Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-01-03 AgendaIOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 1995 7:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CiViC CENTER 410 EAST WASHINGTON AGENDA IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING - JANUARY 3, 1995 7:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS ITEM NO. I - ITEM NO. 2- CALL TO ORDER. ROLL CALL. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED. a. Approval of Officia~ Actions of the special Council meetings of December 13, 1994, and December 19, 1994, and of the regular meeting of December 20, 1994, as published, subject tO corrections, as recom- mended by the City Clerk. b. Minutes of Boards and Commissions. {1) Charter Review Commission meeting of November 30, 1994. (2) Charter Review Commission meeting of December 8, 1994. (3) Historic Preservation Commission meeting of December 13, 1994. Senior Center Commission meeting of November 24, 1994. Committee on Community Needs meeting of October 26, 1994. (6) Committee on Community Needs meeting of November 16, 1994. (7) Planning end Zoning Commission meeting of December 15, 1994. c. Permit Motions as Recommended by the City Clerk. (1) Consider a motion approving a Class "E" Beer Permit for Randali's International, Inc., dba Randali's Pantry, 1851 Lower Muscatine Rd. (Renewal) (2) Consider a motion approving a Class "C" Liquor License for Lohaus & Larson Investment Co., dba The Airliner, 22 S. Clinton St. (Renewal} Consider a motion approving a Class "C" Liquor License for Baxter, Inc., dba The Break Room, 1578 1st Ave. (Renewal) City of iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE= December 30, 1994 TO: Mayor, City Council, General Public FROM: City Clerk Addition to Consent Calendar Consider a motion approving a class "C" Liguor License for Gasthaus, Inc., dba Jirsats, 819 S. 1st Avenue. (New) 2e(3) Letter from Marjorie Hayden Strait & Lois Mary Strait regarding Iowa City Transit and Snow Removal - safety for bus riders. Agenda Iowa City City Council Regular Council Meeting Janusry 3, 1995 Page 2 ITEM NO. 3 - d. Setting Public Hearings. (1) CONSIDER SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR JANUARY 17, 1995, TO DISCUSS A PORTION OF IOWA ClTY'S CONSOLIDAT- ED PLAN FOR P~1995-FY2000 (AKA CiTY STEPS}. Comment: As required by HUD, the City must prepare and submit a Consolidated Plan. This will serve as the City's plan for serving the needs of low income residents. Council approval of the Citizen Participation Plan and the Priorities and Strategies sections of this document are necessary in order to establish funding guidelines for the FY95 Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership funds. e. Correspondence. (1) Letter from Nancy A. Lynch protesting the plan to build a water treatment plant so hurriedly and suggesting the City investigate a site for wells to provide subsurface water. fe (2) Letter from the Iowa Arts Festival amending their request for the use of '(he parking lot adjacent to the Holiday Inn for the Arts Festival.. Applications for City Plaza Use Permits. (1) Application from Gary Haynes for permission to set up a table during the period of December 28 through January 6 for the purpose of accepting donations for calendars to benefit Galilean Children's Home in Liberty, Kentucky. (approved) END OF CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC DISCUSSION (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA). //3 page 1 Horow/ Public discussion for items not on the agenda. At this time I would ask you to approach the mic, state your names, sign in and I will be limiting your comments to no more than five minutes. Jim Conklin/ Needless to say, I didn't realize Greenview deal wa~ on tonight. Horow/ Sir, may I have your name please. Conklin/ Jim Conklin. I am sorry. As I say, needless to say, I am very upset on the Towncrest deal. It seems to me that while I was down there and I kept up as best I could through my neighbor and that was the only thing I could do. It sounded fine to start with. When it went through and I think you passed it on May 24 or something like that. My understanding was through what he told me and then I read all the papers when I got back that he saved for me. It was my understanding and interpretations that we get out by June I and Eagles had agreed to let the city have until June i to relocate us and according to what was said here at the council, I mean,that was agreeable and they was with the understanding that a new place was to be built. Now that has not been done and it hasn't-you have had all this time and even on the Zoning Board, as far as I am concerned on this rezoning, you boo- booed right there because for a simple fact that the Zoning Board voted 6-0 not to fezone. For a simple fact that when I went up here before the Zoning Board I brought it up that there was rezoning but no rezoning for us people to move to and they agreed and they voted 6-0 not to fezone and to the council here and according to what I understandby the paper, the Zoning Board did back track and okay because you had stated that there was to be a place that was going to be built and everything and it wasn't done and you didn't have it. Horow/ That is what we are dealing with this evening. Conklin/ I understand that but do you know we are under the deal. Now, if we get relocated and just like with my trailer. It is qualified. I don't care what anybody says in this town and that includes the trailer courts. Mine is in very good condition for the year and it is fixed up for me. In fact, the city even put in the bathroom deal for me. Now, in order for me to move and I have to get out and even in a temporary location, I would still want back into the new one because I wouldn't be satisfied with none of these trailer courts in town for the simple reason there is the same options we had and it right here when this started and it is still the same This reprase~te only a reasonably accurate transc~ptlon of the Iowa City council meeting of January 3, 1995. F01039§ 83 page 2 options. And I also noticed in the paper tonight. I can't think of her name, Karin- Horow/ Karin Franklin. Conklin/ Here you are all come up here with all this relocation stuff and you have that money from the government on the flood plain. Those people were forced out by nature, the river, which is the government in the first place because the government owns all water ways. Now, besides that, now you had that and then you are going to invest-what is it up around. Around $1 million or whatever it is which is going to run the city about $900,000 and then counting what they are coming up with. An4 then you stop and think because the way that is set up now from what I read and gather, that trailer court is not going to be for low income people actually except for some trailers that were suppose to come under the guidelines under HUD or something. Now that I don't know. But there I am telling you they want us to go to all of these nice big 14 "'~ 16 wides and and so forth like that and a newer trailer. Now, you put us in that category and move us out there and How in the world are we going to pay for those trailers. Now I got a big raise on my pension. A whole sum of $18 month which comes to 60 cents a day and I am well ~nder $10,000. Now, how in the world can we go out there on that in another trailer. And in the first place, at our age, especially mine. Hell, I am not going to live that long anyway. And I got everything and I don't live like a bum. My trailer is not a bum trailer. And it is plenty of room for me. Why am I going to do with a 14-16 wide trailer they want us to do. I tell you why. Because they want to sell them trailers. To most, all your trailer courts in here that is their gravy deal to is selling these trailers. Now what are we suppose to do here. That is what I say now. Here it is Mr. Arkins in the paper shortly after that meeting, right after it was signed,sealed and delivered. It was written there. All the stress. That wasn't his, see. A little headline up there. Finally the Towncrest tenants, the stress is taken off. Mr. Arkins said, hopefully by summer a new deal would be done and by fall we would be able to move in. Where are we at? Nothing. Horow/ Well, we are at as much progress as we can. Conklin/ All right but now you put us in a rock and a hard spot because. Listen, there is no way that can be done in that length of time. That is what I amtalking about. Go to another trailer and then there is no way you would have to move us back into that deal. This represents only a reasonsbly accurate transcdptlon of the Iowa City council mest}ng of January 3, 1995. F010395 83 page 3 Horow! Have you been working with the staff on this? Has someone been out to talk with you on this? conklin! Life Skills is the only one that has been out to see me and Hr. Nashy did once because I called him and had him come out to me. Kubby/ So what I hear you saying, Jim, is that one of the ratio- nales for us in making a decision to fezone was that we would create another trailer park and it would be ready so that Towncrest residents could move in there. Conklin/ That is correct. Kubby/ But we are moving more slowly than we thought. So even if you could afford a trailer in there, the time is going to be way past- Conklin/ That is what I mean. That is going to put me out in where I want to be in there so I can be qualified for that low housing deal which I should be because that was even stated in the paper formthe word go that when they did that, our rent would be way down, right around $125. I got the paper at home with all those figures and I don't know. Then there is something wrong with your numbers in the first place. Horow/ Jim, I thinkat this point, I thlnkyou are going to have to work on the staff on this to try to figure out how to get this- Conklin/ They have and what do they do they are finding is out of town and I am a citizen of Iowa City. I have lived here and there is no way I am going to move out of to%rn. West Branch, Tiffin, Oxford or nothing. Horow/ Well, I uan't solve this right now. Conklin/ I can't understand why this wasn't all figured out before you go ahead and get everything moved. Horow/ We didn't realize that it would take this long to get this far. Conklin/ I know, that is what I am saying. That is why the Zoning Board even turned it down because they voted a no because there was nothing. Throg/ You know, I have a very different memory of our decision and maybe I am wrong about this and someone can correct me. But I do not remember us as a council promising that a new trailer Thisrepresents only aressonably accurate ~ansc~pfion of ~elowa CIH coun~l meeting ofJanuary3,1$95. F010395 #3 page 4 park, a manufactured housing park, would be available for people to move into directly from Towncrest. That is not- What I remember the promise being was that we would provide relocation assistance to everybody who lives in Towncrest and that we intend to fulfill that promise and we will make sure staff does that. But I want to be clear that I didn't understan~ that there was that kind of linkage between this new trailer court an~- Conklin/ It was my interpretation and according to Eagles, it was when they come and went through the deal here because I was gone. And it was through your deal and it was their understanding, too, that we would have a place to relocate- Throg/ We were surely trying to build this but it wasn't a promise that this new facility would be available or others to move- conklin/ That is where I live by Mr. Arkins' remark in the paper. That it was going to be started before summer and would be finished so us people could probably move in within the fall. Well, the summer went, the fall went, the winter is here and where are we at? Kubby/ I thi~k that I agree with you, Jim, that there wasn't a specific promise made but if you review the transcripts of the formal meeting and maybe we should get copies of the May 10 meeting for everybody. There are at least three people who make very specific remarks that their rationale for voting for the zoning change was because we were going to be working on a place to relocate people. Throg/ Right and we were hoping people would relocate. Kubby/ Right but you know because it has moved more slowly than we thought, who suffers? You and I don't suffer. Jim and Frank and other households are having a hard time relocating in a way and so- Horow/ Karin, that has been part of our- we have been part of the problem as well in terms of the questions, in terms of the intense scrutiny that we have been giving this project. So we are part of the problem that it has taken so long. I thinkwe can look at this. Kubby/ We have not delayed this at all sin¢=e it has come to us. Pigott/ NO, we haven't. Th~ repr~en~ on~ areasonably accur~e ~anscr;p~on of ~elowa Clty cound! mee~ng ~ J~uary3.1995. F010395 #3 page 5 Horow/ At this point, Jim, we hear what you are saying. We obviously do not have it ready for you and we will have to have the relocation aspect of this worked on. Conklin/ Now- Borow/ Now, I am not saying that it is going to be relocated. We can't instantly build this tomu~row for you to go in there. conklin/ I told , I said that I would be willing to move temporarily, just -because I know we are going to have to get out of there one way or another. As soon as that deal is built that is where I am going to go. Kubby/ And you are saying you want city assistance in the temporarily relocation. conklin/ Right because those trailer parks that have been here for years is saying and there is not a da~n one of them to be honest with you I would move into. Horow/ We will work with the relocation assistance that we have worked with just as everyone else has. Conklin/ With the way you have done so far. And just like it said in there, you got half of them relocated. That was on the renters, mostly, not the ow-ners. You got rid of a few owners. That was just because some of them were scared and just took what the hell they could get and I do not want to do that because you just, as far as I am concerned, the others won't say nothing, some of them. I am not the only one upset. By God, it has upset my life completely and I don't have much time left and I surely didn't want this because I was well satisfied and I figured that was my last place anyway where I am at. Horow/ Jim, we have got to move on with this. Thank you very much. Conklin/ Okay. I will be back (can't hear). I believe we got railroaded all the way around in the first place. Kubby/ The other one suggestion I do heve is if we do end up going forward with this partnership and we end up knowing what a time frame is. To negotiate with Eagles if we know how many people could and would move to the new trailer park. To negotiate with Eagles about changing the conditional zoning agreement to change that June i deadline for X number of households for the ones it would work to move if this all happens. Because they are saying they are not going to start This represents only a reasonably accurate tran$cdptlon of the iowa City cuuncll meeting of January 3, 1995. F010395 #3 page 6 doing things until '96 and so we might as well as if it is a possibility. So that is another thought. Nov/ It is a little iffy but we can ask- Horow/ Is there anyone else who would care to address council on any issue that is not on the agenda? Okay. This re~esent~ only areasonabWaccurate ~anscrlpOonof~elowa Clty coun~lmee~nq of January3, 1996. F010395 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: REF: December 30, 1994 Mayor, City Council, General Public City Clerk Addition ~o Consent Calendar 20°(4) Consider a motion approving a Class "C" Liquor License for Gasthaus, Inc., dba Jirsa's, 819 S. 1st Avenue. (New) Letter from Marjorie Hayden Strait & Lois Mary Strait regarding Iowa City Transit and Snow Removal - safety for bus riders. Agenda Iowa City City Council Regular Council Meeting January 3, 1995 Page 3 ITEM NO. 4 - PLANNING AND ZONING MATTERS. Consider setting a public hearing for January 17, 1995, on an amend- ment of the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use map designation of property located on the north side of Highway 1 West from 8-16 dwelling units per acre to 2-8 dwelling units per acre and general commercial. Comment: At its December 15, 1994, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission, by a vote of 5-0-1, with Dierks abstaining, recommended approval of an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use map designation of property located on the north side of Highway 1 West from 8-16 dwelling units per acre to 2-8 dwelling units per acre and general commercial. The Commission's recommendation is consistent with the staff recommendation. Action: Consider setting a public hearing for January 17, 1995, on an ordinance changing the use regulations of an approximate four acre tract of land, known as the Jensen tract, located east of Harlocke Street from RM-44, High Density Multi-Family Residential, to RS-5, Low Density Single- Family Residential. (REZ93-0007) Comment: At its December 15, 1994, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission, by a vote of 4-1-1, with Jakobsen voting no and Dierks abstaining, rec.~mmended approval of an ordinance changing the use regulations of an approximate four acre tract of land, known as the Jensen tract, located east of Harlocke Street from RM-44, High Density Multi-Family Residential, to RS-5, Low Density Single-Family Residential. The Commission's recommendation recommendation. Action: is consistent with the staff Agenda iowa City City Council Regular Council Meeting January 3, 1995 Page 4 Consider setting a public hearing for January 17, 1995, on an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance by changing the use regulations of approximately two acres located generally on the west side of Harlocke Street from RM-44, High Density Multi-Family Residential, to RS-5, Low Density Single-Family Residential. (REZ93-0007) Comment: At its December 15, 1994, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission, by a vote of 4-1-1, with Jakobsen voting no and Dierks abstaining, recommended approval of changing the use regulations of approximately two acres located generally on the west side of Harlocke Street from RM-44, High Density Multi-Family Residential to RS-5, Low Density Single Family Residential. The Commission's recommendation is consistent with the staff recommendation. Action: Consider setting a public hearing for January 17, 1995, on an ordinance amending the use regulations of an approximate 4.57 acre tract of land, known as the western portion of the Ruppert tract, located generally north of Highway 1 West from RM-44, High Density Multi-Family Residential, to RS-5, Low Density Single-Family Residential. (REZ93- 0007) Comment: At its December'l 5, 1994, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission, by a vote of 5-0-1, with Dierks abstaining, recommended approval of an ordinance changing the use regulations of an approximate 4.57 acre tract of land, known as the western portion of the Ruppert tract, located generally north of Highway 1 West from RM-44, High Density Multi-Family Residential, to RS-5, Low Density Single-Family Residential. The Commission's recommendation is consistent with the staff recommendation. Action: Agenda Iowa City City Council Regular Council Meeting January 3, 1995 Page 5 Consider setting a public hearing for January 17, 1995, on an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance by conditionally changing the use regulations of an approximate 9.05 acre tract, known as the eastern portion of the Ruppert Tract, located generally north of Highway 1 West from RM-44, High Density Multi-Family Residential, to CC-2, Community Commercial. (REZ93-0007) Comment: At its December 15, 1994, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission, by a vote of 5-0-1, with Dierks abstaining, recommended approval of changing the use regulations of an approximate 9.05 acre tract, known as the eastern portion of the Ruppert Tract, located generally north of Highway 1 .West from RM44, High Density Multi- Family Residential, to CC-2, Community Commercial, subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement requiring the retention of the existing natural buffer within the western 200 feet of the tract. The Commission's recommendation is consistent with the staff recommenda- tion. Consider setting a public hearing for Janua[y 17, 1995, on an applica- tion to rezone an approximate 1.5 acre tract of land located north of Highway 1 West and west of Miller Street from RS-8, Medium Density Single-Family Residential, to CC-2, Community Commercial. (REZ94- 0019) Comment: At its December 15, 1994, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission, by a vote of 4-1-1, with Jakobsen voting no and Dierks abstaining, recommended approval of a City-initiated application to rezone an approximate 1.5 acre tract of land located north of Highway 1 West and west of Miller Street from RS-8, Medium Density Single- Family Residential, to CC-2, Community Commercial. The Commission's recommendation is consistent with the staff recommendation. Act,on; Agenda Iowa City City Council Regular Council Meeting January 3, 1995 Page 6 .g. Consider setting a public hearing for January 17, 1995, on an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance by changing the use regulations of a 0.32 acre parcel located at 719 S. Capitol Street from C1-1, Intensive Commercial, to P, Public. (REZ94-0017) Comment: At its December 15, 1994, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission, by a vote of 5-1, with Dierks voting no, recommended approval of an application submitted by Johnson County to rezone a 0.32 acre parcel located at 719 S. Capitol Street from C1-1, Intensive Commercial, to P, Public. The Commission's recommendation is consistent with the staff recommendation. Action: ~'~_~'/'~]~. Public hearing on a resolution to annex an 80 acre tract of land, for a project known as the Greenview Manufactured Housing Park, located southeast of Sycamore Street and east of the Pleasant Valley Golf Course. (ANN94-0007) Comment: At its December 1, 1994, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission, by a vote of 5-1, with Dierks voting no, recommended approval of the City of iowa City and Robert and Erma Wolf request to annex an approximate 80 acre parcel, to be known as Greenview Park, located southeast of Sycamore Street and east of the Pleasant Valley Golf Course. The Commission's recommendation is consistent with the staff recommendation as s~ forth in ~ staff report dated September 994. #4h page i ITEM NO. 4 h. Public hearing on a resolution to annex an 80 acre tract of land, for a project known as the Greenview Manufactured Housing Park, located southeast of Sycamore Street and east of the Pleasant Valley Golf Course. (ANN94-0007) Horow/ Open the p.h. I would ask people to sign in, state your name, please limit your comments to five minutes. If there is anything else you wish to address council, please wait until everyone has had their turn. And if there is any misinformation that council feels that it is appropriate to comment on- All yours. Mike Gatens/ I live at 2045 Dubuque Road. And I am here tonight just to find out if Sycamore Farms was annexed into Iowa City 18 months ago if they ever during this while process was offered this packaged that the Greenview property is developing. Because, correct me if I am wrong, do they have property zoned for projects like this? Horow/ Yes, they have RFBH property. Gatens/ ~Fny are we rezoning more? Horow/ This was a city initiated action to move people from the flood plain for mitigation purposes as well increase the affordable housing and do it with a city private partnership. Nov/ It was a request for proposal. And those who responded were considered. Gatens/ Were Sycamore farms people ever offered? Horow/ They did not respond at that time. They responued later. Throg/ Sycamore Farms was not annexed 18 months ago, either. It was approximately 5, 6, or 7 months ago, Karin. When was the formal approval, in August, Karin. Kubby/ Although the process took two years. Gatens/ I am Just here tonight to support Sycamore Farms for their annexation that they haven't even started yet and that I think most of the people down there know that some of that property is ~oned for manufactured housing and the big question is why more and I am sure they are going to address that, too. Another thing I want to support is Pleasant Valley Golf Course. That is a great asset to the Iowa City/Johnson County area and I thi~k the manufactured housing on their east side is a good way ruin that piece of property. I think that a lot This represents only a rea~on~ly accurate transcription of the Iowa CI~y council meeting of January 3, 1995. F010395 #4h page 2 of other things could be put on that east side to help them° It is just a wonderful golf course and I think you are going to go through it anyway perhaps with some of the sewer problems that we are going to have in the future going through them and destroying some of it but I am sure it is going to be brought back to the way it was but to put this manufactured housing on the east side when there is property within a mile. I just don't understand why both of these properties are being put in that area instead of just taking care of what is there. And, correct me if I am wrong, has Sycamore Farms done any development yet? I didn't think so. It is not like they have filled up their manufactured housing yet. So, thank you. Throg/ Thanks, Mike. Dave Ressler/ In one of the work sessions that I was at a couple of weeks ago, Karin Franklin has said that no survey has yet been done to see how many people wish to move out of the flood plain in the Baculis and Thatcher Mobile Homes Park. Since, this is the first and I believe the main criteria that the city has for building Greenview, it seems like we are certainly putting the cart before the horse. Logically the survey needs to be done by the city before any good decision on building the new park is made. This survey can be done without the landlords being involved in it and thus the tenants would not be fearful of any retribution. My own personal belief is that the people who wanted out of the flood plain have already moved themselves out or the city has already moved them out. This time I would think the number wanting to move out would be very small or possibly even non- existent. I have talked with Steve Bright. He has told me he wants to start developing the Sycamore Farms property as soon as possible and this will be done without a government subsidy from the tax payers. I think that should be highly encouraged and I support that 100%. I know Bob Wolf. He is a very competent an~ very capable businessman and he is definitely not in need of a subsidy. He has a very nice mobile home park in Modern manor without any subsidy and if this new park is viable, he can certainly build a new one without a tax payers subsidy. If we do need to give any subsidies for housing, let's give them directly to the low income people involved to spend on housing as they see fit. In other words, they could use it for apartments, to purchase a mobile home, to rent a mobile home or to maybe rent a house. I would like to propose a radical idea. If this is the only use we can find for the $420,000 of HUD funds, let Iowa City set an example for the rest of the country and return it to the federal treasury. In these tight budgetary times, we could be a leader for the rest of the country and I, for one, would be extremely proud of our city for doing that. Thank you. This represents only a reasonably accurate ~'anscrfptlon of the Iowa City council meeting of January 3, 1995. F010395 #4h Aleda Mark page 3 Feuerbach/ I am one of the owners of Pleasant Valley Golf Course. We are not real anxious to see a mobile home park develop to the east of USo 8-9 years ago when we came before YOU folks or at least the common council we talked about and proposed a development there of s.f. homes or condominiums and this idea that has come up for the city is certainly not going to be in that same interest. Along those same lines, when we went before to get the approvals from the city and the county to build that golf course, we had to do a lot of things before we could move an ounce of dirt. One of those thing was fencing agreements. One of those things were water way agreements. We had to have all of our neighbors very happy with what we were doing before we could do anything. I would submit that that is not the case right now. I think with some of the recent concerns that have been brought up with the water and the sewer, I guess I question another $1.2 million that the city puts in and maybe put that money towards something else. This gentleman before me had a novel idea. I support it. Thankyou. Dorpinghaus/ I am the business manager of Modern Manor on the southeast side of Iowa City. I just wanted to come in to give some general information to the city council in regards to an outstanding mobile home park that Mr. and Mrs. Wolf have developed on the southeast side of Iowa City which is open to anyone in our community to come over and drive through and see what they have been able to do.. I really feel that even though there is no subsidy that the Wolfs received on part of Modern Manor that they already participate in subsidizing affordable housing to a lot of people that do not meet a median income that I think you may find in even a city of Des Moines. Iowa City is unique in its size and the type of community that we have. But it is also unique in not giving our community affordable housing. I see a lot of people in my profession. Two family members work usually making less than $50,000, have a couple of children, have $1,000 worth of day care expenses per month for their children. They must have an automobile to get to and from work. They are unable to qualify for a stick frame built home in Iowa City. I would agree with the gentleman that was here before me in returning the money to the treasury if we'cannot spend the money in our community to give more affordable housing° But I th~nk the need is 9-£eat and I see that from a lot of the elderly people. I see that from the gentleman in the wheelchair with a fixed income, less than $10,000 a year. I am sure he is one of many people in my community I don't see very often but I am glad that he did come and he did personalize his income with us. I have to say that I do.have compassion for the people that live around that area for the Pleasant Valley Golf Course. As for the woman that was here before me. You know, if we don't want to put in a mobile home park there, then let's put in public housing up This represents only a reasonably occurate transcription of the Iowa City council me~ng of January 3, 1996. F010395 #4h page 4 there. Let's build condominiums for low income people. I am sure there would be opposition to that as well0 I think that the Wolfs, I have to agree, do not need a subsidy to put in a mobile home park. They have entered into an agreement that the city has made an offer to them. They submitted proposals like everybody else did at the appropriate time and they were awarded this opportunity. I think that they will enhance your community. I think that they will bend over backwards to try to help these displaced people and people that need affordable housing. As I said, I feel that they already do it at this point anyway. Um, unfortunately, I really feel that perhaps there are other avenues for affordable housing but at this point in time, in Iowa City, stick frame built structure is not it. I feel that the sense of ownership can be given to these people the mayqualify for a home with the assistance of the city under the HUb program will benefit their esteem and give them responsibility. It will give them pride and ownership. I really feel that they deserve the opportunity. I want to agree with the gentleman in the wheel chair that I do think that there has been a great deal of mis¢ommunication, a great deal of rumor in the community about this mobile home park. I feel that the community should be fortunate that it is being developed by an Iowa Citian. Someone who is born and raised here, has employment here, has employees here, have family here. Their reputation is on the line more than anyone else in this room at this time. Modern Manor is a prime example. The Wolfs are fully aware. It is their park. They have gone out of their way to be sure it is an outstanding park. That park not only represents the residents of Modern Manor, it represents the Wolfs as well. I really feel fortunate that the city council did grant the association with the developer that is from the community that has roots here that will be here far longer after the park has been developed. But as for the miscommunication that the gentleman in the wheel chair brought up. I do really feel that these people in Towncrest Mobile Home Park, for example, do need to be spoken to. There has been some foot dragging. I would say very legitimately. We want to hear all of the concerns. We want to hear the positives. We want to hear the negatives. But I personally felt and I have been out of this. I have not been very close to the dynamics of all of this, I did think that the hall would be rolling much further in progress than what it is at this point. In fact, I would have been under the understanding from what I read in the paper that whoever was granted this association with the city would break ground at least this past fall which has not happened. So I do think that the concerns of this gentleman are well founded. I thank you for your time. This mp;eson~ on~ areasonab~accu~te ~ansc~lp~on ~ ~elowa Q~ coun~lmee~ng ~ J~nu~/3,1995. F010395 #4h page Dan Black/ I represent the ISBT Company which is trustee for the Edmond Gatens Trust. Edmond Gatens Trust is 140 acre parcel located directly north of the proposed Greenview. I am really here to voice the concerns and really.questions that have been proposed to me by the Gatens heirs and the Gatens Farm Trust. The heirs-to this property really are basically local people that have picked up information through friends, family, the media and by some information I imparted to them. But they have really asked me some very difficult questions with regard to this project that I have had a hard time answering. So I thought I would just pass them onto this body as a means of communicating these concerns and questions. Perhaps first and foremost is they cannot fathom why the currently 82 acres of factory built zoning on Sycamore Farms is not adequate for the area. Secondly, they also cannot understand really why flood victims from basically the summer of '93 have not already located and why this proposal is really directed toward relocation of flood victims. Again, perhaps as part of the misunderstanding and lack of communication on this, they don't think it is of particularly a valid issue. Thirdly, the question that they asked to me was if this project is really designed to gain access to the soccer fields that are proposed down by the water plant. A question that I guess I haven't heard answered at this level. They additionally asked what the whole free enterprise system as proposed by Sycamore Farms isn't allowed to work. It went through P/Z and went through this body and they have, and I guess I would have to agree, valid concerns on why it is not being given an opportunity before the city steps in with their current proposal. Lastly, their concern is why there is such a heavy heavy concentration of factory built housing zoning in this particular corridor of the city. It seems to them to have a unproportional amount directed in that area. Again, these are questions that anybody would like to address it would be great and if not, appreciate the opportunity to speak. Horow/ Thank you very much. Throg/ I wonder if Dan was expecting answers. Dan, were you expecting answers to those questions tonight? Horow/ We can certainly send it to you. Dan Black/ If anybody would like to address on that, that is fine. Those are just the concerns that people I represent have. Horow/ I am sure others have the same. If there are others, we can get them. Thlsr~res~ only ama~o~bly occurate ~on;~Ip~o. of ~olowa CIH~oun~l mooing of Jonuary3,189$. F01039§ #4h page 6 Throg/ I know I certainly have a reaction to the question concerning the why not let the free market work in regard to providing affordable housing for lower income people. And the answer is it doesn't. And we want to provide subsidies that will make that kind of housing available to lower income people. Jane Moore/ 4322 Daniel Place. There are many community members in opposition to this proposal. In fact, over 600 have signed a petition that states that. I also know that there are council members struggling with expenditure of $1.2 million or more of tax payers money on this Joint venture. I feel the reservations on the part of council comes from the lack of full disclosure of facts by city staff. At a P/Z meeting a Commission member asked for an agreement between the city and Robert Wolf so they would know what they were looking at and being expected to vote on. This was never produced by the city. Since August we have all been guessing at what the details of this proposal will be and we are still guessing. Karin Franklin is asking you to vote twice on this issue before you or the tax payers of this city know what they are getting. How can you responsibly vote on something without significant details still unresolved? Here are some of the major questions that need to be addressed and I don't necessarily expect these to be answered tonight. I will submit them for answers. How many lots will there be? The proposal says 330-340. Last night Karin Franklin said 370. Are a third of the lots for the HUD Fair Market Rent Program? The proposal said in exchange 116 of the 330-340 lots would be designated for use in the HUD Fair market Rent Program. Last night, Steve Nasby said no, you don't understand, it is not the HUD Fair Market Rent Program, it is just an agreement between the Wolf and the city. Once again, where is the agreement?What age of trailers will be let in? What siding?And these are guestions that the council members have asked and I would also like to see answered. Who are we hoping to help? Are we only going to allow current Iowa City residents in or will this become a magnet for non Iowa City residents? Do we want to help the low income people who already live here? When will a survey be done to see if the $420,000 of flood monies help any flood victims? Do any of them still want to move at this late date? What is the city's contribution to this proposal? Where does the $ 1.2 million figure come from and is that accurate? At the Grant Wood Neighborhood Association meeting in December, Bob Miklo said no streets would be improved unless they were city streets. Is this still an accurate statement? Council members have asked Randy and I for alternate options for this proposal. I would like to leave that to the people who work on a daily basis with affordable housing. Why can we not ask for suggestions from the Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship or This represents only a reasonably ancurste transcription of the Iowe City council meeting of January 3, 1~95. F010396 #4h page 7 Habitat For Humanity just to name two organizations in the private sector? I believe Sycamore Farms will supply Iowa City with affordable housing of the mobile home type on their 84 acres if given the chance to focus on their development. I would like to see the city give them that option and to remember that it only has been five months since their annexation and rezoning was allowed. The goal of the City Steps is directed to getting people off of the system and heading towards independent living. Why is this proposal assistance for a period of 15 years? And most importantly, a written agreement between the city and Mr. Wolf needs to be made public prior to any vote so that everyone knows exactly what to expect. Thank you. Throg/ Thanks, Jane. David Bloesch/ 57 Amber Lane. I would like to express my concerns about this proposal under consideration. I think the concerns that have been raised have been excellent by the previous people that have come up to address this issue and I would simply echo those concerns. My primary concern I guess would be the high concentration of mobile home courts or manufactured housing in that small segment of the city and the strain that that will place on the school system and the streets of that area. I would question whether it is on the best interest of the overall development of Iowa City and I would also question whether, in light of the recent annexation of these other mobile home courts, whether it would be necessary to move so quickly to have such a high number at such a fast rate added to that one corner of the city. So, I hope you will consider the long term effects of this and I hope you will consider the necessity for such immediate action in this particular proposal. Thank you very much. CHANGE TAPE TO REEL 95-3 SIDE 2 Lori Higgins/ I am representing HACAP tonight. The Hawkeye Area Community Action Program. We are a non profit private agency who serves low income families in Johnson County. We support the city's efforts to provide affordable lots in the newly proposed manufactured home park. The lack of affordable housing is a major barrier for low income families. For the past five years HACAP has managed and operated 8 units in the Johnson County Transitional Housing Program. Three of these units are manufactured homes. In Iowa City we have found that manufactured homes is one of the most economical and realistic ways to help increase the stock of permanent affordable housing for low income families. We are asking the council to consider a specific set aside of lots in the new park from two to five for community housing development organizations, Thlsrepmsents only areasonably accur~e ~anscrip~on of ~elowa CIH councU me~tfngofJanumy3,1995. F010395 #4h page 8 CHODOS, to provide permanent affordable housing. HACAP is a state recognized CHODO..This special set aside is needed because most private park owners, including Mr. Wolf, currently refuse to work with third parties. We, as an agency, do provide ongoing service to each of our units in the form of maintenance staff, unit upkeep and repair, and regular housing inspection. This move to provide a CHODO set aside in the new park would insure that at least a small number of the families would be able to afford permanent economical housing with the support of the city and HACAP. Throg/ Thar~kyou. Dennis Nowotny/And I basically-I wasn't going to say anything this evening but-because I was just going to see if you were going to pass the downzoning of the north side but I guess I am hearing a contradiction here because I thought that we want some low income housing in this town and I am hearing tonight, you know, because we are going to reduce the n,mber of bedrooms the northern half of iowa is going to have by about one per unit and yet we want to increase the low income housing on the south side. So, I don't know if this is a change of the way you want to city to grow or what. But, I would like to see if you could get this to be consistent some way or another and I guess that is just about all I was going to say. Pigott/ Can we clarify on that? Throg/ Dennis, what I understood you to say is that you think that the downzoning of the north side from RM-12 to RNC -12 or whatever it is will interfere with our ability to provide affordable housing. Right? Horow/ Dennis, you will have to come up to the mic. Kubby/ It is not a downzoning. I don't think we should use that. Nowotny/ You say don't say downzoning. Kubby/ It is implementation of keeping what is there and not letting any more dense. Nowotny/ I like the idea of keeping what is there even though it won't help my property because right next to me is RM-44 and those two will probably be torn down and there will be some thing next to me but at any rate-The number of roomers w-t~ be reduced by one. They will not build to increase. Let's say they had three or they can have two roomers there. Okay. Now they will be reduced to one more. So they won't be able to Thlsrepresen~o~ areasonably accur~e ~anscrlp~onofthelowa Cl~cou.~l mee~ng ~ January3,1995. F0103~5 #4h page 9 use these houses as much on the north side as they use to. I like to see that these houses are just as useful in the future as they are now and if some sort of, I pray that you maybe see something in the future to increase the rooming ability in these houses that are existing there and maybe help. Those are usually rooming rooms that are about $200 month which are pretty low income sort of rooming and that versus on the south side if you want to go ahead and help low income housing on the south side too then it helps everybody down there, too. Kubby/ Karin, I thought that we had talked about this.and that people who have X number of roomers now, that that will not be changed. Franklin/ The roomers won't change if they have them now. We also talked about doing an ordinance amendment to make the number of roomers consistent with the RM-12. So I think the problem that Dennis is raising will disappear. Kubby/ And that is roomers. We are talking about roomers, many kinds. John Cruise/ I am here as the attorney for the Iowa City Community School District. Our concerns relate both to the annexation and the rezoning of this property. As you well know, 370 additional lots in the area will greatly increase the enrollment in our district and will cause more crowding throughout the district. We have been involved at the P/Z level and we have mentioned two concerns of both of which have not been fully addressed. So I want to mention them again and tell you that they are concerns of the district and at least keep that on the table. 1-Is access to the 15 acres of property that we now have a vested interest in the Sycamore Farms development? We have the intention of eventually building on that parcel either an ~lementary school or a junior high. Right now we have severe crowding at both levels and it is just a question of financing and planning as to which school will be built next. We want to make sure that the plan for the development of this parcel includes vehicular access to the west as well as our access to the east which will be through Sycamore Farms property and we are hoping that the same standards that you would apply to any other developer will be applied to the development of this 80 acre parcel. The other thing that we have requested because of the precedence given with the Windsor Ridge development and the Sycamore Farms development is that an additional 6-7 acres be set aside in th~s development to be attached to our 15 acres that would give us a 22 acre site for a junior high. That request has not be granted or recommended by staff or the P/Z Commission. But it is we think a reasonable request considering the impact of This represents on~ creesoncbly accurate ~enscdpton of thelowe Clty coundl meeting of Jenuap/3,1995. F010396 #4h page l0 this development on our school system. We have to spend a great deal of money, probably $4 million, to build another school out there eventually and whatever help we can get from the owner of the property would be very meaningful. I think that is all I have to say about this. Pigott/ Could I just ask, John, so what are saying is just without that extra 6-7 acres, you can't build a junior high? cruise/ We need approximately 20-22 acres for a Junior high site. Now, that doesn't mean we can't get it somewhere. We will buy it. So- Horow/ In other words, if you had this extra 6-7 along with the 15 that you have in Sycamore you would put two schools. Is that what you mean? cruise/ No, what we would like is to have reserved 6-7 additional acres immediately adjacent to the 15 acres on the same terms and conditions that had been required on the Windsor Ridge developers and the sycamore Farms developers that would give us the option in the planning process to consider and plan whether or not we can get the junior high in there. We have to not only get the land, we have to get the funding. And, as you know, passing bond issues for any improvements is very difficult. So, we can't guarantee anybody a school there but that is what we would be shooting for. Throg/ Can I follow up on that point? I think I remember seeing a couple of letters from you in our packet and to the P/Z Commission or to staff about these issues and I seemed to recall in at least one of them you talk about- I thinkyou ask us to consider the possibility of adopting an impact fee relating to school construction. Help me out here. I Just have to admit that I am a bit ignorant here, Does the school board have the authority in and by itself to adopt an impact fee or would that be something the city council would have to do? Cruise/ To do an impact fee ordinance and arrangement you would actually have to involve all the local governments, including the county, the school district and the city. The city cannot do it alone. Nov/ Would it have to involve every city in the county? Or every city in the school district is a better way to say that. cruise/ I am not an expert on it. I don't know exactly how you would work it out but reasonably speaking for us, we would have to have a fair ordinance that could be implemented and Thisrepresents only a reason.bly accurate ~anscrtp~onofthelowo City councllrnee~ng o~Janu~/3,199$. F010395 #4h page treat all the property owners and all the governments fairly, you would have to involve everybody I would think. Horow/ Okay, thank you. Suzanne Dashnet/ I live at 1530 Buresh Avenue. Kubby/ Suzanne, I haven't lost that piece of paper you gave me at the bank. Dashnet/ I am still waiting for that phone call. Thanks, Karen. I have a real concern with the manufactured housing because it doesn't create any type of tax base to build the new schools that everyone is concerned about and the overcrowding that we have on the school systems. It is no different than when we buy an automobile and pay our license fee. It goes to the state rather than the City of Iowa Citywho dearly needs those monies. My q~estion is not that I am against affordable housing because I think it is a great alternative. My question i= why does it have to benefit just the developer and the monies that we are going to give, $425,000? Couldn't that be used to develop s~bdivisions so that people could buy their own manufactured housing and own the land that that manufactured housing sits on so that we can create a tax base and have alternative housing? Now, in the zoning meetings that I attended they said that the only affordable housing that we have seen recently in Iowa City was on First Avenue and those were built based on subsidies and cost in access of $90,000. Now, there is certainly affordable housing available today for much less than what the average two bedroom nationwide costs. And there are publicly traded companies that I follow as a stock broker that are available today including furniture for $35,000. Now, if we use the $425,000 for home ownership that will create a tax base, I certainly feel that that will be a much better alternative and do we have anything like that~ We keep talking about the manufactured housing here in Iowa City as an alternative. But do we have any subdivisions that will allow manufactured housing as a good alternative for about a third of the cost of what the stick built houses cost and I haven't heard anyone talk about that but yet everything here that we are discussing this evening will benefit only the developer and certainly not the residents of Iowa City and certainly not the City of Iowa City in terms of raising taxes to provide what we need for the city and I think that we need to look at alternative housing for long term and not just the developers on a short term basis making a large profit. Nov/ May I say something here? I understand your viewpoint and I do agree with itc However, there is no ruling against putting a Thlorepresen~ only .reasonob~ ~¢cur~o ~s~lp~onof~eZowa City oound! mee~ngofJanua~ 3,1995. F010395 #4h page manufactured housing on a subdivision. It is allowed. People who want to do it may do so. Dashnet/ On what subdivision can you tell me that is available without the restrictions of square footage or other things that will not allow manufactured housing? And if you get to a certain cost level certainly that is available but I am talking about the lower affordable housing where we can get $400-$500 a month payments. Tell me what subdivision is allowing that? Nov/ There isn't a subdivision today that allows that. I am Just saying that they may do that. There can be such a subdivision if someone wants to do it. And there is a developer who does want to do that. They just haven't started it yet. Dashnet/ But in terms of this project that we are talking about this evening it is not going to be owner occupied and the land, the tax base, the City of Iowa City is basically going to receiv~ a lot less dollars than they would if it was owner occupied and it created a tax base because it would be a permanent foundation that the manufactured housing would be on. And that is my question of the use of the monies that we are going to be using to subsidize the pay higher market rates than what the other subdevelopers in the area have been doing. For instance Iowa Byers and Happel and also the Frantz-they are putting in two subdivisions and this particular project that the city is subsidizing, the land cost is more than those two developers have been willing to pay for the land. And I question the use of that money. I think we could look at alternative lower cost subsidized housing in Iowa City that would certainly be better dollar spent by the city as well as the rest of the residents° Nov/ It is not that we don't agree with you. There is other money going for other styles of subsidized housing. Dashnet/ Do we have anything like that available currently? Nov/ There is other subsidized housing. Let's not go into the whole list. If you want to check with the staff- Dashnet/ Do we have any subsidized housing subdivisions that are available for the public at this time for manufactuze~ housing? Nov/ They are rental units. Dashnet/ They are rentalunits. So they are not available for owner occupied units. If I wanted to buy a manufactured housing are This ~prasents only araasonably accur~e uens~p~on~ ~elowa ClHcoun~l meeUng of Janua~ 3,1995. FO10395 #4h page 13 there any subdivision in the City of Iowa City available for that? Nov/ With subsidies from the city, no. Horow/ No, if you wanted to buy one. Dashnet/ And have we looked at any plans on what the cost would be for the city whether it be to purchase it' or subsidize or however the situation? Have we looked at any plans to seewhat the costs would be to the city in terms of losing the cost basis or the tax basis to subsidize for a developer to ownthe project first as it being owner occupied and the city owning some of the properties themselves and receiving either from it being a rental unit that we receive a tax base or something different than what we are proposing here where the city basically gets no tax base? Horow/ Excuse me but the city does have a tax base. Unless I am absolutely- Dashnet/ I understand the city has a tax base but what I am referring to is- Horow/ 116 pads, you mean? One third of this total would be the city owned pads but there is a tax base there for the rest= Kubby/ They won't be city owned. Dashnet/ Right, I understand that but the tax 'base, because these aren't permanent foundations its considered undeveloped land and so therefore the tax'base is very low and when you purchase a mobile home- Horow/ Karen, wait a minute. Before we go any farther- I would like Karin Franklin to address this, please. Franklin/ We talked with 'the assessors office about how manufactured housing parks are assessed. The situation in which there is an owner who owns the park, what is the tax revenue that is generated off of that. It is assessed as a commercial property just the way an apartment building is. There is a value that is prescribed to the property and there is a tax that is based on that'value per acre plus a per pad tax. So there is revenue generated. Is it the same as a comparable piece of land with $150,000 owner occupied houses on it? Probably not. But there is no roll back with commercial so we would have to calculate out what is was given a certain number of assumptions and scenarios. Th~ represents only a reasonably accurat. o tmnscrlption of the Iowa City council roasting of January 3, 1995. F010395 #4h page 14 Kubby/ I think the other thing we have to look at is where these monies come from and what we are trying to do with them and what options we have. That when we got the money our intent waswho are the people who need assistance after the flood and what kind of housing are they in and what kind of housing do they want to be in and the answer was the people on Normandy Drive have resources do help themselves and they have flood insurance and most of them didn't want to move from where they were. But the other people that were in trouble from the in the flood plain were in manufactured housing parks. So, if they wanted to move, where could they go. There was no place for them to go because the vacancy rate is so low at other manufactured housing parks. So that is how we came to the conclusion that we want to do is find a place for those people to go. Things may have changed from that original time frame to now and the is maybe what some of the decision making is going to be about but that is where we got to this particular option with that particular pot of money. Dashnet/ And I guess my concern is that with this particular project. On one end we are hearing that it is for people that are financially disadvantaged and on the other hand I hear that the park is going to be excellent. It is going to look just like Modern manor and it is going to be for more affluent people that will be owner occupied. My question when you look at the city and when you look at the tax base and look long term, is it more advantageous for ~s to be looking at an alternative type of project rather than the mobile home park because I feel there is better ways to raise tax dollars and that will also create possibly least housing opportunities but developers will be owning it or any of the landlords in town could own it also but still create much larger tax base. Nov/ However, if our object is to not be about the tax base but to have places for people with mobile homes then we are doing this thing this way. The whole point of this is. not to increase the tax base. That wasn't the motive. Dashnet/ Maybe it is not for you but in the long term I certainly feel as a home owner in this city and as subsidizing new schools that long terms I think we have to look at the tax base. We have to look at all of the alternatives that we have and not be short sighted and that is what my concern is for this particular project. I think it is short sighted. Thank yOU. Morow/ Thank you very much. Anyone else care to address council? Linda Murray~ I am vice chair of the CON. CCN is the city citizen committee which makes reco~mendations to the council as to the Thb represents only a reasonably accurate ~ansc~lpfion of me ~wa Clty councllmeefing of danumy3, 1995. F010395 #4h page 15 allocation of CDBG funds. And over the last year the allocation of federal flood relief fund which was administered through the CDBG program. As part of that charge it is our responsibility to help identify needs in the community and to recommend funding to projects that attempt to meet these needs. Two needs that have been identified are the need to increase the affordable-housing'stock in Iowa City and the need to provide an affordable option for households currently located in the flood plain and to give them the option to relocate if they should choose to do that now or in the future. Development of additional manufactured housing sites is one viable strategy for addressing both of those needs. CCN recommended the allocation of $420,000 of flood relief funds with the intent that this money which I believe is about 23% of the total flood relief funds that Iowa City has received be used to acquire land for the development of additional manufactured housing. Mary Lewis/ I am president of the Grant Wood Neighborhood Association. I had a long list of questions and Comments that had been passed along to me through the neighborhood and through the people I have talked to about the development of Greenview Mobile Home Park and Lake Calvin area. But I think you have already heard all of them because as I was sitting there I'was ticking each one off. And I think those comments that have been made are really important to the people here and they kind of cover what everybody has been feeling about this area. The area has a lot of mobile home courts already. And there is an area that is already zoned for another mobile home park which you just recently rezoned for that purpose. I think we would kind of like to see things move in a regular progression. you have rezoned this one area, Sycamore Farms, for mobile home area or manufactured housing. We would like to see that go ahead and be usad and be developed before you start considering two more areas for the same purpose. The area in Sycamore Farms is next to another trailer court and possibly could be considered more suitable for a trailer court or manufactured housing area also because it is right next to one. Also, the opportunity there is for 300-500 units also so you have a lot of area that you can use and it has already been zoned for that purpose. So, I guess that-is the other comment that I would like to make is that. Pigott/ Thank you very much. Mark Edwards/ I am here also to talk about the Greenview Project. Most of my questions are already taken, too, and I kind of marked off things that other people have already talked about. I don't want to be redundant. One of my primary questions, though, is still how many people are we going to relocate from Th~ represen~ onW amasonabW accumte ~anscdp~on ~thelowa Clty coun~l meeUngofJm~uary3,1995. F010396 #4h page 16 the flood$ That is the initial intention of the grant and I don't think anyone is satisfactorily answered the question or even gone o~t and tried to probe for an answer to the question. The second part of it that I would like to talk to or a second concern I have is that city staff at P/Z meetings, council work sessions and also the Grantwood neighborhood Association meeting talked about the secondary purpose of this grant which is to provide 116 subsidized pads in a mobile home park for low income housing opportunities. I guess one of the first questions I have is is this really affordable housing. I guess when I'initially looked at this I was thinking $25,000 mobile home would be half the price of a $50,000 conventional home. But it is not. What I would like to do is show some graphics here and all the council members should have these. Kubby/ Marian, will he need this funky mic? Edwards/ (Refers to handouts.) I talked to Greentree whi6h is actually the nations leading lender in mobile home mortgages and what they said.were the best lowest price option for a $25,000 mobile home would be a 5% down and 12.75 % interest. I guess, these numbers aren't random because at the work session last night Mr. Wolf said t~ average mobile home in this park would be between $25,000 40,000. So what I would like to do is show the cost comparisons of the $25,000; $30,000; $35,000; and $40,000 homes. As you see the monthly payments for a $25,000 mobile home on a 30 year fixed rate mortgage would be $260.81. Also in the other costs would be the subsidized lot rent, $120; I figured school tax on a monthly basis of $20' because that is $240 on a single wide trailer for the year; insurance at $20 because most of the estimates I got were between $250-300 a year and increased as time went on. Gas and electric. I ca~led IIGE today and they said this is a pretty reasonable estimate for the northern region of the United States. Then also water, sewer and garbage I think I stayed pretty conservative on those. So the total for the $25,000 home for a monthly basis would be $540,81.I think here we see the increase for a $30,000 home. It is $595 and I used the same expenses for those as well. We get up to $638.61 for a $35,000 home. And finally the $40,000 home which is still $30,000 less then the top of the range that Mr. Wolf is talking about for this is $692 a month. My question would be is this truly affordable housing. I know that they talked about options last night. F~r. Wolf said there is a possibility of buying some '92 and '93 models for $I5,000-17,000. The difference there is if you buy a used mobile home the time that you can borrow the money is reduced to between 8-12 years is the figure that Green Tree uses and it is also a higher rate.of interest. It is near 13.12% if you put 15% down and it is 13.75% if you only put 5% down. So, I This mpmsen~ only areasonab~ accurate ~anscdpdon of thelowa Clty coun~l meedngofJanua~ 3,1995. F010395 $4h page ~7 think those are very-I think the one thing I want to point out more than anything, more than the dollars and cents, is the extremely high rate of interest that you pay on a house of this variety and I think it is larger than any credit card that we own in our family and I really don't know if it is a very frugal move and if we are talking affordable housing I think we need to consider this as well. Nov/ What is the years on the mortgage there? Edwards/ These are 30 years mortgages. These are all for 10 year mortgages. I guess, just in closing, I would like to say is I am not here because I am in opposition to low income housing. I think, if anything, there has been some myths perpetuated by some of the articles like the article in the Press Citizen tonight talking about fear among our neighbors. I don't know if my neighbors have so much fear of low income housing as they do of a city expenditure of $2 million when we are in a midst of a crisis of water and sewer system. I think some of the concerns are fiscal versus at least for myself, if you think this is in my backyard, I would have to drive so far out of my way to get here. I live in Lakeside Drive. This is a mile and quarter from my house to the closest edge of this property. This isn't going to change my life style. I have talked with Karin about this. This doesn't change my life style a bit. I don't think it is a 'concern on my part and I don't want to be perceived that way. I thinkwhat I am worried about is do we need to spend this much money. Is this a good use of money and is going to serve the people that we really intended to serve. Thank you. Kubby/ It would be helpful sometime at some point, Bob, not tonight but at some point we can get some feedback about those numbers from the Wolfs and from othe~ people abou~ costs of mobile homes. To confirm those numbers from a different point of view. Throg/ ¥eah, that definitely influences me, too, and I would agree with you. I guess I want to pick up on one point that you made mark and it has to do with the cost of-I can't remember if you used the word subsidy. But you talked about $1 million or so dollars. You are referring to road reconstruction I assume primarily and reconstruction of Sycamore on down to the Wolf property. And that is going to happen anyhow. At some point in time the city will be reconstructing Sycamore. Edwards/ Okay. I guess it is my understanding, too, that the costs and it was stated as $2 million originally including the $420,000 and that was for the development of the road to city Thlsrepresen~ only areasonably accur~e ~ans~lp~on of ~olowa CIty councllmeedng ~ Janum¥3,1996. F010395 #4h page standards from the L in Sycamore to the Water plant which wouldn't need to be put in at that level. Throg/ Yeah, we talked about that last night in our work session and what I understood staff to be telling us was that the construction of the proposed road from the L down to the wastewater plant costs somewhere on the order of $850,000. But if we built it Just to provide access to the soccer fields and so on which we are committed to doing but at much lower standards, then it might cost somewhere between $200,000- 300,000. Edwards/ Yes, which is the same as half. Horow/ Anybody else care to address council? Jeff Shander/ 4295 Sycamore. I am a little confused on this road and I think for me it is a major question. As I understand it in putting through the road to the soccer fields or the entire soccer complex was voted down two years ago. In that bond issue that was voted down, i% was a $5 million bond issue, there was $700,000 to extend the road from the city limits to the soccer fields. The figures that I have seen up to this point, there is a $850,000 for the road from the ~ to the soccer field. There is another $830,000 to take the road from the border of the water treatment plant, through the water treatment plant and there is another $700,000 to get the road from the city limits to the L. When I add that up it is a lot more than $ million. The question I have is, as I understand it, stated by the information provided by the Planning Commission when this was first brought up. The comp plan indicates that the developers of area newly annexed into the city will be responsible for all infrastructure costs including those normally subsidized by the city. If this tract of land was to be a normal development, this tells me that this would be subsidized not bythe city but by the developer. It also suggested that if we were willing to wait for our soccer fields for normal development in that area of town, the $700,000 that is going to be proposed to get from the city limits to the L would also be handled by another developer. So it looks like the city is taking on at least $ 1.5 million just in those two sections of road alone. Plus an additional $800,000 through the water treatment plant which to date nobody has answered why we need. It has been suggested, maybe it was for a service road by some of the people on Planning Commission. I would like answers to these questions and up to this point, the only thing that I have gotten is people dancing around the issues. I am real uncomfortable with it. There is a lot more money being spent here then what is out on board. Thank you. ThM represents only oreasonably accumte~an$ctfptionofthelowa Clty coun~lmee~ng ofJanuary3,1995. F010395 #4h page 19 Kubby/ We have never really talked about the road within the wastewater treatment site. What kind of road is that and how much does that cost? Arkins/ If you were to build the road for the southern boundary of the Greenview Mobile Home Park as proposed, the roadway, parking lot, everything, the service, the soccer fields. If you built it to full city standards and that is the concrete, paving, curbs, gutters is about $800,000. That is not what is proposed. As that park begins to develop at some tie in the future you will face those costs. But again,that is sometime in the future. The proposal for the road through the Langenberg site from the L is $837,000. That is a road to full city standards. Kubby/ But not an arterial road. That is a collector. Arkins/ Collector street design, that is correct. Kubby/ So what is currently being proDosed for within the wastewater treatment site for the soccer field. Arkins/ We would probably do oil based, chipped seal, crushed rock. Something-simply a park road to simply accommodate the traffic which is more likely to be weekend traffic then- Summertime and weekend traffic. Kubby/ So are we talking the same as we were last night, $200,000? Atkins/ Yes, Jim already mentioned it. $200,000-300,000. It is difficult to calculate that exactly until you decide on the size of the parking lot because that will have a big bearing on it. Shander/ Could I get a clarification on that? Has there been a change from the November presented CIP budget for FY95 that stated that figure at ~800,0007 Arkins/ $837,000 is a new project that the council has in front of them right now which is pa~t of this project. That is correct. Shander/ And that is the $800,000 to go through the - Arkins/ Through the Greenview site. That is correct. 8hander/ I am confused. You said $200,000 and I saw $800,000. Arkins/ Through the Greenview Mobile Eome Park site- Shahder/ No. I am talking from the south edge of Greenview- Thisrepresents only a masonably accurate ~ansc~Ip~on ofthe Iowa Clty coun~lmee~ngofJsnum¥3,1996. F010395 #4h page 20 Atkins/ If we built it to city standards that $800,000 is correct and that is shown in the budget. We show that roadway with in the parkland site. We are proposing an alternative to that. We have obligation under a zoning agreement with the county to connect the L to the soccer fields. This project happens to be intervening. This project being Greenview. We will likely build a park road. This-has been described on the parkland site to service the soccer fields for the future. Kubby/ So yes, it has been changed. Shahder/ Then the last question just to get this clarified. We have an obligation to build a road to the Soccer fields? Atkins/ We have an obligation to build a road to the soccer fields. Yes. Shahder/ Those soccer fields, that soccer complex was voted down. Until those soccer fields are implemented we have no obligation to build a road. Atkins/ Before we ~an use the soccer fields and it is a much much reduced .scaled project from the one that was subject to referend%u~. And it also used private monies. We have an obligation to connect for the point of the L to the soccer fields with some type of roadway to allow traffic into and out of the soccer fields. Shahder/ And what I am suggesting is maybe, seeing as how the voters voted down $5 million for two different projects. $4 million on this soccer field and $1 million on another project. Maybe we should wait until those lands develop normally where the developer would pay those costs and pass those on to the people buying the houses or whatever they are going to buy. Arkins/ That is your suggestion, i understand that. Shahder/ And our responsibility to build the road down there doesn't take place until we make the decision to prematurely build the soccer fields. Kubby/ That decision has already been made to do- Instead of doing the baseball fields and the prairies and the restrooms and the passive use the land. To do a limited number of soccer fields,a few at a time, with some volunteer money and private money from the Kickers. That has already been decided. Shahder/ I don't have a problem with building that. But it is not Just the volunteer money. It is also my tax payer money being This ~esen~ only a reasonably 8ccurato ~ons=Tp~on of the ~w8 CIH counMI mooing ofJsnu8~/3,1996. F010395 #4h page 21 used to build roads from the city limits to the L and the L down there. Kubby/ But what I am saying is the decision about the soccer fields has already been made. A scaled down version has already been made so that obligation kicks in. Now the scale of that obligation is what we need to talk about. Now, if we didn't do Greenview could we do a smaller road all the way down. Would we want to do that with the rate of development in that sector? Shahder/ When the decision was made to build the soccer fields, did that decision take into account the type of road construction we are talking here down to it? Horow/ We had to talk about putting a road down. there. We did not want the soccer fields even to begin to be used without having access from the north. That is always been in our mind. Throg/ When we were talking about that we did not talk about the type of road that would be provided. Horow/ But we certainly scaled it down from the original amount that was in the CIP. Shahder/ ;~ere are we going to get the road money form. It is not part of the soccer fields donating the money. It is coming out of Iowa City tax money. Kubby/ Mostly road use tax. Shahder/ Thank you. Kubby/ Steve, do you remember when we made the decision about soccer fields? What month? Atkins/ We did it last summer because we did that project in conjunction with some sewer that we were going to do. Marian is nodding. It seemed like last summer that we did it because we had a few delays in getting started, some wet grounds. But it was last summer. Kubby/ Was that informal or formal? Arkins/ Formal bid. We had to bid. Kubby/ When we talked about the soccer fields. That would have been an informal. Th~ repr~en~ o~y areasonablv accumte ~anscdp~on oftbelows CIW coun~l mee~ng ofJanuary3,1995. F010395 #4h page 22 Atkins/ That was originally on your CIP. We showed the contribution from the Kickers, our contribution, the original plan. That is well over a year ago or more. It was close to a year ago that we di~ that. The actual bidding of the project didn't occur until summer time. Jim Miller/ I am with Sycamore Farms. My comments will be very brief because we have not been in front of this body all that often but certainly I have. spend a lot of hours and I am sure that you have read a lot of' things that we have said in the past. We have been talked about and discussed a? an alternative to your proposal that is in front of you. braefly what I would like to say is we are building a manufactured home community and we will begin that construction as soon as prudent. We have contracted with a design specialist from Detroit. Hopefully he will be here to talk to within two weeks. our proposed construction, subject to the approval process, is still necessary for us. Our schedule target date to begin would be next spring. Hopefully we can provide occupancy next fall. The scope of that manufactured home community that we propose would'be around 450 units. we have spent a lot of time in the city process. Our own annexation as you are all aware of was very difficult from everybody's perspective. I believe that we came out of that from our viewpoint that the economics of what we proposed to do still stand. So, we continue to be committed to meet the needs that our community has stipulated through the CHAS report and has continued to be our target market throughout this process. And that being a development scheme, for a lack of a better term, to provide housing for those currently that are in substandard housing or not in the level of housing that they would like to be. We bantered many ideas around the last 2 1/2 years on how to accommodate that perceived need. We asked many people, we asked staff people, we asked people on the CHAS report, we asked anybody who was willing to listen and give an opinion. We did not know that the city had a perceived need for an 80 acre rental park until we were notified that an RFP was available for that intended purpose. As we looked at the RFP we did not think that it fit our mode and we continued on. Approximately 2-4 weeks later we were again informed that the RFP had now become an RFR, a request for resume, or an RFI, a request for ideas. And it really was not an RFP, a request for proposal. When we Jim CHANGE TAPE TO REEL 95-4 SIDE i Miller/ Looking for some feedback and some response for alternatives. Basically our ideas were listened to gracefully or commented on, mostly critically, but still we did not have that response for an alternative that we were looking for. In This represents only a reasonably accurate trenscrlpt~en of the Iowa City council meeting of Jenuar/3, 1995, F010395 #4h page 23 front of you, the decision makers, I would like to reiterate our goal to accommodate the city's perceived needs for affordable housing. That's what we have been about, what we are about. We are building a rental manufactured home community. It will be on line as soon as we can get it there, hopefully next fall. The reasons for pushing this proposal is because it has again been said that there are no alternatives out there. People need to relocate and yet vacancies do not give them an option to move anywhere. We are an option. We are 450 minimum units option. Now what is going to be included in our manufactured home community, we are willing. to discuss. We have tried to identify exactly what this process is asking for. It is not clear in our mind so I guess I can't give you a clear decision to say that we are a viable alternative. We are asking for communication. We are asking you to identify what you are looking for so we can become if possible a viable alternative. It only makes sense to me that the city should look at all alternatives available regardless of legality of an RFP, regardless if an RFP is an RFI or an RFR. Regardless of the comprehensive plan and some of the other issue we've bantered about it seems to me before the city spends the first dollar that you should satisfy yourself and in your mind, make sure that you that you exhausted all possibilities to accommodate your perceived need. It was mentioned earlier that the reason affordable housing is being pursued in this manner, is because it doesn't work with private enterprise. I guess our perception is that it will, possibly it won't. Butwithout communication, can assure you it won't. Thank you. Horow/ Thank you. Mr. Miller, I have one question and that is the letter that Mr. Bright sent to Tom Scott on Nov. 14 outlining points that you want to include in the Lake Calvin construction. Is that letter considered the alternatives that you want to put forth and of the lot owned community, and the subdivision would less restrictive than the city? Miller/ Madame Mayor, that is on the agenda tonight. That is a rezoning issue, Horow/ It a different property. Is that right? Miller/ It's a different Although conceptually accommodate the needs. piece of property. That's correct. we're looking at an entire concept to Horow/ That's what I wanted. Okay thanks very much. Anyone else wish to address council. Thlsrepreee~8 only e masonab~accurme ~e,n$crlptlonoftholow8 Clty coun~l mee~ng ~ Janumy3,1995. F010396 #4h page 24 Horow/ Moved by Kubby, seconded byPigott to accept correspondence. Any discussion. All those in favor signify by saying aye (ayes). Bob Wolf/ I guess I'm the selected for this proposal that's on the table. There- I guess I've got some, a couple of items here that you're, I ,~uess, interested in talking about financing. I made a few phone calls and I stopped and talked to a couple of local bankers. I got the Greentree information that you should probably know that the Greentree Company probably finances most of the mobile homes. Their interest rate is quite a bit higher. The local banks are let's see probably a point to two points lower. The local banks have a different way of approaching this thing. It's based on loan to value, a total house payment, and a third section would be the total debt. And they take the earnings and they take like- I think the total debt ratio so that if a person's making $20,000 then they'd take 30% of that and that would be the total debt they'd be allowed, which would include the mobile home payment and credit cards and tv's, automobiles, whatever. So the other interesting aspect is,'as this project has gone on there's a lot more enthusiasm generated in the local banks. They're always looking for more opportunities to increase their income. And they're looking into a plan that would allow them to sell the loans to somebody else, and so that would reduce their cost so it's entirely possible that we could look at some, in this day and age, probably 10~11% money for manufactured housing. I put together a little handout here that basically kind of covers a little bit of history and the early days of manufactured housing. It includes kind of a cut away view of a mobile home so that you can see just how it's constructed and it's basically all the type materials that are used in conventional housing. The one thing that should be of interest is, I've got a print here of- from the Press-Citizen on December 13, 1976. It listed all the manufactured housing parks in the county and the city of Iowa City. The thing that I foundqulte interesting was there hasn't been a mobile home park built in Iowa City since the early '60's. In conjunction with that, we talked about the Towncrest issue. I think you should look at the total issue. Most of the mobile home parks that are in Iowa City are much older. They were designed for much smaller homes and with the new homes that are available today they really aren't adequate. And you can't maintain the proper boundaries like front side yard and also the backyard separation. So you're putting great big houses on little bitty lots. So if you total all those up, there's about 779 lots that are, I would say in the next ten years, probably in jeopardy of not being available. So you can see this Towncrest thing surface 9gain. It's really getting dry up here. The fact that the ground is more valuable than the homes that are This represents only o reasonably 8ccumte tmn$~ptJon of the IowJ~ City council meeting of January 3, 1996. F010396 #4h page 25 sitting on it will generate. So there's the potential for an additional 800 units to surface in the next ten years. In the last ten years, or probably eight years, I called A1 Streb and the guys over at Parkview and Western Hills and including Modern Manor, we have put in 602 lots in the last 8-10 years. Now those are all in the county. I really think it's time you took a big step and made some affordable housing for these manufactured housing parks, because there's definitely a need. Just the deliveries in the state of Iowa alone indicate that we're looking at 22% of the market on single family detached housing. Any questions. Horow/ Thank you. Anybody else care to address council? Yes. Would you please come up to the mic. Jeff Shahder/ Mr. Wolf, could I get a point of clarification. You said that there were no housing or mobile home parks built for mobile homes built inside the city since when. Wolf/ (can't hear) Shahder/ In one of the council meetings according to Karen here, from 1980-1990 we went up from 906 units in the city limits to 1298 or an increase of 392 units. Do you know how that happened. I mean in 1970 we want from 360 units to 900 units. So the census data I've seen is confusing based on the figxLres you've just presented. Kubby/ You had said that in some parks, the number of lots increased. Pigott/ Yeah so maybe some of that- Kubby/ Not that there's another park. That the number of lots in any specific park may have increased. Pigott/ So the number of units may have increased while the number of parks stayed the same. That could be the answer to that. Fifty units a year or something like that over the last ten years. Horow/ Okay. Thank you. It's moved by Nov, seconded by Throg to continue the p.h. to January 17. Ayes (all). Throg/ Some people in the audience might be confused. That Just means that the p.h. is not over. That means that two weeks from now we will continue the p.h. and there will be other opportunities to comment. Thbrepresents only areasonably accurate ~ans~ip~on of ~eiowa Clty coun~ mea~ng ofJanuary3,1995. F010395 Agenda Iowa City City Council Regular Council Meeting January 3, 1995 Page 7 Public hearing on an ordinance amending the Zoning Chapter by changing the use regulations of an 80 acre tract of land, for a project known as the Greenview Manufactured Housing Park, located southeast of Sycamore Street and east of the Pleasant Valley Golf Course from County RS, Suburban Residential, to RFBH, Factory Built Housing Residential. (REZ94-0012) Comment: At its December 1, 1994, mee.ting, the Planning and Zoning Commission, by a vote of 5-1, with Dierks voting no, recommended approval of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City and Robert and Erma Wolf to rezone an approximate 80 acre parcel, to be known as Greenview Park, located southeast of Sycamore Street and east of Pleasant Valley Golf Course from County RS to RFBH, subject to ten conditions. The Commission's recommendation is consistent with the staff recommendation in the staff report dated September 1, 19S4, and the list of conditions dated December 1, 1994. ~____~.~.~ Public hearing on an ordinance amending the Zoning Chapter by changing the use regulations of 61.96 acres of land located south of Whispering Prairie Drive from RS-8, Medium Density Single-Family Residential, to RFBH, Factory Built Housing Res, jd~nfial. (REZ~94-OO1,/~zt ~ ~.~ Comment: At its December 1, 1994, meeting, th~ Planning and Zoning Commission, by a vote of 5-1, with Starr voting in the negative, recom- mended denial of an application submitted by Lake Calvin Properties for a rezoning from RS-8 to RFBH, subject to four conditions. The Commiesion's recommendation is inconsistent with the staff recommen- dation as set forth in the staff reported dated November 3, 1994. In a letter dated December 2, 1994, the applicant requested Council consideration of this item recomme~_d~or~by the Planning and Zoning Commission. #4i page I ITEM NO. 4 i. Public hearing on an ordinance amending the Zoning Chapter by changing the use regulations of an 80 acre tract of land, for a project known as the Greenview Manufactured Ho~sing Park; located south- east of Sycamore Street and east of the Pleasant Valley Golf Course from County RS, Suburban Resi- dential, to RFBH, Factory Built Housing Residen- tial. (REZ94-0012) Horow/ These conditions essentially address the issues that Aleda was talking about. Again the poh. is open. If you wish to address this issue please state your name, signing, and limit your remarks to five minutes. Steve Bright/ Sycamore Farms. At issue I'd llke to address is condition number 10 that you just recited on the rezoning that states that the design of the site plan for manufactured housing park that insures vehicular access to the IDRMzone to the east. And what I'd like you to d6 in your considerations is clarify what that paragraph means. I don't ~nderstand exactly what it means. I've been at P/Z meetings. I've heard one access on the north which is the east-west parkway. I've heard of another access on the south which is a local road. I thought I heard discussion of a road through the center to the school site. Apparently I didn't hear that correctly. So I was a participant in those hearings. There is some confusion about what that paragraph means° I think there's a capital improvements budget line item that would indicate that somewhere in the year 2001 and beyond- Steve is that correct. That there's about an $800,000 item for the east-west pazkway, so there's discussion within the city on this. What I would seek is clarification as the landowner on the east who may be landlocked by this decision that you're about to make, that you consider'what kind of access we need and how we get it and obtain it. I don't want to go further with more road confusion. If we want to recount the history of Sycamore Farms, the history of it was a conservation easement and an east-west parkway that we debated, forgot, and debated. And I don't care to do that again. I'd request that in your deliberation we walk away from the meeting knowing what paragraph 10 means, because I can't tell you what it means. Kubby/ Do we have the map that we had last night? Horow/ The map last night, however we were also discussing the paper that Jim had us look at and the staff was going to look at, the cost of reconfiguration of that 80 acre parcel. In that reconfiguration certainly there would have to be reconsideration of wh~re the road was gong to be. Thlorapreson~ only erea~onab~ accurate ~anscrlp~onof~el~we C~ycoundJmeet]ngofJanuary3,1996. F010395 #4i page 2 Kubby/ The concept plan had a collector street on the bottom portion of Greenview that went east-west. And there was some talk, should it be in the middle up closer to the school site or should it remain at the southern portion of the property so we don't break off the flow of the subdivision or of the park. Bright/ I understand there are competing needs here° The design of the park leads you one place but I'm asking you not to forget that we have 80 acres in the city next to it which is idea1. The reason it's ideal is there's no infrastructure. Now we're talking about precluding infrastructure in that property, or the possibility of precluding i~. And what I asking is it's very serious, it's very significant. John Cruise spoke to it from the school board's perspective. I'm speaking to it from the landowner's perspective. And again when you look at 10, I don't know what it means. Again I've heard things. Mr. Gibson one night said we ought to have a third access through the middle. So that's what I'm saying, south, middle, north have been discussed. The CIP I believe says the north road is in 2001. Well that doesn't seem like a reasonable balance. If we're spending a lot of money to get to one tract, while not incrementally spend a little bit more to get to another tract. So I'd ask you to- let's examine that as we go forward, not jump over it, because I don't understand what it means, and I'd appreciate you're considerationl In enabling us to develop that land that we have given into the city's jurisdiction. Horow/ Thank you. Anyone else wish to address council on item i? Moved by Nov seconded by Lehman to continue to January 17. Further discussion. Kubby/ .The last couple of nights or last couple of meetings, I brought up the idea of wanting to have the agreement with the Wolfs be finalized before we vote. And we talked last night. We didn't feel if could be done in time for the first vote. And I was saying that I would be satisfied with that as long as before the third vote we had a signed agreement. And I guess I'm hesitating about that decision I made last night a little bit and I want to talk about that a little bit at this time. Pigott/ Did we talk about a draft agreement before the first vote too? Franklin/ My understanding is that we're going to have a draft agreement for you on the 16th. Kubby/ Okay. I guess the reason I bring this up is it seems like the conditional zoning agreement is our negotiating too1. An I hate to throw that away. It's very hard when you've voted T~$repmsen~ only a reasonab~ ~ccurote ~anscdptlon of ~elowa Clty ooun~l mee~ngofJan'umy3,19~. F010395 #4i page 3 twice for something to reverse that momentum. So I look forward to the draft agreement.then on the 16th. Horow/ Any other discussion. Kubby/ I hope that council would consider that as a number 11 condition depending on what see we might choose to defer so that we can continue talking about that as a number 11 condition, but we cannot close the p.h. until we've made that decision. Horow/ I think we also want to get this whole process moving as quickly as possible 4o that we can get the subdivision up and ready for people to move in. Any other further discussion. Those in favor signify by saying aye (ayes).. This ~pres.ntsonly .re.so.~ accur~e ~nscrlp~onof~slow. Clty coun~l mee~ngofJanus~Y3o1995. F010395 #4J page ITEI~ NO. 4 j. Public hearing on an ordinance amending the Zoning Chapter by changing the use regulations of 61.96 acres of land located south of Whispering ~rairie Drive from RS-8, Medium Density Single Family Residential, to RFBH, Factory Built Housing Resi- dential. (REZ94-0014) Horow/ Open the p.h. on item J. I ask that you limit your comments to five minutes and please sign in and state yOUr name. Mary Lewis/ Grant Wood Neighborhood Association. I thought I would come up first this time so I don't have to check everything off and I still have something to say. I thing that a lot of the things you said Greenview as far as the area being available to you at Sycamore Farms south of Bon Aire applies here also. Probably even more so because we're so close to where the area is that's already been rezoned for trailers and manufactured housing. With this area available to be developed at this time, one of the things you should consider is whether you really need to add another trailer court right next to it before this one has even been completed. Another thing i'd like to point out is the city is going to be purchasing around 41 units in the Whispering Meadows area for affordable housing also. And this will be right next to the area that you're considering for Lake Calvin. And with those properties right next to each other, it would seem that the best investment would be to go with the type of affordable housing that you're purchasing in Whispering Meadows and Just continue that through the neighborhood rather than to change to manufactured housing or trailer type housing in that area. Especially with the other area that is available for trailers. Another thing that I'd like to point out is that trailers do depreciate faster than houses and they don't make real good rental property. According to my insurance company, they won't insure a trailer that's being used as rental property or the possessions of a person renting a trailer because there's too high of a risk factor. Horow/ I have a question for the neighborhood association. Do they realize that this 80 acres, not Calvin but the other 80, is RS-5? Lewis/ Yes. It's lees density than what Lake Calvin would be. Yeah. Horow/ That's been discussed hy the neighborhood association? Lewis/ Yeah. I guess in closing I'd just like to say we are opposed to rezoning the land for manufactured housing, and we feel the Lake Calvin area is not necessary with the' area to the sou.th Thtsrepresen~ only ereasonably accur~e ~anscrfp~on of tholowa Clty coun~l mee~ng ofJanum'y3,1995. F010396 #4j page of Bon Aire that's'already available that's been rezoned for that purpose. Horow/ Okay. Thank you. Kubby/ I think it's important to clarify what's being asked because with the RS-8 as it is, Manufactured homes and double wide mobile homes can be put on RS-8. Horow/ Right. Kubby/ And the reason they're asking for this rezoning is the developers want to have a lot owned community, an LOC. I always have trouble-remembering what that's for. A lot owned community, and they want to broaden the market for that by changing the zone it would allow them to have some single wides to broaden that whether or not we fezone. Does that make a difference to you whether the lots are owned or not because it is a step. It's a different kind of household that we're talking about. The household's. going to have a higher income than at the rental mobile home park or if Greenview happened. Lewis/ I think then too is what age of manufactured housing are you going to talk about for that area? Are you talking about new housing or back to 1977 or what type of housing are we talking about? Nov/ But they're talking about a subdivision, so it's very likely this is going to be new. The person who wants to buy a mobile home on a permanent foundation and buy the ground is more likely to want something new. Lewis/ Would that be a requirement of this area? Kubby/ Not unless we made it a requirement, a condition on rezoning which is I suppose theoretically possible. It could happen. Lewis/ So this area wouldn't have a manager like a trailer court does? Nov/ It would be a subdivision. Kubby/ There is a possibility that there would be a homeowners' association to maintain common property. Lewis/ I've Just noticed the new development in '~"nispering Meadows as it's going in and it's been duplexes and it's been used for affordable housing and some of the duplexes will be. I Just wonder how that would conform with the rest of the This represents only areason~bly accurate ~ansc~p~on of thelowa Clty coundlmeetlng of Jariuary3, 1996. F010396 #4j page 3 neighborhood to have that type of neighborhood added to that area. Especially if they would put in an older home in there. Horow/ Anyone else care to address council? Jim Miller/ Sycamore Farms. I'd just like to maybe frame what this request is all about. We decided as I said a little while ago to do an 80 acre rental park based upon the city's decision that they needed 80 acres of rental. I guess our charge was to provide the city with what they wanted and staying in that spirit, we changed. However we did not change our original concept, and that concept was to provide an avenue to people in a combination that they did not desire and work themselves into a home ownership situation if in fact they wanted to. The mix of zones that Sycamore Farms ended up with is a mix that we sought, a mix that we desired, and certainly conformed to what are needs was and still are. I'll give you a scenario hopefully to.frame that better. The RM-12 and RM-20 zones that we have would accommodate rental style apartment typical units, potentially some condominium style units° The manufactured community which was a rental would allow people a midrange option that they could buy their home and rent the pad, potentially make it more affordable. Once they built an equity base in that home or created enough savings through renting, they then could move in to the next concept that they not only own their home but they also own the land their home sat on, a more traditional way that we would consider home ownership to be. Upon venturing then through that prospect, building equity, taking advantage of tax consequences available to home owners and not to renters, they then would be able to go into our existing housing market, the $85- 125,000 homes and on up and hopefully if they so desired to work up the ladder of home ownership. Our idea has not changed. This rezoning request in fact allows us to maintain that original concept. What has changed I think has been the mix and the mix is different today than it was back when we negotiated the zones that we agreed upon. And by mix, what I'm talking about is that we're now talking about increasing Sycamore to city standards. We're talking about extending utilities. We're essentially talking an inviting development to scurry down Sycamore. And if I had to guess I think that that's forthcoming rapidly. I would also guess that the zone that would be accommodated to those properties adjacent to sycamore would be an RS-8 zone or an RS-5 zone as the comp plan suggests. So therefore we accepted an RS-8 zone. We felt that the modular home, the factory built stick home, as an alternative to a manufactured home would fit in the RS-8 area. That would be unique because under that time frame we did not feel the appetite for annexation and growth that is certainly present today. So the mix has changed. Our concept hasn't This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of Janumy 3, 1995. F010395 #4j page 4 changed. We are identifying 80 acres of rental that the city has identified but we still want to give people that opportunity to own their homes. In a micro look then, going from RS-8 to RFBH is driven by a allowing the most affordable home ownership and that would be a single wide unit sitting on a piece of property that they could own. That they would be available and eligible for traditional kinds of FHAfinancing, 3% down payments, all of the kinds of things that have made home ownership difficult and virtually impossible for many people that live .in our community. Your decision is not necessarily to direct us on what we need to do down there. Economics will direct us without additional input. What we are asking you to do is to allow us as much possible alternatives to the people who may seek this kind of housing and to put that into perspective a double wide unit of a modular unit would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $70,000 plus. A single wideunit would be somewhere in the neighborhood of the mid 40's to mid 50's. This decision is a $20,000 home ownership decision. It is not going to change our concept. We are still going to provide in that ar=a, whether it is RFBI! or RS-8, a subdivision which I think satisfies the infrastructure, the neighborhood and all the other concerns and that is why the staff supports this. And all I am asking you to do is give another option on affordable housing. Thank you. Nov/ Excuse me, while you are here will you answer Mrs. Lewis's question. Are you going to require that they be new? Miller/ We are going to develop what the market asks us to do. If we had a preference I think a subdivision typically and traditionally starts with newer units. Brand new units, I am not sure. Financing brand new units certainly more attractive than used units. So, therefore, it is more affordable I believe to buy a new unit. Certainly we would not restrict or prohibit someone who wanted to relocate from an existing rental park with the opportunity to purchase their land and take advantage of home ownership. We would use discretion. But if that is what the people want that is what we will prompt. Certainly we will have covenants to protect the people who purchase as a typical subdivision would. We are here. We will continue to develop the property and we will continue to enforce until build the neighborhood itself enforces the criteria established through the covenants. It is a valid concern. I don't necessarily have an answer. I know that it was talked about before that is this all single wides, is this all double wides, is thisall modular. Again, I cannot answer that. Our hope would be that there would be a-mix 9f all of those styles of housing to meet all of those people in our community that desire whatever the~ desire. And so we are Th~ ~presentsonl¥ areasonably accumte ~an$cdptlonofthelowa City council mee~ng d January3,1995. F010395 #4j page 5 flexible in the approach but sympathetic to the neighbors. T~e only neighbor that we have is to the north and he does not have any objection. We are our own neighbor to the east and to the south and the neighbor to the west is currently in the county. So, we have gone around and really don't find the opposition. I understand the protection that people are looking for. But again I would caution the discrimination against manufactured housing. I think Karin Franklin put a quote in the Press Citizen that it'is certainly .that we can all look for as good words to use and I quote from that. To me it seems fairly simple. People have resistance to placing manufactured housing in what they perceive is a trailer court next to them. That is the meat of the matter. Where-will we place lower cost housing. Well, not in my neighborhood. That is not what we are all about. We want to provide that alternative and hopefully you will allow the people in our community to have that. Thank you. Baker/ Jim, can I ask you a question? You have may have already clarified this in a round about way but let me ask you specifically. In the staff recommendation that supported request, they listed four specifiJ condition~ that they would like to see attached to any change in the zoning. Of those four specific conditions, do you have any problems with any of those? Miller/ We have accepted and in fact signed the CZA that has all four of those. Baker/ Thank you. Kubby/ It has also come up last night that if you were going to fezone this and broaden it so that single wides could be part of this community of the subdivision. How would we control that mix? Is there a way to control that mix? So we started talking about an additional condition on the zoning for OPDH. If we wanted to go that direction, which of those would be more profitable. Miller/ Well, I don't think I would Choose either one and for this reason. Nov/ I would like you to seriously consider OPDH if you want this rezoned. I think that there needs to be a more careful consideration of the design of this development like this because it has never been done before. There are various opportunities here that could be.explored and could be done ve~ nicely. We could deal with zero lot lines and row houses and clusters and lots of open space. It is an opportunity to really explore possibilities and I would like us to seriously This reprasents only a reasonably accurate transcription of .~.e Iowa City council meeting of Janumy 3, 1995. FO 10395 ~4J page 6 consider an OPDH on that. My response to both of those comments would be we would certainly want to provide all of those things that you mentioned and it would certainly be our intent and through the subdivisions middle and the planning process everyone would have a chance to review all of these things. Our concern for the development aspect is bottom line, we need to generate a profit or it is not worth doing this. If we are told that we have to produce a certain style of lot and we have to put a certain style of unit on that lot and it fact, that 'market does not support that unit we have a subdivision that is partially filled, that is difficult for the people who live there because they don't have neighbors and they don't have trees and they don't have sidewalks and essentially the concept which is fragile to begin with begins to falter. All I can say is our intent is to mix but whatever the market perceives it wants would. be our intent going in that we would want to provide. As a compromise I would suggest that if you could write down or give us your concerns we would certainly try to incorporate those concerns in our plat submitted and certainly be willing to discuss all of those concerns through the normal subdivision regulation. Kubby/ How would you feel about saying the zone would be changed with a 5th condition that not more than X% of the units be single wides? That way if there were less single wides than that percent, you would still b~ fine but you Just couldn't go over that percent. That gives you more flexibility than an OPDH to deal with the market that you are not sure how it is- because it is an innovative idea for this area. Miller/ I would perceive that to be a workable idea. Coming from the aspect that if a lot of people want to have single wide units we are restricted in the nu~nber we could provide and we could come back to this body and through the process to say this is what we have done, take a look at it, drive through it, talk to people, reconsider. If we want to add additional single wideunits or stick with the agreement. I think that is workable. We are not looking to kill it with single wides. In fact, there may not be one single wide in it. I don't have any way to know that. Nov/ I think that if you are looking for flexibility, comments seem to suggest that the OPDH is the way to get it. That gives you far more flexibility than the standards subdivision. Pigoft/ Elaborate. Kubby/ Because an OPDH you have to have everything outlined up front and you have to stick to it. This mpresent8 on~ areasonably accum~ ~ansc~pfion of thelowa CIW councllmeedngofJanuary3,1995. F010395 ~4j page 7 Nov/ Well, you can revise it. There is no question that you can revise it. But it gives you flexibility of design that ordinary subdivision doesn't. It gives you flexibility in the width of the streets and the number of sidewalks and the placement of landscaping. I really think you are going to get more flexibility. Miller/ P/Z did suggest an OPDH to us because they expressed their desire to help in this process early on in the discussion before they voted not to pass this on. But in those discussion led to a letter that I think was in your packet and we talked about many different things based upon suggestions that we received for the P/Z and reduced subdivision standards among a couple of other things were suggested we incorporate. In that conversation was the OPDH to make it more affordable by reduced subdivision standards. It created a lot of confusion and basically stopped the process, the scheduling that we were on. So, we did not think that a OPDH was viable based upon all of the conversations that we have been involved in over the last 2-3 years. But all of those things that you are saying certainly- Nov/ I did do a little reading on the ordinance and there isn't a requirement that you come in with a design for the entire 62 acres all at once. You can do 20 acres at a time or whatever works out. So it isn't a matter of come in with a full design and stick to it. Kubby/ In any even, after other people have spoken who want to, I am going to move to continue this so that those options remain open. I hope that that is not a problem for you. Miller/ Well, it is not a problem, no. We want to provide what the community wants and we had a problem with the subdivision restriction. Again, not because that was not our original intent. But again, to try to cover our risk for development in that if this land owned concept didn't fly and it really has not been successful. But we feel that it has not presented in a fashion that we intent to present.it. That we wanted a fall back position that we could roll it over into a mobile home community. We understand the concerns so therefore we accepted the subdivision regulations and allow then the expectation of what is going to be present there after development. So, it is not a problem. We want to continue to talk about it. Horow/ Thank you. Anyone else care to address council? Steve Bright/ I would like to elaborate a little bit on that November 14 letter and go backwards before I get to that point. If you remember our process we started in early 1992 Thlsrepr~ents on~ ~ ~asonably ecc~ate ~ans~on ~ theiowa C1Wcoun~lmee~ng ~ January3,1995. F010396 #4j page 8 with a proposal to Steve Ark!ns and Karin Franklin. We had acquired 420 acres adjoining the city and was the city interested in growing. And we had discussions through the spring and the summer and led to some positive general concepts. We then submitted an application for annexation in August 1992 and was then told, which we all understood was coming, that the comp plan had to be reviewed because the comp[ plan did not approve annexation in that area. So the city undertook a growth study process. And by December 1992 the comp plan was reviewed and amended to allow for our annexation on certain conditions. Community needs, undue economic costs and things you are familiar with. And so we started the process in December 1992 with the P/Z burdened by an understanding that we had to bear all cost associated with our development and this was with an attitude that everybody agreed that we were developing affordable housing. We were providing housing that was not available in Iowa City and so we proceeded and then in January 1993, a year ago, we were before you and we were back at that road issue which unfortunately took us until August 4 to be approved and we were finally annexed in August '94. Then what happened was I think the city ha made some decisions about growth and where to grow and how to grow and its needs. One of those was to support an affordable housing addition, the Wolf proposal that is before you. We then started our P/Z process on this rezoning. And in the spirit of the city supporting affordable housing which they did not do in December '92. The policy was developers, don't tell me what you are developing, all infrastructure costs on site and off site. We have to pay oversizing costs to county property. under our CZA because that was the rule at the time. Today I think the city has a different attitude which is to make affordable housing work. Tom Scott in a November meeting said if you believe in affordable housing we have got to get behind it, we have got to do things to make it happen. that is the spirit in which that November letter was submitted to the commission. It was in response to an invitation to that meeting. Let's make it happen. What can we do to make it happen. So what we proposed to the Commission was a letter. In that form of let's discuss this and what we said was make it accessible. bring an access 200 feet to our property so that w~ can make this lot owned concept work in 1995. We also said waive some of the subdivision standards. Again, Mr. Scott in that meeting talked about that possibility. So we invited that dialogue. The unfortunate result was endless confusion at that meeting. And a lot of frustration and anger with us. We are known as the run it up the flag pole gang and we didn't get anywhere with that. And so we took it back off the table and we agreed, Mr. baker, to those four conditions. We don't want to talk anymore about it. We will stay with those four conditions. We were ThlareFresente on~ areasonably accurate uanscdpfion d ~alowa Clwoounollmea~ng ~ danuary3,1995. F010395 #4j page 9 trying to respond to what we thought was an invitation to discuss. It backfired on us, we took it away. So that is the spirit that we offered it in. Are we changing, yes. Are you changing, absolutely. Are we trying to change with you to meet your goals. As we understand them, yes we are. That is the commitment Jim Miller CHANGE TAPE TO REEL 95-4 SIDE 2 Bright/ To P/Z, at the council or whatever you want to do. But that is the spirit in which He offered it. Horow/ ~hankyou, Steve. All right, if there isn't anyone else that wishes to address council, chair would entertain a motion to continue the- Moved by Kubby, Seconded by Pigott to continue this to the 17th. Any further discussion. All those in favor signify by saying aye (ayes). Baker/ Sue, before we get to the next item, could I make a very brief statement. I want to 'go back just for a point of clarification to item i. because there was a comment made at the end of the discussion on item i. that I think some members of the public may misperceive or misunderstand. I think you made a comment that we need to go ahead and get this process started to get these things done and I think some people may have perceived that as a therefore a decision that had already been made on these particular items and I don't think that was the intent. Horow/ That wasn't the intent. Baker/ Certainly not, I just want to make sure. the public understands that one.why or the other we would like to move the process along that is not a final decision and it does, indeed, take six votes as I understand on that particular item. Thank you. This represents only a reasonably occurate transcription of the Iowa City council meatJnj*.~ of Janua~/3, 1995. F010395 Agenda Iowa City City Council Regular Council Meeting January 3, 1995 Page 8 Public hearing on an ordinance amending Zoning Chapter Article N., Off- StreetParking Requirements, Section 14-6N-1 B1 specifying construction materials for required hard-surface parking areas. Comment: At its December 1, 1994, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission by a vote of 4-2, with Scott and Jakobsen voting no, recommended approval of a text amendment to Zoning Chapter Article N., Off-Street Parking Requirements, Section 14-6N- 1 B1 requiring hard.- surfaced parking areas to be constructed of asphaltic cement concrete, Portland cement concrete, or manufactured paving materials, such as brick, unless otherwise exempted, or authorized by the City Building Official to use other materials. The Commission's recommendation is generally consistent with the staff recommendation as set forth in the staff report dated December 1, 1994. Action: Public hearing on an ordinance amending Zoning Chapter Section 14-6E- 6C1 to clarify the density requirement for dwelling units in the CB-2, Central Business zone. Comment: At its December 1, 1994, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission, by a vote of 6-0, recommended approval of a text amendment to Zoning Chapter Section 14-6E-6C1 to specify the requirement of a minimum lot area of 875 square feet per dwelling unit in the CB-2 zone. The Commission's recommendation is consistent with the staff recommendation as set forth in the staff report dated Decem- ber 1, 1994. Action: -~'~ ~/_~.~ ~~. Consider an ordinance to vacate a portion of Waterfront Drive located south of Highway 6 and wast of the CRANDIC Railroad right-of-way. (VAC94-0007) (First consideration) Comment: At its November 17, 1994, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission, by a vote of 6-0, recommended approval of VAC94-0007, a City-initiated proposal to vacate a portion of Waterfront Drive located south of Highway 6 and west of the CRANDIC Railroad right-of-way, subject to retention of utility easements over the entire vacated right-of- way, and the said vacation taking affect at such time as Stevens Drive and Waterfront Drive are reconstructed. The Commission's recommen- dation is consistent with the staff recommendation contained in the staff report dated November 17, 1994. Comments were received from the public at the_December .20, 1994, public hearing ort this item. Agenda Iowa City City Council Regular Council Meeting January 3, 1995 Page 9 Consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance changing the use regulations of RM-12 zoned properties located generally along Fairchild and Davenport Streets between Dubuque Street and Dodge Street, and in the 200 block along Bloomington Street from RM-12, Low Density Multi-Family Residential to RNC-12, Neighborhood Conservation Residential. (REZ94-0015) (Pass and adopt) Comment: .At its November 3, 1994, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission, by a vote of 4-0, recommended approval of rezoning an area located generally along Fairchild and Davenport Streets between Dubuque Street and Dodge Street, and in the 200 block along Bloomington Street, excepting RM-44 zoned properties along Dubuque Street, hom RM-12 to RNC-12. The Commission's recommendation is consistent with the staff recommendation. Comments were received from the public at the December 6, 1994, public hearing on this item. Consider a letter to the Johnson County Board of Supervisors recom- mending denial of an application submitted by Alvin and Mary Jo Streb, on behalf of property owners Carroll and Lilah Sass, to rezone 2.65 acres from RS, Suburban Residential, to CH, Highway Commercial (1.65 acres) and C2, Commemial (1 acre), for property within Fringe Area 5 located on the east side of Scott Boulevard approximately ½ mile north of Highway 6. (CZ9464) Comment: At its December 15, 1994, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission, by a vote of 6-0, recommended that the City Council forward a comment to the Johnson County Board of Supervisors stating that CZ9464, an application to rezone 2.65 acres from RS, Suburban Residential, to CH, Highway Commercial (1.65 acres) and C2, Commer- cial {1 acre), is not consistent with the mutually agreed upon Fringe Area Policy for Fringe Area 5 and should be denied. In addition, the Commis- sion recommends that City Council request that the Board study the appropriateness of rezoning this and the surrounding area to industrial, consistent with the long range plan for this area. The Commission's recommendation is consistent with the staff recommendation. Action: #4n page I ITEM NO. 4 n. Consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance changing the use regulations of P~{-12 zoned proper- ties located generally along Fairchild and Daven- port Streets between Dubuque Street and Dodge Street, and in the 200 block along Bloomington Street from RM-12, Low Density Multi-Family Resi- dential to RNC-12, Neighborhood Conservation Resi- dential. (REZ94-0015) (Pass and adopt) Horow/ Moved by Pigott, seconded by Throg. Any discussion. Throg/ Yes, I would like to note of considerable praise the presence of two members of the north side neighborhood who have braved the cold and shown the endurance and encourage necessary to come here and witness us pass this. Pigott/ Good job. Horow/ Good job. Any further discussion? Baker/ Yeah, I just want some clarification about Karin was talking about the ordinance clarification on rumor thing. Will that be coming to us or-? Kubby/ The rumor about the roomers. Franklin/ Let's see, it has to go to P/Z probably end of February or the beginning of March. Baker/ But it is the works then? Franklin/ It is very simple. Change a number. Kubby/ So, will this be the amendment to the RNC-12 zone that would go for any RNC zones? Franklin/ That is right. Kubby/ Okay. Horow/ Any further discussion? Roll call- (yes). Great. This represents only a reasomtbty acCurate tr~mscdptlon of the Iow~ City council meeting of January'3, 1995. F01039§ #4o page I ITEM NO. 4 o. consider a letter to the'Johnson County Board of Supervisors recommending denial of an application submitted by Alvin and Mary Jo Streb, on Behalf of property owners Carroll and Lilah Sass, to fezone 2.65 acres from RS, Suburban Residential, to CH, Highway Commercial (1.65 acres) and C2, Co~mercial (1 acre), fo~pr6pertywithin Fringe Area 5 located on the east side of Scott Boulevard approximately mile north of Highway 6. (CZ9464) Horow/ Moved by Nov, seconded by Throg. Discussion. You asked the mayor to do this and this morning I checked it out with four of the five supervisors and the proposed letter with its proposed action meets with their approval. Baker/ What does that mean? Horow/ It should be no problem. They have no problem with the denial. Nor do they h~ve any problem with asking that there be a study of the industrial- Baker/ Thank you. Horow/ Any further discussion? Roll 'call- Motion. All those in favor signify by saying aye (ayes). Great. That letter, however, must be changed to reflect the new ohair of the Board of Supervisors. I don't have that. Pigott/ Is it Charlie Duffy? Horow/ Okay, great. This ~esen~ only areasonab;yaccurate ~ansc~p~on ~ ~alowa City coun~ me~ng ~ Janumy3,1996. ~01039~ Agenda Iowa City City Council Regular Council Meeting January 3, 1995 Page 10 ITEM NO. 8 - ANNOUNCEMENT OF VACANCIES. a. Previously Announced Vacancies. (1) Airport Commission - One vacancy for a six-year term ending March 1, 2001. (John Ockenfels' term ends.) (2) Broadband Telecommunications Commission - One vacancy for a three-year term ending March 13,'1998. (Trey Stevens' term ends.) These appointments will be made at the January 17, 1995, meeting of the City Council. (3) Committee on Community Needs - Two vacancies for three-year terms ending April 1, 1998. (Terms of Gretchen Schmuch and Rusty Martin end.) (4) Historic Preservation Commission-- Two vacancies for three-year terms ending March 29, 1998 - one for a Summit Street represen- tative and one for an at-large representative. (Terms of Jay Semel and Kevin Hanick end.) These appointments will be made at the January 31, 1995, meeting of the City Council. (5) Board of Review - One vacancy for a representative of the public for a six-year term ending December 31, 2000. (Norman Bailey's term ends. I This appointment will be made at the January 30, 1995, meeting of the City Conference Board. b. Current Vacancies. (1) Animal Control Advisory Board - One vacancy for a three-year term ending April 5, 1998. (Janice Becker's term ends.) (2) Mayor's Youth Employment Board - Two vacancies for three-year terms ending April 15, 1998. (Terms of Dave Jacoby and Loren Forbes end.) . These appointments will be made at the February 14, 1995, meeting of the City Council. Agenda Iowa City City Council Regular Council Meeting January 3, 1995 Page 11 ITEM NO. 6 - CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION. ITEM NO. 7 - REPORT ON ITEMS FROM THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY. a. City Manager, b. City Attorney. ITEM NO. 8- CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE POSITIONS IN THE WATER AND TREASURY DIVISIONS, Comment: The City Council has approved monthly billing for municipal utilities. To accomplish this, the Public Works Department requests the addition of 1.5 permanent full-time permanent positions as meter readers. This addition along with the existing 0.5 permanent part-time position of meter reader will result in two permanent full-time positions and will enable monthly meter reading to proceed. The Finance Department also requests the addition of a permanent full-time account clerk to process the monthly billings. Action: #6 page i ITEM NO, 6 - CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION. Horow/ City Council Information. Kubby/ One thing.-On February 27 is this years Bowl For Kids Sake and that is raising money through bowling for Big Brothers/Big Sisters and I think this is the third or fourth year in a row I have organized a team called the People's Choice and it is a group of people from the County Extension Office, Solon, Iowa City Council, Board of Supervisors, Mayor of Coralville will be participating and it is elected officials, trying to get us together. We don't get together very often except at JCCOG meetings. Getting together to bowl for Kids Sake. So if anybody would like to pledge to our team, you can get a hold of me. Or if you want to from your own team, call Big Brothers/Big Sisters. Baker/ But if you pledge you don't have to bowl, right? Kubby/ You are guaranteed 100 points. It is very fun. Horow/ It really is. Pigott/ It is a blast. Kubby/ I encourage another team to be formed because you only need six. Horow/ I usually bowl with the Fire Department. They are fun. Nov/ I am going to say something again that I said last night which is not like me. But I want the public to know that we are going to think again about labeling parking meters so that holidays are evident and well. described because people keep getting tickets and they tell us they are unhappy about that. Horow/ Okay, way to go. Baker/ Two things, very quickly. I noticed that speaking of the people's choice program or whatever reminds me that people magazine had its 25 most intriguing people out last week and none of us made it. I was a little disappointed in that. Second thing- Obviously they weren't covering the midwest very well. The second thing is I want- Jim talked briefly last night about getting Joe Fowler and Jeff down for a quick briefing on Transit revisions. As you recall, last August or September we were talking about a parking ramp increase at the Dubuque Street ramp to come back in January and I Just wanted to see of that was still the consensus of the council to bring it back. This represent~ only a reasonably accurate f~an$crlption of the Iowa City council meeting of January 3, 1995. F010395 #6 page 2 Kubby/ You didn't want to bring it back before then? Atkins/ Bring it back to you in January. It will either be the next meeting or the following one. Baker/ Okay. Arkins/ And I will just chock with Susan on the timing of it. Baker/ One of the things we were going to talk about with the transit evaluation is Joe and Jeff have got specific ideas on the parking ramp permit fees and how those can be-the fee structure altere4 to work with different plans on riding and commuter lots and stuff like that. And we had also talked about raising those parking ramp permit fees at the same time and it might be appropriate to just look at the ramp fee itself and wait till Jeff and Joe come back with a specific proposal on the permit fee structure. But I wanted to make sure that we did have that back on the agenda. Atkins/ It is scheduled for this month,'correct? Nov/ You are talking about particular changes for car pools. Baker/ Car pools and one of the things that Joe and Jeff are thinking about is some sort of permit rate structure based upon which ramp you get the permit for. Proximity to d.t. affecting the price of the permit. That is one of the things that would be under consideration. Nov/ Well, that has always been there. Lehman/ We have that now. Baker/ Well, they are talking about an alteration of that. It might be more appropriate to not look at any kind of changes in permit fees while we are still toying with the idea. As long as we got that Dubuque Street.ramp thing back. Hey, hey, I think the ground swell is coming back in our favor on this one. Kubby/ You must have been on vacation. Horow/ Hope springs eternal. Baker/ I don't mind debating that one again. Folks, we are right on that one. This represents only a reasonably accurate t~armmlptlon of the Iowa City council meeting of Janumy 3, 1996. F010395 #6 page 3 Horow/ Anything else. I will only repeat, please keep your sidewalks snow removed and if you have a bus stop in front of your house, I implore you to keep your areas olean. This reprocents only e reasonably accurate t~anscrlpt~on of the Iowa City council meeting of Janua,,y 3, 1996. F010395 #8 page ITEHNO. 8 - CONSIDER A REBOLUTION~%HENDING THE POSITIONS IN THE ~1%TER ]LND TRF~SURY DIVISIONS. Horow/ Moved by Kubby, seconded by Baker. Discussio~. Arkins/ Have we changed out mind? Kubby/ I think you should outline the issue again. Pigott/ ¥eah, that would be a good idea. Kubby/ That the costs have been figured in all along. Lehman/ When will these people be hired? Arkins/ By the time you establish a civil service list,-recruitment of a civil service list. I suspect we are getting close to March. Kubby/ So we would start monthly billings in April? Arkins/ We would hope so, Karen, that was read that you wanted to do it as possible. kind of the plan. I had reasonably quickly as Kubby/ So that means there might be two bills that are 40%-? Atkine/ I guess I am not sure how that will work but- Kubby/ Or a couple of bills that are more than before and then go to monthly bills. Baker/ And these would be positions that would be paid for by user fees and no taxes? Arkins/ Yes. Yes. Throg/ Steve, would you restate for us please, what the purpos~ of these positions is? Atkins/ The requirement for monthly billing. 1-The processing will increase dramatically with respect to the account clerk. Just simply the processing of accounts. Our experience is such that we will be doing a lot more paper work. Secondly, the meter readers simply have to do that. Their schedule will go to a monthly schedule as opposed to a bi monthly schedule and just simply require greater readings. There is certain efficiencies in that. That means we will probably catch leaks and other problems a lot sooner. It is advantageous in the sense that cash flow will improve in the sense that cash will be coming Thlo represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council mestfng of January 3, 1995. F010395 page 2 in a more rapid pace and thereby our investment income should improve. Other than that it is pretty straight forward. Horow/ Is this something, though, that in the future through computerized techniques we would be possible to have computerized meter-? Arkins/ We pretty much have that now. Plug it in on the outside of the house. Horow/ Electronically back through cable-? Helling/ Eventually we would hope so. To the best of our knowledge, at the current time the proposed ~ebuild of the cable system probably wouldn't provide that kind of what they call up and downstream capacity. But it is certainly upgradable to that. A lot of it is going to depend on federal legislation and how competitive the people are enticed to be, both cable companies and telephone companies. Horow/ But we would look for this as a means to reduce- Helling/ We have talked about it and guessed probably in five years that will be available. That is not guaranteed. That is just an estimate. Horow/ Okay. Kubby/ Do we have any idea how much this is going to cost to go to monthly billing? Atkins/ We did a rough estimate on our utility bill, water and sewer only, that it is about a 1% increase it costs to do this. Lehman/ $90,000 a year. Atkins/ $96,000. Throg/ so a question comes up whether there might be a more efficient way of accomplishing the same objective? I think I can see the real Justification of hiring (can't hear). But in terms of the meter readers, I am struggling with that partly because of a conversation I had on a phone tonight with somebody who called wondering and one of the things I said to her on the phone was that one of the purposes would be to ease the burden of paying increases in bills instead of doing it every two months you can pay it once a month. Smaller checks for each of those months. But then I thought well surely there are more than just straight forward a~ministrative ways of Thlsfepre;om8 on~ 8~ea8onsbly accurate ~sn;crlpUonof~elowa Clty coun~l mee~ng ~ Jsnuarf3,199B. F010395 #8 page 3 accomplishing that objective having to do with making it easier for people to pay. To spread their payments out over 12 separate payments and we probably already do that but make it possible for people to- Atkins/ We have Sure Pay. Kubby/ For example, I have a gas and electric guy that comes and my stuff is in the house so I have to be there. If I am not there they estimate my use and then when they can get in the house, then they read the meter and they- Throg/ You can arrange to do that with gas and electric in advance to spread your payments out for equal pa~ents over a year. Nov/ That is not necessarily an advantage to the payer. Throg/ I am not saying there would be an advantage to the payer. If we could accomplish the same result without having to hire 2-3 more staff, then it would be wise to do that. Lehman/ I talked to Ed Moreno this morning for probably 20 minutes and I thought that even with meter reading only once everytwo months we could bill them for half and then send the second half. That we don't physically read the meters twice a month. His concern was that and apparently they do find a fair amount of problems of leaks and whatever, the meter reader. And it would do it monthly rather than run up this hellacious bill with the higher rate. They catch it. On the other side of that same argument is that we only do it once every two months now. But I don't know if I am totally convinced that a monthly is right because I think.there may be an alternative but he gave a pretty good argument. Arkins/ This has been kicking around for a long time. It is not something-If you got a fewquestions, I will bring a few folks at an informal meeting to chat with them about. I don't have a strong sense that we have to have this done immediately. Lehman/ He did have a fair amount of other ideas for these folks to be doing when they weren't reading meters. This wasn't like they were only going to read meters. Throg/ I am sure that is true but there are always things that one can find for people to do. Plenty of work to do arced my house. Horow/ Would you like to entertain a motion to defer this? Thlgrepre~ents only areasonably accurate ~ans~lp~on of ~elowa Clty coun~l mee~ng ofJanuary3,199$. F01039§ #8 page 4 Nov/ I would like to ask some more questions before we get to that point. My voice is starting to fail me. When we are going to hire one more account clerk, are we going to be able to do local billing? Are we still going to send the bills out to some bank somewhere? Arkins/ That lock box service where it is deposited directly, local banks did not offer that service and we did that on a bid and a Cedar Rapids bank-I don~t recall which one it is. It is one- Nov/ I was just wondering if it would be better off to send the bills from the Civic Center and receive the money in the Civic Center rather than routing it through Cedar Rapids. Atkins/ No. Then we have a handling cost. It is easier for us to deposit it directly. It is wired right back to us. Kubby/ It is called privatization. Atkins/ A lot more efficient. Now if a local bank offered the same service, I am sure we - We try to keep it locally, too. Nov/ What is the account clerk doing?' Atkins/ We have about 40,000 accounts ahd those 40,000 accounts are billed six times a year. You are going to take those 40,000 accounts and bill them 12 times a year. Nov/ But we are sending the bills. Atkins/ We will send the bills. Nov/ But we are not receiving the money. The receiving money is - Atkins/ It goes into the bank with the lock box service, right. Nov/ We are printing the bills and putting them in a envelope and- Atkins/ We do everything else internally. Nov/ All right, I understand. Atkins/ If you have some questions I can have Ed or Don. Baker/ When is the last time you checked with a local bank about whether or not they do this service? Arkins/ Oh, I think our current contract- We usually contract for 2-3 years because the bank has to make an investment in some hardware on their end. I will find out for you. Thisrepresents only a ~asonab~ accurate ~anscr~onofthelowa Clty coun~lmee~ng of Janumy3, 1995. F010396 #8 page Horow/ What is your pleasure? Kubby/ I am hesitant. Pigott/ Let's defer and have- Arkins/ I'll bring down at the next meeting. Put it on the next time, that is fine. I will have them come to the next meeting and you can question them directly. Horow/ Moved by Kubby, seconded by Pigott to defer this until January 16. 17th is the meetings. Nov/ Let's put it on the agenda on the 17th and then at that time. Arkins/ On your 'agenda automatically and I will have it for discussion on the 16th. Horow/ Any further discussion? All those in favor signify- Throg/ Wait. I guess what I am most curious about and what staff might try to prepare for is for them to come in and be prepared to discuss.a%ternat~v? ways of achieving the s~me objectives without hiring addlt~onal staff or with the hiring of only one of additional staff or- Arkins/ What are some of the other options we reviewed? I just don't know what those were, Jim, but I will prepare those for yOU. Kubby/ Not only that were reviewed but that we could do. Arkins/ Practically we can do anything you want. Nov/ I remember we did discuss people being able to pay the bills in two segments. People who said I cannot sent you this much but I can do it in two payments. Arkins/ See, we do that. We will do that now at the customers initiative. If a customer come~ in and says I can't swing it now but it requires their initiative and of course,then our customer service people sit down with them and work through some sort of a payment. So we do do that anyway. Dniformly for all of the accounts, we don't. It is incumbent on the customer to come in and say I need that help. Kubby/ Some of the information that might be useful is how much difference is there between month to month and assume we are talking residential because that is 68% of the bills goingup. Are most people fairly consistent? If so, this issue might be This rel)resents only a re~son~bly accurate tronsc~ption of ~e Iowa City counr, II meat~ng of J~numy 3, 1995. F010395 #8 page different than if there is a wide disparity from month to month. Atkins/ I hear you. Kubby/ Mine is pretty consistent. Arkins/ We will prepare that. Nov/ Our residential people are not necessarily individually metered. Don't we count the apartments in those residential readings. Kubby/ For each bill that we send out, how fluctuate does it go. Horow/ All right, the motion is on the table to der,r until January 17. All those in favor signify by saying aye (ayes). Great. Thlsre~esen~only areasonably accurate ~an$=lpUon of thelowaCltycoun~l m~ng ofJanuary3,1895. F010395 Agenda Iowa City City Council Regular Council Meeting January 3, 1995 Page 12 ITEM NO. 9 - CONSIDER RESOLUTION RATIFYING SETTLEMENT OF LITIGATION CLAIM. Comment: In April 1994, the City of Iowa City received a claim from Doug Paul and Profiles Corporation for a controversy surrounding several Human Rights complaints. During executive session, City Council authorized settlement. This resolution ratifies settlement of the litigation claim, as required by Chapter 21, Code ~)f Iowa (1993). The City Attorney's Office recommends adoption. ITEM NO. 10 - CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE IOWA CITY BUILDING AND PLUMBING CODES TO INCREASE THE OCCUPANT LOAD AT WHICH 3EPARATE RESTROOM FACILITIES ARE REQUIRED FOR EACH SEX FROM FOUR (4) TO FIFTEEN (15). (SECOND CONSIDERATION) Comment: At its September 12, 1994, meeting, the Board of Appeals recommended that the City Council adopt these amendments to provide some relief to small businesses struggling to comply with handicap accessibility requirements. ADA does allow the use of unisex restrooms and does not set a threshold for separate facilities. Current City Code requires separate facilities for employees when the number of employees exceeds four and separate facilities for all eating or drinking establishments. The occupant level of 15 was derived from a model plumbing code, not adopted by Iowa City, which is used in the northeastern states. Action: ITEM NO. 11 - ADJOURNMENT. #10 page X;EM NO. ~0 - Horow/ Moved by Pigott, seconded byNov. Discussion. Baker/ Sue, would somebody refresh my memory about'was there some discussion last night about being reevaluated or reconsidered or changed to another later date? Pigott/ No, there was not. Baker/ I Just want to make sure that I was clear on this because it seemed like there was confusion the'lest time when we talked about this. Pigott/ There was no confusion whatsoever. Thank you. Baker/ There had to be some con£usion because we- Nov/ We still require separate restrooms for eating and drinking establishments, so that is okey. Baker/ But we did defer this from the last meeting and I just want to make sure that there- Pigott/ I second that move to call the question. Horow/ The question has been called. Roll call- Baker/ Call the question on me, ! am getting up and walking. Kubby/ Is this for calling the questioh or is this for the item. Yes, on the item. Horow/ The item passes,'7-0. Thlsrepresen~ onW a ~asonably accurate ~ansm~PUon~thelowa CIty coun~l meeUng of Januaty3,199$. F010396 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE TO: FROM RE: December 30, 1994 City Council City Manager Work Session Agenda and Meeting Schedule January 2, 1995 HOLIDAY - CI~ OFFICES CLOSED 6:30 P.M. 6:30 P.M. - 7:30 P.M. - 7:40 P.M. - 7:55 P.M. - January 3, 1995 7:00 P.M. - 7:30 P.M. - January 10, 1995 6:00 P.M. City Council Work Session - Council TIMES ~LoPROXII~R~ Chambers Review zoning matters Tree Preservation Ordinance reconsideration Iowa Festival use of Downtown Parking Lot Council agenda, Council time, Council committee reports Monday Tuesday City Council Rules Committee Meeting - Council Chambers Regular City Council Meeting - Council Chambers City Council Work Session - Council Chambers Discuss FY96-98 Financial Plan January 16, 1995 I(ARTIN'LLrFHER KING, JR, HOLIDAY - CI~ OFFICES CLOSED 6:30 P.M. City Council Work Session - Council Chambers January 17, lgg5 7:30 P.M. January 23, 1995 6:00 P.M. Agenda Pending January 24, 1995 4:30 P.M. Regular City Council Meeting - Council Chambers City Council Work Session - Council Chambers Discuss FY 96-98 Financial Plan Tuesday Monday Tuesday Monday Tuesday City Council Meeting with Johnson County Board of Supervisors Separate agenda posted PENDING LIST Appointments to the Airport Commission and Broadband Telecommunications ¢o..,~n_ission - January 17, !995 Appointments to the Committee on Community Needs and Historic Preservation Conunission - January 31, 1995 Appointments to the Animal Control Advisory Board and Mayor's Youth Employment Board - February 14, lg95