HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-05-18 OrdinanceItem Number: 10.a.
�r
CITY OE IOWA CITY
www.iogov.org
May 18, 2021
Ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City code related to single-
family site development standards. (REZ21-0003)
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
PZ Staff Report wAttachments
Preliminary PZ Minutes
Ordinance
� r
IT'
CITY O F IOWA C1TY
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 6, 2021
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services
Re: Zoning Code Amendment (REZ21-0003) to amend Single -Family Site Development
Standards related to parking and paving in the front setback area
Background
In 2018, the City amended its code due to State laws that restricted the City from enforcing
regulations limiting rental occupancy based on familial relationships. In response, the City
adopted a rental permit cap restricting rental permits to 30% of single-family and duplex units in
certain neighborhoods. The City also adopted zoning code amendments that discouraged
inappropriate expansions, limited the number of bedrooms in single-family and duplex units, and
updated private open space requirements. In April 2019, the State passed legislation prohibiting
cities from adopting rental permit caps.
Due to concerns related to the City's inability to regulate rental permit caps and the potential
impacts to neighborhood stability, the City adopted a 10 -month rental permit moratorium in May
2019 to provide time to explore how best to mitigate the consequences of this legislation.
Table 1 outlines a timeline of the State bills and associated City code amendments.
TABLE 1. Timeline
April, 2017
State legislature passes a bill prohibiting cities from enforcing any
regulations that limits occupancy of rental property based on the existence
of familial relationships
April, 2018
City adopts neighborhood stabilization ordinance that made many
changes to the zoning code, including, but not limited to:
• Updated rear setback requirements to discourage
inappropriate expansions in certain zones
• Limited the number of bedrooms in attached single-family
and duplexes to 4
• Updated the private open space requirements
City moves to annual inspections for many rental properties and
increases nuisance and property maintenance enforcement.
City adopts an ordinance that capped rental permits at 30% in certain
neighborhoods for single-family and duplexes
April, 2019
State legislature passes a bill prohibiting cities from adopting or enforcing
rental permit caps
May, 2019
City adopts a ten-month rental permit cap moratorium until March 7, 2020
on the issuance of new rental permits for single-family and duplex units in
areas that exceed the 30% rental cap
May 6, 2021
Page 2
Ensuring that neighborhoods include a variety of housing choices and options for all residents
has always been a challenge, especially in the core of the community which is dominated by
student housing. While adopting the moratorium in May 2019, the City Council articulated three
goals for new regulations:
1. Ensure single-family detached structures and duplexes provide healthy and safe living
environments for all occupants.
2. Maintain neighborhood characteristics and housing options suitable for attracting a
diverse demographic in the city's older single-family neighborhoods.
3. Prevent the overburdening of city infrastructure and operational resources.
With State laws limiting local control, the City's most recent amendment to address these
concerns was adopted in 2019 (Ordinance No. 19-4815). This amended the single-family site
development standards and required a 9 -foot separation distance between conforming parking
spaces and additional paving within the required front setback area.
The proposed amendment would repeal Ordinance No. 19-4815.
Provisions and Proposed Amendment:
Without the ability to regulate occupancy or enforce rental permit caps, the City modified the
zoning code as it related to paving in front of single-family homes and duplexes. Staff believed
Ordinance No. 19-4815 would place additional restrictions on front -yard paving and help address
the second and third goals of the City Council.
Formerly, the code allowed parking in front setback areas with certain restrictions. However, it
also allowed additional paving for patio and seating areas, basketball courts, grilling areas, and
other uses to be contiguous with conforming parking spaces within the front setback area. When
Council adopted Ordinance No. 19-4815, these paved areas could no longer be contiguous with
conforming parking spaces. Instead, it required a 9 -foot separation distance to reduce instances
where additional paved area (for a patio) was used as parking. Table 1 outlines the former and
current regulations.
Table 1. Former and Current Regulations for Parking and Paving in Front Setback Areas of
Single-family and Duplex Uses
Former
Current
Parking spaces allowed in front setback area,
Parking spaces allowed in front setback area,
as long as it leads directly to a parking space
as long as it leads directly to a parking space
and at least 50% of the front setback area
and at least 50% of the front setback area
remains open sace.
remains open sace.
Additional paved areas shall be separated by
at least 9 feet of open space area from
conforming parking spaces or aisles.
Staff proposes to repeal the provision that requires the 9 -foot separation distance between the
additional paved areas and parking spaces/drive aisles.
Analysis
The purpose of the 2019 amendment was to restrict the amount of paving contiguous with
conforming parking spaces. Prior to the amendment the code allowed additional paving for patio
and seating areas, basketball courts, and grilling areas contiguous with parking spaces within the
front setback area. These areas would occasionally be used for parking, which was not allowed
by the code, but difficult to enforce.
May 6, 2021
Page 3
Since adoption of the 2019 amendment, staff has received multiple, reasonable requests from
homeowners who live outside the core of the community. These requests involved adding paving
within the front setback area in order to access a parking space within the side yard. All of these
requests had to be denied because the 9 -foot separation was not provided between the driveway
and the additional paving.
As for the impact to the core of the community, code enforcement staff has determined that the
number of violations related to paving in the front yard setback area are few and that they have
the capacity to handle these low number of code enforcement cases.
The 2019 amendment regarding parking and paving in the front yard setback area has been in
place for about 1.5 years. At this point, staff has determined that it has not had the intended effects
of promoting neighborhood stabilization in areas near the downtown. It also created new problems
in newer neighborhoods where reasonable requests from homeowners had to be denied due to
the new standards. Due to these unintended consequences and the lack of demonstrable
success, staff proposes amending the code to remove the provisions related to the 9 -foot
separation requirement added as part of Ordinance No. 19-4815.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
The proposed amendment aligns with the following goal from the City's comprehensive plan:
"Review existing codes for consistency with the goal to provide safe housing, re-evaluating
provisions that have no apparent basis in safety." On the other hand, the existing code provisions
did not have the intended impact of helping to "[p]reserve the integrity of existing neighborhoods
and the historic nature of older neighborhoods." For these reasons, staff is proposing to eliminate
these provisions which are not achieving their goal.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the zoning code be amended as illustrated in Attachment 1 by repealing
the restrictions on additional paving in the front setback area of single-family and duplex uses
adopted as part of Ordinance No. 19-4815.
Attachments
1. Proposed Zoning Code Text Amendments
Approved by: . S%
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
Attachment 1
Page 1
Draft Zoning Code Text
Strike -through notation indicates language to be deleted.
Amend 14 -2A -6C-3 as follows:
3. Parking is not permitted in the front principal dwelling setback, except in the following
situations:
a. For single-family uses, one of the required parking space(s) may be provided in the front
principal dwelling setback on a regularly constructed aisle that leads directly to a parking
space that is not located in the front principal dwelling setback, provided not less than fifty
percent (50%) of the front principal dwelling setback area remains open space, free of
impervious surface. With the evnentien of pedestrian paths that nreyirde anness to a dwelling
unit, additienal paved areas may net eXGeed fifty peFGent 0
setbaG!,, area and shall be separated freM GeRferming parking spaGes er aisles by at leas
nine foot /Q'\ of even snene area free of imneryiei is surfene
b. For two (2) -family uses and group households, two (2) of the required parking spaces may
be provided in the front principal dwelling setback on a regularly constructed aisle that leads
directly to a parking space that is not located in the front principal dwelling setback, provided
not less than fifty percent (50%) of the front principal dwelling setback area remains open
space, free of impervious surface. With the evnentien of pedestrian paths that nre„irde aGGess
te a dwelling unit, additienal paved areas may not eXGeed fi#y perGent 0
) ef the fren
prinGipal dwelling setbaG!,, area and shall be separated freM Genferming parking spaGes e
aisles by at least nine feet (9') ef epen spaGe area, free ef impervieus surfaGe.
c. For single-family uses, two-family uses, and group households, up to three (3) nonrequired
parking spaces may be provided in the front principal dwelling setback, provided any such
space is located on a regularly constructed aisle that leads directly to a parking space that
is not located in the front principal dwelling setback, and provided that not less than fifty
percent (50%) of the front principal dwelling setback area remains open space, free of
buildings and impervious surfaces. (See figure 2A.5 of this section.) With the evnentien of
Si�l:T77�T{S�Y�VAT.4i�TE �:WON
.l�:L11�. -
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 6, 2021
Page 19 of 23
Iowa City. She also wanted to state that she lives very close to the North Seventh Avenue
entrance and someone said that area didn't feel very welcoming and Craig just wanted to say if
she had a quarter for every car in the last 34 years that backed out of her driveway to get on the
right side of the road to park, she could probably buy a million -dollar house. Many, many, many
people use that entrance, yes it's a pedestrian entrance, which is very different parking lot, but
the parking lot is on Bloomington Street and all kinds of people come from the east side of town
and walk into that entrance on North Seventh Avenue.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-1 (Martin dissenting).
CASE NO. REZ21-0003:
Consideration of an update to single-family site development standards, which amends Title 14
Zoning related to paving in the front setback area and partially repeals Ordinance No. 19-4815.
Russett first gave some background on how they got to this point. Back in 2019 the City
amended the Zoning Code to restrict paving in the front setback area for single family and duplex
uses. This amendment occurred after the State passed a law that restricted the City's ability
from enforcing rental permit caps and the purpose of the amendment at that time was to help
with some of the City's goals related to neighborhood stabilization and ensuring that all
neighborhoods within the City have a variety of housing choices and options for all residents.
Russett noted that can be particularly challenging within the core of the community, which has a
high student population. Since the adoption of that amendment staff has learned that the
amendment was both unnecessary and harmful for some residents. In April of 2017 the State
Legislature passed a bill prohibiting cities from enforcing regulations related to occupancy limits.
In response to that, the City amended the Code in several places to achieve goals related to
neighborhoods stabilization. These Zoning Code amendments updated rear setback
requirements to discourage inappropriate expansions into rear yards, limited the number of
bedrooms in attached single family and duplexes to four, and updated private open space
requirements. In addition to that, the City moved to annual inspections for many rental properties
and increased nuisance and property maintenance enforcement. Lastly the City adopted the
rental permit cap ordinance which kept rental permits at 30% in certain neighborhoods. In April
2019 the State Legislature passed a bill prohibiting cities from enforcing rental permit caps so the
City adopted a 10 -month rental permit cap moratorium and City Council asked staff to explore
other possible amendments that could help achieve goals related to neighborhood stabilization.
It was at that point staff proposed the amendment to the single-family site development
standards related to paving in the front setback area. Since that amendment was adopted staff
realized it's not doing what it needs to be doing. Russett next explained what the front setback
area is. The front setback area is the distance between an object, such as a building and another
point which is usually the front lot line. The setback area is the area where no structures are
allowed, so a front setback area is that space between the street and the front of the home or the
building.
Russett showed a slide of the previous Code and the amended Code. The main change from
the former Code and the current Code is that they had added the additional language which
requires that any additional paved areas within the front setback area to be separated by at least
nine feet of open space. The Code already states that parking spaces are allowed in the front
setback area if they lead directly to a parking space and that front setback area also has to be at
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 6, 2021
Page 20 of 23
least 50% open space. Russett explained they are proposing to repeal a portion of that
amendment and remove the additional requirement that additional paving required a nine -foot
separation. Russett showed some slides to give a visualization of the current regulations versus
the proposed regulation.
Craig asked what the role of the sidewalk in the setback is, a sidewalk is probably down much
closer to the street, but one can't park on the sidewalk. Russett didn't include sidewalks on her
examples but typically that's where the property line begins.
Russett stated with the amendment in 2019 a homeowner couldn't have any additional paving in
the front setback area that's abutting a conforming parking space or additional paving. They
could have additional paving if there's nine feet of separation between the conforming parking
space and additional paving. This could be a basketball court or patio or something like that, but
it couldn't be a parking space. With this proposed amendment staff is asking to allow some
additional paving within that front setback area that does not need to be separated by nine feet
from the existing paving. Russett explained they have received multiple requests from property
owners for some additional paving within that front setback area to allow a parking space in the
side yard and all of those requests had to be denied because it was not feasible on the site to
provide that nine feet of separation within the front setback area. Russett noted none of those
requests were within the core of the community, where the concern for the amendment was
originally placed. Also, based on information from Code Enforcement staff there are few issues in
the core and if there are any issues in the core, they can be addressed through Code
Enforcement.
Russett reiterated they are requesting that that nine feet of separation not be required so
someone could have some additional paving in the front setback area to have a third parking
space in the side yard. After the Commission makes a recommendation, this will move to City
Council for approval.
Hensch is glad to see this because he remembers when they approve that change, he found it
confusing and didn't really see how it would work.
Townsend thinks it'll look a lot nicer having concrete pavement there as opposed to people just
parking their car on the lawn which is what they see now.
Craig noted she has a triple wide driveway for a double car garage so people can park in that
space over at the side and it's been there for very long time. She did ask when they talk about
the core that pretty much means downtown Iowa City where most of the student rentals are, but
she thought that the way this all started was a concern about neighborhoods some distance from
downtown but where there are smaller houses in less expensive neighborhoods that were being
turned into many rentals.
Russett explained that the core is the residential neighborhoods adjacent to downtown where
most of the student population lives and when they proposed this amendment in 2019, they had
at least one instance where there was some additional paving in the front setback area that was
being used for parking which is not allowed and wasn't allowed by the former Code but it was
identified as a problem so they decided to propose the amendment to require that any additional
paving next to a conforming parking space would not be used for parking. They could have
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 6, 2021
Page 21 of 23
additional paving for a basketball court or patio or something like that, but people were saying
they were going to have a patio but then they were using it for parking which was not allowed.
Craig noted in her general neighborhood and places where she walks there's a couple of homes
that have pavement on the side where they park campers so is that okay. Russett said they
would have to look at the exact situation, but someone can have a camper parked in their yard.
Signs understands the whole thing here is in order to just logistically construct a third stall off to
the side and oftentimes they have to cut across that setback area so he can see how that could
be problematic in some situations.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one, Hensch closed the public hearing.
Signs moved to recommend updating the single-family site development standards,
which amends Title 14 Zoning related to paving in the front setback area and partially
repeals Ordinance No. 19-4815.
Nolte seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: APRIL 15,2021:
Craig moved to approve the meeting minutes of April 15, 2021.
Townsend seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Russett noted last Tuesday staff gave a presentation to the City Council during the work session
related to the Commission's recommendations on the Good Neighbor Program which would
require Good Neighbor meetings for certain land development applications and the Council
agreed with the Commission's recommendation, so staff will be preparing an ordinance or a
policy for the Commission's consideration in the near future.
Hensch wanted it noted in the minutes that he believes pretty strongly that the folks in Russett's
department needs support staff because it's a lot of work to make sure those details get taken
care of with those notifications and it's really nice to have someone they can task that with.
Hensch also noted he will be gone on vacation on June 3 so Mr. Signs will have to chair that
meeting. He would also ask people if they know their vacation plans this summer to let him or
staff know so they don't have quorum issues.
Craig noted as she was reviewing the things for tonight and looking at the images of the senior
E
Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240 (REZ21-0003)
ORDINANCE NO.
Ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City code related to
single-family site development standards (REZ21-0003)
Whereas, in April 2018, the City adopted a neighborhood stabilization ordinance and
capped rental permits at 30% in certain neighborhoods for single-family and duplex uses; and
Whereas, in April 2019, the State legislature adopted a law (SF 447) that prohibited
municipalities from adopting or enforcing rental permit caps; and
Whereas, in May 2019, the City adopted a moratorium on the issuance of new rental
permits for single-family and duplex units in areas exceeding the 30% rental cap to provide
time to explore strategies which ensured older homes and duplexes provide healthy and safe
living environments for all occupants; maintained neighborhood characteristics and housing
options suitable for attracting a diverse demographic in older single-family neighborhoods;
and prevented the over -burdening of city infrastructure and operational resources; and
Whereas, the zoning code allows parking spaces within the front setback area as long as
it leads directly to a parking space and at least 50% of the front setback area remains open
space; and
Whereas, in December 2019, the City adopted an ordinance (ZCA19-04) requiring that
any additional paved area within the front setback area of single-family homes and duplexes
must be separated by at least 9 -feet from any conforming parking spaces or aisles to ensure
these areas are not used for parking, with the exception of walkways that provide access to a
dwelling unit; and
Whereas, ZCA19-04 has created new issues in other newer neighborhoods of the City
where the standards have prevented reasonable use and expansion of paved surfaces; and
Whereas, ZCA19-04 has not had the intended effect of promoting neighborhood
stabilization within established neighborhoods in Iowa City; and
Whereas, the City would like to repeal portions of ZCA19-04; and
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a meeting on May 6, 2021 and
recommended approval of the repealing ZCA19-04; and
Whereas, it is no longer in the City's best interest to retain these provisions.
Now, therefore, be in ordinance by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that:
Section 1. Section 14 -2A -6C(3) of the Iowa City Code is hereby amended by deleting the
following stricken language:
3. Parking is not permitted in the front principal dwelling setback, except in the following
situations:
a. For single-family uses, one of the required parking space(s) may be provided in the front
principal dwelling setback on a regularly constructed aisle that leads directly to a parking
space that is not located in the front principal dwelling setback, provided not less than fifty
percent (50%) of the front principal dwelling setback area remains open space, free of
impervious surface.
0
) of the fFeRt
b. For two (2) -family uses and group households, two (2) of the required parking spaces may
be provided in the front principal dwelling setback on a regularly constructed aisle that
leads directly to a parking space that is not located in the front principal dwelling setback,
provided not less than fifty percent (50%) of the front principal dwelling setback area
remains open space, free of impervious surface. With the exGeptien of pedestFian paths
0
paFkiR9 6PaGe6 eF aisles by at least niRe feet (9') of epeR spaGe area, fFee of impervious
6HFfa6e.
c. For single-family uses, two-family uses, and group households, up to three (3) nonrequired
parking spaces may be provided in the front principal dwelling setback, provided any such
space is located on a regularly constructed aisle that leads directly to a parking space that
is not located in the front principal dwelling setback, and provided that not less than fifty
percent (50%) of the front principal dwelling setback area remains open space, free of
buildings and impervious surfaces. (See figure 2A.5 of this section.) With the exGeptiaR 9f
pede6tFiaR paths that pFeyide aGGe66 te a dwelling wRit, additieRal payed aFeas May no0
Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of
this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section III. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged
to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance
as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof no adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval,
and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of , 2021.
Mayor
Approved by
Attest: Swc��
City Clerk City Attorney's Office — 05/13/2021
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by
Ordinance as read be adopted,
and seconded by _
upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Bergus
Mims
Salih
Taylor
Teague
Thomas
Weiner
First Consideration 05/18/2021
Voteforpassage: AYES: Mims, Salih, Taylor, Teague, Thomas,
Weiner, Bergus. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None
Second Consideration _
Vote for passage:
Date published
that the
Item Number: 10.b.
�r
CITY OE IOWA CITY
www.iogov.org
May 18, 2021
Ordinance to amend Title 14 Zoning regarding nonconforming drinking
establishments in a Historic Overlay District (OHD) zone and vacant for at
least two years. (REZ20-0015) (Second Consideration)
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Corrected PZ Staff Report 04-23-21
Correspondence with Commissioner Craig
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes 04-15-21
Ordinance
ICITY OF IOWA CITY
?a
MEMORANDUM
April 23, 2021 Note: Two typos were
corrected after consideration by the
Date: April 15, 2021 Planning & Zoning Commission.
Underlines indicate additions. Strike -
To: Planning & Zoning Commission through notation indicates deletions.
From: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services
Re: Zoning Code Amendment (REZ20-0015) to amend standards for nonconforming
drinking establishments
Introduction
In 2009, the City began regulating the location of bars and taverns with Ordinance 09-4341 by
creating a minimum separation distance requirement of 500 feet between drinking
establishments. The goal was to mitigate negative externalities associated with an over -
concentration of these uses downtown, such as alcohol overconsumption, underage drinking,
nuisances, and crime. The City further refined the ordinance in 2013 by limiting the separation
distance requirement to only apply in the University Impact Area and Riverfront Crossings District
(see Map 1) due to economic impacts and it being unlikely that an unhealthy concentration of
drinking establishments would develop in other commercial areas in the City.
Existing drinking establishments that did not conform to these regulations were allowed to
continue as long as the use did not change and their liquor license did not lapse, or was not
revoked or discontinued, for more than one year. Through attrition, this would reduce the density
of these uses downtown. As a legal nonconforming use, existing drinking establishments could
not expand except as specifically allowed by Code. For example, sidewalk cafes were defined so
as not to be an expansion of such uses. In 2015, rooftop cafes were added as an allowable
expansion for nonconforming drinking establishments following approval of a special exception.
Since adoption, these regulations have helped prevent the further proliferation of drinking
establishments downtown. It has also led to a greater mix of downtown businesses, including new
retail and office uses. However, the separation distance requirement has had some unintended
economic impacts. These impacts can be exacerbated for historic buildings where extensive
rehabilitation is required. In some cases, storefronts in historic buildings have remained vacant
for years. These factors somewhat limit the economic potential of downtown.
As was the case for other amendments to the separation distance requirements, staff developed
the proposed zoning code text amendment (REZ20-0015) to address these unintended economic
impacts and to support other goals of the comprehensive plan, including historic preservation.
Concern was initially raised by the developers of the Tailwind project, which will help preserve
important historic resources located at 109-121 E. College Street. These historic buildings will be
renovated and occupied with new uses. One of those, a brewpub and restaurant that wishes to
operate as a drinking establishment, would occupy the space of the former Fieldhouse bar that
has been vacant for several years.
The proposed amendment (Attachment 1) would allow the continuance of nonconforming drinking
establishments where economically viable business substitutes have not been found for locally
designated historic buildings. This pairs historic preservation and economic development goals
to reward the designation of local historic landmarks and to fill vacant storefronts through more
permissive regulations regarding nonconforming drinking establishments.
April 15, 2021
Page 2
Existing Provisions:
The City defines drinking establishments in Section 14 -4A -4F as meeting the following criteria:
1. The principal activity of the establishment is the preparation, dispensing and consumption
of food and/or beverages; and
2. The establishment is licensed by the state for the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-site
consumption, as defined by Iowa Code chapter 123; and
3. The establishment is open for business on a regular basis any time between the hours of
12:00 midnight and 2:00 A.M.
There are two exceptions that classify such a use as a category other than a drinking
establishment. If there is nude dancing, it is considered an adult business use. If it is associated
with a hospitality -oriented retail use (i.e. hotel) and has a class B liquor control license, it is
considered accessory to the hospitality -oriented retail use rather than as a separate primary use.
Overall, there is little flexibility in the definition of drinking establishments.
In all zones where drinking establishments are allowed, they must be at least 500 feet from any
other drinking establishment if located in the University Impact Area or Riverfront Crossings
District. This is true whether the use is permitted provisionally following staff review or by special
exception following a discretionary review by the Board of Adjustment. Where legally established
prior to the adoption of the separation distance requirement, drinking establishments may
continue as a nonconforming use. Almost all downtown drinking establishments are legal
nonconforming uses.
Legal nonconforming situations are subject to Section 14-4E-5 of the Zoning Code. The purpose
of this section is not to force all nonconforming situations to be immediately brought into
conformance. Rather, it is to guide future uses and development in a direction consistent with City
policy, to protect the character of an area by reducing the potential negative impacts from
nonconforming situations, and to bring development into compliance with the City's regulations
over time. Nonconforming uses are generally subject to the following regulations:
1. Enlargement or Alteration. A nonconforming use cannot be enlarged unless allowed in
the Code. Ordinary repair, maintenance, and remodeling are allowed.
2. Change of Use. A nonconforming use may be converted to another use in the same use
category or to a conforming use. The Board of Adjustment may consider special exception
requests to change to nonconforming uses in other use categories as long as certain
requirements are met, including that the new use is of the same or lesser intensity. Once
converted to a less intensive use, it may not return to the prior nonconforming use.
3. Accessory Uses. Some nonconforming accessory uses such as signs may continue as
long as the principal use continues.
4. Damage or Destruction. If damaged or destroyed, the same nonconforming use may be
restored within 2 years as long as the damage is not too severe. Some additional
exceptions exist for uses that existed for at least 25 years prior to the damage.
5. Discontinuance. Typically, a nonconforming use that is discontinued for at least one year
must revert to a conforming use.
The code includes specific standards in Section 14 -4 -5E -5G for drinking establishments that are
nonconforming due to the separation distance requirement. These establishments may continue
unless their liquor license lapses, is revoked or is discontinued for one year, or there are changes
such that they are no longer classified as a drinking establishment. If one or both of these
situations occur, the nonconforming rights cease, and the use must convert to a conforming use.
The code also contains special provisions for drinking establishments, including that sidewalk
cafes are not considered an expansion of a nonconforming use, and that nonconforming drinking
establishments may expand to include a rooftop service area by special exception.
April 15, 2021
Page 3
Proposed Amendment:
To incentivize historic preservation, promote the occupation of long-term vacant storefronts, and
mitigate certain economic impacts of the separation distance requirement, the proposed
amendment modifies the standards that allow nonconforming drinking establishments to continue.
Specifically, a drinking establishment use would be allowed to continue where:
1. The drinking establishment is on property with a Historic District Overlay (OHD) zone; and
2. The drinking establishment is in a building that has remained vacant for the previous 2 years.
An OHD zone is an overlay zoning district used to designate local historic landmarks and local
historic districts. This overlay protects these buildings from demolition and requires historic review
for most exterior modifications. As it relates to reducing vacancies, staff believes two years is an
adequate timeframe to meet the goals of the amendment while mitigating potential abuse. Where
an intervening use is established after the nonconforming drinking establishment ceases
operations, this provision may not be utilized.
In addition, the proposed amendment would allow nonconforming drinking establishments that
meet those requirements to expand into other commercial spaces on property zoned with a
Historic District Overlay that have also been vacant for the previous 2 years. Similarly,
requirements for rooftop service areas that prohibit expansion would be waived for properties that
meet these requirements. Drinking establishments that establish rooftop service areas would still
be required to follow the special exception process, which utilizes additional standards related to
impacts on surrounding properties.
The proposed amendment provides multiple benefits to downtown Iowa City. First, it encourages
the designation of downtown properties as local historic landmarks. Being designated as a local
historic landmark includes rezoning the property with a Historic District Overlay (OHD), which
provides local land use protections to the historic building. At the same time, the proposed
amendment may only be used where storefronts have remained vacant for at least two years.
This provides an opportunity for alternative businesses to establish in the site first. Where other
businesses are not viable, it allows the drinking establishment use to be continued.
Table 1. Existing and Proposed Regulations for Nonconforming Drinking Establishments
Existing
Proposed
Nonconforming drinking establishments must
Nonconforming drinking establishment must
cease if:
cease if:
- The liquor license lapses for a period
- The liquor license lapses for a period
of one year; or
of one year, except where the
- The use changes and is no longer a
drinking establishment is located
drinking establishment.
on property zoned OHD and is in a
building that has remained vacant
for the previous 2 years; or
- The use changes and is no longer a
drinking establishment.
Nonconforming drinking establishments may
Nonconforming drinking establishments may
expand:
expand:
- To include a rooftop service areas.
- To include a rooftop service areas.
- If the drinking establishment is
zoned OHD and has been vacant
for 2 years, it may expand into a
Property that also meets those two
criteria.
April 15, 2021
Page 4
Analysis
There are currently more than 100 businesses that have licenses to serve alcohol in the University
Impact Area and Riverfront Crossings District. Approximately 43 of these are classified as drinking
establishments, of which 38 are nonconforming. Map 1 shows the location of conforming and
nonconforming drinking establishments and a 500 -foot buffer from all drinking establishments
inside the University Impact Area and Riverfront Crossings District. It also shows Historic District
Overlay (OHD) zones within this area.
The largest concentration of nonconforming drinking establishments is downtown, followed by the
Northside Marketplace. A few are also located along the S. Gilbert Street corridor. Generally,
drinking establishments that are further from the downtown conform to the 500 -foot minimum
separation distance requirement. Due to the separation distance requirements, most areas
around downtown would not currently allow a new drinking establishment unless it is in a building
where it is already established as a legal nonconforming use. Since 2009, approximately 9
nonconforming drinking establishments have lost their legal nonconforming status, and another 2
(The Mill and Union Bar) are currently vacant and may lapse if not reestablished within one year.
Most of Iowa City's Historic Overlay zones, which corresponds with Historic Districts and local
Historic Landmarks, are north and east of downtown, with some local landmarks scattered
throughout the area. Historic zones are typically overlayed on residential rather than commercial
base zones. The major exceptions are the recently designated properties at 109 through 127 E.
College Street. These were made local historic landmarks as part of the Tailwinds project, which
combines historic preservation and economic development efforts.
The proposed amendment would allow nonconforming drinking establishments located on
property zoned OHD to continue the drinking establishment use where the storefront has been
vacant for at least 2 years. The amendment also allows expansion into property that meets those
two criteria. After accounting for zoning and lapsed nonconforming drinking establishments, only
111 E. College Street would be eligible to use this amendment, and 121 489 E. College Street
may become eligible if it remains vacant for a period of 2 years. That being said, many downtown
buildings could be designated as local historic landmarks. Should they qualify and remain vacant
for 2 years, existing nonconforming drinking establishments in these buildings may become
eligible to use this provision. However, 8 of the 9 lapsed drinking establishments would not be
eligible as they have had intervening uses which disqualifies them.
This amendment is narrowly targeted to continue supporting the initial goals for which the
separation distance ordinance was established. The amendment also facilitates the historic
preservation and economic development project at 109-127 E. College Street which contains 3
nonconforming drinking establishments, the Fieldhouse which is lapsed, Martini's which is active,
and the Union Bar which is vacant and is expected to lapse. One of the primary tenants of this
project is anticipated to meet the criteria of a drinking establishment in the space of the former
Fieldhouse, which, after the Union lapses, results in a net change of 0 drinking establishments.
Approval of this amendment is needed for this project to move forward.
Overall, the requirements of the proposed amendment mitigate negative externalities and prevent
the further proliferation of downtown drinking establishments. It also provides powerful incentives
for downtown property owners to designate their buildings as local historic landmarks, including
the flexibility to have nonconforming drinking establishments expand where other businesses are
not economically viable. This will have the effect of promoting both economic development and
historic preservation downtown.
April 15, 2021
Page 5
Map 1: Drinking Establishments & OHD Zones Near Downtown
0 SOO' Drinking EsL duffer
Uniwerslty Impact Area
Q RiwerfWt CroS.INS DiArict
Drinking Est.
NonConforMitq
Conforming
�Hi$WC District Overlay{
Zone Allows Prir7klrkg tisk,
Historic District Overlay
2rsne DoesR-tAllaw Drinking Est.
4
4'1 INTON ,Si
I
RUPPERT RE]
E PAft9 R.D
C;HIJRII H 5 1 m
M
� r �
q!� �
ET ST
ERS6N sT
OE YVA9 %N GT ST FQ
a �
�.!
a { BOWERY 5T C 0
-4 C ua
z
cn
YJALNUT ST
Iva m °RKWOC30 AVE
1 HIGHLANu AIA:
Nore
April 15, 2021
Page 6
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
The proposed amendment supports several related goals from the City's comprehensive plan:
Preserve the historic, main street character of the Downtown, while encouraging appropriate
infill development to enhance the economic viability and residential diversity of the area.
Increase and diversity the property tax base by encouraging the retention and expansion of
existing businesses and attracting businesses that have growth potential and are compatible
with Iowa City's economy.
Encourage new business development in existing core or neighborhood commercial areas.
By adopting the proposed amendment, the City will continue to provide an opportunity to increase
the diversity of local businesses in the existing core of the City. However, where it is shown that
other business types are not economically viable, a drinking establishment use may continue
beyond what would typically be allowed. In addition, the amendment encourages the designation
of historic structures in the core of the City by providing benefits to buildings that are designated
as local landmarks. Pairing these goals allows the City to fill vacant storefronts while
simultaneously preserving the historic main street character of downtown.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the zoning code be amended as illustrated in Attachment 1 by allowing
the continuance and expansion of nonconforming drinking establishments where they are in
buildings that are zoned OHD and where those spaces have remained vacant for at least two (2)
years.
Attachments
1. Proposed Zoning Code Text Amendments
2. Map 1: Drinking Establishments & Historic Landmarks Near Downtown
Approved by: . S%
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
Attachment 1
Page 1
Draft Zoning Code Text
Underlined text is suggested new language. Strike -through notation indicates language
to be deleted.
Amend 14-4C-2AA-2 as follows:
2. Additional Special Exception Approval Criteria For Nonconforming Drinking
Establishments: An RSA accessory to a nonconforming drinking establishment may be allowed
by special exception provided it meets the general approval criteria for special exceptions set
forth in section 14-413-3 of this chapter, the approval criteria stated above for all RSAs and the
additional approval criteria listed below:
a. The RSA shall be located directly above and contiguous to the licensed drinking
establishment. Contiguous means there may not be other uses located on floors in between the
drinking establishment and the accessory RSA.
b. There shall be no horizontal expansion of the licensed drinking establishment e, xcept
as allowed per 14 -4E -5G;
c. There shall be no increase in interior floor area or interior occupant load of the existing
drinking establishment, except if necessary for required bathrooms, elevator, stairs, kitchen
equipment, or other essential elements necessary to meet accessibility, building code
requirements or to meet the requirements or conditions of the special exception, or except as
allowed per 14 -4E -5G.
Amend 14 -4E -5F as follows:
F. Discontinuance Of Nonconforming Use: Except as allowed in subsection E and G of this
section, a nonconforming use that is discontinued for a period of one year must revert to a
conforming use or, in qualifying situations, a special exception may be applied for according to
the provisions of subsection B of this section.
Amend 14 -4E -5G as follows:
G. Nonconforming Drinking Establishments And Alcohol Sales Oriented Retail Uses: In
addition to the other provisions in this section, the following provisions apply to nonconforming
drinking establishments and nonconforming alcohol sales oriented retail uses:
1. Any "drinking establishment", as defined in this title, that was legally established prior to
the effective date hereof and that is nonconforming with regard to the separation requirement
between said uses, as specified in this title, may continue unless one or both of the situations
occur. If one or both of these conditions occur, then nonconforming rights cease and the use must
convert to a conforming use:
a. The liquor license lapses, is revoked or is discontinued, or the drinking establishment
ceases operation, for a period of one year, except where:
(1) The drinking establishment is located on property with a Historic District
Overlay (OHD) zone; and
(2) The drinking establishment is in a building that has remained vacant for the
previous two (2) consecutive years.
b. There are Ghanges to the use such that the use no longer meets the definition of
"drinking estabimshm There has been a change of use as defined in Section 14 -4E -5B.
2. Any "alcohol sales oriented retail use", as defined in this title, that was legally established
prior to the effective date hereof that is nonconforming with regard to the separation requirement
between said uses, as specified in this title, may continue unless one or both of the following
situations occur. If one or both of these conditions occur, then nonconforming rights cease and
the use must convert to a conforming use:
a. The liquor license lapses, is revoked or is discontinued for a period of one year; or
Attachment 1
Page 2
b. There are changes to the use such that the use no longer meets the definition of "alcohol
sales oriented retail use".
3. For purposes of this subsection, sidewalk cafes shall not be considered an expansion of
a nonconforming use.
4. Nonconforming drinking establishments may expand as follows:
a. Tto include a rooftop service area upon approval of a special exception pursuant to the
criteria set forth in article C, "Accessory Uses And Buildings", of this chapter; and:
b. Where a nonconforming drinking establishment meeting the standards of 14 -4E -
5G -1a expands into property with a Historic District Overlay (OHD) zone that has remained
vacant for the previous two (2) consecutive nears.
0 500' Drinking Est. Buffer
University Impact Area
0 Riverfront Crossings District
Drinking Est.
Nonconforming
M Conforming
`§Historic District Overlay
Zone Allows Drinking Est.
Historic District Overlay
® Zone Doesn't Allow Drinking Est.
Q
11
J
o
Quad Roam
W NTON ST
XIA
West River BIuHs
I
RUPPERT RD
ciiv Purl:
Mit Q
F®R f►
HIGHLAND AVE
A None
6 UM 5 T
Cn
0
C7
z
p
r BOWERY 5T c
r
--I
_
i-,Cn
z
--4
M
p
-�
--I
m
U)
0
-4
WALNUT ST
mpg
N
r
m
RKWOOD AVE
Wastew. .
Treotme
Fora
M
C)
�
Z]
HIGHLAND AVE
A None
6 UM 5 T
Kirk Lehmann
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
A
RISK
Thanks, Kirk.
Sent from my iPad
Susan Craig <skjeldcraig@gmail.com>
Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:35 PM
Kirk Lehmann
Re: 4/15 PZ Agenda Packet
On Apr 14, 2021, at 4:16 PM, Kirk Lehmann <Kirk-Lehmann@iowa-city.org> wrote:
Hey Susan,
The distinction is that if an eating establishment has a liquor license, they have to close at midnight or
they are considered a drinking establishment. On the other hand, drinking establishments have liquor
licenses and are able to be open past midnight (up until 2:00 am), but they don't have to be open that
full time. If an establishment does not have a liquor license, they would be an eating establishment that
can also remain open past midnight.
Hopefully that helps. Let me know if you have additional questions.
Thanks,
Kirk Lehmann, AICP
Associate Planner
City of Iowa City
319-356-5247
From: Susan Craig <skjeldcraig@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 20214:06 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>; Mike Hensch <mhensch@co.johnson.ia.us>
Cc: Sara Greenwood Hektoen <sara-hektoen@iowa-city.org>; Danielle Sitzman <Danielle-
Sitzman@iowa-city.org>; Kirk Lehmann <Kirk-Lehmann@iowa-city.org>; Raymond Heitner <Raymond-
Heitner@iowa-city.org>; Tracy Hightshoe <Tracy-Hightshoe@iowa-city.org>; Kick, Rebecca M <rebecca-
kick@uiowa.edu>
Subject: RE: 4/15 PZ Agenda Packet
<image006.jpg>
Am I correct in reading this that a drinking establishment has to be open between the hours of 12
midnight and 2 am? Which means most restaurants are not drinking establishments?
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: Anne Russett
Sent: Friday, April 9, 20211:07 PM
To: Mike Hensch
Cc: Sara Greenwood Hektoen; Danielle Sitzman; Kirk Lehmann; Raymond Heitner; Tracy Hightshoe; Kick,
RPhPrrn M
Subject: 4/15 PZ Agenda Packet
Commissioners —
You can download the next Thursday's Planning and Zoning Commission agenda packet here:
https://www.icgov.org/city-government/boards/planning-and-zoning-commission
Here's a link to the Zoom meeting: https://zoom.us/'/91805259053
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks, Anne
<image007.png>
WWW.ICGOV.ORG
<image008.png>
<image009.png>
<image010.png>
<image011.png>
Disclaimer
Anne Russett, AICP
Senior Planner
She/Her/Hers
p:319-356-5251
410 E Washington St
Iowa City, IA 52240
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the
recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any
disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited
and may be unlawful.
701
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 15, 2021 —7:00 PM
ELECTRONIC FORMAL MEETING
PRELIMINARY
MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Maggie Elliott, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Mark
Nolte, Billie Townsend
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Signs
STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Kirk Lehmann, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT:
Electronic Meeting
(Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8)
An electronic meeting is being held because a meeting in person is impossible or impractical
due to concerns for the health and safety of Commission members, staff and the public
presented by COVID-19.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of REZ20-0015, that the zoning code be
amended, as illustrated an attachment 1 of the staff memo by allowing the continuance and
expansion of non -conforming drinking establishments where they are in buildings that are zoned
OHD and where those spaces have remained vacant for at least two years.
CALL TO ORDER:
Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
CASE NO. REZ20-0015:
Nonconforming Drinking Establishment Standards Update Ordinance
Consideration of the Nonconforming Drinking Establishment Standards Update Ordinance, which
amends Title 14 Zoning to allow the continuance and expansion of nonconforming drinking
establishments when located on property in a Historic Overlay District zone and where vacant for
at least two years.
Lehmann began by stating this item is dealing with non -conforming drinking establishments and
the standards that are involved. For some background, regarding regulation of drinking
establishments in Iowa City, in 2009 the City created a new classification process for drinking
establishments and as part of that it came with a 500 -foot minimum separation distance between
those establishments, as the purpose was largely to combat the overconcentration of these uses
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 15, 2021
Page 2 of 9
downtown or near downtown with the goal of preventing alcohol over consumption, especially
underage drinking. The University was heavily involved in the creation of this ordinance and
nuisances that come with that. The ordinance has been amended a couple times since it was
initially adopted, one of the major amendments was in 2013 when the City only restricted this to
the University Impact Area and the Riverfront Crossings District, prior to that time it had applied
to the entirety of the City. It was determined that outside of downtown they are a lot less likely to
see the same level of negative effects and the same level of concentration of drinking uses so
the City felt like that it didn't apply as well to those areas and there were some economic impacts
that came from that as well. There was another amendment in 2015 where it was expanded for
sidewalk cafes and a couple other things that Lehmann will explain later. However, these
minimum separation distance requirements really apply again only primarily to drinking
establishments as there are different standards for liquor stores. Existing drinking establishments
were still allowed to continue as a non -conforming use if the use didn't change and if their liquor
license was maintained or was not discontinued for more than a year. Those establishments
were allowed to continue and there were still some expansions or some modifications that those
establishments downtown could do such as expansions for rooftop cafes or some requirements
for service areas, for example.
Lehmann next showed a map of Iowa City noting the University Impact Area which is really the
northside, downtown, some of the neighborhoods near downtown, it doesn't really go south of
the railroad until it crosses the river to the west and then it's the area near campus pretty much
over to University Heights. The Riverfront Crossings District then goes south of the railroad,
down to Highway 6 a bit, however it's a relatively concentrated area that's most affected by the
University and that sees the most redevelopment.
Lehmann noted there have been consequences from this ordinance, both good and bad. On the
positive side the regulations have helped prevent the further proliferation of drinking
establishments downtown, there have been some drinking establishments that have lapsed, so
the concentration overall has decreased over time. It has also led to greater mix of businesses
downtown including new retail and office uses that have replaced some of those drinking
establishments and doesn't place as much pressure on the market for everything to become a
drinking establishment. Lehmann also noted there were some unintended impacts that came
from it as well such as economic consequences, and that was why it was amended to only apply
to the University Impact Area and Riverfront Crossings. There have also been some impacts,
especially for historic buildings that require lots of rehabilitation, and some instances where those
buildings remain vacant for years and viable uses have not been identified for those locations.
Lehmann stated one of the things that prompted staff to look at this ordinance was one of those
vacant buildings, it was a concern raised as part of the Tailwinds project at 109-121 East College
Street. Lehmann acknowledged this was partially in response to that, but also just trying to
address unintended impacts and the middle amendment was also developed to support other
goals of the ordinance and plan like historic preservation.
Lehmann first discussed the existing provisions because it can be a little confusing at times.
Drinking establishments in Iowa City have a specific designation defined at 14 -4A -4F stating a
drinking establishment is one that meets three general criteria; (1) the principal activity is
preparing, dispensing, and consuming food and beverages. Lehmann added it doesn't matter if
the primary purpose of the place is to do food because other criteria also factor in. (2) The
establishment is licensed to sell alcohol on site, and (3) the establishment is open for business
on a regular basis sometime between12 o'clock midnight and 2am. Otherwise, if an
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 15, 2021
Page 3 of 9
establishment doesn't meet those three criteria it's generally considered an eating establishment.
Lehmann added there are two additional exceptions to classify an establishment in a category
other than a drinking establishment; (1) if there's nude dancing it's considered an adult business
and (2) if its associated with a hotel and has a class B liquor license, which is a specific a license
associated with those uses, it's considered hospitality -oriented retail.
Lehmann acknowledged staff did receive a question from a Commissioner prior to this meeting
asking does the drinking establishment have to remain open between the hours of 12 o'clock
midnight and 2am. Lehmann stated the distinction is not quite that it has to be open that entire
time, the distinction is that if there's an establishment that has a liquor license and they want to
be an eating establishment, they would have to close at midnight, otherwise they're considered a
drinking establishment. Additionally, establishments that have liquor licenses and are open past
midnight are considered a drinking establishment even if they aren't open until 2am, it's anytime
past midnight. If there is no liquor license it's not considered a drinking establishment, because it
won't meet that criteria, so those are eating establishments that can remain open past midnight if
they don't have the liquor license. Lehmann noted they do see all of these combinations of uses
in downtown Iowa City.
Lehmann continued discussing this amendment and non -conforming uses. Generally non-
conforming uses are those that are established legally at the time it was established, but either
the Code changes in some way, as the case of the separation distance, or it's rezoned and that
existing use no longer complies with the new standards. There are specific provisions that apply
to those non -conforming uses in at 14-5E-5 and are meant to bring uses into compliance over
time and to do so there are several general provisions that apply to these non -conforming uses.
(1) The use can't be enlarged except as allowed by Code, (2) it can be converted to another
similar use, generally it has to be less intense and sometimes that requires a special exception, it
depends on whether the use is in the same category or whether it's a different use category. A
lot of the times they see changing uses, for example, if it's a neighborhood commercial use that
was rezoned residential and then it can switch between retail uses. (3) There are provisions for
accessible uses that can continue with those non -conforming primary uses as long as those still
exist. (4) There are some provisions for if it's damaged or destroyed, up to a point and can be
reestablished within two years, some additional provisions apply for long established uses. And
(5) generally if it's been discontinued for one year, it must can convert to a conforming use or it
must be replaced by a conforming use.
Lehmann next discussed the specific provisions at 14 -5E -G that apply to drinking establishments
and they were adopted as part of the separation distance requirements and it is really focused on
those struggling establishments that don't conform to the minimum separation distance
requirements. Generally, such uses are considered grandfathered unless the use changes,
similarly to other non -conforming uses or the liquor license is discontinued or revoked for more
than a year or there are changes to the use such as they are no longer classified as a drinking
establishment. Lehmann noted there are also some additional special provisions for these uses
such as rooftop cafes are allowed as an expansion and sidewalk cafes are not considered an
expansion.
Lehmann next discussed the criteria in 14 -5E -G that they're looking at amending. First non-
conforming drinking establishments that would otherwise lapse due to one year of liquor license
inactivity would be allowed to continue where it is zoned in a historic district overlay (OHD) and
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 15, 2021
Page 4 of 9
second the building would have had been vacant for two years. In addition, those existing
drinking establishments that meet those criteria would also be allowed to expand into spaces that
are also vacant and zoned with a historic district overlay. Lehmann pointed to the table that is
from the staff report to show the Code language changes. What the change does is add an
exception to where it mentions the liquor license lapses for a period of one year and adds in that
except for where drinking establishments are on a property zoned OHD and in a building that has
remained vacant for the previous two years. Similarly, where it's talking about expansions that
can happen it is not only rooftop service areas, but it can also expand into other properties that
meet those criteria.
Lehmann stated the goal of this is really to try and support a couple goals from the
Comprehensive Plan. (1) To encourage rezoning downtown properties as historic district
overlay, which is a zoning district that protects historic buildings and affects what exterior
improvements can occur and also affects demolition; (2) it does facilitate economic development
in uses were buildings have remained vacant for at least two years and (3) provides the
opportunity for alternative businesses to establish. Lehmann said this amendment still meets the
same goals of the ordinance that was initially adopted in an effort make sure that there's a mix of
different uses downtown but where those uses are an establishment because, for whatever
reason there doesn't seem to be the market demand, then it won't allow that that drinking
establishment use to continue. Lehmann also noted the way that it's designed is to limit the
potential misuse of the ordinance, so it is very narrowly targeted. He did reiterate this would help
facilitate that Tailwinds project and that that's what initially got staff to start looking at this.
In terms of the analysis that staff conducted, there's more than 100 businesses that can serve
alcohol in the University Impact Area and Riverfront Crossings Districts, of those around 43 are
current drinking establishments and 38 are non -conforming to that 500 -foot buffer for separation
distance. There have also been nine former non -conforming drinking establishments that have
lost their non -conforming status, mostly due to other uses established there or they were vacant
for a period of time. There are two additional drinking establishment licenses in buildings that
are currently vacant and may lose their non -conforming status if they weren't reestablished within
a year (the Union Bar downtown and The Mill). In the staff memo Lehmann provided a map that
shows historic districts, drinking establishments and the 500 -foot buffers. Most of the non-
conforming drinking establishments are downtown or near downtown, some in the north side
though it's relatively limited. For historic preservation zones, those are mostly north and east of
downtown, typically they're associated with residential zones, so a lot of the goals don't
necessarily align, but they do align in specific circumstances. Notably, that they align where the
Tailwinds project is occurring as that's a recent historic rezoning downtown and there are
potentially other buildings downtown that that could be eligible right now. The only property that
staff identified is 111 East College Street which is formerly the Field House and it's been vacant
for several years now, and others that it might apply to is the Union Bar at 121 East College
Street which is vacant and expected to lapse as it closed in on the two year mark, this might also
apply to other drinking establishments downtown that are currently active but may be able to use
this amendment in future if they're building a historic district overlay. Lehmann reiterated with the
500 -foot buffer there's not a lot of areas where other drinking establishments can establish
unless it replaces an existing drinking establishment.
Craig asked for clarification on the map for what is in the historic district overlay that allows
drinking establishments and where the Tailwinds building is. Lehmann pointed it out on the map
and noted that there are other historic districts downtown that are in commercial zones but
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 15, 2021
Page 5 of 9
typically most of the historic districts or conservation districts are tied to residential properties or
residential neighborhoods.
Lehmann reiterated as this relates to Comprehensive Plan it supports a couple different goals.
(1) Preserving the historic main street character of downtown while encouraging appropriate infill
and enhancing the economic viability and residential diversity of the area, primarily the economic
viability for this amendment. (2) Increase and diversifying the property tax base, encouraging
retention and expansion of existing businesses and attracting businesses that are compatible to
the Iowa City economy; and (3) encouraging new business development in the existing core or
neighborhood areas. This amendment does provide or maintains that ability to provide a diversity
of local businesses downtown because there is that two-year waiting period where before this
would kick into effect. It also provides an opportunity for another use to establish and if there
isn't another use that seems like it would fit then that's when the drinking establishment use that's
already there would be allowed to continue. Lehmann noted it does provide some additional
incentives to encourage more OHD designations downtown because it does provide additional
benefits for those properties and allows the possibility of expansion of existing successful
businesses and it allows different business uses that are not currently allowed. Beyond that, the
two-year lapse period for lack of a better term, is really to pair those two goals, the economic
development goal on that historic preservation goal and make sure that historic buildings are
being protected while still supporting the economic potential of downtown Iowa City.
Staff does recommend that the zoning code be amended, as illustrated an attachment 1 of the
staff memo by allowing the continuance and expansion of non -conforming drinking
establishments where they are in buildings that are zoned OHD and where those spaces have
remained vacant for at least two years.
Hensch understands that there's three criteria to be eligible, number one they have to be in the
right zone, which would be the University Impact Area or the Riverfront Crossings, number two
they have to have OHD property designation and the structure would have to be vacant for two
years. Lehmann confirmed that was correct.
Craig asked if a building that has never been a drinking establishment got the OHD designation
there's still no way that it can become a drinking establishment correct. Lehmann confirmed that
was but noted if it neighbors a drinking establishment that was also in a OHD they could expand
into that space, but only if it met those two criteria.
Russett added another situation in which drinking establishment couldn't be located there is if it
met that 500 -foot separation distance requirement.
Craig asked about the property she saw for sale, the bank parking lot on the northwest corner of
Washington and Linn Streets, if somebody builds a building there there's no way it can have a
drinking establishment in it, because it's not 500 feet from the bars that are right by the alley.
Lehmann confirmed that was correct.
Craig said they could build a hotel there and it would be okay. Hektoen noted a new construction
also wouldn't satisfy the historic zone.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 15, 2021
Page 6 of 9
Craig asked then are the places that are on properties that are allowed through being
grandfathered in as drinking establishments, are they considered higher valued buildings or
property because they can do higher value activities there, zoning certainly affects the property
value of a piece of property. Perhaps something is assessed at a higher value because it is a
drinking establishment than it would be if that something that was zoned different. Lehmann is
unsure about the assessor's valuation, but his understanding is because the non -conforming
drinking establishments are tied to buildings, it does affect the rent of those buildings.
Craig said she is a little uncomfortable with this because it feels like someone who can afford to
let a building sit empty for two years and then for many years be able to reap some value from
that whereas someone who can't afford that to happen and is unable to fill it and therefore loses
the opportunity for it to ever be a drinking establishment again just feels like the big guy wins.
Elliott followed up on what Craig pointed out in that there are so few historic designated buildings
downtown so why aren't there more. Russett stated they are actually currently working on a
national register nomination for the downtown and that's something that has typically happened
before any further local historic districts have been created in the City. They are not currently
pursuing a local historic district in the downtown but are pursuing that national register
nomination. She acknowledged there's oftentimes some concerns from property owners with the
local historic designation because it does come with a lot of benefits but there's also additional
regulation, so a lot of times it's just time working with property owners and doing outreach to see
if there's any interest in a designation, the ones that have been designated in the downtown have
been initiated by the property owner and they voluntarily wanted to pursue that designation.
Nolte offered a comment for anyone in the public or someone that might be new to town on
where these ordinances came from. Back in the late 90s two things happened, the University
decided no more alcohol on campus and then the Coral Ridge mall opened and there was a flux
of retailers that went with it and so any unused space downtown became a bar and things just
got out of control. Rents went through the roof, the only thing that would work downtown was a
bar for a long time, and so that's where these ordinances came in to right that ship. He thinks
they served their purpose of the time but thinks it's smart now to look at the ordinances and how
to make adjustments.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one, Hensch close the public hearing.
Nolte recommends that the zoning code be amended, as illustrated an attachment 1 of the
staff memo by allowing the continuance and expansion of non -conforming drinking
establishments where they are in buildings that are zoned OHD and where those spaces
have remained vacant for at least two years.
Townsend seconded the motion.
Hensch really likes the real specific targeting that's associated with this amendment because he
was a State Trooper when Iowa City was pretty crazy downtown and got called downtown many
times for really big public brawls in the middle of the night, so he remembers those times well
and it was really kind of out of control. He thinks this ordinance will be another piece of the
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 15, 2021
Page 7 of 9
puzzle of encouraging and strengthening the historical character of downtown, hopefully it will
encourage more buildings to get a historical designation and potentially reduce the overall
vacancies that do occur in historic buildings because of some of the restrictions associated with
them by providing some type of economic incentive, by the way of this type of business.
Craig agrees and hopes eventually there'll be more historic designations downtown but the only
way this ordinance encourages additional ones would be the areas that are already drinking
establishments, there's no incentive for someone who's not already a drinking establishment
unless they're outside of the 500 -foot buffer so it is a limited encouragement.
Nolte agreed, one would be pretty hard pressed to find a spot that isn't in the 500 -foot zone.
Townsend agreed but there's still a chance for more restaurants to come in and help revive the
vacancies downtown, restaurants are always needed, especially during the noon hour.
Elliott stated it seems like a good solution for the property for Tailwinds and if it affects others
that's a good thing too.
Hensch asked if the genesis of this amendment was a request by the Tailwinds developer, or
what actually started this whole discussion. Lehmann replied the genesis was with the Tailwinds
project and they looked at a million different ways of trying to approach this and are still looking
at things but it's been a process.
Townsend stated there likely will be more traffic downtown in the evenings with the music
building being open now for recitals and Riverside Theater planning to move to the Ped Mall so it
just seems that there will be more traffic and more need for restaurants and eating
establishments downtown.
Craig stated while she does support this, she has a few minor concerns but economic vitality and
preserving historic spaces downtown override any small concerns she has.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
Nolte left the meeting.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: APRIL 1, 2021:
Townsend moved to approve the meeting minutes of April 1, 2021.
Martin seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Russett gave a few updates, first the Finkbine annexation and the first reading of that rezoning
ordinance passed at Council last week, so they are moving that annexation and severance with
University Heights to the State for their review and the rezoning will get approved after the State
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 15, 2021
Page 8 of 9
looks at the annexation. Second is the Yellow Rock preliminary plat, which was that seven -lot
subdivision in the County off of Rapid Creek Road, Council approved that last week. Third, from
several months ago P&Z looked at a rezoning in Riverfront Crossings south of the railroad tracks
on Dubuque Street around 700 South Dubuque, that project is still moving forward, the rezoning
was approved a long time ago but they received a parking reduction last night from the Board of
Adjustment and this Commission should be seeing an alley vacation soon for that project and
also staff is currently reviewing their plans through the design review process.
ADJOURNMENT:
Craig moved to adjourn.
Townsend seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2020-2021
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member
7/16
8/6
8/20
10/1
10/15
11/5
12/3
12/17
1/7
1/21
2/18
3/18
4/1
4/14
CRAIG, SUSAN
X
X
X
X
X
X
O
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DYER, CAROLYN
O/E
O/E
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- -- -- --
ELLIOTT, MAGGIE
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
HENSCH, MIKE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MARTIN, PHOEBE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NOLTE, MARK
-- --
-- --
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O
X
X
X
X
SIGNS, MARK
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
TOWNSEND, BILLIE
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member
Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner, 410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240 (RE720-0015)
Ordinance No. 21-4856
Ordinance to amend Title 14 Zoning regarding nonconforming drinking
establishments in a Historic Overlay District (OHD) zone and vacant for at
least two years. (REZ20-0015)
Whereas, studies show that the increase in the concentration of alcohol-related uses is
correlated to the overconsumption of alcohol, is correlated to the prevalence of underage drinking,
and contributes to an increase in violence and crime; and
Whereas, on June 2, 2009, City Council adopted Ordinance 09-4341, which established
spacing requirements for drinking establishments throughout Iowa City due to the negative
externalities associated with a concentration of drinking establishments such as bars and pubs;
and
Whereas, drinking establishments that were legally established at the time the spacing
requirements were adopted were allowed to continue as legally nonconforming uses, subject to
special standards for nonconforming drinking establishment uses; and
Whereas, on August 20, 2013, City Council adopted Ordinance 13-4544, limiting the distance
separation requirements for drinking establishments to just the University Impact Area and the
Riverfront Crossings District because a concentration of drinking establishments was less likely
to occur such that spacing requirements were not necessary and were unduly restricting
economic development opportunities in outlying commercial areas; and
Whereas, it is reasonable to further amend the drinking establishment regulations to allow the
continuance and expansion of such legal nonconforming uses where the owners have been unable
to establish viable conforming business uses and have remained vacant for at least two years as a
result; and
Whereas, the City's Comprehensive Plan seeks to preserve the historic main street character
of the downtown, to encourage the retention and expansion of existing businesses, to attract
businesses that have growth potential and are compatible with Iowa City's economy, and to
encourage new business development in existing core or neighborhood commercial areas; and
Whereas, this amendment seeks to incentive historic preservation while still limiting the
opportunities for new drinking establishments to be established in furtherance of the purpose of the
distance separation requirements and the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan; and
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the zoning code amendment
set forth below and recommends approval.
Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa:
Section I. Amendments. The Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa is hereby
Ordinance No. 91-4856
Page 2
amended as follows:
A. Amend 14-4C-2AA-2 by adding the following underlined language:
Additional Special Exception Approval Criteria for Nonconforming Drinking
Establishments: An RSA accessory to a nonconforming drinking establishment may be
allowed by special exception provided it meets the general approval criteria for special
exceptions set forth in section 14-46-3 of this chapter, the approval criteria stated above
for all RSAs and the additional approval criteria listed below:
a. The RSA shall be located directly above and contiguous to the licensed drinking
establishment. Contiguous means there may not be other uses located on floors in
between the drinking establishment and the accessory RSA.
b. There shall be no horizontal expansion of the licensed drinking establishment,
except as allowed by 14 -4E -5G;
c. There shall be no increase in interior floor area or interior occupant load of the
existing drinking establishment, except if necessary for required bathrooms,
elevator, stairs, kitchen equipment, or other essential elements necessary to meet
accessibility, building code requirements or to meet the requirements or conditions
of the special exception, and except as allowed by 14 -4E -5G.
B. Amend 14 -4E -5F by adding the following underlined language:
Discontinuance of Nonconforming Use: Except as allowed in subsections E and G of
this section, a nonconforming use that is discontinued for a period of one year must
revert to a conforming use or, in qualifying situations, a special exception may be applied
for according to the provisions of subsection B of this section
C. Amend 14 -4E -5G by adding the following underlined language and deleting the following
stricken language:
Nonconforming Drinking Establishments and Alcohol Sales Oriented Retail Uses: In
addition to the other provisions in this section, the following provisions apply to
nonconforming drinking establishments and nonconforming alcohol sales -oriented retail
uses:
1. Any "drinking establishment', as defined in this title, that was legally established prior
to the effective date hereof and that is nonconforming with regard to the separation
requirement between said uses, as specified in this title, may continue unless one or
both of the situations occur. If one or both of these conditions occur, then
nonconforming rights cease and the use must convert to a conforming use:
a. The liquor license lapses, is revoked or is discontinued, or the drinking
establishment ceases operation, for a period of one year, except where:
(2)
2. Any "alcohol sales -oriented retail use", as defined in this title, that was legally
established prior to the effective date hereof that is nonconforming with regard to the
Ordinance No. 21-4856
Page 3
separation requirement between said uses, as specified in this title, may continue
unless one or both of the following situations occur. If one or both of these conditions
occur, then nonconforming rights cease and the use must convert to a conforming
use:
a. The liquor license lapses, is revoked or is discontinued for a period of one year;
or
b. There are changes to the use such that the use no longer meets the definition of
"alcohol sales -oriented retail use".
3. For purposes of this subsection, sidewalk cafes shall not be considered an
expansion of a nonconforming use. (Ord. 09-4341, 6-2-2009)
4. Nonconforming drinking establishments may expand as follows:
a. Tto include a rooftop service area upon approval of a special exception pursuant
to the criteria set forth in article C, "Accessory Uses and Buildings", of this
chapter: (Ord. 15-4641, 9-15-2015)
Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section III. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to
be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a
whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and
publication.
Passed and approved this 18th day of
Z,Allayor
Attest: �/ Y
City Clerk
2021.
Approved by
City Attorney's Office - 04/29/2021
Ordinance No. 21-4856
Page 4
It was moved by Salih and seconded by Mims
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS
ABSENT:
Bergus
Mims
Salih
Taylor
Teague
Thomas
Weiner
First Consideration 05/04/2021
Vote for passage:
AYES: Mims, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Weiner, Bergus.
NAYS: None. ABSENT: Salih.
Second Consideration ---------
Vote for passage:
Date published
that the
Moved by Mims, seconded by Weiner, that the rule requiring ordinances to
be considered and voted on for passage at two Council meetings prior to
the meeting at which it is to be finally passed be suspended, the second
consideration and vote be waived and the ordinance be voted upon for
final passage at this time.
AYES: Salih, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Weiner, Bergus, Mims.
NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Item Number: 13.
1 CITY OF IOWA CITY
��.:.
-4
in � at
COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
May 18, 2021
Ordinance amending Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations," Chapter 8,
entitled "Community Police Review Board," to lengthen the time period to file
a complaint and to allow the complainant to respond to the Police Chief's
report. (Second Consideration)
Prepared By: Susan Dulek, Ass't. City Attorney
Reviewed By: Geoff Fruin, City Manager
Fiscal Impact: No I mapct
Recommendations: Staff: Approval
Commission: Community Police Review Board recommended approval
Attachments: Ordinance
Executive Summary:
In a Dec. 22 report to Council, the Community Police Review Board (CPRB) recommended a series of
City Code amendments including lengthening the time period to file a complaint to 180 days and
allowing the complainant to respond to the Police Chiefs report. At a March 23 work session, Council
directed staff to proceed with drafting an ordinance to accomplish these two recommendations.
Background /Analysis:
In Resolution No. 20-159 entitled "Resolution of Initial Council Commitments addressing Black
Lives Matter Movement and Systemic Racism in the wake of the murder of George Floyd by the
Minneapolis Police and calls for action from protesters and residents" contained 17 actions items.
The action item in Paragraph 8 was a request to the CPRB for a "report and recommendation ...
regarding changes to the CPRB ordinance that enhance its ability to provide effective civilian oversight
of the ICPD...."
The CPRB submitted a list of recommendations to City Council in a memo dated Dec. 22, 2020. At the
March 23 work session, Council reviewed the CPRB recommendations and determined that two
recommendations be adopted while others await legal review and further Council discussion. The two
are to lengthen the time period to file a complaint from 90 to 180 days after the alleged misconduct and
to allow a complainant to respond to the Police Chief's or City Manager's report. The ordinance
extends the time to file a complaint to 180 days and allows the complainant 21 days to respond to the
Chiefs or City Manager's report, and they, in turn, have 10 days to reply to the complainant's response.
A draft of the ordinance was provided to the CPRB, and at its April 14 meeting, members did not
recommend any changes to the draft ordinance.
FAA CTa:IMI=Iil,kIRV
Description
Ordinance
[ J�
Prepared by: Susan Dulek, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5030
Ordinance No. 21-4857
Ordinance amending Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations," Chapter 8,
entitled "Community Police Review Board," to lengthen the time period to
file a complaint and to allow the complainant to respond to the Police
Chief's report.
Whereas, Resolution No. 20-159 entitled "Resolution of Initial Council Commitments
addressing Black Lives Matter Movement and Systemic Racism in the wake of the murder of
George Floyd by the Minneapolis Police and calls for action from protesters and residents'
contained 17 actions items;
Whereas, the action item in Paragraph 8 was a request to the Community Police Review
Board (CPRB) for a "report and recommendation ... regarding changes to the CPRB ordinance
that enhance its ability to provide effective civilian oversight of the ICPD... ";
Whereas, the CPRB submitted a list of recommendations to City Council in a memo dated
December 22, 2020;
Whereas, Council desires to enact two recommendations while others await legal review
and further Council discussion; and
Whereas, it is in the City's interest to lengthen the time period to file a complaint from 90 to
180 days after the alleged misconduct and to allow a complainant to respond to the Police
Chiefs or City Manager's report.
Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa:
Section I. Amendments.
1. Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations," Chapter 8, entitled
"Community Police Review Board," Section 3, entitled "Definition of Complaint; Complaint
Process in General," Subsection D is amended by adding the underscore text and deleting the
strike -through text as follows:
D. All complaints to the board must be filed with the City Clerk within one hundred eighty
180 aiaety (90) days of the alleged misconduct.
2. Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations," Chapter 8, entitled
"Community Police Review Board," Section 6, entitled "Police Chiefs Report to Board; City
Manager's Report to Board," Subsection D is amended by adding the underscore text as
follows:
D. A copy of the Police Chiefs report to the board shall be given to the police officer, the
complainant, and the City Manager. If the complaint concerns the Police Chief, copies of the
City Manager's report to the board shall be given to the Police Chief, the complainant, and
the City Council. The complainant shall have twenty-one (21) days to respond to the Police
Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of
this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section III. Penalties for Violation. The violation of any provision of this ordinance is a
municipal infraction or a simple misdemeanor.
Section IV. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged
to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as
a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
Ordinance No. 21-4857
Page 2
Section V. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval
and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this 18th day of May '2021.
M r
Attest: W "
City Clerk
Approved by
City Attorney's Office — 04/26/2021
Ordinance No. 21-4857
Page 3
It was moved by Weiner and seconded by Thomas
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES:
NAYS: ABSENT:
Bergus
Mims
Salih
Taylor
Teague
Thomas
Weiner
that the
First Consideration 05/04/2021
Vote for passage:
AYES: Teague, Thomas, Weiner, Bergus, Mims, Salih, Taylor.
NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration _
Vote for passage:
Date published 05/27/2021
Moved by Mims, seconded by Taylor, that the rule requiring ordinances to
be considered and voted on for passage at two Council meetings prior to
the meeting at which it is to be finally passed be suspended, the second
consideration and vote be waived and the ordinance be voted upon for final
passage at this time.
AYES: Weiner, Bergus, Mims, Salih, Taylor, Teague, Thomas.
NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Item Number: 14.
AL CITY OF IOWA CITY
=c�-
Q T�q� COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
May 18, 2021
Ordinance amending Title 10, entitled "Public Ways and Property," Chapter 9, entitled
"Parks and Recreation Regulations," to make park closure hours uniform (First
Consideration)
Prepared By: Juli Seydell Johnson, Director of Parks & Recreation
Reviewed By: Sue Dulek, Acting City Attorney
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
Fiscal Impact: No Impact
Recommendations: Staff: Approval
Commission: The Parks & Recreation Commission recommended approval
at their April 14, 2021 meeting
Attachments: Minutes -Parks & Rec. Comm. 4/14/21
Ordinance
Executive Summary:
Park hours vary depending on the park, and the Parks & Recreation Commission recommends
having uniform park hours. This ordinance closes all parks at "dusk" with the following 3
exceptions: a) Blackhawk Mini Park, Chauncey Swan Park, and College Green Park never close;
b) Trails can be used as transportation; and c) The City may allow a park to remain open for an
event, such as a softball tournament.
Background /Analysis:
Open hours at Iowa City Parks are currently:
1. Except as provided for specified parks herein, occupy any park, whether on foot or in a vehicle,
or permit any vehicle to remain parked in any park between the hours of ten thirty o'clock (10:30)
P.M. and six o'clock (6:00) A.M. unless granted special authorization by the City.
2. From April 15 to October 31, the hours shall be from eleven o'clock (11:00) P.M. to six o'clock
(6:00) A.M. in City Park and Mercer Park.
3.Occupy, whether on foot or in a vehicle, or permit any vehicle to remain parked from dusk to
dawn at the following parks: Waterworks Prairie Park, Peninsula Park, Hickory Hill Park, and
Ryerson's Woods Park. "Dusk" means thirty (30) minutes after the time designated each calendar
day as "sunset" and "dawn" means thirty (30) minutes before the time designated each calendar
day as "sunrise" by the United States Naval Observatory for Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa.
Said designations can be accessed via the internet at http://aa.usno.navy.mil
Staff recommends that this portion of City Ordinance be changed to have all parks, except Black
Hawk Mini Park, Chauncey Swan Park and College Green Park be open to the public from dawn
to dusk unless granted special authorization by the City. The three parks exempted from these
hours function as a part of Iowa City's Downtown. The lights at these parks remain on all night as
the parks have pedestrian traffic at all hours.
This change will allow for uniformity in signage and enforcement.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
minutes
ordinance
IOWA CITY PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION DRAFT
MINUTES APRIL 14, 2021
ZOOM PLATFORM
Electronic Meeting (Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8)
EAnronic meeting was held because a meeting in person was impossible or impractical due to
for the health and safety of council members, staff and the public presented by COVID-19.
Members Present: Stephen Bird, Alex Hachtman, Chris Odinet, Ben Russell, Melissa Serenda, Angie
Smith, Brianna Wills
Members Absent: Boniface Penandjo Lemoupa
Staff Present: Tyler Baird, Brad Barker, Raymond Heitner
Others Present: None
PARK HOURS DISCUSSION:
Baird is asking the Commission to consider recommending an amendment to the City Ordinance
regarding Iowa City park hours to provide more consistency and less confusion for the public.
The current ordinance reads as follows:
Open hours at Iowa City Parks are currently:
• Except as provided for specified parks herein, occupy any park, whether on foot or in a vehicle, or
permit any vehicle to remain parked in any park between the hours of ten thirty o'clock (10:30) P.M.
and six o'clock (6:00) A.M. unless granted special authorization by the City.
• From April 15 to October 31, the hours shall be from eleven o'clock (11:00) P.M. to six o'clock (6:00)
A.M. in City Park and Mercer Park.
Occupy, whether on foot or in a vehicle, or permit any vehicle to remain parked from dusk to dawn at
the following parks: Waterworks Prairie Park, Peninsula Park, Hickory Hill Park, and Ryerson's
Woods Park. "Dusk" means thirty (30) minutes after the time designated each calendar day as
"sunset" and "dawn" means thirty (30) minutes before the time designated each calendar day as
"sunrise" by the United States Naval Observatory for Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa. Said
designations can be accessed via the internet at hgp:Haa.usno.nM.mil
Staff recommends that this portion of City Ordinance be changed to have all parks, except Black Hawk
Mini Park, Chauncey Swan Park and College Green Park be open to the public from dawn to dusk unless
granted special authorization by the City. The three parks exempted from these hours function as a part
of Iowa City's Downtown. The lights at these parks remain on all night as the parks have pedestrian
traffic at all hours.
Serenda asked if staff has seen much usage of the parks between dusk and 10:30 or 11:00? Baird reported
that there are people in the parks at those times whether lights are on or not. He reported that recently a
basketball game took place until 2 a.m. where the participants used the headlights on their vehicles to
illuminate the court.
Bird referred to City Park and asked if there had ever been any thought of putting a gate up at the long
drive to restrict access after-hours. Baird said that a gate is not something staff has discussed during his
time as superintendent, although there are gates at the soccer park to protect the fields. Baird shared that
his experience has been that gates can become a bit of a management challenge, depending on the type
but may be something that staff can discuss.
Moved by Odinet, seconded by Serenda that the Parks and Recreation Commission recommend to
City Council an amendment to the City Ordinance regarding park hours to state that all parks,
except Black Hawk Mini Park, Chauncey Swan Park and College Green Park be open to the public
from dawn to dusk unless ranted special authorization by the City. Passed 6-0 (Penandio Lemoupa
and Russell absent.
!q
Prepared by: Susan Dulek, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5030
Ordinance No.
Ordinance amending Title 10, entitled "Public Ways and Property," Chapter
9, entitled "Parks and Recreation Regulations," to make park closure hours
uniform.
Whereas, park closure hours vary depending on the park;
Whereas, the Parks and Recreation Commission recommends having uniform park hours;
Whereas, because Blackhawk Mini Park, Chauncey Swan Park, and College Green Park
are lit all night and are part of the downtown fabric, they should remain open at all times;
Whereas, other exceptions to the park closure requirement are the trails if being used as
transportation and if the City grants authorization to remain open for an event, such as a softball
tournament; and
Whereas, it is in the City's interest to adopt the ordinance.
Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa:
Section I. Amendments.
Title 10, entitled "Public Ways and Property," Chapter 9, entitled "Parks and Recreation
Regulations," Section 2, entitled "Prohibited Actions in Parks," Subsection I is amended by
adding the underscore text and deleting the strike -through text as follows:
1.Except as provided for syesiffed pafks herein, occupy any park, whetheF an feet GF
thiFty G'GIGGk (10:30) P.M. and GiX G'SIGGk (6:00) A.M. uRless gFaRt8d speGial
3. 9ssupy, whether on foot, on a non -motorized vehicle, or in a vehicle, or permit any
vehicle to remain parked from dusk to dawn at the €etlewiag any parke:141aterive
D.a•.•„ PaFk Pe la PaFk HiGk9FY Hill Park, a o Weeds Park. "Dusk"
means thirty (30) minutes after the time designated each calendar day as "sunset" and
"dawn" means thirty (30) minutes before the time designated each calendar day as
"sunrise" by the United States Naval Observatory for Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa.
Said designations can be accessed on the City website. the iRtRFRRt At
H..•fl.... ,sR
Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of
this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section III. Penalties for Violation. The violation of any provision of this ordinance is a
municipal infraction or a simple misdemeanor.
Section IV. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged
to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as
a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
Section V. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval
and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of 2021.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Appr d by
City Attorney's Office — 05/11/2021
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by_
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Bergus
Mims
Salih
Taylor
Teague
Thomas
Weiner
First Consideration 05/18/2021
Vote for passage: AYES: Mims, Salih, Taylor, Teague, Thomas,
Weiner, Bergus. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration _
Vote for passage:
Date published
that the