HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-01-15 OrdinanceORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE BY
CHANGING THE USE REGULATIONS OF CERTAIN
PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF HIGHWAY 1 WEST,
SOUTH OF BENTON STREET, AND ALONG AND EAST
OF HARLOCKE STREET EXTENDED.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I. That the property described
below is hereby reclassified from its
present classification of RM -44 to RS -8
and the zoning map of the City of Iowa
City, Iowa, is amended accordingly:
All of Lots 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 26
of Weeber's Third Addition as recorded
in Plat Book 9, page 14 of the Johnson
County Recorder's Office and the
westerly 100 feet of Lot 25, Weeber's
Third Addition.
That the property described below is
hereby reclassified from its present
classification of RM -44 to RM -20 and the
zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa,
is amended accordingly:
All of Lot 25, Weeber's Third Addition
as recorded in Plat Book 9, page 14 of
the Johnson County Recorder's Office
except for the westerly 100 feet
thereof.
That the property described below is
hereby reclassified from its present
classification of RM -44 to RM -12 and the
zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa,
is amended accordingly:
Beginning at the northwest corner of
the northeast quarter of the southwest
quarter of Section 16, Township 79
North, Range 6 West of the Fifth
Principal Meridian, Iowa City, Johnson
County, Iowa; thence South 1050'30"
West, 493.80 feet to the point of
beginning; thence South 89044'56" East,
553.65 feet; thence South 89059'59"
East, 421.42 feet; thence South
0000101" West to a point on the
northwesterly right-of-way line of Iowa
Primary Road 1; thence South 71035'52"
West, 704.0 feet; thence South
57 55'37" West, 369.85 feet; thence
North 006'7" East, 468.10 feet; thence
North 0013'5" East, 161.77 feet to the
point of beginning.
/o�
R
2 `
SECTION II. 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.
SECTION III. The City Clerk is
hereby authorized and directed to
certify a copy of this ordinance to the
County Recorder of Johnson County,
Iowa, upon final passage of publication
as provided by law.
SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordi-
nances and parts of ordinances in
conflict with the provision of this
ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION V. SEVERABILITY. If any
section, provision or part of the Ordi-
nance 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 of ec after its
final passage, approval and publication
as required by law.
Passed and approved this
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Reretved A Approved
F;, *M fecal -MV, riment
4.
aty of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 10, 1985
To: City Council
From: Karin Franklin, Senior Planner
Re: Z-8415. Harlocke Street Rezoning
Enclosed in the Council packet is the staff report on the original neighbor-
hood -initiated rezoning request for RS -5 of ten acres between Benton Street
and Highway 1 West near Harlocke Street. The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended denial of the application and initiated their own consideration
of the issue. The denial was forwarded to the Council on May 8, 1984. The
Council took no action in anticipation of further work on the area by the
Commission.
The Commission generated a rezoning plan for the area. A staff report
responding to the Commission's proposal dated September 6, 1984, is also
included in the packet. The staff recommendation for the area remains that
stated in the earlier staff report, that is, RNC -20 for Weeber's Third
Addition (the Jensen property and west of Harlocke) and RM -12 for the
property to the south (the Ruppert property). The recommendation of the
Commission is included in a map labeled "Proposed Rezoning Alternative A5
-Plannihearingng and JanuaryZ15ing is no this �recommendationtand notlon2the RS-5.requestlof
the neighborhood.
The additional materials are correspondence to the Commission from affected
property owners and neighbors.
bdw3/4
Enclosure
7o2,
{v
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning 6 Zoning Commission Prepared by: Bruce Knight
Item: Z 8407, - Harlocke Street Date: April 5, 1984
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant:
Requested action:
Purpose:
Location:
Si ze:
Comprehensive Plan:
Existing land uses and zoning:
Surrounding land use and zoning:
Neighboring property owners
(see Attachment 2).
Rezoning from RM -44 to RS -5.
To reduce the development po-
tential of a ten acre tract.
South of Benton Street, west of
Benton Manor, north of Highway
1 and east of Weeber Street and
Weeber Court.
Approximately 10 acres.
Residential, 16-24 dwelling
units per acre and 8-16
dwelling units per acre.
Single family, duplex, multi-
family residential and undevel-
oped and RM -44.
North - multi -family residen-
tial and RM -44.
East - multi -family residential
and RM -44.
South - undeveloped and I-1.
West - single family residen-
tial and RS -5.
45 -day limitation period: 4/27/84
ANALYSIS
Background:
The applicants are requesting the downzoning of an approximately ten acre
area from RM -44 to RS -5. This would include all of Weeber's .Third
Addition, the land lying immediately north of Weeber's Third Addition and
the land lying between the southern boundary of Weeber's Third Addition
and Highway 1 (see attached location map). The majority of this land is
currently undeveloped. However, six existing lots in Weeber's Third
Addition have been developed, four for multi -family dwellings at a density
of one dwelling unit per 1,000 square feet (the maximum allowable density
in RM -44 zoning), and the other two for a single family dwelling and a
7-L-
duplex. Also, the land north of Weeber's Third Addition proposed for
downzoning is developed for multi -family development (16 units) at a
density of 1 unit/3,581 square feet of lot area. The developed land area
represents about 2:42 acres out of the overall ten acre proposal.
Neighbors' Reasons for Rezoning:
In the attached application for rezoning, the neighbors state two main
reasons for approving the rezoning:
1. "The access to the land for which rezoning is requested would be
through an RS -5 neighborhood on streets that are inadequate for
current traffic loads. Proposed use of Harlocke Street for RM -44
housing would have the effect of raising the RS -5 zoning of the Weeber
area because of the greatly increased impact of any development along
Harlocke Street."
2. "The current RM -44 zoning -..':is inappropriate for its location:. -.With-
out providing for transition zone from RS -5 to RM -44, the present
Harlocke zoning has the effect of destroying the single family nature
of the Weeber neighborhood area. By eliminating all high density
traffic from Harlocke Street and its logical extensions, a buffer zone
is created."
Impact on Density:
Under the existing RM -44 zoning, multi -family development is allowed at a
ratio of one unit per 1,000 square feet of lot area: A maximum of 435
dwelling units could be constructed on the ten acre tract in question:
However, given the topographic constraints, the need for a vehicular cir-
culation system and off-street perking requirements, actual density would
probably be much less than this. As proposed, the Harlocke Ridge
development would have a density of one unit per 1,613 square feet of lot
area (RM -20 requires 1,800 square feet per unit). Also, the existing
Benton Manor complex will have an overall density upon completion of one
unit per 1,750 square feet of lot area.
Under the RS -5 zoning proposed by the applicants, a maximum of 54 single
family units could be developed on the ten acre tract. However, because
single family development does not allow for clustering units, and as a
result of topographic problems, land lost for a vehicular circulation
system and siting problems created by the requirement of providing
frontage for each lot on a street, it is unlikely that the maximum densit
could be reached.
For comparison purposes, the following maximum densities would be possible
under other zoning categories: RS -12 - 145 units; RM -12 - 159 units;
RM -20 -242 units: These maximum densities do not take into account the
constraints to full development cited above:
Traffic Generation:
To get some indication of what amount of traffic would be generated by
different types of residential dwelling units "trip generation rates" from
the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual were used to
71"L
calculate total trip generation. These were applied to the maximum number
of dwelling units as described above (realizing that the unit figures are
high):
Based on these factors, multi -family development would generate a greater
number of trips on a daily basis than would single family development.
For comparison purposes, a traffic count was taken on Benton Drive, 30'
south of its intersection with Benton Street for a one week period from
February 28 to March 6, 1984. Benton Drive is a private street which
serves both the Benton Manor development and the Hillsboro Apartments.
These two complexes currently contain a total of 178 dwelling units
certified for occupancy. Based on the daily traffic counts, an average
number of weekday trips was established at 1,362. Dividing this number by
178 dwelling units results in a generation rate of 7.65 trips/unit. This
results in a higher number of trips generated than does the factor of 6.1
trips/unit used above. This difference can probably be attributed to the
occupancy of a high percentage of these dwelling units by students, each
of whom may own a vehicle. It is assumed that the factors for single
family and duplex/townhouse development would not be similarly altered by
the student population. Using this generation factor for multi -family
uses, the number of daily trips would be as follows:
RM12 1}216.3 trips
RM20 1,851.3 trips
RM44 3,327.7 trips
Using these numbers, it appears that the existing trafficway network in
this neighborhood, including Benton Street, will be highly impacted by
further development at an RM -44 density, particularly without provision of
Transitional Zone:
The 1978 Comprehensive Plan report "Land Use Concepts" states: "Transi-
tional uses between two very dissimilar land uses can be effective in
developing and redeveloping areas. An intermediate use which shares some
of the characteristics and requirements of two very different uses
provides a less abrupt transition from high intensity to low intensity."
In this case, a transition from high density multi -family to single family
development is desirable. However, a downzoning to RS -5 does not function
in this role. Rather, it moves the boundary of RS -5 zoning such that any
single family development in the area would be surrounded on two to three
7'
.Avg.
Weekday Trip
f of
Daily
Zone
Housing Types
Generation
Rate
Units
Trips
RS -5
Single family detached
10.0
trips
per
D.U.
54
540
RS -12
Duplex/townhouse
8.1
trips
per
D.U.
145
1,174.5
RM -12
Multi -family
6.1
trips
per
D.U.
159
969.9
RM -20
Multi -family
6.1
trips
per
O.U.
242
1,476.2
RM -44
Multi -family
6.1
trips
per
D.U.
435
2,653.5
Based on these factors, multi -family development would generate a greater
number of trips on a daily basis than would single family development.
For comparison purposes, a traffic count was taken on Benton Drive, 30'
south of its intersection with Benton Street for a one week period from
February 28 to March 6, 1984. Benton Drive is a private street which
serves both the Benton Manor development and the Hillsboro Apartments.
These two complexes currently contain a total of 178 dwelling units
certified for occupancy. Based on the daily traffic counts, an average
number of weekday trips was established at 1,362. Dividing this number by
178 dwelling units results in a generation rate of 7.65 trips/unit. This
results in a higher number of trips generated than does the factor of 6.1
trips/unit used above. This difference can probably be attributed to the
occupancy of a high percentage of these dwelling units by students, each
of whom may own a vehicle. It is assumed that the factors for single
family and duplex/townhouse development would not be similarly altered by
the student population. Using this generation factor for multi -family
uses, the number of daily trips would be as follows:
RM12 1}216.3 trips
RM20 1,851.3 trips
RM44 3,327.7 trips
Using these numbers, it appears that the existing trafficway network in
this neighborhood, including Benton Street, will be highly impacted by
further development at an RM -44 density, particularly without provision of
Transitional Zone:
The 1978 Comprehensive Plan report "Land Use Concepts" states: "Transi-
tional uses between two very dissimilar land uses can be effective in
developing and redeveloping areas. An intermediate use which shares some
of the characteristics and requirements of two very different uses
provides a less abrupt transition from high intensity to low intensity."
In this case, a transition from high density multi -family to single family
development is desirable. However, a downzoning to RS -5 does not function
in this role. Rather, it moves the boundary of RS -5 zoning such that any
single family development in the area would be surrounded on two to three
7'
sides by multi -family dwellings at a much higher density. Therefore, if a
land use transition is needed at this location, it should be zoned in a
manner which would permit an "intermediate" use of the land.
It should also be noted that some transition between the existing single
family and multi -family uses is already provided along the rear lot lines
of the single family dwellings located on 4leeber Court. Although in this
case it may not be the best means of creating a transition, bordering
different uses along the rear lot lines is one means of transitioning
between those uses. Since the existing multi -family development which is
located between the undeveloped portion of the ten acre tract and the
single family development will not be eliminated, a downzoning will not
act to improve that transition. However, development of multi -family
dwellings on the large areas of undeveloped land still remaining will have
a much greater impact then do the existing eight-plexes on Harlocke
Street. Therefore, on a broad scale, a downzoning could improve the
Comprehensive Plan:
The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Update, adopted in 1983, recommends
residential development for this site at a density of from 16-24 dwellings
units per acre for the northern half of the tract, and a density of 8-16
dwelling units per acre for the southern half. However, the plan also
states that "the maps presented in the Comprehensive Plan outline in a
general fashion the location of different land uses; it is the zoning
map...:which specifically sets forth the uses and densities of the use
possible on any particular site. The Comprehensive Plan maps will be
Interpreted with flexibility at the boundaries of the designated uses to
allow appropriate transitions between areas." Because the request area,
in fact, represents the boundary of two designated uses. (i.e. single
family residential and multi -family residential), a transitional use would
conform with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. However, the
proposed RS -5 zoning would not conform with the Comprehensive Plan. It
does not serve in a transitional capacity and would only act to increase
the conflict between existing multi -family development and future single
family development.
The next question, then, is what is the most appropriate zone, or zones,
to serve a transitional function and subsequently, what area, if any,
should be rezoned. Since an "intermediate" zone is appropriate, the
alternatives include RS -12, RM -12 or 04-20:
1. RS -12: This zoning would allow development of duplex or townhouse
type units. According to the traffic generation factors, development
of this type of unit could result in a rate of traffic generation
which is not much lower than either W-12 or RM -20. Also, because of
the topographic features of this site, which includes slopes of
10-305, cluster type development appears to offer the best possibili-
ties for the development of this land in a reasonable fashion. Cluster
development would be possible through multi -family development, or
approval of a Planned Development Housing (PDH) Plan.
2. RM -12. This zoning would allow development of the land for multi-
faeify dwellings at a density of one unit per 2,725 square feet of lot
area. It would represent a reduction in the maximum number of units
7-z-
possible of 276 units from 435 units at RM44 density to 159 units at
RM12 density. RM -12 zoning could serve effectively as a_transition
zone and would offer a lower rate of traffic generation. It also
would conform with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan for
the southern portion of the tract.
3. RM -20. This zoning would allow development of the land for multi-
famiTy—dwellings at a density of one unit per 1,800 square feet of lot
area. It would represent a reduction in the maximum number of units
possible of 193 dwelling units from 435 units at RM44 density to 242
units at RM20 density. It would also appear to serve effectively as a
transitional zone since it would reduce by almost half the number of
possible units and does not have a rate of traffic generation, based
on 7.65 trips/unit, significantly greater than RM12 zoning. It also
falls within the Comprehensive Pians' recommended density of 16-24
dwelling units per acre for the northern half of the tract.
Another option might be RNC -20 zoning, which would leave the existing
multi -family structures as conforming uses while reducing the poten-
tial development capacity of undeveloped or underdeveloped land within
the area in question. This would also be consistent with the intent
section of the RNC -20 zone which states: "It is the purpose of this
zone to preserve the character of existing neighborhoods and is
designed to prevent existing multi -family uses within the neighborhood
from becoming nonconforming."
Property owners' Coanents:
Attached is a letter from William Tucker, attorney for Viggo M. Jensen
Co., which owns the 4 acre tract proposed for the Harlocke Ridge develop-
ment. Mr. Tucker raises the following points in objection to the proposed
downzoning:
1. "The property was acquired for development purposes. The properties
on the north, east and south sides are presently zoned and generally
developed for high density apartments."
2. "The present zoning of RM -44 was made after extensive review and
public hearings without any objections from any adjoining owners and
the land is best suited for high density construction."
3. "It is recognized that possible considerations do or could exist in
reference to means of access to and from said property solely through
Harlocke Street and efforts are being made to continue said street
through to the south to Highway 1, as well as a possible third access
through the private roads on the northeast corner of this property.
These matters do need studied consideration but should not be used as
a basis for downzoning this property."
In reference to the above comments, staff agrees that this land is best
suited for cluster development (e.g. multi -family), primarily because of
the topographic limitations on the site and the existence of surrounding
multi -family development. However, a great deal of undeveloped land zoned
RS -5 exists immediately south of the present termination point of Weeber
Street. The ultimate subdivision of this land and construction of single
family dwellings will probably result in a substantial increase in traffic
7so-
0
on Weeber Street. This traffic, in conjunction with the traffic which
will be generated by uses along Harlocke Street; will result in a high
volume intersection at Weeber and Benton Streets. Given the limitations
placed on the expansion of the trafficway network in this area by existing
development, a serious question is raised as to the advisability of the
existing high density development. Therefore, staff recommends that this
area be downzoned in accordance with the density recommendations of the
Comprehensive Plan (i.e. RNC -20 zoning on the northern portion of the
tract (including all of Weeber's Third Addition), and RM -12 zoning on all
undeveloped land currently zoned RM -44 lying south of Weeber's Third
Addition and Benton Manor Condominium (see attached zoning map). This
would include a piece of land not included in the current downzoning
proposal and would, therefore, require a new notice.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the requested rezoning of RS -5 be denied. As an
alternative, staff would propose that all of Weeber's Third Addition be
zoned RNC -20 and that the undeveloped land to the south of Weeber's Third
Addition and Benton Manor be zoned RM -12.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location map.
2. Application for rezoning.
3. Letter from William M. Tucker for Viggo M. Jensen Company.
4. Map showing recommended zonln pro 1
Approved by:
Dbnald hmeiser, rec or
Departmen of Planning and
Program Development
/.2—
k o►l t-ALP
z- 840
i
APPLICATION FOR REZONING
NAME OF APPLICANT:
Persons residing in the single-family neighborhood of Weeber
Street, Meeber Circle,and Harlocke Street, Whose signatures
appear on this application.
SPOKESPERSONS FOR APPLICANTS:
James Johnson David Dierks
912 Washer St. 905 weeber St. Daniel Bray
Iowa City, Ia. Iowa City, Is. 948 weeber Sb.
337-3069 Home 351-2036 Home Iova City, Ia.
353-4690 work 353-6271 work 351-6580 Nome
338-7966 work
LOCATION OF PROPERTY:
Weber's Third Addition to Iowa City, land north of Weeber's
Third Addition to Iowa City, land at least 553.41 feet vide
directly south Of Member's Third Addition down to the right-of-
way for Highway One.
AREA SIZE: Approximately ten acres
PRESENT ZONING: RM -44
PROPOSED ZONING: RS -5
PROPERTY OWNERS,
Land north of Weebec's Third Add.: Clack Cox (Iowa City)
Lot 20,weaber'a Third Add., Olen and Lavada Stidham (Iova City)
and
Lot 21, Wubec's Third Adds (SamJohn am Lot[20) (Cede[ Rapids)
Lot 22, Meeber's Third Add.: (Sam as Lot 20)
Lot 23, Weeber'■ Third Add.s A.A. and Olympia Niederrlcker
(Iowa city)
Lot 24, Meebec's Third Adds Melvin and Mercia Jenn (Iowa City)
Dean Price (Iowa City)
Lot 25, Weeber'm Third Add., Viggo M. Jenson Co. (Iowa City)
Lot 26, Washer', Third Add., Pat Barding Const. Co. (Iowa City)
Land mouth of Washer's Third Add.s Charles Ruppert, Executor of
the Ruppert Estate (Iowa City)
REASONS FOR REZONIMGs
Your applicants are all residents of th
aaidentlal area immediately to the vest of e single-family the property for
which rezoning Is requested. The area immediately to the veer !■
' The aceeOned an from
the land forRot
raeoning vii equestedt would a be
through an R8-5 neighbo[bood an struts that are inadequate for
current traffic loads. Proposed use of Darlocke Street for RM -44
hWeeber ousing would have the effect of raising the RS -5 zoning of the
developmenta&long Oarlock@ Strbecause of the eets [Also the increased aLic pthrough the
Street Naber aces would use the intersection■ of Harlocke and Weeber
deigned and ind nsufficientnd eeber to handle any increased which at
treffice from
higher -use residential area. Since it does not appear feasible
fo cut off access to Rarlocke and Weeber Streets from the land
or which zoning is requested, lover -use zoning is the only
reasonable way to handle the Problems created.
1
71Z_
417
a
The rezoning request attempts to duplicate the present
pattern of zoning on the went end of Barlocke Street.
The current RN -44 zoning of the land subject of this
application is inappropriate for its location. Your Applicants
believe it was an inadvertent aspect of the city's comprehensive
rezoning . Without providing for a transitional zone from RS -5 to
RN -44, the present Barlocke are zoning has the effect of
destroying the single-family nature of the Neeber area
neighborhood. By eliminating all high density traffic from
Bar I"ke Street and its logical extensions, a buffer zone in
created.
APPLICATION FEE:
Your applicants request that the application fee be waived
and that this application for rezoning be decided before the city
decides on the large-scale residential development requested fog
Barlocke Ridge.
APPLICANTS
I
ADDRESS
Y/ 7 UJ ♦ it
g+v w/J,-
�ae ulu�< ftp
ON =.• • a:.rtie ' 7
1117 5Y
/// P /�.t•alvL'a .Y�'.
G r%
7,m2-
a
3
`i
na � v/a.i4«hem Cyt.
313._ 7✓&kk �t
943 wA..4', K .
VC b U Col G„;.Q,
1�cs�I/J �I C -G
,,.J ri Wl, l,- %-t
' lio I s�.E',•�1..�
f-
UNUR-NINic+.. _
.3m./ 7n,
905 L/rcbrt'
1 A N., CLL�,,. %E .
7o2—
I
.3m./ 7n,
905 L/rcbrt'
1 A N., CLL�,,. %E .
7o2—
R.. C � I v ,-.I
Thomas R. Scott, Chairman MAR Z 6 L*
Iowa City Planning a Zoning Commission P.PA.DEPAMMENT
Civic Center
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear Mr. Scott and Member of the
Iowa City Planning 6 Zoning Commission:
Re: Weeber's Third Addition
to the City of Iowa City
I am writing to you on behalf of Viggo M. Jensen Company,
contract vendor to Loren Hershberger, in connection with the
above property. It is my understanding that a request has
been made by a number of property owners in the adjacent
area to the west•.to.downgrade the existing zoning on such -
property from its present RM -44 zoning. I do not know the
specifics of the rezoning request, but I do plan on being
present at your informal meeting on April 2 and hope to be
allowed to speak to you at such time.
The property known as Weeber's Third Addition was acquired
by Viggo M. Jensen Company from Herbert Spitzer and his wife
by deed dated December 13, 1968. It consisted of 6.39 acres
and had been sold under contract by the Spitzers on May 9,
1966, which contract was assigned the Viggo M. Jensen Company.
i
At the time of sale the property was zoned R3A and
retained such zoning until the overall revisions in the Iowa
City Zoning Ordinance. I assisted the Jensen Company in the
acquisition and platting of such property, which originally
had six lots located on the west side of what is now known
as Harlocke Street, with the remaining acreage being the
single large lot now under consideration.
This property was acquired for development purposes.
The properties on the north, east and south sides are presently
zoned and generally developed for high density apartments.
7.z
PHELAN, TUCKER, BOYLE & MULLEN
Laws SM=yyy..M LWx•�WI
.L :aKm,,, AT LAW
BREMEN BU.Lc1Nc
V.
WI1.AM PHcuN
P. O. Box 2130 rxLc.NONx
WILLIAM M.TuencxImcl
a'J..np.
IOWA CITY, IOWA
DANIxL W. Ban,
0i2M
CnwnLa5 A. Mu,LCN
STVHLN F. Bxmwr
BnuCC L. WALnu
RICNAAC M.Tucncx
March 26, 1984
THOMAx H.00LMAN
R.. C � I v ,-.I
Thomas R. Scott, Chairman MAR Z 6 L*
Iowa City Planning a Zoning Commission P.PA.DEPAMMENT
Civic Center
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear Mr. Scott and Member of the
Iowa City Planning 6 Zoning Commission:
Re: Weeber's Third Addition
to the City of Iowa City
I am writing to you on behalf of Viggo M. Jensen Company,
contract vendor to Loren Hershberger, in connection with the
above property. It is my understanding that a request has
been made by a number of property owners in the adjacent
area to the west•.to.downgrade the existing zoning on such -
property from its present RM -44 zoning. I do not know the
specifics of the rezoning request, but I do plan on being
present at your informal meeting on April 2 and hope to be
allowed to speak to you at such time.
The property known as Weeber's Third Addition was acquired
by Viggo M. Jensen Company from Herbert Spitzer and his wife
by deed dated December 13, 1968. It consisted of 6.39 acres
and had been sold under contract by the Spitzers on May 9,
1966, which contract was assigned the Viggo M. Jensen Company.
i
At the time of sale the property was zoned R3A and
retained such zoning until the overall revisions in the Iowa
City Zoning Ordinance. I assisted the Jensen Company in the
acquisition and platting of such property, which originally
had six lots located on the west side of what is now known
as Harlocke Street, with the remaining acreage being the
single large lot now under consideration.
This property was acquired for development purposes.
The properties on the north, east and south sides are presently
zoned and generally developed for high density apartments.
7.z
Thomas R. Scott and
Members of the Iowa City Planning
s Zoning Commission
March 26, 1984
Page 2
The present zoning of RM -44 was made after extensive review
and public hearings without objection from any adjoining owners
and the land is best suited for high density construction.
It is recognized that possible considerations do or could
exist in reference to means of access to and from said property
solely through Harlocke Street and efforts are being made to
continue said street through to the south to Highway 1, as well
as a possible third access through the private roads on the
northeast corner of this property. These matters do need
studied consideration but should not be used as a basis for
down -zoning this property. Traffic flow and present problems
will exist irrespective of the density of apartment construction,
i but these matters should be considered in reference to either
further platting or development and not used as a basis for
change in zoning which has existed for almost 20 years.
We wanted to present this position to you in advance of
or as a part of your initial discussions, and in this
connection, will be happy to furnish you any requested informa-
tion or documentation.
Respectfully submitted,
PHELAN, TUCKER, BOYLE 6 MULLEN
By;at,.r �4 Q tccXtatJ
4=1a—MM. Tucker
Attorney for Viggo M.
Jensen Company
7.Z
I I I �I �LI
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Bruce Knight
Item: Z-8415. Harlocke Street/Weeber Date: September 6, 1984
Street Neighborhood
Rezoning
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant:
Requested action:
Purpose:
Location:
Size:
Comprehensive Plan:
Existing land uses and zoning:
Surrounding land uses and zoning
45 -day limitation period:
ANALYSIS
Planning and Zoning Commission
Rezoning from RM -44 to RNC -20 and
RS -12.
To reduce the development
potential of the area currently
zoned RM -44.
South of Benton Street, east of
Weeber Street, north of Highway 1
and west of Miller Street.
Approximately 25 acres.
Residential, 16-24 dwelling units
per acre and 8-16 dwelling units
per acre.
Single family, duplex, multi-
family residential and undevel-
oped and RM -44.
North - multi -family residential
and RM -44
East - single family residential
and undeveloped and RM -20,
CC -2
South - undeveloped and I-1
West - single family residential
and RS -5
At their August 2, 1984 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission initiated
rezoning of the area currently zoned RM -44 lying between Benton Street and
Highway 1. Specifically, the Commission's proposal would rezone those
properties which have already been developed with multi -family residential
uses to RNC -20 (neighborhood conservation residential). The remaining area,
which is presently undeveloped, would be rezoned to RS -12 (high density
single family residential). (See attachments A2 and N3 for a comparison
between the current zoning and the proposed zoning.)
7-i
Upon adoption of a certain zoning for an area, there is a presumption that
the established zoning is appropriate. Therefore, a change in zoning should
occur only if it can be demonstrated that there are particular reasons or
extenuating circumstances which warrant the change. In this case, concerns
were raised by neighbors to the west regarding the density permitted under
F44-44 zoning, which resulted in the Planning and Zoning Commission initiating
the proposed rezoning of this area. These concerns were as follows: 1) that
the existing trafficway network in the neighborhood, including Benton Street,
will be highly impacted by further development of the area at RM -44 density;
2) that further development at RM -44 density will result in congestion which
may adversely affect the single family nature of the Weeber Street/Weeber
Court area; and 3) that a transitional area between the existing single-
family and multi -family development was appropriate. An additional concern
raised regarding the potential downzoning of this area was the resultant
impact on existing multi -family dwellings (i.e. creating nonconforming uses).
The Commission's proposal attempts to deal with each of those concerns.
The rezoning would reduce the potential increase in traffic volume in two
ways. First, the maximum allowable density of that land presently undevel-
oped would be reduced by rezoning it from RM -44 to RS -12. This results in a
potential reduction in the number of possible units by 67% and a comparable
reduction in the generation of traffic volume. Second, the land which is
currently developed would be rezoned to RNC -20. The intent section of the
RNC -20 zone states that "it is the purpose of this zone to preserve the
character of existing neighborhoods and it is designed to prevent existing
multi -family uses within the neighborhood from becoming nonconforming."
Rezoning existing areas of development to RNC -20 will control the potential
for a density increase through redevelopment of these properties, while at
the same time allowing the existing development to maintain a conforming
status. The RNC -20 zone fulfills that intent by allowing new construction
and redevelopment to occur at a density of one unit per 1800 square feet of
lot area, or up to the density level of existing development, whichever is
greater. In other words, multi -family development which currently exceeds
the density level of one unit per 1800 square feet is treated as conforming
at its existing density and would be allowed to redevelop to that existing
density.
(Note: A language change in the special provisions section of the RNC -20
zone, which was adopted in the new Zoning Ordinance, acts to change the above
function of the RNC -20 zone in areas where land is newly zoned RNC -20. The
ordinance states that "all uses or buildings which were conforming prior to
December 13, 1982, shall be construed to be conforming under the terms of
this ordinance. December 13, 1982 represents the date that the RNC -20 zone
was originally adopted. However, that date does not recognize that addi-
tional areas can be rezoned to RNC -20. Therefore, the date for establishing
conformity of an existing use should be based on the date that the property
in question is rezoned to RNC -20. Staff would recommend that this language
be amended in conjunction with this proposed rezoning.)
Finally, the decrease in allowable density acts, on a broad scale, to improve
the transition between different uses in this area. Further development of
multi -family dwellings to the density allowed under RM -44 zoning will result
in a much greater impact on the single family area to the west than does the
existing multi -family development. Reducing the allowable density acts to
7-2-
3
reduce that impact and thereby creates a transition in density. As a result,
a transitional area would be created on broad scale between the existing
high intensity multi -family uses and lower intensity single family uses. It
should also be noted that under RS -12 zoning, multi -family development could
only be approved as part of a planned development plan. This process allows
special consideration to be given to the buffering of any negative impacts
created by that development. Further, the approval of the planned development
plan would not allow increases in the density of development since the
overall density of the underlying zone must be maintained.
In conclusion, the Planning and Zoning Commission's proposal for rezoning the
area in question appears to offer a reasonable solution to the concerns
identified for this area. One question which should be addressed is whether
this proposal conforms with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Update, adopted in 1983, recommends a residential land use for this
site at a density of 16-24 dwelling units per acre for the northern half of
the tract and a density of 8-16 dwelling units per acre for the southern
half. Therefore, the proposed rezoning conforms substantially with the
recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. One exception is Lot 25 of
Weeber's Third Addition, which is proposed to be rezoned to RS -12, and is
shown on the Comprehensive Plan map at 16-24 dwelling units per acre.
However, the plan also states that "the maps presented in the Comprehensive
Plan outline in a general fashion the location of different land uses; it is
the zoning map,... which specifically sets forth the uses and density of the
use possible on any particular site. The Comprehensive Plan maps will be
interpreted with flexibility at the boundaries of the designated uses to
allow appropriate transitions between areas." Because this area represents a
boundary, a transitional use would conform with the recommendations of the
Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF EVALUATION
Staff finds that the rezoning proposal initiated by the Planning and Zoning
Commission is a reasonable solution to the concerns identified for this area.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location map.
2. Existing zoning.
3. Proposed zoning.
Approved by;
is acnmeiser, uirec
rtment of Planning
Program Development
%Z
w
,/ Ex15Tl{lG ZONING
I
bL
Oc"TMI 6TK66f
-/ PROPOSED ZONING
%.;ity of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 29, 1984
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Karin Franklin, Senior Plannea
RE: Harlocke/Weeber Street Rezoning
Enclosed are maps showing the three rezoning proposals discussed by
the Commission and the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
This information has been sent to the owners of the affected property
and to the neighbors on Weeber Street.
t
i
a
7-z--
a
7-z--
ALTERNATIVE #1
t -
i
'i.
�• i L
I
1
. I
CC -2
PROPOSED REZONING
ALTERNATIVE #2
i
/ PROPOSED REZONING
/ ALTERNATIVE k3
u
11
B
BARKER, CRUISE & KENNEDY
LAWYERS
CHARLES A BARKER
OII IOWA AVENUE • P.O. BOX 2000
JOHN D. CRUISE
IOWA CITY, IOWA AREA CODE DIO
MICHAEL W. KENNEDY
52244 TELEPHONE 303-5151
JAMES O. HOUGHTON
DAVIS 1- POSTCR
ANN M. CRUISE
October 30, 1984
Iowa City Planning and '
zoning Commission
Davis Building
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Re: Clark Cox - Harlocke Street Rezoning
Gentlepersons:
It is my understanding that the Commission is receptive to a
allowing Clark Cox to retain his RM -44 zoning in the event Mr.
Cox executes a restrictive covenant prohibiting access onto
Harlocke Street. This letter simply confirms that such a plan
is acceptable to Clark Cox.
I will prepare the necessary covenant and submit it to the
City legal staff upon the staff's request.
Very truly yours,
nj
Charles A. Barker '
CAB/tcw
cc: Ms. Karin Franklin
Mr. Clark Cox
o a I M
OCT 3 11984
MARIAN K. KARR
CIN CLERK (3)
7�
CHARLES A DARKER
JOHN D. CRUISE
MICHAEL W. KENNEDY
JAMES O. HOUGHTON
DAVIS L FOSTER
ANN M. CRUISE
BARKER, CRUISE & KENNEDY
LAWYERS
311 IOWA AVENUE • P.O. DO% 2000
IOWA CITY, IOWA
52244
October 30, 1984
Iowa City Planning and
Zoning Commission
Davis Building
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
AREA CODE 319
TELEPHONE 301.8101
�0aEM
OCT 31 1984
MARIAN K. KARR
CITY CLERK (3)
Re: Charles Ruppert - Proposed Rezoning of liarlocke Area
Gentlepersons:
Once again I am writing a letter on behalf of my client,
Charles Ruppert. Mr. Ruppert objects to the most recently pro-
posed rezoning of his property. Mr. Ruppert's property is cur-
rently zoned RM -44. The new proposal would down -zone a signi-
ficant portion on the west end to RS -8. The rest of the prop-
erty would be down -zoned to RM -20 or RM -12. The down -zoning is
objectionable to Mr. Ruppert for the reasons set forth in pre-
vious correspondence and for the reasons previously stated at
earlier Planning and Zoning meetings.
I realize the Commission is anxious to resolve this zoning
matter and move onto new items, but I urge the Commission to
consider a variation to the most recent Planning and Zoning
proposal.
Mr. Ruppert would consider a 6-8 lot cul de sac subdivi-
sion at the south end of Harlocke Street in order to retain the
current RM -44 zoning on the balance of the property. A rough
sketch of the proposal is attached to this letter. Such a plan
would limit access and the amount of traffic on Harlocke Street.
Except for the cul de sac subdivision, all of the rest of the
Ruppert property would have to be developed with access to the
south onto Highway One. The only increase in traffic flow on
Harlocke Street due to the Ruppert property would be from the
6-8 lot subdivision which I presume would be zoned RS -8.
7-L
U
Iowa City Planning and
Zoning Commission
Page Two
October 30, 1989
The Commission, staff and City Council will still be able
to review Highway One access points and street configuration
relating to the balance of the Ruppert property at the time it
is developed or subdivided.
Mr. Ruppert has not yet• discussed the feasibility of a cul
de sac subdivision with an engineer, but he will proceed accord-
ingly if he gets some indication from the City that it may be
receptive to such an idea.
I urge the Commission to consider this compromise approach.
Otherwise, I believe Mr. Ruppert has no choice but to continue
with his objections to the drastic down -zoning (RM -94 to RS -8
and RM -94 to RM -20 or RM -12) at the City Council level.
Please give this matter your consideration.
Very tr ly yours,
Charles A. Barker
CAB/tcw
Attachment
cc: Ms. Karin Franklin
Mr. Charles Ruppert
�oaEM
OCT s 11984
MARIAN K. KARR
CITY CLERK (3)
j
� I
II
`W RM -44
f�i I W
1 I
RM -20
� y '
� � W
RM �0 `x:61— oto. RS -8
% L
R M " 12 `.I `I
I
II
I
CC2
RS -5C%.\
Aa
C,) o ,/ PROPOSED Z -DNI G
a
mx P
X !a FR
vM
i
JA n
J DEC L 41°3,
MARIAN Kd KE P;,'
CITY CLERK tZ;)
City Council
City of Iowa City
Civic Center
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
PROTEST AGAINST REZONING
RE: Z-8415 - Harlocke Street
Rezoning
The undersigned, Viggo M. Jensen Company, as the owner
of the following described real estate, to -wit:
Lot 25, Weeber's Third Addition to Iowa City,
Iowa, according to the recorded plat thereof.
does hereby protest the proposed rezoning of that portion of
the above lot located immediately east of and along the length
of Harlocke Street from its present classification of RM 44
to RS 8 and in support of such protest states as follows:
1. The parcel owned by the undersigned.has
been zoned for High Density Multi -family
uses since it was acquired by the under-
signed more than 15 years ago.
2. The properties on the east, west and north
boundaries of the parcel owned by the under-
signed are presently zoned and developed
for medium to high density multi -family
uses.
3. The City has gone through an extensive
review and planning process which culminated
with the adoption of a new Comprehensive Plan
and Revised Zoning Ordinance and the property
in question retained its zoning throughout
that process.
70L
a.
-2-
4. To rezone the property owned by the undersigned
to RS 8 or any other single family zone would
not comply with the Comprehensive Plan adopted
by the City of Iowa City.
5. The lots west of Harlocke Street are presently
zoned RPl 44 and with one exception have already
been built to that density. The proposed zoning
to RS 8 would make the uses on all but one of
those lots non -conforming, without providing
anything but an apparent transition between the
low density single family zone to the west, and
the undeveloped portion of the Jensen tract
located east of the proposed RS 8 strip. That
portion of the Jensen tract for which RS 8
zoning is being proposed is approximately 400'
north and south and approximately 100' east and
west with RM 44 uses established to the west
and north and RM 20 zoning to the east, and
would constitute a narrow peninsula of single
family zoning intruding into high to medium
density multiple family uses. At best this
represents an ill conceived and ineffective
attempt to deal with potential traffic problems
on Weeber Street at worst arbitrary and illegal
spot zoning.
6. To rezone the property owned by the undersigned
to RS 8 or any single family zone would under
the above circumstances amount to a taking with-
out compensation.
For the above reasons the undersigned, Viggo M. Jensen
Company, respectfully requests that the proposed rezoning
of the above described parcel from RM 44 to any single family
residential zone be denied.
Dated this 12i'day of `kcc;t7-1p r- 19 Q4�_
VIGGO M. JENSEN COMPANY
By L'XArL
BY U 1
%v2—
- 3 -
STATE OF IOWA )
ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this 4day of &cstn 196°/, before me,
the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa,
personally appeared Calvin Knight and Olga Will to me personally
known, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the
President and Secretary respectively, of said corporation
executing the within and foregoing instrument, that no seal
has been procured by the said corporation; that said instrument
was signed on behalf of said corporation by authority of its
Board of Directors; and that the said Calvin Knight and Olga
Will as such officers acknowledged the execution of said
instrument to be the voluntary act and deed of said corpora-
tion, by it and by them voluntarily executed.
'",, auuuEs�wuu� � � gn'-an�
taryu c or sai
County and St to
7.Z
M
i
i
i
1
- 3 -
STATE OF IOWA )
ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this 4day of &cstn 196°/, before me,
the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa,
personally appeared Calvin Knight and Olga Will to me personally
known, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the
President and Secretary respectively, of said corporation
executing the within and foregoing instrument, that no seal
has been procured by the said corporation; that said instrument
was signed on behalf of said corporation by authority of its
Board of Directors; and that the said Calvin Knight and Olga
Will as such officers acknowledged the execution of said
instrument to be the voluntary act and deed of said corpora-
tion, by it and by them voluntarily executed.
'",, auuuEs�wuu� � � gn'-an�
taryu c or sai
County and St to
7.Z
M
7.2-
�--
7z
0
Lam?
�ll—�C�
Lam• �/�/J`�-�� �7�y/V�c: ,��•�Zc�_G�
I'
/ Porloo i /
;X, "or
0
7�-
I
I.77
I'
/ Porloo i /
;X, "or
0
7�-
December 3,1984
To:Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission
Civic Center
Iowa City, Iowa
Each of the persons signing this letter is a neighbor to the
Harlocke area. Almost all of the persons signing this letter were
signators to the original application for rezoning which
initiated the long process we have all gone through to seek a
solution to the traffic and transition problems in the Harlocke
area.
Although the signators to this letter still believe that the
j original requested zoning of RS 5 holds the greatest promise for
resolution of the problems which confront the area, the purpose
of this letter is to acknowledge the neighborhood's willingness
to support the combined RNC 20 and RS 12 zoning proposed by the
comission on September 6,1984. This proposed rezoning was also
approved by your staff as a reasonable solution to the concerns
identified for the area. A proposed zoning map which was prepared
by the commission and staff is attached to this letter. This is
the solution which has the greatest possibility of all rezoning
proposals under consideration for solving the problems
confronting the neighborhood.
We still have serious concerns about traffic impact, traffic
safety, road placement, public park use and the quality of
building and designs. We believe that all of our remaining
concerns can be dealt with through further administrative review
of plans and plats for the area if the attached rezoning is
approved.
vo
at
Thank you for your courtesy and patience.
to rezone the land in accordance with the
blic hearing on Septemeber 6, 1984.
ayn ea
We urge you to
proposal presented
7-z
I
V
December 3,1984
To:Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission
Civic Center
Iowa City, Iowa
Each of the persons signing this letter is a neighbor to the
Harlocke area. Almost all of the persons signing this letter were
signators to the original application for rezoning which
initiated the long process we have all gone through to seek a
solution to the traffic and transition problems in the Harlocke
area.
Although the signators to this letter still believe that the
original requested zoning of RS 5 holds the greatest promise for
resolution of the problems which confront the area, the purpose
of this letter is to acknowledge the neighborhood's willingness
to support the combined RNC 20 and RS 12 zoning proposed by the
comission on September 6,1984. This proposed rezoning was also
approved by your staff as a reasonable solution to the concerns
identified for the area. A proposed zoning map which was prepared
by the commission and staff is attached to this letter. This is
the solution which has the greatest possibility of all rezoning
proposals under consideration for solving the problems
confronting the neighborhood.
We still have serious concerns about traffic impact, traffic
safety, road placement, public park use and the quality of
building and designs. We believe that all of our remaining
concerns can be dealt with through further administrative review
of plans and plats for the area if the attached rezoning is
approved.
Thank you for your courtesy and patience. We urge you to
vote to rezone the land in accordance with the proposal presented
at ublic hearing on'Septemeber 6, 1984./16,141 a
)
Ura Acf
/.!/P 4al- . .
December 3,1984
To:Members of the Planning and zoning Commission
Civic Center
Iowa City, Iowa
Each of the persons signing this letter is a neighbor to the
Harlocke area. Almost all of the persons signing this letter were
signators to the original application for rezoning which
initiated the long process we have all gone through to seek a
solution to the traffic and transition problems in the Harlocke
area.
Although the signators to this letter still believe that the
original requested zoning of RS 5 holds the greatest promise for
resolution of the problems which confront the area, the purpose
of this letter is to acknowledge the neighborhood's willingness
to support the combined RNC 20 and RS 12 zoning proposed by the
comission on September 6,1984. This proposed rezoning was also
approved by your staff as a reasonable solution to the concerns
identified for the area. A proposed zoning map which was prepared
by the commission and staff is attached to this letter. This is
the solution which has the greatest possibility of all rezoning
proposals under consideration for solving the problems
confronting the neighborhood.
We still have serious concerns about traffic impact, traffic
safety, road placement, public park use and the quality of
building and designs. We believe that all of our remaining
concerns can be dealt with through further administrative review
of plans and plats for the area if the attached rezoning is
approved.
Thank you for your courtesy and patience. We urge you to
vote to rezone the land in accordance with the proposal presented
at public hearing on Septemeber 6, 1984.
k"11-1 "I
77
December 3,1984
To:Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission
Civic Center
Iowa City, Iowa
Each of the persons signing this letter is a neighbor to the
Harlocke area. Almost all of the persons signing this letter were
signators to the original application for rezoning which
initiated the long process we have all gone through to seek a
solution to the traffic and transition problems in the Harlocke
area.
Although the signators to this letter still believe that the
original requested zoning of RS 5 holds the greatest promise for
resolution of the problems which confront the area, the purpose
of this letter is to acknowledge the neighborhood's willingness
to support the combined RNC 20 and RS 12 zoning proposed by the
comission on September 6,1984. This proposed rezoning was also
approved by your staff as a reasonable solution to the concerns
identified for the area. A proposed zoning map which was prepared
by the commission and staff is attached to this letter. This is
the solution which has the greatest possibility of all rezoning
proposals under consideration for solving the problems
ccnfronti.^.g the neighborhood.
We still have serious concerns about traffic impact, traffic
safety, road placement, public park use and the quality of
building and designs. We believe that all of our remaining
concerns can be dealt with through further administrative review
of plans and plats for the area if the attached rezoning is
approved.
Thank you for your courtesy and patience. We urge you to
vote to rezone the land in accordance with the proposal presented
er 6, 1984.
1
7�7-
December 3,1984
To:Members of the Planning and zoning Commission
Civic. Center
Iowa City, Iowa
Each of the persons signing this letter is aneighbor tow the
Harlocke area. Almost all of the persons signing this
signatory to the original application for rezoning which
initiated the long process we have all gone through to seek a
j solution to the traffic and transition problems in the Harlocke
area.
till
eve
Although the s noftRSt51holdster thesgreatest1promisetfore
original requested zoninging
resolution of the problems which confront the area, the purpose
of this letter is to acknowledge the neighborhood'sill ngness
to support the combined RNC 20 and RS 12 zoning proposed
also
appthe
roved
on our staff asla8reasonableosolutionosed ztolthe concerns
approved by y
identified for the area. A proposed zoning map which was prepare
by the commission and staff is attached to this letter. This is
the solution which has the greatest possibility of all rezoning
proposals under consideration for solving the problems
confronting the neighborhood.
We still have serious concernsabout t afficthe impact,ty traffic
safety, road placement, public p
ark use building and designs. We believe that all of our remaining
concerns can be dealt with through further administrative review
of plans and plats for the area if the attached rezoning is
approved.
Thank you for your courtesy and patience. We urge you to
vote to rezone the land in accordance with the proposal presented
at public hear ng on Septemeber 6, 1984.3 ��' 5 , +�6 CL
9s� u S6 rC
07-1
/ I-IVUI"VJLU l%LLVPIl P1U
ALTER14ATIVE #5
**PLANNING & ZONING COIdMI55I0N
RECOMMENDATION --12/20/84
L
':Ity of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 10, 1985
To: City Council
From: Karin Franklin, Senior Plannerl�
Re: Termination of Harlocke Street as a cul-de-sac
Upon reaching the recommendation forwarded to the City Council regarding the
Harlocke Street area, the Planning and Zoning Commission further recommended
that the City Council decide that Harlocke Street should be terminated at its
Present extent in a cul-de-sac. This recommendation is intended to com-
Street by plement the RS -8 zoning designated for the west and east sides of Harlocke
further limiting
access directlyonto Harlocke t
Street and ultimately amount of traffic c travel d throughiathe
single-family neighborhood to the west on Weeber Street. The intention of
the Commission is that with any future development of this area any plat or
plan submitted to the City should be approved only if Harlocke Street is not
extended to the south but is terminated in a cul-de-sac.
The recommendation of the Commission is not supported by the staff. The
of the vacant topography of the undeveloped land in this area is hilly. The configuration
street patterns awhich providnd is such e sufficient ccesswith tare he difficuldtstosdesign ' To
further constrain the possible street patterns by creating a cul-de-sac on
the only existing access poi
in nt to this area is unwise and may create problems
the future for the complete development of this area. Appropriate
secondary access to whatever development does occur here may become impossi-
ble.
bdw4/1
7°z-
lona City, Iowa
We, the undersigned, being the owners of twenty percent or more either
of the area of the lots includod in such proposed change, or of those ininediately
adjacent in the rear thereof extending the depth of one lot or not to exceed
two hundred feet therefran, or of those directly opposite thereto, extending
the depth of one lot or not to exceed two hundred feet fran the street frontage
of such opposite lots do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property:
�� (a e(sp 7 0 S O- /-, Creast
9Lax Ll r Lvoo</s,
This petition is signed and aclmowledged by each of us with the intention
that such rezoning shall not became effective except by the favorable vote of
at least three-fourths of all the members of the council. in accordance with
9414.5 of the Code of Iowa.
�c04
I•. ��: )uty .N
c t �7R11(hRr(t s
?oy oa/c cxa,r
��oas�
rs(s) o Property Address
STATE OF I01YA )
ss:
JOHNSON NUNIY - ) /a1F��
On this // day o /i=, before me, the under 'gned, N
Pub 'c in and f said unty State, personally appear
to me Imown to be the identical person named i and
who e Led th thin and foregoing instnuoent and acknavledged that they
execut the same as their voluntary act and deed.
'Notary Public in and for the stite of Iowa
By:
Omers(s) of
Property Address
STATE OF IOIYA )
ss:
JOHNSON OOUNPY )
On this day of 1979, before no, the undersigned, a Notary
Public in and—for said County and State, personally appeared
and to me }mown to be the identical persons named in --and
who executed the within and foregoing instnumnt and acknow]edged that they
executed the sone as their voluntary act and deed.
UO LLNotaay Public in and for the State of Iowa
IAN 14 1985
MARIAN K. KARR
CITY CLERK (3) 7
70: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Iowa City, Iona
We, the undersigned, being the owners of twenty percent or more either
of the area of the lots included in such proposed change, or of those innaediately
adjacent in the rear thereof extending the depth of one lot or not to exceed
two hundred feet therefrom, or of those directly opposite thereto, extending
the depth of one lot or not to exceed two hundred feet from the street frontage
of such opposite lots do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property:
This petition is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the intention
that such rezoning shall not beccen effective except by the favorable vote of
at least three-fourths of all the roanbers of the council.in accordance with
@414.5 of the Code of Iowa.
1,��/ZY G , 2r6ccrc
u7m
IE j
STATE OF IOIVA )
ss:
JOHNWN CaWy " )
Jt5'
On this lq �day of a&,r� , 19w, before me, the unde)7p:1gned; a Not
Public in and fjor said County and State, personally appear�mL�n
an /� to me lmom to be the identical persons i 'and
wh ex uteri t within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they
executed the same as their voluntary act and deed. ."
Notary Public in and for the State of IL' a
By:
(Mmers(s) of
I Property Address
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSC1 COUNTY )
On this day of 1979, before me, the undersigned, a Notary
public in and for said County and State, personally appeared
and to me ]mown to be the identical persons named in and
i who executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they
executed the same as their voluntary act and deed.
201984
MARIAN K. KARR
CITY CLERK (3)
e
M
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
i3
i
a
'JO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
loua City, Iowa
We, the undersigned, being the owners of twenty percent or more either
of the area of the lots included in such proposed change, or of those inmediately
adjacent in the rear thereof extending the depth of one lot or not to exceed
two hundred feet therefrom, or of those directly opposite thereto, extending
the depth of one lot or not to exceed two hundred feet from the street frontage
of such opposite lotsdohereby protest the rexnni.ng of the following property:
I� ry J S IN b�Ic'-w CJS to'oiJlD+J k ✓1 ,J
Ibis petition is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the intention
that such rezoning shall not became effective except by the favorable vote of
at least three-fourths of all the msnbers of the council. in accordance with
®414.5 of the Code of Iowa.
4'2A
.�i
�-
STATE OF I01VA )
P 1 cI OA kC CUt-C�
D0 S), dAicc✓w�%
Property Address
) ss:
JOHNSON OOIJNTY ' )
4V /265'
On this J day o -WW, before me, the undersigned, a Notary
Public in and or said County and State, personally appeared ,11C' IJILa�s61 v
and u,u e, Mt1 -7?.1l3Ca6 to me known to be the identical persons named in and
who executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they
executed the same as their voluntary act and deed.
Notary Public in and foci—the'State of Iowa
Owners(s) of
Property Address
STATE OF IOWA )
ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this day of , 1979, before me, the undersigned, a Notary
Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared
and to me known to be the identical persons named in and
who executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they
executed the sone as their voluntary act and deed.
PIM
,IAN 15 1985
MARIAN K. KARR
CITY CLERK (3)
Notary Public in and for the Slate of Iowa
0
70: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Iowa City, Iowa
We, the undersigned, being the owners of twenty percent or more either
of the area of the lots included in such proposed change, or of those innmediately
adjacent in the rear thereof extending the depth of one lot or not to exceed
two hundred feet therefrom, or of those directly opposite thereto, extending
the depth of one lot or not to exceed two hundred feet from the street frontage
of such opposite lots do hereby protest the reyoning of the following property:
'lois petition is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the intention
that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of
at least three-fourths of all the manbers of the council.in accordance with
I
9914.5 of the Code of Iowa.
I
/4(,)V%er Property Addresss`(s) of
SPATE OF 1011A )
) ss:
JOHNWN COON1'1' )
On this 1.f'day of t/ :L99-,S� before me, the undersigned, a o ary
Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared UL��<[
and/n C( yii� /i �/llZA '/to me ]mown to be the identical perso S n red in and
who "ex—ec'Tted
the wiTn n and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they
executed the same as their voluntary act and deed.
I
Notary Public in and for.the State of Iowa
By:
Oaners(s) of
Property Address
SFATE OF 1014A >
ss:
JOHNSON OYJM )
On this day of 1979, before me, the undersigned, a Notary
Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared
and to Re known to be the identical persons named in and
who executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they
executed the smne as their voluntary act and deed.
u W U d E I Notar public in and for the State of Iowa
JAN 15 1985
MARIAN K. KARR
CITY CLERK (3)
q3
To: Mayor John McDonald and the Iowa City Council Members
Recently we were informed of the pending downzoning of our property -
923 Harlocke Street. This proposed change will mean suffering another
substantial loss of our single family home.
The first loss occurred thirteen years ago when we found ourselves
sandwiched between several multiple dwellings on our block. All of these
years we tolerated the noise and property damage, let alone the never ending
aesthetics problem of living next to apartment buildings, thinking that we
still had something valuable - the land under our home.
We support our neighbors in not wanting more large scale apartment
buildings. The lives of almost fifty children are at stake as the area was
not designed to handle large scale traffic volume. We agree with our
neighbors in downzoning undeveloped property adjacent to the Harlocke-Weeber
neighborhood.
We do feel that a change from Rh,44 which our home is now, to RS 8 is a
change which is not consistent to the rest of the buildings on our block.
If our home ever burned down under RS 8 we could never build anything more
than a single family home again. We would like to have the option of
building a duplex, therefore we support the zoning of RS 12 for the west
side of Harlocke Street.
Please consider the consequences with RS 8 and allow us RS 12 zoning.
Thank you for any consideration you could offer us for our zoning problem.
Sincerely yours,
41pioa
A..H. Niederecker
iedereck�Z
923 Harlocke Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
73
BARKER, CRUISE & KENNEDY
LAWYERS
CHARLES A. BARKER 911 IOWA AVENUE - P.O. BOX 2000
JOHN O. CRUISE IOWA CITY, IOWA AREA CODE 919
MICHAEL W. KENNEDY 82244 TELEPHONE 901.8101
JAMES D. HOUGHTON
DAVIS L FOSTER
ANN M. CRUISE
I
jJanuary 15, 1985
U
i JAI'l 151985
MARIAN K. KARR
City Council of Iowa City CITY CLERK (3)
Civic Center
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Re: Charles Ruppert - Proposed Rezoning of Harlocke and
Weeber Street Area (Z-8415)
Councilpersons:
I
I am writing this letter on behalf of my client, Charles
Ruppert. Charles Ruppert owns a tract of land that fronts on I
Highway One (see copy of map attached). The Ruppert parcel is
currently zoned RM -44. The proposed rezoning would down zone
j the property to RS -8 and RM -12. This is obviously a major
rezoning and change in the use of the property. Charles
Ruppert objects to the proposed rezoning for the following rea-
sons:
1. The property has been in the Ruppert family for
decades and has been held for at least the last
twenty years for high density development. This plan
of high density development is consistent with the
current zoning ordinance and previous zoning
ordinances.
2. The City has just recently undergone a complete revi-
sion of the zoning ordinance and it was determined
the property should be zoned high density (RM -44).
The current ordinance was years in the making and is
the result of numerous studies, reports and public
hearings. It was determined by the planning staff
73
City Council
Page -2-
January 15, 1985
and Council that the property should be zoned RM -44.
In addition, I am not aware of any objections being
raised at any of the public hearings in connection
with the zoning of the Ruppert parcel. Even though
the new zoning ordinance is hardly one year old there
is a proposal to rezone 20 to 30 acres.
3. Rezoning the property RS-8/RM-12 would not comply
with the comprehensive plan as adopted by the City of
Iowa City.
I 4. Charles Ruppert cannot develop the parcel to a high
density without large-scale residential approval.
The City can adequately determine at the time an
application is filed if there would be any traffic/
safety problems. If there are problems, I assume the
development would not be approved just as other devel-
opments which pose traffic/safety problems have not
been approved.
5. The obvious access to any Ruppert development would
i be off of Highway One. Certainly the City could reg-
ulate any large-scale development of the Ruppert prop-
erty so that the primary access is off Highway one
and not through the Harlocke-weeber Street area.
6. Upon the passing of the zoning ordinance in December
of 1983, the Rupperts began proceedings to develop
the land in keeping with the ordinance and the RM -44
zoning. Those plans were well along and pretty well
formulated when this particular situation arose. The
Rupperts reasonably relied upon the ordinance only to
find that the rug is being pulled out from beneath
them. I have advised the Rupperts that it may be
possible to take some legal action based on the
theory of Estoppel.
7. It seems a bit ironic that the City is asking the
Rupperts to make concessions on the east end of their
property, along Miller Avenue, so that a park can be
established and at the same time proposing a down
zoning of their land on the west end which would cost
them tremendous sums of money.
Charles Ruppert objects to the proposed rezoning. The
matter has already been studied, reviewed and talked about for
years and the decision as to the proper zoning was made with
the new zoning ordinance. A zoning ordinance does not serve
_. 73
,3r
I,
�.
i
.
I
i
�..
,
I
:'I
i. _ ..
�
.. �::
i
�
j
,
1
. ,, ., '.
_i
i
1
I
i
�
': a.
Yi
Y
J
.. - rs• Vii;
F�
flT:�I TQM STMCT'r
I
1 1
I f
RM; 4
1 � 4
1 W
M
714
RM -20 RS -ORM 20
1
� I 1
RS-5//17A1N1� � l CC -2
/ PROPOSED REZONING
ALTERNATIVE 05
"*PLANNING d ZOIIING COMMISSION
' RECOMMENDATION --12/20/84
i
1
i
i
I
1
i
i
i
i
I
I
i
i
BARKER, CRUISE & KENNEDY
LAWYERS
CHARLES A. BARKER 911 IOWA AVENUE -P.O. BOX 2000
JOHN D. CRUISE IOWA CITY, IOWA AREA CODE 910
MICHAEL W. KENNEDY 32244 TELEPHONE 381.8181
JAMES D. HOUGHTON
DAVIS L FOSTER
ANN M. CRUISE
January 15, 1985
! 1 51985
MARIAN K. KARR
City Council of Iowa City CITY CLERK (3)
Civic Center
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Re: Charles Ruppert - Recommendation of Planning and
Zoning Commission to Terminate Harlocke Street in
Cul -de -Sac
Councilpersons:
I am writing this letter on behalf. of Charles Ruppert.
Mr. Ruppert objects to the recommendation of the Planning and
Zoning Commission to terminate Harlocke Street in a cul-de-sac.
Mr. Ruppert was receptive to such a concept if his property was
to remain RM -44 except for the 6 or 8 lots around the cul-de-sac.
However, a cul-de-sac is not acceptable to Mr. Ruppert if his
property is being down zoned to RS -B and RM -12. The Planning
Commission's recommendation serves no purpose at this time
unless the City is willing to condemn a portion of the Ruppert
property for street purposes.
The Planning staff does not support the recommendation due
to the terrain of the property and current traffic patterns.
I believe it is premature for the City to determine that a
cul-de-sac is necessary. The City will have ample time to
review the situation and determine if a cul-de-sac is necessary
at the time the Ruppert parcel is developed.
CAB/tow
04/3-04-122
very truly yours,
Oh,a Qa 4. %(.Ltil',al.% ti r
Charles A. Barker
Nty of Iowa City—
MEMORANDUM
Date: December 10, 1984
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Marianne Milkman, Associate Planner 0
Re: CZ -8431. Rezoning of 1.0 acres from Al to RS in Johnson County
The County has received a request from Larry D. Fry for the rezoning of
1.0 acres northeast of Iowa City from Al (Rural) to RS (Residential).
The property consists of a 1.0 acre parcel on the south side of Rapid
Creek Road, approximately 1.5 miles east of the intersection with Highway
1. The property in question is included in Area 4 of the Johnson
County/Iowa City Fringe Area Policy Agreement.
Section IIA.3 of the Agreement states "Each request for zoning -of property
within Areas specified in this Agreement will be forwarded to the City for
review and comment prior to the public hearing before the County Zoning
Commission. Any zoning change will conform with the policies identified
for the area in which the requested change is located." The policy for
Area 4 is that "Residential. development in this area should be discour-
aged, and encouraged to take place in Area 3 and other parts of the County
zoned for Residential development. Agricultural use is the preferred use
in Area 4. Residential uses for farm family purposes will be considered
depending on soil and site conditions."
Since the requested rezoning is not for a residential use for farm family
purposes, the staff finds that the requested zoning is inconsistent with
the policy stated for Area 4. %
7
Approved by:
i
D nald Sc eiser, Director
Department of Planning and
Program Development
tpl/5
75-
I
I
_ I
Nty of Iowa City—
MEMORANDUM
Date: December 10, 1984
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Marianne Milkman, Associate Planner 0
Re: CZ -8431. Rezoning of 1.0 acres from Al to RS in Johnson County
The County has received a request from Larry D. Fry for the rezoning of
1.0 acres northeast of Iowa City from Al (Rural) to RS (Residential).
The property consists of a 1.0 acre parcel on the south side of Rapid
Creek Road, approximately 1.5 miles east of the intersection with Highway
1. The property in question is included in Area 4 of the Johnson
County/Iowa City Fringe Area Policy Agreement.
Section IIA.3 of the Agreement states "Each request for zoning -of property
within Areas specified in this Agreement will be forwarded to the City for
review and comment prior to the public hearing before the County Zoning
Commission. Any zoning change will conform with the policies identified
for the area in which the requested change is located." The policy for
Area 4 is that "Residential. development in this area should be discour-
aged, and encouraged to take place in Area 3 and other parts of the County
zoned for Residential development. Agricultural use is the preferred use
in Area 4. Residential uses for farm family purposes will be considered
depending on soil and site conditions."
Since the requested rezoning is not for a residential use for farm family
purposes, the staff finds that the requested zoning is inconsistent with
the policy stated for Area 4. %
7
Approved by:
i
D nald Sc eiser, Director
Department of Planning and
Program Development
tpl/5
75-
t
'pity of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: December 10, 1984
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Marianne Milkman, Associate Planner
Re: CZ -8432. Rezoning of 1.2 acres from Al to RS in Johnson County
The County has received a request from Grant and Wanda Pickering and John
and Margaret Sohm and signed by Richard Brown, for the rezoning of 1.2
acres north of Iowa City from Al (Rural) to RS (Residential). The
property consists of a single 1.2 acre parcel east of County Road F8W and
approximately 1.5 miles north of Iowa City. The property in question is
included in Area 4 of the Johnson County/Iowa City Fringe Area Policy
Agreement.
Section IIA.3 of the Agreement states "Each request for zoning of property
within Areas specified in this Agreement will be forwarded to the City for
review and comment prior to the public hearing before the County Zoning
Commission. Any zoning change will conform with the policies identified
for the area in which the requested change is located." The policy for
Area 4 is that "Residential development in this area should be discour-
aged, and encouraged to take place in Area 3 and other parts of the County
zoned for Residential development. Agricultural use is the preferred use
in Area 4. Residential uses for farm family purposes will be considered
depending on soil and site conditions."
Since the requested rezoning is not for a residential use for farm family
purposes, the staff finds that the re uested zoning is inconsistent with
the policy stated for Area 4.
tpl/4
Approved by:
nt of Plann
Development
74
I
i
'pity of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: December 10, 1984
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Marianne Milkman, Associate Planner
Re: CZ -8432. Rezoning of 1.2 acres from Al to RS in Johnson County
The County has received a request from Grant and Wanda Pickering and John
and Margaret Sohm and signed by Richard Brown, for the rezoning of 1.2
acres north of Iowa City from Al (Rural) to RS (Residential). The
property consists of a single 1.2 acre parcel east of County Road F8W and
approximately 1.5 miles north of Iowa City. The property in question is
included in Area 4 of the Johnson County/Iowa City Fringe Area Policy
Agreement.
Section IIA.3 of the Agreement states "Each request for zoning of property
within Areas specified in this Agreement will be forwarded to the City for
review and comment prior to the public hearing before the County Zoning
Commission. Any zoning change will conform with the policies identified
for the area in which the requested change is located." The policy for
Area 4 is that "Residential development in this area should be discour-
aged, and encouraged to take place in Area 3 and other parts of the County
zoned for Residential development. Agricultural use is the preferred use
in Area 4. Residential uses for farm family purposes will be considered
depending on soil and site conditions."
Since the requested rezoning is not for a residential use for farm family
purposes, the staff finds that the re uested zoning is inconsistent with
the policy stated for Area 4.
tpl/4
Approved by:
nt of Plann
Development
74
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.
84-3166, THE IOWA CITY PLUMBING CODE, BY
ADOPTING APPENDIX C OF THE UNIFORM
PLUMBING CODE, 1982 ADDITION, AND AMENDING
CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE IOWA'CITY PLUMBING
CODE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I.' PURPOSE. The purpose of
this ordinance is to amend the 1982
Edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code
previously adopted as the Iowa City
Plumbing Code (Ordinance No. 84-3166) in
order to provide for more effective
enforcement of the Plumbing Code.
SECTION II. ADOPTION. Section II of
Or nance o. is hereby deleted
and the following is adopted in lieu
thereof: Subject to the amendments
described in Section III, below, and in
Section III of Ordinance No. 84-3166,
Chapters 1 through 13, and Appendix C. of
the 1982 Edition of the Uniform Plumbing
Code promulgated by the International As-
sociation of Plumbing and Mechanical
Officials are hereby adopted, and shall be
known as the Iowa City Plumbing Code, or
the Plumbing Code.
SECTION III. AMENDMENTS. The Plumbing
Coe IS hereby amended as ollows;
1. Section 401(a) is amended by deleting
subsection (2) and adding a new
subsection (2) reading in its entirety
as follows:
(2) ABS and PVC pipes and fittings
shall be marked to show confor-
mance with the standards in the
code. ABS and PVC installations
are limited to construction not
exceeding the following condi-
tions:
(A) No vertical stack shall exceed
thirty-five feet in height. No
horizontal branch shall exceed
fifteen feet in length.
(B) All installations shall be made
in accordance with the manufac-
turer's recomnendations.
(C) Installations shall not be made
in any space where the surround-
ing temperature will exceed 1400
or in any construction or space
where combustible materials are
a
Ordini No.
Page 2
prohibited by any applicable
building code or regulation or in
any licensed institutional
occupancy except where special
conditions require other than
metal pipe, i.e., in acid waste
or deionized water systems,
plastic pipe and other materials
may be approved by the adminis-
trative authority.
(0) No plastic pipe shall be installed
underground.
NOTE: Installation of ABS and PVC
piping beyond the limits of (A) may be
approved by the administrative
authority for a particular case when
certified by a professional engineer.
2. Table 4-3 is amended 'by deleting
reference to footnote 3 for vent
piping maximum units of 1-1/2 inch
(38.1 mm) pipe size.
3. Section 502 is amended by deleting
subsection (a) and adding new subsec-
tions (a), (c) and (d) as follows:
(a) No vent will be required on a
three-inch basement floor drain
provided its drain branches into
the house drain on the sewer side
at a distance of five feet or
more from the base of the stack
and the branch line to such floor
i drain is not more than 12 feet in
length.
(c) In single- and two-family
dwellings no vent will be
required on a two-inch basement P
trap, provided the drain branches
into a properly vented house
drain or branch three inches or
larger, on the sewer side at a
distance of five feet or more
from the base of the stack and
the branch to such P trap is not
more than eight feet in length.
In buildings of one interval,
where only a lavatory, sink or
urinal empties into the stack,
the five foot distance from the
base of the stack does not
apply.
rN
Ordint No.
Page 3
(d) Where permitted by the Adminis-
trative Authority, vent piping
may be omitted on basement water
closets in remodeling of existing
construction only.
4. Section 503(a) is amended by deleting
subsection (2) and adding a new
subsection (2) reading in its entirety
as follows:
(2) ABS and PVC pipes and. fittings
shall be marked to show confor-
mance with the standards in the
Code. ABS and PVC installations
are limited to construction no
exceeding the following condi-
(a) sNo vertical stack shall
exceedthirty-five feet in
{ height. No horizontal branch
shall exceed fifteen feet in
I (b) Allgtinstallations shall be
made in accordance with the
manufacturer's recommenda-
tions.
(c) Installations shall not be
made in any space where the
surrounding temperature will
exceed 1400 or in any con-
struction or space where
combustible materials are
prohibited by any applicable
building code or fire
regulation or in any
licensed institutional
occupancy except where
special conditions require
other than metal pipe, i.e.
in acid waste or deionized
water systems, plastic pipe
or other materials may be
approved by the administra-
tive authority.
(d) No plastic pipe shall be in-
stalled underground.
NOTE: Installation of ABS and PVC
piping beyond the limits of (a) may be
approved by the administrative
authority for a particular case when
certified by a professional engineer.
5. Section 613 is amended by adding a new
subsection (d) to read as follows:
M
Ordin. No.
Page 4
(d) The following wet venting
conditions are given as examples
of common conditions used in
residential construction which
are allowed under this code,
provided the piping sizes are
maintained as required by other
sections of this code and the wet
vented section is vertical.
(1) Single bathroom groups. A
group of fixtures located on
the same floor level may be
group vented but such in-
stallations shall be subject
to the following limita-
tions:
(a) Two fixtures with a
combined total of four
fixture units may drain
into the vent of a three
inch closet branch.
(b) One fixture of two or
less units may drain
into a vent of a one and
one-half inch bathtub
waste pipe.
(c) Two fixtures of two or
less units each may
drain into the vent of a
two-inch bathtub waste
serving two or less tubs
providing that they
drain into the vent at
the same location.
(2) A single bathroom group of
fixtures on the top floor
may be installed with the
drain from a back -vented
lavatory serving as a wet
vent for a bathtub or shower
stall and for the water
closet, provided that:
(a) Not more than one
fixture unit is drained
into a one and one-half
inch diameter wet vent
or not more than four
fixture units drain
into a two-inch
diameter wet vent.
(b) The horizontal branch
shall be a minimum of
two inches and connect
to the stack at the
m
Ordin .e No.
Page 5
same level as the water
( closet drain or below
the water closet drain
when installed on the
i top floor. It may also
connect to the water
closet arm.
(3) Common vent. A common vent
may be used for two fixtures
set on the same floor level
but connecting at different
levels in the stack provid-
ing the vertical drain is
one pipe size larger than
the upper fixture drain but
in no case smaller than the
lower fixture drain.
(4) Double bathroom group. Where
bathrooms or water closets
or other fixtures are
i located on opposite sides of
a wall or partition or are
adjacent to each other
j within the prescribed
distance such fixtures may
have a common soil or waste
pipe and common vent. Water
closets having a common soil
and vent stack shall drain
into the stack at the same
level.
(5) Basement closets. Basement
closets or floor drain in
one -and two-family dwellings
may be vented by the waste
line from a first floor sink
or lavatory having a one and
one-half inch waste and vent
pipe.
6. Section XI of Ordinance No. 84-3166 is
deleted and the following is inserted
in lieu thereof:
Renewals. Every license which has
not previously been revoked shall
expire on December 31st of each
year. Renewal fees shall be as
established by Council. Any
license that has expired may be
reinstated within sixty days after
the expiration, date upon payment of
an additional ten dollar reinstate-
ment fee. After the expiration of
a
Ordinance No.
Page 6
the aforementioned sixty-day period
no license shall be renewed except
upon recommendation of the board.
SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinances
an pars o or inances in conflict with
the provision of this ordinance are hereby
repealed.
SECTION V. SEVERABILITY. If any
sec ion, provision or par of the Ordi-
sha
nance all be adjudged to be the
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 Or-
dinance s a a in a ec after its final
passage, approval and publication as
required by law.
Passed and approved this
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Received 3 Approved
H 'Oral Cepe M
Iz 6/�
0
ORDINANCE NO85-3220
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 15-48 AND
15-62(A) OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES,
RELATING TO REFUSE COLLECTION, TO LIMIT
PLACEMENT OF REFUSE CONTAINERS AND TO
CLARIFY THAT ONLY COMBINATIONS OF FOUR OR
FEWER DWELLING UNITS WILL RECEIVE REFUSE
PICKUP SERVICE
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I. PURPOSE. The purpose of
this Ordinance is 5 -prohibit commercial
solid waste containers (e.g., dumpsters)
in front of buildings, and to clarify the
City's refuse collection requirements to
provide that the City's residential refuse
collection service will only be provided
to aggregations containing four or fewer
dwelling units;
SECTION II. AMENDMENTS. Chapter 15 of
the Iowa City Munic'ip—a7 Code entitled
"Garbage, Trash and Refuse" is hereby
amended as follows:
A. Section 15-48 is hereby repealed
and the following i,s adopted in
lieu thereof:
Section 15-48. Same - location.
Residential solid waste containers
shall be stored upon private
property. Commercial solid waste
containers shall be stored upon
private property unless the owner
shall have been granted written
permission from the City to use
public property for such purposes.
The storage site shall be well -
drained; fully accessible to
collection equipment, public health
personnel and fire inspection
personnel. Except as provided in
Section 15-62(d), commercial solid
waste containers shall not be
placed in the area between the
building and the street right-of-
way. Also, containers located
within fifty (50) feet of a street
right-of-way must be screened from
view from such right-of-way.
/D T
Ordin a Ho. 8s-3220
Page
B. Subsection 15-62(a) is hereby
repealed
and the following is
adopted
in lieu thereof:
(a)
Residential: four or
fewer dwelling units.
Once per week, as reasona-
bly possible, the City
shall collect all resi-
dential solid waste
resulting from the opera-
tion and maintenance of
four (4) or fewer dwelling
units. for purposes of this
Chapter,
(1) two (2) rooming units
shall be deemed the
equivalent of one
dwelling unit.
(2) any of
.aggregation
more than four (4)
apartment, townhouse,
condominium or cooper-
ative dwelling units
on one lot, or on
contiguous lots, shall
be deemed to be a
multiple housing
facility with more
than four dwelling
units, regardless of
whether or not such
units are under one
roof or are jointly
owned, operated or
maintained.
This residential solid
waste collection shall be
mandatory, and private
collection shall not be
allowed. The city may
establish a reasonable fee
for this service by
resolution. Home busi-
nesses otherwise meeting
the requirements of this
subsection shall also
receive residential solid
waste collection service
provided that the residen-
tial use is the primary
use, and further provided
that there shall be no sign
on the premises concerning
the business use larger
than one square foot in
area. The director may
/a�
Ordin' 9 No85-3220 `
Page o
exempt qualifying dwellings
from the operation of this
subsection if he/she finds
that the solid waste from
the dwelling is being
collected along with
commercial solid'waste from
an abutting establishment,
when the dwelling and the
establishment are part of
one complex of buildings
serving a unified purpose.
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 Ordi-
nance 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 Ordi-
nance shall be in effect after its final
passage, approval and publication as
required by law.
Passed and approved this 15th. day of
January, 1985.
ATTEST:
I;"coh•sd & Approval
B, Tho Lnd Doparhnenl
i
a
It was moved by Zuber and seconded by Dickson
that the Ordinance as rea a adopted and upon ro ca ere
were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
X AMBRISCO
BAKER
DICKSON
x EROAHL
MCDONALD
STRAIT
ZUBER
First consideration 12/4/84
Vote for passage: Ayes: Dickson, Erdahl, McDonald,
Strait, Ambrisco, Baker, Nays: None. Absent: Zuber.
Second consideration 17/18/R4
Vote for passage Ayes: Dickso, Erdahl, McDonald, Strait, Zuber
Ambrisco, Baker . Nays: None
Date published January 23rd., 1985
/o4"
U
ORDINANCE N6.85-3221
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 23-189 OF
THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF IOWA CITY TO CHANGE
SPEED LIMITS ON PARTS OF MELROSE AVENUE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA:
M! SECTION I. PURPOSE. The purpose of this
is to amend Section 23-189 of
the municipal code of Iowa City to reflect
changes in the speed limit of Melrose
Avenue as determined by the engineering
studies conducted by the Traffic Engi-
neering Division.
SECTION II. AMENDMENT. Section 23-189 is
hereby repealed and the following new
Section 23-189 is adopted in lieu thereof:
Sec. 23-189. Exceptions to speed
limits.
Upon the basis of an engineering and
traffic investigation, the following
maximum speed limits are hereby determined
and declared reasonable on the following
streets or portions of streets, when signs
are erected giving notice thereof.
Benton Street 35 From the intersec-
tion of Keswick
Drive to the
intersection of
Mormon Trek.
Dubuque Street 35 From a point just
northbound north of the
intersection with
Kimball Road north
to the city limits.
Dubuque Street 35 From a point eight
southbound hundred (800) feet
north of the
intersection of
Foster Drive to a
point three hundred
(300) feet north of
the intersection of
Park Road.
Dubuque Street 45 From the city limits
southbound south to a point
eight hundred (800)
feet north of the
intersection of
Foster Drive.
los
I
i
U
ORDINANCE N6.85-3221
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 23-189 OF
THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF IOWA CITY TO CHANGE
SPEED LIMITS ON PARTS OF MELROSE AVENUE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA:
M! SECTION I. PURPOSE. The purpose of this
is to amend Section 23-189 of
the municipal code of Iowa City to reflect
changes in the speed limit of Melrose
Avenue as determined by the engineering
studies conducted by the Traffic Engi-
neering Division.
SECTION II. AMENDMENT. Section 23-189 is
hereby repealed and the following new
Section 23-189 is adopted in lieu thereof:
Sec. 23-189. Exceptions to speed
limits.
Upon the basis of an engineering and
traffic investigation, the following
maximum speed limits are hereby determined
and declared reasonable on the following
streets or portions of streets, when signs
are erected giving notice thereof.
Benton Street 35 From the intersec-
tion of Keswick
Drive to the
intersection of
Mormon Trek.
Dubuque Street 35 From a point just
northbound north of the
intersection with
Kimball Road north
to the city limits.
Dubuque Street 35 From a point eight
southbound hundred (800) feet
north of the
intersection of
Foster Drive to a
point three hundred
(300) feet north of
the intersection of
Park Road.
Dubuque Street 45 From the city limits
southbound south to a point
eight hundred (800)
feet north of the
intersection of
Foster Drive.
los
Ordine' (Jo.
85- 3221
Page 2
First Avenue
25 From the intersec-
tion of Bradford
Drive south to the
intersection of U.S.
Highway 6.
Gilbert Street
30 From the intersec-
tion of Burlington
to the intersection
of Highway 6.
Gilbert Street
25 From the intersec-
tion with Highway 6
to a point two
thousand one hundred
(2,100) feet south
of said intersec-
tion.
Gilbert Street
35 From a point two
thousand one hundred
(2,100) feet south
of the intersection
with Highway 6 to a
point three thousand
nine hundred (3,900)
feet south from said
intersection.
Iowa Highway 1
55 From the city limits
east to a point
eight hundred (800)
feet west of the
intersection of
Miller Avenue.
Iowa Highway 1
45 From a point eight
hundred (800) feet
west of the inter-
section of Miller
Avenue to a point
five hundred (500)
feet east of Hudson
Avenue.
Iowa Highway 1
30 From a point five
hundred (500) feet
east of Hudson
Avenue to the
intersection of U.S.
Highway 6, 218 and
Highway 1.
/ds
/Q.S
Ordinf'__'i No -m-3221
Pages
Iowa Highway 1
25
From its inter -
(Burlington St.)
section with
6
Highways 218 and
to a point 150 feet
j
east of Van Buren
St.
Iowa Highway 1
45
From the intersec-
tion of N. Dubuque
Road to a point six
hundred (600) feet
south of the city
limits.
Iowa Highway 1
55
From a six
1
hundred (600)t feet
south of the city
limits to the city
limits.
Melrose Avenue
35
From the intersec-
tion with Emerald
`
Street west to the
{
west city limits.
Mormon Trek
35
From the intersec-
tion of Melrose
Avenue to the city
limits.
Muscatine Avenue
35
From a point one
hundred (100) feet
east of the inter-
section with Juniper
Drive to the city
limits.
Park Road
25
o the intersec-
tionRocky
with
Shore Drive east to
I
the intersection
with North Dubuque
I
Street.
Rochester Avenue
35
From the intersec-
q
tion with First
I
Avenue east to the
city limits.
Rohret Road
35
From the intersec-
tion with Mormon
Trek Boulevard west
to the City limits.
/Q.S
Ordinr�, No.85-3221
Page 4
Sycamore Street 30
From the intersec-
tion with U.S.
Highway 6 south to
Gleason Avenue.
Sycamore Street 30
From the intersec-
tion with Burns
Avenue south to the
city limits.
U.S. Highway 6 55
From the city
limits to a point
one hundred (100)
feet east of
Industrial Park
Road.
U.S. Highway 6 45
From a point one
hundred (100) feet
east of Industrial
Park Road to a
point seven hundred
(700) feet east of
the intersections
of U.S. Highway 6,
U.S. Highway 218
and Iowa Highway
1.
U.S. Highway 6 30
From a point seven
hundred (700) feet
east of the
intersection of
U.S. Highways 6,
218 and Iowa
Highway 1 west and
north to a point
one thousand one
hundred fifty
(1,150) feet west
of the intersection
with Riverside
Drive.
U.S. Highway 6 35
From a point one
thousand one
hundred fifty
(1,150) feet west
of the intersection
with Riverside
Drive, west to the
city limits.
/aS
Ordin —'a No. 85-3221
Page b
U.S. Highway 218 50 From tthetosouathpnt city
limione thousand six
hundred (1,600)
feet north of the
south city limits.
U.S. Highway 218 45 From a point one
thousand six
hundred (1,600)
feet north of the
south city limits
to a point eight
hundred (800) feet
south of the
intersection with
U.S. Highway 6 and
Iowa Highway I.
U.S. Highway 218 30 From a point eight
hundred (800) feet
south of the
intersection with
U.S. Highway 6 and
Iowa Highway 1
north to the
intersection with
U.S. Highway 6 and
Iowa Highway 1.
SECTION III. REPEALER. All ordinances and
part;of ordinances in conflict with the
provision of this ordinance are hereby
repealed.
SECTION IV. SEVERABILITY. If any
section, provision or part of the Ordi-
nance shall be adjudged to be invalid or
unconstitutional, such adjudication shall
not affect the validity of the Ordinnce
as a whole or any section, provision
part thereof not adjudged invalid or
unconstitutional.
SECTION V. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordi-
nance s a ra fecT after its and publication inal
as
passage, approval
required by law.
Passed and approved this 15th. day of
January, 1985.
M OR
ATTEST: IZlat
CITY CLERK
Nooved a APPS
6y Tho Lego Deparimen!
11 iL 4—
/o.S
It was moved by Zuber and seconded by Ambrisco
that the Ordinance as rea a adopted and upon ro ca ere
were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
X AMBRISCO
BAKER
DICKSON
X ERDAHL
X MCDONALD
X STRAIT
X ZUBER
First consideration 12/4/94
Vote for passage:
Ayes: Erdahl, McDonald, Strait, Ambrisco, Baker, Dickson
Nays: None
Absent: Zuber
Second consideration 12/18/84
Vote for passage
Ayes: Erdahl, McDonald, Strait, Zuber, Ambrisco, Baker, Dickson
Nays: None
Date published Januaa 23rd.. 1985
10.