HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-09-03 Ordinance5a
Prepared by: Bailee McClellan, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5243 (REZ11- 00010)
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 13.07 ACRES LOCATED AT 1729 NORTH DUBUQUE
ROAD FROM LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY (RS -5) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY — LOW
DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY (OPD -5). (REZ11 -00010)
WHEREAS, the applicant, Allen Homes, has requested a rezoning of property located at 1729 North
Dubuque Road from Low Density Single Family (RS -5) to Planned Development Overlay — Low Density
Single Family (OPD -5); and
WHEREAS, Allen Homes proposes to use the property to develop The Palisades, a 32 -lot residential
subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the area is appropriate for single - family and duplex
residential uses and open space; and
WHERAS, the subdivision incorporates single - family residential uses and open space in compliance with
the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, sensitive areas, including critical slopes and woodlands, are present on the property; and,
WHEREAS, in order to provide for the connection of Oakes Drive and storm water management on this
property, it is necessary to remove more than 50 percent of the woodlands and grade more than 35 percent
of the critical slopes; and,
WHEREAS, replacement trees will be planted; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the proposed rezoning and has
recommended approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I APPROVAL. Property described below is hereby reclassified from its current zoning
designation of RS -5 to OPD -5:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF DEAN OAKES FIRST ADDITION,
TO IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
RECORDED PLAT THEREOF; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 228.20 FEET, ALONG
THE CENTERLINE OF DUBUQUE ROAD AND AN ARC OF A 303.70 FOOT RADIUS
CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, WHOSE 222.87 FOOT CHORD BEARS
S39 027'42 "W; THENCE S18 001140 11W, ALONG SAID CENTERLINE, 617.60
FEET; THENCE N87 008'44 "W, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF LOT ONE,
DONAHUE SUBDIVISION, TO IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF, 638.60 FEET; THENCE
NO2 002146 "E, 742.00 FEET; THENCE S89 009105 "E, 944.20 FEET, ALONG
THE SOUTH LINE OF DEAN OAKES THIRD ADDITION, TO IOWA CITY,
JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF
AND THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID DEAN OAKES FIRST ADDITION, TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING CONTAINING 13.07 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, AND IS
SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change the
zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval
and publication of this ordinance by law.
SECTION 111. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the
City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and to record the same, at the
office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, IQwa, at the owner's expense, all as provided by law.
SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance No.
Page 2
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION VI. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and
publication, as provided by law.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Appr ved by
7
Jz4W-
City Attorney's Office ��a /�
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by that the
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Champion
Dickens
Dobyns
Hayek
Mims
Payne
Throgmorton
First Consideration 910312013
Vote for passage: AYES: Dickens, Dobyns, Hayek, Mims, Payne, Champion.
NAYS: Throgmorton. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration _
Vote for passage:
Date published
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Item: REZ11 -00010 & SUB13 -00005
The Palisades
GENERAL INFORMATION:
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Andrew Bassman
Date: August 1, 2013
Applicant: Allen Homes
P.O. Box 3474
Iowa City, Iowa 52244
319- 530 -8238
allenhomesincCc ), g mail. com
Requested Action:
Purpose:
Location:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
Comprehensive Plan:
Neighborhood Open Space District:
File Date:
45 Day Limitation Period:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Rezoning from RS -5 to OPD -5 and Preliminary plat
and Sensitive Areas Development Plan approval
32 -lot subdivision with three outlots
1729 N. Dubuque Road
13.07 acres
Mostly undeveloped, RS -5
North: Residential (RS -5, RR -1)
South: Residential (OPD -8, RS -8)
East: Residential (OPD -5)
West: Undeveloped (ID -RS)
North District Plan: single - family /duplex residential,
public/private open space
N1 – Dubuque Road
6/27/13
8/11/13
The applicant, Allen Homes, has requested preliminary plat approval of the Palisades, a 13.07 -
acre, 32 -lot subdivision with three outlots located at 1729 N. Dubuque Road. The subject property
was previously used as farmland and contains the original farmhouse and several outbuildings at
the far northeast part of the property —all of the existing buildings would be removed, except for
possibly retaining the two -story, 1,920 square foot single - family residence located on Lot 32.
The applicant applied for subdivision approval and a rezoning in the same location in 2011.
However, the 2011 proposal encompassed a larger area (23.02 acres) that included the property
immediately to the west, a ravine with a regulated stream corridor and extensive mature
woodlands and steep, critical and protected slopes. At that time, the applicant requested rezoning
the subject property from RS -5 to Planned Development Overlay /Low- Density Single - Family
2
Residential (OPD -5) and the property to the west from Interim Development Residential (ID -RS) to
RS -5. A Planned Development rezoning was necessary to address the sensitive areas present on
the properties. The current proposal would not include the property immediately to the west.
However a Sensitive Areas rezoning is required due the disturbance of more than 35% of the
critical slopes and over 50% of the woodlands contained within the subdivision.
The 2011 proposal would have used the property immediately to the west for the natural drainage
into the wooded ravine and through the stream corridor to a stormwater detention basin located
off -site in the Oakes subdivision to the north. The subject property generally slopes downward
from a peak of about 800 feet at the far northeast of the property to a low point of about 760 at the
west central border of the subject property. Under the current proposal, stormwater would be
managed on -site within a stormwater basin located in Outlot A.
The proposed subdivision would be developed in two phases. Phase 1 would include Lots 1 -16
and Outlots A and B ( Outlot A would be owned and maintained by a homeowners association and
Outlot B would be dedicated to the City for public open space). Phase 2 would consist of Lots 17-
32 and Outlot C ( Outlot C would be for a mailbox cluster).
The applicant has indicated that they intend to use the "Good Neighbor Policy" and have
discussions with neighborhood representatives.
ANALYSIS:
Current Zoning: The RS -5 zoning on the subject property is primarily intended to provide housing
opportunities for individual households on lots that are 8,000 square feet or greater in size. All lots
meet or exceed the dimensional requirements of the RS -5 zone. The Planned Development
Overlay is being requested to allow more than 35% of the Critical slopes to be disturbed and more
than 50% of the woodlands to be disturbed. Sensitive areas are discussed below.
Comprehensive Plan and Neighborhood Compatibility: The North District Plan future land -
use map shows most of the northern portion of this area as appropriate for single - family or
duplex residential uses, and a section of the southern portion of the property is shown as
appropriate for public or private open space. The Plan specifically addresses the subject
property: "If sewer and access issues are resolved, there is the potential for additional
development on property directly south of the Williams Pipeline easement and also on vacant
land south of Oakes Drive. The latter piece of piece of property contains fairly level ground near
the street, but is bordered by a wooded ravine. In keeping with the character of the existing
neighborhood, the plan calls for the development of single - family homes or duplexes along the
extension of Oakes Drive as it loops back around and connects to Dubuque Road. The
southern portion of this 12.8 -acre property is shown as future neighborhood park." The North
District Plan also illustrates the extension of Oakes Drive through this property.
The lots in the proposed subdivision would range in size from 8,531 square feet to 20,044
square feet but most lots are between 9,000 and 12,000 square feet, which is similar to the lots
along Oakes Drive to the north. Existing development along Dubuque Road consists of
predominately single - family homes on larger lots with extensive front yards, giving the area a
rural residential character. The proposed subdivision would feature three lots and one outlot
( Outlot B) with frontage on, but not direct vehicular access to, Dubuque Road. The lots
proposed along Dubuque Road would be similar in width and but have less depth than the lots
located across Dubuque Road. The lot and block pattern complies with the subdivision code
standards for block length and lot pattern and does not contain any double- fronting or
irregularly shaped lots.
P=Staff Reports %subl3-00005 palisades staff report.doc
3
The design of the subdivision in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and in staff's opinion
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The North District Plan illustrated the possibility
of a larger park in this area due to the inability to provide sanitary sewer service to the southern
half of this property. Now that it is possible to provide sanitary sewer service, the Parks and
Recreation Department has identified Outlot B as an appropriate neighborhood park for this
subdivision and the larger neighborhood which currently has no public open space.
Subdivision and Street Design: The applicant would construct new streets to meet the traffic
circulation and access needs of the proposed subdivision. The applicant would extend Oakes
Drive, running east -west across the northern portion of the subdivision, to connect with
Dubuque Road as contemplated in the North District Plan. Lots would be located along the
Oakes drive extension. The applicant has reached an agreement with Anthony and Constance
Frey, the owners of the property immediately to the west, whereby they would dedicate the
necessary right -of -way from their property for the Oakes Drive extension. This area is illustrated
on the submitted plat and will need to be dedicated to the City prior to approval of the final plat
for the 1St phase of the subdivision. The extension of Oakes Drive is important for long term
neighborhood circulation, so staff recommends that a dedication plat and construction
easements be prepared and executed as soon as possible.
Coronado Lane, a second east -west road, would provide access to the lots in the southern
portion of the subdivision and directly connect with Dubuque Road. Coronado Lane would also
be linked to Oakes Drive by Avalon Place, a new north -south road. Coronado Lane would end
at the west property line providing access to the Frey property. A temporary fire - apparatus
turn - around will be required on Outlot A and lot 7. The turn - around currently shown on the
submitted plat is not sufficient to meet the turn - around needed for fire apparatus. This
deficiency will need to be corrected prior to approval by City Council.
The streets have been designed to meet local street standards. Oakes Drive would be 28 feet
in width, consistent with the pavement width of the existing street. Avalon Place and Coronado
Lane would have street pavement width of 26 feet. A consistent 60 -foot right -of -way would be
established throughout the subdivision. It should be noted that the right -of -way width for the
existing Oakes Drive is 50 feet. To meet the current 60 -foot right -of -way standard, the right -of-
way would be adjusted at the northwest subdivision boundary by 5 feet on either side. This
transition will occur on Lot 24.
The street pattern meets the subdivision requirements for connectivity while respecting the
topography of the area. Extending Oakes Drive will improve traffic circulation and secondary
access in the neighborhood.
The applicant will extend sewer service to the property. A sewer lift station will be constructed
near the west end of Coronado Lane to provide sewer service to the southern lots in the
subdivision.
Sensitive Areas: In order to provide for stormwater management and the extension of Oakes
Drive (a priority identified in the North District Plan), it is necessary to disturb more than 35% of
the critical slopes within the subdivision and to remove more than 50% of the woodlands. The
sensitive areas ordinance allows essential public utilities such as storm and sanitary sewers,
water mains, gas, telephone and power lines, and storm water detention facilities within
protected sensitive areas and associated buffers, provided the facilities will not be detrimental
to the functioning of sensitive areas or associated buffers, or pose a public safety hazard. Staff
believes the extension of Oakes Drive will be beneficial to the traffic circulation in the area and
was anticipated when the street was stubbed to the property line.
PCD1Staff ReportsXsubt3 -00005 palisades staff report.doc
4
100 percent of the regulated woodlands on the property will be disturbed in order to extend
Oakes Drive and construct the stormwater basin. While a considerable number of trees along
the south boundary of the subdivision will be retained to the extent possible, these will not count
toward woodland preservation due to the narrow width of the wooded area and the difficulty of
creating a sufficient buffer area to ensure the survivability of these trees during construction.
Therefore, the applicant is proposing to plant 309 replacement trees, some of which will be
planted in Outlot B in consultation with the Parks Department, in Outlot A after the stormwater
facility has been constructed, and 5 trees will be planted on each home lot as they are
developed, and finally on Anthony and Constance Frey's property after construction of the
Oakes Drive extension.
Adequate erosion control measures will need to be installed on sloping sites prior to installing
subdivision infrastructure and once infrastructure is installed any land that was disturbed will
need to be restored and re- planted with appropriate vegetation to stabilize the slopes that were
disturbed.
Storm water management: The plat shows that stormwater would be directed to the storm
sewers installed along the streets in the subdivision. Storm sewer would be directed to a
detention basin on Outlot A.
Infrastructure fees: The applicant would extend water service to the property. A water main
extension fee of $395 per acre will be required at the time of final plat.
Neighborhood parkland or fees in lieu of: The proposed subdivision is located in the
Dubuque Road Neighborhood Open Space District (N1), which currently contains no parkland.
Outlot B would be dedicated to the City for open space to satisfy the open space requirements.
The location of the open space at the corner of Dubuque Road and Coronado Lane would be
highly visible and accessible to area residents. The land for the park is relatively flat and should
be suitable for passive or active outdoor activities.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of REZ11- 00010 /SUB13 -00005 a rezoning from Low Density Single
Family (RS -5) zone to Planned Development Overlay — Low Density Single Family (OPD -5)
zone and a preliminary plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan of The Palisades, a 32 -lot,
13.7 acre residential subdivision located at 1729 North Dubuque Road, subject to resolution of
the deficiencies and discrepancies noted below prior to City Council consideration.
DEFICIENCIES:
1. A temporary fire apparatus turn - around built to City standards should be shown on Outlot A
and Lot 7 at the end of Coronado Lane.
2. Minor discrepancies as noted by the City Engineer.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Plan
Approved by: 1Z_&1-
Robert Miklo, S for anner,'
Department of Planning and Community Development
PCD%Staff Reportstsubl3 -00005 palisades staff reporl.doc
. §,|
HIM m ! ®
5)) !q
\
\
\ �n
�H§
§
Eli
A%
§3� § �
<� m
\
_
\
&
E
\
( §�(
�Q§
!%
�{ §
� (
\,
||
a
I rev
a
O �
Q
z �
w
E� ass
F
a
a
r
rx
z
a
w
a
a
gy s€
S�:d
rZ a$
a � fE
p Ie @@ {s€ x € e
€ i
S.11 E€ g;,
g L aaaa p �i' r y o€ ; � a �I:• �d S � €
X11 €Eers € €�61 @9iisir 31I��P�iP E� �s. r = €; ��F( 5 ° €egs
'� Fp
;3 €
i, ..AMxr€•wno ., ii' E999 3pp,�gp
bi
' za
RR
HIM 4
go -
"a` d �
w ilia m�
iq! r
w,*
zig
T5�€ nt" 1y
6E"'� d£z6 �'"�;'" = —mow - - +.dr,•._ -� "�
6
z
a
w
c�
a
91 °a=
i €F
9 1 two
d$9s?
aQo
Co
if
lip
• _ `����1 w ,1� � _���ii1i���►��,,�/, 1 � a �� rlI J
�r '.l� i�cl Q,�1►'!� { {� {// .Al m- - Hill
d��� {�
� �� {����il''�r' =i �i�"t� Ai) ���01�1U /i,�'�7,1'i���l II� 'j!� �i 'I�rt•
�!!II�E
11111 11101—
■ > >�... � r`;� rrL-,_ � war � �.� s��� fli
'��i��a.r✓'y�� i:,..I q���'����/�l " "/'/� / %i�. ��O'V Win. '1� iv "� ���Y!
`, o, �'��e^',ri ��• ��"' �". ��Y' �A� .W/�A2�"_tiNNl'e0m�li`0�'ift fl�pjsl�'�'fs;
M
■ (a
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY
AUGUST 1, — 7:00 PM — FORMAL
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Anne Freerks, Phoebe Martin,
Jodie Theobald, John Thomas
MEMBERS ABSENT: Paula Swygard
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Kent Ralston, Sarah Greenwood Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: Jesse Allen, Duane Musser, Anthony Fry, Lisa Ziniel, Jerry
Denning, Brandon Ross, Glenn Siders, Clifton Young, Lori
Dockery, Tim Furman, John Cruise, Kevin Den Adel, E. Tony
Kellems
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
1. The Commission voted 4 -2 ( Freerks and Dyer opposed) to recommend approval of
REZ11- 00010/SUB13- 00005, a rezoning from Low Density Single Family (RS -5) to
Planned Development Overlay -Low Density Single Family (OPD -5) zone and a
preliminary plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan of The Palisades, a 32 -lot,
13.07 acre residential subdivision located at 1729 North Dubuque Road and to
remove the list of trees and have the list of trees approved by the City Forester.
2. The Commission voted 6 -0 to recommend approval of SUB12- 00014, a preliminary
plat of approximately 4.29 acres of Walden Wood Part 10, a 20 -lot, residential
subdivision located at Walden Road.
3. The Commission voted 6 -0 to recommend approval of SUB13 -00011 a preliminary
plat of Eastbrook Flats for a 1 -lot, 4.83 acre residential subdivision located at the
northeast corner of the intersection of Muscatine Avenue and Scott Boulevard.
4. The Commission voted 6 -0 to recommend approval of SUB13- 00013, a preliminary
plat of Brookwood Pointe third to Fifth Addition, a 61 -lot, 17.15 acre residential
subdivision located north of Vesti Lane and west of Sycamore Street.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
Rezoning Items / Development Items:
REZ11- 00010 /SUB13 -00005 Discussion of an application submitted by Allen Homes for a
rezoning from Low Density Single Family (RS -5) zone to Planned Development Overlay —
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 1, 2013 - Formal
Page 2 of 16
Low Density Single Family (OPD -5) zone for 13.07 -acres of land located at 1729 North
Dubuque Road and a preliminary plat of The Palisades, a 32 -lot residential subdivision.
Miklo explained where the property is located and showed an aerial view of the subject property.
He showed the plat, which calls for dividing the property into single family residential lots as well
as an outlot to be dedicated to the City as a neighborhood park. He said that rezoning is
required because there are some sensitive areas on this property — critical slopes and a
woodland. He said a similar plan came before the Commission two years ago involving property
to the west, with the idea that some of the storm water management from the development
would be included on the adjacent property as it worked its way to an existing storm water basin
to the north. He said negotiations with the owners didn't work out. He said this plan puts the
water in the outlot, which necessitates removal of the woodland. He said the applicant proposes
to plant replacement trees on some of the disturbed area, the outlot and on individual lots.
Miklo said it's been the City's goal and in the Comprehensive Plan to connect Oakes Drive back
to Dubuque Road to make traffic better for the neighborhood and provide access for emergency
vehicles. He said the applicant has reached an agreement with the neighboring property owner
to allow this portion of Oakes Drive to be dedicated to the City to allow its connection, making it
comply with the Comprehensive Plan.
Miklo said the applicant and the Parks and Recreation Department have agreed on a certain
portion of the development being dedicated for a neighborhood park. He said staff has received
revised plats that address all the deficiencies that were noted by staff. Miklo showed the
Commission photos of the neighborhood and the subject property. He said at this point staff is
recommending approval of the Sensitive Areas Overlay Rezoning as well as the preliminary
plat.
Dyer asked what kinds of trees will be cut. Miklo said there is a variety, including walnut trees.
Freerks said if the number was one - hundred percent for the removal for sensitive areas she was
shocked by that number and that they usually don't go to that extent and would like to see
something better happen. She said there are many lovely trees. Miklo said the area defined as
woodland is where the storm water management will need to go if it's going to occur on this
property. He said there had been an attempt two years ago with the adjacent property owner to
put the storm water on that property, which could have resulted in the preservation of some of
those trees. Freerks said it seems that the Sensitive Areas Ordinance was put in for a reason,
and this aggressively eliminates all sensitive areas.
Theobald asked if the adjacent property was wooded and would also require removal of some
trees. Miklo said that was correct.
Eastham asked if there are other parts of the defined woodland that are not parts of the storm
water detention facility and is the applicant proposing removing all the trees there. Miklo said
there are groves of trees outside the woodland area and the applicant is planning on preserving
some of those, but they don't get counted toward the woodlands.
Freerks said she sees no protection anywhere on the plans and to her that's a red flag because
it means anything can happen.
Theobald asked how the best way to handle storm water is determined. Miklo said it generally
has to be on the low point of the property with the vegetation cleared.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 1, 2013 - Formal
Page 3 of 16
Freerks opened public discussion.
Jesse Allen of Allen Home, the applicant, said they put a lot of time into dealing with the
sensitive issues of this plan and had a couple of good neighbor meetings. He said there's a
strong need in Iowa City for single family housing. He said by connecting an old neighborhood
with Oakes Street is where they are impacting many of the trees as well as with the storm water
plan. He said they will try to save as many trees as possible.
Allen reiterated for Eastham that the two reasons so many trees have to be taken down are due
to the connection of Oakes Drive to North Dubuque Road and installation of storm water basins
on the subject parcel. He said the way the City calculates the woodland impact, even though the
applicant is saving trees, is that they are impacting them one - hundred percent based on the
boundaries. Eastham asked if the applicant will plant 300 trees after the subdivision is
completed. Allen said that is correct, and they would be younger and healthier than what is
currently there.
Theobald asked where Allen got the list of trees that will be planted. Allen said MMS
Consultants put it together for him. She said there are a lot of trees on the list that will be
potential problems in the future so she would recommend that someone like Mark Vitosh, who is
familiar with emerging tree disease be consulted.
Greenwood Hektoen told Theobald to refrain from making recommendations on landscape
architects for the developer to use.
Miklo said the key point is that the Commission has an interest in what the replacement trees
are. Theobald said this list is not necessarily healthy. Allen said they would take a look and
make some changes. It was made clear that Mark Vitosh works for the State and would not be a
paid consultant.
Freerks said for her this is a special place, and she's not sure this plan is the best way to lay out
a development to take advantage of the site and to give people the feeling of being in the
country. She said removing all these trees is something that just annihilates the whole
landscape.
Duane Musser of MMS Consultants said one of the main things driving this project is the
requirement by the City to connect Oakes Drive. He said when they were planning the
development, they had a cul -de -sac, and the City said they were not going to approve any
subdivision without a connection. He said one of the ravines on the subject property will have to
be deforested and filled in to make Oakes Street connect, and the other ravine will have to be
used for the storm water management. He said on these infill developments you have to meet
certain requirements, and he doesn't know how to do that another way.
Thomas asked what the maintenance is on the replacement trees. Musser said it would be up to
the homeowner to maintain their trees. Thomas asked about those in Outlot A. Musser said they
would be the responsibility of the homeowners association.
Eastham asked if the City will have responsibility for some of the replacement trees. Musser
said they would in Outlot B.
Martin asked Musser why they have to fill in the ravine to connect Oakes Drive and why there
couldn't be a bridge. Musser said a bridge is not cost - effective.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 1, 2013 - Formal
Page 4 of 16
Eastham asked if the Commission could approve a plan that does not extend Oakes Drive and
has two smaller storm water retention areas with less impact on the existing trees. Miklo said
staff wouldn't recommend doing that because it wouldn't comply with the Comprehensive Plan
or the Police and Fire Departments' desire to get better emergency access to this area. Miklo
showed an aerial photograph of the larger neighborhood. He said that it's true that two acres of
woodland would be destroyed, but there is still an extensive woodland that remains in the
neighborhood. Freerks said but someday that too will be developed. Miklo said there is actually
little chance of that due to its protected slopes and no street access.
Dyer asked if the drainage would have to take the course that's outlined if there were fewer
house lots in the plan. Miklo said regardless of how many lots there are, the storm basins will
still have to located in the low points. Miklo said in term of doing two smaller basins and not
connecting Oakes Drive, it would still require an extensive amount of the woodland to be
removed.
Anthony Fry of 19 Caroline Court said he and his wife bought the adjacent property, labeled
IDRS on the location map, from Mr. Giblin in the interest of having no houses behind them. He
said Miklo has convinced him that they need to connect Oakes Drive for safety issues. He has
offered two inch saplings from his own property for use as replacements on the development.
Lisa Ziniel of 1620 North Dubuque Road said she thinks her driveway will intersect with the
proposed connection. She said she's concerned that the atmosphere of the neighborhood will
be lost because of doing what's most cost effective. She said she's also concerned about the
traffic flow created by thirty -two new lots. She said it's a tranquil neighborhood to live in and the
disruption from the proposed subdivision concerns her. She asks the Commission to consider
the area around the subdivision and perhaps take that into account when approving the
subdivision as it would conform to the neighborhood instead of heavier development with closer
access to downtown.
Miklo said one of the things staff looked at was neighborhood compatibility. He said along
Dubuque Road there now exist larger lots, and he pointed out on the plat how the proposed
development has spaced along Dubuque Road to be compatible with that aspect, but has more
typical sized lots more like those along Oakes Drive as you get farther back in the development.
Eastham asked how far the sidewalk will extend on the west side of Dubuque Road. Miklo said
in the future it may be possible to put a sidewalk in on that side of the road but there are no
plans for it immediately. Eastham asked if there is a sidewalk on the east side. Miklo said one
was put in recently.
Jerry Denning of 1146 Oakes Drive asked for clarification of where the trees would be removed.
Miklo showed him where that would be on a photo. Denning said the cost of putting Oakes Drive
through is the destruction of dense, mature trees. He said he appreciates the obvious interest of
all of the Commission in the tree issue. He said he would like them to take a look at just how
much destruction is inescapable if they are going to do this. He said it would be a great world if
they didn't have to tear it up to that extent. He said he would greatly appreciate them seeing
whatever else might be done in order to avoid this destruction.
Thomas asked if there was any discussion of narrowing Oakes Drive as it passes through the
area of the ravine. Miklo said it's designed as a twenty -eight foot street, and you could narrow it
to the narrowest width allowed, which is twenty -two feet. He said that would not have much
effect on what they could avoid in terms of grading because it's so steep.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 1, 2013 - Formal
Page 5 of 16
Brandon Ross of 1022 Rochester Avenue said he's familiar with the area and he would like
anything to be done that can be done to protect that area. He said it's a beautiful area and
deliberation on the Commission's behalf is appreciated by everyone.
Freerks closed public discussion.
Thomas moved to recommend approval of REZ11- 00010 /SUB13- 00005, a rezoning from
Low Density Single Family (RS -5) to Planned Development Overlay -Low Density Single
Family (OPD -5) zone and a preliminary plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan of The
Palisades, a 32 -lot, 13.07 acre residential subdivision located at 1729 North Dubuque
Road.
Martin seconded.
Eastham said he's interested in the possibility of narrowing Oakes Drive so that it would have
some effect on the number of trees. He said he's not inclined not to vote for this tonight because
of this issue, but he said in the past the Commission has asked developers to look into doing
things that they weren't sure could be done. He said he's also interested how the design of the
front four lots of this proposed development could affect the appearance of the rest of the
subdivision from North Dubuque Road. He said with those things said, he is reluctantly of the
mind that the removal of trees in this heavily wooded area is in large part the result of City
imposed subdivision standards, which make a lot of sense, especially the requirement that this
site have a functioning storm water system on site.
Thomas said anything they can do even as a gesture to reduce the impact of the connection
and trying to reduce the impact on the existing conditions is something he supports. He said he
agrees with Eastham that it's worth exploring. He said the storm water management and the
connection are triggering the impact, and there doesn't seem to be any way out of that. He said
he supports the project in terms of its basic goals, but he would like to see if they can in any way
reduce the impact. He said he also likes the idea transplanting trees from the adjacent property
to the west.
Martin said she understands the need for the connection but she hesitates to entertain the idea
of narrowing a section of Oakes Street due to safety issues. Thomas responded that this would
still allow for the minimum of twenty -two feet. Martin said the plan seems well thought -out.
Freerks said she said the area really is pretty, but she's not sure how pretty it's going to be once
you put this kind of grid down on it. She understands why everything is being done but she's not
sure that this cookie -cutter is the best use of the resources here. She said if the Oakes Drive
extension was shifted down, it would eliminate lots but also keep a lot of that forested area to
the north. She said there are some beautiful trees along there and that's going to go away. She
said she just doesn't see how this does anything to embrace or even gently nudge the Sensitive
Areas Ordinance in any way and she can't support it.
Theobald said she feels better about the project after hearing from the neighbor and the
possibility of moving some of the trees from that property. She was concerned about replanting
with disease prone trees until she heard that Mark Vitosh had been out to the neighbor's
property looking at the trees.
Theobald moved to amend the motion to remove the list of trees and have the list of trees
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 1, 2013 - Formal
Page 6 of 16
approved by the City Forester.
Eastham seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion to amend carried 6 -0.
Dyer said she is reminded of an article by Supreme Court Justice William Douglas called "Do
Trees Have Standing ?" which refers to the ability to sue. She said this plan is a grid on a hilly,
beautiful area, and it doesn't seem to take into account the landscape at all. She said she would
be inclined to ask if they need any houses in this area. She said on the east end of Oakes Drive
there are many trees around existing buildings and if Oakes Drive was moved south perhaps
those trees could be saved. She said being able to say they are going to remove one - hundred
percent of the trees doesn't seem to be a solution to preservation of one of the few remaining
natural areas of town.
Freerks said she just can't support the project because she feels that something better could be
done that would be an asset to the community.
Eastham said that one approach that Planning Commissions take elsewhere is to walk through
an area before they look at a formal plan for an area and talks with the developer and people
nearby and try to come up with some concept of how a parcel could be developed to include
both its natural features and meet the requirements of existing codes.
Miklo said the earlier subdivision was laid out thirty or forty years ago, and that has set the
direction for Oakes Drive. He said the City has tried to balance the needed community good of
extending Oakes Drive with a natural area. He said the concept of how to best deal with this
was addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. He said the City looked very closely at this in the
year the North District Plan was approved, and this is the best they could come up with given
what they are working with.
Eastham said he's encouraged that the Sensitive Areas Ordinance requires tree replacement.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 4 -2 with Freerks and Dyer opposed.
REZ13- 00019/SUB13- 00012: Discussion of an application submitted by Willowwind
Properties, LLC for a rezoning from Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12) zone to Planned
Development Overlay /Low Density Multi- Family (OPD -RM12) zone for 1.31 -acres of land
located at Willow Wind Place and Westwinds Drive and a preliminary plat of The
Westwinds Second Addition, a 2 -lot residential subdivision.
Miklo said the reason for the planned development is to bring an existing duplex lot into
conformance with the Zoning Code. He explained that when Lot 3 was developed this site was a
club house, a tennis court and a storm water basin. He said it was subdivided off Lot 3 without
City review or approval and two lots were created, one for the duplex and the other for the
tennis court and storm water management facilities. He said this doesn't conform with the Code,
thus the application for a planned development.
Miklo said the plan is to create two lots, one with the duplex and the other with the storm water
basin and a very specific plan for a seven unit apartment building. He said a home owners
Prepared by: Bailee McClellan, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 31
ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATE 13.0 ACRES L
ROAD FROM LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMIL (RS -5) TO PLANN
DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY (OPD -5). (REZ11 0010)
WHEREAS, the applicant, Allen Homes, has requested a rez
Dubuque Road from Low Density Single Fa ily (RS -5) to Plann
Single Family (OPD -5); and
WHEREAS, Allen Homes proposes to us the property to d
subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan indica s that the area s
residential uses and open space; and
WHERAS, the subdivision incorporates single- mily resid
the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, sensitive areas, including critical slop s and v
WHEREAS, in order to provide for the connection f Oak
property, it is necessary to remove more than 50 perce of #
of the critical slopes; and,
WHEREAS, replacement trees will be planted; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY CO N
SECTION I APPROVAL. Property described Belo is
designation of RS -5 to OPD -5:
S'
t~ -,'
i
71r
Mn
az1 =0010)xo"
r.
M
kTED AT 1729 N j DM8UQf
DEVELOPMENT RLAr. LOW
v
ning of property located at 1729 North
d Development Overlay — Low Density
elop The Palisades, a 32 -lot residential
appropriate for single - family and duplex
uses and open space in compliance with
Wands, are present on the property; and,
Drive and storm water management on this
woodlands and grade more than 35 percent
reviewed the proposed rezoning and has
OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA:
eby reclassified from its current zoning
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNIJR OF DEAN AKES FIRST ADDITION,
TO IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, IN CCORDANCE WITH THE
RECORDED PLAT THEREOF; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 228.20 FEET, ALONG
THE CENTERLINE OF DUBUQUE ROAD ND AN ARC OF A 303.70 FOOT RADIUS
CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, WHOSE 222.87 OOT CHORD BEARS
S39 027'42 "W; THENCE S180 ALONG ALONG SAID C TERLINE, 617.60
FEET; THENCE N87 008'44 "W, ONG THE NORTH LI OF LOT ONE,
DONAHUE SUBDIVISION, TO IO A CITY, JOHNSON CO TY, IOWA, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECORDE PLAT THEREOF, 638.60 FEET; THENCE
NO2 002'46 "E, 742.00 FEET; T ENCE S89 °09'05 "E, 944.2 FEET, ALONG
THE SOUTH LINE OF DEAN KES THIRD ADDITION, TO IOWA CITY,
JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA IN ACC RD; WITH THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF
AND THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID DEAN OAKES FIRST ADDITION, TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING CONTAINING 13.07 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, AND IS
SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change the
zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval
and publication of this ordinance by law.
SECTION III. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the
City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and to record the same, at the
office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, at the owner's expense, all as provided by law.
SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION V. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
' Ordinance No.
Page 2
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION VI. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and
publication, as provided by law.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
App pved by 4
i
Cify Attorney's Office
t'�
a
�
t
3y
..J
5b
Prepared by: Darian Nagle -Gamm, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5240 (REZ1 3-
00004)
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE CONDITIONALLY REZONING 1.05 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON NORTH 1"'
AVENUE, NORTH OF ROCHESTER AVENUE FROM LOW - DENSITY MULTI - FAMILY (RM -12) ZONE TO
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY /LOW - DENSITY MULTI - FAMILY (OPD /RM -12) ZONE. (REZ13-
00004)
WHEREAS, the applicant, Jeff Miller Construction, has requested a rezoning of property located at North
1st Avenue, north of Rochester Avenue, from Low - Density Multi - Family Residential (RM -12) to Low - Density
Multi - Family Residential with Planned Development Overlay (OPD /RM -12); and
WHEREAS, the subject property was conditionally rezoned from Low - Density Single - Family Residential
(RS -5) to RM -12 in 2012, and at that time the applicant's engineer had not yet delineated the critical and
steep slopes on the property; and
WHEREAS, during site plan review, it was determined that more than 35% of critical slopes found on the
property were proposed for disturbance, which means a Level II review through the planned development
rezoning process would be required; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has the reviewed the proposed rezoning and
determined that it complies with the Comprehensive Plan provided that it meets conditions imposed to
address certain public needs caused by the rezoning, more specifically to promote safety in the design and
construction of developments on sloping sites, to minimize soil instability and erosion, to prevent landslides,
flooding, and mudslides; to preserve the scenic character of hillside areas; and to provide a landscaping
buffer of non - invasive plant species between the development and Hickory Hill Park; and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (2013) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable
conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to
satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and
WHEREAS, the owner and applicant have agreed that the property shall be developed in accordance
with the terms and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto to ensure appropriate
development in this area of the city.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I APPROVAL. Subject to the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto and incorporated
herein, property described below is hereby reclassified from its current zoning designation of RM -12 to
OPD /RM -12:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
ComomcibS at thr, Aortbwest corner of Section 12, Towaabip 79 North, Ewuge 6
Wiest of the Fifth V=incipal Keridian; thence 800 9028360W, 600.07 feet along
the west line of said Section 121 thence 689'09'97 "W, 35.38 feet to a point
va the west right of way line of First Ave=a and the point of beginning;
thence southeasterly, 303.23 feet along said westerly right of way line, axe
a 630.00 foot radius aurve, concave n=theasterly, wbase 300.31 foot chord
bears SO4 °48129 -S to the north"strrly a=er of Lot: 3 of First and
Rocheater Addition Part 4nel thence 989023149uW, 57,18 feet along the north
line of said Lot 3; thence N89 °36'200N, 122.87 feet along said North liner
thence 900 032136 -P, 296.79 fact,- thence N89-009137 "8, 157.02 feet to the
point of begiuning.
SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning
map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and
publication of the ordinance as approved by law.
Ordinance No.
Page 2
SECTION III. CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT. The mayor is hereby authorized and directed to
sign, and the City Clerk attest, the Conditional Zoning Agreement between the property owner(s) and the
City, following passage and approval of this Ordinance.
SECTION IV. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the
City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance, and record the same in the
Office of the County Recorder, Johnson County, Iowa, at the Owner's expense, upon the final passage,
approval and publication of this ordinance, as provided by law.
SECTION V. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION VI. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION VII. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval
and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of 2013.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
App ved by
City Attorney's Office g,/ 0 13
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by that the
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Champion
Dickens
Dobyns
Hayek
Mims
Payne
Throgmorton
First Consideration 8/20/2013
Vote for passage: AYES: Hayek, Mims, Payne, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens,
NAYS;,.-.Dobyns. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration 9/03/2013
Vote for passage: AYES: Dobyns, Hayek, Mims, Payne, Champion, Dickens.
NAYS: Throgmorton. ABSENT: None.
Date published
Prepared by: Darian Nagle -Lamm, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356 -5254 (REZ1 3-
00004)
CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation
(hereinafter "City "), the Regina Foundation (hereinafter "Owner"), and Jeff Miller Construction
(hereinafter "Applicant ").
WHEREAS, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 1.05 acres of property
located on North 1St Avenue, north of Rochester Avenue, south of the North 1St Avenue - Stuart
Court intersection, and east of the Regina High School sports field and track; and
WHEREAS, the Owner has requested the rezoning of said property to add a Planned
Development Overlay designation related to a Level II Sensitive Areas Review due to proposed
disturbance of over 35% of the critical slopes on the property; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has the reviewed the proposed
rezoning and determined that it complies with the Comprehensive Plan provided that it meets
conditions imposed to address certain public needs caused by the rezoning, more specifically to
promote safety in the design and construction of developments on sloping sites, to minimize soil
instability and erosion, to prevent landslides, flooding, and mudslides; to preserve the scenic
character of hillside areas; and to provide a landscaping buffer of non - invasive plant species
between the development and Hickory Hill Park; and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (2011) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose
reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing
regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and
WHEREAS, the Owner acknowledges that certain conditions and restrictions are
reasonable to ensure the development of the property is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and the need for protection of environmentally - sensitive areas; and
WHEREAS, the Owner agrees to develop this property in accordance with the terms and
conditions of a Conditional Zoning Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties
agree as follows:
1. The Regina Foundation is the legal titleholder of the property legally described as:
Commencing at the Adrthwest corner of Section 12, Township 79 North, &4_49e 6
West of the Fifth principal Meridian; thence S00002.261W, 600.07 feet along
the went line of said Sectiou 121 thence 5890091370W, 25.36 feet to a point
on the west right of way line of First Avenue and the point of beginning;
thence southeasterly, 303.23 feet along said westerly right of way line, an
a 630.00 foot radius ourvo, concave northeasterly, whose 300.31 foot chord
bears 904 °48'29„8 to the northeasterly corner of Lot 3 of First and
Rochester Addition Part one; thence 88902314911W, 57.18 feet along the north
line of said Lot 3; thence N89 036120 "W, 122.87 feet along said north line;
thence N00 032136 "S, 296.79 feet; thence N89 009137 118, 157.02 feet to the
point of Leiginuf ng .
2. The Owner acknowledges that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles
of the Comprehensive Plan and the Central District Plan. Further, the parties
acknowledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (2013) provides that the City of Iowa City may
impose reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and
above the existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested
PpdadrtVayt/output.docx
change.
3. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owner and Applicant agree
that development of the subject property will conform to all other requirements of the
zoning chapter, as well as the following conditions:
a. The design of the retaining walls and foundations for the development shall
incorporate the recommendations contained within the submitted Geotechnical
Engineering Report issued by Terracon dated July 12th, 2013 and shall be
signed and sealed by a professional structural engineer, certified in the State of
Iowa, prior to approval of the site plan. The professional structural engineer of
record will certify the retaining walls and foundations were constructed per plan
prior to the Certificate of Occupancy;
b. Development of the property is consistent with the submitted Preliminary Sensitive
Areas Site Development Plan date 4/11/13 with a revised date of 6/5/13, attached
hereto, that indicates the layout of the building, parking, landscaping, driveway
location, and storm water facilities;
c. The building is designed in general accordance with the submitted elevation
drawings, attached hereto, with any additional changes or conditions imposed by
the Design Review Committee to ensure that the building complies with the Central
Planning District multi - family site development standards and other conditions
related to landscaping and screening as set forth in this agreement;
d. Areas north of the parking lot must be planted and maintained with a combination
of trees, shrubs, and ground covers as recommended in the approved list of
Johnson County Heritage Trust rather than turf grass;
e. Any retaining walls over three feet in height that are visible from the public right -of-
way shall be screened with appropriate landscaping to soften the view of the walls
from First Avenue;
f. Where possible, additional trees of an appropriate species for the location shall be
planted south of the building to provide additional tree coverage to replace trees
that are removed during construction; and
g. A landscaping plan to implement conditions d, e., and f, shall be submitted to the
Design Review Committee for review and approval.
4. The Owner, Applicant, and City acknowledge that the conditions contained herein are
reasonable conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (2013), and that
said conditions satisfy public needs that are caused by the requested zoning change.
5. The Owner, Applicant, and City acknowledge that in the event the subject property is
transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all redevelopment will conform with the
terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement.
6. The parties acknowledge that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be
a covenant running with the land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force
and effect as a covenant with title to the land, unless or until released of record by the
ppdadrr 4Voutput.d6& 2
City of Iowa City.
The parties further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind
all successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties.
7. The Owner and Applicant acknowledge that nothing in this Conditional Zoning
Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner or Applicant from complying with all
other applicable local, state, and federal regulations.
8. The parties agree that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by
reference into the ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and
publication of the ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County
Recorder's Office at the Applicant's expense.
Dated this day of 2013.
CITY OF IOWA CITY Jeff Miller Construction, Inc.,
APPLICANT pp
-Z& * ArsldCw(
Matthew J. Hayek, Mayor m Q)4
Attest:
Marian K. Karr, City Clerk
Ap7: by: .0 -2n a
City Attorney's Office
CITY OF IOWA CITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2013, by Matthew J.
Hayek and Marian K. Karr as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
ppdadnVagvo,tput.ao= 3
(Stamp or Seal)
Title (and Rank)
APPLICANT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
STATE OF )
) ss:
COUNTY )
This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2013 by
[name of business].
OWNER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
STATE OF )
) ss:
COUNTY )
[name] as
[title] of
Notary Public in and for said County and State
(Stamp or Seal)
Title (and Rank)
This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2013 by
[name of business].
[name] as
[title] of
Notary Public in and for said County and State
(Stamp or Seal)
Title (and Rank)
ppdadm/agt1output.d= 4
aE g v�
y< F
4m
$katt v
a�a
o £
A
F1 El
4 Y
m � {9 �f €: fl� II III l.eQ•p•n # # # #6� iil III�I > 0 0
ifs � 4 � Q R=AF I p_8•�� II:'I D P Z
t fig; � f � � s d� ;� �, �' illll I..aa•e #a # # #� !il Iliil � �
9 R D
f r S "yR d8 Sill
822j2 "P ;ru xm m c `sM ,
€, m
s _m�
i o
sm
ax�p�
s5� =�
z
D
C/)
m
� z
Cl)
om<
m
D —U D
nmm
�>
X0=1
DZm
1°
m<
m
r
m
z
T
r
D
z
Yaka n a d
PH9'Fi g g
5 I •
m 0'
-;
s g
1000 =
o ny> m
ff
s
� Ul &
I� Ikllk
�;
■
■
aE g v�
y< F
4m
$katt v
a�a
o £
A
F1 El
4 Y
m � {9 �f €: fl� II III l.eQ•p•n # # # #6� iil III�I > 0 0
ifs � 4 � Q R=AF I p_8•�� II:'I D P Z
t fig; � f � � s d� ;� �, �' illll I..aa•e #a # # #� !il Iliil � �
9 R D
f r S "yR d8 Sill
822j2 "P ;ru xm m c `sM ,
€, m
s _m�
i o
sm
ax�p�
s5� =�
z
D
C/)
m
� z
Cl)
om<
m
D —U D
nmm
�>
X0=1
DZm
1°
m<
m
r
m
z
T
r
D
z
Yaka n a d
PH9'Fi g g
5 I •
m 0'
-;
s g
1000 =
o ny> m
ff
s
� Ul &
�14
Elm
{gyp pZZj' Rq�tlF yg�ygs� �Raed PpCA Ra�q
i 1" q �e4
49� A rA`c
SR�
j a4 a
Set qqa RA Rid $Ra:gqS� yyq,q
Nis
4Y •
z
4. n A Eli A
V ba d„
EE h
it N E�dp PIN M.-I
�= d3 •� �j P �� tl q MR
4 R
_rs dd add ddd• R
F F O
L5C
N
31"
10,
9 �
c
:R �g
P
i C
k
NWlea
ti z
III W i l
�1 pp$
b4pRdp
Aa. tl y pi ft
F�B�a
o..mar
�CaFA
is
9 y�
s% A
6, 0
x Nh
s x��
a`
Z7
z
D
Vl
m
�z
cn
5mm
D T D
nmm
O
DZo
m<
m
r
m
z
-0
r
D
z
O®`
nzs to
p ®;;
i
s
A ?m�
13!
F�
6m D Z
p
y m
n !"
�n<
g °�y
2
� y
g
.00
b°�mF
U.N.
y�
� m€
z
D
m
�z
2
�mm
D D
n m rn
�>
�0---�
DZm
0
m<
m
r
m
z
r
D
Z
s' p
0 A �I $ � 5 ii Ig; , z
v 4,'
((>> q {
i 5
:�2R � '� +IAl leedpe °6 # ##q9 ICI II'fl
�paeF
ppEy � 8
�ff
;O> s
Eg
Jeff Miller Construction Inc
308 E. Burlington St #153
Iowa City, Ia 52240
319.331.1756
jm.builder@hotmail.com
August 26, 2013
Iowa City City Council
Dear Council Members,
Re: Rezoning of 1.05 acres @ N. First Avenue
I request that you collapse the second and third vote on September 3rd. This
rezoning is due to the critical slopes provision. Due to the length of this
process I need to start the project as soon as possible for weather and
marketing reasons. Please seriously consider my request to combine the second
and third vote on September 3rd. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely yoursax'��J-4
Jeff Miller
W
a
w
to
'Q
?s
..
as
Marian Karr
From:
Wasserman, Edward A <ed- wasserman @uiowa.edu>
Sent:
Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:34 AM
To:
Jeff Davidson
Cc:
Matt Hayek; Rick Dobyns; Jim Throgmorton; Terry Dickens; Michelle Payne; Marian Karr
Subject:
We deserve answers to questions
Mr. Daniels:
The City Council meeting of August 20, 2013 was extremely disappointing and dismaying. We had hoped that
the neighborhood's clear and legitimate concerns would have caused the Council to reverse the Planning and
Zoning Commission's earlier decisions to permit the building of Mr. Miller's 16 -unit structure because of what
we believed were clear deviations from the Comprehensive Plan and the Sensitive Areas Ordinance.
First, despite serious objections from two councilors, the final vote failed to reverse the decision to proceed with
the project because of an obscure technicality that none of us understood; indeed, most of the councilors
appeared to be as confused as we were. That is simply an unfair and improper way to silence a serious
discussion with such far- reaching implications for our First Avenue neighborhood. We deserve a clear
explanation of the formal motion that was voted upon as well as a detailed explication of the operative sections
of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance that was used to justify passage of this motion.
Second, we were shocked to discover that the City Council had previously discussed and approved an earlier
motion from the Planning and Zoning Commission to move forward with the project. We were never formally
apprised of when the Council was going to vote on the matter despite dozens of emails and personal visits with
Bob Miklo and Darian Nagle -Gamin requesting information about the unfolding rezoning process. Evidently,
we were naive. Given our submitting sufficient petitions to require a City Council super majority vote and our
frequent checks to see if we had reached the necessary number, we had assumed that your staff would have had
the courtesy to tell us about that critical meeting. By failing to do so, your staff deprived us of an important
opportunity to share our concerns with the Council. We deserve an explanation for why we were not advised in
advance of that prior meeting.
Third, it has seemed to us from the outset that your office strongly supported Mr. Miller's project and
grudgingly requested additional information only when it was absolutely necessary to do so. As we have
repeatedly stated, we are not opposed to any project on this site, only this one because of its large size. The
obvious solution from the beginning would have been for your office to work with Mr. Miller to downsize the
building. Doing so would have lessened the destruction of trees, the amount of excavation that was being
proposed, and many of the accompanying drainage issues. We deserve an explanation for your evident failure
to work with the developer to propose a more suitable construction plan for this environmentally sensitive lot.
Finally, we deserve a clear and detailed explanation of the approval process from this point forward. What
steps remain? How can the First Avenue neighbors participate in the process? Our concerns have not been
allayed to this point and we continue in our opposition to this needlessly large project.
Sincerely,
Ed Wasserman and First Avenue neighbors
Edward A. Wasserman
1
Stuit Professor of Experimental Psychology
Department of Psychology
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, IA 52242
Phone: (319)335 -2445
Fax: (319)335 -0191
Email: ed- wasserman@uiowa.edu
Home page: http: / /www2. psychology .uiowa.edu /Faculty /Wasserman/
Delta Center: http: / /www.uiowa.edu /delta- center /index.html
z
Marian Karr
From: Jeff Davidson
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 4:53 PM
To: ed- wasserman @uiowa.edu
Cc: Tom Markus; Geoff Fruin; Marian Karr; Eleanor M. Dilkes; Matt Hayek; Rick Dobyns; Michelle
Payne; Susan Mims, Terry Dickens, Jim Throgmorton
Subject: FW: First/Rochester sensitive areas rezoning
Importance: High
Ed, I was trying to find email addresses for the full City Council when my message below accidently sent. This version is
cc'ed to the full City Council, less Councilor Champion who will receive it via regular mail.
Jeff Davidson
From: Jeff Davidson
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 4:48 PM
To: 'ed- wasserman @uiowa.edu'
Cc: Tom Markus; Geoff Fruin; Marian Karr; Eleanor M. Dikes; Rick Dobyns
Subject: FW: First /Rochester sensitive areas rezoning
Importance: High
Hello Mr. Wasserman.
I have provided responses to your questions below. Feel free to circulate as needed. Let me know if you have any
further questions.
Jeff Davidson, Director
Department of Planning and Community Development
The City of Iowa City, Iowa
From: Wasserman, Edward A [mailto:ed- wasserman @uiowa.edul
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:34 AM
To: Jeff Davidson
Cc: Matt Hayek; Rick Dobyns; Jim Throgmorton; Terry Dickens; Michelle Payne; Marian Karr
Subject: We deserve answers to questions
Mr. Daniels:
1
The City Council meeting of August 20, 2013 was extremely disappointing and dismaying. We had hoped that
the neighborhood's clear and legitimate concerns would have caused the Council to reverse the Planning and
Zoning Commission's earlier decisions to permit the building of Mr. Miller's 16 -unit structure because of what
we believed were clear deviations from the Comprehensive Plan and the Sensitive Areas Ordinance.
First, despite serious objections from two councilors, the final vote failed to reverse the decision to proceed with
the project because of an obscure technicality that none of us understood; indeed, most of the councilors
appeared to be as confused as we were. That is simply an unfair and improper way to silence a serious
discussion with such far- reaching implications for our First Avenue neighborhood. We deserve a clear
explanation of the formal motion that was voted upon as well as a detailed explication of the operative sections
of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance that was used to justify passage of this motion.
Last fall when this property was rezoned from RS-S to RM -12, that established certain rights to the developer for the
construction of a multi- family building on the site. The subsequent discovery of critical slopes on the property
required an additional layer of approval to ensure that the critical slopes were dealt with adequately in the
construction of such a building. This was the action before the City Council on 8/20. What the City Attorney
communicated to the City Council at the meeting was that Council's discretion on approving or not approving item 4c
should be based only on the adequacy of the plan to deal with the critical slopes issue. The City Engineer provided
testimony that he felt the development plan provided the necessary assurances in terms of dealing with the critical
slopes and the associated drainage issues. Six Councilors agreed and one disagreed. The plan which has been
engineered to address the critical slopes issue is summarized in the 8/20 City Council meeting packet.
Second, we were shocked to discover that the City Council had previously discussed and approved an earlier
motion from the Planning and Zoning Commission to move forward with the project. We were never formally
apprised of when the Council was going to vote on the matter despite dozens of emails and personal visits with
Bob Miklo and Darian Nagle -Gamm requesting information about the unfolding rezoning process. Evidently,
we were naive. Given our submitting sufficient petitions to require a City Council super majority vote and our
frequent checks to see if we had reached the necessary number, we had assumed that your staff would have had
the courtesy to tell us about that critical meeting. By failing to do so, your staff deprived us of an important
opportunity to share our concerns with the Council. We deserve an explanation for why we were not advised in
advance of that prior meeting.
You were present 8/20 for the City Council's only vote on the sensitive areas rezoning. There has been no other
approval, and the only other discussion has been what was disclosed under ex parte communication. The only other
recent legislative action for this property was the rezoning to RM -12 which occurred last fall. My recollection is that
you and your neighbors actively participated in that process. At the 8/6 City Council meeting the public hearing for
August 20 was set, but this was done via the Consent Calendar and there was no discussion of the item.
Third, it has seemed to us from the outset that your office strongly supported Mr. Miller's project and
grudgingly requested additional information only when it was absolutely necessary to do so. As we have
repeatedly stated, we are not opposed to any project on this site, only this one because of its large size. The
obvious solution from the beginning would have been for your office to work with Mr. Miller to downsize the
building. Doing so would have lessened the destruction of trees, the amount of excavation that was being
proposed, and many of the accompanying drainage issues. We deserve an explanation for your evident failure
to work with the developer to propose a more suitable construction plan for this environmentally sensitive lot.
City staff worked with the property owner on addressing issues with the sensitive environmental feature identified in
our ordinance that is present on the site: critical slopes, and the associated drainage issues. The City Engineer has
signed off on the plan which was developed. The trees on Mr. Miller's property are not regulated under the
woodland provisions of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance.
Finally, we deserve a clear and detailed explanation of the approval process from this point forward. What
steps remain? How can the First Avenue neighbors participate in the process? Our concerns have not been
allayed to this point and we continue in our opposition to this needlessly large project.
There are two additional readings of the ordinance before it is approved. Reading two is scheduled for the 9/3 City
Council meeting. The applicant can request readings 2 and 3 be collapsed into a single reading, and then Council
makes a determination of whether or not they wish to do that. I am not aware at this time that Mr. Miller has made
such a request, that request would be made to the City Clerk, so you might want to check with Marian. As citizens
you should certainly feel free to contact the City Council and express your views. Since the formal public hearing has
been closed, if you wish to make comments at the City Council meeting(s) where readings 2 and 3 will be held you
should contact the Mayor to express that desire. Matt has been known to allow public comments on items where the
hearing has been closed, but he is not required to do so. I would clarify with him ahead of time.
Sincerely,
Ed Wasserman and First Avenue neighbors
Edward A. Wasserman
Stuit Professor of Experimental Psychology
Department of Psychology
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, IA 52242
Phone: (319)335 -2445
Fax: (319)335 -0191
Email: ed- wasserman@uiowa.edu
Home page: http:// www2 .pssychology.uiowa.edu/Faculiy /Wasserman/
Delta Center: http/ /www.uiowa.edu/delta - center /index.html
Marian Karr
From: Judy Buddenbaum <jandjbuddenbaum @gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 3:04 PM
To: Council
Cc: Jeff Davidson; Ed Wasserman; Walter Seaman
Subject: First Avenue Neighborhood
Dear City Council Members and Mr. Davidson:
In your role as public officials, the public's well being and interest should be foremost in your minds and
deeds. In the Comprehensive Plan's Sensitive Areas provision, which some of you may have worked to bring
about, the sole purpose is to minimize the disturbance of natural areas or areas considered sensitive because of
slopes, trees and drainage. The Plan shows the lot on First Avenue as a sensitive area. The Plan provides
guidelines for adherence for treating environmentally sensitive areas as amenities and to use a conservative
design principle that would minimize disturbances of the lot's natural features. Mr. Miller's plan does not do
this.
The extreme excavation, the abundance of retaining walls required, and tree removal that Mr. Miller's proposal
requires goes directly against the Comprehensive Plan for Sensitive Areas. How can anyone justify allowing
this desecration to happen? Would it not be setting precedent? Would it not make the Comprehensive Plan for
Sensitive Areas not worth the paper it is printed on? The City must stand behind its ordinances, requirements,
and restrictions it put in place or where are we, the Public, to turn?
Some neighbors are concerned with the increased traffic this will bring to First Avenue; this is a legitimate
concern. Mr. Miller's proposal along with the 16 unit building farther north on First Avenue (already under
construction) will bring 32 new homes and (possibly) 64 additional cars. Right now, standing on both sides of
First Avenue, north of Rochester to the Hickory Hill Park Entrance there are 6 condominium buildings totaling
90 units or homes, possible cars = 180. On the east side of First Avenue there are 7 duplexes or common
walled structures emptying onto First Avenue totaling 16 homes and, possibly 32 cars. Cars from these homes
use First Avenue which is 2 lanes, these numbers are for the small segment of road between Rochester and the
Park entrance. Congestion exists now during morning rush hour and at the end of the work day; snowy days,
traffic in both directions is chaotic at best.
Presently, this strip of First Avenue has little housing diversity, single family homes appear off First Avenue
on the east side streets only leaving First Avenue with a heavy concentration of multi family structures. Both,
the proposed and the new project are monolithic at best and offer little or no distinguishing aesthetics from
other buildings of this bulk. Although, the building north of the Park appears to be clustered on an end of the
lot leaving some open space. Yes, it's true, according to building /lotformulas, a larger building could be built
on this 1.05 acre lot, but this is not just any lot. This is land designated 'Sensitive Area'. You can deny Mr.
Miller's request based on the "Sensitive Area" part of the Comprehensive Plan, which is the document for City
development and growth put in place to protect open space and it's right at your finger tips.
Our neighbors living in the aforementioned duplexes across the street have a history of water run -off from the
houses behind on higher ground; the run -off comes from the south and the east. Enclosed are our costs that the
Park Plaza Condominium Building owners' have accrued because of water runoff problems. The costs are
for windows that could not be opened due to the building's settling, the replacement of large slabs of our
concrete tarmac due to water damage and the replacement of the base of all four corner columns: masonry -
$27,000, concrete — $20,000. We also had sewer drains replaced because they were above grade. These issues
became our problem because the drainage problem was not addressed properly by the City and allowed the
building to be built to substandard specifications. We learned at the August 20, City Council meeting that if
any water issues arise because of Mr. Miller's building, the City and the Developer would not be held
liable. This does nothing to allay our fears or build confidence that our building will not be affected by Mr_.
Miller's project which requires extreme excavation.
How does Mr. Miller propose directing the run -off of this lot to Ralston Creek, which is at least 50 to 100 feet
north of this lot and is on City property?
The First Avenue Neighbors have fulfilled petition requirements, attended meetings and voiced our
concerns. We are the Public, we have invested here, we call this home, we believe the common good should
set precedent... not the profit of a few. Surely, Mr. Miller can build more conservatively on this lot and
preserve some of the lot's natural features like the trees that relate directly to Hickory Hill Park and Park
Plaza.
Thank you for your concern and attention you are giving this matter; it is appreciated.
Jim and Judy Buddenbaum
557 North 1 st Avenue
354 -0846
Marian Karr
From: Wasserman, Edward A <ed- wasserman @uiowa.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 3:31 PM
To: Matt Hayek
Cc: Rick Dobyns; Jim Throgmorton; Terry Dickens; Michelle Payne; Susan Mims; Marian Karr;
Jeff Davidson
Subject: Formal Objection to City Council Decision Process (REZ13- 00004)
Importance: High
Dear Mayor Hayek (et al.):
Please consider my formal objection to the City Council decision process
concerning REZ13- 00004.
Formal Objection to City Council Decision Process
Background:
Since last November, the neighbors along First Avenue have had to endure
a prolonged and tortured rezoning process revolving around Mr. Miller's
plan (REZ13- 00004) to build a large 16 -unit apartment complex on a small
and environmentally sensitive lot. The multiple votes, deferrals, revisions,
surveys, reports, ordinances, and petitions have left us homeowners
profoundly confused and deeply dismayed that our many legitimate
concerns have been betrayed by a byzantine bureaucratic process.
The City Council meeting of August 20, 2013 was the final and most
disappointing step in that process. We had hoped that the neighborhood's
clear and compelling concerns would have convinced the Council to reverse
the Planning and Zoning Commission's two earlier decisions to permit the
building of Mr. Miller's 16 -unit structure because of what we believed were
direct deviations from the Comprehensive Plan and the Sensitive Areas
Ordinance.
Yet, despite serious objections from two councilors (Dobyns voted "no" and
Throgmorton voted "yes" even after he opined that "the proposed project is
not consistent with the underlying purposes and objectives of the Sensitive
Areas Ordinance, which I helped enact 20 years ago "), the final vote failed
to reverse the decision to proceed with the project because of a narrow
1
technicality which senselessly separated sensitive -slope concerns from
woodland and drainage issues — matters that are inherently interrelated and
utterly vital to the project.
That is simply an unfair and improper way to silence a serious discussion
with such far - reaching implications for our First Avenue neighborhood and
for Hickory Hill Park. What we need is not an arbitrarily divided and
truncated discussion of the rezoning application, but one which takes full
and diligent account of the Comprehensive Plan and the Sensitive Areas
Ordinance.
Mr. Davidson has subsequently attempted to explain how the "two- step"
rezoning process came about. But, his justification (copied below) had
nothing to do with protecting the interests of the affected homeowners and
everything to do with minimizing the development costs to the rezoning
applicant. Why should we homeowners be disadvantaged by the applicant's
miserliness?
The City has a Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) requiring an
additional layer of approval when dealing with sites with sensitive
environmental features. These sensitive features are called out
specifically in the ordinance in terms of when they are applicable.
It is an applicant's responsibility to determine if environmental
features that are regulated under the SAO are present on their
property. We advised Mr. Miller that we thought critical slopes
might be present on his property when he came through for his
original rezoning. He chose at that time to not go to the expense
of a sensitive areas inventory, which was his prerogative. When
he later came in for a building permit the sensitive areas inventory
was required as a condition of building permit approval, and the
critical slopes were determined to exist. This has necessitated the
two step process you refer to, to add the SAO approval process.
Formal Objection:
I respectfully request that the City Council formally revisit Mr. Miller's
rezoning request so that Councilors can fully and fairly discuss the request's
many serious implications for the neighboring properties, for Hickory Hill
z
Park, and for faithfully complying with the Comprehensive Plan and the
Sensitive Areas Ordinance. The two -step process that was instigated by the
actions of Mr. Miller has unfairly limited debate and biased the Council vote,
which could easily have gone 5 -2 and been disapproved because of the
required supermajority.
Note that this formal objection clearly takes precedence over Mr. Miller's
pending request that the City Council waive the upcoming second reading
and adopt his application on September 3.
Thank you,
Ed Wasserman
555 North First Avenue
Iowa City, IA 52245
Edward A. Wasserman
Stuit Professor of Experimental Psychology
Department of Psychology
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, IA 52242
Phone: (319)335 -2445
Fax: (319)335 -0191
Email: ed- wasserman(,uiowa.edu
Home page: http://www2.psychology.uiowa.edu/FaculbL/NVasserinan/
Delta Center: http: / /www.uiowa.edu /delta- center /index.html
Marian Karr
From: Bill Pusateri <wppusateri@g mail. com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 11:57 AM
To: Rick Dobyns
Cc: Jim Throgmorton; Council; (stone @alpinecom.net; bobandlinda @civandinc.net
Subject: Ralston Creek Watershed.
Dear Dr. Dobyns:
Thank you for your "no" vote and your thoughtful insight about the drainage issues that you expressed at the
August 20, 2013 City Council Meeting. This was in regards to the rezoning of the I st. Avenue property
adjacent and immediately south of the east entrance and parking lot of Hickory Hill City Park.
If surface runoff from large rain and/or snow melt events are allowed to bypass the Hickory Hill water retention
basin as proposed„ this will add exponentially to the volume of unregulated water entering the Ralston Creek
watershed. There would be little if any opportunity for surface water retention nor a slow - measured release into
the Ralston Creek floodplain. This would contribute greatly to flash flooding which is occurring with a greater
frequency in recent years. Flash flooding along Ralston Creek was especially bad this past spring (2013)
between Creekside City Park and Court Hill City Park along the Ralston Creek City Bike Trail.
You were 100. %correct when you stated that.... 'Biologists "...... believe that runoff should be held and
retained and slowly released into the environment. This basic principle is now being taught in classes K -12 and
in all College and University biology and environmental courses throughout the United States. This is the basic
principle behind the "rain garden" movement, to hold and slowly release water back onto the landscape; in order
to avoid soil erosion, flooding, point - source pollution and many additional deleterious processes.
This basic principle of slowing water flow is one of the major motivations for preserving and/or creating
prairies, wetlands, woodland communities as well as farm buffer strips. This principle is advanced and
advocated by the Iowa Academy of Science, Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Iowa Geological Survey,
Iowa Department of Agriculture and countless other highly respected institutions.
In the spirit of openness and good science, may I suggest a greater understanding of these principles maybe
helpful for future decision making by the Iowa City Council in matters involving water retention and watershed
dynamics. To this end, may I mention that Larry Stone, retired outdoor writer for the Des Moines Register, and
Bob Watson, a waste water expert, have developed a power -point presentation on this subject. They would be
pleased to make a presentation for the City if interested. I will list their contact information below.
Again, let me thank you for your "no" vote and your wisdom on this watershed issue.
Sincerely,
William P. Pusateri
904 3rd. Ave.
Iowa City, Iowa 52245
Cell = 319 400 -5088
Additional Contact Information as indicated above:
Larry Stone
23312 295th. St.
Elkader, Iowa 52043
Cell = 563 419- 6742
Business & Home = 563 245 -1517
e- mail = lstone e,alpinecom.net
web = www.LaIMStoneIowa.com
Bob Watson
2736 Lannon Hill Rd.
Decorah, Iowa 52101
Phone = 563 379 -4147
e -mail = bobandlindaAcivandinc.net
web = www.civandinc.net
Marian Karr
From: Judy Buddenbaum <jandjbuddenbaum @gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 4:19 PM
To: Marian Karr
Subject: REZ13- 00004, First Avenue
Dear City Council Members, Mr. Davidson and Ms. Marian-Karr:
In your role as public officials, the public's well being and interest should be foremost in your minds and
deeds. In the Comprehensive Plan's Sensitive Areas provision, which some of you may have worked to bring
about, the sole purpose is to minimize the disturbance of natural areas or areas considered sensitive because of
slopes, trees and drainage. The Plan shows the lot on First Avenue as a sensitive area. The Plan provides
guidelines for adherence for treating environmentally sensitive areas as amenities and to use a conservative
design principle that would minimize disturbances of the lot's natural features. Mr. Miller's plan does not do
this.
The extreme excavation, the abundance of retaining walls required, and tree removal that Mr. Miller's proposal
requires goes directly against the Comprehensive Plan for Sensitive Areas. How can anyone justify allowing
this decimation to happen? Would it not be setting precedent? Would it not make the Comprehensive Plan for
Sensitive Areas not worth the paper it is printed on? The City must stand behind its ordinances, requirements,
and restrictions it put in place or where are we, the Public, to turn?
Some neighbors are concerned with the increased traffic this will bring to First Avenue; this is a legitimate
concern. Mr. Miller's proposal along with the 16 unit building farther north on First Avenue (already under
construction) will bring 32 new homes and (possibly) 64 additional cars. Right now, standing on both sides of
First Avenue, north of Rochester to the Hickory Hill Park entrance there are 6 condominium buildings totaling
90 units or homes, possible cars = 180. On the east side of First Avenue there are 7 duplexes or common
walled structures emptying onto First Avenue totaling 16 homes and, possibly 32 cars. Cars from these homes
use First Avenue, which is 2lanes. These numbers are for the small segment of road between Rochester and
the Park entrance. Congestion exists now during morning rush hour and at the end of the work day; snowy
days, traffic in both directions is chaotic at best and often stalled in both directions because of the steep
inclines.
Presently, this strip of First Avenue has little housing diversity, single family homes appear off First Avenue
on the east side streets only leaving First Avenue with a heavy concentration of multi family structures. Both,
the proposed and the new project are monolithic at best and offer little or no distinguishing aesthetics from
other buildings of this bulk. Although, the building north of the Park appears to be clustered on an end of the
lot leaving some open space. Yes, it's true, according to building/lot formulas, a larger building could be built
on this 1.05 acre lot, but this is not just any lot. This is land designated 'Sensitive Area'. You can deny Mr.
Miller's request based on the "Sensitive Area" part of the Comprehensive Plan, which is the document for City
development and growth put into place to protect open space and it's right at your finger tips.
Our neighbors living in the aforementioned duplexes across the street have a history of water run -off from the
houses behind on higher ground; the run -off comes from the south and the east. Enclosed are our costs that the
Park Plaza Condominium Building owners have accrued because of water runoff problems. The costs are
for windows that could not be opened due to the building's settling, the replacement of large slabs of our
concrete tarmac due to water damage and the replacement of the base of all four corner columns: masonry -
$27,000, concrete — $20,000. We also had sewer drains replaced because they were above grade. These issues
became our problem because the drainage problem was not addressed properly by the City and allowed the
building to be built to substandard specifications. We learned at the August 20, City Council meeting that if
any water issues arise because of Mr. Miller's building, the City and the Developer would not be held
liable. This does nothing to allay our fears or build confidence that our building will not be affected by Mr.
Miller's project which requires extreme excavation.
How does Mr. Miller propose directing the run -off of this lot to Ralston Creek, which is at least 50 to 100 feet
north of this lot and is on City property?
The First Avenue Neighbors have fulfilled petition requirements, attended meetings and voiced our
concerns. We are the Public, we have invested here, we call this home, we believe the common good should
set precedence... not the profit of a few. Surely, Mr. Miller can build more conservatively on this lot and
preserve some of the lot's natural features like the trees that relate directly to Hickory Hill Park and Park
Plaza.
Thank you for your concern and attention you are giving this matter; it is appreciated.
Jim and Judy Buddenbaum
557 North 1 st Avenue
354 -0846
Marian Karr
From: crsmith16 @mchsi.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 2:46 PM
To: Marian Karr
Subject: 16 -unit building south of Hickory Hill entrance on 1st Avenue
Ms Karr,
I am adding my voice to that of my neighbors in being concerned about the destruction of the hillside north from the
Park Place Condos and east from the Regina track. Adding a building to this space is something that has long been
expected. It is the size of this building that is the concern; it necessitates the removal of so much of the space - trees
and hillside. This sort of thing has happened before (think of the apartments just north of the Mayflower) with bad
results - i.e., mudslides. I thought the Planning and Zoning Commission would have taken the neighborhood's concerns
seriously and have the developer scale back the building. Please City Counselors, vote to halt this development.
Connie R. Smith
545 N. 1st Avenue
Iowa City, IA 52245
S�
Marian Karr
From: Edie Pierce - Thomas <epiercethomas @yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 11:02 AM
To: Marian Karr
Subject: Formal objection
I am submitting my formal objection to the City Council's decision process on the Miller proposal for
1 st Avenue.
I am concerned by the council's approach to approving deviations from the Comprehensive Plan
when it somehow suits them in order to approve a certain proposal and other times cites the
Comprehensive Plan as a reason for not approving another proposal, such as the Kum & Go at Court
and Scott. It seems rather transparent the motives behind these decisions.
Therefore, I formally and respectfully request that the City Council formally revisit Mr. Miller's rezoning
request so that it can fully and fairly discuss its many implications for the community and
for compliance with the Comprehevisve Plan and the Sensitive Areas Ordinance.
This objection clearly takes precedence over Mr. Miller's pending request that the City Council waive
the upcoming second reading and adopt his application on September 3.
Edie Pierce - Thomas
epiercethomasC&-yahoo.com
631 Stuart Court
Iowa City, IA 52245
Phone: 765-414-4407
Marian Karr
From:
thefordes @mchsi.com
Sent:
Thursday, August 29, 2013 11:57 AM
To:
Marian Karr
Subject:
First Avenue project
I wish to add my support to the statements made by Professor Wasserman. As I read the minutes of the Planning and
Zoning Commission and City Council meetings as well as the newspaper accounts, I see a disturbing and recurring
theme. So many of the building projects in town meet with valid concerns by neighbors but the concerns are
disregarded in favor of a seemingly greater good. That greater good is most often the pocketbooks of the developers.
A lot of us spent considerable time years ago attending and responding to calls for what we would like to see in our
neighborhoods to make them a safe and enjoyable place to live. Those Comprehensive plans are on the city website and
are often mentioned but unevenly adhered to. Ordinances are passed outlining what must be done in sensitive areas
with critical slopes and water issues to insure that no harm comes to existing structures which include not only buildings
but natural areas such as Hickory Hill Park. Are they strictly adhered to? No, developers are allowed to make their own
decisions as to what is best and our City Council approves these "variances ". That kind of sloppy administration is what
leads to heartache and financial setbacks for the unsuspecting home owners who later purchase these projects. But,
hey, the developer has his money by then and the City collects its taxes, so what?
To hear people sit on these Commissions and the Council and sadly say "Gee, I'm not comfortable with this, but I am
voting to approve it" is maddening. Either stand on your hind legs and vote with your convictions or stop whining and
face the music when problems arise.
The project proposed by Jeff Miller on First Avenue is TOO LARGE for the site and poses considerable problems for the
its neighbors, Hickory Hill Park, and the future homeowner.
Please reconsider your approval of this proposal.
Thank you,
Sue Forde
.5-,6
Marian Karr
From: Eleanor M. Dilkes
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 12:39 PM
To: 'ed- wasserman @uiowa.edu'
Cc: *City Council; Tom Markus; Jeff Davidson; Matthew J. Hayek (mhayek @hhbmiaw.com)
Subject: RE: Formal Objection to City Council Decision Process (REZ13- 00004)
Attachments: Southgate Cert Ruling.pdf
Dear Professor Wasserman,
Your recent email has been referred to me for a response. It is not unusual for an applicant to be seeking only a
sensitive area overlay rezoning after it is determined that sensitive areas are affected in a way that requires
Council consideration. Your email requests that the Council formally revisit Mr. Miller's rezoning request. It
is not clear to me whether you are asking for a reconsideration of the Council's first vote on the Sensitive Areas
Overlay (SAO) rezoning or its earlier decision to rezone the property from RS -5 to RM -12. The rezoning
from RS -5 to RM -12 has been completed and is not within the Council's purview at this time. The Council's
decision to rezone the property from RS -5 to RM -12 was unanimous on the final two votes and 6 -1 on the
first. As I stated during the last Council meeting, at that time the Council had considerable discretion in
determining whether the appropriate land use was single family or multi - family and the ability to impose
conditions necessary to satisfy public needs created by the rezoning to multi - family. As you know the Council
did impose conditions requiring a buffer between the development and Hickory Hill Park and compliance with a
conceptual site plan to ensure that driveway access to 1St Ave. was near the northern end of the property.
The only decision in front of the Council now is whether the Sensitive Areas Development Plan meets the
requirements of the provisions of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance regarding steep slopes (See City Code 14 -5I-
8). With an SAO planned development overlay it is possible for the applicant to request modifications to the
underlying zoning (e.g. a reduction in the minimum setbacks). If such requests are made the Council is
empowered to impose conditions necessary to protect and promote the best interests of the surrounding property
such as specific landscaping requirements (see 14 -5I -4 and 14- 3A- 4(L)). However, in this case Mr. Miller is
not requesting any modifications to the underlying rezoning, and therefore only the provisions regarding the
protection of steep slopes are applicable.
The City has litigated this issue in the past. I am attaching for your information a 2001 decision of the District
Court invalidating a decision of the City Council denying an SAO rezoning request when the applicant had met
all the conditions required for a Sensitive Areas Development Plan and was requesting no modifications to the
underlying rezoning.
Please give me a call if you would like to discuss this further.
Eleanor M. Dilkes
City Attorney
City Hall
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
319 - 356 -5030
319 - 356 -5008 Fax
eleanor- dilkes@iowa- city.rg
Notice: Since e-mail messages sent between you and the City Attorney's Office and its employees are transmitted over the internet,
the City Attorney's Office cannot assure that such messages are secure. You should be careful in transmitting information to the City
Attorney's Office that you consider confidential. If you are uncomfortable with such risks, you may decide not to use e-mail to
communicate with the City Attorney's Office. Without written notification that you do not wish to communicate with the City
Attorney's Office via e-mail communication, the City Attorney's Office will assume you assent to such communication. This message
is covered by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S C. Sections 2510 -2515, is intended only for the use of the person to
whom it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and subject to the attorney- client privilege. It should not be
forwarded to anyone else without consultation with the originating attorney. If you received this message and are not the addressee,
you have received this message in error. Please notify the person sending the message and destroy your copy. Thank you.
From: Wasserman, Edward A rmailto:ed- wassermanauiowa.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 3:31 PM
To: Matt Hayek
Cc: Rick Dobyns; Jim Throgmorton; Terry Dickens; Michelle Payne; Susan Mims; Marian Karr; Jeff Davidson
Subject: Formal Objection to City Council Decision Process (REZ13- 00004)
Importance: High
Dear Mayor Hayek (et al.):
Please consider my formal objection to the City Council decision process
concerning REZ13- 00004.
Formal Objection to City Council Decision Process
Background:
Since last November, the neighbors along First Avenue have had to endure
a prolonged and tortured rezoning process revolving around Mr. Miller's
plan (REZ13- 00004) to build a large 16 -unit apartment complex on a small
and environmentally sensitive lot. The multiple votes, deferrals, revisions,
surveys, reports, ordinances, and petitions have left us homeowners
profoundly confused and deeply dismayed that our many legitimate
concerns have been betrayed by a byzantine bureaucratic process.
The City Council meeting of August 20, 2013 was the final and most
disappointing step in that process. We had hoped that the neighborhood's
clear and compelling concerns would have convinced the Council to reverse
the Planning and Zoning Commission's two earlier decisions to permit the
building of Mr. Miller's 16 -unit structure because of what we believed were
direct deviations from the Comprehensive Plan and the Sensitive Areas
Ordinance.
Yet, despite serious objections from two councilors (Dobyns voted "no" and
Throgmorton voted "yes" even after he opined that "the proposed project is
2
not consistent with the underlying purposes and objectives of the Sensitive
Areas Ordinance, which I helped enact 20 years ago "), the final vote failed
to reverse the decision to proceed with the project because of a narrow
technicality which senselessly separated sensitive -slope concerns from
woodland and drainage issues — matters that are inherently interrelated and
utterly vital to the project.
That is simply an unfair and improper way to silence a serious discussion
with such far - reaching implications for our First Avenue neighborhood and
for Hickory Hill Park. What we need is not an arbitrarily divided and
truncated discussion of the rezoning application, but one which takes full
and diligent account of the Comprehensive Plan and the Sensitive Areas
Ordinance.
Mr. Davidson has subsequently attempted to explain how the "two- step"
rezoning process came about. But, his justification (copied below) had
nothing to do with protecting the interests of the affected homeowners and
everything to do with minimizing the development costs to the rezoning
applicant. Why should we homeowners be disadvantaged by the applicant's
miserliness?
The City has a Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) requiring an
additional layer of approval when dealing with sites with sensitive
environmental features. These sensitive features are called out
specifically in the ordinance in terms of when they are applicable.
It is an applicant's responsibility to determine if environmental
features that are regulated under the SAO are present on their
property. We advised Mr. Miller that we thought critical slopes
might be present on his property when he came through for his
original rezoning. He chose at that time to not go to the expense
of a sensitive areas inventory, which was his prerogative. When
he later came in for a building permit the sensitive areas inventory
was required as a condition of building permit approval, and the
critical slopes were determined to exist. This has necessitated the
two step process you refer to, to add the SAO approval process.
Formal Objection:
3
I respectfully request that the City Council formally revisit Mr. Miller's
rezoning request so that Councilors can fully and fairly discuss the request's
many serious implications for the neighboring properties, for Hickory Hill
Park, and for faithfully complying with the Comprehensive Plan and the
Sensitive Areas Ordinance. The two -step process that was instigated by the
actions of Mr. Miller has unfairly limited debate and biased the Council vote,
which could easily have gone 5 -2 and been disapproved because of the
required supermajority.
Note that this formal objection clearly takes precedence over Mr. Miller's
pending request that the City Council waive the upcoming second reading
and adopt his application on September 3.
Thank you,
Ed Wasserman
555 North First Avenue
Iowa City, IA 52245
Edward A. Wasserman
Stuit Professor of Experimental Psychology
Department of Psychology
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, IA 52242
Phone: (319)335 -2445
Fax: (319)335 -0191
Email: ed- wassermanQuiowa.edu
Home page: http://www2.psychology.uiowa.edu/FacuLty/Wassennan/
Delta Center: http: / /www.uiowa.edu/delta- center /index.html
4
r•,
W
IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR JOHNSON COUNTY
SOUTHGATE DEVELOPMENT )
Plaintiff, )
COMPANY, INC.,
am
}
THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, )
Defendant. )
No. CVCV061752
c.� I
RULING ON WRIT
OF CERTIORARI
Trial of the contested Petition for Writ of Certiorari was scheduled
for November 27, 2001. The record was certified to the Court by the Iowa
City Clerk. Plaintiff Southgate Development Company, Inc.( "Southgate ")
appeared by counsel Thomas Gelman and Michael Pugh. Defendant City of
Iowa City ( "City ") appeared by counsel David Brown, who was retained
following the withdrawal by the City Attorney. The Court heard the
statements and arguments of counsel in open court. Additional Memoranda
of Law were submitted by both parties the following week. The Court has
reviewed the legal authorities, the record submitted and the parties'
stipulation of facts.
By agreement of the parties, the issues are presented to the Court
pursuant to Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure 306, et se . The Court is limited
in its review to the question whether the Iowa City Council ( "council "),
".exercising judicial functions," exceeded proper jurisdiction or otherwise
acted illegally. Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 306.
On certiorari, an illegality is established if the council has not acted in
accordance with its ordinances, if its decision was not supported by
substantial evidence, or if its actions were unreasonable, arbitrary or
capricious. Perkins v. Board of Supervisors, IA.Sup.Ct. No. 143/99 -0583
t-
(November 15, 2001), LEXIS 204; Norland v Worth County Compensation
Board, 323 N.W.2d 251, 253 (Iowa 19$2).1
Southgate owns property, 4.01 acres, on Harlock Street in Iowa City,
which is hereinafter referred to as the "Real Estate."
The City's action in dispute is the council's denial of Southgate's
request to rezone the Real Estate from RM -44 High Density Multi - Family
Residential to OSA -44 Sensitive Area Overlay, High - Density Multi - Family.
The rezoning is necessary for the development of Southgate's property
because of the presence of "critical" and "protected" slopes triggering the
need for a Sensitive Area Overlay Zone.
The City Attorney advised the council before its.tneeting that the
rezoning must be approved if Southgate met the applicable use, design and
other standards. Neighborhood opposition to the plan was vocal.
The parties have agreed on the facts, which the Court adopjs:
The parties agree that Southgate met all conditions requiredrfor a ` -s
Sensitive Areas Development Plan as set forth in the applicable prov-i ions. _
of Article K, section 14 -6K -1. The City's professional staff foundiull :?
compliance. The City's Planning and Zoning Commission recommerided
approval of Southgate's rezoning request by a vote of 3 to 2.
Southgate and the City agree that the procedural approval and review
of Southgate's plan are to be done in accordance with the provisions of
Article J, subsection 14 -0 -21), which have been met.
Southgate and the City further agree that the substantive definitions,
procedures, requirements and exemptions to be applied to Southgate's plan
are those found in the applicable provisions of Article K, section 14 -6K -1,
which have been met by Southgate. The City contends, and Southgate
disagrees, that subsections 14 -6K -1N and 14 -6J -2B apply to broaden the
scope of the council's review of Southgate's plan.
1 This is not a de novo review in equity pursuant to Iowa Code section 409.15. see, hakes Construction
Co. v. City of IowaQAt, 304 N.W.2d 797, 799 (Iowa 1981).
Z
Because of the number of protesting neighbors, the rezoning request
required an affirmative vote of 5 out of 6 participating council members.
The vote of the council was 4 to 2 in favor.
The issue is whether either of the two dissenting votes went beyond
the scope of the council's authority or otherwise applied an incorrect
standard under the relevant zoning ordinances. The Court is asked to
consider the separate reasons given by the two dissenting council members.
In both instances, the Court finds that the reasons stated by the council
members are inapplicable to the specific plan presented to the council. The
Writ of Certiorari is sustained.
One dissenting council member stated the following in support of his
decision to vote against Southgate's plan:
"I respect the opinions that we have had from our City �y
Attorneys and other attorneys representing this case and frorii..
the testimony that we have heard from neighbors in the aref: = One thing though that I keep coming back to is the wording al",
the Sensitive Areas ordinance I believe in 14 -6K -1 N. And':-.-:*:,.
planned design guidelines talk about use land efficiently and-.1f,
preserve environmentally sensitive areas as open space ; n
amenities. Encourage development, which provides for easy"--, 1
access and circulation for pedestrians and bicyclists. Encourage
innovative residential developments that contain a variety of
housing types and styles. Strive for development solutions that
best promote the spirit, intent and purpose of the Sensitive
Areas ordinance while permitting development of the property
for reasonable beneficial uses. And although this development
proposed by Southgate has many positive things, the in -fill
development I feel is a worthwhile cause. I find that there are
other things that do not meet the spirit or the law of the
Sensitive Areas development plan design. And I will be voting
against this proposal." (Transcript of the April 17, 2001,
meeting, p. 42.)
The council member's statement refers to subsection N "Sensitive
Areas Development Plan Design Guidelines" of section 14 -6K -1. As a
matter of statutory construction, the Court finds that Subsection N is
3
applicable to plans which seek "modifications of the requirements of the
underlying zoning district and subdivision regulations." Section
14- 6K- IN(2). It is not applicable to Southgate's plan, which contemplated
no deviation or variance from the underlying existing RM -44 zoning. The
plan did entail a much lower density than the RM -44 zoning would have
allowed. Southgate's plan proposes 39 dwelling units; the RM -44 zone
would permit 176 dwelling units. The lower density is consistent with-the
purpose of the Sensitive Areas Overlay Zoning, and not inconsistent with the
RM -44 zoning.
The second dissenting vote was based on that Council member's
belief that Southgate's plan was "not in the best public interest." The City
takes the position in Court, contrary to its position before the council, that a
zoning decision always encompasses the City's police power to act in the
interest of public peace, safety, and general welfare.
The City now relies upon the "intent" section of section 14 -6J -2B to
justify on general police power grounds denial of an application which meets
the applicable substantive and procedural requirements of sections 14 -6KJ
and 14- 0-21). The "intent" provisions of Article J, applicable to planned=
development overlay zones, do not supersede or expand the "purp&se'-'
provisions of Article K which are specific to sensitive areas. Hillv.ib, ,-
Associates v. Palmer. 456 N.W.2d 909, 910 (Iowa 1990).
The City's permissible legal review of Southgate's plan does -_ dt
include general issues of welfare and public interest. Those considerations -�+
are included in the specific provisions of the ordinance enacted by the City
as part of its legislative function. Stated another way, the Court must
presume the City fulfilled its general responsibilities when it enacted the
specific requirements of sensitive area overlays.
The Court is bound to uphold the provisions enacted by the City in its
legislative capacity to protect sensitive areas. Perkins v. Board of
Supervisors, IA.Sup.Ct. No. 143/99 -0583 (November 15, 2001), LEXIS
204; Neuzil v. City of Iowa City, 451 N.W.2d 159,165 (Iowa 1990).
Actions which abrogate those valid ordinances by superimposing additional
and non - specific considerations of the public "interest" are not within the
discretion of the council members, except to the extent provided for in Iowa
Code section 414.5 (2001).
M
Citizens are entitled to rely upon the ordinances as written, without
fear that their plans, deemed to meet all of the requirements established by a
council, will then be denied depending on individual whim or favoritism.
See, Oakes Const. Co. v. City of Iowa City, 404 N.W.2d 797, 806 (Iowa
1981).
...(C)ouncils must not approve or disapprove on whim (citation
omitted), but rather on the facts of each case and on the
manifest objects and purposes of the legislation. Oakes
Construction Co. v. City of Iowa City, 304 N.W.2d at 806
(citation omitted).
Unlike the situation in Oakes, the council here was not presented with
a new subdivision, a proposal to develop previously undeveloped land.
Rather, the plan here involves some four acres which previously were zoned
for high - density development, as is the surrounding property. Past attempts
to downzone the Real Estate had not been approved by the council.
Nor did this council consider any specific or pertinent fact in denying
the plan, as did the council in Oakes, 304 N.W.2d at 804. The dissenting
council members here resorted to generalized and inapplicable bases for
their "no" votes.
The matter is remanded to the Iowa -City Council for further action
consistent with this Ruling.
�a
Clerk to notify.
--s Tip
Dated this day of December, 2001. -- E —
AMANDA POTTERFIEL , Judge
Sixth Judicial District of Iowa
Date: --- 1,2
Mailed To:
BY:
ClOW8 oifics Personnel Responsible
for Mailing Document
5
Rezoning Item
REZ13- 00004: Discussion of an application for a rezoning of
1.05 acres of land located on First Avenue, north of Rochester
Avenue from Low - Density Multi - Family (RM -12) to Planned
Development Overlay /Low - Density Multi - Family (OPD /RM -12)
to allow the construction of a 16 -unit multi - family building.
�;
,.
<,
�y
ITEM 5b
Submitted by Ed Wasserman
First Avenue Rezoning Request
Neighborhood Concerns
First Avenue Lot
Rezoning request is incompatible with
Comprehensive Plan
• Because our district includes areas with
woodlands, steep slopes, and stream
corridors, development should be planned
with an emphasis on adapting existing terrain
in accordance with Sensitive Areas Ordinance
• Current rezoning project does not comply with
the Comprehensive Plan
• Too much building is planned for too little lot
Rezoning request is also incompatible
with 14 -51 -8: REGULATED SLOPES
• The purpose of regulating development on and
near steep slopes is to:
— Promote safety in the design and construction of
developments
— Minimize flooding, landslides, and mudslides
— Minimize soil instability, erosion, and downstream
siltation
— Preserve the scenic character of hillside areas,
particularly wooded hillsides
Neighbors' main concerns
• Destruction of woodlands
• Destabilization of steep slopes
• Disruption of stream corridors
Destruction of woodlands
S IT,.
• Y
�FyY��ry
+f
�
J,yC
S
ay
"it
J,"
Trees next to Hickory Hill Park
Destruction of woodlands
• Every mature tree would be destroyed by
current plan to construct 16 -unit building
■ Will remove the only visual and acoustic barrier
between buildings and as well as remove many
mature trees adjacent to Hickory Hill Park
■ Tree removal will ruin scenic character of lot
■ Tree removal will also disturb soil in steep slopes,
because of deep root systems
Destabilization of steep slopes
• Steep slopes on lot necessitate extraordinary
excavation
• Excavation will be perilously close to
neighboring structure and to Hickory Hill Park
■ Excavation will threaten integrity of existing
building and terraced landscaping to the South
■ Excavation will also disrupt stream corridors
clearance
Disruption of stream corridors
• Lot is already a stream corridor
• Water and snow melt readily flow onto First
Avenue and into Hickory Hill Park
• Excavation will exacerbate existing drainage
problems for neighboring structure and for
Hickory Hill Park as well
■ Bridge washed out in HHP this Spring
■ Park Plaza drainage problems need attention soon;
concrete work already done at great expense
First Avenue Rezoning Request
• This environmentally sensitive lot will certainly
be developed at some time
• But, development should proceed with an
abundance of caution
• And, should strictly accord with the
Comprehensive Plan and the Sensitive Areas
Ordinance
• The present proposal fails to do so and should
be denied
First Avenue Rezoning Request
• Neighbors are well aware of some Councilors'
confidence in engineering and staff reports
• But, P & Z commission and City Council approved plans
for construction of Park Plaza
• We've thus far paid $47,000 to repair windows,
concrete, and drainage systems because of soil shifting
and runoff problems
• Our opposition to rezoning is therefore based on real
experience - -not on theories and reputations
• City Council may not be liable for damages caused by
new building, but we'll be the ones who have to pay
3
5C
Prepared by: Karen Howard, Planning Department, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5251
•:KVWM ►•
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14: ZONING TO BROADEN THE USES ALLOWED IN THE
INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL (CI -1) ZONE.
WHEREAS, an ad hoc committee of private citizens was appointed by the City Manager to review the
zoning regulations in several of the City's commercial zoning districts due to concerns expressed by some in
the business community; and
WHEREAS, said committee forwarded a summary of their conclusions and recommendation to the
Planning and Zoning Commission;
WHEREAS, the Committee concluded that some of the distinctions between the land uses allowed in the
Intensive Commercial (CI -1) Zone versus the broader commercial uses allowed in the Community
Commercial (CC -2) Zone may be unduly constraining the market;
WHEREAS, a majority of the committee concluded that opening up the possibility of additional uses in
the CIA Zone, such as restaurants, medical offices, and a wider variety of retail uses would not have a
significant negative effect on CIA zoned properties and that it would be better to allow buyers to more freely
choose a location for their business based on their own needs and assessment of the merits of any specific
property; and
WHEREAS, the committee acknowledged that allowing this broader range of uses in the CIA Zone
would shift more of the responsibility to the property buyer to consider the possibility that quasi - industrial or
intensive commercial uses, which are more likely to have outdoor work areas, outdoor storage, or other
aspects that may result in noise, dust, odors, may also locate in the same zone; and
WHEREAS, despite the greater possibility for incompatibilities between uses in the CIA Zone, the
committee concluded that the benefits of providing for a more unconstrained market for commercial property
outweighed these risks, and therefore recommended that the uses allowed in the CIA Zone be expanded to
allow the following CC -2 uses, and any associated accessory uses, such as drive - through facilities, with the
same standards and provisions called out in the CC -2 Zone: restaurants and bars; medical and dental
offices; personal services; hotels and motels; religious and private group assembly; and sales- oriented retail
uses; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the committee's recommended
changes to the Zoning Code and recommended that these changes be approved.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION 1. The Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa is hereby amended as follows:
A. Amend 14 -2C -2 Land Uses Allowed, Table 2C -1, Principal Uses Allowed in Commercial Zones, to
indicate the following:
• Designate Eating Establishments as "Permitted Uses" in the CI -1 Zone;
• Designate Drinking Establishments as "Provisional Uses" in the CI -1 Zone;
• Designate Medical /Dental Offices as "Permitted Uses" in the CI -1 Zone;
• Designate Personal Service- Oriented Retail Uses as "Permitted Uses" in the CIA Zone;
• Designate Hospitality- Oriented Retail Uses as "Permitted Uses" in the CIA Zone;
• Designate Sales- Oriented Retail Uses as "Permitted Uses" in the CIA Zone;
• Designate Religious & Private Group Assembly Uses as "Permitted Uses" in the CIA
Zone.
B. Delete paragraph 14- 413- 413-11, Specific Approval Criteria for Provisional Uses and Special
Exceptions for Drinking Establishments and substitute in lieu thereof:
Ordinance No.
Page 2
11. Drinking Establishments in the CH -1, CIA, CC -2, CB -2, C13-5, CB -10 Zones
Within the University Impact Area, as illustrated on Map 2B.1 within Section 14 -2B -6 or the
Riverfront Crossings District, as illustrated in Figure 2C.8 within Section 14 -2C -11 a Drinking
Establishment, as defined in this Title, must be separated by a minimum distance of 500 feet
from any other Drinking Establishment. Distance shall be measured along a straight line from
the nearest property line (or nearest point of the leased building space) of the proposed use to
the nearest property line (or nearest point of the leased building space) of any other Drinking
Establishment. For example, in the case of a Drinking Establishment that is located on a lot
with multiple leased building spaces, such as a shopping mall, the distance is measured from
the nearest point of the leased building space occupied by a Drinking Establishment to the
nearest property line or leased building space of any other Drinking Establishment.
C. Delete the Specific Approval Criteria for Provisional Uses and Special Exceptions for Sales- Oriented
Retail in the CI -1 Zone contained in paragraph 14- 413- 413-18, and renumber subsequent paragraphs
accordingly.
D. Delete Table 4C -1 within subsection 144C -2K, Accessory Uses and Buildings Specific Approval
Criteria, and substitute in lieu thereof:
Table 4C -1: Drive - Through Facilities
Zone
Drive- through facilities allowed
Additional requirements
ID Zones
None permitted
Not applicable
Residential Zones
None Permitted
Not applicable
CO-1 Zone
Limited to facilities that are accessory to financial
Special exception required. See additional
institutions
approval criteria listed below.
CH -1
Permitted
Drive through lanes must be set back at
least 10 feet from property lines and must
be screened from view of any abutting
Residential Zone to the S3 standard (See
Article 14 -5F, Screening and Buffering
Standards).
CN -1 Zone
Limited to facilities that are accessory to financial
Special exception required. See additional
institutions and pharmacies.
approval criteria listed below.
Maximum of 2 lanes allowed for a financial
institution;
Maximum of 1 lane allowed for a pharmacy
CH, CC -2 and CB -2
Permitted by special exception
Special exception required. See additional
Zones
approval criteria listed below.
CB -5, CB -10 Zones
None permitted
Not applicable
SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and
publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of , 2013.
Ordinance No.
Page 3
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Appr ved by
City Attorney's Office g /� /�
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by _
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES:
NAYS: ABSENT:
Champion
Dickens
Dobyns
Hayek
Mims
Payne
Throgmorton
that the
First Consideration 8/20/2013
Voteforpassage: AYES: Mims, Payne, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns,
Hayek. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration 9/03/2013
Vote forpassage: AYES: Mims, Payne, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns,
Hayek. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Date published
5d
Prepared by: Sarah Walz, PCD, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5239
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14: ZONING CODE TO DELETE SPECIFIC STREET WIDTH
REQUIREMENTS FOR DAYCARE USES, GENERAL EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES, AND
RELIGIOUS /PRIVATE GROUP ASSEMBLY.
WHEREAS, the current Zoning Code requires that an applicant for a special exception for Daycare Uses,
General Education Facilities, and Religious /Private Group Assembly Uses in certain zones must demonstrate to
the Board of Adjustment that vehicular access will be via a street with pavement width greater than 28 feet; and
WHEREAS, a number of long- established churches, daycares, and schools have vehicle access along
streets that do not meet this minimum street width requirement, yet are compatible with the adjacent
neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, the current Zoning Code contains other specific and general approval criteria for this type of
special exception that consider vehicle circulation, parking, ingress and egress, pedestrian facilities, public
safety, and potential impacts on surrounding properties; and
WHEREAS, Staff recommends that the specific approval criteria regarding'the minimum pavement width be
deleted from the specific approval criteria, as it is too restrictive given that other existing approval criteria require
the Board to consider, on a case -by -case basis, the potential traffic-related impacts of the specific proposed use;
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed this ordinance amendment and
recommends approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I. The Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa is hereby amended deleting the following
paragraphs, and renumbering any subsequent paragraphs accordingly:
1. 14- 4134D -6c, Vehicular Access for Daycare Uses;
2. 14- 4B- 4D -8a, Vehicular Access for General Education Facilities in RRA, RM -12, RM -20, RNS -
20, RM44, PRM, MU, and CO -1 zones;
3. 14 -413 4D -9a, Vehicular Access for General Education Facilities in the RS -5, RS -8, RS -12, and
RNS -12 zones;
4. 14- 4B- 4D -14a, Vehicular Access Religious /Private Group Assembly in the ID -RM, ID -C, RRA,
RM -12, RM -20, RNS -20, RM -44, PRM, MU, and CO -1 zones; and
5. 14- 4B- 4D -15a, Vehicular Access for Religious /Private Group Assembly in the ID -RS, RS -5, RS-
8, RS -12, and RNS -12 zones.
SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and
publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of 2013.
ATTEST:
MAYOR CITY CLERK
Ap o v e da by:
City Attorney's Office
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by that the
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Champion
Dickens
Dobyns
Hayek
Mims
Payne
Throgmorton
First Consideration 8/20/2013
Vote for passage: AYES: Payne, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns, Hayek,
Mims. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration 9/03/2013
Voteforpassage: AYES: Payne, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns, Hayek,
Mims. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Date published
5e
Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5234 (REZ13- 00018)
ORDINANCE NO. 13 -4546
AN ORDINANCE CONDITIONALLY REZONING 7.13 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2845
MORMON TREK BLVD IN THE INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL (CI -1) ZONE. (REZ13- 00018)
WHEREAS, the applicant, Dealer Properties IC LLC, is owner of certain real estate in the Intensive
Commercial (CI -1) Zone located at 2845 Mormon Trek Boulevard, which contains an outlot that is designated
as a compensatory wetland mitigation site, the implementation of which is required pursuant to a conditional
zoning agreement (Ordinance No. 13- 4533); and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (2013) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable
conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to
satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and
WHEREAS, Outlot B, JJR Davis Addition is subject to an existing Conditional Zoning Agreement
(Ordinance No. 13 -4533) that is based on a Sensitive Areas Development Plan, which includes a Wetland
Seeding and Planting Plan that would be implemented by removing and replacing 12" to 18" of topsoil from
the mitigation site and seeding according to the plan; and
WHEREAS, the owner has requested that the existing Conditional Zoning Agreement (Ordinance No 13-
4533) be repealed and replaced with a new Conditional Zoning Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the new Conditional Zoning Agreement would change the method of establishing the
compensatory wetland; instead of removing and replacing the topsoil, the mitigation would be implemented
by retaining the existing topsoil and eradicating the invasive species by mowing and spraying with chemicals
before planting a mix of native wetland seedlings as prescribed in the Alternative Wetland Mitigation
Restoration Plan, which is described in detail in a letter dated July 10, 2013 from Transition Ecology LLC.
Other relevant conditions from the existing conditional zoning agreement are included in the new conditional
zoning agreement attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the proposed rezoning and determined
that it complies with the Comprehensive Plan provided that the applicant meets conditions to implement the
prescribed compensatory wetland mitigation and to establish an escrow account to ensure its timely
implementation; and
WHEREAS, the owner and applicant has agreed that the property shall be developed in accordance with
the rezoning and the terms and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto to ensure
appropriate development in this area of the city.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I APPROVAL. The property described below is hereby rezoned and subject to the Conditional
Zoning Agreement attached hereto and incorporated herein:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Lot 2 and Outlot B, JJR Davis Addition, Iowa City, Iowa, in accordance with the plat thereof
recorded in Plat Book 55, at Page 39, in the records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office.
SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning
map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and
publication of the ordinance as approved by law.
SECTION III. CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT. The mayor is hereby authorized and directed to
sign, and the City Clerk attest, the Conditional Zoning Agreement between the property owner and the City,
following passage and approval of this Ordinance.
SECTION IV. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the
City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance, and record the same in the
Ordinance No. 13 -4546
Page 2
Office of the County Recorder, Johnson County, Iowa, at the Owner's expense, upon the final passage,
approval and publication of this ordinance, as provided by law.
SECTION V. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION VI. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION VII. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval
and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this 3rd day of September 12013.
MAYOR
ATTEST: ► 'e' 7
CITY CLERK
Approved by
G(itrti UJ71JL1 7
City Attorney's Office
Ordinance No. 13 -4546
Page 3
It was moved by Mims and seconded by Payne that the
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
NAYS: ABSENT:
Champion
Dickens
Dobyns
Hayek
Mims
Payne
Throgmorton
First Consideration 8/6/2013
Vote for passage: AYES: Dickens, Dobyns, Hayek, Mims, Payne, Throgmorton,
Champion. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration 8/20/2013
Voteforpassage: AYES: Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns, Hayek, Mims,
Payne. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Date published 911212013
Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356 -5251 (REZ13- 00018)
CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation
(hereinafter "City "), and Dealer Properties IC LLC (hereinafter "Owner ").
WHEREAS, the applicant, Dealer Properties IC LLC, is owner of certain real estate in the
Intensive Commercial (CI -1) Zone located at 2845 Mormon Trek Boulevard, which contains an
outlot that is designated as a compensatory wetland mitigation site, the implementation of which is
required pursuant to a conditional zoning agreement (Ordinance No. 13- 4533); and
WHEREAS, the Owner has requested the rezoning of said property to replace the
previous Conditional Zoning Agreement (Ordinance No. 13 -4533) with a new Conditional Zoning
Agreement in order to use an alternative method to establish the compensatory wetland on the
subject property; and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (2013) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose
reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing
regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the
rezoning subject to the establishment of an escrow account to ensure installation of mitigation
improvements over time; and
WHEREAS, the Owner acknowledges that certain conditions and restrictions are
reasonable to ensure the development of the property is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and the need for protection of environmentally - sensitive areas; and
WHEREAS, the Owner agrees to develop this property in accordance with the terms and
conditions of a Conditional Zoning Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties
agree as follows:
1. Dealer Properties IC LLC is the legal title holder of the property legally described as:
Lot 2 and Outlot B, JJR Davis Addition, Iowa City, Iowa, in accordance with the plat thereof
recorded in Plat Book 55, at Page 39, in the records of the Johnson County Recorder's
Office.
2. The Owner acknowledges that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles
of the Comprehensive Plan and the Southwest District Plan. Further, the parties
acknowledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (2013) provides that the City of Iowa City may
impose reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and
above the existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested
change.
3. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owner agrees that
development of the subject property will conform to all other requirements of the zoning
chapter, as well as the following conditions:
a. The improvements shown on the "Wetland Seeding and Planting Plan," dated
12/11/12 with a revised date of 6/25/13 (attached hereto), and as set forth in more
detail in a letter dated July 10, 2013 from Transition Ecology LLC, entitled, "Alternative
Wetland Mitigation Restoration Plan" (attached hereto) shall be initiated and the
ppdadmlagt1rez13.00018 cza final
escrow account established as described in paragraph b, below, prior to any
development activity being permitted on Lot 2 of the D & D Billion Addition;
b. Owner will fund an escrow account in the amount of $76,560 (the estimated cost of
implementation of the "Alternative Wetland Mitigation Restoration Plan" plus 10 %) to
ensure that the restoration plan is carried out to completion. Escrow to be released
upon verification by the US Army Corp of Engineers that the "Wetland Seeding and
Planting Plan," has been satisfactorily implemented; and
c. Existing and proposed light fixtures on Lot 2 of the D & D Billion Addition that are
located within 300 feet of residentially -zoned property, whether located within a City or
County zoning district, will be mounted no more than 25 feet above grade prior to the
establishment of the additional vehicle display area proposed on Lot 2 of the D & D
Billion Addition.
4. The Owner and City acknowledge that the conditions contained herein are reasonable
conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (2013), and that said
conditions satisfy public needs that are caused by the requested zoning change.
5. The Owner and City acknowledge that in the event the subject property is transferred,
sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all redevelopment will conform to the terms of this
Conditional Zoning Agreement.
6. The parties acknowledge that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be
a covenant running with the land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force
and effect as a covenant with title to the land, unless or until released of record by the
City of Iowa City.
The parties further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind
all successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties.
7. The Owner acknowledges that nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be
construed to relieve the Owner from complying with all other applicable local, state, and
federal regulations.
8. The parties agree that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by
reference into the ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and
publication of the ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County
Recorder's Office at the Applicant's expense.
Dated this 3rd day of September , 2013.
CITY OF IOWA CITY Dealer Properties
n
Matthev�Hayek, Mayor By:
Attest:
ppdadnVagt/rez13 -00018 =a final 2
Marian 'P(-.- Karr, City Clerk
Approved by: /
City Attorney's Office
CITY OF IOWA CITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
STATE OF IOWA )
ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
This instrument was acknowledged before me on ri- r , 2013 by Matthe �-layek
and Marian K. Karr as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City.
i �.Q "' 1� KELLiE K. TUTTLE
Commission Number 221819
My Com issio fires Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AC NOWLEDGEMENT:
STATE OF TI5W* 1y Q)Q,3�4A,
) ss:
COUNTY )
On this d' — ay of � l , 2013, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in
and for the State of Iowa, per ally appeared h4. 1>.-,i tai 6vA , to me
personally known, who being by me duly sworn, did say that the person is
eV-A 6-N, (title) of
0,1 P-'r tb� fie -,MC, LL.0 , and that said instrument was signed on behalf of the
said limited liability company by authority of its managers and the said
MQ VA QA( acknowledged the execution of said instrument to be the voluntary
act and deed of said limited liability company by it voluntarily executed.
BRENDA TIRREL
SNOTARY PUBLIC Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
SOUTH DAKOTA
+ + My commission expires: to — "3a 01
ppdadnVagUrez13 -00018 =a final 3
July 10, 2013
Mr. Bob Miklo
City of Iowa City Planning and Zoning Department
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Re: Alternate wetland mitigation restoration plan
Dear Bob;
transition ecology L.L.0
Land Management d Restoration
As requested by Mr. Billion, Transition Ecology, LLC has prepared an alternative proposed restoration plan for
the JJR Davis Subdivision Wetland Mitigation site permitted by the US Army Corps of Engineers, Iowa
Department of Natural Resources, and the City of Iowa City (USACE Reference No: CEMVR-OD-P-2003-
1563(454930)). The following plan includes recommendations for combating the existing invasive species;
primarily reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) and installing the correct buffer and wetland seed mixes
described in the Corps approved wetland mitigation plan.
As you may know, mitigation for the development of the JJR Davis subdivision (71.8 acre commercial
development) occurred in two phases. For unavoidable impacts to 3.07 acres of wetland and 1,0091f of
stream bottom the US Army Corps of Engineers required compensatory mitigation. Phase I, included the
creation of 0.67 acre of wetland (off -site) at the Davis Home (S19,T79N, R6W). This mitigation has been
constructed, monitored and 2011 marked the final year of monitoring for this portion of the mitigation.
Phase 2 included the construction of 0.81 acre of wetland, enhancement of 1.43 acre of wetland and the
creation of a 4.46 acre buffer strip; this is the mitigation site associated with lots 6 and 7 of your current
development. As you know, the grading for this Phase of the mitigation was completed, but the native seeding
requirement and 5 years of monitoring has not been completed. Since the seed mixes were not installed, non-
native, invasive species now dominate. Removal of these species is necessary before the prescribed seed
mixes can be planted.
An extension was granted for this project, by the US Army Corps of Engineers, on January 8th, 2009. This
extension (No. 2003 -1563) allows for final installation of the native seed mixes described by the 401/404
permit (wetland mitigation plan) until December 31st, 2013.
Proposed Restoration Plan
The proposed restoration plan includes two major phases, removal of the existing vegetation and installation
of the seeding mix prescribed by the wetland mitigation plan.
I. Reduction of Invasive Species
As we have discussed Reed Canary Grass (RCG) is a non - native species that has infiltrated this mitigation site.
RCG is a Eurasian variety introduced to the United States for use as a forage grass; it is an aggressive, cool
season, perennial grass, which reproduces both by seed and a creeping rhizomatous root (underground
rootstock) that out - competes many other plants. Over time and improperly managed, this species dominates
many wetlands, wet meadows, and lake shores. Since it is commonly sold in most agricultural supply stores,
as an erosion control seed for grassy waterways, it will continue to have a presence in the environment.
Existing plants produce seeds which flow along waterways to areas that have been recently disturbed and
become a dominant component of the environment. The dominance of RCG makes it challenging to eradicate.
There is currently an Corps accepted proposal to completely remove 12 -18" of soil from the entire site and
then replace with clean fill dirt. While this would temporarily remove much of the existing RCG plants and
seed stock, the site would ultimately be invaded again. Complete removal of this species at the mitigation site
620 Ronalds Street • Iowa City, IA 52245
319.621.1980
transitionecology @gmail.com
is unlikely, as there are drainage ways (outside the property) that feed into the site that also contain reed
canary grass (Figure 1). Ultimately this species will return. Additionally, besides cost; the constructed basin
has steep slopes; complete removal of the existing soil would greatly increase erosion and destabilize a
mitigation site that is also a storm water detention area.
An alternative scenario for reduction of the reed canary grass would be the use of chemicals, prescribed fire,
and mowing'. However, due to the urban nature of the site and the risk of contaminating nearby automotive
inventory with the odor of smoke, we do not recommend this site for prescribed fire. The next "best" way to
reduce the impact of reed canary grass is with a series of chemical treatments alternating with mowing when
seasonally possible. Mowing will stimulate the reed canary grass to grow (mimicking grazing) and then the
subsequent chemical treatment will help to reduce growth and seed production. Alternating these treatments
throughout the 2013 growing season will encourage the RCG to invest stored energy in growth while
continuously reducing its energy with chemicals.
The proposed work will be weather dependent. Wetter weather may make chemical treatments more
challenging and mowing more difficult. Comparatively, drier weather will provide the best conditions to
access the majority of the site and remove more of the existing vegetation.
Chemical Treatment
A glyphosate herbicide like Roundup' should be applied 3 -5 times throughout the growing season to all areas
heavily populated with RCG. Most invasives are cool season species and will begin to emerge much sooner
than the majority of other species. Glyphosate is a useful chemical as it disrupts the photosynthetic process
necessary for the plant to grow. In the spring, RCG will begin to use the energy stored in its roots for new
shoot and stem growth, this process is halted by the glyphosate chemical. In the upland buffer areas a
common glyphosate like Round -up'' may be used. In the wetland areas a specially formulated glyphosate that
is considered "wetland safe ", like RodeoTM' should be used.
Mowing
Mowing will not only wear out the RCG, but it will also help reduce seed production. When RCG growth is
interrupted by mowing then there is less opportunity to produce seed and propagation is reduced.
Seed Bed Preparation
At the end of the growing season, when water levels in the basin are at their lowest, it will be necessary to disc
or lightly till the soil, where possible. Exposing the soil for the installation of the different seed mixes.
II. Seeding and Planting of Plugs
The seed mixes, as specified in the wetland mitigation plan will all be planted as prescribed in the areas
designated. In addition to the different seed mixes, the site will be supplemented by two different classes of
Plugs.
Emergent Wetland Plugs
One flat of each species shall be planted randomly, throughout the emergent areas; the lowest point of the
shallow basins. If not available, other emergent species should be selected and planted according to
recommended planting instructions. At a minimum five flats should be used.
Soft Stem Bulrush
Blue Flag Iris
Fringed Sedge
Tussock Sedge
Fox Sedge
Scirpus validus
Iris shrevei
Carex crinita
Carex stricta
Carex vulpinoidea
"Wisconsin Reed Canary Grass Control Practices: Effects and Management Recommendations." Invasive Plants
Association of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Jan.
2006. Web. May 2013. <http: / /map.co.door.wi.us /swcd/ invasive / Publications /Reed %20Canary%20Grass.pdf >.
Button bush Cephelanthus occidentalis
Sweet Flag Acorus calamus
Wetland plugs
One flat of each of the following species shall be planted randomly, throughout the wetland areas. If not
available, other wetland species should be selected and planted according to recommended planting
instructions. At a minimum 13 flats should be used.
Grasses
Prairie Cord Grass
Spartina pectinate
Awl - fruited Sedge
Carexstipata
Soft Rush
funcus effuses
Big Bluestem
Andropogon gerardii
Bottlebrush Sedge
Carex comosa
Wool Grass
Scirpus cyperinus
Forbs
Wild Bergamot
Monarda fistulosa
Marsh Marigold
Caltha palustris
Cream Gentian
Gentiana flavida
Compass Plant
Silphium laciniatum
Rose Mallow
Hibiscus militaris
Prairie Blazing Star
Liatris pycnostachya
Sawtooth Sunflower
Helionthusgrosseserratus
III. Site Monitoring
Restoration of this site will need to be CLOSELY monitored. Additionally, weather patterns have been
inconsistent and the timing of mowing and spraying will need to be determined based on how the growing
season progresses. In addition to the restoration work, which would be completed by hired contractors, we
propose to monitor the site weekly and maintain contact with contractors to aggressively pursue restoration
of this site throughout 2015.
Proposed Timeline
2013 Growing Season and throughout Summer 2013
The site should be chemically treated as soon as possible to reduce further growth and development of the
RCG. Then within one to two weeks, depending on rainfall events, the site will be mowed. Then in another
two to three weeks it should be chemically treated again, alternating mowing and spraying every two to three
weeks.
Fall 2013
Near the end of the growing season, the site will be disced, remaining vegetation allowed to begin to grow.
Then chemically sprayed and then disced again. Then when weather is appropriate the site will be seeded. In
areas where the reed canary grass is still dominant, a second year of chemical and mowing treatments will be
necessary and will be pursued throughout the 2014 growing season, as required.
2014 Growing Season
In the spring of 2014, areas still dominated by reed canary grass will continue to be sprayed and mowed and
other areas seeded in the Fall of 2013 will be mowed to stimulate development of native plants and reduce
impact of invasive species. If necessary (and where access is possible) particularly challenging areas will be
disced to disrupt root growth and further disturb germination of seed.
In those areas where the seed does not seem to be successful, plugs will be planted to further provide
competition,for the reed canary grass.
All areas seeded in 2013 will be mowed 3 -4 times throughout the 2014 growing season. This establishment
mowing is necessary to further reduce seed production of annual weeds and to improve the success of the
seeded natives. Additional spot spraying to further reduce the impact of RCG may also be necessary
throughout the 2014 growing season.
2015 Growing Season
Again, the same prescription of mowing, spraying, discing and plug planting will continue, only in those areas
where the reed canary grass continues to dominate.
Costs associated with this work are difficult to estimate until the success of 2013 and 2014 can be determined.
It is likely that costs for 2014 and 2015 will be less assuming that work can begin as soon as possible.
2013 Itemized Description
I. Chemical Treatments and Mowing
1. 3 -4 chemical treatments for an approximately 6 acre site
2. 3 -4 Mowing treatments for an approximately 6 acre site
II. Seeding and Plug Planting
3. Prepare seed bed
4. Purchase seed and plugs and plant seed and plugs
111. Site Monitoring
5. Monitoring site and interacting with contractors
*ESTIMATED TOTAL YEAR 1
2014 Itemized Description
IV. Chemical Treatments and Mowing
6. 3 -4 chemical treatments for an approximately 6 acre site
7. 3 -4 Mowing treatments for an approximately 6 acre site
V. Seeding and Plug Planting
8. Prepare seed bed
9. Purchase seed and plugs and plant seed and plugs
VI. Site Monitoring
10. Monitoring site and interacting with contractors
*ESTIMATED TOTAL: YEAR 2
Estimated Cost Range
$ 9,000.00 - $11,500.00
$ 3,700.00 - $ 5,600.00
$ 1,500.00 - $ 2,000.00
$17,000.00 - $20,000.00
$ 3,000.00 - $ 5,000.00
$34,200.00 - $44,100.00 *
Estimated Cost Range
$ 5,000.00 - $ 7,500.00
$ 3,000.00 - $ 5,000.00
$ 1,500.00 - $ 2,000.00
$ 5,000.00 - $ 7,000.00
$ 2,000.00 - $ 4,000.00
$16,500.00 - $25,500.00*
*Please Note that these costs are estimates only based on current average rates for this work. Market
price for seed and plugs is subsequent to change. Additionally, these costs do not include erosion
control services which may also become necessary. Estimating costs for a third year is very difficult as
restoration of this site will be dependent on success of the first two years. Success will be dependent
on seasonal limitations, which we of course cannot estimate.
Respectfully submitted,
TRANSITION ECOLOGY, LLC
Original signed by J. Elizabeth Maas
J. Elizabeth Maas, Project Manager
CC:
Mr. Eugene Wassenhove
Department of the Army
Rock Island District, Corps of Engineers
Clock Tower Building
P. 0. Box 2004
Rock Island, IL 61204 -2004
Mr. David Billion
3401 West 41St Street
Sioux Falls, SD 57106
Ph: 605.361.1919
David.billion @billionauto.com
Figure 1: Wetland Mitigation site showing drainage entering from west. Ultimately reed canary grass in the
ditch alongside the highway exit ramp will be re- introduced to the wetland mitigation site.
E
E
w
tu
Stu
Z
O
Q
J Q
� Q
z<
Z Q
J % Q
CL Q —
060
ZE5 we
--) Q
W-)3
W -C
U) ' —
o Co
Z=
J
o
W
O
E E
o
qq
g 'aaa
8 Hig
z
0
/i s
wrawew
iY
0
o
q z-, EP�S
E'"'
zZ 0
Z
zoo
Q
�
m
CY ��
�z
�s
r
1. Fa
Na
a
�d
I�
too D
Q
ER•.
mg
0
��
NRaaa
N
0 C)
Z F— z m
I i i
(�
O
3
E—I
O
£ 3 OOD
tu
Stu
Z
O
Q
J Q
� Q
z<
Z Q
J % Q
CL Q —
060
ZE5 we
--) Q
W-)3
W -C
U) ' —
o Co
Z=
J
o
W
O
E E
o
qq
g 'aaa
8 Hig
U Z
a
°
z 10 ° Z W O Q
wN� <In v4i wN z z NU air w
m
za p �e a.
a� a F t2 LL� ttov 00 °
QII dj N II II m II OF N ¢ N
JJ m W a us wa LL�n
F W K W O W F W
W 4 N W N
K U OK Q m
% 00 7rj °
w3 a N% 3a
U U W
(V h
?P
W
ZNQ
°¢a
W � N
N W
QW
�F<
r w3 i°
z
0
/i s
wrawew
0
0
o
gao
E'"'
zZ 0
Z
zoo
Q
�
m
CY ��
�z
�s
m
1. Fa
a
�d
U Z
a
°
z 10 ° Z W O Q
wN� <In v4i wN z z NU air w
m
za p �e a.
a� a F t2 LL� ttov 00 °
QII dj N II II m II OF N ¢ N
JJ m W a us wa LL�n
F W K W O W F W
W 4 N W N
K U OK Q m
% 00 7rj °
w3 a N% 3a
U U W
(V h
?P
W
ZNQ
°¢a
W � N
N W
QW
�F<
r w3 i°
iso wv s�sz s aoznc
/i s
wrawew
O
\- cos- sew\wwvo
gao
E'"'
zZ 0
04.�
Q
�
a
�s
lilicN"
a
too D
Q
ER•.
mg
0
J
N
0 C)
Z F— z m
may.,•
(�
O
Z
5 Z U O
E—I
O
£ 3 OOD
O
LLI
$$�
4 a�0
otS 000
6
&
U Z
a
°
z 10 ° Z W O Q
wN� <In v4i wN z z NU air w
m
za p �e a.
a� a F t2 LL� ttov 00 °
QII dj N II II m II OF N ¢ N
JJ m W a us wa LL�n
F W K W O W F W
W 4 N W N
K U OK Q m
% 00 7rj °
w3 a N% 3a
U U W
(V h
?P
W
ZNQ
°¢a
W � N
N W
QW
�F<
r w3 i°
Z
Im
O
gao
E'"'
avowaw.a
Q
�
a
�s
a
Q
ER•.
mg
J,
i„ r
O
E"
Z
O
E'"'
avowaw.a
Q
Q
a
Q
z
E-
U
O
E"
_o
may.,•
(�
O
(�
E—I
O
O
5f
Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319- 356 -5240 (REZ12- 00026)
ORDINANCE NO. 13 -4547
ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 7.79 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF NORTH DODGE STREET AND PRAIRIE DU
CHIEN ROAD FROM MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY (RS -8), NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC (P -1)
AND HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL (CH -1) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY - COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL (OPD- CC -2). (REZ12 -00026)
WHEREAS, the applicant, Hy -Vee Stores, has requested a rezoning of property located at the northeast
corner of the intersection of North Dodge Street and Prairie Du Chien Road from Medium - Density Single -
Family Residential (RS -8), Neighborhood Public (P -1), and Highway Commercial (CH -1) to Planned
Development Overlay /Community Commercial (OPD /CC2); and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan, North District Plan Map, shows this area as appropriate for
retail /community commercial use provided that it is designed to be compatible with the adjacent residential
neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a concept plan showing how commercial redevelopment of this
property can be made compatible with the adjacent neighborhood with careful building design and
placement, the use of buffer areas and landscaping; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the proposed rezoning and has
recommended approval provided that it meets conditions addressing the need for compatibility with the
adjacent neighborhoods and the policies of the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (2011) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable
conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to
satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and
WHEREAS, the owner and applicant have agreed that the property shall be developed in accordance
with the terms and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto to ensure appropriate
development in this area of the city.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I APPROVAL. Property described below is hereby reclassified from its current zoning
designation of RS -8, CH -1 and P -1 to OPD /CC -2:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
(TRACT #1) - REZONE FROM P -1 TO CC -2
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 14, ST. MATTHIAS SECOND ADDITION, IOWA
CITY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 17, AT PAGE
583, IN THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE S019115 "E,
ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 14, A DISTANCE OF 85.61 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE N64 012'45 "E, 152.25 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 44.66 FEET ALONG AN ARC OF A
175.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY, WHOSE 44.54 FOOT CHORD BEARS
S48 °54'39 "W; THENCE S25 °41'52 "W, 8.25 FEET; THENCE S64 °12'45 "W, 118.43 FEET, TO A POINT ON
THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 14; THENCE N01 °11'15 "W, ALONG SAID WEST LINE, 22.00 FEET, TO
SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 2,572 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS, AND SUBJECT TO
EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
(TRACT #1A) - REZONE FROM P -1 TO CC -2
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 14, ST. MATTHIAS SECOND ADDITION, IOWA
CITY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 17, AT PAGE
583, IN THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE SO1 ° 11' 15 "E,
Ordinance No. 13 -4547
Page 2
ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 14, A DISTANCE OF 85.61 FEET; THENCE N64 012'45 "E, 184.60
FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING N64 °12'45 "E, 178.92 FEET, TO A POINT
ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 14; THENCE SO 1 ° 12' 11 "E, ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 22.00 FEET;
THENCE S64012145 "W, 125.00 FEET; THENCE SO 1 ° 12'11 "E, 146.79 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH
LINE OF SAID LOT 14; THENCE S64 °13'01 "W, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, 94.68 FEET; THENCE
N25 °58'47 "W, 43.37 FEET; THENCE NO1 °11'25 "W, 85.98 FEET; THENCE S25 °41'52 "E, 17.45 FEET; THENCE
N64 °18'08 "E, 75.30 FEET; THENCE N25 °41'52 "W, 49.49 FEET, TO SAID POINT OF BEGINNING,
CONTAINING 0.37 ACRE, MORE OR LESS, AND SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF
RECORD,
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (TRACT #2) - REZONE FROM RS -8 TO CC -2
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 14, ST. MATTHIAS SECOND ADDITION, IOWA
CITY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 17, AT PAGE
583, IN THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE SO1 °11'15 "E,
ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 14, A DISTANCE OF 53.36 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE N88 048'45 "E, 10.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, 144.29 FEET, ALONG AN ARC OF A
150.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY, WHOSE 138.79 FOOT CHORD BEARS
N61'15'1 8"E; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, 80.12 FEET, ALONG AN ARC OF A 150.00 FOOT RADIUS
CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, WHOSE 79.17 FOOT CHORD BEARS N49 °00'00 "E; THENCE
N64° 18'08 "E, 150.18 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 14; THENCE SO 1'12'11 "E,
ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 27.51 FEET; THENCE N64 °12'45 "E, 44.86 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE WEST
LINE OF YEGGY'S FIRST ADDITION, IOWA CITY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF
RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 6, AT PAGE 49, IN SAID RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY
RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE N00 °4 1'26 "W, ALONG SAID WEST LINE OF YEGGY'S FIRST ADDITION,
76.28 FEET, TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT B OF SAID YEGGY'S FIRST ADDITION; THENCE
N65 °07'33 "E, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT B, 158.32 FEET, TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER
THEREOF; THENCE N00 036'30 "W, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF LOT C OF SAID YEGGY'S FIRST
ADDITION, AND ITS NORTHERLY PROJECTION THEREOF, 123.75 FEET; THENCE N88 125'19 "E, 158.03
FEET, TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL 96064, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 44, AT PAGE 325, IN SAID
RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE N88 °48'55 "E, ALONG THE
NORTH LINE OF SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL 96064, A DISTANCE OF 12.29 FEET; THENCE SO1 °11'05 "E,
ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, 157.65 FEET; THENCE S64 °53'24 "W, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF LOT X
OF SAID YEGGY'S FIRST ADDITION, AND ITS EASTERLY PROJECTION THEREOF, 188.89 FEET, TO
THE NORTHWEST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE S65 °38'32 "W, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF LOT Y OF
SAID YEGGY'S FIRST ADDITION, AND ITS WESTERLY PROJECTION THEREOF, 201.58 FEET, TO A
POINT ON THE SAID EAST LINE OF LOT 14 OF ST. MATTHIAS SECOND ADDITION; THENCE
SO1 °12'11 "E, ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 0.44 FEET; THENCE S64 °12'45 "W, 363.52 FEET, TO A POINT ON
THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 14; THENCE NO 1 ° 11'15"W, ALONG SAID WEST LINE, 32.25 FEET, TO
SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 1.47 ACRE, MORE OR LESS, AND SUBJECT TO
EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (TRACT #3) - REZONE FROM CH -1 TO CC -2
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 14, ST. MATTHIAS SECOND ADDITION, IOWA
CITY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 17, AT PAGE
583, IN THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE SO1 °11'15 "E,
ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 14, A DISTANCE OF 107.61 FEET, TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING; THENCE N64 °12'45 "E, 123.87 FEET; THENCE SO1 °11'25 "E, 99.09 FEET; THENCE
S25 °58'47 "E, 43.37 FEET; THENCE N64° 1 TO 1 "E, 94.68 FEET; THENCE NO1 ° 12' 11 "W, 146.79 FEET;
THENCE N64 012'45 "E, 125.00 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF LOT 14 OF SAID ST.
MATTHIAS SECOND ADDITION; THENCE NO 1 ° 12' 11 "W, ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 22.44 FEET; THENCE
N65 °38'32 "E, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF LOT Y, OF YEGGY'S FIRST ADDITION, IOWA CITY, IOWA,
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 6, AT PAGE 49, IN SAID
RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, AND ITS WESTERLY PROJECTION
THEREOF, 201.58 FEET, TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE N64 °53'24 "E, ALONG THE
NORTH LINE OF LOT X OF SAID YEGGY'S FIRST ADDITION, AND ITS EASTERLY PROJECTION
THEREOF, 188.89 FEET, TO A POINT ON.THE NORTH LINE OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL 96064, JOHNSON
COUNTY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 44, AT
Ordinance No. 13 -4547
Page 3
PAGE 325, IN SAID RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE SOI'l V05 "E,
ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, 27.69 FEET; THENCE N88 °48'55 "E, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID
AUDITOR'S PARCEL 96064, A DISTANCE OF 12.29 FEET; THENCE SO1 °11'05 "E, ALONG SAID NORTH
LINE, 185.34 FEET; THENCE N88 048'55 "E, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, 12.29 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE
WEST LINE OF LOT 10 OF ST, MATTHIAS SECOND ADDITION, IOWA CITY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 17, AT PAGE 583, IN SAID RECORDS OF THE
JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE N88 °53'07 "E, 193.31 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE
EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 10 OF ST. MATTHIAS SECOND ADDITION; THENCE SO 1 ° 11'05, ALONG SAID
EAST LINE, 203.80 FEET, TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF NORTH
DODGE STREET; THENCE S64° 13'01 "W, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 592.68 FEET;
THENCE S640 13' 18 "W, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 27.03 FEET; THENCE S640 13'01 "W,
ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 180.79 FEET; THENCE S25 °46'59 "E, ALONG SAID NORTH
RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 2.00 FEET; THENCE S640 13'01 "W, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE,
39.43 FEET; THENCE S69 °55'40 "W, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 40.20 FEET; THENCE
S64-13'01 "W, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 37.48 FEET; THENCE S88 048'35 "W, ALONG
SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 51.07 FEET; THENCE SO1 °56'19 "E, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -
OF -WAY LINE, 33.08 FEET; THENCE S64° 13'01 "W, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 9.29
FEET, TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF PRAIRIE DU CHIEN ROAD;
THENCE NO l ° 11' 15 "W, ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 319.03 FEET, TO SAID POINT OF
BEGINNING, CONTAINING 5.90 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, AND SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND
RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning
map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and
publication of the ordinance as approved by law.
SECTION III. CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT. The mayor is hereby authorized and directed to
sign, and the City Clerk attest, the Conditional Zoning Agreement between the property owner(s) and the
City, following passage and approval of this Ordinance.
SECTION IV. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the
City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance, and record the same in the
Office of the County Recorder, Johnson County, Iowa, at the Owner's expense, upon the final passage,
approval and publication of this ordinance, as provided by law.
SECTION V. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION VI. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION VII. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval
and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this 3rd day of September , 20_j L_.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
C CLERK"
A prov d by
dP - d'J —
Attorney Rep the City
Ordinance No. 13 -4547
Page 4_
It was moved by Dobyns and seconded by Payne that the
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
NAYS: ABSENT:
Champion
Dickens
Dobyns
Hayek
Mims
Payne
Throgmorton
First Consideration 12/18/2012
Voteforpassage: AYES: Mims, Payne, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns,
Hayek. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration _
Vote for passage:
Hayek. NAYS:
1/8/2013
AYES: Mims, Payne, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns,
Ndne. ABSENT: None.
Date published 911212013
Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356 -5251 (REZ12- 00026)
CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation
(hereinafter "City "), Roberts Dairy Company; L.L.C., an Illinois limited liability company
(hereinafter "Owner ") and Hy -Vee, Inc., an Iowa corporation (hereinafter "Applicant ").
WHEREAS, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 7.37 acres of property
located on the north side of North Dodge Street between Prairie Du Chien Road and North
Dubuque Road; and
WHEREAS, the City owns approximately .42 acres of adjacent property including right -
of -way of St. Clements Street, which the Applicant proposes to purchase; and
WHEREAS, the Owner and Applicant have requested the rezoning of said property from
Medium - Density Single - Family Residential (RS -8), Neighborhood Public (P -1), and Highway
Commercial (CH -1) to Planned Development Overlay /Community Commercial (OPD /CC -2); and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate
conditions regarding redevelopment of the property with a design that is compatible with the
adjacent residential neighborhood, the requested zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan; and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (2011) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose
reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing
regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and
WHEREAS, the Owner and Applicant acknowledge that certain conditions and
restrictions are reasonable to ensure the development of the property is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and the need for compatibility with the North District Plan and the adjacent
residential neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, the Owner and Applicant agree to develop this property in accordance with
the terms and conditions of a Conditional Zoning Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties
agree as follows:
1. Roberts Dairy Company is the legal title holder of the property legally described as:
LFGAL DESCRIPTION (TRACT #2) - REZONE FROM RS -8 TO CC -2
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 14, ST. MATTHIAS SECOND ADDITION, IOWA
CITY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 17, AT PAGE
583, IN THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE SO1 °11'15 "E,
ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 14, A DISTANCE OF 53.36 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE N88 048'45 "E, 10.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, 144.29 FEET, ALONG AN ARC OF A
150.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY, WHOSE 138.79 FOOT CHORD BEARS
N61 ° 15' 18 "E; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, 80.12 FEET, ALONG AN ARC OF A 150.00 FOOT RADIUS
CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, WHOSE 79.17 FOOT CHORD BEARS N49 °00'00 "E; THENCE
N64 °18'08 "E, 150.18 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 14; THENCE SOI °12'11 "E,
ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 27.51 FEET; THENCE N641 1245 "E, 44.86 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE WEST
LINE OF YEGGY'S FIRST ADDITION, IOWA CITY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF
RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 6, AT PAGE 49, IN SAID RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY
RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE N00 041'26 "W, ALONG SAID WEST LINE OF YEGGY'S FIRST ADDITION,
76.28 FEET, TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT B OF SAID YEGGY'S FIRST ADDITION; THENCE
N65 007'33 "E, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT B, 158.32 FEET, TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER
THEREOF; THENCE N00 °36'30 "W, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF LOT C OF SAID YEGGY'S FIRST
ADDITION, AND ITS NORTHERLY PROJECTION THEREOF, 123.75 FEET; THENCE N88 °25'19 "E, 158.03
FEET, TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL 96064, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 44, AT PAGE 325, IN SAID
RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE N88 °48'55 "E, ALONG THE
NORTH LINE OF SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL 96064, A DISTANCE OF 12.29 FEET; THENCE SO1 °11'05 "E,
ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, 157.65 FEET; THENCE S64 °53'24 "W, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF LOT X
OF SAID YEGGY'S FIRST ADDITION, AND ITS EASTERLY PROJECTION THEREOF, 188.89 FEET, TO
THE NORTHWEST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE S65 °38'32 "W, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF LOT Y OF
SAID YEGGY'S FIRST ADDITION, AND ITS WESTERLY PROJECTION THEREOF, 201.58 FEET, TO A
POINT ON THE SAID EAST LINE OF LOT 14 OF ST. MATTHIAS SECOND ADDITION; THENCE
SO °12'11 "E, ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 0.44 FEET; THENCE S64 °12'45 "W, 363.52 FEET, TO A POINT ON
THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 14; THENCE NOI °11'15 "W, ALONG SAID WEST LINE, 32.25 FEET, TO
SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 1.47 ACRE, MORE OR LESS, AND SUBJECT TO
EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (TRACT 431 - RFZONE FROM CH -1 TO CC-2
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 14, ST. MATTHIAS SECOND ADDITION, IOWA
CITY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 17, AT PAGE
583, IN THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE SO1 °11'15 "E,
ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 14, A DISTANCE OF 107.61 FEET, TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING; THENCE N64° 12'45 "E, 123.87 FEET; THENCE SO 1 ° 11'25 "E, 99.09 FEET; THENCE
S25 °58'47 "E, 43.37 FEET; THENCE N64 °13'01 "E, 94.68 FEET; THENCE N01'12'1 I "W, 146.79 FEET; THENCE
N64-12'45 "E, 125.00 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF LOT 14 OF SAID ST. MATTHIAS SECOND
ADDITION; THENCE NO1 °12'11 "W, ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 22.44 FEET; THENCE N65 °38'32 "E, ALONG
THE NORTH LINE OF LOT Y, OF YEGGY'S FIRST ADDITION, IOWA CITY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 6, AT PAGE 49, IN SAID RECORDS OF THE
JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, AND ITS WESTERLY PROJECTION THEREOF, 201.58 FEET,
TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE N64 °53'24 "E, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF LOT X
OF SAID YEGGY'S FIRST ADDITION, AND ITS EASTERLY PROJECTION THEREOF, 188.89 FEET, TO A
POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL 96064, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 44, AT PAGE 325, IN SAID
RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE SO1 °11'05 "E, ALONG SAID
NORTH LINE, 27.69 FEET; THENCE N88 °48'55 "E, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID AUDITOR'S
PARCEL 96064, A DISTANCE OF 12.29 FEET; THENCE S01 11 1'05"E, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, 185.34
FEET; THENCE N88 °48'55 "E, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, 12.29 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE
OF LOT 10 OF ST. MATTHIAS SECOND ADDITION, IOWA CITY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 17, AT PAGE 583, IN SAID RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON
COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE N88 053'07 "E, 193.31 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF
SAID LOT 10 OF ST. MATTHIAS SECOND ADDITION; THENCE SO1 011'05, ALONG SAID EAST LINE,
203.80 FEET, TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF NORTH DODGE
STREET; THENCE S64'13'0 I "W, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 592.68 FEET; THENCE
S64 °13'18 "W, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 27.03 FEET; THENCE S64 °13'01 "W, ALONG
SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 180.79 FEET; THENCE S25 °46'59 "E, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -
OF -WAY LINE, 2.00 FEET; THENCE S64 °13'01 "W, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 39.43
FEET; THENCE S69 055'40 "W, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 40.20 FEET; THENCE
S64 °13'01 "W, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 37.48 FEET; THENCE S88 °48'35 "W, ALONG
SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 51.07 FEET; THENCE SO1 °56'19 "E, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT-
OF-WAY LINE, 33.08 FEET; THENCE S64'13'01 "W, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 9.29
FEET, TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF PRAIRIE DU CHIEN ROAD;
THENCE NOI -I 1'15 "W, ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 319.03 FEET, TO SAID POINT OF
BEGINNING, CONTAINING 5.90 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, AND SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND
RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
2. The City is the legal title holder of the property legally described as:
2
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (TRACT #11- RF.7.0NE FROM P -1 TO CC-2
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 14, ST. MATTHIAS SECOND ADDITION, IOWA �..
CITY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 17, AT PAGE
583, IN THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE SOVI 1'15 "E,
ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 14, A DISTANCE OF 85.61 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE N640 12'45 "E, 363.52 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 14; THENCE
S01 °12'11 "E, ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 22.00 FEET; THENCE S64 °12'45 "W, 125.00 FEET; THENCE
S01 °12'11 "E, 146.79 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 14; THENCE S64 °13'01 "W,
ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, 94.68 FEET; THENCE N25 °58'47 "W, 43.37 FEET; THENCE N019 1'25"W, 99.09
FEET; THENCE S64 °12'45 "W, 123.87 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 14; THENCE
N01-1 1-15"W, ALONG SAID WEST LINE, 22.00 FEET, TO SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING
0.51 ACRE, MORE OR LESS, AND SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
3. The Owner and Applicant acknowledge that the City wishes to ensure conformance to
the principles of the Comprehensive Plan and the North District Plan. Further, the parties
acknowledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (2011) provides that the City of Iowa City may
impose reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and
above the existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested
change.
4. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owner and Applicant agree
that development of the subject property will conform to all other requirements of the
zoning chapter, as well as the following conditions:
A) A buffer area generally consistent with the attached plan shall be
established along the western property line of the parcel rezoned to CC -2. This
buffer must be screened to the S3 standard. Wherever the buffer area is less
than 35 feet a masonry wall shall be provided consistent with the attached plan.
B) No signs shall be permitted within the 35 foot buffer, or on the north
and /or west sides of the convenience store facing the residential development,
except for a monument sign at the intersection of Dodge Street and Prairie Du
Chien Road. There will be no more than two (2) free - standing signs permitted
along the Dodge Street frontage. Other fascia and monument signs are permitted
as per the code.
C) Any building or structure including canopies shall be of a quality design
appropriate for property abutting a residential neighborhood, including features
such as stone and masonry materials, standing seam metal roofs, and muted
colors. The design of any buildings as well as associated structures and facilities
must be presented to and approved by the Design Review Committee prior to the
City issuing a building permit.
D) Existing evergreen screening and mature trees will be preserved along
the northwest side of the property where possible.
E) A bus pull off, the design of which must be approved by the City
Engineer, shall be constructed by the Applicant within the Dodge Street right -of-
way.
F) Development and landscaping shall be generally consistent with the
attached plan.
G) A parapet wall shall be provided on the northwest wall of the
3
grocery store to buffer roof top equipment.
5. The Owner and Applicant, and City acknowledge that the conditions contained herein
are reasonable conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (2011), and
that said conditions satisfy public needs that are caused by the requested zoning
change.
6. The Owner and Applicant, and City acknowledge that in the event the subject property is
transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all redevelopment will conform with the
terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement.
7. The parties acknowledge that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be
a covenant running with the land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force
and effect as a covenant with title to the land, unless or until released of record by the
City of Iowa City.
8. The parties further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind
all successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties.
9. The Owner and Applicant acknowledge that nothing in this Conditional Zoning
Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner or Applicant from complying with all
other applicable local, state, and federal regulations.
10. The parties agree that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by
reference into the ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and
publication of the ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County
Recorder's Office at the Applicant's expense.
11. This Agreement may be executed in two (2) or more counterparts, each of which shall
be deemed an original, but all of which taken together shall form one and the same
agreement. For purposes of executing and delivering this Agreement, a facsimile or
scanned and emailed signature shall be as effective as an original signature.
Dated this 50t day of .=+, 20 13.
City:
CITY OF IOWA CITY
,Q� /1%.
Matthew Hayek, Mayor
Attest:
X
Mari K. Karr, City Clerk
4
Approved by:
Attorney Representing the City
CITY OF IOWA CITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
This instrument was acknowledged before me on ' ' !' 3 , 2013by Matthew Hayek
and Marian K. Karr as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City.
/eu r,Le- k /
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
(Stamp or Seal)
Title (and Rank)
:i
o �'t s KELLIE K. TUTTLE
z Commission Number 221819
My Co issi n ires
IOWA
Owner:
Roberts Dairy Company, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company
By:
Its: Partner
STATE OF COUNTY OF cz: - , ss:
This instment was acknowledgeA.before me 09 /8 by
as-s%Gu of obe Dairy Company, LLC,
an Illinoit limitdd 40MV company.
tarry Pu lic
JOHN M. ALDREryD
r4N MISSOURI al
�blld
ene County
shy iummillsion Expires Mov. 5, 2015
µ:,we'; leebn e11460004
Applicant:
Hy -Vee, Inc., an Iowa corporation
Anthony - McCann, Sr. Vice President
By:�
&!+k"-' A RfK (print name)
Its: Asi tvk -t Stec{ ar �
STATE OF IOWA, COUNTY OF POLK, ss
On this 15+1- day of Peu.4 --6r , 2012, before me, the undersigned, a Notary
Public in and for the state of Iowa, personally appeared Anthony McCann and
j1,b„-t�ah Wiev% , to me personally known, who being by me duly sworn did say that
they are the Sr. Vice President and AWs(x,l- 5tctA4v r , respectively, of Hy -Vee, Inc., an Iowa
corporation, that the instrument to which this is attached was signed on behalf of said corporation
by authority of its Board of Directors; and that the said Anthony McCann and
AAA- -,. A1(tK as such off,
be the voluntary act and deed of said corpo
acknowledged the execution of said instrument to
n, by it and
MAT ANA D. MASSMAN Not'a'ry P blic in and for
MISSION NO. 154M State o owa
r-1
7
ntarily executed.
A
(D
.i
0
w �-y -- Right of N;tt
a
CD (ro
N
0 CD
cP
x
m
v
O
Ql
� � a.
O �
m
n
d y
U N
CD
o
F a'
w
c'
-- — Rightof Way
P
T
O
6
� � a.
O �
m
n
d y
U N
F a'
� � a.
n
d y
U N
F a'
w
c'
w
b
-- — Right of Way
U
b
y
-- Right of Way
m
V)
R
C d
� O
n
CD CD
CD
o
C
is
a
w
b
-- — Right of Way
U
b
y
Building coma
m
A O
R
Building coma
\ rs.
oar
\ GI
0
- - - - -- - - - --
M.
V,
m
X
TV
;I
Z� r
fir,
QRaS.< �+ .rsRYi y O V * O4a
o;°O
>ma�
y D
°F
m
RR
Hill, ?�i!
�pp�ep¢p9��1FM �
ll
N ~
0
m
i
o z
V Jl —1
O
�
��m
N
O O
z:1N
/
N 9
D A
F
\
s9r
V N D
\
1S 1N3W3-10 '1S
s p m
lnz
O O m<
� O
S F
� C �
V
m O D
o z O
yp DA
<
b�
mm
y
mzpz
mzg
M.
V,
m
X
TV
;I
Z� r
fir,
QRaS.< �+ .rsRYi y O V * O4a
o;°O
>ma�
y D
°F
m
RR
Hill, ?�i!
�pp�ep¢p9��1FM �
ll
N ~
0
m
i
o z
V Jl —1
O
�
��m
N
O O
z:1N
/
N 9
D A
F
O
<
i m
lnz
O O m<
1 1
S F
� C �
V
m O D
o z O
yp DA
<
mm
y
i3W a f f f o DyD <
oz i
m ={ $$E$$ g
;I
m
m
fir,
QRaS.< �+ .rsRYi y O V * O4a
yg�yg 1I I !
m
RR
Hill, ?�i!
�pp�ep¢p9��1FM �
ll
�A g1 g!
011161r i lio
0
m
i
r'j�Rj��jy��
N
i3W a f f f o DyD <
oz i
m ={ $$E$$ g
5g
Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5240
ORDINANCE NO. 13 -4548
AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF ST. CLEMENT STREET. (VAC12- 00005)
WHEREAS, the applicant, Hy -Vee Food Stores, Inc., has requested that the City vacate a portion of St.
Clement Street right -of -way located between 1109 and 1123 N. Dodge Street, the site of Roberts Dairy; and
WHEREAS, an alternative access will be provided to the nine residential properties located north of this
right -of -way requested for vacation via a newly dedicated St. Clement Street to be located within property to
the north of the dairy; and
WHEREAS, the relocated street will provide a defined and safe access to residential properties located
to the north, and provide access to the proposed grocery and convenience stores adjacent to the right -of -way
being dedicated; and
WHEREAS, it is in the City's interest to vacate and dispose of public right -of -way, or portions thereof, that
will no longer be necessary for public access; and
WHEREAS, easements will be retained for existing utilities or utilities will be relocated at the applicants
expense; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended vacation of this portion of this right -of-
way subject to relocation of utilities or the retention of necessary easements, and dedication of an alternative
street right -of -way.
WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a preliminary plat of the Roberts Dairy Addition, which includes
an acceptable alternative location for St. Clement Street.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I. VACATION. Subject to relocation of utilities or the retention of necessary easements and
dedication of an alternative street right -of -way acceptable to the City, the City of Iowa City hereby vacates the
portion of the St. Clement Street right -of -way legally described as follows:
Beginning at the Northwest Corner of Lot 5 of Block 2 in St. Matthias 2nd Addition to Iowa City, Johnson
County, Iowa, in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Book 16, at Page 406, of the Records of
the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence S01 °12'11 "E, along the East Line of St. Clement Street,
142.54 feet, to a point on the North Line of the Tract of Land conveyed by Quit Claim Deed, as Recorded
in Book 3398 at Page 124 of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence
S64 °13'18 "W, 27.03 feet, to the intersection of the West Line of St. Clement Street and the Northerly
Line of the Tract of Land Condemned by Proceedings Recorded in Book 3695, at Page 874, of the
Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence N01 °12'11 "W, along said West Line, 363.94
feet; Thence N64 012'45 "E, to a Point on the West Line of Lot A of Yeggy's First Addition, in accordance
with the Plat thereof Recorded in Plat Book 6, at Page 49, of the Records of the Johnson County
Recorder's Office; Thence S00 041'26 "E, along said West Line of Lot A, a distance of 31.52 feet, to the
Southwest Corner thereof and a Point on the North Line of Lot Y of said Yeggy's First Addition; Thence
S65 038'32 "W, along said North Line, 17.33 feet, to the Northwest Corner of said Lot Y, and a point on the
East Line of St. Clement Street; Thence S01 °12'11" E, along said East Line, 190.49 feet, to the Point of
Beginning. Said Right -of -Way Vacation Parcel contains 9,446 square feet (0.22 Acre) and is subject to
easements and restrictions of record.
SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed .
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and
publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this 3rd day of September , 2013:.
Ordinance No. 13 -4548
Page 2
/j
MAYOR: Matthew Hayek
ATTEST: ��fiLL,i
CI kCLERK
Ap rove b
A-,�--r- a4,�l
Attorney Represen ' the City
Ordinance No. 13 -4548
Page 3
It was moved by Mims and seconded by Payne that the
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
W/03
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
First Consideration
Vote for passage:
Mims.
Champion
Dickens
Dobyns
Hayek
Mims
Payne
Throgmorton
12/18/2012
Payne, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns, Hayek,
NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration 1/8/2013
Vote for passage: AYES: Payne, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns, Hayek,
Mims. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Date published 9/12/2013
0909e�
6
Prepared by: Eric Goers, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 -356 -5030
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9, MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC, CHAPTER 5, PARKING
METER ZONES AND PARKING LOTS, SECTION 4, USE OF PARKING LOTS: TO ASSIGN THE
CITY MANAGER, OR DESIGNEE, THE RESPONSIBILITY AND AUTHORITY TO SET THE DAYS
AND TIMES FOR WHICH A FEE MAY BE CHARGED, AS WELL AS THE LENGTH OF TIME A
VEHICLE MAY BE PARKED, IN CITY LOTS.
WHEREAS, under current law, City Council is responsible for setting, by resolution, the "times during
the day or night, the length of time that a vehicle may be parked and the days in which a fee shall be
charged'; and
WHEREAS, City Council wishes to assign the responsibility for setting those matters to the City
Manager, or designee; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to adopt this amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I. AMENDMENTS.
TITLE 9, MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC, CHAPTER 5, PARKING METER ZONES AND
PARKING LOTS, SECTION 4, USE OF PARKING LOTS:, PARAGRAPH A. FEES, SUBPARAGRAPH 2
is hereby amended by deleting the language, "resolution of the city council." in the 2nd sentence and
replacing it with the following language: "the City Manager or designee."
SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of
this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be effective upon publication.
Passed and approved this day of 12013.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Approved by
City Attorney's Office
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by _
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Champion
Dickens
Dobyns
Hayek
Mims
Payne
Throgmorton
that the
First Consideration 8/20/2013
Voteforpassage: AYES: Mims,Payne, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns,
Hayek. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration 9/03/2013
Voteforpassage: AYES: Payne, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns, Hayek,
Mims. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Date published
Prepared by: Susan Dulek, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5030
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 8, ENTITLED "POLICE REGULATIONS," CHAPTER
5, ENTITLED "MISCELLANEOUS OFFENSES," TO LIMIT STORING PERSONAL
PROPERTY ON RIGHT OF WAY, TO PROHIBIT SOLICITING BY PARKING METERS
AND AT CITY PLAZA ENTRANCES, TO PROHIBIT LYING ON ELEVATED
PLANTERS, TO PROHIBIT LYING ON BENCHES DURING CERTAIN HOURS, AND TO
RESTRICT USING ELECTRICAL OUTLETS.
WHEREAS, the City has an interest in the free flow of pedestrian traffic;
WHEREAS, public sidewalks are created and maintained for the primary purposes of enabling
pedestrians to safely and effectively move about from place to place, facilitating deliveries of goods and
services, and providing potential customers with convenient access to goods and services;
WHEREAS, City Plaza is a small space that is used by thousands of people every day for a multitude
of purposes in addition to a pedestrian walkway such as entertainment (listening to Friday Night Concert
Series), commercial (eating at a sidewalk cafes), recreational (playing on the playground equipment),
leisure (reading at a bench), and political (gathering for a demonstration);
WHEREAS, because of the limited space within the City Plaza, regulating its use based on time,
place, and manner is necessary in order to ensure continued diverse and active use by the public:
WHEREAS, the purpose of right of way is not to store private property;
WHEREAS, the storage of private property on public right of way in the downtown impedes
pedestrian, bicycle, and wheelchair traffic;
WHEREAS, additionally the storage of private property on public right of way in the downtown poses
health and safety risks to City staff and the public and is not aesthetically pleasing;
WHEREAS, lying in or on the large planters in City Plaza and on the downtown sidewalks prevents
others from sitting on them and damages the vegetation;
WHEREAS, the small planters on the downtown sidewalks are not designed to be used to lie or sit
on, and when people lie and sit on them, it impedes pedestrian traffic and damages the vegetation;
WHEREAS, the demand for benches decreases by 10:00 pm, in part, because stores are closed, the
Friday and Saturday Night Concerts are over, and the Iowa City Public Library is closed;
WHEREAS, City staff begin cleaning City Plaza at 6:00 am;
WHEREAS, the existing electrical system in the downtown is inadequate to meet the needs for many
public and special event purposes; and when individuals plug chargers and other electronic devices into
the outlets, it can cause shortages that compromise public uses of the system and can create problems
for organizers of permitted events and mobile vendors who pay a fee to utilize the City's electrical
network;
WHEREAS, a confined, unwilling, and captive audience is susceptible to undue intimidation,
pressure, and harassment from solicitors;
WHEREAS, aggressive solicitation is disturbing and disruptive to citizens and businesses, contributes
to the loss of access to and enjoyment of public places and also enhances the sense of fear, intimidation
and disorder;
WHEREAS, the City has an interest in protecting persons from intimidation and harassment, an
interest in public safety, and an interest in the free flow of pedestrian traffic;
WHEREAS, this ordinance is not intended to limit any person from exercising their constitutional right
to solicit funds, picket, protest or engage in other constitutionally protected activity but rather its goal is to
protect citizens from the fear and intimidation that accompany certain kinds of solicitation that are
unwelcome, to ensure the free flow of pedestrian traffic, and to encourage economic vitality; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 12 -02, the City's Strategic Plan, adopted the following priority: It is the
City' s goal to promote growth of the Downtown and Near Downtown areas in a manner that builds upon
the existing vibrancy of the region, serves persons of all ages and backgrounds, and compliments the
surrounding neighborhoods and University community;
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 99 -337 approved the Central Business District Urban Revitalization Plan
and Ordinance No. 99 -3900 designated the Central Business District;
WHEREAS, the primary objective of the Central Business District Urban Revitalization Plan is to
encourage the revitalization of commercial activity and the reuse of history and architecturally significant
structures;
Ordinance No.
Page 2
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 99 -353 approved the Near Southside Commercial Urban Revitalization
Plan, and Ordinance No. 94 -3657 designated the Near Southside Commercial Urban Revitalization Area;
WHEREAS, the primary objective of the Near Southside Commercial Revitalization Plan is to
encourage commercial use and the reuse of historic and architecturally significant structures;
WHEREAS, the objectives of the Northside Marketplace Streetscape Master Plan include providing a
safe and inviting experience for residents and visitors and reintroducing the area as an exciting and
essential part of Iowa City; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance furthers the health, safety and welfare of the City, and it is in the best
interest of the City to adopt this ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I. AMENDMENTS.
1. Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations," Chapter 5, entitled "Miscellaneous Offenses," Section 2,
entitled "Aggressive Solicitation," Subsection B, entitled 'Illegal Activities," is amended by adding the
following new Subsections 1 h and 1 is
h. To solicit at the north, east and west entrances to City Plaza as defined as the areas bounded by:
North Entrance
East: Building line of the northwest corner of 207 E. Washington Street extended north to
the curb
North: Curb line
West: Building line of the northeast corner of 101 S. Dubuque Street extended north to the
curb
South: City Plaza and $Iack.Hawk Mini -Park
East Entrance
East: Curb line
North: Building line of the southeast corner of the Iowa City Public Library extended east to
the curb
West: City Plaza
South: Building line of the northeast corner of 221 E. College Street extended east to the
curb
West Entrance
East: City Plaza
North: Building line of southwest corner of 132 S. Clinton Street extended west to the curb
West: Curb line
South: Building line of northwest corner of 103 E. College Street extended west to the curb
To solicit on the following sidewalks with parking meters:
0 -99 block of S. Linn Street – east side
0 -99 block of S. Linn Street —west side between the alley and Iowa Avenue
100 block of S. Linn Street - -east side
100 block of S. Linn Street —west side between the alley and Washington Street
0 -99 block of S. Dubuque Street —west side
100 block S. Clinton Street –east side between the north property line of 18 S. Clinton Street and
Iowa Avenue
100 block E. Washington Street —north side between the east property line of 110 E. Washington
and Dubuque Street
200 block of E. Washington Street —south side
100 block of Iowa Avenue - -south side
200 block of Iowa Avenue —south side
2. Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations, Chapter 5 entitled "Miscellaneous Offenses," Section 10,
entitled "Sitting and Lying on Sidewalks," is amended by adding the following new sentence to the end of
Subsection 10A:
No person shall sit or lie on or in an elevated planter or public amenity located on the public right of
way in the downtown or on a blanket, chair, stool, or any other object placed on or in an elevated planter
or public amenity.
Ordinance No.
Page 3
3. Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations, Chapter 5 entitled "Miscellaneous Offenses," Section 10,
entitled "Sitting and Lying on Sidewalks," is amended by deleting Paragraph 1e of Subsection 10A in its
entirety and substituting in lieu thereof the following new Paragraph 1e and by adding the following new
Paragraphs 1g and 1h:
e. A person sitting on a bench.
g. A person lying on a bench between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m.
h. A person sitting on the border of an elevated planter that is greater than 12 inches in height.
4. Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations, Chapter 5 entitled "Miscellaneous Offenses," Section 10,
entitled "Sitting and Lying on Sidewalks," is amended by adding a new sentence to the end of subsection
A(1)(a) as follows: This exception shall not apply to the prohibition against sitting or lying in an elevated
planter.
5. Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations, Chapter 5 entitled "Miscellaneous Offenses," Section 10,
entitled "Sitting and Lying on Sidewalks," is amended by adding the following new definition to
Subsection 10C:
Public amenity means bench, table, trash receptacle, public art, bike rack, water spigot, kiosk, posting
pillar, and pergola.
6. Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations, Chapter 5 entitled "Miscellaneous Offenses," is amended by
adding the following new Section 14, entitled "Storage of Property ":
A. Definitions.
(1) Downtown means the Central Business District, the Near Southside Commercial Area, and the
Northside Marketplace Area as illustrated on the map in Section 8 -5 -2 of this Code.
(2) Public amenity means bench, table, trash receptacle, public art, bike rack, water spigot,
kiosk, posting pillar, and pergola.
(3) Shopping cart means a basket which is mounted on wheels, or a similar device, provided by
the operator of a commercial establishment for the use of customers for the purpose of transporting
goods of any kind. A shopping cart sold typically by a commercial establishment to a retail customer,
designed for that customer's personal use, and being used by that customer to transport goods
temporarily is not a shopping cart for the purposes of this section.
(4) Store or stored means to place, store, park, display, locate or set an item on the right of way
in the downtown.
B. Tree Rings /Planters /Public Amenity. No person shall store an item of personal property on a tree
ring, on or in an elevated planter, or on or in a public amenity in the downtown. This provision shall not
apply to property on a bench that is stored for less than 2 hours in any 24 -hour period and that does not
have a footprint greater than 4 square feet. Moving the unlawfully stored item to another location on
public right of way or onto another bench does not toll the 2 hour limitation.
C. Right of Way. No person shall store an item of personal property on the right of way in the
downtown. This provision shall not apply to:
(1) A person who has a permit issued by the City.
(2) An item that is stored for less than 2 hours in any 24 -hour period, that does not have a
footprint greater than 4 square feet, that does not impede the flow of pedestrian traffic, and that does not
restrict access to a public amenity. Moving the unlawfully stored item to another location on public right of
way or onto a bench does not toll the 2 hour limitation.
(3) An item that is designed and being used to transport a child, such as a stroller or a bicycle
trailer.
(4) An item that is being used to transport a child, such as a wagon.
(5) A wheelchair or similar device designed for a person with disabilities that is being used by a
person who needs such a device.
(6) A bicycle parked in a bicycle rack.
D. Shopping Carts. Shopping carts are prohibited on the right of way in the downtown unless the
area of the bottom of the basket, or both baskets combined if the cart has two baskets, is less than 300
square inches.
E. Unattended Personal Property. (1) Unattended personal property located on the right of way in
the downtown, including on a bench, may be seized. Personal property is unattended if the property
owner, or a person whom the owner has authorized to care for the property, is not within 20 feet of the
property.
(2) This provision shall not apply to the property of persons who accompany children using the
playground equipment located south of the public library or to a bicycle parked in a bicycle rack.
Ordinance No.
Page 4
(3) Except as provided herein, if property is seized, a written notice shall be left at the location of the
unattended property that will provide the owner the opportunity to reclaim the property. The reclaim
procedure shall be adopted by resolution of the City Council. No property shall be destroyed until the
owner has been accorded notice that the property has been seized and the opportunity to reclaim the
property pursuant to the reclaim procedure.
(4) Property, whether attended or unattended, may be seized without notice provided to the owner if
it presents an immediate threat to public health or safety, is evidence of a crime, or is contraband. Such
property may be destroyed without notice and opportunity for the owner to reclaim if the property presents
an immediate threat to public health or safety.
E. Verbal Notification. No person shall be cited under this section unless the person engages in
conduct after having been notified by a peace officer that the conduct violates the City ordinance.
7. Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations, Chapter 5 entitled "Miscellaneous Offenses," is amended by
adding the following new Section 15, entitled "Electrical Outlets ":
A. Except by written permission, no person shall use an electrical outlet located on the right of way in
the downtown. Downtown means the Central Business District, the Near Southside Commercial Area, and
the Northside Marketplace Area as illustrated on the map in Section 8 -5 -2 of this Code.
B. No person shall be cited under this section unless the person engages in conduct after having been
notified by a peace officer that the conduct violates the City ordinance.
SECTION II. VIOLATION. Any violation of this ordinance shall be considered a simple misdemeanor
and punished by a fine of $65.00 or a municipal infraction.
SECTION III. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION IV. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION V. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and
publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of 12013.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
tZed b
t4�� _ a
? - ?W -(3
City Attorney's Office
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Champion
Dickens
Dobyns
Hayek
Mims
Payne
Throgmorton
that the
First Consideration 8/20/2013
Vote for passage: AYES: Payne, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns, Hayek, Mims.
NAYS: Throgmorton. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration 9/03/2013
Voteforpassage: AYES: Hayek, Payne, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns,
NAYS: Mims, Throgmorton. ABSENT: None.
Date published
Prepared by: Susan Dulek, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5030
ORDINANCE NO.
DINANCE AMENDING TITLE 8, ENTITLED "POLICE REGULATIO ," CHAPTER
5, NTITLED "MISCELLANEOUS OFFENSES," TO LIMIT STO G PERSONAL
PRO`IRf RTY ON RIGHT OF WAY, TO PROHIBIT SOLICITING BY ARKING METERS
AND T CITY PLAZA ENTRANCES, TO PROHIBIT L G ON ELEVATED
PLANTE S, TO PROHIBIT LYING ON BENCHES DURING C TAIN HOURS, AND TO
RESTRIC SING ELECTRICAL OUTLETS.
WHEREAS, the Cit has an interest in the free flow of pedestrA traffic;
WHEREAS, publics ewalks are created and maintained/for the primary purposes of enabling
pedestrians to safely and a ctively move about from place t place, facilitating deliveries of goods and
services, and providing poten I customers with convenient a cess to goods and services;
WHEREAS, City Plaza is a all space that is used by ousands of people every day for a multitude
of purposes in addition to a pede ian walkway such as tertainment (listening to Friday Night Concert
Series), commercial (eating at a si ewalk cafes), recr tional (playing on the playground equipment),
leisure (reading at a bench), and politi I (gathering for demonstration);
WHEREAS, because of the limite space withi the City Plaza, regulating its use based on time,
place, and manner is necessary in order t ensure c tinued diverse and active use by the public:
WHEREAS, the purpose of right of wa .s not store private property;
WHEREAS, the storage of private pro ert on public right of way in the downtown impedes
pedestrian, bicycle, and wheelchair traffic;
WHEREAS, additionally the storage of priv t property on public right of way in the downtown poses
health and safety risks to City staff and the pu is a is not aesthetically pleasing;
WHEREAS, lying in or on the large pla ers in 'ty Plaza and on the downtown sidewalks prevents
others from sitting on them and damages th vegetatio
WHEREAS, the small planters on the downtown si walks are not designed to be used to lie or sit
on, and when people lie and sit on them, ' impedes pedes ian traffic and damages the vegetation;
WHEREAS, the demand for benche decreases by 10: pm, in part, because stores are closed, the
Friday and Saturday Night Concerts ar over, and the Iowa Ci Public Library is closed;
WHEREAS, City staff begin clean' g City Plaza at 6:00 am;
WHEREAS, the existing electric system in the downtown is adequate to meet the needs for many
public and special event purposes; d when individuals plug charg rs and other electronic devices into
the outlets, it can cause shortages at compromise public uses of th system and can create problems
for organizers of permitted events nd mobile vendors who pay a fee t utilize the City's electrical
network;
WHEREAS, a confined, u willing, and captive audience is sus ptible to undue intimidation,
pressure, and harassment from olicitors;
WHEREAS, aggressive so citation is disturbing and disruptive to citizens nd businesses, contributes
to the loss of access to and a joyment of public places and also enhances th sense of fear, intimidation
and disorder;
WHEREAS, the City h an interest in protecting persons from intimidate and harassment, an
interest in public safety, and an interest in the free flow of pedestrian traffic;
WHEREAS, this ordina ce is not intended to limit any person from exercising their constitutional right
to solicit funds, picket, pro st or engage in other constitutionally protected activity but rather its goal is to
protect citizens from thei fear and intimidation that accompany certain kinds of solicitation that are
unwelcome, to ensure th free flow of pedestrian traffic, and to encourage economic vitality; and
WHEREAS, Resolu on No. 12 -02, the City's Strategic Plan, adopted the following priority: It is the
City' s goal to promote rowth of the Downtown and Near Downtown areas in a manner that builds upon
the existing vibrancy f the region, serves persons of all ages and backgrounds, and compliments the
surrounding neighbor oods and University community;
WHEREAS, Reso ution No. 99 -337 approved the Central Business District Urban Revitalization Plan
and Ordinance No. 99 -3900 designated the Central Business District;
WHEREAS, the primary objective of the Central Business District Urban Revitalization Plan is to
encourage the revitalization of commercial activity and the reuse of history and architecturally significant
structures;
Ordinance No.
Page 2
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 99 -353 approved the Near Southside Commercial Urban Revitalization
Plan, and Ordinance No. 94 -3657 designated the Near Southside Commercial Urban Revitalization Area;
WHEREAS, the primary objective of the Near Southside Commercial Revitalization Plan is to
encourage commercial use and the reuse of historic and architecturally significant structures;
WHEREAS, the objectives of the Northside Marketplace Streetscape Mas r Plan include providing a
safe and inviting experience for residents and visitors and reintroducing a area as an exciting and
essential part of Iowa City; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance furthers t health, safety and welfare f the City, and it is in the best
interest of the City to adopt this ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINE BY THE CITY COUNCI OF THE CITY OF CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I. AMENDMENTS.
1. Title 8, entitled "Police Regulation ," Chapter 5, entitle "Miscellaneous Offenses," Section 2,
entitled "Aggressive Solicitation," Subsecti n B, entitled "Illeg I Activities," is amended by adding the
following new Subsections 1 h and 1 is
h. To solicit at the north, east and west a rances to City aza as defined as the areas bounded by:
North Entrance
East:
Building line of the northw
North:
the curb
North:
Curb line
West:
Building line of the northea
South:
curb
South:
City Plaza and Black Hawk
East Entrance
East:
Curb line
North:
Building line of the
West:
the curb
West:
City Plaza
South:
Building line of the
curb
West Entrance
East:
City Plaza
North:
Building line of
West:
Curb line
South:
Building line fSf
207 E. Washington Street extended north to
of 101 S. Dubuque Street extended north to the
of the Iowa City Public Library extended east to
of 221 E. College Street extended east to the
corner of 132 S. Clinton Street extended west to the curb
northwest corner of 1 Ci E. College Street extended west to the curb
To solicit on the fol lowi n sidewalks with parking met s:
0 -99 block of S. Linn 'Weet – east side
0 -99 block of S. Linn/Street—west side between the a ey
100 block of S. Lin Street - -east side
100 block of S. Lio Street —west side between the alle
0 -99 block of S. 171ubuque Street —west side
100 block S. Cli ton Street –east side between the north
Iowa Aven e
100 block E. ashington Street —north side between the
and Dub que Street
200 block of . Washington Street —south side
100 block of owa Avenue - -south side
200 block of Iowa Avenue —south side
and Iowa Avenue
and Washington Street
perty line of 18 S. Clinton Street and
property line of 110 E. Washington
2. Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations, Chapter 5 entitled "Miscell eous Offenses," Section 10,
entitled "Sitting and Lying on Sidewalks," is amended by adding the followi g new sentence to the end of
Subsection 10A:
No person shall sit or lie on or in an elevated planter or public amenity located on the public right of
way in the downtown or on a blanket, chair, stool, or any other object placed on or in an elevated planter
or public amenity.
Ordinance No.
Page 3
3. Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations, Chapter 5 entitled "Miscellaneous Offenses," Section 10,
entitled "Sitting and Lying on Sidewalks," is amended by deleting Paragraph 1e of Subsection 10A in its
entirety and substituting in lieu thereof the following new Paragraph 1e and by adding the following new
Paragraphs 1g and 1h:
e. A person sitting on a bench.
g. A person lying on a bench between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. /
h. A person sitting on the border of an elevated planter that is greater than 12,4nches in height.
4. Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations, Cht
entitled "Sitting and Lying on Sidewalks," is amen
10C:
Public amenity means bench, table, trash rec
pillar, and pergola.
5. Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations, Chapter
adding the following new Section 14, entitled "Storag
A. Definitions.
(1) Downtown means the Central Business E
Northside Marketplace Area as illustrated on the map i
(2) Public amenity means bench, table, trE
kiosk, posting pillar, and pergola.
(3) Shopping cart means a basket which is i
the operator of a commercial establishment for the
goods of any kind. A shopping cart sold typically
designed for that customer's personal use, and
5 entitled "Miscellar 6ous Offenses," Section 10,
by adding the followigg new definition to Subsection
public art, biV rack, water spigot, kiosk, posting
5 entitled "Y.: cellaneous Offenses," is amended by
of Prooert
6 Near Southside Commercial Area, and the
18 -5 -2 of this Code.
ptacle, public art, bike rack, water spigot,
nted on wheels, or a similar device, provided by
of customers for the purpose of transporting
commercial establishment to a retail customer,
g used by that customer to transport goods
temporarily is not a shopping cart for the purposes f this section.
(4) Store or stored means to place, stor , park, isplay, locate or set an item on the right of way
in the downtown.
B. Tree Rings /Planters /Public Amenity. o person s
ring, on or in an elevated planter, or on or in a public am
apply to property on a bench that is stored r less than 2
have a footprint greater than 4 square fe t. Moving the
public right of way or onto another bench oes not toll the 2
C. Right of Way. No person shall store an item of
downtown. This provision shall not app to:
(1) A person who has a perm issued by the City.
(2) An item that is stored f r less than 2 hours in
footprint greater than 4 square feet, hat does not impede the
restrict access to a public amenity. oving the unlawfully stor
way or onto a bench does not toll e 2 hour limitation.
(3) An item that is desi ed and being used to trap;
trailer.
(4) An item that is bei used to transport a child, such as \a wagon.
(5) A wheelchair or si ilar device designed for a person vkith disabilities that is being used by a
person who needs such a de ice.
(6) A bicycle parke in a bicycle rack.
D. Shopping Carts. opping carts are prohibited on the right f way in the downtown unless the
area of the bottom of the asket, or both baskets combined if the ca has two baskets, is less than 300
square inches.
II store an item of personal property on a tree
ity in the downtown. This provision shall not
curs in any 24 -hour period and that does not
nlawfully stored item to another location on
lour limitation.
property on the right of way in the
✓ 24 -hour period, that does not have a
w of pedestrian traffic, and that does not
item to another location on public right of
a child, such as a stroller or a bicycle
E. Unattended Per onal Property. (1) Unattended personal prope y located on the right of way in
the downtown, includi on a bench, may be seized. Personal propellYis unattended if the property
owner, or a person w om the owner has authorized to care for the prop y, is not within 20 feet of the
property.
(2) This provision shalt not apply to the property of persons who acbompany children using the
playground equipment located south of the public library or to a bicycle parked in a bicycle rack.
(3) Except as provided herein, if property is seized, a written notice shall be left at the location of the
unattended property that will provide the owner the opportunity to reclaim the property. The reclaim
procedure shall be adopted by resolution of the City Council. No property shall be destroyed until the
owner has been accorded notice that the property has been seized and the opportunity to reclaim the
property pursuant to the reclaim procedure.
Ordinance No.
Page 4
(4) Property, whether attended or unattended, may be seized without notice provided to the owner if
it presents an immediate threat to public health or safety, is evidence of a crime, or is con raband. Such
property may be destroyed without notice and opportunity for the owner to reclaim if the pr perty presents
an immediate threat to public health or safety.
E. Verbal Notification. No person sha cited under this section unless the p rson engages in
conduct after having been notified by a pea a officer that the conduct violates the City o finance.
6. Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations, Chapter 5 entitled "Misc/Sohside nses," is amended by
adding the following new Section 15, entitled "Electrical Outlets ":
A. Except by written permission, no pers n shall use an electricd on the right of way in
the downtown. Downtown means the Central usiness District, the N Commercial Area, and
the Northside Marketplace Area as illustrated o the map in Section 8 -e.
B. No person shall be cited under this sect n unless the person nduct after having been
notified by a peace officer that the conduct violat s the City ordinance.
SECTION II. VIOLATION. Any violation of f
and punished by a fine of $65.00 or a municipal i
SECTION III. REPEALER. All ordinances ar
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION IV. SEVERABILITY. If any section,
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invs
SECTION V. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordine
publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Approved by
City Attorney's Office
is ordinance sho be considered a simple misdemeanor
parts of orXinances in conflict with the provision of this
or
it part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
I be in effect after its final passage, approval and
2013.
Marian Karr
From:
Holden, Palmer J <pholden @iastate.edu>
Sent:
Wednesday, August 21, 2013 8:57 AM
To:
Council
Subject:
Ped Mall
A friend told me that Sunday evening he, his wife and two children entered the Ped Mall from the north and were
verbally accosted three times for money.
Would you bring your children there?
Palmer Holden
15 Mary Court
Iowa City, IA 52245
515 - 231 -5543
Marian Karr
From: David Rust <headwave @aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 2:42 PM
To: Council
Subject: Ped Mall Ordnance
Dear City Counselors,
We have been paying close attention to the proposed Ped Mall ordinances and the discussion
surrounding them. It seems to us the proposal is a misguided response to concerns that have
been raised. Council persons quoted in today's PC allege that drug use, consumption of alcohol in
a public place, masturbation and sexual intercourse are all occurring on the Ped Mall. Why aren't
existing laws being used to address those behaviors? Why will this proposal be effective if
existing laws are not? Will the proposals be enforceable? It seems to us that this is an effort
to profile a group of homeless and /or mentally ill people rather than deal with them as
individuals.
We have lived near downtown Iowa City for 30 years. Unlike residents who rarely go downtown
but often complain about downtown, we continue to shop downtown and walk through the Ped
Mall several times a week at various times of the day and night. We have never encountered a
situation that made us afraid. We do recognize that homelessness and the inadequacy of mental
health care are an increasingly evident problem in Iowa City just are they are across the
country. The proposed ordinances do nothing to address these concerns.
Like others in the community who love downtown Iowa City, we support efforts to make it more
attractive, vibrant and economically rewarding for businesses. We think it is possible that many
think this proposal will somehow help with that effort. We're not interested in an homogenized
and exclusive downtown that fails to welcome all citizens.
Vote this proposal down. Apply existing laws. Avoid profiling entire groups because you find
them distasteful. Engage with individuals whose behavior concerns you either personally or
through existing laws and processes.
David Rust and Joy Smith
915 E. Bloomington Street
i
Marian Karr
From: Briggs, Michael <michael- briggs @uiowa.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 3:57 PM
To: Council
Subject: downtown Iowa City
My spouse and I live on the east side of Iowa City. We haven't spent any significant time downtown in at least
6 years. The last time we went downtown for anything was this past spring (Spring, 2013) to make a quick stop
at Herteen and Stocker. Leaning against the Jefferson building along Washington Street were 3 individuals in
disheveled clothing. One asked if we had any extra change. Also, whenever we have driven down Washington
Street, there are individuals laying around with shopping carts and plastic bags. Our perception is the only
individuals who spend time downtown are under 50 years of age. We feel unsafe. I am wondering how many
"senior citizens" avoid downtown for the same reason.
Michael Briggs
2832 Brookside Drive
Iowa City, IA 52245
Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510 -2521, is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error,
then delete it. Thank you.
Marian Karr
From:
Christine Olney
Sent:
Monday, August 26, 2013 8:24 AM
To:
Marian Karr
Cc:
Shannon McMahon; Matthew Wolf
Subject:
FW: Homeless
Marian,
This was received at the Information Desks email address contact @iowa- city.ore
Can you please pass it on to the Council?
Thanks,
Chris
From: Brian Flanagan [mailto:wordsmythl @gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 7:41 AM
To: *Contact
Subject: Re: Homeless
PS,
Incidentally, I do not oppose your ordinances, but rather join in with all the
others who have expressed their concern over the threatening atmosphere at
the north end of the Ped Mall.
I'd also like to express my admiration for Officer Schwindt and our Police
Department.
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Brian Flanagan <wordsmyt�gmail.com> wrote:
To the Mayor and City Council:
Hello! I hope this finds you well. I've been following your deliberations
regarding the homeless with great interest and have a few thoughts and
resources to share.
I have been advocating on behalf of the homeless for about 30 years. I was
living in Santa Barbara when their City Council banned the homeless from
sleeping outdoors and led the effort which resulted in the reversal of that
ordinance. I lost my job at the SB County Law Library shortly thereafter,
though I'm sure that's a coincidence.
I was interested to learn some years ago that the City of New York was
transplanting its homeless population from Manhattan to Brooklyn. I've been
keeping tabs on that program, which people in the City seem to think is
working out well, but that impression is based on a very small sampling of
opinion. Here are the resources I mentioned, which present a much larger
view.
HUD: Assistance in New York City
http: //t usa.govJ16IiBnc
New York City Department of Homeless Services
Prevention Assistance & Temporary Housing (Path)
346 Powers Avenue
Bronx, NY 10454
(917) 521 -3900 or 311
New York City Department of Homeless Services
http://on.nvc.gov/16li7Sa
Adult Family Intake Center (AFIC)
400 East 29th Street (1st Avenue)
New York, NY 10016 (Manhattan)
(212) 481 -4704 or 311
NYC Affordable Housing Resource Ctr
http: / /on.nyc.gov/ 16Iipo8
Bloomberg's New York: Rising Homelessness
http: / /bit.ly/ 16IidoX
Suit Over Homeless Shelters in East New York
http: / /bit.1y/ 16IigAW
And here's a handy guide to the macro picture, in case you missed it:
Wealth inequality in America
httDs://www.youtube.com/watch?v—QPKKQnijnsm
In closing, I should like to thank you and yours for the assistance I
receive from the Housing Authority, which has allowed me to pursue my
"science project." This venture has recently come of age, owing to
2
several articles in Nature. In recent weeks, my web site has garnered big
hits from parties in the financial districts of London, Boston, Hong
Kong and Dubai, as well as our military and intelligence communities.
On the downside, it looks as though I may have to relinquish my place
on the lunatic fringe, but there's always a tradeoff, right?
Closer to home, I recently attended my first event at the IC CoLab's "1
Million Cups of Coffee" gathering and hit it off with the presenter, a
crackerjack engineer whose efforts closely align with mine and whose
skill set nicely complements my own. It was a lively scene, well- attended
by many bright, motivated people, and I heartily recommend "Million
Cups" to all concerned.
Best wishes,
Brian Flanagan
Writing I Editing I Research
Writing I Editing I Research
3
r '
` Published on The National Law Review Q=:/ /wwwv.natlawreview.com)
o
e..a
A G
Sixth Circuit Affirms that Michigan's �n r-
Panhandling Statute is Unconstitutional w
Cn
Since nearly the beginning of the Herbert Hoover administration in 1929, a Michigan law has made it a
criminal misdemeanor for any person "found begging in a public place." MCL 750.167(1)(h). Enforcing
this law, the Grand Rapids police department issued over 400 citations for its violation from 2008
through 2011. Among those whom the Grand Rapids police arrested were the Plaintiffs /Appellants in
this case: Jaes,Speet and Ernest Sims, two homeless residents in Gi", nd
m Rapids.
r
Plaintiffs /Appellants sued Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette d the City of Grand Rapids for
declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that the anti- begging s e violated the First Amendment. As
previously roorted on this blog, the Honorable Robert J. Jo lker he d that the anti - begging statute
violated the right to free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. Michigan's Attorney General
Schuette appealed.
7
The Attorney General fared no better on appeal. The Sixth Circuit recognized that the United States
Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that charitable solicitations.for funds are protected by the First
Amendment. And while the United States Supreme Court decisions arose in the context of charitable
solicitations for organizations, the Sixth Circuit concluded that there is "no 'legally justifiable distinction'
between 'begging for one's self and solicitation by. organized charities. "' See Speet. v Schuette Slip Op
at 12 (citation omitted). t
Attorne y General Schuette argued that the anti- begging statute is justified by Michigan's interest in
preventing fraud; noting that panhandlers who display signs saying they are homeless often are not and- .
the great majority of panhan4jers use money for alcohol and drugs. While the Sixth Circuit agreed that
the State of Michigan has a substantial .interest in preventing fraud, the court concluded that that interest "
? "can be better served by a statute that instead of directly prohibiting begging, is more narrowly tailored
to the specific conduct. that Michigan seeks to prohibit." Id. at 16..9
4
Itr nfr , tl_g'Sixth Circuit sustained the facial challenge to the anti - begging statute, finding that the statute
impeAnissibly "bans an e ins category of activity that the-First Amens ent protects." Id. at 15. At the
ripe old age of 84; Michigan's anti - begging statute has been 1'ai i�o rest. j
2013 Varnum LLP 4 `
About the Author
G7eof fff
statute- unconstitutio�
,,, http:// www .natlawreview.com/print/atticle /sixth cxcuit- affirms- michigan -s- panhandling 1
2
Gary I Mouw
partner
Gary is a member of the Litigation and Trial Services Practice Group. As a former clerk for the
Honorable Corniela G. Kennedy of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and the
Honorable Gordon J. Quist of the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan,
Gary has experience and insight in handling both appellate and trial court matters in federal court. In
addition, Gary has represented clients in a wide range of cases including criminal tax defense, gross
negligence and immunity issues, and constitutional claims.
gjmouw@.vamuifflaw.com
616 - 336 -6424
http://www.vamumlaw-com/-people/p.ga-j-mouw/
Source URL: http:/ /www natlawreview.com/article/ sixth - circuit - affirms- michigan- s- panhandling-
statitte- unconstitutional
N
ca
+k. _
C7-<
w
4
rn
M
S=
w
o
+k. _
August 30, 2013
HUIF ► IMPACT
;T
Rhode Island Homeless Bill Of Rights Praised As g.S. Model
By DAVID KLEPPER 06/27/12 05:34 PM ET Associated Press AP
l)
Cl)
A
C4
V
t3l
PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- While cities across the nation enact laws against panhandling and outdoor sleeping, Rhode Island is being held
up as a national model for protecting homeless individuals from discrimination.
Advocates say the state's new homeless bill of rights goes further than any other law in the nation to prevent discrimination against
people who lack housing.
The new law prohibits governments, police, healthcare workers, landlords or employers from treating homeless people unfairly because
of their housing status. Gov. Lincoln Chafee and advocates for the homeless celebrated the enactment of the new law Wednesday with
an event outside the Statehouse.
"Today, in Rhode Island, hatred, bigotry and discrimination is not accepted," said John Joyce, co- founder of the Rhode Island Homeless
Advocacy Project and one of the authors of the new law.
Rhode Island stands in contrast with many cities around the country that are taking steps to criminalize homelessness, according to
Heather Johnson, a civil rights attorney with the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty. She said her organization has
noticed a sharp increase in laws around the country prohibiting panhandling, sleeping outdoors or loitering.
"We've seen a lot of egregious examples lately," she said. "People are having their civil rights violated every day in cities across the
country."
The Denver City Council voted last month to prohibit eating or sleeping on public or private property without permission. In Dallas, city
officials now prohibit people from giving food to the homeless unless they register with the city first. Officials in Berkeley, Calif., have
proposed a ban on sitting on sidewalks.
Johnson called Rhode Island's measure "historic legislation" and said she hopes advocates around the country work to pass similar
laws.
Michele St. Pierre became homeless after she was evicted from her apartment. She now stays in shelters, with friends or on the street
if she can find nowhere else to go. She said homeless people face discrimination every day. The 46- year -old woman said a police
officer recently threatened to arrest her if she didn't leave a bus stop in downtown Providence.
"He said, 'I'll give you five minutes to get out of here and then I'm going to arrest you, "' she said. "Where do they want me to go? We
don't have enough shelters."
The bill of rights was designed to be enforceable, so that homeless people who believe they've faced discrimination have grounds to
sue. But it was also designed to send the message that the homeless have the same rights as anyone else, according to Jim Ryczek of
the Rhode Island Coalition for the Homeless.
"Civil rights laws have always been primarily about changing behavior," Ryczek said.
A lawmaker who sponsored the new law said he hopes the rest of the U.S. takes notice of what the nation's smallest state has done.
"Now we're a leader in something," said state Sen. John Tassoni, D- Smithfield. "Hopefully other states will now pick up the slack and
move this all the way across the country to California."
Copyright 2013 The Local Paper. All rights reserved. This material may not be published broadcast rewritten or redistributed
I�ack� r
http:// www. huffmgtonpost .coml2Ol2 /06 /271rhode- island- homeless - bill- of- rights_n_1632411.htm1 ?view = print &comm ref--false
FILED
Scaled -down homeless rights law advances
2013 AUG 30 PM 3: 45
Wyatt Buchanan
Updated 7:08 pm, Tuesday, April 23, 2013
IOWA CITY, CLERK
Sacramento --
Homeless people in California would have the right to rest in public spaces, including sidewalks, withou
governments would have to provide access to bathrooms and showers, under a bill that passed its first n
The bill, called the Homeless Person's Bill of Rights and Fairness Act, could supersede local laws - inclui
people from sitting or lying on sidewalks unless those localities meet certain requirements.
It was introduced by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D -San Francisco, and passed the Assembly Judiciar
vote, with Democrats in favor and with the opposition of many local governments and business groups.
Ammiano significantly scaled back the scope of the bill from when it was first introduced last year, remc
applied to private property and businesses. He called it a narrow bill to provide "a few basic protections'
does not criminalize homelessness.
"The solution to homelessness is not citations or jail time," Ammiano said. Proponents compare current
homeless people to past Jim Crow and "Anti-Okie" laws that were designed to segregate or remove peon
New category
Under the measure, a person's housing status would be added to the list of categories included in the stE
which applies to government entities and entities that receive money from the government.
The other categories include race, national origin, ethnic group identification, religion, age, sex, sexual c
information or disability.
Additionally, the proposed bill lists 15 specific rights for people who are homeless, according to an analy
Those include the right "to move freely, rest, solicit donations, pray, meditate, or practice religion, and t
and water in public spaces without being subject to criminal or civil sanctions, harassment or arrest."
This would extend to parks for the entire 24 -hour day, regardless of whether the park has hours that it i;
Exemptions
Local governments that provide year -round non - medical assistance for adults, that are not in areas of h`
have a public housing waiting list longer than 50 people would be exempted from the provision on sittin
in public places.
Other declared rights would include the ability to set down personal belongings and the right to restitud
"confiscated, removed or damaged" by law enforcement or security guards.
Homeless people also would be guaranteed an attorney if they were given a citation for an activity relate
could sue for discrimination violations based on their housing status.
,,A� 144_1j�
Geo pr-,re y Pofck-ex-,
http : / /www.sfgate.cominewslarticle /Scaled -down- homeless - rights -law- advances- 4457424.php
Law enforcement would be required to track and report citations related to homelessness, and local gov,
"health and hygiene centers" that would be open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and would be requii
and showers.
Police officers could still enforce laws against illegal activity, such as defecating or urinating in public, of
Opponents of the bill who testified included representatives of the League of California Cities, the Califo
other business and municipal groups, though the bill was amended late Monday to narrow some require
Several representatives of the groups said they had not been able to analyze the changes to see if they we
'Burdensome' rules
Kirstin Kolpitcke, speaking for the League of California Cities, said that requiring law enforcement to co
burdensome for those agencies.
She also noted that while local cities pass ordinances about sitting or lying in public, the bill puts the bu
services that would create exemptions to allow for the continued enforcement of those laws.
"As a city, we have no control over what services a county does or does not provide," she said, adding th;
bills that would provide funding for affordable housing and housing for veterans.
Other opponents raised concerns about new civil liabilities if housing status is included in California's n
State would pay
The bill would increase costs for local governments that would have to be paid by the state, though a pri
heads next to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations.
The measure attracted dozens of people - some homeless, some formerly homeless - who spoke in supp(
One of those was Sean Gregory, 24, of Los Angeles, who said he was living on Skid Row before recently I
He said he was under a tarp one morning putting on his shoes after sleeping when a police officer direct
his back, telling him he was not awake by 6 a.m. and taking him to jail.
Not having an attorney, he pleaded no contest and was fined $145•
"I spent three days in jail waiting for that," Gregory said.
Wyatt Buchanan is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E -mail: wbuchanan @sfchronicle.com
Ads by Yahoo!
® 2013 Hearst Communications Inc.
R * A R *T WU**6W
http: / /www.sfgate.cominews /article/ Scaled -down- homeless - rights -law- advances- 4457424.php
29
�?
w
In
,3P.!
Gam'?
C.)-<
Ca
c
rn
^D
X
4i
>
CrIt
http: / /www.sfgate.cominews /article/ Scaled -down- homeless - rights -law- advances- 4457424.php
Marian Karr
From: Minette, Kate <kate.minette @pearson.com>
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 1:30 PM
To: Council
Subject: Support for the Pedestrian Mall Maintenance
Dear Mayor and Council,
As a large employer in town - but located on the outskirts - it is always considered a pleasure to go downtown
during the noon hour (and the evening as well) to take advantage of the great Iowa City restaurants, stores, and
events. Further, the downtown/pedmall is one area that we like to show off to prospective candidates for
positions at Pearson. The look of the downtown along with the campus are often very persuasive to prospects.
Every community needs the addition of new, engaged, and energized citizens. We need them to run our
business. Who we are as a community, and, yes, what we "look like" (our street - scapes and our businesses) are
a real draw and, therefore, a measurable boost to our economy.
We do not want to nor will we ignore the needs of others in our community who lack the personal resources and
capacity to move out of homelessness, but we do pay taxes and, personally, we give quite generously, and
would encourage you to continue on your path to preserve the pedmall for the use of all the public.
Thank you for your leadership around this truly delicate situation.
Sincerely,
Kate Minette
Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors
Pearson
Marian Karr
From: Craig Willis <cnwillis @willisecurity.com>
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 4:27 PM
To: Council
Subject: Pedestrian Mall Ordinance
Attachments: SCAN8065_000.pdf
This correspondence will become a public record.
Friends:
Please see my attached letter.
Keep smiling.
CNW
CRAIG N. VY RuS & NANCY B. WII.IaS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
500 SOuTH DuBuQuE STREET I P.O. BOX 143
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244
www.willisecurity.com
TELEPHONE 319- 337 -9621
FAcsn,uLE 319- 337 -4581
August 30, 2013
To the City Council of Iowa City
Dear Friends:
I want to thank you individually and collectively for your
actions in addressing the issues confronting our downtown area. I
particularly express my gratitude and support for the proposed
Pedestrian Mall Ordinance. I know that this has been difficult
and controversial, but the final product is fair and
constructive.
You have all comported yourselves with intelligence and
integrity. Keep up the good work!
sincerely yours,
Willis & Willis
U
Craig N. Willtis
CNW /rh
ITEM 7
Submitted by: Geoffrey Hacker
S` -`rv, z-,, pkM f6-'VZ41 S
pecIple �i �,�y '� CO We
e le >s/
T A -T i
PA .SS 4 S 7A T-
SA Z p �9NH19NbL sit/G
�a 1 OWP c
AGoZN
17--s CA-v Xj
NO PPt4HA&ML( ,
•y leg L � c P,o,v N,a NA�zwG C r9 �
A Flo,
w1*T or-
APE.4
(z LNG hnZ'CH�G
^r-
S F,EcH
SZ
PASS
'rti�swG •T��
C�G�/
r
c
5
75
V
n
c
c
C�
f
M � GeoK rey
5,19h o
�v ke P
Lcam✓,_ �
y
'del
essj
wit C I vl�l Ci ! I '"g
tas} GW
k, /kf T h V�>�A
tot Wt U on a
p e5:;,, (, ,H,� ce/) %
h-e/-tc* ,Id
RW/(f " 'by lam%
^g
1
4
J�IL
i
vge
v
I�k
vL✓ � s r
yv- v� �x r
F—L-pt wY VAYs u ls�-->
'
vw� �
L�
may°
Cat,- i Ise .
pi
�0�
cam-
rv?�o
CIA
Fee-�
^� 1
. J
�
s
0
r
c
cV'% A �v
��(--1 wvz)-q
I l .
ALI`
gill
r, mp WE
RIP
h�S s
l
\y
i
I�\
vot- Y S s ohs
r'
VE 4:20 of
50MEW em
was 6rt� I
1 4 t, Vol 0194 for oft*
it o
ago pit N ww� �
Kgo,�
mss,
_J
Aawe 4r r r k -5kt/-
a�� �
PC ce � be
;ov,���
C)Lj- c. ,gcv'e
kame[ &55 t L� j-`� P6cpI�
I-V 0,0� /V -�Y�
v
lw� 4C� 2
emu} CC-CL--V4,9
Distributed by Council Member Throgmorton
9 -3 -13
Proposed amendments to the draft ordinance
re: personal property in the downtown
I move to amend the proposed ordinance to add four new "whereas" clauses
in order to bring other values to the fore, and to modify Paragraph 6
concerning the ban on personal possessions.
The four new "Whereas" clauses would be:
• "WHEREAS, the City recognizes that the problems associated with
homelessness and transience (such as mental illness, drug addiction and
alcoholism) are neither unique to Iowa City nor completely within the
powers of the City to solve ";
• "WHEREAS, the City is committed to treating all people with dignity,
respect, compassion, and justice "; and
• "WHEREAS, the City recognizes that public spaces are sites of
interaction between people with differing values and standards of proper
dress and behavior ";
• "WHEREAS, the City has an interest in achieving voluntary compliance
with the provisions of this ordinance and achieving such compliance
through a `serve and protect' community policing approach."
• Amend Paragraph 6 by adding a new paragraph 6 E: "The prohibitions
described above shall not go into effect until the City or some other
authorized entity provides one or more alternative locations for the safe,
secure, and accessible leeafi&n fav temporary storage of personal
possessions."
I also move that we instruct staff to draft a resolution accompanying the
ordinance, which would express the Council's intent to strengthen the
Johnson County Local Homeless Coordinating Council.
---G9-03-1
8
Prepared by: Dennis Bockenstedt, Director of Finance, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5053
ORDINANCE NO. t 3 -4549
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 3, ENTITLED "FINANCES, TAXATION AND FEES," CHAPTER 4,
ENTITLED "SCHEDULE OF FEES, RATES, CHARGES, BONDS, FINES, AND PENALTIES,-- SECTION 5,
ENTITLED "SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL," OF THE CITY CODE TO INCREASE OR CHANGE CERTAIN
SOLID WASTE CHARGES.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 364, Code of Iowa (2013), the City of Iowa City provides certain solid
waste collection and disposal services; and
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest to increase certain fees and charges associated with said solid waste
collection and disposal services; and
WHEREAS, the Iowa City City Council proposes to increase residential solid waste collection fees
to adequately finance operational costs; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to codify fees for some landfill products that have previously been set
by policy; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I. AMENDMENT. Title 3, entitled "City Finances, Taxation, and Fees," Chapter 4, entitled
"Schedule of Fees, Rates, Charges, Bonds, Fines, and Penalties," Section 3-4 -5, entitled "Solid Waste
Disposal," of the Iowa City Code is hereby amended by:
Changing the fee for the following items: Yard waste "Annual stamp, per container 20.00" to "Annual
sticker, per container $25.00 ", and yard waste bags from 1.00 to $1.25; 1st bulky item picked up from $10.00
to $12.50, and additional bulky items picked up from $5.00 to $6.00; Tire collection from $3.00 to $3.75 per
tire, and from $6.00 to $7.50 per tire & rim; Solid waste from "$11.40 minimum, including 2 containers per
week; additional containers $1.00 per container" to 111.40 per refuse cart per month; $1.25 per sticker for
additional bags'; and
Setting the fee for the following items: Iowa City Community Compost $20.00 per ton, $2.00 minimum;
Wood chip mulch $10.00 per ton, $2.00 minimum; Electronic waste: $2.00 per item, TV's or monitors less
than 18" $10.00 per item, TV's or monitors 18" or greater $15.00 per item; and
Adding a dollar sign ($) before all fee amounts.
SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. All rate changes will be effective October 1, 2013, with the exception
of yard waste annual stickers, which shall be effective April 1, 2014.
Passed and approved this 3rd day of geptembpr , 2013
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLER --
Approved by
)6—"—
City Attorney's Office
Ordinance No. 13 -4549
Page 2
It was moved by Payne and seconded by Dobyns that the
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES:
NAYS: ABSENT:
x
Champion
x
Dickens
x
Dobyns
x
Hayek
x
Mims
x
Payne
x
Throgmorton
First Consideration 8/6/2013
Voteforpassage: AYES:Mims, Payne, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns, Hayek,
NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration 8/20/2013
Voteforpassage: AYES: Champion, Dickens, Dobyns, Hayek, Mims, Payne,
Throgmorton. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Date published 9/12/2013
9
Prepared by: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk, 410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319- 356 -5041)
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 8, POLICE REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 8, POLICE
CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD, BY REPEALING CHAPTER 8 IN ITS ENTIRETY AND
REPLACING IT WITH A NEW CHAPTER 8, CITIZENS POLICE REVIEW BOARD
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance 97 -3792 in 1997 which created the Police
Citizens Review Board ( "PCRB ") to assure that investigations into claims of police misconduct
are conducted in a manner which is fair, thorough, and accurate; and
WHEREAS, the PCRB was designed to assist the Police Chief, the City Manager and the City
Council in evaluating the overall performance of the Police Department as a whole, by having a.
review process for Police Department investigations into complaints; and
WHEREAS, the PCRB has made recommendations including the renaming of the Board and
various other recommendations to improve the education and complaint processes; and
WHEREAS, the Ad Hoc Diversity Committee has reviewed the recommendations and made
additional recommendations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 13 -217 approving the staff recommendations
for implementation of various recommendations made by Ad Hoc Diversity Committee.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I. The Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa is hereby amended as
follows:
A. By repealing Chapter 8, "Police Citizens Review Board," and substituting in lieu
thereof a new Chapter 8, "Citizens Police Review Board" attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions
of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be
adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the
Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or
unconstitutional.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage,
approval and publication.
Passed and approved this day of 12013.
MAYOR
s /perb: Repealinginentiretydraft.doc
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by _
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Champion
Dickens
Dobyns
Hayek
Mims
Payne
Throgmorton
that the
First Consideration 9/03/2013
Vote for passage: AYES: Champion, Dickens, Dobyns, Hayek, Mims, Payne,
Throgmorton. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration _
Vote for passage:
Date published
-Y/q
8 -8 -1: CREATION OF POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD:
As permitted under Iowa's home rule authority and as required by the city's home rule charter, the city
createds the police citizens review board which shall be known as the citizens police review board
(hereinafter "board'), subject to the duties and limited powers set forth herein. (Ord. 07 -4296, 12 -11-
2007)
8 -8 -2: INTENT, GOALS AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES:c
A. Investigations into claims of inappropriate conduct by sworn police officers will be conducted in a
manner which is fair, thorough, and accurate.
B. An annual reporting system regarding complaints against sworn police officers will be established to
give the city council sufficient information to assess the overall performance of the Iowa City police
department in these matters.
C. Citizens may make a formal written complaint to either the board or the Iowa City police department. In
accordance with this chapter the board shall process only those complaints filed with the board but
will receive reports from the police chief briefly describing the nature of the allegations made in formal
written complaints filed with the police department and the disposition of the same.
D. The board will:
1. Oversee a monitoring system for tracking receipt of formal complaints lodged against sworn police
officers with either the board or the Iowa City police department.
2. Provide oversight of police investigations through review of such investigations.
3. Provide the opportunity for a hearing to the police officer if the board's findings on the complaint to the
board are critical of the police officer, as required by constitutional law, and give the police officer the
opportunity to present testimony and evidence.
4. Issue a final public report to the city council on each complaint to the board which sets forth factual
findings and a written conclusion which explains why and the extent to which the complaint is either
"sustained" or "not sustained ".
E. The board shall have no authority over police disciplinary matters because only the police chief or city
manager may impose discipline under Iowa law.
F. No findings in the board's report shall be used in any other legal proceeding.
G. The board shall only review the conduct of sworn Iowa City police officers and shall only act in a civil,
not criminal, capacity. The board is not intended to be a court of law, a tort claim process or other
litigation process. No action of the board shall be deemed to diminish or limit the right of any person
to file a claim or a lawsuit against the city.
H. A complaint to the board may be filed by any person with personal knowledge of an incident. "Personal
knowledge" means the complainant was directly involved in the incident or witnessed the incident. If
the person with personal knowledge is underage or otherwise unable to complete a complaint form,
the complaint may be filed by such person's designated representative. The city manager, the police
chief, the city council, or the board may file a complaint to the board based upon a reasonable belief
that police misconduct has occurred regardless of personal knowledge.
I. In order to assure that people feel confident in the complaint process, nonpolice city staff shall be
available at a public location other than the police department to receive complaints, although
complaints may also be filed at the police department. F^•^n;' merlin"^^ ^"a" be available to the
Gernplainant(s) and the peliGe efflGeF(G) at any time dUFing the process.
J. The board shall not interfere with or diminish the legal rights of sworn police officers, including those
rights protected under the union contract, civil service commission, and state and federal law.
Similarly, the board shall respect the rights of privacy and freedom from defamation shared by
complainants and witnesses, as well as those same rights enjoyed by police officers under the law.
K. The city council finds that internal accountability within the police department is a valid legislative
purpose, and one method of accomplishing such internal accountability is to have the police do their
own investigations into claims of inappropriate police conduct. If a complaint is asserted against the
police chief, the city manager will investigate the claim and report to the board and the city council.
L. Investigation of all formal complaints to the board is a mandatory duty of the police chief, and a report
of each complaint investigation shall be given to the board. Such reports to the board shall include the
factual findings of the police chief as well as a written conclusion explaining why and the extent to
which a complaint is either "sustained" or "not sustained ". However, such reports shall not include
discipline or other personnel matters. If the police chief and the city manager find the police officer's
actions constitute misconduct and discipline is imposed by the police chief or city manager, the
internal affairs investigation may become a public record to be released by the city attorney to the
extent provided by law.
M. In order to assure external accountability of the actions of the police department, the police chief shall
provide the board with a report at least quarterly of all formal complaints filed directly with the police
department, which report shall state the date and location of the incident and a brief description of the
nature of the allegation and the disposition of the complaint.
N. External accountability will further be provided by the board's maintenance of a central registry of all
formal complaints. In addition to the central registry, the board shall provide an annual report to the
city council, which report shall be public and shall set forth the general types and numbers of
complaints, how they were resolved, demographic information, and recommendations as to how the
police department may improve its community relations or be more responsive to community needs.
(Ord. 01 -3976, 7 -10 -2001)
O. The board shall hold at least one community forum each year for the purpose of hearing citizens'
views on the policies, practices and procedures of the Iowa City police department, review police
practices, procedures, and written policies as those practices and procedures relate to the police
department's performance as a whole, and report their recommendations, if any, to the city council,
city manager and police chief. (Ord. 07 -4296, 12 -11 -2007)
8 -8 -3: DEFINITION OF COMPLAINT; COMPLAINT PROCESS IN
GENERAL:lt
A. A "complaint to the board" OF " ' " is an allegation of misconduct lodged against a sworn
police officer ( "police officer" or "officer ") employed by the Iowa City police department, where the
complained of activity occurred while the officer was acting in the capacity of a sworn police officer.
B. Any person with personal knowledge of the alleged police misconduct may file a -PCRB complaint with
the board. In order to have "personal knowledge ", the complainant must have been directly involved
in the incident or witnessed the incident. If the person with personal knowledge is underage or
otherwise unable to complete a PGRB complaint form, the PSRB complaint may be filed by such
person's designated representative. The city manager, the police chief, the city council or the board
itself may file a PCRB complaint based on a reasonable belief that police misconduct has occurred
regardless of personal knowledge. The person or official filing the PCRB complaint may hereafter be
referred to as the "complainant ".
C. All complaints to the board shall be in writing and on forms provided by the board. Complaint forms
shall be available to the public in easily accessible locations, and nonpolice staff shall be available to
receive the complaint forms. Assistance may be available to complete the form as designated by the
board.
D. All complaints to the board must be filed with the city clerk within ninety (90) days of the alleged
misconduct.
E. Only those complaints to the board which do not involve the conduct of an Iowa City sworn police
officer or are not filed within ninety (90) days of the alleged misconduct may be subject to summary
dismissal by the board. (Ord. 01 -3976, 7 -10 -2001)
8 -8 -4: FORMAL RA-MIATIGhk RESERVED
8 -8 -5: POLICE DEPARTMENT AND POLICE CHIEF INVESTIGATORY
DUTIES; CITY MANAGER INVESTIGATORY DUTIES:t
B. Investigation: It shall be the mandatory duty of the police chief to do the following:
Prior to investigation of any PGRB board complaint, the police chief shall first give Garrity and
Gardner advice to all police officers implicated in the complaint, as required by constitutional law.
This means the officer cannot be required to waive the officer's constitutional right against self -
incrimination. However, the officer may be required to answer questions during the investigation as
a condition of the officer's employment, but any admissions made by the officer cannot be used
against the officer in a criminal proceeding.
- - - - --- - - - - -
-- - - - -
8 -8 -5: POLICE DEPARTMENT AND POLICE CHIEF INVESTIGATORY
DUTIES; CITY MANAGER INVESTIGATORY DUTIES:t
B. Investigation: It shall be the mandatory duty of the police chief to do the following:
Prior to investigation of any PGRB board complaint, the police chief shall first give Garrity and
Gardner advice to all police officers implicated in the complaint, as required by constitutional law.
This means the officer cannot be required to waive the officer's constitutional right against self -
incrimination. However, the officer may be required to answer questions during the investigation as
a condition of the officer's employment, but any admissions made by the officer cannot be used
against the officer in a criminal proceeding.
2, NI of the ia'RaRt and the PGIine nff'_o ..hn :n the. c, bjeGt of then plain{ that formal
medmatiGR Is available at any time during the peliGe depaFtmeint'r iFlVeStigati9n and the hn;;Fd'r
Feview. The poliGe Ghief may also notify the GemplainaRt that the complainant may FReet informally
n .. nm
�rtc ...L....... .� the rte..__ _... .._ _.._ __e__. _...._ .. n.� _ _..__ ._.... _..
se. RESERVED
3. Assign the PGRB complaint to designated investigators within the police department for
investigation into the factual allegations of the complaint.
4. The complainant shall be interviewed by the police department and shall be entitled to have a
neutral city staff person or some other person chosen by the complainant present during the
interview. The police officer is entitled to have a union steward present during any interviews. The
City Manager will participate in the interview process with the officers involved in the complaint. A
review of the City Manager's involvement under this provision will be done in two years to ensure
the practice is producing its intended purpose.
5. Investigators will prepare and forward a report of their investigation to the police chief, and shall
make detailed findings of fact as to the allegations in the complaint, and shall also set forth a written
conclusion which explains why and the extent to which the complaint is either "sustained" or "not
sustained ".
C. Legal Advice: If litigation, including criminal charges, relating to the matter of the PQRB complaint is
commenced or is being contemplated by or against any party to the complaint, the police department,
the police chief and /or the board shall consult with the city attorney and /or the board's own attorney
on a case by case basis, to determine whether and how the investigation of the RGRB complaint
should proceed.
D. Complaints Against Police Chief: If a PGRB board complaint is filed concerning the police chiefs
conduct, the city manager shall investigate or cause an investigation to be completed.
E. Disciplinary Action: Nothing in this chapter shall prevent the police chief or the city manager from
taking disciplinary action prior to the board's review of the complaint. (Ord. 01 -3976, 7 -10 -2001)
8 -8 -6: POLICE CHIEF'S REPORT TO BOARD; CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
TO BOARD: C
A. The police chief shall receive the designated investigator's report within the time frame indicated by the
police chief. The police chief shall conduct a review of the investigators' report, and may do any or all
of the following: conduct interviews or request the police investigators to conduct additional
investigations; request additional information, or that additional questions be asked; interview or direct
that other persons or witnesses be interviewed; request that other documents be reviewed and /or
retrieved; and any other investigative matters the police chief deems appropriate.
B. The police chief will consult with the city personnel administrator and the city attorney prior to finalizing
the police chiefs report to the board, and shall then forward this report to the board, which shall
include the following:
1. Detailed written findings of fact concerning the allegations in the PGRB complaint;
2. A written conclusion which explains why and the extent to which the PGRB complaint is either "sustained"
or "not sustained'; and
3. Recommended remedial actions, if any, including amending current policies or adopting new policies.
C. The police chiefs report to the board shall not include discipline or personnel matters.
D. A copy of the police chiefs report to the board shall be given to the police officer, the complainant, and
the city manager. If the PGRB complaint concerns the police chief, copies of the city manager's
report to the board shall be given to the police chief, the complainant, and the city council. (Ord. 01-
3976, 7 -10 -2001)
E. The police chiefs report to the board shall be completed within ninety (90) calendar days after the
PGRB complaint is filed. The board will grant extensions from this deadline for good cause shown.
(Ord. 07 -4260, 5 -1 -2007)
F. All investigations shall be performed in a manner designed to produce a minimum of inconvenience
and embarrassment to all parties, including the complainant, the police officer, and other witnesses.
G. If a PGRB complaint is filed concerning the police chief, the city manager's report shall include the
same findings of fact and conclusions as required for the police chiefs report to the board. (Ord. 01-
3976,7 -10 -2001)
8 -8 -7: DUTIES OF BOARD; COMPLAINT REVIEW AND GENERAL
DUTIES: t
A. Complaints: The board shall forward copies of all PC-RR complaints received to the police chief for
investigation; or where the PGRB complaint concerns the police chief, forward a copy of the PGRB
complaint to the city manager for investigation. A copy of all complaints shall be forwarded to the
Equity Director.
B. Review Of Police Chiefs Report Or City Manager's Report:
1. The board shall review all police chiefs reports and city manager's reports concerning PGRR complaints.
The board shall decide, on a simple majority vote, the level of review to give each police chiefs or city
manager's report, and the board may select any or all of the following levels of review:
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 city manager, or request police assistance in the
board's own investigation. (Ord. 01 -3976, 7 -10 -2001)
e. Perform its own investigation with the authority to subpoena witnesses. (Ord. 07 -4296, 12 -11 -2007)
f. Hire independent investigators.
2. The board shall apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review when reviewing the police chiefs or city
manager's report. This requires the board to give deference to the police chiefs or city manager's report
because of the police chiefs and city manager's respective professional expertise. The board may
recommend that the police chief or city manager reverse or modify their findings only if:
a. The findings are not supported by substantial evidence;
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
If, in accordance with said standard, the board affirms the decision of the police chief or city manager with
respect to the allegations of misconduct but nonetheless has concern about the officer's conduct or police
practices, policies, or procedures, it may so comment in its report to the city council. If such comments
are critical of the officer's conduct the board shall provide the officer a name clearing hearing pursuant to
subsection B4 of this section. When collecting and reviewing additional evidence, the board shall rely on
evidence which reasonably prudent persons are accustomed to rely upon in the conduct of their serious
affairs.
3. At the conclusion of the board's review, the board shall issue a public report to the city council concerning
the PGRR complaint investigation. Such public report shall include detailed findings of fact concerning the
PGRB complaint, together with a clearly articulated conclusion which explains why and the extent to
which the complaint is "sustained" or "not sustained ". If the complaint is "not sustained ", the public report
shall not include the names of the complainant(s) or the police officer(s). If the complaint is "sustained"
the board may include the names of the complainant(s) and /or the police officer(s) if it determines that the
public interest in such disclosure outweighs the public harm and privacy interests of the complainant(s)
and /or police officer(s). Said determination shall be made in writing and shall state, in detail, the board's
reasons for such determination. The board shall notify the person(s) whose name(s) it intends to disclose,
the city attorney and the police chief (or city manager if the police chief is the subject of the complaint), of
its intent to make such disclosure by confidential written communication sent by regular mail or hand
delivery at least ten (10) working days prior to such disclosure. In addition, the board's public report shall
not include any discipline or personnel matters, although the board may comment generally as to whether
the board believes discipline is appropriate without commenting on the extent or form of the discipline. A
copy of this public report to the city council shall be given to the complainant(s), the police officer(s), the
police chief, equity director, and the city manager.
4. The board shall not issue a report which is critical of the sworn police officer's conduct until after a "name
clearing hearing" has been held, consistent with constitutional due process law. The board shall give
notice of such hearing to the police officer so that the officer may testify before the board and present
additional relevant evidence. The board shall be responsible for protection of all state and federal rights
enjoyed by the officer. The officer may waive the right to this hearing upon written waiver submitted to the
board.
5. If the board's report is not critical of the officer's conduct, the board is not required by law to offer a
hearing to the officer, but the board may hold hearings as deemed appropriate by the board.
6. The board's report to the city council shall be completed within ferty-five (45) ninety (90) calendar days of
receipt of the chiefs or city manager's report. The city council may grant requests for extensions to this
deadline upon good cause shown.
7. Nothing in this chapter shall in any way impede or interfere with the police chiefs and the city manager's
lawful ability to perform their personnel supervisory duties over sworn police officers, including the ability
to impose discipline as deemed appropriate by the police chief or city manager.
8. No findings or report submitted to the board or prepared by the board shall be used in any other
proceedings.
C. General Powers And Duties: The board shall also carry out the following duties:
1. Maintain a central registry of written complaints filed with the board or with the Iowa City police
department.
2. Collect data and do an annual report to the city council which shall be public and shall set forth the
general types and numbers of complaints, disposition of the complaints, the discipline which was
imposed, if any, and demographic information. This annual report shall not include the names of the
complainants or officers involved in complaints which were not sustained, and shall otherwise be in a
form which protects the confidentiality of the parties while providing the public with information on the
overall performance of the police department. The board's annual report may also include recommended
changes in police practices, policies or procedures. The annual report will also include data derived from
the exit survey tool developed for the complainant to provide staff and the public with perceptions of the
process. (Ord. 01-3976, 7-10-2001)
3. In addition to the annual report, the board shall report to the city council, from time to time, on police
practices, procedures and policies, including recommended changes, if appropriate, and 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. (Ord. 07 -4296, 12 -11 -2007)
4. The board shall adopt procedural rules and bylaws governing the board's activities, including the receipt
and processing of complaints, and such procedural rules and bylaws shall be approved by the city
council. (Ord. 01 -3976, 7 -10 -2001)
8 -8 -8: BOARD COMPOSITION; LIMITED POWERS OF BOARD:
A. Board Composition:
1. The board shall consist of five (5) members appointed by the city council, who shall be Iowa City eligible
electors and shall serve without compensation. The city council shall strive to appoint members who
represent the diversity of the community. Appointments to the board shall include one current or former
"peace officer" as that term is defined by state law, except that a peace officer employed as such by the
city of Iowa City within five (5) years of the appointment date shall not be appointed to the board. The city
council reserves the right to waive the residency requirement for good cause shown. The city council also
reserves the right, for good cause shown, to waive the requirement that the board include one current or
former peace officer. (Ord. 03 -4096, 9 -9 -2003)
2. Following final adoption and publication of the ordinance codified herein, the city council shall appoint
members to the board for staggered terms. All appointments shall be for a four (4) year term, except for
the initial appointments which shall be as follows:
a. One person appointed for a two (2) year term.
b. Two (2) persons appointed for three (3) year terms.
c. Two (2) persons appointed for four (4) year terms.
3. Training shall be available to all board members to enable them to perform the duties imposed herein,
including training on Iowa's public records and open meetings laws.
B. Limited Powers: The board shall have the following limited powers:
1. On its own motion, by a simple majority vote of all members of the board, the board may file a PGRI;
complaint.
2. The board shall decide the level of review to give the police chiefs or city manager's report by a simple
majority vote of all members of the board. (Ord. 01 -3976, 7 -10 -2001)
3. The board has no power to review police officer personnel records or disciplinary matters except to the
extent such matters are made public by the city attorney or are the subject of an enforceable subpoena.
(Ord. 07-4296,12-11-2007)
4. The board has only limited civil, administrative review powers, and has no power or authority over
criminal matters. The board is not a court of law, and is not intended to substitute as a tort claims
procedure or as litigation against the city.
5. If criminal charges are brought or are being considered against a particular police officer(s), the board's
review or investigation may proceed with interviewing other officers or witnesses, or collecting
documents, as appropriate. Any statements given by an officer who is subject to criminal investigation
cannot later be used against the officer in a criminal proceeding, as provided under the fifth amendment
to the U.S. constitution, unless such constitutional right is waived.
6. The board may obtain outside counsel and independent investigators in order to carry out the board's
duties.
7. The board may request that the city council hold general public informational hearings concerning police
department practices, procedures or written policies. (Ord. 01 -3976, 7 -10 -2001)
8 -8 -9: POLICE OFFICER'S AND COMPLAINANT'S RIGHTS
PRESERVED:C
A. All rights enjoyed by sworn police officers employed by the city are preserved in this chapter, and
nothing herein is intended to waive, diminish or interfere with any such rights protected by the union
contract, Iowa's civil service commission laws and other applicable state and federal laws.
B. All common law rights enjoyed by complainants and police officers, such as privacy and freedom from
defamation, shall be protected during the process set out in this chapter, and it shall be the board's
duty to protect said rights.
C. Notwithstanding the above provisions, no board member shall be liable to any person for damages or
equitable relief by reason of any investigation or recommendation or report made by either a board
member or by the board itself. (Ord. 97 -3792, 7 -15 -1997)
8 -8 -10: COUNCIL REVIEW:C
(Rep. by Ord. 07 -4291, 10 -16 -2007)
8 -8 -11: TIME COMPUTATION:C
In computing time under this chapter, the first day shall be excluded and the last included, unless the last
falls on a Sunday, in which case the time prescribed shall be extended so as to include the whole of the
following Monday. However, when the last day for the filing of a complaint or the completion of a report
falls on a Saturday or Sunday, or a day on which the office of the city clerk is closed due to a city holiday,
the time shall be extended to include the next day on which the office of the clerk is open to receive the
filing of a complaint or the report. (Ord. 99 -3877, 4 -20 -1999)
Excerpt from August 12, 2013 PCRB meeting
OLD BUSINESS Council Resolution #13 -217 regarding staff review of Ad -Hoc
Diversity Committee Recommendations (PCRB pages 11 -16) -
Karr explained that the information in the packet were the red -lined
versions of the proposed going to the City Council and that Karr
and Bowers were there to answer any questions. Pugh asked
whether 8- 8- 713(1)(c) of the City Code should be removed since the
Board does not have the power to make the officer(s) meet with
them. Karr said she would talk with City Attorney's office regarding.
King questioned, and the Board agreed, if section I. Complaint
Process, 135(b)(4) of the Standard Operating Procedures should be
omitted, since the Board can only review complaints against a
sworn Iowa City police officer. Karr will follow up with the City
Attorney's office. Karr also gave an overview of the timeline of the
documents going to Council for approval.
Treloar and the Board thanked Botchway for his commitment while
serving on the Board. Botchway left meeting (6:11 PM)
Holiday introduced herself to the Board and commented on the
accessibility of information on the City website. Karr stated that the
City is doing a City wide overhaul of the website and providing
more information on Twitter and Facebook. Improvements have
been made, but the Board /City is always looking for suggestions.
Porter also commented the various locations that information is
now available. Karr suggested Holiday follow up with the City
Clerk's office.
King asked if the Ordinance could be expedited. Karr explained the
process for an ordinance and that the Board could request
expedited action if it chose to.
Moved by King, seconded by Porter to recommend to Council and
request the CPRB ordinance be expedited. Motion carried, 4/0,
Botchway absent.