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