Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-11-10 Public hearing NOT~CE OF PUB~ TC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, at 7:00 p.m. on the tenth day of November, 2003, in Emma .1. Harvat Hall, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, ]~owa, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk; at which hearing the Council will consider: 1. An ordinance vacating a portion of the alley located south of Kirkwood Avenue and west of Diana Street. 2. An ordinance amending the definition of Restaurant. Copies of the proposed ordinances are on file for public examination in the office of the City Clerk, City Hall, I'owa City, Iowa. Persons wishing to make their views known for Council consideration are encouraged to appear at the above-mentioned time and place. IVlARJAN K. KARR, C~q'Y CLERK Prepared by: Jessica Hlubek, Planning Intern, City of Iowa City, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City; IA 52240; 319-356-5231 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF AN ALLEY RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED SOUTH OF KIRKWOOD AVENUE AND WEST OF DIANA STREET, WHEREAS, the applicant, Michael Lensing, has requested that the City vacate the unbuilt portion of an alley right-of-way located south of Kirkwood Avenue and west of Diana Street; and WHEREAS, the said right-of-way is not used by abutting properties for vehicular or pedestrian access; and WHEREAS, the City has no plans to develop the right-of-way for street access; and WHEREAS, it is in the City's interest to vacate and dispose of public right-of-way, or portions thereof, that will not be used for public access; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended vacation of this right-of-way subject to the retention of any necessary utility easements, the conveyance of the right-of-way being approved concurrently with the approval of the ordinance vacating the alley, and the inclusion of a curb along the east-west graveled alley to prevent vehicular access from commemial prope~y to Diana Street. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I, VACATION: Subject to the retention of any necessary utility easements, the conveyance of the right-of-way being approved concurrently with approval of the ordinance vacating the alley, and the inclusion of a curb along the east-west graveled alley to prevent vehicular access from commercial property to Diana Street, the City of Iowa City hereby vacates the right-of-way legally described as follows: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5TM PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF KIRKWOOD AVENUE 460'; THENCE SOUTHERLY 35' TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 3, BLOCK 6 OF LUCAS ADDITION; THENCE SOUTHERLY 150' TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER ,OF SAID LOT 3, WHICH IS THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTHERLY 284' ALONG WESTERN BOUNDARY OF ORIGINAL PLATTED ALLEY; THENCE EASTERLY 20' TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 6, BLOCK 6 OF LUCAS ADDITION; THENCE NORTHERLY 264' ALONG EASTERN BOUNDARY OF SAID ALLEY TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 4, BLOCK 6 OF LUCAS ADDITION; THENCE EASTERLY 50' ALONG THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 4; THENCE NORTHERLY 20' TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 3, BLOCK 6 OF LUCAS ADDITION; THENCE WESTERLY 70' TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in contlict with the provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION II1. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudicated invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of ,2003. MAYOR A'I-I'EST: CITY CLERK Approved bye4.._ ~ City ~,t~orney's Offic~ Ppdadmin~ord\vacatekirkwood~diana.doc STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Jessica Hlubek Item: VAC03-00001 Date: July 17, 2003 Alley south of Kirkwood Avenue and west of Diana Street GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Michael Lensing 605 Kirkwood Ave. Iowa City, IA 52240 Phone: 338-8171 Requested Action: Right-of-way vacation Purpose: To allow adjacent property owner(s) to acquire alley right-of-way and incorporate it into private properly Location: Alley south of Kirkwood Avenue and west of Diana Street Size: 6680 square feet Existing Land Use and Zoning: Unpaved alley right-of-way Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Nodh: Commercial Office, CO-1; Residential, RS-5 South: Residential, RS-5; Intensive Commercial, C1-1 East: Residential, RS-5 West: Commercial Office, CO-1; Intensive Commercial, C1-1 Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates the area surrounding the alley as Residential, 2-8 units/acre File Date: June 6, 2003 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Michael Lensing has applied for the vacation of a 6680-square foot portion of alley right-of-way located south of Kirkwood Avenue and west of Diana Street (see attached location map). This alley is adjacent to the southeast of his property at 605 Kirkwood Avenue. This section of right-of- way under consideration includes a 284-foot long by 20-foot wide section running north-south and a 50-foot long by 20-foot wide section running east-west. The entire nor/h-south section, as well as the east-west section under consideration, is the right-of-way for an unpaved alley. The remaining portion of east-west right-of-way is a gravel alley connecting to Diana Street. This 2 gravel alley is used for access to properties located at 619 and 525 Kirkwood Avenue and 1016 Diana Street. The applicant has requested the City vacate the unbuilt north-south portion of the alley right-of-way, as well as the east-west portion up to his eastern property line. The applicant wishes to acquire the area abutting his property in order to allow the future extension of the rear parking lot for Lensing Funeral & Cremation Service. The zoning boundary between the Commercial Office (CO-1) zone on Kirkwood Avenue and the Low Density Single-Family (RS-5) zone on Diana Street runs down the center of the alley. A rezoning will be required if the parking area is to extend beyond the center of the current alley right-of-way. ANALYSIS: There are three general criteria to apply when recommending a right-of-way vacation. Release of a street or alley right-of-way should not be recommended when it would result in 1 ) detrimental vehicular or pedestrian circulation, or 2) interference with the rights of access to private property, or 3) if it would inhibit the access of fire or emergency vehicles, or utility service vehicles. Access: The area proposed for vacation is not used by the general public. It is an unpaved alley and contains trees and other vegetation. This portion of right-of-way is not currently used for either vehicular or pedestrian access to adjacent properties. The residential properties backing the north-south portion of right-of-way have their driveways on Diana Street. The northernmost property backing the north-south right-of-way uses the graveled east-west right-of-way for access. There does not appear to be a public benefit to keeping the north-south portion of this alley as public right-of-way. The City has no plans for the future use of this right-of-way. There are no sanitary sewers, storm sewers, or water mains existing within this area. Utilities: Staff has notified the utility companies of the proposed vacation. Qwest Communications has indicated that they have cable lines located in this alley. An easement will need to be maintained or the applicant will need to reach an agreement with Qwest to relocate the cable. Future Use of Right-of-Way: There has been some concern from residents of Diana Street regarding increased traffic as a result of the alley vacation. If Mr. Lensing does extend his parking lot in the future, there is the possibility that the remaining graveled east-west alley would be used as an access to the extended parking lot. Commemial traffic would therefore be allowed to travel from the parking lot to Diana Street through a residential neighborhood. In order to discourage the flow of commercial traffic through a residential neighborhood, Staff recommends that as a condition of vacating the alley, a curb be included at this point on any future site plan for this area. Staff further recommends that final approval of the ordinance vacating the alley by the Council be held until agreements have been reached with the adjacent property owners regarding the purchase of the property from the City. The vacation ordinance and approval of the conveyance of the right-of-way to adjacent property owners would be done concurrently, at the same City Council meeting. This way, the City will avoid a situation where a property has been vacated, but is not conveyed to adjacent property owners. Although Michael Lensing has been the primary interested party in vacating this right-of-way, two other adjacent property owners (at 424 Highland Court and 1035 Diana Street) have thus far expressed an interest in the vacated right-of-way. As has been our past practice, Staff recommends that if two adjacent property owners are interested in acquiring the vacated right- of-way, each should have the option of acquiring half of the area between the two properties. All adjacent property owners have been notified of their option to obtain a portion of this right- of-way. If no other adjacent property owners are interested in purchasing a portion of the right- 3 of-way, Michael Lensing will be given the opportunity to purchase the remainder of the vacated area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City vacate the 6680-square foot portion of right-of-way located to the southeast of 605 Kirkwood Avenue subject to: 1 ) the retention of any necessary utility easements, 2) to the conveyance of the right-of-way being approved concurrently with the approval of the ordinance vacating the alley, and 3) the inclusion of a curb along the east-west graveled alley to prevent vehicular access from the commercial property to Diana Street. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Arial Photograph 3. Correspondence Approved by: ,¢¢¢,~_.~¢~ ,/¢'¢¢'z-. Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development ppdadmin\sffrep\template.doc WALNUT ST KIRKWOOD AVE SITE LOCATION: Alley south of Kirkwood Ave. & west of Diana St. x67~4 <651,1 June24, 2003 Mr. Robert Miklo Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Mr. Miklo: I spoke with you on the phone last week regarding Michael Lensing's application to vacate the public right-of-way located to the south of KJrkwood Avenue and wast of Diana Street. I am the original owner of the home at 1105 Diana Street, having moved in when the house was completed in 1956. I am against this vacation for several reasons. First, vacating the public right-of-way would open up the Lensing probe~ty to the alley onto Diana Street. This would create more traffic on Diana Street. The street is narrow and already ovedoaded with traffic as many north-south drivers cut through from Dodge Street and Kirkwood Avenue to Highway 6 and vice versa. Second, more traffic on this narrow street would make it more dangerous for small children in a neighborhood zoned as residential. Third, additional traffic would be a deterrent to the City of Iowa City's interest in maintaining the integrity of this neighborhood and nurturing it for future generations. Recently, my neighbors and I received letters from the City of Iowa City offering Iow-interest loans for upgrades to our homes. Obviously, the City sees the need to protect the neighborhood and wants to see it flourish in the future. Consider what could happen if the next step is taken~o access Diana Street via an alley that leads to it from the parking lot. Although it may not be Mr. Lensing's desire to access Diana Street from the right-of-way, there is nothing to prevent a possible future owner from asking in the future for this favor. Plus, an increased parking lot for which Mr. Lensing is seeking would obviously lead to a need for additional access points to and from it. Fourth, I have another concern as to downhill water runoff by the elimination of grass in favor of more concrete paving in the area. Finally, the application for vacation of the public right-of-way is also a prelude to an application for rezoning and the pumhase of the back portions of two properties south of the alley on Diana Street. Negotiations between Mr. Lensing and the two property owners are now in progress. A commercial use of a portion of these properties would require rezoning and would be an encroachment of the CO 1 distdct into the RS 5 single-family district. The residential neighborhood needs to be protected from business encroachment. While it is good to see business growth, the interest of this historic Plum Grove neighborhood must not be diminished while that of one business is enhanced. Vacating the public right-of-way, purchasing of sections of single-family distdct property and rezoning for business use would signal that the City no longer wants to nurture and upgrade the quality of life for all who live in the neighborhood. Sincerely, ,.~. ,/,~.~,? Winifred l--]olland 1105 Diana Street Iowa City, IA 52240-4672 Jessica Hlubek From: Cory Berwa[d [97redf150~mchsi.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 24, :2003 9:14 PM To: J essica-hlu bek@[owa-city.or9 Subject: proposed vacate of alley Dear Ms. Hlubek My name is Cortland Berwald, and I am the property owner of 1035 Diana street. A property that backs directly up to the alley that Michael Lensing is wishing the city to vacate. This past Saturday, Michael visited with me on his intentions for acquiring the property. I do not object with his wish to proceed with the vacating. I would only object to the vacating if he was to pave or gravel the alley that is directly behind my property that I have been maintaining for a couple of years. Since the alley dead ends at the rear of my property, and goes nowhere, and would serve no purpose since I do not wish to enter my property from the rear. Michael told me that he had no plans to pave or gravel that portion of the alley, and that he is only acquiring that portion because vacating the alley is an all or nothing deal. If you need any further information, please feel free to call or e-mail me. Thanks, Cortland Berwald 1035 Diana St. 319-338-9812 97redf150@mchsi.com Jessica Hlubek From: Cory Berwald [97redf150@mchsi.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 9:18 PM To: Jessica-Hlubek@iowa-city.org Subject: Proposed Vacate Of Right-Of-Way Dear Ms. Hlubek Thank you for letting me know that I have the option to purchase a portion of the right-of-way adjacent to my property. I was unaware that I would have this option. I am very interested in the 10 foot section of land at the rear of my property; that is if I can afford it. I wouldn't even mind the other half of the alley that I currently don't have the option to purchase. The landowner of the property directly to my west does not maintain the hill that adjoins the west side of the alley. It has neve~ been mowed in the year and a half that I have lived in this house, nor for several years before that, when this was my Grandmothers property. If I can't afford to purchase any of the ally, I would prefer that Michael Lensing end up with the whole 20 foot width of the alley. At lest then I know it will get mowed on a regular bases. Thanks, Cortland Berwald 1035 Diana St. 319-338-9812 97redflS0@mchsi.com July 10, 2003 Mr. Robert Miklo Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Mr. Miklo: I am concerned about the "slice and dice" of the property at 1018 Diana Street. The property is now listed for sale with the frontage divided into two lots without the back 40 feat. I have no argument about the front division. My concerns are about the back 40 feet being split off. As of now, the only access to this area would be from the Lensing property through the public right-of-way which Mr. Lensing has asked to be vacated. Mr. Lensing has stated his interest in purchasing this 40 feet. Wouldn't the back 40 feet of the 1018 Diana Street RS 5 property have to be rezoned to CO 1 before it could be split off and put to commercial use? It could then be used for whatever is allowed within the CO 1 district. Incidentally, my check of the Iowa City Zoning Code for CO 1 districts lists funeral homes as a special exception. It does not mention crematoriams, the recently added use of the Lensing property. I feel that all property owners on Diana Street, as well as the bordering Kirkwood Avenue property owners, should be notified of any pending changes within the area. Is it a foregone conclusion that the fight-of-way will be vacated, the rezoning will take place, and Mr. Lensing can then merge his business into an area that is now a residential district? Sincerely, 1105 Diana Street Iowa City, IA 52240-4672 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes July 17, 2003 Page 5 could be applied to a development. Staff anticipated that there would be some amendments to the zoning and subdivision regulations. However, that Part XX was part of a planned development and was laid out to be very consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods, Staff recommended that the extension be approved. Miklo said if the Commission chose not to approve the extension and the applicant did not final plat it before it expired, they would have to re apply. Hansen asked if there would be any need for secondary access to Scott Boulevard. Miklo said eventually there would be a connection between the two developments so there would be a second way to get back to Scott. Eventually there would also be a connection to Sterling Drive which would also provide secondary access to the area. Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Freerks made a motion to approve SUB03-00029, a final plat of Village Green Part 19, a 7.11- acre, 10-lot residential subdivision located at Wintergreen Drive west of North Jamie Lane prior to Staff approval of legal papers and construction drawings prior to Council consideration. Shannon seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. Motion: Koppes made a motion to approve a two year extension for the preliminary plat of Village Green Part XX. Hansen seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. VACATION ITEM: VAC03-00001, discussion of an application submitted by Michael Lensing for the vacation of an alley right-of-way located south of Kirkwood Avenue and west of Diana Street. Miklo said the single family homes located adjacent to the funeral home were zoned RS-5. The funeral home was zoned CO-1 and had a special exception which allowed it and the crematorium to occur on that property. Lensing had asked that a portion of the alley be vacated, his intent was to purchase the alley and to work with the adjacent property owners who would also have a right to purchase one-half of the alley. In the future, Lensing might also purchase portions of two rear yards of the properties on Diana Street for the future purpose of expanding the funeral home's parking lot. Miklo said presently the Commission was only looking at the alley vacation. In the event that there would be expansion beyond the center of the alley where the current CO-1 zoning ended, there would need to be a rezoning of the eastern and southern portions of the alley. The special exception which allowed the funeral home would also have to be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. Miklo said vacation of the alley did not automatically allow expansion of the commercial zoning or development to the area east of the alley. Miklo said there were three general considerations that Staff looked at when considering requests for vacations of right-of-ways for alleys or streets: · The vacation of the property would not be detrimental to vehicle or pedestrian circulation. · The vacation would not interfere with access to private property. · The vacation would not interfere with access for emergency vehicles or utilities. In general, Staff found that this request passed all three of these tests. The portion of the alley that Lensing has requested be vacated was currently not used for vehicle access nor had it ever been improved or opened for traffic. Therefore it was not essential for access to the adjoining properties. The eastern section was used for access to the residential properties, therefore it was essential that the alley be maintained and left open. Qwest had indicated that they did have a cable line in the alley. An easement would need to be retained for this cable or if Qwest and the property owners could reach an agreement, the cable line could also be moved. The easement would allow for things such as parking, open space or landscaping, but it would not allow for the building of a building in that area. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes July 17, 2003 Page 6 Miklo said if the alley were vacated, Lensing would have the opportunity to purchase the western and northern half. The adjacent property owners would have rights to the eastern half and the adjacent landowners would have rights to the alley area south of the funeral home property. Staff recommended that if the Council did approve the vacation, the actual final vacation not occur until there was a final agreement as to how the land would be disposed. That would prevent a situation where part of the alley were acquired by Lensing and a part remained which would be of no use to the City. If the Commission recommended a vacation, then negotiations for the actual sale or disposition of the property would occur prior to City Council consideration. Miklo said Staff had heard of a concern from adjacent property owners that if the alley was vacated it would be used as an access to and from the funeral home's parking lot which would introduce commercial traffic into a residential area (Diana Street). Staff concurred with this concern. If the vacation were to occur, Staff recommended that any agreement to sell it to Lensing or the adjacent property owners would stipulate that there be no access from the commercial property to the alley. If a rezoning and a special exception were approved to expand the funeral home including the parking lot, a requirement be included to require a curb or fencing or landscaping to assure that no traffic from the funeral home went back to Diana Street. Miklo said Staff recommended approval of the vacation subject to retention of any necessary utility easements, the conveyance of the right-of-way be approved concurrently with the approval of the ordinance approving the vacation of the alley and the inclusion of a barrier along the east - west gravel alley to prevent vehicular access from the commercial properly to Diana Street. Bovbjerg asked Behr for a clarification regarding the Commission's recommendation on this application and any implications it would have for the surrounding property owners or the applicant. Behr said the question of vacation dealt with basically whether or not the City needed the alley for public use. If the Commission were to pass a recommendation of vacation it would not even be put on to the Council's agenda until adjacent property owners had been given the opportunity to offer to purchase and there were offers to purchase all of the land. Then it would go to the Council as a package. Historically Council had not vacated anything until it was authorized to be conveyed as well. The vacation essentially would make it possible for all concerned parties to start making arrangements and trying to purchase parcels if they wished to. Bovbjerg asked if it was correct that a vacation didn't direct anyone to do anything in particular, it just opened up the possibility to discuss it. Behr said that was correct. Bovbjerg asked if the parties never came to any type of agreement, what would happen. Behr said he didn't believe Council would want to see the tract carved up into pieces. It would be necessary to see how the offers came it and it would be worked out with legal staff. At the time that there were offers to purchase all of the tract, it would go to Council with the Staffs recommendation of whether it should be conveyed in that fashion or not. Chait asked to clarify what the Commission and legal staff had just discussed. If the Commission recommended that the alley be vacated, the entire alley would have to be acquired prior to Council agreeing to formally vacate it. How it was acquired was up to the various landowners. The conversation that had occurred at Monday evening's informal meeting had indicated that if there were a lot of negotiations between Lensing and some of the neighbors, it seemed reasonable to expect that Lensing, a proponent of the vacation, would somehow assure that all the land would be disposed of as opposed to not all of the land being sold and therefore nothing happening, it would be more of a private transaction being worked out among Lensing and the neighbors and until that happened, however it happened, nothing would move forward. Chair said he understood that there had been and were ongoing conversations between Lensing and the neighbors. However it happened nothing would be bullied onto anyone. It would have to be mutually beneficial. The requirements and concerns of the Commission and the Council were that everyone was treated fairly in the terms and conditions of these types of conveyances. Bovbjerg said what the Commission was doing was simply making it possible, but they were not making it happen in any particular way. The City's stipulation that the vacation not be detrimental in any way was a major concern. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes July 17, 2003 Page 7 Chair said additionally on Monday evening, they had discussed that prior to any parking lot expansion beyond the center point of the alley or any additional expansion of the facility on the property acquired by Lensing, would have to come back before the Commission for rezoning. They would have the additional opportunity to look at a specific proposal. Just because the Commission recommended the vacation didn't guarantee that a parking lot would occur. Public discussion was opened. Michael Lensing, Lensing Funeral Home, said he agreed with the neighbors that there were a lot of traffic problems but it was not their intent to increase the traffic problems. He had visited with Jeff Davidson regarding stop lights and other options. Lensing said he had visited with the neighbor directly east of the funeral home, who had no problem with the vacation as it affected only approximately 5-feet of their back lot. Fencing or landscaping by Lensing's would be required which would enhance that property so the neighbor was in favor of it. The property where Peter Weinstein resided on the south and east side of the alley had been shown to be non-conforming on the recent appraisal. Lensing said if he was able to acquire the whole piece of property, nothing could be built on it because of the lot size according to the appraisal. Miklo said a single family residence could always be built on a non-conforming lot. It appeared to him that the lot was less than 60-feet wide. It also needed to be 8,000 square feet. So as long as 8,000 square feet of the property were retained a portion of it could be sold. If there were less than 8,000 square feet than none of it could be sold or added to the funeral home property. Lensing said the current resident was probably going to move within one year. The property was currently better maintained than it had formerly been, but repairs had been very limited to the home. Lensing said if he were ever to acquire that portion of properly, he would ask that it be written into the zoning that the property remain residential or whatever it was and he would simply put trees on it. Lensing said he had visited with the owner, in the third house down on Diana Street. The current property owner was not sure that he could afford to purchase the vacated portion of the land, so Lensing could purchase it, but would not be able to do anything with it. Lensing said the reason they were looking at the property was because of the trees, big walnut trees. They had always maintained the trees and by obtaining that property, it would allow them to square off their lot. Both John Roffman and Peter Weinstein were willing to sell off the back 40 feet of their lots. Upon appropriate approvals and zonings, Lensings would run a fence down the property line down to hopefully put in a parking lot there. It would allow Lensings to square their property off. At the back of the building was a very small landscaped area where Lensing hoped to make the back of the building square. That change would allow them to get cars out of their parking lot and onto Kirkwood Avenue. It would also provide more parking spaces which cars sometimes did spill over onto the street for parking. Lensing said they really wanted to be neighborly. That section would all be curbed and landscaped. Hansen asked if this came to a rezoning, would the Sensitive Areas Ordinance come into effect because of stormwater management and the slopes on the rear of the property. Miklo said he didn't think so. He did not think it was steep enough to be regulated by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Lensing said when Dr. Riegler owned the building next door the storm water sewer had been put in. They had put drains under their parking lot and a culvert which ran directly into the stormwater retention center. In talking to John Roffman they thought, there was more height on Roffman's property which could be moved over to bring the culverts up to the level of the parking lot so the water would run down directly into the system. Hansen asked if the purchase of 40 feet of the rear yards of the two adjacent properties would make them non-conforming properties. Miklo said no, they were both well over 8,000 square feet. A lot that was currently for sale was being marketed as two. Lensing said it was 65 feet from his lot line counting the alley which was twenty feet, so the neighbors could sell him 40 feet of their back yards. Lensing said it was not his intent to build buildings, it was a matter of wanting to square off his property. If they did do an addition, it would only be across the back of the building going out 30 to 40 feet at the maximum. Bovbjerg asked about the walnut trees and whose property they sat on. Lensing said for twenty years he had taken care of the trees which set right on the property line. They were very dirty trees and he would Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes July 17, 2003 Page 8 cut them down. It would be possible to get 30 additional parking spots there, however if the neighbors really wanted him to keep the trees he supposed he would. Lensing said he would prefer to landscape the area with oak and maple trees. Lensing said this might be the only opportunity in his life time to purchase a piece of property close to his property without having to purchase a house, so he had to ask the question, to know about the future. He'd had the opportunity to purchase a house which connected to Diana Street, but he had not wanted to fix the house up. Winifred Holland, 1105 Diana Street, said she was the original owner of her home having moved there in 1956 when the home was completed. Holland said she was requesting that the Commission reject Lensing's application to vacate the right-of-way for several reasons. · Vacating the public right-of-way would open up the Lensing property to the alley onto Diana Street which would have the possibility of creating more traffic onto the street. The street was narrow and already overloaded with traffic. Many drivers used it as a cut through from Dodge Street to Hwy 6. · It had the potential for persons stuck in traffic on Kirkwood Avenue to use the Lensing property as a shod cut over to Sycamore Street. · More traffic on the narrow street would make it more dangerous for children. Families were moving into the area. · Cars parked on only one side of the street so the added traffic would add congestion. · The added traffic would be a deterrent to the City's interest of maintaining the integrity of the neighborhood and nurturing it for future generations. · Recently she and her neighbors had received information regarding Iow interest loans for upgrades to their homes. Residents in the area were eligible for funding under the Targeted Area Rehabilitation program. This program was designed to stabilize and revitalize targeted neighborhoods. The City already had a residential program in place for property that Lensing had an interest in purchasing. · She saw the vacation as a prelude to the application for rezoning a residential area into commercial. · She was concerned about water run off which had been addressed by Lensing. Holland said a realtor was currently listing a property for sale without the 40-feet of the back of the property being listed for sale. Holland said she would like to know how Lensing could purchase residential property for a commercial use. She saw it as an encroachment of the CO-1 district into the RS-5 district. Holland said approving the vacation of the right-of-way, purchasing sections of single family property and rezoning for business use would signal that the City was no longer serious about nurturing and upgrading the quality of life for residents in the neighborhood. Currently at the end of many residential properties was a fence demarcating the boundary which indicated how strongly the City felt about the need to protect residential interests. Holland said the residential neighborhood needed to continue to be protected from business encroachment so she was requesting that the Commission deny the vacation request. Chair asked Holland if she understood that part of the vacation would not allow any traffic to go from the Lensing property down the alley to Diana Street. Holland said she had not been privy to that information. Chair said that was the conversation that they had had earlier. Holland said she did not quite grasp that. Chair said a number of concerns expressed by Holland concerned traffic. The vacation would preclude any traffic from transgressing on what was left of the alley. Holland said that was not on the letter she had received from the City regarding the vacation. Chair said he wanted to clarify to be sure that she understood that because it was not only a concern that Holland had but had been brought up by Staff and perhaps the Commission as well. Chait said the rezoning and the acquiring of property was not what the Commission was considering at this time. Holland said Lensing had stated his intentions for the future and he also might sell the property. Chair said regardless of who owned the property, the restrictions on the east-west alley went with the property. Bovbjerg said those types of restrictions went with the land, not with the use or with the owner, it was part of the City's ordinance. Regardless of how the property was used or who the neighbors were, the restriction was there and would have to be overturned by a great deal of consideration by the City, so the residents would be protected. Steve Holland, son of Winifred Holland, said they had not been privy to all the information regarding restriction of traffic flow through the alley to Diana Street so they had prepared the best they could with Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes July 17, 2003 Page 9 the knowledge they had. Holland said he felt there was precedent for the neighborhood and for the Commission's decision. Over the years other business interests had come forward in the neighborhood. When he grew up there, it had been only Lucas Field so they had seen the area grow and questioned time and time again about the demarcation of where the business interests stopped in property and where the neighborhood interests began. Years ago his mother had pushed for the fence to be installed, maintained and listed in the City Code. Holland said he found the idea to be unbelievable that backyards in neighborhoods could be sold to a business when in the past the City had said those boundaries are very very important and that should not be crossed. He saw it as a way of inching forward. He didn't think Lensing had any evil intent but was trying to do his best for business, but felt Lensing had other options such as the business parking lot to the west. Holland said he didn't believe that this was a request solely for parking and nor did he believe that to put more cars on the lot would help the already congested traffic at Kirkwood and Dodge Streets. Holland said he was asking the Commission not to recommend the vacation. He said he thought there should be an investigation into other uses for the area, including maintaining the walnut trees. Public discussion was closed. Chair said based on the public discussion and the Commission's practiced policy of having two meetings on issues, he was asking the Commission if they would not feel more comfortable about having two meetings on this topic, just because there was discussion on this application. There were no time concerns so it seemed to him that another meeting would be prudent. Motion: Chair made a motion to defer VAC03-00001, an application submitted by Michael Lensing for the vacation of an alley right-of-way located south of Kirkwood Avenue and west of Diana Street. Freerks seconded the motion. Freerke said everyone's points and views were very important. What the Commission was doing now was perhaps the easier part of the equation for Lensing's plan for the future. There were many other concepts/issues that had to be considered for making decisions regarding zoning. Shannon said he was glad that they were going to wait. He would like to hear from other homeowners in the neighborhood, even from persons who were marginally involved. Koppes said she agreed with the deferral. She thought it was the right way to go and the Commission could get more information. Bovbjerg said generally it was wise, when there was confusion and discussion, to take their time since there was nothing time sensitive. The general question before them was just the vacation. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. OTHER: Miklo said Staff wished to schedule at least one meeting next week on the Code re-write. Temporary Uses and Non-conforming Uses would be presented. It was decided July 23 at 5:30 pm for 1 ~ to 2 hours. Bovbjerg and Shannon would be absent. Joel Faqan, 741 Chestnut Court, said he'd received a letter from the City dated June 27, 2003, which stated that on July 17, 2003 at 7:30 pm there would be a discussion regarding the Sand Hill Estates rezoning request. Miklo said another Petter had been sent last week stating that the discussion would be postponed to one of the two meeting dates in August. Fagan and members of the audience said they had received all the other letters but not the one indicating the postponement of the discussion. Miklo said the most recent letter indicated that the applicant was making revisions to the Plan so the item was being deferred potentially until August 7 or 21. Residents would be notified by letter when the item was on the agenda. Miklo said some persons had received the letter but apologized for any inconvenience to those in attendance. Hansen said an alternative means to obtain an agenda for the Commission's meeting was to go to the City's web site and they would email the agenda directly to interested parties. Miklo said persons were also welcome to telephone the office before the next meeting to see if this item was on the agenda. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes July 17, 2003 Page 10 CONSIDERATION OF 6/19/03 MEETING MINUTES: Hansen made a motion to approve the minutes as written and corrected. Shannon seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. ADJOURNMENT: Freerks made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:04 pm. Hansen seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. Jerry Hansen, Secretary Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes July 14, 2003 Page 3 VACATION ITEM: VAC03-00001, discussion of an application submitted by Michael Lensing for the vacation of an alley right-of-way located south of Kirkwood Avenue and west of Diana Street. Miklo said the three homes on Kirkwood Avenue had vehicular access to the gravel alleyway. The alley continued to the west and south but had never been used or improved for alley purposes. Lensing had requested that the eastern and southern parts of the alley that ran along the funeral home property be vacated. Staff recommended that the entire alley be vacated as indicated on the site map in the Staff Report. Lensing had indicated his intention was to expand his parking lot and had expressed an interest in purchasing a portion of the rear yards of two properties to allow him to square up his property. The current zoning with the vacation would allow Lensing Funeral Home to expand onto the vacated portion of the alley with a special exception. The adjacent property owners had first rights to purchase vacated land, Lensing had discussed with some of the neighbors regarding purchasing a portion of their property. If Lensing obtained the entire alley, the eastern portion of the alley would need to be rezoned to allow for the funeral home business, if Lensing was successful in reaching an agreement to obtain the rear of the two noted properties, he would have to seek a rezoning and special exception to expand the parking lot. The property owner of the building which contained White Dog auto repair had expressed an interest in purchasing the western portion of the alley. Staff would not recommend the alley be sold in piecemeal fashion. There were no City utilities in the alley. Staff had not heard from Mid America Energy or the cable company, Qwest did have a cable in the alley so an easement or private agreement to move the cable would be necessary. Staff had determined that the alley was not needed for public purposes and recommended the vacation. Once a property was vacated, procedure was to ask property owners to make offers and Staff would try to get a reasonable value for the property. Some residents had expressed a concern regarding use of the alley for access to Diana Street. Staff would recommend as a condition of vacation the installation of some type of barrier to prevent access from Lensing's parking lot to Diana Street using the non-vacated portion of the alley. Mr. Lensing was aware of that condition and would accept it. Hansen asked what would happen if the vacation occurred and the homeowners could not come up with offers/price acceptable to the City. Behr said the actual vacation and conveyances would not occur until all the details were worked out. Behr said when a vacation was recommended by the Commission, they were telling property owners to make offers. The vacation would not even be put on the Council's agenda until all offers which were needed were received. Freerks, Shannon and Hansen asked about the slopes and stormwater management on the rear of the property. Miklo said City Engineering was aware of the possible changes. It would be reviewed during the site plan review process. A considerable amount of fill would need to be brought in unless a terrace or similar measures were installed. Bovbjerg asked if there were currently any restrictions on the Lensing property where it abutted the residential properties. Miklo said there had been a rezoning and there were some conditions about landscaping and a fence to create a buffer. Arborvitae trees had been installed twice but because of the walnut trees they had not survived. If it were rezoned, Staff would look at if a standard requirement for a buffer was sufficient or given the situation, with the residential area, was a bigger or different type of buffer or different type of trees necessary. OTHER: Anciaux gave a presentation on the American Planning Association Conference he recently attended in Denver, Colorado. He had brought various documents back for members of the Commission. Sessions he had attended were: "Creatinq a Customer Oriented Development Review System" How to evaluate your system as to whether it was providing a service to the customers. The presenter had been a consultant. Sub presenters were head P&Z planners from King County, Washington (Seattle area) and Colorado Springs, Colorado. It was an evaluation process from start to finish; one stop shopping; the evaluation process they came up with was 65% objective and 35% subjective - what the Prepared by: Karen Howard, Associate Planner, City of Iowa City, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5251 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE TITLE 14, CHAPTER 6, ENTITLED "ZONING," ARTICLE B, ENTITLED" ZONING DEFINITIONS~" SECTION 2, ENTITLED "DEFINITIONS." WHEREAS, the definitions of restaurants in the Zoning Ordinance are intended to provide a means to distinguish between types of restaurants for the purpose of regulating location, parking, and drive-through facilities; and WHEREAS, the currant definitions of restaurants in the Zoning Ordinance have proven problematic due to the rigidity of defining types of restaurants by the ratio of seating araa to total floor area; and WHEREAS, changing the definitions of "rastaurant" and "carry-outJdelivery rastaurant" to provide a distinction based on whether food and beverage is primarily consumed on the premises or is carried or delivered off-site, will be amora useful distinction than the ralative amount of seating area to floor area; and WHEREAS, changing the definition of "drive-through/carry-out restaurant" will ensure that only those restaurants that have drive-through or drive-in facilities ara categorized as "auto- and truck-oriented uses." NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. APPROVAL: City Code Title 14, Chapter 6, Zoning, Article B, Zoning Definitions, is hereby amended to replace the existing definitions of "Restaurant," "Restaurant, Carry-outJDelivery," and "Restaurant, Drive-Through/Carry-Out," with the following definition RESTAURANT: An establishment whera the principal business is the praparation and dispensing of edible foodstuffs and/or beverages primarily for consumption on or off the premises. Restaurants where the foodstuff and/or beverages are dispensed primarily for off-site consumption are considerad "carry- out/delivery rastaurants." "Drive-through rastaurants" are restaurants that have drive-through or drive-in facilities. Drive-through rastaurants ara considerad "auto- and truck-oriented uses" and as such ara only allowed in zones where auto- and truck-oriented uses ara allowed. City Code Title 14, Chapter 6, Zoning, Article N, Off-Straet Parking and Loading, Section 1, Off-Street Parking Requirements, Subsection J, Requirad Number of Off-Straet Parking Spaces, paragraph 2.t. is hereby amended to delete the words "carry-out" from the title as follows: t. Restaurants, drive-through!ccrr,; out SECTION V. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION VI. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION VII. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this __ day of ,2003. MAYOR A'I-rEST: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNE~Y'S OFFICE DRAFT Prepared by: Karen Howard, Associate Planner, City of Iowa City, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5251 ORDINANCE NO. A. o.D;N .CE AME.D .G C T¥ CODE Tree C.APTE., "ART C'E ENTITLED '~ING DEFINITIONS," SECTION 2, ENTITLED "DEF~ WHEREAS,"t~e definitions of restaurants in the Zoning ~ provide a means to distinguish betwee'~ )es of restaurants for the purpose of location, parking, and drive-through facilities; and definitions of restaurants in the ZonirOrdinance have proven problematic due to the rigidity types of restaurants by the ratio of area to total floor area; and of "restaurant" f restaurant" to provide a distinction beverage is primarily ( on the premises or is carried or delivered off-site, will ~seful distinction than the r amount of seating area to floor area; and WHEREAS, changing )n of "drive-through/, ensure that only those restaurants that have drive-throu¢ facilities a orized as "auto- and truck-oriented uses." NOW, THEREFORE :) BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. 4, Chap g, Article B, Zoning Definitions, to replace the existing definitions of Carry-out/Delivery," and "Restaurant, Drive-Through/Carry-Out," with the followir ~)n: RESTAURANT: An establishment where the )al business is the preparation and dispensing of edible foodstuffs and/or beverages primarily fo premises. Restaurants where the foodstuff and/or beverag consumption are considered "carry- out/delivery restaurants." "Drive-through gh or drive-in facilities. Drive-through restaurants are co id truck-oriented uses" and as such are only allowed in zones where auto- and truck-or Amend City Code Title 14, Chapter ~ Article N Parking and Loading, Section 1, Off-Street Parking Requirements, J, Req 'no'fir of Off-Street Parking Spaces, paragraph 2.t. to delete the words "car Irom th follo~s: t. Restaurants, drive-through/ear~ SECTION V. REPEALER. All ~'r¢ ~ and parts of ordinance~ in conflict with the provisions of this ~ealej~. SECTION VI. SEVERAB .IT_I.I~. If any section, provision or part of th~ Ordinance shall be adjudged to be i~ Nh adju Jication shall nat affect the validity',~f the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part' fereof no: adjudged invalid or unconstitutiona~ SECTION VII. EFFECT -2 DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after?ts final passage, approval and publication, as ' law. Passed and day of ,2003. MAYOR ATTEST: Approved by CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM October 31,2003 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Karen Howard - Associate Planner Re: Restaurant Definitions The definitions that we currently have in the Zoning Code for restaurants have been problematic due to the rigidity of defining restaurants by the ratio of seating area to total floor area. The Code currently divides restaurants into three categories: restaurants; restaurant, carry-out/delivery; and restaurant, drive-through/carry-out. "Restaurants" are those that have over 50% of the floor area devoted to seating. Establishments with no seating area are defined as carry-out/delivery restaurants. Those with less than 50% of the floor area devoted to seating are defined as drive-through/carry-out restaurants, regardless of whether they actually have a drive-through. The problem is that for restaurants that have less than 50% of the floor area devoted to seating, a much higher parking requirement is imposed and they are automatically categorized as "auto- and truck-oriented uses" even if they have no drive-through facilities. For example, a small carry-out restaurant with just a few tables must provide 1 parking space for every 65 square feet of floor area and are only allowed in commercial zones that allows "auto- and truck-oriented uses." This is especially problematic in the CO-1, CN-1, CB-5, and CB-10 zones, where "restaurants" and "carry-out restaurants" are permitted, but only if there is no seating area or if the seating area exceeds 50% of the total floor area. All restaurants in between those two extremes are not allowed because they are considered auto- and truck-oriented uses. This effectively precludes various types of restaurants that would be quite compatible with the pedestrian-oriented character of these commercial zones. The restaurant definitions have also been problematic in the Community Commercial (CC-2) Zone. There have been a number of occasions when the city has received an application for a restaurant in the CC-2 Zone with a seating area that is less than 50 percent of the total floor area. As a consequence, the applicant must go through the special exception process for approval of an "auto- and truck-oriented use," even if no drive-through facilities are proposed. According to the Department of Housing and Inspections Services, applicants for restaurants (without drive-through facilities) have sometimes modified the interior floor plan of the restaurant to add seating area that they might not otherwise need just to avoid being categorized as an auto- and truck-oriented use. Attached is a list of examples of restaurants that had to modify their floor plans to fit into the definition of restaurant or went ahead and applied for a special exception for an auto- and truck- oriented use, even though they had no drive-through facilities. The apparent reason to make the current distinction between types of restaurants is to make it easier to establish distinct parking requirements for different types of restaurants and also to regulate more carefully those restaurants that have drive- through facilities. These purposes can be achieved, however, without placing such a rigid distinction based on the relative amount of seating area. Staff recommends, therefore, that the definition of restaurants be amended as follows: In 14-6B-2: Definitions, delete the definitions of Restaurant, Restaurant - Carry- out/Delivery, and Restaurant - Drive-Through/Carry-Out. RESTAURANT DR~VE THROUGH/CARRY OUT' * .... +~ ..;..*~a ....... ~.. *~ In 14-6B-2: Definitions, replace the aforementioned definitions with the following definition of Restaurant. RESTAURANT: An establishment where the principal business is the preparation and dispensinR of edible foodstuffs and/or beverages primarily for consumption on or off the premises. Restaurants where the foodstuff and/or beveraqes are dispensed primarily for off-site consumption are considered "car~-ou~delive~ restaurants." "Drive-throuqh restaurants" are restaurants that have drive-through or drive-in facilities. Drive-throuqh restaurants are considered "auto- and t~ck-oriented uses" and as such are only allowed in zones where auto- and truck-oriented uses are allowed, In ~4-6N-~J: Required Number of Parking Spaces, amend paragraph 2.t., deleting the word "car~-out" from the title as follows: Kadn/Franklin, Director Dopa~mont of ~lannino and Community Devolopmont Recent cases where definition of restaurant has been problematic: · The Rack - (CC-2 Zone) Granted a special exception as an "auto and truck- oriented use" in the CC-2 Zone in Pepperwood Plaza. The restaurant has no drive-through. · Pita Pit - (CB-10 Zone) Modified its interior floor plan so that it would have more than 50% of its floor area devoted to seating. Otherwise, the restaurant would not have been permitted in the CB-10, because it would have been classified as an auto- and truck-oriented use. · Jimmy John's - (CB-10 Zone) same situation as the Pita Pit. · The Wed.qe - (CC-2 Zone) Granted a special exception as an "auto and truck- oriented use" in the CC-2 Zone along Riverside Drive. The restaurant has no drive-through. · El Paso Tienda Mexicana - (CC-2 Zone) Applied for a special exception for an "auto and truck-oriented use." Staff worked with the applicant to modify the interior floor plan so that the seating area would exceed 50%. Therefore,. the special exception application was withdrawn. The restaurant has no drive- through. P O Box 5538- 415 Ave ~'~LED Coralville, IA 52241 Telephone: 319-351-4452 ~003 NOV -5 PM 2~' 32 Fax: 319-351-2415 CI Y CLERK IOWA IOWA Iowa City Council November 5th, 2003 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Council Members: I am writing in support of "amending the definition ora restaurant". I am a General Contractor in the Iowa City area and have mn into this zoning problem on a prior project (i.e. Pita Pit on Iowa Avenue). This issue required us to increase the seating capacity and because of the increased seating it required that there be two bathrooms in the restaurant. Some of the buildings in the downtown Iowa City area are not large enough to have the capability of having fifty-percent of the area allotted for seating and still have adequate room for a kitchen and prep- kitchen. I am currently involved in a project constructing a small restaurant located at 110 E College and once again this issue is impeding the process. The current plan that I have at the City Building Department currently does not work because of this zoning issue. This project is in support of local business as a local person will open the restaurant and the building owner is also from Iowa City. This type of problem is not uncommon for the Iowa City downtown area. Amending the definition of a restaurant would help support business growth in Iowa City and better meet the needs of the downtown business owners. I appreciate your consideration on this issue. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Barten Building Services. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE 2001-2006 CONSOLIDATED PLAN (a.k.a CITY STEPS) PROPOSED AMENDMENT The City Council will be holding a public hearing on a proposed amendment to the 2001-2006 Consolidated Plan (a.k.a. CITY STEPS) on November 10, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., City Hall, Emma J. Harvat Hall, 410 East Washington Street, Iowa City, IA. The City of Iowa City is making this oppodunity available to citizens wishing to comment on a proposed amendment to CITY STEPS that would increase the priority level for "Neighborhood Facilities" from a "medium" to a "high". At their October 16, 2003 meeting, the Housing and Community Development Commission recommended this amendment to the City Council. The CITY STEPS plan outlines a range of activities to be undertaken by the City and its subrecipients to address the housing, jobs and service needs of Iow-income citizens. Copies of the CITY STEPS Plan are available from the Depadment of Planning and Community Development, 410 East Washington Street. In addition, a copy of the CITY STEPS plan is available for review at the Iowa City Public Library 123 S. Linn Street. Additional information is available from the Department of Planning and Community Development, 410 East Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa, 52240 or by calling 356- 5230. If you require special accommodations please contact Stephen Long at 356-5250 or 356-5493 TTY. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS FOR THE STORMWATER UTILITY AND STORMWATER UTILITY FEE IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA TO ALL TAXPAYERS OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, AND TO OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS: Public notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, will conduct a public hearing on ordinance amendments for the Stormwater Utility and Stormwater Utility Fee in said city at 7:00 p.m. on the '~0th day of November, 2003, said meeting to be held in the Emma J. Harvat Hall in City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street in said city, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk. Said ordinance amendments are now on file in the office of the City Clerk in City Hall in Iowa City, Iowa, and may be inspected by any interested persons. Any interested persons may appear at said meeting of the City Council for the purpose of making objections to and comments concerning said plans, specifications, contract or the cost of making said improvement. This notice is given by order of the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa and as provided by law. MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK Prepared by: Rick Fosse, Public Works, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5141 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 3 ENTITLED "CITY FINANCES, TAXATION & FEES," CHAPTER 4, "SCHEDULE OF FEES, RATES, CHARGES, BONDS, FINES, AND PENALTIES"; AMENDING TITLE '14 ENTITLED "UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE," CHAPTER 3, "CITY UTILITIES," ARTICLE A, "GENERAL PROVISIONS," SECTION 14-3A-2, "DEFINITIONS," AND SECTION '14-3A-4, "RATES AND CHARGES FOR CITY UTILITIES" AND; AMENDING TITLE 14 ENTITLED "UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE," CHAPTER 3, "CITY UTILITIES," ARTICLE G, "STORM WATER COLLECTION, DISCHARGE AND RUNOFF," TO CREATE A STORMWATER UTILITY AND ESTABLISH A STORMWATER UTILITY FEE. WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City, since its incorporation, has constructed a stormwater infrastructure with point source and non-point source discharges into the Iowa River and the six major creeks; and WHEREAS, the City stormwater infrastructure carries stormwater runoff either directly or indirectly from properties within the City to the Iowa River; and WHEREAS, the Iowa River, the major creeks, and the City's stormwater infrastructure are available for stormwater and ground water discharges; and WHEREAS, the City incurs costs to monitor, maintain, replace, and improve its stormwater infrastructure; and WHEREAS, the City is now required to have a national pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES) permit to operate and maintain its stormwater infrastructure and to otherwise protect the waters of the Iowa River and the six major creeks; and WHEREAS, the City has identified an ongoing need to fund water quality improvements in streams, creeks, and ditches within the city as well as the need to fund improvements for maintaining and improving water quality and to mitigate and prevent flooding from st.ormwater runoff into City-owned storm sewers; and WHEREAS, current and pending Federal and State regulations require the City to take additional affirmative steps in such areas as public education, public improvements, detection of illicit discharge in stormwater systems, construction of site runoff control, stormwater management, and pollution prevention programs to address water quality issues and flood control, which additional activities will create additional funding 0obligations for such mandated services; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 388, Code of Iowa (2001), the City is authorized to establish City utilities including a stormwater drainage system utility; and WHEREAS, the City now desires through this ordinance to create a stormwater drainage system utility and establish authority to implement and enforce user fees. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. AMENDMENT. Title 3, Chapter 4, entitled "Schedule of Fees, Rates, Charges, Bonds, Fines, and Penalties" is hereby amended by: a. Renumbering Section 3-4-8 to Section 3-4-9. b. Renumbering Section 3-4-7 to Section 3-4-8. c. Renumbering Section 3-4-6 to Section 3-4-7. d. Adding a new Section 3-4-6 as follows: 3-4-6: STORM WATER UTILITY FEE Description of Fees, Charge, Bond Fine or Penalty: Storrnwater Utility Fee. Users include all users owning or occupying developed property in the city of Iowa City. Amount of Fee, Charge, Bond, Fine, or Penalty: One Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) = $2.00 SECTION II. AMENDMENT. Title 14, Chapter 3, Article A, entitled "General Provisions" of the City Code is hereby amended by: a. Repealing the Subsection entitled "City Utilities, City Utility Services" in Section 14-3A-2 and substituting the following in lieu thereof: Ci.ty Utilities. Ci.ty Utility S~,.rvices: The providing of water, wastewater, stormwater drainage, and/or solid waste services to persons who are obligated to pay for said services. Ordinance No. Page 2 b. Adding a subsection entitled "Stormwater Drainage" in Section 14-3A-2 as follows: ~: Stormwater, ground water, and spent water discharged to the City's stormwater infrastructure. c. Repealing Subsection 14-3A-4(A)(2) and substituting the following in lieu thereof: 2. Afl contributors or users owning or occupying property in the city of Iowa City shall be charged for the service used. In addition, a fee shall be charged to all account holders for operation, maintenance, and improvements to the City's stormwater infrastructure utility. The City shall review the user charge system and revise user charge rates as necessary to ensure that the system generates adequate revenues to pay the costs of operation and maintenance, necessary expansion and debt service, and that the system continues to provide for the uniform distribution of operation and maintenance among all users. The City will annual notify all users, in conjunction with a regular bill, of the wastewater treatment charges and that portion of the user's bill attributable to wastewater treatment services. Such rates and charges shall be in the amounts set forth in the schedule of fees, Title 3, Chapter 4 of this Cede. ~ That Title 14, Chapter 3, City Utilities, Article G of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa is hereby amended by adding the following Section 14-3G-10, entitled "Stormwater Utility and Stormwater Utility Fee": 14-3G-10 STORMWATER UTILITY & STORMWATER UTILITY FEE A. Eu[p_o~e. It is determined and declared to be necessary and to lead or contribute to a result conducive to the protection of the public health, safety, welfare, and compliance with federal regulation, that a stormwater management utility district be established within the city. It is further determined and declared to be necessary and conducive to the protection of the public health, welfare, and safety of the city and its residents that charges be levied upon and collected fi.om the owners or occupants of all developed lots, parcels or real estate, and buildings that discharge stormwater or surface or subsurface waters, directly or indirectly, to the city stormwater drainage system, and that the proceeds of such charges so derived be used for the purposes of management of storm water runoff quantity and quality, construction, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement and debt service for construction of the stormwater drainage, flood protection and stormwater quality improvements comprising the stormwater utility. B. Definitinn,~. As used in this Section, the following definitions shall apply: City: City of Iowa City Developed Property: Property upon which a structure or impervious surface has been placed or constructed, thus increasing the amount of rainwater or surface water runoff. Director: The Public Works Director or designee. Drainage Course: A shallow narrow grassed or paved overland route, either natural or constructed, over which water passes. Dwelling Unit: A singular unit or apartment providing complete, independent living facilities for one or more persons including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation. Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU): The average impervious area of a single family residential property located within the city as periodically determined and established as provided in this Section. ERU Rate: The dollar value periodically determined and assigned to each ERU as a charge for stormwater management services, and expressed as SX.XX per ERU. Exempt Property: Public streets, alleys and sidewalks; all University of Iowa properties; all undeveloped properties. Ground Water: Water beneath the surface of the earth which is not bound to soil particles. Impervious Area: The number of square feet of hard-surfaced areas which either prevent or resist the entry of water into soil mantle, as it entered under natural conditions as undeveloped property, and/or cause water to run off the surface in greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow from that present under natural conditions as undeveloped property, including but not limited to roofs, roof extensions, patios, porches, driveways, sidewalks, pavement, athletic courts, and semi-impervious surfaces such as gravel which are used as driveways or parking lots. Multi-family Residential Property: Residential structures designed with two or more dwelling units to accommodate two or more families or groups of individuals living separately and not sharing the same living space. Non-Point Source Discharge: Water discharged from the earth's surface to a drainage course or water Course. Non-residential Property: Any developed lot not exclusively residential, including but not limited to, transient rentals, commemial, institutional, churches, hospitals, governmental properties and parking lots, Ordinance No. Page 3 and multi-use properties incorporating residential uses. Point Source Discharge: Water discharged to the earth's surface through a pipe, conduit, tube, duct, channel or pumping facility. Single-Family Residential Property: A detached residential structure designed as a single dwelling unit to accommodate one family or group of individuals living together and sharing the same living space, but excluding multi-use propedies which include single-family residential uses. Stonnwater Drainage System District: The area served bythe stormwater utility. Storrnwater Infrastructure: The entire constructed and natural stormwater and ground water drainage system within the City limits of Iowa City. Stormwater Management: The tasks required to control stormwater runoff to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public, and comply with state and federal regulations, It includes but is not limited to street sweeping, erosion control, stormwater basin improvements and maintenance, culvert and storm sewer maintenance, stormwater management planning and related public education. Stormwater Utility: The utility established under this Section for the purpose of managing stormwater and imposing charges for the recovery of costs connected with such stormwater management. Surface Water: Stormwater, ground water, and spent water received by the earth's surface. Undeveloped Property: A parcel that has no impervious area. User: The owner and/or occupant of any developed property within the limits of iowa City. Water Course: A natural ovedand route through which water passes, including drainage courses, streams, creeks, and rivers. C. District. The entire City is hereby organized into one stormwater utility district. D. Powem and Duti~.~. The City shall have the following powers, duties, and responsibilities with respect to the Stormwater Utility: 1. Prepare ordinances as needed to implement this division and forward the ordinances to the City Council for consideration and adoption, and adopt such regulations and procedures as are required to implement this division and carry out its duties and responsibilities. 2. Administer the design, censtruction, maintenance and operation of the utility system, including capital improvements designated in the comprehensive drainage plan. 3. Acquire, construct, lease, own, operate, maintain, extend, expand, replace, clean, dredge, repair, conduct, manage, and finance such facilities, operations, and activities, as are deemed by the City to be proper and reasonably necessary for a system of storm and surface water management. These facilities may include, but ara not limited to, surface and underground drainage facilities, storm sewers, watercourses, ponds, ditches, and such other facilities relating to collection, runoff, and retention as will support a stormwater management system, whether such facilities ara owned and operated directly by the City or ara provided under statutory or contractual provisions and fumishings of which facilities create or impose a cost or charge upon the City for the service afforded by such facilities. 4. The City shall separately account for the stormwater utility finances. The stormwater utility shall prepare an annual budget, which is to include all operation and maintenance costs, costs of borrowing, and other costs related to the operation of the stormwater utility. The budget is subject to approval by the City Council. Any excess of revenues over expenditures in a year shall be retained in a segregated fund, which shall be used for stormwater utility expenses in subsequent years. Stormwater utility fees collected shall be deposited in the stormwater enterprise fund and shall be used for no other purpose. E. Establishment of Equivalent Residential Unit/.ERU) rate and stnrmwater utili~ char_ea. 1. For purposes of this article, an ERU shall be equivalent to 3,129 square feet of impervious area. 2. Except as provided in this article, every user owning or occupying property that is not exempt property in the City of Iowa City shall pay to City a stormwater utility charge as determined in this article. In the event the owner and the occupant of a particular property are not the same the liability for payment of the stormwater management charge attributable to that property shall be joint and several as to the owner and occupant. 3. The ERU rate to be applied to properties shall be as defined in {}3-4-6 of the City Code. 4. The monies derived from the stormwater utility charge shall be used solely for the operation and maintenance of the City wide stormwater infrastructure and related water quality programs. F. Detenminatic~n of stormwater utilih/, char0p, Ordinance No. Page 4 1. The stormwater utility charge for single-family residential properties shall be 100% of the ERU rate per month. As to these properties, the stormwater utility charge shall commence upon the eadier of the following: a. The issuance of a certificate of occupancy; b. 90 days after construction is halted, provided construction is at least 50% complete; or c. 90 days after construction is completed, even if a certificate of occupancy has not been issued for the residence. 2. For multi-family residential properties the stormwater utility charge shall be 50% of the ERU rate multiplied by the number of individual dwelling units existing on the property. As to these properties, the stormwater utility charge shall commence upon the eadier of the following: a. The issuance of a certificate of occupancy;, b. 90 days after construction is halted, provided construction is at least 50% complete; or c. 90 days after construction is completed, even if a certificate of occupancy has not been issued for the residence. 3. For non-residential property, the stormwater utility charge shall be 100% of the ERU rate multiplied by the numerical factor obtained by dividing the total impervious area of the particular property by the number of square feet in one ERU. The minimum charge shall be equal to 100% of the ERU rate. As to these properties, the stormwater utility charge shall commence upon the earlier of the following: a. The issuance of a certificate of occupancy, b. 90 days after construction is halted, provided construction is at least 50% complete; or C. 90 days after construction is completed, even if a certificate of occupancy has not been issued for the residence. G. ~ 1. An owner or occupant of a multi-family residential property aggrieved by the initial or any subsequent calculation of the number of dwelling units upon or in such property, calculation of the stormwater utility charge, or allocation of such charge among occupants, may appeal such calculations and allocation to the director. Upon such appeal, the stormwater utility charge for such property may be recalculated utilizing information supplied by the appealing owner or occupant, provided such information is verified as correct by the director. 2. An owner or occupant of non-residential property aggrieved by the initial or any subsequent determination of the total impervious area of such property, calculation of the stormwater utility charge for such property, or allocation of such charge among occupants, may appeal such calculations and allocation to the director. Upon such appeal, the stormwater utility charge for such property may be recalculated utilizing information supplied by the appealing owner or occupant, provided such information is verified as correct by the director. 3. Any adjustment of the stormwater utility charge resulting from such appeal shall be retroactive to the date the appeal was filed. 4. Appeals by the owners or occupants of property subject to stormwater utility charges shall include a statement of the number of dwelling units, total property area, and/or total impervious area, as appropriate for the particular grounds for appeal. Such information may be shown on the stormwater utility reporting forms or on appeal forms, and may be accompanied by plats, County Assessor's records, or survey data, The director may request additional information from the appealing party. Based upon the information provided by the utility and appealing party, the director shall make a final calculation of the stormwater utility charge. The director shall notify the parties, in writing, of the director's decision within 90 days after receipt of the appeal. If still aggrieved, a party may request, in writing, a review by the City Manager of the director's decision. Such request must be filed with the City Manager within 30 days after the director's decision, shall cite the specific error by the director, and shall include the calculation of stormwater utility charge which the appealing party believes to be correct. The City Manager shall review the record presented and render a written decision within 30 days after receipt of the request for review. The City Manager may request additional information from the director or the appealing party. If still aggrieved, a party may request review of the City Manager's decision by the City Council in the same manner as above, provided for review by the City Manager. The filing of an appeal shall not excuse the payment of the stormwater utility charge when due. However, the City shall refund any portion of the charge paid subsequent to the filing of the appeal which is adjudged to be excessive, with interest at the rate provided by law. H. Billing precedures, delinquent no. hunts and collenfinn procedures Ordinance No. Page 5 1. The charges established hereunder will be billed monthly to customers in the Iowa City stormwater utility district. 2. Collection and delinquent account procedures shall be as in {}14-3A-6 of the City Code. SECTION IV. REPEAl ER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION V. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION VI. EFFECTIVE DATF. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication. Passed and approved this day of ,20.__ MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK (~ity A;ttom~y'~Office pweng/ord/stormwaterl 1-03.doc Prepared by: Rick Fosse, Public Works, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5141 ORDINANCE NO. AN ¢ -- AMENDING TITLE 3 ENTITLED "CITY FINANCES, TAXATION & FEES," CHAPTER 4, DULE OF FEES, RATES FINES, AND PENALTIES"; AMENDING TITLE 4 ENTITLED "L CODE," CHAPTER 3, "CITY UTILITIES," ARTICL "GENERAL PROVISION.~ '14-3A-2, "DEFINITIONS," AND SECTION '14~3A-4, UTILITIES" AND; AMENDING TITLE '14 ENTITLED "UNI "CHAPTER 3, "CITY UTILITIES," ARTICLE G, "STORM ,E AND RUNOFF," TO CREATE A STORMWATER UTILI'P )RMWATER UTILITY FEE. WHEREAS, the City of Iowa its incorporation, has constructed a stormwater infrastructure with point source and non source discharges into the Iowa River and the six major creeks; and WHEREAS, the City stormwater e carries stormwater runoff either directly or indirectly from properties within the City to and WHEREAS, the Iowa River, t~ie major creeks the City's stormwater infrastructure are available for stormwater and groCd water discha~ WHEREAS, the City incurs/costs to monitor, replace, and improve its stormwater infrastructure; and / / WHEREAS, the City is n/~TM required to have a national po'~utant__ discharge elimination system at?a (NPDES) permit to oper nd maintain its stormwater infrastru re and to otherwise protect the waters of the Iowa River~and the six major creeks; and WHEREAS, the City has identified an ongoing need to fund ~,ater quality improvements in streams, creeks, an8 ditches within the city as well as the nee~,,to fund improvements for maintaining and improving water quality and to mitigate and preven~,,flooding from stormwater runoff into City-owned storm sewers; and WHEREAS, current and pending Federal and State regulations require the City to take additional affirmative steps in such areas as public education, public improvements, detection of illicit discharge in stormwater systems, construction of site runoff control, stormwater management, and pollution prevention programs to address water quality issues and flood control, which additional activities will create additional funding Oobligations for such mandated services; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 388, Code of Iowa (2001), the City is authorized to establish Ordinance No. Page 2 City utilities including a stormwater drainage system utility; and WHEREAS, the City now desires through this ordinance to create a stormwater drainage system utility and establish authority to implement and enforce user fees. NOW, , BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. /IENDMENT. Title 3, Chapter 4, entitled "Schedule Rates, Charges, Bonds, Fines, and nalties" is hereby amended by: a. Renumberin 3-4-9. b. Renumbering ion 3-4-7 to Section 3-4-8. c. Renumbering ~ 3-4-6 to Section 3-4-7. d. Adding a new Sectio~ ; as follows: 3-4-6: Description of Fees, Ch~ge, Bond, Amou]{t of Fee, Charge, Bond, Fine, or Fine, or Penalty Pen~'lty Stormwater Utility Fee. Users in~ude all users owning or occupying dev~ped yERU =$2.00 property in the City of Iowa City. SECTION II. AMENDMENT. Title 14, Ch · 3, Article A, entitled "General Provisions" of the City Code is hereby amended by: a. Repealing the Subsection City Utility Services" in Section 14-3A-2 and substituting the following in lieu the~ Utilities ces: The qg of water, wastewater, stormwater drainage, and/or ~rsons who are o~ligated to pay for said services. b. Adding a subsection entitl, "Stormwater Drainage" ~ Section 14-3A-2 as follows: Stormwater Draina,qe: 'mwater, ground water, and ~pent water discharged to the City's stormwater infrastructure. c. Repealing (A)(2) and substituting the~llowing in lieu thereof: 2. or users owning or occupying property~n the city of Iowa City shall be charged for the used. In addition, a fee shall be chargt~d to all account holders for operation, maintenance, and improvements to the City's stormwater infrastructure utility. The City shall review the user charge system and revise user charge rates as necessary to ensure that the system generates adequate revenues to pay the costs of operation and maintenance, necessary expansion and debt service, and that the system continues to provide for the uniform distribution Ordinance No. Page 3 of operation and maintenance among all users. The City will annual notify all users, in conjunction with a regular bill, of the wastewater treatment charges and that portion of the user's bill attributable to wastewater treatment services. Such rates and charges shall be in the amounts set forth in the schedule of fees, Title 3, Chapter 4 of this Code. SECTION That Title 14, Chapter 3, City Utilities, Article G of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa Iowa is hereby amended by adding the following S~tion 14-3G-10, entitled ~d Stormwater Utility Fee": / 14-3G-10 V 'ER UTILITY & STORMWATER UTILITY FE~' / A. Purpose. It is J( ned and declared to be necessary andt/lead or contribute to a result conducive to the on of the public health, safety, welf/a're, and compliance with federal regulation, that a ,ment utility district ~ established within the city. It is further determined be necessary and cor~ducive to the protection of the public / health, welfare, and safety the city and its residents that charges be levied upon and collected from the owners or of all developed lots, parcels or real estate, and , buildings that discharge or surface or Subsurface waters, directly or indirectly, to the city stormwater drainage and that thee proceeds of such charges so derived be used for the purposes of manag runoff quantity and quality, construction, operation, maintenance, repair, and debt service for construction of the stormwater drainage, flood protection quality improvements comprising the stormwater utility. B. Definitions. As used in this Section, the shall apply: City: Cit ~wa City Developed Property: Pro upon which a structure or impervious surface been placed or constructed, thus increasing amount of rainwater or surface water runoff. Director: The Public Director or designee. Drainage Course: A shallow rassed or paved overland route, either :)r constructed, over which water passes. Dwelling Unit: A singular unit or providing complete, /... independent living facilities for one or more persons including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation. Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU): The average impervious area of a single family Ordinance No. Page 4 residential property located within the city as periodically determined and established as provided in this Section. ERU The dollar value periodically determined and assigned to each, ERU as/~ charge for stormwater management / services, and expressed as SX.XX per ERU. Exempt Property: Public streets, alleys a?~ sidewalks; all University of Iowa properties; afl'undeveloped properties. Ground Water: Water beneath t~f~ surface of the earth which is not bound to s,¢il particles. Impervious Area: The of square feet of hard-surfaced areas either prevent or resist the entry of water soil mantle, as it entered under natural ~ped property, and/or cause to run off the surface in greater quantities at an increased rate of flow from that present ;r natural conditions as undeveloped including but not limited to roofs, roof extens :~s, patios, porches, driveways, sidewalks,',kpavement, athletic courts, and semi- impervious ,~rfaces such as gravel which are used as ddve~ys or parking lots. Multi-family Residential Pr ~rty: Residenf~al stru.c~ures designed with two or more dwelling units tR~accommodate two or more families or groups~ individuals~ living separately and not sharing the ~-~e living sp~ce. Non-Point Source [ e: Water discharged fro~the earth s surface to a drainage course or wat~course. Non-residenti; Any developed lot not~\exclusively residential, including but not limited\to, transient rentals, commercial, institutional, I churches, hospitals, governmental properties and parking lots, and multi-use properties incorporating residential uses. Ordinance No. Page 5 Point Source Discharge: Water discharged to the earth's surface through a pipe, conduit, tube, duct, channel or pumping ~ facility. tgle-Family Residential Property: A detached residential s~ucture designed as a single dwelling unit to a~Ycommodate one family or group of individuals/~ving together and sharing the same living/s~ace, but excluding multi-use properties whic~i include single-family residential / uses. Stormwater System District: The by the stormwater utility. Stormwater ure: The enti~ constructed and natural stormwater and gm ~d water drainage system within the City limits City. Stormwater Management: The required to control stormwater runoff to the health, safety, and welfare of the and comply with state and federal ulations. It includes but is not limited to street sweeping, erosion contrel, stormwater basin and maintenance, culvert and sewer maintenance, stormwater man~ ement planning and related public Stormwater Utility: The under this Section for the purpose stormwater and imposing charges of costs connected with such anagement. Surface Water: Stormwater, water, and spent water received by the eartt surface. Undevelo A parcel that has no in 9rvious area. User: The owner and/or of any developed property within the limits ( WaterCourse: A natural overland route ~gh which water passes, including drainage courses, streams, creeks, and rivers. Ordinance No. Page 6 C. District. The entire City is hereby organized into one stormwater utility district. D. Powers and Duties. The City shall have the following powers, duties, and responsibilities with respect to the Stormwater Utility: 1. Prepare ordinances as needed to implement this division and forward the ordinances to City Council for consideration and adoption, and adopt such regulations and cedures as are required to implement this division and carry out its duties and nsibilities. 2. er the design, construction, maintenance and oper )n of the utility system, including improvements designated in the com ~ drainage plan. 3. Acquire, lease, own, operate, maintain, extend, replace, clean, dredge, repair, manage, and finance such facilities, and activities, as are deemed by the to be proper and reasonably ne for a system of storm and surface ,ment. These facilities may i~ but are not limited to, surface and underground facilities, storm sewe~ watercourses, ponds, ditches, and such other to collection retention as will suppod a stormwater management system, ~ such facilities a~ owned and operated directly by the City or are provided under statutor ' contractual 2visions and furnishings of which facilities create or impose a cost or char( for the service afforded by such facilities. 4. The City shall separately utility finances. The stormwater utility shall prepare an annual budget, include all operation and maintenance costs, costs of borrowing, and other cost~ to the operation of the stormwater utility. The budget is subject to approval by Council. Any excess of revenues over expenditures in a year shall be ~ted fund, which shall be used for stormwater fees collected shall be deposited in the stormwater ente~ be used for no other purpose. E. Establishment of Equivalent utility char,qe. 1. For purposes of this article, be eq~ 3,129 square feet of impervious area. 2. Except as provided in article, every user owning or o~upying property that is not exempt property in the C of Iowa City shall pay to City a stN'mwater utility charge as determined in this article/I ~ the event the owner and the occupant o~a particular property are same the liab/ilf(y for payment of the stormwater management~charge\ attributable to r~ot the that property shall b~ joint and several as to the owner and occupant. 3. The ERU rate to be applied to properties shall be as defined in §3-4-6 of the City Code. 4. The monies derived from the stormwater utility charge shall be used solely for the Ordinance No. Page 7 operation and maintenance of the City wide stormwater infrastructure and related water quality programs. F. Determination of stormwater utility charge 1. The stormwater utility charge for single-family residential properties shall be 100% of the ERU rate per month. As to these properties, the stormwater utility charge shall commence upon the earlier of the following: a. The issuance of a certificate of occupancy; 90 days after construction is halted, provided constru~ion is at least 50% complete; or days after construction is completed, even if a certificate of occupancy has not issued for the residence. 2. For residential properties the stormwater utility charge shall be 50% of the ERU rate multi by the number of individual dwel~fng units existing on the property. As to these properties, stormwater utility charge s~all commence upon the earlier of the following: a. The issuance b. 90 da halted, pr,~ided construction is at least 50% complete; or c. 90 days after is completed, even if a certificate of occupancy has not been issued for the residence. 3. For non-residential property, utility charge shall be 100% of the ERU rate multiplied by the numerical factor by dividing the total impervious area of the particular property by in one ERU. The minimum charge shall be equal to 100% of the ERU rate. to these"l~operties, the stormwater utility charge shall commence upon the earlier oft following:~ a. The issuance of a cert¢ ; of occupancy; ~ b. 90 days after constru~Ctio ~ halted, provided c~nstruction is at least 50% complete; or c. 90 days after con, ruction is completed, even ff-~a certificate of occupancy has not been issued for rye residence. G. Appeals. / 1. An owner or occupant of a multi-family residential property ~grieved by the initial or any subsequent calcul~ in of the number of dwellinglling units upon or in~uchunits upon or in uch property, calculation of calculations ¢ Upon such appeal, the sto~'mwater utility charge for such property may be recalculated utilizing information supplied by the appealing owner or occupant, provided such information is verified as correct by the director. 2. An owner or occupant of non-residential property aggrieved by the initial or any Ordinance No. Page 8 subsequent determination of the total impervious area of such property, calculation of the stormwater utility charge for such property, or allocation of such charge among occupants, may appeal such calculations and allocation to the director. Upon such appeal, the stormwater utilit: ~ for such property may be recalculated utilizing i~formation supplied by the appealin! 'ne' or ( cc ]pant, provided such information is ~erified as correct by the director. 3. Any s~ent of the stormwater utility charge r/e/suiting from such appeal shall be retroactive appeal was filed. / 4. Appeals by occupants of property?subject to stormwater utility charges shall include a state~ of the number of dwellihg units, total property area, and/or total impervious area, for the part~;ular grounds for appeal. Such information may be shown on th utility reporting forms or on appeal forms, and may be accompanied by plats, Assessor's records, or survey data. The director may request additional inform~ from the/appealing party. Based upon the information provided by the utilit, ~ling the director shall make a final calculation of the stormwater utility charge. The all notify the parties, in writing, of the director's decision within 90 days after appeal. If still aggrieved, a party may request, in writing, a review by the City Man~ ;r of the director's decision. Such request must be filed with the City Manager within lays after the director's decision, shall cite the specific error by the director, and ~ calculation of stormwater utility charge which the appealing party to The City Manager shall review the record presented and render a within 30 days after receipt of the request for review. The City Manager request onal information from the director or the appealing party. If still a party review of the City Manager's decision by the the same manner a ~bove, provided for review by the City Manager. The filing of shall not excuse payment of the stormwater utility charge when due. H, the City shall portion of the charge paid subsequent to the fill I of the appeal which is be excessive, with interest at the rate provided H. Billinc Jent accounts and collection I: 1. The charges hereunder will be billed monthly in the Iowa City stormwater utility ¢ rict. 2. Collection uent account procedures shall be as in §14-3A-6 of the City Code. SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION V. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be Ordinance No. Page 9 adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the whole or any section, provision or part thereof not ed invalid or unconsti- tutional. SECTION VI. DATE. This Ordinance shall be ir after its final passage, approval and I: Passed and apl of MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Approved by City Attorney's Office City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM TO: Rick Fosse FROM: Brian Boelk ~ DATE: November 3, 2003 ~/~(~wj .j RE: Stormwater Utility In preparation of the public hearing for the stormwater utility ordinance amendments on November 10th, I would like to update you on a couple of issues. First, the Iow-income discount can be applied to the stormwater utility rate with little difficulty. The discount would be assigned per the criteria set for existing utilities, and addressed in the billing process. Currently, there are 151 accounts benefiting from the Iow-income discount, which would result in a total stormwater utility monthly reduction of $75.50. Second, in order to obtain approval for the stormwater utility this year, we have revised our proposed council schedule to the following: · October 28th -- Set Public Hearing · November 10th -- Hold Public Hearing · November 25th- 1st Reading · December 15th- 2® Reading · December 16th- 3rd Reading Cc: Ron Knoche City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM TO: Steven Kanner, Council Member FROM: Rick Fosse, Director of Public Works DATE: November 10, 2003 RE: Wheel Tax Per your request, I have looked into the possibility of implementing a wheel tax to help supplement income for the stormwater program. In brief discussions with Steve and Eleanor, I have learned the following: · The Iowa Code allows for the implementation of a vehicle tax. · This is considered a local option tax, requires the vote of the public and is county wide (not limited to a single community). · Revenues generated from a vehicle tax must be spent on the transit system or the road system with the same restrictions as road use tax. Cc: City Council Steve Atkins Eleanor Dilkes November 10, 2003 City Council Comparison of Monthly Charges With Other Cities Comparison of Single Family Monthly Charges Monthly Single Communities Family Bill ($) Year Utility Initiated Des Moines 5.29 1995 SolonF 5.00 1996 Garner 2.63 Cedar RapidsF 2.50 1994 Burlington 2.00 Iowa City (Proposed) 2.00 2004 North Libertyv 2.00 2000 Boone 2.00 1994 Sioux City 1.84 1991 Bettendorf 1.50 + Connection Fee 2003 Dubuque 1.29 2003 AmesF 1.25 1994 CoralvilleF 1.00 2002 Average 3.60 F Utility is based on flat rate theory. Comparison of Non-Residental Rates Monthly Charges Gas Station Small Shop Grocery Store . Large Retail Community 15,000 (Sq. Ft.) 37,000 (Sq. Ft.) 190,000 (Sq. Ft.) 500,000 (Sq. Ft.) Des Moines $33.78 $83.32 $427.88 $1,126.01 Burlington $10.00 $20.00 $80.00 $200.00 Boone $10.00 $24.67 $126.67 $333.33 Iowa City (Proposed) $9.59 $23.65 $121.44 $319.59 Bettendorf $9.00 $22.20 $114.00 $300.00 Dubuque $6.63 $16.36 $84.02 $221.12 SolonF $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 Cedar RapidsF $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 CoralvilleF $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 North LibertyF $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 AmesF $1.25 $1.25 $1.25 $1.25 Average $13.11 $28.99 $ ]38.11 $358.97 ~ Utility is based on fiat rate theory. Annual Billing Income $45O,OOO.OO $400,000.00 $350,000.00 $300,000.00 $250,000.00 $200,000.00 $150,000.00 $ oo,ooo.oo $50,000.00 $o.oo .... Commerical Government Industrial Schools Mufti-Family Residential