Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-06-02 Bd Comm minutes3b 1 MINUTES FINAL PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION December 10, 2008 MEMBERS PRESENT: David Bourgeois, Craig Gustaveson, Margie Loomer; Ryan O'Leary, Matt Pacha, Jerry Raaz, John Westefeld MEMBERS ABSENT: Phil Reisetter STAFF PRESENT: Mike Moran, Terry Robinson GUESTS PRESENT: Dianna Harris, Del Holland RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Moved by Gustaveson, seconded by Bourgeois, to recommend adoption of the Recreation Division fees and charges for FY10 and tentative proposals for FY11 and FY12 as presented. Passed 7 to 1. Raaz opposed. OTHER FORMAL ACTION TAKEN Moved by Gustaveson, seconded by Westefeld, to approve the November 12, 2008 minutes as revised (pale 5, paragraph 6 to state, "Pacha announced that his Parks and Recreation Commision term expires in December of 2008"). Unanimous. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: Dianna Harris was present at this meeting. She thanked the Commission for all of their support of DogPAC over the past four years. She noted that she is looking very forward to the opening of the second dog park. She further noted that DogPAC could not have done all that they have without the support of the Commission. Westefeld commended DogPAC as well and stated that he has never seen such a successful cooperative effort. Mike Moran updated Commission on Terry Trueblood's medical condition. Trueblood will be on an extended medical leave. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF PROPOSED RECREATION FEES FOR FY10: Enclosed in the Commission packets were staff recommendations for fees and charges for FY10 along with tentative proposals for FYl l and FY12. Moran noted that Recreation has been raising fees every other year. One rate increase that always brings up questions is the aquatics fees. He noted that our fees are kept in-line with the Iowa Parks and Recreation Association Survey. He further explained that the Recreation Department has aself-imposed percentage of recovery and that we have been fortunate to remain above that being at 44% for FY 10. Parks and Recreation Commission December 10, 2008 Page 2 of 5 Raaz asked what the non-mandated target is. Moran noted that it is 40% further explaining that the Recreation Department takes our budget and capital outlay and divides by the amount of revenue we projected which for FY10 shows that 44% of the budget will be supported by fees and charges and not by property taxes or by the City. Raaz referred to the benchmarking sheet and wondered why their sheet shows only 18% and why the Recreation Fees and Charges sheet shows 44%. Moran explained that the consultants used everything (CBD, Cemetery, Parks, Forestry, & Recreation) when figuring their percentage. Moved by Gustaveson, seconded by Bourgeois, to recommend adoption of the Recreation Division fees and charges for FY10 and tentative proposals for FY11 and FY12 as presented. Passed 7 to 1. Raaz opposed. Raaz opposed with the following explanation given. (Note: Pacha told him that an explanation was not required, however, Raaz said that he preferred to explain.) Raaz feels that more consideration should have been given to the consultant's recommendations from the master plan. He further noted that Iowa City recovers a far lower percent of operating costs from fees than eight of the ten peer cities and that we should have a three year plan to get us to an agreed upon percentage that is closer to the best practices/industry norms/peer cities. As we raise user fees, City/Department or the Foundation should develop fund raising that will help support low- income people so they can use services. BUDGET UPDATE: As noted in the memo to Commission from Trueblood, the City Manager has asked all departments to closely review their requests for temporary employees both in terms of the wages and the number of employees requested. In the first review the plan was $3,000,000 short. City Manager virtually eliminated all capital outlay while also eliminating all extended service requests (personnel) and has asked everyone to reduce their budgets by 1%. He believes that this will get the budget to where it needs to be. His intent is to get this proposed budget to Council before the holidays. If these reductions do not get the budget where it needs to be, it may be necessary to start cutting services. Pacha asked if temp labor is Recreations biggest expense. Moran reported that yes it is. It may also lead to Recreation cutting travel expenses and eventually services offered as well. He further noted that we will not be able to offer the same services with less money. Robinson noted that he already had to scale back his pay scale raise for every temp employee and now has had to cutback another 1%. O'Leary discussed his being offended by the mention of Parks and Recreation having to cut services, especially after the year of a bad winter, flooding and now laws that have caused more littering, therefore, the need for increased maintenance on the Pedestrian Mall. He feels that is Citizens were made aware of the increased need for services to maintain the status quo of our parks, playgrounds, Pedestrian Mall, etc. they would find it offensive as well. Pacha noted that it is all public information, it just isn't always viewed by the public, unfortunately. Parks and Recreation Commission December 10, 2008 Page 3 of 5 ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2009: Pacha noted that he and Phil Reisetter met and nominated John Westefeld for Chair and Craig Gustaveson as Vice-Chair of the Parks and Recreation Commission for 2009. Moved by Raaz, seconded by Bourgeois, to elect John Westefeld as Chair and Cram Gustaveson as Vice-Chair of the Parks and Recreation Commission for 2009. Unanimous. CONSIDER CHANGING JANUARY MEETING TO FIRST OR THIRD WEDNESDAY: Agreed by Commission members to rescheduled January meeting for Wednesday, January 7 starting at 5 p.m. in Meeting Room B at the Robert A. Lee Community Recreation Center. COMMISSION TIME/SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: Loomer expressed her concern and extended her thoughts and prayers to Terry Trueblood. Westefeld wanted to publically thank Matt Pacha for all of his time and effort on the Parks and Recreation Commission and expressed his appreciation for the dynamic way that Matt has handled many difficult and challenging situations during his years on the board. Gustaveson mentioned that as a resident of Court St. he frequently uses and sees the new trail being used by community members and noted what a wonderful addition this is to the City. He also expressed his thanks to Matt Pacha for his years of service to the Commission. O'Leary complemented Pacha on his organizational skills and diplomacy while serving on the Commision. He also noted his appreciation for Pacha's ability to keep the meetings moving as a quick pace. He was very happy to see that there were eight applicants for the board and is happy that the Commission did not have to turn to downsizing after all. He would like to see the Commission revisit some issues such as the free parking during farmers markets and the littering concerns on the Pedestrian Mall. Raaz also thanked Matt for his 16 years of service on .the Commission and stated that his recognition is well-deserved. He reiterated O'Leary's idea of revisiting some of these past unresolved issues. He noted the Wetherby shelter art project that was written up the newspaper and noted what a fantastic partnership this was and hopes to see a lot more of these type of community projects in the future. Bourgeois seconded all of the positive comments to Matt. O'Leary asked to speak again. He asked if it might be appropriate for Commission Members to speak to City Council members giving their input on applicants for the Commission, especially to let them know how the Commission would like to see people appointed who are passionate about parks and recreation. Moran noted that the Council will appoint two new members at their Parks and Recreation Commission December 10, 2008 Page 4 of 5 next Council Meeting (Tuesday, November 18) to fill Pacha and Reisetter's position and then will appoint Watsons position at a later date so encouraged Commission Members to do so before Tuesday. Those that applied for the current openings and are not appointed but who are still interested would have to reapply for Watson's position. CHAIRS REPORT: Pacha updated Commission on the progress of the Sand Lake Fund Raising process. Gift giving is going well. The group will meet again on Monday, November 17. The biggest challenge at this time is keeping up the momentum. He asked Commission Members to please consider giving a gift to the project. One Commission member has already done so. Pacha also noted that Westefeld in his role as Chair on the Commission will be appointing a Parks and Recreation Commission member to the Foundation. Pacha had a few parting words for the Commission. He stated that one of the reasons he has remained on the Commission for such a long. period of time was to see the Master Plan through its completion. He encouraged Commission to follow through with the plan and to use this as a working document. He also thanked the Commission members for their hard work over the years and encouraged them to make a serious commitment to their role as Commissioners and to not be afraid to advise the City Council. DIRECTORS REPORT Moran noted that staff has hired a new Aquatics Director, Matthew Eckhart. He is from Champaign, Illinois and started with the department on December 1. He will be introduced at a future Commission meeting. The Council Time with the Commission is scheduled for Wednesday, January 28. More details to follow. Moran noted that Bill Graf, President of Boy's Baseball, tragically lost his wife in an automobile accident this past weekend. The department will be sending an arrangement and condolences to the funeral home. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Raaz, seconded by Westefeld to adiourn at 6:30 p.m. Unanimous. Parks and Recreation Commission December 10, 2008 Page 5 of 5 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD YF,AR 2008 NAME TERM EXPIRES p~ ~ p N ~ M ~ ~ ao ~ M ~ ^o ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ N\. ^' ~ ^~ David Bour eois 1/1/11 O/E O/E O/E X X X X O/E X O/E X X Craig Gustaveson 1/1/11 X X O/E X O/E X O/E X O/E O/E X X Margaret Loomer 1/1/12 X X X X O/E O/E X O/E X X X X Ryan O'Lear 1/1/10 X X X X X X X X X X X X Matt Pacha 1/1/09 X X X X O/E X X X X X X X Jerry Raaz 1/1/12 X X X O/E O/E X X X X X X X Phil Reisetter 1/1/09 X O/E X X X O/E O/E X X X X O/E John Watson 1/1/11 O/E O/E X X X O/E X X X O/E O/E O/E John Westefeld 1/I/10 O/E X X X X X X O/E X O/E X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting LQ = No meeting due to lack of quorum 3b(2 MINUTES APPROVED IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 14, 2009 - 5:00 PM EMMA J. HARVAT HALL Members Present: Terry Hora, Caroline Sheerin, Edgar Thornton, Ned Wood, Barbara Eckstein Members Excused: None Staff Present: Sarah Walz, Sarah Greenwood Hektoen, Doug Boothroy Others Present: Frank Gersch, Gregg Geerdes, Lori Dahlen, Joyce Barker, Craig Dahlen, Janet Dahlen, Tim Krumm, Tom Werderitsch, Mike Dahlen, Chrissy Canganelli RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Ned Wood at 5:00 p.m. An opening statement was read by the Chair outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the procedures governing the proceedings. ROLL CALL: Hora, Sheerin, Thornton, Wood and Eckstein were present. CONSIDERATION OF THE DECEMBER 10, 2008: Sheerin moved to approve the minutes. Hora seconded. The motion carried 5-0. Iowa City Board of Adjustment January 14, 2009 Page 2 SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: EXC08-00017: An application submitted by John Hartson and Frank Gersch for a special exception to allow conversion of anon-conforming use from medical office to general office for property located in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) zone at 1027 Rochester Avenue. Walz noted that the subject property is zoned for single-family residential and commercial uses are not permitted. The building was built in 1920 to serve as a grocery store and was converted to medical office use in the 1950's (a conversion allowed under zoning at that time). The regulations in the code allow for anon-conforming use to be converted over time to bring it closer into conformity with the current regulations. The purpose of this is to ensure that an owner does not lose all rights to a building and its function with a zoning change. Walz stated that the Board may grant a special exception to allow the conversion to another non- conforming use if the criteria for the special exception are met. Walz said that the first criterion fits precisely the situation of this building: a commercial storefront building in asingle-family residential zone. The interior of the building is divided into office space (serving most recently as an office for psychologists). Walz stated that the proposed new use must be less intense than the existing use. The use that is proposed for the building is as an office for an architectural group. The previous use, medical office use, is defined in part by its reliance on regularly scheduled appointments. A general office use does not ordinarily depend upon the turn-over of regularly scheduled appointments. Thus, the parking requirement for a medical office use is higher than the parking requirements for general office use. This provides one illustration of the lesser intensity anticipated by the zoning code for a general office use than a medical office use. The subject property was established without the required off-street parking, Walz said, and is credited with what is known as "ghost parking." Walz noted that in this case, the required parking for the new use will be less than that for the previous use so there is no effect. Walz said that the proposed use is appropriate for the building and site. The architecture of the building makes it clear that the building's intended use would be commercial. The interior is already subdivided into offices, which is appropriate for the proposed new use. Walz indicated that the new owners have no plans for expansion of the building; nor is there space on the lot for expansion. The building will be restricted to approximately 1500 square feet of office space and thus the non-conforming use will not be enlarged. Walz said that she would not go through each of the general standard orally, as they were addressed in the staff report. She summarized that because this building has functioned consistently over time as a commercial use, and because the proposed new use is less intense than the use currently allowed there, the conclusion can be reached that the general standards are also met. Walz stated that the issue of the conversion ofnon-conforming uses was not addressed Iowa City Board of Adjustment January 14, 2009 Page 3 directly by the Comprehensive Plan, but noted that the Central District Plan does speak to the demand for on-street parking. Walz said it is reasonable to anticipate that the change to general office use would reduce the demand for parking. Walz stated that Staff recommends EXC08- 00017 be approved. Wood opened the floor to questions for Staff from the Board. Eckstein noted that the advertisement for the property stated that there was ample off-street parking available. Walz said that the advertisement was incorrect, that there is no off-street parking and that it was probably an error and meant to say ample on-street parking. Wood opened the public hearing, inviting the applicant to address the Board. Frank Gersch, 1041 Woodlawn Avenue, said that he believed Walz's summary was comprehensive, but offered to answer any questions board members might have. Eckstein noted that the application adequately addresses the issue of traffic congestion, but does not speak to pedestrian safety. Eckstein asked Gersch to speak to the issue of having only on- street parking available at the site and pedestrians having to cross a busy street like Rochester Avenue. Gersch stated that in ten years at that location there had never been a problem or a complaint on that issue. Wood asked if there was plenty of parking available on the streets nearby. Gersch said that there is parking on Rochester Avenue, Elizabeth Street, Bloomington Street, and other surrounding streets. Sheerin asked approximately how many customers the medical practice had in a week's time. Gersch replied that four doctors worked in the building, with each of them seeing a patient each hour, sometimes families would also come for appointments in separate cars. He said there would have been approximately thirty-two clients per day. There were no further questions for Gersch from the Commission. Wood invited anyone wishing to speak in opposition to the application to come forward. Seeing no one, Wood closed the public hearing. Walz noted that when the change of use is contemplated by the Board, it should be contemplated as a change from a generic medical use to a generic general office use. She stated that the special exception is tied to the property and not an individual owner/user. She said it was once converted to the general office use, it could not revert to a medical office use. Thornton moved to accept EXC08-00017, an application submitted by John Hartson and Frank Gersch for a special exception to allow conversion of anon-conforming use from medical office to general office for property located in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) zone at 1027 Rochester Avenue. Sheerin seconded. Iowa City Board of Adjustment January 14, 2009 Page 4 Sheerin said that this application meets the specific standards for the regulations governing non- conforming use because the property would be moving to a use of less intensity than the present use. Sheerin said that the proposed use will be located in a structure that was designed for a use that is currently not allowed in the zone. Sheerin said that the one-story building with large display windows in the front, and the interior space with its office space, examination rooms, and filing and storage space is designed for a commercial use, which is not allowed in the current zone. The new use will be of a lesser impact than the current use because of the lower traffic anticipated by the zoning code in a general office use. Because of the ghost parking that applies to the building, no additional parking will be needed for the new use. The proposed use is suitable for the subject structure and site because the building is designed and constructed for commercial use. The owners are not able to, and do not wish to, expand the building in any way. Sheerin outlined the general standards. She stated that the proposed exception would not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety or general welfare because the new use is less intensive than the current use. The proposed use will not be injurious to the use of other properties in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood because traffic will actually be reduced from that generated by the current use. Normal and orderly development of the surrounding area will not be impeded by this use because the proposed use is less intense than the present use. Sheerin stated that all utilities, access roads and other necessary facilities are already being provided. There is no issue of ingress or egress because there is no off-street parking. The use conforms to all other applicable standards of the zone in which it is to be located; while it is non-conforming, it is a lesser intense use and thereby meets this requirement. The use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because it will most likely relieve the demand for on-street parking in the neighborhood. Sheerin said that for these reasons she intended to vote in favor of this application. Thornton noted the uniqueness of the property. He said it was important to note that the owner will be aware that the property cannot be expanded; the property will not generate additional traffic and will not impede on the normal orderly development of the area, and all utilities are already present. He said that he believes the use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and he intends to vote in favor of it. Hora said that he concurred with his colleagues and that he thinks this is a good use for this building. He said that the use will be in better conformance with the zoning for the area. Eckstein said that she too agreed with her colleagues. She noted that the building seems to have been an interesting and good neighbor for quite some time in its non-conforming capacity. She said the proposed non-conforming use seems consistent with both regulations and with the building's history. Wood said that he believed the matter had been well stated by his colleagues. He said that the property had been designed and constructed for commercial use and will continue to be used that way. He said the proposed use will pose less of a parking concern than the present use, and that he intends to vote in favor of the application. Iowa City Board of Adjustment January 14, 2009 Page 5 A vote was taken and the motion was approved on a 5-0 vote. Wood declared the motion approved. He advised that anyone wishing to appeal the decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after the decision is filed with the City Clerk's office. APPEALS APL08-00001: An application submitted by Michael and Jan Dahlen appealing a decision by the Building Office to grant a building permit to Shelter House for property located in the CI-1 zone at 429 Southgate. Walz stated that Michael and Jan Dahlen filed an appeal of the Building Official's decision to issue a building permit to Shelter House. The appellants claim that the decision to issue a building permit to Shelter House was in error for the following reasons: 1) Section 14-4B-4d-Sb in the zoning code requires a shelter management plan. Shelter House has not submitted such a plan. 2) The site plan fails to comply with the parking requirements of code sectionl4-SA-4. 3) The site plan that was approved was not submitted to or approved by the Appellants, the owners of a substantial portion of land included with this site plan. 4) The site plan that was approved was not the site plan that was submitted by the Shelter House ("Applicant") and was not made available to Appellants for their review. 5) Appellants also contend that the special exception granted to Shelter House in July of 2004 was expired, and therefore a new special exception is necessary. Walz stated that the staff memo provides background on the process that the site plan and building permit has gone through up to this point; as a result, she will not go through that with the Board. She said that she would briefly summarize the appellant's points in terms of how Staff interprets them. To secure a building permit, Walz said, Shelter House was required to meet the specific standards for the special exception that were in place at the time that the application was approved in July 2004. At the time the special exception was granted, the only specific special exception criteria contained in the zoning code for community shelter/transient housing uses was minimum of 200 square feet of lot area per temporary resident and a minimum of 300 square feet per lot area for permanent residents. Shelter House indicated a maximum of 70 temporary residents would be using the facility (Shelter House does not have permanent residents) so they were required to provide the appropriate square footage for that number of residents. The Board of Adjustment, based on recommendations from Staff, approved the original application (2004) subject to the following conditions: Iowa City Board of Adjustment January 14, 2009 Page 6 1) General compliance with the site plan submitted; 2) An evergreen landscape buffer along the east property line; 3) An approximate 30-foot rear building setback; 4) An 8-foot high privacy fence installed along the south property line; 5) Compliance with the exterior stairwell guidelines. (Walz noted that Shelter House is no longer proposing an exterior stairwell.) Walz stated that the Appellant's reference to the required site management plan is taken from Iowa City's current zoning code, which took effect in 2005, and which now requires a management plan as one of the specific criteria for the Board of Adjustment to consider. Because this requirement did not exist at the time the original special exception was granted, it was not considered in the deliberations of the Board of Adjustment at that time, and therefore was not retroactively imposed by the Building Official. All other requirements for the site are based on the current zoning code, Walz said. The minimum parking requirement for Shelter House is seven spaces (0.1 x 70 residents) plus one additional space for each employee, based on the maximum number of employees who will be at the site at any given time. Shelter House has indicated that a maximum of 14 employees would be at the site at one time, and thus a total of 21 spaces are required. The site plan indicates that most of the spaces are at the front of the building, some are on the side, and two spaces are in a ground-floor garage. It is the City's position that the boundary dispute between the Appellants and Shelter House is a private matter, and is beyond the City's jurisdiction to resolve. Because the Appellants are not part of the application process for the property in question, there is no requirement to submit a site plan to them. Regarding the term of the special exception, by operation of local ordinance, Board of Adjustment decisions expire six months from the date the written decision is filed unless extended. Walz explained that the special exception was approved in July 2004 and extended in February 2005. This extension was granted for a period of six months after the date of the written court decision in the then on-going litigation. This resulted in Shelter House having until October 9, 2008, to take action to establish the use. The timelines for Shelter House's various submissions to Staff, the Building Official and the Planning and Zoning Commission are included in the staff report and outline Shelter House's actions in establishing use. Walz informed the Board that the Building Official was present and available for their questions. Greenwood Hektoen stated that she wished to touch on the Board's role in this matter. She said that in deciding this appeal the Board's first job is to determine if the Building Official erred in granting the building permit. Greenwood Hektoen said that the Board could not decide that this was not an appropriate location for the Shelter House and then grant the appeal; the Board would Iowa City Board of Adjustment January 14, 2009 Page 7 have to determine that the Building Official in some way violated the zoning code and/or other regulations in issuing this building permit. Greenwood Hektoen said that if the Board determines an error was made, then the Board can stand in the shoes of the Building Official and make whatever decision they believe should have been made, whether it is granting a building permit but adding considerations they feel are required by the code or denying the permit outright. Sheerin said that it is clear that the requirement for a site management plan was not required at the time the special exception was granted. She asked if there was anything that could guide the Board in establishing if it should be applied retroactively. Greenwood Hektoen said that the City Attorney's interpretation is that the requirement should not be retroactively applied because it is something that is required at the time an application for a special exception is submitted. Greenwood Hektoen said there is nothing in the language that makes it retroactive. Greenwood Hektoen explained that the parking requirements had also changed since the special exception had been granted, and that these changes, unlike the site management plan, would be applied to the Shelter House. The reason for the difference, Greenwood Hektoen explained, was that the parking requirements are something that are enforced at the time that the site plan is submitted, whereas, as previously noted, the site management plan would be submitted at the time the special exception is applied for. Thornton asked for clarification surrounding the issue of whether or not the special exception had expired. Walz explained that an applicant is given six months from the date the special exception is filed to take steps to "establish the use." In this case, Shelter House was granted a special exception in August 2004, and requested an extension in the February 2005 Board of Adjustment meeting. That extension was worded so that it gave Shelter House six months from the date that litigation, which had been impeding their progress, came to an end. Walz said she believed that this set the expiration date for the extension as October 9, 2008, by which time Shelter House was to have taken action to establish the use. Walz noted that it is the Building Official who makes the determination as to whether or not appropriate steps are taken, and that it would be appropriate to direct questions to him regarding that issue. Walz said that during this time site plans and updates were going back and forth between Shelter House and Staff, and that ultimately the building permit was not issued until late November 2008. Greenwood Hektoen added that the standard practice has been that the actions that Shelter House did take have been in the past considered sufficient to establish use; the code does not require that a building permit actually be granted prior to the expiration date of the special exception. Hora asked about the boundary dispute between the Dahlens and Shelter House. He said he understands that it is a private matter, but asked how that private issue affects the 30-foot setback issue required by the special exception. Hora asked if the matter was resolved in the Dahlens favor if it would result in pushing everything on the site farther away from the boundary, thereby nullifying the current site plans. Walz explained that the 30-foot issue came up in the original decision because it was cited as a finding of fact that the proposed 30-foot setback would provide the space needed to separate the two uses. Walz said that the 30-foot setback was not imposed Iowa City Board of Adjustment January 14, 2009 Page 8 by the Board as a specific requirement. Walz asked the Building Official, Doug Boothroy, if he would explain how the building department handles boundary disputes and their effect on the issuance of building permits. Doug Boothroy, Director of Housing Inspection Services and Building Official for the City of Iowa City, asked Hora to restate his question. Hora asked if the land boundaries were different than what the site plan says and a 30-foot off-set for water easement is required, then how would the overall site plan be affected. Boothroy explained that in a boundary dispute, the building department requires the complainant to file something with the court or have the boundary claims certified and documented in some way; verification is required that the dispute is valid. Boothroy said that this is a case of adverse possession, and the building department has not been provided with any kind of documentation that there has been a claim. Boothroy said that until there is some evidence that a claim has been made he is not sure it should be part of the consideration. Sheerin summarized that the burden is on the applicant to show that they own the property; once that is done, the burden is on any claimant to verify that they have a claim to the property. Boothroy affirmed this to be correct. Sheerin asked if it is correct that at this point the applicant has shown that they own the property and the building department has no other indication that there is a legal claim or pending litigation regarding ownership. Boothroy said that this was correct. He added that if during this process, prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, a claim is verified or litigated and impacts compliance with the code, that could be a problem for the applicant. He noted that this is a risk the applicant would be taking in proceeding prior to a boundary dispute being resolved. Boothroy said that this does not come up very often. Greenwood Hektoen asked Boothroy to speak to what the code requires for arear-yard setback; she asked if it was not the case that the 30-foot setback discussed in the appeal is superfluous to code requirements. Walz stated that the special exception originally passed was worded as follows: " ...the Board approves EXC04-00016 an application submitted by Shelter House for a special exception to permit transient housing in the Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone located at 429 Southgate Avenue subject to general compliance with the submitted site plan including a landscape buffer being provided along the east property line, an 8-foot tall privacy fence being provided along the south property line, and compliance with the exterior stairwell guides." At that time, the site plan showed a 30-foot rear setback, but a requirement fora 30-foot setback was not imposed upon the applicant by the Board. Wood asked how problems regarding adverse possession generally get resolved. Boothroy said they are typically resolved through the courts; the City has no authority to resolve such disputes. Thornton asked if the manner in which the expiration date and extension of the special exception were handled was standard. Boothroy said if Thornton's question was whether the amount of effort made by Shelter House to get their plans approved and the process that they followed was typical, then the answer is yes. Boothroy said there is some judgment involved in answering the question of whether Shelter House has shown due diligence and follow through, and whether the efforts were substantial enough to constitute taking action to establish a use. Boothroy said the Iowa City Board of Adjustment January 14, 2009 Page 9 question is in part whether the Board believes his judgment was made in error: that the sum of the Shelter House's efforts was not actually enough to establish the use. Boothroy said that there have been instances in the past where the application for a building permit has not been enough to establish a use, because no other efforts were made. In this case, Boothroy said, a lot of work on both sides (the City and the Shelter House) can be demonstrated in exchanges of information and negotiations to get the site plan ready to go before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Sheerin said having the information that the application for a building permit is not in and of itself enough to establish use was very helpful. Hora asked if there had been applicants in the past who have gone through the level of work the Shelter House has and not followed through and applied for a building permit. Boothroy said that every case is unique, but at this point in time he cannot think of a situation like that. Wood asked what the procedure was for letting an applicant know that the six months they were given by the Board of Adjustment is about to expire. Boothroy said that it seldom happens that there has been little or no communication between the building department and the applicant at that point, but if that were to occur, they would have to reapply to the Board of Adjustment. Greenwood Hektoen clarified that in the case of the Shelter House, the expiration of the initial Board decision is not being discussed; the appellant's claim that the extension that was granted by the Board after the original six months expired also expired prior to the issuance of the building permit, and therefore was no longer valid. Sheerin asked if there was no requirement that the site plan be made available to the appellants in this instance. Boothroy said that it is a public document, and as such is readily available to anyone wishing to see it. Greenwood Hektoen stated that the only applicable notice requirements were the sign postings. Boothroy said the primary purpose of the signs is to give notice to the applicant. Wood invited the public to address the Board. He reminded the public that the issue before the Board is an appeal, and the Board's concern is whether the Building Official was in error when he issued the building permit to Shelter House. Wood requested that discussion focus on that. Gregg Geerdes, 105 Iowa Ave, #234, is an attorney representing the Appellants in this matter. Geerdes said he wanted to emphasize what he and his clients consider the role of the Board, which is one of being a judge and a buffer between the Staff and the Appellants and the Applicant and the Appellants. Geerdes said it was the Board's job to review the facts, the case and the law and to make a decision. He said he wished to note that the information the Board was given regarding the standard of review is incorrect in his opinion. Geerdes advised Board members to read the city ordinances on their own and draw their own conclusions about what they mean, and what the Board's intended role is. Geerdes said the Board was told that taking steps to establish use was sufficient to avoid the automatic expiration six months after the special exception was granted. Geerdes encouraged Board members to read section 14-8C-1 e of the city's ordinance which states: "unless the applicant shall have taken action within the six month period to establish the use or construct the building permitted under the term of the Board's decision, such as obtaining a building permit Iowa City Board of Adjustment January 14, 2009 Page 10 and proceeding to completion under the terms of the permit ..." Geerdes said the ordinance is very specific about what steps need to be done..Geerdes argued that obtaining the permit and commencing construction was not even close to being done prior to the expiration of the special exception. The building permit was not even applied for until late August or early September. Geerdes concluded that the appropriate steps were not taken to establish use according to the requirements of the city ordinance. Geerdes offered this interpretation as a good example of why Board members should be reviewing the ordinances for their own purposes rather than relying on the interpretation of others. Geerdes noted that a survey showing the boundary lines of the appellant's property and the applicant's property was attached to a copy of a letter he had provided to the Board and asked to be entered into the record. The survey, Geerdes said, was performed by a surveyor hired by Shelter House. The survey shows that there are at least two, if not three, mobile homes that are on property which Shelter house proposes to develop. Geerdes said there are lawsuits on file to establish ownership and the City Attorney's office is well aware of that. The survey, Geerdes said, clearly shows the legitimacy of the Dahlen's claims to ownership, as the mobile homes have been in the same spot for decades. The ownership issue presents a problem for the setback situation, as it makes it impossible for Shelter House to comply with the setback requirements. Geerdes said it is his position that the Board should not make a decision to approve until the unresolved boundary issue has been settled in court. Geerdes said he would next like to address the issue of the site management plan. He said that Staff has offered the interpretation that a site management plan is unnecessary because it was not required in 2004. Geerdes again cautioned Board members to review the ordinances themselves, particularly 14-4E-4e-5, which specifically states that when a site plan is presented it is to be determined at that point in time whether zoning requirements and other requirements of the code have been complied with. Geerdes said that a shelter management plan is not submitted with a special exception application; it is submitted when the site plan is submitted. Geerdes said that because the shelter management plan was a requirement in effect at the time the site plan was considered, it must be required. Parking issues remain unresolved, said Geerdes. The appellants do not believe that the number or type of parking spaces shown on the plat are correct. Geerdes said that they do not believe that parking in the interior of a garage that is used to store Shelter House vans should qualify as parking spaces for visitors or employees. Geerdes said he wished to address the issue of whether or not the appellants needed to be provided with a copy of the site plan. Geerdes said that he and his clients were provided a copy of a site plan; the site plan did not meet the requirements and so they objected to it. At approximately 6:00 p.m. on the night of the formal Planning and Zoning Commission meeting a revised site plan was submitted to Staff and the Commission, but not to the appelant for their review. Geerdes said that he and his clients believe that they were entitled to notice of that site plan change, and were not properly provided with an updated copy. Wood asked what the date Iowa City Board of Adjustment January 14, 2009 Page 11 of that meeting was. Geerdes said that he did not know off the top of his head, but that the information is included in the materials he distributed to the Board. In looking at all of these matters and interpreting the ordinances on their own, Geerdes said, the Board will have to agree that the building permit should not have been granted. Geerdes said that the expiration of the special exception itself is reason enough for denying the permit and the boundary issue is another problem. Geerdes asked that board members carefully consider all of these points and grant the appeal before them. Sheerin asked why Geerdes did not feel that the parking spaces in the garage should be considered parking spaces. Parking spaces are designed for employees and visitors and customers who come to a building, Geerdes said. When you have an interior garage space that will permanently be dedicated to storing Shelter House vans, Geerdes said, it does not serve the purpose of a parking space. Sheerin asked if the concern was that the parking spaces will be occupied by vans or that he is concerned because it is in an interior space. Geerdes said the garage will be used for other purposes and will not be realistic parking for anyone wishing to use the shelter. Sheerin stated that Geerdes had also argued that 20 employees should be used when determining the number of parking spaces Shelter House should have. At the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, Geerdes said, the information provided by Shelter House was that as many as 20 employees would be at the facility at one time. The number currently given by Shelter House is a maximum of 14 employees at any one time. Wood asked if the figure was based on the total number of employees. Greenwood Hektoen said that the parking is based on the maximum number of employees that would be on site at any given time, not the total number of employees on payroll. Sheerin asked for clarification as to whether lawsuits had or had not been filed regarding the boundary issue. Geerdes said that lawsuits have been filed in Johnson County and in federal court. Geerdes said that the City Attorney could provide the documentation of that lawsuit to the Board. Thornton asked why that information had not been shared already if the City has such information. Greenwood Hektoen said that to her knowledge there is litigation ongoing but that it is not specifically concerning title to the land, and is about other issues. Sheerin asked if it would be possible for the Board to get access to those filings. Geerdes said he could provide it to the Board, and that he could assure the Board that the issue of ownership of the land is very much a part of the lawsuit. Wood asked how long the mobile homes had been occupying the land in question. Geerdes replied that it had been decades, realistically, since sometime in the late 1950's or early 1960's. Lori Dahlen, 2018 Waterfront Drive, identified herself as a manager at the Hilltop Mobile Home Park. She said that the number of parking spaces had not been adequately resolved to her thinking. She said that there was no space allowed for visitors in the current calculations. Walz explained that the minimum parking requirements ensure that a site provides a certain minimal amount of parking. This formula for determining the minimum requirement is based, in Iowa City Board of Adjustment January 14, 2009 Page l2 part, on the maximum number of staff that will be on-site at any given time (14 in this case). The minimum parking requirements do not restrict parking to those specific uses (staff, visitors, etc.), rather it is the minimum that must be provided. Walz said that if the Board of Adjustment had sought to, they could have imposed additional parking requirements above and beyond the minimum. However, in this case, the Board did not. Walz explained that spaces inside of parking garages do count toward the minimum, saying that what they are actually used for does not matter as long as they function as parking spaces. Walz said that in earlier versions of the site plan, Shelter House had in fact not provided the number of spaces required, apparently due to the misreading of a regulation by one of their consulting engineers. However, when the error was pointed out to Shelter House they did revise the plan to meet the 21-space requirement. Dahlen said that even if the site management plan is not technically required at this time, though she believes that Geerdes has demonstrated that it is, the plan is definitely needed. The site management plan addresses such issues as littering, noise levels, loitering, and getting along with neighbors. Dahlen said that she and her family have gone a long distance on this journey because they believe that this is not an appropriate place for this facility. Dahlen said she would think the Shelter House would want to create a site management plan to alleviate the concerns of the neighbors and foster dialogue. Dahlen said that when she attended the very first Board of Adjustment meeting on this issue in 2004, she picked up a hand-out entitled "Shelter House Rules for Guardians of Dependents." She said that while she was not particularly surprised by the content of the handout, she was convinced more than ever that Shelter House did not belong in their neighborhood. She read from the pamphlet: "Shelter House may have occasions in which clients of Shelter House may be on a state sex-offender's list. It is the guardian's responsibility to provide care and supervision for the well-being and safety of their dependent. Do not assume that anyone you meet while at Shelter House is not on a state sex-offender list." Dahlen said that she understands that if a person is on the state sex-offender list, they cannot reside at Shelter House. However, sex-offenders can still receive services and leave. Dahlen asked how this might affect the neighborhood. She said it is a very practical matter to have a plan for what you do with someone whom you service and then must turn away. Will they be denied shelter and then be simply left in the neighborhood? Dahlen said that these sorts of things could be addressed in a shelter management plan. Walz clarified that it is Staff s interpretation that they cannot retroactively impose something that was meant to be evaluated by the Board of Adjustment. The criterion in the current code referred to by Geerdes says: "site plan and shelter management plan must be submitted along with the application for a special exception or if allowed for a provisional use ..." Walz explained that this use is not a provisional use; a provisional use is a use that has to meet all of those criteria but is reviewed only administratively. Provisional uses are reviewed by Staff only; special exceptions must be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. Joyce Barker, 2018 Waterfront Drive, # 128, pointed out that the reason the parking is such an issue is because there is no parking on Southgate whatsoever, and Waterfront is very problematic Iowa City Board of Adjustment January 14, 2009 Page 13 for parking as well (residents have requested that it be designated a no parking zone). Barker said that visibility and safety are major concerns with this issue. Craig Dahlen, 2018 Waterfront Drive, identified himself as a manager at Hilltop Mobile Home Park. He said that all he has been hearing for the last year is how the Shelter House wants to be good neighbors. Dahlen said he thinks that is great. However, he believes that having a shelter management plan is the best way to start the process of being a good neighbor. Dahlen said that there are nearly 90 children in the park, a lot of children riding buses, a lot of children in the daycare/preschool around the corner at HACAP. Dahlen noted that there is no bus service on the weekends, and wondered what the plan was for transportation. Dahlen worried about how the area would be policed to ensure that families and kids were safe. He restated that the shelter management plan was huge in answering these questions. Janet Dahlen, 2018 Waterfront Drive, read from the general standards for a special exception: "The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity, will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood." Dahlen said she is not a person that likes to go against the City, or likes to fight about anything. She said that she would not be there if the matter were not very important to her. Dahlen said that one of the residents in her trailer park had received a letter from Dorothy Person, chairperson of the Shelter House board, in response to a letter the resident had written. Dahlen read the final paragraph of Person's letter to the Board: "Even though a registered sex offender cannot be a resident of Shelter House, he or she may be permitted to utilize the facilities for drop-in center and outreach purposes. Such individuals may access the shower and laundry facility, eat dinner, receive phone messages and mail, and work with the outreach staff. Their access to and use of the facility is with the knowledge of and under the supervision of Shelter House staff. As a practical matter, individuals who are on a registry of sex offenders are not physically present at the facility any longer than if they were shopping at the grocery store or applying for food stamps at the Department of Human Services. It is imperative to clarify that registered sex offenders rarely use the Shelter House support services." Dahlen said she would be happy to help search for and secure other land for this project, and would double the money that was paid for that lot in order to stop this project. She said there is not anything they would not do. She said there are many children in her trailer park and there is a large daycare across the street and she worries about what would be on the mind of a sex offender in that area, even if they were only at the Shelter House very briefly. She was very concerned about the safety of children in her neighborhood. Iowa City Board of Adjustment January 14, 2009 Page l4 Wood reiterated that the charge of the Board of Adjustment in this matter is to determine if the Building Official was in error when he issued Shelter House a building permit, and that the Board's focus was very narrowly centered on that issue. There were no others wishing to speak in favor of the appeal so Wood opened the floor to those against the appeal. Tim Krumm, 4186 Prairie Meadow Court NE, an attorney with Meardon, Sueppel and Downer spoke on behalf of Shelter House. He offered his appreciation to the Board for the considerable work they had done on this issue. He said that he believed all legitimate concerns had been addressed thoroughly by Staff in the staff report and supporting materials. Krumm said that for any questions he cannot answer, Christine Cangenelli, Director of Shelter House, and Tom Werderitsch, a member of the Shelter House board and construction manager for the project were present. Krumm said he felt it was fitting that the issue was back before the Board of Adjustment in what he hoped was a milestone activity in terms of making the shelter a reality for the city. The Board of Adjustment is where the matter began, Krumm said, noting that none of the present members of the Board were on the Board in July 2004 when the matter first began. Krumm said that the Shelter House and been in litigation for this project for many years, ending in the Iowa Supreme Court last April. Krumm said he concurred with Staff analysis of the matter. Krumm said that Geerdes had requested a delay from the Board, but he urged the Board to issue a prompt decision because the Shelter House has been waiting since July 2004. Krumm said that Shelter House does not believe the Board's approval will mean the end of the litigation road, but at least this important milestone would be passed. The first issue is the question of the shelter management plan. Krumm said that Staff had fully addressed this question. The requirement for a shelter management plan is a requirement for a special exception, not for site plan approval or the issuance of a building permit. The code is quite clear on this, Krumm said. Krumm said that Shelter House is anxious to be good neighbors, but the shelter management plan should not be a precondition of that. Krumm said that with all due respect the Dahlens do not want a shelter management plan; they want to stop the shelter. Krumm said that the parking space issue was a simple question of math. 21 spaces are required; one for each employee who will be at the facility at a given time, which is 14, not 20. Krumm said that 20 is the total number of Shelter House employees. The code requires .O1 spaces per resident; a maximum of 70 residents will be at Shelter House, adding 14 more spaces to the requirement for a total requirement of 21. The code is clear in all respects regarding the parking. Krumm took issue with the boundary line dispute. The discovery of the encroachment onto Shelter House property was a surprise that came about during the site plan process. The issue is whether that encroachment and boundary issue has anything to do with the issuance of a building permit. Krumm said the 30-foot setback issue is a city drainage way in which the Shelter House Iowa City Board of Adjustment January 14, 2009 Page 15 has never had any intention of building. Krumm said that it is not the goal of Shelter House to move those mobile homes; he said that the homes do not impact Shelter House's plans at all other than the location of a fence. Krumm said that if these legal issues could be resolved Shelter House would be more than willing to grant a perpetual easement to the Dahlens. Krumm said that the Dahlens are using their encroachment on the property as a delay tactic. Krumm said that Geerdes' assertion that there are lawsuits on file to establish the issue of ownership of this property is simply not true. There are lawsuits on file, and they do mention a boundary dispute, Krumm said, but they have not asked any state or federal court to change the boundary line. Krumm said that Geerdes and his client take issue because they were not provided with a copy of the final site plan submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Krumm said it is not at all unusual for Staff and applicants to continue discussions and revisions to site plans up until the time of the meeting. He said there is no neighbor notification requirement whatsoever, and that the process is a public one. The site plan in question was projected on the wall of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and the Dahlens were present. There were no surprises, Krumm said. Krumm said that in regard to the issue of whether or not the special exception had expired, Staff and Boothroy have detailed the level of activity that Shelter House took during that six month time period. The requirement is that there be activity toward establishing a use, and the level of activity was sufficient to establishing that use when measured by past City practice and Iowa law. While this is ultimately a judgment call on the part of the Building Official, Krumm said, it is not as though Shelter House had demonstrated some indifference. The context of the matter is that Shelter House has been waiting for over four years to build. Even if Shelter House had had site plans ready and waiting for the moment the Supreme Court ruled, Krumm said, the site plans may not have met final approval within six months due to the extensive back and forth with the City that goes on in the process. The purpose of the six month expiration rule is to penalize those who are indifferent to the approval that has been granted. Krumm offered to answer any questions the Board had. Wood asked about the October 16~' petition for a site plan review that had been submitted by the neighbors. Krumm said that this petition was actually a petition asking that the Planning and Zoning Commission complete the site plan approval process as opposed to City Staff, which is the usual process. Wood asked if the site plan was public record. Walz said that it is. She noted that around that time she had discovered that the parking requirement was not met, informed Shelter House of this, and Shelter House changed the site plan to comply with parking requirements by the time of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Krumm said that there had been an issue at the time the special exception was granted as to whether 18 or 22 spaces were required. In the interim, the code had changed, so a change to the site plan was necessary. Thornton asked if Krumm was saying that a previous version of the site plan had been provided to the neighbors. Krumm said that he did not believe so as there is nothing in the code requiring Iowa City Board of Adjustment January 14, 2009 Page 16 that. Walz said that Staff will provide a site plan that is under consideration to anyone requesting it, as it is part of the public record; however, they are not required provide it to anyone without a request. Hora asked if there was a timeline by which a site plan had to be in to Planning and Zoning so that the public has time to review it. Walz said that typically a site plan would not even go to Planning and Zoning. In this case, it went to Planning and Zoning because of the petition filed by the neighbors. Hora asked if the site plan can be changed right up to the final minute without the public having a chance to review it prior to the meeting. Walz said that that was correct, and that this is also the case with the Board of Adjustment. Greenwood Hektoen stated that it was important to understand that typically approving a site plan is an administrative process, so there is no set time for public comment. Krumm added that the practice of allowing the give and take between the applicant and Staff right up to the point of the minute actually works to the benefit of the City, as it helps to get projects up to City code the first time around. Hora said he was simply trying to establish if there was a process in place for the public to see these documents before the time of the meeting so that they are not trying to formulate their objections in the middle of a meeting from a projection on the wall. Wood asked if there was anyone else opposing the appeal who wished to speak. Tom Werderitsch, 3 Evergreen Place, said that he is a member of the Shelter House Board of Directors and is donating his services to the project as construction manager. He said he wished to speak to the 30-foot issue. Werderitsch said that the 30-feet is a city drainage easement; there is no backyard setback. He said that if it was not for the drainage that comes down from the mobile home court and the property to the east, Shelter House could build up to the property line. Werderitsch said that even if a court ruled that the Dahlens were the owners of the five or six feet of property in question, the location of Shelter House would not move. The only thing that would be affected would be the location of a fence which they are planning to put as close to the property line as possible. Walz reiterated that the 30-foot setback issue came up as a finding of fact, and was not required by the Board as a condition of the special exception. The Board did contemplate that some setback was appropriate, realizing that the 30-foot easement was there and would provide a buffer. There was no one else who wished to speak against the appeal and Wood invited those in favor of the appeal to respond to comments. Joyce Barker, 2018 Waterfront Drive, #128, said that Krumm had said it is not Shelter House's intention to have any of those trailers encroaching on the property line moved. Barker said that one of the residents received a letter from Shelter House in October 2008 stating that she had to move her mobile home by December 1, 2008. Barker said that this makes her suspect the validity of some of the other things said by Shelter House and its representatives, as there is a direct contradiction between what was said in this meeting and actions taken prior to it. Iowa City Board of Adjustment January 14, 2009 Page 17 Geerdes said that he too received a letter from Krumm directing the Dahlens to move those mobile homes, which of course resulted in the lawsuit in which the issue of ownership will be determined. In regard to the issue of the 30-foot setback, Geerdes read from the July 14, 2004 decision from the Board of Adjustment: "This Board finds that the 30-foot setback from the south property line and an eight-foot tall privacy fence will provide a transition from the proposed two-story Shelter House to the one-story manufactured housing units located to the south." The decision goes on to say that the special exception is conditioned upon "general compliance with the submitted site plan." Geerdes noted that the submitted site plan showed a 30-foot setback. The idea that the setbacks are not an issue is simply wrong. Geerdes said that if he understood Krumm correctly then he is basically conceding that those mobile homes have been there a long time and that the Dahlens may prevail in court. What that does, Geerdes said, is eviscerate the site plan; a site plan which Shelter House is required to comply with. Geerdes said this is why the adverse possession claims cannot simply be ignored. For all of these reasons, Geerdes said, he is requesting that the Board overturn the decision of the Building Official and revoke the building permit. Mike Barker, 2018 Waterfront Drive, #128, said he was going to ask for a little bit of leeway because his comments did not directly pertain to the building permit. Since 2004, Barker said, the argument has not been so much if the Shelter House should be built, but more a matter of getting some questions answered. Barker said he had lived in the mobile home court for 25. years, and that there are over 150 kids in the trailer court. Barker asked what would become of the sex offenders and alcoholics who were turned away from Shelter House. Wood stated that this is beyond the jurisdiction of the Board. Barker replied that that is why he requested leeway at the outset. He said that his concern was not the boundary lines but what becomes of those who are turned away from the shelter into his neighborhood. He said that he believed it was time to stop all of this nonsense and sit down and figure out what is best for everyone. There were no further comments from those supporting the appeal and Wood invited response from those opposed to the appeal. Chrissy Canganelli, resident of the east side of Iowa City and Executive Director of Shelter House, said that she wants the public record to show that Shelter House has served this community for 25 years, has demonstrated that it is a good and responsible neighbor, and has acted proactively in its neighborhood. Canganelli said she agreed with Barker that everyone's time could be best spent in other pursuits, and she is very interested in sitting down with the neighbors, engaging in conversation and working together. She said this is impossible to do, however, when lawsuit after lawsuit is being filed against the City and Shelter House. Canganelli said that if these lawsuits were to go away tomorrow, Shelter House would immediately contact its neighbors and say "let's sit down and talk and get things worked out." Iowa City Board of Adjustment January 14, 2009 Page 18 Canganelli said she is concerned that Shelter House is being held to a different standard than other organizations in the community that serve the poor, the disabled and homeless veterans. She is also concerned that there is a lack of understanding that well-over 100 children are served by Shelter House every year. Shelter House works very closely with HACAP and MECCA; the people receiving services from Shelter House often are the same people receiving services from HACAP. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Walz advised the Board to ask for any information/documentation they might need, and to take whatever time they needed to make a decision. Greenwood Hektoen said that she agreed and that the Board did not necessarily need to make a decision that night. She said that if a decision was made, then it would be important to clearly state the findings of fact and the basis for the Board's conclusions. Thornton suggested deferring the matter and having a work session to discuss the issue fully. He said there were a lot of issues and very good comments that were made by both sides. Walz explained that a work session would be a public meeting, but the time for public comment would be closed. Wood asked if there were others who felt the need for a work session. Hora and Sheerin indicated that they would. Thornton moved to defer the matter and call a special work session at another time. Sheerin seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-1 (Eckstein opposed). After some discussion, a tentative date of January 20th at 5:00 p.m. was set for the work session, with board members agreeing to notify Walz if they discovered they had a conflict. Walz compiled a list of additional documentation that board members had indicated an interest in seeing which included information on lawsuits that have been filed and the letters referenced in the public hearing. Walz reminded board members that they should not talk to one another, Staff, or any member of the public about this matter prior to the meeting. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Wood opened the floor for nominations for Chairperson. Sheerin nominated Wood for Chair. Hora seconded the nomination. Iowa City Board of Adjustment January 14, 2009 Page 19 A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. Hora nominated Thornton for Vice-Chair. Wood seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. OTHER: Hora asked how to bring about change to the zoning code. He noted that their charge stated that they could bring about changes to ordinances and he wanted to know the process for doing that. Walz said that the Board can make a motion for the Planning and Zoning Commission (or other appropriate authority) to consider investigating an issue. Walz and Greenwood Hektoen said they would look into the exact process and get back to Hora. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION: None. ADJOURNMENT: Hora motioned to adjourn. Thornton seconded. The motion carried 5-0, and the meeting was adjourned at 7:32 p.m. Board of Adjustment Attendance Record - 2009 Name Term Expires I / 14 2/ I I 3/ I I 4/08 5/ 13 6/I 0 7108 8/ 12 9/09 I 0/14 1 1 / 12 12109 Other Other Barbara Eckstein 01/01/14 X Terry Hora O I /01 / I I X Caroline Sheerin 01/01/13 X Edgar Thornton 01 /0 I / 12 X Ned Wood 01 /0 I / 10 X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = AbsentJExcused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member 3b 3 MINUTES APPROVED IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 20, 2009 - 5:00 PM EMMA J. HARVAT HALL Members Present: Terry Hora, Caroline Sheerin, Edgar Thornton, Ned Wood, Barbara Eckstein Members Excused: None Staff Present: Sarah Walz, Sarah Greenwood Hektoen Others Present: Greg Geerdes, Tim Krumm, other unidentified members of the pubic. RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Ned Wood at 5:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Hora, Sheerin, Thornton, Wood and Eckstein were present. APPEALS APL08-00001: An application submitted by Michael and Jan Dahlen appealing a decision by the Building Official to grant a building permit to Shelter House for property located in the CI-1 zone at 429 Southgate. Wood explained that this was a continuation of the consideration from the January 14, 2009 meeting, during which the public hearing for this case was closed. He stated that the public hearing would not be reopened tonight, and that the board was to discuss the appeal and hopefully reach a conclusion. Walz announced that she had distributed information provided by the Appellant on January 20th. This information covered pending litigation related to Shelter House and was similar to information that the City Attorney had mailed to the board at their request. Wood disclosed that he is a teacher at West High and had realized after the previous meeting that the attorney for the Shelter House is a member of the Iowa City School Board. He stated that he did not feel this would impact his ability to reach a fair judgment. Iowa City Board of Adjustment January 20, 2009 Page 2 Wood also disclosed that he had been contacted by Sheerin regarding a message she had received from a reporter who wanted to know the date of the board work session. Sheerin had called Wood to confirm that she could provide this information to the reporter. Sheerin indicated that she would have referred the reporter to staff, but the call came in during the Martin Luther King, Jr., holiday when City offices were closed. Greenwood-Hektoen stated that she had mailed information that the board had requested regarding current litigation involving the Shelter House. Sheerin reported that she did not receive the mailing. Walz provided Sheerin with a copy. Thornton reported that he had not received a copy. Greenwood- Hektoen said it was basically a duplication of the information submitted by Gregg Geerdes. Walz offered to make additional copies. The board indicated that none were needed. Greenwood-Hektoen explained that the motion should be made in the affirmative to uphold the appeal. Sheerin asked for some clarification of the steps that could be taken, if the appeal was upheld and a separate motion was made to rectify the situation. Greenwood-Hektoen explained that this could happen in two steps as described by Sheerin. Sheerin moved to uphold the appeal APL08-00001: that a decision made by the Building Official to issue a building permit to Shelter House was in error. Hora seconded. Sheerin asked for clarification of the standard of review. She wanted to make sure that the board was in agreement that its job was to determine whether there had been an error made by the Building Official. The board members indicated their agreement. Wood directed the members to consider the first issue, as to whether a shelter management plan was required. Eckstein first asked for an explanation of the term "colorable claim of title" used by the City Attorney in her mailing to the board regarding pending litigation. Greenwood-Hektoen explained that the term was used by First Assistant City Attorney Sarah Holecek and it meant that the City's interpretation was that the litigation filed presumes that the Appellants have title to the land; it does not seek to establish title. Sheerin said that the current zoning code states that the shelter management plan "should be submitted along with the application for the special exception." That language was not included in the code until 2005, one year after the application was approved. She stated that this seemed to make it clear that Shelter House was not required to provide a management plan at this time. Hora stated that the shelter management plan does not need to be submitted. He stated that he based his interpretation on the language in the code and the fact that the special exception was still in effect at the time the building permit was applied for. He indicated that only if the board determined that the special exception had expired would the current requirement apply. The board cannot go backward in time to impose the requirement. Iowa City Board of Adjustment January 20, 2009 Page 3 Thornton concurred with the previous statements. From his review of the material and testimony at the previous hearing, he concluded that the requirement for the management plan was not in effect at the time the special exception was granted. Eckstein stated that it is clear that the 2004 ordinance was in place when the Shelter House submitted its application. Wood agreed. He stated that the special exception was granted in 2004 and at that time there was no requirement for a shelter management plan. Wood directed the board to the second point, which was whether the parking requirements had been met. Hora stated that he believed that Shelter House and the City followed the requirements of the parking ordinance. The zoning code does not differentiate between indoor and outdoor parking. The code does not contain language determining how the parking is used or by whom. The code only sets the number of spaces required. Twenty-one stalls are required and twenty-one are provided on the site plan. Sheerin agreed that the formula was followed correctly. Shelter House has indicated that 14 was the maximum number of employees at the site at one time and that is what the code provides for. The code does not consider the total number of employees of the organization to determine required parking. She found no language in the code or elsewhere in the record stating that parking provided inside a garage should not be considered as contributing to the required parking. Eckstein agreed, stating there was not language in the code restricting indoor parking. Thornton concurred that based on the information in writing and testimony, the correct formula was used. Wood stated that the parking calculation followed the formula and is based on the maximum number of employees at the site at one time, which is 14. There is nothing in the code that indicates that interior parking should not count toward required parking. The building official followed the formula and requirements appropriately. Wood stated that the next issue was whether the site plan should have been submitted to or approved by the Appellants. Sheerin stated the ordinance provides that "within 24 hours of submitting an application for major site plan approval, the Applicant shall post notice of intent to develop the site. The notice to be posted shall be provided by the City as directed by the City." That is 18-2-1C. She saw no language requiring the plan to be submitted to the neighbors, only notice of intent to develop the site. The record indicates that the required notice was properly given. She stated that it is not an issue that a new site plan was submitted on the night of the review by the Planning and Zoning Commission, as the ordinance does not perceive that as an issue. Hora agreed. Thornton also agreed that the ordinance was clear on the issue of notice and posting, and that the City and Shelter House provided notice as required by the ordinance. Eckstein agreed that the property was properly posted and that the ordinance does not require that the site plan be submitted to the neighbors. Iowa City Board of Adjustment January 20, 2009 Page 4 Wood agreed that the site plan was submitted October 1, and the site was posted on October 2. There were revisions to the original site plan, but there is nothing that requires revisions to be communicated to the Appellants. Wood directed the board to the issue of the boundary dispute. Hora asked for clarification on the water drainage easement shown on the site plan submitted with the staff report. Hora stated that it was his understanding that such an easement is a permanent requirement that stays with the land regardless of who owns the property. Greenwood-Hektoen agreed and clarified that it is an easement for the benefit of the City. Sheerin stated that her concern was that the Building Official had indicated that if there was litigation on file disputing ownership, this would be a reason to hold up the permit. The attorney for the Appellants had stated that there was litigation on file, arguing that they own the property. However, the new information submitted regarding the litigation shows that the court is not being asked to make a determination of ownership. Sheerin asked the City Attorney for clarification. Greenwood-Hektoen explained that the ongoing litigation presumes that the Appellants have property interests in the area of encroachment, but it does not seek to establish title. She stated that when the Building Official spoke at the hearing, he was referring to litigation that seeks to establish title. She stated that it is the City Attorney's opinion that anything short of an injunction would not allow the Building Official to delay the permit, because the code does not require a title opinion or anything rising to that level of proof as to who owns the land. At the time the site plan is submitted for approval, the Applicant must provide the names and addresses of the owner of record of the property, the Applicant, the persons preparing the site plan, and the names and addresses of the Applicant's attorneys. That is all that is required to establish who is responsible for the land. The application was provided, and the City Attorney's Office believes that this meets the requirement. It is the opinion of the City Attorney's Office that the pending litigation should not impede the issuance of the permit. The Applicant has a constitutional right to due process. Just because a third party claims title to the land is not enough, in the City Attorney's opinion, and only an injunction would rise to a level that would justify denying the permit. Thornton stated that the Building Official is not required to be aware of the dispute over the ownership at the time he issues the permit. Hora stated that determining ownership is not an issue for the City. The 30-foot easement on the property will not go away, regardless of ownership. Hora's only concern was the placement of the 8-foot privacy fence within the easement, but believed that the City would deal with this. Eckstein agreed that the Building Official came to a reasonable judgment, and referred to the context of two pieces of information she heard in the public hearing, which she would comment on. Her first comment was that she heard that two of the homes encroach on the property. The Appellants' attorney had indicated that this was some kind of proof of ownership. Eckstein stated that she is aware of situations where people were occupying property for many decades, but it turned out that did not give them title to the land. She stated that over time things change on property, but that does not necessarily determine title. The other issue has to do with the context of litigation. This is a circumstance that Iowa City Board of Adjustment January 20, 2009 Page 5 various courts have heard testimony on over a period of years, and so she feels there has been considerable hearing and consideration of questions in this case. As a result, she did not feel that there was any evidence that the Building Official should have withheld the building permit based on yet more litigation. Wood agreed that the Building Official's determination should not be impeded by the litigation. He has issued permits in the past in similar situations. These are not conflicts that can be resolved by the City, but are disputes between adjoining land owners that must be resolved by them. He believed the Building Official acted appropriately by not impeding the process. Wood pointed to the issue of the expiration of the special exception. Sheerin stated that she believed this required judgment on the part of the Building Official. She indicated that it seemed that the Appellant believed that a permit must be obtained within six months, because the ordinance says, "unless the Applicant shall have taken action within the 6-month period to establish the use or construct the building permitted under the terms of the Board's decision, such as obtaining a building permit and proceeding to the completion in accordance with the terms of the permit ..." -with the example being obtaining a building permit. Sheerin stated that she believed the language "such as" is set out to be exemplary and not restrictive, as opposed to something like, "only in the instance when." Sheerin indicated that she believed there was evidence of action within the six months, including submitting the application, responding to questions about the application, and making multiple revisions to the application. For this reason she did not believe the Building Official erred. Hora stated that the Building Official did err, based on the language in the code. He interpreted the same ordinance as indicating that you must almost have a shovel ready to put in the ground to show action taken to establish the use. He said he did not know why the Shelter House waited for 4 1/2 months with no action after the Supreme Court ruling. He believes the term of the special exception had expired. Eckstein said she takes to heart the phrase "to take action to establish the use." In her judgment, Shelter House had done this in a number of extraordinary ways and that their intent to establish the use was clear. Thornton stated that while there was a significant amount of time of inaction on the part of Shelter House, or the appearance of a lack of action, it appears there was action between the City and Shelter House. Despite the slowness of the process, he believes this should not have impeded the Building Official from issuing the permit. Wood indicated that the phrase "such as" indicates an example. He does not believe that the code indicates that a building permit is necessary for the special exception to be upheld. A site plan was submitted August 27`" and there was considerable communication from that point on. An application for the building permit was submitted on September 22"a. Detailed building plans were submitted on September 26t". A revised site plan was submitted on October I. The Building Official's handling of this was consistent with past practices. The Building Official indicated that a building permit is not the only thing that establishes the use on the property. Wood noted that an August 4, 2004, letter from Senior Planner Bob Miklo to Shelter House informed them of the action of the board. The letter stated that "within this time period you should establish the use approved, apply for a building permit for Iowa City Board of Adjustment January 20, 2009 Page 6 construction, or apply for an extension from the board." There is nothing that says they need a building permit within the six months. He read from the letter, "failure to take some action within the six months will result in the necessity for a new application." Shelter House was working hard to obtain the permit, and was doing all they could to obtain it. It is a long process, he said, but they were acting to obtain the permit. Hora stated that while Shelter House was working to obtain the permit, he read the language to mean that the permit needed to be issued within the six months. He said it does not talk about site plans or negotiation back and forth between the City and the Applicant. He believes there should have been a faster process. In his interpretation the least they were required to do was to obtain the building permit. The phrase "proceed to completion" indicates to him that you need to be ready to start building. Walz re-read the motion to uphold the appeal, and find that the Building Official was in error in issuing the permit. She reminded the board that a "yes" vote would indicate that the Building Official was in error; a "no" vote would uphold the Building Official's decision. Motion failed on a vote of 1 to 4 (Hora voting yea). Wood read a statement indicating that anyone wishing to appeal the decision could do so within 30 days of its filing. Sheerin moved to adjourn. Thornton seconded. Motion carried on a vote of 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 5:45 p.m. Board of Adjustment Attendance Record - 2009 Name Term Expires III 4 I /20 Spec Mtg 2/ I I 3/I I 4/08 5/ 13 6l I 0 7/08 8/ l 2 9109 10/ 14 I I / 12 12/09 Other Barbara Eckstein 01 /01 / 14 X X Terry Hora OI/01/I I X X Caroline Sheerin O I /01 / 13 X X Edgar Thornton 01/01/12 X X Ned Wood O I /0 I/ 10 X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member os-os-oa 3b 4 MINUTES APPROVED HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MONDAY, APRIL 13, 2009 ROBERT A. LEE COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER, MEETING ROOM B MEMBERS PRESENT: Thomas Baldridge, Lindsay Bunting Eubanks, William Downing, Carl Hirschman, Pam Michaud, Jim Ponto, Alicia Trimble, Frank Wagner MEMBERS ABSENT: Esther Baker, Ginalie Swaim STAFF PRESENT: Christina Kuecker OTHERS PRESENT: James Estin, Michael Krogh, Kelly Neveln, Jim Niebuhr 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: 1322 Muscatine Avenue Kuecker said that the proposal for this property is for window replacement on a Moffitt Cottage in the Longfellow District. She stated that the windows are quite deteriorated, and they no longer fit the window openings. Kuecker showed how the windows look now and what the owners plan to install. She said that over time blocking has been put in to fill in the gaps. Kuecker said that window panes are falling out of the sashes, and there is an inch to an inch and one-half gap between the windows and the wood. Kuecker said that staff went to look at the windows and concurs that the windows are quite deteriorated and beyond repair. She stated that because nothing is lining up plumb any more, the only way to fix the problem is to fix the windows. Kuecker said the owner has attempted to fix the windows rather than replace them, to no avail. Kuecker said the owner proposes to use ametal-clad wood window that is clad in a hunter green color to match what is currently on the house. She said that staff recommends approval of the application, as presented, with the conditions that the new windows retain the type, size, sash width, trim, use of divided lights, and overall appearance of the historic windows; the use of true divided lights or simulated divided lights created with muntin bars that are adhered to both sides of the glass, but not with snap-in muntin bars; and, if needed for egress, the casement window must match the existing window in size, trim, use of divided lights, and overall appearance. Kuecker said the owners indicated they might have to build out some trim to make the window openings more square, but most of that would be done on the interior. Wagner said he was a little bit unsure about the one window that might be needed for egress. He asked if that would be determined by a fire inspection. Kuecker showed the far back location where there was originally a garage that has been converted to interior space. She stated that there is still a garage door present, and one of the windows is now a bedroom window. Kuecker said that if the windows are replaced, it would probably need to meet egress requirements, but it is on the rear part of the north side. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 1322 Muscatine Avenue as proposed, with staff s conditions that the new windows retain the type, size, sash width, trim, use of divided lights, and overall appearance of the historic windows; the use of true divided lights or simulated divided lights created with muntin bars that are adhered to both sides of the glass, but not with snap-in muntin bars; and the casement window needed for egress shall match the existing window in size, trim, use of divided lights, and overall appearance. Baldridge seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Baker and Swaim absent). Historic Preservation Commission April 13, 2009 Page 2 747 Grant Street. Kuecker said this is an application to demolish an outbuilding on the property. She stated that there are currently two outbuildings at the rear, making it an unusual case along this alleyway. Kuecker said that on the 1933 Sanborn Map, one outbuilding is present and one is not, so the second is not any older than 1933. She said that it was likely built as a garden or storage shed, and the owners would like to take it down. Kuecker said that the outbuilding is quite deteriorated. She said that alterations over time have not been sympathetic and have not been well built. Kuecker said there is a lot of deterioration on one side, in the interior along the windows, along the bottom, and along the doorway. She showed photographs documenting the deterioration. Kuecker said she visited the property and agrees with the owner that the property is probably beyond repair and is not a building worth fixing, considering there is another out building on the property that is likely more historic. She added that staff recommends approval of the application for demolition. Krogh, one of the owners of the property, said that the property will look a lot better if the building is gone. He said they will use the area as green space and turn it into a garden area. MOTION: Hirschman moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of an outbuilding at 747 Grant Street. Trimble seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Baker and Swaim absent). 1039 East Colleae Street Kuecker said that this application involves a proposal for an addition to the rear of the property. She said that this would be a fairly small, six by ten foot, one-story addition. Kuecker said that this building was once a very Queen Anne/Victorian type house, but there was a second floor fire, after which the second floor was reconstructed to give it sort of a foursquare, eclectic look. Kuecker showed the rear of the house and where the addition would be. She said the applicant proposes to use matching siding and windows to match other windows that were replaced on the house in the past ten years. Kuecker said the applicant proposes to reuse the existing door or a similar door as the new exterior door. She showed the plan and the orientation of the new window. Kuecker said that one concern of staffs is that the roof pitch of the addition does not line up with the roof pitch of the other, one-story addition. She said that if it was better integrated, there would be fewer water problems and the roof would function better for drainage. Kuecker showed a drawing of what she thought would be a better solution, with the pitch of the existing roofline continuing. Kuecker said staff recommends approval of the addition with the condition that the roof be tied into the existing roof, with the final roof design to be approved by staff; the applicant having the option of using either wood or fiber cement board for the siding, trim, fascia and soffits; the siding, trim, fascia and soffits must match these elements on the existing house, and if fiber cement board is used, it must be smooth finished; any necessary exterior stairs be constructed of wood and all exposed wood being painted; windows being one-over-one, double hung, wood or metal-clad wood windows to match existing; and any necessary handrails must be consistent with 4.10 Balustrades and Handrails in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook. Bunting Eubanks asked about the setback lines. Kuecker said the guidelines don't require the addition to be set back, but it is recommended that an addition be set back. She said the guidelines regarding setback are less stringent when an addition is on the rear of the property. Kuecker said there is already an addition that has been set back so that it would look strange setting it back another time. Estin, one of the property's owners, said he had received and reviewed Staff's suggestions and the roofline is something they are willing to work with. He said he will know more after they have hired a contractor. Historic Preservation Commission April 13, 2009 Page 3 Wagner asked if a gable or L-shaped hip wouldn't be structurally better with the roofline. He said that he wondered about what it would look like aesthetically to just extend the current pitch. He said that based on the roofline, the wall height and eaves height might appear too low. Estin pointed out the roof over the kitchen and said that the kitchen has anine-foot ceiling, and this is an eight-foot ceiling. He said that is why they thought that the roof as proposed would work. Estin asked if they should raise the eave on the addition to match the eave on the existing. Wagner said one might be able to do that. Wagner said that the rest of the house has those kinds of pitched roofs. Wagner said that the more one gets additions on houses and they keep being drawn out, then they really look like additions. He also said that something needed to be done to help this addition blend in better. Ponto asked about the material on the roof and if it is original. Estin said that on the existing roof, it is. Bunting Eubanks asked for discussion on the roof issue. Estin said he likes the gable of L-shaped hip roof better.. He said the original intent had been to make this as simple as possible. Ponto stated that he kind of likes the idea of having the eave line be the same all the way around. Hirschman said he agreed and there may not be enough room to put the new eaves below once you account for room for a gutter. Bunting Eubanks said that if the L-shape roof is done, one would probably want to add into the application and option of roofing of both portions, and Kuecker agreed. Ponto said that it is a good point that once one gets into it, the preferred construction might make itself known. Bunting Eubanks said the Commission could leave the roof option up to the owners. MOTION: Trimble moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an addition at 1039 East College Street subject to the following conditions: that the roof be tied into the existing roof, with the final roof design to be approved by staff; the roofing materials on the new and existing roofs shall match and be approved by staff; the applicant having the option of using either wood or fiber cement board for the siding, trim, fascia and soffits; the siding, trim, fascia and soffits must match these elements on the existing house, and if fiber cement board is used, it must be smooth finished; any necessary exterior stairs be constructed of wood and all exposed wood being painted; windows being one-over-one, double hung, wood or metal-clad wood windows to match existing; and any necessary handrails must be consistent with 4.10 Balustrades and Handrails in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook. Baldridge seconded the motion. Estin asked about the new addition and the existing roof matching and if there was a certain material being designated. Bunting Eubanks said the Commission is giving leeway for him to work with staff on the roofing materials. Estin also asked about the line that is shown in the picture where it new addition meets the old. Kuecker said that it is usually done as a vertical separation. AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION: Hirschman moved to amend the main motion to allow an alternate option of integrating the siding instead of using a vertical division. Wagner seconded the motion. The motion with the amendment carried on a vote of 8-0 (Baker and Swaim absent). 815 Washington Street. Kuecker said that last month the Commission approved moving a retaining wall on this property approximately three feet to the east to allow a wider drive, which moved the wall to the property line. She said the applicant would now like the option for narrowing the columns. Kuecker said the proposal is for Historic Preservation Commission April 13, 2009 Page 4 the two false buttresses to be eliminated, and the rest of the column would be moved over. She said the archway would be reconstructed to match the new column location. Kuecker said this is the only way possible for this property to widen its drive. She said the property doesn't qualify for side yard setback reduction or any of those things that would go through other venues, so this is the applicant's last hope. Kuecker said that one can only reduce the side yard up to three feet, and this already has athree-foot side yard. Kuecker said that the Housing Inspection Services staff, legal staff, and the planning staff determined that if the applicant were to move the columns within the existing footprint, it would not increase a non- conformity. She said that the buttresses are just cosmetic. Kuecker showed the part of the column that would be gone and the part that would be moved over. Kuecker said another part of the application is to increase the retaining wall height in one area. She said that the ground in one spot is much higher in one location, and with the current height of the retaining wall, there are a lot of drainage problems. Kuecker said the applicant would like to not have to worry about the drainage from one property coming onto the driveway. Kuecker said that the third part of the proposal is to replace the wooden retaining wall in the rear of the property by taking out the timbers and putting in a keystone block style retaining wall, which would line up with the other retaining wall that was approved to be three feet over. Kuecker said that staff recommends approval of the certificate of appropriateness as presented in the application with the condition that the new columns must match the existing columns in material, joint profile, color, mortar color, height and overall appearance. Niebuhr, the contractor, said that he has been working on this project for about two years. He said that what it has come down to is 18 inches of false buttresses. Niebuhr said that the owners absolutely feel the project will be worth it for more driveway space, even though it will be expensive. Niebuhr said that the one wall is failing in the front. He said that the three support columns are integrated into the masonry retaining wall. Niebuhr said that water keeps coming down into the wall, and eventually the wall is going to go over, and when it goes over, the second floor is going to come down too. Niebuhr said that the goal, since it has to be reconstructed anyway, is to improve the function of the drive underneath. Michaud asked about drainage from the neighboring properties. Niebuhr said there is about a two-foot difference, and that is part of the problem. He said the water sheds off the hard surface parking lot and comes right to that corner. Niebuhr said that the new wall wouldn't have to come up the entire two feet. He said there will be a kind of reverse swale. Niebuhr said that if the wall is raised, he will be able to not come the entire distance but just enough to do this little bit. Michaud asked about the stone to be used. Niebuhr said that it is basically subject to the Commission's approval. Niebuhr said he feels he can reclaim enough of the brick on site to just face the new retaining wall. He said the brick is rare and hard to find. Regarding the back wall, Niebuhr said the timber wall in the back is about 60 feet long now. He said that what is proposed would just be the keystone block system. Niebuhr said there are taupe and earth tone colors that interlock. He said that the block wall he is specifically talking about has a little bit larger than ordinary foundation blocks. Niebuhr said that they set back into porcelain pins, and they are constructed so that there is a little ledge so that they set back. He added that the retaining wall is not a historic structure. Kuecker confirmed this. Regarding the existing masonry wall in the front, Niebuhr said that existing brick is very hard to find. He said he plans to harvest about 90% of the small driveway brick to use on the new retaining wall and then put back a larger size into the driveway, which are more common and more available. Historic Preservation Commission April 13, 2009 Page 5 Downing asked about the concrete cap and if it would not be better to reuse the limestone that is already there. Niebuhr said the caps would probably be ordered from Anamosa, and all the caps are the going to be the same thing. He was not certain that the present caps are even limestone. Niebuhr added that the caps on top of the brick wall are cast concrete that are all loose and shifting toward the edge of the driveway. Downing said that he would recommend reusing the limestone if possible. Niebuhr said that it might be possible, but it is not in the best shape. He showed a photograph of the arch and how it is hanging and where the masonry has failed. Michaud asked about the arches on the side. Niebuhr said that it would be only where the floor system needs support. He said there will be a beam coming out, and there will be three columns. Niebuhr said the face essentially stays at the point above the arches, and it is only where the columns, where the structural support is necessary, that the plan has three little ears coming out where the columns are. Bunting Eubanks asked if it would be more of a true arch going down. Niebuhr said one face stays in place, and one portion will have a steel beam coming there. He said there will be one for each column. Niebuhr said the existing face of the arch will basically stay in place but will be rebuilt. He said there will be four new arches constructed on the site. Niebuhr said that many options were looked at, and he thinks this is the best solution in this case. MOTION: Hirschman moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 815 Washington Street, with the conditions that the new columns must match the existing columns in material, color, joint profile, mortar color, height, and overall appearance, with the recommendation that the limestone be reused if at all possible. Downing seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Baker and Swaim absent). CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR MARCH 12, 2009 MOTION: Baldridge moved to approve the minutes of the Commission's March 12, 2009 meeting, as written. Wagner seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Baker and Swaim absent).. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: MOTION: Baldridge moved to elect Bunting Eubanks Chair of the Historic Preservation Commission and to elect Downing Vice Chair of the Historic Preservation Commission. The motion carried by consensus. OTHER: Bunting Eubanks said she received correspondence from GSS, Inc regarding two new cell phone towers. Kuecker said that when the cellular phone companies put up a new tower anywhere in the City, they send notification to the City and any relevant Commission. She said it is up to the public body to make a comment if warranted. Kuecker said the letters received were regarding the installation of cell phone towers on the cupola at City High School. She said that since that building is a historic building in the City, it would be perfectly acceptable for the Historic Preservation Commission to comment, if the Commission feels such a comment is warranted. Kuecker said that these notifications come across her desk sporadically, and only one time has the Commission chosen to make a comment. She said it was a tower that was going to be visible from the historic house on Benton Street. Ponto said he was not opposed to this, but he was not in favor either. Baldridge pointed out that it is a historic building, and its appearance will be affected. Bunting Eubanks asked if the Commission would like her to write a letter to state that the Commission would like them to use unobtrusive materials and to make as few changes to the fagade as possible. Ponto agreed that the letter should be written, because it does involve a historic building. Historic Preservation Commission April 13, 2009 Page 6 Kuecker said that the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously passed the new proposed Northside Neighborhood District. She said that the public hearing in front of the City Council is scheduled for May 5th, and there will be three readings in front of City Council. Kuecker said that there should be a representative of the Commission at each City Council meeting, and generally it is the chair. Bunting Eubanks said she should be able to attend those meetings but would let Kuecker know if she could not. Bunting Eubanks said she attended the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, and there was only one opponent who spoke at the meeting, and there was another landlord who said he was not necessarily opposed but would have to see more evidence. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte s/pcd/minutes/hpc/2009/hpc04-13-09.doc Historic Preservation Commission Attendance Record 2009 Name Term Expires 1/OS 2113 3/12 4113 Baldridge 3/29/11 X O/E X X Baker 3/29/09 X X X O/E Downing 3/29/10 X X X X Eubanks 3/29/11 X X X X Hirschman 3/29/11 -- -- X O/E X Michaud 3/29/09 X X O/E X Ponto 3/29/10 X X X X Swaim 3/29/09 X X X O/E Trimble 3/29/10 X X X X Wagner 3/29/09 X X X X Key: X =Present O =Absent O/E = Absent/Excused IOWA CITY HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION TUESDAY, April 21, 2009 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL 3b 5 Members Present: Newman Abuissa, Dianne Day, Wangui Gathua, Dell Briggs, Eric Kusiak. Staff Present: Others Present: Stefanie Bowers. Libris Fidelis. Call to Order Abuissa called the meeting to order at 18:07 p.m. Recommendations to Council (Become effective only after separate Council action) Consideration of the Minutes of the March 24, 2009 Meeting Motion: Gathua, seconded Briggs. Minutes approved 5-0. July 4 Parade Commissioners decided to participate in the parade. Gathua, Abussia, Day and Kusiak will be the representatives of the Commission for the parade. Motion: Kusiak, seconded Day. Passed: 5-0. Mission Statement Commissioners worked on a mission statement. Bowers will present three draft statements to the Commission at the next meeting. Bowers also clarified the role of staff versus the role of the Commission. Programming 2009 The Commission will host Preventing Sexual Harassment in the Workplace on April 24t". The Youth Awards will be :held May 5t", 96 youth will be recognized. Commissioners are to report no later than 5:30 p.m. on that day. A Civil Society will be held April 30t" at the IMU, Day and Abuissa will attend. Diversity Dialogues will be held in June, Bowers will have more information at the next meeting concerning this program. The Building Blocks Job Fair will be held on April 28t" at Eastdale Plaza any Commissioners who are available should plan on attending. Commissioners will continue to work on a program for airing on City Channel 4 as well as review possible films for future viewings. Reports of Commissioners Gathua reported that she was recognized on April 1St and showed Commissioners a news clipping from the Daily Iowan of her receiving the Award. Day mentioned a film series she attended as well as a program hosted by Diversity Focus. Abussia reported on an upcoming exhibit entitled Arab Series at the Cedar Rapids Art Museum on April 25t". Kusiak mentioned how happy he was with the decision i n Varnum v. Brien. Adjournment There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 19:27. Motion: Kusiak, seconded by Day. Passed: 5-0. Human Rights Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2009 (Meeting Date) NAME TERM EXP. 1/27 2/24 3/24 4/21 5/19 6/16 7/21 8/18 9/15 10/20 11/17 12/15 Newman Abuissa 1/1/10 P P X X Joy Kross 1/1/10 A A R R Eric Kusiak 1/1/10 A P X X Dell Briggs 1/1/11 P P X X Yolanda Spears 1/1/11 P P X A Corey Stoglin 1/1/11 A A A A Dianne Day 1/1/12 P P X X Wangui Gathua 1/1/12 P P X X Martha Lubaroff 1/1/12 A P X A KEY: P =Present A =Absent NM = No meeting NMNQ = No meeting, no quorum R =Resigned 3b 6 MINUTES IOWA CITY BOARD OF APPEALS FINAL MONDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2008 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, IOWA CITY CITY HALL 410 E. WASHINGTON STREET IOWA CITY, IA MEMBERS PRESENT: John Roffman, Chad Campion, Tim Fehr, Steve Buckman, Andrea French, AI Gerard, Scott McDonough STAFF PRESENT: Tim Hennes (Sr. Building Inspector), Brian Greer (Fire Inspector), Sue Dulek (Asst. City Attorney) and Jann Ream (Code Enforcement Asst. acting as minute taker) OTHERS PRESENT: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Roffman called the meeting to order at 4:05 PM CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES: Minutes from the May 5, 2008 meeting were reviewed. Tim informed the Board that a permit had been issued for the construction project discussed in the minutes because the conditions for the approval of the appeal had been met. Roffman asked what action the Board needed to take since the final approval of the appeal was deferred contingent on the applicant meeting the conditions. Dulek said there should be a final action or vote taken but since it was not on the agenda for this meeting, it would have to wait until the next meeting. Gerard moved to adopt the minutes. Buckman seconded. Minutes were approved with a unanimous vote of 7-0. Appeal the decision of the Building Official because any material, alternate design or method of construction not specifically prescribed by this code is appropriate. (2401 Highway 6 East) The applicants for the appeal were not present. Roffman wondered since they were not there if the item should be deferred to the next meeting. Hennes stated that the notification packet went to the person who submitted and signed the application -attorney for the applicants. The attorney, however, did not feel it was in his purview to attend the meeting and also did not pass the meeting packet along to the applicants. So there was a question of meeting notification. Dulek said that Staff acted appropriately but that clearly there was a miscommunication. She recommended that the appeal be deferred until the proper meeting notification occurs. MOTION: Gerard moved that appeal be deferred until the next scheduled Board meeting in January. McDonough seconded. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. Appeal Dismissal - 1123 N. Dodge Street Hennes explained that appeal regarding the necessity of an accessible route from the public way to the entrance of the building was rendered unnecessary because a Minor Modification was granted to the commercial site development standards that removed the requirement. MOTION: McDonough moved that the appeal for 1123 N. Dodge Street be dismissed. Gerard seconded. VOTE: The motion for dismissal was approved unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS: Hennes explained that the Board will be starting to review for the new code cycle in the coming months. The new codes will be the 2008 National Electrical Code and the 2009 International Residential and Building Codes. Hennes hoped that codes could be adopted by July 1, 2009. There will also be revision of the contractor licensing ordinance in order to make it comply with the new State of Iowa licensing law. Hennes announced that there will be two vacancies on the Board -Campion and Fehr -unless they choose to reapply. ADJOURNMENT: Campion moved to adjourn the meeting. Fehr seconded. The meeting adjourned at 4:15PM. John Roffman, Chairperson Date NAME Steve Buckman Andrea French Tim Fehr John Roffman Chad Campion AI Gerard Scott McDonough KEY X =present O =absent O/E = absent/excused NM = No meeting = not a member Board of Appeals Attendance Record 2006 TERM EXPIRES Jan-08 Feb-08 Mar-08 NM NM 12/31 /2011 x 12/31 /2012 x 12/31/2008 x 12/31 /2007 x 12/31 /2008 x 12/31 /2010 O/E 12/31/2011 Apr-08 NM Board of Appeals Attendance Record 2006 May-08 Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 NM NM NM NM NM NM X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 3b 7 FINAL MINUTES City of Iowa City Animal Care Task Force Friday Apri124th, 2009 - 5:30 P.M. IC Animal Center 4852 Sand Road SE Call to Order: Meeting called to order at 5:47 p.m. Members Present: Pat Farrant, Teresa Kopel, Jane McCune, Paula Kelly, Lisa Drahozal Pooley Members Absent: Staff Present: Misha Goodman, Stacy Dykema Others Present: Mary Blount, Liz Ford, Calista Hospodarsky, Dan and Kristin Johnson, Michelle Hickman Recommendations to City Council: Approval of Minutes/Consent Calendar: 1. March 26th, 2009 minutes unanimously approved as submitted via email. Old Business: 2. Feral Cat Pilot Project update Mary Blount reported on the status of the project. Iowa Humane Alliance is finishing their Oakville project and still working with the Cedar Rapids flood cats. They will have more time for the Iowa City proposed project once the Oakville project is complete. These projects are providing valuable experience and insight for future projects. Mary will email to Task Force members the 14 page proposal she has developed. Liz Ford will speak to the manager at Nagle Lumber about the feral cat pilot project. 3. Flood update and Center plans -land selection FEMA has declared that the old shelter sustained over 53% damage and therefore is eligible for replacement or relocation. The state side of FEMA must now approve. The decision is expected by next week. Misha Goodman and her staff have been looking at city-owned lands in Iowa City. Many of the city-owned sites are in flood plains, in residential areas, or already have plans for development. Misha noted that there is a possibility that FEMA would fund a new purchase of land if available land is not suitable. Land not owned by the city might become an option as well. A piece of land by the Hubbell Feedlot is available and has been proposed by the city. The size is similar to the old shelter site, and it is also located in a heavy industrial area next to a grain elevator. There are multiple reasons why this choice is detrimental to the health and safety of animals, staff, volunteers and the public and would hinder current services and future expansion of services to the community. • The grain mill will create a lot of dust. Grain dust is associated with respiratory problems • Grain mills often use pesticides, insecticides and rodent poison and can produce fire hazards • Neighboring businesses noted that the grain mill makes a loud humming noise all of the time which is louder and vibrates in the fall during the drying phase • An emergency siren is located on this property • Even the city's own website discusses the negatives of this area in terms of dust and noise • The airport is also a source of noise, depending on the wind • Because this is a heavy industrial site, traffic consists of heavy trucks causing further dust and noise. Heavy traffic will also necessitate fencing to keep the animals safe • Much of the surrounding area is a former landfill with methane gas • Security is an issue as the site is not very visible from the road due to the placement of the grain mill • Volunteers would have to walk along a busy street to walk dogs • A fenced dog exercise training area would not fit on this property and could only be placed some distance away off the main property • Animal Control officers need to be able to get into the community easily and citizens need to be able to access the Center easily for animal control issues, adoptions, and the other services that the Center provides • There is no room for expansion of services, for a community education and training center, library or spay/neuter clinic for example • The location is neither user-friendly nor pleasant. It does not project nor fit the community and service oriented nature of the Center, nor does it allow for growth. • Such a location is outside the national recommendations for placement of an animal shelter. The Center serves the entire county and is a community resource - a resource that should be nurtured and developed to further benefit the citizens in Iowa City and the surrounding areas. The Task Force will be drafting a letter to send to the City Council, Interim City Manager, City Planner, City Engineer, Chief of Police, and head of Parks and Recreation, outlining their concerns about this piece of land as well as their vision for the future of the Animal Center. 2 4. Clarify Task Force definition and direction Postponed until the next meeting. 5. Fees/ordinances/permits Postponed until the next meeting. New Business: 1. Misha Goodman handed out reports showing animal totals for Coralville and Johnson County. She noted that Johnson County has not yet signed a contract with Iowa City. Misha also distributed kennel statistics for the Center. 2. Misha also noted that animals are being dropped off due to the difficult economic times. On a positive note, the Center and FACF both received money left in two separate wills. Task Force Member Comment: Staff Comment: Citizen Comment: 7:30 p.m. meeting adjourned. 3b 8 MINUTES HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION APRIL 16, 2009 - 6:30 PM LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL APPROVED Members Present: Stephen Crane, Charlie Drum, Holly Jane Hart, Michael McKay, Rebecca McMurray Members Absent: Marcy DeFrance, Andy Douglas, Brian Richman, Michael Shaw, Staff Present: Tracy Hightshoe Others Present: Kristin Watson, Libris Fidelis RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action): The Commission voted 5-0 (Richman, Shaw, DeFrance and Douglas absent) to recommend approval of the FY10 Action Plan and FY09 Annual Action Plan Amendment to the City Council. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. Charlie Drum chaired the meeting. APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 12 AND MARCH 26, 2009 MINUTES: Crane motioned to approve the minutes. McKay seconded the motion. The motion to approve the minutes passed 5-0 (Richman, Shaw, DeFrance and Douglas absent). PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. STAFF/COMMISSION COMMENT: None. FAIR HOUSING PRESENTATION BY THE IOWA CITY HUMAN RIGHTS DEPARTMENT: Hightshoe introduced Kristin Watson, Human Rights Investigator, Iowa City. Hightshoe noted that the City's Affirmative Marketing Plan encourages coordination with the Human Rights Department to educate commissions on fair housing laws. Watson noted that the federal Fair Housing Act came out of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The initial Civil Rights Act did not address housing issues, though the idea had been discussed and President HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION APRIL 16, 2009 MEETING ROOM A, IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY Page 2 of 8 Lyndon Johnson supported its inclusion. After Martin Luther King, Jr., was assassinated in 1968, there was ftnally enough momentum for the passage of a Fair Housing Act to address discrimination in housing matters. Watson said that the Housing Act was needed because there were both overt acts of discrimination in housing as well as policies with unintended discriminatory tendencies. Watson said that Iowa itself had a surprisingly progressive civil rights history. Iowa state courts outlawed segregation in the schools over 50 years before Brown vs. Board of Education outlawed segregation nationwide. Watson noted that Iowa was also the first state to admit a woman to the Bar, requiring the removal of "white" and "male" as admission standards to the Bar. Watson said that Iowa courts refused to acknowledge the property rights ofslave-owners, and refused to return runaway slaves to their masters based on that view. Watson said that while Iowa's history does possess landmark civil rights moments, the state has not entirely escaped issues of discrimination in housing. The 2000 census found that almost a quarter of Iowa's 99 counties have less than 15 black residents. Watson acknowledged that there are a number of factors that converge to create segregated communities. She said that it was not uncommon in the past to have racially restrictive covenants on property which barred the sale of the property to non- whites. Watson said that it was also not uncommon to have covenants restrict on the basis of religion as well, requiring that a property be sold only to a Christian. It was 1948 before the Supreme Court outlawed such restrictive covenants. Watson noted that some discriminatory practices were not so overt, and were sometimes intended to be positives but had negative consequences. In the 1930's, Watson said, the U.S. Housing Authority was created in response to the Great Depression. This would seem to be a good thing, providing housing for poor people; however, the housing developments created by the authority were segregated by race. Another example is demonstrated by real estate appraisals which calculated racially integrated neighborhoods as a "risk factor" to property values and mortgage defaults. Watson acknowledged that this could often times be true; these properties were at greater risk of default and property devaluation because poorer people tended to live in more diverse neighborhoods, creating a negative cycle. Watson said the practice of "red-lining" neighborhoods by drawing a red line around them and saying that they were bad loan risks had discriminatory repercussions because they were very often non-white neighborhoods. Watson said that statistics from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) show that between 1934 and 1968, 98% of federally approved mortgages were granted to whites. Watson noted that this was also a time period where almost 50% of all mortgages were backed by federal agencies, making it clear that it was very, very difficult to borrow money for a home for non-whites. In the 1970's, well-intentioned urban renewal projects displaced many, many poor non-white people. The homes that tended to be torn down were single family homes and duplexes whereas the homes they were replaced with were large-scale housing projects. Watson discussed a phenomenon studied by a sociologist named James Lohen called "Sundown Towns;" these were towns that posted signs stating that non-whites were not allowed to be in town after sundown. Lohen found that there were over 400 of these towns in Illinois and 44 in Iowa. Watson said that in the Midwest the target of these laws were primarily African Americans, whereas in the West they were often directed against those of Asian descent. Watson said it is easy to see that there are presently neighborhoods that are white and non-white, but that it takes a more thorough examination of the history of housing to understand how this came to be. Watson noted that increasingly neighborhoods are not segregated just by race, but also by HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION APRIL 16, 2009 MEETING ROOM A, IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY Page 3 of 8 economic class. She said there are a disproportionate number of non-white people living in distressed neighborhoods. Watson explained that as a federal law, the Fair Housing Act offers greater authority than state or local laws which can differ from federal law but cannot conflict with it. The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, familial status and disability. Watson noted that familial status and disability were not added until 1988. The act requires that federal agencies affirmatively further fair housing policies, something unique in civil rights law. Whenever a federal agency does something official related to housing they have to assess the racial impact and affirmatively promote integration in federal housing policy. The State of Iowa adds to the federal housing act by protecting religion, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and retaliation from housing discrimination. Iowa City includes a provision to protect those with public assistance as a source of income from being discriminated against in housing. Watson said that the public assistance income source is an issue of much policy debate at the national level when it comes to housing discrimination. Watson said that housing discrimination is basically any adverse action that you take in the realm of housing based on the protected classes outlined in the law, such as: refusing to rent or sell to a person because of their protected class, representing that an available apartment really is not available, showing homes or apartments only in certain neighborhoods based on who the person is, setting different terms and conditions based on a person's protected status. Watson noted that religious institutions can discriminate on the basis of religion without violating the law; for example, a monastery can say that those not of their religious order cannot live on the premises but could not say that African American monks of the same faith could not. The State of Iowa has determined that if a landlord has fewer than three units and is owner-occupied then that property owner can discriminate. The logic behind this is that the owner can choose who they wish to have living with them. Amore common exception is that of elderly housing units, where renters must be of a certain age before they can live in a building. Watson said that at some level this is just a public policy decision. She said that her office received a call the other day from a disabled individual who wanted to live in an assisted living facility because of the services offered but could not because she was not old enough. In this case, because the housing was for seniors, the young disabled person can be denied housing based on that individual's age. Watson said there is also an exception in an Iowa state code for transient housing, such as hotel occupancy; Watson said she did not understand this exception because discrimination in these instances would be covered by public accommodations code. Watson said that recent research shows that a lot of discrimination still exists though it has grown more subtle. The most recent national study done by HUD in 2000 found that non-white people were routinely steered to certain neighborhoods. Watson relayed an example in Iowa City where after she and her husband had decided against a certain house the realtor suggested that the neighborhood might not have been an appropriate one for an attorney. HUD also found that non-white people who applied for loans were routinely given less information than white people, offered fewer financial products, and were steered toward non-standard loans. Watson said that the latest Southern Poverty Law Center Intelligence Report reported on a piece of information that went viral on the Internet which blamed illegal immigrants for the current housing crisis. Watson said that hate groups have political agendas and get out and lobby just as legitimate groups do, and that the Internet is just as powerful a tool for them as it is for others without hate agendas. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION APRIL 16, 2009 MEETING ROOM A, IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY Page 4 of 8 Watson said that economic discrimination is on the rise. Iowa City is one of the few areas that has a clause protecting individuals from housing discrimination based on their incomes from public assistance. In most areas of the country it is perfectly legal to say to a renter that you will not rent to them because they are on public assistance. Watson said that there is a rise in discriminatory advertising with the advent of the Internet. Because there are laws that protect Internet providers from being sued for the content of third parties there are now discriminatory advertisements on sites such as Craig's List. This is an emerging issue in bigger cities, as is the issue of cooperative housing. Co-ops are not presently required to publish standards and so it is difficult to ascertain whether or not an applicant has been denied on the basis of discrimination. McKay asked how long Iowa City has had a statute barring discrimination based on public assistance income. Watson said she was not sure. She noted that it was still perfectly within a landlord's rights to determine whether or not they wished to accept Section 8 rental assistance, as a landlord cannot be forced to allow Section 8. However, if a person can demonstrably afford an apartment, a landlord cannot deny housing based on the person having public assistance as their income type. Fidelis noted that a lot of landlords steer clear of Section 8 because the government keeps cutting it out, whereas if one goes through the HUD rent assistance program cuts are not made. The speaker maintained that the government is trying to get rid of Section 8, and that he was told by the City that he would get an apartment much faster if he would go through HUD subsidized housing than he would on Section 8. Watson said that all of these issues are intersecting. Watson said that the Human Rights Office processes complaints received by the public and investigates to see whether or not there is probable cause to believe that discrimination has occurred. Watson said that anyone can file a complaint and that it is a very accessible process; people can download forms, call in to have then sent, or drop by to pick one up. Watson noted that the department is limited in its scope to the boundaries of [owa City. She said her office can assist those in other areas with filling out a State of Iowa complaint form, but cannot otherwise help people outside their jurisdiction. McKay asked what the data said about the number of cases for which there seemed to be probable cause to believe discrimination had occurred. Watson said that because the standards for determining discrimination are set so high, the number of actionable complaints is very low. She said that there has been a lot of conservatism in the courts that have narrowed the standards, and that it is very hard for a plaintiff to win a discrimination suit. More often, Watson said, there are actions the office deems to be suspicious and does not like, but does not fit the legal standard for discrimination. Watson said that frequently the office sends out friendly warning letters. She offered as an example a letter that was sent out advising a landlord that an ad he had placed saying "no children" allowed was not legal. Proceeding to court action on probable cause is pretty rare, Watson said. Hightshoe asked Watson what the most common complaint received by her office was. Watson replied that the most common complaints received by her office concerned discrimination in employment, followed by complaints concerning public accommodation. Crane asked if age discrimination in employment was an issue. Watson said that age is an issue, as is race, sexual orientation, and sex. Hightshoe asked if it is harder to establish probable cause in such employment HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION APRIL I6, 2009 MEETING ROOM A, IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY Page 5 of 8 complaints than it is for housing. Watson said they were about the same, although she noted that there is a new law that says that the courts have been wrong on disability issues and that the laws need to be more strictly enforced. Crane asked if the caseload has gone up in the last few years. Watson said she did not know the answer to that question, as she had been with the City for two years and her workload has been about the same. Watson noted that the State of Iowa tends to take the interesting housing cases away and investigate it themselves. Watson said that each case must be cross-filed with the State, who then sometimes cross-files employment complaints (depending on whether the standards have been met or not) with the Equal Opportunity Commission (EOC). Watson provided handouts for Commission members which listed standards and resources they could consult. Crane asked how many investigators were in the Human Rights Office. Watson replied that there was only one at present as they had a vacancy. She noted that the Coordinator also investigates cases in addition to her administrative duties. Watson was asked what family status actually meant when it came to housing discrimination, and she replied that it generally meant the presence or absence of dependents and/or children. She said that some landlords would prefer not to rent to people with children. There were no further questions from the Commission and Watson concluded her presentation. REVIEW OF THE FY10 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN AND FY09 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN AMENDMENT: Hightshoe noted that a copy of these plans had been provided in the packets distributed to the Commissioners. McMurray asked why Shelter House and Home Ties were funded in the FY09 Action Plan. Hightshoe replied that this was because HUD requested that the stimulus funds be spent as soon as possible and advised to proceed with a FY09 Annual Action Plan amendment. McMurray said she was just confirming that the funds were actually 2009 stimulus money. Hightshoe explained that the Annual Action plan contains the Housing and Community Development Commission's (HCDC) budget, certifications, history, and a breakdown of each project. Hightshoe explained that the Commission reviews the plan, requests revisions if necessary, and makes a recommendation to forward it to City Council for approval. Hart asked if this was the plan in which the Commission needed to break down its goals and priorities. Hightshoe said this would be done with the beginning of the next five-year plan, with the 2011 allocation cycle. She said the new 5- year Consolidated Plan will contain more detail than previous plans and the City's goals will be translated to identifiable action steps that indicate number of units to be assisted for different income groups, number and possibly type of public facilities assisted, etc. Hightshoe said that the first five year plan had set overly-optimistic goals, and that the new five year plan will be more realistic and will be based on the prior five years numbers so that projections are more accurate. Crane motioned to recommend approval of the FY10 Annual Action Plan and FY09 Annual Action Plan Amendment to City Council. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION APRIL 16, 2009 MEETING ROOM A, IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY Page 6 of 8 McKay seconded. The motion carried 5-0 (Richman, Shaw, DeFrance, and Douglas absent). DISCUSSION OF FY09 PROJECTS THAT HAVE NOT PERFORMED PER THE UNSUCCESSFUL OR DELAYED PROJECTS POLICY: Hightshoe provided an update on these projects. Hightshoe explained that for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds the City is evaluated by HUD fora "timeliness" factor. As a result, the City encourages funding recipients to get their projects out there and get them completed in the shortest amount of time. CDBG applicants are encouraged to spend at least 50% of their award by March 15`h. There are three projects that have not met that threshold. The Free Medical Clinic is running up against problems with their purchase of the property they currently lease. There is a discrepancy between the appraisal and the purchase price. Hightshoe said that negotiations are ongoing and getting closer. Hightshoe said that as long as a price can be agreed upon, the Free Medical Clinic will proceed with the purchase. The Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County had been allocated $14,600 for window replacement. Hightshoe said that the bids had been sent out, and that they do intend to have the project done by June 1 S`. The Domestic Violence Intervention Program has begun their bathroom project, and will be finished by the end of the fiscal year. Hightshoe said she did not believe any of the agencies were at the point where they were not going to finish by the end of the fiscal year. The consensus of the commission were to allow all the projects to proceed with staff providing updates on the status if any further delays. REVIEW OF THE FY10 ALLOCATON PROCESS: Hightshoe said that some years a subcommittee has been set up after the allocation process and other years the Commission has simply taken comments regarding that year's allocation process. With the new Consolidated Plan, a.k.a. CITY STEPS coming, Hightshoe said, the process will be reviewed again. Drum said that last year he had had some recommendations. He said that he still felt there was some information that Staff could get for the Commission to help them focus on the facts of what was to be decided. Hart commented that she knew that some of the Commissioners found the ratings forms to be very useful even if they did not follow them exactly. Drum said that he felt the ratings forms were very useful and that it was also very helpful to see what other Commissioners came up with. Crane said that he had served on the subcommittee and he felt that Drum's point was getting at whether a priority was marked as "high" or "low" and if that could just be stated by Staff. Crane acknowledged that some of the criteria came down to Commissioner judgment. Drum said it would be helpful to know if the applicant took a workshop; Crane agreed. Crane said he felt the allocation process went pretty well this year. McKay said he thought the process was rather straightforward and intuitive. McMurray said that she felt the organization of the process was very good this year; Crane pointed HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION APRIL 16, 2009 MF,ETING ROOM A, IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY Page 7 of 8 out that this was especially impressive given the incredible amount of work generated for Long and Hightshoe by the flood. DISCUSSION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CELEBRATION: Hightshoe said that last year's community development celebration was cancelled due to the floods, though Four Oaks had really wanted to host the event. Hightshoe said they had offered a nice venue for such a celebration. Hightshoe said that hopefully this year would be less busy than last year and a committee could be put together to come up with something. Hightshoe asked if those on the committee for the affordable housing event would like to join together with the committee for a celebration. Drum said he had no objection to that. McKay asked what was typically involved. Typically, Hightshoe said, the celebration attempts to highlight projects funded by CDBG/HOME funds and what the money has done in the community. There is typically a featured speaker, big checks are presented to the FY10 recipients, and there is an ongoing power-point presentation. There was some discussion that the expense of the over-sized checks could be done away with and "virtual" checks could be presented to recipients instead. Hightshoe said she would check to see if there is an intern available to do the mailings and notifications involved. Drum and McMurray agreed to be on the committee. Douglas is on the affordable housing committee and so was volunteered by his colleagues for this one as well. MONITORING REPORTS: Iowa City Free Medical Clinic -Building Acquisition & Operations (Richman): Hightshoe presented Richman's report during the portion of the meeting that discussed at-risk FY09 projects. MECCA -Facility Rehabilitation (DeFrance): DeFrance reported via written communication to Hightshoe that the project is complete and that both restrooms have new flooring, paint, counters, new walls for the stalls, new faucets and repairs to damaged drywall. The project is closed out. Iowa City Housing Authority - FY06 & 07 Tenant Based Rental Assistance (Shaw): Shaw had informed Hightshoe that he would be getting in touch with Steve Rackis and reporting to the Commission next month. ADJOURNMENT: McKay motioned to adjourn. Crane seconded. The motion carried 5-0 (Richman, Shaw, DeFrance and Douglas absent). Housing 8~ Community Development Commission Attendance Record 2009 Name Term Ex fires 2/17 2/18 2/19 3/12 3/26 4/16 Crane, Steve 09/01/09 X NM X X X X De France, Marc 09/01/09 O/E NM X O!E X O/E Dou las, And 09/01/11 X NM O/E X X O/E Drum, Charlie 09/01/10 X NM X X X X Hart, Holl Jane 09/01/10 O/E NM X X X X McKa ,Michael 09/01/11 X NM X X X X McMurra ,Rebecca 09/01/11 O/E NM X X O/E X Richman, Brian 09/01!10 X NM X X X O/E Shaw, Michael 09/01/09 X NM X X X O/E Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = AbsenUExcused NM = No Meeting -- -- = Not a Member 06-02-09 3b 9 MINUTES - APPROVED HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION May 4, 2009 -12:00 PM LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL Members Present: Marcy DeFrance, Charlie Drum, Michael McKay, Rebecca McMurray, Brian Richman Teleconference: Steve Crane, Andy Douglas, Holly Hart, Michael Shaw Members Absent: None Staff Present: Tracy Hightshoe, Stephen Long Others Present: RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action): The Commission voted 9-0 to allocate the Shelter House -New Construction the additional CDBG funds and to allocate the additional HOME funds to Dolphin Lake Point and TBRA with $30,000 to be allocated to Dolphin Lake Point and the remainder to go to TBRA. The Commission voted 9-0 to allocate the $95,000 in CDBG Economic Development funds to the projects recommended by staff in the 4/27/09 Council memo by the Community Development Coordinator. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 12:00 p.m. Brian Richman chaired the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. STAFF/COMMISSION COMMENT: Long reminded the Commission of the agenda for the City Council work session that evening and the formal meeting May 5, 2009. He said the Council will discuss the approval of the Commission's budget along with the stimulus funding. He said that he and Hightshoe will give a short presentation to the Council regarding the Commission's recommendation, including recommendations to come from this meeting. Long said the official approval will take place at the formal meeting on May 5, 2009 and said he hopes some of the Commission members will be present. Long said at the same meeting the Council will discuss the Aniston Village general revenue bond funding, $282,000 for the Housing Fellowship project which the Commission voted to approve last year and which are 22 units oftax-credit funded affordable housing. Long thanked the Commission members for attending this meeting. HOUSING AND COMMUNI"I'Y DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION May 4, 2009 Planning Conference Room, City Hall Page 2 of 6 Richman asked for additional comments. As there were none he moved to discussion of the FY 10 annual action plan and budget. DISCUSSION OF THE FY10 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN AND BUDGET: Hightshoe presented to the Commission information related to the budget. She said they had received word from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that they will be receiving $16,268 more for CBDG than budgeted, a 2.5% increase from last year. Hightshoe said for HOME an additional $68,632 will be received than budgeted, an 11% increase from last year. Hightshoe noted the additional $84,900 available for HOME and CDBG funds is good news because there have been cuts for the past eight years. Hightshoe said the motion from March 26 read "Shaw amended his motion to state that if there is additional funding of less than 5% of the FY 10 allocation (and 2009 ARRA funds) additional CDBG funds will be allocated to Shelter House -New Construction and additional HOME funds will be allocated pro rata between TBRA and Dolphin. If the City receives more than 5% of the FY 10 allocation (and 2009 ARRA funds), the commission will meet again to discuss." Hightshoe noted that the additional funds represent a 5.89% increase Richman said that is why we're all here. He asked if it was the intention of the Commission to carry out the same plan approved at the previous meeting - a plan budgeted fora 5% increase in funds and which would allocate money on a pro rata basis - or if the additional funds warrants consideration of an alternative plan. A member of the Commission asked if the proposal covered CDBG funds for the Shelter House, TBRA, and Dolphin House. Richman confirmed this was correct. Richman said the additional $16,268 for the CBDG fund would be used for the Shelter House and the additional $68,632 in HOME funds would be split on a pro rata basis between the Housing Authority TBRA program and the Dolphin home ownership program. Richman asked if any member of the Commission felt they should be doing something other than that which he just outlined. A member of the Commission asked if it is a 5.89% difference in what was approved additionally and what is available. Richman said it's a 5.89% increase. He said the Commission stated in its motion that if funds increased 5% or less the plan outlined earlier would be pursued but since the additional funds are somewhat more than a 5% increase the Commission had to meet again to discuss. Long added that the motion required another meeting if funds increased above 5% and that the motion combined both the CBDG funds and the HOME funds. He said HOME funds increased l 1 %. Long asked if the Commission could answer questions about why the Commission didn't allocate the top ranked projects under housing, in case questions were directed to the Commission members. He HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION May 4, 2009 Planning Conference Room, City Hall Page 3 of 6 said the top ranked project under housing was Isis, the second was the Housing Fellowship and then Dolphin and TBRA were fourth and fifth, respectively. Richman responded that one of the last things done at the last meeting was to move money from TBRA into the Housing Fellowship project with the idea that if there were additional funds that they would go toward TBRA. Hart said she thought the Commission was trying to avoid adhering strictly to rankings because it can force a particular position from the Commission. She said while the rankings are helpful to see the potential projects there are problems with the rankings, too. She pointed out the reason TBRA comes in low on the rankings is because it doesn't produce anything; they're not paying property taxes, for instance. She wondered if there were other factors that could be used to evaluate the merits of potential projects, and ranked accordingly. Richman said Hart is right, that there are limitations in the rankings and there is no need to be constrained by them. Richman said it is also true that with Isis, if additional funds are awarded, it must come in $50,000 amounts to do an entire unit which is nearly the entire allocation. Douglas said one possibility would be to give another $20,000 to the Housing Fellowship. Long said it's $20,000 a unit. Hightshoe said there is $34,316 to be divided equally. She said Dolphin's per unit cost of $10,000 equals $30,000. She asked what would be done with the rest of the money. She asked if it would go to TBRA. Hightshoe said TBRA can use any denomination. She said $30,000 would be required for three additional units leaving $38,000 to TBRA. Richman said the last thing they did was increase the Housing Fellowship's allocation. He said he would rather that money be directed toward the TBRA than for another unit. Douglas said he'd be fine with the current plan, pro-rating it for the two home projects. Shaw asked what is the rational to the Council for giving a portion to the Dolphin project. He said the Commission has the rational for TBRA because they took away funds toward the end. Richman said the Dolphin project was only funded at $90,000, a relatively small fraction of the requested $558,000. He said he thought those who had seen the project felt good about what had been accomplished. A Commission member asked if there was a rational for splitting funds between rental and home- ownership projects. Crane said he agreed to do as presented because it was less than a 1 % increase. Richman said if everyone is comfortable with that a motion would be needed to say additional CDBG funds would go to Shelter House -New Construction, that $30,000 of the additional HOME funds would go to the Dolphin project, and that the balance of the additional HOME funds would go to the TBRA project. Long said administration money is not being taken out of the additional funds. He said the City could take another $7,000 in administration, but staff elected not to allocate the funds to administrative/planning costs. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION May 4, 2009 Planning Conference Room, City Hall Page 4 of 6 Shaw motioned to allocate the Shelter House -New Construction the additional CDBG funds and to allocate the additional HOME funds to Dolphin Lake Point and TBRA. $30,000 is to be allocated to Dolphin Lake Point with the remainder going to TB)ZA. McMurray seconded. The motion passed 9-0. Douglas asked if the Commission needed to discuss economic development money. Hightshoe said staff made a recommendation to Council. She said $120,000 exists in the economic development fund. She said if another $95,000 in FY10 is allocated that brings the fund to $210,000. She said the City is evaluated on the timeliness of expenditures ratio in which the City receives approximately $600,000 in CDBG funds annually. She said due to Community Development's workload including all flood related grants and housing rehabilitation projects, Single-Family New Construction Program, drafting of the next 5-year Consolidated Plan (CITY-STEPS), and the regular workload, staff time is limited to find desirable applicants or to market to lenders to get the type of projects the City wants to pursue. Staff recommended to Council that the $95,000 be directed to CDBG eligible projects that can proceed in a more timely fashion. She said FY1 1 would return to normal. Douglas asked if that is something the Commission needs to approve. Hightshoe said the Commission could make a recommendation, to discuss it in the agenda item, or to leave it to Council to decide. Drum motioned to allocate the $95,000 in CDBG Economic Development funds to the projects recommended by staff in the 4/27/09 Council memo by the Community Development Coordinator. Hightshoe said the money could go to any CDBG eligible project, including Shelter House -New Construction or the Housing Fellowship. Long said the two highest ranked CDBG eligible facility projects were Shelter House and MECCA and the two highest housing were ISIS and Housing Fellowship -Rental. Both housing projects are eligible for CDBG money as well. Typically staff does not like to mix CDBG and HOME funds due to administrative issues; however it has been done in the past. McKay seconded. The motion passed 9-0. Discussion occurred about who was attending the Council work session. Long said it would be helpful to have members present during the work session in case questions needed to be asked of the Commission. Long said decisions will have already been made by the formal meeting. Hightshoe said she spoke with HUD when the figures were made available but that they haven't received an official award letter regarding the dollar amounts at this time. She said the final number HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION May 4, 2009 Planning Conference Room, City Hall Page 5 of 6 may not reflect exactly the numbers available currently but that it should be very close, to within one or two thousand dollars ADJOURNMENT: Mckay moved to adjourn. Defrance seconded. The motion passed 9-0. Housing 8 Community Development Commission Attendance Record 2009 Name Term Ex fires 2/17 2/18 2/19 3/12 3/26 4/16 5/4 Crane, Steve 09/01/09 X NM X X X X X De France, Marc 09/01/09 O/E NM X O/E X O/E X Dou las, And 09/01/11 X NM 0/E X X 0/E X Drum, Charlie 09/01/10 X NM X X X X X Hart, Holl Jane 09/01/10 O/E NM X X X X X McKa ,Michael 09/01/11 X NM X X X X •X McMurra ,Rebecca 09/01/11 O/E NM X X 0/E X X Richman Brian 09/01/10 X NM X X X O/E X Shaw, Michael 09/01/09 X NM X X X O/E X Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No Meeting -- -- = Not a Member 3b 10 MINUTES APPROVED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY 7, 2009 - 7:30 PM -FORMAL CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Elizabeth Koppes, Josh Busard, Charlie Eastham, Tim Weitzel, Michelle Payne, Wally Plahutnik MEMBERS ABSENT: Ann Freerks STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Doug Ongie, Sara Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Kris Ackerson, Ron Amelon, Libris Fidelis RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 6-0 (Freerks absent) to approve SUB09-00001, an application from A.F. Streb for a preliminary and final plat of Scott-Six Industrial Park, 2"d Addition, a 2-lot, 3.06 acre industrial subdivision located at 2802 Independence Road subject to approval of the preliminary and final plats, construction drawings and legal papers by the Public Works Department and City Attorney prior to consideration by the City Council. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m. by Vice-Chair Elizabeth Koppes. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. JCCOG Metro Bicycle Master Plan Presentation: Miklo introduced Kris Ackerson, Assistant Transportation Planner for the Johnson County Council of Governments (JCCOG), who delivered the presentation. Ackerson began by explaining that in 2007, the City of Iowa City had applied for the designation of a Bicycle Friendly Community and had received an "Honorable Mention," the lowest possible score. The feedback given to the City indicated deficiencies in three main areas: 1) a lack of on-street bike facilities such as bike lanes and bike routes, 2) a lack of educational programs, and 3) a lack of an adopted bike plan. The City along with Coralville, North Liberty, Tiffin, Johnson County, University Heights and the University of Iowa then asked the JCCOG transportation planners to put together a regional bike plan. Ackerson said that JCCOG has been working with the Regional Trails and Bicycling Committee to develop this plan since August, and has been presenting the plan to local governments and overseers to get their final feedback on this draft. He said that many of the city councils involved hope to have the plan adopted by the fall. Ackerson explained that the designation of a "Bicycle Friendly Community" was primarily a marketing tool, but was also useful for cities to gauge how bicycle friendly they are in comparison to other cities. An application is made every three years for this designation. Ackerson said that Iowa City has some of the highest rates of biking and walking to work in the entire country, citing an article in AARP Magazine. Planning and Zoning Commission May 7, 2009 -Formal Page 2 Local cities, Ackerson noted, have successfully focused a lot of attention over the last 15 years on trail development, resulting in over 40 miles of trails in the urbanized area. Ackerson said the Metro Bicycle Master Plan looks at that as well as at bike access, the availability of bike lanes, signage, the inventory of bike parking, educational efforts, encouragement programs (i.e., free rent to the Bike Library in the John Wilson's Building) and enforcement. Ackerson noted that he had been surprised to learn that all of the local communities have trained bike patrol officers. In developing this plan, public input was sought through an online survey in which 495 people participated, as well as through workshops held in Coralville and Iowa City that were attended by 150 people. Ackerson noted that a wide variety of opinions and suggestions were offered on areas in which improvements were needed. The purpose of the public input process was to identify what things people generally agreed on so that city councils would have public guidance on which programs should receive priority for funding. Ackerson said that after public input was received, recommendations were developed. He said that there are two different sets of recommendations, 1) system-wide recommendations that all of the cities, the County and the University of Iowa can all be working toward, and 2) specific recommendations for each individual community. The first system-wide recommendation is to install more on-street accommodations for bicycles; a lot of consensus was found for this recommendation. Two different types of on-street accommodations were proposed, 1) bike lanes and 2) sharrows ("shared lane arrow") which are markers painted on streets that are not wide enough to have bike lanes; there are plans to install these on Market, Jefferson and College Streets this spring. The second system-wide recommendation is to install way-finding signs on trails and streets. This plan calls for signed bike routes that outline the turns necessary to get a cyclist from the west side of town to the east side of town and from the south to the north. Ackerson noted that the County would also like to install signs for rural bike routes common to recreational bikers and for those commuting by bike between communities for work. Part of the inventory process for this plan was to evaluate the seven-year history of all the bike collisions in the area. In this evaluation, it was discovered that half of all the collisions involved either a cyclist or a driver that was under the age of 20. Ackerson said this statistic was useful in identifying the need to target educational programs for college and high school students. Ackerson noted that the feedback that had been received at the workshops indicated that cyclists in the community see a need for greater enforcement of existing bike laws, such as reflector and headlight requirements, and called for ticketing cyclists who do not obey the same basic traffic laws governing cars on the road. Ackerson said this had surprised him initially, but that he came to understand that cyclists see a need for cycling to be more respected in the community if it is to become more popular. Ackerson said that the local communities involved have all agreed that they wish to receive a rating of "platinum" for their bicycle friendliness in the future. Ackerson said this would be a goal that was worked toward slowly, over time. Specific recommendations to Iowa City included: 1) amending the bike parking requirements for Iowa City, as there are no requirements in the CB-10 or CB-5 zones, 2) adding additional sheltered bike racks in the downtown area, 3) decreasing the number of mopeds in bike racks, 4) evaluating the possibility of converting Washington Street from aone-way to a two-way through downtown as a convenient alternative to Burlington Street, 5) consider reducing Madison Street from four lanes to three lanes to provide space for a bike lane (based on initial evaluations current traffic on Madison could be effectively served by three lanes). Ackerson said that the final step in this process is working with the cities to adopt the plan. He stressed that the recommendations put forth are simply that, recommendations, with no obligation to implement Planning and Zoning Commission May 7, 2009 -Formal Page 3 any of the measures if cities should choose to adopt the plan. Ackerson said the plan is a road map for the cities to consult if they decide to become more bike- friendly. Eastham asked if there were any cities that had received the "platinum" rating for bike friendliness. Ackerson replied that Davis, California and Boulder, Colorado had received this rating. Eastham asked if there were any major obvious differences between those cities and Iowa City in terms of potential for bike friendliness. Ackerson said both cities have very strong bike cultures and advocacy groups. Ackerson said that he believed Iowa City would have a good chance at a "bronze" level rating when they reapply because as a part of this planning process a much more thorough inventory was done which reflects positive efforts by the city. Ackerson said that having a bike plan in place and having begun the process of implementing shared lane arrows and bike lanes will also help. Koppes asked if there was some public education that needed to go along with the shared lane arrows. Ackerson replied that there was, and that the process of producing public service announcements to be aired on the government channel has begun. Ackerson said that aribbon-cutting event is also being planned for their installation as they will be the first of their kind in Iowa; the media will be contacted for that event. Payne asked if there were plans to work with schools in the education efforts. Ackerson said that they are working with the school district on a separate project to map safe routes to school. Part of that partnership involves opening up opportunities to use the district's a-mail system to distribute that kind of educational material. Eastham noted that the off-street accommodations recommended by the public workshops heavily favor bike lanes, way-finding signs and bike routes. He asked if there was currently a mechanism in place to implement these at the time new subdivisions are developed. Miklo said that he believed there was in that the new subdivision code has a "complete streets policy" which in many cases calls for a wider right of way to accommodate bike lanes through new development. He said that the review of plats for a new subdivision does include a review by JCCOG transportation planners who would be able to call attention to additional needs for bike accommodations. Miklo noted that the way-finding signs have historically been a public expenditure and are not typically anticipated as a part of a new subdivision. Ackerson noted that JCCOG has been asked to submit an application for funding for way-finding signs for trails throughout the metro area, which would be a dedicated funding-source from the Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT). Eastham noted that this would make the signage system consistent throughout the area. Ackerson said that the Quad Cities had hired a consultant to come up with a similar system for all the communities that have unique identifiers for each of the communities so that a cyclist can know when they have gone from one community to the next; this would also be a possibility for the Iowa City area. Eastham asked if the maintenance of those signs would be the responsibility of the local government once installed by JCCOG and Ackerson replied that it would be. Weitzel noted that in times of high water many of the local trails are inaccessible; currently a number of trails are underwater. He asked if there was any discussion about officially marking out alternative routes. Ackerson said JCCOG had not looked at that, and that it was perhaps best for each municipality to determine its own detours based on the height of the water. Koppes asked what the recommended changes to the parking ordinance would be. Ackerson said he did not know that he could speak to the specific amount of bike parking that should be required. Miklo said that when requirements for bike parking were adopted a number of years ago the downtown zones were specifically exempted. Miklo said that the theory at that time was that the City would provide the necessary bicycle parking. Miklo said that the City has not been able to keep up with the demand for bike parking. Recent significant commercial and residential developments in the downtown area require reconsideration in terms of property owners supplementing the bicycle parking already provided by the City. Miklo said exact numbers have not yet been determined. Eastham said that it seemed to him that cyclists could be generally divided into three groups of people: 1) avid cyclists, 2) families recreationally cycling, and 3) older cyclists. Each of these groups might have different expectations and needs in terms of bicycle routes and trails, and Eastham asked if the perspectives of groups other than the avid bicyclists were represented at the public workshops that were Planning and Zoning Commission May 7, 2009 -Formal Page 4 held. Ackerson said that he was a little surprised at the people who actually participated in the online survey and workshops because they were not actually the avid, hard-core cyclists one might have expected. Ackerson said that a little over half of the participants ride more for utility - to get to work or school- than they do for recreation. One-third of the participants only ride once a week or less; so the discussions were not dominated by daily commuters either. The streets that were recommended for improved cyclist accommodations are streets that participants identified as streets they would like to ride on more frequently but are uncomfortable doing so currently. Ackerson said that the planning research that has been done over the last 10-15 years on bike lanes has demonstrated that bike lanes make cyclists feel more comfortable on the road, although they do not necessarily make cyclists safer. Because of the increased comfort level bike lanes can provide, they encourage those who might want to ride occasionally to places like the library or the Farmer's Market, but might otherwise be too intimidated by traffic to do so. Additionally, Ackerson said, the bike routes will appear on JCCOG's region-wide trails map, expanding it to something more than just trails. Ackerson said the efforts are an attempt to draw out those who might like to ride more often but do not because they either do not feel comfortable or do not know the best routes to get from one place to another. Eastham asked if there were specific measures that should be considered to provide bicycle safety to younger children. Ackerson said this would be part of the educational efforts that are recommended, and that outreach to elementary schools is very important. Ackerson said that JCCOG has helped to coordinate bike rodeos at different schools throughout the area to help make children more aware of bicycle traffic rules and to better understand the operation of their bicycles. Ackerson said this will be an ongoing effort. Plahutnik asked if elementary schools had been linked to the safe routes proposed in the plan. Ackerson said given the number of schools scattered throughout the area it was difficult to focus on schools; he said there was also interest in linking routes to other destinations such as parks and libraries. Ultimately, Ackerson said, they felt there had to be a balance between providing accommodations on every street and trying to identify the highest priority streets to focus limited resources on. Ackerson noted that the on-street facilities would require yearly maintenance and the cost of that had to be considered. There were no further questions from the Commission, and Koppes thanked Ackerson for his presentation. Koppes asked Miklo if this was a matter for public comment or a vote, and he explained that it was not. He said this had simply been a presentation, and that the public would have the opportunity to comment on the matter when it was on the City Council agenda sometime this summer. DEVELOPMENT ITEMS: SUB09-00001: Discussion of an application from A. F. Streb for a preliminary and final plat of Scott Six Industrial Park, 2"d Addition, a 2-lot, 3.06 acre industrial subdivision located at 2802 Independence Road. (45-day limitation period: June 1, 2009) Ongie noted that the subdivision is east of Independence Road and north of 120`h Street. The subdivision is the second addition of a subdivision. The first Scott-Six Industrial Park addition was a 42-lot subdivision that was divided in 1997. In 2001, one of the lots was split into two separate lots, creating auditor's parcel 2001/068. The applicant is requesting to split the other lot into two separate lots, creating Lot 1, which is approximately two acres and has an existing warehouse on it, and Lot 2, which is approximately one acre and is undeveloped. Ongie said that the Comprehensive Plan identifies properties along Independence Road as appropriate for industrial use. Although the subdivision will not affect the zoning of the property, dividing it up will allow for small-scale industrial uses such as the warehouse structures which exist on Lot 1. Ongie noted Planning and Zoning Commission May 7, 2009 -Formal Page 5 that only Lot 1 would have direct access to Independence Road, resulting in the need fora 55 foot access easement along the southern portions of Lots 1 and 2. Ongie said that an address sign would be required to be adjacent to the right of way on Lot 1 which identifies Lot 2 to emergency vehicles. There are currently three storm water management facilities on Lot 1, one easement on the northern part of the property and two facilities just south of the existing warehouse. Ongie noted that the City Engineer has determined that no new detention facilities are necessary for Lot 2. Ongie also noted that the Water Department and the City Engineer are still working with the applicant to determine how Lot 2 will be connected to the water main. Staff suggests a fifteen foot water main easement across Lot 2 to the east side of the property. Upon resolution of the water main issue, Staff is recommending approval of this application. Miklo pointed out that in cases where something is not resolved, Staff usually recommends deferral. However, as the items in question are fairly minor, Staff recommends approval subject to Public Works signing off on the final plat before it goes to City Council. Miklo said the Commission also has the option to defer the matter, but that Staff does not believe it is necessary. Koppes invited questions from the Commission for Staff. There were none Koppes opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to speak. Ron Amelon of MMS Consultants appeared on behalf of the applicant and said that while he did not have anything to add to Staffs comments he would be happy to answer any questions. Payne asked how many feet it was from the bottom edge of the pavement to the southern property line. Amelon said that it was approximately 18 feet. Payne said that from the plat it does not look as though there are any utilities in that grass strip presently; Amelon said that was correct. Libris Fidelis, Capitol House Apartments, South Dubuque Street, identified himself as an uninterested person and just a citizen who lives downtown. He said that he believes this is a good idea for Iowa City, and that he would like to see some commercial development that provides new jobs. He said that even if this results in only one or two new jobs it will help out and will be a benefit to Iowa City. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Eastham motioned for approval of SU609-00001, an application from A.F. Streb for a preliminary and final plat of Scott-Six Industrial Park, 2"d Addition, a 2-lot, 3.06 acre industrial subdivision located at 2802 Independence Road subject to approval of the preliminary and final plats, construction drawings and legal papers by the Public Works Department and City Attorney prior to consideration by the City Council. Payne seconded the motion. There was no discussion of the matter by the Commission. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0 (Freerks absent). CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: April 16, 2009: Busard motioned to approve the minutes. Payne seconded. The minutes were approved on a vote of 6-0 (Freerks absent). Planning and Zoning Commission May 7, 2009 -Formal Page 6 OTHER: Miklo noted that the City Council had had three fairly contentious items related to the Commission on their last agenda. Miklo said that the historic district for the Northside was approved by Council 6-1; the separation requirement for bars and liquor stores was approved 5-2; the final reading of the rezoning and preliminary plat for Country Club Estates was approved 5-2. Payne noted a comment made by someone at the meeting which stated that the Country Club Estates plat violated at least two zoning codes and asked if Miklo knew to what the speaker was referring. Miklo said that he believed it was a neighbor who had made the statement and that he believed it was in reference to the wetland buffer and the protest petition. Miklo said that when Outlot D was taken out of the equation, the petitioners no longer had the 20% of neighbors required to validate a protest petition; their numbers were reduced to 17%. Miklo said that the neighbors argued that the process had to be begun again entirely, whereas historically if a rezoning is changed so that it is made smaller that has not been the case. Eastham noted that there are now a number of acres for the project where the zoning had been approved by the Commission at RS-5, but whose zoning was left unchanged by the City Council. Eastham said the primary concern of the Council in leaving it unchanged was that they wished to see higher density in that area, not lower. He said that he hoped in 10 years or so when the matter comes back up that the desire for higher density in that area is kept in mind. Miklo said that the record is clear on the a part of the City Council as to their desire to see more clustered attached housing in the area, something that is also supported by the Comprehensive Plan. He said that Staff always looks at previous staff reports in reviewing applications, and that the procedures in place will likely be carried on long after present Staff and Commissioners have ceased to serve in their current capacities. Weitzel said that technically speaking there were no stipulations attached to the un-rezoned property. Miklo said that he believed the message was clear that one of the reasons that parcel was not rezoned was a desire on the part of a majority of Council members to see a different type of housing for that area. Koppes asked if anyone had attended the Planning and Zoning Conference this year. Miklo said that all City travel had been halted for the current fiscal year. Busard had attended on behalf of Johnson County's planning department. ADJOURNMENT: Payne motioned to adjourn. Busard seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 6-0 vote at 8:15 p.m. Iowa City Planning 8 Zoning Commission Attendance Record 2009 FARMAI MEETING Name Term Ex ices 1115 215 315 412 4116 517 J. Busard 05/11 X X X X X X C. Eastham 05/11 X X X X X X A. Freerks 05/13 X x X X X O/E E. Ko es 05/12 O/E X X X X X M. Pa ne 05/10 X O/E X X X X W Plahutnik 05/10 X X O/E X O/E X T. Weitzel 05/13 X X X X X x INFnRM01 MEETING Name Term Ex fires 1112 212 312 3130 J. Busard 05111 O/E X X X C. Eastham 05/11 X X X X A. Freerks 05/13 X X X X E. Ko es 05/12 OIE X X X M. Pa ne 05/10 X X X X W. Plahutnik 05/10 X X X X T. Weitzel 05/13 OIE X X X Key: X =Present O =Absent O/E = AbsenUExcused FINAL/APPROVED POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES -March 10, 2009 CALL TO ORDER: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Michael Larson called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m. Janie Braverman, Donald King, Greg Roth, Abbie Yoder None 3b 11 STAFF PRESENT: Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh and Staff Kellie Tuttle OTHERS PRESENT: Captain Richard Wyss, Officer David Schwindt, and Officer Mike Smithey (late arrival) of the ICPD; public, Caroline Dieterle; and Uofl Journalism Students, Tim Hau, Ashley Kating, and Erin Phillips RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (1) Accept PCRB Report on Complaint #08-09 CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by King and seconded by Braverman to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended. • Minutes of the meeting on 02/10/09 • ICPD General Order 07-01 (Patrol Rifle) • ICPD Department Memo #09-08 (December 2008 Use of Force Review) Motion carried, 5/0. King pointed out that for General Order 07-01 (Patrol Rifle), section V. Procedures, number 2, letter (c) should have an "or" at the end since it carries over to letter (d). It was also noted that (b), (c), and (d) should also refer back to the suspect mentioned in (a). OLD BUSINESS Complaint Form Update regarding Officer Bill of Rights -Pugh reported to the Board that she had drafted some language referring to the Officer Bill of Rights for the PCRB Complaint form. There was discussion which amended the last sentence of the second paragraph which changed "may apply" to "applies". There was also discussion regarding the signature having to be notarized. The Board agreed that the current language on the form regarding the statements on the complaint to be true to the best of their knowledge was sufficient and did not want the complainant's signature to have to be notarized. (Wyss and Schwindt exited for emergency 5:42pm-5:48pm) Complaint Registry/Monitoring System -Larson reported that he had spoken with the Police Chief regarding his concerns and also to the City Manager. In reviewing City Code Chapter 8 the following sections made some type of reference to either a reporting or monitoring system, or a central registry: 8-8-2(B), 8-8-2(D)(1), 8-8-2(N), and 8-8-7(C)(1). Larson pointed out that he could not find a reference to tracking sustained allegations/complaints. The Board discussed citizen interest during the public forum in having the PCRB tracking officers with multiple sustained complaints, ways to increase the information on the annual report that goes to the City Council, the incomplete information if the Board were to compile a sustained allegation report which would not include complaints directly to the Police Department and the usefulness of an incomplete report. PCRB March 10, 2009 Page 2 Motion by Yoder, seconded by King not to keep a complaint registry/monitoring system for sustained complaints naming police officers or any other way identifying them. Motion carried, 3/1, Braverman voting no, Larson abstaining. Changes to the Standard Operating Guidelines -Tuttle had drafted the proposed changes to the Standard Operating Guidelines, Section V (Identification of Officers), letter A. The changes removed the unique officer identifier and changed it to an alpha identifier which would be used over and over again to guard against officer identification. Braverman proposed, in light of the Board's decision to discontinue the proposed sustained allegation report, a change in the SOP's was not necessary. The Board would continue their reporting as before and the Police Department would continue with the use of a unique identifier. It was suggested that if PD wanted to change the unique identifier that it should do so, but still be able to track it back to the original one. Motion by Braverman, seconded by Yoder not to change the Standard Operating Procedures. Motion carried, 4/1, Roth voting no. NEW BUSINESS None. PUBLIC DISCUSSION None. BOARD INFORMATION None. STAFF INFORMATION None. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by King and seconded by Braverman 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. PCRB March 10, 2009 Page 3 Open session adjourned at 7:04 P.M. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 7:35 P.M. Motion by King, seconded by Braverman to forward the Public Report as amended for PCRB Complaint #08-09 to City Council. Motion carried, 5/0. Motion by King, seconded by Roth to cancel the April meeting due to lack of Board business. Motion carried, 5/0. Motion by King, seconded by Roth to reschedule the May 12th meeting to May 26th due to timelines and scheduling. Motion carried, 5/0. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change) • April 14, 2009, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm (CANCELLED) • May 12, 2009, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm (Rescheduled to May 26) • May 26, 2009, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm • June 9, 2009, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm • July 14, 2009, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Braverman and seconded by Yoder. Motion carried, 5/0. Meeting adjourned at 7:41 P.M. ~°o~c zz~yro 0 o C ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ c. -CY o ~ G~ ~s o ~- r~ ~ ] fD d o ~ x ~. b~~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~O ~ ~ ~ N ~~ b ~~ x ~ ~ x ~ w ~ x ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W 0 y y ~ ~d ~~ z ~' ~ ~ d o~ ~~ 0 b O r n r~ n y z 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 March 10, 2009 ~ ,._., To: City Council C~ ~ ~'' -~~ .. ~~ Complainant ,,-~~ . ' Michael Lombardo, City Manager ~~ ~~ ~ r.a ~~ Sam Hargadine, Chief of Police = ` ~;-1 ~ Officer(s) involved in complaint ~ :?? ;. e~ From: Police Citizen's Review Board ~ Re: Investigation of PCRB Complaint #08-09 This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB #08-09 (the "Complaint"). BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8-8-7B (2), the Board's job is to review the Police Chiefs Report ("Report") of his investigation of a complaint. The City Code requires the Board to apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review to the Report and to "give deference" to the Report "because of the Police Chiefs professional expertise", Section 8-8-7 B (2). While the City Code directs the Board to make "Findings of Fact", it also requires that the Board recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify his findings only if these findings are "unsupported by substantial evidence', are "unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious" or are "contrary to a Police Department policy or practice, or any Federal, State or local law", Section 8-8-7 B (2) a, b, c. BOARD'S PROCEDURE The Complaint was received at the Office of the City Clerk on October 10, 2008. As required by Section 8-8-5 (B) of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Chief of Police for investigation. The Chiefs Report was due on January 8, 2009, and was filed with the City Clerk on January O5, 2009. The Board met to consider the Chiefs Report on February 10, 2009 and March 10, 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." _ ~. ~ O p ~~ ~-, _r. ",i ,l °~,~ ", rv ALLEGATIONS A N This complaint arises out of an incident that occurred on July 12, 2008, in conjunction with an intoxicated minor female. The Complainant was arrested at the scene for Interference with Official Acts. Complainant alleged that: 1. Complainant had to yell at Officer A to get him to assist in holding the girl. 2. The officers did not get a blanket to cover the half-naked girl in spite of Complainant's repeated request for one. 3. Neither Officer A nor Officer B assessed the situation, asked any questions about what was going on or used a flashlight to be able to see what was going on. 4. The officers prevented critical care of the girl by putting her flat on her back, handcuffing her and arresting the Complainant. 5. The officers used excessive force by handcuffing the girl and treating her roughly. 6. The officers used excessive force by yanking the Complainant's left arm and pointing a Taser at his face. 7. Officer A lied in his ICPD report in saying the Complainant was antagonistic towards the Officers, that Complainant was trying to start a fight or balling his fists, and that Complainant called Officer A a sorry son-of-a-bitch. 8. Officer A used bad judgment in moving the patrol car out into the roadway while his Complainant's wife was standing near the open door. FINDINGS OF FACT On July 12, 2008, at approximately 11:52 p.m., Iowa City police officers were dispatched to the scene of the incident in regard to four people carrying an intoxicated female. Several officers responded including Officer A, Officer B, and Officer C. Upon arrival Officer C observed a young female located on a hill in the front yard of a house. The female was naked from the waist down. At this time there was an older male kneeling next to the girl and bending over her. The female was yelling and screaming. The male kneeling by the female told Officer C that he was a doctor and was later identified as the Complainant. Officer C approached the hysterical female and the Complainant. The Complainant was trying to hold the female on the ground. Officer C was advised that several other persons were with the female. Officers A and B then arrived and were advised by Officer C to attend to the female. Officer C then spoke with two females that were with the female. They indicated that several males had carried the female to her current location. They also indicated their friend was drunk and out of control. They advised Officer C that the female had crawled out of a car window and had removed her skirt on her own. Officer C then took the other females to locate the house were the party was. 2 _ ~~ Q ~. w.~ w~ `\ ~, ~ ~. u . ~' o ~ N ...! Officer A and the Complainant attempted to control the female. Officer A and the Complainant conflicted over their individual concerns for the female's welfare and personal safety of the officers. The Complainant wanted the female held on her side in case she vomited and wanted a blanket to cover her. As Officer B was assessing the situation, the female attempted to bite his arm. Officer B brought out handcuffs to control the female. The Complainant. told Officer B not to handcuff the female. Officer B attempted to handcuff the female and the Complainant tried to get between Officer B and the female to prevent the handcuffing. Officer A, Officer B, and the Complainant were in close physical proximity to each other. Officer B picked up the female and carved her to the sidewalk where she was handcuffed. The Complainant had made physical contact with Officer A and Officer A pushed the Complainant away from him. Officer C had heard the conflict as the Complainant yelled demands on how he wanted the female cared for and Officer A commanded the Complainant to not interfere Officer C, who had come back to the location of Officers A; B, and the Complainant, stepped in to help prevent the Complainant from interfering. The Complainant told Officer C he was a doctor and Officer C advised him that an ambulance had been called. The Complainant called Officer C a "fucking idiot" and questions "are you a fucking idiot?" Officer C asked Officer A if Officer A wanted the Complainant arrested and Officer A replies in the affirmative. Officer C told the Complainant he was under arrest. Officer C attempted to take physical custody of the Complainant and told him to put his hands behind his back. The Complainant ignored several commands to put his hands behind his back. He physically resisted the arrest which caused Officer C to request assistance from Officer A. Officer A assisted Officer C and this left Officer B alone with the hysterical female. Due to the physical resistance by the Complainant, Officer C decided to disengage physically from him and deploy a Taser. Officer C again repeatedly requested the Complainant to place his hands behind his back. The Complainant told the officers he had a bad shoulder and he did not want to get injured. Officer C told him not to resist. The Complainant was then handcuffed and taken to a squad car by Officer A. After the female had been moved to the sidewalk and had been handcuffed, she settled down and was covered by a blanket provided by a neighbor. Officer D and the ambulance amved on scene simultaneously. The paramedics requested Officer B go to the hospital with them and to keep the female handcuffed. At the hospital the female attempted to bite Officer B and the emergency room staff requested she remain handcuffed. One of the emergency room doctors ordered sedation of the female so she could be treated. _ ..,,, Ca a, ~° t~`3 _~ ~~ ~ oo~ ~ ~ s'. ~> N After the Complainant was handcuffed and placed in the back of Officer A's squad car, Officer E took the Complainants' spouse, to the back door of the squad car. She was allowed to talk with the Complainant through the open back door. Officer A did not know the back door was open and began to pull away. Officer C tapped on the left front hood to indicate Officer A should stop. Officer A stopped the car after traveling two or three feet. The door was then closed and Officer A transported the Complainant to j ail. The Board reviewed the Police Chief s Report, which contained a transcript of audio from in-squad cameras; a number of statements from witnesses including the Complainants' spouse, and communications between the Johnson County Attorney and the Complainants' attorney. CONCLUSIONS Allegation #1: Complainant had to yell at Officer A to get him to assist in holding the girl. - In car audio transcripts showed the Complainant.requested assistance from Officer B, not Officer A. The request is made one time in a normal voice and Officer B assisted the Complainant upon request. - NOT SUSTAINED Allegation #2 -The officers did not get a blanket to cover the half-naked girl in spite of the Complainant's repeated request for one. - In car audio transcripts from two squad cars indicate the Complainant requested a blanket on one occasion and it is believed it was made to someone other than one of the officers. Given the volatile nature of the situation it was not possible to cover the female until both the female and the Complainant were under control. When the female was removed from where the Complainant was and was handcuffed,. she settled down and was then covered. - NOT SUSTAINED Allegation #3 -Neither Officer A nor Officer B assessed the situation, asked any questions about what was going on or used a flashlight to be able to see what was going on. - The Complainant was the only individual who claimed lighting of the situation was required for an accurate assessment of the situation. A witness stated he thought a flashlight would not be needed. The Complainant stated he had a pen light from a neighbor. .._.s :.. ,~.,, .;a ~i` ~.. ~ y~_ `~ :. & ©~ ~ `` ° Officer B had several communications with the female to assess her condi$rbn. Be~een Officer B's arrival and when the female first attempted to bite him was 2.5 minutes. The questions asked by Officer B were similar to that of the Complainants' and Officer B gave a complete overview of the situation to Officer A upon his arrival. NOT SUSTAINED Allegation #4 -The officers prevented critical care of the girl by putting her flat on her back, handcuffing her and arresting the Complainant. Due to the combative nature of the female, and subsequently the Complainant, the officers did not have a choice as to leaving the female on her side. Both officers at the scene are trained in dealing with intoxicated people and obstructed airways, and were both present with the female. The female was placed on her back in the ambulance and in the emergency room. She was also restrained both on the cot in the ambulance and on the gurney at the hospital by request of medical staff. This indicated that laying her on her back was not against medical procedure and did not prevent critical care as alleged by the Complainant. NOT SUSTAINED Allegation #5 -The officers used excessive force by handcuffing the girl and treating her roughly. - Upon amval the officers were presented with an unknown situation that required they act to ensure the safety of the female. - The Complainant requested the officers assist him in restraining the female. When the female attempted to bite Officer B it was decided- to handcuff the female to assist in restraining her and for the safety of the Complainant and the officers. - The female was not treated roughly in the handcuffing process and settled down when she was removed from the proximity of the Complainant and Officer A. Officer B was able to get her hands behind her back and handcuff her without more force. - NOT SUSTAINED Allegation #6 -The officers used excessive force by yanking the Complainant's left arm and pointing a Taser at his face. The Complainant was told he was under arrest and to put his hands behind his back several times. He refused and stiffened his arms and balled his fists. He later claimed he stiffened and did not cooperate because he did not want his shoulder injured. - The Complainant stated the officers did not use force once he relaxed his arms. 5 - Officer C decided to deploy a Taser instead of physically struggle with the Complainant. This level of force was appropriate since the Complainant was physically combative and had aggressively closed on the officer earlier. When Officer C brought out the Taser, he again repeatedly requested the Complainant to put his hands behind his back and the Complainant eventually complied. - NOT SUSTAINED Allegation #7 - Officer A lied in his ICPD report in saying the Complainant was antagonistic towards Officers, was trying to start a fight or balling his fists, and called Officer A "a sorry son-of-a-bitch." - In squad car audio transcripts indicate officers inform the Complainant that he cannot push officers and to unclench his fists. - Officer A's report states: "You can't push me you sorry son-of-a-bitch, I'm a doctor." This statement was not located on any squad car audio transcripts. The Complainant can be heard saying "You can't push a doctor for that matter." - It is believed that the words may have been said but .should not have been in quotation marks. - NOT SUSTAINED Allegation #8 - Officer A used bad judgment in moving the patrol car out into the roadway while the Complainant's spouse was standing near the open door. . - In squad car audio transcripts confirmed the car was moved by Officer A while the Complainant's spouse and Officer E were in the open back doorway area. - Officer C tapped on the hood to get Officer A's attention so the car would be stopped. - The movement of a car was in the control of the Officer operating the squad car and even though this movement may have been accidental and caused no physical injury, it is a safety issue that needs to be addressed by the Iowa City Police Department. - SUSTAINED ~_~~ _, Q BOARD CONIMENTS ~ fi~ .. ;:~ ` None ~-~ ~..,, :.., ~, ~ ~~'~ 6