Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-07-10 Bd Comm minutes 07-10-01 IOWA CITY HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION L IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS May 22, 2001 MEMBERS PRESENT: Jan Warren, Charlie Major, Mary Larew, Maureen Howe, Keri Neblett, Lisa Beckmann, MEMBERS ABSENT: Mettle Thomopulos, Paul Retish, Ernie Cox STAFF MEMBERS: Heather L. Shank, Laz Pittman, Anne Burnside CALL TO ORDER: Meeting called to order at 7:05 p.m. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Neblett moved to approve the minutes. Larew seconded the motion. Motion carried by a vote of 6-0. 2. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None 3. CONSIDER MOTION TO ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION: Warren stated that the Commission would consider a motion to adjourn to closed session based on §21.5(1 )(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential and pursuant to Chapter 216 of the Iowa Code and §2-2-4 of the Iowa City Municipal Code which requires that complaints of discrimination, reports of investigation, statements and other documents or records obtained in the investigations, shall be closed records unless a public hearing is held. MOTION: Motion by Howe to go into closed meeting. Seconded by Beckmann. Motion carried by voice vote - 6-0 with three Commissioners absent. Commission went into closed session. 4, CONSIDER MOTION TO APPROVE MEDIATION AGREEMENT: After discussing Iowa City Human Rights case, #03-08-0104 in closed session, Warren asked the Commission to consider a motion to approve the mediation agreement reached by the parties. MOTION: Motion by Beckmann and seconded by Howe. Motion carried by voice vote 6-0. 5. CONSIDER MOTION TO APPROVE CONFIDENTIALITY CLAUSE: Pursuant to Iowa City Human Rights Ordinance §2-5-4(3) Warren asked the Commission to consider a motion to keep the mediation agreement confidential. MOTION: Motion by Howe to keep confidentiality agreement confidential, seconded by Nebleft. Motion carried by voice vote 6-0. 6. LETTER TO COUNCIL: Warren stated there was a great deal of discussion regarding the letter to Council at the April Commission meeting regarding what the Commission wanted to do, if anything, to clarify to the Council and the community the role of the Commission. Warren looked at the letter and the revised letter that was written by Cox. Warren said that she cannot 2 recall whether the letter was going to go to the newspapers. She said that she thinks it should go to the newspapers. Major said that there is interest in his list serve regarding the role of the Commission. Warren said there are three par~s to this, the letter to the Council, the potential to take it to the newspapers and then addressing the Council. Warren said that she thought addressing the Council might be overkill if the Council received the letter. Because she did not attend the April Commission meeting, Warren did not realize until she received the minutes that the Commission had actually voted on the issue of addressing the Council until she read the minutes. Warren feels like the Commission needs to clarify what it is doing, as there is nothing in the minutes about the letter being sent to Council. Shank stated that the letter was going to Council and the Commission was going to address Council about the letter. Warren then asked about how the Commission felt regarding sending the letter to the press. Neblett stated that it was her impression the press received the letter in the agenda packets for the Council. Warren replied there were many things in the agenda packet so it might be better to send it separately. Warren thought the correspondence should be sent as a letter to the editor. Beckmann asked whether the letter should be given a frame of reference so the press would understand why the letter had been written. Major thought the letter would be part of a press release and a letter that is given to the public as well as the Council. Larew agreed there should be some sentence at the beginning that explains why this letter was written - neutral yet vague. Shank asked for some clarification as to what the Commission wants to do regarding attending the Council meeting. Warren indicated she thought addressing the Council may result in an uncomfortable situation. Beckmann said she viewed things differently after reading the minutes from April's meeting and upon reflection was not sure she would be comfortable having a discussion. In response to Warren's question, Shank indicated that the letter could be put into the packet as part of the agenda under Council correspondence and there is no discussion. Burnside said that a Council member could ask the Commission to come and talk to the Council about the letter. Major said that he was worried because the role of the Commission was in a state of confusion and he thinks that the Commission owes it to its predecessors and the City Council to explain what the Commission will and will not do. Warren asked whether he believed it was the Council as a whole who was confused or only a couple members. Neblett stated that one Councilperson made an incorrect statement about what the Commission could do and none of the other Council members corrected the member in error. Shank said the Commission could discuss the letter during the Council's public hearing. This is not a time when the Council has a discussion with the person addressing the group in public hearing. Burnside stated this is just the time when the Council receives information. If the Commission wants to be on the agenda arrangements have to be made to make sure the Commission is included as an agenda item. Or, the letter with a clarifying statement could just go into the packet. Pittman reminded the Commission that Burnside had said that once the letter is in the packet the Council could chose to talk to the Commission about its concerns. Warren said that the difference would be that the Council would be asking the Commission for more feedback rather than the Commission providing the information that it believes is important for the Council to know. Warren asked Major how he felt about this option and he responded that he would prefer to do it formally in front of the Council with Dilkes or Shank, or with the entire Commission and clarify the Commission's role to everyone. Larew indicated that the Commission's task should be to educate the Council as to the Commission's role. Burnside said that all the letter does is clarify what has been in the Ordinance for 20 years and you are not saying you are doing anything you are not charged to do. After discussion, Major and Larew agreed that the letter to the Council was the way to go. MOTION: Howe made a motion to rescind the motion approved at the April 24, Commission meeting to write a letter and 3 address the City Council at their meeting as soon as possible (agenda item) regarding the role of the Commission under the Human Rights Ordinance. Major seconded the motion. Vote approved 6-0. MOTION: Howe made a motion to submit the letter to the City Council. Major seconded the motion. MOTION:: Larew then made a motion to submit the letter with the amendment of a framing sentence such as "In light of recent discussions in previous Council meetings and the Commission believes it may be timely... Beckmann seconded the motion and Major voted no as he wants the word confusion to be in the sentence. It was ultimately decided that the letter would go to the Council and the press with the word "confusion" in the framing sentence. The Council's next meeting is on June 12. 7. BUSINESS Gay Pride Parade is on June 16. The volunteers include Beckmann and Neblett. Warren will call other Commissioners to see if they are available. Shank told Commissioners to be cognizant of the location of the Commission meetings because the Council is have at least three meeting on the nights in which the Commission usually meets. KEYNOTE SPEAKER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS BREAKFAST: it was determined that Phillip Hubbard would be asked to be the keynote. If Dr. Hubbard is unable to accept, the Commission chose two alternatives. Shank will contact Dr. Hubbard as soon as possible. The discussion regarding community outreach is deferred until the next meeting when more Commissioners are present. 9. REPORTS OF COMMISSIONERS Howe mentioned that an Associated Press story of May 11 indicated that the National Council of the Boy Scouts was considering whether to challenge the Iowa City Community School District's new policy prohibiting information in the schools if the group did not comply with the district's equity policy. Howe also reported that Texas Governor signed the Hate Crime Bill. Major said that he received a call from an individual asking for information regarding the names, addresses and phone numbers of Commissioners whose terms had expired. The caller wanted the Commissioners to speak to the School Board regarding the Boy Scout issue. Major also reported that the radio station had "toned down a bit" and the comments on the list serve had toned down a bit but he admitted that it still appeared to be a topic among the citizens and he does not think it is over yet. Larew said read an article in the newspaper about migrants that had moved into Mason City and it reminded her of and anti-migration ads that were so prevalent in the fall and that the HARRT were against. Last week the Gazette asked Mary to be on a panel. The panelists were asked to provide their opinions both pro and con regarding the actions of the Gazette over the last couple of years. There were 12 panelists. One of Mary's major comments involved the anti-migration advertisements. The ombudsperson at the 4 Gazette said that that issue was the most controversial issue the Gazette has faced in years. Warren said that is Appleton, Wisconsin the same issue regarding the Boy Scouts has come up in schools there. The School Board decided to just prohibit use of the schools by groups. 10. STATUS OF CASES Shank reported that Pittman and Burnside are doing a terrific job investigated the complaints. There were three case opinions that needed to be signed by the Commission teams. A settlement agreement was reached today - case ~44. Last Friday there was a mediation agreement and Shank believes the investigative team should be commended. The Public Hearing scheduled for July is in the discovery phase. 11. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. HrcminutesS-22 .doc MINUTES IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES REGULAR MEETING - MEETING ROOM A THURSDAY, - May 31,2001 5:00 PM Members Present: Linda Dellsperger, Mary McMurray, Shaner Magalh~es, Mark Madin, Lisa Parker, Linda Prybil, Jim Swaim Members Absent: Winston Barclay, Jesse Singerman Staff Present: Barbara Black, Maeve Clark, Susan Craig, Larry Eckholt, Debb Green, Heidi Lauritzen, Kara Logsden, Martha Lubaroff, Liz Nichols, Others: CALL TO ORDER: President Martin called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. The Iowa City Chamber of Commerce Ambassadors presented the Iowa City Public Library with the Chamber "Roots" award. The Library was nominated and selected as a recipient of this award in honor of our long time service to the community and as an inspiration to those in business around us. Martin and Parker accepted the award. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Dellsperger moved approval of the regular minutes of April 21. Prybil seconded. Prybil pointed out a misspelling of her name in the minutes. The minutes were approved as corrected. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Joe Huberty & Nicole Woods of Engberg Anderson architectural firm were present and they addressed the Board about progress for the new building designs. If the Board approves, they had samples of stone, brick and metal that will be used in the exterior. Their intent is to have a large mock-up of the building with larger samples of the materials to be used. They hope to show the mockup and sample materials outside to demonstrate how the natural light will affect the look of the building at various time of the day. Hubedy reported that they had cost estimators review the plans and provide a probable estimate of the budget for the building. He was pleased that it came in only slightly higher than the budget. He distributed a spreadsheet in three sections, currently showing a total project estimate of $18,400,000. Given where we are at this point in the process, he felt it was a good place to be. This number includes $1.2 million for contingency and escalation, so we should be ok. The only thing they had to look at seriously were the 2nd floor light monitors, which would admit natural light in the middle of the second floor. That is a desirable feature and one that we would not like to eliminate. If we do not need to dip into the contingency fund for unseen emergencies, we could then incorporate it into an alternative bid. If we encounter problems that cost more money, we may have to choose to delete the light monitors. This appears to be a good time in the construction market for the consumer and a favorable time to be bidding in the winter. A question was asked about how the contingency amount is figured? Huberty explained that they look at furnishings and building costs. Additional components that they look at are the expense of moving the library into the west wing and then back. He said they were pretty well satisfied with ICPL Board Meeting May 31,2001 phasing issues. The intent is that commercial space will return income for payment of the bonds. They will re-evaluate the light monitors in November when the bids come in. Prybil asked if there was a door from the Children's area to the retail area. Hubedy explained that there is an emergency exit but not with easy access. Huberty then reviewed Key Milestone Dates: A public hearing will be held September 13 and 14 where plans and specifications will be available for public view. Bid documents will be available in October. After bid opening, we evaluate the bidders. They will supply us with certain information that allows us to look at their prior records. We'd complete that and finalize a preferred bidder. Board is expected to award the bid 2 to 3 weeks after bid opening. The site will be ready for construction shortly after demolition. Demolition is a separate contract for which bids will be received in September. After demolition, the general contractor will take over. The architects are having a photographic survey done to protect us from any potential claims after construction begins particularly with adjacent structures. Hubedy said the Board might need to schedule a special meeting in November to cover everything. The target date for demolition is October 15. He hopes that the addition is done and we've moved into it by 2003 and that the new total project is completed 2004. The Board expressed their thanks. Huberty said that he and Woods will focus now on furnishings and will be visiting showrooms, etc. During the next month or so, there will not be as many visits. There will be more towards July, August, and September. NEW BUSINESS Orientation - Craig reviewed for the Board the process that takes place once new Board members are appointed by Council. She asked if the Board had any changes to recommend. Prybil said that since everyone comes to the Board with different backgrounds, the learning curve is different yet anytime a question is asked it serves as a review for others. She encouraged Trustees to ask questions. It was felt that going through the cycle of the first year was difficult but then became more familiar. It was felt that more material would not be helpful; that it took the experience of serving on the board. One suggestion was that new people have more oppodunity to review the budget, line by line. We should continue to do what we currently do yet meeting with new people for an intense review of the library's budget before the September meeting would be helpful. It was also recommended that a more general understanding of Craig's role and the relationship with other staff and departments are key to understanding. What are staffmember's specialties? How do they relate to other staff responsibilities? An organizational chart should be used in orientation. New Trustees will need to know as much as they can very quickly about the building decisions that have to be made in July- September as well as background of the building project. STAFF REPORTS Two trustee applications have been received so far. The application process closes on June 6 and appointments are made on June 12. Reference Desk on-line. There was a recent article in The Advertiser promoting the new service that allows patrons to send questions to the reference desk from our Web page. Clark reported the use is growing. They are averaging a question per day. The fruits of a new advertising campaign will be showing up on local AT&T cable stations. Craig earmarked some money to allow us to air a 30-second ad, 360 times a month on 5 different ICPL Board Meeting May 31, 2001 channels. We can change the ad as often as we want and earmark the channels for ads. Currently we are working on one that promotes children reading during summer. Development Office report was included in the packet. Board changed its location to the 2nd floor Conference room to accommodate a jointly sponsored library program in Meeting Room A. First Search: Craig included a copy of the new contract and a memo about the program from Clark. State News: State Librarian, Sharman Smith is leaving Iowa to go back to Mississippi. Smith has been an excellent State Librarian and will be missed. In terms of funding, Craig said we there has been a cut to the Open access funding and we will see a decrease in state funds next year. But there is also some infrastructure funds we might be able to use to make up the difference. PRESIDENT'S REPORT Martin had no report but asked about the ability to print out a bibliography from the new catalog system. It was a feature he used and was curious about why it was removed. Nichols explained it was removed due to the fact that it caused many problems for patrons and therefore took staff time. A new feature to the catalog system called "My Millenium" will allow similar features and should be more user-friendly. Staff is studying how this option could be made available to users. ANNOUNCEMENT FROM MEMBERS Craig included a copy of a letter that Prybil wrote to City Council members encouraging them to give lot 64-1A to the community as a gift to be used for art festivals, butterfly parks, off the wall movies, etc. COMMITTEE REPORTS Mural Committee - Nichols reported not much activity while waiting for cost estimates to be gathered. The restoration work on the mural is done. Over the summer a committee will prepare a report for the Board and the Art Advisory committee at the June meeting. The critical issue is the cost of framing these segments. We need a cost estimate on how to get the pieces removed safely in the window of time that is available. Ownership decision has to be made. Our cooperation with this project is good for the library and community. It is a small price to pay for the good will we stand to gain, which could have secondary gains of bringing money into the capital campaign. Art Committee: Craig reported that walls have been identified on the plans for hanging new art. She pointed out those walls to the Board. The committee took a tour to look at the permanent art that we currently have. Members of the committee got ballots and voted on whether various pieces should be retained as permanent art, moved into the circulating collection or removed. Craig will put this information into a report for the board to approve or not. The committee also talked about identifying and prioritizing possibilities for a major new signature piece of art that would be new to the building and be identified with the building. One is a piece to hang in the two-story space; a 3- dimensional piece. The hope is that it would be hung on opening day. Another proposed project ICPL Board Meeting May 31,2001 is one that might consist of a life-size bronze pieces of Paul Engle. Funding it would be an issue. At the next meeting they will talk about locations for some of the permanent art we have. Evaluation Committee: Barclay, Prybil and Parker. Board members were sent Craig's end of the year report on her goals. They asked for input from Board so that the committee can offer suggestions to Craig. This year they have asked for input from the managers since they see Craig on a daily basis in an entirely different light. Parker said the more input they get the better evaluation they can provide. Craig gave committee some dates she would be available for a meeting. COMMUNICATIONS A letter of appreciation from a patron who is now working as a volunteer. An e-mail from a patron regarding his inability to borrow VCR equipment since he is not a resident of Iowa City. Our library has made a choice to put a lot of time and money into the loaning out of equipment to Iowa City residents. A brief discussion was held with Logsden about the costs and upkeep of loaned equipment. Allowed exceptions to the Open Access program are equipment, inter-library loans or reserves which are at the discretion of each library. We do not offer equipment or reserves to non-Iowa City residents. In response to a question, Logsden said it is a judgement call of her department to decide whether to bill for damaged equipment. Lauritzen reported that Coralville Public Library loans out some similar equipment that go only to Coralville patrons. Swaim does not feel that we should change the policy. Although he appreciates the concerns of the note, Swaim suggests that the patron lobby his local library Board to provide such equipment for checkout. Craig will respond to the e-mail. DISBURSEMENTS Visa repod - Reviewed. No questions Swaim moved approval of April Disbursements. Dellsperger seconded. Approved unanimously ADJOURNMENT: Move to adjourn was made and seconded by McMurray/Prybil. Minutes taken and transcribed by Martha Lubaroff IOWA CITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WEDMESDAY, MAY 30, 2001 - 12:00 PM CIVIC CENTER LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Pusack, Betty McKray, Terry Smith, Kembrew McLeod MEMBERS ABSENT: Cathy Weingeist STAFF PRESENT: Drew Shaffer, Andy Matthews, Mike Brau OTHERS PRESENT: RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL The Commission voted 4-0 to recommend to the City Council that they approve the cable television franchise transfer from AT&T to Mediacom. RECCOMENDATION ON AT&T/MEDIACOM FRANCHISE TRANSFER REQUEST Matthews said that Mediacom appears to have the financial resources to operate the cable television system and offer the services they have indicated they wish to provide. AT&T would likely not permit the transfer to become finalized without Mediacom securing sufficient financial resources. There have been no adverse legal claims made against Mediacom. The authority of the City is limited in what can be considered when approving a franchise transfer. Failure to take any action within 120 days, or June 26, would result in the franchise being legally deemed transferred. Smith moved and McLeod seconded a motion to recommend to the City Council that they approve the transfer of the cable television franchise from AT&T to Mediacorn. McKray said that she was impressed with the constructive, cooperative attitude of the high-ranking Mediacom representatives at a past meeting with City officials. By passing a transfer resolution the City is expressing to Mediacom that the City is glad to have them as a cable television operator and welcomes them to Iowa City. McLeod noted that the City does not have much authority to condition a franchise transfer Pusack said the transfer resolution will help the City and Mediacom get off on the fight foot. The motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT McLeod moved and Pusack seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously. Adjournment was at 12:10p.m. Respectfully submitted, Wm. Drew Shaffer Cable TV Administrator PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY 17, 2001 - 7:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Bovbjerg, Jerry Hansen, Dean Shannon, Marilyn Schintler, Don Anciaux, Pam Ehrhardt OTHERS PRESENT: Benjamin Chait STAFF PRESENT: Mitch Behr, Bob Miklo, John Yapp, Shelley McCafferty OTHERS PRESENT: RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0, REZ01-00009, an application submitted by the Historic Preservation Commission to designate property located at 307 East College Street (Old Public Library) as an Iowa City Historic Landmark. Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0, a change to the Conditional Zoning Agreement for REZ01-0002, stating that the access easement be permitted to be reduced to 30-feet in width, and be permitted to be shifted west and north to be adjacent to the landscaped buffer parallel to Highway 1; to allow for the use of architectural metals; and to allow two freestanding signs. Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0, SUB99-0025, an application submitted by the Ethel Cole Estates for a preliminary and final plat of White Barn Estates, a 30.44 acre, 3*lot subdivision located at 4675 American Legion Road. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Bovbjerg called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. ANNOUNCEMENT OF VACANCIES ON CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: Bovbjerg announced a vacancy for the Planning and Zoning Commission. REZONING ITEMS: REZ01-00009. Discussion of an application submitted by the Historic Preservation Commission to designate property located at 307 East College Street (Old Public Library) as an Iowa City Historic Landmark. Miklo gave staff report. He said the property has been nominated for landmark status by the Historic Preservation Commission based on their requirements of eligibility. He said the duties for the Planning and Zoning Commission are very specific. It is not the Commission's charge to decide if it deserves historic status. They must review the nomination with respect to the relation to the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and proposed public improvements and other plans for the renewal of the area involved. He said the Comprehensive Plan supports preservation of historic buildings in downtown. Specifically, the plan meritlops the old library as a key building in efforts to market downtown as a historic destination. He said the property is zoned CB-10, Central Business District, which allows a wide range of retail, service, office, entertainment and residential uses. He said in staff's view the landmark designation would not be in conflict with this zoning. He said there are no urban renewal plans that conflict with the designation. Ehrhardt asked about the Planning and Zoning Commission's role if the newer part is torn down and a new building built. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes May 17, 2001 Page 2 Miklo said if the Cour~cil passes landmark status, review a new development would not come back before the Planning and Zoning Commission. He said it is a CB-10 zone and they would not have site review. He said the Historic Preservation Commission has some control over design review. Michael Gunn, Chair of the Historic Preservation Commission, said the new territory for the Historic Preservation Commission is to have a rather large commercial building downtown to review. He said because they designate the property as landmark and not just the library, they would have some design review over anything that is demolished and rebuilt. Ehrhardt clarified that they would have site review for the lot, whether a new addition was attached or detached. Gunn said yes. Anciaux asked why the Historic Preservation Commission waited till now to start the nomination process. Gunn said the threat of demolition speeded up the process. He said they were in the process of reviewing the downtown and several other buildings of historic significance. A survey that was done was just completed. He said the process for landmark designation is very lengthy. Shannon asked if their intention was to actually save and restore the building. Gunn said their interest is to save the Carnegie Library. He said they want to save the exterior; by ordinance they can only save the exterior. They don't have control over the interior or it's use. Shannon asked if the owner would be able to get financial help for the upgrade. Gunn said he didn't think he could expect any financial help from the City. He explained some possibilities through federal programs. Schintler asked if there is any incentive for them to restore the building as it was. Miklo said there are some federal tax incentives as well as possible local property tax abatement. Anciaux said he thought this property had no national historic significance, so would federal tax credits still be available. Miklo said even if something is not significant on a national level, it could still be listed on the National Register of Historical Places. Bovbjerg clarified that by designating more than just the structure; the Historic Preservation Commission would have review over more than just the Old Library. Gunn said yes. Bovbjerg asked about the uses of the property and whether it would conform to other CB-10 rules and regulations. She said that is not what they're looking at tonight but asked Gunn or Miklo to speak about that. Gunn said architecture, position and height are inconsistent with the ground floor commercial zoning that is in place. He said the potential addition has very little access to the street. He said this property is different from most buildings downtown in this regard. He said strong consideration for an exception to the ground floor commercial zoning should be given for this unique building. Bovbjerg asked what the Planning and Zoning Commission's role would be if any if this were to have an exception. Miklo said there are two possibilities. One would be a variance, which would be very difficult. The other would be a code amendment to the zoning ordinance to allow ground floor uses other than commercial in some instances. Schintler asked what the zoning is for the Old Press Citizen Building. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes May 17, 2001 Page 3 Miklo said it is CB-10. He said there is a provision in the zoning that allows housing for elders on the ground floor. Public discussion open: Jackie Briqqs, 714 North Johnson Street, Iowa City, Iowa, said she is Executive Director for Friends of Historic Preservation. She encouraged the Commission to approve of landmark status. This building is part of the historic core of downtown. She said its adaptable use is a strong possibility and a historic building can add to the viability of downtown. She believes preservation and business do go hand in hand. Jeff Schabilion, 431 Rundell, Iowa City, Iowa, said to him and many others the Old Carnegie Library is a historic landmark and so what they are doing today is making something official. He said when it was built it was a tremendous addition to the community both functionally and aesthetically. He said the kind of architecture was deliberated at the national level. He said it is a gem in Iowa City and an asset to downtown, Irvin Pfab, 505 East Jefferson, Iowa City, Iowa, asked who would own the Library. Miklo said Linn Street Partners. Pfab said there is the potential for 50 cents of every dollar to come from federal dollars for restoration. He said he hopes the owners have the foresight to do it right and save it. Susan Zickmund 922 Bower,/, Iowa City, Iowa, said the unique beauty of this building spoke to her when they moved here and still does and it needs to be saved. It adds to the ambiance of downtown. A city with attractive historic buildings is one of the features that helps recruit the types of professionals needed in this city. Maqqie Rochelle, 730 North Linn, Iowa City, Iowa, said our historic buildings should be protected. She said she once saw photos of old buildings in Iowa City that had been torn down and she was so sad that they weren't saved. She said she is putting in her vote for landmark status. Sally Mills, 430 Lee Street, Iowa City, said it represents a moment of history and it's architecture speaks of nobility. She said it speaks of how the City viewed themselves in 1904 and perhaps still today. She said we need to maintain architectural diversity in the downtown area. Susan Baskett, 1100 Arthur Street, Iowa City, said she is appalled with what has been done in this town especially downtown and was adamant that we must preserve what is left. She said she couldn't imagine the Library being torn down. Public discussion closed. MOTION: Ehrhardt moved to approve REZ01-00009, an application submitted by the Historic Preservation Commission to designate property located at 307 East College Street (Old Public Library) as an Iowa City Historic Landmark. Hansen seconded the motion. Anciaux said he wants to save historic buildings but he would like to not have to wait until the last minute, Schintler said she has no doubt that it fits with the Comprehensive Plan, the zoning ordinance and any renewal in that area, Ehrhardt said the owner, as she understands it, has no objections but that should not influence the decision. They are not changing the underlying zone; so not changing the potential use for the property, They are just protecting the property, She said the other buildings are in the process of being reviewed for historic designation but that it takes a long time. Gunn said they have followed the landmark designation ordinance in an above board way and followed a process that is in place. Ehrhardt said she strongly supports this and is excited about the adaptive reuse. The designation meets the requirements for landmark status. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes May 17, 2001 Page 4 Shannon said it is more than a pretty building to him; there are a lot of memories. He said that is kind of sentimental, which they can't even consider, He said he is glad the building will be saved. Hansen said he agrees it fits the requirements. Bovbjerg said the Comprehensive Plan mentions saving cultural heritage and landmarks. She said this fits the criteria. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. REZ01-0002. Discussion of the Conditional Zoning Agreement associated with the proposed rezoning from I-1, General Industrial, to C1-1, Intensive Commercial, for 12.09 acres of property located on the south side of Highway '1, south and west of Westport Plaza. Yapp gave his staff report. Before the Commission are three proposed changes to the Conditional Zoning Agreement proposed by the potential buyer of the property. The proposals are to shift the location of the access easement parallel to the landscape buffer; to be allowed to use architectural metals to minimize the potential for a blank wall; and to have two freestanding signs instead of one. Bovbjerg asked about the square footage of signs. Yapp said there is a limitation for the square footage of signs but you can have more than one sign within that square footage. Shannon asked about the frontage road in front of Carousel Motors, and whether this access road would link to that. Yapp said it wouldn't link up east of WaI-Mart. Bovbjerg asked who is responsible for linking up with the adjacent property. Yapp said there is one more piece of property to be developed, then the access road will connect. Hansen asked why the current frontage road at Carousel is not continuing through. Miklo said it was originally planned to but the City recognized intersection gridlock at similar sites. Ehrhardt asked about the architectural metal. She said it sounds like it could be all metal. Yapp said the language is such that it would be in combination with other materials. Hansen asked if it's a percentage. Yapp said no because they did not want to design this for them. He said when the Commission asked them to put this language together; the goal was not to have a blank wall. Yapp said they haven't seen a design, but all designs would go [o the Director of Planning for approval. Yapp said they could clarify that the architectural metal is in combination with other materials. Anciaux said he doesn't think the developer wants to develop an ugly building because he wants people to want to come into it. There was discussion about exact language. The Commission agreed that architectural metal was okay as long as the final language in the Conditional Zoning Agreement made it clear that it would be used in combination with masonry. Behr said staff would clarify the language based on the Commission's direction. lanning and Zoning Commission Minutes Jay 17, 2001 Page 5 Public discussion open: Tom Hobart, 122 South Linn, Iowa City, Iowa, said he represents the potential buyer of this property who is Carousel Ford. He said their intent is to use architectural metal in combination with other materials. He said blank walls are not what an auto dealership wants. He explained their request for the access easement for safety and business reasons due to the placement of the building. Ehrhardt explained how they have to plan for the property and the future regardless of who owns it, as a future owner may not have design as a priority. Public discussion closed. MOTION: Anciaux moved to approve a change to the Conditional Zoning Agreement for REZ01-0002, stating that the access easement be permitted to be reduced to 30-feet in width, and be permitted to be shifted west and north to be adjacent to the landscaped buffer parallel to Highway 1. Hanson seconded the motion, The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. MOTION: Shannon moved to approve a change to the Conditional Zoning Agreement for REZ01-0002, to allow for the use of architectural metals. Anciaux seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6~ MOTION: Schintler moved to approve a change to the Conditional Zoning Agreement for REZ01-0002, to allow two freestanding signs. Hanson seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. DEVELOPMENT ITEM: SUB99-0025. Discussion of an application submitted by the Ethel Cole Estates for a preliminary and final plat of White Barn Estates, a 30.44 acre, 3-lot subdivision located at 4675 American Legion Road. Yapp gave staff report. He said this meets the Fringe Area Agreement and no development is being proposed. The subdivision is to settle the estate for the family. Public discussion open: There was none. Public discussion closed. MOTION: Schintler moved to approve SUB99-0025, an application submitted by the Ethel Cole Estates for a preliminary and final plat of White Barn Estates, a 30.44 acre, 3-lot subdivision located at 4675 American Legion Road. Ehrhardt seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. Shannon moved to approve the minutes of the May 3, 2001 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting as written. Ehrhardt seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Dean Shannon, Secretary Minutes submitted by Diane Crosserr PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 7, 2001 - 7:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Bovbjerg, Jerry Hansen, Dean Shannon, Benjamin Chait, Don Anciaux, Pam Ehrhardt MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Mitch Behr, Bob Miklo OTHERS PRESENT: Kirsten Frey, Bob Downer, Diedre Fleenet, Larry Luebbert, Dr. Wayne Tegler, Frank Mitros, Dianne Kaufman, Monica Maloney-Mitros, Glenn Siders, Larry Schnittjer, Greg Muilenburg, Ann Muilenburg, Ted Pacha, Bob Wolf, Keith Carter, Peter Fisher, Gall Reynolds CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Bovbjerg called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. ANNOUNCEMENT OF VACANCIES ON CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: Bovbjerg said the vacancies are listed on the bulletin board in the lobby. ANNEXATION/REZONING ITEMS: ANN99-0003/REZ99-0017. Discussion on an application submitted by Plum Grove Acres, Inc. for an annexation of 26.88 acres and rezoning from Low Density Single Family, RS-5, County Highway Commercial, CH, County Local Commercial, C1 and County Multi-Family, R3A to Community Commercial, CC-2 (10.99 acres) and Medium Density Single Family, RS-8 (21 acres) located at the southwest corner of Scott Boulevard and Rochester Avenue. ANN01-0001/REZ01-0004. Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development Company to annex approximately 95.2 acres of property located north of Court Street, south of Lower West Branch Road, and east of Hummingbird Lane/Scott Park Drive, and to fezone the property from County RS, Suburban Residential, to RS-5, Low Density Single Family Residential (35.08 acres) and RS-8, Medium Density Single Family Residential (60.13 acres). Discussion of annexation of 16.32 acres located on Hummingbird Lane south of Lower West Branch Road. Miklo gave staff report on all three and explained how they were interrelated. For the first application, the City is asking that 50 feet of right of way on Hummingbird Lane be included. The concept plan meets the conditions and policies of the Northeast District Plan. Staff suggests that approval of this be subject to approval of a Conditional Zoning Agreement that would bind development to the concept plan. Development of this property will require the construction of a new sanitary sewer as well as the upgrade of an existing sanitary sewer tocated to the south along Court Street. Although this project is in the City's Capital Improvements Plan, it is not yet funded+ The annexation of the two proposed areas would help the annexation of the Iowa City Care Facility. This would help resolve their pollution problems from the private sewer treatment system. The City is suggesting that the City and developer share the cost of upgrading Lower West Branch Road. The second application is roughly the same as the first in terms of the Comprehensive Plan guidelines for annexation and is consistent with the Northeast District Plan. Both applications meet the requirements of the annexation policy. Both are well within the growth area+ They fulfill an identified need without imposing an undue financial burden on the City. Control of development in this area is in the City's best interest. For approval, the City is requiring that sewer easements be dedicated at the time of annexation and before development occurs. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 7, 2001 Page 2 If these two annexations are approved it would create an island of the properties along Hummingbird Lane, which is not allowed by state law. Staff is recommending that including these properties be a condition of annexation. The benefits to these annexed properties would be: fire protection, police protection, water service, sanitary sewer service, garbage and improvement and maintenance of surrounding streets. Taxes would increase but to ease some of this burden, the City Council has the option per State law to transition the property tax increase over a period of not more than five years. The State City Development Board must approve these annexations. Ehrhardt asked about the property south of the Zajicek property and it's zoning. Miklo said it is currently RS-5 and would be changed to CC-2 for the northern part and RS-8 in the lower part. Ehrhardt asked it Miklo thought the Zajicek property would be rezoned to commercial. Miklo said he thought that would be the logical progression. Ehrhardt asked Miklo to provide projected traffic increase for Rochester Avenue, Court Street and Scott Boulevard for the next meeting. Ehrhardt asked about the amount of green space as compared to the Northeast District Plan. Miklo said there is a lot of green space both private and public. He showed it on the map and how similar it is to the Northeast District Plan. Ehrhardt asked when water and sewer would be available for Hummingbird residents. Miklo said it would depend on the pace of development. He said it could be 2, 5 or 10 years. He said because of the urgent need to get the Care Facility on City sewer, the City may pay for the cost up front and be reimbursed by the developers. Bovbjerg asked about sewer route along Rochester while development occurs. Miklo explained the sequence of development and said development of the commercial properties on Rochester could not occur until the trunk sewer is installed. Bovbjerg asked about the City putting a police substation and small fire station in the Northeast area. Miklo said a police substation is not planned. There are plans for a fire station north on Scott Boulevard in the future. Public discussion open: Kirsten FreV, 2011 Rochester Avenue, Iowa Citv, Iowa, said she represents Plum Grove Acres, She pointed out on the map that the duplex lots are removed. She said the plan is consistent with the three criteria of the Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast District Plan. She said they have agreed to be held to the concept plan and a Conditional Zoning Agreement. She said their plans are for a commercial development for the general area, not just the neighborhood, Bob Downer, 122 South Linn Street, Iowa CitV, Iowa, said he represents the Wavefly Group, which is the owner of the Iowa City Rehabilitation and Health Care Center. He is there to speak in favor of the annexation. He said the sewer lagoon on the subject property is regularly inspected and has been in compliance to this point. He said there are potential difficulties and it would be advantageous to hook on to City sewer. He said if the annexations are acted upon favorably by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Care Facility will move forward with application for annexation. Bovbjerg asked what the Care Center's obligations are for building sewer lines and cleaning up the lagoon. Downer said as he recollects, there is no obligation for removal of the lagoon. He said there would be some cost for construction of sewer. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 7, 2001 Page 3 Chair asked about the Care Center's rights to use the lagoons and whether they can be forced to quit using them. Downer said they could not be cut off from those lagoons if there are no alternatives. Diedre Fleener, 72 Goldfinch Circle, said she has concerns about increased traffic along Scott Boulevard and long-term plans for truck traffic. She asked if it is possible to allocate the 10.88 acres of CC-2 zoning be residential to allow for a buffer for single4amily residences across Scott Boulevard. She said they are concerned about having a convenience store that may attract interstate traffic, She asked if there is a way to insure hours of operation. She asked if there could be a footbridge over Scott Boulevard from residential to commercial. Miklo said any use that is considered an auto and truck use, such as a convenience store, would require the approval of the Board of Adjustment. The Board can place conditions of approval such as hours of operation. He said there are plans for a stop light at Scott Boulevard and Rochester Avenue and there would be pedestrian walkways. He does not anticipate a footbridge because they are expensive and have not been successful. He said there are no immediate plans to redirect truck traffic. He said he would have some initial concerns about placing residential between commercial and Scott Boulevard by changing the zoning of 10.88 acres but it is something that could be discussed with the applicant. He said there are standards for lighting with this kind of development. Bovbjerg asked Behr to address the Conditional Zoning Agreement. Behr said a Conditional Zoning Agreement is binding on current and future owners so any plans must meet the Conditional Zoning Agreement. Larry Luebbert, 3269 Rochester Avenue, said he spoke in opposition to this annexation in February 2000. He said the plan has come a long way. He said there is a lot of truck traffic and that it is a very dangerous intersection with truck traffic. He said he thinks they can move forward if they are careful with how commercial it is. Dr. Wayne Teqler, 4643 Herbert Hoover Hiqhwav, said he lives east of the Iowa City Care Center, He said he drilled the well for Joe Zajicek, who is a super neighbor. He helped plan the Care Center. He doesn't want them or his property annexed but is resigned to it happening. He asked about the plan for Scott Boulevard extending to Interstate 80, He said there is atremendous amount of truck traffic on Herbert Hoover Highway. He said he is extremely concerned about the commercial development not being a 24-hour operation. Frank Mitros, 3710 Humminqbird Lane, said he is concerned about the watershed and how that will be affected when this is developed. Bovbjerg asked if he knew where the water comes from. Mitros said it is hard to know where it is coming from but is concerned about an increase in water. Miklo said development would have to comply with the City storm water management ordinance. He said in many situations there are improvements because water is redirected to storm water management systems. Dianne Kaufman said she doesn't live in the area but she participated in the Northeast District Plan. She said citizens at those meetings had concerns about adequate green space and parks, There had been indications of 3 to 7 acres of centrally located park space. She is concerned about the disturbance of existing natural features and maintenance of wetlands. She said this is about more than houses; it is a way of life. She said she sees a lot of expense for taxpayers and the developer is chipping in very little. She wants to know what the taxpayer is getting back. She would like to see more of the burden be put on the developer. Monica Maloney-Mitros, 3710 Humminqbird Lane, said she has concerns about all three proposals. She is concerned about repetition of commercial such as a convenience store. She said there is a convenience one mile south of here and one mile west. She said they moved to the county because of what it offered. She is concerned about paying taxes well before sewer service and road upgrades. She asked if there is any recourse for involuntary annexation. She said she would like to see lower density. The newspaper said there would be 650 units. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 7, 2001 Page 4 Miklo said the numbers in the paper are high because they took the 95 acres and applied the maximum units possible without discounting for the land that would be in streets, parks, and storm water management. Chait asked about a gradual increase of taxes. Miklo said the City Council has the ability to gradually apply the City tax rate over a five-year period. Glenn Siders, PO Box 1907, said he is with Southgate Development. He explained history of agreement to purchase property and the zoning they are requesting. He said there is no way there will be 650 units. They are primarily planning for single-family development. He confirmed that they have agreed to all conditions mentioned in the staff report. Shannon asked if they are aiming for something similar to the Northeast District Plan. Siders said they do not have the town square effect; it is more of the old style lot and block street pattern. Larry Schnittier, 1911 South Gilbert Street, explained the concept plan on the map. Greq Muilenburq, 3736 Humminqbird Lane, said he is very much against annexation. He said the City has very little to offer for a great increase in taxes. He said their taxes would increase to $1,500 per year for very little benefits. He would like to see larger lots abut their lots and see a gradual transition to smaller lots. Ehrhardt asked if he knew when he purchased their home that they were in the growth area. Muilenburg said he didn't expect it this fast. Bovbjerg asked what recourse there is for involuntary annexation. Miklo said they normally do not annex involuntary unless there is a compelling reason to do it. He said this case is compelling to avoid creating an island of properties. He said the Commission could recommend against it, the City Council would have to vote, but ultimately it is up to the State City Development Board. Ann Muilenburq, 3736 Humminqbird Lane, said she is concerned about the sewer and changing the drainage. She said nature wins out in the long run. Ted Pacha, 4640 Lower West Branch Road, Iowa City, Iowa said he has lived there for 18 years and owns 50 acres and has never once heard about the iowa City growth area. He referred to Muilenburg and asked how he with only one lot could possibly know about it. He said he personally pays the County to keep Lower West Branch Road hard surface and asked if this will have all kinds of driveways off the road he pays for. Bob Wolf, 3732 Humminqbird Lane, said they have lived there since 1974 and really enjoy living in the County. He is concerned with the density of the Southgate property. He would like them to reconsider lower density on the western portion. Miklo explained zoning densities and that the numbers are the maximum allowed. Land typically develops at 65% of the maximum density allowed by the zone due to land set aside for streets, parks, and stormwater management. .Keith Carter, 3740 Humminqbird Lane, said he is concerned about the density around them and the incongruous lot sizes that could abut them. He said smaller lot sizes will hurt the appearance, the flow and their investment. Peter Fisher, 3722 Humminqbird Lane, asked if the minimum lot size in RS-5 is a fifth of an acre. Miklo said yes, roughly. He asked about the CC-2 deve$opment and that being heId to a concept plan. He asked if the same thing applies to the Southgate plan. Miklo said the only thing proposed for the Southgate area at this time is the underlying zoning, not a concept plan. Flanrfing and Zoning Commission Minutes June 7, 2001 Page 5 Fisher said he did not recall Hummingbird Lane residents being asked to participate in the Northeast District Plan. Miklo said letters were sent to all those property owners. Gall Reynolds, 65 Heron Circle, said her biggest concern is the long-term ramifications of commercial development. She sees very little green space in the plan. Fleener said she wanted to put in a plug for her neighbor Mr. Zajicek in light of all the encroaching development. She said he is being encroached upon not vice versa. She would like some consideration be given to him. Kaufman said the attorney spoke of the commercial development as regional. She said her tax dollars have been going to reviving downtown and Sycamore Mall. She is concerned about struggling merchants and would not like to see another regional retail center. Miklo said they would not describe this as regional as the industry refers to regional retail. Frey clarified her definition of regional. She said it would serve the neighborhood, not just the houses immediately surrounding it. Tegler had a question about the flood plain on the map. He asked about the Scott Boulevard dam. Schnittjer explained the water flow and elevations. Bovbjerg said she would like staff to look into the issue. Miklo will ask the City Engineer to address the issue. Public discussion closed. MOTION: Chair moved to defer ANN99-0003/REZ99-0017, an application submitted by Plum Grove Acres, Inc. for an annexation of 26.88 acres and rezoning from Low Density Single Family, RS-5, County Highway Commercial, CH, County Local Commercial, C1 and County Multi-Family, R3A to Community Commercial, CC-2 (10.99 acres) and Medium Density Single Family, RS-8 (21 acres) located at the southwest corner of Scott Boulevard and Rochester Avenue. Shannon seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. MOTION: Chair moved to defer ANN01-0001/REZ01-0004, an application submitted by Southgate Development Company to annex approximately 95.2 acres of property located north of Court Street, south of Lower West Branch Road, and east of Hummingbird Lane/Scott Park Drive, and to rezone the property from County RS, Suburban Residential, to RS-5, Low Density Single Family Residential (35.08 acres) and RS-8, Medium Density Single Family Residential (60.13 acres). Hartsen seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. MOTION: Chair moved to defer annexation of 16.32 acres located on Hummingbird Lane south of Lower West Branch Road. Ehrhardt seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0. Shannon moved to approve the minutes of the May 17, 2001 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting as written. Hansen seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6 - 0. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Dean Shannon, Secretary Minutes submitted by Diane Crosserr ppdadm~n/m~n/p&z06-07-O~ doc 07-10-01 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 21,2001 - 7:30 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Bovbjerg, Jerry Hansen, Dean Shannon, Benjamin Chair, Don Anciaux, Pam Ehrhardt, Beth Koppes MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Mitch Behr, Bob Miklo, Shelley McCafferty OTHERS PRESENT: Kirsten Fray, Frank Mitros, Glenn Siders, Larry Schnittjer, Greg Muilenburg, Ann Muilenburg, Bob Wolf, Michael Gunn, Jackie Briggs, Lois Anderson, John Shaw, John Fitzpatrick RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: 1. Recommended approval by a vote of 7-0 the annexation of approximately 26.88 acres of property located south and east of Scott Boulevard and Rochester Avenue and 6.25 acres of property located east of Scott Boulevard and south of Lower West Branch Road and rezoning approximately 38.24 acres from Low Density Single Family RS-5, County Highway Commercial, OH, County Local Government O1 and County Multi-Family, R3A to Community Commercial, GC-2 (10.99 acres), Medium Density Single- Family, RS-6 (21 acres), and Low Density Single-Family (RS-5 (6.25 acres) for properly located east of Scott Boulevard and south of Rochester Avenue and Lower West Branch Road. (ANN99-0003) (RE799- 0017) 2. Recommended approval by a vote of 7-0 the annexation of approximately 95.2 acres of properly located north of Court Street, south of Lower West Branch Road, and east of Hummingbird Lane/Scott Park Drive, and approximately 10 acres of properly located south of Lower West Branch Road and east of Hummingbird Lane and rezoning approximately 105.2 acres of property from Suburban Residential, County RS, to Low Density Single-Family, RS-5 (45.08 acres) and Medium Density Single-Family, RS-8 (60.13 acres), for property located north of Court Street, south of Lower West Branch Road, and east of Hummingbird Lane. (ANN01-0001 ) (REZ01-0004) 3. Recommend denial by a vote of 2-5 (Bovbjerg and Anciaux vote yes) on amendment to the Zoning Code to allow residential uses on the ground floor of Historic Landmark buildings in the CB-10 Zone by Special Exception. GALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Bovbjerg called the meeting to order at 7:36 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. ANNOUNCEMENT OF VACANCIES ON CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: Bovbjerg said the vacancies are listed on the bulletin board in the lobby. ANNEXATION/REZONING ITEMS: ANN99-0003/REZ99-0017. Discussion on an application submitted by Plum Grove Acres, Inc. for an annexation of 26.88 acres and rezoning from Low Density Single Family, RS-5, County Highway Commercial, OH, County Local Commercial, O1 and County Multi-Family, R3A to Community Commercial, GG-2 (10.99 acres) and Medium Density Single Family, RS-8 (21 acres) located at the southwest corner of Scott Boulevard and Rochester Avenue. ANN01-0001/REZ01-0004. Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development Company to annex approximately 95.2 acres of property located north of Court Street, south of Lower West Branch Road, and east of Hummingbird Lane/Scott Park Drive, and to rezone the property from County RS, Suburban Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 21,2001 Page 2 Residential, to RS-5, Low Density Single Family Residential (35.08 acres) and RS-8, Medium Density Single Family Residential (60.13 acres). Discussion of annexation of 16.32 acres located on Hummingbird Lane south of Lower West Branch Road. Miklo gave staff report for all three items. He discussed an amendment to each application. The Plum Grove application will include Hummingbird Lane and the Lou Frank property. Mr. Frank has agreed to be included if there is no cost to him. The Southgate application has been amended to include property east of Hummingbird Lane. Miklo briefly referred to the Jeff Davidson memo regarding traffic projects in the area. Both applications if approved would be subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) as outlined in the staff report. Ehrhardt asked for clarification about properties east of Hummingbird Lane and Miklo explained that the State law allows annexation of land without a property owner's consent, in order to avoid creation of "islands" or irregular boundaries.. She asked about the impediment of development if these aren't passed. Miklo said the concern is more the difficulty in annexing property to the east and northeast if these aren't passed. He explained state law regarding annexation. Miklo said the County engineer and the City engineer have worked out an agreement for the maintenance of Lower West Branch Road. He said they anticipate that developers will contribute to the cost of upgrading it to a City street in the future. Bovbjerg asked about the procedure for these applications going to the State City Development Board. Miklo said the first application wouldn't have to go to the state level if Mr. Frank consents to being included in the annexation. The second application would go to the State because some of the owners are not consenting to the annexation. Chait asked about the process of review if State City Development Board sided with Hummingbird Lane property owners. Miklo clarified the process. He said that the State reviews annexations if they include property for which the owner has not consented to the annexation. Public discussion open: Kitsten FreV, 2011 Rochester Avenue said she represents Plum Grove acres and is available for questions. Bovbjerg asked about the movement of the road in the concept plan. Frey said the relocation of the road was done with consultation with the City to avoid cut through traffic. Bovbjerg asked if everyone agreed to the Conditional Zoning Agreement. Frey said yes and if they deviated from the concept plan they would have to come back before the Commission. Glenn Siders, PO Box 1907 of Southgate Development said the subiect property is in a targeted growth area. They have met the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan. All of the lots they are proposing are single family. They are in agreement with the CZA. Greq Muilenburq, 3736 Humminqbird Lane, said they do not want to be annexed. He said their tax rate would increase from 21.6 mills to 33.1 mills. He said there is a precedent for not being annexed because of a parcel of land in the middle of the Windsor Ridge subdivision that is still in the County. He said at the least they should Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 21,2001 Page 3 not be annexed until the City can provide services. He said he is concerned about the smaller lots that will be developed adjacent to his one-acre lot. He said these smaller lots would be detrimental to their home value. Chair asked if Muilenburg was aware of the gradual increase in taxes over five years. Muilenburg said yes. Frank Mitros, 3710 Humminqbird Lane asked if particular property owners were notified. Miklo said all property owners were notified by mail. He said they were not notified about the Northeast Area District Planning meetings. Miklo said everyone in that area was notified at the address on file with the City and County Assessors offices. Mitros said the address on file may have errors. Mitros asked about water runoff and his concern about increased runoff with development. Miklo said development would have to comply with the City's storm water management ordinance, which attempts to ensure storm water doesn't affect adjacent property owners. Mitros asked if they would see a concept plan for the larger 88-acre parcel. Miklo explained that they would have to comply with the Northeast Area District concept plan and that normally a concept plan for RS-5 and RS-8 zoning is not required. A concept plan was submitted for the Plum Grove application because of the likelihood for Planned Development Housing and the commercial development. Mitros asked about maintenance of the north end of Hummingbird Lane. Miklo said the City engineer said it would be chip sealed upon annexation. Bovbjerg asked if that is when the City would provide trash service. Miklo said there is a one-year transition period so current contracts with private haulers can be honored. Ehrhardt said the extra taxes are not for services. Miklo said taxes pay for City services like parks, library, fire and police protection. He said user fees are collected to pay for water, sewer and refuse services Muilenburg said they have excellent trash service now so he doesn't know what they are getting for the increase in taxes. Shannon asked when those residents might get water and sewer service. Miklo said it would depend on the pace of development. He said it is possible the City would build the trunk line and charge developers to tap in. He said the earliest would probably be in two years, more likely five years. They wouldn't be required to hook in for twenty years. He said water lines are currently located in Hummingbird Lane and most of the property owners may tap into City water service upon annexation. Ann Muilenburq, 3736 Humminqbird Lane said they don't need the services the City has to offer. She said the size of the lots that are proposed are much smaller than theirs and she doesn't think that helps the value or the beauty of their property. She said she realizes they will be annexed at some point but she would rather they not be annexed until there is city there. Ehrhardt asked if Muilenburg understood the problem for development in the northeast if their property is not annexed. Muilenburg referred to the property in Windsor Ridge that is not annexed. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 21,2001 Page 4 Miklo addressed the Windsor Ridge property. He said state law changed a number of years ago to avoid just such a situation. He said the state recognized the problem of having little pieces of County in the City. Muilenburg said she would like to see a concept plan for development adjacent to them. Miklo said it would come back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a subdivision. He said the Conditional Zoning Agreement means they must conform to the Northeast District concept plan. Bob Wolf, 3732 Humminqbird Lane said the cost of their wells and septic systems was a big investment and they have no interest in City water. He asked for clarification on the grace period. Miklo explained the grace period. He said they would not be required to hook into City sewer and water service for a period of 20 years. Wolf said he would like another meeting to discuss the pros and cons and wants the Commission to take its time. He said he is concerned about the proposed density and lot sizes around them. Larry Schnittier, 1917 South Gilbert spoke about the Southgate development and that storm water management is required. He spoke about the Lou Frank agreement. He said Frank was not excited about being annexed but he is not opposed to it if properties on Hummingbird Lane are also annexed. He said Frank would withdraw his consent to annexation if the properties east of Hummingbird Lane are not also annexed. Hansen asked when development would begin. Schnittjer said they could not begin until sewer is in place. He said it might speed up development if the Care Center is annexed. Hansen asked if Southgate is ready when the City is. Schnittjer said yes. Bovbjerg asked about water. Schnittjer said storm water management is required and you cannot change the course of a stream. Behr said when development occurs it will come back as a subdivision before the Commission for review. During that review storm water management plans will be approved by the City. Shannon spoke of Bob Downer's comments from last meeting that the Care Center is in favor of being annexed. He asked if that would speed up development. Schnittjer said if the City is concerned enough about the Care Center sewer system, it could accelerate installation of sewer routes. Chait said he thought Downer didn't say they would initiate sewer, but that they would hook up when it is available. Anciaux asked if the wells on Hummingbird Lane properties are sufficient for fire protection. Muilenburg said they are large enough. He doesn't think the fire department can hook in. Mitros spoke again about storm water concerns. He said there is a difference between a law that it needs to be taken care of and if it can actually be done. He spoke of his sump pump not being able to handle more, He asked if it is possible to negotiate that they would allow themselves to be annexed at such time as property north of Southgate property and east of Plum Grove property is annexed. Miklo said he doesn't know if state law provides for that. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 21,2001 Page 5 Chait asked about time constraints if a decision were deferred to address Wolf's request for more discussion of the issues. Miklo said that Hummingbird Lane property owners and the Commission have a detailed letter, which he believes makes the issues very clear. He said the staff could attempt to explain it again, but he felt it was spelled out clearly. Siders said time is of the essence and they should have closed the sale yesterday. He said they don't have a concept plan. They simply don't know enough about the contours of the property. They do have the Northeast District concept plan and are obligated to follow that. He said they would most likely begin in spring of 2002. He said they still have the subdivision process ahead of them. Bovbjerg asked about sewer being put in when they begin. Siders said it is not likely they would put sewer in for themselves alone. Chair asked if they were planning straight subdivision or a PDH. Siders said they would avoid a PDH like the plague. Hansen asked about a start time for Plum Grove. Frey said she didn't know. She said if the Care Center were interested in being annexed they might work with them. Muilenburg asked if not annexing Hummingbird Lane would impede development of the other parcels. Miklo said no. Muilenburg said the only reason then to annex is because they are small enough to take in. Miklo said it is to avoid a service island and irregular boundaries, and to avoid annexation difficulties in the future. Public discussion closed. MOTION.: Anciaux moved to approve ANN99-0003/REZ99-0017, an application submitted by Plum Grove Acres, Inc. for an annexation of 26.88 acres and rezoning from Low Density Single Family, RS~5, County Highway Commercial, CH, County Local Commercial, C1 and County Multi-Family, R3A to Community Commercial, CC-2 (10.99 acres) and Medium Density Single Family, RS-8 (21 acres) located at the southeast corner of Scott Boulevard and Rochester Avenue and annexation of approximately 6.25 acres located south of Lower West Branch Road including and west of Hummingbird Lane and rezoning this property to RS-5. Ehrhardt seconded the motion. Shannon asked for clarification of what would happen in the Windsor Ridge situation if it happened today. Miklo said if it happened today the small area would likely be annexed to avoid an island or irregular boundary. Bovbjerg expressed the intent of the Commission to include in the motion the Conditional Zoning Agreement as set out in the staff report. The person that made the motion and the person that seconded both agreed to include in the motion the conditions of the staff report. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. MOTION: Anciaux moved to approve ANN01-0001/REZ01-0004, an application submitted by Southgate Development Company to annex approximately 95.2 acres of property located north of Court Street, south of Lower West Branch Road, and east of Hummingbird Lane/Scott Park Drive, and to rezone the property from County RS, Suburban Residential, to RS-5, Low Density Single Family Residential (35.08 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 Page 6 acres) and RS-8, Medium Density Single Family Residential (60.13 acres) and annexation of approximately 10 acres located south of Lower West Branch Road and east of Hummingbird Lane and rezoning this property to RS-5, subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. Shannon seconded the motion. Ehrhardt said it is a difficult decision but their charge is to look at what is best for the whole of City. She said that it is unfortunate that the four properties on Hummingbird Lane would be annexed without the owners consent, but that was best for the long-term interest of the overall city. Shannon said he likes the Northeast District concept plan and he believes it will be followed as closely as possible. Bovbjerg said her comments are similar to Ehrhardt's because it is a good way for the City to grow. She believed that the properties on Hummingbird Lane benefited from most city services and could use all city services in a few years. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. CODE AMENDMENT ITEMS: Discussion of an amendment to the Zoning Code Section 14-6E-8, G 3, Special Provisions to allow the Board of Adjustment to permit alternative uses of Historic Landmark Buildings. Mik~o gave staff report. He said they are proposing the amendment to allow residential uses on the first floor of certain Iowa City landmarks in the Central Business zone (CB-10). It would be an exception approved by the Board of Adjustment if certain criteria were met. He said this is in response to a memorandum from Jim Clark that outlines the difficulties of developing the Carnegie Library. He said the Comprehensive Plan calls for some zoning flexibility for landmark buildings. He said the amendment provides safeguards to assure that retail storefronts are not displaced. The Board of Adjustment would review these on a case-by-case basis. He said the Commission had asked if they could craft an item to address separately a historic building from the remaining lot and/or a non-historic building. Behr said the amendment as drafted does allow the distinction to be made on a case-by-case basis by the Board of Adjustment. He said making that distinction in the code might be counter to the purpose of the amendment which is to provide flexibility and promote continued use of a landmark structure. Ehrhardt asked if the Board of Adjustment has the same mind set as the Commission. Miklo said it is similar in that the Board uses the Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance to guide its decisions but the Board makes decisions regarding special exceptions and variances rather than making a recommendation to the City Council. Miklo showed a map illustrating the CB-10 zone and the six historic landmarks currently in that district. He went through aft six, listing three that could be considered for ground floor residential and three that couldn't give the requirements of the proposed ordinance. He said the draft ordinance applies to very few properties and therefore there would be no detriment to the commercial character of downtown. He said there are a few unique properties where flexibility is in order. Michael Gunn, Chair, Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission, 1011 Sheridan Avenue said per the downtown survey there are approximately 43 properties that are eligible for the National Historic Register, which has more rigorous requirements than Iowa City landmark status does. He said almost all were originally for commerce and still are. Ehrhardt asked how many were not originally commercial. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 21,2001 Page 7 Gunn said eight and listed them. They include the Press-Citizen Building, the Commerce Center (Elks), the Episcopal Church, the Vogel House, the Van Patten House, the Masonic Hall, and the Carnegie Library. Ehrhardt expressed concern about separate buildings on a lot designated historic. Gunn said their guidelines provide for approval of a new building before approval of demolition. He said separating the historic building from the remainder of the property in this zoning amendment is not a good idea as it would limit the Historic Preservation Commission's ability to assure the new building is compatible with the landmark. Chair asked about the Senior Center (old post office) and the review of design. Miklo said it is not an Iowa City landmark so this would not apply. Public discussion open: Jackie Bric~qs, 714 North Johnson Street, said she is the Executive Director of Friends of Historic Preservation. She distributed a letter from Joyce Barrett, Executive Director of the Iowa Historic Preservation Alliance. She said Friends of Historic Preservation supports the amendment because it provides for the preservation of historfc buildings and adoptive reuse. John Shaw, 437 South Summit, said he is the project architect for the Carnegie Library. He said we owe it to ourselves to preserve our culture. He said these buildings would come down if a viable use cannot be found for them. Lars Anderson. 45 Heron Circle, represents South Linn partners. He spoke in favor of the amendment. He said it empowers the Board of Adiustment to make a determination whether an exception is appropriate, He said anything that needs a permit requires Historic Preservation Commission review. He said the amendment gives property owners the ability to preserve and maintain historic landmarks. Anciaux asked if South Linn is interested in elderly residences on the first floor, Anderson said they would not be interested. Ehrhardt said she is not convinced there couldn't be commercial on the first floor. Anderson said there are parking and cost concerns for commercial and it is much more expensive to build for commercial. It is difficult to rent commercia~ space if it does not have parking. Public discussion closed. MOTION: Shannon moved to approve an amendment to the Zoning Code Section 14-6E-8, G 3, Special Provisions to allow the Board of Adjustment to permit alternative uses of Historic Landmark Buildings. Ehrhardt seconded the motion. Hansen said he couldn't find a need for an amendment. They've spent millions for making downtown viable. He said the option for elderly on the first floor is available. He said he thinks it should be explored further. Chait said he supports the Historic Preservation Commission. He complemented the Clarks for their contributions to the community. His concern and commitment is to the CB-10 zone and the urban fabric of the city. He said even if they lose the Carnegie Library, he has to look at the bigger picture. He said his background is urban design and architecture. He said the property is a challenge for a developer and architect. He said they can do elderly housing on the first floor, but they don't want to do that. He hopes the Library can be saved with some creative first-floor use. Ehrhardt said she also supports Historic Preservation and she doesn't want to put up barriers but she agrees their charge is the preservation of the downtown. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes June 21, 2001 Page 8 Anciaux said when they discussed the Carnegie Library he was most concerned about the developer buying the building and the Commission putting a landmark designation on it that went along with Historic Preservation. He's happy to see the developer trying to restore it himself and if he needs some help the City should support him. He will support this amendment. Koppes said she's not comfortable with it because she doesn't want to change the fabric of downtown. Shannon said he's been concerned about the empty storefronts. Residential does not solve all the problems. Bovbjerg said their amendment to the zoning code provides for exceptions in rare instances. She said it allows people to work with difficult historical properties and make them viable. The motion failed on a vote of 2-5. Bovbjerg and Anciaux voted for it. Discussion of letter from Northside Neighborhood Association regarding site plan review ordinance. Miklo said the original site plan ordinance included language requiring that infill development be compatible with existing neighborhoods. The language addressed building placement and height in relationship to neighboring properties. At the request of the Home Builder's Association, the Commission struck the language from the ordinance. A recent project on Bloomington Street includes a parking in the front yard in a neighborhood where all other parking is in the back of buildings. The City turned down the site plan because it was not compatible with the neighborhood. The owner appealed to the Board of Adjustment. The Board felt the site plan language did not have strong enough language pertaining to neighborhood compatibility to allow the City to deny the permit. In response to the situation the North Side Neighborhood wrote the letter asking for a review of neighborhood compatibility language. Miklo said staff felt this would be best addressed in the Code rewrite which will occur over the next two years. Ehrhardt asked for the original and ordinance language. Miklo said he would provide that. Bovbjerg suggested discussing this at a meeting in the near future. Public discussion open: John Fitzpatrick, 721 North Linn, said he chairs the traffic and parking committee of the Northside Neighborhood Association. He said a recent project on Bloomington Street which is incompatible with the established neighborhood demonstrates the need for neighborhood compatibility language in the code. They are concerned that another situation could occur before the entire code is reviewed. Public discussion closed. Hansen moved to approve the minutes of the May 17, 2001 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting as written. Shannon seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7 - 0. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:22 p.m. Dean Shannon, Secretary Minutes submitted by Diane Crosserr POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - June 6, 2001 CALL TO ORDER Chair John Watson called the meeting to order at 7:05 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. Also in attendance was Lt. Sellers of the ICPD. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Cohen and seconded by Horton to adopt the consent calendar as presented: a. Minutes of 5/8/01 meeting b. Minutes of 5/16/01 meeting c. ICPD Release - Traffic Stop Demographics - April Motion carried, 4/0, Hoffey absent. SUNSET CLAUSE AND ORDINANCE CHANGES The Boards Memorandum regarding Ordinance Change Recommendations was distributed to council members in their weekly packets this week. Watson and Cohen will attend the Special Council Work Session on June 11. NEW BUSINESS None OLD BUSINESS None PUBLIC DISCUSSION None MEETING SCHEDULE · Special Meeting June 20, 2001,7:00 P.M. · Regular Meeting July 10, 2001,7:00 P.M. (Horton, Watson and Pugh will be absent.) BOARD INFORMATION None STAFF INFORMATION None EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Stratton and seconded by Horton to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section 21.5(1 )(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds,and 22.7(11 ) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22-7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. Motion carried, 4/0, Hoffey absent. Open session adjourned at 7:15 P.M. REGULAR SESSION Regular session resumed at 8:20 P.M. Motion by Stratton and seconded by Cohen to hold a name- clearing hearing for the Officers involved in PCRB Complaint #01-01 at the next Board meeting. Motion carded, 4/0, Hoffey absent. Staff was directed to send apprepFiate letters. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Stratton and seconded by Cohen. Motion carried, 4/0, Hoffey absent. Meeting adjourned at 8:21 P.M. POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - June 20, 2001 CALL TO ORDER Chair John Watson called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ATTENDANCE Board members present: Leah Cohen, Paul Hoffey, Loren Horton, John Stratton and John Watson. Staff present: Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh and PCRB Assistant Sandy Bauer. Also in attendance was Captain Matt Johnson of the ICPD. Motion by Cohen and seconded by Hoffey to move Item 2 of the Agenda to follow Item 9. Motion carried, 5/0, all members present. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Stratton and seconded by Horton to adopt the consent calendar as presented: a. Minutes of 6/6/01 meeting b. ICPD Use of Force Report -April 2001 Motion carried, 5/0, all members present. NEW BUSINESS None OLD BUSINESS · Acknowledging receipt of NACOLE's membership renewal, the Board directed Chair to correspond with NACOLE regarding its past concerns. · Chair reported on his attendance at a city council work session at which the PCRB was discussed: 1. The majority want to have no sunset, but a review every two years. 2. Policy review power only at the request of the City Council, Chief or City Manager. 3. Right to hold forums 4. The ordinance will still include deference to the Chief's expertise, but gives the Board authority to comment in reports. 5. Eliminated PCRB assistant position, but kept legal counsel. Watson reported he has had a couple discussions with Marian Karr about staffing, but is uncertain what the final direction will be. The PCRB will be on the agenda for the next work session, June 25; first reading of the ordinance will be at the council meeting on Tuesday, June 26. PUBLIC DISCUSSION None MEETING SCHEDULE · Special Meeting June 25, 2001, 11:00 A.M. · Regular Meeting July 10, 2001,7:00 P.M. (Horton, Watson and Pugh will be absent.) BOARD INFORMATION Cohen reported contact from a Daily lowan reporter. STAFF INFORMATION None EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Horton and seconded by Stratton to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section 21.5(1 )(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds,and 22.7(11 ) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22-7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. Motion carried, 5/0, all members present. Open session adjourned at 7:30 P.M. REGULAR SESSION Regular session resumed at 8:50 P.M. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Cohen and seconded by Hoffey. Motion carried, 5/0, all members present. Meeting adjourned at 8:50 P.M. 3 POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - June 25, 200'1 CALL TO ORDER Chair John Watson called the meeting to order at 11:00 A.M. ATTENDANCE Board members present: Paul Hoffey, Loren Horton, John Stratton and John Watson; board member absent: Leah Cohen. Staff present: Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh and PCRB Assistant Sandy Bauer. Also in attendance was Captain Matt Johnson of the ICPD. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL Accept PCRB Report on Complaint #01-01 CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Horton and seconded by Stratton to adopt the consent calendar as amended: a. ICPD General Order - Field Interview and "Pat Down" Searches b. ICPD General Order - Search and Seizure c. Copy of Memorandum from Marian Karr to Mayor and City Council d. Memorandum from Eleanor Dilkes regarding Amendments to Police Citizens Review Board Ordinance e. ICPD General Orders Alphabetical Index (distributed at meeting) Motion carried, 4/0, Cohen absent. NEW BUSINESS None OLD BUSINESS The Board discussed the two memorandums in the "consent calendar." Regarding Karr's memorandum, Watson stated he has had conversations with her regarding staffing for the board, and suggested the board could become more administratively self-sufficient. When polled "is the board willing to be more self-sufficient?", Stratton, Horton and Hoffey stated they were reluctant to agree to do so, but would if necessary. Following discussion, Watson was directed by the Board to prepare a memorandum regarding its comments and recommendations about the amendments to the PCRB Ordinance, to include: · The decision to eliminate the staff administrative assistant position was made before the Council made a final determination of the role and responsibilities of the PCRB. Because it appears that the Council will not alter the duties of the PCRB in a way that would significantly reduce staff time, the City Clerk has rightfully expressed her concerns about the additional demands on her staff. The Board's concern is that the Council will use the City Clerk's needs as a reason to establish a reduced role for the PCRB. · Council members have expressed concern about the PCRB's involvement with policy review and have asked that the Board's review powers be reduced.The Board at present has no power to set or alter any policy of the ICPD, nor does it seek such power. The Board reviews policies for the following reasons: 1 ) to enhance the Board's understanding of police policies, procedures and practices in general, 2) to help make informed decision regarding specific complaints, and 3) in response to public concern regarding a specific policy, procedure or practice. The Board feels this review power is an important and appropriate role for the PCRB. The Board recommends that the wording of Sections 8-8-2(N)[new O], 8-8-7(C)2, and 8-8-7(C)3 remain unchanged. · The Board agrees with the changes in Section 8-8-3(D), which conforms to current practice. However, the language of 8-8-5(A) seems to imply that PCRB complaints have been filed with the Police Department. The Board suggests clarifying language. · The Board concurs with the changes suggested for Section 8-8-7, including the additional paragraph in Section B.2. However, the Board recommends the following change to the additional paragraph: "...but nonetheless has concern about the officer's conduct, or Police Department policy, procedure, or practice, it may so comment..." Watson and Stratton will attend the Work Session this evening. PUBLIC DISCUSSION None MEETING SCHEDULE · Rogul3r Meoting July 10, 2001,7:00 P.M. (Horton, Watcon and Pugh will be absent.) Cancelled. · Regular Meeting August 14, 2001,7:00 P.M. 2 BOARD INFORMATION None STAFF INFORMATION Pugh will be gone from July 7 to July 23. Pugh also advised that she will be cutting back in her law practice, and focusing on family law mediation. She will remain as legal counsel to the PCRB. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Horton and seconded by Hoffey to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section 21.5(1 )(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds,and 22.7(11 ) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22-7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. Motion carried, 4/0, Cohen absent. Open session adjourned at 11:40 A.M. REGULAR SESSION Regular session resumed at 12:23 P.M. Motion by Horton and seconded by Hoffey to "not sustain" allegation 1 in the PCRB's Report on Complaint #01-01. Motion carried, 4/0, Cohen absent. Motion by Stratton and seconded by Hoffey to "sustain" allegation 2 in the PCRB's Report on Complaint #01-01. Motion carried, 3/1, Horton opposing and Cohen absent. Motion by Horton and seconded by Hoffey to forward PCRB Report on Complaint #01-01, as amended, to the City Council. Motion carried, 4/0, Cohen absent. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Hoffey and seconded by Stratton. Motion carried, 4/0, Cohen absent. Meeting adjourned at 12:30 P.M. 4 POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240-1826 (319)356-5413 TO: City Council _ Complainant Stephen Atkins, City Manager z 'T'} R. J. Winkelhake, Chief of Police Officer(e) involved in complaint --~ FROM: Police Citizens Review Board ~ ;>; .~ RE: Investigation of PCRB Complaint//01-01 DATE: June 25, 2001 This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board (the "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB/t00-O1 (the "Complaint"). BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8-8-7 B, the Board's job is to review the Police Chief's Report ("Report"} of his investigation of a complaint. The City Code requires the Board to apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review to the Report and to "give deference" to the Report "because o.f the Police Chief's...professional expertise." Section 8-8-7 B.2 While the City Code directs the Board to make "findings of fact," it also requires that the Board recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify his findings only if those findings are "unsupported by substantial evidence," are "unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious," or are "contrary to a Police Department policy or practice or any Federal, State or local law." Sections 8-8-7B.2(a), (b), and (c). BOARD'S PROCEDURE The Complaint was received at the Office of the City Clerk on February 12, 2001. As required by Section 8-8-5 of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Police Chief for investigation. The Chief's Report was received on May 11, 2001. PCRB #01-01 Page The Board voted to review the Complaint in accordance with Section 8-8-7 B. 1 (e), which means the Board will review the Complaint after doing additional investigation on its own. A Board member contacted the complainant regarding interviewing her 11 -year-old son and his 15Wear-old friend. Two Board members talked with the mother and interviewed her son on May 29, 2OO1. The 15-year-old declined to be interviewed. The Board scheduled a name-clearing hearing but was inform .~>l~ th~c_ Chief that the officers would not attend. - --~ z 'i'l The Board met on May 16, June 6, June 20 and June 25 to c.~,~:Jer~D ~ the Complaint. ~ ~-~ i~ FINDINGS OF FACT ~> -- On January 27, 2001, Officers A and B went to the complainant's residence in an attempt to serve an arrest warrant on a male subject, the ex- husband of the complainant. The subject had given the complainant's residence as a home address to Officer B during a traffic stop. The complainant was not home when the officers arrived. The door was opened by the complainant's 11 -year-old son who was at home with a 15-year-old acquaintance left with the 11-year-old to keep him company and to assist in dealing with problems that might arise, but not as a babysitter. When he opened the door he observed two Iowa City police officers. There is some disagreement regarding what was said or not said at the door, but it appears the officers were not told they could enter nor were they told to leave. The officers indicated they felt they were given permission to enter because the 11 -year-old stepped away from the door when they requested entrance. The 11-year-old denies they asked to enter but rather just walked in. Officer B indicated that as soon as the door was opened he could smell a strong odor of marijuana. When the officers entered the room Officer B observed "what looked like a marijuana roach in the ashtray on the living room coffee table." Officer A secured the object and asked the two boys if there was any more marijuana in the house. When the 11-year-old said "no," Officer A asked whether they could check the house for marijuana. Officer B indicated the 11-year-old answered "sure." (CF officer's narrative attached to Incident Report.) The officers searched the living room and found a "small amount of loose marijuana on a spiral notebook on the living room floor." The 11-year- old and his mother refer to this material as ashes - probably from the cigarette of the complainant's older son. (This individual has had a number of charges for marijuana possession and is currently under court supervision.) Officer B asked if there were other persons present in the PCRtl//01-01 Page 2 house. The 11-year-old indicated there were not. Officer B indicated that he walked through the house to check if other persons were present. A container (pot) was found in the boys' bedroom containing material that was thought to be marijuana stems. Officer B reported he brought it into the kitchen and left it there. In an interview with two Board members the 11-year-old described the events of January 27, 2001, in much the same way as he had to the investigating officer. He stated: he had not invited the officers into the residence; he did not know what marijuana smelled like; he did not smell anything unusual that night; he and his friend were accused of smoking marijuana which they denied; they were requested to empty their pockets and his friend was patted down; his brother had smoked marijuana in the house at an earlier point in time. He did make, however, a number of statements not included in the investigative officer's report. He stated that he had not heard noises from the back of the house or upstairs and that the residents of the upstairs apartment were out of town that night. The second statement was that he had observed Officer B open a drawer of a dresser in his bedroom and flash a light into it. The third statement was that the officer asked permission to search the house, which he refused. Th~:~ourth~ statement was the officers had not mentioned their interest in his fa~_eqD un~ they were about to leave the house. ~> '~ z CONCLUSION -~ ? This Complaint focuses on two issues: {1) unlawful entry, an~ ~ illegal searches. The issues are complicated by the fact that the central -- individual is a juvenile and by the disputation of circumstances around these two issues. Allegation 1: Police entry into the residence of the complainant was unlawful. Justifying the officers approaching the residence and attempting to gain entry, the Chief's Report notes that it is not "uncommon for officers to check places where a person has been known to hang out in the past" when attempting to locate them for purposes of arrest. While it is in dispute whether the officers were invited in, waved in or simply walked in there is agreement that the 11-year-old first stood blocking the doorway and later moved in such a way as to provide space allowing unforced entry. Officer A states the 11-year-old answered "yes" when asked if they could enter. Officer B wrote in his Incident Report that they were "allowed" to enter and informed the investigating officer he was uncertain if they were told they could come in or if they were waved in. The 11-year-old indicated that he did not give permission to enter, but had rather stepped out of the doorway to escape the cold. The Chief's Report states, "A reasonable person would assume that stepping away from a door, after officers ask to speak with a PCRB//'O1-01 Page person, is an invitation to come inside." The Board understands that a warrantless entry is proper and allowed when voluntary consent is given. However the Board questions the 'voluntariness" of an 11-year-old boy's consent when confronted by two police officers late at night. But nonetheless, the Board defers to the expertise of the Chief and finds the conclusion presented in the Report that the "officers reasonably believed that they were allowed into the home" is supported by substantial evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation 1 of the Complaint is NOT SUSTAINED. Allegation 2: The complainant's residence was searched illegally without a warrant. The Board's investigation of this allegation has led the~ to the conclusion that these facts require rather complicated legal a~lysis.~ discomfort with the issue of consent given the age of the child fro~m~D I"" the consent was received, The Board's discomfort with that issue or: ~ ~: {'1'l consent is heightened in the analysis of allegation 2. ~::~ -- In reviewing the Chief's Report, the Board notes the Chief's ' justification for the officers' behavior under several exceptions to search and seizure law. The Board understands that a warrantless search is illegal unless it falls under one of the very specific exceptions in the law. One of the problematic issues is the differing order of events given by Officer A and Officer B and the eleven-year-old boy. Officer B states that immediately upon entry the officers observed marijuana in plain view and seized it. They were given consent to search the rest of the house, searched the immediate area of the living room and then Officer B walked through the rest of the house to make sure no one else was there. Officer A states that they were given consent to enter, that Officer B heard a noise coming from the back of the home so he walked through the apartment, and then Officer A saw marijuana in plain view which was followed with the consent search of the house and the area around the coffee table. The eleven-year-old boy's account more closely supports the account given by Officer B in that he says the officers searched the living room and his friend and that one of the officers searched the home. The Board finds that seizure of any obviously illegal substance in plain view is an appropriate exemption from search and seizure law. The Chief's Report supports the search of the living room area based on the search pursuant to arrest exception. The Chief's Report states that "if these individuals were adults they would have been placed under arrest and at that point the officers would have searched the area immediately around the two people." In order for a search pursuant to arrest to be appropriate, ( 1 ) there must be a lawful arrest; (2) the search must be incident to the lawful arrest; PCRB #01-01 Page 4 and (3) that search must be reasonable, both to the area searched and the time within which the search is made. This issue of lawful arrest leads to a rather complicated legal question about possession and control over premises by an eleven-year-old child and a fifteen-year-old visiting friend. The Board would like to underline its discomfort in making a flat assumption that the presence of an eleven-year-old child in his home in which there is found a burnt marijuana cigarette, i,e. "roach," would lead to a valid arrest for possession of marijuana. With regard to the search of any area outside of the living room, there are two other exceptions under search incident to arrest which are used as justifications for the search of areas outside of the living room. The first legal exception is a cursory safety check. This would allow a cursory check of adjoining areas, closets and other spaces immediately adjoining the area in order to check for other persons that would be a danger to the officers in carrying out an arrest. The second exception is broader and is a protective sweep of the area. The protective sweep requires articulable facts which taken together with rational inferences from those facts warrant a reasonable prudent officer to search areas that could harbor an individual posing danger. It appears that Officer B is justifying the search of the rest of the premises under the cursory safety check since he does not provide articulable facts that would infer a concern of an individual posing danger to the officers. Officer A uses the explanation of a "noise" in order to infer that a protective sweep of the premises was necessary. The problem with the noise justification is that other than the eleven-year-old boy and his fifteen-year-old friend there were no other people home at the time the officers arrived. There was an upstairs apartment which was empty at the time. These searches should have been very cursory. The boy's account of these searches raise questions because it appears that the officers did not check in closets or other reasonable places that a person may hide, but did check in the eleven-year-old boy's bedroom drawer which certainly could not harbor an individual posing danger to the officers and would appear to be a violation of search and seizure law. The final "blanket" exception to search and seizure law employed in the Chief's Report is that of "consent." As stated in our analysis of allegation 1, the Board is uncomfortable with the use of an eleven-year-old's consent to gain access to a residence. The Board's discomfort with this issue is heightened if such consent is used to search the residence. The voluntariness of the consent is problematic in that the Board doubts that the eleven-year-old child had any knowledge of his rights or his mother's ~hts ~ with regard to the privacy of her home. The problem is widened by t.~sue~__ of third party consent and the question of what areas of the residence~,"if~ ~ any, an eleven-year-old boy would have sufficient control over in whilst? ~ 'T'I ~ Page_~ give consent to search. He clearly was not old enough to stay home by himself and he shared a room with his sixteen-year-old brother. The Board strongly questions whether he possessed common authority over any part of the residence in which to give consent to search. Given the complexity of the consent issue as it relates to the legality of a search of the complainant's residence, the Board believes it would have been appropriate for the officers to observe the procedures outlined in General Order Number 00-O1 (Search and Seizure) and 'consult with an on-duty watch supervisor." The Board concludes that aspects of the search were not consistent with law and Iowa City Police Department policy, and therefore disagrees with the findings of the Chief's Report. Allegation 2 of the Complaint is SUSTAINED. BOARD CONCERNS 1. The Board understands the rationale allowing a walk through of a residence or other edifice, absent a search warrant, to protect officers from unexpected or concealed attack, but is concerned that some officers may not fully understand the restrictions imposed on this limited search. The Board recommends that this topic be incorporated into routine training. 2. The Board is unclear to what extent procedural law created for situations involving adults may be used as guidelines for dealing with juveniles, particularly when the circumstances are not identical. For example, if a search of an area near adults who have been arrested for a drug offense is appropriate, is such search appropriate for juveniles who could be taken into custody but are not. The Board would recommend clarification of this issue in order to reduce ambiguities in the future. 3. We recommend that, if a policy doesn't currently exist regarding how Iowa City police officers should handle consent situations involving individuals under 18 years of age, one should be formulated with particular attention to those at the lower end of the age continuum. PCRB #01-O1 Page 6 PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE TtlURSDAY, JUNE 14, 2001 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Sandra Hudson, Rick Fosse, Terry Trueblood, Barbara Camillo MEMBERS ABSENT: Gary Nagle, Betsy Klein STAFF PRESENT: Karin Franklin and Marcia Klingaman OTHERS PRESENT: None CALL TO ORDER: Hudson called the meeting to order at 3:35 PM. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES Minutes could not be considered since a quorum was not present. Public Discussion of any Item not on the AI1enda Hudson stated she would like to extend her thanks and gratitude for a job well done to all involved in the sculptures dedications and installations. Hudson also reported that public opinion is very positive. Camillo arrived at 3:55 PM. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES REVISITED The committee considered the minutes from the May 3, 2001 meeting. MOTION: Fosse moved to approve the minutes as submitted with a second by Trueblood. The motion passed by a vote of 4-0. MINUTES PUBLIC ART ADVISOSRY COMMITTEE THURSDAY, JUNE 14, 2001 PAGE 2 Updates on Current Projects Sieberlin~ Portraits - Franklin reported that after a conversation with Susan Craig, Library Director, the library could be one possibility where there would be a reception in meeting room A on a Friday during which the "Faces of Iowa City" portraits could be displayed and Ieft there through Saturday. The exhibit would then be transferred to the walls in the reading area, which is used for temporary displays. The two Sieberling Portraits still need permanent placement. Franklin shared a suggestion that a permanent location for the two portraits of Sieberling would be outside and central to downtown. The location is the covered walkway between the Sheraton Hotel and Martinis. The issues that remain dealing with an outside location are security, condensation and the housing of the portraits. Franklin stated that Sieberling was very active in Project Green and Urban Renewal, and honoring her in the downtown would be very appropriate. Franklin reported that the library will remain open during the demolition of the Lenoch and Cilek building and construction of the new wing but the exhibit should occur within the next year before library operations move to the new wing. Muller Sculpture proposal - Franklin reported that Tom Muller called her and wanted to know what to do with the sculpture project. Franklin suggested that Muller speak with someone on the Library Board Art Committee who are working on art pieces for the new library. Muller did as was suggested and the Library Board was very enthusiastic in helping Muller in auy way possible. It is still unclear if the sculpture of Paul Engle sitting on a bench will be displayed in or outdoors but it will be part of the Library Project. Franklin stated the Library Board Art Committee might approach the Public Art Advisory Committee to find out if there are any Public Art funds available. Franklin informed Susm~ Craig that Tom Muller has been speaking with local businesses trying to raise private funding, so Public Art funding may not be needed. Decisions Rel/ardinR the Art Components of the Near Southside Transportation Center Daycare Center Fence - Franklin presented the rough plans for the center and showed where the Daycare Center fence project would be. Franklin reported that the City has received the go ahead to start construction. The construction start date will be August 2002. Franklin stated that she spoke to Bradd Brown, the architect on the project, who would like to have an artist on board by fall to start working on the plans for the project. Franklin proceeded in explaining Transportation Center plans. Franklin statcd the Committee would need to decide what type of artist (two or three dimensional) is wanted for the two different projects, and how the artist will be engaged, be it by general call, or invitation. It was dccided that Iowa artists would be engaged by Open call and invitation and could work in either two and three-dimensional mediums. PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 14, 2001 PAGE 3 The Committee stated that the type of art medium they would like to have used for the Daycare fence project was ceramic tiles and for the artists to be from Iowa. Fosse asked how would the ceramic tiles be applied. Hudson replied it would be up to the artist and how he or she envisioned it. Franklin stated that the artist would be responsible for designing the fence then coordinating a community project to make the tiles that will be part of the fence. Hudson stated that there would have to be some discussion about the expectations for the artist and have the chosen artist submit plans to the Committee before project can begin; any Building Codes and daycare guidelines which must be met. Trueblood suggested that since the playground is right behind the fence, for safety measures Porta Place Rubber should be used and artwork could be incorporated right into the rubber. Fosse informed the Committee that the Porta Place Rubber is the same rubber used in the Ped Mall play area. Parkin~ Level Si~na~e - Franklin stated her understanding is that the artist' s part of the project is to make the parking area more attractive and to have clear indicators of levels and the progression of levels in a logical fashion. Fosse asked if the vision was to have something that is going to appear by the sign that says level 2 or will the theme carrier throughout the level. Franklin replied there would need to be clear signage, probably in addition to the art component and the artist would need to work with the parking ramp consultant. An Iowa artist would be engaged by Open call and invitation and would work in two or three-dimensions. The Calls for both art projects will be made in August through September 30, 2001. Discussion Re~ardinl~ Recommendation for New PAAC Member Franklin passed out the only application for the vacancy, which was from Chuck Felling; the deadline for applications is June 20, 2001. The Committee decided not to intercede through recruiting additional candidates and felt Mr. Felling would be an appropriate addition to the Committee. Committee Time/Other Business Visual Artists' Rights Act - Serena Stier- August 2, 2001 meetin~ - Franklin stated that Serena Stier is scheduled to address and educate the Committee on the Visual Artists' Rights Acts. Franklin infomred the Comn~ittee that they could invite anyone who would be interested in learning more about the Visual Artists' Rights Act. Educational Sessions Hudson stated that she belonged to a couple of groups who take between 8 to 10 minutes before each session to have people share ideas related to a topic of interest. Hudson reminded the Committee the sessions are totally voluntary. Camillo volunteered to lead the Educational Session at the next PAAC meeting. PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 14, 2001 PAGE 4 Dedication Celebration for Literary Walk-- Franklin requested any members who had ideas or felt strongly about the content of the dedication celebration to volunteer to serve on an organizing committee. Camillo indicated she would, although she did not feel strongly about any particular matter. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Trueblood moved to adjourn and Fosse seconded the motion. It passed by a vote of 4-0. The meeting adjourned at 5:00PM. \\citynt\shared\lolita\artminutes.doc