Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-06-04 OrdinanceORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND TITLE 14, CHAPTER 6E, "ZONING," ARTICLE J "OVERLAY ZONES" BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 5, ENTITLED "DESIGN REVIEW OVERLAY ZONE {ODR}" OF THE CITY CODE. WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City deems it necessary and appropriate to establish formal design review procedures and guidelines to use when evaluating development projects and other urban design related projects in the central business district and the Near Southside Neighborhood, and WHEREAS, the City deems it in the public interest to establish enabling legislation to allow the designation of design review districts in the central business district and the Near Southside Neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAtNED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. AMENDMENT. 14-6J-5: DESIGN REVIEW OVERLAY ZONE A. PURPOSE AND INTENT: The purpose of this Article is to: Promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City. Promote orderly community growth, protect and enhance property values, and encourage both harmonious and innovative design. Protect and enhance the social, cultural, economic, environmental, and aesthetic development of the central business district and the Near Southside Neighborhood. Recognize environmental and aesthetic design as an integral part of the planning process within the central business district and the Near Southside Neighborhood. o Recognize that land use regulations aimed at these objectives provide not only for the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens, but also for their comfort and prosperity, and for the beauty and balance of the community. These objectives are, therefore, the proper and necessary concerns of local government. B. DEFINITIONS: As used in this Zone, the following definitions shall apply: APPLICATION: A written request by a property owner or their agent to the Design Review Committee for a certificate of appropriateness. Ordinance No. Page 2 CERTIFICATE OFAPPROPRIA TENESS: The document which evidences approval by the Design Review Committee of a proposal to make a compatible change in exterior appearance to a building or real property within a design review district. This certificate must be secured before a building permit, sign permit, or other regulated permit may be issued. CERTIFICATE OF NO MATERIAL EFFECT: The document which evidences that a certificate of appropriateness is not required for exterior alterations or construction which consist of ordinary maintenance or repair even if a regulated permit is otherwise required. CHANGE IN APPEARANCE: Any change or alteration of the exterior features of a building or change or alteration of the exterior appearance of real property within a design review district. This definition shall pertain only to changes in exterior appearance which are visible from the public way and for which a building, sign or other regulated permit is required for compliance with applicable City Codes. Furthermore, nothing in this definition shall be construed to prohibit or limit normal repairs or maintenance which do not involve alterations or changes in the exterior features of a building or real property and for which no regulated permit is required. COMMITTEE: The Design Review Committee as established by Resolution of the City Council. DESIGN REVIEW DISTRICT: An area of buildings which contains contiguous parcels of real property under diverse ownership, the built portions of which: (a) are expressive of the defining architectural and other physical and aesthetic properties which give evidence to the physical traditions of Iowa City and unique features of the area; (b) lack any defining physical or aesthetic qualities but constitute areas in which the City wishes to establish such qualities. DESIGN REVIEW REPORT: The Design review report describes in general and specific terms the existing characteristics or the desired characteristics of the design review district. Following consultation with district property owners and residents, the report defines the boundaries of the district and identifies, locates, quantifies and characterizes the prevalence of existing architectural features or the creation of defining architectural features. Guidelines to be used in the review of regulated permits are also components of the report. GUIDELINES OFA DESIGN REVIEVVDISTRICT: Guidelines are applied on a district-by-district basis and relate to issues of compatibility with existing prevalent architectural features or the creation of defining architectural features. Guidelines shall be applied to consideration of the issuance or non-issuance of certificates of appropriateness. REGULA TED PERMIT: A permit issued by the Building Official, or other official of the City, according to the provisions of (11 the Uniform Building Code or (2) "Sign Regulations" of this Chapter. Ordinance No, Page 3 C= PROCEDURES FOR DESIGNATION OF DESIGN REVIEW OVERLAY {ODR) ZONE: = Report by Design Review Committee; Hearing: The Design Review Committee must make a report recommending that an area be designated an ODR zone. The proposed area under consideration must be located within the area bounded by Iowa Avenue on the north, Gilbert Street on the east, the Iowa Interstate Railway mainline on the south, and Madison Street on the west. Before any report or recommendation is submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review, the Design Review Committee shall hold a public hearing on any proposal to designate an area as an ODR zone. The Design Review Committee shall give prior notice of the time, date, place and subject matter of such hearing, which notice shall be published in a newspaper having a general circulation in the City at least four (4), but not more than twenty (20) days before the public hearing. Such notice shall also be served by ordinary mail addressed to each property owner of land included in such proposed ODR zone at the property owner's last known address. If the address of any property owner is unknown, such notice shall be served by ordinary mail addressed to "owner" at the street address of the property in question. After this public hearing, the Design Review Committee shall submit its report to the Planning and Zoning Commission and shall include a proposed ordinance establishing such ODR zone, describing the boundary for the design review district, and outlining the design guidelines for the design review district. Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: Within sixty 160) calendar days of receiving the report and the proposed ordinance from the Design Review Committee, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall submit its recommendations to the City Council based on how the proposed district relates to the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, proposed public improvements and other plans for the renewal of the proposed district area. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall recommend approval, disapproval or modification of the proposed ODR zone. Upon submission of the report of the Planning and Zoning Commission or upon the expiration of the sixty (60) day period, whichever is earlier, the matter shall be transmitted to the City Council. The Design Review Committee shall be advised of any modifications to the proposed ODR zone recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Non-concurrence: In the case of non-concurrence between the Commission and the Committee, the reports of both bodies shall be forwarded to the City Council for recommendation, Public hearing and considerations of City Council: Upon receiving the recom- mendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the proposed ordinance, and the report of the Design Review Committee on the proposed designation of an area as a design review district, the city council shall provide notice for and conduct a public hearing on an ordinance establishing the proposed design review district. The council may approve, modify or disapprove this ordinance Ordinance No. Page 4 proposal without further consultation with the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Design Review Committee. APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: Cortificate Required: No person shall undertake a change in appearance as defined in this Section, unless a certificate of appropriateness or a certificate of no material effect has been granted. 2. Conditions of Certificate Issuance: Certificate of No Material Effect: A Certificate of No Material Effect shall be issued when, in the opinion of the Building Official, the proposed alteration or construction requiring a regulated permit consists of ordinary maintenance or repair that does not involve changes in exterior architecture and general design, arrangement, texture, material, or color. Upon the filing of an application for a Certificate of No Material Effect, the Building Official shall determine within five {5) working days after staff receives the completed application if a Certificate of No Material Effect should be issued. If, after review, the Building Official determines that a Certificate of No Material Effect should be issued, the Building Official shall issue a Certificate of No Material Effect and shall notify both the applicant and the Design Review Committee. A regulated permit may then be issued if the project complies with all other applicable City Codes. If the Certificate of No Material Effect is denied, the applicant shall be notified within two {2) working days of the decision and the application shall be forwarded to the Design Review Committee for review for a Certificate of Appropriateness. Certificate of Appropriateness: A Certificate of Appropriateness shall be applied for when, in the opinion of the Building Official, the proposed alteration or construction will result in a change of appearance or when a Certificate of No Material Effect is denied. Design Guidelines for Review of Applications: Design guidelines shall be adopted by ordinance by the Design Review Committee and the City Council for each design review district, and shall apply to all property requiring a certificate of appropriateness in each district. Certificate of Appropriateness Review Process: Preliminary Review: Prior to application for a certificate of appropriate- ness, the applicant may request preliminary review by the Design Review Committee to discuss basic intentions and plans before investing Ordinance No. Page 5 time in detailed designs. Preliminary review ~s not required but recommended for large or complex projects. The applicant is encour- aged, but not required, to submit the application materials listed in Section 14-6J-4E of this Article. Final Application and Review: (1) Application Submission: An applicant has the option of applying for a certificate of appropriateness at the same time the applicant applies fo{ a building permit or anytime before the app]!cant _applies. for a buildinq permit. In either instance, a certificate of appropriateness must be issued prior to the issuance of a .building permit. The applicant is encouraged to schedul(~ the certificate of appropriateness process far enouoh in advance of the building permit application process so as to avoid delays in the applicant's desired construction schedule. Application for a certificate of appropriateness shall be submitted to the Building Official for design review approval. All applications for a certificate of appropriate- ness shall be received at least seven (7) working days before the regularly scheduled meeting of the Design Review Committee. The Building Official shall forward the application to the Design Review Committee staff person within two {2) working days after the Building Official receives the completed application. Within twenty-one (21) working days of submission of the application, the Design Review Committee shall vote upon any application for certificate of appropriateness, or the application shall be deemed as receiving approval from the Design Review Committee; provided, however, that the applicant may agree to a written extension of time. (2) Committee Review and Approval: (a) Committee Findings. The Committee shall review the application according to the duties and powers specified herein. The Committee shall consider whether the change in appearance conforms to design guidelines for the design review district in which the project is located. (b) Approval or Disapproval. The Committee shall approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove a certificate of Ordinance No. Page 0 appropriateness. If the application is approved or ap- proved with modifications acceptable to the applicant, a certificate of appropriateness will be issued, signed by the chairperson and immediately filed with the Building Official, together with the application, and a copy of the certificate sent to the applicant by ordinary mail. If the application is disapproved, it will be immediately filed, along with the Committee's findings, with the Building Official, and a copy sent to the applicant by ordinary mai!. (3) Appeal to the City Council. Any applicant aggrieved by any deci- sion of the Committee regarding a certificate of appropriateness in a design review district may appeal the action to the City Council. Such an appeal must be in writing and must be filed with the City Clerk no later than ten (10) bu:!~c.c.s workin~ days after the filing ofthe abovementioned Committee's findings. The City Council shall, within a reasonable time, hold a public hearing on the appeal, give the public notice as required by State law, as well as provide written notice to the applicant and to the appellant, if different from the applicant, and decide the appeal within a reasonable time. In deciding such appeal, the City Council shall consider whether the Committee has exercised its powers and followed the guidelines established by law, this Article, and the design review report, and whether the Committee's action was patently arbitrary or capricious. In exercising the above-mentioned powers, the City Council may, in conformity with the provisions of this Article, reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the order, requirement, decision or determination appealed from and may make such order, requirement, decision or determination as ought to be made, and to that end shall have the powers of the Committee from whom the appeal is taken. Compliance with Certificate Required: Certificates of appropriateness issued on the basis of approved applications authorize only those changes in appearance set forth in such approved applications and no other changes in appearance. It shall be the duty of the Building Official or designee to inspect, from time to time, any work performed pursuant to such a certificate to ensure compliance with the requirements of such certificate. If it is found that such work is not being carried out in accordance with the certificate, the Building Official shall issue a stop work order. Any change in appearance at variance with that authorized by the certificate shall be deemed a violation of these regulations. Revisions to Approved Design Plans: Substantive changes to an approved certificate of appropriateness require submittal of those changes to the Design Rewew Committee and the requirements set forth in this Section. Ordinance No. Page 7 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: Preliminary Review Submittal Requirements: Preliminary submittals may contain any elements called for in the final application submittal section, at the option of the applicant. Final Application and Review Submittal Requirements: The following are submittal requirements for all projects subject to design review. Ten (10) copies of all drawings and written materials must be submitted along with the design review application. These drawings may be design drawings, although construction (working) drawings may be substituted for design drawings. All submittal documents should follow accepted conventions of drawing, namely all drawings should be clearly labeled, scales shown, north arrow on plans, clear and readable linework, and should be as clear as possible. In addition to the following submittal requirements, each application shall contsin the name and address of the applicant, address of the project, name and address of the property owner, a project description, and a project time schedule. Site Plan: For those applications for certificate of appropriateness that also require site plan review under Title 14, Chapter 5, Article H, entitled Site Plan Review, a site plan shall be provided in compliance with Sections 14-5H-2, 14-5H-4, and 14-5H-5 unless otherwise required by this Section. If requirements are in conflict, the more restrictive requirements shall apply. Site and Neighboring Environment: Provide photographs of the existing site and site conditions on adjacent properties within one hundred feet (1OO') of proposed changes. Include photos of views to and outlooks from the site. Clearly label each photograph. Landscaping Plan: Show at same scale as site plan. This may be combined with the site plan in Subsection E2a above, as long as all site plan elements and landscaping elements are easily discernible. (1) Existing trees five (5) inches or more in diameter with their proposed disposition, i.e., to be retained or removed. Give species and trunk diameter of each. (2) Location, species names, including common and Latin names and size of all new plant materials at planting-gallon or box size. Use symbols and a legend as necessary, Ground cover may be indicated en masse. d. Building Elevations: {1) Show all project elevations visible from public right-of-way or sidewalk. (2) Note all finish materials on drawings and provide color samples, Ordinance No. Page 8 (3) (4) (5) (6) Dimensions of building heights from finish grade. Dimensions of all exterior walls and fences, including heights. Location, type and size of signs. Location of mechanical equipment, roof equipment, electrical transformers and solar panels, including means of screening roof equipment. eJ Sections: Provide at least one sectional drawing at a suitable scale to show relationship of buildings to the site, public street and parking area. Signs: Provide a scaled drawing of each proposed sign with exterior dimensions and mounting height· Give total area of each sign. (1) Draw or provide sample of letters and logos, and the full message to appear on the sign. (2) Describe materials and colors of background and letters. (3) Give means and magnitude of illumination. g. Additional Information: (1) Additional information, drawings or other materials necessary to describe the project may be requested by the Design Review Committee staff person or Design Review Committee depending on the nature of the project or site. The applicant may include additional information or materials such as sketches, videos, models or photos if they help explain the proposal. (2) The Design Review Committee staff person may, at the staff's discretion, waive any of the submittal requirements if the nature of the project renders the requirement inappropriate, excessive, or unnecessary. REMEDY OF DANGEROUS CONDITIONS~: Except for emergencies as determined by the Building Official pursuant to the City Code, City enforcement agencies and departments shall give the Design Review Committee at least thirty (30) calendar days' notice of any proposed order for remedying conditions determined to be dangerous to life, health or property which may affect the exterior features of any building within a design review district. See also Section 14-5F-3 of this Title. Ordinance No. Page 9 Where the danger to life, health or property may be abated without detracting from the exterior features of the building, the Committee shall have the power to require that changes or alterations not adversely affect the exterior features of a building. In such cases, it shall be the responsibility of the Committee and the City enforcement agency or department to cooperate with the property owner in an attempt to achieve a design solution whereby the dangerous conditions will be corrected with minimal adverse impact on exterior features. Such plan shall be approved by the Committee and shall be signed by the chair of the Committee, the property owner and the head of the City enforcement agency or department. If a solution acceptable to the Committee, the City enforcement agency or department and the property owner cannot be reached within thirty (30} calendar days or a period of time acceptable to The City enforcement agency or department, the agency or department shall proceed to issue and enforce its proposed order. G. VIOLATIONS: Any violation of this Section shall be considered a simple misdemeanor or municipal infraction or environmental infraction as provided in Title 1, Chapter 4 of the City Code. SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or uncon- stitutional. 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 MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Approved by City Attorney's Office City of iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: May 30, 1996 To: City Council From: Re: Haynes, Chair Martin Review Committee Design Design Review Overla,/Zone Ordinance As you are all aware, Councilor Dee Norton asked that the Council's consideration of the proposed Design Review Overlay Zone Ordinance be deferred until the June 4 meeting of the City Council. Councilor Norton asked the Design Review Committee to undertake some specific actions regarding the ordinance during this time frame. They were: Investigate alternatives to the proposed ordinance; Consider revisions to the ordinance as written; and Develop design guidelines for potential overlay districts. In an effort to more clearly understand the issues and concerns of Councilor Norton and to give him the opportunity to share his ideas, the Committee invited him to attend its meeting of April 29. During this meeting Councilor Norton cited specific aspects of the ordinance that could be problematic to an individual going through the design review process. He also noted portions of the ordinance that could complicate its implementation. He asked questions about the design guidelines that would be used in a district and speculated on what alternatives to the proposed ordinance might be. To explore possible alternatives to the proposed ordinance, the Design Review Committee held a special meeting with representatives from the Home Builders Association, Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Association, Retailer Task Force, l'~orthside Marketplace, Friends of Historic Preservation and Near Southside business owners. (A list summarizing the ideas from this session is attached.) The Committee felt that the dialogue at this "brainstorming" session was very positive. The discussion allowed individuals to state their feelings and/or the feelings of their groups about the proposed design review process. The Design Review Committee met Monday, May 20, to determine how the Committee would proceed relative to Councilor Norton's requests and what should be brought back to the City Council. It was unanimous that the basic premise of the initial ordinance - mandatory review and mandatory compliance - should remain. The Committee felt that an alternative to this concept could not achieve the objectives of the review process. In addition, the Committee agreed that Dee Norton's comments about the language of the proposed ordinance and similar comments made at the session to explore alternatives were valid. To that end the Committee is currently preparing a draft of a revised ordinance. The goal of this rewrite is an ordinance who's mechanics are less cumbersome and more streamlined but does not compromise the substance of the original ordinance. 2 In response to Councilor Norton's request to prepare guidelines as part of the ordinance, the Committee had the following thoughts. It is the Committee's desire that the design review process promotes harmonious growth of our community in a manner that reflects public involvement in what the city should look like - hence the proposed ordinance contains a process that consists of public participation in the designation of the overlay districts including the development of the specific guidelines. The Design Review Committee will not have a revised ordinance ready to return to the Council for the June 4 session. We request that the Council defer consideration of the ordinance to its July 16, 1996, meeting. Attachment CC; Design Review Committee John Beckord & Tom Gelman, Chamber of Commerce Jim Clayton, Downtown retail task force John Murphy, Downtown Association Glen Siders, Home Builders Association Paula Brandt, Friends of Historic Preservation Janelie Rettig, Northside Marketplace Daryl Woodson, Sanctuary 3 Potential Alternative Design Review Processes The following list summarizes the ideas regarding alternative design revieW processes generated at the May 9, 1996, Design Review Committee meeting with representatives from the Home Builder's Association, Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Association, Retailer Task Force (Monday Forum), Northside Marketplace, Friends of Historic Preservation, and Near Southside business owners. Mandatory Review, Mandatory Compliance Mandatory Review, with narrow focus, i.e. what rules apply vary depending upon different size businesses. Mandatory Review, unless certain criteria are met, eg. hire an architect. Mandatory Review, incentives offered. Incentives could include: Tax increment financing or property tax exemption. Density bonus/height bonus. Revolving loan fund Design competitions Recognition Mandatory or Voluntary Review depending upon the size/nature of the project. Mandatory Review, Voluntary Compliance. Voluntary Review, Committee actively markets services and educates the public about good design. Totally Voluntary As the group noted at the meeting, the potential design review processes range from a mandatory review, mandatory compliance process on one end of the continuum to a totally voluntary process on the other end. Prepared by: Charles Denney, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5247 ORDINANCE NO. 96-3734 ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDI- NANCE BY CHANGING THE USE REGULA- TIONS OF AN APPROXIIV]ATE 3.09 ACRE TRACT OF LAND LOCATED WEST OF SCOTT BOULEVARD AND SOUTH OF MUSCATINE AVENUE ON VILLAGE ROAD FROM RS-5 TO OPDH-5, A PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOP- MENT HOUSING (OPDH) PLAN FOR VILLAGE GREEN, PART XIV WHEREAS, the subject property is presently in an area shown on the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Iowa City as residential, at a density of two to eight dwelling units per acre; and WHEREAS, the property owner has applied to fezone the parcel to OPDH-5 to permit develop- ment of the tract for a planned housing devel- opment of eight dwelling units clustered in three- and four-unit combinations around a proposed stormwater detention facility; and WHEREAS, the proposed design of the OPDH plan has the appearance of a sufficient amount of open space; features such as varied roof lines and staggered facades, which will lessen the appearance of bulk; and setbacks and perimeter landscaping, which make the design compatible with surrounding existing and anticipated single-family development; and WHEREAS, the density of the proposed development is consistent with the density proposal in the Comprehensive Plan in this area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. ZONING AMENDMENT. The property legally described below is hereby reclassified from its present classification of RS-5 to OPDH-5, and the preliminary PDH plan submitted by Village Partners for Village Green, Part XIV is hereby approved, subject to the approval of the final plat for Village Green, Part Ordinance No. Page 2 96-3734 A portion of the Southeast quarter, of Section 13, Township 79 North, Range 6 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian. Commencing at the Southeast corner of the Southeast quarter of Section 13, Township 79 North, Range 6 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian; Thence S89°53'53"W, along the South line of said Southeast quarter, 1308.28 feet, to a 5/8" iron pin found; Thence S89°57'00"W, along said South line, 224.46 feet, to the Southeast corner of Village Green, Part XII, as recorded in Plat Book 32, at Page 31 3, of the Re- cords of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence NO0°O3'00", along the Easterly line of said Village Green, Part XII, 84.82 feet; Thence N08°58'49"E, along said East- erly line of Part XlI, 136.86 feet; Thence N39°29'O1 "E, along said East- erly line of Part XlI, 112.86 feet, to a point on the Southerly right-of-way line of Village Road, said point being the Point of Beginning; Thence N39°29'O1"E, along said Easterly line of Part Xll, 290.16 feet to the South- west corner of Village Green, Part Xlll, as recorded in Plat Book 34, at Page 323, of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence S75°07'36"E, along the South line of said Village Green, Part XIII, 332.70 feet, to the Southeast corner of said Village Green, Part XIII; Thence S06°04'18"W, 250.32 feet; Thence S00°24'05"E, 60.00 feet; Thence Northwesterly 519.77 feet, along a 746.66 foot radius curve, concave Northeasterly, whose 509.34 foot chord bears N70°27'32"W. to the Point of Beginning. Said tract of land contains 3.09 acres, more or less, and is subject to easements and restrictions of record. SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provi- sions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such Ordinance No, 96-3734 Page 3 adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconsti- tutional, SECTION IV, EFFECTIVE DATE, This ,Ordi- nance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this 4th day of June ,19 96 · MAYOR J~, ATT E ST:/~,,-~,,~,_p CITY CLq~RK Ordinance No. 96-3734 Page 4 It was moved by Norton and seconded by Ordinance as read be adopted. and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Baker Kubby Lehman Norton Novick Thomberry Vanderhoef Baker that the First Consideration 5/7/96 Vote for passage: AYES: Norton, Novick, Thornberry, Vanderhoef, Baker, Kubby, Lehman. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration 5/21/96 Vote for passage: AYES: Baker,Kubby, Lehman,Norton, Novick, Thornberry, Vanderhoef. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Date published 6/12/96