Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-11-02 Bd Comm minutes4b 1 MINUTES HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION APPROVED SEPTEMBER 24, 2009 - 6:30 PM LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Chappell, Andy Douglas, Charlie Drum, Jarrod Gatlin, Holly Jane Hart, Michael McKay, Rebecca McMurray, Brian Richman, Rachel Zimmermannn Smith MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Tracy Hightshoe OTHERS PRESENT: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action): None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Brian Richman at 6:30 p.m. As there are three new members to the Commission (Zimmermann Smith, Chappell, and Gatlin) brief introductions were made. APPROVAL OF THE JULY 16T" MEETING MINUTES: Drum motioned to approve. Chappell seconded. Hart clarified that a comment she had made regarding Dolphin Pointe Enclave was made in the context of supporting rental housing, although that context was not clear from the minutes. The minutes were approved 8-0 (McMurray not present at the time of vote). PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: No members of the public were present. STAFFICOMMISSION COMMENT: Hightshoe said that she did not have any comments aside from what was on the agenda, although she noted that staff was recently notified of a problem with a proposed City-assisted Habitat home on I Street. Hightshoe said that Habitat was awarded FY08 CDBG funds to buy four housing lots. Hightshoe said there was a title opinion that did not identify any problems at HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 24, 2009 PAGE 2 of 8 the time of purchase, but that when Habitat went to build it was discovered that there had been an illegal lot-split in 1992. It was determined that there is no way to configure the lot so that it is a legal lot. At the time of the discovery, Habitat had already built the home's foundation. A stop-work order has been issued. Hightshoe said Habitat used $30,000 in CDBG funds to purchase the lot. Hightshoe said a home can't be built on the lot. She will update the commission once more is known. Richman asked for clarification on what the issue with the lot was. Hightshoe repeated that there had been an illegal lot-split by the property's owner in 1992. Richman asked if this meant that the owner had subdivided the lot. Hightshoe said the owner had not gone though the City's process to subdivide. While there were two auditor's parcel numbers for the lots, it was not a legal split. The issue was not picked up in the title/lien search, but the neighbors remembered and informed the City about the issue when they learned that a Habitat home was to be built on the site. As a result, Housing Inspection Services (HIS) had to review all of the records and determined that there was no way to make a legal lot out the property. Hightshoe said there was to have been a volunteer work-build for the home this weekend that had been cancelled because of the issue. Hightshoe said she was unsure what would happen from here. Hightshoe said the Community Development Celebration went well and that a lot of positive comments were received. The appetizers for the event were purchased from three CDBG- assisted businesses by First American Bank, and were very well-received. Douglas said the Commission would be hosting a public event as a way of doing public outreach and education. He said the event will be held October 28, 2009 at the Iowa City Public Library. Don Otto and Greg Johnson will be speaking on green-building and its affordability. The event will begin at 7:00 PM. Hightshoe said that a reminder would be put in Commissioners' October packets. Richman asked if Douglas was planning on doing some marketing and publicity for the event and Douglas said that he intended to. NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Richman stated that each year in the fall a Chairperson and Vice-Chair are elected to serve a one-year term. Hightshoe noted that Richman had been serving as Chair and Charlie Drum had served as Vice-Chair. She invited nominations. McKay nominated the incumbents to retain their positions: Brian Richman as Chair, Charlie Drum as Vice-Chair. Hart seconded. There were no further nominations. A vote was taken and Brian Richman was voted Chairperson and Charlie Drum was voted Vice-Chair on a 9-0 vote. NEW BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF THE FY09 CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE AND EVALUATION REPORT (CAPER): HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 24, 2009 PAGE3of8 Richman explained that this is a document required by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for cities receiving CDBG funds and requested Hightshoe further explain the report. Hightshoe stated the City has a 5 year plan on how to address the needs of low-to-moderate income persons which is called the Consolidated Plan for Housing, Jobs and Services for Low Income Residents (a.k.a. CITY STEPS). The plan is broken into annual increments. The City must submit to HUD an annual action plan before the beginning of the fiscal year to explain how the City will spend its HOME and CDBG funds based on the goals and priorities established in CITY STEPS. At the end of each fiscal year, the City must report its accomplishments for that year and demonstrate progress on meeting the goals identified, this report is called the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER). The CAPER outlines what projects were assisted, how much money was spent, who benefitted from the project and provides a summary of to how well the City is doing in meeting its 5-year and annual goals. Hightshoe said that due to work on flood-related disaster recovery funds and programs, the City has hired a consultant to complete the CAPER this year. Hightshoe said there have been some issues with the required CAPER documents, specifically IDIS reports (HUD's disbursement and accounting system). She said that while the consultants did their report as directed, HUD has gone to a new accounting/reporting system which has led to inaccuracies in some of the beneficiary/financial reports needed to complete the CAPER. Hightshoe said that HUD is working on the problem, but that all of the bugs are not worked out. Hightshoe said she did not believe an extension would need to be requested from HUD, as the problem is on HUD's end. She said the narrative of the report will be submitted, but that the IDIS reports will be submitted once HUD has corrected program errors and the reports are accurate. Richman asked if he was correct in his understanding that the errors in the reports were coming from HUD, not the consultants. Hightshoe said that was correct. Hightshoe pointed out several of the inaccuracies that were showing up in the reports. She said there were also a number of things in this draft of the report that still need to be confirmed, updated or changed by the consultant. McMurray asked several questions regarding the content of the report which Hightshoe clarified. Drum asked about the statement in the plan that reported Iowa City does not have any areas that have heavy concentrations of low-to-moderate income households or minority groups. He said that it seemed to him that Iowa City does have areas of concentration for these groups and he wondered if it was a question of what definition HUD was using for "heavy" and "concentration." Hightshoe said that according to HUD a "concentration" of a minority population is an area that has ten percent more minorities than the City average. Hightshoe said that the numbers the City must use are based on 2000 census data, so the information is somewhat old. Drum noted that things have changed greatly since the year 2000. Richman noted that the fact that Iowa City is a University town really skews the numbers. Hightshoe said that it does because a large number of students are below the poverty level. Hightshoe said that, with a few exceptions, basically the entire city has a heavy concentration of low income because of the student population, and because of this the City has no defined target areas. When asked by Commissioners, Hightshoe stated that the definition of "concentration" can be set locally. Hightshoe walked Commissioners through a map showing the census tract data. Richman said that presumably if only permanent, non-student residents were taken into account, areas of concentration would be found. Hightshoe said that there is no easy way to separate students HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 24, 2009 PAGE4of8 out using census data, so the consultants used age groups to help sift the data, presuming those households with heads of household under 24-years old to be students. Richman asked if the results showed clearer areas of concentration for low-to-moderate income families when the students were removed from the equation. She said she was aware that many people would assume that southeast Iowa City is an area of concentration, but that area has one of the highest rates of home-ownership based on the 2000 census. If the downtown tracts are removed, the far west side of town, the area directly west of the river and the south side of town would be considered areas of low-to-moderate income. Only the far north east and a sliver on the west side would not meet the criteria based on the 2000 Census. She reiterated that using the 2000 census data and leaving the students in results in almost the entire town being low-to- moderate income, and as a result, no targeting is done. Zimmermann Smith asked if the City was required to use census data. Hightshoe said that HUD uses census data so that numbers can be compared for all of the entitlement cities in the country. Hightshoe said that all funding is based on census figures such as poverty levels, age of housing stock, number of people, etc. Hart asked Hightshoe to define what a census tract is. A census tract is a set boundary, defined by the Census. Hightshoe thought that the goal of each tract was to have about the same number of residents, but doesn't believe that works out over time. She said that some of the census tracts are quite large and some are small, and that she did not see any real rhyme or reason as to why that was the case. Douglas asked if Hightshoe wanted edits from the Commissioners for the CAPER. She said that if there were typographical errors that would not substantially change the document she would make the revision. She also stated if anyone notices an inaccurate statement to let her know so that it could be corrected. Richman asked if there were substantial problems with the document that Hightshoe had caught other than the faulty data that had been discussed. She said that there were not. Richman asked if it would be possible to get documents that need to be reviewed a bit earlier, as three days could sometimes be a bit short. Richman said if something of this magnitude could be distributed to Commissioners as much as two weeks in advance, although any additional time would be very helpful. Hightshoe said that the schedule for the consultant stated staff would receive the draft one week before the commission meeting. Hightshoe acknowledged this was a mistake as staff should have put an earlier date in the schedule to allow more time for review -both staff and commission. Typically, the CAPER is done in-house, thus staff is already very familiar with the document. If contracted out again, Hightshoe stated deadlines for submittal would allow more notice and review. Hightshoe said that next year staff anticipates the CAPER will once again be done in-house. Hart motioned to approve the FY09 Consolidated Annual Performance 8~ Evaluation Report (CAPER) with corrections as noted by Staff. Drum seconded. The motion carried 9-0. SELECTION OF PROJECTS TO MONITOR IN FY10: Richman explained that each winter the Commission allocates the City's CDBG and HOME funds to a variety of agencies (primarily non-profits) who apply for funds. Subsequently, the Commission contacts and monitors the agencies to ensure that the funds are being spent in accordance with the terms and to see how the projects are coming along. Richman said that HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 24, 2009 PAGE 5 of 8 this is done by each Commissioner selecting a few projects to monitor. He invited Commissioners to select a few from the list for FY10. McKay said he is interested in monitoring Isis Investments LLC, First Mennonite-Home Ties Addition and the Free Medical Clinic-Operations. Drum said he would monitor the DVIP-Facility Rehabilitation, the Arc of Southeast Iowa-Facility Rehabilitation, The Housing Fellowship-Affordable Rental, and The Housing Fellowship-CHDO Operating Expense. Gatlin opted to monitor NCJC-Facility Rehabilitation, MECCA-Facility Rehabilitation and UAY- Facility Rehabilitation. Richman asked if Dolphin International actually needed monitoring since they had not actually had funds dispersed to them. Hightshoe said that they would need some monitoring as the City cannot yet force them to recapture the funds. She said staff had given Dolphin a deadline to inform the City of their intentions. Richman said he would monitor this program. McMurray will be monitoring Shelter House-Operations (STAR Program) and New Construction, and Community Mental Health-Facility Rehabilitation. Hart will monitor Bill Wittig-Rental Rehabilitation and Successful Living-Operations. Zimmermann Smith will monitor ICHA-Tenant Based Rent Assistance for FY10 and FY09 and FY09 Downpayment Assistance. Chappell will be monitoring FY08 Blooming Garden, FY08 Wetherby, and FY08 & FY07 Habitat for Humanity. Douglas is monitoring FY09 HACAP-Transitional Housing and Aid to Agencies (UAY, ESI, MECCA). Hightshoe said she will formalize the list next month. Richman noted that Hightshoe sends out contact information about each agency when she sets the agenda, and that if anyone has any questions about the project they are to monitor they can contact her. TIMELINE FOR THE REVIEW OF THE 2010-2015 CONSOLIDATED PLAN: Hightshoe said that the same consultants working on the Housing Market Analysis are also working on the Consolidated Plan. She said that the consultants had gotten public input in a forum setting earlier this spring, and that they had also made an online survey available, which close to 500 people had participated in. Hightshoe said the results from the survey about community needs are conflicting. Hightshoe cited an example that 62% of respondents supported helping the homeless become self-sufficient; however, the majority of respondents did not support any of the activities that would help achieve that goal, such as: expanding emergency shelter, expanding housing for person with HIV/AIDS, helping those on rental assistance purchase their homes, expanding housing for low-wage households, etc. Hightshoe said that the consultants said it was not uncommon to see such a dichotomy in survey results. She said that often people support an altruistic goal, but are not sure how to get there. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 24, 2009 PAGE 6 of 8 Hightshoe also distributed comments to Commissioners that the consultants had received from community service providers, which, she noted, had a different outlook than the online participants. Drum asked why Hightshoe thought there had been such a large response to the survey. (She had noted that it was the largest response the consultants had ever received.) Hightshoe said that the community is a very vocal one. Hart said it also depends on who actually shows up to participate. Hightshoe noted that there was a very large turnout. Chappell asked if there was a mechanism to stop people from taking the survey multiple times. Hightshoe said she did not know. She said it was advertised and posted throughout the community. Richman asked how the plan will utilize the survey data as opposed to the more objective data that might have come out of the Housing Market Analysis. Hightshoe said that she believed the survey will be weighted with the provider comments and the Housing Market Analysis. She said she believed there would be a rough draft of the full Consolidated Plan on October 9th' at which time a copy will be forwarded to the Commission. All comments must be returned to the consultants by November 9th, and the consultants will return a final draft by December 1 S'. Zimmermann Smith asked if the idea behind the survey was to get community input for the Consolidated Plan, and Hightshoe said it was. Hightshoe reiterated that the contradiction in survey results is not uncommon according to the consultant. Hightshoe said she thought people perhaps thought the services were necessary, but that the City should not be providing them. Richman said that so much of the survey is very perceptual. Douglas asked if Hightshoe saw any significant changes between the survey results of five years previous and the current ones. She said that an online survey was not done at that time, but that the provider comments were very similar in character. Richman asked Hightshoe to recap the timeline. Hightshoe said that she will receive a draft on October 9th and will forward it to Commissioners. The Commission will then meet on October 15th. Hightshoe offered to delay the meeting until October 22~d to give more time to review the document. Richman said that would be very helpful, and asked if it had to be reviewed in October. Hightshoe said it did as comments and changes had to be back to the consultants by November 9th. She said she agreed that more time was probably needed for Commissioners to review the document. McMurray said that she would probably not be available for either meeting as her pregnancy due date was that week. It was agreed to meet on October 22"d Hightshoe noted that technically the document did not have to be done until May or June, but that because the Commission starts its funding allocation so early in the year that means applications are made available in December and applicants need to know what the priorities are for that year. The document will not be approved by HUD when applications begin, but it will serve as a guide for priorities. Zimmermann Smith asked if there was a way to determine what programs have actually worked and had successful outcomes before the priorities are set. She noted that what might be a high priority might not necessarily have a program that will match up with it. Hightshoe said that there would have to be a lot of digging, and that the right questions would have to be asked to make that determination. Hightshoe said that during the Aid to Agency and CDBG funding processes this sort of information is required. She cited the example of Elder Services, which must show that people using case management were able to stay in their homes for a longer period of time than those without case management services. UAY, Hightshoe said, tracks teenagers who have been pregnant to see if they become pregnant again within five years in an attempt to determine if their prevention programs are working. MECCA keeps a multitude of statistics to determine the success rates of their treatment programs. Richman noted that during the application process there are questions and answer sessions with the applicant. At HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 24, 2009 PAGE 7 of 8 that time, Commissioners can ask for specifics and statistics. Douglas noted that site visits are also done for many projects. McMurray asked if the City can apply for funding. Hightshoe said that it can and has. She noted that HIS and the Iowa City Housing Authority have applied for funding for code enforcement and tenant based rent assistance. Some times they are successful, sometimes they are not, but they still have to go through the same process as all other applicants. The Wetherby splash pad project was essentially a Parks and Recreation application. Hightshoe said that many entitlement cities use their money to fund city services. McMurray asked if the police could apply to address the safety and crime concerns reflected in the survey and the public comments. Hightshoe said that they could but that it could be problematic in that there would be a maximum of $10,000 available for public services and the funding would only be for one year. Richman said that one of the challenges that the Commission has always faced is that CITY STEPS (a guiding document) identifies virtually everything as a high priority. Richman said it forces Commissioners to make more subjective judgments of their own about what they perceive to be high priorities in the community. Richman asked if Hightshoe had discussed with the consultants the possibility of having a better differentiation of priorities this time around. Hightshoe said she that she had, and that she informed them that the Commission would like to see about the same number of high, medium and low priority items. Richman asked if the consultants would be at the October HCDC meeting. Hightshoe said she did not believe so. She said she believed they would be back for the public hearing process for the Consolidated Plan. Gatlin asked where the Commission's focus lies as far as priorities are concerned. McKay said that one of the issues the Commission deals with is that there are so many good projects and so much need that it really can be difficult to make decisions about how to fairly distribute the limited funding available. Drum said it is rare to find a project that is not worthy of funding. McMurray said she felt the $2,500 minimum was helpful. Richman said that affordable housing is the "800-pound gorilla" and is an area of great need in the community and is where most of the dollars go. Drum said there is often a fundamental question of whether those dollars should go toward home ownership or rental assistance; he said he's not entirely swayed in either direction but is leaning toward rental as it requires less money. Hart said that another component of that, which is her concern, is the concentration of rental housing ownership and management, and the need for diversification of populations throughout the city. Hart said the City would have to do a lot to mitigate that problem, but that there are small steps the Commission can work toward on that issue. McKay said that another question that is sometimes asked is how successful a group has been with the funds given in the past. Gatlin thanked the Commissioners for their comments. ADJOURNMENT: McKay motioned to adjourn. Gatlin seconded. The motion carried 9-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Z O ~_ O U H Z W a O W W O ~_ Z 0 U O Z Q z_ O 2 O O U W W ~ U° Z ~ Q N 0 Z W H a ; ; ; ; ; ; v N X X X X X X X X X ; ; ; 01 ; ~ X ; X ~ X ~ ; ~ X X ti N ; X ~ ; X ~ X X ; X ~ X ; X X ; X X X X ; X X X ~ ~ w O X ; X X X ~ ; ~ X N ; X X ; X X ~ X ; X X X M ; X X ; X X X X ; ~ X X M rn N ; ~ X ; X X X X ; X X X N ' Z Z ' Z Z Z Z ' Z Z Z r- N x x ; W o x W o x W o x x ~ n N o ~- O ~ N o O ~ ~- ~ r- ~ O ~ N ~ o O ° O o ~ O 0 ~ . W W I O O O ~ ~ . O ~ O ~ O O O O N ~ ~ ~ O _ O ~ _ O ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ W Q U U W F=_- >- U Z a Z a J ~ ~ ~ ~- Q _ ~ Q ~ Z ~ ~ Q J ~ Q _ Q ~ J O U ~ ~' ~ m z Q ~ W v H to V ~ W d U' ~ J = F- Q~ O Q ~ J ~ W = V Z ~ Z ~S Q 1 ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ Z U O O C7 2 ~ ~ ~ N O V ~ W L X C ~, W ~= N c~~~ ~ a~ ~ c~ ~QZ° ° Z II II ~~ II W ; Y X O Z ; MINUTES HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION APPROVED 4tJ Z September 15, 2009 - 6:00 PM LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL Members Present: Dianne Day, Dell Briggs, Corey Stoglin, Kelli Shireen-Fleming, Yolanda Spears, Wangui Gathua, Martha Lubaroff. Members Absent: Eric Kusiak, Newman Abuissa. Staff Present: Stefanie Bowers. Others Present: Sarah Swisher. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Briggs called the meeting to order at 18:03 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE August 18, 2009 MEETING: Day moved to approve. Spears. The motion passed 6-0. Gathua not present for vote. WELCOMING COMMUNITY Sarah Swisher addressed Commissioners about Sanctuary Cities. Swisher will notify Commissioners of future meetings concerning this topic. Commissioners discussed holding a community forum possibly in the future concerning the topic. BREAKFAST Spears and Briggs will serve on the subcommittee. Briggs, Stoglin and Lubaroff will greet attendees and take care of any last minute ticket matters. Day and Abuissa will present the honorees. PROGRAMMING 2009 Day will attend the meeting concerning Homelessness Awareness Week on September 16'h. Day has also been the representative on the Civil Society Committee which will hold their program in March of 2010. Stoglin is working on a series of programs for early 2010 that will deal with race. Briggs mentioned a program being done by area realtors that addresses foreclosure and possibly having that tie into future Commission programming. REPORTS OF COMMISSION Day mentioned her Art Show entitled Regeneration ll: From Canvas to Cloth. Gathua reported on her recent trip to Kenya and the effects of global warming in Kenya. ADJOURNMENT Lubaroff moved to adjourn. Gathua seconded. The motion passed 7-0 at 19:04. Human Rights Commission September 15, 2009 Page 2 of 2 Human Rights Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD 2009 IMeetina Datel NAME TERM EXP. 1/27 2/24 3/24 4/21 5/19 6/16 7/21 8/18 9/15 10/20 11/17 12115 Newman Abuissa 1/1/10 X X X X X O X O O Kelli Shireen- Fleming 1/1/10 - - - - - O X X X Eric Kusiak 1/1/10 O X X X X X X X O Dell Briggs 1/1/11 X X X X O X X X X Yolanda Spears 1/1/11 X X X O X X O O X Corey Stoglin 1/1/11 O O O O O O O X X Dianne Day 1/1/12 X X X X X X X X X Wangui Gathua 1/1/12 X X X X X O P O X Martha Lubaroff 1/1/12 O X X O O X X O X Joy Kross 1/1/10 O O R R R R R R R KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = AbsentlExcused NM = No meeting/No Quorum R =Resigned - = Not a Member 11-02-09 4b 3 MINUTES APPROVED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2009 - 7:00 PM -FORMAL CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Freerks, Tim Weitzel, Josh Busard, Charlie Eastham, Michelle Payne MEMBERS ABSENT: Elizabeth Koppes, Wally Plahutnik STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sarah Walz, Sarah Holocek OTHERS PRESENT: John Moreland RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. REZONING ITEM: REZ09-00003: Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development Company for a rezoning from Medium Density Single Family Residential (RS-8) zone to High Density Single Family Residential (RS-12) zone for approximately 4.29 acres of property located on Walden Road, west of Mormon Trek Boulevard. The applicant has requested that this item be deferred indefinitely. Eastham stated that he would be abstaining from discussions on this matter due to a potential conflict of interest. Miklo said that a motion to defer the item indefinitely would be in order. Freerks asked if there was any additional information on the application. Miklo said his understanding is that there is still some negotiation going on between the property owner and the homeowners' association to the south regarding drainage issues. Freerks opened the public hearing. Planning and Zoning Commission September 17, 2009 -Formal Page 2 of 6 Holecek noted that any comments in the public hearing should speak to the deferral rather than the details of the case. No one wished to speak on the issue and the public hearing was closed. Weitzel moved to defer REZ09-00003 indefinitely. Payne seconded. The motion carried 4-0 (Eastham abstaining; Koppes and Plahutnik absent). REZ09-00007: Discussion of an application submitted by Arlington Development, Inc., for a rezoning from Interim Development Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) zone to Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) zone for approximately 7.91 acres of property located on Huntington Drive, west of Taft Avenue. The 45-day limitation period is October 9, 2009. Walz outlined the location of the property. Eastham asked Walz what the future plan is for Colchester Drive, a road to the west of the property. Walz explained that Colchester would intersect Thames. The current zoning is Interim Development Single Family Residential (ID-RS) and the proposed zoning is Medium Density Single Family (RS-8), Walz said. She corrected the staff report by saying that the RS-8 zone allows for small-lot single-family, but that two corner lots in the development are also large enough to be eligible for duplexes. Walz said that the Northeast District plan shows the area north of Thames as appropriate for large-lot single family housing. That plan considered large lots with access along a rear alley that would have been along the creek. The intention of that plan was to minimize the impact of Taft Avenue on future residential development. Waiz said that at some point Taft Avenue will be improved and will serve as an arterial street and that given the industrial property to the south it will carry significant truck traffic. Walz said that Staff has been concerned with providing a landscape buffer there for these properties. Walz said the Northeast District Plan depicted the area south of Thames Drive as small lots served off an alley that runs between lots. Walz said this plan was created prior to the development of Windsor Heights Part 21 to the south. The Northeast District Plan had conceived of a public street running along the creek rather than between developed lots. Walz said that Staff does think it is important to have single-loaded streets at least along that portion of the creek to open access to the park. Staff has asked the applicant to consider curving the road to make a better transition to the single family home nearby and to provide asingle-loaded street toward the park that will eventually be located in Stonebridge Estates. Staff has also asked the applicant to present a very thorough landscaping plan for the buffer area. Because the buffer cannot be installed until improvements are made to Taft Avenue, Staff will be asking the applicant to set escrow money for those improvements. Staff recommends that REZ09-00007, a rezoning for 7.91 acres from Interim Development Single family (ID-RS) zone to Medium Density Single Family (RS-8) zone for the property at Huntington Drive be deferred until the street layout is addressed and a detailed landscaping plan is provided for review by the Commission. Walz said that if these two issues are resolved, Staff recommends approval for this rezoning subject to a conditional zoning agreement requiring: Planning and Zoning Commission September 17, 2009 -Formal Page 3 of 6 1. the developer to dedicate space along Taft Avenue for right-of-way and construction easements to allow the improvement of Taft Avenue; 2. general conformance with the concept plan with regard to lot depths and street layout; and 3. substantial compliance with a landscaping plan for the buffer area. Freerks asked if there were questions for Staff. Busard asked if Huntington Drive would cross back over the creek or run along the length of the creek. Walz said it would stay on the east side of the creek. Payne asked if it would eventually get all the way up to lower West Branch Road on that side of the creek and Walz said that it would. Miklo said it would either do that or curve back in to the east. Payne observed that the road curvature is basically to get around the already existing lot. Miklo said that the anticipation is that if that large lot is annexed in the future it could be subdivided as well. Miklo said that continuing the street straight north would run it awfully close to that existing house. Eastham asked if there was enough room between the existing house and the creek bed for a street. Miklo said Staff would anticipate that it would be annexed before it is developed because the property goes basically to the creek. Miklo said the extension of that street would depend on the property owner participating in some kind of development. Eastham asked if Staff had looked to see if Huntington can be rerouted to the east and still allow for the same number of single-family lots as proposed by the developer. Freerks said there is no guarantee that someone can put in as many lots as they want. Eastham said he was aware of that but that he was trying to get an idea of how the proposed street alignment could change the developer's plan. Miklo said there was potential for the plan to be diminished by one or two lots if the street was realigned. There were no further questions and the public hearing was opened. John Moreland, 960 Arlington Drive, introduced himself as one of the developers of Arlington. He said that he and his partners have developed nearly all of the land to the north and south of the proposed development. He said that due to the nature of Taft Avenue as an arterial street there is no demand for large single family lots along the road. He said he is attempting to come up with something more affordable for families. He said that they have been working with staff and had gone from an original plan for multi-family units to small-lot single-family units. Moreland said he has no problem with putting a buffer along Taft Avenue. He said that they would also be willing to try to curve the street as close to the creek as possible without taking out a bunch of lots. Moreland said having to reduce the number of lots would severely hamper their efforts to keep the housing affordable in this development. Moreland said that it is crazy to change the plan so much because of one man's home. He said that they think they can reconfigure the road and get as much buffer as possible on the Taft side. What the applicant does not want to do is to be required to have asingle-loaded street because that will take the affordability right out of the project. Moreland said the applicant would resubmit and do their best to cut the size of the lots on the west side of the creek so that there could be a deeper buffer from Taft, but that they still have to be able to put a house on it. Moreland said that due to the amount of traffic on Taft, the best use of the land will be for first-time homebuyers who just want to get into asingle-family home at a good price. Freerks asked Moreland if he had talked to the neighbor to the north. Moreland said someday the man will probably sell it and that his guess is that anyone who buys it will continue on with the kind of development Moreland is proposing. Moreland said along busy roads like Taft and Scott Boulevard lower priced housing is the way to go. Freerks asked if Moreland had talked to Planning and Zoning Commission September 17, 2009 -Formal Page 4 of 6 the property owner about the proposal. Moreland said they had not talked to him about buying his property. Freerks asked if he had talked to him about the way the road is proposed to be developed. Moreland said he had not because he knows the man personally and he believes he is probably very pleased that they are trying for single-family development rather than a zoning like RM-12, multi-family. There were no further comments on this issue and the public hearing was closed. Payne made a motion to defer REZ09-00007, an application by Arlington Development for the rezoning on Huntington Drive west of Taft Avenue. Eastham seconded. Freerks said she thought it might be advisable for the developer to discuss the proposal with the owner of the existing home, and said that it might be nice for the Commission to actually hear from that property owner. Busard said he is concerned that the Commission is trying to determine the fate of Huntington Drive without really knowing what is going to happen to the north. Busard said further consideration has to be given as to how the existing lot will fit in with the proposal. Eastham said that his view is that the Comprehensive Plan does support smaller lot development in this area, especially along an arterial street. Eastham said that a landscape buffer between Taft and the homes to be built is certainly desirable. He said that getting a residential street in such a narrow corridor as proposed by Staff between the existing home and the creek is not an easy thing to do. Eastham said that he did not quite understand the concern about not knowing the future plans for the property to the north. Busard clarified that his question was what will happen to the road after it curves along the street, what the plan for that road would be. Miklo said that the goal is not to have Huntington follow the creek for the entire subdivision, rather to start curving it at some point so that when it does come near the neighbor's property it can curve as far from the property as possible. Eastham asked if the goal with Huntington's alignment was to not get close to the existing house or to provide good alignment for future subdivisions. Miklo and Freerks replied that it was to do both. Miklo added that it was also intended to provide good access to parklands, as Walz had indicated earlier. Freerks said she is sure there are multiple solutions to this problem. Miklo said a cul-de-sac configuration had been considered. A vote was taken and the motion to defer carried on a 5-0 vote (Koppes and Plahutnik absent). CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 3, 2009: Eastham motioned to approve the minutes. Weitzel seconded. The minutes were approved 5-0 (Koppes and Plahutnik absent). Planning and Zoning Commission September 17, 2009 -Formal Page 5 of 6 OTHER: Freerks noted that the 7:00 p.m. start time seemed to be working well for Commissioners and Staff. ADJOURNMENT: Payne motioned to adjourn. Eastham seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 5-0 (Koppes and Plahutnik absent) vote at 7:40 p.m. Z O N N ~~ 00 UW (7 a/ Z W O N Z N OD a~ ZQ Z Z a h X X X W O X W O X M c~ X X X X W O x X 0 X X X X x x X cc X X X X X X X ti X p X X X X X X X X X ~ X ~ X X O X X X X X X X X X p X X X X X X X X M X X X X X ~ X N X X X X p X X ~_ X X X ~ X X X N w c- ~ M N O O M ~a w X ~- , ~ ~ , ~n .- , ~ ~ , ~n .- , ~n ~ , ~n .- , ~n Hw o o o o o 0 0 W ~ W } a J w J J Q Q Z Q N = V Z Q N _ Y ~L ~ ~ W C) ~ v~ ~ z ~ a _ Y ~ W W ~ W N ~ Q ~ a ~ ~ Q v i ~ v i Q w m O Q Q ~ w z m w w Y a a ~ C7 Z H W W Q Q ~ X X X X X X ~ 0 M X X X X X X X M M X X X X X X X N X X X X X X X O X X ~ X X p w ~~ ~ c- M N O O M tea W X .- n ~ n .- n ~ n ~ n ~ .- n Hw o o o o o 0 0 W_ ~ w ~ Q J w J ~ a ~ ~ N o V Z a W 2 ~ Y ~ ~ ~ uS ~ z OC = ~ W W O N w a ~ w a z = ~ ~ Q rn ~ m cn a w m a O Y >- Q a Q ~ a - W ~ z w ~ O z H W W Q O Z E 0 ~d a~ ~ O ` X ~~ W ;~ ~ --w ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ E cv ~N~o•. ~~QZZ u ~~ w ~ , xOOz w Y 4b 4 MINUTES APPROVED IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 9, 2009 - 5:00 PM EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Caroline Sheerin, Barbara Eckstein, Terry Hora, Will Jennings MEMBERS EXCUSED: None. STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sarah Holecek OTHERS PRESENT: Brian Ramirez RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Caroline Sheerin at 5:02 p.m. An opening statement was read by the Chair outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the procedures governing the proceedings. ROLL CALL: Eckstein, Sheerin, Jennings, and Hora were present. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES FOR JUNE 10T" 2009: Sheerin offered corrections to the minutes. Eckstein motioned to approve the minutes as amended. Hora seconded. The motion carried 4-0 (Thornton excused). Iowa City Board of Adjustment September 9, 2009 Page 2 of 11 SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: EXC09-00005: Discussion of an application submitted by AT&T Mobility for a special exception to allow construction of a 100-foot cell phone tower in a Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 925 Highway 6 East. The tower would be located off Cross Park Avenue, behind the building that houses Tuesday Morning. Walz pointed out on the map where the CC-2 zone was located, explaining that it included the entire Pepperwood Plaza area. She noted that the tower would be across the street from a multi-family zone on the north side of Cross Park Avenue. Walz explained that the applicant wishes to put up a 100-foot tall tower located approximately 102 feet from the south property line (the property line of the commercial property). The multi- family zone begins in the middle of Cross Park Avenue, so the tower would be more than 100 feet from the residential zone as required by the zoning ordinance. The lease area for the tower is an area of approximately 10 x 20 feet. The space will include some condensers and will be surrounded by a privacy fence. All other equipment associated with the cell phone tower will be housed inside the commercial building. Walz noted that in addition to the privacy fence, the area would be screened from the residential zone by the tall (10-15 feet high) shrubs along the south property line. Walz said that the specific standards require that the proposed tower serves an area that cannot be served by an existing tower or industrial property or by locating antennae on existing structures in the area. Walz said that the applicant must document attempts to utilize existing structures, towers, or industrial properties within aone-half mile radius. Walz noted that there are not very many tall buildings in the area, and there are none tall enough to mount antennas on. Walz pointed out a cell phone tower on Olympic Court, a 60-foot monopole structure, and explained that the tower is not tall enough for AT&T to co-locate its cell phone tower there. She noted that the area served by that tower is also slightly different than the area AT&T is attempting to serve. Walz noted that AT&T would actually like to have a 150 foot tall tower, but that Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations limit them to 100 feet. Walz stated that the second specific criterion requires that the tower will be constructed in a manner that will camouflage the structure and reduce its visual impact on the surrounding area. Walz noted that some communities go to great lengths to disguise cell phone towers as flag poles or trees. Walz said that Iowa City encourages providers to simply make the poles as unobtrusive as possible: noguy-wires, no trusses, no lighting, no strobe lighting, etc. Walz said that such a structure has been proposed by the applicant. All antennas will be located inside of the pole structure. Walz noted that the applicant has suggested providing some parking lot lighting on the pole, but Staff does not think additional lighting is necessary. If the Board sees a public benefit from additional lighting, Staff recommends that the lighting be kept lower than 35 feet so that it does not shine over the landscape screening into the residential neighborhood. A third specific criterion requires that the proposed tower is no taller than is necessary to provide the service intended. Walz noted that as this is a communication tower it is exempt from the maximum height standards in the base zone, and is an allowable height (100 feet). Walz explained that the service area that AT&T is trying to reach includes areas north of Lower Muscatine and south of Wetherby Park. The applicant provided coverage maps demonstrating Iowa City Board of Adjustment September 9, 2009 Page 3 of 11 the different levels of coverage provided by a cell phone tower of varying heights at the proposed location. Walz shared several photo simulations showing varying viewpoints to demonstrate the unobtrusiveness of the proposed tower. Each viewpoint was shown both as it presently looks and how it would look with the tower in place. Walz noted that the application meets the remaining specific criteria, which are straightforward in nature: it meets the required setbacks; associated equipment will be properly screened; the tower will not utilize aback-up generator; there is no strobe lighting proposed; there will be capacity for two additional users built into the tower to allow for co-location; and the applicant would have to remove the tower from the site if its use was discontinued. Walz reviewed the first general standard, explaining that the proposed exception would not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare because it is setback more than the required 100 feet from the nearby residential zone, as well as 100 feet from the property line, and will be surrounded by tall landscape screening and a privacy fence. This specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood, Walz explained, because of the setback and screening as well as the unobtrusive design of the pole. The third general standard requires that the proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in which the property is located. For the same reasons previously given, Walz said, Staff feels that this standard is satisfied. Walz noted that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities are already in place for this use, and the tower will have no impact on ingress or egress from the property. Walz noted that if there is to be lighting on the pole, it would have to be reviewed by the building official to ensure that it meets all lighting standards. In all other ways, the proposal conforms to the regulations and standards of the zone in which it is to be located. Walz said that the proposed structure will not detract from the commercial uses in the area that are contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that EXC07-00005 be approved subject to the following conditions: • compliance with the site plan and all specifications regarding the tower design and enclosure submitted as part of the application, including; • the cell tower will have no strobe lighting; • the cell tower will be finished in dark brown to match other light poles in the area, or in another color to be approved by Staff; • any lighting of the pole will be mounted at the same height as the parking area lighting on this portion of the property (approximately 15 feet); and Iowa City Board of Adjustment September 9, 2009 Page 4 of 11 • the maintenance of the landscape screening or equivalent S3 screening along the south property line. Walz offered to answer questions from the Board. Eckstein asked if it was truly necessary for the proposed pole to be in that neighborhood in order to get the service desired by AT&T. She said that given the nearby Olympic Court tower, she worried somewhat about the accumulation of these towers in a neighborhood that might be viewed as perhaps less resistant to these kinds of things than another neighborhood might be. Eckstein said that if the coverage requires this specific site she would like to know that for sure. Walz replied that there is currently a limitation on the zones where cell phone towers can be placed. Walz said that presently they are limited to public zones (such as parks), certain commercial zones, and industrial zones. Walz said it has proven to be difficult to get towers in public zones because they are generally school or park sites, which often meet with opposition because the towers are perceived to violate the visual sense of open space. Walz pointed out the areas on the map where the cell phone tower could be allowed, and said that the applicant could speak in detail about other areas that were considered to achieve the same coverage. Walz noted that terrain issues have an effect on coverage and the chosen location of towers. She said that another site, closer to K-Mart, had been investigated by the applicant but that the site would have required equipment to be located outside the building and was at a lower elevation that the site under consideration. Sheerin said it seemed as though the problem was that AT&T could not locate their antennas in the Olympic Court tower because it is only 60 feet high and therefore not high enough for their needs. Sheerin asked if it would be possible to have U.S. Cellular move from the Olympic Court tower to the proposed AT&T tower to eliminate the need for both towers. Walz said that the City could not retroactively require U.S. Cellular to do that, and that she believed that the coverage area the two towers served was different. Eckstein asked where the two towers were in relation to one another and Walz said they were about three and a half blocks apart. Eckstein asked if there were any health effects from emissions to be concerned about with the proposed tower. Walz said she was not aware of any, but that Federal Communication Commission (FCC) regulations prohibit the Board of Adjustment from considering that. Holecek added that the Telecommunications Act limits what local governments can do in regards to the location of these facilities. Eckstein asked if the location of the tower would create any nuisance or interference that would be injurious to the use and enjoyment of surrounding properties. Walz said she was not aware of any. Holecek said that this would probably be an appropriate question for the applicant. Eckstein said she applauds the City's efforts to make the towers unobtrusive; however, the lack of trusses does make her question the susceptibility of the towers to strong winds. Walz stated that the towers would have to meet engineering standards that are reviewed by the building official, but advised Eckstein that the applicant could speak more to the issue. Walz said that some of the cell towers approved in the past were designed so that in a strong wind they would fold over. Walz said that the setback provides additional protection in that if a tower catastrophically fails, it would fall on the property and not in the right of way or into the residential area. Iowa City Board of Adjustment September 9, 2009 Page 5 of 11 Eckstein asked for clarification on Staff's recommendation that the tower be removed if it is not in use for one year. She asked why the City would want to wait such a long time before removing an unused tower. Walz said that the idea was to give companies up to a year to remove them. Holecek said the reasoning may be because "abandonment of a use" is defined as using a facility for its intended use for a period of at least a year. She said that because the tower would be on leased land, the property owner would likely make sure it is removed. Holoecek noted that it may be a good idea to add as a condition that the tower must be removed if it ceases to be used. Sheerin asked what the enforcement would be if a year went by and the tower was not removed. Holecek said it would be enforced as a municipal infraction; she said she believed that the market forces between the lessor and the lessee would likely take care of it before it reached that point. Sheerin said she was just making sure that the City would not be held liable for the costs of tower removal if it were not removed within the required timeframe and Holecek said that it would not. Jennings asked what starts the clock ticking fora "one year" time period such as the one being discussed. Holecek said the City would try to determine when it ceased to be used for that purpose by examining FCC filings, rent records, utility records, etc. Jennings asked if there was then an ongoing system of review in place where an abandonment of use would be noted. Holecek said that a determination of when a use ceased could pretty clearly be made in this case. Jennings asked what the term "hazards" meant-were there certain hazards associated with cell towers other than that of its stability or collapse. Walz said that the wording is general and applied to all special exceptions. In each case Staff must consider whether a special exception creates negative externalities: whether it generates increased traffic or odors that could detract from surrounding properties or if they create noise or glare. Walz said the particular externalities of a specific exception must be examined, in this case collapse could be considered a potential hazard. Sheerin asked about lighting. She said that while there may be no strobe lighting, there is proposed parking lot lighting that is 35 feet high. She asked if this would not create more lighting than was necessary. Walz said that it was the view of Staff that additional lighting was not necessary. Walz said that the Olympic Court tower was in an area where some extra security lighting could be useful; however, the proposed location is already well lit and no additional lighting seems necessary. Staff does not oppose lighting if the Board wishes to require it; however, Staff recommends that it be placed low enough not to shine above the screen provided by the landscaping. Eckstein asked if lighting could be stipulated. Walz said that it could. Sheerin said adding lighting to the area could be a potential nuisance. Sheerin asked how much traffic would be generated by maintenance to the tower. Walz said it would be minimal. Sheerin asked for clarification about collapse. Walz said Staff would want this kind of use in an area with minimal traffic, such as the back of the building, so that in the unlikely case of catastrophic failure, the tower would not present a danger to people-it would not fall onto a sidewalk or ahigh-traffic area. Hora asked if Staff had consulted the FAA about whether the tower was in line with flight patterns. Walz said Staff had not, but that the applicant would be required to produce that information in order for the building permit to go forward. Hora asked if there would be a constant red light on top of the tower if there was to be no strobe light. Walz said there would not be any light at all. Sheerin asked if this meant that the tower would presumably be too low for a plane to hit, and Walz said she believed so. Iowa City Board of Adjustment September 9, 2009 Page 6 of 11 Hora asked if Staff had looked at the 150-foot towers at MidAmerican Energy and at Kirkwood for possible co-location. Walz indicated that staff had not. She indicated that Hora could ask the applicant about that location. Hora asked if Staff had talked to the applicant about the possibility of raising the Olympic Court tower an additional 40 feet. Walz said they had not. There were no further questions for Staff and Sheerin invited the applicant to speak. Brian Ramirez, an agent for AT&T on this project, said he would attempt to address the Board's questions. He said that AT&T had done an extensive study with the FAA to conclude that 100 feet would not only be allowable at that location, but had no lighting requirements and would not be a flight issue at all. Ramirez said that documentation of this would be provided. Ramirez said that customers of all cell phone providers are demanding greater coverage and more applications in all areas of their lives. As a result, the cell phone companies are struggling to keep up with that demand. Ramirez said that if there is not enough coverage calls get dropped, and that companies are running into capacity issues because they have such high demand. Ramirez said that the cell phone towers can only support a certain number of cell phone traffic. Ramirez pointed out areas on the coverage maps where proper service was lacking. He noted that AT&T would be locating antennas on City High School. Ramirez noted that elevation and terrain have an enormous effect on coverage range. Ramirez said that the U.S. Cellular tower at Olympic Court is actually 64 feet tall. Walz clarified that the tower is 60 feet tall and has a four foot lightning rod on top. Ramirez said that the reason carriers like to have their antennas on the outside is because they can gain more coverage area by adding more antennas than they could fit inside. Outdoor location also allows companies to maneuver the antennas to target specific areas. Ramirez said that having the antennas on the inside is limiting to providers and the coverage they can provide. Ramirez said there are three canisters in the U.S. Cellular tower, but that the only room left in them is 30-40 feet high which is insufficient. Ramirez said AT&T would also need to use two levels in their proposed tower because of the GSM and UMTS technologies which they are using to handle roaming coverage, different kinds of phones, and roaming customers. Using the U.S. Cellular tower was immediately ruled out for all of these reasons. Ramirez said that it is necessary for AT&T to be higher in order to shoot their signals out further and connect with existing cell sites. Then, those other cell sites could be pulled back and powered down a little bit and to handle more capacity. Eckstein asked if Ramirez was suggesting that connections to the existing towers could not be made without a 120-foot tower. Ramirez said that AT&T was attempting to do the proposed site in conjunction with City High's tower, and that it is possible that there may still be issues in some areas north of there that, compounded by terrain issues, could result in coverage that is less than the best AT&T can provide. Ramirez said there are different zoning codes in every city, state, and town AT&T goes into, and nearly every zoning code in the country prohibits building towers in a residential zone. Because of this, cell phone companies have had to become more creative to accommodate the demand for service. Eckstein said she is wondering how many of these requests the Board of Adjustment will be receiving as time goes on. She asked how many years forward this particular tower would take service if it were to be allowed. Ramirez said that demand continues to increase because of the wide range of applications offered by cell phones now, but that with the elevation of the proposed tower he hopes to provide increased coverage. He said he could not guess how long that coverage would hold out. He remarked that AT&T actually has communities banging down their door to get towers built and increase their service. He said that the vast majority of Iowa City Board of Adjustment September 9, 2009 Page 7 of 11 complaints received by cell phone companies concern a lack of coverage or service. Ramirez said he also works for I-Wireless and U.S. Cellular in this area and so he sees the issue from the perspective of all the carriers. He said that everybody is looking for the best spot they can possibly get. He said that customer demand is ever-increasing and the atmosphere ever- changing. Eckstein asked if Ramirez could speak to her question about nuisance and interference from the tower. He said he could not because he is not an expert on it, and that the Telecommunications Act prohibits it from being considered. Ramirez said that the emissions from these towers are so low there is no cause for consideration; AM radio towers have much more powerful emissions. Phone towers are so far below those emissions that multiple structures and antennas are necessary, Ramirez said. Ramirez asked for clarification on Hora's question regarding co-location. Hora said that to the northeast of the proposed site there are two 150-foot towers sitting on MidAmerican property that do have cell phone capacity. Ramirez said those towers were way too far away from the proposed site. Hora said those towers were in an industrial area and all of the antennas could be exposed. He asked why that tower could not be used and eliminate the need for the proposed tower. Ramirez said he did not understand exactly what Hora was asking. Eckstein said that they were asking what kind of coverage could be gotten from 150-foot towers with external antennas in the MidAmerican tower location. Ramirez said he did not know the answer to that because there are so many aspects that go into consideration of tower placement. Sheerin asked if AT&T had considered these towers as a possibility. Hora said that there are an exorbitant number of towers in town already. Sheerin said that the Board just wants to know if AT&T has considered using the existing towers instead of building a new tower. Ramirez said he can find out that information. Hora asked if the technology was available to take the Olympic Court tower and raise it 40 feet. Ramirez said he did not know what the specific network was for the other carriers. Hora said he was asking if the tower could be extended by 40 feet. Walz said one of the things that would have to be determined is whether or not the FAA would allow the tower to be extended 40 feet, as Olympic Court is closer to the airport. Walz said that allowable height gets more restrictive as one moves closer to the airport. Ramirez said that the number one issue with the present location was what the FAA would allow, noting that an extended 90-day study with the FAA was done to determine the height of the tower. Walz said that if this is a genuine concern of the Board, the Board can defer and wait for an answer. Walz said if there is something that inhibits the Board from finding in favor of the applicant then they can certainly wait for further information. Sheerin asked if a vote would need to be taken on the deferral, and Staff said that it would. Ramirez said he can appreciate what the Board is saying, but that there are other towers providing service to the areas near the MidAmerican tower. Hora said he understood what Ramirez was saying but that his point was that the question needed to be asked as to where the limit on cell phone towers would be. He said that somewhere along the line a limit needs to be reached or technology improved because they cannot keep going until there is a cell phone tower every fourth block. Hora said he is asking if there is another way to provide this coverage, or if another tower really needs to be built. Hora said he wants to know if other options have been explored. Jennings said that he understood that not all sites are equal, and that it is possible that a 150- foot tower in one location would not be as effective as a 60-foot tower in another. Jennings said Iowa City Board of Adjustment September 9, 2009 Page 8 of 11 there also seemed to be a question as to whether it was better to amplify the signal until it was so strong it could penetrate any wall, versus new technologies to amplify the signal within the home. Jennings said the technological questions may be beyond the Board's purview, but as things are evolving and changing so quickly it may be relevant. Jennings asked Ramirez how many other sites AT&T actually considered and what the process was by which this particular site was arrived at. Ramirez said that the Olympic Court tower was looked at, as was a location behind K-Mart which was referred to earlier in the meeting. Ramirez said AT&T is severely restricted by zoning and terrain. Jennings said he understood all of this but wanted to know if there were other sites considered by AT&T. Ramirez said that the zoning requires a search to be done within ahalf-mile of the proposed location, and that this was absolutely done. Ramirez said the proposed location is what works best in the allowable zones. Ramirez said it is much easier and cheaper for AT&T to co-locate and to avoid building towers altogether and that building another structure is the last thing they want to do. He said a multitude of different things were considered in arriving at that location. Sheerin asked if there were any further questions for the applicant. There were none. Ramirez said again that there would be no lights on the pole if the board does not want them, that there would be room for two additional carriers to co-locate, and the equipment will be inside of the building to keep the structure as unobtrusive as possible. Ramirez said a gray paint for the pole may blend into the sky better than the brown color suggested by Staff. Sheerin asked if there were further questions for the applicant. Eckstein said she would like to thank him as the discussion had been very instructive. Ramirez said he wanted to quickly demonstrate how important height is for the pole, and asked Walz to once more run through the set of slides that shows the different coverage areas that are possible based on different heights of the proposed cell phone tower. He said the coverage pattern shows obvious terrain issues. He said that AT&T is trying to get the most bang for their buck and not have to build more towers. Ramirez said that it can be very frustrating for radio frequency engineers to hear that the location they need for maximum coverage is not in the correct zoning code. He said he can appreciate the Board's questions, and he hopes they can understand what it is AT&T is trying to accomplish. Sheerin opened the meeting up to the public and asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak in favor of the proposal. Seeing no one, she asked if there was anyone who wished to oppose the proposal. There was not, and so Sheerin opened the matter for Board discussion. Eckstein said that the discussion had been very instructive and that the Board had stepped into something extremely complicated due in part to the quick evolution of technology. Eckstein said she now understood more about the site selection, and that she now understood that while she was not keen to have another tall tower in that neighborhood, the neighborhood itself would benefit from better cell phone service if the tower was built. Eckstein said she was still interested in the answer to the questions concerning the MidAmerican tower sites, and did not feel that an adequate answer had been provided as to whether that site could work. Sheerin said she felt the same way. She said she thought more cell phone coverage was good for the community, but that it should be done without building more towers if possible. Sheerin Iowa City Board of Adjustment September 9, 2009 Page 9 of 11 said she would be interested in deferring and hearing more about the towers Hora had brought up. Hora said he would also like to hear about technology and whether or not the FAA would allow for an extension of the Olympic Court tower. Hora said he believed the technology was there to put an extension on the mono-towers. If the technology does not permit, Hora said, or if the radio signal engineers say the MidAmerican towers don't work that's one thing, but he would like to defer to find out the answers to those questions. Jennings said that his experience with technology is that it is transitional and is always changing. Jennings said that clearly the demand for cell service has expanded. On the other hand, Jennings said, so has the tolerance for visual clutter. Jennings asked if there would be another request for a tower next year. Jennings said he would like to have the questions about the other towers answered because it seems a reasonable thing to ask. He said if the answer is no, it will not work, then he would like to know. Ramirez said that the building permit for the City High location is in the works. He said that the City High location will fill in the same gaps that the MidAmerican tower would in his opinion. The U.S. Cellular tower is made of fiberglass at the top. He said it could be potentially extended, but he would be very surprised if U.S. Cellular would not have taken all the height they could get at that location. Ramirez said that the U.S. Cellular tower would have to be studied for months before answers could be had about structural issues and height limitations. Ramirez said he did not think an answer could be had quickly, that it would take a very long time. Sheerin asked if he thought three or four months was a very long time, and Ramirez said yes. Walz suggested that the Board state specifically what they wished the applicant to present to them at the next meeting if they chose to defer. Sheerin asked Holecek if the board was exceeding their authority by deferring to have AT&T look into alternate sites. Holecek said they are deferring to get more information about both the Olympic Court and MidAmerican sites and that was well within their rights. Eckstein said her suspicion was that the Olympic Court site was too short. Sheerin said it sounded like there were a couple of threshold questions that could be answered. Walz asked if there were any other pieces of information the Board wanted from the applicant besides examining the Olympic Court and MidAmerican sites. Jennings asked what the arrangements were that kept the equipment inside at the proposed site. Walz said she believed that the cell company is leasing the space just as the store located there also leases space. Jennings asked if it was possible to make the indoor equipment a condition and Holecek said that it was. Eckstein asked Staff to bring to the Board's attention other potential sites if they are overlooking any. Hora asked Ramirez how long it would take to pull the requested information together. Ramirez said he would like to see what the threshold questions are because anything involving the FAA will take three to four months. He said he would try to ask U.S. Cellular why they did not build higher but he did not know that they would give him that information since they are a competitor of AT&T. Sheerin said that what the Board is trying to determine is whether either of those locations are realistic possibilities, and that if he is able to cut-off those inquiries by answering a Iowa City Board of Adjustment September 9, 2009 Page 10 of 11 threshold question then the Board can proceed. Walz and Holecek suggested that if Ramirez was to determine that the U.S. Cellular tower would not work because it is at the maximum height allowed by the FAA and would not give the needed coverage at its current height, then the Board would not consider that site further. Eckstein moved to defer the EXC09-00005 until the Board gets answers on the MidAmerican site and the Olympic Court site and any other tower sites that Staff deems worthy of reexamination. Hora seconded. A vote was taken and the motion to defer passed 4-0 (Thornton absent). The Board determined that Staff would be in touch with the applicant and the Board about the possibility of scheduling a meeting prior to the October meeting for the applicant to present answers to the questions in the motion to defer. Sheerin closed the public hearing. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION: None. ADJOURNMENT: Eckstein motioned to adjourn. Hora seconded. The motion carried 40 (Thornton excused), and the meeting was adjourned at 6:396 p.m. C ~_ Q m 0 N .p O em~u// li W ~+ a i s O o ; ' N N , i ~ ; ~ ~ _ ; ~ ~ ~ O O~ a N ~ Z ~ Z Z Z Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c L L °- Z ~ ~ Z ~ ~ Z Z Z ~ ~ o X ~ X X 0 x 0 M V V / ~ O v / / ' , ~ ~ ~ ~ Z ; Z ~ ~ Z Z Z ~ - ~ ~ Z ~ ; Z ~ ; Z Z Z rh Z ~ Z ~ Z Z Z N u V V v N N ~ X ~ /~ ~ /~ !~ X K ! X ~ K K K H ~ N - O M N O ~ v _ ~ ~ _ _ .X O O O O O O O W O O O O O O O C = C • p • C ~ L + + i G) ~ N u ~ C ' i N G C L ~ d m oC H ; V W Z ~ N H v ~ L ~ ~ ~ ~-+ C ~ a ~ Q u~ ~ Q ~ ~ Z d Z II x II 0 II w o II ~ z II ; W Y Airport Commission September 17, 2009 MINUTES FINAL IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2009 - 6:00 P.M. AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING Members Present: Greg Farris, Howard Horan, Janelle Rettig, John Staley Members Absent: Minnetta Gardinier Staff Present: Sue Dulek, Michael Tharp Others Present: David Hughes, Rick Mascari, Randy Hartwig, Jay Honeck, Greg Zimmerman, Adam Henderson, Harrel Timmons, Toby Myers 4b 5 RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL• (to become effective only after separate Council action): None CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Rettig called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: The minutes of the August 20, 2009 meeting were reviewed. Farris moved to approve the minutes of the August 20, 2009 meeting as presented. Horan seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0; Gardinier absent. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: An audience member spoke briefly about the runways at the Airport and the interconnectivity that used to be available, and also some back-taxiing issues. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION: a. Aviation Commerce Park -Tharp noted that Peggy Slaughter would not be at tonight's meeting, but that she did send along an update. Rettig then read what Slaughter noted in her updates, indicating that Sue Dulek could speak to the RFP issue. Dulek stated that there is a group that is interested in two of the lots, but that they want to lease buildings that someone else builds. Therefore, the group is trying to find someone interested in this proposition, which is why they have written an RFP. The deadline for the RFP is November 1. 2 Airport Commission September 17, 2009 b. Consider a motion to adjourn to executive session to discuss strategy with counsel in matters that are presently in litigation or where litigation is imminent where its disclosure would be likely to prejudice or disadvantage the position of the governmental body in that litigation. Farris moved to amend the agenda by moving the Executive Session, Item 4.b. to after 4.f. Horan seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0; Gardinier absent. c. FAA/IDOT Projects - AECOM -David Hughes i. Runway 7/25 & 12/30 -Hughes noted that the runway opened for daylight landings on September 6. He added that the lights have been installed and are functioning. There have been a couple of complaints regarding the roughness of the new runway surface. Hughes stated that they are looking into ways to reduce this roughness. Hughes continued to explain what the plans are for back-taxiways and such, and how they have been working with the FAA on these issues. Runway completion is still slated for the first part of November. The discussion continued, with Members talking about the taxiway connections once the project is completed. After some discussion, Hughes stated that he will get some costs together on paving the back- taxiways as discussed. Hughes then gave members a packet with information on the runway project, briefly explaining how they report to the FAA with this information. The discussion turned to the best way to handle the traffic flow on the runways, especially during football game weekends or special events. Hughes noted that he will talk to the contractor about some of these issues yet this week. Rettig suggested that they have flaggers available at times that are busy, to help alleviate any problems. It was noted that October 10 will be a big weekend, as the U of I plays Michigan, and that there will be a lot of air traffic that weekend. A discussion started about the fly ash that was used in the runway project, and Rettig responded to concerns, as did Hughes. ii. Obstruction Mitigation -Hughes noted that they still need to do some survey work with the United hangar project. As for Mediacom, Hughes noted that they still have not seen a bill for this project. iii. Building H -University of Iowa Hangar Expansion -Hughes noted that things are moving forward on this. Rettig asked if this project would be completed yet this year, and Hughes stated that they still have plans to do so. Rettig noted that her interest is in getting this done and moving on. Airport Commission September 17, 2009 iv. 2010 IDOT Pavement Rehab/Hangar ADrainage -Tharp noted that there is nothing new on this at this time. Rettig noted that they will not release this for bids until the spring construction season. d. Airport Operations; Strategic Plan-Implementation; Budget; Management - Staley asked who does the annual audit, and Tharp noted that the City hires a consultant for this. Staley added that he believes they should start working on the Strategic Plan for the Airport. Rettig noted that Tharp is to set this up soon. i. Consider a Resolution approving consultant agreement with Stanley Consultants -Horan asked what the plan was for. Tharp stated that this was the Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) and that it is required due to the airport having large quantities of oil based products, aviation fuel, stored at the facility. Staley moved to consider Resolution #A09-23, Approving Consultant Agreement with Stanley Consultants. Horan seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0, Gardinier absent. e. Airport Commission Eligibility -Rettig noted that recent legislation was passed, stating that all Commissioners of the Airport Commission must be from the city that owns the Airport. She noted that in their case, two people could come from outside of the city limits. Tharp further explained, noting that it has to do with their tenants and where they are from, as well. The Commission basically has to define the area that serves the Airport and have representation of this area. Members continued to discuss this issue and all felt that having the area defined as "Iowa City" would be best. Dulek will look into this issue with the legislation and will get back with the Members. f. 2009-2010 T-Hangar Contracts and Fees -Farris recused himself due to conflict of interest with this item. Tharp recommended that they keep the rates the same for this next year. Staley stated that he agrees with Tharp's recommendation, especially since they had to close the runway during the construction project. Staley moved to maintain the same rent rates for the next year. Horan seconded the motion. The motion carried 3-0, Gardinier absent and Farris recused from vote due to conflict of interest. Horan moved to adjourn to Executive Session at this time. Staley seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0, Gardinier absent. 4 Airport Commission September 17, 2009 g. Whirlybird Helicopters -Tharp began the discussion, stating that Whirlybird is now separate from Iowa Flight training. He and Rettig have been working with the owner of Whirlybird to get a temporary agreement in place so that they can continue to operate at the Airport. Adam Henderson with Whirlybird then joined the conversation, stating that they plan to be stationed in Iowa City permanently. Rettig noted that they do have a small office area available, if Whirlybird would be interested in that arrangement. She added that they do not currently have any open hangars, but that Jet Air can work with them on hangar space for now. Staley moved to allow Whirlybird to operate temporarily pending a formal agreement next month. The motion was seconded by Farris. The motion carried 4-0, Gardinier absent. h. Jet Air /Iowa Flight Training -Harrel Timmons then spoke to the Commission, giving them some background on Iowa Flight Training and why Jet Air was looking at flight training as being a separate entity. Rettig reiterated what she believes the situation to be, with Timmons clarifying the relationship between Jet Air, Iowa Flight Training, and Whirlybird. Timmons noted that they are willing to provide office space, as needed, as part of their responsibility. Tharp stated that the concern is being able to meet all of the basic requirements to do business at the Airport. The discussion continued, with Timmons explaining how the arrangement is currently being handled. It was reiterated by Rettig that they need to have something in writing about the arrangement between Iowa Flight Training and Jet Air. Timmons asked if the Commission would give Jet Air a waiver on the flight training, to which Rettig stated she would not agree to this. Farris stated that he would not agree to this either. Members then reviewed suggested wording for this agreement, with Rettig stating that having this on file would be a good thing for Jet Air, should any problems arise. A lengthy discussion took place between Commission Members and Jet Air's Timmons regarding the wording required for this agreement and why the Commission is requesting such. Dulek briefly explained what needs to be in the agreement, adding that it really should be a simple agreement. Timmons asked that Dulek go ahead and make the changes being requested to the agreement, and then he can take it for review on his end to see if his partner agrees with the changes. FBO Staff Report -Timmons then touched on how they handled their staffing during the shutdown period. He added that they were able to paint all of the public areas at the terminal building. Rettig stated that things are looking much better, both inside and outside. The discussion turned back to possible traffic problems during football weekends. A brief discussion then took place with Whirlybird regarding signage for the business. Tharp noted that they will look into exactly what type of sign will be permissible. j. Subcommittees' Reports -Farris stated that he is in the process of getting some estimates for the viewing area deck. 5 Airport Commission September 17, 2009 k. Commission Members' Reports -Farris noted that he attended the recent City Council meeting. He added that he highlighted the economic impact study information for the Council. Staley added his regrets at missing last month's meeting. Horan stated that he has more construction pictures available. Rettig thanked everyone for their patience during this construction time, adding that in another five or six weeks they should be done. She also noted that she was able to fly with the University's helicopter service recently and land at the Oakdale campus. I. Staff Report -Tharp noted that the FAA regional conference is next week, Tuesday and Wednesday. Members then spoke briefly about a program at Kirkwood in October. Tharp also noted that the Children's Museum in Coralville will open its new "Take Flight" Aviation exhibit starting the 22nd of October. SET NEXT REGULAR MEETING: Rettig noted that Gardinier will be unable to attend the October meeting, unless they can change the time. Members opted to keep the October meeting at 6:00 P.M., unless they need to meet before this time. The next regular meeting of the Airport Commission will be Thursday, October 15, 2009, at 6:00 P.M. at the Iowa City Airport. ADJOURN: Horan moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:24 P.M. Farris seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0; Gardinier absent. CHAIRPERSON DATE 6 Airport Commission September 17, 2009 AIRPORT COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2009 TERM 1/8 2/5 2/12 3/12 4/2 4/14 4/16 5/6 5/21 6/18 7/10 NAME EXP. Greg Farris 3/1/13 X X X X X X X X X X X Minnetta Gardinier 3/1/15 --- --- --- X X X X O/E O/E O/E X Howard Horan 3/1/14 X X X X O/E O/E X X X X X Janelle Rettig 3/1/12 X O/E X X X X X X X X X John Staley 3/1/10 X O/E X X O/E O/E X X X X X NAME TERM 7/16 8/20 9/17 EXP. Greg Farris 3/1/13 X X X Minnetta Gardinier 3/1/15 X X O/E Howard Horan 3/1/14 X X X Janelle Rettig 3/1/12 X X X John Staley 3/1/10 O/E O/E X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member 4b 6 MINUTES-FINAL CITY OF IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION October 22, 2009 - 8:15AM LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM -CITY HALL Members Present: Lyra Dickerson, William Cook, Elizabeth Cummings Members Absent: None Staff Present: Karen Jennings, Captain Matt Johnson and Jane Molony Others Present: None RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL (become effective only after separate Council action): None CALL TO ORDER: Meeting called to order at 8:1 SAM. Lyra Dickerson chaired the meeting. CERTIFICATION OF POLICE HIRING LIST: The first item of business was certification of the Police Officer hiring list. Dickerson stated that based on requested summary information regarding ethnicity, sex and age of candidates on the list, the hiring list appeared to show fair representation of the local population. Cook asked for verification that the interview team was satisfied with the quality of candidates on the list which Johnson confirmed. Cook moved for certification of the list, Cummings seconded the motion, and the motion was carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: Jennings informed the Commission that the City anticipated recommendation of the following processes in 2010: Fire promotional process, Firefighter entry level testing and the Police promotional process. ADJOURNMENT: Cook moved to adjourn, Cummings seconded and the meeting was adjourned at 8:19 a.m. Board/Commission: Civil Service Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2009 (Meeting Date) NAME TERM EXPIRES 7/07/09 10/22/09 L ra Dickerson 4/5/10 X X Bill Cook 4/1113 X X Elizabeth Cummins 4/4/12 X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No Meeting --- = Not a Member October 22, 2009 ~ r ~ ~m~. `z -•~.at~ CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 5 2240-1 826 (319)356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council ww~v.icgov.org RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination -POLICE OFFICER We, the undersigned members of the Civil Service Commission for Iowa City, Iowa, do hereby certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Police Officer. 1. Michael Hayden 2. Steven Siemionko 3. Adam Spray 4. Matthew Young 5. Luke LaMere 6. Doug Millard 7. Christopher Tatman 8. Bradley Reinhard 9. Robert Otto 10. Ashley Hamblin 11. Bradley Murphy 12. LaShaun Lacy 13. Zachary Murguia 14. Matt Ties 15. Francis Krone, Jr. 16. Matthew Grabe 17. Michael Clark 18. Jason Henderkott 19. Dana Libby 20. Jordan Gallagher 21. Nicholas Brokaw 22. Corey Sandersfeld 23. Chad Fulton 24. Adam Krack 25. Jason Chalupa 26. Michael Swanson 27. Adam Schmerbach 28. Gregory Mahieu 29. Brandon Marquardt 30. Michael McKenna 31. Brian Kapka 32. Daniel Heflin 33. Tyler Olson 34. Lucas Kramer 35. Bode Koranda 36. Kevin Stickel) 37. Daniel Grafton IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION ~,~ Lyra .Dickerson, Chair w~ ~ ~~ William M. Cook ~ ~ Eliz A. Cummings ATTEST: i! ~ (_~~ ~C . `~~ Mari fl K. Karr, City Clerk certified list 2009.doc 4b 7 MINUTES APPROVED PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION September 9, 2009 - 4:00 p.m. MEETING ROOM B, ROBERT A. LEE COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER Members Present: Lorin Ditzler, Maggie Elliott, Craig Gustaveson, Aaron Krohmer, Margie Loomer, Ryan O'Leary, Jerry Raaz, John Westefeld Members Absent: David Bourgeois Staff Present: Mike Moran, Terry Robinson Others Present: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None OTHER FORMAL ACTION TAKEN: Moved by Elliott seconded by Gustaveson, to approve the August 19, 2009 minutes as written. Motion passed 8-0 with Bourgeois being absent. Due to an oversight the agenda for the July 2009 meeting was not posted on the City website. Therefore, the following two items were revisited during this meeting. Moved by Raaz, seconded Ditzler, to approve the June 10, 2009 minutes as written, Motion passed 8-0 with Bourgeois being absent. Moved by Gustaveson, seconded by Raaz that a letter be written and sent to Dale Helling, Acting City Manager, recommending that Mike Moran be elevated to the position of Parks and Recreation Director. Motion passed 8-0 with Bourgeois absent. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None HANDOUTS/UPDATES OF AFFILIATE GROUPS AND MASTER PLAN Moran distributed a second draft of the affiliate group listing for Commission to review prior to the October 2009 commission meeting. This document reflects 10% of reimbursable cost to Parks and Recreation from Boys Baseball, Babe Ruth Baseball, Girls Softball and Kickers. The remaining groups on the list reflect a proposed 50% reimbursement for what the full rental fee would be. This list does not include Riverside Theatre as they pay $1 per ticket sold to the Parks and Recreation Department which totaled $4788 for the 2009 season. Gustaveson asked what they donated during the construction of the theatre. Moran stated that they donated the cost of the seats (both before and after the flood) as well as the donor plates that are placed on the PARKS AND RECOMMENDATION PARKS COMMISSION September 9, 2009 Page 2 of 3 back of the seats. Gustaveson wondered if they had been charged the proposed 50% rental cost, would this have been equal to the amount received. Moran stated that staff would get that number for Commission. Moran noted that he did not include the social service groups on this report. He further stated that our initial revenue goal was $26,000. This proposal brings the total to $28,144. He is asking Commission to review this proposal and plan on discussing at the October meeting and giving a recommendation. He will then draft a letter to the affected groups for Commission review prior to sending out in November. Gustaveson asked Moran if Commission had recommended removing the social service groups from this list. Moran said that while there was not a formal motion to do so, it was insinuated by the discussion that ensued. Moran handed out a revised list of Master Plan priorities with staff timeline suggestions added. He would like Commission to review and discuss at the October commission meeting. His goal is to reduce this list to two or three top priorities to focus on. Ditzler asked if he was still going to put together a short to long term plan. Moran said he will after Commission recommendations next month. Krohmer asked if Moran would be providing a list prior to the meeting showing total usage and number of members of Babe Ruth Baseball, Boys Baseball, Girls Softball and Kickers. Moran said that he would. Westefeld asked Moran for some suggestions on how to respond to affiliate groups that may contact Commission with questions regarding this proposal. Ditzler suggested that he put together a list of topic points, how this proposal evolved, etc., for members to refer to if asked questions. Gustaveson said that he feels that groups should be required to come to a commission meeting to discuss. Moran stated that the letter will include information about the process and will suggest that they call and asked to be put on the agenda prior attending a meeting. O'Leary feels that social service groups would respect the idea of having to pay a fee and suggested that perhaps they be offered a reduced rate, but not offer the space at no cost. He also feels that easing into the fee structure is a good plan. CHAIRS REPORT: V`Jestefeld met with Dale Helling, Acting City Manager, and reiterated Commission's support of advancing Mike Moran into the Parks and Recreation Department Director position and asked if the Commission could take part in the process. Helling stated that the Commission could be involved in this process. Westefeld noted that it is the City Manager who makes the final selection and not City Council. Westefeld reminded Commission that he will be attending the next Council meeting and asked members to forward him any topics they would like him to review. O'Leary suggested that he mention the Friday updates that Moran has been sending to Commission and staff. ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Gustaveson seconded by Krohmer, to adiourn the meeting at 4:15 p. m. Motion passed 8-0 with Bourgeois being absent. Commission members departed for their annual tour of facilities. PARKS AND RECOMMENDATION PARKS COMMISSION September 9, 2009 Page 3 of 3 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2009 NAME TERM ~ "'~ rl ~ N ~ ~ M ~ a M .-, ~ O .-, ~ ~ ~ Q1 ~ ~ ~ O1 ~ ~ ~ `~ ~ ~ 41 N + r EXPIRE S David 1/1/11 X O/E X O/E X X X X O/E Bourgeois Lorin Ditzler 1/1/13 X X X X X X X X X Maggie Elliott 1/1/13 X X X X X X X X X Craig 1/1/11 O/E X X X X X X X X Gustaveson Aaron 1/1/13 O/E X X X X X O/E X X Krohmer Margaret 1/1/12 X O/E X X O/E X O/E X X Loomer Ryan O'Leary 1/1/10 X X O/E X X X X X X Jerry Raaz 1/1/12 X X X X X X X X X John 1/1/10 X X X X X X X X X Westefeld KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting LQ = No meeting due to lack of quorum