HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-08-16 Info Packet" R CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET
,-Now _a&_
CITY OF IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org August 16, 2012
IN Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
AUGUST 21 WORK SESSION - 5:00 PM
FOLLOWING SPECIAL FORMAL AND EXECUTIVE SESSION
IP2 Work Session Agenda
IP3 Pending Work Session Topics
MISCELLANEOUS
IP4 Article from City Manager: Camera Rejection 1St sign of new rules
IP5 Copy of memo from Communications Coordinator: Updated City website design
IP6 Copy of letter from the Mayor to Iowa City Community School District Board of Education:
District Future
IP7 Johnson County Paratransit Advisory Board Minutes of May 18 and Meeting Agenda for
August 17 Meeting
IP8 Copy of memo from Transportation Planner: Distribution of Donation Station funds to
local human service agencies
IP9 Letter from Jeanette Carter, Free Lunch Program Board Member: Thank you for Donation
Station Meter funds
Memorandum to City Council from City Attorney: Initiative or Referendum: "Affidavit to
Commence Initiative Proceedings [Distributed at 8/21 Council Meeting]
DRAFT MINUTES
I1310 Planning & Zoning Commission — July 30
IP11 Planning & Zoning Commission — August 2
IP12 Senior Center Commission — July 19
` I
`OWNE R CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET
CITY OF IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org August 16, 2012
IP1 Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
AUGUST 21 WORK SESSION - 5.-PO PM
FOLLOWING SPECIAL FORMAL AND EXECUTIVE SESSION
IP2 Work Session Agenda
IP3 Pending Work Session
SCELLANEO
IP4 Article from City Manager: Camera R 'ection Vt s' n of new rules
IP5 Copy of memo from Communications Coo inator- Updated City website design
IP6 Copy of letter from the Mayor to Iowa City munity School District Board of Education:
District Future
IP7 Johnson County Paratransit Advisory Bo d Mi utes of May 18 and Meeting Agenda for
August 17 Meeting
IP8 Copy of memo from Transportation Pla er: Distrib ion of Donation Station funds to
local human service agencies
IP9 Letter from Jeanette Carter, Free Lun h Program Board Me ber: Thank you for Donation
Station Meter funds
D FT MINUTES
IP10 Planning 8< Zoning Commis on —July 30
IP11 Planning & Zoning Comm' sion — August 2
IP12 Senior Center Commiss' n — July 19
City Council Tentative Meeting Schedules N
►; �{ August 16, 2012
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Date
Time Meeti
Subject to change
Location
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
5:00 PM
Special Formal Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Work Session Meeting
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
7:0013M
Regular Formal Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
7:0013M
Regular Formal Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
7:0013M
Regular Formal Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
trim p7;{ IID �ila
IIh _ sli Ii i r "s
t 1 II k
rji'
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
7:0013M
Regular Formal Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
7:0013M
Special Formal Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
7:0013M
Special Formal Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
7:0013M
Special Formal Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
7:0013M
Regular Formal Meeting
Emma J Harvat Hall
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
5:00 PM
Work Session Meeting
Emma J Harvat Hall
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
7:0013M
Regular Formal Meeting
Emma 1 Harvat Hall
r �
— 1 IP2
.a►
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826
(3 19) 356 -5000
(319) 356 -5009 FAX
www.icgov.org
Special Formal / Executive Session 5:00 PM — separate agenda posted
City Council Work Session Agenda
August 21, 2012
Following 5:00 PM Special Formal Meeting
Emma J. Harvat Hall - City Hall
410 E. Washington Street
■ Questions from Council re Planning & Zoning Items
■ Questions from Council re Agenda Items
■ Proposed Changes to the sidewalk cafe ordinance (including use of parking
spaces and planters and administrative rules) [Agenda #12 & #13]
■ Landfill Update
■ Presentation on use of municipal waste for ethanol production (Fiberight
Company)
■ Information Packet Discussion [August 2, 9, 16]
■ Council Time
■ Pending Work Session Topics [IP #3]
■ Meeting Schedule /Upcoming Community Events /Council Invitations
IP3
i
/T7�p
CITY OF IOWA CITY
PENDING CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION TOPICS
August 15, 2012
September 4, 2012
1. Continue the discussion on the sale or dispersion of public housing units
Pending Topics to be Scheduled
1. Discussion pertaining to noise concerns voiced by residents of Ecumenical Towers
2. Discuss potential procedures and /or policies related to requests for habitable private
spaces constructed over public right -of -way
' P4 New Iowa Department of
Transportation guidelines put
in: place this summer will
force cities that want to in--
stall speed enforcement cam-
eras on highways to first con-
sider other options to make
the roadways safe....
In addition, cities that al-
ready have the enforcement
cameras on interstate high-
ways will have to undergo a
review and could be asked to
take the devices down, an .
Iowa transportation official
said. :
: All cities that want the en-..
forcement cameras will be
asked to try other ways to
control traffic, including in-
frastructure improvements,
public education'and enforce -
ment::.
Windsor Heights' request . .
to install the cameras was re-
jected by state transportation
officials. The city's police
chief said this -week that the
decision. will be appealed to:
the transportation depart -
went.
"The public. expects; us.. to, ;
have a good process in
to evaluate the installation of
speed cameras andmake sure
they're the right thing to in-
stall, said Scott Dockstader, .
the Iowa Department of .
eve existing sys=
' ' The portion of I -235 that
ed the House but
goes through Windsor
advance in the
Heights has the highest
crash rate in the county, ac-
ir Heights had
cording to the city's. pro_-.
i install the traf -..
posal:: ;.._.::::;:;.:.:
iement cameras::::'.:
East::; year,, a one -day
g the westbound.::
study of the section showed
[ nterstate High'.
-that of.t 6 39;165 vehicles
etween'63ird and.::
that ::passed through the
city, 4,819.. were exceeding
OT officials said'..
the speed limit. In addition,
d apply the same :.:
_ 216 vehicles,' were going
regarding in-
faster than 70 miles. per
of speed cameras
hour. The speed limit.. in
requests from
that area is 60 mph:
"
officials as they
McDaniel said; :, that
that of Windsor
while the cameras will like =.
ly pay for themselves; the:
)r Heights Police
city wasn't thinking about`
ennis McDaniel
additional revenue when
tate department's .
they proposed the project.
of the cameras is
Any potential revenue
would go toward equip -
ised isn't the
ment purchases for public
'ord," McDaniel,
safety entities, he said.
infused is better.
Windsor Heights has
Ately concerned."
two weeks to file an appeal.
CITY OF IOWA CITY
• MEMORANDUM
Date:
August 15, 2012
To:
Tom Markus, City Manager
From:
Shannon McMahon, Communications Coordinator
Re:
Updated City website design
As part of the City's Strategic Planning initiative, one of the top priorities identified by council
members was Public Communications and Community Outreach. Since July 1, the new
Communications team has been working with various departments to better coordinate and
prioritize communications between the City and the public. As part of this effort, we are pleased
to introduce a revised homepage and new social media sites. The revisions are intended to
more effectively communicate with the public and provide greater access to City information and
resources.
The new homepage offers:
• Visual enhancement. The new homepage does a better job of marketing the City
with improved appearance and user - friendly features. Contacting the City has been
made easier with a prominent customer service contact area, providing quicker
access to information;
• New communication elements, including social media, will aid in keeping the public
informed of City initiatives and events;
• Up -to -date news and a full calendar of events and meetings;
• Spotlight on important community events and programs.
The new web design, as well as a City -wide Facebook page and Twitter, will be introduced
Thursday, August 16.
IP5
►r i
CITY OF IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
CITY COUNCIL
Matthew J. Hayek
Mayor
Susan Mims
Mayor Pro Tern
Connie Champion
Terry Dickens
Rick Dobyns
Michelle Payne
Jim Throgmorton
council @iowa - city.org
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Phone: (319) 356 -5401
Fax: (319) 356 -5497
:iIP6
=j
co p4c—)
August 15, 2012
Iowa City Community School District Board of Education
1725 N. Dodge Street
Iowa City, IA 52245
Dear President Swesey and ICCSD Board Members,
As you discuss the Iowa City Community School District's future, the
City Council appreciates your receptiveness to input from stakeholders
throughout the district. On behalf of the council, I submit this letter to add to
the dialogue and to communicate Iowa City's perspective on the issues at
hand.
The council's recently- adopted strategic plan identifies protection of
Iowa City's established neighborhoods among our highest priorities. Our
goal is to ensure stability and balance throughout the city. To that end, we
are investing significant capital resources to enhance aging parks, roads,
utilities, and other public infrastructure and we are actively partnering with
neighborhood groups to encourage private sector investment. These
commitments recognize that the community's overall health is dependent
upon a strong urban center.
The established neighborhoods of Iowa City are of critical importance
to our downtown, our school district, the university, and many of the region's
largest employers. Their vitality is directly proportionate to the upkeep and
quality of school facilities. The city can upgrade parks, repave streets, and
protect housing stock but if school buildings do not receive comparable
attention, attracting families and reinvestment to the core of our community
becomes difficult.
With respect to facilities planning, we encourage the board to
recognize the investment that thousands of families have made in Iowa City,
both in our established neighborhoods and on the east side where there is a
significant and growing demand for housing. Equally maintaining facilities
regardless of socioeconomic difference will help to ensure balance
throughout the district.
Page 2
At the elementary school level, Iowa City has been impacted by a
steady decline in facilities. Not one school feeding into City High has been
constructed since 1969, only one new school has been constructed
anywhere in Iowa City since 1993, the physical condition of many of our
schools is inferior to the multiple new schools built outside of Iowa City
during the same period of time, and Roosevelt is now closed. We recognize
the Corridor is growing, but Iowa City's significantly larger population base
has also shown robust growth (9% between 2000 and 2010 alone) and the
majority of Johnson County's largest employers are located within our
jurisdiction. As the largest population center in the district, Iowa City
residents contribute a proportionately larger share of the property and sales
taxes going to the district, yet, in recent years, only a fraction of the district's
capital dollars has been invested in Iowa City schools.
At the high school level, capacity needs to be addressed. Given the
immense cost of building and operating another comprehensive high school,
all alternatives for expanding capacity — especially those that do not deprive
existing facilities of much - needed attention — should be explored. In the
meantime, we believe the significant enrollment imbalance between our two
comprehensive high schools can be addressed.
We are mindful that the district and the city represent separate public
entities with independent charges. However, our fates are linked: a
school's impact on its neighborhood is arguably as significant as a
neighborhood's impact on its school. The city and the district have worked
together in the past (recent examples include the Grant Wood gymnasium,
Mercer athletic facilities, fiber optic installations, and substantial park
enhancements next to Horace Mann) and we must continue to work together
in the future. We hope to expand our collaboration with the district to ensure
equitable school facilities.
Thank you for your consideration and for your volunteer service to
our community.
Sincerely,
Matthew J. Hayek, Mayor
cc: City Council
Johnson County Paratransit Advisory Board
Minutes
May 18, 2012
Goodwill Plant
IP7
Present:
Members: Nancy Ostrognai, Marc Rahe, Terry Dickens, Harry Olmstead, Sally Stutsman, Pat Harney, Scott Wieser,
Lynne Stamus
Ex- Officio: Ann Trotter, Ron Schieffer
Others: Tom Brase, SEATS Director, Angie Conard
Absent:
Members: Connie Champion, Vicky Robrock
Ex- Officio: Dion Williams, Roger Goedken
Others: Chris O'Brien
1. Call to order - 11:03 a.m.
2. Chairperson's Report
Introductions were made.
3. Director's Report
a. Survey: Iowa City went out with renewals, getting some back. Surveys will be put on website, will send
them to the agencies.
b. Policy concerning moving person in manual wheelchair up ramps: Suggested policy for drivers — 6001bs
(with chair) ?? Lifts will hold up to 600 lbs. Tom will draft policy for this and bring it to the next
meeting.
c. Policy discussion for behavior concerns: Cameras are allowing us to see behaviors. Drivers would like a
better definition of what is legal.
d. Missed ride suspensions to include discontinuing subscription service: Board is ok with this. Want to
make sure riders understand "negotiation" time.
e. Radios with channel three for agencies: Brought one for Ann Trotter. Agencies can hear that the bus is on
the way and can have riders ready.
f. Change reservations to 14 day advance: Board is ok with this — goes into effect July 1.
g. Permission to unload when tornado warning is sounding: Board is ok with this.
h. Review appeals process: Policy was read and board is ok with having MPO or board review the appeal.
Harry would like them to face their peers. Tom suggested offering them a choice.
i. Drivers going above and beyond: Chris H, Maggie C, and Kevin T were recognized for going above and
beyond.
j. Fare increase for Iowa City riders: New fare for IC riders July 1. New punch cards will go on sale June 1.
4. Old Business
a. Approval of last meeting's minutes: Move to approve by Harry O, second Lynne S.
5. New Business: None
6. Open Discussion: Loading chairs on lift. Some riders feel that it is not safe putting chairs on backwards. Tom
explained why this is done and also said that we can not require this but we do recommend it.
SEATS is breaking records on the number of trips provided.
7. Next meeting: August 17, 2012. 11:00 a.m. at the Goodwill plant (1St Ave).
8. Adjourn 12:00
Johnson County
Paratransit Advisory Committee
Meeting Agenda
August 17, 2012
11:00 AM —12:00 PM
The Johnson County Paratransit Advisory Committee will be meeting at the Goodwill Plant on 1St Ave.
1. Call to Order
2. Chairperson's Report
a. Introductions
b. 2012 Rider Survey
3. Director's Report
a. Premium Service and rates
b. FYI 2 Efficiency Report
C. Changes: reservations to be made 14 day in advance, punch card sales, missed ride or behavior
suspensions discontinue subscriptions
4. Old Business
a. Approval of last meeting's minutes
5. New Business
6. Open Discussion (open for public comment)
7. Set next meeting date & time: November 16, 2012, 11 AM?
8. Adjournment
Marian Karr
From: Terry & Jo Dickens <joterdickens @yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 12:11 PM
To: Marian Karr
Subject: Fw: Paratransit Adviory Meeting
Attachments: Paratransit Advisory Board minutes 5- 18- 12.doc; Paratransit Advisory Agenda 8 17 12.doc
- - - -- Forwarded Message - - - --
From: Angie Conard <aconard @co.johnson.ia.us>
To: "joterdickens @yahoo.com" <joterdickens @yahoo.com >; "rgoed ken @icsuccess. org"
<rgoedken @icsuccess.org >; Patrick Harney <pharney @cojohnson.ia.us >; "harryo3 @aol.com"
<harryo3 @aol.com >; "mrahe @goodwillseiowa.org" <mrahe @goodwillseiowa.org >; "Vicky Robrock
(vrobrock @ci.coralvi Ile. ia.us)" <vrobrock @ci.coralvi Ile. ia.us >; "LYNNE STAMUS (stamus1390 @msn.com)"
<stamus1390 @msn.com >; Sally Stutsman <sstutsma @co.johnson.ia.us >; "a.trotter @sui.org"
<a.trotter @sui.org >; "scottwieser63@g mail. com" <scottwieser63@g mail. com >
Cc: Tom Brase <tbrase @co.johnson.ia.us>
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 10:43 AM
Subject: Paratransit Adviory Meeting
Attached are the minutes from the May meeting and the Agenda for the meeting this Friday.
The meeting starts at 11:00 and is at the Goodwill Plant on 1St Ave.
Thanks,
Angie Conard
Johnson County SEATS
319/339- 6128x3
r
CITY OF IOWA CITY 1P8
MEMORANDUM
iA'I r�*�
Date: July 27, 2011
To: Tom Markus, City Manager
From: John Yapp, Transportation Planner '77"17' _
Re: Distribution of Donation Station funds to local human service agencies
We recently distirbuted $2,700 of funds from the Donation Stations Fund to local human
service agencies. Donation Stations are old, refurbished parking meters installed in
2010 to allow downtown pedestrians to conveniently donate spare change. The
deposited funds are collected by the City Parking Division as part of their regular
rounds, and periodically distributed to local human services agencies which provide
direct service to the homeless population.
For the past few years, many downtown local businesses have also contributed to the
Donation Station Fund through the Small Businesses Have Big Hearts campaign,
through which businesses offer discounts and specials to shoppers who donate.
The six agencies receiving funds are those which provide direct services to the
homeless population, and were identified through discussions with the City Council
when the Donation Station program was first implemented in 2010. These agencies
include Shelter House, the Community Mental Health Center, the Free Medical Clinic,
the Free Lunch Program, Crisis Center, and United Action for Youth. Each of these six
agencies will receive a check for $450. We plan to distribute funds annually, after the
close of each fiscal year.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Cc: Geoff Fruin, Assistant to the City Manager
Chris O'Brien, Transportation Services
IP9
FREE LUNCH PKOC;KX M
providing good food &
P. O. Box 2831 hospitality since 9983
Iowa City, IA 52244 http: / /icflp.org/
August 6, 2012
City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington st.
Iowa City, IA 5240
Dear Friends:
On behalf of the volunteer teams, the diners, and the Free Lunch Program Board of Directors, I would
like to thank you for your generous donation of $450.00 to the Free Lunch Program from the Donation
Station Meters.
The Free Lunch Program provides a hot meal six days a week to over 100 daily diners, served at the
Wesley Center. Each day a different team of volunteers cooks and serves the meal. This involves
hundreds of community - minded and giving individuals. The FLP manages on limited funding and each
donation given is gratefully received.
Thank you for honoring us with your kind donation and for helping feed those less fortunate.
Sincerely,
Jeanette Carter
Member, FLP Board of Directors
The Free Lunch Program is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
Your contribution is tax - deductible to the extent allowed by law.
No goods or services were provided in exchange for your generous financial donation.
C Y
C�11
A United Way Agency
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 21, 2012
To: City Council
From: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney
Re: Initiative or Referendum: "Affidavit to Commence Initiative Proceedings" filed by
Aleksey Gurovoy and Martha Hampel re: "An Ordinance Enacting a New Chapter
of the City Code of Iowa City to Restrict the Use of Traffic Enforcement Cameras
and Drones, Automatic License -Plate Recognition Systems, and Other Kinds of
Traffic Surveillance Systems"
Background: The above - referenced affidavit, a copy of which is attached, was filed with
the City Clerk on July 27, 2012. It was filed by the Petitioners Aleksey Gurovoy and
Martha Hampel, the same petitioners who filed an earlier affidavit on June 22, 2012 to
commence proceedings regarding "An Ordinance Repealing Title 9, 'Motor Vehicles and
Traffic', Chapter 11, 'Automated Traffic Enforcement' to Restrict use of Automated Traffic
Law Enforcement Systems." My memo to the Council of June 27, 2012 concluded that
the earlier affidavit sought to commence a "referendum" to repeal the ordinance
authorizing Automatic Traffic Enforcement ( "ATE ") adopted by the City Council on
February 21, 2012, and therefore was untimely. Section 7.03(E) of the City Charter
requires that referendum petitions be filed "within 60 days after final adoption of the
measure sought to be reconsidered, or subsequently at any time more than two years
after such formal adoption."
The "Affidavit to Commence Initiative or Referendum Proceedings" is a form provided by
the City Clerk. In their recent filing Petitioners crossed out the word "referendum" at the
top of the form. The title of the form was not a factor in my earlier opinion. I understood
that Petitioners were attempting to commence an initiative.
Issue: Does the Affidavit filed by Petitioners Gurtovoy and Hampel on July 27, 2012
commence an initiative or a referendum that is governed by the timelines of Section
7.03(E) of the City Charter?
Conclusion: In my opinion, the affidavit filed by Petitioners Gurtovoy and Hampel on July
27, 2012 commences a "referendum" under Title VII of the City Charter. "Referendum" is
defined in Section 7.01 (2) of the City Charter as follows: "The qualified electors have the
right to require reconsideration by the council of an existing measure and, if the council
fails to repeal such measure, to have it submitted to the voters at an election." Petitioners
have reframed their proposal in the affirmative and have expanded the definition of those
devices being prohibited from "automatic traffic law enforcement systems" to "traffic
surveillance systems or devices ". However, as explained in greater detail below, the
proposal is, in essence, a request that the Council reconsider the ATE ordinance and if
they fail to repeal it to have it submitted to the voters. Therefore, the affidavit is untimely
because Section 7.03(E) of the City Charter requires that referendum petitions be filed
"within 60 days after final adoption of the measure sought to be reconsidered, or
subsequently at any time more than two years after such final adoption." In this case, the
petitions (signatures) could be filed any time after February 21, 2014 and because
signatures must be collected within 6 months after the affidavit commencing proceedings
is filed, the affidavit could be filed as early as August 22, 2013. See Section 7.03(E), City
Charter. In the alternative, if the Petitioners desire to remove ATEs from the scope of
August 21, 2012
Page 2
their current proposal and address other devices such as drones and automatic license
plate recognition systems, they could proceed with an initiative at this time.
Discussion: The differences between the measure proposed by Petitioners initially and
the most recent proposal can be summarized as follows:
1. The title characterizes it as a new enactment rather than a repeal.
2. The first section of the ordinance is the same except that rather than prohibiting
the use of an "automated traffic law enforcement system" it prohibits the use of a
"traffic surveillance system or device ". In both cases the proposal allows the
defined device to be used for the enforcement of a "qualified traffic law violation"
only if the officer is present at the scene and personally issues the ticket at the
time and location of the violation.
3. The new proposal contains a second section that prohibits the use of any data
obtained through the use of a "traffic surveillance system or device" unless it is
data that is allowed by the first section (i.e. a peace officer is present at the scene
and personally issues the ticket).
4. The "Definitions" section removes the definition of "law enforcement officer"
(having substituted "peace officer" in the body) and the definition of "automated
traffic law enforcement system" and adds definitions for "traffic surveillance system
or device" and "unmanned aerial vehicle" or "drone" (which are in turn included in
the definition of "traffic surveillance system or device ").
5. The "whereas" clauses of the proposal are more detailed, revealing that Petitioners
concern is not just with ATEs but with all traffic surveillance systems, and
specifically drones and automatic license -plate recognition systems, because, in
petitioners' view, they "amount to a punitive, unforgiving, total law enforcement
regime that infringes on the society's core values, violates citizen's constitutional
rights, and is counter to this country's founding principles."
Thus, the first section of the proposed measure does essentially what the Petitioner's
original proposal did, i.e. it allows "traffic surveillance systems or devices" (which includes
ATEs) for traffic enforcement only if an officer is present and personally issues the ticket,
thereby repealing the recently enacted ATE Ordinance. As I explained in my earlier
memo, this is a "referendum" not an "initiative ". A contrary analysis of the Petitioners'
proposal would make the Charter's deadlines for commencing a referendum meaningless
as any party who had missed the deadline on a referendum could add a requirement that
for all practical purposes would be a repeal, and call it an "initiative ".
In addition, while the new proposal does add an additional section prohibiting the use of
any data obtained from "traffic surveillance systems or devices" (including drones and
automatic license plate recognition technology), it has little effect. ATEs are the only such
device that the Council has authorized. While cameras are used by the City for a number
of purposes, with the exception of the planned use of ATEs none of them are used for the
purpose of establishing the ownership or identity of the vehicle or its operator or
occupants. For example the City does not use the automatic license plate recognition
technology that has recently been the subject of the ACLU's open records request to
cities.
As revealed by the "wherefore" clauses of Petitioners' proposal the harm that petitioners
identify and seek to, prevent is the use of technology to identify vehicles and their owners
or occupants. The fact that the ATE cameras approved by the Council in February are the
only cameras the Council has authorized for this purpose reinforces the conclusion that
August 21, 2012
Page 3
the essence of Petitioners' proposal is to require reconsideration by the Council of its
decision to allow ATEs and, if the Council declines to repeal its authorization of ATEs, to
have the voters decide at an election. This is a referendum on the Council's decision to
allow ATEs.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Cc: Petitioners
Marian Karr, City Clerk
Tom Markus, City Manager
Geoff Fruin, Assistant to the City Manager
Sue Dulek, Assistant City Attorney
Attachment
Date: July 27, 2012
To: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney
From; Aleksey Gurtovoy, Martha Hampel
Re: AN ORDINANCE ENACTING A NEW CHAPTER OF TITLE 9 OF THE CITY CODE
OF IOWA CITY TO RESTRICT THE USE OF TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT CAMERAS AND
DRONES, AUTOMATIC LICENSE -PLATE RECOGNITION SYSTEMS, AND OTHER KINDS
OF TRAFFIC SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS.
As per our meeting on July b, 2012, we sought independent legal advice on the validity of the
initiative we are filing today. An independent legal entity's analysis of the City Charter was that
... the framers of the Charter intended that affirmative proposals ( "initiatives ") should
be allowed to proceed at anytime, but purely negative proposals ( "referendums ")
should be time limited in order to give measures a chance to work in the absence of a
proposed alternative.
We, the petitioners, believe this is both straightforward and proper interpretation of the City
Charter, and that it unambiguously supports the initiative effort in question.
Cc: City Council
Marian Karr, City Clerk
Tom Markus, City Manager
Geoff Fruin, Assistant to the City Manager
Sue Dulek, Assistant City Attorney
AFFIDAVIT TO COMMENCE INITIATIVE OR-REFERERUM PROCEEDINGS
STATE OF IOWA
COUNTY OF JOHNSON )
The undersigned petitioner(s) hereby propose(s) to commence initiative or refgrenduiii
proceedings pursuant to Article Vil of the Charter of Iowa City.
9. Each of the undersigned is a voter who is registered to vote In,-,Iowa City.
2, • The undersigned will supervise the circulation of the Initiative or referendum
petition and will be responsible for filing it In proper form with the City Clerk of
Iowa City.
3. The name(s), address(es), and phone number(s) of the petitloner(s) Is (are) as .
follows (print or type):
4.
5.
ALEksEY wRumy
fl3{;.2 Ct7I,t.RT ST
TOWA Ctrl, A 5.1��!5
( &ig) X39 -4565
Ifl"fi
All relevant notices relating to the Initiative or referendum proposal shall be
addressed as follows:
A LEKSVY' gms ovoY
1?3 CA C- Courts 5T
Ton cirs -�Th 5115
(Name of recipient)
Street Address or Post Office Box
City, State, Zip Code
The ordinance proposed or sought to be reconsidered Is attached hereto as an
exhibit and by this referendum made a part hereof.
Witness my (our) hand(s) this - % day of .!a 20-L-i—
� 1
Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, on this ?'Z day of,
aL -R
by f d1fY4ol to me known
to be the person(s) who executed the foregoing Affidavit, and who (or each of whom)
acknowledged that he /she executed the same as his /her voluntary act and deed.
7/hZ�,, �J -e - %P �
Notary Public
My commission expires 9 p2 '�;?o 43-
ORDINANCE NO.
i Z.) 4`
,�:. t'i
AN ORDINANCE ENACTING A NEW CHAPTER OF TITLE 9 OF THE CITY CODE OF IdWA`djY,'TO
RESTRICT THE USE OF TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT CAMERAS AND DRONES, AUTOMATIC
LICENSE -PLATE RECOGNITION SYSTEMS, AND OTHER KINDS OF TRAFFIC SURVEILLANCE
SYSTEMS.
WHEREAS, surveillance technology, and in particular traffic surveillance technology, is Increasingly
being pushed by technology vendors and device manufacturers to municipalities across the country
under the banner of increased public safety; and
WHEREAS, municipalities, enticed with a promise of a new revenue stream that could yield millions
of dollars a year, are often too happy to accept the public safety claims at face value and proceed with
the deployment of traffic surveillance systems despite widespread privacy, safety, effectiveness, and
legitimacy concerns among the citizens; and
WHEREAS, as illustrated by recently adopted ordinance 12 -4466, the city of Iowa City Is not immune
to these dynamics, and is likely to continue to be influenced by them; and
WHEREAS, due to their potential to generate enormous revenue, traffic surveillance systems pose a
clear conflict of interest for the city; once these systems are installed, there is a tremendous financial
temptation to set posted speed limits lower than the recognized safest level (85th percentile speed),
and a similar temptation to set the yellow intervals on traffic lights shorter than is correct for the actual
85th percentile speeds of approaching traffic, which is clearly in conflict with the stated goal of
increased public safety; and
WHEREAS, the Federal Aviation Administration is actively working on integration of unmanned
aerial vehicles (UAVs), commonly known as drones, in the domestic airspace, and numerous UAV
technology vendors are rushing into the opening domestic market, it's only a matter of time before
UAV -based traffic surveillance devices are sold to municipalities under the same banner of increased
public safety; and
WHEREAS, traffic surveillance systems are purely punitive in nature, and it has been shown time and
time again that increased public safety can rarely be achieved through strictly punitive measures;
specifically, as far as traffic safety is concerned, preponderance of independent studies has shown the
claims of increased safety brought on by deployment of traffic enforcement cameras and other types
of traffic surveillance devices to be predominantly unsupported by the evidence at large, while
constructive, non - punitive measures such as driver feedback signs, yellow light timing, an all -red
clearance interval, and other simple intersection and signal improvements were demonstrated to have
a much more significantand lasting effect on reducing the corresponding traffic violations; and
WHEREAS, all punitive measures carry associated societal costs and risks, and in case of traffic
surveillance systems these costs and risks significantly outweigh questionable public safety benefits; at
their core, traffic surveillance systems amount to a punitive, unforgiving, total law enforcement regime
that infringes on the society's core values, violates citizen's constitutional rights, and is counter to this
country's founding principles:
Ordinance No.
Page 2
• Traffic surveillance systems contribute to a "big brother" culture of constant surveillance and
omnipotent government, bringing us one step closer to the "total surveillance society "; the
younger generations of Americans who will grow up with traffic surveillance as a norm will be
less likely to protest expansion of government surveillance into other areas of their lives, with
constant individual surveillance as the ultimate culmination of that process; and
• Traffic surveillance systems, and especially traffic surveillance systems equipped with
automatic license plate recognition (ALPR) technology, are prone to the so- called "mission
creep ", when the data collected by these systems is used for purposes unrelated to
enforcement of traffic rules; any agency or person with access to data collected by these
systems can track the movement of vehicles for any purpose, and, as demonstrated by the
current situation in the UK, it's usually only a matter of time before this capability is seized upon,
again, under the banner of increased public safety; and
• The vast majority of traffic citations issued from traffic surveillance systems are for minor,
technical violations of traffic rules that don't threaten public safety; as such, these systems
effectively turn "to serve and protect" into "to harass and punish ", implementing a total law
enforcement regime (on roads only, for now) that would be welcomed by any totalitarian state,
and
• Automated traffic citations effectively amount to highly regressive taxation; while a police
officer may use discretion to avoid taking half the weekly paycheck of a poor, working man or
woman for a minor traffic infraction, a camera never will; and
• Most importantly, automated traffic citations violate both a citizen's constitutional protection
against having-to incriminate oneself and a citizen's constitutional right to due process by
impermissibly shifting the burden of proof to the recipient of a citation; and
WHEREAS, Iowa City is a transient college community that is called home by a new set of students
every year, and is visited by thousands of parents and hundreds of thousands of sports fans; it's also
home to the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, a nationally renowned hospital receiving more
than half a million patient visits per year; punitive, unforgiving enforcement of minor, technical
violations of traffic rules might bring the city some revenue, but it will undoubtedly be seen by city
visitors for what it is, and will ultimately do irreparable damage to the City itself, the University, the
hospital, and to the businesses trying to succeed in downtown — especially considering that a large
portion of students are likely to operate vehicles registered to a parent, who will unfairly be the
recipient of any traffic citation; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the citizens of Iowa City to restrict use and deployment of
traffic surveillance systems.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I. AMENDMENT. A new chapter of Title 9, entitled "Limitations On The Use Of Traffic
Surveillance Systems ", is adopted as follows: '-
1: GENERAL: The city of Iowa City, including its various boards, agencies, and _departn ents, shall
not
A. Use any traffic surveillance system or device for the enforcement of a,_qualif led ,traff c l w
- C
Ordinance No,
Page 3
violation, unless a peace officer is present at the scene, witnesses the event, and personally
issues the ticket to the alleged violatorat the time and location of the violation.
Store, archive, transmit, share, publish, grant access to, sell, index, cross - reference, or
otherwise aggregate, distribute, analyze, or process any data obtained through use of a
traffic surveillance system or device, unless the data directly pertains to a qualified traffic
law violation for which a ticket was issued by a peace officer who was present at the scene
and witnessed the event.
2: DEFINITIONS: As used in this chapter:
A. "Qualified traffic law violation" means a violation of any of the following: (1) any state or local
law relating to compliance with a traffic control signal or a railroad crossing sign or signal; or (2) any
state or local law limiting the speed of a motor vehicle.
B. "Ticket" means any traffic ticket, citation, summons, or other notice of liability, whether civil,
criminal, or administrative, issued in response to an alleged qualified traffic law violation detected
or recorded by a traffic surveillance system or device.
C. "Traffic surveillance system or device" means a device or a network of devices, including, but
not limited to, any unmanned aerial vehicle(s), that uses any electronic, photographic, video, digital
or computer system to produce any photograph, microphotograph, videotape, digital video, or any
other recorded image or digital record of a vehicle and /or its operator and /or its occupants that can
be used to establish identity or ownership of the said vehicle and /or identity of its operator and /or
identity of its occupants.
D. "Unmanned aerial vehicle ", commonly known as a "drone ", means an aerial vehicle that does
not carry a human operator, can fly autonomously or be piloted remotely, can be expendable or
recoverable, and is equipped with one or more on -board sensors for registering, observing or
recording persons, objects or events.
SECTION II. REPEALER. All other ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of
this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION Ill. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole
or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and
publication, as provided by law.
--
J
i
IP10
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY
JULY 30, 2012 — 5:15 PM — INFORMAL
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Stewart Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Anne Freerks, Phoebe
Martin, John Thomas
MEMBERS ABSENT: Paula Swygard, Tim Weitzel
STAFF PRESENT: Robert Miklo, Karen Howard, Sarah Holecek
OTHERS PRESENT: None
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT
Discussion of an amendment to Title 14, Zoning Code, defining Small Wind Energy
Conversion Systems and establishing regulations to allow these systems as accessory
uses in certain zones by special exception.
Howard said there hasn't been a lot of interest in wind turbines for Iowa City, as it is not a
particularly windy part of the state. She said a couple local businesses had approached the City
in the last several years about using wind turbines, but in the end, discovered that it wasn't a
good idea for them. She said that recently Pearson actually purchased a wind turbine and would
like to put it on their property, so the City told them it would be put on the top of the legislative
priority list. She said that Johnson County recently adopted an ordinance for small wind energy
systems that are accessory to whatever the use is on the site. She said this proposed
amendment is in the accessory uses part of the Code because wind energy systems can never
be principle uses. Howard said that in writing this proposed amendment, staff looked to the
Johnson County ordinance and one used by West Des Moines, as well as a number of
publications about the externalities of wind turbines, in order to make sure they work for the
companies who want to put them up and also protect the public health and safety.
Dyer asked if the proposed amendment has differences from the West Des Moines and
Johnson County ordinances. Howard said most of the provisions were based on West Des
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 30, 2012 - Informal
Page 2 of 6
Moines, as that is a city, and Johnson County also covers rural areas. She said the proposed
amendment is tailored to the city's specific zoning districts. She said wind turbines would be
allowed as building mounted, which are short ones that can only be ten feet above the building.
She said staff is suggesting several commercial zones where that type might be allowed. She
said at this point they recommend allowing free - standing towers in the industrial zones, the
research park zones, public zones, and interim development zones.
Dyer asked about the restrictions on proximity to schools. Howard explained that if the towers
are less than forty -five feet high they have to meet all restrictions as outlined in the staff report,
but they do not have to go through a special exception process. She said that if they are within
300 feet of a residential zone boundary, they would have to get a special exception, which
would cover all schools. She said if they are above forty -five feet high they are allowed in
industrial zones, research park and public zones and interim development zones, and they
would need a special exception.
Eastham asked if the height standards would apply if an applicant sought a special exception.
Howard replied that all the standards apply to everything, regardless of whether or not it goes
through a special exception, but that the taller turbines come under more scrutiny through the
special exception process.
Freerks asked if the university didn't abide by the regulations for their wind turbine because
there weren't any regulations in place. Howard said that was true, and in addition, the university
is not subject to local zoning regulations. She said the county, city and school district would all
have to abide by the proposed regulations.
Martin asked why the wind turbines didn't work out for the companies that inquired about them
in the past two years. Howard said the financial payback was not enough unless they got an
industrial scale wind turbine, and those are really only appropriate in rural areas because of
vibrations, setback requirements and the shadow flicker.
Martin asked if Pearson intends to sell excess energy. Howard said they intend to generate
energy just for their own use.
Thomas asked about the wind turbine at the East Side Recycling Center. Howard said it was too
small to really generate any energy and was mostly there for educational purposes.
Eastham asked what size wind turbine Pearson wants. Howard replied that they want
something about 145 feet tall, so they would need a special exception.
Thomas asked if a shadow flicker restrictions would apply to a commercial office building.
Howard said that would only apply in residential zones.
Thomas asked if it shouldn't also apply to a commercial office building. Howard said she
surmised from her research that the shadow flicker tends to only be a problem on the really
large industrial scale turbines because the blades are turning fairly slowly. She said on the
smaller ones that turn faster, you don't get the shadows that you would on a larger one.
Eastham asked how shadow flicker is measured. Howard said she wasn't sure. She said she
will try to do more research on that as well as calling West Des Moines.
Eastham asked how the applicant would show that the performance standard is met. Howard
said her understanding is that the industry has a way to measure that, so their manufacturer
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 30, 2012 - Informal
Page 3 of 6
would know if the standard had been met. She said it is her understanding that because the
smaller turbines are sold more widely than the larger ones, they have already been tested and
have an engineers' stamp on them.
Eastham said in the proposed amendment it states that it is highly recommended that a
feasibility study be done and asked what happens if the applicant doesn't do one. Howard
replied that it is not a requirement and that it is written to protect the applicant should their
project not be able to pay for itself.
Eastham asked how the requirement in the proposed amendment that the generated capacity
cannot exceed the anticipated energy needs for on -site consumption can be shown by the
applicant. Howard said the applicant would have to characterize what their anticipated energy
needs are. She said the language may seem vague, but she doesn't know if it's any different
from some other standards in the Code.
Eastham suggested that she make a comment to that effect in the staff comments during the
formal meeting.
Miklo reminded Eastham that the Board of Adjustment will review these applications so that will
be an opportunity for some adjustments if the Board deems it necessary.
Howard said she thinks they will have some sense of things being out of scale, for instance, if a
very small company requests a 150 foot wind turbine.
Eastham asked if this approach would let a company satisfy their power needs if they had two
separate locations.
Howard explained that this ordinance would not allow a company to sell their excess power.
Eastham questioned the language in Section 6 regarding distances between City property lines.
Howard explained that they don't want someone putting up a wind turbine where a street is
planned or where a trail is to be extended.
Miklo reiterated that the more subjective terms are reviewed by the Board of Adjustment, and
they are charged with making decisions and bringing some judgment to cases.
Howard said that the cell tower regulations are quite similar to the proposed regulations.
REZONING ITEMS
REZ12- 00011: An application submitted by Southgate Development Services for a
rezoning from Interim Development Office Research Park (ID -ORP) zone to Low Density
Multifamily (RM12) zone for approximately 27.68 acres of property located at Camp
Cardinal Boulevard, south of Preston Lane. (Applicant has requested deferral to
September 20.)
REZ12- 00012: An application submitted by Southgate Development Services for a
rezoning from Interim Development Multifamily (ID -RM) zone to Low Density Multifamily
(RM12) zone for approximately 13.90 -acres of property located at S. Gilbert Street and
McCollister Boulevard. (Applicant has requested indefinite deferral.)
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 30, 2012 - Informal
Page 4 of 6
Miklo said they have received a Comprehensive Plan amendment application to go along with
REZ12- 00011, which the Commission felt was a good idea the last time they met. He said on
REZ12 -00012 there was a neighborhood meeting, and the applicant is trying to develop some
criteria, if not a concept plan, that would address the concerns of the neighborhood, the City and
the developer.
Eastham said he had reviewed the Commission's decision in May to recommend approval of an
application submitted by Southgate Development for the rezoning of property on Walden Road
as well as City Council's comments about the application on first reading. He said he wasn't
happy with what he would have been able to say to the people attending the Council meeting
who were concerned about the storm water run -off into their back yards. He said because this
will undoubtedly come back at the preliminary plat stage and the Commission will have to make
a decision about the efficacy of the proposed storm water management system, he wants to see
if there is interest in discussing any outstanding questions Commission members may have. He
said he believes the two main concerns the residents had were if the storm water from the
proposed rezoning would increase storm water on their properties and how to fix the existing
storm water run -off problem in their backyards.
Freerks said she wasn't sure how much they could legally discuss this issue without the
applicant being present.
Eastham replied that the issues in this case are similar to other cases they have had, and he
sees this as more of a general discussion about storm water management for a parcel that has
a rezoning request and storm water issues on adjoining properties which may or may not be
exacerbated by the current application. He said that a question he has heard asked in different
contexts and for different applications is what the available recourse is in 20 years if the design
doesn't work or isn't maintained.
Freerks said it is her understanding that the applicant has to come up with an engineer -
approved plan before the Commission approves the preliminary plat that shows that this will not
be detrimental to any adjoining properties.
Holecek said they would have to comply with the City design standards and the plan would have
to be approved by the City Engineer per the Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA).
Howard said at the rezoning stage nothing has been engineered yet. She said at the preliminary
plat stage the applicant has to present storm water calculations and a design to the Public
Works Department that have to meet certain specific parameters regarding detention and
release rates.
Freerks asked if a property can be rezoned but in order to actually put something on that
property the applicant has to show that it abides by all the rules and regulations.
Howard said it would be unusual to have that conversation at a rezoning stage.
Thomas said his concern with the Southgate application is that there was an existing flooding
situation and that there hadn't been investigations into why that was happening and if the storm
water system in place was working properly.
Freerks said that unfortunately that happens in many places.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 30, 2012 - Informal
Page 5 of 6
Thomas said that in the case referred to there was overland flow coming down through private
property to an existing drain.
Howard said it was pooling at the bottom of the hill because their lots were sloped
Miklo said that if they were to ask the City Engineers, they would probably say this was a poorly
designed system and in terms of the flooding that's occurring to the south the new design will
intercept it and improve it because there will be a basin that will prevent the water from running
directly to the south.
Freerks said that the Commission can't fix the many existing problems but has to ensure that
what is done now is done with better standards.
Howard explained that there are better standards that apply now than when these properties
being discussed were built.
Eastham said he wants to know what he can tell people can and can't be done to fix their
existing situations. He asked what happens in ten years if the proposed systems fails.
Howard says that the property owners would then contact the City and the City would then go
out to inspect the properties.
Holecek cited a recent incident where a neighborhood had built structures and planted
landscaping since the initial calculations were done that impeded storm water flow, and the City
went in and fixed it by redirecting the water.
Eastham said in some situations, then, the City would have the authority ten years from now to
fix and existing system that isn't working or to redesign it.
Freerks said that is something that might get on City Council's priority list depending on the cost
and the push from the people affected. She said that perhaps Public Works could talk to the
Commission in general terms about proper storm water management engineering sometime in
the next six months.
ADJOURNMENT:
Thomas moved to adjourn.
Martin seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 5 -0 vote.
Z
0
N
N
20 c9
00 z
M W
Z V r �
0 Z N Q
Np
ca Z m
z~ O
LL
za
z
Q
J
a
0
W
W
OC
O
LL
z
E
N
3
7
N
'o CJ
'a a
�-
N O
0) z
(D O
j z
N
X C
N
C N E
( c N E
V) N .o O
2
N . O
QMz 2 .0z
CL Q 11
a Q 11
n u w
u n w
w
XOOz
xOOz
n
0
Y
Y
Y
XXXX
X0X0
a>
XXXX
!
XXXX
��XXiXXOO
!XXX
XXxo
eo
xxx
XXXX
,XXX
XXXX
�o
X,
X0
;
xxxx
XXXX
i
XXXX
Mxxx0
i
xxx
CDOXX
LLJ
i
XXXX
ti
XXXX
;
XXX
axX
-W
X
1
XXX
N
xXX�iXXX
CO)
COCOMNI���M
C D
X
X
X
X
I
X
X
X
M
m
XXXX
W_
x
X
X
N
J
W
J
N
�QXxxx
ZIX
�<
Z
x
i
XXX
N
Ovaw
=app
x
r
XXXX
map
!
X
X
X
r
VQYN
�NJ
W�F-
wa��H
c9
W
N
W
a
ow
ZGWILLYez
F-
w
C�QYN
R
w�i-
xocwZQQw
wa�C9�
�
�W(awCL
z0wU.RWV)H3
0
W
W
OC
O
LL
z
E
E
N
3
7
N
'o CJ
'a a
�-
N O
0) z
(D O
j z
N
X C
N
C N E
( c N E
V) N .o O
2
N . O
QMz 2 .0z
CL Q 11
a Q 11
n u w
u n w
w
XOOz
xOOz
n
0
Y
Y
Y
XXXX
X0X0
��XXiXXOO
xxx
XXXX
to
X,
X0
;
xxxx
Mxxx0
i
xxx
ti
XXXX
;
XXX
M
;XXXX
;
xxx
N
�W
COCOMNI���M
W
W_
J
W
J
ZIX
�<
Z
x
w
4
Ovaw
=app
x
oc
map
-,E-
VQYN
�NJ
W�F-
wa��H
c9
W
N
W
a
ow
ZGWILLYez
F-
E
E
N
3
7
N
'o CJ
'a a
�-
N O
0) z
(D O
j z
N
X C
N
C N E
( c N E
V) N .o O
2
N . O
QMz 2 .0z
CL Q 11
a Q 11
n u w
u n w
w
XOOz
xOOz
n
0
Y
Y
Y
- o$ -1s -12
IN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY
AUGUST 2, 2012 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Stewart Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Anne Freerks, Phoebe
Martin, John Thomas
MEMBERS ABSENT: Paula Swygard, Tim Weitzel
STAFF PRESENT: Robert Miklo, Karen Howard, Sarah Holecek
OTHERS PRESENT: None
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
The Commission voted to recommend approval of amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code,
defining Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems and establishing regulations to allow
these systems as accessory uses in certain zones by special exception as detailed in the
staff memorandum of August 2, 2012.
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.
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT
Discussion of amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code, defining Small Wind Energy Conversion
Systems and establishing regulations to allow these systems as accessory uses in certain
zones by special exception.
Howard responded to the Commission's questions from the informal meeting of July 30th, 2012,
regarding the Code language itself and potential for shadow flicker from wind turbines. She
referred to literature she passed out to the Commission indicating that shadow flicker is typically
only a concern for to utility - scaled wind turbines, not the small wind energy systems under
consideration with these code amendments. She recommended that the Commission either
remove the provision regarding shadow flicker from the proposed code language or leave it in to
give a greater level of scrutiny to this concern when it is near a residential zone. She noted that
it should not be difficult for an applicant to demonstrate that the turbine doesn't create shadow
flicker.
Howard explained that currently small wind energy systems are not allowed in Iowa City as
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 2, 2012 - Formal
Page 2 of 5
either principal or accessory uses. She said they are becoming more common in some parts of
Iowa but there hasn't been a lot of call for them in Iowa City since the wind patterns in this area
are not as consistent for producing wind energy. She said that the City is interested in allowing
this type of energy generation in places where it is feasible and noted that there have been a
few companies that have inquired about installing such systems. She said there are also wind
turbines that can be placed on the tops of buildings, but they are generally limited to new
buildings that can structurally handle those systems. She said although she doesn't anticipate a
large demand for wind turbines in Iowa City, the City would like to be green- energy friendly. She
said that Pearson would like to put a wind turbine on their property that is zoned for Office
Research Park. She said in industrial areas and office research parks where the property is one
acre or more, free - standing wind energy systems would be appropriate. She said staff is
recommending allowing small wind energy systems as accessory uses that would generate
power for the applicant's business only and would not generate power for other users. Howard
said that staff has referred to Johnson County's recently adopted small wind energy ordinance
as well as West Des Moines' ordinance and used many of the standards in those two codes for
the proposed amendment. She said they have suggested a list of definitions that describe the
component parts of small wind energy systems and a set of rules including setback, insurance,
siting standards, and removal. She said they are recommending that towers over forty -five feet
be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment, as they would have a greater impact on the
neighboring area than the shorter towers.
Freerks asked if no matter the height or size of the tower, it can't exceed 50 decibels.
Howard answered that there are noise controls and setback requirements, and in order to
qualify as a small energy system they can't generate more than 100 kilowatts of power. She
said that all the turbines have to meet all the performance standards but there are height
differences based on the size of the lot: lots of 1 -3 acres can have a maximum tower height of
sixty -five feet, 3 -7 acres can have a maximum of eighty feet, for lots more than seven acres but
less than fifteen the maximum of one - hundred feet, and for lots more than fifteen acres the
maximum height is 150 feet.
Thomas asked what issues have come up with wind power systems.
Howard said she isn't aware of any concerns related to the small systems that are not
addressed with the standards suggested in the code amendments.
Eastham asked how the Code requirements give the City control over or information about how
safe the proposed tower is at the time of installation. He said he is particularly concerned about
potential collapse.
Howard said when the application is submitted, the applicant would have to show how it meets
all the City standards and would go through the same procedures that is required for a building.
She said that the proposed amendment reads that "applications for any Small Wind Energy
Conversion System ( SWECS) shall be accompanied by standard drawings of the wind turbine
structure including the tower, base and footings; an engineering analysis of all the components
of the SWECS showing compliance with the applicable regulations and certificated by an Iowa
licensed professional engineer also need to be submitted."
Eastham asked if Howard thought those applicable regulations are clear enough in terms of
ability to withstand high wind conditions. Eastham said in Iowa City there have been flat winds
that have downed utility poles and he asked if there would be something different about towers
to prevent that from happening.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 2, 2012 - Formal
Page 3 of 5
Howard said that her understanding is that these systems are required to be able to withstand
hurricane -force winds and to be mounted in a concrete foundation. She said the turbines
themselves have an automatic breaking system that will shut them off if the wind becomes too
strong.
Freerks opened public hearing.
Freerks closed public hearing.
Eastham moved to approve amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code, defining Small Wind
Energy Conversion Systems and establishing regulations to allow these systems as
accessory uses in certain zones by special exception as detailed in the staff
memorandum of August 2, 2012.
Martin seconded.
Thomas suggested keeping shadow flicker in the amendment just as assurance should there be
any issues.
Freerks agreed, saying that just like anything else in the Code, they can look at this at a later
time and determine whether to alter it if there are issues.
Eastham said it's important that the staff indicated that there are accepted methods for
calculating shadow flicker for any given tower height, latitude and blade dimensions.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5 -0.
REZONING ITEM
REZ12- 00011: Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development Services for a
rezoning from Interim Development Office Research Park (ID -ORP) zone to Low Density
Multifamily (RM12) zone for approximately 27.68 acres of property located at Camp Cardinal
Boulevard, south of Preston Lane. (Applicant has requested deferral to September 20.)
Eastham moved to defer the item to the meeting of September 20th.
Thomas seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5 -0.
REZONING ITEM
REZ12- 00012: Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development Services for
a rezoning from Interim Development Multifamily (ID -RM) zone to Low Density Multifamily
(RM12) zone for approximately 13.90 -acres of property located at S. Gilbert Street and
McCollister Boulevard. (Applicant has requested indefinite deferral)
Eastham moved to defer the item indefinitely
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 2, 2012 - Formal
Page 4 of 5
Thomas seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5 -0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: July 19th, 2012:
Martin moved to approve the minutes.
Eastham seconded.
The motion carried 5 -0.
.'-i>�1
Eastham asked that a correction be made in the City Council packet regarding his recusal on
CPA 12- 00002 /R EZ 12- 00010NAC 12- 00004.
ADJOURNMENT:
Eastham moved to adjourn.
Thomas seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 5 -0 vote.
z
0
N
N
20
O u
V w
Z_W
Z Z
OZ
NQp
06 z
O�
z
za
Q
J
CL
Z
W
W
O �
N J
elY
O
LL
Z
p
W
W
O
LL
z
j
N
0
0
N
p0
vO
3Z
3Z
N
U 0)
U ch
X C
C
N
a) Ug)
E
aci
N10Qz
N .0 Qz
a¢ II p
a Q 11 p
X00z
x00z
a
0
Y
Y
Y
cc0XX
i
xox
O
LU
o>
,XXX
i
XXXX
ti
W
x
x
i
x
x
w
00
w
NXXX
i
XXXo
eo
RXXX
i
XXxx
m
xx0
i
xxxx
ti
Xxx
i
XXXX
Mxxx
—
i
XXX
-XX
i
XXXX
ti
�
xxxxixxx
OW)
XX�X
i
xxx
M
,xxxx
i
xxx
MXXX�ixxx
N
exxxx
COCflMNI�lnlnM
i
xxx
M
t0
XXXX
i
XXX
N
W
N
2XXxx
i
XXX
N
Z�
�'QZ
=W
aZ
O)
XXXX
i
x
X
x
r
it
M
M
7
V
=2WZaaN
W�HWdthC9�
d
F-
�wCpCOMNI�tI�tnM
w
w
W
\
Wa0o�o►a�U-)
�x00000000
QwOQ
\
\
\
\
\
U)
W
-�
C>QYy
�yJ
a
a
2�
w?
0~
N
2LuUU)wCL
ZCWI�iY20)
3
Z
p
W
W
O
LL
z
E
j
N
0
0
N
p0
vO
3Z
3Z
N
U 0)
U ch
X C
C
N
a) Ug)
E
aci
N10Qz
N .0 Qz
a¢ II p
a Q 11 p
X00z
x00z
a
0
Y
Y
Y
Mxxx
i
xwxw
O
O
ti
W
x
x
i
x
x
w
00
w
�O
50-Xxxixxxx
xx0
i
xxxx
Mxxx
—
i
XXX
ti
�
xxxxixxx
N
M
,xxxx
i
xxx
N
N
��==
COCflMNI�lnlnM
�-X00000000
W
W
wJ
Z�
�'QZ
=W
aZ
Ovaw1
0-
it
M
M
7
V
=2WZaaN
W�HWdthC9�
d
F-
m
w
w
W
Q>-
QwOQ
e2V�I
2w
z0WLL.
-�
E
j
N
0
0
N
p0
vO
3Z
3Z
N
U 0)
U ch
X C
C
N
a) Ug)
E
aci
N10Qz
N .0 Qz
a¢ II p
a Q 11 p
X00z
x00z
a
0
Y
Y
Y
Preliminary Minutes
July 2012
MINUTES
SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION
JULY 19, 2012
ROOM 208, IOWA CITY /JOHNSON COUNTY SENIOR CENTER
Members Present: Jay Honohan, Rose Hanson, Mark Holbrook, Michael
Lensing, Daniel Benton, Sarah Maiers, Chuck Felling
Members Absent: None.
Staff Present: Linda Kopping, Kristin Kromray
Others Present: None.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by Honohan at 4:00 PM.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM MAY 17, 2012 MEETING:
Motion: To accept the minutes from the May 17, 2012 meeting. Motion
carried on a vote of 610. Lensing / Maiers.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
COMMISSION ASSIGNMENTS:
Honohan will attend the July 31St City Council meeting. Lensing will attend the
August 2nd Johnson County Board of Supervisors meeting.
STEERING COUNCIL REPORT:
Felling reported that Marylou Henley, the secretary of the Steering Council
passed away. The Membership Committee will be asking members if there are
additional membership benefits of interest to them. The Outreach Committee has
a number of speaking engagements lined up including Johnson County Fair,
New Lyons Club, and NAMI. Members of the Outreach Committee continue to
write editorials that are being published written in the Press Citizen. They are
IP12
Preliminary Minutes
July 2012
hoping to have an article once a month. The Programming Committee will be
hosting a meet and greet for the instructors.
DISCUSSION OF DODDS REVOCABLE TRUST:
Honohan reported that Clifford and Emily Dodds left two bequests to the Senior
Center Endowment fund that is maintained in the Johnson County Community
Foundation by Friends of The Center. The first was for $25,000. According to the
will, the interest on this money was to be transferred to the Senior Center's
operational budget and only be used for refreshments at programs.
Honohan spoke at length with the Dodds trustee and attorney in regards to the
use of this money. They came to the agreement that this money (approximately
$1000 per year) could be used to support the Volunteer Recognition event. The
Dodds would be recognized for their generous support of the program. The
second part of the bequest is approximately $65,000. It will be placed in the
Senior Center endowment without restriction.
Motion: To pass the Dodds Resolution. Moved by Holbrook, seconded by
Lensing.
Maiers, yes
Lensing, yes
Benton, yes
Holbrook, yes
Hanson, yes
Felling, yes
Honohan, yes
Motion carried on a vote of 6/0.
OPERATIONAL OVERVIEW:
Kopping reported that an ordinance is to go before the City Council regarding the
serving of alcohol at the Senior Center.
Kopping reported that the Senior Center has received a contract from ActiveNet
for the new membership database software. A similar contract has been signed
with the Iowa City Recreation Department with ActiveNet.
Kopping has an upcoming meeting with Robyn Hepker to discuss the exterior
sign.
Preliminary Minutes
July 2012
Kopping reported that staff has not heard complaints about the raise in
membership fees. However, there have been comments from members who live
outside of Iowa City but own and pay property taxes in Iowa City. They have
questioned if they could pay the resident amount if they do not live in Iowa City,
but own property in Iowa City. The Commission discussed this and agreed that
the resolution states that membership price is determined by residency only.
Kopping reported that the accreditation notebook has been sent to the NCOA.
Once it has been reviewed they will contact her to set up an offsite and onsite
review.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Honohan reported he and Kopping went to the City Council to discuss the
resolution for a new fee schedule, which the City Council approved.
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion: To Adjourn. Motion carried on a vote of 6/0. Maiers /Benton.
N �
�o
O N
f6
C
E
i
c
O
.y
N
.E
E To
V v
r �
c d
N � N
C N
N Q
O
N
N
r
LO
r
r
00
r
O
r
O
N
0)
co
r
co
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
ti
CO
�p
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
o
x
x
x
x
x
x
Lo
x
x
x
x
x
o
0
LO
W
X
X
X
X
X
X
co
o
x
x
x
x
x
x
N
CF)
x
x
x
x
x
o
N
N
N
�
It
M
M
N
Cl.--
W
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
E
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
H
0)
Y
c
c
O
O
O
c
i
_c
cn
L-
N
N
0
O
J
00
LL
cc
=
2
0
N
N
V
N
�G
=
c
to
L
L
(0
L-
m
>,
_U
0
U
co
x c E
W N N
_ E
N
-0 O O
d Q Q Z Z
11 II W II
XOOzi
Y
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS the Clifford E. and Emily Iona Dodds established
the Clifford E. and Emily Iona Dodds Revocable Trust, and
WHEREAS the provisions of said Trust provide that upon the
death of the Grantors certain bequests shall be made to the
Endowment Fund of the Iowa City /Johnson County Senior Center to
provide for funding of the Volunteer Recognition Event for
volunteers at the Center, and
WHEREAS the Friends of the Center Board has agreed to
provide funding each year for the Volunteer Recognition Event
the sum of One Thousand ($1,000), and
WHEREAS the Senior Center Commission deems it appropriate
to recognize the contribution of Clifford E. and Emily Iona
Dodds to the volunteers at the Center.
NOW THEREFOR BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
1. Clifford E. and Emily Iona Dodds will be recognized each
year as co- sponsors of the Volunteer Recognition Event for
volunteers at the Center.
2. This recognition shall be published in the Senior Center
Program Guide each year.
3. The Coordinator of the Senior Center is hereby
authorized and directed to implement the provisions of this
resolution.
It was moved by Holbrook and seconded by Lensing
that the Resolution be adopted.
Ayes 6
Nays 0
The Chair declared the Resolution adopted.
J Y7.OHONOHAN
ommission Chair