Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-11-18 Bd Comm minutesDesign Review Committee Monday, October 20, 1997 - 4:00 P.M. Lobby Conference Room - Civic Center Members Present: Members Absent: Staff Present: Others Present: PRELI C R¥ Subject to .approval Mark Anderson, Bill Nowysz, Karyl Larson, Randy Rohovit, Gary Nagle Clara Swan Schoenfelder, Dulceak None I. Call to order and Instructions The meeting was called to order at 4:20 P.M. II. Updates Regarding Downtown Design Review District Surveys Schoenfelder said he had Daryl's reviews and the surveys are about 75% completed. Rohovit asked what parts were already done. Schoenfelder said the photos and assessors information was in the book. Nowysz said the surveys were supposed to be done by the Committee. Schoenfelder said there was no add'~Jonal work done in the book he had. Nowysz pointed out that there are four other books and they may be more complete. He said he would be finishing his section within the next week. Rohovit asked who would be using the books. Nowysz said the Committee, builders, designers and other interested parties. He noted that he felt there was value to the project. Rohovit questioned if there was enough variability to divide into two or more districts. Nowysz said that would be possible because different blocks have different characteristics. The aim of the project was to enlarge the area/district guidance over architectural direction to do design review over. The Committee wants it be necessary for plans to go through Design Review, not just urban renewal projects, carts, and awnings. This would create an overlay zone. Rohovit commented that he wanted to make sure the surveys are the same tool as originally intended. Nowysz said the books will be a terrific resource once they are completed. Rohovit said the next hurdle will be to put all four books together. Larson said they have tried to be objective when doing the surveys in order to give a better impression of the property. Nowysz said the survey gives much more information than just the photos alone. Larson said she tried doing the survey with the photos but the site visits were required to get a complete picture of the property. Rohovit asked what they have from the Council already. Schoenfelder said the Council has already approved the overlay concept in ordinance. Now, the group needs to produce the report and go through the process to get the overlay established to Design Review Guidelines. He then outlined the process and the timeline. Rohovit asked if the group would need to meet with the public to get support for the zoning changes. Nowysz said they have done some public relations through slides and talks with people though the Chamber of Commerce and other avenues. Rohovit asked if public meetings were still required. Schoenfelder said they were already done. Nowysz said there would be much more work if they went back to the property owners for input. Rohovit asked what it would take for an ordinance not to happen. Schoenfelder said Planning and Zoning and Council will take public input when they vote. Rohovit expressed concern with the public possibly not supporting the plans. Nowysz said the Council already gave the go ahead so they should continue to pursue it. Larson said at the South Side meeting there was talk of different neighborhoods but no talk of different zoning districts. Nowysz said the idea of reviewing all permits is too large so the Committee focused on Downtown. Rohovit requested staff get information on the public petition process. Larson pointed out there was low turn-out for the library meetings. Rohovit asked when the group wanted to have the binders done. Nowysz said they need a deadline because too much time has lapsed already. He suggested they be due in a month. Rohovit said members would be contacted so everyone would bring their completed books to the next meeting. Schoenfelder said the Committee still had openings and encouraged members to refer possible candidates. Rohovit discussed options for finding new members. Schoenfelder said the Council will try to schedule new appointments in November. Nagle arrived at 4:50 P.M. Rohovit suggested the members bdng ideas for new candidates to the next meeting and the fourth book be left for new members. III. Review Procedures and Guidelines for Projecting Sign Ordinance Schoenfelder pointed to his memo about the changes by Council. Nowysz noticed that ten copies were required of the applicants. He questioned if that many were necessary. Schoenfelder listed all the parties that needed copies and said the City did not want to absort) the cost of all those copies. Nowysz suggested the process could be more streamlined so copies could be used by more than one party. Nagle pointed out that Inspection required multiple copies also. IV. Consideration of the Minutes for the September 3, 1997 meeting Schoenfelder suggested a change to reflect the fact that Daryl Woodson turned in an incomplete book. Nowysz motioned to approve the minutes as amended. Nagle seconded. The motion carded unanimously. V. Review Design Review Application Packets Schoenfelder explained the reasons for changes in the wording of the submittal requirements. Nowysz said they are more simple now. Rohovit asked when the Council would visit the issue. Schoenfelder said they would deal with it when they approved the oveday. Nowysz commented that Council Members feel the issue is dragging and there needs to be some action soon. Rohovit suggested updating the Council on the Committee's progress. Schoenfelder said they could include a schedule in the next packet and forward that to Council. Rohovit said the Council just needed to get information but a formal presentation would not be necessary. Vl. Public Discussion of any item not on the agenda There was none. VII. Committee Discussion Schoenfelder prepared a certificate of appreciation for Woodson. Nowysz motioned to give Woodson the Certificate of Appreciation. Rohovit seconded. The motion carned unanimously. Schoenfelder passed out a seminar flyer. VIII. Adjournment. Larson motioned to adjourn. Anderson seconded the motion. The meeting ended at 5:15 PM. RIVERFRONT AND NATURAL AREAS COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1997- 5:30 P.M. IOWA CITY CIVIC CENTER, LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Courtney Daniels, Joe Kral, Jim Pugh, Larry Wilson, Richard Hoppin, Lod Goetsch, Gretchen Grimm, Tom Riley, Ken Feadng MEMBERS ABSENT: David Thayer, Catherine Pugh STAFF PRESENT: Neumann, Dulceak OTHERS PRESENT: CALL TO ORDER Daniels called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA Wilson added Tree City USA as a discussion topic on the agenda. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE August 20, 1997 MEETING Neumann noted that J. Pugh submitted a spelling correction. Wilson edited his comment on "self-directed" commission. Hoppin changed "develop the area by Solon school to "enhance". Fearing motioned to approve the minutes as amended. Hoppin seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. COMMISSION DISCUSSION FY 98 RNAC work program priorities Daniels initiated discussion of the work plan priorities. Neumann passed out a copy of the Planning and Zoning Commission work program. Daniels clarified the location of the near south central district. Grimm arrived at 5:40 p.m. Riley asked for cladflcation of the parks on south Riverside Dr. Neumann said Sturgis Ferry is the nearest and farther down the street is Mesquaki Park. Riley commented that Sturgis Ferry is an eyesore. Kral said Parks and Recreation is upgrading that park now. Neumann said the airport plans have put plans for that area in flux and they are unable to lay out definite plans until the airport plans are set. He outlined the City plans for those areas along the river. Wilson asked if Trueblood's park plan was still in effect. Feadng said they are still going with that plan. Neumann said changes are possible because the proposed light towers would require some revisions. He said he would check with Trueblood on the plans for the area. Wilson said there were few people attending the Southside Planning District meeting. Daniels said she did not get the information on that. Wilson said it should be added to the work program list. Riley commented that the Public Works facility location change was an issue of public concern. Wilson said the plans for the southern areas need to accommodate the river corridor trail plan. Neumann said he would have someone give a presentation on the south central planning area. Daniels reviewed the working list and suggested a priodtization order: 1) Comprehensive Plan, 2) Peninsula Issues, 3) Flood Plain Ordinance, 4) Trail Development, 5) Projects, 6) Ad-hoc Riverfront & Natural Areas Commission Minutes September 17, 1997 Page 2 committee. Wilson questioned the time frame for the Flood Plain ordinance. Neumann said the RNAC needed to act soon since Planning and Zoning is examining it soon. Daniels moved Flood Plain Ordinance to #2 and questioned the Peninsula time frame. Neumann said there is a staff level committee that will identify problems before it goes to the planning stage. A recommendation from the staff committee will be sent to the City Manger in November then the joint committee will start their work. Riley questioned the lagoons. Neumann said some are present now and they will know more about it later on in the process. Wilson said they will need some for run-off. Feadng said the lagoons slow the run off. Neumann said this was the kind of thing that would be discussed in the staff committee meetings. Wilson asked if there would be any experts to help the joint committee decide how to lay out the trails. Neumann said consultants could be hired in the future. Kral described the problem with the Butler House and the Council opposition to spending any more money on the site. Wilson added that the council did not want to spend any more on the house. Daniels said the Butler House was not a high pdodty now. Neumann said the joint committee could also be dealing with the Butler House. Daniels asked if RNAC can do a sensitive areas inventory alone. Neumann said 'a request to Council could be done by letter. Daniels asked about the time frame. Wilson said the joint committee would take concems about the types of development and pass them on to the consultants so the sensitive areas issues could be addressed. Daniels said the peninsula is not an immediate pdodty because nothing more will be done until winter but that members should keep up to date on the process so RNAC is not left out. Fearing left at 6:15 p.m. Wilson said updates of discussion topics needed to be added to the agenda for each meeting. Daniels said that would help keep the focus on the issues at hand. Wilson said reports could be regularly listed on the agenda. Daniels formed a committee to deal with a sensitive areas project. The sub-committee would pick a project and work on it throughout the year. Riley, Grimm and Fearing made up the sub- committee. Daniels said the whole group would still work on an Arbor Day project, as well. Grimm commented that Arbor Day went well last year. Daniels said the project was last minute. Wilson suggested each year should focus on a different sensitive area. Daniels made suggestions for the sub-committee projects and directed the group to choose a chairperson. Riley was appointed chair of the project sub-committee. Daniels said the sub-committee should look into working with other community groups on the project. J. Pugh arrived at 6:25 p.m. Iowa City Comprehensive Plan subcommittee report. Neumann said Planning and Zoning was meeting the next night. Since it was a public meeting members of RNAC could attend or RNAC could forward comments to Council. Daniels questioned the process and Neumann reviewed the steps involved in the review of the report. Wilson said the commission should give their comments to Planning and Zoning and Council. Daniels said she would finish a letter based on the sub-committee review, give that to Planning and Zoning for tomorrow night and later forward comments to Council. Riverfront & Natural Areas Commission Minutes September 17, 1997 Page 3 Update from Iowa City water plant site public use committee. This was discussed eadier. Update on Hickory Hills Park Trail Plan. Neumann said Trueblood was unable to attend this meeting and there was no new information yet. The consultants are working on re-designing the concept plans. He said either Trueblood or the consultant could present the plans to the commission. Wilson said reviewing the plans and then forwarding questions to the consultants would be the low cost option. Gdmm commented that the citizen's group was misleading. J. Pugh agreed that information they gave out was incorrect. Daniels asked if there was the possibility of a special meeting with the public to discuss the plans. Neumann said staff was proceeding with Council plans. The ballot vote in November would only delay the extension of First Avenue until 2002, if it is approved. That would mean the Council could not discuss it again until FY 2000. Daniels asked if RNAC should take a position on this issue. J. Pugh questioned the connection of Scott Blvd. to the interstate and how it related to the Stanley Plan beltway concept. Wilson questioned if this was relevant to the commission. J. Pugh said that conservation should be an RNAC concern. Goetsch said it would fall under the natural areas focus. Neumann said the opponents have a problem with the development that goes along with the First Avenue extension near Hickory Hill Park. Wilson noted that the area is a park, not a natural area anymore. J. Pugh said members have the dght as individuals to discuss the issue. Daniels took a vote to determine if the issue was relevant to the commission. The vote came down 4-4. Riley said they needed to narrow the focus of the commission and Hickory Hills is under Parks and Recreations direction. Daniels asked if anyone wanted to send a statement to Parks and Recreation. Riley felt this was outside the commissions area of concern. Neumann said the opponents to the First Avenue extension have a problem with the development that goes along with the road construction that will follow near Hickory Hill Park. Grimm commented that development was a concern of the residents of the area. Daniels said that was not a commission issue. Neumann asked if the group still wanted a report on the park plans. Wilson said the commission would benefit from the report and may be able to make any suggestions. Neumann clarified that the presentation would be about the park not the road extension. Daniels pointed out that the park changes will go through no matter the result of the ballot initiative. Flood Plain ordinance review. Neumann suggested putting this on a later agenda because of the depth of discussion required on this topic. Daniels agreed. Appoint Arbor Day committee. Daniels said the sensitive areas committee was already chosen and this could wait until they come up with project ideas. OTHER BUSINESS Tree City USA Riverfront & Natural Areas Commission Minutes September 17, 1997 Page 4 Wilson suggested this be a project option for the commission. Neumann pointed out that Iowa City is already involved in this program. Daniels said the City used the commission's Arbor Day project to qualify for the list. Neumann said he would double check why the City was not on the Tree City USA list. Slope repair project on North Dubuque St. Neumann presented the plans to repair the slope problems on the property. Plans included a terrace and drainage system. Neumann state that the Council was going to vote on the plans on the 23rd. Daniels asked if the commission was going to comment or if that was necessary. J. Pugh suggested individual comments. Legal Update Neumann said he requested this information from the City Attomey to help the commission in its decision making process. Recommendations to council need to be done by the entire commission. There cannot be phone votes because it violates the public meetings laws. Daniels said this was good information in reference to the discussion of commission action on floodplain permits and the tum around time. Democratic Central Committee's presentation on politics J. Pugh described his presentation on politics to High School students and asked for input from other members of the commission. Grimm left at 7:00 p.m. Wilson suggested time keeping to keep the group on track. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjoum at 7:03 p.m. was made by Riley and seconded carded unanimously. by J. Pugh. The motion MINUTES PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 9, 1997 MEMBERS PRESENT: Barbara Endel, Ken Fearing, Judith Klink, Bruce Maurer, Matt Pacha, Rex Pruess, Allen Stroh MEMBERS ABSENT: Kathy Wallace, Ross Wilburn STAFF PRESENT: Terry Trueblood, Mike Moran, Neumann, Marilyn Kriz Jim Wonick, Brad CONSULTANT: Greg Jones (Dunbar/Jones Partnership) GUESTS: Kathleen Janz, Bernie Knight, Dick Dolezal, James Huntington, Richard Hollis, George Gay, Judy Slezak, James Moxley, Bud Gode, Bennett Brown, Winston Barclay, Barb Laughlin, Jim Jacobson, William Buss, Aaron Kaalberg, Mary Brown, Nancy Seiberling, Patrick Elliott, Ann Haag, Dianne Kaufman, Susan Birrell, Sarajane Peterson, Larry Wilson, Mark Meyer, Tracy Stuhr, Randy Miller, Pat Ketcham, Allison Hamilton, Jane Bolgatz, Thomas Bannister, Derek Maurer, Karolyn Ramnani, Corbin Sexton, Tamara Campion, O.J. Rinner, Ben Lewis, Karen Kubby, Carl Klaus FORMAL ACTION TAKEN Moved by Klink, seconded by Pruess, to approve the Sept-~her 10, 1997 minutes as written. Unanimous. OAKLAND CEMETERY EXPANSION Trueblood presented brief background information. Approximately three years ago discussions began on the need to expand the cemetery in order to accommodate future lot sales. With recent changes in use of cemetery land, there is approximately four years of lot sales remaining. A possibility of expanding to the east into Hickory Hill Park was brought to the commission. The commission sent a recommendation to the City Council that the cemetery not be expanded into the park. The City Council wanted further consideration. It was discovered 40 acres in Hickory Hill Park had been purchased by the city from the Gaulocher family for cemetery purposes. A former City Attorney's opinion was the City Council could dedicate this 40 acres as parkland. However, if Gaulocher family heirs expressed a desire to use the land for cemetery purposes, a legal problem could be the result. Family members were located and they expressed their opinion that at least part of the 40 acres should be used for cemetery purposes. The City Attorney then recommended that 10 acres of the parkland be used for cemetery purposes. A consultant was hired and directed to develop three plans: a) a plan that will accommodate lot sales for 30 years; b) a 10 acre plan; and c) a 40 acre mixed use plan intermingling park and cemetery. Also, the plans were to include non-traditional use of lots such as double burials, cremation gardens and mausoleums to maximize the area. Trueblood stated this was the first opportunity for the commission to view the consultant's preliminary conceptual plans. There will likely be two to three more meetings to discuss these plans before taking final action. The consultant, Greg Jones of Dunbar/Jones Partnership, presented the preliminary conceptual plans. Me stated a site analysis was completed to determine how development of this area should occur, noted the site dictates the best place for development. Various maps were shown and explained. 1. A map depicting land acquisitions and development thereof from 1919. 2. A map showing the use of Gaulocher property for cemetery purposes in relationship to the property being used for park purposes. 3. A map detailing the physical characteristics of the 40 acre site such as slope and other aspects. He noted graves could not be built if the land is too steep and over a 20 percent grade without a lot of earth moving. 4. A map detailing the type of soils to determine if it can be built on for construction, roads, etc. He noted the soil is primarily loess, a wind deposited soil which did not create constraints for any construction for cemetery purposes. 5. A map detailing drainage areas. 6. A map detailing elevations - how much grade change there is top to bottom. He noted the highest point 766.4 feet and lowest is 676 feet, which equals 90 feet of grade change on the site. 7. A map detailing the dam on the adjacent site and 100 year flood storage requirement. Me noted the need to stay away from these areas. 8. A map detailing vegetation. 9. A map detailing slope. He noted the slope needs to be less than 20 percent or it would entail substantial grading. 10. A composite map of all the previous maps. He pointed out the areas to avoid such as the 100 year flood area, areas above a 20 percent grade, and areas above a 10 to 20 percent grade with existing vegetation. He stated there was not a lot of area left on the site that would not require major things to be done in order to use it for cemetery purposes. Based on the site, the 10 acre preliminary conceptual plan varies from 600 to 1,400 lots per acre and lot sizes range from estate lots to crypts to various methods of burying cremains. This allows for roads, vegetation masses, utilities and various other things. Based on selling 45 lots per year, he stated at 600 lots per acre, one acre would last 13.3 years/1,000 lots 22.2 years/1,400 lots 31.1 years. Using these projections, 10 acres would last 133 years, 220 years or 311 years respectively. The 30-year preliminary conceptual plan covers an area 1.35 acres in size and an area .72 acres in size, which would only use a small portion (approximately 2 acres) of the larger 40 acre site, currently used as parkland. The 40 acre mixed-use conceptual plan includes a trail on both the north and south side, with the cemetery using not quite 10 acres. Other trail loops could be phased in. Estate lots and mausoleums could utilize part of the area. Endel questioned whether the 45 lots per year estimate was.reasonable in light of the fact that Iowa City continues to grow. Trueblood stated staff did not have the expertise to project this, but there may be an industry standard which could be used to take this into consideration. With respect to the 10 acre plan, Stroh stated topography limited what could be done and it was impractical because all of the land is not contiguous to the cemetery. Jones noted topography is not a limitation in that the area could be graded, but not without a Great deal of cost to the area. He indicated although it probably was not normal to have all of the land contiguous to the cemetery, it was not unlike a subdivision for houses. Carl Klaus stated he inferred from openinG remarks with respect to the legal history that the city has no choice but to develop a portion of Hickory Hill Park as cemetery. Trueblood indicated the city might not have a choice. A person asked if the commission had discussed getting out of the cemetery business. Trueblood indicated that this has been discussed, but further stated the city will be in the cemetery for many years because the cemetery has to be maintained, rather it is a question as to whether there will be lots to sell. HICKORY HILL PARK TRAILS Trueblood presented brief background information. An additional 92 acres (stormwater management areas) were obtained and the trail system was expanded from First Avenue to the dam area. It was determined a master trails plan was needed in order to avoid putting trails throughout the park in a haphazard fashion as had been done in the past. A consultant was hired to develop a trail plan to include renovation and expansion of the existing trail system, accessibility to persons with disabilities, and possibly a bicycle trail through the park. He noted the preliminary conceptual plan includes the possibility of one or two asphalt trails to make the park accessible to more people with a wide range of interests and abilities. He noted if asphalt trails were constructed it would not entail cutting a 20 to 30 foot swath through the park as some people perceive. Greg Jones presented the preliminary conceptual plans. He stated a site analysis was also completed to determine how development of this area should occur, and various maps were shown and explained. On the various maps, he noted the south facing slopes where trails would stay open longer, a good site for a shelter; various vegetation; stormwater management areas and dam site; soils and relative elevation; archaeological sites; and trails analysis. There are 10,400 lineal feet of trails proposed to be abandoned due to steep slope and other factors. The preliminary conceptual plan sets out a north-south spine (6,500 feet/approximately 1.25 miles) and a east-west spine (4,960 feet/less than 1 mile) going all the way through the park. He stated within these trails there is some desire by people who do not want to walk the entire trail for some organized shorter routes. To provide this, small loop trails at each end or wherever appropriate are included, which vary in length from 1/4 to 1/2 mile. He indicated they also developed a mission statement, goals and elements for the trail system. The mission statement states to protect the cultural and environmental integrity of the resource while making Hickory Hill Park accessible to all citizens. The goals based on the mission statement are to establish an accessible trail system, protect existing resources, use the park as an outdoor classroom, and to provide opportunities for recreation. Some of the elements are to control pedestrian access into and through the park because some of the present problems are that the pedestrian access is less than controlled; sustain cultural and environmental integrity; concentrate activities in areas that can tolerate same; maintain diverse, healthy biota; recognize it as a park with utility uses; and develop education potential and neighborhood stewards program. He noted various elements of the site: protected areas which have limited access and low maintenance (no mowing, preservation, no paths, leaving fallen material for habitat); resource areas with passive use accessible to pedestrian and service or emergency vehicles; and moderate to low maintenance (no mowing, preservation although manipulated some, paths, removal of only the hazardous limbs with most left for habitat); community orientation areas with active use and access points to the system if possible, group activities and parking with moderate to high maintenance. He indicated on the map the various trails, surrounding areas, parking area, creek, and grassy areas. 4 Pruess indicated he was pleased to see additional loop trails. With respect to the north-south spine, he asked how disruptive to the environment various trail surfaces would be; i.e., asphalt vs. crushed limestone, etc. Jones stated the biggest concern for a paved trail was not the trail itself, but getting equipment in. He noted if located and sited correctly, construction can be minimized. Me stated a gravel trail is potentially easier to put in, but the same size earth moving equipment would still be needed and it would be higher maintenance. A mulch trail might be easier, with construction being similar, but even higher maintenance and generally not accessible. Stroh felt reclaiming the trails was important, stating it was not a viable option to turn our backs on the park saying it is wild and to leave it alone. With the high level of use, the erosion will only get worse. Jones noted the need to weigh the use with what the site can bear, and to maintain the trails that are maintainable and discourage the use of those that are environmentally a problem. By having an organized system the use of the marginal trails might be decreased. He indicated he was not sure the city could afford or want to jump into this plan and shut everything down that exists. He suggested a period of phasing, eliminating trails which are less desirable from a trail and maintenance point of view, shutting them down and returning them to their natural state first. This would establish a hierarchy ending up with some of these trails and new trails, resulting in a holistic system which is better for the site. Maurer asked what types of trail material are acceptable for wheelchair accessibility. Jones indicated it is far easier to have pavement, noting a well compacted gravel trail may also be acceptable but it requires a lot of maintenance to make sure wheelchairs or other persons with disabilities can use it. He noted every trail did not have to be accessible. Pruess asked how the consultant envisioned the use of the spine trails, and which trails would be open to bicyclists. Jones envisioned bicycle use only on the spine trails, with the loops being used for passive recreation, noting a mixed use trail needs to be ten feet wide. Pruess asked if he envisioned the spine trails being used as a means of transportation, with Jones indicating they could be for any use. He noted the need to determine who the users are, adding it was his feeling that it was not wise to preclude anybody. Trueblood noted there are other materials that are accessible, but either they are high cost and/or high maintenance; most practical are asphalt, concrete or compacted limestone. Klink asked what is looked at to determine the best sites for accessibility to the park. Jones indicated areas next to parking, with a gradient less than five percent on the trail. He stated at this point the entire spine system would be accessible. Trueblood asked if any of the loops were accessible, with Jones indicating they could be but were not intended to be on this plan. 5 Carl Klaus asked if he was correct in inferring that the conceptual plan for a master trail system in Hickory Hill Park was largely being considered to make the park accessible to disabled persons. Trueblood indicated it was one of the factors, but noted it was to make the park more accessible to all people. Klaus asked if he was correct in inferring the request for making it accessible to disabled persons has not arisen from a massive or even small expression of interest in the disabled community. Trueblood indicated there has not been a massive expression of interest, but the city is legally and morally obligated to provide access to this segment of the community. Klaus questioned the legal issue, noting the disabled person's law is drawn very flexible. He indicated an individual he contacted noted the large portfolio of city parks and the obligation to have a majority of them accessible, but that every park did not need to be. Klaus stated if a master trail was established and paved with asphalt there would in fact be no way to prevent multiple uses that might be against the designer's concept, asking how bicycles or roller blades could be prevented from using it. Trueblood indicated it would not be possible unless it was patrolled at all times, but if a hard surface trail is put in it would be done so they could use it. He also acknowledged some gray areas in the American with Disabilities Act. Trueblood indicated he had contacted an ADA expert who felt if the city were challenged on behalf of the disabled, in all likelihood the City would lose, especially in light of the fact that it is happening more and more often with renovation projects and new construction. Klaus stated it may be better then if nothing is done; therefore the city would not be obligated. Trueblood stated that his source indicated this might not be true; a public park could be treated as a recreation program, obligating the city to provide accessibility. Kathy Janz stated she felt ADA was a good idea. She indicated she worked with a district forester whose principal charge is to design trails, and indicated crushed limestone would be very appropriate. It is indigenous to this area, it would be cheaper than asphalt and it could be stabilized. She noted she obtained from the National Center of Accessibility a list of 15 different ways to stabilize a trail without asphalting it, one-third of which are less expensive than asphalt and maintenance of which would not be much more than what is spent for soccer field maintenance, etc. This individual classified the park as a rustic park based on where it is located and the number of people who use it. She felt a 4 foot wide trail would be the most respectful way to move through the park instead of a 10 foot wide trail. Janz stated she contacted a local company to determine how much clearance they would need to put in an asphalt trail by hand, which would be the most ecological stable way. They would need a 12 foot clearance and it would cost approximately $80,000 after the trees are gone to lay the asphalt. She referred to the Hickory Hill Guidelines adopted by the Parks and Recreation Commission in 1994, and questioned whether the commission would not consider an 8 to 10 foot asphalt trail being a permanent structure in the park. Pacha indicated four of the present commissioners were on the commission in 1994 when the guidelines were adopted. With respect to installing any permanent structures, he noted the key is "should be considered judiciously" and "to obtain community input", and felt the commission was doing so. He emphasized this is a conceptual plan, this meeting is to obtain public input, which will be considered as well as ADA, cost issues and other issues before the commission determines the direction it considers appropriate. Jim Walters stated there is a policy prohibiting use of bicycles in Hickory Mill Park, which is difficult to enforce. The spine trail system is one that countermands this traditional restriction and will encourage the use of bicycles in the park. He felt it would make it more and more difficult to police the abuse of the park by bicyclists rather than minimizing the abuse. The plan opens up the entire length north to south and east to west, and at any time of the day and night bicyclists will have a justifiable reason to be there. He felt bicyclists going off the trail at any point will be considerably easier under this scenario than it is now, and the damage incurred in the park by bicyclists now will only multiply under this plan. An individual agreed that the only people who will use this trail will be bicyclists. She likened a person walking or in a wheelchair using this trail to that of canoeing, where there is a problem of transportation on the other end; they need to turn around and go back. An individual stated it should be acknowledged for the record that for many people in the community the attraction of Hickory Hill Park is that it is unlike other parks, and felt this plan would make Hickory Hill like other parks. He stated he has been a user of the park since the early 1970's and did not want it to be a park that is more accessible to bicyclists, in-line skaters and other uses that have plenty of places to go. He noted the park is the one place an individual can go and walk in solitude, with it being acknowledged that there is heavy use of the park which is a way of saying there are plenty of people in the community who want this kind of park instead of the park being proposed. He felt the plan provides the kind of accessibility that changes Hickory Hill Park from a rustic park into something else, removing the single rustic park that citizens have. Trueblood posed the question that if none of the trails were asphalted, and if the no bicycle rule remained in effect, how the plan would have such a detrimental impact. The individual stated he did not have a problem with redesigning the trail system in the park to deal with the environmental problems caused by the trails which were never really designed as trails, noting anyone who uses the park knows serious erosion is taking place. He stated the issue is with the kind of use that would be encouraged and the character of the park which would be changed by this particular plan. He felt the plan creates thoroughfares through the park connecting out of the park and they would encourage use that would fundamentally change the character of the park. An individual stated he uses Hickory Hill Park on a daily basis and noted he did not believe there are any trails existing to the north of an area he pointed out on the map. Trueblood stated there were no developed trails, with Stroh adding there were a lot of paths. The individual made a point that there are tremendous areas behind the Press Citizen which show no evidence of use or any suggestion of a trail system, his point being why develop it. An individual asked if the commission was going to look into a 4-foot wide trail with a different material or was it going to continue on with the present plan. She felt it was important to make the trail accessible but that it did not need to be a thoroughfare. She suggested making a moderate loop accessible. Pruess asked if people were in favor of a north-south spine if bicycles were not allowed. He stated he envisioned people who live at one end and work at the other end utilizing the trail to get back and forth from work and enjoying it for a few minutes a day. The individual stated she did not think there needed to be a spine to enjoy the park for a few minutes. Pruess indicated there needed to be a way to get from one end of the park to the other, but from the comments made he felt this was not wanted. The individual felt most people using the park would use the loops. Pruess asked if there was any sense of someone living at one end using the trail to go to work or school. The individual stated she felt this was rare and that most people use the park just to get away for a little while. Stroh stated the plan is based on what the land allows, with the physical layout producing the cross spine. He noted the topography guides what can be done. An individual stated she was a regular user of the park who valued it for its rustic quality. She did not want to eliminate others from using it, but felt an asphalt trail would have an impact on the park and would change how she enjoyed it. With respect to making it accessible to the handicapped, she noted a close friend who had two hips replaced who commented that walking on asphalt for any length of time is very difficult. The individual noted asphalt may be a fine surface for wheeled vehicles but it did not take all disabilities into consideration. She felt the trail would be hazardous in the winter, especially to the disabled. She noted she formerly lived in a community with paved trails which were used by bicyclists, skaters, walkers, etc. and the people were very harried because of this mixed use. Larry Wilson stated he had been asked to make a couple comments on behalf of F.I.R.S.T. and the Riverfront and Natural Areas Commission. He stated F.I.R.S.T. promotes developing trails throughout Iowa City and Johnson County for multiple use purposes, and on the other hand the Riverfront and Natural Areas Commission wants to protect the environment. F.I.R.S.T. likes to see parks and trails interconnected, being able to go from one to the other, but also see the need to have areas protected for the environment and for other kinds of experiences. Both organizations feel Hickory Hill Park is a community wide resource. He stated they did not see anything about the conceptual plan that precludes this from happening, and think the basic concept promotes it. The spine trail is located where the land dictates, which will do less damage to the environment. They would rather not have the cemetery expanded but if it needs to be expanded for community need it should be done in a environmentally friendly way and not expanded into areas 20 percent above grade. They also feel the trail material should be as soft as possible and urged consideration of a material that is more flexible such as compacted gravel. They could see a few areas asphalted but not the whole area. He stated conceptually the plan met the purpose of both organizations. An individual stated he was an avid mountain biker and was aghast at having bicycles in Hickory Hill Park. He felt the park is already multi-use; i.e., bird watchers, walkers, nature study. He felt allowing bicycles would ruin the ambiance of the park and destroy the trails. With this plan he felt the wilderness was being taken out of the park and indicated that is what people love about it. It is unlike any other park in the city and people want it to stay the same and not destroyed. An individual reiterated this sentiment that people love Hickory Hill Park the way it is, the character and essence of it. She noted people in attendance were not saying they did not want to share the park, noting it is probably one of the most heavily used park aside from parks with sport fields. She stated strongly asphalt seemed empathetical to the whole concept, essence and soul of Mickory Mill Park. She referred to Ryerson's Woods which has wood chips on its handicap accessible area. She encouraged trail loops off the entrances to the park, where parking is located, and on existing trails and not creating new areas. She acknowledged that the erosion problem needs to be addressed but questioned why such a drastic design and whose idea was it. Trueblood stated the master trail plan idea was staff generated and nobody said to asphalt the entire trail. She asked if this plan was done that asphalt not be used. She also asked the commission to look at a smaller, less intrusive plan. (Staff noted that Ryerson's Woods does not have wood chips, but rather compacted limestone trails.) An individual stated he has used Hickory Hill Park for 25 years and appreciated efforts of those to do something for people less able to walk. Me indicated he realized how difficult it is to maneuver a wheelchair onto a surface that is not extraordinarily smooth. He felt a 4-foot wide path as previously mentioned by someone would not be wide enough. He could envision a wheelchair user and someone coming around a corner on a bike or rollerblades and colliding. Me stated it would be much better to put some handicapped trails near the roads where there is already parking, with the trails looping back to these areas. He felt a wheelchair user would not go from 7th Avenue to North Governor. Richard Hoppin stated he was confident ADA requirements and the interest in making the park accessible was appropriate to people who are disabled, and can be happily combined with the kind of use people think are important to preserve. He indicated he was discouraged with the idea that one should not worry about ADA lawsuits. Me noted the normal problem with public participation in these important decisions and asked the planned sequence of these plans so interested people will have information at the appropriate time. Trueblood asked people in attendance to sign the attendance sheet and they would be notified of any other public hearings to discuss the Hickory Hill trail plan and/or cemetery expansion. With respect to the trails, he stated the planning process is to take it back to the commission for further discussion to determine which direction they want to head. He noted all commission meetings are public meetings. He stated if this plan was adopted funding was not available at this time to complete it. If the city did an overall master redevelopment plan it would need to go through the Capital Improvement Program budget process and would most likely be phased in. Dick Dolezal stated he was an advocate for the cemetery, but also likes Hickory Hill Park and felt there was room for both. He agreed with suggestions to have small trail loops near parking areas and making them handicapped accessible. Me did not favor a hard surface trail through the rest of the park. He felt if First Avenue was extended children riding bicycles to school would use it instead of a path through the park because it would be the closest way. Trueblood stated there are many ways to make the park accessible to the disabled and the main purpose of the spine concept was for people to be able to traverse the park, using it to go to school and work. He indicated the gray area is what percentage of the trail would have to be accessible. Pacha expressed appreciation to those in attendance for providing their input. RIVERFRONT AND NATURAL AREAS COMMISSION Fearing reported the majority of the meeting was spent reviewing the draft of the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan and prioritizing the commission's work program. PARKS AND RECREATION FOUNDATION Pacha reported the Mercer Park Gymnasium Fundraising Committee attended the City Council meeting on Tuesday, October 7, to announce the success of the fundraising campaign. To date, cash and pledges have been received in the amount of $411,160. Trueblood stated a large thank you ad would be placed in The Advertiser and the Press-Citizen listing alphabetically the people who contributed. Pacha noted a $100,000 gift had been received from the Scanlon Foundation and the name of the facility would be the James P. Scanlon Gymnasium. COMMISSION TIME Endel indicated she had been contacted by the same women's volleyball team who expressed frustration that they never receive the game schedule until sometime after the season has started. This places pressure on the managers in trying to contact each of their players to notify them when the games are. Moran stated the problem comes from holding a league open as long as possible to allow as many teams as possible into the leagues. Some teams are lax in getting signed up before the deadline, and staff has extended the deadline in order to get the six 10 teams needed for each league. Moran stated staff would try to have the game schedule available the night of the first game. Stroh indicated he would like to see the Hickory Hill trail plan on a future agenda. Klink stated she would like a brainstorming session, with Stroh suggesting that a list of questions be assembled to discuss and determine if feasible or not. Fearing indicated he was contacted by an elderly couple who walk in Hickory Hill Park who could no longer do so because the railroad tie steps near an entrance to the trail had been removed. Trueblood stated the railroad ties were most likely removed due to their deteriorated condition, and he would check with staff on their plans to reinstall new railroad ties. Fearing also noted he was contacted by an elderly person who had almost been hit by a bicyclist on the City Park trail, noting some bicyclists go at a high speed and it scares elderly people. Moved by Endel, seconded by Fearinq, to adjourn. meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Unanimous. The 11 POLICE CITIZEN REVIEW BOARD OCTOBER 22, 1997 - 4:00 P.M. LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM MINUTES CALL TO ORDER In the absence of Chair Paul Hoffey, C~ty Clerk Marian Karr called the meeting to order. Board members present: J. Watson, M. Raymond, P. Farrant, L. Cohen. Board members absent: Paul Hoffcy. Staff present: M. Karr and S. Bauer. CONSIDER MOTION APPOINTING TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN Motion by J. Watson and seconded by M. Raymond to appoint L. Cohen as temporapy Chair in P. Hoffey's absence. Motion carried, 4/0, P. Hofre~y absent. CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CAI,F. NDAR Motion by J. Watson and seconded by M. Raymond for adoption of Consent Calendar of October 10, 1997. Motion carried, 4/0, P. Hoffey absent. CONSIDER MOTION TO ADJOURN INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by P. Farrant and seconded by M. Raymond to adjourn into Executive Session to avoid disclosure of specific law enforcement matters, such as current or proposed investigations, inzpecfion or aufiRing techniques or schedules, which if disclosed would enable law violators to avoid detection; and 22.7(5) requiring peace officer's investigative reports be kept confidential. Motion carried, 4/0, P. Hoffey absent. Executive session began at 4:08 P,M. Regular meeting resumed at 5:45 P.M. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by J. Watson and seconded by M. Raymond. Motion carried, 4/0, P. FIoffey absent. Meeting adjourned. NF_.XT MF_.ETLNG: NOVEMBER 6.1997, 4:00 TO 7.-00 p.NL, ILNGLNEF..RING CON'FERE.NCE ROOM POLICE CITIZEN REVIEW BOARD NOVEMBER 6, 1997 - 4:00 P.M. ENGINEERING CONFERENCE ROOM MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Temporary Chairman P. Hoffey called the meeting to order. All Board members were present: J. Watson, M. Raymond, P. Farrant, L. Cohen, and P. Hoffey. Staff present: M. Karr, S. Bauer, and legal counsel D. Russell. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by J. Watson and seconded by L. Cohen for adoption of Consent Calendar, including minutes of November 6, 1997 and the PCRB Bylaws. Motion carried, 5/0, all members present. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCil, · Adopt PCRB Bylaws as approved November 6, 1997 · Receive PCRB Public Report on Complaint 97-1 PROCEDURAL RUI.ES Legal counsel D. Russell presented his Memorandum of October 31, 1997, "Procedures for Police Citizen Review Board Name- Clearing Hearing." Discussion was held with changes and modifications noted: 6. Add to second sentence - "..., with the chief of police signing an affidavit of service of such notice .... " 8. Add at the end "The hearing goal is to give everyone a fair say in a controlled manner." 11. Change 21.5(j) to 21.5(i ). 14. The Board has decided that all names involving name-clearing hearings shall remain confidential. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by M. Raymond and seconded by P. Farrant to adjourn into Executive Session to avoid disclosure of specific law enforcement matters, such as current or proposed investigations, inspection or auditing techniques or schedules, which if disclosed would enable law violators to avoid detection; and 22.7(5) requiring peace officer's investigative reports be kept confidential. Page 2 PCRB Minutes - 11/6/97 PUBLIC REPORT FUTURE MEETINGS Motion carried, 5/0, all members present. Executive Session commences at 4:45 P.M. Regular meeting resumed at 6:15 P.M. Motion by L. Cohen to adopt the PCRB Public Report on Complaint 97-1 and forward it to the City Council, Complainant, Police Office,, Chief of Police and City Manager for the Council meeting of November 18. Motion seconded by P. Farrant. Discussion followed. Motion carried, 5/0, all members present. M. Karr presented a general outline concerning PCRB review of Police Department Procedure Manual, accreditation process, and general orders. The Board will discuss presentations by staff and public input/hearings as the process continues. The next meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, November 19, 1997, co-mmencing at 11:30 A.M. in the Lobby Conference Room. The agenda will include a tour of the Police Department. Possible December meeting dates were set aside: Thursday, December 4, 1997, 4:00 to 6:00 P.M. in Council Chambers; Thursday, December 11, 4:00 to 6:00 P.M. in the Lobby Conference Room; and Tuesday, December 16, 1997, 4:00 to 6:00 P.M. in the Lobby Conference Room. Motion for adjournment by M. Raymond and seconded by L. Cohen. Motion carried, 5/0, all members present. Meeting adjourned. IOWA CITY POLICE CITIZENS' REVIEW BOARD BY-LAWS ~990 BY -LAWS IOWA CITY POLICE CITIZENS' REVIEW BOARD ARTICLEI. AUTHORITY: The Iowa City Police Citizens' Review Board (PCRB) shall have that authority which is conferred by Ordinance No. 97-3792 of the City of Iowa City, Iowa and through the adoption of these by-laws stated herein. ARTICLE mi. PURPOSE: The purpose of the by-laws stated herein is to provide for the general welfare of the citizens of Iowa City by establishing a Police Citizens' Review Board to advise the Police Chief, City Manager and City Council on matters pertaining to the policies, practices and overall performance of the Iowa City Police Department. Further, in an effort to assure the citizens of Iowa City that the Iowa City Police Department's performance is in keeping with community standards, this Board is created to review investigations into complaints of police misconduct to insure that such investigations are conducted in a matter which is fair, thorough, and accurate, and to maintain a central registry and to provide City Council with an annual report on all such complaints. ARTICLE Ill. MEMBERSHIP: Section 1. Qualifications. The Police Citizens' Review Board shall consist of five (5) members appointed by the City Council who shall be eligible electors of the City of Iowa City, Iowa and shall meet the criteria contained in Chapter 8, City Code, City of Iowa City, Iowa. Appoint- ments to the Board shall include one current or former "peace officer" as that term is defined by state law. The City Council may waive the residency requirement for good cause shown and may waive the requirement that the Board include one current or former "peace officer" for good cause shown. Section 2. Compensation. Members shall serve without compensation, but may be reimbursed for expenses incurred for travel outside the city on designated Board business. Such expenses must be submitted to the City Manager for approval and reimbursement. Section 3. Orientation for New Members. Prior to the first regular meeting following their appointment, new members shall be provided with copies of the ordinance creating the Police Citizens' Review Board, the written policies of the Iowa City Police Department, the PCRB by- laws, open records law, open meetings law and other documentation that would be useful to Board members in carrying out their duties. They shall also be given an orientation briefing by the appropriate City staff and the Board as is deemed appropriate. Section 4. Absences. Three consecutive unexplained absences of a Board member from regular meetings may result in a recommendation to the City Council from the Board to discharge said member and appoint a new Board member. Section 5. Vacancies. Any vacancy on the Board because of death, resignation, long-term illness, disqualification or removal shall be filled by the City Council after at least 30 days public notice of the vacancy. Section 6. Terms. Members shall be initially appointed for staggered terms as outlined in Chapter 8, City Code, City of Iowa City, Iowa. Thereafter, Members shall be appointed for terms of four years, with terms expiring on May 1. If a position becomes vacant by reason of resignation or otherwise, and results in an unexpired term of six months or less, the Council may choose to fill the unexpired term in such a manner that the appointee shall continue in the position not only through the unexpired term, but also through a subsequent regular term. Section 7. Resiclnations. Resignations shall be submitted in writing to the Mayor with a copy to the City Clerk and the Chairperson of the Board at least 30 days prior to the date of intended departure. ARTICLE IV. OFFICERS: Section 1. Number. The officers of this Board shall be a Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson, each of whom shall be elected by the members of the Board. Section 2. Election and Term of Office. Officers of the Board shall be elected as soon as practicable after formation of the Board, and thereafter annually at the first regular meeting in ~ October each year; if the election of officers shall not be held at such meeting, such election shall be held as soon thereafter as is convenient. Section 3. Vacancies. A vacancy in any office because of death, resignation, removal, disqualification or other cause shall be filled by the members for the unexpired portion of the term. Section 4. Chairperson. The Chairperson shall, when present, preside at all meetings, appoint committees, call special meetings and in general perform all duties incident to the office of a Chairperson, and such other duties as may be prescribed by the members from time to time. Section 5. Vice-Chairperson. In the absence of the Chairperson, or in the event of death, inability or refusal to act, the Vice-Chairperson shall perform the duties of the Chairperson and when so acting shall have all the powers of and be subject to all the restrictions upon the Chairperson. ARTICLE V. BOARD MEETINGS: Section 1. Reqular Meetin(~s. At least one (1) monthly meeting shall be held. Special meetings may be called by the Chairperson and shall be called by the Chairperson or Vice Chairperson at the request of three or more Members of the Board. At least one (1) full day's written notice of meeting place, time and agenda shall be given each Member and the media. Insofar as possible, only matters included on the agenda may be discussed and formal votes taken. Care shall be taken to avoid discussion of non-agenda items. 3 Section 2. Quorum. A majority of the members of the Board shall constitute a quorum at any meeting. A majority of present and voting members shall be necessary to pass a motion unless otherwise provided in the Board's enabling ordinance. The Chairperson shall vote as a member. Board meetings shall be public except where provided in the Iowa Code.. Section 3. Place of Meetin(~s. All meetings shall be held in a City accessible facility. Section 4. Notice of MeetinQs. Notice of meetings shall be required; meetings may be called upon notice not less than twenty-four (24) hours before the meetings unless such notice is impossible or impracticable, in which case notice shall be provided as outlined in the Iowa Code. The news media shall be notified by staff. Section 5. Proxies. There shall be no vote by proxy. Section 6. Public Discussion. Time shall be made available during all meetings for open public discussion. Section 7. Motions. Motions may be made or seconded by any member of the Board, including the Chairperson. Section 8. Exoarte Contacts. A member who has had a discussion of an agenda item outside of a public meeting with an interested party shall reveal the contact, naming the other party and sharing specifics of the contact, copies if in writing or a synopsis if verbal. Section 9. Conflict of Interest. A member who believes they have a conflict of interest on a matter about to come before the Board shall state the reason for the conflict of interest, leave the room before the discussion begins, and return after the vote. Section 10. Votinq. A majority vote is required to pass any motion or election, except for closed sessions as provided for in the Iowa Code. Upon request, voting will be by roll call and will be recorded by yeas and nays. Every member of the Board, including the Chairperson, is required to cast a vote upon each motion. A member who abstains shall state the reason for abstention. Section 11. Roberts Rules of Order. The rules in the current edition of Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised shall govern the Board in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules or order the Board may adopt. ARTICLEVI. GENERAL AND LIMITED POWERS AND DUTIES: The Iowa City Police Citizens' Review Board shall have the powers and duties set forth in Chapter 8 of the City Code of Iowa City. 4 VII. PUBLIC RECORDS; EXCEPTIONS Section 1. All records of the Board shall be public, except: (a) Complaints, reports of investigations, statements and other documents or records obtained in investigation of any complaint shall be closed records unless a public hearing is held or a contrary determination is made by Counsel to the Board pursuant to the provisions of the Iowa Code. (b) The minutes and tape recordings of any session closed under the provisions of the Iowa Code shall be closed records. (c) No member of the Board or of its staff shall disclose tho fi~ing of a complaint, tho information gothorod during tho invostigation, or tho ondoavors to addross and/or olimin3to any comploinod of act or practioo by roodlotion, oxcopt 3s may bo noooccary to conduct an invostigation of a compl,aint information'prot~"'ed:;..I~ the Iowa;Open Records Law or the' Iowa Open Meetings.Law, Nothing in this provision shall prevent the Board from releasing such information concerning alleged or acknowledged practices to the Iowa City City Council, the City Manager and/or Chief of Police, either in the form of its required annual report or otherwise. This section does not prevent any complainant, witness or other person from publicizing the filing of a complaint or the matter therein complained of. Violation of these provisions by a member of the Board or its staff shall constitute grounds for removal. (d) Mediation matters are protected by the Iowa Code, ARTICLE VIII. CONDUCT OF BOARD BUSINESS: Section 1. Aqenda. The Chairperson, or a designated representative, together with staff assistance shall prepare an agenda for all Board meetings. Agendas are to be posted at least 24 hours before the meeting and shall be sent to Board members and the media prior to meetings. Copies will be available to the public at the meeting. Section 2. Minutes. Minutes of all meetings are to be prepared and distributed to Board and City Council members. Specific recommendations requiring Council action are to be set off from the main body of the minutes and appropriately identified. Section 3. Review Policy. The Board shall review all policies and programs of the City relating to the Board's duties as stated herein, and make such recommendations to the City Council as are deemed appropriate. Section 4. Referrals from Council. From time to time letters, requests for information, requests for recommendations, and other matters are referred to the Board by the City Council. The Board will initiate consideration of each item at the next regular Board meeting and shall notify Council of its disposition. 5 Section 5. Annual Report. An annual report detailing the activities of the Board shall be prepared by the Chairperson, approved by the Board, and submitted to the City Council. ARTICLE IX. SUBCOMMITTEES: The subcommittees of this Board including composition, duties, and terms shall be as designated by the Chairperson. ARTICLE X. AMENDMENTS: These by-laws may be altered, amended or repealed, and new by-laws adopted by an affirmative vote of not less than three members of the Board at any regular meeting or at any special meeting called for that purpose. Amendments shall be approved by the Council to become effective. October 27, 1997 g:\.... '~'~ws. p~b PUBLIC REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Re: Investigation of Complaint PCRB97-1 This is the Report of the Police Citizen's Review Board's review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB97-1. THE BOARD'S PROCEDURE On August 7, 1997, this Complaint was received at the Office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Ordinance 97-3792 (the "Ordinance"), § 8-8-5, the Complaint was referred to the Police Chief for investigation. The Police Chief prepared a Report to the Board (the "Chief's Report") which was completed and submitted on September 8, 1997. The Board, then newly constituted, received the Report on October 2, 1997. On October 8, 1997, the Board voted to review the complaint in accordance with Ordinance §8-8-7(B)(1)(e). The Board requested an extension of time from the City Council to consider the Report on October 3, 1997, and requested additional information from the Police Chief on October 8, 1997. The additional information requested was received on October 9, 1997. The Board met on October 8 and 10, 1997 to consider the Report. THE BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY Under Ordinance § 8-8-7(B), the Board's job is to review the Chiefs Report of the investigation of the Complaint. The Ordinance requires the Board to apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review to the Chief's Report, and to "give deference to the...Report because of the Police Chief's ...professional expertise." Ordinance § 8-8-7(B)(2). 2 While the ordinance directs the Board to make "findings of fact," it also requires that we recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modi~, his findings only if those findings are "unsupported by substantial evidence," if they are "unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious," or if they are "contrary to a Police Department policy or practice, or any Federal, State, or local law." Ordinance §8-8-7(B)(2)(a), (b), (c). Accordingly, our job is not to re-decide the factual issues raised by the Complaint, but to review the findings in the Chiefs Report, conduct whatever additional investigation we think necessary, and determine whether those findings comply with the requirements of the ordinance. Our report does not include the names of the complainant, the officers, or any other persons involved. FINDINGS OF FACT This complaint arose out of the arrest of an individual (whom we shall refer to as "the individual") on Friday, August 1, at about 9:20 p.m., on Clinton Street south of Burlington. The individual, a young man, was approached by two police officers on the Pedestrian Mall. The individual was making lewck sexual comments to passers-by and officers. When approached by the officers, the individual ran away. The officer communicated over the police radio that the individual was being chased on foot. The radio communication did not advise other officers as to the nature of the individual's suspected offense. Within 43 seconds, another officer (whom we shall refer to as the arresting officer) received the transmission. and used his squad car to block the path of the individual along Clinton Street. The arresting officer ordered the individual, who had slowed to a walk, to get up 3 against the wall. The individual put his hands in the air and faced the wall, which was the comer of the old Goodyear building on Clinton Street. The arresting officer pushed the individual into the wall. He then took the individual to the ground, where he was handcuffed. The individual had some superficial abrasions as a result; no serious injury is claimed. The individual ultimately pied guilty to a charge of public intoxication and a charge of obstructing an officer arising out of this incident. The Complaint was filed by a witness to the arrest of the individual. The Complainant asserted that excessive force was used in arresting the individual. There is disagreement about the facts in two areas. The first disputed issue is whether the individual in question was still resisting or attempting to flee the officers at the time the arresting officer encountered him. There is no question that he fled the officer on the Pedestrian Mall. There is, however, some difference of opinion as to whether he had completely stopped trying to get away when the arresting officer pulled up in his car. The individual says he had stopped and put his hands on the wall; the arresting officer says that the individual was still moving at an angle towards the comer of the building and the officer was not sure whether the individual was going to try, and run away. The views of other witnesses to the incident are somewhat divided on these issues. The chief's Report concluded that the individual had not clearly stopped his flight at the time he was arrested. That conclusion is consistent with the statements of a number of the witnesses, is supported by substantial evidence, and does not appear unreasonable, arbitrary. or capricious. The second disputed issue is how much force the arresting officer used in pushing the individual into the wall or to the ground. There was some disagreement among the witnesses 4 about whether pushing the individual into the wall or taking him to the ground was done in a controlled or uncontrolled manner. The Chiefs Report concluded that the force used was controlled and that the individual was not forcefully thrown into the wall or onto the ground. That conclusion is consistent with the reports of a number of the witnesses and with the comparatively minimal injuries suffered by the individual, is supported by substantial evidence and does not appear unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. On the night of the incident, the complainant went to the Iowa City Police Department to complain to the sergeant in charge. The sergeant was defensive and became emotional, asked the complainant if he was in law enforcement, and tried to get the complainant to see the matter from the officer's side. The Complaint was referred to the Police Chief, who ordered an investigation of the complaint. The investigator interviewed sixteen witnesses, including the complainant, the individual involved, the arresting. officer, and the sergeant, as well as a number of passersby who observed the incident and several police officers. CONCLUSIONS The Chiefs Report treated this complaint as setting forth two allegations and we will do the same. Allegation 1: use of excessive force The critical issue is whether the individual was still attempting to flee the officer at the time he was arrested. This matters because under the Iowa City Police Department policy on use of force, the degree of force that may be used in arresting a person is related to the degree of 5 resistance by that person. Where a person subject to arrest is actively resisting arrest, the policy permits the use of compliance techniques, which may, where reasonable and necessary, include taking a suspect to the ground to control him in order to take him into custody. The Chiefs Report's findings on the two critical questions here are supported by substantial evidence and we must defer to them. Those findings indicate that the individual was still moving at the time the arresting officer stopped him and that the arresting officer believed that he might continue to flee even though he had his hands in the air, and that as a consequence the officer took the individual to the ground in a controlled manner. In addition, the accompanying circumstances were relevant. There was an avenue of potential escape only a few feet away from the point where the individual was stopped. The arresting officer did not know what offense the individual was suspected of having committed. He did, however, know that other officers were pursuing the individual, and that he had tried to flee before and looked as though he might try again. Under the existing use of force policies of the Iowa City Police Department, taking an actively resisting suspect to the ground, in a controlled and limited manner, to place the individual under arrest, was consistent with applicable policy. Accordingly, the first allegation of the complaint is NOT SUSTAINED. Allegation 2: inappropriate response to a citizen complaint The sergeant in question was defensive in response to the complaint, became emotional and argumentative and tried to present the officer's side of the story to the complainant. This defensive response was inappropriate. Nobody likes criticism, but, hard as it may be. the department must learn to accept input-negative as well as positive--from the community. 6 Informal interactions such as these give the department the chance to understand the community's view of its conduct. Moreover, these occasions present a meaningful oppommity to demonstrate openness to community. concerns. Trying to talk complainants out of their views or treating them in an aggressive and challenging manner may lead to perceptions that police officers are rigid, defensive, or unwilling to hear other sides of a story. The second allegation of the complaint is SUSTAINED. COMMENTS When we address a complaint, we must consider it in light of the policies that were in force at the time the actions in question took place. Any other approach would not be fair; police officers, like anyone else, should be able to stay out of trouble by relying on the rules, and a critical element of justice is that people know what is expected of them. The arresting officer acted consistently with the policies in effect at the time of this incident. At the same time, the policies underlying this complaint may be worthy of review. The policies or practices of the department regarding arrest of intoxicated individuals, the charging of obstruction of justice for those who attempt to flee arresting officers, and the policy on use of force. which. as we understand it. considers only the resistance of the suspect. and not the severity of the underlying offense. in determining the degree of force appropriate in apprehending a suspect, are all worthy of further public discussion. We note that the Chiefs Report expresses the intention, first, to include as part of routine training the recommendation that officers need whenever possible to inform other officers of the cause of a particular pursuit, and second, to train supervisors and others dealing directly with the 7 public in the appropriate objective manner to take complaints from the public. We urge that these highly appropriate additions to txaining not be delayed, but be made with all possible speed. Dated: November 6, 1997