Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-02-24 Bd Comm minutes3b 1 MINUTES APPROVED PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE THURSDAY, JANUARY 8, 2009 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM -CITY HALL Members Present: Mark Seabold, DaLayne Williamson, Ann Khan, Jan Finlayson, Rick Fosse, Terry Robinson (sitting in for Terry Trueblood) Members Absent: Patrick Carney Staff Present: Marcia Bollinger, Nate Kabat, Jeff Davidson Public Present: Melissa Mitchell, interested party RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL Recommend approval of the Lemme Leopard Community Initiated Public Art Proposal at a funding level of $1,000. Moved by Finlayson. Seconded by Fosse. Motion passed 6:0. CALL TO ORDER Seabold called the meeting to order at 3:09 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA Fosse shared an idea he had for a trail that would produce music by appropriately spaced ribs/cuts into the pavement when driven over on a bicycle. He calls it the "tactile trail". He than told the group that this idea made it into a Honda commercial. The committee was very impressed. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 6 2008 AND DECEMBER 4. 2008 MEETINGS MOTION: Williamson moved to approve the minutes; Fosse seconded. The motion passed 6:0. SCULPTURE PROJECT AT WATER WORKS PRAIRIE PARK -REVIEW OF FUNDING OPTIONS AND DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL FUND RAISING Bollinger handed out copies of the Public Art Budget for the committee to review. The account currently has $77,850 in it. Currently there are 3 outlays totaling $32,600 and a possible outlay for the Lemme Leopard for an addition $1,000. Bollinger accounted for $500 in misc. expenses and expects a $50,000 allocation in the FY 10 budget. Assuming the FY10 allocation, this brought the total PAAC budget to $93,750. Bollinger noted the PAAC budget currently has enough to get the Waterworks art project started, but not enough to cover the entire cost until the FY10 budget is approved. Fosse said he believes that considering the current budget situation committing future funds is risky. Finlayson asked if a $50,000 allocation for FY10 is for sure. Bollinger said that amount is not guaranteed, but that is the historic allocation. Bollinger said there is an opportunity for boards to present to the City Council regarding budget changes, but since the PAAC would not be requesting a change in the budget, she thinks a letter would suffice. Fosse Public Art Advisory Committee Thursday, January 8, 2009 Page 2 of 4 said the PAAC would know in February how much the City Council plans to allocate to the PAAC budget so any funds for the Waterworks project should be held until then. Finlayson asked when the City Council will act on the FY10 budget. Davidson said on February 24th. Kahn asked when the committee would like to begin the project. Bollinger said the artist would like to begin soon if possible. Fosse suggested a budget for the Waterworks project could be approved contingent upon budget approval in February. Davidson said the committee would know if PAAC gets brought up at the CIP meetings which would provide a better idea of how much money the committee will likely receive. Seabold asked if fundraising should be pursued if the budget will be able to cover the project costs in February. Kahn asked what kind of fundraising is being considered. Seabold said ideally one large sponsor could be found, but admitted it will be hard to raise money for art projects given the economic conditions. Finlayson added this project will be competing for funding with the Summer of the Arts. Fosse asked the committee if it should act on approving a project budget at this meeting or if the committee would like to wait. Davidson advised that February would be an ok time to act on a project budget contingent upon the money coming through. He thought that would provide the time needed to make a more sound judgment. The committee agreed to table a decision until February but agreed the project is still worth pursuing. Robinson asked how big the base of the sculpture will be. Bollinger said she does not know the base size yet, but through the project design process the committee has decided that the sculpture meadow would be the best place to locate the sculpture. She said the hope is to implement a wind harvesting or solar power system to energize the sculpture lighting. Bollinger agreed to talk with the artist to keep him up to speed with the committee's decision. LEMME ELEMENTARY -COMMUNITY INITIATED PUBLIC ART PROPOSAL - Continued from December 2008 meeting. Bollinger, Seabold and Williamson explained the project to the committee members who were absent for John Bacon's presentation at the previous PAAC meeting. Bollinger also passed out pictures presented to the committee at the December meeting. Seabold and Williamson expressed their support for the project. Seabold noted this project would set a precedent for future school projects dealing with high quality and well thought out public art projects. Finlayson thought the proposed $1,000 contribution seems like a reasonable request. The committee agreed. MOTION: Finlayson moved to approve an amount for the Lemme Leopard Community Initiated Public Art Proposal of $1,000; Fosse seconded. The motion passed 6:0. COMMITTEE TIME/UPDATES Bollinger informed the committee of a literary walk plaque that is coming out of the ground near the public library. There has been discussion of who is responsible for paying to have this fixed. Bollinger explained that the Literary Walk was initially intended to be expanded over time to include other elements in the surrounding downtown area which would have placed this plaque under the jurisdiction of the PAAC. Currently the plaque is not technically included in the PAAC inventory and so repairs would not be the responsibility of the PAAC and must be maintained by the public library. However, the public library would like the PAAC to assume responsibility for the plaque since that is what was originally intended. Public Art Advisory Committee Thursday, January 8, 2009 Page 3 of 4 Robinson explained the plaque was not installed correctly by the contractor, Knutson Construction. Robinson suggested that the whole plaque be reset into newly poured concrete so that it is secure for the future. He also noted the bronze plaque is bent and will need to be repaired. Kahn said Knutson Construction should be contacted and asked to repair the plaque free of charge since it was their error. Fosse noted that the bronze plaques on the literary walk have become warn over time and present a hazard when they are icy or wet and the committee should consider that issue when replacing or expanding them. Finlayson asked if the PAAC would be responsible for paying to fix the plaque. Bollinger clarified that the PAAC would only need to pay for the repairs if the plaque was admitted into the PAAC inventory. Kahn noted the PAAC is already worried about the budget, so this project might not be good to take on right now. Fosse said one option would be to ask the library to pay for the repairs this time and than admit the plaque into the inventory after it is fixed. Bollinger did not know how much the repair would cost, but reminded the committee that maintenance of artwork is a part of doing business so she would pull together the cost information. Bollinger updated the committee to the proceedings of Poetry in Public noting that the response this year has been lukewarm. Bollinger also informed the committee that Poetry in Public was included in the application for Iowa City's recent "City of Literature" designation by UNESCO. She said Christopher Merrill plans to publish Iowa City Poetry in Public poems on the City of Literature website he is creating. She reminded the committee that Williamson served on the selection committee for 2008 and wondered who would be interested in filling that role for 2009. Williamson said she enjoyed the role last year and would like to serve on the committee again. ADJOURNMENT Fosse motioned to adjourn; Robinson seconded. Meeting adjourned at 3:57 pm. Next meeting scheduled for February 5`h, 2009. Minutes submitted by Nate Kabat. Public Art Advisory Commiriee Thursday, January 8, 2009 Page 4 of 4 Public Art Advisory Committee Attendance Record 2009 Name Term Ex Tres 1/8 Annadora Khan O1/O1/11 X Data ne Williamson 01/01/12 X Jan Finla son O1/O1/11 X Mark Seabold O1/01/10 X Patrick Carne 01/01/12 O Rick Fosse X Terr Robinson X Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused 3b 2 MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 2009 - 7:30 PM -FORMAL CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL APPROVED MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Freerks, Josh Busard, Charlie Eastham, Michelle Payne, Wally Plahutnik, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Elizabeth Koppes STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Christina Kuecker, Sarah Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Duane Musser, Larry Jewell, Robert Hegeman, Tim Thompson, Chester Schulte, Judy Tokuhisa, Rai Tokuhisa, Witold Krajewski, Mary Ebert, Karl Ebert, Diane Thrift, Nancy Hitchon, Lucy Wibbenmeyer, Janni Ebert, David Tokuhisa, Casey Boyd, Susan Huff RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: Recommended approval of REZ08-00012/SUB08-00011, an application submitted by Three Bulls for a rezoning from Low Density Single-Family (RS-5) to Planned Development Overlay Medium Density Single-Family (OPD-8) and a preliminary plat of Hickory Pointe, a 4-lot, 2.97 acre residential subdivision located on Hickory Trail, west of First Avenue, subject to compliance with the revised elevation drawings; staff approval of detailed plans for the open space area; and approval of a minor modification for the location of the north curb cut on First Avenue. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: Eastham announced that he had received a letter from Linda Prybil regarding concerns she had with the Commission's recent annexation of land owned by the Prybil Trust. Eastham said that he would like to enter the letter into the record so that it was officially shared with the entire Planning and Zoning Commission (copies had been distributed at the January 13~h informal meeting). DEVELOPMENT/REZONING ITEMS: REZ08-00011/SUB08-00010: Discussion of an application submitted by S&J Development LLC for a rezoning of 18.58 acres from Interim Development Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) to Low Density Single Family (RS-5), a rezoning of 44.29 acres from Rural Residential (RR-1) to Low Density Single Family (RS-5), a rezoning of 82.3 acres from Low Density Single Family (RS-5) to Planned Development Overlay Low Density Single-Family (OPD-5), and a preliminary plat of Country Club Estates Parts 3-8, a 170 lot, 82.3 acre residential subdivision located on Rohret Road, east of Slothower Road. Kuecker explained that the southern triangle of the property in question was annexed into the city in 1994. At that time, Rohret Road was in substandard condition and there was no sanitary sewer system in the area. As a result, the decision was made to keep the area designated as RR-1, large lot single-family and ID-RS Interim Development Residential. Since that time, the City has extended the growth boundary to include this area, and the area up to Highway 965; the City has also committed to extending sanitary sewer throughout the area in order to encourage full development. Kuecker said that the first phases of Country Club Estates have been subdivided and are in the process of being built; the applicant now wishes to move forward with the other phases of the development. Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2009 -Formal Page 2 Kuecker said that the land is in the Weber sub-area of the Southwest District Plan, an area which has been indicated for low-density single-family residential development. The proposed development meets the intent of the plan. The Southwest District Plan does indicate that larger RS-5 lots should be platted against the lots along Tucson Place in order to provide some sort of transition between large-lot residential and the potentially smaller RS-5 lots. The lots in the proposal bordering Tucson Place are larger than the required minimum of 8,000 square feet, ranging from 11,000 to 25,000 square feet. Kuecker noted that a small finger of wetlands provides further buffer along that area. Staff believes that the rezoning of the land to an RS-5 zone would be appropriate and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan providing that Rohret Road is improved to city standards. Kuecker stated that the plan would provide an efFcient use of land and infrastructure in the area. Kuecker stated that the applicant is proposing a 170 lot subdivision with three out-lots. Out-lots A and C contain a blue-line stream, drainage way and some jurisdictional wetlands. Out-lot B is in the northwestern corner and has been accepted by the Parks and Recreation Division as a dedicated park. The applicant is proposing six phases, the first of which would be along Lakeshore Drive, connecting Lakeshore Drive to Rohret Road. The applicant has indicated a willingness to re-order the phases based on Staff and Commission recommendations. Kuecker noted the applicant is requesting a reduction of the wetland buffer area and the elimination of it altogether in the southern finger in order to construct Lakeshore Drive. Compensation for that would be the extension of the wetland area on the western portion of the property. The Army Corp of Engineers would need to approve this wetland mitigation plan, about which Staff has raised some concerns. If the Corp of Engineers is willing to approve the plan, then it will meet Staffs requirements as well. It is because of these issues surrounding the wetlands that the Sensitive Areas Overlay is required. The conditions of Slothower Road and Rohret Road are also of concern to Staff. Both are currently chip- seal streets that are in fairly good condition, though not up to city standards. Staff is recommending that the 7th and 8`h additions should be the last phases of the project to allow time for Rohret Road to be improved. If the City Council includes Rohret Road in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), then the developer can go ahead and develop the 7th and 8`h addition (provided their fair share is paid). City Council will be deciding within the next few weeks whether Rohret Road will be included in the CIP. Slothower Road is only twelve feet wide and is not currently wide enough for two cars to pass each other without one car having to leave the paved surface. Staff does not feel comfortable allowing traffic from an urban subdivision onto Slothower Road until it is improved at least to County residential standards (22 feet wide, chip-seal). The subdivision contains a range of lot sizes that are scattered throughout the site. The street design does provide connectivity within the neighborhood and to the surrounding area. Kuecker explained that the southern portion of Slothower Road is currently an impassable dirt trail. She noted that if the road is left as it is, it is possible it will be developed at a later time and all of the lots adjacent to it will become double-fronting lots. As a result, Staff has recommended that the western-most lots not be platted until Slothower Road is vacated. Staff recommends the rezoning and subdivision (provided that City Council does include Rohret Road in the CIP) with the condition that the portion of Rohret Road adjacent to lots 1 and 38 be improved to city standards at the expense of the developer and that the extension of Lakeshore Drive be completed in the first phase of the development. Staff recommends that the 7th and 8th additions be subject to the developer paying his fair share (12.5% of the Rohret Road improvements), and the Parts 7 and 8 should be the last phases of development unless Rohret Road is improved prior to or simultaneous with their construction; the portion of Slothower Road from the northern boundary of lot 95 south to Rohret Road shall be vacated prior to the development of the 7`h addition and lots 152-170 of the 8"' addition. The wetland mitigation must be approved by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. If the City Council does not include Rohret Road in their CIP, Staff recommends that the 7`h and 8`h additions retain their ID-RS, Interim Development, zoning. All deficiencies addressed in the Staff report have been resolved except Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2009 -Formal Page 3 that the applicant needs to indicate on a revised plat the wetland buffers. Kuecker noted that the City Engineer also indicated that a note needs to be added to the plan to state that the landscaping buffer along Rohret Road would be paid for by the developer. Kuecker asked for Commissioner questions. Eastham asked Kuecker how this plan satisfied the neighborhood trail needs of the Weber sub-area. Kuecker noted that in the trail-plan there is no indication of a trail for the area in questions. She stated that the topography makes it difficult to provide a satisfactory trail. However, she noted, the interconnected nature of the streets and the required 5-foot wide sidewalks will provide a safe, accessible way to navigate the neighborhood. Miklo added that Rohret Road will have an 8-foot sidewalk connected to the trail system, and that there has been a concept plan developed for the County Poor Farm which includes a trail system just to the north of this development. Miklo said Staff had explored the idea of trails through the wetlands connecting the subdivision to the parks, but that it was not possible to get an ADA accessible trail through that topography. Eastham asked about the access points for the proposed park area. Kuecker stated that there would be one access point to it off of Slothower and two from Wildcat Lane. Freerks asked about parking for the park. Miklo explained that the Parks & Recreation Department generally waited until a subdivision is established before developing the park (to allow for resident input), but that generally neighborhood parks do not have parking. Parking will be available on the street. The public hearing was opened at 7:52 p.m. Duane Musser of MMS Consultants spoke on behalf of the applicant. Musser said that the applicant understood Staffs concern with the need for Slothower and Rohret Road improvements. Musser said that a wetland mitigation plan has been submitted to the Army Corp of Engineers. Musser noted that the applicant has been through this process with the Corp once already, and that the applicant has done everything necessary except for the archaeological study (which is not possible until the ground thaws). Musser said that the applicant is aware that final approval will not be granted from the Corp until the archaeological survey is completed. Musser pointed out that nearly 100% of the current wetlands are non-native invasive species. Staff had expressed concern for the amount of grading indicated for the existing wetlands, but, Musser said, the grading is an intentional part of the plan for re-establishing native wetland seeds. An application to vacate the level B impassable portion of Slothower has been submitted, and the applicant does not foresee a problem with it. The applicant would like to see Rohret Road improvements remain on the City Council's CIP, as it would help to alleviate uncertainty about phases 7 and 8. Musser offered to answer any questions. Freerks asked why the wetland buffers do not appear on any of the information before the Commission. Kuecker and Musser explained that the buffers are accounted for in the plan, but that the hatchings were left off the plat in an oversight. Eastham asked if it was correct that the applicant did not anticipate Corp approval until the weather was warm enough to do an archaeological survey. Musser said he anticipated approval of the design, and that the applicant has hired an archaeological firm to do the work, but that the Corp could not grant final approval until after the survey takes place. Eastham asked if it was correct that Staff would not approve a final plat until the archaeological survey had taken place and final approval from the Corp was received. Miklo said that this was correct; no final plat would be approved until the Corp signed off on the plans. Larry Jewell, 53 Tucson Place, stated that he is one of the neighbors impacted by the proposed rezoning and development. Jewell has lived in the Southwest District since August of 2001. Among the reasons that he and his family moved to Iowa City was to raise their children in an environment that valued quality of life, planned its neighborhoods, and did not overdevelop properties. They chose to live in the Southwest District because of its rural atmosphere, larger lots, and close proximity to schools and downtown. Their specific lot was chosen based on the current zoning of RR-1, which they felt would help to maintain the rural feel of the area and help to protect sensitive areas from the affects of overdevelopment. Jewell said that his family specifically participated in the urban planning efforts involved in developing the Southwest District Ptan. Jewell said that his family does not believe that the current Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2009 -Formal Page 4 proposal follows the established planning principles in the Southwest District Plan. Jewell noted that he had provided Commissioners with a packet of information for their perusal. Jewell said that he believed that the planning process that had been set forth by the City should be respected by all. As part of the Comprehensive Plan, Jewell said, the Southwest District Plan lays out some fairly clear planning principles and guidelines. Specifically, the Plan calls for transition and integration from the existing large-acreage lots in the neighborhood adjacent to the proposed RS-5 lots. Jewell said the proposed lots are not large enough to comply with this principle. Jewell said the Southwest District Plan also speaks of a safe network of streets that prevents cut-through traffic, specifically that streets from Melrose to Rohret should be circuitous to discourage non-local traffic. Jewell contended that with 170 additional families in the development, Lakeshore Drive would become a desirable cut-through route for Rohret and Melrose. Jewell said that the current plan does not make adequate provisions for interconnected trails and accessible green space/park space for a neighborhood of its size, as is required by the Southwest District Plan. The current park space is not centrally located and is not easily accessible to the southern portion of the development. Jewell said the existing wetlands could be utilized as park space, thereby decreasing somewhat the overall impact the development is having on them. The Southwest District Plan calls for the preservation of the rural character of the area. Jewell said that rezoning the space from RR-1 to RS-5 and putting in multiple minimum sized lots is the exact opposite of the Plan's directives. Jewell said that he did understand that the plan is a set of principles and guidelines, and that it could not hope to address all of the issues and concerns that come up. However, he contended that these principles should be used in conjunction with input from the citizens directly affected by the development to make planning and zoning decisions. Jewell said that this is the process the City has out forth to encourage participation of its citizens. Citizens are left feeling powerless and disenchanted with their local government when they follow the processes laid out by the City for participation and then their input is disregarded. Jewell said that he had been involved in previous efforts to stop the over-development of the area, and that he has found many neighbors have thrown up their hands in frustration this time around, certain their voices will not be heard. Jewell urged Commissioners not to let this type of development go into the area without considering the concerns of the neighbors and the violation of principles set forth in the Southwest District Plan. Jewell expressed concern for the negative long-term impact that such a large development would have on the stream corridor, due to run-off from the large number of lots. Jewell said that the mitigation plan calls for only a 5-year period of oversight by the developer, and then it is handed off to the homeowners' association. Jewell expressed a concern for the impact on available resources and infrastructure in the Southwest District. A known-issue regarding a methane gas smell that comes from the landfill and inundates the entire area is of concern to Jewell. Jewell said that he has spoken with the landfill supervisor who has acknowledged the smell, but cannot pinpoint the exact source, despite investigations by the fire department, the gas company, and the landfill emergency response team. Jewell said it would be irresponsible for the City to allow further development in that area until the landfill issue is resolved. A potential risk and liability exists for any new development in that area as there is a known-issue of concern and tax-payers could foot the bill for any harm caused by this. Jewell said that only four out of the 170 lots are close to an average of two lots per acre. Jewell said the developers calculations take into account property covered by wetlands. The other 166 lots are less than half an acre, including 45 lots that are at the low-end of the minimum lot size for RS-5. Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2009 -Formal Page 5 Freerks requested that the speaker wrap things up as a large number of people also wished to speak; she advised Jewell that he could speak again after others had spoken if he wished. Jewell stated that 11 % of the lots (19) do not appear to meet the minimum required lot-width. He suggested closer scrutiny of the plans was in order. Kuecker said that there are a few lots that do not have 60-feet when measured from the street frontage; however, at the 15-foot setback, where the measurements are taken, all lots have the full 60-feet. Eastham asked which direction drainage would flow and if it would all flow toward the wetland area. Kuecker said that approximately one-third of the drainage flows in the opposite direction of the wetlands. Robert Hegeman, 44 Tucson Place, asked if his understanding is correct that it is City policy to connect the current lots on septic systems to the sewer system. Mik-o said that City policy is that once the sanitary sewer is within 300 feet of property that is served by a septic systems, it sometimes requires connection. Freerks added that it is not standard, and that while it may be required, it is not necessarily required. Hegeman asked whose obligation it would be to bring the sanitary sewer up to the property line, the City's or the resident's. Greenwood Hektoen said that without having the code in front of her she was not certain of the answer. Hegeman pointed out that the sewer system was designed on the current platting, so while it comes close, it does not come all the way up to the property line. Hegeman noted that he owns the pond and drainage system to the east of this property and which forms the start of the wetlands. Hegeman said the system is dependent on a pipe that runs underground for 1600 feet to just west of Slothower Road. At the time the system was put in place, all of the property was owned by one landowner, and was subsequently divided; this results in an implied easement for access to the the and that system. Hegeman said construction will disconnect the the and he is wondering how it will be addressed. Hegeman said that there is a major problem between Rohret Road and Melrose Avenue, and the lack of connection between them currently. Lakeshore Drive has all the markings of acut-through and is ideally situated to be one, Hegeman said. He said he believes the situation needs along-term, up-front solution. Hegeman said that he believed that it is the Commission's duty to balance the interests of the developer with the interests of the adjacent landowners. He said that while he does not have a great objection to the development as a whole, he does not believe this plan balances those interests. Tim Thompson, 3040 Rohret Road SW, stated that he takes care of the farmland to the west of this property. Where the drainage comes through, Thompson said, he has two creek crossings which he has had to repair several times. Over the years, as development has increased, more water comes down the creek. Additional houses and additional roads will exacerbate the problem. Thompson said it is popular wisdom now to often have prairies surrounding wetlands. To have prairies, Thompson said, you must properly manage them, and this includes controlled burns. He said that he has already had three wildfires on the property since he began taking care of it. Thompson said that he has spoken with the adjacent landowner, and that adjacent landowner is unaware of the road vacation. Freerks asked Miklo if it was possible for the road to be vacated without the adjacent property owner being aware. Miklo said that the vacation is being reviewed by the County Engineer, but that his understanding was that the County Engineer intended to require the consent of the adjacent landowner prior to vacating the road. Miklo reminded the Commission that Staffs position is that those lots should not be platted until the road is vacated, so unless the road is vacated, that portion of the plan will have to be redesigned. Eastham asked Staff to comment on the storm-water retention plan for the property. Miklo advised that this would be a question for the City Engineer. He said that the City Engineer did review the plan and felt it met city requirements for storm-water management. Miklo noted that at the time of final platting, the developer will be required to submit a plan for long-term maintenance of the drainage system. Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2009 -Formal Page 6 Chester Schulte, 1812 Rohret Court SW, has lived at his property for 25 years. He said that he opposes this rezoning for a number of reasons including the density of the housing, and the location of a major intersection. The intersection, Schulte said, would essentially be located in his front yard and would cause car lights to constantly flash on his living room wall, making it a more suitable location for a convenience store than a home. He said he does not want these changes dumped on the neighborhood. He said he has concerns about the traffic and the noise, as well as increased accidents. Judy Tokuhisa, 3305 Rohret Road SW, stated that she was pretty concerned about this development. She said her greatest concern is the density of the development, and that she does not believe that the transition area that is called for in the Southwest District Plan has been at all met in this case. Tokuhisa said that she has six acres, and that she is going to be across the street from properties that have five homes per acres situated on them. Tokuhisa questioned if the current overcrowding of area schools had at all been considered in developing this plan, and if the School Board had been consulted. It greatly concerns her that a large chunk of her front yard would be taken if the road is widened. She said plans to widen the road would make it so that her house was only 43 feet from the road and a large old oak tree would be taken out, as would her walnut and apple trees. Tokuhisa said that she has owned her property since 1993, and that it is emotionally significant to her because her children were married there, she raised her children there, and she wants her younger children to be married there as well. She said that her front yard and her circular driveway would be taken away and the only thing she would get in return would be sidewalk costs and sidewalks to shovel. Tokuhisa said that at a good neighbor meeting she had been told that water would run away from her property, but that at tonight's meeting she was told that polluted run-off would be heading straight for her organic property. She said that this plan does a lot for the developer and nothing for her, her family, and the people living in the area. Busard asked what Tokuhisa meant when she said she would lose front yard space and her driveway access. Tokuhisa replied that she was told that eventually they would be limited to one-driveway access point, and that she has a circular drive that makes it possible to drive and turn around her tractor. Freerks asked Miklo if he was familiar with this. Miklo said that he did not believe that the City could take someone's driveway away if they had an existing driveway. Miklo said the concerns seem to be based on the future improvement of Rohret Road. He explained that there is the possibility that the City may need to acquire up to 15 feet of additional land to make those improvements, but that he believed that the amount of tree removal would be less than what was being stated. Freerks asked Tokuhisa if the trees in question were that close to the road. Tokuhisa replied that they were, and that because her land was very long, and not deep, removing fifteen feet would take away both her buffer and a significant amount of land. She expressed concern that on top of that she would be required to put in and maintain sidewalk. Freerks asked if this was correct. Miklo said that the land to the south of Rohret, where Tokuhisa's property is, is governed by the County. Freerks noted that this was a question that could be followed-up on. Rai Tokuhisa, 3305 Rohret Road SW, expressed concern that this development would be damaging to the sense of community in the area that she had grown up with. Tokuhisa said that dropping 170 new families into a tight knit community like theirs would have the effect of breaking it apart. She conjectured that if for every four houses there was one high school student, then an additional 40 cars would be driving over to City High every morning. Tokuhisa addressed the issue of over-crowding in Iowa City high schools, and the effects that the new development would have on it. She expressed concern that the sense of friendship and community she had grown accustomed to would vanish once the area grew so rapidly. Tokuhisa said that living in her small area and getting to know her neighbors has helped her to develop on a personal level. She expressed her great appreciation for the beauty her family had created in the outdoor spaces of her home, and how she wanted it to remain that way until she herself was able to get married in the back yard sometime in the distant future. Witold Krajewski, 3329 Rohret Road, said that he moved to his residence over 21 years ago from very high density living in Washington, D.C. He said they very carefully chose the location of their home, and that at that time, their land was not even part of the city. When it was annexed, Krajewski said, no one took their opinion into consideration. Krajewski said that he understands that populations grow, but he said he feels the principles of taking the existing neighborhood into consideration have been left behind. Krajewski said that there is no transition between the large acreages and those lots that consist only of Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2009 -Formal Page 7 the minimum square footage required. He said he agrees with everything his neighbors have said so far, and that he is strongly opposed to the Commission approving this plan. He said that in order for the development to be compatible with existing neighborhoods, the density should be much lower. Krajewski urged Staff to provide better maps in the future so that people had a clearer idea of what they were looking at. Freerks noted that the Commission did have larger maps for their review. Dr. Mary Ebert, 3357 Rohret Road, said that her family has lived at the acreage south of Rohret Road since 1973. She noted that at that time the area was, of course, very sparsely populated. She said her primary concerns are for general safety and increased density. Ebert said the increased density would mean a lot of houses across the road from her, a lot of noise, and a lot of kids driving to school. Ebert said that traffic is already a problem in the mornings with traffic heading east on Rohret Road backed up consistently. She said it would get worse when 170 additional families are added to the mix. Ebert said that there are a lot of car accidents in the area already, including a recent fatality. Ebert said that another safety concern is for the large number of people who wa-k and bike along Rohret Road (a number that would only increase with so many new households), which is very narrow and hilly with no shoulders and deep ditches. Ebert said she also was concerned about the possibility of losing her trees in the front of her house, which serve as a windbreak, help with erosion control, and serve as a noise buffer. Karl Ebert, Coralville, owns the west parcel of 3357 Rohret Road, and intends to build a home there. Ebert said that the intrusiveness of this project was beyond comprehension, and that he is very worried about its ramifications. Ebert said that traffic is backed up on Rohret Road every morning, and that adding 170 units could mean 200-300 more cars to add into the equation. Ebert noted that the majority of people living in the development will use Rohret Road as their primary access point. Ebert said that mixing high density living with the rural setting requires a much better transition than that provided by the plan. He said he believes that the development needs to be platted differently. He noted that he is a former Iowa City realtor, and as such, is not against developing land in general. He stated that the increased foot and bicycle traffic on Rohret Road combined with increased auto traffic will cause serious safety concerns. Ebert said he hopes City Council gives this thorough consideration because the development will negatively impact a lot of property owners in southwest Iowa City. Diana Thrift, 3329 Rohret Road SW, said that she owns three acres to the south of Rohret Road. She said that her family has been there for almost 25 years. She said that they have huge trees in the front of their property that serve as a wind block and give privacy from the road, and that it sounds to her as though they would lose those trees if the road has to be widened for this development. Thrift said that her driveway is horseshoe shaped and she is afraid of losing one of the driveway access points if the road is widened. Thrift said that the homeowners were told at the good neighbor meeting that when the City re- does aroad, they sometimes take out one driveway access point to avoid the cost of a culvert. Thrift said that there is a lot of traffic on Rohret Road, so much so that dogs are constantly hit on the road. She expressed a concern for the large impact the addition would have on the area schools. Thrift said that the plan does not properly preserve the rural feel of the area. With such large lots on the south side of Rohret Road, Thrift believes that RR-1 is the highest density that should be allowed on the north side of Rohret Road. Thrift said the area is very beautiful and understated and that high density will detract from that. Thrift said she is very concerned about increased flooding due to water runoff from over-development. Nancy Hitchon, 29 Tucson Place, asked the question of how many years it would be between when this development was passed and when there would be Rohret to Melrose access. Miklo said this was not a question he could really answer as it would depend on the residential real estate market and what property owners decided to do with their land. Hitchon said that even if it were only five years, this could be a long time given the traffic pressure. When children are being dropped off at school, and again when it is time to pick them up, traffic in front of the school comes to a standstill. Hitchon said that if for some reason Rohret Road had to be closed due to some sort of accident, there is no way for emergency personnel to get to residents. She said this is a major safety concern, and directly related to the issue of overdevelopment. Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2009 -Formal Page 8 Lucy Wibbenmeyer, 1281 Prairie Grass Lane, said she wished to echo the concerns expressed by others. Wibbenmeyer stated that Weber School is extremely over-crowded and there is a 3-4 year wait for the after-school program. She asked at what point Planning and the School Board got together and discussed when a new school should be built. Janni Ebert, 3357 Rohret Road, said that she and her husband, Karl, have been very excited to build a house on Rohret Road, and all of a sudden there is now a development with 170 families across the road from their property. She noted that that there are 170 lots in 82.3 acres, which would be .48 acres per home. She noted that a football field is 1.32 acres. She asked the Commission to imagine having four or five homes in an area the size of a football field. Ebert said that one thing that disturbs her about the plat is that there are very good sized lots in the middle and toward the top, and then lots become quite small down near Rohret Road. Ebert said she read somewhere that homeowners would run the "gamut of economic status." Ebert said that big lots would go to the wealthier people, and smaller lots would go to low-income people. Ebert said she found that scary. She asked if she was going to have a situation like what happens over on Broadway right across the road from her property. She said this was a frightening thought to her. David Tokuhisa, 3305 Rohret Road, said that he appreciated his neighborhood, which he considers to be an island in that it provides a very unique atmosphere for intellectual growth, personal growth, and raising children. He said the environment is good, the air is clean, and there are a number of places to cross- country ski and bike. However, Tokuhisa said, though he appreciates Iowa City, he is concerned about the direction the city has taken. He says that he sees schools as a critical factor. He said the student to teacher ratio in some Iowa City schools is disturbing, while at others, the schools are under-populated. He said the overcrowding is systemic. Tokuhisa asked how long Iowa City can sustain its excellent schools in this environment. Tokuhisa said that he has noticed a strong smell of natural gas in living a mile or so away from the landfill. He noted that the new development will actually be closer to the landfill than the property he lives on. Tokuhisa said that not only was having accessible routes for first responders and car traffic important, but also one must consider the steps necessary to be a green community and to promote public transit. Tokuhisa compared the density problem to that of an overcrowded goldfish bowl, in that if only a few fish are added to the bowl it can remain habitable; however, if the bowl becomes overcrowded with fish, they cannot survive. Tokuhisa said that in many ways Iowa City is encouraging people to live greener lives, to reduce their carbon footprints, grow gardens, and have green space and parks. However, Tokuhisa said, if the wetlands and parks are all hemmed in by small (perhaps fenced) lots, then it is difficult to use and access them. Robert Hegeman, 44 Tucson Place, said that he thinks one of the most important tools for planning when there are unresolved issues (such as the major issue of access between Melrose and Rohret) is simply preserving your options. Hegeman said that the north part of this land will be developed and the landowner has that right. However, the part of the development that is south of the wetlands and west of Lakeshore Drive is not going to be developed for some time anyway. As a result, there is simply no need to rush to judgment and plat that area tonight. Hegeman advised the Commission to rezone the area, but not to plat it. Hegeman said the developer does not need it platted right now and there is simply no need to hedge the City into that situation when there are so many unresolved issues. Larry Jewell, 53 Tucson Place, said that he thinks one major factor that should be taken into consideration is the current economic situation. Jewell said he thinks we need to stop and ask in the current housing climate if it makes sense to dump more housing stock into our community. He said that doing so will only act to further depress the housing market and delay our recovery. Jewell said that as far as he understands, no Commissioner has actually come out and reviewed the property. He said that he hoped some of them would, prior to making this decision from information Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2009 -Formal Page 9 provided on a small, flat map. Eastham informed Jewell that he had been out to the area two years ago when a rezoning issue came before the Commission. Jewell said that the theme from the neighborhood is the fear of losing the rural feel of the neighborhood. Jewell reminded Commissioners that the Comprehensive Plan and the Southwest District Plan explicitly state the desire to retain the rural feel. Jewell urged the Commission to deny the request for rezoning and subdividing. Jewell said he would strongly suggest that the Commission deny any application unless the developer sits down and does a true good neighbor meeting. Jewell said that in this case there was only one meeting and it was entirely one-way communication, with the developer informing the neighbors what they would be doing. Jewell said that the concerns of the existing neighborhood and community have to be balanced against those of the developer. Jewell acknowledged that a developer has an absolute right to develop their property. They do not, however, have a right to expect that it will be rezoned. He said that one-acre lots are still very desirable, and that neighbors are willing to sit down with Staff and the developer and get what everyone wants. Witold Krajewski, 3329 Rohret Road SW, asked who was in charge of Rohret Road. Miklo explained that the road was divided down the middle. The southern half was under County jurisdiction and the northern half was in the city. Krajewski suggested that the concerns from those on the southern side of the road for lost property and trees could be assuaged by shifting the road to the north side (i.e., instead of taking 15 feet from each side, take 30 feet from just the north side where the proposed development is). This suggestion, Krajewski said, has the consequence of making the current plat proposal untenable, but, he said, he hopes that would not be the only reason not to act on this idea. Freerks noted that whether or not the road is put into the improvements plan will be decided by City Council in the next few weeks, and will be part of the budget they adopt in March. Freerks said that City Council may be entirely unaware of the concerns expressed by Rohret Road residents tonight, so it would be worth following that process and making their concerns heard. Eastham asked if the alignment of the road could be an infrastructure issue that the Commission could consider and perhaps direct. Miklo said that shifting the road to the north would be difficult given the other intersections along the way. The concerns about loss of driveways, Miklo believed, was not necessary as he believed that the City had an obligation to put back any driveway they took out unless there was some sort of health or safety issue with it. Miklo said that 15 feet of right-of-way was the maximum that would be needed, so he suspects that the fears of encroachment to the south are somewhat greater than what would occur. Duane Musser, MMS Consultants, noted that the open space for the development was decided on by the Parks and Recreation Department because the City owns the adjacent property to the north. Originally, the applicant wished to have more centrally located green space, near the wetlands. Musser said that water is leaving the site at three different areas. The storm-sewer system in the streets will collect a majority of the runoff and direct it into the storm-water detention basin. Sanitary sewer is extended to the boundary of the applicant's property. During the construction process, Musser said, tile- line investigations are completed and will be patched and reconstructed by the applicant if damaged. Musser said the intersection of Rohret and Lakeshore Drive is pretty much locked in due to design standards and specifications. Eastham asked if the maintenance of the subterranean the system would ultimately fall to the homeowner's association. Miklo said that the outlots would eventually become the responsibility of the homeowner's association, as well as the the if it was a part of the drainage system. The public hearing was closed at 9:28 p.m. Freerks noted that the 45-day limitation period is up on January 19th. The Commission could deny the application, pass the application, pass the application with conditions, or ask the applicant for an extension. Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2009 -Formal Page 10 Eastham motioned to defer the item and ask the applicant to extend the limitation period through the next formal meeting. Plahutnik seconded. The applicant wished to hear the Commission's discussion prior to granting or denying the extension Busard said that what he would like to see in a subdivision would be more clustering of the homes and more shared green space, although he acknowledged that this is a trend that has not caught on in Iowa City. He said that this subdivision reduces sprawl and that from his perspective he would rather see more lots than less lots within the city limits. Busard said one reason he would like to consider a deferral is to get input from the school district on the overcrowding. Freerks said that the Commission typically does not talk to the school district about that, but that it may be appropriate to ask the school district to comment. Miklo said that the City and the school district have at least one annual meeting where the district looks at growth that is taking place to help them make those kinds of decisions. Miklo noted that a development of this size will not happen overnight, and that it would take several years before those lots were built and full and perhaps 10-12 years before the impact was felt on schools. Busard suggested asking the applicant if the applicant is amenable to dedicating some property to a school. Busard asked what the transportation planners had to say about the traffic problems discussed by the neighbors. Miklo said that the transportation planners did not have concerns about Rohret Road; their primary concerns were with Slothower. Eastham said he agreed with the idea expressed by Busard of considering school capacity as a factor in infrastructure support, although he acknowledged it may be pushing the boundaries of the current zoning code. He said he too would like to hear comment from the school district. Eastham said that while traffic planners may be satisfied with Rohret Road's capacity to handle the additional traffic, there still is not good connectivity to Melrose or Highway 1. He and Miklo discussed the future of Slothower's possible connection through the County Poor Farm property. Greenwood Hektoen suggested keeping discussions limited to whether or not Commissioners would be in support of a motion to defer. Payne asked what the average size of the lots in Southwest Estates is (excluding the 1-acre lots). Miklo said he would have to look at the plat more closely, although he knows they are larger than the 8,000 square foot minimum. Payne asked what the likelihood of farmers using Lakeshore Drive as scut-through would be (a concern brought up by one resident). Miklo said that it would be very unlikely. He said the only adjacent farm land would be the County Poor Farm property which has better access from Melrose Avenue. Eastham said that he has some concerns about density; however, his concern is that an opportunity for a little higher density townhomes along Rohret Road is being missed. Plahutnik stated that he felt very little effort had been made to meet the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan in providing a transition from RR-1 to RS-5. The Comprehensive Plan's directive that development is appropriate when infrastructure is in place is also not followed in this case. Plahutnik said that this development was not ready for prime-time. He said that Rohret Road does not work now, and it certainly is not ready for this development. Plahutnik stated that as a clerk in a grocery store he might not have much call to disagree with a City Engineer; however, he noted that the people sitting in traffic on Rohret Road probably are not City Engineers either, and they too would disagree with the City Engineer's assessment. Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2009 -Formal Page 11 Plahutnik said much of this is perspective, noting that those on 10-acres think a 3-acre lot is too small, and those on 3-acre lots think the 1-acre lots are too small, and so on. Plahutnik noted that all of the houses on Summit Street are on lots smaller than those being discussed tonight, and yet, most people would think that Summit Street is not such a bad place to live. At some point, Plahutnik said, this property will be developed. More than likely it wilt be developed at RS- 5. However, Plahutnik's feeling is that the things that need to be in place before development can occur are not yet ready. Busard suggested that the applicant might want to consider zoning the entire area RS-5, but only platting one phase of the project. Payne asked how far out Rohret Road is improved. Staff explained that the road would be improved from the last developed lot eastward, in the direction that most traffic would be flowing. This improvement is a condition of Staffs recommendation. Weitzel said that he believes there is merit in discussing doing the platting in phases, as there are enough disparate ideas and opinions that more discussion seems necessary. He also noted that he would like to hear comment from the school district. Freerks said she had a number of questions she would like more information on before voting on this development in any positive way. She noted that change is difficult, but that something will happen with this property; it is simply a matter of how it occurs. Freerks said she lives on a lot smaller than all of those in the development, but that she understands that what one is used to and what one is expecting has a huge role in what one can easily accept. Freerks stated that she had concerns about the lack of transition and buffer. She continues to have questions about drainage. She said that there is some merit in preserving rural character. She has questions about the maintenance of the wetlands. She would like more answers about curb cuts, driveways, loss of trees, etc., that would occur with improvements to Rohret Road. Park access was also a concern for Freerks. She expressed interest in a deferral because she would hate to have to vote no simply because her questions could not be answered. Payne asked about Musser's comment that the Lakeshore Drive/Rohret Road intersection had been chosen by the City. Miklo said that Staff did feel the intersection was located in the most logical place, as it aligns with Rohret Court to the south. Freerks said she wanted more information about the possibility of mitigating lights shining in the Schulte's window if that would really be the case. Musser indicated a willingness on the part of the applicant to grant an extension beyond the 45-day limitation period. A vote was taken and the motion to defer was approved 6-0. SU608-00011/REZ08-00012: Discussion of an application submitted by Three Bulls for a rezoning from Low Density Single-Family (RS-5) to Planned Development Overlay Medium Density Single- Family (OPD-8) and a preliminary plat of Hickory Pointe, a 4-lot, 2.97 acre residential subdivision on Hickory Trail, west of First Avenue. The 45-day limitation period expires February 20, 2009. The proposal is to rezone this property and subdivide it into a planned development of three clusters each with six townhouse style units. There would be a private drive to provide rear access. The property is currently zoned RS-5 as three residential lots. Under its current zoning, the property can be subdivided into up to ten single-family homes. The applicants request is to rezone this to RS-8 which would allow up to thirteen single-family houses. Because the applicant is also requesting a planned development, which allows the clustering and a slight increase of density, 18 units are proposed for approval. Staff feels this rezoning is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Northeast District Plan identifies potential townhouse development on this very property. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2009 -Formal Page 12 building town houses or small multi-families is appropriate on arterial streets adjacent to large open spaces. The Northeast District plan gives guidance on development near Hickory Hill Park, a sensitive area. This plan addressed that in terms of planning for open spaces and appropriate plantings. The p-anned development is an option under the zoning code. It allows for higher density and clustering, but some conditions must be considered. The development must be compatible in scale to adjacent buildings. Staff feels that the proposed design and quality of materials is appropriate for the neighborhood. The location of the driveway is an issue. Staff recommends a minor modification - an administrative level review - to allow the driveway to be less than 25 feet from the property line. The adjacent property is owned by the City and will not be developed. A sensitive areas overlay rezoning is required because there are some steep and critical slopes in the area. Staff believes the slopes were created in the construction of First Avenue. As a result, in this case it is appropriate to allow the dramatic amount of grading called for in the plans. There is a small amount of open space on the south side of Hickory Trail to be dedicated to the City if the Parks & Recreation Commission choose to accept it. A fee will be paid in lieu of the other required open space. Staff received a revised plan after the informal meeting. As a result not all of the conditions outlined in the staff report continue to be necessary. Miklo said that staff recommended approval .subject to compliance with the revised elevation drawings (he noted that the elevations would need to be revised to comply with section 14-46-4 A. 3.d. regarding design features for attached dwellings); staff approval of detailed plans for the open space area; and approval of a minor modification for the location of the north curb cut on First Avenue. Plahutnik asked why the Hickory Trail Extension was part of the Comprehensive Plan. Miklo said that at the time the Northeast District Plan was created there was great concern about how the Northeast District would develop in relationship to Hickory Hill Park. To create a buffer between development and the park the plan included an extension of Hickory Trail as a "single loaded street" to the west of First Avenue. He said that the intent of the single loaded street was to create an open space buffer on the south side of the street and residential development on the north side of the street only. The public hearing was opened at 10:12 p.m. Casey Boyd, 40 Green Mountain Drive, said that he has really listened to what people want for the area and worked with neighborhood groups. He said neighborhood meetings have been very positive, as have meetings with Friends of Hickory Hill Park. Boyd said Sarah Walz has been very helpful and provided great ideas. Boyd said the quality of the materials will be very similar to those used on the units at the corner of Scott Boulevard and North Dodge Street. He offered to answer any questions the Commission might have. Susan Huff, 2601 Hickory Trail, said that she lives in a 16-unit condominium unit across the street from the property. She said that the new units could affect the egress for her building. Huff asked why it was necessary to build on the open space when there are lots on the other side of the street (where homes are already built) that are for sale. She said she would prefer that the property not be rezoned Greenwood Hektoen noted that an a-mail from Mary Gilbert regarding this development had been distributed to the Commission. The public hearing was closed at 10:19 p.m. Busard motioned to approve REZ08-00012/SUB08-00011, an application submitted by Three Bulls for a rezoning from Low Density Single-Family (RS-5) to Planned Development Overlay Medium Density Single-Family (OPD-8) and a preliminary plat of Hickory Pointe, a 4-lot, 2.97 acre Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2009 -Formal Page 13 residential subdivision on Hickory Trail, west of First Avenue, subject to compliance with the revised elevation drawings; staff approval of detailed plans for the open space area; and approval of a minor modification for the location of the north curb cut on First Avenue. Eastham seconded. Plahutnik noted that the Commission had gone from astate-of-the-art 1960's subdivision design to a progressive, unique and innovative solution to housing. Plahutnik said he believed it was possible to live in these units and function without an automobile. While it is a shame that the building will block some open space, Plahutnik said, he assumes the applicant does not own the property across the street and is simply going with what he's got. Plahutnik said he likes the development and the amenities in the rear. Eastham said he too is in favor of this application; it is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Eastham said he thinks the developer did an excellent job of proposing buildings that are attractive and address the needs for a transition from residential housing to open space. Weitzel stated his support for the project and said he would like to see more of it in town. Freerks said she believes this is a good development, and that she believes this is a good example of planned development overlay. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: December 1 & December 4, 2008: Eastham motioned to approve the minutes. Payne seconded. The minutes were approved on a vote of 6-0. OTHER: None. ADJOURNMENT: Payne motioned to adjourn. Eastham seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 6-0 vote at 10:35 p.m. s/pcd/minslp8z/2009/P&Z 01-15-09.doc Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission Attendance Record 2009 cnoMnl MccTINr_ Name Term Ex ices 1115 J. Busard 05/11 X C. Eastham 05/11 X A. Freerks 05/13 X E. Ko es 05/12 O/E M. Pa ne 05/10 X W Plahutnik 05/10 X T. Weitrel 05/13 X INFnDMAI MFFTINr: Name Term Ex Tres 1/12 J. Busard 05/11 C. Eastham 05/11 A. Freerks 05/13 E. Ko es 05/12 M. Pa ne 05/10 W. Plahutnik 05/10 T. Weitrel 05/13 Key: X =Present O =Absent O/E = Absent/Excused FINAL/APPROVED POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD 3b 3 MINUTES -January 13, 2009 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Michael Larson called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Janie Braverman, Donald King, Greg Roth, Abbie Yoder MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh and Staff Kellie Tuttle OTHERS PRESENT: Captain Richard Wyss and Officer David Schwindt of the ICPD; and public, Caroline Dieterle RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (1) Accept PCRB Report on Complaint #08-08 CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Yoder and seconded by Braverman to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended. • Minutes of the meeting on 11/18/08 • ICPD General Order #00-08 (Weapons) Replacing Pages 1,8, and 15 • ICPD General Order #01-08 (Criminal Intelligence) • ICPD Quarterly Summary Report (All quarters) - IAIR/PCRB, 2008 Braverman confirmed that within General order #01-08 (Criminal Intelligence) page 3, Focus of Strategic Intelligence Activities, number 7 listing "Major crime including" is actually "including but not limited to". Also on page 4, Evaluation of Information, Braverman verified that the only information that will not be entered into the system is when reliability is unknown and validity cannot be judged. OLD BUSINESS Complaint Form Update regarding Officer Bill of Rights -Pugh researched false reports. Iowa Criminal Code section 718.6 (False reports to communications with public safety entities) refers to false reports to fire departments, law enforcement authorities, or other public safety entities. Pugh does not believe the PCRB would qualify as other public safety entities. If through the investigation the complainant makes a false report to the investigating officers, it may quantify as a false report. Iowa Criminal Code section 720.2 (Perjury, contradictory statements, and retraction) deals with when a person is under oath or in an affidavit makes a false statement. Pugh's question was if the complaint form rises to the same level as an affidavit. Pugh does not believe it does. The signature is not notarized and does not state that they swear the information is true and/or accurate. There is a statement that they certify to the best of their knowledge that the statements on the form are true. Pugh will draft some general language regarding false statements for the next meeting to include on the information sheet and the complaint form. Complaint Registry/Monitoring System -The Board requested that the officer identifiers in the Chief's report to the Board be changed to alpha only (ie, Officer A, Officer B, etc). Captain Wyss will speak to the Chief regarding this request. The Board then agreed to keep a registry of sustained allegations only. The report will include incident date, officer identifier #, and the sustained allegation. When there is a sustained allegation, the Board will request an identifying # for the officer from the Police Chief, and then enter the information on the report. Captain Wyss will look PCRB January 13, 2009 Page 2 into identifier numbers for the officers. From this point forward the Board will review the report quarterly and in the event of multiple sustained complaints against a particular officer, the Board would forward the report to the City Council. Motion by Braverman, seconded by King to start a complaint registry/monitoring system for sustained complaints only as described. Motion carried 4/1, Roth no. The Board will revisit this item at the February meeting to discuss the draft report and the additional details Captain Wyss is checking on. NEW BUSINESS None. PUBLIC DISCUSSION Schwindt confirmed that it was the Police Department that would be providing the officer identifier # for the sustained complaint report. BOARD INFORMATION None. STAFF INFORMATION None. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by King and seconded by Yoder 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, 5/0. Open session adjourned at 6:34 P.M. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 6:47 P.M. Motion by King, seconded by Braverman to forward the Public Report as amended for PCRB Complaint #08-08 to City Council. Motion carried, 5/0. PCRB January 13, 2009 Page 3 Motion by Yoder, seconded by Braverman to request 45 day extension for PCRB Complaint #08-09 due to timelines and scheduling. Motion carried, 5/0. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change) • February 10, 2009, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm • March 10, 2009, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm • April 14, 2009, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm • May 12, 2009, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Roth and seconded by King. Motion carried, 5/0. Meeting adjourned at 6:50 P.M. i 7 ~ ~ ~ 0 0 Q ~ ~ ~~o~~ ~~~ ~ °~ c -~ ~ c KY G~ a ~ t"~ ~ ~, d o. ~ Qa b~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ o ~O ~ o ~O ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ b ~i W y y ~ ~d ~~ ~• ~, z d o~ ~~ 0 b O C" n t~ n N t~ z r~ 0 POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240-1826 (319) 356-5041 January 13, 2009 iii; TO: Clty COUIICIl _ "' --=-= Complainant _._ Michael Lombardo, City Manager a~a :.~ Sam Hargadine, Chief of Police r; ~ " --- Officer(s) involved in complaint ~- ~ ` ~~' ~~ ~, From: Police Citizen's Review Board Re: Investigation of PCRB Complaint #08-08 This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the: "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB #08-08 (the "Complaint"). BOARD'S RESPONSIBII.,ITY 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 July 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 October 20, 2008, and was filed with the City Clerk on October 16, 2008. The Board met to consider the Chiefs Report on October 28, 2008, November 18, 2008 and January 13, 2009. At the November 18~` meeting, a 45 day extension was requested until January 1 20, 2009. 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". FIl~TDINGS OF FACT On July 22, 2008, the complainant filed a Police Citizen's Review Board Complaint alleging that Iowa City Police Officers had harassed her and were rude to her in contacts with her and her service dog. The complainant feels that on July 7, 2008 a citation was not issued to a driver she claims hit her service dog because she had complained to Congressman Dave Loebsack's office about the police department. ALLEGATION#1: A few years ago an unknown officer approached her and her service dog in the downtown pedestrian plaza. The officer failed to recognize that the dog was a service dog despite wearing a vest. The complainant stated the officer harassed her and was not trained in regards to service dog laws. CONCLUSION: The mention of an incident from several years ago with a current incident is not within the PCB's complaint review process. (PCRB complaints are accepted within 90 days of an inc~e~t.) `I~OT 'l : ~ ADDRESSED - .._~ ,~d ,.,,,. ~, ~_ ALLEGATION#2: ~~~- ~_ On an unknown date in May of 2008., the complainant says that Officer A approached lr gang ~~~~ having her dog in the downtown pedestrian plaza. She states, Officer A failed to recog~ze that,~ier dog was a service dog despite wearing a service dog's vest. The complainant states that Office A was rude to her and harassed her. CONCLUSION: The complainant picked out Officer A's picture from a department picture in the department's lobby. Officer A remembers dealing with the complainant, but.recalls meeting her on July 2, 2008. There is no substantial evidence to support the allegation that Officer A harassed her, was .rude, or not trained to proficiency regarding service dogs. NOT SUSTAINED ALLEGATION#3: On July 2, 2008, Officer B approached the complainant regarding her having a dog in the downtown pedestrian plaza. The complainant stated Officer B harassed her, was rude to her and failed to recognize her dog was a service dog, even though it was wearing a service dog vest. 2 CONCLUSION: There is no substantial evidence to support the allegation that Officer B harassed her, was rude, to her, or was not trained to proficiency regarding service dog laws. City ordinance does not allow dogs in the downtown pedestrian plaza unless they are service dogs. Officers are expected to approach persons with dogs in the downtown pedestrian plaza for enforcement of this ordinance. The complainant stated that once Officer B was informed that the dog was a service dog, no further conversation took place. The complainant could not describe any specific act or recount any words or phrases used by Officer B used to suggest he .was rude and/or harassed her. A review of Officer B's in-car video was done of the interaction with the complainant however, the listener was unable to hear any conversation between the complainant and Officer B -` .~ _~ NOT SUSTAINED ~ ~ ~ `~~" -~ ° ~' ALLEGATION #4: n ,`:~ -" '._~. ,4.... On July 7, 2008 Officer C covered a call involving complainant's dog and a vehicle. ~pfficer~ did not issue the driver of the vehicle a citation. The complainant believed this was in retaliation for her complaining to Congressman Dave Loebsack's office about the police department. The complainant did not make any allegations that Officer C was rude to her, that he harassed her, or made any comments about her complaining about the Iowa City Police Department. CONCLUSION: Officer C responded to a call about a vehicle hitting the complainant's dog while in the crosswalk on the southwest corner of Linn and Washington Streets. The complainant stated that she was about half way into the crosswalk when a vehicle turning left onto Linn Street from westbound Washington Street struck her dog. The complainant stated that she kept her dog at the location it had been struck and she did not allow the driver to move his vehicle. To issue a citation an Officer must have probable cause to believe that a crime occurred. Officer C talked with three independent witnesses who stated that complainant's dog was not struck by the vehicle. The complainant stated that she did not allow the vehicle driver to move his vehicle before Officer C arrived on scene. Officer C stated that when he arrived the vehicle had stopped prior to and out of the crosswalk. Officer C's in-car video also showed the vehicle out of the crosswalk. Officer C's in-car video also showed the vehicle out of the crosswalk. Officer C denies knowing anything about complainant's complaint to Congressman Loebsack's office. NOT SUSTAINED ADDITIONAL FACTS: On July 22, 2008 the complainant also filed a PCRB Complaint making several allegations concerning the Police Chief's conduct. This Internal Investigation was conducted by the City Manager and the City Attorney's Office as the Chief of Police was the subject of the complaint. The Police Chief, Officers A, B, C, and D and the complainant were interviewed. All reports and audio/video tapes were also reviewed. ALLEGATION# 1: The complainant alleged that the Police Chief refused to direct Officer C to issue a citation in retaliation for her complaint to Congressman Dave Loebsack's office. CONCLUSION: The Chief made no attempt to influence Officer C's decision to issue a citation after learning about the incident and the relevant facts, and supported Officer C's decision. His decision was reasonable and not based on an attempt to harass or retaliate against the complainant. The Chief did not recall being aware of the complainant prior to receiving the letter from Congressman Loebsack's office on July 8, 2008 and therefore had no motive or opportunity to retaliate- against her or even encourage other members of the police department to retaliate or harass her at the time of the crosswalk incident which had happened on July 7, 2008. NOT SUSTAINED ALLEGATION#2: Complainant alleges that the Chief told her that she had no authority to go to Congressman Loebsack's office because she had not been harassed by the police department. CONCLUSION: The Chief recalled, during his interview, that he merely mentioned that he had received a letter from Congressman Loebsack's office and that the police department was not interested in hiring her to educate them on service dogs. The Chief stated that he had no reason to be concerned about the complainant's complaint to Congressman Loebsacks' office, as Congressman I.oebsack has no authority over the Chief or the police department. NOT SUSTAINED ALLEGATION#3: The complainant alleges that the Chief lied to her when he allegedly stated he had spoken with her service dog's vet, who felt that the dog was not hit in the crosswalk. CONCLUSION: The Chiefs statements regarding the service dog's condition after. the July 7, 2008 crosswalk incident were based not on a personal conversation between him and the vet, but rather based on representations made to him by Officer D and an examination of the veterinary bill, which had been provided to him by Officer D. NOT SUSTAINED ~, . 9 i:J - 4 .. :.,~ 02-24-09 3b 4 MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION THURSDAY, January 08, 2009 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL APPROVED MEMBERS PRESENT: Thomas Baldridge, Esther Baker, William Downing, Lindsay Bunting Eubanks, Pam Michaud, Jim Ponto, Ginalie Swaim, Alicia Trimble, Frank Wagner STAFF PRESENT: Christina Kuecker, Robert Anderson OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Warner CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Bunting Eubanks called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: 712 Ronalds Street. Kuecker said the project on Ronalds Street was deferred from the previous meeting. She said it's a three-part project including window replacement, enclosure of a portion of a porch with screens and addition of windows on the garage. She said it's anon-contributing house in the Brown Street Historic District on Ronalds Street. Kuecker said the applicant proposes to replace the second story window with the same windows that were approved for the addition in 2007. The applicant proposes to use some of the second story windows for use in the garage. And he wants to enclose part of the porch along the side door with a screened in porch. The applicant proposes to have screened in porch about 2.5-3 feet away from balustrade and have a 30-inch high base wall with sided base wall with same dimension as siding on the house. Kuecker said staff sees other options, such as moving screen wall to line up with balustrade and eliminating the thirty inch base wall or just leaving the screened in portion where it is and extending screens from ceiling to floor with grid or support to allow visibility and structural support along bottom portion. The third portion of the project is to add windows to side of garage. The garage is shared so applicant only has control over half the garage. Kuecker said staff recommends approval of project as presented in application with the condition that the replacement windows on second story match existing windows in type, size, sash width, trim, and overall appearance, and that the mullion width must be maintained between the double windows. Staff recommends allowing applicant the option of constructing the screened porch as presehted in the application, eliminating the 30-inch high base wall and extending the screen the entire distance between floor and ceiling, or moving the screen wall to directly behind the porch railing and eliminating the 30-inch high base wall. Kuecker said if the third option is chosen, the screened door may be placed on the south wall to provide access through the screened in portion of the porch. Bunting Eubanks asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Robert Warner, the applicant, said the reason for the access between was because there is a problem if the screening is put behind the railing, then the railing cannot be accessed, which is a problem with the continual need to repaint. Warner said the porch is really wide, added in the 1970s. He said the higher addition was added in the 1960s, and the rear addition in 2007. Warner said he was thinking of trying to replicate the existing wall with the panels along, to blend more with the character of the walls and wrap around. Ceiling light fixtures in the porch area was a consideration. Warner discussed the window damage. He said the windows themselves are rotted. Warner said the sill plates between the two double-windows are rotted out, that there is just a hole. He said moisture comes Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 8, 2009 Page 2 of 7 down between windows and collects on the sill plate and the only thing holding the windows together is paint. Warner discussed a screen system suggested by his contractor called Screen Tight. Kuecker asked the applicant to explain the system to the Commission. Warner said it's a plastic framing system that fits on the framing. He said the panels are done with a cover piece over the panel. The benefit, he said, is if damage is done, a single panel can be removed and replaced. Warner said he and the contractor are flexible in the method chosen. The covers currently on the window are vinyl, suffering from UV damage. Michaud asked to which windows the applicant is referring. Warner said all windows, then clarified that the ones on the right have the old, full-covered storm windows with hooks in the top that slide into place. But the ones in the front were replaced with vinyl years ago and are falling apart. He said he would like to replace those to get a nicer look, emphasizing his desire to salvage and keep trim pieces. He said there is a red strip above the windows that he wants to keep. Baldridge asked if the proposal is to take the windows from the front and place them on the garage. Warner clarified that the intent is to take the windows from the side, the smaller windows of the same height as the non-functional window on the garage. The goal is to bring in more light to the garage for use as an art studio. He said they would not be visible because there is a shed on the side. Swaim asked about the height of the balustrade for the proposed 30-inch high base wall. Warner said the height is the same as the balustrade, the intent being to keep a straight line and to have a wider sill to place things like glasses. He said he intends to use cement board to blend, like has been done to other portions of the house. He said one could barely tell the difference. Michaud asked whether the two windows on the first floor will stay, the ones going down to where the proposed screen will go. Warner confirmed this. He said he wants to get away from those. Michaud asked whether he is planning to leave a few inches of space. Warner said more than that, about two feet. He said the hope is to match up with third column. Michaud suggests lining it up with the solid wall, to drop it down so it is shorter and less prominent and tied in better with the windows. Warner said that is good idea. Warner said the driveway is ice, so he uses the porch to safely get from front to rear. He said in addition to the screen door proposed for the north side of the porch, he would like to put a screen door on the south end to pass through. He said he will submit another sketch for that proposed door. Bunting Eubanks said a problem in the past has been in keeping the outward appearance the same. She emphasized that for windows, to make sure the mullion spacing is the same and the framing is the same. Warner said he wants to keep the framing and to try to salvage as much as possible to keep the price down, but the sill whole plate is gone so those have to be replaced. Bunting Eubanks said it's okay to replace, but it has to keep the same spacing. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 8, 2009 Page 3 of 7 Warner wondered about the section between the windows going on the outside. A retailer told him with one type of window, which is an insert, there might be a little bit of space, but that would be done on the outside. But even then the mullion between the windows would stay the same. Warner addressed the issue of egress for the bedrooms on the east and west side of the house. He said the windows are only 2'8" wide, so those will need to be widened. The ceiling height is only five feet. He said he can get a casement window with insert to achieve the appearance of a double-hung window. Michaud said the Commission has approved the casement window with insert before to achieve double- hung look. Bunting Eubanks said egress receives priority. Warner said it will look the same, just a little wider but that can be made up in the interior frame. He said what he needs to do is maintain the width of the outside framing. Bunting Eubanks added that the mullion also needs to be maintained. She said there was a case where mullion was not kept. Warner says he heard about that. Bunting Eubanks emphasized the outside appearance needs to remain the same. She said the fiber cement board is acceptable, that there are many materials which are acceptable which people are surprised by. Warner said that was a wise decision to allow use of fiber cement board. He said his neighbor applied fiber cement board long ago and it looks the same as when first applied. Bunting Eubanks said the Commission has guidelines that come from the Secretary of the Interior and those permit fiber cement board. Warner says his house is a noncontributing property, that it is a mix of styles. He said he also found a car jack holding up a portion of his porch which is accessible through the skirting of the porch. Bunting Eubanks said the clarification of these issues is why the Commission wished his presence at the meeting. In the past, if there has been no communication with the applicant, there are problems. She asked for questions or further discussion from Commission members. Ponto asked about size of the upper windows that would be moved to the garage compared to the existing garage windows. Warner said the size of the windows is the same. Michaud asked whether the plan was to move three. Warner said there are two windows on the upper portion of the house on each side. So, there are four windows. He said the window in the worst condition will be discarded. Bunting Eubanks asked about whether the motion needs to be amended to include the two screened porch doors. Kuecker said yes, the motion language should be amended. She also said it should include language about casement window for egress that has the appearance of a double-hung. Michaud offered suggestion for screen, to have heavier mesh to protect screen against pets. Warner said he knows about the heavier mesh but that even though it doesn't puncture, the pre-molded system of installation warps the screen, so he would prefer not to use it. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 8, 2009 Page 4 of 7 Bunting Eubanks asked for further discussion, or a motion. Warner asked if there is any problem with the plastic panelized system. Kuecker said she thinks guidelines say it should be wood. Bunting Eubanks said the Commission tends to go against plastic. She said that only certain synthetics have been tested and are therefore acceptable, .such as fiber cement board. This comes from the Secretary of the Interior. Warner said the suggestion came from contractor because it is easier to assemble, but the use of wood is fine, that he didn't think the plastic would be acceptable. Bunting Eubanks said the guidelines are also set up so the materials last. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 712 Ronalds Street as presented in the application, with the condition that the replacement windows match the existing windows in type, size, sash width, trim, and overall appearance. For any window that is required to meet egress requirements, a casement window may be used provided that it has a wide muntin to simulate the appearance of a double hung window. The applicant also has the option of constructing the screened portion of the porch as presented in the application; changing the height or eliminating the base wall; and adding a second screened door. Everything must be constructed of wood or fiber cement board. Michaud seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0. VIRTUAL FORUM UPDATE: Bunting Eubanks said she has prepared a draft power point for the virtual form to present to the Commission. The Commission discussed the power point and other details of the Forum. Kuecker made notes of the changes requested by the Commission. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 11, 2008. MOTION: Swaim moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's December 11, 2008 meeting, as written. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0. OTHER: Bunting Eubanks asked about eliminating the cover page from the Commission packets to be more environmentally friendly. Baker, Ponto and Michaud said they are fine with it. Ponto said all the information is included at the top of the agenda page. Kuecker asked if everyone is okay receiving minutes by email. Positive responses from the Commission were received. Kuecker asked if individuals want to receive their entire packets via email. Trimble, Downing, Baker, Michaud, and Wagner indicated they wish to receive their packets via email. Bunting Eubanks reminded the Commission that Kuecker presents all the relevant information during the meetings. Kuecker said that individuals can change their mind if receiving packets or minutes via email does not work for them. Bunting Eubanks said it is a good idea to have at least one printed agenda at the meeting Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 8, 2009 Page 5 of 7 Downing said probably the most important thing about receiving the pack in the mail is the reminder of the meeting date and time. Kuecker said the agenda could still come via postal mail. Michaud wondered about whether a postcard could be used for the agenda. Swaim asked about an email notification of meeting dates. She wondered if that would serve the same purpose of Kuecker asking for a quorum. Kuecker said it could be either. She said this is still being figured out. Kuecker said one advantage of sending packets via email is the packets would be received the same day rather than waiting to receive the packet in postal mail. Bunting Eubanks asked whether Commission members had a preference for when to hold the forum. Michaud asked about President's day, whether City hall would be closed. Bunting Eubanks said the forum could be held at City Hall. She said her idea would be to have the forum on the second or fourth Thursday of the month to maintain the normal schedule. Kuecker said she didn't think the Commission could replace a regular meeting to hold the forum. Bunting Eubanks said then the fourth Thursday would work at the end of February. Swaim said February is a good month because people are starting to look at doing work on their houses. Michaud asked if it would be good to have it on President's Day because people would have more time. She asked if City Hall is locked. Kuecker said she doesn't know about holidays. Baker asked about when the letters normally are sent out. Kuecker said normally the letters are sent in April, but they can be sent anytime. She said last year the letters were sent out too late because nobody was hired yet for her position. Bunting Eubanks suggested the fourth Thursday in February for the date of the forum. Downing asked about the slide presentation showing a picture of the Old Brick church. He said he thinks people might be confused and think that is the location of the forum. Kuecker said in order to have the forum televised it has to take place at the Iowa City Library or City Hall. She said she'll make sure the invitation is clear. Kuecker asked if there are any comments about the Certified Local Government report to the state that was sent to the Commission members. Swaim indicated that Wetherby is spelled without the letter `a'. Swaim asked about question number two in the report regarding the nomination of the Wetherby House to the National Register. Kuecker said the house has been approved by the state committee and will go to the National Park Service for consideration. Anderson said that the information about the Wetherby House will be left in the report to indicate that the house has been moved even though the report asks for properties listed on the National Register and the Wetherby House has only been nominated to this point. Swaim asked about question number five, letter c in the report, whether the annual Historic Preservation Awards should acknowledge collaboration with Friends of Historic preservation and Johnson County Historic Preservation Commission. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 8, 2009 Page 6 of 7 Anderson said he added text to question eight in the report, a question that was unfinished. He said since contractors have not yet been notified district requirements he will amend that language. Swaim asked if it matters whether the language reads `Historical Society' or 'SHPO'. Kuecker said she doesn't think so. She said she also included information on two things. One is an invitation to the Friends of Historic Preservation annual meeting to take place at the end of January which will focus on historic paint by David Arbogast. The other is a Growing Sustainable Communities conference in Dubuque. She said if several Commission members are able to go she could probably arrange for a planner there to give a historic tour of the downtown. She said if any Commission members are interested to let her know now. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:06 p.m. Minutes submitted by Robert Anderson S/pcd/mins/hpc/2009/hpc 1-08-09.doc Historic Preservation Commission Attendance Record 2009 Name Term Expires ~/~$ Baldrid a 3/29/11 X Baker 3/29/09 X Downin 3/29/10 X --- Eubanks 3/29/11 X Hirschman 3/29/11 -- -- Michaud 3/29/09 X Ponto 3/29/10 X Swaim 3/29/09 X Trimble 3129110 X Wa ner 3/29/09 X Key: X =Present O =Absent O/E = AbsenUExcused 3b 5 MINUTES APPROVED PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE THURSDAY, JANUARY 8, 2009 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM -CITY HALL Members Present: Mark Seabold, DaLayne Williamson, Ann Khan, Jan Finlayson, Rick Fosse, Terry Robinson (sitting in for Terry Trueblood) Members Absent: Patrick Carney Staff Present: Marcia Bollinger, Nate Kabat, Jeff Davidson Public Present: Melissa Mitchell, interested party RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL Recommend approval of the Lemme Leopard Community Initiated Public Art Proposal at a funding level of $1,000. Moved by Finlayson. Seconded by Fosse. Motion passed 6:0. CALL TO ORDER Seabold called the meeting to order at 3:09 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA Fosse shared an idea he had for a trail that would produce music by appropriately spaced ribs/cuts into the pavement when driven over on a bicycle. He calls it the "tactile trail". He than told the group that this idea made it into a Honda commercial. The committee was very impressed. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 6, 2008 AND DECEMBER 4. 2008 MEETINGS MOTION: Williamson moved to approve the minutes; Fosse seconded. The motion passed 6:0. SCULPTURE PROJECT AT WATER WORKS PRAIRIE PARK -REVIEW OF FUNDING OPTIONS AND DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL FUND RAISING Bollinger handed out copies of the Public Art Budget for the committee to review. The account currently has $77,850 in it. Currently there are 3 outlays totaling $32,600 and a possible outlay for the Lemme Leopard for an addition $1,000. Bollinger accounted for $500 in misc. expenses and expects a $50,000 allocation in the FY 10 budget. Assuming the FY10 allocation, this brought the total PAAC budget to $93,750. Bollinger noted the PAAC budget currently has enough to get the Waterworks art project started, but not enough to cover the entire cost until the FY10 budget is approved. Fosse said he believes that considering the current budget situation committing future funds is risky. Finlayson asked if a $50,000 allocation for FY10 is for sure. Bollinger said that amount is not guaranteed, but that is the historic allocation. Bollinger said there is an opportunity for boards to present to the City Council regarding budget changes, but since the PAAC would not be requesting a change in the budget, she thinks a letter would suffice. Fosse Public Art Advisory Committee Thursday, January 8, 2009 Page 2 of 4 said the PAAC would know in February how much the City Council plans to allocate to the PAAC budget so any funds for the Waterworks project should be held until then. Finlayson asked when the City Council will act on the FY10 budget. Davidson said on February 24th. Kahn asked when the committee would like to begin the project. Bollinger said the artist would like to begin soon if possible. Fosse suggested a budget for the Waterworks project could be approved contingent upon budget approval in February. Davidson said the committee would know if PAAC gets brought up at the CIP meetings which would provide a better idea of how much money the committee will likely receive. Seabold asked if fundraising should be pursued if the budget will be able to cover the project costs in February. Kahn asked what kind of fundraising is being considered. Seabold said ideally one large sponsor could be found, but admitted it will be hard to raise money for art projects given the economic conditions. Finlayson added this project will be competing for funding with the Summer of the Arts. Fosse asked the committee if it should act on approving a project budget at this meeting or if the committee would like to wait. Davidson advised that February would be an ok time to act on a project budget contingent upon the money coming through. He thought that would provide the time needed to make a more sound judgment. The committee agreed to table a decision until February but agreed the project is still worth pursuing. Robinson asked how big the base of the sculpture will be. Bollinger said she does not know the base size yet, but through the project design process the committee has decided that the sculpture meadow would be the best place to locate the sculpture. She said the hope is to implement a wind harvesting or solar power system to energize the sculpture lighting. Bollinger agreed to talk with the artist to keep him up to speed with the committee's decision. LEMME ELEMENTARY -COMMUNITY INITIATED PUBLIC ART PROPOSAL - Continued from December 2008 meeting. Bollinger, Seabold and Williamson explained the project to the committee members who were absent for John Bacon's presentation at the previous PAAC meeting. Bollinger also passed out pictures presented to the committee at the December meeting. Seabold and Williamson expressed their support for the project. Seabold noted this project would set a precedent for future school projects dealing with high quality and well thought out public art projects. Finlayson thought the proposed $1,000 contribution seems like a reasonable request. The committee agreed. MOTION: Finlayson moved to approve an amount for the Lemme Leopard Community Initiated Public Art Proposal of $1,000; Fosse seconded. The motion passed 6:0. COMMITTEE TIME/UPDATES Bollinger informed the committee of a literary walk plaque that is coming out of the ground near the public library. There has been discussion of who is responsible for paying to have this fixed. Bollinger explained that the Literary Walk was initially intended to be expanded over time to include other elements in the surrounding downtown area which would have placed this plaque under the jurisdiction of the PAAC. Currently the plaque is not technically included in the PAAC inventory and so repairs would not be the responsibility of the PAAC and must be maintained by the public library. However, the public library would like the PAAC to assume responsibility for the plaque since that is what was originally intended. Public Art Advisory Committee Thursday, January 8, 2009 Page 3 of 4 Robinson explained the plaque was not installed correctly by the contractor, Knutson Construction. Robinson suggested that the whole plaque be reset into newly poured concrete so that it is secure for the future. He also noted the bronze plaque is bent and will need to be repaired. Kahn said Knutson Construction should be contacted and asked to repair the plaque free of charge since it was their error. Fosse noted that the bronze plaques on the literary walk have become warn over time and present a hazard when they are icy or wet and the committee should consider that issue when replacing or expanding them. Finlayson asked if the PAAC would be responsible for paying to fix the plaque. Bollinger clarified that the PAAC would only need to pay for the repairs if the plaque was admitted into the PAAC inventory. Kahn noted the PAAC is already worried about the budget, so this project might not be good to take on right now. Fosse said one option would be to ask the library to pay for the repairs this time and than admit the plaque into the inventory after it is fixed. Bollinger did not know how much the repair would cost, but reminded the committee that maintenance of artwork is a part of doing business so she would pull together the cost information. Bollinger updated the committee to the proceedings of Poetry in Public noting that the response this year has been lukewarm. Bollinger also informed the committee that Poetry in Public was included in the application for Iowa City's recent "City of Literature" designation by UNESCO. She said Christopher Merrill plans to publish Iowa City Poetry in Public poems on the City of Literature website he is creating. She reminded the committee that Williamson served on the selection committee for 2008 and wondered who would be interested in filling that role for 2009. Williamson said she enjoyed the role last year and would like to serve on the committee again. ADJOURNMENT Fosse motioned to adjourn; Robinson seconded. Meeting adjourned at 3:57 pm. Next meeting scheduled for February 5th, 2009. Minutes submitted by Nate Kabat. Public Art Advisory Committee Thursday, January 8, 2009 Page 4 of 4 Public Art Advisory Committee Attendance Record 2009 Name Term Ex Tres 1 /8 Annadora Khan O1/Ol/11 X Data ne Williamson 01/01/12 X Jan Finla son O1/O1/11 X Mark Seabold O1/O1/10 X Patrick Carne 01/01/12 O Rick Fosse X Terr Robinson X Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused