HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-03-05 Ordinance
6e..
Prepared by: Sarah Walz, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5239
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE CONDITIONALLY REZONING APPROXIMATLEY .2 ACRES OF PROPERTY
LOCATED WEST OF DIANA STREET AND SOUTH OF KIRKWOOD AVENUE, FROM LOW
DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-5) TO COMMERCIAL OFFICE (CO-1). (REZ06-
00027)
WHEREAS, the applicant, MVL Properties, has requested a rezoning of property located west of 1016
and 1018 Diana Street and south of 521 Kirkwood Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the property is currently zoned Low Density Single Family (RS-5); and
WEREAS, the applicant is acquiring from the City of Iowa City a portion of vacated alley right-of-way
adjacent to the CO-1 zone at 521 Kirkwood Avenue (currently the Lensing Funeral Home property); and
WHEREAS, the applicant is acquiring the rear 39 feet of the residential lots at 1016 and 1018 Diana
Street; and
WHEREAS, these acquired properties will be added to the CO-1 property at 521 Kirkwood to create a
rectangular lot; and
WHEREAS, all property along Diana Street will remain zoned RS-5; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the property to the east, north, and south of the
subject property should continue to be developed for residential purpose; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan's discussion of the Central Planning District identifies Kirkwood
Avenue as an area of particular concern with regard to the need to preserve existing neighborhood integrity;
and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code 9414.5 (2005) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable
conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to
satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has agreed to develop the property in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto to ensure appropriate development in this
area of the city; and
WHEREAS, all access for commercial traffic to and from the CO-1 property via the east-west alley
connecting to Diana Street will be prohibited; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I APPROVAL. Subject to the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto and
incorporated herein, the property described below is hereby reclassified from its current zoning classification
Low Density Single Family (RS-5) to Commercial Office (CO-1) is hereby approved:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Auditor Parcel 2006153: Beginning at the Southwest corner of Lot 3 of Block 6 of R. S.
Lucas Addition to Iowa City as recorded in Deed Book 13 on page 580 in the office of the
Johnson County Recorder; thence N 89'57'22" E along the North line of a 20-foot alley
running through said Block 6, a distance of 59.00 feet; thence S 00'19'04" W, a distance of
73.01 feet; thence N89'58'34" E, a distance of 41.45 feet; thence S 00'19'04" W, a distance
of 146.01 feet to a point on the South line of Auditor's Parcel 2004035 as is recorded in Book
47 on page 132 in the office of the Johnson County Recorder; thence N 89' 53' 38" W along
the South line of said Auditor's Parcei 2004035 a distance of 39.00 feet to a point on the
West line of said 20-foot alley, being the Northeast corner of Lot 30 Highland Park Addition to
Iowa City as is recorded in Book 6 on page 41 in the office of the Johnson County recorder
and the Southeast corner of a Plat of Survey recorded in Book 4 on page 203 in the office of
the Johnson County Recorder; thence N 00'19'04" E along said West line, a distance of
152.82 feet to the point of beginning containing 8748.11 square feet and being subject to all
easements and restrictions of record.
Ordinance No.
Page 2
SECTION 11. ZONING MAP. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning
map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and
publication of the ordinance as approved by law.
SECTION III. CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT. The mayor is hereby authorized and directed to
sign, and the City Clerk attest, the Conditional Zoning Agreement between the property owners and the City,
following passage and approval of this Ordinance.
SECTION IV. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the
City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance, and record the same in the
Office of the County Recorder, Johnson County, Iowa, at the Owner's expense, upon the final passage,
approval and publication of this ordinance, as provided by law.
SECTION V. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION VI. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION VII. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval
and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this _ day of , 20_.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Appr~ ~
City'AttOrne~
;d/~7
ppdadrnlordlrez07 -()()()27.doc
Ordinance No.
Page _
It was moved by and seconded by
as read be adopted. and upon roll call there were:
that the Ordinance
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Bailey
Champion
Correia
Elliott
O'Donnell
Vanderhoef
.Wilbum
First Consideration 2/20/2007
Vote for passage: AYES: Correia, Elliott, O'Donnell, Vanderhoef, Wilburn, Bailey,
Champion. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration 3/5/2007
Vote for passage:
AYES: Champion, Correia, Elliott, O'Donnell, Vanderhoef, Wilburn,Bailey. NAYS: None. ABSENT:
Date published None.
Prepared by Sarah Walz, PCD, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5230 (REZ06-00027)
CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation
(hereinafter "City"), and MVL Properties, LLC (hereinafter" Applicant"); and
WHEREAS, Applicant is the legal title holder of approximately .2 acres of property located west
of Diana Street and South of Kirkwood Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested the rezoning of said property from Low Density Single-
Family Residential (RS-5) to Commercial Office (CO-1); and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate
conditions regarding no commercial traffic having access to the property via the east-west alley
connection to Diana Street, the zoning is in confomnance with the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code !l414.5 (2005) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose
reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing
regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant acknowledges that certain conditions and restrictions are reasonable
to ensure the development of the property does not adversely affect the adjacent residential
neighborhood to the east; and
WHEREAS, Diana Street is a residential street and is not designed to serve commercial traffic;
and
WHEREAS, the east-west alley from Diana Street is located within the RS-5 zone, is designed
for residential usage and is surrounded by residential properties; and
WHEREAS, the neighboring residential property owners have expressed concern about
increased traffic on Diana Street; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the property to the east, north, and south of
the subject property should continue to be developed for residential purpose; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan's discussion of the Central Planning District identifies
Kirkwood Avenue as an area of particular concern with regard to the need to preserve existing
neighborhood integrity; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant agrees to develop this property in accordance with the terms and
conditions of a conditional zoning agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties
agree as follows:
1. MVL Properties is the legal title holder of the property legally described as follows:
Auditor Parcel 2006153: Beginning at the Southwest corner of Lot 3 of Block 6 of R. S.
Lucas Addition to Iowa City as recorded in Deed Book 13 on page 580 in the office of the
ppdadm'agtlcza diana sl .doc
Johnson County Recorder; thence N 89057'22" E along the North line of a 20-foot alley
running through said Biock 6, a distance of 59.00 feet;.thence S 00019'04" W, a distance of
73.01 feet; thence N89058'34" E, a distance of 41.45 feet; thence S 00019'04" W, a distance
of 146.01 feet to a point on the South line of Auditor~s Parcel 2004035 as is recorded in Book
47 on page 132 in the office of the Johnson County Recorder; thence N 890 53' 38" W along
the South line of said Auditor's Parcel 2004035 a distance of 39.00 feet to a point on the
West line of said 20-foot alley, being the Northeast corner of Lot 30 Highland Park Addition to
Iowa City as is recorded in Book 6 on page 41 in the office of the Johnson County recorder
and the Southeast corner of a Plat of Survey recorded in Book 4 on page 203 in the office of
the Johnson County Recorder; thence N 00019'04" E along said West line, a distance of
152.82 feet to the point of beginning containing 8748.11 square feet and being subject to all
easements and restrictions of record.
2. The Applicant acknowledges that the City wishes to ensure confornnance to the
principles of the Comprehensive Plan. Further, the parties acknowledge that Iowa Code
~414.5 (2005) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on
granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above the existing regulations, in
order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change, including provisions for
prohibiting commercial traffic access to and from the property via the east-west alley
connection to Diana Street. Therefore Applicant agrees to certain conditions over and
above City regulations as detailed below.
3. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Applicant agrees that
development of the subject property will conform to all other requirements of the zoning
chapter, and that no commercial traffic will have access to the property via the east-west
alley connection to Diana Street.
4. The Applicant and City acknowledge that the conditions contained herein are reasonable
conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code ~414.5 (2005), and that said
conditions satisfy public needs that are caused by the requested zoning change.
5. The Applicant and City acknowledge that in the event the subject property is transferred,
sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all redevelopment will confornn with the terms of this
Conditional Zoning Agreement.
6. The parties acknowledge that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be
a covenant running with the land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force
and effect as a covenant with title to the land, unless or until released of record by the
City of Iowa City.
The parties further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind
all successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties.
7. Applicant acknowledges that nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be
construed to relieve the Owner or Applicant from complying with all other applicable
local, state, and federal regulations.
8. The parties agree that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by
reference into the ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and
publication of the ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County
Recorder's Office at the Applicant's expense.
ppdadnv'agllcza diana st .doc
2
Dated this
day of
,20_.
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Ross Wilburn, Mayor
lY)('~~~-<-r
By: ~~, ~ orfi.,
Attest:
Marian K. Karr, City Clerk By:
Approved by:
.~~ -r:-~ ;;J/~tJ7
City Attorney's Office
CITY OF IOWA CITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this day of , A.D. 20_, before me, the
undersigned, a notary public in and for the State of Iowa, personally appeared Ross Wilburn and
Marian ,K. Karr, to me personally known, who being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the
Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of said municipal corporation executing the within and
foregoing instrument; that the seal affixed thereto is the seal of said municipal corporation; that
said instrument was signed and sealed on behalf of said municipal corporation by authority of its
City Council; and that the said Mayor and City Clerk as such officers acknowledged that the
execution of said instrument to be the voluntary act and deed of said corporation, by it and by
them voluntarily executed.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
My commission expires:
ppdadm'agtlcza diana 5t .doc
3
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this J",+h--day of kbru...ar;:; , A.D. 20 07 , before me, the undersigned, a Notary
Public in and for th State of Iowa, personally appeared
m, cha..e.J '7: LeJ15 I "'-:8 ' to me jl,Elrsonally known, who being by me duly sworn,
did say that the person is ~d..en.t (title) of
1-ef's J n.. ~ LroL. , and that said instrument was signed on behalf of the
said. limited . bility company by authority of its managers and the said
{Y7'cAAe.J a LenSJ/LCI. acknowledged the execution of said instrument to be the voluntary
act and deed of said limited liability company by it voluntarily executed.
~L (~ K it.d-fLe-
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
My commission expires:
r~s,i/\Z:-T-"~~. TUTTLE
I ;?,",it\\.;.l C:^;~~i<;s,Y'! !,iL'nber 22~1819
1'...._;::.\;1,;'.:;,_',1 i,,(\' C;](;,/,'liSS;/ EX.Q!ies
I ""." '. \ L1 ~ QJ:..__
; _,_;L'.~.~__..-=r..,,:.,.;).
ppdadrrVagVcza diana sl .doc
4
t~
Prepared by: Drew E. Westberg, Planning Intern, PCD, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5230
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE CONDITIONAllY REZONING APPROXIMATlEY 1.03 ACRES OF PROPERTY
lOCATED AT 1902 AND 1906 BROADWAY STREET, FROM COMMERCIAL OFFICE (CO-1) TO
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC-2). (REZ06-00028)
WHEREAS, the applicants, Southgate Development Company and Henry E. Nathanson, have requested
a rezoning of property located at 1902 and 1906 Broadway Street from Commercial Office (CO-1) to
Community Commercial (CC-2); and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has the reviewed the proposed rezoning and
determined that it is appropriate provided that certain conditions addressing the need for an appropriate
transition and buffer from the CC-2 zone to residential development; and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code S414.5 (2005) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable
conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to
satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and
WHEREAS, the applicants have agreed that the property shall be developed in accordance with the
tenms and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto to ensure appropriate
development in this area of the city.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I APPROVAL. Subject to the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto and incorporated
herein, property described below is hereby reclassified from its current zoning designation of CO-1 to CC-2:
Commencing at the Southwest corner of the "Boundary Survey and Site Plan", as recorded in Book 31, at
Page 147, in the records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence S69'33'40"E, along the
Southerly line of said "Boundary Survey and Site Plan", 7.00 feet, to a point on the Easterly Right-of-Way
line of Broadway Street, in accordance with the Right-of-Way Acquisition Plat, as recorded in Book 3429,
at Page 343, in the records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office, which is the POINT OF
BEGINNING; Thence N03'32'00"E, along said Easterly Right-of-Way line" 45.20 feet; Thence
NOS'35'00"E, along said Easterly Right-of-Way line, 55.00 feet; Thence N12'15'00"E, along said Easterly
Right-of-Way line, in accordance with the Right-of-Way Acquisition Plat, as recorded in Book 3299, at
Page 412, of the records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office, 16.00 feet; Thence N20'OO'OO"E,
along said Easterly Right-of-Way line, 56.00 feet; Thence N17'30'00"E, along said Easterly Right-of-Way
line, 3S.00 feet; Thence N29'15'00"E, along said Easterly Right-of-Way line, 20.00 feet; Thence
N40'OO'OO"E, along said Easterly Right-of-Way line, and its Northerly extension thereof, 30.31 feet;
Thence S67'56'00"E, 159.36 feet; Thence Southeasterly, 16.23 feet, along an arc ofa 3015.00 foot radius
curve, concave Northeasterly, whose 16.23 foot chord bears S6S'05'16"E; Thence S22'04'00"W, 250.34
feet, to a point on said Southerly line of "Boundary Survey and Site Plan"; Thence N69'33'40"W, along
said Southerly line, 152.52 feet, to said POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 1.0$ acre, and subject to
easements and restrictions of record.
SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning
map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and
publication of the ordinance as approved by law.
SECTION III. CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT. The mayor is hereby authorized and directed to
sign, and the City Clerk attest, the Conditional Zoning Agreement between the property owner(s) and the
City, following passage and approval of this Ordinance.
SECTION IV. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the
City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance, and record the same in the
Office of the County Recorder, Johnson County, Iowa, at the Owner's expense, upon the final passage,
approval and publication of this ordinance, as provided by law.
SECTION V. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Ordinance No.
Page 2
SECTION VI. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION VII. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval
and publication, as provided by law. . '
Passed and approved this _ day of , 20_.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
zJ/~1rr7
Ordinance No.
Page _
It was moved by and seconded by
as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
that the Ordinance
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Bailey
Champion
Correia
Elliott
O'Donnell
Vanderhoef
. Wilburn
First Consideration 2/20/2007
Vote for passage: AYES: Elliott, O'Donnell, Vanderhoef, Wilburn, Champion.
NAYS: Correia, Bailey. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration 3/5/2007
Vote for passage: AYES: Elliott, O'Donnell, Vanderhoef, Wilburn, Champion. NAYS:
BAiley, Correia. ABSENT; None.
Date published
...______.,.___..__~_____.__._._....___.____._. __.~.________..__._._.._._.,.__M_.._,..__.__._M____.____.______.._.+___.._.__
Prepared by: Drew E. Westberg, Planning Intern, PCD, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5230
(REZ06-00028)
CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made between the City ot Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation
(hereinafter "City"), Southgate Development Company and Henry E. Nathanson (hereinafter
"Applicants");
WHEREAS, the Applicants are the legal title holders otapproximately 1.03 acres at property
located at 1902 and 1906 Broadway Street; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants have requested a rezoning ot property located at 1902 and 1906
Broadway Street trom Commercial Office (CO-1) to Community Commercial (CC-2);; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate
conditions regarding addressing the need tor a transition and buffer between CC-2 and residential
development the rezoning is appropriate; and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code !j414.5 (2005) provides that the City ot Iowa City may impose
reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over. and above existing
regulations, in order to satisty public needs caused by the requested change; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants acknowledge that certain conditions and restrictions are reasonable
to ensure the development ot the property provides tor a transition and buffer between the
existing residential and CC-2 zone; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants agree to develop this property in accordance with the terms and
conditions ot a Conditional Zoning Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration ot the mutual promises contained herein, the parties
agree as tollows:
1. Southgate Development Company and Henry E. Nathanson are the legal title holders at
the property legally described as tollows:
Commencing at the Southwest corner at the "Boundary Survey and Site Plan", as
recorded in Book 31, at Page 147, in the records ot the Johnsol) County Recorder's
Office; Thence S69033'40"E, along the Southerly line ot said "Boundary Survey and Site
Plan", 7.00 teet, to a point on the Easterly Right-ot-Way line ot Broadway Street, in
accordance with the Right-ot-Way Acquisition Plat, as recorded in Book 3429, at Page
343, in the records ot the Johnson County Recorder's Office, which is the POINT OF
BEGINNING; Thence N03032'00"E, along said Easterly Right-ot-Way line, 45.20 teet;
Thence N08035'00"E, along said Easterly Right-ot-Way line, 55.00 teet; Thence
N12015'00"E, along said Easterly Right-ot-Way line, in accordance with the Right-ot-Way
Acquisition Plat, as recorded in Book 3299, at Page 412, ot the records ot the Johnson
County Recorder's Office, 16.00 teet; Thence N20000'00''E, along said Easterly Right-ot-
Way line, 56.00 teet; Thence N17'30'OO"E, along said Easterly Right-ot-Way line, 38.00
teet; Thence N29015'00"E, along said Easterly Right-ot-Way line, 20.00 teet; Thence
N40'00'00"E, along said Easterly Right-ot-Way line, and its Northerly extension thereot,
30.31 teet; Thence S67'56'00"E, 159.36 teet; Thence Southeasterly, 16.23 teet, along
ppclaclmlagVrezCllXlOO26 conditional zoning agreement
1
_ __.._~______,___~___,..._,_____...,____~_"_.___...~______.... _..._,~..~_'.__m_."_"___,__'______"_______'_'~______--+->-------..--"
an arc of a 3015.00 foot radius curve, concave Northeasterly, whose 16.23 foot chord
bears S68'05'16"E; Thence S22'04'00'W, 250.34 feet, to a point on said Southerly line
of "Boundary Survey and Site Plan"; Thence N69'33'40'W, along said Southerly line,
152.52 feet, to said POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 1.03 acre, and subject to
easements and restrictions of record.
2. The Owners acknowledge that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles
of the Comprehensive Plan. Further, the parties acknowledge that Iowa Code 9414.5
(2005) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting
an applicant's rezoning request, over and above the existing regulations, in order to
satisfy public needs caused by the requested change.
3. I n consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owners agrees that
development of the subject property will conform to all other requirements of the zoning
chapter, as well as the following conditions:
a. A substantial buffer area of no less than 35 feet will be established along the
southern property line of the parcel rezoned to CC-2. This buffer must be
screened to the S3 standard and include both a decorated masonry wall of a
minimum five (5) feet in height located within the northern ten (10) feet of the buffer
area with a dense planting of deciduous and coniferous understory and overstory
to the south of the wall.
b. Closure of the Hollywood Boulevard vehicular access point to the CO-1 property
and use of a shared vehicular access point from Broadway Street.
c. A landscaped setback of no less than 20 feet along Broadway Street.
d. A limit of one (1) free-standing sign located in the northwest corner of the property.
No building signs on the south and east sides facing the residential development.
Other fascia and monument signs are permitted as per the code.
e. S3 screening will be provided along the eastern and southern property lines of the
CO-1 parcel or alternatively along the eastern property line of the CC-2 parcel.
f. Any building or structure including canopies should be of a quality design
appropriate for property abutting a residential neighborhood, including features
such as stone and masonry materials, standing seam metal rpofs, and muted
colors. The Director of Planning and Community Development shall approve the
design of buildings as well as associated structures and facilities.
4. The Owners and City acknowledge that the conditions contained herein are reasonable
conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code ~414.5 (2005), and that said
conditions satisfy public needs that are caused by the requested zoning change.
5. The Owners and City acknowledge that in the event the subject property is transferred,
sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all redevelopment will conform with the terms of this
Conditional Zoning Agreement.
6. The parties acknowledge that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be
a covenant running with the land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force
and effect as a covenant with title to the land, unless or until released of record by the
City of Iowa City.
ppdadmlagVrezCJ6..00028 conditional zoning agreement
2
The parties further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to th,e benefit of and bind
all successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties,
7, The Owners acknowledge that nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be
construed to relieve the Owner from complying with all other applicable local, state, and
federal regulations,
8, The parties agree that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by
reference into the ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and
publication of the ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County
Recorder's Office at the Applicant's expense,
Dated this _ day of
,20_,
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Ross Wilburn, Mayor
~k~
~ N~", Y e: Ntfj+'I;..t"'u~
Attest:
~ if/h~1-hJ
By: ~'eSCL II Ie YvO V\/.1 Ilk e... Pre!; ,d&1. t
Marian K, Karr, City Clerk
Approved by:
JL~~ 4/~7
CITY OF IOWA CITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this day of , A.D, 20_, before me, the
undersigned, a notary public in and for the State of Iowa, personally appeared Ernest W, Lehman
and Marian K. Karr, to me personally known, who being by me duly sworn, did say that they are
the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of said municipal corporation executing the within and
foregoing instrument; that the seal affixed thereto is the seal of said municipal corporation; that
said instrument was signed and sealed on behalf of said municipal corporation by authority of its
City Council; and that the said Mayor and City Clerk as such officers acknowledged that the
execution of said instrument to be the voluntary act and deed of said corporation, by it and by
them voluntarily executed,
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
My commission expires:
ppdadmlagVrez06-ClOO28 conditional zoning agreement
3
SOUTHGATE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this ;)OlE-day of ~'l'"4~ . A.D. 20.22. before me. the undersigned.
a Notary Public in and for the State of 10 a. personally appeared Ie ,'-es,,- /"n 0" o'0.AJ
and . . to me personally known. who, being by me duly sworn.
did say that th~~La\:e the 'V i (e Pl'es;' d -en- /- and . respectively,
of said corporation executing the within and foregoing instrument to which this is attached. that
(no seal has been procured by the said) corporation; that said instrument was signed (aRd-
sealed) on behalf of (the seal affixed thereto is fle seal pf said) said corporation by authority of its
Board of Directors; and that the said Vir., Klder,! and. as-
such officerll acknowledged the execution of said instrument to be the voluntary act and deed of
said corporation. by it and by them voluntarily executed.
,."Al Co MARY E. COOPER
fA'r. COMM'SSION NO. 735701
. ~. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES
IOwA .., -:II.' 015"
~in~~~~ County and State
HENRY E. NATHANSON ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this d-<J ~ day of ~ },fGolAV ~ . 20fl. before me', the undersigned. a
Notary Public in and for said County. in said tate, personally appeared Henr't G.
NoflttJM.5dl1 ' to me known to be the identical person~ named in an who executed
the within and foregoing instrument. and acknowledged that (he/she/they) executed the same as
(his/her/their) voluntary act and deed.
-"At '\
fl!.
lOW,"
MARY E. COOPER
COMM!SSION NO. 735701
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES
.., - ~c.'O'il'
---J 1 i1J11E. (1~J 11 -
NOtrry~c in ~ib;t~;State of Iowa
My commission expires: i. :il..c. . 0 '8
ppdadmlagUrez06-OOO28 conditional zoning agreement
4
_..___~__~_~__<,_._,___ _..__"_.__,~.,_____.__.____.."._.m___._'_______________
I
I
I
I 03~~U7 I
HAWKEYE AREA
COMMUNITY ACTION
PROGRAM,INC
I. -.----
~----
___ (I
Ii,' I)! III', Ii u I .1
II (j 1111' 0 II I
January 30, 2007
Mr. Bob Brooks
Chair, Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission
Mr. Brooks,
I would like to take an opportunity to comment on the proposed rezoning request
that is currently in front of the Commission. As I understand the proposal, Southgate
Development is asking that a portion of this property be rezoned from CO-1 to CC-2
for the purpose of constructing a drive through restaurant. I also understand that the
34 unit apartment building and law offices that presently exist on this land will be torn
down to accommodate the new construction.
I would like to go on record and state that I am in favor of this proposal and would
encourage the Commission to grant this request.
As you are aware the area under consideration was developed many years ago. I
believe that this redevelopment will be a positive step for the Iowa City community.
It will provide more needed employment opportunities in the area. Our families'
biggest barrier to getting work is transportation related.
I think that with a wall and appropriate plantings would be a positive to enhance the
properties and mitigate some noise issues. I have spoken to about half of the
tenants and have not received any negative comments from them. I do not believe
that the noise issues will be anything greater that already exists from the proximity to
Highway 6. I think that twenty five foot transition with the wall and plantings would
be adequate.
Thank you for the chance to voice my opinion on the issue.
Allan L. xeen
Housing Supervisor
2007 Waterfront Dr. Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Phone 319-337-5765. fax 319-337-5831. wwwhacap.org
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AGENCY. A MEMBER OF THE UNITED WAY
__._.,___~__._.,___...._._~_~_..___.__"~._______~___~____.___,..__~_._'m.__________'~_"_
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 1,2007 - 7:30 P.M.
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL - CITY HALL
APPROVED
CALL TO ORDER:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Brooks called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Wally Plahutnik, Beth Koppes, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Terry
Smith, Bob Brooks, Dean Shannon
STAFF PRESENT:
Bob Miklo, Mitch Behr
Glenn Siders (Southgate Development, P.O. Box 1.907, Iowa City), Allan
Axeen (HACAP Properties Housing Supervisor, 706 10lh Avenue A,
Coralville), Glen Meisner (1917 S. Gilbert Street), Larry Kleinmyer
(4633 Rapid Creek Road)
OTHERS PRESENT:
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (become effective onlv after separate Council action):
Recommended approval, by a vote of 5-2, of REl06-00028: an application submitted by the Southgate
Development for a rezoning from Commercial Office (CO-1) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone
for .91 acres of property located at 1902 and 1906 Broadway Street subject to a conditional zoning
agreement addressing the need for a transition and buffer for the adjacent residential zone.
Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, of SUB04-00011: an application submitted by John Oaks for a
preliminary plat of Lyn-Den Heights Part III, a 38-lot, 38.5 acre residential subdivision located on Rapid
Creek Road NE, subject to compliance with the Johnson County Road Standards.
Public Discussion of Anv Item not on the Aaenda
No discussion.
Rezonina/Development Item
REl06-00028: Discussion of an application submitted by the Southgate Development for a rezoning from
Commercial Office (CO-1) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone for .91 acres of property located
at 1902 and 1906 Broadway Street.
Miklo said that normally, the staff would be hesitant to recommend a CC-2 zoning next to a residentiai
zoning. Staff is recommending approval subject to several conditions. Their intention is to make this
application have a positive effect on the neighborhood. Some of the concerns. are lighting, intercom
sound, and the visual appearance of a large paved area. Staff is also concerned that the remaining CO-1
property be visible and have good access to Broadway Street. Miklo said that staff prepared a concept
plan which allows a 50 foot buffer along the south boundary of the proposed CC-2 property, which is a
potential drive-thru site. The drive-thru would be a special exception to the CC-2 zoning which would
have to be approved by the Board of Adjustment.
The applicant is concerned that orientating the CC-2 zoning east to west to achieve the 50 foot buffer
would not allow adequate space for development on the remaining office site. The staff feels that there is
sufficient room for development; the plot is almost an acre in size, has good visibility, and has vehicular
access to Broadway. Staff analyzed several other office spaces in the neighborhood and many were
smaller in size than this proposal.
Miklo said the applicant has submitted a new concept plan with a 35 foot buffer for the proposed CC-2
zone rather than the 50 foot buffer recommended by staff. He said the applicant's plan relies on a
vacation of 6 feet of right of way which would require a separate application. Miklo said that with the
applicant's plan, staff is concerned about access to the remaining office commercial office site in that
there is no line of sight to Broadway and vehicular traffic would have to circulate around to the CC-2 site
in order to get to the office.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 1, 2007
Page 2
Miklo said staff recommends approval subject to the conditions designed to provide a transition and buffer
for adjacent residential zone. The applicant has agreed to all the conditions except for the 50' buffer.
Eastham confirmed that there is considerabie CC-2 zoning to the west of the proposed lot. Eastham
asked about the lighting regulations for CC-2 zoning. Miklo stated that there is a maximum foot candle at
the property line and the lights must be downcast. If it's within 300 It of residential property, the poles
must be lower than 25 feet.
Eastham asked about the signage regulations in CC-2 zoning. Miklo stated that as a condition to this
approval, the appiicant would be limited to one free standing sign on the corner nearest to the
intersection.
Brooks stated that the boundary iine on the east was different between the appiicant's map and the staffs
map. Brooks asked how to determine where the boundary iine is in terms of this application. Miklo
responded that the concept plan that staff has proposed would extend the CC-2 zoning iine 65 feet in
order to get the east-west orientation. Brooks stated that if we approve the application, we are not
approving enough to cover everything in the concept laid out in the staffs concept plan. Miklo stated
rezoning would have to cover the larger area.
Eastham asked what happens if the Commission does not approve this application. Mikio stated that the
appiicant could revise their plan to meet any recommended requirements or they could present their
appiication to the City Council with a negative recommendation.
Smith asked about the hashed area on the south side (which is a driveway and easement) and confirmed
that the property iine fell in the center of that area. Smith aiso confirmed that the width of the driveway is
25 feet. He stated that the setback from the property line was 48 Y, feet if you add the 12 Y, feet which
represents half of the driveway to the applicant's proposed 36 foot setback.
Eastham confirmed that 48 Y, feet is the total amount of distance between the property line and the north
side of the buffer zone.
Smith confirmed that the 50 foot buffer requested by staff is in addition to the 12 Y, feet that represents
the applicant's half of the driveway. The 12 Y, feet of the driveway is land that the applicant cannot use.
Smith stated that the letter Miklo passed out was in support of the appiication and asked if there was any
written opposition. Miklo responded that there was not.
Brooks asked if it was possible for the applicant, with the approval of the adjacent property owner, to
access the back office parcel using this drive. Miklo responded that this would not be possible because
of provisions in the code that would not allow commercial traffic to travel over residential property; this is
something the staff would not recommend.
Behr stated that it would be a zoning code violation in the sense that it would commercial use of the
property to the south which is not zoned for it.
Eastham stated that the Comprehensive Plan for the South District shows everything east of Broadway
as apartment buildings. Eastham stated that staff had some discussion as to if the plot conforms to the
comprehensive plan generally. Miklo stated that the Comprehensive Plan (and land use map) shows the
area as multi-family, which was recognized as the general character of the area. The small size of the
area may account for the fact that its commerciai zoning was not specified. When there is a smaller
space, sometimes the distinction is not shown. Also, office space is considered compatible with
residential and that is perhaps why it was not indicated differently in the plan.
Eastham stated that the plan calls for new development In the area, including providing a commerciai
development on Sycamore, south and east of this appiication. This would be an attractive way to include
commercial zoning in the south district. There is language in the existing commercial zoning along
Highway 6 may be adequate in its current state. Eastham does not read anything in the plan that calls for
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 1, 2007
Page 3
additional commercial development and CC-2 zoning along Highway 6. He feels that the plan calls for
further commercial development along Sycamore.
Smith stated that Sycamore has not been developed in this way and is mostly residential. Eastham
stated that this plan is specified for an area that hasn't yet been developed.
Glenn Siders, applicant with Southgate Development Services, wanted to address some comments that
were made at the informal meeting. He stated that the 12 Yo feet is an easement for use as a driveway by
both properties. Their intention is to relocate the property line and give the 12 Yo feet to HACAP as it
provides a liability for Southgate since they cannot use it. HACAP has indicated a willingness to take
ownership. He said Southgate's concept plan would require obtaining a 6 foot right of way to the north
from the City. There is an 8 foot trail that cuts diagonally through the property. Staff has assured them
that, should the property redevelop, the trail could be rerouted at the cost of the applicant. The space
would be used for infrastructure or parking.
The applicant agrees that the orientation could be changed to be east-west but they feel that this would
make the office lot unmarketable. Siders stated that the staffs concept plan showed a 10,000 square foot
office building, except that it would only be 9,000 square foot due to restrictions on the number of parking
stalls that would be able to be located in this lot. Applicant stated that they would not be able to make the
50 foot buffer work, but are offering 35-38 feet of buffer (as the lot is not square).
The applicant does not see why residential housing is allowed on the second floor of commercial lots but
not across the buffer. He feels that the wall would reflect light back up into the second floor housing.
The City's concept plans have only one access point to Broadway Street, directly across from the
driveway on the west. The applicant has agreed to do this, however nothing in the plan limits them to one
driveway on the property. The City wants to share an access point with the property to the east. He
doesn't feel that having two driveways is any less awkward than the plan that the City has presented. He
thinks that signs would help to alleviate this awkwardness. The applicant stated that they have the right
to put a second entrance to the east in but that they do not want to do this because the City is trying to
limit them to one driveway. The Board of Adjustment might set other requirements for them.
Siders stated that if the application was not approved, there may be three other options for development
of the land. 1) The engineering department has stated that the lot could have two access points off
Broadway, a minimum of 50 feet apart and a minimum of 6 feet off the property line. If both structures
were raised and the property was level, there could be a 23,000 square foot, 143 parking stall facility that
would be a CO-1 user. This is a higher parking ratio than the 1 per 300 parking ratio required but there is
no maximum set. This does not show accessing the current joint HACAP/Cornet use. 2) Multiple
buildings with 26,668 square feet (single story) with 120 parking spaces (1 per 200 ratio) and using the
existing driveway. If the City does not allow use of the existing driveway, a third lane could be added for
a maximum of 36 feet from the current 25 feet. The addition to the north of the driveway would allow the
driveway to still be used. 3) This scenario shows a possible use for the lot under the current zoning
restrictions if the law office were to stay in place. The applicant would place a 2-story structure, 27,500
square feet, 93 (1 per 300 ratio) parking stalls. The driveway to the south would probably have to be
reconstructed or another access to Broadway couid be constructed complying to' the regulations of the
City. The applicant is more than happy to stick with one access point to improve traffic but they cannot
understand why their application is any more obtrusive than any other proposed use in the current zoning.
Koppes asked if all three plans could be built on the property as it is zoned today. The applicant stated
that all three of these options could be built under the current CO-1 zoning.
Miklo stated that the City's access management standards would not allow these to be built as shown.
He stated that the City would require that the access points line up and that there not be multiple access
points. He also stated that second story residential use is not guaranteed in CC.,2 zoning, but rather is
granted by special exception. Through that process the Board of Adjustment examines the use on the
ground floor to determine whether the quality of life would be acceptable. Miklo stated that the trail is also
a storm water area with piping that the City purchased an easement for. He does not feel that it would be
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 1, 2007
Page 4
easy to relocate the trail Siders also stated that his three scenarios do not depict the 10 foot buffer that is
required for all CO-1 zones.
Eastham asked if Southgate reviewed the Comprehensive Plan before applying for this rezoning and
determined that it was compatible. Siders answered that he had and stated that he does not think this
application is incompatible with the current development. He doesn't think that it would be a wise
deveiopment to redevelop the area with more apartments considering the scattered housing task force's
recent deliberations.
Piahutnik stated that he does not see the disadvantage of building something on the lot that conforms
with the current zoning since the applicant was able to present scenarios that would be compliant. The
applicant responded that something needs to happen with the property after the apartment building is
raised and that he was simply showing different alternatives.
Shannon asked what would be the problem with taking the other 12 Y. feet of the driveway to add to the
buffer. Siders stated that they have an access agreement with HACAP at this point and that HACAP has
the right to use it. It is also a liability to have the 12 Y. feet and it works better for HACAP to use it.
Smith confirmed that the buffer is just shy of 36 feet and in the staffs proposal the orientation is changed
90 degrees to gain an additional 14 feet of buffer. Staffs concept uses 65 feet of the property adjacent to
the lot on the east. We would be losing 65 feet to gain 14 feet. Miklo confirmed that the other gain is
clearer vehicular access and visibility from Broadway Street. The applicant stated that they would be
willing to look at another access point if the current access point is not clearly accessible.
AI Axeen with HACAP Properties stated that there was no discussion between Southgate and HACAP
until after Southgate's first hearing with the Commission. He stated that the property has reached its
usable life and that any other development will likely cost more than its worth. The HACAP property will
likely only be able to be used for another 7-9 years. He has spoken with the tenants and they had no
objections, and are generally pleased. He stated that most of his tenants do not have vehicles and he
likes the possibility of his tenants being able to walk to work as transportation is an issue. Most of his
tenants do not have any income at all. Their objective is to get their tenants into permanent housing
within two years. He feels that the redevelopment of the area is a positive change for the tenants.
Without the 12 Y. feet from the driveway, it would be necessary to reconfigure the driveway to allow
vehicles to be able to back out. He confirmed that the City of Iowa City still owns the property and
HACAP is buying the property on contract. He was involved in the City government of Coralville for
several years and looked at their current code. It stated that there could be up to 50 feet for these
transitions. He feels that with the wall and the right type of foliage that 25 feet would be sufficient. He
doesn't feel it would provide any greater noise and light than is currently provided from the highway. He
says that the prospective user will be a great neighbor and that they have dealt with them before in Cedar
Rapids and various other properties.
Freerks asked if his statements were on behalf of HACAP or himself. He has cleared the non-objection
with the HACAP Executive Director and speaks on behalf of both himself and HACAP. He believes
strongly in affordable housing and having housing available for all types of people. ,
Eastham asked if it mattered to him whether the employment opportunities were on the west side of
Broadway instead of the east. Axeen stated it did not. Eastham asked if it mattered if the property was
developed in another way that provided employment opportunities. Axeen stated that that would be
agreeable to him as well.
Brooks closed public discussion.
Freerks made a motion to approve the application subject to the conditional zoning agreement which
includes the six items stated in the staff report including:
1. Providing a buffer strip between the CC-2 property and RM-44 property of no less than fifty feet
wide to include a minimum 5 foot tall masonry wall located within the northern 10 feet of the
buffer, and evergreen and deciduous over story trees and shrubs plantings to a minimum S3
standard.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 1, 2007
Page 5
2. Closure of the Hollywood Boulevard access point to the CO-1 property and use of a shared
access point. The shared access should utilize the existing access for 1902 Broadway and
extend to the CO-1 property but shall not infringe on the 50 foot buffer.
3. A landscaped 20' setback from the property line along Broadway Street.
4. Limit of one free-standing sign located in the northwest corner of the property. No building signs
on the south or east sides facing the residential development. Other fascia and monument signs
permitted per the code.
5. S3 screening of the remaining CO-1 parcel along its southern and eastern property boundaries or
alternatively along the east boundary of the CC-2 parcel.
6. The building and canopy should be of a quality of design appropriate for a transition to residential
zoning, including features such as stone, standing seam metal roof and neutral colors.
Shannon seconded.
Behr confirmed that this motion is to rezone the .91 acres and the additional 65 feet from the other
property. Freerks confirmed that this was the intention of her motion. .
Smith feeis that he cannot support the motion because of the 50 foot buffer which goes against the
applicant's wishes and the neighbor who would be affected by this is in support of the plan. Smith is a
resident of this neighborhood and supports the applicant's proposal as is.
Koppes feels that she cannot support the motion with the 50 foot buffer and feels that 35 feet is sufficient
so there is no reason to force them to 50 feet. She is a resident of the neighborhood as well.
Eastham feels that he cannot support the motion because he does not feel that extension of CC-2 zoning
east of Broadway is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and the district plan in this area. He feels that
there is adequate CC-2 zoning and has not heard anything that indicates that there is a compelling
reason for increasing the amount of CC-2 zoning in the district. There are excellent planning principles
that support separating residential and community commercial zoning at least by streets. There are only
a few instances of residential and CC zoning being adjacent. He drove through the area and feels that
establishing the proposed use will substantially change the potential enjoyment for residential properties
on the east of Broadway. There will be much more traffic and lighting and the character of the corner will
change. He feels that other development options would be much more compatible with the existing
residential uses. He recommends a review of the comprehensive plan to see if there is some overall
reason for adding CC-2 zoning in this general location. He doesn't feel it is a good' idea to rezone on this
ad hoc basis.
Plahutnik cannot support the motion because he feels that it is zoned CO-1 because it is transitional into
residential. He doesn't feel that it is a zoning principle to grant zoning simply because there is a buyer
that requests a certain type of zoning. Especially for the most intensive use allowed in the CC-2 zone. If
rezoning was appropriate, he has no problem with the plan that has been submitted. He agrees that 35
feet is sufficient and feels that the applicant has made a substantial effort to increase it and create as few
problems for the residents as possible. He said that he would consider rezoning if the RM-44 becomes
unusable but not at this time.
Behr said perhaps it would be best to vote on this motion and follow-up with an alternative motion if it
fails.
Freerks feels that this application does not require a change to the Comprehensive Plan and that the plan
currently supports this. She feels that the buffer should be as large as we can make it to minimize the
effects on the residential properties. She supports the rezoning but is concerned about the transition to
the RM-44, the visibility of the remaining office lot, and the viability of the CO-1 to the east.
Motion failed 1-6, Freerks voting in favor.
Smith made a motion to approve the application as submitted subject to the same six conditional zoning
agreement items in the previous motion except for a change in the first point regarding the buffer
requirement to a 35 foot minimum instead of 50 feet. Koppes seconded.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 1, 2007
Page 6
Smith stated that he agrees with Eastham that redeveloping with apartments would be favorable if it were
not for the heavy traffic of Highway 6. We want to move the community commercial zoning to along the
Highway 1 and Highway 6 corridors. In this specific site, he can see value in the application as
submitted. .
Freerks feels that this will be a good development. She would like to see a larger buffer but feels that
employment opportunities are important. She hopes the redevelopment is done well and is good for the
area.
Koppes thanked Southgate for working with HACAP Properties in this effort.
Brooks sympathizes with the staffs efforts in getting to this point but he feels that there are other buffers
that are substantial enough (masonry wall, foliage, and highway traffic). He prefers that this lot remain
office but that it seems reasonable to have commercial on both sides of the highway. He hopes that the
access points can be worked out to make the remaining office plot viable.
Eastham stated that he does not disagree with having commercial along an access road, but he feels that
the plan as it exists does not intend that in this area. It would be necessary to look at a plan revision if
warranted. He still will not support the motion.
Motion carried 5-2, Eastham and Plahutnik voting no.
Koppes would like to add discussion of a revision of the comprehensive plan to the work schedule so it is
not forgotten. She feels that it will have to be addressed at some point since the apartment buildings will
not be viable for many more years.
Brooks stated that it would not be a high priority, but could be added to the work program.
REZ07-00001: Discussion of an application submitted by City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Community
Commercial (CC-2) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone for approximately 12 acres of property
located on Ruppert Road.
Miklo stated that this issue area was rezoned recently. The Comprehensive Plan was amended to change
the area from Intensive Commercial to Community Commercial zone. The original plan had identified the
area to the north which is currently zoned Intensive Commercial as appropriate for more retail uses. The
thought was that they might be able to move to the south to the CI-1 zone and that the CI-1 zone might
be used for development of uses associated with the airport. This did not occur. Wal-Mart approached
the City to buy the property. It was thought that bringing in a major anchor retailer would spur
development throughout the entire area along the highway. Wal-Mart did not purchase the land. There is
now a question if Ruppert Road is viable as a CC-2 use. There is interest in CI-1 wholesale warehouse
type users in the area. This will require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is also looking
at improving the area to the west by changing the streets to improve visibility to spur redevelopment.
Another item on the agenda is to amend the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff is recommending that the eastern area of 12 acres be rezoned CI-1. It is suggested that this is not
voted on tonight until the Comprehensive Plan is addressed.
Smith confirmed that the road rerouting that Wal-Mart had proposed is not on the table at this point. Miklo
said that is correct.
Freerks stated that there was discussion at the informal meeting about rezoning the entire area. Miklo
stated that this is not on the table at this point but may be a possibility at some future point. He
suggested the Comprehensive Plan explain options in this area. CC-2 may be appropriate and viable if it
is possible to have better access to the area.
Page 1 of 1
$0d
Marian Karr
From: Katie Voss [kvoss@math.uiowa.edu]
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 3:26 PM
To: 'City Council
Subject: Rezoning of Broadway property
Dear City Council,
We are writing with regards to Southgate Management's request to rezone the property at 1902 and 1906
Broadway to Community Commercial. We live in this neighborhood on Apple Ct and are not in favor of the
rezoning for the following reasons:
- we do not think property should be rezoned to benefit one business person, it should benefit the whole
community
- this property's current zoning already allows for a restaurant and we do not think our neighborhood needs
another drive-thru restaurant
- the drive-thru restaurant would be too close to the adjoining residential properties which will increase their noise
and air pollution
- many children play in this neighborhood on Broadway Street and it could be dangerous for them with increased
traffic
- the argument has been made that a fast food restaurant would bring in needed jobs; there are plenty of
businesses in the Pepperwood Plaza, KMart, Hy-Vee, Sycamore Mall and all of the businesses along First Ave to
provide employment, as would a smaller restaurant or other businesses that could purchase this property at the
current zoning level
- a small restaurant that is locally owned and operated would benefit the community more than a fast food drive-
thru chain
- we don't know exactly what fast food restaurant is interested in owning this property, but we believe fast food is
not always the healthiest choice and therefore would not be good for our neighborhood
Thank you for taking the time to read our message.
Ben and Katie Voss
3/2/2007
10
Prepared by: Eric Goers, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington St.,lowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5030
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 16, ENTITLED "PUBLIC WORKS," CHAPTER 3, ENTITLED "CITY
UTILITIES," ARTICLE A, ENTITLED "GENERAL PROVISIONS," BY AMENDING SECTION 5 TO
ALLOW FOR DEPOSITS TO BE BILLED INSTEAD OF PAID IN ADVANCE WITH PROPER PAYMENT
HISTORY.
WHEREAS, the Department of Finance of the City of Iowa City has begun receiving applications for
water service accounts, wastewater accounts, and/or residential solid waste collection accounts over the
phone, and will soon be able to receive such applications via the City's website; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Finance wishes to be able to bill prospective account holders, with the
exception of persons who previously have been required to post delinquency accounts with the City, for
any required deposits instead of requiring deposits upfront; and
WHEREAS, the process of implementing the City Code provision requiring a person establishing a
City utility account to execute a written agreement and the implementation of a record retention system
for said agreements is time-consuming and expensive, and should be repealed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I. AMENDMENTS. Title 16, entitled "Public Works," Chapter 3, entitled "City Utilities,"
Article A, entitled "General Provisions," Section 5, entitled "Establishing City Utility Accounts; Deposits
Required," is hereby amended by deleting Paragraph A in its entirety and by substituting in its place the
following new Paragraph A:
Upon establishing a water service account, a wastewater account and/or a residential solid waste
collection account with the city, the person establishing an account, with the exception of a
residential owner account, shall be required to make a combined account deposit for city
services. The amount of this deposit shall be as provided in the schedule of fees, Title 3, Chapter
4 of this code. Persons who have previously been required to post a delinquent deposit shall be
required to make a combined and/or delinquent deposit before city services are provided.
SECTION II. AMENDMENTS. Title 16, entitled "Public Works," Chapter 3, entitled "City Utilities,"
Article A, entitled "General Provisions," Section 5, entitled "Establishing City Utility Accounts; Deposits
Required," is hereby amended by deleting Paragraph C in its entirety and by substituting in its place the
following new Paragraph C:
Upon reestablishing one or more accounts as set forth in subsection A of this section, the person
establishing the account(s) shall be required to make an account deposit for city services. The
amount of the deposit shall be as established in the schedule of fees, Title 3, Chapter 4 of this
code. Persons who have previously been required to post a delinquent deposit shall be required
to make a combined and/or delinquent deposit before city services are provided
SECTION III. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION IV. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to
be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or
any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION V. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and
publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this _ day of
,2007.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Approved by
/
...
~~~7
City Attorney's Office
. _"~'_____'__'^'__'_'_'___'__~__..__m__._.._.__,____________."__.__'_______._______.~"_.__."~,_..,._'"'_____
Ordinance No.
Page _
It was moved by and seconded by
as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
that the Ordinance
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Bailey
Champion
Correia
Elliott
O'Donnell
Vanderhoef
.Wilbum
First Consideration 2/20/2007
Vote for passage: AYES: Correia, Elliott, O'Donnell, Vanderhoef, Wilburn, Bailey,
Champion. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration 3/5/2007
Vote for passage: AYES: Bailey, Champion, Correia, Elliott, O'Donnell, Vanderhoef,
Wilburn. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Date published
----- -"-- ----_..,-,._-_._---~-_._-_.._._---,-----_._-
DEFEATED
Prepared by: Susan Dulak, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, lA 52240; 319-356-5030
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 8, ENTITLED "POLICE REGULATIONS," CHAPTER 6,
ENTITLED "MISCEllANEOUS OFFENSES," SECTION 2, ENTITLED "BEGGING," TO
PROHIBIT SOLICITING FROM AN OCCUPANT OF A VEHICLE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF
WAY.
WHEREAS, the City has an interest in public safety and traffic efficiency;
WHEREAS, the activity of soliciting money or other items from the occupants of vehicles by persons
on the public right of way is dangerous both to the person engaging in the solicitation and the person
occupying the vehicle;
WHEREAS, said solicitation also constitutes an impediment to the normal and safe flow of traffic; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to prohibit said solicitation on the public right of way.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I. AMENDMENTS.
1. Title a, entitled "Police Regulations, Chapter 5 entitled "Miscellaneous Offenses," Section 2,
entitled "Begging," is deleted in its entirety and the following new Section 2 is substituted in lieu thereof:
SalicUina,
A. .5c>lic:itina ,a ride"EHTl[)IC>YIll~flt,c:,~a,~i~~ble c,!ntriIJLlti(?11 c>r.I?~.sin~~5:i5:iUe,9Llr.:VV_~~f1:
L }\c:c:oIllPlani~~" ~Y,~,;afalS:Slllef1t, lass,alllt Or f~~"lf~;, 9r
2,Qondllct~d ,in confined. sp_aces..and inVlIqi,ng()n th~phYs,iclalprivacy of others,; ()r".
b. _Qo"-~ucted in, af1ar~la l,Y~e:re:J~e: la~i"ityl,Yil! irDPlairgrqe:rly J1W\le:I11.E!,l'!t()roth_E!rl,Yise:c:~e;a~e:
unreasonable health and safety concerns.
B. No oerson shall stand in Or otherwise OCCUDY the DubUc riaht of way for the ouroase of solicitina
money or other taneible item from the aCCUDant of a vehicle that is berne oDerated on the nublic riaht
of way. "Public riaht of wav" is defined in section 16-1A-1 of the City Code and includes sidewalks
streets, hiahwavs medians curbs. traffic islands and shoulders.
SECTION II. VIOLATION. Any violation of this ordinance shall be considered a simple misdemeanor
punishable by fine of $50.00.
SECTION III. REPEALER. AU ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION IV. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole Or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid Or unconstitutional.
SECTION V. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and
publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this _ day of , 2007.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
f!:rl:7. ~
;? - ~ F-1J7
City Attorney's Office
,....,
L.lW
"'1 Deleted: Begging -------J
~_.........................__......
. Deleted: A.
_""""_""__"m"_______,___",,"
.j Deleted: B
. [Deleted: . "t'h;;'j;;'
Deleted: C
,
)
J
-I
J
....l
DEFEATED
Ordinance No.
Page _
It was moved by and seconded by
as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
that the Ordinance
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Bailey
Champion
Correia
Elliott
O'Donnell
Vanderhoef
Wilburn
First Consideration 3/5/2007
Vote for passage: AYES: Elliott, O'Donnell, Vanderhoef. NAYS: Champion, Correia,
Wilburn, Bailey. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration
Vote for passage:
Date published
41=- / /
Marian Karr
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
mjc [mcrane@lcom.net]
Friday, March 02, 2007 9:34 AM
'City Council
begging
we all get aggravated with beggars sometimes. but then we should ask ourselves who is
wrong in thinking that way. the beggars or us? and what would st francis of assisi say
about it?
michael crane
1
-r//
Marian Karr
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
the3rdiowa@mchsi.com
Friday, March 02, 2007 9:29 AM
'City Council
Panhandling ordinance
If councilors approve the change, people won't be able to panhandle on the "public right
of way" - which includes sidewalks, streets, highways, medians, curbs, traffic islands,
and shoulders.
I would say this law, in effect, makes panhandling illegal in Iowa City.
Because if it is applied as I am reading it, there is no place for a person to legally do
it. In addition, if any fund raising group conducts an activity (carwash, "passing the
boot" for Muscular Dystrophy, etc.), they would be violating this law.
As panhandling is a type of freedom of expression, I disagree with the action.
If it is an issue of aggressiveness on the part of the panhandler, there are already laws
in place that deal with that aspect.
Sincerely yours,
Garry Klein
628 2nd Ave
Iowa City, IA 52245
1
- _._,-----------_._---_._-~-----_.~---~'-_.~-~._'--_..
1f 1/
Marian Karr
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
the3rdiowa@mchsLcom
Friday, March 02, 2007 1 :37 PM
'City Council
Steve Atkins
Panhandling ordinance
Council Members,
After sending my earlier e-mail, I looked at a different article on the topic in the
Press-Citizen that contradicts the Daily Iowan report with regard to how this law would be
enforced, so much of my concern may be moot. However, it would be helpful to know the
accuracy of either report with respect to what the wording of the actual ordinance will
be.
Refer to:
http://media.www.dailyiowan.com/media/storage/paper599/news/2007/03/02/Metro/Cou
ncil.To.Consider.Limiting.Panhandling-2753884.shtml
and
http://www.press-citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?
AID~/20070302/NEWS01/703020322/1079/NEWSOl
From the 01: "If councilors approve the change, people won't be able to panhandle on the
"public right of way" - which includes sidewalks, streets, highways, medians, curbs,
traffic islands, and shoulders. 'I
From the P-C: "The proposal, which is an addition to current law, would prohibit a person
who is on a public right of way to solicit money or other items from someone in a vehicle.
The restriction would apply to people begging for themselves or soliciting on behalf of an
organization.
Hargadine said the code is not meant as a charge against panhandlers or a challenge to the
legitimacy of certain organizations' fundraising methods. He said people still would be
able to solicit if they stay on the sidewalk or on traffic islands.
"But if you walk out (onto the street) and impede traffic, then it's a hazard,"
he said."
Thank you in advance for your response
Garry Klein
628 2nd Ave
Iowa City, IA
52245
1