Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-02-23 Bd Comm minutesMINUTES APPROVED BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 14, 2015 — 5:15 PM EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Connie Goeb, Brock Grenis, Becky Soglin MEMBERS ABSENT: Gene Chrischilles STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Susan Dulek OTHERS PRESENT: Wendy Harbaugh, Gene Davis, Kevin O'Brien, Noah Kemp CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM. ROLL CALL: A brief opening statement was read by Grenis outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the procedures that would be followed the meeting. CONSIDERATION OF THE NOVEMBER 12, 2014 MEETING MINUTES Baker moved to approve the minutes. Soglin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TRAINING: Dulek wanted to discuss BOA proceedings and give a little reminder of the structure and framework of special exceptions. Special exceptions are where City Council has granted by oridinance some flexibility to city zoning code. Council has set up standards by which the BOA must follow. General standards that apply to every special exception and then specific standards that apply only to the particular special exception that is being requested. So when an applicant makes an application they have to say why they meet each of the standards. Then staff reviews the application and offers evidence and opinion on the application. Then there is the public hearing where any member of the public can address the application and the applicant or staff can add more information for the BOA to use in making its decision. Dulek pointed to the applicaiton in the BOA's packet for this meeting to show how the report goes through the general standards and the specific standards for the individual application. Board of Adjustment January 14, 2015 Page 2 of 10 Staff prepares the report based on specific standards and the general standards and goes through each standard one at a time. Just like a jury, the Board must decide how much evidence is necessary. This is not the same as a criminal case in which evidence must be beyond a reasonable doubt—that's a lot. Here it is just a "preponderance of evidence," that means just about 51 %, or more than likely the application meets each standards. The Board must go through each and every standard—not just one, not just most, but all must be satisfied by a preoponderance of evidence. Soglin asked, for example, if just one single standard, say standard b, is not met, whether that is all it takes to deny the application? Dulek replied that this is correct, but the Board must explain why they do not believe the standard is satisfied. Dulek stated, while it may sometimes frustrate the board, most standards are fairly easy to meet by design. Walz stated that one thing she goes through with applicants is how the specific standards are written to address the general standards. So, for example, how does a setback request for a porch impact the general safety and welfare or impede future development on other property? The specific criteria ask if the setback creates an issue for fire separation or firefighting? Is it encroaching upon the public right of way such that a care backing out cannot see traffic or pedestrians? So most often the general standards draw from the specific standards. The specific standards are written to address issues of safety and neighborhood character or the appropriate uses in the zone. Many times applicants, they don't always go through the criteria item by item, but their site plan does the talking for them to show all the standards are met. It shows the setbacks, the parking, the landscaping, etc., that the specific standards call for. Dulek clarified that this is why the specific standards are discussed first in the staff report. Grenis asked whether a variance or an appeal also is judged by a preponderance of evidence. Dulek answered yes. Dulek says this comes from Civil Law. Walz stated in the case of appeal, the question is whether a decision was arbitrary and capricious. Staff always asks if it was that something got ignored or not applied to the correct standard. Dulek stated that if the applicant appeals the BOA decision, they must show a preponderance of evidence on a particular standard. So when the judge looks at the case, the question is isn't whether he or she would have drawn the same conclusion from the evidence, but rather was there enough evidence offered that the Board could reasonably come to its decision. The phrase "arbitrary and capricious" means that you were looking at something that did not apply— something other than the standards before you. Arbitrary and capricious is tough to prove—that you have not been reasonable in drawing your conclusions it is not substituting someone else's conclusion or decision. Dulek added that just skipping to the fourth point, one of the judicial reviews is the judge looking at the case and deciding if there was a reason to state there was not a preponderance of evidence on one of the standards or if the decision was just arbitrary and capricious. Walz reminded the Board that at the previous meeting Dulek had polled the Board and cautioned that if they were going to deny an application they needed to point to a standard that Board of Adjustment January 14, 2015 Page 3 of 10 was not met. It is not enough to say, well this doesn't seem right or I don't like something about something that happened with the property in the past. You have to point to a standard. Grenis stated he puts a lot of emphasis on the standard regarding being injurious to the neighborhood, and if no neighbors come to public hearing to speak up, then he feels that is criteria that standard is met. Dulek stated that with the staff comments and the applicant's comments, and no public speaking against or offers any evidence to the contrary, that would likely cover the preponderance of evidence. Soglin questioned the order of Board discussion, then the motion, then the vote and findings of fact and whether the Board was just saying the same thing at both the discussion stage and the stating of the findings of fact stage. Walz replied that before one makes a motion there needs to be discussion to make sure no one has more questions for staff or the applicant—that all board members have everything they need —all the facts—and understand what is being approved— before a motion is made. If someone is on the fence, that is the time to ask for more or to point out where the application is coming up short or where some additional evidence has been provided that casts the application in a different light. Dulek added that the BOA can always defer the vote if there are a lot of question, or if more information is needed. Dulek thanked the BOA for their time, and to come to her with any questions. SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC14-00012 : EXC14-00012: Discussion of an application submitted by John Wadhams on behalf of Bruegger's Bagels for a special exception to allow a drive-through facility to be located in the Riverfront Crossings -West Riverfront Subdistrict (RFC -WR) zone at 708 South Riverside Drive. Walz presented the staff report. Bruegger's Bagels• is seeking to relocate its store, which includes a coffee service, to the property at 708 South Riverside Drive. The property is at the northeast corner of Riverside Drive and Benton Street and was recently rezoned to be part of the West Riverfront Subdistrict in Riverfront Crossings. The business would like to provide a drive-through option. Drive-through facilities are an accessory use allowed by special exception in the Riverfront Crossings West Subdistrict. Walz showed the location map of the area, noting that the adjacent green space is referred to as Ned Ashton and is classified as a park but really functions as a trailhead. The subject property once contained a business that some years ago (2006) was destroyed by a tornado. The decided to redevelop his business elsewhere and market this property for some other use. The property has remained vacant with no other use. Walz explained the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan and how it affects the subject property and how the West Riverfront Subdistricts differs from areas on the east side of the river in terms of it emphasis on pedestrian vs. automobile facilities Walz presented several views of the property to explain how the site would function with regard to parking and vehicle access as well as setbacks and landscaping and improved pedestrian space. Board of Adjustment January 14, 2015 Page 4 of 10 At the request of the property owner, the City also vacated a portion of the Old Benton Street right-of-way, which served as an alley between the subject property and the Linder Tire property to the north. One half of the right-of-way will be conveyed to each property owner. A public access easement will allow use of the shared drive for accessing the two private properties and the trailhead for the Iowa River Corridor Trail at Ned Ashton Park. Baker asked Walz to point out on the slide where the new curb cut would be on Benton Street and Walz showed the general area and stated that the transportation and streets staff have looked at the area and have determined there would be adequate visibility for the right -out only exit. Walz explained that the drive-through standard were recently re -written to address the special nature of the Riverfront Crossings and to acknowledge that there are some places in the area where drive-through uses may be appropriate. Walz reviewed with the BOA the standards she felt are the crux of the decision. Wherever possible and practical, drive-through lanes shall be accessed from secondary streets, alleys, or shared cross access drives. Walz showed that the access to the proposed drive- through lane is from 22 -foot wide access drive that is shared by the subject property and the Linder property to the north. She explained how the parking and drive would function and how the additional curb cut onto Benton would function. To provide for safe pedestrian movement, the number and width of curb cuts serving the use may be limited. Walz explained that the drive-through could function without the additional curb cut but that it functions more efficiently with it. She showed on the site plan how the stacking spaces work and the distance from Riverside Drive. Walz explained the requirements for building and parking placement. Due to unsusual shape of the lot, and because it is a corner lot, the parking area cannot be concealed entirely behind the building. Therefore the proposed drive-through window and lane are located on the back (east) side of the building and are screened from Benton Street behind a 3-4 foot masonry wall with additional landscaping between the wall and the pedestrian area. . Soglin asked how far from the edge of that landscaping wall will be from the sidewalk near the curb cut on Benton Street? Walz replied that it would be 10 feet. Another criterion states that drive-through lanes must be set back at least 10 -feet from adjacent lot lines and public rights-of-way and screened from view according to the design standards below. The drive-through is set back 10 feet from the south property line. The number of drive-through lanes, stacking spaces, and paved area necessary for the drive- through facility will not be detrimental to adjacent residential properties or detract from or unduly interrupt pedestrian circulation or the commercial character of the area in which the use is located. Walz states that while there are no residential uses at this time, there is concern for pedestrians along the street. She reiterated the distance between the drive-through and the street and the setback and screening from Benton Street. Also that the additional curb cut would allow drivers an option so they do not all queue at the Riverside Drive curb cut and impede the Board of Adjustment January 14, 2015 Page 5 of 10 pedestrians on that street. Walz explained how the layout screening in the site plan helped to promote compatability with surrounding development. This also applied to the criteria with regard stacking spaces being screened from view. Walz explained the height of the proposed wall would screen views of the cars but provide some visibility for safetly. She said the site is not large enough to be appropriate for additional windows or bays. Walz stated that All lighting for the development is reviewed by the Building Official prior to issuance of a building permit. As a condition of approval, Staff recommended that any lighting specific to the drive-through area (including illuminated signs) be turned down when the drive- through is not in operation (or between the hours of 10 PM and 5 AM). Walz explained that over time there will be more residential in the area and staff did not want to have the site be an all- night use Walz then discussed the general standards. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. This is addressed through the separation between the drive-through and pedestrian areas and the directional signage and pavement markings. Staff was recommending some additional markings and signage. Walz went over general criterion #6: Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located. Walz described how the setback for the drive-through and the buidling coverage did not meet the standard. She described the flexibility provided in the code and how the applicant's site plan addresses the code goal of making this an attractive pedestrian area. With regard to the Comprehensive Plan, the chief concernis the pedestrian character. Walz described how Riverfront Drive will be improved as redevelopment occurs. This site plan is meeting those standards. Though this is not the same kind of area as you would find Downtown, the goal is to temper the auto -oriented character of the neighborhood. Walz stated that staff recommends approval of EXC14-00012 a special exception to allow a drive-through facility for property located in the Riverfront Crossings -West Riverfront Subdistrict at 708 S. Riverside Drive, subject to the following conditions: • Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted; • A sign marking the exit from the drive-through lane will be located at the east end of the customer parking aisle and directional arrows will mark the pavement at the exit from and entrance to the drive-through lane and along the right -out only drive onto Benton Street; • Hours of operation for the drive-through is limited to 5:00 AM - 10:00 PM; and • All lighting and signage for the drive-through should be turned down when the drive- through is not in operation. Board of Adjustment January 14, 2015 Page 6 of 10 Baker had a few questions regarding the right- out only curb cut and the path for cars through the drive-through. Walz answered the questions regarding traffic flows and options for cars to leave through the right -out only onto Benton Street or back out onto Riverside Drive. Baker asked what the speed limit was along West Benton Street where the curb cut would be, and Walz stated she believed it is 25 mph. Walz explained the visibility issue with the bridge. She stated there is only a small area in which the right -out only may be located to meet the visibility needed. Soglin questioned about the staff condition about limiting the hours of operation for the drive- through to 5:00 AM — 10:00 PM but in the applicant's materials they state the business is only open until 8:00 PM. Walz responded that condition was included at those times just in case there was a change in business at that location. Soglin also asked about there only being one pick-up window allowed, and if a new business wanted to come in and add a second window, should that be specified in this document. Walz confirmed that if a new business wanted to make any changes to the building structure or use, it would have to come back before the Board for approval. Finally Soglin asked why the condition of signage and light turndown, rather than requiring a turn-off. Walz explained that the applicant would want to leave some light on for employee and building safety, but it would meet code regulations. Goeb wanted to clarify that the screening requirements for this property, under the new Riverfront Crossings requirements would be different than the requirements for the McDonalds across the street. Walz confirmed that yes, the new requirement are beyond what was required when McDonalds was built. The new requirements call for more screening from parking lots to pedestrian areas and screening of the drive-through area. Baker questioned what the width of curb cut opening on Benton Street would be. Walz said the applicant could speak to that, but the goal of the width is for the right -out way to be difficult to enter, but easy to leave from. Walz clarified that it would be a one -lane exit probably 10-12 feet. Soglin asked about the multiple windows on the drive-through again, stating the purpose according to the standards to have multiple windows is to reduce idling and was curious what the threshold of the standard was in regards to sustainability. Walz explained that there wasn't a threshold, but there would be limits to what type of business could be located on this property due to the size of the property. Brueggers is attracted to this site because the don't have the same demand compared to a more traditional fast-food type restaurant. Soglin asked whether the sustainability goals of the Comprehensive Plan placed any limit on the number of drive-throughs. Walz said no limits had been said. The Plan does not address the issue of numbers or thresholds. Baker asked about the City's interest in dimming the lights. Walz explained that it was an acknowledgement that in the future on the adjacent property there may be residential uses and that tempering the drive-through use would help to make that a more attractive location for mixed use. Grenis invited applicant to come forward to answer questions. Board of Adjustment January 14, 2015 Page 7 of 10 Wendy Hargbaugh (Ports Architects) and Gene Davis (Brueggers) represented the applicants. Hargbaugh explained that Brueggers currently has the location across the street and are interested in this location to add the drive-through but to stay in the same basic area. Baker asked about parking, noting he saw 7 spots on the pictures. Hargbaugh corrected him and stated there are 10 spots along the north side and 5 spots on the east. Baker also asked if the applicants knew what the exit width of the right -out only would be. Harbaugh answered that is would be about 12 ft. and they will work with city engineer. At this time they are still in planning stage until they get the special exception approval. Baker feels 12 ft. is too wide, and might not be enough of a deterrent from people entering the wrong way; Harbaugh replied they could reduce it to 10 ft. Baker suggested a special exception for these types of curb cuts; similar to how there are standards for lighting. Dulek stated the curb cut will have to be approved by city engineer, but BOA can recommend a certain width if they so choose. Baker asked who requested the curb cut and Walz replied that it was the property owner. Baker questioned the drive-through route, not sure how the curb -cut onto Benton Street will help, because once a car is through the drive-through, they then have to go back out where they came from, cross traffic and can go back to Riverside Drive. Harbaugh answered that the right - out only lane would be used potentially for delivery vehicles, waste management trucks, and such. Baker stated his overall concern with the plan is the curb cut, the safety of vehicles entering onto Benton Street at that location. Walz explained that the City has done a traffic study of the area and feels it is an adequate area for sight and safety, and the traffic study is conducted at peak traffic times. Soglin did note that when cars are exiting the drive-through and want to turn left and exit onto Riverside Drive, they are reliant on the good nature of cars lined up waiting to get into the drive- through to make that left-hand turn. Harbaugh stated that, during busy times drivers will have to be courteous of each other so there will not be a bottleneck. Soglin then asked In terms of lighting, at other locations, what is the typical night lighting policy. Davis replied that yes they turn down all lights leaving only enough light for safety reasons. Grenis opened public hearing. Kevin O'Brien (105 5th Street, Coralville) owner of McDonalds spoke regarding his issue with egress with the right -out only which he feels will be very close to right across Benton Street from the exit of his property. During peak hours it would be difficult for traffic leaving either business to navigate across lanes of traffic on Benton Street. If someone were to leave the Brueggers onto Benton Street, and then want to turn from Benton Street to go south on Riverside, they would need to cross three lanes of traffic in a very short time. Additionally he is in the process of finalizing development of the property east of McDonalds and part of that development an access road would be opened up from the Staples parking lot to Benton Street, increasing even more of the traffic on Benton Street. O'Brien reiterated that he is not against the business on that corner; he is concerned about the traffic exiting onto Benton Street and congesting traffic, especially in peak hours. Board of Adjustment January 14, 2015 Page 8 of 10 Baker questioned staff if there are a high number of accidents on that area of Benton Street exiting the McDonalds. Walz replied that there was not a crash concern in that area. Noah Kemp (2140 Hwy 22, Kalona) has owned the property since 1972 and then after the tornado was fortunate to move our business down the street a block, and since the property has been vacant. It is tough to do anything with that property because of its size. Kemp is excited that Brueggers wants the property, and feels it fits into the City's Comprehensive Plan. Grenis closed public hearing. Baker stated most of the application is easy stuff; he even has no problem with lighting and signage and doesn't see why the City should mandate certain operating hours. Baker is just not comfortable with the curb cut, and wants it to be as narrow and curved as possible. Soglin asked if the recommendation can read as narrow and safe as the city engineer can allow, rather than state as "curved as possible". Walz agreed, and also said a width should not be specified, as there will be trucks using the right -out only lane as well. Baker asked Davis if the right -out only lane did not exist, how that negatively impacts business requirements. Davis replied that for trash it's a concern for where the trash enclosure will be located. He would be concerned about the safety pedestrians if trash and delivery vehicles had to turn around in the parking lot. Walz suggested that perhaps the BOA would want to place a condition on approval that for the curb cut onto Benton Street the City Engineer approve a plan design with maximum control over entry into that right -out only and also control over exiting and turning left. Grenis stated that there has to be a level of trust for the City Engineering Department to do the correct thing with regards to this curb cut. Baker asked if any other Board members had interest in removing restriction on hours of operation for the lighting. Soglin and Grenis both wanted to keep that condition, it is good to have in there in case of business change or future uses. Soglin read the language she drafted which would state to add to staff recommendations to limit as much as possible the ability of vehicles to turn left onto Benton Street or to enter the property site from Benton Street. Dulek state that seems fine, of course the city will have concerns from both traffic and police enforcement as well so the condition seems reasonable. Soglin moved to approve EXC14-00012 a special exception to allow a drive-through facility for property located in the Riverfront Crossings -West Riverfront Subdistrict at 708 S. Riverside Drive, subject to the following conditions: 0 Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted; Board of Adjustment January 14, 2015 Page 9 of 10 • A sign marking the exit from the drive-through lane will be located at the east end of the customer parking aisle and directional arrows will mark the pavement at the exit from and entrance to the drive-through lane and along the right -out only drive onto Benton Street; • Hours of operation for the drive-through is limited to 5:00 AM - 10:00 PM; • All lighting and signage for the drive-through should be turned down when the drive-through is not in operation; and • Ensure safety at the Benton street egress to limit as much as possible the ability of vehicles to turn left onto Benton Street or to enter the property site from Benton Street. Goeb seconded Baker requested that staff share with the board the final design of the project when available and Walz stated she would do so. Grenis asked if anyone wished to share their findings and facts. Baker stated regarding item EXC14-00012 I concur with the findings set forth in the staff report of January 14, 2015 and conclude that the general and specific criteria are satisfied. Unless amended or opposed by another Board member he recommends that the Board adopt the findings in the staff report as their findings for the acceptance of this proposal. Baker would also like to note there is a strong interest on the Board to ensure that the Benton street exit is as restrictive as possible based on the discussion this evening. Grenis stated that this use seems very compatible for the area and with the comprehensive plan for this district. A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0. Grenis declared the motion for the special exception approved, noting that anyone wishing to appeal the decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after the decision is filed with the City Clerk's Office ADJOURNMENT: Baker moved to adjourn, Goeb seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 4-0 vote. 0 O U W w W U Z Q z W Q r 0 N r 0 N Q U2 x a W 2 Q_¢Q n u u n XOW ' O X X XLLJ x V- N x x x x x r O V- X X O X O x x x x x X x X X X W) °' x x x x x N x x x x x M X X X x X V- Xti W o Ln o (D a v o 00 0 2 N N N N N N T T T T T T T T T T LWL W Z W W Q J W LLI z Um m C)Y N Z F- = U y w m Z J Z m C7 C9 U y Q U2 x a W 2 Q_¢Q n u u n XOW ' O 3b(2) Charter Review Commission January 27, 2015 Page 1 MINUTES FINAL CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 27, 2015 — 7:45 A.M. HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL Members Present: Steve Atkins, Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Melvin Shaw, Mark Schantz (8:15 via telephone; left 8:20 due to phone problems), Anna Moyers -Stone, Adam Sullivan, Dee Vanderhoef (left at 9:30) Staff Present: Eleanor Dilkes, Marian Karr RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Chappell called the meeting to order at 7:45 A.M. CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED: a. Minutes of the Meetings on 01/13/15 — b. Correspondence from: 1) Dave Martin; 2) Rita Bettis; 3) Vanessa Ryan; 4) Mary Murphy; 5) copy of Corridor Business Journal editorial (Chappell); and 6) Tom Carsner Chappell asked if there was any discussion on the correspondence they have received. Kubby stated that she would like to hear Dilkes' response to Rita Bettis' letter. Dilkes stated that she has already given the Commission a memo on the Constitutional issues and has also shared the statutory analysis on this issue. Kubby noted comments they have received regarding their public input process and that it is too restrictive. Members asked if there were any specific examples given. Chappell stated that he did not take the comment in quite the same way, that he heard that there should be more public outreach. Chappell stated that they have sought comment on specific issues, and comments in general, since April 1 when the Commission began. Kubby spoke to what they could possibly be doing to make this process more helpful for the public. Chappell said that perhaps they will have time at the end of their review to address this question and get some feedback on what they could have done better in the overall process. Atkins moved to adopt the Consent Calendar as presented. Sullivan seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0, Schantz absent. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF: a. Council Compensation — use of CPI language (Karr) — b. Initiative and Referendum petition language from Clinton, IA (Karr) — c. Reports from Members Shaw stated that he recently received a phone call, in addition to several conversations he has had, regarding the direct election of the mayor, and the initiative and referendum issue. What he heard was to maintain the election of the mayor by the City Council. As to the initiative and referendum issue, Shaw has heard that if this were to be modified, then the number of required Charter Review Commission January 27, 2015 Page 2 signatures should be increased. Vanderhoef stated that she has had several phone messages, particularly on the election of the mayor issue. The comments have been the same as what Shaw has heard, to leave the selection of the mayor as it currently is. REVIEW CHARTER AND DISCUSSION OF SECOND PUBLIC FORUM: a. Election of Mayor Chappell asked how Members would like to proceed with `election of the mayor' and 'district representation.' Chappell reported that his notes show that there was not a majority of Members wanting to make a change to the mayoral selection process; noting that he likes the current process and believes it works well. Shaw stated that he read Kubby's proposal and that while it is persuasive, he is still not in favor of a change. Kubby spoke to why she believes they are ready for a change and further explained her stance on this issue. She stated that she believes this type of change helps them to create a different structure. Kubby noted that one thing she left out of her suggestion was a term limit for the mayor. She believes the voters should determine this, but would be open to further discussion on it. Sullivan asked Kubby to speak to Schantz's proposal for the section regarding powers of the mayor, etc. She noted that he spoke to the mayor powers and duties in B of his proposal rather the election process. Further discussion occurred later in the meeting. b. District Representation See discussion later in the meeting. C. Council Compensation Chappell stated that they would begin with the council compensation issue, as they had two Members absent during last meeting's discussion. He summarized the conversation from the last meeting, noting that those who were supportive of making a change to the Charter were Atkins, Schantz, and Kubby; with Sullivan, Shaw, Craig, and Chappell wanting no change relative to council compensation. He asked Moyers -Stone and Vanderhoef for their opinions on this matter. Vanderhoef stated that she does not believe that this belongs in the Charter, first of all; and believes the Charter should stay as is. Moyers -Stone stated that she also does not see a reason to change this section. She added that she has not heard enough talk about this, that it really does not appear to be an issue for most people. Chappell noted that he would like to move on then to the other items since this appears to not have a majority of the Members interested in recommending a change. Kubby stated that they did hear from the public on compensation, and that there was talk from many that the current compensation is too low, that it could be a possible obstacle to running for office. She added that she believes they need to make an "informal" recommendation to Council to look at the issue seriously and do something about it. She reiterated what had been said previously, that the compensation is `too low for the work that is expected' of council members. Chappell added that he is perfectly comfortable with making such a recommendation to Council in their final report. He asked if someone wanted to volunteer to come up with some language on this issue, and Kubby responded she would prepare something for the next meeting. She stated that she does want this in the Charter and that she is passionate about the issue, as she believes it makes a big difference. Chappell then asked if there was a motion to keep the Charter as it is, relative to council compensation. Vanderhoef moved to keep the language in the Charter as is, relative to Charter Review Commission January 27, 2015 Page 3 council compensation. Shaw seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-1, Kubby in the negative, Schantz absent. d. Initiative and Referendum Chappell summarized earlier discussion regarding `qualified' versus `eligible, noting that those supportive of a change were Schantz, Sullivan, Shaw, Atkins, Craig, and Kubby; while not supportive of a change was Chappell. He noted that the majority of Members were also agreeable to an increase in the number of signatures required on a petition. Chappell stated that he would agree that if they were to make a change they should increase this number. Moyers -Stone stated that she is also against making a change and briefly touched on why this process should be somewhat difficult to undertake. Vanderhoef spoke to input she received, stating that if you are not a registered voter, you are not in the draw for jury duty, and that this is part of the participatory part of the overall process. Chappell stated that he has written a preliminary draft of the changes that would be necessary to change `qualified' to `eligible,' and that he and Dilkes have had some conversations regarding this. Looking at the process that the Clerk's office goes through currently, he added that they are trying to decide what steps still need to be a part of this. He hopes to have a draft ready for the Commission's review prior to their next meeting. Chappell then asked to have a vote on this matter. Several Members stated that their vote would be predicated on the number of signatures required. Craig spoke to what she has heard about this issue, noting that if there is to be change, people need to then participate in the change. At this point, Schantz joined the conversation via telephone connection. Craig continued, sharing some information she found on a web site called Ballotpedia, similar to Wikipedia. She added that she does not understand the reasons behind people not wanting to register to vote. Members spoke to online registration in the future and how this might change things. Kubby stated that by signing a petition; however, many people are making the first step towards participating. Craig then responded to Kubby's question on the number of required signatures on a petition and whether this should increase. Noting that the number using the latest Census would be around 3,600 and stated that they should at least use this number. She added that if they were to go to 'eligible,' then perhaps the number should be closer to 5,000. The discussion turned to participation in the governmental process and what it means to some people. Chappell then stated that unless someone has changed their vote, the Commission will be recommending changing the Charter from 'qualified' to 'eligible.' He added that at this point they should probably discuss what the number of signatures should be, since this also has a majority of the Commission's approval for change. Chappell noted that Sullivan has come up with a proposal regarding this. Sullivan asked if they could first discuss why `qualified' should remain in the Charter, in order to make their case for recommending a change to `eligible.' Craig asked Sullivan if he could give the top three reasons why someone would not register to vote. Sullivan responded that one, the person does not want to serve on jury duty; second, they do not want their name and information to be public record; and third, they do not want to turn up to vote. (Schantz had to leave the meeting at this point.) Shaw stated that to him moving from `qualified' to `eligible,' and changing the number of signatures does not appear to lessen the awareness that may be created by distributing a petition. In the end, then, only those that are registered to vote will vote on the issue. Kubby asked Shaw if he had a number in mind, and he spoke to Sullivan's memo, stating that if they were to go by Sullivan's proposal, it would only increase by 150 signatures. He noted that this would not be unduly burdensome at all, but Charter Review Commission January 27, 2015 Page 4 that he is not sure of an exact number. He also questioned if they shouldn't do a percentage of 2013's voter turnout statistics. Chappell noted that if they look at the Census data that Karr provided, it puts them around 3,600, based on a comparison of the city's population when this provision was adopted, compared to the 2,500 and the current population. He touched on why he believes the 3,600 more closely represents where they should be on this issue. He asked what others think about this number. Sullivan stated that he believes his memo stands, and he also referenced the ACLU memo, noting that the State only requires 10% of eligible electors and that they should not require more than this. Speaking to this briefly, Dilkes stated that when this was written into the State code, nobody was thinking about initiative and referendum. Kubby stated that she would like to have two different votes here — one on the number of signatures, and then a second for the 'eligible' issue. Chappell then asked for everyone's stance at the present time on the number issue. Moyers - Stone stated that at first she was at 5,000, but that the more she hears it does make sense to base the number on some methodology. She did not think the 2,660 was enough of an increase, and that using the Census number is more in line with what she is thinking. Kubby stated that she would like to keep the number at 2,500. Craig responded that she would like to see 4,000. Chappell noted that he is comfortable with 3,600. Atkins stated that he too would be okay with 3,600. Vanderhoef stated that she would like to see it done via a methodology tied to the Census with an escalator as the Census changes. Shaw stated that he is at a number somewhere between 3,600 and 4,000. Members continued to discuss this issue, as they attempted to agree on some type of methodology to use in determining this number. Chappell noted that he is hearing a majority for 3,600. He asked if there was a motion for this. Shaw moved that the Commission vote whether to increase the number of eligible electors to some number higher than 2,500. Chappell stated that this is not what he meant, and Shaw asked if he wanted the number stated as exactly 3,600. Craig stated that she would like to revisit the actual math that they are using to reach the 3,600 number. Vanderhoef stated that she would like to get the number tied to the Census. Karr then further explained that on December 23rd, she verbally reported that if they were to look at the information previously used, from the 1970 Census, and the 2,500 required at that time, and then compared it only to the Census figures — not the voters — the Census population was 46,850 and it was 'no fewer than 2,500 voters.' This came out to the percentage of .0533617. If you take this same number consistently through, Karr noted that in 1980 it would have been 'no fewer than 2,695,' the 1990 would be 'no fewer than 3,187,' the 2000 Census would show 'no fewer than 3,320,' and the 2010 population would have reflected `no fewer than 3,621.' Chappell asked Dilkes for some guidance at this point, noting that he would like to have a motion to vote on a particular number that they would then vote on, followed by a motion to change the Charter to allow for `eligible' at this particular number. Kubby noted that the vote needs to reflect 'if' they change it from 'qualified' to 'eligible,' and everyone agreed. Members continued to discuss the issues at hand, with Sullivan asking Chappell and others if they see this as something the Charter Review Commission will need to revisit every 10 years. Chappell stated that he believes the Commission will need to revisit this in 10 years, if they do make a change, just to see if it is working well. Shaw made the motion that if they make the change to `eligible,' that the number of signatures required be raised to 3,600. Atkins seconded the motion. Atkins asked for some clarification again on how they are arriving at the 3,600 number. Chappell explained how the proposed number was set, and how using that they Charter Review Commission January 27, 2015 Page 5 have now arrived at the 3,600 number. Chappell then reiterated the current motion. Vanderhoef asked if she should make a second motion then to tie this number to the Census. Chappell stated that she could do that, and Dilkes added that she could also make a motion to amend the current motion. Vanderhoef reiterated that she would like to see this number automatically bumped with Census, starting at the 3,600 number. Chappell moved to amend the motion to add language tying the number to the Census so that it changes every 10 years. Vanderhoef seconded the motion. Shaw then moved to amend original motion, stating that he would add that it be rounded to the nearest hundredth. Chappell and Vanderhoef accept this friendly amendment. The motion to accept the amendment carried 6-2; Sullivan and Kubby in the negative, and Schantz absent. Next the vote moved to Shaw's motion with the amendment and friendly amendment on it. Sullivan spoke briefly to this issue before the vote was taken. A vote was then taken to increase the number of signatures to 3,600, should the 'eligible' change take place, tie this to the Census information, and round to the nearest hundredth. Motion carried 5-3; Chappell, Kubby, Sullivan in the negative. Kubby then moved to change `qualified' to `eligible' elector for initiative and referendum. Sullivan seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-3; Vanderhoef, Craig, and Chappell in the negative. Chappell noted that in the Commission's report, they will therefore be recommending to the City Council that the Charter be amended to allow eligible voters, instead of qualified, to sign petitions for initiative and referendum, and the floor will be at no fewer than 3,600 signatures required. There will also be language added so that on a decennial basis when the Census comes in, this number will be adjusted accordingly. The Commission returned to discussion regarding election of Mayor. a. Election of Mayor (continued) Members continued to discuss the mayoral appointment and powers. Kubby spoke to the various arguments regarding a directly elected mayor, versus having the council make this appointment. She added that she believes the mayor will have more `power' if elected by the voters. The conversation also covered the city manager position and what types of power this position holds. Chappell then asked each Member where they stand on this issue. Vanderhoef stated that she believes the mayor should be selected by the council and therefore does not desire a change in the Charter at this time. Atkins stated that he also believes it should stay the same. He does believe that there needs to be some type of transparency, however, built into the process. Craig also agreed that there should be no change, and she also agreed that transparency is an issue. She added that the agenda -setting power should go to the mayor, as well. Sullivan stated that he has struggled with this issue, and that after hearing input from the public, he believes a change is desired here. He agrees with Kubby in that the mayor should be elected by the public. He believes a good compromise would be to elect a `weak' mayor. Moyers -Stone stated that she also believes this process should not change. She believes there is already a compromise with the at -large and district positions. Chappell noted that if his notes are correct, Schantz is also for changing how the mayor is elected. This would then put them at a 6-3 vote on the matter, with `no change' being the decision. [Further discussion later in the meeting] The Commission returned to discussion regarding district representation. b. District Representation (continued) Chappell asked Members to comment. Sullivan stated that he would go either one way or the other — either close down the general election to just district voters or open up the primaries to everyone. Vanderhoef stated that she believes the process works well the way it is currently. Charter Review Commission January 27, 2015 Page 6 She added that she might entertain some modification if there was interest by Commission. Craig stated that she would be in favor of no change, as did Shaw. Kubby stated that she would like to see some type of transparency for the Charter that is not too specific and that could function well from the perspective of a council member. She added that she is working on a proposal for this section and would have something for the next meeting. Atkins stated that he does not believe they need to change this section, as did Moyers -Stone. Chappell weighed in then, stating that he is also for no change at this time. He stated that he believes the system they have is a good one. With this information, Chappell noted that there appear to be seven for no change, one for change, and one for 'light' change (Sullivan). Chappell then asked if there was a motion to keep the Charter as it currently is, with regards to district representation. Vanderhoef moved to keep the Charter as it is currently with district representation. Shaw seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-2; Kubby and Sullivan in the negative, Schantz absent. The Commission returned to discussion regarding election of Mayor. a. Election of Mayor (continued) Members discussed the powers of the mayor and how this interacts with the city manager position. The setting of the agenda was discussed at some length by Members. Vanderhoef noted that a practice of the council has been that if three council members want an issue put on the agenda, that this is enough to move the issue forward. Sullivan noted that Schantz's proposal talks about the mayor `representing the City in inter -governmental relationships.' Kubby stated that there are many inter -governmental relationships already that the mayor attends to. Members continued to discuss the topic of selecting council members for commissions, and the selection of members to City boards and commissions by the council. Chappell asked that they move ahead at this point with a vote on the mayoral issue. Shaw moved to keep the selection of the mayor as it currently is in the Charter. Moyers -Stone seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-2; Kubby and Sullivan in the negative, Schantz absent. Chappell asked that they add an agenda item to further discuss Schantz's proposal on the mayoral issue, more specifically the powers of the office. [Proposal (Sullivan)] e. Other parts of the Charter as time allows — None REPORT OF THE COMMISSION: Chappell noted that everyone has a copy of the report from 10 years ago. He suggested they follow this same format as they draft their report. He briefly touched on the important sections of the report and how he would like to continue with it. Chappell then asked the group for their consensus on how to move forward with this. Atkins stated that he works best from a draft, so he would appreciate having a draft report. Sullivan agreed that the previous report format works well, and he stated that Chappell has done a good job of taking on this type of task. Others agreed that Chappell should move forward with preparing a draft report for review by the Commission. PUBLIC COMMENT: Martha Hampel addressed the Commission, thanking them for their work. She stated that the entire process has been quite fascinating for her. She noted how opinions have changed over Charter Review Commission January 27, 2015 Page 7 the course of the meetings, as Members further discussed issues and also took in public comment for consideration. Speaking to the issue of increasing signatures for initiative and referendum, Hampel stated that she is not in favor of this. Hampel spoke to some research she has done on the issue, sharing with Members the numbers she uncovered in her work. She stated that it appears the number came about from the number of voters, not population, and she questioned changing this to follow the Census numbers. Hampel continued, speaking to some of the past elections and the voter turnout numbers. She spoke to how the proposed change to 3,600 could impact this process, and asked what the Commission plans to do with the current language referencing "...equal in number to at least twenty-five percent of the number of persons who voted in the last regular election,...". Hampel stated that it appears to her that the original number was based off the number of people who were voting, not population, and she again quested making the proposed change. Chappell stated that they have not had any proposal to increase the 25% number. He added that he believes it would be good to have that number be relevant again as it would mean there are more people voting. Hampel spoke to how typically it depends on the issues on the ballot as to how many voters are going to turn out. Kubby then spoke to the original number and how it was arrived at, stating that there are no notes to refer to on the matter. Sullivan thanked Hampel for her input, stating that these are interesting points to consider. DISCUSSION OF THIRD PUBLIC FORUM: Chappell stated that the hope is to have a red -lined version done and ready for discussion at this meeting. The plan is to let the public come and react / respond to the draft, similar to the first forum they held. Karr asked Members when they need this redlined version, and Chappell spoke to timelines for this draft. He stated that he would like to set an extra meeting now, prior to the forum on the 24th, in case they need the time to complete their draft. Members briefly discussed schedules, finally agreeing to add an extra meeting on February 13. Harvat Hall — February 24 — 6:30 P.M. Format, advertising, and televising — televise live TENTATIVE THREE-MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (7:45 AM unless specified): February 10 February 13 February 24 (Public Forum) (will meet in morning if needed) March 3 March 10 March 24 (Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015) ADJOURNMENT: Sullivan moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:55 A.M., seconded by Shaw. Motion carried 7-0, Schantz and Vanderhoef absent. Charter Review Commission January 27, 2015 Page 8 Charter Review Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD 2014 Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time TERM O O O O o 0 0 0 o O O -L -A A 46 01 01 O O V W co to W (C O O j NAME EXP. o W -4 O ah o :L-- 00 O cn 4/1/15 X X O/ X X X X X X X X X X X X Steve E Atkins Andy 4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Chappell Karrie 4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Craig Karen 4/1/15 O X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Kubby Mark 4/1/15 X X X X X X O/ X X X O/ X O/ X X Schantz E E E Melvin 4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Shaw Anna 4/1/15 X X X X X X O/ X X X X X O/ X X Moyers E E Stone Adam 4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Sullivan Dee 411/15 X X X X X X X X X X X O/ X X X Vanderhoef E Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time Charter Review Commission January 27, 2015 Page 9 Charter Review Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD (cont.) 2014/2015 Key. X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time TERM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NAME EXP. O m N w O as O y s w Nic -4 o w N 46 ic N O w o N 46 � cn cn M Cn C" cn cn C" cn til Cn 4/1/15 X X X X X X Steve Atkins Andy 4/1/15 X X X X X X Chappell Karrie 4/1/15 X X X X X X Craig Karen 4/1/15 X X X X X X Kubby Mark 4/1/15 X X X O/ X X Schantz E Melvin 4/1/15 X X X X X X Shaw Anna 4/1/15 X X X X O/ X Moyers E Stone Adam 4/1/15 X X X X X X Sullivan Dee 4/1/15 X X X X O X Vanderhoef Key. X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time FINAL/APPR 3b(3) CITIZENS POLICE REVIEW BOARD MINUTES — December 3, 2014 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Melissa Jensen called the meeting to order at 5:01 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Fidencio Martinez, Mazahir Salih, Royceann Porter MEMBERS ABSENT: Joseph Treloar STAFF PRESENT: Staff Kellie Tuttle and Patrick Ford STAFF ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Captain Doug Hart of the ICPD; Andy Chappell, Adam Sullivan, and Karrie Craig from the Charter Review Commission; Charlie Eastham, Joseph Hall and Edward Hall, public. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (1) Accept CPRB Report on Complaint #14-06 CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Porter, seconded by Salih, to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended. • Minutes of the meeting on 11/10/14 • Minutes of the meeting on 11/25/14 • ICPD Department Memo #14-28 (October 2014 Use of Force Review) • ICPD Use of Force Report — October 2014 • ICPD General Order 08-01 (Conducted Energy Devices) • ICPD General Order 00-08 (Weapons) • ICPD General Order 00-10 (Evidence and Property Handling Procedures) Motion carried, 4/0, Treloar absent. OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS Discussion of proposed CPRB-related amendments to the Charter — Chappell went through some of the proposed changes to the City Charter that relate to the CPRB in regards to public forums. The current language is as follows: Section 5.01 a(1) To hold at least one community forum each year for the purpose of hearing citizens' views on the policies, practices, and procedures of the Iowa City police department, and to make recommendations regarding such policies, practices, and procedures to the city council. The proposal from the CPRB was to drop the last part of sentence, "and to make recommendations regarding such policies, practices, and procedures to the city council." The Charter Commission is going to recommend leaving in the current wording and re -number the section so they are each an item to avoid any confusion. Craig and Sullivan addressed the Board regarding the proposal to remove "citizen" from the Charter and wanted the Board's input on removing Citizen from the name and if they had any suggestions on what could replace it. Their concern with the use of citizen in the Charter is that they feel there are many people in Iowa City that do not identify as citizen or qualify for the things citizen connotes. They are proposing to remove citizen from all other areas of December 3, 2014 Page 2 the Charter. A couple ideas that had been discussed by the Charter Review Commission as a replacement to citizen were resident or taking out citizen and leaving it as Police Review Board. Hall had additional suggestions to what the name could be changed to. Jensen thanked them for coming and said that the Board would put it on a future agenda for discussion and would include a copy of the City Charter in the Board packet at that time so they could look at the suggestions as it relates to the whole Charter. The Charter Review Commission will be holding a public forum on January 7th at 6:OOpm at the Iowa City Public Library. PUBLIC DISCUSSION Eastham spoke regarding the suggestion from the Charter Review Commission to change the name of the Board. He wanted to remind members that the name had just been recently changed and the Ad Hoc Diversity Committee had agreed with the recommendation. One of the reasons the Ad Hoc Diversity Committee wanted to change the name from Police Citizens Review Board to Citizens Police Review Board was so it didn't appear as through it was a police review by the police department. BOARD INFORMATION None. STAFF INFORMATION Tuttle directed Board members to the copy of the news release in the packet regarding the Citizens Police Academy and if they were interested to let her know. Salih stated that she had attended last year and it was really awesome. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Salih, seconded by Martinez 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, Treloar absent. Open session adjourned at 5:27 P.M. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 6:28 P.M. Motion by Porter, seconded by Martinez to to forward the Public Report as amended for CPRB Complaint #14-06 to City Council. Motion carried, 4/0, Treloar absent. CPRB December 3, 2014 Page 3 TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change) • January 13, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm • February 10, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm • March 10, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm *April 14, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm Motion by Salih, seconded by Martinez to set a special executive session only meeting on Monday, December 8th at 8:00 A.M. Motion carried, 4/0, Treloar absent. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Porter, seconded by Martinez. Motion carried, 4/0, Treloar absent. Meeting adjourned at 6:32 P.M. nnuuu o c QtQ or N• rr p F.y UQ i i � i I`i � � ✓`i N O N A C x i Di O� 00 is o �C >C yC F+ W yC is o >C yC O CITIZENS POLICE REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240-1826 (319) 356-5041 December 4, 2014 To: City Council' Complainant City Manager Sam Hargadine, Chief of Police Officer(s) involved in complaint ' r From: Citizen Police Review Board Re: Investigation of CPRB Complaint #14-06 This is the Report of the Citizens Police Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint CPRB #14-06 (the "Complaint"). BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, the Board's responsibilities are as follows: 1. The Board forwards all complaints to the Police Chief, who completes an investigation. (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(A).) 2. When the Board receives the Police Chief's report, the Board must select one or more of the following levels of review, in accordance with Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(1): a. On the recordmith no additional investigation. b. Interview /meet with complainant. c. Interview /meet with named officer(s) and other officers. d. Request additional investigation by the police chief, or request police assistance in the board's own investigation. e. Perform its own investigation with the authority to subpoena witnesses. f. Hire independent investigators. 3. In reviewing the Police Chief's report, the Board must apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review.. This means that the Board must give deference to the Police Chiefs report, because of the Police Chiefs professional expertise. (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(13)(2)).) 4. According to Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(2), the Board can recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify the Chiefs findings only if: a. The findings are not supported by substantial evidence; or b. The findings are unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious; or c. The findings are contrary to a police department policy or practice, or any federal, state or local law. 5. When the Board has completed its review of the Police Chiefs report, the Board issues a public report to the city council. The public report must include: (1) detailed findings of fact; and (2) a clearly articulated conclusion explaining why and the extent to which the complaint is either "sustained" or "not sustained ". (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(3)).) 6. Even if the Board finds that the complaint is sustained, the Board has no authority to discipline the officer involved. BOARD'S PROCEDURE The Complaint was initiated by the Complainant on 08/12/2014. As required by S ctjonr�, 8-8-5(B) of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Chief of Police for it restlgatik The Chief's Report was filed with the City Clerk on 10/15/2014. The Board voted on 11/25/2014 to apply the following Level of Review to the Chief P, "On the record with no additional investigation", pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 8=8-7(E (1)(a). The Board met to consider the Report on 11/25/2014 and 12/03/2014. Board members reviewed audio and/or video recordings of the incident. FINDINGS OF FACT On August 13, 2014, officers were involved in patrol at the Pheasant Ridge complex at the request of management in response to previous incidents, including shots being fired and reports of drug dealing. Individuals loitering and determined to be non-residents were to be given trespass warnings. Officers observed the Complainant multiple times and engaged him in conversation. A routine check of the Complainant showed he had an active warrant for his arrest. During the search that occurred because of the arrest, a cell phone and a large sum of cash, $2722, were found on the Complainant. The Complainant was advised of his Miranda rights and questioned. The Complainant made statements denying ownership of the money and the phone. The phone was examined by officers and evidence of drug distribution and drug use was noted. The phone and money were then seized as part of a drug investigation. Prior to the CPRB complaint being filed, the Complainant was advised how to appeal before a Judge who would rule if the property should be returned. ALLEGATION 1 — Unlawful Search. When the Complainant was arrested on an outstanding warrant, the Complainant was searched as part of this arrest. The Complainant initially denied ownership of the property in his possession. The in -car video recordings clearly document both the Complainant being advised of his rights and the statements he made denying ownership of the phone and the money. Denying ownership of the property prevents the Complainant from claiming his Fourth Amendment rights were violated. At the time of the incident, officers were following procedures and had the authority to remove property in the Complainant's possession. As the Complainant denied ownership of the phone, the officers were looking at the phone in an attempt to identify the owner, and to determine if it had been stolen. Officers did locate information in the phone to show it belonged to the Complainant. A search warrant was later obtained due to further examination of the phone being needed. Officers involved were appropriate and within the parameters of the law. Allegation: Unlawful Search - Not sustained ALLEGATION 2 — Unlawful seizure. When Officers discovered an outstanding warrant for the Complainant, they also discovered he was part of an on-going drug investigation. A search warrant for the Complainant's phone was obtained from the Johnson County Attorney's Office and they also approved to move forward with the forfeiture of the money found in the possession of the Complainant. To move forward with forfeiture case, the State only needs to prove there is a preponderance of the evidence to prevail. The cell phone is also being held as evidence in the criminal case. Officers involved were appropriate and within the parameters of the law. The Complainant has also been advised of his right to present evidence at a hearing before the Court as to why the property should be returned to him. Allegation: Unlawful seizure - Not sustained COMMENTS None 1,.., c7D --; —_fin • , , CITIZENS POLICE REVIEW BOARD FINAL/APPRO` 3b(4) MINUTES — December 8, 2014 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Melissa Jensen called the meeting to order at 8:02 A.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Fidencio Martinez, Mazahir Salih, Royceann Porter (8:04 A.M.), Joseph Treloar MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: STAFF ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: None Staff Kellie Tuttle and Patrick Ford None None RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (1) Accept CPRB Report on Complaint #14-02 (2) Accept CPRB Report on Complaint #14-04 (3) Accept CPRB Report on Complaint #14-08 EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Treloar, seconded by Salih 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, Porter absent. Open session adjourned at 8:03 A.M. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 9:06 A.M. Motion by Treloar, seconded by Martinez to forward the Public Report as amended for CPRB Complaint #14-02 to City Council with the option to amend if a name clearing hearing is held. Motion carried, 5/0. Motion by Salih, seconded by Treloar to to forward the Public Report as amended for CPRB Complaint #14-04 to City Council. Motion carried, 5/0. CPRB December 8, 2014 Page 2 Motion by Salih, seconded by Treloar to to forward the Public Report as amended for CPRB Complaint #14-08 to City Council. Motion carried, 5/0. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subiect to change) • January 13, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm (CANCELLED) • February 10, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm • March 10, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm *April 14, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm Motion by Treloar, seconded by Martinez to cancel the January CPRB meeting due to scheduling conflicts. Motion carried, 5/0. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Treloar, seconded by Salih. Motion carried, 5/0. Meeting adjourned at 9:06 A.M. CD TQ CD c N m M .� � QQ G W f�A CN I-+ i i x Q 00 N H+ 0 ON N 00 CN x Fr W U j � O Iry j Iry N O I� >C x O yC yC N - + W CD TQ CITIZENS POLICE REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240-1826 (319) 356-5041 December 8, 2014 To: City Counsel Complainant City Manager Sam Hargadine, Chief of Police Officer(s) Involved in complaint From: Citizen Police Review Board Re: Investigation of CPRB Complaint #14-02 Jfial 0 3 2015 This is the Report of the Citizens Police Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint CPRB#14-02 (the "Complainant") Board's Responsibility Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, the Board's responsibilities are as follows: 1. The Board forwards all complaints to the Police Chief, who completes an investigation. (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(A).) 2. When the Board receives the Police Chief's report, the Board must select one or more of the following levels of review, in accordance with Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(1): a. On the record with no additional investigation. b. Interview /meet with complainant. c. Interview /meet with named officer(s) and other officers. d. Request additional investigation by the police chief, or request police assistance in the board's own investigation. e. Perform its own investigation with the authority to subpoena witnesses. f. Hire independent investigators. 3. In reviewing the Police Chief's report, the Board must apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review. This means that the Board must give deference to the Police Chiefs report, because of the Police Chiefs professional expertise. (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(13)(2)).) 4. According to Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(2), the Board can recommend thatij�g 2 2015 Police Chief reverse or modify the Chief's findings only if: a. The findings are not supported by substantial evidence; or b. The findings are unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious; or c. The findings are contrary to a police department policy or practice, or any federal, state or local law. 5. When the Board has completed its review of the Police Chiefs report, the Board issues a public report to the city council. The public report must include: (1) detailed findings of fact; and (2) a clearly articulated conclusion explaining why and the extent to which the complaint is either "sustained" or "not sustained ". (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(13)(3)).) 6. Even if the Board finds that the complaint is sustained, the Board has no authority to discipline the officer involved. BOARD'S PROCEDURE The Complaint was initiated by the Complainant on 5/22/14. As required by Section 8-8-5(B) of the City Code, the Compliant was referred to the Chief of Police for investigation. The Chief's Report was filed with the City Clerk on 7/30/14. The Board voted on September 15, 2014 to apply the following Level of Review to the Chief's Report: On the record with no additional investigation, pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 8-8-(B)(1)(a). The Board met to consider the Report on August 26, 2014, September 15, 2014, October 13, 2014, November 10, 2014, December 3, 2014, December 8, 2014, and December 29, 2014. Board members reviewed audio and/or video recordings of the incident. FINDINGS OF FACT On May 6, 2014 at 5:18 p.m., Officer A stopped the Complainant's husband at the 700 blk of Mormon Trek Blvd. (immediately south of Bartlett Rd, adjacent to the Pheasant Ridge complex) to speak with him about an incident that had taken place at the Pheasant Ridge Apartment Complex, and to issue a criminal trespass warning. The Complainant's husband acknowledged Officer A, but refused to stop, or provided identification as requested. While Officer A was attempting to have a conversation with the Complainant's husband, the Complainant pulled up in her vehicle on Mormon Trek Blvd, adjacent to Officer A and the Complainant's husband. The Complainant had four children in the back seat of the vehicle. The Complainant's husband opened the passenger door and entered the vehicle. Officer A advised the Complainant she was free to leave but the Complainant's husband was not. When asked if the complainan's� 2015 husband was under arrest, or being detained, Officer A responded "he is not under arrest} or being detain, but he is also not free to go." The complainant did not leave and turned` off. Additional officers arrived. Officer B went to the driver's side of the vehicle to speak with the Complainant, and Officer C went to the passenger side to assist Officer A. An additional officer, Officer D arrived and went to assist Officer B at the driver side of the vehicle. The Complainant was becoming increasingly upset and gave out her first name and license number. At one point the Complainant rolled her window half way up and refused Officer D directive to roll the window back down, because the Complainant stated they could still hear each other. Officer D then opened the driver's door. Only after the officer opened the door, did the officer ask the complainant to get out of the vehicle. The complainant's husband, at this point, was out of the vehicle on the passenger side. Officer D reached into the vehicle taking the Complainant by the arm and attempted to remove her from the vehicle within seconds of opening the vehicle door. The complainant's four children were inside the car when Officer D began to physically remove the complainant out of the vehicle. The complainant was still buckled to the vehicles seat belt as officer D and B continued to pull the complainant out of the vehicle. The Complainant continued to yell at the Officer D and tried to pull away holding onto the seat and console. Officer C came over to assist Officer D, the Complainant continued to struggle and was advised by the Officers she would be pepper sprayed. The Complainant continued to struggle and was pepper sprayed by Officer D. Officer then unbuckled the complainant's seat belt and removed the Complainant from the vehicle. The Complainant was taken to the Johnson County Jail where she was decontaminated by ambulance personnel. The children were relinquished to an acquaintance at the scene. Later in the day, the acquaintance approached Officer C and told them that at least some of the children were also suffering from the effects of being pepper -sprayed. An ambulance was required to respond and evaluate/ treat the children as needed for OC contamination. Allegation 1- Excessive Use of Force. The Police Chief's findings are unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. The Complainant alleges Officer D used excessive force by deploying his OC/Pepper Spray. The board recommends that the police chief or city manager reverse or modify their findings based on the board's conclusion. Though it may seem as the officer was following policy, it is our duty to ensure the discretion and judgment are used within enforcement of the policy, According to the policy The Use of Force (III) officers should "recognize and respect the value and special integrity of each human life ... a careful balancing of all human interests is required." Officer D in choosing to rapidly use force failed to recognize the hazards and dangers of employing pepper spray within 1) enclosed quarters of vehicle 2) a motor vehicle where children are present 3) on someone who could reasonable gain control of the vehicle. Furthermore, section 804.8 under the Use of Force Policy IV. Code of Iowa- Use of Force in Making Arrests and Preventing Escape, indicates that use of force should be reserved for times when a "peace officer reasonably believes to be necessary to effect the arrest or to defend any person from bodily harm while making the arrest." The CPRB agreed that under these provisions, Officer D failed to accurately assess the situation and use reasonable judgment. The complainant showed no physical threat/harm to herself, her children, her husband, or the officers. Furthermore, the complainant had asked questions in regards to her husband's holding and was met with ambiguous responses. Officer D displayed unreasonable and sudden reactions to the circumstances. No reasonable person would use such a weapon (pepper spray) within an enclosed car, in the presence of four children, and without first knowing the context of the situation. The CPRB finds the actions of officer D sudden and troubling when considering the extremely brief time frame in which the officer had contact with the complainant. Officer D arrived at the scene and rapidly escalated tensions 1) by opening the door without permission or first asking the complainant to open the door, 2) pulling the complainant out of the vehicle without providing her time to unbuckle her seatbelt, and 3) ultimately pepper -spraying the complainant within seconds of opening her door. Allegation #1 — Excessive Use of Force — Sustained. COMMENTS The CPRB acknowledges that suitable changes have since been made to the Weapons policy. XAN02201" CITIZENS POLICE REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240-1826 (319) 356-5041 December 8, 2014 To: City Council r Complainant City Manager Equity Director Sam Hargadine, Chief of Police Officer(s) involved in complaint From: Citizen Police Review Board Re: Investigation of CPRB Complaint #14-04 This is the Report of the Citizens Police Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint CPRB #14-04 (the "Complaint"). BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, the Board's responsibilities are as follows: 1. The Board forwards all complaints to the Police Chief, who completes an investigation. (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(A).) 2. When the Board receives the Police Chief's report, the Board must select one or more of the following levels of review, in accordance with Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(1): a. On the record with no additional investigation. b. Interview /meet with complainant. c. Interview /meet with named officer(s) and other officers. d. Request additional investigation by the police chief, or request police assistance in the board's own investigation. e. Perform its own investigation with the authority to subpoena witnesses. f. Hire independent investigators. 3. In reviewing the Police Chiefs report, the Board must apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review. This means that the Board must give deference to the Police Chiefs report, because of the Police Chiefs professional expertise. (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(2).) 4. According to Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(2), the Board can recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify the Chiefs findingsU1 if: a. The findings are not supported by substantial evidence; or b. The findings are unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious; or c. The findings are contrary to a police department policy or practice, or any federal, state or local law. 5. When the Board has completed its review of the Police Chiefs report, the Board issues a public report to the city council. The public report must include: (1) detailed findings of fact; and (2) a clearly articulated conclusion explaining why and the extent to which the complaint is either "sustained" or "not sustained ". (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(3).) 6. Even if the Board finds that the complaint is sustained, the Board has no authority to discipline the officer involved. BOARD'S PROCEDURE The Complaint was initiated by the Complainant on 07/23/2014. 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 09/18/2014. The Board voted on 11/10/2014 to apply the following Level of Review to the Chiefs Report: "On the record with no additional investigation", pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 8-.7(B-a)(a). _s The Board met to consider the Report on 10/13/2014, 11/10/2014, 12/03/2014, anc:1.2/08r2=014. Board members reviewed audio and/or video recordings of the incident. .I FINDINGS OF FACT On April 27, 2014, at 11:59 pm, officers responded to Highway 1 near Sunset for a vehicle in the ditch with its headlights on. Upon arrival, officers found the vehicle still in the ditch and the Complainant sitting in the front passenger seat of a witness's vehicle. The Complainant was on the phone with his insurance company trying to arrange for a towing company to remove the vehicle from the ditch. During conversations with the Complainant and the witness, officers learned the following information about the crash. The Complainant had been to Walmart to get a can of dust off air to blow off his computer. The Complainant left Walmart, and went westbound on Highway 1. He initially told officers he was going home but later said he was going to an adult store in Cedar Rapids. The witness said the Complainant crossed the median and both eastbound lanes of traffic and then went into the ditch. When the Complainant was asked how he ended up in the ditch, he said he may have fallen asleep, he did not remember. The accident occurred within a few blocks of Walmart, which can be seen from the scene of the accident. The Complainant's vehicle was removed from the ditch by the towing company and towed to his residence. After speaking with the Complainant about the accident, officers felt the Complainant may have been impaired so they began field. sobriety tests. After the evaluation, officers took the Complainant to the police department for further testing. The Complainant was advised of his rights. He initially denied and then later admitted to inhaling the dust off. The Complainant also admitted the can of dust off was in his vehicle. ALLEGATION 1 — Responsibilities. The Complainant claims the officers failed to call an ambulance to check for medical conditions that may have caused the crash. At the scene, while on the phone with his insurance company, the Complainant is clearly overheard saying he is not injured. Later when the Complainant is asked by officers if he needs medical attention, he says he does not. The Complainant is also asked on more than one occasion if he has any disabilities that would affect his ability to perform any of the field sobriety tests, and he never claims any injuries or disabilities. These statements are supported by the video/audio recording, and officer reports. According to officers, the Complainant also had no apprant or observable injuries. Allegation: Responsibilities - Not sustained ALLEGATION 2 — Obedience to laws and regulations. The Complainant alleges officers illegally searched his vehicle and failed to follow department impound procedures when towing his vehicle. The Complainant also claimed officers completed a statement as part of the search warrant application that was intentionally misleading. The vehicle was impounded after officers were denied permission to enter the vehicle to remove a can of compressed air that was wanted as evidence. The officer did not inventory the vehicle when it was towed because the search would have been illegal at that point. Officers were advised by the Johnson County Attorney's Office to tow the vehicle from the Complainant's residence, and apply for a search warrant. A search warrant was issued after a judge determined probable cause existed. After obtaining the search warrant, an officer searched the vehicle and removed a can of "Ultra Duster" from the vehicle. Allegation: Obedience to laws and regulations - Not sustained ALLEGATION 3 — Incompetence. The Complainant stated the officers failed to include all the relevant and important information in the reports submitted to the County Attorney's Office and that this failure meant the County Attorney's Office was unable to include information into decision on whether to prosecute the case. The officers documented theirs observations of the Compliant and his performance of the field sobriety tests both at the scene and the police department in their reports. There is also in car video and video from inside the police department. All of this was made available to the County Attorney's Office, the Complainant, and to his attorney, as well as to this Board. A review shows no coercive and there was no motion to suppress filed. Allegation: Incompetence - Not sustained COMMENTS CO The original eight allegations are summarized in the three categories listed above..-', 5" �� CITIZENS POLICE REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240-1826 (319) 356-5041 December 8, 2014 Re: Investigation of CPRB Complaint #14-08 This is the Report of the Citizens Police Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint CPRB #14-08 (the "Complaint"). BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, the Board's responsibilities are as follows: 1. The Board forwards all complaints to the Police Chief, who completes an investigation. (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(A).) 2. When the Board receives the Police Chiefs report, the Board must select one or more of the following levels of review, in accordance with Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(1): a. On the record with no additional investigation. b. Interview /meet with complainant. c. Interview /meet with named officer(s) and other officers. d. Request additional investigation by the police chief, or request police assistance in the board's own investigation. e. Perform its own investigation with the authority to subpoena witnesses. f. Hire independent investigators. 3. In reviewing the Police Chief's report, the Board must apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review. This means that the Board must give deference to the Police Chiefs report, because of the Police Chiefs professional expertise. (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(2).) 4. According to Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(2), the Board can recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify the Chiefs findings only if: a. The findings are not supported by substantial evidence; or To: City Council - Complainant City Manager Equity Director Sam Hargadine, Chief of Police Officer(s) involved in complaint From: Citizen Police Review Board Re: Investigation of CPRB Complaint #14-08 This is the Report of the Citizens Police Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint CPRB #14-08 (the "Complaint"). BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, the Board's responsibilities are as follows: 1. The Board forwards all complaints to the Police Chief, who completes an investigation. (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(A).) 2. When the Board receives the Police Chiefs report, the Board must select one or more of the following levels of review, in accordance with Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(1): a. On the record with no additional investigation. b. Interview /meet with complainant. c. Interview /meet with named officer(s) and other officers. d. Request additional investigation by the police chief, or request police assistance in the board's own investigation. e. Perform its own investigation with the authority to subpoena witnesses. f. Hire independent investigators. 3. In reviewing the Police Chief's report, the Board must apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review. This means that the Board must give deference to the Police Chiefs report, because of the Police Chiefs professional expertise. (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(2).) 4. According to Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(2), the Board can recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify the Chiefs findings only if: a. The findings are not supported by substantial evidence; or b. The findings are unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious; or c. The findings are contrary to a police department policy or practice, or any federal, state or local law. 5. When the Board has completed its review of the Police Chiefs report, the Board issues a public report to the city council. The public report must include: (1) detailed findings of fact; and (2) a clearly articulated conclusion explaining why and the extent to which the complaint is either "sustained" or "not sustained ". (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(3).) 6. Even if the Board finds that the complaint is sustained, the Board has no authority to discipline the officer involved. BOARD'S PROCEDURE The Complaint was initiated by the Complainant on 09/24/2014. 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 11/07/2014. The Board voted on 11/10/2014 to apply the following Level of Review to the Chiefs Report: "On the record with no additional investigation", pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(1)(a). r._,) The Board met to consider the Report on 11/25/2014, 12/03/2014, and 12/08/2014. C-' Board members reviewed audio and/or video recordings of the incident. FINDINGS OF FACTnP On April 27, 2014, at 11:59 pm, officers responded to Highway 1 near Sunset for a vehicle in the ditch with its headlights on. Upon arrival, officers found the vehicle still in the ditch and the Complainant sitting in the front passenger seat of a witness's vehicle. The Complainant was on the phone with his insurance company trying to arrange for a towing company to remove the vehicle from the ditch. During conversations with the Complainant and the witness, officers learned the following information about the crash. The Complainant had been to Walmart to get a can of dust off air to blow off his computer. The Complainant left Walmart, and went westbound on Highway 1. He initially told officers he was going home but later said he was going to an adult store in Cedar Rapids. The witness said the Complainant crossed the median and both eastbound lanes of traffic and then went into the ditch. When the Complainant was asked how he ended up in the ditch, he said he may have fallen asleep, he did not remember. After investigating the accident, Officer A completed a state accident report and estimated the damage to the Complainant's vehicle as $1500. Officers also issued the Complainant a citation for failure to maintain control of his vehicle. The Complainant was also arrested for Operating while intoxicated. ALLEGATION 1 — Officer included inaccurate information in an official police report. On September 1, 2014, the Complainant contacted the police department by email, asking to have the damage estimate changed as he was concerned the accident would be reported to the DOT and listed on his driving record. The Complainant stated he repaired the damage himself, however the Complainant admitted he never took the vehicle.to a mechanic or body shop to verify the damage or obtain a repair estimate. Officer A emailed the Complainant, saying the damage estimate on scene was not meant to be a solid figure, and declined to change the estimate. Allegation: Officer included inaccurate information in an official police. report - Not sustained ALLEGATION 2 — This was a retaliation against the Complainant for filing a complaint against another officer in an earlier CPRB complaint. Officer A said he was aware the Complainant had filed an earlier CPRB complaint against another officer, however repeated the damage estimate on scene was not meant to be a solid figure, and if the damage to the vehicle was repaired by a body shop, it would be at least $1500. Officer A stated he did not set the damage amount to penalize the Complainant. The Complainant did not take the vehicle for a damage estimate, there is no way to prove the damage estimate was or was not $1500. Allegation: This was a retaliation against the Complainant for filing a complaint against another officer in an earlier CPRB complaint - Not sustained COMMENTS None [GJ 02-23-15 FINAL/APPR 3b(5) CITIZENS POLICE REVIEW BOARD MINUTES — December 29, 2014 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Melissa Jensen called the meeting to order at 8:07 A.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Royceann Porter, Joseph Treloar MEMBERS ABSENT: Fidencio Martinez, Mazahir Salih STAFF PRESENT: Staff Kellie Tuttle and Patrick Ford STAFF ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL None EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Porter, seconded by Treloar to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section 21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22-7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. Motion carried, 3/0, Martinez and Salih absent. Open session adjourned at 8:08 A.M. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 8:38 A.M. Motion by Treloar, seconded by Porter to request an extension to January 14, 2015 for CPRB Complaint #14-02, due to the holidays and the need for a final meeting to complete the Public report. Motion carried, 3/0, Martinez and Salih absent. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change) • February 10, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm • March 10, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm •April 14, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Treloar, seconded by Porter. Motion carried, 3/0, Martinez and Salih absent. Meeting adjourned at 8:39 A.M. Z a CD N `C A R UQ L—A O x o o 00 N M+ W i A Ul ul 00 H+ W O 14 Z m"1 3b(6) MINUTES — FINAL CITY OF IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION February 12, 2015 — 8:15 a.m. HELLING (LOBBY) CONFERENCE ROOM — CITY HALL Members Present: Lyra Dickerson, Jesse Case Members Absent: Paul Hoffey Staff Present: Karen Jennings, Captain Jim Steffen, Captain Doug Hart, Tracy Robinson Others Present: None RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL (become effective only after separate Council action): None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 8:15 a.m. Lyra Dickerson chaired the meeting. CERTIFICATION OF PROMOTIONAL LISTS FOR THE POSITIONS OF POLICE CAPTAIN. POLICE LIEUTENANT AND POLICE_ SERGEANT: After a brief discussion, Case moved to accept the promotional list for Police Captain as proposed, Dickerson seconded and all were in favor. Case moved to accept the promotional list for Police Lieutenant as proposed, Dickerson seconded and all were in favor. Case moved to accept the promotional list for Police Sergeant as proposed, Dickerson seconded and all were in favor OLD BUSINESS: Jennings stated that promotional testing for the Fire Department will be scheduled for late spring/early summer per the process that was approved by the Commission last year. NEW BUSINESS: None. ADJOURNMENT: Case moved to adjourn, Dickerson seconded and the meeting was adjourned at 8:20 a.m. Board/Commission: Civil Service Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2015 (Meeting Date) NAME TERM EXPIRES 2/12/15 Lyra Dickerson 4/3/18 X Paul Hoffe 4/4/16 O/E Jesse Case 4/3/17 X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No Meeting --- = Not a Member February 12, 2015 ► r i . ,fir VIII"�� CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (3 19) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council www.icgov.org RE: Civil Service Promotional Examination — POLICE CAPTAIN We, the undersigned members of the Civil Service Commission for Iowa City, Iowa, do hereby certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Police Captain. 1. Troy Kelsay IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Lyra . Dickerson, Chair Paul C. Holley Jesse Case ATTEST: Manan K. Karr, City Clerk February 12, 2015 TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council RE: Civil Service Promotional Examination — POLICE LIEUTENANT in11>1� CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (319) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX www.lcgov.org We, the undersigned members of the Civil Service Commission for Iowa City, Iowa, do hereby certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Police Lieutenant. 1. Denise Brotherton 2. David Droll 3. Chris Akers 4. Zach Diersen IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Lyra KDickerson, Chair Paul C. Hoffey (b:�e� Jesse Case ATTEST: Maria K. Karr, City Clerk February 12, 2015 TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council RE: Civil Service Promotional Examination — POLICE SERGEANT _! I r 1 CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (3 19) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX www.lcgov.org We, the undersigned members of the Civil Service Commission for Iowa City, Iowa, do hereby certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Police Sergeant. 1. Kevin Bailey 2. Jeff Fink 3. Dave Schwindt 4. Jerry Blomgren 5. Jeremy Bossard IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Lyra . Dickerson, Chair Paul C. Hoffey Agatt t Jesse Case ATTEST: Maribn K. Karr, City Clerk 3b(7) MINUTES APPROVED HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 8, 2015 EMMA HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Ackerson, Thomas Agran, Esther Baker, Gosia Clore, Kate Corcoran, Frank Durham, Pam Michaud, Ben Sandell, Ginalie Swaim MEMBERS ABSENT: Andrew Litton, Frank Wagner STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo OTHERS PRESENT: RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action) CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Swaim called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: 608 Grant Street. Miklo said this property is on the east side of Grant Street in the Longfellow Historic District. He said the Commission reviewed this a little over a year ago, approving some modifications to the back of the house to allow a deck and also repair of the balcony, which is in process. Miklo said the original application was to allow a deck and add French doors where there was previously a window. He said the deck and French doors have been added and showed the plan that was approved, with the deck stairway going to the east into the yard. Miklo said that now that the deck has been built, the applicant is requesting a modification. He said that because the yard slopes to the east, the number of steps to reach the deck would be more than anticipated, meaning that it would take up more of the lawn space. Miklo said the applicant also feels the deck would be more useful if the entrance was to the north side, because there is a kitchen door on the north side of the house and a paved patio area on the north side of the house. Miklo said the owner is therefore requesting, in lieu of the previously approved plan, which meets the guideline, that the alternate plan be considered. He said the guidelines recommend that modern additions or decks be set in at least eight inches from the edge of the property or the house. Miklo stated that this proposal would put the stairway portion of the deck north of the house, where it would be fairly visible but would, in the applicant's view, provide better circulation in terms of the yard, require a shorter run of stairs, and provide quicker access to the patio area and the door on the north side of the house. Miklo said the design of the deck material would be very simple, with a wrought iron railing similar to what is being replaced on the front of the house. He said that approval of this plan HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 8, 2015 Page 2 of 8 would require an exception to the guidelines, which say that modern decks should be to the back and set in. Miklo said there is language in the guidelines that gives direction as to when an exception should be granted, and one of them refers to when there is an unusual lot configuration, shape, or topography. He said that may be the case here, in that the change in grade from the north lawn to the east lawn does provide some rationale as to why a stairway on the north side would make the deck more functional. Miklo said one other thing to note is that typical decks have wood, usually cedar, posts and spindles. He said there have been other proposals where someone has proposed metal, and staff has recommended against approval of that. Miklo stated that in this particular case, because of the wrought iron railing that was on the front of the house and in keeping with the Mediterranean style of the house, the applicant is proposing a metal railing, which will be less obvious, less bulky, and less noticeable, as it will be painted black. Given the circumstances of the yard configuration and the use of the metal railing, Miklo said staff believes that an exception does warrant consideration here. He said staff recommends approval of the proposal. Miklo said that if the Commission feels this warrants an exception, that should be stated in the motion. Michaud asked about the picket fences shown under the deck in the photograph. Miklo said they are just being stored there. He said there will be a lattice work under the deck. MOTION: Corcoran moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 608 Grant Street, including an exception to the guidelines for an eight -inch set in from the sidewall due to the change in grade from the side yard to the rear yard, with the following conditions: the railing for the deck and stairs will be made of metal to match or complement the historic railing located on the balcony on the front of the house, applicant to provide plan and details for the railing, all of the above to be reviewed and approved by chair and staff. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Litton. Sandell, and Wagner absent). 331 North Gilbert Street/321_ Davenport Street Miklo said this property is in the Northside Historic District and is at the corner of Davenport and Gilbert Streets. He said there were two lots here: 331 Gilbert Street and 321 Davenport Street. Miklo said that combining the two lots has made one L-shaped lot. Miklo said the house at 321 burned down in May of 2009. He said the City's Housing Authority purchased that lot with the intention of building an affordable housing unit there. Miklo said the City later agreed to sell the property to the owner of 331, who is now proposing to build a carriage house or garage on the property. Miklo showed the house at 331 North Gilbert. He showed the view from the alley, looking north, and where the house burned down and where the garage would be built. Miklo showed the view looking north, standing on Davenport Street to the south, and the view from Gilbert Street and where the garage would be constructed. Miklo said staff received a revised plan, which he had sent out to Commission members. He said the plan illustrates the position of the garage. Miklo showed the view with regard to the new plan, and the plan view of the back of the lot and the garage, showing that it would have three stalls. He said it would be larger than most garages and would measure 32 feet by 32 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 8, 2015 Page 3 of 8 feet. Miklo said it would have a stairway leading to what would initially be a storage space above. He said that if there were some zoning changes, there is a possibility there could someday be an apartment on the second level, but that is not under consideration at this time. Miklo said the revised plan addresses all of the items that were identified in the staff report in terms of meeting the guidelines for new outbuildings or garages in historic districts. He stated that the building is placed to the rear of the property, such as it is with this oddly -shaped lot. Miklo said the doors would be on the alley side, as recommended. He said the applicant has chosen a carriage -style door, which is fitting for a garage in this neighborhood. Miklo said the siding will be fiber cement, lap siding, between three to five inches in width, which would meet the guidelines. He added that the original siding on the house was probably three inches, although it now has vinyl over it. Miklo said the applicant has provided information now about the two entry doors, which would be fiberglass, panel doors. He said that once they are painted they look very much like a wood door, and that now meets the guidelines. Miklo said the detailing in terms of the window and door trim now meets the guidelines. Miklo said staff recommends approval of the revised plan as submitted and shown in the revised drawings. Swaim asked if, in drawing number one, one of the details represents wood or cement board siding. Miklo confirmed this and said the applicant has indicated this would be cement board. Michaud asked if this will be a separate residence or if it will be coupled with 331. Miklo responded that the requirements of the zoning code and of the purchase agreement that the City had with the applicant now make this one lot — one tract. He said this will therefore be an accessory use, a garage to serve the house at 331 N. Gilbert. Michaud said it is really set back from the house. She said it looks like the two major houses on Gilbert were there first and then they sold that back half off. Miklo replied that these were always separate lots. He said the initial City lots were 80 feet by 150 feet deep. Miklo said the initial lots went from Davenport Street to the alley. He said that at some point in time, probably before 1900, the 80 -foot lot was split, with 331 and 325 Gilbert Street being built on that. Miklo said then 321 and 319 Davenport Street were one 80 -foot lot that was then split down the middle. He said that was not an unusual situation throughout the North Side. Michaud asked if the alley is paved. Miklo did not know whether it is paved or not. Michaud said that when she inquired about building a carriage house on her lot, it seemed like they wanted it to have a long driveway into the street, about a 50 -foot driveway. She asked if this is going to be off the alley because there is enough room to set it back. Miklo confirmed this. He said it will actually be set back about 20 feet to allow a car to park behind the garage. Michaud asked if there could ever be another primary residence built in front of the carriage house. Miklo said it could not be done without a zone change. He said there is not enough land area there for a second house. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 8, 2015 Page 4 of 8 Michaud asked if this is one of the lots that is being reconsidered for zoning around Clinton and Dubuque. Miklo answered that it is not. Michaud said it seems sensible that with such a large carriage house that it should be another primary residence. Miklo stated that both of these are non -conforming in terms of the lot width or area required in the underlying Neighborhood Stabilization (RNS-12) zone. He said that the zoning code states that if two non -conforming lots come under one ownership, they become one conforming lot, because they then meet the minimum requirements for zoning. Miklo added that the purchase agreement that the applicant entered into with the City when he purchased the property was that this would become one lot. Miklo said that in some of the residential zones, the City does allow accessory apartments above garages. He said that this particular zone does not allow that, although there may be the possibility of that changing in the future. Miklo said that is the only way the second floor space could be converted to living space. He said that is not an issue for Commission consideration. Michaud said that, in terms of historic preservation, a two -car or two -door garage would be more traditional. Miklo said it would be, but there are some locations in the North Side where there are some larger gang garages where there might even be four cars. He said the Commission's role is to determine if this fits and if it meets the guidelines, and staff feels that it does. MOTION: Baker moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for 331 North Gilbert Street in accordance with the revised plans. Ackerson seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Litton, Sandell, and Wagner absent),. REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF: Miklo said that most of these issues were fairly minor or replacement materials with like materials. DISCUSSION OF ANNUAL AWARDS PROGRAM: Swaim said the Annual Awards Program is to be held January 29. Miklo said he wanted to discuss the house on Grant Street with the Commission. He said it was on the committee's list of nominees, but it did not look like it would be complete before the awards program so the committee took it off the list. Miklo said the owner has indicated that she believes she will have the balcony replaced and put back before the January 29th awards program. He said the question is whether this should receive an award, primarily for exterior finish work. Miklo said the owners did considerable stucco repair, painted the exterior of the house, and are repairing the balcony. Miklo said it is somewhat of an unusual house with a Mediterranean style. He said it doesn't really fit the neighborhood, but it is historic. Miklo said the owner provided a write up from a book of 1920s house plans that the house was based on. He said if the balcony is put back on so that it retains its historic appearance from the street, the Commission might want to consider it again. Swaim stated that the awards committee would be meeting the next day. She said that she and Alicia Trimble are working on the program that is passed out to attendees. Swaim said it HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 8, 2015 Page 5 of 8 wouldn't be done tomorrow, but they would want to make certain that listing this would mean that it was truly done. She said the committee could discuss it, unless Commission members have input. Miklo suggested taking it off the list of award recipients if it is not done a week before the event. He said it could then be considered the next year. Agran said that there was another house that is on Dodge Street that is not 100% finished. He said that, since it sounds like this award is being given primarily for paint and stucco repair as opposed to having the porch railing back on, it seems like it would be reasonable to re -include it and take the risk, because the risk is quite small. Miklo said this house was added onto extensively at some point. He said that all of the shingle work is the result of additions to the back of the house. Miklo said that from the street one really doesn't see this. The consensus of the Commission was to include the property on the list of award winners. Miklo said the Commission also needed to discuss the Margaret Nowysz Preservation Person of the Year Award, which is considered the Commission's highest honor. He said the award is not given every year. Miklo said this year the proposal is to give it to John Shaw, an architect who has worked on several historic preservation projects, including the Vine Building, the work on the Saint Thomas More Parish House on McLean Street, and the Englert Theater. Swaim said the number of projects Shaw has worked on that are preservation projects and have won awards is 20 or so. Swaim said the Park House Hotel, on Jefferson and Dubuque Streets, was a major save. She added that Shaw was on the Historic Preservation Commission at one time and also served as chair. Swaim said she feels that because of the depth and length of his career and how much of it was dedicated to preservation, she feels he would be a good nominee. MOTION: Corcoran moved that the Historic Preservation Commission present this year's Margaret Nowysz Award to Architect John Shaw of Iowa City, in recognition of his work on numerous historic preservation projects in Iowa City, including the Vine, the Saint Thomas More Parish House, the Englert Theater, and the Park House Hotel. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Litton and Wapner absent). Swaim said she hopes all of the Commission members can attend the awards, as it is a great chance to celebrate all that has been accomplished. She said it will be held at the Public Library at 5:30 on January 29. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 11, 2014: MOTION: Durham moved to approve the minutes of the December 11, 2014 Historic Preservation Commission meeting, as written. Corcoran seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Litton and Waqner absent). HISTORIC PRESERVATION INFORMATION. Regarding the cottages on South Dubuque Street, Miklo said the City Council has set a meeting regarding this item for its January 201h meeting. He said that a yes vote from six out of seven City Council members would be required to approve the landmark nomination. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 8, 2015 Page 6 of 8 Miklo said that if there is an indication that the City Council will not approve this, the City Council will have to first meet with the Planning and Zoning Commission to give the Planning and Zoning Commission the opportunity to convince them why they should give the two remaining buildings landmark status. He said that would happen after January 20, if there is an indication on the 20th that there are not six members in support of landmark status. Swaim said if there is an indication that six members may be in favor, there would be two additional City Council readings regarding this item. Miklo confirmed this. Swaim said that at the Historic Preservation Commission's hearing, Nancy Carlson had asked about the North Clinton/Dubuque Street District and Civic District. Miklo said the Planning and Zoning Commission is considering a Comprehensive Plan amendment for the area roughly from Iowa Avenue on the north to Burlington Street from Gilbert Street mid -block to just east of Johnson Street. He said it is kind of a gap area that was not covered in either the downtown plan or the Central District Plan. Miklo showed the area for which there is a proposal to include in the downtown plan. He said the proposal would also include the area starting at the mid block in the Central District Plan. Miklo said there is also a block area just north of Market Street near Old Brick to Dubuque Street, and the proposal is to include that in the Central District Plan. Miklo said Carlson brought it to the Commission's attention because there are some known historic buildings in those areas that are not designated, and she wanted to have people advocate for addressing those buildings in the plan. Swaim asked what the timeline on all of that is. Miklo responded that the public hearing is before the Planning and Zoning Commission on January 15 at 7 p.m. He said there was a website or e-mail address in the material that was sent out where one can make comments in lieu of attending the meeting. Swaim asked how making these properties part of these districts would affect zoning. Miklo answered that there is the potential for different zoning. He stated that this area is mostly designated for civic or government use. Miklo said the City's plan for the past 30 or 40 years was to acquire all properties between Iowa Avenue and Burlington Street from Gilbert over to Van Buren for government uses. He said the thought has changed such that the City will not require that amount of land. Miklo said there may be other properties that could be developed for private use or for a combination of government and private use. He said this plan would give some guidance as to how that area would develop. Miklo said that once this is presented by staff to the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Planning and Zoning Commission would make a recommendation to the City Council, which would then decide to include it in the Comprehensive Plan or not after a public hearing. Swaim said the questions sent out by staff via e-mail on December 12 are a chance for the public as well as individual Commission members to address what concerns them. Miklo confirmed this. Michaud asked about the boundaries. Miklo said he believes it goes to the edge of the CB -5 or CB -2 zone. He said there is a map online. Miklo said the text is also important, as it doesn't HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION January 8, 2015 Page 7 of 8 say this should all be treated as one unified district but talks about creating a transition to the College Green Neighborhood and how that might be done. Sandell asked if a survey of the historic properties in these historic districts has been done. Miklo replied that they were included as part of larger surveys. He said that a small area was found to be eligible for the College Hill Conservation District, but when that district was actually proposed, the area on Washington Street was removed. Miklo said the survey does identify a few buildings that are National Register eligible. In terms of the structures that have been identified as potentially historic, Swaim asked Miklo if he could send the Commission members the portions of the surveys that have to do with those properties. Michaud said it seems like this is a pretty major change. She said that if Carlson already asked that the Commission address this, it might need more attention than a month-old e-mail. Miklo said he thought Carlson's intention was to encourage the Commission to participate in the process. He said that is why she brought it to the Commission's attention. Miklo said the meeting before the Planning and Zoning Commission is next week and encouraged people to send a message or statement to the Planning and Zoning Commission. He said the Commission could also send a statement as a body. Michaud asked, even though this is already CB -2, what changes would occur if it is officially part of downtown. Miklo said the proposal is that the area west of Van Buren Street be included in the downtown plan, which would open the possibility of CB -10 zoning, but that the area east of Van Buren Street be included in the Central District. Michaud asked if the three blocks from Burlington to Iowa Avenue are all zoned CB -2. Miklo said he thought they are but said that some of them might actually be CB -5, which is a little bit higher. Michaud said the height limit in a CB -2 zone is 45 feet. She said that would be allowing four-story buildings with a 14 -foot commercial level height. Michaud asked what the status of the Chauncey is right now for plans and heights. Miklo said he believes it is planned for 15 floors. Michaud said that has to be reviewed for the TIF. Miklo confirmed this and said it also has to be reviewed for zoning. Swaim encouraged Commission members to take time to look at this and give feedback. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:11 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte Z O � 0 O O U U Z LLJ 0 U > � Z V r N N W Z W IL U Q R 0 cn X E W N c fE ILQQZ II II II II w, XOO1 x x x x x x LLI o x x x 0 N X X X LU O x x x X X X w O M x W O W O x X X X X X X X r CD r x X X X X X X X x LLJ O uj O X X X X X X X X X p X qq x 0 x LU X X X X X x X X X O O LLI O x x x co co o x x x x x x x x x o 0 X 0 x x 0 x o x x x x M X x x I X x X x i X W O Cl) M C' N o x X X i X x 0 X I X x ti Cl) C' V- M x X x I X x X X i X X N CO r- LO r- CO W r- LO r- LO LO �a W X -- rn N rn N rn N rn N rn N rn N rn N rn N rn N rn N rn N W F M M M M C7 M M Cl) M M M ~ a w a~ Z W a ZW a Y O H 0 Y w p a m Q UJ Z_LL 0 H W Q Q J Z M z Q oC W W 0 Q = z 0 Q o g w ZU' W O U U Z a Q Q Co V 0 J U X E W N c fE ILQQZ II II II II w, XOO1 Minutes Human Rights Commission January 20, 2015 — 6 PM Emma J. Harvat Hall , , T1IID117 Members Present: Harry Olmstead, Orville Townsend Sr, Kim Hanrahan, Joe D. Coulter, Stella Hart, Paul Retish, Edie Pierce -Thomas. Members Not Present: Shams Ghoneim, Ali Ahmed. Staff Present: Stefanie Bowers. Recommendations to Council: No. Call to Order: Coulter called the meeting to order at 18:00. Consideration of the Minutes from the December 15, 2014 Meeting Date: Motion Townsend, seconded by Hanrahan. Motion passed 6-0. (Olmstead not present). New Business Introduction of New Commissioner Pierce -Thomas moved back to Iowa City from West Lafayette, Indiana where she served on the Human Relations Commission. She is looking forward to serving on the Human Rights Commission. Election of Chair Motion Townsend to nominate Coulter as the 2015 Chair, seconded by Hart. Motion passed 5-2. (Olmstead and Coulter in the negative).' Election of Vice Chair Motion Coulter to nominate Hanrahan as the 2015 Vice Chair, seconded by Retish. Motion passed 5-2. (Hart and Olmstead in the negative). Affordable Housing & Inclusionary Zoning Olmstead mentioned the recent Council Work Session (1-6-2015) on affordable housing and inclusionary zoning. Specifically the Council discussion on Riverfront Crossing. Motion Olmstead for a letter to be sent to the Council applauding and supporting its recent discussion on affordable housing and also asking Council to continue to look at the various options available in the future for affordable and inclusionary zoning here in Iowa City, seconded Hanrahan. Motion passed 7-0. Juneteenth Celebration 150 Year Anniversary Bowers provided a brief history of the national holiday along with the financial contribution by the Commission in the past for the event. The event will be held here in Johnson County on June 27. Olmstead and Hart will serve on the planning committee for Juneteenth. Commissioners discussed providing financial sponsorship for Juneteenth. In the past the Commission has sponsored at an amount of $350. 1 Coulter voted for Olmstead. Motion by Hart for 2 Commission members to join the planning committee for Juneteenth and possibly plan a program for the event, seconded by Hanrahan. Motion passed 7-0. Motion by Townsend to provide sponsorship at $400 for the 2015 Juneteenth event, seconded by Hart. Motion passed 5-2. (Hanrahan and Pierce -Thomas in the negative). Black History Month Proclamation Hanrahan will accept the proclamation on behalf of the Commission along with a student friend on Monday, February 9 at the formal Council meeting. Invitation to Co -Sponsor Injustice On Our Plates: How Conditions of Food Workers Affect Us All The Commission agreed to sponsor this event without providing financial assistance. The Commission instead will send out notice of the event being held on February 28 from 9-3 at the University Capital Center. Motion by Hart, seconded by Pierce -Thomas. Motion passed 7-0. Sponsorship Request 2015 Choice Event The event will be held at the Hotel Vetro on Friday, January 23 starting at 5. The Commission chose to sponsor the event in the amount of $250. All the money raised for the event goes to the deProsse Access Fund that subsidizes services for under insured women and men accessing health care services at the Emma Goldman Clinic. Sponsorship comes with two complimentary tickets. Olmstead and Hanrahan will attend on behalf of the Commission. Motion Olmstead, seconded by Hart. Motion passed 7-0. Funding Request Soul Food Dinner The soul food dinner will be held on Friday, February 20 at either City High School or Grant Wood Elementary School. The Commission chose to offer financial sponsorship in the amount of $125 to assist with the cost of food, utensils and additional supplies. Commissioners respectfully request to be acknowledged on event information as a contributor. Motion Olmstead, seconded by Hanrahan. Motion passed 7-0. Old Business Center for Worker Justice Just Employment Initiative Bowers spoke about her concerns when the Commission actively investigates alleged human rights violations at their monthly meetings. Bowers cautioned that such action may cause complaints filed with the office to be transferred to another jurisdiction because the Commission is no longer impartial in the matter. Bowers suggested that the Commission discuss alternative ways to advocate and or support allegations of human rights violations. Volunteer Fair for Retired Persons Retish reports that he is currently looking at area organizations or nonprofits to assist with planning a volunteer fair for retired persons. Elder Services is an option but it may be a few more weeks before a meeting can be set up to discuss the venture in more detail due to staff changes at Elder Services. Action Plan 2015 Commissioners moved forward on approving the action plan for 2015. Motion Olmstead, seconded by Townsend. Motion passed 7-0. 2 Upcoming Events/Pro2rams Youth Awards The Mayor has been asked to deliver the keynote at this annual event being held on May 13. Reports Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day Proclamation Bowers accepted the proclamation at the January 6 formal Council meeting on behalf of the Commission. Human Rights Breakfast The Commission decided to hold its 2015 Breakfast at the Iowa Memorial Union (IMU). Bowers will follow up with a date and also request more service at the tables and better signage for the future event. Motion Olmstead, seconded Pierce -Thomas. Motion passed 7-0. Education Retish, Olmstead and Hanrahan all serve on the Iowa City Community School District's (ICCD) Equity Committee. The Policy and Engagement Committee of the ICCSD will be meeting in the near future to discuss the diversity plan and how to move forward on reducing some of the overrepresentation within the ICCSD as it relates to youth of color. Building Communities The Black Voices Project plans on holding small group discussions at various locations in the community including The Spot. Townsend will provide an update on the status of this outreach at future Commission meetings. University of Iowa Center for Human Rights The Kenneth J. Cmiel Funded Human Rights Internship applications are due on March 13. Equity Bowers gave a summary of the recent Council Work Session and discussion on the equity report held on January 13. Commission Hart reported that there will be upcoming street harassment trainings. She will forward an announcement for distribution to Bowers in the near future. Staff Bowers gave an update on the Youth Police Academy being planned for the summer. Adjournment: 20:23 Next Regular Meeting — February 17, 2015 at 6:00 pm. 3 Human Rights Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2014/2015 (Meetinn Dates NAME TERM EXP. 2/18/ 14 3/18/ 14 4/29/ 14 5/20/ 14 6/17/ 14 7/15/ 14 8/19/ 14 9/16/ 14 10/2/ 14 10/21/ 14 11/18 14 12/15 14 1/20 15 Edie Pierce- Thomas 1/1/2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - X Joe D. Coulter 1/1/2016 X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X Harry Olmstead 1/1/2016 X X X X X X X X X X X X X Paul Retish 1/1/2017 X O/E X X X O/E X O/E X O/E O/E X X Ali Ahmed 1/1/2017 X O/E O/E O/E X X X O/E X X X X O Orville Townsend, Sr. 1/1/2017 X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X Kim Hanrahan 1/1/2018 X X X O/E O/E X X X X X X X X Shams Ghoneim 1/1/2018 X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E Stella Hart 1/1/2018 - - - - X X X O/E X X X X X Andrea Cohen 1/1/2016 X O/E X X X X X O/E X O/E X X R KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = No longer a member R = Resignation Late handouts from Human Rights Commission Meeting held on Tuesday, January 20, 2015. COPY Stefanie Sowers Fes: (lark Sennett, Robin <robin4adc-benrwd@ulowa.edu> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 201511:18 AM (P� �K To: Harry Olmstead V _ \A Cc: Stefanie Bomrs \fp,v Subject: RE: Conference Attachments: Iryusdoe On Our Plates filar tinal.pdf r / Dear Harry and Stefanie, Per our previous emails, I'm attaching the flyer for the Labor Center's upcoming conference on Saturday February 28, 2015 from 9am-3pm entitled "injustice on Our Plates: How Conditions of Food Workers Affect us All." The conference will be held on the second floor of the Old Capitol Mall and is currently co-sponsored by: the University of Iowa Center for Human Rights, Office of Sustainabiiity, Department of Communication Studies, Department of History, Public Policy Center, Chief Diversity Office, and Latina/o Studies Minor, along with the Center for Worker Justice of Eastern Iowa, and the Iowa Federation of Labor. The Iowa City Human Rights Commission would be welcome to also co-sponsor the conference, if the commission is Interested in doing so. Co-sponsors agree to help publicize the conference, and if possible they contribute $100 toward the cost of the honorarium and travel for the keynote, as well as interpretation and other conference costs. Co-sponsors are listed on all publicity (the flyer is already printed, but future publicity could be amended to reflect any changes). The conference is free and open to the public, and will be simultaneously interpreted in Spanish. The keynote speaker will be Fakkak Mamdouh, co-founder and co-director of a dynamic restaurant workers' organization called Restaurant Opportunities Centers United (ROC), and co-author with Rinku Sen of The Accidental American: Immigration and Citizenship in the Age of Globalization. ROC brings together restaurant workers, consumers, and high -road employers to confront race -based barriers to advancement, sexual harassment, low pay, and unsafe conditions that workers commonly face in this industry. Mr. Mamdouh is a Moroccan -American immigrant who, prior to co-founding ROC, served as headwaiter at Windows on the World restaurant in the World Trade Towers until September 11, 2001. As he and his co-workers were forced to find new restaurant employment in the wake of the attack, they formed ROC -New York to confront the discrimination and poor conditions they found in the restaurant industry. Since then, ROC has grown to include more than 13,000 restaurant workers in 26 states. The organization has recovered over $10 million in unpaid wages for restaurant workers, produced dozens of reports about conditions in the industry, runs advanced restaurant workers training and placement programs, and has assisted restaurant workers in opening several ca -operatively owned restaurants (http://rocunited.or-o/ ) Other conference sessions will include: an overview of the 21 st century food industry; reports on current national projects to raise standards in restaurant, fast food, meatpacking, and agricultural work; and a panel discussion featuring local food workers. We are very excited about this conference, and encourage you to participate. Registration information and other details are listed on the flyer. Please don't hesitate to contact me with any questions you may have. Best regards, Robin Clark -Bennett From: Harry Olmstead [Harry03@aol.coml Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 3:26 PM COPY To: Clark -Bennett, Robin Cc: Stefanie Bowers Subject: Conference Robin: I've asked Stefanie to put the conference request on our January Agenda. When you get flyers get them to Stefanie and she can mail it out with our January package. There are 9 commissioners and the flyer will need to be to Stefanie the week before our meeting. The date of our next meeting will be January 20, 2015. Truly, Hart' Olmstead, Chairperson Iowa City Human Rights Commission COPY A one -day conference designed to bring together civil rights, labor, faith, and sustainable food activists and members of the University community to discuss current initiatives to create jabs with dignity for the people who harvest, process, cook, and serve our food. TOPICS WILL INCLUDE: • What challenges do workers face in the 21st -century food industry? • How are workers, consumers, and policy makers coming together to raise standards? • What's happening in Iowa? vi , Keynote Speaker Fekkak Mamdouh r Co -Director of Restaurant Opportunities Centers United (ROC) and co-author of The Accidental American: Immigration and Citizenship in the Age of Globalization. kr ; 2520-0 University Capitol Centre, Iowa City (2nd floor Old Capitol Mail) free and open to the public. Lunch provided for participants who register by February 23. To register, or for further information. call the University of Iowa labor Center a# 319-335-4144. Retish, Paul M From: Sam Hargadine <Sam-Hargadlne@iowa-city.org> Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2015 9:55 AM \� To: Retish, Paul M Cc: Stefanie Bowers Subject: RE: Meeting I enjoyed the talk too. I'm still trying to remember how Mel Gibson ever came up 9+ years ago. Beat 5 will be officer not assigned to the permanent beats i through 4. Float officers which will include K-9, SCAT or Street Crimes Action Team, an officer brought in on OT for a traffic detail. Also keep in mind that on a given day there may be an officer that is permanently assigned to work Beat 3. Hypothetically, Beat 3 may have everyone there but Beat 2 has nobody because one is on vacation and another called In sick. If there is a problem area the Watch Commander may reassign one or two from the overloaded area in to the area that is understaffed. While the Beat 3 officer is supposed to be in one area all of his/her activities for the day will show up in another. One of the things Dr. Bamum pointed out in his presentation to Council were officers that were assigned to the West side of town but they had a higher propensity or stop ratio in the S.E. side of town. That doesn't automatically mean that he's a cowboy picking on Persons of Color in the S.E. beat. Samuel E. Hargadine Chief of Police Iowa City Police Department 401 E. Washington Street Iowa City, LA 52245 --Original Message ---- From: Retish, Paul M jmailto:paul-retish@uiowa.edu] Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2015 9:40 AM To: Sam Hargadine Cc: Stefanie Bowers Subject: Meeting Chief. Thanks for your time on Friday. I appreciated your openness and frank discussion. I hope to open a discussion with the human rights commission as to how we can be a positive influence on community relations. I am reading the Traffic Study you shared with me and I have one question. The map continually shows 4 beat areas but the data includes 5 areas. Where or what is the fifth area? Thanks again. Paul Retish Sent from my iPad Stefanie Bowers From: Chace Ramey <Ramey.ChaoeWowscityschods.orP Sem: Tuesday, January 20, 2095 5:46 PM To: Stefanie Bowers; Harry Olmstead (HarryWalaol.com) Cc: Kingsley Botchway, Stephen Murley Subject: ICHRC Letter to Superintendent Murley Good Evening Stefanie and Harry. I hope that things are well with you. the Superintendent forwarded me the letter the ICHRC sent to him earlier this winter. We are enthusiastic about the commission's desire to support the work of the school district, and the points referenced in the letter align with the work of the District's Equity Committee. I have spoken with Director Botchway, as well as Superintendent Murley, and we agree that this collaborative effort should flow through our Equity Committee. We are appreciative of your interest in assisting the District and look forward to you contacting Kingsley and working with our Equity Committee. Thanks and have a great week. Chace 11R. Chace Ramey Chief Community Affairs Ofcer / Chief Human Resources Officer Iowa City Community School District 319.688.1005 @Ramey_ICCSD NOTICE: AN email communications to and from the Districts email server are archived In accordance with District policy and procedures. This email communication, including attachments, contains Information which may be confidential and/or legally privileged, and may otherwise be exempt from disclosure under applicable law. The information Is intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are not the Mended recipient or believe you received this communication In error, please reply to the sender Indicating that fad and delete the copy you received. In addition, If you are not the intended recipient or believe you received this communication in error, any unauthorized retention, copying, disclosure, distribution, or other use of the information is strictly prohibited. Thank YOU. f Outside the White Space ` A study of how race and culture intertwine in our diversifying society. By TIUCIA ROBE THE DRAMATIC CHANGES spurred by the civil rights movement and other 1960s social upheavals are often chronicled as a time line of catalytic legal victories that end- ed anti -black segregation. Jeff Changs "Who We Be: The Col- orization of America" claims that cultural changes were equally important in transforming Amer- ican merican society, and that both the legal and cultural forms of deseg- regation faced a sustained hostile response that continues today. According to Chang, the author WHO WE BE The Colodi ition of Amerl m By Jeff Clung Illustrated. 403 pp St. Martin's Press $3299 of "Can't Stop Won't Stop: A His- tory of the Hip -Hop Generation," multiculturalism challenged who aandwbat defined America, going straight to the heart of who "we" thought we were and who "we" aspired to be. Attacks on exclu- sions by multicultural scholars and artists were taking place everywhere. University battles raged over whether the West- ern literature canon should con- tinue to be elevated, or imagined outside the politics of racial hier- archies. Artists confronted the nearly all -white and alt -male elite tut world. Chang even describes Coca-Cola's influential 1971 "I'd like to teach the world to sing" advertisement as a signal of how profitable a "harmonious" multi- cultural marketing plan could be. But over thenextseveral decades, all the way through Obama's elec- tions, powerful counterattacks were launched, increasingly in racially oblique language. "Both sides understood that battles over culture were high-stakes;' Chang writes. "The struggle between restoration and transformation, retrenchment and change, began in culture" "Who We Be" is ambitious in its scope, an impressive gathering of a wide range of artists of color, with their creative interventions and politically charged war sto- nngA Rest is the director of the eenterfur the Study ojRore and Ethnicity in America at Brown University and the author of "The ries. Chang is an artful narrator, who uses biographical detail, personal texture and histori- cal and political context to bring his stories to life. He highlights important but unsung heroes like the 1960s trailblazer Morne Turner, who struggled to break into newspapers with his playful A collection of Mdrrie Tinrner's "Wee Pais"eotmc strips, 1970. but politically sharp multiracial "Wee Pals" comic strip. Chang's description of Turner's meeting with Aaron McGruder, the young botshot creator of the syndicated strip "The Boondocks," conveys an entire (taught history of race through their careers. Turner and McGruder represent different historical moments, and yet so much seemed the same for each of them. there has been nothing comic about all the ways they and other nonwhite artists found themselves excluded, or forced into racial corners even as a few superstars were being mdividu- ally elevated. Stories tike these suggest that multiculturalism was not so much about demanding a seat at the existing table (although some seemed comfortable with that outcome). Instead, it was really about the tenacious drive of so many creative people of color to fundamentally change the cul- tures of whiteness that saturated art, education, marketing and communications. Nonetheless, Chang's myriad portraits - beg for a stronger overarching narrative than he provides. While you are immersed in an ocean of multi- cultural stories, the details swim around you like schools of vivid fish. But after you come up for air, you have just taken in. What, ul- timately, do all theseskirmishes about race, American culture find mulncultmalism add up to? In fact, Chang's pages on artists working la the "postmulbcultural moment" — the younger genera- tion the curator Thelma Golden and the artist Glenn Ligon half - jokingly called "postblack" — hit on an unsealing possible future, one where collective anti -racist identities could disappear long before racial discrimination does. It seems that the political litmus tests that defined earlier genera- tions of black, Hispanic and Asian artists, who necessarily relied on consolidated racial and eth- nic identities to break down the walls of exclusion, are now often considered pass@ and perhaps somewhat embarrassing to a younger generation. Postmulticultnralists may bristle at the limitations of iden. tity politics, but it is not clear that the hyperindfvidualist, market. friendly kind of postmuhictdtur- ahst creativity has actually freed anyone. And it couldbe that new kinds of 1®ftations are develop- ing. The demand to be recognized as a unique and individual mul- ticultural artist falls to confront continuing racialized constraints and marginalizations, not only in the art world and mass media but also on the streets. Given the stakes, f would have enjoyed learning more about collective creative practices designed to retain a political multicultural- ism, in contrast to the bevy of individual artistic visions Chang presents. Surely our national fabric is more racially diverse tbann ever before, and a few more people of color have access to powerful cultural institutions. At the same time, "Who We Be" left me won- dering about the resilience of pow- er. It is possible but not inevitable that mtriticulturalism will fuel the creation of an anti -racist and fully Inclusive society. But It Is also possible that we could become the kind of multiracial society that keeps its darlrersldnned people at the bottom to provide cultural raw material to a powerful white elite that celebrates the diversity on which it depends. As "Who We Be" makes clear, there is evidence for both trajectories, though it does not take a stand on this ten- sion It leaves us in mid -battle with reasons to be both worried ®,.4 CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: February 6, 2015 To: Mayor and City Council From: John Yapp, Planning & Zoning Commission Re: Recommendations from Planning & Zoning Commission 3b(9) At their February 5, 2015 meeting the Planning & Zoning Commission approved the January 15 minutes with the following recommendation to the City Council: The Commission moved by a vote of 7-0 to approve REZ14-00023, an application submitted by Southgate Companies for a rezoning from Interim Development -Research Park (ID -RP) to Commercial Office (CO -1) zone for approximately 34.21 acres of property located north of Northgate Drive Additional action (check one) No further action needed Board or Commission is requesting Council direction _X_ Agenda item will be prepared by staff for Council action - Done MINUTES APPROVED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 2015 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks Paula Swygard, Phoebe Martin, Jodie Theobald, John Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, John Yapp, Robert Miklo, Kent Ralston OTHERS PRESENT: Dan Cilek, Marc Moen, Sarah Clark, Rockne Cole, Alan Swanson, Jim Knapp, Casey Cook, Amanda Van Horne, Ann Christensen, Mark Nolte, Marc McCullum, Tim Conroy, Pam Michaud, Cecile Kuenzli, Ethan Diehl, Rudolf Kuenzli, Matthew Fleming, Mary Bennett, Nancy Bird, John Fogerty, Joyce Summerwill, Amanda Ward, Joseph Knock, Dick Summerwill, Joe Hughes, Deanna Furhmeister, Dan Furhmeister The Commission moved by a vote of 7-0 to approve REZ14-00023, an application submitted by Southgate Companies for a rezoning from Interim Development -Research Park (ID -RP) to Commercial Office (CO -1) zone for approximately 34.21 acres of property located north of Northgate Drive Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There were none. Comprehensive Plan Item A public hearing for discussion of amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for the blocks generally bounded by Clinton Street, Jefferson Street, Bloomington Street and Dubuque Street (AKA the North Clinton / Dubuque Street District): and the blocks generally bounded by Gilbert Street, Burlington Street, Van Buren Street, and Iowa Avenue (AKA the Civic District). Yapp began discussing the 2013 Comprehensive Plan and that it states identifies two areas, one located generally east of Gilbert St and north of Burlington St, the other located north of Iowa Ave Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 2 of 24 and west of Dubuque St, as areas that were not included in the Downtown Master Plan or the Central District Plan. The IC2030 Comprehensive Plan states that while both areas have the potential to redevelop at higher densities both should comply with the policies and goals of the Central District Plan in order to ensure quality design and appropriate transitions to the areas that border them. Both of these areas are currently part of the Downtown Planning District (from the 1997 Comprehensive Plan). Yapp showed a map of the area and defined the two areas in question. For the purposes of this report, staff has separated the North Clinton I Dubuque District and the Civic District, and have provided staff recommendations for each district separately. First is the North Clinton I Dubuque District. The majority of the North Clinton I Dubuque District is zoned Planned Residential Multi -Family (PRM). It is characterized by multi -family apartments, former single family homes converted to apartments, religious and other institutions, and other public uses. With close proximity to the University of Iowa, demand is strong for multi -family residential as well as institutional and public uses. The purpose of the PRM Zone is to provide for the development of high density multi -family housing in close proximity to centrally- located employment, educational and commercial uses. The PRM zone is subject to multi -family design standards, and allows for both a density bonus and height increase up to 65 feet (5-6 stories) provided certain 'public benefits' are included in the project. These public benefits include a masonry finish on the exterior of the building, usable open space for the occupants of the building, rehabilitation of a historic building, provision of assisted housing, streetscape amenities, additional landscaping and/or windows that have a height 1.5 times greater than their width. Yapp pointed out on the south end of the Clinton St / Dubuque St District by Jefferson Street that is a portion of the Jefferson Street Historic District is represented on the map as Overlay Historic District (OHD). Freerks asked Yapp to discuss or explain how the overlay will come into play with this change to the area. Yapp stated that the historic overlay will not be affected by the comprehensive plan changes. Freerks asked how the historic overlay district would be affected by development. Yapp explained that any demolition of properties, or proposed exterior changes, such as an addition or change in the exterior of the property, or construction of an accessory building such as a garage, would need to be reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission before a building permit could be issued. Eastham asked if the OHD limits redevelopment height? Can a two-story building in an OHD be replaced by a five -story building? Yapp stated that it would depend on two different things. One the underlying zoning, and what that zoning would allow in terms of height, and two it would need to be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. Yapp continued his presentation showing a map of the land uses. The North Clinton / Dubuque St District has many land uses, private institutions (religious), multi -family uses, mixed-use buildings consisting of both residential and commercial or offices, and there is also an office use and single- Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 3 of 24 family or duplex uses in this district as well. Yapp showed photos of the area to show the variety of the land uses. Yapp moved on to describe the Civic District, The Civic District, so named due to the municipal/public uses in the district, is a mixed-use area in that it contains a variety of uses. Besides municipal uses, it contains multi -family, commercial, and institutional uses. Historically the three municipal blocks (bounded by Gilbert St, Iowa Ave, Van Buren St and Burlington St) have been identified as municipal campus blocks. These blocks contain City Hal!, Fire and Police stations, the Recreation Center, Swan Parking Facility, and Chauncey Swan Park. The zoning of this area is also a mix, the municipal blocks are zoned public, for the most part with portions of them zoned CB5 for non-public uses. The east side of Van Buren St and the north side of Iowa Ave are zoned CB -2 and CB -5, which are central business support classifications. The land uses in the Civic district are public uses, and a mixture of office, commercial, and mixed-use land uses Yapp explained that they received public comment on the Ralston Creek Corridor, and he believes the Ralston Creek Corridor represents an opportunity for the area. He showed images of the area and stated that some of the comments were to clean up some of the invasive species in the corridor, make Ralston Creek more accessible, and provide trail and/or way -side parks along the creek corridor. Additionally much of the public comment was related to historic buildings, and he showed on the images the designated historic landmarks at 130 E. Jefferson Street and 30 N. Clinton Street. There are also several potential historic buildings in both the areas discussed this evening, 10 S. Gilbert Street, 410 & 422 Iowa Avenue, and 109 E. Market Street. Yapp began discussing the staff recommendation for the Central District Plan and stated that staff proposes adding the North Clinton I Dubuque St District to the Central District Plan map with land use categories consistent with the rest of the Central Planning District. Staff recommends the remainder of the Civic District, outside of the three municipal blocks, be added to the Central District Plan and identified as mixed-use (These properties are already identified as 'mixed-use' in the larger Comprehensive Plan land use map). This proposal will fit in with existing polices and goals in the Central District Plan which include: • Goal #1: Promote the Central District as an attractive place to live by encouraging reinvestment in residential properties throughout the district and by supporting new housing opportunities. • Goal #1(d): Support the goals and objectives proposed in the Historic Preservation Plan. • Goal #2(d): In higher density multi -family zones, ensure that adequate infrastructure and open space is provided to create a livable environment for residents. • Goal #3(c): Implement targeted code enforcement for areas that receive a higher level of complaints regarding zoning code violations, snow and weed removal, and trash control that affect neighborhood quality of life Selected Existing Transportation Goals — Central District Plan Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 4 of 24 • Goal #1: Balance traffic circulation needs, preserve neighborhood character, and public safety issues. • Goal #1(b): When planning for street improvements, give consideration to all modes of transportation, including walking, bicycling, and driving. Balance these needs with desirability of on -street parking and street trees. • Goal #3: Develop a plan to formalize safe bicycle and pedestrian connections between the major destinations in the district, including downtown Iowa City, neighborhood commercial areas, the UI campus, parks and elementary and secondary schools. • Goal #3(d): Continue to explore options such as high -visibility crosswalks to improve pedestrian crossings where major pedestrian routes intersect with arteria! Streets • Goal #4: Encourage development of businesses, institutions, and public entities that provide goods, services, and amenities that support healthy neighborhoods. • Goal #4(a): Encourage a diverse range of businesses that provide essential services to the Downtown area -grocery, clothing, household items, etc. • Goal #4(b): Encourage investment and reinvestment in existing commercial areas that provide goods and services for Central District neighborhoods. • Goal #5(a): Install pedestrian lighting where needed to create safe travel corridors for pedestrians. • Goal #5(c): Provide for walkable/bikable routes to and through commercial areas. Selected Existing Transportation Goal — Central District Plan • Goal #3(e): Explore the viability of alternative routes for bikes and pedestrians along Ralston Creek, recognizing the difficulties posed by private ownership of the creek, access, and flooding. Selected Existing Open Space Goals —Central District Plan • Goal #3: Improve the amenities offered in existing parks or other open spaces • Goal #5(a): Develop plans for improving visual and physical access to Ralston Creek and for restoration of the stream along both public and privately owned sections of the creek. Yapp explained that some of the input they received they could not find a goal or policy in the existing district plan, so as part of putting these areas into the Central District Plan staff recommends three additional goals: • Housing Goal #1(h): Review the Multi Family Design standards to ensure they meet the goal of attractive streetscapes in gateway corridors without overly discouraging redevelopment. • Transportation Goal #3 (k): Invest in the streetscapes of Dubuque St and Clinton St to highlight their function as gateways to downtown Iowa City and the University of Iowa east campus. • Transportation Goal #3(h): As Dubuque St, Clinton St and other area streets are redesigned/reconstructed incorporate complete streets principals into their design Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 5 of 24 Yapp reconfirmed that this is the recommendation for the Central District Plan. Freerks asked Yapp to discuss and explain how this plan is different and used different than the Civic use map. She pointed out it appears there are additional properties. Yapp explained that when they reviewed the existing boundaries of the central district use map, there were slight inconsistencies with what was in the comprehensive plan. He pointed out the area that is being recommended to add to the Central District Plan, and the rest is already in the Central District Plan. Yapp discussed the remainder of the Civic District, the three municipal blocks, those are part of the old downtown planning district, in the 1997 Comprehensive Plan. Yapp explained staff is recommending these three blocks be added to the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings area and will be subject to some of policies and goals of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan: • New development should be located on sites that do not contain historic buildings. • Active uses, such as ground floor retail (and not blank walls) should front onto the street frontages and the City Plaza. • Upper floors should contain office, commercial, and residential uses. • Buildings should be built to the property line. • Corner locations should be reserved for taller buildings, creating a block structure with taller buildings on the comers and lower scale historic buildings between them. • The taller buildings on the corners should have a lower base consistent with [any] adjacent historic buildings to make them 'feel' contextual with the rest of downtown, while also limiting the perceived height of towers. • Parking should be located both on -street and behind storefronts in parking structures Eastham questioned the recommendation that new developments not be located on historic properties, and asked if there was a sequence to the staff's planning process, stating that specific consideration cannot be given to historic properties, if they do not know what the historic properties are. Yapp replied that it is for the properties that are already designated as historic or if designated in the future through the historic landmark designation process. Yapp continue on and gave the staff recommendation for the three municipal blocks in the Civic District are: 1. Staff recommends the three municipal blocks, bounded by Iowa Ave, Gilbert St, Burlington St, and Van Buren St remain in the Downtown Planning District and be added to the Downtown District of the Riverfront Crossings and Downtown Master Plan as an addendum, as shown on Exhibit B. 2. Staff recommends the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Land Use Map be amended to include the three municipal blocks shown as a mix of 'Civic' and 'Mixed Use' and be added to the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan as an addendum, as shown on Exhibit C. Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 6 of 24 3. Staff recommends the remainder of the Civic District, north of Iowa Ave and east of Van Buren St, be added to the Central District Plan and shown as 'Mixed Use' as shown on Exhibit A. Eastham asked if "Mixed Use" in this area would have the same meaning as the rest of the Comprehensive Plan, as in the Central District. Yapp explained that yes "Mixed Use" means buildings that have a variety of uses, including residential and/or commercial or office uses. Freerks questioned why in the Civic Land Use Map Ralston Creek was not used as more of a barrier and kind of a dividing area, and instead have the boundary in the middle of block. Swygard agreed that there is a question in the area between the Civic District and the east side of Van Buren Street. Freerks confirmed that the entire area is confusing, multiple districts, multiple overlays, and bringing the Riverfront Crossings area over to this area, and giving a designation to an area that has in the past been a "no man's land". Her feeling is that doing this movement within districts is kind of a "up zoning". Yapp explained that it is a comprehensive plan land use map redesign, but it could result in re- zoning actions or be a basis for rezoning actions in the future. He reiterated that staff recommended that the three municipal blocks be part of the Downtown District for the reasons they are higher intensity in use, they are served by major arterial streets, and they are served by a parking structure. Therefore the remainder of the area, north of Iowa Avenue and East of Van Buren St they recommend being part of the Central District due to the types of uses of the buildings, the intensity of the uses, are more in keeping with the Central District policies and goals. Freerks commented that in the past there has been public comment on keeping transitions from areas to areas, and she doesn't think this district has enough transition. Hektoen stated that the boundary of the Central District already includes the home to the east. Yapp confirmed that only the three municipal blocks would be going into the Riverfront Crossings/Downtown area. Eastham also questioned how the staff recommendations build the concept of transitions both in the concepts, height and building design, characteristics, etc. from one side of the transition are to the other. Yapp stated that consideration was given, with Ralston Creek there is a topographic transition east and west of the creek, and also in the zoning as east of Van Buren St. it is CB -2 and CB -5 zoning and then to the east transitions to multi -family zoning, then further east transitions to the College Green Historic District. Also the recommended land use map indicates mixed use designation east of Van Buren and north of Iowa Avenue, which then transitions to residential land use designation, so there is mixed use and multi -family between the downtown and residential areas. Eastham believes that the staff recommendation actually extends CB -10 zoning across Gilbert Street into those three blocks of civic uses. Yapp stated it could be CB -5 there as well, however Thomas pointed out there is no CB -5 zoning in the Downtown District. Freerks asked staff to explain what the area east of the Civic District is. Hektoen said that was the Central District, and the staff recommendation is to add the area of the Civic District, with the exception of the three municipal blocks from the Civic District into the Central District. Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 7 of 24 Thomas asked if the Northside Market Place was in the Central District and Yapp confirmed that it was. Freerks opened public hearing. Dan Cilek (Oakland Avenue) works for Meta Communications Company and they recently moved offices from South Gilbert St to the Downtown District, and stated he does support the proposed recommendation due to the effect it is having on his business. He really hopes to see trails built along Ralston Creek and to have more recreational area around the creek. Cilek hears from his staff that they want to live in housing near the downtown area to be close to work and other businesses. Marc Moen, commented about the Civic District, having focused on the area for many years, and made investments in the area, and the area that was once reserved for City Campus would now be considered for development. On that consideration, his company retained design and landscape experts to look at the possibilities of the area, most specifically the corner of College Street and Gilbert Street. After a couple years of research on what that area could be, and sustain, it seemed logical it would be part of the Central Business District. Having this area included in the Downtown/Riverfront Crossings Plan will be great for this building, and Moen supports this proposal. He stated it is critical to move forward to sustain Iowa City, but also critical to maintain the historic buildings and areas which is a crucial part of the fabric of downtown. This proposal allows the City to move forward and attract the best and the brightest of people and businesses in Iowa City, and allows businesses to recruit which is very important. Adding mixed use buildings to the area will only expand the area, the alternative is to take buildings down, which would lose the integrity of the fabric of the downtown area. Moen reiterated he supports the recommendation to Council to allow mixed use buildings in this area and feels it will be an advantage to both the College Green area and the downtown. Sarah Clark (Brown Street) distributed copies to each commissioner a letter signed by 21 folks who live in the north side and Goosetown neighborhoods. The letter states: As longtime residents of closest to downtown Iowa City, we are writing to share our concerns about the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments to be discussed at the Planning and Zoning Commission's Public Hearing to be held of January 15, 2015. While we are in general agreement with City Staff recommendations, to add the North Clinton/Dubuque Street district to the Central District we are troubled by the proposed addition Civic District to the Downtown District of the Riverfront Crossings/Downtown Master Plan. Our concerns are these. We believe it is critically important to prevent the abrupt and unsightly transition between the high-rise structures allowable in certain Downtown/Riverfront Crossings Districts and their low-rise and largely historic neighbors. One can imagine for example the Civic District one day being populated with shoulder to shoulder 15 story apartments or condos towering over and destroying the views from College Green Park and the near north side. We would thus advocate the requirements of more appropriate transition zones between districts as recommended in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Instead of adding to the Downtown District, the Civic District presents an ideal opportunity to create a distinctive mixed-use area on the near -east side just as north -side market place has its own distinctive character and that would further strengthen the Comprehensive Plan's emphasis on appropriate transitions between districts. Cities need diversity and Iowa City is deficient in walkable commercial districts. Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 8 of 24 Finally, we strongly encourage the development of more diverse and affordable housing options within both the Downtown/Riverfront Crossing and Central Districts for populations other than college students. We are thinking retirees, working professionals, young families. And further, that such options incorporate a multitude of housing types, from single-family homes, as promoted by the admirable UniverCity Program, to mid -rises, duplexes, low-rise townhouses, apartments and even pocket neighborhoods. Expanding the Downtown District without additional discussion and possible zoning adjustments would erase these valuable and fleeting opportunities to enhance the quality and livability of Iowa City's unique downtown and surrounding districts. As Joni Mitchell (and I'm showing our age here) so famously sang "You don't know what you've got until it's gone". We urge the City to reconsider the addition of the Civic District into the Downtown/Riverfront Crossings District and instead, within the Central District require more appropriate transitions zones, encourage more mixed use area zones, and incentify more affordable housing options for all. Rockne Cole (1607 East Court Street) is speaking as co-chair of the Iowa Coalition Against the Shadow and as a concerned citizen related to this project. We oppose adding the three blocks contained in the Civic District to the Downtown/Riverfront Crossings District Master Plan. This Commission should defer this decision until the Commission can come up with a plan specifically tailored to the unique aspects of this area. Colel believes the key thing to emphasize here is they have some incredibly articulate logical members of this community on both sides. He is quite confident regardless of which argument the Commission hears tonight, they will not be able to determine whether this is a downtown area or a neighborhood area. And the reason is because it has aspects of both. On the one hand, you are essentially within one block from the College Green Park. On the other hand, you look to the west of that and you are two blocks down to the downtown and it's precisely because that no side is going to be able to tell you definitely whether it's purely downtown or purely a neighborhood. That is what makes it a transitional area. As far as he can tell by the comments made tonight by Mr. Yapp, what he is identifying as a transitional zone is essentially to the east of Ralston Creek to College Green Park. So basically a half a block protection. The reality is, it's true Mr. Moen has put in a lot of time effort, but the City should have had this conversation four years ago before it put out the request for proposal for that area. The reality is now there is a proposal that has polarized the community. Cole believes the greatest irony here is as we look forward, how do we save the downtown, and how do we save our neighborhoods. The proposal tonight is destabilizing the neighborhood, it's destabilizing the long- term residents that are there. I know each and every resident that resides along the west side of College Green Park, every single one of them is opposed to this project, this zoning designation. The Trinity Church has spoken as a church and while it's not confirmed, a substantial number of the members are opposed to this designation. And so because, and when you have a designation where there are two sides of the community, operating in good faith, both passionately believing in the purpose of what they believe in, that is precisely when this commission should step back, allow additional time, delay this process, and reopen so we can get something uniquely tailored for this area. Cole stated he is quite confident that if allowed, and the multitude got their ability to participate, the result would be something less controversial. Everyone agrees it needs to be developed, everyone agrees it needs to be mixed use, the question is, are we going to essentially have an intense use building within a block of a historic neighborhood. Cole is asking the Commission to defer, and one final comment some of the downtown developments have been Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 9 of 24 good, but the reality is they are downtown, and moving into the transitional zone will just create more conversations of the same in years to come. Alan Swanson (Blank & McCune Real Estate). His business is in the Civic District, or very close to it. He thinks moving the Civic District into the Riverfront Crossings area is a stroke of genius. It is something that looks to the future, and should not be waited on, not only are there young people who want to live downtown, many people of all ages from all over the country are looking to live in downtown Iowa City to be close to everything going on as possible. This would be a way to have higher density for people to live here beyond the students. Young professionals and retirees will live there and use all the things that are coming to Iowa City more and more and it's a time to move forward for Iowa City. Swanson stated he sees Iowa City as an international city, and while there may be a few tall buildings, they are not and will not be side by side, there will be some discretion where they are put. Jim Knapp stated there was an area in the Central Business District that appears to be absent and that is the corner of Clinton and Burlington, and the northeast side of that. There is a privately owned parking lot there now, but supposedly there are no legally owned privately run parking lots within the City of Iowa City, but this has been allowed by special agreement. This lot is large enough to house a city parking structure, and is competing against the already existing City parking lots. Knapp questioned why it is allowed to have a privately owned parking lot there. This would be an area perfect in the Central Business District perfect for a tall building, rather than in an area where it will be a shadow on a church and part of the rest of Iowa City. Knapp feels that high- rise buildings should not be on the edge of the district where there are parks and residential areas. Casey Cook (1 Oakpark Court) stated planners are like hockey players, the most successful ones anticipate where the puck is going to be. You are looking at the big picture, the Comp Plan reflects this perspective. It also considers the big picture, the community at large. Cook stated what he liked about this plan, he feels this plan continues the City's commitment to compact incontiguous development as a critical element in a community that works. This plan supports and enhances an investment in the Central Business District, it is the heart of the community, and we need to build on that success. Cook stated the City should continue to nurture a trail and pathway system the knits our community together and passively contains stormwater and emits flooding. An efficient community can be humane as well as gentle on the environment. We should continue to compete effectively with the communities around us, and capitalize on our resources as a critical aspect of good stewardship. We are all part of a large and complex community, a community of communities in fact, and he encourages the Commission to bring manifold considerations into their deliberations. Cook then stated his concerns about the plan, as well as additional questions for the Commission to think about. Is there some coordination between the planning policy and the concerns of the finance department? Specifically what is the impact on revenues from recent changes imposed by the state, that now assess partial commercial properties, mixed use, at residential rates. Basically half their value. What are the consequences of the rollback on multi- family assessments on City, County and School revenues? How committed do you believe the state is to backfill these lost revenues and for how long? And how does it affect your planning? If the City continues to trade restrictive zoning for tax benefit dollars, at what point are you willing to reduce support for the Senior Center? At what point do you cut support for the Summer of Arts, or Jazzfest? At what point are you prepared to cut support for human services? Can the City afford to jeopardize their support of the library? These are the kinds of considerations Cook believes Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 10 of 24 needs to come into the process, he feels the people in this room are asking important questions, wanting to know where historic preservation fits it, the priorities in the planning process, the quality of design and architecture. Cook stated as a six-year member of the Planning Commission, and a commercial real estate appraiser with a 30 year history in Iowa City, with a master's degree in urban planning from The University of Iowa, he shares the concerns. While design, architecture and historic preservation are important parts of the process, the Comp Plan needs to be a lot more. Amanda Van Horne (1722 Ridgeway Drive) is before the Commission as an elected representative of Trinity Episcopal Church. Van Horne stated that Trinity Episcopal Church is a Iowa City institution that has been on that corner since 1871. The church has been against the Chauncey development and can make the same arguments tonight because changing the Comprehensive Plan allows that development to proceed. She could argue that high-rise buildings impinge on the light of their neighbors, that buildings over 10 stories are not cost-effective to build, and that these costs are passed along to their tenants, making it impossible for affordable housing, that density alone does not make for environmental sustainability, and the use of a TIF for this sort of building hinders tax payers dollars without realizing a significant community benefit in return. But the question of the Chauncey is not before the Commission today, what is before the Commission today is changes to the Comprehensive Plan. Many of the arguments about the Chauncey is that it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and with these changes that alter the default zoning, that would no longer be the case. The Comprehensive Plan shares a vision seen amongst a diversity of the community on how land is used to serve the good of all. What is that vision for Iowa City? How is the manner in which we use land and other resources affect the community? A city gains its character from the relationships between businesses, cultural institution, government and individual citizens and visitors. Churches are in the category of private cultural institutions. Among their unique contributions to a city's character is their ability to draw people together across boundaries of age, economic status, and personal interests. Secular public stations offer similar opportunities for people to come together. We've chosen neighborhoods, occupations, and neighborhoods, based on generation, economical, and other characteristics. Van Horne notes that the Central District and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan as it was presented today, does not support the continuation of these private sources. Van Horne represents Trinity Episcopal Church because they believe the changes that will come from this Comprehensive Plan will harm churches and infringe on spaces that allow for public discourse in the city. Trinity and other downtown churches operate seven days a week, hosting group meetings, social events, and art performances in addition to offering spiritual care for their members. Chauncey Swan Park serves as a spontaneous town square, hosting the farmer's market, food trucks, protests and other political speech. Incorporating this entire area into the Downtown Planning District makes it possible for tall buildings to be built in multiple locations. A tall building that towers over the nearby park and other buildings, eclipsing them from sunlight throughout the day, will be detrimental to the character of the public spaces, and will have a chilling effect, literally, on the park. A tall building, who's users monopolize the parking garage because the building itself does not supply significant parking, will place a particular burden on nearby churches and other community organizations like the recreation center and farmer's market creating a barrier to participation in these areas for those that cannot easily walk and ultimately effecting their growth and mission potential and restricting participation. The church views this as an improachment on their historic space. The contributions of Trinity and other Iowa City churches to the community is significant. Trinity has provided space to The University of Iowa jazz department, since their offices and classroom Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 11 of 24 spaces were destroyed by the 2008 flood. Trinity provides volunteer labor and publicity for the annual shelter house book sale, has been an overflow location for the program, and it provided leadership for the Agave Cafe. Downtown churches are united in efforts to provide free lunch, EIP, and annual school supply and outwear drives. All of this is work that flows from our community in the downtown area, and would not take place if the church was located in another space. Churches are an untapped resource of volunteers and social services, churches makes friends of strangers, even if that stranger doesn't attend that community of faith, an in a civic culture that favors for-profit entities the contributions of faith communities will remain unacknowledged until pressures placed on them, such as the changes proposed by this Comprehensive Plan, impair their ability to do their work. At that time, the extent to which they contribute to the City's quality of life, will become readily apparent in its absence. If this change to the Comprehensive Plan goes forward, if the zoning is changed to allow the Chauncey to be built, Van Horne believes Trinity will follow the lead of First Christian Church, St. Patrick's, and perhaps the Unitarian Church, and leave the downtown area. The community will be the poorer for it, many of Iowa City's faith communities are among their oldest, they've had an integral part in knitting together its fabric, and making it what it is today. What would a community be like without any of its faith organizations? What will be lost if these faith communities disappear from downtown? What holes would there be in our everyday life? Van Horne challenges the Commission to consider how these proposed changes will be realized, and indeed much of that vision has already been articulated by the City, but to think of who will be unintentionally harmed, and urges the Commission to vote against the changes to the Civic District Plan. Ann Christensen (827 Dearborn Street) read to the Commission a passage from a book by Bill Brycen, who is an Iowa native, grew up in Des Moines, but spent most of his adult life England. He writes about growing up in Des Moines, and highly recommends his books, they are non-fiction, historic books, with a lot of width to them. At one point when he was living in England, he's married to an English woman, they were moving back to America for few years, he decided to take a walking tour of England, and he critique the various towns and cities he walked through, and he was very critical in much of what was done in the name of urban development, in the name of progress. And in Manchester, his comment was, he talked about what he considered two very ugly buildings, and then he said "but let me also say that neither is as bad as the Maples Building, that rises like some kind of half-witted practical joke, a dozen or so stories into the air in the middle of a long street of unguinous Victorian structures. Now how did that happen, he asked". If this high- rise building is permitted on that corner, the Chauncey, Christensen is going to write to Brycen and explain to him exactly how this happens, and how we end up with a blithe in our community. That tall of a structure does not belong on that corner, and there are a lot of other places around town that it could go. Mark Nolte (lives on the west side of town) has been a resident of Iowa City since 1993 and moved here from a community that continues to shrink, because there is apathy. What is so great about this community, there are people are both sides of this issue, but as Nolte represents the community as his job is to attract people and businesses to come to this community, and that we are at a very unique point in history. The City needs to think about how they are going to sustain and grow the tax base, what people are looking for now is density, to live in areas that are fun and healthy and vibrant and they don't need a car. Nolte stated he supports historical preservation but also acknowledges we need more density, more office spaces (office vacancy rates are near zero). Nolte hears from companies all the time that would like to come to Iowa City but there is not Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 12 of 24 sufficient office property downtown for them. Additionally any housing that can be added that fits the design and ethos of the community he supports, stating there needs to be more done for affordable housing, and some of those elements have been addressed in the Chauncey development. Nolte stated his support of the staff's recommendation, believing it is something Iowa City needs. Although he is not a parishioner of the church, nor lives on Iowa Avenue so he is not personally affected and is sensitive to those who are, however long term the City needs to be thinking about how they can grow, and move forward sustainable. Nolte stated height should not be the issue, as long as there is good design and good architecture, it can be a nice addition to the community (gave the example of Grant Park in New York City, surrounded by very high buildings). Marc McCullum (13 South Johnson), just purchased this property about a year and a half ago, even after the development issues had arisen, but still wanted to be in this neighborhood. On the east side view of his building he has wonderful views of the park, and on the west side of the building he has wonderful views of a direct skyline view of downtown Iowa City. McCullum supports density and development, but is afraid of, is by having this move in the Central Planning District, there are design guidelines, in the Downtown District there are no design guidelines. McCullum finds that visitors to Iowa City like the areas such as Clinton Street, the lower -rise buildings. The Washington Plaza Building is built to CB -5 and it doesn't feel like there is a transition from that building to the residential areas. That building followed the Central Planning District guidelines, and that same developer is building a wonderful building up on Linn Street. McCullum feels that if the Commission adopts this plan, while there might be provisions to protect historic structures, there are no guarantees, as seen from other areas in the Riverfront Crossings District. If this proposal goes forward, he believes the area will lose the church, the youth homes, every property owner is re-evaluating their property situation. Tim Conroy (1410 Foster Road) questioned why this area wasn't originally considered when the Riverfront Crossings District was first discussed in the Comprehensive Plan. The area in question seems to be one of the most organic organizing meeting areas for Iowa City residents, such as farmer's market, Rummage in the Ramp, and the Rec Center. All of these are amazing public gatherings and to bring it into the Comprehensive Plan, is a good thing. The question is if the area should go beyond Ralston Creek, which would serve as a natural divide, as Commission Freerks brought up. Conroy doesn't feel a bunch of tall buildings will go up if the Civic Area is pulled into the Downtown/Riverfront Crossings area because a lot of the land in question is owned by the City. He agrees with pushing the boundaries a little to include more businesses into the Downtown District. There are several businesses east of Ralston Creek that would like to be in the Downtown District. Conroy does not discount the fears and feelings of the residents of the College Green Park area, but that will not be included in this proposal. The project looming in everybody's mind, the Chauncey, is another discussion. Pam Michaud (111 South Johnson) stated she has lived in her house for 24 years and has seen four Victorian houses destroyed right behind her home to be replaced by a block long, ungraceful, four story building for undergraduates. 120 bedrooms were added to the neighborhood in a year. That was zoned CB -2, limit of 45 feet high. Michaud can see keeping the Gilbert Street area CB -5 because it is stepping down from CB -10. Michaud stated that terms like Central District and Comprehensive Plan are euphuisms for "taking over". A transition zone to a historic area is not two buildings. It's hardly even two blocks. It is ludicrous to say there is a transition zone when buildings of any height will be built right up to the historic neighborhood. Michaud stated that as Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 13 of 24 seen in major cities in America and abroad, historic areas make a difference, and Iowa Avenue will not be the same without the Unitarian Church and the two Victorian houses. Being part of a historic district is an honor, and stated there is a need for transitional zones. Michaud also stated that developers of large buildings, that will allow residents to have dogs, should be required to also provide a dog park for the residents. That would be structuring in green space. She also stated that she believes Iowa City will soon have an overabundance of hotels and more and more people are wanting to stay at B&B's so hotel prices need to drop to compete. In closing, Michael reiterated that massive block long buildings do not belong adjacent to historic Victorian homes. Cecile Kuenzli (705 S. Summit Street) is asking the Commission to not fold the Civic District into the Riverfront Crossings District because if it is done, there will be no transitional zone between the high-rises and the residential areas east of Van Buren Street. Mr. Yapp acknowledged that when asked, and stated there would only be a half a block of transition. Well, half a block does not constitute a transitional area. Additionally a lot has been said this evening from the developers and real estate community on how attracted young people will be in the future to this new development. Kuenzli stated that everyone needs to remember during the public hearing for the Chauncey the young people came out in force to oppose that project because what they liked about Iowa City was the old areas and the "funky" parts of Iowa City and made a point to state they don't take visitors to see high-rise structures, rather they take people to see places like The Mill, The Haunted Bookshop, The Hamburger Inn, The Soap Opera, New Pioneer, and such. Some of those businesses have already disappeared and she urges the Commission to save what is left and the transitional areas. Ethan Diehl (201 E Washington St) and grew up in Iowa City since his family moved here in 1975, moving away to attend college and then later live in Austin Texas for 16 years. He moved back to Iowa City and specifically to live in the 201 E Washington Street building, Marc Moen's building downtown. He chose to move back to Iowa City for the small town charm, as well as the international flavor of the Writer's Workshop. He remembers when an Iowa City that was opposed to the Ped Mall in 1977, and then again opposition to the Hotel Vetro, and opposed to a number of beautiful projects in the downtown area. If the Council is interested in young people coming back to Iowa City, which is a good thing considering how good the public schools are, they should be in favor of projects like this and this new development. Rudolf Kuenzli (705 S. Summit Street) had many questions when listening to Mr. Yapp give his presentation. There seems to be terms used, such as Central Business District, and trying to fold the three municipal blocks into the Central Business District. (Yapp confirmed that the three municipal blocks would be folded into the Downtown District.) Kuenzli stated that there is always consequences in zoning, because the Central Business District has been designated for density, high-rise buildings as has the Riverfront Crossings. Kuenzli agrees with the staff that the Riverfront Crossings will be the future of Iowa City, there are so many plans and projects in the works. Having lived in Iowa City for 45 years, coming during the middle of downtown urban renewal, and since then, until now, he has not seen so much planning and so many projects. Kuenzli is trying to suggest to put the emphasis of the Central Business District into the Riverfront Crossings and try to keep Gilbert Street, due to its proximately to the east side historic district, as the beginning of a transitional area. Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 14 of 24 Matthew Fleming presented an anecdote in support of the proposed changes. A year and a half ago he was offered a position at Mercy Hospital and when his wife and he considered moving to Iowa City, if the mixed use structures that exist in downtown Iowa City were not here, they likely would not have come to this great community. So as a somewhat young professional, he believes Iowa City needs more of structures developed in Iowa City and they will attract younger people. Mary Bennett (1107 Muscatine Ave) is very concerned about the College Street Park and as the oldest park in the town it is not being shown its due respect. She had listened to the many hours of debate on the Chauncey building project, it is appears that this proposal it to retro fit some of the plans in an effort to accommodate more growth in the city. Bennett stated her concern about how this will impact the Civic area, being an avid user of the rec center she enjoys coming out of that building and looking at the sky and enjoy the space around Ralston Creek. The Civic buildings were designed 50 years ago with the skyline in mind and keeping the views unobstructed to show respect to the neighborhoods. These two buildings are part of the historic Iowa City and could be nominated for the National Registry at some point. While these are city -owned properties right now, that can change in the future, and new structures could get built. Will the City build a high- rise building for their offices? If the City continues to grow, there will be a premium on the city - owned land. Bennett believes the downtown area has already grown out of control, and does not need to improach onto the neighborhoods to the east. It is ironic that 175 years ago Chauncey Swan himself came to this area and stood on the land where Old Capital was built, and wrote about how beautiful it was and how appropriate of a location to have a city in this location. He commissioned the drawing of the first map of Iowa City that designated very prominently areas for churches near the immediate downtown area. Areas for schools, in the immediate downtown area, where are those schools now? Where are those churches now? He talked about promenades and green spaces, even in 1839. Why isn't there green spaces surrounding Ralston Creek, why don't we imagine a beautiful farmer's market under a canopy right next to the creek, instead of underneath a parking ramp. Bennett feels the City needs a broader imagination in looking at how our community is going of grow. The tax base will grow alone with all the development and high- rises in the Riverfront Crossings area, and feels there needs to be stop to the erasing of the past throughout the City. If the City approves drawing the boundary line for the Downtown District half- way up to Johnson Street, how long after will it be that more multi -family structures will be built in the area. This proposal tonight does start a trajectory that will be very harmful. Additionally Bennett works at the State Historic Society of Iowa, the 400 block of Iowa Avenue was once all nice mansions, on the north side, and on the other side very nice four square farm houses. Bennett encourages the Commission and the City to slow down, get the correct boundaries set, and focus on the needs of the community. Nancy Bird, the executive director of the Iowa City Downtown District, and has had the pleasure of being introduced to Iowa City over the past couple of years. Their board has discussed many times what the boundaries of downtown Iowa City are. She has been listening carefully of when people talk about downtown, what they think downtown is, the various constituent areas, and to support the businesses of the downtown area. So for those who don't know, the boundary of the Downtown District is from Burlington Street up to Bloomington Street, including the north side neighborhood, and then from Gilbert Street to Clinton Street. In essence they have three neighborhoods in the downtown area, the Old Capitol Center, the downtown and the north side. What strikes Bird about the proposal tonight, which she supports, and her board supports, the community at large, these boundaries are on a map in a book, and people don't know where they Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 15 of 24 are. There are natural boundaries such as Ralston Creek, and other boundaries such as parking structures. One of the things her board is trying to do is listen to the property owners and citizens discuss historic buildings and there is a lot of passion around these buildings. Some are in need of repair and reinvestment and in order to do that the City has to be careful about new growth around these areas, recognizing one of the best things you can do to maintain a sustainable area is make sure you have density in the core, and believes in keeping the density downtown. Bird stated in her career of working with municipals, it is imperative that every five years they look at their Comprehensive Plans due to technology changes, market shifts, and climate shifts. One of the challenges of her job is not having enough spaces to put interested people, the vacancy rate is less than 2% and there a lot of people are invested in this community and being able to have some flexibility east of Gilbert Street will give the City the space that may be needed in the future for growth while saving historic areas as well. Therefore Bird gives here support to this proposal. Freerks asked Bird if her association has had much discussion on historic districts. Bird replied that yes, they have talked about historic properties. And with the guidelines established, she has been working with City staff on making them more stringent so there is predictability of what can be done to avoid controversy. Predictability is very important. Freerks stated there is very little protection in that area right now. John Fogerty, one of the co-chairs of the Iowa Coalition Against the Shadow, spoke to the Commission about compromise, feeling Ms. Bird was the only speaker so far this evening that supported the proposal but saw the need for compromise on the properties east of Gilbert Street. Fogerty believes this whole proposals is because of Mr. Moen's project, if his project was in the already CB -10 zone, or Riverfront Crossings, and there wouldn't be a need for this conversation. Fogetry stressed to the Commission to think if there are other options for bringing all these young people back to Iowa City. There is plenty of space south of Burlington Street. He believes that yes there are options for these three blocks that would bring in revenue for the City and allow for the appropriate transition to the College Green District and allow for some mixed use development. He implores the Commission to think about the effects of this proposal years down the road and the impact it may have on the Victorians in the neighborhood. He feels they should look at other options, and is in support of emphasizing the Riverfront Crossings area and south of Burlington. Joyce Summerwill stated she is a retiree who recently moved downtown, and did so because they wanted to. They had lived in a very nice neighborhood in Iowa City, having lived here for over 50 years, and what she has seen Iowa City become is many thanks to the folks that serve on commissions and who serve in the City and have made the City better to live in. The purpose for everyone tonight is because they all feel passionate about their views, whatever they are, but from her perspective that living downtown with a variety of people, with the wonderful churches, with the wonderful parks, with the services, with the variety of people, this is what attracts people to Iowa City. Change is going to happen no matter what anyone wants to do to stop it. The best thing to do is to manage the change that comes with good thinking, good planning, good design, good usage, and from her perspective in Iowa City currently, the best use of land. She believes vertical development, planned accordingly with good design, is the only way to secure good neighborhoods that are already in Iowa City. It has sadden her over the years to see what apartment complexes that have gone up in the neighborhoods, the so called sprawl, probably necessary because students needed a place to live. But now we are even seeing the University Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 16 of 24 endorsing higher buildings, so she believes the question of whether we like or don't like vertical buildings, is not the question. We have to think as planners and as future people who may want to live here, what you want your city to be, and we want all of these components to be a part. She feels the plan the City has outlined is a good use for growth. Amanda Ward (201 E Washington St) is relatively new to Iowa City, only having lived here for three months. She had moved here from Los Angeles and at first was very disappointed but came here to be the director of VIP Services for Hotel Vetro so is in the unique position of talking to the travelers that come to Iowa City every day. One of the first things she noticed about the Ped Mall was the mix of old buildings and new buildings, where in California they don't have that, and found the old buildings to be beautiful but also likes the mix of the new architecture, including the new building she lives in. Ward discussed the Victorian homes, and stated there is a huge difference between a Victorian home and a home on the National Registry, so when she first drove through Iowa City and was looking at the Victorian homes, she noticed buildings with broken cornices, trash cans in front of them, that are falling apart and are run down, not the beautiful mansions everyone is talking about this evening. She continued to discuss the arbitrary boundaries and the time put into these conversations, and the appeal to slow down and don't make a rush decision. Ward feels the opposite, speed up, make a decision, and hopefully it's a decision of moving Iowa City forward, into young and old, newbies and traditional people who have lived here a long time. As she mentioned, she talks to people every day, they are attracted to the downtown area, they are wanting to live in the Ped Mall, they are wanting to be down where they are close to the action of the city for its vibrant nature, so having the opportunity for buildings that will provide that for people, that will become a draw for people to come to Iowa City, she can't see that as a negative thing. Ward stated she understands the emphasis on the old and protecting the old, but the new is as equally as important. Joseph Knock, agrees with the people who say a decision should not be made tonight, that there should be some consideration for what should be expanded and what should be kept. If however, this district is folded into the Downtown/Riverfront Crossings Plan, he would suggest that they try to save or preserve as many historical properties as possible. He also suggests that new buildings adhere to some of the architecture of that area, so rather than having an out of place, block long development, to try to have the development resemble what is already there. Jim Knapp thanked the Commission for showing the beautiful picture of the congregation because back in 1989 he rebuilt that steeple and was on scaffold 65 feet above ground. He reiterated that they town needs to keep its historic nature and building new high-rises that are 15 or 20 stories high are not necessary. Dick Summerwill stated he was going to speak in favor of this proposal but after hearing Casey Cook talk earlier and feels his comment need to be taken note of. Summerwill stated he has lived in Iowa City almost his whole life, was away for 10 years, but came back, and when he came back the downtown was a mess, it was the kind of downtown that the University would not bring their professors through when they were recruiting them. Young people were fleeing the area. Urban renewal came and went, and frankly made this discussion look like a piece of cake. Summerwill feels this is a wonderful conversation because it is discussing compromise and what can be done. The biggest idea tonight for a compromise is to make Ralston Creek the boundary, because that is a natural boundary. After going through urban renewal it took 30 years to get enough buildings Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 17 of 24 and streetscapes to encourage people to come downtown, they are now coming. Summerwill believes the downtown is the best today as it's ever been and that is because there are cohesive efforts between the University of Iowa and the City of Iowa City and it is growing and dynamic and there needs to be room for more growth. In closing he urged the Commission to not delay the project, but to move forward. Cook stated that he has renovated three old houses, ages 1910-1920, and there is a big distinction between an old house and a historic house and questions if historic has been well defined. Cook also sat on the Board of Directors for the United Action for Youth and that house at 422 Iowa Avenue has a nice paint job, but it is not in good condition, and if designated as a historic property, it will devalue that home around a half million dollars. Cook has also done some work on the Unitarian Church, and if that building stay intact, on that site, it will reduces its value by about two- thirds. When you think about what people are paying for land in the downtown area, it makes him very much in favor of this district. Cilek spoke to give a comparison to what is Meta experienced, they were on South Gilbert Street, in half the amount of space, and when they moved into the new building at 201 Washington, they have approximately twice the space, the utility bills are half as much, due to LED lighting, and other upgraded features. So when folks talk about historic that is important but they need to recognize a business looks at utilities, high-speed internet, and other amenities that come with a new building, is what will attract new businesses to Iowa City, and outweighs worrying about where the buffer zone is. Cilek feels the his company will be looking for additional space in the future, and will want to be close to their current downtown location. McCullum stated that Mr. Cook just re-emphasized the concern about how it seems that every church in this area is being looked at as a development project. The community will lose all those properties, those churches, so there won't be any old, just new. Freerks closed public hearing. Freerks stated that this is a topic that needs to be discussed and mulled over, and entertains a motion to have discussion. Eastham moved that the Commission defer this item until the first meeting in February. Swygard seconded the motion. Eastham questioned staff on how many sites of redevelopment on multi -story currently are identified in Downtown District Plan. Yapp stated that would take some time to count. Hektoen asked if Eastham was just asking how many are designated in the plan itself, and Eastham confirmed that was his question. Swygard also had a question for staff on the Riverfront Crossings/Downtown Plan, it says that ultimately the City should pursue the creation of form -based code to regulate all new development downtown, and asked staff to comment on if that is in the works. Yapp confirmed it is on the staff work program, and the initial steps of that was a discussion with the Downtown District earlier this week regarding establishing design standards, facades, signage and so forth, and that he sees this as a first step to establishing a form -based code for the Downtown District. Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 18 of 24 Eastham stated that staff has asked the Council to establish proposals for inclusionary affordable housing, and asked if the staff has considered extending those proposals or measures into the Civic District. Yapp answered that the City Council direction that they were given was to develop and propose inclusionary zoning standards for just the Riverfront Crossings Area at this time. Eastham asked for confirmation that the staff proposal is to only include into the Downtown District Plan only three blocks of this Civic Area, and Yapp confirmed that was correct. Eastham also noted that there is only one potentially historical structure in that three block area, and Yapp confirmed that is correct as well. Freerks stated her concern that the Commission may not even be ready to vote on this issue even at the next meeting, as this is such a big subject with a lot of energy around it, and the ongoing discussions of historic structures, and lessons were learned in discussions of previous historic areas that need to be heeded at this time. Freerks believes that not all structures need to have gone through the historic preservation process, but the Commission and the City needs some type of map showing the areas that might be in question so people can move forward with the correct expectations. Freerks feels this proposal today seems hobbled together and if moved forward will just divide those interested more. She understands the need for taller structures and building vertically in some areas, but there is also the need to maintain parts of these areas, and protect areas, and could not do so if they moved forward with the proposal as it is. The boundary being set in a middle of a block does not make sense, and there is a need to go through and look at what the base zones are in these areas and are those zonings really what the community wants for these areas. Freerks believes there needs to be a better plan and wants to call for an informal meeting to discuss this issue prior to the next formal meeting for this topic. Informal meetings are also open to the public. Hektoen clarified that the proposal is not talking about establishing a boundary mid-block. That boundary is there currently. Freerks understands but still feels the issue needs to be looked at overall for more clarity. Eastham stated as he understands this proposal, staff has suggested that three square blocks which are almost entirely owned by the City of Iowa City, be incorporated into the Downtown District. So the Commission is tasked with deciding if that is a good idea or not. Whether there are existing proposals of development on that area is not of the Commission's concern. Swygard stated she would like to see these two Comprehensive Plan Amendments broken into two separate pieces. Eastham agreed that would be a good idea. Thomas agreed that they should be discussed separately as they are on two different timelines. Dyer shared her confusion still on the area in question. Yapp explained the areas on the map outlined in blue are proposed to be added to the Central Planning District, as they are both part of the old Downtown Planning District, and they were not included in the Downtown Master Plan, and were not included in the Central District Plan. Yapp stated that staff would work to schedule an informal meeting to discuss this issue and once the time is set it will be posted to the website. Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 19 of 24 Swygard had a question regarding the motion, and if the motion is to delay to the next meeting or further. Freerks stated it could be discussed again at the next formal meeting, but hopes an informal meeting can be held as well. A vote was taken, motion carried 7-0 REZONING ITEM (REZ14-00023) Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Companies for a rezoning from Interim Development Research Park (ID -RP) to Commercial Office (CO -1) zone for approximately 34.21 acres of property located north of Northgate Drive. (REZ14-00023) Miklo showed the location map of the property, this property is located in the North Corridor District. This property is currently zoned Interim Development — Research Development Park (ID - RP) and the proposal is to change the zoning to Commercial Office Zone (CO -1). The purpose of the CO -1 zone is to provide specific areas where office functions, compatible businesses, apartments and certain public and semipublic uses may be developed in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. The CO-Izone can serve as a buffer between residential and more intensive commercial or industrial areas. Miklo said the Comprehensive Plans show this area as Office Research Development Center. The proposed CO -1 zoning, as well as the Research Development Park (RD) and Office Research Park (ORP), are appropriate zoning districts to implement the land use plan. The property to the south is currently zoned CO -1 and developed as Northgate Office Park. Properties to the west, north and east are currently used for agriculture, including a farm residence that is located directly north. The land use plan depicts the areas to the west and east of the subject property as also being appropriate for Office Research Development Centers; the property to the north is identified as Rural Residential. Miklo said the CO -1 zone is generally viewed as being compatible with residential neighborhoods. It has a maximum building height of 25 feet (generally two stories) and does not allow more intense commercial uses that may detract from nearby residences. The Commercial Site Development Standards that apply to the CO -1 zone require street trees, parking lot coverage trees and landscaping around the perimeter of parking lots to further improve compatibility with nearby residential uses. Miklo said that there are some traffic implications with this development. Initially the only street access to this property will be via Northgate Drive, which intersects with Dodge Street (Highway 1). In the long-term Oakdale Boulevard is planned to cross the northern portion of this property to provide additional access to Highway 1. Additional access may also be available from Moss Ridge Road as shown on the concept plan. Staff measured existing traffic volumes, and forecasted future volumes, at several locations along Northgate Drive. It was concluded that at the Steindler Orthopedic Clinic Driveway the average daily traffic (ADT) on Northgate Drive would be approximately 5,547 upon full 'build -out' of the subject property — assuming similar land -uses currently present on Northgate Drive. This figure was derived using existing traffic counts and existing developed acreage which resulted in an additional 84 vehicles per day per acre. Traffic volumes were measured at the Steindler driveway as there is a secondary means of access at this point which allows egress between Northgate Drive and the Quality Inn Property. Therefore, Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 20 of 24 staff does not foresee any major traffic implications related to the subject plat. Traffic volumes will be managed through optimizing the traffic signal timing at the Northgate Drive and Highway 1 intersection. He said that Kent Ralston, Transportation Planner, was available to answer questions about the traffic study. Staff recommends approval of REZ14-00023, an application submitted by Southgate Companies for a rezoning from Interim Development -Research Park (ID -RP) to Commercial Office (CO -1) zone for approximately 34.21 acres of property located north of Northgate Drive. Freerks questioned some of the notes the Commission received stating concern about some buffer. Miklo responded that staff did discuss whether there is a need for a buffer in addition to what is required in terms of landscaping. He said all parking lot areas will be landscaped. Parking lot and trees are also required. The required setbacks are not very great in the CO -1 zone, however when you look at a typical office use, there are larger lawns and greenspaces around these buildings. As noted in the zoning ordinance, because of the CO -1 zone's low intensity and limit to two-story buildings, typically no buffering is required, and staff does not feel it is necessary in this case due to the intensity of the development. Most of the areas around this development will continue to be used as agricultural for some time. Additionally in the future when Oakdale Boulevard is developed there would be a right-of-way and buffer between the office development and the farm to the north. Dyer asked about Moss Ridge Road. Miklo answered that the development of that road would also depend on future development of the properties to the west. Freerks asked Miklo to discuss the future developments possible in the area, and he replied that there would be no drive-thru fast food restaurants permitted in this zone, so the noise and lighting from those would not be an issue. Restaurants are permitted by special exception, but he doesn't feel there is a market for a restaurant in this area. Freerks discussed the lighting pollution, and effect on neighboring properties. Miklo stated that the requirements state that when next to a residential property the light poles have a limit of 25 feet, but since there is no residential next to this property, that would not be enforced. However the Commission could add that condition onto their approval if so desired. Eastham asked if in the staff recommendation if there was any language in requiring a right-of-way to be reserved for Oakdale Boulevard. Miklo stated that would be a condition that would be dealt with when the development is platted. Eastham then questioned if there were to be additional traffic due to the development of this parcel, is here any way to stop additional development until Moss Ridge Road is constructed? Kent Ralston, Transportation Planner, addressed the question stating that in the study they did for this area, they took into consideration full build -out of the rezoned area. There are some concerns about the delay at the intersection of Northgate, but it does meet the existing delay perimeters and will not in the future even at full build -out. Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 21 of 24 Eastham asked about the request of the right turn lane, and it that would be off of Northgate. Ralston replied that they have looked a lot of options for dedicated right turn or left turn lanes and feel that it is not necessary. Ralston stated there would be traffic delays at certain times of day, especially in the evening when everyone is leaving work, however it is really for only about a half hour a day and still meets the standards used throughout the city. Theobald asked about the traffic survey process, Ralston spoke about a computer model, but Theobald wanted to know if someone physically goes out to the site during the peak times and observe the traffic? Ralston confirmed that they do, and all the software and reports are based off actual traffic counts and then they add in an estimate of the traffic that would be generated by the new development. Freerks opened public hearing. Joe Hughes, representing Southgate Companies, stated they are nearly built -out on the other lots on Northgate Drive and have had great success with the area and it has brought lots of jobs to the community. The main feedback they received at the good neighbor meeting was the concerns about having to wait at the intersection, it would be nice if some of the bigger employers would stager the employee release times, but as Ralston stated the traffic situations are confined to a certain time of day. Hughes stated that having Oakdale Boulevard eventually extend to the property allows for 100 feet from the edge of the office lot to the edge of the Furhmeister's property so it gives quite a bit of distance. The Furhmeisters have mentioned in the past the need for some screening so people aren't looking at the backside of their farm buildings, so Hughes is asking the City to allow them to put some landscaping in the 100 foot right-of-way it would benefit both sides. Eastham asked Hughes if the developer could also add screening on the north side of the property. Hughes replied that the screening will be on their property which will eventually become the right- of-way when Oakdale Boulevard is built. Miklo stated the difficulty in planting the trees at this point on the right-of-way is there isn't yet a construction layout of Oakdale Boulevard, and the staff position is this is an office park and not an intensive type of commercial that requires some type of screening other than what is required by the zoning code. Deanna Furhmeister said that she and her husband Leo own the property directly north of the parcel being considered for rezoning, and their lane is the only thing that separates them from this property. Their property is agriculture and they actively farm, there is livestock, and they smell, they have drying bins that are very loud when in use, and use fertilizer and chemicals on their fields. Having said all that, she urges the Commission to give considerable thought on how to approach the situation of rezoning, and what kind of buffer strips or distance between the two properties can be used to secure the best results for harmony for a commercial property and a Century Farm of 122 years. Dan Furhmeister has very recently become the owner of the farm to the east of this property that is being rezoned for 17 additional commercial buildings. His farm has been in his family since the 1880's having just purchased his great, great grandparents farm. He stated he is not for or against the development in any way, he just wanted the City to be aware that he also has cattle and crops and is concerned that there is a need for a buffer between the properties. Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 22 of 24 Miklo pointed out that the right-of-way for Oakdale Boulevard will be 100 feet and they don't anticipate that being built anytime soon so there will be a 100 foot buffer built in until such time that Oakdale Boulevard is built and the City Forester could work to ensure that there is some landscaping on the north side of that right-of-way. Freerks asked Hughes if he, as the developers, were willing to put landscaping in that right-of-way area. Hughes confirmed that he feels it makes sense for both sides, they just need to hear from City staff if they would allow trees in the right-of-way and if they are not worried then if construction of Oakdale Boulevard in the future would then destroy those trees. Miklo stated that was the concern, that if the trees are planted today, and then with the road design, the trees may need to be taken out. Miklo suggested that felt it was necessary to put in screening rather than putting it screening in the right-of-way of Oakdale Boulevard, to put the screening on the north side of lots 31 and 30, and requiring a 10 foot landscaping buffer on the north side of those lots. Thomas asked if it would also have to be on the east side, since there is also agriculture on the east side as well. Hektoen mentioned that when the Commission talks about any conditions they may impose they must be addressing public needs generated by this rezoning, and thinks it is reasonable to have the screening on lots 30 & 31 due to the farm residence to the north, but not for the additional screening to the east. Deanna Furhmeister also added they have another farm just north west of the proposed rezoning and feels there needs to be buffer strips all the way though the property because they have cattle on all their property. Miklo suggests that the buffer be to benefit the farm house and if the concern is buffering the office uses from the agricultural uses the office developers can do that themselves for their own benefit. Hughes stated the zoning already calls for buffering on the specific lots, City staff is recommending no additional buffering, perhaps they can move forward now in good faith and the specifics be worked out in the platting stage. Dan Furhmeister asked if the buffer had to be trees, or if it could be a berm. Freerks replied that the reality was once Oakdale Boulevard is built, the businesses would want to be able to be seen from that road, so a berm would not be appropriate. Freerks stated for the record that if the Commission were to move forward on good faith with this rezoning application, that the issue of buffering and trees needs to be addressed at the time of development. Hektoen stated that when Miklo and her work to draft the rezoning they could put in a whereas statement addressing the special issue of buffering. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved that the Commission approve REZ14-00023, an application submitted by Southgate Companies for a rezoning from Interim Development -Research Park (ID -RP) to Commercial Office (CO -1) zone for approximately 34.21 acres of property located north of Northgate Drive. Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 23 of 24 Martin seconded the motion. Freerks stated this rezoning seems compatible to the area, and likes the idea of extending the commercial area into this part of the city. Thomas questioned if they had seen a summary report on the good neighbor meeting in the staff report before? Miklo answered it was the first time that one has been submitted by the applicant. Miklo said it is a new procedure that staff has implemented for the Good Neighbor Policy. Commissioners indicated that it was very helpful. A vote was taken and motion carried 7-0. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: December 18, 2014 There were several corrections where Swygard and Theobald's names were mixed up. Theobald moved to approve the corrected minutes for December 18, 2014. Eastham seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Miklo reported that the Council has asked staff to form a citizen committee to draft an inclusionary housing requirement for the Riverfront Crossings Area and is seen as being a pilot that might or might not be expanded. ADJOURNMENT: Swygard moved to adjourn the meeting. Eastham seconded. A vote was taken and motion carried 6-0. z NO Ou CD w o Z W N 0 0 1 NpN 06 CD W W z H za z J CL Z H w w 2 0 � XXXXXXX It- NXxxxxxx r CD NoXxxxxx x x x x x x x r - XXX �xX -XXXX �XXXXXXx �wcocowr- Lo mLo oXXXXXXX T- oXXXXXX� w 71 w 0 Zxxxxxxx Z �QzwQp= w J G Z CD J=Za0a� NXXXXXXw Q:�Ya�aVj NXXXxxxx 0 CEP w�002 Q co xxxxx�x �v)H= ZXXXXXXX n CD �XX�xxxx LOXXXXXXX L-XXXXXXX V-XXxxxxx �wcocoaon Lo 0 Lo CL 0000000 W W w Z W J0 >=Zw4O= .00 0C <X a�J o n L)=�?ama � �� 02 is(za xx owU.MU)i- H Z H w W J 0 Z %-XXXXXXX 0 NXxxxxxx N N x x x x x x x �Xxx - XXX r �XXXXXXx �wcocowr- Lo mLo wa�n0LOLO0LnLO X0000000 w w 71 w Z �QzwQp= w J G Z J=Za0a� Q:�Ya�aVj w CEP w�002 Q zaw�Ui �v)H= c � � O U'� X E � � C:CU -�e N (n N O aQQz� ii n n u n x0w O w Y 02-23-15 3b(10) IOWA CITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION APPROVED MONDAY, JANUARY 26,2015--5:30 P.M. CITY CABLE TV OFFICE, 10 S. LINK ST. -TOWER PLACE PARKING FACILITY MEMBERS PRESENT: Alexa Homewood, Nick Kilburg, Matt Butler, Bram Elias, Laura Bergus MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Mike Brau, Ty Coleman OTHERS PRESENT: Josh Goding, Bond Drager SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION Coleman said Mediacom has been having some system -wide problems with their email server. Coleman reported that City Channel 4 has had some problems with signal quality which Mediacom believes rests with their equipment. The problem is solved for the most part but has not been totally resolved. Coleman reported the process to renew PATV's contract has started. It is anticipated the contract will be for three years, or until 2018 when funding from Mediacom can no longer be mandated. Bergus said the bureaucratic change that moved the Cable TV Office within the Communications Office has resulted in a significant change in funding arrangements. Of particular note, the cable TV reserve fund has been eliminated in the FY2016 budget and moved into the general fund. It is important that the City Council be fully aware that they are making significant changes from past practice and it not get lost in the complexities of approving the city budget. In the past the Commission has discussed options for the local access channels transitioning to new models in 2018 when the public access operating subsidy can no longer be required and the City Channel funding would be reduced. Using the reserve fund had been discussed as one element of an alternative funding models. The city council needs to be aware that moving the reserve fund into the general fund could have a large negative impact on local access channel operations in the future. Elias said the change in the principle governing the use of the franchise fee and community programming fee needs to be fully discussed and the City Council and community be aware they are making a significant change. The Commission agreed to request a special meeting with the city administration to discuss the issue. Coleman said he had met with Geoff Fruin, Shannon McMahon, and the city legal department regarding petitioning the Iowa Utilities Board (IUB) to revoke the Alliance Technologies franchise and return to a municipal franchise with Mediacom. Coleman said the legal department had expressed concern that if the city were to petition the IUB, Mediacom might assert that they are not required to pay the operating subsidy for PATV. The legal department said that if Mediacom were to take that position, a judge would decide how the statute requiring funding support for local access channels is to be interpreted. A court case would be costly in terms of money and time. City administration also noted that SouthSlope and Metronet have indicated they have an interest in the possibility of providing service in Iowa City in the future. If they were to pursue a state franchise to do so, Mediacom would again be able to revert from a municipal franchise to a state franchise. Coleman said the city administration is aware that because Mediacom is operating under a state issued franchise rather than municipal franchise, annual franchise fee revenue is about $60,000 less. Bergus said the current situation is many steps removed from any scenario in which the public access funds might be threatened. The risk does not appear very large. Elias suggested that the Commission address this issue when they meet with Assistant City Manager Geoff Fruin. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Homewood moved and Kilburg seconded a motion to approve the amended November 24, 2014 minutes. The motion passed unanimously. ANNOUNCEMENTS OF COMMISSIONERS Bergus said she reapplied for another term despite missing the deadline. There have been no other applicants. SHORT PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS None. CONSUMER ISSUES Coleman said he did not have a written report due to a computer malfunction that caused his email to be lost. President Obama's appearance in Cedar Falls generated some inquiries as to why Iowa City dos not have a similarly advanced system. Coleman said he informed them that market forces are such that new entrants in the market are rare. The city has pursued competitive providers in the past but was unable to attract one. MEDIACOM REPORT Coleman said Mediacom has been having some system -wide problems with their email server. Lee Grassley informed Coleman that otherwise he had nothing to report. CITY CABLE TV OFFICE REPORT Coleman reported that City Channel 4 has had some problems with signal quality which Mediacom believes rests with their equipment. The problem is solved for the most part but has not been totally resolved. LOCAL ACCESS CHANNEL REPORTS Homewood noted that the library, the City Channel, and PATV had written reports in the meeting packet. Goding said the PATV board will meet at 6 p.m. on the third Thursday of each month. PATV's new hours are Monday -Thursday from 10 a.m.-8 p.m., Friday for equipment check out from 3-6 p.m., and Saturday from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. PATV CONTRACT Coleman reported that the process to renew PATV's contract has started. One meeting has been held to gather ideas on any changes to the contract. The city is open to any input from PATV and the Commission. It is anticipated the contract will be for three years, or until 2018 when funding from Mediacom can no longer be mandated. Goding said PATV is generally happy with the terms of the existing contract. Coleman said a public hearing has been held in the past to allow public input into PATV's performance. A public hearing before the March Commission meeting at which a recommendation regarding the contract could be made might be a good option. Coleman said he would try and have a draft contract ready for review for the next Commission meeting. CABLE TV OFFICE BUDGET Bergus said the bureaucratic change that moved the Cable TV Office within the Communications Office has resulted in a significant change in funding arrangements. Of particular note, the cable TV reserve fund has been eliminated in the FY2016 budget and moved into the general fund. It is important that the City Council be fully aware that they are making significant changes from past practice and it not get lost in the complexities of approving the city budget. In the past the Commission has discussed options for the local access channels transitioning to new models in 2018 when the public access operating subsidy can no longer be required and the City Channel funding would be reduced. Using the reserve fund had been discussed as one element of an alternative funding models. The city council needs to be aware that moving the reserve fund into the general fund could have a large negative impact on local access channel operations in the future. Brau noted that the FY 2016 budget changes the operating assumption of how the franchise fee is used. Prior to the FY 2016 budget the franchise fee and community programming fee had been classified as an enterprise fund. Unlike revenue generated by taxes in which all citizens gained benefit, an enterprise fund returns the benefits to those who pay them. That principle has been changed in FY 2016 budget and the franchise fee and community programming fee is treated in the same manner as tax revenue. Coleman said that Assistant City Manager Geoff Fruin informed him that due to changes in state property tax law the city will have a shortfall in funds beginning in 2017 and the city needs to build a reserve fund now to manage that situation. It was hoped that the community would support the local option sales tax to generate the needed funds, but it failed. Elias said the change in the principle governing the use of the franchise fee and community programming fee needs to be fully discussed and the City Council and community be aware they are making a significant change. The Commission agreed to request a special meeting with the city administration to discuss the issue. ALLIANCE TECHNOLOGIES FRANCHISE Coleman said he had met with Geoff Fruin, Shannon McMahon, and the city legal department regarding petitioning the Iowa Utilities Board (IUB) to revoke the Alliance Technologies franchise and return to a municipal franchise with Mediacom. Coleman said the legal department had expressed concern that if the city were to petition the IUB, Mediacom might assert that they are not required to pay the operating subsidy for PATV. The legal department said that if Mediacom were to take that position, a judge would decide how the statute requiring funding support for local access channels is to be interpreted. A court case would be costly in terms of money and time. City administration also noted that SouthSlope and Metronet have indicated they have an interest in the possibility of providing service in Iowa City in the future. If they were to pursue a state franchise to do so, Mediacom would again be able to revert from a municipal franchise to a state franchise. Coleman said the city administration is aware that because Mediacom is operating under a state issued franchise rather than municipal franchise, annual franchise fee revenue is about $60,000 less. Bergus noted that about a year ago Mediacom sent the city a letter asserting they no longer believed they were required to pay the public access operating fee. The city responded with a letter disagreeing. Mediacom decided to continue with the payments at that point. Bergus said the current situation is many steps removed from any scenario in which the public access funds might be threatened. The language in the statute regarding the continuation of support for local access operations is there for a purpose and the language is clear and unambiguous. The risk does not appear very large. Elias suggested that the Commission address this issue when they meet with assistant city manager Geoff Fruin. LOCAL ACCESS CHANNEL SURVEY Brau reported the survey has been collecting responses. The number of responses currently will result in a confidence interval of about 7%, which is higher than desired, but low enough that the data will be useful. A Facebook ad will be soon placed targeting the 18-30 year old age group, as that group's response rate is below their make-up in the population. Any suggestions on how to analyze the date are welcome. ADJOURNMENT Elias moved and Bergus seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously. Adjournment was at 6:49 p.m. Respectfully submitted, `J Michael Brau. Cable TV Administrative Aide TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 12 MONTH ATTENDANCE RECORD (X) = Present (0) = Absent (O/C) = Absent/Called (Excused Elias Ber us Kilburg Butler Homewood 1/27/14 X X X X X 2/24/14 X X X 0 0 3/24/14 X X X X X 6/2/14 0 X X X X 6/23/14 0 X X X X 7/28/14 0 x x x 0/c 8/25/14 X X X X X 9/22/14 X X X X o/c 10/27/14 X X o/c o/c X 11/24/14 O/C O/C X X X 1/26/15 X X X X x 2/10/15 X X X o/c X (X) = Present (0) = Absent (O/C) = Absent/Called (Excused 02-2 r 3d(1) CITY OF IOWA CITY .� MEMORANDUM DATE: February 19, 2015 TO: Tom Markus, City Manager FROM: Jason Havel, City Engineer T4 -, 7, RE: Sycamore Street — City Limits to South Gilbert Street, Phase 1 28E Agreement with the Iowa City Community School District for Improvements to a portion of Sycamore Street Introduction: This agenda item includes a 28E Agreement with the Iowa City Community School District for the Sycamore Street — City Limits to South Gilbert Street, Phase 1 Project. History / Background: The ICCSD is currently constructing the Archibald Alexander Elementary School at 3571 Sycamore Street. In connection with this construction, the ICCSD must complete the improvements identified on the Major Site Plan for the school approved by the City on July 15, 2014. In addition, to facilitate vehicular and pedestrian traffic to Alexander Elementary, the City is planning to construct improvements to Sycamore Street which runs, in part, along the eastern border of the school site. While the City will be responsible for the construction of the Sycamore Street improvements and the ICCSD will be responsible for the construction of the Major Site Plan improvements, it is beneficial to include both improvements in one project for purposes of public bidding and to have one contractor construct both the improvements to Sycamore Street and the Major Site Plan improvements. Discussion of Solution: Plans for the Sycamore Street - City Limits to South Gilbert Street, Phase 1 Project include both the Sycamore Street improvements and the Major Site Plan improvements. The project has been divided into Divisions in which the City will be responsible for Division 1 project costs and the ICCSD will be responsible for Divisions 2A and 2B project costs. In addition, the ICCSD has agreed to pay 33.3% of the actual project costs for 647.18 linear feet of Sycamore Street which abuts the ICCSD property. The proposed 28E Agreement is necessary between the City and the ICCSD to set forth the responsibilities of the costs for the project with the City acting as the lead agency for purposes of construction. This agreement outlines the City's and the ICCSD's respective duties and responsibilities in connection with the project. Financial Impact Statement: The City is funding the roadway improvements with the Sycamore Street Project as included in Division 1 of the project which is estimated at $2,291,000 and the ICCSD is funding the Major Site Plan improvements as included in Division 2A and Division 2B of the project estimated at $181,600. In addition, the ICCSD has agreed to pay 33.3% of the actual project costs for 647.18 linear feet of Sycamore Street which is estimated at $190,000. Recommendation: Staff recommends proceeding with authorization of approving the 28E Agreement between the Iowa City Community School District and the City of Iowa City for the Sycamore Street Improvements. cc: Ron Knoche, Public Works Director Dave Panos, Senior Civil Engineer