Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2012-02-21 Ordinance
� �. ®a ,. , . 40 r CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM DATE: 2/21/2012 TO: City Council FROM: Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney RE: Agenda Item 7b; Definition of "Household" in RM -44, PRM, RNS -20, RM -20 & CO -1 Zones Issue: Whether the right to protest a rezoning and trigger a supermajority Council vote applies to the text amendment to the zoning code proposed at Item 7b. 7h Ordinance Provisions: The Iowa City Zoning Code 14 -9A defines rezoning as "An amendment to the text of [the zoning code], including any amendment or change to any maps, graphic representations, or tables incorporated herein; and/or an amendment to the zoning map, i.e., a change in the zoning designation of a particular parcel or parcels of land. Overlay rezonings are considered a type of "rezoning ". The Iowa City zoning code 14- 8D -5(G) states: "If a protest against such amendment is presented in writing to the city clerk, duly signed and notarized by the owners of twenty percent (20 %) or more of the area of the lots included within the area for which the amendment is proposed or by the owners of twenty percent (20 %) or more of the property which is located within two hundred feet (200') of the exterior boundaries of the area for which the amendment is proposed, such amendment shall require the favorable vote of three - fourths (3/4) of the members of the city council for passage." (emphasis added) Iowa Code Section 414.5 states: "... In case, however, of a written protest against a change or repeal which is filed with the city clerk and signed by the owners of twenty percent or more of the area of the lots included in the proposed change or repeal, or by the owners of twenty percent or more of the property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the change or repeal is proposed, the change or repeal shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three - fourths of all the members of the council. The protest, if filed, must be filed before or at the public hearing...." Discussion and Conclusion: Council is considering setting a public hearing on a proposed zoning text amendment to change the definition of household in the RNS -20, CO -1, RM -20, RM -44 and PRM zones. Such an amendment, if adopted, would reduce the number of unrelated persons that may reside in a dwelling unit in the stated zones to a maximum of three (3). Given the broad definition of "rezoning" in the City Code, the language in 14- 8D -5(G) allowing protests against "such amendment(s)" applies to said zoning text amendments. If protests are received, an analysis of whether the threshold has been met to trigger the three - fourths vote will be made on a zone -by -zone basis. This means that the protests need not represent 20% of all persons within all of the affected zones, but they must represent 20% of all owners within a particular zoning classification. For example: 1. If 20% of owners within all RNS -20 zones throughout the City file a protest and only 10% of owners within the CO -1 zone protest, a super - majority vote will be triggered for changing the definition of household in the RNS -20 zone, but the standard majority vote will be required for changing the definition in the CO -1 zone. 2. If 20% of owners within one RNS -20 zone protest, no super - majority vote is required. cc: Tom Markus, City Manager Geoff Fruin, Asst. to City Manager Jeff Davidson, Planning & Zoning Director Marian Karr, City Clerk Prepared by: Karen Howard, Associate Planner, 410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240 C07:7971kq1_ \�[6]:8'[6a AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, ZONING, ARTICLE 9A, GENERAL DEFINITIONS, CHANGING THE DEFINITION OF "HOUSEHOLD" AS IT APPLIES IN THE RM -44, PRM, RNS -20, RM -20, AND CO -1 ZONES. WHEREAS, "Household Living" is the most prevalent land use within the city, and includes single family dwellings, two - family dwellings (duplexes), and multi - family dwellings (apartments); and WHEREAS, by definition, only one Household may live within a Household Living Use; and WHEREAS, in all single family zones, the low density multi - family zone (RM -12) and all commercial zones, except the commercial office zone (CO -1), a household may consist of a family and up to one unrelated person; or a group of not more than 3 unrelated persons; and WHEREAS, it is only in the high density multi - family zones (RM -44 & PRM) and the medium density multi - family zones (RM -20 & RNS -20) and the commercial office zone (CO -1) that more than 3 unrelated persons may reside within one dwelling unit; and WHEREAS, in the RM -44 and PRM Zones up to 5 unrelated persons may reside within one dwelling unit; and in the RM -20, RNS -20, and CO -1 Zones up to 4 unrelated persons may reside within one dwelling unit; and WHEREAS, the location of the University campus in close proximity to older residential neighborhoods where the aforementioned zoning designations are prevalent, in combination with the aforementioned occupancy standards for unrelated persons in these zones, create an incentive to develop or redevelop property with residential apartments intended primarily for short term residents, primarily university undergraduate students, with less emphasis on providing commercial space or residential dwellings attractive to longer -term residents; and WHEREAS, there is a desire to maintain and support a market for a wide variety of businesses and residents in the downtown to ensure the long term economic health of the downtown and the surrounding residential neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, it is common practice to control maximum occupancy within residential dwellings to prevent overcrowding, to control parking and traffic congestion, to maintain a stable population, and to preserve or foster a certain character within an area; and WHEREAS, the Central District element of the Comprehensive Plan contains a goal to explore ways to make more of the existing and future rental housing in the Central District available to families and other non - student populations in need of affordable housing, e.g. revisiting occupancy rules and housing code provisions to discourage or prevent unmanaged dorm -style apartments; and WHEREAS, amending the definition of "Household" to be consistent across all zoning districts will allow all types of households, including both student and non - student households, to compete in the market for housing in central neighborhoods close to employment opportunities and cultural, educational, and commercial services and amenities. 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. Delete the definition of "Household" in Article 14 -9A, General Definitions, and substitute in lieu thereof: HOUSEHOLD: A Household is defined as: Draft Ordinance No. Page 2 • One person; or • 2 or more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption or placement by a governmental or social service agency plus up to 1 unrelated person, occupying a dwelling unit as a single housekeeping organization; or • a group of not more than 3 persons unrelated by blood, marriage, or adoption, occupying a dwelling unit as a single housekeeping organization; or A group of persons that meet the definition of a Group Household, as defined in this Title. B. Delete subsection 14- 4E -9C, and substitute in lieu thereof: C. The maximum occupancy, as determined by the Building Official based on the applicable regulations effective February 21, 2012, will be applied to: 1) any development activity associated with establishing or constructing a residential use for which a valid permit was issued, if substantial part of the permitted development activity has begun on or prior to February 21, 2012; or, 2) any residential use for which a valid rental permit was issued prior to (the effective date of this ordinance), the effective date of the current maximum occupancy regulations. For such uses, legal nonconforming rights will be granted for this maximum occupancy. 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 , 2012. MAYOR Apprc�e'd by '� ^ ATTEST: c CITY CLERK ity Attorney's Office _..._./ 2 -ZJ - l Z Prepared by: Karen Howard, Associate Planner, 410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, ZONING, ARTICLES 2B AND 2C, AND PARAGRAPH 14- 4B -4A -7 TO ESTABLISH THREE AS THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF BEDROOMS ALLOWED WITHIN A MULTI - FAMILY DWELLING UNIT IN THE MULTI- FAMILY ZONES AND IN COMMERCIAL ZONES THAT ALLOW MULTI - FAMILY DWELLING UNITS AND ESTABLISH GRADUATED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY FORMULAS FOR MULTI- FAMILY DWELLINGS BASED ON THE RELATIVE NUMBER OF BEDROOMS PER DWELLING UNIT IN MULTI - FAMILY ZONES AND IN COMMERCIAL ZONES THAT ALLOW MULTI - FAMILY DWELLING UNITS. WHEREAS, one of the purposes of the zoning code is to regulate population density; and WHEREAS, in multi - family zones and in commercial zones that allow multi - family dwelling units, the zoning code currently regulates density based on the number of dwelling units regardless of the number of bedrooms per unit; and WHEREAS, this method of regulating density provides an disincentive to construct one - bedroom dwellings and an incentive to construct three- bedroom dwellings, WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan encourages the development of a diversity of housing types, and WHEREAS, a graduated minimum lot area per bedroom for multi - family dwellings in multi- family zones and in commercial zones that allow multi - family dwelling units will provide for better control of population density and encourage development 6,f ,a diversity of housing types. 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. Amending Table 213-2, Dimensional Requirements for Multi - Family Residential Zones, deleting the currnt "Area /Unit" standards for Multi - Family, and substituting cross- references to a--, I n-ew Table 26-3, Maximum Density Standards for Multi - Family Dwellings in Multi - Family Zones, as shown below. B. Inserting the following Table 213-3, within Section 14 -26 -4, Dimensional Standards, immediately following Table 213-2. Table 213-3: Maximum Density Standards for Multi - Family Dwellings in Multi - Family Zones' Zone RM -12 RM -20 & RNS -20 RM -44 PRM Efficiency or 1- Bedroom 2,725 1,800 500 435 Unit Two - Bedroom 2,725 1,800 1,000 875 Unit Minimum Lot Area per Unit Three- 2,725 (in square feet) Bedroom Unit Within the University Impact Area (See Map 2B.1), the number of 3- bedroom units per lot may not 2,700 1,500 1,350 exceed 20% of the total number of units on the lot. Maximum # of bedrooms per multi- 3 3 3 3 family dwelling unit Notes: 'For purposes of these provisions, any room that is larger than 70 square feet in size, meets the egress requirements as specified in the Building Code, and is not a typical shared living space, such as a living room, dining area, kitchen, or bathroom shall be considered a bedroom, as determined by the Building Official. Bedrooms that are of a size or dimension that can be easily Draft Ordinance No. Page 2 split into more than one bedroom shall be counted as such, as determined by the Building Official. C. Amending Table 2C -2(a), Dimensional Requirements for all Commercial Zones, except the MU Zone, deleting the current "Area /dwelling unit" standards, and substituting cross - references to a new Table 2C -2(c), Maximum Density Standards for Multi - Family Dwellings in Commercial Zones, as shown below. D. Amending Table 2C -2(b), Dimensional Requirements for the Mixed Use Zone (MU), deleting the current "Area /Unit" standards for Multi - Family, and substituting cross - references to the new Table 2C -2(c), Maximum Density Standards for Multi - Family Dwellings in Commercial Zones, as shown below. E. Inserting the following Table 2C -2(c), within Section 14 -2C -4, Dimensional Standards, immediately following Table 2C -2(b): Table 2C-2(c): Maximum Density Standards for Multi-Family Dwellings in Commercial Zones' Zone CO-1 & CC -2 CN -1 & MU C13-2 CB -5 & CB -10 Efficiency or 1- 2 725 1,800 435 There is no minimum lot area Bedroom Unit per unit standard. However, Two - Bedroom 2725 1 875 the number of 3- bedroom Minimum Lot Unit ,,800 units per lot may not exceed Three - Bedroom 2,725 Area per 20% of the total number of dwelling unit Unit Within the University Impact units on the lot. (in square Area (See Map 2B.1), the feet) number of 3- bedroom units 2,700 1,350 per lot may not exceed 20% of the total number of units on the lot. Maximum # of bedrooms per 3 3 3 3 multi-family dwelling unit Notes: 'For purposes of these provisions, any room that is larger than 70 square feet in size, meets the egress requirements as specified in the Building Code, and is not a typical shared living space, such as a living room, dining area, kitchen, or bathroom shall be considered a bedroom, as determined by the Building Official. Bedrooms that are of a size or dimension that can be easily split into more than one bedroom shall be counted as such, as determined by the Building Official, F. Deleting paragraph 14- 2C -4A -2, and substituting in lieu thereof: 2. Standards Generally, the minimum lot area and width standards for the various Commercial Zones are stated in Tables 2C -2(a) and 2C -2(b), located at the end of this Section. Most commercial zones do not have minimum lot size or width requirements. However, for mixed commercial /residential buildings, the number of dwelling units and relative number of bedrooms allowed is based on the size of the lot and the zone as stated in Table 2C -2(c), located at the end of this Section. G. Deleting subparagraph 14- 4134A -7b., and substituting in lieu thereof: b. Maximum Density The residential density standards for Multi - Family Uses in Commercial Zones are stated in Table 2C -2(c) located in Section 14 -2C -4, Dimensional Requirements. SECTION III. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provi- sions 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 Draft Ordinance No. Page 3 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. Passed and approved this day of 2012. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Approved by City Attorney's Office i Prepared by: Karen Howard, Associate Planner, 410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, ZONING, ARTICLE 5A, OFF - STREET PARKING AND LOADING STANDARD, TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES FOR MULTI - FAMILY DWELLING UNITS WHEN LOCATED WITHIN A DESIGNATED UNIVERSITY IMPACT AREA (UTA) WHEREAS, the minimum parking standards specified in the zoning code are intended to ensure that enough off - street parking is provided to accommodate the demand for parking generated by the range of uses that might locate at a site over time, particularly in areas where sufficient on- street parking is not available; WHEREAS, in multi - family zones and in commercial zones that allow multi - family dwelling units, the minimum parking requirement for 3- bedroom multi- family dwelling units is 2 parking spaces; and WHEREAS, in denser areas of the City close to downtown and the University of Iowa campus, on- street parking spaces are in high demand from residents, visitors, and commuters; and WHEREAS, in denser areas of the City close to the University of Iowa campus, there is a significant demand from college students for multi- family dwelling units; WHEREAS, the parking demand for this large .population of unrelated college students within these central neighborhoods is typically higher than the parking demand for 3- bedroom housing units in outlying areas; 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. Amending:Table 5A -1, Minimum Parking Requirements in the CB -5 and CB -10 Zones, indicating that for 3- bedroom Multi- Family Dwelling' Units in the CB -5 the parking requirements id 3 spaces per unit; and B. Amending Table 5A -1, Minimum Parking Requirements in the CB -5 and CB -10 Zones, indicated that for buildings built on or after (the effective date of this ordinance) that the parking requirement for 3-bedroom units is 3 spaces per dwelling unit; C. 'Amending Table 5A-2, Minimum Parking Requirements for all zones, except the CB -5 and CB -10 Zones, in the rows that specify parking requirements for Multi - Family Dwellings in all zones, including the PRM Zone, insert the words, "In the University Impact Area: 1 space per bedroom (see Map 2B.1 in Article 14 -2B)." D. Inserting the following map, labeled Map 2B.1, into Section 14 -213-6, Multi - Family Site Development Standards, immediately following the Central Planning District Map: Draft Ordinance No. Page 2 SECTION III. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provi- sions 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. Passed and approved this day of , 2012. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Approved by City Attorney's Office Marian Karr From: Karyl Bohnsack <KBohnsack @lattaharris.com> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 1:44 PM To: Council Subject: Public Hearing Tuesday, Feb 21. To Whom It May Concern: I understand the Council will be discussing the proliferation of multi - family buildings containing large apartments in various zones near the downtown. When a public hearing is set it triggers a moratorium on any development activity that would be counter to the ordinance being considered. I am against the imposition of any form of moratorium that impedes construction projects for a period of up to sixty (60) days at the commencement of construction season. A development moratorium will have a significant impact on ongoing and scheduled development projects. This is particularly true in light of the fact that the proposed amendments themselves have not been fully articulated and there is no certainty as to the geographical scope of the proposed amendments. This will result in a "chilling" effect on construction activity in the Iowa City area. There are still many unanswered questions as to what the ordinance will entail. am asking that you not set the public hearing until the ordinance can be fully studied and reviewed by interested parties. Sincerely, 2Gvy[Bo(nsack Office Manager Latta, Harris, Hanon & Penningroth, L.L.P. Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Phone: 319 - 358 -0520 Fax: 319-358-0503 www.lattaharris.com DISCLAIMER This notice is required by IRS Circular 230, which regulates written communications about federal tax matters between tax advisors and their clients. To the extent the preceding correspondence and /or any attachment is a written tax advice communication, it is not a full "covered opinion." Accordingly, this advice is not intended and cannot be used for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed by the IRS. CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT This message from Karyl Bohnsack at Latta, Harris, Hanon & Penningroth, L.L.P., contains information that is privileged and confidential and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please delete it immediately and contact me at 319 - 358 -0520. Marian Karr From: Matt Bruckman <amsales @south slope. net> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 5:16 PM To: Council Subject: Multi - Family Moratorium Dear Council Members, My name is Matt Bruckman with Advance Millwork in North Liberty. As a local supplier to different builders and developers in Iowa City I am asking you to be patient in your thought process and actions. When I heard of this proposed moratorium it seems like a knee jerk reaction to an isolated incident. What you are proposing will impact several, possibly hundreds, of jobs. These are people that support other local business and help keep our economy strong. The impact that builders have upon our local economy is far reaching, in a recent study done by the National Home Builders Association it discovered the following. In a metro area where there are 100 single family homes built in one year we generate 21.1 million in local income, 2.2 million in taxes and 324 jobs. The annual recurring impacts of this same 100 single family homes generates 3.1 million in local income, 743,000 in taxes and 53 local jobs. This is just a snap shot of the type of impact our local builders and developers generate. I am asking that you simply table this discussion until you have a new ordinance drafted and approved by our local Home Builders Association as this will benefit the greater good of our community instead of the few. Thank you for your time. Matt Bruckman Sales Manager Advance Millwork Marian Karr From: Mark Cannon <markc39 @g mail. com> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 11:03 AM To: Council Subject: Proposed moratorium Dear City Council Members, As you consider the proposed moratorium on building related to zoning considerations, I am supportive of imposing that moratorium and establishing sensible growth in the near downtown area. I have been part of various planning sessions that the city has sponsored relative to the revitalization of downtown and the River Crossings area. It is very clear to me that in the absence of some type of zoning changes or restrictions of development that the hopes and dreams that have been expressed by citizens of this community for the revitalization of the downtown and River Crossings development would be seriously negatively impacted or dashed by lack of such restrictions. An interesting question that might shed some light on the motivation of the developers who appear to want more multiple bedroom appartments is: How much money is made from the rent (per square foot of space) for the 5 bedroom, 3 bathroom appartments which appear to be the trend versus a 2 bedroom appartment? Although I don't know the answer, my suspicion is that the income from the mega - appartments is disproportionately larger ...... if that is a fact, it is fairly clear to me that the developers have one motive..... making money ...... and this appears to be unrelated to all the planning that has been done by the city to improve the quality of life in Iowa City. Thanks, Mark Cannon Iowa City Resident Marian Karr From: Casey Cook <kcook @cook- appraisal.com> Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2012 1:07 PM To: Council Subject: the proposed moratorium Dear Council Members, I have been studying the economics of real estate in Iowa City since 1985 as an appraiser and for a six year stint as a member of the planning and zoning commission. I believe the City will be making a mistake by down zoning properties on the edge of the Central Business District. I do not believe the issue has been adequately vetted and that we are seeking solutions that address a purely political issue without a better understanding of their cost. My firm did a survey of just over 6,000 apartments in the area last year. Rents have gone up a little over 7% over the prior two years. Vacancies were under 2% near the central business district. A healthy market has vacancies of about 7 %. You can expect continuing and significant increases in rents over the next few years or until this imbalance is addressed. This isn't just about students. It is about anyone who lives in rented housing. These are the most economically vulnerable people in the community and they are getting clobbered. They don't typically live near the central district but as rents rise, those inner city tenants move further out and rents go up for everyone. Have we really studied how this policy impacts affordable housing? Developers won't bear the brunt of these changes, the property owners will. It would be nice to think of property owners as the 1%- undeserving fat cats feathering their litter box. That is not the case. Property owners include the New Pioneer Coop, Community Mental Health and United Action for Youth. Developers should be treated no differently than non profits. Would you feel the same about these changes if $500,000 were wiped off your balance sheet so that you could do your part to save a restaurant? Have we studied the financial impact on the properties that will be affected? Do the property owners fully appreciate the ramifications of this change? Have we asked them? Taxes at every level of government are being assailed. The conversion from apartments to cooperatives will impact hundreds of apartments. It will wipe out 40% to 50% of the taxes they pay. I am not sure how much this will reduce our City revenues but it will be substantial. It will also hurt the county and the schools. Commercial property tax reform has just passed the State House of Representatives and Senate is working on their version. Republicans, Democrats and the Governor have all agreed to reduce the commercial taxes the only issue is who benefits the most and how much will it cost. The bill indicates that the State will "backfill" these lost taxes. I think this "backfill" will be ripe political fruit to be cut and consumed when times get tough. The rural areas and farms will not be the ones to make up the difference. It will be at the expense of the Cities. In light of these impending losses where will the revenue come from? Have we done any analysis in this regard? I would like to know how much of the property in Iowa City is tax exempt and how that has changed over the past ten years. While churches, hospitals, community colleges and the University all play a critical role in our economy there are burdens and these need to be considered. When the University responds to the devastating floods of 2008, they need property and it is near the inner city. What analysis has been done on how the City will need to backfill revenues for properties that have left the tax rolls over the past five years? What are we projecting for the next five to ten years in this regard? The upshot is that as City revenues are cut and the ability to grow is curtailed, it is the human services and cultural events that suffer. For many of the people that signed the petition to save the Red Avocado these are the things the City does that they value the most. So let's take a deep breath and reconsider these zoning decisions. I encourage you to do some analysis on the true cost of our options. I encourage you to refer these questions to the public process and engage the planning and zoning commission as well as City Staff in this endeavor. Sincerely, Casey Cook Marian Karr From: Matt Hayek Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 10:02 PM To: Marian Karr Subject: FW: Zoning Amendments - High Density From: Peter Davisson [davissonandsonmillwork @yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2012 8:41 PM To: Rick Dobyns; Matt Hayek; Susan Mims; Michelle Payne; jim- throgmorton @iowac - city.org; con nie- champion @iowa - city.org; Terry Dickens Subject: Zoning Amendments - High Density City Council Members, My name is Pete Davisson and I live at 6 Brickwood Knoll, Iowa City, IA. I'm a lifelong resident of Iowa City and local business owner in the construction industry. My father and I own Davisson & Son Millwork. I'm writing you today concerning the issue of setting the public hearing on the zoning code for the "University Impact Area" and the resulting 60 day moratorium. I'm asking you today to vote NO to the setting of the public hearing and 60 day moratorium. Following are the reasons I feel this is important : - I feel it is unfair that the city is going to stop progress on projects that meet current zoning regulations. - By enacting a moratorium you will negatively affect the building industry and the jobs it offers to our community members. - It's been mentioned that Iowa City is "Open For Business ", by the city calling an emergency meeting /moratorium you are not sending this message to builders and developers. - The process in which the city is trying to push this through, quickly and quietly, without public input sends a negative message to everyone. In conclusion, you need to vote NO to the issue at hand. Future amendments and changes to Iowa City zoning regulations may be beneficial to our community, but they need to be dealt with fairly and openly. My associates and I look forward to attending the upcoming work session and hearing your thoughts on the Neighborhood Stabilization (Agenda items #7b,7c,7d). Sincerely, Pete Davisson 319.631.1866 Davisson & Son Millwork Office: 319- 354 -4887 Fax: 319- 354 -4866 Marian Karr From: Matt Hayek Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 2:08 PM To: Marian Karr Subject: FW: Neighborhood Stabilization From: Sheila Davisson [revival.ic @gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 9:00 AM To: Matt Hayek; Susan Mims; Rick Dobyns; Michelle Payne; Jim Throgmorton; Terry Dickens; Connie- champion @iowa - city.org Subject: Neighborhood Stabilization Dear Council Members, My name is Sheila Davisson, I live at 6 Brickwood Knoll Iowa City, IA. I own a retail business in downtown Iowa City called Revival. I am writing to you today to encourage you to vote NO to setting a public hearing and 60 day moratorium. I believe the steps the city has taken to make these changes, are not upfront nor beneficial to our city. Although, I was a strong supporter of keeping the building and business that were recently demolished, I believe that setting a public hearing and enacting this moratorium would be detrimental to the future development of Iowa City. It sends the message to developers, potential businesses and our community that we are not supportive of local business. I do believe that changes made to the zoning ordinaces could be beneficial for our downtown, but we should be following the typical protocol and not rushing through this moratorium and hurting current projects. It is unfair. Thank you, Sheila Davisson Dear Reader: This letter is to replace the previous letter that I sent which was not proofed. I support the holding of open meetings to discuss the amendments to the zoning codes. I further support adoption of the proposed amendments: 1) the number of unrelated persons who may reside within one dwelling unit, 2) the number of required parking spaces for multi - family dwelling units, and 3) the maximum number of bedrooms allowed in each dwelling unit within a multi - family building. Iowa City is a great place for all kinds of people to live, including for students, young professionals, and families. We can have great diversity throughout our neighborhoods without sacrificing the historic and culturally unique aspects of our neighborhoods. Thank you for your attention. Michael Feiss 603 Brown Street Iowa City IA 52245 feissmftgmail.com r', Marian Karr From: Nolealum96 <nolealum96 @aol.com> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 3:17 PM To: Council Subject: Moratorium on Bullding in Downtown Iowa City Hello There, I am a life long resident here in the Iowa City Area. This is a great place to live. I have children gong to school here now and truly feel this town is special. I work here and own businesses here in town too. Placing a moratorium on development as a knee jerk reaction to a few individuals is not a good idea. I am sure you have heard it all. If there is an issue with density and student living conditions , it may need to be looked at. But putting on the breaks, even for a short time, puts a lot of folks in harms way. Especially when they have had a lawful and good with a good faith approach to the project at hand. The prospective tenants of the new building, business to be located in the new building, contractors working on, insurance providers for, bankers financing the project, tax revenues from the increased value of the ground and a host of other reasons that have not been thought of yet, all need to be considered. But that needs to happen over a reasonable time,No one wins approaching the issue like this.. Please do more research on the subject before putting any type of temporary hold on development and construction Thank You for considering my input. Arthur (Art) L. Floss III This message may contain confidential and /or privileged information. If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose, or take any action based on this message or any information herein. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e -mail and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation. Marian Karr From: Steve Gordon <sgordon @am management.net> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 1:55 PM To: Council Subject: Zoning Code Amendments and Moratorium Mr. Mayor and City Council Members, in regards to the zoning amendments being considered for the proposed "University Impact Area" I am in agreement with the letters you received from Mr. Mike McLaughlin, Mr. Mike Pugh and the Greater Iowa City Area Homebuilders Association. I urge you to follow the proper procedures for these zoning amendments, as any member of the public seeking a rezoning would have to, and to not place an immediate moratorium on building and development. Thank you for your consideration. Steve Gordon AM Management, Inc. Dear Councilor Champion, I am writing you to offer my opinion on why I think traffic cameras should be installed in Iowa City. I am aware that you are against them, but I was hoping you could take just a couple minutes out of your day to consider my view point. Traffic enforcement cameras are automotive ticketing machines that try and regulate traffic by regulating speeding and red light violations. The main reason why I believe the speed cameras should be installed is to save lives. The year before Cedar Rapids installed their speed cameras three people died on Interstate 80 at the S- curve. Now almost a year after being installed no one has died and officers have not had to work a crash at that curve. A lot of people may think that these are just used to make money which is some ways it is, but it's what the money is used for that matters. Money made from these tickets goes towards helping out police with operating costs like salaries, cars and weapons. This can even help a struggling economy by making up for the lack of increased property taxes due to lower new home sales in a slower economy. I hope that you are now aware of the benefits of traffic cameras and are considering being in favor of installing them. Thank you for taking time out of your day to read my letter. Iowa City High School senior, Lindsay Hall 2-4o t 6 Vend r-C\NCA 011-i TA -S22-45 a Marian Karr From: RussUPS @aol.com Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 4:31 PM To: Council Subject: (no subject) Great idea to change the rules on Allen Homes after he's put out all of this money to improve parts of downtown Iowa City,,,,, NOT! What message do you think your sending to any other people or business out there who might be contemplating setting up shop here? We have some of the most talented developers in the state of Iowa here and what do you do? Put a choke hold on them and make it absolutely miserable for any of them to use their talents. Yes, there might need to be some rule changes to the TIF laws but in the long run you bring a lot of anti- business ideas to the table to make people and developers leave this area. Turn away a good tax bearing venture. Then go ahead and raise residential and commercial property taxes so everyone can pay City employees and some of your six figure administrative salaries, pay for most of their healthcare, then the taxpayer contributes 8.67% of each City employee salary into IPERS so he or she can retire with up to 65% of their salary. When 63% of the City budget goes to salaries and benefits, you'd better find a way to supplement that monster. I and others may have to sell our homes or lose our business because they can't afford the property taxes anymore. That's why the owner sold her property to Jesse Allen for that very reason. This city has a population of 67,000 people and that is with a student population of 25,000, those students pump a lot of money into this city and you seem to do anything you can to deter it. Wake up and see what your doing to EVERYONE here. It's gone on way to long. Just because you have a petition with 5,000 signatures on it that doesn't mean it's has the best thing for the city. Russell Haught Marian Karr From: Dan Knebel <dan @knebelwindows.com> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 1:19 PM To: Council Subject: Proposed Development Moratorium Dear City Council Members, I am opposed to the imposition of any form of moratorium. Especially since it impedes construction projects for a period of up to sixty (60) days at the beginning of our current construction season. This is also unfair to builders / developers who've had site plans or building permits already approved. These people have spent a lot of time and money on projects that were approved, and they should be allowed to proceed. I urge you to not set a public hearing for next Tuesday, February 21St Thanks for your consideration, Dan Knebel Daniel Knebel President Knebel Windows, Inc. phone 319.338.1712 fax 319.338.1904 www.knebelwindows.com Daniel Knebel 1373 Santa Fe Drive Iowa City, IA 52246 Marian Karr From: Mary Knudson <mary_knudson @msn.com> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 11:51 AM To: Council Subject: March 20 public hearing support I am writing you to support a March 20 public hearing for a change in zoning that would affect central city neighborhoods. I live in the Miller- Orchard neighborhood that houses more than its fair share of transient housing (student apartments). As a neighborhood, we are moving forward to make our neighborhood more stable in terms of the amount of time residents live here. Two examples demonstrate this movement; our neighborhood strategic plan, and our association and success with the UniverCity program. Several of us have also been active at the meetings for revitalizing the river front. We are also facing a concern with the loss of Roosevelt School, which translates into the questions,what will happen to that property. As of right now, the Board of Education has stipulations on the purpose for future use of that property. However, if that falls through, we may be faced with a development that could weaken our neighborhood with higher traffic and much more transient housing. This would not only affect us, but have a domino effect on the neighborhoods west of us. I am tired of having developers circle our neighborhoods to buy up cheap property with no regard to those affected. We enjoy living close to downtown. My husband can walk to work, and my family can easily get to the many events Iowa City has to offer. I am in strong support of a code that would (1) reduce the number of unrelated persons that may reside within one dwelling unit to a maximum of three within the stated zones, which will be consistent with the maximum allowed currently in all other zones within the city; (2) prevent construction of multi- family dwelling units containing more than three bedrooms and will establish new graduated residential density formulas that create a density bonus for building 1- bedroom apartments and reduced density allowance for 3- bedroom units, and (3) increase the number of required parking spaces for multi - family dwelling units that contain three bedrooms in a designated "University Impact Area" in order to accommodate the demand for parking generated by larger units located in proximity to the University of Iowa campus. Thank you. Regards, Mary Knudson 725 West Benton Street Marian Karr From: Amy <amy.kretkowski @gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2012 7:04 AM To: Council Subject: Support for public hearing I am a resident of Iowa City's north side and I am writing to support the setting of a public hearing on March 20, 2012, to amend zoning code ordinances that, if approved, would: 1. Reduce the number of unrelated persons that may reside within one dwelling unit to a maximum of three within the stated zones, which will be consistent with the maximum allowed currently in all other zones within the city; 2. Prevent construction of multi - family dwelling units containing more than three bedrooms and will establish new graduated residential density formulas that create a density bonus for building 1- bedroom apartments and reduced density allowance for 3- bedroom units; and 3. Increase the number of required parking spaces for multi - family dwelling units that contain three bedrooms in a designated "University Impact Area" in order to accommodate the demand for parking generated by larger units located in proximity to the University of Iowa campus. Thank you, Amy Kretkowski, Esq. 714 N. Johnson St. Iowa City, IA 52245 Sent from my Whone. Please excuse typos. Marian Karr From: Cecile Kuenzli <cecile.kuenzli @gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2012 7:25 PM To: Council Subject: neighborhood stabilization issue Dear Council Members, Thank you for setting a public hearing on the issue of neighborhood stabilzation. As I indicated to you in a letter earlier this month, preservation begins with appropriate zoning. As city councilors, you have to be the ones who take the long view on what regulation is best to ensure the quality of life in Iowa City. I am writing this email from Kauai'i in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, a place where people have struggled hard to preserve the natural beauty of their island from unregulated development. It is in such places that people to want to visit and to live. Iowa City is no tropical paradise, but it is where I live and where I want to continue to live and to feel proud that citizens and public officials are willing to enact zoning to preserve what is left of our town's character and its older neighborhoods. Sincerely, Cecile Kuenzli 705 South Summit St. Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Marian Karr From: Latenser, Barbara A <barbara - latenser @uiowa.edu> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 9:49 AM To: Council Subject: Public hearing March 20, 2012 Dear City Council members: I am a longtime resident of Iowa City's Brown Street Historic District. I approve the setting of a public hearing on March 20, 2012, to amend zoning code ordinances that, if approved, would: 1. Reduce the number of unrelated persons that may reside within one dwelling unit to a maximum of three within the stated zones, which will be consistent with the maximum allowed currently in all other zones within the city; 2. Prevent construction of multi - family dwelling units containing more than three bedrooms and will establish new graduated residential density formulas that create a density bonus for building 1- bedroom apartments and reduced density allowance for 3- bedroom units; 3. Increase the number of required parking spaces for multi - family dwelling units that contain three bedrooms in a designated "University Impact Area" in order to accommodate the demand for parking generated by larger units located in proximity to the University of Iowa campus. Thank you. Barbara A. Latenser, MD, FACS Professor, Dept of Surgery University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics 200 Hawkins Drive Iowa City, IA 52242 319.356.7892 office 319.356.3392 FAX barbara - latenser o.uiowa.edu 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. ^7 l Marian Karr From: Dan Marine <dan @oaktreehomesiowa.com> Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 8:23 AM To: Council Subject: Proposed Development Moratorium Hello, I urge you to consider the unintended consequences of the proposed development moratorium on ongoing development projects. Zoning issues are complex, as you know, and require serious consideration. As a member of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association I stand ready to help create ordinances that work for all interested parties and respectfully request you allow the existing system of zoning review and reform to fully explore concerns and requested changes. Through this process, all articulated claims can be addressed and explored without unintended negative consequences. Thank you, Dan Dan Marine Oak Tree Homes Wilton, IA Certified Green Building Professional Certified Aging -In -Place Specialist 563.732.5340 or dan @oaktreehomesiowa.com www.oaktreehomesiowa.com REALTOR° _T 1--.>. Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS February 20, 2012 Iowa City City Council City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Mayor Matt Hayek and City Council Members: On behalf of the Iowa City Area Association of REALTORS® ( ICAAR), I'm writing with concerns we have as an association with respect to the 60 -day moratorium issue before you. We have heard this moratorium on building in Iowa City could take place as early as February 21, 2012. ICAAR is concerned that this action may not serve the best interests of the community as a whole. It appears you are considering this decision without appropriate input from Planning and Zoning and the community at large. The economic impact of such a move could be far reaching indeed, especially in the building and associated industries. We are aware of a letter sent by the Greater Iowa City Home Builders Association and are in support of their position. We welcome discussion on this matter, but urge you not to pass such a moratorium. Sincerely, IOWA CITY AREA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® J n Marshall, President 847 Quarry Road, Suite 110 319- 338 -6460 phone e-mail: icaar @icaar.org Coraluille, IA 52241 319 - 338 -6957 fax web site: icaar.org Marian Karr From: Jeffrey K. McGinness <jmcginness @simmonsperrine.com> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 1:29 PM To: Council Cc: Tom Markus; 'Joan Tiemeyer' Subject: Proposed Development Moratorium in Iowa City Dear Council It is my understanding that the Iowa City HBA recently submitted a letter regarding the Proposed Development Moratorium in Iowa City. As HBA member myself, and as an attorney that has several HBA and other local development clients, I join in their opposition to the proposed moratorium. In addition to the many concerns raised by the HBA, I want to express my concern regarding the effect this moratorium would have upon the many developers and builders who have invested hundreds of thousands in projects that are already underway or that were planned for this building season. Such a moratorium can and will have a devastating financial effect on these local business owners, taxpayers and voters. Unless and until it is shown that there is a "run on" developments attempting to get in prior to any proposed zoning changes, the substance of which has yet to be fully articulated, a moratorium serves no real purpose and is clearly outweighed by the impact upon our local business community. I look forward to your thoughtful consideration of this issue. Jeffrey K. McGinness Simmons Perrine Moyer Bergman PLC 115 Third Street SE, Suite 1200 Cedar Rapids, IA 52401 -1266 Telephone: 319 - 366 -7641 Direct Dial: 319 - 896 -4088 Facsimile: 319 - 366 -1917 e -mail: jmcginness @simmonsperrine.comour www.simmonsperrine.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and its attachments are covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 -2521, and may contain attorney - client or attorney work - product privileged and confidential information, which privileges are reserved. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, please know that any retention, dissemination, distribution, copying or unauthorized distribution of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please reply to the sender, contact the sender by telephone and delete the communication from your computer, network, and any archive system. Thank you. To comply with U.S. Treasury Department regulations, we also inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this email, including attachments, is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purposes of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service or (2) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. Thank you. ■■ 11 South Gilbert 00 The Greater Iowa City Area P.O. Box 3396 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 Phone: (319) 351 -5333 HB Fax: (319) 358 -2443 E -mail: joan@hbaofic.org HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION www.iowacityhomes.com Advocates.for homeownership by promoting standards for quatity and affordablility February 16, 2012 c r Iowa City City Council 7, _ City of Iowa City 410 E Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Mayor Matt Hayek and City Council Members Re: Proposed Development Moratorium I am writing to you as President of the Greater Iowa City Home Builders Association and our 310 constituent members. The Legislative Committee of our organization has brought to my attention that the City is contemplating issuing a development moratorium as early as next Tuesday, February 21St The HBA is adamantly against the imposition of any form of moratorium that impedes construction projects for a period of up to sixty (60) days at the commencement of our current construction season. A development moratorium will have a significant impact on ongoing and scheduled development projects. This is particularly true in light of the fact that the proposed amendments themselves have not been fully articulated and there is no certainty as to the geographical scope of the proposed amendments. This will result in a "chilling" effect on construction activity in the Iowa City area. There are still many unanswered questions as to what the "phantom" ordinance entail. We respectfully suggest the Council follow these recommendations. A. Instruct the City staff to work with the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association, neighborhood groups and other stakeholders to draft proposed zoning amendments that address articulated concerns. B. Proposed zoning amendments should be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review and recommendation after public comment as is the normal course of zoning items. C. There is no need for the Council to set a public hearing on proposed amendments until the proposed amendments have been reviewed by Planning and Zoning and the commission has formalized their recommendations to Council. To do otherwise gives misplaced credibility to proposed amendments which have not been fully vetted. This would be the normal course of action for any rezoning item before the City. D. After the Planning and Zoning process is complete any moratorium adopted by Council should be narrowly tailored to only apply to new rezoning applications before Council. (01186749.D0C} Affiliated with National Association of Home Builders & Home Builders Association of Iowa Thank you for your attention to these matters. The issuance of a development moratorium is serious business. We hope we have an opportunity to work with you to address any articulated concerns with our current zoning laws. Respectfully submi C�/Z, Chad Melj�hger 2012 President Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association { 0 1 186749.DOC} • r`r -� { 0 1 186749.DOC} 71� Marian Karr From: becca sutlive <rsutlive @hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 4:55 PM To: Council Subject: in support of Moratorium To Whom it May Concern: I'm writing to support the Moratorium on new developments in Iowa City. As a homeowner living hear downtown I would like to see careful attention paid to the way we are developing these fragile areas. I don't mind living side -by -side with students but the density of housing and future apartment complexes is of great concern to me. Thank you, Becca Morgan 14 S. Governor St. 319 - 333 -1841 Marian Karr From: Mulford Plumbing <mulfordplumbing @yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 12:13 PM To: Council My name is Jim Mulford with Mulford Plumbing and Heating, 940 S Gilbert St. I stand behind the position taken by the Homebuilders Association 100 percent. Marian Karr From: Pascoe, Judith M <judith- pascoe @uiowa.edu> Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2012 1:56 PM To: Council Subject: yes to public hearing Dear City Council members: I am writing to encourage you to set a public hearing on March 20, 2012 in order to address zoning code ordinances in a designated "University Impact Area." Thank you for considering zoning changes that will make it more likely that older central neighborhoods maintain some of their architectural integrity and population diversity. Yours sincerely, Judith Pascoe I c F. lames Bradley Byron G. Riley Michael K. Denney Patrick M. Courtney Donald G. Thompson Kelly R. Baier Gregory J. Seyfer Dean A. Spina Joseph E. Schmall Bradley G. Hart William J. Neppl William T. McCarton Maureen G. Kenney Vernon P. Squires Timothy J. Hill Paul D. Burns Michael J. Pugh Janice J. Kerkove Nancy A. Wood February 17, 2012 VIA E -MAIL AND U.S. MAIL Mr. Tom Markus City Manager City of Iowa City, Iowa 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Re: Washington Plaza Dear Tom: Kevin C. Popp I want to personally thank you and the other City staff members for meeting with me, Mr. Kaut and Mr. Allen yesterday afternoon to discuss the Washington Plaza project. It was helpful to understand the City's reasoning behind several of the proposed zoning amendments, many of which do not materially effect the proposed Washington Plaza project. At this point the particulars of the new zoning amendments have neither been fully articulated nor fully vetted by the normal planning and zoning process. It is extraordinarily expensive for a project owner to invest in engineering and architectural plans to meet the design elements of a speculative ordinance which may or may not come to pass. My guess is that it would also be extraordinarily difficult for your staff to review development's plans in the same context. As you know, time is money for any development project. It is critical for the project to be substantially completed by August lst. Because of the uncertainty in what the new zoning legislation may contain, the partners of Washington Plaza have decided to proceed ahead with the staff's review of its current site plan and building configuration. The initial Major Site Plan application was submitted to the City on December 30, 2011. The developers have addressed comments from staff in response to their initial review. We anticipate remaining submittals to be {01187503.DOC) Laura C. Mueller Kimberly H. Blankenship Joseph W. Younker Jessica A. Doro il Jeremy B. P. Hagan Natalie K. Ditmors Adam S. Tarr BRADLEY RILEY Raymond R. Rinkol Jr. & PC Charles W. Showalter ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS CEDAR RAPIDS - IOWA CITY WEBSITE ADDRESS: TOWER PLACE www.bradleyriley.coni ONE SOUTH GILBERT STREET IOWA CITY, IA 52240.3914 E -MAIL ADDRESS: mpugh@:bradleyriley.com TELEPHONE: 319 - 466.1511 DIRECT DIAL: FAX: 319 - 358 -5560 319. 358.5562 I want to personally thank you and the other City staff members for meeting with me, Mr. Kaut and Mr. Allen yesterday afternoon to discuss the Washington Plaza project. It was helpful to understand the City's reasoning behind several of the proposed zoning amendments, many of which do not materially effect the proposed Washington Plaza project. At this point the particulars of the new zoning amendments have neither been fully articulated nor fully vetted by the normal planning and zoning process. It is extraordinarily expensive for a project owner to invest in engineering and architectural plans to meet the design elements of a speculative ordinance which may or may not come to pass. My guess is that it would also be extraordinarily difficult for your staff to review development's plans in the same context. As you know, time is money for any development project. It is critical for the project to be substantially completed by August lst. Because of the uncertainty in what the new zoning legislation may contain, the partners of Washington Plaza have decided to proceed ahead with the staff's review of its current site plan and building configuration. The initial Major Site Plan application was submitted to the City on December 30, 2011. The developers have addressed comments from staff in response to their initial review. We anticipate remaining submittals to be {01187503.DOC) BRADLEY & RILEY PC February 17, 2012 Page 2 delivered to the City in the near future for staff's consideration with the eye toward the issuance of a building permit. We anticipate, and expect, the review process to proceed in the normal course and at ordinary speed. Before purchasing the property at 511, 517 and 521 Washington, Mr. Kaut and Mr. Allen considered the requirements of the present CB 2 Central Business Services zoning for the site and discussed with City staff on numerous occasions as to what was legally permissible to develop on the site. In reliance on these expectations, Washington Plaza made a significant investment in the site in the form of acquisition, engineering, architectural, legal, accounting and demolition. An appraisal of the proposed project has been completed for financing purposes which establishes the value of the project as planned. Perhaps it would be acceptable for the City Council to consider at this time a zoning amendment which eliminates four (4) and five (5) bedroom apartments which, to our knowledge, is neither relevant to the Washington Plaza site nor any other pending development that is shovel ready. We share the common goal of constructing a quality mixed use project that will add to the streetscape and the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Kaut and Mr. Allen are open to the City's reasonable suggestions on how to enhance the quality of the development, but at this point they have no choice but to proceed ahead with the necessary municipal approvals based on the permissible zoning for the property. Thanks once again for your courtesy and cooperation. Sincerely, BRADLEY & EY C f XMicffel. Pug MJP /dab cc: Washington Plaza, LLC (Via e -mail) City Council (Via email) 101187503.DOC } Marian Karr From: Matt Hayek Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 2:07 PM To: Marian Karr Subject: FW: From: Tracy Reiten [tracy.reiten @lepickroeger.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 12:49 PM To: Matt Hayek; Rick Dobyns; Jim Throgmorton; Susan Mims; Michelle Payne Subject: To whom it may concern: I oppose the moratorium and vote NO to set a public hearing on Tuesday. Sincerely, Tracy Reiten, REALTOR Tracy Reiten Broker Associate, ABR, ASR, CRS, e -PRO, GRI, SRES Lepic - Kroeger, REALTORS@ 319- 248 -0554 - ,Contact me at tracyCa)tracyreiten.com or tracy.reiten(aD_lepickroeger.com For more information visit www.lepickroecier.com or www.tracyreiten.com For a Pawsitive experience in Real Estate! Licensed to sell Real Estate in the state of Iowa since 1995 TELEPHONE (319) 338-1184 FAX (319) 338-8510 www.riverproducts.com Matt Hayek, Mayor City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Matt: Crushed Limestone Products Sand & Gravel CORPORATE OFFICES 3273 DUBUQUE STREET N.E. P.O. BOX 2120 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244-2120 February 20, 2012 RE: Proposed Development Moratorium It's typical. We always try to close the barn door after the horses are out. AUR has their 5+ bedroom apartment complexes under construction or already built. A moratorium pending "new legislation" will only hurt the smaller developers — and I fear is directed at the Red Avocado and the Jewish Synagogue properties. Both of these properties are extensions of an already zoned commerciaUresidential area. You are not jumping into or over existing medium or low density zoned residential uses. Nor, as I understand it, are you required to change any existing zoning densities to permit re-development of these properties. As you and I know, there is a process in place to address these issues — and that is the introduction of zoning changes through the Planning and Zoning Commission format. The City should follow the same rules and regulations that the private sector has to — and that is to follow those established rules for amending the Zoning Code. I also remind you that this issue is not new to the City. Even in my long ago service on the Planning and Zoning Commission, we struggled with the "bedroom and parking" problem. And more recently, in this Sunday's edition of the Press Citizen they reprinted a seven year old guest opinion submitted by Mark McCallum that addressed this same issue, As I said, these are not new issues to the City. And thus, in the interest of fairness, the City should follow the established rules for amending the Zoning Code. Save the City's extra-ordinary police powers for when they are really needed. Sincerely, Cc: City Council Members Tom Markus, City Manager Marian Karr From: Matt Hayek Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 10:00 PM To: Glenn Siders Cc: 'con nie- cham pion @iowa- city.org'; Terry Dickens; 'rick- dobyns @iowa - city.org.'; 'susan- mimms @iowa - city.org'; Michelle Payne; Jim Throgmorton; Tom Markus; Marian Karr Subject: RE: February 21, 2012 Formal Council Meeting Hello Glenn, We will ensure public comment on those items at the Tuesday (February 21) meeting. We don't have any council meetings before Tuesday. Regards, Matt Hayek From: Glenn Siders [gsiders @SouthGateCo.com] Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 4:52 PM To: Matt Hayek Cc: 'connie- cham pion @iowa - city.org'; Terry Dickens; 'rick- dobyns @iowa- city.org.'; 'susan - mimms @iowa- city.org'; Michelle Payne; Jim Throgmorton Subject: February 21, 2012 Formal Council Meeting Mayor Hayek Will there be any opportunity for public comment between now and your February 21" meeting to address Agenda Items 7b, 7c and 7d? As you might well know, there is considerable concern in the development community of setting a public hearing without any input from the public and generating a moratorium on ordinances that have not yet been drafted? Glenn R. Sider \lice President tai 'f i 11 'ti -7,(:�, Marian Karr From: Mpstreb @aol.com Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 12:43 PM To: Council Subject: Development moratorium Dear Council members: I urge you to delay the February 21st public hearing which will trigger a 60 day moratorium on development Planners need to stop and take a deep breathe before proposing sweeping changes, the discussion of which will have a chilling effect on proposed projects throughout Iowa City. At a time when we have the need for more housing, and a need for good construction jobs, I suggest that the council not rush into a process that will have unintended consequences Mike Streb ValuCon, Inc. Marian Karr From: Roberta Till -Retz <demspotter @g mail. com> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 11:46 AM To: Council Subject: Agenda item on March 21 Please vote to hold public hearings on zoning code ordinances. We need to hear from the public on these important issues that matter so much to the quality of life in our town. Thanks much. Roberta Till -Retz Roberta Till -Retz / Jae Retz 206 College Court Iowa City, IA 52245 319 -512 -1934 Jae's cell 319- 430 -8870 7 , d Marian Karr From: Kevin Tompkins <tompkins @southslope.net> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 1:11 PM To: Council Subject: Public hearing 2/21 Iowa City Council Please consider the financial effects on the community during this period of slow recovery. A development moratorium will have a significant impact on ongoing and scheduled development projects. This is particularly true in light of the fact that the proposed amendments themselves have not been fully articulated and there is no certainty as to the geographical scope of the proposed amendments. I stand with the HBA on their same request. Sincerely, Kevin Tompkins Tompkins Lawn Care, Inc 3940 - 120th St NE Solon, IA 52333 -9112 319.331.9357 Phone 319.624.3713 Fax tomnkins(&..so uthslone. net www.tompkinslawncare.com www.TLC- Builders.com Le Ann's Direct Dial /Text: 319.430.1187 Mike's Direct Dial /Text: 319.430.7195 M" www.TalkToLeAnn.com biiiiw 70 Sturgis Corner Dr. Iowa City, IA 52246 REAL ESTATE Office: 319.351.3355 Fax: 319.351.6889 PROFESSIONALS our team works hardeveryday to earn your business for a I fettme ' ;u February 21, 2011 Dear Mayor Hayek and Council Members: We are writing this letter in response to the proposed 60 day moratorium on building projects in Iowa City. We object to this on several levels: We have watched from the beginning the process of the land purchase on East Washington St. These investors made their purchase of the land with the express intention of developing a multi -use structure. They were very upfront with the city staff as to how they intended to develop the land. They made their investment and did not have any indications until in the last couple of weeks that the city intended to take a negative reactionary stand. In the history of the development process, to our knowledge, never has the city council taken the position of issuing a moratorium such as this. It appears that the city council and staff are taking punitive action towards this Washington Street project. This is unwarranted when these developers have followed the protocol as laid out in past precedence. These developers do not need to request re- zoning as this project falls within the current zoning guidelines, thus it should not be halted erratically by the city council. 2. The procedure for making amendments to zoning code needs to be followed. Specific amendments need to be presented, addressed at public hearings and then presented to the council for consideration. A public hearing post- moratorium is unwarranted. If you move forward with the moratorium you are not fairly and equitably representing the people as you have been elected to do. In fact, this is nothing short of impeding natural business development and sure does feel like police action by the city council. 3. This moratorium has potential to do economic damage when we are in very troubling times economically. By stopping this project and several others for 60 days when the building season would be able to get under way, which we know this action may lead to many more weeks; you are causing severe economic hardship to the community. The developers of these projects have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars preparing to build. They have contractors prepared to work for them, who employ any number of people at many levels and who use materials that keep local businesses open. The trickle -down economic effect of your decision should be a major consideration in making this decision. 4. This development group, and most that the moratorium will affect, are Iowans. We are not looking at some developer coming and with a big dream. These are Iowans who know what our community needs and how to serve the community best. We need diverse development within Iowa City with thoughtful planning. Affordable housing is key to keeping people in Iowa City who will work and spend their money within the community. We need to increase the tax base, which these projects facilitate on several levels. In summary, the proposed moratorium is unjust and questionable at best. If you implement it today you will not be representing the people as you have been elected to do. You will impose economic hardship at many levels and that could have staggering and long- lasting effects within the community. We implore you and city staff to follow the zoning amendment procedure if there are warranted concerns. As our city leaders you are obligated to do your due diligence and make sound decisions. Thank you for your time and consideration. Very Respectfully, Mace, an& Le�Avu -, ryso -w Residents of Iowa City Mike Tyson Le Ann Tyson - CBR, CHMS, SFR Certified Buyers Representative Certified Home Marketing Specialist Short Sale Foreclosure Resource Certified Hispanic Real Estate Professional YOUR HOME TEAM Licensed To Practice Real Estate In The State of Iowa ;�ul ,r Marian Karr From: Christina Welu- Reynolds <chriswelu @g mail. com> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 9:20 PM To: Council Subject: prpposed zoning changes Monday, February 20, 1012 City Council Members, As a resident of the northside of Iowa City for the past 16 years I ask that you approve the setting of a public hearing on March 20, 2012 in order to amend zoning code ordinances. Amending the zoning code ordinances would have a significant positive impact on the central neighborhoods of Iowa City by: 1. Reducing the number of unrelated persons that can live in a unit to a maximum of three. This change would be consistent with the maximum number of persons allowed to live in a unit in all other zones within the city. This would also help to address the issue of an "unsupervised dormitory" setting within many of the large apartment complexes. 2. Preventing the building of dwelling units that contain more than three bedrooms and will create new graduated residential density formulas that will provide for a density bonus for building 1 bedroom apartments. This will help to alleviate the already saturated concentration of three ( +) bedroom apartment complex units within our central neighborhoods. These units tend to ignore the need for more diversified complex units. 3. The number of required parking spaces for three bedroom dwelling units in a designated "University Impact Area" would increase in order to adequately meet the demand for parking generated by larger units located close to the University of Iowa campus. Such zoning changes would reduce the impact of parking on surrounding neighborhoods. By approving the setting of a public hearing on March 20, 2012 the City of Iowa City would be taking proactive steps toward neighborhood stabilization and livable neighborhoods. Please support the hearings on the proposed zoning changes. Sincerely, Christina Welu- Reynolds rj Marian Karr From: david wieseneck <davineck @hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 9:09 PM To: northsideneighborhoodic @gmail.com; Council Subject: zoning code amendments Councilors -- I strongly support changing zoning codes regarding: 1. Reduce the number of unrelated persons that may reside within one dwelling unit to a maximum of three within the stated zones, which will be consistent with the maximum allowed currently in all other zones within the city; 2. Prevent construction of multi - family dwelling units containing more than three bedrooms and will establish new graduated residential density formulas that create a density bonus for building 1- bedroom apartments and reduced density allowance for 3- bedroom units; 3. Increase the number of required parking spaces for multi - family dwelling units that contain three bedrooms in a designated "University Impact Area" in order to accommodate the demand for parking generated by larger units located in proximity to the University of Iowa campus. I favor these changes in order to preserve /establish /regain a healthy balance between commercial, long -term residents and short-term residents of Iowa City. I also hope that consideration will be given to aesthetic over -site regarding new construction. Thank you, David Wieseneck, Iowa City Northside resident and business owner residence 818 North Linn Street Motley Cow Cafe 160 North Linn Street Marian Karr From: Mike Wright <mike.wright. 1 107@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 4:48 PM To: Council Subject: Agenda items 7 b, c, d DATE: 19 February, 2012 TO: City Council FROM: Mike Wright RE: Agenda Items 7b,c,d I write today in a not - unfamiliar role: advocating for Iowa City's core neighborhoods. At this time, you have an opportunity to once again prove that you each are neighborhood advocates as well: Please vote in favor of setting a public hearing for agenda items 7b, 7c, and 7d. As you well know, there has been a huge amount of concern over construction of large apartment buildings with 4 and 5 bedroom units in the areas around downtown. These neighborhood- wreckers have been referred to as unsupervised dorms. As someone who lives a shade more than a block from one of these buildings, I can tell you that it's a very accurate moniker. Since Council has a stated strategic goal of stabilizing neighborhoods, you know and understand why setting these three public hearings could be very beneficial to neighborhoods. You also understand that not doing so is likely to lead to a mad rush of construction of these buildings which will remain as blights on the community — perhaps even attractive ones -- for decades to come. Because setting the public hearing will put a moratorium on construction that might not meet the future standards, I'm sure you're getting a lot of blowback. Please remember that there is no time in Iowa City when construction comes to a standstill. And because any time such zoning changes are being proposed, a moratorium kicks in when Council sets the public hearing, somebody is always going to be in process with a project that's going to be affected. That's the blessing and curse of living in a community that's as economically vital as Iowa City. Thank you very much for your attention on this matter. Sincerely, Mike Wright 225 N. Lucas St. o2 -2i -iz r d rlll -A CITY OF IOWA CITY 6,�, MEMORANDUM Date: February 15, 2012 To: Tom Markus, City Manager From: Jeff Davidson, Director Department of Planning and Community Development Robert Miklo, Senior Planner Re: Proposed Zoning Code Amendments on the February 21 City Council Agenda Introduction: In November of 2011 the City Council directed staff to review the High Density Multi - Family (RM -44) zoning designation. The Council asked if the zone should be eliminated. The question arose as a result of concerns expressed by neighborhoods pertaining to large parties, excessive noise, vandalism and spillover parking. There has been focused neighborhood opposition to recent infill developments where neighborhoods expressed these issues as the reason for their objection to development. In January, after considerable public concern about redevelopment in the Central Business Service (CB -2) zone in the 500 block of Washington Street, the Council directed staff to broaden the review of the RM -44 zone to include other zoning districts. We were asked to consider issues that affect the strategic plan priority of neighborhood stabilization including parking requirements, building height and scale, open space, dwelling unit density and occupancy (essentially the number of bedrooms per unit). History /Background: The most significant concern has been the proliferation of apartment buildings with large numbers of bedrooms (3, 4 and 5 bedrooms) per unit. Such properties function as unsupervised dormitories attracting large numbers of college students, but without amenities and supervision usually present with on- campus housing. In the 1970's when the dwelling unit densities per acre that currently apply in the zoning code were established, most apartments being built contained 2- bedroom units. However since the 1990's the majority of apartments being built near campus and downtown have been 4- and 5- bedroom units, resulting in essentially a doubling of the density of bedrooms per acre. A review of nuisance complaints and crime reports reveals a high number of complaints in higher density housing areas near campus. Significantly fewer complaints occur for older buildings containing 1- and 2- bedroom apartments. Discussion of Solutions: We have researched zoning techniques used in cities that have large universities including Ames, Madison, Lawrence, Lincoln, and East Lansing. These cities have addressed concerns related to apartments that are designed for the student market. Based on this research staff has identified techniques that we believe will help address the concerns as they apply to Iowa City. Establishment of a University Impact Area (UTA) would apply to neighborhoods close to the University of Iowa Campus (See attached Map). Properties within the UTA would be subject to requirements designed to allow continued development of multi- family housing, including student housing, but with requirements to control some of the negative effects of large concentrations of high density apartments. The most significant of these requirements are outlined below: Reduce the number of unrelated persons allowed to live within one dwelling unit to a maximum of three: Currently, in a majority of the zones across the city, including all single family zones, the low density multi - family zone, and almost all commercial zones, including the Central Business zones, the maximum number of unrelated persons February 15, 2012 Page 2 that may reside within one dwelling unit is three. It is only the RM -44 and PRM Zones that still allow up to 5 unrelated persons per unit and the RM -20, RNS -20 and CO -1 Zone that allow up to 4 unrelated persons per unit. It is this occupancy standard that has created an incentive to build large dorm -like apartments containing 4- and 5- bedroom units. Limiting the number of bedrooms per apartment to 3 would help assure that as demographics and student enrollment change over time, the design and layout of apartments will be attractive and rentable to populations in addition to students. Students are able to live in 1 -, 2 -, and 3- bedroom apartments, but 4 and 5 bedrooms are generally not attractive to any tenants other than students. Eliminating the possibility of additional 4- and 5- bedroom apartments will help to address the negative effects that such high densities have on the community as well as help assure that a form of housing with limited market is not overbuilt. Increasing the number of parking spaces for 3 bedroom units: The current zoning code requires that 2 parking spaces be provided for 2- and 3- bedroom apartments. This provides an incentive to build 3 bedroom units and may result in parking spilling over into adjacent neighborhoods. It should be noted that this would only apply within the UTA. It would not apply to 3- bedroom apartments in outlying neighborhoods. Providing incentives for 1- bedroom apartments and encouraging a mix of apartment types: A graduated density provision requiring less lot area for 1- bedroom units and more lot area for 3- bedroom units will provide an incentive to construct 1- bedroom apartments. The density bonus is a provision that would not be appropriate in areas that have historic buildings because it might serve as an incentive to tear down existing buildings with 1- bedroom units and construct larger buildings to take advantage of the density bonus. This provision would only apply to multi - family uses in multi - family zones and commercial zones where multi - family uses are allowed. In the CB -5 and CB -10 Zones, where there is not a stated residential density standard, the number of apartments is only limited by a floor to area ratio (FAR) and the building height limit. Therefore to encourage a broader mix of apartment sizes in the downtown to serve populations other than just students, we recommend establishing a maximum percentage of 3- bedroom units per lot. In addition to these revisions staff is researching provisions for creating a zoning classification for private dormitories that would allow a higher density of bedrooms in targeted areas near the university campus. Other college towns that have adopted this approach require amenities and management practices to help assure that dormitory style housing is not disruptive to the adjacent neighborhoods. As part of the neighborhood stabilization efforts we will review other concerns including requirements for building height, scale and open space. Recommendation: Rather than eliminate the RM -44 zone, staff recommends application of zoning practices used in other college towns to create better living environments in high density zoning districts. These techniques would also benefit commercial zoning districts which allow multi - family housing and the City Council's strategic goal of stabilizing and improving neighborhoods. If the Council is concerned that there will be a rush to get projects under construction before zoning code changes take effect, setting a public hearing on the most significant amendments will establish a 60 -day moratorium. Proposals which meet the proposed standards would be allowed to obtain building permits and continue construction during the moratorium. Within the 60 -day moratorium period the Planning and Zoning Commission would review and make recommendations on these proposals. It is possible that through the legislative process changes to the proposed amendments will be recommended for the Council's consideration. February 15, 2012 Page 3 If the Council wishes to wait for the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation you may choose not to set the public hearings at this time and there will not be a 60 -day moratorium established. Attachment: Proposed University Impact Area CL C14 � V L . � 1 C �� o a L1 t :i . L[� a! o� i_ g ELI I WI Ad ' _a ; q ln ' �b� s��i LCID FL , W �I [a y Cr ITIt iSL ESTI TiirTII�TF�F� . — [ {IT 1!l Ial LI:ILiaiL :` < (�f_(i_ G_ F, PTO E M � {1A G! ti 1T�i.tZI a I 1' la I ;[ a ,j =T 1J1.9d j,r R 1 Ei f T J IZl 11a[�::ll 1 !. ..�Y Iift11J U .�r.N /�k_1 7'L , m�� �� j,,r � � y LU N ..la ( i. i���� ,;�,�` —� _._7t_. �r- 1��rI I �Ral ttA oc, - TFEIDE — T m i � L . � I I I_ I i , i L, L�., s E4 V T LA3 _ -9 a i b Al C4 rt CL El LE I,L.1.r7E a= February 16, 2012 Iowa City Mayor and Council: On December 28, 2005 the current Zoning Code, Title 14, was adopted by the Iowa City Council. At that time numerous text amendments were proposed and ratified to what is the current City Zoning Code (i.e. change in the definition of "Household" requiring a reduction by one of the unrelated occupants allowed to live in a unit, in some residential zones, in order to conform with the newly adopted code). At that time I pointed out that rezoning was occurring and asked the city staff to follow the rezoning process promised in the City Rezoning Pamphlet. Rezoning was not recognized by the city staff. Therefore a letter notification, promised in the City Rezoning Pamphlet, was not mailed. A letter notification is not required by the State of Iowa Code 414 regarding Rezoning. The result was that many citizens were unaware their property was being rezoned, unless they were contacted by me. These property owners were also unaware of their rights as property owners explained in the City Rezoning Pamphlet. At this time I request that the Mayor and the Council require city staff to follow the rezoning process outlined in the City Rezoning Pamphlet so that all affected citizens are notified, by letter, that rezoning is proposed for their property and they have the opportunity to exercise their rights as property owners. Following the City Rezoning Pamphlet will not only alert affected property owners, it will also provide all Iowa City property owners the same due process all Iowa City property owners deserve when rezoning is proposed for their property. This due process was provided in the establishment of the Northside Historic District Overlay Zone in recent years. There are different forms of rezoning, such as text changes versus an overlay zone, however all forms of rezoning should be allowed the same due process. I understand that the areas being considered for rezoning are not in a single neighborhood and involve a variety of residential zones and a commercial zone which span the city. Since these proposed rezoning areas could affect vast neighborhoods of Iowa City the neighborhood concerns might be best considered with the City Comprehensive Plan currently under review. This will provide the necessary time and opportunity for productive collaboration with property owners, neighborhood representatives, City Staff and the City Council to decide what is the best course for Iowa City. Thank You. Mike McLaughlin ©: 319- 631 -3853 PAGE 9A -18 14 -9A General Definitions "Educational Facilities ", "Hospital Uses ", "Colleges and Universities" as defined in Article 14 -4A, Use Categories.) RELIGIOUS/ PRIVATE GROUP ASSEMBLY USE: See "Religious /Private Group Assembly Uses" as defined in Article 14 -4A, Use Categories. REMODEL /REPAIR: Any improvement in a building that is not a structural alteration. RESPONSIBLE PARTY: A person, who resides in and provides room and board in an elder family home. The responsible party may be, but is not required to be, an elder. RESTAURANT: An Eating Establishment as defined in Article 14 -4A; Use Categories. RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT: See "Retail Uses" as defined in Article 14 -4A, Use Categories. REZONING: An amendment to the text of this Title, including any amendment or change to any maps, graphic representations, or tables incorporated herein; and /or an amendment to the Zoning Map, i.e., a change in the zoning designation of a particular parcel or parcels of land. Overlay Rezonings are considered a type of rezoning. ROOF: The top covering of a building constructed to shield the area beneath from the weather. The term "roof' includes the term "canopy ". ROOFLINE: The highest point of the coping of a flat roof, the deck line of a mansard roof or the midpoint between the eaves and ridge of a saddle, hip, gable, gambrel or ogee roof. ROOMER: A resident of a Group Living Use. Staff, including live -in staff of an Assisted Group Living Use are not considered roomers. ROOMING HOUSE: Any dwelling, or that part of any dwelling, containing one or more rooming units in which space is let by the owner or operator to four or more roomers. A rooming house is categorized as Independent Group Living. ROOMING UNIT: Any habitable room or group of adjoining habitable rooms that form a single residential unit intended to be used primarily for living and sleeping, but not for cooking, located within a Group Living Use. SALVAGE OPERATION: See "Salvage Operations" as defined in Article 14 -4A, Use Categories. SCREENING: Structures and /or plantings that obscure an area from public view or from view of neighboring properties. SELF SERVICE STORAGE: See "Self Service Storage Uses" as defined in Article 14 -4A, Use Categories. SERVICE STATION: See "Quick Vehicle Servicing" as defined in Article 14 -4A, Use Categories. SETBACK: The distance between a specified object, such as a building, and another. point. Setbacks are usually measured from lot lines to a specified object. Uriles otherwise indicated, an unspecified setback refers to a building setback..; SETBACK AREA: A required area on a lot unoccupied by structures above e; ex�et for projections and specific accessory uses or structures allowed in such area wider f the provisions of this Title. A setback area extends from the grade upward.. ` Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 1 =5-12 PAGE 9A -9 14 -9A General Definitions relationship between the individuals is of a regular and permanent nature and has a distinct domestic character, similar to a family. GROUP LIVING USE: See Group Living Uses as defined in Article 14 -4A, Use Categories. Group Living Uses include Assisted Group Living Uses, Independent Group Living Uses, Fraternal Group Living Uses. GUEST: An individual who shares a dwelling on a temporary basis for not more than 30 days in any given calendar year; or, a person who stays in a Hospitality- Oriented Retail Use. GUEST HOUSE: A small Hospitality- Oriented Retail Use containing 9 or fewer bedrooms providing lodging for guests, which is licensed as a hotel by the State and subject to City inspection and compliance with the Iowa City Housing Code. HEDGE: A boundary formed by a row of closely planted shrubs or bushes. HISTORIC DISTRICT: See definition of Historic Districts in Section 14 -313-1, Historic District Overlay Zone. HISTORIC LANDMARK: See definition of Historic Landmark in Section 14 -313-1, Historic District Overlay Zone. HOME OCCUPATION: An accessory use consisting of an occupation or profession carried on by a person residing on the premises. HOSPITAL: See "Hospitals" as defined in Article 14 -4A, Use Categories. HOSPITALITY- ORIENTED RETAIL USE: See "Retail Use, Hospitality- Oriented," as defined in Article 14 -4A, Use Categories. HOTEL: A Hospitality- Oriented Retail Use that is licensed by the State and occupied and used principally as a place of lodging for guests. Hotels may or may not provide meals and there are usually no cooking facilities in the guest rooms. HOUSEHOLD: In the ID, RR -1, RS Zones, RNS -12, RM -12, MU, CN -1, CC -2, CB -2, CB -5, and CB -10 Zones a Household is defined as: • One person; or • 2 or more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption or placement by a governmental or social service agency plus up to 1 unrelated person, occupying a dwelling unit as a single housekeeping organization; or • a group of not more than 3 persons unrelated by blood, marriage, or adoption, occupying a dwelling unit as a single housekeeping organization; or • A group of persons that meet the definition of a Group Household, as defined in this Title. (Definition of Household continued on next page) Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code .µ l Rev11sed 1 PAGE 9A -10 14 -9A LT--) General De f initions In the RNS -20, CO -1, and RM -20 Zones a Household is defined as: • One person; or • Two or more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption or placement by a governmental or social service agency plus up to 2 unrelated persons, occupying a dwelling unit as a single housekeeping organization; or • a group of not more than 4 persons unrelated by blood, marriage, or adoption, occupying a dwelling unit as a single housekeeping organization; or • A group of persons that meet the definition of a Group Household, as defined in this Title. In the RM -44 and PRM Zones a Household is defined as: • One person; or • Two or more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption or placement by a governmental or social service agency plus up to 3 unrelated persons, occupying a dwelling unit as a single housekeeping organization; or • a group of not more than 5 persons unrelated by blood, marriage, or adoption, occupying a dwelling unit as a single housekeeping organization; or • A group of persons that meet the definition of a Group Household, as defined in this Title HOUSEHOLD LIVING USE: See "Household Living Uses" as defined in Article 14 -4A, Use Categories. INDUSTRIAL SERVICE USE: See "Industrial Service Uses" as defined in Article 14 -4A, Use Categories. KENNEL: An establishment where small animals are bred, raised, trained, groomed, or boarded for compensation, sale or other commercial purposes. LIVESTOCK: Cattle, sheep, swine, poultry and other animals or fowl that are produced primarily for use as food or food products for human consumption. LOADING SPACE, OFF - STREET: Space logically and conveniently located and designed for bulk pickups and deliveries and accessible to delivery vehicles from aisles. LOCAL STREET: See STREET, LOCAL LODGING HOUSE: See ROOMING HOUSE. LONG -TERM CARE FACILITY: See GROUP CARE FACILITY. LOT: A plot, separate tract or parcel of land with fixed boundaries suitable fbr occup�kpcy by a use. ^; LOT, CORNER: A lot located at the intersection of two or more streets,' - >F' LOT, DOUBLE FRONTAGE: A lot having frontage on two parallel or approximai?ely parallel streets. LOT, INTERIOR: A lot bounded by a street on only one side. LOT, REVERSED CORNER: A corner lot, the rear of which abuts the side of another lot. Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 1 -5 -12 PAGE 5A -7 14 -5A Off - Street Parking and Loading Table 5A -2: Minimum Parking Requirements for all zones, except the CB -5 and CB -10 Zones USE CATEGORIES SUBGROUPS Parking Requirement Bicycle .Parking Residential `Uses Household Living Single Family Uses 1 space per dwelling. However, for a SF use that contains a household with more than 2 unrelated None persons, 1 additional parking space is required for each required additional unrelated person in excess of two. For example, if a Single Family Use contains 4 unrelated persons, then 3 parking spaces must be provided. Two Family Uses 1 space per dwelling unit. For a Two Family dwelling unit that contains a household with more than 2 unrelated persons,1 additional parking space is required for each additional unrelated person in excess None required of two. Group Households 3 spaces None required Multi- All zones, except PRM Efficiency & 1- bedroom units: 1 space per dwelling unit 0.5 per d.u. family Dwellings 2- bedroom units: 2 spaces per dwelling unit 3- bedroom units: 2 spaces per dwelling unit 1.0 per d.u. 1.5 per d.u. 4- bedroom units: 3 spaces per dwelling unit 1.5 per d.u. 5- bedroom units: 4 spaces per dwelling unit 1.5 per d.u. PRM Zone Efficiency, 1- & 2- bedroom units: 1 space per dwelling 1.0 per d.u. unit 3- bedroom units: 2 spaces per dwelling unit Units with more than 3 bedrooms: 3 spaces per dwelling unit Elder Apartments 1 space per dwelling unit for independent living units and 1 space for every 2 dwelling units for assisted living units, except in the PRM and CB -2 Zones. 5% In the PRM and CB -2 Zones, 1 space for every 2 dwelling units. Group Living Assisted Group Living 1 space for every 3 beds plus 1 space for each staff None member determined by the maximum number of staff required present at any one time. Independent Group Living 1 space per 300 sq. ft. of floor area or 0.75 spaces per resident, whichever is less. 25% Fraternal Group Living 1 space per 300 sq. ft. of floor area or 0.75 spaces per resident, whichever is less. 25% Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 1 -5 -12 a) . r..r r� V N U� .e� O cn 0 N a� U O b-0 ti w C,1 O 4� •,v i ®R w V 0 ti v w a� N s 0 a o� �o N h M CpN � M m •ti h p 75 Cl. U ¢ > . N U p U 3 U u C. ' U '� N O U U r 7t U r }' S1 }' ✓i U O F—' _ N Q cn p Gp C'3 � O Yj C T} O •O U O r a = �_ f 1}- -o °' = U ta0 c° •= �, � = ° � }°.' • � ' � ° � � � �- cam, cn U � � _ •'`� U O r U U = CD ^ ' � � . ¢. -U C N G O O cn El ct CZ Y U �•.� U U +. p o "0 - Co ca > o y -- 5 ai crn • o W °� U o C/) o do L o �'a ,a o � 0 bq J v N1 N N O N O O U ° N cz cd (l N Vr cn CA U ^p U O U z CA 1�0 ° p= cUc'^ 3 o.�U ci 7D CA z O U' O O C U= O oU U O cn `� U• .. �, U cd �+ 75 C p Rt U bq cC N ^ '.. to 0 to OU �" —' C5 bA N 0 O O O a ;_n m ca — C -O -p ccz O U p N = O O O 0 p-E 'O r >> O p Y r -• r 'O 'U U bf) _ = r ct bO vi -a C,- Y. .�— = 147- Q S-. r , U U - > Ln �• a vi cc o n -= - m > N a) aj n n •c? a� = p C •U U r O y �, N v aO i v ^- U c:0 cl• , ?) U 73 N N O Q U> N f L P n V O O r bG O'OO O > n N .a U O r a u r Ti c _ =� cz O cn b q O O O — � _ cn � . U U O Q cC cn y Lt r br o �. c ? _O � � U 3 � `� 4 c o o a>i off•` -' > � c ' � r E- r a, Lo o-a cnU- cC O onO M r- a� a p -0 " —ro to f �^� y � =y � ' 40 ��� o cz .� � � o � o om > N ti _� - p a) o CL ti >” U C _ p �_ p_ O U _� fl _� Y - v vo a> 4. n O V c O O U p U O Y O J O cc O y o bq bU 4� 4 =,. bb O ° ° r Ln cn v U CA y O p ' — . - — I� cC O %n Q r1 cG O ; ay a� a °�' a� J a, _ a� - U a Qi o a .y C15 M v= O v O n 'a cG p O N r cG O a� = o 'a O °'- NE-'n s 3 a, ° N o a U C r r y U „ro O� ^� _ .. U 3 - �� °�•° - � °' N° b���� °� - a� +J -_ _ ^ L c, -a O bq �C c m O r _O O a) ai �U r SS a .� r O A -5 j^ p fl - r. - �] c \ ` _O L N r O U p a, \ U +� a v^ O^ r C] V r' y = o O L y cn N ° U> C T7 U O a) U O v 2 N U V 0 = f6 Q fl- E O U C cC O O° ^a a O N CD > bq cc U cC 0 q- N to w O a) cn U � U V a) N N c O N -0� o O aj L 0) ° V c a,'a ) •,� .C) a) N N ai a� Q ai co 0- c o o o x 06 E �,L�� �, �, _ �Q N CL 76 c E _E�� L +.+ C •E L C O o�� p ca .o y .... M N fV F- .O bf) _ = r bO vi -a C,- Ln O O '� N n n •c? a� = p C •U r r aO i v U v 4 bU cl• , � = r O r a� +: cc y U O O O^ v ai a� b0 � O r c a'ri by O a> Q cn a.) ci _O � � U 3 � `� 4 by y > � c ' � r E- r ^C cC O o a� a p c3 •= o '� U a a �- '� r � °' -c °-' 0 � ' 40 o cz .� � � o � o v > N p> r bU _� - p a) o CL ti >” U C _ p �_ p_ O U _� fl _� Y - v vo a> 4. n O V c O O U p U O Y O J O cc O y o bq bU 4� 4 =,. bb O ° ° (42 y N = 40 c~-G a) cG p •� N ^ c w . ° L]., O y O %n Q U a� a °�' a� J a, _ a� - U a Qi o a .y C15 M v= O v O n 'a cG p O N r cG O a� = o 'a O °'- NE-'n s N o a U ��•c } a' -�U a� 9 �'- _ .. U 3 c� �� °�•° - � °' �� b���� - a� +J -_ _ ^ L c, -a O bq �C c m O r _O O a) ai �U r SS a .� r O A -5 j^ p fl - r. - a .� r N r O U p a, \ U +� a v^ O^ r C] V r' y = o n° N v U' > ° U> C T7 U O a) U O v 2 N U j._ Q a E^ ✓ U U r Ci o O O' CL C cG = c U O r O_ 0. E^ cC O O° ^a > bq cc U cC F. James Bradley Kevin C. Papp Byron G. Riley Laura C. Mueller Michael K. Denney Kimberly H. Blankenship Patrick M. Courtney Joseph W. Younker Donald G. Thompson Jessica A. Doro Kelly R. Baier Jeremy B. P. Hagan Gregory J. Seyfer Natalie K. Ditmars Dean A. Spina Adam S. Tarr Joseph E. Schmall BRADLEY & 1 \ILEY PC Raymond R. Rinkol Jr. Bradley G. Hart Charles W. Showalter William J. Neppl ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS William T. McCartan CEDAR RAPIDS - IOWA CITY Maureen G. Kenney WEBSITE ADDRESS: Vernon P. Squires TOWER PLACE www.bradleyriley.coni Timothy J. Hill ONE SOUTH GILBERT STREET Paul D. Burns IOWA CITY, IA 52240 -3914 E -MAIL ADDRESS: Michael J. Pugh mpugh(( hradleyriley.com Janice J. Kerkove Nancy A. Wood y TELEPHONE: 319 - 466 -1511 DIRECT DIAL: FAX: 319. 358 -5560 319.358.5562 February 16, 2012 VIA E -MAIL (council a,,iowa- city.org) AND U.S. MAIL CA Council Members Ii j 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa, 52240 RE: Proposed Zoning Amendments and Development Moratoria ' �w Dear Council Members: This office represents Washington Plaza, LLC ( "Washington Plaza "), the developer of property located at 511, 517 and 521 E. Washington Street, Iowa City (the "Property "). The Property is currently owned by Washington Plaza's wholly owned subsidiaries, 511 Washington, L.C. and 517 -521 Washington, L.C. The Property is zoned CB 2 Central Business Service zone and was so at the time Washington Plaza purchased the Property on November 15, 2011, and December 30, 2011. On the later date, Washington Plaza filed its application for Major Site Plan Review with City of Iowa City (the "City "). This application, together with a request for a building permit, is currently pending before your City staff. The previous structures on the Property were demolished in January pursuant to validity issued demolition permits. On February 13th, my clients learned that the City staff is contemplating certain undefined amendments to the City Zoning Code to address recent complaints from some citizens living in the near north and east side neighborhoods. Included with this proposal is a request for the Council to issue a development moratorium for sixty (60) days commencing with the Council setting a public hearing on the zoning amendments as early as Tuesday, February 21 st This is problematic in three major respects: 1) the specific details of this "phantom" ordinance have not been drafted or discussed by stakeholders in the community; 2) the proposed 10 l 186364. DOC } BRADLEY & RILEY PC February 16, 2012 Page 2 amendments have not been fully vetted by the Planning and Zoning Commissipri'vvrth:irput fr the public; and 3) an arbitrary development moratorium will potentially impact- tthe'- entire Cit�-,T�,- and have a chilling effect toward all development in the City. The City has not followed the City Code for Zoning Code Text Amendments, Iowa City Code Chapter 14 -8D -5 outlines the requirements for a zoning map amendment and zoning code text amendment. This Code Chapter does provide that the City Council may, from time to time, on its own motion or on petition, amend by ordinance the boundaries of zoning districts or the regulations or restrictions of the zoning code. Any proposed amendment initiated by the City Counsel shall first be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission for its recommendation and report. After receipt of a complete application, the Director of Planning and Community Development or designee will forward a written report and recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission. After receipt of a report and recommendation from City Staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission will schedule one or more public meetings to receive public comment regarding the proposed request. The Commission will then make a recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial to the City Council. Not less than 4 votes of the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be required to recommend approval of an amendment to the zoning code. Only after the recommendation and report of the Planning and Zoning Commission has been filed, the City council shall, before enacting any proposed amendment, hold a public hearing in relation thereto. Setting a public hearing on a yet undrafted amendment to the City Zoning Code prior to the review and comment by the Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission is an extraordinary step that is inconsistent and contrary to custom and the City Code. Such action will be construed by the owners of Washington Plaza as an effort to commence a development moratorium prior to the City's issuance of a building permit for the Washington Plaza Project. Development Moratorium Generally, development moratoria is designed to give local planning officials faced with significant change and growth pressures some breathing room when they consider how best to manage the change their community is experiencing. A prime example of this would be a bedroom community which is experiencing an explosion in growth without the benefit of an adopted comprehensive plan. To the contrary, Iowa City's Zoning Code is already comprehensive in its scope. Moratoria is extremely controversial because the temporary halt to new development that severely impacts landowners who have expended funds on development plans but have not yet received building permits. For developers, time is money. Any expected delay beyond an approved construction schedule can kill a project. For Washington Plaza, the inability to have the project fully constructed by August 1St when most rentals in our community commence will be financially devastating. Iowa City already has the most complicated and robust zoning ordinance as anywhere in the state. There is no legitimate public health or safety concern that would necessitate a sixty (60) day delay while the City considers certain (01186364.DOC) BRADLEY & RILEY PC February 16, 2012 Page 3 amendments to the Zoning Code which may or may not come to pass. Ordinances imposing moratoria should include fact based findings that clearly articulate reasons why such move is necessary. Objectives should be clear, strategy should be realistic and sufficient resources and time should be allocated to permit meaningful citizen participation in the planning and policy making during the moratorium. We suggest the City Council consider taking the following action: ➢ Instruct the City staff to work with the Greater Iowa City Area Homebuilders Association, neighborhood groups and other stakeholders to draft proposed zoning amendments that address articulated concerns. ➢ Proposed zoning amendments should be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review and recommendation after public comment as is the normal course of zoning items. ➢ There is no need for the Council to set a public hearing on proposed amendments until the proposed amendments have been reviewed by Planning and Zoning and the commissions has formalized their recommendations to Council. To do otherwise gives misplaced credibility to proposed amendments which have not been fully vetted. This would be the normal course of action for any rezoning item before the City. ➢ After the Planning and Zoning process is complete any moratorium adopted by Council should be narrowly tailored to only apply to new rezoning applications before Council. Compensable Taking Washington Plaza is uniquely concerned with the delay the moratorium will create. As a part of their due diligence prior to purchasing the Property, the owners of Washington Plaza met with City planning and building officials to discuss what type of development that was permissible for the site under the current zoning designation. Meetings occurred with City staff on October 31, 2011; November 22, 2011; December 23, 2011 and January 24, 2012. In reliance on these conversations, Washington Plaza closed on the purchase of the Property prior to December 30th, submitted a Major Site Plan Application and commenced demolition of the site. At no time did anyone from the City staff mention to the owners of Washington Plaza that zoning amendments and a development moratorium were being contemplated. The imposition of development moratoria is subject to the usual constitutional restrictions on the use of the City's zoning power. In the instant case, there is absolutely no empirical evidence to suggest that three (3) bedroom apartments are worse than two (2) bedroom apartments, (and by implication, two (2) bedrooms are worse than one (1) bedrooms). With no rational basil the City's actions can be construed as arbitrary, capricious and potentially discriminatory toward students, with no tangible relationship to public health, safety or welfare. w. 101186364.DOC} BRADLEY & RILEY PC February 16, 2012 Page 4 Washington Plaza made an investment in the Property with certain expectations as to the number of units and apartment configuration. This was done after several discussions with Staff and a review of the current CB 2 Central Business Services Zoning. To frustrate Washington Plaza's investment backed expectations at this stage in the project will amount in a regulatory taking of its property for which it will seek compensation. Thank you in advance for your attention to these matters. Sincerely, B L4Pu E C Michael MJP /dab Enc losures cc: Tom Markus City Manager Eleanor Dilkes City Attorney Washington Plaza, LLC 101186364.DOC) Y Prepared by: Karen Howard, Associate Planner, 410 E. VWin %4, , Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5251 (REZ11- 00018) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 20,336 SQUARE FEET OF LAND LOCATED AT 821 E. JEFFERSON STREET FROM COMMERCIAL OFFICE (CO -1) TO HIGH DENSITY MULTI - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM -44). (REZ11- 00018) WHEREAS, the applicant, Prime Ventures Construction, Inc., has requested a rezoning of property located at 821 E. Jefferson Street from Commercial Office (CO -1) to High Density Multi - Family Residential (RM -44); and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan, Central District Plan, contains policies and a land use plan map to guide development within the older centrally located neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan, Central District Plan, has been amended to indicate that high density multi - family residential development is appropriate on this property; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has the reviewed the proposed rezoning and determined that it does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan and therefore recommends denial of the application; and WHEREAS, the City Council after reviewing the public record and holding a public hearing and meeting jointly with the Planning and Zoning Commission has approved a change to the Central District Plan Map designating the subject property as appropriate for high density multi - family development and subsequently has determined that RM-44 Zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and plan map. 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 Commercial Office (CO -1) to High Density Multi- family Residential (RM -44): A PORTION OF BLOCK 4, ORIGINAL TOWN OF IOWA CITY ACCORDING TO THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER, THE BOUNDARIES OF WHICH ARE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LOT 3 AND THE WEST 55 FEET OF LOT 2, IN BLOCK 4 IN IOWA CITY, IOWA, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF. 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. 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 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 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. Ordinance No. Page 2 SECTION VI. 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 12012. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Approved by City Attorney's Office To: The Iowa City City Council Subject: Development at 821 Jefferson To whom it may concern: We are smaller land lords who have provided affordable housing to older more long term residents while respecting the integrity of the neighborhood. We rent to tenants who want a safe, stable quiet neighborhood. We are concerned with the impact this building could have on our rental properties. We have attempted to fill an important need in this area. We don't want to see this compromised. ©2 -21 -12 -- 7 4 FF r2 q11 f V, boo C�- e- 13 o WA". -„ t rl-, :4c-, - �O - - ry --, To: The Iowa City City Council ...3 Subject: Rezoning 821 Jefferson p To whom it may concern: > - c� Prime Venture has proposed building a structure with 15 condos for young pisionls The concept sounds like a positive addition to our neighborhood p P N.) But we are not going to live with the concept of this development. We're going to HW with the reality of it. Twelve of the fifteen condos are going to be three bedroom units. City officials stated in the Nov. 12'' Press Citizen article about the river front development that they would like to see efficiency and one bedroom units that would be affordable for people working downtown. No mention was made of 3 bedroom apartments as an option for young professionals. Yet that is the option being provided here. Who is most likely going to live in these units? When this area was original developed the lots were designed for single family houses. The attempt to retro fit these lots with large denser buildings always brings up parking problems Although the developer is providing 29 parking spaces, there are 41 bedroom. Where are the other 12 cars going to park? Right now there are 10 to 15 cars illegally parked in the area behind the Doctor's office because parking is already a problem When this is looked at as conceptual problem, it can be minimized. When you live in the area and are trying to find a parking place it is a whole other story. a 6-3*Z-xW 6AA-1W &1e ID ft�-, 1�6 X121 P 7� tj I-J, CA \ce* \9 Nlwrka s� q1i z -1qea-kz-1l St-: eE �� �+ 1 fGt �'1 11-A7 nl��o An C 3 -3 i7_7) 145 �. Prepared by Travis Kraus, Planning Intern, PCD, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5251 (REZ11- 00019) ORDINANCE NO. 12 -4463 ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 4.3 ACRES LOCATED AT 1920 Prairie du Chien Road FROM Low Density Single Family Residential (RS -5) TO Rural Residential (RR -1). (REZ11- 00019) WHEREAS, the applicants, Gregory and Lorie Ginneberge, have requested a rezoning of property located at 1920 Prairie du Chien Road (including the property located at 1880 Prairie du Chien Road) from Low Density Single Family (RS -5) to Rural Residential(RR -1); and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the property is appropriate as Public/Private Open Space; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has the reviewed the proposed rezoning and has determined that it complies with the Comprehensive plan. 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 Low Density Single Family (RS -5) to Rural Residential (RR -1): PARCEL ONE 1920 Prairie Du Chien Road, Iowa City, Iowa, legally described as: LOT SEVEN (7) IN YODER SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 80 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5T" P.M., ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 408, PLAT RECORDS OF JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, EXCEPTING FROM SAID LOT 7 ALL THAT PART THEREOF CONDEMNED BY THE STATE OF IOWA FOR HIGHWAY PURPOSES, AS SHOWN BY CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS RECORDED IN BOOK 254, PAGE 79, IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, AND BEGINNING AT A CONCRETE MONUMENT PURPORTING TO BE THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 80 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5T" P.M.; THENCE S 89 °01'E, 12.25 FEET; THENCE NO-33'W, 337.15 FEET; THENCE N87-32'W 648.7 FEET; THENCE S 4 °41'E, 102.98 FEET; THENCE S 78 °23'W, 45 FEET; THENCE 87 °24'E, 436.75 FEET; S 1 °41'W, 268.84 FEET; THENCE S 89 °01'E, 246.38 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING AND COMPRISING AN AREA OF 2.812 ACRES MORE OR LESS, AND A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SE' /< SE % OF SECTION 34, TWP. 80 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5T" P.M., JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SE CORNER OF SAID SECTION 34, THENCE WEST 669.0 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION, THENCE NORTHERLY 54.7 FEET ALONG A 573.0 FT. RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE EASTERLY AND TANGENT TO THE FOLLOWING COURSE, THENCE N 8 °24 %:'W 114.3 FT., THENCE EAST 51.4 FEET ALONG GRANTEE'S SOUTH PROPERTY LINE, THENCE S 5 °03'E 103.0 FEET, THENCE S 76 °34 % :'W 45.0 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 0.12 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. ALL OF THE ABOVE IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, AGREEMENTS, COVENANTS, AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. EXCEPTING THEREFROM: AUDITOR'S PARCEL #2006008 BEING PART OF LOT 7 IN YODER SUBDIVISION AND PART OF LAND DESCRIBED AS THE WOODBURN PARCEL IN SURVEY RECORDED IN BOOK 8, PAGE 71 IN THE SE % OF Ordinance No. 12 -4463 Page 2 SECTION 34 AND ALSO BEING PART OF THE SW % OF SECTION 35 ALL IN TOWNSHIP 80 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5T" P.M., IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA DESCRIBED AS: BEGINNING AT THE SE CORNER OF SAID SECTION 34; THENCE S 89 °52'38 "W, 246.31 FEET; THENCE N 00 °41'30 "E, 268.87 FEET; THENCE S 86 °22'17 "W, 436.88 FEET TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF PRAIRIE DU CHIEN ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY N 07 °40'48 "W, 60.15 FEET; THENCE N 86 022'17 "E 337.52 FEET; THENCE N 06 °06'43 "W, 135.14 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE 80; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY S 69 °40'13 "E, 86.54 FEET; THENCE S 87 °56'12 "E, 99.64 FEET; THENCE S 88 °26'25 "E, 182.71 FEET; THENCE S 02 °42'55 "E, 80.84 FEET; THENCE 01 041'11 "E, 336.71 FEET; THENCE S 89 °40'37 "W, 12.46 FEETTO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 3.31 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS OF RECORD. PARCEL TWO AUDITOR'S PARCEL # 2006008 BEING PART OF LOT 7 IN YODER SUBDIVISION AND PART OF LAND DESCRIBED AS THE WOODBURN TRACT IN SURVEY RECORDED IN BOOK 8, PAGE 71 IN THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 34 AND ALSO BEING PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 35 ALL IN TOWNSHIP 80 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5TH P.M., IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA DESCRIBED AS: BEGINNING AT THE SE CORNER OF SAID SECTION 34; THENCE S 89 °52'38" W, 246.31 FEET; THENCE N 00 °41'30" E, 268.87 FEET; THENCE S 86 °22'17" W, 436.88 FEET TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF PRAIRIE DU CHIEN ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY N 07 °40'48" W, 60.15 FEET; THENCE N 86 °22'17" E, 337.52 FEET; THENCE N 06 °06'43" W, 135.14 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE 80; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY S 69 °40'13" E, 86.54 FEET; THENCE S 87 °56'12" E, 99.64 FEET; THENCE S 88 °26'25" E, 182.71 FEET; THENCE S 02 °42'55" E, 80.84 FEET; THENCE S 01 °41'11" E, 336.71 FEET; THENCE S 89 °40'37" W, 12.46 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 3.31 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS 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 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. Passed and approved this 21st day of February,2012. 1 . MAYOR ATTEST: CITY—CLERK A proved by *<f City Attorney's Office I IL-1 ItL Ordinance No. 12 -4463 Page 3 It was moved by Mims and seconded by Dickens that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: x Champion i— Dickens x Dobyns Y Hayek _x Mims Payne x x Throgmorton First Consideration 1/10/2012 Vote for passage: AYES: Hayek, Mims, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: Payne. Second Consideration 1/24/2012 Voteforpassage: AYES: Hayek, Mims, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns. NAYS: None, ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: Payne. Date published -1r 1 12012 13 Prepared by: Ed Moreno, Superintendent, Water Division, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, Iowa 52240, 319- 356 -5162 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 3, FINANCES, TAXATION AND FEES, CHAPTER 4, SCHEDULE OF FEES, RATES, CHARGES, BONDS, FINES AND PENALTIES, SECTION 3, POTABLE WATER USE AND SERVICE. WHEREAS, the Water Division recommends amending the City Ordinance Code Section 3 -4 -3 to correct the `water service charged for the first 100 cubic feet or less of water used, based on meter size', which was inadvertently changed in Ordinance # 10- 4399; and WHEREAS, the Water Division also recommends amending the City Ordinance Code Section 3 -4 -3 to clarify the water main extension fee; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the public to adopt this ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION LAMENDMENTS: TITLE 3, FINANCES, TAXATION AND FEES, CHAPTER 4, SCHEDULE OF FEES, RATES, CHARGES, BONDS, FINES AND PENALITIES, SECTION 3, POTABLE WATER USE AND SERVICE is hereby amended by: A. Deleting the chart for `Water service charges ... for first 100 cubic feet or less of water used, based on Meter size' it in its entirety and replacing it as follows: 3 -4 -3: POTABLE WATER USE AND SERVICE: !Water Service Charge (16 -3A -4) for first 100 Meter Size (Inches) Charge iII cubic feet or less of water used, based on meter size. 5/8 ", 5/8" x 3/4 $6.4 -1 3W $7.00 lI 1" $8.26 i 1 ' /2' $16.47 _- - --- � - -_ -1 2" $22.14 $4 1 . W. ..._...._ ............. ..................._..._._..... - ...__.._._...... ...... _ .__...._.. ........ -- 3,,._�..._.._.._.. - ..._.� 0 9 .......................... ........ ....._...._._.. ..__......_.._.._ ............. ..... -- - -- ._........._.... 4" $7137 i f 3 6" $143.61 j There will be no minimum monthly charge for a single purpose water meter for the months of I' November to March if no water is used. I_ B. Deleting the charts for `Extension of major feeder lines (oversizing)' and `Water Main Installation And Connection Fees' in their entirety and replacing them with the following: nsion of water mains 395.00 per acre SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of the 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 after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this Mayor ATTEST: CITY CLERK day of 2012. 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 2/21/2012 Voteforpassage: AYES: Payne, throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns, Hayek, Mims. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration _ Vote for passage: Date published r ���. ®ir CITY OF IOWA CITY SIN 13 MEMORANDUM Date: January 17, 2012 To: Tom Markus, City Manager From: Rick Fosse, Public Works Director Re: Ordinance Amending City Code Title 16, Chapter 3, Water Meters, Article C, Section 4, and Chapter 3, Extension of Distribution Water Mains, Article C, Section 5 Introduction: This ordinance amendment is being proposed to correct and clarify two sections of the Iowa City Code that are incorrect and outdated, respectively. History /Background: In 2010, ordinance 10 -4399 inadvertently changed the rates for the 'water service charged for the first 100 cubic feet or less of water used based on meter size, back to a previously charged higher rate. The intent of the ordinance change (10 -4399) was to update meter fees, service and hydrant fees to align with the cost of service. In order to take advantage of the opportunity afforded by the proposed ordinance change, the Water Division is also proposing to remove language in the City Code that is no longer pertinent or relative. Historically, Water Division distribution staff was responsible for installation of all water main extensions in Iowa City. This responsibility was given to excavation contractors with inspection services provided by Engineering Division staff in the early 1990's. The 'Installation and Connection Fees' section of the ordinance listed costs per lineal foot of water main that the City would charge to developers should oversizing be required. The 'costs per lineal foot' is outdated and no longer pertinent since the City is no longer constructing the water mains in new developments. The 'connection fee' of $395 /acre remains although it will be subject to updating in the future. Discussion of Solutions: The Water Division recommends correcting the inadvertent change in the rates and removing the outdated and non - pertinent language regarding oversize water main extensions. Financial Impact: None. The inadvertent rate change has not been implemented by staff, so no customers were charged the higher rate. Similarly, since the Installation and Connection Fees for oversizing water main extensions had not been used since the early 1990's, there will be no financial impact. Recommendation: Staff recommends approving the ordinance amending City Code Title 16, Chapter 3, Water Meters, Article C, Section 4, and Chapter 3, Extension of Distribution Water Mains, Article C, Section 5. C �, A� e� Prepared by: Ed Moreno, Superintendent, Water Division, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, Iowa 52240, 319- 356 -5162 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 3, FINANCES, TAXATION AND FEES, CHAPTER 4, SCHEDULE OF FEES, RATES, CHARGES, BONDS, FINES AND PENALTIES, SECTION 3, POTABLE WATER USE AND SERVICE. WHEREAS, the Water Division recommends amendin the City Ordinance Code Section 3 -4 -3 to correct the `water service charged for the first 100 cubic feet or less of water used, based on meter size', which was inadvertently chan ed in Ordinance # 10- 4399; and WHEREAS, the Water Division also recommends ame ding the City Ordinance Code Section 3 -4 -3 to clarify the water main extension fee; a WHEREAS, it is i the best interest of the public to a opt this ordinance. NOW, THEREFO , BE IT ORDAINED BY THE ITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IO A: SECTION LAMEND E-N TITLE 3, FINANCES, A: FEES, RATES, CHARGES, BO 1 POTABLE WATER USE ANDS A. Deleting the chart for `) of water used, based on follows: JION AND FEE , CHAPTER 4, SCHEDULE OF i, FINES AN7yr NALITIES, SECTION 3, VICE is hereended by: iter service cs...for first 10 0 cubic feet or less [eter size' it i entirety and replacing it as 3 -4 -3: POTABLE WATER USE AND ER ICE: ( Water Service Charge (16 -3A -4) for first 100 1 cubic feet or less of water used, based on Meter Size (Inches) _ Charge meter size. —` - -$6.41 i 5/8 ", 5/8" x 3/4 i { 3/4" i J $7.00 E 1" j $8.26 �-` $16.47 $22.14 — 3 — $40.91 I - -: ::: _:.. ____.__.:.__._.._..._- - -- -- ._._... 6 $143.61 T There will be no minimum monthly charge for a single purpose water meter for the months of November to March if no water is used. B. Deleting the charts for `Extension of major feeder lines (oversizing)' and `Water Main Installation And Connection Fees' in their entirety and replacing them with the following: Extension of water mains 11$395.00 per acre SECTION 1I. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances/fn conflict with the provision of the 6,rdinance are hereby repealed. SECTION II1. S] UERABILITY. If any section, provision or rt of the Ordinance shall be adjudg to be invalid or unconstitutional, such judication shall not affect the validity of the Ord ance as a whole or any section, pro v' ion or part thereof not adjudged invalid or uncon itutional. final passage, approval and pub Passed and approved this Mayor ATTEST: CITY CLERK TE. This Ordinance as provided by law. day of be effective after its 2012. ity Attorney's Office t I Z 1 ,_i Prepared by: Ed Moreno, Superintendent. Water Division, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, Iowa 52240, 319 -356 -5162 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 3, FINANCES, TAXATION AND FEES, CHAPTER 4, SCHEDULE OF FEES, RATES, CHARGES, ONDS, FINES AND PENALTIES, SECTION 3, POTABLE WATER USE AND S�VICE. i WHEREAS, the Water Division recommends amending tie City Ordinance Code Section 3 -4 -3 to correct the `water service charged for the first 1 00 cubic feet-or less�4 water used, based on meter size', which was inadvertently changed in Ordin .# 10 -3 4399; and W WHEREAS, the ater Division also recommends amending the City - Ordinance Code Section 3 -4 -3 to clari the water main extension fee; and WHEREAS, it is in t e best interest of the public to adopt this ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, E IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCft --OF WE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: TITLE 3, FINANCES, TAXA ION A FEES, RATES, CHARGES, BONDS, Nsi POTABLE WATER USE AND SERV A. Deleting the chart for `Wate of water used, based on Mefollows: ND FEES, CHAPTER 4, SCHEDULE OF D PENALITIES, SECTION 3, reby amended by: e charges ... for first 100 cubic feet or less it in its entirety and replacing it as 3 -4 -3: POTABLE WATER USE AN SERVIC Water Service Charge (16 -3A -4) for first 00 Metter Size (Inches) ( Charge cubic feet or less of water used, based meter size. 578�' x $6.41 3/4" 11 $7.00 1 �l $8.26 2" `'ll $22.14 3" jj $40.91 4" II $71.37 6" 11 $143.61 There will be no minimum monthly charge for a single purpose water meter for the months of November to March if no water is used. B. Deleting the charts for `Extension of major feeder lines (oversizing)' and `Water Main Installation And Connection Fees' in their entirety and replacing them with the following: ion of Water mains the provision of the SECTION 111. SEV, Ordinance shall be adjuc affect the validity of the not adjudged invalid or, 00 per acre ER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with are hereby repealed. ABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not ipce as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof tifutional. SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be effective after its final passage, approval and publication; as Passed and approved this Mayor ATTEST: CITY CLERK / by law. day of 2012. i Prepared by: Susan Dulek, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356 -5030 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE CITY CODE, ENTITLED USE OF PUBLIC WAYS AND PROPERTY," CHAPTER 3, ENTITLED, "COMMERCIAL USE OF SIDEWALKS," SECTION 3, ENTITLED "USE FOR SIDEWALK CAFES," TO ALLOW PLANTERS IN LIEU OF FENCING. WHEREAS, sidewalk cafes are a use of public sidewalks in the CB2, CB5, and CB10 zones that require a temporary easement; and WHEREAS, after the first year during which temporary fencing is allowed, anchored fencing is required to delineate the cafe; WHEREAS, planters with flowers and /or other vegetation should be allowed as an alternative to fencing; and WHEREAS, it is in the City's interest adopt this amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. AMENDMENTS. 1. Title 10, entitled "Use of Public Ways and Property," Chapter 3, entitled "Commercial Use of Sidewalks," Section 3, entitled "Use for Sidewalk Cafes," Subsection B, entitled "Usable Sidewalk Cafe Area," is hereby amended adding the following new Paragraph 3c: c. Planters with flowers and /or other vegetation are allowed as an alternative to temporary and anchored fencing to delineate the sidewalk cafe. The design of the planters shall be approved by the City Manager, or designee, subject to the following limitations: (1) The planters shall, at the cafe owner's option, be either fastened to each other or removed from the sidewalk or City Plaza at the end of the day's operation along with the tables, chairs, and other items. (2) The planters shall not be less than twenty -seven inches (27 ") or more than thirty -six inches (36 ") in height excluding plantings. (3) The planters shall be either metal or have a metal frame. SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION III. PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION. The violation of any provision of this ordinance is a municipal infraction or a simple misdemeanor. 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 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 12012. 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 2/21/2012 Vote for passage: AYES: Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns, Hayek, Mims, Payne. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration Vote for passage: Date published Prepared by: Susan Dulek, Ass't. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5030 ORDINANCE NO. 12 -4464 ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9, ENTITLED "MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC," CHAPTER 4, ENTITLED "PARKING REGULATIONS," SECTION 1, ENTITLED "PARKING PROHIBITED IN SPECIFIED PLACES," TO PROHIBIT PARKING ADJACENT TO A CURB EXTENSION. WHEREAS, curb extensions, also known as bump -outs, bulb -outs or neckdowns, extend the sidewalk or curb line out into the parking lane; WHEREAS, curb extensions improve pedestrian crossings by reducing the pedestrian crossing distance, improving the ability of pedestrians and motorists to see each other, and reducing the time that pedestrians are in the street; WHEREAS, because the City Code allows commercial vehicles to park in the traffic lane if there is not an open parking space within 150 feet, commercial vehicles can park adjacent to a curb extension as long as they are 15 feet from the intersection; WHEREAS, commercial vehicles parking adjacent to a curb extension raises safety issues especially with taxis after dark; and WHEREAS, it is in the City's best interest to prohibit parking adjacent to curb extensions NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. AMENDMENTS. 1. Title 9, entitled "Motor Vehicles and Traffic," Chapter 1 entitled "Definitions, Administration and Enforcement of Traffic Provisions," Section 1, entitled "Definitions," is hereby amended by adding the following new definition: Curb extension: Sidewalk segments that extend into the roadway at an intersection or mid -block crossing. A traffic calming measure also known as bump -outs, bulb -outs or neckdowns. 2. Title 9, entitled "Motor Vehicles and Traffic," Chapter 4 entitled "Parking Regulations," Section 1, entitled "Parking Prohibited in Specific Places," Subsection A is hereby amended by adding a new paragraph 21: Adjacent to a curb extension even if it is a commercial vehicle and there is no parking space, loading zone or other space available within one hundred fifty feet (150') of any building where pick up or delivery is to be made. SECTION ll. 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 21 st day of February , 2012. W u_ o ATTEST: CITY RK Approved by � S � City Attorney's Office Ordinance No. 12 -4464 Page 2 It was moved by Mims and seconded by Champion that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: x X X V X x X NAYS: ABSENT: Champion Dickens Dobyns Hayek Mims Payne Throgmorton First Consideration 1/24/2012 Voteforpassage: AYES: Dickens, Dobyns, Hayek, Mims, Payne, Throgmorton, Champion. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration --------------- - - -- Vote for passage: Date published 3/1/2012 Moved by Mims, seconded by Dobyns, that the rule ruquiring ordinances to be considered and voted on for passage at two Council meetings prior to the meeting at which it is to be finally passed be suspended, the second consideration and vote be waived and the ordinance be voted upon for final passage at this time. AYES: Champion, Dickens, Dobyns, Hayek, Mims, Payne, Throgmorton. NAYS: Nond. ABSENT: None. kf lt) 1 7 Prepared by: Marian Karr, City Clerk, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5041 ORDINANCE NO. 12 -4465 AN ORDINANCE TO ADOPT THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, 2012, AKA "CITY CODE." WHEREAS, Section 380.8 of the Code of Iowa, 2011, requires that at least once every five years a city shall adopt a code of ordinances; and, WHEREAS, on April 4, 2006 the City Council adopted the City Code of Iowa City, Iowa; and, WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City adds new ordinances and amendments upon passage by supplementation to the City Code itself; and, WHEREAS, if a proposed code of ordinances contains only existing ordinances which have been edited and compiled without substantive changes, the council may adopt such code without notice of public hearing; and, WHEREAS, it is now appropriate to adopt a code of compiled and existing ordinances under the statute, without any substantive changes proposed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. From and after the date of passage of this Ordinance, the City Code of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, prepared by Sterling Codifiers, Inc., containing compilation of all ordinances of a general nature together with the changes made to said ordinances, under the direction of the governing body of the City, shall be accepted in all courts without question as the Official Code and Law of the City as enacted by the City Council, and shall hereafter be referred to as "The City Code ". SECTION II. It is hereby adopted, as a method of perpetual codification, the loose -leaf type of binding together with the continuous supplement service, provided by Sterling Codifiers, Inc., whereby each newly adopted ordinance of a general and permanent nature amending, altering, adding or deleting provisions of the official City Code is identified by the proper catchline and is inserted in the proper place in each of the official copies, a copy of which shall be maintained in the office of the City Clerk, certified as to correctness and available for inspection at any and all times that said office is regularly open. SECTION III. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to change or amend, by additions or deletions, any part or portion of the City Code, or to insert or delete pages or portions thereof, or to alter or tamper with the City Code in any manner to cause the law of the City to be misrepresented. Ordinance No. 12 -4465 Page 2 SECTION IV. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith, are, to the extent of such conflict, hereby repealed. SECTION V. A code of ordinances, containing only the current and existing ordinances edited and compiled without change in substance, shall be and hereby is adopted as the City Code, 2012. 2 Passed and approved this 21st day of February , 2011. R =! • - ►/' �� _ ATTEST: CITY C RK Approved b r City Attorney's Office derk/ord /citycode. doc Ordinance No. 12 -4465 Page 3 It was moved by Champion and seconded by Throgmorton 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 1/10/2012 Voteforpassage: AYES: Hayek, Mims, Payne, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration 1/24/2012 Voteforpassage: AYES: Hayek, Mims, Payne, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Date published Prepared by: Wendy Ford, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356 -5248 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING THAT GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES LEVIED AND COLLECTED EACH YEAR ON ALL PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE RIVERFRONT CROSSINGS URBAN RENEWAL AREA, IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, COUNTY OF JOHNSON, STATE OF .IOWA, BY AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE STATE OF IOWA, CITY OF IOWA CITY, COUNTY OF JOHNSON, IOWA CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT AND OTHER TAXING DISTRICTS, BE PAID TO A SPECIAL FUND FOR PAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON LOANS, REBATES, GRANTS, MONIES ADVANCED TO AND INDEBTEDNESS, INCLUDING BONDS ISSUED OR TO BE ISSUED, INCURRED BY SAID CITY IN CONNECTION WITH THE RIVERFRONT CROSSINGS URBAN RENEWAL PLAN. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, after public notice and hearing as prescribed by law and pursuant to Resolution No. 11 -335 passed and approved on the 18th day of October, 2011, adopted an Urban Renewal Plan (the "Urban Renewal Plan ") for an urban renewal area known as the Riverfront Crossings Urban Renewal Area, (the "Urban Renewal Area "), which Urban Renewal Area includes the lots and parcels located within the area legally described as follows: Beginning at a point on the southeast corner of Sturgis Corner Addition Part II; Thence southerly to the centerline of U.S. Highway 6; Thence westerly along said centerline to its intersection with S. Riverside Drive; Thence continuing westerly along the centerline of State Highway 1 to a point where it intersects with the centerline of Orchard Street extended; Thence northerly along the centerline of Orchard Street to the centerline of the Iowa Interstate Railroad; Thence easterly along said railroad centerline to a point that is 190', more or less, west of the point of intersection of the railroad and the centerline of State Highway1 /Riverside Drive; Thence northerly to the north right -of -way line of said railroad; Thence north 118' to the south right -of -way line of S. Riverside Court; Thence north 12.5' to the centerline of S. Riverside Court; Thence west along said centerline to where it intersects with the extension of the west boundary of property described as follows: Commencing 459.5' east of the SW corner of Lot 1; N100'; E60'; S100'; W60% Ryerson's and Sharp's Subdivision. Thence northerly along said west property line extended to the centerline of Myrtle Ave; Thence east along said centerline, continuing east to the west bank of the Iowa River; Thence southerly along the west bank of the Iowa River to the point of beginning; And the right of way of all adjacent roads. WHEREAS, expenditures and indebtedness are anticipated to be incurred by the City of Iowa City, Iowa in the future to finance urban renewal project activities carried out in furtherance of the objectives of the Urban Renewal Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa desires to provide for the division of revenue from taxation in the Urban Renewal Area, as above described, in accordance with the provisions of Section 403.19 of the Code of Iowa, as amended. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: Section 1. That the taxes levied on the taxable property in the Urban Renewal Area legally described in the preamble hereof, by and for the benefit of the State of Iowa, City of Iowa City, County of Johnson, Iowa City Community School District, and all other taxing districts from and after the effective date of this Ordinance shall be divided as hereinafter provided. Section 2. That portion of the taxes which would be produced by the rate at which the tax is levied each year by or for each of the taxing districts upon the total sum of the assessed value of the taxable property in the Urban Renewal Area, as shown on the assessment roll as of January 1 of the calendar year preceding the first calendar year in which the City of Iowa City certifies to the County Auditor the amount of loans, rebates, grants, advances, indebtedness, or bonds payable from the division of property tax revenue described herein, shall be allocated to and when collected be paid into the fund for the respective taxing district as taxes by or for the taxing district into which all other property taxes are paid. Section 3. That portion of the taxes each year in excess of the base period taxes determined as provided in Section 2 of this Ordinance shall be allocated to and when collected be paid into a special tax increment fund of the City of Iowa City, Iowa hereby established, to pay the principal of and interest on loans, grants, rebates, monies advanced to, indebtedness, whether funded, refunded, assumed or otherwise, including bonds or obligations issued under the authority of Section 403.9 or 403.12 of the Code of Iowa, as amended, incurred by the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to finance or refinance, in whole or in part, urban renewal projects undertaken within the Urban Renewal Area pursuant to the Urban Renewal Plan, except that taxes for the payment of bonds and interest of each taxing district shall be collected against all taxable property within the Urban Renewal Area without any limitation as hereinabove provided. Section 4. Unless or until the total assessed valuation of the taxable property in the Urban Renewal Area exceeds the total assessed value of the taxable property in the Urban Renewal Area as shown by the last equalized assessment roll referred to in Section 2 of this Ordinance, all of the taxes levied and collected upon the taxable property in the Urban Renewal Area shall be paid into the funds for the respective taxing districts as taxes by or for said taxing districts in the same manner as all other property taxes. Section 5. At such time as the loans, advances, indebtedness, bonds and interest thereon of the City of Iowa City, Iowa referred to in Section 3 hereof have been paid, all monies thereafter received from taxes upon the taxable property in the Urban Renewal Area shall be paid into the funds for the respective taxing districts in the same manner as taxes on all other property. Section 6. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. The provisions of this Ordinance are intended and shall be construed so as to fully implement the provisions of Section 403.19 of the Code of Iowa, as amended, with respect to the division of taxes from property within the Urban Renewal Area as described above. In the event that any provision of this Ordinance shall be determined to be contrary to law, it shall not affect other provisions or application of the Ordinance which shall at all times be construed to fully invoke the provision of Section 403.19 of the Code of Iowa with reference to the Urban Renewal Area and the territory contained therein. Section 7. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of 20 MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Approved by '4q ?� lAell City Attorney's Office �l;ah z Riverfront Crossing Urban Renewal Area MYKILE AVE CO c� } Riverfront Crossing Urban Renewal Area Approximately 44 Acres o � z U PRENTISS ST U.5 H�cy M �n 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 2/21/2012 Vote for passage: AYES: Hayek, Mims, Payne, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns. AYES: None. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration _ Vote for passage: Date published r CITY OF IOWA CITY 18 M EMORANDUM Date: January 30, 2012 To: Tom Markus, City Manager From: Wendy Ford, Economic Development Coordinator Re: Riverfront Crossings Urban Renewal Area Tax Increment Financing District Ordinance Introduction The Riverfront Crossings Urban Renewal Plan was approved by Council October 18, 2011 and is the prerequisite for the area to be designated a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district. The second step to implementing a district within the Urban Renewal Area is to adopt a TIF ordinance. The TIF ordinance allows the City Council to approve the use tax increment financing, in accordance with separate developers agreements, to help meet the objectives of the urban renewal plan. History /Background The objectives of the Riverfront Crossings Urban Renewal Plan include the following: • Remediation of blighted areas; • Diversify and increase the property tax base by (1) encouraging the retention and expansion of existing businesses and (2) attracting businesses that have growth potential and are compatible with existing businesses; • Increase employment opportunities consistent with the available labor force; • Provide and protect areas suitable for future commercial development; • Improve the environmental and economic health of the community through the efficient use of resources; • Consider financial incentives and programs to facilitate achieving the above goals; • Focus commercial development in defined commercial centers; • Increase sidewalk and trail connectivity to promote walkability and encourage bicycling and other alternative forms of transportation; • Improve connections between commercial retail uses and adjacent residential neighborhoods, and • Beautify the commercial corridor through better landscaping and streetscaping, rehabilitation of old buildings and improvement of building facades. Discussion of Solution In order to achieve these goals, the City may desire to embark on urban renewal projects in the area and /or provide financial assistance in the form of tax increment financing when there is a public benefit component to a project within the district. Recom men dation /J ustification Staff recommends the adoption of the TIF ordinance allowing the diversion of the increase in property taxes realized to assist in projects where public benefit will be realized. Public benefit may include such things as streetscape improvements, partnerships with the private sector in redevelopment projects, etc. In an area that has seen disinvestment over time combined with the fact that redevelopment is substantially more expensive in urban areas due to demolition and site preparation costs, there are significant financial barriers to redevelopment. With a TIF ordinance, the City has a resource to assist in reversing the declining property value trend in this important Iowa City neighborhood. M4_9 tip Prepared by: Kristopher Ackerson, Asst. Transportation Planner, and Eric Goers, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5247, and 319 - 356 -5030 respectively ORDINANCE NO. 12 -4466 ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9, "MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC ", CHAPTER 1, "DEFINITIONS, ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF TRAFFIC PROVISIONS ", SECTION 1, "DEFINITIONS "; AND AMENDING TITLE 9, "MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC ", TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER 11, AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT, TO ALLOW FOR RED LIGHT AUTOMATED TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City is vested with home rule authority pursuant to Article III, Section 38A of the Iowa Constitution and Chapter 364 of the Code of Iowa; and WHEREAS; the City of Iowa City is located in a high- density traffic area and regularly experiences traffic incidents related to the failure of motorists to obey duly erected traffic control devices, exposing its citizens to the dangers of personal injury and property damage; and WHEREAS, the City is concerned with the violation of State statues concerning traffic signals, specifically the failure of motorists to stop at red lights and obey 'no turn on red signs;' and WHEREAS, apprehending motorists who fail to obey traffic control devices through law enforcement observance, chase, and citation is difficult, dangerous, and expensive and requires the City to commit additional personnel that would not be necessary with the use of automated traffic infraction detectors with image capture technologies (i.e., red -light cameras); and WHEREAS, local governments in different parts of the State of Iowa and nation have demonstrated that the combination of traffic infraction detectors with traditional traffic law enforcement methods enhances vehicular and pedestrian safety; and WHEREAS, automated traffic enforcement laws are authorized both by Iowa home rule and the Iowa Supreme Court, in City of Davenport v. Seymour, 755 N.W.2d 533 (Iowa 2008), all of which recognize the rights of municipalities to utilize traffic infraction detectors to regulate municipal traffic; and WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City finds that implementation of the enforcement program set forth in this ordinance will promote, protect, and improve the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens consistent with the authority of and limitations on the City pursuant to case law, the Constitution of the State of Iowa, and the Code of Iowa. 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 1, "Definitions, Administration and Enforcement of Traffic Provisions ", Section 1, "Definitions" is amended by adding the following defined terms: AUTOMATED TRAFFIC CITATION: A notice of fine generated in connection with the automated traffic enforcement system. Ordinance No. 12 -4466 -- Page 2 2. AUTOMATED TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT CONTRACTOR: The company or entity, if any, with which the City of Iowa City contracts equipment and /or services in connection with the Automated Traffic Enforcement System. 3. AUTOMATED TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM: An electronic system consisting of a photographic, video, or electronic camera and a vehicle sensor installed to work in conjunction with an official traffic controller or police department employee to automatically produce photographs, video or digital images of each vehicle violating a standard traffic control device or speed restriction. 4. VEHICLE OWNER: The person or entity identified by the Iowa Department of Transportation, or registered with any other state vehicle registration office, as the registered owner of a vehicle. Title 9, "Motor Vehicles and Traffic ", Chapter 11, "Automated Traffic Enforcement" is added as follows: 1. General. The City of Iowa City, in accordance with its police powers, may deploy, erect or cause to have erected an automated traffic enforcement system for making video images of vehicles that fail to obey red light traffic signals at intersections designated by the city manager, or a designee. The systems may be managed by the private contractor that owns and operates the requisite equipment with supervisory, control vested in the city's police department. Video images shall be provided to the police department by the contractor for review. The police department will determine which vehicle owners are in violation of the city's traffic control ordinances and are to receive a notice of violation for the offense. 2. Vehicle Owner's Civil Liability for Certain Traffic Offenses. A. The Vehicle Owner shall be liable for a fine if such a vehicle crosses a marked stop line or the intersection plane at a system location when the traffic signal for that vehicle's direction is emitting a steady red light or arrow. B. The violation may be exempted from liability as outlined below in section 5 of this chapter, and other defenses may be considered in connection with the appeal process. C. In no event will an Automated Traffic Citation be sent or reported to the Iowa Department of Transportation or similar department of any other state for the purpose of being added to the Vehicle Owner's driving record. 3. Notice of Violation; Fine. A. Notice of the violation will be mailed to the Vehicle Owner for each violation recorded by an Automated Traffic Enforcement System or traffic control signal monitoring device. The Automated Traffic Enforcement Contractor shall mail the notice within 30 days after receiving information about the Vehicle Owner. The notice shall include the name and address of the Vehicle Owner; the vehicle make, if available and readily discernable, and registration number; the violation charged; the time; the date; and the location of the alleged violation; the applicable fine and monetary penalty which shall be assessed for late payment; information as to the availability of an administrative hearing in which the notice may be contested on its merits; and that the basis of the notice is a photographic record obtained by an Automated Traffic Enforcement System. Ordinance No. Page 3 12 -4466 B. Any violation of section 2 of this chapter shall result in a civil fine issued to the Vehicle Owner in an amount set by City Council by resolution, payable to the City of Iowa City. 4. Contesting an Automated Traffic Citation. A Vehicle Owner who has been issued an Automated Traffic Citation may contest the citation as follows: A. By submitting, in a form specified by the City, a request for an administrative hearing to be held at the Iowa City Police Department before an administrative appeals board (the "Board ") consisting of one or more impartial fact finders. Such a request must be filed within 30 days of the date on which Notice of the violation is sent to the Vehicle Owner. After a hearing, the Board may either uphold or dismiss the Automated Traffic Citation and shall mail its written decision within 10 days after the hearing to the address provided on the request for hearing. If the citation is upheld, then the Board shall include in its written decision a date by which the fine must be paid, and on or before that date the Vehicle Owner shall either pay the fine or submit a request for a judicial hearing pursuant to section 4(B) of this chapter. B. By submitting, in a form specified by the City, a request that in lieu of the Automated Traffic Citation, a municipal infraction citation be issued and filed with the Small Claims Division of the Iowa District Court in Johnson County. Such a request must be filed within 30 days from the date on which Notice of the violation is sent to the Vehicle Owner. Such a request will result in a court order requiring the Vehicle Owner to file an answer and appearance with the Clerk of Court, as well as setting the matter for trial before a judge or magistrate. If the Court finds the Vehicle Owner guilty of the municipal infraction, state mandated court costs will be added to the amount of the fine imposed by this chapter. 5. Exceptions to Owner Liability. There shall be no liability pursuant to this chapter if: A. The operator of the vehicle in question was issued a uniform traffic citation for the violation in question pursuant to Title 9 of the Iowa City Code or Iowa Code Chapter 321 (2011) as amended; or B. The violation occurred at any time after the vehicle in question or its state registration plates were reported to a law enforcement agency as having been stolen, provided, however, the vehicle or its plates had not been recovered by the Vehicle Owner at the time of the alleged violation; or C. The vehicle in question was an authorized emergency vehicle; or D. The officer inspecting the recorded image determines that the vehicle in question was lawfully participating in a funeral procession; or E. The officer inspecting the recorded image determines.that the vehicle in question reasonably entered the intersection in order to yield the right -of -way to an emergency vehicle. Ordinance No. 12 -4466 Page 4 6. Failure to Timely Pay or Appeal. If the recipient of an Automated Traffic Citation does not either pay the fine by the due date stated in the citation or appeal the citation as provided herein, late fees may be assessed, as approved by City Council through resolution, and /or a municipal infraction citation may be filed by the Iowa City Police Department and a fine may be sought in accordance with Iowa City Code Title 1, Chapter 4, Section 2(B), Violations, Penalties and Alternative Relief, rather than section 3 above. If the Court finds the Vehicle Owner guilty of the municipal infraction, State mandated court costs will be added to the amount of the fine imposed by this section. SECTION ll. 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. 2 Passed and approved this 21st day of February , 201A. AAA 44-fl 4 MAYOR )� J ATTEST: CITY CLERK Approved by City Attorney's Office Ordinance No. 12 -4466 Page 5 It was moved by Mims and seconded by Dobyns that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: x Champion Dickens x Dobyns x Hayek x Mims Payne x Throgmorton First Consideration 1/10/2012 Vote for passage: AYES: Dobyns, Hayek, Mims, Dickens. NAYS: Payne, Champion, Throgmorton. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration 1/24/2012 Voteforpassage: AYES: Dobyns, Hayek, Mims, Dickens. NAYS: Payne, Champion, Throgmorton. ABSENT: None. Date published 5/1/2012 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: February 8, 2012 To: Tom Markus, City Manager Geoff Fruin, Assistant to the City Manager From: Sam Hargadine, Police Chief John Yapp, Transportation Planner 7Y!Y," Re: Responses to questions regarding red light running cameras Following are responses to questions regarding red light running cameras submitted by Councilors Throgmorton and Payne. Information in this memorandum was compiled with input from a variety of City Staff. #1: Where is Iowa City Government currently using cameras to monitor activity in outdoor public areas? The City currently uses dozens of cameras for surveillance purposes. Listed below is a synopsis on how our various departments utilize cameras for monitoring and /or investigative purposes. Police Department — 1 camera per squad car The Police Department utilizes in squad car cameras that are activated by officers when they initiate the vehicle's lights and sirens. The cameras record the officer's interaction with a suspect, victim or witness on the scene during an incident. The video is recorded for potential use as evidence or to aid in further investigations. The department also monitors closed circuit cameras in a number of other facilities, including City Hall, the Police Substation, and Police Evidence Room. The Police Department further monitor cameras for some of the facilities listed below under the heading of separate departments. The Police Department also has access to State owned cameras on 1 -80. These cameras can be viewed by Police Department personnel for the purposes of monitoring incidents on the interstate. Transit Division — 162 cameras The Transit Division has 6 cameras in each of its twenty -seven buses. These cameras include audio recording and are used to control and investigate behavioral related incidents on the buses. Parks and Recreation — 28 cameras The Parks and Recreation Department has 16 cameras at the Mercer facility and 12 at the Robert A. Lee facility. These cameras record activity inside the building and are used to monitor activity and use in investigations of incidents in these facilities. These cameras can be monitored by the Police Department. Library — 26 cameras The Library has a security system with 26 cameras. The cameras capture activity within the building as well as at entrances and in the back alleyway. Public Works — 17 cameras The Water Division uses 17 security cameras to monitor activity on their grounds including both indoor and outdoor spaces. The cameras have full pan /tilt/zoom ability and are also tied into in an infrared motion detection system. The Streets division has 229 cameras installed at traffic signals to detect vehicles and actuate the signals. These area low resolution cameras (they essentially function as motion detectors) not suited for conversion to use as red light cameras. Fire Department -1 camera The Fire Department has one surveillance camera that monitors activity at Station 1 in Downtown. It is monitored by the Police Department. Airport — cameras pending The Airport recently received a state (Iowa Department of Transportation) grant for the installation of security cameras on its grounds. Staff is working on a plan that would monitor the coded entry gates and potentially the parking lot and aircraft apron. The Airport also hosts a webcam that spans the aircraft apron. Parking Division — cameras pending The Parking Division is currently working with ITS staff and the Police Department to place cameras at the entrance and exit lanes of the parking decks and around the automated payment equipment. The cameras will monitor incidents as well as allow staff to provide remote customer assistance for patrons having trouble with the payment equipment. Plans are also being considered for the use of cameras in the elevators and stair towers in the deck facilities. The Parking Division is also evaluating the use of license plate recognition software for parking enforcement purposes. This vehicle mounted technology is becoming increasingly common as it allows for more efficient enforcement of parking regulations both in decked facilities and on the street. Pedestrian Mall — 8 private cameras There are eight privately owned cameras that record activity in and around the pedestrian mall. These cameras were installed by individual businesses and the Downtown Association. The Police Department has access to the web server that stores the recordings and often utilizes the footage for investigative purposes. In addition to the current uses outlined above, the City is currently planning for upgrades and additional uses of cameras for surveillance purposes. The ITS and Police Department are working jointly on a camera system upgrade that will improve quality and allow for the digital recording of images. This system would enhance cameras noted in the above - mentioned public facilities and would expand surveillance to the Airport and parking deck structures. #2. Does the possible use of red light cameras at intersections raise any important legal questions about which we should be aware? This question has two parts: a. I am disturbed by the time gap between the moment a vehicle passes through a red light and when the owner of the vehicle receives a notice of violation and fine in the mail. When I imagine myself receiving a notice in the mail 3 or 4 weeks after I pass through a red light, I suspect I would not be able to remember the event and hence have virtually no grounds to object or appeal. Does this raise legal questions (e.g., due process) that we should be aware of before making a decision? No. The Iowa Supreme Court has already held the automatic traffic enforcement system on which our proposed ordinance is based is legal. See generally, City of Davenport v. Seymour, 755 N.W.2d 533 (Iowa 2008). The citation in the Davenport case was issued 19 days after the incident. The vast majority of legal cases feature a delay of greater than 3 -4 weeks between incident and legal action. This is true both of civil and criminal matters. Of course, with the criminal system come greater protections for the criminal defendant, due to the potential loss of liberty. Simple misdemeanor charges can be filed against a criminal defendant up to one year after the crime, and the filing of the charge may be the first notice a defendant has that he is accused of doing anything illegal. More serious charges can be filed two years after the crime, with yet more serious crimes carrying a statute of limitation of 10 years or even up to the lifetime of the defendant. In the civil arena, the statute of limitations (the deadline by which legal action must be filed) ranges, depending on the cause of action, from one year to fifteen years. Nearly all of those civil actions relate to matters of far greater importance than the civil penalty contemplated here. In summary, a 3 -4 week delay between violation and citation would not violate the legal rights of anyone involved. b. I am disturbed by the disconnect between the driver of the vehicle (who commits the transgression) and the owner of the car (who receives the fine). It seems to me that the fines should be charged to the driver, not the owner. Does this raise due process, equal protection, or other legal issues about which we should be aware? No. It is a long- standing proposition that the owner of property can be held liable for what others borrowing the property do with it. While there are numerous common examples of this (such as parking tickets), the most apt example is found in Iowa's Motor Vehicle statute. "[I]n all cases where damage is done by any motor vehicle by reason of negligence of the driver, and driven with the consent of the owner, the owner of the motor vehicle shall be liable for such damage." Iowa Code Section 321.493. More specific to automatic traffic enforcement, the supreme courts of several other states and federal appellate courts have upheld automatic enforcement systems in the face of the challenges you mention. See, e.g., ldris v. City of Chicago, 552 F.3d 564 (7th Cir. 2009); Agomo v. Fenty, 916 A.2d 181 (D.C. App. 2007. The vehicle's owner would have the legal right to recover the civil penalty from the actual driver. #3: What precisely is the problem that red light cameras at intersections would solve? Have other alternative solutions been considered? Is there scholarly and profession literature on the topic about which we should be aware? The purpose of camera enforcement at intersections is to increase compliance of traffic laws at intersections. Other communities in Iowa that have employed camera enforcement have found decreased collisions and associated damage and injuries. This has the effect of and decreasing the amount of time and resources necessary to enforce and respond to collisions at intersections. The collision and traffic volume data staff provided for ten intersections in Iowa City provided a snapshot of information — it is too small a sample size to draw statistical conclusions from. The Iowa Center for Transportation Research and Education, as part of their study of the effectiveness of red light running enforcement programs in Iowa, found that the "ratio of red light running to total crashes [in Iowa] has stayed fairly constant, around 21 %, over time.... the ratio of red light running fatal- and major -injury crashes to fatal- and major -injury crashes at signalized intersections has also remained constant over time at about 35 percent" (CTRE, The Effectiveness of Iowa's Automated Red Light Running Enforcement Programs, 2007). In comparing Iowa City's percentage of red light running collisions to the state -wide average, city -wide the percentage of collisions due to red light running is 5% of total collisions. We believe this is due to Iowa City already having implemented many of the `best practices' used to mitigate collisions due to red light running, including: • Adequate Yellow phases for traffic signals of between 3 and 4.5 seconds, per industry best practices • An all -red clearance phase at intersections, used to allow clearing of the intersection before the next Green phase of the signal • Implementation of countdown pedestrian signals, implemented for the benefit of pedestrians, but also used by motorists to know how long the remainder of the Green phase is when approaching the intersection • Clearly marked stop bars and crosswalks at intersections — High - visibility crosswalks are marked at intersections with significant pedestrian usage • High - visibility LED traffic signal lamps • Black backstops on traffic signal heads to ensure the signal lamps are visible even on bright, sunny days • Traffic signal heads placed on poles and mast -arms above lanes of traffic Despite these efforts, motorists are still running red lights, typically at the end of the yellow phase and into the red phase. Some intersections continue to have a higher percentage (compared to the state average) of red light collisions — for example, for the intersection of Market St / Dubuque St, 30% of all collisions (96 total collisions) were due to red light running over the past ten years. From a sample of local intersections (as outlined in previous reports), staff observed an average of 0.6% of vehicles running the red light, or several hundred vehicles per day per intersection. Studies and research There have been numerous studies of the effectiveness of red light running camera enforcement, and numerous criticisms of those studies. To quote from the Federal Highway Administration: "A literature review found that estimates of the safety effect of red - light- running programs vary considerably. The bulk of the results appear to support a conclusion that red light cameras reduce right -angle crashes and could increase rear end crashes; however, most of the studies are tainted by methodological difficulties that would render useless any conclusions from them. (FHWA, Safety Evaluation of Red Light Cameras, 2005, www.fhwa.dot.gov/pubIications/research/safety/050 ). For this reason, staff has focused on the Iowa -based statistics as they are more indicative of expected results in Iowa City, as opposed to the experience in higher - population states and metropolitan areas. The study by Professor Hallmark, The Effectiveness of Iowa's Automated Red Light Running Enforcement Programs, 2007, is the study staff as relied on in presenting data to Council in previous reports. A summary/overview of this study (focusing on Davenport and Council Bluffs, Iowa), published by the Center for Transportation Research and Education (CTRE), is attached. The CTRE Study summarizes results of other similar studies in other parts of the country. A few samples are below: A study was conducted by Retting and Kyrychenko in 1998 in Oxnard, CA including three control cities: Bakersfiled, San Bernardino and Santa Barbara. After a 29 month data collection process, a linear regression model was created to evaluate the data and an analysis of variance was used to test statistical significance. It was concluded that the Oxnard RLR cameras reduced the number of collisions by 7% with 95% confidence intervals of 1.3 -12.5% (McGee and Eccles, 2003; Retting and Kyrychenko, 2002) A study of the San Francisco red light running camera program in 1997 found there was a 42% decrease in red light running and a 9% decrease in citywide collisions and injuries (Fleck and Smith, 1999). As of 2003, the City of Portland, OR had red light running cameras at five intersections. During a study period of 2001 -2002, the five intersections reported a 60 -87% decline in red light running violations. [Above information from the CTRE Study The Effectiveness of Iowa's Automated Red Light Running Enforcement Programs, 2007] A January 2012 summary of the Cedar Rapids experience is attached. Cedar Rapids has reported that since camera installation (both red light and speed cameras), total crashed city- wide are down by 22 %, and personal injury crashes city -wide are down by 19 %. The Federal Highway Administration has summaries of numerous, accepted studies on automated traffic enforcement at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/redlight/cameras Rear -End Collisions We have been asked specifically if rear -end collisions will increase with installation of red -light running cameras. There are examples nation -wide of an increase in rear -end collisions due to red -light running cameras in some locations. The FHWA study (Safety Evaluation of Red Light Cameras, 2005) found that even at locations with an increase in rear -end collisions, "there is still a modest to moderate economic benefit of between $39,000 and $50,000 per treated site year." There are many other reasons for rear -end collisions, including driver distraction (accounting for more than 60% of rear -end collisions nationwide), absence of turn lanes, crossing pedestrians, improper speed perception, uncontrolled access points /driveways, weather /slippery pavement, etc. Education/Transparency FHWA recommends that for red light camera programs to be most successful, they be combined with a strong education /transparency effort. This would include brochures, signage at each treated intersection, a list of treated intersections on the city website, and on brochures /flyers, and media notice of where cameras are located. Part of the effort would also be to publish ongoing statistics about the number of red light running violations recorded, and the effect on red light running rates and collision rates. An example of a brochure from the City of Muscatine is attached. #4: How much revenue might be generated through the use of RL cameras, and how /should those revenues be used? The amount of revenue generated is determined by several factors, including the number of intersections with camera enforcement, the fine amount, the contract terms with the camera vendor, and the rates of red light running. We hope, and expect, that if red -light cameras are installed, rates of red -light running will significantly decrease. Until a contract is negotiated, and we have local experience in red -light running violation rates after cameras are installed, we do not have a solid answer for how much revenue might be generated. We can however give the experience of other Iowa cities: Muscatine Red Light Cameras • 5 intersections • 507 citations January 2012 • Fine rate = $100 • Citations x fine = $50,700 for one month ** Cedar Rapids Red Light Cameras • 7 intersections • 224 citations October 2011 • Fine rate = $100 • Citations x fine = $22,400 for one month** Des Moines Red Light Cameras • 5 intersections • 789 citations December 2011 • Fine rate = $65 • Citations x fine = $51,285 for one month ** * *Actual revenue to the city is less than this amount due to non - payers, and due to the percentage of the citation which is forwarded to the vendor, typically between 40% and 60% depending on the terms of the contract Regarding how the revenues may be used, this is ultimately at the Council's discretion, once funds are in -hand. Proponents of automated camera enforcement view this as an example of a public - private partnership. Automated traffic enforcement would be installed and maintained by the private firm at no cost to the City; the private firm and the City would share in revenues from fines; and rates of collisions and injuries are expected to decline. #5: Has any thought been given to synchronizing the lights on Burlington St (or other streets) such that if someone drove the speed limit, they could get to each light when it was green? Burlington Street traffic signals, and other major corridors, are coordinated in that they `communicate' with each other to allow for efficiency in distributing traffic through the corridor while allowing for maximum `green' time on the arterial street. The best examples of this are Market Street and Jefferson St, for which we can time the signals for traffic flow due to the one - way street designation. Burlington St specifically is difficult to synchronize for one direction of traffic, due to the high percentage of side street traffic at some locations (Gilbert St, and to a lesser extent Clinton St and Madison St) and the need to optimize traffic flow in all directions; the volumes of traffic moving in both directions; the high percentage of pedestrian crossing actuations across Burlington St which increases the signal phase for the pedestrian crossing; and the need to preserve the protected left turn signal phase for left- turning vehicles. #6: Has there been any thoughts to installing flashing yellow lights prior to the intersection of HWY 6 and Sycamore St? The idea being that if the yellow light was flashing, the light at the intersection would be red when the vehicle reached the intersection. [There are a few of these on HWY 218 through Waterloo and it seems effective.] Advance flashing yellow signals /beacons are typically used when there is a visibility issue approaching a signalized intersection, particularly in high speed corridors. We have not investigated if the Highway 6 / Sycamore St intersection meets the criteria for advance yellow signals, but would be happy to. #7: At the intersections where the red lights are proposed, how many tickets have been written by the police to drivers for running a red light in the past 10 years? Citations for" Disobey Red Light" at Select Intersections 2401 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Z ZM 2010 2011 Total Market St. and Dubuque St. 4 1 5 3 1 2 2 1 19 Highway 6 and Sycamore St. 5 7 4 4 2 3 3 1 1 30 Jefferson St. and Gilbert St. 2 2 6 1 4 1 5 1 1 22 Highway 6 and Boyrum St 2 5 3 4 2 1 17 Burlington St and S Riverside Dr. 1 12 10 7 7 1 5 1 2 46 Highway 1 and Orchard St. 1 3 1 1 1 7 Burlington St. and Gilbert St 7 16 11 11 11 6 1 6 2 1 72 Jefferson St. and Dubuque St. 2 2 7 4 1 1 2 1 1 21 Burlington St Madison St. 1 4 4 1 2 1 2 15 Burlington St. and Clinton St. 1 7 11 7 2 7 5 1 1 1 43 #8: How many tickets have been written by police to drivers for running red lights everywhere in town in the past 10 years (by year)? 3441 2443 M 2444 M 2445 2442 244$ 244.4 2414 2411 Isla! Total Disobey Red Light Citations 99 279 249 214 152 193 137 92 98 68 34 1615 #9: Are there are studies to indicate how much traffic relocates from the traveled ways with red -light cameras to alternate routes? How many people find alternative routes so as to avoid streets with red light cameras? Staff could not locate any analysis or evidence of traffic diversion resulting from photo enforcement in literature published by the Federal Highway Administration or Institute for Transportation Research at Iowa State University. We suspect this is the case because it is easier (and more efficient) for motorists to obey the traffic signals than to avoid photo enforced intersections. #10: Are there studies to determine impacts of installation of red light cameras on the local economy (people avoiding the area)? Similar to #9 above, we could not locate any analysis or studies of automated traffic enforcement cameras resulting in motorists avoiding areas with automated traffic enforcement. #11: If a police officer is going to review all of the pictures before a ticket is sent out, is there an estimate of how much time this would take? Wouldn't this time be better spent actually writing tickets for running red lights ($195.00 fine versus a $100.00 fine)? Each violation is flagged by the system and reviewed by the vendor prior to it entering a queue for review by an ICPD officer. There are some intersections that will have more in the queue than others and the exact number of violations will vary from day to day. The department has considered multiple strategies to manage the workload to include utilizing injured "light duty" personnel. Station Master /Community Service Officers during slower times and we have the technology to view web based applications in the patrol car. A trained and experienced reviewer can review the violation in a manner of seconds and move on to the next one. The use of automated cameras is a tool to enhance the officer's ability to enforce the traffic laws, and not to replace the need for officers that work traffic. An officer that observes a red light violation can still take enforcement action. With greater compliance we expect to free up officer time for other activities. S v bM;Nd by At the January 10 and 24 Council meetings, I voted against the proposed resolution concerning the use of red light cameras at intersections. As I said during both meetings, however, I might change my mind /vote if my concerns can be adequately addressed. Regardless of how we eventually vote, I think it is important that we show we have thoughtfully considered information and opinions submitted by the public. In an email I sent to the Council prior to the January 24 meeting, I recommended that we defer our second consideration of the resolution and schedule a work session focusing on the topic. The Council decided to start the February 21 work session a half an hour early in order to discuss it. My concerns are listed below. Some of the concerns involve legal questions the City Attorney can address. Others involve facts best addressed by the City Manager. And at least one involves value judgments that only the Council can make. Do these red light cameras constitute an intrusive and undesirable intrusion on civil liberties? Whether we should consider RL cameras to be an intrusion on civil liberties that trumps public safety (and other) concerns is a value judgment we cannot ask the staff to make. It's one only we council members can make, after taking the public's views into account. That said, it would be helpful (to me at least) to know whether using these cameras would establish any kind of meaningful precedent. I would, therefore. ask the staff identify where Iowa City government is currently using cameras to monitor activity in outdoor public spaces; e.g., at intersections, along roadways, in public parks, in the Ped Mall, etc. 2. Does the possible use of red light cameras at intersections raise any important legal questions about which we should be aware? This question has two parts: a. I am disturbed by the time gap between the moment a vehicle passes through a red light and when the owner of the vehicle receives a notice of violation and fine in the mail. When I imagine myself receiving a notice in the mail 3 or 4 weeks after I pass through a red light, I suspect I would not be able to remember the event and hence have virtually no grounds to object or appeal. Does this raise legal questions (e.g., due process) that we should be aware of before making a decision? b. I am disturbed by the disconnect between the driver of the vehicle (who commits the transgression) and the owner of the car (who receives the fine). It seems to me that the fines should be charged to the driver, not the owner. Does this raise due process, equal protection, or other legal issues about which we should be aware? 3. What precisely is the problem that red light cameras at intersections would solve? Have other alternative solutions been considered? Is there scholarly and profession literature on the topic about which we should be aware? On first glance I see no compelling relationship between Red Light Running (RLR) crashes and the total number of crashes and injuries at the 10 candidate intersections listed in the staffs memorandum recommending adoption of red light cameras. (I plotted the data on a graph and saw no correlation between RLR crashes and total crashers at those intersections over a 10 -year period.) This tells me that many other factors (e.g., weather, obstacles that block the driver's view, excessively brief yellow lights, driver distractions) are involved in intersection crashes and injuries, and hence that red light cameras might be a solution in search of a problem. Put differently, we should articulate as clearly as possible the nature of the problem we're trying to solve. City staff has drawn our attention to the experiences that two Iowa cities have had with RL cameras. My gut instincts tell me that there is a substantial body of scholarly and professional literature that should also be considered. Some individuals have directed our attention to relevant literature. W. H. Kamery submitted an article by Landland - Orban, Pracht, and Large (2008). This article concludes that RL cameras decrease safety (fewer side collisions but more rear end ones) and that there are more effective ways of increasing safety; e.g., adding a few seconds to the amber light times. This raises a factual question the staff should address: would any of the traffic safety measures identified in the article be more effective than RL cameras at reducing accidents and injuries at the 10 candidate intersections? Sue Travis' email dated Jan 17, 2012, also directs attention to evidence that RL cameras increase the number of rear end accidents. I ask the staff to inquire into the published literature and report back to us about what they find. On that point, two former colleagues at the U of Iowa tell me that they know of a highly respected researcher at Iowa State University (Assoc. Prof. Shauna Hallmark) who is quite knowledgeable about this topic. Staff could discuss the topic with her, report back to us, and perhaps invite her to meet with us. 4. How much revenue might be generated through the use of RL cameras, and how could /should those revenues be used? This question has three parts: a. In correspondence submitted to us, Susan Enle suggests that revenues should go into the roads fund not the general fund. Larry Baker suggests they could be used to reduce property taxes. With these and other possibilities in mind, I ask staff to estimate the total revenue that could be expected during the first full fiscal year after cameras are installed, to identify reasonable alternative uses of those funds, and to present a clear rationale for recommending one over the others. My own gut instincts tell me that the revenues should be used to fund traffic safety measures, but not to enhance revenues for any specific department. But I have no definitive opinions on the matter. b. Several residents have also expressed considerable skepticism about relying on a private firm to install and operate the cameras. The concern, as I understand it, is that the private firm would have a financial incentive to find ways to detect more violations, and hence to increase its revenues. Staff should address this point. c. Last, Ryan Denke urges us to consider the possible repercussions of bad contracts and lawsuits that tend to come from photo enforcement. On this point, is there a body of experience nationwide about which we should be aware before deciding how to proceed? 2 Buchanan County honored for railroad flatcar bridges 3 Small town signs program just got better 4 Virtual training opportunities are plentiful 5 Moodle your way to better supervisory skills 5 Snow Roadeo winners 2007 6 Library acquisitions 6 Earlier application due date for TSF program 7 Conference calendar 7 New video captures perspectives on national transportation challenges Iowa State University's Center for Transportation Research and Education (CTRE) is the umbrella organization for the following centers and programs. Bridge Engineering Center Center for Weather Impacts on Mobility and Safety Construction Management & Technology Iowa Local,T'echnical Assistance Program Iowa Statewide Urban Design and specifications Iowa Traffic Safety Data Service Midwest Transportation Consortium National Concrete Pavement Technology Center Partnership for Geotechnical Advancement Roadway infrastructure Management & Operations Systems Sustainable Transportation Systems Program Traffic Safety and Operations ctre Center for ltansporlotlon Research and EdUCallon IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY Cameras reduce red light running crashes in Iowa If you have a signalized intersection where red light running (RLR) is a problem, auto- matic RLR cameras can be another tool for your safety toolbox. RLR cameras are mounted at signalized intersections. They detect and photograph vehicles that enter the intersection after the light has turned red. RLR cameras are a kind of automated enforcement program (speed monitoring cameras are another). They have been imple- mented through city ordinances in Iowa as civil infractions, similar to parking tickets, which are mailed to the owner of the vehicle. In Iowa, more than 2,900 crashes (about 4.9 percent of all crashes) in 2004 were RLR collisions. The FWHA estimates that nationally 1,000 fatalities and $14 billion in economic losses each year result from more than 100,000 RLR crashes. The RLR camera study To address a possible means of reducing the frequency of RLR incidents and related crashes, Shauna Hallmark, associate profes- sor of civil engineering at ISU, investigated the effects of RLR cameras in Iowa. The study's key findings suggest that the presence of RLR cameras seems to dramatically reduce not only the frequency of the offense, but the frequency of RLR- related crashes as well. Baseline data for the report reveal that in Iowa, approximately 20 percent of signal- ized intersection crashes and 53 percent of fatal- and major -injury crashes were RLR crashes. Sponsored by the Iowa DOT, the project involved comparing crash trend data from intersections with cameras in two cities, Davenport and Council Bluffs. Control intersec- tions in each city had similar characteristics but without cameras. For the duration of the study in Davenport (eight quarters of study crash data compared with 12 quarters of pre -study data), there was a 20 percent reduction in total crashes and a 40 percent reduction in RLR - related crashes. RLR cameras continued on page 2 2 Technology News December 2001 Acronyms in Technology News AASHTO American Association of State High- way and Transportation Officials APWA American Public Works Association CTRE Center for Transportation Research and Education (at ISU) FHWA Federal Highway Administration Iowa DOT Iowa Department of Transportation ISU Iowa State University LTAP Local Technical Assistance Program MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices NACE National Association of County Engineers TRB Transportation Research Board U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration / ��towa Department Li ofp~ansporton LTAP is a national program of the FHWA. Iowa LTAP, which produces this newsletter, is financed by the FHWA and the Iowa DOT and administered by CTRE. Center forTransportation Research and Education ISU Research Park 2711 S. Loop Drive, Suite 4700 Ames, Iowa 50010 -8664 Telephone: 515- 294 -8103 Fax: 515- 294 -0467 www.etre.iastate.edu/ Any reference to a commercial organization or product in this newsletter is intended for informa- tional purposes only and not as an endorsement. The opinions, findings, or recommendations expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of LTAP sponsors. All materials herein are provided for general information, and neither LTAP nor its sponsors represent that these materials are adequate for the purposes of the user without appropriate expert advice. ISU makes no representations or warranties, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy of any f information herein and disclaims liability for any inaccuracies. Iowa State University does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, age, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, sex, marital status, disability or status as a U.S. veteran. inquiries can be directed to the Director of Equal Opportunity and Diversity, 3680 Beardshear Hall, 515 -294 -7612. Subscribe to Technology News Subscriptions to Technology News are free. We welcome readers' comments, questions, and suggestions. To subscribe, or to obtain permission to reprint articles, contact the editor (seepage 4). Subscribe to Tech E News For brief, e-mail reminders about upcoming workshops and other LTAP news, subscribe to Iowa LTAP's free service: Tech E -News. Send an email to Marcia Brink, mbrink@iastate.edu. Type "Subscribe Tech E -News" in the subject line. RtR cameras continued from page 1 Similarly, in Council Bluffs (where four quarters of study data were compared with 12 quarters of pre -study data), there was a 44 percent reduction in total crashes and an average decrease of 90 percent of RLR- related crashes. The overall picture In each city, the intersections with cameras Hallmark speculates that cameras were effective because drivers became aware of the cameras when they received tickets in the mail for running a red light at the intersection. To avoid getting more tickets, drivers quit running red lights at those intersections. For more information showed dramatic reductions in total crashes, Contact Shauna Hallmark, 515 -294 -5349, RLR crashes, and rear -end crashes. At control intersections — signalized inter- sections without cameras that were within one mile of the intersections with cam- eras— drivers ran red lights nine times more often than at treatment intersections. shallmar @iastate.edu, or co- principal investigator Tom McDonald, 515 - 294 -6384, tmedonal @iastate.edu. The final report, Evaluating Red Light Run- ning Programs in Iowa, and a tech transfer summary are online at www.ctre.iastate.edu/ research/detail.cfm ?projectID= 1158685907. ■ Buchanan County honored for railroad flatcar bridges In September in Chattanooga, Tennessee, Buchanan County Engineer Brian Keierleber accepted the 2007 Excellence in Regional Transportation Award from the National Association of Development Organizations (NADO) on behalf of the county. Buchanan County has been a leader in purchasing and installing flatcars as replace- ments for older bridges on lower level roads. Fourteen flatcar bridges have been installed in the county since 2003. In addition to being a novel use for retired train cars, the flatcar bridges are incredibly cost efficient, costing on average one -third the price of standard concrete slab bridge construction and requiring only one -half to two- thirds the construction time. "We rock right across their tops," explains Keierleber. The flatcar bridges have a slightly shorter life span than conventional bridges, about 30 to 40 years. Careful design, engineering, and analysis go into each flatcar bridge to ensure it can carry heavy agricultural loads. ■ ��', ® DS CEDAR MPI City of Five Seasons January 13, 2012 City Manager Jeff Pomeranz City Council Members City Hall North 7 b RECEIVED JAN 1 6 2012 CEDAR RAPIDS CITY MANAGER RE; IMPACT OF THE AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM I wanted to take a moment and share the year end traffic statistics with you. These numbers are impressive and are a direct result of the courage that each of you had when the system was approved. I know each of you have faced considerable criticism for that decision. Doing the right thing isn't al ways the popular thing. Your action on this has saved lives and you each should be commended. • Traffic crashes throughout the City of Cedar Rapids are down 22% • Injury crashes city -wide are down 19% • Traffic crashes at the monitored intersections are down 12% • Traffic crashes on 380 are down 76% • Injury crashes on 380 are down 75% • Traffic crashes in the curves on 380 are down 82% • Injury crashes in the curves are down 87% • Fatal crashes in the city are down 80% We averaged two fatalities per year in the curves prior to the cameras. Since they went up, we have had zero fatal crashes in the curves. 542 officer hours were saved last year by not responding to crashes. Those officers were redeployed in the neighborhoods where we have seen another decrease in crime. Violent crime is flown 2% and overall property crime is down 4 %. again for taking a bold step in improving public safety in Cedar Rapids. Gre ra m Chic# o ice Cedar Rapids Police Department RECEIVED (319) 286.5374 -office (319) 538.1073 - cell JAN 1`12012 CITY � IDS Cedar Rapids Police Department 505 First Street SAI • Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52404 -2103 (319) 286 -5375 • FAX (319) 286.5462 •fik O L O O i N i y N lC 'Y I as = � c O =_ 0 N rte.. L 7 d) y _ E I r-. N N L% L N O `1 O � N -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- o �Uacv .. �O cad `n U w C N O cLC N M O oa CO M i L = 03 O O od OJ > •L CD �c 06 V cc H a' i CL � CL ° Q) 3 o �Uacv .. �O cad `n U w H O u °" 1. -d �, F i o > 7b 4 EE (u 3 `� o � v -C ,, z o p u Q a0i C ° c� ° w v y, y- v 14-- Vt•4y L �Q i1.i 0 .V�a ° V cu ff�D it w LL —�' V �" y" ° '� U G1, . •� y �a�i V ° —� fly Ll. N ro v 0 v' y cOe �^ lu i U y O v C H O w C L O W y v > L) 1 L > . l R • 1C 4 r. � N N N O @ •�,' V fl > c o 4? c v E o ea v -v v c 3[ R CO �3 v U UU. y C •[ 0 7 U y O ,� h U O u : .Y _ ' °P. a u0 CA .; R •,4, " N a1 i• y > v U R U v O v "v E s N N O N V v �„ 7 3 R O u v, — a ,. v Q. N d s° �, °•3 u = Z c H. ' aR`i sa ny�° ❑°. U qw/�� c� d O{" 7! �.. OQ it ° L r" N •> O d v N „O'y v 0 f••I O� 5 TO = a� v c b y 3 U o N `d y $ o `v p V p• I O c° c� o U. '� R O' 4 b _ ?; s R a� �° o c a v M ° wm ' -' v d o H > c 3m •o 5 -5 3 d c o v p c C oo v w o Q — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 4r �+•+ y u O .rr' O Q, �+ p o co o 0 on N N p cs o c -C Qi 'C N °o > > "d C o c... C" 'O L v v "aai v v O 'b ..� • y C v a v• pp w bQ •�+ . s., O .m-i C w R UU+ ,vim y 'O O. - & � y >. p E"" 0 , [ °• O � u y =� d 'd W A. N •n i•y 0 :i V .-ti L ,„, H �..� y v N H "'� 3.n ..r v O N ° Lq v - 'B C 6' "� •b s �° c v 'adi won .2 o •4 C w ° •= y o o o H ° C bA •—' y ai a"i .b .... d vC v O v C" '� •1. n1 ."� fd Ln p 1"i i •,y Ld �Gy 1a%+ ii G •� CL d) 0 %% p v 'u p �.' h U 'O U 'b V O .L' p v d �. U cd L• > R u U CL O w v w � N C m r- v p, v v 'C v b — O U O +' to e� v �+ R oA C '"" j `" 3 ° ' 3 o E" [ ce 'O v -a0i d v ,�C v R a� O U E o = pp C y SC v u O cd is w .�, p q C1 v O y ti C' _ A, p, a g 0 ti° v> u =o o C o v w x = > N o. > 3 -° L '.� e� R o ed v v c d d v H 'O c... U O y y u R O U > J: >: ° V U N N �" d d N C R J w CL a V) 0 v _v c. o ° o„ `" 3 �i V cc oa c b o �o b CD C i L C: LZ CL ca i cu ca �+ H N p N !Q W � d E �--+ t{/ EMI � • *'� ,„^�,Yi "{�' � N b '* O Marian Karr From: islewood @lcom.net Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 2:59 PM To: Council Subject: A fine idea on travic cameras and fines To members of the Iowa City Council, Traffic cameras are a means by which abiding the law pays and violating the law cost negligent people who are into cutting corners when it come to a respect for the law and the safety of others. A good plan can also debunk the fallacious argument that traffic cameras are nothing more than a means for collecting revenue -- -this contention is nothing more than wiggle room by people who neither care about obeying traffic law nor public safety. To assure this, the fines that are charged through traffic - camera recording of violations would be use for tax - rebate payment to city residents who the prior year had not had a traffic - camera violation recorded. To make abiding the law really pay, each additional traffic violation would result in a larger fine and after 5 such recorded offenses the perpetrators auto would be confiscated and sold with the proceeds going into the payout fund. It is time that good Americans put a stop to these illegals. Sam Osborne Marian Karr From: Elnora Smith <sesmith @mchsi.com> Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 10:55 AM To: Council Subject: Red Light Traffic Cameras This correspondence will become a public record. I encourage the Council move forward with the installation and use of the red light traffic cameras. Information from cities who do use them show a dramatic reduction in accidents, thus likely saving lives. Also, the fact that they can sense an on- coming vehicle approaching at a speed that it cannot stop in time for the red light, and having the ability to delay the changing to the green light in the left - right direction, can save many lives. I recently was at an intersection when a semi came blasting through at full speed horn honking. If a traffic camera had been in use, it would have delayed the green light, thus saving several near accidents. I understand that it is unlikely that the Iowa Democratic Senate will pass a ban on the red light traffic cameras. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Elnora Smith Marian Karr From: Timothy Stalter <timothy- stalter @uiowa.edu> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 6:39 PM To: Council Subject: Traffic cameras in Iowa City This correspondence will become a public record. Dear City Council Members, I am writing as a concerned citizen in favor of the installation and use of traffic cameras in Iowa City. I believe that this monitoring will be effective and will cause drivers to be more responsible. I have lived in and travelled widely throughout the UK where there is an extensive use of speed cameras and CCTV cameras. Though there are those who side -step the law by installing detection devices and use GPS systems that identify the location of the speed cameras, I have found that the cameras are effective and do help to deter reckless behavior. Second, I work on both sides of Burlington and cross this very busy street at an intersection (Clinton and Burlington) where I have witnessed NUMEROUS drivers running red lights. With the hundreds of pedestrians who cross Burlington every day, this cannot be allowed to continue. It is surprising that more accidents involving pedestrians and cars have not taken place. I am completely in favor of the use of traffic cameras. For those who believe that they would be an invasion of privacy, it seems a small price to pay for a life. Thank you very much for your attention to my letter. Sincerely, Timothy Stalter Marian Karr From: Judith Pfohl <judypfohl @gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 8:32 PM To: Council Subject: red light cameras Thank you for the second reading passage of the red light cameras for Iowa City. Laws for our safety are enforced by police. Maybe some of those resenting the cameras are complaining because they got a ticket for breaking the law. Governor Branstad said he did not like paying for a ticket mailed from another state. Revenue collected by tickets would have been collected if there were enough police available to write tickets. Extra police are added to highways on holidays to reduce accidents and speeding, but it costs money to maintain that level. Police already can check speeding by plane. When taxes are reduced, creative law enforcement is needed, like planes and red light cameras. People who worry about privacy issues should stop online chats, Facebook, or credit cards that collect data. Iowa City can be know like University Heights as a place to follow the speed limit. Maybe in the future the Neighborhood Associations can also ask for placements. I know we have many accidents due to people driving too fast on Mormon Trek. A camera on Rohret /Cae and Mormon Trek would be wonderful to slow traffic. Or redo the road to have more curves to slow traffic. Judy Pfohl 2229 Abbey Lane Tyn'Cae Neighborhood President Marian Karr From: Muriel Naumann <murielnaumann @msn.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 10:34 AM To: Council Subject: your council votes on red -light cameras City Council Members: I am writing you to encourage you to vote no on the upcoming third and final vote on the red -light camera ordinance on February 21. My reasons are many. One reason is that a portion of the money received by fines would go to the company installing the cameras. Another is that I have a constitutional right to face the person charging me with running a red light and would not be able to do this with a camera. Also, there are better ways to catch red -light violators than a camera. A suggestion would be to change the timing of yellow lights and have them run a litte longer. You as council need to do more research and if you do, you would find more reasons for not installing red -light cameras. One that Jim Throgmorten mentions is that substantial literature states that the cameras increase the number of rear -end collisions. I am a property owner having lived here for 34 years and have seen increasing city laws restricting residents and their freedoms. Please vote no on the upcoming vote on red -light cameras on February 21. - Muriel Naumann Marian Karr From: Mark Rushton <markrushton @gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 1:02 PM To: Council Subject: Red Light Cameras Dear City Council, Study suggests red -light cameras don't add to safety That's what a surprising study by KC police suggests. But the cameras generate tickets by the tens of thousands. By CHRISTINE VENDEL The Kansas City Star Red -light cameras have not reduced accidents at most Kansas City intersections they monitor, according to a police analysis. In fact, the analysis of more than 2,500 wrecks in the two years after the cameras appeared shows that injury wrecks, rear -end wrecks and overall wrecks all increased. Only right -angle crashes — the ones most likely due to red -light running — decreased. In the cameras' second year of use, accidents were higher at 11 of the 17 intersections being monitored. Overall, wrecks were up 18 percent at those locations. Injury accidents rose at 13 of the intersections, with the only fatal accident occurring at one of the intersections after the cameras' arrival, according to the analysis, which police expect to release today at the Board of Police Commissioners meeting. Board members requested the analysis and expect a lively discussion. By contrast, wrecks across the city and statewide — dropped in 2009 and 2010. The city installed the first cameras in January 2009 and added more that spring and summer. The results didn't surprise Rajiv Shah, an assistant professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, who studied the effectiveness of red -light cameras in Chicago and concluded in 2010 they offered "no significant benefit." "I'd say that's very consistent with what cities across America have found," he said of Kansas City's results. "There's not really a hard connection between reducing accidents and red -light cameras." The cameras are touted as a way to improve public safety, Shah said, but "it's clearly not." "It's easy money," he said. "That's why the cities do it." When the Kansas City Council agreed to bring red -light cameras to Kansas City in 2008, council members said they wanted to make the city safer. Now, city officials are discussing whether to expand the program. The Police Department's study findings differed from a recent study by city engineers, who concluded that the cameras worked well at some intersections, but "did not achieve the goals" of reduced accidents and reduced violations at other intersections. Intersections with high traffic volume and a high number of violators showed the best results, they said. The city's study, which examined a different time frame, showed a 2- percent decline in overall wrecks and one fewer injury wreck after the cameras were installed. The police analysis showed: • Wrecks more than doubled at 59th Street and Bruce R. Watkins Drive, the intersection that posted the largest increase. • Rear -end wrecks were the most common type of wreck in all three years studied, before and after the cameras were installed. • Officers have written nearly 200,000 camera- generated tickets since January 2009. At $100 a ticket, these fines could bring in $20 million. But the number of violations issued each year has been falling, according to a memo sent Monday to Kansas City officials from American Traffic Solutions, the private company that helps run Kansas City's program. The memo also noted that 51 percent of the violations were written to drivers of vehicles registered outside of Kansas City. "It is clear that this photo enforcement program is a great success in reducing the number of red light runners," Jason Norton of ATS wrote in the memo. If so, why have wrecks increased in Kansas City? Supporters of the program believe it's because wrecks are complex and affected by myriad aspects, including traffic flow, weather and the economy. Russ Rader, spokesman for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, said a proper analysis would involve comparing the camera intersections in Kansas City against similar intersections in a similar city that didn't have a red -light camera program. He said such studies have consistently shown reductions of 45 percent to 50 percent in red -light running and reductions of 25 percent to 30 percent in injury crashes. "You can't make a determination about cameras" the way Kansas City police did, Rader said, "because you're just looking at the raw number of crashes." Rader said comparing data within a city that uses the cameras underestimates the effects of the cameras' "spillover effect," which involves better driver behavior across the city because drivers aren't sure which intersections have cameras. But Shah has a different theory on why cameras don't reduce wrecks. He said many of the violations written by Chicago police involved drivers who turned right at red lights without completely stopping — not the more dangerous drivers who blew straight through intersections. "When you think about red -light cameras, you're not really thinking about catching the guy turning right in the middle of the night when no one's around and just cruising through it," he said. "They probably wouldn't have had a wreck anyway." Red -light cameras effectively stop this kind of driver, whom Shah refers to as "vigilant violators." But the cameras are less effective, Shah believes, against drivers who are distracted or criminal. "They are the ones likely to go through the red light anyway," he said. Kansas City police said more than half of their tickets go to drivers who don't completely stop before turning right at a red light. Police Officer Ray Thompson said the rate was higher when the cameras first arrived. "A lot of people didn't realize they had to make a complete stop," he said, adding that officers use discretion and give the benefit of the doubt when they can. "They've kind of been educated now. There aren't as many as there were in the beginning." To reach Christine Vendel, call 816 - 234 -4438 or send email to cvendel(a,kcstar.com. © 2012 Kansas City Star and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved. http: / /www.kansascity.com Best regards, Mark Rushton 3058 Hastings Ave Iowa City, IA 52245 Marian Karr From: jcwconsult @aol.com Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 3:19 PM To: Council; Eleanor M. Dilkes; Tom Markus; Geoff Fruin; Adam Bentley; Sam Hargadine; Rick Wyss; Mike Brotherton; Bill Campbell; Kevin Heick; Rick Fosse; Ron Knoche Cc: newsroom @press - citizen.com; opinion @press - citizen.com Subject: Purpose? for Red Light Cameras Dear Iowa City Officials, I see that Iowa City moved one step closer to authorizing red light cameras that may well reduce safety and cause more accidents for your citizens and visitors. Before you take this likely negative step on safety, I urge you to first reset ALL the relevant engineering factors I mentioned in my emails to you on 11/18/11. (My earlier email is below.) The most critical factor to reset is to use safer and longer yellow intervals on the lights, long enough with the ITE engineering formula for the ACTUAL 85th percentile approach speeds of free flowing vehicles under good conditions. Timing the yellows for the posted speed limits which may well be below the safety- optimum 85th percentile speeds of free flowing traffic under good conditions is NOT proper, if safety is the true goal. The same is true for data on 85th percentile speeds taken with counters that recorded vehicles 24/7 including rush hours, because that data does NOT represent free flowing vehicles under good conditions. On the other hand, if high amounts of ticket revenue taken mostly from safe drivers on split second technical fouls caused by yellow intervals that are deliberately too short for the actual approach speeds is the goal, then ticket cameras are a good answer. They WILL collect a lot of revenue, mostly from safe drivers who would not commit violations if the lights were timed properly to maximize safety, and this is quite profitable. It has a high risk, however, of increasing the accident rates at camera intersections as the research on our website shows in reports from North Carolina, Virginia, Ontario, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Washington DC, Australia and many other places. Your city needs to decide which is the real goal - safety or revenue? If it is safety, then before cameras are even considered, the yellows need to be reset. You will almost certainly then find out that the cameras would not record enough violations to even pay their own basic costs, and definitely not produce any profits for the city or a prospective camera company business partner. Our organization votes for maximizing safety What does your city truly favor? Your final votes will tell us which issue won out. Respectfully, James C. Walker Member - National Motorists Association www.motorists.org 2050 Camelot Road Ann Arbor, MI 48104 734 - 668 -7842 My email of 11/18/11 Dear Iowa City Officials, I am one of many National Motorists Association (NMA) members who closely follow the issue of red light cameras. We frequently see reports of the negative effects on safety for cities that use red light cameras, often in the form of increased accident rates at camera intersections. We also frequently see reports of the positive effects on safety for cities that revise their traffic light engineering parameters, instead of using red light cameras. In almost every case, proper engineering of the lights - particularly in the use of longer yellow intervals - will reduce violations by more than ticket cameras. And the engineering changes achieve substantial reductions in violations on day one, with no need to punish citizens for tenths -of- seconds technical fouls caused by faulty engineering that is easily improved at almost no cost. If improved intersection safety, and not camera ticket revenue, is the true goal for Iowa City, then I urge the city to thoroughly implement all of the low cost traffic safety engineering improvements before any further consideration is given to installing red light cameras as a business partner of one of the vendors of these systems. The NMA was invited to testify at a hearing about red light camera programs before the House Transportation Committee at the Pennsylvania State Legislature on November 14th. I was chosen as the speaker and presented both oral and written testimony to the committee. The testimony sections are attached, with many references to the unbiased research done by organizations with no financial conflicts of interest in the use, or non -use, of cameras. We would welcome a dialogue with any of you and would hope to see Iowa City first pursue the engineering changes that almost always improve safety and reduce violation rates by more than ticket camera programs. We are confident that if you choose this route, your city will no longer see any need for red light cameras. In closing, we would also note that once installed ticket cameras usually provoke a significant backlash from the citizens. To date, there have been 23 cities that allowed citizens the opportunity to vote on using or continuing to use automated ticket cameras. The cameras lost 22 of the 23 votes. It is easy to craft a poll to get positive responses on the future use of ticket cameras before citizens experience the effects. It is almost impossible to get a positive vote on using the cameras, once citizens experience the actual results. Respectfully, James C. Walker Member - National Motorists Association www. motorists.orq 2050 Camelot Road Ann Arbor, MI 48104 734 - 668 -7842 Marian Karr From: canute @talusmusic.com Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 11:16 AM To: Council Subject: Red Light Camera Vote Dear Iowa City Council Members, Should you approve the cameras, you should know that Iowa City will eventually owe restitution for every dollar collected from red light cameras. That money will have to come out of the city's own coffers because you will have previously handed all that money over to the red light camera company. The legal reason why red light camera enforcement will fail is this: No one can enforce legislation which opposes the Laws of Nature. Any such law is null and void. The Iowa DOT standard setting yellow light durations opposes Newton's Second Law. The red light camera companies exploit this failure. By you enforcing this standard to precision, you are violating the Canute legal precedent. I guarantee it, there is a time coming within the next year or so, where Iowa City will be sued for every penny it has taken. Essentially, you cannot pass a law forbidding gravity. You pass a red light camera law, you will enforcing a law forbidding Newton's Second Law of Motion. The Iowa DOT, as well as here in the North Carolina, uses standards by ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) to set yellow lights which oppose Newton's Laws of Motion. These standards, by the laws of physics, force drivers to run red lights. About 2% of drivers at each signal cycle will approach the intersection at just the wrong time and will fall into the precarious position where the "formula" falls apart, where the formula's systemic errors will force these drivers to run red lights. The red light camera companies exploit the engineers' systematic errors and dupe city councils, like your own, into be their accomplice under the false pretense of safety. You will find that the red light camera companies will place their cameras at intersections with lots of turning traffic, at two - close -by intersections, at intersections with lots of nearby business entrances, and at intersections where Iowa City's traffic engineers accidently shortened the yellow light below the ITE spec. These are the locations where Iowa DOT's standards fall apart the worst. You will find that there will not be one exception. To see more information on this topic, go to http: / /redlightrobber.com. Note the Contacts. The Majority Leader of the NC General Assembly is on there, as well as 2 PhD physicists. I am a physicist myself- -and discovered this problem 2 years ago when I got flashed here in Cary, NC. The whole thing is a Confidence Game perpetrated by red light camera companies. You are the Mark, soon to be roped into being the accomplice. I know it all sounds like a conspiracy theory. But please trust me. It is all true. Sincerely, Brian Ceccarelli 919 - 815 -0126 Marian Karr From: Nelson Moyer <ku0a @mchsi.com> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 12:24 PM To: Council Subject: Traffic Cameras As a firm supporter of traffic cameras for Iowa City, I am saddened and disappointed that three council members chose to vote against this progressive and proactive step toward improving public safety in Iowa City. I find the excuse that enforcement is retrospective unworthy of comment. As a retiree, I drive around Iowa City at various times of the day, and I almost always see drivers running red lights, particularly at the intersections of Highway 6 and Riverside and Highway 6 and Gilbert. The societal norm seems to be to accelerate when the light turns yellow, and many drivers don't make it through the intersections before the lights turn red. Traffic cameras could go a long way to reprogramming drivers to obey the traffic laws, improve public safety, and reduce or stabilize car insurance premiums. I urge the three council members who currently do not support traffic cameras to carefully consider their vote when the measure is presented for the third reading. Nelson P. Moyer, Ph.D. Retired Microbiologist Marian Karr From: Judith Pfohl <judypfohl @gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 9:37 PM To: Council Subject: Red Light Cameras Attachments: Jake.PNG Thought you might be interested in the answer I got from the Governor. He does not think it is a philosopical or safety issue, mainly financial, and he wants the funds. Judy Pfohl ---- - - - - -- Forwarded message - - - - -- From: Governor Terry Branstad <iq.correspondencekiowa.gov> Date: Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 8:17 AM Subject: Responding to your message To: judypfohIkgmail.com Terry E. Branstad GOVERNOR Judy Pfohl 2229 Abbey Lane Iowa City, IA 52246 -4505 Dear Judy, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR January 24, 2012 Kim Reynolds LT. GOVERNOR Thank you for contacting the Governor's Office concerning red light and speed cameras. Governor Branstad has expressed some concern over the growing use of such devices and whether or not they are truly designed to promote public safety or simply to raise additional revenue for local governments. If such devices truly are designed with public safety in mind, then Governor Branstad further suggests it might be more appropriate to deposit this revenue into the state's Road Use Tax Fund to help improve the road system for all Iowans. Any action regarding these devices will have to begin in the Iowa Legislature and the Governor's Office will continue to monitor this issue to ensure that Iowa citizens are treated fairly. Again, thank you for contacting the Governor's Office with your concerns. If you have any other questions or comments please call 515- 281 -5211. Sincerely, Office of the Governor Jake Ketzner, Policy Advisor Marian Karr From: Rynes - Weller, Sara L <sara -rynes @uiowa.edu> Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 12:51 PM To: Council Subject: Please support the traffic light cameras Dear Council, Thank you for supporting (albeit by a very narrow margin) the use of traffic light cameras. I would like to refer you to the following study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, also available at http: / /www.iihs.org /news /rss /pr020l 11.html. IIHS is supported by automobile insurers so obviously they need to collect reliable data for insurance companies to determine where and when and why accidents occur when setting policy fees. Please continue to support the cameras in your third vote. Although I live in North Liberty, I work in Iowa City and am thus affected by driving regulations and behaviors there. Sincerely, Sara Rynes - Weller Camera enforcement in 14 large cities reduces rate of fatal red light running crashes by 24 percent ARLINGTON, VA — Red light cameras saved 159 lives in 2004 -08 in 14 of the biggest US cities, a new analysis by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety shows. Had cameras been operating during that period in all large cities, a total of 815 deaths would have been prevented. "The cities that have the courage to use red light cameras despite the political backlash are saving lives," says Institute president Adrian Lund. Looking at the 99 US cities with populations over 200,000, the researchers compared those with red light camera programs to those without. Because they wanted to see how the rate of fatal crashes changed after the introduction of cameras, they compared two periods, 2004 -08 and 1992 -96. Cities that had cameras during 1992 -96 were excluded from the analysis, as were cities that had cameras for only part of the later study period. The researchers found that in the 14 cities that had cameras during 2004 -08, the combined per capita rate of fatal red light running crashes fell 35 percent, compared with 1992 -96 The rate also fell in the 48 cities without camera programs in either period, but only by 14 percent. Based on that comparison, the researchers concluded that the rate of fatal red light running crashes in cities with cameras in 2004 -08 was 24 percent lower than it would have been without cameras. That adds up to 74 fewer fatal red light running crashes or, given the average number offatalities per red light running crash, approximately 83 lives saved. The actual benefit is even bigger. The rate of all fatal crashes at intersections with signals — not just red light running crashes — fell 14 percent in the camera cities and crept up 2 percent in the noncamera cities. In the camera cities, there were 17 percent fewer fatal crashes per capita at intersections with signals in 2004 -08 than would have been expected. That translates into 159 people who are alive because of the automated enforcement programs. This result shows that red light cameras reduce not only fatal red light running crashes, but other types of fatal intersection crashes as well. One possible reason for this is that red light running fatalities are undercounted due to a lack of witnesses to explain what happened in a crash. Drivers also may be more cautious in general when they know there are cameras around. Based on these calculations, if red light cameras had been in place for all 5 years in all 99 US cities with populations over 200,000, a total of 815 deaths could have been avoided. Since the 1990s, communities have used red light cameras as a low -cost way to police intersections. The number of cities embracing the technology has swelled from just 25 in 2000 to about 500 today. National surveys indicate widespread support for red light cameras. At the same time, opponents of automated enforcement have become increasingly vocal, claiming that camera programs are revenue - generating schemes that violate drivers' privacy. "Somehow, the people who get tickets because they have broken the law have been cast as the victims," Lund says. "We rarely hear about the real victims — the people who are killed or injured by these lawbreakers." Red light running killed 676 people and injured an estimated 113,000 in 2009. Nearly two - thirds of the deaths were people other than the red light running drivers — occupants of other vehicles, passengers in the red light runners' vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians. Without cameras, enforcement at intersections is difficult and often dangerous. In order to stop a red light runner, officers usually have to follow the vehicle through the red light, endangering themselves, as well as other motorists and pedestrians. Moreover, the manpower required to police intersections on a regular basis would make it prohibitively expensive. In contrast, camera programs can pay for themselves by requiring people who break the law to shoulder the cost of enforcing it. Previous research has established that red light cameras deter would -be violators and reduce crashes at intersections with signals. Institute studies of camera programs have found that red light violations fell at intersections where cameras were installed and that this effect also spilled over to intersections without cameras. An Institute study in Oxnard, Calif., found that injury crashes at intersections with traffic signals fell 29 percent citywide after automated enforcement began. The new study adds to this by showing that cameras reduce not only violations and crashes throughout entire communities but deaths, too. "Examining a large group of cities over several years allowed us to take a close look at the most serious crashes, the ones that claim people's lives," says Anne McCartt, Institute senior vice president for research and a co- author of the study. "Our analysis shows that red light cameras are making intersections safer." Results in each of the 14 camera cities varied. The biggest drop in the rate of fatal red light running crashes came in Chandler, Ariz., where the decline was 79 percent. Two cities, Raleigh, NC, and Bakersfield, Calif., experienced an increase. "We don't know exactly why the data from Raleigh and Bakersfield didn't line up with what we found elsewhere," McCartt says. "Both cities have expanded geographically over the past two decades, and that probably has a lot to do with it." Marian Karr From: Susan Enzle <senzle @msn.com> Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 12:51 PM To: Council Subject: Red Light Traffic Cameras- INS Studies Dear Council Members, I have been very troubled by the information that one young man presented at the Council meeting on January 24th that seemed to be totally opposite from what Iowa cities have experienced with red light traffic cameras. Hence, I went on line to the Washington Post, the US News & World Report and the New York Times in an effort to find his data. I could not. However, I found that all three of these news organizations reported on an important February 1, 2011, news release from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). The IIHS study was based upon detailed information that was collected from 14 of the_ biggest US cities that had red light traffic cameras for the period of time 2004 -2008. Those data were then compared with 1992 -1996. The cameras saved 159 lives in those fourteen cities. Overall, fatalities at other intersections fell, too, which was a happy ripple effect. This report also noted that the public overwhelmingly supports red light cameras, probably because people figure that lives are worth saving, as are expensive, painful injuries and expensive auto repairs. IIHS President Adrian Lund said: "The cities that have the courage to use red light cameras despite the political backlash are saving lives." I did not know if you were aware of this study that was conducted by a highly reputable organization that has a big investment in figuring out why, where and when vehicular accidents occur in order to provide data to the insurance companies who sell us automobile insurance. I appreciate the concerns about our civil liberties, but I believe that the pinch these cameras may cause to our liberties is extremely small and that the benefits of the red light cameras are potentially great when it comes to saving lives, reducing injuries and auto repairs, and probably in time, insurance rates for particular communities, which have installed the red light cameras. I hope that this study will persuade all of you to vote in favor of the amendment. Sincerely, Susan Enzle 216 Magowan Avenue 1 Marian Karr From: Jill Butler <jill.j ill. butler @gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 8:37 PM To: Council Subject: red light cameras Mayor Hayek and Members of the Iowa City Council I am writing to express concerns I have about red light cameras in Iowa City. I am most worried about the economic impact they would have on our city. 1. Being a flat rate fine, it would have more impact proportionally on low income folks. They're also the ones more likely to punch a time clock. I'm not saying anyone should be running red lights, but when caught in that critical decision moment of whether to brake or speed up, a person who could lose their job for being late might decide differently than a salaried employee, a college student or a business owner. 2. What impact would the cameras and resulting fines have on the high number of visitors to our city? For veterans, low income and seriously ill patients who must come for medical care, what impact would a $100 fine have on top of their travel and medical costs? And what about Hawkeye fans who already contribute heavily to our economy? Do we want to milk them of an additional $100 while they're here? 3. What will be the economic impact of taking the expected revenue out'of the local economy? How much of that revenue goes to the camera vendors? 4. How will the revenue from the lights be allocated? Unless it is used to reduce taxes, your argument that "it's about safety" is nil. 5. The above scenarios assume the driver ran a red light. But what if the lights are calibrated wrong? According to the National Motorists Assoc., 6 cities have been caught reducing the time of yellow lights to raise more revenue. Who will be maintaining and calibrating our lights? If the camera vendors, who also get a percentage, then how can we trust them? 6. A study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration showed that more than 94 percent of red light violations occurred within 2 seconds of red light onset. Why not simply go all red lights for 2 or even 3 seconds? 7. Finally, I just don't think Iowa City should go robotic and impersonal with traffic enforcement. I moved to Iowa City because the people are so nice and genuine. I don't like the idea of being caught by surprise with a $100 or so fine. I don't intend nor do I make a practice of running red lights, but if I were accused of it, I want to be able to explain or defend myself to another human being who can make a fair "judgment ". I don't believe injustice through machinery. I just don't. I really hope you will overlook the expected revenue and how you can spend it in order to imagine the results of an additional "tax" on our city. In these hard times, it is wise to siphon money off the local economy and the visitors who help support us? Most sincerely, Jill Butler Iowa City resident