HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-10-08 Bd Comm minutes FINAl,I,
MINUTES
IOWA CITY BOARD OF APPEALS
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2001,4:30 P.M.
CIVIC CENTER LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Gary Haman, John Roffman, Tom Werderitsch, Wayne
Maas, Anna Buss (Buss arrived at 4:45 P.M. after first
item on agenda was discussed and voted on)
STAFF PRESENT: Tim Hennes (Sr. Building Inspector), Sue Dulek (Asst.
City Attorney), Roger Jensen (Fire Marshall), Andy
Rocca (Fire Chief), Jann Ream (Code Enforcement
Asst. acting as Minute Taker)
OTHERS PRESENT: Dan Smith (Chamber of Commerce) James Clark, Jeff
Clark, Brian Clark (307 E. College St.) Dwight
Doberstein, Mike Hodge, Dave Hodge, Vic Amoroso,
Craig Petit, Dean Oakes (Sycamore Mall)
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
None
CALL TQ ORDER:
Chairperson Roffman called the meeting to order at 4:35 P.M.
CONSIDERATION OFMINUTES:
Meeting minutes from the June 4, 2001 meeting were reviewed. MOTION:
Haman motioned to approve the minutes with a second by Werderitsch.
Motion passed unopposed on a 4-0 vote.
Request for a Modification of Section 310.6 of the UBC. (307 E. Collecle St.)
Hennes explained that the property, which was the old Carnegie Library, had
been a business use for the past several years. The new owner, James Clark, is
renovating the building into residential apaffments. Because it is a change of use
and considered new construction, the minimum ceiling height required would be
7'6". In three of the bedrooms, only a 7'2" ceiling height could be achieved.
Therefore the owner was requesting the modification. James Clark stated that
the affected square footage was very small and, that to achieve the 7'6" ceiling
height, major structural work would have to be done. Also the new construction
could be done so that nothing would be installed in the ceiling; light fixtures and
sprinklers would be on the walls. Roffman asked for comments from staff. Jensen
(Fire Marshall) said that the building will be protected with an automatic sprinkler
system and he had no objections. Hennes (Sr. Building Inspector) stated the
building inspection staff had no objections and that the Housing Code only
requires 7' headroom in existing structures.
MOTION: Werderitsch moved that the Board allow the appeal per Section
104.2.7(Modifications) because the existing structure presents practical structural
difficulties in achieving the required ceiling height. Also, the plan conforms with
the intent of the code since the light fixtures and sprinkler heads will be kept off of
the ceiling and there will be no lessening of the fire code requirements. Haman
seconded the motion.
VOTE: 4-0 in favor of allowing the appeal.
Appeal of the Buildinq I nspector's interpretation of the Buildinq Code. (1600
Sycamore Street, Sycamore Mall)
Hennes stated the request in front of the Board was to appeal the Building
Inspector's interpretation of the Building Code but really what was being
requested was a modification to Section 905.3.4 of the 2000 International
Building Code which requires an automatic wet standpipe system in covered mall
buildings. Doberstein (Sycamore Mall) agreed. Henries reminded the Board that
the owners of Sycamore Mall had requested last March that the construction at
the mall be reviewed under the 2000 International Building Code and the Board
granted that request. This allowed the owners of the mall to have greater
occupancies and eliminated the smoke venting requirement of the 1997 Uniform
Building Code. It was also the Board's decision that everything newly constructed
at the mall would be under the 2000 IBC. Hennes clarified why the owners of
Sycamore Mall were being required to do this and not the owners of other malls
such as the Old Capitol Town Center. He explained the differentiation between
the covered mall building and tenant spaces. The covered mall building is that
portion which is common to the tenant spaces and would include the
exit/entrance areas and common corridors. The tenant spaces are just that -
those individual areas that only relate to each specific tenant. He asked the
owners to present their request.
Doberstein passed out a current lease plan showing the new floor plan of
Sycamore Mall. Hennes asked for clarification if the Board actually had the
authority to hear the case since they are prevented from waiving a specific code
requirement. In this case, the code requires an automatic wet stand pipe system
and the request was to change that to a manual system. He asked that Fire
Marshall Jensen explain the difference between the two systems. Jensen
explained the automatic system has an on -site pump that will bring the pressure
at the stand pipe to 100 psi automatically. A manual system relies on the Fire
Department's pumper truck to arrive and hook up to the system in order to get
the pressure up to 100 psi. Doberstein stated that the renovation at the mall has
been very complicated and acknowledged that City Staff had been very helpful.
He explained the changes in the tenant spaces of Panera Bread (dividing the old
Walgreen's space) and Von Mauer's (which cut the common corridor in the
covered mall area in half ) and the old Sear's space (which has been divided into
several new tenant spaces). Doberstein stated that they had added several new
exits because of these changes. He explained that the mall was originally built in
three separate phases so it had three separate water services and sprinkler
systems. He thought that most of changes that have happened at the mall have
been primarily cosmetic. He stated that their position was under Section 34 that
this was existing construction and therefore they should not be required to meet
new code requirements in this area of the mall. He also said that because of the
added exits and other fire protection additions, they were making the building
less hazardous. He asked Vic Amoroso (fire safety engineer) to explain the fire
protection systems.
Amoroso stated that they were not asking for an exception to the code but
rather a performance based alternative that meets the needs of the situation.
Current water pressure at the site only allows the operation of the sprinkler
system. They are not asking for the requirement of 100psi be changed - just the
method of achieving it. He said that NFPA 14 (National Fire Protection Agency),
not the 2000 IBC, allows for combined systems and manual standpipes if they
are compatible with the fire fighting plan for a particular site. The owners are
installing eight new stand pipe stations, changing sprinkler heads to quick
response heads, upgrading the system with back flow protection devices and
refurbishing the sprinkler piping system. Amoroso expressed that as a fire
protection engineer, he felt the system they were proposing was equivalent fire
safety, more reliable and more economical.
Doberstein said that the code allowed for the modification because of the
practical difficulties of installing a whole new system at great cost (< $220,000).
The City had granted the owners TIF money to attract new tenants that would
have to be used for the automatic standpipe system if they have to install it. He
asked for questions. Hennes asked Amoroso to clarify if the 100psi was or was
not an issue. Amoroso said it was not since the 100 psi could be established with
the pureper truck from the fire department. He reiterated that in his opinion, the
system that they were proposing would result in less liability because it was
simpler. Werderitsch asked if there were any other single story buildings that had
the 100 psi automatic wet standpipe system in the area. Jensen replied that there
were none that he was aware of but there were several multi story buildings that
had to meet the requirements of the 100 psi standpipe system including
University of Iowa buildings. He was unaware of any exceptions. Hennes
mentioned that Blooming Prairie Warehouse was a single story that had the
system. Mike Hodge (Sycamore Mall) stated that the mall is a single story with no
residential units above and the fire station is only a half a block away. Also they
had doubled the number of exits at great cost and that had improved the fire
safety of the building. He estimated that over $500,000 had been spent on fire
safety issues. He did not feel that they should have to use money set aside to
attract tenants to put in more fire safety equipment. Hermes clarified that the new
exits put in were required exits because the mall was effectively cut in half by the
extension of the Von Mauer tenant space. The building had been in compliance
until the Von Mauer expansion and if they had not done that then they would not
have had to add the exits and therefore meet the current requirements for new
exits.
Doberstein reiterated that this is an existing building; if this were a new building
there would be no question that the 100 psi automatic standpipe system would
be required. He said that the fire department had the discretion to allow either the
manual or automatic standpipe system per NFPA 14. Jensen said that the 2000
IBC had a very specific requirement for automatic system. Hennes asked again if
the Board had the authority to waive such a specific requirement. Any
modification would have to meet the criteria for such a modification: practical
difficulties, maintaining the intent of the code, no decrease of structural integrity,
and no lessening of fire protection requirements. Hennes said that, in staff's view,
allowing a manual standpipe system would lessen the fire protection
requirement. So if the Board did feel they had the authority for a modification,
does this situation meet the requirements.
Amoroso said they are not lessening the requirements, just the method used to
acquire them. He felt that the NFPA 14 allows for a performance based fire
protection system. He mentioned that the 2000 IBC allows for a choice between
manual and automatic systems for other assemblies and situations.
Buss asked what Eastdale Plaza had for a system. Henries said that he thought
there was no standpipe system there, just sprinklers. Buss said that the City was
asking them to do something that other malls did not have to do. Hennes said no
-that because the owners had specifically requested to be reviewed under the
2000 IBC and they were doing extensive renovation to the covered mall portion
of the building, then they are required to meet the requirements of the code. The
other malls are not doing extensive renovation to their covered mall areas.
Doberstein asked what was the definition of extensive renovation; he felt that
what they had done was not extensive renovation; they had basically just
changed the mall area by cutting it in half. Hennes said that all the new exits
were installed and reminded the owners that the reason they had asked for the
2000 IBC be applied to the building was because it was more lenient in allowing
a greater percentage of the floor area to be assembly occupancies. Because it
allows for more freedom in this area, it is important to maintain the required level
of fire protection.
Amoroso stated that they were looking past the 2000 IBC which requires the
automatic system to the NFPA 14 that allows for the manual system when
approved by the fire fighting plan. Hennes stated that the 2000 IBC specifies the
system allowed and the NFPA 14 delineates the guidelines in how that required
system is installed. Amoroso stated that he thought the 2000 IBC code had made
a mistake by not allowing a choice.
Doberstein said that the only way not to meet the requirement of the automatic
standpipe system is to acknowledge that this is an existing structure and that the
use is not being changed.
Hennes disagreed because uses and assemblies are being changed and
changes are being made that would require meeting the new code requirements.
Doberstein cited Section 3405.1 (existing buildings) that says the Building Official
can authorize new code requirements not being met as long as the changes are
making the building less hazardous.
Werderitsch thought that uses had not changed but the main change was the
cutting of the mall in half. He said that if the mall had not been cut in half then the
issue would not be in front of the Board and the mall had been a safe existing
building for several decades.
Roffman asked Jensen how the automatic standpipe system would work. Jensen
replied that the automatic system gives a firefighter the ability to hook up a hand
line to the standpipe which will have the required 100 psi and allow the firefighter
to enter the structure with that hand line. A manual system would require hooking
up the department pumper truck to the system by attaching a series of hoses,
charging the system and only then entering the structure. Discussion occurred
concerning how the firefighters would know which connection to attach the truck
to. Amoroso said that the new fire alarm system would be an addressable system
so the fire department will know where the fire is. Roffman stated that the pump
for the automatic system would have to be installed in a heated space. Amoroso
stated that the fire pumps for automated systems are mechanical and electrical
devices driven by a diesel engine and subject to failure. Hennes said that
description also applied to the fire department pureper truck.
Discussion occurred concerning the mechanics of how the fire department would
respond to a fire at Sycamore Mall. Mike Hodge stated that if there were
residential floors above the mall they would not be asking for a modification.
They felt this was not a life safety issue but rather a property damage issue.
Jensen said not to forget the safety of the firefighters and that no exception has
been approved to allow a manual system anywhere else in the city. Iowa City
firefighters have an expectation that when they hook up to a standpipe, the 100
psi will be there so, in his opinion, this was a life safety issue.
Maas asked for a legal opinion from Dulek (Asst. City Attorney) as to whether the
Board had the legal authority to allow the modification. Dulek replied that in the
past, the Board has made those decisions to modify. She felt that the first
determination the Board needed to make was if there was a change in use.
Hennes said that it wasn't so much a clarification of change in use but rather if
the renovations were extensive enough to warrant the new code requirements.
Dulek concurred. Hennes said that eight new hose connections were being
installed at the eight new exits and it was staff's interpretation that any new
installation had to meet the requirements of the code. Doberstein felt that they
were creating a less hazardous situation and that allowed for not meeting the
code requirements. Hennes said that the covered portion of mall was undergoing
extensive renovations. Doberstein said it was cosmetic. Roffman asked if the
sprinkler system piping would have to be changed in every store in order to
withstand 100 psi. Amoroso said the sprinkler system is not being modified; it will
run on 65 psi. The sprinkler system and the standpipe system will be separate
and the fire pump for the automatic standpipe system will only be connected to
the standpipes.
More discussion occurred as whether the renovation was extensive enough to
warrant the code requirements or if this was an existing building which would not
be subject to the new code requirements. Hennes stated because the covered
mall section was cut in half and eight new exits added, city staff considered that a
significant alteration. Doberstein repeated that the Building Official had the
authority to reduce the requirements of the code if the building was being made
less hazardous which he thought was the case. Hermes replied that code also
states that the Board does not have the authority to do that if the change would
lessen fire protection requirements. Werderitsch asked if it was primarily the
expansion of Von Mauer's tenant space that cut the mall in half that triggered the
requirement for the automatic standpipe system. Hennes answered that the
system was triggered by the new exits which were required because the covered
mall portion of the building was cut in half. He gave Old Capitol Town Center as
an example of a mall that was only doing renovation to tenant spaces and
therefore was not having to create new exits and therefore was not being
required to put in the automatic standpipes.
Maas asked Jensen if the fire department thought the proposed manual system
was still a more viable alternative that what was there before which was nothing.
Jensen replied that he thought the manual system was more hazardous to the
firefighters because the expectation of the firefighters of automatic standpipes
would not be met. Doberstein then asked if the additional exits did not create a
safer building. Jensen responded that that was not the issue. Roffman stated that
in a sense it was because the lessening of fire protection requirements was a
criteria for granting a modification. Wederitsch asked Dulek if the Board had the
authority to use the standard of whether the building was safer than it was before
as a criteria of whether or not the modification could be allowed. Dulek
responded that that was a factual determination that the Board had to make; it
was not a legal question.
Doberstein reiterated that section 3405.1 allowed a change of use or occupancy
without meeting all new code requirements if the building is made less
hazardous. Hermes clarified that that section referred to the tenant spaces of the
mall and what they were discussing was the covered mall portion of the building.
The building code makes a distinction between those portions of the structure.
Buss asked exactly what mechanism of the code was requiring any standpipe
system at all. Hennes replied that the new exits required them.
Haman reminded the Board that code requirement was a very specific one and
they could not waive that requirement if it lessened the fire protection
requirements for the structure. Hennes stated the criteria needed were that
practical difficulties existed, and that the modification did not lessen structural
integrity and the fire protection requirements. He said that it did not pass the test
of not lessening the fire protection requirements. Buss asked Dulek what the
City's legal status would be if the Board went ahead and granted the
modification. Dulek stated that was a factual decision and that the Board had to
determine if the modification lessens the fire safety of the building. Maas asked if
that meant a lessening from what was there originally. Hennes stated it is a
lessening of what is required. Buss said that they would not be making the
building less safe and Werderitsch said that that was not the issue. The issue
was the requirement of the code and would the modification lessen the fire
protection requirements.
Mike Hodge said that if things were looked at logically that when the mall was
open, in reality the number of exits were doubled and the building was safer.
Hennes stated that only the correct number of required exits were installed.
Wederitsch said again that the issue was not whether the building was being
made safer but if the modification would lessen the fire protection requirements
of the code.
Doberstein asked the Board to determine if the alterations made to the mall were
significant enough to require the new code requirements. Wereritsch asked if that
was a debatable question and would it make sense to table the issue until the
next meeting. Roffman stated that that was why they there. Hermes asked again
if the Board felt they had the authority to waive a specific requirement. If they
thought they did then they had meet the criteria for a modification. Dulek
disagreed and stated that the first question to be settled was whether or not the
alteration was significant enough to warrant the code requirements. Then if it is
determined that the structure has been significantly changed, the Board needs to
determine if they can allow the modification; and, to do that, they need to decide
if all of the criteria are met including the question of the lessening of fire
protection requirements. Hennes asked if the Board, given the scope of the
changes to the structure, would have required the new exits. Maas answered
yes. Hennes said then that was the answer to the question -it was a significant
alteration and that the changes had to meet the new code requirements.
Werderitsch asked how the new exits and the standpipe system were linked.
What is the triggering mechanism? Hennes answered that new exits under the
2000 IBC require an automatic standpipe as part of the exiting system.
Buss asked if there was any way to allow the modification. Haman said they
should decide first if it is an alteration.
MOTION: Haman moved the Board consider the changes made to mall as an
alteration. Wederitsch seconded the motion. Motion was carried 5-0.
Roffman said that because it was an alteration, mall owners had to comply with
new code requirements. Werderitsch stated that they could still allow the
modification if it met the three requirements. Roffman said the issue then
becomes if the modification would lessen the fire protection requirements. He
asked Dulek to concur. Dulek agreed stating that the modification section would
allow for an alternative as long as it maintained the same level of fire safety and
that level could be achieved a different way. Maas asked if that same level of fire
safety could be maintained by hooking up a pumper truck. Dulek said that was a
factual decision and that was the issue. Werderitsch said that is the issue -can an
outside party achieve that same level. Hennes asked that if it was an equal
alternative why didn't the code allow it. Amoroso stated that the fire department
was going to have hook up to two siamese connections: one to supplement the
fire pump and then they would have decide which of the three other connections
to choose to supplement the sprinklers. Jensen stated that the fire department
wants to make that decision with an automatic standpipe system. There was
discussion concerning the water pressure in the city water lines and back flow
prevention systems.
MOTION: Haman moved that the appeal to allow a manual standpipe system in
place of an automatic standpipe system be denied because it did not meet the
modification criteria of Section 104.2.7. Werderitsch seconded.
FURTHER DISCUSSION: Buss asked what the mall owners could do differently
in the construction to allow the manual standpipe system. Doberstein said it
would have to be put back the way it was. Buss asked if a permanently open
walk way through Von Mauer would make a difference. Roffman said that any
added exit (required or not) would require an automatic standpipe system.
Hennes clarified that an exit is a complete unit which includes both the door and
the standpipe system. Werderitsch asked if there was anything that anyone could
think of that would demonstrate that the fire protection requirements would not be
lessened. Werderitsch said that there was no way to eliminate the standpipe
system completely because it was tied to the whole exiting unit.
VOTE: 3-2 to deny the appeal.
OTHER BUSINESS: Update seminars for the new code cycle were discussed.
Roffman and Henries suggested dividing up the various seminars according to
the proficiencies of the Board Members. The various types of the new
international codes were listed and what seminars will cover which codes.
Hennes explained that there will be some problems in determining which new
plumbing code will be adopted and the Board will eventually have to deal with
that problem. Hermes suggested splitting up the seminars between the
International Residential Code seminar and the International Building Code
among the Board members. Roffman said each Board member will attend one
seminar at the City's cost.
Jensen told the Board about a voluntary sprinkler head recall by the
manufacturer (Central). Jensen said that when the City finds a building that has
these particular recalled sprinkler heads, a Notice of Violation would be issued
that would instruct the property owners to get the necessary paper work in line
with the manufacturing company to get the sprinkler heads replaced.
Next regular meeting date will be October 1, 2001.
ADJOURNMENT:
Roffman moved to adjourn the meeting by asking all members to say aye. All
members said aye. The meeting was adjourned at 7:27 P.M.
John Roffman, Board of Appeals Chair Date
Minutes submitted by Jann Ream
MINUTES ~
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEETING FINAL
AUGUST 16, 2001
CIVIC CENTER, LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM
Members present: Rick House; William Stewart; Gretchen Holt; April Gutting; Gretchen
Schmuch; Amy Correia; Kathleen Renquist
Members not present: Lucia-Mia Page; Rick Spooner
Staff present: Steve Nasby; Steve Long
Guests present: Lori Bears; Gary Stenson; Jeanne Kelsey; Mary Ann Dennis; Jesse
Burns; Charlie Eastham
The meeting was called to order at 6:31 pm Thursday August 16, 2001 by Kathleen Renquist.
Introduction of New HCDC Member
Rick Spooner was not present to be introduced. Lori Bears was introduced as a new HCDC
member. She will begin meeting with the committee in September.
Approval of the Minutes from May 17, 2001
Nasby pointed out that "Alliance Energy" should be changed to "Alliant Energy." The minutes
were approved as amended.
Pubtic/Member Discussion of Items Not on the Aqenda
None.
Discussion Reqardinq the Recapture of FY02 Funds
Jeanne Kelsey stated that the land that was originally planned for the project had a purchase
option that had expired. Another buyer purchased all of the land. It was recommended that
another site be found for this project. There is new land for this project located in the Longfellow
neighborhood currently owned by West Liberty State Bank. The proposal is for a very similar
project with 20 living units (10 lots) and the possibility of purchasing four existing units.
Jesse Burns stated that he and his colleagues were greatly disappointed that the HOME funds
were lost and subsequently a tax credit opportunity was also lost.
Nasby stated that if the funds are recaptured then they would be distributed according to HCDC
policy which is to under-funded projects first. Kelsey stated that without the HOME funds they
are unable to target the project at lower income families.
Correia moved that the funds remain with Metroplains; seconded by Schmuch. Stewart stated
that it seems irresponsible not to look at the details of the new project before deciding to keep
the funds with Metroplains. House agreed. Correia withdrew the motion.
Correia moved that we keep the allocation with Metroplains upon viewing the changed proposal;
seconded by Holt. Motion passed 7-0.
The Commission requested that Metre Plains submit a revised allocation. Kelsey said they
would send one. It was decided that a special HCDC meeting would take place on August 30th
in order to discuss the revised project.
Housing & Community Development Commission Minutes
August 16, 2001
Page 2
Review of the Subcommittee Recommendations on the CDBG\HOME Allocation Process
The suggestions, attached as a memorandum to the agenda, were read and discussed point by
point. The sixth bullet was amended to read "Require a contribution from the applicants to go
towards the project so more private funds are leveraged which would stretch public funds."
Renquist moved to accept the recommendations as amended; House seconded. Motion passed
7-0.
2001-2006 Consolidated Plan (CITY STEPS) Update
The commission reviewed the Consolidated Plan Update regarding the change from 5% to 9%
for economic development. The City Council has decided that they would like to be more
aggressive in economic development. By the September 20th meeting the commission will
discuss any amendments and make a recommendation to the Council.
Monitorinq Reports
There were no reports for Successful Living, HACAP, or Hillcrest. Stewart will have the
Successful Living report for the next meeting. Long stated that MECCA moved out of their old
offices and into their new offices on Gilbert street.
Old Business
The remaining projects for monitoring in FY02 were assigned.
New Business
Commission members are to consider nominations for chair and vice chair elections in
September.
Correia moved to adjourn the meeting; seconded by Stewart. The meeting was adjourned at
8:21 pm.
ppdcdbg/minstncdcB-IB~)1doc
i10-08-01
M UTEB FINAL 3b(3)
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
THURSDAY, AUGUST 30, 2001
SENIOR CENTER LOWER LEVEL
MEMBERS PRESENT: April Gutting, William Stewart, Kathleen Renquist,
Gretchen Schmuch, Amy Correia, Gretchen Holt, Rick
House
MEMBERS ABSENT: Lucia-Mai Page
STAFF PRESENT: Steve Nasby, Andrew Matthews, Stephen Long
OTHERS PRESENT: Bob Burns, Jesse Burns, Alaina Welsh, Stephen Ballard,
Gary Stenson, Brad Houser, Lori Bears
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Renquist called the meeting to order at 6:31 P.M.
RECAPTURE OF FY02 FUNDS - Metro Plains Development's Revised Proposal:
Renquist read a memorandum which she provided to the committee members. She then
provided a history of the Metro Plains funding. She stated that on June 6, 2001, the City
received a letter from Metro Plains that they had lost their site location. June 11 was the
deadline for tax credit applications. A special meeting would have been required to approve
recapture of the funding and allocation to other projects, and the City Council would have to
approve, followed by a public hearing. This would not have been feasible in five days.
Andrew Matthews, Assistant City Attorney, clarified that the commission will need to make a
determination whether or not this is a substantial change. If it is not a substantial change, it
would not need to go through Council if the commission decides to proceed. He stated that the
guidelines are in the CITY STEPS.
Stewart asked to clarify that on August 16th it was decided to delay a decision on the Metro
Plains funding, not to approve it. Long stated that the draft minutes state that "Correia moved
that we keep the allocation with Metro Plains upon viewing the changed proposal. Seconded by
Holt." He stated that the minutes read that this motion passed 7-0. Long said the tape of the
minutes would be reviewed before the minutes are finalized.
In response to a question from Stewart, Nasby said the commission has an internal policy. He
stated that the commission can allocate funds to projects that were not fully funded, basically
what is on the list. He said that if the funding goes to projects outside of the projects that were
funded by Council, it is a substantial change and must go through the entire process.
Upon request by Correia, House read the definition of substantial change. Correia asked if the
entire definition needs to be met to create substantial change. Holt stated that any one of those
items contained in the definition can be met. Matthews stated that, as he understands it, the
project as proposed is not location-specific, He stated the potential for the last item with respect
to benefits, if the units that are presently proposed decrease further than that, it could become a
substantial change.
Renquist said that there is no change in the amount of funding requested as allocated in the
FY02 allocation, but there is a decrease in the amount of duplexes from 30 to 20. Stewart asked
what the "four other units" were. Gary Stenson of Metro Plains stated that there are four existing
Housing and Community Development Minutes
August 30, 2001
Page 2
units that have not been sold that are for sale and Metro Plains would acquire these units and
include in the program. They plan to then build the 20 new units. Brad Houser said there is an
existing 2-bedroom duplex unit, and there is 3-bedroom unit on the other side. He stated that
there were two units which were for 55 and older which are a 1-bedroom and a 2-bedroom. He
said this would be a total of two buildings, two units in a condo that will be in a four-plex.
In response to a project location question from Stewad, Stetson stated that you turn onto
Sheridan off Summit Street to get to the units. Houser stated that two units are currently rented,
but the other two are not. They were built within the last year.
Stewart clarified that there would be 24 units that are included in this request. Houser stated
that the two smaller l-bedroom and 2-bedroom units were restricted to 55 and older. Correia
asked if they were accessible. Houser stated they were built by the previous developer. Stewart
said that it was his understanding that all the loss comes within the 31-50% median income
group. He said there were 15 before and now there are 8, which is a difference of 53%. Correia
asked if all of the units will be eligible for Section 8 housing vouchers. Stenson said that all units
are at the current fair market rents, which is lower than they could be, so they are eligible for
vouchers.
Renquist stated that under 22 of the old proposal, they said they were going to develop and
maintain units as affordable housing for persons between 50% and 60% for the long term, and
the new updated proposal is to develop and maintain these housing units for those persons with
incomes between 40% and 60^% so they are lowering the median.
In response to a question from Stewart, Stenson stated that deferred developers fees get paid
out of cash flow if there is any. Stewart asked why they went from approximately $4,000 to
$58,000. Stenson said that the new deal doesn't work as well as the old deal. He said that the
developer gets the deferred developer fees. He stated that often there is not enough cash flow
to pay the developer fees, so they defer those fees until after all the other obligations are met.
Stewart stated that the project went down to 79% of what it was, the first mortgage went down
to 91%, HOME funds to 83% and State HOME funds to 86%, limited partner investment to 70%.
He feels that the developers are getting a better deal than the previous developer. Stenson said
that the limited partner investment is the amount of tax credits that are supported by the basis of
the development. He said that a year ago they were getting 82 cents on the dollar, and the
market got a little softer because of an increase in the amount of credits from $1.25 to $1.75 per
capita, and these credits go over a 10 year period. He said that there were also a lot of
secondary credits due to, for example, utility companies in California that no longer have taxable
income selling their credits on the secondary market.
Stewart asked why financing fees and expenses went up from $18,000 to $39,000. Stenson
said he doesn't have the detail on that, but could find out. He said it was third party fees.
Renquist asked for a clarification on why the deferred fee went from $4,000 to $58,000. Stenson
said that a developer gets compensated by developer's fees in exchange for putting the deal
together and following it through, which are basically the last fees paid. He said that the
developer's fees are usually regulated by the State Finance Agency, which sets a maximum for
developments. He said that if there is not enough cash to pay the full developers fee, they look
at a development to see if some of the fee can be deferred.
Gutting asked of the numbers of bedrooms and people assisted reflect the four existing units
they plan to acquire. Stenson stated yes.
Housing and Community Development Minutes
August 30, 2001
Page 3
Correia said that after doing the math, she comes up with a $849,000 reduction in total cost.
House stated that the public subsidy has gone down per unit. Correia stated this was less than
Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship.
Renquist stated that the new proposal showed affordability in 15 years, and the old proposal
had 40 years of affordability. Correia clarified that the 15 years is based on tax credits. Long
stated that it would be 20 years for affordability. He said the affordability period can be extended
however you wish to do it. Correia asked if this was home ownership for 60% and below.
Stenson said there was some talk of 80% and below.
Stewart questioned item #3 on the agenda for tonight as contained in Renquist's memo. It
states that if the commission votes to recapture the funds, the funding must be reallocated for
projects that were approved by City Council for FY02. Stewart stated that the commission policy
says that if there are funds, the HCDC will determine if the existing projects that did not receive
full funding will be considered. Projects that have submitted applications will be considered. He
said that means that the commission will determine which they want to do. Correia stated that
allocating the funds to non-City Council approved projects would require more time.
Schmuch asked what the contingency fund is. Long said they budgeted everything this year and
after all the books are done, the committee has about $30,000 left. Stewart asked if funding was
reallocated, would the commission need to notify the proposed recipient to provide a written
request of how they propose to use the funds, and would that then have to go to City Council.
Matthews clarified that if the Commission makes a decision that there is a substantial change,
then all applicants would have to be notified, and then it would have to go to Council for
consideration. Correia asked if they couldn't just target one project that was unfounded or
partially funded. Matthews said that the way he reads it, the commission would have to send out
notices to all those that initially sought funding. They then would have the option to resubmit a
request.
House asked if the commission has decided on whether or not there is a substantial change.
Renquist stated they have not. Correia said that since they have determined that the last two
definitions don't apply, and asked for clarification on the first two definitions. House said change
in purpose is the first one. The commission felt there was no change in purpose. House said the
next one was change in scope, if the scale or nature of the activity changes to the extent that
there is a significant increase or decrease in program funds expended or if changes, revisions
within the original budget allocation exceed the greater of $20,000 or 25% of the original budget
for all projects approved within the annual action plan. The commission felt that does not apply
because the program funds were not being increased or decreased.
Correia asked what the third definition was. House stated it was change in location. Correia
stated that this was not a location-specific project, so that does not apply. House stated the last
definition was change in beneficiaries. The commission felt this did not apply either.
House said that one of the reasons the commission originally picked this project was because it
met one of the high needs of families; 3 and 4 bedrooms was a major issue they wanted to
address. He stated that the commission had selected this project because of its affordability and
the cost-per-bedroom to bring it on line compared to the other projects. He said he sees no
reason not to continue with it.
Stewart asked if the land was tied up. Houser said that they have to acquire the four units yet,
but everything else is tied up. He stated they have verbally gotten commitment and wanted to
see what happens with the funding. Stewart asked how the project would change if they did not
acquire the four units. Houser stated that two of the units are tied up with the land currently.
Housing and Community Development Minutes
August 30, 2001
Page 4
Holt moved that the Commission say that we've looked at the proposal and don't believe
there is a substantial change. Schmuch seconded.
Renquist stated that she feels that discussion on the motion is not for public discussion unless
the commission requests it. Matthews stated that if the commission determines that this is not a
substantial change, it will not go through Council, so the commission may wish to hear from
others who have an interest in this issue.
Stewart stated that it appears to him the consensus is there is no substantial change so they will
not be recapturing the funds. He said that the seed was planted at the earlier meetings that
there could be a recapture of funds. He felt that they should hear the people who came to the
meeting to discuss this issue.
Stephen Ballard identified himself as a lawyer who represents the Foxboro Ridge (Bob Burns,
Jesse Burns and Alaina Welsh). He stated that he disagrees with what they have been provided
by Metro Plains. He said it is opinion that the Consolidated Plan and the CITY STEPS document
provide that the funds should revert back to the commission. He said that there is also the
opportunity under applicable HUD regulations for HCDC and the Council to consider whether
the amendment in the updated plan be considered a substantial change to the FY02 action
plan. He said it may not be a substantial change to the overall consolidated five year plan, but
might well be a significant change from what the Council agreed to and the commission
recommended in the FY02 Action Plan. He said he doesn't feel they have to find a substantial
change by that definition or by any definition. He stated that if the commission feels this project
represents a significant deviation for any of the reasons he will elaborate on, the commission
has the authority to reallocate the funds and should not be held to the narrow definition in the
consolidated plan.
Ballard urged the commission to carefully read the points in the consolidated plan, particularly
the section that says a substantial change includes these four things, not is limited to these four
things. Ballard believes there has been a significant substantial change in the project. Ballard
stated that there was some confusion about whether action by the commission would then be
resubmitted to the City Council for consideration. He said he was told that regardless of what
the commission did, the Council would be reviewing this plan. He said that he then was told by
voice message that wasn't the case, but that if the commission decided not to reallocate the
decision would not be reviewed by anyone.
Ballard said that he doesn't believe the notice that was posted for this meeting complies with the
open meetings law. He said that it did not clarify what would happen here. He said that they
object for the record to any action by the commission because they do not feel the public was
fairly apprised of what the commission planned to do at this meeting.
Schmuch stated that she has looked at what they have done in the past, and she stated that a
couple of times they have gone out on a limb to support Burns' projects. She stated that she is
comfortable with the changes in the current Metro Plains project because of its support of
affordable housing.
Renquist stated that the two points she has heard from Ballard are: 1) that the commission is
not tied to just reallocating these funds to an approved proposal; and 2) that the guidelines in
the CITY STEPS do not address what they are looking at now, it's really for the City Plan.
Ballard stated that a third point is he doesn't believe the agenda complies with Iowa law in terms
of the action that they apparently intend to take.
House stated that the commission makes recommendations as to what they feel would be a
good use of the money. He said that any action they take and whether that needs to go on to
Housing and Community Development Minutes
August 30, 2001
Page 5
Council is up to staff and up to the Council. He said the commission has met their obligation if
they vote to stay with the proposal and not reallocate the funds, as far as their decision on the
best use. Nasby stated that was his understanding also. Correia stated there is commission
history of projects that have changed in terms of location and size, but not the purpose and
objective, which in this case is affordable family housing.
In response to a question by Correia, Matthews stated, in his opinion, this agenda item fairly
advises what the issue is: whether to recapture FY02 funds regarding Metro Plains' revised
proposal. He said that the agenda posting requirement and the specificity of it are just to
reasonably apprise, they do not require specificity of each and every action they are going to
undertake.
House stated that in the last meeting he was in favor of continuing with Metro Plains, and
Stewart wanted to look further at the proposal first to be sure the funds were being spent
substantially the same way they were originally. He said that he understood that the commission
would meet, and if they liked what they saw and agreed that it was the same, they could vote to
keep the funds with Metro Plains; if they disagreed they would vote otherwise and the funds
would go back and they would go through the process of taking new applications. Holt stated
that she felt they were just trying to be cautious and not approve a proposal they had not seen,
but the group inclination was to go ahead with the proposal.
Renquist asked for the motion on the floor to be read back.
Ballard asked if could give further input. He reiterated House's statement that the commission is
to make recommendations, and he feels that staff is giving them incorrect instructions. He does
not agree that Council should not be involved in this. He stated that this is their only opportunity
to be heard, if that is the case.
Renquist stated that it was her understanding that if the commission votes to approve
reallocation to the project, it will not have to go to City Council and would not have to go to a
public hearing. Matthews stated that is correct. Correia stated that they are not reallocating, they
are agreeing that the project can continue because it remains within the purpose and the
objectives of what their original proposal was, that they had a shift in location because of
unfortunate circumstances. She further stated that the Council had already approved the
project, and the commission determined the project is essentially the same. House clarified that
the Council did not approve the Burns' project. The Metro Plains project had already been
approved by the commission and had gone through the process and was approved by Council.
Ballard stated that he disagrees with staff on this point. Renquist asked what basis he disagrees
with. Ballard stated that he disagrees on the basis of the regulations that are set forth in the
HUD requirements. He stated he doesn't think this commission has the power to reallocate the
funds, because it can't make the original decision but recommends things to Council. He stated
that he believes that the standard to show significant change is not what is outlined in the CITY
STEPS, but the change to the consolidated plan. He stated there are other points he would be
happy to talk to the commission about. He stated that he thinks the commission has been
advised improperly. He believes that the Council could originally accept or reject the
commission's recommendations, so the commission should not now, without further Council
review, be able to make a decision when one of the proposals didn't live up to what it said it was
going to do.
Holt stated that it is the same project and there has been no substantial change. She
recognized that Ballard disagrees, but stated that it is not anything the commission can deal
with.
Housing and Community Development Minutes
August 30, 2001
Page 6
Ballard stated that it is important to recognize that the Metro Plains proposal did not follow the
timeline as set forth in the project. He said that the project was based on 20 years of
experience, but the only reason the tax credits were not listed as a community fund in January
of 2001 was because the application deadline of June 2001 had not been met yet. He stated
that Metro Plains did not apply for the tax credit. He asked when Metre Plains found out the deal
was not going to go forward. Ballard stated that he disagreed that after the City found out there
was a problem on June 6t", something couldn't have been done by June 11th. He agreed that it
would take heroic efforts, but felt that if those efforts had been taken and another project
funded, Iowa City could have potentially shared in the last round of tax credits. Ballard asked
when Metre Plains learned their land deal was in jeopardy, and was there an opportunity then to
adjust things or shift priorities.
Stenson said that they covered that at the last meeting; a timeline was provided as to when
things happened.
Correia stated that Ballard was going on assumptions that anybody who applies for the tax
credits would have a likelihood of getting them. She said that there are a lot of housing projects
all over the state that apply for housing tax credits, and it has already been determined by the
Housing Needs Assessment that family housing is the highest need for housing across the state
and elderly housing is not quite as high of a need in the state. She said that it could also be
determined that Metro Plains lost the land because a neighboring developer found out low
income housing for families was going in there and they didn't want it, so they could be dealing
with discrimination and that is a big thing. She would prefer that energy go into developing low-
income housing. She stated that this is a great neighborhood to showcase how affordable
housing works, mixed into older neighborhoods.
Holt stated her impression is that the only thing that would remove Ballard's arguments would
be for the commission to reopen the whole position, and if that doesn't happen that Ballard will
appeal in some way or another. She said they can't do anything at this meeting other than
decide one way or the other on the current proposal. She asked Ballard if they would appeal a
decision on this issue? Ballard said he doesn't know, but that if they are denied the opportunity
to be heard his recommendation would be that the decision be challenged as unfair. He stated
that if this decision to leave the funding with Metro Plains won't be reviewed by anybody else,
he has a responsibility as a lawyer to make sure that he is heard at the only public hearing he
will be allowed. Renquist asked if he still felt he wasn't able to say what he wanted to say.
Ballard said sure.
Correia stated that during the public hearing at the last meeting, they heard from Jesse Burns,
so this was not the only change to hear the disappointment around the process in the decision.
Ballard stated he didn't realize that.
Correia asked if Ballard has a list of where he feels there were substantial changes. Ballard
submitted a list to the commission. He stated that the commission was here tonight because the
land deal that didn't come to fruition. He stated that there is no firm deal for four of the units,
one-sixth of the project. He said that an oral agreement to sell land is not worth anything. He
said he appreciates the fact that the commission finds the project a good mix.
Ballard stated that the construction is delayed, so economic benefits and housing are eventually
delayed. He said that the original project contemplated 30 units of new construction; instead
there are 20 units of new construction and the potential of four acquired units. These are all 3-
bedroom versus 15 3-bedroom, five 4-bedroom, etc. Correia stated that there are some things
on his list that they have actually talked about and decided that they are not pertinent. Holt said
that some of the things he has distinguished, the commission may not feel important enough to
make a difference in the scope of the project.
Housing and Community Development Minutes
August30,2001
Page 7
Ballard stated that the commission's guidelines set forth the deadlines he discussed, and this is
a new proposal which does not meet the deadline of January 22"d that everyone else had to
meet. He does not feel it is fair to prevent their project to go forward. Correia clarified that at the
last meeting, based on the history of other projects changing scope (for example, Hannah's
Blessing losing their property deal and applying for another property), they determined that the
scope is the same so they were trying to make a fair decision and asking them to make a new
application. Holt said this is not a new grant application, they commission just wanted to see a
proposal so they could compare the bottom line numbers to determine if there was a substantial
change.
Ballard stated that the City's Applicant Guide to CDBG and HOME Programs indicates on page
5 that HOME funds can be used for specific purposes: acquisition of real property, rehabilitation
and preservation of residential structures, comprehensive rehabilitation only, tenant based
rental assistance, new construction of affordable housing units. He stated that as he reads the
plan, he doesn't know what the four additional units that were already constructed would fulfill.
Correia stated that they would fulfill the acquisition of real property.
Renquist acknowledged that Ballard has some real differences between the proposals, but it is
the commission who has to make the decision as to whether or not they feel there is a
substantial change.
Alaina Welsh stated that she recalled during discussions of funding and allocation, Steve Nasby
suggested that the commission consider making a motion regarding recapture of funds from
either of the two projects that would be applying for tax credits in June should they not be
successful. She stated that she feels that if it was their project that was funded and they weren't
successful, there would be no discussion here - it should be recaptured. She acknowledged the
project has many merits, but the motion was if they don't get the tax credits in June, we
recapture. Correia stated that the mitigating factor is the reason they didn't apply was because
they lost the land. Welsh asked if the motion to recapture doesn't apply because they didn't
even apply for tax credit. Correia said it feels different to her. Welsh stated there are a number
of reasons you may not apply. Jesse Burns stated he sat at the same meeting and heard the
discussion of the funds being automatically recaptured if they were unsuccessful in applying for
tax credits, then discussed. He said that whether you apply and don't receive the funds or you
don't apply at all, it's an unsuccessful tax credit application.
Nasby clarified that he did bring up the issue at the allocation meeting that should projects,
including tax credit projects, fail they should recapture the funds. He stated he believed Bill's
motion expanded that definition to say if any project fails, including all projects. Burns stated
they would be automatically recaptured. Nasby said that's not what the motion says. Welch
stated that the motion outlined in the last minutes was unclear to people at this meeting, so how
it got in the minutes is not specifically how people recall it. Nasby read, "Stewart moved that if
any projects fail and funds are recaptured, they discuss at a later meeting." Welch stated that
the discussion was around failed tax credits, not failed forever some point in the future. Burns
said that Nasby told him that's what he said but that's not what got in the minutes. Nasby said
that's the context he brought it up in.
Bob Burns stated that, for the record, they have appreciated all the support that the HCDC has
provided for them to implement affordable housing in the community. He said this is an
important issue for them; they were devastated to find out that no one was able to use City
HOME Funds for FY01 Tax Credits. He said they can show the commission that they would
have scored high enough with their project that if they had the City HOME Funds, they could
have had the tax credits, but they were not given a chance. He said that they have submitted an
application in the past to the commission, and were denied the opportunity to make an
Housing and Community Development Minutes
August 30, 2001
Page 8
amendment to the application. Renquist said she remembers a substantial change in a previous
application. She said their written application was entirely different than what he told them
about. Burns said the commission represents the public, and they do too, and they are here to
express their opinion.
Correia stated that if they had found out on June 6th and had decided that day to recapture, they
would have had to send notices out by policy to every single applicant and ask them to put a
proposal together, giving a deadline of three days, have a public meeting the next day and
decide how to give the funds. She feels that Burns' expectation that they could have had heroic
efforts, with fairness to all of the other projects that didn't receive any funding, is not realistic.
Renquist asked for further discussion on the motion on the floor. The motion passed 6-1,
Stewart voting in the negative.
Correia asked if they need to make a motion to not recapture the funds. Stewart stated that if
they found no substantial change, they don't need to do anything further.
Schmuch moved to adjourn. Correia seconded. The meeting adjourned at 7:44 p.m.
Kathleen Renquist, Chairperson
Minutes submitted by Neana Saylor
ppdcdbg/mm/hcdc08-30-01 .doc
FINI=_ 10-08-01
3b(4)
MI'NUTES
I'OWA CZTY PUBLIC LZBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES
REGULAR MEETING
THURSDAY, August 23, 200:t
5:00 PM
Members Present: Linda Dellsperger, Colin Hennessy, Shaner rvlagalh~es, Lisa Parker, 3esse
Singerman, Tom Suter, 3im Swaim, David VanDusseldorp
Members Absent: Linda Prybil
Staff Present: Barb Black, Maeve Clark, Susan Craig, Beth Daly, Larry Eckholt, Debb Green,
Heidi Lauritzen
Cameo Appearance: Winston Barclay, former Board member
Others: Dan Kabera, 3oe Huberty, and Nicole Woods of Engberg Anderson Design
Partners
CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:02 pm.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None
APPROVAL OF HINUTES:
The minutes of the regular meeting of 3uly 26, 2001 were approved as written, Magalh~es/Suter.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
A. Buildinq project - 3oe Huberty of Engberg Anderson Design Partners (EADP) presented a life-sized
model of a section of an exterior, stone clad wall. This model, about the size of a large file cabinet, was
placed outside the Library so the Board could see the stone choices in natural light. Hubere/asked for
input on two types of Iowa stone. The Board seemed to prefer the lighter color choice. Hubert,/
explained that EADP was looking at stone quarried in Zowa, as there were potentially less problems for
supply and transportation. Both stones were reported to be durable and of good quality.
The updated project time line was given.
Sep 27, 2001, Board Meeting Set date for public hearing, Oct 15 or 16.
Oct 8 Plans and specifications available
Oct Z5 or 16 Public hearing
Nov 1 Take down play equipment
Nov 15, Board rvleeting Bids due
Nov 16-21 EADP check references and bonds.
Nov 21 (Weds before Thanksgiving) Bid awarded. Contract in effect.
Nov 21-Dec 25 Commitment was made to keep 64-1A parking available until
after holiday shopping season.
Dec 26-3an :J. Work begins
3uiy 4, 2004 Opening Day!
ICPL BOARD OF TRUSTEES Agenda item 3A
August 23, 2001 Page 2
The bid documents will request one bid for the entire project, with alternate pricing depending on the
addition or deletion of several elements. Optional features include the monitor (skylight) on the second
floor and granite steps to the second floor (wears beLter than carpet). Huberty explained that in addition,
the millwork (built-in furniture) and some of the signage could be moved to the separate bid for Furniture
and Fixtures. In that case, the amount spent on the rest of the furniture and fixtures and could be
reduced so the overall FFE budget can absorb the cost of the signage and millwork. Huberty's hope and
expectation is to receive a bid within budget that includes all alternatives, but if that doesn't happen, the
alternatives provide a way to drop something and move ahead rather than start over.
The bid documents will need to be very specific about the rules for awarding the bid. For example, if one
bid was the lowest on the overall cost but the highest on the alternates, and another bid was lower with
the alternatives included, how would that affect the final award?
The Board members agreed that 3oe Hubert}, should be available during the public hearing to answer any
questions, if possible.
Nicole Woods of Engberg Anderson Design Partners covered some of the interior design. The Library is
still seeking a mosaic artist to create the entryway into the Children's Room. The colors in the Children's
Room have been changed to help define the spaces in the room and to remove the red in the Storytime
Room that would have conflicted with videotaping.
Woods showed a sample piece made of the materials to be used in various railings. The railing will have
glass panels between the posts.
Huberty and Woods explained that the oval room at the southwest corner of the building was changed to
a square space. This is being done for two reasons: to make the area seem airier and less enclosed, and
to save money. The stained glass window will still be in the ceiling of that space, which will be higher
than the surrounding area. A skylight and a spotlight are above the stained glass to show it to
advantage.
Dan Kabera of Engberg Anderson Design Partners demonstrated some of the light fixtures to be used.
There will be wall sconces in the entryway to complement the artichoke fixtures. There will be box
lighting with direct/indirect light to illuminate the stacks. And there will be constellation lighting with mesh
'stars' in the Children's Room. Lights will be fiuorescent and or HI.
64-1A - Susan Craig reported that she is on a committee to make recommendations to the City Council
regarding the bids for construction on the parking lot south of the Library, also known as 64-1A. Other
committee members are City employees Steve Atkins, Dale Helling, Karin Franklin, .left Davidson, David
Schoon, 3oe Fowler, Kevin O'M alley, Sara Holecek, and Chuck Schmadeke. Craig reported that each
developer had met for an hour with the committee, going over that company's own proposal. Three of
the four designs included a covered walkway connecting the second floor of the parking ramp to a public
area leading to the plaza outside the Library. One of these showed an actual skyway connection to the
Library on the second floor, but this possibility has not been in the plans and would create big security
and staffing issues. The one proposal without a walkway had public parking as the first level of
apartment buildings, with underground parking available for tenants. All four proposals are public
documents and may be reviewed at the l'nformation Desk.
The Board asked Huberty for any insight he had to offer on potential 64-:~A development. Huberty
suggested the right use of 64-1A could be beneficial and bring vitality to downtown. Storefronts should be
safe, active, and lively, even after 5 pm. A use that had evening and weekend activity corresponding to
Library hours would be best. Huberb/was not concerned that a taller building would block the light from
]CPL, as all designs presented had higher stories set back from the plaza.
ICPL BOARD OF TRUSTEES Agenda item 3A
August 23, 2001 Page 3
The Board defined the largest area of concern as parking, with use of the space as next highest. The
Board expressed dismay that none of the proposals included dedicated Library parking, as had been
specified in the :~999 design review, done by the Board with the City Council, for the ICPL exl~ansion
designs. With new shops, apartments, or hotel going in 6a,-lA, parking at the Dubuque Street ramp
would be at even more of a premium. The Board was most apprehensive that the closest available
parking for the Library could be blocEs away.
The schedule for the Council vote on 64-~.A was given.
Sept 5 and 6 Public presentations by four developers
Sept 24 Committee Recommendation to Council for Preferred Developer
Oct 9 First possible date for Council vote for chosen developer
The Board made a commitment to attend the public hearings and want to meet with Council to make
sure the Library's interests are represented in the final decision.
The Board directed Craig to ask the Nayor to add an item to the agenda for the September 23, 2001 City
Council Work Session, so the Board could discuss parking with the Council.
The Board further directed Craig to draft a letter to the City Council, explaining the Library's position on
the parking issue. Possible wording might include, "As you consider the proposals, please keep in mind
the Library's position on parking." The Board recommended that the letter include comments about
parking from the recent survey on Library services.
The Board Building Committee would approve the final memo. The Board asked for an E-mail of the draft
for comment. Craig said she would look into the possibility, and explained that documents to the whole
Board (including E-mail messages) and their responses would be considered public documents.
The Board decided to contact the individual council members after the letter and before the work session,
to explain the Library's position in person.
Colin Hennessy suggested that the best way to reach the City Council by E-mail is to send the message to
Narian Karr, City Clerk, who will print it out and distribute it in the Council Packet.
Craig mentioned that after a developer is chosen, a contract must be written and signed. At that point,
the City has a chance to insist that a contract included Library parking. The contract would be a legal and
binding document.
B. Checkpoint Intelligent Library System -The Board thanked Craig for her work on the cost/benefit
analysis for the Checkpoint system. Craig reviewed the initial and ongoing expenses of the project. While
the Board agreed that the saving in staff time was valuable, there was a question about "real" savings
because nothing would be cut from the budget. Craig explained that the savings are real if the staff time
san be diverted to other service needs.
Craig confirmed that some equipment requests for other parts of the building could be scaled back so
resources could be redirected to the Checkpoint. Other possible funding could include NOBU funds of
$50,000 to $80,000 per year for two years for Checkpoint startup costs. Another strategy would be to
"backload," or wait to buy the targets until closer to the time they would be used. As an added benefit, it
is predicted that the price for targets will drop over time.
ICPL BOARD OF TRUSTEES Agenda item 3A
August 23, 2001 Page 4
The major portion of the retro-conversion of the collection would begin place in summer of 2003. Craig
assured the Board that the collection will be strenuously weeded to prepare for the move(s). This will
help insure that staff won't be converting a book one week and discarding it the next.
The Board unanimously approved the proposal to purchase the Checkpoint fntelligent Library System,
Swaim/Hennessy.
NEW BUSZNESS:
Review of FY01 Annual Reoort - The Board pronounced the TCPL Annual Report to be outstanding. They
expressed amazement that the Library staff, from the maintenance department to the director, continues
to accomplish so very much.
Craig mentioned that statistics continue to be amazing. This .July, 118,000 items were circulated. This was
the highest circulation figure for one month in the history of the Library, with checkouts and renewals
each up 16% over July one year ago.
The Board was pleased that the remote bookdrops have been very popular, and in fact, often become Full
in the late afternoon.
STAFF REPORTS:
A. Update on Enrich Towa funds -The 5tare Library has sent preliminary notice of the amounts of
FY2002 funding for Enrich Zowa. The amount for [CPL was $9,000 more than expected. The extra
funds will be used for the projects approved at last month's Board meeting, and possibly some costs
associated with the Checkpoint system.
B. Cib/Council Candidates - There will be a City Council election in November. Candidates for the office
must submit the proper papers by August 31, 2001, to be eligible for the primary. Each candidate
will receive a copy of the Annual Report. The Board chose to wait until after the primary to offer to
take the candidates on a tour of the Library.
C. Fiction on Disc now available - A limited selection of fiction is now circulating on compact disc.
Copies of children's titles are now being processed. Public reaction has been enthusiastic; the only
complaint has been that there are not enough copies for everyone!
D. DO Report - Eckholt reported that the many new Friends Foundation Board members are very
enthusiastic and have already started volunteering and working on pro.~ects. The first big event For
them will be the Campaign Kick-off, to take place September 22, 2001. Eckholt is optimistic that the
energy will carry the campaign to success.
Eckholt described some of the Kick-off activities. There will be wall climbing at Planet X, a silent
auction of the decorated construction hats, kids painting the construction fence, a showing of Chuck
Hess's earlier r4ount Everest climb, an open air dance, and a media release of the major gifts
received so far.
First Lady Christie Viisack will attend the Kick-off to speak about Stories 2000, her literacy program.
E. [Nine Weber week a hie success! - Logsden summarized the event in a memo, distributed at the
meeting. Logsden praised the many local institutions that planned events or donated prizes.
Hennessy reported that as he helped serve over 700 pieces of cake, he could affirm that the event
was a success.
ICPL BOARD OF TRUSTEES Agenda item 3A
August 23, 2001 Page 5
PRESZDENT'S REPORT:
Parker asked the Building Committee to remain af'cer the meeting for a few moments in order to schedule
a Building Committee meeting.
ANNOUNCEMENT FROM MEMBERS=
Hennessy reported that sadly, he has accepted a consultant position with the City of Iowa City, which
creates a conflict of interest and forces him to resign from the Library Board. The rest of the members
expressed regret for his leaving and thanked him for his service. Craig briefly reviewed the process for
recruiting new Board members.
Magalh~es asked if the information in the confidential memo changed the building timeline. Craig
explained that it should not. She said plans for asbestos removal and for mural documentation and
removal were proceeding.
COMMz i ~EE REPORTS: None
COMMUNZCA'I'ZONS: None
FZNANCZAL REPORTS:
The Board praised Craig for her excellent work meeting the budget every year.
There was some question of how to respond when people ask if the money from fines goes to the
Library. Craig explained that fines go directly to the general fund, and that the City is very generous in
returning funds to the Library.
DZSBURSEMENTS:
Visa report was reviewed.
Disbursements for July were approved unanimously, Singerman/Dellsperger.
SET AGENDA ORDER FOR SEPTEMBER MEE'I'~NG: None
AD3OURNMENT: Adjourned at 6:50 p.m.
Minutes taken and transcribed by Beth Daly
L,I 10-08-01
FINA 3b(5)
MINUTES
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 5,2001
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kevin Boyd, Doug Ginsberg, Craig Gustaveson, Nancy Ostrognai, Matt
Pacha, Rex Pruess
MEMBERS ABSENT: Toni Cilek, Brace Maurer
STAFF PRESENT: Terry Trueblood, Mike Moran, Terry Robinson, Jeff Davidson, John Yapp
FORMAL ACTION TAKEN
Moved bv Gustaveson, seconded bV Stroh, to approve the Aul~ust 8, 2001, minutes as written.
Unanimous.
NEW COMMISSION MEMBER
Pacha welcomed new commission member Kevin Boyd, appointed to serve the unexpired term of
Barbara Endel plus a four-year term.
COUNTY FARM STUDY
Jeff Davidson of the Johnson County Council of Governments (JCCOG) addressed the commission
regarding a 160-acre site known as the old County Poor Farm. The Johnson County Board of
Supervisors asked him to conduct a planning study for this site located on the west side of Iowa City,
which is within the city limits. There will be a public input meeting on September 25 and written and
email comments may also be sent to the JCCOG. The Board will produce a draft report over the winter
for consideration in the spring. The motivation for the planning study is largely because of the requests
the Board receives from groups who desire to use portions of the County Farm property. The value of
this land is a large asset because the ground would be appraised as development ground - within the
growth limits of Iowa City, sewer and water has already been extended and there is a paved road along
one side.
The Johnson County Historical Society has conducted two public meetings to put forth their vision to
preserve the entire farm in its existing agricultural state. One of the items that has been mentioned is the
idea of a "Hickory Hill West" - a regional park on the scale of Hickory Hill on the west side of Iowa City.
Davidson indicated he was present to obtain the commission's thoughts as to whether or not this area
should be preserved as parkland. He noted the Director of the County Conservation Board has expressed
interest in preserving it, but they are not interested in maintaining a park that is within the city limits of
Iowa City.
Pruess questioned his understanding that the lineal green space on Highway 218 is not part of this parcel.
Davidson noted it is county property, which is in a no-till operation. He pointed out two drainageways in
the area that have both been culled out as possible trail-type/natural areas connecting to Hunters Run
Park. Stroh asked if the county would transfer the property to the city; Davidson replied that it would
have to be negotiated between the City and the County. Boyd asked what the potential land use is on the
west side of Iowa City; Davidson noted the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan calls for some residential
development, with a transition to multi-family/single family and more of a commercial-type use along
Melrose Avenue. Boyd asked about the surrounding area, which is privately owned at this time;
Davidson stated Don Slothower intends to eventually sell his property for redevelopment. He noted the
land is not within the city limits, but the city would most likely call for some type of residential, possible
Parks and Recreation Commission
September 5, 2001
Page 2 of 4
higher density. He pointed out the areas that have been identified as a residential interchange and a
commercial interchange in the comprehensive plan.
Pacha noted Pmess' e-mail regarding connectivity possibilities with Hunters Run Park. He stated he
would like to see the area remain undeveloped, noting there would be plenty of opportunities for
development around the area. Stroh noted the spin on it by calling the area "Hickory Hill West", which
people will interpret; Davidson stated the name was to put forth the notion of a regional park. Stroh
stated he did not think the commission could take a reasonable stand against parks, but he noted he is
also sensitive to the waterworks, peninsula area, the trails that are adding to the park acreage and
maintenance responsibility of the understaffed Parks Division. Stroh noted he felt the commission
should still take a stand for preservation. Pmess noted he was in favor of making the area a regional
park, but he was concerned about the barrier of Highway 218. It is not friendly to cross at Melrose
Avenue, and not particularly convenient to use Rohret Road due to the terrain. He noted he would like to
get underneath Highway 218. Boyd stated from a park and recreation stance that be would be very
interested in preserving the land if this is what the county wants, especially with the idea of creating a
regional park on the west side. He also noted he agreed with some of the transportation concerns.
Treeblood interpreted this as a consensus that the Commission as a whole is interested in preserving at
least a portion of this as parkland; the Commission agreed.
SOUTH SYCAMORE STORMWATER/GREENWAY/TRAIL PROJECT
John Yapp of the City's Planning and Community Development Department updated the commission on
the project. This is a regional stormwater system to serve the entire neighborhood, which will help drain
the area and re-create the wetland habitat. There will be a series of wetland cells, terraced down from
Sycamore Street south of Lakeside Drive down to the Snyder Creek Bottom wetland area. The other
aspect is construction of a trail along the greenway that will connect to Grant Wood School, the north
side of Lakeside Drive, a couple of connections out to Sycamore Street, and as area develops there will
be trail connections to the greenway system. The wetland project does not go all the way to the soccer
park, but the City has asked the consultant to provide a cost estimate to take it to the soccer park. Trail
construction, native plantings and landscaping will begin next year. He noted it will be more of a
maintenance issue early on with mowing and possibly controlled bums, but as the vegetation gets
established it will become less of a maintenance issue.
Stroh asked about the proposed trails to connect Napoleon Park to the soccer fields along the other sewer
line. Yapp noted the land is not within the city limits, and the intent has been to obtain an easement for a
trail as the land is annexed.
POTENTIAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
In the packet was information relative to the capital projects included in the current CIP plan, plus
priorities as determined by the commission last year. Treeblood noted the staff CIP committee is
meeting to determine possible new CIP projects. He reviewed a list prepared by staff of possible new
CIP projects for parks and recreation. Trueblood asked the commission to consider new projects they
would like to include. He indicated the prioritization process most likely will take place at the
commission's November meeting.
Parks and Recreation Commission
September 5, 2001
Page 3 of 4
Ostrognai indicated she would like to see indoor exercise equipment for persons in wheelchairs.
Trueblood indicated it would be considered a capital outlay item and could be included in the operating
budget.
Stroh felt it was important to limit the number of projects on the table because it was easy to lose focus.
He noted the importance of continuing to maintain a top 10 CI? priority listing. Ginsberg asked what
type of projects could be included; Trueblood indicated projects deal with buildings or development of
parkland or park facilities as opposed to the purchase of equipment. Pacha noted when the commission
goes through the prioritization process it is extremely difficult for him to do so, because prioritization is
to be done based on the merit of the project as opposed to the cost. He felt it was important to look at all
projects when completing the prioritization process, noting because a project was a priority a year ago, it
may not be a priority this year. Stroh felt if the commission could memorialize how long a project has
been on the list it shows the commission has some internaI organization and focus. Gustaveson noted as
long as he has been on the commission, as the group continues to change, the commission priorities
change. He agreed it was important to somehow know how long a project has been on the list.
Trueblood indicated he was open to suggestions as far as the process and prioritization. Stroh asked if it
was possible to see the priority history on the projects; Trueblood noted it could be done.
COMMISSION TIME
Ostrognai referred to literature regarding swimming pool accessibility; Trueblood asked her to bring it in
for him to revie~v.
Stroh felt it was great to see a greenway/trail project that will be completed in conjunction with the South
Sycamore Stormwater project.
Gustaveson asked when the Longfellow Tunnel would be completed; Trueblood noted by the end of this
construction season. Gustaveson presented a check from Babe Ruth for $7,500 for construction of the
Mercer Park concession building. He noted he also spoke with Dennis Griffith regarding concessions in
light of Babe Ruth loosing half of the season due to construction. He indicated the concession stand
sales skyrocketed once the building was open, and they have been very impressed with the results they
have had thus far. There were many positive comments about the entire facility made during the recent
tournament.
Pruess stated in light of Jeff Davidson's comments he would like to see the Westside Regional Park
added to the possible new CIP projects list.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Trueblood reported on the following:
Hickory Hill Trail Project. There are nine REAP grant applications in the large city category, with
$1.1 million worth of requests and only $715,000 in available funds; therefore, some significant projects
will not be funded. Pacha asked if REAP ever funds a portion; Trueblood indicated they did. Trueblood
shared his concern that the committee may take the view that this project will be completed even without
the grant (less the Road Oyl), and look to other projects which will not be completed if they do not
receive a grant. The bid date is September 25 and the City should unofficially know aleout the grant by
that time.
Parks and Recreation Commission
September 5, 2001
Page 4 of 4
Miller/Orchard Park. A neighborhood meeting is scheduled for September 20, 7 p.m. at Roosevelt
School. There has been comments made by some neighborhood residents that they would like to wait to
develop the park until two additional acres are acquired. The purpose of this meeting is to determine
what the neighborhood, as a whole would like to do.
Riverside Festival Sta~e Seatin~ Project. The bid date is September 11. The City has received very
good bids recently for other projects.
Recreation Center ItVAC Proiect. The low bid received was approximately $100,000 over the
consultant's estimate ($161,000). Project has been delayed.
Annual Park Tour. The tour is scheduled for Wednesday, October 10. A brief meeting will be held at
4 p.m., with the tour to take place immediately after. He asked the commission to let him know of any
areas that they would like to have included.
City Web site. The City has launched its new Web site and board and commission members' names and
terms are listed.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:20 p.m.
10 -08-01
MINUTES L
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FINAL/APPROVED
SEPTEMBER 6, 2001 -- 7:30 P.M.
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Bovbjerg, Don Anciaux, Pare Ehrhardt, Jerry Hansen,
Beth Koppes, Dean Shannon
MEMBERS ABSENT: Benjamin Chait
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Shelley McCafferty, Mitch Behr
OTHERS PRESENT: William Buss, Bob Downer, Don Peterson, Larry Schnittjer,
Tom Goedken, Cam Campbell, David Forkenbrock, Mike
Pitton, Gary Carlson
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
By a vote of 6-0, recommend approval of REZ01o00014/SUB01-0015 a rezoning from Low
Density Single Family (RS-5) and Planned Development Overlay (OPDH-5) to OPDH-5 on
14.07 acres, and a preliminary plat of Village Green, Parts 19-20 a 15 lot residential
subdivision located between Village Road and Winter Green Drive.
By a vote of 6-0, recommended approval of SUB01-00017: a final plat of a Resubdivision
of Lot 236, Washington Park Addition, Part 11 (Arbor Hill) an 8.02-acre, 2-lot residential
subdivision located north of Washington Street, east of Green Mountain Drive
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Bovbjerg called the meeting to order at 7:32 PM.
ANNOUNCEMENTS OF VACANCIES ON CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS:
In the spirit of the new school year, Chairperson Bovbjerg spent a few moments describing and
reflecting on the mission of the Planning and Zoning Commission. She detailed the process
wherein the commissioners receive information from City staff, from applicants and neighbors;
they then ruminate and discuss, ultimately providing a citizen's view of the present and future of
land use and development in Iowa City.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
REZONING ITEMS:
REZ01-00013: Discussion of a rezoning from Medium Density Multifamily (RM-20), to Medium
Density Single-Family (RS-8) on 3.07 acres located at 747 W. Benton Street.
McCafferty gave the staff report. She detailed the surrounding land uses: Roosevelt School to
the north, RS-8 to the east, C1-1 to the south and RM-20 and RM-44 to the west. The applicants
have expressed a desire to pursue designation of their house as an Iowa City Historic
Landmark, affording it protection from indiscriminate demolition or alteration. Most of the
property south of the house is on a steep slope; it is undeveloped and heavily wooded. Staff
feels the downzoned property would be compatible with the surrounding uses. The RM-20
zoning to the west provides an adequate buffer between the existing RS-8 and RM-44 zones.
Ehrhardt asked if her acquaintance with the applicants and foreknowledge of the rezoning idea
would indicate a conflict of interest; Ehrhardt added that she didn't feel it would affect her
performance as a commissioner, but she would like a legal opinion. Behr said that as far as
Ehrhardt was confident that it would not affect her decision she would not need to recuse
herself. Bovbjerg reposed the question in a hypothetical context: if a commissioner stood to gain
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
September 6, 2001
Page 2
from a rezoning, would he or she be able to hear and vote on it? Behr replied that in such a
situation the commissioner would probably need to remove him- or herself from voting.
Bovbjerg asked if the portion of the RM-20 zone left over from the rezoning of these 3.07 acres
could be considered an "island." Miklo said the remaining area is roughly four acres, so it would
not be considered a spot zone.
Bovbjerg asked staff to elaborate on information in both the staff report and the applicant's
statement alluding to land in the Miller's Orchard area that the City has purchased for a park.
McCafferty explained that that land fronted on Benton Street.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OPEN
William Buss, 747 West Benton Street, agreed with the staff assessment but wished to stress
the fact that a zoning change would not effect a usage change: the use is currently single family.
Also, since they have neighbored an RM-20-consistent use to the west for a number of years
this zoning change would not affect that relationship.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED
MOTION: Shannon moved to defer REZ01-00013 until the September 20, 2001 meeting.
Ehrhardt seconded the motion.
There was no discussion.
Motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
REZ01-00015: Discussion of a rezoning from Intensive Commercial (C1-1), to Community
Commercial (CC-2) on 6.15 acres at Commerce Drive and Liberty Drive.
McCafferty gave the staff report. She detailed the different uses allowable in each zone:
essentially CI-1 is intended for establishments involved in heavy commercial or light industrial
type uses; CC-2 is for retailers dealing in everyday consumer goods. The Comprehensive Plan
(1997) calls for industrial development on this southeast fringe of the City due to its flat
topography and proximity to highway and rail transportation. The Comprehensive Plan also
notes that there is a deficit of industrial land within Iowa City's boundaries.
During the 1997 annexation of this area (currently known as Scott-Six Industrial Park) the City
offered financial incentives to the applicant in order to have it be zoned and developed as
industrial One concession was to zone the western quarter along Scott Boulevard as C1-1, as
that was considered to be compatible with industrial uses.
McCafferty reported that staff's concern regarding neighborhood compatibility focused on traffic
considerations. The intent of CC-2 is to provide business districts for neighborhoods, which type
of district tends to generate large amounts of auto and pedestrian traffic. Industrial traffic is
comprised of heavier equipment, semis, and the like. Both types of traffic would be sharing the
same streets and access points. In addition, 420th Street, which borders the Streb property on
the south and joins Highway 6 at an oblique angle, is unimproved but not suitable for large
volumes of traffic associated with retail uses. The City has no immediate plans to improve it.
McCafferty said the City also waived the water tap-on fees and committed itself to installing the
sidewalks in the industrial portion. These concessions represent a substantial financial
commitment to encourage development of an industrial park in this area.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
September 6, 2001
Page 3
In addition to the traffic mixing and public safety issue that entails, staff feels there are areas
more appropriate for the proposed grocery store development--areas already zoned CC-2 or
CN-1 --which are underdeveloped and should be considered for development before initiating a
new commercial district on the fringe. Furthermore, as the proposed rezoning runs counter to
the recommendations made in the Comprehensive Plan, an amendment of said Plan would
have to be undertaken. Before proceeding with an approval to rezone the Commission would
have to ask itself if it should disregard the recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan and
decide if this area of Iowa City needs a retail center.
Staff recommends the applicant be encouraged to consider other sites for the proposed
development, such as the CN-1 zone on the south side of Highway 6 approximately one-half
mile to the west of Scott-Six Industrial Park.
Hansen asked if staff had any idea what difference in land values would be. Miklo said he could
provide details at the next meeting, but he said that industrial land is generally less expensive
than commercial land, which is why developers sometimes try to have it rezoned. It tends to be
less expensive because the infrastructure investment is smaller. A rezoning may force the City
to make improvements in order to bring the area up to commercial standards. Specifically, 420th
Street would have to be improved immediately and traffic signals would probably have to be
installed at the intersection of Highway 6 and Scott Boulevard. Miklo pointed out that the CN-1
zone mentioned by McCafferty is already signaled. Miklo added that because industrial land
usually develops more slowly than commercial land, the City should compile an inventory of
industrial land for use by prospective industries.
Shannon asked if the waivers would have to be extended to the grocery store. Miklo confirmed
this: those concessions have already been committed.
Bovbjerg asked staff to indicate again the extent of the C1-1 zone and to detail the types of
permissible uses. Miklo replied that area south of Kirkwood around Highland Court and Gilbert
Court would be a comparable example.
Shannon asked how much of the C1-1 portion is currently developed. McCafferty replied that
there is a filling station/convenience store on the corner of Commerce Drive and 420th Street
and another building the use of which McCaffedy could not say for certain. Shannon suggested
that represented perhaps less than ten percent. McCafferty confirmed this. She pointed out that
there is a drainage ravine running roughly north-south that renders much of the land
undevelopable.
McCafferty pointed out that, unlike other CC-2-zoned areas, this one would lack arterial road
visibility.
Bovbjerg commented that she had been out to the area and saw that the ravine seemed to be
functional and stable. During the annexation there had been some concern about adequate
drainage for the area.
Anciaux remarked on the concerns by farmers to the south during consideration of the
Saddlebrook Addition regarding increased run-off and standing water. He said a large store and
parking lot would create additional problems.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OPEN
Bob Downer, 122 South Linn Street, attorney for Streb Development Partnership, said he took
exception with many items detailed in the staff report. He said that at no time since the land was
annexed has the 38.93 acres zoned C1-1 been zoned industrial. Downer then listed the
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
September 6, 2001
Page 4
permissible uses in the C1-1 zone as found in the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance under section 14-
6E-3B. He pointed out that industrial uses are few and permissible only by special exception.
Downer submitted that the rezoning request is less a radical change than has been suggested
by staff.
Downer said that staff implied that the owners of the property have broken an agreement made
at the time of the annexation. He said this was not true. He said the record of the annexation
would show that the incentives and waivers applied only to the I-1 zone to the east, not the C1-1
zone. He pointed out that the City received an industrial park of approximately 100 acres.
Downer said, regarding traffic, that a staff memo dated 13 February 1997 indicated that staff
knew and anticipated that the commercially zoned lots would generate a substantial amount of
traffic. In addition, he said the improvement of 420th would happen no matter what. He said the
presence of this rezoning has neither "delayed nor extended the consideration of that process."
Downer said no extension of rail to this area of Scott-Six had ever been contemplated.
Downer said the pricing of the lots was discussed with City staff at the time of the annexation.
The lots zoned commercial were going to be priced both higher and on a per square foot basis
rather than a per lot basis. He said pricing would not change as a result of rezoning.
Downer reiterated that this rezoning would be a less radical departure from existing zoning than
staff has indicated. He said the same arguments were made four and a half years ago against
establishing the C1-1 zone. He said a store is needed in this area; the newspaper said this is a
growing residential section of town.
Hansen asked Downer which neighborhoods he had in mind to serve. Downer indicated the
neighborhoods along Scott to the north, areas to the south and west. He submitted that persons
living outside Iowa City who work in town may use it.
Don Peterson, 3504 Rondau Road SE, Cedar Ral~ids, owner of the convenience store on
Commerce and 420% said the area will see a lot of growth and the market would be a welcome
addition.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED
MOTION: Pam Ehrhardt moved to defer REZ01-00015 until the meeting of September 21,
2001. Shannon seconded the motion.
Koppes asked staff for a list of what was provided to the developer in 1997 as well as staff
memos from the time.
Motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
Ehrhardt asked staff to provide a map of Iowa City's CN zones.
REZONING/DEVELOPMENT ITEMS:
REZ01-00012/SUB01-00009: Discussion of a rezoning from Interim Development Single-Family
(ID-RS), to Sensitive Areas Overlay Low Density Single-Family (SAO-5) and a preliminary plat
of First & Rochester, Part 4, a 24.12-acre, 36-1ot residential subdivision located east of Hickory
Trail.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
September 6, 2001
Page 5
Miklo gave the staff report. A subdivision on this site was first proposed in 1997; the
Commission recommended denial and the City Council denied the plat primarily because of
concerns about secondary access and uncertainty about the construction of First Avenue. The
developer has in the meantime gotten together with neighbors to the west to work out
differences and devise solutions, especially concerning drainage problems, both expected and
historic. Miklo said this development is lower density than the previous proposal. He said that
First Avenue is now under construction and will provide secondary access to the larger
neighborhood.
Miklo informed the Commission that the rezoning and plat comply generally with the
Comprehensive Plan and also with the Northeast District Plan, which calls for an open-
space/trail corridor in the area north of Rochester and east of First. Some of the open space
shown on the plat is in the floodplain of Ralston Creek, but the subdivision meets the required
dedicated open space amount.
Miklo said the streets were designed to allow connections between First Avenue and Scott
Boulevard but at the same time discourages cut-through traffic. He said the turnaround at the
stubbed north end of Tamarack Trail would be left in place when Tamarack is extended to act
as a traffic-calming feature.
Miklo said the steep, wooded slopes behind the houses on the west side of Tamarack Trail
would have a conservation easement protecting them from clearcutting. He said Public Works
was still reviewing the grading plan, but the outlook was favorable.
Miklo said staff recommends deferral to allow for resolution of deficiencies listed at the end of
the staff report. Following that, staff recommends approval of rezoning from IDRS to SAC-5 and
approval of the Sensitive Areas Development Plan and the preliminary plat.
Ehrhardt said she recalled that in 1997 neighbors had been concerned about runoff. She asked
its cause--was it natural?
Miklo replied that alteration of the drainage swale on the east property line of First & Rochester,
Part 3, had caused some runoff problems. Part was attributable to the Rochester Hill
development to the southeast. He informed the Commission that the developer has been
working with neighbors and the city to resolve the problem.
Ehrhardt asked if the developer had been trying to solve this since 1997 or if the impending
subdivision review inspired attempts at problem solving. Miklo replied that the attempt to correct
drainage problems has been more recent
Shannon asked if Lots 20 through 25 had enough non-easemented area to be developable.
Miklo pointed out that their buildable areas were comparable to the lots across the street from
them and appeared to be adequate.
Hansen asked if the land to the east was ID-RS. Miklo confirmed this. Hansen said he is
concerned that the area was not being developed more densely, that there's too much RS-5.
Miklo said the Northeast Plan caJIs for more townhouse and multi-family clustering closer to
Rochester and the future Scott Boulevard extension.
Anciaux asked when Scott would be opened. Miklo replied that it would be done by November
2002. He said the City Council desired First and Scott to be opened simultaneously so drivers
don't become accustomed to using First exclusively.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
September 6, 2001
Page 6
Bovbjerg asked what sort of covenant guaranteed the preservation of Outlot 'A.' Miklo said that
outlot would be owned and controlled by the City.
Bovbjerg asked if the sewer easement on the west property line served the lots in First &
Rochester, Part 3, and if Part 4 would have sewer lines running down Tamarack. Miklo said
Public Works had requested that the sewer be on the west and not under the street; he said the
applicant probably had more information on that. Bovbjerg said she was concerned about
disturbing steep slopes and wooded areas in the attempt to hook up to the line on the west side.
Bovbjerg asked if the Sensitive Areas Ordinance allows reduction of setback in order to bring
houses away from the slopes. Miklo confirmed this. He said in this case only a twenty-foot
setback is required. Bovbjerg asked if this would be on a case-by-case basis; what procedure
would be necessary to reduce the setback to less than twenty feet. Miklo said that would be
incorporated into the plat; since there is no such request, Miklo surmised that the applicant feels
confident there is sufficient buildable area.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OPEN
Larry Schnittier, MMS Consultants, confirmed that the landscape island would be a permanent
street feature, even if and when Tamarack is extended northward. He also confirmed that the
sewer would be under Tamarack. Bovbjerg asked if that meant the sewerline along the west
property line served only Evergreen Court. Schnittjer confirmed this.
Ehrhardt asked how long MMS had been working with the neighbors on the runoff issue.
Schnittjer said they had been working for about six months. He pointed out that no grading
would take place this year.
Bovbjerg said she was glad to see there were two trail access points from Tamarack; she
wondered if one going to the west, north of the property line of this subdivision, would be
possible. Schnittjer said it wouldn't as it would require an easement through someone's
established property.
Tom Goedken, 2640 Auburn Hills Lane, representing ACT, said his company owns the property
to the north and would never allow an access point northwards from the stubbed Tamarack Trail
to Scott Boulevard. He said ACT has no problem with the subdivision as is. Bovbjerg asked if
Tamarack could bend westward to join First Avenue. Goedken said there is some property not
owned by ACT north of First & Rochester, Part 3, where a street could go, but that would not be
ACT's decision.
Cam Campbell, 967 Everqreen Court, wished to commend the efforts of the developer, City staff
and neighbors on their work in creating this plat and incorporating an environmental sensitivity.
He said he had thought Outlot A should have been on the west side, but since he now knows
there will be a trail he understands the reason for its placement in the northeast. Campbell
disagreed with Hansen's call for higher density because it would add to runoff problems more
than lower-density development would. He agreed with Bovbjerg that Lots 22-27 should have
decreased setbacks. Campbell asked for clarification on the placement of the sewerline.
Schnittjer came to the podium and pointed out that all the properties on Tamarack would be
served by a sewerline running down the middle of it.
Bovbjerg asked if the trunk sewer along Hickory Trail was beyond Ralston Creek's fifty-foot
buffer. Schnittjer confirmed this.
Campbell wanted confirmation that no grading could take place west of the conservation
easement in the northwest quarter. Miklo confirmed this.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
September 6, 2001
Page 7
David Forkenbrock, 2813 Hickory Trail, said the neighborhood had been concerned about
speeds along Hickory Trail and the lack of open space in the area; this plat adequately
addressed those concerns. He said they had a good working relationship with the developer--
Bob Boyd and Plum Grove Acres--who were receptive to neighborhood input. He said he was
particularly pleased with the curve in Hickory Trail and its T-intersection with Tamarack.
Forkenbrock said Rick Fosse of Public Works and Bob Boyd had come up with a solution to
riprap Ralston Creek to help keep it from deteriorating further. He said a proposed stormwater
retention basin at Scott would be a big benefit in terms of reducing rate of flow. He again
commended the open-mindedness of Bob Boyd.
Mike Pitton, 2772 Hickory Trail, said there are 100 units using Hickory Trail now; this
development would add thirty-six more. He said because cars park on both sides of the street
he foresees problems with getting construction vehicles through, threats to child safety, and
inaccessibility for emergency vehicles. He said this is inconsistent with the secondary access
policy.
Pitton said he believes the runoff problems would be exacerbated by this development. He said
also that some of the lots do not appear to have enough buildable area.
Ehrhardt asked what the width of Hickory Trail was. Miklo said it is twenty-eight feet. Ehrhardt
asked staff to comment on the secondary access issue. Miklo reported that Jeff Davidson,
transportation planner, said the design complies.
Pitton referred to a City memo dated 12 October 1992 that required secondary access for areas
with as little as twenty-nine units and, in another case, forty-four. Miklo advised that there are in
fact sixty units with access to Hickory Trail; it is estimated that with the addition of First &
Rochester, Part 4, there would be an estimated 700 vehicle-trips per day. Hickory Trail is
classified as a collector street, which should not exceed 2000 v.t./d. before secondary access is
required. Miklo said miscommunication had led him to give Pitton information over the phone
leading him to think there were 100 units using Hickory Trail.
Pitton said the secondary access policy also has a street width component that needs to be
looked at in this situation. Bovbjerg asked Miklo to provide more information on street widths
and the secondary access matter at their next meeting. Miklo advised that parking lanes take up
six to eight feet, or twelve to sixteen in the case of parking on both sides, and that firetrucks are
generally eight feet wide. On Hickory Trail there would be four to eight feet to spare if vehicles
were parked on both sides of the street.
Gary Carlson, 2806 Hickory Trail, also commended everyone involved in the design of the
subdivision. He acknowledged that there would be more runoff, but is confident in the engineers
who have designed a means to handle it. He said he is pleased with the dips in Hickory Trail
that will allow excess stormwater to overrun it instead of accumulating in his backyard.
Hansen queried the "dips" in the road. Schnittjer explained that the low-point in the road will be
moved east of the west lot line (south of Lot 8) to allow surface water an easier escape route.
Essentially, it is meant to handle excessive rain events. Bovbjerg asked if the curbs would be
lowered. Schnittjer said they would be the standard six inches, but the sidewalks would sit lower
than normal. The standard stormsewer will also be in place.
Ehrhardt asked Schnittjer to convey her appreciation to Plum Grove Acres for their receptivity in
working with the neighbors on Hickory and Evergreen.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
September 6, 2001
Page 8
Anciaux asked how far Scott Boulevard will be from the intersection of Hickory and Tamarack.
Schnittjer said it was about one-half mile.
Pitton asked if there would be a way to avoid standing water. Schnittjer said there were
stormwater intakes in that spot. Pitton again asked if there would be standing water. Schnittjer
replied that during a large storm one would find some standing water, but the system was of a
size and a design to drain rapidly. Pitton asked how it would drain when it was blocked by snow.
Schnittjer said it would drain as well as all the other blocked stormdrains around Iowa City
during the winter. Schnittjer said it was not ideal to design a low point without any other outlet
for stormwater, but they were constrained by circumstances in this instance.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED
MOTION: Anciaux moved to defer REZ01-00012/SUB01-00009. Ehrhardt seconded the
motion.
Shannon asked what the foot-limit on cul-de-sac length was. Miklo said the limit was 900 feet;
the length from Hickory Trail to the nodh end of Tamarack appeared to be approximately 950
feet. Miklo said he would have exact measurements by next meeting. Shannon asked Miklo if
that length was acceptable without seeking to extend Tamarack. Miklo said it was on a
temporary basis.
The motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
REZ01-00014/SUB01-00015: Discussion of an application for a rezoning from Low Density
Single-Family (RS-5) and Planned Development Overlay (OPDH-5) to OPDH-5 on 14.07 acres,
and a preliminary plat of Village Green, Parts 19-20, a 15-1ot residential subdivision located
between Village Road and Wintergreen Drive.
McCafferty reported that staff had recommended deferral at the last meeting pending resolution
of discrepancies and deficiencies. She said the inspector had been to the site and was satisfied
with the erosion-control measures being used. McCafferty said staff now recommended
approval.
Ehrhardt asked Larry Schnittjer about the piles of dirt neighbors had complained about at the
last meeting. Schnittjer said part of it was permanent because Wintergreen needed to go uphill
and part was temporary material storage. Bovbjerg asked if the periodicity of site inspections
was complaint-based or regular. Miklo said it was usually complaint-based. Schnittjer said the
engineers were out there "all the time;"
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OPEN
Bovbjerg asked in which direction Wintergreen ascended. Schnittjer responded that it rose as it
moved westward.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED
MOTION: Hansen moved to approve REZ01-00014/SUB01-00015 an application for a
rezoning from Low Density Single Family (RS-5) and Planned Development Overlay
(OPDH-5) to OPDH-5 on 14.07 acres, and a preliminary plat of Village Green, Parts 19-20 a
15 lot residential subdivision located between Village Road and Winter Green Drive.
Shannon seconded the motion.
Motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
September 6, 2001
Page 9
SUBDIVISION ITEM:
SUB01-00017: Discussion of a final plat of a Resubdivision of Lot 236, Washington Park
Addition, Part 11 (Arbor Hill), an 8.02-acre, 2-lot residential subdivision located nodh of
Washington Street, east of Green Mountain Drive.
Miklo repoded that staff recommends approval of this subdivision subject to approval of
construction drawings and legal papers prior to City Council consideration.
Hansen asked if all the discrepancies had been resolved. Miklo confirmed this.
Shannon asked if the neighbors to the east, who had been opposed, were satisfied. Miklo said
they apparently were as no one was present in the hall. He added that their fears were
addressed in the Conditional Zoning Agreement, which specified drainage toward the private
street versus the neighbors' backyards.
Bovbjerg asked staff if the legal papers for this subdivision will refer to the Conditional Zoning
Agreement, which had already been approved, therefore it need not be part of the
Commission's motion to approve this plat. Behr confirmed this.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OPEN
Schnittjer said he had heard no adverse comments from neighbors.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED
MOTION: Hansen moved to approve SUB01-00017, a final plat of a Resubdivision of Lot
236, Washington Park Addition, Part 11 (Arbor Hill), an 8.02-acre, 2-lot residential
subdivision located north of Washington Street, east of Green Mountain Drive subject to
legal papers and construction drawings.
The motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
CONSIDERATION OF THE AUGUST 16, 2001 MEETING MINUTES:
MOTION: Hartsen moved to approve the minutes. Ehrhardt seconded the motion.
The motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
MOTION: Hartsen moved to adjourn, Ehrhardt seconded the motion,
The motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
September 6, 2001
Page 10
The meeting adjourned at 9:49 PM.
Dean Shannon, Sec~ta~
Minutes submitted by John Adam
ppdadmanlminslp&zg-06-01 .doc
FINAL 3r b(7)
MINUTES-SPECIAL MEETING
IOWA CITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
MONDAY, JULY 9, 2001
CITY CABLE TV OFFICE, 10 S. L1NN ST.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Pusack, Betty McKray, Terry Smith, Kembrew McLeod, Cathy
Weingeist
STAFF PRESENT: Drew Shaffer, Andy Matthews, Mike Brau, Dale Helling, Bob Hardy
OTHERS PRESENT: Phil Phillips, Rene Paine
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL
Weingeist moved and McLeod seconded a motion to recommend to the City Council to issue $125,000
in pass-through funds to PATV for a facility contingent upon the Commission's approval of a draft
agreement with the City of Iowa City, Commission approval of a drafi agreement with any proposed
tenant, and Commission approval of a detailed financial analysis.
The motion passed 3-2 with McLeod, McKray, and Weingeist voting yes and Smith and Pusack voting
no.
PATV FACILITY PURCHASE
Weingeist said she is concerned about the proposed rent to own arrangement with the Everett Conner
Center (ECC). Pusack asked about the length of the rental agreement with the ECC and noted that if
the Center were unable to make rent payments or left the building, then PATV would suffer
financially. Paine said the rental agreement would likely be around 7-8 years. Rent paid by the Center
would be put toward an equity investment in the building. Pusack said there is a risk to PATV in
having half of their mortgage payment come from an organization who hasn't signed the same type of
contract as PATV. PATV is signing a 25 year agreement but their partner is only signing an 8 year
agreement. Weingeist said that the $125,000 from the pass-through fund comes from cable television
subscribers and there is no direct relationship with cable subscribers and the ECC. Cable subscribers
and other non-profits could rightly ask why the ECC is being subsidized by cable television
subscribers. Pusack asked if the payment schedule ratio between principle and interest for PATV's
mortgage would be the same in the agreement with the ECC. Paine said that the rent to own
arrangement was an incentive to enter into a long-term arrangement. Paine said she had not considered
that PATV would be subsidizing the ECC because eventually they would be paying for half of the
space. Weingeist said if the Commission agrees to buy a building with the understanding that a portion
will be leased to someone else, it is not of concern to the Commission to whom PATV rents.
However, ifPATV is going to buy a building with a third party and use cable subscriber money, it is
the business of the Commission who that third party is. McKray said she also has Weingeist's
concerns. Pusack asked who would own what at the end of the mortgage. There could be three
owners, PATV, ECC, and the City. Pusack asked ifPATV would consider eliminating the rent to own
proposal and find an organization who would be just a renter. Pusack said the proposed rental
payments are about $0.30 a square foot or about 1/3 of the going rate for down town. Paine said the
ECC wants to make modifications to the building so they would likely want to stay in the building for
a long period. Matthews said a lease agreement could be written so the owner builds to meet the
tenet's needs. McLeod said he is hesitant to support a rent to own arrangement. Weingeist said the
rent to own arrangement is a sweet heart deal and other non-profit organization could question why the
ECC is getting such a great deal that is subsidized with public funds. Further, the rent to own option
is not necessary. Renting the space would not be a problem.
Pusack asked if PATV considered purchasing a facility based on the amount of space needed by PATV
and did not involve a third party. Paine said there were several considerations when looking at the
Hagen building. The building was available and PATV was working on a timeline to get a proposal
before the Commission. The Hagen building is already on the INET. The cost to extend the 1NET to a
new location is about $10,000 a mile. The building meets PATV's space needs. Pusack said the
building is twice as large as PATV needs and as a result the mortgage is double what it might be.
Paine said that PATV looked at other buildings identified by their agent, Westwinds Property
Management. PATV was working to meet an August 1 deadline to put forth a proposal. Hardy said
the August 1 deadline was included in a Community Television Group recommendation to the
Commission. The Commission had requested a recommendation from the CTG on the pass-through
funds committed to a facility. The CTG recommendation included an option to extend the deadline to
November 1. The reason for recommending a deadline for a proposal was to make those funds
available for other uses ifPATV was not going to buy a building. Proposals for alternative uses of
those funds were included in the recommendation. Pusack noted the Commission does not have to
accept the CTG's recommendation and can decide to accept PATV's proposal at any time.
Helling said that because the Community Television Service was slower to get initiated than expected
and there has been a higher than anticipated subscriber growth, the pass-through fund has enough cash
flow to cover $125,000 at this time without an internal loan.
Pusack asked if the Hagen building has been inspected. Paine said an inspection is scheduled for next
Thursday. Helling said that given the timeframe, the Commission can only come up with a conceptual
agreement based on a number of things falling into place. The Commission doesn't have a PATV
lease agreement with ECC, the inspection report, and an appraisal. The issue for the Commission is if
the City should get involved in the purchase of the building if all the contingencies were to fall into
place. The pieces need to fall into place by August 15 in order for PATV to close on the property. It is
clear that if the City does not come up with the $125,000 the bank will not make the loan and the
purchase would fall through.
Pusack asked about the property tax exemption. Matthews said PATV will likely be tax exempt based
on strong public television exemption. IfPATV rents a portion of the building they would likely loose
tax exempt status on that portion of the building.
Smith said that there are risks associated with property ownership such as large major maintenance
expenses for roof repairs or furnace replacement. These costs need to be accounted for in the financial
structure. A 25 year mortgage is unusually long for a commercial venture, especially given that PATV
would have only a 5 year guarantee for the rental revenue. Smith said he is concerned for PATV's
financial stability. Instead of trying to meet an arbitrary deadline that is perceived to be set PATV
should put together a proposal in a generic sense. For example, the proposal might state that PATV
wants to start a building fund and start soliciting private and corporate donations. The goal is so much
money by some date. If those goals are met PATV could then count on the Commission to provide
pass-through funding. If PATV could move into a facility that is debt free or perhaps have 50% of the
cost for a down payment, then PATV's operations would be greatly enhanced and would be in a much
better position to manage large maintenance costs that might occur. Most corporations will not fund a
capital campaign if the property has already been secured. PATV's ability to solicit corporate donation
is better before they acquire a facility. PATV should first work to improve their financial standing
rather than get in a situation where they have a 5% equity position and a 95% debt load. PATV may
have to pass on this particular building, but there will be other opportunities in the future. Pusack said
a case needs to be put forward focusing on how PATV's services will be improved for the community
as a result of buying a building. Paine said that over the term of the franchise that about $61,000
would have gone to rent payments. Pusack said that to convince corporations to contribute to a capital
fund PATV will need to explain the benefits to the community rather than to rely on a claim that it will
enhance PATV's financial health. Weingeist said she is concemed with a 25 year loan. It is possible
that PATV would have no reliable source of funding at the end of the franchise period in 5 years.
Paine said the length of the mortgage could be modified, but the longer term will allow them to make
smaller payments which they are sure they can meet. The maintenance, management, utilities,
insurance and other costs have been investigated and PATV can meet those expenses.
Pusack said he is not convinced that purchasing a building twice the size as needed is a financially
sound idea. A $200,000 building would require much less fundraising. Paine said that having another
non-profit renter as a collaborator would put PATV in a more favorable position to get grants such as
Community Development Block Grants.
McKray said the Hagen building has several advantages: it's close to downtown, its on the 1NET, and
it would be an easy move. Paine said she would prefer that the process was not so sped up, but feels
there is a risk that the building will not be available in the future. Buildings that meet PATV's criteria
are not readily available.
Weingeist said that in real estate transactions if you get desperate or rushed, that is when things go bad.
Weingeist said she is not convinced that the building will be sold out from under PATV if the
transaction is not complete by August 15. There are too many questions that need to be settled for her
to support the proposal as it stands. Matthews asked about the feasibility of getting an extension from
the seller. Paine said the seller knows there are things that must fall into place for the transaction to
become finalized and that if they know that PATV is working on them, they may be more likely to
give PATV a break. Matthews said there is a July 20 deadline for the City being on board and asked if
PATV could get extensions on the contingencies in the financing arrangement. Pusack said
information on the $100,000 in renovation is also needed. Matthews said the bank loan was contingent
on the City pass-through fund. The offer is contingent on having a written mortgage commitment by
July 20. The mortgage commitment is iffy because it assumes the City conkmitment of the pass-
through fund. Matthews asked if an extension of the July 20 deadline as well as the August 15
deadline could be arranged. Helling said it is clear that the City will be unable to provide a full
commitment by July 20. The question is what the seller and the bank will take as an acceptable level
of commitment by the City to meet the July 20 deadline. Pusack said the Commission could make a
recommendation on the $125,000 to be used for a facility for PATV, but could not recommend this
particular package at this time. Smith said he shares the concerns vocalized by other Commissioners.
Even if all the parts were to fall into place Smith would not support this proposal, primarily because
$125,000 in funding is being allocated with only $15,000 equity. Smith said that he did not think it
was the intent of the pass-through fund to pay for remodeling costs and that is, in essence, what the
funds are being used for. The bank would hold the first lien on the property, which is for 95% of the
value of the property. The remainder would be left for the City's investment, i.e. $15,000. PATV
needs to continue a fundraising campaign and needs to have more equity to put forward to a purchase a
property. Those funds leveraged with the pass-through funding improves PATV's position and
benefits them in the long run. McKray said that remodeling is a capital investment and appropriate use
of the pass-through fund.
Paine said she does not think PATV can set aside $100,000 over the next four years given that their
budget does not increase except to match the consumer price index. PATV has done fundraising for 10
years and it has not brought in large amounts of money. Grants for purchasing a building are very
difficult to get. PATV does not have the resources to put away a large chunk of money. It is not
realistic to believe that PATV will be able to build equity up front given the amount of funding PATV
receives and the amount the community would be willing to fund.
Helling said that PATV should attempt to get the July 20 City commitment deadline moved back. If
PATV were to move ahead as if it had the financing and the proposal falls apart between July 20 and
August 15, PATV would lose the $3,000 earnest money.
McLeod said he would be in favor of pursuing the purchase of this particular building. McKray said
she is in favor of pursuing this building because of its location and the lack of acceptable buildings
available for purchase. Weingeist said she can support pursing this proposal. Smith said the
Commission should first get a proposal that lays out a plan that includes a stipulation that PATV would
put $X amount toward the purchase and the loan not exceed some per cent value of the property, and
the other criteria that establishes the equity arrangement. Smith said he could not accept the proposal
as presented.
Weingeist moved and McLeod seconded a motion to recommend to the City Council to issue $125,000
in pass-through funds to PATV for a facility contingent upon this Commission's approval of a draft
agreement with the City of Iowa City, this Commission's approval of a draft agreement with any
proposed tenant, and this Commission's approval of a detailed financial analysis.
The motion passed 3-2 with McLeod, McKray, and Weingeist voting yes and Smith and Pusack voting
no.
ADJOURNMENT
Pusack moved and Smith seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously.
Adjournment at 6:34.
Respectfully submitted,
Wm. Drew Shaffer
Cable TV Administrator
FINAL I
MINUTES
IOWA CITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
MONDAY, JULY 23, 2001
CITY CABLE TV OFFICE, 10 S. L1NN ST.-TOWER PLACE PARKiNG FACILITY
MEMBERS PRESENT: Betty McKray, Terry Smith, Cathy Weingeist
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Pusack, Kembrew McLeod
STAFF PRESENT: Drew Shaffer, Mike Brau, Dale Helling, Bob Hardy
OTHERS PRESENT: Kara Logsden, Phil Phillips, Rene Paine, Randy Brown, Tom Nothnagle,
Michael Bell, Alan Unger, Mark McCusker, Ethel Madison, Tim Clancy,
Kevin Burt, Mary Milder.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL
None at this time.
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION
Brown reported that the transfer from AT&T to Mediacom has been completed. In regards to
purchasing a building Paine said the July 20 deadline for the letter of commitment of funds by the City
has been pushed back to July 31. The closing date is still August 15. The building has been appraised
at $380,000 based on the building first valued at $285,000 plus about $90,000 in additionmal
improvements to be done with the loan money PATV will obrain. Helling said the silent second
mortgage with an interest rate was put forward in the proposed draft City/PATV agreement because of
the concerns expressed by the Commission and the City Council. This arrangement provides a method
for the City to have ownership in a certain portion of the building until it could be paid back rather than
actually being an owner of the building when it has been paid off. Smith said that PATV's contract
with the City contains language that would provide for the City and PATV representatives to
determine the disposition of any of PATV's assets should PATV dissolve. This is also reflected in the
language in the draft purchase agreement with the City. This provision provides the stewardship of the
funds the Commission needs as long as the contract stays intact. Smith said the interest rate loan is not
necessary and the funding is secured through the mechanisms in place. Smith moved to direct staff to
pursue an agreement with PATV that includes a funding mechanism consistent with the other funding
provided to PATV (such as the annual check from the cable company) such that the assets related to
such funding fall under the terms and conditions of Section 18 C. of PATV's contract with the City
and the City holding a $125,000 lien on any building purchased. Weingeist seconded the motion. The
motion passed unanimously, with Pusack and McLeod absent.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Smith moved and Weingeist seconded a motion to approve the corrected June 25, 2001 minutes. The
motion passed unanimously.
ANNOUNCEMENTS OF COMMISSIONERS
None.
SHORT PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
SUBSCRIBER ISSUES
Shaffer reported receiving 8 complaints-1 about rates being too high, 1 about the need for cable
competition, 1 about poor cable TV service, 1 about an ~Home billing problem, 2 about not being to
get through to @Home customer service, 1 ~Home technical problem, and 1 about not being able to
get cable TV service.
AT&TREPORT
Brown reported that the transfer from AT&T to Mediacom has been completed.
LBRARYREPORT
Logsden reported that the library has received a good response from the ads they are running on the
cable TV system. Christie Vilsack will at the library on Saturday from 8:30-9:30 to participate in the
summer reading program. The library will have a booth at the Johnson County Fair.
PA TVREPORT
Paine reported that $1,000 was raised at the DJ fundraiser held at Old Brick last Friday. PATV's
Video Camp has finished. The camp taught children what they need to know to check out cameras
from PATV. PATV will have a booth at the Johnson County Fair. A workshop for the Youth
Leadership Program is taking place this week. James Mims has been hired as the Programming
Coordinator.
ECCREPORT
No representative was present.
SEN1NIOR CENTERREPORT
McCusker introduced himself and said that he and Elaine Beck will be sharing the position previously
held by Jason Livingston. Senior Center Television (SCTV) is researching digital equipment and plans
on purchasing equipment soon. The Senior Center has, for the first time, budgeted money for SCTV.
LEGALREPORT
No representative was present.
CITY CABLE TV OFFICE REPORT
Shaffer noted that the annual report was on the agenda, but given the length of the meeting agenda the
Commission may wish to discuss this at the next meeting.
Hardy said the Media Unit has been working on setting up a studio in the new building. Activity has
been steady, but not overwhelming. Demand for Community Television Service services have
continued to be quite strong. InfoVision is now working with the Community News to provide
information for the Community Calendar category.
Shaffer noted the letter in the packet to AT&T regarding consolidating Triennial Reviews. Jon
Koebrick gave a verbal confirmation of approval and will be sending a letter for written verification.
Shaffer said that the Commission Annual Report will be drafted and sent to Commissioners for
comment prior to the next Commission meeting. Shaffer said he received a telephone call from Old
Capital Mall representatives regarding the letter in the meeting packet. Old Capital wishes that any
business in the mall that wants cable service to pay the full cost of wiring their business. Mediacorn
would prefer to have all of Old Capitol Mall wired at one time and for Old Capital Mall to cover some
of those costs. Old Capital Mall's plan would make it very expensive for a business to get service.
PATV BUILDING PURCHASE
Shaffer distributed a draft discussion document that Shaffer, Helling, and Matthews developed and
PATV's response to that document. The City document focuses on the elements that would be covered
in an agreement between the City and PATV. Shaffer reviewed the discussion document. The City
would hold a silent second mortgage of at 4% interest. 4% is about half of what a bank would charge.
The second mortgage would ensure that the City holds some equity in the building. The second
mortgage would become due 1) if the agreement between PATV and the City for the provision of
public access/community programming services was terminated; 2) PATV were to dissolve as a
private non-profit corporation; 3) at such time that the first mortgage is paid in full PATV shall enter
into an agreement with the City to pay off the second mortgage, in full, over a period not to exceed ten
years; 4) PATV will be permitted to make payments on the principle of the second mortgage without
penalty provided such payments are made on the first business day of January or July in any calendar
year. Shaffer said that PATV is proposing a forgivable loan.
Smith asked about the City Council' s reaction to the recommendation forwarded to them at their last
informal meeting. Helling said that the City Council's response reflected the concerns of the
Commission.
Paine said the July 20 deadline for the letter of commitment of funds by the City has been pushed back
to July 31. The closing date is still August 15. The building has been appraised at $380,000 based on
the building first valued at $285,000 plus about $90,000 in additionmal improvements to be done with
the loan money PATV will obrain. An inspection report has been provided to the City. The seller will
repair the roof and front window. There were no problems with the major systems. A detailed
financial analysis is being prepared by PATV's accountants. The analysis is expected to be finished by
Thursday. A lease agreement has been forwarded to the Everett Conner Center. Weingeist said the
Conunission has no objection to PATV renting to whomever they wish. PATV and the City disagree
on who should decide what is a fair market value. Unger said that fair market value will vary
depending on how secure the tenant is. A secure tenet would expect to pay 9% of the building cost in
rent per year or about $36,000. A less secure tenet would expect to pay 11% or about $44,000. Smith
said the Conunission needs to see a lease agreement between PATV and the Couner Center. The
details and fair market value need to be worked out by those two parties. The lease would come before
the Connnission, which would then validate the lease. Weingeist asked why PATV took out language
requiring City approval of the fair market value. Paine said she wanted to keep the issue out of City
control. Paine said local real estate consultants would be in a better position to know the fair market
rate. Smith said the interests of the City and PATV are the same. A real estate agent would not be
looking out for PATV's best interest. At the last meeting the Commission recommended approval of
funding based on several contingencies. Among those contingencies was approval of a lease
agreement. Progress is being made but the Commission has not seen any final language. McKray
said the lease agreement with the Conner Center is not the major issue that needs to be resolved. Smith
said he is pleased that the rental agreement seems to meet and exceed the areas of concern for the
Commission.
Helling said the silent second mortgage with an interest rate was put forward in response to the
concerns expressed by the Commission and the City Council. This arrangement provides a method for
the City to have ownership in a certain portion of the building until it could be paid back rather than
actually being an owner of the building when it has been paid off. The amount of secured City funds
was the difference between the $285,000 purchase price and the $270,000 loan. If the appraisal is
$380,000, then most of the City funds are secured. Helling said that it has always been City policy that
all cable TV revenue is to be used for cable TV related purposes. The rent PATV charges any tenant
should be at a fair market value, otherwise cable TV revenue would be subsidizing a non-cable TV
use.
Helling said the City Council and the Commission need to make a policy decision on whether the
$125,000 is going to be a loan, a forgivable loan, a silent second mortgage, or a lien.
Weingeist said that a grant is not wise. In a worst case scenario where PATV has dissolved or
otherwise ceases to provide public access services, the funds would be gone, the City would have
nothing, subscribers would see no benefit, and support for another public access service would be
greatly diminished.
Smith said that PATV's contract with the City contains language that would provide fur the City and
PATV representatives to determine the disposition of any of PATV's assets should they dissolve. This
reflects the language in the draft purchase agreement with the City. This provision provides the
stewardship of the funds the Commission needs as long as the contract stays intact. Smith said the
interest rate loan is not necessary and the funding is secured through the mechanisms in place.
McKray said the pass-through funds have been dispersed as grants for particular purposes. A re-paid
loan is not consistent with past processes. Helling said that the loan was a substitute fur the City being
part owner of the building. The loan was an attempt to reach a middle ground.
Smith said section 18C of PATV's contract, the section dealing with the disposition of assets upon
dissolution, should be referenced in any agreement with the City. A no interest loan would not involve
repayment of the principle. If PATV were to dissolve, all their assets, including the loan, could revert
to the City. Any agreement with the City should be in the form of an addendum to the contract.
Smith moved to direct staff to pursue an agreement with PATV that includes a funding mechanism
consistent with the other funding provided to PATV such that the assets related to such funding fall
under the terms and conditions of Section 18 C. of PATV's contract with the City and the City holding
a $125,000 lien on any building purchased.
Smith said that this language means the City should not pursue an interest bearing loan and that the
$125,000 is an investment with rights to PATV's assets should PATV dissolve. The City would hold a
lien on the property of $125,000, as suggested by PATV.
Weingeist seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, with Pusack and McLeod absent.
Smith said that PATV would be wise to seek out City advice. The City staff has expertise in large real
estate transactions and can protect PATV's interest better than a real estate agent who is making a
commission on the sale of the property.
McKray said that one should beware of anyone who pressures you to make financial transactions by a
certain date. If the real estate agent is unwilling to wait for a reasonable financial arrangement to be
worked out, his motives might be questioned. The Commission is willing to hold special meetings, but
short deadlines with a threat that all will be lost if it is not met is not a good process. It is very unlikely
that all the issues will be resolved and all the documents sufficiently reviewed by July 31. Paine said
all the issues don't have to be settled, just a letter of commitment by the City. McKray said even a
letter by the 31st may not be possible. Helling said the City Council meets July 31 but not again until
August 21 st. That may be a problem for meeting the closing date. PATV may wish to try and move
back the closing date. The City would not release the funds without a written agreement and a special
meeting of the City Council would have to be arranged to meet the deadline. It is difficult to find a
time when all Councilors can meet.
Weingeist moved and Smith seconded a motion to table the remaining items on the agenda until the
next Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
Weingeist moved and Smith seconded a motion to adjoum. The motion passed unanimously.
Adjournment was at 7:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Wm. Drew Shaffer
Cable TV Administrator
FINAL
MINUTES
IOWA CITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
MONDAY, JULY 30, 2001
CITY CABLE TV OFFICE, 10 S. L1NN ST.-TOWER PLACE PARKING RAMP
MEMBERS PRESENT: Betty McKray, Terry Smith, Kembrew McLeod, Cathy Weingeist
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Pusack
STAFF PRESENT: Drew Shaffer, Andy Matthews, Mike Brau, Dale Helling
OTHERS PRESENT: Michael Bell, Tom Nothnagle, Tim Clancy, Phil Phillips, Rene Paine,
Kevin Burt, Ethel Madison
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL
The Commission recommends to the City Council that they consider positively and pursue the City's
agreement with PATV as outlined in Helling's July 30, 20001 memo to the City Council and
Telecommunications Commission.
PATV BUILDING PURCHASE
Weingeist asked if the building appraisal of $380,000 included the improvements to be made to the
building. Paine said the appraisal includes about $90,000 in improvements.
Paine distributed a corrected cash flow projection using updated figures reflecting the draft lease
agreement with the Everett Conner Center. Revenue was adjusted up by about $8,000.
Weingeist asked about the "facility" line item on the cash flow projection. Paine said that the
difference between the mortgage and PATV's current rent is included in that amount. Paine said those
funds could be used to shorten the mortgage length, expand and improve the activity at PATV, or put
in an interest bearing account. It is also serves as an emergency fund. Weingeist said the Commission
is interested in having funds set aside that are to be used for building-related expenses. Paine said
PATV is budgeting $20,000 for building expenses.
Matthews said he is still researching the PATV's property tax exemption status.
Shaffer asked about income from workshop fees and noted that the projection anticipates an increase
of $6,000 over fiscal year 2001. Paine said that with the additional space that more people will be able
to take the workshops. PATV must limit the number of people permitted to take the workshops now.
Shaffer asked about the $7,000 projected income from the Iowa Shares program. Paine said the figure
came from the President of the organization, who is the director of the Women' s Resource Action
Center. She said that WRAC received $7,000 the previous year and that is what they were projecting
for each member organization.
Shaffer noted that salaries and wages are projected to be lower than in previous years. Paine said
PATV has fewer employees at this time. Paine said that PATV would like to hire more staff with the
$20,000. Weingest asked if PATV intended to hire staff with the $20,000 budget for facility expenses.
Paine said the funds would come from the "Cashflow from All Sources" line item ($12,526).
McLeod asked ifPATV would be able to utilize more interns with more space. Paine said PATV is
currently limited in the number of interns by the lack of space.
Paine said it is anticipated that PATV could move into the new facility by the end of September.
PATV currently is on a month to month rental agreement..
Helling noted that Paine suggested that the surplus cashflow may be used to create another position
and asked if PATV was planning to create a fund for extraordinary building repairs. Paine said that
them already is a building fund with about $6,000 that is being built up.
Matthews asked if PATV's contractor had advised them on the urgency of the roof repairs. Paine said
the contractor did not have an opinion on this, but it is not leaking and does not require immediate
attention according to the inspection report. The roof would likely be one of the first things repaired.
An additional roof repair estimate will be sought.
Smith said there were some discrepancy in the figures in the lease. The remodeling costs in the lease is
$30,000, but $35,000 on the deed from Hills bank. Paine said the lease document is a draft and the
figures based on an estimate from their contractor. Revised figures will be available when the
remodeling plans are finalized. Smith also noted a discrepancy of $7 a square foot and $8 a square
foot for rent among the various reports provided. Paine said $8 per square foot will be the rate with an
increase to $9 after 5 years rather than starting at $7 and going up a dollar a year.
Weingeist asked if the mortgage rate was fixed. Paine said the rate is fixed for 5 years and after that is
subject to market fluctuations of up to plus or minus 2%. The rate can then be fixed for another 5
years.
Weingeist asked how much the closing costs. Paine said she is unsure how much they were, but they
were built into the estimate provided by Hills bank. Smith said the closing costs might be built into the
difference in the remodeling costs figures provided, or $10,000. Upon review Paine said that Hills
bank figured $5,000 in closing costs. Weingeist noted that $5,000 will need to be deducted from the
remodeling costs estimates to accurately reflect the allocation of the loan. Smith said that getting a
contractor at this time of year often costs a premium. During the winter months construction costs am
more competitive.
Weingeist moved and McLeod seconded a motion to recommend to the City Council that they consider
positively and pursue the City's agreement with PATV as outlined in Helling's July 30, 20001 memo
to the City Council and Telecommunications Commission.
Smith said that he has several reservations about the proposal. The original intent of the portion of the
pass-through fund for facilities was as a capital preservation fund. The original proposal from PATV
did not reflect that use as it appeared that the capital would not exist in the facility based on the
appraised values the Commission had at that time. The current appraisal assesses the value of the
property with improvements substantially above the purchase price. The appraisal price may be
deceptive and, in fact, is referred to as a hypothetical value. Smith said he has concerns that the equity
would exist in the building even after remodeling and that the appraised value would be able to be
achieved upon sale. The speed at which the process is being conducted is also cause for concem. The
financial analysis provided could also be deceptive. Receipts are being forecasted higher and expenses
lower than they have been in the past. The term of the loan is substantially longer than PATV should
be willing to commit. The 5 year balloon on the loan being pursued means a potential $5,000 a year
increase in mortgage payments. Even with a $1 per square foot increase in the tenet's lease the
difference would continue to eat away at cash reserves. If receipts are not achieved as projected and
expenses are higher, reserves may be nonexistent. A reserve of 8.5% without incidentals and
contingencies being considered should be concern ofPATV's Board ofDirectors. Smith said he
questions the viability of PATV if they are substantially debt ridden in this manner. The best
information the Commission has to work with is the hypothetical appraisal. With a lien being placed
on the property the interest and value of the pass-through ftmd appears to be preserved and, as such,
Smith's concerns are somewhat mitigated.
Weingeist said she is uneasy with the whole process. PATV should have looked at more properties.
Weingeist said she would prefer not to have a rushed process, a smaller building pursued, and no
tenant involved. As long as there are no significant changes in the forecasts Weingeist said she will
support going forward with the proposal.
McLeod said he has many of the same concerns as other Commissioners, specifically with PATV's
ability to afford the facility. The downtown location is a plus. While McLeod would have preferred
not to have rushed through the process, it is understandable given the location. McLeod said he will
support the proposal. It is close to downtown.
The Commission voted 3-1 in favor of the motion with McLeod, Weingeist and McKray voting yes,
Smith voting no, with Pusack absent.
ADJOURNMENT
McLeod and Smith seconded a motion to adjoum. The motion passed unanimously. Adjournment was
at 6:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Wm. Drew Shaffer
Cable TV Administrator