by more than 100 patrons. The current front entrance to the business is less than 36" wide with steep risers; the Building Code requires 44" in width. The building also has a non-conforming stair configuration in that an open stair well penetrates more than one floor, requiring rescue and emergency personnel to leave the first set of stairs and locate a second to get to the third floor. Under the Uniform Building Code, an expansion of a building with non-conforming exits is impermissible. Further, the response and safety of the Fire Department is seriously jeopar- dized. Thus, neither the requirements of the Building Code nor the Fire Code are satisfied by the proposed expansion plans. In short, the Fire Department is seriously concerned regarding its ability to effectively rescue the patrons of the establishment. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me, Dennis Mitchell, or Fire Chief Andrew Rocca. CC: Linda Newman Woito, City Attomey Steve Atkins, City Manager Andrew Rocca, Fire Chief Roger Jensen, Fire Marshall Marian Karr, City Clerk Ron Boose, Senior Building Inspector Dave ~oore ~2~ Daven~ortSt. Iowa City IA 5~245 319 3419831 TO: Larry Baker, Karen Kubby, Ernie Lehman, Dee Norton, Naomi Novik, Dean Thornberry, Dee Vanderhoef, Linda Wioto These are additional questions z-ecently suOmitued by various citizens: - In what uir~ction ao~s ~ne city council intend to take it's review in the future? - Will there be ~uolic hearings and in what time frame? - Do y~u intend to answer questions submitted oy citizens? - Who will ~e providing y~u ~i th informaci~n in addition to the city m~na~er and ~olic~ c~,le~'? - Do you intend to answer Karen Kub~y's qu=otions re6arding person:,el? - As some citizens uelieve th~'e has been an ove~-all "us rs. titera" attiuuue in the police depaitment in the last 8 years, do y~u intend to interview retired police officers to hel~ cla~i£y this perception? - We rea~ that the guns used by police officers have a 10 pound pull to file the first snot. Someone informed me chat this is the case only if ~here is not a cartl'idge in the chamber, but iI' the~-~ is a cax't~'ice in the chamber, t~.ere is only a 3-~ lb. pull. Is there a possibility there was a ca~ ~riuoe in the first chamber, or a way to find out? W~lat is ~ozice ~rodeuure on r~a%'ing a cax'trise in the chamber? LAW OF ZONING The Iowa courts have long held that zoning is an exercise of police powers delegated to municipalities by the State and thus, the local zoning ordinances are to be strictly construed. City of Lamoni v. Livin.qston, 392 N.W.2d 506, 509 (Iowa 1986). The Iowa City Zoning Ordinance recognizes nonconforming uses as legal uses in all zoning districts in Iowa City. Iowa City Code of Ordinances, Title 14, Chapter 6, Article T. Pursuant to Article T, legal nonconforming uses may continue, subject to termination upon discontinuance for a period of one year or damage in excess of 100% of assessed value. Legal nonconforming uses may not be enlarged. An intensification of use does not amount to an illegal enlargement. Citv of Central Citv v. Knowlton, 265 N.W.2d 749, 753 (Iowa 1978) (application of principle to a junkyard). IOWA CITY ZONING ORDINANCE The Iowa City Zoning Ordinance, Title 14, Chapter 6 of the City of Iowa City Code does not prohibit a junk or salvage yard in an RS-5 district. The specific provisions of the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance are voluminous, yet nowhere can one find a prohibition, without, by implication or interpretation, extending a restriction that is otherwise not within the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance. In contrast to other specific provisions in the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance, Section 14-6D-2, setting forth the RS-5 low density single family residential zone nowhere provides that uses other than specified uses are prohibited. This is in contrast to provisions found within the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance that specifically indicate certain uses are prohibited in specified zones. For example, Section 14-6A-4(H) specifically provides that hellports, hellpads and hellstops are not permitted in any residential or commercial zone. No similar provision can be found in the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance, without interpretation or implication, of the ordinance. Iowa law is clear that zoning restrictions are construed strictly in order to favor the free use of property and restrictions will not be extended by implication or interpretation. Defendants anticipate the City of Iowa City will argue that Code Section 14-6L-1(K) specifies that junkyards must meet certain criteria. The additional provisions specified with respect to junkyards are made applicable to those uses when the specific requirements of Article L of the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance are referred to in other parts of the City Zoning Ordinance. The junkyard regulations are not specifically referred to in the provisions with respect to the RS-5 district as set forth in Iowa City Zoning Ordinance Section 14-6D-2. In addition, the specific junkyard regulations are not set forth in the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance with respect to nonconforming uses as recognized and authorized in Article T found at Sections 14-6T-1, et seq. Failure to prohibit a junkyard within the RS-5 district, whether recognized as a legal nonconforming use or as a use not prohibited, undermines Plaintiff's claim of a nuisance. As stated in Kirk v. Mabis, 246 N.W. 759, 762 (Iowa 1933), any business not expressly excluded by a city zoning ordinance may be conducted in a district designated as commercial if so conducted as to not constitute a nuisance. Since the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance specifically excludes junk and salvage yards from its nuisance provisions, Iowa City has failed to state a violation of the nuisance law with respect to property in an RS-5 zone. The complex Iowa City Zoning Ordinance is unlike other zoning ordinances which provide that a building or premises may be used only for specified principal permitted uses. The Iowa City Zoning Ordinance defines a ruse" as a purpose or activity for which land, structures or a portion thereof is designed, occupied and maintained. It further defines a "permitted use" as a principal use allowed in the zone in which it is listed, subject to compliance with certain requirements. However, nowhere does the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance prohibit uses other than those that are identified as permitted uses, provisional uses or special exceptions.