The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2010-09-21 Bd Comm minutes4b 1 MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 2010 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL APPROVED MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Ackerson, Esther Baker, Thomas Baldridge, Andrew Litton, David McMahon, Pam Michaud, Ginalie Swaim, Alicia Trimble, Frank Wagner MEMBERS ABSENT: William Downing, Dana Thomann STAFF PRESENT: Christina Kuecker OTHERS PRESENT: Gabriel Heald, Wendy Robertson, Theresa Tranmer, Tim Weitzel RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action) None. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Trimble called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. Michaud said she had been walking by the 230 North Dodge duplex property with the wraparound porch. She said the Commission had specified a 6 foot fence. She said there was a parking lot curb, which is nine inches. Michaud said there was a foot under the six foot privacy fence, bumping it up to pretty close to eight. Kuecker said she believes that the Commission approved an eight-foot fence, with the design to be approved by Staff. She -said that if it were to be a six-foot fence, it would not have had to come before the Commission, because a permit would not have been required. Michaud asked if it would be typical to bump up a six-foot privacy fence. Kuecker said it just depends on the style of fence. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: 717 Clark Street. Kuecker said this is an application to build a front porch on the house, anon-historic property that was probably built in the 1950s in the Clark Street Conservation District. She said the proposed porch would be a full-width porch with a gable over the front door and the front steps. Kuecker said the porch would be eight feet deep and 25 feet wide, with a six foot, six inch-wide stair. She said the porch would be constructed of wood with a shingled roof and metal gutters and downspouts. Kuecker said the balustrade would be located around the perimeter. Kuecker said the guidelines recommend constructing new porches that are consistent with the historic building or similar to porches of the same architectural style. She said staff believes this porch is appropriate and will help this non-historic house blend into the neighborhood better. Kuecker said staff recommends approval as submitted. Michaud asked if the railing would be higher than historic railing height because of the need to meet current code. Kuecker confirmed this, saying the railing will have to meet the current code. She said that based on the drawings submitted, that appears to be what the applicant is building, but the Commission could add a stipulation to specify what it would like to see. Baldridge said he feels this porch will help the house blend into the neighborhood but said he did not notice any of the porches in the block that it is styled after. Historic Preservation Commission August 12, 2010 Page 2 MOTION: Swaim moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for the addition of a front porch at 717 Clark Street, as presented in the application. Wagner seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Downine and Thomann absent . 727 Rundell Street. Kuecker stated that this is an application to change a side door into a window. She said this is a contributing property in the Longfellow District. Kuecker showed the front of the house and the door the owner would like to change, pointing out approximately what would be visible from the street. She said the owner would like to change the door into a window of the width that would be 42 inches high. Kuecker said the window would be trimmed to match the existing siding on the house, and matching siding would fill in the rest of the door opening. Kuecker said the reason for this is that there is also a deck and a rear door around the comer, so it makes it a confined interior space to have two doors open onto the same space. She stated that the guidelines allow for replacement of windows and doors but in general recommend new windows and doors retain the size of the existing. Kuecker said the Commission, however, has approved alterations when necessary to improve functionality. She said the applicant has indicated that the door proposed for removal is no longer used because of the rear entrance. Kuecker said staff believes this change would be compatible with the historic nature of the house. She said that since the new window will match the rest on the house, it will have minimal impact on the historic integrity. Kuecker said staff recommends approval as presented. Ackerson asked if the new window would be the same size as either of the other side windows. Kuecker was uncertain but said she believed it would be similar to the height of the front window. McMahon asked about the fence. He said it seems like there won't be an outlet on the other side of that fence. Kuecker was unsure. She said there is a deck on the other side. MOTION: McMahon moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for 727 Rundell Street, as presented. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Downing and Thomann absent . 1610 Center Avenue. Kuecker stated that this is an application to install a handrail on the front stoop of this house, which is a contributing property in the Dearborn Conservation District. She said this is a Moffitt and Blakesly Cottage. Kuecker showed an example of the type of handrail the applicant has proposed. She said staff is concerned that it doesn't meet the building code. Heald, the contractor for this project, said that he has seen this same style of handrail that would meet code. He showed pictures of the concrete step coming up. Heald said that it is falling apart, with chunks coming off and space between the foundation and the stoop. Heald said that he needed to submit something right away. He added that this is a rental property owned by his mother and said that he lives in the house. Heald said the problem is that if he tries to do anything like the metal rails and he taps into it the concrete, this winter when it has iced and snowed, the cracks will get wet, and the handrail will come off. He said he has a design for a new stoop that he would like to have that comes straight off. Heald said that as it is now, one comes off and then turns and then turns again. He said that whole concrete slab is doing damage to the foundation and is falling apart. Heald said he has photos of how bad the concrete slab is, as well as pictures from the neighborhood showing porches on other houses. Historic Preservation Commission August 12, 2010 Page 3 Kuecker asked Heald if he wants to change what has been suggested in his application. Heald said he doesn't know what he needs to do. Michaud said the Commission does not expect him to keep old, deteriorating concrete. Heald said the handrail was only supposed to be temporary at best, so he could get a plan for a new stoop. Tranmer, the owner of the house, said eventually they will replace the concrete and probably put up a metal rail that would be nice. Heald said there are wooden porches all around the neighborhood, with wood handrails and the spindles as required by the Commission. He said he needs to find out what to do for a temporary handrail for the Housing Inspector. Heald said it won't work to attach something to the concrete, and he isn't ready to put the post into the ground yet. Kuecker said, based on the fact that this is going to be a temporary handrail, provided that it is temporary and meets the building code, the style is not necessarily as important. She said the Commission may want to put a time limit on the time this could remain a temporary handrail. Heald said that he lives in the house currently. He described other plans for the house in the future. Heald said the Housing Inspector has given him a little time when necessary to get things done. He said it would be a lot better to get the front stoop in before winter. Kuecker suggested the Commission could move to approve the removal of the concrete stoop and rebuilding of a wood stoop, with the final plan subject to staff and chair approval. Heald said he will remove all the concrete; he will fill it back in with dirt and sod; and the garden would come over to the side. He said he just wants a functioning porch. Michaud said because there is that steep peak in the front, it would look better to have the steps just go straight up. Wagner said that by the time all the temporary stuff is done, one might as well just do the permanent solution. Trimble said there are two issues - if the Commission wants to allow something temporary and then if the Commission wants to vote on something temporary and also something more permanent that would be subject to staff or staff and chair approval. Heald said the only reason to do something temporary would be to pass the housing inspection, since this is a rental property. Michaud asked how long this has been postponed by the Building Inspector. Heald said that it has been a couple of months. MOTION: Wagner moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 1610 Center Avenue to allow the front concrete stoop and steps to be removed and that the replacement stoop be made of wood, with the final design subject to staff approval. McMahon seconded the motion. Wagner said it makes sense not to spend any time on a temporary fix. He said that if the cement has to come out, it should be taken out. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Downing and Thomann absent). 1107 Clark Court. Kuecker said this is an application to build a wraparound deck on the rear side of the house. She said the house is a colonial revival style. Kuecker said there is currently a small side porch/deck. She said the owner would like to widen it and then extend it around to the back. Kuecker said it would go 14 feet on the side of the house and 16 feet around the deck around the back -eight feet deep. Kuecker stated that the guidelines allow for the construction of decks but generally recommend that they be located on the rear of the house. She said the guidelines also recommend following section 4.10 Balustrades and Handrails for the handrail design. Historic Preservation Commission August 12, 2010 Page 4 Kuecker said staff feels the location of this house is unique, and that Clark Ct is essentially a driveway rather than a street. She said the proposed wrapped deck would have limited public visibility and limited impact on the historic integrity of the house. Kuecker said staff recommends approval of the deck with the condition that the railing meets all the building codes and that it appears similar to the illustration with the top and bottom rail and the spindles tied into the rails. Swaim asked about the stairs. Kuecker replied that this would be bringing the stairs toward the front of the garage rather than to the back yard. Michaud asked if it would look a little strange to have that bumped out bay. Kuecker said that space would not be functional on the deck. Swaim asked about the side of the house to the left of the bay and if the deck would be flush with the edge of the house. Kuecker said that it would be cut in a bit - a few feet, although she did not know the exact dimension. Michaud asked about the retaining wall, and Kuecker said it is on the applicants' property. She said the owners are not proposing a second staircase. MOTION: Baker moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for the alteration project at 1107 Clark Court as presented in the application with the condition that the railing meets all applicable building codes and appears similar to the illustration shown in the packet, with a top and bottom rail and the spindles tied into the rails. Michaud seconded the motion. Swaim asked if skirting is part of the proposal. Kuecker replied that it is not. She said that skirting is not typically required for a deck. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Downing and Thomann absent). 408 Fairchild Street. Kuecker stated that this is a Tudor revival style house in the North Side Historic District. She said the applicant is proposing some alterations to the windows and rear door configuration in order to facilitate a kitchen remodel. Kuecker said the proposal is to shorten one window to allow a counter on the inside to run under it, to remove a door and put siding in its place, and to change one window into a door to allow access to the rear yard. She said that the guidelines allow for the replacement of windows and doors but in general recommend for new windows and doors to retain the size of the existing openings. Kuecker said that the Commission, however, has approved alterations when necessary to improve functionality. Kuecker said that in staff's opinion, the changes to the windows and doors are compatible with the historic nature of this house, provided the doors and windows are replaced with doors and windows that match the ones on the house. She stated that given that the changes are on the rear elevation, the impact to the historic integrity would be minimal. Kuecker said that staff recommends approval, with the condition that the final window and door specifications be approved by staff. Kuecker said there is a kind of mockup included in the packet. She said that the proposed shortening of the window would make it about the same height as the one on the side. Swaim asked if the one on the side is three over one. Kuecker confirmed this. She said the window would not be proportioned like the mockup; it would be even -just like a shorter version of the double hung. MOTION: Wagner moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 408 Fairchild Street as presented in the application with the condition that the final window and door specifications be approved by staff. McMahon seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Downing and Thomann absent). 523 Grant Street. Historic Preservation Commission August 12, 2010 Page 5 Kuecker said this application is to replace the windows in the house as well as the front door. She said the applicant is proposing to install replacement wood windows with an aluminum clad sash. Kuecker said the lower floor windows would be double hungs, and the upper floor windows would be casements with the muntin bar in the center to mimic a double hung window. She said the casements are needed on the upper floor to allow egress from the bedrooms. Kuecker said the new front door would be a fiberglass door with two panels below and ahalf--light window above. She said it would be the size of the original door, which was 36 inches wide and 84 inches high. Kuecker said the house currently has a combination of original double hung windows and vinyl window inserts. She stated that the guidelines recommend the replacement of non-historic materials and alterations with historically appropriate materials. Kuecker said staff believes this proposed replacement will be of benefit to this house and will replace the non-historic materials with appropriate ones and recommends approval. Weitzel, one of the homeowners, said they have removed part of the inside walls and can see where the sheathing ends from the original door. He said there is a spacer board, so one can tell the original size. He said that at some point, someone decided he didn't like most of the windows in the house and put in vinyl windows. Weitzel said that now they truly have to be replaced. He said they are hoping the replacements will be a better investment and last longer. Weitzel said the front windows have been there for almost 100 years now and are still in good shape. He said they will not be removing any original windows. Robertson, one of the house's owners, said that the proposal refers to the original windows, but they had decided not to remove the original windows. She said the house had an enclosed front porch that had been altered, so no one had ever replaced the two front windows. Robertson said that is why they still have the two original windows; the rest of them are all vinyl windows that will not stay open. Weitzel said the window frames are actually breaking. He stated that they gap, and they leak air in the winter. MOTION: McMahon moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for the window and door replacement project at 523 Grant Street, as presented in the application. Swaim seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Downing and Thomann absent). CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR JULY 8, 2010. MOTION: Wagner moved to approve the minutes of the July 8, 2010 Historic Preservation Commission meeting, as written. McMahon seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Downing and Thomann absent). 2010-11 Work Plan. Kuecker said that the last time the Commission developed a work plan was in 2008. She said that because the Commission was in the process of completing many of the things in the work plan, she did not see the need to update it last year. Kuecker said that many of the things on the list are now completed, so the Commission needs to consider new things to put on the new plan, which gets forwarded to the City Council. She said the City Council reads the work plan to ascertain whether the Council needs to devote new resources for the Commission to be able to implement its goals. McMahon asked what from the list has now been completed. Kuecker said the Commission conducted a forum in the spring of 2009. She said the Commission rewrote and streamlined the Historic Preservation Guidelines. Kuecker said the Commission did not create any guide maps or walking tours. She said the Commission did not meet with the Campus Planning Committee, because as soon as the work plan was adopted, there was extensive flooding, and the Committee therefore did not have time to meet. Kuecker said the Commission did apply for and receive a grant for the Manville Heights Neighborhood, and that has now been completed. Regarding the guide maps and walking tours, Michaud asked if it would be appropriate to approach Alice Kurtz about the ones she had for her classes at Weber Elementary. Kuecker said that the tours for the classes this year were Historic Preservation Commission August 12, 2010 Page 6 developed by the Planning Department and Friends of Historic Preservation so that the information is available. She said that item could be kept on the list, and those class tours could be adapted for the public's use. Trimble said the idea behind the tours was to have a pamphlet on the website so that someone who wanted to could print that off and then do aself-guided walking tour. She said that Friends does have that information, so the resources are available to be compiled. McMahon suggested amending the item to specify the development of an online pamphlet. Baker said there is a class in journalism and mass communications to teach the students how to do web apps. She said if the students needed a project, this would be a good one. Baker said she would check into this to see if the class is being held this semester. Swaim said that if a template is developed, there could be different tours made for different neighborhoods. She said that after September she would be willing to work on a tour for the Woodlawn Neighborhood. Trimble said that downtown should be the easiest area to do, because that information is already available. Kuecker asked if the Commission wanted to prioritize the neighborhoods. Michaud discussed the Heritage Tree Walk tours. She said they are in historic neighborhoods that have mature trees so that could be a takeoff point for other ideas. Kuecker said she had an idea resulting from the district forums. She said that when the Manville Heights research was presented to the neighborhood, the residents wanted to have neighborhood meetings to decide if they wanted to go forward. Kuecker suggested holding neighborhood meetings in areas that have been surveyed as an item for the work plan, and the consensus was to add that as an item. Baker said that although meeting with the Campus Planning Committee was derailed by the flood, there are now discussions on campus about what to do with the old Art Building and similar issues. She said the Commission may still want to meet with the Campus Planning Committee to discuss these kinds of things and provide assistance, input, and support. Kuecker said the items on the new Work Plan are: neighborhood meetings, tours and guides of some sort, and meeting with the Campus Planning Committee to discuss preservation with the University. She said the Work Plan will kick in as soon as it is completed. Kuecker said that some commissions have a running list of things and some commissions create a revised plan every year. Kuecker said if the Commission would like to apply for another grant to do a survey, on page 108 of the handbook is a list of priorities for districts. She added that the Work Plan does not have to be completed immediately. Kuecker said the priorities for surveying would include the near south side -the area south of Burlington Street downtown. She said the Commission has applied for a grant for that area several times and has never received funding. Kuecker said the Oak Grove/Kirkwood Avenue Corridor could also be considered, as well as Lucas Farm; which includes Ginter, Friendly, Highland, Pickard and Yewell Streets; and which has a lot of Moffitt houses in the area. Swaim asked if the entrance to the City along Dubuque Street from the interstate is protected from development in any way. Kuecker responded that the area has been surveyed. She said it didn't go any farther than the survey because of the number of property owners in opposition. Kuecker said the Comprehensive Plan in general calls for the area to stay a scenic entry. Kuecker said the other things that received high priority include the designation of Goose Town as a historic or conservation district, North Dubuque Street having a possible designation, and a potential designation of the Melrose Neighborhood. She said that all of the areas have been surveyed, although those surveys may have to be updated a little. Regarding the Melrose Neighborhood, Kuecker stated that it is already listed as a National Register District. She said that a neighborhood meeting could be held to see if the residents want to go forward with a local designation. Historic Preservation Commission August 12, 2010 Page 7 Kuecker said the same thing could be done for Goose Town, which has not been designated on either a national or local level. Michaud said that there are really already a lot of irons in the fire with Manville, Goose Town, Melrose, and others. She suggested the Commission keep those moving toward what they agreed to rather than opening another can of worms. Kuecker suggested starting with those areas then. She asked Commission members to look through the plan before the next meeting for anything else to add. Trimble asked Commission members if people would be interested in moving the fall meetings to 5 p.m. to allow her to take a Thursday night class. The consensus was to change the meetings to 5:15 p.m. for the September and October meetings. OTHER: Kuecker said that the City Council will be considering the historic preservation amendments to the Zoning Code on August 31S`. She said she would be presenting the revised handbook to them on the 30`~ at 6 p.m, at the Council's work session, and anyone interested is invited to attend. Kuecker said that the Board of Adjustment heard an appeal for 837 Maggard Street and upheld the Historic Preservation Commission's decision. Kuecker asked Commission members if they wanted to switch from getting electronic packets to paper copies or vice versa. Ackerson and Michaud asked to receive paper copies. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:13 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte Z O O U Z O F- Q W N W a U OC ~_ O U W W U Z Q D Z W H a N ~ ~ ~ r r ~ ~ ~ ~ r r ~ ~ ~ ~ i ' O r ~ O~ i ~ ' X X X ~ ~ X X X ~ X ~ X X X X X ~ X ~ X ~ X ~ X X ~ ~ X X ~ 0 X X X X X N X X X X ~ ~ W p X ~ w O W O X X ~ X X X X X X X ~ X X °D X X X X X X X W O X X X ~ ' Z Z Z Z ' Z Z Z Z Z Z Z M •- N W ~ X W p X ~ W O X X X O O X X X X ~ X ~ X X X X X d ~( W ~ ~ W M r O N M r r O N M N r O N M M r O N M r r O N M r r 07 N M r r O N M N r O N M O r O N M N r O N M r r 07 N M M r O N M N r O N M H W ~ z ~ Z Y O W Y Q ~ O W ~ p J m ~ ~ W W Y m J ~ C7 Z ~ o a N O ~ Y Q m w ~ W o Q O ~ ~ o ~ ° ZO Q ~ ~ a o = ~ ~ N W ~ ~ o a W z C7 ~ ~ v~ a Z ° Z ~ _ ~ Q Q u.i m ~ F- Y Z ~ ~ Z a 3 0 0 N E 2 0 -o d ~ o ~Z ~ X ~~ C C ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ca ,a a Z o a a n n Z uuw~~~ XOOZ f 4b 2 MINUTES APPROVED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 2010 - 7:00 PM -FORMAL CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Josh Busard, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes, Michelle Payne, Wally Plahutnik, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Julie Tallman, Bob Miklo, Sara Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Dave Clark, Jim Kerr RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. DEVELOPMENT ITEM: REZ10-00007/SUB10-00004: Discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from General Industrial (11) Zone and Interim Development -Industrial (ID-I) Zone to Planned Development Overlay -General Industrial (OPD-11) Zone and a preliminary plat for the Iowa City Industrial Campus, a 9-lot, 173 acre industrial subdivision located along 420th Street, west of Taft Avenue. Miklo said that staff is still awaiting a revised wetland mitigation plan so this item should be deferred until the September 2"d meeting. Freerks opened public hearing on the matter. No one wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. Payne motioned to defer REZ10-00007/SUB10-00004 until the September 2"d meeting. Weitzel seconded. A vote was taken and the motion to defer carried 7-0. Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 -Formal Page 2 of 11 CODE AMENDMENT ITEMS: Discussion of amendments to Title 14: Zoning Code, Article J. Floodplain Management Standards to regulate the 100 and 500 year floodplain and associated changes located in 14-9F Definitions, 14-4B-2 Variances and 14-8B-5 Administrative Approval Procedures (Floodplain Development Permit). Tallman noted that at the last meeting questions had remained about the possible unintended impact these regulations might have, particularly on historic structures in Conservation Districts. Tallman said that Greenwood Hektoen had come up with some language that could be incorporated into the variance procedures to address those properties. Greenwood Hektoen suggested amending 14-5-J9, subparagraph B, "Factors for Consideration," to read: "Upon recommendation by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Board of Adjustment will make a determination as to whether compliance with the floodplain regulations would result in a substantial alteration or destruction of defining architectural characteristics of landmark properties and properties located within Historic or Conservation Districts." Greenwood Hektoen said that the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) would make the determination as to whether a change was architecturally appropriate. She said that the intent of the language is to require homeowners to comply with floodplain regulations if HPC does not object to the changes to the structure on historic preservation grounds. She said that HPC's decision on the floodplain regulations would be the equivalent of granting a Certificate of Appropriateness. Payne asked if the determinations would be made on a case by case basis, and Greenwood Hektoen said that was correct. Greenwood Hektoen noted that the above language would not be the only factor for the Board to consider in a request for a variance. She said there are a number of other factors already set forth in the variance section and this would be an additional consideration that the Board could use to make their decision. The variance section is 14-5-J9; the additional language would be inserted as B5. Eastham said that it seemed to him that the suggested language would allow any structure within a Historic or Conservation District to obtain a variance, whether it was a contributing' structure or not. Greenwood Hektoen said that was not the case; HPC's process analyzes the historic value of a property when considering the requested variance. Greenwood Hektoen said that structures of no historic value would not be granted a Certificate of Appropriateness by HPC, and as a result would not meet the standards for the Board of Adjustment. Weitzel said that it is foreseeable that there could be alterations required by the floodplain regulations that would not necessarily reduce the historic value of a property. Koppes asked if it was correct that those seeking variances would have to first go before the HPC and then go to the Board of Adjustment for the actual variance. Greenwood Hektoen said that was essentially correct, though the language did not spell out the exact path that would take. She said there had been some discussions that perhaps a homeowner would apply for a variance to the Board of Adjustment which would then trigger a review by HPC, which would then be used to help the Board of Adjustment make its determination. Tallman said that administratively what triggers this process is an application for a building permit; at that time the determination will be made as to whether the project meets the two criteria for the possible elevation of the structure: 1) the value of the property in relation to the improvements or repairs and 2) the amount of the property that is being altered. Once those two thresholds are met, Tallman said, consultations with HPC and the Board of Adjustment would take place. Tallman said that the goal is to make it as simple as possible administratively and for the applicant. Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 -Formal Page 3 of 11 Eastham said he wished to review again the number of structures this proposal might apply to. Tallman said she had initially done a quick analysis of the Jefferson Street area and used that to extrapolate. She said that she had since done another analysis in an area near Sheridan and Court Street and had come up with roughly the same general findings. In both cases, 80% of the homes that were in the 100-year floodplain were also in the 500-year floodplain and therefore would be subject to elevation standards for substantial improvements under both the new and the old floodplain ordinances. She said that the primary changes in going from 100- year to 500-year floodplain levels is that the elevation requirements increase by one foot, and there is a 20% increase in the number of structures effected. Eastham asked how the current ordinance handles historic structures. Tallman said historic structures are not addressed at all under the current ordinance. Tallman said that the 1977 language had addressed historic properties, however at some point that language disappeared and no exemptions were allowed for. Plahutnik said that the way he understands the proposed ordinance is that non-contributing structures in a historic district have no access to this exemption. Freerks said that the contributing historic structures are all already mapped out and accounted for. Miklo said that in most cases a structure that is not currently considered a contributing structure would not be eligible for this variance; he noted that there have been times when a property has been improved by taking off vinyl siding or adding back a porch that had been removed, and because of those improvements anon-contributing structure became a contributing structure. In those cases HPC could consider the home for an exemption; however, for the most part it is pretty clear which homes such an exemption would apply to. Payne asked if historic structures that were not in Historic or Conservation Districts would also be eligible for this exemption and Greenwood Hektoen said that historic landmarks as defined by city code would be eligible. Payne noted that when Tallman said the difference in elevation standards for the 100 and 500- year floodplains was one foot, she was speaking only to those particular areas of town that she had analyzed. Payne said that in other areas of town the difference between 100 and 500 year floodplain elevation standards could range from six inches to six feet. Tallman said that was correct. Freerks said that there had also been some discussion about stricter regulations and whether entire structures should be elevated or just additions. Greenwood Hektoen said the language currently applied to horizontal additions. Miklo noted that the issue was not about stricter language, but interpretation. Miklo said that current language says that the lowest floor has to be elevated. He said there have been some instances where the existing building has been excluded from the elevation requirements if a common wall remained between the two structures. Tallman said that either way the matter needs to be discussed because clarification is needed on how the standard is going to be applied. She said the state and federal regulations include language that says as long as the original structure is not changed, the common wall remains, the original structure has a basement and the lateral addition is elevated, than no change is required for the existing structure. Tallman said this is also the way the City has historically applied this provision. If a homeowner put up an addition and removed the common wall and/or made improvements to the original structure, then the existing structure was also subject to the elevation standards. Tallman said the question is how the City wished to handle lateral additions moving forward. Tallman said that if the City wished to change their interpretation then language should be added to clarify that. Eastham asked if Tallman had any idea how many structures such a change would have effected in recent years. Tallman said that had been examined in the discussions on the subject in July, and briefly reviewed those findings. Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 -Formal Page 4 of 11 Freerks opened the public hearing. Dave Clark, address not given, asked if the changes to the flood ordinance strictly concerned historic properties. Freerks said that the changes governing historic properties were being discussed, but that the ordinance dealt with other changes as well. Clark said he is involved in two buildings in the Gilbert/Stevens area that have slab construction. Clark said that he had owned one of the buildings for almost forty years and never had water in it until 2008. Clark said he had some reservations about an ordinance that would require properties to be raised to one foot above the 500-year floodplain. Clark said he did not know what the elevation of his buildings is, but that if they were required to be raised to one foot above the flood level then his buildings would have to be raised eight feet. Clark said that it would be economically infeasible to raise a building eight feet. Miklo noted that there were alternatives to elevating buildings available to commercial properties. Tallman said that commercial properties could be flood- proofed instead. Tallman said that a combination of water resistant materials and adhesives can be used to get structural certification offlood-proofing. Tallman said that if a property owner carries flood insurance they may be eligible, in th event of a flood, for additional funding to be put toward flood-proofing. Clark asked how insurance companies are dealing with this ordinance. He said that an insurance company will pay to rebuild a property as it was; it will not pay to elevate a building six feet. Clark said that his buildings are not located there because he is athrill-seeking entrepreneur; rather, his building was built there because previous Commissions had zoned the area for that type of business. He said that the same body would now be requiring him to take ahalf-million dollar building and turn it into a one and a half million dollar building. Tallman asked how much damage his property had sustained in 2008. Clark said it had sustained $150,000 in damages and had not had flood insurance. Tallman said that in order for the elevation/flood-proofing standards to apply the building would have had to have sustained $250,000 worth of damage. Clark said that these regulations are encumbering him with undue financial hardship. Tallman said that only the property owner can ultimately decide whether they wish to continue in a given location. Clark said there would definitely be an exacerbation of the floodplain area. He said that if all of the buildings had to be raised, then a new floodplain would be created. Clark said that the water would have to go somewhere and the elevation of those properties would worsen the flooding for more people. Tallman said that she did not know that to be true. Freerks said that scenario had been discussed in Commission deliberations. She said that it is not just about what Iowa City does, but also about what communities all down the river decide to do, and factors such as rainfall that are beyond the control of the City. Greenwood Hektoen asked Tallman to talk a little bit about the No-Rise Certification as a way of addressing Clark's concerns. Clark said he thinks answers to those questions must be determined before going forward, as currently there is no guarantee that elevation won't ultimately make the flooding worse. Eastham said that he agrees that the No-Rise Certification could bear some deeper explanation. Tallman said the No-Rise Certification concerns the floodway, the Iowa River channel, rather than the floodplain being discussed presently. Tallman said that development is assumed up to the floodway with the understanding that full build-out along both sides of the floodway will result in a one foot increase in a flood. Tallman said that a No-Rise Certificate is something that would be necessary if a person proposed putting anything other than a floating dock in the floodway (which Iowa City prohibits). Plahutnik said that the massive amount of water that was flowing through the entire floodplain could have filled all the basements in Iowa City in a matter of minutes during the 2008 flood. He said that the additional fill required by this ordinance would not likely result an appreciable increase in future floods due to the displacement of floodwater. Clark said that raising the floodplain will increase the spread of floods. Eastham asked Clark how he felt flood damages to his buildings in the future should be Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 -Formal Page 5 of 11 handled. Clark said that he believed damages would be his responsibility. He said that it was his place to repair the property because it was his decision to locate there. However, he said that he did feel that if measures were to be taken toward flood control then he thinks building in the area should probably stop. He said that the best solution would be no more construction there. Jim Kerr, 1335 Oaklawn, asked if there has been a change in the floodplain designations. He asked if the 100 and 500 year floodplains have changed. Tallman said the designations have not changed but that staff is trying to change the frame of reference for them. She said that when one hears "100-year" or "500-year" floods, then it is natural to think that if a 100-year event happened in 1993 than it would not happen again until 2093. Tallman said the designations are statistical constructs whose likelihood increases over time. Tallman said that statistically speaking, there is a 26% chance of experiencing a 100-year flood if you live in that floodplain for the life of a 30-year mortgage. Tallman said that the likelihood increases each year. Kerr said the definitions in Tallman's memo were helpful. Kerr said that he has two buildings constructed prior to 1977. He said that it appears that there is a bit of an exemption for buildings older than 1977 and asked if he was correct in that understanding. Tallman said that 1977 was the first year that Iowa City participated in the national Flood Insurance Program. Buildings prior to 1977 are grandfathered in their current state. Tallman said that there are two tests the City looks at in applying the new floodplain regulation. First the City looks at the floor area of the 1977 building to see if the floor area has increased cumulatively by 25%. If that is the case then the building has been substantially improved and needs to come into compliance with current standards. Tallman noted that Kerr's building is already subject to these standards; the question becomes whether or not the building must be elevated if the floor area has increased by 25%. Tallman said these regulations would change the flood hazard elevation. The flood hazard zone is larger and requires a higher elevation. She said that given the nature of Kerr's building she would advise flood-proofing rather than elevating the building. Kerr said that a substantial improvement occurs when the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, or floor commences. He asked if he would still be subject to the new standards if he did not increase the footprint of his building but altered a wall. Tallman said that would only be the case if the wall alteration is very expensive because the second elevation requirement is that the improvement exceeds 50% of the assessed value of the property. Kerr said that property owners in the floodplain are sometimes saddled with their properties because they are difficult to sell or rent. He said that going forward it would be helpful if the City kept in mind that restrictions and requirement such as these could hinder or restrict property owners from selling or improving their properties. Kerr said that he did not think any properties in his area had been sold in a couple of years and a few of them had not even been successfully rented in several years. Kerr suggested that before more stringent regulations are put in place there should be some thought put in to relieving the property tax burden placed on such properties. Greenwood Hektoen said that it is the City's position that such regulation would not be considered a "taking," and therefore there would be no compensatory rights for property owners. No one else wished to speak to the issue and the public hearing was closed. Eastham motioned to defer the matter until the next meeting. Plahutnik seconded. Eastham said his rational for deferral is that while he feels like he understands all of the issues, Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 -Formal Page 6 of 11 he is not at all comfortable voting on an ordinance of this importance and complexity without having a written outline of what he is being asked to vote on. Miklo asked if the variance was the only concern that Eastham had. Freerks said she thought there might also be a question of how the variance would be enforced administratively as that did not yet seem to be fleshed out. Eastham said that the interpretation of "improvement" needs to be defined. Tallman asked if two examples of how the provisions would be administered would be helpful in fleshing that out for Commissioners and Eastham said it would satisfy him. Freerks noted that this was the first meeting in which members of the public were present and spoke to the issue. She said she would like to take what those people have said and absorb it a little bit. She noted that the topic has been discussed extensively and acknowledged the enormous amount of work staff has put into it, saying that at some point a vote would have to be taken whether they were entirely comfortable with it or not. Weitzel said that he is not sure the Commission has a handle on the unintended consequences of the enforcement aspects of this ordinance. He asked if it would be worse to have half a building elevated as it is under the current ordinance or none of it elevated because additions and renovations were so cost prohibitive that they were not undertaken. Plahutnik noted that when a member of the public asked if the federal government would pay the difference in rebuilding that resulted from the floodplain ordinance, the answer was an unequivocal "no." He said that he feels very clearly guided by the goals of the floodplain ordinance. Freerks said that the Commission does not yet have the language nailed down. She said that if the vote was to go forward at this meeting then they would need to either vote for the language as presently stated or vote for language that they did not have before them. Freerks said it makes her a little bit uncomfortable to vote on something that does not have specific language at this appoint. Weitzel asked if the Commission would be passing specific language with a vote or approving a concept for recommendation. Payne said she would much rather see the specifics of what she is voting on then vote for a concept. Busard said that he believed the Commission should move forward. He noted that the Commission is always voting for a concept only as the City Council can change language and approve whatever they want. He said the issue had been sat on long enough. Plahutnik said that he is perfectly comfortable holding the matter for one more meeting; however, he said the Commission should be very clear on what is left unresolved in its mind. To Plahutnik's understanding, the outstanding issues are: 1) the variance language for historical properties, 2) whether the existing structure in a lateral addition should be subject to elevation standards, and the language to go with that, and 3) whether new construction residential properties should be allowed in the floodplain. Eastham noted that while he may be in favor of a prohibition of residential development in the floodplain, he is not insisting that staff provide language for that option. Miklo said that an outright prohibition on any residential development in a flood hazard area would take a lot more research by staff before they would be comfortable with the legal ramifications of that action. Miklo said that Cedar Falls has prohibited subdivisions in the flood hazard area; people who own a given lot in a flood hazard area can build on it, however, they could not subdivide it to create additional building lots to be sold. Eastham said that the Cedar Falls provision is the kind of prohibition he~had been thinking about. Miklo said that if a majority of the Commission wished to explore the option of residential prohibitions in the floodplain then staff would research Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 -Formal Page 7 of 11 it. Miklo said he would advise that the current ordinance be passed and, if the Commission so directs, staff can research the other issue at a later date. Freerks said that it may make sense to discuss the prohibition as a work item for the future rather than directing staff to look into into it now. Miklo said that his concern would be that adding the residential prohibition to the ordinance would slow it down considerably and would allow more buildings to be built to the current standards while waiting for word on the prohibition. Miklo noted that Eastham's question is a perfectly legitimate one, but that staff cannot make an informed determination on it without looking into it in a much more in depth way. Eastham said that Miklo's point was well taken and Weitzel agreed that it is better to do something now rather than wait for the next flood. Plahutnik said that there are still misunderstandings between the residential standards and the commercial standards. Plahutnik said that it needs to be communicated that commercial structures have flood-proofing options available to them in addition to the option of elevating out of the floodplain. He said more education and information dissemination was needed. Tallman discussed some technical aspects of flood-proofing commercial buildings. Greenwood Hektoen said that some discussion about the horizontal and vertical additions would be good so that staff can have an idea of the direction the Commission wishes to take that. Freerks said that her understanding is that the Commission is not yet sure which direction they want to go on that, but that they wish to see what it might look like to go one direction or the other on the issue. Tallman said that the language on enforcement does needs to be clearer. Miklo asked if the Commission had a sense on whether they wished to see the stricter or more lenient interpretation of the lateral/vertical addition issue. Plahutnik said he was going to offer a motion to include the language that would require the entire structure to be elevated in order to vote it up, down, or defer. Freerks said that the language has not yet been set for that discussion. Miklo said that the language as written says that the lowest floor has to be elevated. Miklo said this is a policy issue of whether the Commission wishes to have the entire structure elevated or just the addition. Koppes said she thought staff had changed the language. Miklo said staff would clarify the language in whichever direction the Commission directed. Greenwood Hektoen said that her reading of the language is that the entire structure would have to be elevated whether it is a lateral or vertical addition. However, historically staff has only applied the requirement to lateral improvements; thus, the need for guidance from the Commission. Busard said that it seems pretty contradictory to him to require the elevation of new construction but to allow non-conforming substantial improvements in the floodplain for existing structures. Eastham said that his preference is for bringing the entire structure into compliance. Tallman said that the fact that she found relatively few examples in her research indicates that such substantial investment is not common. Weitzel said that he leans toward requiring elevation of the whole structure. Freerks said she is inclined to disagree with requiring the whole structure to be raised. She noted that there appeared to be at least four Commission members that wish to direct staff to tighten up the language regarding the variance and the lateral improvement. Weitzel noted that requiring homes in Historic and Conservation Districts to go before HPC and the Board of Adjustment is a valuable way of consulting on the projects. Weitzel said that while a homeowner might have to add a step by going before the Board of Adjustment it is for their own potential benefit; they would have had to go before HPC regardless. Weitzel said there are examples of historic structures that cannot be moved or elevated so the mechanism for allowing an exemption is an important one. Busard noted that he is not a big fan of deferring this matter, but would vote in favor of it since it was clearly a foregone conclusion. Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 -Formal Page 8 of 11 A vote was taken and the motion to defer was approved 7-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUITES: JULY 26 AUGUST 2 AND AUGUST 5 2010: Payne noted that the attendance record needed to be updated to reflect the new expiration dates for her term and Plahutnik's term. She also made note of a typographical error. Eastham motioned to approve the minutes as amended. Payne seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 (Busard not present at time of vote). OTHER: Discussion of the Work Program: Freerks noted that Miklo had given an overview of these items at the informal works session. She said the idea is to keep the list down to nine or ten items. She said the Southeast district Plan and the Floodplain would soon be completed and taken off the list. Miklo said staff's suggestion on the west-side levee would be that it need not even be discussed until a funding decision is received. Greenwood Hektoen noted that at the Commission's direction she had learned that the grant to fund the west-side levee did not require the protection of residential structures as a condition of funding. Eastham said that the current Work Program included as an item the protection of landmark trees. He said that he personally would be in favor of removing that from the Work Program. Freerks said she could understand why this was a work item and the history behind its placement on the list, but that she was not sure that it was the most effective use of staff resources at this time. Freerks said the idea was to protect special trees that were not part of a protected grove. Weitzel asked if that was not a function of subdivision design rather than a zoning issue. Miklo said that this would apply to existing lots and individual trees and would go above and beyond the sensitive areas ordinance. The Commission indicated a consensus desire to remove this item from the list. Greenwood Hektoen noted that the Parks and Recreation Department is looking into how to deal with the emerald ash borer, and that might be somewhat related to this item. Freerks said she would not be interested in bringing the Open Space Ordinance up high on the list. Eastham said that he agreed. Koppes said she agreed but felt that the issue was going to have to be dealt with eventually. Freerks said she believed the item should stay on the list, but not high on the list. Plahutnik said that there is something in place for this issue now that seems to be working. Koppes asked Miklo if developers had expressed an opinion as to whether current open space standards were working. Miklo said that his general impression is that developers are mostly satisfied, though a couple of concerns have been raised. One of these concerned largely unusable leftover land from a development and whether or not a developer should receive open space credit for that. Miklo said that another issue is whether or not the ratios of open space to development are adequate. Miklo said this issue does need to be discussed, but that it will likely be a controversial issue when that time comes. The Commission reached a consensus to put this item lower on the list. Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 -Formal Page 9 of 11 Freerks asked Miklo if he had a preference for which order the North Corridor District Plan and the Northwest District Plan were worked on, and he indicated that he did not. Freerks said that she believed the CB-2 standards and the review of the CB-10 zone requirements were both important issues that needed to be examined. Miklo said that in thinking about the Riverfront Crossings development plan staff noted that the City currently has a Mixed Use zone that allows for commercial development on the first floor and residential above. Miklo said that areas such as Riverfront Crossings probably would not have a market for commercial/office space for the ground floor of every building in the neighborhood. Miklo said that staff would like to consider an Urban Mixed Use zone for some of those ground floor spaces, which would allow commercial or residential on the first floor and would have some of the same standards as the CB-10 zone. Miklo said that the timing for adding an Urban Mixed Use zone to the zoning code is probably right. Freerks said that this had been discussed quite a bit in discussions of the Moss Green development. Miklo said he would recommend grouping that issue in with the CB-2 and CB-10 standards reviews. A consensus was reached to have those three items at the top of the list: CB-2, CB-10 and Urban Mixed Use. Freerks said that whenever there is development in the entryways to the City the issue of entryway standards comes up and it would be nice to be able to point developers to a specific set of standards rather than always having the standards as a part of a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). Koppes noted that part of that process would include clearly defining which areas are entryways to the city. Koppes said she would be in favor of moving it up if the definition of entryways was included. A consensus was reached to place this item above the northern district plans and below the review of the downtown zones. Freerks asked the Commission where on the list they would like to add the issue of alternative forms of energy. Eastham asked Miklo how pressing the issue was. Eastham said that his understanding is that the large tower windmills are not presently allowed. Miklo said that there is some interest in exploring them. Miklo said that based on the research staff has done it seems unlikely that they would recommend allowing towers taller than 100-120 feet. He said that staff's initial research indicated that given the wind patterns in our area towers of 300 feet would be necessary to make them cost-effective; however, that height does not seem appropriate for placement within city limits. Miklo noted that dealing with the issue earlier and proactively would alleviate the pressure to go to 300 foot towers in town. Eastham asked if Coralville was going to beat Iowa City to something with these towers and Weitzel joked that if Coralville wanted 300-foot towers in town they were welcome to them. Miklo noted that there had been one significant complaint in the Galway Hills subdivision regarding a solar panel that had disturbed the neighbors. Freerks asked what the solution was and Miklo said that fill was brought in to make it so that the solar panel did not exceed the height standards. Miklo said staff feels that it is probably reasonable to allow a certain size of solar panel in a residential zone, but that there should be reasonable setback from the property line. Freerks asked if that was an issue that could be researched and examined fairly quickly by staff, or where he felt it should fall on the list. Miklo advised putting the district plans fairly low on the list and putting this item just beneath the entryway overlay plan. Payne asked if the Commission wanted to add the study of a prohibition on residential building in the floodplain to the Work Program. Greenwood Hektoen said that she thinks it is pretty clear that an outright prohibition on building in a floodplain is problematic. She said that Cedar Falls has passed an ordinance prohibiting subdivision in a floodplain, but property owners can still build homes on their own lots. Miklo said the Cedar Falls ordinance also limits the amount of fill) Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2010 -Formal Page 10 of 11 that can be brought into elevate a property. He said that they only allow three feet of fill to be brought in for elevation and only 30% of the property can be elevated. Freerks said she would like to see how the new floodplain ordinance works before pursuing this item. Payne said she is just in favor of learning more about it and having staff investigate it. Four Commissioners agreed to place the item at the bottom of the list. The Work Program list was prioritized as follows: 1) Review CB-2 standards. 2) Review of CB-10 zone requirements -setbacks, height limits. 3) Urban Mixed Use zone. 4) Entryway overlay zone or standards. 5) Alternative energy. 6) North Corridor District Plan. 7) Northwest District Plan. 8) Update Open Space Plan/Ordinance. 9) Research options for prohibiting/limiting residential construction in the flood hazard area. Discussion of potential update to South Central District Plan land uses adjacent to the Iowa River: Per discussion of this item at the informal work session, the Commission opted to table discussion of this item until it is determined if a grant will be awarded to fund the item. ADJOURNMENT: Weitzel motioned to adjourn. Plahutnik seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 6-0 vote (Busard not present at time of vote) at 8:28 PM. Z O UW C7 ~ Z V O N Z N Q Q W Z Q Z qZ J a 07 X X X X X X X `~ X X X X X X X ~ X X X X X ~ X X X ~ X X ~ X X X X X X X ~ ~ X X X ~ X X X ~ X X X X X X X M X X X X X X X ~ N x x x x x x x r N X X X X X X x r ~~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M ~ ~ N ~ ~ tC) ~ ~ lf) ~ ~ M ~ ~ IW-X ~ 0 ~ 0 -n 0 -n 0 ~n 0 ~n 0 ~n 0 W W J ~ w ~- Q W ~ J a ~ ~ N ~ = V Z Q J 2 ~ - t~ Y H p ~ ~ a 2 Y 0C ~ w W f.. ~ W N N = H ~ a ~ N W a o ~ a g W z m a w ~ w Y a a W W ~ Q 0 LL ~ ~ x x x x o x x ~ x x x x x x x N x x x o x x o ti ti ~ o x x x x x x ~ o x x x x x o ~ x x x x x x o ~ ~ X X ~ ~ X X ~~ X X X X ~ X D M r r N ~ w ~ r ~ r ~ M ~ N ~ O ~ O ~ M ~ wa ~ ~n ~ ~n ~ ~n ~ -n ~ ~ ~ ~n ~ ~n F,X o o o o o 0 0 W W J ~ w ~- Q W J J a = a z ~ ~ N = V Z a _ Y O W C~ F Z vi ~ z J = W W a l - W a Z 2 ~ ~ ~n cn w a ~ Q - w a Z ~ m 0 W 00 li O Y Q a J d ~ Z H w w O Z E 0 ~O 0 =Z X ~~ C _ c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~~QZ o a Q ~~ ~~ Z n u w ~ XOOZ W Y 4b 3 MINUTES APPROVED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 16, 2010 - 6:00 PM -INFORMAL CITY HALL, LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Josh Busard, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes, Wally Plahutnik, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Payne STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Julie Tallman, Sara Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. DEVELOPMENT ITEM: REZ10-00007/SUB10-00004: Discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from General Industrial (11) Zone and Interim Development -Industrial (ID-I) Zone to Planned Development Overlay -General Industrial (OPD-11) Zone and a preliminary plat for the Iowa City Industrial Campus, a 9-lot, 173 acre industrial subdivision located along 420th Street, west of Taft Avenue. Miklo said this item was in order for approval pending an updated mitigation plan. He said he was hoping the Commission would have the updated mitigation plan by the formal meeting so that it can be voted on. Miklo said that there are roughly 700 acres zoned for industrial development in Iowa City, almost all of which is developed. For this reason, Miklo said, staff feels it is very important to add to the stock of industrial land in Iowa City. Miklo said that in looking for suitable industrial land, the city looks for large, flat areas with potential for rail and interstate access. Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2010 -Formal Page 2 of 6 CODE AMENDMENT ITEMS: Discussion of amendments to Title 14: Zoning Code, Article J. Floodplain Management Standards to regulate the 100 and 500 year floodplain and associated changes located in 14-9F Definitions, 14-4B-2 Variances and 14-8B-5 Administrative Approval Procedures (Floodplain Development Permit). Miklo said that the most significant change that results from the proposed amendment is that the city would be regulating to the 500-year floodplain, rather than the 100-year floodplain. Miklo said that if this ordinance had been in place prior to the development of Idyllwild and Parkview Terrace it could have been effective in mitigating flood damage. Miklo said that the current standards require elevation of the lowest floor of the building to one foot above the floodplain if a home is improved by more than 50% of its value or 25% of its square footage. Miklo said that this language is based on the FEMA model, and is interpreted differently by different communities. He said the Iowa City interpretation is rather generous, and has, to date, required only the addition to be elevated if the existing structure is not substantially changed. He said the Commission will need to decide if they prefer a strict interpretation wherein the entire structure must be elevated or a more generous one in which only the addition must be elevated. Miklo said that the Commission also needs to decide if they wish to exempt historic properties from the floodplain regulations or if they want to add in a variance process for review on a case by case basis. Miklo said that it did make sense to provide some avenue of relief for historic properties. Miklo said that as the proposed ordinance is written, a property damaged by fire, tornado or other disaster would be required to rebuild to the floodplain standards. He said that is the case under the current floodplain ordinance as well. He noted that the whole point of floodplain regulation is to minimize future damage by flood. Greenwood Hektoen said that keeping in mind the purpose of the regulations should help guide the Commission in its decisions. Weitzel said he would like to see language for a variance for historic properties. Miklo said that in his view a variance would be a more appropriate option than an exemption as two bodies would review the matter (the Board of Adjustment and the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC)) and a variance would be granted on a case by case basis. Miklo noted that Tallman's memo of July 9th has helpful analysis of the impact of the floodplain regulations on those making substantial improvements. He said that in the vast majority of cases the homeowners were able to meet the floodplain regulations. Miklo said that the language for a variance could be fairly easily modeled after the language used by the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA). He said the issue is more about how the Commission wishes to interpret the language through its policies. Greenwood Hektoen said the Commission did not necessarily need to approve specific language; rather they could approve a concept to give guidance to City Council. Plahutnik and Busard urged Commissioners to think long-term in considering whether the stricter interpretation should be applied to the elevation requirements. Miklo noted that staff intends to ask City Council to put aside some funds in the Capital Improvements Plan to continue the purchase of properties in Parkview Terrace that had been flooded in 2008. Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2010 -Formal Page 3 of 6 Busard said that requiring homeowners to come into compliance with floodplain regulations at some point in the future, even if it comes at some expense to the homeowner, is not necessarily a bad or punitive thing. Eastham asked if there were similar issues in the zoning code that could be compared to the issue with the interpretation of the floodplain elevation requirements. Miklo said that the source of destruction -flood, fire, tornado-- is not separated out in the current code either Koppes pointed out that the language appears to indicate that damage of 50% or more by flood events is not addressed by the code. Greenwood Hektoen said she would double-check, but her understanding is that flood damaged is included and that the point being made is simply that non-flood related damage is also a factor. Greenwood Hektoen said the Commission would have to balance the risks versus the benefits and decide where to draw the line. Koppes advised caution in assuming that flooding only occurs in a floodplain, pointing out that many areas that had never seen flooding before were submerged in 2008. Eastham noted that there are areas in the Ralston Creek/Willow Creek areas that are now in the 500-year floodplain that were never in the 100-year floodplain. Plahutnik said that flash flooding is caused by upstream overflow in creeks. Miklo said that there is a common misperception that the floodplains of creeks in Iowa City will not flood due to dams built in the 1970's and 1980's. Miklo said that the floodplain maps had been updated to take into account the dams. Eastham asked if there would be specific language to be approved and Miklo said that it was possible there would be specific language but that the idea was more to get direction from the Commission. Freerks said she would feel more comfortable voting if there was specific language. Miklo said staff would attempt to have language for the Commission by the formal meeting, but could not guarantee it. Greenwood Hektoen said that essentially all of this is just a conceptual recommendation for language they would like to see in the City Council ordinances. OTHER: Discussion of the Work Program: 1) Review CB-2 standards: Miklo said that originally staff had planned on looking into eliminating the CB-2 zone altogether; however, property owner objections prompted City Council to direct the Commission to review the standards instead. 2) Review of CB-10 standards: Miklo said this arose from issues surrounding Heironymous Square. He said some of the issues were addressed through a CZA, but the desire was to have the same requirements apply to everyone. Miklo said work has not yet been finalized on setbacks and height limitations. 3) Southeast District Plan: A draft should be before the commission in September. 4) Landmark trees: Miklo said this is a very difficult thing to regulate, but has been tackled by some communities. It concerns trees on private property. 5) Open Space Plan: Miklo said staff had hoped the Parks and Recreation Commission would examine this as part of its Master Plan process; however, it was beyond their scope. He said the questions are: Are the current standards sufficient? Should credit be given to private open space so as not to further burden the Parks and Recreation Department with added maintenance? Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2010 -Formal Page 4 of 6 6) Review floodplain development regulations: Miklo said this should be completed soon. 7) North Corridor: This includes the Moss Green Urban Village. He said that there is a lot of residential development that would need to be annexed or somehow worked around in that area, and there would likely be opposition from county residents. 8) Northwest District Plan: This area includes Manville Heights, University of Iowa properties, and the Camp Cardinal Boulevard area. Miklo said that has not been a real priority for because so much of it is already developed, owned by the University or covered by the Camp Cardinal Boulevard concept plans, but it does need to be looked at eventually. 9) Entryway standards: Miklo said he believed this came about as the result of some of the Wal-Mart controversies. He said that this work would include defining what exactly an entranceway to the city is. Miklo said that one item that should be looked at soon concerns alternative energy sources. He said that though it sounds ideal on the surface, our initial research showed that local wind patterns would require wind turbines that were 300 feet tall in order to be cost effective. Miklo said staff questions whether that would be appropriate anywhere within city limits. Miklo said there are some questions as to whether there are public health issues related to these turbines such as long-term insomnia caused by the background buzz of the turbines, and the flickering light effect. Miklo said that staff would be comfortable with turbines in industrial areas that were of the same height as cell towers (120 foot maximum). Miklo said that residential solar collectors also need to be addressed. He cited an example of a solar panel in Galway Hills that was a source of concern for neighbors. Miklo said that this particular example was built two feet from the property line and is designed to follow the sun, so it causes glare for neighbors. Miklo said that there should be some regulation of these beyond what is currently in place to assure that there is an adequate setback from property lines. Discussion of potential update to South Central District Plan land uses adiacent to the Iowa River: Miklo said that the City has applied for some funds to build a levee from the railroad tracks down to McCollister Boulevard. Miklo said that this levee would protect two mobile home parks and a commercial area. He said that this was one of the sandbag levees built in 2008 that actually worked to protect the area. He explained that if a permanent levee is built there will be a trail built on top of it. Miklo said that the South Central District Plan discourages the long-term use of that area for mobile home parks. Miklo said that there is some conflict in that area between the industrial and residential uses. Miklo said that discussion of this matter should probably be put off until a determination is made about funding. Eastham said that his understanding is that the CDBG portion of the funds would not be available if the low-income residential housing was not there. Miklo noted that it has been over ten years since the Comprehensive Plan was looked at as a whole and at some point that should probably be reviewed. Miklo said that while the plan is still on track for the most part, some of it may be dated. Miklo said that the Work Program list is something that will be worked on over the course of the two years. There was a brief discussion of the landmark trees item and whether or not that was something that the Commission should pursue. Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2010 -Formal Page 5 of 6 Eastham asked if the open space requirements were still quite contentious and Miklo said that they are now generally accepted by developers. ADJOURNMENT: Eastham motioned to adjourn. Plahutnik seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 6-0 (Payne excused) vote at 6:56 PM. Z 0 ~°~ 00 UW ~~ Z ~ O N Z N a Q W ~ ~ Z Q Z Q J a '~ x x x x x x x o x x x x x o o x x x o x x `° x x x x x x x ~ ~ X X X ~ X X X X X X X X X ~ M ~ X X X X X X ~ x x x x x x x N r N X X X X X X x r N ~~ •- ~ M N tn ~ M ~ lC') ~ LC) ~ In ~ lC') ~ Ln ~ LC') ~ Ln HX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W ~ W ~ Q J W J J Q Q ~ (A = V Z Q N = ~ ~ W t~ Y ~ N ~ Z J ~ _ ~ W W ~ N ~ a ~ a ~ ~ v i v i w Q W Q z ~ m Q w ~ ~ O Y Q a ~ a a ~ w ~ z H W W X X X X ~ X X X X X X X X X N x x x o x x o ti ~ o x x x x x x ~ ~ X X X X X ~ ~ x x x x x x o ~ ~ X X ~ p X X N X X X X ~ X ~ M N ~W ~ r- M N tn tn M wa ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u~ ~ ~n ~ X o 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W J ~ W r Q W J J Q Z q Q ~ to = V Q = ~ O W C) Y ~ C ~ Q Y N f' W ~ = ~ W LLI ~ N ~ Q ~ a ~ ~ v i v i w Q W Q z ~ m Q w ~ w O Y Q a ~ a ~ z H W W O Z E 0 a_°i ~ ~ o ~Z U p~ ~ X ~ .~- ~ ~ c ~~ ~~~~c~ ~~QZ o aQ~i nZ ii ti w ~ ~~ xo'oz; w Y 4b(4) YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION August 13, 2010- 10:30 AM HARVART HALL, CITY HALL FINAL Members Present: Luan Heywood, Zach Wahls, Alexandra Tamerius, Jerry Gao, Matt Lincoln Members Absent: None Staff Present: Ross Wilburn Others Present: None CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 10:55 AM. Heywood chaired the meeting. MINUTES: Wahls motioned to approve the July 12 minutes. Gao seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously as amended, 5/0. UPDATE ON VACANCIES: Gary Black resigned from the Commission. The Commission still has the Tate vacancy. The Commission believed that the new At-Large position must be advertised for 30 days before appointed. Gao and Lincoln both suggested that they would look at their respective schools for students to fill the At-Large position. Heywood offered to distribute flyers to Tate High School Heywood also mentioned that both her and Wahls's positions expire in 2011, so a new City High and West High position will open up. BUDGET UPDATE: The Commission is in fiscal year 2011 and has not used any funds. Heywood mentioned that the Commission requested money for forums and for the Recognition Scholarship. SUBCOMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS: The Commission discussed the Grant Programming Subcommittee. Wahls mentioned a change he would like to see in the Youth Empowerment Grant application that if the applicant is 18 or older that a sponsor would not be needed. Wahls looked to seek clarification from Karr as to whether a sponsor would be needed for an applicant 18 years or older. The Commission also discussed the new changes to the application including: • The "Youth Advisory Commission" appears at the top of the first page • A component was added to the written paragraph for the applicant to include specific information regarding a youth component and explain how the wider Iowa City community benefits from the project • A return address to the City Clerk's Office was placed on the bottom of the application After listing the changes, Wahls motioned to approve the changes as provided in the Youth Empowerment Grant. Heywood seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, 5/0. The Commission next discussed the Website and Advertising Committee. Heywood stated that she would pass out flyers at Tate High School to fill the Tate vacancy. Due to the At-Large position, the Commission was hoping to bridge with student governments and to get the word out to the youth of Iowa City. Gao presented the Commission with a flyer for the Recognition Scholarship that the Commission could advertise in schools. Tamerius suggested that the Commission could modify a common application YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION August 13, 2010 Page 2 of 4 to use for the Recognition Scholarship and could discuss changes to the flyer and application at the next meeting. SUDAY BUS SERVICE: The Commission did not want to make a formal recommendation, taking a position on Sunday Bus Services, due to a lack of information. Heywood thought to write a letter to the City Council asking them please take into account the youth population who seek transportation on Sundays. Wahls motioned to send an informal letter to the City Council via Marian Karr. Heywood seconded the motion. The motioned passed unanimously, 5/0. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Wilburn said that he had not received any information about the Sunday Bus Services. Wilburn also informed Heywood that the chairs of all board commissions have the opportunity to be involved in the Iowa City City Manager search. The chairs would be able to interview the applicants and give feedback. MEETING SCHEDULE: The Commission decided to set a date for the next meeting, Sunday, September, 5 at 1:00. REVIEW OF GRANT APPLICATION FROM SUMMER OF SOLUTIONS Wahls abstained himself from the meeting due to a conflict of interest, and left the room. The Commission discussed the two Summer of Solutions applications. Tamerius hoped to see more clarification from the applicants because some of their costs overlapped. Tamerius added that she would like to see the applicants rewrite their expenses, name their committed sponsors, and compose a brief summary of how the project is progressing. Heywood added that the Commission could pose these questions in an email to the applicants. Tamerius volunteered to write an email to Margaret Kearney. Gao motioned to adjourn, which was seconded by Tamerius. The motion to adjourn passed unanimously, 4/0, Wahls absent. 11:56 AM. Minutes submitted by Lincoln. Z O N~ ~~ C O pW0 °; ~ W N ~ ~U~ c ~ a W aC~i Q Z ~ .~.. Q W Q O X X X X x `" r W O X x x x i ' i ti ti co ~ Z ~ Z ~ Z ~ Z ' M ~ ~ Z ~ Z ~ Z ~ Z i i i N ~( W ~ X x v M ~ ~ i ~ N ~ X X ~( ' ~ ~ i ~ ~ i i ~ N O ~ ~ Z ~ Z ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ' r O ~ O ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ Q. W X M N M N M N M N M N M N M N H W ~ ~ r- Q Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > > ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d d ~ L 0 'C O ~ Z d v O~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ +' r = d y ~ d ~ cC rn N aQaz°z° II II II II II W . ~ ' XOOZ w Y 4b 5 MINUTES FINAL PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE THURSDAY, JULY 1, 2010 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM -CITY HALL Members Present: Annadora Khan, DaLayne Williamson, Patrick Carney, Rick Fosse, Mike Moran Members Absent: Jan Finlayson, Mark Seabold Staff Present: Marcia Bollinger, Rebecca Raab Public Present: none RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL Recommend approval of acceptance of wooden carved sculptures donated by Art Small and the Horan/Dewey family. Moved by Fosse, Seconded by Williamson. The motion passed 5:0. CALL TO ORDER Williamson called the meeting to order 3:35 PM PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON AGENDA None CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 6, 2010 AND THE MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL NOTES FROM JUNE 4, 2010 FIELD VISIT Approved as presented ACCEPTANCE OF WOODEN CARVED SCULPTURES DONATED BY ART SMALL AND THE HORAN/DEWEY FAMILY Bollinger explained that the Public Art Advisory Committee would need to formally make a motion to the City Council regarding acceptance of the sculptures as offered by Art Small and the Horan/Dewey family. Khan presented her preference to soak the sculptures in a wood treatment mixture instead of painting them as previously suggested. Committee members agreed this would be the best way to present the art. Fosse asked how the City would physically acquire the art. Bollinger said that a formal contract would have to be presented Public Art Advisory Committee Thursday, July 1 2010 Page2of3 to City Council at their July 12th meeting. Fosse discussed how the sculptures could be moved and cleaned. Bollinger discussed how various features of the art pieces could be preserved while being moved and Khan agreed they should determine which elements were original. MOTION: Fosse moved to approve the acceptance of the carved sculptures, Williamson seconded. The motion passed 5:0. UPDATE ON LONGFELLOW NEIGHBORHOOD ART PROJECT REPAIRS AND POTENTIAL DOWNTOWN PARKING METER ART PROGRAM Bollinger reviewed the damage to the historic marker on Muscatine Avenue that was a part of the Longfellow Neighborhood Art project. Salt had eroded much of the text on both sides of the plaque and it was in need of repair. The original artist who created the marker suggested that these portions of the signs be replace with a vinyl imprinted product that would look identical to the original pieces. Khan asked if these issues were discussed in the Longfellow newsletter and Bollinger said she could ask the newsletter editor to include this information in the next newsletter. Bollinger discussed the downtown parking meter program recently put in place. Khan discussed how she thought they may not be visible enough. Bollinger discussed commissioning local artists to decorate the parking meters. Carney asked whether there had been a call to artists to ask them to participate in this program and Bollinger said there had not been once yet as she wanted the committee to discuss the matter formally at their September 2, 2010 meeting. COMMITTEE TIME/UPDATES Bollinger also mentioned that the Iowa City Public Library was starting a new public art project that resembles the Herky on Parade event from 2004 only this will feature books that artists will decorate. Bollinger discussed the upcoming "Sand in the City" project. She asked if any committee members were interested in participating. ADJOURNMENT Moran motioned to adjourn; Fosse seconded. Meeting adjourned at 4:00 PM. Next meeting scheduled for Thursday, September 2"d, 2010. Meetings submitted by Rebecca Raab. ~_ E U~ Z' N O ~ ~~ ~ Q ~ M ~ ~ o U ~ M - ~ N 7 L f0 ~~a ... ~~ o '" v V ~ ~ ~ ~ O~ •~ v O ~ ~ N ^C ~ C L V ... D ~ ~ ~ o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ M X ~C ~C ~C ~C O N O ~C ~C ~C ~C ~C ~C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~--~ N ~-+ O N ~ ~,, ,-~ ~ .-~ ~ .--~ ~ '--~ ~ r. ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 X ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W .-a ~ ,-~ .-~ .-~ 0 0 0 0 0 O O ~ C ~ ~ C ~ ~ .,, ^~ C s. ~ ~: ~ U ~ O C C V1 ,.~ O h ~ a ~ ~ Z ~ A 'd N U C ~ ~ ~ ~ p,,, Q ~ II II II FINAL/AP POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD 4b 6 MINUTES -August 10, 2010 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Donald King called the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Royceann Porter, Peter Jochimsen, Joseph Treloar MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Staff Catherine Pugh (5:36p) and Kellie Tuttle OTHERS PRESENT: Captain Wyss of the ICPD and public, Dean Abel RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (1) Accept PCRB Report on Complaint #10-03 (2) Accept PCRB Annual Report CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Porter and seconded by Jochimsen to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended. • Minutes of the meeting on 07/21/10 • ICPD General Order 95-04 (Administration of Department Training) • ICPD General Order 00-03 (Less Lethal Impact Munitions) • ICPD General Order 00-05 (Off-Duty Conduct: Powers of Arrest) • ICPD General Order 00-09 (Organization) • ICPD General Oder 01=06 (Juvenile Procedures) Motion carried, 4/0. The Board discussed and agreed to only listing the General Orders on the agenda and cover sheet and not including them in the packet. The members would then go on-line to read them before the meeting. Treloar stated that there are many acronyms within the general orders, specifically 00-09 Organization, and that it may be helpfully to the public to spell it out. Treloar also asked who was in charge of giving out information to the press. Wyss stated it is the Sergeant of Planning & Research that send out press releases or does interviews with the press. If that person is not available then either a Watch Commander or if its information pertaining to a specific case the Investigations Commander would take care of it. Treloar commented that it appeared about 15% of the patrol officers were female. He asked if that was average or how it compares within the state or with the national standards. Wyss stated that he didn't believe there was any statistical data on those figures. NEW BUSINESS Community Forum -Tuttle informed the Board that the Library was tentatively booked and that the Broadway center was also available and held about 40 people. Porter suggested the Grant Wood gymnasium because it was larger. Tuttle will check into the gymnasium. The Board would like to stick to the southeast side if possible for a location. They also agreed to November 9th at PCRB August 10, 2010 Page 2 7pm. The forum will be for citizens to come and give their views on the policies, practices and procedures of the Iowa City police department. The Board discussed the possibility of distributing information regarding the new satellite station. OLD BUSINESS Update Complaint Forms -Drafts of the complaint form and brochure were distributed at the meeting with the suggested changes. Motion by Jochimsen, seconded by Treloar to approve the updates to the forms. Motion carried, 4/0. PCRB Annual Report - A second draft was included in the packet with more information under presentations. Motion by Treloar, seconded by Porter to adopt the annual report and forward to City Council. Motion carried, 4/0. PUBLIC DISCUSSION None. BOARD INFORMATION None. STAFF INFORMATION None. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Porter and seconded by Treloar to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section 21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22-7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. Motion carried, 4/0. Open session adjourned at 6:16 P.M. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 6:29 P.M. PCRB August 10, 2010 Page 3 Motion by Porter, seconded by Treloar to forward the Public Report as amended for PCRB Complaint #10-03 to City Council. Motion carried, 4/0. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change) • September 14, 2010, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm • October 12, 2010, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm • November 9, 2010, 7:00 PM, TBA -Community Forum • December 14, 2010, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Treloar, seconded by Porter. Motion carried, 4/0. Meeting adjourned at 6:32 P.M. 7~O~C zz~~~ o ~ ~~y ~~~~~ ~~ ~~~ c~ c c. a o o % ~ o o ~ v o~ ,~ C o ~_ ~ q .~ ~ ^' e A '+ ~' ~ ~p y O .3 y O < Z v, ~ Q ~ ~ D ~ f O ' A~ ~ A ' a O Q ~ S . ~[ y '~ ~ S C I 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ D QQ ~o o ~ ~ o o `~° Cr7 ~ b ~ w N N w w N o ~ ~ ~ .. z z z z N ~ ~ 3 ~ N i i i ~ ~ X J ~ ~ i x ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ W A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r~+ i I z z z z z i ~~ z z z z ~~ J i i O '~ ~ ~ ~ rr W J i i ~ ~ ~ ' N ~ r + 00 i i ,~ ~ ~ ~ i O i i i ' i i , , ' i i , , ' i i , , ' i i , , ' M"] ~H l J y~y~ ,• ~, z ~ ~~ ~~ O b r I^~I l 1 ~^ l l FBI 1~~1 C t~ td POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240-1826 (319) 356-5041 ~., August 10, 2010 ~=1 ~~ ~~- M, ~ .. :.~ 3 ._._~. To: City Council ~` ~.~ ••- Complainant ~ ` `' .~; :~ Dale Helling, Interim City Manager ' ~ ` ' Sam Hargadine, Chief of Police f ~' ~,~ Officer(s) involved in complaint ~_-, From: Police Citizen's Review Board Re: Investigation of PCRB Complaint #10-03 This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB#10-03(the "Complaint"). BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8-8-7B (2), the Board's job is to review the Police Chiefs 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 Chiefs 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 these 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", Section 8-8-7 B (2) a, b, c. BOARD'S PROCEDURE The Complaint was initiated by the PCRB on April 15, 2010. As required by Section 8-8-5 (B) of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Chief of Police for investigation. The Chief s Report was filed with the City Clerk on July 13, 2010. The Board met to consider the Chiefs Report on July 21 and August 10, 2010. At the July 21 meeting the Board voted to review the Chiefs Report in accordance with Section 8-8-7 (B) (1) (a), "On the record without further investigation." Page 1 FINDINGS OF FACT: On January 28, 2010 Officer A began a motor vehicle accident investigation surrounding an incident that occurred on January 26, 2010 on South Gilbert Street. During the investigation Officer A had phone and in person contact with Subject 1, one of the drivers and vehicle owner, and Subject 2, Subject 1's girlfriend. On February 3, 2010, Subject 1's vehicle was towed from Pheasant Ridge Apartment complex and held by Officer A until investigation information could be ascertained from Subject 1. On February 5, 2010 Officer A obtained arrest warrants for Subject 1 for Leaving the Scene of a Property Damage Collision and Failure to Provide Proof of Insurance. On February 28, 2010 Subject 1 was arrested on the warrants by another officer. The vehicle was released to Subject 2 after she showed registration and insurance in her name. ALLEGATION 1 Officer A accused Subject 2 of lying and was "very nasty" during an in person conversation at her apartment. Officer A stated that he never raised his voice during the interaction, nor did he speak any harsh words. To him it was just an information gathering exchange. Officer A said that he dic~ot accuse Subject 2 of lying during the conversation. `~='- ~~ . F~ . --_ .;-~ Subject 2 did not show up for her scheduled interview and did not contact:°the= department`to reschedule the interview. Any additional input, explanation or insight she may I~a~.e had'in regards y ~ , , ; ,; to this allegation is unknown. - - ~- ~-~~ __. Officer A also failed to document the interaction with his car video/audio, so no objects evidence is available for review. ALLEGATION IS NOT SUSTAINED. ~_,~ ALLEGATION 2. Officer A dot "Very rude " during a subsequent phone call with Subject 1. Officer A described his demeanor during the phone call as, "stern and authoritative." Officer A said they responded by calling him a derogatory name and threatened to sue him. He said he did not respond in kind. Officer A did not use derogatory language, nor curse at them and was not rude. Officer A said that Subject 1 was "non-cooperative" not wanting to provide any information, saying that he had already had a deal with Subject 3. Officer A said that Subject 1 became more "loud" and "defiant, "with anger in his voice. Officer A said he did raise his voice in an authoritative tone. Subject 2 then took the phone, swore at Officer A, called the whole thing a derogatory term and hung up. Subject 1 and 2 did not show up for their scheduled interview and did not contact the department to reschedule the interview. Any additional input, explanation, or insight they may have had in regards to this allegation is unknown. ALLEGATION IS NOT SUSTAINED. ALLEGATION 3 • Officer A went "too far" by making them "tip toe" around an officer who is supposed to protect and serve. Officer A initiated two interactions with Subject 2 in a two day period. He had one additional contact with the Pheasant Ridge Apartment manager a few days later. Page 2 On January 29, 2010 Officer A had reason to contact Subject 2 as her address was on the vehicle registration, the vehicle was at the apartment and Subject 2 was closely related to Subject 1. On January 30, 2010, Officer A again had reason to contact Subject 2, as the vehicle was again located in the apartment complex in a different location. Officer A believed that Subject 1 may be in the area and might be at the apartment of Subject 2. On February 3, 2010, Officer A went to Pheasant Ridge Apartment office on an unrelated matter. During the course of the visit, Officer A spoke with the manager about his need to locate Subject 1. This lead to the towing of Subject 1's vehicle at the request of the property manager since he was banned from the apartment complex. Given the irresponsible and/or deceptive manner in which Subject 1 had handled his situation with Subject 3, Officer A was expected to diligently work to locate Subject 1, collect his information and investigate the circumstances surrounding the collision. These two stops and the conversation with the apartment manager is not unreasonable. Any irritation or frustration this may have caused Subject 2 is unfortunate, but is completely,Subject 1's responsibility. Subject 1 and 2 did not show up for their scheduled interview and did not contact the department to reschedule the interview. Any additional input, explanation, or insight they may have had in regards to this allegation is unknown. ALLEGATION IS NOT SUSTAINED. ALLEGATION 4. Officer A's actions maybe motivated by Subject 1 and 2's race. There is no evidence to support this allegation. During Subject 3's interview he was asked about race related issues surrounding his contact with Officer A and had no reason to believe race was a factor in Officer A's handling of the investigation. Officer A also denied that race was a factor in his decision-making during the investigation. Additionally, there is no known complaint against Officer A where race was a related component. Subject 1 and 2 did not show up for their scheduled interview and did not contact the department to reschedule the interview. Any additional input, explanation, or insight they may have had in regards to this allegation is unknown. ALLEGATION IS NOT SUSTAINED. ALLEGATION 5 • The manner that Officer A handled the investigation may be influenced by him bein related to the driver of the other vehicle. ~.~ There is no evidence to support this allegation. Both Officer A and Subject 3 dew beingrelated in any fashion. They also state that this is the first time they have ever met. ~~.. f= = , Subject 1 and 2 did not show up for their scheduled interview and did not contac~-the departmenftb reschedule the interview. Any additional input, explanation, or insight they;: may have had in regards to this allegation is unknown. ALLEGATION IS NOT SUSTAINED. ~ = _ __T ALLEGATION 6• Subject 1 was Qven a ticket "For no reason" and it "is really~unfair' :` All information obtained in this investigation shows this allegation to be unfounded. Additionally, Page 3 the investigation found the charges to be applicable and appropriate for the circumstances encountered by Officer A. Subject 1 was charged with two traffic violations: 1)Leaving the Scene of a Property Damage accident without providing information (321.262, 321.263) and 2) Failure to Provide Proof of Security Against Liability -Driving Without Liability Coverage (321.20B). Subject 1 provided Subject 3 with his name and phone. Subject 3 made multiple attempts to call Subject 1, even trying different combinations of the number given. Subject 3 was unsuccessful and called the ICPD for further assistance. Officer A continued to have difficulty locating Subject 1 who then refused to provide his driver's license information. Subject 1 was driving a motor vehicle in the Biotest parking lot, which is available to customers without charge, when the collision occurred. According to the Iowa Code Section 321.20B; he is required to have financial liability coverage in effect, regardless of whether he is at fault in the accident. No such proof was given to Subject 3 of Officer A. Subject 1 and 2 did not show up for their scheduled interview and did not contact the department to reschedule the interview. Any additional input, explanation, or insight they may have had in regards to this allegation is unknown. ALLEGATION IS NOT SUSTAINED. On March 25, 2010 Subject 1 was found guilty of these violations in Johnson County magistrate Court (Iowa Courts Online). ALLEGATION 7• Officer A failed to record his interactions with Subject 1 2 and 3, in violation of department policy. This allegation was initiated by the ICPD investigator for departmental policy violation. ICPD General Order Number 99-08; In Car Recording Devices, reads in part: "In addition to traffic stops, officers shall manually activate the recording equipment on calls for service and on self initiated field activity. This maybe done from the car or via the remote voice link. The remote voice link device shall be carried by officers and utilized to record audio information outside range of the vehicle microphones." A search for the in car video/audio of Officer A's in person interaction with Subject 3 and two in person interactions with Subject 2 produced negative results. When asked about the lack of video/audio of the interactions, Officer A did not indicate that there was ever avideo/audio system failure. He believed that the policy made it an option to record such interactions instead of a requirement. Training on the Policy has been conducted with Officer A. ALLEGATION SUSTAINED. ~, _.n ~~ -_ ~ _. , -- i~,1 .." S V --_.~ ~ ti ~ . .r - - 'a ., Page 4 i..-,. POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES Established in 1997, by ordinance #97-3792, the Iowa City Police Citizens Review Board (PCRB) consists of five members appointed by the City Council. The PCRB has its own legal counsel. The Board was established to review investigations into claims of police misconduct, and to assist the Police Chief, the City Manager, and the City Council in evaluating the overall performance of the Police Department by reviewing the Police Department's investigations into complaints. The Board is also required to maintain a central registry of complaints and to provide an annual report setting forth the numbers, types, and disposition of complaints of police misconduct. The Board shall hold at least one community forum each year for the purpose of hearing citizens' views on the policies, practices and procedures of the Iowa City Police Department. To achieve these purposes, the Board complies with Chapter 8 of the Iowa City Code and the Board's By-Laws and Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines. ACTIVITIES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 Meetings The PCRB holds monthly meetings on the second Tuesday and special meetings as necessary. During FY10 the Board held twelve meetings and one Community Forum. Five meetings were cancelled or not held due to lack of Board business, quorum issues and weather. ICPD Policies/Procedures/Practices Reviewed By PCRB The ICPD regularly provided the Board with monthly Use of Force Reports, Internal Investigation Logs, Demographic Reports and various Training Bulletins. The Department also provided various General Orders for the Board's review and comment. A senior member of the Police Department routinely attended the open portion of the PCRB meetings, and is available for any questions Board members have regarding these reports. Presentations In November of 2009, the Board held its second Community Forum as required by the change in the City Charter. The PCRB Chair, Donald King, gave a presentation on the complaint process and the Police Chief, Sam Hargadine, gave a presentation on the Use of Force policy. There were six members of the public that spoke at the forum. Topics of discussion included the following: Location and Format of Community Forum, Use of Force, Counseling Following Use of Force, ICPD Priorities, Ammunition Restrictions, and PCRB Past Performance. Board Members In September of 2009, Michael Larson and Greg Roth's terms ended and were replaced by Joseph Treloar and Vershawn Young. In October officers were nominated with Donald King as Chair and Janie Braverman as Vice-Chair. Abbie Yoder later resigned and was replaced by Royceann Porter in March of 2010. COMPLAINTS Number and Type of Allegations Four complaints (09-06, 10-01, 10-02, 10-03) were filed during the fiscal year July 1, 2009 -June 30, 2010. Three public reports were completed during this fiscal period (09-03, 09-04, 09-05) and two complaints were dismissed (09-06, 10-02). The remaining complaints filed in FY10 are pending before the Board (10-01, 10-03). PCRB Annual Report FY 2010 - (Final/Approved 08/10/10) - 1 Allegations Complaint #09-03 1. No medical assessment was conducted when Citizen A was arrested. NOT SUSTAINED. 2. Citizen A's attackers were not pursued. NOT SUSTAINED. 3. No medical assistance or treatment was offered prior to Citizen A being placed in jail. This allegation involves Johnson County Sheriff's Department personnel at the County jail. As it does not involve the Iowa City Police Department. NOT SUSTAINED 4. No continued medical assessment was conducted after Citizen A fell asleep in his cell. This allegation involves Johnson County Sheriff's Department personnel at the County jail. As it does not involve the Iowa City Police Department. NOT SUSTAINED 5. Citizen A who had open wounds was allowed to be in the presence of others in a jail cell. This allegation involves Johnson County Sheriffs Department personnel at the County jail. As it does not involve the Iowa City Police Department. NOT SUSTAINED 6. Due to Citizen A's open wound, he was exposed to contaminants in the jail cell. He was not offered gauze to protect against infection. This allegation involves Johnson County Sheriff's Department personnel at the County jail. As it does not involve the Iowa City Police Department. NOT SUSTAINED 7. Citizen A was in jail for 11 hours and while there, had no access to water to drink or clean up with. This allegation involves Johnson County Sheriff's Department personnel at the County jail. As it does not involve the Iowa City Police Department. NOT SUSTAINED A statement attached to the original 09 02 complaint was from Citizen A. An investigation was initiated on these allegations and the findings are listed below as Allegations 8 through 13. 8. Citizen A alleges that he was not read his Miranda warning. NOT SUSTAINED 9. Citizen A alleges that he was sworn at by police and demeaned by the officer's language. NOT SUSTAINED 10. Citizen A alleges that he was threatened with force. NOT SUSTAINED 11. Citizen A alleges that he was threatened with having the police car filled with tear gas. NOT SUSTAINED 12. Citizen A alleges that he was not allowed to tell the arresting officer his account of what happened nor did any officer ask him for his account of what happened, nor was there an acknowledgement of him having been assaulted and injured. NOT SUSTAINED 13. Citizen A alleges that while in jail, he was offered no medical attention nor was medical intervention provided by jail staff. This issue does not involve Iowa City Police personnel and should be referred to the other agency involved. NOT SUSTAINED A statement attached to the original 09-02 complaint was from Citizen B. An investigation was initiated on these allegations and the findings are listed below as Allegations 14 through 18: 14. Citizen B alleges that he was told to leave the area after Citizen A was handcuffed and was not given the opportunity to give a statement about his and Citizen A's assault. He also alleges that the officer was not interested in pursuing the perpetrators of Citizen B's assault. NOT SUSTAINED 15. The statement also includes references to the officers being non-responsive to his inquiries about Citizen A and the assaults. NOT SUSTAINED 16. Citizen A also alleges that the officers threatened him with force if he did not quiet down, and that officers were rough with him when they put him into a police vehicle. NOT SUSTAINED 17. The statement further alleges that later that night, he saw the assault suspect, tried to summon officers who were with another subject, and they refused to assist him and refused to give him their names. NOT SUSTAINED 18. Citizen B alleges that when he tried to pick-up Citizen A from jail, jail staff told him he could pay the Citizen A's fine or leave. NOT SUSTAINED Complaint #09-04 PCRB Annual Report FY 2010 - (Final/Approved 08/10/10) - 2 1. Citizen alleges that Officer A harassed him during the incident of June 19th. NOT SUSTAINED Complaint #09-05 1. Officer A did not take responsibility for the "safety and protection" of the Citizen while he was under arrest and in his custody; did not treat him humanely; and subjected him to unnecessary restraint ~nnlying handcuffs too tightly to his wrists. (Violation of Iowa City Police Rules /Regulations, Section 345.8 -Arrests, and Section 345.09 -Custody of Prisoners). NOT SUSTAINED 2. Officer A did not take responsibility for the "safety and protection" of the Citizen while he was under arrest and in his custody; did not treat him humanely; and subjected him to unnecessary restraint failing to loosen handcuffs around his wrists in a timely manner after being advised then were too ti ht. (Violation of Iowa City Police Rules /Regulations, Section 345.8 -Arrests, and Section 345.09 - Custody of Prisoners). NOT SUSTAINED 3. Officer A did not take responsibility for the "safety and protection" of the Citizen while he was under arrest and in his custody; did not treat him humanely; and subjected him to unnecessary restraint causing inflammation (soft tissue brusing) and pain in his "carpal area". (Violation of Iowa City Police Rules /Regulations, Section 345.8 -Arrests, and Section 345.09 -Custody of Prisoners). NOT SUSTAINED Level of Review The Board decided, by simple majority vote, the level of review to give each report, selecting one or more of the six levels specified in the City Code per complaint: Level a On the record with no additional investigation 2 Level b Interview or meet with complainant D Level c Interview or meet with named officer 0 Level d Request additional investigation by Chief or 1 City Manager, or request police assistance in the Board's own investigation Level a Board performs its own additional investigation 0 Level f Hire independent investigators 0 Complaint Resolutions The Police Department investigates complaints to the PCRB of misconduct by police officers. The Police Chief summarizes the results of these investigations and indicates in a report (the Chief's Report) to the PCRB whether allegations are sustained or not sustained. (If complaints are made against the Chief, the City Manager conducts the investigation and prepares and submits the reports.) The Board reviews both the citizens' complaint and the Chief's Report and decides whether its conclusions about the allegations should be sustained or not sustained. The Board prepares a report which is submitted to the City Council. Of the twenty-two allegations listed in the three complaints for which the Board reported, none were sustained. The Board made comments and/or recommendations for improvement in police policy, procedures, or conduct in three of the reports: Complaint #09-03 Both of these incidents are unfortunate, but both on-scene and post-event investigations were hampered by the victims themselves. Citizen A was arrested entirely on his level of intoxication and corresponding behavior that night and had nothing to do with the fact that he was a victim of an assault. He was detained initially so officers could PCRB Annual Report FY 2010 - (Final/Approved 08/10/10) - 3 evaluate his role in the conflict. Only as the contact between Citizen A and the police officers escalated was the decision to arrest him made. He was arrested for public intoxication; being under the legal age; being profoundly intoxicated; and unable to attend to his own actions safely and satisfactorily. Citizen B was aggressive and, by his admission to Officer D, intoxicated. He did not like the way the officer took report information, even though the officer repeated the information back to him. He challenged the manner in which officers were dealing with a separate issue were deployed, asserting that his issue was a priority and was defiant when told differently. He has also failed to show investigators evidence related to his assailants identification (the cell phone photo). Complaint #09-04 While the Citizen may not have been harassed under the definition of the Iowa Code, the Citizen felt he had been harassed because he was stopped, then let go, and then stopped a second time. Had the officer stopped him and completed his investigation in a single stop, the Citizen would not have felt harassed. The PCRB feels it's important that the officers behave in a way that the citizens don't feel harassed and that this particular agitation could have been avoided Complaint #09-05 The Iowa City Police Citizen's Review Board did examine records and listened to the recording from the police car as part of their investigation into this complaint. Name-Clearing Hearings The ordinance requires that the Board not issue a report critical of the conduct of a sworn officer until after aname-clearing hearing has been held. During this fiscal period, the Board scheduled no name- clearing hearings. Mediation Officers and complainants are notified by mail that formal mediation is available to them at any stage in the complaint process before the Board adopts its public report. All parties involved must consent to a request for mediation. No mediations were convened this year. Complaint Histories of Officers City ordinance requires that the annual report of the PCRB must not include the names of complainants or officers involved in unsustained complaints and must be in a form that protects the confidentiality of information about all parties. In the three complaints covered by the FY10 annual report a total of five officers were involved. ICPD Internal Investigations Logs The Board reviewed the quarterly ICPD Internal Investigations Log, provided by the Chief of Police. COMPLAINT DEMOGRAPHICS The following is demographic information from the three complaints that were completed in this fiscal year. Because complainants provide this voluntarily, the demographic information is incomplete. Category/Number of Complainants Age: National Origin: Color: Under 21 0 US 0 White 0 Over 21 2 Unknown 3 Black 2 Unknown 1 Unknown 1 PCRB Annual Report FY 2010 - (Final/Approved 08/10/10) - 4 Sexual Orientation: Gender Identity: Sex: Heterosexual 2 Female 0 Female 0 Unknown 1 Male 2 Male 2 Unknown 1 Unknown 1 Marital Status: Religion: Mental Disabilitv: Single 2 Unknown 3 No 0 Married 0 Yes 0 Unknown 1 Unknown 3 Physical Disabilitv: Unknown 3 BOARD MEMBERS Donald King, Chair Janie Braverman Michael Larson /Joseph Treloar Greg Roth / Vershawn Young Abbie Yoder / Royceann Porter PCRB Annual Report FY 2010 - (Final/Approved 08/10/10) - 5