Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-02-19 Bd Comm minutes FINAL/APPROVED MINUTES IOWA CITY BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, JANUARY 22, 2002, 4:30 P.M. TRANSIT BUILDING CONFERENCE ROOM - 1200 S. RIVERSIDE DRIVE MEMBERS PRESENT: John Roffman, Tim Fehr, Wayne Maas, Tom Werderitsch, Doug DuCharme, Gary Haman, Anna Buss STAFF PRESENT: Tim Hennes (Sr. Building Inspector), Pat Hansen (Electrical Inspector), Roger Jensen (Fire Marshall), Norm Cate (Sr. Housing Inspector), Sue Dulek (Asst. City Attorney) Jann Ream (Code Enforcement Asst. acting as minute taker) OTHERS PRESENT: Alan Gerard (Gerard Electric) Ed Schmucker, Dave Schmucker (S.E. Electric) David Findley (Iowa Fire Equipment Company) Dean Miller (Merit Electric) Scott Nelson, David Johnson (Simplex Grinnell) John Hadley (Guardian Security Systems) Chris Brooks, Eric Pearson, Tony Hill (ADT Fire and Security) Gene Miller (Miller Electric Company) Chad Campion, Tom Shea (IBEW Local ~405) Craig Merchant (Acme Electric) Dean Smith, Rick Crow, Bill Freeman (Freeman Lock and Alarm) Mickey Harris (Ace Electric Company) RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Roffman called the meeting to order at 4:35. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES: Meeting minutes from the January 7, 2002 were reviewed. MOTION: Haman moved to approve the minutes with a second by DuCharme. Motion passed unopposed. Request for use of alternate materials or methods of construction. (Continuation of January 7, 2002 meeting regarding licensinq and permittinq of fire alarm and sprinklering designers and installers.) Hermes reviewed the problem concerning licensing and permitting of fire alarm systems. Under present code, only master electricians can apply for a permit to install fire alarms so fire alarm installers are having to go through a master electrician to get their permits. Hennes said that what is being proposed is a separate license for fire alarm and sprinkler installers. The installation companies present at the previous meeting thought that this was a good idea but also an interim solution was requested so that until the formal licensing procedure was in place and part of City code, there was some way fire alarm installers could pull their own permits. Hennes submitted a proposal for an interim solution. The proposed criteria to qualify for the new licenses is as follows: Fire Alarm Installer and Maintenance License: · From the effective date of the ordinance to December 31, 2002 installation and maintenance of fire alarm systems shall be performed by a person: 1. with a minimum National Institute for Certification in Engineering Technologies (NICET) Level II certification; 2. or who passes the Experior exam for Fire Alarm Systems; 3. or is a licensed journeyman electrician supervised by a licensed master electrician. · From January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2004 installation and maintenance of fire alarm systems shall be performed by a person: 1. with a minimum NICET Level II certification; 2. or who has successfully passed the Experior exam for Fire Alarm Systems. · Beginning January 1, 2005 installation and maintenance of fire alarm systems shall be performed by a person with a minimum NICET Level II certification. Fire Sprinkler Installer and Maintenance License: · From January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2004 installation and maintenance of fire sprinkler systems shall be performed by a person: 1. with a minimum NICET Level II certification; 2. or who has successfully passed the Experior exam for Fire Sprinkler Systems. · Beginning January 1, 2005 installation and maintenance of fire sprinkler systems shall be performed by a person with a minimum NICET Level II certification. Effective immediately, to assure code compliant designs Fire alarm and fire sprinkler systems shall be designed by a person: 1. with a minimum NICET Level III certification; 2. or an engineer licensed in the state of Iowa with demonstrated experience in life safety system design; 3. or an equivalency as determined by the Board of Appeals. Henries explained the proposal. Hansen explained why the City felt that this action was necessary. Problems concerning alarm systems are extensive. David Johnson (Simplex Grinnell) stated that one problem he anticipated was that under the current proposal, new hires would not be able to work in Iowa City for two years since two years experience was required for a NICET level II rating. He asked if there would be some provision for people with 6 months experience or more to do work on simpler systems without the NICET rating. Hennes explained that it would be similar to the way electrician's licenses work with apprentices working under a licensed electrician. Options were discussed on how new hires could do work until they could get their NICET II rating. Hansen stated that one option for the short term might be the Experior test which would still require some certification but did not require the two years of work experience. Maas felt that was a wrong direction since there could still be unqualified people installing systems. Tom Shea (IBEW Local #405) wondered why licensed master electricians would not be allowed to install systems if it is currently permitted for them to do so. Hansen explained that the installation of fire alarms is a specialty expertise and that some electricians are qualified and some aren't and the current system is not working. John Hadley (Guardian) stated that in his opinion, someone with 6 months experience would not have enough experience to start installing systems on their own. Roffman stated that staff and the Board would look into an apprentice program but this meeting was designed primarily to get input from the interested parties - not to work out every detail. Chad Campion (IBEW #405) asked who was going to administer the program and, if the system required a 110 volt system, were electricians still going to do that work. He made the point that fire alarm systems can transcend several different levels and types of work. Hansen replied the idea behind licensing fire alarm installers was not to remove electricians from the Iccp; they would still be required to do the necessary wiring. What he envisioned was the fire alarm installer acting as the general contractor for the system, pulling the required permit and then hiring the electrician as a subcontractor. So the fire alarm installer would be responsible for the finished installation but he still needed to have the correct people doing certain areas of the work. Roffman stated inspections would be done by the City - either the Fire Department or the Building Department. David Findlay asked if a different license would be required for the maintenance of systems. Hennes replied that the same license would apply but would be required for the testing and certifications of systems. Discussion occurred concerning the various codes (Uniform Fire Code, NFPA 72 and Uniform Building Code) and how they are applied and conflicts between them. Hennes asked if it was the consensus of those present that NICET would be a suitable testing company and if there were any other companies out there that the Board should consider. Maas stated that he thought perhaps the proposed time frame should be extended. Hansen stated the NICET testing dates and places were various and frequent. Eric Pearson (ADT Fire and Security) asked if systems for single family and duplexes would have to be designed by a NICET Ill level designer. Hennes said that hadn't been determined but what would be required is that any system that is put in would have to meet the requirements of the code. The inspectors (whether Fire or Building) will have to learn these systems. Maas asked if the Fire Depadment would step forward and do the inspections as well as the review of the plans. Jensen stated that staffing is a problem. The system in Des Moines was described. Des Moines uses a tagging system in that instead of a permit, the City provides tags that can only be bought by cedified technicians. Both newly installed systems and the maintenance inspections of old systems are required to be tagged. Roffman closed the meeting to public comment. Roffman asked for comments from the Board. Hennes asked if the Board was satisfied with the interim requirements and NICET as the certification system. The time frame was discussed as to whether the dates gave people enough time. Jensen wanted to make sure that at each job site there would be a managing supervisor of NICET level II to handle the apprentices. Roffman stated that any recommendation would have to include a cohesive process from design to permitting and licensing, installation, inspections and follow up and maintenance and how to implement these processes in an effective way. Henries stated that designers for alarm systems and fire sprinkler systems needed to submit signed plans for these systems for review. Hermes stated that the Board seemed to be generally in agreement on the main points of the proposal. Roffman directed the Building Department and the Fire Department to mutually decide what system of inspections the Board should recommend to Council. The fee structure was discussed and staff was directed to determine what level of fees were necessary to support the licensing and inspection process. Staff was also directed to investigate how a tagging system might work and how an apprenticeship program could be implemented. DuCharme asked how many of the sprinkler contractors have NICET certification. Staff was directed to inform the sprinkler contractors of this proposal. DuCharme and Werderitsch asked why there was a sense of urgency in implementing this program. Specific examples of newly installed non-working systems were given. Jensen stated that this was huge problem nationwide and especially in a university setting it is important that there is confidence that when an alarm system goes off that the occupants of a building leave the building. Request for use of alternate materials or methods of construction. (Near Southside Transportation Facility) Hennes explained that it was the impression of the applicants that by the time this project was ready for the permitting process, the City would most likely have adopted the 2000 International Building Code. The designers are asking that the design and inspection of this building be to that code. MOTION: Werderitsch moved to approve the request that the building be reviewed and inspected under the 2000 IBC. Haman seconded. VOTE: 7-0 to approve the request. Request for use of alternate materials or methods of construction. (701 Oaknoll) Hennes explained that it was the impression of the applicants that by the time this project was ready for the permitting process, the City would most likely have adopted the 2000 International Building Code. The designers are asking that the design and inspection of this building be to that code. Werderitsch asked that since he was bidding on the project if he needed to recuse himself. Dulek stated no. MOTION: Haman moved to approve the request that the building be designed and inspected under the 2000 IBC. Buss seconded. VOTE: 5-0-2 to approve the request with DuCharme and Fehr abstaining. Other Business: Henries updated the Board on ongoing research being done on the 2000 International Residential Code. Since the State of Iowa has adopted 2000 Uniform Plumbing Code, that part of the 2000 IRC will have to removed and the 2000 UPC inserted. Haman asked if the City had considered the licensing of mechanical contractors since Johnson County is considering it. Henries stated he was not opposed to it and if the Board wanted to go in that direction, he would investigate. The next meeting dates were discussed. February 4, 2002 was determined to be the next meeting date. ADJOURNMENT: Roffman asked for a motion to adjourn. Haman moved and Buss seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 P.M. John Roffman, Board of Appeals Chair Date FINAL/APPROVED MINUTES IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES REGULAR MEETiNG THURSDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2001 5:00 PM Members Present: Linda Dellsperger, Shaner Magalh~es, Lisa Parker, Linda Prybil, Pat Schnack, Jesse Singerman, Tom Suter, Jim Swaim, David VanDusseldorp Staff Present: Maeve Clark, Susan Craig, Larry Eckholt, Debb Green, Heidi Lauritzen, Kara Logsden, Martha Lubaroff, Liz Nichols, Others: Kumi Morris, Andy Matthews, Terh Byers, Kathy Mitchell, Gary Sanders, Rick Hanna, Jesse Case, Louise Young, Bob Marsh, Sarah Clendening CALL TO ORDER: President Parker called the meeting to order at 5:02 p.m. Public Discussion Kathy Mitchell, an Information Services staff member, spoke to the Board encouraging them to pass the Conduct in the Library policy with the exclusion of the statement banning sleeping in the library. She stated that a large percentage of library employees were not in favor of including that language in the policy. It is difficult to enforce and may be viewed as a method to disenfranchise a segment of our population. She recommends keeping the policy as it is and urged the library to work with other community services agencies to find a solution and an option for the homeless when they cannot be at the library. She offered to be part ora committee to work with agencies to try to find solutions to this problem. Terri Byers, a Circulation staff member also addressed this topic. She also recommended to the Board that they not deviate from the current policy on sleeping. She felt that individuals who are causing a disturbance, whether it be from snoring, taking up unnecessary space which prohibit others from sitting and reading, drunkenness or having an offensive odor can be dealt with using our present policy. Gary Sanders then spoke to the Board. His concern is with cell phones and he recommends that we ban the use of cell phones in the library altogether and not just post signs that ask people to turn ringers off or down, however, allowing continued use of the phones. He believes that there are a substantial number of people who are against cell phone usage in the library. If cell phones are not totally banned, he stated that he would gather signatures for a petition and feels that there is a lot of support for this. Rick Hanna addressed the Board. Hanna is involved in the construction industry and has spent many years working on the bid side of it, managing projects and always believing that the bid turned in was the one that the contractors had to work with it. In reference to recent bids on the library project, he expressed concern with the circumstances where Knutson Construction requested a bid be changed after it was opened. He hopes that the integrity of the competitive bid process will not be compromised. Parker invited Hanna to stay to hear the discussion on the pertinent agenda item since she felt the error caused by the omission of one digit would be explained. Jesse Case representing the Laborer's Union was next to address the Board. He explained that in the construction industry it is normal to have a 2-4% profit margin. He also said it is common to have Minutes - ICPL Board of Trustees Special Meeting - December 10, 2001 5:00 pm - Meeting Room A contractors eat their profit in order to win the bid, keep it low and keep their people working. His question concerned one bidder coming in $2 million lower than the other. He said that the union would be watching it closely because they fear that Knutson may look for opportunities to raise their prices as the project goes along in order to gain profit. They've checked with Miron, the other bidder, and they feel their bid was a good one. He cautioned that many people will be watching and also cautioned that we will be awarding the bid to a company that is currently suing the City. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the special meeting of November 8 were approved unanimously after a motion made by MagalhSes and Suter. All in favor signified by saying Aye. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Building Project: It was not clear at the time of the meeting whether the asbestos abatement had begun, but it will be completed by December 21. The art pieces are out and the building is ready for this project. Craig had some samples of fabric, furniture, carpet, paint chips, etc. mounted on a poster board for review by the Board. These samples of future furnishings will appear on our web page in the near future. Report from Art Committee. The committee had several recommendations included in their report to the Board. They would like to move ahead with the solicitation ora new piece of art to hang in the two-story atrium space near the plaza where it can be seen from the first and second floor inside the building. The committee has several options for funding once the concept is approved. Their intention is to try and raise private funds for this piece but hope there will be money for art in the project budget as well. There was a question concerning how the call for proposals will proceed. Ads will be placed in state and national art journals, for example. A time-line will be established, artists will be asked to submit slides of similar pieces of art. No particular media type will be asked for, however the piece will have to withstand the sunlight. Architect Huberty helped the staff put together an architecturally worded description for the space. The committee will develop criteria for submission. The Art Committee will decide on finalists. It was asked if the committee would be looking at other processes that the State uses for art in public buildings. Craig replied that we are not required to do that. We've received information from Karin Franklin, City Planner, who recently has worked with artists who submitted pieces for the downtown art and sculpture about the process the City used. These solicitations for proposals will not be confined to Iowa artists. There were several opinions regarding giving preference to Iowa artists, yet not limiting proposals. Dellsperger, who serves on the committee, has been positive to the committee about the Board approving up to $50,000 for a piece of art. The Board had no disagreement with that decision. In addition, Craig reminded the Board that there is an ongoing movement to place a statue of Paul Engle inside the library somewhere and support for a statue of Irving Weber somewhere outside of the building. GroundBreaking Invitations will go out early next week for the January 12 Groundbreaking event; basic program will be as described in the memo. Minutes - ICPL Board of Trustees Special Meeting - December 10, 2001 5:00 pm - Meeting Room A NEW BUSINESS Award Contract for Construction Bid: Only two bids were received, fewer than we expected. Miron Construction from Menasha, Wisconsin came in with a base bid of $14,202,000 and Knutson Construction of Iowa City had a base bid of $12,097,000. Knntson's bid contained an error in item 3A, which was the alternate bid for millwork. It was reviewed and agreed by all City staffand our architects that the original figure was an obvious error. Morris said after bid opening discussion, there was a message from Robert Marsh of Knutson, expressing concern over the error. At that point, City attorney was not in and they agreed to meet Monday. Marsh offered to show his documentation from the subcontractor who had bid on the millwork, which was where the error occurred. The documentation was reviewed and the conclusion was that it was an obvious error. Since the bid had already been opened, the attorney was asked to review it and make a determination. In fact, the estimate from Engberg Anderson's was $12 million and Miron was higher by two million. Matthews addressed the legality. He said he reviewed the paperwork, it was obviously an error, which could easily be corrected and, based on case law, the City is free to accept the correction and award the bid. It is noted that even with the correction Knutson is still the lowest bid. A question was raised regarding holding them to a bid that was incorrect. To force them to maintain an obvious error is not acceptable according to Matthews. When asked about change orders that could cause additional expenses, Matthews reassured the Board that the contractor has to prove to the City that they truly need to make a change. Precluding a development that is totally unexpected, this is their bid. In response to some of the comments, Morris said this project will be watched very carefully by our project manager. The City has people in similar roles with Wastewater and Water treatment plants and change orders have been minimal. Matthews was asked about the lawsuit. He responded that the City of I.C. is a side player. The real dispute is between a plaintiff and Knutson and concerns public records release. The matter has proceeded to court. It is pending before the court and deals with just the release of business records of Knutson. However, bidding records are public records. Records in support of the error in the millwork figure may be released. If any records that were submitted as part of the total bid, include subcontractors' bids it all goes into the mix. Craig said that we are required to take the lowest bid if they are responsible bids. All things being equal, the law says you don't have a choice except rejection of all bids and to start over. A company like Knutson has to have a performance bond that says they are capable and committed to complete the project. They may have expected that they would have more competition and may have constructed their bid accordingly. With the approval of President Parker, there were some comments from the members of the public. Case contended that opening a bid on Friday and voting on it on Monday might create an appearance of impropriety. The public would not know if there were any other errors in the bid. The Board responded that we both the City staff and the architects advised acceptance of the Knutson bid. Parker asked for a motion. VanDusseldorp moved that we accept the recommended bid from Knutson as the general contractor. Dellsperger seconded. It appears to be a short turn-around but what more can we review? Our architects have suggested a figure they felt would be a good estimate. This bid is somewhat lower than what they estimated which is a good place to start with a project. Our attorney reiterated that this is the case even with correction of the bid. Other City staff recommend that we approve the project. Craig reported that she had a conversation with an official from Miron who had heard about the error. She explained it to him and offered to fax it to him. His concern was that Knutson was attempting to adjust their base bid and when he heard that it was a matter of leaving out a 0 in one of the alternate bids, said it wasn't necessary to fax him the bid recommendations; that he just wanted clarification. Magalhaes Minutes - ICPL Board of Trustees Special Meeting - December 10, 2001 5:00 pm - Meeting Room A said that his one concern was that it would appear improper and wondered whether we could accept all the items except for the alternate bid which is from a subcontractor. Parker called for a vote. All were in favor of awarding the bid to Knutson Construction. Passed unanimously. Policy Review: Conduct in the Library. This was a difficult policy review to prepare. There are several controversial issues. It was agreed to talk about them one by one. 809.103. In this section, which concerns food and drink in the library, what do we mean when we talk about secure containers? We are talking about a container with a lid, water bottle with a top. Enforcement is a concern. We need to educate the public slowly. If people begin to learn new roles now, by the time we are in the new facility they will have formed good habits. There has been discussion about banning food altogether. Where do you draw the line? There are many programs in the library where food is served. We want to reduce the amount of potential damage. We do have a lounge area and a staff room. It might be easier to enforce no food or drinks. Could we limit food and drinks to the public lounge and/or meeting rooms? In the new building, public lounge will have less space. Staff is not expressing concern for a total ban except near the computers. Staff felt we should tighten up without going to a total ban. Craig thinks that a total ban would cause a problem for our public. Clark was asked about it. She said no food and beverages of any kind near computers is enforceable. 809.106. Cell Phone Use: Craig provided a counter argument to Sanders. Staff has convinced Craig that there are legitimate uses for cell phones in library. We have many instances of children using cell phones to communicate with parents. Users have called home to discuss information needs or clarify a question. Loud conversations are already not permitted according to our present conduct policy. If you ban cell phones you might as well ban conversations. Like it or not cell phones are part of our culture. Singerman said our recommendation is reasonable. 809.112 Suspicious packages:. During the process of writing up guidelines, committee met with police and descriptions of what to be wary of will be included in the guidelines. Not something we are likely to see. Nichols anticipates implementation of the new guidelines by February t. 809.115 Sleeping: How often do we get complaints about sleeping? Basic concern seemed to be singling out the homeless. We would not enforce a sleeping ban with only one group of our population. Like other all or nothing policies it has to be enforced across the board. How many people do we have a day, sleeping? Craig estimates that in the course of a day we probably have between 10 and 20 people sleeping for significant periods of time. It is certainly a significantly higher number than it used to be. One of Craig's issues is that space is being taken up by people who are sleeping for lengthy periods of time. This behavior has grown in her 25 years here. When you walk into the reading room and there are 2 to 3 people covered up and sleeping in chairs that can't be used, it affects access to the library. In the course of a year we may get one complaint a month. Magalh~es asked about a remedy. It is to wake them up. VanDusseldorp asked about the user survey (people who came in our door). Suter said we are talking about less than 1% of the people who come here and we am providing a refuge that isn't available elsewhere. At this point, he doesn't see it as an issue and leans on the side of humanity. There is already a policy that covers disruptive behavior like loud snoring. About ¥4 of the staff do not want to change the policy for several reasons. First of all, they have a real cencem for the homeless in the community; secondly, it would be their responsibility to wake people up. Magalh~.es says there are current statements Minutes - ICPL Board of Trustees Special Meeting - December 10, 2001 5:00 pm - Meeting Room A in the policy that allow us to handle the problem. Singerman described her own experience walking into the reading room and not finding a place to sit when several seats were taken up by individuals sleeping, however, she could not vote for the policy prohibiting sleeping. For some of them this is one of the few safe places they can sleep for an hour. It is going to get worse. Swaim empathizes with the patrons who come in and want to use the library and feel threatened by seeing homeless people. He emphasized how important it is for homeless people to find a place to sleep. Whatever the board's decision, the library intends to talk to people and find out our options and work with other agencies. Craig commented that three Iowa urban libraries have "no sleeping" policies. Singerman commented that the Library should not be a place for extended sleeping but people should not be thrown out for sleeping. VanDusseldorp said he'd support the language and does not think that the library should have people sleeping. Dellsperger said she is bothered by the fact that sleeping individuals are taking up space that other people cannot use. Swaim made a motion to approve the policy up to and not including 809.115. Magalhaes seconded it. All voted Aye in favor of the policy. VanDusseldorp then made a motion to approve the language in 809.115 prohibiting sleeping. Dellsperger seconded. No further discussion. VanDusseldorp and Prybil voted Aye. All other Trustees voted Nay. Parker said she would like to be kept informed of any comments. Singerman suggested that if it does need to be brought to Board sooner than throe years for another review, staff should do so. Policy 811. Theft, Defacement or Alteration of Library Materials and Resources. Singerman moved approval. Suter seconded. Prybil asked why it is an option that you ma? be required to make restitution rather than you will make restitution. The answer was that, for example, children may damage something or something breaks because it was worn out. This statement gives the staff some discretion to enforce it. It isn't always willful. No further comments. All in favor said Aye. STAFF P,_EPORTS State News: Budget cuts from the State. Craig included a report on the state budget cuts and the income received from the State for Access Plus, Direct State Aid and Open Access, as well as funds for an Infrastructure Fund, which need to be spent in FY02. Things are not looking great at the City level. They are being impacted by the rollback and state budget. Basically, they have about the same amount to spend this year as last year. There is a possibility that our staff positions may be taken out. Craig's interpretation is that Atkins intends to put them in but Council has to approve. We are being asked to cut our travel budgets for the current year about one-third. Next year will be tight. Board asked when we have the opportunity to address the Council. Craig thought maybe at the end of January. Exact date hasn't been scheduled yet. Except for staff, once you get the allocation, things can be shifted. The recommended budget comes out before Christmas and Craig will send an e-mail out to the Board. 3M security. Four staff members went to visit 3M last week in St. Paul. 3 M was concerned when they learned we were going to use CheckPoint security in the new building. They had a few interesting features, but no compelling arguments. Craig recommends that we wait until spring and see the marketplace at that time. We will get firm bids in the spring and then make a decision. Development Office report was in the folder. Eckholt had neglected to include a request to ask the Board for a formal vote to sponsor a library team in the spelling Bee. He will be asking for $300 fi.om girl funds next month. Informal agreement that he could proceed. PRESIDENT'S REPORT Minutes - ICPL Board of Trustees Special Meeting - December 10, 2001 5:00 pm - Meeting Room A Parker will speak to City Council at their meeting tomorrow night to tall them we accepted a bid under budget and will be proceeding. ANNOUNCEMENT FROM MEMBERS Swaim announced an open house for the UAY center, from 3-6 on Tuesday the 18th. His new e-mail address is jswaim ~inav.net. DISBURSEMENTS Disbursements for the month of November were approved unanimously after a motion by Singerman/Prybil. SET AGENDA ORDER FOR MEETING January 24, 2002 ADJOURNMENT: 7:11 pm Minutes taken and transcribed by Martha Lubaroff FINAL/APPIRO MINUTES IOWA CITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMER 26, 2001 CITY CABLE TV OFFICE, 10 S. LINN ST.-TOWER PLACE PARKING FACILITY MEMBERS PRESENT: Betty McKray, Cathy Weingeist, Jim Pusack, Kembrew McLeod MEMBERS ABSENT: Terry Smith STAFF PRESENT: Drew Shaffer, Mike Brau, Bob Hardy, Andy Matthews OTHERS PRESENT: Jon Koebrick, Rene Paine, Randy Brown, Ray Ropa, Eileen Beck RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL None at this time. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION Randy Brown distributed a copy of a new channel line-up that will become effective January 16, 2002. The head-ends of area communities are being consolidated which will result in essentially the same channel line-up for Cedar Rapids, Iowa City, Coralville, North Liberty, and about 16 other area towns. To make accommodations in the consolidated channel line-up the City Channel will move to channel 5 and PATV will move to channel 18. Mediacom offered the access channels that are moving 100 cross- channel promotional spots to alert viewers of the channel move. A channel line-up card will be mailed to subscribers 3-4 days prior to the channel lineup-up change. Print ads and cross-channel spots will be run. The pay channels (HBO, Cinemax etc.) will be moved to a digital tier. This will help prevent signal theft that is common on analog channels. PATV will be working with the Community Television Service to produce 10 minute promotional pieces on local nonprofit organizations. This year the organizations will be the City Parks and Recreation Department, United Action for Youth, and Arts VP. PATV's annual meeting was held recently and was quite successful. A new board member, Steve Newell, was elected. Shaffer reported that a building that Marc Moen will be constructing across from the City Cable TV Office would impact the City's proposed low power FM radio signal. Moen agreed to make space available for the City's radio antenna on the building he plans on building on lot 64 1 a. Paine reported that the upper level of PATV's new building has been painted. Paine estimated that PATV saved about $4,000 by doing the painting themselves. The lower level will be painted in about 10 days. The move-in date for the upper level is the end of November. PATV hopes to be in the lower half by the end of December. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Pusack moved and Weingeist seconded a motion to approve the October 23, 2001 minutes. The motion passed unanimously. ANNOUNCEMENTS OF COMMISSIONERS None. SHORT PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS None. SUBSCRIBER ISSUES Shaffer reported receiving 6 complaints-1 about an ~Home technical problem, 1 about poor ~Home customer service, one about the price discount for bundled ~Home and cable TV service, and three about billing problems. MEDIACOM REPORT Randy Brown distributed a copy ora new channel line-up that will become effective January 16, 2002. The head-ends of area communities are being consolidated which will result in essentially the same channel line-up for Cedar Rapids, Iowa City, Coralville, North Liberty, and about 16 other area towns. To make accommodations in the consolidated channel line-up the City Channel will move to channel 5 and PATV will move to channel 18. Mediacom offered the access channels that are moving 100 cross- channel promotional spots to alert viewers of the channel move. A channel line-up card will be mailed to subscribers 3-4 days prior to the channel lineup-up change. Print ads and cross-channel spots will be run. The pay channels (HBO, Cinemax etc.) will be moved to a digital tier. This will help prevent signal theft that is common on analog channels. LIBRARY REPORT There was no representative present. PA TV REPORT Paine reported that PATV's art auction fundraiser was very successful. Letters were sent out to potential benefactors that might make large contributions to PATV. So far that effort has resulted in one contribution. PATV's newsletter came out recently. PATV will be working with the Conm~unity Television Service to produce 10 minute promotional pieces on local nonprofit organizations. This year the organizations will be the City Parks and Recreation Department, United Action for Youth, and Arts VP. PATV's annual meeting was held recently and was quite successful. A new board member, Steve Newell, was elected. SENIOR CENTER REPORT Beck reported Senior Center TV has solved some audio problems, but have had some hardware problems. SCTV has a solid core of volunteers. As they have become more technically proficient they also have been able to become more creative. SCTV is now sending tapes to North Liberty for playback. ECC REPORT Langhome reported that the first program of the Education Exchange Live series will be cablecast on channel 11 every other week opposite the Board Meetings. LEGAL REPORT Matthews said he had nothing new to report. CITY CABLE TV OFFICE REPORT Hardy reported that programming was up significantly in October. Many candidate forums were cablecast as were the election results direct from the County Auditor's office. InfoVision has added an interactive tour of the Englert Theater. Hardy reported that he participated in Coralville's interviews for a staffperson to run their proposed government and education channel. Hardy also attended a meeting of school personnel to discuss programming on the education channel. Shaffer reported that a building that Marc Moan will be constructing across from the City Cable TV Office would impact the City's proposed low power FM radio signal. Moen agreed to make space available for the City's radio antenna on the building he plans on building on lot 64 1 a. McKray asked about publicizing the program listings of the access channels. Koebrick said that the TV Guide channel will be moved to the basic tier when the channel line-up is changed. This will permit all subscribers to have an on-screen guide to local access program schedules. Pusack said that not all the access channels are currently making use of the digital tier program guide and asked if there was a single web site that has the program listings of all the access channels or links to all the channels. Hardy said the City Channel's listings will be on the City Channel's web site at some point. Paine said PATV's listings are on their web site. Pusack suggested that there should be a single site that has all the access channels' listings. Email notices might be sent to interested people. Hardy said that promotions for particular programs may be effective, but it is unlikely that many people use listings when deciding what local access program to watch. They are much more likely to watch when a program catches their attention when they scan channels. Hardy said that perhaps the program listings could be sent out by mail. Pusack suggested that a web site could be developed in which people could check off the types of programming they are interested in and email notices could be sent to them. Pusack said the listings on the digital channel are not working well. Only one channel's listings are close to being correct. EDUCATION CHANNEL UPDATE Shaffer reported that school board president Lauren Reece had intended to make a report but was unable to attend the meeting. PATV BUILDING UPDATE Paine reported that the upper level has been painted. Paine estimated that PATV saved about $4,000 by doing the painting themselves. The lower level will be painted in about 10 days. The move-in date for the upper level is the end of November. PATV hopes to be in the lower half by the end of December. CABLE TV DIVISION PROPOSED BUDGET Shaffer said that is not necessary for the Commission to take action on this item, NEXT MEETING McKray noted that the next scheduled meeting is December 24. The Commission agreed that unless something arises and a meeting needs to be held that the next meeting will be the regularly scheduled meeting in January. ADJOURNMENT McLeod moved and Weingeist seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously. Adjourament was at 6:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Wm. Drew Shaffer Cable TV Administrator ] 02-19-02 FINAL/APPROVED MINUTES IOWA CITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MONDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2001 CITY CABLE TV OFFICE, 10 S. LINN ST.-TOWER PLACE PARKING FACILITY MEMBERS PRESENT: Betty McKray, Cathy Weingeist, Jim Pusack, Kembrew McLeod MEMBERS ABSENT: Terry Smith STAFF PRESENT: Drew Shaffer, Mike Brau, Bob Hardy, Andy Matthews, Kevin Crawley, Dale Helling OTHERS PRESENT: Jon Koebrick, Rene Paine A Special meeting was called to discuss putting InfoVision on channel 5 full-time. RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL None at this time. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION Pusack said he was not convinced there is an overwhelming case for a fulltime InfoVision channel unless it is as an experiment. Weingeist said that because of the coming change in the channel lineup that this is a good opportunity to get another channel. The desirability of having the channel could be re-evaluated at a future date. Smith said the reran rate on the library channel is about 90% and the education channel is not as fully utilized as the Commission would like. The Commission needs to determine if moving lnfoVision to channel 5 is the best solution to make use of the existing resources without acquiring additional resources. McKray said that during franchise negotiations it was felt it was important to have language that would set aside a channel for InfoVision. Koebrick said about 10- 15% subscribe to only basic so moving TBS will have no affect for 85-90% of subscribers. Koebrick said that Mediacom plans to upgrade the Iowa City system to 860MHz towards the end of 2002. This will enable more expanded basic channels. The loss ora channel for subscribers will only be for a one year period, smith moved to recommend approval of the proposal to put InfoVision on channel 5 full- time. McLeod seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSAL TO PUT 1NFOVISION ON CHANNEL 5 Shaffer referred to the memo outlining the City Cable Division's proposal to put InfoVision on channel 5 fulltime. Pusack said that the memo argues that there is a pent up demand for InfoVision based on the greater use rate on Saturdays when InfoVision is on fulltime. Pusack asked if it might be that InfoVision gets more use on the weekends because more people are home. Shaffer said that weekend use would likely be higher than weekday use ora fulltime channel. Pusack said he was not convinced there is an overwhelming case for a fulltime InfoVision channel unless it is as an experiment. Weingeist said that because of the coming change in the channel lineup that this is a good opportunity to get another channel. It may be too late in the future. Mediacom has decided to move TBS and add two shopping channels so the choice could be seen as between infoVision and a shopping channel. The desirability of having the channel could be re-evaluated at a future date. The channel is too precious of a resource to not take advantage before having a chance to see if InfoVision's use will expand. One factor limiting Infovision's use is not knowing when the service will be available. McLeod said that his inclination is to approve of the proposal, but the downside is that there is a channel that will be lost on the basic tier. Koebrick said that Mediacom will move TBS out of the basic tier to the expanded basic tier in order to meet the City's request. TBS will not be on the basic tier in most Mediacom cities. Prior to this proposal it was decided to leave TBS on the basic tier in Iowa City because it had always been on the basic tier in the past. Hardy said that programming promotional spots may be played between programs on City Channel 4 rather than InfoVision if InfoVision has its own channel. Pusack said that he would like to see the City Council meetings have a heavier rotation if InfoVision moves to channeI 5. Hardy said that the audio portion of Council meetings would be one source of background audio for InfoVision on channel 5. lnfoVision will also serve as the platform for the City Channel's video on demand project. Pusack asked about the possibility of cablecasting the City Council work sessions, Helling said the Council has revisited that issue annually and will likely do so again in the future. Pusack suggested that if the issue comes up in the City Council that the Commission could make sure that they are aware that additional programming time is available. This is one consequence of moving InfoVision to channel 5. McLeod said he did not have a problem with TBS being moved to the expanded basic tier if InfoVision moves to channel 5. Smith asked if the local access channels could be located in the expanded basic tier. Smith said the Commission needs to validate the need for moving InfoVision to channel 5 and arrive at the best solution. Smith said the reran rate on the library channel is about 90% and the education channel is not as fully utilized as the Commission would like. The Commission needs to determine if moving InfoVision to channel 5 is the best solution to make use of the existing resources without acquiring additional resources. Koebrick said the Cable Act specifies that local access channels must go on the basic tier. Koebrick said that if the City wishes to conduct a survey of customers on their desires that Mediacom would be willing to jointly develop and fund it. Smith said that the question from the perspective of subscribers is if TBS is valued greater than another local channel on the basic tier. Smith asked how many subscribers subscribe to only the basic tier. Koebrick said about 10-15% subscribe to only basic so moving TBS will have no affect for 85-90% of subscribers. McKray said that during franchise negotiations it was felt it was important to have language that would set aside a channel for InfoVision. The City has not opted to invoke that provision up to this point. The next franchise period will be coming up in a few years. If it is still believed that it is important to have additional channel language in the franchise the City should claim a channel now and determine if there is need for an additional channel. Pusack said that it is important that the information that is in the lnfoVision database also be made available over the web. The work involved in generating indexes and preparing data will have a much further reach as there is virtually no limit to the number of people who can retrieve the information on the web, unlike InfoVision. Smith said the City Channel and InfoVision are well used through out the community and are valuable resources. Smith said that his first preference would be to have a separate InfoVision channel in the expanded basic tier so the basic-only subscribers don't lose a channel. Given that 85-90% of subscribers would be unaffected Smith said he can support the proposal. Smith said he does have a concern that there are so many local access channels and if the programming is providing redundant information and the programs are constantly being replayed that all the access channels may suffer reduced credibility. McLeod said that there is benefit in having all the local access channel positions be grouped in the same location. Koebrick said that Mediacom plans to upgrade the Iowa City system to 860MHz towards the end of 2002. This will enable more expanded basic channels. The loss of a channel for subscribers will only be for a one year period. Smith moved to recommend approval of the proposal to put InfoVision on channel 5 full-time. McLeod seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Pusack moved and McLeod seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously. Adjournment was at 6:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Wm. Drew Shaffer Cable TV Administrator CITY OF I0 WA CITY MEMO TO: Steve Atkins FROM: Julie Tallman DATE: 11 February 2002 RE: Floodplain Ordinance Amendments; 711 4th Avenue The single-family dwelling at 711 4th Avenue is within the 100-year floodplain. The owners of the property want to build an addition onto the existing structure. Because of the value and the size of the addition, the project is considered a substantial improvement. Iowa City's floodplain ordinance contains two design requirements for new or subetantially improved residential structures within the 100-year floodplain: 1) the first floor must be elevated a minimum of one foot above the 100-year flood elevation, and 2) construction must be upon compacted fill that is no lower than one foot above the 'f00-year flood elevation, and the fill must extend at least 18' beyond the limits of the structure. Approximately two feet of fill would be needed to elevate the grade to one foot above base flood elevation. This creates the following problems for the homeowners: > Conflict with the Uniform Building Code with respect to the existing home - the UBC requires that the top of the foundation is at least 6" from finished grade. > The elevated grade would result in their lot rising nearly two feet above surrounding lots on their block, but it would not be practical to only put fill around the addition. The cost of mobilizing grading equipment and operators to deliver and compact the fill would be expensive. For these reasons, the homeowners made it clear that they could not pursue the addition if they had to bring in additional fill. A Variance from the Flood Plain Management Standards could not be supported by staff because the situation did not meet the test of exceptional hardship. Staff does support an ordinance amendment to resolve this matter. Amendments to the Flood Plain Ordinance have been drafted and submitted for discussion at Joint Staff. I have had the amendments reviewed by Bill Cappuccio at Iowa Department of Natural Resources, and he agrees with the proposed language. The amendments will include official acceptance of Iowa City's revised Flood Insurance Rate Maps, expected to arrive in August 2002. As for 711 4~h Avenue, the Building Department issued a building permit under the assumption that the project will be completed after the floodplain ordinance amendments are approved, and the requirement for compacted fill is no longer an issue. The property owner is aware of the need for an ordinance amendment. FINAL/APPROVED MINUTES PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION JANUARY 9, 2002 MEMBERS PRESENT: Kevin Boyd, Doug Ginsberg, Craig Gustaveson, Nancy Ostrognai, Matt Pacha, Rex Pmess, Al Stroh, John Westefeld MEMBERS ABSENT: Toni Cilek GUESTS: Casey Cook, Terry Dahms, Laura Hawks, Karin McKeone, Joan Jehle, Stacy Van Zante, Dianne Kaufrnan STAFF PRESENT: Terry Robinson, Terry Tmeblood FORMAL ACTION TAKEN Moved by Boyd, seconded by Ostrognai, to approve the December 12, 2001 minutes as written. Unanimous. Moved by Boyd, seconded by Stroh, to accept Outlot A~ including the trail access between lots 11 and 12, with the request that the trail be re-routed to the southwest to avoid a critical slope and that the resulting triangular area also be dedicated as open space in the Hickory Heights subdivision. Moved by Stroh, seconded by Pruess, to go on record that the commission is troubled with the Hickory Heights development in its present form and is willing to support community efforts to discover alternatives intended to protect Hickory Hill Park. Chair Pacha officially welcomed John Westefeld to the commission. HICKORY HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT Tmeblood reported the development was discussed at the last Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Many people attended, some asking that the development plan not be accepted and others looking for compromises. He noted this is an 18-acre development and the neighborhood open space requirement is 18,000 square feet. The developer is proposing to dedicate 25,586 square feet - Outlot A with a 20-foot wide trail access to the boundary of Hickory Hill Park. The Planning and Zoning Commission would like the angle of the lrail to be slightly altered to avoid a critical slope. With respect to the proposed trail, Tmeblood indicated if it was hard surface, the city would be responsible for snow removal; if left in its natural state, the adjacent property owners may lay claim to it and it wouldn't be distinguished as a park entrance. Pruess questioned the terrain of the trail; Tmeblood noted it became steeper towards Outlot A. Gustaveson asked if there would be a buffer; Tmeblood noted not unless the property owner builds a buffer into their back yard. The Planning and Zoning staff has suggested that the applicant consider clustering the development farther from the park to create a buffer. Westefeld asked if the overall development proposal was in compliance with the Northeast District Plan, noting it was unclear in reading the staff report and memo from Friends of Hickory Hill Park. Tmeblood noted the Planning staff feels the development meets the regulations and guidelines of the Northeast District Plan and Comprehensive Plan. The Friends of Hickory Hill Park do not feel it totally complies with the Northeast District Plan. Boyd noted he was part of the Northeast District Plan planning process and had Parks and Recreation Commission January 9, 2002 Page 2 of 5 reread it and felt it complied, but also noted people could interpret it differently. Gustaveson indicated he spoke with a City Council member, who indicated that the Friends of Hickory Hill felt it did not meet the part of the Northeast District Plan that relates to intrusion on vistas. This development may be the highest point in Iowa City. Pmess indicated he supported acquiring the strip of land and putting in a low maintenance trail to provide access to the area. The area could be staked out clearly as a trail to prevent property owners' encroachment. Pacha asked for staffs perspective; Tmeblood noted that if it is intended to be a park entrance, it was his personal inclination to make the trail hard surface to prevent any question of ownership. Ostrognai inquired as to whom would use the trail. Tmeblood stated it would likely not be a major access point to the park, noting most people would continue to use the other entrances, so it would probably primarily serve the neighborhood. Stacy Van Zante, a member of Friends of Hickory Hill Park, referred to the conservation neighborhood design section of the Northeast District Plan, ~vhich notes there should be a buffer between residences and parks. She noted this development does not include a conservation easement, and therefore, does not comply with the plan. Their concern with no buffer is that the soil will be compacted during construction, causing erosion, creating more mn off carrying chemicals into the park, possibly ending with plant mitigation. They would like to see open space left between the houses and the park; Tmeblood asked how much. Van Zante stated she did not know, noting ifa basin area could be provided where water could stop it would prevent erosion and plant mitigation. She indicated they supported the Planning and Zoning staffs suggestion that the applicant consider clustering the development farther from the park to create a buffer by reducing the lot size and the cul-de-sac length, which would be consistent with conservation subdivisions. Tmeblood clarified that the area of the park in question is not dedicated parkland, but is a stormwater management area designated for park use. Pacha questioned if a buffer is included, when does that not become part of the park, noting it would be a buffer for a buffer since it abuts the stormwater management area. Stroh felt the link was important, although he did not know if it was necessary to pave it. Trueblood noted the decision the commission needed to make tonight was whether to accept the open space as proposed. Pmess felt it made a lot of sense to change the angle of the proposed trail. Stroh noted with every new development there is some level of intrusion on the natural world, noting this development is more prominent than most. He noted the commission is third in line, with the Planning and Zoning Commission second and the City Council the ultimate decision-maker. Tmeblood stated the options were to accept Outlot A as depicted on the plat, accept Outlot A and supporting the suggestion of a different route for the trail and/or to send forth any other recommendation or concern to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council with respect to the proposed developtnent. Boyd moved to accept Outlot A, with the request that the route be changed and the land between the new mute and old route also be included. The commission as a whole discussed how to reword the motion. Karin McKeone noted one of the things the Friends would like to see happen is the cul-de-sac pushed back as recommended by the Planning and Zoning staff, and that there be a buffer along the ridge that would affect the watershed. She stated they spoke with Wayne Peterson of the Johnson County Water District who stated it is important to protect the creek on this project. The Friends would like the commission to support those kind of efforts. Westefeld asked what the efforts are. McKeone stated if the cul-de-sac is pushed back 200 feet it would protect the ridge. She noted Wayne Peterson had some slides, Parks and Recreation Commission January 9, 2002 Page 3 of 5 which depicted the beautiful parameters. If deep-rooted plantings could occur around the area, the plants would absorb moisture and as a result create aesthetic and watershed value, which are very important to the park. Boyd asked who would own the buffer; McKeone stated it would be wonderful if it were donated to the city otherwise the homeowners would own the buffer. The key factor is not to have each property owner maintain their individual lot, but have it become a common management area. Boyd noted if the City Council approves the development as is whether some plantings could be used on the park perimeters to protect the watershed. McKeone noted the problem is with the grade. The park is so close to the properties and if graded and sodded, the soil would be compacted and erosion would result. The Friends are recommending that these kinds of adjustments be made to the plan. The homeowners would benefit and it would be a progressive way to handle the property. Moved by Boyd, seconded by Stroh~ to accept Outlot A, including the trail access between lots 11 and 12~ with the request that the trail be re-routed to the southwest to avoid a critical slope and that the resulting triangular area also be dedicated as open space in the Hickory. Heights subdivision. Unanimous. Stroh asked if the city has been approached to purchase the land; McKeone stated that would be the ideal thing, noting the developer has opened the door to that possibility. Stroh stated they need to approach this commission with a recommendation. McKeone stated it was her understanding in working with staff on multiple projects that the city was not in the position to purchase the land. Stroh noted the parkland acquisition fund, which is approximately $300,000. It was mentioned that grants might be available. Tmeblood noted the city has to compete with other entities for grant money, and even if the city was successful, the problem is the timeline. The developer would need to wait for six months to a year before knowing if a grant is received. He indicated he could not in good conscience recommend depleting the entire parkland acquisition fund to add to Hickory Hill Park. Stroh stated it may be possible to use part of the fund if a campaign was assembled. Westefeld noted if a grass root campaign was begun, the commission could support it to a certain degree; Stroh added the commission supported citizen participation. Ostrognai asked the Friends representatives if they had tried to purchase the land; McKeone stated they were not in a financial position to do so. They are looking at what is possible, noting two comer lots that would greatly affect the park. McKeone noted Bob Mildo has identified two other lots that have a steep grade. Tmeblood stated it was his understanding that the developer and the Press-Citizen have a purchase agreement and there could be a severe £mancial burden on either one if either the developer or the seller backed out at this time. He also heard the purchase price was in the neighborhood of half a million dollars. Pmess asked if the plan passed the sensitive areas ordinance; McKeone stated it was meeting the letter of the law. She also noted there were approximately 50 people at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting who expressed the importance of that area of the park to them - bird life and a natural area in and of its own. Westefeld stated in his opinion, even though the commission is third in line, it might be important for the commission to send some kind of message, noting he strongly supported the general concerns. Boyd asked if the group was in any kind of discussion with the developer. McKeone stated they proposed a charette at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, feeling it is the best way to reach a compromise. Diane Kauffman indicated if the commission sent forth a message it would help move the discussion and encourage the developer that the broad community is looking at this development. Moved by Stroh~ seconded by Pruess~ to go on record that the commission is troubled with the Hickory Heights development in its present form and is willing to support community efforts to discover alternatives intended to protect Hickory Hill Park. Unanimous. Westefeld felt the Parks and Recreation Commission January 9, 2002 Page 4 of 5 motion captured the spirit of what the commission was saying. SAND LAKE TRAIL Casey Cook and Terry Dahms of FIRST, along with Laura Hawks were present to discuss the conceptual design for the Sand Lake Trail. Cook stated the project is a multi-tiered plan that could be phased, noting it is in a highly visible location. FIRST would like to mm this area into a fine amenity and revitalize this industrial area. The plan includes moving the existing makeshift parking lot and creating a circular trail system to complement the other trails. It will begin with basic landscaping and dirt brought in to put in a basic trail. The area will include an "activity center" where people could fish and a bridge to add to the visual and general appeal. Metro Pavers owns part of this land and at some future point they may see a benefit in extending the trail through their property. Cook noted this is one of the commission's top I0 CIP priorities, but it appears the City Council will not approve any of the park and recreation CIP projects in the new plan currently before them. FIRST sees this development as a catalyst for positive development of the Iowa River on the south end, which is one element of ftve as a Vision Iowa project. Another element would be the extension of the Mormon Trek trail around the airport and connecting to Sand Lake with a l0 foot sidewalk linking Sturgis Ferry Park with a loop system that would create a river corridor trail into Willow Creek trail, Clear Creek Trail and trails Coralville is developing. Another element is the north sewage treatment plant that could be turned into a recreational area once the collection area process is done at the south plant. The City Carton property would become a prime redevelopment site. Cook stated a linking trail system would be eligible for Vision Iowa funds. Terry Dahms stated the trail ties into the existing trail along the river, and has the beginnings of a much bigger picture. The existing area is a visual blight as you come into Iowa City. This project would improve the visual appearance and would become a catalyst once it is developed and people see the potential. Laura Hawks presented the cost summary for the project. A basic trail system with a 10-foot wide concrete trail that would tie into the existing trail and the proposed Highway 6 trail is estimated to cost approximately $264,000. This includes a bridge, some earthwork, gravel parking lot and cul-de-sac, some landscaping and vegetative buffer. Alternate items, such as lighting in the parking lot, potential future trail loop around the entire lake and a wetland "discovery playground" would bring the cost up to $355,000. Removing the existing public access off Highway 6, adding an activity center, benches, amenities, shelter, lighting and landscaping would total another $135,000. Adding an overlook and raiting, shelter and other amenities would add $78,200. Stroh stated it appears the project will phase well and a good candidate for local participation by area groups. He noted people will most likely continue to use the existing area to park and fish, but the IDOT would never allow the city to construct an on/offaccess point along the highway. Hawks stated there would be points along the trail and near the proposed parking lot where people could still fish. Casey noted there may be 1DOT enhancement funds available. Boyd noted with respect to the Vision Iowa funds, the funds are gone unless the states decides to put mom money in. The community area and tourism amount is $10 million or less. The City of Coralville has applied for $4.5 million for the Iowa Child. The Vision Iowa board looks at cooperation between cities and governments. There is a CAT fund available, bm there is a long list of proposals. Cook asked how FIRST could present this to the City Council in order to get it funded. Pmess stated the project is strongly supported by the commission and is one of its top 10 CIP priorities. Moved by Boyd~ seconded by Gustaveson~ to strongly endorse and support the Sand Lake Trail pro[ect as presented by FIRST. Unanimous. Parks and Recreation Commission January 9, 2002 Page 5 of 5 DIRECTOR'S REPORT Tmeblood reported on the following: Recreation Division Budget. With the City Manager's recommended budget, the percentage of non- property tax revenues to support the budget is 39.4 percent. The self-imposed rule is to support 40 percent of the Recreation Division budget, excluding capital outlay, with non-property tax revenues. Trueblood referred to the list of budget reductions that could be proposed to the City Council to achieve a percentage of 39.992. Pacha stated he was not in favor of any of the reductions. Gustaveson indicated he spoke with a councilmember who indicated the council has been impressed that the division has been able to attain this goal in the past and they see it as a self-imposed rule. The commission as a whole was not in favor of any of the possible budget reductions, and requested that the fee package as currently proposed be presented to the Council. COMMISSION TIME Westefeld noted he was happy to be a part of the Parks and Recreation Commission. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FINAL/APPROVED JANUARY 17, 2002 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Bovbjerg, Don Anciaux, Pam Ehrhardt, Beth Koppes, Jerry Hansen, Benjamin Chait, Dean Shannon STAFF PRESENT: Bob Uiklo, Mitch Behr OTHERS PRESENT: Lori Klockau, Richard Rhodes II, Stacy Van Zante, Clemens Erdahl, Rob Phipps, Nancy Seikerling, Kevin Hochstedler, John Schneider, John Balmer, Judy Felder, Sarah Walz, Mark Phillips, Rebekah Kowal, John Loomis, Linda Fisher, James Huntington, David Bullwinkle, Florence Boost, Joan Stearns, Allan MacVey, David Hemple, Larry Schnittjer, Chris Stephan, Mike Pugh, Gary Watts, Pamela Fitzgerald, Bob Downer, Robert Burns, Cathy Gehris RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, REZ01-00027, an application submitted by Oaknoll Retirement Residence for a rezoning from Low Density Multi-Family Residential, (RM-12) to High Density Multi-Family Residential, (RM-44) for approximately 2,800 square feet of property located on Benton Court. Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, REZ01-00026/SUB01-00035, an application submitted by Point Limited Partnership for an amended Sensitive Areas Development Plan for lots 3 and 4 of a Resubdivision of Lot 53 Walden Hills, a 54-unit assisted living elderly housing building located at the intersection of Shannon Drive and Rohret Road. By a vote of 5-2, (Koppes and Shannon voted no), recommended that the zoning ordinance not be amended to allow grocery stores in the C1-1 Zone as provisional or special exceptions. By a vote of 7-0, recommended that if the zoning ordinance is to be amended to to allow grocery stores in the C1-1 zone as provisional uses or special exceptions, that concerns regarding making retail uses more compatible with the intent and other uses of the C1-1 zone be addressed in the ordinance. These concerns include: 1 ) Providing adequate sidewalks for pedestrian and bicycle traffic to the area. 2) Traffic improvements to accommodate a mix of retail and industrial traffic. This might include upgrades to area streets, sidewalks and traffic controls and limitations on the number and location of curb cuts. 3) Controlling the size of grocery store as a means of minimizing the retail traffic that enters into an Intensive Commercial (C1-1) or adjacent Industrial (I-1) zone." CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Bovbjerg called the meeting to order at 7:41 pm. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: Bovbjerg announced the second South West District Planning meeting would be held on February 5, 2002 at West High School. ANNOUNCEMENT OF VACANCIES ON CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: Bovbjerg announced a list of vacancies was posted in the lobby and encouraged Citizens to actively participate as a way of helping their City. REZONING/DEVELOPMENT ITEMS: REZ01-00022/SUB01-00024. Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development for a rezoning from Interim Development Multi-Family (ID-RM) and Interim Development Single-Family (ID-RS) to Community Commercial (CC-2) for 9.79 acres and a preliminary plat of Napoleon Heights a 146.68 acre, 3-lot subdivision located on the east side of Gilbert Street north of the southern City limits. (45-day limitation period: '12/30/01 ). Miklo said Staff had a request to defer the item indefinitely, the reason being it was associated with the arterial street alignment that is being reviewed in the south part of the City. Staff anticipated the item Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 2 would be back before the Commission on the February 21, 2002 agenda. Staff recommended the item be deferred indefinitely. Hansen asked if the Commission would receive a concept sketch. Mlklo said a concept sketch had been received from the applicant but it was in flux. Staff had reviewed the sketch and returned it to the applicant with recommendations on how it could be changed to better reflect the South District Plan. Miklo said a revised sketch had not been received. Bovbjerg said a Neighborhood Meeting for the South District Plan had been held a couple weeks previously. She asked if a (second) meeting would be held for the alignment. Miklo said not for the alignment. The next time it would be before the Commission was in February 2002, when Staff had a recommendation to present. Ehrhardt asked Miklo to explain for the record how Staff was looking into the determination of a prairie remnant. Miklo said the question had been raised as to whether or not there was a prairie remnant on the property. The Zoning Interpretation Panel, comprised of the Director of Planning, City Attorney, and Housing/Inspection Director, were considering what was a prairie remnant. He said there was some feeling that a prairie should be visibly evident with prairie grasses growing. Other feelings were that if a seed bank was present with limited prairie grasses, that would constitute a prairie. Miklo said he did not think it would affect the outcome of the 3-lot subdivision because there was no immediate development activity associated with the subdivision on the Commission's agenda. When those areas were further subdivided, then the Sensitive Areas Ordinance would come into effect. Ehrhardt said in past instances, lots had been subdivided into smaller parcels than one acre and were not covered by the ordinance. The smaller sized lots didn't contain the whole remnant, only a portion of it. She wanted to know if the Commission would be aware of proposed sub-division sizes before it occurred. Miklo said in this case that would be difficult to tell. Even the persons who claimed a prairie remnant was present didn't know where its boundaries were, so the question was unanswerable at this time. The Zoning Interpretation Panel was determining whether the definition of prairie remnant applied, given the question as to whether a prairie existed on this site. Ehrhardt asked if the Panel would consult experts in the field about prairie remnants. Miklo said Julie Tallman was consulting outside experts. Hansen said January 22, 2002 was the correct date for the meeting on the proposed apartment complex near this property. The meeting would be at Grant Wood Elementary School at 6:30 pm. Miklo said the applicant had proposed the meeting with the neighborhood as part of the Good Neighbor Policy. Behr confirmed for Bovbjerg that the P&Z Commissioners could attend, as long as they did not discuss policy among themselves. Public discussion was opened. Lori Klockau, 1031 Briar Drive, asked whose job it was to determine what the boundaries of the prairie remnant would be, if indeed it did exist. Miklo said the Sensitive Areas Ordinance map did show known prairie remnants. This was the first instance in which it was not shown on the map and/or it was not necessarily evident that a prairie was growing. That was why the Zoning Interpretation Panel was meeting. Klockau said the area was a prairie sand dune, a blow from the Iowa River that was very visible to the eye. It was a unique land form that contained threatened ornate box turtles that persons had attempted to relocate over time. She said she had lived at her property for '17 years and was sure that box turtles were still in existence, as she had found them in her yard every summer and walked them 'back home.' KIockau asked what was necessary to get the map amended to reflect something that was not on it. Miklo said there was not a procedure spelled out in the City Codes for amending the map. If information was brought forward and a determination was made that a prairie existed in a certain spot, the map could be amended. Klockau said it was her understanding that various persons had looked at the area over time including Lon Drake from the University of Iowa. He had inventoried plants and had confirmed it has prairie features or dry prairie features, because of its sandy conditions. Klockau asked what would be necessary and who should it be shown to, if citizens wanted to get this prairie remnant on the map. Miklo said the map was done in 1997. Through the subdivision process, if persons brought information forward and the City Council was convinced a prairie remnant was there, they could vote to make it subject to the Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 3 Sensitive Areas Ordinance - Prairie Remnant regulations. Klockau asked what would be the time frame. Miklo said it could be done at any time. Behr said it did not have to be put on the map, before it could be regulated in a subdivision. The Zoning Interpretation Panel would interpret the City ordinance definition of prairie remnants with all the information it had, including information from experts. When a subdivision application was made, even if it did not show prairie remnants present, if the City had sufficient information that the property had prairie remnants as defined by the ordinance, the City could regulate the prairie remnants as provided in the ordinance. Miklo said the neighborhood group could (should) submit their information to the City Planning Depadment and they would be sure that anyone involved in the case would get a copy of the information. Hansen asked if the Commission could get the concept design sketch. He felt it was impodant that the Commission be able to see the preliminary design and where it was going to lay on the property in relationship to the areas being discussed. Miklo said it was his understanding that the plan was changing based on Staff's comments and information learned about the property. He would request that the future applicant of the property submit a concept plan for the Commission's review. Richard S. Rhodes II, 2014 Rochester Avenue, said it was stated at Monday's informal meeting that REZ01-00010, rezoning for multi-family buildings on Gilbert Street, would be on the 2/7/02 agenda, it was Rhodes understanding that the plat for REZ01-00022/SUB01-00024 included the lot that was for the proposed multi-family building, which was being delayed until 2/21/02. Miklo said Staff anticipated that the rezoning would be on the 2/7/02 agenda and again 2/21/02, so any decision on the rezoning would occur roughly at the same time that the plat occurred. In order for that project to go forward, it would require that both the rezoning and the plat be approved. Rhodes said at the public neighborhood meeting with the developer, it had been stated that one of the developer's goals was to fully develop the tract into several hundred lots for single-family homes. Rhodes said he found the discrepancy between the developer's public statement of intended land use and the treatment of planned land uses in the Comprehensive Plan, quite amazing. Rhodes said it appeared Staff were fighting tooth and nail to prevent proposed commercial development yet where the same Comprehensive Plan showed other green space, Staff had been silent until the public brought the issue to light. Rhodes said the developer had publicly stated their intent and the land was clearly shown on the South District Plan as other open space. Rhodes said he had been involved with the development of the South District Plan and knew that the green space was not an arbitrary splotch placed on the map that could be moved around, it was placed to try to protect a natural and geologic environment that was unique for Iowa City, the sand prairie. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Hansen made a motion to indefinitely defer REZOl-O0022/SUB01-O0024, an application submitted by Southgate Development for a rezoning from Interim Development Multi-Family (ID-RM) and Interim Development Single-Family (ID-RS) to Community Commercial (CC-2) for 9.79 acres and a preliminary plat of Napoleon Heights a 146.68 acre, 3-lot subdivision located on the east side of Gilbert Street north of the southern City limits. Koppes seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. REZ01-00028/SUB01-00031. Discussion of an application submitted by Hickory Heights LLC for a rezoning from Low Density Single-Family, (RS-5) to Sensitive Areas Overlay Low Density Single-Family (OSA-5) preliminary plat of Hickory Heights, an 18.2-acre, 20-lot resident subdivision located west of Scott Boulevard near its intersection with Dodge Street. (45-day limitation period: 1/26/02). Miklo presented the Staff report. He said the subject property was currently zoned RS-5. The reason for the Zoning Overlay was that the properly contained protected critical and steep slopes, therefore the Sensitive Areas Overlay was required. There was also an application to subdivide the property into twenty single-family lots. Miklo said Staff had requested that the applicant delineate the construction area or areas that would be disturbed for the construction of the street as well as the area in which housing and associated accessory uses could be built. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance provided for this information to be required at the City's choice and to be shown on the Sensitive Area Overlay. The construction area as shown on the plat was roughly the area at the top of the ridge. Miklo said Staff had also requested a note Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 4 be placed on the plat indicating that the grading would be limited to that area and the non-steep portions of the property. The construction area line was approximately 125 feet from the street, which would provide an adequate area for construction of a single-family house and associated other uses. The construction area was roughly 11,500 square feet per lot, which was well over the minimum of 8,000 square feet per lot required by zoning. Miklo said Staff had also requested a note be placed on the plat indicating that the other portions of the properly that contained steep slopes and critical slopes not be disturbed. Miklo said Staff felt that this note was in the spirit and intent of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance and that the Ordinance said the grading of those areas should be minimized. Miklo said the applicant had shown the construction line on the plat, but had offered alternative language in terms of a note on the plat. Staff felt that that language was not adequate to minimize the grading beyond the construction area. With the note proposed by the applicant, in the future it was not clear that individual lot owners would not be able to go back and grade additional areas, which Staff felt was not in compliance with the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Miklo said Staff recommended the approval of the plat, Sensitive Areas Development plan and rezoning be subject to the placement of the note on the plat as outlined in the Staff's memo and the same language be included in the legal papers. With those conditions met, Staff would recommend approval of the plat and felt it would meet the intent of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, and would minimize grading of steep, critical and protected slopes. In the absence of those conditions, Miklo said Staff was not confident that the plat as submitted actually complied with the Sensitive Areas ordinance. Hansen asked if homeowners would be able to mow the areas that they could not grade. Miklo said yes, what was prohibited was development activity which was earth moving, construction, excavation, etc. Homeowners could maintain the landscaping as it was or enhance it. Ehrhardt said it appeared the majority of lot 8 was critical and steep slopes. She asked who drew the lines. Miklo said the lines were proposed by the developer. Ehrhardt said if the homeowners chose to put lawn in and mow, there would be considerably more runoff than what presently exists. Water tended to run off mowed grassy areas, but in pastures or prairie the water tended to soak in more. She asked if the City Engineers had looked at the plans and decided that the creek could handle the extra runoff. Miklo said the engineers felt the plat did comply with storm water regulations and the size of the regional storm water basin at the northern part of Hickory Hill Park was adequate to accommodate runoff from the development. Ehrhardt asked if the engineers felt the creek would not be damaged between the basin and the developments. Miklo said that was correct. Hansen asked if a determination had been made as to if homeowners would be able to run a tile line for gutter water from the house roofs all the way to the back of the properties, rather than letting it percolate into the ground. Behr said when a plat was approved, and it showed the stormwater runoff areas and the easement areas, those were set and the City had the easement rights. A homeowner could not adjust or modify the easement areas. If a homeowner subsequently ran a tile line that disposed water onto a different properly, that was technically not something the City enforced, as long as the easement area was not modified. However, there could be a remedy with the other homeowner. Anciaux asked if the homeowner could trench through the sensitive area of their property. Behr said, as was being proposed by Staff, and as shown by the applicant on the plat, there could be no development in any protected area, including grading, digging or trenching. Bovbjerg asked if it were trenching, tiling or over the surface tiling and it affected adjacent property, would it be subject to someone going to the landowner and saying 'stop'. Behr said that was correct, going to the other land owner, and not necessarily to the City to have the City put a stop to it. Miklo said in this case however, the City was one of the adjacent landowners. Koppes asked if fences were included in a development activity. Miklo said he didn't think fences were specifically referenced. Bovbjerg asked Behr for Legal staff's input regarding Planning staff's suggested paragraph for the plat versus the paragraph on the plat as it was currently submitted. Behr said he wished to provide a clarification of the term, development activity. Development Activity was defined as, "Any human made change to improved or unimproved real estate including but not limited to the placement of manufactured housing, buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations in construction activities." Behr said it did not include the simple transfer of ownership. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 5 Behr said the suggestion by Staff and the note on the plat that was being proposed by the applicant, went to the City's regulation of development activity on steep and critical slopes. That regulation was to be interpreted such that the City had the right to minimize the grading, but that had to be done in a way to retain and allow reasonable use of the property which included the re-development of the property. Behr said in considering the item, the Commission needed to bear in mind the size of the piece, the underlying RS-5 zoning and what it allowed, for example the 90 allowable units versus the proposed 20. Behr said the Commission had a legal basis upon which they could require or make a recommendation of approval subject to the suggestions by Staff. Behr said the Commission would also be in compliance with the Sensitive Areas Ordinance and would need to articulate their findings if they thought the applicant's note and provisions on the plat sufficiently minimized grading. They would have a legal basis for accepting the applicant's proposal. Behr said the Commission could also seek something in between, as there were other alternatives that could be brought up. Behr said he would strongly recommend that after discussion and consideration of the matter, if the Commission leaned toward this option, they only do so if the applicant agreed to defer the item. Behr reminded the Commission that because of the time line, the applicant was entitled to a vote that evening if they so wished. Bovbjerg asked Legal staff for the guidelines regarding what the subdivision regulations and the sensitive areas regulations allowed the Commission to consider that they had requested Staff to research at the previous meeting. Behr said from a broader standpoint, the Commission's review of the entire application was limited to the requirements in the Subdivision Ordinance and the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. With respect to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, specifically it was the regulations for slopes specifically stated in the ordinance. Public discussion was opened. Clemens Erdahl, 311 Iowa State Bank Building, said he had been retained by the Friends of Hickory Hill Park to help them in addressing the proposed development. He said the Board had indicated to him that it was important to stress that persons did have strong feelings about the project. There had been a good meeting with the attorney for the developer and with Mr. Watts, the Friends appreciated that opportunity. Erdahl said that while the parties differed on their points of view, it was important to deal with the principles involved on a high plane rather than anything of a negative nature. Erdahl said his firm was currently researching some of the legal issues involved, he and some of the Friends Board members felt that there was still room for compromise as the process progressed. Stacy Van Zante 1178 Hotz Avenue, said the Friends of Hickory Hill Park wanted to restate their concerns regarding the proposed plat. She said they understood the developer had met the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations, but Friends still felt the subdivision posed a threat to the Park. Friends along with several other individuals and groups were asking the City to go the extra mile to help protect the Park as much as possible. Van Zante said she had previously spoken about the proposed development not being consistent with the Northeast District Plan which clearly called for conservation residential designs to be used between First Avenue and Hickory Hill Park, specifically to provide a buffer between the development and the Park. Friends felt that in order to sustain the environmental quality and the habitat of the sensitive parkland, the developer as a minimum, should provide a conservation easement as a buffer. Van Zante said Friends hoped the City would feel that they had the right to impose this condition upon the plat. Because the development did not minimize the impact on the Park and on the vistas, it was not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. She said Friends agreed with Staff's recommendation to shorten the cul-de-sac by 200 feet and cluster the houses at the top of the ridge in an effort to minimize the impact on the Park and on the vista. The Parks and Recreation Commission appeared to share Friend's concern with the plat as they had stated, "The Commission was troubled with the development in its present form and was willing to support community efforts to discover alternatives to protect Hickory Hill Park." Van Zante said Friends was also uneasy about the impact that the construction of the development would have on the landscape. She said Friends also agreed with the statements in the memo sent to the City by the Johnson County Soil and Water Conservation District that greater efforts could be put forth by the developer and engineers to control water runoff. Friends were also concerned about the proposed storm water pipe that would run to the stream, the erosion it would cause to the bank, and the yard run off/particles that would be carried into the stream. Van Zante said the Friends of Hickory Hill Park were not opposed to development, but for the above listed reasons they felt there was more the City could do in the platting process for this development to minimize its impact on the Park, the vistas and the citizen's enjoyment of both. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Janua~ 17,2002 Page 6 Rob Phipps, 4226 Westridqe Court NE, representing the Greater Iowa City Home Builders, said one of their concerns was to have good building sites within the City, so builders were not always forced to go out of the city of Iowa City to build homes. This project met all the requirements and would provide nice home sites for people. Phipps said the Home Builders position was that when roads, parks or interstates were designed, they were designed with sufficient buffer built in. By adding a buffer to this project, in reality it would actually be an extension to the Park. Phipps said parks are designed with a built in buffer, so the Home Builders would like to see the project go forward. Nancy Seiberling, 209 Black Springs Circle, said we lived in a time when it seemed some entrepreneurs thought they could do anything they wanted to do, where they wanted to do it, as long as it made money for them. She said left untouched, the valuable, irreplaceable, natural features of the Park would forever enrich the lives of generations beyond count and welcome them to the area. Seikerling said Hickory Hill Park should forever remain off limits as a precious remnant of our geological past. It provided a unique haven for persons who walked seeking a quiet, refreshing and undisturbed contact with nature. Kevin Hochstedler, 1434 Compton Place, president of the Greater Iowa City Home Builders Association. He said the Builders wished to state they were totally in favor of parks, green space, and open areas which were meant to be enjoyed by all the citizens of Iowa City. Homes built near a park enlightened not only the lives of those residents in those structures, but helped the park to grow, to be enjoyed by all, which made a park an extremely valuable asset to the entire area. Hochstedler said the homes to be built in the projected development would in no way harm the vistas or damage the integrity of the neighborhood. He said they were all there to meet the same goal, to enrich the lives of future generations in Iowa City. The proposed development met all the zoning requirements and should be approved on those merits. John E. Schneider, 1522 Muscatine Avenue, said persons who walked in the park daily, himself included, strongly felt that this type of development would harm the Park's vistas. The Park was a unique experience and it was all they had unless someone wanted to drive 45 minutes, so they felt very protective of it. On the side of the Park where large homes had been built near the dam, it did affect the views, vistas and experiences of the Park. Richard Rhodes II, 2014 Rochester Avenue, said he wanted to point out the discrepancy in Staff's treatment of items on the plat. The 148 year old railroad grade was an archeological feature which was addressed by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. On the new plat there was no notation of the historic railroad grade on it. Rhodes said plats were considered deficient if they were missing the notation of manhole covers, so why was this plat not considered deficient by Staff. Miklo indicated where the railroad bed was located on the overhead map. He said with the construction of Scott Boulevard, previous grading and farming on the property, some of the bed had been disturbed. The most evident portion of the railroad bed was in the protected area and was surrounded by protected slopes, so there could be no further disturbance of the bed. Miklo said, therefore Staff felt if it was determined to be of historic importance by the State Archeologist, it was protected and it was not necessary to note it further on the plat. Ehrhardt asked if the bed was determined to be of historic significance, would it then be noted on the plat so a future owner of the property would know it was a sensitive area. Miklo said it would probably be no problem to note it as such. Miklo said at this point it was not known if the railroad was national register eligible, but Staff had sent the information, plat and Mr. Rhodes letter back to the State Archeologist to see if they wanted to pursue it further. Anciaux asked if the Commission approved the plat 'as is', and it was later determined that the bed was of historical significance, would it delay the project further? Miklo said the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, in reference to archeological sites, provided some delay time so that the State or private archeologists could study the site by conducting a dig to look for artifacts. In this case, it was a railroad bed, so it was unlikely that artifacts would be dug for. The ordinance provided for a minimum of 30 days in a frost-free period to study a site. Miklo said in this case, if the bed was found to be a historic site, the primary intent would be to set the area aside and try to work around it. Currently as part of a protected slope, the area had already been set aside. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 7 Shannon said he had previously researched this particular railroad and was not sure it was necessary to put so much time into it. He found out that it had been a huge land swindle. It had been determined that it was the Iowa Lyon's Central Railroad and it had thrown Iowa City into a huge black mark. Shannon said for 20 years Iowa City was unable to put gravel on its streets because it was trying to pay off the bonds. Iowa City had been told by the State (Des Moines) to go into bankruptcy and they chose not to. It was never intended to be a railroad, just a land swindle. The railroad did not pay the Irish workers it brought in; it dug big ditches near towns who then invested in the project; then it left the area leaving the workers behind without jobs or money. Bobvjerg asked if the two areas delineated on the map as man-made protected slopes and man-made critical slopes were the former railroad hills. Miklo said that might be the case. John Balmer, 10 Princeton Court, said he had lived in his present location, approximately 6 blocks from the park, for 23 years. He had had an opportunity to observe a fair amount of development occur and was there to endorse the application. He said as the area around Hickory Hill had been developed, it had been done very judiciously and prudently and had not compromised the integrity of the Park. Balmer said he thought the proposed development did not encroach upon the park. Balmer felt it was healthy to encourage infill development as opposed to urban sprawl and this was a classic case of where infill development could be encouraged. Additionally the development was not being developed to its maximum. He said if all the rules, regulations and applicable ordinances had been followed, it would be favorable to proceed affirmatively with the development. Judy Felder, 335 Beldon Avenue, asked if the Commission was aware of the proposed archeological site on the property before Rhodes memo to them. Miklo said as a matter of course, all development applications were sent to the State Archeologist for comment. The State Archeologist had sent back a letter stating that there were no known archeological sites on this particular piece of property. Miklo said Staff were unaware of the railbed until Mr. Rhodes letter was received. Felder said it seemed to her that Staff's job was to inform the Commission of all appropriate situations on a property. She said she was concerned that this was not done and that Staff should be working for all the citizens of Iowa City. In order for the Commission to make an informed decision about properties, they should be informed by Staff. Bovbjerg said that Staff had indicated that applications were sent to the State Archeologist as a matter of routine. Staff had received the information back that there was no significant archeological site or events on the property. Information that Staff didn't know and was brought to them by someone else was certainly information that the Commission would consider. Bovbjerg said she would not fault any office or level for not having known about the railroad bed. Behr said Staff had complied with the Sensitive Areas Ordinance by submitting the application to the State and the State had responded as Miklo had described. Staff had followed the requirements of the ordinance. Ehrhardt said the Commission did appreciate when Citizens provided them with pertinent information they did not have. Sarah Walz, 1813 Morningside Drive, said she walked in Hickory Hill Park every morning. In reference to the earlier conversation of a homeowner draining water across their land either onto their neighbor's property or into the Park, the design of the development routed the street water into the creek across Park land. In the memo from the Johnson County Soil and Water Conservation District, it was stated that there were no designated plans for permanent storm water management. Walz said given the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, she thought it would be fair to ask the developer to do more to keep the water on the land rather than draining it into the creek. The bank of the creek was extremely steep and eroded, and when it rained it was nearly impossible to walk the creek bank area. Walz said through the use of ponds or wetland areas water could be retained in the development to keep it from flowing into the creek. She also pointed out that the memo stated permanent seeding and existing vegetation were some of the most effective forms of erosion control and disturbing existing grasses should be minimized. She encouraged the Commission to go on site to look at the specific area of the creek that would be affected by the water runoff. Mark Phillips, 1165 Oakes Drive, said he resided close to Hickory Hill Park and had walked in the park. He felt the proposed subdivision was about as good as could be asked for in the area. The developer had minimized the number of units which minimized the water shed and had complied with the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Phillips said if the Commission was comfortable that the developer had complied with all the regulations, it probably was the best thing they could get in the area. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 8 Ehrhardt asked Miklo where the much referred to number of 90 units was coming from, as much of the area was not buildable. Miklo said the Sensitive Areas Ordinance allowed for cluster developments to achieve the maximum density allowed by zoning. For this land, it would be difficult, but far more than 20 units would be possible. The property was zoned for 5 units per acre, so that was where the 90 unit figure was coming from, however by the time one takes into account the area needed for the street, the shape of the property boundary, and the topography, 50 units might be a more realistic number. Rebekah Kowal, 410 Grant Street, said she walked in the park every day. She had previously lived in New York City and Denver, Colorado, so she was familiar with a terrain that had a lot of contrast. Kowal said it was hard to put a value on the experience of open space, created by a contrast of hills, stream beds, paths and natural water features. She said if this development went forward, this would be an opportunity to mitigate the impact it had on the Park. Kowal said she was present to emphasize the importance of mitigating the impact of the construction on the top of the most striking hill in the Park and encouraged the Commission to continue to work with the developer to maintain certain standards of the maintenance of open space, to create buffers, and to shorten the road which would reduce the impact of the development on the Park. John Loomis, 219 Teeters Court, said the most outrageous part of this was that the vista was not being protected. The Northeast District Plan called for the protection of the vistas. The imposition of the houses on the top of the hill was an imposition on the vistas of the park and was an extreme violation of the rule. Loomis said the value of the land was to the Park, and it destroyed the Park to have the houses on top of the hill. It was the vista that counted and the vista was being ruined. Linda Fisher, 303 7t~ Street, Coralville, said several members of the audience were also members of the bird club and could testify that there were already inhabitants living in the Park. To sacrifice the priceless, little feather jewels for another housing development, although it was well done, was a sin. Fisher said driving beyond Scott Boulevard, there were natural areas that would be covered with homes yet in her lifetime, so she did not see the need for placement of homes where a priceless jewel of a park existed. Fisher said Hickory Hill Park was a destination park, not a postage stamp park. Fisher said people had a lot of options, birds had far fewer. She said as a resident of Coralville she would love to trade the Cora[ Ridge Mall for a wonderful park such as Hickory Hill. James Huntington, 1012 N. Summit Street, said he appreciated the eloquence of persons on both sides and the degree to which the developers had gone to try to preserve as much of the Park as possible. Huntington said he could see no legal reason why the Commission could deny the application as all the rules had been conformed to. Yet the space within the park that would be encroached upon would be a tremendous detriment to the number of wild creatures that existed in this area. Huntington said there are many species that require a certain amount of space to exist or they become extinct. He said communities all over the planet were wrestling with these kinds of decisions between development and preservation. Huntington said he hoped that the Commission somehow would say "don't do this." David Bullwinkle, 410 Grant Street, said he did not understand how the developer could say a park could be grown by developing right up to its borders. He said he found the comment regarding it was better to build new houses within the City in areas that were already developed rather than sprawling outward very interesting. Bullwinkle said the idea that the only choices were to sprawl or to building in one of the City's few true park areas was a false dilemma, there must be another alternative to grow in a smart way without compromising the feeling of space that persons who walked in the Park were able to enjoy. Florence Boost, 1427 Davenport Street, said she lived at the foot of the park and frequently walked to this particular site. She said the point needed to be made again and again that the area proposed for development was the crown of the Park. It was where everyone walked to, walkers either went up or down the park and the crown drew people, who then sat and thought about their lives and the beauty of the past. Boost said in surveys, Iowa was noted to be deficient in park space relative to other states and we took for granted the open spaces. She said for a few hundred thousand dollars it would be incredibly stupid, legalistic and picky to let something so important go forever. The Englert Theatre with its swing loan, civic action and a little delay had shown what could be done. If the Commission, developer and Friends could delay a little and negotiate, there could be a good outcome to save the Park. She said after this was done, there would be no more chances, there were no more places in the Park like the ridge. It Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 17,2002 Page 9 was a time for citizens to band together and for the Commission to help them to find a third space or some other way. Joan Stearns, Walford, Iowa. She said she and her husband were members of the Iowa City Bird Club. The Bird Club often took field trips to the Park, it was an immense treasure for Iowa City. Sterns said she didn't understand why anyone would want to attempt to live on the side of a ravine. Allan MacVe¥, 1124 Conklin Lane, said he wanted to follow up on the request for a delay in a decision. MacVey said when they moved into the 6.5-acres of their property the real estate agent had told him they could develop it. The comment had surprised him at the time. In a similar situation, it surprised him that the Press Citizen had the right to develop the property without asking the City or other concerned groups if there were other alternatives to putting houses on the Park's peak. MacVey said if discussions of this type had occurred with no resolution, that was unfortunate, but if they had not yet occurred, they should. David Hempel, 751 Grant Street, spoke to the Commission as a downtown business owner. Hempel said he had lived in the city for a long time, gone to school there, had received his music degree there, and was a good citizen. Hempel said, as a business owner, he echoed and was trying to amplify the comments of the citizenry of Iowa City who were asking and pleading with the Commission to take another look at what they were doing. Hempel said Iowa City was a small city with what should be the most enlightened leadership. The Commission was part of the leadership and should be taking the lead to make sure that a gem like Hickory Hill was protected, bar none. The talk about 'this is the best we can do' or 'this is as good a project as we can get', the citizens had told the Commission that it was not good enough. Hempel said as a business owner had directed and recommended Hickory Hill Park to many out of towners who had come to town specifically to shop at Ebel Music. Hempel said he had received letters back from persons who had gone to and enjoyed the park and what a great park it was. Hempel said he had spread the word about the park and persons around the country would be disappointed about this type of development going through. Hempel said he wanted the Commissioners to take it personally, he wanted to prick their consciousness to think about what the citizens were saying and what they wanted. He encouraged the Commissioners to check out the park, as it was their park too. Larry Schnittjer, 1917 S. Gilbert Street, said he did not appreciate the way Staff had been attacked during the meeting on some of the issues. Abandoned railroads had occurred all over the country, some had been turned into trails, some had been plowed into farm ground, some had been developed, but very few had been considered significant. He said there had been a lot of discussion about run off and pollution, but when the history of that piece of ground was reviewed, currently there was a lot more run off and pollution than would be when the development was completed. With respect to vistas and the hill, if the City thought the hill was a significant enough part of the park, then they should negotiate to buy it. Schnittjer said there were property rights all over the country and very few were being observed during the evening's meeting. The subdivision was not building in the Park area, but on a piece of ground adjacent to the Park. While persons who utilized the Park thought the hill was part of the Park, it was not. Bird habitat discussions had been heard. When he moved into his home 7 miles east of Iowa City there were very few birds. He had planted a lot of trees and now had a lot of birds, which would be found with any new development that planted trees and shrubs. Sohnittjer said he disagreed with trying to usurp the rights of property by just begging to be able to use the property without making a valid offer to buy it. Chris Stephan, 1917 S. Gilbert Street, said he would like to address some of the erosion control issues that had been discussed earlier. The issue was raised with regard to maintaining the grass. At the last meeting the limits of planned grading were shown and it was still the developer's intent during construction to leave the existing grasses on the lower portions of the slope to help catch sediment and erosion that would leave the site. The Johnson County Soil and Conservation Service had been given a copy of the plan, they had made suggestions and the result of those suggestions were the site grading and erosion control plan that was before the Commission. Stephan said in response to Bovbjerg's request that the engineer seriously consider how they would deal with the storm water discharge into the creek, he would again reiterate to everyone that a distilling structure to slow down and reduce as much as possible the velocity of storm water leaving the pipe would be placed and maintained. City engineering staff would be looking very closely at that issue and he had already had discussions with engineering staff. Ehrhardt asked if that needed to be part of the legal papers. Miklo said no, it would be part of the construction drawings for the final plat. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 10 Chair asked Stephan to speak to why he had a problem with the language that Staff had requested be placed on the plat. Stephan said he would prefer Watts to speak to that, but part of the problem was the request had just been received that evening and they had not had a chance to talk about it yet. Hempel asked if the City of Iowa City was given the chance to buy this property before the developer was. He said to be more specific, did the Gannet Corporation present the plot to the City as something they qould purchase or was it offered to the developers only. Miklo said to his knowledge it was not offered to the City. Hempel said the argument that someone should buy the property was a valid argument, but the citizens / City were not given that chance. Behr said any interest of the City to purchase the property at any time was not relevant to the Commission's consideration of this application. Anciaux asked, if the Commission agreed to approve the application, it went on to the City Council, and they decided they would like to purchase the property, would they have the authority to do so? Behr said from a legal standpoint, the Commission's ruling on the application would have no bearing on anyone who wished to purchase the property. Anciaux said what he wanted to clarify was that the Commission had no authority to do anything with/for the purchase of the land, but the Council could give the people some relief or assist with the issue. Behr said at any point in time, on their own or at the request of others, the Council could commence to endeavor to buy a piece of property. Any person could go to the Council to urge them to purchase a property if they so wished, but it would not be a part of the application that that Commission was considering. Chait said, as discussed in the Monday evening meeting, the Commission and the Council could approve the application and the Friends of Hickory Hill Park could still acquire the property and leave it as it was. It would be nothing more than a private party transaction between the Friends and the owner of the property. Behr said that was correct. Miklo said he would like to address an earlier comment about the two sets of language on the plat. During the past several days Staff had had discussions about making it very clear that the protected steep and critical slopes beyond the construction area should not be graded fudher. When the applicant's draft was received the determination was made that it was not what Staff thought was necessary. Staff had shared the language with the applicant earlier in the day, Pugh had had some discussions with the City Attorney's office, and had chosen not to put it on the plat. Ehrhardt asked when the applicant had received the language. Miklo said it was 3:30-4:00 pm. Pugh said he had received it at 4:30 pm. Mike Pu.qh, 705 Grant Street, legal counsel for the applicant, said two weeks ago the applicant presented the plan to the Commission but did not have the construction area marked out on the plan nor did they have a request from the City that there would be language added to the plan that would require a total prohibition of development beyond the plan. He said at that time the City recommended approval of the plan and indicated that the plan met the requirements of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Pugh said the development activity that the applicant was proposing was the installation of the improvements or the street, and the building pads for each lot. A grading plan had been submitted in connection with that activity. Jt was determined by the City that the grading plan and sensitive areas plan met the requirements of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Pugh said they were then approached about the concern that contractors who were building homes on the sites needed to have a good idea about where the grading plan stopped and so they were asked to place a construction area on the plat. He said they were happy to draw the construction area on the plat. Additionally, the language that they had proposed be added to the plat was almost identical to the language required of the applicant for the Harlocke plat. Pugh said they felt the language was appropriate and reasonable, and were willing to put the public on notice that they needed to comply with the plan. However, the concept of making a total prohibition of any development activity in any sensitive feature went beyond what the applicant was required or obligated to do under the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. He said development activity was not prohibited under regulated slopes for critical and steep slopes. Pugh said the applicant had not had the opportunity to look at the particular line they drew on their plan in the context of adding language to the plat designating a particular line beyond which no activity would occur. He said the line may be appropriate or it may need to be modified, but after the applicant had had the opportunity to review the situation. Chair said it was his understanding that the Commission could approve the plat with the language proposed by Staff; approve with the language proposed by the applicant; or create a hybrid with deferral of the item if that was the option chosen. He asked Pugh or Watts if they would be willing to grant a Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 11 deferral and waiver of the 45-day rule. Pugh said if the Commission was inclined to do something other than the applicant's language proposed on the plat, their request would be to defer. Behr said he would interpret Pugh's statement as his permission that the item be deferred as opposed to if the Commission wanted to vote in a certain way, then the applicant would request a deferral. Pugh said if the Commission was inclined to do something greater than what the language the applicant had proposed, then it would be their preference to defer and take a look at the language in context of the line to determine whether or not if they accepted the plat with the language 'as is' or accepted the line and modified the language. Behr said if a motion was made to defer the plat, the motion was made with the applicant's consent. Pugh said that was correct. Miklo requested to explain for the record why the deficiency was not identified in the previous Staff report. He said the plat which was shown at the previous meeting, as submitted, had omitted the steep slopes, which were a requirement of submittal for a sensitive areas development plan. In reviewing the submitted plan City engineers discovered the omission and asked that the steep slopes be shown on the plan. Because the previous plan did not show the steep slopes, Staff felt the plan as submitted, had minimized the grading of potential, steep and critical and protected slopes. When Staff received the corrected plan which showed steep slopes, it was visible that they were far more extensive than were previously shown. Therefore there was a need to address the issue to be in compliance with the Sensitive Areas Ordinance and some language minimizing the potential grading of those areas was requested. Miklo said that is why this came about after the original plan had been recommended for approval. Gary Watts, Hickory Heights LLC, said the land was already zoned RS-5. The City encouraged infill development rather than urban sprawl. This piece of property would generate a tax base of approximately $6,000 to $10,000 per home. The subdivision was of minimal density, about 1.1 units per acre, the maximal allowed was 5. The development would allow public access to the Park from the north side. The sensitive areas development plan was in compliance with the City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance. The project met the objectives of the Comprehensive and Northeast District Plans. Hansen asked how Watts felt his development interfaced with the language of the Northeast District Plan. Watts said the design was for right on top of the ridge with minimal disruption and moving of dirt. In the Northeast District plan one of the options was a street with a cul-de-sac, so he felt they met the Plan. Pamela Fitzgerald, said she did not walk in the park daily but went there on the most special days of her life. They had rented the upper shelter for their 25h wedding anniversary, had a wonderful party and watched the stars come out. She felt watching a full moon rise over the roofs of houses would make the vista extinct and would affect the park. Van Zante, in response to Watts' comments, asked if the public would be allowed to park their cars in the cul-de-sac in order to access the Park through that point. Miklo said it would be a public street and anyone would be able to park on the cul-de-sac. Sara Walz said she lived on a public street, but there was not always parking on her street. Miklo said this would be a typical 28 foot wide street and there would be no reason for the City to prohibit parking. Walz asked if the neighbors could request that a no parking or restricted parking sign be placed on a street. Miklo and Behr said City Council would have to give the approval for that type of decision. Public discussion was closed. Bovbjerg asked Legal and Planning Staff for direction and input regarding the issue before the Commission. Behr said he wished to address items that were brought up in public discussion. · The guidelines in the Sensitive Areas Ordinance regarding archeological sites provided that if the State in responding to a request indicated there was an archeological site, that was when the regulations for protection kicked in. Miklo had informed the Commission of the sequence of events regarding this issue up to present. · Drainage and Erosion Control. The City engineer's division had approved both the grading and erosion control plans. Although concerns had been voiced and the Commission was not bound to Staff's recommendation, a very specific factual basis would be necessary to find fault with the plan that had been approved by the City Engineer. · Clustering or moving the cul-de-sac back was not something the City could legally require. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 12 · Legal concerns with the note for the plat. The area was currently zoned RS-5 or single-family dwellings. Because of the exemption from the Sensitive Areas Ordinance for single-family dwellings, it was Staff's opinion that the applicant's note did not provide absolute certainty as to what development activity and grading would ultimately be done on the lots. Additional concern was to the proper notice to lot buyers as to what they were bound by and what they could do. Behr said the issues of enforcement and notice provisions should be taken into consideration when considering the proposal by the applicant. · Options. It was the opinion of the City Attorney's office that the Commission did have the authority to request and require what Staff proposed as a condition of approval, to deny for failure to do so, or to defer to find a middle ground that would satisfy both City staff and the applicant. If the Commission felt the note as proposed by the applicant would minimize grading they could approve the application under the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Miklo said Planning Staff would not recommend approval with the note as it existed on the plat. They would recommend approval of the plat with the note Staff had proposed or deferral of the item. Staff felt there was some vagueness and it could be questioned as to whether the note as proposed by the applicant complied with the intent of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance in terms of minimizing the grading on the steep and critical slopes. Motion: Chair moved to defer REZ01-00028/SUB01-00031, an application submitted by Hickory Heights LLC for rezoning from RS-5 to OSA-5, preliminary plat of Hickory Heights, an 18.2-acre, 20-lot resident subdivision located west of Scott Boulevard near its intersection with Dodge Street to the February 7, 2002 meeting. Shannon seconded the motion. Chair said he felt there was nothing to be gained by not deferring the item. It should be deferred with the applicant's approval to have more time to work on the details. He said, in his opinion, everyone who spoke that evening was correct. It was a bigger issue than one side or the other, it was a community issue. The City was a very caring city, the audience was a testament to that. Iowa City had developed a very high standard in terms of development and preservation, all of which had been put together by the public, the Commission and Staff. At the previous meeting, Chair said he had asked Watts if he would consider an offer before sale of each lot and Watts had indicated that he would. Chair said it was his understanding that there were conversations and some negotiations occurring. In the community there was a process, which was currently occurring. When citizens came to the Commission having complied with the rules, regulations and ordinances, the Commission listened to the padies, passed a judgment and forwarded a recommendation on to the City Council based on their assessment of adherence to and concerns about an item. The Commission was one step in the process, the Council was another step in the process. Many times the Council did not follow their recommendations, but what ever happened as a consequence of the Commission and City Council, the bottom line was that the people of the community could speak loud enough to make something different happen, just like it was happening at the Englert Theatre. Chair said, in his opinion, the possibility for the land being preserved in its natural current state still existed. It was not over, their voices could still be heard. Ehrhardt thanked the developer's attorney for agreeing to meet with the Friends of the Park. She hoped future discussions would be beneficial for the Park, for persons who used the Park and for the developer. Bovbjerg said she was very pleased that the motion to defer had been made. Even though there were rules, regulations and ordinances, there were ways of working on all concerns all the time. The concerns of all parties were very real. Bovbjerg said the developers wanted to make a development that was appealing to buyers and to the neighbors including the two-footed and winged ones, because that was good for the property, good for persons who may reside there and good for the neighbors in the city. Bovbjerg said she preferred stronger language on the plat for keeping the construction line. The spirit of listening had been demonstrated that evening. Sometimes people just talked, but she felt at the meetings there had been more ears open than mouths open. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. REZ01-00027, discussion of an application submitted by Oaknoll Retirement Residence for a rezoning from Low Density Multi-Family Residential, (RM-12) to High Density Multi-Family Residential, (RM-44) for approximately 2,800 square feet of property located on Benton Court. (45-day limitation period: 2/4/02) Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 13 Miklo said this was a fairly minor adjustment in the zoning line which would result in approximately 2800 square feet of property on the west side of Benton Court being rezoned from RM-44 to RM-12 and would accommodate the expansion of Oaknoll Retirement Community. Staff recommended approval subject to the site plan for the addition extending into the area now zoned RM-12 being approved by the P&Z Commission, consistent with the Conditional Zoning Agreement for RM-12 property on the west side of West Benton Court. Miklo said a draft of the site plan had been submitted to the City, so it would be placed on the next agenda. Public discussion was opened. Robert Downer, 122 S. Linn Street, attorney for the applicant, said the proposed new structure was an encroachment onto the area that was zoned RM-12. The proposed structure interfaced very well with the existing Oaknoll complex, solved many needs - especially for their health center and would provide 8 additional apartments. Downer said the problem was not one of density but a problem of use. The health center use, which would be the lower level of the proposed addition, was not permitted in the RM-12 zone. That was the reason for the rezoning request. The matter was discovered only very shortly before the application was filed. Downer asked if it would be possible to have the matter voted on that evening, subject to the approval of the site plan as stipulated by Miklo. It had been hoped that construction could begin in March, 2002. Ehrhardt asked if there had been any comments from the public in the area and if signs had been posted. Miklo said no public comment had been received and signs had been posted in the area. Downer showed the Commission what area the building would occupy, where an open courtyard would be located for the use of the health center and an existing frame structure to the west that was currently part of the health center and would be demolished when new construction was complete. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Anciaux made a motion to approve REZ01-00027, an application submitted by Oaknoll Retirement Residence for a rezoning from Low Density Multi-Family Residential, (RM-12) to High Density Multi-Family Residential, (RM-44) for approximately 2,800 square feet of property located on Benton Court, subject to the site plan for the addition extending into the area now zoned RM-12 being approved by the P&Z Commission, consistent with the Conditional Zoning Agreement for RM-12 property on the west side of West Benton Court. Shannon seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. REZ01-00026/SUB01-00035., discussion of an application submitted by Point Limited Partnership for an amended Sensitive Areas Development Plan for lots 3 and 4 of a resubdivision of Lot 53 Walden Hills, a 54-unit assisted living elderly housing building located at the intersection of Shannon Drive and Rohret Road. (45-day limitation period: 2/4/02) Miklo presented Staff report. The property was zoned OSA-8, as it was part of a larger development that contained a stream corridor and a woodlands to the north. A total of 120 potential dwelling units were allowed on the 4 lots in that vicinity. The original plan that was approved for the property allowed four buildings, three stories each, and were limited to housing for the elderly. The applicant had requested approval for the plan to be amended to allow one building to be built in lieu of two buildings, two stories instead of three in height and would contain a total of 54 units. In use, the proposed building would be assisted living, meaning that it would contain a common kitchen and dining facility so that meals would be provided for the residents and some nursing services would also be provided as well. A parking lot would be moved to Shannon Drive side and would be set back 80 feet from the street and would be screened with evergreen screening. Miklo said the deficiencies had all been corrected and recommended approval of the plan. Ehrhardt asked if public comment had been received regarding the proposed changes. Miklo said he had received several calls based on the sign and the letter sent out by the applicant. Most were questions, no one had expressed a concern about the development to Miklo. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 17,2002 Page 14 Public discussion was opened. Robert Burns, 319 E. Washington Street, architect for the project, said a letter had been sent to all the neighbors within 300 feet of the project site which included a site plan, the revised building elevation and a description of the proposed development. He said having the buildings combined into one would make the provision of services more desirable to the residents of the building. As background, Burns said the building would be affordable assisted living meaning that it would serve very Iow income residents. Services would be provided on site by Mercy Home Health Care and meals would be provided by the Heritage Agency on Aging. It would be designated as a congregate meal site, so the residents would pay what they could afford. He said the other two 30-unit buildings that were in place were independent living not assisted living facilities, but if one of their residents wanted to go to the proposed building for a meal they would be welcome to do so. Bovbjerg said on the Statement of Intent, it was noted that the Iowa Department of Elder Affairs had selected the project as a demonstration project for the State. Burns said they had applied for and had received a grant from the Department of Elder Affairs, sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. It was a demonstration project of how to build affordable assisted living in the state and in the country. This would be the first new construction in the State. The grant was for technical assistance and become a licensed living facility by the Department of Elder Affairs. In addition, they had applied for Iow income housing tax credits, there would also be an additional equity and a private mortgage loan. Cathy Gehris, 2756 Jacque Street, asked what the sensitive areas concerns were and what was the rezoning all about. Miklo said the sensitive areas were actually quite a bit to the north. She and her children enjoyed going to the pond area and there was a considerable amount of erosion that was occurring. It was a fairly steep hill and there was currently nothing present to block runoff from the rain. Gehris said she did have some erosion concerns and had assumed that the sensitive areas ordinance would apply to this. Gehris said she did support this type of project, but was concerned about the food service deliveries. Would there be trucks backing up and semi's beeping at 5:00 am, and wanted to voice her concerns. Ehrhardt said Julie Tallman of Building Inspection would be the individual to contact regarding the erosion. Miklo said he would also report it to Tallman. He also said the loading dock would be located on the western side of the building and would be removed from the neighborhood. Bovbjerg asked Burns regarding the meal service delivery. Burns said The Heritage Agency on Aging would provide the meal service as the site had been designated a congregate site. It was planned that the meals would be prepared in Cedar Rapids, quick frozen and brought to the site on a daily basis. The small number of meals would be delivered in a van rather than a semi-truck, no deliveries would be made at 5:00 am as there would be no service personnel at the site to receive the food. Miklo said if it was a concern, it would be addressed through a conditional zoning agreement. Staff would be able to place a condition specifying no deliveries before a certain time, because the location was a residential area and the proposed use would be above and beyond a normal residential use. That would be part of the re- zoning. Enforcement would be on a complaint basis. Miklo said in the absence of a written condition, it would be difficult for the City to come back later and say no deliveries before a certain time, unless some type of nuisance code was being violated. Anciaux said this was a residential facility and if there were trucks backing up at 5:00 am in the morning, the residents would also be disturbed and be complaining. Chair said it was evident that a respect for the location and the orientation had been established and it would not approach the level of the Hy-Vee Food Store on First Avenue. Public discussion was closed. Motion: A motion was made by Hansen to approve REZ01-00026/SUB01-00035, an application submitted by Point Limited Partnership for an amended Sensitive Areas Development Plan for lots 3 and 4 of a resubdivision of Lot 53 Walden Hills, a 54-unit assisted living elderly housing building located at the intersection of Shannon Drive and Rohret Road. Anciaux seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 15 DEVELOPMENT ITEM: SUB01-00023., discussion of a preliminary plat of Apex Commercial Park, a resubdivision of Lot 2, Donohoe Fifth Subdivision, a 6.55-acre, 9-lot commercial subdivision located south of Highway 1 West at Landon Avenue S.W. (45-day limitation period: Waived.) Miklo said Staff had received a request from the applicant to defer the item to the 2/7/02 meeting. Ehrhardt said there appeared to be at least three driveways in the area. if the Commission required the applicant to put the turn lane in, could they also require the other driveways be connected to the curb cut? Miklo said one of the driveways would be closed, the other would be connected, but the Commission could not close it. It was possible the DOT would close a driveway in the future. It would be more difficult to close the third driveway. Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Aaciaux made a motion to defer SUB01-00023, a preliminary plat of Apex Commercial Park, a resubdivision of Lot 2, Donohoe Fifth Subdivision, a 6.55-acre, 9-lot commercial subdivision located south of Highway 1 West at Landon Avenue S.W. to the 2/7/02 meeting. Hansen seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. TEXT AMENDMENT: Discussion of amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to allow grocery stores in the Intensive Commercial (C1-1) zone. Miklo said he had distributed a summary of the items discussed at the Monday evening meeting. Staff still did not recommend an amendment to the zoning, but if there was to be a change, he had provided language for the Commissions and/or Council's consideration on how that could occur. Hansen asked Behr regarding item #3. Had the Commission become specifically non-committal to 30,000 square feet? Was it to be left wide open? Miklo said the language the Commission received that referred to 30,000 square feet would also go on to Council. The intent, as discussed on Monday evening, was to identify the concerns the Commission wished to see the Council address in the ordinance. He said the Council may chose the 30,000 square feet number or some other number. Behr said the Staff report that had been given to the Commission would also be given to the Council. Bovbjerg said there had been various numbers discussed and the Council could consider them as well. The attorney for the applicant could also submit what they had been thinking to the Council for consideration. Koppes said the last paragraph should also list meeting halls, commercial recreation centers and consignment stores. The wording should be "including but not limited to." Miklo said he had added this paragraph to the draft because there seemed to be at least two Commissioners who were interested in removing these users from the C1-1 zone. Chair said this was something that the Commission was interested in doing, it was not something they wanted to notify the Council of or ask them to do immediately. Bovbjerg said what could be done was to vote on the first sentence, then vote on the second paragraph section with the three listed items, then the third section as either a recommendation or a vote itself if they wanted to put it in the record. Chair said his opinion was that the third paragraph about removing uses currently permitted in this zone should not be part of the record at this time. Behr said the Commission could drop the third paragraph, subsequently study it, and make that recommendation later or they could pass it on basically as a notice as to what the Commission was going to be doing. Ehrhardt, Chair and Hansen said the item had only been discussed. Miklo said by sending that particular item to Council, the Commission would not be saying that they were writing an ordinance, but only that they were giving consideration to it. Hansen said by reading the item which said, "Further recommendation that...", it sounded as if the Commission was recommending to the Council that they consider it. Bovbjerg said they had a work session coming up and if they wanted to put it there, it would be in the minutes and on paper. Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed. Motion: A motion was made by Chair to approve the wording of the first sentence, "The Commission recommends that the zoning ordinance not be amended to allow grocery stores in the Intensive Commercial (C1-1) Zone as provisional or special exceptions." The vote would be that the ordinance not be amended. Shannon seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 16 Chair said he would like to acknowledge the applicant for enduring the process and to clarify that this was the best way to move the item forward in a timely manner. Koppes said she would not support this as proposed, as she would prefer to put grocery stores in the wording since all the businesses were listed, but she would support it later during a change to remove the "inappropriate uses". Shannon said since he was the only one who voted to rezone property for the grocery store last time, he still supported it. He did not feel it was a big stretch to do this and hoped something could be worked out. Had it been zoned industrial in the first place, Shannon said he may have felt differently, but since it was so close to some of the uses, he wanted to see the Council work something out because he felt there was a need for this store. Ehrhardt said she felt it was inappropriate to have a grocery store in an intensive commercial and industrial area and in the same type of traffic pattern. It was not the appropriate place to have a grocery stoFe. Hansen said he echoed Ehrhardt's sentiments and said that he looked forward to reviewing the C1-1 zoning and getting the issue straightened out. Anciaux said he agreed with Shannon, there were a lot of uses in the zone that would lead one to believe a grocery store in the area would be acceptable. After looking at the C1-1 zoning, he didn't think clubs, restaurants, computer supply stores, and some other strictly retail ventures should be allowed in the C1-1 zone. Anciaux said establishments such as welding shops where they were actually fabricating on the premise and selling the ware right there was what the zone was intended for. He too was looking forward to looking at the zone, a possible rewrite and elimination of some uses from it. Bovbjerg said she would vote in favor of not amending it, as some of the same problems the Commission had with the original rezoning were still there. Passing on some of their concerns to Council would be helpful too. The motion was passed on a vote of 5-2, Koppes and Shannon voted against the motion. Motion: A motion was made by Chair to approve the wording of the second paragraph section, "If the Council decides to amend the zoning ordinance to allow grocery stores in the C1-1 zone as provisional uses or special exceptions, the Commission recommends that concerns regarding making retail uses more compatible with the intent and other uses of the C1-1 zone be addressed in the ordinance. These concerns include: 1 ) Providing adequate sidewalks for pedestrian and bicycle traffic to the area. 2) Traffic improvements to accommodate a mix of retail and industrial traffic. This might include upgrades to area streets, sidewalks and traffic controls and limitations on the number and location of curb cuts. 3) Controlling the size of grocery store as a means of minimizing the retail traffic that enters into an Intensive Commercial (C1-1) or adjacent Industrial (I-1) zone." and to send it to Council. The motion was seconded by Ehrhardt. 'the motion was passed on a vote of 7-0. Shannon said he had been in the area earlier in the day and noted 4 foot sidewalks had been built from Scott Boulevard to the north to the edge of the developing lots. Anciaux said his concern was if a grocery store were built, would the sidewalks be completed and connected to the grocery store prior to the lots being developed. Miklo said the next Council meeting was set for February 5, 2002. A public hearing would be set for sometime in February. CONSIDERATION OF JANUARY 3, 2002 MEETING MINUTES: Motion: Ehrhardt made a motion to approve the meeting minutes. Koppes seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 17 The motion was passed on a vote of 7-0. OTHER ITEM: Miklo said the Prioritization of Work Program, scheduled for the January 14, 2002 meeting had been moved to the February 4, 2002 meeting. Hansen asked if a piece of ground were zoned IDRS, and someone wanted to develop it as RS-5, how could the Commission say no to that request. Miklo said the intent of the IDRS zone was interim development, which meant at the time it was zoned there was not adequate infrastructure such as sewer, water, streets, or all three. As infrastructure came to the properly or the developer brought it to the property, the opportunity existed for a request for a rezoning. Miklo said through the rezoning process, the Commission could put conditions on the rezoning and require or negotiate things. This would be the same as an upzoning. If there were conditions about the property which were of concern based on the proposed zoning, the Commission could enter into a conditional zoning agreement to address the concerns. Hansen said he was concerned in particular about Napoleon Heights. If the Commission gave RS-5 zoning to the property and a development plan was presented for review, if the plan met the current City requirements the Commission could not deny it. Yet, at the same time, the Commission had not even seen a concept plan to understand if the Commission wanted the proposed plan on the property or not. Miklo said a request for a concept plan at the time of a rezoning was perfectly acceptable and the Commission had done that for some properties. Miklo said the City currently did not have a request for an RS-5 rezoning on Napoleop Heights. There was an application for a 3-lot subdivision, a rezoning to Community Commercial and a rezoning to multi-family. Miklo said the applicant would have to come back before the Commission before building anything on the site and that gave the Commission review. Bovbjerg said the split at present was into four tracts, at least two of which were ID-RS. Splitting the tracts did not change it from ID-RS, but if a sensitive area were discovered at a later date, and the land had been zoned RS-5, it would be difficult to backtrack. Miklo said when there was an actual rezoning then the Commission could delve into addressing the concerns about the property. Miklo said the Sensitive Area Ordinance was clear in that it stated it was for the regulation of the development of the land, not the transfer. The 3-lots allowed a transfer to three different parties. Ehrhardt said the Commission needed to be careful not to divide up the sensitive areas because then developers could 'get by' because less land mass size was involved. Hansen asked if there were any developers in town who were qualified to do conservation subdivision design. Miklo said any developer could. Hansen asked if any were certified. Miklo said there was no certification. Hansen said there was a course to certify them through the American Planning Association. Behr said there may be such a certification but the City didn't require a certification. Hansen asked if the report about the dumping that went on at Napoleon Heights was available. Behr said it was not. Whether or not a violation had occurred, it would follow on the heels of the Zoning Interpretation Committee. Miklo hoped to have the report for the next meeting. Hansen asked about the status of the ~nfill Guidelines Committee. Miklo said McCafferty had been doing research, but agendas had been quite heavy and progress had been slower than hoped. Hansen said the Northside Neighborhood had some parking issues and the Committee had agreed to address them through the Committee. He wanted to stay up-to-date. ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 11:20 pm. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. Dean Shannon, Secretary Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill FINAL/APPROVE~ POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - JANUARY 8, 2002 CALL TO ORDER Chair John Stratton called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M. ATTENDANCE Board members present: Loren Horton, John Stratton and John Watson; Board members absent: Bill Hoeft and Bev Smith. Legal Counsel: Catherine Pugh; Staff present: Kellie Turtle. Also in attendance was Chief Winkelhake (7:19 P.M.) of the ICPD. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL Request a 30-day extension, to March 6, 2002, to complete the Public Reports on #01-05 and #01-06 due to timelines, scheduling, and further investigation. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Horton and seconded by Watson to adopt the consent calendar as amended: · Minutes of the meeting on 12/11/01 · Minutes of the meeting on 12/27/01 · ICPD General Order 01-09 (Narcotics, Organized Crime and Vice Investigations) · ICPD General Orders Alphabetic Index · ICPD Standard Operating Guideline 01-21 (Unusual Occurrences) · ICPD Standard Operating Guideline 01-22 (Special Assignments/Training) · ICPD Standard Operating Guideline 01-23 (Recruitment) · ICPD Standard Operating Guide Index Motion carried, 3/0, Hoeft & Smith absent. NEW BUSINESS No new business OLD BUSINESS PCRB Video: Bob Hardy attended with another cut of the PCRB video for the Board. Hardy said at a previous meeting it was suggested to insert Board member's talking over the video. It didn't work well and was taken out. Hardy also distributed a short script for the Board to review that would be added to the end of the video visually and verbally along with the complaint form in the background. He suggested it would be good to give information about contacting the Board on some copies of the video, but they may want to leave it off a few copies because it may look like the Board was soliciting people to come in and make complaints. FINAL/APPROVED The Board viewed the video and gave their opinions. Watson pointed out that there is no backslash in PCRB. Legal Counsel Pugh feels there might be some misinformation about the accreditation process in the video and PCRB's involvement. Hardy will have the Chief take a look at it. The Chief gave some background on the Police Department and the accreditation process. Overall the Board was pleased with the video. The Board reviewed the script suggested for the end of the video. The Board agreed to add the phone number and address for the City Clerk's office. They also made minor changes to the last paragraph which include changing "on file" to "filed" and omitting "about which you have filed the complaint". Discussion on ICPD General Orders 01-06 & 01-07: Watson's only question on GO#01-06 (Juvenile Procedures) was whether the age of 12 applied to homes and any other property. The Police Chief made a clarification that it should read age12 and under not under the age of 12. GO#01-07 (Police Media/Relations/Public Info) discusses what should and shouldn't be released to the press. The Chief explained how they formulated that order. Chief Winkelhake explained to the Board the color codes found on the General Orders. Red are high liability and very important to know. Green means that the officer should know what's in it but not verbatim. The black ones are dealt with on a regular basis and are not high liability issues. This information will eventually be on the servers and officers will be able to bring up this information in the cars. PUBLIC DISCUSSION Chief Winkelhake updated the Board about the Police Department accreditation process. He acknowledged the efforts of Sgt Hurd, Accreditation Manager. The Chief noted it is common to have to re-write a dozen or more orders; however when the Police Department went through the accreditation process a modification was requested for only one order and it was a word change. One other suggestion noted was a lock on the evidence refrigerator, Chief Winkelhake stated the Accreditation Board is going to suggest some of the procedures/policies that the Iowa City Police Department has to other organizations. FINAL/APPROVED MEETING SCHEDULE · January 22, 2001,7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room · February 5, 2001,7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room · March 12, 2001, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room BOARD INFORMATION Stratton will not be at the March 12 meeting. Watson has a potential conflict with the February 5 meeting. STAFF INFORMATION The Board received their extension request on Complaint #01-02 from the City Council. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Horton and seconded by Watson 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, 3/0, Hoeft & Smith absent. Open session adjourned at 7:42 P.M. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 8:45 P.M. Motion by Watson, seconded by Horton to schedule a name- clearing hearing for Complaint #01-05 for January 22, 2002, at 7:00 P.M. Motion carried, 3/0, Hoeft & Smith absent. 3 FINAL/APPROVED Motion by Watson, seconded by Horton to request 30-day extension for Complaint #01-05 and 01-06 due to timelines, scheduling, and further investigation. Motion carried, 3/0, Hoeft & Smith absent. Motion by Watson and seconded by Horton to review the Chief's report on PCRB Complaint #01-04 at level 8-8- 7(B)(1)(a), on the record with no additional investigation, in accordance with the Ordinance. Motion carried, 3/0, Hoeft & Smith absent. Motion by Watson and seconded by Stratton to review the Chief's report on PCRB Complaint #01-05 and #01-06 at level 8-8-7(B)(1)(b), interview/meet with complainant, and 8- 8-7 (B)(1)(e), performance by board of its own additional investigation, in accordance with the Ordinance. Motion carried, 3/0, Hoeft & Smith absent. The Board directed staff to write a letter to the Chief of Police requesting a copy of the in-car recording device regarding the incident in Complaint #01-06. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Watson and seconded by Horton. Motion carried, 3/0, Hoeft & Smith absent. Meeting adjourned at 8:49 P.M. 4 FINAL/APPROVED POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - January 14, 2002 CALL TO ORDER Chair John Stratton called the meeting to order at 4:33 P.M. ATTENDANCE Board members present: Loren Horton, Bev Smith, John Stratton and John Watson; Board members absent: Bill Hoeft. Legal Counsel: Catherine Pugh; Staff present: Kellie Turtle. MOTION FOR EXTENSION Motion by Horton and seconded by Watson to request a 30-day extension, to February 27, 2002, for the filing of the public report with the City Council on Complaint #01-04 in order to schedule a name-clearing hearing. Chair Stratton said the extension was necessary to meet the notice requirement of 10 working days. The previously set date of January 22, 2002, did not meet those requirements. Motion carried, 4/0, Hoeft absent. Directed staff to write a request to the City Council for an extension on Complaint#01-04. The Board discussed dates and scheduling issues for the name- clearing hearing. Then directed staff to schedule the name-clearing hearing for February 5, 2002, at 7:00 P.M. Watson also mentioned that he could not attend the MATS training on February 6, 2002. Horton will attend in his place. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL Request a 30-day extension, to February 27, 2002, to complete its Public Report on #01-04 in order to schedule a name-clearing hearing. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Smith and seconded by Horton. Motion carried, 4/0, Hoeft absent. Meeting adjourned at 4:40 P.M. POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - FEBRUARY 5, 2002 CALL TO ORDER Chair John Stratton called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M. ATTENDANCE Board members present: Bill Hoeft, Loren Horton, and John Stratton. Beard members absent: Bev Smith and John Watson. Legal Counsel: Catherine Pugh; Staff present: Kellie Tuttle. Also in attendance was Chief Winkelhake of the ICPD (7:20 P.M.). RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL Accept PCRB Report on Complaint #01-04 with changes as noted. Request a 30-day extension, to April 5, 2002, to complete its Public Report on #01-06 due to difficulties contacting witnesses and further collection of information. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Horton and seconded by Hoeft to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended: · Minutes of the meeting on 1/08/02 · Minutes of the meeting on 1/14/02 · Minutes of the meeting on 1/22/02 · ICPD Quarterly/Summary Report- IAIR/PCRB, 2001 · ICPD Department Memorandum 02-02 · ICPD Use of Force Report - October 2001 · ICPD Use of Force Report- November 2001 · ICPD Use of Force Report - December 2001 Motion carried, 3/0, Smith & Watson absent. Stratton referenced the Use of Force Review (Department Memo 02-02), and requested clarification of the understanding of "Type of Incident." Hoeft explained that the difference in incidents may be due to when the force was used. NEW BUSINESS No new business DRAFT OLD BUSINESS The Board reviewed a revised copy of the PCRB video. Hardy suggested adding contact information for those who might be interested in serving on the Board. The Board directed staff to remove the Senior Center from the brochure for complaint form availability, since there is no longer a PCRB office there. Hardy suggested to the Board to think about how many copies of the tape they want and provide a library copy for the public to view. Hardy and the Board discussed a statement made by the City Manager regarding the Boards part in the Police Department's accreditation process and decided they would leave it in the video. The Police Chief had some concerns regarding comments made by Watson on training and racial profiling. The Board decided to retain the comment on training in the video; and requested editing the reference to "problem" from the racial profiling comments. Hardy will work on the editing and bring back the video for review. PUBLIC DISCUSSION Stratton asked Chief Winkelhake for clarification regarding lost data and a quote he saw in the paper stating the data hadn't been lost. The Police Department automated the data collection process to make it as easy as possible, which led to some problems with the data. In an attempt to integrate systems it was discovered that more training was needed for the officers to get information logged correctly. The Police Department has attempted to find and adjust the previous information that doesn't correlate between the CAD system and the officer's reports but not all of it can be corrected. Some changes have been made to the system and it should be running 100% for January. MEETING SCHEDULE · March 12, 2002, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room · April 9, 2002, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room · May 14, 2002, 7:00 P.M., Lobby Conference Room BOARD INFORMATION Stratton will not be at the March 12, 2002 meeting. STAFF INFORMATION None 2 DRAFT EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Hoeft 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, 3/0, Smith & Watson absent. Open session adjourned at 8:21 P.M. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 8:54 P.M. Motion by Horton, seconded by Hoeft to accept the Public Report for Complaint #01-04 with changes as noted. Motion carried, 3/0, Smith & Watson absent. Motion by Hoeft and seconded by Horton to request an additional 30-day extension, to April 5, 2002, for the filing of the public report with the City Council on Complaint #01-06 due to difficulties contacting witnesses and further collection of information. Motion carried, 3/0, Smith & Watson absent. Motion by Horton, seconded by Hoeft to schedule a name- clearing hearing for Complaint #01-05 at the next scheduled PCRB meeting. Motion carried, 3/0, Smith & Watson absent. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Horton and seconded by Hoeft. Motion carried, 3/0, Smith & Watson absent. Meeting adjourned at 9:02 P.M. POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240-1826 (319)356-5041 TO: City Council Complainant Stephen Atkins, City Manager R. J. Winkelhake, Chief of Police Officer(s) involved in complaint FROM: Police Citizens Review Board RE: Investigation of PCRB Complaint DATE: February 5, 2002 This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB #01-04 (the "Complaint"). BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8-8-7 B, the Board's job is to review the Police Chief's Report ("Report") of his investigation of a complaint. The City Code requires the Board to apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review to the Report and to "give deference" to the Report "because of the Police Chief's...professional expertise." Section 8-8-7 B.2 While the City Code directs the Board to make "findings of fact," it also requires that the Board recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify his findings only if those findings are "unsupported by substantial evidence," are "unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious," or are "contrary to a Police Department policy or practice or any Federal, State or local law." Sections 8-8-TB.2(a), (b), and (c). BOARD'S PROCEDURE The Complaint was received at the office of the City Clerk on September 13, 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 December 12, 2001. The Board voted to review the Complaint in accordance with Section 8-8-7B. 1 (a), which means the Board reviews the complaint on record without requesting additional information. PCRB 01-04 Page 1 The Board met to consider the Report on the following dates: Dece 2002.2001; January 8, 2002; January 14, 2002; January 22, 2002; a~FcJ:~u~t,~/Z~~ rc'J I/' ~'~ 2:0 8 Late one morning in mid-September, Officer A, while assigned to foot patrol in the downtown, observed the Complainant riding a bicycle west on the north sidewalk of Washington Street. Officer A stopped the Complainant with the intent of issuing a citation for riding a bike on the sidewalk. The Complainant offered a justification for the illegal behavior involving construction on Iowa Avenue and a lack of optional routes for bicycles. Officer A did not respond to these remarks and asked for identification. The Complainant informed Officer A that she did not have identification with her. He then asked for the Complainant's name and other identifying information that he processed through the Emergency Communication Center system which failed to locate the name provided by the complainant. The officer then asked the Complainant if she had lied about her identity and the Complainant acknowledged that she had lied. Officer A then placed the Complainant under arrest for obstruction of an officer, a violation of City Code, Section 8-5-3(c). Officer A called for a transportation car as his car was parked some distance from the location of the arrest. Officer A handcuffed the Complainant. During the process he found it necessary after cuffing one hand to remove the backpack the complainant was wearing. A sandwich the complainant was carrying for lunch was dislodged from the backpack during this process and fell to the ground where it disintegrated. The Complainant alleges Officer A deliberately threw the sandwich to the ground. The officer claims the sandwich fell accidentally as the backpack was being removed from the subject. During the handcuffing process words were exchanged between Officer A and the Complainant. The Complainant alleged the officer screamed his commands. Officer A claims he only spoke in a loud, authoritative voice. The officer patted the Complainant down prior to transport and searched her backpack where appropriate identification was located. This information was used to write the charges against the Complainant. The Complainant indicated that she perceived the arrest process as both unnecessarily long and humiliatingly public. The CAD Icg revealed that four minutes elapsed between initial contact and I.D. check. One minute after the I.D. was checked Officer A requested a transport car that took approximately 7.5 minutes to arrive. Thirteen minutes after the car driven by Officer B arrived it departed with the Complainant to the jail. During that period the Complainant was placed in the car, the charges were written, and her bike was impounded. A community service officer impounded the bicycle. The Complainant was taken to the Johnson County jail, booked and signed out. Officer B provided the Complainant a ride to the impound facility to retrieve her bicycle. Officer A and the Complainant are in general agreement regarding the events that occurred leading to and during the arrest. They differ greatly, however, PCRB 01-04 Page 2 Fl! regarding how they interpret these events, particularly in regard to motives an'd ,, q demeanor. ,~2 F~B ! 2 F~t 2:08 The Complainant, se f-identified as a strong advocate for b king as an ¢tlternatJve?, means of transportation perceived riding on the sidewalk as a m~n(~l~l~e~ felt that given the construcbon downtown and safety cons~derabons, ndmg on the sidewalk was defensible and that a warning was an appropriate sanction. She believed the City had an obligation to provide an alternative safe route for cyclists. The Complainant saw Officer A as being unsympathetic to the problem of bikers and overreacting to the complainant's violating behavior and efforts to explain, justify or excuse it. The Complainant felt that because of the 9/11 tragedy two days earlier Officer A should be more sensitive and understanding of variant behavior. The Complainant accused Officer A of being condescending and belittling; engaging in intimidating and oppressive behavior; frisking and searching in "an exaggerated, dramatic fashion" in a highly visible location. The Complainant stated that Officer A screamed commands, called the Complainant a liar and applied the handcuffs very tightly, Officer A's assessment of the Complainant's conduct was that the Complainant was an obvious liar, arrogant towards him and behaved like a spoiled brat. He indicated that the only emotion she showed was anger. Three witnesses to the incident were identified by the Complainant and interviewed but they were not sufficiently close to the principals to hear any of the interactions. One of those witnesses stated both Officer A and the Complainant appeared to be upset. CONCLUSION The Complainant believes that she should not have been arrested for riding on the sidewalk because of the absence of alternative safe routes to her destination and expressed these concerns to the arresting officer who was not responsive and then issued a citation. The Complainant gave false information to the officer whom then arrested her for interference and handcuffed her. The Complainant felt that she had not committed a crime commensurate with Officer A's response. The Complainant alleged the following inappropriate behaviors of Officer A: Allegation 1: The officer en.qaqed in exaq.qerated enforcement and a.q.qression in handlinq the case. Officer A denies this behavior. Witnesses do not confirm physical aggression by either the officer or the complainant. The allegation cannot be confirmed Jn part because what constitutes exaggerated enforcement and verbal aggression is subjective and contingent on context. It is undisputed that Officer A was given false identification providing Officer A with justification for arresting the Complainant. The Board finds that the Chief's conclusion that the allegation is not confirmed, is supported, and is not PCRB 01-04 Page unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation 1 of the complainant is NOT SUSTAINED. ~?~? FEB 12 P~'I 2:08 Alle,qation 2: Offcer A was verba y condescending and be ~tt ~J complainant. This allegation rests largely on Officer A's response t~:~ Complainant's efforts to justify riding on the sidewalk that include his observation that she seemed to feel that she was above the law and could choose to follow only the laws with which she agreed. The Officer denies that he was condescending or that he belittled the Complainant, and witnesses are not able to confirm the allegation. The Board finds that the Chief's conclusion that the allegation cannot be confirmed, is supported, and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation 2 of the complainant is NOT SUSTAINED. Allegation 3: Officer A screamed at the complainant when he arrested and handcuffed her. The officer acknowledges raising his voice and speaking in an authoritative and commanding manner reflecting training regarding the maintenance of control. Given the emotional context of the situation the complainant may have perceived the elevated tone as a scream. Witnesses are not able to support the allegation. The Board finds the Chief's conclusion that the allegation that Officer A screamed at the Complainant during the arrest and handcuffing process cannot be confirmed, is supported, and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation 3 of the Complainant is NOT SUSTAINED. Alle.qation 4: Officer A slammed the backpack and sandwich to the ground destroying the sandwich. Officer A acknowledges removing the Complainant's backpack during the process of handcuffing her and acknowledges the sandwich fell to the ground when the pack was tipped during removal. The Complainant acknowledges that she did not observe the officer throw the sandwich on the ground nor did the witnesses, although one reported observing the sandwich hit the ground. The Board finds the Chief's conclusion that there does not appear to be "evidence to substantiate the allegation that the officer did this with intent or malice", is supported, and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation 4 of the Complainant is NOT SUSTAINED. Alle.qation 5: Officer A inappropriately handcuffed the Complainant so tightly as to leave red indentations which persisted for hours after the cuffs were removed. Red marks and indentations may result when a handcuffed individual twists within the cuffs. Since medical attention was not sought it is not possible to discern whether the marks were beyond what "normally" might occur. The Board finds the Chief's conclusion that there is no evidence that the cuffs produced atypical discomfort or injury, is supported, and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation 5 of the Complainant is NOT SUSTAINED. Allegation 6: Officer A intentionally kept the Complainant on public display for a protracted period of time. Total time from initial contact until arrival at the jail was 26 minutes. Seven and one-half minutes of that was PORB 01-04 Page 4 transportation car response time which was slower than typical. After the car arrived the remaining minutes were utilized to write two complaints and arrange the impounding of the bicycle. While these may have seemed exceedingly long to the Complainant because of the situation it was not excessive. The Board finds the Chief's conclusion that "once that car (transport car) arrived the time expended was not inordinate, "is supported by substantial evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation 6 of the Complainant is NOT SUSTAINED. Alle,qation 7: Officer A abused the power associated with his position. This allegation seems to encompass the allegation cited above and reflects the Complainant's concern with Officer A's action in citing and arresting her as well as his demeanor while doing so. The demeanor issues have been dealt with in allegations 1, 2, 3, and 4. The Board finds the Chief's conclusion that the arrest was legally justified by the offenders obstruction and the need to determine proper identification of the Complainant is supported by substantial evidence and is not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Allegation 7 of the Complainant is NOT SUSTAINED. COMMENTS Although the officer was legally justified in charging the Complainant with obstruction and arresting her for identification purposes, and hence did not violate the law or departmental policy, a more temperate style might have reduced the Complainant's outrage. The Board supports the Chief's decision to counsel Officer A in regard to the intent of the law and other approaches to effective enforcement of the City's ordinance in the downtown area. PCRB 01-04 Page 5