The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998-11-17 Bd Comm minutesMINUTES ~OWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WEDNESDAY. OCTOBER 14. 1998 - 5 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS - CITY CIVIC CENTER MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Bender, Lowell Brandt, T.J. Brandt, Kate Corcoran Bill Haigh MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Melody Rockwell, Dennis Mitchell, Traci Wagner OTHERS PRESENT: Larry Greiner, Brad Lang, Jim Jacob, Norman Kallaus, Dale Simon, Amy Becker, Heather Hartsell, Shirley Westcott, Eugene Coors, Ann Romanowski, Mike Kennedy, Kim Glenn CALLTO ORDER: Chairperson Haigh called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. ROLLCALL: All members were present for roll call. CONSIDERATION OF THE SEPTEMBER 16, 1998, BOARD MINUTES: MOTION: Bender moved to approve the September 16, 1998, Board minutes. L. Brandt seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 5-0. SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS: EXC97-0020. Public hearing on an application submitted by Jim O'Brien, on behalf of property owner James Stetzel, for a special exception to permit the establishment of an eider congregate residence on Lot 8 of Longfellow Manor SubdiviSion for property located in the Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) zone on Longfellow Place. Rockwell said the applicant is requesting a deferral of this item until the November 18 Board meeting. MOTION: L. Brandt moved to defer EXC97-0020 until the Board's November 18 meeting. Corcoran seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 5-0. EXC98-0021. Public hearing on an application submitted by AUR Property Management for a special exception to permit modification of a front yard setback requirement for property located in the Commercial Office (CO-1) zone at 414 E. Market Street. Rockwell said the applicant has withdrawn this item, because no special exception is required in this case. She noted the letter from the applicant requesting the withdrawal. MOTION: Bender moved to withdraw EXC98-0021. T.J. Brandt seconded the motion. The motion carded by a vote of 5-0. Page ,_' ~ocKwell "oted that the reason Ihe Bcard ~s taking ~tems ,n a clifferen[ order than they are i~sted on the agenda is due to calls from neighboring property owners to the Parkv~ew Evangelical Free Church. Some of these neighboring property owners have to work until 5 p.m., and have asked for a little more time to be able to get to the meeting and participate in the public hearing. She estimated the Board will get to the Parkview item between 5:20-5:30 p.m. EXC98-0008. Public hearing on a request submitted by S & J Development to amend a May 13, 1998. Board decision approving a special exception for a club to be established in a Rural Residential (RR-1) zone for property located at the end of Phoenix Drive extended. Rockwell said on May 13, 1998, the Board approved a special exception to allow a club to be located within the Country Club Estates subdivision, located at the west end of Phoenix Drive extended. She said the main recreational feature planned to be incorporated into the club is a swimming pool. She said one of the conditions that the Board imposed on its approval of the club was to require that the preliminary and final plat of this portion of the subdivision be approved prior to the development of the club. She said the applicant is in the process of obtaining preliminary plat .approval of the Country Club Estates, First Addition, which includes the club facility. She said the contractor feels that he must begin sometime in October to remain on schedule for the pool construction. She said the applicant, therefore, is requesting an amendment of the condition requiring approval of both the preliminary and final plats prior to development of the site. He asks that the condition require only the approval of the preliminary plat prior to construction of the pool. Rockwell said staff feels if the Board were to approve this amendment, it would not substantially alter the intent of the Board's action. She said if the Board is inclined to approve the applicant's request, its approval would remain subject to the original conditions that were imposed on that special exception, except that instead of requiring both the preliminary and final plat approval it would only require the preliminary plat approval. Public hearing opened. There was no public comment. Public hearing closed. MOTION: L. Brandt moved to amend EXC98-0008, a special exception to allow a club on property located within Country Club Estates at the end of Phoenix Drive extended by changing the wording in condition #1 to read, "The approval of the preliminary plat for Phase I of the proposed Country Club Estates subdivision." Bender seconded the motion. L. Brandt said the request seems to be reasonable and minimal. He said part of the Board's concern in asking for approval of both plats initially was to make sure that there was adequate opportunity for a satisfactory staff review. Bender concurred, and said as long as there is some preliminary review, she would be fine with the requested amendment. She said she was pleased and relieved to see the letter in the packet from the Neighborhood Association. She said she was glad to see that the neighborhood has had time to meet with the developer and that it does not have any concerns or questions about the amendment. Corcoran said she thought the item was straightforward. She agreed with what L. Brandt and Bender had said. T.J. Brandt said he also concurred, oecause the tern ~s straightforward. Ha~gn sa~d the t~na~ ]es.~r' ,,v.i se 'OCk, eq D,jer Oy staff so ne concurred w~th the res~ of the Board. The motion carried by a vote of 5-0. EXC97-0018. Public hearing on an application submitted by Parkview Evangelical Free Church for a special exception to permit a religious institution expansion, that is, the construction of a new addition and parking area, for property located in the Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone at 15 Foster Road. Rockwell said the Parkview property is located fairly close to the river and to Dubuque Street, and most of it is within the 100-year flood plain. She said when Parkview came before the Board in 1997, it was requesting an expansion of the parking area to allow 530 parking spaces. She said at the August 1997 Board meeting, Parkview requested deferral of the item to allow the church time to redesign the parking area and to provide substantiating information on the need for this size of parking area in a low-density residential area. She said the Board granted a deferral in August, and then granted an indefinite deferral in September 1997 upon the request of the applicant. Rockwell said now the church is requesting that the Board approve a special exception to allow the addition of one church building with an entryway connection to the existing church building and the development of a new parking area to serve the expanded church facility. She said as designed, the new 29,176 square foot building is to be attached to the existing church building by a large entryway/foyer that will also serve as the main entrance to both buildings. She said the new building is proposed to house an 8,272 square foot sanctorium (a combination gymnasium and principal worship center) and classrooms. She said the applicant intends to downsize the sanctuary in the existing church building, and use the remaining 2,774 square foot area as a chapel for small weddings and funerals, and as a meeting room and general classroom area. She said the parking area has been redesigned to have a different orientation, an increased buffering distance between the parking area and the residential development to the west, and additional landscaping and pedestrian pathways within and around the 544 space parking area. Rockwell said the reason for requiring a special exception for an expansion or establishment of a religious institution is to allow the Board to determine whether this development project is designed to be in character with the scale, pattern of development and intensity of use of the surrounding residential area. Rockwell said the new structural addition proposed by the church appears to be attractive and complementary to the residential character of the neighborhood. She said the main concern with the church's expansion plans involves the large parking area that is being proposed. She said the parking requirement for a religious institution is 1/6 of the occupancy load of the largest room in the facility. She said the sanctorium will be the largest room in the facility, and it has an occupancy load of 1,182, which results in a parking requirement of 197 spaces· She said the church's proposed 544 parking spaces is approximately 276% more than the standard requirement for a religious institution. Rockwell said this amount of parking seems excessive, but staff acknowledges that the minimum requirement is likely to be inadequate in this situation given the levels of activity that the church is proposing, the numbers of people that are anticipated will be using the entire church facility at one time, and the expected regional "market" area for the expanded church facility. Rockwell said staff has encouraged the church to institute measures to reduce the number of parking spaces needed by having more time between church services, not doubling up so extensively on the use of the facility at any one time or arranging for carpooling or vanpooling among members of the congregation. She said [OWcl 2, r, :31,,jr': 'r Page :, 3ecal_,se the tern staff. so he concurred Ninth the rest of !he Board <)CK,'9,': )',er The motion carried by a vote of 5-0. EXC97-0018. Public hearing on an application submitted by Parkview Evangelical Free Church for a special exception to permit a religious institution expansion, that is, the construction of a new addition and parking area, for property located in the Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone at 15 Foster Road. Rockwell said the Parkview property is located fairly close to the river and to Dubuque Street, and most of it is within the 100-year flood plain. She said when Parkview came before the Board in 1997, it was requesting an expansion of the parking area to allow 530 parking spaces. She said at the August 1997 Board meeting, Parkview requested deferral of the item to allow the church time to redesign the parking area and to provide substantiating information on the need for this size of parking area in a low-density residential area. She said the Board granted a deferral in August, and then granted an indefinite deferral in September 1997 upon the request of the applicant. Rockwell said now the church is requesting that the Board approve a special exception to allow the addition of one church building with an entryway connection to the existing church building and the development of a new parking area to serve the expanded church facility. She said as designed, the new 29,176 square foot building is to be attached to the existing church building by a large entryway/foyer that will also serve as the main entrance to both buildings. She said the new building is proposed to house an 8,272 square foot sanctorium (a combination gymnasium and principal worship center) and classrooms. She said the applicant intends to downsize the sanctuary in the existing church building, and use the remaining 2,774 square foot area as a chapel for small weddings and funerals, and as a meeting room and general classroom area. She said the parking area has been redesigned to have a different orientation, an increased buffering distance between the parking area and the residential development to the west, and additional landscaping and pedestrian pathways within and around the 544 space parking area. Rockwell said the reason for requiring a special exception for an expansion or establishment of a religious institution is to allow the Board to determine whether this development project is designed to be in character with the scale, pattern of development and intensity of use of the surrounding residential area. Rockwell said the new structural addition proposed by the church appears to be attractive and complementary to the residential character of the neighborhood. She said the main concern with the church's expansion plans involves the large parking area that is being proposed. She said the parking requirement for a religious institution is 1/6 of the occupancy load of the largest room in the facility. She said the sanctorium will be the largest room in the facility, and it has an occupancy load of 1,182, which results in a parking requirement of 197 spaces. She said the church's proposed 544 parking spaces is approximately 276% more than the standard requirement for a religious institution. Rockwell said this amount of parking seems excessive, but staff acknowledges that the minimum requirement is likely to be inadequate in this situation given the levels of activity that the church is proposing, the numbers of people that are anticipated will be using the entire church facility at one time, and the expected regional "market" area for the expanded church facility. Rockwell said staff has encouraged the church to institute measures to reduce the number of parking spaces needed by having more time between church services, not doubling up so extensively on the use of the facility at any one time Page 4 9r arranging 'or carpoohng or vanpoohng among memOors of :he ::ongregauon She sa~d so far the church has Oeen resistant to such suggestions. and has expressed ~ts aeed for the number of parking spaces being proposed. Rockwell said the proposed expansion appears to meet all of the specific standards and technical requirements for religious institutions in the RS-5 zone, including access to a collector street, having a lot larger than 40,000 square feet in size and meeting the setback requirements. She said the proposed building would be 31 feet high and set back 63 feet from the property line. Under general standards, she said staff has noted that the church site has access to Foster Road and is close to Dubuque Street, which is a good situation for the type of vehicular traffic that is anticipated will be generated by the church. She said if the parking area issues can be appropriately buffered and managed, the expansion should result in an overall benefit to the public welfare of the community. Rockwell said the west edge of the parking area is shown on the site plan as 29 feet back from the shared property line with the residences to the west. She said staff would encourage extensive landscaping of this area, and if possible, retention of the willow grove in the northwest area of the site. She said pulling back the paving from Foster Road and Taft Speedway is also encouraged by staff. She said in absence of additional landscaped buffers in these areas, staff would strongly advise against approving a parking lot of this size in a residential zone. She said the additional access point to Foster Road is of some concern to staff, but Sunday mornings are not generally times of high traffic volumes on the surrounding streets and the church has agreed to gate the drive during the week. She said the church has submitted stormwater management plans. Rockwell said if the Board is inclined to approve EXC97-0018, a special exception to permit a religious iPstitution expansion, the construction of an approximate 30,000 square foot addition and connecting foyer, and an expanded parking area, staff would advise the Board to consider the following conditions to ameliorate the effect of the proposed expansion on the surrounding residential neighborhood: the applicant will 1) reduce the amount of proposed parking to 500 spaces or less, 2) increase the landscaped buffer area between the parking area and adjacent streets, 3) submit a landscape plan to be approved by the City staff that provides an effective vegetative buffer between the parking area and the residential development to the west and screens the parking area from Foster Road and Taft Speedway, 4) eliminate the west drive access to Foster Road, or move that access drive to the east to a location approved by City staff and have it gated except for Sunday mornings, and 5) construct the parking area consistent with the design submitted on October 9, 1998, which shows planting islands and walkways within the interior of the parking area. She said in absence of any of these conditions, staff would strongly advise against approving a parking lot of this size in a residential zone. Rockwell noted calls she had received from neighboring property owners. She said Ben Chair owns some of the condo property to the west, and he called to request some information about this issue. She said Beth Ballinger called to express concerns about the extent of parking being proposed. She said Shirley Westcott called about losing privacy and a sound barrier if the willows are removed. She said that Westcott also noted that a neighbor had observed that Parkview's existing parking lot is not full on Sunday mornings, and people park on the grass by the church. She said Westcott also indicated that more time between services should be allowed so there is less traffic congestion at any one time. Rockwell said currently there are 15 minutes between each of the three church services. She said she received a call from Norman Kallaus, who has sis(0 ,~r', concerned about the suffer area that ~vould be iest ,r :Pe w~llows were removed She also no~ed letters ~n the packet from 1997 and sa~d [hat some of the callers wanted those letters ~ncluded, because they still felt the same way about the church expansion. Haigh asked how many parking spaces staff had proposed. Rockwell said a little less than 500 spaces. L. Brandt asked if it was staff's suggestion to retain the entire willow grove, or would some of it still have to go. Rockwell said it is a natural area that provides for some privacy and habitat. She said if it were to be removed, staff would prefer that it not be replaced by a driveway but by extensive landscaping. She said the concerns about that buffer came from neighbors to the west of the church property. T.J. Brandt said he saw future expansion with the church, and while the Board did not have to worry about the church meeting the parking requirement, he asked if parking would be a concern if and when the church expanded in the future. Rockwell said it might be from the church's standpoint. She said the church would need to come back to the Board for approval of any further expansion. Public hearing opened. Larry Greiner. chairman of the deacon board and the building committee for Parkview Evangelical Free Church, said in 1995, the church had a nationally-known consultant talk with them about church growth and planning the building. He said they then tried to plan for parking appropriate to the type of constituency they are serving, and they quickly saw that parking was a major issue for the constituency. He said the church currently runs three services, each with a one-hour duration, and has 15 minutes in-between services. Greiner said he did a parking study in the fall of 1997 over a seven-week period to determine the ridership per vehicle per service. He said the survey was taken at the mid-point of each service so the transition traffic was gone at that point. He said they have had people complaining that they could not find a place to park when they come to church, partly because of the overlap of activities like church services and Sunday school. He said they also have members that linger to take part in discussions and social activities in the church foyer. He said the parking lot may have some empty spaces dudng the day, but he has spoken with some members who have driven around the lot for 20 minutes trying to find a spot during the time in-between services. He said it would not be prudent for a church board to spend ministry money on a parking lot if it were not necessary. Greiner said the church has spent three years working on a pleasing parking lot design that would be attractive for the neighbors. He said a year ago, the church invited the neighbors to a coffee to advise them of the church's plans, and the neighbors are still invited to participate on the committee that will develop the landscaping plan for screening between the church and the neighborhood. He said Parkview has had input, both pro and con, regarding the parking lot. He said the costs were being considered very seriously before they asked for the exception. He said to reduce the number of parking spaces below the requested amount would have an effect of displacing about 180 vehicles over the time of the three services. He said the staff request reduces the parking area by 66 spaces, which would take the total down to under 480 spaces. He said Parkview is more than willing to reconsider the location of the west driveway to Foster Road, and would be happy to have it gated during the week so that it would not be a thoroughfare from the streets to the north. He said the church is currently having problems with vehicles taking short cuts through the parking lot. He said the reason the church proposed the two entrances/exits is to control the traffic flow by having only one drive serve as an entrance and one as an exit on Sundays. He said with the proposed development on the Peninsula, the church thinks the traffic on Foster Road will be heavier than it is now, and by controlling the entrances/exits, it could expedite the traffic Iowa Wedne,~,,:,t,, :,:t~:[:,;r '4 ',',,,~ Page Bender asked Nnat Gre~ner's statement, "Parking ~s a major concern of our constituency," meant. Greener sa~d the church members are concerned that ihey have enough parking so people are not discouraged from attending the services. L. Brandt said the church's memo regarding the ridership study says that the total Sunday morning attendance is between 1,100-1,300, which is roughly 400 people per service. He said they currently have 209 spaces, and using the 1.8 persons per car formula Greiner proposed, there should be roughly 200 cars in the lot. Greiner said their current attendance is tilted toward the 9:45 a.m. service. He said last Sunday, they had 169 people attend the 8:30 a.m. service, 417 in the 9:45 a.m. service and 259 in the 11 a.m. service. He said they have tried to convince their membership to select either the earlier or later service. L. Brandt said that 450 spaces would allow for 2,700 people, which is twice what the church is currently serving. He asked if the church was anticipating more than doubling their attendance. Greiner said they anticipate having three services with up to 800 people attending each one. Bender asked Greiner's feeling about the willow area. Greiner said he felt that willows were a weed tree, and they would grow where the conditions were adequate for them. He said the church would replace them with adequate landscaping as worked out with the entire Committee. He said they have moved the setback to nearly 30 feet, which is more than required, to allow for additional screening and landscaping to be planted along that area. Brad Lang. OPN Architects, said they have increased the buffers in efforts to diminish the effect of the parking area. He said they would also be happy to look at moving the location of the driveway. He said he wished the church did not need so much parking. He said he has been there on days when you cannot find a place to park, and he would hate to see a positive in the community have to turn people away because of a lack of parking. Jim Jacob. Van Winkle-Jacob Fngineering. Inc., said the church feels quite strongly that they need more parking in order to fulfill their mission. He said Iowa City has historically had problems with parking, in that they have always had too few parking spaces. He said the City has always erred on the side of not having enough parking and he would hate to see them commit the same error again in this area by restricting the amount of parking. Norman Kallaus. 32 Camborne Circle, asked if the willow grove appeared as a part of the previous plan and now is deleted from the proposed plan. Rockwell said it was not called out on the previous plan, but since the driveway is now shown farther to the west, it appears the willows are proposed to be removed. Kallaus said the willow trees are not the most desirable trees, but they are natural to that boggy area. He said they also provide a natural environmental setting for some of the animals that circulate through the area. He said the grove provides the neighbors with some privacy so there is some desirability for retaining it for him and other neighbors. He said he noticed a deletion of some of the parking spaces that appear horizontal on the screen, and he asked if the reduction of spaces suggested by staff would come from there. Rockwell said yes. Kallaus said those spaces could be eliminated, but they are not nearly as close to the Idyllwild residences as the vertical line of single car spaces at the west edge of the Parkview property that is adjacent to Idyllwild. He said he thought there were about 44 spaces in that line. He said there are about 10 residences that abut that particular area, and for those residents, it would be a decided advantage to have a bigger buffer if that line of parking spaces were removed. Page ' r',,aIIaUS 5aal.: :Re !:hutch administrators save seen extremel,/generobs. nelp(L., a~'~d cooperative n working with the neighbors [o develop a proper buffer that jooks good and presents a n~ce transition from the boredom of a parking lot to the nice landscaped area of the neighborhood. He said he heard the church had planned to use some evergreen trees as buffers, and he thought that was a mistake because the deer eat the evergreen trees back each year. He said that some type of cooperation and coordination of landscaping should be made between the church and the neighbors. L. Brandt said on the site plans, the west edge of the parking area starts 29 feet from the property line. He asked what will happen within the 29 feet. Rockwell said one condition recommended by staff is to have extensive landscaping in that area. Kallaus said the current proposal shows a row of existing trees, which he said do not really exist. Rockwell said the standard requirement is to have a row of arbor vitae. She said, however, when the City works with applicants to put in landscaping, it encourages landscaping that contains a more attractive and effective range of different types of deciduous and evergreen trees. She said the City staff works to get the most effective landscaping plan possible. She noted that there are some evergreen trees that can be selected that deer tend to avoid. Dale Simon. 46 Pentire Circle, said he was concerned about the landscaping and the distance between the residences and the row of parking that Kallaus mentioned. He asked if the church's current exit onto Taft Speedway would remain. Rockwell said the church has proposed two exits to Taft Speedway. She noted them on the proposed plan. Simon said he has never had any communication with the church. He thought they had a nice parking lot, and did a nice job of taking care of the trees in their parking lot. He said he was concerned that the lot was getting too close to the residential properties. He suggested inserting more landscaping in that area to provide a better buffer than a hedgerow or a single row of trees, Amy Becker. 52 Pentire Circle, said her residential unit currently overlooks the church's parking lot. She said she can look out onto the lot every Sunday morning to see if there are parking spaces or not. She said for the first service there are usually plenty of spaces, for the second service it is usually more filled up, and by the time of the third service the parking lot is very full. She said she also sees that people do not look for parking spaces, as often there will be people parked along the read or the entryway when there are still empty spaces on the outer edge of the existing parking lot. She said she is not totally convinced that the expansion as proposed is necessary. She said the church could probably justify some additional parking spaces, but the extent to which they are requesting does not seem justified to her. She said many neighborhood residents moved there because they liked the wooded environment, and to put a parking lot there, even with landscaping, kind of destroys the context of the environment. She said there has been some dirt added to the area and there are still puddles of water from the most recent rain, so the current drainage is not good. She said she expected that the church would have some additional lighting in the parking lot, and she anticipated that it might be somewhat intrusive to the neighbors whose windows face the parking lot. Heather Hartsell. 58 Pentire Circle, said she attends Parkview Evangelical Free Church so she feels caught between a rock and a hard place. She said she agrees that the church needs an expansion for their parking, but she is concerned if they need it to the extent that they are proposing. She said this is the first time that she and the other neighbors in the condominium development have seen the church's most recent proposed plan. She noted that they were not given the opportunity to review it before the Board meeting. She recommended that the very west row of parking spaces be removed from the proposed plan. She said one of her windows and her screened porch overlooks iowa ,:.r, 9,;,Jrd >f ~,,*H~stm,-;l'? Page -~ the !o[. and :f :bat last 'ow of spaces on the wes[ s~de of !he aark~ng o[ ,,~ere ~ncluded, ~t ~vould be located yen/close to her porch, even with a row of trees there She sad not all parking spaces are taken up on a g~ven Sunday morning. She said the last row of parking spaces that currently exist are typically not filled with cars. She said she drives to church during inclement weather, and she would not park in the last proposed row of parking spaces. She said she would park closer to the church on the lawn or in the roadway. She said some church members are handicapped and they will not park in the last row of spaces that is being proposed, and neither would older individuals or families with small children. She suggested removing the last row of parking spaces and putting those in the "green" area proposed by staff closest to Taft Speedway. Hartsell said the willow area should be left because it is a natural habitat for many animals. She said the parking lot is a poor area for drainage, and she would like to have the issue of adequate drainage taken into consideration. She said additional lights in the parking lot are a concern for anybody attending the church or using the parking lot, but it should be ensured that the light would not intrude on the neighbors by shining in their windows. She noted that the row of existing trees as shown on the proposed plan really does not exist. She said there are outdoor basketball courts on the existing parking lot, and she suggested that those courts not be moved closer to the residential area if the lot is expanded. She also said the services at Parkview never end on time. Shirley Westcott. 38 Camborne Circle. said her building is very close to the property line, so if the parking lot is brought up closer to the west lot line, they will feel like they are sitting on it. She said she did not want to look out her front room or her porch to a wall- to-wall parking lot. She said she has watched the parking lot on Sunday mornings, and has seen open spaces on the back row while cars are parking out on the road or up on the grassy areas. She said the church's first proposal left the willow area intact. She said it provides a great buffer from the noise of the church. She said in the summertime, people are playing basketball into the evenings in the church parking lot and the lights there are on, and the willow area gives a buffer for the noise and light. She said willows might not be the best trees, but it will take 10-20 years for any new planrings to grow up to the current buffer size, so what they already have should not be destroyed. She said she agrees that the row of parking closest to the neighbors should be eliminated, because it is too close. She said there is a lot of traffic on Foster Road, and when the peninsula project is completed there will be more traffic, so she did not want a ddveway dght next to her back door. She said the proposed exit onto Taft Speedway was moved closer to the condominiums and should be moved back toward the east. Fugene Coon. 37 Pentire Circle. said that he bought his residence because they liked the trees. He said their home will be just opposite the southwest corner of the proposed parking lot. He asked if the existing trees along Taft Speedway up to the west boundary of the proposed parking lot would be removed. Rockwell said some of them will be need to be removed for access, but the plans staff has seen indicate that most of the trees will be retained. Coon said he and his wife did not really want to look at an exit outside their front door. He said he agreed with the previous neighbors in that people will not want to park in the proposed last row of parking. He said he is for the church and its expansion, but he would like to see more of a buffer along the west end with landscaping that is nice to look at. Public hearing closed. Bender asked Rockwell about the lighting. She said other proposals the Board has reviewed, such as the last proposal similar to this with a church parking lot expansion, included specific information about the proposed lighting. She said the Board spent ~Ow3 .:.' ~ 3,,,.)rJ 9r some time :~scuss~ng the hgnt~ng ~ssue ~n that case and she ~as :oncerned ~hat no ~nformat~on aeout lighting appeared an~wnere ~n thins proposal. She asked ~f s~aff would have the oppo~unity to review for downcast lighting. Rockwell said staff had discussed this ~ith the church, and downcast lighting is required. She said there ms a maximum level of light that is allowed to go over the prope~y line, approximately one foot-candle. She said the light poles are proposed to be 20-25 ~eet in height, which is a reasonable height in a residential area. She said the church has also offered to have the lighting in the parking lot installed so only the lights closest to the church would be left on, and the lights closest to the neighbors would be turned off on evenings when no one or only a few people are at the church. L. Brandt asked if the current regulations for the parking area ensure that the lights will not be more than 25 feet in height, no more than one foot-candle would pass over the property line, etc. He asked if the Board needed to put that sort of condition into a motion. Rockwell said if the Board feels they would be more comfortable specifying the type of lighting that should be installed, it could add a condition. She said the one foot- candle and downcast lighting are requirements, but the light pole can be higher than 25 feet. L. Brandt asked about the drainage issue. Rockwell said this site is located in a flood plain near a stream corridor and has hydric soils, so it is required to be reviewed as a Sensitive Areas Site Plan. She said there will be staff scrutiny as to how the drainage will be handled. She said at this point, the applicant is proposing to have some ponding of the stormwater southeast of the new church building and some within the parking area. She said the church is working with the Public Works Department to determine how stormwater will be directed off the site; whether it will attach to the pipe to the west or be directed toward Dubuque Street. She said the stormwater management for the site is being reviewed and will need to be approved by the Public Works Department. Haigh said the Board also has to decide how comfortable they are with the number of proposed parking spaces. Bender said she was not comfortable with the number at all, and she would not approve it as it is proposed. She said that the requested number of parking spaces (544) is way out of the realm of reasonableness. She said she had some grave concems about the increased amount of black top and concrete in residential areas. She said the Board has to look at a more reasonable number of parking spaces. Corcoran asked if Bender thought they should remove the row of spaces along the western boundary of the parking lot as identified by the neighbors. Bender said those spaces could go right away. She said she attends services at a church located at the corner of Jefferson and Dubuque Streets that does not have a parking lot, and which sits next to another church that does not have a parking lot. She said there is no problem with church attendance even though people usually have to walk two blocks to church and have to park downtown or near a business that is not open on Sundays. She said she knows that Parkview does not have that option, but she does not buy the argument that people will not attend services if the increase in parking is not approved. She said she thought it was an incredible increase. She said there is an 80-space difference between the proposed amount of parking and what staff said was the requirement based on the building square footage and the occupancy load. She said she would not mind seeing that many spaces removed, but she would be willing to listen to another alternative. Haigh said he would have a problem approving a special exception with a maximum amount of parking spaces without knowing where those parking spaces would be. He suggested either deferring the special exception item so the church could propose a design that is more compatible, or approving the item with a maximum number of iowa VVedne,~l,',l,, 2 ,:~,,l::r '4 '.)~ Page park~n~ spaces. sublect :o staff review and approval L Brantit sa~d the Board knows the applicant's Droposal and staffs suggestions. He sa~d he was concerned about the total amount of parking, as he is not convinced at this time that that many parking spaces will be necessaq. He suggested a maximum figure of 450 spaces, which would effectively double the parking area that the church has now. He said he was also concerned with the buffer area between the west edge of the parking lot and the neighborin9 residential prope~ies. He thought adequate landscaping was more impo~ant than removing a row of parking spaces, because the pavement could be moved over a few feet, but if there is not an adequate buffer, it will be a big concern. He said he was not sure what the GhurGh would be bufferin9 along Ta~ Speedway. Bender and Corcoran said they agreed. Bender said if the west row of parking spaces was eliminated, it would increase the buffer area and the amount of flexibility in the type of landscape material that can be put there. She said she did not want to design the parking lot, that was clearly out of her league, but the neighbors had a good point in that the parking is far away from the church and close to them. She said if the Board wanted to reduce the total number of parking spaces, that would seem like a logical place to start and it would give more flexibility to design whatever landscaping buffer will go in there. She said she was also concerned about the second drive on Foster Road, because it was too close to the neighbors. She said she agreed with the neighbor who asked why they should rip out something that is natural and working, e.g. the willow grove. She said if it provides the screening that the neighbors obviously feel that they need now, and is pleasing to them, ripping all that out does not make sense to her. She asked Rockwell how the Board should proceed with the item. Rockwell said if the Board feels the number of parking spaces is too extensive no matter how the parking may be redesigned, it could deny the item. She said if the Board feels uncomfortable just setting a maximum number of parking spaces and letting the applicant work out landscaping and parking design with staff, the Board may want to spell out specific conditions of approval. Bender said she did not want to delay the church. L. Brandt read over the conditions proposed by staff. He said in condition #5, they could replace 29 feet with 39 feet, which would remove the west row of parking spaces and increase the buffer space. He said he was not concerned with the west drive onto Taft Speedway. T.J. Brandt said he was not concerned with the Foster Road west entrance because the church has already stated they are willing to relocate that further to the east. He said the church has already stated that regarding the buffer zone, whether it remains the clump of willows or whether it is something else, the neighbors have been invited to be on the committee to study that and determine what would be the most feasible buffering. He said he hated to see the natural habitat destroyed, but at the same time the church was willing to relocate the west entrance off of Foster Road further to the east to accommodate some type of buffering zone whether it is the willows or another type of vegetation. He said his biggest concern was the 29 feet of the buffering zone between the back of the condominiums and the church parking lot. He said that 29 feet seems adequate, but it depends on what type of vegetation or trees will be planted in that area. He said it seemed the church was willing to work with the neighborhood as much as they possibly could. He said if he was a neighbor, he probably would not want to look out over an asphalt parking lot, but it sounds like the church is willing to work with the neighbors as best it can to accommodate them, as well as the church's needs. T. J. Brandt said that he did not know that he agreed with the amount of parking needed. He asked if 544 spaces was too many, what would be too little. He said he was looking into the future. and asked what would happen if the buffer zone is set back 39 feet and Nednes,.*,t,, ':,:t(DIDF,.r ' 4. ' F;~~, bage ., :Pe :nurch expands more ,n five years and they need extra parking He sad me Board .,vould probably tell them to take out the Irees they planted ~n that 39-foot buffer zone and use that space to ~ncrease the parking. He said he did not know how the Board could comfortably say Ihat the proposal was too much parking, and what was too little parking. L. Brandt said that is the Board's job. Bender said she could comfortably say that the proposal was for too much parking. Corcoran said she wanted to see the entire western row of parking taken out, and instead of telling the church to move the buffer out 10 feet, she would feel most comfortable specifically saying that. She said she wanted to retain the willow area and move the western Foster Road entrance to the east. She said she would vote to deny the special exception, unless she could see the changes and the new design and know what the Board is voting on rather than leave it to staff, the church and the neighborhood to work out. Bender said there are a lot of issues. She said she respectfully disagrees with T.J. Brantit. She thought she heard from the neighbors that this was the first time that they had seen the new plan, and while she thought that the church had good intentions, she was not sure that the neighbors were getting the kind of opportunity for input that they might like and that might be required by the project. She said that causes her great concern about the willow area and the entrance off Foster Road that is so much closer to the neighbors than was odginally proposed. She said she saw some of the neighbors shaking their heads when the church was talking about them having been invited to be on a landscaping committee, so she was not certain that was really happening. She reiterated that the neighbors said that they had not had an opportunity to see the proposed plan until this meeting. Corcoran said the Board could give the applicant some guidance, because it is pretty clear what the Board's concerns are, and it would take awhile to get through the conditions if they wanted to approve the item tonight. L. Brandt said if the Board denies the special exception and the church wants to try again, it would to cost them money to reapply. Bender said if the Board defers the item, it must be very specific in the total number of parking spaces that would be acceptable. She suggested a total of 475 because it is still above the calculation for the maximum occupancy, and it would allow the removal of the western row of parking and further reduction of the parking area. L. Brandt said that he would be willing to submit a motion that essentially did that with the conditions recommended by staff, except that he would take out the last three words of condition #3, and he would add something to the last condition about moving the west edge of the parking area to 39 feet away from the west property line, which would effectively address the need to deal with the west edge of the parking. He said it would also keep the church within the footprint where they are at, and talk about eliminating or moving the west access drive off Foster Road. Haigh said he would be more comfortable if the Board either denied or deferred the item. He said with the things the Board is talking about, he is not sure that everything would get done the way they want it to be done. He said he would like to see the final project before he votes on it. L. Brandt said that he could defer the item as long as the Board is being clear to the applicant regarding its concerns. Greiner said that the church would agree to the deferral. MOTION: Bender moved to defer FXC97-0018 to the Board's November 18, 1998, meeting. L. Brandt seconded the motion. Mitchell suggested going through the reasons the Board is deferring the item, and provide some guidance to the applicant as to what is deficient in this plan and what it would like to see revised. Iowa ,;i~,/:3oar,: ,~t -~dj~,s~rnen[ Wednesday, 3dol3er ' J, ~ 998 Page ~ 2 Bender sa~d she would vote for the deferral because she Ihough[ the ~nterests of justice would be served if the Board and the neighbors could see a proposal again with a lot of the issues resolved. She said in terms of the project scope, it is simply too big. She said a 276% increase in parking spaces above the standard requirement is phenomenal, and probably the biggest one the Board has ever seen. She said she cannot in good conscience approve that, but she sensed that the church is willing to compromise. She said the church has made some improvements, and the deferral will give them the opportunity to take the information from this Board meeting and make it a more pleasing project for the neighborhood and the City. L. Brandt commended the positive presentations by the church and the neighbors, and said he appreciated that the church was willing to recognize that it is in a residential neighborhood. He said the Board's concerns were with the amount of parking, the buffering issue between the neighbors and the parking lot and the northwest area of the lot. He said he did not hear a lot of concern from the applicant about staffs suggested conditions, so those are well worth looking at when reworking the parking lot design. Haigh said the Board would also like to see something about the proposed lighting. The motion carried by a vote of 5-0. Rockwell said that the City has a new Good Neighbor Policy that involves applicants getting together with neighboring property owners, and she suggested that the church do that before the Board's November 18 meeting. (T.J. Brandt left the meeting at 6:50 p.m.) FXC98-0022 Public hearing on an application submitted by Michael and Ann Romanowski for a special exception to permit off-street parking on a separate lot for property located in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 1517 Mall Drive. Rockwell said the Romanowskis are requesting that seven of the nine proposed additional parking spaces be provided on adjoining property owned b'y Oral B Laboratories. She said the Romanowskis would like to provide additional parking spaces over and above what is required in order to address the parking shortage being experienced by the clinic. She said pending Board approval of their request, the applicants are prepared to enter into a lease agreement with Oral B Laboratories to allow off-site parking spaces for the dental clinic on Oral B property. Rockwell said in this case, the Romanowskis request is eligible for Board consideration under the provision of the zoning code that addresses non-required parking on a separate lot. She said the parking cannot be provided on the 1517 Mall Drive property, and no principal use has been established on the vacant Oral B lot. She said this section of the code also requires that there be a written agreement that ensures the parking spaces are retained in perpetuity, but because the spaces are non-required, a lease agreement in perpetuity is not needed. Rockwell said the Board is asked when assessing this type of special exception request to consider "the desirability of the location of the off-street parking on a lot separate from the use served in terms of pedestrian and vehicular traffic safety and any detrimental effects such off-street parking may have on adjacent property." She said in this situation, there is no physical separation of the parking spaces from the dental clinic parking area, and there should be no safety problems associated with the parking on a separate lot as it is proposed. She said the code requires that the off-site parking be no more than 300 Iowa .3,t,l ~;;3r,J 3f -~dluslmer~! Wednesda,, .:l:tober ' 4 ~')gH Page '~ Feet d~stant frenq the 3,_,lld~ng. 3nC :n=s parkin%~ :s 50 fee[ d~staPf Rockwell sa~c the crux of this case es the rezoning ~ssue She said parking is an accessory use and cannot be provided in a zone other than the one in which the principal use is located. Last week, it appeared that the Romanowskis would be able to ask Oral B to proceed with the rezoning. She said since that time, she was contacted by the Romanowskis' attorney, Michael Kennedy, who indicated that Oral B is not interested in rezoning this property. She said Oral B has indicated that if it wants to revoke the lease and have the concrete removed, it does not want to go through the process of rezoning the lot back to I-1 again. She suggested that the Board act only on the special exception request before it without attaching a condition requiring a rezoning. She said this would allow the applicants to work out the rezoning issue with the City and Oral B as best they can. She said there might be some flexibility in the interpretation of the ordinance given that the proposed lease is revokable upon a 60-day notice. Mitchell said he wanted to make it clear that the issue is still subject to meeting any City ordinances in effect, and staff is not waiving any zoning code requirements. L. Brandt said the City does not need a condition from the Board to that effect. He said Board approval does not relieve applicants from complying with zoning code requirements. Mitchell said he just wanted to articulate that. Public hearing opened. Ann Romanowski. owner of the building at 1517 Mall Drive. said she started pdvate practice there four years ago with another dentist and a couple of staff members. She said at that point in time, the current parking lot more than met their needs. She noted that since then both their practices have grown. She said there is currently ample parking for all their scheduled patients and staff, but the thing that is out of control is the daily emergency cases. She said this causes the parking problem. She said they feel that the proposed parking arrangement would be a good solution to their parking problem. She said there is no parking on Mall Drive, so a patient's options would be parking in the dentist office parking lot next door which is usually full, parking across the street at La Petite Day Care which is relatively small or parking in the Oral B lot. She said the patient would run a dsk at any of those three places, because they are not supposed to park there. She said the closest residential neighborhood is to the north at Second Avenue and J Street, which is five blocks from her clinic. She said her patients could cut across the grass field to reduce the distance down to two blocks, but it can be muddy and is not an option in the winter. She said most of their patients are elderly, so this would not be an option for them. She said Oral B has agreed to let them use their property for a parking lot if it can be approved by the City. She said they are proposing to have the parking lot put along their driveway with part of the parking on the Romanowskis' land and part on Oral B's land. Bender asked who Romanowski envisioned parking in the proposed lot. Romanowski said their staff would park in those spots, and save the current spaces for their patients. Michael Kennedy. attorney, said the crux of this matter is the rezoning issue. He said he was concerned about the item's status if the Board chose to grant the special exception. He asked if they could have the non-required parking on land that is zoned I-1 when the dental office is zoned CC-2. Rockwell said she was suggesting that the Board rule on what they have authority over, which is to say whether this parking on a separate lot is safe, will not be injurious to neighboring property owners, meets the general standards for granting a special exception, etc. She said the rezoning question will have to be resolved, but the Board does not have the authority to do that. She said standard 6 of low3 .~,t'~ ~;ar~] >r A~Jju,sIcn.~r,t Page ] 4 the E~oerd s review stend3rds ,%r spec~et exceptions ind,cetes Ihe~ axcep~ Jar Ihe exception being requesl~ed. ~11 other rules end regulations af the Zoning Chapter will be met. She said the Beard could say whether ~t feels it is e goad situation far off-street parking or not. But even if it says yes, the rezoning question still needs to be resolved. Kennedy asked how that would be resolved, because Oral B has indicated that they will not agree ta have their property rezaned. Rockwell said the best way to handle the situation would be for the Romanowskis ta purchase that portion af the property. Kennedy said Oral B will nat sell the property. Rockwell said it may be that the Baard's decision will be moot. She said she was under the understanding that the applicants were pursuing discussions with the Oity Attarney's Office, the Oity's Enforcement division (HIS) and with the City Maneger's Office on this issue. Kennedy said he spoke with Mr. Boothroy about this matter, who echoed what was in the staff report. He said the applicants do not feel they have anywhere to go but to the Board. He said he thought the Board had the authority to grant the special exception under the circumstances presented. He said even though the parking spaces are located in a different zone, he did not see anything in the City Code of Ordinances that would prohibit the Board from having jurisdiction or the authority to grant the special exception and allow the applicants to have the parking spaces. Mitchell said if the Board were to approve this without a rezoning, it would be in effect rezoning the I-1 zone to CC-2 to allow the accessory use. He said any type of rezoning would have to go through the Planning and Zoning Commission, and ultimately be approved by the City Council. He said he did not know if this item would be eligible for a Zoning Code Interpretation Panel (ZCIP) consideration, but that is something the applicants could request. He said that Rockwell's proposal was for the Board to go ahead and approve what they are able to if they are inclined to do so. Mitchell cautioned that in this case, approval is subject to the property being rezoned to CC-2 so that the zoning for the parking area is consistent with the use zoning for the dental clinic. Kennedy asked if it was the legal opinion of the City that the Board did not have the right to grant the special exception as is without further action on rezoning. Mitchell said that is correct. Kennedy said the applicants did not know about this zoning requirement when they initiated the process. He said when they filed the application, they thought they met all the criteria that would logically come before the Board, and now it appears that the Board would be advised that they do not have the ability to grant this special exception. He said a condition of rezoning attached to the special exception would do them no good, because Oral B will not agree that the property be rezoned. He said he has spoken with Ron Gray, the Oral B plant manager, on many occasions over the last month, and although Oral B would love to accommodate the Romanowskis, they do not want to rezone their property because they recently rezoned the property from CC-2 to I- 1. Mitchell asked if the applicants would be comfortable deferring the item to see if there is anything that could be worked out with staff regarding the rezoning issue. Kennedy said that would be fine. He said he felt there were many strong arguments for granting the special exception as is, but the arguments that he has heard from staff are that approval of this would open the flood gates for everybody else who wants to apply for off-site parking in a different zoning area from the principal use. He said he understood that, but felt that the circumstances for this situation were very unique. He said the parking agreement in the application is not perpetual and is subject to termination at any time, so the applicants do not really have anything very sturdy. He said rezoning carries a connotation of semi-permanency, but what they have with Oral B is very terrainable. L. Brandt asked how the applicants would be hindered or damaged if the Board Wednesd,t,, :.doUbt ' 4 ' Page ' 5 approved tDe special exception at th~s meeting, and asked t it would save time rn the entire process ~f the special exception was approved by the Board and the rezoning issue was worked out with the City. Kennedy said there would be no harm in that at all, they are just trying to figure out what they are going to do next. Public hearing closed. MOTION: Corcoran moved that the Board approve EXC98-0022, a special exception to permit non-required off-street parking to be located on an adjacent, separate lot for a dental clinic located in the CC-2 zone at 1517 Mall. Bender seconded the motion. Corcoran said she would vote in favor of this because it is a practical solution to a vexing problem for the applicants and they make a compelling case for why they need the additional parking. L. Brandt said he would support the motion, because this is not required parking and it is a service that is being provided. He said in terms of the Board's general criteria, the change is pretty modest, and it is adjacent and close to the clinic. He said it is unfortunate that rules sometimes interfere with what seems to be the logical and reasonable thing to do, but rules also have to be there because the community has to be wary of things that could happen in the future. He said this particular proposal seems like a reasonable exception, in terms of what the Board could do. Bender concurred. She said when she considered the standards, the special exception did not jeopardize public health or safety in any way, given the fact that it is adjacent to the clinic. She said she was pleased off-site parking would be used for staff as opposed to patient parking. She said it will not impair anybody's visibility, and there are virtually no safety issues or a feasible alternative for the applicant because them is no street parking on Mall Drive. She said the application looks to be in general conformance with the City's parking design regulations. She said a case could be made to the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel given the recent zoning change, the fact them are no alternatives and the agreement with Oral B could be yanked at any time so they are not necessarily looking at long-term situation. She said she would vote in favor. Haigh said this case is straightforward, his colleagues had hit all the high points and he would also be voting in favor of the motion. Mitchell said he thought it would be prudent to add that the applicants are still subject to any applicable zoning regulations, and particularly whether or not the additional property needs to be rezoned. AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION: Corcoran moved to amend the main motion to include "subject to any applicable zoning regulations or rezoning requirements" at the end of the motion. Bender seconded the amendment. The amendment carried by a vote of 4-0. The motion carried by a vote of 4-0. FXC98-0023. Public hearing on an application submitted by Kevin and Kimberley Glenn for a special exception to permit a reduction in the front and rear yard setback requirements for property located in the Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS- 8) zone at 632 Brown Street. Rockwell said this is a property located adjacent to Dodge Street. She said Keyin and Kimberly Glenn would like to add a one-story addition to the rear of their residence and enlarge a garage at the basement level. and to do this, they need to have a special exception approved to reduce the front and rear yard requirements for their property. She said this property has already been reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission for the exterior renovations that are being proposed. She said this is a case Iowa C,P/~,;dr': ;t 3, djL~SU~,el'I Page ',6 '3~ a ~a~rly ~arge home 3ufit on a qse of ~and above the extra-w~de Dodge Stree[ and Brown Street r~ghts-o~-way. She sa~d ~he 2,800 square ~eet of front yard setback area required along both fromages rot this corner prope~y constitutes 46.6 percent of the 6,000 square foot lot. She said ~o mcrease living space and garage area on a buildable podion of the lot, a rear yard encroachment is needed. She said concerning the front yard encroachment, the existing residence already encroaches approximately one foot into the front yard setback area and this addition is proposed to be in line with the present encroachment of the existing residence. Rockwell said in looking at the practical difficulty of complying with the setback requirements, staff has noted that the front yard reduction is very minimal, and the requested rear yard reduction is more substantial. She said the perceived effect of the yard reductions should be fairly modest for passersby on Dodge Street as well as for neighboring property owners. She said it would not increase the population density, and is likely to improve the visibility for motorists backing out of the driveway, as well as for pedestrians and motorists who are coming along that way. Rockwell said the applicant could decrease the length of the addition by approximately one foot to eliminate the need for a front yard modification, and the width of the addition could be reduced by nine feet (from 14 feet to five feet) to eliminate the rear yard modification. She said that would also eliminate the possibility of having a two-stall garage and providing more on-site parking. She said staff felt the interests of justice would be served by allowing this special exception. She said staff suggests in line with what the Historic Preservation Commission required conditions of approval, that the applicants narrow the amount of paving in front of the garage by moving the pedestrian access door to the north of the two garage doors instead of locating it between them. She said that placing the garage doors side by side would allow the driveway paving to be narrowed. She said staff is also asking that the slope on the north side of the driveway be stepped down so that visibility is improved; so that there is not a retaining wall that juts out and blocks visibility. Corcoran asked if there would still be some pavement in front of the pedestrian door. Rockwell said there would be a sidewalk, it just would not extend out to the street for the full length of the driveway. She said the retaining wall could be brought in closer to the narrowed drive, except for a bump out where the sidewalk is located. Public hearing opened. Kim Glenn. 632 Brown Street. said they wanted to add a garage and an addition to the back of the house, because they feel it will enhance public safety to have an actual driveway poured that will go down to Dodge Street. She said as it is now, their driveway ends at the sidewalk, so when they choose to use their current garage, it looks like they are pulling onto grass and this may cause some confusion to motorists behind them. She said having a driveway there would help other motorists see that the driveway is an ingress and egress point. She said they are proposing to do the retaining walls in a step- down fashion and the lowest part will be at the public sidewalk area, so when they back out of their driveway, they will be better able to identify all types of traffic coming towards them. She said now the way the retaining walls are set, they are literally backing out of the driveway blind. She said they feel the addition and garage will enhance the home's outward appearance, and they plan to landscape the area around the garage and the rear addition. She said they are proposing to keep their addition in line with the existing structure, and match materials used more closely than had been done with the one-story bathroom that was added earlier. She said they have already met with the Historic Preservation Commission, who gave them a Certificate of Appropriateness for their iowa '.L4,,, ,Nednesda,, Page ' ' plans prov!ded ,,hat they meet the cond~bons ~f approval She sa~c :no';' nave revised Ihe~r plans, and everything that was covered ,n Ihal meebng has Seen addressed. She sad she had a copy of the revised plans if anyone wanted to review them at the meeting. She said it would be nice to have another garage so they could keep both of their vehicles off the street. She said the street parking on Brown Street is very difficult, and is used not only by people on Brown Street, but also by people who live north on Dodge Street. Corcoran asked if Glenn approved of the City's condition to move the garage pedestrian entrance door. Glenn said they have already addressed that issue on the revised plans. Rockwell noted the Board had received a letter from Tom Slockett who supports this application. Glenn said she and her husband made a concerted effort to go around to everybody in the neighborhood to show them the plans and talk with them about what they wanted to do. She said as far as they are aware, they have the support of the neighborhood and nobody has come to them directly with any opposition to the project. L. Brandt said he applauded their efforts and said he wished everyone did that. Public hearing closed. MOTION: L. Brandt moved to approve FXC98-0023, a special exception to reduce the front yard requirement along Dodge Street from 20 feet to 19 feet for the 14- foot width of the residential and garage additions and to reduce the rear yard requirement from 20 feet to 11 feet for the 27.5-foot~length of the addition for property located in the RS-8 zone at 632 Brown Street, subject to 1) City staff approval of a site redesign in which the width of the driveway paving is narrowed to better define the driveway access to the site and the slope on the north side of the driveway is stepped down to improve visibility, and 2) conformance with the conditions listed in the Certificate of Appropriateness issued by the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission for the proposed additions. Corcoran seconded the motion. Corcoran said she would vote in favor of the motion. She said she thought it was a lovely addition; it is in conformity with the neighborhood, and the applicants have been very careful to be good neighbors and think about the safety issues. She said she was pleased that they have received the Certificate of Appropriateness. L. Brandt said he would support the motion. He said the application does not diminish any health or safety issues, and he agreed with the applicants that it appears this will actually improve those conditions. He said based on the information the Board received from adjoining property owners, they are not concerned about this project diminishing their property values. He said this is a well-established neighborhood and the Glenn's home is in the Brown Street Historic District. He said the overlay review that the Historic Preservation Commission provides helps ensure that the standards regarding orderly development are maintained. He said the other standard has to do with ingress, egress and traffic congestion, and the application will definitely not diminish that issue, and in fact, it will probably help improve the situation. Bender said she agreed based on the fact that the requested exemption is a very minimal one. She said it will not change population density, not increase use of municipal facilities, not be a detriment to property values and the only neighbors the Board heard from thought it was a lovely plan and enhanced the value of neighboring properties. She said there is really no feasible alternative. She said the Glenns could technically decrease some of the setback request, but then they would lose a stall in the garage, which would be counterproductive. She said the City wants people to restore these grand old homes, and they have to be ready to live in the 21s" century. She said ,~wa ,3dy Board ot Adluslmenl ~Vednesday October :4. !998 Page 18 she thought it was a reasonable request that would enhance and upgrade an older property, which is ~n keeping with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Haigh said that Bender said it all. The motion carried by a vote of 4-0. OTHFR: (Mitchell left at 7:40 p.m.) Rockwell noted the article included in the packet on a Board of Adjustment action in another Iowa community. She also noted the attendance sheet in the packet, which the City Council requests every time an appointment comes up. She said the Council will be taking applications for the open Board position until the end of the October with the appointment scheduled for November 3. BOARD OF ADJUSTMFNT INFORMATION: Rockwell said regarding the sign issue with Office Depot, space is being shared on the existing freestanding sign. Haigh said he almost brought that up at that meeting, but it sounded like that was not a possibility. Rockwell said regarding the Iowa Avenue special exception, she has not received a definitive answer yet. She said the issue may have to be resolved in court. Bender asked if staff was involved with the Baptist Church on Mormon Trek, where a front attachment was knocked off their building. She said it looked like someone drove a large Ryder truck underneath it, and knocked the entire structure off the front of the church. ADJOURNMFNT: MOTION: Bender moved to adjoum the meeting. Corcoran seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 4-0, and the meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. William Haigh, Chairperson Melody Rockwell, Secretary Minutes submitted by Traci Wagner. ppdadrnin~min\bOa 10-14.doc IOWA CTTY BOARD OF ADJU5 T'/14ENT A4EET'2'N6 WEDNESDA E OCTOBE, q 14, 1998- 5:00 PA4. CTvt~; Center Councfi Chambers 5IorN Z'N SHEET Address ,Phone 3% 1 ~' 7S",._ 12. 13. 14 17. MINUTES IOWA CITY BOARD Of APPEALS MONDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1998 - 4:30 P.M. LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM - CITY CIVIC CENTER MEMBERS PRESENT: Anna Buss, Robert Carlson, Wayne Maas, John Roffman, Tom Werderitsch MEMBERS ABSENT: Gary Haman, John Staska STAFF PRESENT: Doug Boothroy, Tim Hennes, Dennis Mitchell, Andy Rocca OTHERS PRESENT: Cole Chase, Mark Hall, Gary Klinefelter, George Knorr, Bernie Osvald RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: Recommended, by a vote of 5-0, approval of the 1997 editions of the uniform fire code, uniform code for the abatement of dangerous buildings, uniform code for building conservation, uniform plumbing code and uniform mechanical code with the amendments the Board has written with staff. Recommended, by a vote of 5-0, approval of the 1997 uniform building with the amendments as written by staff. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Carlson called the meeting to order at 4:44 p.m. CONSIDERATION OF THE AUGUST 31, 1998, MEETING MINUTES: MOTION: Werderitsch moved to approve the August 31, 1998, meeting minutes as submitted. Buss seconded the motion. Carlson volunteered a friendly amendment to add the words "... and appreciated his hard work and diligence..." to the last sentence under "Other Business" on page 5. Werderitsch accepted the friendly amendment. The motion carried by a vote of 5-0. HEAR APPEAL OF NOTICE OF HOUSING CODE VIOLATION OF SECTION 19-F (EXTERIOR SURFACES) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 226 PRENTISS STREET: Klinefelter said that he performed a routine housing inspection of the property and cited some peeling defective paint on the exterior wood surfaces of the building. Werderitsch asked about the other listed violations. Klinefelter said that those were corrected. Carlson asked Knorr, the property owner, if he had anything that he would like to add to his written statement. Knorr said in a short time some changes would take place in this area on either side of his property. He said that there are two vacant houses, and the question is when his property will be sold to another party that already owns the neighboring properties. He said that on the other hand, no one could decide to purchase his property and he would continue to operate it. He said the tenants that currently live there are happy to be there. He said he did not know if and when this sale would occur. He said he appealed to the Board to give him two more years to see what Iowa City Board of Appeals Monday, October 5, 1998 Page 2 will happen. He said that repainting or residing is very expensive, and it is not worthwhile to do if he will sell the property in three to six months. Maas asked if the neighboring houses have been condemned. Klinefelter said that there is a demolition permit out on one of the houses, and he was not sure of the others status. He said that they are both vacant and are owned by Haywood Bell, as is most of the rest of the land in that area. Werdedtsch asked Knorr if Bell had approached him about the property. Knorr said that a realtor approached him representing Bell, and he made an offer that was much less than the tax evaluation of the property so he did not respond to it. Werderitsch asked how long Knorr had owned the property. Knorr said about 15-20 years because he bought it for his two sons to live in the middle 1980's when they at"tended the University. Werderitsch asked when the house was last painted. Knorr said five years ago. He said it is an older building without a vapor barrier so all the humidity goes through the walls and no paint will hold on the exterior for more than that. Mitchell said factors the Board must find are the practical difficulty/unnecessary hardship and the extension being in harmony with the Housing Code. He said under the Housing Code it is only under extraordinary circumstances that an extension beyond 18 months can be granted. Knorr said he thought that his case had extraordinary circumstances. Buss said she thought the City was headed in that direction anyway with their overall plan. Carlson asked how much of the paint was peeling off. Klinefelter said that it was peeling in spots on a couple sides of the building, so it did not require a complete paint job. He said that painting those two sides and doing some touch-up work would take care of the problem, but he noted that the problem might have gotten worse since he cited the property. Knorr said that all the moisture penetrates on the inside and loosens the paint, and he thought that if he was going to do something about the problem he would have to do an 100% new paint job to do it dght. Buss asked how the Board felt about a one-year extension to next summer. Werderitsch said he thought if Knorr was going to make a deal for the property he was going to make it by next year, and if Knorr is not going to make a deal he should get the property into compliance. Knorr said that he would like more leeway and that is why he requested two years. Werderitsch said he thought that one year would be enough. Carlson said that that he thought that an extraordinary circumstance did not exist in this case because there are a number of property owners that do not know if they are going to keep or sell their properties so they do not want to put any additional money in them. He said that would only allow an 18~month extension, which would end in March and since a house in Iowa cannot be painted in March, it would make sense to have the extension be one year. (Roffman arrived at 4:55 p.m.) MOTION: Buss moved to grant a 12-month extension (to October 1, 1999) to correct the Housing Code violations at the property at 226 Prentiss Street. Werderitsch seconded the motion. Knorr said that he thought the should have more time for the extension. He asked if a date was determined would this be the end or the beginning. He said that when he put new siding on another house he wanted the contractor to start work in March, and the contractor finally finished in September. Buss said by that time if Knorr had something started and being worked on, she said that it had not been her experience that the City would cause any problems if the Iowa City Board of Appeals Monday, October 5, 1998 Page 3 work was in process. Klinefelter asked Knorr if it was likely that he would side the building, especially if it was slated for demolition. Knorr said that siding is technically his best solution because no paint will stay on for more than five years. Klinefelter said he understood that, but if this is an area of development it is unlikely that he would invest in siding. He could repaint the house because in five years that property will probably be developed. Buss said that the extension could be reviewed again. Knorr said he would like to do things so that he can live with it, and he would like the extension to be for two years. He noted that he liked to comply and he corrected all of the other code violations cited with this property, but he wanted to have his own scheduling time and he did not want to be driven by an external administrative decision. Mitchell said that there is no definition of "extraordinary" given, and for the reasons stated previously it would be difficult to show any extraordinary circumstances in this case. Cadson said that the Housing Code prohibits the Board from granting an extension longer than 18 months unless the circumstances are extraordinary, and he did not think that they were. Buss said that an 18-month extension would end in March 2000, so by then Knorr should be able to figure something out. Buss said she would like to amend her original motion of 12 months to 18 months. Werderitsch said he did not want to continue his second, and the amended motion failed for lack of a second. MOTION: Maas moved to grant a 12-month extension (to October 1, 1999) to correct the Housing Code violations at the property at 226 Prentiss Street. Werdedtsch seconded the motion. Knorr said that this would be outside work, and he wanted to know how the Board wanted him to paint the exterior if there was bad weather. Cadson said that he would assume that the painting would be done in August or September so the work would be finished by October. Knorr asked why the extension could not be for eight months then instead of 12. Carlson said there is not support for 18 months, and 12 months is the best they have. The motion carried by a vote of 5-0. RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION OF THE 1997 EDITIONS OF THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE. UNIFORM CODE FOR THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS, UNIFORM CODE FOR BUILDING CONSERVATION, UNIFORM PULMBING CODE AND UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE: MOTION: Carlson moved to approve the 1997 editions of the uniform fire code, uniform code for the abatement of dangerous buildings, uniform code for building conservation, uniform plumbing code and uniform mechanical code with the amendments the Board has written with staff. Werderistch seconded the motion. Maas said he spoke with Bernie Osvald, and for Iowa City to reciprocate with Cedar Rapids they have to keep up on an update class for electrical and plumbing. He said this issue was located in section 14-5B-6-E in the plumbing code under reciprocating licenses. He said an Iowa City plumbing license will not reciprocate in Cedar Rapids unless the plumber has taken the update classes, and he thought it was redundant to say if they will reciprocate with us, we will reciprocate with them. Carlson said that it would allow for minor administration. Maas said he thought Iowa City should add the update class requirement, which means that every time the Iowa City Board of Appeals Monday, October 5, 1998 Page 4 new code would come out plumbers would have to take it a class on the changes to keep their licenses. He said that is the way it is in the electrical section. Osvald said that the update classes for plumbing have not been offered around Iowa City, so they have not required them yet. He noted that there is no licensing for mechanical at all right now. Mitchell said it that looks like anybody who meets the requirements would be granted a reciprocal license. Carlson suggested revisiting this issue at a meeting when the plumber was present. He asked Maas to consider what the reasonable thing to do as a standard, and said an update class would probably be a good idea. Osvald said if Iowa City is going to implement a standard, they should probably do what is done in Cedar Rapids because there are so many licensed plumbers working in both areas. Carlson said that the Board would leave the plumbing code as it is and fix this item if necessary at another meeting. Werderistch asked if a plumber had to go to Cedar Rapids to take the licensing exam if he wanted to practice up there. Osvald said that when the plumber has taken the Block and Associates exam, which reflects the current code, he or she can work anywhere, but as the code changes plumbers are required in certain communities to take the update classes to keep their licenses. Osvald said that through the summer they had a final reciprocal agreement between Cedar Rapids and Iowa City so that people who had taken the exam previously could go back and forth and get their license. He said that they are basically starting from scratch again. Werderistch said he assumed that having a reciprocal license would be cheaper than having a license in both communities. Osvald said it is the same licensing cost, but the plumber does not have to take the licensing exam over again. The motion carried by a vote of 5-0. CONCLUDE PUBLIC COMMENT ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO AND FORWARD RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE: Discussion Carlson said the big issue was attic access doors. He said that section is located at 1505.1: Access on page 1-146. Hennes said the building code currently states that the minimum clear width is 22 inches by 30 inches, but the City has amended it to 20 inches by 30 inches to allow the opening to fit between two trusses, and trusses are typically 24 inches on center. He said that Roffman's question deals with the 30-inch minimum head height that is to be provided at or above the access opening. He said that inspectors have always interpreted it to be 3.0 inches vertically above the opening, not the overall space. Roffman said that if an access is centered in the peak, you could come off any of the corners and the height would be less than 30 inches but there could be four feet above the access in the peak. He said in that case the attic would be shaped like a triangle. Werderitsch said that he thought they would need the 30 inches of height in the corners to have any use of that access. Roffman said if the attic is less than 30 inches in height, access is not required. He said that he was asking if it was required to have 30 inches in height from all points of the access. Rocca noted that the only dimension that has changed from the model code was the width. Roffman said that he thought the field inspector has interpretation of whether the space is accessible or not accessible, and then it is a matter of needing an access. Werderitsch asked if this access was only for the fire department. Rocca said yes, and said he would hate to eliminate access but if it were there it would make their job a lot cleaner with, for example a Iowa City Board of Appeals Monday, October 5, 1998 Page 5 lightening strike when they are trying to see if there is smoke in the attic. He said that they could change the language to allow at least one side to have that minimum dimension. Maas said that the code does not say that height has to be maintained throughout the entire attic, just in that access area. Rocca said the access is for the firefighter to stick their head and shoulders up into the attic to check for smoke. Carlson said the Board could rely on staff to use judgement that says "If because the attic is only 30 inches high or close to it, as long as the access door has the maximum available height over it, then it meets the criteria." Carlson said the 30 inches should be measured from the bottom of the bottom cord to the highpoint in the sheeting of the peak. He said that if allowing staff to use their judgement on this issue becomes a problem, the Board could write an amendment to the code at that time. Maas said that a light is not required in a crawlspace unless a mechanical is put in there. Hennes said that he only saw a problem if they specifically say that the opening shall not be located in some locations and if the highest point was above one of those locations. Carlson said that staff should use judgement in that situation, and he asked Rocca if it would be better to have an opening in the closet instead of no opening at all. Rocca said that type of opening would not be very practical to try to utilize, but it could be used. Foundation Wall Reinforcement: Carlson said the engineer wanted to withdraw from participation on this code, so it is up to the Board to decide what to do. Roffman asked if the chart is being proposed. Carlson said it is the same chart that is currently being used. Roffman asked if it was specified how frequently you have to have the dow pin back into the footing. Hennes said in the vertical it is typical to have 30 inches on center. Roffman said that some contractors put them in a "U' shape and bend them over to prevent injuries and accidents before they are covered up. Hennes said the "U" shapes are 30 inches on center. Roffman said that does not give the two-foot tie in the center that they mentioned. Werderitsch it is 24 inches in diameter for the splicing joint, and he thought that they were safer than the orange caps. Hall said that he was to talk to the engineer last month about changing variables, and the engineer said he would not change them. He said the Homebuilders Association of Iowa City's official position is that the design of a walk-out basement as a retaining wall is not proper because the main structural concerns of a retaining wall are slight overturning, bearing, sheer convening. He said before the code was changed none of the aforementioned perameters or concerns were a problem. He said the problem was cracking of the foundation walls, and this problem still adses even under the present code. He said their recommendations are to talk with the Structural Lab at Iowa State University about this next quarter, but the local Homebuilders Association does not have the finances to reprove theories or variables that just exist in Iowa City. He said they have called to talk to the National and State Associations about this. He said they appeal to the Board to go back to the UBC or adopt the international code guidelines that were introduced at the last meeting. Cadson said that the international residential code requires engineered design in the following three instances: the wall is located where the Building Official has determined that suitable backfill material is not available, the wall is subject to hydrostatic pressure from ground water and the wall is supporting more than 48 inches of unbalanced backfill which does not have permanent lateral support at the top and bottom. He said unbalanced backfill height is determined as the difference between the exterior and interior finished ground levels, such that Iowa City Board of Appeals Monday, October 5, 1998 Page 6 where there is an interior concrete slab provided the unbalanced backfill height is the measurement from the exterior finished ground level to the top of the concrete slab. He said that if the Homebuilders Association asked for this, he had no problem approving it. Maas noted that almost every basement; walkout and regular would require an engineer's design. Roffman said, as a homebuilder that was not what he wanted. Hall asked why the basement would have to be engineered if they adopt the chad he proposed. Carlson said that he was reading the entire code. Hall said the chad deals with maximum wall height and unbalanced backflow up to the top of particular walls above four feet. Carlson said the code text goes up to four feet but the chart on the next page goes up to nine feet of unbalanced backfill. Werderistch said that it is only for those two seismatic zones. He asked what permanent lateral suppod at the top and bottom meant. Hennes said he thought the engineer was referring to the wood joist floor system being designed as a diaphragm to provide that permanent lateral suppod as the concrete floor does at the low point. Hall said he thought it came down to if the foundation wall provided some type of lateral suppod. He said on the current code any retaining wall that is above four feet has to be engineered, and he did not agree with the interpretation that it is an unbalanced situation. Werderitsch said that how one would define when something is not subject to hydrostatic pressure and to what extent one would have to go. He said that language was awfully loose. Carlson said exception #1 had a wall reinforced with a minimum of three horizontal bars, and he asked what they had to have for vertical bars. Hall said that none with the chad provided now. Carlson said that the chad is for unbalanced, so if it is balanced and has dirt on both sides there are still no vertical bars. Hall said they want the charts for the reinforced concrete and masonry walls. Carlson said that dumps horizontals all together. Werderitsch said that would increase to a grade 60. Carlson said that if you want to maintain the quality of the reinforced steel they have to go with 60 because they have had problems with 40. He said he did not have a problem with changing the horizontal bars with the vertical bars in #1. He said for #2 the chad (1-1-b) does not necessarily address unbalanced lateral forces created by finished grade. Roffman said that by going with the chad it seems like they have not solved the issue of having 85-90% of the residential structures covered by a simple diagram instead of having to have an engineer. He said that he was concerned about that from the start. He said that if their chart obtains that, the Board should go with it. Hennes said that this all evolved because an engineer contacted the City to make them aware of a lot of failures, and looked at the code to find what was required. He said that engineer voluntarily submitted this chart which is less than the code would require to have it fit 80-95% of the houses. Carlson said that engineer used two basic assumptions with that chart, one is that he did not take the vertical load on top of the wall into account because he did not know what it would be, and the other is that he assumed that the floor deck would not provide very much if any lateral bracing. He said that those are two variables that that engineer did not have control over, and that is why he created this chart. Roffman said that a homeowner could still hire an engineer for design if they thought it was more economical. Booth roy said there have been a couple situations where property owners got their own engineer and found out that it was cheaper to do it according to code than according to the engineer. Roffman said that he would like to see the Board adopt the chad that they have there now, and as a local amendment give homeowners the option to hire an engineer to do it. He said that this is not a 100% cure-all, but it will take care of a lot of smaller, repetitive-type homes. Carlson said that the Board respects the opinion of the homebuilders, but they are going to stay where they are. No further discussion. Iowa City Board of Appeals Monday, October 5, 1998 Page 7 MOTION: Carlson moved to recommend the 1997 Uniform Building Code to the City Council for adoption with the amendments as written by staff. Werderitsch seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 5-0. OTHER BUSINESS: There was none. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION: Werderitsch moved to adjourn the meeting. Buss seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 5-0, and the meeting was adjourned at 5:56 p.m. Minutes submitted by Traci Wagner. Approved: Board of Appeals hisbldg\min~boal O-5.doc Date MINUTES IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 22, 1998 MEETING ROOM A ,~ ,~.~ Members Present: Winston BarclaY,' Linda Dellsperger, Mary McMurray, Mark Martin, Anne Staff Pr~}f~ont: MaevQ Clark, Susan Craig, Larry Eckholt, Debb Green, Heidi Lauritzen, Ma~th~ Lubaroff, Liz Nichols, Othc'rs: Kate; Hess, =PrOact,cure student CALLTO QBD. ER: in tim absen<:~: of Preside:hi Singerman, Vice President Martin called the meeting to order at 5:15 pm AP..PI~DVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the regular meeting of August 27, 1998 were approved unanimously after a motion by Dellsperger/Barclay. UNFINISHFD BUSINFSS FY00 Budget. Craig explained that the budget was completed and sent over to the City's Finance Department. The total request is 93,315, 687 which is a 6.77 increase over last year. When asked about the proposed janitorial positions, Craig explained that she raised the request for cleaning supplies and expenses at Board input from the September meeting. A formal motion to approve the budget was made, seconded and approved unanimously. Barclay/McMurray. Book Drops Craig reported that they have been ordered. Concrete is being poured this week at Hy Vee. The estimated time of arrival for book drops was four to five weeks from the date of order. Craig plans on another week for installation and publicity. She is hopeful that the week of November 9 or 16 might be reasonable to aim for. Craig asked the Board for suggestions on media coverage. In response to a question about Alec and whether or not he could be part of the media coverage, Craig responded that Alec will be used to promote projects with electronic connections. NEW BUSINESS Strategic Planning I;)rocess: Craig introduced a discussion regarding the pros and cons of strategic planning in order to get the Board thinking about the process. Craig's concern has to do with timing. As she explained, If we follow a five year cycle, this winter would be the time to update our Strategic Plan to take ICPL BOARD OF TRUSTEES September 24, 1998 PAGE 2 effect in FY 2001. Some staff are concerned about the time involved given that the new automated system will be up this spring and we will be training staff and public. Planning takes a large time commitment to be reflective and do it right. On the other hand, being on the verge of a building project with a building program that is five years old and probably out of date means that if a referendum is passed in March, we would have to revise and update the building program immediately. The Library environment and Iowa City environment have changed dramatically in five years. We may not have the choice to not plan because of changes in libraries. A big impact on library services is due to the Internet, a word that doesn't even show up in our building program. Spencer spoke about her participation in the planning process five years ago. She found it fascinating because of the participation of such a wide variety of people who were part of the process. She is in favor of working on a new plan. Dellsperger feels that strategic planning is very vital and should be fit in. Craig explained that the Public Libraries Association has issued a new document that is designed to help libraries plan. Barclay pointed out that his experience with strategic planning has not been as positive and questioned how the plan was kept up to date. Since the previous planning process, once the initial series of meetings, which included the original planning committee were completed, the Board has been the group to review the plan as it impacts budget issues. The Board serves as the body that reviews the plan and brings changes into the process. Craig wanted to introduce the idea and get a sense of how the Board felt. The consensus of the Board is that we do need to plan. Craig said she would put it on the agenda in November with some sort of process and time line. Building Project/Sales Tax Rel~ort & Discussion Barclay reported that he had talked to Swaim about a meeting where Singerman had hosted several people who have stated strongly they oppose the sales tax because they believe it is regressire. The meeting was cordial, but appeared not to change any minds. City Council is having a special meeting on October 29 to open a public hearing on the ballot language in order to solicit comments on it and the policy statement. The Council will continue that public hearing on November 3. At that time they will close the discussion, discuss at their informal meeting on the 16th and possibly vote on it on the 17th. It is important that the Library Board have people at each of those evening sessions to deliver a statement. A report of the meeting of the evolving campaign committee was given. There was a lot of discussion about the actual ballot, an alternative and whether there was a preference for one version. The committee will meet on Saturday to reach consensus and make a recommendation to the Council. The leaning of the Board is towards the simpler version of the two in order to make it more understandable to the public. Craig asked what message the Board would like to convey to the committee. Response: The Library wants the referendum to pass and if a shorter version will make it easier to convince the voters, then that is what the Board would prefer. Parker, Greenleaf and Dellsperger volunteered to attend on the 29th. Singerman will be back in town and most likely will attend as well. The possibility of using the Englert Theater space seems to be problematic according to the Center Space people because it has no wing space and very limited back stage area. Dellsperger feels that it would be a great auditorium and could be used for many events. It would be a project that would enhance Iowa City. Martin stressed preserving the united front ICPL BOARD OF TRUSTEES September 24, 1998 PAGE 3 that we have established with the CenterSpace group. Craig will let Board members know more about the schedule for the hearings. STAFF RFPORTS Phone System. Lubaroff reported on the progress of the new phone system. A purchase agreement has been signed with Digital Communications/McCIoud USA for an expanded telecommunications system. This change will allow voice mail, and automated attendant features that will enable us to provide some library information, such as hours, programs, etc. at the touch of a button. We feel this system will provide better customer service for our patrons and make it easier to communicate with library staff. Implementation time line for the automated system. We are in the midst of preparing worksheets, analyzing data and looking at possibilities for moving data and using it in other ways. There are several groups of people working on it. Hal Penick, the Systems librarian, has reported that the for data wiring project in preparation for this change has been completed. A much improved networking system is in place. The new catalog will be ready in April. Childrens Room computers will be up and running soon. This is a result of the Gates grant and will give World Wide Web access to kids. Book gala invitations for the 8th of November went to the Post Office today. During that evening, the official launching of the Titanic event will take place. The Foundation's annual report is being prepared. Green and Eckholt prepared a proposal for Mercantile (formerly 1 st National). The bank made a commitment for continuing POPO's Puppet Festival for three years and additional funding for Sunday family programs. We are appreciative of Mercantile's generosity. FINANCIAL REPORTS First quarter expenditures are on target for this time of year. Materials budget is ahead according to plan. We spend it down and then begin spending money from the Endowment. Receipts are down slightly. Enterprise Fund is down but we hope to see a turn around when we add the ability to pay for print from the World Wide Web. Gifts & Bequests report. Displays different gift funds. tluarterly Reports Output measures. Across the board, things are down slightly this quarter. A few things went up like electronic services. Other large public libraries in Iowa are seeing a similar adjustment to circulation. It is also being seen across the country. People are using the Internet for some of their information needs. We have to analyze what that means to our services and adjust accordingly to it. Craig predicts that this sets a trend that we will see through the year. ICPL BOARD OF TRUSTEES September 24, 1998 PAGE 4 A reminder of November Board Meeting which is held on the third Thursday. DISBURSFMFNTS Review VISA expenditures. Approve disbursements for August. Unanimously approved after a motion. Dellsperger/Barclay. ADJOURNMFNT: Meeting was adjourned at 6:30 pm after a motion by Spencer/Dellsperger MINUTES PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 14, 1998 MEMBERS PRESENT: Barbara Endel, Ken Fearing, Judith Klink, Bruce Maurer, Matt Pacha, Rex Pruess, Kathy Wallace, Ross Wilburn MEMBERS ABSENT: Allen Stroh STAFF PRESENT: Terry Trueblood, Mike Moran, Chris Beemer, Terry Robinson, Marilyn Kriz FORMAL ACTION TAKEN Moved by Wilburn, seconded by Pruess, to approve the September 9, 1998 minutes as written. Unanimous. INTRODUCTION Trueblood introduced Chris Beemer who was recently hired as the part- time Program Supervisor to develop youth-at-risk and after-school programs. FY2000-02 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Trueblood distributed a listing of proposed CIP's for FY2000-2002 for the commission's review. Endel questioned the Skateboard Park project. Trueblood indicated this had been discussed in the past, and a the majority of the City Council indicated they would like to see something done for skateboarders and the City Manager authorized staff to start the planning process. Endel stated it would have been nice to have had more opportunity to discuss this project. Trueblood stated the Commission could voice its opinion or concern at this time or it could be put on a future agenda. Pacha indicated he was more concerned about the location and would like to have some input. Endel asked that the Skateboard Park issue be placed on next month's agenda, with Pacha indicating he would like to have detailed information on the proposed project prior to discussion. Trueblood stated the Commission would have an opportunity to discuss the project before it progresses further. Fearing asked if the proposed "Leisure Pool" facility (water slide, spray fountains, etc.) at City Park would interfere with lap swimming. Trueblood indicated the actual pool tank would likely have to be modified some, but lap swimming would not be affected. Staff will be working with the City of Coralville to investigate the possibility of hiring a consultant and completing a feasibility study for both communities. Trueblood noted the City of North Liberty indicated they were not interested in constructing a "leisure pool" at this time. It appears that the University of Iowa will be constructing one, but are not interested in any type of collaborative effort with Iowa City or Coralville. Parks and Recreation Commission October 14, 1998 Page 2 Trueblood stated at this time staff has not been instructed to prioritize the capital improvement projects, but may have to do so in the future. REAP GRANT POSSIBILITIES Trueblood distributed a listing of REAP grant possibilities for the commission's review. Pacha asked for the REAP grant guidelines. Trueblood stated the gran~ is intended for acquisition of land for preservation of natural areas or low impact development of natural areas. Trueblood also noted the City would be in competition with other similarly sized communities and the application deadline is in August of next year. Wallace asked how much money was available; Truebl0od noted approximately .5 million dollars for large city classifications, with a maximum of $200,000 per year. Klink noted the large natural ravine in the Miller-Orchard area and the abundance of wildlife in this area, and the possibility of applying for a REAP grant to acquire this parcel. Pruess indicated possible land acquisitions to establish a "Hickory Hill West" should be investigated and discussed. He also noted he would like to see trail connectivity along Clear Creek out to Camp Cardinal. Wilburn suggested applying for a REAP grant to develop the peninsula and waterworks areas. Trueblood reported the Planning and Community Development staff have applied for a federal trails grant for the Willow Creek Trail Project. Pruess stated he would like included in this project a wide sidewalk from Teg Drive to Mormon Trek Boulevard on the south side of Benton Street. Trueblood reported staff is also looking into redoing the existing trails in Willow Creek Park. CITY MANAGER'S ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW Trueblood reported the City Manager is meeting with all City departments to conduct an organizational review to address concerns, issues and needs of staff; the Commission was provided with a listing of same. Main concerns are staffing issues, primarily the need for additional staff to maintain the additional parkland acquired in the last 10-12 years plus pending acquisitions, expectations for a higher level of maintenance and the need for recreation programming. Pacha stated it was time to revisit the possibility of entering into contracts for maintenance of non-park areas, which would enable staff to spend more time in the parks and on trails. Trueblood noted staff has already begun investigating same. Klink noted the Scanlon Gymnasium and the hope that the School District would be willing to contribute towards financing recreational programs in the facility. Trueblood indicated it may be necessary to draft a special agreement regarding joint use of the facility, but noted the department's programs would have priority. Parks and Recreation Commission October 14, 1998 Page 3 RIVERFRONT & NATURAL AREAS COMMISSION REPORT Fearing reported: Larry Wilson reported on the trail route along Clear Creek; Julie Tallman, Iowa City's Development Regulations Specialist, discussed the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, the need to obtain a nationwide permit from the Corps of Engineers if a person is disturbing a wetland area, and what is appropriate for floodplain structures; and FEMA is buying land and returning it to a wetland area. COMMISSION TIME Wallace and Pacha asked what happened to the Elks Club's driving range proposal. Trueblood stated he was informed at a recent staff meeting the Elks Club requested to be placed on the City Council's agenda for its next meeting. Staff will prepare a memo to City Council setting out the opposition to the proposal by the Commission, the Riverfront and Natural Areas Commission, and the Peninsula Area Planning Committee. Wallace also asked for the status of the Riverside Theatre's proposal to construct an outdoor stage in lower City Park. Trueblood noted the project is included in the proposed Capital Improvement Projects to be completed in FY2000. Klink indicated she attended the dedication of the Willow Creek trail behind West High School, that it is very gratifying to see it in existence and how it has been well-received by the neighborhood. Pruess distributed copies of two memos to the JCCOG Transportation Technical Advisory Committee dealing with trails; one noting the trail counts for the new North Ridge Trail and one summarizing the major trail projects to be completed this year and next year. Fearing indicated he continues to receive complaints about the condition of the Mercer Park tennis courts, noting some people have transferred to other places to play because the courts are so bad. Trueblood indicated that resurfacing and relighting these courts is included in the CIP plan. He also stated he was going into the hospital and would be missing a few upcoming meetings. Wilburn indicated he had been contacted by a participant in a SPI program with which staff had to take some action. Wilburn felt the staff acted appropriately in giving constructive feedback. He noted he is working with the person and his counselor, and there may be a legitimate concern regarding SPI coaches. Wilburn indicated he would like a presentation given about the qualifications and background necessary for a person to become a SPI coach/instructor. Maurer noted the need for grass reseeding at Crandic Park; Robinson stated there were plans to do so. Parks and Recreation Commission October 14, 1998 Page 4 CHAIR'S REPORT Pacha reported the deadline to reapply for the Parks and Recreation Commission is October 22nd; the terms of Fearing, Klink and Pruess are expiring. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Trueblood reported on the following: Next Month's Meeting. The normal meeting date for next month's meeting is Veteran's Day, November llth. After discussion, the next month's meeting date was changed to Thursday, November 12th. City Plaza Playground Equipment. The playground equipment concept was shown. At this time the approximate total cost for replacement and installation is $78,000, not including removal of the old equipment and the necessary brick and concrete work. The committee and staff will be meeting with the playground representative again to refine the design. Endel questioned accessibility and durability. Trueblood noted it met today's American With Disabilities Act guidelines, but they would like to go beyond those. There are no ramps included at this time, but there are transfer points for persons with disabilities. The committee and staff will be discussing the possibility of adding a ramp. Trueblood noted the structure is made of steel and heavy-duty plastic, with warranties ranging from 10 years to lifetime. City High Tennis Courts. The City High Little Hawks Club is conducting a fund raiser, headed up by John Balmer, for the purpose of lighting the City High tennis courts. Trueblood indicated that he had been approached with regard to the possibility of a contribution from the City in the amount of $10,000 (it is approximately a $50,000 project). After discussions with the City Manager, it was decided from a staff perspective that we could support this project as long as an agreement could be reached with the School District whereby the lighted tennis courts would be available for use by the general public until 10:00 p.m., weather permitting, when not being used for school-sponsored functions. He indicated that if there were no strong objections, they would like to proceed. Klink noted that the west side may eventually request something similar. Fearing indicated that the Mercer Park tennis court users would love it. There were no objections, and support was indicated to proceed. Trail Rest Areas. Dee Vanderhoef's mother-in-law passed away, and the family has asked that memorials be made to the Parks and Recreation Foundation to go towards a rest area along a trail. Conceptual drawings of trail rest areas have been completed and will be used to solicit funding for same. ADJOURNMENT. Moved by Wilburn, seconded by Endel, to adjourn. meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Unanimous. The COUNCIL (LISA, 1 SIDED) MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIOr THURSDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1998 7:30 CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS to ,".ppr0val MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Bovbjerg, Benjamin Chait, Pam Ehrhardt, Dick Gibson, Dean Shannon, Lea Supple MEMBERS ABSENT: NoDe STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, John Yapp, Sarah Holecek, Anne Schulte OTHERS PRESENT: Tom Anthony, Tim Krumm, William Buss, William Knabe, Ed Ruppenkamp, Pat Heiden Ringham, Duane Musser RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0, of SUB98-0025, a final plat of Praide Meadows, Part 2, a 16.52 acre, seven-lot residential subdivision located on the east and south side of Prairie du Chien Road, north of its intersection with Linder Road, in Johnson County, subject to legal papers being approved prior to City Council consideration. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Supple called the meeting to order at 7:38 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. VACANCIES: Supple said there were several vacancies on City boards and commissions listed on the bulletin board outside City Council Chambers. She asked those present to consider serving in a volunteer capacity on one of these boards or commissions, as it gives citizens an opportunity to offer input and a voice in how the City of Iowa City progresses. DEVELOPMENT ITEMS: SUB98-0020. Public discussion of an application submitted by Howard Winebrenner for a preliminary and final plat of a resubdivision of Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6 of W. B. Development, an 8.33 acre, eight-lot, commercial subdivision located on the south side of Escort Lane. (45-day limitation period waived to October 15) Miklo said the issue regarding sanitary sewer service has not been resolved so this item would need to be deferred. Holecek said the City has received a waiver of the 45-day limitation period for this item to the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Public discussion: There was RODe. Public discussion closed. MOTION: Bovbjerg moved to defer SUB98-0020, an application submitted by Howard Planning and Zoning Commission October 15, 1998 Page 2 Winebrenner for a preliminary and final plat of a resubdivision of Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6 of W. B. Development, an 8,33 acre, eight-lot, commercial subdivision located on the south side of Escort Lane; to the November 5, 1998 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Gibson seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. SUB98-0025. Public discussion of an application submitted by Mike Dombroski for a final plat of Prairie Meadows, Part 2, a 16.52 acre, seven-lot residential subdivision located on the east and south side of Prairie cu Chien Road, north of its intersection with Linder Road, in Johnson County. Yapp displayed an overhead of the preliminary plat to show the topography and the building sites on the plat. He said the building sites would be fairly close to Prairie Meadow Court, leaving most of the steep ridges and woodlands in their existing state. Yapp stated that the final plat is in conformance with the preliminary plat. He added that a condition of the preliminary plat was that Syril' Street be extended when Prairie du Chien is realigned. This is expected to occur next year, according to the County Engineer. Yapp said there is a note on the final plat concerning the Syril Street extension condition, and the legal papers will reflect that the Syril Street right-of-way will be extended to Prairie du Chien Road at the time Prairie du Chien Road is realigned and/or at the time Lot 7 is resubdivided. He added that staff recommends approval of this subdivision subject to the approval of legal papers prior to City Council consideration. Bovbjerg asked what kind of grading and erosion control would be used on this property. Yapp responded that the engineer from Landmark Surveying has submitted a letter regarding erosion control. The letter states in general that the areas outside of the immediate building sites will have silt fences to prevent soil erosion into the ravines. He added that the City engineering staff has found that to be acceptable. Bovbjerg asked if the City would be looking at this as it is being developed. Yapp replied that the City would not inspect the site, as it does not have the jurisdiction to do so in Johnson County. Gibson asked, with regard to Lot 7 and the realignment of Prairie du Chien Road, if staff anticipated any difficulties in developing the access necessary to permit development of Lot 7 in the future. Yapp said the topography adjacent to Lot 7 is very steep. He said there will be a possible access off Syril Street once it is extended to Praide du Chien Road. Yapp said that access to Lot 7 will not be easy, but there are some possible building sites in that area. He added that if Lot 7 is resubdivided, that application would also come before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Supple asked if this property is in the County, and Yapp confirmed that. Miklo said the Commission has approval authority over subdivisions in the County but can only make recommendations for rezonings. Supple asked how the Sensitive Areas Ordinance applied to this item. Yapp said the Sensitive Areas Ordinance does not apply outside of the City limits. Public discussion: Tom Anthony, 535 Southgate Avenue, said he works for Landmark Surveying and Engineering and has worked with Dombroski on this project for some time. Anthony said he had new information concerning the new alignment of Prairie du Chien Road. He said the County Engineer has scheduled a meeting for October 20 with the surrounding landowners to start on negotiations for the right-of-way and land acquisition in order to begin the realignment project. Planning and Zoning Commission October 15, 1998 Page 3 Anthony said Dombroski has been in contact with the adjoining landowner to the north to try to work out land divisions,. because there will be a piece of property left over between the new alignment and the existing road that attaches to Lot 7. He said it would be in Dombroski's best interest to have control over that land. Anthony said he anticipates there will only be access off of the new Syril Street access that will start at the very north corner and swing up to the new Prairie du Chien Road. He added that on October 12, the County Planning and Zoning Commission passed this unanimously, subject to the City's approval. Public discussion closed. MOTION: Chait moved to recommend approval of SUB98-0025, a final plat of Prairie Meadows, Part 2, a 16.52 acre, seven-lot residential subdivision located on the east and south side of Prairie du Chien Road, north of its intersection with Linder Road, in Johnson County, subject to legal papers being approved prior to City Council consideration. Bovbjerg seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. REZONING ITEM: REZ98-0016. Public discussion of an application submitted by Christian Retirement Services to rezone an approximately 0.2 acre parcel from Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) to High Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-44) for property located at 703 Benton Court. Yapp said Christian Retirement Services, the owner of the Oaknoll Retirement Home, has submitted an application for the rezoning of a lot at 703 Benton Court that is approximately 0.2 acres in size. He said the lot is on the west side of Benton Court at the very north end of the street. Yapp said the Oaknoll complex is located north and east of this property, and a residential neighborhood is on the west and the south sides of the property. Yapp said this parking lot was permitted as a temporary use approximately two years ago when Oaknoll was building an addition to its facility that disrupted some parking on the site. He said the addition will be completed this fall, and the City has notified Oaknoll that the temporary parking must either be removed because it is in a separate zone from the Oaknoll property, or Oaknoll could apply for a rezoning to make the parking lot permanent. Yapp said Oaknoll is interested in making the lot a permanent parking lot for the facility, and this requires a rezoning to the same zone as the facility, which is zoned RM-44, High Density Multi-Family Residential. Yapp stated that because single-family residences are located south and west of the property, the parking lot has evergreen screening along both the south and west boundaries, as is required by City ordinance. He said the parking lot is also set slightly below the grade of adjacent properties, and the water on the parking lot drains to the street, not to adjacent properties. Yapp said the Comprehensive Plan supports projects that supply group living alternatives for seniors, and therefore this rezoning would be compatible with that. He said the Comprehensive Plan also shows this area occupied by Oaknoll and some apartment areas around it as appropriate for 16-24 units per acre. He said the RM-44 zoning allows up to approximately 44 units per acre, but staff feels that in this situation, there is a justification for this parking area to have the same zoning as the rest of the Oaknoll facility. Yapp said if this parking lot were removed, those person parking there now would be parking on the streets in the adjacent neighborhoods, so there is some benefit to the neighborhood for Oaknoll to have the parking lot Planning and Zoning Commission October 15, 1998 Page 4 as proposed. In addition, Yapp said the City, as a general policy, tries to have zone changes occur at rear lot lines. He said this provides a better transition between zones. Yapp said staff also looked at whether it would be appropriate in the long run for Oaknoll to expand to the west side of Benton Court. He said Oaknoll owns two of the three remaining homes on the west side of Benton Court and in the long run hopes to expand in that direction. Yapp said staff feels it would be appropriate in the long run for Oaknoll to expand to the west side of Benton Court. Yapp said with this proposed rezoning, Oaknoll is not proposing any new units so there will not be any increase in traffic. He added that theoretically, however, with this rezoning, there would be an underlying right to build at a higher density on this lot than it has now. Yapp said that according to the Institute of Traffic Engineers Tdp Generation Manual, elderly housing facilities generate two to three and one-half trips per day, primarily in the form of visitors and staff. He said a single-family home generates about seven trips per day, and a typical apartment building generates about six trips per day per unit. Yapp said this lot is 0.2 acres in size; therefore a duplex on the lot would result in 14 trips per day, an elderly housing facility would generate 24 trips per day, and a regular multi-family building would result in 48 trips per day, on average. He said the average daily traffic on Benton Street in this location is currently about 8,400 trips per day. Yapp said because this rezoning is to enable the parking lot to remain on a permanent basis, staff recommends approval of the rezoning. He said if in the future, the lot were to be built upon by Oaknoll or someone else, staff feels that the traffic impact would be faidy marginal compared to the amount of traffic on Benton Street. Shannon asked about the zoning of the two houses that Oaknoll owns. Yapp replied that they are currently zoned RS-8, Medium Density, Single-Family Residential. Ehrhardt asked if Oaknoll was required to add parking when the addition to the retirement home was constructed. Yapp said they were required to, and they did so. Ehrhardt asked if this parking lot were in addition to that, and Yapp confirmed that. Ehrhardt asked what the minimum density is that a parking lot can be located on. Yapp said a use cannot have a parking lot in a different zone, because placing a parking area in a different zone is, in effect, a de facto rezoning of that property. He said if a multi-family building had its parking lot in a single-family zone, that single-family zone is being used for a multi-family use, so the property is effectively rezoned. Yapp said the City therefore requires that a parking lot for a building be on property that is zoned the same as the building in which the principal use is located. Ehrhardt asked if the RM-44 zone was restricted to elderly housing. Yapp said Oaknoll's intention is to develop for elderly housing, but an RM- 44 rezoning would not restrict the use of the property to elderly housing. Supple asked if the neighbors were notified. Yapp said they were. Public discussion: Tim Krumm, 122 South Linn Street, attorney for Meardon, Sueppel, Downer, and Hayes, said he was representing the applicant in Bob Downer's stead. He said the applicant believes staffs conclusion is appropriate. Krumm said no change in use is anticipated here. He said this lot had been used as a parking lot on a temporary basis for about two years and in that two years, the applicant has had no complaints about its use as such, nor has the City to his knowledge. Krumm said this is a good quality parking lot. He agreed with Yapp that it is graded below the level of adjoining properties and drains appropriately to the City street. Krumm said the lot is Planning and Zoning Commission October 15, 1998 Page 5 property surfaced with asphalt, as requested by the City and has appropriate evergreen screening on the south side and the west side. Krumm said this parking lot is important for Oaknoll's residents and staff from the standpoint of safety and convenience of access to the facility. He said it is located immediately across the street from one of several entrances to Oaknoll. Krumm said if the property could not be used as a parking lot, the 24 spaces would have to be found somewhere else in the neighborhood along the streets, which would be less convenient for the residents and guests, as well as the neighbors. Pat Heiden Ringham, 701 Oaknoll Drive, said she is the Executive Director of the Oaknoll facility. She said when the project on Benton Street was begun, part of that fourteen apartment addition project included building a two-level parking structure. Heiden Ringham said an existing parking area was eliminated, and reserved spaces for residents already occupying the Benton Street building. She said the spaces were relocated to the temporary parking lot. Heiden Ringham said there were also three to five additional spaces for visitors in the lot. She said currently, Oaknoll staff parks on the east side of Benton Court. Ehrhardt said that prior to the addition, Oaknoll had a certain number of parking spaces and then was required to add more with the addition. She said during the construction of the addition, the temporary lot was used. She asked if Oaknoll now finds it needs the extra spaces. Heiden Ringham said that would be the ideal scenario. She said in the past, staff has had to use on-street parking along Oakcrest and George Street. Yapp asked once the addition and the two-level parking structure are done, where will residents who are using the temporary lot be parking. Heiden Ringham responded that they will be located back closer to the Benton Street building in the two-level parking structure. She said they would then like to use the temporary lot for staff parking, for additional resident parking, and especially for visitor parking. Ehrhardt asked what was in this lot before the parking lot was located there. Heiden Ringham replied that there was a house there and part of the agreement to buy the house included a requirement that the owners take the house with them. Ehrhardt said she believes that when you add a parking lot, you just get more cars. William Buss, 747 West Benton Street, said he does not object to the parking lot, although it would be easy to come up with reasons for objecting to it. He said, however, there seems to be a disproportion between a change to RM-44 zoning in order to keep this parking lot, when the zoning will then carry with it the right to do all sorts of other things. Buss said he has been told that there is no other way to do this, but he feels there must be a more creative solution if the only problem is the parking lot. He added that he understood from Yapp's presentation that it is anticipated that this block will be changed to RM-44, and there will be construction that will go with that, so that having a permanent parking lot is not the only reason for rezoning this property. Buss said he has several objections to the change in zoning. He said he objects in principle to this creeping rezoning, especially the idea that one can buy a piece of property on the border of a zone in anticipation of a zoning change and then once the property is bought up, the person can get a zoning change that will just move the zoning line. Buss said it is easy to say that we'll draw the line between backyards, although he doesn't feel that is desirable to most people, but that will not stop the next zoning change from being moved down the block when it suits someone to buy the property and move it. He said this is very inconsistent with the kind of Planning and Zoning Commission October 15, 1998 Page 6 stability that people rightly expect from zoning ordinances and zoning patterns. Buss said this area is clearly a mixed neighborhood made up of RM-44 and RS-8 zoning. He said there is enough RM-44 zoning. Buss said there is a neighborhood school in this area, and we need to keep every residence in which people with children might live to go to that school. He said property shouldn't be rezoned for uses that will not be compatible with the elementary school in that area. Buss said every change that adds to the volume of intensity of development will be a change that will impact the traffic on West Benton Street. He said the solution to that problem is not that West Benton Street will always be able to be changed or widened or accommodated for the increase in traffic that is generated. Buss said the solution should be to draw the line and not to approve things that can be anticipated to increase the traffic. Supple asked Buss if he had noticed a great change in the traffic at that location in the last two years. Buss said he had not and for one thing, he would not have noticed it had there been one. He said, regarding Yapp's figures of trips per day, that if one follows the traffic patterns on West Benton Street, one will discover that through most of the day, there is not much traffic. Buss said there are some tight times early in the morning around 8 a.m. and later around 5 p.m. when people are going to work and coming home. He said those two to three and one half trips will be occurring at those same times so even a development at the low side in terms of density should not be minimized, in terms of traffic. William Knabe 1101 Weeber Circle, said he is the spokesperson for the Weeber Hadocke Neighborhood Association, which consists of 79 houses located on Weeber and Harlocke Streets, directly due south of this property. He said the Weeber Harlocke Neighborhood Association is very much opposed to the proposed zoning change from RS-8 to RM-44 for several reasons. Knabe said the Association feels the proposed change is inconsistent with the land use map for this area in the current Comprehensive Plan. He said the area is designated as a 16-24 unit designation. Knabe said a lot of effort was put into the development of the Comprehensive Plan and the redrawing of the map, and the Association feels it is very important that this not be freely changed just because of a feeling that this is a forced act that must be followed. Knabe said the Association feels the proposed changed would contribute to destroying the buffer zone for the north side of the neighborhood, which has been clearly identified. He said the Association would like to preserve gradual progressive zoning from RS-5 to RS-8 to RM-44. Knabe said the Association believes that if the parking lot is to be a parking lot, then it should be made a parking lot, not an RM-44 zoned property. He said there are many examples of other parking lots in the City that are not zoned RM-44. Knabe said rezoning such a small amount of property to RM-44 makes the suggestion that this is something that will come gradually as a change in this area. He said that once this is made RM-44, there can be any kind of multi- family, high-density structure on this piece of property. Knabe said even though it is Oaknoll's intention to use this as a parking lot, by Oaknoll's own recognition of purchasing property in the general area, there are no guarantees that it will remain a parking lot. He said there are also no guarantees that Oaknoll will not sell this piece of property to a developer in the near future. The developer could go ahead with an application for high density development without any additional approval. Planning and Zoning Commission October 15, 1998 Page 7 Knabe said it was remarked on by Yapp that staff felt that if Oaknoll did decide to build here, the traffic impact would be marginal. Knabe said an RM-44 level of traffic is not marginal. He asked the Commission to reconsider this application. Knabe said the neighborhood is not opposed to Oaknoll and did not oppose its expansion even though neighbors knew it would cause additional traffic. He said the Association does have a very difficult time accepting the rezoning of this parking lot to RM-44. Knabe said the Association urges the Commission to consider changing this to a zone that is acceptable and compatible with what is presently in the area. He said the Commission should defer action on this and rethink it. Knabe said it would set a bad precedent if this rezoning were approved. Ehrhardt asked Knabe if he has heard of a problem with Oaknoll staff parking on neighborhood streets. Knabe said he has not heard about anything like that. He said Benton Court is a dead end street, and the traffic all comes out to Benton Street. Knabe said he is not opposed to the parking lot, but opposes the RM-44 zoning. Ed Ruppenkamp, 1424 Grand Avenue, said his grandmother owns the one remaining property on the street that Oaknoll does not currently own. He said his family is not opposed to the use of that area as a parking lot, but do have some concerns. He said the lot is now primarily used for residents parking, which has worked out nicely for his grandmother. Ruppenkamp said if it is rezoned and used as a staff parking lot, there will conceivably be a lot of traffic at shift changes, possibly midnight or later. He said his grandmother's bedroom window is only ten to fifteen feet from the closest vehicle in the parking lot, and having people coming and going at odd hours would be very disruptive to her. Ruppenkamp said his family is in favor of a parking lot to help alleviate the parking situation in the area. He said for people parking on George Street, the shortest route to Oaknoll is through his grandmother's backyard, which is not an ideal situation. Ruppenkamp said another area of concern is the parking on Benton Court itself. He said during the day there is often no parking available, and if more than one person visits his grandmother's house, there is nowhere to park. Ruppenkamp said if this property is rezoned to RM-44, it will have an effect on the market value of his grandmother's house if it is possible for someone to build a duplex or a structure with a higher density ten to fifteen feet from his grandmother's house. Tim Krumm said the topography immediately adjacent to this property to the north slopes down drastically. He said Oaknoll owns the property to the north and across the street to the east. Krumm said the site does not have a lot for potential to Oakn011, and Oaknoll has not considered it as having any potential for expansion of its current facilities other than parking. He said City staff has indicated that Oaknoll, in its long-range plan, sees the west side of that street as an area for expansion. Krumm said this hardly opens the floodgates, for that because even the properties that, Oaknoll owns on that side of the street are zoned RS-8 now. He said this is only a 0.2 acre property and nothing will change with this rezoning request; Oaknoll simply wants to continue using this property the way it has been used for the last two years. Gibson asked if the idea of using this for parking without a zoning change has been thoroughly investigated and ruled out as an alternative. He asked if there were other examples in the community of this sort of use in this kind of zone. Miklo responded that staff looked at that, and the zoning ordinance makes it quite clear that parking has to be in the same zone as the use is in, or it would be a de facto rezoning. He said an undeveloped piece of property might be zoned multi-family, and if the parking can be placed on an adjacent property, it could increase the density on the piece of property zoned multi-family. Gibson asked if the applicant will have Planning and Zoning Commission October 15, 1998 Page 8 to discontinue the use of this land as a parking lot if this rezoning is not approved, and Miklo confirmed this. Yapp said under the RS-8 zoning, the land can be planted to tuff grass, can be used for a single-family home, or can be used for a duplex. Ehrhardt asked if Oaknoll would be content to leave this property as RS-8, if it could remain a parking lot. Krumm confirmed that Oaknoll just wants to keep using this as a parking lot. He said this is not making any future plan of Oaknolrs possible, other than the continued use of this property as a parking lot. Gibson asked if using the term de facto in the event this is continued to be used as a parking lot means that if parking were allowed to continue, then in effect this would become zoned RM-44 as far as any important.decision or action taken. Miklo said no, not legally. He said the parking is an accessory use to the retirement center and is viewed as a component of the overall housing. Gibson asked if the lot could be converted to an RM-44 use, other than parking, without a rezoning and Miklo said it could not. Gibson said then it is not really de facto rezoning. Holecek said the term effective would be more appropriate than de facto. Pat Heiden Ringham said there are presently five parking areas for Oaknoll and each of those areas is used for parking by residents, visitors, and staff, when possible. She said Oaknoll has rented ten parking spaces across Benton Street at the Cox Apartment Rentals for the last seven to eight years to ease staff parking congestion. Heiden Ringham said with this additional parking, there would be more parking spaces conveniently located for residents, wherever they may live within the Oaknoll community, as well as parking for visitors and staff. Heiden Ringham said regarding shift changes, that it is a relevant issue. She noted, however, that the only staff working the night shift are the staff in the health center, which consists of four people coming on duty about 11:30 p.m. She said there are also about seven or eight people on duty for the p.m. shift in the health center, and the dietary department closes at 7 p.m. Heiden Ringham said there is some change of staff during the shift changes, but not an overly large number of staff. Ed Ruppenkamp asked if it would be possible to extend the temporary use of the lot as a parking lot beyond the two years. He said it may be a better way to approach the problem by extending this temporary use and then revisiting the problem when Oaknoll's plans solidify or change. Yapp said the basis for the temporary use being permitted in a separate zone was because the parking on the Oaknoll site was disrupted while the construction was occurring. He said he did not know what basis would be for allowing a continuing temporary use of non- required parking. Holecek said she did not know if that type of solution exists, but staff could look at the possibility before the next meeting on this item. Supple asked if an RM-44 overlay would be possible and compatible if the development were restricted to a parking lot. Miklo said a Conditional Zoning Agreement might be a possibility, but the intent of an overlay zone is to do a planned development for housing, so that a parking lot would not seem to be within the intent of the ordinance. Supple asked staff to investigate the alternatives since there really are no objections to the parking lot, but there are objections to the rezoning. Public discussion closed. MOTION: Chait moved to defer REZ98-0016, an application submitted by Christian Retirement Services to rezone an approximately 0.2 acre parcel from Medium Density Planning and Zoning Commission October 15, 1998 Page 9 Single-Family Residential (RS-8) to High Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-44) for property located at 703 Benton Court, to the November 5, 1998 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Ehrhardt seconded the motion. Gibson said he was curious that if in fact by letting this continue to be used as parking, and saying it effectively becomes RM-44, but only effectively, is it any worse than turning it into RM- 44 and allowing some additional kind of development other than the expansion of the Oaknoll Retirement Center. He said going that route may be like throwing the baby out with the bath water. Gibson said he would also like to see the exploration of alternatives. He said it would be far more appropriate for the Commission to be considering the alteration of the entire five lots on the west side of the street to RM-44 rather than one lot, on the assumption that the rest of it is going to go, because that is what will happen de facto if the Commission consents to the requested rezoning. He said the rest will go just because of the circumstances, rather than due to any rational thought process. Gibson said he would like to find some other way to solve this problem rather than rezoning this land permanently. Chait said that planning and zoning by its very nature is not static, and if it were, there would not be much of an opportunity as a Commission to engage in the process. He said that planning and zoning is organic and involves change and growth, and the Commission is here to guide that process to best represent the interests of the City. Chait said however the Commission approaches this, it needs something that looks like a concept where things are going to be evolving. He said the city is growing, as is the nature of cities, so that just to hold the line because it is there, is not appropriate. Chait said looking at what would be effective in managing the growth and evolution of a neighborhood is appropriate. He said he understood' the neighbors' concerns, but believes that is not consistent with the concept of the city constantly changing over time. Ehrhardt said regarding growth for growth's sake, one has to look at what the growth does to the existing area. Chait said he was not saying growth for growth's sake, but was saying that growth is inevitable, and the Commission's role is to manage and engage the process and look at not just one piece of land. He said if the entire side of the street will one day be considered for something different, the Commission may want to ask questions about that now. Chait added that the Ruppenkamp property will, in his opinion, be more valuable if it is next to an RM- 44 zone than if it is next to an RS-8 property. Ruppenkamp said regardless of the property value, the value to his grandmother is that she wants to live there and doesn't want to live anywhere else. He asked what value the home is to her if apartment buildings surround her house like a horseshoe. Supple said one of the problems she had was with the zoning as it is currently, because there problem is the lack of phasing from RS-8 to RM-4. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. Planning and Zoning Commission October 15, 1998 Page 10 REZ98-0014. Public discussion of an application submitted by Maxwell Development Company to rezone a 21.26-acre parcel, from Intensive Commercial (C1-1) to Sensitive Areas Overlay- Intensive Commercial (OSNCI-1) for property located on the east side of Naples Avenue, south of its intersection with Alyssa Court. Yapp said Maxwell Construction Company is requesting a Sensitive Areas Overlay rezoning for Lot 1, Lot 8, and Outlot A of W. B. Development. He said the area proposed for rezoning contains critical and protected slopes, and Sensitive Areas Overlay rezoning is required for the grading done to areas of critical or protected slopes. Yapp said the applicant is proposing three areas of grading, one of which has already been done. He showed the areas proposed for grading with the new contours; one on the north side of Lot 8, one on the east side, and the fill-in of two existing swales that lead into the pond in Outlot A, which is a stormwater management outlot. Yapp said some of the grading for this area was previously approved as part of a sensitive areas site plan for grading associated with the installation of utilities and a road. He said the plan included a retaining wall. Yapp stated that the applicant did not install the retaining wall, but instead extended the grading further out than was shown on the sensitive areas site plan, near an area of critical slopes. The applicant was notified about the violation, and is requesting sensitive areas rezoning to resolve the problem. Yapp said the applicant is proposing to fill and grade the two swales for two reasons, according to a letter submitted by the applicant: 1 ) to improve the ability to maintain those areas, and 2) to create more developable area on Lot 8. Yapp stated that in reviewing this application, staff needed to determine what would be a reasonable level of development. He said the Sensitive Areas Ordinance does allow the modification of critical slopes to permit a reasonable level of development. Yapp said in addition, there are other reasons for protecting slopes cited in the Sensitive Areas Ordinance including: to promote safety in the design and construction of developments, to minimize flooding and mudslides, to minimize soil instability, and to preserve the scenic character of hillside areas, particularly wooded hillsides. Yapp said the northern swale has less of a scenic character than the one to the east. He said it is not covered by trees, is not visible from Highway 218, and by allowing the applicant to fill it in, may provide more reasonable development area on this lot. Yapp said the swale on the eastern part of Lot 8, which is primarily in Outlot A, contains a number of trees, is visible from both Escort Lane and Highway 218, and, in staffs opinion, does have much more of a scenic character and provides a transition between the developable area of Lot 8 as it currently is and the pond in Outlot A. Yapp said many of the trees on this hillside have been damaged and many were downed in the storm; however, staff still feels this wooded hillside warrants protection. He said staff is concerned that some of the grading associated with the utilities was not done according to the approved plan, but because the work has already been done, it would be more environmentally destructive to force the fill to be taken out and the retaining wall installed, then it would be to allow the rezoning for that area. Yapp added that should the rezoning be approved, staff recommends the approval be subject to native plants being used as vegetative cover for these areas to minimize soil instability. He said because of their large root structures, native plants have been shown to provide more erosion control to sloped areas than conventional tuff grass. Planning and Zoning Commission October 15, 1998 Page 11 Yapp said the applicant submitted a letter from MMS Consultants stating that the development activity will not undermine the stability of the protected slope. He said the grading and filling proposed would go into the buffer of the protected slope and would not touch the protected slope itself. Yapp stated that the City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance requires that the applicant submit a justification for any work done in a protected slope buffer, because such slopes are so steep. He said the Engineering Department is reviewing the letter that was submitted. Yapp said staff recommends approval of the rezoning for the grading associated with the utilities and street installation and for the filling and grading proposed for the north side of Outlot 8, but recommends that the proposed grading and filling proposed for the east side of Outlot 8 be removed from the plan. Bovbjerg asked what recourse the City has if there is grading done that is contrary to the plans or contrary to what is allowed by ordinance. Yapp said there is a notification, usually a stop work order, once it is discovered. He said the notification states that the problem must be corrected and if not corrected, the developer can be fined. Yapp said if the situation is still not corrected, the City could take the offender to court. He said in this case, because the applicant applied for a sensitive areas rezoning, a fine was not levied, depending on the outcome of the rezoning process. Bovbjerg said this rezoning would essentially make this retroactively acceptable, and Yapp confirmed this. Holecek said the rezoning would legitimize this. Ehrhardt asked what would happen if the rezoning was not approved. Holecek said in the pursuit of an enforcement action, one has to use some discretion as to whether it is a battle to be taken on. She said one has to consider whether a court would actually order that this all be removed and the slope be put back to the way it was previously. She said there is a weighing of economic waste and other variables. Holecek said the requested rezoning is not approved with regard to the grading that is already done, there would be a plan out there that is not consistent with the land as we see it. She said that could provide some title objections, development issues, and other problems in the future. Holecek said if this is not approved to be consistent with the land as it is, that does not necessarily mean there will be an enforcement action. Ehrhardt said one of the reasons given to justify this rezoning was that this would enable the owner to better maintain vegetation on the ravines. She asked if staff supported that notion. Yapp responded that this is the applicant's justification for the rezoning. He said staff feels the applicant's primary reason is to have more developable area on Lot 8. Yapp said what is being proposed is a four to one slope, which would allow mowing of the slope. He said staff, however, is proposing that native vegetation be planted, which should not be mown, or is mown only once a year. Supple asked about the business already on Lot 8. Yapp said there is a warehouse and distribution facility there. Supple asked if there will be more businesses on Lot 8. Yapp said he would assume so. Holecek said in a commercial zone, there can be more than one principal building. Supple asked what kind of density would be permitted on the lot. Holecek said density is not calculated for commercial properties like it is on residential lots. She said it would have parking requirements, setback requirements, square footage requirements, etc. Miklo said there is a floor area ratio of one, meaning that a CH-1 or C1-1 zone could be covered 100% with a building, or half of it could be covered with a two-story building, as long as the ratio floor area does not exceed the area of the lot itself. Planning and Zoning Commission October 15, 1998 Page 12 Ehrhardt said the applicant is asking to fill in the ravine and is not building on the Outlot, but just filling it in so that it is flat and buildable at the end of Lot 8. Yapp said that was true, approximately. He said no development would be permitted in the Outlot itself, and there would be a setback for a building on Lot 8. Supple asked if the street name Sierra Court was a duplication of another street in Iowa City. Yapp said there is no other Sierra in Iowa City, although there is a Sierra Trail and a Sierra Trace in Coralville. Supple asked why this was to be a private street. Yapp said the City did not want to accept it as a public street. He said it is not a through street and just serves the commercial development. Supple said it could go north to serve the lot to the north. Yapp said it could at some point. Gibson asked if the developer objects to staffs recommendation. Yapp said he would assume the developer would object, in that he would like to grade all three areas. Bovbjerg cited the letter from MMS Consultants dated August 26, 1998 discussing two areas where the applicant is seeking permission to perform grading. She said there is no mention of the area to the east. Yapp said the applicant added that area at a later date, although the applicanrs intent of filling it is the same as the intent for the area on the north part of Lot 8. Bovbjerg cited the October 14, 1998 letter from MMS Consultants which stated, "We believe the fill placed may even enhance the stability of the existing steep slope." She asked staff to look into that, because a disturbed slope takes years to recover, and she did not know what was meant by "may" or "stability." Bovbjerg said the east area must be very carefully looked at for that reason. She said the northern area should be looked at also and added that it already has some silt in it, which is not supposed to occur. Yapp said he has asked the engineering staff to look at the letter. Public discussion: Duane Musser, Williamsburg, Iowa, distributed photographs of the site and a chart of the tree count to Chait, who was not at the informal meeting when the information was presented previously. Regarding the stability of the slopes, Musser said he believed the statement by MMS refers to the fact that when there is a steep slope, there is a chance for a slump or for erosion, and by filling it more gradually, the slope is being reinforced and protected from erosion. Regarding two areas for grading versus three areas, Musser said when the application was first submitted, it was done with the legal description going around the areas the applicant wanted to rezone. It then came back with staffs comments, asking for an overlay zone of the entire lot. Yapp said the applicanrs original request was to rezone only where the slopes are, and staff let the applicant know that the rezoning would apply to the entire lot. Musser said it was a misunderstanding as to how it should be presented. Musser said there was quite a bit of storm damage on the property, and it is the applicant's intent to clean it up and replant a variety of trees. He said there are only twelve trees on the property without some kind of damage. Musser said even without a rezoning, the applicant will attempt to clean up the damaged trees and try to replant the area. He said the applicant would like to clean up the pond and create more of a natural, scenic area. Musser said this area is about 600 to 800 feet from the interstate. Planning and Zoning Commission October 15, 1998 Page 13 Musser said the applicant intends to build more buildings if the demand is there and filling these areas will help with construction. He said the areas where the swale comes up would be filled level to allow for more parking or more building. Musser said the applicant would try to control the silt. He said he contacted the Soil Conservation Office about the seeding of native plants. Musser requested that Mr. Trueblood look at the site to give an opinion on the condition of the trees. Yapp said he asked the City Forester, Terry Robinson, to check to see what kind of trees are on the site, and he will be checking on that in the next few days. Public discussion closed. MOTION: Gibson moved to defer REZ98-0014, an application submitted by Maxwell Development Company to rezone a 21.26-acre parcel, from Intensive Commercial (C1-1) to Sensitive Areas Overlay-Intensive Commercial (OSA-CI-1) for property located on the east side of Naples Avenue, south of its intersection with Alyssa Court, to the November 5, 1998 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Ehrhardt seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. CONSIDERATION OF THE OCTOBER 1, 1998 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: MOTION: Gibson moved to approve the minutes of the October 1, 1998 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting as amended at the informal meeting. Ehrhardt seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION INFORMATION: Miklo said the County Board of Supervisors approved the rezoning at Herbert Hoover Highway and Interstate 80 on a vote of three to one. He added that the Mayor had sent the Board a letter reminding them that this was not consistent with the Fringe Area Agreement. Miklo said this is the first violation of the Fringe Area Agreement. Supple said Bovbjerg had composed a letter to the Press-Citizen regarding an article and an editorial in the Press Citizen discussing the development projects proposed for the southeast side of Iowa City at the Commission's last meeting. Holecek stated that if the letter would represent the Commission as a whole, there should be a motion to make the letter writer a spokesperson for and on behalf of the Commission. Supple said the letter has her name at the bottom and if there was a consensus, it might be better to have it come from the whole Commission. Supple said the article bordered the truth, but the editorial did not even come close. However, she said she would prefer to let the matter rest. Bovbjerg said the reporter came to the meeting and wrote an article that is not a true report. Supple said it is to the detriment of those reading the Press-Citizen to read an article that only borders the truth, but it is not the Commission's misfortune. Bovbjerg said she would write a letter on her own behalf. Supple said that anyone interested in participating could contact Bovbjerg. Bovbjerg said this was an example of bad journalism, and the editor should be told that the person writing the article is not credible. Planning and Zoning Commission October 15, 1998 Page 14 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:19 p.m. Pam Ehrhardt, Secretary Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte ppdadmin~mins\p&zl 0-15.doc SIGN IN SHFFT 2. 3. 4. IOWA CITY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING THURSDAY, October 15, 1998 - 7:30 P.M. Civic Center Counc~ Chambers 5. 6. 7. 8. 9, 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Address Phone ~-~'., d-: %3?-/7'z- o POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD COMMUNITY FORUM MINUTES - October 27, 1998 Newman Center CALL TO ORDER ATTENDANCE COMMUNITY FORUM ADJOURNMENT Chair L. Cohen called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Board members present: L. Cohen, P. Hoffey, P. Farrant, M. Raymond, and J. Watson. Staff present: Legal Counsel D. Russell and administrative assistant S. Bauer. The following individuals appeared before the PCRB: Gwen Cassidy Ray Tinnian Richard Twohy Anna Buss Pat McArtor Joelie Frazer Heather McAda Amanda Coyne Kevin Burgess Sid Jackson David Nixon Osha Davison R.A. Mebas 100 Burge #2133 840 Maggard 525 W. Benton 324 N. Lucas 414 Brown 232 N. 4~ 324 N. Gilbert 402 S. Lucas 410 E. Washington 410 E. Washington 14 S. Governor 410 E. Washington Motion by P. Farrant and seconded by J. Watson to accept correspondence from Rod Sullivan (1733 Wilson St.). Motion carried, 5/0, all members present. Motion for adjournment by P. Hoffey and seconded by P. Farrant. Motion carried, 5/0, all members present. Meeting adjourned at 9:08 P.M. POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - October 29, 1998 Lobby Conference Room CALL TO ORDER Chair L. Cohen called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ATTENDANCE CONSENT CALENDAR Board members present: L. Cohen, P. Farrant, P. Hoffey, and J. Watson. Board member absent: M. Raymond. Staff present: Legal Counsel D. Russell and administrative assistant S. Bauer. Motion by P. Hoffey and seconded by P. Farrant to adopt the Consent Calendar as amended, to include: (b) October 27 memorandum from Chief Winkelhake regarding November 10 meeting, and (c) October 27 memorandum from Chief Winkelhake regarding//97-1. Motion carried, 4/0, Raymond absent. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL Receive PCRB Public Report #98-11 PUBLIC DISCUSSION None EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by P. Hoffey and seconded by P. Farrant to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section 21.5(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. Motion carried, 4/0, Raymond absent. Meeting adjourned at 7:05 P.M. Regular meeting resumed at 8:38 P,M. Motion by P. Hoffey and seconded by P. Farrant to approve PCRB Public Report #98-11 and forward it to the City Council. Motion carried, 4/0, Raymond absent. 2 Motion by P. Farrant and seconded by P. Hoffey to review PCRB Complaint #98-17 at level 8-8-7 B(1 )(a) in accordance to the Ordinance, and assigned the drafting of the public report to the report-writing committee. Motion carried, 4/0, Raymond absent. MEETING SCHEDULE Staff reported verbal response from Chief Winkelhake stating his availability for a presentation at a forum on December 1, 1998. The Broadway Neighborhood Center is available for that forum. Further discussion regarding the December 1 forum shall appear on the next agenda. BOARD INFORMATION STAFF INFORMATION · Special Meeting November 3, 1998, 7:00 P.M. · Regular Meeting November 10, 1998, 7:00 P.M. · Special Meeting November 17, 1998, 7:00 P.M. · Special Meeting December 1, 1998, 7:00 P.M. · Regular Meeting December 8, 1998, 7:00 P.M. J. Watson - spoke with councilmember D. Vanderhoef regarding forums which might educate citizens about the PCRB. Discussion followed. None. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by P. Hoffey and seconded by P. Farrant. Motion carried, 4/0, Raymond absent. Meeting adjourned at 8:58 P.M. PCRB PUBLIC REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board (the "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB 98-11 (the "Complaint"). BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8-8-7 B, 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 8-8-7 B(2). While the City Code directs the Board to make "findings of fact," it also requires that the Board recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify his findings only if those findings are "unsupported by substantial evidence," are "unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious," or are "contrary to a Police Department policy or practice or any Federal, State or local law." Sections 8-8-7B(2)a, b, and c. BOARD'S PROCEDURE On May 28, 1998, this Complaint was received at the office of the City Clerk. As required by Section 8-8-5 of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Police Chief for investigation. On June 25, 1998, the Chief requested a 45-day extension to complete his investigation. In a memo to the Chief on June 26, 1998, the Board agreed to a 30-day extension. On July 24, 1998, the Chief requested a second extension of time for completion of his report, to August 20, 1998. The Board agreed to this request with reservations, citing in its memo to the Chief concerns about the effect of continuing delays on the Board's working schedule and 2 on fairness to the complainant. The Chief's Report was received on August 20, 1998. The Board voted to review the Complaint in accordance with Section 8-8'7B(1 )(d) and (e), which means (d) that the Board may request additional investigation by the Police Chief or request police assistance in the Board's own review, and (e) that the Board may perform its own additional investigation. The Board requested additional information from the Chief in a letter dated August 27, 1998. On September 3, 1998, the Board requested from the City Council a 45-day extension to file its public report. At its meeting on September 9, 1998, the City Council agreed to the 45oday extension. The following information was transmitted to the Board on September 28, 1998: · Identification numbers for the arresting officer and backup officers · Information about police policies and procedures for handling reports of lost, unattended, or abandoned children · Copy of the police department incident report · Copy of the use of force report · Copy of the complaint form filed by the arresting officer · Copy of the report to the Department of Human Services · Transcripts of interviews the department conducted with the following: - Person who took control of the child and initiated the requests for police assistance This person's spouse Person who made the calls for police assistance Witness who is a resident of the area where the arrest took place Officer 790206 (dispatched as backup to the arresting officer) Complainant and complainant's counsel Also, Notes on a telephone conversation with a sister of the complainant Notes on an interview with the second backup officer, 970106 Notes on a "narrative" provided by a woman who attended the baby shower 3 The first assistant city attorney explained in her transmittal letter to the-Board that since the statement of the officer who is the subject of this complaint was compelled during the internal affairs investigation, the transcript cannot be released without authorization, and the officer declined to authorize further release. Because the Board was awaiting this information, on September 3, 1998, it requested a 45-day extension to file its public report from the City Council. The Board met on June 25, July 28, August 25, September 1 and 22, and October 6, 13, 20, and 29, 1998 to consider the Complaint. FINDINGS OF FACT On April 5, 1998, Officer 950831 was dispatched to the 11 O0 block of Oakcrest Street to investigate a report of a possible lost, unattended, or abandoned child. The call had been made by an employee of Oaknoll Retirement Center at the request of a visitor. The visitor said she had observed a black child about four years old crying and wandering unattended for at least fifteen minutes. Despite considerable effort, she was unable to find his guardians, locate his apartment, or communicate very well with him. Concerned for his welfare, particularly since he had been headed toward a busy street, she took him inside the Oaknoll complex to await the police. When the officer first arrived, he was unable to locate anyone and left the area. The employee made a second call and the officer returned. By this time, the complainant (who, it was later determined, was the child's aunt), had arrived and claimed the child, and was walking toward a nearby apartment complex with him. The officer attempted to ascertain the child's situation and obtain identification from the complainant. The complainant appeared to ignore the officer's repeated requests that she talk to him and began to run off. The officer pursued and grabbed her. Because she was resisting, he bent her over a nearby-parked car, cuffed her, and placed her in his patrol car. The child was part of a large group of African people who had gathered at the 1100 Oakcrest complex for a baby shower for the complainant, who was seven months pregnant. At this point in the unfolding situation, a number of the shower guests came outside, some in an agitated state. The officer called for backup support in a manner that suggested to his fellow officers he needed that support "now." Simultaneously, the child's mother arrived at the apartment complex parking lot and was identified by members of the assembled group. In addition, the group told the officer that all of them (and not just the complainant) were responsible for the child. They asked that the complainant be allowed to go free. The officer instead took the complainant to the Johnson County Jail. In response to her report that she was in pain during transport and processing, he then took her to University Hospital, where she was examined and released after about two hours. The officer returned her to the jail. She was charged with interference with official acts. CONCLUSIONS Allegation 1. The arresting officer was unprofessional in his contact with the complainant on April 5, 1998. Although the situation the officer encountered may have escalated unnecessarily because of culturally related differences in perceptions about what was happening and how best to resolve the matter, the evidence suggests that the officer did attempt to follow procedures appropriate for handling a report of a "lost, unattended, or abandoned child." These include determining the child's situation identifying the appropriate custodial party, resolving the situation in the child's favor, and making a report to the Department of Human Services. 5 The Chief's conclusion that the officer acted in a professional manner and followed the steps he was obliged to is supported by substantial evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Accordingly, allegation 1 is NOT SUSTAINED. Allegation 2. The officer used excessive force during the contact. The officer requested that the complainant, who had taken the child by the hand and was leading him toward an apartment building, show him some identification. He made this request twice, but the complainant appeared to be ignoring him. The officer made a third request, telling the complainant that she would be arrested if she did not comply. At this, she began to run from him. The officer pursued and grabbed her. Because she was vigorously resisting him, he bent her over the hood of a nearby car, put handcuffs on her, and placed her in his police car. Witnesses confirm that the complainant was loud, agitated, and uncooperative during this time, and that she attempted to push and kick the officer. After the complainant, who was seven months pregnant at the time, said she was in pain while being taken to the Johnson County Jail and during processing there, the officer transported her to University Hospital. She was examined and observed for several hours. No evidence of any injury to her or compromise to her pregnancy was identified. She was released from the hospital and taken back to jail by the officer. The Chief's conclusion that the officer did not use excessive force during his contact with the complainant is supported by substantial evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Accordingly, allegation 2 is NOT SUSTAINED. Allegation 3. The officer's conduct was not civilized while handling the incident. It is clear from the information provided by a variety of witnesses that the situation in which the officer became involved escalated quickly, at least in part because of culturally based differences in 6 perceptions of what was happening and how it ought to be resolved. The evidence does indicate, however, that the officer attempted to pursue a legitimate course of conduct and, when the complainant resisted, did not apply excessive force in restraining and subduing the complainant. The Chief's conclusion that the officer was direct and to the point in his inquiries, explained his intention and the complainant's options, and did not engage in inappropriate action or use inappropriate language is supported by substantial evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Accordingly, allegation 3 is NOT SUSTAINED. Allegation 4. There was a strong element of racial discrimination in the officer's handling of the situation. The officer may not have been sensitive to the influence that behaviors and perceptions of people of a culture different from that of mainstream midwest America were having on the situation he was dispatched to investigate. But the Chief concluded, and the record supports, that there was no evidence of racist remarks having been made or any activity that indicated bias or racial attitude. While racially disparaging treatment could exist even absent such express evidence of racial animus, the Chief's conclusion that it did not here is supported by substantial evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Accordingly, allegation 4 is NOT SUSTAINED. COMMENTS Although the Board is not sustaining any of the allegations made in this Complaint, we are concerned that the situation that produced them escalated very rapidly and perhaps unnecessarily. While acknowledging that emotions were already intensifying at the time the officer arrived on the scene, we believe that he could have chosen a course of action that was more situation sensitive than the one he followed. For example, he could have chosen to communicate with the assistance of one of the assembled group who might have been able to calm the situation. He could have chosen to interpret the complainant's lack of cooperation with his orders as being the result of fear, panic, shame, or confusion. Since she was dressed in a manner that did not suggest that she had identification with her, he could have accompanied her to her apartment, where, it could be presumed, she would have produced it. In other words, he might have exercised more flexibility about how to fulfill his official, standard responsibilities in the context of a clearly "nonstandard" situation - one that included a large and agitated group of people of a different culture, many speaking an unfamiliar language. Instead, the situation escalated so quickly that it would not be unreasonable for a lone officer to feel threatened. Indeed, when officer 950831 called for backup soon after arriving on the scene, officer 970106 reported detecting the urgency in his voice. While it may be unfair to expect the officer to have perceived immediately that the Africans he was dealing with might have a different attitude about specifically "who" among a group is responsible for the welfare of a child, this is an issue that should be part of the training of police in a community as diverse as ours Finally, in the emotionally charged atmosphere that developed, the welfare of the child - the issue the officer had been called to investigate in the first place - appears to have rapidly become a concern peripheral 'to the behavior of the complainant. We support the Chief's recommendations for department action concerning further training in awareness of cultural diversity. DATED: October 29, 1998 11-17-98 4b(8) POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - November 3, 1998 Lobby Conference Room CALL TO ORDER Chair L. Cohen called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ATTENDANCE CONSENT CALENDAR Board members present: L. Cohen, P. Farrant, P. Hoffey, and J. Watson. Board member absent: M. Raymond. Staff present: Legal Counsel D. Russell and administrative assistant S. Bauer. Motion by P. Hoffey and seconded by P. Farrant to adopt the Consent Calendar. Motion carried, 4/0, Raymond absent. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL * Receive PCRB Public Report/198-14 . Receive PCRB Public Report//98-16 COMMUNITY FORUM The next forum shall be held on December 1, 1998, at the Broadway Neighborhood Center, from 7:00 P'M'- 9:00 P,M., with a presentation from Chief R. J. Winkelhake on the SCAT program. Discussion regarding the forum included: The forum will be audiotaped, but not videotaped by the Board Notices will reflect that the Chief will make a presentation on SCAT PUBLIC DISCUSSION None EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by J. Watson and seconded by P. Hoffey to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section 21.5(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 2 bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts. Motion carried, 4/0, Raymond absent. Meeting adjourned at 7:12 P.M. Regular meeting resumed at 7:33 P.M. Motion by P. Farrant and seconded by J. Watson to approve PCRB Public Report #98-14 and forward it to the City Council. Motion carried, 4/0, Raymond absent. Motion by P. Hoffey and seconded by L. Cohen to approve PCRB Public Report #98-16 and forward it to the City Council. Motion carried, 4/0, Raymond absent. MEETING SCHEDULE · Regular Meeting November 1 O, 1998, Executive Session to commence at 6:30 P.M. and at 7:00 P.M. a presentation by Chief R. J. Winkelhake on ICPD policy/procedure/practice on building searches, and a discussion regarding data collection on traffic stops. · Special Meeting November 17, 1998, 7:00 P.M. · Community Forum - December 1, 1998, 7:00 P'M'- 9:00 P.M. at the Broadway Neighborhood Center · Regular Meeting December 8, 1998, 7:00 P.M. - Discussion of forums BOARD INFORMATION The Board agreed that in January 1999, it will hold a priority-setting session to outline ICPD policies, procedures and practices for review. L. Cohen - reported on a meeting with Cpt. Harney of the ICPD. As a result of comments at the recent forum, the Board agreed that a committee comprised of L. Cohen, P. Hoffey, and D. Russell request to meet with Chief Winkelhake and the City Manager regarding possible briefing of ICPD officers on the PCRB process. · J. Watson was designated as the PCRB representative to attend the informal City Council meeting regarding STAFF INFORMATION ADJOURNMENT the PCRB Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines. D. Russell - contacted City Clerk regarding relations between PCRB and City government. Motion for adjournment by P. Hoffey and seconded by P. Farrant. Motion carried, 4/0, Raymond absent. Meeting adjourned at 8:05 P.M. PCRB PUBLIC REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board (the "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB 98-14 (the "Complaint"), BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8-8-7 B, 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 8-8-7 B(2). While the City Code directs the Board to make "findings of fact," it also requires that the Board recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify his findings only if those findings are "unsupported by substantial evidence," are "unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious," or are "contrary to a Police Department policy or practice or any Federal, State or local law." Sections 8-8-7B(2)a, b, and c. BOARD'S PROCEDURE Complaint #98-14 was received at the office of the City Clerk on July 23, 1998. As required by Section 8-8-5 of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Police Chief for investigation. Because this Complaint and Complaint #98-16 involve the same incident, citizens and officers, the Chief issued the same Report for both. The Chief submitted his Report to the Board on August 21, 1998. The Board voted to review the Complaint in accordance with City Code Section 8-8-7 B.1 (d) and (e), which means (d) that the Board may request additional investigation by the Police Chief or request police assistance in the Board's own review, and (e) that the Board may perform its own additional investigation. The Board requested and was granted a 45-day extension of time from the City Council. The Board requested additional information from the Chief in a letter dated August 27, 1998. The following information was transmitted to the Board on September 28, 1998: · Copy of the traffic citation for illegal right turn · Information about police policies and procedures regarding traffic citations for an improper turn · Copy of the computer printout record of the traffic stop · Identification numbers for tl~e two officers involved in the incident · Transcripts of interviews with the following persons: - Officer 970103, the backup officer - Officer 950828, the officer who made the stop - A civilian riding with Officer 970103 - The complainant - The complainant's wife The Board met on August 25, 1998, September 1, 22, 1998, October 6, 13, 20, 29, 1998, and November 3, 1998 to consider the Complaint. FINDINGS OF FACT At approximately 10:15 P.M. on a Sunday night; the complainant, who is black, was driving east on Highway 6 with his wife, the registered owner of the vehicle, as a passenger. He turned right onto Sycamore Street. Officer 950828, in plainclothes and driving an unmarked car, stopped the complainant on Sycamore for making an improper right turn. The officer summoned a backup unit and approached the driver side of the complainant's vehicle with his flashlight shining toward the driver. The complainant objected to the flashlight shining in his face. After informing the complainant of the reason for the stop, Officer 950828 asked for his license and took it back to his car. Officer 970103, the backup officer, joined Officer 950828 to discuss the stop, and it appeared to the complainant that the officers were comparing the driver's license to photos in a book. Officer 950828 wrote a citation for an improper right turn, asked the complainant to step to the rear of the vehicle and gave him the citation. The backup officer placed himself at the right rear of the complainant's vehicle. Officer 950828 asked if there were drugs or weapons in the vehicle. The complainant said there were not. Then the officer asked if he could search the vehicle. The complainant said he did not mind, but that it was his wife's car and the officer should ask her. It is not clear from the witness statements whether permission for the search was asked for or given by the wife. Officer 950828 informed the complainant that he was going to perform a pat down search of the complainant before searching the vehicle. At about the time he was searching the complainant, the complainant's wife began to exit the passenger side of the vehicle and began to protest angrily about the situation. Officer 950828 asked the complainant's wife to step to the rear of the vehicle and directed her to keep her voice down and to stop using profanity. She sat on the curb to the right rear of the vehicle, near where the backup officer was standing. While Officer 950828 searched the passenger compartment of the vehicle, the complainant's wife continued to protest and use profanity. Officer 950828 warned her to calm down several times, and at least once told her that she would be arrested for disorderly conduct if she did not stop using profanity. At some point after the complainant's wife exited from the vehicle, the officers were informed by the complainant and his wife that she had recently delivered a premature baby by C-section, that they were returning from a visit with the baby in the hospital, and that she was feeling stomach pain. Officer 950828 completed the vehicle search, finding nothing, and explained to the complainant that he had performed the search in connection with the SCAT operation in the Broadway area. The complainant and his wife departed. The complainant alleged that Officer 950828's conduct was unjustified, cruel and racially motivated. 4 CONCLUSIONS Allegation 1. The officer's conduct was unjustified. cruel. and racially motivated. Officer 950828 asked whether he could search the vehicle; the complainant said that this left an impression that he could deny permission for the search. The complainant also stated that he felt Sycamore Street is not in the Broadway area that is the target of the SCAT operation. Nevertheless, Iowa law currently permits the search of the passenger compartment of the vehicle and the person of anyone cited for a traffic violation. The complainant and the complainant's wife both reported that Officer 950828 was rude, profane, aggressive, and intimidating. Officer 970103, the backup officer, stated that Officer 950828 acted professionally and that neither of them used profanity. Although the complainant claimed that his wife was shoved and threatened, in her interview, the wife denied any use of force. The officers and the civilian witness also reported that there were no threats toward either the complainant or the complainant's wife, nor was there any physical contact other than the pat down search of the complainant. The claim of racial motivation came primarily from the complainant's statement that Officer 950828 made reference to "you people" when he was explaining about the SCAT operation. The officer denied using the term "you people." The Chief's conclusion that the officer's treatment of the complainant was not unjustified, cruel, or racially motivated, is supported by substantial evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Accordingly, Allegation 1 is NOT SUSTAINED. COMMENTS It should be noted that this is the second incident within a six-week period that an allegation of the use of profanity has been filed against Officer 950828. In this incident, both the complainant and the complainant's wife claim that profanity was used and both officers claim that it was not. The Board suggests that the Chief make it clear, through whatever means he deems appropriate, that the use of profanity by officers while acting in an official capacity is unprofessional conduct. The complainant's wife had recently had surgery and was in pain. Although she was loud and emotional in her interactions with the officer, Officer 950828's response to her does not appear to have been effective in de-escalating the situation. Although the Board understands that it is not always possible to prevent any given situation from escalating, we encourage the Chief to enhance departmental training in this area. Finally, as noted in other Board reports involving race-related allegations, the use of racial terms, or code words such as "you people," is not the only indicator of racial motivation. We encourage the Chief to reinforce his efforts to insure racial and cultural neutrality in all department policies, practices, and procedures. DATED: November 4, 1998 PCRB PUBLIC REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board (the "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB 98-16 (the "Complaint"). BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8-8-7 B, 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 8-8-7 B(2). While the City Code directs the Board to make "findings of fact," it also requires that the Board recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify his findings only if those findings are "unsupported by substantial evidence," are "unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious," or are "contrary to a Police Department policy or practice or any Federal, State or local law." Sections 8-8-7B(2)a, b, and c. BOARD'S PROCEDURE Complaint #98-14 was received at the office of the City Clerk on July 28, 1998. As required by Section 8-8-5 of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Police Chief for investigation. Because this Complaint and Complaint #98-14 involve the same incident, citizens and officers, the Chief issued the same Report for both. The Chief submitted his Report to the Board on August 21, 1998. The Board voted to review the Complaint in accordance with City Code Section 8-8-7 B. 1 (d) and (e), which means (d) that the Board may request additional investigation by the Police Chief or request police assistance in the Board's own review, and (e) that the Board may perform its own additional investigation. The Board. requested and was granted a 45-day extension of time from the City Council. The Board requested additional information from the Chief in a letter dated August 27, 1998. The following information was transmitted to the Board on September 28, 1998: · Copy of the traffic citation for illegal right turn · Information about police policies and procedures regarding traffic citations for an improper turn · Copy of the computer printout record of the traffic stop · Identification numbers for the two officers involved in the incident · Transcripts of interviews with the following persons: Officer 970103, the backup officer Officer 950828, the officer who made the stop A civilian riding with Officer 970103 The complainant The complainant's husband The Board met on August 25, 1998, September 1, 22, 1998, October 6, 13, 20, 29, 1998, and November 3, 1998, to consider the Complaint. FINDINGS OF FACT At approximately 10:15 P.M. on a Sunday night, the complainant, who is black, was riding as a passenger with her husband, traveling east on Highway 6. The complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle. The complainant's husband turned right onto Sycamore Street. Officer 950828, in plainclothes and driving an unmarked car, stopped the vehicle on Sycamore Street for making an improper right turn. The officer summoned a backup unit and approached the driver side of the complainant's vehicle with his flashlight shining toward the complainant's husband. The husband objected to the flashlight shining in his face. After explaining the reason for the stop, Officer 950828 asked for the husband's license and took it back to his car. Officer 970103, the backup officer, joined Officer 950828 to discuss the stop, and it appeared to the complainant that the officers were comparing the driver's license to photos in a book. 3 Officer 950828 wrote a citation for an improper right turn, asked the complainant's husband to step to the rear of the vehicle and gave him the citation. The backup officer placed himself at the right rear of the complainant's vehicle. Officer 950828 asked if there were drugs or weapons in the vehicle. The complainant's husband said there were not. Then the officer asked if he could search the vehicle. The complainant's husband said he did not mind, but that it was his wife's (the complainant's) car and the officer should ask her. It is not clear from the witness statements whether permission for the search was asked for or given by the complainant. Officer 950828 informed the complainant's husband that he was going to perform a pat down search of him before searching the vehicle. At about the time he was searching the complainant's husband, the complainant began to exit the passenger side of the vehicle and began to protest angrily about the situation. Officer 950828 asked the complainant to step to the rear of the vehicle and directed her to keep her voice down and to stop using profanity. She sat on the curb to the right rear of the vehicle, near where the backup officer was standing. While Officer 950828 searched the passenger compartment of the vehicle, the complainant continued to protest and use profanity. Officer 950828 warned her to calm down several times, and at least once told her that she would be arrested for disorderly conduct if she did not stop using profanity. At some point after the complainant exited from the vehicle, the officers were informed by the complainant and her husband that she had recently delivered a premature baby by C-section, that they were returning from a visit with the baby in the hospital, and that she was feeling stomach pain. Officer 950828 completed the vehicle search, finding nothing, and explained to the complainant's husband that he had performed the search in connection with the SCAT operation in the Broadway area. The complainant and her husband departed. The Chief inferred from the complainant's statements the following allegations: 1) excessive use of force; 2) unreasonable search; and 3) unprofessional conduct. CONCLUSIONS Allegation 1: Excessive use of force. Although the complainant and her husband initially claimed that the complainant was shoved and threatened, in her interview, the complainant denied any use of force against her. The officers and civilian witness also reported that there were no threats toward the complainant, nor any physical contact other than the pat down search of the complainant's husband. The Chief's conclusion that there was not excessive use of force is supported by substantial evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Accordingly, allegation 1 is NOT SUSTAINED. Allegation 2: Unreasonable search. The complainant was stopped for a traffic violation. When Officer 950828 asked for permission to search the vehicle, the complainant said that this request left an impression that permission to search the vehicle could be denied. In addition, the complainant was in physical discomfort and anxious to go home to take her medication. The complainant also could not understand why a minor traffic violation would result in questioning about drugs and weapons, and entail a vehicle search. Nevertheless, Iowa law currently permits the search of the passenger compartment of the vehicle and the person of anyone cited for a traffic violation. The Chief's conclusion that there was not an unreasonable search is supported by substantial evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Accordingly, Allegation 2 is NOT SUSTAINED. COMMENTS In his report on PCRB #98-14, the Chief inferred a third allegation in PCRB Complaint #98-16 that he did not address in his Findings: unprofessional conduct. Although the Board decided not to refer the Complaint back to the Chief, it should be noted that this is the second incident within a six-week period that an allegation of the use of profanity has been filed against Officer 950828. In this incident, the complainant and the complainant's wife claim that profanity was used and both officers claim that it was not. The Board suggests that the Chief make it clear, through whatever means he deems appropriate, that the use of profanity by officers while acting in an official capacity is unprofessional conduct. The complainant had recently had surgery and was in pain. Although she was loud and emotional with the officers, Officer 950828's response to her does not appear to have been effective in de-escalating the situation. Although the Board understands that it is not always possible to prevent any given situation from escalating, we encourage the Chief to enhance departmental training in this area. Finally, as noted in other Board reports-involving race-related allegations, the use of racial terms, or code words such as "you people," is not the only indicator of racial motivation. We encourage the Chief to reinforce his efforts to insure racial and cultural neutrality in all department policies, practices, and procedures. DATED: November 4, 1998