The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2001-02-20 Bd Comm minutes F EL iB A[ff . IOWA CiTY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION I 02-20-01 THURSDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2000 - 5:30 P.M. Subject to/Lppr0val 5b(1 ) CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Carlson, Mike Gunn, Sue Licht, Doris Malkmus, James Enloe, Anne Freerks, Loret Mast MEMBERS ABSENT: Marc Mills, Peter Jochimsen, Michaelanne Widness STAFF PRESENT: Scott Kugler, Bob Miklo OTHERS PRESENT: Claire Sponsler RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: CALL TO ORDER: . Chairperson Gunn called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: Bob Miklo was introduced as the City of Iowa City staff member who will be filling in for Scott Kugler after this meeting. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS REVIEW: 520 BROWN STREET: Kugler explained that since Sue Licht is the architect that she would have to abstain from the discussion although she still may answer questions. Kugler described that the attic space will be converted into additional living space and there will be a skylight added in an area that won't be visible from the street except from the Northwest corner of the property. The two side dormers will be widened which means that the ridge height of the dormer will be going up. They will be widened out toward the street elevation and there will be two windows there instead of one. It's difficult to see the dormers in the photographs. The two side dormers will still be smaller than the main front dormer. One other change according to the information is that the windows in the front dormer will be shortened a bit for some mechanical equipment ductwork needed to convert the space. Kugier added that there is a discussion of dormers in the HPC guidelines under the mass and roofline sections. Kugler read the provisions under recommended adding dormers in a manner that does not significantly alter the character of the existing building. Under disallowed the guidelines continue that adding dormers that are wider than those commonly found in the neighborhood is disallowed. Kugler could find no other information in the guidelines that addressed dormers specifically. Gunn asked what the standard for dormers was in this neighborhood. Licht replied that this area has a very eclectic mix of houses that there is not a four square around this house so it wouldn't clash with the rest of the styles. Licht explained that she had to widen the dormers so that there would be adequate headroom above the stairway in the area. The stairway was usable as an attic stair, but it wasn't up to code for a living area. The owner will be able to open the windows. They will look just like the existing windows. MOTION: Malkmus made a motion that as the dormers are sympathetically styled to reflect the style of the rest of the building, that we approve the certificate of Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 14, 2000 Page 2 appropriateness for 520 Brown Street as submitted. Freerks seconded the motion. There was no discussion. The motion carried 6-0-1. Licht abstained. SECTION 106 REVIEW: 1710 F STREET: Kugler showed the photographs and noted that this house is on F Street, an area that has not been surveyed and there is no site form so there is no evaluation from a consultant. Kugler added that with the Section 106 review the first job is to take a look at the property and determine whether it is eligible for the National Register or not. That determination will indicate whether the commission needs to look at the work plan. Freerks asked what was known about the house to determine its eligibility. Kugler responded that not much was known about the house other than that it is over 50 years old. It is not in an area that the Preservation Plan covers. Malkmus stated that East Iowa City is pretty distinctive. The house is in tact. Most of the work has been done on the garage. There is a picture of the garage in the packet. Downspouts and gutters as well as repairing a bad rafter and replacing the garage door is the only work done on this house to date. Kugler noted that the house has not been determined to be eligible, so he cautioned that the commission shouldn't be too cautionary on the preservation side. The final determination regarding this property's eligibility will affect future projects. Without knowing a lot about the property it is difficult to determine it's true eligibility. If a survey is done on the house and more information is found to indicate that the house is eligible or overtime as this housing type becomes more rare, there will be room to make it eligible whereas it would be difficult to go the other way. Malkmus asked that if there were no other criteria except for architecture and there are probably 100 of these bungalow style houses in Iowa City with a similar amount of integrity right now, does that mean that this house automatically is not eligible? Carlson feels that that does not automatically rend the house ineligible. Gunn added that you must make an argument for its eligibility under Section 106. Malkmus asked is the fact that the house is over 50 years old, is a distinctive style, and has a lot of integrity, will it meet the criteria. Carlson added that there are a lot of things there that could make it eligible. Malkmus added that there is also an original out building. Kugler said that since much of the work is happening to the garage, that the commission should focus there. Gunn asked whether this determination would apply only to the garage or to the whole property. Kugler added that they are adding downspouts, gutters, and making repairs to the house. Gunn asked whether this must be done for every property that is over 50 years old. Yes, said Kugler, when Federal money is involved. The property owner makes the call regarding what work is done to the property since this is a loan and not a grant. Gunn reminded the Commission that as the Commission proliferates the number of Historic Properties in this town, that the workload will increase geometrically. Kugler reminded the Commission that this wouldn't designate the property in any way that would change how things would be reviewed in the future. If Federal money is involved and the property is over 50 years old, the decision will still come before this Commission. This is just a determination of eligibility for the National Register. It doesn't obligate them to any kind of design review approval before the Commission for all future work. Malkmus would like to see the Commission designate houses of this kind and this quality routinely, it will preserve this style of 1920s housing which was an era that saw a lot of growth in Iowa City. In 50 years, the community might be happy that these structures were preserved, since it is a historic style. Malkmus is in favor of saying that it is eligible, if in fact it meets the criteria. If this house is considered eligible it would have to fall Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 14, 2000 Page 3 under item C in the Secretary of Interiors Standards. It is a distinctive style that item C speaks to. Most of the home pieces are intact, but the integrity is the item of question for Carlson. Licht asks if the Commission encourages the use of combination screen/storm windows or not. Kugler answered that the Commission does not encourage any changes. On occasion they have required a new window that resembles the old, but that is rare. Malkmus asked that if the Commission determines the home to be eligible, does that mean that the homeowner will have to repair that rafter rather than replace it with new wood. Kugler responded that if it is reparable, that should be their first measure. If it's not than replace it with similar materials under the Secretary of Interior standards. The work plan right now says repair bad rafters, so the Commission would not ask anything more. Gunn feels that the first thing to do is determine whether the structure is eligible and then move into the more minor details. Gunn asked whether there is a motion for eligibility. Gunn is not entirely convinced of the significance to history, architecture, engineering, and culture, as set forth by the Secretary of Interior. Freerks added that since these repairs seem relatively minor, that it might not need to be eligible. For any future 106 work, it would come back through the Commission. There have been cases where something was denied but it must come back for approval on different items. Malkmus asked about the porch windows. The bungalow style is very broad and you will find quite a variety of that style. Carlson added that there is quite a mix of housing styles in this area. It might have district potential if the boundaries were gerrymandered to contain these homes. None of this area has been surveyed so it is difficult to determine where this might fall. The survey that has been done up to this area is a Conservation District and not an Historic District, this would not be considered eligible. MOTION: Woman made a motion that this structure is not eligible under Section 106 review. Man seconded. Motion passed 7-0. REVIEW OF CALENDAR YEAR 2001 ANNUAL PLANNING SESSION REPORT (DRAFT): Kugler reminded the Commission about the discussion held on November 6 regarding the work plan for 2001. Kugier took his notes and his memory from that discussion and drafted this report. This is the Commission's opportunity to look over this draft and make any revisions before it is sent on to the City Council. Malkmus asked that under the Longfellow Historic District, at the time of the annual meeting, did the Commission already have the funding to nominate it to the National Register? Kugler answered no, but December I we received the money. Malkmus asked why does it say upon nomination of the above referenced Conservation District? Kugler clarified that there was thought that the Commission had to get the Conservation District going and once that was finished the Commission would look at Longfellow, the local designation because the CLG is going to get it listed on the National Register. So this is local as an Iowa City Historic District. Claire Sponsler from 413 N Gilbert was present to speak on behalf of the proposed Historic Districts on the Northside. Sponsler felt that it would be useful for the Commission to know that the Northside Neighborhood Association has been revitalized and is very active and broadbased since this fall. Sponsler said that here is a lot of interest on the Northside to preserve the historic character of the Northside. Sponsler lives in the proposed Gilbert Street District, she enthusiastically supports the designation of those proposed historic districts that have been surveyed. Sponsler said that it is fair to say that there is a considerable amount of Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 14, 2000 Page 4 support on the Northside for these types of preservation endeavors, The North Gilbert Street District runs up to Fairchild from Market Street. Kugler added that the key projects, the two districts that the Commission has been discussing (the Conservation District and the Longfellow Historic District), and then under other current items the Commission has a category of District Nominations under which Kugler listed all of the recommendations that are currently outstanding. The nominations for the Northside Historic and Conservation Districts just came in earlier this year. Malkmus asked if it was part of today's agenda to prioritize these issues or just review the notes. Kugler would like the Commission to consider adopting this report as the future work plan for 2001. Kugler added if one felt that something should be switched, now is the time to do that. Kugler stated that this is normally sent on to the City Council so that they are aware of the Commission's activities and then each member receives a copy to put in the front end of the blue notebooks for future reference. Enloe put in his annual plug that the Commission needs to worry a bit more about Archaeology a little bit more than they have in the past. Malkmus asked what the first step would be to expand their efforts towards archaeological surveying? Enloe is unsure of what the ordinance will let them do. Kugler stated that there is always the option of applying for a grant to do a survey of an area. Community Development Block Grant money can be used although it has not typically been used on Historic Preservation or Archaeology in the past. It would probably take some persuasion to divert that money from affordable housing to historic preservation. Kugler continued that the archaeological work that is going on right now occurs when there is a Federally funded project (i.e. streets, sewers). It is also used on development projects. In most cases these areas are unknown. Malkmus asked if we are considering expanded what the Commission does with regards to archaeology, what would that expansion entail? What would the first step be in moving in that direction? Enloe stated that the first step would be surveys, but before that, Kugler added, you would want to make an evaluation of where potential growth areas and resource areas are. That would be where to start and also look to the costs and sources of funding. Since the 1970s, the government mandated the survey to determine what was out there on Federal Lands. Normally, on a local scale, these types of survey happen after the fact. Malkmus asked if there are areas where the State Archaeologist says that these are likely places for significant excavation. Gunn added that most of the major routes are on areas where they have found things, which means that they find things where they look. Kugler added that there was some work south of town, along South Gilbert, so the Commission is able to use that information. Enloe stated that he is bringing this to the table since the Commission is focusing on protecting a 1920s bungalow when there are these types of resources that are even more fragile and less well known and easy to protect. There are few of these and they are disappearing quickly. Malkmus asked if anyone can foresee where this would begin. Enloe said that we could try to formulate an HRDP grant to start addressing the problem at a planning state. Freerks added that it would become more of a priority after some of these delayed issues are dealt with. Licht added that maybe it should be added to the other items section so that the Commission could devote some time to this subject to find where some hotspots might be so they could identify some areas' that could be incorporated to the Grant process. Enloe volunteered to try to get some more information related to this topic. The Commission decided that the placement of the archaeology topic was ok on the schedule. Gunn wondered if the group needed to prioritize the Districts since maybe the Commission won't be able to complete that. Freerks felt that it might be fluid depending on Grant money. Malkmus clarified that it might be what we might go for first. Kugler feels that it seems premature to do this at this point considering the pace of the designation process at this time. Malkmus asked whether the group had to come up with a grant proposal by January. Kugler said that they don't have to come up with one but there is an application deadline coming up. Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 14, 2000 Page 5 Malkmus said that we don't need any grants since Marlys said that one grant would cover all the Historic Districts. Kugler thinks that she was referring to national register nominations. Kugler must look to see how much matching money would be left since they applied and received one grant so they are obligated to spend a portion of that $7,000 that is in the budget each year. Gunn asked about the Conservation Districts in Longfellow. Kugler said that they were all there: Clark Street, Dearborn and 7th. The other one that the Commission is currently working on is in the key projects list. Malkmus added that they changed one of the Northside Conservation Districts into the Clinton/Dubuque Street Historic Districts. Kugler added that only two Conservation Districts are left from the Northside recommendations were the Goosetown and the Marketplace area. Kugler added that the application deadline is January 15. The Commission must decide so that these can be worked on soon. The Commission decided to leave the list as is, and focus more on grants. Gunn stated that the plan flames what they want to do and doesn't obligate the Commission to anything specifically. MOTION: Mast made motion to approve the notes. Freerks seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. DISCUSSION OF GOVERNOR-LUCAS-BOWERY CONSERVATION DISTRICT: Gunn stated that no one showed up at the meeting, so there was no objection, nor any support. Kugler stated that the ordinance requires that they hold a public meeting and then it goes on through the normal rezoning process after that through the Planning and Zoning Commission. Kugler stated that the meeting last night was just a neighborhood meeting and a public hearing must still be set. This meeting will also deal with demolition, vinyl siding, and other such dilemmas. Gunn thinks that they are decided unless objections are brought forth. Kugler clarified the siding for Freerks. Siding in a Conservation District does not require a building permit so their review of siding will be limited to new construction or a significant addition. It is now limited to Historic Districts for review of siding, unless a revision was made to the building code. Kugler said that in the past we have reviewed siding on additions. Every two years the building code is updated and it is to be updated in 2001. Gunn says that vinyl siding is disallowed in Historic Districts, as it stands, synthetic siding may be used on new structures and non-contributing structures in Conservation Districts. Gunn continued that it would not be allowed on contributing structures in Conservation Districts, but since it doesn't require a building permit it won't come before the Commission. Gunn asked the Commission if they think that they should pursue requiring that siding have a permit for contributing structures in Conservation Districts. The City Attorney's office has reservations on this issue. There is no case law supporting this. If no decision is reached, the public must be aware that this is under review so that homeowners are not surprised. Gunn stated that there is a difference between not having case law to support something versus what would be challenged. Kugler added that the Attorney's office is obligated to advise the City Council when they are doing something that might be challenged. Gunn feels that no action be taken now. Gunn feels that they should make this case in the Public Hearing and try to amend the building permit process to require a permit for vinyl siding in conservation districts. There is no change to the report or the proposed guideline and the public hearing is set for January. There is no need for a motion to set the public hearing. REVIEW OF DRAFT DOWNTOWN SURVEY REPORT: Kugler said that Marlys isn't too concerned about the progress of this report since she has plenty of other projects going on. She's planning on coming to town in January but she cannot t attend the January 11th meeting. She'll be here either the 3rd or 4 h week in January. Gunn feels Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 14, 2000 Page 6 since the Commission will have a public meeting regarding the Governor-Lucas-Bowery decision, that they will probably have a full meeting in January. Gunn feels that this should be scheduled for some other time to accommodate Marlys' needs. Freerks thinks that it is important for everyone to understand this information, warranting a special meeting. Gunn stated that this will be tabled until a meeting in January, where the Commission will schedule another meeting. REVIEW OF REVISIONS TO "A GUIDE TO HISTORIC IOWA CITY" (GUIDE MAP): Kugler said that Jill Wenger in the Document Services Division of the City of Iowa City has been working on this. Kay Irelan redid the cover drawing.. Kugler is hoping that a draft will be done and turned in for the Commission to use to raise some funds. Kugler will get this information to Michaelanne Widness. Kugler stated that the costs will be somewhere between $2,000-2,500 since there is still some money left over from the Board of Realtors from the last printing. The Convention and Visitors Bureau hands these out so they should be approached to contribute. The map itself will be smaller so things were squeezed in a bit more and there is less decoration. It is now mostly information, which saves on the printing costs. Kugler's timetable is to have a mock-up by the 29th and then it depends on the Commission's ability to raise funds and get the document to the printer. Carlson noticed that there were still a bunch of circled corrections. Kugler said that changing words is not a problem, but they can't change too much without changing the whole set-up of the document. Carlson will review the guide over the weekend. DISCUSSION OF JANUARY 15 HRDP DEADLINE: Kugler stated that the only thing that the Commission has is the letter from Marybeth SIonnegar regarding the grant project that she would like to put together. She is looking for help in revisions of the informal guidelines for the Goosetown Conservation District. Kugler said that there were some concerns raised in the beginning regarding the Commission's control over the guidelines and the potential for different ideas. This mainly would be a grant to defray the costs of printing. Malkmus thinks that there is an original thought in this in that it isn't preserving things that it is actually encouraging people to restore original features, This isn't something that they haven't traditionally been regulating. An individual can apply for a grant for bricks and mortar type work, but Kugler is not aware of anything of this sort. Mast asked who the regulating body would be if Slonnegar applied for the grant through the Commission? A group can receive grants for two consecutive years, but after that they have to stop, according to Licht. Kugler thinks that they have tried for two years, but have been rejected, Malkmus feels that the Commission should ask for how much they can get in matching funds for the $3,500 remaining in the Commission budget. Kugler stated that whoever does volunteer to write the grant will be responsible for putting together a finished application. Carlson volunteered. This grant comes about once a year and they also receive CLG money. Freerks thinks that if someone is willing that this should be attempted. Carlson feels that he could produce a final draft, edited by Freerks, and reviewed by Miklo. Staff time in the next six months is what Kugler is the most concerned about. The Butler Project and the Longfellow project might be wrapped up by then. Kugler will ask Marlys for some estimates and what her prioritization would be regarding these designations. Marlys will not make any suggestions regarding threatened areas. Marlys feels that that is up to the Commission. Kugler will get back to Carlson regarding her final decision. Gunn suggested that none of these National Register designations contribute to local design review. Gunn feels that Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission Minutes December 14, 2000 Page 7 the surveys produce way more information than the Commission ever uses. In the past it has been easier to establish local districts after they have been placed on the National Register. COMMISSION INFORMATION/DISCUSSION: 1. January Council Budget Meeting Schedule Gunn met with Steve Atkins regarding receiving more staff time. Atkins felt that if the HPC could not generate it's own money than no. Kugler reserved time for the members in the January 23, 2001 council meeting to request this for the Commission. A Quarter-time position would be increased to one-half time. It is necessary for the Commission to lobby neighborhoods to support this addition. 2. Letter from Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, to Beverly Robalino, University of Iowa Design and Construction Services, regarding the future of the Shambaugh House. Miklo wrote a letter to the UI stating that the Shambaugh House is on the National Register and should not be demolished. The building is not designated locally in anyway. It is on the edge of the Clinton Street District proposed by Marlys. Old Brick is already designated as a local landmark. The Commission has little jurisdiction over University property. Kugler put this item on the agenda so that the Commission would be aware of this and could take action if desired. 6. "The Great Cover-up" Kugler provided this for general information so that the Commission will have some back up when denying/reviewing vinyl siding applications. These could provide a possible solution. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 7:30 by Chairperson Gunn Minutes submitted by Paige Knutsen. MINUTES ~ 02-20-01 H,sToR,c PRESERVAT,ON COMM,SS,ONPREL/ IINARY5b(2) JANUARY 11, 2001 - 5:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS ' Subject to Approval MEMBERS PRESENT: Marc Mills, Doris Malkmus, Michael Gunn, Richard Carlson, James Enloe, Peter Jochimsen MEMBERS ABSENT: Michaelanne Widness, Ann Freerks, Loret Mast, Susan Licht STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo OTHERS PRESENT: Lorraine Bowans, Cecile Kuenzli, Gary Carlson, Jackie Briggs, Nan Trefz, Rudi Kuenzli CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Gunn called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. PUBLIC HEARING ON GOVERNOR-LUCAS-BOWERY CONSERVATION DISTRICT The Commission members introduced themselves and told what districts they represent. Mills - Brown Street district Malkmus - Moffitt historic district Gunn - Summit Street historic district Carlson - at large Enloe - East College Street district Jochimsen - Woodlawn Gunn gave a presentation. He showed a map of the Governor-Lucas-Bowery District on the overhead and said there are contributing and non-contributing structures. He said the contributing structures are ones that contribute to a particular theme that makes the district a district. He said generally speaking they would all be of a similar age and look. There are some structures that would have been built earlier; most often later that do not contribute to the character of the district. He said there are a number of differences between a conservation and historic district. The differences are in the way the guidelines apply. An initial difference is that a conservation district can have a smaller percentage of contributing properties and changes to the properties can be regulated less strenuously than a historic district. In a historic district the Commission is obliged to follow the Secretary of Interior Standards for Historic Preservation. In a conservation district the guidelines can be more to local interest. He said there also is a difference in the levels of review. He referred to page 5 of the Conservation District Nomination Report. It lists minor review, intermediate review and major review. With minor review there are things that can be done so it is just an approval by staff. This is in an effort to make the projects go more quickly; to get the certificates of appropriateness more quickly than for historic districts. Intermediate review requires the signature of a staff person and the chair of the Historic Preservation Commission. A major review requires a meeting of the Commission, a discussion and a vote. He said the minor and intermediate reviews are open to conservation districts, not historic districts. He referred to page 9 of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook and the guidelines, which are by category. There are columns for recommended, not recommended, disallowed and exceptions. He said recommended is what they would like to see and disallowed will not be permitted. Not recommended are things they would discourage but do not require a permit so they cannot regulate them. He said exceptions are usually for conservation districts and certain kinds of projects. He said usually Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 11, 2001 Page 2 conservation districts are given more exceptions and leniency. Pages 8 - 20 have the bulk of the guidelines that need to be followed. He said if the property being built is 3 units or more, the Multi-Family Design Guidelines apply. He said there are individual Historic District Guidelines that are relatively short. On page 6 there is a chart of which guidelines will apply. This chart is an effort to reduce the number of things an applicant has to worry about. He referred to Exhibit D of the Conservation District Nomination Report for individual district guidelines, which pertain to setback, fac,,ade, parking, etc. The architectural guidelines are for new construction. The reason each individual district has it's own guidelines is because each district is different. He said there are a couple of issues that are likely to be controversial and he wants to point those out. One is demolition where the first sentence reads: Unless otherwise provided in individual conservation district guidelines, a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of any primary contributing structure will be denied unless the applicant can demonstrate that the building is structurally unsound and irretrievable. He said this is for historic districts, it is already in place, and the courts have supported this. He said it is less clear in conservation districts whether a commission has the right to prevent demolition. He said it is the feeling of the Commission that they should not allow the demolition of contributing structures unless they are irretrievable. He said there are a number of places in the process that this can be modified, but they want everyone to be aware of it. He said the other issue that may be controversial is siding. The Commission is not allowing vinyl siding in historic districts on contributing or non-contributing structures. In conservation districts, they are allowing exceptions for synthetic siding in new structures and non-contributing structures. This is the argument the Commission wants to make and it has to be approved in the long process of getting to a conservation district. He described the process. The Historic Commission puts forth a proposal, there is the public hearing, and they have already had a neighborhood meeting. The proposal then goes to the Planning and Zoning Commission where there are a minimum of two hearings. It then goes to the City Council, where there is one hearing and they have to vote on it three times before an ordinance is passed. The State Historical Society has the right to make its' comments on the proposal known at the City Council hearings. He said now there is a fairly long history of historic preservation in Iowa City. There are a number of rental properties in historic districts already so what this means should be clearer now than any time in the past. Lorraine Bowans, 510 South Governor, Iowa City, said she is 100% in favor of this and thanked the Commission for taking the time to come up with this. She said it is the poor maws historic district because they are not wealthy people and it has worked out that people who can afford these homes can move in and still maintain the historic character. She said by past history in Iowa City, everything that has become a historic district, the property values have enhanced so she doesn't think it can be a losing situation for anyone unless they want to tear something down and then they have to bring something back to blend with the neighborhood. She said that maintains the integrity of the neighborhood. She said one property at 506 South Governor sold in a day and another property at 526 South Governor sold in two days. She said there is a demand for these properties. She said it wouldn't be a problem for rental property owners because they also want to maintain the value of their property. Cecile Kuenzli, 705 South Summit, Iowa City, thanked the Commission for the tremendous effort and hours that went into this. She said she drove down Van Buren to Bowery Street and thought what a shame, what a loss. She said once it's gone you can't replace it and cities all over the country are discovering the cash value of preserving inner city neighborhoods and downtown residential areas. She said this is the only place you can get affordable housing with any architectural interest and you can't reproduce that with new construction; you can't buy the materials. So let's save it. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 11,2001 Page 3 Gary Carlson, 2806 Hickory Trail, said he doesn't know if he is for or against this at this point, He said he thinks it has some value. He said he was there to find out what it meant for the property he owns in the area. He said he also wants to keep the value up. He said there are some things he wants to do to his property like a retaining wall and storage shed and he wants to know what that means now in terms of doing those things. He said he doesn't expect those answers now. He said he thinks it looks like a good idea but he doesn't know whom he goes to about doing those kinds of improvements. Miklo suggested that after Carlson has had a chance to go over the guidelines, he set up a meeting with Miklo and one Commission member to go over some issues and scenarios, Kuenzli said recently there was a committee that came up with a design review program for new construction in which loopholes have become apparent. She asked the Commission if they perceive any loopholes in this document. Gunn said there are so many different situations that it is impossible to put in writing and anticipate every eventuality. He said with every application thero is discussion and a decision made by the Commission. He said it is not ironclad, However, it is clearer in writing than it's ever been. He said the guidelines cannot be ignored; they are written in as City ordinance. He said he thinks they will be enforced. He said the other document Kuenzli referred to is the Multi-Family Infill Guidelines. He said the Historic Preservation Commission did not write them and does not enforce them. Miklo reported receiving a letter of support from Natasa Durovicova and Garrett Stewart, 419 South Summit. He also received a phone call of support from Ruth Switz, 646 South Lucas. Jackie Briqqs, 714 North Johnson Street, Iowa City, said she offers support for the proposal for the nomination of the district. Nan Trefz, 723 Oakland Avenue, Iowa City, said she is there to offer support and to find out information. Rudi Kuenzli, 705 South Summit Street, Iowa City, said he is very much in favor of this conservation district. He said he liked the summary of the report. He said when you read the last sentence in which you refer to areas where the Commission has established historic districts and encountered some resistance from five landlords who took out demolition permits before the district was declared. He said since then he has talked to all the landlords and received positive comments about the Historic District. He said that was certainly a district, which had more apartment buildings than on South Lucas and South Governor. He said what the Commission is saying in the last paragraph is absolutely true that it maintains the character and probably increases the property values and certainly contributes to the streetscape of the City. Public hearing closed. Malkmus said if there are no outstanding issues and no opposition from the public hearing; the Commission is in a position to go forward with this and vote it through to the Planning and Zoning Commission Enloe said he agreed. He said if there were no issues raised from the public hearing, there is no point in waiting. Gunn said there are a number of places opposition can be made and the proposal can be modified at any step of the process. MOTION: Malkmus moved that the Governor-Lucas-Bower Conservation District report be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to designation as Iowa City's first conservation district. Enloe seconded the motion. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes Janua~ 11,2001 Page 4 Miklo said this would be before the Planning and Zoning Commission on either February 1, 2001 or February 15, 2001. He said they would send a letter to all property owners and property owners within 300 feet advising them of that meeting. The motion carried on a vote of 6 - 0. Jochimsen asked if the Planning and Zoning meeting would be open to the public. Miklo said yes. DISCUSSION OF DRAFT DOWNTOWN SURVEY REPORT Miklo said Marlys Svendsen would be in town the week of January 22, 2001 to discuss any additions or corrections to her report, which the Commission has before them. The next step would be to arrange a meeting with key downtown business owners to provide the information to them and plan the next step as to whether to declare a historic district or conservation district and discuss some of the tax benefits if this is adopted. He said it doesn't need to be a full Commission meeting; it could be a subcommittee. He said if there are more than five Commissioners in attendance then it would be posted as an open public meeting. The meeting was scheduled for January 24, 2001 at 5:30 p.m. Miklo will send confirmation. DISCUSSION OF HRDP GRANT APPLICATION Miklo reported that Carlson did a good job of drafting the HRDP Grant Application for three north side districts. He said they should know in the spring if it has been approved by the state. Malkmus asked what districts are included. Miklo said North Linn, North Gilbert, and Jefferson Street. COMMISSION INFORMATION/DISCUSSION Miklo reported that the Friends of Historic Preservation will be holding their annual meeting in conjunction with their 25th anniversary celebration on Sunday, January 28, 2001 at 1:30 to 4:00 p.m. at Old Brick. The Friends of Historic Preservation was originally established to save Old Brick from demolition. Gunn has been asked to speak on the Commission's activities for the year and plans for next year. Gunn said in the near future he would like to discuss the booklet regarding procedures for Boards and Commissions, specifically page 31 regarding ex parte communication, where one Commissioner speaks to an interested party. He said they should come up with guidelines for appropriateness. They don't want to appear as if one person is doing business for the Commission or speaking for the Commission. Mills said if they were sufficiently concerned, they could have the City Attorney issue guidelines for the Commission. Miklo said there are policies for other boards and commissions. He said it varies somewhat. He said the Board of Adjustment, which is semi-judicial, should have no discussion outside of the public meeting and they are instructed if someone calls them, they are to tell the party when the public meeting is where it can be discussed. He said with the Planning and Zoning Commission, it is not illegal for them to talk to someone outside the public meeting but they are instructed to try to avoid it and to bring the discussion to the rest of the Commission when it is on the agenda. He said with the Historic Preservation Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 11, 2001 Page 5 Commission there might be some flexibility, but one Commissioner cannot represent the whole body or make promises that something will be approved. Mills asked if the Planning and Zoning Commission has a written policy. Miklo said yes. Enloe asked if they could make their own policy. Miklo said yes. The Commission agreed to discuss establishing a policy at a future meeting. Malkmus said in the Commission's annual plan, the Governor-Lucas-Bowery Conservation District was a top priority. She said now that it is moving along; she wonders what else they may be looking at. Mills said they should reevaluate the annual plan at the next meeting. Jochimsen asked where opposition is going to come from for the Conservation District because the Planning and Zoning Commission doesn't know anything about it and will listen to Gunn. Gunn said they are well aware of this issue because their down zoning has a lot of the same arguments. Miklo said there was a previous down zoning in the Governor-Lucas-Bowery area. Gunn said he thought it was favorable. Enloe said regarding the question of where opposition will come from, they can report that there was overwhelming favorable comment at the Historic Preservation Commission public meeting. Gunn said as far as he knew there has been no negative comments, written or verbal, as processed so far. Miklo said there was one property owner who asked for more information but did not express whether he was in favor or not. He said one reason they haven't heard from a lot of people who own rental properties is because this did just go through a down zoning and the Council and Planning and Zoning Commission supported that so they are probably seeing there is support for conserving this area. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. , Secretary Minutes submitted by Diane Crossett ppdadm/nin/hpcl-11-01 .doc 02-20-01 5b(3) MINUTES IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 13, 2000 CIVIC CENTER-COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Lowell Brandt, Dennis Keitel, Kate Corcoran, Mike Paul MEMBERS ABSENT: T.J. Brandt STAFF PRESENT: John Yapp, Karen Howard, Sarah Holecek, Doug Boothroy OTHERS PRESENT: Tom Gelman, Gene Lariviere, Duane Musser, John Kammermeyer, Marlin Ingalls, Terri Neuzil, Gary Neuzil, Jim Larew, Sara Paulson, Alfred Marren, Darlene Clausen, Jim Buxton, Tim Walker, Clarence Havercamp, Ron Berg, Dave Foman CALL TO ORDER Lowell Brandt called the meeting to order at 5:15 P.M. ROLL CALL Roll call was taken with T.J. Brandt and Corcoran absent. (Corcoran arrived later.) CONSIDERATION OF THE NOVEMBER 8, 2000 BOARD MINUTES Keitel moved to approve the November 8th minutes with a second by Mike Paul. The motion was approved on a 3-0 vote. APPEAL AP00-0001 Appeal of a decision made by Director of Housing and Inspection Services to deny a minor site plan submitted by Bloomington Properties, L.L.P for a medical office building and associated parking lot located at 510/512 East Bloomington Street in the Commercial Office (CO1) zone. Brandt wanted to make it very clear that the Board of Adjustment is acting in a quasi-judicial role and are not policymakers. The Board's role is to listen to the facts and grant an impartial decision in the matter. Corooran arrived. Howard began saying the Bloomington Building Properties, L.L.P., is appealing a decision made by the Director of Housing & Inspection Services to deny a minor site plan. The appellants have submitted plans for the development of a 4,172 square foot medical office building at 510-512 Bloomington Street. They propose to tear down two single-family dwellings and consolidate the properties in order to make room for the medical office building on the site. The most recent site plan shows a 38-foot curb cut off of Bloomington Street which would provide access to a seven- space parking lot located in front of the building. The building would be set back approximately 64 feet from the front property line. Access to additional parking is located to the rear of the property. A driveway off the alley leads to two outside parking spaces and to ten parking spaces located under the building. Howard went on to give some background on the proposed plan. Bloomington building Properties, L.L.P, submitted an application for a permit in June of 2000 and then a special exception in August of 2000 requesting a reduction of the required front Board of Adjustment December 13, 2000 Page 2 yard to allow an eight car parking lot between the proposed medical office 6uilding and Bloomington Street. Planning staff expressed concerns regarding the location and number of parking spaces, building placement, and impact of the loss of on-street parking and mature street trees. The applicant withdrew the special exception application. On August 30, 2000 applicants submitted a revised site plan which moved the parking twenty feet back from the property line so the front yard reduction was no longer necessary. In a letter dated November 8, 2000, the City's Director of Housing Inspection Services informed the appellants that their site plan was denied, citing three specific code deficiencies: (1) Failure to meet the vehicle and pedestrian circulation standard as stated in 14-5H-5F; (2) Failure to meet the minimum parking requirements as stated in 14-6N-1J (this deficiency is not appealed); and (3) Failure to locate the proposed building and parking lot in a manner that is compatible with surrounding properties (14-5H-1). Howard addressed each specific deficiency issue: Howard stated that applicants for a building permit must meet all requirements of the Iowa City Unified Development Code, including both the engineering design standards for curb cuts as cited in 14-1Bo5 and the site plan review design standards outlined in 14-5H-5. The City has the authority to restrict the number of curb cuts on to City streets and routinely does so when reviewing site plans or subdivision plats. While a development proposal may comply with the technical engineering requirements to obtain a curb cut permit, the City has the authority to deny a curb cut if it does not meet the site plan review standards. Howard then referred to the specific standards in 14-5H-5F of the City Code. Howard stated that in this case the Director of Housing Inspection Services has determined that providing a driveway off of Bloomington Street is not necessary because this street was designed with access off of the alley. The City is not requiring the property owner to remove an existing curb cut off Bloomington Street, but rather to provide access similar to other properties along the street. Howard then showed a view of property as it is today, explaining the existing streetscape, pedestrian access and on-street parking. Howard went on to explain the widespread use of alleys in the older pads of town and that the Comprehensive Plan states that when properties are accessed from alleys at the rear of the lots, vehicular traffic on residential streets is reduced such that the alley can serve as a common driveway for garages located off of it. Howard pointed out that the alley that serves the subject proper~y is 16 feet in width, wide enough to accommodate two cars passing each other. It also has a number of parking lots to the rear of buildings. Howard reported the staff has suggested on several occasions that the appellants reconfigure the site plan. If the building is moved forward to the front of the lot there would be sufficient area to supply parking to the rear of property. Howard went on to say that if the appellants are allowed to build a driveway off of the Bloomington Street it would have the following negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. Howard stated it will: · cause unnecessary interruption of the pedestrian network along the street; · change the nature of the existing streetscape; · remove public on-street parking; · negatively impact the flow of traffic along the street. Howard discussed the staff view that the building location on the site plan does not comply with the intent of site plan review stated in 14-5H-1, because it is behind the established building line Board of Adjustment December 13, 2000 Page 3 of the neighborhood. Howard also quoted passages from the City's Comprehensive Plan that suppod the City's decision. Howard stated that the site plan shows that the building parking lot will be directly adjacent to the properties next door, rather than having the building adjacent to those properties. Approving the site plan would diminish the privacy of these properties due to noise and lighting associated with the vehicle parking. These negative impacts could be avoided if the building was located closer to the street with vehicle access and parking located to the rear of the building. Howard stated that it has not been staffs intention to prevent development of the medical office building, but rather to encourage the appellants to design their site in a manner that is in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood. Howard stated that the staff offered a number of alternatives in negotiations with the appellants (Howard presented staffs alternative sketches of site designs). In addition, Howard stated that there are likely other site designs that would avoid the negative impacts previously discussed. Howard reports that in staff's view the decision by the Director of Housing Inspection Services was based on a reasonable application of the site plan review standards contained in the Iowa City Unified Development Code, which gives the City authority to regulate the number of access points off of public streets. Howard stated that the decision is also consistent with the policies of the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan, which specifically stresses the importance of standards that serve to maintain the integrity of existing neighborhoods, particularly in areas that are transitioning to higher intensity uses. Due to these factors, and given that the site presents no peculiar difficulties that prevent the owners from developing the property in a way that is compatible with other development along the street, staff recommends that the Board uphold the decision of the Director of Housing and Inspection Services to deny the minor site plan as currently submitted by the appellants. Douq Boothroy, the Director of Housing and Inspection Services, stated that one of the issues being considered here is the site plan review process. A site plan review process allows the City to work with landowner and surrounding properties to insure the rules and regulations are satisfied during development. What's important about this process is that a site plan fully complies with all the rules and regulations that are in affect in the Unified Development Code, as well as fitting within the neighborhood in which it's being located. If the codes are not upheld it can result in a built environment that may not be acceptable and we must endure for some time. Boothroy went on to state that it is very important at this particular stage that all possible options are taken into consideration in siting the project that is being proposed. Boothroy stated that the other important issue that is in dispute, is whether the city has the authority to control access to its own streets. Boothroy went on to state that the city is charged with the responsibility of controlling the access to its streets and is not applying a higher standard to the applicant than would not be applied to anyone else on the block front in terms of street access. Boothroy also stated that the city is not asking the applicants to give up existing access to Bloomington Street, but rather requiring the applicant to use existing access off the rear alley. What the city is asking is that the neighborhood's character, the street and sidewalk areas continue to function as designed. Boothroy stated that if this site plan and this curb cut were approved it would set up an expectation along Bloomington Street for unrestricted access to the street. Boothroy stated that on the issue of limitation of access to streets, in this case Bloomington Street, Boothroy referred to the Zoning Ordinance which defines alleys as streets when they are the primary access to properties. Boothroy went on to the issue of commercial offices in the neighborhood. Boothroy stated that commercial offices should be used transitionally in a fashion that it uses existing stock. Boothroy went to say that many offices that have located in the Bloomington area have used existing Board of Adjustment December 13, 2000 Page 4 stock and fit within the neighborhood. Boothroy stated that the city zoned this area from R3A to Commercial Office zone (CO-1) in order to encourage office development. The change in the zoning came about with the understanding and idea that it would be a less intensive use than other commercial uses, would be more compatible with the character of the neighborhood, and that it would provide a good transition between the more intensive commercial development downtown and the residential development to the north. Boothroy informed the Board of the reasons the original application from Bloomington Properties, L.L.P. was denied. Boothroy stated that the proposed site plan for the medical office was not compatible with the character of the neighborhood, nor did it comply with the Site Plan Ordinance as it is today, nor the Comprehensive Plan. Keitel asked Boothroy if there is a maximum building set back in an RNC-12 zone. Boothrey replied he would have to look that up, but stated within the zoning ordinance where you're dealing with existing setbacks there is a provision that establishes a maximum setback. If you look at the property closest to Johnson Street with the front porch, because of that porch this parking can be put where it is at this point in time. The location of that house allows that parking to be placed farther back and eliminates the maximum set back requirement that would be under the averaging provision of the zoning code. It's only due to that one structure on the entire block. Tom Gelman, counsel for the property owners (Gene Lariviere and Rick Shetman), stated that he disagreed with the decision Boothmy has made to deny the site plan. Their principal premise is that there is no authority to apply the standards and Boothroy has exercised a discretion that the ordinance does not give him, This is a CO-1 zone. The preferred use is office and that is the type being proposed, They understand that the site plan is deficient based upon fewer parking spaces than necessary, but they feel they can reach agreement with the City to resolve that issue, so they are not appealing that issue. Gelman stated that there is no procedure in the ordinance for input by the housing department on a minor site plan - it is to be strictly a building official review to be done in 21 days. Administrators "administer' specific ordinances, like building codes. Gelman cited several provisions of the zoning ordinance. He stated that all of the requirements of the zoning ordinance have been met. Gelman recited the provision relating to design standards. He maintains that the specific provisions contained in the ordinance are sufficient and satisfactory to satisfy the City's purposes in protecting the public on the minimum standards. Gelman provides that Standard F, Vehicle and Pedestrian Circulation, says that there are only two reasons that the City can restrict access to a street: 1 ) to prevent congestion on adjacent or surrounding streets; and 2) in order to provide a safe and orderly vehicular movement. He maintains that the City did not list either of those criteria as a reason for denying the site plan. Gelman states that Section K, Parking Areas, is the standard that should apply. Gelman maintains that the site plan as submitted meets this standard. Gelman cited Section N of the standards, and states that those standards do not apply to this property. Gelman states that the housing department relies heavily on the preamble to the ordinance. The City cannot site a specific requirement that the site plan violates. Gelman reiterates the facts and circumstances surrounding the property. He provides a map of the area from Linn St. to Dodge St., on which he has identified areas of concern. Gelman shows how the alley and the apartments across the alley create a buffer between the property and the residential areas of the north. Gelman shows the location of parking lots up and down Bloomington St., which are "all over" the neighborhood. Even though the block in question has very few driveway accesses, the next blocks have plenty of driveway accesses, both commercial and residential. Gelman submits numerous pictures he has taken of the 3-4 block area of Bloomington St. and the alley behind. Brandt asked if the board could keep the photos Board of Adjustment December 13, 2000 Page 5 for a short period. Gelman summarizes that there are multiple front yard parking lots up and down the street shown in the pictures. Gelman states that they are talking about putting in 7 parking spaces, and the intended use is maybe 25 cars per day for the front parking lot. The majority of parking will be in the back or underneath. Gelman summarizes the City's decision, stating that the decision is based totally on subjective standards, and should have been based on objective standards. He states that the decision states that the reasons why the driveway access is not being granted are: 1 ) it causes an unnecessary interruption of the pedestrian network along the street. 2) it will change the nature of the existing streetscape. 3) it will remove public on-street parking. 4) it may negatively impact the flow of traffic along the street. Gelman opines that the first three are not criteria that the statute allows the City to use to deny access. The two criteria were to prevent congestion and for the safe and orderly vehicular movement. He further states that there is no evidence or traffic counts to support the fourth criteria. Gelman moved to the subject of alleys, stating that that the decision refers to alleys being incorporated into new subdivisions, and using alleys as access to residential garages, and therefore the standard is inapplicable to a commercial zone. Gelman states that the City only looked at the most immediate adjacent properties, and that if you look reasonably up and down the street, you can see that this project is not incompatible with existing uses in the immediate neighborhood. Regarding the location, Gelman states that the ordinance does not require the property to be in character with the surrounding development. In addition, the City cited the Comprehensive Plan in its decision, but that standard refers to new developments. Gelman states that this is a commercial office zone and not a residential zone. He believes the decision totally ignores the intent of the owner as to the use of the property, which is to establish a medical office. The owners are using the criteria of reasonable compatibility with the neighborhood, the medical practice they will run, and the needs of their patients for easy access. Gelman states that the City is requiring the owners to develop their facility in a certain manner without any specific provisions to do so. Gelman summarizes that he and his clients are in disagreement with the amount of discretion the City has when administering the minor site plan review standards. When there is discretion exercised, there is always a public review process where the final decision is made. Gelman states that his clients have come in good faith and tried to be reasonable. His clients reviewed all of the alternatives and traffic flows suggested by the City, but the alternatives do not work. His clients have minimized the impact to the neighborhood the best they could while still preserving their privilege of using the property in the manner that is permitted by the ordinance. Paul asked Gelman what the circumstances would be for patients to frequent this office. Gelman deferred the question to Gene Lariviere. Brandt asked Gelman whether it is his contention that there is no discretionary authority involved in this particular ordinance. Gelman said he would not go that far, but the ordinance has specific standards and he feels there is very little discretion to be exercised by someone who is simply administrating standards. Brandt brought out the provision that the City may restrict street access to one driveway. Gelman admits there is discretion there, that an applicant could be restricted to one driveway. Brandt reiterated the issue raised by Boothroy regarding the definition of a street, including alleys. Wouldn't the alley access be a discretionary issue about Board of Adjustment December 13, 2000 Page 6 where street access occurs? Gelman responded that the standard should say "alley" if it meant alley, but it refers to "street". In addition, Gelman feels there is no right to restrict access down to one unless you do it for the criteria specified. Brandt asked where the access is to the parking under the building in the site plan being discussed. Gelman responded that will be from the alley. Brandt asked what the efforts made by the owners to minimize the impact of the building on the neighborhood were. Gelman deferred to Lariviere or the engineer on that issue. Keitel asked about the statement that the Housing and Inspection Services division only reviews a minor site plan, and how this issue got from Housing & Inspection Services to the Planning Department. Howard stated she cannot speak as to how it went to Planning Department other than by this appeal, but there was reference in the staff report that there was an earlier special exception application submitted by the appellants and that the Planning Department handles special exceptions. Boothroy stated that the distinction between "major' and "minor' review is not significant. Both site plans are required to meet all the same standards. The difference is primarily in the submittal requirements, in detail that is put into the original application. Boothroy reiterated that he denied the site plan on the basis that it would be a problem for the street based on a cumulative effect on the traffic situation and the safety of the neighborhood. Gelman reiterated that there is a big difference between what's "desirable" and what's "enforceable". Howard addressed the question about what constitutes a "street", and read the Code to the Board on this issue, which states that a street is "the improved portion of public right of way primarily intended for vehicular travel, including alleys." Public Hearinq Opened Gene Lariviere, one of the general partners of the owners of the property, noted that Gelman adequately showed technical and legal reasons for the appeal to succeed, He went on to state that they have no intention to put their stamp on the neighborhood. The area is already zoned CO-1, which includes medical offices. The City requires 20 parking places. The solution was to put half of the parking places underneath the building for employees, with access from the alley. Lariviere reviewed the City's first alternative to the site plan and voiced the owners' objections. He then went on to review the City's second alternative, voicing objections to that plan. Keitel asked what the owners have done to be compatible with the neighborhood. Lariviere stated that they have tried to put as little parking out front as possible. Corcoran asked why the entrances to the public parking and the underground parking needed to be kept separate. Lariviere stated that the elderly patients have to access the building and that affects the entrances to the building due to elevation of the alley. Duane Musser of MMS Consultants offered to answer questions regarding the site plan, Keitel asked how wide the driveway was coming in from Bloomington. Musser stated he believes it is 18' wide. Keitel asked if they had considered having the parking lot closer to the street, Musser stated that they cannot do that because they are adjacent to a residential zone. He stated that they redesigned the front parking lot to maintain the landscape and save two trees. Keitel asked if the owners had considered asking for a special exception to the front yard setback on parking. Musser stated they had considered that. Lariviere stated that Zoning stated they would not allow this special exception. Howard stated that Planning staff said they would not have a favorable recommendation, which would not preclude owners from coming to the Board with a request for a special exception. John Kammermeyer, a physician with an office 1-1/2 block west of the site, stated that he was a member of the Comprehensive Plan Coordinating Committee that set up the current structure of the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan. The zoning around Mercy Hospital was set up as CO-1 zone to strongly encourage the development of the medical or health care complex Board of Adjustment December 13, 2000 Page 7 core around Mercy. He has curb cuts from Gilbert St. to his 7-space parking lot for patients, and a curb cut onto Bloomington St. He has never had any complaints or hassles regarding the traffic. Kammermeyer stated that he would never have a medical practice in this area that would have to be accessed by patients from the alley. Them are many impediments in the alley that make it dangerous for patients. He feels this site plan is an excellent proposal that should be approved. Marlin Inclalls, a resident in the area immediately north of the properties, stated that Dr. Kammermeyer's office is different because it is on a corner. Ingalls feels that the subject property is a keystone property to the Northside Neighborhood. He feels that the traffic flow and the neighborhood would be adversely affected. The design in general is poorly suited to this area and would diminish the quality of life for everyone who lives in the neighborhood. Terri Neuzil, a resident 3-1/2 blocks north on Van Buren St., stated that she approves of the denial. Her main concern is the aesthetic look of the office, and the parking in front of the office. Gary Neuzil, husband of Terri, said it is refreshing that the government is looking at the human element in this issue. Growth is great, but you Cannot rule out the residential. The modern design of the plan does not fit into the neighborhood. Jim LareW, a resident at the corner of Bloomington and Van Buren, stated that he purchased this residence in a very poor condition and renovated it. He felt that this plan could only be an improvement since the buildings are in a very run down condition, but would like something to be done to make it more compatible with the neighborhood. He stated that the parking on Bloomington St. is horrible. To protect Mercy Hospital's interest in fire protection, Bloomington St. does not rotate parking. One out of three cam is parked for weeks at a time, if not months. He would like parking in this area to be better monitored and rationed. He questions if the seven parking spaces in front of the proposed building are necessary or are due to City requirements. Yapp said that Boothmy and the applicant could best address the first issue of how much give and take there was in this process. He stated that the parking issue on Bloomington Street was because of fire trucks and ambulances so there is a consistent travel lane when they are coming to Mercy Hospital. He stated it is possible to request to reduce the total number of parking spaces required, if the applicant is interested. Boothroy stated it was his understanding that this particular design was locked in by the applicant. He said they did look at a special exception to reduce the parking, but felt that they are showing as much parking as they need to show for the ordinance. Corcoran asked Boothroy if it was true the City staff would not recommend a special exception for the applicant, and Boothroy stated that was true with the particular design originally submitted. The area to the east cannot be used for parking because of the nearby residential zoning. He said there are site options that can be explored. When asked about the width of the lot, Boothroy guessed that the width of the two lots was 80' x 150'. Howard clarified the difference between the standards for special exception for reducing the front yard, and the site plan standards. Lariviere stated there was quite a bit of "give and take" on the plans. The inside of the building is already designed, and the exterior affects that interior. He feels the compromises requested are too extreme. He stated that because the lot next door is zoned residential, they have to follow different regulations than other CO-1 zones. That is why they reduced the size of the parking lot in front. He stated that they feel they will need up to seven parking spots occasionally, and that is why they selected seven spaces in front. Board of Adjustment December 13, 2000 Page 8 Sarah Paulson, a resident of Linn Street, questioned whether they were using "minimum" standards to really mean "maximum". She felt that the Code allows the City to expect more. She then questioned whether the applicant measured the porch before creating their final site plan. Alfred Marren, the resident next door to the subject property, stated that he supports the City's denial of the plan as it is now. Darlene Clausen, the resident next door to the subject property, spoke regarding the safety of the alley behind the subject property. She supports the City's denial and reaffirms that it would be dangerous to exit from the business onto Bloomington St. Yapp stated that the CO-1 zone specifically allows medical and other type of offices. However, the site plan review chapter handles parking. Gelman addressed the question regarding minimum standards, giving his opinion that the law is to keep government intrusion as little as necessary to protect the public's interest. Gelman read standard 14-5H-6 Gelman reasserts that the review process should be very narrow, and that only three issues should be considered: 1) Regulation F - Vehicular & pedestrian circulation (no evidence of a problem); 2) Parking in the front yard (plan provides screening); and 3) design standards the City is trying to apply are not applicable to office buildings. Brandt stated that it was his understanding that the major argument has to do with the degree to which the City official can exercise discretion in making decisions with a minor site review. Brandt then referred to the issues of vehicle and pedestrian circulation (related to the curb cut); and parking in the front yard. He asked whether it was GelmaWs contention that the owner is allowed to have access to the street (not counting alley access) and that the reasons for denying the curb cut must be compelling. He also asked whether it was Gelman's contention that with regard to building location that the provisions of the City ordinance have been met. Gelman agreed with those statements. Boothroy affirmed that the City disagrees. The City believes that allowing traffic to enter and exit off Bloomington Street at this location will have a measurable impact on the street and will increase the hazard to both pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Boothroy emphasized that City staff made every effort to work with the applicant to get to a design that would not so negatively affect the street. Brandt asked Boothroy to speak to the question of his discretion or lack thereof on a minor site plan review. Boothroy stated that it was his responsibility to look through the designs submitted and that his discretionary authority include granting modifications including reduction in yard requirements, uses in zones where they are not permitted, and the ordinance outlines discretionary authority to compel applicants to come up with designs that meet the City's standards. Corcoran asked Boothroy to respond to Gelman's statement that the City has not demonstrated compelling reasons regarding vehicular and pedestrian hazard. Boothroy stated that the standards state that, to the greatest extent reasonably possible the applicant has to show to the City that they are going to provide a design that is going to reduce hazards to the sidewalk and to the street. Boothroy read the standard to the Board. He stated that have not the applicants demonstrated to the City that they have met this standard. Gelman reaffirmed that the City must use the ordinances in place at this time in its decision. Board of Adjustment December 13, 2000 Page 9 Public Hearincl Closed. Motion: Paul moved to approve AP00-0001 an appeal made by Director of Housing and Inspection Services to deny a minor site plan submitted by Bloomington Properties, L.L.P. for a medical office building and associated parking lot located a 510/512 East Bloomington Street in the Commercial Office (CO1) zone. The motion was seconded by Corcoran. Findin<is of Fact Keitel stated that he felt that if there was not a residential zone adjacent to this properly, the item would not have come to the Board. The Comprehensive Plan states that this is an encouraged use in a CO-1 zone, and the site plan as shown meets the legal requirements of a CO-1 zone. He will vote in favor of the appeal. Paul stated that he felt it was primarily a problem of zoning in that they are trying to overlay residential zoning requirements on a mix of commercial and residential. He also feels it is partly a question of the Comprehensive Plan versus property rights and what we can and can't tell people what to do with their property. He feels it is just as dangerous coming out of the alley as coming out of a driveway onto Bloomington Street. There are specific ordinances that have been met. He will vote in favor of the appeal. Brandt questioned whether, if the Board were to make a decision that they believe the City has the authority and discretion to make the decision they made, can they change what the decision Was. Holecek stated that, in her opinion, there was discretion contained in the ordinance, as indicated by the pre-amble. Further, the ordinance outlines standards to be applied, and those standards are not quantitative or absolute. Holecek stated that if they find there is discretion embodied within the ordinance, they can still find that the discretion was not exercised in an appropriate manner or was exceeded. Discussion ensued between Brandt, Corcoran and Holecek on the topic of the discretionary authority granted by the site plan ordinance. Corcoran stated that it was her understanding that the issues Gelman put forth were that there was very little discretion in the site plan review article of the Code, and that if there is any discretion it was abused. She believes there is discretion in the ordinance. Corcoran then reads the preamble of the Site Plan Review Article of the Iowa City Code. After reading preamble Corcoran states that she believes that Boothroy has discretion in his administerial position and does not feel this discretion was abused. Corcoran states that the language in site plan 14-5H- 5F states that the design of the vehicle and pedestrian circulation shall provided for the safe and convenient flow of vehicles to prevent hazards to adjacent streets and property. The City may limit entrances and exits to avoid congestion upon adjacent or surrounding streets. Corcoran states that in the language of the statutes that Mr. Boothroy made the decision in regards to the health and welfare of the city, and the Comprehensive Plan states that an alley qualifies as an access and given this the appellants did not meet the requirements of the Unified Development Code. Corcoran stated that she will vote against the appeal. Brandt agrees that the City does have discretion in applying the ordinance in this matter. With regard to the curb cut Brandt does feel there is a reasonable argument that street access can occur from the alley, and that the issue of traffic flow and speed is a concern because of the placement of the site in the middle of the block where lots of cars are parked on Bloomington Street which brings into issue the question of pedestrian and vehicular safety from turning cars. Board of Adjustment December 13, 2000 Page 10 Brandt referred to public testimony regarding the intense use of the alley, and that the alley is being used safely. For these reasons Brandt stated he would vote against the appeal. The motion failed by a vote of 2-2. EXC00-00017. An application submitted by James and Becky Buxton for a special exception to permit off street parking on a separate lot for property located in the Neighborhood Conservation Residential (RNC-12) zone at 225 Church Street. The proposed off-site parking space is located at 612 Nodh Linn Street. Howard stated that the applicant requested that this application be deferred. Howard advised that since there was insufficient time to inform the public that the applicant was going to defer that perhaps the Board would like to hear from those that had come to testify. Brandt asked Howard to give a brief statement of the staff recommendation. Howard did not give the staff report, but explained that the staff was recommending denial because after analyzing the evidence and visiting the site numerous times to count vehicles on the site, staff believes that the parking is already overutilized at 612 N. Linn Street and therefore there is not enough parking to serve both the tenants at 612 N. Linn Street and the tenants of 225 Church Street. Corcoran asked if this was a return of a previous case. Howard stated that it had been deferred twice. Public Hearin¢l Opened Jim Buxton, 1811 Muscatine St., owner of the property of 225 Church Street, stated that they need one additional parking space to permit the rental to four unrelated people. He stated that this morning when he met with Ms. Howard he was informed that the staff would recommend that the special exception be denied. He requests a deferral so that he can find an acceptable parking spot before bringing the special exception forward. Tim Walker, 621 N. Johnson, stated that several properties in the area owned by Buxton were full of trash and poorly kept, and have been cited for several reasons. Clarence Haverkamp, 619 N. Linn St., stated that there are three concrete parking spots, a garage and one parking spot in front of the garage at the property at 612 N. Linn St. He said that there are five cars parked at that house the majority of the time, and none park in the garage (one is usually parked in the grass). Several cars that park in this area are not residents of the immediate area. Public Hearing Closed Motion: Keitel moved that item EXC00-00017, a request for a special exception to permit off street parking on a separate lot for property located in the Neighborhood Conservation Residential (RNC-'I2) zone at 225 Church Street, be deferred for one month. The motion was seconded by Paul. The motion passed on a vote of 4-0. EXC00-00021. An application submitted by Mid-Eastern Council on Chemical Abuse (MECCA) for a special exception to permit construction of a twelve unit apartment and a reduction in parking spaces for property located in the Intensive Commercial Zone (C1-1) at 436 Southgate Avenue. Board of Adjustment December 13, 2000 Page 11 Howard began by stating that the applicant is a private, not for profit organization that provides substance abuse treatment services and has operated a care facility at 430 Southgate Avenue since 1986. The Applicant is requesting a special exception to construct a new office building with dwelling units above the office space. These would be transitional apartments for MECCA clients transitioning from the rehab facility into more permanent housing. In addition, they have requested to reduce the number of parking spaces required for the existing rehab facility. Howard stated that MECCA has met the standards required for dwellings located above the ground floor of another principal use permitted in the Cl-1 zone. The ground floor of the proposed building will be offices, which is a permitted use in the Cl-1 zone. In addition, Howard stated that the density does not exceed the maximum density of one dwelling unit per 1,800 square feet of lot area. Howard stated that staff feels the proposal is compatible with the surrounding uses. Howard stated that the applicant has mentioned a fenced play area, and staff has some concern about buffering between the large parking lot on the adjacent property to the east and the fenced play area. The Board may want to require additional buffering if they grant the exception. Howard outlined the parking requirements for the various uses on the MECCA site and stated that the parking would be shared between all uses. The applicant requests a reduction of the parking requirement for the rehab facility because residents are not allowed to drive or have cars as a condition of their residency. In addition, the visiting hours do not significantly affect the demand for parking at the facility because visitors are only allowed on Tuesdays and Saturdays. Howard presented parking counts conducted by the applicant to show that the number of parking spaces is adequate for current and future use of the property as long as it remains a rehab facility that does not allow its residents to drive. Howard advised the board that since the MECCA site is divided into separate lots, a parking easement should be recorded between the two properties to ensure that the office/apartment building would have access to 24 parking spaces on the lot at 430 Southgate Avenue in perpetuity, if the special exception is granted. Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustment approve EXC00-00021, a special exception to permit twelve apartment units to be constructed above ground floor office space at 436 Southgate Avenue in the Intensive Commercial (C1-1) zone; and a special exception to reduce the required number of parking spaces for the entire MECCA site located at 430 and 436 Southgate Avenue in the Cl-1 zone from 100 parking spaces to 84 parking spaces, subject to ~he following conditions: An easement on property located at 430 Southgate Avenue must be granted to property located at 436 Southgate Avenue that assures access to 24 parking spaces and associated aisles and drives in perpetuity and must be recorded as a covenant that runs with the land; and The play area associated with the new office residential building must be protected from the adjacent parking areas by a fence of durable construction that is at least 6' in height and a planting screen of pyramidal arbor vitae located between the fence and the adjacent parking lot. This screen must be planted according to the specifications in the City Code, 14-6S-11B-1. Brandt asked if it was a concern that in the future residents would be allowed to have cars. Yapp stated that the use is being granted to MECCA and that if the use of the property changed, the special exception would no longer apply. Holecek stated that they don't typically tie special exceptions to one ownership because it is a land use decision. A condition could be added if desired that the special exception would apply as long as the residents of the treatment center were not permitted to have vehicles. Board of Adjustment December 13, 2000 Page 12 Public Hearinq Opened Ron Ber,q, an employee of MECCA, presented himself for questions. Brandt asked him if he had any concerns with the condition regarding residents driving vehicles. He stated that he did not. Public Hearinq Closed Motion: Corcoran moved that the Board of Adjustment approve EXC00-00021, a special exception to permit 12 apartments to be constructed above ground floor office space at 436 Southgate Avenue in the Intensive Commercial (C1-t) zone and a special exception to reduce the required number of parking spaces for the entire MECCA site located at 430 and 436 Southgate Avenue in the Cl-t zone from t00 parking to 84 parking spaces, subject to the following conditions: 1) an easement on property located at 430 Southgate Avenue must be granted to property located at 436 Southgate Avenue that assures access to 24 parking spaces and associated aisles and drives in perpetuity and must be recorded as a covenant that runs with the land; 2) the play area associated with the new office/residential building must be protected from the adjacent parking areas by a fence of durable construction that is at least 6' in height and a planting screen of pyramidal arbor vitse located between the fence and the adjacent parking lot. This screen must be planted according to the specifications in the City Code 14-6S-11B-1; 3) the special exception shall attach to the use of the facility as a drug and alcohol treatment center, admission to which is conditioned upon not having a vehicle readily on the premises. Seconded by Keitel. Findincls of Fact Corcoran stated that she would vote in favor of the motion. The applicant appears to have met the standards of the Code and the proposal is compatible with the surrounding uses. Paul stated that he would vote in favor of the motion. The standards have been met, in density as well as location. The parking requirements are a unique situation. It will not be injurious to other persons or neighboring properties. Keitel stated that he would vote in favor of the motion. The interests of the public have been served and there are no detrimental engineering issues. Brandt stated that he would vote in favor of the motion. It is a good project, good location, and minimal impact on others. The motion passed on a vote of 4-0. EXC00-00022. An application submitted by MVL Properties and Iowa City Tire for a special exception to permit Iowa City Tire to continue operation of a satellite location for an automobile repair business for a property located in the Community Commercial Zone (CC-2) at 521 Kirkwood Avenue. Paul recused himself at this point due to the fact that the presenter is a close friend of his. Yapp stated that this property is on Kirkwood Avenue at Governor's Ridge, at the southeast corner of the building. This use was in this area for 14 months, and was discovered when a complaint was received. Iowa City Tire uses this location as an overflow area for diagnostic testing and tune-up type repairs. The public does not visit this location. The staff feels that it is favorable that this site is used only for employees to shuttle cars back and forth, and that ingress and egress to the site is adequate. The use is compatible with adjacent properties Board of Adjustment December 13, 2000 Page 13 because the rear of the facility is not in view. Staff recommends that the special exception be approved for a satellite station for diagnostic testing and tune-up related minor repairs, subject to the use not being open to the general public and being confined to the basement level of the building at 521 Kirkwood Avenue. Keitel asked if there are any building code issues. Yapp stated that there had been a problem with venting gases from the site which has been resolved. Public Hearinq Opened David Foman, the property manager for MVL Properties, presented himself for questions. Brandt questioned whether the conditions suggested create any problem. Foman stated that this area is not a place for the public to come - the area is inhabited by warehouse space and the Iowa City Tire space, and he did not have a problem with the conditions proposed by staff. Public Hearincl Closed Motion: Corcoran moved for approval of EXC00-00022, a special exception to allow the continuation of an auto and truck oriented use, specifically a satellite service station for diagnostic testing and tune-up related minor repairs, subject to the use not being open to the general public and being confined to the basement level of the building at 521 Kirkwood Avenue, Seconded by Keitel. Findincls of Fact Brandt stated that he would vote in support of the motion. The basic standards are met and the business is unobtrusive. Corcoran stated that she would vote in favor. The standards appear to have been met, and it seems to be compatible with the adjacent properties with no health or safety issues. Keitel stated that he would vote in favor. The motion passed on a 3-0 vote. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION It was nominated that Kate Corcoran be the Airport Board of Adjustment representative. Kate accepted the position. Next Board of Adjustment meeting is set for January 10, 2001. A luncheon which was planned for Brandt for December 14th has been canceled. It is planned to have a luncheon after the new board member is selected in January. Holecek introduced Mitch Behr, a new attorney in the City Aftorney's Office. He will be assisting with land use and planning and zoning issues. Brandt stated that he has enjoyed his tenure on the Board, and that it has been very educational. He has gained a real appreciation for City staff. Corcoran thanked Brandt for his articulate, thoughtful, leadership. Keitel and Paul affirmed thanks. Board of Adjustment December 13, 2000 Page 14 ADJOURNMENT Keitel moved to adjourn with the second by Paul. The meeting adjourned at 9:25 P.M. oar air ~'~'~an~l~re ary - plxladminVnins~boal 2-13-00.doc M,NUTES WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2001 -5 P.M. CIVIC CENTER- COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Mike Paul, T.J. Brandt, Vincent Maurer, Dennis Keitel, Kate Corcoran MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Karen Howard, Sarah Holocek OTHERS PRESENT: None CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairperson Corcoran called the meeting to order at 5:03 P.M. ROLL CALL: Maurer, T.J. Brandt, Paul, Corcoran and Keitel present. CONSIDERATION OF THE DECEMBER 13, 2000, BOARD MINUTES: Corcoran noted that the meeting was started at 5:15PM as reflected by the draft of the minutes. It indicated that T.J. Brandt was absent. Comoran stated that she also would have been absent for the roll call vote and for the review of the minutes. Paul stated that he seconded the motion to approve the minutes and it would have been approved on a 3-0 vote. Motion: Paul moved to approve the December 2000, minutes as amended and re-confirmed from the tape. Keitel seconded with the motion being carried on a vote of 3-0. Maurer and T.J. Brandt abstained, as they were not present at the December meeting. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON AND VICE CHAIRPERSON: MOTION: Keitel nominated Corcoran to serve as the chairpemon with a second by Paul. The motion passed unopposed on a 5-0 vote. MOTION: Paul nominated Brandt to serve as the vice-chairperson with a second by Corcoran. The motion passed unopposed on a 5-0 vote. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION: Consideration of a letter received from Thomas Gelman requesting reconsideration of the decision made during the December board meeting to deny AP00-0001, am appeal of a decision of the Building Official to deny a minor site plan submitted by Bloomington Properties, LLP for a medical office building and associated parking lot located at 510/512 East Bloomington Street in the Commercial Office (CO1) zone. Attorney Holocek explained that according to Robert's Rules of Order, duly adopted by the Iowa City Board of Appeals, where there are not rules of procedure explicitly setout in the bylaws, the Board of Adjustment procedurally follows Robert's Rules of Order. Pursuant to this, a motion to reconsider must be made by someone on the prevailing side or who voted on the prevailing side. As there was a 2-2 vote, the prevailing side would be to deny the appeat because statutorily per Iowa Code three members of a five member board is required to overturn a decision of a lower official. In this case it is the building official. The prevailing side was the denial. The two persons voting to deny the appeal were Corcoran and Lowell Brandt. Mr. Brandt's term has expired; therefore Corcoran is the only person who can make the motion to reconsider. However, it does not preclude other members from making statements as to why or why not it would not be in the best interest of all to reconsider the matter, short of debate. Chairperson Corcoran offered the opportunity for the board members to make their statements as to why or why not the matter should or shoutd not be reconsidered. Iowa City Board of Adjustment Minutes January 10, 2001 Page 2 Paul stated that the Board went through a lengthy process of listening to pros and cons as well as explanations by the staff and Mr. Gelman. Given the process that the city and the Bloomington Partners have gone through up to this point he said he felt it was a shame that the fifth member was not present. It is nothing against the fifth member. His presence could have made the difference one way or another. He stated that he is in favor of re-hearing the case. It was very worthwhile and informative. He stated he felt it would serve justice to hear the comments again. Keitel inquired if the applicant has indicated to the Planning Department if they intended to make any changes since the letter was written. Howard stated that she was not aware of any changes. Brandt offered a deep apology to all parties involved as well as the board. Due to business problems he was not able to attend the meeting. Had he been present it would have been decided one way or another. He would be in favor of the reconsideration as the fifth member for his own sake, as well as the applicant's sake. Corcoran stated that she had really struggled with this issue as she expected this action to occur, Respectfully she declined to make the motion to reconsider. She stated that she believed in the two and one-half hours that the board considered the appeal there was a full and fair exchange of information. It received a very good review by the board. She realized that there were only four board members present and she was four minutes late to the meeting. In the procedural rules, Article 6, Section 4, it is stated that a quorum for the board is three members and four were present. She stated that she would stand by the findings that she gave as the basis for voting against the appeal. She said that she believed that the building official had the discretion. In the site plan review the preamble as well as the rest of the additional sections provided for discretion. The building official in denying this site plan did not abuse his discretion. There was a reasonable basis to deny the site plan that was submitted by Bloomington Properties. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION The next meeting is scheduled for February 14, 2001. ADJOURNMENT Keitel moved to adjourn with the second by Brandt. The meeting adjourned at 5:17 PM Board Chairperson Board Secretary Minutes Submitted By Le Ann Dunne-Tyson MINUTES IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES REGULAR MEETING THURSDAY, - DECEMBER 21,2000 5:00 PM Members Present: Winston Barclay, Linda Dellsperger, Mary McMurray, Shaner Magalh~es, Mark Martin, Lisa Parker, Jesse Singerman, Jim Swaim Members Absent: Linda Prybil Staff Present: Maeve Clark, Susan Craig, Beth Daly, Larry Eckholt, Debb Green, Heidi Lauritzen, Kara Logsden, Liz Nichols Others: Joe Heitz, Press-Citizen In order to protect Mark Martin's voice, Lisa Parker ran the meeting under Martin's direction. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:05 pm. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Singerman asked for clarification of the section on construction management. It was explained that the Library will not hire a construction manager, but the City Public Works Department will assume those duties. The City has a person in mind to oversee the project, but he will not be available to attend meetings during the design phase. During the design phase, the Architects will be responsible for subcontracting for project planning services. This will include construction phasing. The Board wanted to know if they have the right to ask the architects to terminate relations with a firm if the Board has no confidence in the firm. Craig assured that the Architects would hire competent workers, so it would be unlikely. The minutes of the regular meeting of November 16, 2000 were approved, Swaim, Dellsperger. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Buildinq project Architect Services Contract: As of the meeting time, Craig had not received a copy of the formal contract needed to hire the architects. At this point, attorneys from the City and the architects are reviewing proposed changes to the contract. ICPL BOARD OF TRUSTEES December 21,2000 Page 2 There will be three contracts: one for the design phase, one for the construction phase, and one for the furniture, fixtures, and equipment. The tentative schedule is as follows: January 15 - Lawyers sign off contract January 17 - Craig and Building Committee meet to review contract January 19 - Contract mailed in Library Board Packet January 27 - Board approves and signs contract at regular meeting Craig was worried that the architects would not want to work without a contract for several weeks while the details were finalized, but they had no problem with that. Library Visits: Craig updated the Board on the planned Library visits. So far, Craig and various other staff have visited several libraries in Minnesota. The planned Chicago trip was rescheduled due to weather, and staff members hope to make a day trip on December 28. Craig reported that every library they visited had some nice features that would work well here, but in her opinion, no library was better than ICPL can be. Another day trip is scheduled for January 8 to visit libraries in Iowa. Chanqes to the Buildincl Proc~ram: Library departments are updating the 1994 Building Plan. Examples of the items under discussion are moving the ICN room to the first floor to make it accessible to early morning meetings, and changing some of the proposed movie viewing stations to Internet stations. Craig asked the Board how involved they wanted to be during this process. Board members were comfortable with the staff making decisions and directing the architects to make changes during the design phase. The Board requested that Craig prepare a list of the highlights of the changes (such as the ICN room move) so they are informed and can speak for the public interest. They will also sign off on all the plans, so the review of the highlights will provide opportunities to make changes. Craig will prepare a report under these guidelines. Proposed Schedule for Architect visits: The architects plan to be in Iowa City three times in January. Craig proposed hosting public forums during these visits. January 3 - Business forum 4 pm- inform Downtown Association and Chamber of Commerce members Public forum 7 pm- send cards to our mailing list, advertise in Press Citizen and Gazette January 11 - Public forum 7 pm- send cards to our mailing list, advertise in Press Citizen and Gazette January 25 & 26 - meet with Board at their regular meeting ICPL BOARD OF TRUSTEES December 21,2000 Page 3 The Board was in favor of the proposal, but wanted to know more details. Craig suggested that the architects present and review the preliminary designs for the public, outline what can't be changed (size, budget, etc), and ask for questions and comments. Craig thought that she and the building committee should be on hand to answer policy questions. A possible scenario: "I'm really concerned about handicap access to the restrooms." "As you can see, we have included some design features to address that issue." The Board directed Craig to set up the forums as discussed. The preliminary design phase is to be completed by the end of March. This is a tight schedule, very challenging. On a side note, the Board wanted to know if input could be received by e-mail. Nichols replied that not only is it possible, but we have already received a substantial number of comments that way. 64-1A: There has been some interest in developing 64-1A, the parking lot to the south of the Library. The City Council will discuss this possibility at an informal meeting in January. Craig would like for the Building Committee and herself to be present to speak for the Library. For example, it would not be in the Library's best interest for construction at 64-1A to take place at the same time as Library construction. Ideally for the Library, the lot would be dedicated to library parking. Although the Board has already sent a letter detailing the Library's preference, Swaim suggested that it would be good to be proactive and remind the Council what we want. The Board would like any construction on 64-1A to include at least 50 parking spaces for library users. On the issue of parking, during library construction, it is likely that the City will redesign the parallel parking on Linn Street between College and Washington to angled parking. This would increase the number of parking spaces and raise the level of the sidewalk to provide accessible entrances to the businesses along Linn. One less positive result will be a narrower sidewalk. Lenoch & Cilek Buildinq Leases: The City Manager can negotiate with the business owners in the Lenoch & Cilek Building to sign short term leases. The City will take possession of the building on March 1, but the demolition won't begin until after September 2001. Mural: Craig distributed a newspaper article about the mural in the Lenoch & Cilek building. There has not yet been any contact made by those wanting to preserve the mural and Library staff or Board. ICPL BOARD OF TRUSTEES December 21, 2000 Page ,~ Martin appointed Swaim and Barclay to contact the teacher and visit SHAC, the alternative high school (successor to the school whose students painted the mural), to get some idea of what the group has in mind for the mural. The Board is eager to cooperate in the discussion of mural preservation and location, whether in the Library, the schools, or some other public place. Exit Poll: Craig included the results of an exit survey that was conducted on election night, November 7, 2000, by the University of Iowa. It was interesting that the reason most given for voting "yes" for Library expansion was "Library excellence." Budaet FY02: Craig reported that she has not received a copy of the FY02 budget, but knew that the report was scheduled to be distributed. The City Manager indicated that he would recommend the Library gain one new position in FY01, FY02, and in FY03, to meet staffing needs of a larger building. This is not in writing and so is not positive yet. NEW BUSINESS: A. Matchinq Gift: Craig proposed that the Board set aside trust income up to $50,000 over five years from 5311.5 (NOBU) and use it to match gifts by the staff towards the Foundation's new Reaching for New Heights campaign. The Board was tentatively in favor, but had some concerns. Swaim was reluctant to commit such a substantial amount this early in the campaign. Martin wanted to know if 5311.5 could support such a gift. Craig assured him that the fund usually about a $20,000 to $30,000 carry-over this year, and that the trust income is about $8,500 annually and increasing. Parker pointed out that if the campaign did not raise enough, NOBU funds would have to be used to buy the same furniture or equipment that the campaign would have purchased. Eckholt reported that the Friends Foundation Board was enthusiastic about the possibility of matching gifts. Matching money is a significant incentive to donors and is good fundraising strategy. Several donors have already requested that their gifts be used for matching. The automatic pay option (deduction from checking or saving) is almost ready to be implemented. As soon as possible after that, the campaign will approach staff to solicit donations. Craig cautioned that the campaign be careful to follow City guidelines for solicitations. The Board approved the use of gift money up to $50,000 as described in the proposal: Martin/Dellsperger. B. Policy Reviews: The Board approved the proposed language changes in the "Policy Making" and "Membership in Professional Organizations" policies as recommended by staff: ParkedBarclay. ICPL BOARD OF TRUSTEES December 21,2000 Page 5 On a side note, the language in the policy on Membership in Professional Organizations states that the Trustees shall be asked every year in January if they wish to join ALA. One of the Board Members wondered why he was never asked? Craig said it was an oversight, that the staff must have missed asking this January. C. Director Evaluation: The Director Evaluation Committee (Parker and McMurray) recommended that the format of the evaluation be changed from job description related to goal related. Craig drafted some goals for this year. In the future, goals will be drafted and proposed at the same time that the previous year's goals are evaluated. The Board approved the drafted goals, commenting that they seem pretty extensive. D. City Low Power Radio Station: Barclay reported that he has heard that due to pressure from commercial media organizations, the FCC has cut back on the amount of low power licenses it had planned to offer. There was some discussion that this turn of events has made the City's application for a license useless. Other Trustees countered that our letter would be a statement of support and that if the FCC ever opens the application process again, the City would have shown their interest and have the Library's support. Swaim explained that if this FCC proposal goes through, United Action for Youth, in a separate but coordinated effort, might work with the City to provide a youth radio station. He also suggested that ICPL could explore the possibility of streaming audio on our Web site. The Board was concerned about adding to the already high staff workload. Craig explained that staff would drop other things if work on radio projects became a priority, and the City Cable TV offices would help convert applicable video programs to radio programs. The Board voted to send a letter of support, regardless of whether or not the City has a chance at a license: Swaim/Magalh~es. STAFF REPORTS: A. Phone Notification: Lauritzen reported that the phone notification system has been on line for a couple of weeks. The public is very enthusiastic about e-mail notifications, but there has not been much reaction to phone notification. So far the breakdown has been as follows: 43% of hold notices are sent by e-mail, 48% of hold notices are sent by phone, and the rest are sent by mail. B. Reclassification: The Building Manager position (approval was postponed election night) has since been approved by the City Council. ICPL BOARD OF TRUSTEES December 21,2000 Page 6 C. New Hennen Rel~ort: Last year, the Hennen Report ranked ICPL in the top ten libraries of its size in the US. This year, ICPL was not ranked as highly. Craig mentioned that the data used in the report was a couple of years old, so next year we could be ranked higher. Craig was delighted to point out that the North Liberty Community Library received a high ranking this year. D. DO Report: Eckholt reported that the annual fund drive is doing well, and that the Friends Foundation has received quite a number of stock gifts this year. He mentioned that the capital campaign was at a sensitive stage. At this point, the DO Staff are working on a leadership gift and soliciting Foundation and Library Board members. In spite of the extreme weather, the Library received 6,000 books for Project Holiday. Eckholt was disappointed that the media has not showed more interest in the school kids who have worked so hard to collect the books. The 2001 Spelling Bee will take place Tuesday, February 6, 2001. E. Readinqs: Craig included readings she felt would be of interest to Board members. F. Board and Commission Business List: Craig explained that the Board and Commission list is distributed by the City to show the possible conflicts of interest between Board and Commission members and businesses they run. G. Library Jail Service: Logsden explained that the Johnson County Jail Browsing Library is closing due to lack of space. There are also security issues related to inmates having large numbers of books. ICPL will change the Jail procedures so inmates can choose 6 books per week. The Jail still contracts with ICPL to provide magazine and newspaper subscriptions, but that may change in FY02. As procedural changes are taking place, Library staff have volunteered to work with jail staff to design new spaces that include a browsing library. Swaim very strongly opposed the closing of the Jail Browsing Library. He agreed that most of the inmates would be well served by the new procedures, but insisted that for the few who haven't had education or opportunities, a browsing library would possibly be the only contact they would have with books. ICPL wants to serve all inmates, not just those who are comfortable with libraries. The Board will approach the Jail Building Committee (when formed) and take a proactive role in promoting library service. Logsden will include "suggested title" and reader advisory bookmarks for all level readers in with the material sent to the Jail. ICPL BOARD OF TRUSTEES December 21,2000 Page ? H. ILA LeQislative Aqenda: Craig apologized for the late notice to the annual Legislative Reception, and said that this had turned out to be a good year to miss, as only two legislators were able to attend. Governor Viisack has requested that Enrich Iowa funds be increased to $700,000, with the increase to be funded from non-tax income. On the federal level, there is a bill tying federal funding of libraries to Internet filtering. ICPL does not receive federal funding and so will not rush out to purchase filtering software. PRESIDENT'S REPORT: None ANNOUNCEMENT FROM MEMBERS: Swaim shared information about the Karkowski 130-year-old barn recently burning to the ground. Mr. Karkowski, who was not able to purchase insurance, has lost his barn, his furniture building equipment, and all of his works in progress. Swaim urged anyone interested to attend a fund raising soup dinner on January 14, 2000, from 6-9 pm in Old Brick. If people are not able to attend but would like to make a donation, checks will be accepted at Iowa State Bank. Magalh~es praised the Inservice Day Singers, a group of staff members who participated in a hilarious skit during staff training. Kudos were heaped upon Jeanette Carter, who wrote the words of the song to the tune of "We're Off to See the Wizard." COMMITTEE REPORTS: None DISBURSEMENTS: Visa report was reviewed. Disbursements for November were approved: Parker, McMurray. SET AGENDA ORDER FOR NOVEMBER MEETING: Building Plan ADJOURNMENT: Adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Minutes taken and transcribed by Beth Daly DRAFT IOWA CITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION MONDAY, JANUARY 29, 2001 - 5:30 PM CIVIC CENTER LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Betty McKray, Jim Pusack, Terry Smith, Cathy Weingeist STAFF PRESENT: Drew Shaffer, Dale Helling, Andy Matthews, Bob Hardy, Mike Brau OTHERS PRESENT: Brad Workman-Goetz, Jason Livingston, Bob Simpson, Kara Logsden, Phil Phillips, Greg Thompsom Irvin Pfab RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL The Commission voted unanamously to recommend to the City Council that the changes to the Commission By-laws be adopted. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION Bradley-Goetz reported that PATV has submitted a grant application to the State Historical Society for their Community Archives Project. The PATV Board will hold a strategic planning retreat on February 4 to plan for the upcoming year. Shaffer noted the memo in the packet which outlined the action of the th City Council on January 16 . The Council approved a resolution that moved forward the contracting process for the finishing costs of the new City Cable TV Office in Tower Place. The Council approved using $125,000 from the pass-through fund for a portion of those costs. The Council also requested a recommendation from the Telecommunications Commission on a re-allocation of the $125,000 from the pass-through fund that will be accrued over the remaining life of the franchise. Weingeist said she resented the representation made by PATV to the Council that implied that because the joint facility concept fell apart that PATV is entitled to half of the facility funds. If any of the local access channels have a plan for a capital project, they should bring it to the Commission just as the City Cable TV Office. Helling said that provided the policy does not change regarding setting aside $25,000 per year for facilities, the fund will have $125,000 at the end of the franchise period. If the Commission wishes to make a recommendation to use only half of the accrued $125,000 for the Cable TV Office in Tower Place, then the City could make an internal loan for the remainder and apply funds to be collected over the next five years for re-payment. Smith said at this time there is one request before the Commission for the use of one half of the total amount of the funds that will be collected and is consistent with the intent of the funding. The Commission is interested in heating requests from any other access channel for the remaining $125,000. The item will be placed on future meeting agendas. Smith moved to table the item to allow time for requests consistent with the current policy to use the funds to build equity in a facility to be prepared. Weingeist seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. In regards to the Triennial Review Pusack suggested that Shaffer draft AT&T a letter addressing the issues and questions raised, including those brought up during the meeting. The Commission could discuss AT&T's response at the next Commission meeting and provide an opportunity for public input at the March meeting. The Commission reached consensus on that course of action. Smith moved to recommend the by-law changes to the City Council. Weingeist seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Smith moved and Weingeist seconded a motion to approve the November 27, 2000 minutes. The motion passed unanimously. ANNOUNCEMENTS OF COMMISSIONERS McKray said that she is no longer able to attend the PATV Board meetings. Other Commissioners may wish to consider attending the meetings. She asked that this be put on a future agenda after the new Commissioner come on board. SHORT PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS None. SUBSCRIBER ISSUES Shaffer reported receiving 39 complaints between November 27 and January 16. Of those, 23 were about the cable modem service @Home and 16 about cable TV. Among the cable TV complaints 4 were about not being able to reach a customer service representative by phone, 2 about the rate increase, 2 about poor reception, 2 about the need for competition, and 5 about billing problems. Weingeist reported she too had difficulty reaching a customer service representative on the weekend. Pusack said that he has been unable to reach anyone, including an answering machine, at night. Shaffer said that this is an area that may need to be addressed during the triennial review. Pusack suggested that AT&T be asked what level of service they believe they should be providing and the level of service they believe they are providing. Pfab said that sometimes no one answers the phone at all. Shaffer said he will draft a letter to AT&T. Workman-Goetz reported that PATV's telephone number is listed in the new Qwest phone books as that for AT&T cable installation. Shaffer reported that of the 23 @Home complaints 12 were about technical problems, 5 about the toll free customer service number not being helpful or could not get through, 2 about the @Home web page being of no help, 2 about billing problems, I about an gHome representative giving false information, and I about a three-day outage. Shaffer sent AT&T an email stating that AT&T has not been responsive enough in responding to him regarding the status of complaints. Karnes replied that he had presumed that Shaffer knew that those complaints not addressed had been resolved. Shaffer replied that AT&T needs to inform him of the status of all complaints. AT&T has subsequenfiy done so. AT&T REPORT No representative was present. SENIOR CENTER REPORT Livingston reported the work of setting up the new studio area in the Senior Center has started, including the new curtain purchased with pass-through funds. Training workshops for the new digital cameras will be held in February. LIBRARY REPORT Logsden reported that staff has been busy planning for the new library building. The Library Board will meet on January 25 and a presentation on the new facility given in the City Council Chambers around 6 p.m. ECC REPORT No representative was present. Weingeist said that the schools have many events taped that could be played on the channel. As an example Weingeist cited a tape of the highlights of the City High Marching Band. Weingeist said she talked to School Board member Nicholas Johnson about making better use of the channel. PATV REPORT Bradley-Goetz reported that PATV has submitted a grant application to the State Historical Society for their Community Archives Project. PATV is now offering a cable radio workshop. Cable radio programs will be played over the computer-generated PSA's screens. Interns are being sought for public relations, production assistants, and workshop assistants. PATV will have a booth at the Business Expo in which video from the booth will be streamed on PATV's web site and the site playing at the booth. The PATV Board will hold a strategic planning retreat on February 4 to plan for the upcoming year. MCLEOD REPORT No representative was present. LEGAL REPORT MaRhews said he had nothing new to report. CITY CABLE TV OFFICE Hardy reported that the Media Unit has had a relatively quiet month which has allowed more work on longer term projects. Shaffer reported he met with the Community Television Group regarding getting the local access channel listings on the digital tier program guide. Shaffer also talked with AT&T's Jon Koebrick on the details of the form and how to report. More details should be available for the next Commission meeting. Work is continuing on the low power FM radio project. The filing period will most likely open up in late February. PASS-THROUGH FUNDING Shaffer noted the memo in the packet which outlined the action of the City Council on January 16th. The Council approved a resolution that moved forward the contracting process for the finishing costs of the new City Cable TV Office in Tower Place. The Council approved using $125,000 from the pass-through fund for a portion of those costs. The Council also requested a recommendation from the Telecommunications Commission on re-allocating the $125,000 from the pass-through fund that will be accrued over the remaining life of the franchise. Weingeist said that she was at the January 16 Council meeting and was upset with the process. The issues raised by PATV at the meeting could have been brought up and discussed six months ago rather than at the last minute. Weingeist said that the joint facility idea started to fall apart when she joined the Commission. Since then ShatTer regularly updated the Commission on efforts to locate a new facility and the intent to use the pass-through fund for a portion of those costs. PATV's concerns never came up Weingeist said she felt blind-sided by the way PATV brought this to the Council. Pusack asked Greg Thompson to clarify his role. Pusack noted that Thompson statement to the Council indicates that he did not speak for PATV as he is no longer on PATV's Board. Thompson said that his term ended in November but PATV had not yet chosen a new chair and he had been on the Board when the decision was made. Smith noted that there is a request for funds by the City and said the real issue is if PATV has a request for a portion of the pass-through funds committed to facilities. Thompson said PATV is exploring getting space in the new library building and the Englert theater. Weingeist said she resented the representation made by PATV to the Council that implied that because the joint facility concept fell apart that PATV is entitled to half of the facility funds. If any of the local access channels have a plan for a capital project, they should bring it to the Commission just as the City Cable TV Office. McKray said that having attended PATV Board meetings it is clear that Thompson's statement reflects the sentiment of the Board. Hetling's memo notes that the Tower Place facility will facilitate support for other access channels. It is important that this idea be carried out. Tower Place can be a central location for local cable TV operations in Iowa City and be able to provide support for all access operations, as needed. Thompson said that PATV was unaware that the City intended to use all the accumulated $125,000 until two weeks ago. Smith said that he first heard of specific plans to use the pass-through fund for Tower Place at the October Commission meeting. Helling said that provided the policy does not change regarding setting aside $25,000 per year for facilities, the fund will have another $125,000 at the end of the franchise period. If the Commission wishes to make a recommendation to use only half of the accrued $125,000, then the City could make an intemal loan for the remainder and apply funds to be collected over the next five years for repayment. Smith said at this time there is one request before the Commission for the use of one half of the total amountofthefundsthatwillbecollectedandisconsistentwiththeintentofthefunding. The Commission is interested in hearing requests from any other access channel for the remaining $125,000. The item will be placed on future meeting agendas. Smith moved to table the item to allow time for requests consistent with the current policy to use the funds to build equity in a facility to be prepared. Weingeist seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Shaffer will prepare a history of the pass-through fund. CITY COUNCIL BUDGET MEETING Shaffer reported that the Commission has an opportunity to speak at the Council budget meeting January 23. There are generally two reasons boards and commissions show up-to encourage the Council to approve a budget request or to make a specific request to change the budget as proposed. Pusack moved to respectfully decline the opportunity to address the Council budget meeting. Weingeist seconded and the motion passed unanimously. TRIENNEIAL REVIEW. McKray noted the document included in the meeting packet by Smith raising questions for consideration during the Triennial Review. Smith said that if the Commission agrees to the types of questions it contains, then the Commission could direct Shaffer to draft a letter to AT&T addressing those questions and asking AT&T for any remedies needed. This could satisfy the requirements for the Triennial Review in the 3rd and 6m years. The timing is good to review the performance of AT&T as many items in the franchise refer to conditions after the rebuild has been finished. Matthews noted that the ordinance contemplates a public meeting as a part of the Triennial Review. As a practical matter talking points or areas of discussion should be developed for that meeting. The public meeting could be incorporated in a Commission meeting Pusack suggested that Shaffer draft AT&T a letter addressing issues and questions raised. The Commission could discuss AT&T's response at the next Commission meeting and provide an opportunity for public input at the March meeting. The Commission reached consensus on that course of action. BY-LAWS Shaffer noted that the by-law changes go back to a period when a telecommunications ordinance was being developed which later evolved into a public right-of-way ordinance. The list of new duties are things that the Commission can do. The City legal department has approved the changes. Matthews said that the process first involves getting a recommendation from the Commission for the changes, then it goes to the City Council, which assigns it to a subcommittee of the Council for a recommendation. The Council then would adopt the by-law changes. Smith moved to recommend the by-law changes to the City Council. Weingeist seconded the motionl which passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Weingeist moved and Pusack seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously. Adj ournm ent was at 7:04 p. m Respectfully submitted, Cable TV Administrator City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: January 29, 2001 To: City Council From: Betty McKray, ICTC Chairperson 4~ Re: ICTC Recommended By-Laws changes Attached please find a clean copy and a red-line version of the proposed changes in the Iowa City Telecommunications Commission (ICTC) By-Laws. The ICTC unanimously voted to recommend these changes at their January 22, 2001 meeting. These changes are recommended for a variety of reasons, including to more accurately reflect what the Commission does now than twenty years ago, which is more of an advocacy role for subscribers; changing the election of officers to March to coincide with the timeframe when new Commissioners appointed by Council are brought on board; correcting a change in the cable TV ordinance number, and fixing grammatical errors and changes in language usage. If you have any questions or desire further information, please feel free to call me at 351-1720 or Drew Shaffer at 356-5046. cabletv\rnemosVnckray.doc DRAFT 1/29/O1 BY-LAWS IOWA CITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ARTICLE I - THE COMMISSION Section 1 The name of the Commission is the Iowa City Telecommunications Commission, referred to in these by- laws as the Commission. Section 2 The Commission is authorized by the City Council of the City of Iowa City by municipal Ordinance No. 95- 3700, effective December 12, 1995. ARTICLE II - PURPOSE Section 1 The purpose of the Commission is to recommend policies to the City Council on the regulation, development, and operation of cable television, telecommunications, and communications systems in Iowa City. Additionally, the Commission will inform and educate citizens on cable television, telecommunications, and communications systems matters affecting consumers. ARTICLE Ill - MEMBERSHIP Section 1 The Commission shall consist of five citizens of the City appointed by the City Council for a term of three years. Section 2 If a position/appointment becomes vacant by reason of resignation or otherwise and results in an unexpired term, the Council may choose to fill the unexpired term in such a manner that the appointee shall continue in the position not only through the unexpired term but also through the subsequent regular term. Section 3 No Commissioner, without a reasonable explanation, may miss more than two regularly scheduled meetings within a twelve-month period. If more than two such meetings are missed, dismissal under this provision shall be recommended to the City Council only upon concurrence of the remaining Commissioners. Section 4 Commissioners shall serve without compensation but shall be entitled to the necessary expenses, including travel, incurred in the discharge of their duties. 2 ARTICLE IV - OFFICERS Section 1 The Commission shall elect a Chair and Vice-Chair from among its members who shall serve in such capacity for a period of one year. The election of officers shall be yeady at the first regular Commission meeting in March, or as soon as possible, after City Council appointments are made to the Commission each March. Section 2 The Secretary for the Commission shall be the City's Cable Television Administrator. It shall be the duty of the Secretary to keep a full record of the proceedings of the Commission. ARTICLE V - MEETINGS Section 1 The Commission shall meet on a regular basis at least once each month unless a majority of members agree otherwise at a time and place as shall be set by the secretary of the Commission. Section 2 The Chair or any two (2) Commissioners may call a special meeting by giving at least twenty-four (24) hours notice in advance to each Commissioner and to the news media. Only items included on the agenda for the special meeting may be considered. Section 3 A quorum shall consist of three (3) Commissioners. A majority of present and voting members shall be necessary to pass a motion. The Chair shall vote as a member. Section 4 All meetings of the Commission shall be open to the public pursuant to Chapter 28A of the Code of Iowa, except where 4/5 of the Commission votes to close a meeting to the public for the purpose of discussing business outlined in Chapter 28A.5 of the Code of Iowa. All closed meetings shall be duly recorded pursuant to Chapter 28A.5 ARTICLE VI - DUTIES Section 1 The Commission shall consider any inquiry or proceeding requiring City Council action to be taken in regard to the cable television system(s) as defined in Ordinance 95-3700 or franchise. Section 2 The Commission shall conduct evaluations of the system at least every three (3) years, with the grantee, and pursuant thereto, make recommendations to the Council concerning system improvements and amendments to this Ordinance or to any franchise agreement. One such review must take place within the twelve months prior to the expiration of any franchise. 3 Section 3 The Commission, pursuant to Ordinance 95-3700, shall resolve dispute or disagreements between subscribers, potential subscribers and any cable television system operator should such parties be unable first to resolve their dispute. Section 4 The Commission shall review and audit reports and correspondence submitted to the City concerning the operation of the cable television system(s) so as to insure that all reports are completed and fulfilled pursuant to Ordinance 95-3700. Section 5 The Commission shall work with the public and the news media to assure that all records, rules, and charges pertinent to the cable television system(s) are made available for inspection at reasonable hours upon reasonable notice. Section 6 The Commission shall confer with the cable television system(s) operator(s) and advise on the interconnection of the City's cable system with other cable and communications systems. Section 7 The Commission shall solicit, review and provide recommendations to the City Council for selection of applicants for a franchise under provisions of Sections 12-4-9 and 12-4-10 of Ordinance 95-3700. Section 8 The Commission shall initiate inquiries, receive requests for review of regulated rates charged by any cable television system operator, and provide recommendations on such actions to the City Council. Section 9 The Commission shall establish and administer sanctions as authorized by the City Council to insure compliance with Ordinance 95-3700. Section 10 The Commission shall make recommendations to the operator(s) of the cable television system(s) and to the educational and governmental users of the educational and governmental access channels. Section 11 The Commission shall ensure that any cable television operator makes the public access channel(s) available to all residents of the City on a nondiscriminatory basis, Section 12 The Commission shall ensure that the operation of the public access channel(s) be free of program censorship and control. 4 Section 13 The Commission shall perform such other duties and functions in order to maximize the use of public access channels among the widest range of individuals, institutions, and other organizations within the City. This shall include recommendations to the City Council for utilization of the annual franchise payment. Section 14 The Commission shall help identify public rights-of-way issues and concerns related to telecommunications that may be of importance to the City and its citizens. Section 15 The Commission shall educate the City and its citizens regarding the power and authority granted the City (or lack thereof) in dealing with such talecommunications issues and concerns. Section 16 The Commission shall provide citizens with referrals to the appropriate state and/or federal agencies which regulate such talecommunications activities in the event the City does not have jurisdiction. Section 17 The Commission shall inform and educate citizens regarding such telecommunications matters affecting consumers, such as, but not limited to, consumer protection information Section 18 The Commission shall make recommendations regarding development of the local communications infrastructure. Section 19 The commission shall work with organizations such as the League of Cities to promote the interests of municipal governments and citizens before state legislative and administrative bodies regarding the cable television and telecommunications competition and related consumer protection procedures, practices and guidelines. Section 20 The Commission shall, to the extent possible, ensure the public right-of-way regulation is consistent with the commission's interest in promoting competition among talecommunications providers and other communications companies. ARTICLE VII - CONDUCT OF BUSINESS Section 1 The Chair of the Commission shall set the agenda for meetings. Items submitted to the Chair by Commissioners at least ten days in advance of a regularly scheduled meeting shall be included. Each Commissioner and staff member shall be provided with an agenda prior to each meeting. 5 Section 2 The Commission's Secretary shall be responsible for the drafting and distribution of minutes of all such meetings. Section 3 The Secretary shall be responsible for maintaining official files of all Commission reports, correspondence, minutes, and other materials. These records and reports shall be made available for public inspection and copying pursuant to Chapter 68A of the Iowa Code except where specifically exempted from public inspection by said Chapter. Section 4 The Commission shall prepare and transmit to the Mayor and City Council from time to time, but not less than once each year, reports describing its proceedings, evaluations, investigations, hearings conducted and the outcome thereof, decisions rendered, and any other work performed by the Commission. Section 5 The Commission shall adopt, pursuant to the Iowa City Administrative Code, such rules, regulations, and procedures as are necessary to carry out its duties and responsibilities. Section 6 The Commission shall be governed in all cases by the rules in the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised except where they are not consistent with these by-laws and/or any special rules the commission may adopt, ARTICLE VIII - APPOINTMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEES Section 1 Subcommittees will be authorized by a majority vote of the Commission. The Chair will appoint Commission members to the subcommittees. ARTICLE IX - RATIFICATION AND AMENDMENTS Section 1 These by-laws can be amended at any regular Commission meeting provided that 4/5 of all Commissioners vote in favor of the amendment and provided that the amendment has been submitted in writing prior to the meeting at which it is to be acted upon and such amendment is not in conflict with Ordinance 95-3700. cabletv\bylawbtc.doc DRAFT 1/26/01 BY-LAWS (REVISED AND ADOPTED 511/79) IOWA CITY BROADBAND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ARTICLE I - THE COMMISSION Section 1 The name of the Commission is the Iowa City Bre=dScnd Telecommunications Commission, referred to in these by-laws as the Commission. Section 2 The Commission is authorized by the City Council of the City of Iowa City by municipal Ordinance No. ~ L294-7-95-3700, effective 22 August, 1978 December 12, 1995. ARTICLE II - PURPOSE Section 1 The purpose of the Commission is to facilitate and regulate the smooth and effective development and operation of Iowa City's Broadband Teleoommunications Network (BTN) as doffned in Ordinance No. 78 29!7 recommend policies to the City Council on the regulation, development, and operation of cable television, telecommunications, and communications systems in Iowa City, Additionally, the Commission will inform and educate citizens on cable television, telecommunications, and communications systems matters affecting consumers. ARTICLE III - MEMBERSHIP Section 1 The Commission shall consist of five citizens of the City appointed by the City Council for a term of three years. except that the first appointees shall bc appointed (1) for a term of one year; (2) for a term of two yours; and (2) for a term of three years; and thereafter each for a term of three years. Following system completion, it is rccemmended that a majority of the members bc subscribors to the system at the timo of their appointment. Section 2 Vacancies shall be filled by the City Council for the remainder of the unsxpired term, If a position/appointment becomes vacant by reason of resignation or otherwise and results in an unexpired term, the Council may choose to fill the unexpired term in such a manner that the appointee shall continue in the position not only through the unexpired term but also through the subsequent regular term. Section 3 No Commissioner, without a reasonable explanation, may miss more than two regularly scheduled meetings within a twelve-month period. If more than two such meetings are missed, dismissal under this 2 provision shall be recommended to the City Council only upon concurrence of the remaining Commissioners. Section 4 Commissioners shall serve without compensation but shall be entitled to the necessary expenses, including travel, incurred in the discharge of their duties. ARTICLE IV - OFFICERS Section 1 The Commission shall elect a ChairpeFsen and Vice-Chairperson from among its members who shall serve in such capacity for a period of one year. The election of officers shall be held during the first regular meeting during the month of March yearly at the first regular Commission meeting in March, or as soon as possible, after City Council appointments are made to the Commission each March. Section 2 The Secretary for the Commission shall be the City's Broadband Telecommunications Specialist Cable Television Administrator. It shall be the duty of the Secretary to keep a full record of the proceedings of the Commission. ARTICLE V - MEETINGS Section 1 The Commission shall meet on a regular basis at least once each month unless a majority of members agree otherwise at a time and place as shall be set by the membership secretary of the Commission. Section 2 The Chair or any two (2) Commissioners may call a special meeting by giving at least twenty-four (24) hours notice in advance to each Commissioner and to the news media. Only items included on the agenda for the special meeting may be considered. Section 3 A quorum shall consist of three (3) Commissioners. A majority of present and voting members shall be necessary to pass a motion. The Chairperse~ shall vote as a member. Section 4 All meetings of the Commission shall be open to the public pursuant to Chapter 28A of the Code of Iowa, except where 4/5 of the Commission votes to close a meeting to the public for the purpose of discussing business outlined in Chapter 28A.5 of the Code of Iowa. All closed meetings shall be duly recorded pursuant to Chapter 28A.5 3 ARTICLE VI - DUTIES Section 1 The Commission shall consider any inquiry or proceeding requiring City Council action to be taken in regard to the BTN cable television system(s) as defined in Ordinance 95-3700 or franchise. Section 2 The Commission shall conduct evaluations of the system at least every three (3) years, with the grantee, and pursuant thereto, make recommendations to the Council concerning system improvements and amendments to this Ordinance or to any franchise agreement. One such review must take place within the twelve months prior to the expiration of any franchise. Section 3 The Commission, pursuant to Ordinance 7-8--29~z 95-3700, shall resolve dispute or disagreements between subscribers, potential subscribers and any BT~,~ cable television system operator should such parties be unable first to resolve their dispute. Section 4 The Commission shall review and audit reports and correspondence submitted to the City concerning the operation of the BTN cable television system(s) so as to insure that all reports are completed and fulfilled pursuant to Ordinance 78-29!7 95-3700. Section 5 The Commission shall work with the public and the news media to assure that all records, rules, and charges pertinent to the BT,N cable television system(s) are made available for inspection at reasonable hours upon reasonable notice. Section 6 The Commission shall confer with the BT~,~ cable television system(s) operator(s) and advise on the interconnection of the City's cable system with other cable and communications systems. Section 7 The Commission shall solicit, review and provide recommendations to the City Council for selection of applicants for a franchise under provisions of Sections !'!. 69 '12-4-9 and 44-7-0 t2-4:10 of Ordinance L2947 95-3700. Section 8 The Commission shall initiate inquiries, receive requests for review of regulated rates charged by BTN any cable television system operator, and provide recommendations on such actions to the City Council. Section 9 The Commission shall establish and administer sanctions as authorized by the City Council to insure compliance with Ordinance 78-2-847 95-3700. 4 Section 10 The Commission shall make recommendations to the operator(s) of the 9T,~.~ cable television system(s) and to the educational and governmental users of the educational and governmental access channels. Section 11 The Commission shall ensure that any 9T~! cable television operator makes the public access channel(s) available to all residents of the City on a nondiscriminatory basis. Section 12 The Commission shall css=rc ensure that the operation of the public access channel(s) be free of program censorship and control. Section 13 The Commission shall perform such other duties and functions in order to maximize the use of public access channels among the widest range of individuals, institutions, and other organizations within the City. This shall include recommendations to the City Council for utilization of the annual franchise payment. Section 14 The Commission shall help identify public rights-of-way issues and concerns related to telecommunications that may be of importance to the City and its citizens. Section '15 The Commission shall educate the City and its citizens regarding the power and authority granted the City (or lack thereof) in dealing with such telecommunications issues and concerns. Section 16 The Commission shall provide citizens with referrals to the appropriate state and/or federal agencies which regulate such telecommunications activities in the event the City does not have jurisdiction. Section '17 The Commission shall inform and educate citizens regarding such telecommunications matters affecting consumers, such as, but not limited to, consumer protection information Section '18 The Commission shall make recommendations regarding development of the local communications infrastructure. 5 Section 19 The commission shall work with organizations such as the League of Cities to promote the interests of municipal governments and citizens before state leaislative and administrative bodies re.clardina the cable television and telecommunications competition and related consumer protection procedures, practices and guidelines. Section 20 The Commission shall, to the extent possible, ensure the public right-of-way regulation is consistent with the commission's interest in promotinq competition amoncl telecommunications providers and other communications coml3anies. ARTICLE VII - CONDUCT OF BUSINESS Section 1 The Chairt~,~-se~ of the Commission shall set the agenda for meetings. Items submitted to the Chairpcrcon by Commissioners at least eF~eANeek ten days in advance of a regularly scheduled meeting shall be included. Each Commissioner and staff member shall be provided with an agenda prior to each meeting. Section 2 The Commission's Secretary shall rocord all activities and statements made at Commission meotings and =h3!! be responsible for the drafting and distribution of minutes of all such meetings. Section 3 The Secretary shall be responsible for maintaining official files of all Commission reports, correspondence, minutes, and other materials. These records and reports shall be made available for public inspection and copying pursuant to Chapter 68A of the Iowa Code except where specifically exempted from public inspection by said Chapter. Section 4 The Commission shall prepare and transmit to the Mayor and City Council from time to time, but not less than once each year, reports describing its proceedings, evaluations, investigations, hearings conducted and the outcome thereof, decisions rendered, and any other work performed by the Commission. Section 5 The Commission shall adopt, pursuant to the Iowa City Administrative Code, such rules, regulations, and procedures as are necessary to carry out its duties and responsibilities. Section 6 The Commission shall be governed in all cases by the rules in the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised except where they are not consistent with these by-laws and/or any special rules the commission may adopt. 6 ARTICLE VIII - APPOINTMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEES Section 1 Subcommittees will be authorized by a majority vote of the Commission, The Chairlgerse~ will appoint Commission members to the subcommittees. ARTICLE IX - RATIFICATION AND AMENDMENTS These By lawc shall be ratified by 4/5 of the Commission. Section These by-laws can be amended at any regular Commission meeting provided that 4/5 of all Commissioners vote in favor of the amendment and provided that the amendment has been submitted in writing prior to the meeting at which it is to be acted upon and such amendment is not in conflict with Ordinance 78-2947 95-3700. cabletv\bylawbtcdoc i}L02'20'°I MINUTES 5b(7) PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2001 -7:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Bovbjerg, Pam Ehrhardt, Jerry Hansen, Dean Shannon, Benjamin Chair MEMBERS ABSENT: Marilyn Schintler, Norm Osland STAFF PRESENT: Mitch Behr, Bob Miklo OTHERS PRESENT: RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Recommended approval, by a vote of 5-0, SUB00-00027, an application from Westcott Partners II LLP for a final plat of Westcott Heights Part Three-A, a 78.96 acre, 47-1ot residential subdivision located in Johnson County on the west side of Prairie du Chien Road, south of Newport Road. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Bovbjerg called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. ANNOUNCEMENT OF VACANCIES ON CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: Bovbjerg stated that there were vacancies on several boards and commissions, and she encouraged citizens to apply. Bovbjerg announced that Norm Osland, one of the Planning & Zoning Commission members, had passed away unexpectedly. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION: VAC00-0005. Discussion of an application submitted by David Luck for a vacation of a 20' x 60' area of Ronalds Street right-of-way located west of Center Street. Miklo stated this was on the west side of Ronalds Street. The property owner wants to purchase some right-of-way. Originally the staff had recommended approval, but discovered there were private water lines in the right-of-way and now they are asking for deferral of this item until the right-of-way issue can be resolved. Options being pursued by staff are: 1) easement; 2) relocation; and 3) special exception. Miklo stated that the applicant concurs with the deferral. Public discussion: There was none. Public discussion closed. Shannon asked if the purchase of land by the property owner is for the purpose of building. Miklo stated that was the primary purpose. Ehrhardt asked how many homes the water line Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 Page 2 serves. Miklo said that there are two properties. The right-of-way land could not be built upon unless the water lines are moved. MOTION: Bovbjerg moved to defer indefinitely VAC00-0005, an application submitted by David Luck for a vacation of a 20' x 60' area of Ronalds Street right-of-way located west of Center Street. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0. DEVELOPMENT ITEM: SUB00-00027, an application from Westcott Partners II LLP for a final plat of Westcott Heights Part Three-A, a 78.96 acre, 47-1ot residential subdivision located in Johnson County on the west side of Prairie du Chien Road, south of Newport Road. Miklo stated that this was on the December 21, 2000 agenda and the full staff report was read at that time. At that time staff reported there were some concerns by County staff and this item was deferred. Miklo advised that those concerns have been addressed, and staff recommends approval. Public discussion: There was none. Public discussion closed. MOTION: Shannon moved to approve SUB00-00027, an application from Westcott Partners II LLP for a final plat of Westcott Heights Part Three-A, a 78.96 acre, 47-1ot residential subdivision located in Johnson County on the west side of Prairie du Chien Road, south of Newport Road. Hansen seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0. Ehrhardt moved to approve the minutes of the December 21, 2000 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting as written. Hansen seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0. OTHER: Miklo stated that the City Budget has been provided for the Commission's information. Miklo advised that the report from the consulting firm regarding the review of City Codes has been provided to Commission members for their review. The consultant will be at the February 1, 2001 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to present the plan and take questions. Miklo announced that the draft of the North District plan is complete and the notice of the North District meeting has been sent out. He encouraged all Commission members to attend the meeting on February 6, 2001 at Shimek School. Bovbjerg asked about the disposition of the Wolf property. Miklo stated that the City Council recommended denial to the County. Miklo said that Wolf has indicated that he will comply with the Fringe Area Standards and will provide further plans for a subdivision but will not pursue rezoning to manufacture housing. Bovbjerg asked about the Peninsula Neighborhood plan. Miklo stated that the Council approved first consideration of rezoning ordinances. He said the concerns raised by the Elks are being reviewed by the City Attorney's Office. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 Page 3 Hansen said that he would like to have an update from the City after the budget is finalized so they could review the budget for police and fire and other City services. Bovbjerg offered to talk to the City Manager and/or the Mayor to see if there were any meetings that Commission members could attend regarding the budget. Miklo asked that any questions regarding the Duncan issue be brought up at the informal meeting so that staff can be prepared for the formal meeting. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Dean Shannon, Secretary Minutes submitted by Neana Saylor ppdadm/rnirfp&zl 18~1doc PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2001 - 7:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Bovbjerg, Jerry Hansen, Marilyn Schintler, Dean Shannon, Benjamin Chait MEMBERS ABSENT: Pam Ehrhardt STAFF PRESENT: Mitch Behr, Bob Miklo, John Yapp, Sarah Holecek OTHERS PRESENT: RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Recommended approval, by a vote of 4-0, to amend 14-6L-1Q as follows: In residential zones, adult daycare facilities providing care to six or more adults shall have access to arterial or collector streets, or to a street with paving wider than 28 feet. Recommended approval, by a vote of 5-0, to indicate to the City Council that there is no objection to the requested rezoning of CZ00-0027, an application submitted by JEBB LC, to rezone approximately 1.76 acres located east of Dane Road and west and south of the Lake Ridge Mobile Home Park from County A1 Rural and County RS Suburban Residential to County RMH Manufactured Housing Residential, despite the fact that we continue to believe that further rezoning to RMH of any property of significant size in this area without annexation is inconsistent with the Fringe Area Agreement. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Bovbjerg called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. ANNOUNCEMENT OF VACANCIES ON CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: Bovbjerg said there is a list available on the lobby bulletin board. She said the City needs volunteers to be a truly representative city. ZONING/DEVELOPMENT ITEMS: REZ01-0001. Discussion of a rezoning from High Density Multi-Family Residential, RM-44, to Sensitive Areas Overlay, OSA-44, on 4.01 acres to allow 39 dwellings in 3 buildings located on the east side of Harlocke Street. Miklo said the applicant, Southgate Development has requested approval of a Sensitive Areas Development Plan for a 4.01-acre property located on the east side of Hadocke Street. The Sensitive Areas Development Plan is required for any development on this property due to the presence of critical (25-39%) and protected (40%) slopes. The applicant proposes to build two twelve-unit apartment buildings and one 15-unit apartment building. The property is currently zoned RM-44, High Density Multi-Family, which allows 44 units per acre. The property has had this zoning or a similar designation since 1962. The current application doesn't change the zoning as far as use or density but it is required because there are protected and critical slopes on the property and the Sensitive Areas ordinance allows the City some extra scrutiny over the property to ensure that those environmental sensitive areas are taken into consideration. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Formal February 1, 2001 Page 2 He said there were previous attempts to downzone this property. In 1984, a petition by the Harlocke-Weeber neighborhood to the west asked for a rezoning to RS-5, Low Density Single- Family. There was a study of this area done and the Planning and Zoning Commission and staff recommended that this property be zoned RNC-20 which is a Multi-Family zoning designation that allows approximately 25 units per acre. The Ruppert property was studied at that time and the Commission recommended a zoning of RM-12, Medium Density Multi-Family, which allows about 15 units per acre. Neither of these recommendations was approved by the City Council. They were tabled and sent back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. In 1994, a second request was made on the same question and again the staff recommended a Medium Density Multi-family zoning (RM- 20). It was thought by staff and the Commission at that time that due to the limited vehicular access to the area, that the High Density Multi-Family zoning was not appropriate, but recognizing the zoning that's been in place for a number of years and the existing development on the western part of Harlocke Street, which is High Density Multi-Family and also to the north and east, it was felt that down zoning to a medium or moderate density was appropriate. That was staff's position. The Commission's position was to zone the property to RS-5, Single Family Residential. That was forwarded to the City Council and after a number of negotiations the property owner had agreed to an RS-8, Medium Density Single Family. The neighborhood did not agree to RS-8 but continued to request RS-5 zoning. Again it was tabled and no zoning action was taken. He said the purpose of explaining that history is to point out that the property is zoned RM-44, which allows 44 units per acre. The actual development being proposed is considerably less than that. It is 9.5 units per acre. The Sensitive Areas Plan for this site does show the location of the protected and critical slopes in the northeast and southwest portions of this property. Coinciding with these slopes are wooded areas. However there aren't enough woodlands to constitute a protected woodland based on the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. For this plan to be accomplished there would be no grading for the most part in the protected slopes and some grading adjacent to critical slopes and that is allowed by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. There is some earthmoving work proposed to allow a storm water pipe to be brought in to allow the northeast area to provide storm water retention. If the woodland provisions of the ordinance did apply, 20% of the wooded areas would need to be retained. The plan provides for the retention of over 50% of the wooded area. Staff is recommending a conservation easement be established over the required slopes and the buffers. This is not a requirement of the ordinance but staff feels it's important to put a recorded easement on those features so that any future property owners know that those protected slopes are on the property and they should not be further disturbed. There are two 12-plexes proposed that would face Harlocke Street and would have a Harlocke Street address. There is a 15-plex proposed on the southeast portion of the property. The applicant is working with the fire department to ensure there is adequate turn around space for emergency vehicles. He said this issue has not yet been resolved. Miklo pointed out the area where storm water management would be provided for the majority of the site. Some of the storm water will run off to the south. This is allowed by the Stormwater Management ordinance because the applicant is providing storm water storage for the properties to the west that were developed prior to the ordinance. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Formal February 1, 2001 Page 3 The Parks and Recreation Commission will review the plan to determine whether this property contains open space suitable for dedication as neighborhood parkland or whether the fee should be paid in lieu of open space. It is staffs thought that fees should be paid in lieu of and used in a nearby neighborhood park rather than adding land to the park system in this area due to it's rugged topography. Miklo said there are some items still under review. The Office of the State Archaeologist has indicated that there may be an archaeological site near the southern property line. The actual location of the site may be on this or the Ruppert property to the south. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance provides the State Archaeologist the opportunity to study the site in relationship to the property line and to determine if further study is necessary in this case. The storm water calculations are being reviewed and those must be approved before the Commission votes on this. The Fire Marshall is reviewing the turn around capabilities. A grading and erosion control plan is being reviewed. Until these items are resolved, staff is recommending this application be deferred to the February 15, 2001 meeting. Miklo said if these outstanding items are resolved to the satisfaction of the City, then staff recommends approval of the Sensitive Areas Overlay rezoning and the Sensitive Areas Development Plan. Public discussion open: Glenn Siders, PO Box 1907, Iowa City, said he is with Southgate Development; the applicant for this project. He said as can be seen by the staff report, they have complied with all the requirements of the City. He said they are well below the allowed density of this property and fall within the traffic guidelines requiring secondary access. He said they are disturbing some of the protected and critical slopes to provide the storm water retention that is required by the City and that is permitted under the ordinance. Bovbjerg asked if the 12 parking spaces for the 12-plex would be behind the unit and if it is surface parking. Siders said that was correct. Bovbjerg asked how the water would be going south; whether it would be through small culverts, which can only lead to erosion or whether there's going to be measures taken to control erosion. Larrv Schnittier, 1917 South Gilbert Street, Iowa City, referred to the overhead and starting at the upstream end showed the direction of the drainage and where the storage would be. He said the storage mechanism is an existing ravine and they would be building a wall across that ravine. In that wall will be a small orifice that controls the outflow. He showed the entire route of drainage and the locations of basins and sewers. Bovbjerg asked where drainage from the 15-plex would go. Schnittjer showed the contour lines and the route of the drainage. He said in the beginning of construction there would be a silt fence there, but once you have sod and plantings they will help to mitigate any future erosion. William Knabe, 1101 Weeber Circle, Iowa City, said he is speaking on behalf of the Weeber Harlocke Neighborhood Association. He said he is there to voice their concern about the proposed plan for a Multi-Family Residential Development on the east side of Harlocke Street. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Formal February 1, 2001 Page 4 He said they seem to be trapped in some kind of time warp because they have been discussing the development of this property off and on since 1984. He said some things do not change; many of the issues are the same as 18 years ago. He said the property is very unique and the problems associated with it have been allowed to accumulate for years. He said although the Commission may only be looking at the slopes of the property, they feel there are some major sensitive environmental issues that will need to be addressed. He said they see development of this property as proposed as putting their neighborhood on the endangered species list. He said the reason they do is because this piece of property has only one street access. He said Miklo did a good job of explaining the history in a shod time but he wants to add to that. He encouraged the Commission to drive to the property to become acquainted with it. He said to get there you have to go down Benton Street to Weeber Street and then to Harlocke Street which dead ends. He said please note that Weeber and Hadocke are 24-foot wide curb to curb. They are 3 to 4 feet shod of a standard street in terms of width. He said some might think Benton Drive is an access, but it is not. That is a private drive and the City has no rights over that street. The owners of that have already stated and will probably state again that they do not intend to allow developers or renters of this property to use Benton Drive as access. He said there is one dinky street that emergency and garbage vehicles will have to try to get down and there is parking on one side of the street. He said there are some major issues and that is why they have said over the years that this property should be developed as RS-5. Knabe said some things have changed in 18 years. One is that the whole Benton Hill area has become more saturated with Multi-Family housing. He said they are beginning to wonder if Iowa City views this as a dumping ground for Multi-Density housing. He said they have traffic and safety concerns with the whole Benton Hill area. The second change is that the voice of resistance to developments like this has grown. He said it used to be just the Neighborhood Association but now there are renters who have decided they have a stake in this. He said he could guarantee that if the Commission passes this on to Council, Council will give it right back. He said that is the history and even though they have tried and are still willing to try to work out an agreement about how this property should be developed, someone isn't willing to take the stand. He said he is hoping that when the Commission hears public input from people who want to preserve and survive in this neighborhood, that the Commission will give it serious thought. He said they are willing to work with the City; they are the ones who proposed the solution. He said they have a solution to the whole hill. Ernie Cox, 913 Harlocke Street, Iowa City, said he and his partner have rented and resided on Harlocke for the past three years. He said as it stands now, he thinks the area is a good example of what Multi-Density can do. He said the renters and home owners form a very cohesive neighborhood. He said service vehicles such as fire, refuse, recycling and snow removal have difficult access to Harlocke. He said most residents have two cars per unit so there is a lot of on street parking. He said the proposed application for a Sensitive Areas Ordinance directly conflicts with some of the premises for that ordinance. He said the ordinance expresses the need to have useable public space and lot 25 is that space for the Harlocke neighborhood. This is a destination for families; children to play, people to walk their dogs. It is a functioning public space right now. He said looking at this plan as written they would not have that public space. He said he has a hard time coming up with a proper amount that they could pay in lieu that would be proper compensation for this neighborhood. He said the space down Benton has been designated as park space for as long as he can remember and that hasn't happened. He said the ordinance also talks about ecologically sound transitions between environmentally protected areas and urban development. He said he has difficulty finding this transition is happening with any degree of certainty. He thanked City staff for educating him about different zonings and how they relate Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Formal February 1, 2001 Page 5 to this property. He said looking at this on paper and actually visiting the location are two entirely different things. He said the wooded area misses being considered woodland by about 10 feet. He said that is a shame because for all intensive purposes this is a wooded area. He said in the illustrations of the ordinance, he doesn't understand how critical slopes can be included in a buffer zone. He said his last concern is to preserve the habitat of wildlife and to preserve the scenic character, He said one of the joys of having this area in the neighborhood is that it is home to severa~ different species in the meadow and wooded area. He said with the paved parking and construction; as the plan is now he doesn't see how there can be minimum destruction of this habitat. Schintler said Cox referred to the space as public space but it isn't. Cox said he realizes that it is not technically a public space but it very much functions as one. He said that area is easily accessible by foot to the entire neighborhood and it serves as public space now and he would be very disappointed to see no dedication of land in this plan. Miklo said the buffer is measured as 2 feet for every 1-foot of vertical rise from the edge of a protected slope and could include a critical slope, He said this does comply with the letter of the law and the intent of the Sensitive Areas ordinance. He showed on the overhead the area of the buffer zone and location of protected and critical slopes, Bovbjerg asked if the buffer meant there could be no disturbance. Miklo said there can be no grading or removal of trees or development activity unless it's approved as part of this development which is not being requested with the exception of the area where the storm water facility is being proposed which is permitted under the ordinance, Bovbjerg asked who checks on that activity. Miklo said a Development Regulations Specialist who deals specifically with this kind of development and will observe the development activity to make sure those buffers are adhered to. Hansen asked if the City were to accept open ground instead of remuneration, how much land would it be. Miklo said approximately 33,000 feet, based on the Neighborhood Open Space Ordinance. He said the intent of the neighborhood open space ordinance is for the City to acquire level land that can be used as parkland. Robynn Shrader, 1104 Weeber Circle, Iowa Citv, said they purchased their home 7 months ago and one of the reasons they chose it over other homes in Iowa City is because it was a very diverse yet stable, safe neighborhood. She said she works out of an office in her home so she has the opportunity to spend most of her day in the neighborhood every day and that gives her ample opportunity to see traffic patterns. She said because of the density of the population at certain times of day at the top of Benton Hill you often have trouble exiting Weebet onto Benton because of the amount of traffic on Benton. She said if the light at Sunset is red, irs not unusual to have cars backed up past your line of sight on Benton Street. She said it's absurd to add several hundred more cars coming down Weeber Street to Harlocke Street, which is the only access from this property. She said her children and all the other children will soon be crossing Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Formal February 1, 2001 Page 6 Harlocke Street to get to Roosevelt school and crossing Harlocke Street to get to any bus stops. She believes traffic is an intense safety issue. She said about the technicality that has brought them there; staff admits that in 1994 there was some disagreement that RM-44 was an appropriate zoning for this area and that some negotiation went on between Council and whomever about rezoning to P,S-5 or RS-8 and that it sort of died this natural death. She said for anyone who regularly navigates the complexity of city government, that shouldn't be taken as a mandate on behalf of the constituents and that certainly this should be relooked at. Stephen Tuliev, 917 Harlocke Street #5, Iowa City, said he is a long-term renter at his home since 1996 when he moved to the neighborhood. He said he wanted to bring to the Commission's attention some changes he's observed in traffic and parking. He said at 917 Harlocke is an 8-plex and there is parking behind the building and on the driveway leading to the back near the trash bin. He said in the best of weather when there is no snow accumulation, you might be able to fit six cars in the back without blocking access to the trash bin. That also leaves 2 spaces alongside the building. He said there are many young professional couples in the neighborhood with two cars. This has not only increased traffic, but caused many more cars to be parked on the east side of Harlocke Street. He said he has witnessed garbage trucks not being able to get in and get the trash. He said it would not only be difficult for residents to find parking but family and friends who are coming to visit. He said he also wanted to point out that on football Saturdays; this has become a favorite parking area, He said irs extremely difficult to get out of the area. He said when a new home was built on Harrlocke, it was very difficult to navigate the construction vehicles. He said that was just a single family home and he's wondering what problems residents will face if this entire area is developed as is being proposed. Daniel Eccher, 904 Benton Drive #23, Iowa City, said he is a homeowner in Benton Manor, He said he opposes this plan mostly because it increases the density of residences in this entire area. He named several residential developments on Benton Drive. He said during rush hours Benton Street is extremely busy. He said if you add 39 units and 500 or so car trips per day, traffic will really pose a safety hazard. He said there are children and college students crossing Benton Street and he's very concerned about the amount of traffic this development will add. Bill Graf, 1123 Harlocke Street, Iowa City,. said if you go down Benton Street and turn on Weeber Street, which is a pretty steep hill and irs slippery and you try to turn onto Harlocke and you miss you run into his house. He said this year they were lucky because there was a lot of snow early and the snowplows build up banks on the street and these act as bumpers that cars bounce off. He said he's lived there since 1974. In 1975 he planted two fir trees that are now about 40 feet high and they are his protection. He said when this came up in 1984; he had small children. He now has two small grandchildren who are probably going to come and live with him. He said this is a very dangerous situation and he's concerned. He said a lot of people have talked about the development of land and he agrees with all that but his one issue is not to dump 400 or 500 more cars onto the street going by his house every day. He said that is unquestionable. This street was not build to handle that amount of traffic. He said everyone has agreed with that in 1984 and 1995 and now, but to blindly go ahead and throw the traffic on there would be very poor judgment. He said he appreciates the right of people to develop this land but irs the City's right and responsibility to make sure there is access to the land that is acceptable. Tom Waters, 906 Harlocke Street, Iowa CitV, said he's lived there for twelve years and there have been several people dumping their trash into his dumpster and whenever that happens his landlord could possibly charge him more rent. He said he's also noticed that snowplows can't get through with cars parked on the street. He said if there's going to be apartment buildings in that open lot he's thinking there will be parties. He said the open lot is a nice view and he wouldn't want apartments there. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Formal February 1,2001 Page 7 Olympia Neiderecker, 923 Harlocke Street, Iowa City, said she lives in a single family home sandwiched between two 8-plexes. She said according to the plan she received from the City, it does not correspond to what she is seeing here. Miklo said the plan was recently revised. She said one of the problems is getting through, especially for emergency vehicles. Even though there is parking on one side of the street, many times because of all the people who live there and visit, there are cars parked on both sides of the street and it becomes very, very crowded. She said you can hardly get a single car through, let alone an emergency vehicle. Patrick Easland, 1118 Harlocke Street, Iowa City, said they moved to their residence in May 1999 and have started a family. He said the reason they moved into the neighborhood is because it's close to V.A. and University Hospitals and with the intent that it was a single-family area mixed with the other diverse housing where they could provide safety. He said they liked the proximity of the schools. He said by adding more residences as proposed, his biggest concern is safety. He said the current traffic load is more than he would like as a single-family home-owner but it's something they can deal with. He said he doesn't think he can handle more. He said they also have traffic at late hours. He said they might have to consider moving if this development goes ahead and they don't want to have to do that. Kristina Voeland, 917 Harlocke Street, Iowa City, said three years ago she was searching for an apartment and there are not many options that are walking distance to the University. She said there are many apartments on Benton Street but what you get with those are parking lots between the buildings; you have no view. All you can see from your window is concrete parking lots. Then she saw 917 Harlocke with a beautiful field, beautiful landscape and woods and she really enjoys that. She said she couldn't imagine looking at an apartment building instead of the field and lots of cars and traffic. She does not think the neighborhood would be as quiet as it is now. She advised the Commission to visit the site because that day it took her several minutes to cross Benton Street to catch the bus. She said with the proposed development it would only get worse and she doesn't know what would happen with children or adults trying to cross the street. She said that Weeber Street that leads to Benton Street is very steep. She said the tradition is that when it's icy, you push your car up and you stop and push your neighbor up. Brent DeVore, 906 Benton Drive #34, Iowa City, said his concern is traffic along Benton. He said Benton must be one of the busiest streets in Iowa City. His other concern is with the watershed. He asked what it's going to do to the whole system; if it's going to cause a backlog. Siders said there would be less drainage to the east because they will retain the water on their property and release it at a slower rate of speed so there shall be less water to the east. Bovbjerg asked him to show on the map where the water comes from currently and how it would get on that Benton area. Siders illustrated the dam and basin and explained how the water would flow at a slower rate. Bovbjerg asked how currently the water would flow without the retention basin. Siders said it all circles into the hole and goes into the pipe without being slowed at all. He said they would be adding additional watershed. Bovbjerg asked if it is moving as a sheet or through a drain. Siders showed the spot it all drains to currently and the route it takes. Shannon asked if it was going to be a dry bottom basin. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Formal February 1, 2001 Page 8 Siders said yes. Tom Gelman, 714 McLean, Iowa City, said he is the attorney for Southgate Development. He said he wanted to discuss briefly the recommendation for a conservation easement. He said they agree with City staff that it is not required under the ordinance. He said the ordinance requires a conservation easement in connection with woodland areas. He said state law states that conservation easements are to be given voluntarily. They believe the ordinance is sufficient in and of itself as far as constructive notice to property owners and is relied on for that purpose. Even though the easement is shown in the most recent rendition of the plat for protected areas, they believe it is unnecessary and inappropriate. They would like to not have to grant the easement for the property. He said it creates problems that aren't necessary here. Craiq Fobjan, 908 Benton Drive #33, Iowa City, said he's been a homeowner there for over five years and their property will be directly affected by the development. He said some of the units have partial retaining walls and he's concerned about the waterflow coming off the parking lot. He's concerned about snow pile up. Hansen asked how many bedrooms these units are. Siders said they would all be two bedrooms. Easland asked how deep the water basin is going to be and what kind of protection there will be for the children in the area. He said he can supervise his own children but can't supervise other people's children. Bovbjerg asked Miklo to explain fencing options for basins. Miklo said in this case he believes this is not a wet bottom basin and Schnittjer may be able to comment on how much water could collect. He said the City has not required fencing in the past except in one case, Wellington Condominiums and that was an actual pond and the fencing did not completely enclose the area. Eccher said last year they had a Benton Drive Home Owners Association meeting. They had a proposal asking to come in Benton Drive in order to access this property in order to develop it and that was rejected. He said that gives the Commission a sense of the unanimity in that area. Graf said there are problems vacating the area because of icy conditions or parked cars. He said he hasn't heard anyone say that traffic isn't a problem. He said especially if it snows in the next few days, the Commission should go to the area and experience it first hand. Samantha Solimeo, 913 Harlocke Street, Iowa City, said her least favorite part of the plan is that the driveway to the parking lot comes directly out of her driveway. She said it's difficult for an adult to cross Benton Street to catch the bus. She said during rush hours, morning noon and night, you often have to wait for another bus because they're crowded. So, if you're adding many more students to the neighborhood, additional bus use will have to be considered. She said when she does drive; it's difficult to get on Benton Street. She said she always drives the speed limit and on her way to this meeting someone passed her on Benton Street. Cox said what he would have liked to hear from the developer regarding the easement is that they would be happy to do that. He said that would demonstrate that they are willing to be a good corporate citizen and willing to take actions for environmental protection and community development that would progress in a way that makes sense. He said irs discouraging to him to hear them say they won't grant the easement and they don't believe it to be necessary. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Formal February 1,2001 Page 9 Tim Raposa, 911 Harlocke Street, Iowa City, said that it's very hard to get out of his driveway with snow built up and cam parked on the east side of Harlocke. He's concerned for his daughter going to Roosevelt. He said there are crossing guards but sometimes they are not there. The density is bothering him as well. Public discussion closed. MOTION: Chait moved to defer REZ01-0001, a rezoning from High Density Multi-family Residential, RM-44, to Sensitive Areas Overlay, OSA-44, on 4.01 acres to allow 39 dwellings in 3 buildings located on the east side of Harlocke Street. Shannon seconded the motion. Schintler asked if there is another access off Weeher Street. Mikb showed another street winding to Sunset and to Highway 1. Graf said several years ago, Weeber Street was a dead end. He explained the route as very winding and residential. He said that whole neighborhood would not appreciate more traffic either. Shannon asked staff to provide a memorandum labout traffic and street width and their thoughts on the concerns raised. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0. CODE AMENDMENT ITEMS: Discussion of Development Regulations Analysis report presented by Duncan and Associates. Kurt Bishop of Duncan and Associates reviewed the report for and with the Commission. Hansen asked how fair share housing comes about. Bishop said the notion of inclusionary or fair share housing within new development takes one of two forms, both of which are incentive based. He said you can offer density bonuses to developers in new subdivisions who set aside new dwelling units and restricted occupancy that meet HUD income level guidetines for moderate and low incomes. If for example a developer set aside 10% of the units restricted to moderate-income households, they would get extra dwelling units within their project. The other approach is a mandatory approach where you would mandate a subdivision of a certain size has a certain percentage of dwellings set aside benchmarked against HUD guidelines. The developer would also get density bonuses. Bishop said the market price units within those developments are subsidizing the moderately priced units. Hansen asked if they achieve this by building a lower priced house or having an agency step in and own the land. Bishop said they do it by offering the units at a lower price and may do it by offering smaller units. Usually it's required that the units contain the same exterior finishes as other dwellings in the development. They most likely would be smaller and the interior may be different but they are offered at below market rates. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Formal February 1, 2001 Page 10 Chait said if he wanted to develop a large lot very upscale subdivision, how would that work, He said in a $500,000 a house subdivision a medium income standard house would be very different. He said at the extreme it would call attention to the smaller house. Bishop said the number of houses in a subdivision is what triggers a mandatory approach and it would usually be the larger subdivisions of 75-100 houses. Chait asked Bishop how familiar he is with the Peninsula project. Bishop said he has followed it and is fairly up to date. Chait said in listening to his analysis of the report, a lot of the things he was saying, the City is experimenting with in the Peninsula. He said Bishop didn't address that fact or acknowledge the City is doing those things. He asked if it would make sense to benchmark that project with some of the concepts Bishop was talking about. Bishop said if he had commented on what is being done in the Peninsula it would have been extremely positive but he saw it as a very unique situation. Bishop said this report is a kind of comprehensive code approach that builds upon the very techniques that are moving forward in the Peninsula. He said if it had been further along it might have been tangible enough for him to point to. Shannon asked about the sign ordinance and that it should be the reverse of what is written in regards to political signs and real estate. Bishop said in a residential zoning district a real estate sign can be in front of a house for 365 days a year. But under the definition of a political sign (not a campaign sign) that expresses an opinion it's limited to a number of days. It's based on the content of the sign instead of the physical attributes of the sign. Many communities have had their hands slapped for regulating political signs. The courts have said that ordinances should not be concerned with content. Chait asked if what Bishop meant is that based on what the courts have said the ordinance is out of step with the law of the land. Bishop said he didn't think they were fatally flawed, but dated. Schintler said she appreciated the charts and graphics and that it really helped. Bovbjerg talked about making specific information readily available and easy to read for the user. She said she likes the general analysis of the report but she's not sure where to go from here. Bishop said in general it's time to comprehensively update the City ordinances. He said it's been twenty years for zoning ordinances and over twenty years for subdivision regulations. He said they're prepared to tell them the approaches they've seen about the next step. Typically there is an advisory committee formed that acts as a sounding board. He said the Commission would be looking at 12-24 months to get completely through the project. He said there would be a number of strategy sessions and education processes before the hearing stage. He said the process takes time; to educate the public with the new document. He said he cautions communities to not look at updating codes as an opportunity to redo the comprehensive plan. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Formal February 1, 2001 Page 11 Chair asked what Bishop is doing there and what the Commission's role is. He said he's confused. Miklo said they are asking if the Commission is in general in agreement with the document and does it address the issues the Commission feels it should. He said if you feel there are major shortcomings; that's what they want to hear. If the Commission is generally satisfied then a motion to accept this and send it on to City Council asking to move onto phase 2, which is rewriting the codes. He said there is no time crunch requiring them to vote tonight. He would prefer that the Commission be fairly comfortable with this. He said if the Commission accepts the document, they are not adopting any code changes. They would all come back before the Commission for text changes. He said staff did work closely with Bishop and they are comfortable with the document. Public discussion open: Charlie Eastham, 1152 East Court Street, Iowa City, said he was a member of Vision 2000 Task Force on which the Comprehensive Plan is based, and he was quite pleased to see recommendations from that were included in this report. He said if the report goes forward and recommendations are made for changes of codes and regulations, he feels most of the recommendations from the Vision 2000 panel would emerge as zoning ordinances so he is encouraged and would be happy to see the report endorsed. Schnittjer said the Peninsula project is a site-specific project and he doesn't think that's what the report was intended to address. He said there are some parts of the report that he totally agrees with and some that he has some reservations about. He said in particular there is mention of some limits to neighborhood commercial uses, i.e. convenience stores and drive-ups. He said until Iowa City and the nation get to the point of not having such an enamoration with vehicles you need those types of facilities. He has concerns about limiting those in neighborhoods. He said if a person lives 2 blocks from a neighborhood commercial but has to go two miles to get gas, it doesn't make sense. He said there must be some auto-oriented facilities in neighborhood commercial. He said he likes the idea of limiting the political process for sensitive areas and planned developments. He said this process adds significantly to the cost of the project in terms of time, and time is money. Some people don't understand just how much money that is. He said if you watch the interest clock tick, you learn pretty fast how much money that is. Public discussion closed. MOTION: Schintler moved to defer acceptance of Development Regulations Analysis report until February '15, 200'1 meeting. Hansen seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0. Discussion of an amendment to City Code subsection 14-6L-1Q, accessory use provisions for adult daycares, to permit adult daycare facilities on 25-foot wide streets in Commercial Zones. Hansen said he had to abstain on this item because of a conflict of interest. He wrote a letter for Pathways recommending that funding through CDBG be granted. Hansen left the room. Yapp said the City has received a request from Pathways to locate on Pepperwood Lane, which is a 25-foot wide private street in Pepperwood Plaza. The ordinance currently states that an adult daycare facility needs to be on an arterial or collector street, 28-feet wide. That ordinance Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Formal February 1, 2001 Page 12 was put in place to keep those facilities in residential neighborhoods. Staff feels that requirement is not necessary for commercial areas and they recommend that adult daycare facilities be permitted on streets that aren't necessarily 28-feet wide in commercial areas. Bovbjerg asked why Yapp was making a distinction between residential and commercial. Yapp said because in residential zones the daycare facilities create more traffic so that's why there is a provision to keep those facilities on collector and arterial streets to limit traffic coming into residential streets. In a commercial area, it's designed to handle large amounts of traffic and the adult day-care traffic is minimal compared to grocery stores, video stores and other uses. Shannon asked if Pathways plans on using an existing storefront in the mall. Yapp said he believes it will be located in the former building of "Kids Stuff'. Yapp clarified that this ordinance amendment would apply to any 25-foot wide street in a commercial zone. Public discussion open: There was none. Public discussion closed. MOTION: Shannon moved to amend 14-6L-'IQ as follows: In residential zones, adult daycare facilities providing care to six or more adults shall have access to arterial or collector streets, or to a street with paving wider than 28 feet. Schintler seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 4-0. There was ] abstention. COUNTY ZONING ITEM: CZ00-0027, discussion of an application submitted by JEBB LC, to rezone approximately 1.76 acres located east of Dane Road and west and south of the Lake Ridge Mobile Home Park from County A1 Rural and County RS Suburban Residential to County RMH Manufastured Housing Residential. Miklo said staff recommends the Commission indicate to the City Council that there is no objection to this requested rezoning, despite the fact that we continue to believe that further rezoning to RMH of any property of significant size in this area without annexation is inconsistent with the Fringe Area Agreement. MOTION: Hansen moved to indicate to the City Council that there is no objection to the requested rezoning of CZ00-0027, an application submitted by JEBB LC, to rezone approximately 1.76 acres located east of Dane Road and west and south of the Lake Ridge Mobile Home Park from County AI Rural and County RS Suburban Residential to County RMH Manufactured Housing Residential, despite the fact that we continue to believe that further rezoning to RMH of any property of significant size in this area without annexation is inconsistent with the Fringe Area Agreement. Chait seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 5-0. Chait moved to approve the minutes of the January t8, 2001 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting as corrected. Hansen seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 5 - 0. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Formal February 1, 2001 Page 13 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:28 p.m. Dean Shannon, Secreta~ Minutes submitted by Diane Crossett POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - January 9, 2001 CALL TO ORDER Chair John Watson called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ATTENDANCE Board members present: Leah Cohen, Loren Horton, John Stratton, and John Watson. Board member absent: Paul Hoffey. Staff present: Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh and PCRB Assistant Sandy Bauer. Captain Tom Widmer and Captain Matt Johnson were also present. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Stratton and seconded by Cohen to adopt the Consent Calendar: a. Minutes of 12/12/00 meeting h. ICPD Traffic Stop Demographics from January 2000 through November 2000 c. ICPD Use of Force Report, November 2000 d. ICPD Training Newsletter, December 2000 e. ICPD Training Bulletin 01-33 ~'. ICPD Training Bulletin 01-34 g. ICPD Training Bulletin 01-35 Motion carried, 4/0, Hoffey absent. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL - None PRESENTATION Captain Johnson and Captain Widmer from the ICPD gave a presentation on the topic of INTERNAL AFFAIRS AND DISCIPLINE. A question and answer period followed. (Captain Johnson left at 8:15 P.M.) ICPD PPP The Board now has ICPD traffic stop data for one calendar year. Watson stated that the Board has been charged with doing an analysis and a study and with reporting what it finds to the community. Watson suggested the Board contact David Baldus, who has some experience in statistical analysis, to attend a future meeting to discuss this information. Other individuals to assist with this type of information are Sid Jackson and Chief Winkelhake. The Board acknowledged the difficulty in determining anything precise, but Board members can ask statistical-type questions as to what one can do with this kind of data. Watson reiterated that it is the responsibility of the Board, and one of its goals is to attempt to analyze this information. Other possible topics for presentations by the ICPD in the future include use of force, weapons, police pursuits, searches and seizures, domestic violence, discriminatory enforcement and goals & objectives of the ICPD. Bauer was directed to request from the Chief a presentation to the Board at its meeting on February 13, 2001, on the topic of GOALS & OBJECTIVES OF THE ICPD FOR 2001. Board directed Watson to contact David Baldus to come to the March 13 meeting to talk about the traffic stop data. COMMUNITY FORUM Cohen reported that she and Hoffey met with the Chief and the two Captains regarding the issue of community policing for the community forum. Cohen and Hoffey requested that the Chief stay for a questions/answer session following an 8-10 minute presentation. Regarding community policing, the Chief stated the biggest problem they hear about is desire to have traffic slowed down in neighborhoods. The Chief's biggest concern was that the jail situation not generate questions which would be inappropriate for him and the Board to address. Stratton stated one of the things we can ask is what the community is doing and can do to cooperate and communicate with the police in identifying and solving the problems they have. Watson noted the desirability of having the Chief or his designee take questions after the presentation, Watson also stated part of the forum could be structured for an open agenda. This would be a brief time toward the end of the forum. Bauer reported on date and location availabilities for the forum. Following discussion, the Board decided the forum will be held on Wednesday, April 18, 2001, 7:00- 9:00 P.M., Conference Room A, at the Library. The Board decided it would be audiotaped, but not videotaped. Time restriction for speakers will be three minutes. Bauer was directed to check with the Chief to be certain that date is available for him. NEW BUSINESS None OLD BUSINESS PCRB Goals - the updated PCRB Goals was distributed. The letter to council members requesting a joint meeting was distributed last week. Watson and Bauer will continue their efforts to contact Bob Hardy regarding the PCRB videotape. PUBLIC DISCUSSION In/in Pfab encouraged the Board to have its community forum videotaped. The Board decided to leave this issue open for further discussion. MEETING SCHEDULE 2 · Regular Meeting February 13, 2001 (Hodon and Watson absent) · Regular Meeting March 13, 2001 ( Stratton absent) · Regular Meeting April 10, 2001 · Community Forum April 18, 2001 PCRB COMPLAINT #00-04 The Chief's Report on PCRB Complaint #00-04 informs the Board that informal mediation was successful. Following the PCRB medication procedures and guidelines, PCRB Complaint #00-04 was withdrawn. BOARD INFORMATION Bauer was directed to contact NACOLE requesting its newsletters or a refund of our membership fee. STAFF INFORMATION None ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Hodon and seconded by Stratton. Motion carried, 4/0, Hoffey absent. Meeting adjourned at 8:50 P.M. 3