Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-05-15 Bd Comm minutesAirport Commission March 15, 2012 Page 1 MINUTES FINAL IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION MARCH 15, 2012 — 6:00 P.M. AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING Members Present: Jose Assouline, Minnetta Gardinier, Howard Horan, Rick Mascari Staff Present: Sue Dulek, Michael Tharp, Jeff Davidson Others Present: Matt Wolford, Philip Wolford, David Hughes, RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Gardinier called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: 3b(1) Horan began by nominating Rick as Chair and Joe as Secretary. Gardinier asked if Mascari was interested in this position. He stated that he has mixed feelings about it. Mascari added that he also has no intention of renewing his position on the Commission when his term expires. Gardinier noted that over the past several years the Members have chosen pilot and non -pilot chairs alternating years. She stated that with this natural progression, she would suggest Joe serving as Chair and Rick as Secretary. The discussion continued, with Assouline giving his thoughts on this nomination. Horan moved to nominate Mascari as Airport Commission Chair and Assouline as Airport Commission Secretary. No second made to this motion; motion died. Mascari moved to nominate Assouline as Chair of the Airport Commission. Gardinier seconded the motion. Motion carried 4 -0. Horan moved to nominate Mascari as Secretary of the Airport Commission. Gardinier seconded the motion. Motion carried 4 -0. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Chairperson Assouline took over the meeting at this point. Mascari moved to approve the minutes as submitted; seconded by Horan. Motion carried 4 -0. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION /ACTION: Airport Commission March 15, 2012 Page 2 a. South Aviation Development — Jeff Davidson, Director of the Planning Department, was present to help the Commission in planning for possible future development in the area south of the Airport. Mascari began by explaining what the Commission had discussed so far. Davidson shared some diagrams from the Comprehensive Plan for the area and gave Members some history of land use issues in the area. He laid out what the Commission needs to consider, adding that there are three basic things that need to be done in order to develop property — and that is to put in a sewer line, a water line, and a road. This area already has these 'basics' and is therefore well suited for development, according to Davidson. Members asked questions of Davidson, specifically what other development plans are in the works for areas surrounding the Airport. He spoke about the Riverfront Crossings area and what is expected to develop there. The discussion turned to traffic counts for the south area and whether counts are high enough to attract high- traffic type uses. Mascari stated that he would like to see this development handled differently than the north area was, more specifically the financial aspect of it. Members began discussing what they would like to see done in this area, with Horan sharing his ideas of what they might see develop here. Davidson noted that if Members are interested in making this development a priority they should identify it as such, in order to get it on the Council's radar. Projects that have an economic development side to them are typically seen as positive, according to Davidson. Mascari stated that he would like to do some research first and look into what other airports around the country are doing to be self- sufficient. Assouline brought up the close proximity of the Riverfront Crossings development area and the South Aviation area. Davidson agreed, adding that the Council has identified the corner of Riverside Drive and Highway 6 as a potential redevelopment site, as well. The discussion continued with Members debating what the next step should be. Davidson suggested the Commission find a developer that could do some layout alternatives for them to consider. This could help Members move forward on this issue. Davidson then responded to Members' questions regarding development in the adjacent areas. b. Airport Commerce Park — Tharp stated that Jeff Edberg is not present this evening, nor has he heard from him recently. The only update that Tharp is aware of is on the Deery Brothers' sale. This sale should be closing by the end of the month, according to Tharp. c. Terminal Building Brick Repair — Tharp noted that the brick repair started earlier in the week, with the initial phase being a grinding out of the old joint mortar work. He added that it has created quite a bit of dust. By using the salvageable bricks from the planter, damaged bricks can be replaced, according to Tharp. Mascari publicly thanked Jet Air staff for their work during this 'dusty' phase, as they have had to do continual cleaning. Tharp then responded to Members' questions regarding this project. d. Hangar L — Tharp stated that he is recommending they defer this item until a special meeting can be held. This is in part because the lot sale has not been completed yet. Discussion went back and forth on a date, with Gardinier wanting to get this item done in a 30 -day timeframe. Others did not find this to be an issue. Dulek responded to questions from Members regarding this. Mascari moved to defer the two resolutions to the meeting on April 5, 2012, at 7:30 A.M. Gardinier seconded the motion. Airport Commission March 15, 2012 Page 3 Motion carried 4 -0. e. Iowa DOT — FY2013 Aviation Grant Program — Tharp stated that applications are due May 7 this year. The Commission will then be approving this at the April meeting. Tharp reviewed projects for this program, noting that the Hangar L Phase 2 portion will definitely not be done for a while. He noted that without the local funding portion, they would be unable to complete such a project. Some projects that could be considered for the grant program include various pavement projects around the Airport, for example. Tharp noted that this year the DOT is putting caps on the grant awards. For new awards, for example, they are putting the cap at $150,000; for rehab the cap is at $75,000. Tharp stated that at next month's meeting he plans to have a list of recommended projects for the Members to review. The conversation continued, with Members suggesting various smaller projects and upgrades that might be good candidates for the Iowa DOT grant program. f. FAA/IDOT Projects — AECOM /David Hughes L Obstruction Mitigation — Hughes stated that he really doesn't have any updates on the obstruction mitigation project at this time. ii. 7/25 Parallel Taxiway — Hughes noted that on the 7/25 parallel taxiway project that things are moving forward. By the end of May, Hughes stated they hope to go to bid on this. In regards to questions raised at a recent meeting, Hughes stated that he has further information. One question was about LED fixtures and the cost impact of those. They have been testing a unit on the field. Hughes also shared information from vendors and pointed out the LED fixtures with heaters on them. Hughes further explained how these fixtures work and how the weather conditions will play into this. He shared a spreadsheet with the Commission that showed the overall capital costs for the LED heated fixtures versus the regular fixtures. The discussion continued, with Members asking questions of Hughes regarding the use of LED lights and the estimated cost of switching over to such a fixture. Hughes then further clarified where the access road will be, showing Members the specifics on a map of the airfield. Members shared their concerns, with Hughes responding. Gardinier stated that she would like to see something more detailed, to get a better idea of what the proposed access will look like. Hughes then turned the discussion to the remainder of this project. Jet Air staff gave some input on the runway closure, as well. Members noted that they would like to keep closures at a minimum and suggested two work shifts in order to minimize downtime. g. Airport "Operations" — i. Strategic Plan — Implementation — None. ii. Budget — None. iii. Management — 1. Airport Operations Specialist Position — Tharp noted that Gardinier, as previous Chair, was to complete the evaluation for his position. Gardinier stated that she is almost done with this and plans to finish it yet today. She will forward it to Tharp then, who in turn will forward it to the rest of the Commission. h. FBO /Flight Training Reports — L Jet Air / Care Ambulance — Jet Air addressed the Members next. Matt Wolford stated they have been looking for more mechanics for their shop due to the workload. Wolford continued, noting that the meeting room has been painted, as has the office downstairs. Tharp shared the list of projects completed in the past month. He stated that he will be meeting with a painter soon on the stairway Airport Commission March 15, 2012 Page 4 project. Philip Wolford stated that they will be extending their hours soon, probably within the next 30 days or so. They are working on having one phone system for their three locations, as well. Wolford continued, stating that Jet Air recently purchased a hangar and will be deciding which of their locations will get it. They need this hangar mainly for storage. Members discussed with Jet Air where this hangar could possibly be placed. Wolford further explained what Jet Air would like to do in this situation, with Tharp noting that a subcommittee has looked into this and come up with some preliminary numbers. 1. Consider a resolution on amending FBO Agreement — Tharp noted that the resolution is to amend the agreement concerning the swapping of offices as previously discussed with the Commission. Gardinier stated that she will not vote for this as she believes it limits the Airport's flexibility, and that the Operations Specialist should have a more prominent office. Tharp then made a request for new office furniture, stating that he has been looking into this and should be able to find funds to cover this. Mascari moved to consider Resolution #12 -09 amending the FBO Agreement as discussed. Horan seconded the motion. Motion carried 3 -1; Gardinier voting in the negative. ii. Iowa Flight Training — None. i. Subcommittee Report — i. For February — Budget (Chair, Secretary, Tharp) — None. ii. For March — Community Liaison (Assouline, open, Tharp) — Tharp stated that the subcommittee did not meet in March. Gardinier suggested they relook at the sub - committee assignments and review this at next month's meeting. Assouline stated that he would be willing to sit in on any planning sessions the City has for development in the Riverfront Crossings area, to see how this might fit into the South Aviation development area. Assouline and Gardinier both volunteered to meet with Jeff Davidson to further explore their options for development. j. Commission Members' Reports — Horan shared where he is with his flight training. Gardinier thanked Tharp for working with her during her time as Chair. Assouline thanked Gardinier for her time and efforts as Chair. Gardinier then added that she believes they should continue to make an appearance at City Council meetings. Mascari noted that he will have a report for next month's meeting. k. Staff Reports — Tharp reminded Members that the Iowa Aviation Conference is next month in Des Moines. I. Consider a motion to adjourn to executive session to discuss the purchase of particular real estate only where premature disclosure could be reasonably expected to increase the price the governmental body would have to pay for that property. Horan moved to adjourn to closed session at 8:20 P.M. Mascari seconded the motion. Motion carried 4 -0. Airport Commission March 15, 2012 Page 5 The Commission returned to open session at 8:45 pm. SET NEXT REGULAR MEETING FOR: The next regular meeting will be Thursday, April 19, 2012, at 6:00 P.M. at the Airport Terminal building. ADJOURN: The meeting adjourned at 8:46 P.M. Horan made the motion to adjourn the meeting; seconded by Mascari. Motion carried 4 -0. CHAIRPERSON DATE Airport Commission March 15, 2012 Page 6 Airport Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD 2012 Key: X = Present X/E = Present for Part of Meeting O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = Not a Member at this time TERM o io 0 0) NAME EXP. C) N N N N 03/01/13 X X X Rick Mascari 03/01/14 X X X Howard Horan Minnetta 03101/15 X X X Gardinier Jose 03102/12 O/E X X Assouline Key: X = Present X/E = Present for Part of Meeting O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = Not a Member at this time Airport Commission April 5, 2012 Page 1 MINUTES FINAL IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION APRIL 5, 2012 — 7:30 P.M. AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING Members Present: Jose Assouline, Minnetta Gardinier, Howard Horan, Rick Mascari Staff Present: Sue Dulek, Michael Tharp, Others Present: Matt Wolford, Eric Scott RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Assouline called the meeting to order at 7:33 P.M. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION /ACTION: 3b(2) a. Hangar L i. Consider a resolution accepting bids and awarding contract — Tharp stated that this item was deferred from the regular meeting. He stated that this was primarily due to the land sale that had not occurred. Tharp said that they opened bids and the bids came in $50,000 higher than anticipated. Following that opening, he and Gardinier met with the City Manager and Finance Director to seek the additional $50,000 to make the project complete. Tharp stated that it was the City Manager's desire not to release the $50,000 until the Deery Brothers sale was completed. Mascari asked how much funding the state was contributing. Tharp stated that the final budget was approximately $750,000 which was broken down into $500,000 from the airport, $200,000 from the state and $50,000 from the city. Mascari asked if the Airport would have to pay back the $50,000. Tharp noted that following the discussions with the City Manager and Finance Director it was determined this would be part of the city's local match that is budgeted for each year. Eric Scott mentioned that as part of the approval the Airport Commission would also be waiving an irregularity. Scott described the irregularity, stating that the low bidder had supplied a total price on a bid item on the bid form, but failed to provide the unit price. Scott said he had made the corrective calculation and the unit price was comparable to the same item in other bids. He recommended that the Commission waive the irregularity and award the contract to Septagon Construction Company. Horan moved resolution #Al2 -10 to waive the irregularity and award the contract, seconded by Mascari. Motion carried 4 -0 ii. Consider a resolution setting a public hearing on lease agreements for hangar #70 and #71. Tharp stated that they need to set the public hearing on the lease agreements for the hangars to be leased once completed. Airport Commission April 5, 2012 Page 2 Tharp stated that this hearing is being proposed to be held at the regular meeting on April 19. Horan moved resolution #Al2 -11 to set the public hearing for 6:OOpm April 19, 2012, seconded by Mascari. Motion carried 4 -0. b. Jet Air i. Consider a resolution setting a public hearing on a ground lease agreement with Jet Air, Inc. Tharp stated they had been working on a ground lease with Jet Air, but it wasn't quite finished. He said that he and Jet Air had hoped to set up another meeting with the subcommittee in the near future and that this item should be deferred until the meeting on the 19th. Mascari moved to defer item until April 19, seconded by Gardinier. Motion Carried 4 -0 ADJOURN: The meeting adjourned at 7:45 A.M. Mascari made the motion to adjourn the meeting; seconded by Assouline. Motion carried 4 -0. CHAIRPERSON DATE Airport Commission March 15, 2012 Page 3 Airport Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD 2012 Key: X = Present X/E = Present for Part of Meeting O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = Not a Member at this time TERM o Co ° C) NAME EXP. co rn o N N N N 03/01/13 X X X X Rick Mascari 03101/14 X X X X Howard Horan Minnetta 03101/15 X X X X Gardinier Jose 03/02/12 O/E X X X Assouline Key: X = Present X/E = Present for Part of Meeting O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = Not a Member at this time PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 5, 2012 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL 3b(3) APPROVED _ MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Stewart Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Beth Koppes, Paula Swygard, John Thomas, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Ann Freerks STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sarah Walz, Sarah Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: David Kieft, David Ricketts, Jeff Morrow, Brenda Nelson, Jean Walker, Bill Bogert RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 5 -1 to recommend approval of VAC12- 00001, an application submitted by The University of Iowa for a vacation of the street right -of -way located adjacent to 1 -8 Melrose Place subject to the following conditions: 1. Vehicle access to the parking area from Melrose Place will be one -way. A gate or other device will allow public entry to the lot but will block exit from the lot to Melrose Place. 2. The University will improve the remaining part of Melrose Place right of way including the reconstruction of Melrose Place parking with curb and gutter, four foot sidewalks, sanitary sewer abandonment as needed, water main improvements, and management of storm water. 3. The final parking area design should meet substantial compliance with the City's parking design standards and the Director of Planning and Community Development will have approval authority of the design. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. VACATION ITEM VAC12- 00001: Discussion of an application submitted by The University of Iowa for a vacation of the street right -of -way located adjacent to 1 -8 Melrose Place. Walz showed maps indicating the area of vacation and Lots 1 -8 currently owned by The University of Iowa on Melrose Place, which are planned for demolition to become part of a Planning and Zoning Commission April 5, 2012 - Formal Page 2 of 14 parking lot. She said these properties are in the process of being rezoned to P -2, which is the Institutional Public zone. She explained that the City's regulations do not apply to the P -2 zone, but the City does offer them as guidance for the minimum standards for parking areas. She stated that with the expansion of The University of Iowa Children's Hospital some parking is going to be displaced, and this proposed lot is to make up for that lost parking. She said that the area that is being vacated includes a portion of the street as well as unpaved portions, specifically on the east side of the street. She explained that right of way typically extends beyond the paved street because that is where sidewalks and utilities are placed. She explained that in the staff analysis to decide if it is appropriate to vacate right of way they look at its impact on pedestrian and vehicle circulation, the impact on the ability to serve it with emergency access and utility vehicles, the impact on access for the adjacent private properties that remain, and the desirability of right of way for other circulation needs. She explained that with this proposal, public right of way, which is currently substandard and has neither curb nor gutter, would remain along Melrose Place. She said the public street would be widened and the university would resurface it and provide curb and gutter, in addition to a four foot wide sidewalk along the west side of the street. She noted that the three properties that would remain and an apartment building that has a Melrose Avenue address will get their vehicle access from this street. Walz said that in initial discussions with the university staff was concerned because the access point off of Melrose Place onto Melrose Avenue is just 50 feet or less from the Hawkins Drive intersection, with the latter two being very busy streets. She said some sort of two -way access has to be maintained without having everyone who parks in the parking lot behind the apartment building on Melrose Avenue entering and exiting from Melrose Place. She said that staff suggests that access be restricted so a gate or some other method allows them into the parking lot but bars them from exiting via Melrose Place. Walz noted that pedestrians and vehicles that need to access the properties will still have access, but vehicles going into the parking lot will have to circulate out on the proposed two -way drive to be built on 711 Melrose Avenue. Walz said that the east drive will be a consolidation of two curb cuts. She said that one of the curb cuts is on a property that will remain private and the other is on 711 Melrose Avenue. She said this will be one driveway with two lanes. Walz explained that because the University owns all of this property and the drive, they could proceed without vacation of the right of way. She said staff feels that if vacation is approved they have a better opportunity to improve what remains of Melrose Place and restrict access as well as attaining the screening and setbacks they think are necessary to preserve what is the intact residential neighborhood to the east. Walz said because the university is preserving access and circulation for the emergency and utility vehicles staff is recommending approval. Walz explained that the university would be paying to terminate an existing water line where the public street ends and to upgrade it as well as the street and the sidewalk. She said that staff feels strongly that in regard to screening, the emphasis needs to be on the eastern portion of the lot adjacent to the private residences that are part of an intact neighborhood. She said currently the university is showing an eight foot setback, and the minimum that is typically required in a P -1 zone is ten feet. She said staff recommends that the setback be increased to provide for the maximum amount of screening. She noted that there will be a solid fence along that property line and shrubs and trees as required by the Code. She said staff had also asked the university to provide terminal islands, which are not a requirement in the P -2 zone, and the university has agreed to this, which will allow for the placement of trees in the lot. She stated Planning and Zoning Commission April 5, 2012 - Formal Page 3 of 14 that the neighbors had concerns about snow removal, so the university has designed the lot as something they feel they can clear efficiently. She said the university will also provide storm drainage for the lot. Walz said the neighbors also had concerns about lighting standards. She said the university is aware of the City's lighting standards and will comply with even higher lighting standards. Walz said that the transportation planners have indicated that a third lane is preferred on the east drive due to the concern that at peak times of day cars will queue onto the private drive, possibly creating a situation where drivers get impatient to pull out on the street and not noticing pedestrians. She said the additional lane would better accommodate right and left hand turns out of that drive and will cut the queuing. Walz explained that the only way to add this third land is to get a further easement from the property owner at 727 Melrose Avenue or to remove the house at 711 Melrose Avenue, which is in the Melrose Neighborhood National Register Historic District. Walz said staff recommends approval of VAC12 -00001 a vacation of a portion of the Melrose Place right -of -way subject to the following conditions: 1. Vehicle access to the parking area from Melrose Place will be one -way: a gate or other device will allow public entry to the lot but will block exit from the lot to Melrose Place. 2. The University will improve the remaining Melrose Place right -of -way, including the reconstruction of Melrose Place (paving w/ curb and gutter), 4 foot sidewalk, sanitary sewer abandonments as needed, water main improvements, and management of storm water. 3. The final parking area design should meet the City's standards with regard terminal islands and lighting and should include shade trees as proposed in the submitted plan. 4. Along the east property, where the parking area abuts private properties on Melrose Avenue and Melrose Circle, a minimum setback of 10 feet should be provided with a solid fence or wall in addition to S3 landscape screening. Walz explained that currently the internal parking aisles are twenty -four feet in width and City standards would be twenty -two feet, so staff feels there is adequate room to make these aisles narrower to gain the deeper setback on the eastern edge of the parking lot. Weitzel asked if the owner of 727 Melrose had been contacted about the extra easement. Walz said that question would need to be answered by the university. She showed photos of 711 Melrose Street and explained that it is owned by the university but someone else is allowed to lease it as a rental. Thomas asked if the landscape work in the parking lot meets the City's off - street parking standards for trees and landscape. Walz said that the standard is every parking space should be within sixty feet of a large tree, and while the university's proposal is close, it doesn't quite meet that standard. Weitzel asked what the total size of the parking area is. Walz said that it is over one acre. Planning and Zoning Commission April 5, 2012 - Formal Page 4 of 14 Eastham asked why the eastern driveway can't be expanded to the west, with another lane added to the west side of the drive. Walz said it could be added to the west, but that is private property and would require an easement. Eastham asked if the City is required to vacate land at the request of anyone. Holecek stated they are not. She said this is a discretionary process, and the analysis that Walz explained as to what the City looks at when it is requested to vacate property is the analysis that is used. She noted that typically, adjacent property owners are given the opportunity to acquire the property after vacation. Miklo said that in this case, staff feels that by vacating and cooperating with the university, the City has some ability to address the traffic and landscaping concerns. Eastham asked if staff has the university's long -range physical expansion plan for south of Melrose. Miklo said they did not. Thomas asked what hours the parking lot will be open. Walz said that it's open twenty -four hours a day, but it's thought that most of the traffic will be before 7:00 p.m. and starting early in the morning. Koppes asked if all the residences that are left are privately owned. Walz said there were, but that 711 Melrose Avenue was owned by the university. Eastham asked if the university can make a curb cut and access onto Melrose Avenue of a design of its own choosing. Walz stated that the university could not because that requires access to the public right of way and they would have to get a curb cut permit from the City. Dyer asked why there was no vegetation buffer along Melrose Place and the parking lot. Walz said that had been discussed and given the condition of Melrose Place and the way it's lawns are being used as a parking lot, staff's concern was mainly for the neighborhood to the east. Eastham asked if Melrose Place will continue to be used in this manner. Walz said that staff has notified Housing and Inspection Services at the City, and the property owners have been made aware that parking on the lawns is not allowed. She said that because the demand for parking in the immediate area around the hospital is so great, that this will probably continue to be an issue that will have to be enforced. Thomas asked if residents on Melrose Place could park in the lot once it was built. Walz explained that the lot will be permit parking for hospital staff. Planning and Zoning Commission April 5, 2012 - Formal Page 5 of 14 Koppes asked if currently street parking is allowed on Melrose Place. Walz said she does not believe that it is allowed now. She said in the future it will not be allowed but that it will need to be enforced. Swygard asked if given the closeness of both Melrose Place and the other entrance and exit into the proposed lot and the proximity of Hawkins Drive, was any consideration given to only allowing right hand turns to exit onto Melrose Avenue. Walz said there was not. Walz explained that once you are in the parking lot, you can only exit on the eastern driveway. Koppes opened the public hearing. David Kieft of The University of Iowa referred the Commission to the photos in the handout from the university. He explained that in the area between the hospital and Kinnick Stadium parking Ramp Two with approximately 700 parking spaces is planned to be razed early next year to make way for the new children's hospital. He said that it will be several years for the lot to be reincarnated underground at almost the same location. Kieft explained that the reason for this proposed parking lot is for the planning of the new children's hospital that will be commencing early next year. He said that the university has included neighborhood representatives on its design committee including Tom Maxell, who owns the property immediately east of the proposed parking lot site. Eastham stated that the proposed lot contains 289 spaces and asked how many parking spaces were being displaced by the construction of the new hospital. Kieft reiterated that about 700 parking spaces will be displaced with the razing of the ramp but simultaneously the indoor practice field will be taken down and replaced with another surface parking lot that will contain about 200 cars. Eastham asked why the university is requesting a vacation if staff has stated that the parking lot could be built without the City vacating the right of way. Kieft said that without the vacation the number of cars that can be parked here is limited because the area that is now the street could not be used to park approximately 50 cars. He said that the lot would be an awkward design without vacating the property. Weitzel asked if the university has pursued the easement issue with the property owner at 727 Melrose Avenue. Kieft said they had preliminary discussion with that property owner and are waiting for his response but they have no idea what he is inclined to do. Eastham asked what the net loss or gain of parking spaces will be as the hospital expands. Dave Ricketts of Parking and Transportation for The University of Iowa explained that not only will they be tearing down Ramp Two in January, but eventually Ramp One will be razed and another underground facility will be expanded to replace Ramp Two. He said this is a fifteen or twenty year expansion plan. He said that Ramp Two will be gone and 700 patient parking spaces will be eliminated. He said they will get 300 of those spaces back by displacing over 300 employees from Ramp Four. He said the remainder of spaces for patient parking will come from additional space by the practice field and from space inside the existing ramps by restricting employees and from some other policies, which will net several hundred spaces there. Ricketts Planning and Zoning Commission April 5, 2012 - Formal Page 6 of 14 explained that they expect to have the ramp back by 2015. He said they will lose 1100 or 1200 patient parking spaces over the next five or ten years that will have to be replaced in increments by temporarily displacing employees and building temporary parking. Eastham asked if they planned to put a parking ramp on the proposed parking lot Ricketts said the university does not desire to cross Melrose and build something now or in twenty years. Eastham asked if it would be a desire within thirty years. Ricketts said he could not say what the university would want to do that far in the future. He said he thinks it's amazing that the hospital is reconstructing itself on -site. He said they rely very heavily on parking demand management because they have 17,500 employees, 31,000 students and 5,000 visitors and patients every day. Koppes asked about the discussion regarding putting a road through the Field House and if that would displace more parking. Ricketts said the portion of the Field House called Main Street will come out and will be replaced by a forty foot road so that patients going to the hospital will no longer have to go up Melrose Avenue and that some parking will be displaced, but he could not state a precise or approximate number. Dyer asked how it computes if the proposed project is for staff parking yet patient parking is what is being displaced. Ricketts said they are displacing patient parking right around the hospital, and staff who park adjacent to the hospital are being displaced to use their space for the displaced patient parking. He stated that the Melrose Avenue now contains partial patient and partial staff parking. He said all the employee parking will be displaced from that facility. Dyer asked if they are losing 700 spaces in Ramp Two. Ricketts affirmed this and said that they are getting some of that deficit back by managing the remaining patient spaces so employees can't use those spaces, thus gaining several hundred spaces there in the past few months. He said that additional employees will still have to be displaced in Ramp Three to make up the difference, and the Iowa River Landing, which opens in October, will draw off some of the demand for patient parking. Dyer asked if Ramp Two would need to be torn down if the university wasn't building things on top of it. Ricketts said that it wouldn't. Walz explained to Eastham that staff is aware of the constraints of the hospital and that the university fully intends to put a parking lot at the proposed site with or without City approval and when staff evaluated the situation, staff felt they had more control over access points and design with a vacation. Miklo explained that in the end the parking lot will be more efficient with the vacation. Planning and Zoning Commission April 5, 2012 - Formal Page 7 of 14 Eastham explained his long -range concern is in putting a building on the proposed site. Walz said that is a possibility in the future and that the City would have no control over it. Eastham said that would depend on if the university needed the rest of the Melrose Place right of way to put a building there. Koppes said they could build a building there right now without any comment from the Commission. Walz asked if Eastham was questioning if the vacation was approved for a parking lot would a building be put there instead. Eastham clarified that he meant eventually. Walz once again said there was no way to know, and the City would have no control over it. Koppes asked what the plan was concerning pedestrians walking across Melrose Avenue. Ricketts said they intended to have the sidewalks as much as possible direct people to cross at the traffic signals at Hawkins Drive or Melrose Place. Koppes asked about football parking. Ricketts said they intend to make it a donor lot which he believes tones down the crowd to some extent. He said they have worked very closely with Tom Maxwell to give him what he wants. Koppes asked about the snow removal concern. Ricketts said that Maxwell's specific concern was about backing up signals sounding in the night. He said they could look at turning off the signals, but they are used for safety reasons. He said the proposed lot is a significant size, and it will take a while to clear, and clearing will be done at night. He confessed that he didn't have a good answer for Koppes. Koppes asked where the snow would be put. Ricketts said they most likely will push it to the south end or wherever they can, and then come back later and haul it out. He said he thinks in the next couple years they will be experimenting with snow melt systems where the snow is dumped into something that melts it down. Eastham asked about the parking uses of the property on the east side of the proposed lot. Ricketts explained that 711 Melrose is now owned by the university, and anyone who was not living there and parking on the property has been kicked off. He said the only cars parking there now are the ones associated with the house. Eastham said he was concerned about the long -range plan for this parcel. Kieft said the hospital just completed a master plan that it presented to the Board of Regents in February, and it didn't contain any plans for the area south of Melrose. Eastham asked what the timeframe was for that master plan. Kieft said it was a ten year master plan. He stated that because of changing circumstances, the university doesn't usually plan beyond ten years. Planning and Zoning Commission April 5, 2012 - Formal Page 8 of 14 Jeff Morrow of Anderson - Bogert Engineers in Cedar Rapids referred back to Swygard's question about restricting egress on the east driveway of the parking lot to right hand turn only. He declared that at least half to 75 percent of the traffic using the lot wants to go west. He said that with right hand turn only, some people will turn left anyway, some will pull out onto Melrose Avenue and make a U -turn, and some may go up to private drives to the east and turn around because it's very difficult to make people go in the opposite direction to their path. He said that on Melrose Place, much of the residential parking will be eliminated, so there will be fewer people coming out there. Swygard said that since the majority of lot parkers would be leaving at about the same time of day, what about making three lanes comprising a left turn, entrance and right turn. Morrow said that would be ideal but that will depend on negotiations with the adjacent property owner. He said that without their consent, the house at 711 Melrose Avenue would need to be razed in order to build three lanes. Swygard said she is concerned about the high, high volume of traffic in that area at 5:00 p.m. Morrow said their study looked at a scenario where all of the cars are trying to leave during peak hour, but the displaced employees who will be using this lot enter and exit during the span of a two and one -half hour period. He said even if you cram everyone into the same hour that the street peaks, it should work. Swygard asked if in their traffic study any traffic was accounted for from Lot 43, for example, that funnels out onto Melrose Avenue and heads east. Morrow said they looked at different variables but found that Melrose at Hawkins is still going to see about the same amount of traffic. Walz mentioned that the City traffic staff believes that it's preferable to have three lanes, but that there is a space constraint. Thomas stated that the plan didn't meet the City's standards for shade trees or for screening. Thomas asked what is proposed along Melrose Place and said he was concerned that cars might jump the curb. Brenda Nelson of Confluence Landscape Architects responded that it is currently a curb and it is paved instead of landscaped because it's a fairly narrow strip and there is car overhang, so she doesn't think that any plant or tree could survive. Walz stated that although it's a permit lot, anyone can get into the lot but at the risk of being towed. Nelson said that anywhere there is an intact neighborhood, the screening plan consists of a six foot high solid fence. She said on the parking lot side of the solid fence there will be some ornamental trees periodically and some landscaping in front of it to create a buffer. She said they are working with the neighbors on the other side to provide additional screening if they would like it. She said the neighbors in the southeast corner prefer not to have anything tall because of an existing garden, so shorter shrubs are proposed. Planning and Zoning Commission April 5, 2012 - Formal Page 9 of 14 Koppes asked what the plans were for the green islands in the lot. Nelson said it is minimal landscaping there because they could be a possible snow removal area, so landscaping is primarily trees in the center. Jean Walker of the Melrose Neighborhood Association referred to information she had previously submitted to the Commission that stated the neighborhood's reluctance to have this parking lot at this site, particularly as the historic district they worked so hard to establish is in this area. She stated that the neighborhood did not have a choice because the university has a lot of power, and they can basically do what they please. She said the Association agrees to this vacation pending the decision of the owner of 727 on granting easement to allow for the two lanes of traffic. Walker said the Association's concern is the preservation of 711 Melrose Avenue, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. She said they are agreeable to the displacement of the barn from the rear of 711 over to the proposed parking lot site. She said she thinks there needs to be a longer -term plan by the university to find alternative places for parking, e.g. Finkbine, which is currently a surface lot that perhaps has the potential to become a ramp. She noted that she believes what is preventing that is expense, but she also believes that cost has to be weighed against preservation of an historic neighborhood. Walker said the two lane road way is problematic unless the owner gives the easement, so a three lane drive would be the death of 711 Melrose Avenue. She wanted to know if the university had approached the property owners of the houses on Melrose Place to see what they want in the way of screening. Weitzel asked Walker to elaborate on 711 and if it is a contributing property or if it's individually eligible. Walker replied that it's a contributing property in the district, and it's part of the integrity of the Melrose Historic District. She said that both the house and the barn are about 100 years old, and the barn is the last in the district. Eastham asked what the historic status of the property to the east of 711 is. Walker said it is also part of the National Register of Historic Places and is a contributing property. Miklo said findings in the report for the National Register show two key themes. He said the first is that Melrose Avenue was a rural road that initially featured some grand Italianate houses from the 1870s and the second is the developments that occurred in the 1920s associated with the expansion of the university. He said there are several Tudor and Colonial style houses that form the bulk of the Melrose Neighborhood Historic District, but 711 is not one of the key structures and does not fit into those themes nicely, but just happens to be along Melrose Avenue. He said it was built around 1905, and it has been remodeled with vinyl siding, and the porch is enclosed, so that's probably why it was determined not to be a key structure like the more significant properties located to the east. Walz said that staff did not include the condition of saving 711 Melrose Avenue because the university has driveway access that is not contiguous to the vacation, and it's not dependent upon the vacation. She said because there's a safety concern there, the university can go forward with a two way. She said staff is not requiring the three lanes, although that would be safer. Eastham asked if the university has the right to incorporate the drive at 727 into the new Planning and Zoning Commission April 5, 2012 - Formal Page 10 of 14 driveway. Miklo said that that ideally that driveway would be removed, but the amount of traffic that it generates is probably not going to be a great concern if the property owner at 727 Melrose Avenue doesn't agree to consolidation of the drive -way. Walker said one of the earlier plans was that traffic egress from the lot would be a single lane drive at 711. Walz said staffs concern was with the proximity to Hawkins Drive forcing all the traffic to come in Melrose Place. Walker reiterated that if the property owner at 727 doesn't grant the easement, 711 Melrose Place is in peril. Miklo said that the safest situation would be three lanes, one in and two out. He said that if the property owner at 727 does not cooperate, the only way to achieve that would be by removing the house at 711. He said there would be two fairly narrow lanes if the property owner does not grant the easement. Walker asked if there was room for two lanes and the house without the easement. Miklo referred her to the traffic engineer. Bill Bogert of Anderson -Bogert Engineers stated that he designed the proposed parking lot. He said that a certain width is needed on the driveway for lane capacity and for pedestrian traffic. He said there is just under twenty feet from the lot line to the building, and they would not be able to get two lanes of traffic and pedestrian traffic accommodated on that area. He said without the easement, two -way traffic would not be possible. Eastham asked what the plan is if the easement is not granted. Bogert said he knows of no plan, but that the removal of 711 would allow for a driveway. He said they have discussed other options including one lane out with all the incoming traffic on Melrose Place. He said neither his company's engineers nor the City's engineers wanted that. Eastham asked if they had considered the option of putting the parking area some other place. Thomas and Koppes suggested that they move 711. Bogert did not respond. Walker said she knew of one option that had been ruled out, and that was to split the two -way so one lane is on the west side of 711 and the other lane would go through the day care. Bogert said that with that scenario if one car is entering left and another is exiting left, there will be traffic problems on Melrose Avenue, so the engineers did not prefer that option. He said it's still very narrow for a one way between 711 and the daycare, particularly trying to account for pedestrian safety. Miklo questioned the value of 711 given its condition, the amount of traffic, the position of the drive, and pavement surrounding it. Planning and Zoning Commission April 5, 2012 - Formal Page 11 of 14 Walker said that the Association feels it's not ideal for 711 to be an island with traffic on either side of it, but there needs to be some plan to preserve it. Koppes closed public hearing. Koppes asked for a motion. She asked if the Commission needed to vote on it at this meeting. Miklo said they did not, but staff would advise that they do unless there is some compelling reason such as needing more information. Weitzel moved to approve VAC12- 00001, an application submitted by The University of Iowa for a vacation of the street right -of -way located adjacent to 1 -8 Melrose Place subject to the following conditions: 1. Vehicle access to the parking area from Melrose Place will be one -way. A gate or other device will allow public entry to the lot but will block exit from the lot to Melrose Place. 2. The University will improve the remaining part of Melrose Place right of way including the reconstruction of Melrose Place parking with curb and gutter, four foot sidewalks, sanitary sewer abandonment as needed, water main improvements, and management of storm water. 3. The final parking area design should meet the City standards with regard to terminal islands and lighting and should include shade trees as proposed in the submitted plan and along the east property where the parking area abuts private properties on Melrose Avenue and Melrose Circle. A minimum setback of ten feet should be provided with a solid fence or wall in addition to S -3 level landscape screening. Swygard seconded. Koppes invited discussion. Weitzel said when considering the fate of 711 Melrose Avenue it is important to keep in perspective the Secretary of the Interior's standards and what integrity means, and that is a continuum of historic properties from a contributing property that's a minor element of a district to one that's a key element or an individual eligible property. He said this type of building at 711 Melrose Avenue is fairly unique but it doesn't really fit into the context of the historic district per se and is also from a time period where many other properties are still extant in Iowa City, it's covered in vinyl siding and the porch has been enclosed, and it appears that the interior has been heavily modified. He said once that condition exists you can say that the historic integrity is already diminished. He said that the setting for this building should be considered substantially diminished. Weitzel said that as ideal as it would be to keep an historic building or additional screening for the rest of the district, weighed against safety and value of this historic property he is not particularly impressed with this building. Eastham said that in looking at the Southwest District Plan, which includes the Melrose Neighborhood, it states that "it is an important goal of the City to preserve and stabilize existing residential neighborhoods close to the university and the downtown. Achieving this goal will help to prevent urban sprawl on the edges of the community, reduce commute times, provide a diverse residential community, preserve historic resources, and support the vitality of the city's central business districts. Efforts should be made to encourage the university to work more closely with the City and the surrounding community as it develops future expansion plans in Planning and Zoning Commission April 5, 2012 - Formal Page 12 of 14 areas such as the Melrose Neighborhood. The City must take a more assertive role in the zoning and regulation of university properties if it is to achieve these important goals." Eastham said he and other Commission members have been involved with several decisions regarding the university's inclinations about using land that they have acquired south of Melrose Avenue and the preferences of Melrose residents for the future of that area. He said he doesn't think that to agree to this vacation because the university will put in the parking lot regardless is the best thing to do. He said he doesn't think the vacation complies with the Comprehensive Plan. Weitzel said he believes the university will build a parking lot somewhere and in this case the Commission has a chance to form an opinion about the screening and other aspects. Eastham said he agrees with Weitzel about 711 and would just as soon see the building removed and the exit and entrances to the parking lot designed to best fit the needs of the people using the lot. Koppes said the question for her is what public good it does not to vacate it. Eastham said it would reduce the number of spaces by 50, which is not an inconsequential amount. Koppes mentioned that the road is already in bad shape and everyone could enter and exit on Melrose Place. Eastham replied that it is the university's interest to improve the road. Koppes responded that they could decide not to do anything with the other road and exit everyone out of Melrose Place. She said that granting the vacation affords the opportunity for better traffic flow and direction on what will happen to the proposed lot. She said she thinks that by not approving the vacation, they could make it much worse. Thomas said he supports the use of Melrose Place as part of the parking scheme but he would like the design of the lot to meet the City standards. He said that because the driveway lanes are wider by two feet than the minimum required, there may be an opportunity to create a wider buffer strip along Melrose Place and provide some visual screening. Weitzel said that because 711 could come down whether they agree to it or not, the Commission should assure that the S -3 screening, ten foot setback should be the full depth of the lot wherever there is parking or driveway abutting that area. He asked if they could make an amendment to that effect. Eastham agreed with Thomas that if the parking lot is built here, and the City has some negotiating leverage with the university in how the lot is designed the lot should definitely meet the screening standards that are in the Code. Koppes said that comments had been made that snow removal would be more difficult if that were so and would affect the neighbors more. Thomas said he calculated the lot would consist of two acres of paving. Eastham added that that would be nestled in a neighborhood. Weitzel said that was reason to try to meet the City's screening standards. Planning and Zoning Commission April 5, 2012 - Formal Page 13 of 14 Dyer said if there isn't screening there and if the property owners on the other side of the street should change those properties to something considered to be more appealing, the screening will never be there. Miklo said to consider that staff feels this proposal could meet the standard by removing two feet from one of the interior aisles and adding it to the buffer on the east side of the lot. He said you could remove two feet from each of these aisles and add it to the west side of the lot to bring it to five or six feet, which would provide some buffer but would not meet the ten foot standard. He said that staff felt that given the current condition of these properties, it was more important to have the screening on the east where there is an historic neighborhood. Thomas moved to amend condition #3 of the original motion to read: The final parking area design should meet substantial compliance with the City's parking design standards, and the Director of Planning and Community Development will have approval authority of the design. Eastham seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5 -1 with Koppes voting no. A vote was taken to approve VAC12- 00001, an application submitted by The University of Iowa for a vacation of the street right -of -way located adjacent to 1 -8 Melrose Place subject to the conditions as listed in the staff memo and amended, and the motion carried 5 -1 with Eastham voting no. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: March 15, 2012: Weitzel moved to approve the minutes. Thomas seconded. The motion carried 6 -0. OTHER: Miklo said there was an upcoming training session for Boards and Commissions regarding open meetings. He said he would send the Commissioners detailed information. ADJOURNMENT: Dyer moved to adjourn. Thomas seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 6 -0 vote. z O U) UO 20 00 V LU ZVN z Z N Na D ad z OW z� zQ z 5 a O z W W J O LL 0 z P W W OC O LL z '■001 ■ ■ i Mx x x O x x x ,xxxxxxx N M xxxxxxx co 2W co coMNU')LOM F- X0000000 w will w 111 J J 0 z P W W OC O LL z E 0 '00 N O 3Z X LU Z') N .. c O ac) NE U) 0.0 0 (D 0) QZ a u n w xo'oz r W Y Mx x x O x x x ,xxxxxxx N M xxxxxxx co 2W co coMNU')LOM F- X0000000 w w J J > =z =Q2 0(.).<w V Q Y a Q wdF - LuCL W W �wfnwa Q >-QWo O- =w - z0wwYV��3 E 0 '00 N O 3Z X LU Z') N .. c O ac) NE U) 0.0 0 (D 0) QZ a u n w xo'oz r W Y CALL TO ORDER: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: STAFF ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: FINAL/APPROVED POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES — March 21, 2012 Chair Donald King called the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M. Melissa Jensen, Royceann Porter, Joseph Treloar None Staff Kellie Tuttle and Catherine Pugh ►=1 Z Captain Jim Steffen of the ICPD. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL Accept PCRB Report on Complaint #11 -03 CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Treloar and seconded by Porter to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended. Minutes of the meeting on 02/22/12 Motion carried, 4/0. 3b(4) OLD BUSINESS Community Forum — The forum will be held Wednesday, May 9th, 7:00 PM at the Iowa City Library in Room A. Pugh said she would prepare an outline of her presentation for the next meeting and asked if there was anything the Board specifically wanted her to address. King suggested gearing the presentation more toward what the Board can and can't do to try and clarify some of the misconceptions the public may have. Suggestions were a basic overview of the process, Board limitations, subpoena power, and maybe an example of a situation and the process. Tuttle stated she had sent the notice to the Neighborhood Services Coordinator to have neighborhoods include in their newsletter, and is checking with Transit to put notices on the City buses. She will also send the notices to the Broadway and Pheasant Ridge Neighborhood Centers and post in City buildings and the City website. Treloar suggested looking into having something ran on City Channel 4 or 5. Tuttle said she would check into it. King asked if the Board had commercial /advertisement similar to what Human Rights has and could it be placed on the agenda for discussion. Tuttle stated that they did not but she would put it on the agenda for discussion and check with the cable division. NEW BUSINESS None. PCRB March 21, 2012 Page 2 PUBLIC DISCUSSION Captain Steffen wanted to verify that the Board did not want any members of the police department at the forum. King stated that anyone is welcome to come but in the past there had been some concern from the Police Chief that questions would be directed to Police personnel and not the Board, then making it a Police forum and not a Board forum. BOARD INFORMATION King informed the Board that Jochimsen had resigned and there is a vacancy on the Board. Tuttle stated that the vacancy had been announced at the Council meeting on the 20th and the deadline for applications was Wednesday, April 25th STAFF INFORMATION Tuttle handed out an updated Board member contact sheet and asked that they review their information and get back to her with any changes. Pugh stated that she had run into Mayor Hayek that day and had a conversation regarding questions that are coming to the Council about the Board's powers, organization, the name, and other issues that have been raised. The Mayor was looking for some guidance and thought the Council would appreciate a response from the Board regarding recommendations on what the Board sees as their role, how they would like their role to change or if they want it to change. The Board discussed addressing the ideas, issues, comments and any recommendations in conjunction with the forum and the summary that is prepared afterwards and sent to Council. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Treloar and seconded by Jensen 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 5:56 P.M. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 6:00 P.M. Motion by Treloar, seconded by Jensen to forward the Public Report as amended for PCRB Complaint #11 -03 to City Council. Motion carried, 4/0. PCRB March 21, 2012 Page 3 TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change) • April 10, 2012, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Room — (Moved to April 30) • April 30, 2012, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Room • May 8, 2012, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm — (CANCELLED) • May 9, 2012, 7:00 PM, Iowa City Public Library — Community Forum • June 12, 2012, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Room The Board agreed to move the April 10th meeting to April 30th in order to prepare and answer any questions as a Board that may be received before the forum and go over the outline prepared by Legal Counsel. The Board also agreed to cancel the May 8th meeting. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Treloar, seconded by Porter. Motion carried, 4/0. Meeting adjourned at 6:07 P.M. �C 1 7 V4. O 7 y I� eD' CD 14 <D fD eD CD rya d b �I y � yn H NrrJ�O N C �j V �Q w N w cn N yC >C yC yC yC � O W i 1 i fD eD CD rya d b �I y � yn H NrrJ�O N C �j V POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 -1826 (319) 356 -5041 From: Police Citizen's Review Board Re: Investigation of PCRB Complaint #11 -03 This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board ") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB #11 -03 (the "Complaint "). BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8 -8 -713 (2), the Board's job is to review the Police Chief's Report ( "Report ") of his investigation of a complaint. The City Code requires the Board to apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review to the Report and to "give deference" to the Report "because of the Police Chief's professional expertise ", Section 8 -8 -7 B (2). While the City Code directs the Board to make "Findings of Fact ", it also requires that the Board recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify his findings only if 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 Complainant on November 4, 2011. 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 1/27/2012. The Board met to consider the Chief's Report on February 22, 2012 and March 21, 2012. At the February 22nd meeting the Board voted to review the Chiefs Report in accordance with Section 8 -8 -7 (B) (1) (a), "on the record with no additional investigation ". n� March 21, 2012: _ u To: City Council Complainant City Manager a Sam Hargadine, Chief of Police Officer(s) involved in complaint From: Police Citizen's Review Board Re: Investigation of PCRB Complaint #11 -03 This is the Report of the Police Citizens Review Board's (the "Board ") review of the investigation of Complaint PCRB #11 -03 (the "Complaint "). BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Section 8 -8 -713 (2), the Board's job is to review the Police Chief's Report ( "Report ") of his investigation of a complaint. The City Code requires the Board to apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review to the Report and to "give deference" to the Report "because of the Police Chief's professional expertise ", Section 8 -8 -7 B (2). While the City Code directs the Board to make "Findings of Fact ", it also requires that the Board recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify his findings only if 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 Complainant on November 4, 2011. 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 1/27/2012. The Board met to consider the Chief's Report on February 22, 2012 and March 21, 2012. At the February 22nd meeting the Board voted to review the Chiefs Report in accordance with Section 8 -8 -7 (B) (1) (a), "on the record with no additional investigation ". Findings of Fact Complainant and associate were charged with an open container violation early in the morning of 11/3/2011. As the complainant was in the vicinity of his residence, he was allowed to proceed home. Police officers responded to a disturbance call followed shortly thereafter by a fire alarm sounding in the apartment complex to which the complainant lives. Upon dealing with the alarm, the complainant was observed screaming and yelling in the lobby area of apartment building. Officers resumed contact. Claimant failed to follow police directions to return to his apartment, and followed them out into the street where officers were communicating with the fire personnel. Complainant was told repeatedly to return to the building or he would be arrested. The complainant continued to shout and yell. He also touched officers after being directed not to. The complainant was arrested and refused a breath test to determine his blood alcohol content (BAC). Allegations: The complainant alleges that Officer A followed him, harassed him, and looked for more reasons to fine and arrest him. The complainant asserts that he abided by all of the officer's instructions and was compliant. He states he was mistreated, hand cuffed and Officer A's written statement was false and created to get him in trouble. Officer's statements, dispatch logs from JECC, and in car video show Officer A did not follow the complainant after he was issued an open container ticket. In car recordings of officers confirm the complainant yelling and touching officers. Complainant was directed repeatedly not to do this, however he continued. The only written statements produced by that Officer A were the charge sheet and the chemical request form. Allegations: Not Sustained Comment: Attempts to contact the complainant by the ICPD by phone on 11 -15 -2011 and 11 -17 -2011 were not answered in spite of leaving detailed messages. On 11 -17 -2011 a letter was sent with information as to how to contact the ICPD for an interview. Neither return calls nor correspondence have been received. Approved Minutes March 2012 MINUTES SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION MARCH 15, 2012 ROOM 208, IOWA CITY /JOHNSON COUNTY SENIOR CENTER Members Present: Jay Honohan, Daniel Benton, Rose Hanson, Chuck Felling, Michael Lensing, Mark Holbrook Members Absent: Sarah Maeirs Staff Present: Linda Kopping, Kristin Kromray, Michelle Buhman, Emily Light Others Present: Jo Hensch, Linda Fisher, George Nelson, Kay Schneider RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action: The Commission voted 6 -0 to recommend setting a revenue generating goal of 25% of the total operational budget. The Commission voted 6 -0 to recommend reorganizing the low income scholarship program. Discontinue annual scholarship payments into the operational budget from the gift fund and direct all scholarship donations to Friends of The Center for investment in the Senior Center Endowment. The Commission voted 6 -0 to recommend increasing parking permit fees to $100 /year or $50 semi - annually effective July 1, 2012. The Commission voted 5 -0 to recommend increasing membership fees effective July 1, 2012 as follows: City: $40 Single; additional family member, $25 Johnson County: $55 Single; additional family member, $35 Out of County: $75 Single; additional family member, $45 The Commission voted 5 -0 to recommend including information about Friends of The Center on the Senior Center's webpage. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 4:00 PM. Honohan chaired the meeting. 3bi i� Approved Minutes March 2012 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 16, 2012 MEETING: Motion: To accept the minutes from the February 16, 2012 meeting. Motion carried on a vote of 6/0. Felling /Lensing. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. COMMISSION ASSIGNMENTS: Lensing will attend the April 3rd City Council meeting. Honohan will attend a Johnson County Board of Supervisors meeting. STEERING COUNCIL REPORT: Felling reported that the Membership Committee is planning this year's annual Spring Forum which will be held on April 19th. The Outreach Committee has contacted the Press Citizen about writing a monthly article about the Senior Center. The Outreach Committee is also working on expanding distribution of the Program Guide. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL ON FUNDRAISING RECOMMENDATIONS ACQUIRED AT PARTICIPANT MEETINGS AND DISCUSSIONS WITH MEMBERS OF THE CENTER STEERING COUNCIL AND MEMBERSHIP ACTION COMMITTEES: Fundraisina Goal The Commission discussed the recommended revenue generating goal of 25 %. The Commission agreed that all items on the city revenue report, in addition to the money transferred from the Friends of the Center and the grant from Johnson County, should be included in the fundraising goal. Motion: To set a revenue generating goal of 25% of the total operational budget for FY 2013. Motion carried on a vote of 610. Lensing /Benton. Scholarship Fund Reorganization Kopping reported that donations for the scholarship fund are currently held in the gift fund. For the past several years donations have not been sufficient to cover the actual cost of the scholarship program. The Commission discussed reorganization of the program. Based on information gathered at the participant meetings, Kopping recommended that maintaining the scholarship fund within the gift fund be discontinued. In the future scholarship Approved Minutes March 2012 funds should be deposited in the endowment and money donated annually from the Friends of the Center endowment to the operational budget would support the scholarship donation. There would no longer be a need to track the difference between the scholarship cost and the regular cost for each scholarship transaction. Motion: Reorganize the low income scholarship program. Discontinue annual scholarship payments into the operational budget from the gift fund and direct all scholarship donations to Friends of The Center for investment in the Senior Center Endowment. Motion carried on a vote of 610. Felling /Lensing. Parkina Proaram Kay Schneider inquired how much the parking program costs the Senior Center. Kopping reported that the Senior Center spends $20,000 /year on the parking program. This suggested fee increase would cover that amount so that the program would finally be self - supporting. Honohan noted that the parking punch card price will not change. Schneider inquired if the parking department was going to raise the amount they are charging the Senior Center. Kopping said it is unclear if the Senior Center discounted rate would rise when the parking department's public rates are increased. Motion: Increase parking permit fees to $100 /year or $50 semi - annually effective July 1, 2012. Motion carried on a vote of 6/0. Lensing /Felling. Membership Fees George Nelson questioned why Johnson County members are not paying a proportionate membership fee based on the amount contributed by Johnson County. Honohan noted that the goal was not to discourage participation from people outside of Iowa City. Schneider questioned if this raise might discourage some people from rejoining the Senior Center. Kopping noted that while that is a concern, the majority of the people she hears from say the membership fee is low for the services provided. In addition membership fees have not been raised since they were implemented in 2003. Honohan mentioned that the scholarship fee of $10 a year, regardless of residency, was not going to be raised. Nelson commented that in the future the Commission may want to look at raising fees in smaller increments more frequently to lessen the financial impact on fixed income seniors. Commissioner Hanson excused herself. Approved Minutes March 2012 Motion: To increase membership fees effective July 1, 2012 as follows: City: $40 Single; additional family member, $25 Johnson County: $55 Single; additional family member, $35 Out of County: $75 Single; additional family member, $45 Motion carried on a vote of 5/0. Felling /Holbrook. Scholarship Proaram Awareness Felling inquired about what a person must do to receive a low income scholarship. Kopping reported that while there are some income guidelines, it is very easy to receive a scholarship. Typically The Center does not ask for any proof of income. Kopping noted the goal of the scholarship fund is to encourage participation of all community members. The Commission discussed ways to increase awareness of the scholarship program. Jo Hensch proposed that the Outreach Committee write an article for the Press - Citizen. Lensing proposed putting up signs around the building. Motion: To increase awareness of the low- income scholarship program. Motion carried on a vote of 5/0. Lensing /Benton. Friends of the Center The Commission discussed placing information about Friends of The Center on the Senior Center website. Buhman noted that one option may be to put a link on the Senior Center's site to a Friends of The Center site. Motion: To include information about Friends of The Center on the Senior Center's webpage. Motion carried on a vote of 5/0. Felling /Lensing. OPERATIONAL OVERVIEW: Kopping reported that she has finished the operational handbook. Honohan asked to form a committee to review the handbook. Honohan, Benton and Felling volunteered. Kopping reported that the Linn Street front stair repair project is going to begin soon. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: None. ADJOURNMENT: Motion: To Adjourn. Motion carried on a vote of 5/0. Felling /Lensing A Cl) N O T-- : O O N U N � > m O Q Q O �N N E O O vd d � r+ U C N ea � C N � Q � Cl N N r LID T r 00 T O T O N m c0 T co O r ti CO r_ co ti T LID M T X X x x x x M CO W x x x x x X N O x x x i x x Q T N N N v v M M N Cl T T r r r r r x W N N N N N E N N iT Y C C co w C O O ccp C O - 5 O J cc m L cc = = O O N e v = c C N 1G fG M ca >, U_ cts ca 0 cts a w x C E W N O y N N E cu � O O IL Q Q Z Z II II II it W m II X O O z N Y