Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-10-15 Bd Comm minutes• U October 15, 1974 To the honorable Iowa City Council, On behalf of my 456 friends and neighbors who signed this petition I would like to read to you our statement. We. the undersigned. petition the City Council, the City Mamager, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Parks and Recreation Commission to provide acquisition of such land for a north-east park as described in the city staff neighborhood study. Our area, bounded on the east and west by First Street and Scott Blvd. and on the north and south by Rochester Ave. and Court Street,is a rapidly growing one. At present plans to plat the last major tract of land are before you. This tract, bordered by Pat. Vernon, Washington and Westminster Streets, was suggested in your city staff study of April 1974 as a possible park site. The other and only alternative site has been rejected by you. Currently we have no park in our area. The above mentioned tract would meet the criteria of the city neighborhood study that it be within one-half mile of all individuals in the area and that its land be able to provide both passive and active recreation. We understand that $70,000 has been alotted in the Capital Improvement budget of 1976 for purchase of land in Northeast Iowa City. Our urgent plea is that you purchase now a portion of the only centrally located land. Land will never be cheaper. Any delay on your part will mean that a future land purchase will be on the periphery of our neighborhood. Many of us feel a responsibility in helping to shape our new neighborhood. Our children now play football in the streets. We yearn for a green field where they can play organized sports with friends. And our two churches could Quite happily use a neighborhood park. Please, won't you help us save some open space in our midst? MINUTES M 4 IOWA CITY HUMANrRE] .ATIONS-COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, il,974 DAVIS BUILDING CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: ('ii i 11 i p Jollos Sally Smith Paul Neuhauser E. J. Means Jackie Finn Elizabeth Diecke Mori Costantino MEMBERS ABSENT: Richard Braverman Celia Roberts CITY STAFF PRESENT: Robert H. Bowlin Kay Maune SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION AND FORMAL ACTIONS TAKEN: Chairperson Phillip Jones introduced Mark Doolin, the newly appointed Human Relations Coordinator, to the Commission members. It was moved by Neuhauser and seconded by Means that the minutes of the August 260 1974, meeting be approved as submitted. Motion passed by unani- • mous vote. The Commission received the proposed Rules and Regulations of the Iowa Civil Rights Commission on deferral to local Civil Rights or Human Rights Commissions from Joseph Tate, Director of the Civil Rights Commission. The Chairman indi- cated that Costantino and any other members interested would be attending a Public Hearingon'this matter on Wednesday, October 91 1974. The Chairperson also distributed from the Iowa Civil Bights Commission their Model Ordinance for local Civil Rights Commissions. Chairperson Jones asked that the Complaint Procedures Committee review this Model Ordinance and report back to the Commis- sion. Jones presented a draft procedure for investigating complaints filed against the City of Iowa City. After discussion,the Commission requested that the Committee redraft the procedure and make it consistent with the Human Relations Ordinance. Concern was expressed that the proposed draft deviated from specific points of the Ordinance at`times.. Jones reported that he wanted the Committees to begin meeting again and evaluate what the had et to accomplish b the what the had done so far this year. and. h y y P Y Y end of the year. Costantino requested that the 'Complaints Procedures Committee be contacted if any of the Commission members had input regarding the Iowa Civil Rights Commis- sion's proposed rules for deferral status. Some of the Commission members expressed their belief that our Local Ordinance is stronger than the State's and we shouldn't have.to use their.Model Ordinance to receive deferral status. Another question which arose was whether or not the City could give the Human Relations Commission subpoena powers. 0 Neuhauser requested a status report on the Commission's investigation of the Marine Corps advertising.practices. Bowlin and Maune indicated that they had received no further correspondence regarding this matter from the people who had been contacted. Neuhauser requested that the Commission check on the local radio stations' policies about advertising in a discriminatory fashion. It was moved by Means and seconded by Smith that the Commission adjourn to executive session to discuss complaints of discrimination, cases under concil- iation, and to -hear an appeal of Case No. E-7405. Upon a roll call vote all members present voted yes. The Commission adjourned into executive session at 8:30 P.M. < %'y i.fr • I.C. Human Relations Commission Page y !: September -16,.1974 • 0 Neuhauser requested a status report on the Commission's investigation of the Marine Corps advertising.practices. Bowlin and Maune indicated that they had received no further correspondence regarding this matter from the people who had been contacted. Neuhauser requested that the Commission check on the local radio stations' policies about advertising in a discriminatory fashion. It was moved by Means and seconded by Smith that the Commission adjourn to executive session to discuss complaints of discrimination, cases under concil- iation, and to -hear an appeal of Case No. E-7405. Upon a roll call vote all members present voted yes. The Commission adjourned into executive session at 8:30 P.M. U STAFF PRESENT: GUESTS: to b1p 09 as 11 RUN Caroline Bassett Patt Cain Samuel Fahr James Lindberg Mary Neuhauser Earle Murphy Barbara Nicknish Rill Neppl Tony Osborn Don Schmeiser Dick WollmPxshauser Bob Downer Jeff Hall Mary Lewis Al Streb 1. The Riverfront Caimiission endorses the Staff recam endation regarding the Gordon Russell property with the stipulation that added provision be made in the Zoning Code to buffer industrial zones from park land and ® public recreation.) 40 SLZ24ARY OF DISCUSSION AND FORMAL ACTION TAiEN: The Riverfront Commission met in regular session on October 9, 1974 with Chairperson Neuhauser presiding. Fahr moved and Cain seconded that the minutes of the September 19, 1974 meeting be approved with the following corrections: Page 1 - The heading Rmmm)ATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL, should read RECUqMMATICNS TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COM- MISSION. Page 2 - Paragraph 3 - The last sentence should read "Bassett, Fahr, Lindberg, and Neuhauser voted 'aye' and Cain abstained.11 Due to the presence of Al Streb and Bob Downer, the Streb property was discussed. Dick Wol]mershauser gave a short history of the proceedings. A special meeting was called for Monday, October 21, at 3 p.m. for the purpose of discussing the Streb property further. Dick Wollmershauser reported on the Stanley and Associates -have devised October 14 with Staff. status of the Riverfront Consultant. a Study Design and will meet Monday, The two law student reports, "Scenic Easements as a Control of Land Use" and "Applicability of Various Zoning Techniques to the Iowa River Corridor Plan", were discussed. • The Gordon Russell property was discussed and it was announced that there will be a public hearing at the -City Council meeting on October 22, * 1974, regarding this property. It was moved by Cain and seconded by Fahr that the Riverfront Commission endorse the Staff rendation regarding the Gordon Russell property with the stipulation that added provision be made in the Zoning Code to buffer industrial zones from park land and public recreation. Neuhauser, Cain, Bassett, Fahr, and Lindberg voted 'aye' with no 'nays' or abstentions being recorded. There being no other business, Fahr moved and Bassett seconded that the meeting be adjourned at 5:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ellen R. Flowers Secretary DAVIS BUILDING'CONF'ERENCE IffMERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: GUESTS: Joan Buxton June Davis Sarah Fox Virginia Hebert James Lindberg Orrin Marx Robin Powell Janes Roegiers James Sangster H. Eugene Chubb Bob Lee Bill Neppl Don Schneiser Dick Wollmershauser Mrs. James Cooper Sue Young (MC) SONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL: 1. That action on the annexation and rezoning of the Gordon Russell property ® be delayed until provisions are made to provide suitable buffering of parks and public recreation areas from adjacent uses. 2. That all zoning requests relative to property fronting on the Iowa River be deferred until completion of the Riverfront Plan. 3. That the Park -and Recreation Ccnmission strongly supports the Planning and Zoning Commission's request that priority be given to the Comprehensive Plan and further notes the need for immediate augmentation of the Planning Staff. 4. That Council delay approval of the preliminary plat for Washington Park Addtion, Part 9 pending.recei.pt by Commission of a Staff proposal for ac- quisition of a Northeast Neighborhood Park. REQUESTS TO THE CITY MAIQhGER FOR INFORMATION OR STAFF ASSISTANCE: 1. Planning Staff thoughts on ways to proceed with the Park and Recreation Evaluation Study. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION AND FORMAL ACTION TAKEN: The Park and Recreation Ccumission met in -regular session on October 9, 1974 with Chairperson Fox presiding. ® Hebert moved and Sangster seconded that the minutes of the September 25, 1974 meeting be approved as written. Mrs. James Cooper expressed her concern with the height requirement for swim- ming lessons at the Iowa City Recreation Center. It was her opinion that the C • height requirement was unfair. Bob Lee explained that the requirement was a safety precaution. Joan Buxton and Bob.Lee were appointed to help Mrs. Cooper look into the rules regarding the requirement and to gather citizen reactions to the requirement. Chairperson Fox read a letter from Dr. Melvin Marcus claiming that the Recreation Center diving board was unsuitable for competitive diving. Bob Lee responded that the board is safe although it needs repair and that the parts needed for repair are on order. Jim Sangster reported on the public meeting regarding the Housing and Can- munity Development Act. The meeting was held to explain the Act and to gather ideas about how it would be possible to get citizen input into City projects. Sangster will continue to report on meetings pertaining to the Housing and Community Development Act. Chairperson Fox reported that the proposed Special Populations Involvement program (S.P.I.) was approved by Council on October 8, 1974. The resched- uled starting date for the program has been set for October 30, 1974. June Davis, the head of Commission's Subcommittee on ASERP, reported that an ASERP Steering Committee had been set up consisting of herself, Joan Buxton, David Canpton, Sarah Fox, Virginia Hebert, Frank Lalor, Robin Powell, Jean Spector, and Donald Tvedte. The first meeting will be held at 4 p.m. on Monday, October 14, 1974 at 18 N. Mt. Vernon Drive. The Gordon Russell property was discussed after an explanation of M1, M2, and IP zoning presented by Staff. The following four points were discussed relative to the property: 1. There is no pressure from park use to get the car crusher out immediately, therefore, a delay is feasible. 2. Park property lies east of the north half of the Russell property. 3. A parcel indicated for acquisition in the 1973-77 C.I.P. lies east of the south half of the Russell property. 4. Public property should be buffered from adjacent devaluating and nuisance uses. * Following discussion, Lindberg moved and Davis seconded that Commission recommend that action on the annexation and rezoning of the Gordon Russell property be delayed until provisions are made to provide suitable buffering of parks and recreation areas frau adjacent uses. MOtion carried. Concern was expressed on the need for the Zoning Code to include provisions for buffering and screeningparks and recreation uses from possible neigh- boring nuisnaces. Chairperson Fox was directed to write the Planning and zoning Commission expressing this interest. • * Lindberg reported on the Streb property proceedings. After discussion, it was moved by Lindberg and seconded by Roegiers to reaffirm the Park and Recreation Commission's motion of February 13, 1974 "that all zoning requests relative to property fronting on the Iowa River be deferred until completion of the Riverfront Plan.". Notion carried. The City's proposed Comprehensive Plan was discussed along with what the Commission felt to be the inadequate number of people on the Planning Staff * to get so many studies done at one time. It was moved by Lindberg and seconded by Powell that the Park and Recreation Commission strongly supports the Planning and Zoning Commission's request that priority by given to the Comprehensive Plan and further notes the need for immediate augmentation of the Planning Staff. Notion carried. Jim Roegiers reported on the Johnson County Regional Open Space Committee. Three items were to be discussed at the Committee's October 9 meeting - campgrounds in the N.E. part of Kent Park, funds for the restoration of the Robert Lucas home, and funds from the State for bikeways. Commission ex- pressed interest in the possibility of these funds being available for park bikeways. * Washington Park Addition, Part 9 was discussed by Commission. It was moved by Buxton and seconded by Powell that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend that Council delay approval of the preliminary plat for the Washington Park Addition, Part 9 pending receipt by Commission of a Staff proposal for acquisition of a Northeast Neighborhood Park. Motion carried. ® Commission discussed the C.I.P. Narrative Proposal forwarded by the Dir- ector of Parks and Recreation. Concern was expressed on the high amount designated for park studies and Staff, was asked to consider alternatives. No formal action was taken. * Buxton moved and Hebert seconded that Commission express its thanks and ac- knowledge the gift to the Recreation Center swimming pool of a scoreboard from the Skip Jensen Mermrial- Fund and instruct Staff to send a letter to David Cannon and to Mrs. Viggo Jensen. Motion carried. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ellen R. Flowers Secretary n. 50rt i 110 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission Attn: Don Madsen, Chairman FROM: Iowa City City Council RE: Referral •• October At the regular meeting of October 15, 1974, the Iowa City City Council received the minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission for 10/9/74 and the minutes of the Riverfront Commission for 10/9/74. The motion was adopted that Park & Recreation Commission recommendation li1,'Action on the annexation and rezoning of the Gordon Russell property.be delayed until provisions are made to provide suitable buffering of parks and public recreation areas from adjacent uses' be referred to Planning and Zoning for report. A motion was also adopted that recommendation #2, 'That all zoning requests relative to property fronting on the Iowa River be deferred until completion of the Riverfront Plan' be referred to Planning and Zoning for informational purposes and any action that Planning and Zoning wished to take. The motion was adopted that the recommendation from the Riverfront Commission, 'that the Commission endorses the Staff recommendtion regarding the Gordon Russell property with the stipulation that added provision be made in the Zoning Code to buffer industrialzonesfrom park land and public recreation' be referred to Planning and Zoning for report. Abbie Stolfus City Clerk 7�1164-1 -NA TO: Parks and Recreation Commission Attn: Sarah Fox, Chairperson FROM: Iowa City City Council RE: Referral October L7, 1974 At their meeting on October 15th, 1974, the Iowa City City Council adopted the motion to defer action on the preliminary plat for Washington.Park Addition Part 9 for two weeks, and to refer the park acquisition question to the Staff for a report; to refer the Staff report, the petition and the Study for Mandatory Dedication of Open Space to the Parks and Recreation Commission for its recommendation. Please excuse the delay, I received the Staff Report today, October 23. Abbie Stolfus City Clerk .-A AN ANALYSIS OF INTERIM SOLUTIONS TO THE RALSTON CREEK FLOODING PROBLEM A REPORT PREPARED AS REQUESTED BY THE IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL October 1, 1974 IOWA CITY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT October 11, 1974 ENGINEERS CLUB REPORT - 1952 In 1952 the Engineers Club of Iowa City prepared a report on the Ralston Creek flooding problem. At the time of their study the total drainage area of the creek was about 8 square miles, composed of approxi- mately 6-1/2 square miles of rural type drainage and 1-1/2 square miles of urban drainage. Their report presented a map showing the alignment of Ralston Creek in the early 1900's. It is interesting to note that at that time, the eastern boundary of the urban area of Iowa City was First Avenue. The report pointed out that Ralston Creek, prior to the development of the Rundell Street Addition in the early 1900's, flowed in a wide loop between the railroad tracks and Muscatine Avenue. When the Rundell tract was subdivided in 1908, an alley was left between Grant and Rundell Streets into which the creek was put through a dug channel. This left a low area in the vicinity of Rundell and Center Streets. A map presented in the 1952 report shows the former creekbed passing through the intersection of Center and Dearborn. The 1952 report stated that one of the causes of rather serious flooding in the area of Center and Rundell and Center and Dearborn hinges on the fact that this was a former streambed. Previous Floods.- The report recounts the history of two extremely damaging floods, one in 1942 and one in 1950. The 1942 flood was thought to be a seven year flood, that is, on an average a flood of this magnitude would occur about once in seven years. The report's discussion of the flood damage is particularly enlightening and will be quoted directly. occasional action of a flood, hence they are not capable of carrying the flood, which must perforce spill over the banks onto what is generally designated as a flood plain. When Man persists in placing his structures along this flood plain and does not at the same time take steps to greatly enlarge the stream channel to carry flood flows, or construct regulatory works upstream to reduce them, he will con- tinually be in danger of having his property flooded. Such appears to be the case on Ralston Creek. A plat of the Rundell Addition, as it was laid out shows that the South Branch swung in a wide loop to the east of its present location in the vicinity of Rundell and Center Streets. When the area was platted and developed the stream was moved to its present straightened channel, leaving a considerable area of low ground in and around the old channel lower than the hanks of the relocated channel. The present channel is inadequate to carry floods of any size, partly due to bridge constrictions and partly because of the fact that the channel is too small, is somewhat crooked, and is rough, all of which decrease its flood -carrying capacity. Whenever overflow occurs, the water seeks the flood plain, causing material damage along that flood plain in the Rundell -Center Street area just mentioned. Also, a short storm sewer joins a catch - basin at the Rundell -Center Street intersection with the creek about 100 feet downstream from the Center Street bridge. When the creek rises the water level becomes higher than the street surface and flow from the creek to the street results." -2- The report then states recommendations -for relief and these are presented in two parts; 1) A long range plan encompassing various methods of relief ranging all the way from minor protective works to complete pro- tection, and 2) A plan for immediate performance of needed works to remedy Obvious faults such as constrictions, improper alignment, brush encroachment, trash in waterway and the like as time and funds permit. The Engineers Club of Iowa did not feel that the long range plan was within the scope of their report; they did say that such a long range plan could be properly prepared only after detailed surveys and studies and should be left to a competent consulting engineer. Commenting on short range solutions, the report goes, into detail concerning channel constrictions at the following bridges. On the south branch they identify Muscatine Avenue and "E" Street, 7th Avenue Court, 6th Avenue, Sheridan Avenue, Center Avenue, Muscatine Avenue and Court, and the College Street bridges. On the north branch at that time there were no bridges except that on Rochester. On the main stem of the creek the report states that there were 18 bridges over the main stem and the report further identifies those which were grossly inadequate. The ones they mention are Evans Street, Gilbert Street, and Prentiss Street. The report narrates a description of channel improvements that can be made which included deepening, widening and straightening and further states that before extensive work is performed this work should be integrated. Sewers - The report details problems with the sanitary sewers which parallel the creek. During times of high water on Ralston Creek the sewers become full and back up into basements. The report also examines storm sewers and mentions the recurring problem in the Rundell Addition. Solutions - The last two items in the report are examinations of channel maintenance and restriction of land use. The report is summarized -3- "On the basis of the foregoing study, and after consultation with persons familiar with the problem of flooding along Ralston Creek and its two branches within the limits of Iowa City the committee draws the following conclusions, with recommendations for their accomplishment. 1. The damages caused by flooding can be materially reduced, possibly eliminated. The method of accomplishment and, in particular, its cost, can be determined only by a careful study by a competent consulting engineer. It is recommended that the City initiate this study without delay. The committee has not considered the possibilities of diverting any part of the flow around the city or upstream storage. 1I. In the interval prior to completion of the above study the present flood dangers can be materially lessened through the certain remedial measures, which might become a part of the comprehensive plan. These have been set forth in the foregoing discussion and consist principally of channel improvements and the removal of constrictions. III. Any future building developments along the flood plain of the stream system will be subject to the same dangers from flooding as present developments and should be discouraged, if possible. Consideration by the city of advising any person who in the future requests permission to build along the creek, within what appears to be the flood plain, of the ever present hazards of flooding should be given. MEN IV. The sanitary sewer systems within the watersheds of the North and South Branches are subject to serious overloading through entry of storm waters. The entire system should be critically examined and rebuilt where necessary, to eliminate storm waters and improve flow capacity. V. A storm sewer system to alleviate local flooding within the watershed is indicated, particularly in the Rundell Addition. Plans for this should be made before the center of Rundell Street is paved. VI. Serious consideration should be given to the use of presently undeveloped areas within the flood plains of the North and South Branches as parkways for landscape planting and beautification. VII. The design of future stream crossings, such as the one contemplated on Parsons Street over the North Branch, should be based on available hydrologic data. obstruct the channel." CORPS OF ENGINEERS REPORT - 1966 The bridge should in no way A second report on the Ralston Creek problem was done by the U.S. Army Engineer Corps in November of 1966. This was an extremely comprehensive report and was based on voluminous field study. The report mentioned that Ralston Creek serves as a storm runoff collector for a significant portion of Iowa City. According to the Corps' report, a portion of the channel extending from the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific railroad tracks upstream to Evans Street was improved in about 1932. This improvement consisted of tile paved bottom and side slopes; however, severe deterioration of the tile paving has occurred. The channel downstream from the railroad is unlined; however, it is large enough to carry the same flow as the paved -5- section. Neither of the two sections.is capable of carrying the flow I for floods equal to that resulting from the .July 1950 storm. Upstream from Evans Street to the junction of the North and South Branches and upstream along the South Branch to the east city limits the existing channel is inadequate because of the narrow channel sections, small bridge openings; some of which are askew to the channel, the large number of sewer lines which cross above the existing streambed and excessive use of the stream by residents for disposal of trash. The Corps mentions that the North Branch channel from Rochester Avenue downstream to its junction with the South Branch flows through a fairly deep valley at the Glendale Avenue bridge. The channel is inadequate for major flows, especially in the reach from the Glendale Avenue bridge to the junction where residential lots are on a terrace or only slightly above the elevation of the top of the bank and where there is a backwater effect from the South Branch. Alternates Studied - The Corps considered several plans which included; 1) Upstream detention reservoirs, 2) Levees and concrete walls, 3) A diversion channel, and 4) Channel improvements. The reservoirs alone were not considered adequate since they would only control about 45% of the watershed and the reservoir in the South Branch would control a very small percentage of that drainage area, therefore requiring a great amount of work on the channels themselves. The Corps felt the reservoirs would be costly and since additional improvements would be required they concluded that such a plan could not be economically justified on a benefit -cost basis. They next investigated levees and concrete walls, which could confine flood flows to the stream channels. Unfortunately, the levees would require the relocation of many buildings and by confining and raising flood profiles would require the ramping of a number of streets and railroad crossings. It was determined They next invesii};aiv(i diversion of part of the flood ('lows into adjacent watersheds; however-, no plan of diversion was found to be feasible on a benefit -cost basis. Conclusions - Of the various plans considered, channel improvement appeared to be the most practicable and economic means of providing flood protection along the creek. A plan utilizing an earth channel with a bottom width of 40 feet on the main stem and 20 to 30 feet on the South Branch and 50 feet wide on the North Branch appeared to be the best alternate. The cost of the project based on 1966 prices would have been $2,132,000. (lased on the Corps' projected benefits the benefit -cost ratio would have been about 0.3, far below the 1.0 required. The Corps' conclusions read as follows: "Because of the excessive cost of each of the flood control measures considered as compared to the benefits which would accrue thereto, all of the plans studied were found to lack economic justification. Flood plain zoning and floodproofing measures for existing development along the flood plain are indicated. It is recommended that no project for flood control on Ralston Creek and its tributaries, Iowa City, Iowa, be adopted by the United States at this time." The appendices of the Corps report presented detailed information on runoff and stream flow data. report will be listed: Some pertinent observations from this 1. Design flows were based on a 17 year storm (corresponding to the 1962 flood) 50 year storm and 100 year storm. Main stem flows were 2,240 cfs, 3,750 cfs, and 5,200 cfs respectively. -7- For all design flows the inadequacy of the existing bridge openings posed a major problem. Bridge replacement and enlargement problems increased with larger flows. 2. A study was made to provide capacity for the 17 year frequency flood flow which occurred in July of 1962. A flood flow to bankfull stages within an enlarged earth channel selection was considered. The design flow was 2,240 cfs just below the junction of the North and South Branches of Ralston Creek. Replacement of the inadequate bridges combined with varying channel sections of the culvert held the average channel velocity to approximately 4 feet per second. Also in the appendix, the report presents a profile map of the 1950 and the 1962 floods with the existing bridges plotted on the profile. It is extremely interesting to note that several bridges were overtopped by water from one to 8 feet. From the mouth of the creek to the centerline of First Avenue a total of 19 bridges were overtopped by water. Ten bridges were not overtopped. SHIVE-HATTERY STUDY - 1969 The next study was a short one done by Shive-Hattery $ Associates in 1969. The specific purpose of this report was to aid in making design flow decisions relating to modification of culverts at Burlington Street, Benton Street and Kirkwood Avenue. The report summarized the problems with flow carrying capacity as follows: "The many natural man-made conditions which have a detrimental effect on the capacity of Ralston Creek to carry high discharges posses=one or all of the following characteristics. They reduce vertically and/or we Factors most commonly found are bridges, ice jams, debris jams, fills, fences, sedimentation, vegetation, sharp bends in the channel, utility lines which are suspended below bridges crossing the flood plain, under water utility lines which cross on or above the channel bottom, etc. The runoff yield is increased by decreasing the infiltration rate available in the watershed. Typical factors which increase runoff are the development of streets, parking lots, landfilling rough areas, etc." The report finally recommended not modifying the culverts at Burlington, Benton and Kirkwood; however, it did recommend removing six other bridge structures. SCS STUDIES - 1971 $ 1972 Two short preliminary reports were done by the Soil Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. These were entitled, "Ralston Creek Watershed Project Alternatives for Flood Reduction" and "Ralston Creek Watershed Land Use, Land Capability and Conservation Needs". Only the first report deals directly with the Ralston Creek flood problem. The report outlines two alternatives to the problem. One alternative was to do nothing. The other alternative was watershed treatment. The remainder of the report deals with alternative No. 2, that is, watershed treatment. This would be basically a soil conservation land treatment together with impoundments to hold back flood water. Preliminary study indicates that a storm of considerable size and intensity could be held within the existing channel if dams were installed. am Federal Legislation - The Soil Conservation Service is able to offer ' assistance through the Small Watershed Project Puhlic Law 566. Watershed projects under Public Law 566 enacted in 1954 are a combination of soil r.nd water conservation measures on private and public land and dams and other structural measures on upstream tributaries. The law is based on 1) Local initiative and responsibility, 2) State review and approval of local proposals, and 3) Federal technical and 'financial assistance. The federal government gives technical help in planning and installing the project measures, pays the full cost of building flood control measures and shares the cost of other measures. Federal funds may be available at the rate of 5o% of cost for land rights and certain basic facilities for recreation or fish and wildlife purposes. At the present time the City has directed a request for planning assistance to the Soil Conservation Service and detailed planning will start upon receipt of updated topographic maps which the City is presently preparing. These will be received by the Soil Conservation Service about March of 1975. The Corps of Engineers has indicated they may also be able to participate in a study and possible funding of the diversion tunnel; however, with the information presently available they cannot commit themselves to the project. Upon request of the City they will do a reconnaissance report and if this should show the diversion tunnel has a benefit -cost ratio greater than one they will proceed with a detailed project report in conjunction with the Soil Conservation Service. Estimated time of completion for the two reports previously mentioned is 18 months. The City, at this stage, has made contact with the Corps concerning these reports to further explore Corps participation. -10- IOWA NATURAL RESOURCES COUNCIL - 1972 Ono of the ]a test.' studies of Ralston Creek was done by the Iowa Natural Resources Council in April of 1972. The main purpose of the report was to designate flood plain areas, a floodway area and give elevations above which all new structures should be built in order to prevent flooding. As part of this report several studies were conducted to determine the water elevation all along the creek for any given rainstorm. Essentially the Resources Council studied three floods, a 3 year flood, a 20 year flood and a 100 year flood. It is interesting to know that even with a three year flood one of the bridges along the main stem becomes inundated and with a 20 year flood several bridges become inundated and back water onto the flood plain. Discussion with the Iowa Natural Resources Council concerning the benefits of cleaning the channel itself without any major bridge removals and/or reconstruction projects revealed that the creek level in the down- stream portion of the creek might possibly drop one to two inches as a result of channel cleaning alone. Even this is doubtful in their opinion since it is the bridges that are creating the main restriction to the flow through the stream. SCS REPORT - 1972 One final report done on the Ralston Creek Watershed by the Soil Conservation Service was completed in October of 1972. Their investigation was done to determine the downstream effect of two dams, one on the north branch upstream of Rochester Avenue and one on the south branch east of the city limits. It was determined that the two dams together would decrease the frequency of flooding in the downtown area from once in five years to once in ten years. This was not considered a satisfactory level of protection -11- because of developments in the flood plain area. They also pointed out that additional protection could be provided by diverting the flood waters around the damage centers. This would be done by a diversion tunnel running beneath Kirkwood Avenue and approximately 5,000 feet in length. This would then mean that with the dams and the diversion tunnel, approximately 89% of the drainage area would be controlled. Combination of the two dams and the diversion tunnel would provide protection to the downtown area from a flood that could be expected once in 100 years. Preliminary cost estimates for the two dams including easements and rights-of-way was $750,000. The diversion tunnel was estimated to cost 1.5 million dollars. In addition, another dam should be added on a tributary of the south branch at the city limits. With three dams and a diversion tunnel it was estimated that $3 million would be needed. This was exclusive of operation and maintenance costs after construction. -12- It seems clear from the reports available that the present flooding is the result of factors which have developed over a period of time and which are not easily solved. Increasing urbanization in the east end of town has certainly contributed to the problem; however, it should be pointed out that flooding occurred as long ago as 1932, 1941 and 1950. Floods have become more frequent on the watershed occurring in 1956, 1962, 1965, 1967 and 1972. It would be correct to say that the increasing urbanization of the east end of town has increased the severity of these floods; however, it would he incorrect to say that this is the total cause of the additional flooding. Rainstorm occurrence is a random occurrence and it should be made clear that a five year storm or 10 year storm mentioned earlier in this report does not occur regularly once every five years and once every 10 years. These storms come in a random sequence and a five year storm one week may be followed by a five year storm the following week in the same year. To date, the worst storm on the Ralston Creek watershed appears to have been a 25 year storm; however, there is absolutely no guarantee that the 100 year storm will not occur tomorrow. The second major cause of flooding as shown in the reports is the inadequacy of the channel and bridges. The channel itself might be equated with a garden hose and the bridges equated with kinks in the garden hose. At the present time the creek is inadequate to carry an appreciable storm and many of the bridges are totally inadequate to carry even a small rain- storm. One cannot help but draw the conclusion that the solution to Ralston Creek's flooding will not be easy nor cheap. Removing some of the more -13- i Rebuilding some bridges would help. Detention dams on the upper watershed would help and a diversion tunnel would obviously help. As mentioned earlier in the report, an estimate of an optimum solution utilizing dams and a diversion tunnel would cost $3 million and this cost could easily double as detailed plans are prepared. The very cheapest interim solution,assuming cooperation could be obtained from all parties concerned, might involve removal of seven or eight of the worst bridges and widening and cleaning of the waterway. This type of activity on the creek from the junction of the North and South creek to the mouth of the Iowa River cannot be easily estimated; however, a rough figure might be $100,000 to dredge the creek from the mouth of the creek to the junction of the North and South branches. Concerning bridge removals, one of the previous reports recommended that 14 bridges be rebuilt and 5 bridges removed along the main stem of the creek to handle a 50 year storm. To handle a 50 year storm on the north branch all bridges would have to be rebuilt and to handle a 50 year storm within the study area on the south branch all bridges would have to be rebuilt with the exceptions of Meadow Street and Muscatine Avenue. For the 17 year storm the situation was studied only from the mouth of the creek to College Street, but in that reach, one bridge would have to be rebuilt and two bridges would have to be removed. Sanitary sewers throughout the flood plain are also creating problems by backing up into basements. Substantial portions of the sewer have been rebuilt in the last ten years. In 1965, the main trunk sewer from Scott Boulevard along the creek to Rundell then north on Rundell to Iowa Avenue was rebuilt. Rebuilding of these sewers has had some positive effect; -14- the sewer lines from several places such as through joints in the sewer itself, through manhole lids, through house and building roof drains connected directly to the sanitary sewer and through foundation drains around basements hooked directly to the sanitary sewer. Federal funds are available to rebuild sanitary sewers, but extensive studies must be done to justify to the Environmental Protection Agency that this is the most cost effective solution. If the cause of overloading of the sewer lines is deteriorated sewer lines it is possible to receive funding through the EPA. Unfortunately, this is not a quick process and it is anticipated that a study of this type would take approximately a year. If the project were approved, funds would have to be obtained for the design and construction of the sewer. This is not to imply that it cannot be done; but it should be recognized that it is a lengthy process, probably 3 to 5 years in length. -is- i l 15 There are many frustrations in dealing with the Ralston Creek flooding problem. To the casual observer the solution seems obvious; that is, clean the creek. A more detailed study shows that the bridges are also a problem; therefore, a solution would seem to be rip out or rebuild the bridges. The question then becomes which bridges to rip out or rebuild. For instance, if ten of the bridges are rebuilt to handle a 50 year storm and one bridge is left in that will retard the 5 year storm, little would be accomplished. It is simply impossible at this point in time to make quick, rational decisions regarding the most beneficial measures to be taken on the creek. Even the most hastily thrown together proposal is going to require several months of study and, of course, a long range solution to the problem is going to require years. It is estimated that a long range solution involving dams and a diversion tunnel will take from eight to ten years to complete. This is indeed a long time, but one could consider that if a solution had been started back in 1952 when one of the first reports was done on this problem, Iowa City would have had the benefit of the improvement by at least 1962. The flooding on the creek is a significant problem and conceivably, if a 50 or 100 year storm should strike in the next few years, the effects would truly affect almost everyone in town. and the process should be started now We recommend that a solution be found Any quick, easy solutions should be investigated with careful and meticulous scrutiny to verify their validity. Even if funds were unlimited and projects undertaken tomorrow, the problem will not be solved unless the money is aimed toward a total solution. It is simply impossible to justify the expenditure of several hundred thousand -16- The 17 year storms in 1962 and 1972 caused grave damage and difficulties to residents along the flood plain of Ralston Creek. The 50 year storm would make the previous flood seem minor by comparison. We must recommend a solution that will eliminate problems caused by at least a 100 year storm; therefore, we must recommend that extensive and exhaustive studies be conducted. 114ft JF (I y 1 , i• i t _' G r F r r,. - , �t 9 , •; •tel . �ls.,,�. rx_,71•. f• � . 4 � �. � ,, 4_ _. , H�i`� .,•, ��.�, r � rt • nt _'::�//tai ��� .�lj ,� '.. ��1. ELI- . J 117: vsaamrw t � � 1 PROCEDURAL STEPS FOR THE ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE THE MANDATORY DEDICATION OF PARK LAND OR FEES IN LIEU OF Introduction The purpose of this report is to outline the steps necessary in the adoption of an ordinance requiring the mandatory dedication of land, payment of fees -in -lieu -of dedication, or both for park and recreational land in new subdivisions. The first part of this report relates the various techniques for obtaining land and the second part gives the steps necessary for such an ordinance. PART I -- METHODS OF OBTAINING LAND There are several methods of obtaining land for neighborhood parks in new residential areas including the following: Fee Simple - the purchase of land outright. This is the most common method employed by cities to acquire land. It is obvious, however, the public must have the money at the outset to buy the land. Reservation - withholding land for a specified length of time for later acquisition. This method enables cities to develop a program for purchasing park land on a year- to-year basis as funds become available. Enough money, however, may not be available to purchase needed park land in rapidly growing residential areas. Easement - the purchase of an easement over land for park purposes. This is perhaps the oldest method of withholding land for park and recreational use while keeping it on the tax rolls. The method is most often used for the preser- vation of open space and scenic areas at much less cost than could be accomplished.through the fee simple method and entitles the land owner to utilize the land as long as he preserves it. In any case, easements should be acquired for perpetuity to secure the city's investment in any later improvements on the land, but even then in almost every easement deed, there will be a reverter clause to the effect that if the purpose for which the easement was acquired is abandoned, the easement will automatically be voided and all rights returned to the E 11 owner. In such, cases, also, the cost of an easement would undoubtedly approximate the cost of acquiring the land by fee simple. Mandatory dedication or fees -in -lieu of - the dedication of land, payment of fees or both for park and recreational land in new subdivisions. This method is used extensively by cities particularly in the State of California and in other states including Arkansas, Washington and Minnesota. Because of the desperate financial capacities of govern- ments to cope with the problems manifest in the extra- ordinary rate of residential growth, this method is the best way of obtaining land for neighborhood parks when they are needed and before the land is developed for other uses. It could also perhaps be supported that it is the obligation of the subdivider to provide open space for the general health and safety of the residents generated by his use of the land just as it is his obligation to pro- vide certain improvements including streets, sidewalks, gas, electricity and water for the general welfare of residents within the subdivision. PART II --.STEPS NECESSARY FOR ADOPTING A MANDATORY DEDICATION ORDINANCE The steps necessary for the development of background infor- mation and the preparation and adoption of a mandatory dedication ordinance are illustrated in the following chart and explained below. BACKGROUND STUDIES COMPPLHANNESIVE I ----OR---- lie I ORDINANCE PROVISIONS STUDY ORDINANCE PARK AND RECREATIONAL PLAN UPDATE 10 A Comprehensive Plan It would first be desirable to have an updated comprehensive plan, an official public document adopted by the City as a policy guide to decisions about the future physical develop- ment of the community. Since the official comprehensive plan for Iowa City, prepared by Harland Bartholomew and Associates, was "adopted" in 1962, it should be updated or replaced with a new plan to reflect the changes in development patterns and subsequent annexations by the City which have occurred over the past twelve years. One of several elements included in the plan is a parks and recreational element, part of which illustrates in general form the most appropriate locations for future neighborhood, community and regional parks, pro- grammed in succession with the expansion of residential development. Alternatively, the parks and recreational section of the comprehensive plan could be updated utilizing in part the Park and Recreation Survey, prepared by Ralph H. Burke, Inc. in 1965, and updated in 1970. It is difficult, however, to formulate plans for the future location of parks without consideration for other interrelated land use elements such as the location of future major and secondary arterial streets, anticipated residential growth, a delineation of neighborhood boundaries, and the location of elementary schools, as would be given in a comprehensive plan. In a letter submitted to the City Council from the City Attorney's office and attached with an accompanying memorandum as an exhibit to this report, reference is made to the opinion: "the City does have the power to require mandatory dedication or fees -in -lieu of dedication if the following standards are adhered to as set forth in the memorandum: the park required must be included in our comprehensive or general plan ..." By inference, there might appear to be a question of suffi- ciency in updating just the parks and recreational section of the plan, although in either case, the goals and objectives and standards for parks and recreation including area, location and facilities would be developed. A Study The next step will necessitate a study taking into consideration: a. The proportion of a subdivision to be dedicated and the amount of any fee tobe paid in lieu thereof. There are basically two formulas for determining the amount of land to be dedicated: a fixed percentage based upon the total amount of land in the subdivision and a density 11 formula where a given amount of land is required per dwelling unit or lot. There are basically three types of fees -in -lieu provisions: those in which the fees are based upon either the assessed or fair market value of the land or a percentage thereof, a fixed dollar amount per lot or dwelling unit, or a variable amount of the fair market value based upon the density of the sub- division. -5 b. The right of rejection of inappropriate land for a park and the criteria for determining the suitability of a site including accessibility, size and shape, topography, geology, tree cover, and location. The dedicated land should form a single parcel of land, have a shape usable for recreational activities including softball and tennis, be located so as to serve the recreational and open space needs of the subdivision, have access to joining street frontage, and have a location accessible to the entire neighborhood. C. An allowance of "credit" for private open space - land maintained by the residents as a homeowners association. In certain cases where sufficient open space and recre- ational facilities are provided by the developer or home- owners, public parks are not needed. In other cases, supplemental land should be dedicated. d. Limitations on the use of funds in -lieu -of dedication of park land. As was indicated in the letter submitted from the City Attorney's office, "the advantage gained from the requirement must be used to the direct benefit of the people in that subdivision." Fees paid, therefore, must be used for the purpose of providing park and recreational facilities to serve the "area" in which the subdivision is located. e. When the value of land will be determined for calculating the fees -in -lieu. The City may want to determine the fair market value based upon recent appraisals, or if the subdivider should object to such amount of evaluation, he may, at his expense, obtain an appraisal of the property by a qualified real estate appraiser approved by the City. f. A procedure for determining when fees -in -lieu of dedication are more appropriate. In the event subdivisions are proportionately small, a suitable park cannot be properly located in the subdivision, or the comprehensive plan calls for a neighborhood park to be located elsewhere, a payment of fees -in -lieu of land would be more appropriate. • El The final step is the writing of an ordinance to amend the Subdivision Ordinance to require the mandatory dedication of land, payment of fees -in -lieu of dedication, or both. A sample ordinance incorporating provisions outlined in a Report and Su ested Ordinance for the Dedication of Park Lana in Subdivisions from the League of California Cities is attar a as an ex ibit to this report. It is essential to keep in mind that these provisions in their present form are not entirely appropriate to the City. Summary In summation, to require the mandatory dedication of land, payment of fees or both for park and recreational use in new subdivisions will necessitate: (1) updating the comprehensive plan and the parks and recreational element or updating the parks and recreational section of the existing comprehensive plan utilizing, in part, the Park and Recreation Survey prepared by Ralph H. Burke, Inc., (2) a study to determine what essential provisions should be included within an ordinance, and (3) the writing of an ordinance to amend the Subdivision Ordinance for adoption. EXHIBITS The Honorable Mayor and City Council of Iowa City Civic Center Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Re s Mandatory Park Land Dedications Mayor and Council Members: Recently you referred to my office the question of whether or not the City had the power to require the dedication of park land as part of the subdivision process by developers. We have extensively researched this question. Attached to this letter is a research memorandum of February 8, 1974, by Assistant City Attorney Dick Braun outlining the results of this study. The status of mandatory park land dedications in Iowa is uncertain, as the memorandum indicates. Chapter 409 of the Code of Iowa does not specifically grant municipal corporations this power. However, it is our opinion that the City does have the power to require mandatory dedication or fees -in -lieu of dedication if the following standards are adhered to as set forth in the memorandum: 1. The park required must be included in our comprehensive or general plan. 2. The subdivision exaction must be considered reasonable, with regard to the subdivision in question. 3. The requirements must be attributable to the specific needs of the subdivision in question. 4. The advantage gained from the requirement must be used to the direct benefit of the people in that subdivision. ' You should be aware that enactment of mandatory park land dedications � would probably result in litigation in the courts over the issue because of the 0 March 5, 1974 cost of compliance with such requirements to subdividers along with the uncertainty of the legal status of the requirement. Mr. Braun and I will be happy to discuss this matter with you further at your convenience. JWH:vb Attachment 0 Respectfully submitted, Jo W. Hayek TO: John Hayek, City Attorney DATE: February 8, 1Q74 FROM: Dick Braun, Assistant City Attorney RE: Mandatory Park Land Dedications Subdivision regulations requiring the mandatory dedication of land or fees -in -lieu of.land as precedent to plat approval must generally be authorized by state legislation. States fall into three catagories on this issue: 1. States.specifically allowing mandatory dedication of land or fees -in -lieu of dedication. 2. States where enabling legislation neither specifically authorizes nor forbids mandatory dedication of land or fees - in -lieu thereof, 3. States where legislation specifically prohibits mandatory dedication.of land or fees -in -lieu thereof. I will discuss these three in order placing Iowa in the proper perspective. 1. To name a few, California, Arkansas, Washington, and Minnesota have adopted legislation authorizing dedication and fees -in -lieu provisions. Out of this list of states the California example has created the strongest impact. Prior to the enactment of mandatory dedication legislation in California in 1965, there was a.1949 landmark case already in existence in that state, ' ►res v.- City of Los Angeles, 34 Cal.2d 31, 207 P.2d 31 k1949). The Ayres case stands for the propositionthat a land owner or developer can be required to pay for improvements which are generated by his use of the land whether or not the community is also benefited by the expenditure. It Is the obligation of the subdivider to comply with reasonable conditions for design, dedication, improvement, and restrictive' use of the land so as to conform to the safety and general welfare of the lot owners in the subdivision and of the public: Thus, identifying the existence of benefits to those intended to be burdened by the restrictions, the court made its ultimate leap of logic for which Ayres has been cited ever since: "It is no defense to the condition imposed in a subdivision map proceeding that their fulfillment will incidently benefit the City as a whole.", Ayres vs. Cit of Los Angeles at page 7. Subsequent to the Ayres case, In 3965, Cl California passed specific legislation (Section 11546 of the Business Code of the State), which authorized cities and counties, as a condition of subdivision map approval, to require a subdivider to dedicate land for neighborhood parks, or in -lieu thereof, to pay fees for such purposes. Subsequent to this date the Supreme Court of California in 1971 in an expansion of the _A rimes doctrine to require dedication of land or fees -in -lieu of dedication for parks and other open spaces handed down an opinion in Associated Home Builders Etc. v. Walnut Creek, 94 Ca1.Rptr. 630, 484 P.2d 0 Cal. 1971). Associated ome Llders Etc. v. Walnut Creek sustained the validity of Section 1154b of the Business an Professional Code of the State of California and additionally sustained an ordinance of the city of Walnut Creek enacted pursuant to said statute. The Supreme Court found a merit in the contention that the city should be able to use the collected fees anywhere in the community and not be required to spend such fees on a park conveniently located to the subdivision. It should be noted at this time for future reference that Associated Home Builders disposed of., in a footnote, an important Illinois case in this area, Pioneer Trust and Savings Bank v. Village of Mount Prospect., 22 Ill.2d 375, 197b N.E. d 799 19 1 . It can obviously emoted that the California position represents one end of the spectrum; that being the.most liberal and progressive approach. 2. By far, the most.difficult and complex situation is when enabling legislation neither expressly permits nor prohibits requirements for dedication or fees -in -lieu dedication of land as precedent to plat approval. To date there is no general agreement among the various state courts involved, concerning the constitu- tionality of requiring dedications as a condition to subdivision approval. But a few courts have identified constitutional principles that underlie their decision. Common subdivision exactions, such as the dedication of streets and sidewalks are designed to minimize the impact of the subdivision on the municipalityand are supported by the general welfare aim of the police power. The arguments supporting these requirements have been uniformly accepted by the courts. A leading case in this area, Ayres v. Cit Council of Los Angeles., has supported this issue as_ ar back as 1949. This brings us then to the key problem --whether the newer kinds of requirements in sub- divisions, parks for-example,:should be treated any differently from the more traditional requirements which have received judicial approval (see Iowa Code Section 409.5). Does the require- ment to dedicate land for parks as a condition to subdivision approval lie within the permissable objectives of the police power to protect the health, safety, welfare, and morals of the general public? 0 New York and Wisconsin have enabling legislation which neither specifically authorizes nor forbids a municipality to require park land dedication or fees -in -lieu thereof and such provisions have been upheld in principle in their courts. A In what has been contrasted as the polar opposite to res and its progency, the Illinois Supreme Court in 1961 enunciated its "specifically and uniquely attributable" test in Pioneer Trust and Savin s Bank v. Village of Mount Pros ect, ,g, municipal ordinance adopted h s case invo ved a required a subdivider to dedicate $one tacre eofnland nforceach ich 60 residential lots and 1/10 of an acre for each acre of business property to be used for park or school sites. In dispute was the demand by Mount Prospect that a developer of 250 lots dedicate 6.78 acres before his plat would be approved. the court in Pioneer Trust took notice of A res and relied upon it in its decision. The Pioneer Trust court took notice as in A res that the subdivision'in question was merely a small piece in a rapidly evolving pattern of development; neither disputed that school and were party ly nee.k Ayres, however, the Illinois courts made noareferencedto anyike master plan nor to any previous practice of requiring other developers to dedicate .land. Treating the immediate subdivision as a matter of first impression, the court reached exactly the Opposite conclusion as to A res on the critical issue of external benefits: "No developer shall be compelled to dedicate open space unless the need for 'it is specifically and uniquely attributable to its activity and which would otherwise be cast on the public.", Pioneer Trust at are Page 801. As is typical, American state courts But again, the irony of Pioneer Trustisthatit disagree with each other. follow A res in reaching its d tdecision. The reading rofrAereso and the reliance thereon by the Illinois Supreme Court has been criticized by courts and other authorities. Jordan v. Villa a ofMenomonee Falls, 137 N.W.2d 442 (1966), a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision, interpreted 1959 ordinance provisions of the Village of Menomonee Falls (see Appendix A) as follows: "The Court accepted the guidelines given in Pioneer Trust yet observed that the phrase 'specifically and uniquely attributable to his activity', must not be 'so restrictively applied as to cast an unreasonable burden of proof upon the municipality which has enacted the ordinance under attack'." In most instances'it would be impossible for the municipality to prove that the land required to be dedicated fora -park or school site as to meet a need solely attributable.to the anticiapted influx of people into the community to occupy this particular subdivision. On the other hand, the municipality might well be able to establish that a group of subdivisions approved over a period of several years had been responsible for bringing into the community a considerable r] Lj number of people making it necessary that the land dedications required of the subdividers be utilized for school, park and recreation purposes for the benefit of such influx. In the absence of contravening evidence this would establish a reasonable basis for finding the need for the acquisition was occasioned by the activity of the subdivider. (Supreme Court of Wisconsin, Nov. 2, 1965s 137 N.W.2d 442) At this point it is extremely important to examine Statutues of Wisconsin, Chapter 236. The pertinent parts of Section 236.45 are layed out in the Jordan decision at pages 445 and 446. Please examine the parts of this section in light of the italicized emphasis provided. This italicized emphasis refers generally to facilitating adequate provision for parks, providing other approving requirements for subdivisions, and liberal construction in favor of the municipality for any ordinance adopted pursuant to state enabling legislation for local subdivision regulation. In 1971 the Wisconsin Supreme Court again reviewed Chapter 236, Statutes, which delegates powers to the cities to approve subdivision plats. In Rodenbeck v. American Mutual Liabilit Ins. Co., 190 N.W.2d _91-7-7-9-711T—the court at page 916 iscussed hap er 236 as follows: "While it is hornbook law that cities, as creatures of the legislature, have only such powers as are expressly granted to them and such others as are necessary and convenient to the powers expressly granted, it is clear, in regard to -plat approvals, that discretion, within limits, was granted to the municipalities." Skipping down 13 lines in the same paragraph the court went on to say, "Section 236.45(2)(b) (the same section referred to in Jordan) directs that any ordinance adopted by a municipality shall be - liberally construed in favor of the municipality. This reserves to the city a broad area of discretion in implementing subdivision control provided that the ordinances it adopts are in accord with the general declaration of legislative intent and are not contrary, expressly or by implication, to the standards set up by the legislature. This is a grant of wide discretion which a municipality may exercise by ordinance or appropriate resolution." In 1960 the New York Supreme Court in Gulest Associates, Inc. v. Town of Newburgh, 25 Mise.2d 1004, 209 N.Y.S.2d 729, discussed dedication for fee S_ of dedication. The Gulest case provides that the requirements must not only represent the needs of the particular subdivision but that the advantages of the requirement must directly benefit this subdivision. The question of "who benefits" is particularly important in c:::;es dealing with fees—in-lieu. El 11 Again in 1966 the New York Supreme Court in JenadInc. v. Village of Scarsdale, 18 N.Y.2d 78, 218 N.E.2d 673, 271 N.Y.S. d 55 (1966), examined dedication or fees -in -lieu of dedication. In this decision the New York Court went even a step further. It not only held that communities in New York could impose such requirements, but that it was an example of fine city planning and therefore reversed the Qulest case on the grounds that the benefit did not have to run directly to the subdivision in question. The court stated that in such situations where separate subdivisions were too small to permit substantial park lands to be set off the creation of such subdivisions were still found to have enlarged the demand for more recreational space in the community. In such cases it was just as reasonable to assess the subdividers on amount per lot to go into a fund for more park lands for the village or town. The court found that one arrangement was no more of a "tax" or "illegal taking" then the other. In coming to their decision in Jenad the New York court cited with approval both Jordan and a-7 b4 Montana Supreme Court case, Billings Properties,.Inc. v. Yellowstone County, 144 Montana 25, 394 P.2d 182, where a state s a u e requ re and to be dedicated for park and playground purposes as a condition precedent to approval of a subdivision plat and which statute authorized the county planning board to waive the requirement in appropriate cases. The Montana court remarked (page 29, 294 P.2d, page 185) that: "Statutes requiring dedication of park and playground land as a condition precedent to the approval of plats are in force in one form or another in most all states." The court said this at page 33, 394 P.2d at page 187: "Appellant does not deny the need for parks and playgrounds, however it would require the city to purchase or condemn land for their establish- ment. But this court is of the opinion that if the subdivision creates the specific need for such parks and playgrounds, then it is not unreasonable to charge the subdivider with the burden of providing them." 3. States where legislation specifically prohibit mandatory dedication of land or fe s -in -lieu thereof. L was unable to find any legislation that specifically prohibited this activity, rather states such as Illinois in the Pioneer Trust decision have had their statutes interpreted to bring about prohibition of mandatory dedication. In other words, most all states fall under situation #2 where the statutory language neither specifically, authorizes nor forbids, but the Supreme Court either allows or disallows mandatory dedication in varying degrees such as in New York, Wisconsin, and Illinois. In Iowa we fall under situation #2 where there is!no specific legislation approving mandatory dedication nor is there specific legislation denying mandatory dedication. The more traditional requirements are covered by section 409.5 Code of Iowa, 1973. These are sidewalks, paving, sewers, water, gas, and electric utilities--all required before the plat is approved. The newer kinds of requirements for subdivisions such as parks would in my opinion be covered by section 409.14 Code of Iowa, 1973. This section is quite lengthy so I will just set out appropriate sections and allow the rest to be read in its entirety from the Code itself. Please read section 409.14 keeping in mind the Jordan decision and comparing Iowa's statutory language with Wisconsin's at pages 445 and 446 of 137 N.W.2d. The relevant paragraph under section 409.14 is paragraph 4 beginning at the bottom left-hand column of page 1830 Code of Iowa, 1973. This section states that plats shall conform to the general plan of the city with regard to streets, alleys, boulevards, parks, and public places and be conducive to an orderly develop- ment thereof and not otherwise interfere with the carrying out of a comprehensive city plan. Additionally, the plats shall conform to the ordinances of the city involved. As you move to the end of the fourth paragraph the following language appears: "Provided that the city council may require as a condition of approval of such plats that the owner of the land bring all streets to a grade acceptable to the council, and comply with such other reasonable requirements in regard to installation of public utilities or other improvements as the coucil may deem requisite for the-protection of the pu lic interest. t is last quotation is compared to the statutory language of the state of Wisconsin contained in the Jordan opinion, it proves to be very _similar. Chapter 368 Code o owa, 1973, also contains language that is extremely similar to that contained in the Wisconsin statutes and additionally the language supports an interpretation of Chapter 409 that would allow mandatory dedication or fees-in-lieu thereof. Section 368.2 Code of Iowa, 1973, states in relevant part the following: "It is hereby declared to be the policy of the State of Iowa that the provision of the Code relating to the powers, privileges, and immunities of cities and towns are intended to confer broad powers of self-determination as to strictly local and internal affairs upon such municipal corporations and should be liberally construed in favor of such corporations." "Its provisions (Code) shall be construed to confer upon such cor- porations broad and implied power over all local and internal affairs which may exist within constitutional limits." In search of the cases in Iowa, I find no authority concerning mandatory dedication or fees-in-lieu thereof. The objectives of provisions for mandatory dedication or fees-in-lieu of dedication may be considered acceptable in light of traditional subdivision requirements because they are Intended to minimize the overcrowding of existing recreation facilities. Most municipalities do not have the economic resources available to meet the increasing demands of new development for municipal services. As a result of new development, the I* City must respond by supplying the necessary additional capital facilities such as streets, water, sewer facilities and parks. Consequently, the nee¢ to reduce this impact would seem to be a proper objective of the police power. Certainly these facilities should be regarded as important to the general welfare of any community. Thus, the arguments that support the constitutionality of dedication requirements are based on reasoning that the need for this additional land is generated by the new subdivision and that dedication or fees -in -lieu of land is for its benefit. It is, therefore, in the interest of the general welfare because it relieves this burden from the total community for not depriving the new residents of necessary facilities. In summary, allowing for the varying degrees of application in the different states and in light of the authorities cited, I feel that the City of Iowa City may require mandatory dedica- tion or fees -in -lieu of dedication if the following standards are adhered to: 1. The park required must be included in our compre- hensive or general plan. 2. The subdivision exaction must be considered reasonable, with regard to the subdivision in question. 3. The requirements must be attributable to the specific needs of the subdivision in question. 4. The advantage gained used to the direct benefit of from the requirement must be the people in that subdivision. 0 I® JORDAN ,& VILI.A(}ii OF MENOMOm FALLS .. :Cite as 157 H.W.2a 444 -. 5. Constitutional Law 0=81 _ _ 10. Taxation 49=pI,'44 Test of reasonableness is always appli- cable to any attempt to exercise the police power. 6. Municipal Corporations 41:=C1 The municipality by approval of a pro- posed subdivision plat enables subdivider to profit financially by selling subdivision lots as home building sites and thus realizing a greater price than could have been obtained if he had sold his property as unplatted lands; in return for this benefit the mu- nicipality may require him to dedicate part of his platted land to meet a demand to which municipality would not have been put but for influx of people into community to occupy subdivision lots. 7. Municipal Corporations 4=43 Ordinance which requires dedication of land when practicable for school, park and recreational sites as a condition for ap- proval of subdivision plats is constitutional as a proper exercise of police power. W.S.A. 236.45. B. Municipal Corporations 4=43 Ordinance requiring subdivider to pay total of $200 per lot in lieu of dedicating hand of that value for: school, park or recreational needs where village planning commission, finds dedication of land for such purposes is not feasible is reasonable exercise of police power and is authorized by statute relating to local subdivision regu- lation. W.S.A. 236.45. 9. Municipal Corporations 41=856(3) While under the home rule amendment of the Constitution and the implementing statutes villages and cities have wide powers to tax for the general welfare, they can only resort to the types of taxes that the Legislature has authorized them to use. W.S.A.Const. art. 11, $ 3; W.S.A. 61.34, 62.04. Wis. 448 The equalization fee exacted pursuant to ordinance requiring subdivider to pay a total of $200 per lot in lieu of dedicating land of that value for school, park or rec- reational needs where village planning com- mission finds dedication of land for such purposes is not feasible is not a "property tax" since it is imposed on the transaction of obtaining approval of the subdivision plats; if it is a tax it partakes of the na- ture of an "excise tax" and does not violate the uniformity clause of the Constitution. W.S.A.Const. art. 8, ¢ 1; W.S.A. 236.45. Bao publication Words and Phrases for other judicial constructions and definitions. Action by plaintiffs Martin A. Jordan and James F. McMicken and their wives against defendant village to recover $5,000 paid by plaintiffs as an equalization fee in lieu of dedicating land as required by de- fendant's ordinance governing the subdivi- sion of lands within the village. In October, 1959, Jordan and McMicken (hereinafter "plaintiffs") commenced nego- tiations for the purchase of a 7.85 acre tract of land in defendant village for the purpose of subdividing it into lots and selling the lots. While negotiating, plaintiffs became aware that defendant had enacted an ordi- nance in March, 1959, which required sub- dividers to either dedicate a portion of their land or pay a fee in lieu thereof. Pertinent sections of the ordinance are: "In order that adequate open spaces and sites for public uses may be prop- erly located and preserved as the com- munity develops; and in order that the cost of providing the public school, park, and recreation sites and facilities necessary to serve the additional fam- ilies brought into the community by subdivision development may be most equitably apportioned on the basis of L _�I C 444 Wis. 137 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER, Sd SERIES the additional need created by the indi- vidual subdivision development, the fol- lowing provisions me established: "8.01. Reservation of Potential Sites. ^ (1) In the design of the plat, con- sideration shall be given to the adc- quate provision of and correlation with such public sites or open areas. "(2) Where it is determined by the plan commission that a portion of the plat is required for such public sites or open spaces, the subdivider may be re- quired to reserve such arca for a period not to exceed threc.years, after which the Village shall either acquire the property or release the reservation. "8.02. Dedication of Sites. "(1) Within the corporate limits of the Village, where feasible and com- patible with the comprehensive plan for development of the community, the subdivider shall provide and dedicate to the public adequate land to provide for the school, park and recreation needs of the subdivision. "(2) The amount of land to be pro- vided shall be determined on the basis of an amount equal in value to $200.00 per residential lot, created by the sub- division. Such value shall be deter- mined by the Village assessor on the basis of full and fair market value of the land. If the owner is not satisfied with such appraisal, he may appeal such determination, in which case an appraisal board consisting of one ap- praisor selected by the Village at its own expense, one selected by the prop- crty owner at his own expense and a third selected by the two other ap- praisers at Village expense, shall de- termine the value. "8.03. Proportionate Payment in Lieu of Dedication. "(1) Where such dedication is not feasible or compatible with the com- prehensive plan, the subdivider shall i in lieu thereof pb.y to the Village a fee equivalent to the value of the required dedication. Stich fee shall be distrib- utcd as follows., "A. $120.00 per residential lot cre- ated by the subdivision to be held in a non -lapsing fund for the benefit of the school district or districts in which the plat lies, on the basis of proper apportionment between districts where the plat is in more than one district, and to be made available to the appropriate district or districts upon their request. "B. $80.00 per residential lot cre- ated by the subdivision to be placed in a non -lapsing fund to be used for park and recreation arca development. "(2) Such fees shall be used exclu- sively for immediate or future site acquisition or capital improvement. 118.05. Determination of Feasibility. "The determination as to the feasi- bility of dedication shall be made by the Village Plan Commission. The subdivider shall however have the op- tion of choosing to make payment in lieu of dedication." With fulj knowledge of the ordinance, plaintiffs purchased the property for $22,- 000. Plaintiff Jordan did once voice an informal objection to Gottlieb, village com- missioner, stating that he thought the ordi- nance was unconstitutional. Because of the small area and the particular layout of the subdivision planned, it did not occur to plaintiffs to dedicate any land for school or park sites. They proceeded on the assumption that they would pay the $5,000 equalization fee in lieu of land dedication, which fee they.paid by check September 12, 1960, and typed "paid under protest" on the check. Plaintiffs then proceeded to complete the subdivision at a total cost of $73,896.98, including the $5,000 platting fee. All 25 lots were sold between September, 1961, and April, 1963, for a total sum of $100,000. on c for. deni tax (1) al was tiffs, tiffs ber 1 the 3 8.031 not of to 1 of s, has orde of s crea so q V ill; BE IT ENACTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF IOWA CITY, IOWA. SECTION 1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Ordinance is to establish the stand ra ds and requirements for the dedication of land, payment of fees, or both in providing park and recreational facilities to serve future residents in all new subdivisions. SECTION 2. SUBDIVIDERS FACILITIES. Every sub Zvi er a portion of such land, pay a this ordinance. MUST PROVIDE PARK AND RECREATION who sub ivides land shall dedica fee, or do both, as set forth in SECTION 3. APPLICATION. The provisions of this ordinance shall apply to all subdivisions except those for which tentative subdivision plats have been filed within thirty (30) days after the effective date of this ordinance and business and industrial subdivisions. SECTION 4. RELATION OF LAND It is hereby found and a ermine : RED TO POPU DENSITY. (a) That the public interest, convenience, health, welfare and safety require that four (4) acres of property, for each one thousand (1,000) persons residing within this City, be devoted to park and recreational Purposes. (b) That said requirement will be satisfied in part by cooperative arrangements between the City and the Park and Recreation Commission to make available one and one- half (1-1/2) acres of property for each one thousand (1,000 persons residing within the City for park and recreation ) purposes; (c) That the remainder of the required four (4) acres shall be supplied by the requirements of this ordinance and the recreation program of the city. SECTION 5. POPULATION DENSITY. Population density for the purpose of this or finance s a 3getermined as follows: 0 (b) Multiple dwelling unit. family dwelling units = 2.1 persons per The basis for determining the total number of dwelling units shall be the number of such units permitted by the city on the property included in the subdivision at the time the final subdivision plat is filed with the City Council for approval. SECTION 6,. AMOUNT OF LAND TO BE DEDICATED. The amount of land required to be dedicated by a subdivider pursuant to this ordinance, shall be based on the gross area included in the subdivision, dbtermined by the following formula: DENSITY FORMULA Net density per dwelling unit 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 D.U. per acre or more D.U, per 1/2 to 1 acre D.U. per 10,000 sq. ft. D.U. per 9,000 to 9,999 D.U. per 81000 to 8,999 D.U. per 7,000 to 7,999 D.U. per 6,000 to 6,999 D.U. per 5,000 to 5,999 to 19 D.U.'s per acre to 29 D.U.'s per acre to 39 D.U.'s per acre to 49 D.U.'s per acre to 59 D.U.'s per acre to 69 D.U.'s per acre to 79 D.U.'s per acre to 89 D.U.'s per acre to 99 D.U.'s per acre D U ' d to 1/2 acre sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. . . s an over per acre Percentage of the Of the subdivision when park land is 0.60% 1.20% 1.738 2.708 3.01% 3.408 3.908 4.588 5.798 9.308 12.568 15.58% 18.40% 21.058 23.54% 25.858 28.008 29.078 gross area required dedicated SECTION 7. AMOUNT OF FEE.IN LIEU OF LAND DEDICATION. Where a fee is required to be paid in lieu of lan dedication, the amount of such fee shall be based upon the fair market value of the amount of land which would otherwise be required to be dedicated pursuant to SECTION 6 hereof. The amount of such fee shall be a sum equal to the fair market value of the amount of land required in accordance with the following formula: • Net density per dwelling unit 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 D.U. per acre or more D.U. per 1/2 to 1 acre D.U. per 10,000 sq. ft. D.U. per 90,000 to 9,999 D.U. per 8,000 to 8,999 D.U. per 7,000 to 7,999 D.U. per 6,000 to 6,999 D.U. per 5,000 to 5,999 to 19 D.U.'s per acre to 29 D.U.'s per acre to 39 D.U.'s per acre to 49 D.U.'s per acre to 59 D.U.'s per acre to 69 D.U.'s per acre to 79 D.U.'s per acre to 89 D U ' to 1/2 acre sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. . s per acre to 99 D.U.'s per acre D.U.'s and over per acre Sq. ft. of park land required per gross acre of subdivision 262 527 767 1,209 1,350 1,532 1,768 2,090 2,680 4,466 6,257 8,039 9,825 11,611 13,408 15,185 16,969 17 , 851 'Fair market value' shall be determined as of the time of filing the final plat in accordance with the following: (a) The fair market value as determined by the City Council based upon the then assessed value, modified to equal market value in accordance with current practice of the City Assessor; or (b) If the subdivider objects to such evaluation he may, at his expense, obtain an appraisal of the property by a qualified real estate appraiser approved by the City, which appraisal may be accepted by the City Council if found reasonable; or (c) The City and subdivider may agree as to the fair market value. SECTION 8. CREDIT FOR PRIVATE OPEN SPACE. Where open space for park and recreational private proposed subdivision and such space is to Purposes is provided in a and maintained by the future residents of the psubdivisionrivately ,1esuch areas shall be credited against the requirement of dedication for park and recreation purposes, as set forth in SECTION 6 hereof, or the payment of fees in lieu thereof, as set forth in SECTION 7 hereof, provided the City Council finds it is in the public interest to do so, and that the following standards are met: ON E El (b) That the private ownership and maintenance of the open space is adequately provided for by written agreement; and (c) That the use of the private open space is restricted for park and recreational purposes by recorded covenants which run with the land in favor of the future owners of property within the tract and which cannot be defeated or eliminated without the consent of the City Council; and (d) That the proposed private open space is reasonably adaptable for use for park and recreational purposes, taking into consideration such factors as size, shape, topography, geology, access, and location of the private open space land; and (e) That facilities proposed for the open space are in substantial accordance with the provisions of the recreational element of the comprehensive plan, and are approved by the City Council. SECTION 9. CHOICE OF LAND OR FEE (a) PROCEDURE. The procedure for determining whether the subdivider is to dedicate land, pay a fee, or both, shall be as follows: (1) SUBDIVIDER. At the time of filing a tentative plat for approval, the owner of the property shall, as part of such filing, indicate whether he desires to dedicate property for park and recreational purposes, or whether he desires to pay a fee in lieu thereof. If he desires to dedicate land for this purpose, he shall designate the area thereof on the tentative plat as submitted. (2) ACTION OF CITY. At the time of the tentative plat approval, the City Council shall determine as a part of such approval, whether to require a dedication of land within the subdivision, payment of a fee in lieu thereof, or `a combination of both. (3) PREREQUISITES FOR APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT. Where dedication is required, a dedication document shall be submitted prior to the approval of the final plat. Where fees are required the same shall be deposited with the City prior to the approval of the (b) DETERMINATION. Whether the City Council accepts land dedicat on or elects to require payment of a fee in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, shall be determined by consideration of the following: (1) Recreational element of the City's comprehensive plan; and (2) Topography, geology, access and location of land in the subdivision available for dedication; and (3) Size and shape of the subdivision and land available for dedication. The determination of the City Council as to whether land shall be dedicated, or whether a fee shall be charged or a combination thereof, shall be final and conclusive. On subdivisions involving fifty (50) lots or less, only the payment of fees shall be required. SECTION 10. the time the final designate the time facilities shall b TIME OF MUST BE DESIGNATED. At e plat is approved the City Council s -all when development of the park and recreational commenced. SECTION 11. LIMITATION ON USE OF LAND AND FEES. The land and fees received under this or i.nance shall e use only for the purpose of providing park and recreational facilities to serve the subdivision for which received and the location of the land and amount of fees shall bear a reasonable relationship to the use of the park and recreational facilities by the future inhabitants of the subdivision. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1974. ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor