HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-05-18 Bd Comm minutesMINUTES
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 1999- 5 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS - CIVIC CENTER
PRELIMINAR
Subject to
MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Bender, Lowell Brandt, T.J. Brandt, Kate Corcoran, Mike Paul
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT:
Melody Rockwell, John Yapp, Dennis Mitchell
OTHERS PRESENT:
Tim Herold, Ronald Owings, Don Schumacher, Steve Harding,
Tim Lehmann, Frank Person
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Bender called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
All Board members were present for the roll call.
CONSIDERATION OF THE MARCH 10, 1999, BOARD MINUTES
MOTION: T.J. Brandt moved to approve the March 10, 1999, Board minutes as submitted.
L. Brandt seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 5-0.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS:
EXC98-0005. Public hearing on a request submitted by CroelI-Redi Mix to extend a March
11, 1998, Board decision approving a special exception to allow a cementitious concrete
batch mix plant, including a temporary office and plant, to be established on property located
in the General Industrial (I-1) zone at 3310 Old Highway 218 S.
Rockwell said on March 11, 1998, the Board approved a special exception to allow a
cement plant to be established at 3310 Old Highway 218 S. She said one of the conditions
for that approval was that a temporary plant and office were allowed, but were required to be
removed by December 31, 1998. She said the applicant has stated that there were delays in
getting the construction of the permanent facility underway and in acquiring some of the
equipment for the permanent facility. She said since the permanent plant is not yet
operational, the applicant is requesting an amendment to the condition to extend the
deadline for removal of the temporary plant to June 30, 1999. She said staff felt this was a
reasonable request.
Bender opened the public hearing.
Tim Herold, Croell Redi-Mix General Mana.qer, said with the delays, they did not get the
permanent facilities done. He said his boss was at the plant on Tuesday, and did not think
that it would be ready for another month, but Herold said he thought the permanent plant
should be up and going in two weeks.
Bender closed the public hearing.
MOTION: L. Brandt moved to amend a condition of approval of EXC98-0005, the
March 11, 1998, Board decision, by extending the deadline for removal of the
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
April 14, 1999- 5 P.M.
Page 2
temporary office and plant located at 3310 Old Highway 218 S. to June 30, 1999. Paul
seconded the motion.
L. Brandt said he drove out to the site, and saw considerable progress in the construction of
the permanent facility. He said he thought there had been a reasonable attempt by the
applicant to get the project completed. He said this is a relatively minor and reasonable
extension so he would support the motion.
Corcoran said she would also support the motion. She said she thought six months was a
moderate amount of time, and she thought the applicant would get the job done.
Paul said he would vote in favor of the motion for the reasons previously mentioned. He said
he also drove out to the site and saw the progress being made, and that the delays were out
of the applicant's hands.
T.J. Brandt said he would vote in favor of the motion for the same reasons.
Bender said she concurred. She said the Board did not need to look at the standards for
establishing the use in this case, because they have already done that. She said at this
point, the Board is only considering the reasonableness of the applicant's request to amend
the expiration date for the temporary facility.
The motion carried by a vote of 5-0.
EXC99-0004. Public hearing on an application submitted by Ronald and Cecile Owings for a
spedal exception to permit a rear and side yard modification in order to allow a
residential/garage addition to be constructed on property located in the Low Density Single-
Family Residential (RS-5) zone at 2225 Court Street.
Rockwell said the Owings live at a very busy comer at the intersection of First Avenue and
Court Street. She said the Owings addition, as proposed, would encroach into setback
areas along the rear portion of their yard and the side yard, and they are requesting that
there be a reduction in those yards to allow them to build the proposed addition. She said
the residence was built in the 1960s when the setback requirements were less stringent
along artedal streets, but the addition has been designed to meet today"s standards for
frontage requirements as is appropriate at an intersection that is likely to become even more
congested over the next few years.
Rockwell said the rear yard encroachment involves 396 square feet, which is 26% of the
1,500 total rear yard setback requirement for the property. She said this is a moderate
concern in quantitative terms, but staff feels the effect of the encroachment is mitigated,
because the rear yard of the 0wings property abuts the side yard of the property to the
south. She said the proposed setback for the Owings addition is nine feet and the required
setback along the shared lot line for the property to the south is only five feet. She said the
side yard reduction request results in a 9.5% or 48-square foot encroachment into the 505
square foot total side yard setback area. She said this is fairly minimal and it would occur to
the rear of the neighboring residence to the west, and would be permitted by right if this
were a detached garage.
Rockwell said the proposed addition would not increase the population density or affect the
use of municipal facilities, but would simply allow more living space and parking area for a
single-family residence. She said the addition should serve to upgrade the use and value of
the subject property and have a general positive effect on neighboring properties, and
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
April 14, 1999- 5 P.M.
Page 3
should not be visually intrusive. She said placing the garage closer to the south and west lot
lines creates a practical turning/backing area for vehicles to enter and exit the more easterly
stall of the proposed two-car garage.
Rockwell said in regard to the general standards, the location of the garage portion of the
addition would improve public safety to the extent that it would reduce the number of times
vehicles would need to back into Court Street in the vicinity of a busy intersection in order to
switch vehicles around in the driveway. She said staff has also noted that the intent of the
ordinance is to provide for sufficient light and air between residences, and this would not be
contradicted by the proposed addition.
Rockwell said staff recommends that EXC99-0004, a special exception to reduce the rear
yard requirement along the south lot line from 20 feet to nine feet for the 36-foot width of the
proposed residential/garage addition, and to reduce the side yard requirement along the
west lot line from five feet to three feet for the 24-foot length of the addition be approved for
the property located in the RS-5 zone at 2225 Court Street.
Rockwell said she received many calls regarding the special exception, because the notice
sign was in a very visible location. She said no one minded that an addition was being
proposed, but one person expressed concern about vehicle safety in negotiating the drive
so close to the First Avenue/Court Street intersection. She was pleased to learn the
proposed addition would improve that situation.
L. Brandt asked if there would be enough room in the driveway to turn a car around so they
would not have to back out onto the street. Rockwell said no, but it would mean that the
vehicles could be parked side by side, so when someone wanted to leave the property, both
cars would not have to back out into the street in order to switch the vehicles around.
Bender opened the public hearing.
Ronald Owin.qs, 2225 Court Street, said the existing garage is in poor repair and needs to
be replaced. He said he came up with the proposed concept to add to their property. He
noted that there is an existing six-foot high wooden fence along the back yard lot line that
creates privacy so a back door in the garage would not create a problem. He said he
thought it would be more of a safety problem if they had to remove that door, because there
would be no other egress from the garage. He said some of the fence would have to be
relocated due to the addition, but he intends it to have it cover the full 36 feet along the rear
yard lot line.
Bender closed the public hearing.
MOTION: L. Brandt moved to approve EXC99-0004, a special exception to reduce the
rear yard requirement along the south lot line from 20 feet to nine feet for the 36-foot
width of the proposed residential/garage addition, and to reduce the side yard
requirement along the west lot line from five feet to three feet for the 24-foot length of
the addition for property located in the RS-5 zone at 2225 Court Street. T.J. Brandt
seconded the motion.
Paul said his primary concern in that neighborhood was safety, and he thought this proposal
would improve the personal safety for the residents when they are moving cars in and out of
the driveway. He said while there is not space to turn a car around on the driveway, it
improves the chance of vehicles safely entering and exiting near that corner. He said the
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
Apd114, 1999 - 5 P.M.
Page 4
proposal did not seem to impede or be a detriment to any surrounding neighbors, so he
would support the motion.
L. Brandt said he thought the proposal would have a minimal impact on the neighbors. He
noted that the property to the west of this was slightly elevated and there were some natural
barders there. He said it seems that this proposal would take a step in improving some
safety issues. He said it was unfortunate that the safety could not be improved with a
turnaround space in the driveway, but this is better than what is currently there, so he would
support the motion.
Corcoran said she would also support the motion. She said the standards are met, and this
would not add to the density of the area, but would add to the property value. She said the
proposed addition is not excessive, the 9.5% encroachment is minimal and while the rear
yard encroachment is larger, it would be mitigated given the way the proposed addition is
placed on the lot and the way the neighboring residences are located in relation to it. She
said she thought it was a reasonable request, and it would be in the interests of justice to
support it.
T.J. Brandt said he would support the motion. He said the standards have been met, and his
main concern for the area is the safety of the intersection. He said the proposal would not
impede on the sight or safety at the intersection and actually improved the safety of the
situation.
Bender said she concurred, and said the proposal conforms to all the standards and is a
reasonable request that will improve the safety of the situation.
The motion carried by a vote of 5-0.
EXC99-0005. Public hearing on an application submitted by Don Schumacher/Towncrest
Amoco for a special exception to permit an expansion of an auto and truck-oriented use, a
convenience store associated with a filling station, for property located in the Community
Commercial (CC-2) zone at 2315 Muscatine Avenue.
Yapp said the site currently contains eight fueling stations, two auto repair bays, a snack
shop and a drive-in/back out car wash. He noted that currently there are two access points
from the site onto Muscatine Avenue and one onto Wade Street. He said the proposal is to
redevelop the property, eliminating the ~epair bays, reducing the number of fueling stations
to six, replacing the snack shop with a convenience store and replacing the drive-in/back out
car wash with a 'drive-through car wash. He said one access point onto Muscatine Avenue
would be eliminated, so there would only be one access from the site onto Muscatine
Avenue, one onto Wade Street and one one-way access off Wade Street for vehicles that
are only using the car wash.
Yapp said staff analyzed the request by examining how the use would handle ingress and
egress and compatibility with adjacent uses. He said regarding ingress and egress, the site
currently has two access points onto Muscatine Avenue and one onto Wade Street. He said
staff feels positively about closing one of the accesses onto Muscatine Avenue, because it
alleviates some of the potential conflict of traffic turning into and out of this site and traffic
traveling through the Muscatine Avenue-Wade Street intersection. He said the proposal to
leave the access point further away from Wade Street improves the situation, as does the
one-way entrance ddve from Wade Street for the car wash, which will aid in keeping
vehicles solely using the car wash separated from vehicles using the fuel pumps or the
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
April 14, 1999- 5 P.M.
Page 5
convenience store. Separating the car wash-related traffic also minimizes vehicular and
pedestrian conflicts on the site.
Yapp said regarding compatibility with adjacent uses, both Muscatine Avenue and Wade
Street are lined with commercial uses, and it is a very commercial-oriented area. He said
staff feels there are no compatibility issues with surrounding commercial properties. He said
regarding the residential property to the south and west, the Amoco property sits about eight
feet below the residential property and the applicant is lining the southwest corner of the site
with evergreen trees to further screen his commercial property from that residential property.
He noted that since the repair stations are being eliminated, there should be less noise
associated with vehicle repair, and staff feels the site would be buffered from the residential
property. He noted that because the use of the property as a gasoline filling station and car
wash is not changing, and the facilities on the site are being upgraded and street trees and
vegetation at the southwest corner are being added, property values in the neighborhood
should not be diminished.
Yapp said staff recommends that EXC99-0005, a special exception to permit a convenience
store, gasoline filling station with six fuel stations and a one-bay car wash to be located on
property in the CC-2 zone at 2315 Muscatine Avenue I~e approved, subject to general
conformance with the site plan dated February 25, 1999.
L. Brandt asked if cars exiting the car wash would also be able to drive around and use the
convenience store and fuel stations. Yapp said when a customer purchases a certain
amount of fuel, they would receive a token for the car wash, so most customers would fuel
up first before using the car wash, but there is room for cars to ddve around. He noted that
the first plan submitted by the applicant had the car wash placed closer to Muscatine
Avenue, and staff asked them to move the car wash back to make room for cars to circulate
in that manner. L. Brandt asked if there would be an issue with traffic coming into the site
from Muscatine being affected by traffic coming out of the car wash and blocking the
intersection. Yapp said there was that issue, and staff had asked the applicant to move the
car wash back from where it was located in the first site plan. He said they have also
suggested posting a sign at the car wash asking users to watch out for oncoming vehicles.
L. Brandt asked if there was a lighting concept design for the project, Yapp said staff had not
received a lighting plan and said the applicant could discuss his plans for lighting.
Bender opened the public hearing.
Don Schumacher. Towncrest Amoco Property Owner said there is 27.5 feet between the car
wash exit and the site entrance from Muscatine Avenue. He said the cars will be drying after
using the car wash so cars entering from Muscatine would be able to see them there, or the
car in the car wash could wait for cars to enter from Muscatine. He said they were open to
the idea of posting a sign to notify car wash users of the possible oncoming traffic.
He said regarding the site lighting, they plan to have direct downcast lighting on the canopy
and the canopy would be moved further out toward Muscatine Avenue and away from the
residential property. He noted the evergreen trees that will provide a buffer between his
property and the neighboring residential property.
L. Brandt asked why the staff report did not address the lighting design. Yapp said from
observing the existing site, the current light did not seem to be obnoxious. He noted that the
neighboring residential property sits pretty far above the grade of this property and that there
is existing vegetation to act as a buffer, so it wasn't an issue with the staff. He said the
current requirement is 1.5 foot-candles at the property line, and an ordinance amendment is
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
April 14, 1999- 5 P.M.
Page 6
being proposed to decrease that to 1.0 foot-candle in the next few months. He said the
Board could add that as a condition for approval, but he did not think that the rear of the
Amoco property would be brightly illuminated. Schumacher said the light would be on the
soffit-levels of the store and would be shining down. Yapp said the vehicles using the car
wash should not be visible from the residential property because the commercial property
sits so far below the grade of the residential property. Corcoran noted that currently there
are not many lights on when the business closes at night. Schumacher said there would
only be one light from a utility pole that shines at night. Bender said that she thought the
lighting for the canopy would be reduced, because fewer pumps are proposed. Schumacher
said that was correct, and the canopy would be located further out toward Muscatine
Avenue. He said the site was a full-service station in the 1960s and they are trying to
upgrade the facility and site in general, and he thought the overall traffic flow would be better
with the proposed plan.
Bender closed the public hearing.
MOTION: Corcoran moved to approve EXC99-0005, a special exception to permit a
convenience store, gasoline filling station with six fuel stations and a one-bay car
wash to be located on property in the CC-2 zone at 2315 Muscatine Avenue, subject to
general conformance with the site plan dated February 25, 1999. L. Brandt seconded
the motion.
T.J. Brandt said that he would support the motion knowing that the area is mostly
commercial and that the site sits down low enough that the proposed changes would not
hurt the neighboring residential property. He said he thought the proposed greenery would
enhance the entire area, and he applauded Schumacher for taking the initiative to upgrade
his facility.
Corcoran said she would also support the motion. She said she thought this proposal was
an upgrade for the property, and although the building size would be slightly larger, she
thought the new site plan would facilitate a more efficient use of the total lot. She said she
did not see the intensity of the use increasing at all. She said she thought the vegetation and
the retaining wall would provide an adequate buffer for the residential lot.
L. Brandt said he would also support the motion. He said he appreciated the upgrade to the
property and said it looked like it would have less of an adverse impact on the
neighborhood. He said while it is a tough location for the neighboring residence, it is there
and is located in the RS-5 zone so the Board needs to be concerned about it. He said in
viewing the site, he saw some good natural separations. He said he appreciated everything
that was said about the lighting. He said the ingress/egress issues are also a positive
improvement, and City staff seems to be satisfied with the issues.
Paul said he would support the proposal. He said it would be an efficient use of space, and
he appreciated the ingress/egress changes being made. He said by relocating the pumps
and closing the one entrance off Muscatine Avenue, it would alleviate some of the traffic
problems.
Bender said she agreed. She said the access point that was so close to the corner was a
concern for her, and closing it was a good thing when considering safety.
The motion carried by a vote of 5-0.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
April 14, 1999 - 5 P.M.
Page 7
EXC99-0006. Public hearing on an application submitted by Denise and John Nelson for a
special exception to reduce the front yard setback requirement along an alley right-of-way to
permit a two-story residential/garage addition for property located in'the Medium Density
Single-Family Residential (RS-8) zone at 741 Oakland Avenue.
Rockwell explained that staff had determined after evaluating the application that the alley in
this case was not a principal street, so a special exception for a yard modification was not
necessary because the proposed addition would be located at the required setback from the
alley. She said the applicants requested that the application be withdrawn.
Bender opened the public hearing.
There were no comments.
Bender closed the public hearing.
MOTION: L. Brandt moved to approve the request for withdrawal by Denise and John
Nelson for EXC99-0006. Corcoran seconded the motion.
Bender asked if the Board needed to comment on the City refunding the applicants'
application fee. Rockwell said no, that was simply noted for the Board's information.
The motion carried by a vote of 5-0.
EXC99-0008. Public hearing on an application submitted by Steven Harding, on behalf of
property owners James E. and Richard H. Leu, for a special exception to establish an auto
and truck-oriented use, a pizza delivery and carryout business, and a special exception to
modify the off-street parking requirements, for property located in the Community
Commercial (CC-2) zone at 517 Riverside Ddve.
Yapp said the property is located on Riverside Drive, in the former location of That's
Rentertainment next to the Hungry Hobo. He said Harding wants to open a pizza delivery
and carryout business, and noted the description of the business in the agenda packet. He
said the business is proposed to be in an existing structure with an existing parking area. He
said this type of use requires a special exception, because the delivery nature of the
business is considered an auto-oriented use and as such requires extra scrutiny over
ingress, egress and compatibility issues.
Yapp said in reviewing the application, staff discovered that the site may not have enough
parking spaces according to the existing parking code requirements. He said currently for a
carryout-type restaurant, the requirement is one parking space for every 50 square feet,
which is four times the parking required for a retail use, which is one parking space for every
200 square feet. He said when the current requirements were developed carryout
restaurants were characterized by A&W-style, eat-in-the-parking-lot restaurants, which
required more parking area than a typical carryout restaurant today. He said staff feels that
less parking is needed than what is required by the Code. He said an amendment has been
proposed to the Zoning Chapter to require less parking for carryout and delivery restaurants,
and if and when those new parking requirements are adopted, this site would have enough
required parking.
Yapp said regarding ingress and egress, there is one access point onto Riverside Drive. He
said the drive appears to be fairly wide, and staff has noted that as the landscaped islands
and street trees are added to the frontage of the site, the driveway will be better defined.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
April 14, 1999-5 P.M.
Page 8
Yapp said regarding compatibility with adjacent uses, Riverside Drive is an automobile-
oriented corridor with many auto-oriented and commercial uses along it. He said the site
seemed appropriate for a delivery-type restaurant. He said the traffic associated with the
business would access the site from Riverside Drive and should not directly impact any
residential neighborhoods. He said the Comprehensive Plan contains language to
encourage the creative reuse of existing commercial sites, such as is being proposed in this
case.
Yapp said the Comprehensive Plan also recognizes that most of the uses along this corridor
are in the form of strip-commercial, and that aesthetic and traffic-related issues associated
with strip development are of concern in these areas. He said with the change in use of the
property, the City Code requires the addition of a sidewalk and street trees, and the
landscaping to support those street trees. He noted the proposed landscaping and sidewalk
on the site plan. He said while there are not sidewalks on the properties to the north or
south, over time as those properties redevelop or change in use, sidewalks will be added
and eventually a sidewalk system will be put in place. He said staff has also suggested that
low-growing evergreen shrubs be considered, because a number of properties along this
corridor that have received special exceptions, including McDonald's, Master Muffler and
Hartwig Dodge, have all proposed shrubbery along the frontage. He said placing shrubs
here would add to the compatibility with those uses. He said shrubs may very well survive
better than grass along Riverside Drive, because there is a lot of salt and spray, especially
in the winter, and shrubs seem to do much better in those situations. He noted that staff is
not proposing that as a requirement or condition of approval.
Yapp said regarding the reduction of off-street parking requirements, staff feels that it is
reasonable to reduce the required number of spaces by 50% or 11 spaces. He said to meet
the current requirements, they are short only two parking spaces. He said staff recommends
reducing the required parking by a full 50% or 11 parking spaces, which is less than the
proposed code amendment that would result in a 75% reduction in required off-street
parking for a delivery restaurant with no seating within the restaurant itself.
Yapp said locating the carryout/delivery restaurant in an existing commercial structure,
adding a sidewalk, adding street trees and better defining the access drive are all consistent
with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan for adaptive reuse of commercial properties. He
said that staff recommends that EXC99-0008, a special exception to permit an auto and
truck-oriented use, a pizza delivery and carryout business, and a reduction in the parking
requirement by 50%, or 11 spaces, for the property at 517 S. Riverside Drive, be approved,
subject to the access drive and landscaped tree island design conforming to City standards.
Bender said the other auto and truck-oriented cases along Riverside Drive, which had
recently been heard by the Board and were approved subject to landscape buffer and
curbing conditions, were single entities, and in this case, there were a couple different
businesses on the same property. She asked how that would work, that is, who would pay
for the improvements. Yapp said for Master Muffler and Hartwig Dodge, the shrubbery was
not required, but was part of the proposed site plan. Bender asked if the provision of
landscaping would be imposed on one business in this case or if it would be applied to the
entire property. Yapp said it would be applied to the entire property. He noted that the City
could refuse an occupancy permit or a building permit for reconstruction within the site until
an applicant shows compliance with the landscaping and sidewalk construction
requirements. He said who pays for the landscaping and sidewalk would be determined by
the tenant and landlord. He said due to the change in use, the requirements for the sidewalk
and street trees would be there even if a special exception were not needed.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
April 14, 1999-5 P.M.
Page 9
L. Brandt asked if the special exception were approved, would it apply only to the proposed
business and not to future uses of the property. Yapp said yes, it is specific to a pizza
delivery business.
Bender opened the public hearing.
Steve-Hardin.q said he thought the staff report expressed the situation clearly. He thanked
Yapp, Rockwell and Julie Tallman for their assistance. L. Brandt asked if Harding had any
concerns about staff's recommendations. Harding said no.
Tim Lehmann from Coldwell Banker said he is representing Harding and Tim Flynn, who
owns Hungry Hobo and leases the building from the property owners, the Leus. He said
everyone involved thought the proposal was the best use for the property due to the
relatively small parking area on the property. He said Harding would be subleasing the
proposed site from Flynn. He said he was the realtor involved helping put the lease together.
Bender asked who would pay for the landscaping buffer and sidewalk. Harding said that he
agreed to pay for those items as a condition of the lease.
Bender closed the public hearing.
MOTION: L. Brandt moved to approve EXC99-0008, a special exception to permit an
auto and truck-oriented use, a pizza delivery and carryout business, and a reduction
in the parking requirement specifically for the pizza delivery and carryout business by
50%, or 11 off-street parking spaces, for the property located in the CC-2 zone at 517
S. Riverside Drive, subject to the access drive 'and landscaped tree island design
conforming to city standards. Corcoran seconded the motion.
L. Brandt said he would support the motion because it appears to be a reasonable request,
the use of the property appears to be appropriate, there would be no big safety concerns,
the ingress and egress would similar to what it has been, and the parking reduction seems
very reasonable. He said he is pleased that City staff is trying to address the parking
standards to reduce unneeded paving, because uses and definitions change over time, and
the ordinance should be amended to reflect those changes.
Corcoran said she would also support approval of the requested exceptions. She said she
believes that the reduced amount of parking would be adequate for the proposed use. She
noted this is a reuse of an existing building that would be consistent with the policies of the
Comprehensive Plan. She noted that there is mostly commercial strip development in this
area of Riverside Drive, and adding the sidewalk and shrubs would be an improvement.
T.J. Brandt said he would support the motion. He said his main concern was safe
accessibility on and off Riverside Drive. He said he did not think there would be a parking
problem with the proposed use, and the traffic on the property may actually be lessened so
the ingress and egress problems with Riverside Drive could also lessen. He noted that the
access point would be more defined, and the existing structure would be reused in a
beneficial way.
Paul said he would support the motion for reasons of compatibility and what T.J. Brandt had
mentioned regarding the definition of the entrance to the property. He said there may be
less traffic using that access, because of the type of business, and the delivery people
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
April 14, 1999 - 5 P.M.
Page 10
would likely become proficient at entering and exiting the site, so it is likely to improve safety
along Riverside Drive.
Bender said she agreed. She said anything that could be done to that property to upgrade
and update it would be beneficial. She said she admired the applicant for wanting to get into
the building. She said she enjoyed reading the proposal and it seemed that the applicant is
very familiar with this type of business. She said it was admirable that the applicant is willing
to take on the costs of the landscaping and sidewalk projects by himself. She agreed that
the access point needs some definition and that would add to the safety and aesthetics
there. She said the proposed use is in keeping with the rest of the commercial area, and the
parking reduction is certainly reasonable given that what is proposed is a restaurant with no
seating.
The motion carried by a vote of 5-0.
VARIANCE ITEM:
VAR99-0001. Public hearing on an application submitted by Frank G. Person for a variance
to permit building coverage above the 40% maximum requirement for property located in the
Neighborhood Conservation Residential Zone (RNC-12) at 321-323 East Davenport Street.
Rockwell distributed photographs of the property taken by the City Housing and Inspection
Services staff. She said the applicant owns and lives in a duplex residence, which is
currently being used as a single-family home. She said on July 30, 1992, Mr. Person
received a building permit to construct a screened-in porch at the rear of his residence, but
because no work was done on the project that permit expired at the end of six months· She
said in 1998, a citation was issued asking that Mr. Person remove extraneous materials from
his property and he indicated that he had been accumulating some of the materials over the
years to build a screened-in porch. She said he was informed at that time that the 1992
permit had expired and was later advised when he applied for a new building permit for the
screened-in porch in January 1999, that the buildings that currently exist on his site already
exceed the 40% maximum building coverage that is allowed in the RNC-12 zone.
Rockwell said the reason that the permit was issued in 1992 and not in 1999 was because
in 1995 several blocks in the Northside residential area were fezcried RNC-12 from RM-12
to make things less dense and conserve more of a single-family residential nature of the
area. She said the building permit was correctly issued in 1992 under the RM-12 zoning,
which allows a 50% maximum building coverage, and was correctly denied in 1999 under
the RNC-20 zoning. She said the variance is being requested to allow the addition of a
screened-in porch, which would, in effect increase the nonconforming building coverage of
the lot under its current zoning.
Rockwell said regarding the maximum building coverage requirements in the RNC-12 zone
and what is involved with this site, there is a total of 2,605 square feet of existing building
coverage, which is 43% of the 6,000 square foot lot. She said the proposed screened-in
porch would increase that number slightly as it would be 265 square feet or 4% of the lot.
She said in effect, what is being requested is a variance to allow building coverage of nearly
48% of the lot on the 321/323 East Davenport Street property.
Rockwell said when the Board considers a variance, it considers whether public interest
would be jeopardized in any way. She said in staff's view, the variance to allow a screened-
in porch to be constructed at the rear of the Person residence would have little visual impact
on the larger, surrounding neighborhood. She said it would impact the properties
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
April 14, 1999 - 5 P.M.
Page 11
immediately adjacent to this property where the extent of the increased crowding of
structures on the site is more visible. She said the adjacent properties may also be
adversely affected by the probable, questionable quality of construction and continued
maintenance of the proposed screened-in porch given the condition of the existing
structures on the site.
Rockwell said with a variance, the Board also considers the Zoning Chapter intent and the
Comprehensive Plan objectives. She said in staff's view, the proposed screened-in porch, if
properly constructed and maintained, could be in keeping with the predominantly single-
family residential character of the neighborhood. She said it would not increase congestion
in the streets and is unlikely to give the appearance, at least from the street, of a building
mass that is overcrowding the land. She said, however, the principle of maintaining
adequate light and air on the lot itself within a neighborhood residential conservation zone is
infringed upon, because of the other structures that are already on the lot -- the residence,
the garage and the shed -- and the two-story addition on the east side of the house. She
said the existing buildings on the property give a sense from several vantage points of
structural crowding on the lot, and the screened-in porch would exacerbate this situation
when viewed from properties on either side of the Person lot. She said generally staff would
support plans such as the applicant's plan to improve his property by adding a screened-in
porch, and thereby make his residence more
the Comprehensive Plan. She said, however,
citations from the late 1970s through to the
livable without contravening the objectives of
given the history on this property of repeated
present day on incomplete and substandard
construction and maintenance, it may be an unwarranted expectation that the applicant's
plans would actually result in an improvement to the property. She said it is staff's view that
it would be more prudent for the applicant to clear up the outstanding code violations,
including the structure that is on top of the east addition which is considered structurally
unsound by the City Housing and Inspection Services staff.
Rockwell said in granting the variance, the Board must also be assured that all three tests of
hardship are met. She said regarding the reasonable return test, if the variance is not
granted, the applicant can continue to use the property as a residence - a use that is
permitted in the zone. She said the effect of the building coverage zoning requirement is not
confiscatory in nature. She said according to the applicant, the costs of building materials
accumulated over time would be lost if the variance is not granted, but this does not prevent
the continued reasonable use of the property for a purpose allowed in the zone.
Rockwell said regarding the uniqueness test, the property has no unique environmental
features which constrain development. She said at 6,000 square feet, it is 1,000 square feet
larger than the minimum 5,000 square foot lot size that is required in the RNC-12 zone. She
said the fairly large garage structure for which the applicant received a building permit in
1966 and the tool shed are used mainly as storage structures. She said these accessory
structures contribute to the excess building coverage situation, and are not a function of any
unique features of the property.
Rockwell said regarding the landowner's own making test, certainly the landowner did not
create the rezoning situation which resulted in the building coverage requirement changing.
She said in another respect, however, the problem is of the applicant's own making in that
he wouldn't be faced with getting a variance if he had followed through on the 1992 building
permit in a timely manner.
Rockwell said the proposed variance does not appear to be blatantly contrary to the public
interest in a way that would threaten neighborhood integrity, have an adverse effect on
adjacent properties, or compromise the intent of the Zoning Chapter or the objectives of the
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
April 14, 1999-5 P.M.
Page 12
Comprehensive Plan. She said however, the proposed screened-in porch would increase
the level of structural overcrowding on a property that is poorly maintained and has existing
code violations that need to be addressed. She said in terms of the tests of hardship, the
proposed variance may meet the test that the situation is not of the landowner's own
making, but neither the reasonable return test nor the uniqueness test are met.
Rockwell said staff recommends that VAR99-0001, a variance to permit building coverage of
up to 48% in order to allow construction of a 16-foot by 16-foot screened-in porch to the rear
of the existing residential structure for property located in the RNC-12 zone at 321/323 East
Davenport Street be denied, She said she received a few calls asking what this application
involved and she said there were no objections.
Bender opened the public hearing.
Frank G. Person, 323 East DavenDort Street said he was requesting a screened-in porch for
his property. He said his entire neighborhood was zoned RM-12, which allowed for a 50%
lot coverage by buildings. He said most of his neighbors are close to having 50% of their lots
covered, and they made no objections to his proposed addition. He said his duplex was built
in 1870, and as such, it is one of the oldest houses in the City. He said it was placed closer
to the street than the other houses in the area so it has a much larger backyard and there is
not as much structural crowding as one might expect from the usual position of a house on a
lot.
Person said he was granted a building permit in 1992, but he didn't begin the project at that
time because his mother's Alzheimer's disease worsened and he had to devote his full
attention to taking care of her. He said he was working on the porch for over six months so
he should have had two years to finish that project, but he thought that the permit was
indefinite and did not realize that it had a time limit. He said he built it according to the
building recommendations so it is structurally sound. He said he would like to have this
variance to be able to complete the screened-in porch, because he will be retiring this year
and it would be a place to enjoy his yard. He said he thought a screened-in porch was just
as much a part of a yard as it was a part of a house. He said his doctor has suggested that
he get more exercise, so he purchased some exercise equipment and plans to use the
equipment on the screened-in porch.
Person said he had no idea that the zoning for the whole area had changed, which would
make it impossible for him to get a new building permit for the screened-in porch. He said
the staff report said he did not meet the first or second tests for unnecessary hardship. He
said it appeared to him that unless an applicant lost his home, no property owner in Iowa
City could satisfy this test of hardship. He said spending thousands of dollars on building
materials and labor did not count as hardship to the City, but for a disabled, elderly, part-
time worker like himself earning less than $16,000 per year, he could assure the Board that
it would be a considerable hardship, especially if the variance is denied and the structure is
torn down and materials hauled away.
Person said Rockwell emphasized to him during a visit to her office that the tests of hardship
for a variance are so difficult to satisfy that very few, if any property owners could satisfy
them and obtain a variance. He said Rockwell said that without the support of the City staff,
it was next to impossible to qualify for a variance, and that suggested to him that the Board
is little more than a rubber stamp for the City's decisions. He said when he requested to see
examples of successful variance applications similar to his, he was told that none existed
and sometimes if it appears that the variance had no merit some of the fee for the variance
could be returned. He said that evidently one of the property owners applying for a variance
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
April 14, 1999 - 5 P.M.
Page 13
to be considered at today's meeting may have been intimidated and withdrew their
application for that reason. He said Rockwell told him that the date of the Zoning Ordinance
change was 1988, thus making the City respo,nsible for awarding a building permit to him in
error and setting him up to spend thousands of dollars on a project that would ultimately be
doomed as illegal. He noted that the date of the Zoning Ordinance change listed in the staff
report was 1995, which let the City off the hook. He said he was not sure which date was
correct and did not know how to find that out. He said he is not a businessperson and this
process is all new to him.
Person said in the staff report regarding the uniqueness test, Rockwell made no mention of
his answer to that question and dwelled only on the absence of environmental features that
would constrain development. He said since his house was constructed so close to the
street, he has a much larger back yard where a screened-in porch could be built without the
usual crowding. He said most of his neighbors have two- and three-story houses while his is
a small, single-story cottage, which accounts for the crowding in the house they have lived
in for over 60 years. He said he is one of the last of the old neighbors and many of the
houses around him are apartment houses for students and others. He said his parents
purchased the house in 1939 for $1,600 and now it is listed at $81,000. He said the 40xl 50-
foot lot is worth $20,000. He said he could add a second story for more space if historical
considerations and costs were not deterrents, but they are.
Person said for the third test of unnecessary hardship, staff admitted that it was not all his
fault for creating the situation, because it was created partly by the change in zoning. He
· said the whole thing started when the City Assessor came around to evaluate his property
for tax purposes. He said a week later he received a letter from City Inspection Services
staff that his property was below par and his yard was messy with salvage and junk
materials. He said he disputed that and staff told him that he needed to apply for a new
building permit for the screened-in porch, which he did and had denied. He said he is
applying for the variance to try to save the $5,000 he put into this project. He said he is
trying to work with' the City and take care of any mess in his yard. He said part of the mess
was caused by a student or worker who threw trash over his back gate and he had to spend
$40 to have 680 pounds of it taken to the junkyard. He said another source of the mess was
the windstorm in June 1998 in Iowa City that damaged his roof. He said by September he
received the insurance money and started repairing the roof, but he slipped and fell off the
roof tearing his left shoulder rotator cuff, cracking his pelvis in two places so he could not
walk and broke his right arm. He said he was in the hospital for one week and off work for
four months recovering from this near-fatal accident, and as a result he was not able to
clean up the property after working on the roof. He said his property has never been very
messy, and the City has only written him two letters, one in January 1992 and one this year
concerning that his property had some kind of a problem. He said he was completely
unaware of the problem and would like to work it out with the City when and if there are
problems.
Rockwell said she would like to clarify a few things that Mr. Person had stated. She said
when Person came to her office, they discussed the proposed variance. She said as with
any applicant applying for a variance, she told Mr. Person that it is very difficult and
sometimes almost impossible to meet the tests of a variance, but she told him that that
should not deter him from applying if he wanted to. She said that is the case with any
applicant; they have the right to come forward to the Board with an application for a variance
or special exception. She said she does not recall Person asking for an example of an
application for a variance. She said he may have asked for an example of a building
coverage variance, and it may be that she responded that she could not recall a request for
building coverage variances since she has worked for the City, which is nearly 14 years.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
April 14, 1999 - 5 P.M.
Page 14
She said she would never say or infer that the Board is a rubber stamp, and she has
indicated to applicants that even if the staff recommends denial, the applicant has the right
to take their case forward to the Board and in a number of cases, the Board has approved a
case over the staff's recommendation to deny. She said she was sorry if there was
miscommunication, but she would never tell someone that they couldn't come to the
meeting, that variances were never granted or that the Board was a rubber stamp.
Bender closed the public hearing.
Bender said she appreciated Rockwell's comments, and said she has sat on the Board for
four-and-a-half years and there have been many times that the City staff has recommended
that the Board deny an application that the Board has approved, or vice versa, but probably
more so when the staff recommends denial and the Board goes ahead and approves it. She
said she remembered one variance sought by a sorority house that wanted an addition. She
thought that it might involve building coverage, but she was not sure if the building was in a
conservation district so it might be a little different. She said that variance was denied on the
basis that the tests were not met. Rockwell said she also remembered a variance
application for a rooming house where density was increased, and that was approved over
staff's recommendation.
MOTION: L. Brandt moved to approve VAR99-0001, a variance to permit building
coverage of up to 48% in order to allow construction of a 16-foot by 16-foot screened-
in porch to the rear of the existing residential structure for property located in the
RNC-12 zone at 321/323 East Davenport Street. Corcoran seconded the motion.
L. Brandt noted that an affirmative motion is standard for the Board, and his making the
motion in the affirmative doesn't necessarily mean that he agrees or disagrees with it. He
said he would not likely support the motion to approve the variance. He said Person's is the
only variance that the Board is dealing with, everything else considered at tonight's meeting
was a special exception, and this is the first variance of the calendar year that the Board has
even seen. He said the Board gets very few variances during the year, because the
standards of review are so high. He said the Board has to take consideration of a variance
very seriously, because the Zoning Code basically says that they should not be allowing
what Person is proposing. He said for the Board to make a decision in Person's favor is to
say that things in Person's case are so extremely unusual that the Board would throw out
what the Zoning Code says. He said with the special exceptions the Board dealt with earlier
today, the Zoning Code says that the Board is allowed to make a change to certain
requirements or to permit certain uses. He said a variance has a very different set of
standards and that is why Person was being advised that it is a very difficult process, and
that is it highly unusual for a variance to be approved, because it is such an extreme
measure for the Board to take. He said as opposed to special exceptions where the Board
has to generally consider a variety of standards, when it comes to a variance, the Board is
expected to state that they can say with certainty that all of the standards have been met,
not just some of them.
L. Brandt said he had some concerns about the proposal. He said the public interest one is
less of a concern for him, because the proposed screened-in porch is at the rear of the
property and after viewing it he saw that it is hidden and normally from the streetscape one
wouldn't see what was going on there. He said in terms of the intent of the Zoning Chapter
since it was changed to RNC-12, and the 1995 date was probably more accurate because
he could remember when the RNC-12 zone was created, he recalled that there were a
number of people on the North Side who were involved in getting the zoning changed,
because of some concerns about things that were being done with property in that area. He
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
April 14, 1999 - 5 P.M.
Page 15
said that is something that was new since Person's first building permit application. He said
the concern was density and filling up the space there, so there were some very good
reasons for the Zoning Chapter change on maximum building coverage. He said whether he
agrees or disagrees with the Zoning Chapter is somewhat irrelevant, and the fact of the
matter is the intent of the Zoning Chapter was to reduce the level of density that occurred in
that neighborhood and that is why he presumed the standard of 40% was put in place. He
said the Board has to have some concern about the intent of the Zoning Chapter being met.
L. Brandt said regarding the unnecessary hardships, reasonable retum is a difficult one for
someone to say that there is something about denying the variance that would prevent
someone from being able to have reasonable return on their property. He said basically, if
the Board is denying this, they are saying it is as it is and it would not be any less of a return
to the owner. He said for the uniqueness test, it is also difficult for someone to say that there
is something unique about this situation. He said everybody's property is unique, but he did
not see anything that would compel him to say that there is something so unique about
Person's property that suggests that the Board should allow a break with the Zoning Code.
He said regarding the own making issue, it has been seven years since the original permit
was issued and the discovery that the building had not been completed was six years after
the permit was issued. He said if the building had been constructed in the first six years, it
would have been after the actual issuance of the building permit, but the Board probably
wouldn't be here meeting on this issue. He said it was the exceedingly long delay that
caused the problem. He said there has been such a significant time passage, that he has a
hard time saying that this was not a situation created by PersoWs delay in following through
with the building permit that was originally issued.
Person said he was diagnosed with osteoarthritis and was placed on half-time at the
University of Iowa where he works, so it was increasingly difficult for him to afford pouring
the concrete on that reduced income. L. Brandt said he appreciated that, and he did not
know if there were other alternatives that could have been handled at that time or things that
Person could have said to the City. He said his experience with the City is that they have
been extremely, and sometimes from his perspective, painfully, accommodating to people
that aren't complying with the standard timelines. He said he had some concerns as to what
the future would hold, because he thought there were some real problems with the
appearance of the property and that he had some confidence concerns as to when and how
well this proposal would get accomplished. He said there was not much visual evidence that
there would be much change from what is already there. He said that in and of itself did not
necessarily mean that the Board would have to deny the variance, but it did affect his
confidence level. He said he could not support approving this variance.
Corcoran said she would also vote to deny the variance. She said in Person's discussion, he
alluded to the Board being a rubber stamp and that someone had withdrawn their
application for tonight's meeting. She said this is the first variance the Board has considered
this year and all the other applications the Board has received and considered were for
special exceptions which are held to much lower legal standards. She said the withdrawn
application was done so because it was not necessary to have a special exception for the
applicants to complete their project. She said the Board still makes the final decision and
they apply the law which is enacted by the City Council. She said as L. Brandt explained, a
variance has a very high standard, because it is such a departure from the law and an
extraordinary remedy. She said they would be disregarding what the Council has approved
as law unless they felt that a case was so compelling that it warranted a variance. She said
she did not feel that was the case for this application.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
April 14, 1999 - 5 P.M.
Page 16
Corcoran said in terms of the reasonable return, that test has not been satisfied in Person's
situation because he can still use the property for a reasonable use, which is that of a
house, and that use has not been diminished. She said the uniqueness test was also not
satisfied. She said that L. Brandt noted that every property is unique, and Person's
residence is in that it is older, closer to the street and has a very big back yard, but overall
that is not constraining Person to the extent that she feels the Board should disregard the
Zoning Code standard of this test to approve a variance. She said in terms of the
landowners making test, the land was rezoned. She said as a property owner, and while
she understood that Person is not a lawyer and did not go to a lawyer, it is his responsibility
to make himself acquainted with the zoning laws. She said she felt that the incompletion of
the porch had gone on too long. She said maybe Person could have approached the City
and asked for extension. She said she understood that he has had some special
circumstances with some of the things that have happened, but she did not feel that any of
the tests have been met. She said there are very high standards for approving variances,
but that is what the Board has to apply, so she would not vote in favor of this variance.
Person asked why there were higher standards for variances than there were for special
exceptions. Mitchell said that the special exception is provided for in the City Code, and
says that if someone meets the specific requirements and there are no other concerns, the
Board can approve that. He said with a variance, the only way that it can be granted is
basically for the Board to overdde the Zoning Code. He said the Iowa Supreme Court has
set forth some elements that have to be met in order for a Board of Adjustment to grant a
variance. He said it is a very high standard, because basically the Board would be setting
aside the Zoning Code and overriding the law in this case.
Person said he was wondering why the standard was so high, because his property used to
be zoned RM-12, which allows for 50% of lot coverage and most of the properties there now
are at or above 50%. He said he did not see what the big problem was, and why it was
rezoned. Mitchell said he was not on City staff when the rezoning occurred, but he thought
the concern was protecting what green and open space was there on the propedies and
protecting the residential character of the neighborhood.
Bender had a copy of the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance. She said the year for the adoption of
the RNC-12 zone is listed as 1994 and the ordinance number is 94-3608. She said the
intent for the neighborhood conservation residential zone is to stabilize certain existing
residential neighborhoods by preserving the predominately single-family residential
character of these neighborhoods and preventing existing multi-family uses in these
neighborhoods from becoming nonconforming. She said essentially, the intent of this
ordinance was to keep these neighborhoods conserved as single-family and not allow the
multi-family uses to become larger and more nonconforming with all kinds of additions, uses,
provisions and other things that would increase the nonconformity.
Person said that people who may want to put on garages or screened-in porches are
inconvenienced by this, and if they wanted to change the ordinance, he didn't see why they
couldn't say that they didn't want apartment buildings on these properties. Bender said that
is essentially what this is doing, and the Board does not have the authority to change the
Zoning Chapter. She said the Board has the authority to apply the regulations according to
the Code, and with special exceptions within each of the different zoning categories, the
things people can apply for are already delineated within the Code. She said the special
exceptions that the Board heard earlier in the meeting were about a pizza delivery business
and an auto and truck-oriented use in a CC-2 zone. These uses are permitted in that zone
only by special exception and only if the Board looks at it and makes sure that it will not
harm another business, public safety or any of the other standards the Board has to apply.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes
April 14, 1999 - 5 P.M.
Page 17
She said the variance process does not really allow for that. She said this proposal is
permitted, but the Board has to look at the law, how to interpret it and decide if they want to
go away from the specifics and the spirit of the law, if someone would be harmed or if there
is something very physically unique about the property, like a stream running through it. She
said unfortunately, it does not allow for the kinds of things that Person is asking the Board to
consider in terms of his extenuating health problems and personal circumstances. She said
she is very sorry that he had had to deal with all those things, and as a person she could
relate to that, but unfortunately that is not something the Board can consider when they are
considering a vadance to the Zoning Chapter; it is not one of the tests that the Board can
take into consideration.
Paul said he would not support the motion for the reasons previously mentioned. He said
the tests were not met, and he thought that L. Brandrs comments were very well put.
T.J. Brandt said that he could not see voting in favor of the variance. He said he could feel
for Person in his loss of materials for which he has already spent money, but as the Board
has already stated with the standards being so high and the three tests of necessary
hardship, he could not see that the tests had been met. He said as much as he felt for
Person, he did not see legally that the tests had been met and he would not vote in favor of
the variance.
Bender said she concurred. She said she did not think that the uniqueness test had been
met, and while she waffled a little on the hardship test, the way the law reads is that the
applicant must demonstrate that all of the tests are met. She said if any one of the tests are
not met that keeps the Board from granting the variance. She said that a feasible alternative
for Person would be to do away with one of the other outbuildings, and then he could
possibly have the screened-in porch and come into compliance with the Zoning Chapter.
She said that is an altemative, and she was not sure how Person used and enjoyed the
current structures, but it really is an issue of the coverage on the lot,
The affirmative motion was denied by a vote of 0-5. with Bender, L. Brandt. T.J.
Brandt, Corcoran and Paul voting no.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION:
Rockwell noted that the booklets written by Stu Huntington had been distributed to the Board
members and featured Iowa City as an example of appropriate Board of Adjustment
procedures. Rockwell noted for the Board's information that the zoning category RNC-12 was
approved in 1994, but the North Side area rezoning in which the Person variance property was
included, was rezoned in 1995.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION: Corcoran moved to adjourn the meeting. T.J. Brandt seconded the motion. The
motion carried by a vote of 5-0, and the meeting was adjoumed at 7:05 p.m.
Susan Bender, President
Minutes~y Traci Wagner.
ppdadmiNmin/boa4-14-99.doc
IOWA C_T T'Y B OA R D OF A D J'US TA/f EN T iI/I EE TING
i/I/EDNESDA ,v, AP, q_rL 14, Iggg - 5 P. CTvic Center Council Chambers
SIGN IN SHEET
Name Address Phone
7.
9.
13.
16.
17.
MINUTES
IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES
REGULAR MEETING
THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 1999 - 5:00 PM
Agenda item 3A
Members Present:
Linda Dellsperger, Stephen Greenleaf, Mary McMurray, Mark Martin, Lisa
Parker, Jesse Singerman, Anne Spencer, Jim Swaim,
Members Absent: Winston Barclay
Staff Present:
Barbara Black, Maeve Clark, Susan Craig, Larry Eckholt, Debb Green,
Heidi Lauritzen, Kara Logsden, Martha Lubaroff, Liz Nichols,
Others:
CALL TO ORDER:
Terri Byers, ICPL staff member
President Singerman called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
It was noted that in the paragraph describing the discussion of closing the library during the
computer system transition, that Singerman suggested that it could not be done without
closing. Also it was pointed out that rather than describing a consensus in favor of closing,
that it was a majority. Minutes of February 25 were approved as corrected, Greenleaf/Swaim
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Planning Calendar revised
Board reviewed the new planning calendar with four dates; two large blocks of time and two
evenings. A bulk mailing was sent out this week recruiting volunteers for the committee. Craig
explained that we could have a maximum of four Board members without it being an open
meeting of the Board. Singerman asked for volunteers from the Board. Dellsperger and Martin
volunteered. Singerman will check her calendar and Craig will check with Barclay.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Approve AFSCME contract for FY00-01
Byers, the bargaining unit representative for the library, described the bargaining process. She
will remain the union representative for the library. A question came up regarding #9 in the
agreement which talked about Compensation after Transfer. Byers explained that it was a
result of a recent reorganization in a City Department where employees were laid off resulting
in other employees being bumped from jobs. ParkedMartin moved to approve the contract.
It was approved unanimously.
B. Internet Policy
The need to modify this policy came about as the library began to plan the arrangement of the
new computers. At one time we had different networks and different access. We have moved
ICPL BOARD OF TRUSTEES
MARCH 25, 1999
PAGE 2
Agenda item 3A
into an era where, with the new catalog, we have the capability, for almost any combination
of resources we choose to be available on a single machine. After several meetings of staff,
a recommendation was made to retain some "catalog only" areas by the Information Desk but
other computers will have other options. On-line databases and Internet access can be placed
on all machines. It became apparent that the current Internet policy would have to be revisited
and after much internal discussion,the current recommendation comes to the Board.
Currently World Wide Web access is available only at the six stations in the Web Corral and
with multimedia at two computers in the Children's Room. The proposal is to provide WWW
access at the computers on the tables behind the Information Desk, which we refer to as
Refnet. It brings that access into a public area of the library and the concern regards images
and what could be brought up on the screen that some library patrons may find offensive.
The proposed policy changes provide for staff to ask someone viewing images that would be
disturbing to others to move to the more private web access station's in the back. Martin
questioned the "tap on the back" approach to ensure a secure and comfortable environment
at the library. He is concerned about staff making the judgement call on which is, or is not,
sufficiently disruptive to merit interruption. Craig responded that is the same type of judgement
used to deal with other problems that come up in the library that are offensive for the other
patrons and that staff would deal with it similarly. Greenleaf asked how much usage the Web
Corral got. Use has increased or stays level every month. We will be adding at least 12 more
terminals that will have access to the Web as well as other sites. The new configuration will
allow more teaching moments and patron/staff interaction without interrupting others. Spencer
asked if we would be able to continue clearing the screens in the newer areas. None of those
will be cleared except for in the corral because people will not be logged in and out. The
expectation is that clearing screens will not be necessary with this policy. We also will not
have people sign in and out. Swaim suggested that he is not comfortable starting out the
policy with the statement that full access to WWW sites is available if it is not. He also sees
the need to somehow protect patrons. A question was asked about the absence in the policy
of more specific language concerning staff identifying images to limit. Craig responded that
she viewed it as a procedural issue that is similar to determining when too much noise merits
staff issuing a warning. She made a comparison to R rated movies which may only be viewed
in certain parts of the library.
Discussion moved to children. Since the staff cannot and do not chaperone children it places
them in a difficult position in terms of having to make a decision to ask someone to switch
sites. Craig stated that staff is placed in that position every day. Swaim noted that behavior
is different than an image that is on the computer. Parker expressed an opinion that Web-
based technology is something that will affect our lives totally. People need to get used to it
and begin to learn what is appropriate where. Craig explained that signs using policy language
will be placed at machines in open public areas. In response to a question regarding the quantity
of WWW machines available, Nichols responded that with the types of resources that we have
like Encyclopedia Britannica, access to the Web is provided. It would be difficult to restrict
Web access and still offer these resources. As a staff it was decided that we should offer it.
Our new catalog will also have links to the Web which we cannot limit. Having more accessible
information is the reason to have it available on more computers. McMurray thinks that the
compromise is worth trying.
ICPL BOARD OF TRUSTEES
MARCH 25, 1999
PAGE 3
Agenda item 3A
Staff member Green spoke of her fear that the neutrality of the library is in jeopardy. Placing
staff in the position of monitoring what appears on someone's screen challenges our neutrality
in a way that is not comfortable. Greenleaf expressed his concern that this is a public image
and therefore could be an intrusion into his access to the library. Swaim said that there is an
amount of control over the collection because it is all selected for purchase but with Internet
access there is no control.
In response to a question regarding providing private workstations, Nichols responded that the
cost of providing privacy in the World Wide Web Corral for six stations was about $12,000.
Craig reminded Board that this would also mean staff need to be available to clear off the
screen. The corral has an entrance which further offers privacy. Martin cannot support the
role of librarians having to make some determination quickly about intervening with what a user
is choosing to look at. Swaim questioned the other deletions in the policy and Craig explained
that these are all covered in Conduct, Theft, Copyright policies. Singerman brought the
discussion to a close. She asked for a motion to approve the policy. McMurray/Parker moved
and seconded. There was no further discussion. Votes in favor of approving the policy came
from McMurray, Dellsperger, Singerman, Parker, Greenleaf. Those opposed were Martin and
Swaim with an abstention from Spencer. Motion carried. Craig expressed her appreciation of
the time taken with this controversial policy and understands this may have to revisited again
and again. Libraries around the country are struggling with these issues.
Swaim and Martin asked that the staff report to the Board regularly about any consequences
of this policy.
C. Absence policy proposed by City Council
City Council has requested feedback on a proposed policy regarding absences of Board and
Commission members. Greenleaf made a motion to respond to Council that we have a policy
in this regard that we are happy with and believe that other Boards and Commissions regulate
attendance according to their own policy Martin seconded. Unanimous
STAFF REPORTS
A. Library participates in "Safe Place" program
Safe Place is a new program in Iowa City. Participants put a sign in their window that indicates
people in trouble, primarily teenagers, can come and ask for assistance and a counselor will be
called.The staff made the decision to participate in this program. It was discussed about one
year ago and at that time there was some concern regarding the level of involvement of staff
members. Once We understood the designated role, the staff felt more comfortable. Parker
asked about the level of problems we have with unattended children. Green replied that there
are not many problems. The type of problem we might encounter as a participant in this
program is more likely to involve a teenager who gets into trouble on the Pedestrian Mall.
B. Read! Learn! Connect! @icpl.org ~ includes special Board training time of 4:30 on 4/22
ICPL BOARD OF TRUSTEES
MARCH 25, 1999
PAGE 4
Agenda item 3A
Using the National Library week theme of Read] Learn! Connect! At the library, we are planning
posters, mousepads, magnets for the new receipt printers. This promotional period will start
4/22 and run through the end of May. Also planned are many training opportunities. A training
time of 4:30 just prior to the next Board meeting has been set up for trustees. This is the day
we come up and Board members will receive the first lesson. May 16 will be an Open House
Day featuring lessons, information on all our new technology with an emphasis on balancing
out technology with reading.
C. Pay for Print
It is up and running in the Netscape Corral. People are buying cards and using them. Machines
at the new Refnet will have printers and pay for print cards.
D. Development Office Report
The Spelling Bee has been rescheduled to May 4 at 7:00 pm. It will take place in our Library
and will be televised. Martin asked about a final figure for the Titanic. Eckholt had to leave
for another meeting and so that information was not readily available.(Note: the final figures
provide for a ~9,000 gift to the library)
E. Letter to Slockett
Sales Tax vote March 30
Newspaper articles
Special event for Trustees - See it in our ICN Room
A program for trustees given by the Executive Director of American Library Association.
April is National Poetry month. Logsden talked about the events of the month including the
kickoff which will be the reading of an award-winning poem written about the WooIf Ave.
bridge. Many events are planned for the month. The theme is Poetry in Motion. Poems will
eventually be placed in the buses. On the day of the Open House, a bus will be parked here
at ICPL with special events taking place inside.
PRESIDENT'S REPORT
Singerman asked Board whether or not they would want to wait for the next Board meeting or
meet earlier to discuss the next steps in the building project. There was agreement that we
meet earlier than one month to discuss the outcome of the vote. A meeting was set for April
7 at 5:00 pm.
Appoint committee to evaluate the director. Greenleaf, Parker, Dellsperger will serve on the
committee.
ICPL BOARD OF TRUSTEES
MARCH 25, 1999
PAGE 5
Agenda item 3A
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Nominating Committee is in process.
COMMUNICATIONS
Letter from Steinbrech. Included letter because the salutation read Directors.
answered from the library.
DISBURSEMENTS
Review VISA expenditures for February, 1999.
Approve disbursements for February, 1999
Parker/Martin moved approval. It was approved unanimously.
Lauritzen
SET AGENDA ORDER FOR APRIL MEETING
Special meeting for April 7.
Status of building project after sales tax vote.
Elect officers
Review channel and programming policies
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion for adjournment. Dellsperger. at 6:25 pm
IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
SPECIAL MEETING -
APRIL 7, 1999 at 5:00 PM
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Barclay, Dellsperger, Greenleaf,
Singerman, Spencer, Swaim
Agenda item 3B 1
McMurray, Martin, Parker,
STAFF PRESENT:
Craig, Clark, Eckholt, Hiett, Lauritzen, Logsden, Lubaroff, Nichols
OTHERS:
Adam Lowenstein, The Crazette, Trevor Maxwell, Press Citizen,
Carol de Prosse
Singerman called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm
She stated that the purpose of the special meeting was to discuss plans for the building project
since the sales tax proposal had failed. She initiated discussion with a suggestion that we make a
specific request to City Council, in writing that 64 1A be reserved as a possible site for a new
library.
Barclay stated that as an organization, the library did not take a position as to the funding of this
project. Pan of our message needs to be that the library's space needs, which have been
acknowledged, have not diminished. The question of funding remains.
Swaim agreed that we needed to communicate that our space needs haven't changed; and have in
fact grown and this fact has been acknowledged by City Council. Our space needs have reached a
crisis situation and building costs have increased since our original assessment in 1993. Our first
choice is 64 1A and our second choice is the old plan to expand to the west.
Greenleaf agrees that those two options are the most appropriate. Further, he believes that a
decision needs to be made promptly and put on the November ballot. There is no reason for this
not to happen. We have a large amount of information about sites that have been considered as
well as branches. During the campaign, many of the anti-sales tax messages supported the library.
Dellsperger has some concern about going to Council this soon without doing some type of town
meeting to gain public input. Her concern is that if we want a referendum to pass then we need to
hear from the public. She would like this to happen before we go to the Council with a plan.
Swaim responded that over the last couple of years we've done that; we have held town meetings,
hired consultants, held focus groups; although by now perhaps somewhat dated.
Singerman suggested that we separate the process by asking Council to hold lot 64 1A and on a
parallel track explore a method to gather public input. Martin recommended we state clearly in
our letter to Council that we are disconnected from the Community Events Center and are moving
Agenda item 3B 2
along as a standalone structure.
Singerman summarized a history of the project. She described that we were asked to work with
the original Center Space concept. She stated that Events Center supporters worked very hard for
the library too. Martin said that he felt that the specific needs of the library were buried in the
sales tax ballot. The consensus of the Board is that we should go with the stand-alone project.
Trustees feel that the concept of the arts facility was good and if there was a way to get it done,
they would be happy to work for it. However, they feel their responsibility is for the needs of the
library.
Singerman suggested that we say in any letter that a sales tax is not the way to fund the library. We
would recommend a different method of funding the expansion, probably property tax.
The process was then discussed. There was agreement that public education is ongoing. It is clear
that some people do not understand that the operating costs of a branch library are the issue there.
At the same time, we need to realize that perhaps some people do not feel like we are listening.
Greenleaf stated we have been involved in this project since 1993 and heard and looked at a lot of
ideas. He believes we need to continue to take an active leadership role in educating the public
and agreed that one potential problem that continues is the notion of branches. It is an
outstanding issue that will be dominant and we need to address it.
McMurray said that another issue that comes up is whether the library should remain downtown.
She agrees that we do need more input from the public. Parking is a perceived problem. Swaim
says he appreciates the need for public input however does not want the process to sidetrack our
project. These issues are the same that were here six years ago. Trustees need to proceed.
Spencer stated that the process could be used to answer questions about what information the
public would need in order to support a bond issue. Her suggestion is that we identify more
informational issues.
Martin has a different perspective. He feels that we were missing was a strong group of informed
advocates. Developing such a group requires that people be part of a process where they think
they are heard and have a stake. He does not feel we have to go back to square one, however find a
way to bring people in to talk about issues, allow them to become a group of informed advocates
who can speak in the community. He would like to see it on the ballot in November and move
quickly. Parker recommends face to face education. ProViding an opportunity to communicate
gives us momentum. She suggested some informational community forums during which we can
make it clear that we have real constraints in our decision making. This does not have to occur
before we communicate with the Council. If we decide that public input is important, it doesn't
have to happen before we meet with Council. Council work sessions for May are on the 3rd and
17th; then not again until mid June. Singerman suggested aiming for the 17th.
Dellsperger raised two concerns. One was parking. Although there is parking downtown, people
Agenda item 3B 3
seem to want to get flee parking for the flee public library. Secondly, it seems reasonable to ask
the Council to set parameters as to what they will agree too. Trustees believe strongly that we
needed to go to council with what we want.
Singerman said she heard general agreement about what we want to say to Council. She suggested
forming a small work group to flesh out the public input portion. She will draft a letter and ask to
come to City Council on the 17th.
When Singerman asked, Craig responded that she agreed to moving ahead quickly and meeting
with Council. She said we need to obtain financial costs from the City since operating costs
remain a problem. Standing alone will not reduce library operating costs although they will be
less than with a combined facility.
Eckholt reported that the Foundation has been waiting patiently and recently the Executive
Committee approved a recommendation to take to the Foundation Board to proceed with an
assessment study for an integrated campaign that would address capitol as well as other needs.
This will begin in May.
Dellsperger, Martin, Parker volunteered to serve on the Work Group to discuss public input.
Singerman will draft a letter. She will attempt to reflect what was said today. If the opportunity
arises to support a survey, would the Board be interested in that? Parker will bring more
information regarding such a possibility to the next Board meeting. We need to talk about the
development of the physical nature of such a project. A building on 64 1A will be different from
expansion to the west. Craig agrees that that could take time and money however we've already
worked with two architects and have two proosals. Either one would probably be eager to put
something together quickly. If it is anything but 64 1A it will take more time.
Craig will find out about the timing for a November ballot. There was some discussion on the
length of the campaign, but trustees feel that a foundation has been laid so a campaign would not
be starting from scratch.
Barclay volunteered to review the letter as did Dellsperger and Greenleft. Craig spoke of the
timing and that information from the city goes to the Council on Fridays. We will need to get it to
the city in a timely fashion.
Meeting adjourned at 6:05
Minutes taken and transcribed
Martha Lubaroff
MINUTES
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
APRIL 14, 1999
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
GUESTS:
Barbara Endel, Craig Gustaveson, Judith Klink,
Bruce Maurer, Matt Pacha, Rex Pruess, Allen
Stroh, Ross Wilburn
Kathy Wallace
Terry Trueblood, Mike Moran, Chris Beemer
Jim Weno, Deb Wretman, Steve Ratzlaff, Tony
Malkusak, Ginny Rew, Esther Otto, Ruth Baker
FORMAL ACTION TAKEN
Moved by Wilburn, seconded by Pruess, to apDrove the March 10, 1999
minutes as written. Unanimous.
Moved bv Endel, seconded bv Wilburn, to retain the Commission's
current absence Dolicy as written in the Parks and Recreation
Commission By-Laws. Unanimous.
Moved by Pruess, seconded by Wilburn, to investiqate purchase of
the Jensen proDerty in the Miller/Orchard neighborhood. AYES:
Endel, Gustaveson, Maurer, Pacha, Pruess, Stroh, Wilburn.
ABSTAINING: Klink. The motion Dassed.
Moved bv Stroh, seconded by Maurer, to accept fees in lieu of land
dedication in the Scott Boulevard East, Part 3 develoDment.
Unanimous.
PROPOSED USE OF SCANLON GYMNASIUM
Trueblood noted at last month's meeting the Commission requested
staff to outline its program plans for the Scanlon Gymnasium and to
develop a policy statement regarding usage by the School District.
A copy of the current 28E Cooperative Agreement for Joint Use of
Facilities between the City and the School District was provided to
the Commission. Trueblood reported both parties have operated
under this agreement since 1983, and the pertinent sections were
reviewed.
Wilburn indicated his feeling that the current 28E agreement is
sufficient. He asked that the commission be apprised whenever
there is a cooperative agreement for exchange or usage of
facilities so it may be prepared to educate the public. He noted
many times people have stated to him that the Parks and Recreation
Department or the School District is not doing anything to
collaborate efforts and facilities.
Parks and Recreation Commission
April 14, 1999
Page 2
Stroh asked if usage of school facilities was limited to scheduled
leagues and activities or if it included general public drop-in
use; Trueblood indicated scheduled activities and leagues only.
Endel asked if there was any feeling that when an activity is
approved at a specific time and day that it becomes entrenched in
the schedule, therefore creating the sense that it is permanent
year after year. Trueblood responded that such reactions do occur
on occasion. He stated requests are made to the Central
Administration Office each fall for the current school year only,
and changes in City use do occur regularly due to school
activities. He stated due to the newness of this facility and the
uncertainty as to how popular it will be, the agreement for this
year has to be flexible with the understanding that it may not be
the same for the following years. Stroh noted the present
arrangement is a process that has evolved over the years and it has
worked well.
Maurer stated it is important that there be some give and take in
the use of the facility while at the same time recognizing the
City's primary goal to provide afternoon programs for kids who are
not attracted to the school athletic programs. Pacha stated he
received a call from an individual who felt school programming
should take priority in the facility. He strongly disagreed,
noting the need to provide activities for youth who are not
involved in the school athletic programs. Wilburn noted the need
to keep in mind populations other than youth who wish to utilize
the facility also.
Trueblood noted in reviewing the request of Athletic Director Larry
Brown, game days alone consisted of approximately 45 games, mainly
on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays. Deb Wretman, Principal of
Southeast Junior High, stated that the school presently uses the
school's cafeteria and the gym for games, and if possible, they
would like to move the cafeteria games to the Scanlon Gymnasium.
Staff's dilemma is that it does not want to give up an
overabundance of time after school because of the number of
activities it would like to offer, but at the same time it does not
want to see the gym sitting empty if a program does not succeed.
He indicated the main target audience after school is junior high
and high school students who are not involved in interscholastic
athletics.
Trueblood noted the school has also requested every weekday from
3:30-7 p.m. for practices on both courts. Jim Weno stated the
request what was an ideal scenario for the school. He stated any
space that could be provided at the Scanlon Gymnasium would be
better than what they have now. He noted it would certainly be
much improved if they could use one court at Scanlon while still
using the Southeast facility. Wretman stated they are trying to
run more practices at the same time so students could be done much
Parks and Recreation Commission
April 14, 1999
Page 3
earlier and are also trying to eliminate the 6:30 a.m. time slot
for practices.
Maurer stated given the facts, the School District has to
appreciate the after-school needs for the non-athlete, with those
kids having a greater need to find after-school activities. The
City has a responsibility to those kids to provide program outlets
to keep them positively active. Wretman stated she understood the
Commission's dilemma. Endel asked if Southeast offered an after-
school program. Wretman stated there is a supervised hall
available only to those students who are athletically authorized to
be there until practice. She noted United Action for Youth offers
supervised activities in a different building and classroom on
Mondays and Wednesdays at 5:00 p.m. She noted the United Action
for Youth after-school program evolved for that purpose.
Pacha asked Moran what his opinion was as far as working out a
scenario for everybody that is acceptable. Moran felt it was a
win-win situation for everyone looking at a scenario that would
give the school access to the facilities on game days, which would
bring parents into the facilities and educate them about the
building. He felt this would be a good starting point and after
running through a year of programming reviewing the arrangement to
determine if it is possible to give the School District additional
time, or perhaps needing to reduce their time in the building.
Stroh stated there is an established clear policy. Pacha felt
there was no need to change the policy in place, with Pruess
echoing same and adding City programs should take high priority as
staff works out a schedule. Gustaveson echoed sentiments of
keeping the facility full, used all the time and that a joint
venture between the City and the School District would be great.
Trueblood stated the key for the first year or two is to maintain
flexibility. Gustaveson stated the 28E agreement gives the option
to review it annually. Stroh stated contacts needed to be made to
the groups who endorsed the project and who contributed to it
financially.
Klink asked the members of the School District a theoretical
question - if they were to think back four years ago in light of
what is described as a pressing need, why they did not approve
funding for this facility. Wretman stated she has no control over
district finances, noting the circumstances were different than
with the Mercer Park Aquatic Center. She indicated she appreciated
being part of the dialogue because they do not have a financial
investment. Klink agreed they were not part of the decision
making, but they should have tried to work through the structure
that is there which requires the constant pressure of needs.
Maurer reiterated that the future popularity of this facility will
be unbelievable, referring to the fundraising document which listed
Parks and Recreation Commission
April 14, 1999
Page 4
numerous organizations who have been denied access because space is
unavailable. Stroh stated staff has an obligation to schedule the
facility consistent with the fundraising effort, an obligation to
the people that contributed towards the facility.
Endel noted the dialogue has been very positive so far. She asked
parties to keep in mind when scheduling that there are very few
after-school programs for youth who do not participate in sports.
Wretman stated the working relationship with staff has been
outstanding, noting the joint planning process for a "last day of
school celebration" Jim Weno stated ten minutes in the facility
would be better than what the school has now and acknowledged there
are many youth who need something constructive to do after school.
Staff will continue to work on a schedule for use of the Scanlon
Gymnasium.
ABSENCE POLICY FOR CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
With respect to absences, the Parks and Recreation Commission By-
laws state: "Three consecutive unexplained absences of a
Commission member may result in the Commission's recommendation to
the City Council to remove the member from the Commission, and to
appoint a new member." Pacha referred to the March 8th memo which
set out the City Council Rules Committee's proposed City-wide Board
and Commission Absence Policy.
Maurer stated the proposed policy was too general, with no room for
members being excused for a valid reason. Gustaveson noted it
would allow 2.4 absences (assuming a 12-meeting schedule) in the
course of a year, which could easily happen due to job commitments.
He felt it was an unreasonable policy, which could result in the
loss of valuable, contributing members. He felt the absence policy
should be left up to each individual commission and its members.
Stroh agreed, noting it was too complicated; i.e., absence from
more than 20% of meetings in any successive 12 month period. Klink
indicated she favored the commission's present policy. Trueblood
noted in fairness to the proposal, it would help take pressure off
of a commission by having a "cut and dry" policy. Endel stated the
commission's present policy would result in removal of a member due
to lack of interest, with the proposed policy possibly resulting in
the removal of a valuable member due to job responsibilities.
Wilburn stated there is a natural evaluation point in that
commission members serve a term and are judged on their service
during it when they reapply for a commission seat. He indicated
the proposed policy might push away potential good commission
members.
Parks and Recreation Commission
April 14, 1999
Page 5
Moved by Endel, seconded bv Wilburn, to retain the Commission's
current absence DolicV as written in the Parks and Recreation
Commission BV-Laws. Unanimous. Pruess noted he appreciated the
intent of the City Council Rules Committee's proposal, but did not
like the proposed policy. He stated he had served on other
commissions where members routinely left early, creating lack of a
quorum.
MILLER/ORCHARD NEIGHBORHOOD
Trueblood reported the proposal for CDBG funds to purchase the
Braverman property has been approved by the Housing and Community
and Development Commission. The public hearing and City Council
action will be taken at the next Council meeting.
Klink stated she would like to pursue acquisition of the Jensen
property, noting the location of same on the map of the
Miller/Orchard area. She noted approximately four years ago the
property was appraised at $39,000 per acre, but the commission
decided not to proceed because the idea was to provide a park for
both the Miller/Orchard and Weeber/Harlocke neighborhoods. Klink
stated one possible way to satisfy the neighborhood open space
deficit would be to acquire the Jensen property and linking it with
a trail to the Buss property, part of which may be donated for park
purposes. Pruess questioned how it would be possible to link the
properties without going on the Ruppert property. Klink stated the
trail would have to go along the edge of the Ruppert property.
Esther Otto noted Nora Steinbrech would like to see the Roosevelt
Ravine go across school property connecting to the park. She noted
the safety factor of getting people to the south side of Benton
Street to the recreation area. With respect to accessibility,
Stroh stated a bridge would have to be part of the Benton Street
widening project, with accessible sidewalks. He noted you cannot
build a bridge if you do not have the other part of the
infrastructure, and the difficulty in making it wheelchair
accessible. Trueblood stated the neighborhood association has
submitted two PIN grants; one for consulting fees for design work
for the park and the other for a sidewalk.
Pruess stated the City should pursue acquisition of the Jensen
property, which would help to solve the neighborhood open space
deficit, environmental concerns (ravine), and the complex zoning
issue. He stated he was not opposed to paying the appraised price
for land in a high need area. Stroh agreed.
Moved bv Pruess, seconded bv Wilburn, to investigate purchase of
the Jensen property in the Miller/Orchard neighborhood. AYES:
Endel, Gustaveson, Maurer, Pacha, Pruess, Stroh, Wilburn.
ABSTAINING: Klink. The motion passed.
Parks and Recreation Commission
April 14, 1999
Page 6
Trueblood stated as things progress Marcia Klingaman would keep the
neighborhood associations apprised. Baker indicated a neighborhood
meeting is planned to determine what people perceive and want to
see. Otto asked if there was any regulation or control of whether
there are lights or water in the park. Trueblood stated when staff
begins the planning process it will meet with the neighborhood
association to discuss same, and that sometimes these items are
dictated by the budget.
SCOTT BOULEVARD EAST, PART 3
Trueblood noted this is an annexation issue and technically the
area is not within a Neighborhood Open Space District. The closest
NOS district is on the other side of Scott Boulevard which has a 7+
acre deficit. The area being platted requires a total of .34 acres
of neighborhood open space. Staff's recommendation is to accept
fees in lieu of land, to possibly be used toward the acquisition of
parkland within this area at some point in the future as the
neighborhood develops. Moved by Stroh, seconded bv Maurer, to
acceDt fees in lieu of land dedication in the Scott Boulevard East,
Part 3 development. Unanimous.
RIVERFRONT & NATURAL AREAS COMMISSION REOUEST
Staff received a letter from Lynn Rose, chair of the Riverfront and
Natural Areas Commission, requesting that they be allowed to send
a liaison from RNAC to each Parks and Recreation Commission
meeting, with the liaison having all rights and responsibilities of
the position except for voting. They ask that the liaison be
allowed to sit at the table with the Commission rather than to be
part of the "public, who are invited to all Commission meetings,
but who have no formal role." Stroh stated there are fundamental
issues and staff should consult the City Attorney's office to
determine whether or not this proposal would create any procedural
and/or legal problems. Various members of the commission noted all
meetings are open to the public, and minutes and agendas are
shared. Trueblood stated he would follow-up and report to the
commission at next month's meeting.
PARKS AND RECREATION FOUNDATION REPORT
Trueblood stated plans are underway for the grand
dedication ceremony tentatively scheduled for May 22.
opening/
Parks and Recreation Commission
April 14, 1999
Page 7
COMMISSION TIME
Endel stated she would like to see the Parks and Recreation
Department develop a WEB site, which would streamline things that
could be posted and exchanged electronically. Moran stated the
department plans to have a WEB site sometime this fall.
Maurer proposed holding commission meetings every other month at
the Mercer Park Aquatic Center/Scanlon Gymnasium. The commission
as a whole favored this proposal.
Stroh indicated he drove into Iowa City past Sturgis Ferry Park,
which still has piles of storm debris from last summer. He stated
the park and adjacent city property was an eyesore, and encouraged
the City to begin the Sturgis Ferry Park improvement project, and
to clean up the adjacent area to the north. Trueblood noted the
park project is scheduled in part for this summer, with future
plans to relocate the adjacent city operations.
Pruess noted the sidewalk repairs and curb cuts on the west end of
Benton Street, but did not see any where the sidewalk connects to
the Willow Creek trail. Trueblood reported the City did not
receive the grant for this project, but money had been budgeted
through GoO. Bonds. With respect to wider sidewalks on Benton
Street from Mormon Trek to Teg Drive, Shoemaker & Haaland estimated
it would cost approximately $50,000 and it might be included in the
bid as a alternate.
Pruess referred to the section of the Willow Creek trail which runs
west behind the West High School football field extending to the
Walden Woods area. There is no trail connectivity other than a
muddy, clay path. This section is near the first bridge behind the
West High School football field where the trail curves close to the
homes being constructed. Plans to provide a connection was
included in the developer's plat, but was never made legally
binding. Pruess indicated he has discussed this with John Yapp,
Planning and Community Development, who is in touch with the
developer. Pruess noted this area is very densely populated and it
would be good use of FIRST money or PIN grants. Staff will follow
up on same.
Wilburn shared a recent editorial in the Des Moines Register
regarding a bill restricting usage of condemnation of land needed
for new trail construction. He also noted the good job done
recently by Mike Moran in working with a member of the public
regarding access issues at the Mercer Park Aquatic Center. New
handles have been installed on the locker room doors and a new pool
lift has been ordered. Wilburn stated it is important as a
commission to continually be thinking about access issues in terms
of city facilities and making them a welcoming environment.
Parks and Recreation Commission
April 14, 1999
Page 8
Gustaveson stated since serving on the commission he has become
aware and been impressed with the number of trails in Iowa City.
He noted in his work he encounters many people who are unaware that
these trails exist and asked if there is map of same. Trueblood
noted the pedestrian and bike map produced by F.I.R.S.T. published
in June 1996. He stated more needs to be done in the way of
alerting and informing people of the trails.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Trueblood reported:
Commission Resignation. Enclosed in the packet is a letter from
Judith Klink who will be resigning due to the fact that she will
not be living in Iowa City next year. The City Council will be
appointing a new member at its May 4th meeting.
WhisDering Meadows Wetlands. Weather permitting, the first prairie
burn at Whispering Meadows Wetlands will occur on April 24 & 25 or
May 1 & 2, by Russ Bennett who has been hired to complete the burn.
Kiwanis Park. The bid letting for the Kiwanis Park project is
scheduled for Tuesday, April 20.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m., and members departed for a tour
of the Scanlon Gymnasium.
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 15, 1999 - 7:30 P.M.
CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Bovbjerg, Benjamin Chait, Dick Gibson, Marilyn Schintler, Dean
Shannon, Lea Supple
MEMBERS ABSENT: Pam Ehrhardt
STAFF PRESENT:
Sarah Holecek, Scott Kugler, Bob Miklo, Anne Schulte
OTHERS PRESENT: Larry Schnittjer, Gary Watts, John Slavens, John Barr, Tom Anthony
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
Recommended, by a vote of 6-0, that the City Council forward a letter to the Johnson County
Board of Supervisors recommending approval of CZ9912, a request to rezone 2.68 acres
adjacent to 1244 Devon Drive NE from RS to A1.
Recommended, by a vote of 5-1 with Shannon voting no, that the City Council forward a letter to
the Johnson County Board of Supervisors recommending denial of CZ9913, a request to rezone
one acre at 3005 Highway 1 NE from A1 to C-AG, and recommending consideration of a home
business permit in lieu of the rezoning.
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Supple called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
Therewas none.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF VACANCIES ON CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS:
Supple said there are currently vacancies on both the Human Rights Commission and the Parks
and Recreation Commission. She encouraged those at the meeting to apply for a position on a
City board or commission, as it is valuable to the citizen as well as the City.
REZONING ITEM:
REZ99-0006. Public discussion of an application submitted by Arlington, L.C. to rezone
approximately 7.46 acres from Medium Density Single-Family Residential to Planned
Development Housing Overlay (OPDH-8) and the approval of a preliminary OPDH plan for 72
residential dwelling units on property located at the east terminus of Court Street.
Kugler said this application is for a planned development with four 18-unit residential buildings
to be located on the south side of Court Street near its eastern terminus. He said the City
extended Court Street to the Windsor Ridge property line, at which point the applicant extended
the street further to the east. Kugler said that street extension has not yet been accepted by the
City.
Kugler said the original rezoning for this property, along with several additional parcels, was
filed in 1994 and approved in 1995. He stated that a concept plan for this property was
submitted at that time, but a detailed plan was not submitted because of uncertainties regarding
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
April 15, 1999
Page 2
the eventual extension of Court Street. Kugler said the original rezoning was subject to the
future plan conforming with the concept plan.
Kugler said this plan is substantially in conformance with the concept plan in that it calls for four
18-unit buildings, most of the parking underneath the buildings, and a driveway along the front
of the buildings for visitor and resident parking. He added the site plan contains some
deficiencies regarding the technical requirements of the Code, and staff is therefore
recommending deferral at this time.
Kugler said 'this property contains a stream corridor and hydric soils so that a grading plan and
sensitive areas site plan are required. He said the applicant has submitted those plans, and they
are currently under review.
Kugler said the density for this property would be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
He said staff has examined the application to determine whether the planned development is
compatible with surrounding properties. Kugler stated the property is buffered from adjacent
property by substantial areas of open space to the south and east and by Scott Park to the
west. He added the property to the north has been zoned RM-12 for multi-family housing.
Kugler showed the elevations for the three-story buildings on an overhead. Regarding the site,
he said the property falls in elevation as one travels south from Court Street. Kugler said
because of the drop in elevation, the substantial open space, and the deep setbacks, staff feels
this property could blend in with the neighboring properties.
Kugler said the applicant has now submitted building elevations for the condominium center. He
said the building will contain office space and common space for use by the residents of the
buildings. Kugler added the center may require additional parking; he said staff is checking into
that. Kugler said the net density for this development would be 9.65 dwelling units per acre; the
RS-8 zone allows slightly more than 10 units per acre.
Kugler said there are three proposed access points to the site off of Court Street and one off of
Arlington Drive. He said staff typically seeks to limit the number of access points onto an arterial
street. Kugler said staff looked at combining the two westernmost access points, but that would
result in additional paving. Since the separatior~ distance between the drives is adequate, staff
finds the drives acceptable as proposed.
Regarding secondary access, Kugler said Court Street comes to a dead end at its eastern point.
He said all property located east of Scott Boulevard is currently served by one access point.
Kugler said this is a temporary situation that will change as Court is extended out to Taft and
other connections are made to the north. He said the situation must also be evaluated in the
short term, however. Kugler stated Court Street was designed as an arterial street and the
additional 72 dwelling units, even with the 65-70 lots already platted in this area, would not
result in traffic levels over the threshold for a single access. He stated staff does have some
concerns about the 8% slope on Court Street just east of Scott Boulevard with regard to
emergency vehicle access. Kugler said this situation involves a judgment call for staff, the
Commission, and the City Council regarding what level of development is appropriate before
another access point is required.
Kugler said another concern involves the connection of Court Street to the existing portion of
Arlington Drive. He said Arlington Drive comes up to a temporary dead end from the south, and
is intended to go all the way through to the northern portion. Kugler said residents often get
used to living on a dead end street and then have objections to the street going through, even if
it has been in the plans all along. He said staff therefore recommends the street be extended as
quickly as possible so residents are not led to believe the street will remain a dead end. Kugler
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
April 15, 1999
Page 3
said staff therefore recommends three of the four buildings be permitted to be constructed
without this connection, but that a building permit not be issued for construction of the fourth
building until the Arlington Drive connection is made. This would address the secondary access
and neighborhood circulation issues.
With regard to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, Kugler said the property does contain a stream
corridor and hydric soils, and the developer has designated the grading limits to protect those
areas. Kugler said storm water management is not required for this site, and the neighborhood
open space requirement has already been satisfied.
Kugler said staff recommends deferral of this item pending resolution of deficiencies and
discrepancies in the site plan. He said if those items are resolved, staff recommends approval
subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) requiring the connection of Arlington Drive,
from its current terminus north to Court Street, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the
final 18-unit building on the property.
Kugler showed maps of the area, indicating the location of Parts 9 through 14 of Windsor Ridge.
He said Part 9 has been final platted, and Parts 10 through 14 have had preliminary plats
approved, but have not been final platted. Bovbjerg asked if Outlots J and K are buildable and
what the legal status of the two outlots is. Kugler said neither of those properties has been final
platted yet. He said preliminary plans are to transfer Outlot J to the City, and there have been
discussions about accepting Outlot K. He said both of those decisions will be left to the final plat
process. Kugler said those lots have limited development potential because of the stream
corridor and hydric soils.
Public discussion:
Larry Schnittjer. 1917 South Gilbert Street, said he was available to answer any questions.
Bovbjerg asked if the elevation provided in the Commission's packet would face the access
road coming off of Court Street. Schnittjer confirmed this, saying the front elevation faces Court
Street, and the side elevations have decks that face each other.
Gary Watts, 4988 Lower West Branch Road, said he is the developer for this project. He
showed the front elevation of the four buildings. Watts said the sides of the buildings would have
balconies and screened-in porches, and the buildings would have underground parking with an
elevator. Watts said each living unit would contain from 1,260 to 1,400 square feet.
Watts said the buildings would use brick, stone, or stucco, and the plans for the buildings will be
different to break them up somewhat. He said the development would include a community
center with common space for residents. Watts agreed there is a large buffer around the
buildings.
Watts said he was ready to pour the streets on phase nine of Windsor Ridge and then would be
ready to develop up to the creek. He said he would submit a final plat for these areas in May.
Schintler asked if the finish on the buildings would be the same on the sides and rear as on the
front. Watts did not know and said he would check. He said he was still working with staff
regarding the completion of Arlington Drive.
Watts said the units would be condominium units and would have a separate association. He
said he would change the name from Canterbury Condominiums to something else, because
that name has already been used in Windsor Ridge.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
April 15, 1999
Page 4
John Slavens, 863 Coventry Court, said he had some questions about the project. He said he
lives at the south end of Arlington as it feeds into American Legion Road, and traffic travels very
fast in that area. Slavens said would be a straight shot through there, and he feels 90% of the
cars will travel on Arlington.
Slavens asked the City not allow the creation of an unsafe situation for those on Arlington. He
said he would like to see the use of speed bumps, stop signs, and possibly the curvature of
Arlington in order to slow traffic somewhat. Slavens said if Arlington could intersect with
Huntington the way Barrington does, that would equalize the traffic situation somewhat.
Slavens asked if once this property is rezoned RM-12, the developer could rezone the
surrounding land from RS-5 to RS-8 or RM-12. He asked why this rezoning would be in the best
interests of the City, and if there was anything in the Comprehensive Plan that could show why
it would be in the City's best interests.
Kugler pointed out that the current zoning for this property is RS-8. He said the proposal for this
property is for PDH-8, and the density would not be increased through this rezoning. Kugler said
the RS-8 density was granted in 1995.
John Barr, 512 Scott Park Drive, said he had several concerns about this project. He said his
biggest concern was the slope on Court Street just after it crosses Scott Boulevard. He said the
8% figure does not give a good indication of what is really there. Barr said there are already
problems with that site. He said that much of the traffic will use Court Street and only enhance
the problem at the crest of the hill. He asked that this problem be studied further.
Barr said the wetlands have been considerably underestimated. He said his yard backs on to
Scott Park, which is a 100-year floodplain. Barr said with heavy rains, the water backs up to his
property line, as it should. He said the additional roofs and concrete will certainly send more
water to that basin.
Barr also questioned whether underground parking would work for this facility considering the
soils and the water in the area.
Public discussion closed.
MOTION: Shannon moved to defer REZ99-0006, an application submitted by Arlington,
L.C. to rezone approximately 7.46 acres from Medium Density Single-Family Residential
to Planned Development Housing Overlay (OPDH-8) and the approval of a preliminary
OPDH plan for 72 residential dwelling units on property located at the east terminus of
Court Street to the May 6, 1999 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Bovbjerg seconded the motion.
Gibson said before the next meeting, he would like to see staff prepare language for a condition
regarding the connection of Arlington Drive that would require that it be completed prior to the
construction of any housing in the area to be served by the present gap in Arlington. Kugler said
the final plat for Part 9 has already been approved so the developer can continue complete
development there. Kugler was uncertain if additional lots could be developed in this area
without the connection of Arlington Drive.
Regarding water retention, Shannon asked if there were any plans for a dry basin upstream.
Kugler said the basin in Scott Park was sized to accommodate Windsor Ridge and the
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
April 15, 1999
Page 5
surrounding area. He said there may also be a pond on Outlot K, but an additional provision for
water retention is not required here.
Bovbjerg said she had some concerns, considering the enormous size of the buildings, that the
adjacent properties not be considered unsuitable for single-family housing. She said the large
buildings will loom even larger in the back. Bovbjerg said she did not want the size of the
buildings to influence any reconception of how other parts of the subdivision should develop.
The motion carried on a vote of 6-0.
COUNTY ZONING ITEMS:
CZ9912. Public discussion of an application submitted by Eliot Keller for a rezoning of 2.68
acres from Suburban Residential (RS) to Rural (A1) zone for property located directly north of
1244 Devon Drive N.E. in Fringe Area A.
Miklo said this property is in Fringe Area A just north of Prairie View Estates subdivision. He
said the Fringe Area policy allows rezonings from A1, Rural, to RS, Suburban Residential, on a
case by case basis. Miklo said this would be the reverse of that situation. He said this is in
compliance with the Fringe Area Agreement, and staff recommends approval.
Public discussion:
Themwas none.
Public discussion closed.
MOTION: Schintler moved to recommend that the City Council forward a letter to the
Johnson County Board of Supervisors recommending approval of CZ9912, a request to
rezone 2.68 acres adjacent to 1244 Devon Drive NE from RS to A1. Chait seconded the
motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0.
CZ9913. Public discussion of an application submitted by Allen and Jennifer Berger requesting
rezoning of 1.0-acre from Rural (A1) to Ag Business (C-AG) zone for property located at 3005
Hwy 1 N.E. in Fringe Area A.
Miklo said this property is currently zoned A1, Rural, and the applicants have requested C-AG,
Commercial Agricultural, which would allow businesses with agricultural related uses. He said
the Fringe Area Agreement does not contemplate commercial zoning in Fringe Area A, but does
allow the consideration of rezonings 'for residential development on a case by case basis. Miklo
said the proposed clinic would be a small animal veterinary clinic. He added a large animal
veterinary clinic would have some justification in a rural area.
Miklo said the County's Zoning Ordinance allows a home business by permit and would include
stipulations to limit the square footage and size of such a facility. He said a commercial zone
would not have size restrictions. Miklo said staff had some concerns about the amount of traffic
generated by a commercial use in an area that is essentially rural in character and was
therefore recommending against the rezoning. He said a home business permit for this type of
situation can be considered by the County Board of Supervisors on a case by case basis. He
added that the County permit requires the operator of such a business to live on the premises,
which would not be required by a rezoning.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
April 15, 1999
Page 6
Public discussion:
Tom Anthony, 535 Southgate Avenue, said he works for Landmark Surveying and Engineering
and represents the applicants. He said the applicants were given three choices at the County
level for operating a small animal clinic on this property: rezoning to the C-AG zone, applying for
a home business permit, and applying for a conditional use permit. Anthony said the applicants
were advised by the County to attempt to have the property rezoned, because the County does
not like to approve a use if it is already allowed by a specific zoning designation.
Anthony said other uses in the C-AG zone would be heavier, but since this rezoning would be
limited to one acre, the type of uses on the site would be limited by the size constraint. He said
at the County meeting, not all five commissioners were opposed to this rezoning, but two of
them voted no in order to be in conformance with the Fringe Area Agreement. Anthony said
leaves the applicants in the position of having a favorable County vote, but an unfavorable vote
by the City. He asked if the Commission voted to recommend denial of this rezoning, the motion
be worded to show that Commission members would be in favor of the home business permit
option.
Gibson asked if this would be spot zoning, with one acre of C-AG Zoning amid many different
zones. Anthony said there is commercial highway zoning at a nearby corner, a mobile home
park nearby, residential zoning on both sides of Fox Lane, and agricultural zoning west of
Highway One. Gibson said the County may be suggesting spot zoning here, when one of the
other options could be used. Miklo replied agricultural zoning may be the justification for this
rezoning, but a small animal clinic use is not agricultural in nature.
Public discussion closed.
MOTION: Chait moved to recommend that the City Council forward a letter to the
Johnson County Board of Supervisors recommending approval of CZ9913, a request to
rezone one acre at 305 Highway I NE from A1 to C-AG. Shannon seconded the motion.
Chait said this application is in the County, and this is what the County wants. He questioned
why the City would want something different if there are three ways of doing this, and this is
what the County has indicated it wants. Chait said based on the technical aspects of the way
the County selected this option, he was comfortable with this rezoning.
Miklo said he has had discussions with Rick Dvorak of the County's planning staff. He said the
County planners do not make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors, but do advise
them of the relevant ordinances. Miklo stated this property is within the Fringe Area Agreement
and is therefore of interest to the City. He said the home business permit has the least
ramifications for traffic in that area, and the character of the area is certainly residential, not
commercial.
Chait said the Commission should respect what the County Planning and Zoning Commission
wants, if the application is not that big of a deal. He said commercial zoning would allow other
uses, and a permit allows only this one use and asked if that were the big concern. Miklo said
the C-AG zone allows such things as grain elevators, livestock marketing stations, etc. He said
the consideration here is not just the other potential uses, but that a full-fiedged veterinarian
clinic could draw a lot of traffic in an area where there is already a history of accidents. He said
that a home business permit would limit the square footage of the clinic. Chair said the scale of
the rezoning of a one-acre parcel would not allow too many other uses besides this clinic,
because of the nature of those uses.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
April 15, 1999
Page 7
Bovbjerg said she did not see a three to two vote as overwhelmingly in favor of or against this
rezoning. She said it would be more in keeping with the residential nature of the area for the
applicants to go through the permit process. Bovbjerg said the Commission is supposed to
articulate what it feels would be best for this area. She said she is not in favor of this rezoning
but would be in favor of the home business permit.
Gibson agreed three to two is not an overwhelming vote. He said the Commission is supposed
to offer an independent opinion on these applications in the Fringe Area. Gibson said this
rezoning seems odd in terms of its use, although he did not feel this veterinary clinic would be
harmful here. He said the Commission should take the most measured response to permit what
it wants and not allow one thing more. Gibson said to him, that would be the home business
permit process or the conditional use permit. He stated these approaches would be better than
changing the zoning. Gibson said it would be a mistake to introduce this kind of use in this area
with the rezoning. He said he would vote no on the motion as presented. Supple said she
agreed with Gibson's comments. Chait withdrew the motion. Shannon withdrew his second.
MOTION: Gibson moved to recommend that the City Council forward a letter to the
Johnson County Board of Supervisors recommending denial of CZ9913, a request to
rezone one acre at 3005 Highway I NE from A1 to C-AG and recommending
consideration of a home business permit in lieu of the rezoning. Chait seconded the
motion. The motion carried on a vote of 5-1. with Shannon voting no.
CONSIDERATION OF THE APRIL 1. 1999 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES:
MOTION: Bovbjerg moved to approve the minutes of the April 1, 1999 meeting of the
Planning and Zoning Commission as written. Shannon seconded the motion. The motion
carried on a vote of 5-0-1. with Gibson abstaining due to absence.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION INFORMATION:
Miklo discussed the "Good Neighbor Policy" brochure, which encourages meetings between
developers and neighboring property owners.
Supple said there is a lot of senior housing on, near, and proposed for Scott Boulevard. She
said she would rather not see all senior housing located in one neighborhood, she would like to
see this housing somewhere else in the City, in the interest of housing diversity.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 8:39 p.m.
Dean Shannon, Secretary
Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte
ppdadm/min/p&z4-15-99.doc
POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES - April 27, 1999
Lobby Conference Room
CALL TO ORDER Chair L. Cohen called the meeting to or, der at 7:00 P.M.
ATTENDANCE
CONSENT
CALENDAR
Board members present: L. Cohen, P. Hoffey, M.
Raymond and John Watson. Board member absent: P.
Farrant. Staff present: Interim Legal Counsel C. Pugh,
Administrative Assistant S. Bauer and City Clerk Marian
Karr.
Motion by P. Hoffey and seconded by J. Watson to
adopt the Consent Calendar. P. Hoffey made reference to
"(d)" of the Consent Calendar (Memo from Chief
regarding Commission on Accreditation for Law
Enforcement Agencies), noting that being accredited will
show members of the community that the department is
meeting the highest professional standards devised for
law enforcement agencies in the U.S.
In reference to "(c)" of the Consent Calendar (Survey
results from Prof. Arthur Miller & Peter Matthes), the
Board directed staff to respond to Prof. Miller and P.
Matthes, inviting them to make a presentation regarding
their survey about relations between the University of
Iowa students and the Iowa City Police Department at a
PCRB meeting on May 25 or June 8, and requesting a
copy of their survey prior to such meeting.
Motion carried, 4/0, Farrant absent.
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL None
COMPLAINT
FORMS
Deferred by Chair until further response from City
Attorney regarding information cover sheet.
COMMUNITY
FORUM
Final arrangements for the forum on April 28 were
discussed, to include:
· Chief Winkeihake's presentation will appear on the
agenda following the call to order.
05-18-99
3b(6)
STATUS RE NEW
LEGAL COUNSEL
ANNUAL REPORT
PLANNING
Setup of the room at the Broadway Neighborhood
Center was confirmed by the City Clerk.
Handouts will include: PCRB brochure (with revision
of time limitations), PCRB complaint form, annual
report for 1997-98, information cards, and vacancy
applications for board membership.
Noting the advertising period has ended for new legal
counsel, Chair acknowledged two applications. After
discussion, the Board directed staff to contact the
applicants for interview on May 25. Staff was also
directed to include in the next meeting packet a copy of
the interview questions the Board used previously. At
the May 11 meeting, the Board will devise additional or
new questions, which will be provided to the applicants
prior to their interview.
City Clerk stated the Board vacancy has been published
and will appear on each council agenda and read into the
record consistently throughout the process; the notice
also appears in a number of newsletters, on cable
television and on the website (a copy of the notice that
was published was provided to the Board by the City
Clerk). If Board members are interested in a certain
classification of individual or an individual with a
particular expertise, they are encouraged to contact
council members, who will make the appointment on
May 18, effective June 1. The Board directed staff to
provide them with a list of applicants in the next meeting
packet.
Reading into the record 8.8.8 A of the PCRB statute., "...
The City Council reserves the right to waive the
residency requirement for good cause show .... ," City
Clerk Karr stated "good cause" would be if the council
couldn't meet those goals within the city limits and/or at
council's discretion.
Deferred by Chair to next meeting.
3
MEDIATION FORM
LETTERS
Following discussion, staff was directed to provide
amended mediation form letters in the next meeting
packet for approval.
POLICE DEPARTMENT
INVESTIGATIVE
INTERVIEWS
Committee members P. Hoffey and M. Raymond reported
on their April 19 meeting with Chief Winkelhake
regarding the Board's concerns about the Police
Department investigative interviews. Unless there is
some particular reason for him to look at the
investigative interview reports, the Chief confirmed that
it is his practice to use only the summary from the
investigating officer in preparing his decision on
complaints. The Chief also stated there are reasons to
involve different people in different investigations of
complaints that are inconsistent with any policies he
might ordinarily want to apply. At the conclusion of the
meeting, the Chief requested copies of documents the
committee referred to and said he would review them
and respond back to the committee.
Hoffey stated that the Chief has subsequently requested
a follow-up meeting, to which the Board gave approval
to the committee.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
TO SECTION
8-8-7(B)(3)
Correspondence dated 411 6~99 from the City Attorney to
the Board's legal counsel was discussed. Legal counsel
was directed to inform the City Attorney of the Board's
concurrence with the proposed amendment, noting the
following additional concerns:
· Specification of the method of notification
· Clarification regarding confidentiality when sending a
letter of notification of intent to disclose names.
MEETING SCHEDULE
· Community Forum at Broadway Neighborhood Center,
April 28, 1999, 7:00 P.M.
· Regular Meeting May 11, 1999, 7:00 P.M.
4
· Special Meeting May 25, 1999, 7:00 P.M. (agenda
will include interview of candidates for Board legal
counsel)
· Regular Meeting June 8, 1999, 7:00 P.M.
° Special Meeting June 22, 1999, 7:,0.0 P.M.
Chair informed board of P. Farrant's absence for the
Community Forum and for the meeting on May 11.
J. Watson indicated he will be absent for the June 22
meeting.
PRIORITY SETTING
GOALS Issue ii.C.2 of the PCRB Goals (4/13/99) was changed to
read "Address the issue of race and police enforcement.'
Further discussion was deferred by Chair to May 25
when all members are in attendance, including the new
board member, if possible.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION None
BOARD
INFORMATION
J. Watson - Noting the newspaper articles he provided
for the packet, he commented on the nationwide issue of
race relations and policing. Further discussion followed,
M. Raymond - Noted that Chief Winkelhake reported
that the department is installing video cameras in police
vehicles. Raymond stated this gives the potential to
monitor interactions between an officer and somebody
he/she stops in a vehicle. Raymond suggested the Board
might want to think about how it's going to recommend
that the department or others use this information.
P. Hoffey - In his role as retired Chief of Police in Cedar
Falls, IA, he requested consent from the Board to meet
with Chief Winkelhake. Board approved.
STAFF
INFORMATION
None
EXECUTIVE
SESSION
Deferred by Chair.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion for adjournment by M. Raymond and seconded
by J. Watson. Motion carried, 4/0, Fa~ant absent.
Meeting adjourned at 8:40 P.M.
POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD
COMMUNITY FORUM
MINUTES - April 28, 1999
Broadway Neighborhood Center
CALL TO ORDER
ATTENDANCE
PRESENTATION
COMMUNITY
FORUM
ADJOURNMENT
Chair L. Cohen called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
Board members present: L. Cohen, P. Hoffey, M. Raymond
and John Watson. Board member absent: P. Farrant, Staff
present: Interim Legal Counsel C. Pugh, Administrative
Assistant S. Bauer and City Clerk M. Karr.
Chief of Police R. J. Winkelhake made a presentation on the
Special Crimes Action Team (SCAT) and crime activity in the
Broadway neighborhood area and city wide (two handouts
attached).
Chair Cohen advised of a board vacancy and encouraged
applicants.
The following individuals appeared before the PCRB:
Fohtiene Cobb
Suzy Lauritson
Leshun Del
Danielle Davis
Carole deProsse
Dana Knerr
Bruce Nestor
Charlotte Bailey
Dean Thornberry
Sean Mclntyre
Carole Conn
Melinda Guernero
2308 Lakes
Lone Tree, IA
1001 Crosspark #1
1780 360'" St. SW
1956 Broadway A8
2167 Keokuk #5
2007 Waterfront
913 N. Governor
Motion for adjournment by M. Raymond and seconded by J.
Watson. Motion carried, 4/0, Farrant absent. Meeting
adjourned at 8:50 P.M.
CRIME DATA
Crime Description
Murder / Manslaughter
Forcible Rape
Robbery
Aggravated Assault
Burglary
Larceny - Theft
Motor Vehicle Theft
Arson
Modified Crime Index
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
0 0 2 1 0
25 15 18 30 34
12 33 22 37 29
209 199 257 310 351
455 480 523 439 483
1,642 1,852 1,952 1,617 1,552
121 75 100 82 93
24 13 14 21 19
2,488 2,667 2,888 2,537 2,561
1998
Juvenile Complaints
Reckless Driver
Serve Warrant / Civil
Fight in Progress
Prowler
Domestic
Suspicious Activity
Assaults
Shoplifting
Motor Vehicle Theft
Narcotics Drugs
Beat 2
270
150
285
240
38
142
582
78
155
29
24
City Wide
573
478
879
842
111
311
1,800
290
276
93
80
Traffic Stops 13,825
CRIME DATA
SCAT
Special Crimes Action Team (SCAT) operates under Field Operations and is directly
supervised by the evening investigation sergeant. SCAT consists of 1 supervisor and 5
officers, one officer is also a gang investigator.
The SCAT officers have been assigned to patrol designated neighborhoods throughout
the community. Their presence in these neighborhood areas has effectively displaced
the negative activities.
The SCAT officers have been instrumental in many drug arrests and have provided
pertinent information about gang members and their associates to investigators from
many other jurisdictions. Several arrests have been made from information obtained by
and from the SCAT officers.
The SCAT officers made 1,453 arrests, including:
SCAT ARRESTS
Drug Violations 225
Aggravated Assault 18
Disorderly Conduct 61
Liquor Violations 312
OWl 56
Intoxication 193
Juvenile 77
Shoplifting 11
*Other Miscellaneous 500
Charges (see below)
Driving While Revoked, Driving Under Suspension, Arson, Possession of a Ficticious
Driver's License, etc.
3b(8)
POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES -May 11, 1999
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. Hoffey, M.
Raymond and John Watson. Board member absent: P.
Farrant. Staff present: Interim Legal Counsel C. Pugh
and Administrative Assistant S. Bauer.
Motion by M. Raymond and seconded by P. Hoffey to
adopt the Consent Calendar. Discussion followed.
Item (e) of the Consent Calendar (copy of
correspondence from Atty. Bruce Nestor to the City
Manager, and response from the City Manager to Atty.
Nestor) was deferred to Item 3 on the agenda.
Regarding (d) of the Consent Calendar, the MATS course
content guide, it was noted:
· Departmental Update included the citizens review
board
· Use of Force Review included the explanation and
distribution of the newly revised Use of Force General
Order
· An 1.5 hour on Diversity/Cross-Culture
Communication taught by Sgt. Jackson and Marian
Coleman
· Hazard Communications included a review of the
MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheets) sheets.
Motion carried, 4/0, Farrant absent.
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL None
COMMUNITY
FORUM REVIEW
Regarding correspondence noted in the Consent Calendar
(e), Chair advised that a Board member had expressed
concern about their conversation with Mr. Nestor and
what the Board member felt were exaggerations in his
letter. One was in regard to the City Council
disapproving of the forums; in fact, at one point in time
only one City Council member expressed a concern
about the forums. The other concern was regarding
Chief Winkelhake's presentation to the Board and only
taking questions from Board members and not members
of the public. Chair Cohen informed Board members
that prior to the forum, she and P. Hoffey visited with
the Chief about his presentation, noting the Board's
assumption that the presentation would be made to the
Board and to the public, and that there would be a
question and answer session after the presentation from
the audience. In response, the Chief said that he was
there to present to the Board only and that he would
take questions from the Board only. Since the Chief
expressed his intentions of taking no questions from the
audience, Cohen and Hoffey concurred he didn't need to
stay. In turn, Cohen informed Watson and Raymond that
the Chief was going to address the Board only and did
not intend to take questions from the audience.
Chair reviewed the PCRB letters to the Chief which were
quoted in Mr. Atkins response to Mr. Nestor. She
acknowledged they could be taken either way. She
stated it is important in the future that the Board be very
thorough in communicating to the speaker what the
Board expects.
Watson stated that it was clearly the Board's intent to
provide an opportunity for the Chief and the people in
the community to have a conversation about the SCAT
program, the current procedures and future plans.
Watson expressed disappointment that the Chief did not
take advantage of the opportunity regardless of the
interpretation of correspondence. It was an opportunity
that the Chief missed.
Watson stated it is one of the Board's charges under the
Ordinance to assist the Chief and the department in
improving communications and community relations.
The Chief had an opportunity to do that at this forum
and he didn't take it. Watson feels it is the Board's
responsibility, as representatives of the citizens, to make
a statement about this matter. He recommended that
the Board express its feelings to the City Manager and
the Chief about this matter in a letter. Following further
COMPLAINT
FORMS
discussion, Board members preferred to let the minutes
reflect the Board's disappointment rather than reflecting
that in a letter to the City Manager and Chief.
Raymond stated the Board's expectations may not have
been conveyed clearly enough to the Chief. In the
future she recommended making exact expectations
more clearly stated. Although the presentation did not
come up to the Board's expectations, Raymond stated
the community's participation did come up to the Board's
expectations.
Other comments regarding the forum included:
The presentation itself was informative, with facts
and figures, and an explanation why other officers are
not spending as much time in that area any longer -
"where the crime goes, they go"
· The presence and the approach of the members of
the department who came was appropriate and
appreciated, considering that at the last forum the
Board had some concerns about the impact of large
numbers.
· The Board had hoped for more attendance and
participation from persons living in the neighborhood
(there appeared to be a conflicting neighborhood
meeting).
· The sound system and the acoustics were poor.
· The question remained whether there is a familiar
officer(s) available in the neighborhood. Cohen stated
she feels it is essential to have officers assessable
who are familiar to adults as well as children.
· The forums are worthwhile and they remain one of
the board's major goals.
Legal Counsel stated she has received no further
correspondence from the City Attorney regarding the
information cards for the complaint forms. Chair noted
her ongoing concern and disappointment that what was
to be a simple, small card has now evolved into a
lengthy sheet of information. Further consideration was
deferred until a response is received from the City
Attorney.
STATUS RE NEW
LEGAL COUNSEL
Interviews of candidates are scheduled for May 25,
commencing at 7:00 p.m. and 7:45 p.m., in executive
session. Candidates shall be sent a copy of the
Ordinance, By-Laws, SOP's, and the PCRB brochure,
together with some of the anticipated questions to be
asked of candidates by board members (attached).
The interview questions will be asked by the Chair, with
follow-up from other board members.
Direction was given to staff to invite the new board
member (appointed by council on May 18) to attend the
May 25 meeting.
ANNUAL REPORT
PLANNING
Chair Cohen asked if Board members had any current
concerns they want addressed in the annual report.
Cohen requested that this appear on subsequent
agendas.
Staff suggested a target date of July 20 for the
completion of the annual report so a final draft can be
approved at the July 27 meeting.
MEDIATION FORM
LETTERS
Motion by M. Raymond and seconded by J. Watson to
approve the mediation form letters. Motion carried, 4/0,
Farrant absent.
POLICE DEPARTMENT
INVESTIGATIVE
INTERVIEWS
Committee member P. Hoffey reported a follow-up
meeting with Chief Winkelhake scheduled for Thursday,
May 13, at 10:00 a.m. The subcommittee will
subsequently report to the Board at its May 25th meeting.
The Board requested that the committee ask the Chief if
internal investigation interviews are routinely transcribed.
MEETING SCHEDULE
· Special Meeting May 25, 1999, 6:30 P.M. (agenda
will include interview of candidates for Board legal
counsel)
· Regular Meeting June 8, 1999, 7:00 P.M.
· Special Meeting June 22, 1999, 7:00 P.M.
Hoffey informed the board of his expected absence for
two weeks in July; Watson informed of his absence at
the meetings on June 22 and July 13.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION None
BOARD
INFORMATION
J. Watson - submitted a Memo from a Goodwill
employee to be included in the next meeting packet
(suggestions for a gun buy-back program).
L. Cohen - there have been no completed applications
for the board vacancy. Chair encouraged board
members to talk to anyone they feel would be a good
candidate to fill Raymond's term.
L. Cohen - attended a meeting at Regina High School at
which Prof. Arthur Miller participated in a survey on
binge drinking with junior high and high school students.
The results of that survey were discussed.
STAFF
INFORMATION
S. Bauer - The Board has received no response yet from
Peter Matthes regarding a presentation of findings on
relations between University of Iowa students and the
Iowa City Police Department.
C. Pugh - has not received response to her
correspondence of 4/29/99 to the City Attorney.
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
ADJOURNMENT
kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition
for that government body's possession or continued
receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal
information in confidential personnel records of public
bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of
supervisors and school districts, and 22.7(5) police
officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is
authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18)
Communications not required by taw, rule or procedure
that are made to a government body or to any of its
employees by identified persons outside of government,
to the extent that the government body receiving those
communications from such persons outside of
government could reasonably believe that those persons
would be discouraged from making them to that
government body if they were available for general public
examination. Motion carried, 4/0, Farrant absent. [:)pen
session adjourned at 8:00 P.M.
Regular meeting resumed at 8:20 P.M.
Chair directed staff to forward a letter to the Chief
requesting additional investigative information, to include
transcripts of the complainant and the two officers
involved in PCRB Complaint #99-02.
Motion for adjournment by P. Hoffey and seconded by J.
Watson. Motion carried, 4/0, Farrant absent. Meeting
adjourned at 8:20 P.M.
Anticipated Questions
1. What are your reasons for applying for this position?
Have you thought about what issues are likely to arise from work with
the PCRB? What is your expertise/experience in dealing with these
issues?
· (:)pen Meetings and Open Records Law
City boards and commissions
· Criminal law and procedure
· Conflicts of interest
If the Board finds itself in disagreement with the City, how would you
deal with representing the Board while being employed and paid by the
City?
What do you see as your role and time commitment for this position?
The PCRB Standard Operating Procedures require legal counsel to be
in attendance at all meetings whenever possible. Can you be
available?