HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-05-06 Ordinance Prepared by: John Yapp, Assoc. Planner, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5247 (REZ03-00006)
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM CB-2, CENTRAL BUSINESS
SERVICES ZONE, TO CB-5, CENTRAL BUSINESS SUPPORT ZONE FOR BLOCK 67 OF THE
ORIGINAL TOWN PLAT, EXCEPTING THE 6,000 SQUARE FOOT PROPERTY AT 130 NORTH
DUBUQUE STREET.
WHEREAS, due to a rezoning request of a properly in Block 67 from CB-2, Central Business Service
Zone, to CB~5, Central Business Support Zone, the City has initiated rezoning the remainder of Block 67 from
CB-2 to CB-5, in order to preserve consistent and predictable zoning for all the properties on the block; and
WHEREAS, the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan identifies the Near Northside commemial district,
including Block 67, as appropriate for mixed use, residential/commercial development.
WHEREAS, the proposed CB-5 zone allows more opportunity for mixed-use development due to less
stringent parking requirements and a higher allowable floor-to-area ratio; and
WHEREAS, the Northside commemial area has historically developed as a mixed-use, pedestrian-
oriented commercial area; and
WHEREAS, Block 67 contains a mixture of uses including commemial, office, and religious institution, ail
of which will continue to be permitted in the CB-5 zone.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
~. The property legally described below is hereby redesignated from CB-2 to
CB-5:
Block 67 of the Original Town Plat of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, excepting the north 75 feet of Lot 4 of
Block 67.
SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change the
zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval
and publication of this Ordinance as provided by law.
SECTION III CERTIFICATION AND RFC. ORDING. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to
certify a copy of this Ordinance which shall be recorded by the owner at the Office of the County Recorder of
Johnson County, Iowa, upon final passage and publication as provided by law.
~. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION V REVERABII ITY 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 uncenstitutionat.
SECTION VI FFFECTIVE DATF. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and
publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this __ day of ,20___
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Approved by
Cit~ At'~rne~/s O'ffice
Ordinance No.
Page.
It was moved by and seconded by that the Ordinance
as read be adopted, and upon mil call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Champion
Kanner
Lehman
O'Donnell
Pfab
Vanderhoef
Wilbum
First Consideration 5/6/03
Vote for passage: AYES: Kanner', L~hman, 0'Donne'll, Vandet'hoef,W'i'lbut'n, Champ'ion.
NAYS: None. ABSENT: Pfab.
Second Consideration
Vote for passage:
Date published
Prepared by: John Yapp, Assoc. Planner, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5247 (REZ02-00021)
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE CONDITIONALLY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM CB-2,
CENTRAL BUSINESS SERVICE ZONE, TO CB-S, CENTRAL BUSINESS SUPPORT ZONE, FOR A 6,000
SQUARE FOOT PROPERTY AT 130 N. DUBUQUE STREET.
WHEREAS, the applicant, Kevin Hanick, has applied for a rezoning from Central Business Service Zone,
CB-2, to Central Business Support Zone, CB-5, for a 6,000 square foot property located at 130 N. Dubuque
Street; and
WHEREAS, the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan identifies the Near Northside commercial district,
including the subject property, as appropriate for mixed use residential/commercial development; and
WHEREAS, the proposed CB-5 zone allows more opportunity for mixed-use development due to less
stringent parking requirements and a higher allowable floor-to-area ratio; and
WHEREAS, the Near Northside commercial area has historically developed as a mixed-use pedestrian-
oriented commercial area; and
WHEREAS, to address concerns with the appearance of the structure being consistent with the historic
character of the area, and historic landmarks on the block, property owner has agreed to a Conditional
Zoning Agreement that defines appearance criteria for any new structure on the property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE' IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
~. Subject to the terms and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement,
attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, the property legally described below is hereby
redesignated from CB-2 to CB-5:
The north 75 feet of Lot 4, in Block 67, of the original Town Plat of the City of Iowa City, Iowa.
SECTION II. ZONING MAp. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change the
zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval
and publication of this Ordinance as provided by law.
SECTION III CONDITIONAl ZONING AGREEMENT Following final passage and approval of this
ordinance, the Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to sign, and the City Clerk to attest to and record at
the owner's expense, the Conditional Zoning Agreement between the property owner and the City.
SECTION IV CERTIFICATION AND RFCORDIN~ The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to
certify and record a copy of this Ordinance at the owner's expense at the Office of the County Recorder of
Johnson County, Iowa, upon final passage and publication as provided by law.
~. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION VI SEVFRAI~ILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION VII EEEECTIVE DATF. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval
and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of ,20__
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Approved by
City .~to~ney's Office '
Ordinance No.
Page.
It was moved by and seconded by that the Ordinance
as mad be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Champion
Kanner
Lehman
O'Donnell
Pfab
Vanderhoef
Wilbum
First Consideration 5/6/03
Voteforpassage: AYES: Lehman, 0'Donnel], Vanderhoef, Wi]burn, Champion; Kanner.
NAYS: None. ABSENT: Pfab.
Second Consideration
Vote for passage:
Date published
Prepared by: John Yapp, Assoc. Planner, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5247 (REZ02-00021)
CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal
corporation (hereinafter "City") and Patricia Lenoch (hereinafter "Owner").
WHEREAS, Kevin Hanick, on behalf of the Owner, has requested that the City rezone
approximately 6,000 square feet of property located at 130 N. Dubuque Street, from Central
Business Service Zone, CB-2, to Central Business Support Zone, CB-5; and ~
WHEREAS, the property is located in a commercial area with numerous historic
landmark buildings; and
WHEREAS, the property is located on an entranceway into downtown Iowa City; and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code 414.5 (2001) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose
reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing
regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change in zoning; and
WHEREAS, Owner agrees that certain conditions and restrictions are reasonable to
address issues of compatibility with the historic character of the Near Northside commercial
district and nearby historic landmark properties, and to ensure appropriate development on
Dubuque Street, and entranceway to downtown Iowa City.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual promises contained herein, the parties
agree as follows:
1. Patricia Lenoch is the owner and legal titleholder of a 6,000 square foot property at 130
N. Dubuque Street, more particularly described as follows:
The north 75 feet of Lot 4, in Block 67, of the original Town Plat of the City of Iowa City,
Iowa.
2. Owner acknowledges that the City wishes to ensure that any structure on this property is
compatible with the historic character of the area and appropriate for an entranceway
into downtown Iowa City.
3. In consideration of the City's rezoning the property from CB-2 to CB-5, Owner agrees
that the development of the subject property will conform to all the requirements of the
CB-5 zone, as applicable, and the design of any new structure on the property shall be
reviewed and approved by the City Design Review Committee, prior to a building permit
being issued, according to the following criteria:
a. The exterior walls facing the street shall be predominantly masonry; stone, or
simulated stone may be used in combination with the brick.
b. The entrance to the building shall be recessed and delineated by a canopy or
awning, raised cornice, or similar architectural feature.
c. Fenestration shall be predominantly vertical in proportion.
d. The eave or parapet shall have a cornice.
e. Signs shall be architecturally appropriate to the design of the building and context
of the neighborhood. Appropriate types of signs include wall signs between the
top of the first floor windows and the second floor, painted window signs,
projecting signs, canopy or canopy roof signs.
1
f. Illuminated awnings shall not be utilized.
g. The visual impression of the underground parking entrance shall be minimized.
4. Owner agrees to submit building elevation plans to the City Design Review Committee
prior to requesting a building permit. The Owner shall obtain approval of the building
elevation plans from the City Design Review Committee prior to a building permit being
issued. Decisions of the City Design Review Committee may be appealed to the Iowa
City Board of Adjustment.
5. Owner acknowledges that the conditions contained herein are reasonable conditions to
impose on the land and under Iowa Code 414.5 (2001), and that said conditions satisfy
public needs that are caused by the requested zoning change.
6. Owner acknowledges that in the event any portion of the subject property is transferred,
sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all development and redevelopment will conform with
the terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement.
7. The parties acknowledge that this Conditional Zoning Agreement will be deemed to be a
covenant running with the land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force
and effect as a covenant running with the title to the land unless or until released of
record by the City. The parties further acknowledge that this agreement will inure to the
benefit of and bind all successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties.
8. Owner acknowledges that nothing in the Conditional Zoning Agreement will be
construed to relieve the Owner from complying with all applicable local, state, and
federal regulations.
9. The parties agree that this Conditional Zoning Agreement will be incorporated by
reference into the ordinance rezoning the subject pi'operty and that upon adoption and
publication of the ordinance, this agreement will be recorded in the Johnson County
Recorder's Office.
Dated this d- day of '-~~ ,2003.
OWNER CITY OF IOWA CITY
Patricia Lenoch Ernest W. Lehman, Mayor
Attested by:
Marian K. Karr, City Clerk
Approved by:
Ci~,ttorney's Office
ppdadr~agblenoCh.dcc
2
Prepared by: Shelley McCafferty, Assodate Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5243 (REZ03-00009)
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM HIGH DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY /
SENSITIVE AREA OVERLAY (RS-12/OSA) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING OVERLAY
(OPDH-12/OSA) FOR 2.12 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
MEADOW RIDGE LANE AND NORTH DUBUQUE STREET.
WHEREAS, the applicant, CJ's Construction Inc., has requested that the property be rezoned from High Density
Single Family Residential/Sensitive Area Oveday, RS-12/OSA, to Planned Development Housing Overlay, RS-
12/OSNOPDH; and
WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting approval of a Preliminary OPDH Plan and an amended Sensitive Areas
Development Plan to allow the development of 13 townhouse-style dwelling units; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that the proposed rezoning is in conformance
with the North District Plan, and that the proposed Preliminary OPDH Plan and amended Sensitive Areas
Development Plan are in technical compliance with all applicable provisions of the City Code; and
WHEREAS, the Preliminary OPDH Plan includes a variation to allow four townhouse-style buildings on a single
lot in an RS zone and was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the amended Sensitive Areas Development Plan includes a variation to reduce the front back from
40 feet along North Dubuque Street to 30 feet to allow the preservation of open space to be maximized and was
approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the OPDH plan is in compliance with the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the proposed development is in compliance with the North District Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I. APPROVAL The property described below is hereby reclassified from its current designation of
High Density Single Family Residential/Sensitive Areas Oveday, RS-12/OSA, to and Planned Development Housing
Oveday, RS-12/OSNOPDH, and the associated Preliminary OPDH Plan and amended Sensitive Areas Development
Plan, is hereby approved:
LOTS 17,18, 19 AND 20 OF MEADOW RIDGE, PART TWO, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF
RECORDED IN BOOK 37, AT PAGE 97, OF THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE.
SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 2.21 ACRES, AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTION OF RECORD.
SECTION I1. VARIATIONS. Section 14-6J-2-D-7 of the City Code provides that combinations of land uses are
permitted and variations in building setback and lot area requirements may be approved for planned developments,
and Section14-6J-2-B of the City Code provides for flexibility in architectural design, placement and clustering of
bui!dings, use of open space, traffic circulation and parking, and related site and design considerations. The following
waivers are approved as pad of the Preliminary OPDH Plan:
a. Waiver of Section 14-6Q-2-A to reduce the front yard for lots abutting a primary arterial street from 40 feet to 30
feet.
b. Waiver of Section 14-6A-4-F-1 to permit multiple primary structures on a single lot in an RS zone.
SECTION II1. ZONING MAP. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map of
the City of Iowa City, Iowa to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and publication of this
ordinance as provided by law.
SECTION IV. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDINR The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a
copy of this ordinance and the amended Sensitive Areas Development Plan and Preliminary OPDH Plan for this
property, and record the same in the Office of the County Recorder, Johnson County, Iowa, at the Owner's expense,
upon the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance, as provided by law.
Ordinance No.
Page 2
SECTION V. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance
are hereby repealed.
SECTION VI. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid
or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision
or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION VI. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and
publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of ,20 ..
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Approved by
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by that the Ordinance
as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Champion
Kanner
Lehman
O'Donnell
Pfab
Vanderhoef
Wilbum
First Consideration 5/6/03
Vote for passage: AYES: 0'Donnell, 'Vanderhoef, Wilbur-n, Champ'ion , Kanne~', Lehman,
NAYS: None. ABSENT: Pfab.
Second Consideration
Vote for passage:
Date published
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 30, 2003
To: city council
From: Karin Franklin, Director of Planr)~g and, ~ munity Developme
Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorne~ ~k,,~,~.,~'
Re: Rezoning Protests
At the April 22 Council meeting, there appeared to be some confusion as to how the
protest against a rezoning triggered the Council's extraordinary majority vote. This
confusion seemed to be largely within the neighborhood abutting the Pine Ridge
Condominiums rezoning question.
According to State law, the protest of property owners representing 20% or more of the
property within 200 feet of the exterior boundaries of an area to be rezoned will trigger the
extraordinary majority requirement for the City Council. To be effective in triggering an
extraordinary majority, the protest must be in writing and filed with the City Clerk by the
conclusion of the public hearing on the rezoning in question.
As of the evening of April 22, the City Clerk's office had received rezoning protests from
property owners around the Pine Ridge property that equated to 19.78% of property within
200 feet of the ground to be rezoned (see attached map). Consequently, the requisite
20% was not met by the close of the public hearing on April 22.
You have in your packet a letter and a protest petition signed by Henry Klosterman
requesting that his letter be considered along with a formal protest. Mr. Klosterman's
protest was filed with the City Clerk on April 25. Mr. Klosterman states, "Even though the
public hearing date has passed, my opinion should be considered since my protest would
have affected the outcome." The City Council may certainly consider Mr. Klosterman's
opinion. However, because the petition was not received until after the close of the public
hearing, it may not be considered, pursuant to State law, a part of the calculation to
determine whether the 20% was met or not. Therefore, the rezoning before the Council for
2.12 acres southeast of Meadow Ridge Lane and north of Dubuque Street requires only a
simple majority of the City Council (4 of 7) for this rezoning to be approved.
cc: City Manager
Henry J. Klosterman
ppddir/mem/klosterman doc
230
~ ~ ~.~6~'.~ /~( .... ~ 200 Fl:. Boundary
~ ,.~.~' ~/ ~ ~ ~, ~ Surround~n~
~ ~~~ L~~ Rezone
_~ 3927' ~ 0 ~ 33.~9'~
~ ~ ~ ~/
5865'
~ Protest prope~ies~ea ~o. / _.~/ ~
~////~ within 200 feet surrounding the rezone prope~y
Mr. Henry J. Klosterman ~j-
1925 Meadow Ridge Lane ~ r,.>
Iowa City, IA 52245 ~ _
Iowa City Council
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240-1826
April 24, 2003
Dear Council Members,
This letter is in response to the correspondence mailed to property owners dated February
21, 2003, about the rezoning to amend the Sensitive Areas Overlay High Density Single-
Family Residential Zone (OSA/RS-12) for property located at Dubuque Street &
Meadow Ridge Lane, allowing the construction of 13 townhouse style units on 2.3 acres.
1 attended the public meeting on March 6th in the Civic Center, strongly protesting the
. proposed amendment. As a neighboring property owner living within 200 feet of the
planned site this request to rezone is inappropriate for those already living there.
I have been out of town until today, April 24th; being one of the five residents living in
the close proximity I feel that my letter should be considered along with a formal protest.
Even though the Public Hearing Date has passed my opinion should be considered since
my protest would have affected the outcome.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Henry J. Klosterman
PROTEST OF REZONING
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
IOWA ClT~', IOWA
We, the undersigned, being the owners of twenty percent or more of the area of the property
included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of twenty percent or more of the
property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for
which the zoning change ia proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property:
This petition is signed end anknowiedged by each of us with the intention that euch rezoning
shall not become effective except by the favorsble vote of at leto three-fourths of all the
members of the council, ~11 in a~.ordance with §4t4.5 of the Code of Iowa.
Owner(s) of Property Address
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this ,25-~ay of ~, 20~.3 , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and
for said County and State, personally appeared ~-~t~-~ ~s~-~r~x~ ,~ and
to me known to be the Identical persons named in and who
executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same
as their voluntary act and deed.
J~J emrn,saionN~mt~-,TB71S ~f~ '~' ~
C RENETTA L BURLAIJE
, . ' My mJss~n Notary Public In and for tl~e State of Iowa
ay:
Owner(a) of Properly Address ; ~ r :~ -~
STATE OF IOWA ) = ,- ...~ 'm
JOHNSON COUNTY ) ~'
On this day of ,20 , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and
for said County and State, personally appeared and
to me known to be the identical persons named in and who
executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same
ss theii: voluntaP/act and deed.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
g3_ Page 1 of 2
Marian Karr
From: AmyWeiss [Amy-Weiss@uiowa.edu]
Sent: Thursday, May 0'1,2003 ~12:'19 PM
To: council@iowa-city.or§
Subject: Rezonin[l of the Southeast corner of Meadow Rid§e Lane
As a resident of Meadow Ridge Lane, I want to register my distress by the P & Z's approval, albeit by a simple
4 to 3 majority, to go ahead with changing the existing zoning on the southeast comer of Meadow Ridge Lane
to allow for the building of 13 units in a space that will create what in my mind is an eyesore, rather than a
lovely addition to the area. Please note that when I purchased my home in March of 2000, I was aware of the
possibility that six units might be built on this property, so additional building in this area, although not
desirable, is not a shock to me. In fact, a couple of years ago, these lots were purchased by an individual who
wanted to build a bed and breakfast in this area and after checking with staff about the regulations for such an
endeavor I was supportive of the building. That project apparently fell through and the land was resold. I
mention this because it isn't the issue of development that concerns me, but the mismatch in the nature of the
development that is proposed with the area. What is shocking to me, too, is the disregard that the proposed
builder and staff seem to have had for the unanimous wishes of the community most affected by this change in
zoning and the subsequent proposal.
At the P & Z meetings I made clear, as did many of my neighbors, that the building of 13-unit development
would make an already dangerous situation even more so. As I said to the members of the P & Z committee, I
would welcome any or all of you to travel down Meadow Ridge Lane on a weekday morning and attempt to
cross Dubuque Street at Foster/B'Jaysville Road to head south into the downtown Iowa City area in a timely
manner and without taking your life in your hands. Try crossing the street on foot to the Iowa City transit bus
stop across the street without the same result. Or, try to cross the street so that you can walk to work (the
sidewalk is on the southbound side of Dubuque Street). The issue of creating a housing project that will enable
folks to more easily access downtown Iowa City by car, foot, bicycle, or bus sounds attractive when the
contractor's lawyer presents it but in practice it's nearly impossible to do. In fact, at one of the P & Z meetings,
in answer to a query from an earlier meeting, a staff member indicated that her research had indicated that there
had been no fatalities at that comer. Personally I found that statement appalling, especially since it wasn't
accompanied by information about how many accidents there have been at that comer. I know of several and I
would wager more than at the "typical" crossing. Does this mean that our concerns for safety would be taken
more seriously by council if there had been a fatality? This spot is surely a tragedy waiting to happen.
I recognize that the issue of widening the service road (I guess this is old 218) and the installation of a light as
well as some sort of median for cars between the north and southbound lanes of traffic has been presented to
council by the P & Z commission as an important plan to be expedited and that comment is greatly appreciated
by us all. Unfortunately, I also know that studies of all of these issues were completed years ago and despite
promises, nothing has been definitively planned to remedy this situation. The problem has only gotten worse
with the building up of subdivisions off Foster Road and north of 1-80 on Dubuque Street. As it is, I usually
have to pull over to the shoulder when I'm heading down the service road because there is a school bus trying to
head north to pick up the children in the area. Is this really an area you want to add more congestion to
BEFORE you solve the very real infrastructure issues? To me, this is a good case of putting the cart before the
horse. I would hope that the Council recognized that zoning isn't the 0nly concern here. Planning is as well. I
greatly appreciate the fact that the P & Z made clear to the council that the infrastructure of the area needs these
changes. But, given the history of the area resident's attempts to have the city remedy this situation in the past, I
don't feel confidant assuming that the recommendation will be taken seriously at this time.
I would also point out that a good portion of the land is covered with beautiful, mature trees. Have you seen
them or have you just relied on the schematic that the builder presented? I'd encourage each of you to take a
look before you render a vote. Given the requirement for the builder to create a buffer at the back of the
property line, there doesn't seem to be any way that the majority of the trees will be spared, with the exception
5/1/03
Page 2 of 2
of perhaps two pine trees in the middle of the property. By my estimation the 2.2 acres that the builder is
intending to use actually boils down to a little over one acre when the additional restrictions are taken into
account. To me that spells "glut", not attractive high density housing. And, that brings me to the notion of
diversity. Look at the area. There are multiple family homes on B'Jaysville Road, condominiums aplenty across
the street (if you can get there) along Foster Road, a trailer park, and more single family homes....and that's
before the Peninsula development is completed. I ask you, why does the addition of a 13-unit development that
will necessitate cutting down trees, create additional havoc for the residents of the area, as well as the fact that
there is cun'ently no engineering report of the feasibility of this project (see P & Z concems) sound like an
attractive proposition at this time? Frankly, I don't understand the rationale other than it can be done, so it will
be done.
I plan to attend the Council meeting on the 6th to further explicate my concerns.
Sincerely,
Amy L. Weiss
1957 Meadow Ridge Lane
5/1/03
Prepared by: Shelley McCafferty, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5243 (REZ03-00004)
AN ORDINANCE COMBINING THE LONGFELLOW HISTORIC DISTRICT AND THE MOFFITT
COTTAGE HISTORIC DISTRICT INTO ONE HISTORIC DISTRICT NAMED THE
LONGFELLOW HISTORIC DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Iowa City City Council has designated the Longfellow Historic District and the Moffitt
Cottage Historic District as Historic Preservation Overlay zones; and
WHEREAS, the Longfellow Historic District and the Moffitt Cottage Historic District are contiguous;
and
WHEREAS, at its October 24, 2002 public hearing, the Historic Preservation Commission
recommended that the boundaries of the Longfellow Historic District and Moffitt Cottage Historic District
be amended to combine them into one historic district named the Longfellow Historic District; and
WHEREAS, at its February 20, 2003 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended
approval of said proposed amendment, and the amended Longfellow Neighborhood District Guidelines;
and
WHEREAS, the State Historical Society of Iowa has reviewed the proposed nomination and concurs
with the recommendations contained within the historic district report for this amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I. APPROVAL. The Longfellow Historic District and the Moffitt Cottage Historic District are
hereby combined into one historic district named the Longfellow Historic District, which is legally
described as follows; and the Longfellow Neighborhood District Guidelines, which are attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference are hereby approved:
Beginning at the northwest corner of lot 22, in Kauffman's Addition, Iowa City, Johnson County,
Iowa, Section II, Township 79 North, Range 6 West; Thence easterly 214.23 feet to the northeast
corner of lot 21, Kauffman's Addition; Thence easterly 15 feet to the northwest corner of Oakes
First Addition; Thence easterly 360 feet to the northeast corner of lot 22, Oakes First Addition;
Thence easterly 20 feet to a point on the east line of the alley between Burlington and Court
Streets; Thence northerly 7 feet to a point on the eastern boundary of the 20 foot alley west of
Muscatine Avenue between Court and Burlington Streets; Thence easterly 92.2 feet and
southerly 35.3 feet to the northwest corner of lot 1, Koser's Subdivision; Thence easterly 145 feet
to the western R.O.W. line of Muscatine Avenue; Thence northeasterly across Muscatine Avenue
to the southwest corner of Lot 2 of W.C. Mott's Subdivision of part of Block 5 and 7 of Clark and
Borland's Addition; Thence northeasterly to the northern most corner of said Lot 2; Thence
southeasterly to the southeastern corner of Lot 7 Of said W.C. Mott's Subdivision; Thence
southerly to a point on the centerline of Muscatine Avenue that intersect the projected eastern
boundary line of Lot 1, Block 3 of Rundell Addition;Thence southeasterly to a point where said
centerline intersects with the projected centerline of the 20 foot alley between Rundell and
Dearborn Streets; Thence southerly along the centerline of said alley to a point where centerline
intersects with the projected south boundary line of lot 11, block 9, Rundell Additions; Thence
southwesterly to the centerline of the 16 foot alley between Rundell and Dearborn Streets at the
south R.O.W. of Sheridan Avenue; Thence southerly along centedine of said 16 foot alley to
where said centerline intersects with the eastward projected south boundary line of lot 2, block 8,
Rundell Addition; Thence westerly 133 feet to the southwest corner of said lot 2; Thence nodherly
50 feet along the east R.O.W. line of Rundell Street; Thence westerly 60 feet to the west R.O.W.
line of Rundell Street; Continuing westerly 125 feet to the southwest corner of lot 18, block 6,
Runde[I Addition; Continuing westerly 8 feet to the centerline of the 16 foot alley running along the
western boundary of the properties fronting the west side of Rundetl Street; Thence southerly 75
feet along the centerline of said alley; Thence westerly to the southwest corner of lot 1, block 6,
Rundell Addition; Thence northwesterly along the west boundary of said lot 1 to the centerline of
Sheridan Avenue; Thence westerly along the centerline of Sheridan Avenue to a point 148 feet
east of where said centerline intersects with the projected east boundary line of lot 17, block 2,
Reagan's Second Addition; Thence southerly to the south R.O.W. line of Sheridan Avenue;
Continuing southerly 91 feet; Thence westerly 98 feet to a point on the east R.O.W. line of
Maggard Street; Thence westerly 25 feet to the centerline of Maggard Street; Thence northerly to
a point where said centerline intersects with the projected south boundary line of lot 17, block 2,
Reagan's Second Addition; Thence westerly 25 feet to the southeast corner of lot 17, block 2,
Reagan's Second Addition; Thence westerly 236.1 feet to the southwest corner of lot 1, block 2,
Reagan's Second Addition; Thence westerly 30 feet to the centedine of Roosevelt Street; Thence
southerly 60 feet to a point where said centerline intersects with the projected south boundary line
of lot 2, block 1, Reagan's Second Addition; Thence westerly 30 feet to the southeast corner of lot
2, block 1 of Reagan's Second Addition; Thence westerly 140 feet to the southwest corner of said
lot 2; Thence westerly 10 feet to the centerline of the alley between Roosevelt Street and Clark
Street; Thence northerly to a point where said centerline intersects with the projected south
boundary line of lot 1, block 3, Reagan's First Addition; Thence westerly 10 feet to the southeast
corner of lot 1, block 3 of Reagan's First Addition; Thence westerly 60 feet along the south
boundary of said lot 1; Thence northerly 220 feet to a point on the nodh boundary of lot 5, block 2
of Reagan's First Addition; thence easterly 60 feet to the northeast corner of said lot 5; Continuing
easterly 10 feet to the centerline of the alley just east of Clark Street, between Sheridan Avenue
and Seymour Avenue; Thence northerly 500 feet to the south boundary line of lot 14 of Coldren's
Addition; Thence easterly 12 feet to the southeast corner of said lot 14; Thence northerly 156 feet
to the northeast corner of lot 15 of Coldren's Addition; Thence easterly 61 feet to a point on the
west boundary of the property belonging to Longfellow School; Thence northerly to the northeast
corner of lot 37 of Oakes Second Addition; Thence westerly 235 feet to the northwest corner of
said lot; Thence westerly 30 feet to the centerline of Clark Street; Thence northerly 9.83 feet
along said centerline; Thence westerly 139.17 feet; Thence northerly 168.26 feet to the centerline
of Court Street; Thence easterly 23.44 feet along said centerline; Thence nodhedy 30 feet to the
southeast corner of lot 23 of Kauffman's Addition; Thence northerly 162.2 feet to a point on the
western boundary of the vacated alley east of Summit Street between Court Street and Burlington'
Street, in Kauffman's Addition; Thence easterly 15 feet to the point of beginning.
SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change the
zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval
and publication of this ordinance as provided by law.
SECTION III. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance,
the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and to record the
same at the office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, all as provided by law.
SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of
this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION V. 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 VI. EFFECTIVE DATF. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval
and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of ,2003.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Approved by
City Atto~y'~ Offic~ ~' --
Ordinance No.
Page _
It was moved by and seconded by that the Ordinance
as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Champion
Kanner
Lehman
O'Donnell
Pfab
Vanderhoef
Wilbum
First Consideration 5/6/03
Voteforpassage:AYES: Vanderhoef; Wi'lbut-n, Champion, Kanner, Lehman, 0'Donne]].
NAYS: None. ABSENT: Pfab.
Second Consideration
Vote for passage:
Date published
Prepared by: Shelley McCafferty, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington Street. iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5243 (REZ03-00005)
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION RESIDENTIAL
(RNC-12 & RNC-20), HIGH DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM-44) AND MEDIUM
DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-8) TO CONSERVATION DISTRICT OVERLAY
(RNC-12/OCD, RNC-20/OCD, RM-44/OCD & RS-8/OCD) FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE
COLLEGE HILL CONSERVATION DISTRICT WITHIN THE COLLEGE HILL
NEIGHBORHOOD.
WHEREAS, the Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan, contained in the Iowa City Comprehensive
Plan, recommends consideration of the designation of conservation and historic districts within the
College Hill Neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan recommends the preservation of the integrity of
historic neighborhoods, the stabilization of neighborhoods, and supports efforts of the Historic
Preservation Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Iowa City Municipal Code authorizes the Historic Preservation Commission to
nominate and the City Council to designate conservation districts, where deemed appropriate, as a
means of preserving the neighborhood character of traditional Iowa City neighborhoods, or for preserving
areas that exemplify unique or distinctive development patterns; and
WHEREAS, the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission has completed a study of the College'
Hill neighborhood and has found that portions of this neighborhood retain substantial integrity to meet the
criteria for designation as a conservation district; and
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission feels that designation of the College Hill
Conservation District within the College Hill neighborhood will help stabilize the neighborhood by
providing for design review of new construction or alterations of existing buildings to assure compatibility
with the existing character of the district, and will encourage the retention of existing contributing
structures within the College Hill Neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, at its August 9, 2002 public hearing, the Historic Preservation Commission nominated
said properties for designation as a conservation district; and
WHEREAS, at its February 20, 2003 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended
approval of the proposed conservation district designation and the District Guidelines for the College Hill
Neighborhood; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I. APPROVAL. The College Hill Conservation District, legally described below and
illustrated on Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby designated as
a Conservation District Overlay (OCD) Zone and subject to the guidelines of the Iowa City Historic
Preservation Handbook including Appendix B, District Guidelines for the College Hill Neighborhood
hereto attached, incorporated herein by this reference:
Commencing at the northwest corner of lot 8, block 39, in the Original Town Plat of Iowa City, in Johnson County,
Iowa; Section 10, Township 79 North, Range 6 West. Thence northerly 10 feet to a point on the centerline of the
alley running east and west in said block 39. Thence eastedy 1,320 feet to a point on the centedine of Governor
Street. Thence southerly along said centerline 26 feet. Thence easterly to a point on the western boundary of Outlot
4, Original Town Plat. Thence easterly along the northern boundaries of the lots south of Ralston Creek in said
Outlot 4, to a point on the western boundary of lot 3, block 4, J.W. Clark's Addition. Thence southerly 58 feet along
the western boundary of said lot 3. Thence eastedy 149 feet to a point on the centerline of Evans Street. Thence
southerly along said centerline to a point where it intersects with an eastedy extension of the north boundary line of
lot 3, Boulevard Terrace Subdivision. Thence southeasterly along the centerline of Muscatine Avenue to a point
where it intersects with an easterly extension of the south boundary line of lot 6, Koser's Subdivision. Thence,
westerly to the northwest corner of lot 1, Koser's Subdivision. Thence northerly 35.3'. Thence westerly along the
south boundary of Outlot 1, Koser's Subdivision, to a point on the centerline of the alley running nodh and south
between Burlington Street and Court Street. Thence northerly 3' to a point where said centerline intersects with the
centerline of the alley running east and west in Oaks First Addition. Thence westerly, 1,020.80 feet along said
centerline and the south boundary of lots 3 and 4 of Kauffman's Addition, to a point on the eastern boundary of lot 2,
Kauffman's Addition. Thence nodherly 193.50 feet to a point on the centedine of Burlington Street. Thence westerly
along said centerline to a point where it intersects with a southerly extension of the eastern boundary of Outlot 2 of
the Original Town Plat. Thence westerly along said centedine 91 feet. Thence northerly 130 feet Thence westerly
59 feet. Thence northerly 70 feet. Thence westerly 80 feet. Thence southerly 3 feet. Thence westedy 80 feet.
Thence northerly 250 feet to the southern boundary of Outlot 3 of the Original Town Plat. Thence eastedy 80 feet.
Thence northerly 195.5 feet. Thence westedy 160 feet. Thence southerly 36.25 feet along the western boundary of
Outlot 3, the Original Town Plat. Thence westedy 400 feet across Governor Street and beyond to a point on the
western boundary of Block 2, the Odginal Town Plat. Thence southerly along said western boundary 20 feet.
Thence westerly 170 feet. Thence northerly 30 feet. Thence westedy 50 feet along the south boundary of lot 2,
block 21, the Original Town Plat. Thence southerly 10 feet. Thence westerly 50 feet. Thence nodherly 160 feet to
the southern right-of-way line of Washington Street. Thence westerly 182 feet to a point 8 feet east of the northeast
corner of College Green Park. Thence northerly 260 feet to a point on the centedine of the alley running east and
west between Dodge and Johnson Streets. Thence westedy 108 feet along said centerline. Thence southerly 260
feet to a point on the north boundary of College Green Park. Thence westedy 300 feet to the northeast corner of lot
1, block 41, the Original Town Plat. Thence southerly 65 feet along the east boundary of said lot 1. Thence westerly
80 feet to a point on the west boundary of said lot 1. Thence northerly 755 feet to the point of beginning. Excepting
the following described properties, which are not to be included. Lots 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, the nodh 97 feet of
Lot 8, and the north 137 feet of lot 9 of J. & J.W. Clark Addition, Iowa City, Iowa; together with Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and
6 of Koser Bros. Subdivision of Lots 1 & 2 of Fry's Addition, Iowa City, Iowa; together with Lots 1, 2 and 3 of
Carson's Subdivision of Lots 14 to 20 of J. and J.W. Clark's Addition to Iowa City, Iowa; together with A portion of
Lots 3 and 4 of Carson's Subdivision of Lots 14 to 20 of J. and J.W. Clark's Addition to Iowa City, Iowa, more
particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point 5 feet west of the northeast corner of said Lot 3, thence east
12.45 feet to the westerly line of Muscatine Avenue, thence southeasterly along said westerly line of Muscatine
Avenue 64 feet; thence southwesterly 90.3 feet to a point 110 feet south of the point of beginning; thence north 110
feet to the point of beginning.
SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change the
zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval
and publication of this ordinance as provided by law.
SECTION III. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance,
the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and to record the
same at the office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, all as provided by law.
SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of
this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION V. 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 VI. 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 ,2003.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Approved by
~y~'Attor ney's Office
Shared/pCd/hislpres/Iong fellow/longfellow ordinance.doc
Ordinance No.
Page.
It was moved by and seconded by that the Ordinance
as read be adopted, and upon roll cell there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Champion
Kanner
Lehman
O'Donnell
Pfab
Vanderhoef
Wilbum
First Consideration 4/22/03
Voteforpassage: AYES:Lehman, 0'D0nnell, W.ilburn, Champ'ion. NAYS Pfab, Kanner.
ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: Vanderhoef.
Second Consideration 5/6/03
Vote for passage: AYES: Wilburn, Champion, Kanner, Lehman, O'Donnell. NAYS: None
ABSENT: Pfab. ABSTAIN: Vanderhoef.
Date published
Lisa 5chintler - ]~ live at 1033 E Burlington 5t. T also own property at 1217 E Burlington St.
You might ask why 1' became so worked up about this. Enough to come speak before you
multiple times.
1't came about because my husband and T decided to finish siding our duplex on Burlington
street. He had started this project when he lived there but we now live up the street. We
asked a contractor to bid the job for us and to obtain the necessary permits. We didn't
think we needed one but wanted to be sure. The contractor came out to bid the job then
came down to the civic center to check on a permit. He was told a permit was not required
for a single family or duplex dwelling. However since the house is in the proposed district a
permit would be required and approval of the Historic Commission required. He was not told
that he could still put in an application for the permit in case this ordinance didn't pass in 60
days. Next he talked to the city employee who is the staff contact for the commission. This
person listened to the project description then proceeded to travel out to the house to see
what had been done. Our contractor was then told there was not a sufficient amount work
completed and that we could not continue.
We fully expected to get a cease construction order in the next few days. When we didn't
we began to think that we were being bluffed. Our next course of action was to begin
reading city code and to find where it states that any permits that would be required by the
new ordinance are required prior to it passing, during the 60 days after City Council has set
a public hearing. We could not find anything nor could someone from planning and zoning
provide the particular clause. 1' finally ended up calling the city attorney's office to verify
that we were reading the code correctly and could indeed continue with the project. The
attorney that ]~ spoke with confirmed that we were correct. He corrected this
misinformation with the city employees involved. When T went to apply for a permit the
other day the application was accepted.
However, this does not explain why the staff person from the Historic Commission came out
to the site and stated that we must stop construction!!! My understanding is this is not that
person's nor the historic commissions specific job.
My additional concern on this is to question how many other people were told this
misinformation that they could not apply for a permit. By the reading of the city code - if
final action on the ordinance is not taken within 60 days after City Council sets the public
hearing the moratorium is lifted, the permit shall issue. That 60 day period comes to an end
this weekend. This is why the commission has talked about trying to get a double vote in at
this or the last council meeting in their minutes.
** I also ask council, if the permit is then issued, custom parts are ordered and
preparation/construction for installation is started, if the Council then posses this ordinance,
will a person be allowed to complete the job.3 Substantial non-refundable money will have
been spent and custom orders are under construction at the factory prior to delivery. All
based on a valid permit.
T basically agree that it is good to keep older houses and neighborhoods looking as their era
would dictate. ]; feel that this can be accomplished while allowing both 'time relevant' and
modern materials. ];t is unrealistic to require precisely measured boards and original
materials that cost a fortune when a person standing on the sidewalk can not tell the
difference. The goal should be to maintain the appearance of the historic structure not
necessarily the materials. That in itself would be preserving the conservation district
neighborhoods. This is a conservation district we are talking about not a historic district.
Historic Commissioner Gunn made a in statement at their May 23, 2002 meeting that: There
is not a dramatic difference between the guidelines for a conservation district and the
guidelines for a historic district.
At the last Council meeting questions were asked about vinyl siding and things that would or
would not be allowed. ]; did some reading of their guidelines and a few major items stick out
to me.
Windows:
Installing metal or vinyl Storm windows is disallowed however, aluminum clad wood storms
is acceptable. There is no difference from the street or the outside - Only cost to the
owner to install.
Many houses in the proposed district already have aluminum storms. As do houses in the
current Historic and Conservation districts.
New aluminum and vinyl storms can be made that appear exactly like the old fashion wood
storms even from a distance of a few feet.
See the Lindsey House on the corner of Summit and College 5treats - a city landmark
structure with aluminum storms and either steel or aluminum siding. See the Alpha Phi
Sorority house on College it has aluminum storms.
Required: The replacement of wood windows must be made of wood. The use of metal-clad,
solid-wood windows is acceptable. Replacement windows and trim must accept paint.
D/sa/lowed: Using snap-in muntin bars to ach/eve divided Ii, hts. These are the grids that
d/v/de o window into smaller panes.
Divided lights mo)/be created w/th muntins that are adhered to both s/des of the g/ess, but
not w/th snap-in muntin bors. This is difference is not noticeable from the sidewalk. Put
screen between the window and the person and you can't even tell from a few feet away. The
cost of the removable (8 d/vided panes} is around ~45 each. W/th simulated divided fight
panes with dividers on inside, outside and between g/ass panes but st///R so/id g/ass
$136. A/most ~/OO pec window. Z wes tom Z didn't ~ea//y want to know the pc/ce of t~u~
divided as it was outca~eous/ H in doubt stop by Knebe/ windows to see theie displays.
~)oors:
bisallowed: Instollin9 natural aluminum storm doors
bisallowed: ]:nstolling a double garage door where two single doors are possible. Some newer
vehicles can't fit in older single car doors.
At the last meeting there were some questions about vinyl or aluminum siding. From the Iowa
City Historic Preservation Handbook
p.12 - Wood
Prohibits covering original wood siding with another material such as vinyl or aluminum siding.
Prohibits substituting a material in place of wood that does not retain the appearance,
function and point obility of the original wood and/or that does not accept paint.
Pi4 - Siding
4
Prohibits: Applying synthetic siding such as aluminum, vinyl or false masonry siding. Unless it
is only on new structures or noncontributinq structures. (The Iowq City guidelines with
Exceptions)
Matching synthetic siding may be used in repairing damage to existing synthetic siding.
Though it does not state if once a house has siding can it be replaced with new siding?
~Tust for kicks call your local paint store and ask if aluminum or vinyl siding can be painted.
The answer is yes. ~Tust like wood, aluminum or vinyl need to be primed but they can and will
accept paint. Tn addition, they may be removed at a later date should someone wish to. Or
talk to Mr. 5ueppel on the Historic Commission specifically about vinyl if you wish.
The guidelines state that they are following the Secretary of the Znterior's Standards for
Rehabilitation. In 1983 and 1984 such siding rules applied - however in 1990 their rules were
rewritten and synthetic siding is no longer disallowed nor are many of the other restrictions
in the handbook. Many historic areas have approved vinyl: Boston, MA; Montgomery, AL;
Washington, bC; Chicago, IL; the list goes on.
As T. stated at the last council meeting I still have issues with how people were notified and
the materials provided in those notifications.
In closing, you really shouldn't pass this ordinance. In addition, I believe you should request
that the Historic Commission revise its guidelines to allow for modern materials while still
maintaining historical look especially for a conservation district. This should be done prior to
any new district are proposed.
Thank you for you time.
To the Iowa City City Council: (171:
Re: College Hill Preservation District overlay
I urge the Council to delay further consideration of this district until the Historic Preservation Commission
fully explains itself. Attached is a series of excerpts from the meetings of the Commission between January
2002 and April 10, 2003. The statements are in three broad groups, which are headed in hold and
underline.
The first group concerns the Commission's plans for its future growth, to include review authority over as
many as 2,000 properties in Iowa City. A subgroup provides cursory illustration of the intrusive nature of
the Commission as it relates to ordinary property owners and taxpayers. The second group pertains to the
questionable nature of how the boundaries of this district were created and changed, and how determination
of a structure's contributing status was made (the original concept apparently was for another historic
district, which still appears to be a long term goal). The third group pertains to the timeline of the process.
It appears that nearly all significant decisions about the district were made before property owners were
clued-in (unless they happen to check the web site regularly). Some hasty changes were made after some
property-owners voiced concerns. The speed with which the changes were made flies in the face of careful
consideration of objective factors. The comments make it clear that the Commtssion's priority was getting
something through the Council with little scrutiny.
This ordinance imposes significant restrictions on property rights. For that reason, it deserves the utmost
scrutiny.
I do not own property within or near the proposed district, nor do I have any connection to any rental
property.
By way of explanation for the attachment:
Bold and italics are added for emphasis and were not in the original minutes.
Text in [brackets] is paraphrased to clarify context.
Text in (parentheses) is commentary by me.
Otherwise, each item is taken from the minutes of the Commission's meetings or its January. 2003
report on the district.
Each item is cited to its location in the minutes by "date at page/paragraph" (the first full or partial
paragraph being 1) as well as to whom it can be attributed. This is to offer verification as well as to allow
for further clarification, if desired~
Thank you for your careful consideration of this matter.
Michael Brennan
1207 Seymour Ave.
Iowa City, IA 52240
There is nothing simple about this [the historic preservation building permit process] to someone who
doesn't do it all the time. [The comment followed the only non-unanimous vote the Commission has had since at
least January 2002 - two Commissioners were uncomfortable about not stopping and possibly fining a property
owner for proceeding with a project after obtaining a building permit issued due to an error at the Building Dept.]
4/10/03 at 5/1 (Gunn)
Manifest Destiny?
Expanding Brown Street Historic District to include Ronalds Street. 3/14/02-1/5
Expanding to Ronalds fairly safe, any further would be pushing it. Icl. at 2/3 (Lichts)
Burlington St. Conservation District 3/14/02 at 2/7
Liable to be some controversy with new districts. 3/14/02 at 2/9 (Guan)
In the Preservation Plan, not done: Manville Heights, Kirkwood, Melrose. 3/14/02 at 5/8 (McCafferty)
Commission has good record of getting districts approved without too much hassle. This district
(Northside/Goosetown) might be controversial. Commission couM select an easy neighborhood. 4/25/02 at 3/7
(Gunn)
City Council has expressed concern over growing size of the Commission. 4/25/02 at 3/11 (McCafferty)
Since Goosetown and Northside are zoned so that they won't be inundated with apartment buildings, he would like
to see the Commission give this most susceptible area a try. 4/25/02 at 4/5 ((3mm)
If application fails Commission couldahvays apply for rezoning. 4/25/02 at 4/6 (McCafferty)
Look to the future and what can be done for Jefferson Street and points north. The conservation district could be
huge. 5/23/02 at 7/1 (Mahams')
The Commission also may want to look north at Dubuque/Linn St and Fairchild and Church Street areas. 6/13/02 at
6/2 (Maharry)
Feasibility of turning whole Eastside District into a conservation district. 6/27/02 at 2/6
Property owner docs not have to agree to landmark nomination. 7/11/02 at 2/8 (McCafferty)
Would like to discuss with the State the possibility of lowering requirements for [landmark] sumissions. 7/11/02 at
2/12 (McCafferty)
[Referring to Downtown Historic District] Boundary will be approximately from Washington to Clinton to Iowa,
wrap around the Senior Center and down the alley between College and Washington. 7/11/02 at 4/2 ('McCafferty)
Commission may want to consider separate district for Ronalds, rather than adding on to Brown Street, and may
look further at recommendations for the entire North Side Area. Potential district along Dubuque Street. 7/11/02 at
5/10 (McCafferty)
[Referring to possible new district] generally from Dubuque Street almost to Dodge Street and from Fairchild to
Ronalds. 7/11/02 at 6/9 (Carlson, McCafferty)
Gunn said he has always been in favor of including as much property as possible in the local designation,
because that gives the Commission some control over it. 8/8/02 at 2/1
Gunn said he wants to include more properties, although historians tend to want to exclude properties because
they want nicer, tighter, more uniform districts. 8/8/02 at 2/2
Gunn said this will be a real test of historic preservation in Iowa City. This is quite a collection of different sorts of
properties with different interests. 8/8/02 at 3/5
Mahany asked about recategorizing properties upon application. McCafferty explained the ordinance has no
language referring to contributing or non-contributing, so recategorizing would not need to go to Planning and
Zoning or the City Council, the Commission could simply adopt the properties as contributing. Gunn said
the Commission will change the status of a property occasionally. 7/11/02 at 3/6
The number of properties in historic and conservation districts bas increased so much so that at some future point
there may be an avalanche of projects to review, and the Commission will be so overwhelmed that it will be unable
to function properly. 8/8/02 at 9/10 (Gann)
At some point there could be in the realm of 2,000 properties. 8/8/02 at 10/1 (Guan)
Downtown Historic District next big item on the Commission's "to do" list. 3/13/03 at 6/9 (McCafferty)
The Pedestrian Mall is not within a historic district because one side of the block does not have historic integrity left.
However, the south side of the block still has quite a bit of integrity. She would recommend doing portions
of the area as a conservation district in order to have control of the whole area. 3/13/03 at 7/6
(McCafferty)
Many of the homes of Iowa Avenue are examples of pragmatic responses by owners to the availability of the
building industry's products... C.H.C.D. Report at 7/2
[Regarding a house that had been moved and whose owner raised a question about its contributing status] Smothers
asked where it was located before the m~ve. McCafferty did not know what the original location was. 2/13/03 m
5/1
[As to whether or not the house is contributing] Has a problem with the owner claiming this as something else so he
can put vinyl siding on it. 2/13/03 at 5/4 (Smothers)
Once designated non-contributing, the owner bas a lot more reign. 2/13/03 at 5/4 (Enloe)
Guidelines make it almost impossible to tear down something ha a historic district. 4/25/02 at 3/6 (Guan)
There is not a dramatic difference between the guidelines for a conservation district and the gnidelmes for a historic
district. 5/23/02 at 5/3 (Gunn)9
We - City? Commission? - are currently looking at revising the design standards for multi-family. There *vill also
be some restructuring to take it out of Public Works and bring it to her office 6/13/02 at 8/11 (McCafferty)
It is inconsistent to regulate a parking lot for a newer building and not an older one. 6/13/02 at 9/14 (Gram)
[referring to the Commission's lack of authority over paving projects]
[Concerning the appearance of buildings rebuilt after being destroyed] Gunn said he is not certain he agrees tbat it
is the owner's choice. 11/14/02 at 7/10
The baluster the owner is proposing is from a more Victorian house and is perhaps too ornate of a baluster for a
simple four-square house. 2/13/03 at 2/3 (McCafferty)
It seems the house is trying to be old in its look, but it is not an old structure, and he had some reservations about
this. 5/9/02 at 3/7 (Gunn)
Applicant discussed using 2 x 2's, which would be 1½ x 1½. Guidelines call for actual dimension of two inches or
more for balusters. 5/23/02at 1/3-4
It depends on the context...
Carlson asked if housing stock had changed much since the two smaller districts were created [in 1995]. 4/25/02 at
4/1 [No one answered the question]
70-75% of properties contributing based on Nash's surveys. Can't have more than 60% in conservation district.
5/9/02 at 4/7 (Gunn, McCafferty)
Context of 1850 - 1930 is common. Pm area of houses could be defended as being built during a certain era, even if
it is not a ~,ery tight era. 5/23/02 at 4/3 (Carlson)
It may affect the Commission's credibility if it is changing its recommendation on this. 5/23/02 at 4/4 (McCafferty)
How would Commission present this revision [from Historic to Conservation]? Commission was more conservative
and had not had much hick with larger districts as is had recently 5/23/02 at 4/5 (Carlson, Enloe)
Percentage of contributing properties may be enough. It depends on how the context of the period is defined.
5/23/02 at 4/10 (McCafferty)
The Commission loosened up a little on the national level criteria. [Concerning the reason for the discrepancy
between National standards and local standards] 5/23/02 at 5/8 0VlcCafferty)
The Commission used a wider context in that this demonstrates the evolution of a neighborhood that was built
over the span of a longer time. This argument is easier to make for a conservation district. 5/23/02 at 5/9 (Enloc)
Unless the Commission adapts artificially stringent guidelines, more than 60% of the properties will be
contributing, requiring a historic designation. 5/23/02 at 6/1 (Carlson)
Keep the narrow context for historic districts or loosen criteria for conservation district. 5/23/02 at 6/2 0VlcCafferty)
Conservation now, upgrade to historic later? 5/23/02 at 7/1 (Mahany)
Conservation now and trying to designate same area as historic six to eight years from now is probably
doable. However, to turn around in a couple years and try to upgrade to an historic district would raise a lost
of questions. The time period would have to span far enough. 5/23/02 at 7/5 (Gunn)
Gunn asked how closely nominations are looked at, at the State level. 5/23/02 at 7/7
Widness asked if over 60% of structures were contributing. McCafferty said that is where context comes into play.
Maharry hoped for the larger (1860-1920) context, but said the Commission has to choose its battles. 6/13/02 at 6/2
Two options: nominate a conservation district, which would afford protection and be the easier, quicker way or
begin process of looking at this as historic district - which requires more surveying and convincing at the State.
6/13/02 at 6/6 (Gunn)
Muscatine boundary seems arbitrary. 6/13/02 at 7/1 (Carlson)
There are a lot of very nice streets worth preserving across Muscatine, Commission needs to clarify why boundaries
were selected. 6/13/02 at 7/2 (Gunn)
Proposed district is made up of previous single-family dwellings that give a sense of evolving residential
preferences. 6/27/02 at 2/5 (Maharry)
[Regarding concerns about the contiguous nature of the district] McCafferty said the Commission could include
some non-contribnting properties in order make it contiguous. 8/8/02 at 1/7
Marlys Sveudson frequently mentioned that because the building was sided, it was non-contriboting, even though it
nmy have been a nice old historic building He counted a few of those as contributing because he could see it no
other way', but another review could increase the number of contributing properties even more. 8/8/02 at 2/5
(Maharry)
In the case of the Northside, the ConmUssion will not have to apply the criteria to the extent a consultant would.
8/8/02 at 2/6 (McCafferty)
Taxpayer Nila Haug: this designation would essentially downzone the area, freeze the tax base and devalue her
properties. 10/24/02 at 2/6
Taxpayer Dennis Nowotny: his property is zoned CB2, this will take away some of his properly value, and freeze
the tax base by essentially downzoning this. 10/24/02 at 3/2
Taxpayer/former Commission member Susan Licht: overlay this on a CB2 district it virtually eliminates her ability
to have equity in her property. 10/24/02 at 4/9
Licht is not opposed to a district iu general. 10/24/02 at 4-5
3
[Carlson described this as] involving an m'oitrau movement of the boundary anyway. 11/14/02 at 13/1
·.. and timing:
70% can t be Conservation. Conservation required 60% or less. 4/25/02 at ~
A conservation district can be done more quickly than a historic district. 5/23/02 at 5/3 (McCafferty)
There may be more support politically for a conservation district. 5/23/02 at 5/5 (McCafferty)
The Commission should attempt to have a conservation district designated, given that it is more easily achievable.
5/23/02 at 5/5 (Enloe)
Currently, no one knows that eventually a demolition permit will be required to remove a porch, brackets or other
significant features. 6/13/02 at 5/7 (McCafferty)
Might this be looked at as a greater historic district by the State? The decision hinges in part on whether the
Commission wants to take the easier, quicker route of the conservation district, for which there will be less
convincing at the State level and fewer political issues involved. 6/13/02 at 6/1 (Gunn, McCafferty)
The Commission has to decide how much to take on. The Commission could do this more easily so it can move on
to other issues such as North Side and Downtown. 6/13/02 at 6/8 (McCafferty)
Council is very supportive of historic preservation and Commission is on a bit of a roll and the opportunity might
not be there later. 6/13/02 at 6/9 (Gtmn)
The CoXmmssion felt it would be easier and faster to have a conservation district approved. (Maharry) McCaffen3'
added there would be less dissension from the State. 7/11/02 at 2/3
Map is basically complete... Commission will want to be relatively selective so it doesn't lose any credibility in
terms of what it wants to designate. 7/11/02 at 2/3 McCafferty
Schedule the neighborhood meeting for the end of August. 7/11/02 at ~ (McCafferty)
Once the neighborhood meeting has taken place, all the Commission needs to do is attend the public heatings to
present findings and to be available to answer questions. 7/11/02 at 3/11 (McCafferty)
[Regarding the State's reaction to a one-paragraph landmark nomination.] Carlson suggested that the more detailed
the form, the more carefully people will read it and be more likely to find minor errors and changes they want to
make. It might actually be preferable to have a shorter nomination. 7/I 1/02 at 3/2
[After discussing properties east of Muscatine] Maharry said he would rather not delay what the Commission has
going on right now. If everything goes to schedule it will be January before approval. Widness agreed the
Commission wants to get the process started sooner rather than later. 8/8/02 at 3/8
[The neighborhood meeting] would be informal and give the Conunission a sense of the kind of support it has for
the district nomination. 8/8/02 at 3/9
Mal~arry said that all property owners in and near proposed district received notificatiou of the public hearing.
10/24/02 at 1/1
McCafferty responded that the Guidelines were mailed out to all the owners witlfin the proposed district [and
surrounding areas] 10/24/02 at 1/5
[Regarding who was notified of the neighborhood meeting] McCafferty said the names were obtained through the
building reaital permit information and tax hase. 10/24/02 at 2/8
Licht did not receive notification of the first meeting. 10/24/02 at 7/3
McCaffeny said it was determined that most of those notices did not get to the actual properly owners [they were
mailed to city utility customers] and that owners would be notified of future meetings. 10/24/02 at 7/4 & 6
Susan Licht: the letter that has been mailed out twice to property owners in this proposed district has some
seriously misleading statements. 11/14/02 at 9/9
Licht: [Referring to the letter] Number 4 states that the conservation disUict will stabilize property values and
encourage reinvestment. [the subject of lengthy debate, with no supporting information for most of the district]
11/14/02 at 9/10 - 11
The other misleading statement: the conservation overlay zone does not change the density or use defined
by the underlying zoning. Absolutely not the truth. 11/14/02 at 10/2
You're basically going to restrict their ability to fully realize the potential allowed by their underlying
zoning. 11/14/02 at 10/5
Licht asked the Commission to please take its time with this district if it had to - table it until it does
a little bit more research and then make a decision after that. 11/14/02 at 10/7
McCafferty pointed out that the letter give information abeut finding the guidelines. 11/14/02at 10/9
Taxpayer Nila Hang: Not everybody is as knowledgeable as the Commission... and it would be best if it were
spelled out so people don't have to do their own research. 11/14/02 at 10/11
Lopping offCB2 doesn't conform to National Register standards for Historic Districts - explicitly state that
boundaries should not be drawn at a zoning change, but where the historic properties end or change. 11/14/02 at
12/10
Gunn raised a question about whether a quorum was present for voting purposes (three commissioners had to
abstain due to property ownership in the area). McCallum said that even if there was a quorum they should wait to
vote until more members were present. Euloe suggesting voting on the boundaries. 11/14/02 at 13/5
New boundaries accepted. 11/14/02 at 13/5
Gunn said he believes the CB2 area should be removed, if for no other reason, than the uncertainty of it. Weitzel
concurred. 11/14/02 at 14/3
Proposal hadn't been sent to the State [yet]. (Did they tell the State they changed their boundary at the last
minute before submission and explain why?) 11/14/02 at 14/4
Carlson said he would vote for the change. He said there are some questions about the property values in this
area that he would like to see looked into, but he did not want to delay forwarding the whole district until that is
looked into. It is a relatively small pa~ of the district that would be omitted at the edges, and in the interest of
seeing this go forward, he would be voting in favor. 11/14/02 at 14/6
Motion carried 6-0. 11/14/02 at 14. [No resolution of the quorum question had been reached.]
Still waiting for information regarding Iowa Avenue and its historic significance from Carlson and Smothers.
12/12/02 at 7/1
(Discussion of land and property values) Maharry said the Commission could pay an assessor in the community to
get a professional opinion. 12/12/02 at 8/10
Superimposing this overlay on this district is going to have an effect on property values. When that becomes the
chief complaint, the Commission needs to be able to parry and have a response. 12/12/02 at 9/5 (Wiriness)
Conunission has to be farther-sighted than a bank would be for value of a property. 12/12/02 at 9/9 (Weitzel)
Enloe wondered if this (land values and "speculation") is an appropriate tlting for the Commission 1o be concerned
about and said he is not certain it is even tree that this increases the value of the land, which is used as a selling point
to try to convince people to go along with designating a historic district. 12/12/02 at 9/2
Sent to Planning and Zoning without having response from State. 2/13/03 at 4/5
Council can be asked to expedite the decision and vote twice in one session. 2/27/03 at '/2 0VIcCafferty)
College Hill Conservation District I Page 1 of 1
Marian Kart
From: Glenn Ehrstine [§lenn-ehrstine@uiowa.edu]
Sent: Monday, May 0§, 2003 6:22 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: College Hill Conservation District
Dear Council Members,
I support the creation of the College Hill Neighborhood Conservation District and urge all council members to
vote yes on the second consideration of this important ordinance.
I have been a resident of the College Hill Neighborhood for eight years. During this time, the creation of nearby
historic neighborhoods and landmarks has significantly increased the quality of life in this area, not to mention
property values. I can state this based on personal experience, since I reside in the Summit Apartment Building
and have seen the value of my co-operative apartment rise as a result of the designation of the building as an
Iowa City Historic Landmark. The creation of a conservation district will safeguard these past improvements
and preserve the quality of the neighborhood.
I regret that a prior commitment prevents me from attending the meeting in person. I give my wholehearted and
enthusiastic support for this ordinance.
Respectfully,
Glenn Ehrstine
228 South Summit Street
Apartment C6
Iowa City, IA 52240-5550
Below is a copy of the ordinance to which I refer, currently item 6.i. on the agenda for Tuesday, May 6.
CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE FROM NEIGItBORI-IOOD
CONSERVATION RESIDENTIAL (RNC-12 & RNC-20), HIGH DENSITY
MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM-44) AND MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-8) TO CONSERVATION DISTRICT OVERLAY
(RNC-12/OCD, RNC-20/OCD, RM-44/OCD & RS-8/OCD) FOR THE
DESIGNATION OF THE COLLEGE }IILL CONSERVATION DISTRICT
WITHIN THE COLLEGE HILL NEIGHBORHOOD (REZ03-00005)
(SECOND CONSIDERATION)
Comment: At its February 20 meeting, by a vote of 7-0, the Planning and
Zoning Commission recommended approval. At its November 14 meeting,
by a vote of 6-0, the Historic Preservation Commission recommended
approval. This Conservation District will provide for the review of significant
exterior building alterations by the Historic Preservation Commission.
5/5/03
~,~!~ ~ --:- -..
To the Iowa City City Council: May 7, 2003
I write again to urge you to table the proposed College Hill Conservation District until the HiStOri~" ~"'
Preservation Commission (HPC) more fully explains how it arrived at its recommendation..-My concerns
for purposes of this letter do not pertain to whether or not one favors or disfavors governmOlt-mandated
historic preservation, but rather to the process by which this law is being produced
In the late 1980s HPC proposed a North Side Historic District. At that time 'community input' involved
the following process: HPC began calling all affected parties (residents & owners in the proposed
district) to speak with them about the proposal. They determined the calls were not particularly effective
and so sent everyone a letter, explaining that they would receive a phone call and what it would be about.
They followed that up with a complete round of calls. The calls were used to arrange site visits with
affected residents/owners who were willing to participate. HPC also sent out a post-card survey to
everyone affected. Response was overwhelming - and negative, by roughly a 2-to-1 margin. The
proposal was rejected. In that process HPC bent over backwards to make sure it had input from anyone
who wanted to offer it.
Contrast that with the process in this instance. One neighborhood meeting was scheduled (and then re-
scheduled after the mailing list snafu). The meeting required interested parties to rearrange their
schedules to meet the HPC. From 185 properties roughly a dozen people made the time to express their
interests/concerns. It seems the lesson learned from the North Side proposal was to keep 'public input' to
a minimum.
Also compare the general process of proposing a district in Iowa City with the process under the Iowa
Code:
To begin the process Iowa City requires a petition of six property owners within the proposed
district or HPC may simply initiate the process on its own initiative. Iowa Code Section 303.21
requires a petition signed by no less than 10 ~ of the residents of the proposed district.
From HPC a proposal goes to Planning and Zoning and then on to Council, the only body
accountable to voters that is involved in the process. Iowa Code Section 303.23 requires a
referendum in the proposed district, with a simple majority required for passage.
Finally, Iowa Code Section 303.33 provides for a referendum to terminate the district upon a
majority vote of the residents. Iowa City provides no such relief mechanism.
Clearly, the outcome of the State procedure is significantly more reflective of the will of the people
affected by the proposal than is Iowa City's outcome.
Of greater concern is whether HPC has complied with Iowa City Ordinances 144C-2 and 14-6J4(C).
14-4C-2 defines "Conservation District." Paragraph A states:
According to a historic resources survey, no more than sixty percent (60%) of the structures are
of a quality, integrity and condition that qualify for historic district designation; and [other
paragraphs define other requirements]
Thus, a complete historic resources survey of the entire proposed district is required before
consideration of a conservation district can proceed. If the survey determines that 60% or less of
the structures would contribute to a historic district, continue along the conservation district path.
If the survey determines that more than 60% of the structures contribute to a h~stonc d~stnct, a
conservation district is unlawful. ~·' ~!' ~ _ ~ .... ,
In the College Hill proposal before the Council there are 185 properties. 18fi. x .6 = 111. Thus,
only if the historic resources survey shows 111 or fewer structures con~ib, u~g to a histori~
district, would the commission be free to recommend a conservation diStriCt: ' '//\
The documentation provided to Council with the proposal includes Jan Nash's 1994 survey of the
College Hill neighborhood, the Reconnaissance Survey of Iowa Avenue (prepared by two
members of HPC) and a portion of Molly Myers Naumann's Survey of the Longfellow
Neighborhood (referred to in the text, but not provided as an attachment to the district report).
Nash's survey included 100 properties. She found 77 would contribute to a historic district. One
of those properties is now a vacant lot. The Iowa Avenue Survey includes 59 properties. 31 were
determined to contribute to a historic district, with two more possibly contributing. Combining
the 76 remaining Nash properties with the 31 Iowa Avenue properties yields a total number of
107 contributing properties of 159 discussed in the surveys.
Myers Naumann surveyed 23 properties on Burlington and Muscatine in 1995. Her report only
indicates whether she believes they would contribute to a conservation district she proposed for
that small area. Her report did not analyze or determine whether the properties would contribute
to a historic district in the context of College Hill (nor did it specify which of the properties, if
any, would have contributed to the Longfellow Historic District). Her report is still useful, in that
she determined that 13 of the properties would not contribute to even a conservation district
(compare with HPC's determination that all but two of the properties contribute to its proposal).
Those thirteen clearly would not contribute to a historic district, either. That leaves ten properties
unaccounted for in terms of their contribution to a historic district.
Furthermore, three properties shown on the map (525 Iowa Ave and 14 & 15 N Lucas), do not
appear in the Iowa Avenue Survey. The map indicates 15 N. Lucas is a non-contributing
property, but the other two are unaccounted for in terms of their historic district contribution.
Thus there are twelve properties unaccounted for in terms of their historic district contribution. If
only five of them have been/would be determined to contribute, this district cannot be considered
for conservation status. There is no comprehensive list pertaining to the 60% requirement in any
of the materials provided to Council by HPC. In this regard, I simply ask the council to obtain
documentation from HPC regarding the unaccounted for properties.
Finally the 14-4C-2 definition of Conservation District, paragraph A, clearly implies that the
historic survey must come first in the process, for there is no way to make the 60% determination
without a completed survey.
On November 14, 2002 HPC voted to recommend the proposal currently under consideration. At
the December HPC meeting Ms. McCafferty reported that she was still waiting for materials
pertaining to the historical significance of Iowa Avenue from Carlson and Smothers (at page 7 of
the minutes). The Preliminary Report, Iowa Avenue Reconnaissance Survey and Conservation
District Report were not prepared until unspecified dates in January 2003. There is no indication
in the minutes of the meetings in January that any of those reports was formally discussed or
approved by the voting members of the commission. Obviously, some well-educated guessing is
required to define boundaries for the historic resource survey, but the minutes of HPC's meetings
in May and June 2002 indisputably show that the decision to proceed with this as a conservation
district was made last summer.
How did HPC make this decision without having researched and analyzed the historic resource
survey required by paragraph A? How could they vote to recommend the final proposal at least
six weeks before the last portion o£the historic resource survey was compiled? And how could
they vote to recommend the final proposal at least six weeks before the Preliminary Report was
prepared?
Since you are enacting a law, which abridges property rights and which carries penalties of fines
up to $1,000 per day for violations, you owe your constituents answers to these questions before
you pass the law. HPC may well have the answers in hand. I am simply pointing out that the
answers are not discernible from the materials HPC provided in support of its recommendation to
the council.
As Nila Hang said at the November 14 meeting, "Not everyone is as knowledgeable as the
Commission... and it would be best if it were spelled out so people don't have to do their own
research."
Thank you for your continuing consideration of this matter.
Michael D. Brennan
1207 Seymour Ave.
Iowa City
14-6J-4(C) Procedures for Designation of OCD Zones:
1. Preliminary Report
a. Upon the petition of six (6) or more property owners within the proposed OCD
zone, or upon the Historic Preservation Commission's own initiative, the Historic
Preservation Commission shall prepare a preliminary report regarding the
appropriateness of the application of an OCD zone to an area identified by the
petitioners or the Historic Preservation Commission .... [the ordinance goes on
to list requirements of the report]
b. If the Historic Preservation Commission determines that the area does not meet
the criteria necessary for consideration as an OCD zone, the Historic Preservation
Commission shall end it study and inform the petitioners of its findings. If the
Historic Preservation Commission determines that the area or a portion of the
area contains characteristics to make it appropriate for the establishment of an
OCD zone, the Historic Preservation Commission shall prepare a Conservation
District report. [italics in ordinance]
2 .... The Conservation District Report, as amended, shall:
a. Include a study of the characteristics of the proposed OCD zone, including
architectural characteristics, elements of the streetscape, physical conditions
of buildings, age of buildings, history of buildings and property ownership
patterns ....
Cc: Eleanor Dilkes
McCafferty/HPC
Neighborhood Input:
Two neighborhood meetings, after boundaries had already been drawn
Letters sent to wrong addresses
Burden on people to rearrange schedules and come out
Northside 80s: phone calls, letters, phone calls, home visits '-) massive opposition
They learned their lesson
State Code v. Iowa City
10% must petition (303.21)/six people OR HPC on own initiative
Referendum: majority approval required (303.23)/ recommendation from
unelected/unaccountable HPC to unelected unaccountable P&Z to Council / requires 20% of land area to
protest --) streets count toward area, but city can't protest. Effectively doubles parcels needed for protest.
Transparency
60% issue not mentioned in Preliminary Report or District Report
page 2 of District Report: definition of Conservation District omits requirement that no
more than 60% of properties contribute to Historic District (See IC Ord. 14-4C-2 definition, paragraph
A)
Only mentions % Contributing to Conservation district at 76.2% (at 10)
No concise statement of time context, appears 1860-1930 for College Hill/Burlington (at 4), 1860
- 1940 for Iowa Avenue (at 5). One district should have one standard.
Planning Office: asked for missing attachments and the Preliminary Report, received Preliminary
Report along with College Hill Survey, Longfellow/Burlington not provided.
No comprehensive list summarizing analysis/findings appears ANYWHERE I put together spreadsheet in a couple hours Sunday a.m.
Nash survey of College Hill: 100 ppties, 77 C to Hist, 23 NC (77%)
HPC Iowa Ave Survey 57 ppties, 31-33 C to Hist, 26-28 NC (52.54%)
157 ppties, 107 C to [list, 52 NC (68.15%)*
*1 Nash C, no longer there, vacant lot (915 Wash)
185 total ppties x 60% = 111 '-) 112 magic number
Iowa Ave omissions 3 ppties
Myers Naumann Longfellow/Burlington?Musc. Survey
~ ppties, not analyzed for Hist contribution to College
Hill area
1994 Nash survey of north side of Burlington 11 of 15 ppties contribute to Historic
1995 Myers Naumann survey of south side of Burl/Muse 6-10 of~ ppties contribute to
Conservation (under her analysis of then-new ordinance)
HPC map says all 10 contribute PLUS 11 more, only 2 don't.
HPC map indicates 525 Iowa contributes, the 14/15 N Lucas ppties don't
gt.~. ppties unexplained as to historic contribution, if five qualify this
district violates ordinance: Schintler/Jones house (1033), Jones house (1041), Hayes house (1137)
Timing: Historic v. conservation: Artificially stringent standards to get conservation, Carlson 5/23/02 at
7/1
Two options: Nominate Cons. Dist., which would afford protection and be the easier, quicker
way, or begin process of looking at this as Hist. Dist. - which reqs more surveying and convincing at the
State. Gunn 6/13/02 at 6/6
Boundaries
It's all about how you ~ define the context. 5/23/02 various
Include as much as possible to get control. Gunn 8/8/02 at 2/1, McCafferty
How close does State review nominations? Gunn 5/23/02 at 7/7
Carlson suggested that the more detailed the form [Landmark nomination], the more
carefully people will read it and be more likely to find minor errors and changes they want to make. It
might actually be preferable to have a shorter nomination. 7/11/02 at 3/2 July 02, map is basically complete McCafferty 7/11/02 at 2/3
September 02 map of proposed boundaries, essential decisions had been made, no general public
input until
Oct/Nov meetings
Oct. :Mailed to wrong city utility customers, not property owners.
Nov 14:7-0 to approve revised proposal to P&Z. at 11/14
12/12/03 McCafferty: still waiting for Iowa Ave and its historic significance from
Carlson and Smothers (at 7/1)
Iowa Ave Reconnaissance Survey prepared January 03
How was map completed in July/Sept and revised proposal approved in November when survey &
report wasn't done until January?
Preliminary Report January 03, no discussion review of contents or assertions nor
was there approval by commission in open meeting (IC Ord. 14-6J-4(c)(1)(a))
If does not meet criteria, for OCD, end study. Id. (b)
District Report January 03 (IC Ord. 14-6J-4(C)(2))
Myers Naumann study of Burlinton/Musc. not listed as attachment --> Incomplete
as to requirement of subparagraph (a)
Myers Naumann Survey of Burlington evaluated ONLY as to a recommended
conservation district. Made no representation as to Historic contribution in relation to Colleee Hill
district - no identifiable discussion at any HPC meeting t4~ tt~ ~ ¢ ~ ~ ~- t~ ~
Reconnaissance Survey makes no mention of 525 Iowa Ave, or 14/15 N Lucas,
(525 Iowa and 14 N. Lucas) listed as a contributing property to the district.
Web List of attachments A - K. B (Iowa Ave Survey), D (list of contributing ppties), J (mailing list)
absent from Web site
No critical review
P&Z, Memorandum to P&Z 2/6/03 at 11
/5 HPC had evaluated all ppties & determined which were contributing and which weren't
/6 Conducted a survey to determine if Hist/Cons. Affected land values
Carlson s thests on undc scnbed (comparable.) d~stncts/c~t~es in New York (12/12 at 8/1 ),
Maharry looked at Assessor's tax valuations and offered hi~s opinion 12/12 at 7/8,
Maharry said HPC could pay professional assessor (but didn't)
/7 Maharry, supporters = opponents
12/7 Freerks asked about feedback
P&Z Feb 20, 2003
1/5 Maharry explained typos in report.
12/7 Freerks, looked at it and thought it definitely complied with Comprehensive Plan, thanked
HPC
Anciaux, Bovjberg thanked HPC
Nila Haug: Not everybody is as knowledgeable as the Commission... and it would be best if it were
spelled out so people don't have to do their own research. 11/14/02 at 10/11
Prepared by: Shelley McCafferty, Assoc. Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5243 (REZ03-00001)
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION
RESIDENTIAL, (RNC-'I2), TO OVERLAY HISTORIC PRESERVATION, (OHP/RNC-12), DESIGNATING
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 30 SOUTH GOVERNOR STREET AS AN IOWA CITY HISTORIC
LANDMARK.
WHEREAS, the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission has filed with the City a nomination for the
designation of said property as an Iowa City Historic Landmark; and
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission has reviewed and evaluated the significance of the
building located on said property and has determined that it meets the requirements for designation as an
Iowa City Historic Landmark; and
WHEREAS, at its public hearing on December 12, 2002 the Historic Preservation Commission
nominated the subject property for designation as an Iowa City Historic Landmark; and
WHEREAS, at its meeting of February 20, 2003, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended
approval of the proposed landmark nomination; and
WHEREAS, the State Historical Society of Iowa has reviewed said nomination and concurs with the
assessment of the Historic Preservation Commission that the subject property meets the criteria for
designation as a h[stodc landmark; and
WHEREAS, the designation of the subject properly would be consistent with the goals and objectives of
the City's Historic Preservation Plan, which is an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I. APPROVAL. The following described property is hereby designated as an Iowa City
Historic Landmark pursuant to Title 14, Chapter 4, Land Control and Development, Article C, Historic
Preservation Regulations:
Governor Square W 116' of S 100'
SECTION I1. ZONING MAP. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change the
zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, appreval
and publication of this ordinance as provided by law.
SECTION II1. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance,
the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and to record the same
at the office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, all as provided by law.
SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of
this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION V. 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, prevision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION VI. 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 ,2003.
Ordinance No.
Page 2
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Approved by
City Attorney's O~ce
S ha red/pcd/hlstpres/ca megie library/RE. Z01~O09
Ordinance No.
Page.
It was moved by and seconded by that the Ordinance
as road be adopted, and upon roll call thero were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Champion
Kanner
Lehman
O'Donnell
Pfab
Vanderhoef
Wilbum
First Consideration 4/22/03
Voteforpassage: AYES: O'Donne]], Pfab, bH]burn, Champ`ion, Kanne~-, Lehman.
NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTA[N: Vander'hoef.
Second Consideration 5/6/03
Vote for passage: AYES: t~`ilburn, Champ'ion, Kanner, Lehman, O'Donnel]. NAYS: Nblne.
ABSENT: Pfab. ABSTAI'N: Vanderhoef.
Date published
Prepared by: Shelley McCafferty, Assoc. Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5243 (REZ03-00002)
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION
RESIDENTIAL, (RNC-20), TO OVERLAY HISTORIC PRESERVATION, (OHP/RNC-20), DESIGNATING
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 802 WASHINGTON STREET AS AN IOWA CITY HISTORIC
LANDMARK.
WHEREAS, the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission has flied with the City a nomination for the
designation of said property as an Iowa City Historic Landmark; and
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission has reviewed and evaluated the significance of the
building located on said property and has determined that it meets the requirements for designation as an
Iowa City Historic Landmark; and
WHEREAS, at its public hearing on December 12, 2002 the Historic Preservation Commission
nominated the subject property for designation as an Iowa City Historic Landmark; and
WHEREAS, at its meeting of February 20, 2003, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended
approval of the proposed landmark nomination; and
WHEREAS, the State Historical Society of Iowa has reviewed said nomination and concurs with the
assessment of the Historic Preservation Commission that the subject property meets the criteria for
designation as a historic landmark; and
WHEREAS, the designation of the subject property would be consistent with the goals and objectives of
the City's Historic Preservation Plan, which is an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I. APPROVAL. The following described property is hereby designated as an Iowa City
Historic Landmark pursuant to Title 14, Chapter 4, Land Control and Development, Article C, Historic
Preservation Regulations:
Original Town of Iowa City S 87.5' of Lot 5 Block 3 & W 20.79' of S 87.5' Lot 6 Block 3
SECTION I1. ZONING MAP. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change the
zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval
and publication of this ordinance as provided by law.
SECTION II1. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance,
the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and to record the same
at the office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, all as provided by law.
SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of
this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION V. 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 VI. 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 ,2003.
Ordinance No.
Page 2
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Approved by ,,~
City Ati~)rhey's'Office - '
S ha redlpcd/hist pres/camegie libra~//REZ01-0009
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by that the Ordinance
as read be adopted, and upon roll call them were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Champion
Kanner
Lehman
O'Donnell
Pfab
Vanderhoef
Wilbum
First Consideration 4/22/03
Voteforpassage: AYES: Pfab, Wilbur'n, Champ'ion, Kanner', Lehman, 0'Donnel'l.
NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:Vandet'hoef.
Second Consideration 5/6/03
Vote for passage: AYES : Champion, Kanner, Lehman, 0'Donne]'l, l~i]burn. NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Pfab. ABSTAIN: Vanden'hoer.
Date published
Prepared by: Shelley McCafferty, Assoc. Pla~ner, 410 E. Washington Sb'eet, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5243 (REZ03-00003)
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION
RESIDENTIAL, (RNC-20), TO OVERLAY HISTORIC PRESERVATION, (OHP/RNC-20), DESIGNATING
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 726 IOWA AVENUE AS AN IOWA CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK,
WHEREAS, the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission has filed with the City a nomination for the
designation of said property as an Iowa City Historic Landmark; and
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission has reviewed and evaluated the significance of the
building located on said property and has determined that it meets the requirements for designation as an
Iowa City Historic Landmark; and
WHEREAS, at its public hearing on December 12, 2002 the Historic Preservation Commission
nominated the subject property for designation as an Iowa City Historic Landmark; and
WHEREAS, at its meeting of February 20, 2003, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended
approval of the proposed landmark nomination; and
WHEREAS, the State Historical Society of Iowa has reviewed said nomination and concurs with the
assessment of the Historic Preservation Commission that the subject property meets the criteria for
designation as a historic landmark; and
WHEREAS, the designation of the subject property would be consistent with the goals and objectives of
the City's Histodc Preservation Plan, which is an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I. APPROVAL. The following described property is hereby designated as an Iowa City
Historic Landmark pursuant to Title 14, Chapter 4, Land Control and Development, ,Article C, Historic
Preservation Regulations:
Original Town of Iowa City E 30' Lot 7 & W 30' Lot 8 Block 19
SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change the
zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval
and publication of this ordinance as provided by law.
SECTION III. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance,
the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and to record the same
at the office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, all as provided by law.
SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinances and pads of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of
this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION V. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or pad 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 pad thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION VI. 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 ,2003.
Ordinance No.
Page 2
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Shared~pcd/hist pres/carnegie library/REZ01~)09
Ordinance No.
Page _.,
It was moved by and seconded by that the Ordinance
as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Champion
Kanner
Lehman
O'Donnell
- Pfab
Vanderhoef
Wilbum
First Consideration 4/22/03
Vote for passage: AYES: Wi]burn, Champion, Kanner, Lehman, O'Donne]], Pfab,
NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: Vanderhoef.
Second Consideration 5/6/03
Voteforpassage:AYES: Kanner, Lehman, O'Donnell, Wilburn, Champion. NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Pfab. ABSTAIN: Vanderhoef.
Date published
Prepared by: Shelley McCafferty, PCD, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5243 (REZ02-00022)
ORDINANCE NO. 03-4071
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AN EXISTING PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING
PLAN (OPDH-8) TO ALLOW A 64-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR LOT 255 OF WINDSOR
RIDGE PART TWELVE LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF COURT STREET AND ARLINGTON
DRIVE,
WHEREAS, the applicant, Arlington L.C., is owner and legal title holder of approximately 7,93 acres of property
located at the southwest comer of the intersection of Court Street and Arlington Drive; and
WHEREAS, the subject property was rezoned from Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) to Medium
Density Single Family Residential (RS-8) in 1995 subject to a conditional zoning agreement requiring a future
OPDH rezoning and approval of a development plan for the property; and
WHEREAS, an OPDH-8 plan was approved in 1999 for the construction of four 18-plex buildings with
underground parking; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that the proposed amended Preliminary
OPDH Plan is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and technical compliance with all applicable provisions of
the City Cede; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a variation to allow multiple principle multi-family
buildings on a single lot; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a variation to reduce the distance between two
principle buildings on a single lot from a distance equal to the height of the highest building to 17 feet provides for
more efficient land use; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a variation to allow three apartment buildings on a
lot in a Medium Density Single Family Residential (RS-8) zone.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I. APPROVAL.: The amended Preliminary OPDH-8 Plan for Lot 255 of Windsor Ridge Part 12 is
hereby approved.
SECTION II. VARIATIONS. Section 14-6J-2-D-7 of the City Code provides that combinations of land uses are
permitted and variations in building setback and lot area requirements may be approved for planned developments,
and Section14-6J-2-B of the City Code provides for flexibility in architectural design, placement and clustering of
buildings, use of open space, traffic circulation and parking, and related site and design considerations. The following
waivers are approved as part of the Preliminary OPDH Plan:
a. Waiver of the general provisions to allow multiple principal buildings on a single lot in an RS zone.
b. Waiver of the underlying RS-8 zoning to allow three 12-unit apartment buildings.
c. Reduction of the required distance between two principle buildings from a distance equal to the height of
the highest building to 17 feet.
SECTION III. ZONING MAP. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map of
the City of Iowa City, Iowa to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and publication of this
ordinance as provided by law.
SECTION IV. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cartify a
copy of this ordinance and a copy of the amended Preliminary OPDH Plan for this property, and record the same in
the Office of the County Recorder, Johnson County, Iowa, at the Owner's expense, upon the final passage, approval
and publication of this ordinance, as provided by law.
SECTION V. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance
are hereby repealed.
SECTION VI. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid
or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision
or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION VII. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and
publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this 6th dayof Na,y ,2003
Ordinance No. 03-4071
CITY ~I..ERK
Approv~./~/~
City AttOrney's Offic~ ~~i~c~.~
Ordinance No. 03-4071
Page. 3
It was moved by Champion and seconded by O' Donnel 1 that the Ordinance
as read be adopted, and upon mil call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
X Champion
X Kanner
Lehman
X O'Donnell
X Nab
X Vanderhoef
X Wilbum
First Consideration 4/22/03
Voteforpassage: AYES: Kanner, Lehman, O'Donnell, Vanderhoef, Wilburn, Champion.
NAYS: Pfab. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration 5/5/03
Vote for passage: AYES : Pfab, V~nderhoef, Wilburn, Champion, Kanner, Lehman,
O'Donnell. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Date published 5/14/03
Prepared by: John Yapp, PCD, 410 E. Washington S[reetl Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5247
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE VACATING THE NORTHERNMOST 60 FEET OF THE DEAD-END ALLEY ALONG
THE WEST PROPERTY LINE OF 405 SOUTH SUMMIT STREET.
WHEREAS, the northernmost 60 feet of the alley between South Governor Street and South Summit
Street, adjacent to the west property line of 405 South Summit Street, is not used for pedestrian or
vehicular traffic circulation; and
WHEREAS, there are no utilities in the right-of-way proposed to be vacated; and
WHEREAS, the area proposed to be vacated does not provide access to any drives or driveways, is
partially unpaved, and is not being used by the general public.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I. VACATION. Subject to the disposition and conveyance of the right-of-way being
approved concurrent with approval of the vacation, the City of Iowa City hereby vacates the right-of-way
legally described as follows:
THE SOUTH 60 FEET OF THE NORTH 80 FEET OF THE PLATTED ALLEY IN BLOCK 2,
BERRYHILL'S SECOND ADDITION, IOWA CITY, IOWA, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF,
RECORDED IN DEED BOOK 28 AT PAGE 293 IN THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY
RECORDER, CONTAINING 1,200 SQUARE FEET AND SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND
RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
SECTION I1. 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 pad thereof not 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 d~y of ,2003.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Approved by
~i~y A[to'rney's~Office
Ordlnance No. '
Page .....
It was moved by and seconded by that the Ordinance
as read be adopted, and upon roll call them were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Champion
Kanner
Lehman
O'Donnell
Pfab
Vanderhoef
Wilbum
First Consideration 12/19/00
Vo(e for passage: AYES: Kanner, Lehman, 0'Donnell, Pfab, Vanderhoef,
Wilburn, Champion. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
~ciSnd Consideration 1/9/0,I
Vote for passage: AYES: Champion, Kanner, Lehman, O'Donnell, Pfab,Vanderhoef,
Wilburn. NAYS: NOne. ABSENT: None.
Date published
Prepared by: Doug Boothmy, HIS, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5121
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE TITLE 14, ENTITLED "UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT
CODE," CHAPTER 5, ENTITLED "BUILDING AND HOUSING," ARTICLE E, ENTITLED
"HOUSING CODE," TO ADD REGULATIONS FOR RENTAL PROPERTIES WHERE ON T~NO
OR MORE SEPARATE OCCASIONS WITHIN A 12-MONTH PERIOD OF TIME THE ISSUANCE
OF A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, MUNICIPAL INFRACTION, OR A WRITTEN NOTICE OF
VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED.
WHEREAS, Resolution 01-353 established a Neighborhood Housing Relations Task Force (hereinafter,
"Taskforce") to fulfill the goal of improving peaceful habitation in Iowa City, and appointed 11 individuals
representing the interests of tenants, landlords, and neighborhoods to serve on the taskforce; and
WHEREAS, the taskforce submitted its proposed initiatives/repod of the taskforce with the City Council
on June 27, 2002; and
WHEREAS, the taskforce report recommends that the City develop a process to identify and address
properties that are subject to numerous or serious complaints, including a method for identifying such
properties, establishing a process to work with the owners of such properties, and standards for meeting
compliance; and
WHEREAS, rental properties with chronic code violations have a negative impact on the quality of life,
safety, and health of neighborhoods where they are located; and
WHEREAS1 rental propedies with chronic code violations create a negative impact upon City services
by numerous calls for service from various City departments; and
WHEREAS, there is currently no procedure by which the City can require a rental property owner,
manager, tenant, or other relevant parties to respond to and resolve chronic code violations; and
WHEREAS, it is declared to be the purpose and intent to protect and preserve the City's neighborhoods
and the public health, safety, and welfare of those who live therein; and
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest to adopt this amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I. AMENDMENTS. 1. Title 14, entitled "Uniform Development Code," Chapter 5 entitled
"Building and Housing," Article E entitled "Housing Code," Section 3 entitled "Definition" is hereby amended
by adding the following new definitions as follows.
Code Compliance Settlement Agreement: A written agreement that shall include a list of specific
actions and a specific schedule of deadlines for actions to abate the current violation and avoid
further code violations. It may also include provisions for periodic reassessment of the agreement or
any written modification of the agreement.
Property Management Action Plan: The properly management action plan shall be a detailed written
response from the property owner or owner's designated agent describing the manner in which the
property owner will, within their legal authority, make a good faith effort to prevent nuisance activities
from continuing. The plan shall be filed with the Department of Housing and Inspection Services for
appreval within 10 working days from the date of the notice of violation sent to the owner or owner's
designated agent.
Property Management Performance Guarantee: A cash deposit, cedified check or irrevocable
standby letter of credit in the amount of the estimated cost of the enforcement costs, to be determined
by the City Manager or designee.
2. Title 14, entitled "Uniform Development Code," Chapter 5 entitled "Building and Housing," Article E
entitled "Housing Code," Section 13 entitled "Appeals Board; Variances and Appeals," is hereby amended
by replacing existing Paragraph A1 with the following new paragraph A1:
Ordinance No.
Page 2
Appeals to the Appeal Board may be taken by any person affected by any decision of the Director or
designee or by any written notice. Any person wishing to seek a variance to the Housing Code may
petition the Appeals Board for relief.
3. Title 14, entitled "Uniform Development Code," Chapter 5 entitled "Building and Housing," Article E
entitled "Housing Code," Section 13 entitled "Appeals Board; Variances and Appeals," is hereby amended
by revising paragraph A2 by adding the words "a decision or" in first sentence after the word "modifies".
4. Title 14, entitled "Uniform Development Code," Chapter 5 entitled "Building and Housing "Article E,"
entitled "Housing Code," Section 16 entitled "Certificate of Structure Compliance and Rental Permit,"
Section C entitled "Rental Permit," Paragraph 1 entitled "Scope of Permit," is hereby amended by adding
the following sentence to Paragraph 1:
The rental permit shall also state the maximum occupancy and the telephone number for the property
owner or designated agent.
5. Title 14, entitled "Uniform Development Code," Chapter 5 entitled "Building and Housing," Article E
entitled "Housing Code," Section 16 entitled "Certificate of Structure Compliance and Rental Permit,"
Section C entitled "Rental Permit," Paragraph 5 entitled "Revocation of Permit," is hereby repealed in its
entirety and replaced with a new Paragraph 5 entitled "Required Procedures Prior to Commencement of
Rental Permit Sanctions," as follows:
5. Required Procedures Prior to Commencement of Rental Permit Sanctions:
(a) Following a violation that serves as a basis for rental permit sanctions, written notice shall be
given by the City to the owner or owner's designated agent of the premises at which the code
violation occurred. The notice is to be sent by regular mail.
(b) Following a second violation that serves as a basis for rental permit sanctions within a twelve-
month period, the City shall schedule a code compliance settlement meeting involving landlords,
tenants, and others whose corrective action is considered necessary by the City to abate and
avoid fudher code violations. The notice of the meeting is to be sent by regular mail within 10
working days of the City providing notice to the owner or owner's agent as required above.
(1) The desired outcome of the code compliance settlement meeting will be to obtain a code
compliance settlement agreement in which relevant parties, including the owner or owner's
designated agent and the tenant(s), agree to take corrective action to abate and avoid further
code violations.
(2) The owner, owner's designated agent, and/or tenant is in violation of this provision under the
following circumstances:
· Does not attend a code compliance settlement meeting.
· Fails or refuses to sign a code compliance settlement agreement within 48 hours of
receiving the proposed agreement from the City.
· Subsequently fails or refuses to comply with any conditions or requirements set forth in a
code compliance settlement agreement.
(3) Violation of this provision authorizes the City to impose Rental Permit sanctions. The City in
its determination may consider, without limitation, the following factors:
· Level of cooperation of the parties in attempting to resolve issues.
· Level of disturbance associated with the violations.
· Impact of violations upon neighbors or other victims.
· Degree to which parties have taken reasonable steps to try and resolve problems.
· History of City and State code violations.
6. Title 14 entitled "Uniform Development Code," Chapter 5 entitled "Building and Housing," Article E
entitled "Housing Code," Section 16 entitled "Certificate of Structure Compliance and Rental Permit,"
Ordinance No.
Page 3
Section C entitled "Rental Permit," is hereby amended by adding a new Paragraph 6 entitled "Defenses to
an Enforcement Action of the Provisions of this Section," as follows:
6. Defenses to an Enforcement Action of the Provisions of this Section:
It shall be a defense to an enforcement action pursuant to the provisions of this section if an owner
or owner's designated agent has:
(a) Reported the violation to law enforcement,
(b) Evicted or attempted to evict by commencing and pursuing with due diligence all legal remedies
to evict those tenants charged with one of the specified violations. It is not the intention of this
provision to apply to tenants who have not been charged with one of the specified violations,
(c) Undertaken and pursued with due diligence, reasonable means to avoid a recurrence of code
violations on the premises by the present and future tenants or occupants of the premises, or
(d) Executed a property management action plan.
The defenses set forth in this section shall not be available to any person who fails to attend a code
compliance settlement meeting.
7. Title 14 entitled "Uniform Development Code," Chapter 5 entitled "Building and Housing," Article E
entitled "Housing Code," Section 16 entitled "Certificate of Structure Compliance and Rental Permit,"
Section C entitled "Rental Permit," is hereby amended by adding a new Paragraph 7 entitled "Rental Permit
Sanctions," as follows:
7. Rental Permit Sanctions:
Comment: Sanctions may be applied to an individual dwelling unit, the entire rental dwelling, or the
premises. Each separate violation shall count as a basis for a rental permit sanction unless the
owner qualifies for a defense to enforcement under subsection 6. The following sanctions may be
imposed upon a rental permit:
(a) Reduced-term rental permit (one-year rental permit);
(b) Suspension of rental permit; and
(c) Revocation of rental permit.
8. Title 14 entitled "Uniform Development Code," Chapter 5 entitled "Building and Housing," Article E
entitled "Housing Code," Section 16 entitled "Certificate of Structure Compliance and Rental Permit,"
Section C entitled "Rental Permit," is hereby amended by adding a new Paragraph 8 entitled "Bases for
Reduced-Term Rental Permit," as follows:
8.The Director may issue a reduced-term rental permit with conditions for any of the following
reasons:
(a) The owner, any occupant, and/or any of their guests on two or more separate occasions
within a 12-month period of time have been issued criminal complaints for violations of the
following provisions of the Iowa Code, City Code or U.S. Code on the premises of a rental
property.
(1) Iowa Code Chapter 124, Sections 401 and 403 (controlled substance)
(2) Iowa Code Chapter 708, Sections 708.1 (assault), 708.3 (assault while participating in a
felony), 708.4 (willful injury), 708.6 (terrorism), 708.11 (stalking)
(3) Iowa Code Chapter 724, Sections 724.3 (unauthorized possession of offensive weapons),
724.I6A (trafficking in stolen weapons), 724.30 (reckless use of a firearm)
(4) Iowa Code Chapter 123, Sections 123.46 (consumption or intoxication in public places),
123.47 (possession of alcohol under legal age)
(5) Iowa Code Chapter 716, Sections 716.3 (criminal mischief in the first degree), 716.4
(criminal mischief in the second degree), 716.5 (criminal mischief in the third degree),
Ordinance No.
Page 4
716.6 (criminal mischief in the fourth degree), 716.6A (criminal mischief in violation of
individual rights), 716.7 (trespass)
(6) Iowa Code Chapter 719, Section 719.1 (interference with official acts)
(7) Iowa Code Chapter 723, Sections 723.1 (riot), 723.4 (disorderly conduct)
(8) Title 13, U.S. Code, Sections 841, 842, 843, 844, 846, 856, and 861 (controlled
substances)
(9) City Code Title 4, Chapter 5, Section 3 (consumption of alcohol in a public place)
(10) City Code Title 4, Chapter 5, Section 4 (possession of alcohol under the legal age)
(11) City Code Chapter 4 (Noise Control)
(12) City Code Title 8, Chapter 5, Section 1 (disorderly conduct)
(13) City Code Title 8, Chapter 5, Section 3C (obstructing an officer)
(14) City Code Title 8, Chapter 5, Section 4 (damaging or defacing properly)
(15) City Code Title 8, Chapter 5, Section 5 (disorderly house)
(16) City Code Title 8, Chapter 5, Section 6 (indecent exposure)
(b) The owner, any occupant, and/or any of their guests on three or more separate occasions
within a period of 12 months have been issued municipal citations or written notices of
violations for the following provisions of the City Code of Iowa City on the premises of a rental
property.
(1) City Code Title 14, Chapter 5 (Building & Housing)
(2) City Code Title 14, Chapter 6 (Zoning)
(3) City Code Title 6, Chapter 1 (Nuisances)
(4) City Code Title 6, Chapter 3 (Weed Control)
(5) City Code Title 6, Chapter 9 (Graffiti)
The reduced-term rental permit will be a one-year rental permit required to be renewed annually. This
sanction shall be in effect for a period of not less than four years and annual licensing inspections and
fees are required. The Director may require any of the following with the issuance of a reduced-term
rental permit: compliance with Iowa Code and/or City codes; submittal of a copy of the current lease
agreement; payment of all City fees; payment of all court costs and fines; execution of a property
management action plan; provision of a property management performance guarantee; and any other
information the City deems necessary for enforcement of any provision of the Iowa Code or City
Code.
9. Title 14 entitled "Uniform Development Code," Chapter 5 entitled "Building and Housing," Article E
entitled "Housing Code," Section 16 entitled "Certificate of Structure Compliance and Rental Permit,"
Section C entitled "Rental Permit," is hereby amended by adding a new Paragraph 9 entitled "Bases for
Suspension of a Rental Permit," as follows:
9. Bases for Suspension of Rental Permit:
The Director may suspend a rental permit for any of the following reasons:
(a) Failure to comply with the conditions of the reduced-term rental permit.
(b) Failure to comply with a court decision concerning the violation of any provision of Section 14-5E-
19.
(c) Adjudication by the court that the owner, owner's designated agent, or persons acting on behalf of
the owner has: a) violated the maximum occupancy provisions of the City Code; b) illegally used or
allowed the illegal use of nonhabitable or nonoccupiable space; or c) illegally converted space to
habitable use.
(d) Failure to comply with an order to abate a dangerous building.
(e) Failure to comply with any emergency order or placarding of a structure.
Ordinance No.
Page 5
(f) Additional violations by the tenants or owner of the Iowa Code, City Code, or U.S. Code occur
within one year of the conditions imposed pursuant to the reduced-term rental permit.
A rental permit shall be suspended for no more than 180 days beginning from the date of the
Director's decision or a court ruling on a municipal infraction and no later than at the end of the
current lease period unless a properly management plan is executed.
10. Title 14 entitled "Uniform Development Code," Chapter 5 entitled "Building and Housing," Article E
entitled "Housing Code," Section 16 entitled "Certificate of Structure Compliance and Rental Permit,"
Section C entitled "Rental Permit," is hereby amended by adding a new Paragraph 10 entitled "Bases for
Revocation of a Rental Permit," as follows:
10. Bases for Revocation of Rental Permit:
The Director may revoke a rental permit for any of the following reasons:
(a) Failure to comply with an order to abate a dangerous building;
(b) Failure to comply with an emergency order or placarding of a structure;
(c) Failure to comply with suspension of rental permit;
(d) More than one basis for rental permit suspension within two years of the reinstated permit
previously having been suspended;
(e) The owner or owner's designated agent convicted for making false statements on a rental permit
application, and/or Informational Disclosure and Acknowledgement form.
A rental permit shall be revoked for not less than one year beginning from the date of the Director's
decision or a court ruling on a municipal infraction.
11. Title 14 entitled "Uniform Development Code," Chapter 5 entitled "Building and Housing," Article E
entitled "Housing Code," Section 16 entitled "Certificate of Structure Compliance and Rental Permit,"
Section C entitled "Rental Permit," is hereby amended by adding a new Paragraph 11 entitled
"Reinstatement of a Rental Permit," as follows:
11. Reinstatemer~t of Rental Permit:
(a) Suspended Permit: A suspended permit shall be reinstated upon completion of the suspension
period and execution of a property management action plan.
(b) Revoked Permit: An application for a new permit may be made after one year from the date
revocation was effective. The application shall be processed in the same manner as an initial rental
permit application, and requires execution of a property management action plan.
(c) Transfer of ownership does not modify or alter any sanction imposed unless approved by the City or
unless the transfer is an arms-length transaction between disinterested parties as determined by
the City.
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, as provided by law.
Ordinance No,
Page 6
Passed and approved this day of_ ,20
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
City Attorney's Office
hisadm/ord/nuisanceprop doc
Ordinance No.
Page.
It was moved by. and seconded by that the Ordinance
as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Champion
Kanner
Lehman
O'Donnell
. Pfab
Vanderhoef
Wilbum
First Consideration 4/22/03
Voteforpassage: AYES: Champion, Lehman, 0'Donne]I, Pfab, Vanderhoef, NAYS:Kanner
Wilburn. ABSENT: N~ne.
Second Consideration 5/6/03
Voteforpassage:AYES: Champion, Lehman, O'Donnel], Vanderhoef. NAYS: Kanner,
Wilburn. ABSENT: Pfab.
Date published
Fcbnm~ !, 2003 George & Barbara Sondag
33 Pentire Circle
TO: City oflowa City Council {owa City, {A 52245
410 E. Washington, Iowa City Iowa 52240
RE: Proposed Ordinance related to Nuisance Rental Properties
I am writing to you in regard to the latest proposed ordinance addressing "Nuisance
Rental Properties and Tenants". Most Landlords, Property Managers, and tenants want
neighborhoods time of criminal activity, and unsafe/disintegrating homing. However
the methods one uses to achieve these goals should be practical, cost efficient,
comparable with State Rental Housing Law, and respectful of the dvil and individual
fights of both Landlord and tenant. The methodology recommended in this proposal
presents many practical, legal and civil rights concerns.
The rationale for me2dng ~dlords,~*rope~cy managers responsible for tena~l~guest)
behavior (especially criminal behavior based on complaints, not conviction) is
impractical, baffling, foolish, and obtuse. How can one person be respons~le for the
behavior of another person? The identified range of responsibility even extends to the
adjacent property.
If criminal behavior needs to be addressed, isn't there a better way?
We should be sure that the "cure is not worse than the disease".
The majority of Landlords and tenants in this community are law abiding. The
neighborhoods are safe and pleasant, and the housing in good condition. So why go to
all this trouble for a few problems? Will the ordinance solve those few problems?
IS THIS ORDINANCE NECESSARY? I DON'T THINK SOU
(name/company) ~'~ ~ ~,
Prepared by: Mitchel T. Behr, Assistant City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5030
ORDINANCE NO. 03-4072
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 3, ENTITLED "CITY FINANCES, TAXATION AND FEES",
CHAPTER 4, ENTITLED "SCHEDULE OF FEES, RATES, CHARGES, BONDS, FINES AND
PENALITIES", TO ADD CERTAIN SECTIONS TO SECTION 8, ENTITLED "VIOLATION OF
VARIOUS CODE SECTIONS" AND ADD A NEW SECTION 9, ENTITLED "NON-MOTORIZED
VEHICLE VIOLATIONS", IN ORDER TO SET SPECIFIC FINES FOR CERTAIN VIOLATIONS.
WHEREAS, charges based on City Code simple misdemeanors for which no penalty is
specified may require court appearances and result in issuance of arrest warrants for defendants'
failure to appear in court; and,
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest to set specified penalties for certain City Code simple
misdemeanors related to alcohol, littering, animals, bicycles, and non-motorized vehicles to
decrease arrest warrants being issued in these matters.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I. AMENDMENT. City Code Title 3, entitled "City Finances, Taxation and
Fees", Chapter 4, entitled "Schedule of Fees, Rates, Charges, Bonds, Fines and Penalties",
Section 8, entitled "Violation of Various Code Sections", is hereby amended to add the following
City Code sections and fines:
Description of Fee, Charge, Bond, Amount of Fee, Charge, City Code Chapter,
Fine or Penalty Bond, Fine or Penalty Article or Section
Reference
Open Container of Alcohol $50.00 4-5-5
Repoding Diseased Animals $25.00 8-3-2
Prohibited Acts and Conditions (Animals) $25.00 8-3-4
Animal Control Administration and Enforcement $25.00 8-4-2(D)
Ordinance No. 03-4072
Page 2
Animal Control Licensing and Vaccination
Requirements $25.00 8-4-3
Reporting of Animal Bite $25.00 8-4-4(B)
Animal Nuisances $25.00 8-4-5
Animal Prohibitions and Requirements $25.00 8-4-6
Releasing or Molesting Animals $25.00 8-4-10
Responsibility of Animal Owner $25.00 8-4-11
Animal Permits $25.00 8-4-12
Public Urination $50.00 8-5-6(C)
Littering $10.00 14-3H-11(C)(1-3)
SECTION II. AMENDMENT. City Code Title 3, entitled "City Finances, Taxation and
Fees", Chapter 4, entitled "Schedule of Fees, Rates, Charges, Bonds, Fines and Penalties", is
hereby amended to add a new Section 9, entitled "Non-Motorized Vehicle Violations" as follows:
Description of Fee, Charge, Bond, Amount of Fee, Charge, City Code Chapter,
Fine or Penalty Bond, Fine or Penalty Article or Section
Reference
Prohibited on Arterial Streets in Central Bus. Dist. $10.00 9-1-7(A)(1)
Stay as Far to the Right of the Road (except when
making a left turn) $10.00 9-1-7(A)(2)(a)
Follow Flow of Traffic $10.00 9-1-7(A)(2)(b)
Operate in Careful and Prudent Manner $10.00 9-1-7(A)(2)(c)
Obey Traffic Laws $10.00 9-1-7(A)(2)(d)
Reflective Device or Clothing Required After Dusk $10.00 9-1-7(A)(2)(e)
Prohibited in Parking Ramps and Lots $10.00 9-1-7(B)
Must Yield to Pedestrians on Sidewalks $10.00 9-1-7(C)
Prohibited on Sidewalks in Central Bus. Dist. $10.00 9-1-7(D)
Clinging onto Motor Vehicles $15.00 9-1-8
SECTION II1. AMENDMENT. The first sentence of City Code Title 3, entitled "City Finances,
Taxation and Fees", Chapter 4, entitled "Schedule of Fees, Rates, Charges, Bonds, Fines and
Penalties", Section 1, entitled "Purpose", is hereby repealed and replaced with the following:
The purpose of this chapter is to set forth those fees, rates, charges, bonds,
fines and penalties authorized to be charged by the city pursuant to state
law governing city utilities or enterprises, as defined in Chapter 384, Code of
iowa, as amended, and to set forth specific fines for certain simple
misdemeanor offenses.
SECTION IV. REPEALER. Alt ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provi-
sions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION V. 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 No. 03-4072
Page 3
Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconsti-
tutional.
SECTION VI. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage,
approval and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this 6th day of Ha,,/ ,20 03
CITY CLERK
Approved by
Cit,~ Att o~"n ~yTs~Office
IVlitch/E/Scheduled Violations/Oral
Ordinance No. 03-4072
Page _4
It was moved by Vanderhoef and seconded by 0'Donnell that the Ordinance
as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
X Champion
X Kanner
Lehman
X O'Donnell
X Pfab
~ Vanderhoef
X Wilbum
First Consideration 4/8/03
Voteforpassage: AYES: Champion,'Lehman, 0'Donne]l, Pfab, Vanderhoef, Wi]burn.
NAYS: Kanner. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration 4/22/03
Votefo~passage: AYES: Lehman, O'Donnell, Pfab, Vanderhoef, Wilburn, Champion.
NAYS: Kanner. ABSENT: None.
Date published
Prepared by Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5030
ORDINANCE NO. 03-4073
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 4, ENTITLED "ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES",
CHAPTER 5, ENTITLED "PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS", OF THE
CITY CODE TO PROHIBIT PERSONS WHO ARE UNDER NINETEEN (19)
YEARS OF AGE FROM ENTERING OR REMAINING IN ESTABLISHMENTS
WITH LIQUOR CONTROL LICENSES OR WINE OR BEER PERMITS
BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 10:00 P.M. AND CLOSING.
WHEREAS, underage drinking in Iowa City has a significant and negative impact on the
health, safety and welfare of its citizens; and
WHEREAS, as evidenced by the number of charges for Possession of Alcohol Under
the Legal Age, a significant number of persons under the legal drinking age are accessing
alcohol in establishments whose primary purpose, particularly after the hour of 10:00 p.m., is the
sale of alcoholic beverages; and
WHEREAS, the Iowa City City Council desires to prevent persons under the age of
nineteen (19) from entering or remaining in such establishments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA:
Section I. AMENDMENT. Title 4, entitled "Alcoholic Beverages", Chapter 5, entitled
"Prohibitions and Restrictions" of the City Code is hereby amended to add a new section 8 as
follows:
Section 4-5-8: PERSONS UNDER NINETEEN YEARS OF AGE IN LICENSED OR
PERMI'I-i'ED ESTABLISHMENTS.
A. No person, individual, association, corporation, partnership or club holding a
liquor control license, wine or beer permit, which authorizes on the premises
consumption, nor his or her agents or employees shall allow a person who has not yet
attained the age of nineteen (19) years of age to enter or remain in the licensed or
permitted establishment between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and closing.
B. However, the provisions of subsection (A) shall not apply when:
(1) The person under nineteen (19) years of age is an employee of the license or
permit holder, or performing a contracted service for the license or permit holder
on the premises, and is on the premises during his or her scheduled work hours.
(2) The person under nineteen (19) years of age is accompanied by a parent,
guardian, spouse or domestic partner registered as such under Section 2-6-3 of
the City Code who is nineteen (19) years of age or older.
(3) The licensee or permittee applies for and qualifies for an exception certificate
from the chief of police, or his or her designee, as follows:
(a) A licensee or permittee whose primary business purpose is not the sale of
alcoholic beverages, wine or beer may qualify for an exception by filing with
the City Clerk a verified statement from a certified public accountant or an
accountant which establishes that on average over a calendar year more
than fifty (50) percent of the licensee's or permittee's gross sales on the
premises are from the sale of goods or services other than alcoholic
beverages, wine or beer, which sales shall not include income from fees
charged to gain entry to or remain on the premises, such as cover charges,
drink mixes or any part of an alcoholic beverage as defined in Chapter 123
of the State Code. The statement shall state the actual percentage of such
Dilkes, City Attorney, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240;
ORDINANCE NO, 03-4073
ORDINANCE lENDING TITLE 4, ENTITLED "ALCOHOLIC
CHAPTER 5, -ITLED "PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS" THE
CITY CODE TO -IIBIT PERSONS WHO ARE UNDER (19)
YEARS OF AGE ENTERING OR REMAINING IN -IMENTS
WITH LIQUOR LICENSES OR WINE OR BEEI PERMITS
BETWEEN THE 10:00 P.M. AND CLOSING.
WHEREAS, in Iowa City has a significant negative impact on the
health, safety and welfare and
WHEREAS, as evidenced b' number of charges for of Alcohol Under
the Legal Age, a significant under the age are accessing
alcohol in establishments whose 10:00 p.m., is the
sale of alcoholic beverages; and
WHEREAS, the Iowa City City :lesires to persons under the age of
nineteen (19) from entering or remaining
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA:
Section I. AMENDMENT. Title 4, entitled Beverages", Chapter 5, entitled
"Prohibitions and Restrictions" of the City Code is ' amended to add a new section 8 as
follows:
Section 4-5-8: PERSONS UNDER IN LICENSED OR PERMITTED
ESTABLISHMENTS,
A. No person, individual, partnership or club holding a
liquor control license, wine or permit, authorizes on the premises
consumption, nor his or her a employees shall a person who has not yet
attained the age of nineteen of age to remain in the licensed or
permitted establishment I
B. However, the provisions subsection (A) shall not a
(1) The person under (19) years of age is an of the license or
permit holder, or a contracted service permit holder
on the on the premises during I work hours.
(2) The person nineteen (19) years of age is ~ied by a parent,
guardian, or domestic partner registered as such ' Section 2-6-3 of
the who is nineteen (19} years of age or older.
(3) The permittee applies for and qualifies for an certificate
from ~ or his or her designee, as
(a) A ,nsee or whose primary business purpose ~s the sale of
wine or beer may qualify fo , filing with
Clerk a verified statement from a certified public or an
accountant which establishes that on average over a calendar more
than f'~ty (50) percent of the licensee's or permittee's gross the
premises are from the sale of goods or services other than
beverages, wine or beer, which sales shall not include income
charged to gain entry toor remain on the premises, such as cover charg~es,
drink mixes or any part of an alcoholic beverage as defined in Chapter 123
of the State Code. The statement shall state the actual percentage of such
Ordinance No. 03-4073
Page 2
sales and be based on records made in the regular course of the licensee's
or permittee's business.
(b) In addition to the aforementioned statement, proof of qualification for the
exception may include the business records on which the statement is
based, state and federal tax records, applications for dram shop insurance
and audits performed to determine dram shop insurance premiums, and
receipts from vendors for goods purchased, which records shall be made
available to the Chief of Police or designee for review upon request.
(c) The Chief of Police or designee shall issue an exception certificate if the
licensee has satisfied the above requirements.
(d) An exception certificate shall be effective for the duration of the alcoholic
liquor control license, wine or beer permit.
(e) A new licensee or permittee as opposed to one applying for a renewal of an
existing license or permit, whose primary business purpose in not tt~e sale of
alcoholic beverages, wine or beer may obtain a temporary 6 months
exception certificate if the licensee's or permittee's business plan anticipates
sales as required by subsection 3(a) of this section and the licensee or
permittee submits an affidavit which details the nature of the new
establishment and the anticipated percentage of sales of food and non-
alcoholic beverages. At the end of the 6 month period the licensee or
permittee may obtain an exception certificate for the remainder of the
duration of the license or permit in accordance with subsections (a) through
(c) hereof if sales during the 6 month period support an exception.
(f) To be effective in excepting the licensee or permittee from the prohibition in
subsection A hereof, the exception certificate issued by the Chief of Police or
designee must be posted at every entrance to the licensed or permitted
establishment in view of patrons of the licensed or permitted establishments.
(4) The person under nineteen (19) years of age is on the premises during a time
that the licensee or permittee has, in accordance with a written notice and plan
given in advance to and approved by the Chief of Police or designee, suspended
dispensing alcoholic beverages on the licensed premises. Said plan must
provide a method by which alcoholic beverages will be out-of-sight and reach of
patrons. If the plan is approved, the Chief of Police or designee shall issue a
certificate approving the event, which certificate shall be posted at every
entrance to the licensed establishment in view of patrons of the licensed or
permitted establishment. It shall be the strict duty of a licensee or permittee
permitting such persons under nineteen (19) years of age onto the licensed
premises pursuant to such a plan, and the agents and employees of the licensee
or permittee, to prevent persons under the legal age from consuming or
possessing alcoholic beverages on said premises.
C. Between 10:00 p.m. and closing, no person under'nineteen (19) years of age
sha~l enter into or remain on the premises of a licensed or permitted establishment which
authorizes on the premises consumption unless:
(1) the person is accompanied by a parent, guardian, spouse or domestic partner
registered as such under Section 2-6-3 of the City Code who is nineteen (19)
years of age or older;
(2) the person is an employee of the licensee or permittee or performing a
contracted service for the license or permit holder on the premises, and is on the
premises during his or her scheduled work hours; or
(3) a valid exception certificate is posted pursuant to subsection 4-5-8(B)(3) of this
Section or a valid certificate approving a non-alcoholic event is posted pursuant
to subsection 4-5-8(B)(4) of this section.
Ordinance No. 03-4073
Page 3
D. Unless a valid exception certificate under the provisions of 4-5-8(B)(3) of this
Section has been obtained and posted, or a certificate approving a non-alcoholic event
under the provisions of Section 4-5-8(B)(4) of this Code has been obtained and posted
for the duration of the event, the holder of a liquor control license, wine or beer permit,
which authorizes on premises consumption, shall obtain from the City Clerk and post a
notice at every entrance to the licensed or permitted establishment in view of patrons of
the licensed or permitted establishment, stating:
Notice to Persons Under Nineteen (19) Years of Age.
You are subject to a fine of $250.00 for being on these premises between the
hours of 10:00 p.m. and closing unless:
1. you are accompanied by a parent, guardian, spouse or domestic partner
registered as such under Section 2-6-3 of the City Code who is nineteen
(19) years of age or older; or
2. you are an employee of this establishment or performing a contracted
service with respect to this establishment and are on the premises during
your scheduled work hours.
Said notices will be prepared by the City Clerk and available at no charge.
E. (1) A person under nineteen (19) years of age who violates the provisions of
subsection (C) of this section is guilty of a simple misdemeanor punishable by a
penalty of Two Hundred Fifty and 00/100 Dollars ($250.00)
(2) Violation of the provisions of subsections (A) or (D) of this section shall be a
municipal infraction.
Section II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the
provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section Ill. 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 adjudicated invalid or
unconstitutional.
Section IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect on August 1, 2003.
Passed and approved this 6th day of May ,20 09 .
City Attorney's Office
Eleanor\ord\under21ordinance.doc
Ordinance No. 03-4073
Page 4
It was moved by Champion and seconded by O' Donnel 1 that the Ordinance
as read be adopted, and upon mil call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
X Champion
X Kanner
X Lehman
X O'Donnell
X Pfab
X Vanderhoef
X Wilbum
First Consideration 4/22/03
Voteforpassage:AYES: Vahderhoef, Wilburn, Champion, Kanner, Lehman, 0'Donnel].
NAYS: Pfab. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration 5/5/03
Voteforpassage: AYES: Vanderhoef, W.ilburn, Champ'ion, Kanner, Lehman, 0'Donne]I,
Pfab. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Date published 5/14/03