HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-09-29 OrdinancePrepared by: Karen Howard, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5251 (REZ09-00003)
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE CONDITIONALLY REZONING APPROXIMATELY 4.29 ACRES LOCATED ON
WALDEN ROAD WEST OF MORMON TREK BOULEVARD FROM MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL (RS-8) ZONE TO HIGH DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-12) ZONE.
(REZ09-00003)
WHEREAS, the applicant, Southgate Development Company, has requested a rezoning of Lot 79 of
Walden Wood Subdivision, Part 7, located on Walden Road west of Mormon Trek Boulevard from Medium
Density Single Family Residential (RS-8) Zone to High Density Single Family Residential (RS-12) Zone; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan's guidelines for new neighborhoods encourages the development
of compact neighborhoods in close proximity to services and amenities;
WHEREAS, the Southwest District Plan identifies this property as appropriate for single family or duplex
residential development, but also states that the property will require careful design due to its topographic
conditions and the unusual shape and size of the property;
WHEREAS, the applicant has proposed townhouse-style, attached single family dwellings and has
proposed clustering the dwellings along Mormon Trek Boulevard and Walden Road in order to provide
dwellings that have a residential presence along the street frontages on this property that is unusually shaped
with limited street frontage; and
WHEREAS, the proposed lot layout allows vehicle access to all the dwelling units via a rear drive from
Walden Road, making it unnecessary for additional access from Mormon Trek Boulevard, an arterial street;
and
WHEREAS, storm water run-off from this sloping site has caused drainage problems for adjacent
properties to the south and the proposed concept plan for clustering the dwelling units along the street
frontages will provide more room on the site for appropriate storm water detention facilities that will improve
drainage; and
WHEREAS, there is limited on-street parking on adjacent streets that may not be adequate to meet the
needs for visitor parking for the increased density allowed by this rezoning unless additional visitor parking is
provided on site;
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has the reviewed the proposed rezoning and
determined that it complies with the Comprehensive Plan provided that any future subdivision plat
substantially complies with the proposed lot layout with townhouse style, attached single family dwellings that
present an attractive residential appearance along the street frontages, a rear drive with access limited to
Walden Road, adequate on-site visitor parking to prevent congestion along neighboring streets; and storm
water management that meets City standards; and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code Section 414.5 (2007) 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 rezoning request; and
WHEREAS, the applicant/owner acknowledges that certain conditions and restrictions are reasonable to
ensure that development of this property complies with the Comprehensive Plan and addresses concerns
regarding residential clustering, storm water management, vehicular access, and adequate off-street parking.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I APPROVAL. Subject to the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto and incorporated
herein, property legally described as Lot 79, Walden Wood Part 7, is hereby reclassified from its current
zoning designation of Medium Density Single Family Residential (RS-8) Zone to High Density Single Family
Residential (RS-12) Zone.
SECTION III. 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 by law.
SECTION IV. 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, at the owner's expense, all 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
e.c.. ~ ~ ` 5 ~ b °~
Ordinance No.
Page 2
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.
MAYO R
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Approved by
City Attorney's Office
S~
Prepared by: Karen Howard, Associate Planner, 410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, ZONING, TO ALLOW COMMUNICATION TOWERS
IN THE INTERIM DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL (ID-RS AND ID-RM) ZONES BY SPECIAL
EXCEPTION, SPECIFY DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS
FOR COMMUNICATION TOWERS, CLARIFY CO-LOCATION REQUIREMENTS, AND ADD A
REQUIREMENT TO REMOVE TOWERS AFTER THE USE IS DISCONTINUED.
WHEREAS, the Interim Development Zones are intended to provide for areas of managed
growth w re agricultural and other non-urban uses of land may continue until the City is able
to provides rvices; and
WHEREA the Interim Development Residential Zon s designations, ID-RS and ID-RM,
identify areas s 'able for future residential development;
WHEREAS, d and for cell phone service has gro n dramatically over the last several
years, particularly in esidential areas and many people ow depend solely on cell phones for
phone service; and
WHEREAS, restrictin communications towers to c mmercial, industrial, and research park
zones and interim develop nt zones with those sam designations may be causing problems
for cell phone users in areas f the city where there s an absence of non-residential zoning;
and
WHEREAS, with this ame ment standards will be established to ensure that
communications towers are not o trusive and ar carefully considered by the Board of
Adjustment on a case-by-case basi so they w I not detract from or discourage future
residential development; and ~~
WHEREAS, communications towers ~n long in use should be removed and the land
graded and re-seeded so as not to discou a uture development or detract from existing
neighborhoods and commercial areas; and
WHEREAS, requirements for constructing t rs in a manner that will allow co-location will
prevent unnecessary proliferation of communic tion~wers in the city.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I. The Code of Ordinances f the City of ~I~ia City, Iowa is hereby amended as
follows:
Deleting paragraphs 14-4B-4E-4 thr ugh 14-4B-4E-6 and'si°~stituting in lieu thereof:
4. Communication Transmissi n Facilities in Residential ones and in the ID-RS and
ID-RM Zones ``~
a. Communications ante ae are permitted in all Residenti Zones and in the ID-RS
and ID-RM Zones, rovided the following conditions are ~ et:
(1) The antenna i mounted on an existing communication'~tower, on the roof
of a principa building that contains a nonresidential use`~pr on the roof of a
building tha is accessory to a nonresidential use, or on mother tall
structure th t is permitted in the zone. Examples include cf~urch and
school buil ings, water towers and clock towers. A maximu of two
antennae s permitted per building or structure.
(2) The heig of the antenna shall not exceed the height of the exist~itig
structur or building to which it is attached by more than 20 feet. 1f it
exceed this limit, a special exception is required to ensure that the
antennae and any associated structure is designed to blend into its
~_e..c~ ~'. ~~ ~~~ "J
`~
Ordinance No.
Page 2
surroundings, or be camouflaged so as not to be obtrusive or detract from
neighboring properties.
(3) Strobe lighting is prohibited in Residential Zones. Therefore, any antenna
that requires such illumination is prohibited.
(4) Any equipment associated with an antenna must be located within the
exterior walls of the building to which the antenna is attached. No separate
equipment shed is permitted, except if the antenna is attached to a tall
structure that is not a building. In such a case, a separate equipment shed
is oni~ allowed by special exception if it can be demonstrated that the shed
can be dequately screened or designed in a manner that blends in with
the resi ntial character or future resi ential character of the surrounding
area.
b. Communications to ers are allowed by spe ial exception in the ID-RS and ID-RM
Zones and must c ply with the followin approval criteria:
(1) The proposed to r serves an area hat cannot be served by an existing
tower or industrial roperty or by I Gating antennae on existing structures
in the area. The ap icant must d current attempts to utilize existing
structures, towers, a commer ial and industrial properties within one-half
mile of the proposed to er. Su documentation must include maps
illustrating the location o existi g towers and potential alternative sites for
antenna and towers that h ve een explored by the applicant and the
applicant must state the rea ns that these locations were not feasible.
(2) The proposed tower will bed ned and constructed in a manner that will
camouflage the structure a d r uce its visual impact on the surrounding
area. Examples of camoufl ge d sign include monopoles, which do not
have guy wires or support russes nd that are painted to blend in with the
sky or surroundings, tow s camou ged as flag poles, monuments,
steeples, or the integrati n of rooftop owers onto existing buildings, water
towers, etc. Rooftop to ers must use aterials similar to or that blend in
with the structure to wh ch it is attached. they camouflaged tower
structures must be of milar height and a earance as other similar
structures allowed in a zone, e.g. towers mouflaged as light poles or
utility poles must be f similar height and ap arance as other such poles.
The applicant must ' clude an illustration of h the tower would appear in
the proposed locati n.
(3) The proposed tow will be no taller than is necess ry to provide the service
intended. Eviden a presented should include cover a maps illustrating
current gaps in overage and changes to coverage ' h the proposed
tower. Commu ications towers are exempt from them ximum height
standards oft base zone, but under no circumstance ay the tower be
taller than 12 feet from grade. If a communications tow is camouflaged
to appear si filar to another common structure allowed in t zone, it must
comply with he same height standards that would apply tot e type of
structure t tit emulates. For example, if the tower is camo laged as a
light pole, lag pole, or utility pole it must not exceed the height limitation
for such tructures as specified in the base zone. If no height standard
exists in the code for such a structure, it must be designed to be of similar
height and appearance to other similar or typical structures. If the tower is
Ordinance No.
Page 3
camouflaged as a chimney, steeple, or other similar rooftop structure, the
Board may exempt it from the base zone height standards if it is designed
as if it were an integral part of the building and is not out of scale or
proportion to other similar rooftop structures.
(4) The proposed tower will be set back from the property line at least a
distance equal to the height of the tower.
(5) Any equipment associated with the tower facility will be enclosed in an
equipment shed, cabinet, or building, which must be adequately screened
from view of the public right-of-way and adjacent properties and designed
in ` manner that will be compatible and blend in with future residential
deve pment.
(6) The pro sed tower will not utilize a b ck-up generator as a principal power
source. ack-up generators may o y be used in the event of a power
outage. T Board of Adjustment y require that the electric distribution
line necess ~ to furnish electric s ice to the tower be made
underground om existing syste ,however, this requirement would not
apply to electri I transformers, eter pedestal, switch gear and other
appurtenances i ractical to bu
(7) Strobe lighting is pr ibited. Th efore, any tower that requires such
illumination is prohibi ed in th a zones.
(8) The proposed tower mu t be esigned and constructed to accommodate at
least one additional use u less in doing so the tower will exceed the 120
foot height limitation or if e Board of Adjustment determines that allowing
the additional height nee to accommodate another user will detract
from the area to the exte t t tit will prevent future development as
envisioned in the Comp ehen 've Plan. The applicant shall provide a
certification by a profe Tonal a ineer licensed in this state that the
proposed tower will b designed o permit a second antenna system of
comparable size to b added to th tower above or immediately below the
original antenna sys em.
(9) If use of the tower i discontinued, the wer and any associated equipment
must be removed y the owner of the t wer, the operator, or the owner of
the property with' one year of discontin nce of use and the land graded
and re-planted prevent erosion. The ap licant shall present a signed
lease agreem t, a recorded declaration o ovenants, or other
satisfactory a idence acknowledging this obl ation.
5. Communication Trans ssion Facilities in Commercial ones and the ID-C Zone;
Privately-Owned Co munication Transmission Faciliti sin Public Zones.
a. Communications tennae are permitted in all Commerce I Zones, the ID-C Zone,
and in Public Z nes provided the following conditions a met:
(1) The ante a must be mounted on another structure a owed in the zone,
such as rooftop, light pole, or utility pole.
(2) In the C~-1 and CO-1 Zones and in any ID-C Zone that intended for a
future N-1 Zone, strobe lighting is prohibited. Therefo ,any antenna
that requires such illumination is prohibited in these zones.
Ordinance No.
Page 4
(3) In Public Zones and in the CC-2, CH-1, CI-1, CB-2, CB-5, and CB-10 Zones
and in any ID-C Zone not intended for a future CN-1 Zone, antennae may
not be illuminated by strobe lights unless required by federal regulations. If
alternatives are allowed under federal guidelines, strobe lights may not be
used.
(4) Any equipment associated with an antenna must be located within the
exterior walls of the building to which the antenna is attached or screened
from view of the public right-of-way and any adjacent property to at least to
th~S3 standard (See Article 14-5F, Screening and Buffering Standards). If
the a uipment is located on the roof it must set back and screened so
that it i not within public view or appears be part of the building.
b. Communications owers are allowed by special ception in Public Zones, the ID-
C, CO-1, CN-1, H-1, CI-1, CC-2, CB-2, CB ,and CB-10 Zones and must
comply with the fo owing approval criteria:
(1) If the proposed t er will be located i an ID-C Zone that is intended for a
future Neighborh d Commercial Z ne according to the Comprehensive
Plan, as amended, en it must co ply with any specific standards listed
below for CN-1 Zone
(2) The proposed tower se s an are that cannot be served by an existing
tower or industrial prope or by ocating antennae on existing structures
in the area. The applicant ust ocument attempts to utilize existing
structures, towers, and indu r' I properties within one-half mile of the
proposed tower. Such docum ntation must include maps illustrating the
location of existing towers a otential alternative sites for antenna and
towers that have been expl ed the applicant and the applicant must
state the reasons that the locati s were not feasible.
(3) The proposed tower will b construct in a manner that will camouflage the
structure and reduce its isual impact n the surrounding area. Examples
of camouflage design ' clude monopol ,which do not have guy wires or
support trusses and at are painted to b nd in with the sky or
surroundings, tower camouflaged as flag oles, monuments, steeples, or
the integration of r oftop towers onto existin buildings, water towers, etc.
Rooftop towers ust use materials similar to r that blend in with the
structure to whi h it is attached. Other camoufl ged tower structures must
be of similar fight and appearance as other si 'lar structures allowed in
the zone, e. .towers camouflaged as light poles utility poles must be of
similar hei t and appearance as other such poles. The applicant must
include a illustration of how the tower would appea 'n the proposed
locatio .
(4) Thep posed tower will be no taller than is necessary to rovide the service
int ded. Evidence presented should include coverage ps illustrating
c rrent gaps in coverage and changes to coverage with th proposed
ower. In the ID-C (except areas intended for CN-1 ), CH-1, C-2, CI-1,
CB-2, CB-5 and CB-10 Zones, communications towers are a empt from
the maximum height standards of the base zone, but under n
circumstance may the tower be taller than 120 feet from grade. In the CO-
1, CN-1, and any ID-C Zone intended for CN-1, communications towers
must comply with the same height standards that would apply to the type
Ordinance No.
Page 5
of structure to which they are attached or if a communications tower is
camouflaged to appear similar to another common structure allowed in the
zone, it must comply with the same height standards that would apply to
the type of structure that it emulates. For example, if the tower is
camouflaged as a light pole, flag pole, or utility pole it must not exceed the
height limitation for such structures as specified in the base zone. If no
height standard exists in the code for such a structure, it must be designed
to be of similar height and appearance to other similar or typical structures.
the tower is camouflaged as a chimney or other similar rooftop structure,
th Board may exempt it from the ase zone height standards if it is
desi ned as if it were an integral art of the building and is not out of scale
or oro ortion to other similar roo op structures.
(5) The prop ed tower will be setb ck at least a distance equal to the height of
the tower om any Residentia Zone, ID-RS Zone, and ID-RM Zone.
(6) Any equipme associated wit the tower facility will be enclosed in an
equipment sh ,cabinet, or uilding, which must be adequately screened
from view of the ublic righ of-way and any adjacent residential or
commercial prop y.
(7) The proposed tower ill n utilize aback-up generator as a principal power
source. Back-up gen ors may only be used in the event of a power
outage.
(8) In the CN-1 and CO-1 n and in any ID-C Zone that is intended for a
future CN-1 Zone, str be lig ting is prohibited. Therefore, any tower that
requires such illumin tion is p ohibited in these zones. The tower will not
be illuminated by str be lights less required by federal regulations. If
alternatives are all ed under fe eral guidelines, strobe lights may not be
used.
(9) The proposed to r must be designe and constructed to accommodate at
least one additi nal user, unless in doi g so the tower will exceed the 120
foot height lim' ation or if the Board of A 'ustment determines that allowing
the additional eight needed to accommo ate another user will detract
from the are to the extent that it will preve t future development intended
in the zone The applicant shall provide a ce ification by a professional
engineer I' ensed in this state that the propos d tower will be designed to
permit a econd antenna system of comparabl size to be added to the
tower a ove or immediately below the original an enna system.
(10) If use the tower is discontinued, the tower and a associated equipment
must a removed by the owner of the tower, the ope tor, or the owner of
the operty within one year of discontinuance of use nd the land graded
and re-planted to prevent erosion. The applicant shall p esent a signed
le a agreement, a recorded declaration of covenants, o other
s isfactory evidence acknowledging this obligation.
6. Communica on Transmission Facilities in Industrial and Research ark Zones
and the I -RP and ID-I Zones
a. Communications antennae are permitted in all Industrial and Research Park Zones
and in the ID-I and ID-RP Zones, provided the antenna is mounted on another
structure allowed in the zone, such as a rooftop, light pole, or utility pole.
Ordinance No.
Page 6
b. Communications towers are allowed in the ID-I, I-1 and I-2 Zones and by special
exception in the ID-RP, RDP and ORP Zones, provided the following conditions
are met:
(1) The proposed tower will be setback at least a distance equal to the height of
the tower from any Residential Zone, ID-RS Zone, and ID-RM Zone.
(2) The tower and any associated equipment, buildings, or structures must be
•~, . screened from the public right-of-way and any bordering Residential or
Commercial Zone to at least the S3 standard (See Article 14-5F, Screening
'and Buffering Standards).
(3) Th~roposed tower must be designed and constructed to accommodate at
least~two additional users. The applicant shall provide a certification by a
profes~onal engineer licensed in this state that the proposed tower will be
designed,to permit two additional~ntenna systems of comparable size to
be added the tower above or i mediately below the original antenna
system.
(4) If use of the tow r is discontin d, the tower and any associated equipment
must be remove by the ow er of the tower, the operator, or the owner of
the property within ne yea of discontinuance of use and the land graded
and re-planted to pr ent rosion. The applicant shall present a signed
lease agreement, a re o ed declaration of covenants, or other
satisfactory evidence a nowledging this obligation.
SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordina
of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If
adjudged to be invalid or unconstituf
Ordinance as a whole or any s ti
unconstitutional.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE D TE.
approval and publication.
of ordinances in conflict with the provisions
section, rovision or part of the Ordinance shall be
such adj dication shall not affect the validity of the
provision part thereof not adjudged invalid or
This Ordinance sl~ll be in effect after its final passage,
Passed and approved this day of
MAYO R
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
20
Appro d by
City Attorney Office
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 14, 2009
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner
RE: Request to amend the zoning code to allow communications towers in Interim
Development Residential Zones (ID-RS & ID-RM)
Iowa Wireless Services, LLC, has submitted an application requesting a text amendment
to the zoning code to allow communication towers in the Interim Development
Residential Zones (ID-RS & ID-RM). Their letter and supporting documentation are
attached. In summary, they argue that demand for cell phone service has grown
dramatically over the last several years, particularly in residential areas, since so many
people have abandoned their landlines and rely solely on cell phones for service. The
applicant has provided a list of cities in Iowa that allow communication towers in zones
similar to Iowa City's interim development zones.
The purpose of the interim development zones is to provide for areas of managed
growth where agricultural and other non-urban uses of land may continue until the City is
able to provide City services and urban development can occur. The interim
development zone designations of RS (Single Family Residential), RM (Multi-Family
Residential), C (Commercial), I (Industrial), and RP (Research Park) reflect the intended
future use of the property according to the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff have reviewed the ordinances of Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, and Ames and found
that the applicant's assessment is accurate. Compared with these cities, the current
regulations in Iowa City are more restrictive in the location and zones where
communications towers are allowed. Restricting communications towers to commercial,
industrial, and research park zones and interim development zones with those same
designations may be causing problems for cell phone users in areas of the city where
there is an absence of non-residential zoning. Given that so many people rely on and
expect cell phone service in their homes, staff finds that the proposal to allow
communications towers in interim development residential zones by special exception to
be a reasonable request.
One concern is that communication towers will detract from the aesthetics of future
residential areas. However, as long as standards are in place to ensure that the towers
are not obtrusive and are carefully considered by the Board of Adjustment on a case by
case basis, proposed towers are less likely to detract from or discourage future
residential development. Since towers will be allowed prior to rezoning for urban
residential development, property owners, developers and future residents will have full
knowledge of the tower prior to making any investment decisions.
Staff recommends adopting standards similar to the ones currently in place for
communication towers in Neighborhood Commercial Zones. These standards were
Page 2
adopted to ensure that towers are located and designed so that they do not prevent or
discourage development of the area for other uses intended in the zone. In addition, staff
recommends allowing monopoles, which do not have guy wires or trusses and that are
painted or designed to blend in with the surroundings. Monopoles have been used in
several locations in Iowa City in recent years, and staff have noticed that the simple
structure tends to fade into the background even better than some more elaborately
camouflaged towers. After reviewing zoning ordinances from other cities, staff found
that this is a fairly common standard.
Staff also noticed that the code does not contain a requirement for removal of obsolete
communications towers in industrial zones. Staff recommends adding this language to
the industrial zone section to address this oversight. Note that staff added a requirement
to grade and replant the area after removal of a tower in order to prevent erosion.
We have been a few instances when we have received requests to build a new tower in
the general vicinity of another tower. When asked why they cannot co-locate on the
existing tower, the answer if often that the tower is not of an adequate height or design
to provide the service they desire. There has been some concern expressed by staff and
the Board of Adjustment that even though there is a requirement that towers be
designed to accommodate additional users, we don't have the expertise to determine
whether the proposed design is adequate. We added a requirement for an engineer's
certification that the tower can, in fact, accommodate another user with an antenna
system of equal size. The language is modeled after language in the Des Moines
ordinance. We hope with this additional language that co-location will be more feasible
over time and prevent unnecessary proliferation of towers in the same vicinity.
Suggested changes to the zoning code language for communications towers are
attached.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed zoning code language
2. Application materials
Approved by: /~~.~-Gr~`J~ J:--- -~
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
Amend paragraphs 14-4B-4E-4, 5, and 6, as follows:
4. Communication Transmission Facilities in Residential Zones and in
the ID-RS and ID-RM Zones
a • • • Communications
antennae are permitted in all Residential Zones and in the ID-RS and ID-
RM Zones, provided the following conditions are met:
(i) The antenna is mounted on an existing communications tower, on
the roof of a principal building that contains a nonresidential use or
on the roof of a building that is accessory to a nonresidential use,
or on another tall structure that is permitted in the zone. Examples
include church and school buildings, water towers and clock towers.
A maximum of two antennae is permitted per building or structure.
(2) The height of the antenna shall not exceed the height of the
existing structure or building to which it is attached by more than
20 feet If it exceeds this limit a special exception is required to
ensure that the antennae and any associated structure is designed
to blend into its surroundings or be camouflaged so as not to be
obtrusive or detract from neighboring properties.
(3) Strobe lighting is prohibited in Residential Zones. Therefore, any
antenna that requires such illumination is prohibited.
(4) Any equipment associated with an antenna must be located within
the exterior walls of the building to which the antenna is attached.
No separate equipment shed is permitted, except if the antenna is
attached to a tall structure that is not a building. In such a case, a
separate equipment shed is onlyallowed by special exception if it
can be demonstrated that the shed can be adequately screened or
designed in a manner that blends in with the residential character
or future residential character of the surrounding area.
b. Communications towers are allowed by special exception in the ID-RS
and ID-RM Zones and must comply with the following approval criteria:
(i) The proposed tower serves an area that cannot be served by an
existing tower or industrial property or by locating antennae on
existing structures in the area The applicant must document
attempts to utilize existing structures towers and commercial and
industrial properties within one-half mile of the proposed tower.
Such documentation must include maps illustrating the location of
existing towers and potential alternative sites for antenna and
towers that have been explored by the applicant and the applicant
must state the reasons that these locations were not feasible.
(2) The proposed tower will be designed and constructed in a manner
that will camouflage the structure and reduce its visual impact on
the surrounding area Examples of camouflage design include
monopoles which do not have guy wires or support trusses and
that are painted to blend in with the sky or surroundings, towers
camouflaged as flaa poles monuments steeples or the integration
of rooftop towers onto existina buildings, water towers, etc.
Roofto towers must use materials similar to or that blend m with
the structure to which it is attached Other camouflaged tower
structures must be of similar height and appearance as other
similar structures allowed in the zone, e a towers camouflaged as
light poles or utility poles must be of similar height and appearance
as other such poles The applicant must include an illustration of
how the tower would appear in the proposed location.
(3) The proposed tower will be no taller than is necessary to provide
the service intended Evidence presented should include coverage
maps illustrating current naps in coverage and chances to coverage
with the proposed tower Communications towers are exempt from
the maximum height standards of the base zone, but under no
circumstance may the tower be taller than 120 feet from grade. If
a communications tower is camouflaged to appear similar to
another common structure allowed in the zone it must comply with
the same height standards that would apply to the type of structure
that it emulates For example if the tower is camouflaged as a
light pole flaa pole or utility pole it must not exceed the height
limitation for such structures as specified in the base zone. If no
hei ht standard exists in the code for such a structure it must be
designed to be of similar height and appearance to other similar or
typical structures If the tower is camouflaged as a chimney,
steeple or other similar rooftop structure the Board may exempt it
from the base zone height standards if it is designed as if it were an
integral part of the building and is not out of scale or proportion to
other similar rooftop structures.
(4) The proposed tower will be set back from the property line at least
a distance equal to the height of the tower.
(5) Any equipment associated with the tower facility will be enclosed in
an equipment shed cabinet or building which must be adequately
screened from view of the public right-of-way and adiacent
properties and designed in a manner that will be compatible and
blend in with future residential development.
(6) The proposed tower will not utilize aback-up generator as a
principal power source Back-up generators may only be used in
the event of a power outage The Board of Adiustment may require
that the electric distribution line necessary to furnish electric service
to the tower be made underground from existina systems,
however this requirement would not apply to electrical
transformers meter pedestal switch gear and other appurtenances
impractical to burn.
(7) Strobe lighting is prohibited Therefore any tower that requires
such illumination is prohibited in these zones.
(8) The proposed tower must be designed and constructed to
accommodate at least one additional user unless in doing so the
tower will exceed the 120 foot height limitation or if the Board of
Adjustment determines that allowing the additional height needed
to accommodate another user will detract from the area to the
extent that it will prevent future development as envisioned in the
Comprehensive Plan The applicant shall provide a certification by a
professional engineer licensed in this state that the proposed tower
will be designed to permit a second antenna svstem of comparable
size to be added to the tower above or immediately below the
original antenna svstem.
(9) If use of the tower is discontinued the tower and any associated
equipment must be removed by the owner of the tower, the
operator, or the owner of the property within one near of
discontinuance of use and the land graded and re-planted to
prevent erosion The applicant shall present a signed lease
agreement a recorded declaration of covenants, or other
satisfactor~r evidence acknowledging this obligation.
5. Communication Transmission Facilities in Commercial Zones and the
ID-C Zone; Privately-Owned Communication Transmission Facilities
in Public Zones.
a. Communications antennae are permitted in all Commercial Zones, the
ID-C Zone, and in Public Zones provided the following conditions are
met:
(i) The antenna must be mounted on another structure allowed in the
zone, such as a rooftop, light pole, or utility pole.
(2) In the CN-1 and CO-1 Zones and in any ID-C Zone that is intended
for a future CN-1 Zone, strobe lighting is prohibited. Therefore,
any antenna that requires such illumination is prohibited in these
zones.
(3) In Public Zones and in the CC-2, CH-1, CI-1, CB-2, CB-5, and CB-10
Zones and in any ID-C Zone not intended for a future CN-1 Zone,
antennae may not be illuminated by strobe lights unless required by
federal regulations. If alternatives are allowed under federal
guidelines, strobe lights may not be used.
(4) Any equipment associated with an antenna must be located within
the exterior walls of the building to which the antenna is attached
or screened from view of the public right-of-way and any adjacent
property to at least to the S3 standard (See Article 14-5F, Screening
and Buffering Standards). If the equipment is located on the roof it
must be set back and screened so that it is not within public view
or appears to be part of the building.
b. Communications towers are allowed by special exception in Public Zones,
the ID-C, CO-1, CN-1, CH-1, CI-1, CC-2, CB-2, CB-5, and CB-10 Zones
and must comply with the following approval criteria:
(1) If the proposed tower will be located in an ID-C Zone that is
intended for a future Neighborhood Commercial Zone according to
the Comprehensive Plan, as amended, then it must comply with
any specific standards listed below for CN-1 Zones.
(2) The proposed tower serves an area that cannot be served by an
existing tower or industrial property or by locating antennae on
existing structures in the area. The applicant must document
attempts to utilize existing structures, towers, e~ and industrial
properties within one-half mile of the proposed tower. Such
documentation must include maps illustrating the location of
existing towers and potential alternative sites for antenna and
towers that have been explored by the applicant and the applicant
must state the reasons that these locations were not feasible.
(3) The proposed tower will be constructed in a manner that will
camouflage the structure and reduce its visual impact on the
surrounding area. Examples of camouflage design include
monopoles which do not have guy wires or support trusses and
that are painted to blend in with the sky or surroundings, towers
camouflaged as flag poles, monuments, steeples, or the integration
of rooftop towers onto existing buildings, water towers, etc.
Rooftop towers must use materials similar to or that blend in with
the structure to which it is attached. Other camouflaged tower
structures must be of similar height and appearance as other
similar structures allowed in the zone, e.g. towers camouflaged as
light poles or utility poles must be of similar height and appearance
as other such poles. The applicant must include an illustration of
how the tower would appear in the proposed location.
(4) The proposed tower will be no taller than is necessary to provide
the service intended. Evidence presented should include coverage
maps illustrating current gaps in coverage and changes to coverage
with the proposed tower. In the ID-C (except areas intended for
CN-1), CH-1, CC-2, CI-1, CB-2, CB-5 and CB-10 Zones,
communications towers are exempt from the maximum height
standards of the base zone, but under no circumstance may the
tower be taller than 120 feet from grade. In the CO-1, CN-1, and
any ID-C Zone intended for CN-1, communications towers must
comply with the same height standards that would apply to the
type of structure to which they are attached or if a communications
tower is camouflaged to appear similar to another common
structure allowed in the zone it must comply with the same height
standards that would apply to the type of structure that it emulates.
For example, if the tower is camouflaged as a light pole, flag pole,
or utility pole it must not exceed the height limitation for such
structures as specified in the base zone. If no height standard
exists in the code for such a structure, it must be designed to be of
similar height and appearance to other similar or typical structures.
If the tower is camouflaged as a chimney or other similar rooftop
structure, the Board may exempt it from the base zone height
standards if it is designed as if it were an integral part of the
building and is not out of scale or proportion to other similar
rooftop structures.
(5) The proposed tower will be setback at least a distance equal to the
height of the tower from any Residential Zone, ID-RS Zone, and ID-
RM Zone.
(6) Any equipment associated with the tower facility will be enclosed in
an equipment shedL cabinet, or building, which must be adequately
screened from view of the public right-of-way and any adjacent
residential or commercial properly.
(7) The proposed tower will not utilize aback-up generator as a
principal power source. Back-up generators may only be used in
the event of a power outage.
(8) In the CN-1 and CO-1 Zones and in any ID-C Zone that is intended
for a future CN-1 Zone, strobe lighting is prohibited. Therefore, any
tower that requires such illumination is prohibited in these zones.
The tower will not be illuminated by strobe lights unless required by
federal regulations. If alternatives are allowed under federal
guidelines, strobe lights may not be used.
(9)
. The proposed tower must be designed
and constructed to accommodate at least one additional user,
unless in doing so the tower will exceed the 120 foot height
limitation or if the Board of Adiustment determines that allowing
the additional height needed to accommodate another user will
detract from the area to the extent that it will prevent future
development intended in the zone The applicant shall provide a
certification by a professional engineer licensed in this state that
the proposed tower will be designed to permit a second antenna
system of comparable size to be added to the tower above or
immediately below the original antenna system.
(10) If use of the tower is discontinued, the tower and any associated
equipment must be removed by the owner of the tower, the
operator, or the owner of the property within one year of
discontinuance of use and the land graded and re-planted to
,prevent erosion The applicant shall present a signed lease
agreement a recorded declaration of covenants, or other
satisfactory evidence acknowledging this obligation.
6. Communication Transmission Facilities in Industrial and Research
Park Zones and the ID-RP and ID-I Zones
a. Communications antennae are permitted in all Industrial and Research
Park Zones and in the ID-I and ID-RP Zones, provided the antenna is
mounted on another structure allowed in the zone, such as a rooftop,
light pole, or utility pole.
b. Communications towers are allowed in the ID-I, I-1 and I-2 Zones and
by special exception in the ID-RP, RDP and ORP Zones, provided the
following conditions are met:
(i) The proposed tower will be setback at least a distance equal to the
height of the tower from any Residential Zone, ID-RS Zone, and ID-
RM Zone.
(2) The tower and any associated equipment, buildings, or structures
must be screened from the public right-of-way and any bordering
Residential or Commercial Zone to at least the S3 standard (See
Article 14-5F, Screening and Buffering Standards).
(3) The proposed tower must be designed and constructed to
accommodate at least two additional users. The applicant shall
provide a certification by a professional engineer licensed in this
state that the proposed tower will be designed to permit two
additional antenna systems of comparable size to be added to the
tower above or immediately below the original antenna system.
(4) If use of the tower is discontinued, the tower and any associated
equipment must be removed by the owner of the tower, the
operator or the owner of the property within one year of
discontinuance of use and the land graded and re-planted to
,prevent erosion The applicant shall present a signed lease
agreement a recorded declaration of covenants, or other
satisfactor~r evidence acknowledging this obligation.
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 28, 2009
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner
RE: Request to amend the zoning code to allow communications towers in Interim
Development Residential Zones (ID-RS & ID-RM)
After further consideration of the discussion at your last meeting regarding the Board of
Adjustment approval criteria for allowing cell towers in ID-RS and ID-RM Zones, staff
agrees that adding language to guide Board decisions regarding how electric power is
provided to the site is important.
By adding the sentence underlined below, it will trigger consideration of how electric
power will be provided to areas that do not yet have urban services available. Given that
each site will be unique and it may not always be practical or desirable to have the
power extended underground, the proposed language states that the Board of
Adjustment rna require that electric distribution lines be made underground. This
flexibility in the language will provide an opportunity for the Board to consider existing
site characteristics before making this a requirement.
Staff recommends adding the underlined sentence to paragraph 14-46-4E-4b(6) as
follows:
(6) The proposed tower will not utilize aback-up generator as a principal power source. Back-up
generators may only be used in the event of a power outage. The Board of Adjustment may
require that the electric distribution line necessary to furnish electric service to the tower be_made
underground from existing systems however this requirement would not apply to electrical
transformers meter pedestal switch gear and other appurtenances impractical to bury.
Approved by:
Robert IVlik~o, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
c r - -
r ~rinne
Real Estate Development Solutions
,~
`~..
July 23, 2009 = " .i -~7
City of Iowa City `.~:'
c/o Sara Walz '' °=
~~
410 E Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Dear Ms. Walz:
As you recall, we recently discussed the best alternative to addressing telecommunication
siting needs in Iowa City in light of the fact that towers are currently precluded in residential
zones and interim zones designated for future residential use. On behalf of my client, Iowa
Wireless Services, LLC, d.b.a . i Wireless, I am filing a formal request to amend the Iowa City
zoning ordinance to allow Communication Transmission Facilities in Interim Development
zoning districts by Special Exception. Please see the attached application and proposed text
amendment showing additions as underlined and deletions ascrossed-out. I've also enclosed
a check in the amount of $450 for the application fee.
Over the last several years, the public demand for wireless phone service has grown
dramatically. Moreover, the public demand now places a greater emphasis on consistent,
reliable indoor wireless service in residential areas. For more information on this trend, please
see the enclosed Associated Press article from May 2009 which puts some numbers to this
trend. As noted in the article, one in five homes (20%) have abandoned landlines and now
rely solely upon cellphones. Another 15% have a landline but typically only use it for Internet
access. In total, these groups represent more than 1 in 3 households (35%) relying solely on
cellphones for telephone service. By contrast, only 3% of homes were cellphone-only in
2003. Further, the FCC estimates that more than 50% of 911 calls are from mobile phones.
The wireless needs and demands of the citizens of Iowa City now conflict with the zoning
ordinance which greatly limits communication facilities in residential areas and future
residential areas.
To resolve this conflict, i Wireless proposes to allow Communication Transmission
Facilities by Special Exception in the interim development zones designated for future
residential use. I Wireless is not proposing any changes to the code as it relates to towers
in existing residential districts. Interim development zones are undeveloped areas
allowing agricultural uses until city services are provided allowing for its development. I
Wireless' proposal would allow telecommunications infrastructure to be planned and
development prior to residential development, similar to other infrastructure serving the
development. Future developers and residences would be aware of the facility and able
to make their investment and design decisions accordingly. By utilizing the special
,r
y,
,.4e~
-:~-,
..
exception process, the City would be able to ensure that the Communications
Transmission Facility would be compatible with future residential uses. Together, the
pre-planning and thoughtful conditions resulting from special exception process would
allow for the provision of the necessary service and avoid future land use conflicts.
As you requested, I researched the policies of other Iowa cities which may be of interest
to you in evaluating our proposal. Attached is a brief summary. As you can see, all but
one of the jurisdictions allow towers in future residential areas by special exception or a
similar process.
Thank you for your time and interest on this proposal. I look forward to working with you
and addressing any questions or concerns which may arise during the process. Upon your
review, please call me to discuss.
Sincerely,
Peter .McNally
Principal
cc: Robert Renken, Real Estate Mgr, I Wireless
..~
~..
- ~
~_-
`~
,#"~~
.
-~-.o,
` ~, ~
~,
~,~ ;
~:
-:
Y ='~ ~,~ LL
''.J A
A fifth of US homes have ce'lphones, no landlines - USATODAY.com
Cars Auto Financing Event Tickets Jobs Real Estate Onfn=Degrees Business Opportunities Shopping
jearCh How do I fnd it7
Home (~e`Ns
._~._I~M7_~p~-7_s.___. _..__ __. __....
Technology » lei-Fi centfrr
Travel (Veney Sports Life Tech Weather
A fifth of US homes have cellphones, no
landlines
:,__._. ,,,. «....,,.,, i r,,.,-..,.~„r~ E7 i Recnn~mend 12 E-mail I Save Pdnt I ~-.'~
-- - ~.- ~T r ` ey Alan Fram, Associated Press `~ Mtxxit
t .
~i ,~~i t OC+e mays to share
- ~ _~ i ° ~ WASHINGTON -For the first time, the
v 1 < ~` number of U.S. households opfing for only Yahoos Buzz
i =T t j`~~ cellphones outnumber those that just have Digg
~~-- '~ ~L. ~ 'j°°~~ ~ ~ traditional landlines in a high-tech shift Newsvine
.: ,'i? ~ ,1 ~ it`s •1S .'l: i l-~ accelerated by the recession.
Reddit
In the freshest evidence of the growing Facebook
appeal of cellphones, 20 % of households had
only cells during the last half of 2008, What's this?
according to a Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention survey released Wednesday. That was an
increase of nearly 3 percentage points over the first halt of the
year, the largest six-month increase since the government
stoned gathering such data in 2003.
The 20 % of homes with only cellphones compared to 17 % with
landlines but no cells.
That ratio has changed starkly in recent years: In the first six
months of 2003, just 3% of households were wireless only, while
43 % stuck to landlines.
Stephen Blumberg, senior sdentist at the CDC and an author of
the report, attributed the growing number of cell-0nly households
in part to a recession that has forced many families to scour their
budgets for savings.
FIND MORE STORIES IN: United States ~ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ~ Danville I Midwestern
United States
"We do expect that with the recession, we'd see an increase in the prevalence of wireless only households, above
what we might have expected had there been ra recession;' Blumberg said.
Further underscoring the public's shrinking reliance on landline phones, 15% of households have both landlines
and cells but take few or no calls on their landlines, often because they are wired into computers. ComtHned with
wireless only homes, that means that 35% of households -more than one in three -are basically reachable only
on cells.
The changes are important for pollsters, who for years relied on reaching people on their landline telephones.
Growing numbers of surveys now indude calls to people on their cells, which is more expensive partly beceuse
federal laws forbid pollsters from using computers to place calls to wireless phones.
Page 1 of 4
Subscrioe to paper
Become a member of the USA
TODAY eommunlty now!
Log in I Become a member
_ : What's this?
Related Advertising Links wear:Tms
Des Moines Mom Makes $5k/Month
Stay At Home Makes $5397!Month with just $1.97
Reatl_
SarahsMoneyBlog.com
Des Moines Man Earns $7k a Month
I got fired) 1 now earn more than my old boss, learn
www Matt_hewsMoney.com
... 1.;:--..
'"`
('+i
•~
1.._
"..'
\1..1
wr:aa
~~~
r'te`:
,~ r~
`.1
About a third of people age 18 to 24 live in households with only cellphones, making them far likelier than older ~$~ Tech E-iT18F)
people to rely exdusively on cells. The same is true of four in 10 people age 25 to 29. ~[y~
Siqn op to get:
Those likeliest to live in wireless-only households also indude the poor, renters, Hispanics, Southerners,
Midwesterners and those living with unrelated adults, such as roommates or unmarried couples. " i', ~,rluc. !?ev'°-`'s
"Jte it l;e ants
Six in 10 households have both landline and cellphones, while one in 50 have no phones at all. , r+„r jr,_ r,, ,.,
~~:i~.t
The data is compiled by the National Health Interview Survey, conducted by the CDC. The latest survey involved i1° r'"'r
in-person interviews with members of 12,597 households conducted from last July through December.
Copyright 2009 The Assocated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten
or redistributed. ;t-'S: Sign Up Now
Share this story:
OMixx it Yahoo!Buu Digg Newsviree Reddit Facebook Whar's this?
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/wireless/phones/2009-OS-06-landline-phones_N.htm?csp=34 5/7/2009
Grey Sears, an AT&T employee, works Friday.
Jan. 30, 2009 to restore service on a phone line in
Danville. Ky after a crippliny winter storm.
~ ~ y ~.
Summary of Select Cities' Zoning Provisions
Regarding Towers in Ag or Interim Development Zones: ~- :} °y =f ~ p(=; ~; L`=, ~
Researched by -- - _.
The Grinnell Group =~ , f'`ti'r~~
City & District Use Provision Conditions
Des Moines Board of 1:1 setback or adequate screening
A -Agriculture Adjustment Painted "sky blue" or alternate compatible color
and (Sec. 134-307 & FAA lighting only
R1-80 Residential 134-347) 180' maximum height
Capacity for 2nd carrier
Screened equipment at base
Monopole design
Cedar Rapids Up to 80' height MP - 50% from property lines, 100' from residential
A -Agricultural by right; over 80' Other towers -100% property lines, 300' from residential
by conditional use Screen base
Shared use
West Des Moines Permitted Setbacks same as for principal structure (50')
OS -Open Space Conditional Use
Agricultural
Ames Special Use Permit Demonstrate need
A-Agricultural Provide for collocation
Minimum height necessary to achieve objective
Setback = greater of 50% of height or 60'
Cedar Falls Planning If in area designated as future residential, must demonstrate
A-Agricultural Commission and that proposal is in interest of the community. In such case,
City Council limited to 80' height and monopole.
approval Must be at least 750' from any existing tower of similar
height.
Demonstrate no existing tower can accommodate use
Accommodate 3 additional carriers
Screened base
Urbandale Conditional Use 100' or less
A1-Agricultural Non-residential property (i.e. church) or designated as
commercial or industrial in comp plan
Bettendorf Special Use Permit Accommodate collocation
A1-Agricultural
5b
Prepared by: Karen Howard, Associate Planner, 410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, ZONING, TO ALLOW COMMUNICATION TOWERS
IN THE INTERIM DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL (ID-RS AND ID-RM) ZONES BY SPECIAL
EXCEPTION, SPECIFY DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS
FOR COMMUNICATION TOWERS, CLARIFY CO-LOCATION REQUIREMENTS, AND ADD A
REQUIREMENT TO REMOVE TOWERS AFTER THE USE IS DISCONTINUED.
WHEREAS, the Interim Development Zones are intended to provide for areas of managed
growth where agricultural and other non-urban uses of land may continue until the City is able
to provide services; and
WHEREAS, the Interim Development Residential Zones designations, ID-RS and ID-RM,
identify areas suitable for future residential development; and
WHEREAS, demand for cell phone service has grown dramatically over the last several
years, particularly in residential areas and many people now depend solely on cell phones for
phone service; and
WHEREAS, the current zoning code restricts communications towers to non-residential
zones, such as commercial, industrial, and research park zones and interim development zones
with those same designations, which potentially causes cell phone service reception problems
for cell phone users in areas of the city where there is an absence of such non-residential
zoning; and
WHEREAS, with this amendment, standards will be established to ensure that
communications towers are not obtrusive and are carefully considered by the Board of
Adjustment on a case-by-case basis, so they will not detract from or discourage future
residential development; and
WHEREAS, communications towers no longer in use should be removed and the land
graded and re-seeded so as not to discourage future development or detract from existing
neighborhoods and commercial areas; and
WHEREAS, requirements for constructing towers in a manner that will allow co-location will
prevent unnecessary proliferation of communication towers in the city.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I. The Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa is hereby amended as
follows:
Deleting paragraphs 14-4B-4E-4 through 14-46-4E-6 and substituting in lieu thereof:
4. Communication Transmission Facilities in Residential Zones and in the ID-RS and
ID-RM Zones
a. Communications antennae are permitted in all Residential Zones and in the ID-RS
and ID-RM Zones, provided the following conditions are met:
(1) The antenna is mounted on an existing communications tower, on the roof
of a principal building that contains a nonresidential use or on the roof of a
building that is accessory to a nonresidential use, or on another tall
structure that is permitted in the zone. Examples include church and
school buildings, water towers and clock towers. A maximum of two
antennae is permitted per building or structure.
(2) The height of the antenna shall not exceed the height of the existing
structure or building to which it is attached by more than 20 feet. If it
exceeds this limit, a special exception is required to ensure that the
antennae and any associated structure is designed to blend into its
Ordinance No.
Page 2
surroundings, or be camouflaged so as not to be obtrusive or detract from
neighboring properties.
(3) Strobe lighting is prohibited in Residential Zones. Therefore, any antenna
that requires such illumination is prohibited.
(4) Any equipment associated with an antenna must be located within the
exterior walls of the building to which the antenna is attached. No separate
equipment shed is permitted, except if the antenna is attached to a tall
structure that is not a building. In such a case, a separate equipment shed
is only allowed by special exception if it can be demonstrated that the shed
can be adequately screened or designed in a manner that blends in with
the residential character or future residential character of the surrounding
area.
b. Communications towers are allowed by special exception in the ID-RS and ID-RM
Zones and must comply with the following approval criteria:
(1) The proposed tower serves an area that cannot be served by an existing
tower or industrial property or by locating antennae on existing structures
in the area. The applicant must document attempts to utilize existing
structures, towers, and commercial and industrial properties within one-half
mile of the proposed tower. Such documentation must include maps
illustrating the location of existing towers and potential alternative sites for
antenna and towers that have been explored by the applicant and the
applicant must state the reasons that these locations were not feasible.
(2) The proposed tower will be designed and constructed in a manner that will
camouflage the structure and reduce its visual impact on the surrounding
area. Examples of camouflage design include monopoles, which do not
have guy wires or support trusses and that are painted to blend in with the
sky or surroundings, towers camouflaged as flag poles, monuments,
steeples, or the integration of rooftop towers onto existing buildings, water
towers, etc. Rooftop towers must use materials similar to or that blend in
with the structure to which it is attached. Other camouflaged tower
structures must be of similar height and appearance as other similar
structures allowed in the zone, e.g. towers camouflaged as light poles or
utility poles must be of similar height and appearance as other such poles.
The applicant must include an illustration of how the tower would appear in
the proposed location.
(3) The proposed tower will be no taller than is necessary to provide the service
intended. Evidence presented should include coverage maps illustrating
current gaps in coverage and changes to coverage with the proposed
tower. Communications towers are exempt from the maximum height
standards of the base zone, but under no circumstance may the tower be
taller than 120 feet from grade. If a communications tower is camouflaged
to appear similar to another common structure allowed in the zone, it must
comply with the same height standards that would apply to the type of
structure that it emulates. For example, if the tower is camouflaged as a
light pole, flag pole, or utility pole it must not exceed the height limitation
for such structures as specified in the base zone. If no height standard
exists in the code for such a structure, it must be designed to be of similar
height and appearance to other similar or typical structures. If the tower is
Ordinance No.
Page 3
camouflaged as a chimney, steeple, or other similar rooftop structure, the
Board may exempt it from the base zone height standards if it is designed
as if it were an integral part of the building and is not out of scale or
proportion to other similar rooftop structures.
(4) The proposed tower will be set back from the property line at least a
distance equal to the height of the tower.
(5) Any equipment associated with the tower facility will be enclosed in an
equipment shed, cabinet, or building, which must be adequately screened
from view of the public right-of-way and adjacent properties and designed
in a manner that will be compatible and blend in with future residential
development.
(6) The proposed tower will not utilize aback-up generator as a principal power
source. Back-up generators may only be used in the event of a power
outage. The Board of Adjustment may require that the electric distribution
line necessary to furnish electric service to the tower be made
underground from existing systems, however, this requirement would not
apply to electrical transformers, meter pedestal, switch gear and other
appurtenances impractical to bury.
(7) Strobe lighting is prohibited. Therefore, any tower that requires such
illumination is prohibited in these zones.
(8) The proposed tower must be designed and constructed to accommodate at
least one additional user, unless in doing so the tower will exceed the 120
foot height limitation or if the Board of Adjustment determines that allowing
the additional height needed to accommodate another user will detract
from the area to the extent that it will prevent future development as
envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant shall provide a
certification by a professional engineer licensed in this state that the
proposed tower will be designed to permit a second antenna system of
comparable size to be added to the tower above or immediately below the
original antenna system.
(9) If use of the tower is discontinued, the tower and any associated equipment
must be removed by the owner of the tower, the operator, or the owner of
the property within one year of discontinuance of use and the land graded
and re-planted to prevent erosion. The applicant shall present a signed
lease agreement, a recorded declaration of covenants, or other
satisfactory evidence acknowledging this obligation.
5. Communication Transmission Facilities in Commercial Zones and the ID-C Zone;
Privately-Owned Communication Transmission Facilities in Public Zones.
a. Communications antennae are permitted in all Commercial Zones, the ID-C Zone,
and in Public Zones provided the following conditions are met:
(1) The antenna must be mounted on another structure allowed in the zone,
such as a rooftop, light pole, or utility pole.
(2) In the CN-1 and CO-1 Zones and in any ID-C Zone that is intended for a
future CN-1 Zone, strobe lighting is prohibited. Therefore, any antenna
that requires such illumination is prohibited in these zones.
Ordinance No.
Page 4
(3) In Public Zones and in the CC-2, CH-1, CI-1, CB-2, CB-5, and CB-10 Zones
and in any ID-C Zone not intended for a future CN-1 Zone, antennae may
not be illuminated by strobe lights unless required by federal regulations. If
alternatives are allowed under federal guidelines, strobe lights may not be
used.
(4) Any equipment associated with an antenna must be located within the
exterior walls of the building to which the antenna is attached or screened
from view of the public right-of-way and any adjacent property to at least to
the S3 standard (See Article 14-5F, Screening and Buffering Standards). If
the equipment is located on the roof it must be set back and screened so
that it is not within public view or appears to be part of the building.
b. Communications towers are allowed by special exception in Public Zones, the ID-
C, CO-1, CN-1, CH-1, CI-1, CC-2, CB-2, CB-5, and CB-10 Zones and must
comply with the following approval criteria:
(1) If the proposed tower will be located in an ID-C Zone that is intended for a
future Neighborhood Commercial Zone according to the Comprehensive
Plan, as amended, then it must comply with any specific standards listed
below for CN-1 Zones.
(2) The proposed tower serves an area that cannot be served by an existing
tower or industrial property or by locating antennae on existing structures
in the area. The applicant must document attempts to utilize existing
structures, towers, and industrial properties within one-half mile of the
proposed tower. Such documentation must include maps illustrating the
location of existing towers and potential alternative sites for antenna and
towers that have been explored by the applicant and the applicant must
state the reasons that these locations were not feasible.
(3) The proposed tower will be constructed in a manner that will camouflage the
structure and reduce its visual impact on the surrounding area. Examples
of camouflage design include monopoles, which do not have guy wires or
support trusses and that are painted to blend in with the sky or
surroundings, towers camouflaged as flag poles, monuments, steeples, or
the integration of rooftop towers onto existing buildings, water towers, etc.
Rooftop towers must use materials similar to or that blend in with the
structure to which it is attached. Other camouflaged tower structures must
be of similar height and appearance as other similar structures allowed in
.the zone, e.g. towers camouflaged as light poles or utility poles must be of
similar height and appearance as other such poles. The applicant must
include an illustration of how the tower would appear in the proposed
location.
(4) The proposed tower will be no taller than is necessary to provide the service
intended. Evidence presented should include coverage maps illustrating
current gaps in coverage and changes to coverage with the proposed
tower. In the ID-C (except areas intended for CN-1), CH-1, CC-2, CI-1,
CB-2, CB-5 and CB-10 Zones, communications towers are exempt from
the maximum height standards of the base zone, but under no
circumstance may the tower be taller than 120 feet from grade. In the CO-
1, CN-1, and any I D-C Zone intended for CN-1, communications towers
must comply with the same height standards that would apply to the type
Ordinance No.
Page 5
of structure to which they are attached or if a communications tower is
camouflaged to appear similar to another common structure allowed in the
zone, it must comply with the same height standards that would apply to
the type of structure that it emulates. For example, if the tower is
camouflaged as a light pole, flag pole, or utility pole it must not exceed the
height limitation for such structures as specified in the base zone. If no
height standard exists in the code for such a structure, it must be designed
to be of similar height and appearance to other similar or typical structures.
If the tower is camouflaged as a chimney or other similar rooftop structure,
the Board may exempt it from the base zone height standards if it is
designed as if it were an integral part of the building and is not out of scale
or proportion to other similar rooftop structures.
(5) The proposed tower will be setback at least a distance equal to the height of
the tower from any Residential Zone, ID-RS Zone, and ID-RM Zone.
(6) Any equipment associated with the tower facility will be enclosed in an
equipment shed, cabinet, or building, which must be adequately screened
from view of the public right-of-way and any adjacent residential or
commercial property.
(7) The proposed tower will not utilize aback-up generator as a principal power
source. Back-up generators may only be used in the event of a power
outage.
(8) In the CN-1 and CO-1 Zones and in any ID-C Zone that is intended for a
future CN-1 Zone, strobe lighting is prohibited. Therefore, any tower that
requires such illumination is prohibited in these zones. The tower will not
be illuminated by strobe lights unless required by federal regulations. If
alternatives are allowed under federal guidelines, strobe lights may not be
used.
(9) The proposed tower must be designed and constructed to accommodate at
least one additional user, unless in doing so the tower will exceed the 120
foot height limitation or if the Board of Adjustment determines that allowing
the additional height needed to accommodate another user will detract
from the area to the extent that it will prevent future development intended
in the zone. The applicant shall provide a certification by a professional
engineer licensed in this state that the proposed tower will be designed to
permit a second antenna system of comparable size to be added to the
tower above or immediately below the original antenna system.
(10) If use of the tower is discontinued, the tower and any associated equipment
must be removed by the owner of the tower, the operator, or the owner of
the property within one year of discontinuance of use and the land graded
and re-planted to prevent erosion. The applicant shall present a signed
lease agreement, a recorded declaration of covenants, or other
satisfactory evidence acknowledging this obligation.
6. Communication Transmission Facilities in Industrial and Research Park Zones
and the ID-RP and ID-I Zones
a. Communications antennae are permitted in all Industrial and Research Park Zones
and in the ID-I and ID-RP Zones, provided the antenna is mounted on another
structure allowed in the zone, such as a rooftop, light pole, or utility pole.
Ordinance No.
Page 6
b. Communications towers are allowed in the ID-I, I-1 and I-2 Zones and by special
exception in the ID-RP, RDP and ORP Zones, provided the following conditions
are met:
(1) The proposed tower will be setback at least a distance equal to the height of
the tower from any Residential Zone, ID-RS Zone, and ID-RM Zone.
(2) The tower and any associated equipment, buildings, or structures must be
screened from the public right-of-way and any bordering Residential or
Commercial Zone to at least the S3 standard (See Article 14-5F, Screening
and Buffering Standards).
(3) The proposed tower must be designed and constructed to accommodate at
least two additional users. The applicant shall provide a certification by a
professional engineer licensed in this state that the proposed tower will be
designed to permit two additional antenna systems of comparable size to
be added to the tower above or immediately below the original antenna
system.
(4) If use of the tower is discontinued, the tower and any associated equipment
must be removed by the owner of the tower, the operator, or the owner of
the property within one year of discontinuance of use and the land graded
and re-planted to prevent erosion. The applicant shall present a signed
lease agreement, a recorded declaration of covenants, or other
satisfactory evidence acknowledging this obligation.
SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions
of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be
adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the
Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or
unconstitutional.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage,
approval and publication.
Passed and approved this day of , 20
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Approved by
City Attorney's Office ~ fa a ~U~
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by
as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Bailey
Champion
Correia
Hayek
O'Donnell
Wilburn
Wright
First Consideration 9/29/2009
Vote for passage: AYES: Bailey, Champion,
Wright. NAYS: None. ABSENT:
Second Consideration _
Vote for passage:
that the Ordinance
Correia, Hayek, O'Donnell, Wilburn,
None.
Date published
Sc
Prepared by: Karen Howard, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5251 (REZ09-00005)
ORDINANCE N0.
AN ORDINANCE REZONING 3,450 SQUARE FEET OF LAND LOCATED AT 611 SOUTHGATE
AVENUE FROM COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC-2) TO INTENSIVE COMMERICAL (CI-1) (REZ09-
00005)
WHEREAS, the applicant, The Breese Co, Inc., has requested a rezoning of 3,450 square feet of land
located at 611 Southgate Avenue from Community Commercial (CC-2) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1 ); and
WHEREAS, the address of 611 Southgate Avenue encompasses two lots, Lot 8 and Lot 9, with Lot 9
currently zoned CC-2 and Lot 8 zoned CI-1;and
WHEREAS, the applicant intends to shift the lot line of Lot 8, 23 feet to the east by plat of survey; and
WHEREAS, the Iowa City Zoning Code states that "where the zones designated on the Zoning Map are
bounded approximately by lot lines, the lot lines shall be construed to be the boundaries of the zones. The
intent of this provision is that no lot shall be divided by a zone boundary;" and
WHEREAS, it is therefore necessary to shift the zoning boundary to mirror the lot line adjustment; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is in the South Planning District, which designates this area as
appropriate for intensive commercial development;
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the proposed rezoning and determined
that it complies with the Comprehensive Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I APPROVAL. Property legally described as THE WEST 23.00 FEET OF LOT 9, BLOCK 7,
BRAVERMAN CENTER, IOWA CITY, IOWA, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN
PLAT BOOK 8 AT PAGE 69 IN THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER,
CONTAINING 0.08 ACRE (3450 SQUARE FEET) AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND
RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD, is hereby reclassified from its current zoning designation of Community
Commercial (CC-2) Zone to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) Zone.
SECTION III. 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 bylaw.
SECTION IV. 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, at the owner's expense, all 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 bylaw.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Approved by
~~~~
City Attorney's Office ~ ~2 ~ ~~, ~
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:
Bailey
Champion
Correia
Hayek
O'Donnell
Wilburn
Wright
First Consideration 9/29/2009
Vote for passage: AYES: Champion, Correia, Hayek, O'Donnell, Wilburn, Wright,Bailey.
NAYS: None.
Second Consideration _
Vote for passage:
ABSENT: None.
Date published
~~
Prepared by: Karen Howard, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5251 (REZ09-00005)
ORDINANCE N0.
AN ORDINANCE REZONING 3,450 SQUARE FEET OF LAND LOCATED AT 611 SOUTHGATE
AVENUE FROM COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC-2) TO INTENSIVE COMMERICAL (CI-1) (REZ09-
00005)
WHEREAS, the applicant, The Breese Co, Inc., has requested a r zoning of 3,450 square feet of land
located at 611 Sout ate Avenue from Community Commercial (CC-2) o Intensive Commercial (CI-1 ); and
WHEREAS, the ddress of 611 Southgate Avenue encompassed two lots, Lot 8 and Lot 9, with Lot 9
currently zoned CC-2 d Lot 8 zoned CI-1;and
WHEREAS, the app ~ ant intends to shift the lot line of Lot 8, 23 f~et to the east by plat of survey; and
WHEREAS, the Iowa ity Zoning Code states that "where the zones designated on the Zoning Map are
bounded approximately by I t lines, the lot lines shall be construed+to be the boundaries of the zones. The
intent of this provision is that n lot shall be divided by a zone bound;~ry;" and
WHEREAS, it is therefore n essary to shift the zoning boundary to mirror the lot line adjustment; and
WHEREAS, the subject pro rtv is in the South Planning' District, which designates this area as
appropriate for intensive commercia
WHEREAS, the Planning and ~
that it complies with the Comprehen
~pment;
Commission has reviewed the proposed rezoning and determined
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA:
I described as is hereby reclassified
nu ity Commerci~il (CC-2) Zone to Intensive Commercial (CI-1)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED Bti
SECTION I APPROVAL. Property leg
from its current zoning designation of Com
Zone.
SECTION III. ZONING MAP. The Building
zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to c
and publication of this ordinance by law.
City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a
office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, low
SECTION V. REPEALER. All ordinances and
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION VI. SEVERABILITY. If any section, ro
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not
for i~ hereby authorized and directed to change the
to t}Sis amendment upon the final passage, approval
Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the
py of this ordinance and to record the same, at the
at a owner's expense, all as provided bylaw.
is o ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
vision or`~
affect the
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged Inv lid or uncons>:Itu
SECTION VII. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Or finance shall be in
publication, as provided by law.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Approved by
City Attorney's Office
of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
lidity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
after its final passage, approval and
~.
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Item: REZ09-00005
611 Southgate Ave
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Prepared by: Karen Howard
Date: August 20, 2009
The Breese Co, Inc.
611 Southgate Avenue
Iowa City, IA 52244-2267
Contact Person:
Phone:
Requested Action:
Purpose:
Location:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
Comprehensive Plan:
File Date:
45 Day Limitation Period:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Thomas Breese
(319) 330-4050
Rezoning from CC-2 to CI-1
Allow use of an existing building for a CI-1
use
611 Southgate Avenue
3,450 square feet
Commercial / CC-2
North: commercial / CI-1 and CC-2
South: MF residential / RM-12
East: commercial / CC-2
West: commercial / CI-1
Intensive Commercial
July 30, 2009
September 13, 2009
The subject property at 611 Southgate Avenue is unusual because it contains an existing building
that straddles two lots (Lot 8 and Lot 9 as shown on the attached exhibit). However, the zoning of
the eastern lot (Lot 9) is Community Commercial (CC-2) and the zoning designation of the lot to
the west (Lot 8) is Intensive Commercial (CI-1 ). Given that there is a significant overlap in the
types of land uses allowed in these zones, this has not posed a significant problem for the owner.
In fact, they prefer keeping the split zoning to give them maximum flexibility to lease the space in
the building to a wide variety of businesses. The owner of the building has requested a lot line
adjustment to shift the eastern boundary of lot 8, 23 feet to the east to reflect remodeling in the
interior of the building to accommodate a new CI-1 tenant that would like more space. However,
this particular land use, an intensive animal-related commercial use, is not allowed in the CC-2
2
zone. The zoning code states that "where the zones designated on the Zoning Map are bounded
approximately by lot lines, the lot lines shall be construed to be the boundaries of the zones. The
intent of this provision is that no lot shall be divided by a zone boundary." (Subsection 14-1 B-4C).
It is therefore necessary to shift the zoning boundary to mirror the lot line adjustment. The
applicant plans to reconfigure the interior space and build a new fire wall along the new lot line
and zoning boundary.
The applicant has indicated that they have chosen not to use the "Good Neighbor Policy."
ANALYSIS:
Comprehensive Plan: The subject property is located in the South District. The South District
plan map designates this property as "intensive commercial." The plan states that "although
there may be some redevelopment of the existing commercial and residential areas south of
Highway 6, the character and major infrastructure of these developments have already been
established and major changes are not anticipated."
Staff finds that this minor adjustment to the zone boundary between the CI-1 and the CC-2
Zones is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning code requirements and will
have little, if any, effect on future development or redevelopment in the area.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that REZ09-00005, a request to rezone approximately 3,450 square
feet of property from Community Commercial (CC-2) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) Zone
be approved.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Rezoning Exhibits
Approved by: ~G~./.~i4~
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
i ~ ~ ~
~ ~ _ __ _. ~
` ~ ; C
,N :~ ,
t
c z ~ ,_ __ ____
r, o
J~~
~ N
_: , ,t o
o W
/ ~ ~ ~Y
o~;
~, - ~
__ ~ _,
~~
- _- .__-~ r ~,
,` ,`' , ' ~ ' ~ ~- N
~V,
-- W
-__-___.~ is ~n~o~~
~ ~
j t
I
j ! i ii
__._L__~_. ~
- k
`~
_ _ r_. _._ _.__._
.__~
W
__ ____._... Q
W _._ .....____.
~ v Q
.~. ~ U i =
O ~ ~...___------ ~ - _---_ ___ ..._ C~
r
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
1 ~1~ 8 a~
._____ __.__~. _ ~A
~ ! ~ ~
r
,___~___ ___ o
0
V
__ ~__.
___
a
~,
~, z
0
DR
V
WATERFRONT ~, O
,, ~ ',
r--1
t` ~ '~,` w
t} ~I
O
O
O
G1
O
N
O
O
a~
aA
x
0
z
0
V
O
W
H
- v~
-~
os~
-- __
r ~. ,.
ET U
~~
~ O
N
f~
~_
_ ~
H
~_ ~
~~
~I
W
J
N~
~~
z '
~~
N
~1
~I 117 ~A7-C ~~ --
a
0
_~
m
N
- ~NI"1 10"1 'JNI.ISIX3 ._
I
00 v
°z
~~ ''
~ --
~4
.~
~_J_
a..,
.,.
!~ ?::i Pig r?~ SD
~~
9
~~~
~o ;
~`~
~~d~
z
0
~°~W
~~ i
~~v
~~
,4~
~r
I~ Q h
~~~
~9
-~z~.
. E o~r~r
F.
Q
r=~
Prepared by: Eric Goers, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5030
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 8, POLICE REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 6, PERSONS UNDER
EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE, TO ADD A NEW SECTION 2, JUVENILE CURFEW TO ADD A NEW
JUVENILE CURFEW ORDINANCE.
WHEREAS, the City has determined that there has been an increase in juvenile violence, juvenile
gang activity, and crime by persons under the age of eighteen (18) resulting in juveniles being involved in
a wide range of unacceptable behavior including vandalism, breach of the peace, assaults, and
intimidation of residents;
WHEREAS, persons under the age of eighteen (18) are particularly susceptible by their lack of
maturity and experience to participate in unlawful and gang-related activities and to be victims of older
perpetrators of crime; and
WHEREAS, the City has found that there has been a significant breakdown in the supervision and
guidance normally provided by parents and guardians for juveniles resulting in an increase in the crimes
and other unacceptable behavior cited above; and
WHEREAS, the City has an interest in providing for the protection of minors from each other and from
other persons, for the enforcement of parental control over and responsibility for children, for the
protection of the general public, and for the reduction of the incidence of juvenile criminal activities; and
WHEREAS, the offensive activities of juveniles are not easily controlled by existing laws and
ordinances; and
WHEREAS, a curfew for those under the age of eighteen (18) will be in the interest of the public
health, safety, and general welfare and will help to attain the foregoing objectives and to diminish the
undesirable impact of such conduct on the citizens of Iowa City and will promote the public good, safety
and welfare; and
WHEREAS, parental responsibility for the whereabouts of children is the accepted norm and legal
sanctions to enforce such responsibility have had demonstrated effectiveness in many cities, the City has
determined that a curfew ordinance will increase the responsibility of parents and guardians for juveniles
within their control and decrease juvenile delinquency; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to ensure that children out in public for legitimate reasons, including the
exercise of certain fundamental rights, will not be subjected to a penalty; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to adopt this ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I. AMENDMENTS.
8-6-2: JUVENILE CURFEW:
A. Definitions. For use in this section, the following terms are defined:
1. "Emergency errand" means, but is not limited to, an errand relating to a fire, a natural disaster, an
automobile accident or any other situation requiring immediate action to prevent serious illness,
bodily injury or loss of life.
2. "Knowingly" means knowledge which a responsible adult should reasonably be expected to have
concerning the whereabouts of a minor in that responsible adult's custody. This is an objective
standard. It shall, therefore, be no defense that an adult responsible for a minor was completely
indifferent to the activities or conduct or whereabouts of the minor.
3. "Minor" means any unemancipated person under the age of eighteen (18) years.
4. "Nonsecured custody" means custody in an unlocked multipurpose area, such as a lobby, office
or interrogation room which is not designed, set aside or used as a secure detention area, and
the person arrested is not physically secured during the period of custody in the area; the person
is physically accompanied by a peace officer or a person employed by the facility where the
person arrested is being held; and the use of the area is limited to providing nonsecured custody
only while awaiting transfer to an appropriate juvenile facility or to court, for contacting of and
release to the person's parents or other responsible adult or for other administrative purposes;
but not for longer than six (6) hours without the oral or written order of a judge or magistrate
authorizing the detention.
5. "Public place" includes stores, parking lots, parks, playgrounds, streets, alleys and sidewalks
dedicated to public use; and also includes such parts of buildings and other premises whether
publicly or privately owned which are used by the general public or to which the general public is
invited commercially for a fee or otherwise; or in or on which the general public is permitted
without specific invitation; or to which the general public has access. For purposes of this
section, a vehicle or other conveyance is considered to be a public place when in the areas
defined above.
6. "Responsible adult" means a parent, guardian or other adult specifically authorized by law or
authorized by a parent or guardian to have custody or control of a minor.
7. "Unemancipated" means unmarried and/or still under the custody or control of a responsible
adult. "Emancipated" is as defined in Iowa Code Section 252.16(4), as amended.
B. Curfew Established. A curfew applicable to minors is established and shall be enforced as follows:
1. Unless accompanied by a responsible adult, no minor thirteen (13) years of age or younger shall
be in any public place between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m.
2. Unless accompanied by a responsible adult, no minor fourteen (14) years of age through fifteen
(15) years of age shall be in any public place between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m.
3. Unless accompanied by a responsible adult, no minor sixteen (16) years of age through
seventeen (17) years of age shall be in any public place between the hours of 12:00 a.m.
(midnight) to 5:00 a.m.
C. Exceptions. The following are exceptions to the curfew:
1. The minor is accompanied by a responsible adult.
2. The minor is on the sidewalk or property where the minor resides or on either side of the place
where the minor resides and the adult responsible for the minor has given permission for the
minor to be there.
3. The minor is present at or is traveling between home and one of the following:
a. Minor's place of employment in a business, trade or occupation in which the minor is
permitted by law to be engaged or, if traveling, within one hour before or one hour after
the work shift;
b. Minor's place of religious activity or, if traveling, within one hour before or one hour after
the religious activity;
c. Governmental or political activity or, if traveling, within one hour before or one hour after
the activity;
d. School activity or, if traveling, within one hour before or one hour after the activity;
e. Assembly such as a march, protest, demonstration, sit-in or meeting of an association for
the advancement of economic, political, religious or cultural matters, or for any other
activity protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees of free
exercise of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly or, if traveling, within one
hour before or one hour after the activity.
4. The minor is on an emergency errand for a responsible adult;
5. The minor is engaged in interstate travel through the City beginning, ending or passing through
the City when such travel is by direct route.
6. The minor's business, trade or occupation, in which the minor is permitted by law to be engaged,
requires the presence of the minor in the public place.
D. Parental Responsibility. It shall be unlawful for a parent or guardian having legal custody of a minor
knowingly to permit or by ineffective control to allow the minor to be in violation of this Section. This
requirement is intended to hold a neglectful or careless parent or guardian up to a reasonable community
standard of parental responsibility through an objective test. It shall, therefore, be no defense that a
parent or guardian was completely indifferent to the activities or conduct or whereabouts of such minor.
E. Enforcement Procedures.
1. Determination of Age. In determining the age of the juvenile and in the absence of convincing
evidence such as a birth certificate or driver's license, a peace officer on the street shall, in the
first instance, use his or her best judgment in determining age.
2. Grounds for Taking into Custody; Conditions of Custody. Grounds for taking a minor into custody
for a curfew violation are that the person refuses to sign the citation without qualification; persists
in violating the ordinance; refuses to provide proper identification or to identify himself or herself;
or constitutes an immediate threat to the person's own safety or to the safety of the public. A law
enforcement officer who takes a minor into custody for a curfew violation may keep the minor in
custody either in a shelter care facility or in any non-secured setting. The officer shall not place
bodily restraints, such as handcuffs, on the minor unless the minor physically resists or threatens
physical violence when being taken into, or while in, custody, or presents a risk of injury to the
minor or others. A minor shall not be placed in detention for a curfew violation.
3. Notification of Responsible Adult. After a minor is taken into custody, the law enforcement officer
shall notify the adult responsible for the minor as soon as possible. The minor shall be released
to the adult responsible for the minor upon the promise of such person to produce the child in
court at such time as the court may direct.
4. Minor Without Adult Supervision. If a peace officer determines that a minor does not have adult
supervision because the peace officer cannot locate the minor's parent, guardian or other person
legally responsible for the care of the minor, within a reasonable time, the peace officer shall
attempt to place the minor with an adult relative of the minor, an adult person who cares for the
child or another adult person who is known to the child. In the event no such person can be
promptly located, the peace officer shall place the minor in shelter as specified in Iowa Code
Section 232.20 and 232.21.
F. A violation of this section shall be a simple misdemeanor punishable by a fine not in excess of fifty
dollars ($50.00).
SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of
this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be effective upon publication.
Passed and approved this day of , 2009.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
p oved by
City Attorney's Office
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:
Bailey
Champion
Correia
Hayek
O'Donnell
Wilburn
Wright
First Consideration 9 / 15 / 2009
Vote for passage: AYES: O'Donnell, Wright, Champion, Hayek. NAYS: Correia, Bailey
Wilburn. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration
Vote for passage:
Date published
09-29-09
7
Marian Karr
From: Henry Harper [Harper.Henry@iccsd.k12.ia.us]
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 8:39 AM
To: Council
Attachments: Curfew outreach request.doc
This correspondence will become a public record.
9/21 /2009
This is a request. My name is Henri Harper and I am the Juvenile Court Liaison at City
High School. I have lived and worked in Iowa City for 12 years and I am concerned
with the tone and direction of which Iowa City is headed. I agree that something needs
to be done as a community, but at this point I am not sure that a curfew is the right
solution. I have discussed and talked about what should be done with a lot of the
community people and professionals that I know; at this point I would like to have the
council and the city give the parents, myself, and the kids an opportunity to establish an
east side watch group of parents, students, and kids, who are willing to walk the streets,
talk to kids and their families about why it is important to not be on the street at certain
times of the night. I strongly believe there are only a few kids that are the problem,
therefore I would like to get everybody involved in the solution. I am not particularly
disagreeing with the curfew, but I would like to stay away from a "fight" and bad feelings
between the African -American community and the City of Iowa City. I believe that by
working together, this situation can get better.
My plan is to talk to Iowa City Police, homeowners, some parents, other
community resources, and kids to establish this group of individuals. The goal to get
everyone on the same page that this is a community issue and is not directed only at a
certain population of students.
We will walk the streets in the evenings, talking to kids and their parents about
why it is important to be off the streets. I believe there are a lot of parents that may
support the City's decision for a curfew, but the approach we are taking is
counterproductive. The goal of this outreach method is also to stop the finger-pointing,
anger, and blame that is slowly simmering in the African-American community. This is
not simply an east-side issue, it is an Iowa City issue. We need to include everyone in the
decision making for a solution.
I believe that after we have tried some of these alternative solutions, if the City still
believes there is a need for a curfew, then everyone will be involved in the process.
With colder weather approaching, kids will be less likely to be on the streets at this point.
Given this time of year, a curfew may not be necessary. Therefore it will give us time to
establish a rapport with the community for the need for change for next year.
Thank you for considering this request.
Sincerely,
Henri Harper
701 Chestnut Ct.
Iowa City, IA 52240
(319)936-6611
harper.henry@iccsd.kl2.ia.us
Page 1 of 1
Marian Karr
From: Mary Hubbard [princecoat@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 5:05 PM
To: Council
Subject: Iowa City curfew
To the members of the City Council,
From the outset, I believe that there are no more important opinions on the curfew issue than those of
the young people in our community who will be affected by it. As an older resident, I nonetheless have
a few concerns to offer up:
Greeley, Colorado, a city of the size and complexity of our own, instituted a trial curfew one year ago.
The Tribune, Greeley's newspaper recently issued an editorial on making the policy permanent entitled,
"Curfew Needs More Time to Determine if it's Worth the Effort, Money:"
h.ttp://wwwgreeleytr~_bune_.com/article/_2.00..9.0.7.19/T...RIB.ED_IT/907.189969/1025/RSS& l~ckCurrentPa~e=2
The editorial addresses my concerns about the curfew: 1) racial profiling, and 2) is it an effective
deterent to crime? A curfew may give the police some leeway against the perception of racial profiling,
since all teens are subject to the consequences equally, but one has to wonder by what reporting
procedures the police will respond or where cruisers will center their efforts. Are they going to monitor
City Park more carefully, or will their efforts be directed to the Southwest side?
Secondly, I need to know what crimes are being perpetrated by teenagers. Are they indeed breaking the
law, or is there a perception that crime eminates from numbers? I don't know; but I think the
Council needs to considers a statement that can be backed up by facts.
Finally, the graduated curfew frankly sounds like an administrative nightmare. If we must have one,
can't it be X to Y period: 12 to 5 a.m. let's say. If there are night games going on in City Park by which I
live, I'd be happy enough for the noise to stop at midnight so I can go to sleep.
Sincerely,
Mary Hubbard
4 W Park Rd
Iowa City 52246
9/ 17/2009
Page 1 of I
Marian Karr
From: Young, Vershawn A [vershawn-young@uiowa.edu]
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 12:04 PM
To: Council
Subject: The Curfew Ordinance
Dear Council Members: I'm writing to ask--even plead--that you do not pass the curfew ordinance. Besides the
social problems and issues involved, the ordinance seems to attempt to apply a legal face to illegal practices. In
other words, it is not legal to disporportionately subject a group of people to greater scrutiny than other
communities or people. This ordinance is a response to growing complaints of a community about other members
of that same community. Enacting a city ordinance to address one neighborhood with the intent to have a legal
means to stop and interrogate only certain members of that group can not be right no matter how one attempts
to rationalize it. It's a wrong measure through and through. And it is one that, if passed, should be strategically
and structurally disobeyed by the entire city. As an activist, I, for one, will first challenge the legality of the
ordinance in the court. The basis of that challenge will be the discriminatory discourse that gives rise to its
implentation. The Press Citizen has quoted the Chief of Police as saying that there will be a high proportion of
contact with blacks. There are other strong examples. Second, I will try to organize cases that measure how
police respond to kids of different ethnic groups from different parts of town. And there will be more, but I shall
reserve those for the time when they shall be implemented in response to this very wrong ordinance. This
ordinace is not the solution to the problems that the community members on the Souteast side would like to have
addressed. And I would urge the Council NOT to pass this ordinance and to work with those of us who are
concerned about the community in question to come up with equitable solutions. This ordinance if passed will
create more problems than the one it's being enacted to address.
I urge you not to enact this very problematic ordinance.
Sincerely,
Dr. Vay
Vershawn Ashanti Young, Ph.D., M.Ed., M.A.
Associate Professor
Areas: African American Studies, Communication, Gender, and Performance
University of Iowa
164 EPB
Iowa City, IA 52242
Phone: 319-335-0186; Fax: 319-353-2392
Website: http•//www uiowa edu/rhetoric/faculty/youn~/index.html
9/18/2009
Marian Karr
From: jazb1058@inabc.net
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 11:06 AM
To: Council; Mike Wright; Ross Wilburn; Matt Hayek; Amy Correia; Regenia Bailey
Subject: you want people to suggest solutions not just complain about problems
Davenport has been working on the same issues we have and now Cedar Rapids is working with
Davenport to do similar to their problem neighborhoods.
I am afraid that if we do not follow the same pattern we will get those that can no longer
be either place. It isn't a hard program from what I see.
Joyce Barker
Waterfront Neighborhood Association.
2018 Waterfront DR. #128
Iowa City, IA
319-337-9660
Here is an article about it....
Davenport crime rate drops for a 2nd straight year Tory Brecht ~ Posted: Tuesday, May 6,
2008 12:00 am For the second year in a row, the crime rate in Davenport has shown a
double-digit percentage decrease.
According to data compiled by the Davenport Police Department that will be used in its
annual report to the FBI, overall crime is down by 14.6 percent. That includes a 6.6
percent decrease in violent crimes such as murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault
and a 15.4 percent decrease in property crimes such as burglary, theft, automobile theft
and arson.
Police Chief Frank Donchez said the city's three-year-old Crime Control Strategy Program,
which targets specific problem neighborhoods with increased police presence and nuisance
abatement efforts, as well as hard work by officers, have helped reduce criminal behavior.
"I am so impressed with the dedication and hard work of the members of this department,"
he said Monday. "They are not afraid to work and not afraid to do what they need to do to
improve the quality of life of the citizens of Davenport."
A total of 7,048 crimes were reported in Davenport during the 2007 calendar year. In the
previous calendar year, 8,249 crimes were reported.
Robberies were down 13.3 percent, burglary down 16.2 percent and theft down 15.7 percent
between 2006 and 2007. Donchez said there were three homicides in the city during 2007 -
one of which was determined to be a justifiable homicide stemming from an incident in
which two Davenport officers shot a suspect to death after the person threatened them with
a knife.
Donchez, who came to Davenport in March after serving as police chief in Bethlehem, Pa.,
said the perception that crime is bad in Davenport is greater than the reality.
"The city that neighbored the one I came from, Allentown, also had a population of
100,000, and they had 20 homicides in each of the last two years," he said. "To come here
and have people say violent crime is a major issue, I'm not seeing it."
The Guardian Angels, who began patrolling Davenport streets in 2007, also are seeing a
drop in street crime, said the group's spokesman, a Davenport resident who goes by the
name "Bard." He declined to use his real name in order to "protect his family."
"Just as a regular citizen, not as a Guardian Angel, I've noticed the cops have been more
active," he said. "The police department has been reinvigorated in the past six months.
They seem much more enthusiastic about what they're doing."
Bard said the message is getting out that neighbors are not going to put up with crime.
"When we talk to people, we explain why we're out there, and it's contagious," he said.
"It's everybody's duty to take back their neighborhoods. If you take care of the small
things, like the guys hanging out on the porch drinking at 1 in the morning, then the big
crimes also go away."
Donchez agreed that the "broken window" theory - cracking down on smaller issues such as
loitering, littering, public intoxication and other misdemeanors - can help reduce bigger
crime problems.
The department's Neighborhoods Enhanced Towards Success, or NETS, unit has worked four
specific areas - Goose Creek, Northwood Village, 14th and Gaines streets and Heatherton
Heights - with increased patrols and help from parking enforcement and the city's
nuisance abatement attorney to great effect, according to the report.
"We identify areas that are problem areas, then we go in there and saturate them," he
1
said. "It's a cooperative effort with all city efforts.
The Crime Control Strategy Program was started three years ago, and we have seen double-
digit decreases in crimes since then."
City Administrator Craig Malin said he is hopeful the new numbers will help improve
Davenport's reputation.
"There's always a lag between perception and reality, and we're going to have to continue
performing well in this community for the perception to change," he said. "But I think
you're going to see Davenport surpass dozens of cities on the national rankings of safer
places to live."
Malin said reducing crime is one part of a three-pronged strategy to improve the city's
image.
"There are three things people check when they're looking at communities:
the tax rate, the graduation rate and the crime rate," he said. "We're working hard on all
three of those to lower our crime rate, improve our graduation rate and continue with
moderate taxation."
Tory Brecht can be contacted at (563) 383-2329 or tbrecht@gctimes.com.
Comment on this story at gctimes.com.
2
Page 1 of 2
Marian Karr
From: Ross Wilburn
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 12:49 PM
To: Mottinger, Juli A
Cc: Council
Subject: RE: CURFEW
Dear Ms. Mottinger,
Thank you for your correspondence. While you and I may disagree with whether or not a curfew would be an
effective deterrent to anyone choosing violent and criminal behavior, I want to thank you for your very respectful
disagreement with our positions. I have received input from many on both sides of this issue. Unfortunately,
some of those disagreeing with my position have not been respectful and in some cases some of the phone calls
have been threatening. So again, I thank you for your civil disagreement to my position.
You are welcome to view the discussion from the last council meeting online or a repeat on television to hear my
objections. But a brief summary of a few of the areas are:
1. There are existing tools for police to use to address violent & criminal behavior regardless of age or time of day.
2. I did vote for the loitering ordinance that will assist with some gaps in nuisance type ordinances city wide that
we have experienced.
3. My past experiences as a former youth family counselor (including working with families in a town that has a
curfew) taught me that if a young person is going to sneak out after curfew (even if it is not to cause disruptive
behavior outside) the breaking of curfew ends up just being another area of contention, fights, and loss of control
experienced by the parent).
4. It takes away the negotiating ability of parents that are trying to teach earned privileges with filling one's
responsibilities away from us. For example, on a weekend night an older teen can't drive their younger sibling to
a movie or over to a friends house to listen to music order pizza etc. because technically they would be in
violation of curfew.
5. The conversation around "flexibility or judgment" of a police officer inevitably ends up with "only if there is a
problem will the consequences be enforced. So my position is let just deal with the problem behavior.
Thanks again for your input.
Respectfully,
Ross Wilburn
Iowa City Council member
From: Mottinger, Juli A [mailto:juli-mottinger@uiowa.edu].
Sent: Wed 9/16/2009 10:50 AM
To: Regenia Bailey; Ross Wilburn; Amy Correia
Subject: CURFEW
I am writing in support of the proposed curfew. I do not understand why you are against a curfew for underage
people. I think it would help deter them from doing something that they may regret, such as vandalism.
Speaking from personal experience as a parent of children that were very difficult to parent. I think if we had a
curfew when my children were younger it would have been another tool I could have used to help with them
being where they need to be.
I truly believe that when it is after 10 pm and children are out that late then it will lead to them making bad
decisions that can be life altering. A curfew may help dissuade them from getting into trouble. Again I hope
that you vote yes.
Thank you for reading my views.
Juli Mottinger
9~ 23/2009
Page 1 of 2
Marian Karr
From: Ross Wilburn
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 8:58 AM
To: lacpsss@aol.com
Cc: Council
Subject: RE: Southeast Iowa City
Dear Ms. Jersa
I take note of your disagreement, however we will have to agree to disagree. Police protection has been
increased to the South East side of town through overtime and agreements/arrangements with other law
enforcement departments. I have respected the police department for the entire 10 years that I have been on
the city council as well as before that. Just because I ask questions of the police chief doesn't mean I disrespect
him. I ask questions of him like I do with every department head in the city, which is part of my responsibility to
address all areas of concern and opportunity in the entire city. The police chief said a curfew could be another
tool at his departments disposal, not one that he has asked for, but that some members of the community have
asked for. The department has other tools that they currently can use and hopefully after hearing from the city
attorney and her memo, individual police officers are more aware that they have other tools at their disposal to
address behaviors that are already considered illegal. In addition, I did vote for the other ordinance related to
loitering, which will address some gaps and issues in other areas of town too not just the South East side. Also,
I supported funding for the new community service officer. Those are actions we have taken. Arrests have been
made and continue to be made against criminals of all ages. We all want our community to be safe. Your
statement which includes the comment "Evidently you do not" I consider disrespectful, however it is your right to
say whatever you wish. Regardless, of that, I respect your right to freedom of speech. I will continue to disagree
with the use of a curfew for this purpose and will continue to focus on supports that directly address violent,
criminal behavior as well as supports for addressing all issues that impact this community. The final piece to the
equation is continued involvement of neighbors in awareness and prevention. We appreciate neighbors getting
involved and hope they continue to be involved beyond the proposed curfew ordinance. The leaders of the
neighborhood association have done a great job giving their time trying to organize & get people involved in
neighborhood improvement through things like applying for the Program to Improve Neighborhood grants
through the city (which we also approve through our budgeting process) and they can continue to use
involvement of the neighborhood.
Respectfully,
Ross Wilburn
Iowa City Council member
_.
From: Iacpsss@aol.com [mailto:Iacpsss@aol.com]
Sent: Mon 9/21/2009 4:55 PM
To: Regenia Bailey
Cc: amy-Correia@iowa.city.org; Ross Wilburn
Subject: Southeast Iowa City
I am sending this e-mail as a way of commenting how disappointed I am at your vote against
the Curfew. I have lived in my home for over 45 years and have paid taxes the same as
everyone else. It seems though, I am not entitled to the same safety protection as everyone. I
respect the Iowa City Police Department, being understaffed, but still doing the very best they
can. The least you could do is respects the input from them and work with them to give them
the tools they need. There may be other programs and laws we implement later but we need
action now. I am not to old to remember being the age and that after those hours all I did was
get in trouble. Those coming home from Church, School activities, and other social events are
probably having their parents meet them or getting a ride from someone else, they are not the
one running the street and causing trouble. I give the Police the confidence to know the
difference evidently you do not. Please give us the support we need. If this is the trouble area
and we need more call than elsewhere, doesn't that tell you anything. Pat Jirsa
9/23/2009
"~ 1
Marian Karr
From: Kathryn Johansen
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 2:39 PM
To: 'Schlicht, Natalie A'
Cc: *City Council
Subject: RE: Iowa City Curfew Ordinance
Hello Natalie,
Thank you for your email to the City Council. Some Council members do not receive their
email messages directly. Your message will be forwarded to the Council and will be
accepted as official correspondence as part of the consent agenda for an upcoming formal
Council meeting.
If you wish to contact Council members directly, go to www.icgov.org and, under "C" in the
alpha index, click on City Council for contact information.
Thank you again for writing.
Sincerely,
Kathi Johansen
Administrative Assistant
to the City Manager
319 356-5010
--Original Message-----
From: Schlicht, Natalie A Lmailto:natalie-schlichtC~uiowa.edu]
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 2:29 PM
To: Council
Subject: Iowa city Cerfew Ordinance
Dear City Council,
I am a student reporter at the University of Iowa, and I have several questions
regarding the Cerfew ordinance in Iowa City. I am writing a story on it, and I was hoping
to get an interview from someone on city council that could provide me with information on
the matter. please e-mail me back at natalie-schlichtc~uiowa.edu at your convenience. or
call me at (608) 513-2301 thank you.
Natalie Schlicht
1
Page 1 of 1
Marian Karr
From: Hanevill@aol.com
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 8:37 PM
To: Council
Subject: Proposed Juvenile Curfew Ordinance and Proposed Loitering Ordinance
I just thought you should know. I have talked to a few single mothers in the neighborhood, and have told me they
would like the crewfew this way they have something else to tell the kids (you have to be in by 10 it is the law.)
As you already know I think it is or will be a good thing. both of them.
Thank You
Jane Klitzka
2305 Hollywood Blvd
Iowa City, la 52240
9/28/2009
~~
MINUTES
YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION
September 27, 2009 - 4:40 PM
Lobby Conference Room, City Hall
Members Present: Zach Wahls, Hannah Green, Jerry Gao, Luan Heywood
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Marian Karr, Ross Wilburn
Others Present: None
PRELIMINARY
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council
action):
The Commission recommend against passage of the proposed juvenile curfew unanimously,
4/0. The reasons for this recommendation include:
The restrictive nature of this ordinance on law-abiding, productive young citizens
The negative effect that the confrontations mandated by this ordinance would have on
the perception of police by youth and the stigma associated with law enforcement
officials
The inequality with which this ordinance will inevitably be enforced
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 4:40 p.m. Hannah Green chaired the meeting.
MINUTES:
Wahls motioned to approve the August 26 minutes.
Heywood seconded.
The motion passed 4-0
YOUTH EVENT CALENDAR:
The Commission discussed the calendar, which has effectively little use since its inception,
reporting a total of two uses. The Commission unanimously agreed that it out to be put into
retirement.
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED JUVENILLE CURFEW:
Before Wilburn arrived at the meeting, the Commission briefly discussed the mechanics of
passing ordinances in Iowa City. After Wilburn arrived, the Commission delved into the pros and
YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION
September 27, 2009
Page 2 of 3
cons of the issue at hand. Karr reported that the Chief of Police had requested the ordinance's
passage as another tool to deal with the spike in violence on Iowa City's southeast side. She
also stated that a number of communities in Iowa utilize curfews, Coralville among them.
Wilburn said that he doesn't believe that there is particularly strong support on either side of the
issue in the neighborhood that would likely be most directly affected, but those who do support a
side are quite vocal. Heywood expressed her opinion that this ordinance would be excessively
restrictive. Green and Wahls seemed to share similar concerns. The .Commission went through
the particulars of existing State and City laws on the issues in Iowa City. In addition, it was
noted that a loitering ordinance has been proposed, but the Commission did not feel that it
pertained to the Commission's goals.
Heywood said that, from her research (distributing a fact sheet), curfews don't really stop crime.
Wahls agreed, saying that it seems it merely gives prosecutors another charge to stick
offenders with. Green said that she would have trouble supporting such an ordinance, because
she felt it would not be implemented fairly or evenly. Gao openly asked what youths aged
fourteen to fifteen would be doing outside after 11 p.m. (This is the time at which fourteen year
olds would be prohibited from being outdoors.) Heywood and Green both shared anecdotes of
their time in community theatre at that age, which kept them out that late. Wahls critiqued the
language of the proposed ordinance, which to him seemed foreign. Karr and Wilburn both said
that the ordinance was modeled on the ordinance passed by other cities and state rulings on the
subject.
Heywood asked what exactly the ordinance was hoping to prevent. Having spoken with
numerous citizens on the topic, Wilburn provided a list of reasons. These included roving gangs
of loud youth, kids cutting through yards, fights, open intimidation, acts with weapons and group
fights. It should be noted that these acts were not limited exclusively to youth. Wahls asked if
most of this was occurring at night. Karr said that this was not the case, but that the intimidation
and fear was heightened at night.
Wahls motioned to recommend against passage of the proposed juvenile curfew.
Green seconded.
The motion passed 4-0
The reasons for this recommendation include:
• The restrictive nature of this ordinance on law-abiding, productive young citizens
• The negative effect that the confrontations mandated by this ordinance would have on
the perception of police by youth and the stigma associated with law enforcement
officials
• The inequality with which this ordinance will inevitably be enforced
The commission again briefly discussed the loitering ordinance but decided to not take action on
it either in support or otherwise.
YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION
September 27, 2009
Page 3 of 3
YOUTH ARTS INITIATIVE:
Wilburn shared the report from the City Attorney's office. He said that the City cannot link to a
commercial site, based on the City's Internet policy. Due to the nature of some of the content
on that website, the City's public website cannot link to it.
Another issue is the fact that the City would be unable to edit any of the content submitted,
possibly resulting in the creation of a forum for material that would be deemed obscene by the
community. As such, there would be concern that there would be taxpayer dollars going
towards things most would deem inappropriate.
Wilburn then got into what he believed the YAC was supposed to be in its original purpose. He
had hoped for the YAC to serve more as an advisory body than a project group. Heywood
expressed her support for returning more directly to the mission statement. Green agreed, but
added that in her two years, she's seen none of such activity. Wilburn said that part of the
blame of that lays with the Council and that he would like to make an effort to get the YAC
present at a Council work session. The Commission expressed interest in attending one.
MEETING SCHEDULE:
The Commission decided to meet again on Thursday October 1St to discuss developments of
the September 29th City Council meeting and to address agenda items that had to be tabled due
to Wahls's early departure. That meeting will happen at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday.
ADJOURMENT:
Wahls motioned to adjourn.
Green seconded.
The motion passed 4-0
Meeting adjourned 5:40 PM.
Marian Karr
From: Susan Futrell [sfutrell@mchsi.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 1:21 PM
To: Mike Wright
Cc: Council
Subject: curfew vote
Dear City Council,
I'm writing to thank those of you who voted against the proposed curfew, and to ask those
of you who supported it to reconsider. I realize how challenging it is to find a broad
solution to issues that appear to be concentrated in only one neighborhood. I'm struck by
some of the similarities between the current issue of crime in southeast Iowa City to the
challenges we've had in the northside addressing noise and crime issues.
Both situations stem in part from heavy concentration of one type of housing and a lack of
recognition of the extra attention it takes to maintain basic neighborhood stability when
that is the case. In the northside, it's rentals to undergraduates; in Southeast Iowa
city it's subsidized low-income housing. In both cases, the neighborhoods attract a lot
of people who come to IC from elsewhere, especially neighboring Illinois, because of the
services, educational opportunities and quality of life Iowa City has to offer. In both
cases, I think part of the solution is for the City to look for ways to support diversity
in housing options through broad use of zoning and housing subsidy programs, and to view
both neighborhoods as legitimately desirable parts of town that need and deserve the same
standards of basic safety and security that is given to other residential areas.
I question whether the use of a curfew will really help to address these broader issues--
it certainly wouldn't be a workable approach in the northside if it were directed at
university students. More likely, I think what's needed is consistent enforcement of basic
noise, public disturbance, vandalism and other existing laws, coupled with a continued
effort to find ways to address the broader, underlying sources of some of the neighborhood
concerns in Southeast Iowa City.
Thank you for your consideration and your ongoing work on behalf of our neighborhoods.
Sincerely,
Susan Futrell
311 Fairchild St.
Iowa City
1
" ~ ~'
Prepared by: Eric Goers, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5030
ORDINANCE N0.
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 8, POLICE REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 5, MISCELLANEOUS
OFFENSES, TO ADD A NEW SECTION 11, ENTITLED "STANDING, LOITERING AND
OBSTRUCTING PERSONS."
WHEREAS, the City has determined that there has been an increase in blockages of City streets and
sidewalks by pedestrians on foot walking on the traveled portion of the roadway instead of on the
adjoining sidewalks in such a way as to block vehicular traffic, and standing on the sidewalk so as to
block pedestrian traffic; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to promote and encourage the free flow of vehicular traffic on the City
streets, and pedestrian traffic on the City sidewalks; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to adopt this amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I. AMENDMENTS.
8-5-11: STANDING, LOITERING AND OBSTRUCTING PERSONS:
A. With the exception of persons authorized to use the public right of way pursuant to Title 10 of the
City Code entitled "Public Ways and Property", no person shall:
1. Congregate, stand, loaf or loiter upon any street, sidewalk, bridge, trail or crossing so as
to obstruct the street, sidewalk, bridge, trail or crossing or hinder or prevent persons
passing or attempting or desiring to pass thereon. A violation under this subsection can
be proven regardless of whether a person or vehicle is actually hindered or prevented
from passing.
2. Congregate, stand, loaf or loiter in or in front of any hall, lobby, doorway, passage or
entrance of any public building, theater, hotel, eating house, lodginghouse, office
building, store, shop, office or factory or other like building so as to obstruct such place or
hinder or prevent persons walking along or into or out of such place or attempting or
desiring to do so. A violation under this subsection can be proven regardless of whether a
person is actually hindered or prevented from passing.
B. A violation of this section shall be a simple misdemeanor punishable by a fine of fifty dollars
($50.00).
SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of
this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be effective upon publication.
Passed and approved this day of , 2009.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
A r~ved b ~
City Attorney's Office
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:
Bailey
Champion
Correia
Hayek
O'Donnell
Wilburn
Wright
First Consideration 9 / 15 / 2009
Vote for passage: AYES: Wilburn, Wright, Bailey, Cahmpion, Hayek, O'Donnell.
NAYS: Correia.ABSENT: NONE.
Second Consideration 9 / 29 / 2009
Vote for passage: AYES: Hayek, O'Donnell, Wilburn, Wright, Bailey, Champion.
NAYS: Correia. ABSENT: None.
Date published
Page 1 of 5
S
Marian Karr
From: the3rdiowa@mchsi.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 11:15 AM
To: Council
Cc: jcfair@yahoogroups.com; fairsc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Loitering Ordinance
Council members,
Having attended the last council meeting, I was struck by the amount of energy and time given to the curfew
ordinance and the relative little given to the loitering ordinance. This ordinance, arguably, could stretch public
safety resources far more thin than the curfew-- as it could be applied not only to minors, but to many adults in the
community.
Flying below the radar is the possible multiple effects that the proposed loitering ordinance may have. Attached
are some examples of issues that the council may want to consider before enacting the ordinance. The first two
items highlight the vagueness of a law that creates the opportunity for officers to stop and detain/ticket anyone.
The third item is a ordinance that attempts to address the "slippery slope" of whether the person is intending to
loiter. The last item looks at how police, in practice, may enforce the law.
1. Today's Question: Does Columbia need a loitering ordinance?
Thursday, August 6, 2009 ~ 12:35 p.m. CDT
BY Jacob Barker
The City Council on Monday heard a report from the Police Department on a potential loitering law in the Special
Business District. Among the biggest issues, if the city decides to go down that road, is drafting a law specific
enough to avoid violating a 1999 Supreme Court ruling.
Drafting the ordinance is a ways off while more research is done on how it can be implemented. But an initial poll
of 33 downtown business owners conducted by the Police Department found that all were in favor of a downtown
loitering ordinance.
The danger is writing a law that is too vague, like Chicago did in 1992. That law defined loitering as "remaining in
any one place with no apparent purpose." That's pretty much the dictionary definition, but the Supreme Court
struck it down years later. Since then, other municipalities have passed loitering ordinances that avoided
challenge by using much more specific language.
Some of the "problems" the police report identifies in the district involve large crowds gathering outside bars, but
the first problems listed are vagrancy and aggressive panhandling issues associated with the homeless.
If Columbia starts arresting the homeless for panhandling downtown, they'll need somewhere else to go. The
ordinance could, if enacted, remove some of Columbia's homeless population from downtown, but if worded too
vaguely, the city might have costly legal issues on its hands.
9/29/2009
Page 2 of 5
2. http;//bloom ni com/warrenreporter/2007/06lalpha loitering ordinance bein.html
Borough Attorney Chris Troxell said he wasn't sure if a ban on loitering is constitutional in the state of New Jersey.
He said he would explore the issue and make a report at council's next meeting on June 12. He and Hager said
that they are not sure what methods could be used to combat the problem outside of an ordinance as it is difficult
to tell people to move on who are not engaged in overt criminal activity.
The chief said his department was called out on asemi-weekly basis last year on weekends to handle some
loitering problems. He said the problems ranged from litter to unintentional harassment as some patrons may be
afraid to enter a given establishment if there is a crowd of people hanging around.
The offenders have always moved on when approached by police, Hager said, but the department would like
some help in the law to give them the right to ticket or force someone to move in case there should be a
challenge. He also claimed that although there have not been any major incidents, any loitering is inappropriate
since Eagle Village is in a residential neighborhood.
3. From Lemon Grove, CA: Loitering ordinance revision.
Section 9.36.025. Obstructing any street, sidewalk, or other public place or on or in any
place open to the public prohibited; Penalty; Exceptions.
A. No person shall willfully and maliciously obstruct the free movement of any person on any street sidewalk,
or other public place or on or in any place open to the public.
B. Penalty. Any person who violates any provisions of this Chapter shall, upon conviction thereof, be
punished as specified in Section 1.12.010 of the Lemon Grove Municipal Code.
C. Exceptions. (1) It is not intended that this Section shall apply where its application would result in an
interference with or inhibition of any exercise of the constitutionally protected right of freedom of speech or
assembly; (2) the provisions of this subsection shall not apply to persons sitting on the curb portion of any
sidewalk or street while attending or viewing any parade permitted under the provisions the Lemon Grove
Municipal Code; and (3) nor shall the provisions of this subsection apply to persons sitting upon benches or other
seating facilities provided for such purpose by municipal authority or permitted under the provisions of the Lemon
Grove Municipal Code.
"Willfully," means when applied to the intent with which an act is done or omitted, implies simply a purpose or
willingness to commit the act, or make the omission referred to. It does not require any intent to violate law, or to
injure another, or to acquire any advantage.
4. From Pueblo Co, the police dept. plan to enforce the "kid" loitering ordinance.
http://wvvw naco_o..rg/C_ontent/ContentGroups/Coin/Codes/Curfews/CL014.._PD_F
9/29/2009
Page 3 of 5
Policy on Enforcement of County's Anti-Loitering
Ordinance
Pueblo County
Colorado
Assistant to the Sheriff
To: Patrol deputies
From: Lt Dave Pettinari
Date: Sept 15, 1994
Re: Enforcement of county's anti-loitering ordinance
We are ready to begin writing penalty assessments for juvenile loitering. Capt. Harry Wenzel soon will be
providing roll call training for you. In addition, we will enlist the media to get the word out to the community that
our youth have had a whole summer's worth of warning, and now it's time to get tough on this issue, particularly
since young people who are supposed to be in school should not be out late carousing and putting themselves in
harm's way.
The ordinance was put into effect for:
1. the protection of children from each other and from others on the street during nighttime hours (i.e.,
discouragement of juvenile gang formation, drive-by shootings, etc.);
2. the protection of the public from nighttime mischief by minors;
3. the reduction of juvenile criminal activity; and
4. the enforcement of parental control of and responsibility for their children.
Under the ordinance, it is unlawful for any juvenile:
1. to loiter in any public or private place (street, sidewalk, parking lot, alley, vacant lot, park, yard, building, place
of amusement, eating place, etc.) from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. on weekdays, and from midnight to 6 a.m. on weekends.
2. to deface buildings, or any public or private property, including graffiti.
Exceptions include:
1. Youth accompanied by parents, guardians or any other adult having custody.
2. Youth traveling to or from employment (half-hour of travel time; check for note from employer).
3. Youth engaged in sponsored activities (school, church, or civic activities; political meetings, concerts, movies,
school dances, football games, etc.) or in necessary activities, such as seeking medical attention, responding to a
medical or other emergency, etc.
Since the authority for enforcement was based on a county resolution, we had to develop a mechanism that is
slightly different than what we've used in the past. Mike Lucas of Doug Piersel's office spoke with Judge Cole,
and the judge is receptive to issuing bench warrants for youth and their parents if the penalty assessments levied
9/29/2009
Page 4 of 5
are not paid. Following is a thumbnail sketch of the procedure:
1. Obviously, we will enforce the ordinance even-handedly, targeting areas where kids traditionally loiter,
regardless of race or ethnicity. Actions by the juveniles will determine whether or not you contact them.
Discrepancies in treatment of groups of different race, gender or the like may subject the county ordinance itself
to attack, and may create serious legal difficulties for the department and the sheriff. if you are unsure about the
handling of any group base on compelling, nondiscriminatory reasons, please discuss the matter in advance with
your commander, who will visit with the department attorney to receive his guidance.
2. Detention is not an option unless the juvenile has committed another crime that, under the Colorado Children's
Code, would allow the sheriff to detain the juvenile and place him or her in PYC.
3. You may exercise officer discretion to provide a warning to the juvenile prior to release to a parent, if we have
not contacted the youth before; or you may direct the violator to proceed directly home, and ensure that this is
done by following or calling later. Accompany this with counseling regarding the anti-loitering ordinance. Fill out a
field contact card, and, in the comments section, note "anti-loitering violation." Do not use the term "curfew" for
legal reasons.
4. Be aware of legal considerations in the release, escort or arrest of a juvenile violator. Officers should not
release juveniles to proceed unescorted in circumstances that represent a threat to the juvenile's safety (i.e., the
juvenile is found in an area that has a relatively high incidence of street violence and/or drug abuse). If you escort
the juvenile to his or her residence, and no qualified adult is found there, or if any adult refuses to accept custody
of or responsibility for the juvenile, another alternative should be considered to protect the department from a
subsequent claim of improper disposition. If possible, a responsible adult's written acceptance of the juvenile's
return should be obtained. This will help to protect the department against later claims that the juvenile was not
property delivered to his or her residence by the officer. If the juvenile expresses fear of physical abuse if he or
she is taken home, you might consider taking
the youth into protective custody pending an investigation. Yourjudgment on this issue might be based on
statements of the youth that he or she has suffered such abuse in the past, or where probable cause exists to
believe that such abuse has or will take place. If either the juvenile or the adult to whom the juvenile was delivered
complain of treatment by the officer, you should note this and communicate it to your supervisor. If it is alleged
that the officer physically mistreated the youth, your supervisor will make arrangements to have the youth
examined immediately by a qualified physician. In any event, comply fully with laws and departmental policies
regarding the arrest, transportation and processing of juveniles.
5. Subsequent violations generally would involve issuing a summons. Handle the issuance of the citation in the
same fashion as you would a summons and complaint for underage drinking. Issue a state ticket, noting that this
citation is for violation of the anti-loitering ordinance. Include the ordinance number. Payment of the fine prior to
the set court date may be handled in the same manner as any other penal citation - in other words, the youth or
his parents pay the county court clerk's office. At the end of the month, the court clerk will cut a check for the
county treasurers office, and this money will be deposited in the county general fund. You will be provided with
slap-on sticky labels for the back of your tickets informing the defendant to make payment in person to the clerk of
the county court, or to appear in court at the date and time set on the ticket.
6. The return date will be the same as for "zero tolerance" tickets - 42 days after issuance, the time 8:30 a.m.
7. You may only write one charge per ticket. So, if you are charging loitering, write one penalty assessment; and if
you also want to charge for underage possession, write another citation. If you catch the youth out the very same
night, write him another citation.
8. The juvenile can sign a penalty assessment without the need for a parent's presence.
9. Make an attempt to locate the parents to advise them of issuance of the citation, and to have them sign the
parental advisement. With this piece of paper, if the fine is not paid and no one shows up for court, the judge will
likely issue bench warrants for the arrest of not only the juvenile, but the parents as well. This would obviously
have an effect where the Pueblo Youth Center overcrowding is concerned. While the ordinance violation is a civil
judgment, failure to appear or to pay the fine can result in arrest and is enforceable.
9/29/2009
Page 5 of 5
10. If you are unable to personally serve the parental advisement form, records will forward the notification of the
anti-loitering violation by mail to the parent or guardian. This is important both from the standpoint of good
enforcement, but also to protect the department against later claims that the parent/guardian was not put on
notice that the juvenile's nighttime activity was placing the juvenile in jeopardy. This will also give the parents a
"heads-up" that a citation was issued, and that they must pay a fine or show for court.
11. The county judge will issue judgment for the amount of the penalty assessment and court costs. Collection
would be the responsibility of the county attorneys office, but it is not likely that any collection action would be
initiated on a $100 citation (maximum penalty $300), as it is much too expensive to work given manpower costs
and the necessity to serve the party. In addition, this poses legal problems concerning collecting from a minor.
Please do not concern yourselves with what happens after we write up the youths for loitering. Those issues still
need to be addressed. but these matters are outside of our control.
12. Proper reporting and record-keeping concerning anti-loitering violations is important for operational, statistical
and legal purposes. Each contact with a loitering violator, other than the initial that merits only an FI, should be
recorded and reported on a check-off form that will not take you much time to complete. This will help us to
conduct an accurate analysis of overall patterns of nighttime juvenile activity in the community.
13. Shift supervisors will be required to review all loitering check-off reports for completeness, and use the
information to identify current or potential problem areas or individuals on their watch. Linking information on
loitering violations with other information on juvenile offenders can help identify current or potential juvenile
problem areas such as common locations and/or establishments where violations are taking place. It can also
provide officers with investigative insights on the activities of juvenile suspects and habitual offenders.
The plan is to start writing tickets now, and work out the bugs later. We will re-evaluate after a 120-day trial
period. We'll be looking at how many of the youth cited actually pay or show for court.
Later, we will work out a system with the courts to deal with repeat offenders, including the possibility of
Department of Social Services involvement (Child in Need of Supervision, parenting skills classes for the folks,
etc.). For our part, we might decide that the officer can exercise his option to keep the violator here at the office
until 6 a.m. if he cannot located the parents. Obviously, this ties up manpower, and we will use this approach
sparingly, and only with the most chronic offenders.
Again, you will get more specific training in roll call, and Capt. Wenzel will be available to answer any questions
you might have.
I hope that this information is helpful to you in making your deliberations.
Garry Klein
628 2nd Ave
Iowa City, IA 52245
9/29/2009
Prepared by: Eric Goers, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5030
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 4, ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, CHAPTER 2, LIQUOR
LICENSES AND BEER PERMITS, SECTION 3, LOCAL REVIEW OF APPLICATIONI
INVESTIGATION OF APPLICANT.
WHEREAS, the City wishes to effectuate its policies on applications for renewal of liquor licenses with
a minimum of manipulation; and
WHEREAS, the State Alcoholic Beverages Division sets the earliest date for an applicant to apply for
renewal of their liquor license at 70 days prior to expiration of their present license; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to adopt this amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I. AMENDMENTS.
4-2-3: LOCAL REVIEW OF APPLICATIONIINVESTIGATION OF APPLICANT: Paragraph B. is hereby
amended by deleting it in its entirety and replacing it as follows:
B. The Iowa City fire chief, the Iowa City building official, and the Iowa City chief of police must
approve or disapprove the application. The fire chief and building official must determine if the premises
complies with all applicable state and local laws, rules, and regulations and will, if necessary to make
such determination, inspect the premises. The chief of police shall make an investigation to determine if
the applicant is of good moral character as defined in section 123.3(26) of the Iowa Code, the rules of the
Iowa alcoholic beverages division and guidelines developed by the chief of police and approved by the
city council. Each official must approve or disapprove a completed application and if applicable, provide a
memo setting forth the reasons for disapproval no later than 7 calendar days prior to the expiration of the
current license in the case of renewals, or within 7 days of completion of the application, including the
State requirements, in the case of applications for a new license. Renewal applications will not be
accepted more than 70 days prior to expiration of the present license. The application must be reviewed
and approved or denied by the City Council.
SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of
this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be effective upon publication.
Passed and approved this day of , 2009.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Ap r~v d by
a2; `"~
City Attorney's Office
Prepared by: Eric Goers, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5030
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE AMEND G TITLE 4, ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, ' HAPTER 2, LIQUOR
LICENSES AND BE PERMITS, SECTION 3, LOCAL REVIE OF APPLICATION/
INVESTIGATION OF AP (CANT.
WHEREAS, the State Alco lic Beverages Division sets the earliest to for an applicant to apply for
renewal of a liquor license at 70 ays prior to expiration of their present censer and
WHEREAS, in reviewing an pplication for renewal the City d Tres to have a full 12 months of
activity to review; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best inter st of the City to adopt this a ndment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT OR AINED BY THE CITY C UNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I. AMENDMENTS.
4-2-3: LOCAL REVIEW OF APPLICAT NIINVEST ATION OF APPLICANT: Paragraph B. is hereby
amended by deleting it in its entirety and r placing it s follows:
B. The Iowa City fire chief, the Iowa C y bui mg official, and the Iowa City chief of police must
approve or disapprove the application. The ire hief and building official must determine if the premises
complies with all applicable state and local la ,rules, and regulations and will, if necessary to make
such determination, inspect the premises. chief of police shall make an investigation to determine if
the applicant is of good moral character a de 'ned in section 123.3(26) of the Iowa Code, the rules of the
Iowa alcoholic beverages division and idelin s developed by the chief of police and approved by the
city council. Each official must appro or disa prove the application and if applicable, provide a memo
setting forth the reasons for disappr val no later than ~ ~ ~ seven (7) calendar days prior
to the ex iration of the current lic se but no so ner than 7 da s followin submission of the corn leted
a lication in the case of rene Is or within 7 c endar da s of the a lication's submission in the case
of a new license. .The application must be approved or denied by the
city council.
SECTION It. REPE ctER. All ordinances and rts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of
this Ordinance are ereby repealed.
SECTION III. S ERABILITY. If any section, provi ion or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconsti tional, such adjudication shall not a ect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provisio or part thereof not adjudged invalid or nconstitutional.
This Ordinance shalt,be effective upon publication.
and approved this day of \~_, 2009.
MA R
EST:
CITY CLERK
p oved b
9-~9-0 9
City Attorney's Office
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:
Bailey
Champion
Correia
Hayek
O'Donnell
Wilburn
Wright
First Consideration 9 / 15 / 2009
Vote for passage: AYES: Champion, Gorreia, Hayek, O'Donnell, Wilburn, Wright,
Bailey. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration 9 / 29 / 2009
Vote for passage: AYES: Hayek, O'Donnell, Wilburn, Wright, Bailey, Champion, Corre
NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Date published
10
Prepared by: Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5030
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 4, "ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES", CHAPTER 5, "PROHIBITIONS
AND RESTRICTIONS", SECTION 3, "CONSUMPTION OR POSSESSION IN PUBLIC PLACES
AND CITY BUILDINGS TO EXCLUDE PROPERTY LEASED FROM THE CITY FOR A PERIOD OF
99 YEARS OR MORE FROM THE PROHIBITION ON THE USE AND POSSESSION OF
ALCOHOL IN A CITY PARK.
WHEREAS, City Code currently prohibits consumption or possession of an alcoholic beverage in a
city park unless purchased from anon-profit entity that has an agreement with the City with respect to city
property over which the entity has control for specified times on specified days; and
WHEREAS, the University of Iowa has a 99 year lease for approximately 1.76 acres of Terrell Mill
Park for the construction, operation and maintenance of a Boathouse Facility and under the terms of the
lease, the University is responsible for managing, maintaining and repairing the leased property and the
improvements thereon; and
WHEREAS, said lease for the boathouse facility defines the property and gives the University control
of the facility for 99 years and includes an indemnification provision; and
WHEREAS, the University desires, on occasion, to serve alcohol on the premises; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to amend City Code to exclude property leased from
the City for a period of 99 years or more from the prohibition on the use and possession of alcohol in a
city park.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I. AMENDMENTS. Section 4-5-3(B) of the City Code is repealed and the following is
substituted in lieu thereof:
B. A person shall not consume or possess an alcoholic beverage in a city park, except if
said person has purchased said alcoholic beverage from an "authorized entity", and is on an
"authorized site", as those terms are defined in this section'. This subsection shall not apply to
property within a city park that is leased to another entity for 99 years or more.
SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of
this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be effective upon publication.
Passed and approved this day of , 2009.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
ro ed by
q-2~-o9
City Attorney's Office
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:
Bailey
Champion
Correia
Hayek
O'Donnell
Wilburn
Wright
First Consideration 9/29/2009
Vote for passage: AYES: Wilburn, Wright, Bailey, Champion, Correia, Hayek, O'Donnel
NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration _
Vote for passage:
Date published
~~~~~~z ;,
~"u
Prepared by: Sarah Holecek, First Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5030
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE 14-7B-7, "DEVELOPMENT FEES", TO SPECIFY THAT THE
AMOUNT OF THE NEAR SOUTHSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKING FACILITY DISTRICT IMPACT FEE
SHALL BE ADJUSTED ANNUALLY BASED ON THE NATIONAL HISTORICAL COST INDEXES
CONTAINED IN THE MOST RECENT EDITION OF THE ENGINEERING NEW RECORD RATHER THAN
THE MEANS SQUARE FOOT COSTS MANUAL AND TO HOLD ANY NEGATIVE CHANGES TO THE
COST INDEX OF THE PRECEDING YEAR
WHEREAS, Section 14-76-7F of the Iowa City Code specifies that the most recent edition of Means
Square Foot Costs Manual, as amended, shall be used to estimate the adjusted annual parking facility
impact fee; and
WHEREAS, the Means Square Foot Costs Manual is not a reference that is acquired annually by the
City of Iowa City; and
WHEREAS, the Engineering News Record is an accepted reference tool, used by Iowa City's Public
Works Department as a method to accurately estimate construction costs; and
WHEREAS, the Engineering News Record is readily available and provides construction estimates
and building estimates on-line; and
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest to use a readily available reference tool to calculate and adjust
estimates of parking facility capital improvement costs and to explicitly establish a minimum costs index.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT.
I. Title 14, entitled "Zoning Code" Chapter 7, entitled "Administration," Article B, entitled "Development
Fees", Section 7, entitled "Computation of Fee Amount," Subsection F, entitled "Adjustment" is hereby
amended by:
a) repealing 14-76-7F in its entirely and replacing said subsection with the following:
"To ensure accurate estimates of current parking facility capital improvement costs, the amount of the
parking facility impact fee required by this Article shall be adjusted annually based on the national
historical cost indexes contained in the most recent edition of Engineering News Record, as amended. In
the event the national historical cost index is negative in any edition, the fee shall remain at the amount
previously set under this subsection and shall not be adjusted downward."
SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to
be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or
any section, provision or part thereof 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 day of , 2009.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY'C'L~ERK
Appf~oved by:L-~7-;''~... ~r-~~~
.amity Htivey~ey s vni4~_--- ~•
923_6 ~
~.
attllegal/sarahlord/NSS parking fee o d amend909.doc