Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-03-21 Transcription//2 Page//1 Lehman: Don't need microphones? Karr: Oh. Lehman: Because I'm chair of the Oaknoll Board of Directors I will not be committing on the advice of legal ..... Mayor Pro Tem (Mayor left dais - Mayor Pro tem Vanderhoefnow presiding) ITEM NO. 2. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 2,800 SQUARE FEET FROM LOW DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, RM-12, TO HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY, RM-44, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTH END OF WEST BENTON COURT. (REZ01-00027) (Pass and Adopt) O'Donnell: Move adoption. Champion: Second. Vanderhoefi Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Champion. Do we have any comments? Pfab: Madam Mayor, Madam Pro tem? Champion: Public Pfab: Go ahead. Vanderhoefi Mr. Downer. Robert Downer: Madam Mayor Pro tem and members of the Council I'll be brief this morning because we're here on a couple of subjects that have already been extensively discussed but I would like to state for the record a few things that caused me to request this special meeting of the council. As I believe all of you are aware the matter of Oaknoll's long range plans with respect to the area of its present facilities has been under consideration for several years and there was discussed in the years 2000 and 2001 the matter of a parking lot that resulted in amendments to the zoning ordinance and extensive consideration both by this Council and by the Planning and Zoning Commission. And I'm not going to rehash all of that except to state the we have attempted to be forthcoming with the City Council, the staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission and all others involved in this process at a governmental level what Oaknoll's plans were and we're continuing in This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of March 21, 2002. #2 Page #2 that spirit here today. It was discovered during the Planning process for the present addition underway which is the replacement of the original Oaknoll Health Center constructed in 1966 and also the addition of eight apartments that this addition as planned would go a short distance onto property that Oaknoll already owned but that was zoned RM12 rather than RM44. And the Health Care facilities could not under the uses permitted in the RM12 zone be located upon that property. At the same time the request was made to vacate the street because of the fact that Oaknoll owned property, all the property, on all three sides of that dead-end street. There seems to be some controversy both with regard to the amount that Oaknoll offered for the street and also the process that was followed in the calling of the meeting at least from what I read in this morning's Press Citizen. In any event the valuation on this property was first of all we secured an appraisal from MRS Appraisal which was furnished in total to City staffthat established only a range for the value of this property of $5000 to $10,000 because of the fact that there were retained easements for the full width of that present street for utility purposes and because of the fact that this would not constitute a buildable lot and because of these retained easements the only portion of that property that could be used would be the surface. You could not to anything on the sub-surface basis with respect to that property. Also one fact that I don't think has been disclosed up to now but was we were advised of by our architects last week is that it is going to be necessary to abandon and reconstruct all of those utilities in connection with Oaknoll's long range plan. So that essentially on any kind of long range basis the sewer and water lines and other utilities that are under that street are not going to have nay value. They are all going to have to be rerouted and replaced. Because of the fact that the appraisal was a range and not a specific amount the Oaknoll Board authorized the submission of an offer of $7,500 subject of course to all of these easements because of that came right down in the middle of the range that the appraiser established. Staff recommended the approval of that based upon all of the constraints on the use of the property that I have already indicated to you. I certainly recognize that you as members of the City Council have an obligation to look after the City's finances in the interest of the citizens and taxpayers of this community. At the same time the Board of Directors at Oaknoll has a fiduciary obligation to that corporation and to the residents there to judicially use the assets of that organization, and Oaknoll feels it has done this and has maintained faith with everyone involved in the process in making an offer that is absolutely at the mid point of the values established by appraisal. There have been no indications of any values that are contrary to what has been submitted so I apologize for taking your time but it seemed to me that it was important that these This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of March 21, 2002. #2 Page #3 things be on the record. As far as the calling of the meeting is concerned because of the pending nature of construction contracts and the fact that today notwithstanding our weather hopefully will permit construction to commence soon we felt that it was necessary to have this matter considered if possible prior to April 2, and it was in that spirit that I approached the Mayor Pro tem following the conclusion of Tuesday night's meeting and I appreciate her willingness and those of other members of the Council to appear here today to act upon this matter. O'Donnell: Thank you. Vanderhoef: Thank you. Pfab: Madam Mayor. First of all I would like to make a comment. I have to compliment you on how well you represent your client. You are a very good counsel and for that I compliment you. Downer: Thank you. Pfab: Now, the question that I, the problem that I'm sitting here which is a high dilemma in my mind is when you when the offer to purchase this first came forward I asked and you said you did not want to accept the liabilities of the underlying underground utilities. Is that correct? The liability? Downer: That we would not accept those to a greater degree than any other property owner would have. And as far as connections from the main are concerned we would have those obligations as a property owner, I am not prepared I guess to discuss extensively what those obligations are but whatever they are, they are. Pfab: You said you went to the Board and you agreed that you did not want to accept those liabilities? Right? That was in the correspondence. Downer: I, I have no reason to disagree with that. Pfab: I can show it to you. Downer: ! don't recall it specifically but Pfab: So now you're saying that the lot has no buildable value but if I'm correct and I understand correctly the only property that those utilities feed are Oaknoll. Is that correct? This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of March 21, 2002. #2 Page #4 Downer: I don't know how far those lines may extend to the south. This street north of Benton is Benton Court. South of Benton is Weeber. Whether any of those utilities extend on down Weeber Street or extend down Benton I really don't know. Pfab: I one point you say it has no buildable, it does not have the ability to be built on because of the easements of the utilities. And then you say you're going to abandon those because you're going to change it so Downer: If I conveyed the impression that those were going to be abandoned immediately I misspoke. There is a long range plan that, at one point I know was shown to the Cotmcil, shows a footprints a proposed footprint of a development that would cover the property southwest to the comer of George and Benton and there's only of those properties in there that Oaknoll does not presently own. And there are long range plans for that area and at such time as that long range plan would be implemented then those utilities would be abandoned. And what would have to happen there in my opinion, and I would defer to Eleanor if she has a different opinion, if we at some point come in and ask the City to abandon those easements that are being retained I think the City would have the right and probably the obligation to request some form of compensation for the abandonment of those easements. But until such time as that occurs those easements will be in place and will preclude Oaknoll from going beneath the surface of that area other than for purposes of reconstructing those utilities. Pfab: Okay, so say the time comes the utilities are abandoned, who is going to remove them? At who's expense? Downer: Oaknoll's Wilbum: Excuse me Irvin. Pfab: Is that indicated that it is? Downer: Well the easements at such time as those are prepared presumably would express that. Again now again I would defer to Eleanor because we haven't talked about it. Dilkes: Well I think as we discussed before because we're going to have a blanket utility easement over we're essentially going to be in control of how those easements are dealt with in the future and whether we require Oaknoll to pay for the cost of relocating them if that's necessary or removing them removing the utility lines if that's necessary or whatever. But they're not going to be able to build on This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of March 21, 2002. #2 Page #5 that area consistently with their long range plans until they deal with our easements. Downer: I'm fully anticipating that we've have to pay the cost of relocating the utilities. Pfab: Is that stated? Downer: What we would have to pay for abandonment of the easements I think remains to be seen but I would be perfectly willing on behalf of Oaknoll to indicate in writing that the costs of relocating those utilities if and when that would become necessary would be at Oaknoll's expense. Pfab: Okay, you're Vanderhoefi Irvin? Pfab: You're talking about relocating and also removing them? Downer: Yes. O'Donnell: You know we've let this go on. Pfab: That's fine, that's fine. That's my question. Vanderhoef: Irvin? O'Donnell: We've let this go on for a considerable amount of time. Irvin I've listened to your concerns for months. You've not convinced me. This is fully accepted by the community. It's fully accepted by the staff. It's fully accepted by Planning & Zoning. We should move on with this. I'm going to call the question on it. Champion: I'll second that. Vanderhoef: Question has been called. Roll call. Dilkes: Need a vote on calling the question motion. Vanderhoef: Oh, just a motion okay. All in favor signify by saying aye (4/1 - Pfab voting "no") Motion carded now we will address the original ordinance for pass and adopt. Any other discussion? Dilkes: Nope. No discussion you called the question. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of March 21, 2002. #2 Page #6 Vanderhoef: Okay. Dilkes: Just do a roll call Vanderhoef: Fine. Motion carries (4/1) with Pfab voting "no" Champion: Move adjournment Kan': Have another item. Pfab: Second that. Vanderhoefi Item 3 is .... Karr: Motion on the floor for adjournment. O'Donnell: Would you like to withdraw your Champion: Yes, I withdraw it. I forgot. Pfab: But I don't withdraw my second. Kart: You don't have to, no motion Vanderhoef: Motion has been withdrawn. This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of March 21, 2002. #3 Page #7 ITEM NO. 3. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE WEST BENTON COURT NORTH OF BENTON STREET (VAC01-00003) (Pass and Adopt) Vanderhoef: Okay (reads item) This is pass and adopt. O'Donnell: Move adoption. Wilbum: Second. Vanderhoef: Okay, moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Wilbum. Discussion? Pfab: With the idea that the purchasing of identity is going to give a written statement stating that they will pay for the cost of removing the utilities if that ever comes up I support this. O'Donnell: Irvin, you're a majority of one on this. Pfab: I made my statement. Dilkes: Is that a motion to amend, Irvin? Pfab: No. Dilkes: Okay. O'Donnell: You are a majority of one on this. This question is also called. Champion: Second. Vanderhoef: All in favor of calling the question? (4/1 - Pfab voting "no") Motion carries. Roll call. (5/0) This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City council meeting of March 21, 2002.