Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-05-08 Transcription#1 Page 1 ITEM NO. 1. CALL TO ORDER Lehman/Before we take Item 2 I'd like the consent of the Council to tell the public that after we finish our executive session that we will not address Items No. 3 and 4 until if not before 10:00, if we wait until at least 10:00. Vanderhoeff Okay. Wilbum/That's fine. Lehman/There are people in the public who would like to be here for that and they should not have to wait here while we're in executive session so we can just. Wilbum/Time for them. Kanner/So either way we're done or not done we'll break at 10:00. Lehman/No, no, no, we will not break but we will not address it before 10:00. O'Donnell/We'll be finished I'm sure. Lehman/I don't know about that but is that okay for Council? Kanner/Why don't we just say 10:00 and take a break no matter where we're at? O'Dormell/I'm sure we'll through at 10:00. Lehman/I don't, what's your pleasure guys? Champion/I don't care whatever you want to do. O'Dounell/Let's just set it for 10:00 okay I think that's fine. Kanner/Yea Ernie let's just say 10:00 no matter where we're at then come back if we're still in executive session so people can go. Vanderhoef/Or as close to 10:00, I chose not to break in the middle of the. Dilkes/I think there was some feeling that the evaluations were set and before this other stuff went on the agenda and it certainly, my feeling those should be concluded, I think Ernie's sense was that people didn't have to wait to see when we might finish if that was before 10. Champion/Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of May 8, 2001. #1 Page 2 Lehman/So in no event will we come back before 10:00 and then whenever we're finished we'll come back into the, all right. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of May 8, 2001. #2 Page 3 ITEM NO. 2. CONSIDER A MOTION TO ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO EVALUATE THE PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCY OF INDIVIDUALS WHOSE APPOINTMENT, HIRING, PERFORMANCE OR DISCHARGE IS BEING CONSIDERED WHEN NECESSARY TO PREVENT NEEDLES AND IRREPARABLE INJURY TO THOSE INDIVIDUALS REPUTATIONS AND THOSE INDIVIDUALS REQUEST A CLOSED SESSION Champion/So moved. Lehman/Seconded by Champion. Vanderhoef/Second. Lehman/Seconded by Champion. Roll call. All ayes. Motion carries. Lehman/Before we get to Item 3 just a reminder to Council tomorrow at 4:30 we do have that joint meeting with the Board of Supervisors. Champion/Thanks for reminding me. Lehman/At the Johnson County Fairgrounds. Kanner/4:00, isn't it 4:00? Lehman/Well it says 4:30. O'Donnell/4:30. Wilburn/I will not be there. Lehman/Okay. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of May 8, 2001. #3 Page 4 ITEM NO. 3. RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO CONVEY THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS PENINSULA NEIGHBORHOODS, FIRST ADDITION, IN IOWA CITY, IOWA, TO TERRY L. STAMPER HOLDINGS, L.L.C., AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING ON SAID CONVEYANCE FOR MAY 15, 2001. Lehman/Is there a motion? Champion/Move the resolution. O'Dormell/Second. Lehman/Moved by Champion, seconded by O'Donnell. Is this a roll call? Karr/It's a resolution, it's roll call. Lehman/Roll call. Karmer/Wait before. Lehman/I'm sorry. Kanner/This is, I guess I don't have the agenda in front of the, this is on the. Lehman/Peninsula property. Kanner/Oh the Peninsula property. Lehman/Okay. Karr/Roll call. All ayes. Lehman/Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of May 8, 2001. #4 Page 5 ITEM NO. 4. CONSIDER A MOTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR JUNE 12 ON ORDINANCE DESIGNATING THE CARNEGIE LIBRARY BUILDING (OLD PUBLIC LIBRARY) LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF COLLEGE AND LINN STREETS AS AN IOWA CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK). Lehman/Do we have a motion to set the public hearing? Champion/Move to set the public hearing. Pfab/Second. Lehman/Moved by Champion, seconded by Pfab. Discussion and at this point I would entertain folks from the audience if they wish to speak to this because setting this public hearing effectively places a moratorium on demolition of that building for I believe 60 days but we need to understand that. If there are those who would speak to or in opposition of this they may do so now. Mike Gunn/Mike Gunn with the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission, and if you don't have enough paper already I would like to give you one more thing which is the opinion of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Pfab/I believe we have that. No (can't hear). Kanner/This one. Karr/This is something different. Kanner/A later one. Gunn/It is simply a letter stretching the importance of the old Camegie Library, it's the opinion of the National Trust, it is the only thing from the Trust so far that it is geared particularly to the building in question. We did request that you set this public hearing and at our meeting last night we put together 12 opinions or findings that we presented to you earlier and I think you have that is that correct? Kanner/Yea. O'Donnell/We do. Gtmn/Okay. I'm not going to speak much beyond that I think other position of the Historic Preservation Commission has to be that the building must remain standing, that is our purpose by ordinance, our role in city govemment here. We have tried to address issues that were relative to your decision, if you have This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of May 8, 2001. #4 Page 6 questions about those I will certainly to entertain those questions as well as any other questions you might have for the Commission. Kanner/I just have a question about point number 12 on your sheet that landmark designation for the Camegie Library. It said that when the purchaser of the library bought the building from the City that they were suppose to invest a considerable sum, to preserve the building. One, what are the legal consequences of what did or did not happen there and two how might that affect historic landmark status? Gunn/From the Commission's standpoint we're getting this from a book written about, we're getting this from a book that sites the contract that we haven't been able to locate yet. So we don't even know what that contract is exactly, we're still trying to find that and the legal ramifications we have no idea on that. But there is, we have well I don't know, Richard do you know more on this? It's source. Lehman/You need to speak into the microphone if you address it. Gunn/Yea tell us what you know. Kanner/Well I guess also and to put it into some more context I'm concerned buildings that they fall into neglect do they fall out of being eligible for landmark status and if there is purposeful neglect is that perhaps the case here, is that what your trying to make the case? And that changes the situation. Gunn/No what we intended by including this is that we think that the Council if indeed the agreement, I think three times the purchase price was to be the investment, that's our understanding about the agreement with the City which would have been hundred' s of thousands of dollars invested in the building. It's clear to us anyway that if that is in fact the language of the contract then the Council did intend for that building to have a viable future apparently the money was not invested and in part the result is the building is jeopardized at this point. And so we were trying to show that the building was important even to the Council that sold it. But whatever legal, ifthere's anything legal ramifications to that contract we have no idea. Vanderhoef/Following up on that same thing, excuse me Steven then when you say three times the purchase price invest in upgrade and preserve the building are you talking about the physical structure or are you talking also about things like the heating and air conditioning and those kinds of things because I think that's too big. Gunn/We just don't know but I mean somewhere if this contract exists it shouldn't be too hard to find. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of May 8, 2001. #4 Page 7 Atkins/It does. I figured it out yesterday and I'll get you copies. Gunn/Does it. Atkins/I just pulled that one section. Is it okay to speak? Lehman/Please. Atkins/And I remember this from a historical, one of the questions I wasn't sure whether to ask you before you vote or after you vote what kind of research you wanted us to do in order to assist you. I've already asked you before the vote so forgive me for that. We have a copy of the agreement and I had the library look up some newspaper articles so we can package that for you. But from the agreement I think what you were referring to Mike the minimum 300 percent financial commitment shall be for hard construction cost such as demolition, materials and other purchases and excludes fees for architecture engineering, consultants and other soft costs paid to third parties. These hard construction costs shall be documented and made available on request to the seller. I remember going through this debate it seems like many years and the Glasgow family purchased it and then I think they sold the parking lot off to the Clark family which they developed and this was debated. I do need to find some more information in the records about whether they had sat, what I think your saying Mike is whether they naming the Glasgow Family had satisfied that particular component because I do believe this agreement has been amended like granting extensions to them and some other things I don't have handy. I just happened to find that in the newspaper clippings. Vanderhoef/So it was 300 percent. Atkins/300 percent. Pfab/And that was, what's the date of that? Atkins/January 1983. Pfab/I suppose if it wasn't on the interest of the (can't hear) some escalation for additional costs. Atkins/I wouldn't read anything into it I think Sarah needs to read the thing and become more familiar with it as you and I'm not suggesting that this influence the vote on calling the public hearing but there's just a, what we're talking about is an institutional memory that I've got to drag up to make sure I can get you this information. I'm assuming you want this before. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of May 8, 2001. #4 Page 8 Kanner/But calling the public hearing would give us time to look into these kind of legal issues and the ramification it has on whether or not we would eventually give it historic status. Pfab/And that' s also information that will become available to the public. Atkins/Oh sure, well Marian's the one that found it for me. Gunn/Thank you. Lehman/Questions. Atkins/And I'm assuming I'll just package this together in some fashion for you and I'll share it all with you Mike. Kanner/Oh I guess I do even without the front steps it still has that status of historic landmark? Gunn/Yea I think that it's entirely clear to the Preservation Commission that it warrants landmark status, that's for the city's landmark designation as well as the consultant for the downtown survey identified it as a registered eligible building as well so from two different sources on two different avenues it qualifies for landmark designation. Thank you. Lehman/Other questions. Joe Holland/Thank you Mr. Mayor, my name is Joe Holland, I represent the owners of this property, and listening to the discussion. Kanner/Excuse me could you tell us who the owners are of record. Holland/It's a partnership, South Linn Parmers is the name of the partnership, members of the Clark family, I don't think that' s any secret. I'm a little troubled by what I heard here this morning all ready, I've given Ms. Holecek a letter, essentially objecting to the Council setting a public hearing today and I think what's transpired is an illustration of why. If you understand the process of how this is suppose to work, the Historic Preservation Commission is suppose to hold a public hearing and based on what I've heard today I have to wonder what the purpose of that public hearing is because you've already heard Mr. Gunn say Historic Preservation Commission has made up it's mind that this is worthy of being designated as a historic landmark which takes any public input out of the process. They apparently had a meeting yesterday, generated these 12 points, he's here to tell you today that they've in fact already decided this issue. Part of the reason I object to the Council setting a hearing is there is a process that' s suppose This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of May 8, 2001. #4 Page 9 to work where there's a public hearing before the Historic Preservation Commission then there' s a proceeding for the Planning & Zoning Commission, then it comes to the Council and I'm sure Ms. Holecek can tell you her opinion but what it says is after the Council has received a recommendation from the State Historical Society of Iowa, after the Council has received a recommendation from the Planning & Zoning Commission then they have a public hearing. There's such a rush to do this that the procedures that the City put into place, this isn't something that was put in place or something I'm inventing, this is something that the City put in place to work through this a process where it's considered. Exactly Mr. Atkins was talking about is they can put together information for the Council and for the benefit of the public. I also think that, the primary reason this is being done as I understand it is to put this moratorium into affect. I disagree with the affect of setting a public hearing, there' s nothing in the code section opposing moratorium which prevents demolition of this building. It says you can't get a building permit to install ar~other building, it doesn't say you can't get a permit to demolish the building. In fact it says you can't get a building permit ifthere's going to be a rezoning, this isn't a rezoning, this is designation of historic landmark. Now I'm not here to argue the fine points of this and I'm sure you'll City Attorney will give you advice on this, all I'm doing is asking you to follow this process through the way it's been established, wait until the appropriate time to set the public hearing and we'll deal with the issues at that time. Pfab/Joe I have a question. If the rules as you understand them which you say are not being followed now, okay would they become moot if the building is destroyed or demolished and if so by following your rules would the building be demolished before there was a hearing? Holland/Well first of all they' re not my rules, they're the city' s rules. Pfab/The rules that you quoted, okay I'm sorry. Holland/We don't have anything to do with writing those rules. I assume that probably the building could be demolished. That's a choice whoever wrote that ordinance made, not a choice that was made by us and I'm not saying the building will be demolished I'm just saying I think that when people run into you and say give us moratorium because we want to stop demolition of this building you need to understand there are differences of opinion over that and that the word demolition is nowhere mentioned in the moratorium language and the City's zoning ordinance. So I think whatever action you take you need to take it based on accurate understanding of what your being asked to do, the procedures that are in place and the consequences of what your doing and that's my only point. And we'll debate the merits of the landmark designation at the appropriate times. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of May 8, 2001. #4 Page 10 Kanner/So I don't know if I heard this correctly, your saying that even if we put, set the public heating and you could demolish the building, one could still demolish the building? Holland/That's my reading of the ordinance Mr. Kanner. Kanner/Is that your reading of the ordinance? Holecek/That is not our opinion, although we acknowledge that this whole matter has developed in a rather short period of time. Let me address Mr. Holland's points as he's gone through them. First with regard to the setting of the public hearing and that it should not be done until such time that there is an actual report or recommendation by the Planning & Zoning Commission, I believe that that is, the language of the ordinance that states that it shall happen in this series requires that the Council set a public hearing prior to considering an ordinance, it does not say that the Council can't set a public hearing prior to receiving those recommendations. And them have been other situations in down zoning' s or other zoning changes where the city has, the City Council has set a public heating prior to receiving a recommendation from the Planning & Zoning Commission so I don't think that is fatal to your decision today. The next issue was that a demolition permit is distinctive from a building permit under the treatment of the moratorium language, in other words that the moratorium language says only a building permit can not be issued. The City adopts the uniform building code and the UBC essentially considers a demolition permit as a subsection of a building permit. And the City has amended one particular section of the UBC and pulled out demolition permits specifically to require a seven day, seven working day waiting permit but for the purposes of the UBC and the City' s zoning code and the City's building code a demolition is a type of building permit. So I don't believe that that is fatal to your decision today. Additionally Mr. Holland argues that a rezoning is not a kin to a historic landmark designation or vice versa that a historic landmark designation is not a rezoning which is subject to a moratorium if a public hearing is set. It has been the considered opinion of the City Attomey's office that a historic landmark designation is indeed tantamount or the same as a rezoning, it goes through the same procedures and processes it is subject to protest petitions and the word designation does not change the affect that it is indeed a rezoning. In fact the zoning map of the city has changed to reflect a landmark designation so that's all consistent. Again I don't think that particular issue is fatal to your decision today. Now again I say that with the corollary that we are responding to Mr. Holland' s arguments in a very short time frame and I can't guarantee that a court of law of course wouldn't find our opinions, the City Attomey's office opinion differently but that' s what we're prepared to tell you today. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of May 8, 2001. #4 Page 11 Kanner/I have a question for Mike if he would come to the microphone please. Do you, could you tell us why you think that anybody in the area or the Historic Preservation Commission hasn't come in past years to ask for landmark status for the Carnegie building, why this last minute thing? Well I guess we know the last minute thing because it might be demolished but why hasn't anyone come forward before if this is such a great building that we want to preserve? Gtmn/Well there are a number of important buildings historically downtown, it would be nice if over the years we had designated all of them landmarks but it is a long difficult process, it is very time consuming so we just have not done that. You know it is, it has to go through all the same procedures that a rezoning does and building by building by building it's just a long process that we have not, we haven't done it this point. Kanner/Do you have a list of buildings that you'd like to see get landmark status in the Historic Preservation Commission and was this on your list that you would like to eventually get to? Gunn/Well as far as downtown you know the Harmon building brought about the survey of downtown and the results of that survey are just now being completed, they're being presented to downtown business people next week, as a matter of fact next Wednesday morning. That was our initial you know official announcement of which buildings are significant historically and which are not and it was the initiation of the process to view the downtown as a district. If property owners in the downtown area see Historic Preservation as an important part of their future then I suspect over time we can anive at guidelines and procedures that are to most people's likings and if that's the case we would propose the downtown as a district and then all of these issues of procedure and importance and demolition and all these things have be decided now in a very short period of time would already be written and established and understood to cover the downtown. I mean there is a long ways between here and that point and it is the near full cooperation of property owners downtown is essential to the process so I mean that's what we are, that's what's in the works and Wednesday morning I believe at 8:00 was the sort of the kickoff to that and this the consultant who did the downtown survey will present the survey to the property owners at that meeting. We've looked at the downtown, we've considered the downtown for years and this is the approach we chose to take. Champion/Well in defense too Historic Preservation is actually relatively new to Iowa City and I think the Commission has done an incredible amount of work and it takes time, and time is the whole thing and people are at your door all the time I think looking for preservation of buildings and neighborhoods and they've done a really good job but I just, there just hasn't been time to complete all these process. It is fairly new to Iowa City. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of May 8, 2001. #4 Page 12 Lehman/Do you have any concept as to the economic viability of restoring that property? Gtmn/It's, I think it's just too early to, I mean, there are cases where Camegie libraries have been made into retail establishments, apartments, I don't know, it's not an easy process, certainly not one that can be done in a few days. Lehman/Other questions? Thank you Mike. Well it appears that there's an awful lot of questions here. My, I have a very serious concern that obviously, well obviously, I am not interested in the city investing money in this property, neither am I interested in designating this in such a fashion that it becomes economically not feasible to develop. It appears that that isn't going to be known until we move a little farther in the process so Council comments. Champion/Well I'd just like to say that responding to Mr. Holland that there' s no doubt in my mind that this vote is to stop the destruction of the library until we get the answers to a lot of these questions your raising, a lot of questions your raising and I think we're all interested in seeing our social history continue and not just be torn down all the time. So I'm certainly going to support this public hearing to allow this Council to gather a lot more information about the possibilities of what to do with this building. Lehman/My only concern is that if, if in the process that we come to the conclusion or the conclusion is reached that this property cannot be rehabilitated economically it's going to be, Council is going to have eventually we're going to have to decide issue which at that time is going to be I think a very difficult decision but at this point I don't see that we have enough information one way or the other. Vanderhoef/I agree with you Emie, I have a lot of questions about costs and how this would work into a private ownership of this building, we all recognize that the property was sold by the city with obviously some constraints as far as keeping it up and we will find out more information about that and that' s information that I really have to have before I can make a decision. Lehman/Are you ready to vote? I'm sorry. Pfab/Okay that' s fine I'm ready to vote. Lehman/Roll call. Kanner/And say what we're voting here to set the hearing. Lehman/We're voting to set the public hearing for. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of May 8, 2001. #4 Page 13 Vanderhoef/June 12. Lehman/Yea June 12. And in affect and I'm not sure that this has any affect whatsoever on the owner's plans as far as the demolition of the property goes, it says that no demolition could occur for the 60 day period that the public hearing would require. Pfab/Sarah have a question. Lehman/Is that correct Sarah? Holecek/I'm sorry Mayor would you please? Lehman/If we set the public hearing effectively we have said that there will be demolition may not occur until after the public hearing in June. Holecek/Well the moratorium I believe sets a moratorium for 60 days. Lehman/Right. Holecek/I'm not sure that June 12 is actually 60 days out. Lehman/Actually it would be July yea. Holecek/Okay so. Pfab/Are we agreed, everybody agree now? Okay. Atkins/Emie excuse me. Lehman/yes. Atkins/Before you vote just so Sarah just so I understand moratorium, that means that no action on the part of the owner developer can take place if the Council votes in the affirmative for the next 60 days? Holecek/It means that there will be no permit issued which will legally allow any type of activity on the part of the owner for that period of time. Atkins/Just so I understand, so also behalf of the Council so I understand this then at the end of 60 days, so the Council basically has 60 days to make a decision of some kind on this property? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of May 8, 2001. #4 Page 14 Holecek/That' s correct, if the property is not a short (can't hear) dealt with in 60 days all permits that have applied for or maybe pending may be issued and another moratorium can not be placed upon the property I believe it is for 18 months after the date. Lehman/And this prevents it. Holecek/So you will have to have final action with regard to the property within that 60 day period. Lehman/So this effectively prevents demolition during that 60 days. Holecek/Correct. Kanner/And we need the Historic Preservation and Planning & Zoning to get back to us within 30 days, is that what we're asking by setting our public hearing. Lehman/Well actually it's a little more than that. Kanner/A little more than 30 days, is that? Atkins/I'm trying to understand that Steven that's why, that' s my series of questions is that, are there certain Boards and Commissions that have to recommend during that period of time so Council has that information and does that have to occur prior to June 127 Holecek/Yes the Historic Preservation Commission will need to make it's recommendation, the Planning & Zoning Commission will need to consider Historic Preservation Cornmission's recommendation and hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to Council prior to the June 12 hearing. Pfab/Okay. Atkins/I'm also interested in understanding Sarah so that particularly that when the press reports this that in affect nothing can occur at that site other than the administrative and the bureaucratic processes that are underway on or about July 8th? Holecekj That would be accurate. Atkins/Okay. Holecekf Well there will be no permits issued to allow it, sometimes activity is occurs outside the bounds of a permit. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of May 8, 2001. #4 Page 15 Atkins/Is, okay that was the next question, is that there could be activity within the building, that does not require a building permit? Holecekd Correct. Atkins/Okay. Vanderhoef/I guess my question is then if the process is to go to P & Z and the public hearing and to Historic Preservation and their hearing is June 12th a realistic date to hold the public hearing at Cotmcil? Holecek/I believe it's feasible. Lehman/Mike. Gunhal I think I can speak to this issue, Thursday this week on the 10th, the Historic Preservation Commission is having it's public hearing on this, we set the public hearing some time ago. Vanderhoef/June 10th. Gtmn/Yes, no, May 10th. Lehman/May 10th. Gtmn/So the Historic Preservation's public hearing on this issue is Thursday of this week a15:30. Pfab/What time and where. Gunn/5:30 fight here. Pfab/Okay. Gunn/It is my traderstanding that this issue is already on the agenda of the Planning & Zoning Commission for the 17th, for the 17th of May so we simply set it up to move it along and make the decision. Wilburn/And Sarah it's your initial reading that by set by allowing by us setting this hearing we are not breaking our own rules? Holecek/That's correct. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of May 8, 2001. #4 Page 16 Wilburn/Okay that' s all I need to know. Champion/Well it wouldn't be the first time we did. Kanner/And we're setting the hearing for June 12th if for some reason we don't have all the necessary information can we defer that to our next meeting of June 251h or 261h? Holecek/Yes you can continue the public hearing. Kanner/Then we can continue if necessary. Okay. Lehman/The only thing is action must be taken within the 60 days or the moratorium expires. Holecek/That' s correct. Champion/It would be similar to that thing we did with Lucas and College Street we had a public heating to stop demolition. Lehman/Right. Atkins/Again so I understand if you vote in the affirmative to call a public hearing the clock starts, 60 days. Holecek/That' s correct. Atkins/Of today, so we need to calculate a date so there's a date certain that you must have made decisions on this property. Holecek/And passed any final ordinance designating the property as a landmark should that be what is to occur. Atkins/And does landmark status require an ordinance? Holecek/Yes it does. Atkins/That means three readings. Holecek/Right, it is a rezoning. Lehman/Further discussion. Roll call. Motion carries 6-1 Lehman voting in the negative. Karr/Can we have a motion to accept correspondence? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of May 8, 2001. #4 Page 17 Champion/So moved. Lehman/Moved by Champion, seconded by Pfab, to accept correspondence. All in favor. All ayes. Motion carries. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of May 8, 2001.