The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2003-12-16 Bd Comm minutesMINUTES FINAL/APPROVED IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION ~ THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2003 - 5:45 P.M. IOWA CITY AIRPORT TERMINAL MEMBERS PRESENT: Baron Thrower, Randy Hartwig, John Staley 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: O'Neil said the "Members Present" in the minutes was not correct and would be changed. The minutes of the October 9, 2003, Commission meeting were approved with the correction. REVIEW OF EXPENDITURES: Thrower asked O'Neil to explain the monthly billing process to Staley. O'Neil said that the bills are paid as they are received during the month if it is money that has been included in the annual budget. If there is a bill that is questionable, O'Neil said he might hold the bill and discuss it with the Commission. He said the list of expenditures is more of a briefing of the past month's actions as it is a request for approval. O'Neil said the last bill listed is a partial payment for a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan. Several City departments were required to have a plan. Stanley Consultants produced the plans. The plan was required, but was not budgeted for in FY 2003. The requirement to have a plan was not known at the time the FY 2003 budget was developed. O'Neil said he would have to find money somewhere in the budget or ask for a budget amendment. He said there is annual training that is required along with the plan. O'Neil said he and the maintenance worker and some employees from Jet Air should attend training. Jet Air is responsible for fueling aircraft. He said the training is $1000 and there is no money in the budget for training. There was discussion on whether or not the expenditures needed to be approved every month. O'Neil said he will continue to provide a list of check requests and the Commission can decide on whether or not approval is required. PUBLIC DISCUSSION - ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA: No items were presented. UNFINISHED ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION: O'Neil said the question was raised last month on whether there was any written policy by the Council for land use in the Aviation Commerce Park. He said he discussed this with the City Manager and Atkins will check on it. There may be Council minutes that discuss it. Thrower asked if, barring a written land use policy, zoning was the only thing governing the property? O'Neil said zoning was the main control. O'Neil said that at the last meeting, implementing additional fees was discussed. He said he explained that the flowage fee is part of Jet Aids lease. He discussed this with Jet Air and they were not interested in opening the lease at this time. Thrower wanted to know if some other fee could be charged, based on a per gallon rate? O'Neil said that would be possible but a method of collection may be difficult. Thrower asked Dulek if the Commission could require Jet Air to collect a fee? Dulek said the Commission could not require Jet Air to collect a fee for the Commission. Thrower asked if the Airpod had the capacity to collect a fee? O'Neil said collection would be difficult because he does not have direct interaction with the fuel customers and it would have to be collected directly from the customer. Hartwig said he thought this would also bring a negative response from the customers. O'Neil said there was one other issue from last month. He said Mascari stated that the Commission decided at last year's budget meeting to cut the equipment replacement fund in half. O'Neil checked the minutes from October 2002. Cutting the fund in half was suggested but was not supported by a majority of the Commission. Hartwig asked if the equipment replacement budget was cut for FY 2004? O'Neil said that at last month's meeting, the Commission voted to reduce the equipment replacement fund by 50%. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION: a. Environmental Assessment project - O'Neil said there was a letter in the Commission packet with a list of items from the FAA that needed to be addressed further in the EA. He said he discussed this list with Joe Trnka, from H.R. Green and most of the corrections have been made. The rest should be completed soon. O'Neil said he spoke with Mark Schenkelberg, the FAA Environmental Specialist, about a completion schedule. Schenkelberg said it would take somewhere between two to six months to complete the EA. O'Neil said the EA must be completed before any construction is started on the Runway 07 project. b. Obstruction mitigation project - O'Neil said Stanley Consultants are moving forward with the project. There is a contractor that would like to move forward with removing the trees on his property. O'Neil said he contacted Mike Marr from the Office of Aviation and Mart told him to move ahead with that property. Normally, all of the tree removal should be bid out in one contract. The other obstructions will be bid out. O'Neil said he would like to remove most of the obstructions in the winter months when the ground is frozen. c. Aviation Commerce Park (ACP) - Tracy Overton, from Iowa Realty, presented his monthly report. He said he and O'Neil met with a potential buyer, but there has not been any additional contact from the buyer. Over[on said that in order to prompt development in the ACP, there are two activities that would help. One of the activities could be to speculate a building. This would be sold or leased. Thrower said one of the things discussed last month was if the pricing should change. He wanted to know if Over[on thought the price should be reduced? Overton said he didn't think so. Overton said he has talked to a couple of his clients on other properties about their intention to raise prices. Thrower asked if Scott Byers, the broker, still thought the pricing was appropriate? Overton said he would discuss this with Byers. Overton said if the objective is just to sell the property quickly, then lowering the price should be considered. If it is lowered to sell the first lot, this will set the tone for the rest of the development. Thrower said sometimes 2 stimulating the original buyer to purchase is important. That wouldn't mean all the lots would be kept at the lower rate. Thrower requested input from Byers on pricing. Mark Anderson said that when he was on the Commission, a letter was sent to the Council requesting the ACP be considered a TIF district. No reply was received from Council. d. Mormon Trek development- David Larson, a property developer, said he would like to work with the Commission on developing some parcels of Airport property near his property on the new portion of Mormon Trek. Larson said there are three possible Airport sites outside the Runway Protection Zone. He said he would also like to talk to the Commission about fill did and an access road across Airport property, Thrower asked O'Neil if any of the areas mentioned would be needed for aviation purposes? O'Neil said the areas discussed by Larson are outside the RPZ. O'Neil said that he would recommend having the runway project plan approved by the FAA before any decision was made on what to do with the outlots. Larson said he has potential tenants for his property and they may want to incorporate the Airport parcels in their development. O'Neil said he would recommend the property be leased instead of sold. The property was purchased with FAA funds. A release would be required to sell the property and 90% of the funds may have to be returned to the FAA if the property is sold. Larson said the City is eager to have the access road completed to open up more industrial area. His access road would loop through the Dane and Williams property and connect on both ends to Mormon Trek. Larson said he is still interested in developing a water detention area on the Dane property. He would need approval from the Commission for access across Airport property to Willow Creek. If a permanent easement is required, approval will be needed from the City Council. Larson said he would like to work with the Commission on moving the fill dirt in the area to benefit both the Airport and his property. He would like to work with Eadh Tech as they are developing the Airport's plan. Mark Anderson said that the Commission should be very careful about allowing additional wetlands to be constructed in the area. O'Neil said the Fish and Wildlife Department may want to encourage more habitats, but the FAA has the final decision and their first concern will be safety. e. Strategic planning - Thrower said the two recent resignations to the Commission have presented a challenge to making progress on the plan. He said he would like to divide the two largest pieces between himself and Hartwig and have Staley work with O'Neil on what the revised budget would look like. This would include cost containment and revenue enhancements. Thrower said there are areas in the Strategic plan that are similar and compliment the work done by ABS but the ABS report was missing some fundamental elements. Thrower said all of the parts of the Strategic plan would be worked on individually and would be given to O'Neil to coordinate. Thrower said he would provide O'Neil with a template for the final plan form. O'Neil suggested sending the Council a memo and including a review of the action items mentioned in the ABS report. Thrower said that the ABS report is not a foundation document. He said some of the ideas from the report can be used in the Strategic Plan and the final product would be sent to the Council. O'Neil asked the Commission if they had any additional comments to send to ABS, other than the original list from September 187 If there were no other comments, O'Neil would contact ABS and request for them to finalize their report. This will take about 30 days for completion. The Commission agreed they had no additional comments. Staley said some of the statistics for the numbers employed by the University of Iowa were incorrect. f. Runway 07 project - Earth Tech contract- O'Neil said he was hoping to have the Earth Tech contract ready for approval. He said he had just received the first draft yesterday and he and Dulek had not had an opportunity to completely review it. O'Neil said he had read through the contract and there were several areas that needed clarification. O'Neil said he would hope to have the contract ready for the December Commission meeting. Because Earth Tech's fee would be over $100,000, an independent cost estimate will be required. If possible, this could be done in- house through the Public Works Department. If they can not do the estimate, another engineering firm will need to be hired. g. FY 2005 .adp projects - O'Neil said confirmation of the FAA-funded capital projects is required annually. Each project must have a data sheet on file, outlining the project, preferred date of completion and cost. Most of the projects are on file. O'Neil said he would like to add an asphalt overlay project for part of Runway 12. This project would receive priority for the Airport's entitlement funds if a grant was not received for the Runway 07 project. O'Neil read a list of the projects now on file with the FAA. Staley made a motion for a resolution to approve the list of FY 2005 FAA AlP projects. Hartwig seconded the motion and at roll call vote, it was approved 3 - 0. CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT: Thrower said he would like to officially welcome John Staley to the Commission and he looked forward to working with him. COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: No reports were given. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: O'Neil said that the Council had advertised for Commission members and the new members would be appointed in January. A letter was sent to the FAA concerning decommissioning the NDB. There was a letter in the packet from a woman whose father was one of the first airmail pilots to be based on the Iowa City airmail route. She also sent a picture of the Iowa City Airport, dated 1927. O'Neil sent her a thank you letter. The National Association of State Aviation Officials will hold their national meeting in Des Moines in 2005. O'Neil suggested the Commission consider changing their by-laws and reducing the Commission term from six years to four years. He said potential Commission members have told him that six years is a long time to volunteer for. O'Neil said he would meet with the City Manager and the Finance Department on November 17 for the initial review of the budget the Commission submitted from their October meeting. O'Neil suggested meeting with FAA officials in Kansas City sometime after the first of the year to discuss the Runway 07 project. This could be scheduled after the grant is received. The Commission could also discuss completion of the EA. Jay and Mary Honek, aircraft owners and hangar tenants at the Airport, would like to try to save the United hangar. They are also writing a history of the Airport. Their web site is alexisparkinn.com/the iowa city airport.htm SET NEXT MEETING: The next regular Airport Commission meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, December 9, 2003, at 5:45 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:16 p.m. Baron Thrower, Chairperson FINAL APPROVED ~ (~Iowa .C. ity. . Public L brary BOARD OF TRUSTEES Agenda item 3A Minutes 5:00 pm October 23, 2003 Meeting Room C Shaner Magalh~es, President Thomas Dean Linda Prybil Pat Schnaclq Secretary Jesse Singerman Tom Surer Jim Swaim David VanDusseldorp, Vice President Members Present: Thomas Dean, Shaner Magalhaes, Pat Schnack, Jesse Singerman, Jim Swaim, Linzee McCray Members Absent: Tom Snter, Linda Prybil, Dave VanDusseldorp Staff Present: Barb Black, Terri Byers, Maeve Clark, Susan Craig, Barbara Curtin, Heidi Lauritzen, Kara Logs&n, Martha Lubaroff, Joel Miller, Liz Nichols Call meeting to Order Magalhaes called the meeting to order at 5:00pm. Public Discussion In her capacity as union steward and Vice President of AFSCME Local #183, Tern Byers, ICPL staff member, reported that labor contract negotiations would start soon. She hopes to be back to the Board this winter with a multi-year contract. Barb Black will be the representative from Library management. Byers responded to a question about why a multi-year contract was not negotiated for this year. Byers said that since the contract negotiations went into arbitration resulting in a fact finder settling issues, a one-year contract was negotiated. Presently a committee is working on a side letter regarding the temporary employee issue. Singerman asked about a living wage issue. Byers replied that it is an issue for the union representing UIHC but not our union. Approval of minutes The minutes of the regular meeting of September 25 were approved after a motion made by Singerman and seconded by Schnack. All were in favor. Motion passed 6-0. Unfinished Business A. Public Hearing on Library Furnishings bid: A motion to open the public hearing was made by Schnack, seconded by Dean. All voted in favor ofit. Motion passed 6-0. Craig had documents for library furnishings bid for review. She explained that this was complicated since vendors can choose to bid on all or part of it. For example, there is a separate bid for end panels. Bids are due the Tuesday before November's Board meeting, November 18, 2003. Since there were no members of the public present, Magalhaes declared the public hearing over. Agenda item 3A Page No 2 B. Buildin~ Project: Miller distributed an update with photos. He reported that things are continuing to go well and are still ahead of schedule. Building appears to be changing colors due to layers of dry wall, green weather shield, insulation board; the stone will be coming first part of the week. On Lima Street, the brick has been completed. Miller is hoping that perhaps by mid January we can move some nonfiction into the new part of the second floor. The 64 1 A project has been moved back. Sctmack stated for the record that she felt it was too bad that with our beautiful new building being completed, that the City did not give us a piece of 64 1 A for parking. Miller said that our cost remains stable. Some cost adjustments have come in and they are mostly due to electrical problems. Tour will be postponed until next month. C. Award contract for AV and presentation equipment: Bids were opened October 21. The single bid was ~om ECS, a company ICPL has been dealing with for many years, who bid a price of $171,836. The staff recommends that the Board accept the bid. Schnack moved approval. Swaim seconded. All in favor said Aye. Motion passed 6-0. City Attorney will draft the contract and ECS will be on the site soon after to insure proper wiring and preparation for the equipment installation. D. Update on Realtor search: Craig accepted responses as of last Friday, October 17. Two responses were turned in. Gerry Ambrose on behalf of his firm as well as Harry Wolf of Buyers Realty. Craig received a call from Kevin Hanick who had received the materials late and wanted to be considered. The Board agreed. Magalh~ies and Craig will do brief interviews, including Hanick. They hope to have a realtor on board by next meeting. Singerman asked about a criteria list. Craig and Magalhaes will prepare criteria; the most important being they demonstrate experience with downtown rentals and a client base suitable for library retail space. Fees and the ability to work well with library will be other important criteria. E. FY05 Budget: Craig asked Board for formal approval. She inserted the City's numbers; explained that she is not required to stay with a line item; as long as bottom number for 7,000's, 8,000's etc. stays in line. She deleted an expense for Telephone Notification System and put additional funds in the temporary personnel budget due to contract issues and increased circulation in the new building. Sclmack had a question about a line item that changed drastically due to eliminating money for parking reimbursement. She asked about the expense for hiring a consultant for strategic plmming and wondered whether we could do it ourselves? Craig explained that this is done every 5 or 6 years, hiring an outside neutral party to facilitate. Once the plan is adopted it is staff driven with updates but an investment every 5 or 6 years with a professional who knows how to involve public and staff and is familiar with other libraries and what they are doing is preferred. Magalhfies said that the price is not out of line for this type of consulting. Singerman said she hoped it wasn't cut because she believes it is a very worthwhile expense. Swaim raised the issue of parking. Craig said it was pair of cuts she recommended, that were approved by Board after State revenues to the City for FY04 were drastically cut. If we did want to revisit that issue and reinstitute funding, we'd have to take $10,000 from somewhere else. Schnack thinks we should revisit it. Swaim said he might not support parking at the level we were but would be interested in doing it again on a limited basis. He would like us to look at it again, on a future agenda, and perhaps find another revenue source. Magalh~les said we had the opportunity to raise the issue when we discussed budget cuts and did not. Craig said she does not rule out more cuts when it is known what the rollback tax is. Craig explained the history of the rollback tax, why it was created and how it's figured. Magalhaes asked for approval of the FY05 budget. A motion was made by Singerman and seconded by Dean. Any questions? Swaim asked whether City Manager bad issued any guidelines in preparation of future cuts. Craig replied that he is waiting to see what the rollback is. In response to a question about certain departments being targeted for Agenda item 3A Page No 3 more than across the board, Craig said after the City council election, priorities in terms of cutting personnel might change. City Manager's recommended budget typically goes to Council in December. In January, Library Board has the opportunity to meet with Council. Asked for other comments. Singerman said the parking issue occurred to her and we should keep that in our thoughts. Magalhfies called for a vote. All in favor voted Aye. Motion passed 6-0. F. Count,/Update: After a series of meetings, it seems that the two members of the Board of Supervisors on the task force are willing to keep the same contract, with modest changes to address their concerns. Magalh~tes mentioned a portion of the minutes of 10/1 that said they could reduce their amount if circumstances dictated. They would like County representatives on Library Boards to get together with Supervisors. Craig hopes the next meeting is the last one but she feels it is time well invested. G. Grand Opening: There is money in the operating and NOBU budget earmarked for events, however we have some flexibility in how we spend it. Some expenses would be printing, advertising, ribbon cutting ceremony, and keepsakes. Some ideas from staffwere that we have an opening in early June with some special events that weekend and then expand on events we already do; like Summer Reading Program and Arts Fest, Jazz Fest, Weber Day and Intellectual Freedom Festival. September is "get a library card" month. We can do a big campaign and reward the users but get the whole community to come in and visit the library and celebrate with us. Development Office ~vill do a separate donor event that is a thank you event. Foundation will pay for that. This item was included on the agenda so Board could be involved in the events that are planned to say thanks to people who worked so hard. Spreading the money over many different events is worthwhile. Board will be kept informed as we go along. Staff Reports A. Departmental Reports: Children's, Systems, Technical Services The prograrnunng aimed at Title 1 students at five elementary schools in Iowa City was a huge success, Co-sponsors of this program were Hancher Auditorium, Iowa City Community School District Title 1 program, Iowa City Public Library, and an anonymous private family foundation. Children's staff is hopeful they can repeat it. Systems upgrade seems extensive, however Nichols explained what we needed to do in preparation for expanding the building. The idea of a "consortium" for our Intemet service connection is very desirable with interest from several public libraries to join up with ICPL, Cedar Rapids, Marion and Hiawatha. Sclmack said that this would be an appropriate time to say thanks to Nichols for her nine years of service. Schnack asked about tagging. When it is completed will patrons have the ability to check out their own books? Craig said it will be an option in the new building; we will have two or three self check units. If you prefer to have assistance you can go to the Circulation Desk. In the short term, it will take more staff time to train people and it is hoped that in the 10ng term it will save stafftime. Black expects that all print materials will be tagged at the end of the month. B. Development Office Curtin reminded Trustees about the annual Book Gala at Prairie Lights November 16. C. Council is writing a letter about Patriot Act. In response to a request from the same group who asked our board to take a position on the Patriot act, the City Council was asked to pass a resolution but chose to write a letter at this time. Craig reported on a Agenda item 3A Page No 4 conversation with someone this week who felt our signs were somewhat inflammatory and not quite accurate and thought we should make it clear that the FBI still had to have a warrant to see anyone's records. Trustees did not feel it necessary to make changes and Craig said she had gotten some good responses. D. All Iowa Reads selection: Niagara Falls all over Again was chosen as the selection for 2004. The author, Elizabeth McCracken, currently resides here in Iowa City. E. Miscellaneous Readings "A City operated by temps", a Guest Opinion in the Press Citizen invoked a discussion. Craig reported that she had no comments or reactions from the public. Craig said it is a complex issue and not easily answered in the paper. Library has used temporary workers for years and the proportion of temporary hours to permanent staffhours is about the same as it always has been. They do jobs that are characterized as "student" jobs. Some have chosen to stay here longer. Swaim said it is an issue worth visiting every now and then in order to have an ongoing conscious review of why we use temporary workers like we do. Dean thinks that we should have a conversation about this and maybe the institution has to set some parameters about length of time these positions can be held. It was an issue in labor negotiations last year. The definition became more restrictive. We are now dealing with less than 7 months, less than 10 hours/week unless hourly employees have a student status, which permits working up to 20 hours/week. We have been requiring students to complete a Student verification form and we have been hiring only students. The transition period is up in February and if we don't have an agreement for the future, we'll have to tell people that they have to document student status, reduce their hours, or possibly be laid off. Board did not think that a response in the paper or a letter to the author of the article was called for. Rather our nfinutes xvill reflect our concern and desire to continue examining this issue. Article on Patriot Act was included in packet. President's Report Magalhfies reported on his attendance at ILA conference last week. He found it a very wonderful event and attended a session called Board Leadership. He will get notes and share them with Board. Singerman also went to ILA and attended a leadership pre-conference. She thought the leader was outstanding. The leader is working with ILA to develop some sort of leadership training program and Singerman encourages ICPL to send staffto it. Foundation report: They are working on a fundraising dinner that will be held at the Sheraton. They're donating the use of the ballroom on May 2. Theme will be celebrating Iowa City authors. We will invite the authors. The goal is to get all the food donated. More details will come. The Board will be asked to sell tickets. Fund raising goal is $15,000, which will go to the annual fund and support the collection of the library. It is hoped that this will be an annual event. A comrmttee is reviewing the foundation portfolio manager. Next Foundation meeting is in November. Announcements from Members None Quarterly IJse Reports: Circulation is down as expected. There have been fewer meetings. Craig pointed out item~ we're picking up at remote book drop is up 40% from last year. This is a very labor-intensive task and Craig said Board might have to think about limiting the remote book drops if more budget cuts occur. Agenda item 3A Page No 5 Craig is gratified that the number of people coming in has not dropped significantly. There was a question about the Association file? Information services questions are down. People are not coming upstairs. Questions are being answered at Fiction Desk. Numbers added together are still not the same as when it was one desk. Web resources are being used more heavily but there is less interaction with the public. Due to the inconvenience of the temporary entrance and quarters it will be a strange year. Disbursements A. Revie~v Visa Expenditures for September, 2003 B. Approve Disbursements for September 2003. A motion to approve was made by Singerman and seconded by Schnack. Motion passed 6-0 Set agenda order for November meeting. Meeting is earlier next month, November 20. Bids, realtors, maybe some budget news. Adjournment Moved and seconded by Dean/Singerman. MINUTES APPROVED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FORMAL MEETING THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2003 - 7:30 PM EMMA J. HARVAT HALL - IOWA CITY CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Anciaux, Ann Bovbjerg, Benjamin Chair, Ann Freerks, Jerry Hanson, Beth Koppes, Dean Shannon MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Mitch Behr OTHERS PRESENT: Joe Holland, James A. Clark CALL TO ORDER Chairpemon Bovbjerg called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, REZ03-00022 a rezoning of approximately .33 of an acre at 512 S. Dubuque Street from Planned High-Density Residential Multi-Family (PRM) to Sensitive Areas Overlay - Planned High Density Residential Multi-Family (OSA-PRM) and the associated Sensitive Areas Development Plan Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, SUB03-00036, a preliminary plat for Wild Prairie Estates Part 5, a 25.79-acre, 35-1ot subdivision located at Wild Prairie Drive and Prairie Grass Lane. Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, amendments to the definitions of restaurants pertaining to drive-through carryout restaurants. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA There was none. ANNOUNCEMENT OF VACANCIES ON CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Bovbjerg announced there are currently three (3) vacancies on City Boards and Commissions; two (2) vacancies for the Airport Commission and one (1) vacancy for the Planning and Zoning Commission. Please see the City Clerk for more information and details concerning these vacancies. ZONING ITEMS 1. REZ03-00022 Discussion of an application submitted by University View Apartments for a rezoning from PRM, Planned High Density Multi-Family Residential to OSA-PRM, Sensitive Areas Overlay, for an approximate 0.33 acre property located at 512 S. Dubuque Street. (45-day limitation: December 6, 2003) Miklo said the applicant is requesting a rezoning from Planned High Density Multi-Family Residential (PRM) to Sensitive Areas Overlay (OSA-PRM) for a property located at 512 S. Dubuque Street. The applicant wishes to construct a 12-unit apartment building on the property, which is permitted within the PRM zone. However, the proposed parking lot associated with the building would encroach into areas of protected slopes (40% or steeper), requiring that a sensitive area development plan and rezoning be reviewed prior to the issuance of a building permit. The protected slope is man-made and occurred as a result of filling and dumping in the past. There are two other properties adjacent to this property that were previously approved for further alterations to the srope. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance allows for alterations of protected slopes if they were previously altered and if it can be shown by an engineer or geologist that the disruption to the slope will not destabilize the slope or cause any damage to the property or adjacent properties. There is a report from Terracon Engineering that has been reviewed by City Engineers, which states if certain conditions that are outlined in their report are adhered to, the proposed construction will not cause instability Jn the slope. Miklo stated the Staff finds that this meets the intent of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, and they are recommending approval. The approval is subject to the adherence to the recommendations of the Terracon Engineering report as approved by the City Engineer. The approval of the City Engineer is to Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes November 6, 2003 Page 2 safeguard that in the event the construction crew finds the conditions of the slope are different than expected, the City Engineer would be able to approve alternative ways of dealing with the situation. In response to a question from Freerks, Miklo said the prior approvals of slope alterations on the adjacent properties were made after the Sensitive Areas Ordinance was approved. Public Discussion Opened Joe Holland introduced himself as the attorney representing the applicant. He said he concurs with the staff recommendation that this application be approved, and they will certainly comply with the recommendations made by Terfacon and subject to consultation with the office of the city engineer. He said a structural engineer with N & W Engineering is designing the wall system/retaining structure in compliance with Terracon recommendations. He asked the commission to please vote on the application tonight in order to have all issues surrounding the construction of the building go through council at one time for public discussion purposes. In response to a question from Bovbjerg, Holland said Terracon would be on-site at the critical stages of the wall construction. James Clark, the applicant, described the wall construction process in response to a request from Bovbjerg. He said the wall is constructed by placing a global grid, which is like a horizontal mat, down every X number of feet, that is then filled with gravel. The process is repeated in an upward direction at predetermined intervals. This grid/gravel process is to prevent pressure from the earth moving the wall. Bovbjerg asked for any other public discussion. There was none. Public Discussion Closed. MOTION: Shannon moved to approve REZ03-00022 a rezoning of approximately .33 of an acre at 512 S. Dubuque Street from Planned High-Density Residential Multi-Family (PRM) to Sensitive Areas Overlay - Planned High Density Residential Multi-Family (OSA-PRM) and the associated Sensitive Areas Development Plan subject to the adherence to the recommendations of the Terracon report and as approved by the City Engineer. Hanson seconded the motion. All in favor, motion passed 7-0. 2. REZ03-00023 Discussion of an application submitted by Idyllwild II for an amendment to an existing Planning Development Housing Plan to remove a requirement for an internal sidewalk. (45-1imitation period: November 12, 2003) This item was deferred indefinitely at the request of the applicant. DEVELOPMENT ITEM 1. SUB03-00036: Discussion of an application submitted by Kennedy-Hilgenberg Enterprises for a preliminary plat of Wild Prairie Estates, Part 5, a 35-1ot, 25.79-acre residential subdivision located north of Wild Prairie Drive. (45-day limitation period: October 26, 2003) Miklo stated this subdivision was presented at a previous informal meeting and there were two outstanding issues. One issue is a request from staff for a trail between lots 133 and 134 to gain access to the open space. After looking at the topography of the site and speaking with the applicant, it was determined a trail would not be practical in this area and are no longer recommending this be a requirement. The second issue concerns the extending of Wild Prairie Drive across the creek to the other side of Outlot C and a temporary turn-a-round at this termination. The applicant has amended the plat and now reflects the extension of Wild Prairie Drive as recommended by staff. Miklo said Staff believes the application for a preliminary plat is in order for approval and recommends that it be approved. Bovbjerg asked commission members if they had any questions for Staff. There were none. Public Discussion Opened Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes November 6, 2003 Page 3 There was none. Public Discussion Closed MOTION: Chait moved to approve SUB03-00036, a preliminary plat for Wild Prairie Estates Part 5, a 25.79-acre, 35-1ot subdivision located at Wild Prairie Drive and Prairie Grass Lane. Anciaux seconded the motion. All in favor, motion passed 7-0. CODE AMENDMENT ITEM The proposed code amendment change is to the definitions of "restaurant" in the Zoning Code to allow carry-out restaurants that have seating area in the CB-10 zone. Miklo reviewed the current zoning ordinances for restaurants. He said the definitions that we have currently in the Zoning Code have been problematic due to the rigidity of defining restaurants by the ratio of seating area to total floor area. The ordinance breaks restaurants down into three categories; restaurants, restaurants that are carry-out/ delivery, and restaurants that are drive through/carry-out. "Restaurants" are those that have over 50% of the floor area devoted to seating. Establishments that have no seating are defined as carry-out/delivery restaurants. Those with less than 50% of the floor area devoted to seating are defined as drive- through/carry-out restaurants, regardless of whether they actually have a drive-through. He said the reason for the distinction in restaurants, which was done many years ago, was to distinguish the amount of parking that was provided and to distinguish between restaurants that were "auto-oriented", like fast food restaurants. This distinction showed which zoning districts would allow the different types of restaurants. In recent years they have found the distinction is not as clear or as necessary as provided by current zoning ordinances. It is clear whether there is a drive-through/auto oriented use, and this would not necessarily be appropriate in all zones. However, the distinction of the term carry-out is not as clear in reality. There are many instances where there are restaurants that have less than 50% of their floor area devoted to seating and are not really auto oriented. True drive-through restaurants have replaced what were carry-out type restaurants in the past. Some food businesses, like sandwich and coffee shops, now have larger food preparation areas and smaller seating areas. Miklo said the apparent reason to make the current distinction between types of restaurants is to make it easier to establish distinct parking requirements for different types of restaurants and also to regulate more carefully those restaurants that have drive-through facilities. These purposes can be achieved, however, without placing such a rigid distinction based on the relative amount of seating area. In the past restaurant owners have applied for a special exception or reconfigured their space to accommodate the zoning ordinances. Miklo provided a list of restaurants where the definition of the term restaurant has been problematic. However, in the Downtown and Neighborhood Commercial Zones a special exception is not a possibility as the zoning ordinance is written. Therefore, Staff feels it is necessary that the code be amended to clarify that restaurants should not defined as carry-out simply because less than 50% of the floor area is not devoted to seating. Staff recommends, therefore, that the definition of restaurants be amended as follows: In14-6B-2: Definitions, delete the definitions of Restaurant, Restaurant - Carry-outJDelivery, and Restaurant - Drive Through/Carry-Out. In 14-6B-2: Definitions, replace the aforementioned definitions with the following definition of Restaurant. RESTAURANT: An establishment where the principal business is the preparation of edible foodstuff and/or bevera~les primarily for the consumption on or off the premises. Restaurants where the foodstuff and/or beveraqes are dispensed primarily for off-site consumption are considered "carry-out/delivery restaurants." "Drive-throuqh restaurants" are restaurants that have drive-throuqh or drive-in facilities Drive-throuqh restaurants are considered "auto-and truck-oriented uses" and as such are only alrowed in zones where auto-and truck-oriented uses are allowed. IN 14-6N-1J: Required Number of Parking Spaces, amend paragraph 2.t; deleting the word "carry-out" from the title. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes November 6, 2003 Page 4 Miklo responded to a question by Freerks by stating the amendment would apply to all zones but would have the most effect in the CB-10 zone. Also, parking will stay the same with the underlying zone requirements. Hanson questioned if the amendment would effect a restaurant with an outdoor seating area. Miklo said he did not believe so because the outdoor seating is considered temporary and not year round seating for the restaurant. Bovbjerg clarified that the amendment would only allow drive-through restaurants in areas zoned for auto and truck oriented use, but would allow for any other type of restaurant be allowed in other commercial zones in the city. She also stated this zoning issue first seemed to just pertain to the new proposed Starbucks restaurant but realizes this problem is more deeply rooted. She said it is important that the ordinances reflect the changes in time, cars, food and where people are downtown. Miklo said they have noted at least twice in the past year where this same zoning issue has been questioned, and staff realized that a change needed to be made. Public Discussion Opened There was none. Public Discussion Closed MOTION: Freerks moved to replace the old definition of restaurant with the following definition of restaurant. Restaurant: An establishment where the principal business is the preparation and dispensing of edible foodstuffs and/or beverages primarily for consumption on or off the premises. Restaurants where the foodstuff and/or beverages are dispensed primarily for off-site consumption are considered "carry-outJdelivery restaurants." "Drive-through restaurants" are considered "auto-and truck-oriented uses" and as such are only allowed in zones where auto-and truck-oriented uses are allowed. Seconded by Koppes. DISCUSSION: Bovbjerg said this is a nice example of staying up to date even though one the newspapers says the current code is based on a philosophy of legislating design and needs to be reexamined. She thinks they are doing the right thing and not buckling under pressure of editors or Starbucks. Shannon said they are not changing the code for one person, and one situation. He hopes it does not appear this way but also hopes the Government can be this flexible all the time. Anciaux noted the definition has been problematic for many restaurants in the past and causing undue hardship, therefore change was necessary. Freerks said the recent history is pretty flush with examples of why this needed to be changed, and it is the right thing to do and makes good sense. Koppes said the change is not just for downtown, it is citywide change and thus does not pertain to just one business. VOTE: All in favor, motion passed 7-0. OTHER ITEMS Miklo said they are looking for items/recommendations from the commission as to what they feel are important and should be considered highly when the Staff prepares the Capitol Improvements Program for consideration by the City Council. He asked for each member to submit three or four items and staff will look for a consensus. The following are items the commission members suggested for consideration. Bovbjerg noted the items that are really important address community health, safety and welfare. Foster Road/Dubuque Street Gilbert Street & Hwy 6 Sidewalk Hwy 1 West Fire Station Number 4 Mormon Trek Left Turn Lanes Dubuque & Church Street Left Turn Lanes Lower Muscat/ne- Spruce to DeForest Dodge Street Improvements Bike Path Hwy 6 to Coralville Hwy 6 sidewalk trail near Veterans Hospital to Coralville' Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes November 6, 2003 Page 5 Recreation Center Window Replacements Approval of October 13, 2003 Meeting Minutes MOTION: Anciaux moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Shannon seconded the motion. All in favor, motion passed 7-0. ADJOURNMENT Bovbjerg thanked the individuals who ran for City Council. She noted the next meeting, November 17, 2003 will have a heavy agenda and hopes everyone will be present. MOTION: Chait moved to adjourn the meeting. Shannon seconded the motion. All in favor, motion passed 7-0. Jerry Hanson, Secretary Minutes submitted by Jennifer Sherlock data on cilyn[/pcd/min uteslp&zJ2003 11-06 p&z.doc MINUTES APPROVED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2003 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry Hansen, Ann Freerks, Ann Bovbjerg, Don Anciaux, Beth Koppes, Benjamin Chait MEMBERS ABSENT: Dean Shannon STAFF PRESENT: John Yapp, Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Mitch Behr OTHERS PRESENT: Joe Holland, Dave Moore, Steven Nelson, Jim Quigley, Steve Gordon RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0, REZ03-00020, a rezoning of 119.94 acres from ID-RS, Interim Development Single-Family and ID-RM, Interim Development Multi-Family, to OPDH-5, Planned Development Overlay-Single-Family Residential subject to a conditional zoning agreement with the conditions as noted in the Staff Memorandum dated 11/12/03. Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0, SUB03-00028., a preliminary plat and sensitive areas site plan of Sand Hill Estates, a 146.48-acre, 379-1ot subdivision located east of Gilbert Street and south of Pepperwood Addition, subject to approval of rezoning. Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0, REZ03-00024, a rezoning of approximately 16.1-acres from Residential Factory Built Housing (RFBH) to Planned Development Housing Overlay-12 (OPDH-12), and a preliminary Planned Development Housing Overlay Plan for 78 units including multi-family buildings and multiple buildings on lots located on Heinz Road south of Paddock Boulevard. CALL TO ORDER: Bovbjerg called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. ANNOUNCEMENT OF VACANCIES ON CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: Bovbjerg read a listing of current vacancies on the various City Boards and Commissions. Interested persons should submit their application by 12/17/03. REZONING / DEVELOPMENT ITEMS: 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, 379-1ot subdivision located south of Pepperwood Addition and east of South Gilbert Street. Yapp said the Commission had reviewed this proposal several times. It was a proposal for a zoning to OPDH-5, which was overall a zoning with no more than 5-units per acre of density. At the informal meeting a question had arisen regarding the numbedpercentage of the various lots. 213 lots (56%) with less than 60-feet of frontage with no alley access 73 lots (19%) with less than 60-feet of frontage with alley access 93 lots (24%) with over 60-feet of frontage which is minimum lot frontage in a Low Density Single- Family (RS-5) zone The average width of the lots with less than 60-feet of frontage and on an alley was 30-feet, but some were larger. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes November 20, 2003 Page 2 Yapp said Staff had recommended approval of the zoning subject to a variety of conditions, most of which the applicant had agreed to. The conditions the applicant had agreed to were: · Construction of a left turn lane on Gilbert Street to accommodate traffic to the development · Commission approval of the future design of the small lots with alley access, similar to a planned development housing design review process · Requirements that lots adjacent to alleys be accessed from the alley The applicant had not agreed to the following condition: · Setback and size of garage in relation to the street and the house Staff's concern was that as lots became narrower than the standard 60-feet of frontage that was required in the RS-5 zone, the dominance of the garage on the street became more of a concern because of the cumulative effect of the garages along the street, in order to accommodate street facing garages on narrower lots the residential portions of the house were pushed into the background. StafFs concerns were consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, including the South District Plan, which stated that as housing density increased and lot sizes were reduced, attention should be paid to design issues such as garages and driveway locations to ensure the neighborhoods remained livable. Yapp said staff felt that as the lot sizes became narrower, in order for the neighborhood to remain livable and residential in appearance, standards for the setback and the size of the garage should be part of the zoning approval. In this case, the applicant is asking for a reduction in lot width from 60 feet to generally 50-52 feet. In order to allow the smaller lots yet help preserve the RS-5 characteristics of the neighborhood, staff proposed the conditions. In the absence of agreement of the conditions for the zoning as delineated in Yapp's memorandum to the Commission dated 11/12/03, Staff recommended that the plat be denied. Howard said there were a number of things that Staff were concerned about with respect to the size of the development and the proposed number of smaller lots. Staff had seen a number of issues arise throughout Iowa City and surrounding communities as lots had become narrower. They had seen increasing evidence of these issues happening in the communities with the development of the narrower lots. StafFs concerns included: · Street facing garages that took up a majority of the frontage on the narrower lots · Blank street facing facades where a major portion of the house was not seen when walking down the street. The garage was the dominant view. · Excessive front yard paving that left little space for trees or landscaping. When the driveways/garages became wider they took up the majority of the frontage. · Sidewalks were interrupted by the wide driveways making them much less pedestrian-friendly. They became less attractive for persons walking/bicycling down the street. · The loss of on street parking. The City had received complaints about persons parking in front of other person's mailboxes because there is so little parking on the streets with narrow lots and many driveways. Howard said it was the cumulative effect of the all garage-scape issues that tended to arise with the narrower lots. She said the question was, "Is it possible to build these affordable small lot neighborhoods and still have friendly streets and attractive public spaces?" Howard said the streets were one of the most important public spaces that any city had. Howard said some developers were able to accomplish these two goals. She said some neighborhoods and developments had been able to keep the living space on the street by putting the garages back from the front yard, which resulted in keeping a pedestrian orientation to the street. Howard said with the proposed development along Sandusky Drive, a collector street, there were 65 proposed lots which meant 65 driveways would come off the street. The best solution would be to put an alley behind the houses, but they had not asked the developer to do so because the applicant had originally agreed to place the garages flush with or back from the front of the house. But now the applicant has changed their position. So, in lieu of alleys, Staff suggests that the minimum solutions would be that the garage only be 50% of the front dwelling fa(;ade. She said StafFs recommendation didn't have anything to do with the design or style itself, but only with the house's presence on the street. Staff had also suggested that the developer be given some leeway if the garage were setback further Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes November 20, 2003 Page 3 from the front of the dwelling. The garage could take up more than 50 percent, if the garage were set back. Howard said another issue was how far forward could the garage be. Staff had suggested that it be no farther forward than the front of the dwelling. They had tried to work with the developer and provided him with a number of house plans that would meet the standard. There were many different solutions for garages built on narrow lots. Howard said they also offered an exception to the garage placement standard. Staff had said that the garage could be pulled forward as long as some part of the house, such as a porch, be forward as well. Chair said everything that Staff had been talking about were also items that the Commission had been discussing as a way to improve the quality of neighborhoods with narrower lots. The requirements were not specific to this project but were requirements that the Commission had been looking at as a community standard, not to change the existing Code but to be something that they had purview over when they made exceptions to the existing Code. In this case the applicant was asking for exceptions to the RS-5 lot width. This would be the first opportunity that the Commission would have to implement the type of planning and modifications that they had been discussing implementing when the Commission made exceptions for the narroweddenser configurations. Chait said he wanted to be sure that the audience knew the distinction, that this was not just for this project - it was something that they were going to begin looking at as a way of allowing more development on narrower lots. The Commission was in the process of reviewing and revising the Code and this was one of the things that was in it. Miklo said the Comprehensive Plan and the South District Plan indicated that these were the expectations for the narrower lots. The next item on the agenda was also located in the South District and it very much adhered to the policies. Bovbjerg said the whole purpose for a planned development was to be able to tailor a proposed development. The Commission, the Council and the City had the power, for the sake of the City and for the sake of the neighborhood, to help with the planning of a planned development because it was not the usual lot size or the usual layout. That was where the City, developers and owners had to work together to try to develop a neighborhood. Public discussion was opened. Joe Holland, 123 N. Linn Street, said he had been working with the applicant through most of the process, although he had not been part of the project at the start. This process had actually begun in 2001. Holland said it was important to look at what had been accomplished along the way and not to just look at one particular issue which seemed to be a stumbling block. Holland said he had also been on the other side of the process. He had represented citizen groups and had been before the Commission and the Council. Holland said it was easier to go before the Commission to oppose a project, to throw pot shots, and to nitpick than it was to work through the process and come to a mutually agreeable compromise. Holland said he welcomed the opportunity to represent Southgate because he'd always admired their willingness to compromise and to try to do what was good for the community. They were not a recent entrant into the City of Iowa City, they were not a developer that developed a property, took their money and then left the community. They'd been a part of the Iowa City community since the 1950's. Holland said that Southgate had worked out with City Staff or agreed to every request that they had made with one exception. Holland said this project was not the process of coming up with one plan and putting it before the Commission and the City. He said during the last three or four months streets and lot locations had been tweaked and relocated at every meeting at the request of City Staff. A whole host of details, compromises and concessions had been made on both sides. Holland showed the Commission a copy of the original plan proposed by Randall Arndt. Holland said looking at the Arndt plan and the current proposal, the plans were substantially identical. A lot of thought had gone into this project before MMS had put any data into their CAD machines. Holland said perhaps the biggest compromise that had been made in this process was the dedication to the City of 18-acres of prairie. Without Southgate making the dedication, it was possible that this land might never be a part of the City park system. There were a lot of persons who really wanted to see it happen. Holland showed a plat which illustrated each lot as being 60-feet in width which he said basically met all the technical requirements of the City and addressed many of the concerns that had been raised along the way about street alignments and such. He said he didn't' think this plat was the preference of anyone involved. Southgate preferred to be a good member of the community. Both the City and the public Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes November 20, 2003 Page 4 welcomed the idea of preserving the prairie, 18-acres was a lot of area, it equated to 90 possible homes in an RS-5 density area. It had been made up for by narrowing down some of the lots. He said in private conversations Staff referred to these houses as snout houses. It was a pejorative term that was developed out of Portland, Oregon to describe what planners didn't like. Holland said to put it in context, what was really going to be built out in Sand Hill, no one really knew. That was something that the owners who built the houses and paid for the houses were going to decide. Holland said this was really about keeping choices open for persons who were going to live in that area. Staff's proposal came down to a proposal to restrict choices. Southgate had looked at the house designs suggested by Staff, had estimated the cost and the plans cost more to build per square foot. Holland said this was largely a matter of appearance, aesthetics and control of what would happen in that neighborhood. Holland said he had not heard any proof of the things that had been said to justify the rationales behind this. Holland asked, "Who really says that a different design was more pedestrian friendly?" He said that was one of the great unknowables and unproveables in life. No one would know either way because they were trying to prove a negative. He said if Staff really wanted to make the houses pedestrian friendly, the houses should be prohibited from having air conditioning or television. He guaranteed they would get more people out on the street. Holland said it was just conjecture that people felt more safe with Staff's proposed designs which had more windows facing the street than other housing designs. He said perhaps the stretches of concrete provided places for children to play and perhaps they and people in the area liked that. Holland said perhaps the people that were living on the west side valued their privacy and liked to have the garage out front and the entrance in the back. Holland said they also needed to think about how these homes would look in a few years after the plantings and trees matured. Those things would soften the appearance. He didn't think the photos they saw were fairly representative of what might happen in Sand Hill. A lot of the photos were of duplexes. Holland said the biggest expense was the concrete that they had seen for two driveways for a zero lot- line duplex. He said there were no duplexes in this development. Holland said it was important for the Commission to think carefully before they imposed restraints on consumers. They were telling the people who wanted to live in this neighborhood what they could build. He said the proposed standards might not ever make it into the ordinance. He warned the Commission to be careful about imposing standards before they knew how the community felt and whether there was Council support. Holland said this really had not been debated in any public forum but he guaranteed there would be vigorous opposition to this when it came in the form of an ordinance before the Commission and the Council. Various groups were already gearing up for the fight. Holland said this project had been the product of many compromises over at least 24 months. He said the final compromise Southgate asked for was to leave the location of the garages to the market, to the people who were going to invest their money in them, who were going to live in the houses and to let them make those determinations. He said what Southgate was asking for was to let the market, the people who were most affected by this and who would live in this area make those aesthetic decisions. Holland said they asked the Commission to approve the application and to send it on to Council. Dave Moore, 425 Davenport Street, said he'd spoken before the Commission several times before and was not a big fan of the development. There had been a lot of public input from persons residing in the Pepperwood and Wetherby neighborhoods. They lived on the east side of the development. He was waiting to hear more discussion about the west side of the development, in particular the view of it when you drove down Sand Road and how it and/or its mere presence, might impact other possibilities for future use of land on either side of Sand Road in the future. Moore said there had been a lot of activity from the Pepperwood and Wetherby neighborhoods, but there was no one living on the other side, all there was was a bunch of ball diamonds which were full of kids in the summer and a couple quarry ponds full of thousands of birds in the spring. There was a lot of natural beauty, a lot of natural history and a lot of potential. Moore said hypothetically speaking, if one talked about the McCallister Estate which was in this area, the South District Plan called it one of the few remaining links to the early settlement of Iowa City. Terry Trueblood had mentioned to Moore a couple weeks ago that it was still a possibility that it might be donated to the City. However, if the City thought about it they might decide that even though it was an amazing place, there would be a lot of traffic with the housing development so maybe it was now not all that special of a thing to make it into a nature center. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes November 20, 2003 Page 5 Moore said with respect to the quarry ponds, the South District Plan a number of times referred to the desirability of possibly acquiring them for public use someday. He said the general manager of the ponds had said they would be mined out next spring. A lot of the slopes had been reclaimed and would be on the market in two to three years. He said Councilperson Vanderhoff was interested in parks. She was very fascinated with what Ames had done with some of their quarries. She had mentioned the possibility of Vision iowa money for that area. Moore said he hypothetically imagined that during a pre-application process, people from Vision Iowa and City community leaders were looking over the quarry pond area. They said what an amazing place it was, what local history it contained and all the amazing wildlife it contained. Then they looked across the road and saw the butt end of housing project that was not particularly more attractive than any other housing project throughout the county. Moore said he was no expert, but it was his gut reaction that maybe with all the tweaking of garages and alley ways that somewhere along the line the Commission had missed the forest through all the trees on this proposal. Moore said the basic question he had was, was this the kind of development that would be a positive thing for the real potential of what could be along Sand Road. Was it within the spirit of the original South District Plan. Moore said he thought the answer to both questions was no. Moore said in response to the comments by Holland, just because there had been a lot of compromises made by Southgate and just because there had been a lot of work done by them, doesn't mean it was the right thing or didn't meant that it was a preordained thing that had to be passed. He said Southgate was an established company that had been around for years. Moore said he couldn't imagine that when a company such as Southgate bought a piece of land such as this, they didn't consider the worst-case scenarios. They had to have known that they could have run into Indian burial mounds, there were turtles listed as a threatened species located there, there was a sand prairie there, it was in an area that was a prime area for recreational possibilities. Moore said Southgate had to have known that it was going to be a long and dicey affair. He said if the Commission thought they needed to move slower, then they moved slower, tf they thought they had to vote it down, they voted it down. Moore said if the Commission didn't know and they were wavering, because they were changing the rules by rezoning, if they didn't know what they should do, he felt it was their duty to vote it down. Moore said he was not pot-shotting. He had a sincere feeling that this area, particularly between the ridge and Sand Road should not be developed. Moore said a sort of recreational corridor in that area could actually be the kind of attraction that would help a community grow and could create even more opportunities for Southgate to build in other more appropriate areas. Steven E. Nelson, 1033 Sandusky Drive, said he kept going back to the idea that the South District Plan initially envisioned a lot of the area as open space. That fact was known beforehand. Most of the discussion in the iow-density single-family housing in the west Sycamore District acknowledged the large open space, did not ever mention transfer of density functions, the OPDH designation to compensate for the open space. It just assumed there would be open space with the RS-5 housing. He said he thought it was a gift to Southgate that the City and citizens were considering allowing a density transfer to increase the density on the remaining lot. if Southgate didn't own the whole parcel they wouldn't be able to build there. Nelson said at one time Southgate had offered to sell the sand prairie. They wisely had withdrawn their offer because they realized that if they held on to it they could use it as a bargaining chip. He said with respect to the requirements for home builders and the idea that they would be allowed to build, it was a valid point. He had built on a piece of property on Southgate's' development in Pepperwood but he had had certain restrictions that had to be followed. It had to be a certain square footage, it had to have a double car garage, he could not put anything in his back yard including plantings or garage/storage buildings. Those were all conditions and if he didn't like them he could build elsewhere. Nelson said he thought if design guidelines were set for this neighborhood it would be a reasonable thing to do. For the people who didn't like that type of housing and wanted to build a house with a garage dominating the front yard, there were other neighborhoods they could build in. Nelson said he didn't think they were limiting the public's options by not allowing it in this district, especially since neighborhood design was an important point for the many citizens who worked on the South District Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes November 20, 2003 Page 6 Nelson said when they had discussed this approximately four weeks ago, it had been mentioned that a homeowners association would be responsible for maintaining the stormwater retention areas. He had objected because the home owners association would have no input into planning this and stormwater basins could be a pain to maintain according to the City. In a worst-case scenario, who would he sue? He said the Association was as much an aspect of the proposed development as street location, lot sizes, home design aspects, stormwater management and sand prairie preservation. A description of the Association was totally lacking. For many owners of the already established lots in the Neighborhood addition as well as the City Parks division, their neighbors would not be Mr. and Mrs. Jones, but a Homeowners Association. How would they interact with the Association and how would they settle disputes? Nelson said in many new subdivisions with common property, its location was usually in the central area surrounded by the homeowners. In the proposed development, it was on the exterior and created a no man's land between existing homeowners and the new subdivision. It would be a direct effect on the Pepperwood/Southpoint neighbors. Nelson said approval of this rezoning and subdivision plat in essence created a quasi legal entity with no predictable structure or responsibility. It might be as large as 379 households, bigger than many small Iowa towns. Nelson said it was not possible to comment on a Homeowners Association that was not described. Factual details for discussion were missing. The Association needed to be addressed now while the issue was open for public comment. After approval the neighbors might not ever have the opportunity again to comment on this aspect of the proposed development. He said this aspect of the development was as real a real concern as the design and bricks and mortar that would form the new structures and affect the property values of existing neighborhoods. Nelson said the Association had been slipped into the proposed development and he didn't think the City had created ordinances for homeowners divisions yet. He said he had no problem with the Association, but if it was going to be in charge of that area he wanted it described as part of the subdivision approval. Bovbjerg asked Behr if there were a history, legal standing or rule of thumb. Behr said this was a preliminary plat. The legal papers would be done with the final plat. They addressed maintenance of the stormwater area. There was precedence with the City for working with Homeowners Associations. Chait asked if it would be correct to state that the whole concept of the Homeowners Association was not germane to what the Commission was actually reviewing. Behr said that was correct. It would be premature to consider or even address it now. When the final plat came through, the public would have a chance to comment on the Association. Jim Qui~ley, 915 Pepper Drive, asked if the plat was denied what would happen next. Bovbjerg said it depended on the developer. Behr said if the Commission voted to deny it, the applicant could proceed to Council and ask the Council to approve it. Whether the Commission recommended approval or denial, it could sti~l go to City Council and they had ultimate decision. Quigley asked what would happen if the Council denied the application. Behr said if Council denied it, the application was denied and the applicant could not proceed with it. It was up to the applicant to decide what they wanted to do from there. Quigley said he agreed with the neighbors who had spoken out against the narrow lots. He didn't think it would be a very friendly neighborhood with all those tiny lots with garages sticking out. He preferred the alternative designs that staff had shown. Public discussion was closed. Yapp said it would be appropriate for the Commission to first vote on the rezoning and then a subsequent vote for the preliminary plat. Motion: Chair made a motion to approve, REZ03-00020, a rezoning of 119.94 acres from ID-RS, Interim Development Single*Family and ID-RM, Interim Development Multi-Family, to OPDH-5, Planned Development Overlay-Single-Family Residential subject to a conditional zoning agreement with the conditions as noted in the Staff Memorandum dated 11/12/03. Freerks seconded the motion. Chair said he had wanted to make the point that the placement of the garage on narrower lots was a bigger issue that preceded this specific application. The Commission was not just responding to this particular project. Southgate Development had done a fantastic job contributing to and developing this Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes November 20, 2003 Page 7 community. Chair said he respected them immensely. In looking at the issues that they were looking at as a Commission, in terms of the new ordinance and the concerns that they had as Commissioners in the way that they saw the community, when the Commission was presented with the concerns that they saw such as the garagescape, Chair said he was very comfortable having an opinion and being one of seven people to cast a vote and go along with the majority. When presented with the concerns about the garagescape and the aesthetic of what he saw and what existed in this community, he was not all that happy with it. He could see that it would be appropriate to do something different if they could to encourage what they were debating as the pedestrian friendlier streetscape. Chait said as Holland had suggested, for the concerns that they were addressing, they had not recommended or adopted anything yet and Council had not supported them on anything yet. His opinion was, tomorrow never comes. It is always tomorrow. What that meant was, when do they start. In response to the opposition that might or might not be out there from the Home Builders Association and people that didn't like what the Commission wanted to do, it seemed to him that the City was not taking anything away. They were proposing to regulate narrower lots that currently are not allowed in the RS-5 zone. They were not taking anything away from what existed; they were just trying to have more say around what the neighborhoods looked like when the Commission made allowances that allowed them to be denser than they currently could be. The Commission was making an offer that a developer could do the denser, smaller lots under certain conditions. If the community, the builders, the Home Builders, realtors and people who bought homes said they didn't want that, then he was comfortable to say fine. They would just have it the way it was now, the bigger than 60-foot width lots and the regulations that currently existed. It was very reasonable. The free market ruled. Chair said the argument that he saw was, the Commission was making an offer to do something that might be more efficient and cost effective in terms of infrastructure, but in order to do that the design of the community had to be considered. That is where he saw the line drawn. Chait said he understood and had respect for Holland's opinion about Council and the process not being done yet, but the Commission could speak at this meeting and start to set their agenda and see what happened. If they held the line and wanted it done as suggested and denied it if it was not, and Council overruled them and approved it, then Council was starting to give the Commission some feedback as to where they were going with their other issues around the Code. Chait said if their position was the one that they had been presented with at the meeting and the one that they had had a consensus about as a Commission, he was comfortable taking that stand now. Chait said it was not about the applicant, it was about the Commission's vision and what they wanted their community to look like. Freerks said Holland had talked about the number of revisions that Southgate had gone through. She was glad that the applicant had been able to take advantage of the resources and expertise that Staff had provided. She saw that as a positive thing. The applicant had probably ended up getting something better for them and for the community in the long run. There had been compromises on both sides. Freerks said she didn't see the point of the placement of the buildings on the lot and where the garages began and ended as being a nit picking point. The applicant had agreed to all the conditions except one, but that one item affected 57% of the lots in this development in a big way. It was not a small thing, it was a very big thing. Freerks said Chair had said it well - the Commission was allowing something that they usually didn't allow in terms of lot width. She saw the issues of setback and garage placement on a lot as being very important. The things that they looked at in other zones, in commercial zones they looked at the way buildings were placed on the lots and she felt that it was no different here. She didn't see it so much as a design issue as an issue of livability. There had been a lot of thought that had gone into it. Freerks said she would not vote in favor of this application with the absence of that condition. Hansen said he would agree with what Moore had said about the drive along Sand Road, but unfortunately the City didn't own that ground. Unless the City were to purchase that entire piece of ground, that would be the only way that Moore's vision would come to reality. Hansen said with respect to proof as to whether neighborhoods were livable or not just because of the way they looked - the Commission had gone out and walked and taken tours of neighborhoods. It was quite plain to him that when he walked down a street dominated by garages what the difference was in livability. Hansen said he believed in the garage placement standards that were being offered for this project. As for the compromises made, the original plan submitted by Southgate had paid no heed whatsoever to the Comprehensive or the District Plan. The Arndt plan had really turned things around. Hansen said he commended Southgate for engaging Arndt to design a plan. However the difference between Arndt's plan and Southgate's plan was the single loaded streets. Hansen said if he had had a preference he would Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes November 20, 2003 Page 8 have gone that way. Hansen said that Staff had made compromises, the designer had made compromises, he thought that enough alternatives to the forward-thrust garage had been offered to prove to him that it could be done with design standards in place. Hansen said every neighborhood that a person built in told them what could and could not be built, especially the more expensive neighborhoods, whether it was the developer offering only a limited number of floor plans or whether it was by covenants for the development or zoning. Hansen said he saw this as a huge development for this area of town. It would set the tone and quality for everything that happened over there. He liked the plan, the fact that everyone had had to compromise to get where they were. Hansen said to him the Comprehensive Plan and the District Plan were not absolutely set in concrete, but without a real good reason to change those plans, he wanted to see things adhered to. Both of the Plans called for open space and for design standards. Hansen said he felt that was what needed to be done in this case. Koppes said this had been a very hard decision for her. She thought Southgate had made a lot of compromises. She said she would support all four conditions recommended by Staff. There were a lot of neighborhoods that had the garages out front and were not very friendly. Koppes said it had been a very hard line for her. She had listened to all the Commissioners and originally thought she was in the minority. A few of the comments had made her change her mind, and she would support the four conditions, including the one regarding the placement of garages on the narrower lots. Anciaux said he had been very skeptical of regulating the garage location. When staff had first mentioned pedestrian-friendly streetscapes it had raised the hackles on the back of his neck. He wondered if they were going to be doing something that was in vogue now but would not be in vogue 20, 30 or 40 years from now. Anciaux said at that time the Commission had taken a tour of some of the areas around Iowa City that had the narrower lots and garages that were more than 50% or 60% of the streetscape. After seeing them he felt that they did not result in a good feeling of community or neighborhood. Anciaux said initially he was probably one of the most skeptical Commissioners about regulating the placement of garages, but after seeing the effect on neighborhoods and community design he supported including garage placement standards in the Conditional Zoning Agreement. Bovbjerg said the Commissioners had spoken well. This was a compromise, a how do you develop a piece of property that presents some difficulties and still get the return on your investment and a good neighborhood. Bovbjerg said that was why they had planned development. It was a good use of cooperation over the years and a good example of a lot of true citizen input. As the development built out and matured, it would truly be Iowa City's south gate. Bovbjerg said for the people there and for the people in the rest of Iowa City it was going to be a very good development. What was going to help it would be the conditions on the use of the land as presented by Staff. The conditions would work, they would be good for the development, good for the City and good for the developer. Bovbjerg said the point that another person might be building a lot, was a very good reason for a planned development to say to the builder this is the kind of appearance we want the street to have. That is why the Commission was laying out the guidelines for all the builders, it would make it predictable. For anyone who wanted to build, they would know exactly what the rules were and how to do it. That would be very helpful to the industry and to the neighborhood. No big surprises. The diversity of housing and the different kinds of affordability that should come out of this project would be a big plus for the City. Bovbjerg agreed that all of the conditions are necessary to approve the rezoning. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. Motion: Chait made a motion to approve SUB03-00028, a preliminary plat and sensitive areas site plan of Sand Hill Estates, a 146.48-acre, 379-1ot subdivision located east of Gilbert Street and south of Pepperwood Addition. Hansen seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. REZ03-00024, discussion of an application for a rezoning of approximately 16.1-acres from Residential Factory Built Housing (RFBH) to Planned Development Housing Overlay-12 (OPDH-12), and a preliminary Planned Development Housing Overlay Plan for 78 units including multi-family buildings and multiple buildings on lots located on Heinz Road south of Paddock Boulevard. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes November 20, 2003 Page 9 Miklo said this property was part of the Saddlebrook development which was annexed into the City in 1994. At that time the area was zoned Residential Factory Built Housing (RFBH). Just to the north there was an area of RM-20 zoning. In early 2003, part of the area was rezoned to OPDH-12, which was the same request for this property. Miklo said it was basically a High Density Single-Family zoning district (RS-12) with a planned development overlay over it in order to allow the clustering of units into townhouses, two 8-plexes, and duplex-style units. Miklo said the site plan, which would allow 78 units, would supersede a plan for manufactured housing on this site which allowed for 66 units. Staff felt even though there would be an increase in density, the proposed plan allowed for more open space because of the clustering and there would be additional improvements over the plan that was in place now. The previous plan had approximately 30 driveways onto Heinz Road a collector street, whereas the new plan proposed only 15. The design of the units took into account the policies of the South District plan in terms of the two 8-plex buildings being relatively small in scale and being compatible with a residential neighborhood. Miklo said the town houses followed those policies as well. Parking for those units would be in the rear off a private alley. A number of duplexes would also have rear access to a private alley while other duplex units would have some driveways onto the street but were minimized to be only 50% or less of the facade, other units would have the driveway off to the side. For units that had garages upfront it would only be 50% of the facade and the dwelling unit had been pulled forward to be approximately flush with the garage to minimize the garagescape appearance. On other units porches had been added to emphasize the residential aspect of the development. Miklo said even though this would be an increase in density, it was a good design, met the policies of the South District Plan and was compatible with the higher density zoning to the norih and the manufactured housing zoning density to the west. Miklo said Staff recommended approval REZ03-00024. Koppes asked if there had been any discussion of a stop light to Highway 6. Miklo said the DOT had looked at it with the City Transportation Planner but he did not know what the status was. it had come up in relation to other developments and the industrial area in that proximity. Miklo thought eventually there would be a traffic light placed there, but he didn't know the timing of it. Bovbjerg asked if the traffic signal was on the ClP. Miklo said he did not believe so because it would be a State highway project. Bovjberg requested that the minutes reflect that the Commission had concerns about the placement of a traffic signal at Heinz Road and Highway 6 and requested the City to address these concerns as soon as possible. In response to a question by Bovbjerg, Miklo said the final site plan would be approved administratively by Staff. There would not necessarily be a final plat associated with it. Public discussion was opened. Steve Gordon., 1718 Timber Hills Drive, said Staff had done an excellent job providing information about the rezoning and site plan. They had worked well and hard with Staff to try to implement some of the Commission's thoughts and ideas that they were currently working on with Code review and design standards. Incorporating those into this site plan had helped to improve the streetscape tremendously along Heinz Road, increase the greenspace, a trail system and picnic shelter had been added, there were a lot less curb cuts along Heinz Road and minimized the garagescape. Gordon said staff had been very helpful and supportive in assisting them. Gordon said there had been a traffic study done by the DOT in the summer of 2002. He thought they had found that there was approximately 66% of the traffic needed at the intersection to warrant a stoplight. Public discussion was closed. Hansen expressed his thanks for the very nice design that Gordon and Staff had created. Motion: Freerks made a motion to approve REZ03-00024, an application for a rezoning of approximately 16.1-acres from Residential Factory Built Housing (RFBH) to Planned Development Housing Overlay-12 (OPDH-12), and a preliminary Planned Development Housing Overlay Plan for 78 units including multi- family buildings and multiple buildings on lots located on Heinz Road south of Paddock Boulevard. Hansen seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes November 20, 2003 Page 10 Freerks said she felt this was very well done. It was pedestrian friendly and they appeared to be affordable units. It was a nice transition in that neighborhood. Hansen said he felt this totally met the requirements of the South District and Comprehensive Plans. He very much appreciated what the developer had done. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. OTHER: Miklo distributed copies of the 11/6/03 meeting minutes. CONSIDERATION OF 11/6/03 MEETING MINUTES: Chair made a motion to defer approval of the minutes to the 12/1/03 meeting. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. ADJOURNMENT: Anciaux made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:12 pm. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. Jerry Hansen, Secretary Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill data on citynt~pcd/minutes/p&~2003 11-20p&z.doc FINAL/APPROVED POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD ~ MINUTES - October 29, 2003 CALL TO ORDER Chair Loren Horton called the meeting to order at 5:18 p.m. ATTENDANCE Board members present: Candy Barnhill, Loren Horton, and John Stratton; Board member absent: Greg Roth. Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh (4:21p.m.) and Staff Kellie Turtle present. Also in attendance was Sgt. Troy Kelsay of the ICPD. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (1) Accept PCRB Report on Complaint #03-05. (2) Accept PCRB Report on Complaint #03-06 and #03-07. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Stratton, seconded by Barnhill, to adopt the consent calendar. · Minutes of the meeting on 10/14/03 · ICPD General Order #02-01 (Temporary/Light Duty) Motion carried, 3/0, Roth absent. Stratton requested a change in 10/14/03 minutes, last sentence of the consent calendar, to read "He also asked about the meaning of official color of duty." Majority agreed. NEW BUSINESS None. OLD BUSINESS Barnhill mentioned an employment change and that a work number will not be available. PUBLIC DISCUSSION None. BOARD INFORMATION None. STAFF INFORMATION None. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Barnhill, seconded by Stratton, 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 PCRB-Page 2 October 29, 2003 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, 3/0, Roth absent. Open session adjourned at 5:23 P.M. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 5:35 P.M. Motion by Stratton, seconded by Barnhill, to forward the Public Report for PCRB Complaint #03-05 to City Council. Motion carried, 3/0, Roth absent. Motion by Barnhill, seconded by Stratton, to forward the Public Report for PCRB Complaint #03-06 and #03-07 to City Council. Motion carried, 3/0, Roth absent. Motion by Stratton, seconded by Barnhill, to grant the 45-day extension to the Police Chief for PCRB #03-08, #03-09, and #03-10 to December 5, 2003. Motion carried, 3/0, Roth absent. Motion by Stratton, seconded by Barnhill, to cancel the November 10th meeting. Motion carried, 3/0, Roth absent. MEETING SCHEDULE · December 9, 2003, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room · January 13, 2004, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room · February 10, 2004, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room ADJOURNMENT Motion by Barnhill, seconded by Stratton, to adjourn. Motion carried, 3/0, Roth absent. Meeting adjourned at 5:39 P.M. POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240-1826 (319)356-5041 TO: City Council Complainant Stephen Atkins, City Manager ~C~ ~ ~ '- R. J. Winkelhake, Chief of Police "'O Officer(s) involved in complaint FROM: Police Citizens Review Board RE: Investigation of PCRB Complaint #03-05 DATE: 29 October 2003 This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB #03-05 (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. Board's Procedure The Complaint was received at the Office of the City Clerk on June 30, 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 August 29, 2003, and was filed with the City Clerk on August 25, 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 # 03-05 Page 1 The Board met to consider the Report on October 14, 2003, and October 29, 2003. Findings of Fact On March 31, 2003 the Complainant reported being assaulted by two adult males and two juvenile males. On April 9, 2003 the Complainant and an undetermined number of other juvenile males assaulted another juvenile male, allegedly one of the assailants from the original altercation on March 31, 2003. The Complainant charged that the investigating officer did not adequately investigate the odginal assault complaint on March 31,2003, leading to the retaliation attack on Apdl 9, 2003. Interviews of the Complainant and his mother did not establish firmly the number of assailants on March 31, 2003, or their identity. The investigating officer attempted to locate the assailants, but apparently some of them do not live in Iowa City, and residence addresses for the others could not be found. The Complainant went in the officer's car but upon enquiry, residents at the places the Complainant stated his assailants lived denied that people with those names lived at the addresses. Because several of the alleged assailants are referred to only by nicknames, it is difficult to determine who was present, and who actually participated in the altercations. Dudng interviews, the Complainant stated he escaped his assailants of the March 31, 2003 altercation, went to his sister's residence, and called friends to come and join him - whether for protection or retaliation, is not clear. The Complainant stated dudng the interviews that the altercation on March 31, 2003 continued into a second phase, but it was then termed a "one-on-one" fight between the Complainant and one of his original assailants. This fight resulted in property damage to the residence of a person not otherwise involved in either altercation. As a result of the April 9, 2003 altercation, the Complainant was arrested for assault with injury, and criminal mischief, the latter a result of damage inflicted upon property belonging to the alleged victim. The Complainant was then removed to the Linn County Juvenile Detention Facility and held for two (2) days. Conclusion The Report from the Chief of Police includes an extensive transcript of an interview with the Complainant and his mother, as well as other relevant official documents. From information contained in the original Complaint, and in this extensive transcript, it is virtually impossible to determine with any degree of certainty, the identities of all of the people involved in either altercation, nor all of the motivations involved. It seems to the Police Citizens Review Board that the original investigating officer took all steps required by Departmental regulations to determine what had happened, and who was involved. His inability to locate most of the alleged assailants was not due to any lapse of pr~)er police procedures for the handling of the case. ~. PCRB # 03-05 .-< r-- Page2 .~.~_ ~: Alleqation # 1: The Board finds that the Chief's conclusion that thero is no substantial evidence to support the allegation that the officer failed to propedy investigate the March 31, 2003 incident is correct, and is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. NOT SUSTAINED. Alleqation # 2: The Police Citizens Review Board does not have any authority to determine what the Iowa City Press-Citizen prints. SUMMARY DISMISSAL. Allegation # 3: Neither the Police Citizens Review Board nor the Iowa City Police Department have power to determine the length of incarceration at the juvenile detention facility. SUMMARY DISMISSAL, Comment None. PCRB # 03-05 Page 3 POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240-1826 (319)356-5041 TO: City Council Complainant Stephen Atkins, City Manager R. J. Winkelhake, Chief of Police r-n "o .rTl Officer(s) involved in complaint FROM: Police Citizens Review Board RE: Investigation of PCRB Complaint #03-06 and #03-07 DATE: 29 October 2003 This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB #03-06 and #03-07 (the "Complaint"). Board's Responsibility Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8-8-7B (2), the Board's job is to review the Police Chiefs Report ("Report") of his investigation of a complaint. The City Code requires the Board to apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review to the Report and to "give deference" to the Report "because of the Police Chiefs professional expertise" (Section 8-8-7B (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. Board's Procedure The Complaints were received at the Office of the City Clerk on June 30 and July 2, 2003. As required by Section 8-8-5 of the City Code, the Complaints were referred to the Chief of Police for investigation. The Chiefs Reports were due on September 29, 2003 and October 1, 2003, respectively and were both filed with the City Clerk on September 29, 2003. The Board voted to review the Complaints in accordance with Section 8-8-7B(1)(a), on the record with no additional investigation. PCRB # 03-06 and 03-07 Page 1 The Board met to consider the Report on October 14, 2003, and October 29, 2003. FindinRs of Fact In order to clarify the Complainants in these two Complaints, they will be referred to as Complainant 03-06 and Complainant 03-07. On the evening of May 24, 2003 a 911 call was received from Complainant 03-07 who stated that his wife had just threatened him with a knife. Three officers responded to this call. When the first officer arrived, Complainant 03-07 invited him into the residence. The officer observed Complainant 03- 06 in the kitchen of the residence with a knife in her hand. The officer asked her to put the knife down, and she complied. The second officer ardved at this time, and took Complainant 03-06 outside of the residence, while the first officer remained inside the residence with Complainant 03-07. At that time the. third officer arrived, and remained outside of the residence. Complainant 03-07 then described the incident, signed a voluntary statement as follows: "1 was in house and she became mad she had knife in hand she sliced me with it". The first officer observed a wound on Complainant 03-07's hand consistent with a knife cut, and took photographs of it. Complainant 03-06 told the second and third officers that she was using the knife to cut food, and that although she and her husband had argued, she never had used the knife to threaten or cut him. The first and second officers conferred and concluded that this incident fell under Iowa Code Section 236.12 (2) (b-d) and required mandatory arrest. Complainant 03-06 was arrested and placed in the patrol car. Complainant 03-07 remained in the residence with the couple's two minor children. Complainant 03-06 was later transported to the Johnson County Sheriff's Department by the third officer. Apparently Complainant 03-06's brother and his gid friend had been in the residence at the time of the incident, but had left because they had been ddnking alcoholic beverages and feared possible arrest for that. Neither of them re-appeared at the scene, or ever offered any statements about the incident. Conclusion Inconsistencies in the information given by both Complainant 03-06 and Complainant 03- 07 make the incident more complex to analyze. The Board has relied on the signed statement by Complainant 03-07 and on the transcript of the 911 call to determine that there was real danger involved in the incident. There were difficulties in contacting either of the Complainants and any other witnesses to the incident. The fact that an actual injury to Complainant 03-07's hand was consistent with a knife cut lends credence to his original complaint, both in the 911 call and in his signed statement the night of the ,.~ incident. 0 CD..< < -Fl PCRB # 03-06 and 03-07 rn -o .age2 Alleqation # 1: Improper / Unlawful Arrest. The Board finds that the Chief's conclusion that there is no substantial evidence to support the allegation of improper or unlawful arrest on May 24 is correct, and is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. The decision of the first and second officers that this incident fell under Iowa Code Section 236.12 (2) (b-d) was reasonable and correct, and required a mandatory arrest. NOT SUSTAINED, Alleqation # 2: Improper Conduct. The Board finds no evidence of improper conduct on the parts of the first, second, or third officers. Therefore the Chief's conclusion that there is no substantial evidence to support the allegation of improper conduct on May 24 is correct, and is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. NOT SUSTAINED. Alleqation # 3: False Report. The Board relies on the signed voluntary statement of the Complainant 03-07 given on May 24 that Complainant 03-06 cut him with a knife, and also on the transcript of the 911 call. There is no evidence of a false report on the part of the first, second, or third officer. Therefore the Chief's conclusion that there is no substantial evidence to support the allegation of a false report on May 24 is correct, and is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. NOT SUSTAINED. Comment None. PCRB # 03-06 and 03-07 Page 3