HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-07-16 OrdinanceORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SIGN REGULATIONS
OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT FACIA
SIGNS TO COVER 15% OF THE SIGN WALL AREA.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I. PURPOSE. In order to allow
full usage of te wilding signage allow-
ance, particularly in covered malls and
other structures in which window and
awning signs are not practical, this
ordinance allows the use of facia signs to
meet the maximum building signage allow-
ance of 15%.
SECTION II. AMENDMENT. The following
sections of t egn egulations adopted
by Ordinance 85-3226 are amended as
follows:
Sec. 36-62(c)(2)c.2.a be deleted and
the following inserted in lieu thereof:
a. Sign: Facia.
Maximum area: Fifteen percent
(15%) of the sign wail area.
Maximum height: None.
Sec. 36-62(c)(3)c.2.a. be deleted and
the following inserted in lieu thereof:
a. Sign: Facia.
Maximum area: Fifteen percent
(15%) of the sign wall area.
Maximum height: None.
Sec. 36-62(c)(4)c.2.a. be deleted and
the following inserted in lieu thereof:
a. Sign: Facia.
Maximum area: Fifteen percent
(15%) of the sign wall area.
Maximum height: None.
Sec. 36-62(c)(5)c.2.a. be deleted and
the following inserted in lieu thereof:
a. Sign: Facia.
Maximum area: Fifteen percent
(15%) of the sign wall area.
Maximum height: None.
Sec. 36-62(c) (6)c.2.a. be deleted and
the following inserted in lieu thereof:
a. Sign: Facia.
Maximum area: Fifteen percent
(15%) of the sign wall area.
Maximum height: None.
SECTION III. CERTIFICATION. The City
er s ere y au or ze o certify said
amendment upon passage and approval by law
and record same at the Johnson County
Recorder's Office.
/a? 9/
I
Ordinance No.
Page 2
SECTION IV. REPEALER: All ordinances and
parts of ordinances in conflict with the
provision of this ordinance are hereby
repealed.
SECTION V. SEVERABILITY: If any section,
provision or par o e Ordinance shall
be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitu-
tional, 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 GATE: This Ordi-
nance s a e n e ec a ter its final
passage, approval and publication as
required by law.
Passed and approved this
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
ey Th Legal DcP rtnwnt
I
i
r City of Iowa C y
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 14, 1985
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Karin Franklin, Senior Planne
Re: Amendment to Sign Regulations - Facia Signs
In all commercial and industrial zones, the maximum building signage
allowance is 15% of a building wall. This 15% coverage can be comprised
of facia, window, awning and canopy signs. As currently written, facia
signs can occupy no more than 10% of the sign wall. The remaining 5%, if
used, must be occupied by other building signs - window, awning, or canopy
signs.
There are some businesses in Iowa City that are located in buildings in
which window, awning and canopy signs are not possible or practical.
Covered malls, such as the Sycamore Mall, present such a case. These
businesses would like to utilize the full building signage allowance
permitted. The proposed amendment to the Code is to increase the maximum
allowable coverage for facia signs to 15%. The total building sign
coverage will not increase;. it will remain at 15%. The amendment will
allow businesses the flexibility ,of using their total building sign
allowance of 15% for facia signs alone and not restrict them to using a
combination of types of signs to utilize the 15% coverage allowance. A
draft amendment is attached.
tp5/1
I
0
�b ..
I L E D RECEIVEDJUL 151985
JUL 151985
CITY CLERK
� I '
r July 10, 1985
Mr. John McDonald
Mayor
City of Iowa City
Civic Center
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Re: Sycamore Mall
Dear Mayor McDonald:
I am writing to you and the City Counsel of Iowa City in support of
a change in the Iowa City Sign Ordinance which would permit facia
signs up to 15% of a front wall of a building.
I work for J.M.B. Property Management Corp., and I am serving as the
manager of the Sycamore Mall.
Since the Sycamore Mall does not have windows, we believe that the
Iowa City Sign Ordinance should be amended to permit facia signs
up to 15% of the front wall of the building. Effectively, our
property cannot use canopies, window signs or awnings.
We believe that an amendment to the Iowa City Sign Ordinance which
would permit facia signs up to 15% would allow our property to use
the same amount of signage as other similar properties.
Since we do have existing tenants who would like to erect signs, your
prompt consideration of this amendment would be appreciated.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Very 1 yours,
Da may
` Property Manager
DAT/dm
I
. 1
J
i
i
i
I
i
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE
SIGN REGULATIONS.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, THAT:
SECTION I. AMENDMENT. Sections
3 - 1 d)(1) and 3 - 2(a)(2)b are hereby
amended by the following:
Sec. 36-61. Definitions.
(d)(1) Development sign. A sign desig-
nating the name of a large scale
residential or non-residential
development, as defined in Chapter
27 of the Code of Ordinances, or
of a subdivision consisting of two
(2) acres or more.
Sec. 36-62. Permitted signs.
(a)(2)b. Development signs. One (1)
monument sign in ID and R zones
and one (1) monument or
free-standing sign in other
zones shall be permitted at each
street entrance to a large scale
development or a subdivision,
provided the following require-
ments are met:
1. In ID and R zones, the sign
shall not exceed a total area
of 64 square feet, 32 square
feet per sign face, nor a
height of five (5) feet.
2. In other zones, the sign
shall not exceed the size and
height limitations for the
same type of sign, i.e.
free-standing or monument
sign, permitted in the zone
and for the lot on which the
sign is located.
SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and
parts of or nances in conflict with the
provision of this ordinance are hereby
repealed.
SECTION III. 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.
01
/0? 14.2—
0. lance No.
Page 2
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordi-
nance shall be in effect after its final
passage, approval and publication as
required by law.
Passed and approved this
MAYOR
ATTEST: CITY CLERK
f� A
pprovad
-ay ir:e'krij De.)�r6qWnt
a
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 30, 1985
To: Planni a ning Commission
From: Don Schm ) Director, Planning & Program Development
Re: Development Signs
The City has received a request for a permit to construct a development sign
at the entrance to Northgate Corporate Park, located north of the Highlander
Inn on Interstate 80, The proposed sign, however, is of greater dimension
than permitted for a development sign.
According to Section 36-61(d)(1) of the new sign regulations, a development
sign is "a monument sign designating the name of a subdivision or large scale
development." In all zones a monument sign cannot exceed a height of five
feet. According to Section 36-62(a)(2)b, a development sign cannot exceed a
total area of 64 square feet or 32 square feet per sign face. In a CH -1
zone, the zone established for the subject property, a free-standing sign 25
feet in height with an area of 250 square feet or 125 square feet per sign
face could be located on the same lot on which a development sign of a much
smaller dimension is permitted. It seems logical, therefore, to permit a
development sign of at least the same size as would be permitted for other
signs in the same zone, provided the area of a development sign is applied
toward the maximum signage allowance specified for the lot in the zone.
Attached is a proposed ordinance which would allow in commercial and indus-
trial zones a development sign of equal dimension to the size of signs
permitted in the zone in which the development sign would be located. The
ordinance as written would allow the signage proposed for the Northgate
Corporate Park as illustrated on the attached drawing..
This item is being expedited at the request of the property owner, Southgate
Development Co., and the owner's architect for the sign, Mr, Dan Thies, Your
early consideration of this matter would be greatly appreciated by them.
bj4/4
I
■
I
36
i
l
i
36
i
l
I
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 30, 1985
To: Planni ayd= ning Commission
From: Don Schm )4 Director, Planning 8 Program Development
Re: Development Signs
The City has received a request for a permit to construct a development sign
at the entrance to Northgate Corporate Park, located north of the Highlander
Inn on Interstate 80. The proposed sign, however, is of greater dimension
than permitted for a development sign.
According to Section 36-61(d)(1) of the new sign regulations, a development
sign is Na monument sign designating the name of a subdivision or large scale
development." In all zones a monument sign cannot exceed a height of five
feet. According to Section 36-62(a)(2)b, a development sign cannot exceed a
total area of 64 square feet or 32 square feet per sign face. In a CH -1
zone, the zone established for the subject property, a free-standing sign 25
feet in height with an area of 250 square feet or 125 square feet per sign
face could be located on the same lot on which a development sign of a much
smaller dimension is permitted. It seems logical, therefore, to permit a
development sign of at least the same size as would be permitted for other
signs in the same zone, provided the area of a development sign is applied
toward the maximum signage allowance specified for the lot in the zone.
Attached is a proposed ordinance which would allow in commercial and indus-
trial zones a development sign of equal dimension to the size of signs
Permitted in the zone in which the development sign would be located. The
'ordinance as written would allow the signage proposed for the Northgate
Corporate Park as illustrated on the attached drawing..
This item is being expedited at the request of the property owner, Southgate
Development Co., and the owner's architect for the sign, Mr. Dan Thies. Your
early consideration of this matter would be greatly appreciated by them.
bj4/4
/0? 011?_
i
8511
Nori
-4'•�"
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 30, 1985
To: Planni •1ayd= ning Commission
• i
From: Don Schm Director, Planning & Program Development
I
Re: Development Signs
The City has received a request for a permit to construct a development sign
at the entrance to Northgate Corporate Park, located north of the Highlander
Inn on Interstate 80. The proposed sign, however, is of greater dimension
than permitted for a development sign.
According to Section 36-61(d)(1) of the new sign regulations, a development
sign is 'a monument sign designating the name of a subdivision or large scale
development.' In all zones a monument sign cannot exceed a height of five
feet. According to Section 36-62(a)(2)b, a development sign cannot exceed a
total area of 64 square feet or 32 square feet per sign face. In a CH-1
zone, the zone established for the subject property, a free-standing sign 25
feet in height with an area of 250 square feet or 125 square feet per sign
face could be located on the same lot on which a development sign of a much
smaller dimension is permitted. It seems logical, therefore, to permit a ;
development sign of at least the same size as would be permitted for other
signs in the same zone, provided the area of a development sign is applied
toward the maximum signage allowance specified for the lot in the zone.
Attached is a proposed ordinance which would allow in commercial and indus-
trial zones a development sign of equal dimension to the size of signs
permitted in the zone in which the development sign would be located. The
ordinance as written would allow the signage proposed for the Northgate
Corporate Park as illustrated on the attached drawing..
This item is being expedited at the request of the property owner, Southgate
Development Co., and the owner's architect for the sign, Mr. Dan Thies. Your
early consideration of this matter would be greatly appreciated by them.
bj4/4
I ( '
I
i
r
i I
I
A? AZ_
I
i
9
I
f
S'
3
Northgate Corporate Park • .
NCP
� s
v
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 9, 1985 rpt
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of Cit Coun
rr,
From: Robert W. Jansen, City Attorney wV7,
Richard J. Boyle, First Assistant C-ty At orney 9b
Re: Vista Village Park - OPD -H Procedures
Loren Hirshberger has filed a preliminary OPD -H plan for Vista Park Village.
The Planning and Zoning Commission approved the plan following a public
hearing, and has submitted its written report to the Council. The Council's
public hearing on the plan was held on June 18, 1985. A substantial number
of neighbors turned out objecting to the project.
QUESTION PRESENTED
Must preliminary ODP -H plan approval be by resolution or ordinance?
CONCLUSION
Preliminary plan approval should be by ordinance.
DISCUSSION
City Code of Ordinances, Section 36-47, relates to the Planned Development
Housing Overlay zone, and allows variations from the requirements of the
underlying (i.e., the RS -5, RS -8, etc.) zone. Section 36-47(b) states that
Procedures for preliminary plan approval shall be in accordance with prelimi-
nary subdivision and LSRD approvals. Generally, preliminary subdivision and
large scale plan approvals are by resolution. Section 36-47(c) generally
provides only that the final plan must meet the requirements of the prelimi-
nary plan and the subdivision and large scale residential development
requirements, if applicable. Although not spelled out in the zoning ordi-
nance, adoption of an OPD -H plan creates an overlay zone, so it must be
approved by ordinance. The practice has been to treat such plans as zoning
code amendments, with the final plan approved by ordinance.
If an ODP -H plan were not considered as an amendment to the zoning code, and
such plan did not conform to other requirements of the underlying zone, the
regulations would not be uniform throughout the district - as required by
Iowa Code (1985) Section 414.2, which provides that "All such regulations and
restrictions shall be uniform for each class or kind of buildings throughout
each district..." Basically, each planned development is a separate zone.
Thus, while review of an OPD -H plan is handled procedurally like a subdivi-
sion or LSRD plan, because of variations which may be allowed from underlying
zone requirements, the final plan has generally been approved as an ordinance
adopting an overlay zone as an amendment to the Zoning Code.
/0? 123
I
u
I
I
2
Because of the public opposition to the Vista Park Village plan, a question
has now been raised as to whether or not the Council's approval of the
preliminary plan, if given, should be by resolution or ordinance. Since
final plan approval has been by ordinance amending the zoning code, in
accordance with Code of Ordinances Sec. 36-88, if enough neighbors would
formally protest the rezoning (i.e., owners of 20% of all land within 200
feet of the exterior boundaries of the Vista Park property), final approval
would require the favorable vote of three-fourths of the members (i.e. six)
of the Council for passage. (Code of Ordinances, Section 36-88(b).) Our
understanding is that such a formal protest petition has been filed in this
matter, thus triggering the extraordinary majority requirement.
If a resolution approving the preliminary plan was adopted with fewer than
six votes, the developer could not obtain the necessary six votes for
adoption of the ordinance approving the final plan, so preliminary plan
approval would be essentially meaningless.
On the other hand, because final plan approval appears to be essentially an
administrative act, and the zoning code does not spell out the exact proce-
dures to be followed, it is our recommendation that preliminary plan approval
be handled as an ordinance amending the zoning code. In that way, a devel-
oper could proceed, knowing that the final plan approval would be basically
an administrative act by the Council, to be done by resolution. The final
plan approval resolution would then merely require a majority vote, not the
extraordinary majority required to rezone. In short, the rezoning should
take place at the time of the preliminary plan approval, with final plan
approval by resolution.
In the Vista Park Village situation, we recommend that the Council's agenda
show the item as an ordinance and that Council action on the matter be
consistent with that. We also recommend that the neighbors be notified of
their protest rights under Code of Ordinances Sec. 36-88(b).
i For your information, the Planning and Program Development Department and
Legal staff have begun work on amending the OPD -H provisions to clarify the
procedures to be used.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions.
cc: City Manager
/sp
ia93
■
JUN 211985 HECtIVtUJUN
CITY CLERK ,Tune 19, 1965
Dear Mayor McDonald,
As a resident of Court Hill section IIA I would like to
thank you for the time and consideration you have given to
the Proposed rezoning of the land for Vista Park Village. j
We appreciated the chance to present our concerns to you at
the Public Hearing on June 16th. We also appreciated your
questions on some of the crucial issues.
I feel our concerns have been made clear to you, so I ! j
would simply like to invite you to drive through our j
neighborhood and examine the size and quality of our homes
and lots. Then, drive down Scott Blvd. and try to imagine
30 houses and a green space on the proposed Vista Park j
Village site.
�.
Any rezoning is to be in the best interest of the - 1
public. In this case, it is clear that this project is only !
in the best interest of Mr. Glascow and Mr. Herschberger. It !
is definitely not in the best interest of the surrounding !
home owners.
I urge you to vote in the interest of the established ' 1
I
home owners of Court Hill Section IIA. Thank you very much! !,
(J i
t
Alicia Werch i
i
I
I
1
------ - _ -
of
RECEIVEDJUN f 1985
June 19, 1985
City Council OL E D
Civic Center
410 E. Washington St. JUN 211985
Iowa City, IA. 52240
MY CLERK
Dear Council Members,
I am writing to attempt to summarize the major issues and the concerns on the
re -zoning and planned development of Vista Park, on the east side of Iowa City. As
a concerned resident of the area, I attended the council meeting of June 18, 1985, in
which a number of residents expressed their concern about the proposed development
during the public hearing. I believe a number of the lenghty discussions can be
summarized briefly.
I believe the issue of assessing current residents of the area for the street
construction can easily be dismissed. As it was clearly pointed out there has been
no formal escrow account established; there was no formal agreement made with the
city; there was only an informal personal exchange of money to a few selected
original homeowners. I think you must agree that the current residents have no legal
responsiblity in funding future development of the street in question. For this
reason this issue is irrelevant and need not be discussed further in this letter.
The second key issue is the nature of the planned construction and its
consistency with the current neighborhood. Again, it was made clear both by the
residents of the area and the developer himself that there is an enormous difference
between the current housing and the proposed development. The size of the lots (avg.
6800 vs. 12,000 sq. ft.), the size of the homes ( avg. 950 vs 1400 sq. ft), the
manner in which they will be constructed ( proposed zero -lot line, most with no
basements) can in no way be considered consistent with the existing neighborhood.
The fact that zero -lot line homes are proposed is by itself an indication that the
developer is interested in high density housing with the most profit for himself. To
reiterate a point made at the hearing, if the average lot size of the existing
housing is used to develop this area, only 16 homes would be built, instead of the 30
now proposed, a clear discrepency. One might also question the proposed need for
additional "affordable housing" given the current glut of homes on the market, as
well as the unsolved problem of sewage treatment or disposal in Iowa City.
Perhaps the key issue is not whether the proposed housing is consistent with the
existing neighborhood, for clearly it is not, but what its impact would be.
Certainly the current home owners have nothing to gain from such a development, and
as was evident by the presence of a large number of homeowners at the public hearing,
there is a real objection to the proposed development. I can appreciate that as an
elected official you have been given the right to exercise your judgement of the
issues. However, as members of an elected body which has a responsibility to
represent the people of Iowa City, I believe the Council has an obligation to
seriously consider the views of its constituents. It sould be made clear that we do
not necessarily object to the development of this land, but are concerned that
consideration for maintaining the value, the appearance and living quality be given.
There is no doubt that these will be compromised by the high density, low cost
housing proposed.
I appreciate the Council providing the opportunity for the public to express its
concerns, and hope our input will be seriously considered i/n your decision.
Sincerely, / /
lY.//. /I,YIf/f�O�JY'_
Brian Van Ness
3317 Shamrock Drive
July 10, 1985
817 South Capitol Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Phone (319) 351-2506
T0: Iowa City Council Members
FROM: Loran L. Hershberger, President Hallmark Homes, Inc.
RR: Vista Park Village S-8504
Tuesday evening, July 9, 1985, I met with about 15 property owners who
live in the Arbor Drive area adjacent to our proposed development and
who initially submitted a petition protesting the rezoning of the
tract in question from RS5 to RS8.
After some discussion regarding the various concerns they had
previously expressed, an alternate plat was presented to them. A copy
of this proposed layout has been included in your folders. The number
of "0" lot line homes and the style and design of the homes is the
same as we had originally proposed. We are still targeting the entry
level home buyer and the empty nester. The only major change is the
street configuration and the access point. The neighbors felt that if
the entrance were moved with access directly off of Scott Blvd., the
concerns for additional traffic, parking and paving assessments, etc.
would be eliminated. Several people also indicated that they wanted
to see this area developed.
The neighbors have prepared written documentation Indicating their
willingness to withdraw the protest they originally filed, conditional
on the Scott Blvd. entrance.
Due to the time delay we have already experienced regarding the
development of this property, It Is imperative that we get some
Indication from council at your July 15 meeting whether this proposal
would be an acceptable alternative to our original proposal. I
understand that the new plat layout would need to be submitted again
at the P 8 Z level which we would do immediately.
LLH/cs
FRONT ELEVATION scnL E E -i -o
FRONT ELEVATION SCALE Vd- i- o•
" tE�Ov " /a 93
FRONT ELEVATION SCALE �/4- i.0'
+:i LNQ ILID%C ��
JDs los
High Style Makes Small Smart
Patio
High style does not need to be des'gned out • j — Br 2 Mbr - I
tof today's smaller homes. Style is what makes 11x 10.6 tOx t4 I
houses of he 19805 smarter and market Greet Room +
appealing. This example adds contemporary 16-6x16
detail to a simple plan to create a custom look HipO ei"° �
around an efficient plan. The master bedroom _
has its own dressing lavatory and walk-in FT x � q
closet. The great room has enough space to � 11 o
work "great' and the volume ceilings add a l,d
sense of extra value. The 951 -square -foot unit Kitchen
has two bedrooms and one bathroom.4, Garage
Yi✓- j -i q 14x20 i
MAIN FLOOR PLAN
tq�•. '.Ct 9st SOFT.
r r rr
Y. y
� 1 ,
Patio i ,
I
Den Mbr i
_. 8.6x 10x74
JDB 104 Great Room 10.6
is -4x16 i
Great Room Excitement
A great room can make a small house look L
great when it has a high ceiling and is
gunnished well around a'
ferelace. Note the
efficiency of the central bathroom, the stacked Kitchen
laundry and the ease of truss framing in the - '
main roof and front gable area. The exterior
courtyard fence helps tic the small house to \ i
its site. Theroom ua den a one-story unit / I Garage
has one bedroom and den and one bathroom. \� 14X2
74x20 _
MAIN FLOOR PLAN i
843 SOF1.
l
yam; �'`s✓v � i
\ti
7 `7 Mmt-
t \rA.
1 N\ r N
t II
SVA
jr-
t � �
---
f.1C VAlr+tLto1J 1Jo 1wlPaov6n+�+tjCs� ,
I'
F � L E 0
JUL 12 1935
CITY CLERK
Dear Mayor McDonald,
At the June 18, 1985 City Council meeting a public hearing was
held on a resolution concerning the planned development for Vista
Park Village. This is a single family subdivision to be located
between Scott Blvd. and Peterson Street which would require a
rezoning from RS -5 to PDH -5. Residents of the Court Hill
neighborhood presented the Council with a petition requesting a
denial of the rezoning. We also stated why the subdivision, as
originally prepared, was not in the beat interest of the City,
the neighborhood, and the future residents of Vista Park Village.
Since that date the developer, Loren Hershberger, has met with us
regarding alternate proposals for the development of this site.
Ve wish the City Council to know our appreciation of his
consideration in this endeavor. As the options were explained,
we found ourselves in agreement with one of the new concepts.
The redeplgment of the access to Vista Park Village onto Scott
Blvd. instead of Peterson St. is considered a major improvement
in the plan. This alleviates a number of safety hazards,
economic burdens, and general inconveniences. Though we would
still prefer the RS -5 zoning retained, we are willing to endorse
the rezoning contingent on Council approval of the Scott Blvd.
access.
Of the alternative plans, the most attractive appears to be the
Proposal in which the City trades or sells a triangular piece of
Its land adjacent to Scott Blvd on the southeast portion of the
Property to the developer in return for a larger amount of
dedicated open greenspace for the Vista Park Village residents.
There are a number of other considerations we would like to see
included with this development in order to complete the project
Properly. First, we recommend the City vacate the 50 foot right-
of-way, known as Peterson Street, from Shamrock Drive to the
south branch of Ralston Creek. Since it leads nowhere and thus
continues to be a maintenance headache for the City, the property
could be dividad and then utilized by the adjacent property
Owners. Ne would hope this idea is given serious consideration.
Second, we would like the City to consider the feasibility of a
"turn-aroundw at the end of Arbor Drive. Not only would this
benefit the residents, but 8130 the City vehicles which must back
down Arbor Drive due to lack of turn around space.
Third, if Peterson St. is vacated, the developer should be
required to install a sidewalk along the rear portion of those
Vista Park Village Iota adjacent to the Peterson St, right-of-way
from Shamrock Place (where sidewalk currently exists) to the
/R 93
south aide of Arbor Drive. This would then adjoin the "out -
through" sidewalk leading to Arbor Drive the developer has shown
in his alternate proposal. This slows for the continued safety
and convenience of pedestrian traffic - particularly school
children.
We feel our concerns have been given very fair consideration by
the Council. We also believe Loren Rershberger is sincerely
interested in working with the neighborhood to ensure a
succsasful undertaking. thank you for your time and cooperation.
Sincerely,
Court Rill Residents
i
i
K
— — -- — ------r
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING (POH) PLAN OF
VISTA PARK VILLAGE, IOWA CITY, IOWA.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA, THAT:
SECTION I. APPROVAL. The preliminary PON
plan of Vista Park Village, submitted by
Hallmark Homes, Inc., legally described in
Attachment A is hereby approved.
SECTION II. VARIATIONS. Variations from
the requ rements o t o underlying RS -5
zone have been approved as part of this
Plat/plan. The variations permit:
A. A density trade-off, whereby two areas
designated as common open space are
provided for the benefit of the
residents within the development in
exchange for a decrease in individual
lot sizes (see Attachment B);
B. Reduction of the pavement width from
28 feet to 25 feet and right-of-way
dimension from 50 feet to 25 feet in
order to sustain the objective of this
- r development to provide affordable
housing and still provide a safe and
efficient street system;
C. Modification of setbacks to permit a
zero lot line setback along one side
of each residence and reduced front
yard setbacks while maintaining a 20
foot setback between dwellings and the
edge of the street pavement or
sidewalk so as to provide a more
useful private open space in each lot;
and
0. Modification of the Zoning Ordinance
requirements so as to permit a two
foot six inch overhang along the zero
lot line portion of each residence.
SECTION III. REPEALER: All ordinances
and pars o or nances in conflict with
the provision of this ordinance are hereby
repealed.
SECTION IV. SEVERABILITY:, If any
ScCtlI
rt of the ri-
nanceoshallobesadjudgedpato be invalid dor
unconstitutional, such adjudication shall
not affect the validity of the Ordinance
/a93
I
Ordinance No.
Page 2
as a whole or any section, provision or
part thereof not adjudged invalid or
unconstitutional.
SECTION V. EFFECTIVE DATE: This Ordi-
nance Shall e in effect after its final
passage, approval and publication as
required by law.
Passed and approved this
MAYOR
ATTEST:
ywd d Apmv.W
48d V1-0 a rout
T 8f
i
i
Ordinance No.
Page 2
as a whole or any section, provision or
part thereof not adjudged invalid or
unconstitutional.
SECTION V. EFFECTIVE DATE: This Ordi-
nance Shall e in effect after its final
passage, approval and publication as
required by law.
Passed and approved this
MAYOR
ATTEST:
ywd d Apmv.W
48d V1-0 a rout
T 8f
o
`
� �^
!
/
�
'
ORDINANCE NO. 8S-3Z4S
ANORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER %4,ARTICLE
� VI(NUlSANCES)0FTHE CODE UFORDINANCES i
OF THE CITY OF lUNA CITY BY ADDING /
!
STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES FOR THE ABATEMENT i
UFINOPERABLE/OBSOLETE VEHlCLE3^
� �.
� BElTORDAINED HYTHE CITY COUNCIL DFTHE
CITY OFIOWA ClTY,lUWA� � |
' /
i
� � .
' TneMoveorOrdinances ofthe City ofIowa ! �
City, Iowa ishereby repealed and substi-
tuted inits placeisthe following new �
!
Subsection 24-101(13): �
/
Sec. 24-101.' Enumerated. �
�
The following are nuisances: '
(13)" The storage, parking, leaving, or | !
permitting the storage, parking, or �
leaving ofaninoperable/obsolete !
vehicle upon private property /
within the city for aperiod in /
excess mf48hours, unless excepted
herein. This subsection shall not
apply to any vehicle enclosed '
within a building on private
property or to any vehicle held in
connection with a�junk yard, or
-
uotn and truck oriented
/
operated inthei-te -
uunttnthe zu'`�'�--" | |
n1nglawsofthe / `
City ofIowa Cftv^ For the purpose
of this article, an "'— per~ �
able/obsolete vehicle" shall be �
defined asany device in, upon ur '
by which
aperson orproperty Ysor �
. �
����������n ,
upon
highway
x---'----—~-~� | �
g�� ur street, excepting
devices moved by human power or
used exclusively upon stationary !
rails urtracks and shall include
�
without limitation motor vehicle, �
automobile, truck, trailer,
motorcycle, tractor, buggy, wagon
' ' !
or any combination thereof, and � !
which is not licensed for the ,
current year as required byluv
—� �
and/or which exhibits any eof i
the following h cterist1c| i
(u)8 Any vehicle or �
orpartn�avehicle with a
brnkenwindshield^orany other /
broken glass. �
!
�
0
Ordinance No. 85-3245
Page 2
(b) Broken or loose parts. Any
ve ice or par o a vehicle
with a broken or loose fender,
door, bumper, hood, wheel,
steering wheel, trunk top, or
tailpipe.
(c) Missin en ine or wheels. Any
ve ice iici s ac ng an
engine or one or more wheels or
other structural parts which
renders such vehicle totally
inoperable.
(d) Habitats for animals or
insects. Any vehicle or par
oT vehicle which has become
the habitat for rats, mice or
snakes, or any other vermin or
insects.
(e) Defective or obsolete condi-
ion. Any vehicle or part of a
vehicle which because of its
defective or obsolete condi-
tion, constitutes a threat to
the public health and safety.
2) Section 24-102 of the Code of Ordi-
nances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, is
hereby repealed and substituted in its
place is the following new Section 24-102:
Sec. 24-102. Notice to abate inoper-
ablefobsolete vehicles.
(a) The City Manager may authorize any
employee of the City to investigate,
locate and identify inoper-
able/obsolete vehicles on private
property. Such authorized employee
shall have full authority to serve
the abatement notice as prescribed
below.
(b) Whenever any inoperable/obsolete
vehicle is found to exist, the City
shall serve upon the owner of the
property upon which such vehicle is
stored, parked, or left, a notice
requiring abatement or removal of
such vehicle within ten days or such
other time after service of notice as
the City may determine to be reasona-
bly sufficient to enable such
abatement or removal to be made.
(c) Any notice required by this section
shall be served by attaching notice
securely to the inoperable/obsolete
vehicle, and:
/3oS�
I
i
Ordinance No. 85-3245
Page 3
(1) By sending the notice by certi-
fied mail, return receipt
requested, to the owner of said
property as shown by the records
of the County Assessor; or
(2) By personal service of said
notice to the owner of said
property as shown by the records
of the County Assessor.
(d) Any notice required by this section
shall include the following informa-
tion:
(1) The inoperable/obsolete vehicle
constitutes a nuisance under the
provisions of this Article.
(2) A description of each inoper-
able/obsolete vehicle observed,
the name and address of the last
known registered owner of said
vehicle, and the location and
condition(s) observed.
(3) The notice shall contain the
order for abatement within the
time specified in the notice.
(4) The notice shall advise that,
upon failure to comply with the
notice to abate, the City shall
undertake such abatement and that
the cost of removal, notifica-
tion, preservation, storage and
sale of said inoperable/obsolete
vehicle may be collected from the
sale or redemption of said
inoperable/obsolete vehicle and
that if the proceeds of such sale
are not sufficient for payment of
such cost, the balance may be
assessed against the property for
collection in the same manner as
a property tax.
(5) The notice shall also advise as to
the opportunity for an adminis-
trative hearing pursuant to
Section 24-103 and that failure
to request such a hearing within
ten (10) days of service or
mailing of said notice shall
constitute a waiver of right to a
hearing and that said notice
shall become a final determina-
tion and order.
/3ox
I
I
Ordinance No. 85-3245
Page 4
3) Chapter 24, Article VI of the Code of
Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa,
is hereby amended by adding the following
new Section 24-103:
Sec. 24-103. Hearing on notice to
abate inoperable/obsolete vehicle.
(a) Hearing appeal rights and judicial
review shall be in accordance with
the procedures set forth in Section
2-184 et seq. of the Code of Ordi-
nances of the City of Iowa City,
Iowa; the administrative hearing, if
any, shall be held before a commit-
tee, to be appointed by the City
Manager.
4) Chapter 24, Article VI, of the Code of
Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa,
is hereby amended by adding the following
new Section 24-104:
Sec. 24-104. Removal of inoper-
able/obsolete vehicles, interference
prohibited.
(a) If the violation described in the
notice to abate inoperable/obsolete
vehicle is not remedied within the
period of compliance stated in said
notice, or, in the event that a
petition for administrative hearing
is timely filed, a hearing is had,
and the existence of a nuisance is
affirmed by the committee, the City
police department is authorized to
remove and impound, or have removed
and impounded by a commercial towing
service the inoperable/obsolete
vehicle; provided, however, that in
the event of an administrative
hearing the City shall not remove or
have removed such vehicle until the
hearing committee has rendered a
decision affirming removal and the
petitioner is notified of such
hearing determination by personal
service or by certified mail, return
receipt requested.
(b) No person shall interfere with,
hinder or refuse to allow the City or
its agent to enter upon private
property for the removal of inoper-
able/obsolete vehicles under the
provisions of this Article.
(c) If the inoperable/obsolete vehicle
has not been reclaimed within a
period of ten days after impoundment,
I
Ordinance No. 85-3245
Page 5
it shall be deemed an abandoned
vehicle and may be sold by the City
pursuant to State law.
(d) If the inoperable/obsolete vehicle is
not sold or if the proceeds of such
sale or redemption are not sufficient
for payment of the cost of removal,
notification, preservation, storage,
j and sale of said inoperable/obsolete
vehicle, such cost or the balance of
such cost may be assessed against the
property for collection in the same
manner as a property tax.
(e) In a situation of clear and compel-
ling emergency, the City is author-
ized to remove and tow away or have j
removed and towed away by a commer-
cial towing service, any vehicle
declared a nuisance under Section
24-101 without prior notice and
opportunity of hearing. The costs of
such action may be assessed against
the property for collection in the
same manner as a property tax.
However, prior to such assessment,
the City shall give the property
owner notice by certified mail and an
opportunity for a hearing before the
City Council.
5) chapter 24, Article VI, of the Code of
Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, 1
is hereby amended by adding the following
new Section 24-105:
Sec. 24-105. Penalty.
(a) Whenever any person having been
served with a notice for the reason
and in the manner prescribed by this
Article shall refuse, fail, or
neglect to obey or remove the
nuisance referred to in said notice
within the time therein stated,
besides the sanctions provided in
Section 24-104, said person shall be I
guilty of a simple misdemeanor, and
upon conviction shall be subject to ;
the penalty of a fine not to exceed
$100 or by imprisonment not to exceed
30 days. Each 24 hour period during
which such person shall not have
complied with the provisions of this
Article shall be construed as a
separate violation.
■
-7-
Ordinance No. 85-3245
Page 6
6) Chapter 24, Article VI, of the Code of
Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa,
is hereby amended by adding the following
new Section 24-107:
Sec. 24-107. General Abatement Pro-
cedures.
(a) Notices to correct or abate nuisances
and the procedures for abatement
thereof shall be in accordance with
the Code of Iowa.
SECTION 2. REPEALER: All ordinances and
parts ot ordinances in conflict with the
provision of this ordinance are hereby
repealed.
SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY: If any section,
provision or par o t e Ordinance shall E
be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitu-
tional, 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. j
SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE: This Ordi-
nance shall a in a ect a ter its final
i passage, approval and publication as j
required by law. i
Passe and proved this 16th day of
July, 198,11,
AYUR
� I i
ATTE
I
I
t
I
Poem-trod R AppAved
By The Legal Departn=1
7
I
I
F
I It was moved by Erdahl and seconded by Strait
were:
j that the r finance as rea a adopted and upon ro ca ere
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
x. AMBRISCO
x BAKER
_x DICKSON
—x MCOONALD 1 i
X STRAIT
X ZUBER
First consideration
Vote for passage:
Second consideration
Vote for passage
1 i
i I s
Date published July 24, 1985
Moved by Erdahl, seconded by Strait, that the rule
requiring ordinances to be considered and voted on !!!j
for passage at two Council meetings prior to the
meeting at which it is to be finally passed be suspended,
the first and second consideration and vote be waived 1'
and the ordinance be voted upon for final passage at
this time. Ayes: Dickson, Erdahl, McDonald, Strait
Zuber; Nays: None. 1..
I
i
I � i
II -
ORDINANCE NO. 85-3246
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 31 OF THE
CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA, BY ADDING THERETO NEW SECTION
31-11, PROHIBITING THE DEPOSIT OF DIRT,
MUD, OR OTHER DEBRIS ON PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-
WAY.
SECTION I. PURPOSE. The purpose of this
ordinance Is to prohibit, as a nuisance,
the deposit of certain debris on the
public right-of-way and to provide for
removal of such debris in a timely manner.
SECTION II. AMENDMENT. Chapter 31 of the
o e o r mantes o the City of Iowa
City is hereby amended by adding thereto
new Section 31-11:
Section 31-11 Nuisance; Deposit of
debris on public right-of-way.
(a) No owner or person in possession
or control of any property shall
deposit or allow to be deposited
by any means, including but not
limited to, erosion, use of
construction equipment, or
tracking by vehicles, any dirt,
mud, gravel or other debris of any
sort upon'the public right-of-way.
Such deposit of such debris upon
the public right-of-way is a
public nuisance. As used in this
section, the term "public right-
of-way" includes public streets,
alleys, and sidewalks.
(b) In the event that dirt, mud,
gravel or other debris of any sort
is deposited upon the public
right-of-way as described in
sub -section (a), the owner or
person in possession or control of
the property from which such
debris was deposited shall remove
such debris from the public
right-of-way promptly and in no
case later than the same day when
such debris was deposited. If the
owner or person in possession or
control of said property fails to
remove such debris in a timely
manner as prescribed herein, the
City may perform the removal and
13'17
■
i
■
Ordinance No. 85-3246
Page 2
assess the costs of same against
the property for collection in the
same manner as a property tax.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provi-
sions of this section, whenever in
the judgment of the director of
public works or the police chief
an emergency exists creating a
health or safety hazard which may
require immediate removal of said
debris from the public
right-of-way, the City may perform
such removal of said debris and
assess the costs of same against
the property for collection in the
same manner as a property tax.
However, prior to such assessment,
the City shall give the property
owner notice by certified mail and
an opportunity for a hearing
before the City Council.
SECTION III. REPEALER: All ordinances and
parts of ordinance's in conflict with the
provisions of this ordinance are hereby
repealed.
SECTION IV. SEVERABILITY: If any
section, provision or parr of this 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 un-
constitutional.
SECTION V. EFFECTIVE DATE: This Ordinance
shall e in effect after its final
passage, approval and publication as
required byw.
Passed proved this
16th day of
July, 1g85a ap, _ , ,, � l
T•aa+rnd LS A; p.sava:
11YTha '' ,al :c,.ur!mcnt
5 zt 8
!I
i
i
�.
I'
I
Ordinance No. 85-3246
Page 3
It was moved by Erdahl and seconded by Ambrisco
that the Ordinance be a opted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
- x Ambrisco
X Baker
X Dickson
X Erdahl
X _McDonald
X Strait
X tuber
First Consideration June 4, 1985
Vote for passage: yes: a er, is on, Erdahl, McDonald,
Strait, Zuber, Ambrisco Nays: None
Second Consideration6 18 85
Vote for passage: Ayes: Er onald, Strait, Ambrisco,
Baker. Nays: None. Absent: Dickson, Zuber.
Date published July 24 1985
1
i
s
i i
I .
j.
P
I