Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-07-03 Info PacketC 1 ~~~®~~ "m~` '~ .• .wr®~~~ ~~ CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET July 3, 2008 MISCELLANEOUS IP1 Council Meetings and Work Session Agenda IP2 Memorandum from the City Attorney: Initial Guidance re: City's Involvement in Enforcement of Smoke Free Air Act IP3 Memorandum from the Assistant Transportation Planner: Burlington Street Median Project IP4 Email from Jamie Tisdale: Foster Road Speed Humps IP5 Letter from the Recycling Coordinator and Clerk/Typist: Change to paper yard waste bags IP6 Memorandum from the Human Services Coordinator and the Human Services Intern: Free Bus Ticket Program IP7 Letter from Lee Grassley, Mediacom: Cable Service Rates IP8a Building Permit Information June 2008 IP8b Memorandum from the Police Chief: Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Grant Notification DRAFT MINUTES IP9 Planning and Zoning Commission: June 19, 2008 IP10 Board of Adjustment: June 11, 2008 IP11 Human Rights Commission: June 24, 2008 IP12 Airport Commission: June 13, 2008 IP13 Police Citizens Review Board: July 1, 2008 ~ i i ~~®orl~ 07-03-08 ~ _~~~~ ~,~ IP1 ' '~®'~~ City Council Meeting Schedule and -•~...._ CITY OF IOWA CITY Work Session Agendas ~~~y 3, zoo$ www.icgov.org • THURSDAY, JULY 10 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:30a Special Formal Council Meeting ^ Separate Agenda Posted on July 8, 2008 Special Work Session -Flood matters including discussion on the following: ^ Flood Mitigation Plan ^ River Corridor Update ^ Update on Lobbying Strategy ^ Animal Shelter Update ^ Future Meeting Schedule Items • MONDAY, JULY 14 6:30p Regular Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall • TUESDAY, JULY 15 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:OOp Regular Formal Council Meeting • MONDAY, AUGUST 11 Emma J. Harvat Hall 5:30p Special Work Session 7:OOp Special Formal Council Meeting Continue Regular Work Session if necessary • SATURDAY, AUGUST 16 TBD TBD Special Council Work Session/Retreat • WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 20 Emma J. Harvat Hall 4:30p Joint Meeting • MONDAY, AUGUST 25 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p Special Work Session • TUESDAY, AUGUST 26 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:OOp Special Formal Council Meeting • MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 1 Emma J. Harvat Hall Labor Day -City Offices Closed • MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 8 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p Special Work Session • TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:OOp Special Formal Council Meeting All meetings are tentative and subject to change. r ~~_,:,,~,~,~ CITY O F IOWA CITY I P2 ~~,.~~ ,~®,~-;~ RA N D u ~ ~ E 1VI ~ ..-~..~ Date: July 2, 2008 To: Department Heads, Division eads From: Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney Re: Initial Guidance re: City's Involvement in Enforcement of Smoke Free Air Act The purpose of this memo is to provide City staff with some initial direction regarding the City's involvement in the enforcement of the Smoke Free Air Act that is effective July 1, 2008. Please give me or Assistant City Attorney Sue Dulek a call. Calls From Citizens with Complaints or Requests for Information. The Iowa Department of Public Health is the primary enforcement agency of the Iowa Smoke Free Air Act (Act). I expect, however, that people will call city offices to report that someone is violating the law. • If a person calls to report that a person is smoking in a prohibited area not owned by the City (such as a vehicle owned by a private employer), refer the person to the Iowa Department of Public Health (DPH) at 1-888-944-2247. This is the telephone number to register a complaint. • If a person calls to report that a person is smoking in a prohibited area owned by the City, refer this person to the supervisor in charge of that facility. • If a person calls to report that a business (such as a restaurant) is not taking steps to stop someone from smoking, refer the person to the DPH at 1-888-944-2247. • If a person wants general information about the Act, refer the person to DPH at 1-888- 944-2247 or <www.iowasmokefreeair.gov> Law Enforcement The Act provides that a person who smokes in a prohibited area shall pay a civil penalty of $50.00. Pending further discussions with the County Attorney, the Iowa City Police Department will be issuing warnings but not citations. City Staff Observing Violations by Non-Employees If an employee observes a person (non-employee) smoking on City property where smoking is prohibited, the employee may tell the person that the Act prohibits smoking in that place. A supervisor in charge of a building or grounds where smoking is prohibited is obligated to tell the person to stop smoking immediately, and if she/he does not, may request that the person leave the area where smoking is prohibited and may contact the police department for assistance. July 2, 2008 Page 2 Inspections/Licensing The City does have enforcement responsibilities in the area of inspections and licensing. City staff must assess compliance with the Act during inspections of any non-smoking place (e.g., fire, alcohol license, and building inspections), inform violators of prohibitions of Act (e.g. failure to post signs), and report any violations to DPH. My suggestion is that any such report be done in writing and documented. The state law provides that a violation of the Act may affect an establishment's liquor license. Cc: City Manager City Clerk City Council r -- !~~~ p~~ CITY OF IOWA CITY IP3 ~_..:.® ~~~~~~~ N DUM MEMCJRA Date: June 26, 2008 To: City Council From: Kristopher Ackerson, Assistant Transportation Planner Re: Burlington Street Median Project On June 2"d, staff presented a PowerPoint outlining the proposed Burlington Street Median Project during Council's informal meeting. To ensure public input throughout the project development process, staff invited representatives of the Bicyclists of Iowa City (BIC) and the Iowa Bicycle Coalition to this presentation -both groups having members in Iowa City. To clarify the purpose and scope of the median project, staff submitted the attached response to residents who commented on the project and bicycle access, including those who commented to Council. If anyone has any questions or comments, I can be reached at 356-5247 or by a-mail at kristopher-ackerson@iowa-city. org. cc: John Yapp Jeff Davidson Kent Ralston Jeff Morrow jccogtp/mem/counci I-burli ngton med ian. doc June 26, 2008 Page 2 Dear resident, Thank you for your interest in bicycle access in Iowa City. The proposed Burlington Street project will add a median to the existing corridor which will help address concerns with pedestrian crossing safety in the corridor. Specifically, the median will help discourage mid- block pedestrian crossings, eliminate left-turn conflicts at alley intersections, provide some pedestrian refuge at intersections, and reduce traffic speeds. Landscaping in the median will improve aesthetics and establish the corridor as part of downtown, rather than a barrier across downtown. For your reference, the following link contains the presentation given to the Iowa City City Council on the median project: http~//www iowa-city orq/weblink/docview.aspx?id=165208 Based on comments we have received, there seems to be a belief that Burlington Street is proposed to be reconstructed -this is not the case. If and when Burlington Street is proposed for reconstruction, the Complete Streets policy will apply, and bicycle accommodations will also be a part of the design process. Right-of-way and existing pavement width constraints are insufficient for bicycle lanes -with or without the median project. However, we are exploring pavement markings and signage options for the Burlington Street / Highway 1 corridor with the Iowa Department of Transportation as part of a study to establish downtown bicycle routes. Later this year, staff from the Johnson County Council of Governments will begin the development of an Iowa City bicycle plan. If you would like to be on an email for input into this document, please send us know. Regards, Kristopher Kristopher Ackerson Assistant Tr<~nsportaticn Piar~ner Jvr~nscr. Coiainty ,ou^c~i cf Gr~vernrnents :t'`1 F ~~~c35f gtGr' ii ~Q'^ .mot',' ~Iq -1~;;t} lJ, Kent Ra~stan AssistantTransportation Planner Johnson County Council of Govern~r~ents 410E Washington St. Iowa City. iA 52240 319.356.5253 (w) IP4 Marian Karr From: Jamie Tisdale [jamie.tisdale@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 4:01 PM To: Kent Ralston Cc: Council Subject: Foster Road Speed Humps Dear Mr. Ralston, I am writing in support of adding speed humps to the 1000-1200 blocks of Foster Road. I have lived just east of the area on Mackinaw Drive for about a year and a half and can attest to a majority of cars using Foster Road not honoring the speed limit. Some do this quite flagrantly - I see cars traveling at 45+ miles per hour daily and have visited the Peninsula neighborhood enough to know they rarely slow down there. These speed humps will not only greatly benefit my neighbors in the Peninsula neighborhood but they will also make it safer for the many users of the trails out here. I implore our council to vote for the addition of these speed humps and hope they are considered further east on Foster Road in the future. Thank You, Jamie Tisdale 1760 Mackinaw Drive 1 June 26, 2008 {to: local yard waste bag vendors} Re: change to paper yard waste bags Dear local yard waste bag vendors: IP5 r _ ~~ ~~~~ ~ .~ ®~ _ ~ ~ . -,.~.~ CITY OF IOWA CITY ~ J Cau-~` `~- `-1 The City of Iowa City Streets Division (Refuse/Recycling) would like to inform local vendors currently selling City of Iowa City yards waste bags of a change in the bags that are being provided: Effective immediately, vendors will be provided two-ply brown paper bags in place of the green biodegradable plastic bags. Vendors are asked to sell the remainder of the green bags they have on hand and then begin selling the paper bags. Citizens will be able to continue using the green bags until they are gone and the green bags will continue to be picked up at the curb. This decision was approved by the City Council in February 2008. Press releases will alert the public to this change. Logistics The new bags measure 16"x12"x35" and come in bundles of five. Twelve bundles make up one case. Each case (60 bags) is 16"x12"x16" for storage purposes. Billin Each case will be billed at $51.00, or $0.85 per bag. Vendors are asked to continue charging $1.00 per bag; $0.06 will be sales tax and the remaining $0.09 will be revenue for the store. Please contact Tammy Salm in Streets/Refuse at (319) 356-5180 or Jennifer Jordan at the Iowa City Landfill and Recycling Center at (319) 887-6160 with any questions. Sincerely, Tammy Salm Jennifer Jordan Clerk/Typist Recycling Coordinator 07-03-08 IP6 memo r~~~ Date: June 30, 2008 To: Kevin O'Malley, Director of Finance Chris O'Brien, Acting Director of Parking & Transit ;~ ~ C/'" ~ From: Linda Seve~`sori Human Services Coordinator Sarah Be-~~j, Human Services Intern Re: Free Bus Ticket Program For the fourth quarter of FY08 (April, May, and June 2008) the City of Iowa City dispensed tickets to human service agencies through its Free Bus Ticket Program. The totals, by agency, were: 4th Year-To- April May June Quarter Date Crisis Center 395 395 395 1185 4740 Department of Human Services 220 220 220 660 2640 Department of Veteran Affairs 20 20 20 60 240 Domestic Violence Intervention Program (DVIP) 130 130 130 390 1560 Shelter House 150 150 150 450 1800 Neighborhood Centers: Broadway 50 50 50 150 600 Pheasant Ridge 50 50 50 150 600 Vocational Rehabilitation Services 70 70 70 210 840 The Nest of Johnson County 20 20 20 60 240 'Free Medical Clinic 20 20 40 80 80 Community Mental Health Center 70 70 70 210 840 Home Ties 20 20 20 60 240 TOTAL 1215 1215 1235 3665 14,420 "The Free Medical Clinic requested bus strip tickets when they moved from the Wesley Center (centrally located at 120 N. Dubuque Street) to the Towncrest Medical area (east Iowa City) in the spring of 2006. The new clinic space is located on a bus line. Initially following the move, there was not the anticipated demand for bus strip tickets. In the 4th quarter of FY08, demand increased. Thank you for supporting the Free Bus Ticket Program. Your continued assistance in this endeavor is very much appreciated. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Linda at x5242. cc: John Yapp, JCCOG Executive Director Dale Helling, Assistant City Manager Barb Morck, Acting Transit Manager jccog hs\mem\bustix08-4thgtr. doc Mediacom June 23, 2008 Ms. Marian Karr City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 Dear Ms. Karr: a A ~ ~. 1P7 / J ~ ~- ('; - 6C~~a'~ Mediacom continues to offer state-of--the-art telecommunication services to our customers. Unfortunately, certain operating costs continue to rise, especially in the areas of programming, fuel and technology improvements. As a result, it is necessary to adjust certain cable service rates, effective on or about August 1, 2008. The specific changes are outlined below. Old Rate New Rate Increase Broadcast Basic $ 11.50 $ 11.50 $ 0.00 Expanded Basic $ 40.45 $ 43.45 $ 3.00 Family Cable $ 51.95 $ 54.95 $ 3.00 We take our responsibility seriously as the preferred provider of cable television, high-speed Internet and phone service in your community. As we manage rising programming and operating costs, we're committed to giving our customers superior value through discounted pricing available when our cable service is bundled with our high-speed Internet and/or phone services. If there are any questions please call me at 319-395-9699 ext 323. Sincerely, ~~ ~~a~ ~ ee Grassley Senior Manager, Govern ent Relations ~. Ac r~ Mediacom Communications Corporation 6300 Council Street NE • Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52402 ~' I P8 ,~ '~ ~" ~~ BUILDING PERMIT INFORMATION June 2008 KEY FOR ABBREVIATIONS .Type of Improvement ADD -Addition ALT -Alteration REP -Repair FND -Foundation Only NEW-New OTH -Other type of construction Type of Use: RSF -Residential Single Family RDF -Residential Duplex RMF -Three or more residential RAC -Residential Accessory Building MIX -Mixed NON -Non-residential OTH -Other Page : 2 City of Iowa City Date : 7/1/2008 Extraction of Building Permit Data for To : 6/ 1 /2008 From : 6/30/2008 Census Bureau Report Tune Twe Permit Number Name Address Impr Use Stories BLD08-00315 NELSON MILLER 625 E BURLINGTON ST ADD RMF 0 EXTERIOR ENTRY FOR MECHANICAL ROOM Units Valuation 0 $2,500 Total ADD/RMF permits : 1 Total Valuation : $2,500' BLD08-00166 JOHN PIERCE 2225 A ST ADD RSF 2 0 $55,569 ADDITIONAL 585 SQUARE FEET ON SECOND F LOOR FOR SFD BLD08-00209 CARL HIRSCHMAN 430 OAKLAND AVE ADD RSF 0 0 $46,000 ADDITION FOR SFD BLD08-00159 TOM & CATHY CHAVEZ 1655 LANGENBERG AVE ADD RSF 0 0 $45,000 FAMILY ROOM AND SCREEN PORCH ADDITIO N FOR SFD BLD08-00198 STEVE & VIRGINIA WILDM~ 101 S MT VERNON DR ADD RSF 0 0 $22,800 3 SEASON PORCH ADDITION FOR SFD BLD08-00235 BRYAN SVOBODA 526 W PARK RD ADD RSF 0 0 $20,000 ATTACHED 2 CAR GARAGE ADDITION FOR SF D BLD08-00266 BRETT STERLING HAMRIC 2518 INDIGO DR ADD RSF 1 0 $14,800 14' x 16' Attached garage BLD08-00282 ROSS, JAMES C 723 KESWICK DR ADD RSF 0 0 $12,000 DECK ADDITION FOR SFD BLD08-00288 ROSS, JILL R GRIFFEE 814 DUCK CREEK DR ADD RSF 0 0 $10,600 SCREEN PORCH AND DECK ADDITION FOR SFD BLD08-00272 BRIAN J & LISA B KOUBA 4417 COUNTRY CLUB DR ADD RSF 1 0 $8,000 Extend deck 4' and convert covered porch to screen p orch BLD08-00281 MICHAEL BEARD 1307 ROCHESTER AVE ADD RSF 0 0 $7,500 DECK ADDITION FOR SFD BLD08-00308 SORENSEN, SHARON S 26 AMBER LN ADD RSF 0 0 $7,000 SCREEN PORCH ADDITION FOR SFD BLD08-00247 LADUKE-SKAY, DENISE L 3325 VILLAGE RD ADD RSF 1 0 $4,000 Screen Porch BLD08-00265 ANTHONY L & CONSTANC 28 CAROLINE CT ADD RSF 1 0 $4,000 14' x 14' Uncovered deck BLD08-00195 LAWRENCE & JULIE LYNC 711 ELLIOTT CT ADD RSF 0 0 $3,900 DECK ADDITION FOR SFD BLD08-00323 SUSAN J REKWARD 3428 SOU'`I'H JAMIE LN ADD RSF 0 0 $3,700 DECK ADDITION FOR ZERO LOT LINE SFD BLD08-00257 DOUGLAS J & KIMBERLY D 3217 FRIENDSHIP ST ADD RSF 1 0 $3,500 Uncovered wood deck BLD08-00254 RUSSELL K CARDER 3341 WINTERGREEN DR ADD RSF 0 0 $2,400 12' x 24' uncovered wood deck BLD08-00242 BURKE, JON P 23 WAKEFIELD CT ADD RSF 1 0 $1,000 9' x 5' attached shed BLD08-00269 MIRELA KAPO 106 N 1ST AVE ADD RSF 1 0 $1,000 Uncovered deck BLD08-00274 CHUCK FORD 3449 S JAMIE LN ADD RSF 1 0 $500 12' x 12' Uncovered deck Page : 3 City of Iowa City Date : 7/1/2008 Extraction of Building Permit Data for To : 6/ 1 /2008 From : 6/30/2008 Census Bureau Report Type Type Permit Number Name Address Imnr Use Stories Units Valuation Total ADD/RSF permits : 20 Total Valuation : $273,269 BLD08-00300 JENSEN EYECARE CENTER 640 HIGHWAY 1 ALT NON 1 0 $250,000 TENANT FIT-OUT FOR EYE CARE BUSINESS BLD08-00292 DOLPHIN INTERNATIONAL 2401 HIGHWAY 6 EAST 14 ALT NON 3 0 $150,000 MODEL CONDOMINIUM UNITS IN APARTMENT BUILDING UNITS 19,23,24 BLD08-00293 DOLPHIN INTERNATIONAL 2401 HIGHWAY 6 EAST 18 ALT NON 2 0 $50,000 MODEL CONDOMINIUM UNITS IN APARTMENT BUILDING UNITS A & B BLD08-00261 LAURENCE SHORT ET AL 18 S CLINTON ST ALT NON 0 0 $30,000 Restaurant remodel BLD08-00256 DEY BLDG LLC 105 IOWA AVE ALT NON 0 0 $11,000 Interior remodel BLD08-00290 DOLPHIN INTERNATIONAL 2401 HIGHWAY #6 EAST ALT NON 0 0 $10,000 REMODEL OF COMMUNITY CENTER FOR APARTMENT COMPLEX PHASE 1 SALES OFFICE AREA BLD08-00287 ROBERT LUCAS SCHOOL 830 SOUTHLAWN DR ALT NON 1 0 $8,000 COMPUTER LAB FOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL BLD08-00262 FRANCIS J SCHNEIDER 2339 HEINZ RD ALT NON 0 0 $6,800 Install ceiling in breakroom r ,; ~,t BLD08-00283 PEDIATRIC ASSOC OF IOW 605 JEFFERSON ST ALT NON 2 0 $4,200 ADD 2 FOOT OVERHANG TO COMMERCIAL BUILDING BLD08-00286 DISTRICT 3100 E WASHINGTON ST ALT NON 1 0 $1,800 BUILD PARTITIONS SEPARATING CLASSROOMS Total ALT/NON permits : 10 Total Valuation : $521,800 BLD08-00291 KAREN SPARKS 112 S GOVERNOR ST ALT RSF 0 0 $50,000 ALTERATION OF SFD BLD08-00301 PRIME VENTURES CONST I 707 GALWAY DR ALT RSF 0 0 $14,603 CONVERT SCREEN PORCH AND DECK TO 3 SE ASON PORCH BLD08-00246 DANIEL J & TERRI A CAPLA 1704 GLENDALE RD ALT RSF 0 0 $11,000 Remove two walls in basement BLD08-00318 LANDIS & NANCY FICK 702 GRANT ST ALT RSF 0 0 $8,000 ENTRY STAIRS AND RETAINING WALL FOR SFD BLD08-00276 WILLIAM B & LORI S GRAN. 512 WHITING AVE ALT RSF 0 0 $5,000 Egress windows BLD08-00309 KEVIN WYNE 201 WOOLF AVE ALT RSF 0 0 $5,000 BASEMENT EGRESS WINDOW BLD08-00271 ERIC H & SARA N O'BRIEN 1044 WEEBER ST ~ ALT RSF 0 0 $1,000 Install exterior door in out of garage Total ALT/RSF permits : 7 Total Valuation : $94,603 BLD08-00279 ZIMMERMAN, GREGORY J 3852 LIBERTY DR NEW NON 0 0 $200,000 FOUNDATION FOR FUTURE CONTRACTOR STORAGE BUILDING Page : 4 City of Iowa City Date : 7/1/2008 Extraction of Building Permit Data for To : 6/ 1 /2008 From : 6/30/2008 Census Bureau Report ?~ Tyne Permit Number Name Address Imnr Use Stories BLD08-00018 FIRST AMERICAN BANK 632 HIGHWAY 1 WEST NEW NON 0 CELL TOWER AND EQUIPMENT SHELTER Units Valuation 0 $70,000 Total NEW/NON permits : 2 Total Valuation : $270,000' BLD08-00239 GARY SPIVEY 91 EVERSULL LN In ground pool BLD08-00268 JAMES A & DANA J PHELPS 226 RIVER ST 980sf Detached two story garage BLD08-00251 CRAIG A HOLZMILLER 1222 WILD PRAIRIE DR 11' x 27' inground pool BLD08-00248 DALE MCGARRY 1205 LAURA 29 24' x 28' Detached garage BLD08-00197 DOUG & SABRINA ALBERH 911 E MARKET ST DETACHED GARAGE ADDITION FOR SFD BLD08-00249 MARK A & DEBRA L FLUA 62 AMBER LN 28' x 35' detached garage BLD08-00241 WILLIAMS, CAROL JEAN 104 WEST SIDE DR 12' x 16' Storage/Utility shed NEW RAC 0 0 $58,609 NEW RAC 2 0 $35,000 NEW RAC 0 0 $28,885 NEW RAC 1 0 $15,000 NEW RAC 2 0 $8,000 NEW RAC 1 0 $7,000 NEW RAC 1 0 $1,500 Total NEW/RAC permits : 7 Total Valuation : $153,994' BLD08-00215 MICHAEL T MCLAUGHLIN 941 MARKET ST. DUPLEX A 941-943 Market Street BLD08-00216 MICHAEL T MCLAUGHLIN 935 E MARKET ST DUPLEX B 935-937 Market Street NEW RDF 1 2 $263,430 NEW RDF 1 2 $256,116 Total N~IyW~DF permits : 2 Total Valuation : $519,546 BLD08-00297 KW CUSTOM HOMES LLC 4402 TEMPE PL SFD WITH ATTACHED 3 CAR GARAGE BLD08-00296 KW DESIGNS LLC 1105 LAKE SHORE DR SFD WITH ATTACHED 3 CAR GARAGE BLD08-00253 ALLEN HOMES INC 122 LINDEMANN DR S.F.D. with three car garage BLD08-00250 TOWNE & COUNTRY MAN 2012 SHERMAN DR S.F.D. with three car garage BLD07-00478 ADVANTAGE CUSTOM BU 813 MCCOLLISTER CT SFD WITH ATTACHED 2 CAR GARAGE BLD08-00243 TOWNE & COUNTRY MAN 2037 SHERMAN DR S.F.D. with three car garage BLD08-00302 KEVIN J PARROTT 1018 CONKLIN LN SFD NEW RSF 2 1 $255,360 NEW RSF 1 1 $195,000 NEW RSF 2 1 $190,000 NEW RSF 1 1 $165,000 NEW RSF 1 1 $141,374 NEW RSF 1 1 $140,000 NEW RSF 1 1 $70,000 Total NEW/RSF permits : 7 Total Valuation : $1,156,734' ~; Page : 5 City of Iowa City Date : 7/1/2008 Extraction of Building Permit Data for To : 6/1/2008 From : 6/30/2008 Census Bureau Report Tune Tune Permit Number Name Address Imor Use Stories Units BLD08-00324 SKAUGSTAD PROPERTIES 538 S GILBERT ST REP MIX 3 0 EXTERIOR REPAIR OF MIXED USE BUILDING HISTORIC STRUCTURE Valuation $6,000 Total REP/MIX permits : 1 Total Valuation : $6,000 BLD08-00244 UNIVERSITY OF IOWA COM 500 IOWA AVE Roof replacement BLD08-00081 AMERICAN ORTHOTICS & P 1010 2ND AVENUE ROOF REPAIR FOR COMMERCIAL AREA BLD08-00267 ALDI INC 1534 S GILBERT ST Reroof retail business REP NON 2 0 $70,000 REP NON 0 0 $32,000 REP NON 1 0 $21,450 Total REP/NON permits : 3 Total Valuation : $123,450' BLD08-00319 PATRICK T ELBERT 5_SO E WASHINGTON ST REP RDF 2 0 $10,000 WINDOW AND DOOR REPLACEMENT FOR RDF Total REP/RDF permits : 1 Total Valuation : $10,000 BLD08-00255 JOHN R & ERMA M ALBERH 114 N GILBERT ST REP RMF 0 0 $13,392 Fire Repair BLD08-00273 ROGUE RENTALS 803 E COLLEGE ST REP RMF 2 0 $9,500 Reroof mulitfamily building BLD08-00258 LARRY L SVOBODA 120 E DAVENPORT ST REP RMF 3 0 $8,000 Reroof 12 unit building BLD08-00214 HAWKEYE REAL ESTATE I 710 CARRIAGE HL REP RMF 0 0 $500 REPLACE GUARDRAILS FOR UNITS 710,712,716,718 CARRIAGE HILL Total REP/RMF permits : 4 Total Valuation : $31,392 BLD08-00218 AMY C BUTLER 326 MELROSE CT CARPORT REPAIR FOR SFD BLD08-00263 SCOTT SCHNELL 316 RENO ST Replace front porch BLD08-00313 DEBRA PUGHE 533 S SUMMIT ST PORCH REPAIR FOR SFD BLD08-00299 REVOCABLE TRUST 3216 SHAMROCK DR DECK REPAIR FOR SFD BLD08-00299 REVOCABLE TRUST 3216 SHAMROCK DR DECK REPAIR FOR SFD BLD08-00252 TOMAS LASANSKY 528 IOWA AVE Replace front stairs BLD08-00259 HOWARD PAUL & SANDRA 2112 I ST Repair porch and ramp BLD08-00144 ANDREW AHRENS 408 S GOVERNOR ST DECK REPAIR/REPLACEMENT FOR SFD REP RSF 0 0 $10,000 REP RSF 1 0 $6,000 REP RSF 0 0 $3,200 REP RSF 0 0 $3,000 REP RSF 0 0 $3,000 REP RSF 0 0 $2,400 REP RSF 1 0 $1,650 REP RSF 0 0 $1,000 Page : 6 City of Iowa City Date : 7/1/2008 Extraction of Building Permit Data for To : 6/ 1 /2008 From : 6/30/2008 Census Bureau Report Twe ?~. Permit Number Name Address ~ Impr Use Stories Units Valuation BLD08-00236 MAGGIE MCKNIGHT 914 DEARBORN ST REP RSF 0 0 $1,000 REBUILD STAIRS AND ADD HANDRAIL TO 2ND STAIRS BLD08-00270 ROBERT BRANDY 1407 TRACY LN REP RSF 1 0 $1,000 Replace uncovered deck BLD08-00328 BILL & CHRIS BURCH 96 OBERLIN ST REP RSF 0 0 $1,000 DECK REPAIR FOR SFD BLD08-00275 4A PROPS L C 518 N VAN BUREN ST REP RSF 0 0 $200 Replace front steps Total REP/RSF permits : 12 Total Valuation : $33,450 GRAND TOTALS : PERMITS : 77 VALUATION : $3,196,738 IP8b TO: Mayor and City Council ~~ FROM: Samuel E. Hargadine, Chief of Police ~~ ~ \~ RE: Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Grant Notification ~ ~, DATE: July 3, 2008 The Iowa City Police Department in partnership with the Johnson County Sheriffs Office is making application for the 2008 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Grant administered by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice. The Departments were notified that they are eligible for $13,955. It had been agreed that the Iowa City Police Department will take responsibility for application and management of this grant. In return, Iowa City will receive 52% of the funds ($ 7256.60) and Johnson County will receive 48% ($6698.40). If received, Iowa City will use our portion of the funds to purchase three additional Taser less-lethal devices for our patrol officers. The additional devices will help to ensure that each on-duty Officer has a devise available to them, adding a tool to our use of force continuum that may save a life and keep our officers safer. This also includes training cartridges to insure all officers are certified and maintain certification, and an extended warranty for the three Tasers, as well as an extended warranty for the 21 previously purchased X-26 Tasers purchased with funding from the 2007 JAG Grant. The extended warranty would add four years to the warranty, which provides for the repair or replacement of the warranted Taser for a failure to function for any reason in the additional four year period. In accordance with the Justice Assistance Grant application, the application will be on file for review no less than 30 days. The Iowa City community is invited to make comment on the intended expenditure list, either through the Iowa City Council or the Iowa City Police Department. INTERDEPARTMENT MEMO ~.'PoV 6 ~- l IP9 MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2008 - 7:30 PM -FORMAL CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Josh Busard, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes, Wally Plahutnik, Tim Weitzel, MEMBERS EXCUSED: None STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sarah Greenwood-Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Wally Taylor, Dennis Mitchell, Jeremy Carter, Tom Winter, Gary Sanders, Glenn Siders RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: Recommend approval by a vote of 6-0 item SU608-00007, an application from Southgate Development for a final plat of Kennedy's Waterfront Addition Part Five, a 4-lot, 6.48 acre commercial subdivision located west of S. Gilbert Street, south of Stevens Drive. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:33 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. REZONING ITEMS: REZ08-00006: Discussion of an application submitted by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., for a rezoning to amend the conditional zoning agreement to modify the concept site plan for approximately 25.16 acres of property in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 855, 911 & 1001 Highway 1 West. The 45-day limitation period is June 29, 2008. Per the request of Commissioners at the last meeting, Miklo offered clarification as to the role of Commissioners in this matter. The application is not for an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan or the zoning classification; rather it is an amendment to a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) that was entered into by the original developer of the property. That CZA dealt mostly with aesthetics and other issues of design on the site. Miklo acknowledged that there is some controversy, as well as some support in the community, concerning the business practices of the applicant that have been put before the Commission by members of the public, however, he advised that those practices are not on the agenda for this matter and that the Planning and Zoning Commission is being asked in the application as to whether or not amendments to the CZA to replace the previously approved site and building plans should be approved. The role of the Commission is one of judging the aesthetics and appearance of the design as it relates to the entranceway to the city. As the applicant's architect said at the last meeting, Planning and Zoning Commission June 19, 2008 -Formal Page 2 everyone seems to have an opinion about architecture and landscape design, but in this case, the Commissioner's opinions matter as it is part of their role to help decide for the community whether the new plan and building design are satisfactory. If the Commission finds the plans appropriate, they would be recommending to the City Council that the CZA be amended to substitute this new plan for the previous plan. If there are additional conditions or issues the Commission wishes to address in terms of the design of parking lot, landscaping or building, those would need to be identified so that they could be incorporated into anything that goes forward to the Council. Miklo said there are some basic minimum standards in the zoning code that must yet be met. Staff has met with the applicant's representatives to discuss what items fall short of the minimum standards. Those items would need to be met by the time that the site plan and building permits are issued. Miklo said that one area of concern was the northeastern part of the site where Ruppert Road enters the property. Miklo said that there is quite a bit of paving in that area, and the sidewalk is right on the curb, which does not allow for snow storage or adequate pedestrian safety. Staff has also asked for some additional landscaping in that area to break up the roughly 45 feet of paving, which Staff deems to be excessive by the code's standards. Miklo said that additional landscaping at the front of the store has been requested by Staff, and that while since the last discussion some additional planters have been added, Staff is concerned that the may be too small. Another basic concern is that while truck traffic will be mostly relegated to the rear of the facility, there will be some mix of car and truck traffic that Staff feels should be corrected. Additionally, elements of building design also fall clearly short of the requirements of the zoning code, Miklo said. The front facade pretty much meets the standards other than some architectural details that have been discussed between Staff and the applicant. The Ruppert Road side of the building, however, does not meet some of the code's standards which require large buildings to be broken up into components. Miklo said there is a very clear standard that every 100 feet there must be a 3-foot change in plane of the facade. Miklo said that while there is a change in material, there is not a change in plane in a number of areas. As a result of these findings, Miklo said, at tonight's meeting the Commission will not be asked to vote on the application. The plan is not in a condition to be voted on and was just received by Staff earlier in the week. What Staff suggests is that the Commission provide direction to the applicant in terms of the plan, if there is anything about the site or the design that they feel needs to be addressed above and beyond the standards of the code. Commissioners should consider if they are satisfied with the building appearance, with the amount and type of landscaping. Miklo said that if Commissioners have concerns in these areas, now would be the time to identify them. Miklo stated that he would be happy to try to answer any questions Commissioners might have. Plahutnik noted that the original CZA called for an L-shaped, relatively pedestrian friendly development in the Westport Plaza area, and that what actually resulted was two large free-standing stores. Plahutnik asked at what point the agreement shifted. Miklo stated that he did not know the details of that as he was not involved in this particular project. Miklo said that he did know that one of the changes to allow the Staples to go in was approved in an amendment by the City Council. How the rest of the changes to the plan occurred, Miklo did not know. Eastham stated that the current code has pretty clear provisions for site plan approval and for the site plan to be consistent with the concept plan that had been approved. Eastham asked if that process was the same at the time of the original development. Miklo said that the standards of the code in 1989 were not as clear or detailed as they are today. Miklo said that the CZA in question did have some vagueness. in it. Eastham directed a question to Greenwood-Hektoen. Eastham stated that the approval/denial process outlined in Chapter 18 of the code (18-2-3-c) provides that the site plan can be approved by administrative review, or by the Commission in two circumstances, 1) if 20% of surrounding property owners object, or 2) the Department of Housing Inspection Services (HIS) requests that the Planning and Zoning Commission reviews the site plan. Eastham asked if in Greenwood-Hektoen's opinion the CZA Planning and Zoning Commission June 19, 2008 -Formal Page 3 could have a provision in it that requires that the site plan is reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Greenwood-Hektoen replied that she believed that the way it is written ~in the code is the way it must be done, and that now, this process, was the Commission's best chance at giving their input on the matter. Freerks commented that the Commission would need to be very specific at this point in their direction to the applicant, and could make a vote at the next meeting based on that. From there, Freerks said, the Commission would have no other say in the matter. Greenwood-Hektoen stated that there would have to be substantial deviation from what the Commission had approved in order for them to have further say in the matter. At the point of site-plan review, she said, there is less discretion and less need for a neutral party to make a decision. Miklo added that there may have been some CZAs in the past where it was specified that the Planning and Zoning Commission must sign off on the site plans, but, Miklo added, that is essentially what will happen at the next meeting when enough detail is provided by the applicant. Eastham noted that the Commission was basically still approving a concept plan, and Miklo affirmed that this was the case. The public hearing was opened and the applicant's representatives were invited to speak. Dennis Mitchell, of Meardon, Sueppel and Downer addressed the Commission on behalf of Wal-Mart. Mitchell introduced Jeremy Carter, project engineer for Wal-Mart and Tom Warner, consulting architect on the project. Greenwood-Hektoen asked Mitchell to address the ownership of the land in question. Mitchell said that his understanding that there is a contract in place which allows Wal-Mart to purchase the land from the other property owners. That land agreement is supposed to close before the end of August. Greenwood-Hektoen said that depending on when everything is finalized, she believed the current property owners should still sign the CZA. Mitchell noted that Wal-Mart is not planning on purchasing the car wash or ReMax buildings. Greenwood-Hektoen replied that those buildings would not be subject to this CZA. Jeremy Carter, civil engineer, presented a brief review of the layout of the proposed plan as compared with the current layout. Carter stated that there has been a lot of thought put into the area with planters at the front of the store. The planters were designed with pedestrian traffic in mind, as well as to allow for the large trains of shopping carts to be pushed from the parking lot into the store. A sufficient clear space must be left free to allow for this cart maneuvering. Carter said that while they may be able to improve some of the sizing of the planters, adding a whole lot more may not be possible. Carter noted some changes to the site plan since the previous meeting's discussions. He pointed out that the parking lot had gone from 60-degree parking to 90-degree parking in order to add back in some parking that was lost in revising the plan to better meet Staff recommendations. The islands inside the parking lot were rearranged and reconfigured to create a pod and separated area as called for by the ordinance. One of the things that was changed was a path that Planning did not feel was needed. Carter said that an additional drive was added to address concerns expressed by Planning and Housing and Inspection Services regarding traffic flow. Additional reconfigurations will be done to address Miklo's expressed concerns regarding the mix of truck and car traffic. Carter said that Wal-Mart also is concerned about the mix of car and truck traffic and wishes to avoid it, but that there may be one or two trucks a week that service the Garden Center that would have to use the same drive as car traffic. A couple of landscape islands were added to an area that was previously paved; Carter said they could change somewhat in terms of design. An area in which there is still a lot of work to do is on the Ruppert Road side of the building. Carter said that there were sidewalk and continuous pavement issues in the area and that a couple of planter boxes needed to be added. Carter briefly reviewed the traffic flow areas on the Ruppert Road side of the building for both trucks and cars. Carter offered to answer any questions the Commission may have. Eastham asked what the approximate dimensions of the parking area were. Carter was not sure, but Miklo measured roughly on the application and found it to be approximately 450 x 700 feet. Eastham asked if Wal-Mart had considered adding a landscaped median across the front of the store. He said that basically there is a 700 foot long strip of asphalt, and wondered if Carter had considered Planning and Zoning Commission June 19, 2008 -Formal Page 4 breaking it up somewhat by putting a median on the store-side of the drive with interruptions for pedestrian and customer traffic to go through. Carter said that it hadn't been considered because Wal- Mart considers that whole area in front as pedestrian access, and putting a median there with breaks would force people to move in a traffic area to get to the break. Eastham said he believed that it could be designed in such a way that that problem did not occur'. Freerks asked if Miklo had some of the images of other Wal-Marts that had been used as examples of good design. She said she seemed to recall areas like that in some of those images. Carter said that there is a line of landscaping across the building by the drive aisle. Miklo stated that one of the issues discussed early on was a request that Staff had for tree islands across the front of the store. Wal-Mart has concerns for tree-grates as trip hazards and does not use them, which is one reason that planters were utilized instead. Eastham pointed to an example on the slides as reflective of the idea he was trying to get across with a landscaped median all across the front of the store. Tom Warner, consulting architect, stated that improvements to the elevations have been made. Warner noted a change in design where a lower band was added on two anchoring corners. Additional planters have also been added along the front, despite real constraints along the front given Wal-Mart's perspective of the whole front as a pedestrian access area. Warner suggested that perhaps some of the examples shown on the presentation were different prototypes of Wal-Marts with slightly different functions than the one being designed for this project. Cart access also constrains the design at the front of the building, keeping the planters to a minimum size. Warner said that discussions had been held with Staff regarding areas still in question, and that he believed the standards would be met. There is still a slight disagreement between Staff and Wal-Mart concerning the definition of a projection. Wal-Mart believes that the screen wall on the Ruppert Road side of the building actually acts as a projection to. break up the facade on that side of the building. Warner stated that they would be working with Staff to resolve these issues. Freerks recalled that there was something about a 60% facade in the Big Box standards that seemed not to be met by this project. Miklo stated that she was correct, and that according to Staffs rough estimate the Ruppert Road facade is at 30% and it needs to be 60%. Freerks asked Warner if he was familiar with this standard. Warner stated that he was familiar with the standard and one way to come up to it would be to allow the screening wall to be viewed as a projection. Eastham asked if it was correct that Wal-Mart considers all of the space in front of the store as customer access. Warner confirmed that this was the case. Eastham noted that there are only so many doors into the building and asked how many entrances there were. Warner pointed out four main access points, but said that it is not uncommon for customers to enter and exit the store at varying points during their shopping trip. Warner said that because all of that is considered pedestrian access, they preferred not to block the area with tree grates, which have a tendency to be tripping hazards and to make snow removal difficult. Cart traffic is also a major consideration in designing this area. Eastham asked if the median were along the other side, away from the store, would that then meet Wal-Mart's definition of leaving the pedestrian access clear. Warner said that they are already providing landscaping all along that area. Eastham said that the current design calls for capped aisles and what he is talking about is a continuous median with interruptions going through for pedestrian traffic. Warner said that Wal-Mart has provided planting beds because it does not impede the flow of people through it and that he did not quite understand what Eastham was requesting. Freerks commented that she believed Eastham was asking for a visual break-up with something other than concrete that would not necessarily be a barrier to all pedestrian traffic, as in some of the examples shown. Miklo said that in order to get a reasonable sized planting bed either up against the store or between the curb and the sidewalk City Forestry generally recommends a width of nine feet; a parking space is also nine feet wide. Shifting everything one parking space to the north would free up the necessary space. Miklo said that it was his understanding that Wal- Mart is fairly reluctant to reduce the amount of parking on the site, as roughly 22-24 parking spaces would be lost to landscaping with this plan. Miklo said those spaces could be made up in the vacant space located west of the garden center. Eastham commented that there are 836 parking spaces in the current plan, which Miklo and Freerks noted exceeded the minimum code requirement of roughly 560 spaces for Planning and Zoning Commission June 19, 2008 -Formal Page 5 a facility of this size Eastham said that his primary concern is that this is a 700 foot long, 450 foot wide parking area, roughly 7 acres of parking, and is actually much wider than the current parking area. Eastham said that he is trying to envision how green space, trees and vegetation can be incorporated into the parking area so that it looks like an attractive part of the entrance to the city, rather than a 7-acre parking lot. Eastham said he is convinced that that can be done, although he does not yet see it in this concept plan. Carter replied that each of the islands in the parking lot are planted islands, which are of a width of nine or ten feet and definitely meet the minimum standard. Freerks asked what the islands would be landscaped with. Carter said that the landscape architect favors vegetation, mulch and shrubs over rocks and bushes. Carter acknowledged that the city ordinance required that a parking space be within 60 feet of a large tree or 40 feet of a small tree, and that has been incorporated into the plan. Eastham replied that there are trees and islands of this nature in the current parking area, and still the appearance is of a large, asphalt parking lot. Eastham said that it is this look he is hoping to get away from. Carter said that there is a lot more green space on the current plan, although he does not know that from the highway each individual tree would be discernible. Freerks said that she believed the idea being discussed was of getting a little bit more green space together to get a major impact and a better appearance for an entrance; smaller islands might not provide the same effect as a larger swath of green. Freerks and Eastham discussed that their specific direction to the applicant was to increase the green space, perhaps by removing the 24 parking spaces and landscaping as suggested by Miklo. Koppes stated that she personally felt that if the applicant was meeting the zoning code standards, then she did not want to treat them any differently than the next Big Box that came down the road by giving them additional requirements. Freerks replied that the Planning and Zoning Commission had latitude in this case because of the CZA. Eastham said he did not want to treat Wal-Mart differently either, but that Menard's was able to both meet the standards and provide an attractive entrance. Koppes asked Miklo if Menard's met the standards or exceeded them, and Miklo replied that they certainly met the standards. Miklo stated after brief discussion that it appeared that a majority of the Commission wished to pursue more specific direction regarding the landscaping. Plahutnik made the point that it was Wal-Mart that reopened negotiations by coming to the Commission and asking them to change the CZA; Wal-Mart is asking the Commission to change things in one way, and therefore the Commission is asking Wal-Mart to in turn change things another way. Weitzel asked Miklo if the current standards for the parking lot were close to being a LEED standard; Miklo did not know. Dennis Mitchell said that he believed the landscaping standards came about to make sure there is enough break up of these parking lots, and enough green showing to give a nice aesthetic view. Miklo said that once Staff received the landscaping plans he believed that the parking lot itself was very likely to meet the code's standards. Busard said that LEED addresses issues more of storm-water runoff, impervious surface and heat island effect, whereas what is being discussed is aesthetic in nature. Busard asked if there was any way to wrap the aesthetic concerns in with the impervious surface area issues. Carter said that he did not believe the impervious surface area was being increased as the amount of retail space is going down by roughly 9,000 square feet and the parking lot is being reduced by about 300 spaces. Busard asked if the green space was designed in a manageable way so that it actually affected storm-water runoff. Carter maintained that they are not doing anything to increase the impervious surface area. Busard asked if the applicant was doing anything to improve the situation, and if that was something the Commission could consider. Freerks replied that the Commission could talk about many things because they were in the middle of renegotiating this. Carter said that by the fact that there was less concrete, water would hit the islands and some of it would be absorbed, and the result would be less runoff, although he acknowledged that he was not sure what the percentages of green space now versus green space in the plan was exactly. Freerks asked for calculations by which the impervious surface was being reduced to discuss at the next meeting. Busard asked if impervious concretes had been investigated. Carter replied that Wal-Mart had done some experiments with impervious concretes and found that they did not work. Busard asked if green Planning and Zoning Commission June 19, 2008 -Formal Page 6 roofs had been considered. Carter said that Ryan Horn would be the best person to speak about that, but that he believed Wal-Mart currently has a test of this in Chicago. Freerks asked if there were four people who wished to discuss the plantings at the front of the building. Busard, Eastham, Weitzel, Freerks and Plahutnik indicated that they would. Freerks said that it would be put on the list of things to discuss. Freerks asked if Carter was getting a sense for what the Commission was envisioning. Carter said he was a little bit. Freerks said they were looking for something that gave a broader sense of green space at the front of the store rather than little pieces sprinkled here and there. Eastham said he has looked down at the site and tried to envision a very discernible green barrier that takes your eye off of all of that asphalt parking area and puts it on that green space in front of the store and the storefront itself. Plahutnilk noted that that would be a plus from Wal-Mart's perspective as well, and that the Commission and the applicant are not at cross purposes. Carter said that they would definitely take a look at the issue. Plahutnik said that while others have been focusing on landscaping, he feels he needs to at least say that the Comprehensive Plan calls for apedestrian-friendly community with pedestrian-friendly developments, and calls for things to be integrated into the community, and that a Big Box at the back of a giant parking lot does none of those things. Putting brickwork on the front of it is nice window dressing, Plahutnik said, but does not address any of those issues. Plahutnik said that in comparison to the demands made on other merchants, what is being discussed is pretty lenient. The idea, Plahutnik said, is one of designing your store so that it is part of the community rather than putting something out on a plane and effectively blocking anything beyond that from ever being integrated into the Iowa City community. Plahutnik said he looks at the development as an actual barrier rather than anything that ever could allow any kind of integration. Plahutnik said he was not on the Commission in 1989, but that there seemed to be a lot of zoning going on at the time and very little planning. Plahutnik said that they are the Planning and Zoning Commission, and for him, this is going to be their only shot at any sort of planning on what is a redevelopment of this plot. Once the building goes up, it will be there for 30-40 years, until long after he is dead. In terms of giving the applicant direction, Plahutnik said, take a walk around Iowa City and get some direction. Carter said that he does not in any way mean to come off as combative, but that as an engineer he loves clear direction. He simply wants to make sure that he is able come back with what they are looking for. Freerks said that in some ways it seems almost as if the code was not even consulted. She said that she was disappointed at being this far into the process and not being even close to meeting the minimum standards in some areas. Freerks said she recalled from a previous meeting a comment calling the development a model for what would be coming all across the state of Iowa, and that, to her, that statement does not take into account what this community is asking for through its Comprehensive Plan and its zoning standards. Seeing the possibilities in the example buildings that Wal-Mart has already built according to the standards of other cities, she feels that there is still a ways to go to get to that point. Weitzel noted that just in looking at the illustration you see cars and paint, very little vegetation. That is what the current parking lot looks like and the Commission is trying to go to the next generation parking lot with a tree canopy, a more park-like, inviting feel. Carter pointed out that one of Wal-Mart's big things was not going to a green site but trying to redevelop existing sites as they are trying to do here. Weitzel said that he did not think that anyone was saying that this site could not be redeveloped, but that they are trying to ensure the redevelopment is done is such a way that it is good for the next fifty years. Eastham said that in the spirit of giving specific direction, the places he's looked at in the community that are more appealing large parking areas are Pepperwood Plaza on Highway 6, the new Menard's store, and what used to be the Parkview Church parking lot. Weitzel wanted to reiterate what Staff had said about the Ruppert Road elevation being a public facade and the importance of that articulation that is stated in the code. He also has some concerns about trucks Planning and Zoning Commission June 19, 2008 -Formal Page 7 mixing with vehicular traffic, and that he believes there are ways to accommodate that in this plan. Carter said that there are plans to look at those issues. Freerks agreed that there was a lot of work to be done there and that it was important since that is clearly a major entrance. Freerks asked if Carter had been able to look at the list of outstanding issues that Miklo had presented to the Commission. Carter said that he had. Freerks asked if he agreed with the items where the minimum standards had not been met. Carter said that there are a couple of issues which Staff and Wal-Mart see differently. Freerks asked for specifics. Carter said that the first issue was whether or not the screen for the compressor area on the Ruppert Road side constituted an articulation in the building. Miklo said that Staff has determined that the screening wall for the compressor units is not part of the building, has no roof on it, and is basically a wall to hide things. The Code says that every 100 feet you must have at least a 3 foot variation in the building wall, which is not met by that screening wall. Even if the Commission wanted to approve the wall in lieu of an actual projection, it would have to go to the Board of Adjustment. Carter stated that ultimately this issue would be worked through and they would meet the requirements of code. The second issue that must be worked through is that the city ordinance requires that all end-caps be landscaped. Wal-Mart, very sensitive to lawsuits, has taken the interpretation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to mean that there must be a free path along the entire row. As a result, Planning and Wal-Mart are going back and forth a little bit on whether or not there should be an end cap in the area. Eastham asked if the view from Highway 1 on the west side of the building was not sufficient to require facade improvements. Miklo said that because of the way the building is skewed from the highway and set back further he did not believe the facade would be an issue. Wally Taylor, attorney for Iowa City Stop Wal-Mart, said that he spoke a few weeks ago and that he believed the minutes reflected very specifically what he had said at that time. Earlier in the evening, Mr. Plahutnik made exactly the same point, said Taylor, and that is that this area was planned to be a pedestrian-friendly area of small retail businesses. That has not changed. As Taylor stated a few weeks ago, there were a couple of minor changes in the CZA, but the overall intent of the area was not affected. As was mentioned tonight, Taylor said, a Big Box store with a huge parking lot is not a pedestrian friendly grouping of small businesses. Taylor said that the Wal-Mart folks were using the word "pedestrian" tonight, but the fact of the matter was they were talking about a big parking lot where people park their cars and walk into the store, do their shopping, come back out and drive away. Taylor said that it was ridiculous to suggest that because of the fake facade attempting to look like three or four separate businesses people would go into the store, come out one entrance and go into the next entrance and so on, despite the fact that they could easily walk the length of the store inside the building. People who enter large stores like this enter the store and stay until they leave, Taylor said. The important point to him is that this plan does not coincide with what the agreement for this property is, and has been, and still is. All of the attempts that Wal-Mart can make to pretty it up and plant trees here and there and change the facade does not make a difference ultimately because it is just not in compliance with the CZA. The Commission is being asked to change this zoning agreement, Taylor said, and to approve cosmetic changes. However, said Taylor, the Commission is not being asked to do what would need to be done to satisfy Wal-Mart which is to changing the concept of the whole area. Taylor said Wal-Mart was really playing a magician's game of redirecting the Commission's attention from what was really being done, and he asked that the Commission not be fooled by it. Taylor requested that the Commission not change the overall concept of the CZ'A, and said that by not doing that, the Commission could not approve what Wal-Mart is doing in the area. Gary Sanders asked if all of the Commissioners had the original CZA, and if they had all of the background on who bought the land and when. Sanders thanked the Commission for their dedication, and commented that it has been a terrible time for the people of Iowa City. He stated that he was a little curious as to why a meeting was even being held tonight when the plan revisions were just received that Planning and Zoning Commission June 19, 2008 -Formal Page 8 day. He asked if that was standard procedure. Freerks replied that it had been a "special" week all around, and said that usually things arrive in a timelier manner. Freerks said that the usual Monday meeting was cancelled and that was why the Commission was receiving things later than usual, but that the idea was that this discussion would continue beyond tonight's meeting. A special meeting is being planned for Thursday, June 26th, Freerks said, and at that time they would hope to see something that reflects what the Commission has outlined for the applicant this evening. Mitchell said that Wal-Mart would go back and address Staff's concerns, and that he hoped that next week when they brought back illustrations they would better reflect the landscaping that is going to be done. Hopefully, Mitchell said, that will alleviate the Commission's concerns. He said he believed that everyone does understand what it is the Commission is asking. Freerks thanked Mitchell and added that she believed if he consulted the list that there is more than landscaping that needs to be addressed, including some building design issues. Mitchell said that he understood that the building design issues were primarily on the Ruppert Road side. Freerks replied that he should take a look at the front of the building as well in terms of the things outlined in the list and at the meeting. Freerks said it comes down to concept in terms of having something that really fits Iowa City and not something that could be put down any place. Eastham moved to defer REZ08-00006 to a special meeting on June 26, 2008 Weitzel seconded the motion. Freerks invited Commission discussion on the matter Weitzel said that he was aware that there is some history on this site but that he did not think it was within his understanding of the Commission's latitude to outright deny a redevelopment here. Freerks replied that the Commission does not have to vote to approve something that does not meet the standards either. Weitzel agreed, but said he did not believe they could outright deny because of things that are not part of the application, such as the fact that the building was supposed to be an L-shaped development. Greenwood-Hektoen said that if it does not meet the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code; the Commission does not have to approve it. Weitzel said he believed it did meet most of those standards, but that it was the standards of the existing CZA that opponents such as Stop Wal-Mart were discussing and that it was those he did not believe were in the Commission's scope. Freerks said that the Commission can talk about aesthetics, and open space and green space and can deny it based on any of those things. Weitzel said that he's not saying that the Commission cannot deny the application, but that the reason they deny the application cannot be because it is not an L-shaped, series of smaller stores. Weitzel said that the comments being directed at the Commission for denial are on the basis that the plan does not meet the criteria for a strip mall type design laid out in the current CZA. Eastham wanted to make sure that he expressed what he was hoping to see at the next meeting: dimensions that are at least close to the final dimensions on the green areas and the parking space, and the square footage difference in the impervious surface dimensions and the green space dimensions. Plahutnik said that he was one of the lazy members of the Commission and that he relies on Staff to do the calculating and measuring, but that he makes his decision on every plan put before him based on his interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan. Weitzel stated that he believed the plan had met those criteria and that he did not believe the Commission had the latitude to just arbitrarily say they don't like it. Freerks said they do have the power to deny based on aesthetics. Weitzel agreed that that was not an arbitrary reason. Weitzel said that in this particular case the Commission does not have the power to deny if the plan meets the criteria specified in the Comprehensive Plan, and he believes it does. Planning and Zoning Commission June 19, 2008 -Formal Page 9 The Commission voted 6-0 to defer the item to the next meeting DEVELOPMENT ITEM: SU608-00007: Discussion of an application from Southgate Development for a final plat of Kennedy's Waterfront Addition Part Five, a 4-lot, 6.48 acre commercial subdivision located west of S. Gilbert Street, south of Stevens Drive. Miklo stated that the property is on the west side of Southgate Avenue and south of Stevens Drive. Stevens Drive would be extended into a cul-de-sac where there would be four lots, with access to the cul- de-sac on lots 1 and 4, and with lots 2 and 3 sharing a single access onto Gilbert Street. Miklo said that this was consistent with the preliminary plat the Commission had approved a few weeks prior. At this point, Miklo said, Staff is recommending approval subject to approval of legal papers and construction drawings prior to Council consideration of the plat. Weitzel said that he knew he had asked the question before but that he just wanted to reiterate the question of whether the access point of lots 2 and 3 onto Gilbert Street was not seen as a potential for traffic problems to Staff. Miklo said that it is not ideal, but it is acceptable. This being a final plat, Miklo pointed out, that decision was pretty much made when the preliminary plat was approved. Freerks opened the public hearing. Koppes asked if there was going to be a plan put in place to deal with water concerns, given the fact that the property was currently almost entirely underwater. Glenn Siders, developer for the project, said that there would be a plan in place. He said that as a developer he is mandated to build all structures one foot above the 100-year floodplain. The bus barn directly south of this property that was just finished being built stands a little above the 100-year flood line and they took on no water. Siders said that he had his engineers down there and they would ensure the structure was above that level. Koppes asked about access concerns. If there are floods, there will be no way to get to the property even if the building itself is above the flood-line. Siders stated that that was the City's problem. The flooding areas and streets that are underwater were mostly put in years and years ago, Siders said. The newer streets have not experienced the same flooding issues. Miklo said that code now requires any new streets to be one foot above flood-elevation. The public hearing was closed. Eastham moved to approve SUB08-00007, an application from Southgate Development for a final plat of Kennedy's Waterfront Addition Part Five, a 4-lot, 6.48 acre commercial subdivision located west of S. Gilbert Street, south of Stevens Drive. Plahutnik seconded. The motion carried 6-0. Planning and Zoning Commission June 19, 2008 -Formal Page 10 ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIR: Eastham nominated Koppes to be Vice-Chair. The motion carried 5-0 (Koppes abstaining). CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: JUNE 2, AND JUNE 5, 2008: Eastham moved to approve the minutes from June 2"d and June 5`h. Weitzel seconded. The motion carried 6-0. OTHER: Freerks welcomed the newest member of the Commission, Josh Busard, and invited him to say a few words about himself. Busard said that he graduated from the University of Iowa and then left the area for awhile. He has been back about a year and a half and is a land-use planner for Johnson County. He said that he is married and his wife works at the University. Freerks asked if there were advertisements out for the Commission seat left open by Bob Brooks' departure. Miklo said that he believed sometime in July the Council would appoint a new Commissioner. Freerks offered her condolences to Eastham's losses in the flood, noting that his home is underwater. Eastham thanked her for her condolences. Miklo commented that Dean Shannon, former Commission member who lived on Normandy, also was flooded. Greenwood-Hektoen reminded Commissioners that in order to approve Wal-Mart's rezoning, there would have to be an affirmative vote of four Commissioners. She said it was just something to keep in mind when considering meeting attendance. Miklo said that all Commissioners had confirmed that they could be present at the June 26th meeting. Freerks asked if there would be a Monday planning meeting. Miklo said he did not believe so as they did not expect to get the plans until Tuesday. Freerks expressed some reservations about getting the revisions so soon before the meeting with no time to discuss them. Miklo advised that Commissioners could contact him with concerns, but that if based on getting things so late they did not feel they could digest it, they could ask the applicant to defer. He cautioned that the 45-day limitation period is up on that weekend, and Wal-Mart would have the option of deferring it or risking a vote. Hopefully, Miklo said, the plan will be clear and all of the concerns addressed. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned by unanimous vote at 9:07 p.m. c O .N N .~ U 'a rno c_ ~ c ~ N vo ~ C N ~R C ~ - C ~c y c ~ RQ a ~_ U 3 0 o~ x X X x X i ~ x ,~, ~ w p I X x X w O t I l I X I X ~ X X X X ~ ~ X r~ X ~ X X X ~ ~ ~ X X i X X X x x o I a X ~ X X X X X X ~ N M X ~ X X X X X ~ ~ ~ ~ X X X X X p X I X X X X p X I ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ r- r M r N r 0 .-- 00 O ~ .- M c- L , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H W Y C O r ~ ~ = C C = G1 O R t/~ N y ~ R r .+ ' d ~ m m W ti Y a ~ N ~ z m ~ V Q LLI '~ O C~ r` X X X X = ~ X ~ ~ W O = X X X X ; X X = X X X X X X N ~ w O I I X X X w O W O X I I c a X i X X X w O w O w O I I ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~-- r M ~ N ~ 0 ~- 00 O .- ~ M ~ i . N - ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 F-W 0 0 Y O O t0 ~.+ B O O = C r N ~ O L N ~ H R y ~ O ~ . R1 t .~ .~ ~ m m w w Y a cn v~ ~ Z m -i U Q tu ~ ~ H H m X _ W = C ~ N N ~ ~ ~ d Q Q II II II >+ W YXOO IP10 MINUTES IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 11, 2008 - 5:00 PM EMMA J. HARVAT HALL Members Present: Members Excused Staff Present: Others Present: CALL TO ORDER: PRELIMINARY Karen Leigh, Caroline Sheerin, Edgar Thornton, Michelle Payne Ned Wood Sarah Walz, Sarah Holecek Royce Chestnut, Tammy Kramer, Reverend Orlando Dial The meeting was called to order by Karen Leigh at 5:00 p.m. An opening statement was read by the Chair outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the procedures governing the proceedings. ROLL CALL: Leigh, Sheerin and Thornton were present. CONSIDERATION OF THE MAY 14, 2008 MINUTES: Thornton motioned to accept the May 14, 2008, minutes. Sheerin seconded. The motion carried 3-0 (Payne and Wood absent). SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: EXC08-00009: Discussion of an application submitted by Royce Chestnut for a special exception to reduce the required front principal building setback for property located at RS-8 zone at 425 Clark Street. Walz explained that the subject property is located in the Clark Street Historic Preservation District. Last year, the applicant proposed a front porch design to the Historic Preservation Committee and was approved for a porch addition. However, when the applicant applied for a building permit he discovered that the house was already within the required front setback and as a result needs a special exception to proceed with the project. The zoning code sets out criteria for what should be looked at when considering a setback reduction. The first criterion is that the situation must be peculiar to the property, a criterion which this property meets in a number of ways. The historic architecture of the house would normally feature a front porch, and historic documents confirm that at one time there was indeed a front porch on the house. Currently there is no covered front entry to the house, an awning having been removed from the area some time ago, and the stoop is so small that one must step off of it in order to fully open the door. Typically, awnings are allowed to be in the front setback but covered porches are not because there is a possibility over time that a porch may be enclosed and become part of the building proper. The required setback in the zone is 15 feet. Often times in historic neighborhoods something called "setback averaging" is implemented due to established setbacks that may fall much closer to or further away from the street right-of--way line than current zoning allows. Walz said that this particular block of Clark Street has an exceptionally long frontage that encompasses a wide range of housing styles, and that the north end of the street has houses set much closer to the street than those on the south end. Because of the great variety in styles and setback variations, setback averaging is not applicable for this situation. In looking at the homes closest to the applicant's, however, a number of them are set closer to the street than the currently required 15 feet. Walz said that when a closer look was taken at the site in question, it appears that the houses in the nearest proximity probably were set back at the same distance at one time. Because this is a conservation district and a great number of the homes are maintained in their historic character, Staff thinks it is preferable to restore a historically sensitive porch to this home. The practical difficulty in complying with the setback is the unsheltered facade on the front of the property, which is out of character with the historical home and unprotected from the elements. The lot is very narrow and the driveway access is just to the south of the house, which would make it very difficult to reorient the front door to the side to allow for the 15 foot setback while providing a covered entrance. Granting this special exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations. The special exception would apply to an open air porch only, which does not have the same affect on light, privacy, and air issues that an enclosed structure would. Because this is in the front setback and there is an extra wide right of way on Clark Street, there is still plenty of separation from the houses on the other side of the street. Further, because of the other properties nearby with similar setbacks, the proposed setback is in character with the other properties and does not promote an impractical relationship between the properties. Walz showed a photo of the setbacks along the street. Any potential negative affects resulting from the setback exception are mitigated to the extent practical. The applicant has proposed a historically appropriate porch, which has been approved by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Staff feels that the proposed exception improves the character of the house. The final criterion for setback reductions is not applicable in this case: the no-closer-than-three- feet rule. Walz advised the Board that they had copies of the general standards in their Staff Report. One letter from a neighbor in support of the change was received by Staff and included in Board Member packets. A small section of the block in which the property resides contains houses that have not been brought up to historical standards, and Staff felt that this change could help encourage nearby property owners to restore their houses. Staff recommends that the application for reduction in the front principal building setback from 15 feet to 7 feet to allow construction of an open air front porch be approved subject to compliance with the elevations and site plan submitted as approved by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Walz added the comment that there is always a concern that a front porch may be enclosed at a later date. In this situation, Walz said, the fact that the Board will have stated the approval as explicitly for an "open air porch" is one protection that will help maintain the intent of the special exception. With that wording, Walz maintained, you could not get a building permit to enclose the porch. Additionally, any alterations to the exterior of the house -because it is in a historic district -have to be approved by HPC, which would be unlikely to approve such an enclosure. Leigh asked if there were questions for Staff from the Board. Sheerin asked if a building permit would be required to enclose the porch if the current owner sold the property in the future. Walz replied that a building permit would be required to enclose. While there is always a chance that someone would enclose without a building permit, Walz said, they would be required to remove the addition when it was discovered. Leigh invited anyone present wishing to speak in favor of the application to approach the podium. Royce Chestnut, the applicant, said that he had owned the house for two years. The house had aluminum siding at the time of purchase, which does not comply with historical conservation regulations. Chestnut is restoring the siding to its original wood form. Chestnut has also put in a new driveway and a new garage, both of which met the standards of the HPC. Chestnut said that his house and three very nearby are kind of the eyesores of the street, and that his main goal is really to improve the integrity of the house in hopes that the three next to him will follow suit, making the street a cohesive, beautiful street for everyone. No further speakers on the proposed exception, either for or against, came forward and the public discussion was closed. Thornton made a motion to approve EXC08-00009, an application for the reduction of the front principal setback from 15 feet to 7 feet to allow construction of an open-air front porch, subject to compliance with the elevations and site plan previously submitted. Sheerin seconded the motion. Leigh invited discussion among Board Members. There was none. Sheerin presented the findings of fact, going through the specific approval criteria for adjustments for the principal building setback requirements pursuant to 14-2a-BS-b. First, the situation is peculiar to the property because the architecture of the house would normally feature a front porch. The house has a stoop that is so small that one must back off of it in order to open the front door. While an awning would be permitted, given the aesthetics and functionality, a porch would be more appropriate to the property. Additionally, a number of houses in the area are set closer to the street, and averaging on this particular street cannot provide relief for this particular house due to the length of the street and the wide range in setbacks. On the northern end of the street, where this house is located, there are significantly smaller setbacks. Secondly, there is practical difficulty in complying with the setback requirements because the house currently has an unsheltered entrance and a front facade that is not in character with the historic character and architecture of the surrounding neighborhood. Additionally, the subject property is an unusually narrow lot at 33 feet across. Thirdly, granting the special exception would not be contrary to the setback regulations because the reduction will not reduce the space for light, air and separation from other neighborhood homes because the addition is for an open-air porch, not an enclosure. Fire protection and access along Clark Street will not be impacted because it is a large, 60-foot right of way. No privacy between properties is diminished by this exception. Restoring this property in a historically appropriate way will improve its relationship to other houses in the neighborhood, and possibly encourage other houses in the neighborhood to improve their maintenance standards. Fourth, any potential negative affects resulting from the setback extension are mitigated to the extent practical, because this porch was approved by the HPC and does not encroach into the setback any further than is absolutely necessary. The fifth specific criterion for granting an exception to setbacks is not applicable in this case. Thornton said that in looking at the general criteria, this particular project should not be detrimental to the public health and safety because the reduced front setback does not reduce space or access to fire protection. In terms of the general criteria related to injury to enjoyment of the property, Thornton said that the improvement is not out of character with the historic nature of the community or the neighborhood. The property has access to roads, drainage, and all utilities. The exception would not impinge on driver's access to Clark Street in any way. The application seems to meet all required standards, and to comply with the Comprehensive Plan's encouragement of further restoration of properties in the historic neighborhood. Because of these things, Thornton stated that he would most likely support the special exception. Leigh invited further discussion. There was none, and a vote was taken. The application was approved on a vote of 3-0 (Payne and Wood absent). Leigh declared the motion approved and stated anyone wishing to appeal this decision to a court of record may do so within thirty days of the decision being filed with the City Clerk's Office. EXC08-00010: Discussion of an application submitted by Tammy Kramer for a special exception to reduce the required front principal building setback for property located in the RS-5 zone at 300 Kimball Road. Walz stated that she has had an awful lot of phone calls on this application, but that after explaining the application to the callers she did not receive any more comments or any follow-up letters on the matter. The applicant, Walz said, is part-owner of the house. The house had previously been illegally renovated to make it a duplex. A duplex would not be allowed on that particular lot in that zone. The applicant is in the process of working to renovate the home to make it a single family home with an accessory apartment. Walz said that she would repeat for the Board what she told the many, many people who called her on the phone, that the critical difference between a duplex and an accessory apartment is that an accessory apartment requires that the property owner live on site. Other differences between an accessory apartment and a duplex are in the design of the dwellings. Accessory apartments are limited in size such that the maximum size of an accessory apartment is 650 square feet, no matter how large your house may be. If your house is smaller, there is a proportion used to determine how large the apartment may be. The applicant is renovating so that the apartment does not exceed the maximum allowable size. The unusual thing on the property is that there are two parking areas which could hold approximately 6-7 cars. However, Walz said, those parking spaces are all in the front setback, which is 20 feet in this case. The reason that the code requires that some parking comes outside of the front setback is that there is a desire not to have lots of cars parking in what is perceived as the front yard. In the applicant's situation, asingle-family home and an accessory apartment, she is required two parking spaces and only one of those can be in the front setback. The code includes a special exception for a front setback reduction, and this is one of the reasons. Here, the topography is such that it would be quite difficult to add parking the property. The applicant's back and side yards drop down precipitously into a ravine. There is a bit of level area on one side where the required parking stall could be added. However, there is so little level area on the property that Staff thinks in this situation that it makes sense to allow her to just maintain what she has and not expand the parking areas at all. Walz reiterated that it is not that the applicant does not have plenty of parking on the site; it's that the code requires that a minimum amount of parking be located out of the front setback. But in this situation, Staff feels that this would be somewhat impractical, given the topography The situation is peculiar to the property due to the topography of the property and the general parking conditions along Kimball Road. 300 Kimball Road is sloped in such a way that parking in the rear or side yard is not possible. Although she could possibly provide some parking in the small amount of level yard available at the site, it would take nearly all of the available level yard space available. There is practical difficulty in complying with the setback requirements because the property is so steeply sloped. On one side of the house it is not possible to provide parking, and on the other, all of the level yard space would be consumed for that purpose, could possibly require her to put in a retaining wall, and potentially lose some of the mature trees in that area. Granting the special exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the regulations. Because the setback reduction is for the parking and not for building expansion, the light and air separation requirement and the opportunity for fire protection are not affected. The opportunities for privacy between buildings are not intruded upon by this exception. Given the topography of this portion of Kimball Road and the prohibition on on-street parking, most parking already happens in the front yard as the topography dictates it. Staff believes this exception will promote a reasonable, physical relationship between buildings because it is not a building, it is just parking. Any potential negative affects due to the setback are mitigated to the extent practical, as the applicant is requesting simply to use the existing parking to satisfy the parking requirement. She does not wish to remove or alter any of the parking spaces and thus no changes are proposed. The final specific criterion is not applicable to this case. Walz addressed the general requirements for the special exception. Walz said that there are some issues regarding speed along Kimball Road. The neighborhood has applied for and been approved for traffic calming in the form of speed humps along this portion of Kimball Road. This particular property has good visibility such that the pulling in and out of the driveway is not an issue. The requirement for compliance or the granting of the special exceptionis not going to affect ingress or egress. It will not be injurious to the use or enjoyment of other properties in the neighborhood because, again, most properties provide their pakring in the front setback. The exception will not impede the normal and orderly development or improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone. Again, Walz stated, there is no building involved. Regarding the other general criteria, Walz said that the only thing that does not comply is that the large parking area has a wider curb cut than the required 42-feet. However, this is an existing non-conformity, and since she will not be altering the parking area, it will not be required to come into compliance. Staff recommends that EXC08-00010, an application to reduce the required front principal building setback from 20-feet to 0-feet for property located at 300 Kimball Road be approved with the condition that the setback reduction be for the specific purpose of accommodating required parking only. Leigh invited questions for Staff. Thornton asked if he understood correctly that it was common for residents of Kimball to park on their lawns. Walz stated that it was common for them to park within their front setback areas. Walz explained that this did not mean that people could not park in the setback area, but there is a requirement to provide at least some of the parking in another area in order to minimize the amount of parking that occurs in the front setback. In a neighborhood like this, where there is no on-street parking and the topography is such that garages or parking cannot be set very far back in the side or back yards, there will be a certain amount of parking in the front setback. Leigh asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in favor of the application. Tammy Kramer, the applicant, stated that what she is asking for is simply to keep the parking the way it is. What would be required if she did not get the special exception would be to add a parking pad space. There are many reasons she cannot do this, including the fact there are many big old trees on this heavily sloped lot, and to put a pad in that area she would have to build a retaining wall and remove some of the trees. There is also a city utility grate in that area that would make it difficult to put concrete on. Aesthetically, adding more concrete is also undesirable. Kramer said she is planning on living in the upper level of her dream home, and that she is renovating it. She said she is applying to put in an accessory apartment in the lower level which will limit her to two people at the most living down below. At the most, there would be two cars ever parked in the spots, and occasional guests would still have adequate parking options. Kramer asks simply to be able to leave things as they are without having to upset the topography. She added that it is very typical of the neighborhood to have parking in the setback as the primary parking. Sheerin asked if adding more concrete would affect drainage issues. Kramer said that she did not know. She said that the only place that was really practical to put an additional pad off of the setback was a spot where two big trees would need to be taken out, a retaining wall would have to be built, and a utility grate would also have to be dealt with. Walz said that she checked with Public Works and they said that the utility grate is not a public utility. She is not sure what it is exactly. There was no one else present who wished to speak for or against the application. Public discussion was closed. Sheerin stated for the record that she actually knows the applicant, and is in a contractual relationship with her employer. Sheerin said that she is not in any kind of contractual relationship with the applicant herself and does not believe there is a conflict of interest in any way shape or form, but that she wanted to state that for the record. She stated that she would be voting on the matter. Leigh asked Holecek if there were any issues with this disclosure that the Board should consider. Holecek replied that there were none. She stated that Sheerin had no direct contract with the applicant and that Sheerin has represented that she can make a decision based on the facts presented in the hearing with an open mind and no bias. Sheerin added that she had had no conversations with the applicant regarding this issue. Leigh said the matter was duly noted. Sheerin motioned to approve the application EXC08-00010 for a special exception to reduce the required front principal setback from 20-feet to 0-feet at 300 Kimball Road, with the condition that the setback reduction be for the purpose of accommodating required parking only. Thornton seconded. Thornton discussed the specific criteria. He noted the particular and unique nature of the property, and that the topography is really impacting the applicant's ability to make improvements to the parking. Much of the existing level property already has two existing parking pads. The practical difficulties lie within the topography of the property and the steep nature of the sloping. Granting the exception will not be contrary to the purposes of the setback because the owner is not adding additional parking, so there is no impact on lights, air, or the separation of homes. In looking at the potential negative effects because of the setback and mitigating the extent of the impact, Thornton said that the existing parking requires two spaces and she is actually willing to give up some of her spaces so that virtually there is no net loss of parking spaces at the property. Walz clarified that the applicant does not have to give up any of the parking spaces; it is just a matter that she does not have to provide additional parking outside of the setback. Regardless of whether the special exception is granted or not, people are allowed to park on the existing spaces, Walz said, it is just that the zoning code would require her to have an additional space that is outside of her setback. Her use of the existing spaces would not be restricted in any way regardless of whether the exception was approved. Sheerin went over the findings for the general standards. First, the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental or endanger public health, safety, comfort or general welfare because these parking spaces have existed for some time, there is good visibility along this portion of the road, and there are no safety concerns. Second, the proposed exception will not be injurious to the use or enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood, for the reasons stated by Mr. Thornton, particularly because of the steep topography, and because the parking is restricted along that portion of the road so that other homes in the area have similar parking arrangements. Third, the establishment of this proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in which the property is located because the neighborhood is fully developed and there is really very little area in the neighborhood that isn't already occupied. Furthermore, there are already adequate utilities, access roads and drainage in place. Adequate measures have been taken or will be taken to provide ingress or egress so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Traffic congestion is not a concern because visibility on this portion of Kimball Road is good and there are going to be no changes for proposed ingress or egress. While the curb cut for the larger parking pad east of the house does exceed maximum curb cut, it is an existing non-conforming situation and as a result does not have an effect on this application. Therefore, the application does meet the standard requiring that the exception conform to the applicable regulation or standards of the zone in which it is to be located. This proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because of the nature of the. steep topography of the area. Leigh stated that she had nothing to add and that she agreed with the specific criteria and the general standards that had been well covered. Leigh put the matter to a vote. The application was approved on a vote of 3-0 (Payne and Wood absent). Leigh declared the motion approved and stated anyone wishing to appeal this decision to a court of record may do so within thirty days of the decision being filed with the City Clerk's Office. Walz stated that the Board was waiting for a fourth member of the Board to arrive to take part in the next application, and so Walz recommended a ten minute break to wait for her. At 5:57 p.m., the meeting was resumed with Board Member Michelle Payne present. Karen Leigh continued chairing the meeting. EXC08-00011: Discussion of an application submitted by Bethel AME Church for a special exception to allow for the expansion of a church facility and a historic preservation exception to modify the site development and dimensional standards related to setbacks and parking for property located in the RNS-12 zone at 411 and 425 S. Governor Street. Walz described the Bethel AME as one of Iowa City's significant historic buildings and its only historic Black church. Built in the latter part of the 1860's, the church building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is one of the few remaining structures of its kind in the state of Iowa. Walz said that the church's modest size and modest architecture do not hint at the importance that it plays in the history of this community. What is even more valuable, Walz continued, is that it has had little exterior ornamentation and the building has had no substantial alterations in more than fifty years. Walz said that the two nonconformities associated with the existing property are: 1) the church does not meet the setback requirements, and 2) the church has been unable to provide any off-street parking, and the parking requirement is equal to one- sixth the occupant load. What makes this special exception different than others the Board has looked at, and slightly more complicated, Walz said, is that a very important historic structure is being dealt with. Were it not for the National Register status of the structure, the property would have to meet all of those dimensional standards that are looked at in approving churches in a residential zone. However, Walz said, because of the historic preservation guidelines through which the special exception has come, the Board has an option to provide a modification or waiver that will help preserve the historic aesthetic or cultural attributes of the property. Walz stated that this very old historic church with its historic congregation in tact is seeking to expand on their site. If there are dimensional standards or site development standards that can be waived that the Board feels are appropriate but will still maintain the other more subjective aspects of the special exception (compatibility with the neighborhood, etc.), the Board has the opportunity to do that. Walz noted page three of the staff report in which she offered the correction that the wording should read "However, because the church is a National Registry site, the Board may also waive or modify dimensional standards." Normally what is required of a church in a residential zone is to have 20-foot front and side setbacks. The existing church is in the front setback, but the addition will be setback according to the requirements. In order to meet historic preservation guidelines, the church needed to find a way to put an addition on the church that still allows that very small, modest structure to be the principal view on the site. They designed an addition that kept the roofline low, with materials that match the existing structure, and a connection to the original structure in a way that stepped the addition back. The church has had a number of issues to deal with in the design of this addition, and they are now asking the Board to waive the 20-foot side setback along the north side of the church. The church has provided a 10-foot setback steps in from the established 5- foot setback, Walz said. That limitation of having an addition that steps back and does not stand out in front of, over, or in a way that detracts from the primary structure is very complicated. On the north side where the setback is reduced, they have put in only clear story windows as a way of preserving the privacy for the residential property just to the north. The entrance that will be used is located behind the historic structure and facing south, where they have 50-feet of setback, an additional 30 feet above what is required. As a result, all of the pedestrian and vehicle activity are focused away from that reduced setback area. The other setback that they are asking to be waived is in the rear setback, where they are providing some additional parking. Here the building is setback about 27 feet from the property line. The properties that are to the west of the alley have deep lots and do not use the alley for their principal parking access. One issue that often concerns neighbors of churches in residential areas is the size of the parking area. The church has aone-way, one-lane access drive coming off of Governor Street that has access to eight parking spots. With the addition, the church would be required to provide 18 parking spots. The church has along-standing relationship with the City (not unlike other older churches close in to the downtown where churches are unable to provide all of the required off- street parking) where parking on the west side of Governor Street is provided to Bethel AME on Sundays. The church has only been using a small portion of the capacity on that side of the street. There is space for about 45 parking spaces. Like any other church in the Central Business District, they will be competing for parking beyond that, but there is some capacity there. Another special exception criterion is that the proposed use will not have adverse affects on the livability of nearby residential uses due to noise, glare from lights, late-night operations, noise, odors and litter. Staff does not anticipate that this would be a problem here. The applicant is required to provide a IO-foot buffer along the drive to protect from noise and glare, and the applicant and Staff have discussed the use of prairie grasses and shrubs for year-round screening. In terms of the general standards, Walz said, she believes the church has done a good job in mitigating that reduced setback. The areas of greatest concern are that the church cannot provide the minimum parking on the site and that due to a lot of activity on a small site, drainage could be an issue. The alley is an unimproved alley, and the City could do some improvement with grading and gravel to even things out. The Public Works Director, in investigating the alley, did not feel that the additional 8 or 9 parking spaces was going to be enough to have a negative impact on the surface of the alley. however, Walz said that Staff has asked that the church waive any future right to object to any later assessments due to alley improvements. The alley can service those 8 spaces, but the drainage onto the alley is of concern to Staff. As a result, they have requested the church look into the feasibility of rain gardens on the site. Most of the drainage for the roof should be directed onto Governor Street through the roof gutters. The drainage and the parking are the real issues to grapple with. The main concern of Staff is maximizing the amount of drainage that runs toward Governor Street where there is storm sewer service or if there is any opportunity for that to be absorbed in the green spaces that area available on the site. Walz stated that the specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity. It will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. The church has mitigated the reduction in side setback by using only the small clear story windows to preserve privacy for neighboring property owners. They have placed their main entrance nearest the south setback which is larger than what is required. The increase in parking is not going to take place immediately. It will take time for membership to grow and in the meantime there is capacity on the street. Staff feels that the lack of parking may be an impediment to the church's growth and they may find that they need to mitigate that in other ways. The situation in which a church finds itself needing to provide parking on the street is not unusual for the Central Planning District, and many churches in the older neighborhoods find themselves competing with neighbors for parking on the street. For these reasons, Staff feels that a reduction is appropriate in order to preserve the historic use. In this case, there is just no way for the church to provide all the required off-street parking spaces. The establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for purposes permitted for the zone in which the property is located. The surrounding neighborhood is fully developed; however, it is a neighborhood in transition. Walz noted in the report that about a year ago a portion of the same block further to the south was down-zoned to an RS-8. What were formerly homes that had been divided into apartments have been brought into single-family usage, whether renter or owner- occupied. There has been more attention to historic preservation in the neighborhood, and it seems to be a neighborhood achieving better balance between rental property and owner- occupied property. Staff believes that the preservation of this historic church in this historic neighborhood will contribute to that. Adequate utilities, access roads, and other utilities have been provided. Drainage is an issue here, and Staff believes that if the church can direct a fair amount of that roof drainage to Governor Street and green spaces on the property drainage can be dealt with. There are rain gardens proposed at the rear of the parking lot on the site plan; however, those could not function in that area. Staff has recommended an alternate location which will also help to provide screening. All other utilities and access are provided. Adequate measures have been taken to provide ingress or egress so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Walz stated that the narrow drive should help with that, in its use as a one-way drive. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as stated. The Comprehensive Plan allows for the location of religious private group uses within residential neighborhoods where appropriate and where they can blend in with the neighborhood. It also recommends the preservation of historic properties and landmarks. In Staff s view, based on the recommendation of the HPC the proposed addition will result in the preservation of an important historic building as well as its historic use. Staff believes the proposed site plan and design of the church balances those goals with the interests of the residential neighborhood as expressed in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that an application for a special exception to allow for the expansion of a religious private group assembly use in the RNS-12 zone, and to allow the Historic Preservation waiver to reduce the setbacks and minimum parking requirements at 411 and 425 South Governor be approved on the following conditions: 1) Staff approval of a system for draining as much of the roof as practically possible away from the alley and toward Governor Street where storm sewer service is available, 2) investigation by Johnson County Soil and Water Conservation District for a potential rain garden in one of the open space areas between the church and the driveway, 3) the driveway should be designed to maximize drainage toward Governor Street, 4) paving in the drop off area should be reduced to a maximum width of 12- feet, 5) submission of a final landscape plan fora 10-foot buffer area to the south of the church drive to provide year-round S-2 screening, the final design to be approved by Staff, 6) the applicant must sign an agreement to waive any protest for future assessments to approve the alley to the rear of the property, 7) the restoration of the exterior of the original church structure, and 8) substantial compliance with the site plan. Leigh asked if the Board had any questions for Staff. Thornton asked if Staff had a picture of how drainage is currently being handled on the site, because he is trying to understand why it is such a major issue. Walz replied that the slope on the north side of the existing church slopes backward toward the alley. Walz said that it should be possible to simply run the gutters forward to the front of the property. The south side of the building is more complicated because of the entrance with the gable, and any means of getting some of that to drain toward the Governor Street side would be helpful, although it could require some creativity. Payne had a question about parking spaces. The desire, she said, was for the church to accommodate about 150 members, and the parking requirement calls for providing one-sixth of that, which does not equal 18. Walz said that there is something in Planning referred to as ghost parking; because it is an existing non-conforming use they are granted credit for what the already have. Because they came in non-conforming they only have to provide parking for the addition. Their current capacity is 40, and they have never provided parking for that. Under the zoning code what they have to provide parking for is what comes in addition to that. Thornton asked if that took into account the 45 parking spaces in the street afforded the congregation by the City. Walz explained how it did not. Leigh asked if the west side of Governor Street that was opened for parking on Sundays was only for the church or if it was opened to anyone. Walz said that it was technically just for the church but there was no enforcement. Payne noted that the drive was adrop-off drive and that it was possible there would be 75 cars driving through that alley every week. Walz pointed out that when weighed against a multi- family residential use, the trips through the alley for a church were significantly less, since their major activity is once a week. Sheerin asked if the intention of the drive was to be used for handicapped parking and the eight spaces out back. Walz replied that the intention of the drive would also be to be used for drop off traffic. Thornton commented that since the side of the church was to be the main entrance, the drive could not just be for handicapped drop-offs. Walz agreed, and acknowledged that the print does just say "Handicapped Drop-Off," somewhat confusing the issue. Thornton asked why Staff did not talk to the church about improving and paving the alley at least adjacent to the church, rather than waiting for a time down the road when improvements were initiated by the City. Walz said that they did talk about that, but the Public Works Director did not want to advise that since the church's portion would not likely match up with what the City needed to do with an overall alley improvement. His feeling was that it would be better to leave it gravel as it is. The alley is not in ideal condition, but it is not in that condition solely because of the church so it seemed unfair to burden them with its paving. Payne asked if the application was then not meeting the specific criterion that says "vehicular access to the proposed use is limited to streets with a pavement width of greater than 28 feet." The church will be using the alley as access, Payne noted. Walz said that she believed what the criteria was getting at was that the primary access in terms of delivering people to the property is along Governor Street, and the drive would be secondary. Walz asked Holecek for her comments on that. Holecek said that what she believed was being discussed was how you are getting to the actual use. Parking is on Governor, which is an arterial and is what is generally looked at, rather than the internal secondary circulation. What is being looked at, according to Holecek, is a church in a neighborhood and whether the streets in that neighborhood are adequate to carry traffic to the site. Thornton asked if the Public Works Director gave any indications as to when the City might take on the project of improving the alley. Walz said no timeline was given, but that she believed Public Works is looking at alleys in that portion of the city more carefully. Payne said that alleys would likely get on a list individually on an "as needed" basis. Sheerin asked if there had been any traffic or parking evaluation done on this dramatic increase in on-street parking for the area. Walz said that the church will request that the amount of parking reserved for them on Sundays on Governor Street be expanded, and that request will go through City Council. Traffic planners, Walz noted, did not think there would be any problem. expanding parking on the west side of Governor Street. Payne commented that the idea of a traffic study being done at this time would be difficult. Sheerin said she was wondering if the ratio of on-street parking was similar to that for other churches for which on-street parking had been approved. Walz said that it might be close to the Christian Science Church which provides just a handful of parking spaces and has an occupancy of less than 100, but that there are a large number of churches in the area downtown that used on-street or ramp parking as their primary parking. Leigh asked if there were further questions for Staff. There were none. Leigh asked if there was anyone present wishing to speak in favor of the application. Reverend Orlando Dial, the pastor of Bethel AME Church, explained that on any given Sunday, his congregation of 60 included only about 16-20 cars that would be parked on Governor Street. He said that when you looked at there being 45 available spaces, they had quite a bit of growth to get to before they would use those. Regarding the handicapped drop-off, Dial said that ideally church people follow the rules a little better and would stick with the idea of reserving the alley spaces for those who are elderly or disabled. Regarding the drainage issues, Dial said that as they remove the grass behind the church at the current location, 411 Governor Street, they are finding that about two- thirds of that lot is just an open grass lot. Their architect believes that much of the drainage issues have been caused by that circumstance. Dial said that they too do not want a water problem in the alley as it would also limit their access to the parking area, and that they will make every effort to address the issue. Their wish is to add to the quality of life in the neighborhood. Dial said that there was one negative letter that had been brought to his attention-that he wished to address. The writer's concern was that they did not understand the design plan and they believed the parking area was just going to be a concrete slab. Dial said that you could see from the design plan that it is not a slab but a grassy, well landscaped area with pervious concrete for additional drainage properties. The other objections expressed in the letter was that with the entrance being in the rear rather than in the historic part of the building it would leave the historic part vulnerable to being carved up into cubicles. Dial clarified that this was not the case and that it is their wish to preserve and honor the historic part of the church. Dial said that he has appreciated Staff s input and that the congregation has been working for almost two years going back and forth to make sure that they are not just airing the issues but trying to address them in a way that is beneficial for everybody. Dial said that he hoped that in the future Bethel AME could be pointed to as a way to meet your goals and work well with Historic Preservation and Planning staff. As a church, he said it was important to model the right way to do things rather than the most expedient, even if it takes longer and costs more. Walz noted that the letter referred to by Reverend Dial was a letter from John Shaw, an owner of two properties in the neighborhood. The letter had been distributed by Walz to Board Members prior to the meeting. Sheerin asked Dial if the church had a lot of parking needs during the weekdays. Dial said that there are activities on Sunday evenings and Wednesday evenings and that at those times there are enough parking spaces available on the east side of Governor to meet their needs. They are sensitive to the needs and schedules of the residents nearby, and try to absorb the unused spaces even if they may be farther away. Dial said that in the eleven years he has been pastor there may have been three parking issues. He said that anytime there is an issue brought to his attention it is addressed because their goal is to be good neighbors. Thornton asked what the church's current relationship with its neighbors is, given that the letter is from a neighbor. Dial said that the church has excellent relations with the neighbor directly to the north. He said that he had never met the person who wrote the. letter and that he did not believe that person lives on Governor Street. Dial said that it is his understanding with the other single family residences in the area that they are pleased to have the opportunity to watch the church grow, and that the landlord he has spoken to says that having a church as a neighbor improves the quality of his tenants. Walz added that the applicant has had a series of events in which they have invited the neighbors to discuss their plans. Dial said that they have had a number of open houses and events inviting people into the building as a way of being neighborly. Leigh asked how old Bethel AME is. Dial replied that it was established in 1868. Leigh invited anyone else wishing to speak in favor of this application to come forward. Melvin Shaw, a steward and member of Bethel AME Church, spoke on behalf of the fundraising committee to ask the Board to consider and approve the recommendation of the Staff to grant the special exceptions. Shaw reiterated that the church is a good neighbor to the neighborhood and that they have taken a lot of pains over the last two years to address the issues of making the addition to the church historically compatible with the existing structure. They worked for over a year and a half before being awarded the Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historical Preservation Commission and have been very sensitive to their neighbors' concerns. Shaw said that they have also been working on a plan with city staff to address not only aesthetic concerns but also those aspects relating to parking and drainage and setbacks. Shaw listed off a number of examples of very supportive neighbors, and stated that the letter from Mr. Shaw was the first time in two years that anyone has ever expressed a concern. Shaw said that they believed they were good neighbors and that the plan that has been proposed is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan, has addressed issues of setbacks, parking, and drainage. They have consciously chosen to remain in this historic location despite the difficulties it presented in designing an addition and it is their desire to build a structure that will serve other students and members of the Iowa City community as they have since 1868. Thornton stated for the record that Mr. Shaw is involved in a Chamber of Commerce leadership program with him. Thornton said that it had no impact on the issue at hand but that he wanted to disclose it. Leigh invited others to speak in favor of the application. Seeing none, she invited those wishing to speak against the application to come forward. There were none. The public discussion was closed. Payne noted that usually churches ask for an 18-month extension rather than the customary 6- months given by the Board and that Bethel AME had not requested that extension. Walz said they have not requested the extension. Thornton moved that the Board recommend and accept this application, EXC08-00011, an application for a special exception to allow an expansion of a religious private group facility assembly in the RNS-12 zone to allow a historic preservation waiver that would reduce the setbacks and the minimum parking requirements at 411 and 425 S. Governor Street with the approval of the following conditions: 1) Staff approval of a system for draining as much of the roof as practically possible away from the alley and toward Governor Street where storm sewer service is available, 2) investigation by Johnson County Soil and Water Conservation District for a potential rain garden in one of the open space areas between the church and the driveway, 3) the driveway should be designed to maximize drainage toward Governor Street, 4) paving in the drop off area should be reduced to a maximum width of 12-feet, 5) submission of a final landscape plan fora 10-foot buffer area to the south of the church drive to provide year-round S- 2screening, the final design to be approved by Staff, 6) the applicant must sign an agreement to waive any protest for future assessments to approve the alley to the rear of the property, 7) the restoration of the exterior of the original church structure, and 8) substantial compliance with the site plan. Payne asked for a clarification on condition #4) paving in the drop off area should be reduced to a maximum width of 12-feet. Walz clarified that that was a 10-foot drive with an additional 12- foot drop-off area. Payne seconded the motion. Leigh invited discussion and findings. Payne said she would like to discuss her concern that the addition is not supposed to compete with or overwhelm the existing structure, and that when she looks at the south side of the building she sees the new addition, not the historic structure. And while she thinks the addition is quite beautiful, she does think it overwhelms the historic structure. Walz replied that the addition will be of the same siding as the front, and that the main thing the Historic Preservation Commission is focused on in that requirement is the street view. Walz said that the primary things that Historic Preservation was concerned with is that the roofline not be higher and that the materials were of a similar nature. Walz said that she should also keep in mind that the view shown will actually be hindered from the street by surrounding properties. Holecek said that what Historic Preservation looks at are materials, compatibility and scale. Holecek said that given that HPC has passed on a Certificate of Appropriateness finding that this addition will not destroy, damage or otherwise deteriorate the integrity of the historic structure, may go a long way in ameliorating the Board's concerns about whether or not this is compatible. Sheerin asked if the HPC standards were stricter, and Holecek said that she believed they were much more so. Walz said that this was really a very interesting exercise in historic preservation because there is a very simple, modest structure to which you are adding a much larger structure. Sheerin asked if there was no way for it to go straight back and make it less visible. Walz reiterated that her sense was that the addition will not be as visible as it is on the drawing because you have buildings and trees blocking the view. Payne said that there was something she had read that explicitly said that the new addition could not be the focal point and that the historic structure had to be the focal point. Walz said she did not have the HPC guidelines. Payne said that it was somewhere in the staff report. Walz said that she would have been paraphrasing there and that she didn't know that those were the exact words of the HPC standards. Holecek found the wording on page four of the staff report to which Payne had been referring and which stated that "creating an appropriate addition to what is a small simple structure presents a number of challenges, including designing an addition with a roofline and materials that would not overwhelm or compete with the original structure." After some discussion, it was agreed to move on from this issue. Walz added that she had included the materials from the HPC, and that on page three of four the wording in their standards is more clearly laid out, and that if the word "focal point" was used it was her own error. Leigh commented that the standards said that if the "modification or waiver will help preserve the historic, aesthetic or cultural attributes if the property" it could be granted. She said that she certainly thinks that this modification to this church does all three of those things. The congregation is a living organism and the church has been a living organism in this community since 1868 and anything that preserves its function on its site deserves to be supported. Payne proceeded with the findings of fact. For specific criteria, vehicular access to the church will be provided along south Governor Street, which is an arterial street and exceeds the 28-foot standard. The minimum setbacks to the rear it will not be met, and would be reduced to 27 feet; for the front it will not be met by the current structure but will be met by the new addition; to the south it will be met, and to the north it would be reduced from 20-feet to 10-feet. The proposed use will be compatible with adjacent uses. It is in the residential neighborhood and the church has taken steps to make the addition compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. It does not overwhelm the existing building on the site and they have taken steps to make sure it is not as tall or as wide as the current structure, and it will not detract from the main view as you look at it from Governor Street. There is limited parking space on the site itself but they are providing 8 spots, and an additional spot if you count where the trash receptacle will be, and additional parking is available on the street. The proposed use will not have adverse affects on the livability of nearby residential uses due to noise glare from lights, late-night operations, odors or litter. The church will put their buffer of landscaping to the south. In the area to the north were the setback is reduced they have used a different kind of window and placed them up high to increase privacy to the neighbors to the north. Because the proposed use is in residential zone and in a central planning district, it must comply with the multi-family site development standards. The street facing side will be less than 50 feet and will not require additional measures to break up the mass of the building. The building is constructed in materials and a style appropriate for the historic architectural style and has received HPC approval. Parking is shown at the rear as it is supposed to be, and there is the buffer area shown between the parking area and the property to the south. The general standards were also discussed by Payne. It will not be detrimental or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare, though the drainage toward the alley should be mentioned and they should comply with the conditions and drain toward Governor Street which has astorm-sewer access. This exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the vicinity. The church has placed its main entrance away from where they would be infringing on the north property line, which will give further privacy to the neighbors to the north who are so close. As stated in the conditions, the church must sign the waiver for improvements to the alley when they do come. The proposed exception will not impede on the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties. Payne said she believed the improvement to this property and the property to the south will help to continue this trend of reinvestment in the neighborhood and the trend toward historic preservation. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and other.facilities will be provided. Those are already in place. Once again, Payne mentioned the drainage issues to be directed toward Governor Street and the rain gardens that are to be put in if possible. Adequate measures have been taken to provide ingress and egress to minimize traffic congestion. The ingress to the property will be a one-way from Governor Street so it should minimize congestion and it should exit through the alley. Payne stated that except for the specific regulations applicable to the exception being considered, in all other respects it conforms to the regulations or standards of the zone. This is true, she said, other than the items she had mentioned so far. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which allows for the location of private religious group assemblies in residential neighborhoods and recommends preservation of historic properties and landmarks. Keeping this church in this neighborhood on this site is consistent with the Plan. All that being said, Payne stated, in her mind all of the criteria are met as required and she would vote in favor of this exception. Sheerin stated her agreement. Thornton stated his agreement with all of the findings stated by Payne. He wanted to state once again that he believes this is a major improvement to the community and that a church with such a rich history in the community should be allowed to expand and grow. Thornton said he too would probably vote in favor of the exception. Leigh said she had nothing to add and they were ready for a vote. The exception was approved by a vote of 4-0 (Wood absent). Walz stated that it had been a long process for Bethel AME and that she wished to thank the church for its patience in working through so many issues on the site. Leigh declared the motion approved and stated anyone wishing to appeal this decision to a court of record may do so within thirty days of the decision being filed with the City Clerk's Office. OTHER: Walz stated that it is possible that some special exception requests could arise as a result of the flood, as they did when there was a tornado a few years ago. Many things may need to come into conformance as a result of this "act of God," as is required by the code. A question was asked as to why Parkview was not on the agenda for its special exception that evening, and Walz stated that it was because they had not yet received their letter from the Department of Natural Resources. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION: Holecek introduced Sarah Greenwood-Hektoen, Assistant City Attorney, who would be transitioning into taking over as advisor to the Board at some time in the future ADJOURNMENT: Payne motioned to adjourn the meeting. Sheerin seconded. All voted in favor of adjournment, 4- 0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:12 p.m. 0 ~ 0 C N O I O 'p O Q ~ ~ O O V .0 C i ~ rd ~ O ~ m Q _o N 00 O O O~ M CO O~ X X ~ X X N X 0 X X X X X X X M X O X X X M s ~ i ~ i X X X X N ~ ~ O~ Z Z Z Z Z ~ ~ y 00 O M \ O~ O O ` - \ N - ` L - N X ~ W O O O O O O O O O O O O = • C L >. ~ ~ v ° w L +-+ .~ ~ C ~ C E ~ N o ao°pv ~ a o Z ~ ~~ .= J 3 ao ~ d '~ ~ C ~ v ~ ~ .~ ° c ~ - ~ e d O ° C i s '~ t > >u o ~~ v z f W ~ L d ~ N ~ N ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L .a ~ O O a Q Q Z Z w ~ X O O Z i W u i -us-ua MINUTES DRAFT I P 11 IOWA CITY HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION TUESDAY, June 24, 2008 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL Members Present: Yolanda Spears, Florence Ejiwale, Kate Karacay, Corey Stoglin, Martha Lubaroff, Joy Kross, Newman Abuissa. Staff Present: Stefanie Bowers. Call to Order Karacay called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. Recommendations to Council (Become effective only after separate Council action): None. Consideration of the Minutes of the May 20, 2008 meeting Minutes approved 7-0. Town and Gown Presentation Bowers reported that the University of Iowa and the Iowa City Human Rights Commission will collaborate on several programs scheduled for the fall of 2008. A proposal is currently being created to distribute to Corridor employers to encourage participation in the programs. Discrimination Outreach Programming Karacay and Stoglin will assist with the discrimination commercials. Employment discrimination training will also take place in late summer or early fall. Mr. Eze Presentation Mr. Eze will present his program September 24 at 7 p.m. at the Iowa City Public Library. Bowers will contact Mr. Eze in early August to go over format. Human Rights Breakfast Wallace D. Loh will be the keynote speaker at the Breakfast. A subcommittee of Spears, Kross and Lubaroff will select the winners from the nominations. Programming for 2008 Commissioners discussed upcoming programming they would like to hold and the various venues for such programming including showing a film on immigration and holding a half day Leadership Program. Stoglin also reported on his Iowa City Diversity Mentoring Program. Reports of Commissioners Abuissa reported on the flood damage to the Mother Mosque of America located in Cedar Rapids. Kross noted that Valerie Garr is the new Diversity Coordinator for the College of Nursing. Stoglin mentioned he will be unable to attend the Democratic forum in Des Moines on June 28. Karacay spoke of an upcoming program War Crimes Around the World being held on July 17. Lubaroff mentioned a program her husband sponsors each summer that recruits students of color to participate in scientific labs here at the University of Iowa. Adjournment There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:03 p.m. Board or Commission: Human Rights ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2008 (Meeting Date) NAME TERM EXP. 1/22 2/26 3/25 4/22 5/20 6/24 7/22 8/26 9/23 10/28 11/25 12/23 Florence Ejiwale 1/1/09 X X X X X X Kate Karacay 1/1/09 X X X O X X Martha Lubaroff 1 /1 /09 O X X X O X Newman Abuissa 1/1/10 X X X X O X Joy Kross 1/1/10 X O X X O X Eric Kusiak 1/1/10 X X O X X O Dell Briggs 1/1/11 O X X O X O Yolanda Spears 1/1/11 X O X X X X Corey Stoglin 1/1/11 X X X O X X KEY: X =Present NMNQ - No meeting, no quorum O =Absent NM = No meeting -P12 MINUTES DRAFT Iowa City Airport Commission June 13, 2008 Iowa City City Ha1UCity Attorney's Conference Room - 7:30 AM Members Present: Howard Horan, Randy Hartwig, Greg Farris, John Staley, Janelle Rettig Staff Present: Sue Dulek DETERMINE QUORUM: Chairperson Farris called the meeting to order at 7:30 A.M. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION: 1. Runway 7/25 A. Rettig moved Resolution No. A08-19 approving supplemental agreement No. 9 with Earth Tech for engineering services related to the runway 7-25 on the condition that the fee for services not to exceed $127,200. Horan seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. B. Hartwig moved Resolution No. A08-20 accepting bids and awarding contract for Rehabilitation of Runway 7-25 - Phase I to Metro Pavers, Inc. Rettig seconded. Dulek explained the DBE reconsideration process and that Ron Knoche had concluded that Metro Pavers had made good faith efforts to meet the DBE goal. Farris told the Commission that the FAA did not have the funds for the base bid and the alternate, but that the alternate would get done in the next phase of the project. Motion passed 5-0 2. Flooding. Members discussed the rising flood waters. Farris and Rettig stated that they would contact tenants in the north t-hangars and offer assistance with moving the planes. Members agreed that the Barnstormers event needs to be canceled. ADJOURN: Meeting adjourned at 7:50 A.M. Airport Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2008 (MPPtina natPl NAME TERM EXP. 1/11 2/8 3/8 3/28 4/12 4/28 5/8 5/22 6/9 6/13 Randy Hartwig 3/1/09 X X X X X X X X O/E X Greg Farris 3/1/07 O/E X X O/E X X X X X X John Staley 3/1/10 X X X X X X X O/E O/E X Howard Horan 3/1/08 X X X X X X X X X X Janelle Rettig 3/1/12 X X X X X X X O/E X X KEY: X =Present O =Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member DRAFT POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES -July 1, 2008 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Michael Larson called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Loren Horton, Donald King, and Greg Roth MEMBERS ABSENT: Elizabeth Engel STAFF PRESENT: Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh and Staff Kellie Tuttle STAFF ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Captain Richard Wyss of the ICPD RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (1) Accept PCRB Report on Complaint #08-01 (2) Accept PCRB Report on Complaint #08-02 IP13 CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Horton and seconded by King to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended. • Minutes of the meeting on 06/10/08 • ICPD General Order #00-02 (Harassment and Sexual Harassment) • ICPD Department Memo #08-23 • ICPD Use of Force -March 2008 • ICPD Use of Force -April 2008 Motion carried, 4/0, Engel absent. OLD BUSINESS Future Forums -The Board discussed the September forum and decided to hold the forum in Emma J. Harvat Hall. Roth report that he had spoken with Chief Hargadine and there would be a representative from the Iowa City Police Department (ICPD) to give a presentation of the ICPD formal/informal complaint process. The representative will be there for the presentation only and will not be involved in any discussion. Promotion of the forum will be by postings in City buildings, a listing on the main City webpage, and a general City news release. The Board directed staff to check into posting at neighborhood centers and start promoting towards the end of August. NEW BUSINESS PCRB Annual Report -The Board reviewed and made changes to the draft of the FY08 Annual Report. Motion by Horton, seconded by Roth to approve the PCRB FY08 Annual Report as amended. Motion carried, 4/0, Engel absent. PUBLIC DISCUSSION None. BOARD INFORMATION None. PCRB July 1, 2008 Page 2 STAFF INFORMATION EXECUTIVE SESSION REGULAR SESSION Tuttle received a letter addressed to the PCRB. The letter mentioned an incident that occurred in May of 2000. The Board is unable to review the complaint because it is not in accordance with City Code sections 8-8-3 (C), complaints to the Board shall be in writing and on forms provided by the Board and 8-8-3 (D), complaints must be filed with the City Clerk within 90 days of the alleged misconduct. The Board directed staff to respond to the letter. Motion by Roth and seconded by King to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section 21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22-7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. Motion carried, 4/0, Engel absent. Open session adjourned at 5:58 P.M. Returned to open session at 6:37 P.M. Motion by Roth, seconded by King to forward the Public Report as amended for PCRB Complaint #08-01 to City Council. Motion carried, 4/0, Engel absent. Motion by Roth, seconded by King to forward the Public Report as amended for PCRB Complaint #08-02 to City Council. Motion carried, 4/0, Engel absent. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change) • August 12, 2008, 5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Room(RESCHEDULED TO 8119) • August 19, 2008, 5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Room • September 9, 2008, 5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Room • September 16, 2008, 7:30 P.M., Emma J. Harvat Hall -Community Forum • October 14, 2008, 5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Room PCRB July 1, 2008 Page 3 Motion by Roth, seconded by King to reschedule the August 12th meeting to the following Tuesday, August 19th. Motion carried, 4/0, Engel absent. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Roth and seconded by Horton. Motion carried, 4/0, Engel absent. Meeting adjourned at 6:43 P.M. t~ ~~O~C II II II II II zz~~~ oo~~~ ~ y H y fD fD ~ ~ ~ ~ fD C/~ '! fD d ~ a r~ ~~ a~ ~ z xr ~~ ~° ~r~ ~~ "~ ~ z ~ ~~ ~• o ~ 0 ~o 0 00 0 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~, ~ y ~ y N W O ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o i y y ~ ~ yd ~ Z ~' ,ro C~ ~ o ~ O0 O J b 0 r n n ~, t~ b~ O POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240-1826 (319) 356-5041 July 1, 2008 To: City Council Complainant Michael Lombardo, City Manager Sam Hargadine, Chief of Police Officer(s) involved in complaint From: Police Citizen's Review Board 0 ~t~ j ~a °~ ~~ -~ r- '_ r~ O~ ~~ f~ >J= rr. t.n ,~.. Re: Investigation of PCRB Complaint #08-O1 This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB #08-01 (the "Complaint"). BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8-8-7B (2), the Board's job is to review the Police Chiefs Report ("Report") of his investigation of a complaint. The City Code requires the Board to apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review to the Report and to "give deference" to the Report "because of the Police Chiefs professional expertise", Section 8-8-7 B (2). While the City Code directs the Board to make "Findings of Fact", it also requires that the Board recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify his findings only if these findings are "unsupported by substantial evidence', are "unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious" or are "contrary to a Police Department policy or practice, or any Federal, State or local law", Section 8-8-7 B (2) a, b, c. BOARD'S PROCEDURE The Complaint was received at the Office of the City Clerk on February 22, 2008. As required by Section 8-8-5 (B) of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Chief of Police for investigation. The Chief s Report was due on May 22, 2008, and was filed with the City Clerk on May 20, 2008. i The Board met to consider the Chiefs Report on June 10, 2008 and July 1, 2008. The Board voted to review the Chiefs Report in accordance with Section 8-8-7 (B) (1) (a), "on the record with no additional investigation". FINDINGS OF FACT Iowa City Parking Department personnel located a vehicle that had multiple unpaid parking fees. Towing service was notified. Before the tow truck arrived, the vehicle owner (Complainant) arrived and arranged to pay the unpaid parking fees. The tow truck arrived and the vehicle owner refused to pay the "show-up" fee. The Iowa City Police Department (ICPD) was notified, officers arrived. Complainant placed himself between his vehicle and the tow truck, refused to move, and refused to cease talking on his cellular telephone to talk with the officers. Officers notified the Complainant that if he did not remove himself from between his vehicle and the tow truck, he would be arrested. Complainant did not move, and an officer placed one hand on the Complainant's arm and held handcuffs in the other hand. Complainant pulled away from the officer, and then was sprayed with pepper spray and taken to the ground for handcuffing. After arrest the Complainant complained of a health problem and was taken to the University of Iowa Hospital and Clinics. There he was treated, released into ICPD officer's custody, taken to the Johnson County Jail and taken into custody by officials there. The Complainant asserted that his arrest was unlawful, that improper force was used, and that he was verbally abused during the arrest process. The Chiefs Report contained findings on each of these Complaints, against each of two officers involved. The PCRB agreed to consider the Complaints against both officers collectively, and issue a Report with findings on the three Complaints. CONCLUSIONS After reviewing the Complaint and the Chiefs Report, the Board concluded that the allegations were not substantiated. Statements by the Parking Department personnel, the tow truck operator, and video tape of the scene indicate that the Complainant did resist arrest after multiple requests to submit, and that no improper force was used in making the arrest. Evidence supports that ICPD regulations were followed during the arrest, including LEG-02.1 and OPS 03.1. Video tape of the scene at the hospital does not support the Complaint that officers used verbal abuse during this period of time, but does show the Complainant being verbally loud and officers requesting that he calm down so as not to disturb the other patients. Allegation # 1 -Unlawful Arrest. NOT SUSTAINED. Allegation # 2 -Improper Use of Force. NOT SUSTAINED. Allegation # 3 -Verbal Abuse of a Prisoner. NOT SUSTAINED. Q :;~c~ e~ c;-~ -~i -: r- ~~ ~ ~ ~n ~s ~a z POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240-1826 (319) 356-5041 ~-.3 July 1, 2008 ~ ~~ ~~' =~~ ~? ~ To: City Council t~~ -°~ ~ Complainant ~~~- ~'' ~`' a Michael Lombardo, City Manager ©~ ~ Sam Hargadine, Chief of Police ,,~ rv Officer(s) involved in complaint y ,,`, ~, From: Police Citizen's Review Board Re: Investigation of PCRB Complaint #08-02 This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB #08-02 (the "Complaint"). BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8-8-7B (2), the Board's job is to review the Police Chiefs Report ("Report") of his investigation of a complaint. The City Code requires the Board to apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review to the Report and to "give deference" to the Report "because of the Police Chiefs professional expertise", Section 8-8-7 B (2). While the City Code directs the Board to make "Findings of Fact", it also requires that the Board recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify his findings only if these findings are "unsupported by substantial evidence', are "unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious" or are "contrary to a Police Department policy or practice, or any Federal, State or local law", Section 8-8-7 B (2) a, b, c. BOARD'S PROCEDURE The Complaint was received at the Office of the City Clerk on February 26, 2008. As required by Section 8-8-5 (B) of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Chief of Police for investigation. The Chiefs Report was due on May 26, 2008, and was filed with the City Clerk on May 20, 2008. The Board met to consider the Chiefs Report on June 10, 2008 and July 1, 2008. The Board voted to review the Chiefs Report in accordance with Section 8-8-7 (B) (1) (a), "on the record with no additional investigation." Allegations On February 26, 2008, the Complainant filed a complaint with the Police-Civilian Review Board (PCRB) against the Iowa City Department and two specific sworn officers. The Complainant alleged the following complaints: 1) On January 14, 2008, Officer A cited the Complainant with reckless driving and two additional traffic citations. Complainant stated she was cited because Officer A does not care for her. 2) On January 15, 2008, the Complainant's car was issued a parking ticket by Officer B for parking on the curb. Complainant claimed her car was parked in her driveway. 3) On February 17, 2008, the Complainant called in a request for service involving a vehicle blocking her mailbox. Complainant stated the police did not respond to this call for service. Complainant called in the same complaint about the same vehicle on February 18, 2008. 4) On January 14, 2008, the Complainant called the police department in regard to an assault on her son. Complainant alleges the police would not allow her to file a complaint. Police Department Investigation The Iowa City Police Department (ICPD) did an investigation of the allegations (PCRB #08-02) filed by the Complainant on February 26, 2008. The investigative report was filed in the City Clerk's office on May 20, 2008 and was reviewed by the Board at the June 10 and July 1, 2008 meetings. To investigate the four allegations, the police department interviewed the officers involved, retrieved documents from the Clerk of Court regarding citations issued to the Complainant, reviewed police in-car video logs from several officer's cars, reviewed call for service logs, parking ticket logs, parking ticket appeal logs and attempted to interview the Compliant. ~~ Board Findings r `;~ ~ ~ Allegation #1 ~ ,-~ ,~ The Board finds allegation #1 to be Not Sustained due to the following: _ ; r-- ~' p 77 ~ - Officer A did issue citations to the Complainant for violations of Driving~.x~ Dm~,ving on Right-Hand side of Roadway. ~' N t s l i nan a - In-car video clearly supports the citations that were issued showing Comp vehicle on the wrong side of the road in violation of Right-Hand Side of Road Way statute and approaching the officers in a dangerous manner supporting the Reckless Driving citation. - In-car audio picks up an officer warning other officers of the dangerous approach of the Complainant's vehicle further supporting the Reckless Driving citation. - In-car-audio picks up an officer stating that the verbal warning about the approaching vehicle saved the life of an officer declaring the Complainant's vehicle would have struck an officer if the warning was not given. This further supports the Reckless Driving citation. In-car audio picks up the sounds of the Complainant's vehicle skidding to a stop supporting the Reckless. Driving citation. An error was made in the issuance of a citation for Failure to Give Notice of Address Change. The officer mistakenly cited the Complainant for not having her vehicle registration address up to date when the citation should have addressed not having her driver's license address up to date. There was probable cause for a citation but the wrong code section was cited. Corrective measures were taken by contacting the County Attorney's Office to have this citation dismissed. The officer was acting in good faith when the citation was issued and the error did not unduly impact the Complainant. - Documentation was provided showing the Failure to Give Notice/Address Name Change was dismissed through the Johnson County Attorney's Office. Allegation #1 Conclusion -The danger of the situation and basis for the citations is clearly supported by the in-car video and audio. The Board does not find any facts that suggest the ,_,, citations issued, or the incorrect code section used on a citation, were issued becaus~ffice~`: does not care for the Complainant. ` ~ ~ ~ -~ >' -~ r-- -~M ' ~: ' - ~ N _'~ m ro _~ Allegation #2 0 ~ The Board finds allegation #2 to be Not Sustained due to the following: D v`'i - A citation was issued to a vehicle registered to Complainant for having the right wheels on the parking. Complainant claimed the vehicle was in her driveway on the date and time the parking ticket was issued. - The parking ticket was issued by Officer B. - A search of the City of Iowa City Treasury Department showed a parking ticket issued on January 15, 2008 to a vehicle registered to the Complainant. - The Complainant claimed to have photographs and a witness that her vehicle was parked in her driveway on the day and time the parking ticket was issued. - An interview of the Complainant was scheduled for March 27, 2008 at 1 pm. Complainant did not show up for interview. There was no evidence, real or testimonial, presented by Complainant as to where the vehicle was parked on the day and time of the parking ticket. - The date and time of the issuance of the parking ticket is consistent with the issuing officer's police in-car video of that same day and time. - The officer's in-car video of that day and time clearly shows the Complainant's vehicle in violation, by being parked partially on the street and partially on the parking, and not in the Complainant's driveway. Allegation #2 Conclusion- The in-car video, consistent with that day and time, clearly supports the issuance of the parking ticket by Officer B to a vehicle registered to the Complainant. The parking ticket was upheld on appeal and there is no evidence to contradict the rightful issuance of this ticket. Allegation #3 The Board finds allegation #3 to be Not Sustained due the following: - On February 17, 2008 and February 18, 2008, Complainant filed a request for service with the ICPD in regard to a vehicle blocking her mailbox. - Complainant stated neither call on either date was responded to. - Two calls for service were located from the Complainant on departmental logs. - Police records indicate the call of February 17, 2008, was responded to by a sworn police officer at 1312 hours. The identity of the officer is not relevant since this is a complaint against the police department and not a specific officer. - The initial responding officer claimed he could not get to the area without a 4 wheel- drive vehicle. It is assumed access was limited due to weather conditions (snow or ice). This maybe consistent with this winter although the conditions on certain dates were not presented in the Chief's Report. - The call was responded to at 1527 hours, that same date, by a Community Service Officer with a four wheel-drive vehicle. - The call log indicated the vehicle in question was 5-10 feet from the mailbox. - Attempts to contact the Complainant in person and by phone were unsuccessful. - On February 18, 2008, Complainant filed another request for service regarding the same complaint and vehicle. - The call log indicated a sworn officer was dispatched at 1025 hours and a Street Storage sticker was placed on the vehicle in question. Allegation #3 Conclusion -The call logs and related officer dispositions, show tl~t both fills for service were responded to. Action was taken by trying to contact the Complainer bot~i in ~ person and by phone, and by placing a notice on the vehicle in question. ~ !~ ~ ..... _-<~'~ N 3 O~ ~ Allegation #4 D The Board finds allegation #4 to be Not Sustained due to the following: - January 14, 2008 the Complainant came to the ICPD in regard to an alleged assault on her son. - Complainant alleged the police department would not allow her to file a complaint in regard to the assault. - Complainant identified a suspect in the assault. - The victim of the alleged assault, the Complainant's son, identified three different suspects than the Complainant but did not name the same suspect as the Complainant. The alleged victim's identification of suspects was recorded on an in-car video, audio log on January 14, 2008. - The Complainant's son was taken to juvenile detention for offenses committed earlier in the day. - Complainant came to police station and requested information about the incident. Initially, an officer not involved with the incident spoke with the Complainant. An officer directly involved with the complaint was then called into the station to speak with Complainant. - An officer at the scene came to the station and spoke with Complainant. - The officer informed Complainant that her son (alleged victim) identified different offenders until he was charged with an offense and then stated the same suspect as the Complainant. - Complainant was told to come to station with her son when released from juvenile detention and officers involved would initiate an investigation. Complainant was told that interviewing her son (alleged victim) would be imperative to investigation. - Complainant supposedly stated she was alright with this option and left the station. - As of the department's report to the Board the Complainant has not contacted the police officers to further the investigation. Allegation #4 Conclusion -The police Call for Service log shows Complainant identified one suspect of the alleged assault. An in-car video/audio shows the alleged victim identifying multiple suspects that are all different than the one identified by the Complainant. Documents provided show that alleged victim was in juvenile detention for theft and disorderly conduct (fighting) on January 14, 2008 when Complainant came into station to speak with officers about the alleged assault. Due to the different identification of suspects, and the change of identification of suspects by the alleged victim, this alleged assault investigation required the re-interviewing of both Complainant and alleged victim. The Complainant was provided with the opportunity to speak with officers after her son was released from detention but did not exercise this option. D ~ ~ ~ -~; i --~s L ` ~ {q yes ~.,.~ •~ ~ ~ ~~