Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2003-10-28 Bd Comm minutes
Approved MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11,2003 - 7:00 P.M. EMMA HARVAT HALL - CIVIC CENTER MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Carlson, Michael Gunn, Michael Maharry, Mark McCallum, Jim Ponto, Paul Sueppel, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: James Enloe, Amy Smothers STAFF PRESENT: Shelley McCafferty CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Maharry called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: 812 S. Summit Street. McCafferty said this was an application from Jamie Powers, who plans to convert this building to a bake shop. McCafferty said Powers is not required to provide handicapped accessibility but would like to. McCafferty said that Powers plans to leave the existing concrete and put in a new wood ramp with a simple metal pipe handrail. She said that Powers also plans to put a small concrete patio in the front, which does not require review by the Commission. McCafferty said the plan is to have shrubbery in front of the ramp to help conceal it. McCafferty said there is an existing door on the alley side of the building. She said Powers would like to be able to use that door and plans to put in a stoop with wood steps and hand railing. McCafferty said that Powers would be using economic development money for this; therefore the project would be subject to SHPO review. McCafferty showed an elevation of the side stoop. Sueppel asked if it would be open underneath when it was complete. McCafferty said the rear entry would have vertical latticework underneath, which would be acceptable to the Commission. Maharry said the Commission could probably not require the shrubbery in front but could recommend it. McCafferty agreed. Weitzel pointed out that it is shown on the plans. McCafferty said that SHPO actually will be reviewing this, and it would have more authority to require something like that. Weitzel asked if SHPO would find the metal pipe railing acceptable. McCafferty said she thought it would. She said that although it is not an historic stoop, it would be one of the least intrusive ways of doing this. Weitzel said he thought this would be a good thing and thought the Commission should pass it. McCallum asked about the concrete pad. McCafferty said there will probably be a couple of benches, but not enough to classify this as a restaurant. Gunn asked about the location of the sidewalk, and McCafferty showed the sidewalk on the plans. McCallum said that if there were to be a patio there, there would be a lot of concrete. McCafferty said this complies with the zoning code and does not require a permit. MOTION: Weitzel moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 812 South Summit Street, with the recommendation that there be latticework under the back stoop at the rear entry. Carlson seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. 401 South Governor Street. McCafferty said she received a site plan for this proposal earlier in the day, and she distributed copies to Commission members. She said this project involves a proposed building Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 11, 2003 Page 2 for a vacant lot that the Commission had looked at previously. McCafferty said that Dennis Spencer had purchased the house and the lot next to it. McCafferty said that Spencer proposes a Foursquare-style house here. She said the Commission previously looked at another proposal by Spencer, but the Commission had felt that it was too wide and too big for the neighborhood. Weitzel asked McCafferty if she had discussed the window placement with Spencer, specifically the balance of windows on the previous application. McCafferty said either she or the Commission had discussed it with Spencer. She said the new proposal shows the windows aligned vertically and it is narrower than the previous proposal. Weitzel said he felt that the placement of the windows on the sides is still a little off. McCafferty said she had talked to Spencer about that. She said Spencer was okay with the possibility that it might take two meetings before the Commission would vote on his proposal. McCafferty showed the products that Spencer proposes to use: a wide J-channel used in vinyl installation, which would be used around the windows to simulate wide window trim, and a cornerboard system. She said the windows being proposed would be all vinyl, which would not comply with the guidelines. She said that the other house on Governor Street that the Commission was approved with wood or fiber cement board trim. McCafferty said part of the reason for having this type of trim is that if the siding is replaced, it is less likely that these character defining features will be removed. Weitzel asked about the vinyl trim and if it was not what the Commission approved before. McCafferty said they approved fiber cement board on the house down the street. Weitzel said the Commission should be consistent. Maharry said that this property is in a conservation district. Carlson said that synthetic siding is acceptable on new structures in conservation districts. He said the Commission could therefore recommend but not require different siding than that which is being proposed. McCafferty said there really are not specific recommendations regarding trim on new construction in the old guidelines. Maharry said that since the Commission has no control over siding here, it can recommend but not require a different material. McCafferty agreed that the Commission cannot require something other than vinyl siding, however for the trim elements, the guidelines are less specific. Trim is not necessarily the same thing as siding. McCafferty said that for the sake of consistency, the Commission could require wood or approved wood substitute. Weitzel asked if, regarding the fenestration, the Commission could require or recommend more windows for balance and a better appearance. McCafferty responded that there is something in the guidelines about not having large expenses of blank walls on an addition. Carlson stated that the last item under windows, it disallows leaving a large expanse of wall surface. He said the Commission could therefore require a difference appearance. Sueppel asked if vinyl windows would be allowed here. Gunn said it is not clear for new buildings. McCafferty said that on Governor Street Pella Proline windows were used, which are wood with vinyl or metal cladding. She said this would be an all vinyl window, which is not specifically disallowed in a conservation district. She agreed that it is not clear in the old guidelines regarding new construction. Weitzel said he assumed the Commission would not recommend all vinyl windows. McCafferty said it would be good to do more overall research regarding windows in general. She said that there are so many variables with regard to quality, price, etc. Maharry asked if, since the Commission can't control the type of window but can only recommend, should the Commission say nothing, since it doesn't have that control. McCafferty said that the Commission does control the style of the window and they could require that there should be a certain width of sash, because one of the issues with the very cheap vinyl windows is that the sash is so thin that it doesn't look appropriate. McCafferty said Spencer had specified Gerken windows for this project. Sueppel stated that Gerken windows do have a wider sash. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 11, 2003 Page 3 McCafferty said that to really evaluate the whole window issue would take extensive research, including the long-term energy factor, the replacement issues, the quality of the seal, etc. Sueppel said that a good quality vinyl window is a lot better as far as sealing, R-values, and U-values than a wood window. He said the best quality vinyl window is less expensive than the best quality wood window. He said there are places for wood windows but also said that Gerken is a good quality window. Maharry said the Commission can't control the type of window used but asked if members would like to make a recommendation regarding sash width. McCafferty said that even though there are not specific guidelines regarding this, windows are something the Commission can control with the building permit process. She said the Commission can require that the windows meet certain specifications. Gunn said the Commission could do a lot with architectural style. McCafferty said that the Commission could look at scale drawings of this or a sample of it and compare it to what looks like an historic window. She said the Commission did not have to approve this project at its current meeting. Gunn stated that the Commission did not have to approve this without enough information and shouldn't approve it without information. Maharry asked what type of window is currently on the home constructed by Hughes. McCafferty said that is the Pella Proline. Sueppel said Pella came out with that window to compete with some of the cheaper windows, and it is not a good window. Maharry said the Commission shouldn't recommend a window that is of lower quality or less historic than the Pella windows. Maharry asked what the guidelines say the Commission can do to prevent or not prevent those windows. Gunn said the Commission has gotten into the habit of trying to find something ironclad to disallow something. He said that would be nice to have here, but the Commission doesn't have to do that. He said the Commission can require windows that look appropriate. Carlson agreed that if something is not specified, what is recommended or disallowed is really the Commission's decision, based on the available information. Gunn said the Commission tried to write down a lot of things to give it something solid to point to in order to disallow something that shouldn't be done, but the Commission doesn't have to have it in solid black and white to disallow something. Weitzel agreed that there are discretionary issues. McCafferty said that is part of the nature of historic preservation, that there will always be circumstances and things that are not anticipated with a variety of factors involved. She said the intent of the guidelines is to provide sufficient black and white information to assist the Commission with fair and rational decisions, but that does not prevent the Commission from deviating from them in unique circumstances. She said that a number of municipalities have this information in ordinance form, which does not allow for discretion. She said this then leads to problems when they have to disallow something that would be rational but is counter to the ordinance. Maharry said the Commission would probably want to have Spencer bring a sample window to the next meeting. Gunn said if it is a good quality vinyl window that looks like an historic window, he would not have a problem with it. He said the Commission disallowed the vinyl because at the time, everything the Commission knew of just didn't look right. McCallum asked if the Commission wanted to require or recommend more windows on the sides. He agreed that there is a lot of wall space. Weitzel said the style of this house demands that there be more windows. McCallum said he would also like to see some sod of covering over the rear door. Gunn said the Commission should recommend a rear door covering. Sueppel said it sounds like Spencer is working with McCafferty. He said he did not want to make this an adversarial thing. Sueppel said the Commission is making recommendations to Spencer, and if McCafferty is working with him, the Commission should go with it as far as it can without putting its foot down and being in conflict. McCafferty said Spencer seems to be amenable to recommendations, and she had suggested some minor changes to him. Weitzel said he believes it is more important to stay within the guidelines and stay within the architectural style and not worry about the outcome. He said the Commission should not get itself in a position where it has to consider the legal issues all the time, because that is not really what the Commission should worry about. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 11,2003 Page 4 Maharry said it appears that there is no window proposed for the first floor because the owners want to put a television there in the great room. He said, however, that there should be a window opposite the other window. Ponto said that he has discovered, after walking around town and looking at Foursquares, that there are always windows on every side, everywhere. Gunn said there are not always a lot, and they are not always symmetrical, but there are always windows. Ponto said there is never an expanse without a window as is proposed here. McCafferty said if one goes into old houses of this era, every room has a window, including some of the closets. Maharry asked if there were agreement about the left elevation having matching lower level windows to match the right side on the left side. Ponto said there definitely needs to be something there, although he is less concerned that it absolutely match the corresponding other side. He said that would be nice, but he believes it is more important just to make certain there is a window there. Maharry asked if it should be of the same dimension. Weitzel said that even dimension is not such a problem, although it should be consistent with what the style would have - a smaller window for a bathroom and a larger window for a regular room, so it should probably match the other single-pane windows. McCafferty showed a sketch she had come up with, with two bathroom windows and two windows on the left. McCallum said that what McCafferty is proposing is the best idea, but he would be happy with just the two windows to the left, as that would make a big enough improvement. Weitzel stated that he would support either adding two on either side or adding four on both of the sides. Carlson said that with the broader expanse, he would be happier to see the bathroom windows added as well. Ponto said that would be his preference also. Maharry said he wouldn't necessarily require a window on the kitchen side, the right elevation. He said there would be a recommendation for six windows on one side and five windows on the right side. Gunn referred to McCafferty's memorandum regarding this item. He said it sounds like the Commission is recommending the first and last bullets, the last bullet being the first paragraph on page two, because the Commission doesn't have the guidelines to clearly indicate what should be here. Gunn said they are good ideas, but the Commission might not be comfortable requiring these things. He said that adding the windows, lowering the roof pitch, and requiring the porch to be right are all pretty clear architectural issues that the Commission can recommend require without hesitation. McCallum asked what the 4:12 pitch would look like. McCafferty showed him a sketch of how it would appear. She said that most porches have a lower pitch, 3:12 or 4:12. McCafferty stated that often when people draw up plans for new houses, they try to match the pitch on the porch and don't understand that historically it is usually less. She said the roof is currently drawn with two different pitches. McCafferty said a 4:12 pitch is a common pitch for a porch roof. Maharry said the Commission may be willing to approve the bullets as stated by Gunn, but the Commission wants to see the windows. Gunn said the Commission could recommend wood or fiber cement trim and cornerboards without requiring it and approve windows after seeing a sample. McCafferty suggested this item be deferred to the next meeting. MOTION: Weitzel moved to defer to the Commission's next meeting consideration of a certificate of appropriateness for the proposal for 401 South Governor Street. Ponto said it was his perception that, for a foursquare, the porch should go all the way across. Cadson said that because the porch goes most of the way across, it is probably acceptable. Weitzel said thero are some porches on the same street that go all the way across and some that do not. Sueppe! seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. HISTORIC PRESERVATION HANDBOOK REVISIONS: For Section 8.3 in the first paragraph under Architectural Guidelines for New Primary Structures, it was the consensus of the Commission to put the word Section before 9.0 and before 11.0. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 11, 2003 Page 5 Weitzel said he did not want to open up a can of worms but asked McCafferty if the Commission needed to get some kind of list from the State Archaeologist's Office of significant archaeological sites in Iowa City so that the Commission could just check to see if one is there before the applications are approved. McCafferty said she would clarify how that would overlap with the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. McCaffer~y asked Weitzel when he would think archaeological surveying would need to be done as it pertains to what the Commission is doing. Weitzel said if the Commission just wants to go with what is already recorded, that is easy, because the list already exists and can be updated on a semi-annual or annual basis. For new potential sites, he said would require a survey to determine whether there is something there or not and whether it has been destroyed. McCafferty said that the time when it might be pertinent is when someone is putting on an addition where there may have been an outhouse or cistern. Weitz_el said that is a good example. He said it may be more applicable on large-scale projects. Weitzel said he didn't want to trigger a survey for every addition, but perhaps at a certain level this needs to be looked at and also perhaps run past someone at the OSA or another professional, qualified archaeologist who can perhaps look at a map and judge the probability for a site at a specific location. Maharry said the Commission could match those up currently. He asked Weitzel how many he would guess were in the current districts. Weitzel responded that when he worked for the OSA, people would often tell him that they had a site, but they wouldn't say where it was, which makes it hard to evaluate. He said he knows it is something the Commission has not done before, but he just wanted to bring it up because it is in the Secretary of the Interior Standards. He said it could be handled adequately elsewhere, but he did not think normal building permits triggered the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. McCafferty said that this issue would probably need more research, and she could check with the State Historical Society. Weitzel stated that the Commission could at least see what the State Historical Society thinks should be done. Carlson suggested finding out what other municipalities do. Weitz_el stated that Ames has an archaeological ordinance, but he did not know what most other municipalities that have CLGs do to enforce that part of it. Gunn suggested that in Section 8.3, Woodlawn Neighborhood, the first sentence read, "iowa City guidelines apply to single-family and duplex..." McCafferty said Marlys Svendsen agreed to take a look at the guidelines and offer suggestions. Gunn stated that on page 11 of the guidelines, from the previous packet, the note reads that, "If the guidelines for an individual district have not yet been approved, then the Secretary of the Intedor Standards for Rehabilitation will serve in their place." He said that should be deleted, because there are guidelines for each district. Ponto said perhaps it should be retained for when new districts are created. McCafferty said the guidelines would be part of the process of having the district approved. Weitzel asked if the architectural terms contained a complete list. McCafferty said she is open to suggestions and recommendations for the glossary and elsewhere. Weitzel suggested adding a definition of roof styles, including the definitions of dormer and gable. Maharry discussed the definition in the glossary of a non-historic property and putting a time or age limit on the property. The consensus of the Commission was to change the wording to, "Any noncontributing property within a district that was built after the period of significance." Gunn said if that is not clear, it will be left to the discretion of the Commission. McCafferty stated that she had a discussion with Svendsen regarding the fact that as different surveyors have looked at different portions and done different nominations, there have been different standards applied to whether a property is contributing, non-contributing, or key and some different definitions. McCafferty said she and Svendsen agreed that it would be good to have someone look at all of the historic districts to make sure the same standards were applied across the board. McCafferty said she drove Svendsen past a couple of houses in the College Green Area that Jan Nash had defined as non- contributing, and Svendsen did not agree with that classification. Weitzel agreed that Nash was much more conservative than Svendsen in her assessment of non-contributing. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 11,2003 Page 6 Maharry said the Commission pays a professional to do the job, and he questioned whether the Commission should pay someone else to redo the job. He said that the job has been done, and hiring someone to do that work is a waste of time. Maharry said that if Commission members want to walk around and look, that's fine, but he would not want to hire someone to come up with brand new guidelines on how the historic districts should be done and how future professionals have to go about each thing. Maharry said that is why they are professionals; they're educated and that's what they were hired for in the first place. McCafferty said there are a couple of factors. She said the main issue is how the whole historic preservation movement, including how the National Park Service defines things and how the State has come to accept different criteria, has evolved over time. McCafferty stated that the Brown Street nominations are very sparse compared to what the expectations are now. She said part of it is a matter of the profession having evolved. Gunn asked if Svendsen is talking about revising the National Register nominations. McCafferty said that what she herself really cares about is on a local level, and this would involve looking across the board to see if all the criteria have been applied faidy. Gunn asked if Svendsen planned to mostly look at non-contributing properties to see if they should be contributing. McCafferty said she would also be looking at changes to properties. Gunn asked if Svendsen would also look at all the contributing properties to see if they should be excluded. McCafferty stated that Svendsen would mostly be looking at including more non-contributing properties. Gunn said that would be a fairly small effort, to look at the non-contributing propedies, but to look at all of the properties would be a pretty extensive job. McCafferty said the intent is to insure that everyone has been treated consistently. McCafferty asked if the Commission would be opposed to getting a proposal from Svendsen to find out the potential cost of such a review. Weitzel said it is worth it to get an estimate for how long this would take. Gunn said that if it is minimal, there is no harm in looking at it; the Commission doesn't have to take any action yet. Maharry asked if the Commission members could look at those kinds of properties without hiring someone to do it. He said if it is obvious, it should be obvious to the Commission. Sueppel said that is what the Commission exists for, to make these decisions. He said that if there is an obvious discrepancy, McCafferty could bring it before the Commission for a vote. Maharry said Svendsen is not going to gather any more historical information on the structure. He said she is going to look at it and judge it by looks, but the Commission could do that. Carlson suggested that the Commission members do it themselves first. He said that if there is some problem and there is a need for someone to come in and say the ordinance needs to be changed because it is wrong or inconsistent, then the Commission can hire an outside person. McCafferty said she has been reading through reports and nominations and looking at how things have been evaluated. She said it has been a learning process for her, and some of the things she looks at are not always consistent. McCafferty said the areas of concern are College Green and East College. She added that Brown Street was done very long ago, and there has been a lot of change there. McCafferty said that Summit Street is probably not a big concern, because it is so consistent as a district. Gunn said that if the Commission is going to change a few designations, he thought the Commission should amend the maps before the process to amend the guidelines goes through. He said he would not like to see an extremely large change in the guidelines go through the process and then two months later propose changes for a few lone properties. Gunn said if Svendsen has a few properties in mind that she thinks should be changed, the Commission can take a look at those. McCafferty said another issue is key structures. She said if the Commission wants to encourage NRHP designation, then it needs to ensure that keys structures are indeed eligible for the National Register. McCafferty said that for Longfellow, Naumann defines key structures as those that are prominent on the streetscape, while Svendsen defines a key structure as one that is eligible for the National Register as an individual property. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 11, 2003 Page 7 McCallum asked if part of this involved the issue of who owned the property. McCafferty said if the house has cultural significance, that could be a factor. Maharry asked if Svendsen would go back and look at those to see if a property might be more culturally significant than Naumann believed. He said that is a judgment call. Maharry said if Svendsen is going to say that the history of who lived in that house now makes it contributing and Naumann thought it was not contributing, that is wrong, because that is a professional opinion. He said if the actual physical structure has changed, that is something different. McCafferty said the issue is if the surveyors are applying very different criteria to determine key or not key. Weitzel said it is like someone using English and someone using the metric system. McCafferty said there is a house in Longfellow that is the original quartermaster's residence for the Civil War Camp. She said that it does not fit the district context historically, but on its own, since it is intact, it might very well be eligible for the National Register. McCafferty said that was not recorded in Naumann's data, as she is not a cultural historian but is an architectural historian. McCafferty said she would get more information on this issue in general for the Commission's consideration. Ponto referred to the glossary and the definition for contributing property. He said that in addition to being an integral part of the historic context and character of the district, the property has to retain a high degree of integrity. Carlson said the addition of that language might be redundant in that if the property has been changed, it won't be part of the historic character, but he would not be opposed to adding the language. Ponto asked if a non-contributing structure could also be an integral part of the historic context and character of the district. Carlson said there could be a non-contributing building that is non-contributing because it has been so altered, but is historically very significant. Weitzel asked, if the building is historically significant because of the person who owned it or lived there, would that not make it a landmark, as opposed to being a contributing building. McCafferty said that Svendsen would be in town doing survey work at the time of the Commission's next meeting. McCafferty asked the Commission if it would like to invite her to the meeting to talk a little bit about her process and how she defines things. The consensus of the Commission was to invite Svendsen to speak to the Commission. McCafferty stated that she did not update much of the glossary since it was done for the previous handbook. She said she was open to suggestions and added that the term "context" might be included in the glossary. Carlson said that the map on page 34 shows Dearborn as an historic district, but it should be listed as a conservation district. He added that district is spelled wrong on the map. Carlson pointed out that the map on page 34 lists the proposed College Hill Conservation District, which should be corrected to delete the word "proposed." McCafferty said that the maps are not yet complete. Carlson said that there are references on pages 34 and 35 to period revival cottage and period revival house. He asked if that means that in that area, only a period revival cottage but not a period revival house would be appropriate. McCafferty confirmed this distinction, saying it relates to the scale issue. Carlson said the Secretary of the Interior's Standards list 1990 as the date of the most recent version. He said they were actually revised in 1995. Ponto commended McCafferty for the work she had done on the handbook. Maharry said the CLG grant has been put on hold indefinitely. He said the City attorneys are determining whether it would be a conflict of interest for City Council members who own property downtown to vote on this. McCafferty said it has been postponed for consideration until at least next year. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: AUGUST 28, 2003: Weitzel said that in the fourth full paragraph on page four, the second sentence should read, "He said that, in terms of longevity, brick would be better to have than siding to the ground." Historic Preservation Commission Minutes September 11,2003 Page 8 Carlson said that on page four in the 11~h full paragraph, the last sentence should read, "Carlson asked if it will look as it does now and without drawings can that be guaranteed." He said that on page seven in the third paragraph under the consideration of the previous meeting's minutes, "history" should not be capitalized. MOTION: WeiLzel moved to approve the minutes of the August 28, 2003 Historic Preservation Commission meeting, as amended. Gunn seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:43 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte MINUTES Approved HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2003 -6:30PM LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM - CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry Anthony, Lori Bears, John Deeth, Mark Edwards, Bill Greazel, Matthew Hayek, Jayne Sandier MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Steve Long Call To Order The commission does not have a chairperson, therefore Steve Long called the meeting to order at 6:30PM. Long suggested they move agenda item number 3, nomination and election of officers, as the next item on the agenda and then proceed with the meeting. MOTION: Anthony moved to accept the proposed change in the agenda. Greazel seconded the motion. All ia favor, motion passed 6-0 (Edwards not yet present). Nomination and Election of Officers Long opened the floor for discussion and nomination of Commission Chair and Vice-Chair. Hayek expressed interested in becoming the Chairperson of the commission. Long asked if there was any other interest in the position. There was none. MOTION: Deeth moved to nominate Hayek for Chairperson. Greazel seconded the motion. All in favor, motion passed 6-0 (Edwards not yet present). Anthony expressed interest becoming the Vice-Chairperson of the Commission. Long asked if there was any other interest in the position. There was none. MOTION: Greazel moved to nominate Anthony as Vice-Chairperson. Hayek seconded the motion. All in favor, motion passed 6-0 (Edwards not yet present). Approval of the June 19, 2003 Minutes MOTION: Sandier moved to accept the minutes as submitted. Anthony seconded the motion. All in favor, motion passed 6-0 (Edwards not yet present). Public/Member Discussion of Items Not on the A~lenda Hayek welcomed Bill Greazel as the newest member to the commission. Greazel will serve a 3-year term on the commission. Hayek said they are happy to have Greazel with the commission, he will bring a great perspective to the group and they look forward to working with him. Deeth said he had spoken with Ross Wilburn and the Crisis Center remodeling project is near completion, and they will having an open house sometime in October 2003. Long said Hannah's Blessing Childcare, a CDBG funded business, is open and they will be having an open house Wednesday, September 29, 2003. Long also said the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County, which is chaired by former HCDC commission member Amy Correia, will be having a fundraiser October 7, 2003 at the Thai Flavors restaurant. Thai Flavors donates 20 percent of the day's proceeds to a designated nonprofit organization. The restaurant will also be receiving a Human Rights award on September 25 for their community development activities. Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes September 18, 2003 Page 2 Long gave commission members a handout from Correia about the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County. Hayek asked what the connection is between the letter from Steve Atkins to Congressman Leach about National Housing Trust Fund legislation, and the local Johnson County Housing Trust Fund. Long said the local Housing Trust Fund must be set up in order to receive State or National funds. Long added that the State of Iowa passed legislation for a State Housing Trust Fund in the last legislative session. Edwards arrives. Hayek noted a letter in the member's information packet from the GICHF (Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship) referencing a letter from HUD about housing discrimination. GICHF wanted the commission to be aware of the incident and their position on the matter. Hayek noted that on October 11, 2003, there would be a city/school wide conference held to discuss the at risk populations, and what is going on in the school district to deal with the changes in Iowa City. He said this will be a very exciting conference and it would be great if anyone from the commission could attend. Several members expressed interest in attending the conference. Long said the Mark Twain Elementary School after-school project, that was partially funded by CDBG funds, will start next month. Hayek added that the CDBG funding for Twain was small, but the contribution helped them obtain a much larger matching grant. Long said there will be a NCRC (National Community Reinvestment Coalition) conference on October 23 & 24 in Davenport, Iowa. This is the first time the conference will be held outside of a large metro area. The cost is $50 to attend and a great line up of presenters from all over the country will be speaking at the conference. Public Hearing & Approval of FY03 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) This report is for 2003 fiscal year and copies were included in the commission member's information packets. The report is a HUD required document that the City must submit to HUD within 90 days of the end of the plan year. The report describes and recaps the funded activities for the fiscal year. Long asked the commission members to look at the charts on pages 20 and 21, to see the number of people served by CDBG and HOME funds. Long also noted one thing they added to the report this year, on page 29 under Fair Housing, there is an explanation as to why someone was denied. Hayek asked if the color-coded map on page 11, which is actually in black and white in the copies, could be provided in color for the commission. Long said these are drafts and they will be in color for the final version, Hayek asked how the demographics in Iowa City were determined. Long said they are compiled directly from census data. Hayek referenced page '[3 about revision to building codes and development code. Long said this has been an on going project for over a year, they are completely rewriting the Development Code. Sandier asked if the persons involved with the rewrite could come and speak to the commission. The commission informally discussed various building and zoning issues. Long said he would look into having someone come and speak to the commission about the changes in zoning, codes and development. MOTION: Bears moved to accept the CAPER report as presented. Anthony seconded the motion. Ail in favor, motion passed 7-0. Old Business · Lead-Based Paint Update - This item was tabled due to illness of the individual scheduled to speak. · Community Development Celebration Update - Long reported that the celebration was a success and well attended. The celebration was held at Uptown Bill's and awards were given to Bea Day Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes September 18, 2003 Page 3 Plumber's, Extend the Dream Foundation and the Wesley Foundation. This is a yearly event that is held every summer. New Business · Selection of Projects to Monitor in FY04 The following is a listing of FY04 CDBG/HOME projects and the individuals who will monitor the project and when they will repod to the commission. Property Acquisition - Shelter House Anthony December Facility Rehab - Eagles Flight Greazel November Facility Rehab - Emma Goldman Sandier December Facility Rehab - Community Mental Health OPEN Facility Rehab - HACAP Head Start Edwards October Facility Rehab - PATV/Evert Conner Center Bears November Facility Rehab - 4C's Child Care Edwards November Operational Expenses - ICCSD Hayek October Case Mgmt - Free Medical Clinic Deeth January 2004 Shelter Coordinator - Shelter House Sandier January 2004 Aid To Agencies - MECCA Greazel January 2004 Aid To Agencies - UAY Greazel May 2004 Aid To Agencies - ESl Greazel June 2004 Affordable Home Ownership - Habitat Greazel June 2004 Affordable Rental Units - Whispering Gardens Hayek December Transitional Housing - HACAP Bears May 2004 Small Repair Program - Elder Services OPEN Transitional Housing - Successful Living Deeth May 2004 Deposit Assistance Program- Shelter House OPEN Economic Development Fund - City of lC Edwards June 2004 Housing Rehab - City of lC OPEN Carry Over Projects: Affordable Rental Units- Peninsula GICHF (02) Anthony April 2004 Micro Enterprise - Ruby's Pearl (02) Bears April 2004 Affordable Rental Units - Garden Prairie (03) Sandier May 2004 Longfellow Manor - GICHF (03) Deeth January 2004 Affordable Home Ownership - GICHF (03) Deeth January 2004 · Community Mental Health Center Project Update- Hayek reported that because of HIPAA regulations the Community Mental Health Center project could not use the $9500 of CDBG/HOME funds allocated to them for the original rehab purpose. They will use the funds for similar rehab work and it is not a substantial change. MOTION: Deeth moved to accept the revised project budget for the Community Mental Health Center. Anthony seconded the motion. All in favor, motion passed 7-0. · Timeline for the Annual Review of the Consolidated Plan (CITY STEPS) Long explained that they are in the process of the annual review of the CITY STEPS Plan. The first public meeting will be at the Broadway Neighborhood Center on October 1, 2003 from 6:00-7:00 PM. A second meeting will be at United Action for Youth on October 9, 2003 from 4:00-5:00 PM. The Housing and Community Development Commission will have a public hearing at their October 16, 2003 meeting. Long said they are open for ideas and projects, and they would like input to see if needs are being met. Should HCDC decide to recommend any formal budget amendments, they would be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. Sandier said she would like to know what the individuals who applied for CDBG/HOME funds actually ended up receiving from funding sources. EG: Did the applicants make do with less money or did the CDBG/HOME funding allow them to receive other grants. This information would help the commission in Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes September 18, 2003 Page 4 their decision making process. Long said this could be a great question for the applicant's when they address the commission. Long also noted that at the October HCDC meeting they will review the CDBG/HOME application and make any necessary changes. Hayek asked if it is possible for the staff to map out where the projects are within Iowa City. He said he would like as much information as possible on previous projects when making funding decisions. Adjournment MOTION: Greazel moved to adjourn the meeting. Sandier seconded the motion. All in favor, motion passed 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 PM. MINUTES IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2003 - 5:45 P.M. IOWA CITY AIRPORT TERMINAL MEMBERS PRESENT: Michelle Robnett, Rick Mascari, Randy Hartwig, Baron Thrower STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek, Ron O'Neil CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Thrower called the meeting to order at 5:45 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Dulek suggested a couple of typographical changes. She said the August 14 minutes should include the exact language of the motion to change the by-laws. The minutes of the July 15 and August 14, 2003, Commission meeting were approved with the corrections. AUTHORIZATION OF EXPENDITURES: Mascari had questions about several of the bills. Mascari made a motion to pay the bills. Hartwig seconded the motion. The motion passed 4 - 0. PUBLIC DISCUSSION - ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA: No items were presented. UNFINISHED ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION: No items were presented. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION: a. Aviation Commerce Park (ACP) - O'Neil said Tracy Overton, from Iowa Realty, had a last minute personal issue he had to attend to and could not be at the meeting. Overton sent a letter concerning some of the questions the Commission had at the last meeting associated with money spent for advertising. His monthly report was in the Commission packet. He sent a copy of an ICAD newsletter that mentioned the Aviation Commerce Park. Robnett said to remind Overton of the funds Governor Vilsak earmarked for business start- ups. She said it might be useful in attracting businesses to the ACP. She said it was a $5 million dollar fund. It is separate from Vision Iowa. It would be available to potential property buyers. Mascari had a flyer from Iowa Realty. He wanted to know if a flyer could be developed and sent out to advertise the ACP. O'Neil said he talked to a contractor that builds steel buildings. The contractor said the same thing that Overton has told the Commission, that he thought there is an upturn in the business. Mascari said he thinks the Airport Manager should contact Iowa Realty on a ] weekly basis. O'Neil said he would contact Overton weekly. Thrower suggested discussing the projects planned for the Airport and how those projects may effect the ACP. Thrower asked if the Commission wanted to discuss the letter from Scott Byers or discuss it with Overton at the next meeting? Mascari requested that Byers be at the next meeting. O'Neil said that by the time the second fill project is completed, almost all the ACP will be out of the 100 year flood plain. This will make the lots more building ready. b. Hangar # 32 lease - O'Neil said Iowa City Aircraft Repair would like to negotiate a two-year lease. A copy of the lease was included in the packet. The rent was increased 2% per year. He said he spoke with the tenants and it was acceptable to them. Mascari asked O'Neil what he thought of the lease. O'Neil said he would like to see a less complicated lease, but it was the same lease that the tenant in hangar #33 signed. O'Neil said feedback from the tenants was that the leases are too cluttered. Mascari made a motion for a resolution to accept a lease with Iowa City Aircraft Repair. Robnett seconded the motion and at roll call vote, the motion passed 4 - 0. c. Obstruction mitigation project- O'Neil said a list of prioritized obstructions was included in the Commission packet. Mitigation of obstructions will start as soon as contractors can be contacted. O'Neil said the IDOT grant would not be enough to mitigate all the obstructions. d. Environmental Assessment project - Dick Blum, from H.R. Green, said he contacted the FAA today and they have started the review of the rewrite of the EA. He said that should clear the way for the other projects in the Master Plan. Blum asked if the ACP was included in the flow predictions for Willow Creek? O'Neil said the Corps reviewed the project for drainage and potential wetlands. He said a drainage plan was developed. Blum said he would like to see a copy of the drainage plan. O'Neil said the water flows to the drainage ditch at the south end of the ACP or is captured by the storm drainage system in the street. e. T-hangar leases - O'Neil said the only issue left to decide was what the rent would be for the next year. Mascari and Hartwig did not participate in the discussion because they rent t~hangars. Robnett said, based on discussions from the previous meeting, she thought a 10% increase would be appropriate. She said this would be fair because the hangars vary in rent and it would be an across the board increase. She asked O'Neil what he thought would be fair? O'Neil said that at the last meeting, the Commission discussed generating income from increasing the flowage fee in addition to or in place of hangar rents. O'Neil said Jet Air now pays $.05 per gallon flowage fee and $.05 per gallon for equipment rental. O'Neil said that the flowage fee would need to be negotiated with Jet Air. Thrower asked if there was full occupancy? O'Neil said that of the 64 hangars, there were two or three available in the north buildings. He said there are two tenants that are selling their planes and three potential new tenants. At this point, they are 95% occupied. Thrower asked Duiek about voting on the flowage fee and the hangar rent at the same time? Dulek said they should be two separate issues. Robnett made a motion to increase the hangar rent by 10%. Thrower seconded the motion and it passed 2 - 0, with Mascari and Hartwig abstaining. O'Neil said he would discuss the flowage fee with Jet Air. Dulek said she would review Jet Air's lease. Thrower said this should be an agenda item for the next meeting. f. ABS Contract Management Process Review i. Review findings - Thrower said this would be an oppodunity to review the findings of the draft report received from Airport Business Solutions. O'Neil said he had e- mailed the report to the Commission, but found out that the City's Information Services has a block on e-mails of a certain size. Although his computer showed it as sent, it didn't make it through the City's server. Mascari said he read the report and asked O'Neil if there was a personality conflict between him and Hodges, the author of the report? O'Neil said he read the same thing from the report and does not know where that came from. O'Neil said he has only talked to Hodges for a short time when he was here and then a couple of times on the phone. Mascari said ABS said there was information they couldn't get from the manager. O'Neil said one of the things specifically mentioned was a copy of Jet Air's lease. O'Neil said that he not only sent them a copy of the lease with Jet Air, he sent a copy of the old FBO lease with Iowa City Flying Service. O'Neil said that the form that ABS wanted the financial information in was not the same form that the City provides. He explained that the City Finance Department and Accounting Department were the Airport's source for accounting and finance and scheduled a time for ABS to meet with Kevin O'Malley. O'Neil said he has access to the budget on line and can track the budget on a daily basis. The Finance Department would have archived budget numbers. Mascari said the report said the Airport needs to develop Minimum Standards. He said he and Mark Anderson were the subcommittee that developed the Standards. O'Neil said that is one of the documents he gave ABS when they were here for the first on-site visit. O'Neil said he did not receive a list of requested documents until ABS was about 65 days into their 90 day time period for producing the draft report. He said when Michael Hodges was here, he gave him information he thought would be helpful, such as the Minimum Standards, the City Code, and the State Code. Mascari said the report says there is a lack of communication between the Commission and the Council. Mascari said he remembers mentioning at a Council meeting that he thought the City Manager should attend some of the Commission meetings. The report recommends that the City Manager should be a member of the Airport Commission. O'Neil said he told ABS that he doesn't think that is legal. Dulek said Council policy is that City employees are not to be members of boards or commissions that they would have direct contact with. Mascari asked about an e-mail received from ABS that was critical of the Airport Manager. O'Neil said he thinks that was a result of a comment he made to a newspaper, stating that he thought, as did the majority of the Commission and Council, that a full draft report was due at the end of 90 days. ABS said they thought only a summary report was due. Robnett said she told the newspaper the same thing. Mascari said that all the items and inaccuracies has put a question mark on the report. Robnett said she agrees, especially as far as the finances. She said the Airport comes in on budget every year and she thought O'Neil managed it well. She said it is a slim budget and she didn't agree with the analysis by ABS. She said she likes some of the ideas but does not think an FBO manager would do ail of the management work for the $12,000 ABS estimated. Many of the revenue increases are not justified. The increase in fuel sales generated by an ILS does not take into account the cost of installing an ILS. The economic growth factor for this area does not match the projected income growth. Robnett said she did like some of the ideas, such as hosting the media for an event. She said attracting student pilot starts is not as easy as they made it sound. The marketing wasn't added as an expense. Thrower asked if there was a consensus that the financial analysis was not complete. Mascari said he agreed with Robnett in improving the marketing of the Airport. He said there are a lot of ideas that need to be looked at. He said there are other ideas that aren't very good. O'Neil said he discussed the report with Jet Air. He asked how management and maintenance is done in Galesburg? Harrol Timmons said that someone in Public Works does the paperwork, management, grants, etc. There is someone from Parks that does the mowing and the Streets Department cleans the runways. The only difference from Iowa City is that the City employees are from different departments and not assigned to the Airport. Mascari said one thing that he would like to pursue was a mention of a land swap. He said if the Commission took two or three lots and turned them over to the City, in exchange for the money owed on the hangars, the Commission would come close to breaking even. Robnett said she would suggest the Council change the Airport from an enterprise fund to a general fund, such as they did recently with Transit. She said it might change the expectations, although the goal would still be to work toward self- sufficiency. O'Neil said there are some factual errors in the report. He said, as an example, that ABS said the Commission spent $ 5 million dollars on the ACP infrastructure. O'Neil said there were several pages dedicated to how to hold an open house. O'Neil said the annual fly-in and open house hosted by the Commission and SERTOMA is one of the more successful in Iowa. Mascari asked about the number of operations? O'Neil said the number of operations is counted and published by the IDOT. The numbers ABS used were numbers given to the Airport by the IDOT. O'Neil said the IDOT places counters on the runways for a week, four times a year. The number of operations is projected from those counts. The IDOT sent reports directly to ABS. ii, Actionable recommendations - Chapter 1 Thrower said there were two action items. The first dealt with increased involvement with the business community. He said that without any details in the report, he is assuming this referred to organizations like ICAD and the Chamber. Hartwig said the idea has merit and he thinks they are already doing that. He said he knows O'Neil was speaking to a group from the Chamber just last Tuesday. O'Neil said he does not turn down an opportunity to explain the Airport to groups, although he does not get asked that often. Robnett said ICAD would be a good group to talk to and she would volunteer to go with him. Some groups don't have speakers at their meetings. Thrower said the Commission should lay out a plan of which groups they would like to visit with. The second action item was to increase the interaction with the City Manager. Thrower said he felt there was a direct channel to the City Manager through the Airport Manager. O'Neil said he meets weekly with the rest of the Department Directors, usually to discuss upcoming Council meetings. O'Neil said that since the Commission meeting with the Council a year ago, he has provided the City Manager with information about the Airport on a more frequent basis. He said he provides the City Manager with a copy of the Commission's information packet so he is aware of issues being discussed by the Commission. Thrower said there is a unique relationship between the City Manager and the Airport Manager and it is a potentially a very positive relationship. The City Manager has a good perspective on what is going on in the City and Johnson County. O'Neil said the City staff meetings involve going over projects that the City is involved with as they relate to Council action. Mascari said the interactions with the City Manager should be documented in writing. O'Neil said memos sent to the City Manager discussing the Airport are always copied to the Commission. Mascari said he would like to see all conversations with the City Manager documented so the Commission has a record of the contacts. O'Neil said that could be done. Chapter 2 - The first action item is better record keeping. Thrower said this is something that needs more detail from ABS. Thrower asked if there is scheduled maintenance or is it handled if a problem develops? Thrower asked if it would be beneficial to have more preventative maintenance contracts? O'Neil said they have a couple of maintenance contracts, but experience would suggest not spending money on the service contract and repair things as they need it. O'Neil said the City has an HVAC contract and elevator maintenance. Mascari asked where the Airport might consider using a service contract? O'Neil said there aren't too many areas that would apply, maybe the self-service 100LL fuel pump. He said they do routine inspections of the Airport facilities and grounds. He does not know if paying for an outside service contract would be beneficial. A second action item was to continue to monitor rates and fees at comparable airports. Thrower asked O'Neil if that was done? O'Neil said rates at other airports are reviewed when there is an opportunity to change rates and fees. Continually monitoring rates on an annual or quarterly basis would not be productive if Iowa City's rates were locked in by leases. Robnett said she knows that in the past, the Commission has compared rates when negotiating leases. She said on a major lease, it might be good to have a professional appraiser value whatever property is being leased. The next action item suggested playing a stronger role in economic development of the area. Thrower said that is hard to argue against. He said the Commission might want to lay out a more specific course. Thrower said the next item, monitoring demographic business and University activity for aviation opportunities, is like the item before it. It is obvious the Commission should do this. Robnett said with the University being a research school, and cutting classes to meet budgets, it would be difficult to get the school interested in teaching aviation. She said there might be more success getting a community college interested in offering aviation classes. Robnett said that there might be an opportunity to foster more cooperation with the Daily Iowan to write positive articles about the airport and aviation. Mascari said he thought Iowa State offers aviation as a class. Robnett said they do, through their Engineering School. She said Iowa State is more applied engineering than Iowa. Iowa's is research based. Robnett said maybe the University would be interested in some of the property is the Aviation Commerce Park. Thrower said maybe Kirkwood College would be interested in being more involved in aviation at the Iowa City campus. Robnett said it would be great to have private and instrument classes, as well as A & P classes. Mascari said he thought the FBO had tried that with Kirkwood in the past. Thrower said the last action item for Chapter 2 was covered in previous discussions. Chapter 3 - The first action item was that the FBO/Manager should take a more active role in management and development of the airport. Thrower said this issue was covered as part of the opening review of the findings. Mascari said that the Airport Manager is essential when it comes to obtaining grants and doing the day to day maintenance. He said he would not be comfortable having the FBO doing those things for the Airport. Thrower said the question is would the City be willing to pay the amount of money needed hire the resources to write grants comparable to the resource they already have in the airport manager?. Robnett said the FBO could be asked how much they would charge to do different duties at the Airport. Mascari said the Airport needs a person to carry out the ideas and objectives of the Airport. He said it is important to maintain a manager. Hartwig asked if there isn't some conflict with the FBO being the manager? He said that is one of the reasons the City and Commission wanted to separate that in the past. O'Neil said there were several reasons for the City wanting their own manager, the increasing conflict of interest being the last straw. He said ICFS was paid several thousand dollars per year, plus income from the t-hangars. Hartwig said you need both the FBQ and a manager, but they need to work together. Thrower said you could contract out management services, but have you saved any money in the end? Mascari asked Harrol Timmons how they operate in Galesburg. Timmons said he used to be the airport manager, but not any more. He said the official manager is in the Public Works Department and does the paperwork. A city park employee does the mowing. The City street employees plow the runways. Mascari asked if plowing the airport was a priority? He said it is a priority basis for two or three trucks. Timmons said Galesburg also has a pretty sizeable Street Department. Mascari asked about the daily management of the airport? Is it done by City staff? Timmons said it is now. They do not have an airport commission. As far as revenue, he pays hangar rent similar to the way he does in Iowa City. All the hangar revenue goes to the City. The airport also has over 400 acres of very good farmland that generates $ 60,000 to $90,000 per year revenue. He said at one time they had airlines, which allowed them to get additional grants to develop the airport. He said he was airport manager until last year. He said the airport does not get charged for other City departments working at the airport. Mascari asked if the airport is an enterprise fund? Timmons said no, it is a very uncomplicated system. Timmons gave a brief history of the Galesburg Airport, including the City trading the old airport site in town for a 600 + acre site at the edge of town. Mascari thanked Timmons for his information. He said there are several things at Galesburg that help the airport's budget. Number one, it is not an enterprise fund. Number two, there are no interdepartmental loans to repay and no charge-backs. He said Iowa City's budget would be better balanced if the situation were the same as in Galesburg. Timmons said there has always been a cooperative effort within the City towards the airport. Thrower said the next action item said to begin implementation of the suggested new organizational recommendations. He said there is no consensus from the Commission to act on that recommendation. He said that item can be pulled off. Robnett said if the Council was interested in pursuing this item, they could develop an RFP to develop a cost comparison. The next recommendation was continued oversite of the Airport by the Airport Commission. Thrower said that is not an actionable item by the Commission. The fourth action item is that the City Manager should maintain a full-time position on the Airport Commission, as a representative of the Mayor's administration. Thrower said this does not appear to be an actionable item. Make adjustments to the lease agreements is the next item. Thrower said there are efforts underway in that regard. Thrower said the efforts for aggressive joint marketing will be discussed later. He said there has been some discussion to that in relation to the Aviation Commerce Park. The next item is to restructure advisory and communications distribution to City leaders. Thrower said, simply put, this is as simple as keeping everyone briefed. Mascari said this involves the Commission reporting regularly to the Council. He said there should be a renewed effort to do this. Thrower said the Mayor and at least one of the Council members were at the fly-in breakfast. The management team needs to be able to manage several goals simultaneously was the next item. Thrower said he thought O'Neil multi-tasked very well. '7 The ninth item was to seek development and installation of a precision landing approach. Thrower said there is a runway extension project and an obstruction mitigation project currently going on. He said he does not know if ABS was aware of those projects in the context of this statement. Mascari said Council and Commission members visited with the FAA in Kansas City to discuss this issue. An equipment manufacturer spoke at a Commission meeting. Robnett said the Commission also informed the Council that the United hangar needed to be moved because it was an obstruction to implementing the Master Plan. Robnett said the preliminary numbers generated by H.R. Green should be sent to the Council. O'Neil will send that information to the Council. Blum, from H.R. Green, said the report says that Runway 17/35 will close when the obstruction mitigation project is completed and an instrument approach is installed. He said it was his understanding that the runway would be closed when the extension of Runway 07/25 is completed. Mascari said the thought the runway would remain open until there is a replacement approach on Runway 25. O'Neil said that issue should be resolved. Blum said the Master Plan identifies the closing timeframe as when the extension is completed. Hadwig asked Timmons what his view was of having an instrument approach? Timmons said that increasing the runway length and an ILS would double the jet fuel sales. Timmons said the runway length is the most important project. Mascari asked Timmons about a WAS approach? Timmons said it would be several years away. Hartwig said he thought the physical installation of the light system might be difficult. Blum said the esthetics have not been discussed. Robnett said the Commission needs to determine how realistic getting an iLS is. She asked O'Neil how likely it would be to get funding for an ILS? O'Neil said the Commission is getting conflicting information from the FAA. The division that designs and installs the instrumentation says it can be sited in Iowa City. The Planning and Programming division has indicated that it is not a priority for funding in Iowa City. Robnett said ABS left out funding for an ILS in their analysis. Mascari said one problem to solve is how to get the FAA to pay for maintaining an ILS. He said this would be $60,000 to $'70,000 per year. The next recommendation is to maintain a high level of safety and security. O'Neil said he met with TSA and IDOT to discuss upcoming safety and security issues. O'Neil said there are no mandates at this time. He said a lot of the things being recommended because of September 11 were already being done at the Airport. He said this would include having Iockable hangars, fencing around the Airport, and controlling access to the airside of the Airport. He was told that Iowa City is ahead of many airports in eastern Iowa as far as safety and security are concerned. The last action item is to provide excellent service. O'Neil said he believes this is absolutely an example of a joint effort between the City and the FBO. The tenants on the field are the Commission's customers. Jet Air has an excellent reputation for customer service. Chapter 4 - The first item was to adopt a leasing policy. Thrower said that ABS included a template. O'Neil said many of the suggestions in this section are things the Commission is doing. They do not have a formal leasing policy or rates and charges policy, but they do have minimum standards, uniform lease language, and security deposits. O'Neil said the outlines given were a good starting point to develop policies. He said the examples included in the report were probably adopted from AAAE or some other organization. The sixth action item is to prepare and maintain emergency phone numbers and addresses for all tenants. O'Neil said he has phone numbers for the tenants, but not as an emergency document. Thrower said this could be an actionable item. The last item was to negotiate a separate operating agreement with the FBO. Thrower said this had been discussed earlier and the idea rejected. Mascari asked what documents ABS received? O'Neil said he sent everything they requested that he had, including the Minimum Standards. Mascari wanted to know why ABS said they need to develop Minimum Standards? Thrower said it was not because it wasn't provided. Chapter 5 - Robnett said that she thought there should be more money in the budget to send O'Neil to more conferences. O'Neil said he has tried to go to one national conference a year. He said that as far as networking is concerned, the FAA conference in Kansas City and the Iowa Aviation conference are very important. Robnett said education is very important in keeping the Airport proactive. She said this is well-spent marketing money. O'Neil said AAAE has conferences for airport management and owners and NATA is the national organization for FBOs and aviation businesses. Both sponsor national conferences Timmons said that in Illinois there is an annual conference. O'Neil said Iowa does same thing and the FAA, the IDOT, the Iowa Public Airports Association and airport operators are invited. Robnett said she recommends going to national conferences. She said most of the conferences she has been to are invaluable. Another item was to conduct surveys. O'Neil said the IDOT is going to provide posters and forms to collect data on who is using the airports in Iowa and what their ~'easons were for being in the individual communities, such as business, recreation, etc. Chapter 6 - The first item is to reduce and/or eliminate tax subsidy to the Airport. Mascari said the FAA grant assurances obligate the airport to work towards self- :sufficiency. ']'he next item is to increase t-hangar rates and flowage fees. Thrower said this has already been discussed. Item three was to increase fuel volumes. Thrower said increasing the runway length and installing a precision approach should increase fuel volumes. Mascari said :some of the increase is up to the FBO to market their services. There could be · football game-day specials. Hartwig said traffic is not as heavy as it used to be on game days. O'Neil said it depends on the weather, whom the University is playing and what kind of season the team is having. The next action item was to restructure management to reduce overhead. Thrower said this is a reoccurring theme in the report. Mascari said the Commission might want to think about taking a look at the possibility of maybe reducing the maintenance worker to part time. Action item five was to develop milestone incentives for the FBO. Robnett said she thought there was some conflict with this. She said ASB suggested that the FBO get more active and generate more income and share that profit with the Commission. She said she doesn't think any FBO would agree with that idea. Thrower said the information shared by Timmons about the tenant constructing a building with their own money and the City securing Iow cost financing may have some possibilities. Mascari said something happened similar to that in Iowa City. O'Neil said that the FBO built an addition to a building. The City told him that if he built the building and finance it and they would pay the monthly mortgage payment. He would pay the City rent for the building. It will be a 30- year agreement. Eventually, the FBO, who was then the manager, convinced the City that instead of paying rent, he would just pay his own mortgage payment. Simplified, he ended up with his rent fixed for 30 years. The FBO was supposed to do the maintenance on the part of the building he built, and the Airport was to maintain the old part of the building. The building was to be in good repair when the Airport took over the maintenance after the 30 years. It didn't work out. O'Neil said a better agreement would need to be written if the Commission wanted to explore an option like that. Another action item was to improve financial tracking of revenues and expenses. Thrower said this was covered earlier. O'Neil said that after Commission discussions with the Council, the Accounting Department now does the billing. Thrower asked O'Neil if he could run a report that would tell if someone was behind in their rent? O'Neil said he could run a report, but does not do that on a regular basis. He relies on the Accounting Department to let him know if they are having trouble collecting rent and if they needed him to intervene. Thrower said the review of the direct and indirect economic impact of the Airport was discussed earlier. Robnett said the Commission might have to hire someone that is an expert in the field to conduct an economic impact report. Action item eight suggests negotiating a land swap of industrial park property. Mascari and Robnett said they liked that idea. Thrower said that is an actionable item. The next item is to complete a facilities audit and facilities need audit. Thrower asked if there was a need for an outside audit. Mascari said the budgets have always been in order. O'Neil said the City does an audit every year. Occasionally, capital projects are selected that they would like to audit in more detail. There have been Airport projects selected and there have not been any problems providing additional information of the accounting on the projects. Thrower said facilities needs are assessed with the annual budgets. Mascari said additional hangar space is built only after there is a big enough waiting list. O'Neil said airside needs are l0 discussed in the Master Plan. O'Neil said the Commission would be working on next year's budget soon. Mascari asked about maintaining the asphalt by the north t-hangars? O'Neil said that the best solution would be to replace the asphalt. Because the Commission does not have the funding for this, O'Neil recommended slurry-coating the asphalt. It has been put in the budget the last couple of years, but has been removed at the Council level. O'Neil said the budget would be on the agenda the next month. The last item listed was to complete an energy and environmental study. O'Neil said the Airport, in conjunction with the runway project, has been working on an environmental study for the last 10 months. An energy audit was conducted by the City a few years ago and Mid American routinely conducts energy audits for their customers. They compare the Airport's energy use as compared to other commercial customers. Mascari said this report is listed as a draft. He wanted to know if there were going to be changes? Thrower said the report was presented to the Commission. ABS will come to town and discuss the report with the Council and Commission and clarifications can be included. iii. Determine next steps - Thrower said the purpose of the draft is to provide for an interaction between the Commission, the Council and ABS. The document logically describes key elements of concern. How does the Commission want to focus the discussion and ask questions? Mascari said he would like to review the items with ABS before meeting with the Council. He wou;d like to have a meeting with the whole Commission as opposed to a subcommittee. O'Neil said Michael Hodges plans to be in Iowa City about an hour before the meeting on September 22. Thrower said the Commission could meet and have a conference call with ABS. Thrower asked O'Neil to schedule a meeting for September 16 at 5:30 p.m. Robnett said ABS did not talk to the Commission members individually and she would like more interactions. She said some of the marketing information would be helpful. The Commission directed O'Nei; to have at least Michael Hodges available for the conference call. O'Neil said he would explain that the Commission wants some clarification on some of the action points so they will be able to explain things to Council. g. Runway 07 project i. Timeline - O'Neil said he gave the Commission a memo outlining a timeline for selecting a consultant. O'Neil said there were six responses to the RFQ. He would recommend shortening the list to three and interviewing the finalists. Thrower said he would need some type of criteria to short-list the companies. O'Neil said he would recommend using the FAA consultant selection criteria. He included a copy of the criteria in the Commission's information packet. O'Neil said he would shorten the FAA criteria list and put it in a form that is easier for the Commission. Thrower asked the Commission if they wanted O'Neil to provide them with a shod-list of firms to interview? Mascari said that is what he would prefer. Robnett said she agreed. O'Neil said he has read a large number of proposals for projects, both for the Airport and on committees for the IDOT and he thought the six proposals, as a group, were some of the best he had seen. He said any one of the firms could do the project. He said the consultants all have spent time at the Airport, getting an understanding of the project and trying to understand exactly what the Commission wants to accomplish from the project. Thrower said he knows the City builds projects all the time and wondered if the City has some criteria that could be used to supplement the FAA criteria? O'Neil said he would contact Public Works or Planning for criteria. The Commission asked O'Neii to utilize downtown resources and give them a list of three to interview. iv. Selection process - O'Neil said he would send the Commission a list of three companies. He said the Commission could conduct telephone interviews, have a subcommittee interview and make a recommendation or have the whole Commission interview. In the past, the entire Commission has interviewed the firms. Thrower asked how the criteria for narrowing the list are any different than selecting the final firm? He wanted to know if the Commission should be sensitive to price, or if quality was the most important factor?. O'Neil said the written criteria would be the same, but the personal contact would give the Commission additional information. O'Neil explained the FAA criteria and said price can not be a factor. Price can be discussed only after a selection is made and the contract is being negotiated. If the Commission can not negotiate a contract with their first choice, they must move on to their second choice. The FAA wants the selection to be on quality, not price. Thrower said if you had to re-advertise because you could not come to terms on a contract with any of your firms, it would send a message to those that apply again the second time of what you expected. O'Neil said that it has been his experience that firms that apply for FAA projects have done their homework and know how much the project is worth. There is an industry standard on what their fees will be. The FAA also reviews the contracts and the fees and will let the sponsor know if they fees are out of line. Thrower asked what would separate the firms if they all meet the FAA criteria and price can not be considered? O'Neil said it would end up being whom the Commission was most comfortable with in the interview. Mascari said it would be a matter of personal comfort and intuition. They all have the basics to offer and each have areas where they are strong. Thrower said he would like to see if there is some other criteria out there to assist them in the selection process. O'Neil said he would try to find some additional criteria. In the past, Mascari said O'Neil has supplied the Commission with interview questions so that the interviews are consistent. Thrower asked if the Commission wanted to have a special meeting or wait until the October meeting? Robnett said they could discuss this at their special meeting on September 16. O'Neil said he would suggest the interviews be limited to 30 or 40 minutes and be a question and answer format. ]2 CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT: Thrower said he is very comfortable as chairperson through the meeting with ABS, but he would like to have on the agenda at the October meeting the election of a permanent chairperson and vice-chairperson. O'Neil said the appointment of the new commission member is October 14. COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: Robnett said she would contact the University marketing department to see if the Commission could get a student team to help with marketing. Mascari asked if O'Neil had done anything with a request from Mr. Hinckley for some dirt near his property. O'Neil said he would take care of his request. Mascari said the Commission needs to look at whether the Airport needs a maintenance worker in order to reduce the budget. O'Neil said the time to discuss it is when the budget is being discussed. It will fit in with the discussion of the business plan. O'Neil said the budget coming out from Finance would have very little flexibility. Thrower said that if the Commission would look at reducing the maintenance worker's time, the work would still have to get done by someone. He said it would be important to address this at budget time because some other department will have to pick up the work. Mascari said it might be a matter of cutting services. Robnett noted that the City has said they were trying not to lay anyone off and the personnel reductions would be dealt with by attrition where possible. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: O'Neii said a letter was sent to City Council, explaining the Commission's discussion of the United hangar. O'Neil said he explained to one of the newspapers that the FAA was involved with this project because it is a safety issue, not because the building may have some historical significance, it is complicated by the fact that the hangar is a safety problem and may have significance. The building is an obstruction. It was discussed that the cost estimates generated by H. R. Green should be forwarded to the Council. O'Neil will send a letter to Council with the estimates. A copy of the revised by-laws was included in the Commission packet. The question was raised on whether the by-laws needed to be reviewed by Council. O'Neil said he has discussed this with Dulek and they thought the Commission by-laws were treated like those of the Library and do not go to Council. There was a list of Council candidates included in the Commission packet. An article was included in the packet that included a graph of the per cent of the general fund paid out for each department. The bottom of the graph was the animal shelter, at 1%. The Airport was not on the graph. The amount of funding from the general fund for the Airport is less than 1%. There was an article in the packet about improvements to Council Bluffs. They are a reliever airport. Iowa City looked into being designated as a reliever, but Cedar Rapids is not over capacity. There is a copy of the Iowa Public Airports newsletter in the packet. The Iowa Aviation Conference is in Des Moines on October 16 & 17. O'Neil said he explained earlier that ITS has a limit on the size of e-mails going out and that contributed to the delay in the Commission getting the report from ABS. O'Neil said he received a call, asking if the Airport could use up to 130,000 cubic yards of fill. O'Neil said he would find a place for it if the contractor got the bid. Thrower asked if fill dirt is tested before it is placed on the Airport? O'Neil said he would check with Public Works. The last two fill projects were managed by the Public Works Department. O'Neil said he met with officials from the TSA and IDOT. He said he discussed safety with the TSA and airport projects with the IDOT. Ron Duffe, from Jet Air, asked to address the Commission. He said that there are areas on the runways that are pooling up during heavy rains. O'Neil said overlays are planned for in the Master Plan. They will depend on FAA funding. Mascari asked about the commercial lots on Riverside Drive? O'Neil said there has been discussion about marketing the property directly south of the entrance, but it has not been a priority project. Thrower said that is mentioned in the Planning Departments South Central District Plan. SET NEXT MEETING: The next regular Airport Commission meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2003, at 5:45 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:47 p.m. Baron Thrower, Acting Chairperson 14 MINUTES APPROVED IOWA CITYBOARD OFADJUSTMENT WEDNESDAY, AUGUST13,2003-5:00P.M. CIVIC CENTER-COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Vince Maurer, Carol Alexander, Dennis Keitel MEMBERS ABSENT: Eric Gidal, Mike Paul STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sarah Holecek OTHERS PRESENT: Joe Holland, Chris Pose, Dean Clermont CALL TO ORDER: Vice-Chairperson Dennis Keitel called the meeting to order at 5:03 P.M. ROLL CALL: Maurer, Alexander, and Keitel present. CONSIDERATION OF THE JULY 9, 2003 BOARD MINUTES: Motion: Maurer moved to approve the July 9, 2003 minutes, Alexander seconded. Motion carried 3-0. SPECIAL EXCEPTIQNS: EXC03-00007. Public hearing regarding an application submitted by David Long for a special exception to permit off-street parking on a lot separate from the use served in the Medium-Density Single-Family (RS- 8) zone at 925 and 927-29 N. Dodge St. Miklo reported that the applicant owns two properties. He said that the property at 925 N. Dodge requires three parking spaces, and the property at 927-29 requires six spaces, for a total of nine spaces. Currently, there are only five conforming parking spaces on the two properties. Miklo said that a ravine in the back makes it difficult to provide parking in the area. He said that the applicant originally submitted an application to provide shared parking with most of it being on 925 N. Dodge. He said that a revised site plan has been received showing a shift in the lot line so that six spaces for the duplex are provided on that property, and three spaces for the other lot are provide on that property, but they still share a common driveway and aisle. Miklo said that the plan provides for removal of parking from the front yard and one curb cut and driveway onto Dodge Street, consolidating the parking. Miklo said that staff finds that the plan does generally comply with the parking requirements and the provisions in the Code that allow the Board to approve shared parking arrangements. He said that staff does recommend that shrubbery be added to help screen the parking given that there is such a large area of paving in a residential zone. He said that a legal agreement will be required providing for the continued use of the shared driveway and aisles. He said that, provided this agreement is supplied, the proposed site plan meets the conditions necessary for a special exception to allow parking with aisles and driveways located on a separate lot. Miklo said that staff recommends approval subject to compliance with the parking site plan dated July 31, 2003, which provides for nine conforming parking spaces, paving of the parking area and drives and aisles, consolidation of driveways and curb cuts into a single driveway and curb cut, restoration of the soil and grass cover to all areas left unpaved and paved areas removed because of the curb cut and driveway consolidation. He said that staff also recommends that in addition to what is showing on the site plan, some sort of evergreen screen or hedge be provided in this vicinity to screen the large parking area. In addition, Miklo reiterated that this will be subject to the applicant providing a written agreement properly executed by the owner showing the retention of the aisles and driveway that would be binding upon successors and assignees as a covenant running with the land. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes August 13, 2003 Page 2 Public Hearing Opened Joe Holland introduced himself as an attorney representing Dave Long, the owner of the property. He said that he asks the Board to approve the special exception. He said that the proposal will benefit the properties and bring them, as far as they can, into conformance with the Zoning Ordinance. He said that the applicant has no problems with any of the conditions that staff proposes. In response to a question from Keitel, Holland said that no new abstracts will need to be prepared for the parcels until such time as either property is sold. Holland stated that they would likely do an Auditor's Plat to separate the two parcels and provide separate legal descriptions for purposes of granting the cross easements. In response to a question from Keitel, Miklo said that the property conforms to the setback requirements. Public Hearinq Closed Motion: Maurer moved that EXC03-00007, an application for a special exception to permit off- street parking on a lot separate from the use served in the Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) zone at 925 and 927-29 N. Dodge Street be approved subject to compliance with the parking site plan dated July 31, 2003, which provides for nine conforming parking spaces, paving of the parking area and drives and aisles, consolidation of driveways and curb cuts into a single driveway and curb cut, restoration of the soil and grass cover to all areas left unpaved and paved areas removed because of the curb cut and driveway consolidation; and subject to an evergreen screen or hedge adjacent to Dodge Street to screen the large parking area; and subject to the applicant providing a written agreement properly executed by the owner showing the retention of the aisles and driveway that would be binding upon successors and assignees as a covenant running with the land and a lot line adjustment for the boundary between the two properties. Alexander seconded. Maurer said he would vote in favor of the application. He said he feels this will be a tremendous improvement for the parking area. Alexander said she will vote to approve the proposal. She said it meets all the specific standards that are addressed for this particular situation. Keitel stated he would vote in favor of the proposal. He said he does feel there are any hindrances on any of the surrounding properties, and that all the general criteria have been met. He said he sees this as a win-win situation for both properties. The motion was approved on a vote of 3-0. EXC03-00008. Public hearing regarding an application submitted by MidAmerican Energy Company for a special exception to expand an electric utility substation, reduce minimum required lot size and reduce required yards in the Interim Development Office/Research Park (ID-ORP) zone at 2875 Harvest Road. Miklo stated that access to the property is from Harvest Road, which goes to the east and travels north- south back to Scoff Boulevard. He showed an aerial photograph of the property with outlines of the proposed expansion. Miklo said that a utility substation was established on this property in 1972. In 1983 the property was rezoned to Interim Development/Office Research Park, which did not allow a utility substation so this property became non-conforming. He said that a recent amendment to the Zoning Code now permits substations in the ORP zone subject to certain conditions, and the applicant is now applying for a special exception to expand the existing utility substation due to increased demands to serve the northeast part of Iowa City. Miklo said that the proposed site plan shows evergreen screening on the east and south boundaries of the fenced area of the utility substation, and 10 large trees as recommended by staff on the south and east boundaries of the property to provide a buffer from the substation and any future development in the office zones to the south and east. Miklo said that there is very little likelihood that the publicly owned property to the north will ever develop. He said that staff feels there are hills and trees in this area that Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes August 13, 2003 Page 3 provide a sufficient block of the view from 1-80. He said there are no plans for the City to improve Harvest Road at that point, so it is a fairly isolated property. Miklo said that staff feels the proposed expansion of the utility substation meets the requirements of the Code. In addition, the applicants are requesting a reduction of the required yard area which is normally seven acres in this zone. He said the actual property is just under four acres. He said they are also requesting reductions in the large setbacks that are normally required in the zone. He said that both the minimum lot area and setbacks in this zone are intended to provide a campus-like environment for office development. He said that this use is quite unique in the Office Research Park and, in staff's view, it is not necessary for such a use which is not visited by the general public and is not highly visible to require the large setbacks and lot area. He said, in staff's view, the proposed landscaping compensates for the reductions. Miklo said that staff recommends approval of EXC03-00008, an application for a special exception to permit a utility substation facility in the Office Research Park (ID-ORP) zone, reduction of minimum lot size and modification of the yard requirements, provided ten large trees chosen from the list of recommended trees established by the City Forester be planted and maintained along the south and east sides of this property. Public Hearin,q Opened Chris Pose identified himself as an attorney representing the applicant. He said they were in full agreement with the staff report, and are thankful to staff for taking the time to work with them on the project. He explained that MidAmerican thought they had the ability to expand the substation at this location, and when they were obtaining the building permit, it was discovered the property had been rezoned, so they worked to get the ordinance amended and applied for a special exception. Public Hearing Closed Motion: Alexander moved for approval of EXC03-00008, an application for a special exception to permit a utility substation facility in the Interim Development Office Research Park (ID-ORP) zone, reduce the minimum lot size and modify the yard requirements, provided ten large trees chosen from the List of Recommended Trees, as established by the City Forester, be planted and maintained along the south and east sides of the property. Maurer seconded. Maurer stated he would vote in favor. Alexander said she would vote in favor. She said that this exception will not affect the use, enjoyment, value, development potential or improvement of surrounding property, nor should it have ill effect on the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. Keitel stated he would vote in favor. He said he thinks we need to keep the utility company operating efficiently. The motion was approved on a vote of 3-0. EXC03-00009. Public hearing regarding an application submitted by Southgate Development for a special exception to permit a drive-through/carry-out restaurant in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 1911 Broadway Street. Miklo stated that this property is within the Pepperwood Plaza shopping center. He said that the site plan shows the actual floor plan for the restaurant with the seating towards the front. Miklo said that the seating area is less than 50% of the overall square footage of the restaurant and therefore, for zoning purposes, is classified as a carry-out/take-out restaurant. He said that those types of restaurants require a special exception in the community commercial zone because they often generate much more traffic and quick turnover than a sit-down restaurant. In this case, staff does find that the proposed location meets the conditions necessary for an auto- and truck-oriented use in the CC-2 zone. He stated that Pepperwood Plaza is easily accessible by car. Traffic generated by this proposed use would be fairly minor in comparison to the total traffic potential for the shopping center. He said there is more than Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes August 13, 2003 Page 4 sufficient parking available to serve this use as well as the other business in the shopping center, and the proposed business and building comply with all other zoning requirements. Miklo said that staff recommends approval of EXC03-00009, an application for a special exception to establish an auto- and truck-oriented use in a Community Commercial zone at 1911 Broadway Street. Public Hearing Opened None. Public Hearinq Closed Motion: Maurer moved for approval of EXC03-00009, an application for a special exception to establish an auto- and truck-oriented use in a Community Commercial zone at 191t Broadway Street. Alexander seconded. Alexander stated she would vote to approve this exception. She said it will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. She said it would not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress, and it conforms to the applicable regulations and standards of the zone in which it is to be located as well as being consistent with the short-range Comprehensive Plan. Maurer said he would vote to approve. Keitel stated he would vote to approve. The motion was approved on a vote of 3-0. EXC03-00011. Public hearing regarding an application submitted by Dean and Dawn Clermont for a special exception to allow the reduction of rear yard by enclosing an existing deck in the Low-Density Multi-Family {RM-12) zone at 673 Scott Park Road. Miklo showed images of the property and outlined the property in relationship to its neighbors, including the location of the existing deck. He said that this property requires a 40 foot setback from Scott Boulevard, an arterial street. He said the existing deck is only 36 feet from the property line. He stated that decks are allowed to encroach in the yards or setback areas; however, if it is to be enclosed it becomes part of the building and would have to observe the 40 foot setback unless the Board grants a special exception to reduce that setback. Miklo said that in considering reduction of yard requirements, there are issues that the Board should consider such as the application should be a unique situation. He said that in staff's view, this is quite a unique situation in, because of the subdivision design, this property has three front yards - one on Scott Park Drive, one on Court Street and one on Scott Boulevard. He said it is a zero lot line so it has no yard to the south. He said there are very few properties in 10wa City that have this sort of circumstance, and it makes it difficult to provide for things that are normally found in rear yards. Miklo said the other issue the Board needs to look at is, is there a practical diff~culty to complying with the ordinance? Are there options for the applicant? He said that staff considered options, and felt there are no viable options in order to create a sun porch for this dwelling. He said there is landscaping and change in topography which would make it difficult to put a porch such as this on this property. Miklo said that the yard along Scott Boulevard, which is considered a front yard, really does serve as a rear yard for this particular property and the others up and down this street. He said that because of the way this building was designed to be staggered, the building itself sits a little more than 40 feet from the street right-of-way. However, if the deck is enclosed it would become part of the building and would sit only 34 feet from the right-of-way. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes August 13, 2003 Page 5 Miklo said that one of the normal standards for setbacks is how substantial is the exception? He said that in this case it is only 3% of the yard, and in staff's view, that is a minimal exception. Miklo said that staff recommends that EXC03-00011, an application for a special exception to reduce the required front yard setback along Scott Boulevard from forty feet to thirty-four feet in the area of the balcony indicated on the submitted site plan for a single-family home in the Low-Density (RM-12) zone be approved. Public Hearing Opened Dean Clermont identified himself as the current owner of the property. He reiterated that it is a very unique property situation along two major arterial roads. He said that Scott Park Drive is currently the heavier trafficked artery of the two, but as current development to the north occurs, Court Street will also become an increased traffic area. He said that because of the western exposure and the traffic, they would like to enclose the deck into a glassed-in porch to enjoy their property. He stated that they did not find out that they needed the special exception until the permit application was in the process, and the remodeling company has halted construction. He thanked the Board for hearing the exception, and asked that they approve it. Public Hearinq Closed Motion: Alexander moved for approval of EXC03-0001f, an application for a special exception to reduce the required front setback along Scott Boulevard from forty feet to thirty-four feet in the area of the balcony indicated on the submitted site plan for a single-family home in the Low- Density Multi-Family (RM-12) zone. Maurer seconded. Keitel stated he would vote in favor. He said that he feels it is a quite unique situation having frontages along three sides of the house, and feels the applicant has met the review requirements. He does not feel it will increase population density or cause a substantial change or detriment to the neighborhood. He said he thinks it will be an improvement. Alexander said she will vote in favor for the masons stated. Maurer said he would vote in favor for the reasons stated. The motion was approved on a vote of 3-0. OTHER None. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION None. ADJOURNMENT Maurer moved to adjourn, seconded by Alexander. The meeting adjourned at 5:43 PM. Board Chairperson Board Secretary Minutes submitted by Neana Saylor FINAL/APPROVED MINUTES IOWA CITY BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2003, 4:00 P.M. LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM IOWA CITY CIVIC CENTER, 410 E. WASHINGTON STREET IOWA CITY, IA MEMBERS PRESENT: John Roffman, Gary Haman, Tim Fehr, Anna Buss, Steve Buckman, Wayne Maas MEMBERS ABSENT: Doug DuCharme STAFF PRESENT: Tim Hermes (Sr. Building Inspector), Sue Dulek (Asst. City Attorney), Jann Ream (Code Enforcement Asst. acting as minute taker), Pat Hansen (Electrical Inspector), Bernie Osvald (Plumbing Inspector), Roger Jensen (Fire Marshall - arrives at 4:30) OTHERS PRESENT: Lee Klinkenborg, John Klinkenborg, Tara Klinkenborg (1521 Prairie Du Chien) Sally Blackmon (1026 Washington Street) RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Recommended by a unanimous vote (6-0) to approve the proposed amendments to the by-laws of the Board of Appeals. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Roffman called the meeting to order at 4:05 P.M. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Officer selection was discussed MOTION: Haman moved that John Roffman continue as Chairperson and Wayne Maas be Vice- Chairperson. Buss seconded. Motion passed unopposed. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES: Minutes from the December 2, 2002 were discussed. MOTION: Haman moved to accept the minutes. Buss seconded. Motion passed unopposed. Appeal the decision of the Buildinq Official because of incorrect interpretation of the code. (1521 Prairie Du Chien Road) Hermes explained that the adopted codes of Iowa City (2000 Uniform Plumbing Code and the 1999 National Electrical Code) require that plumbing and electrical work done in Iowa City be performed by licensed contractors. There are sections of these codes that allow for permits to be issued and work performed by home owners. Klinkenborg stated that these permits had been issued to him and then revoked by the City. Hermes said that permits were not revoked. There were three actual building permits issued for the work being done. The permit issued on 10/10/2002 included the fees for the electrical, plumbing and mechanical permits. Hennes stated that Klinkenborg assumed that permits for the electrical, plumbing and mechanical work had been issued and that this was the case - the permits had been issued. However, the issuance of the permits did not negate the requirement that the plumbing and electrical work be done by licensed contractors when a home is not owner occupied. Roffman asked if the property was owner occupied. Hennes stated that it was the City's determination that it was not owner occupied. Klinkenborg said that it was owner occupied at the time the permits were issued but because of the scope of the work being done at the property, it is not occupied by him at the present time. Photographs were circulated showing the present state of the house. Hennes said the City determined that the property could not have ever been owner occupied because it has not met the minimum requirements of the housing code for some time. He said that the property was purchased in February, 2002 by Klinkenborg. The electrical meter was removed in June of 2003 but there had been no usage at the property since August, 2001. The water meter was removed in January of 2001. Since there were no basic utilities being supplied or used at the property since before the current owner, the property could not be legally occupied. Klinkenborg asked if the owner was ever notified. Hennes replied that the previous owner was the person who had requested that the water meter be removed and the water account had never been re-activated. He said that the lack of these essential services would preclude the property from being owner occupied per the Iowa City housing code. Klinkenborg stated that that information was never communicated to him. Klinkenborg requested that the codes be read into the record. He proceeded to read code section 14-5C-23 that states an owner of an owner occupied dwelling is permitted to do his own work and because he had never been informed of the requirement for essential services and a certificate of occupancy had not been revoked for the properly, then he met the definition of an owner occupied property. Hennes disagreed. He stated that it was unclear if a certificate of occupancy was ever issued. Hansen added that the homeowner had not taken or passed the required homeowners electrical exam in order to do the work even if it was an owner occupied property. Klinkenborg said he was not made aware of the requirement but he was sure he could pass the test. Hansen said the test is not given after the work has commenced. By removing the electrical service to the house, work had commenced. Klinkenborg wondered why none of this information surfaced until eight months after the issuance of the building permit. Hennes replied that the building inspection department had not been called out to the job site except for a footing inspection until that time. When the work was inspected, the problem of licensing was discovered and the owner was notified then of the requirements. Hennes also stated that during that inspection, he asked the owner's brother who was there at the job site who was actually doing the plumbing. The brother replied that the father had done the work. Hennes reiterated that the permits were not revoked at that time; rather, the inspection card stated that the plumbing and electrical work would have to be done by a licensed contractor. Hennes reminded the Board of the language of the code that specifies that even on an owner occupied property, the work must be done by the owner himself. Buss asked about the extensiveness of the remodel and if they had inquired of the City what all of requirements for a project of that type would be. Klinkenborg replied that his father had picked the permit and asked that question. It was his understanding that they would be able to do the work. Hennes repeated that permits could be issued to the property owner but the work must still be preformed by a licensed contractor. Buss asked if a certificate of occupancy had ever been issued to the property. Hennes did not know for sure but considering when the house was built, he would guess that there was never a C.O. He explained as a matter of practice, C.O.'s were not revoked because it would be assumed that a remodel would bring the dwelling back to occupancy standards. Haman asked Klinkenborg if he was actually living in the house without essential services. Klinkenborg said that he would stay in the house on weekends. Hennes emphasized that the question to be determined by the Board was if licensed contractors were required to do the work at this project. Klinkenborg told the Board that he does intend to live at the house and if he had to pay licensed contractors to do the work, it would have a significant impact on the project. He felt that he was doing the right kind of job and bringing the house up to the standards of the neighborhood. Buckman stated that it is obvious that the house is not occupied now and could not have been occupied in the past since it did not have working plumbing. Buckman asked that if someone moved into a house now that did not have water or electrical service, would they be evicted. Hennes said that if the City was made aware of the situation, they would pursue vacating the house. Klinkenborg wondered why he had not been told of these requirements. Hennes said that the City did not know he was occupying a house without essential services. Haman stated that a dwelling being illegally occupied does not constitute an owner occupied dwelling. Haman said he could not see how the work could be done by the owner if it was not owner occupied. MOTION: Haman moved that since the dwelling could not have been legally occupied by the current owner, then he could not do the plumbing or electrical work in this dwelling and that the interpretation of the Building official that licensed contractors will be required to do the work is correct. Maas seconded. DISCUSSION: Roffman said that he did not feel the Board had any authority to override this requirement. There were no more comments. VOTE: The Board voted 6-0 to deny the appeal. Klinkenborg asked who staffed the Board and organized the meetings. Hennes stated that as the secretary of the Board, he fulfilled that function. Klinkenborg wanted to make sure that it was a matter of record that the official whose interpretation he was appealing staffed the Board. Ream clarified that Hennes did not pick or appoint the Board members - that the appointment of Board members was function of City Council. Appeal of the decision of the Buildinq Official because there are practical difficulties involved in carryin,q out the provisions of the code. (1026 Washinqton St.). Tim explained that the 2000 Uniform Plumbing Code specifies required clearances between plumbing fixtures and the clearances in a proposed bathroom at 1026 Washington Street could not be met because of the size of the bathroom. Osvald had reviewed the proposal with the homeowner at the site and determined that the required clear space in front of the stool would go within an inch of the shower. This would leave no room for the lavatory. Haman stated that if the lavatory was eliminated, then she would meet the clearances. Osvald concurred but stated that the presence of a lavatory was also required by code. Buss asked if there was another bathroom in the house. Osvald stated that there was a bathroom on the second floor but because of health reasons, the owner needed a bathroom on the ground level. Fehr asked if the lavatory had to be in the bathroom and if it could be just outside the bathroom. Osvald said it could be just outside but there is a problem with that since the kitchen is adjacent. He said that the code specifies that a kitchen sink could not be used because of sanitation issues. Discussion occurred concerning where the sink could be placed outside the bathroom. Buckman asked if the sink could be dropped into an island counter. Blackmon said that it might be possible but there were cabinets there. She stated that she was asking for a variance from the code since she really needed a bathroom on the first floor for health reasons and a major renovation of the 1st floor floor plan would significantly alter the traditional layout of a property in a conservation district. More discussion occurred about where the lavatory could be placed. Hennes stated that appeal was to prove there are practical difficulities in meeting the code and that there would appear to other options open to the homeowner such as putting the sink in the island counter just out the bathroom. Roffman stated that it wasn't the function of Board to solve the design problem of where the lavatory could go. The question before the Board was if there were practical difficulities or if there were other practical options. Blackmon stated that she believed there were practical difficulties. Roffman asked for a motion. MOTION: Haman moved that the appeal be denied because there were not practical difficulties and other options were available to the homeowner. Buss seconded. VOTE: The Board voted 6-0 to deny the appeal. Review of Bylaw revisons: Dulek pointed out the revisions that were being proposed in Article V and VII. Buckman asked if the required time frame for notification should be the same for all actions of the Board not just bylaw amendments. The Board agreed that the minimum time frame should be consistent and it should be three days except for notification of amendments to the by-laws which should be set at 14 days. MOTION: Buss moved that the proposed changes to the bylaws as amended be approved. Haman seconded. VOTE: The Boarded voted 6-0 to approve the changes to the bylaws. OTHER BUSINESS: The next meeting date was set for September 8, 2003 if there was an appeal. Some discussion occurred about what could done to clarify permitting and licensing issues for homeowners. Buss asked about what was occurring with 426 Bayard and the condemnation process. Dulek stated that the condemnation sheriff's jury was set for August 26th. Dulek also informed the Board that the State Supreme Court had ruled in favor of the City in that the City had jurisdiction in handicap accessilbilty issues not the State board. ADJOURNMENT: Haman moved to adjourn the meeting. Buss seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 P.M. John Roffman, Board of Appeals Chairperson Date FINAL/APPROVED IOWA CITY HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION EMMA HARVAT HALL JULY MINUTES - FINAL 410 E. Washington St. July 23, 2003 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lisa Beckmann, Paul Retish, Billie Townsend, Nick Klenske, Rick Spooner, MEMBERS ABSENT: Alice Mathis, Bob Peffer, Keri Neblett, David Shorr STAFF MEMBERS: Heather Shank 1. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting called to order at 7:05. 2 MINUTES: Confidential minutes of Special Session - May 29- Retish made motion to approve minutes as amended, Beckmann seconded the motion. Motion: Passed unanimously. Minutes of May 27 regular meeting: Townsend said that under the 3rd paragraph, third line it should road "Dulek would like to..." Next page, second line, the 223 should road 2-2-3. Last page of actual minutes it should read we are or we're on the fifth line. Also "it if" should read "if it." In response to Townsend's question, Shank indicated that ALJ was Administrative Law Judge. Spooner moved to accept the minutes as amended and Towndsend seconded the motion. Motion: Passed unanimously. Non- confidential minutes of May 29 Retish moved to accept, Beckmann seconded. Motion: Passed unanimously. 3. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None 4. REVISED HUMAN RIGHTS ORDINANCE: Shank stated that Retish's suggestions to add more language regarding the Commission's educational role was done. Shank has been engaging in some research on the human rights process as it was intended when initially drafted. She also has read some articles on Administrative Procedure written by law professor Arthur Bonfield. Bonfield was instrumental in drafting the original Civil Rights Act. Originally, the process intended the Coordinator to engage in conciliation and the attorneys represent the Commission in the public hearing. Shank provided the information she acquired to the attorneys. The revised ordinance will be in either the August or September minutes. Beckmann encouraged everyone to look over the revised ordinance when it arrives in the packet so people will be prepared to discuss it and vote on it. Shank said that she might note in a letter what has changed in the ordinance so that everyone will be aware of what to focus on. Shank said that she reviewed some of the ordinances from other communities and depending upon their staff, the investigators recommend probable cause to the director and the director makes the probable cause decision or the attorneys make the probable cause decision. At the public hearing the attorneys have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that discrimination occurred. Beckmann asked whether Bonfield contemplated lay people making decisions? Shank said said that it is unclear. Beckmann said that if he did, that brings the Commission back to the problem it has been struggling with. Shank said that the revised ordinance has not and will not be changed to the extent that the Commission members will be reading the cases again. Shank said that she recognizes that Commission members have never felt comfortable reading the cases. She added that the Commission would be involved at the public hearing phase. However, if the City Attorneys believe that a case is not litigation worthy, they will have the last word on the issue. Beckmann asked Shank to draft a summary of any changes and let the Commissioners know when the revised ordinance will be in the packet. Shank clarified that the revised ordinance has the Commission involved at the public hearing phase and the research she did has not affected the ordinance in anyway. Things have changed a groat deal since Bonfield first envisioned the human rights process. Townsend is concerned that the Commission is not going to benefit from the knowledge of the types of cases that come in. Beckmann said that she feels very strongly that the Commission should have an awareness of the cases. Shank said that she put case status descriptions on the agenda to discuss what information the Commission would like to see included so they feel more informed. Townsend again reiterated that not reviewing cases made her uncomfortable. Beckmann asked Townsend whether she had ever been involved in a case where she disagreed with the probable cause decision. Townsend responded that she had been involved in a case where there had to be a discussion regarding the finding. Beckmann responded that last fall there was a disagreement with the attorney's finding on a case. The Commission felt very, very, strongly that the law was wrong, not that the application of the law was wrong. The members of the team in that case felt very uncomfortable being in that position. Beckmann said that it felt awful and became a moot point. The lay people said wait a minute, these people have a case and the ~aw says, no they don't. The Commission's opinions were "heartfelt, in the pit of your stomach opinions that were irrelevant. Townsend said that if Council approves the ordinance, the charge of the Commission would change and focus on education. Shank reminded the Commission that their quasi-judicial role would be in effect during the public hearing phase. The Commission will make a decision as to whether they agree with the ALJ's decision. If the Commission agrees, the decision stands. If not, the Commission reviews the transcripts of the witnesses in the trial as well as the submitted documents. Beckmann commented that it is a different kind of power. Townsend asked how the Commission would know what the law is? Shank said that a great deal of information would be provided to the Commission so that the Commission will feel comfortable. Nothing is really changing but the Commission has not had a public hearing yet. Spooner said that he feels more comfortable with the bigger role as opposed to role of making the probable cause determination. He believes he will be more comfortable with the change. Retish said that he learned a long time ago that the law is not moral. It is based upon precedents and it a difficult thing to accept. Retish said that it is important for him to know how the public perceives what is happening to them. Therefore the information that the Commission accrues from the complaints that are brought to the human rights office is very important to him and he would like to read them. He wants to know the employers that people are having difficulty with. He wants to know the decisions that are made. There are two types of information he is interested in; whether a probable cause decision is reached and the whether there are cases coming in that are consistently against the same employer or employers. If that information is provided, the Commission will be able to educate in a broader sense by focusing on what is happening in the employment arena. Retish indicated that this is the information he does not want to lose but Beckmann pointed out that the Commission teams have only received a third of the information. Retish stated that the teams read the case and then decisions are signed. He wants a summation of all of the cases coming in and when a decision is made, a statement as to the basis for the decision. Beckmann indicated that she envisioned receiving the case summaries. Spooner said that even if the teams were not reading cases, it would be helpful if the Commission could read the investigative summaries. Beckmann indicated that the Commission could come in fifteen minutes early to read the summaries or Shank could call and let everyone know a summary is available. Shank agreed to ask the City Attorney's office whether it would be acceptable for all of the Commissioners to read the summaries. Townsend said reading the summaries would make her feel better about the process. 5. NEW BUSINESS: Alice Mathis has resigned. She fell in love and moved to Florida. Shank indicated that the vacancy would be announced at the next Council meeting in August. Beckmann indicated that Commissioners need to think about reapplying if their term will expire in January 2004. Beckmann described the trip that she took with Shank to Cedar Falls. Sue Joslyn, an ex-Commissioner asked Beckmann and Shank to address Iowa City's experience since adding sexual orientation to the Human Rights Ordinance and provide information that would assist the Cedar Falls Commission in 2 doing the same thing. Commissioners from Waterloo and Cedar Falls in addition to Council members attended the meeting. Beckmann's impression was that she and Shank would be having an informal conversation. Beckmann indicated that the meeting did not exactly turn out like she thought it would. Beckmann stated, "It was reasonably unpleasant I would say." Shank said that Joslyn told her things have only gotten worse. Beckmann indicated that Cedar Falls does not have a cohesive Commission. The Commission members do not have the same vision and some of them are trying to sabotage this effort as well as anything the Commission tries to do. Shank indicted that she sent information to Joslyn that the Iowa City Commission has collected over the years. Retish asked whether they believe information will change minds. Shank responded that the information she sent to Joslyn is the same information she provided to the Iowa Civil Rights Commission over the years and the Iowa Civil rights Act does not include sexual orientation as a protected category. Beckmann said that the Waterloo Commission seemed more receptive than Cedar Falls to the idea. She predicts that Waterloo will probably add sexual orientation before Cedar Falls. Spooner said that he is from Waterloo and it was his impression that the Waterloo Commission and Cedar Falls Commission were very different. Shank indicated that she has received several phone calls regarding a Muslim youth camp that has been approved by the Army Corp of Engineers for a site in North Liberty. The intent of the camp was to bring children together from different religious groups to facilitate communication and understanding of the different cultures. In a recent radio broadcast from Iowa City, a renowned broadcaster by the name of Gallagher came and the show that resulted was considered by many to be racist and hateful. Shank was criticized for not attending. She indicated that she has told people that it would be terrific if persons other than the usual suspects attended events that they viewed as racist. It would have a far bigger impact if people that normally never expressed concern actually did so in public. Shank also added that she told people that it was hard for Shank and the Commission members to attend every event. Beckmann asked whether the Commission should respond in anyway? Retish said that getting involved in a controversy regarding the content of the speech at a radio station put the Commission in a very uncomfortable position and resulted in the 1st Amendment public forum. Shank indicated that she believed the 1st Amendment forum was quite good and she would ask Cable to run it again. Beckmann said that the Commission could provide more education. Beckmann asked whether the Commission wanted to have a religious/ethnic public forum? Retish said that the population really doesn't understand the concept underlying the 1st Amendment. Maybe Bill Buss will write an article for the paper on the 1st Amendment. Shank asked whether the Commission wants to have a public forum. Retish said that the problem with this type of forum is that the panelist is being asked to be a representative of their religion. Beckmann said that maybe the Commission could have a public forum on religious freedom and the separation of church and state. Spooner said that someone could talk about what the framers of the Constitution meant by religious freedom and comparing it with times today. Beckmann asked how this could be done? Beckmann asked for volunteers to work on this. Spooner volunteered. Beckmann said that she would be involved. Beckmann said that some steps should be taken and brought back to the Commission at the next meeting. Shank said that there was a program on channel 12 and there were panelists from a great many areas. The moderator set up situations and challenging questions regarding the issues. It was an extraordinary show. Beckmann thought that idea was interesting and she would talk with Shank and Spooner about some details 6, OLD BUSINESS: Building Blocks to Employment: Shank reported that this event was well attended and 28 people were assisted with their resumes, cover letters, interviewing skills, etc. It was almost festive and a great success. Pride Festival: Bob Peffer, Shank, and Spooner were at the Commission table providing information and materials. Many more people stopped by than in past years and Spooner attributed that to the Harry Potter book that was on the table.. Spooner indicated that Peffer wanted everyone to know that a Frisbee hit him on the head but he was unharmed. Congolese Benefit: Shank assisted by developing the posters for the event. Night of a Thousand Dinners - Last year the Commission sponsored this event and the UNA is asking that it sponsor the event again this year. Listening Posts: No one has gone to Broadway because the programs are only during the day. Retish and Beckmann are going to the Senior Center. Breakfast: Townsend, Retish, Spooner, & Beckmann volunteered to choose the winners. People are sending in nominations but not asking for tickets. The deadline for nominations is September I but that is Labor Day so Beckmann suggested September 2 but then Shank realized that she had advertised that the deadline is indeed Sept 5.. Educational Outreach- program ideas: Klenske will put together the housing forum and the other suggestions already discussed should be put on the next agenda. Beckmann said that she is interested in Neblett's discussion with United Action for Youth. Retish said that he has been working with Mayor's Youth in the last three weeks. He is concerned that agencies do not work together because there is a small pot of money and many needs. There needs to be a better way to distribute the money without having the agencies compete. Ask them first how they are cooperating to meet this or that particular identified need. Case status descriptions - Discussed above. 7. REPORTS OF COMMISSIONERS: Retish: The situation in the world concerns him. Klenske: Indicated that he is impressed with the restaurant Thai Flavors because they give 20% of their income during a day of business to various organizations that need it. Spooner: Wanted to thank all of the men and women in the services that are in serving in Iraq. Townsend: Wanted to report that a well-known, well-respected councilman in New York City was shot today in City Hall. Beckmann: Indicated that she thought it was interesting that after the Supreme Court decision overturning Bowers v. Hardwick, Pat Robertson was praying for the demise of the three justices responsible for the decision. Shank mentioned that the story was in Time magazine. 8. STATUS OF CASES: Shank indicated the conciliation is scheduled for Monday the 28th in Emma Harvat Hall. Mediation has been scheduled in another case. Shank reported that 44 cases were resolved in the last fiscal year. 9. ADJOURNMENT: 8:32 P.M. 4 MINUTES APPROVED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 2, 2003 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Benjamin Chair, Ann Freerks, Don Anciaux, Jerry Hansen, Ann Bovbjerg, Dean Shannon, Beth Koppes STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, John Yapp, Mitch Behr OTHERS PRESENT: Dave Klockau, Lori KIockau, Sarah Walz, Steven E. Nelson, Amy Bouska CALL TO ORDER: Bovbjerg called the meeting to order at 7:35 pm. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. ANNOUNCEMENT OF VACANCIES ON CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: Bovbjerg said a list was posted on the bulletin board in the outer lobby of the current vacancies on the City's various boards and commissions. Citizens could help their City by volunteering to serve on a board, committee or study group and providing their input to the City ZONING / DEVELOPMENT ITEM: SUB03-00028/REZ03-00020, discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development for a rezoning of 119.94-acres from Interim Development Single-Family and Multi-Family Residential (ID-RS and ID-RM) to Planned Development Overlay, OPDH-5 and a Preliminary Plat of Sandhill Estates, a 146.48-acre, 378-1ot subdivision located south of Pepperwood Addition and east of South Gilbert Street. Yapp said the applicant had requested this item be deferred to allow them to further explore changes to the subdivision design, specifically: · the number of lots adjacent to the large open space along Covered Wagon Drive · home designs for lots narrower than 60-feet wide so it would not result in garages dominating the streetscape. Yapp said this had been a concern of both staff and input received from citizens during the most recent public comment period. Yapp said Terry Trueblood, Director of Parks and Recreation Department, had agreed to the City accepting the central open space much sooner in the process than normally would occur. Normally the City would not accept park land or public open space until 90% of the lots around it were developed. That allowed for the land to be prepared in such a way as to allow the City to install park equipment, a soccer field or other amenities. The plan for this particular piece of land was to have it remain as natural open space with prairie restoration projects to be done on it. The City's acceptance of this parcel might occur as soon as the first final plat associated with the property. Public discussion was opened. Bovbjerg said copies of public letters and e-mails received by Staff regarding this proposal had been provided to the Commissioners. Copies were also available to the public at the Depadment office. Dave Klockau, 1031 Briar Drive, said the proposal was definitely an improvement from when it had first been submitted. There had been some required changes to make the development fit what was required for a development of this type. Klockau said he wanted to emphasize that this sand prairie area was a significant piece of land and that the Concerned Citizen's for Sand Prairie Preservation were committed to working with the City to help to preserve and turn this parcel of land into something special. He understood that developers had to get a return on investment, but they were different than other businesses in the fact that quality of life was affected by developments, for better or for worse. Klockau said he was hopeful that this would come together and work for everyone. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes October 2, 2003 Page 2 Klockau had spoken with Terry Robinson of the Parks Department approximately one year ago. Robinson had been excited about the fact that this was a large prairie instead of a smaller piece of prairie which had typically been the case in other parks. Klockau said once the sand prairie project was done it needed to be accessible by the public, usable and visible. It was his understanding that recent changes to the proposed plan blocked the actual view of the preserve. It was a balancing act trying to get everything together. Speaking on his behalf and for the Citizen's, they were committed to the project in the long run and hoped to make it work. He encouraged the design of the subdivision to include open views of the prairie from the public streets. Lori Klockau, 1031 Briar Drive, said she and her husband had lived on Briar Drive for 19-years. They had had the luxury of being on the edge of town and had an ingrained last pioneer syndrome. They were excited to be part of the process that Southgate had started. She thought Southgate was trying to do something with a unique vision by hiring Randall Arendt to get something that was different from the normal cookie cutter subdivision that was seen all over the Midwest. Klockau said she had two comments that she would like to see seriously addressed. In the original plan on the southwest side of the plan there had been an area designated for commercial and apartments. Currently that area was blank. She would like to see the proposal provided to the public in total so they would know exactly what was proposed to go into every area. Klockau said if density had to be picked up why did it have to be to the north in the form of smaller lots, why could it not be to the southwest side in the commercial/apartment area. She did not want to see it picked up near the Wetherby Park area. Klockau said one of the nearest things about Wetherby Park was the vista and they wished to preserve that vista. Instead of having the vista, it was proposed to have closely packed houses. She would like to see that avoided if at all possible. Klockau said she did not know if the South District Plan suppor[ed the density that Southgate had proposed for the area. This was a unique opportunity to make a really neat unique housing development around the prairie. She said they must not lose sight of the idea that density did not equal dollars for the developer in this particular area. There were a lot of people who wished to see bigger lots abutting the sand prairie. This was something that did not exist in the State so far, it could be a really neat park prairie environmentally sensitive subdivision but they were losing sight of the opportunity that was being given to them by the land that was there. Klockau said she would like to see the Commission, Council and Southgate all work together so they would not get just another cookie cutter subdivision in which all the houses looked alike, were the color of bad weather and were close together. Klockau said this development could be the crown jewel of what the City had so far and a model for what was done in the future. She hoped the development would not be the same thing that had been done over and over again. Sarah Walz, 1813 Morningside Drive, said she was a member of the Parks and Recreation Commission. Walz said she was not there speaking on behalf of the P&R Commission, but several of P&R Commission members had requested that this proposal be placed on their agenda so they could discuss some of the issues. She wanted to commend everyone involved including the developer, the neighbors and the people who cared about the sand prairie for their patience with the project. Issues of concern that she had passed along to Trueblood and had requested be placed on the next agenda included: · Park design issues. The homes along Covered Wagon Drive might create a situation where there was a park but physical and visual access to it would be decreased. In that sense it would make the park seem more of a private amenity. If those homes could be moved somewhere else, the density made up somewhere else and keep Covered Wagon Drive a single loaded street to give more physical and visual access to the park. · Park maintenance. Because this would be a natural prairie area, part of the maintenance regime would be fire. For the most part this would be a new thing for the City as would the political aspect that went with it as would burning right up to someone's property line. She had done research and also spoken with Staff at Prairie Crossing, a conservation subdivision outside of Chicago. They had said that burning right up to someone's private land created an issue especially if the homeowner was not aware of and/or had not bought into it. Shannon said it was his understanding that this would not be a park where persons could walk just anywhere such as in Hickory Hill Park. It had been presented that to have persons walk on the sand prairie would destroy it. After listening to public discussions he was a little confused as to what the pedestrian nature of the prairie park was proposed to be. Walz said the plans for the park were not formal yet but from what she had heard there would eventually be trails. It would be similar to Hickory Hill Park Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes October 2, 2003 Page 3 used for passive recreation not active recreation with intensive use such as City Park or where there were ball fields. Walz said she saw the park as an opportunity for the schools to do natural area learning instead of having to travel out the Kent Park. Steven E. Nelson, 1033 Sandusky Drive, said he had sent an e-mail to Staff earlier in the week and wished to reiterate certain points. · p2. South District Plan guidelines called for the naming of streets after early settlers and Native Americans who lived in this area. Southgate had not followed these guidelines but used names that didn't fit the area. More historical names such as Cooper or Showers, family member names would be useful. · p2. Removal of lots abutting the prairie. People tended to throw grass clippings and garden refuse onto vacant lots and would onto the prairie area as well. That would be detrimental to the sand prairie itself. The fewer lots that actually abutted the prairie the better. · p2. Originally the Comprehensive Plan had the prairie designated as open space. That had been 4 or 5 years prior to Southgate's purchase of the property. They should have known what they'd purchased. Southgate was willing to set aside a small parcel of land in exchange for higher density in other areas. The City was going to let them build on it and have higher density, not because of a gift Southgate had given the City. In order to cut down on urban sprawl, the City was willing to see higher density in recognition that there would be open space. Nelson said he didn't feel bad that five lots here or there were being cut out, Southgate was actually getting more than what they should have expected when they bought the land based on the Comprehensive Plan. · p3. Infrastructure - Stormwater. Appendix A of the South District Plan discussed planning for adequate drainage and stormwater management for the area. The proposal was for normal storm sewers, it did not appear that special planning had taken place for the sandy soils that were to be built upon. Staff and Southgate needed to consider the soils that were to be built upon, especially McCaullister Road. He didn't' want to see this neighborhood go through what residents of the Pepperwood Neighborhood had gone through because of poor storm water management. · Homeowners association responsibility for maintenance of the stormwater basins. The basin near the Pepperwood area was unused because the City refused to maintain it saying it was too hard to maintain if water was in it. This proposal mandated a homeowners association to provide maintenance for the basins that they had no hand in designing. Nelson said for the first few years until all the problems had been worked out with the basins, he would like to see the developer or the City remain responsible for their maintenance. Nelson said he would like to see the points of his memo addressed in the planning stages instead of after construction had begun. Yapp said the City had requirements regarding hydric soils. It typically did not affect the type or width of pavement but required differences in the area underneath the pavement and how it was designed. The City required a higher level of drain tile and a granular sub-base underneath the pavement to ensure that the hydfic soils didn't impact the infrastructure. Overall the development design was designed with minimal grading. The Arendt street network design had been designed to minimize the overall disruption to the soils. Yapp said after receipt of Nelson's memo, he had spoken with City Engineering Staff about the Pepperwood area. Yapp was aware that the overall drainage had been an ongoing issue in that neighborhood. The City was again looking at redesigning some of the stormwater drainage in that neighborhood. Yapp said it was his understanding that in the Pepperwood Area the stormwater basin was an easement within backyards on private lots. The proposed development would have stormwater management facilities on separate outlots so there would not be the issue of homeowners filling in or landscaping their own backyards. Yapp said it was typical that the developer remained responsible for common areas (private open space or stormwater management areas) until a certain number of lots had been created to allow a homeowners association to function. There was a transition period from when the developer maintained the areas to when the association was set up. Anciaux asked if it would be possible for Nelson to meet with the City Engineering department to get his questions answered. Yapp said he would provide the name of an engineer involved with the proposal to Nelson. Bovbjerg asked Behr to explain the legalities of forming a homeowners association and what were they responsible for as far as maintenance of areas. Behr said what was being proposed was quite typical. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes October 2, 2003 Page 4 The developer generally remained responsible for a period of time and then it was assigned to a homeowners association. That had been successfully used for quite some time. The association could take on the legal status of a corporation, for the legal assignment of the obligations it should be a formal entity of record and could be tracked down by public record. Bovbjerg said a problem had arisen a number of years ago when a developer had been allowed to have units with basements on hydric soils. How were the required engineering conditions recorded and enforced. Behr said at the final platting stage the developer submitted final plats. Engineering staff reviewed the lots on those plats and the legal papers contained specific language pertaining to those lots. Anyone purchasing a lot containing hydric soils was on notice. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Anciaux made a motion to defer SUB03-00028/REZ03-0002q, an application submitted by Southgate Development for a rezoning of 119.94-acres from Interim Development Single-Family and Multi-Family Residential (ID-RS and ID-RM) to Planned Development Overlay, OPDH-5 and a Preliminary Plat of Sandhill Estates, a 146.48-acre, 378-1ot subdivision located south of Pepperwood Addition and east of South Gilbert Street. Hansen seconded the motion. Hansen said from everything he had learned about sand prairies, the information indicated that they could not be walked on or it would destroy the prairie. He wondered if the Citizen's had any thoughts about that. If the Parks and Recreation Commission were going to begin discussing developing the Park, it would be imperative to get that question answered immediately so this didn't start out on the wrong foot. Amy Bouska said one of the things they had already talked to Trueblood about was getting the land management plan put together for the prairie. Those were some of the issues that were going to be discussed. Trueblood seemed very amiable to having a variety of different individuals from the Citizen's and other natural resource professionals get involved. Anciaux asked if there had been any discussion with Parks and Recreation about purchasing additional land or more of the prairie area. Behr said public discussion was closed so it would be appropriate for the Commissioners to express their comments and/or suggestions as to what they would like to hear addressed at future meetings. Anciaux said he would like to know if Parks and Recreation would be interested in purchasing additional prairie area because of some of the statements they had received. Anciaux said it had been decided that this prairie area was not on the sensitive areas map. However, if it was, what would be the developer's requirements? Behr said generally speaking if it was shown as a sand prairie remnant, the SAO would apply and provided that disturbance would be minimized. The area would need to be preserved to the maximum extent possible. Miklo said if a prairie was shown on the map then during the development review process it should be preserved to the extent possible while allowing reasonable development. Anciaux asked if when district plans were done were they etched in stone or just sort of a guide. Behr said the Plans were just a concept, one could not set something as private open space and render it non- developable. There had to be a transfer of development rights, volunteering dedication or the land had to be purchased. The District Plans were concept plans and the language suggested items be considered. Freerks said she was glad this item was being deferred. She had thought of Willow Creek Park and how different it would be in terms of how it were used by the public if it had houses all along it. It probably would not get used nearly as much as it did now. She felt it was good to take a look at having open areas and transferring the density or doing what ever needed to be done to make it happen. It was also impodant to look at the design of the houses on smaller lots to assure that this will be a neighborhood that meets the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Hansen said there had been a lot of talk about transferring density. How would density be transferred to Outlot A along Gilbert Street before the land were even zoned? Yapp said for density to be transferred to an outlot, the whole parcel would be need to be zoned. One area of the parcel might have one-unit per acre while another area of the parcel might have 12-units per acre for cluster or multi-family development. Overall the area was single-family density however density Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes October 2, 2003 Page 5 would be transferred from one area to another, one area would be more dense than another area. Miklo said if there were a compelling reason in the Comprehensive Plan, that could be a condition of rezoning. He said if the Commission wanted to explore this staff would have to further discuss it. Behr said when the other areas were rezoned, further subdivided or redeveloped it would come back to the Commission. Miklo said it would need to be specified in a Conditional Zoning Agreement where the density was being transferred to. Bovbjerg said she felt deferring the issue was good since there were still issues being worked on. She appreciated everyone's work on the project day after day. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. DEVELOPMENT ITEM: SUB03-0003~, discussion of an application submitted by Kennedy-Hilgenberg Enterprises for a preliminary plat of Wild Prairie Estates, Part 5, a 35-1ot, 25.77-acre residential subdivision located north of Wild Prairie Drive. Miklo said the applicant had requested a deferral of this item. It would be on the next agenda. Motion: Anciaux made a motion to defer SUB03-00036. Freerks seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. OTHER: Discussion of Capitol Improvement Program (CIP). Miklo said because the CIP and the projects it entailed in terms of new sewer lines, street repairs, street pavements, building of new streets, etc. had such a large effect on the growth of the city, perhaps almost as great an effect as zoning itself, Staff felt it was important that the Commissioners periodically looked at the CIP. Staff felt it was important that the Commissioners were informed and if there were issues they felt were very impodant in terms of the CIP, they be brought to Staff's attention so they could be considered in the program. Staff worked with the City Council to put the CIP together. Miklo said Staff wished to schedule another Code Review meeting with the Commissioners. Thursday, October 9, 2003, 5:30 - 7:00 pm was tentatively agreed upon. CONSIDERATION OF 9/18/03 MEETING MINUTES: Anciaux made a motion to approve the minutes as written and corrected. Hansen seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. ADJOURNMENT: Anciaux made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 pm. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. Jerry Hansen, Secretary Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill data on cit ynlJpcd/min u ~e s/p&zJ03-10~02 p&z.d oc FINAl/APPROVED POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - September 9, 2003 CALL TO ORDER Chair John Stratton called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. ATTENDANCE Board members present: Candy Barnhill, Loren Horton, Greg Roth and John Stratton; Board member absent: David Bourgeois. Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh and Staff Kellie Tuttle present. Also in attendance was Lt. Sid Jackson of the ICPD, and Public, Kevin Halstead. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (1) Accept PCRB Report on Complaint #03-02. (2) Accept PCRB Report on Complaint #03-04. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Horton and seconded by Roth to adopt the consent calendar. · Minutes of the meeting on 8/12/03 · Minutes of the meeting on 8/14/03 · ICPD SOG#03-04 (Non-testimonial Evidence Collection) · ICPD Use of Force Report- July 2003 · ICPD General Order #99-01 (Police Vehicle Pursuits) Barnhill questioned SOG#03-04 regarding the consistency between the definitions and the procedures when referring to specimen collection. Motion carried, 4/0, Bourgeois absent. NEW BUSINESS Select Nominatinq Committee - Motion by Horton and seconded by Roth that Candy Barnhill be on the Nominating Committee. Motion carried, 4/0, Bourgeois absent. Motion by Barnhill and seconded by Roth that Loren Horton be on the Nominating Committee. Motion carried, 4/0, Bourgeois absent. Techniques of Obiective Interviewinq - Catherine Pugh distributed a handout and led discussion on interview skills, and different types of situations encountered. Stratton added further comment on good techniques, and ways to talk with subjects. OLD BUSINESS No old business. PUBLIC DISCUSSION No public discussion. Lt. Sid Jackson had no report. BOARD INFORMATION Horton informed the Board that he would not be at the October meeting. Stratton mentioned that it would be very important for the other members to attend, as three are needed for a quorum. PCRB-Page 2 September 9, 2003 STAFF INFORMATION Tuttle asked Board members to check the member list that was included in the packet and let her know of any changes and that the list is a public document. Tuttle also mentioned updating the mediator listing. Letters went out and requested updated information and whether they are still interested in offering their services. Tuttle and Stratton briefly went over the public report writing process. Stratton stated that all members review complaints, and then a team is set up to write the report. Board members will work together until everyone is comfortable with the process. Stratton attended the City Council work session on September 8. There was a two-year review due for the PCRB. The Mayor said there were no major concerns and there would be no need for the Council to meet with the PCRB. Some suggestions were made for the PCRB members to be out in the public more, Stratton said that the Board would be happy to attend when an invitation is extended. Other comments were made regarding better communications between police and community. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Horton and seconded by Barnhill to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section 21.5(1 )(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11 ) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22-7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. Motion carried, 4/0, Bourgeois absent. Open session adjourned at 7:46 P.M. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 8:30 P.M. Motion by Horton, seconded by Barnhill to forward the Public Report for PCRB Complaint #03-02 to City Council. Motion carried, 4/0, Bourgeois absent. Motion by Barnhill, seconded by Roth to forward the Public Report for PCRB Complaint #03-04 to City Council. Motion carried, 4/0, Bourgeois absent. PCRB-Page 2 September 9, 2003 MEETING SCHEDULE · October 14, 2003, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room · November 11,2003, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room · December 9, 2003, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room Tuttle mentioned the November 11th meeting and that City offices would be closed in observance of Veterans Day. The Board will check their schedules and consider changing the date to November 10th at the October meeting. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Roth and seconded by Horton. Motion carried, 4/0, Bourgeois absent. Meeting adjourned at 8:35 P.M. FILED POUCE CIT~ZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City ;'00~) SFp ] 0 A~ 9:58 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240-1826 CiTY CL_~ (319)356-5041 C[R IOWA TO: City Council Complainant Stephen Atkins, City Manager R. J. Winkelhake, Chief of Police Officer(s) involved in complaint FROM: Police Citizens Review Board RE: Investigation of PCRB Complaint #03-02 DATE: 9 September 2003 This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB #03-02 (the "Complaint"). Board's Responsibility Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8-8-7B (2), the Board's job is to review the Police Chief's 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 Chief's professional expertise." Section 8-8-7B (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". Sections 8-8-7B (2) a, b, and c. Board's Procedure The Complaint was received at the Office of the City Clerk on 02 April 2003. As required by Section 8-8-5 of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Chief of Police for investigation. The Chief's Report was due on 01 July 2003, and was filed with the City Clerk on 30 June 2003. The Board voted to review the Complaint in accordance with Section 8-8-7B (1)(a), on the record with no additional investigation, 8-8-7B (1)(b), interview/meet with complainant, and 8-8-7B (1)(e), performance by the Board of its own additional investigation. PCRB #03-02 Additional evidence that was reviewed include interviews from the involved officers and those who responded to the scene, recording of the dispatch transmission, photographs of the scene, the training records of Officers A and B and an interview with a JCPD's Defensive Tactics Training instructor. The Board met to consider the Report on the following dates: 3 July 2003, and 12 August 2003, 14 August 2003, and 9 September 2003. FINDINGS OF FACT On February 12, 2003, Officer A responded to a complaint of loud music in an apartment at 2100 Broadway Street. Officer A knocked on the door and after some time passed the Complainant answered the door. Officer A placed his foot in the threshold to keep the door open as the Complainant attempted to step outside the apartment and close the door. An altercation then ensued that resulted in Officer A arresting the Complainant for Disorderly House, Interference with Official Acts, and Assault on a Peace Officer Causing Injury. Officer A was struck in the head, his left ring finger was jammed/sprained and the back of his neck was scratched. The Complainant sustained a contusion and a substantial blow to her left eye. After the complainant was handcuffed and taken to a patrol car for transport, she conversed with Officer B. Officer B made comments that offended the Complainant by suggesting she move back to Chicago and live off of someone else's tax dollar and by stating that he thought she probably didn't pay rent here. The Complainant was transported to the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics where she was treated for her injuries which were diagnosed as "periorbital hematoma - soft tissue only. Other persons were present in the apartment during the altercation but the exact number is not known; estimates from various sources range from 5 to 25. Officers arriving at the scene noted evidence that individuals had fled from the apartment from both the front door and the rear bedroom window. The police investigation was hampered by the lack of cooperation of potential witnesses. Only one person who was at the apartment that night was interviewed. That interview was conducted over the telephone and recorded as the intervie~e ha(~ returned to her home in Chicago. ~© ~ CONCLUSION © ~'' -o -TI Alleqation I: Excessive Use of Force ~ There is no doubt that force was used in this police/citizen interaction, r~ O~ issues are whether force was necessary and whether the level of force was appropriate. The Complainant states that when she answered the door to the officer, she attempted to step outside the apartment and close the door behind her. Officer A, she states, pushed at her with his chest and attempted to enter the apartment. The Complainant indicated the officer then slipped back on the threshold and, "came back with a right hook to my left eye." She states, "We PCRB #03-02 2 then began fighting. I was fighting for my life at this point because I thought I was being attacked. We fought for three minutes before I gave up on the ground outside of my house with his knee in my back." Officer A's account which is similar in outline, differs in some important details. He states that the Complainant attempted to push past him and shut the door. He then took hold of her right arm to prevent the Complainant from pushing him further. The Complainant struggled to break free and they tussled in the doorway. Officer A radioed for assistance as he continued to struggle with the Complainant. He informed her that she was under arrest for keeping a Disorderly House. This upset the Complainant more and she threatened to hit the officer in the face. Officer A states that he told the Complainant to stop resisting and that he applied control techniques to keep her facing away from him. He further states that the Complainant freed her arm and lunged at him scratching the back of his neck. Officer A states that he, "attempted to push her back and to administer another control technique at which time she struck me in the face causing some redness. I then struck -- in the face with a reactionary strike and took her to the ground outside the apartment." Officer A noted that as he waited for back up, "several subjects exited the apartment and fled on foot." He told the remaining people to stay in the apartment, but all left except one. The Chief's report states that the police radio transmission from Officer A supports the sequence of events described by Officer A and is not inconsistent with the sequence of event at described by the Complainant. The injuries sustained by both Officer A and the Complainant could be consistent with the sequence of events as described by both. The Chief's report concluded that Officer A struck the Complainant in response to the Complainant's actions against him. The Witness's description of events is more consistent with Officer A's, as both refer to a considerable amount of struggling between the Complainant and Officer A before the blow that caused the injury to her eye. The Complainant indicates that Officer A struck her in the eye early in the confrontation after he slipped backwards. This is not consistent with the ~ pi .~ accounts of Officer A or the Witness. The Witness states that the Gem t began screaming about Officer A punching her after she was on the gro outside the apartment. ~ The Chief's report concludes: after evaluating th~s ~nc~dent as ~t relates ~ Iowa City Police Department Policy and Operating Procedures Manual, resistance directed toward Officer A was clearly perceived to be Level Fo~r Category in which the perception is the subject is assaultive and likely to cause bodily injury. ---Officer A's response to the level four threat was within the parameters of appropriate responses as outlined in the use of force model, level four." (ePS-03) The Board finds that the Chief's conclusions are supported by substantial evidence and are not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation #1 of the complaint is not sustained. PCRB #03-02 3 Alleqation #2 Inappropriate Conversation or Comments The Complainant alleged that after her arrest an officer unknown to her (later determined to be Officer B) said in effect to her, "you need to move back to Chicago and live off someone else's tax dollars. I bet you don't even pay rent." The Iowa City Police Department's investigation found that Officer C reported hearing an Officer talking with the Complaint about Chicago, taxes and rent. He could not identify the Officer. Officer C described the Complainant as being angry with Officer B as Officer B placed her in a patrol car. Officer D recalled Officer B talking to the Complainant along the line for her to go back to Chicago and stop living off our tax dollars in Iowa City. Officer B, according to the Chief's report, "admitted engaging in a conversation with the Complainant consistent with those statements." The Chief's report concluded that Officer B "made inappropriate comments." Officer B's actions were in violation of the Policy Manual of the Iowa City Police Department Section 209: Officer Contacts with the Public. "Although Officer B indicated that he felt his comment did not escalate the situation as the Complainant was already in a highly agitated state, it did not help de-escalate the situation. Further, the context of the comment is not consistent with the Departmental Verbal Judo Training that Officer B has recently received." The Chief's report concludes that Allegation 2 was SUSTAINED. The Board agrees. The Chief's conclusion is supported by substantial evidence, and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation #2 of the complaint is sustained. COMMENT None. PCRB #03-02 4 FILED POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of lowa City 2003SEP 10 /~H 9:58 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240-1826 CITY,~_~:RK ~''' ~-' ' (319)356-5041 IOWA CI,~.., IOWA TO: City Council Complainant Stephen Atkins, City Manager R. J. Winkelhake, Chief of Police Officer(s) involved in complaint FROM: Police Citizens Review Board RE: Investigation of PCRB Complaint #03-04 DATE: 9 September 2003 This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB #03-04 (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 Chief's 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 Chief's professional expertise." Section 8-8-7B (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". Sections 8-8-7B (2) a, b, and c. Board's Procedure The Complaint was received at the Office of the City Clerk on 07 May 2003. As required by Section 8-8-5 of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Chief of Police for investigation. The Chief's Report was due on 05 August 2003, and was filed with the City Clerk on 29 July 2003. The Board voted to review the Complaint in accordance with Section 8-8-7B (1)(a), on the record with no additional investigation. PCRB Complaint #03-04 Page 1 The Board met to consider the Report on the following dates: 14 August 2003, and 9 September 2003. FINDINGS OF FACT On April 26, 2003, Iowa City police officers responded to a civil disturbance on Hollywood Court where three females and a male were involved in a confrontation. The Complainant and her cousin were fighting with the Complainant's husband and his girlfriend. The husband's girlfriend had driven her van to the Complainant's house to pick up her boyfriend (the Complainant's husband) and was confronted by the Complainant and her cousin. In the altercation hair was pulled from the girlfriend; and the complainant and her cousin were injured by the complainant's husband. After investigating the situation the officers concluded that the Complainant's husband should be arrested for Assault Causing Injury and Public Intoxication. The females were advised that none of them would be charged at that time, but they could be after further investigation was completed. The Complainant was outspoken in her desire to have her husband's girlfriend arrested for assaulting her. After the officers had further investigated the situation they added Domestic Assault to the husband's charge and charged the Complainant with First Degree Burglary for entering her husband's girlfriend's van to commit an Assault Causing Injury. Her cousin was charged with Disorderly Conduct. © ~ CONCLUSIONS .~? c~ Allegation h The Complainant was unlawfully arrested ~ ~ ~ The Complainant was dissatisfied that her husband's girlfriend was not~arreste~[~ at the scene. The women and the Complainant's husband were involved in a physical altercation, which the Complainant stated was initiated by her husband's girlfriend. The girlfriend claimed the Complainant stuck the first blow and then requested her cousin's assistance in assaulting her (the girlfriend). The Complainant's husband joined the fight to assist his girlfriend and assaulted both his estranged wife and her cousin. There were a number of residents in the neighborhood who witnessed the fight but none were able to provide useful information regarding who initiated it. Officers on the scene decided not to charge any of the women. After further investigation, including conversation with the Complainant by phone and in person, Officer D in consultation with Officer A decided it was appropriate to charge the Complainant with First Degree Burglary as it was decided, she had as alleged, entered the van of her husband's girlfriend to commit assault. The officers decided not to charge the husband's girlfriend since it was believed that the Complainant and her cousin had started the altercation and the husband's girlfriend's actions were defensive. PCRB Complaint #03-04 Page 2 The Board finds that the Chief's conclusion is supported by substantial evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation #'1 of the complaint is Not Sustained. Alleqation #2: Officer C, Officer B, and Officer D enqaqed in improper conduct bi/bein.q mean, rude and not carinq causinq the Complainant to feel violated, discriminated, intimidated and scared. Officer C was the second officer on the scene and is alleged by the Complainant to have told her to "shut up and don't move, you must of started the fight because I'm his wife."(sic) Officer B stayed with the Complainant and her cousin while they were treated for injuries and then later to separate them from the other participants while officers further investigated the incident. Both defendants became loud and antagonistic during the later period directing their comments toward the Complainant's husband's girlfriend. Officer B directed them to "shush" to quiet them and maintain order. The Complainant took offense at the officer's comment. Officer B directed her to go to Officer D with her complaints if she felt being told to "shush" was inappropriate. Officer D indicated that at first he was not aware that the Complainant had been assaulted by her husband and had tried to give her more attention once he learned of her victim status. A number of neighbors were interviewed regarding the incident. They reported that they believed the officers involved handled the situation appropriately and indicated they heard no inappropriate statements from the police officers at the scene. Officers at the scene reported they believed Officer B and Officer D acted appropriately and noted nothing that would give validity to Complainant's allegations. The Board finds that the Chief's conclusion is supported by substantial evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation #2 of the Complaint is Not Sustained. COMMENT None. 0 ~ .~<~ r-- ~ PCRB Complaint #03-04 Page 3