HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-07-16 Public hearingCity of iowa City
MEMORANDUM
To: City Council
From: Karin Franklin, Director,
Re: Iowa City/Johnson County Fringe Area Policy Agreement
On the Council agenda for July 16, there is an item which sets public hearing on a proposed
Fringe Area Policy Agreement and amendment of the Comprehensive Plan. In your packets for
the August 6 agenda, you will receive an Agreement which reflects the negotiations of the Council
and the Board of Supervisors over the last year, recent comments from Board members on the
draft dated May 28, 1996, and revisions suggested by the Iowa City Planning and Zoning
Commission. You will also receive in your August 6 packet a memorandum from the Planning
and Zoning Commission expressing their view of the negotiated agreement.
The public hearing includes an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan because the Fdnge Area
Policy Agreement is part of Iowa City's plan, The resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute the
Agreement will reflect an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
The Johnson County Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the Agreement at their July 8
meeting and found it to be acceptable. The Board of Supervisors is tentatively scheduled to
consider the Agreement at their August 8 formal meeting. If you have any questions regarding
the process of adoption of this Agreement, please feel free to contact me (356-5232).
cc: City Manager
bC3-4KF.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC 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 16th day of July,
1996, in the Civic Center Council Chambers,
410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa; at
.ch hearing the Council will consider:
resolution to annex an approximate 80
acre tract located southeast of Sycamore
Street and north of the South Wastewater
Treatment facility.
2. An ordinance amending the Zoning Chapter
by rezoning an approximate 80 acre tract,
from County RS, Suburban Residential, to
ID-RS, Interim Development-Residential,
located southeast of Sycamore Street and
north of the South Wastewater Treatment
facility.
3. An ordinance amending the Zoning Chapter
by rezoning a 2.29 acre tract from RS412,
High Density Single-Family REsidential, to
0SA-12, Sensitive Areas Overlay/High
Density Single-Family Residential and ap-
proval of a preliminary plat and Sensitive
Areas Development Plan for Meadow Ridge,
Part Two, a 4-1or residnetial subdivision
located on the east side of North Dubuque
Street and north of Bjaysville Lane.
4. An ordinance amending City Code Title 14,
Chapter 3, "Zoning," Article H, "Industrial
Zones," to allow trucking terminal facilities
as a provisional use in the I-1 zone.
5. An ordinance amending City Code Title 14,
Chapter 6, entitled "Zoning," Article K,
entitled "Environmental Regulations," Sec-
tion 1, entitled "Sensitive Areas Ordinance."
6. An ordinance ameanding City Code Title 14,
Chapter 6, entitled "Zoning," Article O,
entitled "Sign Regulations," to delete the
specific regulation of "political signs," and
to amend regulations applicable to all tem-
porary signs, including political signs.
7. An ordinance amending City Code Title 14,
Chapter 6, entitled "Zoning," Article E,
entitled "Commercial and Business Zones,"
Section 1, entitled "Commercial Office Zone
(CO.1)," to allow small-animal clinics in the
CO-1 zone by special exception.
Copies of the proposed ordinances are on file
for public examination in the office of the City
Clerk, Civic Center, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons
wishing to make their views known for Council
consideration are encouraged to appear at the
above-mentioned time and place.
MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK
Prepared by: Scott I(ug!er, Assoc. Planner. 410 E. Washington St., Iowa CiW, IA 52240 (319} 356-5243
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION OF APPROXI-
MATELY 80 ACRES LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF SYCAIVIORE STREET AND
NORTH OF THE SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY.
WHEREAS, the Langenberg Family Trust (hereinafter "Owner") owns an approximate 80 acre
parcel of land located southeast of Sycamore Street and north of the South Wastewater
Treatment Facility; and
WHEREAS, Owner has requested annexation of the $0 acre tract into the City of Iowa City,
Iowa; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Iowa Code §368.5 and 368.7 (1995), notice of the application for
annexation was sent by certified mail to the Johnson County Board of Supervisors, each
affected public utility, the City of Hills, and the East Central Iowa Council of Governments;
and
WHEREAS, none of these entities have objected to the proposed annexation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA, THAT:
1. The following described land should be voluntarily annexed to the City of Iowa City,
Iowa:
The W Y= of the SE ~A of Section 26, Township 79 North, Range 6 West of the 5th
P.M., containing 80 acres, more or less.
2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify, file and record all necessary
documents as required by Iowa law under §368.7 (1995) at Owner's expense.
3. Further, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certifv and file all necessary
documents for certification of the population of the annexed territory to Johnson
County and the State Treasurer, said population being zero.
day of ,1996.
Passed and approved this
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning & Zoning Commission
Item: ANN96-0001/REZ96-0012. Langenberg
Family Farm
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Requested action:
Location:
Size:
Existing land use and zoning:
Surrounding land use and zoning:
Comprehensive Plan:
Applicable Code requirements:
File date:
45-day limitation period:
Prepared by: Scott Kugler
Date: May 16, 1996
Marian Murphy
5110 Herbert Hoover Highway NE
Iowa City, IA 52240
Phone: 643-2469
Annexation of 80 acre tract and rezon-
ing from County RS, Suburban Residen-
tial, to ID-RS, Interim Development.
Southeast of Sycamore Street, north of
the south wastewater treatment facility
Approximately 80 acres
Undeveloped; RS, Suburban Residential
North: Residential, County R3A & RS;
East: Undeveloped, ID-RM;
South: Soccer complex, wastewater
treatment facility, P;
West: Golf course, County RS & A1.
The Fringe Area 6 Land Use Concept
Plan suggests low density residential
development in this area.
14-6C-1, Interim Development Zone
(ID); Comprehensive Plan Out of Se-
quence Development Policy and Annex-
ation Policy
April 24, 1996
June 7, 1996
SPECIAL INFORMATION:
Public utilities:
City sewer and water are not yet avail-
able to the majority of the property, but
will be available upon completion of the
South River Corridor Interceptor Sewer.
A small portion of the south end of the
property may be sewerable at this time.
Public services:
Police and fire protection will be provid-
ed by the City.
Transportation:
No regular transit routes serve this area
presently.
Physical characteristics:
The property consists of relatively flat
agricultural land. A vacant house and
farm buildings are also located on the
property.
Sensitive Areas Ordinance:
There are fully hydric soils and a small
area of potential wetlands on the prop-
erty. When a development plan is
submitted, verification of wetlands will
be necessary. Depending on the out-
come of the wetlands determination,
the submittal of a Sensitive Areas Site
Plan or a Sensitive Areas Overlay rezon-
ing will be required.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, Marian Murphy, on behalf of the Langenberg Family, has submitted an
application to voluntari'.y annex an 80 acre tract located southeast of S. Sycamore Street and
north of the south wastewater treatment facility into Iowa City, and to fezone the property
from County RS, Suburban Residential, to ID-RS, Interim Development. An annexation and
rezoning request submitted by the City of Iowa City and Robert and Erma Wolf was
considered for this property in 1994, but was denied by the City Council. The plan at that
time was to develop the property as a manufactured housing development. No specific
development proposal is being considered at this time.
ANALYSIS:
ANN96-0001, Proposed Annexation of the Langenberg Tract.
The subject property lies within the City's growth boundaries, and will be served by City
utilities within the next few years. A small portion of the site, at its south end near the
wastewater treatment facility, is sewerable at this time. A review of the City's annexation
policy contained in the Comprehensive Plan suggests that petitions for voluntary annexation
be viewed positively when the area under consideration falls within the future service area and
3
sanitary sewer capacity is presently available. The Fringe Area Agreement states that
annexation requests within this area should be considered as City services are made available.
In this case City sewer and water are not yet available, but will be upon completion of the
South River Corridor Interceptor Sewer. Given that there are plans to sewer this area in the
near future and the requested rezoning will preclude any large scale development until City
utilities and infrastructure are available, staff feels that the annexation request is in
conformance with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
There are a number of proposed public improvements being considered for portions of this
property. A proposed east-west arterial leading from Sycamore Street to the east, is planned
to traverse the north portion of this property. In addition. a proposed collector street is
planned to lead south to the soccer field complex from the proposed arterial. The dedication
of the right of way necessary for these roadways will be required as the property is rezoned
and subdivided for future development. Fringe Area 6 is listed in the Comprehensive Plan
Residential Development Sequence Schedule as a Phase III development area. The Out of
Sequence Development Policy contained in the Comprehensive Plan would require
developer of the property absorb all costs associated with the development of infrastructure
in this area. A possible exception to this might be the east-west arterial which is programmed
to be extended through this area in association with a regional storm water basin being
planned on property to the northeast of this site, if the applicant waits for the City to proceed
with this project.
REZ96-0012, Rezoning of the Lanoenbercl Tract from County RS to ID-RS.
The proposed zoning classification for the subject property if annexed is ID-RS, Interim
Development. The ID zone is intended to provide for areas of managed growth in which
agricultural and other non-urban uses may continue until such time as the City is able to
provide City services and urban development can occur. This zoning designation presumes
single-family residential development in the future when arterial streets to access the property
are constructed and sanitary sewer service is available to this tract. This is consistent with
the Fringe Area 6 Land Use Plan currently contained in the Comprehensive Plan, which
suggests low density single-family residential development in this area.
This property lies within the boundaries of the South Area New Neighborhoods Study,
currently being drafted. The stud,/is an attempt to plan for the development of this area prior
to City services being made available. This study includes the development of land use
scenarios for the area with input from residents of surrounding neighborhoods, property
owners within the area, and potential developers. Although not yet presented to the
Commission and City Council, the study will incorporate the Vision 2000 statements that have
been incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. The land use scenarios being developed as
part of this study suggest that this property consist of mainly single-family residential develop-
ment, with some property at the north end of the site along the east-west arterial being
designated for townhouses and/or apartments. One of the scenarios also identifies a potential
elementary school site at the south end of the property. The proposed ID-RS zoning is
generally consistent with these concepts, providod that there is some flexibility when a
development plan is submitted to locate apartments and/or townhouses along the arterial
street, or designate a potential location for an elementary school.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that ANN96-0001/REZ96-0012, a request to annex and rezone an 80 acre
tract located southeast of Sycamore Street and north of the south wastewater treatment
facility from County RS to ID-RS, be approved.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map.
Approved by:
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Department of Planning and
Community Development
LOCATDON MAP
~m
NOTICE OF PUBLIC 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 16th day of July,
1 996, in the Civic Center Council Chambers,
410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa; at
which hearing the Council will consider:
1. A resolution to annex an approximate 80
acre tract located southeast of Sycamore
Street and north of the South Wastewater
(~Treatment facility.
An ordinance amending the Zoning Chapter
by rezoning an approximate 80 acre tract,
from County RS, Suburban Residential, to
ID-RS, Interim Development-Residential,
located southeast of Sycamore Street and
north of the South Wastewater Treatment
facility.
3. An ordinance amending the Zoning Chapter
by rezoning a 2.29 acre tract from RS-12,
High Density Single-Family REsidential. to
0SA-12, Sensitive Areas Overlay/High
Density Single-Family Residential and ap-
proval of a preliminary plat and Sensitive
Areas Development Plan for Meadow Ridge,
Part Two, a 4-lot residnetial subdivision
located on the east side of North Dubuque
Street and north of Bjaysville Lane.
4. An ordinance amending City Code Titte 14,
Chapter 6, "Zoning," Article H, "Industrial
Zones," to allow trucking terminal facilities
as a provisional use in the I-1 zone.
5. An ordinance amending CiW Code Titte 14,
Chapter 6, entitled "Zoning," Article K,
entitled "Environmental Regulations," Sec-
tion 1, entitled "Sensitive Areas Ordinance."
6. An ordinance ameanding City Code Title 14,
Chapter 6, entitled "Zoning," Article O,
entitled "Sign Regulations," to delete the
specific regulation of "political signs," and
to amend regulations applicable to all tem-
porary signs, including political signs.
7. An ordinance eraending City Code Title 14,
Chapter 6, entitled "Zoning," Article E,
entitled "Commercial and Business Zones,"
Section 1, entitled "Commercial Office Zone
(CO-1 )," to allow small-animal clinics in the
C0-1 zone by special exception.
Copies of the proposed ordinances are on file
for public examination in the office of the City
Clerk, Civic Center, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons
wishing to make their views known for Council
consideration are encouraged to appear at the
above-mentioned time and place.
MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK
Prepared By: Scott Kugler, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington St.,
Iowa City, IA 52240; (319)356-5243
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDI-
NANCE BY CHANGING THE USE REGULA-
TIONS OF APPROXIMATELY 80 ACRES LO-
CATED SOUTHEAST OF SYCAMORE STREET
AND NORTH OF THE SOUTH WASTE WATER
TREATMENT FACILITY.
WHEREAS, the applicant, the Langenberg
Family Trust requested annexation and rezoning
of approximately 80 acres of land located
southeast of Sycamore Street and north of the
South Wastewater Treatment Facility, from
County RS, Suburban Residential, to I.D-RS,
Interim Development; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan and the
Fringe Area Agreement suggest that low densi-
ty single-family residential development is
appropriate for properW in this location; and
WHEREAS, the proposed ID-RS zoning would
limit development on said property until such
time 'as City services are available; and
WHEREAS, low-density residential zoning in
this location is consistent with the current or
future use of adjacent properties and in the
City's best interest.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
10WA:
SECTION I. ZONING AMENDMENT. The prop-
arty described below is hereby reclassified from
its present classification of County RS, subur-
ban residential, to ID-RS interim development:
The W ¥2 of the SEA of Section 26, Town-
ship 79 North, range 6 West of the 5th
P.M. containing 80 acres more or less.
SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The Building
Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to
change the zoning map of the City of Iowa
City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon
final approval of the annexation of the subject
tract bv the City Development Board, and upon
final passage, approval and publication of the
Ordinance as provided by Law.
Ordinance No.
Page 2
SECTION III. CERTIFICATION AND RECORD-
ING. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and
directed to certify and record a copy of this
Ordinance, at the Owner's expense, in the
Office of the County Recorder of Johnson
County, Iowa, upon final approval of the annex-
ation of the subject tract by the City Develop-
ment Board and upon final passage and publica-
tion of the Ordinance as provided by law.
SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinances and
parts of ordinances in conflict with the provi-
sions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION V, SEVERABILITY. If any section,
provision or part of the Ordinance shall be
adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such
adjudication shell not affect the validity of the
Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision
or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconsti-
tutional.
SECTION Vl. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordi-
nance shall be in effect after its final passage,
approval and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this __ day of
,19
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing
will be hold by the City Council of Iowa City,
Iowa, at 7:00 p.m. on the 16th day of July,
1996, in the Civic Center Council Chambers,
410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa; at
which hearing the Council will consider:
1. A resolution to annex an approximate 80
acre tract located southeast of Sycamore
Street and north of the South Wastewater
Treatment facility.
2. An ordinance amending the Zoning Chapter
by rezoning an approximate 80 acre tract,
from County RS, Suburban Residential, to
ID-RS, interim Development-Residential,
located southeast of Sycamore Street and
north of the South Wastewater Treatment
An o. dinance amending the Zoning Chapter
by rezoning a 2.29 acre tract from RS-12,
High Density Single-Family REsidential, to
OSA-12, Sensitive Areas Overlay/High
Density Single-Family Residential and ap-
proval of a preliminary plat and Sensitive
Areas Development Plan for Meadow Ridge,
Part Two, a 4-1or residnetial subdivision
located on the east side of North Dubuque
Street and north of Bjaysville Lane.
4. An ordinance amending City Code Title 14,
Chapter 6, "Zoning," Article H, "Industrial
Zones,u to allow trucking terminal facilities
as a provisional use in the I-1 zone.
5. An ordinance amending City Code Title 14,
Chapter 6, entitled "Zoning," Article K,
entitled "Environmental Regulations," Sec-
tion 1, entitled "Sensitive Areas Ordinance."
6. An ordinance ameanding City Code Title 14,
Chapter 6, entitled "Zoning," Article O,
entitled "Sign Regulations," to delete the
specific regulation of "political signs," and
to amend regulations applicable to all tem-
porary signs, including political signs.
7. An ordinance amending City Code Title 14,
Chapter 6, entitled "Zoning," Article E,
entitled "Commercial and Business Zones,"
Section 1, entitled "Commercial Office Zone
(CO-1)," to allow small-animal clinics in the
CO-1 zone by special exception.
Copies of the proposed ordinances are on file
for public examination in the office of the City
Clerk, Civic Center, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons
wishing to make their views known for Council
consideration are encouraged to appear at the
above-mentioned time and place.
MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK
MICROFILMED
BY
CREST
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES
RETAKE
C - 84
NOTICE OF PUBLIC 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 16th day of July,
1996, in the Civic Center Council Chambers,
410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa; at
which hearing the Council will consider:
1. A resolution to annex an approximate 80
acre tract located southeast of Sycamore
Street and north of the South Wastewater
Treatment facility.
2. An ordinance amending the Zoning Chapter
by rezoning an approximate 80 acre tract,
from County RS, Suburban Residential, to
ID-RS, Interim Development-Residential,
located southeast of Sycamore Street and
north of the South Wastewater Treatment
..facility.
An ordinance amending the Zoning Chapter
by rezoning a 2.29 acre tract from RS-12,
High Density Single-Family REsidential, to
OSA-12, Sensitive Areas Overlay/High
Density Single-Family Residential and ap-
proval of a preliminary plat and Sensitive
Areas Development Plan for Meadow Ridge,
Part Two, a 4-1or residnetial subdivision
located on the east side of North Dubuque
Street and north of Bjaysviile Lane.
4. An ordinance amending City Code Title 14,
Chapter 6, "Zoning," Article H, "Industrial
Zones," to allow trucking terminal facilities
as a provisional use in the I-1 zone.
5. An ordinance amending City Code Title 14,
Chapter 6, entitled "Zoning," Article K,
entitled "Environmental Regulations," Sec-
tion 1, entitled "Sensitive Areas Ordinance."
6. An ordinance ameanding City Code Title 14,
Chapter 6, entitled "Zoning," Article O,
entitled "Sign Regulations," to delete the
specific regulation of "political signs," and
to amend regulations applicable to all tem-
porary signs, including political signs.
7. An ordinance amending City Code Title 14,
Chapter 6, entitled "Zoning," Article E,
entitled "Commercial and Business Zones,"
Section 1, entitled "Commercial Office Zone
{CO-1 )," to allow small-animal clinics in the
C0-1 zone by special exception.
Copies of the proposed ordinances are on file
for public examination in the office of the City
Clerk, Civic Center, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons
wishing to make their views known for Council
consideration are encouraged to appear at the
above-mentioned time and place.
MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK
Contact Person: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
City of Iowa City, 410 E. Washington St, Iowa
City, IA 52240; 319/356-5240
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING
CHAPTER I~Y APPROVING A SENSITIVE AR-
EAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CHANGING
THE USE REGULATIONS FROM RS-12, HIGH
DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO
OSA/RS-12, SENSITIVE AREAS OVER-
LAY/HIGH DENSITY SINGLE*FAMILY RESIDEN-
TIAL FOR A 2.29 ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED
AT THE INTERSECTION OF DUBUQUE STREET
AND MEADOW RIDGE LANE.
WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a
zone change from RS-12 to OSA/RS-12 for
property located at the intersection of Dubuque
Street and Meadow Ridge Lane has also re-
quested approval of a Sensitive Areas Develop-
ment Plan on the same property; and
WHEREAS, the Sensitive Areas Development
Plan identifies a conservation easement for the
purposes of preserving protected and critical
slopes; and
WHEREAS, the Sensitive Areas Development
Plan is in compliance with the Sensitive Areas
Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commis-
sion has reviewed the application for Sensitive
Areas rezoning and Sensitive Areas Develop-
ment Plan, and recommended approval of both.
NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I. ZONING AMENDMENT.
1. The property described below is hereby
reclassified from its present classification
of RS-12 to OSA/RS-12.
Commencing at the Southeast Cor-
ner of Lot 16, Meadow Ridge Subdi-
vision, Iowa City, Iowa. as recorded
in Plat Book 15, at page 36, of the
records of the Iowa City Johnson
County Recorder's Office; Thence
S03o28'22"E, 241.35 feet; Thence
S87o30'43"W, 192.00 feet; Thence
S05 o 18'44"W, 101.94 feet; Thence
N46o58'34"W, 138.85 feet; Thence
N30oo6'35"W, 256.08 feet; Thence
N56o35'OO"E, along the Southerly
Right-of-Way Line of Meadow Ridge
Lane, a distance of 95.66 feet to a
Ordinance No,
Page 2
point on the South Line of said Lot
16, Meadow Ridge Subdivision;
Thence S86°56'17"E, along said
South Line, 337.23 feet, to the
Point of Beginning. Said parcel of
land contains 2.29 acres, more or
less and is subject to easements and
restrictions of record.
2. The Sensitive Areas Development Plan for
the property described above is hereby
approved.
SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The Zoning Offi-
cial is hereby authorized and directed to change
the zoning map of the City of Iowa CiW, iowa,
to conform to this amendment upon the final
passage, approval and publication of thie
Ordinance as provided by Law.
SECTION III. CERTIFICATION AND RECORD-
ING. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and
directed to certify and record a copy of this
Ordinance, at the Owner's expense, in the
Office of the County Recorder of Johnson
County, iowa, upon final passage and publica-
tion as provided by law.
SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinances and
parts of ordinances in conflict with the provi~
sions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION V. SEVERABiLITY. If any section,
provision or part of the Ordinance shall be
adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such
adjudication shall not affect the validit~ of the
Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision
or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconsti-
tutional.
SECTION VI. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordi-
nance shall be in effect after its final passage,
approval and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this __ day of
,19
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
City At'~o r n e y~ ,~ '~ffi'~'~'~, ~/~..
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Item: REZ96-0011 & SUB96-0010.
Meadow Ridge, Part 2
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Contact person:
Requested action:
Purpose:
Location:
Size:
Existing land use and zoning:
Surrounding land use and zoning:
Comprehensive Plan:
Applicable Code requirements:
File date:
45-day limitation period:
SPECIAL INFORMATION:
Public utilities:
Prepared by: Robert Miklo
Date: June 6, 1996
Richard D. Phipps
321 Kirkwood Ave.
Iowa City, IA 52240
Rob Phipps
Phone: 351-6832
Preliminary Sensitive Areas Overlay and
plat approval
To allow subdivision for four duplex or
single-family lots.
East side of Dubuque Street south of
Meadow Ridge Lane.
2.29 acres
Single-family house, RS-12
North -
South -
East -
West -
RS-5, Residential
RS-5, Residential and Reli-
gious Institution
RS-5 and RS-12, Residential
RS-5, Residential
Residential; 2-8 dwelling units per acre.
Subdivision Regulations; Sensitive
Areas Ordinance; Grading and Erosion
Control Ordinance
May 16, 1996
July 1, 1996
Municipal sewer and water services are
available to serve the property.
Public services:
Municipal refuse and recycling collec-
tion will be provided by the City. Fire
and police protection will be provided
by the City.
Transportation:
Access to the property is via a frontage
road which runs parallel to Dubuque
Street. The nearest transit service is
available at Dubuque Street and Foster
Road by the Manville Heights route.
Physical characteristics:
This property contains a relatively level
plateau adjacent to Dubuque Street.
Slopes of approximately 34% to 40%
are located along the eastern third of
the property. The property contai~ u,
existing single-family house and
accessory buildings.
Sensitive Areas Ordinance:
A Sensitive Areas Development Plan
and overlay rezoning are required due
to the presence of critical and protected
slopes on the property.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
At the applicant's request, the Commission deferred this item at its May 2 meeting to allow
the applicant time to redesign the development plan. The applicant discussed the possibility
of redesigning the plan to include a private cul-de-sac with a cluster of ten to twelve
townhouses located on the central portion of the property. The applicant has indicated that
he does not wish to pursue th~s alternative design because of the infrastructure cost
associated with the private street and the fact that the alternative plan would require the
removal of most of the large trees on the property.
The applicant has submitted a revised plan that is very similar to the plan included in the May
2 Planning and Zoning Commission packet. The revised plan differs from the previous
proposal in that Lot 20 is proposed to be smaller and contains only the existing single-family
house. Lot 19 now contains a large area of land that was previously shown on Lot 20. The
plan has also been revised to show the required 40-foot setback from the Dubuque Street
right-of-way.
This property has been zoned RS-12, High Density Single-Family Residential, since the
adoption of the 1983 Zoning Ordinance. Prior to that time it was zoned R1-A, Single-Family
Residential. It is tothe south of Meadow Ridge Lane Subdivision which was developed by the
same applicant in 1989. The applicant is proposing a four-lot subdivision. Proposed Lots 17-
19 are of a sufficient size to allow the construction of duplexes according to the provisions
of the RS-12 zone. Lot 20 contains an existing single-family house, but is of a sufficient lot
area to allow a duplex.
3
ANALYSIS:
Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan indicates residential development at 2-8
dwelling units per acre in this area. The existing RS-12 zoning allows a density of 14 units
per acre. The proposed plat would allow a maximum of 8 units or approximately 3.5 units per
acre and therefore is in compliance with the comprehensive plan.
Transportation The City's long-term plans call for the extension of Foster Road to the east
just to the south of this subdivision. The plan indicates that additional right-of-way from this
property will be dedicated to the City to allow that extension to occur. There are no plans for
widening of Dubuque Street that would affect this property.
A related project is the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Dubuque Street and
Foster Road. An evaluation of this matter in the early 1990s showed the intersection close
to meeting the warrants for installation of a traffic signal. The Traffic Engineer's recommen-
dation at that time was that a signal should not be installed. The signalization of th,s
intersection is a relatively complicated, expensive project. The geometric changes to the
intersection required for installation of a traffic signal are estimated to cost approximately
$500,000. This project is currently not scheduled for implementation before 2003 according
to the adopted Iowa City Capital Improvements Program.
The Foster Road approaches to Dubuque Street currently experience long to very long delays
for left turning movements. However, these turning movements make up less than 2% of all
vehicular movements at the intersection. All other intersection movements experience little
to average delay. Signalization of the Dubuq~e Street/Foster Road intersection would
significantly increase overall delay, although it would decrease delay for left-turning
movements from Foster Road. The delay for motorists attempt,ng to execute left-turning
movements from Foster Road is not reflected in a high accident rate at this location. The
intersection of Foster Road and Dubuque Street is not among the 75 highest accident rate
intersections in the urbanized area.
Sensitive Areas Overlay As shown on the plat the eastern third of the property contains
slopes of 34% to 40%. Slopes of 25% to 39% are considered critical by the Sensitive Areas
Ordinance. Slopes of 40% + are considered protected by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance and
require a buffer. As proposed the subdivision plat will not greatly impact the critical or
protected slopes. Construction activity for the proposed lots will be limited to the area
adjacent to Dubuque Street and Meadow Lane. The plan shows a conservation easement
over the protected slope and its required buffer, as well as over the critical slope and all
portions of this property to the east of the critical and protected slopes. This conservation
easement will restrict further development of this portion of Lot 19 and will help assure the
long-term stability of this environmentally sensitive area. At the time of final plat approval,
legal papers will specify that limited grading will occur in this area. Grading will be necessary
within portions of the easement to allow reconstruction of Foster Road. The protected slope
will not be affected by this grading. A small area of the critical slope may be graded. The
Sensitive Areas Ordinance permits grading within a critical slope provided that it ~s minimized.
There is an existing grove of trees located on the portion of the property subject to
development. The subdivision is designed in a manner that the majority of these trees may
be saved during construction of dwellings on Lot 19. Some of the trees on Lots 17 and 18
will likely be removed. An existing house is located on Lot 20 and little further disturbance
is anticipated by this plan.
4
Subdivision The subdivision design will result in three building lots in addition to the existing
residence on Lot 20. Each of these lots would have access to the frontage road which runs
parallel to Dubuque Street. Given the limited development opportunities for properties which
have access on this frontage road, the proposed design of the subdivision and access points
do not present a traffic problem.
As required by the Zoning Ordinance, the revised plan depicts a 40 foot setback from
Dubuque Street. The applicant should be aware that the Zoning Ordinance only allows 50%
of the front yard be paved for duplex developments. Care will need to be taken in the design
and placement of driveways on Lots 1 7 through 19 to assure that this zoning requirement is
observed.
Sidewalks are shown on the southwest frontage of all lots adjacent to Dubuque Street. At
the time of final plan approval, the legal papers should specify that the sidewalk will be built
on Lot 20 prior to the issuance of a building permit for the other lots,
Open Space The Neighborhood Open Space Ordinance requires that a subdivision of this size
and density dedicate 6300 square feet of open space or fees in lieu of this amount of open
space. The Parks and Recreation Commission recommends that fees be paid in lieu of open
space. The fee amount will need to be determined at the time of final plat approval based on
the value of the property.
Utilities As noted City water and sewer service are available to service the proposed
subdivision. A water main extension fee of $354 per acre will be charged for this subdivision.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the preliminary plat and Sensitive Areas Development plan for Meadow
Ridge, Part II, be approved.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map.
2. Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan.
Approved by:
?ri~/Franklin, Director
Department of Planning and
Community Development
LOT 2
LOT 1
I
LOT ~'
\
\
$LOPE ARE/
;N Ill[ SOUTHEAST 0UARTER
ION $, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH.
~'~ '"'A~" N~,ORE PARTICULARLY
P[~'[ PREP/tRI~D
~$ CONSULT/SiTS ]blC
1917 Sou'rli GIU~ERT ST.
IOWA CI~rY. IOWA. 5~'~40
ne~ of Lol 16, Meadow',' Ridge Subdivision,
ook 15, ol pose 35, of the records of ih
'; 1hence S05'28'22"E, 241.,55 led; Thence
~05'18'44"W, ~01.g4 led; Thence N46'58'34"W,
256.08 feet; ]'hence N56'35'00"1~, 6ong lhe
]do?~ Ridge Lone, o dislonce of 95 06 fee~, Io
J to( !G, Meodow Ridge Subdivisiur~; lhe~:ce
~e, 557.25 feel, to Jhe Point ~ol Beg,nmn9
)_9 oc~es, more or !ess ond io subjecl\~'~
d
PLAT/PLAN APPROVED
by the
City of Iowa City
City Clerk Date:
UllLITY EASD.I[N,'$, AS SHOWll HEREON. ),lAY OR MAY NO
LOCATION MAP
SUB96-00~0
MEADOW RIDGE, PART TWO
LOCATION
CITY
PARK
TERRELL
MILL
PARK
JCCOG
memo
Date: June 13, 1996
To: Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Jeff Davidson, Transportation Planner ~
Re: Traffic conditions at the Intersection of Foster Road and Dubuque
Street/Proposed Meadow Ridge Part Two 4-1or residential subdivision
In 1988 a traffic signal warrant study was completed for the intersection of Foster Road and
Dubuque Street. Warrant studies are used to evaluate whether or not a traffic signal should
be installed at a padicular location. There are 11 specific warrants for traffic signal installation.
The Traffic Engineer uses the results of the warrant study together with other factors to make
his judgment on whether or not a traffic signal installation is appropriate. Meeting one of the
11 warrants is not a compulsory requirement to install a traffic signal.
The 1988 study showed that one of the 11 warrants was met by a very narrow margin, and
another was nearly met. Both warrants were related to minor street (Foster Road) delay,
principally for left-turning vehicles. It was the Traffic Engineer's recommendation that a traffic
signal not be installed. I checked the traffic data recorded in 1988, and during peak traffic
periods, left-turning vehicles from Foster Road (both approaches) made up approximately 1%
of total intersection entedng volume.
A contributing factor in the decision not to install a traffic signal was the expense for reconstruc-
tion of the Foster Road/Dubuque Street intersection. Installation of the traffic signal equipment
is a $50,000-$60,000 project. However, approximately $500,000 in geometric improvements
to the intersection pavement have been identified which would be needed to install a traffic
signal. This project is in the City's Capital Improvement Program, but not programmed for a
specific upcoming year.
The assertion by persons living in this area that traffic conditions have changed since the 1988
study is true. Dubuque Street Average Daily Traffic volume increased by 3,700 vehicles per
day between 1990 and 1994, and Foster Road volume has been impacted by the Meadow
Ridge and Idyllwild developments. If the City Council wishes to accelerate installation of a
traffic signal at the Foster Road/Dubuque Street intersection, the traffic signal warrant study
should be updated. The Traffic Engineer has indicated he needs approximately 30 days of lead
time to update the study.
Let me know if you have any questions.
CC~
Jim Brachtel, Traffic Engineer
Rick Fosse, City Engineer
May 2, 1996
To the Iowa City Planning and zoning Commission
With reference to Mr. R. D. Phipps Application for rezoning a property
on 1823 North Dubuque St. from RS12 to RS12 SAO.
The Commission will remember an application to build houses on a
lovely hill property just north of this present property being
considered. My home and lot is just west and adjoins the earlier
application. Mr. Phipps, over little objection other that mine. was able
to get necessary permit to put in a street to be lined with homes on
the property. I watched in horror as the entire hill was dug up and
hauled away. The effort took massive equipment and many trucks and
took about a whole winter to accomplish, making a level California
type sub division. Nice enough homes were built, all in rows, Plain
Jane style. A whole beautiful virgin hill was sacrificed.
Using this experience as an example it is plain to see what will happen
with the present property under application. The whole property will
be scraped level, clearing any trees in the way, and these duplexes will
be lined up in a row. Ugly.
Of course the application for duplexes is a whole separate reason for
objection. We do not need any more Idyllwild or duplexes in this
sh~gle family area.
Dorothy and I fully object to this effort.
Sincerely ,~.d~.4~/ ~]f~_
Harold and Dorothy Spencer
2000 N. Dubuque St.
Iowa City, Iowa 52245
Kara Logsden, 1957 Meadow Ridge Lane
July 16, 1996
I thank you for the opportunity to speak with you tonight.
I have four safety concerns with the intersection of Foster Road and Dubuque Street.
2.
3
4.
Stop light
Speed of Dubuque Street traffic
No cross walk and no sidewalks
Sight distance for the east side of Foster Road
F~rst and foremost, we need a stop light. When we moved to Meadow Ridge Lane we checked with the city
and found ~t was in the long range plan to add a stop light. I believe you will address this issue again in the
next round of capital improvement prioritization. Either now, or at that time, I urge you to upgrade the
totersection of Foster Road and Dubuque Street
If you approve this request, and future requests for development of this area, without making changes to the
intersection, it will make the problem worse. Last week an updated traffic study was completed for this
~ntersection. I do not have the results, however, I behave that you w~11 see that there has been a significant
increase in traffic at this intersection. Future deve!opments, such as the peninsula development, extension of
Oakdale Boulevard, and development in the North Corridor as wel~ as traffic to the Evangelical Free Church,
Idylwild, and other developments further tax the totersection
Second, Dubuque Street traffic consistently exceeds the speed hmit. This exacerbates the problem of no
stop hght. In a City of Iowa City traffic study, inbound traffic at the 85th percentlie is traveling at 44 mph..
This means that 15 percent of the cars are traveling faster than this speed. Outbound traffic at the 85th
percentlie is traveling at 46 mph. The posted speed is 35 mph.
Third. there is no cross-walk at this intersection. nor is there a side-walk on Dubuque Street. I have a three
year old child. Frequently we walk or ride bikes to City Park. We are forced to cross Dubuque Street at
Foster Road without a cross-walk We also do not have sidewalks, so we must walk or ride on the side of the
road. My family also uses Iowa City Transit We do not have a sidewalk to use to get to and from the bus.
We also do not have a way to safely cross the street if we have to catch the bus on the west side of Dubuque
street.
Another problem with this intersection is the sight d~stance on the east side of the intersection for cars
travehng nodh on Dubuque Street. I inwte each of you to try to pull out onto Dubuque Street during heavy
traffic. Not only are cars exceeding the speed limit. but you also have to allow for limited sight range
If you allow this development, I highly recommend that you take the intersection problems seriously, and
explore options for making the intersection safer if more indiwduals will be depending on the intersection to
enter Dubuque Street.
The second concern that I have is the Sensitive Area Overlay. I know that this is a new ordinance. and I
would like to be re-assured that the integrity of the environment will be preserved. If I had my druthers. the lot
would be left as is. The trees are beautiful. and the lot provides a lovely view as you enter our city. I would
prefer that, if the lots are to be developed, they would be developed as a single house on a single lot. I
reahze the economic conditions in Iowa City at the present time make duplexes more practical for builders to
build, however, single houses would preserve the density of our neighborhood, would not make the city
planning look choppy, and would help to preserve the integrity of our neighborhood Personally I wish I had
the extra funds to purchase the lot and leave it as ~s for the deer and for our enjoyment. However, I must
depend on you to make the right decisions, and, if approved, make adjustments for safety at the busy
intersection of Foster Road and Dubuque Street.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing
wilt be held by the City Council of iowa City,
Iowa, at 7:00 p.m. on the 16th day of July,
1996, in the Civic Center Council Chambers,
410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa; at
which hearing the Council will consider:
1. A resolution to annex an approximate 80
acre tract located southeast of Sycamore
Street and north of the South Wastewater
Treatment facility.
2. An ordinance amending the Zoning Chapter
by rezoning an approximate 80 acre tract,
from County RS, Suburban Residential, to
ID-RS, interim Development-Residential,
located southeast of Sycamore Street and
north of the South Wastewater Treatment
faciliW.
3. An ordinance amending the Zoning Chapter
by rezoning a 2.29 acre tract from RS-12,
High Density Single-Family REsidential, to
OSA-12, Sensitive Areas Overlay/High
DensiW Single-Family Residential and ap-
proval of e preliminary plat and Sensitive
Areas Development Plan for Meadow Ridge,
Part Two, a 4-1or residnetial subdivision
located on the east side of North Dubuque
4~ctreet and north of Bja¥sville Lane.
n ordinance amending City Code Title 14,
hapter 6, "Zoning," Article H, "Industrial
Zones," to allow trucking terminal facilities
as a provisional use in the I-1 zone.
5. An ordinance amending City Code Title 14,
Chapter 6, entitled "Zoning," Article K,
entitled "Environmental Regulations," Sec-
tion 1, entitled "'Sensitive Areas Ordinance."
6. An ordinance ameanding City Code Title 14,
Chapter 6, entitled "Zoning," Article O,
entitled "Sign Regulations," to delete the
specific regulation of "political signs," and
to amend regulations applicable to all tem-
porary signs, including political signs.
7. An ordinance amending City Code Title 14,
Chapter 6, antitied "Zoning," Article E,
entitled "Commercial and Business Zones,"
Section 1, entitled "Commercial Office Zone
(CO-1)," to allow small-animal clinics in the
CO-1 zone bv special exception.
Copies of the proposed ordinances are on file
for public examination in the office of the City
Clerk, Civic Canter, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons
wishing to make their views known for Council
consideration are encouraged to appear at the
above-mentioned time and place.
MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK
Prepared by: John Yapp, Associate Planner, 410 E.
Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-
5247
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE TITLE
14, CHAPTER 6, ENTITLED "ZONING," ARTI-
CLE H, ENTITLED "INDUSTRIAL ZONES,"
SECTION 1, ENTITLED "GENERALINDUSTRIAL
ZONE."
WHEREAS, the General Industrial Zone, I-1
zone, is intended to provide for the develop-
ment of most types of industrial firms; and
WHEREAS, a trucking terminal would allow
a centralized facility for the loading and unload-
ing of goods and materials; and
WHEREAS, a truck terminal facility will
allow for greater mobility of goods and materi-
als; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Com-
mission has recommended that the definition of
a truck terminal facility be added to the zoning
definitions section of the City Code and, to
protect the balance of uses within the I-1 zone,
has recommended that truck terminal facilities
be allowed in the 1-1 zone as a provisional use.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I. APPROVAL. Chapter 6, entitled
"Zoning Chapter," Article B entitled "Zoning
Definitions," be amended to include the follow-
ing definition:
TRUCK TERMINAL FACILITY: A facility for
the storage of truck trailers devoted to the
loading and unloading and temporary storage of
goods and materials,
Chapter 6 entitled "Zoning Chapter,"
Article H entitled "Industrial Zones," Section 1
entitled "General Industrial Zones," be amended
to add the following provisional use.
(c) PROVISIONAL USES.
(§) Truck terminal facilities, provid-
ed:
a. All vehicles on the property
are in operational condition
and are properly licensed as
required by State or Federal
law.
b. No vehicle is stored for
more than 90 continuous
days on the properW.
c. The parking and trailer
storage area is surfaced
Ordinance No.
Page 2
with asphalt, concrete, or a
similar dust-free surface
designed and maintained to
prevent the flow of water
onto adjoining properties.
d. Screening is preserved,
planted, constructed, and
maintained according to
Section 14-6S-11. Screen-
ing shall also be provided
along any lot lines which
abut a designated arterial
street in a manner sufficient
to effectively obscure the
truck terminal facility from
view from the arterial
street, using the screening
standards in Section 14-6S-
11B,
SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances
and parts of ordinances in conflict with the
provisions of this Ordinance are hereby re-
peeled,
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any sec-
tion, provision Or part of the Ordinance shell 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 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 __ day of
,19
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
City A.ftorney s ~'ff[c~/ /~.,.//_:.;,'~,..
' V
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 31, 1996
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: John Yapp, Associate Planner
Re: Proposed Amendment to the I-1 Zone
It has como to staff's attention that a trucking terminal which has the primary use as a transfer
station for goods and a temporary storage area for trailers, is not an allowed use in the I-1,
General Industrial, zone. In contrast to a warehouse use which would have loading and unloading
as an accessory use, a trucking terminal would have a smaller warehouse and office space, with
a larger area devoted to the temporary storage of trailers between hauls. The smaller warehouse
would serve as a temporary storage facility for goods and materials dropped off by the trucks
before they were picked up by another industrial facility, or vice-versa. A trucking terminal would
serve as a centralized loading and unloading facility, with a small warehouse used for the
temporary storage of goods and materials. A smaller area devoted to storage and offices with
a larger area devoted to temporary truck trailer parking reflects current trends toward "just-in-time"
manufacturing, as industrial facilities are keeping less materials on inventory, and are relying more
on the mobility of supplies.
Staff believes a truck terminal facility is an appropriate use for the I-1 zone; but there are few
concerns. One concern is that the trailers would become long-term, untaxed warehouse space
on the parking area. When asked about this possibility, a representative from a trucking company
indicated that such a practice would be inefficient, as the best economic use of the trai!ers would
be hauling goods and materials on the road. A condition that may address this possibility of
trailers becoming long-term warehouse space would be to place a maximum amount of time the
trailers may sit on the lot.
Another concern staff has is the aesthetic appearance of a trucking terminal. In addition to the
usual screening required for industrial uses, staff recommends that screening be preserved or
provided if the trucking terminal use abuts an artedal street. This provision will help soften the
appearance of multiple trucks and trailera on a lot along an aderial street such as Scott
Boulevard, which is an entranceway to the city for many people.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that a definition of a truck terminal facility be added to the definition section
of the Zoning Code, and that Subsection (c), Provisional Uses, of Section 14-6H-1, the General
Industrial Zone, be amended as shown on attachment A.
Approved by:
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Department of Planning &
Community Development
2
AI'rACHMENT A
TRUCK TERMINAL FACILITY: A facility for the storage of truck trailers devoted to the loading
and unloading and temporary storage of goods and materials.
(c) PROVISIONAL USES.
(4) Truck terminal facilities, provided:
All vehicles on the property are in operational condition and are properly
licensed as required by State or Federal law.
b. No vehicle is stored for more than 90 continuous days on the property.
The parking and trailer storage area is surfaced with asphalt, concrete, or
a similar dust-free surface designed and maintained to prevent the flow of
water onto adjoining properties.
Screening is preserved, planted, constructed, and maintained according to
Section 14-6S-11. Screening shall also be provided along any lot lines
which abut a designated aderial street in a manner sufficient to effectively
obscure the truck terminal facility from view of the arterial street, using the
screening standards in Section 14-6S-1 lB.
tp4.10
NOTICE OF PUBLIC 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 16th day of July,
1996, in the Civic Center Council Chambers,
410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa; at
which hearing the Council will consider:
1. A resolution to annex an approximate 80
acre tract located southeast of Sycamore
Street and north of the South Wastewater
Treatment facility.
2. An ordinance amending the Zoning Chapter
by rezoning an approximate 80 acre tract,
from County RS, Suburban Residential, to
ID-RS, Interim Development-Residential,
located southeast of Sycamore Street and
north of the South Wastewater Treatment
facility.
3. An ordinance amending the Zoning Chapter
by rezoning a 2.29 acre tract from RS-12,
High Density Single-Family REsidential, to
0SA-12, Sensitive Areas Overlay/High
Density Single*Family Residential and ap-
proval of a preliminary plat and Sensitive
Areas Development Plan for Meadow Ridge,
Part Two, a 4-1or residnetial subdivision
located on the east side of North Dubuque
Street and north of Bjaysville Lane.
4. An ordinance amending City Code Title 14,
Chapter 6, "Zoning," Article H, "Industrial
Zones," to allow trucking terminal facilities
Oasa provisional use in the I-1 zone.
An ordinance amendin.g, City C.o. de Title 14,
Chapter 6, entitled 'Zoning, Article K,
entitled "Environmental Regulations," Sec-
tion 1, entitled "Sensitive Areas Ordinence."
6. An ordinance ameandin9 City Code Title 14,
Chapter 6, entitled "Zoning," Article O,
entitled "Sign Regulations," to delete the
specific regulation of "political signs," and
to amend regulations applicable to all tem-
porary signs, including political signs.
7. An ordinance amending City Code Title 14,
Chapter 6, entitled "Zoning," Article E,
entitled "Commercial and Business Zones,"
Section 1, entitled "Commercial Office Zone
(CO-1 }," to allow small-animal clinics in the
CO-1 zone by special exception.
Cop[es of tl~e proposed ordinances are on file
for public examination in the office of the City
Clerk, Civic Center, Iowa City, iowa. Persons
wishing to make their views known for Council
consideration are encouraged to appear at the
above-mentioned time and place.
MARIAN K. KARR. CITY CLERK
Prepared by Melody Rockwell, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240; 31 9/356-5251
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE
TITLE 14, CHAPTER 6, ENTITLED
"ZONING," ARTICLE K, ENTITLED
"ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS,"
SECTION 1, ENTITLED "SENSITIVE AREAS
ORDINANCE,"
WHEREAS, in December 1995, the City
Council adopted a Sensitive Areas
Ordinance to implement the environmental
policies set forth in the Iowa City
Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, experience with
implementing the Sensitive Areas
Ordinance has revealed the need to clarify
and streamline certain provisions of the
ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments
to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance are
intended to make the ordinance more
practical to implement and easier to
understand, and place a higher reliance on
administrative review of development
projects in environmentally sensitive areas;
and
WHEREAS, the Sensitive Areas
Committee recommended the proposed
amendments to the Planning and Zoning
Commission and the Riverfront and Natural
Areas Commission, and those Commissions
have reviewed the proposed amendments
to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance and have
recommended adoption of said
amendments to improve the
implementation of the ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY
THE CITY COUNCIl. OF THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA, ;'HAT:
SECTION I. APPROVAL. Chapter 6,
entitled "Zoning Chapter," Article K,
entitled "Environmental Regulations,"
Section 1, entitled "Sensitive Areas
Ordinance No.
Page 2
Ordinance," is hereby amended as follows:
A. Amend subsection 14-6K-lB,
entitled "Definitions," by:
1) repealing the definition of
"ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE,
SIGNIFICANT" in its entirety and
adding a new definition of
"ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE,
SIGNIFICANT" to read as follows:
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE,
SIGNIFICANT: An archaeological
site of prehistoric or historic
significance that is considered by
the State Historic Preservation
Officer to be eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places.
2) adding a definition of "HISTORIC
OBJECT" as follows:
HISTORIC OBJECT: An artifact
greater than 100 years of age.
3) repealing the definition of "SLOPE"
in its entirety and adding a new
definition of "SLOPE" as follows:
SLOPE: An inclined ground surface,
either naturally occurring or altered,
with a vertical rise of at least 10
feet, and which is not otherwise
approved by the City, such as City
approval of a Grading Plan, prior to
December 13, 1995.
B, Amend subsection 14-6K-1C, entitled
"Applicability," by:
1) repealing subsection 14-6K-1Cla2
in its entirety and adding a new
subsection 14-6K-1C1a2 as
follows:
2) Woodlands two (2) acres in
size or greater, located on sites
containing critical slopes or
stream corridors,
2) repealing subsection 14-6K-1Cla3
in its entirety
3) repealing subsection 14-6K-1C2a6
in its entirety and adding a new
subsection 14-6K-1C2a6 as
follows:
6) Woodlands two (2) acres in
size or greater, where no other
Ordinance No.
Page 3
sensitive features requiring a
Sensitive Areas Overlay
rezoning are present, and
where no critical slopes or
stream corridors exist on the
site
4) adding a r~ew subsection 14-6K-
1C2a5, and tenumbering all following
subsections as appropriate, as follows:
5) Critical Slopes (25%-39%)
5) repealing subsection 14-6K-1C3a6
in its entirety and adding a new
subsection 14-61(-1C3a6 as
follows:
Fully hydric soils as designated
in the USDA Soil Conservation
Service Soil Survey of Johnson
Countv, Iowa.
6) repealing the last sentence of
subsection 14-6K-1C3b in its
entirety and adding a new last
sentence of subsection 14-6K-1 C3b
as follows:
If the property is exempt, the
applicant shall first apply for
and obtain approval of the
exemption from the City before
development activity occurs.
Amend subsection 14-6K-1D,
entitled "Exemptions," by adding a
new subsection 14-6-1D6 as
follows:
6. Activities that disturb less than
one acre of a wetland provided
that such activities are
approved by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers through a
nationwide permit.
Amend subsection 14-6K-IF,
entitled "Submittal Requirements,"
by:
1) repealing subsection 14-6K-
1F164 in its entirety and
adding a new subsection 14-
6K-1Flb4 as follows:
4)Steep and critical slopes
2) repealing subsection 14-6K-
1 F1 e in its entirety and adding
Ordinance No.
Page 4
a new subsection 14-6K-1F1e
as follows:
e. Other data and information
as may reasonably be required
by the City, including requiring
the delineation of a
construction area on the plan
as well as the location of
fencing to protect sensitive
features during construction.
3) repealing the introductory
sentence of subsection 14-6K-
1F2 and adding a new
introductory sentence of
subsection 14-6K-1F2 as
follows:
2. Sensitive Areas
Development Plan: Submittal
information for a Sensitive
Areas Development Plan,
which accompanies a Sensitive
Areas Overlay rezoning
application, shall include:
E. Amend subsection 14-6K-1G, entitled
"Wetlands," by:
1) repealing subsection 14-6K-1G3a1
in its entirety and adding a new
subsection 14-6K-1G3al as
follows:
1) Prior to any development
activity occurring on a site
containing a potential wetland
as defined above or as shown
on the Sensitive Areas
Ir. ventory Map - Phase I, the
property owner shall provide a
delineation of the wetland
area(s) accepted by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers prior
to the submittal to the City of
a Sensitive Areas Overlay
rezoning application and a
Sensitive Areas Development
Plan, or a Sensitive Areas Site
Plan, for City review.
2) repealing subsection 14-6K-1G3a2
in its entirety and adding a new
subsection 14-6K-1G3a2 as
Ordinance No.
Page 5
3)
follows:
2) If the property owner certifies
that no development activity
will occur within one hundred
fifty feet (150') of the
apparent edge of a suspected
or potential wetland area(s) on
the site, the requirement for
delineation by a wetland
specialist or the Corps may be
waived by the City. In the
casa of a waiver, the property
owner shall grant an easement
running in favor of the City, an
approved conservation group
or other organization for the
purpose of retaining the
wetland and the surrounding
one hundred fifty foot (150')
protection area as undeveloped
natural open space, and the
owner shall then be allowed to
follow the procedures for a
Sensitive Areas Site Plan as
set forth in this Section,
provided the wetland was the
only sensitive feature
triggering a Sensitive Areas
Overlay rezoning and a
Sensitive Areas Development
Plan.
repealing the first sentence of the
introductory paragraph of
subsection 14-6 K- 1G3b and adding
a new first sentence of the
introductory paragraph of
subsection 14-6K-1G3b as follows:
b. Wetland Buffer Requirements:
A one hundred foot {100'),
undisturbed, natural buffer
shall be maintained between
any development activity and a
"wetland(s)" as defined in the
Sensitive Areas Ordinance,
unless said development
activity is exempted under
subsection 14-6K-1D, entitled
"Exemptions."
Ordinance No,
Page 6
4) repealing subsection 14-6K-1G3c1
in its entirety and adding a new
subsection 14-6K-1G3c1 as
follows:
1) No grading, dredging, clearing,
filling, draining, or other
development activity shall
occur within a delineated
wetland or required buffer
area, unless said activity is
part of a mitigation plan as
approved under subsection 14-
6K-1G4, entitled "Wetland
Mitigation," or is a permitted
use, such as a trail, allowed
under the provisions of
subsection 14-6K-1E, entitled
"Uses Permitted within
Protected Sensitive Areas and
Buffers."
5) repealing the second sentence of
subsection 14-6K-1G3c3 and
adding a new second sentence to
subsection 14-6K-1G3c3 as
follows:
The partial treatment of storm
water runoff through the use or
combined use of constructed
wetlands, detention basins,
vegetative filter strips, sediment
traps or other means before the
storm water runoff reaches a
wetland will be considered as part
of a mitigation plan as provided in
subsection 14-6K-1G4, entitled
"Wetland Mitigation,"
6) repealing subsection 14-6K-1G3c6
in its entirety and adding a new
subsection 14-6K-1G3c6 as
follows:
The removal of foreign or
invasive species, including
intrusive native varieties,
within a wetland or buffer area
may be permitted when
approved as part of a
mitigation plan as provided
under subsection 14-6K- 1G4,
Ordinance No.
Page 7
entitled "Wetland Mitigation."
repealing the first sentence of the
introductory paragraph of
subsection 14-6K-1G4, entitled
"Wetland Mitigation," and adding a
new first sentence of the
introductory paragraph of
subsection 14-6K-1G4 as follows:
Wetland Mitigation: A Sensitive
Areas Overlay rezoning/Sensitive
Areas Development Plan or
Sensitive Areas Site Plan for
property containing a wetland, as
defined in the Sensitive Areas
Ordinance, shall include a mitigation
plan showing that all regulations
contained insubsection 14-6K-1G3,
entitled "Wetland Regulations," will
be met.
8) repealing the introductory sentence
of subsection 14-6K-1G4a and
adding a new introductory sentence
of subsection 14-6K-1G4a as
follows:
a. In addition to the submittal
requirements contained in
subsection 14-6K-IF, entitled
"Submittal Requirements," a
wetland mitigation plan shall
include the following
information:
9) repealing subsection 14-6K-1G4a4
in its entirety and adding a new
subsection 14-6K-1G4a4 as
follows:
4) Information regarding the
characteristics of the wetland
necessary to determine the
allowable buffer reduction as
provided in subsection 14-6K-
1 G3b, entitled "Wetland Buffer
Requirements," if a reduction
is requested.
10) repealing subsection 14-6K-1G4a5
in its entirety and adding a new
subsection 14-6K-1G4a5 as
follows:
5) A storm water management
Ordinance No.
Page 8
plan indicating that the
requirements of Section 14-
3G, entitled "Storm Water
Collection, Discharge and
Runoff," and subsection 14-
6K-1G3c3, which is listed
under "Design Standards" and
addresses storm water runoff
and sedimentation, will be
met.
11) repealing the introductory
sentence of subsection 14-6K-
1G4b2 and adding a new
introductory sentence of
subsection 14-6K-1G462 as
follows:
2) The replacement ratio of
comparable habitat
replaced to habitat lost
shall be at least 2:1 for
wetlands not meeting the
criteria listed in
subsection 14-6K-1G4b1
above, but containing:
12) repealing the introductory
paragraph of subsection 14-
6K-1G4c and adding a new
introductory paragraph of
subsection 14-6K-1G4c as
follows:
c. Where compensatory
mitigation is proposed,
the mitigation plan
specified in subsection
14-6K-1G4, entitled
"Wetland Mitigation,"
must be prepared by a
wetland specialist. A
compensatory mitigation
plan must include the
following components:
F. Amend subsection 14-6K-1H, entitled
"Stream Corridors," by:
1) repealing subsection 14-6K-1H2 in
its entirety and adding a new
subsection 14-6K-11-12 as follows:
2. Stream Corridor Regulation by
Other Agencies: The approval
Ordinance No.
Page 9
of a Sensitive Areas Overlay
rezoning/Sensitive Areas
Development Plan or a
Sensitive Areas Site Plan shall
be in addition to the
applicant's need to obtain
permits required by other local,
state or federal agencies, and
does not alter the applicant's
obligation to satisfy and obtain
all other applicable local, state
or federal regulations and
permits.
2) repealing subsection 14-6K-1H3 in
its entirety and adding a new
subsection 14-6K-1 H3 as follows:
3. Stream Corridor Regulations:
Any property located adjacent
to the Iowa River or another
stream corridor in Iowa City
will be required to submit a
Sensitive Areas Site Plan,
unless said property qualifies
for an exemption under
subsection 14-6K-1D, entitled
"Exemptions," or is considered
under a Sensitive Areas
Overlay rezoning/Sensitive
Areas Development Plan
review required for another
sensitive feature on the site.
3) repealing the introductory paragraph
of subsection 14-6K-1H4a and
adding a new introductory
paragraph of subsection 14-6K-
1H4a as follows:
a. Unless exempt under
subsection 14-6K-1D, entitled
Exemptions," the following
buffer requirements will be
maintained; when other
sensitive features are located
within a stream corridor, the
most stringent required
protective buffer will apply.
G. Amend subsection 14-6K-11, entitled
"Steep Slopes," by:
1 ) repealing the title of subsection 14-
Ordinance No.
Page 10
6K-11 and adding a new title of
subsection 14-6K-11 as follows:
I. Regulated Slopes
2) repealing subsection 14-6K-112a in
its entirety and adding a new
subsection 14-6K-112a as follows:
a. Steep Slopes - Any property
containing steep slopes (18-
24%) shall be required to
submit a Sensitive Areas Site
Plan, unless said property
qualifies for an exemption
under subsection 14-6K-1D,
entitled "Exemptions." The
Sensitive Areas Site Plan must
conform with the design
standards for regulated slopes
specified in subsection 14-6K-
114.
3) repealing subsection 14-6K-112b in
its entirety and adding a new
subsection 14-6K-112b as follows:
b. Critical slopes - Any property
containing critical slopes (25-
39%) shall be required to
submit a Sensitive Areas Site
Plan and a Grading Plan, unless
said property qualifies for an
exemption under subsection
14-6K-1D, entitled
"Exemptions." The Sensitive
Areas Site Plan must conform
with the design standards for
regulated slopes specified in
subsection 14-6K-114, and the
Grading Plan must conform
with the requirements of the
Grading Ordinance.
4) repealing the first and second
sentence of subsection 14-6K~112c
and adding a new first and second
sentence of subsection 14-6K-112c
as follows:
Protected Slopes - Any area
designated as a natural
protected slope (40% +) shall
not be graded and must remain
in its existing state, except
Ordinance No.
Page 11
that natural vegetation may be
supplemented by other plant
material. Any such property
shall be required to submit a
Sensitive Areas Overlay
rezoning application, Sensitive
Areas Development Plan and a
Grading Plan, unless said
property qualifies for an
exemption under subsection
14-6K-1D, entitled
"Exemptions."
5) adding a new subsection 14-6K-
112d as follows:
d. If a property owner certifies
that no development activity
will occur within 50 feet of a
protected slope on the site and
that said development activity
will not encroach upon or
impact those slopes, the City
may waive the requirement of
a Sensitive Areas Overlay
rezoning/Sensitive Areas
Develcpment Plan, and allow
the property owner to follow
the administrative review
procedures for a Sensitive
Areas Site Plan, provided no
other sensitive features on the
site require a Sensitive Areas
Overlay rezoning/Sensitive
Areas Development Plan.
6) repealing the last sentence of
subsection 14-6K-113 and adding a
new last sentence of subsection 14-
6K-113 as follows:
If a geologist or professional
engineer can demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the City that a
development activity can be
designed to eliminate hazards, the
buffer requirements may be
reduced.
7) repealing the introductory paragraph
and subsections a and b of
subsection 14-6K-114 and adding a
new introductory paragraph and
Ordinance No.
Page 12
subsections a and b of subsection
14-6K-114 as follows:
4. Design Standards for
Regulated Slopes: The
following standards shall be
addressed when either a
Sensitive Areas Site Plan or a
Sensitive Areas Overly
rezoning/Sensitive Areas
Development Plan for property
containing regulated slopes is
submitted:
a. Except for commercially
or industrially-zoned
properties, every lot or
parcel containing
protected slopes shall
have a construction area
equal to at least forty
percent (40%) of the
minimum lot size required
by the zone in which it is
located. [For example,
the construction area
would be a minimum of
3,200 square feet for a
lot in the RS-5 zone,
where a minimum 8,000
square foot lot is
required.]
b. Except for driveways and
utilities installation, no
grading or excavation
shall be allowed outside
the construction area on
lots containing protected
slopes. Grading and
excavation shall be
minimized on steep and
critical slopes.
H. Amend subsection 14-6K-1J,
entitled "Wooded Areas," by:
1) repealing subsection 14-6K-1J2 in
its entirety and adding a new
subsection 14-6K-1J2 as follows:
2. Woodland/Grove Regulations:
a. Any property containing a
woodland located on sites
Ordinance No.
Page 13
containing critical slopes
or stream corridors will be
required to submit a
Sensitive Areas Overlay
rezoning application and a
Sensitive Areas
Development Plan, prior
to woodland clearing or
commencing any
development activity,
unless said property
qualifies for an exemption
under subsection 14-6K-
1 D, entit ed
"Exemptions."
Any property containing a
woodland, but not
otherwiss required to
have a Sensitive Areas
O v e r I a y
rezoning/Sensitive Areas
Development Plan, will be
required to submit a
Sensitive Areas Site Plan
prior to woodland clearing
or commencing any
development activity,
unless said property
qualifies for an exemption
under subsection 14-6K-
1 D, entitled
"Exemptions."
Site plans, grading plans
and subdivision plats for
any property containing a
grove of trees shall
illustrate the grove on the
plan or plat prior to
commencement of any
development activity, and
will take measures to
protect and retain as
much of the grove as
practicable, unless said
property qualifies for an
exemption under
subsection 14-6K-1D,
entitled "Exemptions."
Ordinance No.
Page 14
2)
3)
d. If the property owner
certifies that no
development activity will
occur within fifty feet
(50'} of the trunks of the
trees at the perimeter of a
woodland, the
requirements of
subsection a. above for a
Sensitive Areas Overlay
rezoning/Sensitive Areas
Development Plan mav be
waived. The woodland
and a fifty foot (50')
protection area shall be
preserved as public or
private open space, either
through dedication, a
conservation easement,
or control by a
homeowners' association.
Prior to and during
construction or grading on
the site, a fence will be
erected and maintained
by the developer along
the outside perimeter of
the woodland buffer area
to protect the woodland
from development
activities.
repealing the introductory sentence
of subsection 14-6K-1J4 and
adding a new introductory sentence
of subsection 14-6K-1J4 as
follows:
Design Standards for Woodland
Retention: The following standards
should be addressed when either a
Sensitive Areas Site Plan or a
Sensitive Areas Overlay
rezoning/Sensitive Areas
Development Plan is submitted:
repealing subsection 14-6K-1J4a
and adding a new subsection 14-
6K-1J4a as follows:
a. To the extent possible,
woodlands located on steep
Ordinance No.
Page 15
and/or critical slopes and/or
within 100-year flood plains
should be given the highest
retention priority when meeting
the requirements of subsection
14-6K-1J3, entitled "Woodland
Retention and Replacement
Requirements."
I. Amend subsection 14-6K-1K, entitled
"Fully Hydric Soils," by:
1) repealing subsection 14-61(-1K2 in
its entirety and adding a new
subsection 14-6K-1 K2 as follows:
2. Regulations:
a. If fully hydric soils exist
on a property where
development activity is
proposed, the property
owner shall have a
wetlands specialist verify
whether wetlands exist
on the site. If wetlands
are found to exist on the
site, compliance with the
wetlands provisions of
the Sensitive Areas
Ordinance (Section 14-
6K-1) will be required.
More stringent
construction safeguards,
as specified by the City,
will be required for streets
and storm water
management facilities
located in fully hydric
soils. Sump pump
discharge tiles and
elevations of window
openings may also be
regulated, as specified by
the City.
Properties containing fully
hydric soils, but not
otherwise requiring a
Sensitive Areas Overlay
rezoning/Sensitive Areas
Development Plan, will
require a Sensitive Areas
Ordinance No.
Page 1 6
Site Plan review.
d. Fully hydric soils, in and
of themselves, will not be
deemed sufficient to
require a Sensitive Areas
Overlay rezoning.
2) repealing subsection 14-6K-1K3 in
its entirety and adding a new
subsection 14-6K-1K3 as follows:
3. Design Standards: To the
extent possible, urban
development projects will be
designed so that areas of fully
hydric soils will be treated as
an environmental asset; used
for storm water detention,
wetland enhancement or
buffers, protective greenbelts
along stream corridors and
neighborhood open space.
J. Amend subsection 14-6K-1L, entitled
"Prairie Remnants," by repealing
subsection 14-6K-1L2c and adding a
new subsection 14-6K-1L2c as follows:
c. Properties containing prairie
remnants one acre in size or larger,
but not otherwise requiring a
Sensitive Areas Overlay
rezoning/Sensitive Areas
Development Plan, will require a
Sensitive Areas Site Plan review.
K. Amend subsection 14-6K-1M,
entitled "Archaeological Sites," by:
1 ) repealing subsection 14-6K- 1M 1 b in
its entirety and adding a new
subsection 14-6K-1 M1 b as follows:
Allow the opportunity for
documentation and study of
important prehistoric and
historic sites.
2) repealing subsection 14-6K-1M2 in
its entirety and adding a new
subsection 14-6K-1M2 as follows:
2. Regulation of Archaeological
Sites by Other Agencies: The
approval of a Sensitive Areas
Development Plan or a
Sensitive Areas Site Plan under
Ordinance No.
Page 17
the provisions of this Section
is in addition to the applicant's
need to obtain permits required
by other local, state or federal
agencies, and does not alter
the applicant's obligation to
satisfy and obtain all other
applicable local, state or
federal regulations and
permits.
3) adding a new subsection 14-6K-
1M3 as follows:
3. Notification: When the
Sensitive Areas Inventory Map
- Phase I indicates that an
archaeological site is located in
the quarter section within
which a site plan, planned
development or a subdivision is
proposed, the City will forward
the site plan or subdivision
plan to the State Archaeologist
(State) for an opportunity to
comment. The City may also
seek comment from the State
Historic Preservation Officer.
The State may notify the City
if a recorded archaeological
site exists within the area of
the site plan, planned
development or subdivision.
The State may also notify the
City if the site is of such
archaeological importance that
it requires further study by the
State or a State-approved
archaeologist. If the State
identifies such a site, the Iowa
City Historic Preservation
Commission shall be notified
and may proceed as provided
in Article 14-4C, entitled
"Historic Preservation
Regulations."
4) repealing subsection 14-6K-1M4 in
its entirety and adding a new
subsection 14-6K-1 M5 as follows:
5. Discovery of Unrecorded
Ordinance No.
Page 18
Archaeological Sites: If, during
the course of grading or
construction, prehistoric
artifacts, historic objects or
significant archaeological
materials, such as human
remains or a prehistoric human
settlement, are encountered,
the City shall be notified. The
City shall notify the State,
which may take steps to
excavate and preserve the
objects, if practical, or in the
case of human burial grounds,
the State Archaeologist shall
determine whether or not the
human remains can be
disinterred. If it is determined
that the human remains cannot
be disinterred, the portion of
the property containing the
burial ground shall be returned
to itspreconstruction condition
by those persons responsible
for the disturbance.
L. Amend subsection 14-eK-1N, entitled
"Sensitive Areas Development Plan
Design Guidelines," by:
1 ) repealing subsection 14-6K-1N1 a in
its entirety and adding a new
subsection 14-6K-1 N1 a as follows:
a. Provide for flexibility in design
of public infrastructure, and
commercial, research
development, office research,
industrial and residential
developments to help assure
that developments near, in or
adjacent to environmentally
sensitive areas are designed to
use land efficiently and
preserve environmentally
sensitive areas as open space
amenities.
2) adding two new sentences at the
end of subsection 14-eK-1N2 as
follows:
Subsection 14-6K-1N3, entitled
Ordinance No.
Page 19
3)
4)
"Residential Development
Guidelines," contains guidelines for
Sensitive Areas Development Plans
in residential zones. Subsection 14-
6K-1N4 contains guidelines for
Sensitive Areas Development Plans
in commercial and industrial
developments, and research
development and office research
parks.
repealing subsection 14-6K-1N3f6
in its entirety and adding a new
subsection 14-6K-1N3f6 as follows:
Commercial uses which are
appropriate in scale and
compatible with nearby
residential development,
Commercial uses are not
permitted inSensitive Areas
Development Plans for
properties less than two (2)
acres in size when the
underlying zoning is residential.
adding a new subsection 14-6K-
1N4 as follows:
4. Commercial, Research
Development, Office Research
and Industrial Development
Guidelines: These
development guidelines
r~cognize that when
environmentally sensitive
features exist on a commercial,
research development, office
research or industrial property,
it may be appropriate to
minimize development in and
near the sensitive area{s), To
mitigate for the loss of
development potential, these
guidelines allow for an increase
in building height and a
reduction in yard and parking
requirements, as follows:
a. The height of a building
may be increased up to ten
feet (10'),
b, Yards may be reduced,
Ordinance No.
Page 20
c. Parking for commercial
and industrial uses may
be reduced.
SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and
parts of ordinances in conflict with the provi-
sions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION I11. 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 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 day of
,19
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CiTY CLERK
Prepared
Rockwell, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319/356-5251
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AIVIENDING CITY CODE
TITLE 14, CHAPTER 6. ENTITLED
'ZONING," ARTICLE K, ENTITLE
NVIRONMENTAL REGULATION,"
ENTITLED "SEN.¢
!AS, in December 1995 City
C( ;lopted a Sensiti~ Areas
implement the
policies forth in the City
and
exper nce with
implementing Areas
Ore need to clarify
and streamline cert rovisions of the
ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the pr amendments
to the Sensitive }rdinance are
intended to make ~ance more
practical to ~nent easier to
understand, and a liance on
administrative view of dev.e~pment
projects in envi~ rnent y sensitive~,reas;
end? \
WHEREA~, the Sensitive Ar~3~,s.
Committee/re( mmended the proposeok
amendmeres to the Planning and .Z. onin~
Comn ~s~n and the Rivedront and Ba~ural
Areas ,9~mission, and those Commissions
have ~iewed the proposed amendments
to the ~ensitive Areas Ordinance and have
~mended adoption of said
am ents to improve the
im ,ntation of the ordinance.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CITY, IOWA, THAT:
;ECTION I. APPROVAL. Chapter 6,
entitled "Zoning Chapter," Article K,
entitled "Environmental Regulations,"
Section 1, entitled "Sensitive Areas
Ordinance No.
Page 2
Ordinance," is hereby amended as follows:
A. Amend subsection 14-6K-lB,
entitled "Definitions," by:
1) repealing the definition of
"ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE,
SIGNIFICANT" in its entirety and
adding a new definition of
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE,
;IGNIFICANT" to read as follows:
RCHAEOLOGICAL SITE,
;NIFICANT: An archaeological
of prehistoric or historic
;ance that is considered by
the ate Historic Preservation
be eligible for the National
: Historic Places.
2) adding a of "HIST(
3)
OBJECT"
HISTORIC JECT: A
greater than
repealing the "SLOPE"
in its entirety ~ding a new
definition of as follows;
SLOPE: An incliJ surface,
eithe or altered,
with a rise least 10
feet, and is not herwise
approve( , the City, as City
approv Grading rior to
Dece~ 13, 1995.
13. Amend
"Appl
1)
2)
14-6K-1 C,
subbY;ection 14-6K-1Cla"~
its entirety and adding a new~.
3s(ction 14-6K-1C1a2 as
follows: . .
2) Woodlands two (2) acres in
size or greater, located on sites
containing critical slopes or
stream corridors, ·
repealing subsection 14-6K- 1 C2a6
in its entirety and adding a new
subsection 14-6K-1C2a6 as
follows:
6) Woodlands two (2) acres in
size or greater, where no other
sensitive features requiring a
Sensitive Areas Overlay
Ordinance No.
Page 3
rezoning are present,
where no critical slope or
stream corridors exist the
site
3) repealing subsection 14~~
in its entirety and a new
subsection 14-6K. as
follows:
6) Fully hydric so[ hated
in the USDA Conservation
Service Soil r of Johnson
County,
4) ~pealing the last sentence of
4-6K-1C3b in its
adding a new last
as
If
develo
property is exempt, the
cant shall first apply for
approval of the
:ion from the City before
OCCURS,
ection 14-6K-1D,
by adding a
14-6-ID6 as
6. less than
one acre of a
that such tivities are
approved by U.S. Army
Corps of through a
nationwide permit.
Amend subsection -6K-1F,
entitled "Submittal ~ents,"
by:
1) repealing subsection 1~-6K-
1Flb4 in its entirety '~nd
adding a new subsection
614-1 F1 b4 as follows:
4)Steep and critical slopes
repealing subsection 14-61(-
1 F1 e in its entirety and adding
a new subsection 14-6K-1 F1 e
as 'follows:
e. Other data and information
as may. reasonably be required
by the City, including requiring
the delineation of a
2)
Ordinance No.
4
E. Amend
construction area on the plan
as well as the location of
fencing to protect sensitive
features during construction. /
repealing the
sentence of subsection
1F2 and adding a
introductory sentence of
subsection 14-6K-1 as
)11ows:
Sensitive ~,reas
)ment Plan:
for Sensitive
~s Develo Plan,
~ accompa a Sensitive
ezoning, shall
"Wetlands," by
1 ) repealin{
in its
subsectior
follows:
1) Priol
ac
entitled
ction 14-6K-1G3al
and adding a new
4-6K-1G3a1 as
development
on a site
2)
wetland
defined or as shown
the Iive Areas
y Map- 'base I, the
property owner provide a
delineation of wetland
area(s) accepted 3e U.S.
Army Corps of prior
to the submittal to ity of
a Sensitive Areas ;day
rezoning application a
Sensitive Areas
Plan, or a Sensitive
Plan, for City review.
repealing subsection 14-6K-1G3a2
in its entirety and adding a new
subsection 14-6K-1G3a2 as
follows:
If the property owner certifies
that no development activity
will occur within one hundred
fifty feet (150') of the
apparent edge of a suspected
Ordinance No,
Page 5
or potential wetland area(s) on
the site, the requirement for
delineation by a wetland
specialist or the Corps may be
waived by the City. In the
case of a waiver, the property
owner shall grant an easement
running in favor of the City, an
approved conservation group
other organization for the
of retaining the
land and the surrounding
hundred fifty foot (150') /
~ction area as undeveloped
sl open space, and the
own shall then be allowed to
the procedures for
Areas Site Plar
set in this
provided :he wetland the
only s~ 3.~
triggering Areas
Overlay and a
Sensitive :)evelopment
Plan,
3) repealing the ntence of the
introductor' 3graph of
subsection lZ~ , and adding
a new fir of the
introduc aph of
subsecti 14-6K follows:
b. Buffer Re(
hundred foot 00'),
I, natural Jffer
shall be maintained ~en
any development activit~
"wetland(s)" as defined in
Sensitive Areas Ordinance,
unless said development
activity is exempted under
subsection 14,-6K-1D, entitled
"Exemptions.
repealing subsection 14-6K-1G3c1
in its entirety and adding a new
subsection 14-6K-1G3c1 as
follows:
1) No grading, dredging, clearing,
filling, draining, or other
development activity shall
occur within a delineated
wetland or required buffer
area, unless said activity is
part of a mitigation plan as
approved under subsection 14-
6K-1G4, entitled
Mitigation," or is a
use, such as a trail,
under the provisions
subsection 14-6K-1 E,
"Uses Permitted hin
=Sensitive as and
uffers."
5) ~g the second of
:ion 14-6K- and
adding new seco sentence to
6)
7)
)n 14- as
follows:
The of storm
water h the use or
combined e of constructed
wetlands letention basins,
vegetativ strips, sediment
traps or before the
storm ~noff reaches a
wetla nsidered as part
of a as provided in
sul I G4, entitled
subsection 4-6K-1 G3c6
its entirety and ing a new
ection 13c6 as
follows:
6) The removal of fo'~eign or
invasive species, if~!uding
intrusive native va~,eties,
within a wetland or buffe~,area
may be .permitted W~en
approved os part of ~a
mitigation plan as provide'~
under subsection 1.4.:6K-.1 S4..,~
entitled "Wetland Mitigation."
repealing the first sentence of the
introductory paragraph of
subsection 14-6K-1G4, ent~tled
"Wetland Mitigation," and adding a
new first sentence of the
Ordinance No.
Page 7
8)
introductory paragraph of
subse.ction 14-6K-1 G4 as follows:
Wetland Mitigation: A Sensitive
Areas Overlay rezoning/Sensitive
Areas Development Plan or
Sensitive Areas Site Plan for
property containing a wetland, as
defined in the Sensitive Areas
Ordinance, shall include a mitigation
~lan showing that all regulations
~section 14-6K-1G3,
i "Wetland Regulations," will
the introductory senten(
of Jbsection 14-6K-1G4a
addi a new introductory se~
of 14-6K-1(~ as
9)
a.
includ
informa
repealing
in its er
subsec
ddition to
in
entitled
irements," a
ation plan shall
following
n:
ion 14-6K-1G4a4
adding a new
.-6K-1G4a4 as
4) ~rmation regarding the
;haracteristic of the wetland
necessary to letermine the
allowable buff, reduction as
provided in 14-6K-
1G3b, entitled nd Buffer
Requirements," ifreduction
is requested.
10) repealing subsection G4a5
in its entirety and a new
subsection 14-6 5 as
follows:
5) A storm water maria
plan indicating that the
requirements of Section 4-
3G, entitled "Storm
Collection, Discharge
Runoff," and subsection 14
6K-1G3c3, which is listed
Ordinance No.
Page 8
11)
1 2) repealir
under "Design Standards" and
addresses storm water runoff
and sedimentation, will
met.
repealing the
sentence of subsection
1G4b2 and adding a
introductory senten,
subsection 14-6K-1(
follows:
2) The ratio of
comparab habitat
replaced habitat lost
shall be least 2:1 for
wetland not meeting the
crite listed in
14-6K-1G4b1
but containing:
the introductory
of subsection 14-
and adding a new
paragraph of
14-6K-1G4c as
be
of
compensatory
ation is proposed,
mitigation plan
',ified in subsection
1 K-1G4, entitled
"~ ~nd Mitigation,"
must prepared by a
specialist. A
com mitigation
plan include the
ionents:
entitled
Amend subsection
"Stream Corridors," by:
1) repealing subsection 14-6 .1H2 in
its entirety and adding new
subsection 14-6K-1H2 as
2. Stream Corridor Re
Other Agencies: The a
of a Sensitive Areas
rezoning/Sensitive Areas
Development Plan or a
Sensitive Areas Site Plan shall
be in addition to the
applicant's need to obtain
Ordinance No.
Page 9
permits required by other local,
state or federal agencies, and
does not alter the applicant's
obligation to satisfy and obtain
all other applicable local, state
or federal regulations and
permits.
repealing subsection 14-6K-1H3 in
its entirety and adding a new
subsection 14-6K-1H3 as follows:
3. Stream Corridor Regulations:
Any property located adjacent
to the Iowa River or another
stream corridor in Iowa
will be required to
Sensitive Areas Site
unless said property
for an exemptie under
1 4-6K-' entitled
or ~nsidered
ler a Se Areas
/Sensitive
Are~i )merit Plan
for another
ature on the site.
y paragraph
14-6K-1H4a and
introductory
14-6K-
2)
repealing the
of
adding
paragral
1 H4a
a. ess
3pt under
D, entitled
following
buffer reqL will be
maintained; other
sensitive features
within a stream the
most stringent rec ;d
protective buffer will
Amend subsection 14-6K-11,
;E Slopes," by:
1) repealing the title of subsection 14-
6K-11 and adding a new title of
subsection 14~6K-11 as follows:
I. Regulated Slopes
2) repealing subsection 14~6K-112a in
its entirety and adding a new
subsection 14-6K-112a as follows;
Ordinance No.
Page 10
3)
4)
repeal
anc
Steep Slopes - Any property
containing steep slopes (18-
24%) shall be required to
submit a Sensitive Areas Site
Plan, unless said property
qualifies for an exemption
under subsection 14-6K-1D,
entitled "Exemptions." The
Sensitive Areas Site Plan must
conform with the design
standards for regulated slopes
specified in subsection 14-6K-
~ling subsection 14-6K-112b in
entirety and adding a ne..w/
~ction 14-6K-112b as follows/z'
~ritical slopes - Any prop.~ty
c~ntaining critical slopes/A25-
39~ shall be req~,~d to
sul~ it a Sensitive A~r~as Site
Plan mda Grading P~[~n, unless
said roperty qua, lilies for an
undeY subsection
14- entitled
"Exem The Sensitive
Areas m must conform
with the ;ign standards for
specified in
--6K-114, and the
Gradi~ must conform
with ~ments of the
e.
'the first nd second
of 4-6K-112c
a new first second
of subsection .K-112c
Protected Slopes - Any~xarea
designated as a natural
protected slope (40% +) ~h'a~l
not be graded and must remaih,
in its existing state, except
that natural vegetation may be
supplemented by other plant
material. Any such property
shall be required to submit a
Sensitive Areas Overlay
rezoning application, Sensitive
Ordinance No.
Page 11
5)
6)
Areas Development Plan and a
Grading Plan, unless said
property qualifies for an
exemption under subsection
14-6K-1D, entitled
"Exemptions."
adding a new subsection 14-6K-
112d as follows:
d. If a property owner certifies/,-'
that no development
will occur within 50
protected slope
that said development a~
¢ill not encroach or
)act those slo City
' waive the rec ~ment of
a ensitive Overlay
ing/Sen Areas
and allow
the to follow
the ad ~trative review
for a Sensitive
Areas lan, provided no
other s features on the
site iensitive Areas
Over /Sensitive
Are~ Develo Plan.
repealin the last of
subse( ~n 14-6K-113 adding a
new t sentence of subs~ 4-
6K-; as follows:
If geologist or
en ineer can demonstrate
s~ ~ction of the City
/elopment activity can
to eliminate hazards,
buffer requirements may
reduced.
~nal
the
a
repealing the introductory paragraph
and subsections a and b of
subsection 14-6K-114 and adding a
new introductory paragraph and
subsections a and b of subsection
14-6K-114 as follows:
4, Design Standards for
Regulated Slopes: The
following standards shall be
addressed when either a
Ordinance No.
Page 12
Sensitive Areas Site Plan or a
Sensitive Areas Overly
rezoning/Sensitive Areas
Development Plan for proper
containing regulated slope
submitted:
a. Except for comme ~11y
or in(
properties, ever or
parcel con ~ining
protected shall
have a area
equal to least forty
percent of the
minitour ot size required
by the in which it is
[For example,
:tion area
Amend
led "Wooded Areas,"
repealing subsection
its entirety and
subsection 14-6K-1J2
2. Woodland/Grove
a.
woodland
d be a minimum of
)0 square feet for a
in the RS-5 zone,
a minimum 8,000
~are foot lot is
lited.]
: for driveways and
installation, no
or excavation
shall outside
the area on
lots :aining protected
slopes. Grading and
excava m shall be
on steep and
critical sic
sul: 14-6K-1J,
-6K-1J2 in
a new
)11ows:
~ing a
sites
containing critical
or stream c( be
required to submit
Sensitive Areas Over
rezoning application and.
Sens. itive Areas
Ordinance No.
3
b.
Development Plan,
to woodland or
commencing ny
development a(
unless said ~erty
qualifies for an e
under subsecti, 14-6K-
1 D, en it ed
"Exem
Any proper~ containing a
woodlane buz not
otherwise required to
have a Areas
O v r a y
rezoni Areas
Deve will be
to submit a
Areas Site Plan
r to woodland clearing
commencing any
velopment activity,
ess said property
an exemption
subsection 14-6K-
1 D entitled
Site grading plans
and ivision plats for
containing a
grove trees shall
ill~ on the
plan or prior to
commencem, of any
development ~ and
will take ~res to
protect and as
much of the as
practicable, said
property qualifies an
exemption u er
subsection 14-6K ID,
entitled "Exemptions.
If the property
certifies that
development activity
occur within fifty
(50') of the trunks of the
trees at the perimeter of a
Ordinance No.
Page 14
woodland, the
requirements of
subsection a. above for a/
Sensitive Areas Overlay/
rezoning/Sensitive Ar e,a's
Development Plan may/be
waived. The wooSland
and a fifty foot/(50')
protection area hall be
preserved as or
private open Sl either
through de a
conservatio] easement,
or co by a
association.
Prior and during
or grading on
the a fence will be
ere( and maintained
developer along
outside perimeter of
~e woodland buffer area
to protect the woodland
tom development
2)
re introductory sentence
of ~n 14-6K-1J4 and
ac a , sentence
14-6K-1J4 as
Ilows:
Design for Woodland
Retention: wing standards
should be when either a
Sensitive Areas Plan or a
Sensitive Overlay
rezoning/Sensit Areas
Development Plan is itted:
repealing subsection 1~ ~K-1J4a
and adding a new ~n 14-
6K-1J4a as follows:
a. To the extent hie,
woodlands located on 9p
and/or critical slopes
within 100-year flood
should be given the highes1
retention priority when meeting
the requirements of subsection
14-6K-1J3, entitled "Woodland
Ordinance No.
Page 15
Retention and Replac
. Requirements,"
I. Amend subsection 14-6K-1K
"Fully Hydric Soils," by:
1) repealing subsection
its entirety and
subsection 14-6K-1 t
2. Regulations:
a. If fully soils exist
in
a new
as ~ollows:
on ~roperty where
deve ~ment activity is
the property
ov shall have a
specialist verify
wetlands exist
~n the site. If wetlands
are found to exist on the
site, compliance with the
wetlands provisions of
Sensitive Areas
(Section 14-
will be required.
M e stringent
~ction safeguards,
as fled by the City,
Jired for streets
~rm water
facilities
[ully hydric
~p pump
es and
window
[so be
ed by
and
managem
located in
soils. ,~
discharge
elevations of
openings may
regulated, as s
the City.
c. Properties containing'~ully
hydric soils, but I~ot
otherwise requiring .~
Sensitive Areas Overla~,
rezoning/Sensitive Areas
Development Plan, will
require a Sensitive Areas
Site Plan review, ~
d. Fully hydric soils, in and
of themselves, will not be
deemed sufficient~ to
require a Sensitive Areas
Overlay rezoning.
Ordinance No.
Page 1 6
2)
J. Amend
"Prairie
subsection
new
c. Properties
remnants on
but not
Sensitiv
rezonin
Devel¢
repealing subsection 14-6K-1K3 in
its entirety and adding a new
subsection 1~--6K-1K3 as follows:
3. Design Standards: To the
extent possible, urban
development projects will
designed so that areas,
hydric soils will be
an environmental
for storm water
wetland enh~ or
protective s
stream co~ and
~borhood ~ace.
14-1 L, entitled
~nants," repealing
and adding a
L2c as follows:
taining prairie
:re in size or larger,
~rwise requiring a
~reas Overlay
sitive Areas
will require a
Plan review.
K. Amend subsecti
entitled Si~
1 ) repe~ subsection'
its and
b Allow the
documentation and
important prehist(
historic sites.
repealing subsection 1
its entirety and adding
14-6K-1M,
by:
nga new
as follows:
for
of
and
/12 in
subsection 14-6K-IM2 as foil ~:
2. Regulation of
Sites by Other Agencies:
approval of a Sensitive
Development Plan or a
Sensitive Areas Site Plan under
the provisions of this Section
is in addition to the applicant's
need to obtain permits required
by other local, state or federal
agencies, and does not alter
the applicant's obligation to
Ordinance No.
Page 1 7
4)
satisfy and obtain all other
applicable local, state or
federal regulations and
permits.
adding a new subsection 14-6~
1M3 as follows:
Notification: When
Sensitive
- Phase I indicates an
archaeological site is Ic
the quarter sectio within
~hich a site plat planned
)mentor a bdivision is
viii forward
~ite plan subdivision
Archaeologist
opportunity to
City may also
seek con from the State
Historic .ervation Officer.
~y notify the City
if a archaeological
site fin the area of
the site n, planned
opment subdivision.
notify the
if the site of such
gical :ance that
uires fu by the
ate or a
archaeologist. If th State
identifies such a site Iowa
City Historic tion
Commission shall be ed
and may proceed as ,d
in Article 14-4C,
"Historic Preservatio~
Regulations."
repealing subsection 14-6K-1M4 in
its entirety and adding a new
subsection 14-6K-1M5 as follows:
5. Discovery of Unrecorded
Archaeological Sites: If, during
the course of grading or
construction, prehistoric
artifacts, historic objects or
significant archaeological
materials, such as human
Ordinance No,
Page 18
remains or a prehistoric human
settlement, are encountered,
the City shall be notified. The
City shall notify the state,
which may take steps to
excavate and preseryb the
objects, if practical, ~ in the
case of human burial,grounds,
the State Archaeot~gist shall
determine whethe/f or not the
human remair~s can be
disinterred. If i!~/is determined
Ihat the humar )ins cannot
the portion of
containing the
shall be returned
condition
by tl persons responsible
listurbance.
14-6K-IN, entitled
Development Plan
L. Amend subse,
"Sensitive
Design Guid
1 ) repeali:
its
on 14-6K-1N1a in
add;ng a new
as follows:
a. for tle~ ~ility in design
commercial 'esearch
development, : ~, research,
industrial and r~idential
developments to ~ell~ assure
that developments nea'~ in or
adj~icent to environmentally
sensitive areas are design¥ to
use land efficiently ¥.d
preserve environmental~
sensitive areas as open spac~
amenities. ~
adding two new sentences at the
end of subsection 14-6K-IN2 as
follows: ~
Subsection 14-6K-IN3,. entitled
"Resid en,,tial D ev e.l.o,.pm e?t
Guidelines, contains guidelio¥' for
Sensitive Areas Development Plans
in residential zones. Subsection 14-
6K-IN4 contains guidelines for
Sensitive Areas Development Plans
Ordinance No.
Page 1 9
3)
4)
in commercial and industrial
developments, and research '
development and office
parks.
repealing subsection
in its entirety and adding a
subsection 14-6K-1 N3f6
6) Commercial uses are
appropriate in sc and
compatible nearby
residential ~ment.
Commercial us, are not
~rmitted in Areas
~velopmer Plans for
than two (2)
when the
is residential.
;ection 14-6K-
cial, Research
Office Research
ial Development
s: These
guidelines
ognize hat when
sensitive
adding a
1 N4 as
4. Com
Devel
and
Gu
d~
~atures exist on :ommercial,
research develo ;nt, office
research or ~roperty,
it may be late to
minimize develo in and
near the sensitive areal To
mitigate for the Ic of
development potential ,se
guidelines allow for
in building height and
reduction in yard and
requirements, as follows:
a. The height of a building
may be increased up to ten
feet (10').
b. Yards may be reduced.
c. Parking for commercial
and industrial uses may
be reduced.
SECTION II. REP£ALER. All ordinances and
parts of ordinances in conflict with the prow-
sions of this Ordinance ale 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 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 dav of
,19
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CIrY CLERK
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 14, 1996
To:
Planning and Zoning Commission
Riverfront and Natural Areas Commission
From:
Sensitive Areas Committee Members: Bill Frantz, Dick Hoppin, Beth Hudspeth,
John Moreland, Jr., Catherine Pugh, Richard Rhodes III, Tom Scott, George
Starr
Re:
Amendments Proposed for the Sensitive Areas Ordinance
Based on experience gained in implementing the Sensitive Areas Ordinance since it was
approved in December 1995, City staff has recommended several changes to the ordinance.
During May and in early June of this year, the Sensitive Areas Committee met to review and,
in some cases, revise the amendments proposed by staff. With this memorandum, the
Committee now forwards its recommendations for amendments to the Sensitive Areas
Ordinance to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Riverfront and Natural Areas
Commission for your consideration.
The purpose of the proposed amendments is to make the ordinance more practical to
implement and easier to understand. Some of the amendments are intended to clarify
sections that have been confusing for developers and staff. Several of the proposed
amendments place a higher reliance on administrative review; however, the Sensitive Areas
Overlay rezoning/planned development requirements would still apply to properties containing
wetlands, protected slopes, and woodlands located on sites containing critical slopes or
stream corridors. The proposed amendments are discussed in detail below and a copy of the
Sensitive Areas Ordinance with the proposed revisions shown in bold and strikeover is
attached for your review.
SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY REZONING
Throughout the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, the requirement for a Sensitive Areas Development
Plan is specified. It is implied, but not always specifically stated that a Sensitive Areas
Overlay rezoning is required with the Sensitive Areas Development Plan. The Sensitive Areas
Committee recommends that the ordinance be amended to make the rezoning requirement
explicit. For example, the submittal requirements section of the ordinance could be amended
as follows:
F2
Sensitive Areas Development Plan: Submittal information for a Sensitive Areas
Development Plan, which accompanies a Sensitive Areas Overlay rezoning
application, shall include...
The following subsections of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance could be similarly amended to
clarify when a Sensitive Areas Overlay rezoning is required: G3al and G3a2, Wetland
Delineation; G4, Wetland Mitigation; H2 and H3, Stream Corridor Regulation; 12c and 14,
Regulated Slopes; J2a, J2b and J4, Wooded Areas; K2c, Fully Hydric Soils; and L2c, Prairie
Remnants. The proposed changes are noted in the attached revised ordinance.
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Recent applications for development near protected slopes have revealed the need to have a
construction area delineated on the site plan or development plan. Similar situations could
occur when structures and other property improvements are proposed to be located near other
sensitive areas, such as woodlands and wetlands. The Committee agreed that in certain
cases, City staff should be able to require a fence to be placed on the site to protect sensitive
features during construction. Because a fencing requirement would not be appropriate in all
cases, the Committee supports an amendment to subsection F1 e as follows:
Fle
Other data and information as may be reasonably required by the City, including
requiring the delineation of a construction area on the plan as well as the
location of fencing to protect sensitive features during construction.
WETLANDS
When discussing the first draft of the wetland regulations, the Committee felt the Sensitive
Areas Ordinance should regulate only those wetlands that are also ~egulated by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. For that reason, the definition of "Wetlands/Wetland Areas"
includes the sentence: "...For the purposes of this Section, wetland shall mean ajurisdictional
wetland that is regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers..." The terms "jurisdictional"
and "regulated" have caused confusion, because the Corps considers every wetland,
regardless of its size and quality, to be a jurisdictional wetland. In some instances and for
certain activities, the Corps issues "Nationwide Permits" (NWP), which are essentially pre-
approvals for certain activities; some may require mitigation, but many do not.
The Committee had not intended that the City should regulate most of the activities covered
under a NWP, yet these NWP-wetlands are still considered to be "regulated" by the Corps,
and therefore technically fall under the purview of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. For
example, projects, such as installation and monitoring of scientific measuring devices, survey
activities, emergency watershed protection activities authorized by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, etc., are covered under a NWP. The Committee did not intend that
such activities would trigger the need for local review under the requirements of the Sensitive
Areas Ordinance.
One of the Nationwide Permits, NWP #26, deals with activities that affect less than ten acres
of an "isolated" wetland. (In Iowa City, an "isolated" wetland is a wetland that is not
adjacent to the Iowa River.) If less than one acre of an isolated wetland is to be disturbed,
no mitigation is required by the Corps. However, if more than one acre is to be disturbed,
mitigation is likely to be required as a condition of approval. The Committee felt it was
important for the Sensitive Areas Ordinance to address the situations where mitigation would
be required, but not to regulate other activities that are typically approved by the Corps under
a NWP.
Therefore, the Committee suggests that an exemption be incorporated into the Sensitive
Areas Ordinance for development activities that disturb less than one acre of a wetland and
are approved by the Corps through a nationwide permit. The following exemption could be
added to subsection D, Exemptions:
D6
Activities affecting less than one acre of a wetland provided that they are
approved by the U. S, Army Corps of Engineers through a nationwide permit.
3
Design Standard Clarification. The Committee supports the following amendment of
subsection G3cl of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance to clarify that trails are a permitted use in
a wetland/wetland buffer area:
G3cl
No grading, dredging, clearing, filling, draining or other development activity
shall occur within a delineated wetland or required buffer area, unless said
activity is part of a mitigation plan as approved under subsection 14-6K-1G4,
or is a permitted use, such as a trail, allowed under the provisions of subsection
14-eK-1E.
SLOPES
Title. The title of the slopes section of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance is "Steep Slopes." This
title is misleading and confusing. "Steep Slopes" are defined in the ordinance as having a
slope of 18 to 24 percent. However, the slopes section of the ordinance regulates critical
slopes (25-39%) and protected slopes (40%+) as well as steep slopes. There was
unanimous agreement on the part of the Committee to recommend changing the title of the
slopes section of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance to Regulated Slopes.
Application of SAO Rezoninq Requirements
Critical Slopes. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance requires a Sensitive Areas Overlay
rezoning/Sensitive Areas Development Plan and a Grading Plan for development of properties
containing critical and protected slopes. Grading and development are allowed on critical
slopes, but are generally prohibited on protected slopes and within the protected slopes
buffer. The Committee proposes amendments to allow development on proporties with
critical slopes to be reviewed administratively following the design standards for regulated
slopes and the Sensitive Areas Site Plan procedures. A Grading Plan would still be required.
The Committee felt that it was appropriate to reserve the stringency of a rezoning review and
approval process for properties where protected slopes and the associated buffer would be
impacted. The Committee recommends that subsection 12b be amended by substituting the
term "Sensitive Areas Site Plan" in place of the term "Sensitive Areas Development Plan" as
follows:
12b
Critical Slopes - Any property containing critical slopes (25-39%) shall be
required to submit a Sensitive Areas Site Plan and a Grading Plan. unless said
property qualifies for an exemption under subsection 14-6K-1 D. The Sensitive
Areas Site Plan must conform w~th the design guidelines specified in subsection
14-6K-114.
Off-Slope/Steep Slope Development. In February, the City began receiving apphcations for
development on property that contained steep, critical and protected slopes. In certain cases,
the development was proposed either on fairly flat ground or on steep slopes at some distance
from the critical or protected slopes on the site. For example, the Iowa City Tennis and
Fitness Center proposed building a weight room addition and two indoor batting cages on the
north side of its facihty located at 2400 N. Dodge Street. These additions were proposed to
be constructed on flat ground and on the opposite side of the building from the critical and
protected slopes located on the south and west portions of the site. Another example
involved the Elks Club application to build a golf cart storage building on a steep slope at least
85 feet d~stant from critical slopes on the site.
The slopes regulations of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance require that owners of property
containing slopes of 25% or greater (critical or protected slopes) anywhere on the property
must have a Sensitive Areas Overlay rezoning and a Sensitive Areas Development Plan
approved prior to proceeding with any development on the site. Both the Fitness Center and
the Elks Club felt that it was unreasonable to experience the delay and expense of undergoing
a rezoning when they wanted to construct minor development projects on flat ground or
slopes of less than 25%, and the construction would not impact the critical or protected
slopes on the site. Although staff recommended that an amendment to the Sensitive Areas
Ordinance was the appropriate course of action, both property owners successfully appealed
to the Board of Adjustment to waive the rezoning requirement and allow development to
proceed under administrative review. The Board subsequently voted unanimously to forward
a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning commission requesting an amendment to the
Sensitive Areas Ordinance to allow development projects that do not impact critical or steep
slopes to proceed under administrative review, instead of triggering a rezoning.
The Sensitive Areas Ordinance does allow the rezoning requirement to be exempted for
wetlands and woodlands when development occurs at a certain distance from the sensitive
area. For example, if a property owner certifies that no development activity will occur within
150 feet of the apparent edge of a suspected or potential wetland area on the site, the
requirement for a wetland delineation may be waived by the City, and the owner may proceed
with administrative review of the development project; a Sensitive Areas Overlay rezoning is
not required. A similar provision was incorporated into the woodlands section of the
Ordinance. The Committee recommends that a similar exemption be allowed for properties
containing protected slopes:
12d
If a property owner certifies that no development activity will occur within 50
feet of a protected slope on the site and would not encroach upon or impact a
protected slope, the City may waive the requirement for a Sensitive Areas
Overlay rezoning/Sensitive Areas Development Plan, provided no other sensitive
features on the site require a Sensitive Areas Overlay rezoning/Sensitive Areas
Development Plan.
Buffer Requirements. Because the term "setback" is not relevant to the regulation of slopes,
the Committee recommends that the words "setback and" be deleted from the last sentence
in subsection 13 concerning the buffer requirement for protected slopes:
13
· ..If a geologist or professional engineer can demonstrate to the satisfaction of
the City that a development activity can be designed to eliminate hazards, the
cotback and buffer requirements may be reduced.
Desiqn Standards for Re.qulated Slopes. Because development and grading are generally not
permitted in protected slopes/buffers, but are permitted on other slopes, the Committee
supports clarifying the introduction and parts a. and b. of the design standards for slopes as
follows:
14
Design Standards: The following guidelines shall be addressed when either a
Sensitive Areas Site Plan or a Sensitive Areas Overlay rezoning/Sensitive Areas
Development Plan for property containing s~eef) regulated slopes is subrnitted:
14a
Except for commercially or industrially-zoned properties, every lot or parcel
containing protected slopes shall have a construction area equal to at least
40% of the minimum lot size required by the zone in which it is located. [For
5
example, the construction area would be a minimum of 3,200 square feet for
a lot in the RS-5 zone, where a minimum 8,000 square foot lot is required.]
WOODLANDS
Rezoninq Requirement. Under the current Sensitive Areas Ordinance, woodlands are reviewed
administratively through site plan review "when no other sensitive features exist on the site."
However, if other sensitive features exist on a site that contains woodlands, a Sensitive Areas
Overlay rezoning is required. This means that any development on a property where
woodlands exist on a site that also contains hydric soils would be required to go through the
rezoning process. This seems overly burdensome, and does not reflect the original intent of
the Committee.
The Committee recommends an amendment that would require a Sensibve Areas Overlay
rezoning only when woodlands are associated with sensitive features, such as wetlands or
protected slopes, which already require a rezoning of a site, or are located on properties
containing critical slopes or a stream corridor. Woodlands located on or near critical slopes
and stream corridors help stabilize these areas and prevent soil erosion. The Committee feels
that properties containing woodlands in combination with critical slopes or stream corridors
warrant the additional scrutiny of a public rewew and consideration by the Planning and
Zoning Commission and the City Council. Recommended changes are noted as follows:
Cla2 Woodlands two acre in size or greater, where other sensitive features cx+st
located on sites containing critical slopes or stream corridors on thc site.
To retain administrative review of woodlands in most cases, the Committee suggests that
subsectior~ C2a, which lists the sensitive features requiring a Sensitive Areas Site Plan, be
amended as follows:
C2a6 Woodlands two acres in size or greater, where no other sensitive features
requiring a Sensitive Areas Overlay rezoning are present, and where no critical
slopes or stream corridors exist on the site.
The Committee also suggests that Section J, Wooded Areas, be amended accordingly, as
follows:
J2a
Any property containing a woodland in combination with any othcr cnv~e~mcm
tally scnsitivc arca subjcct to the rcquircmcnts of this Scct~e~ located on sites
containing critical slopes or stream corridors will be required to submit a
Sensitive Areas Overlay rezoning application and a Sensitive Areas Develop-
ment Plan, prior to woodland clearing or commencing any development activity,
unless said property qualifies for an exemption under subsection 14-6K- 1 D.
Woodland Exemption. If the property owner certifies that no development actiwty will occur
w~thin 100 feet of the trunks of trees to be protected in a woodland, subsection J2d of the
Sensitive Areas Ordinance allows requirements for a Sensitive Areas Development Plan or
Sensitive Areas Site Plan, including grove protection measures, to be waived. The Committee
feels that the entire woodland area should remain intact if rezoning requirements are to be
waived. The Committee also feels that the site plan review and grove protection measures
should not be waived, as is currently the case in the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. The
Committee views the 100 foot buffer as being more extensive than is needed for woodland
protection; a 5C-foot setback would encompass and provide protection for the critical root
zone of most trees. The Committee recommends the following amendment to subsection
J2d, which includes a provision requiring fencing to provide protection of the woodland area
during development activities:
J2d
If the property owner certifies that no development activity will occur within
100 50 feet of the trunks of trees to bo protoctcd in at the perimeter of a
woodland, the requirements of subsection a., b. or c. above for a Sensitive
Areas Overlay rezoning/Sensitive Areas Development Plan may be waived. The
woodland and a 4-89 50 foot protection area shall be preserved as public or
private open space, either through dedication, a conservation easement, or
control by a homeowners' association. Prior to and during construction or
grading on the sits, a fence will be erected along the outside perimeter of the
woodland buffer area to protect it from development activities.
FULLY HYDRIC SOILS
Terminoloqv. To avoid confusion, the term "fully hydric soils" should be used consistently
throughout the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Currently, the terms "hydric soils" and "fully
hydric soils" are used interchangeably in the ordinance, yet only fully hydric soils are covered
by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. To this end, the Committee suggests that subsection
C3a6, which is part of a list of sensitive features governed by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance,
be amended as follows:
C3a6 Fully hydric soils as designated...
In subsection K of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, Fully Hydric So~ls, the subsections
containing the term "hydric soils" should be amended to read "fully hydric soils."
Wetland Verification. Subsection K2a of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance states that "if fully
hydric soils exist on a property where development activity is proposed, the property owner
shall verify whether wetlands exist on the site. if wetlands are delineated on the site,
compliance with the wetlands provisions of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance will be required."
If verification and a signoff by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is required, it can create
major delays and costs for development projects across the commumty. To clarify this
provision of the ordinance, the Committee suggests the following amendment to subsection
K2a to allow a less costly and less time-consuming means for wetland identification on
properties containing hydric sods:
K2a
"If fully hydric soils exist on a property where development activity is proposed,
the property owner shall have a wetlands specialist verify whether wetlands
exist on the site. If wetlands are delineated found to exist on the site,
compliance with the wetlands provisions of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance will
be required.
Structures. Public Works has requested that the term "structures" be deleted from subsection
K2b of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, because it gives the false impression that building
foundations are regulated by the Public Works Department. The Housing and Inspection
Services Department also monitors and inspects sump pumps and elevations of window
openings, so it is more appropriate to reference the "C~ty" instead of the "Public Works
Department" in subsection K2b. The Committee supports the following amendments to
subsection K2b:
7
K2b
More stringent construction safeguards, as specified by the City Public Works
Department, will be required for streets, structures and storm water manage-
ment facilities located in fully hydric soils. Sump pump disch-3rge tiles and
elevations of window openings may also be regulated, as specified by the City
Public Works
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
The proposed amendments to subsection M, Archaeological Sites, relate mainly to procedures
for notification and involvement of the State Historic Preservation Officer, the State
Archaeologist, and the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission. The Committee concurs
with the amendments that were drafted by City staff in cooperation with the State
Archaeologist, Bill Green, and representatives of the State Historic Preservation Office and the
Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission.
The proposed amendments to clarify this section of the Ordinance will:
Remove references to the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) from the
ordinance except to allow the City the discretion to seek advice from SHPO.
Mlb
Allow the State Historic Preservation Officer and where appropriate, the State
Archaeologist the opportunity ~ for documentation and study of important
prehistoric and historic sites.
M3
Notification: When the Sensitive Areas Inventory Map - Phase I indicates that
an archaeological site is located in the quarter section within which a site plan,
planned development or a subdivision is proposed, the City will forward the site
plan, development plan or subdivision plat to the State Historic Preservation
Officer (State) or the State Archaeologist (State) for an opportunity for
comment. The City may als0 seek comment from the State Historic Preserva-
tion Officer. The State w4P, may notify the City if a recorded archaeological site
exists within the area of the site plan, planned development or subdivision. The
State wiI~ may also notify the City if the site is of such archaeological
importance that it requires further study by the State or a State-approved
archaeologist. If the State identifies such a site, the Iowa City Historic
Preservation Commission shall be notified and may proceed as provided in
Article 14-40, entitled "Historic Preservation Regulation."
Add a new subsection indicating that compliance with the City's Sensitive Areas
Ordinance does not absolve applicants from complying with state and federal
regulations.
M2
Regulation of Archaeological Sites by Other Agencies: The approval of a
Sensitive Areas Development Plan or a Sensitive Areas Site Plan under the
provisions of this Section is in addition to the applicant's need to obtain permits
required by other local, state or federal agencies, and does not alter the
applicant's obligation to satisfy and obtain all other applicable local, state or
federal regulations and permits.
8
Give the State Archaeologist an opportunity to comment on development projects, but
do not require the comment as currently specified in the Sensitive Areas Ordinance.
This change is necessary, because the City cannot direct a state agency to take an
action. Note changes to subsection M3 shown above.
Add a provision indicating that the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission will be
notified if any archaeological sites are known to exist on a property. See amended
subsection M3 above.
Require that the City be notified concerning the discovery of unrecorded archaeological
sites, and require the City to notify the State of such discoveries.
M5
Discovery of Unrecorded Archaeological Sites: If, during the course of grading
or construction, prehistoric artifacts, historic objects or significant archaeologi-
cal materials, such as human remains or a prehistoric human settlement, are
encountered, the S',c',c City shall be notified. The City shall notify the State,
which may take steps to excavate and preserve the objects, if practical, or in
the case of human burial grounds, the State Archaeologist shall determine
whether or not the human remains can be disinterred. If it is determined that
the human remains cannot be disinterred, the portion of the property containing
the burial ground shall be returned to its preconstruction condition by those
persons responsible for the disturbance.
6. Amend the definition of "archaeological site, significant" as follows:
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE, SIGNIFICANT: An archaeological site of prehistoric or
historic significance that is dctcrmincd considered by the State Historic Preservation
Officer to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
7. Add a definition to clarify that "historic objects" are at least 100 years of age.
HISTORIC OBJECTS: An artifact greater than 100 years of age.
SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN GUIDELINES
The current design guidelines for Sensitive Areas Development Plans clearly apply to
residential development. There is a question as to whether the ordinance as drafted allows
flexibility in application of the zoning standards for commercial and industrial developments.
To clarify this, the Committee suggests that a subsection be added to subsection N specifying
that the Sensitive Areas Ordinance would allow the Planning and Zoning Commission and the
C~t,/Council to modify sections of the Zoning Chapter as they apply to commercial and
industrial developments in sensitive areas. Amendments to subsection N are proposed as
fol10ws:
Nla
Provide for flexibility in the design of public infrastructure in commercial,
research development, office and research, industrial and residential develop-
ments to help assure that developments near, in or adjacent to environmentally
sensitive areas, are designed to use land efficiently and preserve environmental-
ly sensitive areas as open space amenities.
9
N2a
...strive for development solutions that best promote the spirit, intent and
purpose of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance while permitting development of the
property for reasonable, beneficial uses. Subsection 14-6K-IN3 contains
guidelines for Sensitive Area Development Plans in residential zones.
Subsection 14-6K~lN4 contains guidelines for Sensitive Area Development
Plans in commercial and industrial developments, and research development
and office research parks.
N3f6
Commercial uses which are appropriate in scale and compatible with nearby
residential development. Commercial uses are not permitted in Sensitive Areas
Development Plans for properties less than two (2) acres when the underlying
zoning is residential.
N4
Commercial, Research Development, Office Research and Industrial Develop-
ment Guidelines: These development guidelines recognize that when
environmentally sensitive features exist on a commercial, research develop-
ment, office research or industrial property, it may be appropriate to minimize
development in and near the sensitive area. To mitigate for the loss of
development potential, these guidelines allow for an increase in building height
and a reduction of yard and parking requirements as follows:
a) The height of a building may be increased up to ten (10) feet.
Yards may be reduced.
c) Parking for commercial and industrial uses may be reduced.**
If the parking reduction provision is adopted, the Planned Development Housing
Overlay zone section of the Zoning Chapter that prohibits parking reductions as part
of a planned development would need to be amended.
Draft -- June 11, 1996 BOLD PRINT = PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
14-6K. 1 - Sensitive Areas Ordinance
A. Purpose: The purpose of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance is to:
1. Implement the environmental policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Permit and define the reasonable use of properties which contain environmentally sensitive
features and natural resources while recognizing the importance of environmental resourc-
es and protecting such resources from destruction.
3. Provide for ecologically sound transitions between protected environmentally sensitive
areas and urban development.
4. Protect the public from injury and properly damage due to flooding, erosion, and other
natural hazards which can be exacerbated by development of environmentally sensitive
land.
5. Foster urban design that preserves open space and minimizes disturbance of environ-
mentally sensitive features and natural resources.
6. Provide for the mitigation of disturbances of environmentally sensitive features and natural
resoumes through requiring and implementing mitigation plans, as needed.
7. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance is intended to cover industrial and commercial properties,
as well as residential properties, unless otherwise exempted herein.
B. Definitions: The following definitions apply to the interpretation and enforcement of the Sensitive
Areas Ordinance regulations:
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE, SiGNIFiCANT: An archaeological site of prehistoric or historic signifi-
cance that is dctcrm~,",cd considered by the State Historic Preservation Officer to be eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places.
BUFFER: An area of landlhat is located adjacent to a designated sensitive area and provides a
transition area that protecls slope stability, attenuates surface water flows and preserves wildlife
habitat and protected wetlands, stream corridors and woodlands.
BUFFER, NATURAL: A land area located adjacent to a protected sensitive area where develop-
ment activity such as building, grading, or clearing are prohibited unless otherwise exempt herein.
COMPENSATORY MITIGATION: Creating a new wetland, or enhancing or expanding ap existing
wetland in exchange for allowing development activities to occur within an existing wetland.
CONSTRUCTION AREA: The portion of a parcel of land where development activity and other
improvements may take place and be located.
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY: Any human-made change to improved or ummproved real estate,
including, but not limited to the placement of manufactured housing, buildings or other structures,
mining, dredging, filhng, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations and construction activi-
ties. "Development activi,'y" does not include transfer of ownership.
DIAMETER, TREE TRUNK: The diameter of a tree trunk measured at 4 1/2 feet above ground;
if on a slope, measured from the high side of the slope. In the case of a tree with multiple trunks,
the diameter shall be the average of the diameters of all the trunks.
DIRECT DISCHARGE: The discharge of untreated surface water into a wetland from a developed
or developing property through the use of an underground pipe, culvert, drainage tile, ditch, swale,
channel or other means.
Draft - 6~96
Page 2
FLOOD EVENT; 100 YEAR: A flood, the magnitude of which has a one pement (1%) chance of
being equaled or exceeded in any given year, or which on the average will be equaled or exceeded
at least once every one hundred (100) years.
FLOOD PLAIN: Any land area susceptible to being inundated by water as a result of a specific
frequency flood. For instance, the 100-year flood plain is the area of land susceptible to being
inundated by a 100-year flood event.
FLOODWAY: The channel of a river or stream and those portions of the flood plains adjoining the
channel which are reasonably required to carry and discharge flood waters so that confinement of
flood waters to the floodway area will not result in substantially higher flood elevation. Where
floodway data has been provided in the Flood Insurance Study, such data shall be used to define
the floodway limits.
FULLY HYDRIC SOILS: Soils susceptible to water saturation, and designated as fully hydric soils
by the USDA Soil Conservation Service as of December 1993.
GRADING: Any excavating or filling or a combination thereof, including compaction.
GROVE OF TREES: Ten or more individual trees having a diameter of at least twelve (12) inches,
and whose combined canopies cover at least fifty (50) percent of the area encompassed by the
trees.
HISTORIC OBJECT: An artifact greater than 100 years of age.
PRAIRIE REMNANT: Prairie areas that have remained relatively untouched on undeveloped,
untilled portions of properties and contain primarily a mixture of native warm season grasses
interspersed with native flowering plants. Known extant prairie remnants are identified on the Iowa
City Sensilive Areas Inventory Map- Phase I.
PREHISTORY: Relating to or existing in times antedating written history (prior to approximately
1700 AD in Iowa City).
SENSITIVE AREAS CONSERVATION TRACT: A separate tract which protects sensitive areas
and associated buffers within planned developments, subdivisions and building site plans; held
separately from buildable !ors by an incorporated homeowners' association or a nonprofit conserva-
tion organization, or dedicated to the City.
SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN: A plan required to be submitted and approved in
conjunction with a Sensitive Areas Overlay (OSA) rezoning that designates protected sensitive
areas and associated buffers within a planned development.
SENSITIVE AREAS INVENTORY MAP - PHASE I: The map of the Iowa City service area with
designations of potential environmentally sensitive areas, such as woodlands, wetlands, floodplains,
steep slopes, hydric soils, prairie remnants and geological, historical and archaeological features.
SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY (OSA) ZONE: A planned development rezoning of a tract of land
that requires the approval of a Sensitive Areas Development Plan, which designates protected
sensitive areas and their associated buffers on said tract.
SENSITIVE AREAS, PROTECTED: Portions of a parcel of land containing environmentally
sensitive features that are designated on an approved Sensitive Areas Site Plan or a Sensitive
Areas Development Plan and where no development activity is allowed.
Draft - 6~96
Page 3
SENSITIVE AREAS SETBACK LINE: A line delineated on a proposed development plan or site
plan that establishes the no-build line around protected sensitive areas, such as wetlands, streams,
steep slopes, and woodlands, and their required buffers.
SENSITIVE AREAS SITE PLAN: A site plan for development on a tract of land that does not
require a Sensitive Areas Overlay (OSA) rezoning and is not otherwise exempt, but which contains
sensitive areas that warrant protection under an approved plan for protecting sensitive areas on
said tract.
SLOPE: An inclined ground sudace, either naturally occurring or altered, with a vertical rise of at
least 10 feet, and which is not otherwise approved by the City, such as City approval of a
Grading Plan, prior to December 13, 1995.
SLOPE, ALTERED PROTECTED: Any slope of forty (40) pement or steeper created by cutting
or filling activities prior to December 13, 1995, and which is not otherwise approved by the City.
SLOPE, CRITICAL: A slope of twenty-five (25) percent, but less than forty (40) pement.
SLOPE, PERCENT OF: The slope of a designated area determined by dividing the horizontal run
of the slope into the vertical rise of the same slope and converting the resulting figure into a
percentage value.
SLOPE, PROTECTED: Any slope of forty (40) percent or steeper.
SLOPE, STEEP: A slope of eighteen (18) pement, but less than twenty-five (25) percent.
STREAM CORRIDOR: A dyer, stream or drainageway shown in blue {the blue line) on the most
current U.S. Geological Survey Quadrangle Maps, and the area of its delineated floodway. In
cases where no floodway is delineated, the blue line will serve as the centerline within a 30-foot
wide stream corridor.
TREE, FOREST: Any tree two (2) inches in diameter or greater, and included on the list of forest
trees approved by the City.
WETLAND, WETLAND AREAS: Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground
water at a frequency and dural~on sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands
generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. For the purposes of this Section,
wetland shall mean a jurisdictional wetland that is regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Determination of jurisdictional wetlands shall be made either by the Corps or by a wetland special-
ist and accepted by the Corps.
WETLAND SPECIALIST: An individual certified as a wetland specialist by the Society of Wetland
Scientists, and/or a person who can demonstrate to the City that they have expertise in wetland
areas which may include delineation, mitigation and evaluation.
WOODED AREAS: Includes woodlands and/or groves of trees, as defined in this section.
WOODLAND, WOODLAND AREA:- Any tract of land with a contiguous wooded area not less than
two acres and containing not less than 200 forest trees per acre.
WOODLAND CLEARING: The destruction or removal of trees within woodlands subject to this
Section by physical, mechanical, chemical or other means, such that the clearing results in a total
opening in the woodland canopy of 20,000 square feet or more.
Draft - 6196
Page 4
Applicability:
1. Sensitive Areas Overlay (OSA) Zone
a. A Sensitive Areas Overlay (OSA) rezoning is required prior to development activity
on properties containing any one of the following sensitive features:
1) Wetlands,
2) Woodlands two acres in size or greater, whcrc othcr ccncitivc fcatures
ov,~s~, located on sites containing critical slopes or stream corridors
c~ *,~c site,
3) Critical slopes (25-39%), or
4) Protected slopes (40%+)
as defined in the Definitions Section herein and as delineated on the maps refer-
enced in subsection 14-6K-C3 of this ordinance and/or verified as existing on the
site.
b. A Sensitive Areas Overlay rezoning requires a Sensitive Areas Development Plan
that delineates protected sensitive areas and associated buffers in the manner of
a planned development, which Plan shall be submitted and approved as part of
the rezoning.
c. Review and approval of a Sensitive Areas Planned Development shall be by
ordinance in accordance with the Planned Development Housing Overlay Zone
(OPDH) procedures, as specified in subsection 14-6J-2D of this Chapter.
2. Sensitive Areas Site Plan
a. A property containing one or more of the following sensitive features but which
does not require a Sensitive Areas Development Plan, shall require a Sensitive
Areas Site Plan pdor to development activity:
1) Fully hydric soils
2) Prairie remnants one acre in area or larger
3) Stream corridors
4) Amhaeological sites
5} Steep slopes (18-24%)
6} Woodlands two acres in size or greater, where no other sensitive features
requiring a Sensitive Areas Overlay rezoning are present, and where
no critical slopes or stream corridors exist on the site
as defined in the Definitions Section herein and as delineated on the maps refer-
enced in subsection 14-6K-1 C3 of this Ordinance and/or verified as existing on the
site.
b. Recording requirement. An approved Sensitive Areas Site Plan that contains a
protected sensitive area and/or buffer, or has a designated conservation ease-
ment, shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office prior to issuance
of any certificate of occupancy for the property. The recording is intended to
provide notice to subsequent property owners that environmental limitations apply
to the subject property.
c. The procedures for review and approval of a Sensitive Areas Site Plan shall be in
accordance with the Sits Plan Review regulations, as specified in Sections 14-5H-
3, and 14-5H-6 through 14-5H-8 of Chapter 5, "Building and Housing".
3. Sensitive Features
a. Sensitive features governed by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance include: 1} Jurisdictional wetlands as regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
2) Floodways designated on either the current Federal Emergency Man-
agement Agency flood boundary and floodway maps for Iowa City and
Johnson County or the Iowa City (1 inch = 100 foot scale) flood boundary
and floodway maps.
3) Drainageways shown in blue on the current U.S. Geological Survey Quad-
rangle Maps.
4) Slopes 18 percent or greater.
5) Woodland areas two acres in size or greater.
Draft - 6/96
Page 5
6) Fully hydric soils as designated in the USDA Soil Conservation Serwce
Soil Survey of Johnson Count,/, Iowa.
7) Prairie remnants as shown on the Iowa City Sensitive Areas Inventory
Map - Phase I, as amended.
8) Amhaeological sites as determined by the State Historic Preservation
Off~cer or the State Amheolog~st.
b. Prior to woodland clearing, grading or development achvity on tracts of land or
portions of tracts of land where sensitive features specified above exist, either a
Sensitive Areas Site Plan or a Sensitive Areas Overlay mzoning application,
whichever is appropriate, shall first be submitted to and approved by the City.
This application process may occur as part of site plan review, planned develop-
ment overlay zoning and/or subdivision review. If the properly is exempt, the
applicant shall first apply for and obtain c ccrt!ficctc approval of the exemption
from the City before development activity occum.
Exemptions: The fol!owing activities are exempt from the requirements of this Section:
1. Emergency/public safety. Grading, clearing, removal or other activities required for
emergency situations involving immediate danger to life, health and safety, or which create
an immediate throat to person or property or create substantial fire hazards.
2. Normal maintenance/expansion of existing single-family or duplex residences. Exterior
remodeling, reconstruction or replacement of single-family or duplex residences m exis-
tence as of December 13, 1995, provided the new construction or related activity connect-
ed w~th an existing single-family or duplex residence shall not increase the footprint of the
structure lying wilhin the sensitive area by more than a maximum total of 1000 square feet,
and a!so provided them is no encroachment by said activities, including grading, into a
jurisdictional we/land, a designated sensitive areas conservation tract and/or protected
sensitive area.
3. Construction of new single-family or duplex residences. Grading, clearing or development
activities not to exceed a maximum total of 20,000 square feet in area on a tract of land
for the purpose of construction, landscaping and/or associated improvements for one (1)
single-famiiy or duplex residence, provided there is no encroachment by said activities ~nto
a jurisdictional wetland, a designated sensitive areas conservation tract and/or protected
sensitive area.
4. Drainage ditches/groundwater monitoring wells. Normal and routine maintenance of
existing drainage and storm water management facilities am exempt. Tl~is exemption in-
cludes vegetative maintenance for access and storm water/flood control purposes within
and adjacent to drainageways. Except for temporary storage outside a wetland or water
body, placement of hll or dredge spoils is not exempt under this subsection. Groundwater
monitoring wells, when constructed to standards approved by the City, am exempt.
5. Woodland management activities. Pract=ces associated w~th timber management stan-
dards as defined by the International Society of Arboriculture, or existing tree farming
operations, such as Chnstmas tree farming, fruit or nut tree production and true nurseries,
during such time as the {and is used for tree farming operations are exempt.
6. Activities that disturb less than one acre of a wetland provlded that they are ap-
proved by the U,S. Army Corps of Engineers through a nationwide permit.
Uses Permitted Within Protected Sensefrye Areas and Buffera.
Where it can be shown that a use will not be detrimental to the functioning of sensitive areas or
associated buffers, or pose a public safety hazard, the following uses are permissibie, subject to
City approval during the application process set out herein:
1. Parkland, private open space, and trails that provide opportunities for enwronmental
~nterpretation and are designed to incorporate features that protect areas of w~idlife habitat,
water quality and the natural amenities in protected sensitive areas and buffers.
2. Stream crossings, such as bridges, roads and culverts, and/or streambank stabilizahon,
which are designed to minimize the reduction of the flood carrying capacity of the stream
and are in compliance with all federal and state regulations.
Draft - 6/96
Page 6
3. Essential public utilities such as storm and sanitary sewers, water mains, gas, telephone
and power lines, and storm water detention facilities are permitted if they are designed and
constructed to minimize their impact upon the protected sensitive areas and associated
buffers. The design and construction of utilities should also include measures to protect
against erosion, pollution and habitat disturbance, and result in minimal amounts of
excavation and tilling. Upon completion of the installation of the public facility or line, the
sensitive protected areas and associated buffers shall be restored by those persons
responsible for the disturbance.
Submittal Requirements: Prior to development activity defined herein where a tract of land contains
the sensitive features listed in subsection 14~6K-1C, entitled "Applicability," and where the land
must be developed in accordance with the provisions of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance and is not
otherwise exempt, the Owner shall submit six copies (6) of a Sensitive Areas Site Plan and an
application for its approval to the Department of Housing and Inspection Services, or if required,
shall submit ten (10) copies of a Sensitive Areas Development Plan and an application for a
Sensitive Areas Overlay rezoning to the City C~erk.
1. Sensitive Areas Site Plan: Submittal information for a Sensitive Areas Site Plan shall
include:
a. Submittal information required for a site plan review as specified in subsections
14-SH-4A and 14-SH-4B, the submittal requirements listed for Article 14-5H,
entitled "Site Plan Review."
b. Delineation of sensitive areas located on the property, including:
1) Areas of fully hydric soils.
2) Prairie remnant areas.
3) Stream corddore.
4) Steep and critical slopes.
5) Woodland Areas
c. Delineation of buffer areas and/or sensitive area conservation easements.
d. Note in an accompanying letter whether archaeological site(s} exist on the proper-
ty, but do not designate the exact location on the plan.
e. Other data and information as may be reasonably required by the City, including
requiring the delineation of a construction area on the plan as well as the
location of fencing to protect sensitive features during construction.
2. Sensitive Areas Development Plan: Submittal information for a Sensrtive Areas Devel-
opment Plan, which accompanies a Sensitive Areas Overlay rezoning, shall include:
a. All the information required for a Sensitive Areas Site Plan, and
b. Submittal information required by subsection 14-6J-2D of Section 14-6J-2, entitled
"Planned Development Housing Overlay Zone (OPDH)", except in the case of
commercial and industrial development, those submittal requirements applicable
only to residential development shall not apply; and
c. Delineation of the following sensitive areas located on the property:
1) Wetland areas.
2) Critical slopes.
3) Protected slopes.
d. Delineation of buffers and/or sensitive area conservation tracts for sensitive areas
located on the property.
e. Other data and information as may reasonably be required by the City.
3. The City may waive any submittal requirements considered unnecessary for the review of
a specific development activity.
Wetlands:
1. Purpose: The purpose of regulating development in and around wetlands is to:
a. Preserve the unique and valuable attributes of wetlands as areas where
stormwater is naturally retained, thereby controlling the rate of runoff, improving
water quality, recharging groundwater resources, providing erosion control and
lessening the effects of flooding.
Draft - 6/96
Page 7
b. Promote the preservation of habitat for plants, fish, reptiles, arophibians and/or
other wildlife.
c. Minimize the impact of development activity on wetland areas.
d. Provide a greater degree of protection for many wetland areas above and beyond
that provided by the federal and state government.
e. Minimize the long term environmental impact associated with the loss of wetlands.
Wetland Regulation by Other Agencies: The approval of a Sensitive Areas Development
Plan or a Sensitive Areas Site Plan under the provisions of this Section is in addition to the
appiicant's need to obtain permits required by other local, state, or federal agencies, and
does not alter the applicant's obligation to satisfy and obtain all other applicable local, state
or federal regulations and permits.
Wetland Regulations:
a. Wetland Delineation:
1) Prior to any development activity occurring on a site containing a potential
wetland as defined above or as shown on the Sensitive Areas Inventory
Map - Phase I, the properi7 owner shall provide a delineation of the
wetland area(s) accepted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to
the submittal to the City of a Sensitive Areas Overlay rezoning applica-
tion and a Sensitive Areas Development Plan, or a Sensitive Areas Site
Plan, for City review.
2) If the property owner certifies that no development activity will occur within
150 feet of the apparent edge of a suspected or potential wetland area{s)
on the site, the requiremenf for delineation by a wetland specialist or the
Co~ps may be waived by the City. In the case of a waiver, the property
owner shall grant an easement running in favor of the City, an approved
conservation group or other organization for the purpose of retaining the
wetland and the surrounding 150 foot protection area as undeveloped
natural open space, and the owner shall then be allowed to follow the
procedures for a Sensitive Areas Site Plan as set forth in this Section,
provided the wetland was the only sensitive feature triggering a Sensitive
Areas Overlay rezoning and a Sensitive Areas Development Plan.
b. Wetland Buffer Requirements: A 100 foot, undisturbed, natural buffer shall be
maintained between any development activity and a wetland(s) as defined in the
Sensitive Areas Ordinance, unless said development activity is exempted under
subsection 14-6K-1D, entitled "Exemptions," The required yards established for
the base zoning district shall be measured from the buffer edge, and shall be in
addition to the required yard/setback and shall apply to parking lots as well. [For
example, the RS-5 zone requires a 20-foot rear yard setback, which would be
measured from the outside edge of the required 100 foot buffer. As a result, no
building or parking lot could be located within 120 feet of the wetland.] The City
may reduce the required natural buffer based on the following criteria:
1) The required natural buffer may be reduced by up to 50 feet if it can be
demonstrated by a wetland specialist that the wetland:
a) Is less than five acres in area; and
b) Does not contain species listed by the federal and/or state gov-
emment as endangered or threatened, or critical or outstanding
natural habitat for those species; and
c) Does not contain diverse plant associations of infrequent occur-
rence or of regional significance; and
d) Is not located within a stream corridor as defined in the Sensitive
Areas Ordinance.
2) The required natural buffer may be reduced by up to 75 feet if it can be
demonstrated by a wetland specialist that the wetland:
a) Satisfies the criteria listed in subsection 1 above; and
Draft - 6/96
Page 8
3)
Does not, in a year of average precipitation, contain standing
water throughout the calendar year; and
c) Is not a forested wetland; and
d) Does not provide a known habitat for migratory birds of local or
regional significance.
Buffer averaging may be permitted or required where an increased buffer
is deemed necessary or desirable to provide additional protection to one
area of a wetland for aesthetic or environmental reasons. In this situation,
the width of the required buffer around other sreas of the wetland may be
reduced by up to 50 percent, but the area of the provided buffer must be
equal to or greater than the total area of the required buffer.
In determining whether to reduce or not to reduce the required buffer, the
City shall consider the following:
a) The proposed land use of the property and its potential impact on
the wetland.
b) The design and layout of the proposed development in relation to
the wetland.
c) The physical characteristics of the site and the wetland.
d) Any other factor related to the short or long term environmental
stability and health of the wetland.
Design Standards:
1) No grading, dredging, clearing, filling, draining, or other development
activity shall occur within a delineated wetland or required buffer area,
unless said activity is part of a mitigation plan as approved under subsec-
tion 14-6K-1G4, entitled "Wetland Mitigation," or is a permitted use,
such as a trail, allowed under the provisions of subsection 14-6K-1 E,
entitled "Uses Permitted Within Protected Sensitive Areas and Buff-
ers,"
2) For property not served by a municipal sanitary sewer system, the location
of septic tanks, soil absorption systems, holding tanks, or any other ele-
ment of an on-site sewage disposal system must meet the required yard
specified in the regulations of the base zoning district, as measured from
the buffer edge.
3} To mitigate negative impacts of development and limit sedimentation, the
direct discharge of untreated surface water from a development site or a
developed area into a wetland may be prohibited. The partial treatment
of storm water runoff through the use or combined use of constructed
wetlands, detention basins, vegetative filter strips, sediment traps or other
means before the storm water runoff reaches a wetland wi'.l be considered
as part of a mitigation plan as provided in subsection 14-6K-1G4, entitled
"Wetland Mitigation." In such case, the discharge should not increase
the rate of flow or decrease the water quality of the wetland, unless it can
be shown by a wetland specialist that an increase in the rate of flow will
enhance rather than adversely impact the wetland.
Draft - 6/96
Page 9
4) On any lot containing a wetland, erosion control measures, whether re-
quired under Article 14-51, entitled "Grading Ordinance," or as part of a
reitigation plan approved under the provisions of the Sensitive Areas
0rd=,nance, shall be installed prior to any development activity occurring
on the site.
5) The planting of foreign or invasive species, including intrusive native
varieties, in wetland or buffer areas shall be prohibited. Only non-intrusive
native species shall be used to supplement existing vegetation.
6) The removal of foreign or invasive species, including intrusive native
varieties, within a wetland or buffer area may be permitted when approved
as part of a mitigation plan as provided under subsection 14-6K-1G4,
entitled "Wetland Mitigation."
7) Where it is determined that the area occupied by the required buffer
provides little natural protection to the wetland due to previous land
disturbance, enhanced vegetative cover shall be provided within the buffer
area to help filter and slow the flow of surface water. The enhanced
vegetation shall consist of species that are known to be non-invasive to
wetland areas.
Wetland Mitigation: A Sensitive Areas Overlay rezoning/Sensitive Areas Development
Plan or Sensitive Areas Site Plan for property containing a wetland, as defined in the
Sensitive Areas Ordinance, shall include a mitigation plan showing that all regulations
contained in subsection 14-6K-1G3, entitled "Wetland Regulations,~ will be met. Avoiding
a delineated wetland area and minimizing the impact of development on a wetland is
strongly encouraged, and shall be investigated before compensatory mitigation will be
considered.
a. In addition to the submittal requirements contained in subsection 14-6K-1 F, enti-
tled "Submittal Requirements," a wetland mitigation plan shall include the
following information:
1) The type and location of erosion control measures to be placed on the
property prior to any other development activity occurring on the site.
2) The boundaries of the delineated wetland and the required natural buffer
area.
3) Certification by a wetland specialist or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
regarding the wetland delineation, if required.
4) Information regarding the characteristics of the wetland necessary to
delermine the allowable buffer reduction as provided in subsection 14-6K-
1G3b, entitled "Wetland Buffer Requirements," if a reduction is request-
ed.
5) A storm water management plan indicating that the requirements of Sec-
tion 14-3G, entitled "Storm Water Collection, Discharge and Runoff," and
subsection 14-6K..1G3c3, which is listed under "Design Standards"
and addresses stormwater runoff and sedimentation, will be met.
b. Compensatory mitigation may be permitted only if it is cleady demonstrated that
avoiding and minimizing the impact on a wetland is unreasonable. A permit for
any development activity within a wetland area is required by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineere. If a permit is granted for development activity within a wetland,
compensatory mitigation shall be required based on the following criteria, unless
a greater degree of compensation is required by the Corps:
1 ) Wetlands containing species listed by the federal or state government as
endangered or threatened, or containing critical or outstand;rig natural
habitat for those species, wetlands containing the presence of diverse
plant associations of infrequent occurrence or of regional importance, and
wetlands located within stream corddore as defined in the Sensitive Areas
Ordinance (Section 14-6K-1) shall be considered protected, "no build" wet~
land areas. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only if the
Draft - 6~96
Page 10
wetland disturbance is relatively small in relation to the overall wetland
and if it can be shown that the disturbance will not have an adverse
impact on the overall wetland. If compensatory mitigation is permitted for
a wetland meeting these characteristics, the required replacement ratio of
comparable habitat replaced to habitat lost shall be at least 3:1.
2) The replacement ratio of comparable habitat replaced to habitat lost shall
be at least 2:1 for wetlands not meeting the criteria listed in subsection 14-
6K-1G4b1 above, but containing:
a) Standing water throughout the calendar year under average pre-
cipitation,
b) Forested wetlands, and/or
c) Wetlands providing a known habitat for migratory birds of regional
or local significance.
3) Compensatory mitigation for all other wetlands regulated under the Sensi-
tive Areas Ordinance shall be at a ratio of at least 1:1. If said wetland
and/or the replacement habitat is enhanced to meet one or more of the
criteria listed in subsections 14-6K-1G4bl or 14-6K-1G462 above, the
required replacement ratio may be reduced to 0.5:1.
Where compensatory mitigation is proposed, the mitigation plan specified in
subsection 14-6K-1G4, entitled "Wetland Mitigation," must be prepared by a
wetland specialist. A compensatory mitigation plan must include the following
components:
1) An assessment of the value of the wetland being replaced to determine
the apprepdate replacement ratio;
2) A clear statement of the goals of the mitigation plan, including specific
statements regarding the expected rate of establishment of a vegetative
cover over specified pedods of time;
3) Analysis of the soils, substrate and hydrology of the proposed site of the
constructed or expanded wetland in terms of their suitabilily to provide a
proper growing medium for the proposed vegetation;
4) A list of the plant species to be used, which should include only native,
non-invasive species, and their proposed locations. Transplanting as
much of the native vegetation from the original wetland as possible, as
well as the upper six to twelve inches of the soil is encouraged; and
5) Provisions for monitoring the condition of the new or enhanced weftand
area for a period of five (5) years, and identification of the party responsi-
ble for replanting in the event of poor initial growth or predation resulting
in a failure of over 30 pement of the planted stock. Information collected
during the monitoring process shall be submitted to the City annually and
include the following:
a) Data on plant species diversity and the extent of plant cover
established in the new or enhanced wetland; and
b) Wildlife presence; and
c) Data on water regimes, water chemistry, soil conditions and
ground and surface water interactions; and
d) Proposed alterations or corrective measures to address deficien-
cies identified in the created or enhanced wetland, such as a
failure to establish a vegetative cover or the presence of invasive
or foreign species.
Stream Corridors:
1.
Purpose: The purpose of regulating development in and around stream corridors is to:
a. Preserve the value of stream corridors in providing floodwater conveyance and
storage.
b. Promote filtration of storm water runoff.
c. Reduce streambank erosion.
Draft - 6/96
Page 11
d. Protect and enhance wildlife habitat.
Stream Corridor Regulation by Other Agencies: The approval of a Sensitive Areas
Overlay rezoning/Sensitive Areas Development Plan or a Sensitive Areas Site Plan shall
be in addition to the applicant's need to obtain permits required by other local, state or
federal agencies, and does not alter the applicant's obligation to satisfy and obtain all other
applicable local, state or federal regulations and permits.
Stream Corridor Regulations: Any property located adjacent to the Iowa River or another
stream corridor in Iowa City will be required to submit a Sensitive Areas Site Plan, unless
said property qualifies for an exemption under subsection 14-6K-1D, entitled "Exemp..
tions," or is considered under a Sensitive Areas Overlay rezontng/Sensitive Areas
Development Plan review required for another sensitive feature.
Stream Corridor Buffer Requirements:
a. Unless exempt under subsection 14-6K-1 D, entitled "Exemptions," the following
buffer requirements will be maintained; when other sensitive features are located
within a stream corridor, the most stringent required protective buffer will apply:
1) Along the Iowa River, a 50-foot natural buffer will be maintained between
any development activity and the stream corridor which includes the
floodway.
2) Along tributaries to the Iowa River that have a delineated floodway, a 30-
foot natural buffer will be maintained between any development activity
and the stream corridor which includes the floodway. These tributaries in*
clude, but are not limited to Ralston Creek, Willow Creek, Snyder Creek,
Clear Creek and Rapid Creek.
3) Along tributaries or drainageways that do not have a delineated floodway,
a 15-foot natural buffer will be maintained between any development
activity and the stream corridor limits.
BUFFER REQUIREMENTS IN STREAM CORRIDOBS
The City may reduce the required natural buffer based on the following criteria:
1) The required natural buffer may be reduced by up to 50 pement if the
applicant demonstrates that the portion of the buffer being reduced:
a) Does not contain significant existing vegetative cover, such as
native trees or prairie remnants; and
b) Does not contain other sensitive areas subject to the requirements
of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance; and
c) Enhanced vegetative cover will be provided in the remaining
buffer area.
2) The required natural buffer may be reduced by up to 100 percent if the
applicant demonstrates that:
a) The property is adjacent to or contains a stream corridor that is
located in a developed area of the City (defined as an area of the
Draft - 6196
Page 12
b)
c)
d)
In determining
fol!owing:
1)
2)
3)
4)
City where platted lots abut the stream as of December 13, 1995,
the effective date of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance); and
The portion of the buffer being reduced does not contain other
sensitive areas subject to the requirements of the Sensitive Areas
Ordinance; and
Requiring the full stream corridor buffer would preclude reason-
able use of the property; and
Enhanced vegetative cover will be provided in any remaining
buffer area, to the extent possible.
whether to reduce the required buffer, the City shall consider the
The proposed land use of the property and its potential impact on the
stream corridor;
The design and layout of the proposed development in relation to the
stream corridor;
The characteristics of the site and the stream corridor; and
Any other factor related to the short or long term environmental stability
and health of the stream corridor.
Stcc,r_, Regulated Slopes:
1. Purpose: The purpose of regulating development on and near steep slopes is to:
a. Promote safety in the design and construction of developments.
b. Minimize flooding, landslides and mudslides.
c. Minimize soil instability, erosion and downstream siltation.
d. Preserve the scenic character of hills!de areas, particularly wooded hillsides.
2. Regulations:
a. Steep Slopes - Any properly containing steep slopes (18-24%) shall be required
to submit a Sensitive Areas Site Plan, unless said property qualifies for an exemp-
tion under subsection 14-6K-1D, entitled "Exemptions." The Sensitive Areas
Site Plan must conform with the design ""'~'~"~-"~' standards for regulated
slopes specified in subsection 14-6K-114.
b. Critical Slopes - Any properly containing critical s!opes (25-39%) shall be required
to submit a Sensitive Areas Development Plan Site Plan and a Grading Plan,
unless said properly qualifies for an exemption under subsection 14-6K-1D,
entitled "Exemptions," The Sensitive Areas Development Pla~ Site Plan must
conform with the design ~ ..........standards for regulated slopes specified in
subsection 14-6K~114, and the Grading Plan must conform with the requirements
of the Grading Ordinance.
c. Protected Slopes - Any area designated as a natural protected slope (40%+) shall
not be graded and must remain in its existing state, except that natural vegetation
may be supplemented by other plant material. Any such property shall be required
to submit a Sensitive Areas Overlay rezoning application, Sensitive Areas
Development Plan and a Grading Plan, unless said property qualifies for an
exemption within thic Section under subsectlon 14-SK-1D, entitled "Exemp-
tions." Development activities may be allowed within areas containing altered
protected slopes if a geologist or professional engineer can demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the City that a development activity will not undermine the stability
of the slope and the City determines that the development activities are consistent
with the intent of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance.
d. If a property owner certifies that no development activity will occur within 50
feet of a protected slope on the site and would not encroach upon or impact
those slopes, the City may waive the requirement of a Sensitive Areaa
Overlay rezoning/Sensitive Areas Development Plan, and allow the property
owner to follow the administrative review procedures for a Sensitive Areas
Site Plan, provided no other sensitive features on the site require a Sensitive
Areas Overlay rezonlnglSensitive Areas Development Plan.
Draft - 6/g6
Page 13
Buffer requirements: A buffer will be required around all protected slopes. Two feet of
buffer will be provided for each foot of vertical rise of the protected slope, up to a maxi-
mum buffer of 50 feet. The buffer area is to be measured from the top, toe and sides of
the protected slope. No development activity, including removal cf trees and other vegeta-
tion, shall be allowed within the buffer. If a geologist or professional engineer can demon-
strate to the satisfaction of the City that a development activity can be designed to elimi-
nate hazards, the cotbacl( and buffer requirements may be reduced.
BUFFER REQUIREMENTS FOR PROTECTED eLOPES
REQUIRI[O SUFFER I~EQU~RE0 BUFFER
2' FOR EVERY 1' OF 2' FOR EVERY 1 * OF
VERTICAL RISE UP TO VERTICAL RISE UP TO
A MAXIMUM OF 50* PROTECTED SLOPE (40% OR GREATER} A MAXIMUM OF SO'
TOE OF SLOPE TOP OF SLOPE
NOTE: BUFFER MAY BE REDUCED UPON REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF ASPECIAL STUDY.
Design Standards for Regulated Slopes: The following standards shall be addressed when either
a Sensitive Areas Site Plan or a Sensitive Areas Overlay rezonlng/Sensitive Areas Development
Plan for property containing =!cc~ regulated slopes is submitted:
a. Except for commercially or industrially-zoned properties, every lot or parcel con-
tainlng protected slopes shall have a construction area equal to at least 40% of
the minimum lot size required by the zone in which it is located. [For example, the
construction area would be a minimum of 3,200 square feelfor a lot in the RS-5
zone, where a minimum 8,000 square foot lot is required.]
b. Except for driveways and utilities installation, no grading or excavation shall be
allowed outside the construction area on lots containing protected slopes,
Grading and excavation shall be minimized on steep and critical slopes.
c. Cut slopes shall be constructed to eliminate sharp angles of intersection with the
existing terrain and shall be rounded and contoured as necessary to blend with
existing topography to the maximum extent possible. The Cily will not accept the
dedication and maintenance of cut and fill slopes, except those within the required
street right-of-way.
d. Street rights-of-way and public utility corridors shall be located so as to minimize
cutting and filling.
e. To maintain the stability of ungraded areas, existing vegetation shall be retained
to the maximum extent possible.
Draft - 6~96
Page 14
Wooded Areas
1. Purpose: The purpose of regulating development in and around wooded areas is to:
a. Reduce damage to wooded areas of the City, particularly wooded wetlands, steep
slopes and stream corridors.
b. Reduce erosion and siltation.
c. Minimize the destruction of wildlife habitat.
d. Encourage subdivision and site plan design which incorporate groves and wood-
lands as amenities within a development.
2. Woodland/Grave Regulations:
a. Any property containing a woodland in combination ~,Ath an~/othcr cnvirenmcnt;~lly
ccncitivo aro~ cubject to tho requircmentc of thic Section located on sites con-
taining critical slopes or stream corridors will be required to submit a Sensitive
Areas Overlay rezonlng application and a Sensitive Areas Development Plan,
prior to woodland cleadng or commencing any development activity, unless said
property qualifies for an exemption under subsection 14-6K-1 D, entitled "Exemp-
tions,"
b. Any property containing a woodland, but not otherwise required to have a Sensi-
tive Areas Overlay rezoning/Sensitive Areas Development Plan, will be required
to submit a Sensitive Areas Site Plan prior to woodland cleadng or commencing
any development activity, unless said property qualifies for an exemption under
subsection 14-6K-1D, entitled "Exemptions."
c. Site plans, grading plans and subdivision plats for any property containing a grove
of trees shall illustrate the grove on the plan or plat prior to commencement of any
development activity, and will take measures to protect and retain as much of the
grove as practicable, unless said property qualities for an exemption under sub-
section 14-6K-1D, entitled "Exemptions."
d. If the property owner certifies that no development activity will occur within !OO 50
feet of the trunks of the trees to be protected in at the perimeter of a woodland,
the requirements of a.,b. cr ~ above for a Sensitive Areas Overlay rezon.
ing/Sensitive Areas Development Plan may be waived. The woodland and a
400 50 foot protection area shall be preserved as public or private open space,
either through dedication, a conservation easement, or control by a homeowners'
association. Prior to and during construction or grading on the site, a fence
will be erected and maintained by the developer along the outside perimeter
of the woodland buffer area to protect the woodland from development
activities.
3. Woodland Retention and Replacement Requirements
a. Sensitive Areas Development Plans and Sensitive Areas Site Plans required to be
submitted under this Section shall delineate all existing woodlands and shall
designate all woodlands that are to be protected. The plans shall substantiate that
woodlands are being retained as follows:
Zone Retention Requirement
ID, RR-1 7O%
RS-5, RS-8, RS-12, 50%
RM-12, RM-20, RM-44, RNC-12, RNC-20 20%
RDP, ORP 20%
C and I 10%
The required woodland area to be retained shail be delineated to include a buffer
area by measuring fifty (50) feet outward from the trunks of trees intended to be
preserved.
If the City determines that the required woodland area cannot be retained due to
site constraints or infrastructure requirements, replacement trees will be planted.
Draft - 6/96
Page 15
One tree shall be planted for every 200 square feet of woodland removed from the
otherwise required retention area.
d. Where it is not feasible to replace trees on-site, replacement trees may be planted
to supplement reforestation of an off-site woodland approved by the City. An off-
site woodland shall be either publicly owned property or property subject to a
conservation easement.
e. Replacement trees must be approved by the City, and to the extent possible,
should be of the same or equivalent species as the trees being removed.
f. Replacement trees shall meet the specifications set forth in Section 14-6R-5,
entitled "General Tree Planting Requirements," and shall be secured by a perfor-
mance guarantee for a period of 12 months.
g. Woodland and tree protection methods for proposed development activity shall be
shown on any plan or plat required to be submitted prior to commencement of
development activity. Protection methods should comply with generally accepted
tree protection guidelines and be approved by the City.
h. When other environmentally sensitive features regulated by the Sensitive Areas
Ordinance are present in combination with a woodland, the regulations related to
all the sensitive areas contained on the property will be considered, with the most
stringent regulations applying.
4. Design Standards for Woodland Retention: The following standards should be addressed
when either a Sensitive Areas Site Plan or a Sensitive Areas Overlay rezoning/Sensitive
Areas Development Plan is submitted:
a. To the extent possible, woodlands located on steep and/or critical slopes and/or
within 100-year flood plains should be given the highest retention priority when
meeting the requirements of subsection 14~6K-1J3, entitled "Woodland Reten-
tion and Replacement Requirements."
b. Street rights-of-way, public utility corridors and building sites should be located so
as to minimize their impact on woodlands and groves.
c. Where possible, woodlands and groves to be protected should be located within
designated public or private open space, either through dedication, a conservation
easement, or control by a homeowners' association·
Fully Hydric Soils:
1. Purpose: Fully hyddc soils may indicate the potential existence of jurisdictional wetlands
and the probable existence of a high water table. The purpose of regulating lands that
contain fully hydric soils is to recognize the constraints imposed on urban development
projects by potential wetlands and/or high water tables. That is:
a. Wetlands are protected under state and federal law, and as such, are considered
no-build areas unless appropriate and approved mitigation measures are undertak-
en.
b. High water tables on a property require special construction practices both for
infrastructure such as streets, and for structural development such as residences.
2. Regulations:
a. If tully hydnc soils exist on a properly where development activity is proposed, the
property owner shall have a wetlands specialist verify whether wetlands exist on
the sile. If wetlands are dc~incctcd found to exist on the site, compliance with
the wetlands provisions of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (Section 14-6K-1) will
be required.
b. More stringent construction safeguards, as specified by the City Public Works
Dcpc~mc,qt, will be required for streets, ctructuroc and stormwater management
facilities located in fully hydric soils. Sump pump discharge tiles and elevations
ol window openings may also be regulated, as specified by the City. Public Works
c. Properties containing fully hydric soils, but not otherwise requiring a Sensitive
Areas Overlay rezoning/Sensitive Areas Development Plan, will require a Sensi-
tive Areas Site Plan Review.
Draft - 6/96
Page 16
d. Fully hydric soils, in and of themselves, will not be deemed sufficient to require
a Sensitive Areas Overlay rezoning.
3. Design standards: To the extent possible, urban development projects will be designed
so that areas of fully hydric soils will be treated as an environmental asset; used for storm-
water detention, wetland enhancement or buffers, protective greenbelts along stream
corridors, and neighborhood open space.
Prairie Remnants:
1. Purpose: The purpose of protecting prairie remnants in iowa City is to:
a. Preserve the value of prairie remnants for holding soil in place, absorbing pollut-
ants and taking up large amounts of moisture. These functions are particularly
important when prairie remnants are located along streambanks, adjacent to
wetlands or on areas of highly emdible soil.
b. Protect and enhance the function of prairie remnants to provide wildlife habitat,
ecological diversity and environmental education opportunities in an urban setting.
2. Prairie Remnant Regulations:
a. Development of properties containing prairie remnants one acre in size or larger
that are not associated with other sensitive features will be designed to retain the
maximum amount of prairie remnant possible, while not precluding reasonable,
beneficial use of the properly.
b. Prairie remnants associated with other sensitive features, such as stream corri-
dors, wetlands, steep slopes, woodlands or a stand of significant trees will be
treated as environmental assets, and will be considered no-build areas to the
extent possible, and used for buffers, fil!er strips along waterways, and/or neigh-
borhood open space.
c. Properties conta!ning prairie remnants one acre in size or larger, but not otherwise
requiring a Sensitive Areas Overlay rezoning/Sensitive Areas Development Plan,
will require a Sensitive Areas Site Plan review.
d. Prairie remnants, in and of themselves, will not be sufficient to require a Sensitive
Areas Overlay rezoning.
Archaeological Sites:
1. Purpose: The purpose of regulating development of lands which contain amhaeological
sites is to:
a. Help assure that sites which contain important information regarding the com-
munity's prehistory and history are identified, studied, protected, and/or properly
excavated when appropriate.
b. Allow the State Historic Pmocrvation Off~scr and, where appropriate, thc State
Archaeologict the opportunity.re for documentation and study of important prehis-
toric and historic sites.
c. Allow for the consideration of prehistoric and historic sites in the planning and
development of a property to minimize delays when it is determined that study or
excavation of such sites is necessary.
d. Provide for the early identification of human burial sites to ensure that the State
Code regarding such burial sites is not violated and to avoid unnecessary delays
in subdivision development and subdivision redesign if such sites are discovered
after commencement of development.
2. Regulation of Archaeological Sites by Other Agencies: The approval of a Sensitive
Areas Development Plan or a Sensitive Areas Site Plan under the provisions of this
Section is in addition to the applicant's need to obtain permits required by other
local, state or federal agencies, and does not alter the applicant's obligation to
satisfy and obtain all other applicable local, state or federal regulations and permits.
Notification: When the Sensit{re Areas Inventory Map - Phase I indicates that an archaeo-
logical site is located in the quarter section within which a site plan, planned development
or a subdivision is proposed, the City will forward the site plan or subdivision plan to .the
State Historic Procc~'ation Officer (Statc) or the State Archaeologist (State) for an
opportunity to comment. The City may also seek comment from the State Historic
Draft - 6/96
Page 17
Preservation Officer. The State wi~ may notify the City if a recorded amhaeological site
exists within the area of the site plan, planned development or subdivision. The State wi~
may also notify the City if the site is of such amhaeological importance that it requires
further study by the State or a State-approved amhaeologist. If the State Identifies such
a site, the iowa City Historic Preservation Commission shall be notified and may
proceed as provided in Article 14-4C, entitled "Historic Preservation Regulations."
Regulations:
a. Archaeological Sites - if it is determined by the State that further study of an
archaeological site is necessary, the City may approve a site plan, planned devel-
opment or a subdivision, subject to a requirement that the State or a State-ap-
proved archaeologist be allowed to study the site and, if appropriate, complete an
excavation of the site for the purpose of documenting the s!gnificance of the site.
The State shall have a period of up to thirty (30) calendar days in which the site
is frost-free to study and, where appropriate, excavate the site. This requirement
shall not prevent or delay activities which are approved under the grading ordi-
nance, site plan review, planned development or subdivision regulations for
portions of the property which do not contain archaeological materials.
The applicant may choose to hire an archaeologist approved by the State to
cornplete a study or excavation plan approved by the State. In this way, the study
or excavation work may be completed in a more timely manner.
Significant Archaeological Sites- If the State determines that the property includes
a significant prehistoric or historic site which cannot be studied and excavated
within a thirty (30) calendar day period, the site plan, planned development or a
subdivision plan may be approved subject to an archaeological assessment plan,
which specifies a period of time in which the State or a State-approved archae-
ologist may document and/or excavate a site.
If the site is determined to be of such state or national significance that it should
not be disturbed, an attempt should be made to design the site plan, planned
development or subdivision plan to allow retention of the site as private or public
open space.
c. Budal Grounds - When a site contains a human burial ground, the State Archaeol-
ogist shall determine the significance of the burial ground and whether or not the
human remains may be disinterred. If the State Archaeologist determines that the
human remains should not be disturbed, the portion of the property containing the
burial grounds plus a 20-foot buffer around the burial grounds shall be set aside
as permanent, private or public open space.
5. Discove~j ol Unrecorded Archaeological Sites: If, during the course of grading or con-
struction, prehistoric artifacts, historic objects or significant archaeological materials,
such as human remains or a prehistoric human settlement, are encountered, the Stc',c
City shall be notified. The City shall notify the State, which reay take steps to excavate
and preserve the objects, if practical, or in the case of human burial grounds, the State
Arohaeologisl shall determine whether or not the human remains can be disinterred. If it
is determined that the human remains cannot be disinterred, the portion of the property
containing the burial ground shall be returned to its preconstruction condition by those
persons responsible for the disturbance.
Sensitive Areas Development Plan Design Guidelines:
1. Purpose: The purpose of Sensitive Areas Development Plan design guidelines is to:
a. Provide for flexibility in the design of public ~nfrastructure, commercial, research
development, office research, Industrlal and residential developments to help
assure that developments near, in or adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas,
Draft - 6/96
Page 18
are designed to use land efficiently and preserve environmentally sensitive areas
as open space amenities.
b. Allow flexibility in the application of development codes, standards and guidelines
to allow innovative designs that promote the purpose of the Sensitive Areas
Ordinance.
c. Encourage development which provides for easy access and circulation for pedes-
trians and bicyclists.
Encourage innovative residential developments that contain a variety of housing
types and styles.
e. Allow neighborhood commemial uses which are appropriate in scale and design
for the proposed development.
Applicability:
a. The Sensitive Areas Development Plan design guidelines are to be used by the
City when evaluating a Sensitive Areas Overlay rezoning. These guidelines are
intended to be flexible and allow modifications of the requirements of the underly-
ing zoning district and subdivision regulations. When applying such guidelines, the
City will weigh the specific cimumstances surrounding each application, and stdve
for development solutions that best promote the spirit, intent and purpose of the
Sensitive Areas Ordinance while permitting development of the properly for rea-
sonable, beneficial uses. Subsection 14-6K-IN3, entitled "Residential Develop-
ment Guidelines," contains guidelines for Sensitive Areas Development
Plans in residential zones. Subsection 14-6K-IN4 contains guidelines for
Sensitive Areas Development Plans in commercial and industrial develop-
ments, and research development and office research parks.
b. The development guidelines contained in the Sensitive Areas Ordinance are to be
used by the City as minimum requirements for evaluating Sensitive Areas Devel-
opment Plans. However, such guidelines are not intended to restrict creativity and
an applicant may request modifications of the Sensitive Areas Development Plan
guidelines which may be approved by the City in accordance with the following
standards:
1) The modification will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the
Sensitive Areas Ordinance.
2) The modification will generally enhance the Sensitive Areas Development
Plan and will not have an adverse impact on its physical, visual or spatial
characteristics.
3) The modification shall not result in a configuration of lots or a street sys-
tem which is impractical or detracts from the appearance of the proposed
development.
4) The modification will not result in danger to public health, safety or welfare
by preventing access for emergency vehicles, by inhibiting the provision
of public services, by depriving adjoining properties of adequate light and
air, or by violating the purposes for and intent of this article.
Residential Development Guidelines:
a. These development guidelines recognize that when enwronmentally sensitive
features are protected by conservation easements or other development restric-
tions, the overall dwelling unit density of a properly may be reduced. The Sensi-
tive Areas Development Plan procedures allow the dwelling unit density that
othenNise would have been permitted in an environmentally protected area to be
transferred to the portions of the property which are identified as not being envi-
ronmentally sensitive. To help assure that the resulting denser development is
developed in an attractive and livable manner, the following guidelines shall be
applied.
b. These guidelines recognize that it may be necessary to decrease lot area require-
ments, lot width requirements and street right-of-way and paving requirements in
order to increase the density on the developable portion of the property. These
Draft - 6/96
Page 19
guidelines also recognize that special design concerns are necessa~/for smaller
lot developments. The use of alleys to provide for vehicular access to individual
lots will help assure that an attractive and pedestrian-friendly streetscape is
developed.
Street Design Guidelines:
1) A modified grid street pattern which is adapted to the topography, natural
features and environmental constraints of the property is encouraged.
2) Cul-de-sacs and other roadways with a single point of access should be
minimized, but may be used where environmental constraints prevent the
construction of a grid street pattern.
3) Street right.of-way widths may be reduced below those otherwise required
by the subdivision regulations if plans provide sufficient area for the loca-
tion of public and private utilities along the streets or alleys.
4) Street pavement widths o! local streets may be reduced to 25 feet. Fur-
ther reductions of street pavement width may be considered for alternative
street designs that promote pedestrian-oriented street frontages by re-
stricting access for vehicles other than emergency vehicles to the rear of
the lots.
5) When street pavement widths are reduced below 28 feet, alternative
locations for parking, such as alleys and off-street parking clusters are
encouraged.
Alley Design Guidelines:
1) The use of alleys to provide for vehicular access to individual lots and an
alternative location for utility easements can enhance the livabdity of
compact neighborhoods. When alleys are used, lot widths can be re-
duced to approximately one-half the otherwise required 45-60 foot lot
width. In this manner, more lots can be developed per linear foot of street
paving.
2) Alleys, which are located parallel to local streets, are encouraged. Where
alleys are provided, driveway access to lots shall be via such alleys to the
extent possible. In such locations, curb cuts onto a parallel street should
be minimized. Utility easements should be located in alleys to the extent
possib!e.
3) Alleys should have a minimum pavement width of 16 feet. The paved
alley should be centered within a right-of-way or easement which provides
sufficient room on each side to allow for a utility corridor.
eo
Pedestrian Walkway Guidelines: To assure that pedestrians have adequate
access throughout a development, sidewalks and pedestrian pathway networks
should be provided. The location and design of pedestrian sidewalks and path-
ways should be based on the volume of traffic anticipated on the adjacent street;
the length of the segment of sidewalk or walkway; the need to provide for snow
Draft - 6~96
Page 20
storage when walkways are located adjacent to streets; and the degree to which
access to an environmentally sensitive feature is desirable.
Land Uses: The design guidelines of the Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone are
intended to encourage a mixture of housing types, and where appropriate, com-
mercial uses. When located adjacent to single-family and duplex structures, multi-
family buildings should be of a scale, massing and amhitectural style that is
compatible with the adjacent lower density residential development. Developments
consisting of only one housing type are discouraged except where the develop-
ment is of a small size. A mixture of the following land uses are encouraged to
be integrated within a development:
1) Detached single-family dwellings.
2) Duplexes.
3) Zero-lot line dwellings and townhouses.
4) Multi-family buildings.
5) Accessory apartments limited to less than 800 square feet in floor area
provided that they are located w;thin an owner-occupied dwelling or within
a permitted accessory building associated with an owner*occupied dwell-
ing.
6) Commemial uses which are appropriate in scale and compatible with
nearby residential development. Commercial uses are not permitted in
Sensitive Areas Development Plans for properties less than two (2) acres
in size when the underlying zoning is residential.
Dimensional Requirements: To encourage more compact development and al!ow
the transfer of dwelling unit density from environmentally sensitive areas of a
property to non-environmentally sensitive areas of a property, the dimensional
requirements of the underlying zone may be waived.
1) Minimum lot area, lot width, lot frontage and yards may be reduced provid-
edthat sufficient yards are incorporated for each dwelling unit. For exam-
ple, single-family homes can be located on lots of approximately 4,000
square feet and still contain front and rear yards of 20 feet and side yards
of 5-10 feet. For townhouses and zero lot line developments, yards may
be reduced to approximately 10 feet and still provide for a landscape
transition between street rights-of-way and adjacent dwellings. To provide
for a livable environment, development on small lots will require careful
amhitectural design and careful placement of garages and automobile
parking areas. The use of alleys for vehicular access to small lot develop-
ments is therefore encouraged.
2) The maximum building height and building coverage may be waived
provided that the design of the development results in sufficient light and
air circulation for each building. For example, an increase in height from
35 feet (3 stories) to 45 feet (4 stories) may be appropriate provided that
taller buildings are set back from adjacent buildings to allow each dwelling
unit adequate light exposure.
Dwelling Unit Density: The overall dwelling unit density, based on total land area
minus public and private street right-of-way area (excluding alleys) in the Sensitive
Areas Development Plan, shall not exceed the maximum density permitted in the
underlying zone.
Sensitive Open Space Designation: sensitive areas and their required buffers are
encouraged to be incorporated into the design of the development as public open
space dedicated to the City, or private open space held in common by a home-
owners' association. Where sensitive features and/or their required buffers are
incorporated into individual lots, they shall be included within a sensitive area
conservation easement.
Where commemial developments are proposed, they should be of a scale suited
to serve the residents of the immediate development and adjacent neighborhoods.
Draft - 6~96
Page 21
1)
2)
3)
4)
Commercial buildings should be located adjacent tothe street with parking
spaces located behind the building and screened with landscaping from
adjacent residential structures.
Dwelling units are encouraged above the first floor of buildings containing
commercial space.
Commercial development should be designed to ser~e as a focal point of
the overall development and is encouraged to incorporate open spaces
such as town squares.
Commercial development should be designed so that the material, mass-
ing and architectural style is compatible with the adjacent residential
development.
Neighborhood scale commercial with dweil*
ing units located on second floor and pa~ng
located behind the building
Additional Considerations: Due to the concentration of dwelling units and the
juxtaposition of different land uses that can be achieved by incorporating the
above provisions into the design of a Sensitive Areas Development Plan, ad-
herence to the following design considerations is encouraged to assure that the
resulting development is attractive and provides for a transition between public
streets and private residences.
1) Where narrower lots are proposed, garages should be located so that they
do not dominate the streetscape, as illustrated below.
2)
3)
Where reduced front yards are proposed, the use of porches is encour-
aged to provide a transition between the street and the dwelling unit.
Where a variety of housing types, such as single family, duplex and multi-
family buildings, are mixed within a development, similar architectural
schemes, scale, massing and materials should be used to help assure
that the various building types are compatible. The use of traditional Iowa
Draft - 6~96
Page 22
City amhitectural styles, such as prairie, craftsman, vernacular farm house
and Victorian designs am encouraged.
Reduced front yard
Porches prowde transiBon be[ween the
street and the dwell~n§
Commercial, Research Development, Office Research, and Industrial Development
Guidelines: These development guidelines recognize that when environmentally
sensitive features exist on a commercial, research development, office research or
industrial property, it may be appropriate to minimize development in and near the
sensitive area(s). To mitigate for the loss of development potential, these guidelines
allow for an increase in building height and a reduction in yard and parking require-
ments, as follows:
a) The height of a building may be increased up to ten (10) feet.
b) Yards may be reduced.
c) Parking for commercial and industrial uses may be reduced.
Appeal.
1. The Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception to the provisions of the Sensitive
Areas Ordinance if the applicant is able to demonstrate that:
a. Application of a particular Sensitive Areas Ordinance regulation would deny
reasonable, beneficial use of the property;
b. Any alterations permitted to sensitive areas are to be the minimum necessary to
allow for reasonable, beneficial use of the property with the least impact on the
sensitive areas; and
c. The proposed development does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public
health, safety or welfare on or off the development proposal site.
2. The Board may impose conditions to limit the impact of any authorized alteration of a
sensitive area under this section, including requiring m~t~gation under a m~tigation plan
approved by the City.
Performance Guarantee. Compliance with the pedormance guarantee provisions of C~ty Code
Section 14-5H-10, the Site Plan Review section entitled, "Pedormance Guarantee," may be
required to ensure completion of conservation measures, including plantings and other mitigation
or maintenance efforts, as shpulated in the Sensitive Areas Ordinance.
Enforcement. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance regulations will be enforced under the provisions of
Section 14-6U-7, entitled "Violations and Penalties."
saoamend ord. 4.22.96
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 12, 1996
To: City Council
From: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Re: Amendments to Sensitive Areas Ordinance
The June 14th memo from the Sensitive Areas Committee details the proposed amendments to
the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. As discussed in the Committee's memo many of the proposed
amendments simply clarify existing language within the ordinance and would not result in major
changes in the intent or implementation of the ordinance.
There are however sections of the ordinance that are proposed to be changed that would
streamline the manner in which the ordinance is implemented. These amendments are designed
to allow administrative review of site plans in certain situations when the original ordinance
requires rezoning approvals by the Planning and Zonlng Commission and City Council. It was
the consensus of the Committee that development plans for properties containing critical slopes
or woodlands (not located on properties containing critical slopes, stream corridors, protected
slopes or wetlands) do not require the level of scrutiny currently stipulated by the original ordi-
nance. If the amendments to the Sensitive Areas Ord!nance are approved properties containing
these features would be reviewed by staff for compliance with the Sensitive Areas Ordinance
guidelines. They would not, however, be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission and
City Council. This method would allow these sensitive areas to be considered in the design of
developments but would not require the lengthy process and delay necessary to process a
rezoning of such properties. These particular amendments are discussed on pages 3-6 of the
Committee's memo.
Another amendment that would affect slopes is discussed on page 4. This amendment would
provide an exception for properties that contain protected s!opes but where development will be
at least 50 feet from protected slopes. In such situations a rezoning application would not be
required. The ordinance already contains similar exemptions for woodlands and wetlands where
development is not proposed in close proximity to these features.
Staff and the Committee believe that these amendments will make implementation of the ordi-
nance less burdensome for property owners, but at the same time will provide for protection of
environmentally sensitive features. Both the Rivertront and Natural Areas Commission and
Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the amendments.
Statement presemed orally to City Council by William Buss at Public Hearing, July 16, 1996.
I belatedly discovered the proposed amendments from the Sensitive Areas committee
and, like many of you, I spent a big piece of the weekend studying the supporting memorandum
of the committee. I apologize for not having done my home work earlier and given you
something in writing in advance of this meeting to save some of your time this evening.
In Bob Miklo's presentation to you last night, he singled out two of the amendments
affecting development on land containing protected or critical slopes. I entirely agree with the
proposed addition of a Section I. 2 d The need for this amendment grew out of experience with
the ordinance; it streamlines the development process where no impact on protected slopes ns
threatened (and that same change should be made for critical slopes).
The second of the amendments singled out by Mr. Miklo is very different. It does not
grow out of any experience applying the Sensitive Areas Ordinance and it does remove
protection where critical slopes are impacted by development.
It is accurate but misleading to call this a streamlining amendment. It is streamlining in
the sense that making it easier to minimize the protection of any sensitive area is streamlining.
As now provided in the ordinance, development impacting critical slopes is treated, procedurally,
in the same mam~er as a PDH development. It is very hard to see why the interests affected by
development impacting critical slopes are in need of lessen' protection than the interests affected
by PDH development.
Of course, critical slopes may be graded and developed. But the specific design standards
applicable to critical slopes (14-6K-11.4) and the statement of purpose of the Sensitive Areas
Ordinance (14-6K-1 A.4., 5.,6.) both make it clear that any grading or development of critical
slopes is to be limited and that the extent and nature of such grading and development are subject
to public control. Although protected slopes receive more protection under the ordinance, the
very fact that critical slopes are subject to limited development exposes them to a greater danger
that they will receive less protection than what they are entitled to have.
The proposed amendment would result in less public input, less enforcement of the letter
and spirit of the ordinance, and less protection of sensitive areas. It is not a criticism of
overworked public officials to acknowledge that there is not good enforcement machinery for a
law like the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Input through the public's participation not only
introduces a perspective and set of interests that are otherwise likely to be overlooked, but also
helps to increase the likelihood that existing requirements will be complied with.
The history of meaningful protection of civil rights and other protective laws is largely
the history of procedural protection. It is well known that the substance of such laws can be
eroded by the subversion of their procedural provisions. I hope that we are not seeing the
beginming of such an unraveling of the Sensitive Areas Ordinaace, and I hope that the City
Council will choose not to adopt an amendment that significantly weakens the protection of
critical slopes.
July 11, 1996
City Council
City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
Re: Amendment to the S.A.O.
At this time, we are asking that the Council consider expediting the amendment to the
S A.O., condensing the first two readings to the August 27 meeting
We are currently looking at an expansion to our facility at 2400 N Dodge. Expedition of
this amendment would save us valuable time in being able to start construction and speed
up completion of said construction to coincide with our peak usage period of the fall and
winter months.
Thank you for your consideration of this item
Sincerely,
Steve Moss
North Dodge Atldetic Club
2400 N Dodge
Iowa City, IA 52245
-- r ~"c 'i"i
JUL 1 5 1996
P. Ig..D. DEPARTMENT
NOTICE OF PUBLIC 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 16th day of July,
1996, in the Civic Center Council Chambers,
410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa; at
which hearing the Council will consider:
1. A resolution to annex an approximate 80
acre tract located southeast of Sycamore
Street and north of the South Wastewater
Treatment facility.
2. An ordinance amending the Zoning Chapter
by rezoning an approximate 80 acre tract,
from County RS. Suburban Residential, to
ID-RS, Interim Development-Residential,
located southeast of Sycamore Street and
north of the South Wastewater Treatment
facility.
3. An ordinance amending the Zoning Chapter
by rezoning a 2.29 acre tract from RS-12,
High Density Single-Family REsidential, to
OSA-12, Sensitive Areas Overlay/High
Density Single-Family Residential and ap-
proval of a preliminary plat and Sensitive
Areas Development Plan for Meadow Ridge,
Part Two, a 4-1or residnetial subdivision
located on the east side of North Dubuque
Street and north of Bjaysville Lane.
4. An ordinance amending City Code Title 14,
Chapter 6, "Zoning," Article H, "industrial
Zones," to allow trucking terminal facilities
as a provisional use in the I-1 zone.
5. An ordinance amending City Code Title 14,
Chapter 6, entitled "Zoning," Article K,
entitled "Environmental Regulations," Sec-
..tion 1, entitled "Sensitive Areas Ordinance."
An ordinance ameanding City Code Title 14,
Chapter 6, entitled "Zoning," Article O,
entitled "Sign Regulations," to delete the
specific regulation of "political signs," and
to amend regulations applicable to all tem-
porary signs, including political signs.
7. An ordinance amending City Code Title 14,
Chapter 6, entitled "Zoning," Article E,
entitled "Commercial and Business Zones,"
Section 1, entitled "Commercial Office Zone
(CO-1)," to allow small-animal clinics in the
CO-1 zone by special exception.
Copies of the proposed ordinances are on file
for public examination in the office of the City
Clerk, Civic Center, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons
wishing to make their views known for Council
consideration are encouraged to appear at the
above-mentioned time and place.
MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK
Prepared by: Eleanor Dilkes. Assistant City Attorney. 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5030
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER
6, ARTICLE O, ENTITLED "SIGN REGULA-
TIONS," TO DELETE SPECIFIC REGULATION
OF "POLITICAL SIGNS", AND TO AMEND
REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL TEMPO-
RARY SIGNS, INCLUDING POLITICAL SIGNS.
WHEREAS, Section 14.60 of the City Code
sets forth sign regulations that are intended to
enhance and protect the physical appearance
and safety of the community, promote traffic
safety, provide all sign users a reasonable
opportunity to display signs without interfer-
ence from other signage, and to provide fair
and equitable treatment for all s~gn users; and
WHEREAS, Section 14-60-4(A)(8), which
now regulates temporary signs, imposes time
and space limitations only on political signs;
and
WHEREAS, such time limitations based solely
on content, have been legally called into ques-
tion. and should therefore be amended.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I. AMENDMENT. Title 14, Chapter
6, Article O, entitled "Sign Regulations," of the
City Code be hereby amended by:
a. Amending "temporary sign" in Section 14-
60-2. "'Definitions,"' by deleting said section
and substituting the following:
Temporary sign: A sign constructed of
temporary marshals, such as cardboard,
wallboard or plywood, w~th or w~thout a
structural frame, ~ntended for e temporary
period of display, such as yard sale signs,
temporary identification signs and pohtical
signs, but excluding banners.
b. Deleting Section 14-60-4(A)(8) and adding
a new Section 14-60-4(AH8) to read as
follows:
8. Temporary s~gns: Temporary signs may
be displayed but shall not be dluminated,
shall not exceed twelve {12) square feet
in area, and shall not be displayed for a
period exceeding sixty (60) days.
Ordinance No.
Page 2
c. Adding a new Section 14-60-4(A)(9) to
read as follows:
9. Posters and other non-permanent signs
in windows.
d. Repealing the definition of "construction
sign" in Section 14-60-2, "Definitions," and
adding a new definition of "construction
sign" to read as follows:
CONSTRUCTION SIGN: A sign identifying
the architects, engineers, contractors and
other individuals involved in the construc-
tion of a building and/or announcing the
future use of the building. {1978 Code §36-
61)
e. Repealing the definition of "real estate sign"
in Section 14-60-2, "Definitions," and add-
ing a new definition of "real estate sign" to
read as follows:
REAL ESTATE SIGN: A sign which advertis-
es the sale, rental or lease of the premises
or part of the premises on which the sign is
located, including open house directional
signs.
SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and
parts of ordinances in conflict with the provi-
sions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION Ill. SEVERABILITY. If an,/ 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, prows~on
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 day of
,19
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
City Attor'ney's Office
City of iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date:June 20, 1996
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Re: Sign Regulations -- Political Signs
A recent decision by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals raises legal questions regarding the
City's current sign ordinance as it relates to political signs. The attached memorandum dated
September 24, 1995, from the City Attorney's Office provides more detail regarding this concern.
Staff has drafted amendments to the portions of the sign ordinance which regulate temporary
signs including political signs. Adoption of these amendments should address the concerns
raised by the decision of the Eighth Circuit Court.
Attachments
1. September 24, 1995 Memorandum
2. Proposed Ordinance
bc3-2RM
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
September 24, 1995
Linda Woito, City Attorney
Anne Burnside, First Assistant City Attorney
City Code Regulation of Political Signs after Whitton v. Gladstone,
Missouri 54 F.3d 1400 (8th Cir. 1995)
In May o.f this year, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decided Whitton v. Gladstone,
and in so doing, held that city's political sign ordinance to violate the First Amendment
to the United States Constitution. The city ordinance was so similar to Iowa City's
political sign ordinance that I conclude Iowa City's. ordinance would also fail to survive
a First Amendment analysis.
Discussion: Political Signs and New Case Law: The ordinances at issue are these:
Gladstone Section 25-45 "Restriction of political signs within zones.
A ..... No political signs located in an area zoned for residential use shall be
placed or erected more than thirty (30) days prior to the election to which such
sign pertains and such sign shall be removed within seven (7) days after such
election.
B ..... No political signs located in an area zoned for industrial or commercial
use shall be placed or erected more than thirty (30) days prior to the election
to which such sign pertains and such sign shall be removed within seven (7)
days after such election."
Iowa City Section 14-60-4(A)(8)(a) Political Signs: Political signs shall be
subject to the following requirements:
(1) In residential zones, non-illuminated political signs may be displayed on
each premises. A political sign may not exceed twelve (12) square feet in area.
Such ~igns shall not be installed prior to thirty (30) days before the election for
the candidate or issue indicated on the sign. All such signs shall be removed
no later'than seven (7) days after the election date.
(2) In other zones. political signs shall conform to the applicable regulations for
permitted s~gns m the zone.
Gladstone contended that the ordinances were reasonable time, place and manner
restrictions, and that the ordinances were not content-based. The Court denied both
arguments. The ordinances are content-based for two reasons: first, the restriction
only applies to a sign bearing a political message. For instance, the restriction would
not apply to other temporary signs such as real estate signs. [Gladstone's real estate
sign ordinance, like Iowa City's, permitted greater latitude in erecting and maintaining
real estate signs than political signs.] In a footnote, the Court gave an interesting
example of the deficiency of Gladstone's ordinance.
"...a sign stating 'Go Royals' would not be subject to the durational
limitations while a sign constructed with the same materials and on
precisely the same spot stating 'Go Ashcroft' would be. Counsel for
Gladstone also conceded that a sign urging the impeachment of the
President of the United States would not fall within the definition of a
political sign (and thus not subject to the durational limitations) while a
sign urging the reelection of the President would be. In fact, in these
areas, a permanent ground sign with no message could be erected and
would not be subjected to the durational limitations while the same sign
advocating a political candidate would be.': Whitton at 1404 fn. 8.
For these reasons, the Court found Gladstone's ordinance treated some commercial
speech more favorably than political speech, and found the ordinances were
irapermissibly conten~-based. Under well-established principles, once a statute is
found to be content based, it is subject to strict scrutiny. Gladstone had strenuously
argued that the regulations were content-neutral time, place and manner restrictions,
and had made the expected health, safety and aesthetics arguments. The Court did
not deny these are "laudablo" bases for regulation. Nonetheless, the Court found
strict scrutiny to be the proper test because the ordinances were not content-neutral.
"'For the State to enforce a content-based exclusion it must show that its regulation
is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to
achieve that end.'" Whitton at 1408 citing Perry Ed. Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators'
Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37 at 45, 103 S.Ct. at 955 (1983). A municipality's asserted
interests in traffic safety and aesthetics, while significant, have never been held to be
compelling. The Court also found the durational restrictions were not narrowly-
tailored to achieve their aims. The Court held the city had failed to present evidence
to support the necessity of their restrictions. The Court did note that an ordinance
which required "any political sign be posted for a maximum period of 90 days before
it is removed or replaced" would be constitutional. "Nothing in the ordinance prohibits
the defendants from erecting a different temporary sign one day after dismantling their
first tempora~'y sign." Whitton at 1409, fn. 13.
I attach a copy of the Whitton decision, for your information. I have Shepardized the
case and do not find any indication that an appeal to the United States Supreme Court
is pending. Assuming that to be the case, Whirton would be controlling law in our
jurisdiction on the specific issue of municipal ordinances which set durational limits
for temporary political signs.
Discussion: State Law & Political Signs
One other matter I should mention involves an opinion written in 1993 regarding the
placement of political signs in Iowa City. In Section II of that opinion, this Office
discusses Sections 306C.20, and 306C.22, Iowa Code, which contains time
limitations on political signs. Political signs may not be posted more than 45 days
prior to an election. State law also limits municipal power to adopt political sign
ordinances: "A municipal corporation shall adopt no ordinance which prohibits the
placement of political signs on private property as permitted by this section .... "Based
on my review of state law governing political signs, it is clear to me that your 1993
opinion preceded Whitton and thus was not discussed two years ago. In light of
Whitton, I believe Iowa Code Section 306C.20 is no longer good law.
Discussion: Other City Sign Ordinances
Having said that, I need to clarify what Whitton does not do, in my opinion. Whitton
deals specifically with political speech and political signs. Before the Court
commenced its analysis of the Gladstone ordinance, it noted that "'the First
Amendment has its fullest and most urgent application to speech uttered during a
campaign for political office'" and "'political speech occupies the core of the
protection afforded by the First Amendment'". Whitt.on citing Burson v. Freeman,
504 U.S. 191, 196-197, 112 S.Ct. 1846, 1850 (1992); Mcintyre v. Ohio Elections
Comm., 115 S.Ct. 1511, 1516-1518 (1 984). Thus, the Whitton case is narrowly
applied to questions involving political sign regulation by government ordinance, and
does not affect or undermine the remainder of Iowa City's sign ordinances. For
example, my legal opinion written June 1, 1995 regarding tho constitutionality of off-
premises signs is still the correct analysis and remains still in effect as good law. This
is because there is a legally critical difference between the matter examined in the
June 1, 1995 opinion and the present opinion because political signs are deemed by
the Eighth Circuit Court as content-based regulation. In contrast, Iowa City's off-
premises sign ordinance is content-neutral, and therefore subject to a lower level of
scrutiny. I attach a copy of the earlier opinion for your convenience.
If you have questions or require additional research on the topic, please let me know.
c:\wp5 l\13olits~g
3
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 2, 1996
To: The Honorable Mayor Naomi J. Novick and Members of the City Council
From: Linda Newman Woito, City Attorney ...._~. _
Re: Amendments to Political Sign Ordinance; Explanatory Memorandum of Law
As you can see from your City Council agenda scheduled for May 7, 1996, the City Attorney's
Office has placed before you an amendment to the "political sign ordinance," in order to conform
with constitutional law.
The attached memorandum from Assistant City Attorney Eleanor M. Dilkes is self-explanatory,
and I concur with her analysis in its entirety. While a sign ordinance ordinarily would be reviewed
by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Commission has little discretion to determine the
length of time periods whereby a political sign may be placed -- since the 8th Circuit Court of
Appeals found a 30-day durational limitation identical to Iowa City's to be a violation of the First
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, because "content-based."
We have styled the sign ordinance amendments along the lines of a neighboring state courts
review of a local ordinance, found to be constitutional. I will be available for discussion. as
needed. Othe~ise, please feel free to call Eleanor or me at X5030.
Attachment
CC:
Marian K. Karr, City Clerk
Stephen J. Atkins, City Manager
Dale E. Helling, Assistant City Manager
Karin Franklin, Director, PCD
Doug Boothroy, Director, H&IS
City of iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 2, 1996
To:
From:
Linda Newman Woito _
Eleanor M. Dilkes ~,,~'~
Re:
Proposed Amendment to the Political Sign Ordinance
The proposed amendment to the political sign ordinance set forth in Julie Tallman's memo to you
of November 22, 1995 eliminates all time requirements, stating: "A political sign may be installed
at any time prior to an election and removed at any time after an election." This amendment was
proposed in response to the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in Whirton v. City of
Gladstone, 54 F.3d 1400 (Sth Cir. 1995). Anne Burnside reviewed the Whitton case in her memo
to you of September 24, 1995.
In Whitton, the time requirements were found to be unconstitutional because they were content-
based, i.e. the regulations only applied to political signs. Clearly, if the City chooses to regulate
"political signs," there can be no time requirements. However, it appears that the City has
regulated "political signs" because political signs, i.e. election signs, are temporaw. Indeed, Iowa
City Code §14-60-2 defines "political sign" as follows: "A temporary sign announcing candidates
seeking public office, a political issue, or containing other election information, such as vote today.
'Political signs' shall not be considered off-premises signs." (emphasis added) In addition, the
code section regulating "political signs" is a subpart to a provision regulating "temporary signs".
Iowa City Code §14-60-4(8) states:
Temporary signs: The signs listed below are temporary signs, the use of
which is limited to a maximum of thirty (30) days. Such signs are subject
only to the following regulations:
Political signs: Political signs shall be subject to the following
requirements:
In residential zones, non-illuminated political signs may be
displayed on each premises. A political sign may not
exceed twelve (12) square feet in area. Such signs shall not
be installed prior to thirty (30) days before the election of
the candidate or issue indicated on the sign. All such signs
shall be removed no later than seven (7) days after the
election date.
(2)
In other zones, polibcal signs shall conform to the applicable
regulatior]s for permitted signs in the zone."
In Whitton the court noted the City's interest in regulating political signs because they are "usually
inexpensively constructed and intended to be temporaw in nature and due to the susceptibility
to the elements and vandalism, can leave an unsightly mess if they are posted too long."
However, because in Whitton the regulation was content-based, i.e. it applied to political signs
only, this non-compelling state interest was not sufficient.
The key :s to regulate temporary signs not polibcal signs. In Whirton the court noted:
We agree with the district court's assessment that "regarding both traffic safety and
aesthetics, the city could regulate the construction of the signs, amount of signage
and the duration of time a temporary political sign can remain before the candidate
or committee must remove or replace the sign," measures which adequately
address the ill sought to be suppressed and are less restrictive means of doing so.
54 F.3d at 1409.
in a footnote, the Whirton court stated that Gladstone could require that any political sign be
posted for a maximum period of 90 days before it is removed or replaced. 54 F.3d at 1409 fn.13.
In this footnote the court cited with approval the case of City of Waterloo v. Markham, 234 III.
App.3d 744, 175 III. Dec. 862, 865, 600 N.E.2d 1320, 1323 (1992). I have attached a copy of the
City of Waterloov. Markham decision. In that decision, thecourt heldthata city ordinance which
prohibited temporary signs from being maintained for a period in excess of 90 days and allowed
time extensions to be granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals, was constitutional. The ordinance
in the Markham. case read as follows:
Temporary signs, such as election siqns, may be allowed for a period not to
exceed ninety (90) days and shall not exceed ten (10) square feet of sign area.
Time extensions may be granted by the Board of Appeals. (emphasis added)
The ordinance defined temporary signs as follows:
A sign, banner, or other advertising device or display constructed of cloth, canvas,
cardboard, wallboard, or other light temporary materials, with or without a structural
frame, intended for a temporary period of display, such as decorative displays for
holidays or public demonstrations.
The Markham court determined that this ordinance was content-neutral. The court rejected the
argument that the reference to "election signs" in the ordinance was something more than an
example. The court found that the City's purpose was "to discourage and prevent the unsightly
clutter and inevitable deterioration intrinsic to temporary signs." The court found that the
ordinance accomplished this purpose with "clear specificity, workable efficiency, and complete
content tolerance," and therefore, the means chosen were not substantially broader than
necessary. The court noted that nothing in the ordinance prohibited the defendants from erecting
a different temporary sign one day after dismantling their first temporary sign.
If the City of Iowa City wishes to regulate political/election signs because they are temporary in
nature, I would suggest amending the City ordinance to regulate temporary signs in the manner
that is done in the Markham case. This would involve amending the definition of "temporary
sign", to include the language of the ordinance involved in the Markham case or similar language,
and then placing time restrictions (and size restrictions) on all temporary signs.
Attachment
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing
will be held by the City Council of Iowa CiW,
Iowa, at 7:00 p.m. on the 16th day of July,
1996, in the Civic Center Council Chambers,
410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa; at
which hearing the Council will consider:
1. A resolution to annex an approximate 80
acre tract located southeast of Sycamore
Street and north of the South Wastewater
Treatment facility.
2. An ordinance amending the Zoning Chapter
by rezoning an approximate 80 acre tract,
from County RS, Suburban Residential, to
ID-RS, Interim Development-Residential,
located southeast of Sycamore Street and
north of the South Wastewater Treatment
facility.
3. An ordinance amending the Zoning Chapter
by rezoning a 2.29 acre tract from RS-12,
High Density Single-Family REsidential, to
OSA-12, Sensitive Areas Overlay/High
Density Single-Family Residential and ap-
proval of a preliminary plat and Sensitive
Areas Development Plan for Meadow Ridge,
Part Two, a 4-1or residnetial subdivision
located on the east side of North Dubuque
Street and north of Bjaysville Lane.
4. An ordinance amending City Code Title 14,
Chapter 6, "Zoning," Article H, "Industrial
Zones," to allow trucking terminal facilities
as a provisional use in the I-1 zone.
5. An ordinance amending City Code Title 14,
Chapter 6, entitled "Zoning," Article K,
entitled "Environmental Regulations," Sec-
tion 1, entitled "Sensitive Areas Ordinance."
6. An ordinance ameanding City Code Title 14,
Chapter 6, entitled "Zoning," Article O,
entitled "Sign Regulations," to delete the
specific regulation of "political signs," and
to amend regulations applicable to all tem-
porary signs, including political signs.
An ordinance amendin..g. City C.o. de Title 14,
Chapter 6, entitled Zoning, Article E,
entitled "Commercial and Business Zones,"
Section 1, entitled "Commercial Office Zone
(CO-1)." to allow small-animal clinics in the
C0-1 zone by special exception.
Copies of the proposed ordinances are on file
for public examination in the office of the City
Clerk, Civic Center, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons
wishing to make their views known for Council
consideration are encouraged to appear at the
above-mentioned time and place.
MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK
Prepared by: Scott Kugler, Associate Planner. 410
E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240
(319)356-5243
ORDINANCENO.
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE '14, CHAPTER
6, ENTITLED "ZONING," ARTICLE E, ENTITLED
"BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL ZONES,"
SECTION 1, ENTITLED "COMMERCIAL OFFICE
ZONE (CO-1)," TO ALLOW SMALL-ANIMAl
CLINICS IN THE C0~1 ZONE BY SPECIAL
EXCEPTION.
WHEREAS, the City has received a request to
locate a smell-animal clinic on property located
in the CO-1, Commercial Office zone; and
WHEREAS, small-animal clinics are currently
not permitted in the CO-1 zone; and
WHEREAS, the City feels that small-animal
clinics are appropriate in the CO-1 zone due to
their similarity with other uses permitted in that
zone, provided that standards controlling noise
and odor are adhered to; and
WHEREAS, due to potential conflicts be-
tween small-animal clinics and surrounding land
uses, the City feels it is appropriate to review
the location of small-animal clinics on a case-
by-case basis by requiring approval of a special
exception to located them in the CO-1 zone.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINEDBY THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I. AMENDMENT. Title 14, Chapter 6,
entitled "Zoning," Article E, Commercial apd
Business Zones," Section 1, entitled "Commer-
cial Office Zone (CO-1)," Subsection D, entitled
"Special Exceptions," is hereby amended by
adding the following:
10. Small.animal clinics, provided:
a. All aspects of the operation of the
clinic, including any accessory use, are
conducted completely indoors within a
single, soundproofed building; and
b. The structure housing the clinic is not
located within two hundred feet (200')
of a residential zone; and
c. No odors or nome from the clinic shall
be discermble at any lot line; end
Ordinance No.
Page 2
d. Overnight boarding of animals shall be
limited to those receiving treatment at
the facility.
SECTION I1. 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
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
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK ,~
~City A~orne;/',~ff~e ,~ ~__~
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
June 20, 1996
Planning and Zoning Commission
Scott Kugler, Associate Planner
Proposed code amendment to allow small-animal clinics in the CO-1 zone by
special exception.
Lucas Van Orden has submitted a request to rezone a parcel on ACT Circle from CO-1,
Commercial Office, to CH-1, Highway Commercial, and to amend the CH-1 zone to allow
small-animal clinics. Small-animal clinics are currently permitted as provisional uses in the
CC-2, Community Commercial zone, provided there are no outside runs, and the structure
housing the facility is not located within two hundred feet (200') of a residential zone. In
its June 6 staff report on the requested rezoning, staff recommended denial of the
application because the parcel in question does not appear to be appropriate for CH-1
zoning, nor is a small-animal clinic consistent with the intent of the CH-1 zone. Instead,
recognizing small-animal clinics as a similar use to a medical clinic, staff suggested that
the possibility of amending the CO-1 zone to allow small-animal clinics be investigated.
Staff has collected information on how this use is handled by other communities, and has
obtained a copy of the April 17, 1992, edition of The Zoninq Report, which is titled
"Zoning for Animal Clinics and Hospitals." The report identifies animal service uses as a
difficult use to regulate because on the one hand, veterinarians are professionals just like
other professionals that are often permitted in office, office-residential, or, in some cases,
residential zones. On the other hand, the operation of their business often creates
negative externalibes such as noise and odor that can cause conflicts with other uses
permitted Jn those zones. However, the report goes on to suggest ways to control these
conflicts through zoning restrictions, and notes that a number of other communities permit
small-ammal clinics in neighborhood commercial and office zones with restrictions on noise
and minimum separation distances from residential uses.
An important provision of an ordinance allowing small-animal clinics in an office zone is
one that prohibits outdoor activities. If the facility is to blend with office uses, and
potentially in close proximity to residential uses, it must be completely enclosed in one
building. The only outdoor actwity noticeable to adjacent uses should be the act of
bringing the arereal from a vehicle into the building. Staff recommends that the proposed
amendments require the entire operation of the clinic to occur indoors, within a single
structure.
Noise and odors from a small-animal clinic can be minimized by soundproofing and properly
venting the building, or by requiring large minimum lot sizes and setbacks that will help to
buffer the use from adjacent properties. Soundproofing can be accomplished through
building design and through the use of solid core doors, soundproofing of walls and
ceilings, forced air ventilation systems rather than open windows, etc. Required setbacks
from residential property in neighborhood commercial/office zones of other communities,
according to The Zoning Re~ort, range from 50 to 200 feet. Staff recommends that a
combination of the two standards be used for Iowa City's ordinance. The City's current
regulations in the CC-2 zone include a 200 foot separation requirement between the
building housing the clinic and any residential zone. Staff recommends that this be
~ncluded in combination with a standard prohibiting a clinic from emitting noise and odors
that can be discerned beyond the property line. Together, these standards can help to
minimize the facility's impact on surrounding property. Borrowing language from the
Wichita, Kansas, code, staff proposes that "No noise or odors from such use shall be
discernable at any flor] line." Another possibility is to limit the number of decibels at the
building wall (65db - Idaho Falls), a measurable standard for noise control, but not for
odor.
In addition to controlling the noise and odor impacts of small animal clinics on adjacent
properties, The Zoning Report points out that it is important to not create loopholes for
other animal service uses under the small-animal clinic definition. Some uses, such as
grooming, can be controlled by specifying that services must be provided by a licensed
veterinarian. These items could still be permitted as an accessory use to the small-animal
clinic. The City's current definition of a small-animal clinic specifies that a licensed
veterinarian must perform the care.
A more difficult ~ssue ~s the boarding of animals. Boarding animals overnight for medical
reasons is often necessary as part of their treatment. However, drawing the line between
this type of boarding and a kennel is difficult. The Qty's current definition of smell-animal
clinic specifically excludes a kennel, but does not address it as a use incidental to the
medical treatment of animals. Some codes prohibit overnight boarding that is not incidental
to the treatment of animals, and others permit a maximum number of animals (often 4
adults) for overnight boarding, regardless of whethe~ the animals are being treated or not.
Another method used by other cities is to not allow more than a certain percentage of the
facility to be dedicated to the overnight boarding of animals (25% - Bellevue, Washington).
In the case of the property at 2122 ACT Circle, the applicant has indicated that he would
like to be able to board animals that are not being treated for a fee as an accessory use to
the small-animal clinic. It is staff's opinion that this is not appropriate for the C0-1 zone,
nor is it consistent with the definition of a small-animal clinic. Staff is concerned that
allowing overnight boarding of animals that are not being treated would potentially open
the door for kennels to operate in the CO-1 zone. In addition, allowing a kennel-type
operaben in addition to the boarding of animals be!ng treated increases the scale of that
aspect of the clinic, and ~ncreases the potential for conflicts between the clinic and
surrounding uses at night when little or no superwsion of the boarding operation will likely
occur. It is important to remember that the CO-1 zone permits dwelling units on the upper
floors of buildings in the C0-1 zone.
A phone survey of area animal chnics indicates that the number of animals that are kept
overnight as a part of their treatment varies from day to day. The attached memo from
Planning Intern Randy Carpenter includes information received from the local clinics. The
clinics were asked how many animals they typically keep overnight, and to distinguish
between those kept for a fee and those kept overnight as part of treatment being given.
The numbers range from 1 to 10 animals being kept overnight incidental to treatment
being received. Mr. Van Orden has indicated informally that he anticipates a higher
number of overnight stays associated with treatment, perhaps from 12 to 16 animals.
Staff feels that consideration should be given to placing a limit on the number of animals
that can be kept to avoid the increased potential for conflicts with surrounding properties
as mentioned above. Based on the information received from other clinics in the area,
staff recommends that overnight boarding be limited to a maximum of 10 animals being
treated at the clinic.
Because the C0-1 zone is often used as a buffer between more intensive commercial
zones and residential areas, staff feels careful consideration must be given when siting a
small-animal clinic within a C0-1 zone. Therefore, staff recommends that small-animal
clinics be permitted in the C0-1 zone only upon approval of a special exception by the
Board of Adjustment. This would permit an extra level of public scrutiny in situations
where a C0-1 zone is located in close proximity to residential areas.
Given this information, staff recommends the following code amendments regarding small-
animal clinics (bold text indicates new language):
14-6E-1 (C0-1 Zone):
D. Special Exceptions:
10. Small-animal clinics, provided:
a. All aspects of the operation of the clinic, including any accessory use, are
conducted completely indoors within a single, soundproofed building; and
b. The structure housing the clinic is not located within 200 feet of a
residential zone; and
c. No odors or noise from the clinic shall be discernible at any lot line.
d, Overnight boarding of animals shall be limited to those receiving
treatment at the facility, and shall not exceed ten (1 O) animals.
In addition, an amendment to the R/O, Residential/Office zone is needed to avoid
confusion. The RIO zone allows all uses permitted in the C0-1 zone and would permit a
small-animal clinic upon the approval of a special exception through this reference.
However, the R/O zone is also a residential zone; a small-animal clinic cannot locate within
200 feet of a residential zone. To avoid this conflict, staff recommends that the following
amendment to the RIO zone also be considered at this time:
14-6D-12: Residential/Office Zone (R/O):
B. Permitted Uses:
1. Permitted uses of the C0-1 zone, except small-animal clinics.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the proposed amendments to allow small-animal clinics in the CO-1
zone by special exception, and to exclude smell-animal clinics from the RIO zone, as
detailed in this staff memorandum, be approved.
ATTACHMENT:
1. Memorandum from Planning Intern regarding animal clinic phone survey.
Approved by:
Robert M~klo, Senior Planner
Department of Planning and
Community Development
City of Ilowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
June 13, 1996
Scott Kugler, Associate Planner
Randy Carpenter, Planning Intern
Animal Clinic Survey
Here are the results of the phone survey I conducted this afternoon, with a couple of caveats: the
"typical" number of animals being kept overnight varies by season (for boarded animals) and by
the weekday (for treated animals). Everyone of the respondents mentioned this variability. The
number of boarded animals increases during holiday periods, and the number of treated animals
being kept overnight depends upon the surgery schedule. These numbers, then, are averages;
them are not really any "typical" nights.
Boarded animals
overnight?
Is this limited to
treated animals,
or done for a fee?
Typically, how
many boarded a
night?
Treated Fee
Coralville Animal Clinic No
1320 5th St
Eastside Pet Clinic No
811 1st Ave
Veterinary Associates Yes
330 3rd St
Animal Clinic Inc. Yes
408 Highland
All Pets Veterinary ClinicYes
512 S. Dubuque
North Liberty Pet Clinic No
405 N Front St.
Treated 3 --
Treated 2 --
Both 1 6
Both 1 6
Both 10 2
Treated 2 --
I contacted all of the clinics listed for Iowa City in the Yellow Pages, and as you can see, one in
Coralville and one in North Liberty.
tp4-1
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Item: REZ96-0014, 2122 ACT Circle
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Requested action:
Purpose:
Location:
Size:
Existing lend use and zoning:
Surrounding land use and zoning:
Comprehensive Plan:
Applicable Code requirements:
Prepared by: Scott Kugler
Date: June 6, 1996
Lucas S. Van Orden
3077 Newport Road NE
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Phone: 351-8038
Liberty Growth
c/o Jerry Full
906 S. Lucas Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Phone: 351 =5156
Rezoning from CO-1, Commercial Of-
rice, to CH-1, Highway Commercial,
and a code amendment to allow veteri-
nary clinics in the CH-1 zone as permit-
ted uses.
To allow the location of a small animal
clinic at 2122 ACT Circle.
2122 ACT Circle.
.94 acres
Office, CO-1
North: Undeveloped, CO-1;
East: Restaurant, Hotel, CH-1;
South: Filling Station, CH-1;
West: Offices, CO-1.
The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
is generally consistent with the existing
zoning pattern in this area, suggesting
highway commercial along Highway 1
and office commercial behind to the
northwest.
14-6E-1, Commercial Office Zone; 14-
6E-3, Highway Commercial Zone.
File date:
May 16, 1996
45-day limitation period:
July1, 1996
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, Lucas S. Van Orden, is requesting a rezoning from CO-1, Commercial Office,
to CH-1, Highway Commercial, for property located at 2122 ACT Circle. Associated with the
rezoning is a request to consider amending the CH-1 zone to allow veterinary clinics as
permitted uses (see attached letters). The subject property contains an office building
presently occupied by Shive-Hattery Engineers and Architects, Inc.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant is requesting this rezoning and code amendment in order to establish a small
animal clinic on the subject property. Without the code amendment, the applicant would not
be able to use the property as proposed. Therefore, staff will first discuss some options
relative to the proposed code amendment, and follow with an analysis of the requested
rezoning.
Request to Allow Veterinary Clinics as Permitted Uses in the CH-1 Zone: The CH-1 zone is
intended to permit the development of service uses relating to expressways and major arterial
thoroughfares. Facilities providing services or products for the thoroughfare user, such as
food, lodging, motor vehicle service and fuel, are examples of appropriate CH-1 uses. A
veterinary clinic does not fit within this description. In addition to the above uses, the CH-1
zone allows office uses as permitted in the CO-1 zone, which would include medical offices
and clinics. The only way staff could support including small animal clinics in the CH-1 zone
is if it is determined that the use is similar in nature to a medical office or clinic, which is
already permitted in the zone. If it is determined that the two are similar uses, staff feels that
the possibility of allowing small animal clinics in the CO-1 zone should be investigated, also.
Staff feels that a veterinary clinic that is limited to small animals and includes no outside
activities or runs would be similar in nature to a medical office or clinic and, perhaps,
appropriate for the CO- 1 zone, although further research is necessary. Small animal clinics
are currently permitted in only the CC-2, Community Commercial zone as a provisional use,
with outdoor runs being prohibited and a separation of 200 feet from residential zones
required. Full scale veterinary clinics are allowed in the C1-1, Intensive Commercial zone, with
similar separation requirements. If similar separation requirements are included, there would
be four existing CO-1 zones that small animal clinics might be permitted in: Towncrest, the
Mercy Hospital area, Northgate Corporate Park, and the zone containing the parcel being
considered for rezoning. The Mercy Hospital area and Towncrest would have the most
potential for conflicts between the clinic and nearby residential uses, but staff can foresee
little impact that such an amendment would have on the other areas. Increasing the required
separation distance or requiring that it be measured from a residential use rather than a
residential zone may be ways to help alleviate these problems. Requiring a special exception
for a small animal clinic would also help, allowing a case-by-case evaluation of the proposed
locations of the facilities. Staff recommends that amending the C0-1 zone to allow small
animal clinics be researched and discussed rather than rezoning the subject property and
amending the CH-1 zone to allow the proposed use. If the research indicates that small
3
animal clinics are not appropriate in office commercial zones, then another location should be
found for the proposad use.
Proposed Rezoning from CO-1 to CH-I: As mentioned above, the CH-1 zone is intended to
provide services for motorists using an adjacent expressway or major arterial. The existing
CH-1 zone in this area provides these types of services to motorists using both Highway 1
and Interstate 80. All property within this CH-1 zone includes frontage on Highway 1 and is
also very visible from the highway. By contrast, the subject parcel does not front on Highway
1, nor is it a highly visible property from the highway. This property is not appropriate for CH-
1 zoning, and this application appears to be a rezoning of convenience rather than a logical
zoning classification for this property. Staff feels that the most appropriate way to address
the situation is to investigate the possibility of amending the CO-1 zone to allow small animal
clinics by special exception, rather than rezone a parcel to a classification that does not
appear to fit the property and that would still require an amendment to the zoning ordinance
to accommodate the new use.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that REZ96-0014, a request to rezone .94 acres located at 2122 ACT
Circle from C0-1 to CH-1, be denied, but that the Commission consider the possibility of
amending the C0~1 zone to allow small animal clinics by special exception.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location map.
2. Letters from applicant regarding rezoning application and proposed text amendment.
Approved by:
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Department of Planning and
Community Development
Date' May 15, 1996
To- George Starr, Chairman,
Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission
From Lucas S. Van Orden IV
Re: Amendment to CHI Zone
Mr Chairman,
As of mid May my wife, Nadia E. VanderGaast and I became the contract buyers for
the Shive Hattery building at 2122 ACT Circle. Nadia has been the associate veterinarian
for the West Branch Animal clinic since 1989. It has been our goal for some time to find a
serene setting for Nadia to establish a clinic of her own This site seems ideal for our goal.
It will however require an adjustment to the zoning, and we think we found a workable
solution to the zoning which covers this area
Options:
1) Ask the city to spot zone our property to CI 1 or CC2.
2) Amend COl to permit small anhnal clinics
3) Amend CHI to include small animal clinics as a permitted or provisional use,
and then rezone our property to CH1
The plan
After consulting with the Iowa City Planning & Community Development staff, we
would like to propose a plan which we believe preserves the integrity of the area zomng,
but allows for our clinic. We will be proposing as a first step, to amend the CH1 zoning
ordinance to allow small animal clinics as a permitted or provisional use The impact of
this zoning change will be limited to the attached highlighted area, as well as the former
Siesta Motel location in Coralville.
In conjunction with this request, 1 have filed a request for our property to be rezoned
to CHI As part of the rezoning, we would be happy to enter into a conditional zoning
agreement, which would dearly spell out what parts of the zoning we intend to use. I
understand from Karin Franklin and Bob Miklo that the city cannot specifically exclude
permitted uses as pan ofa CZA As an alternative, I would suggest that we bind the
property by protective covenant, to limit the uses under CHI to the newly amended small
animal clinic clause, and the currently permitted COl uses as defined under CHI.
Need:
The best justification for the adding small animal clinics to CHI I can offer is ease of
access. 60% ofNadia's clients drive 20 miles round trip from lowa City. Smallanimal
owners are better served if their practitioner iseasily accessible. With the growth of the
Iowa City/Coralville area in the North, more and more people use the interstate to access
the business district as it grows. This being the case, and dealing with a clientele which
drives to the area clinics, why not provide for the need, and eliminate additional traffic into
the city South side. Greg Zimmerman DVM is currently establishing a Coralville practice,
to be more accessible to his clients then his downtown 1owa City location. Karin Franklin
advised me that a zoning change needs to pass the "blush test". I feel confident this
request will stand up.
Impact of change:
The greatest concerns of asking for this change, I assume, is the concern of future use
of the property under CHI. I believe we can address this with the covenants. Second to
this, would be traffic generation. I understand from Bob Miklo that this would be a
comparable traffic count, and our clients would be spread out over the day, and not
concentrated during the peak hours of ACT/NCS employees going to/from work. The
issue of noise fxom a business of this type, I feel is comparable to that of currently
permitted uses under CO1.
Implementation:
Prior to filing these requests, 1 visited with all ofthe area property owners Tlie
response was favorable, primarily I would guess, due to involving the corporate neighbors
in the process at the start I will be asking my neighbors to voice thek support for my
request, or at least confirm their acceptance. Granted, this palls by comparison to a
Wal-Mart sized request, but I believe the benefit to the Iowa City Area warrants this
change. As a contract buyer, time is of the essence. We would like to be heard on this
matter in tandem with our rezoning, at your June 6th formal meeting As always, I am at
your disposal for any questions or clarifications you may need addressed.
With respect,
Lucas S. Van Orden IV
3077 Newport Rd NE
Iowa City, IA 52240-7825
(319) 351-8038
cc Jim Martinek
file
Date: May 15, 1996
To: George Starr, Chairman,
Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission
From" Lucas S. Van Orden IV
Re: Rezoning of"Shive Hatter/' property.
Mr. Chairman,
In conjunction with our request to amend the CH1 zone to include small animal clinics as
a permitted, or provisional use, I would ask that the subject parcel be rezoned to CHI.
I have spoken at length with Karin Franklin and Bob Miklo regarding this request. They
indicated this was the least disruptive way to achieve our goal. In the interest of being a
good corporate neighbor, I have spoken with all of the area property owners prior to filing
this request. At this time, we have received positive support for our plan. Clearly, the
issue ofrezoning involves lasting impact to the area. With this in mind, we would be glad
to enter into a conditional zoning agreement, if this is deemed necessary. Our goal here is
to legally provide for our intended use, and would be happy to exclude other permitted
uses Bob and Karin indicated that the city cannot specifically exclude permitted uses by a
CZA, but I have indicated that a protective covenant running with the deed, could in
effect, aclfieve the same goal. We would like to work with the city to find a way to
accommodate our proposed clinic.
With respect, .~,/"~k
Lucas S. Van Orden IV
Nadia E. VanderGaast
3077 Newport Rd NE
Iowa City, IA 52240-7825
cc. file
NOTICE OF PUBLIC 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 2nd day of July,
1996, in the Civic Center Council Chambers,
410 E, Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa; et
which hearing the Council will consider:
1. The designation of thirty-seven properties
as Iowa City historic landmarks.
2. An ordinance amending the Zoning Chapter
by rezoning the following properties located
in Iowa City, Iowa, and owned by The
University of Iowa to P, Public: I E. Park
Road (RNC-20), 234 N. Madison Street
(RM-44), northwest corner of Dubuque and
Church Streets (RM-44), 230 N. Clinton
Street (PRM), 324 S. Madison Street
(CB-2), 300 Myrtle Avenue (RS-5), 421
Melrose Avenue (RS-5), 315 Melrose Ave-
nue (RS-8), 121 Grand Avenue Court (RS-
8), 127 Grand Avenue Court (RS-8), 129
Grand Avenue Court {RS-8), and 2222 Old
(~AHighway 218 S. (I-1).
n ordinance amending the Zoning Chapter
by amending the Conditional Zoning Agree-
ment for WestPort Plaza to eliminate the
requirement for a "cohesive, integrated
development," and to remove the require-
ment for the facades of the buildings to
provide "horizontal continuity," for property
located in the CC-2, Community Commer-
cial zone at 855 Highway 1 West.
Copies of the proposed ordinances are on file
for public examination in the office of the City
Clerk, Civic Center, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons
wishing to make their views known for Council
consideration are encouraged to appear at the
above-mentioned time and place.
MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK
City of iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 12, 1996
To: The Honorable Mayor, Naomi J. Novick and members of the City Council
From: Linda Newman Woito, City Attorney ~
Re: Questions Concerning Staples' Proposed Development and Original Westport Plaza/City
Conditional Zoning Agreement; Private Restrictions Eviscerate CZA?
ISSUE RAISED AT LAST COUNCIL MEETING CONCERNING PRIVATE RESTRIC-
TIONS,
Background
When Westport Plaza and the City of Iowa City entered into the original Conditional Zoning
Agreement (CZA) in 1989, a conceptual site plan was presented to the City Council dated April
20, 1989. Soon thereafter, the first Anchor store (Walmart), purchased the property from the
developer Josepll Company. We have just discovered that at the time of their original purchase,
Walmart imposed restrictive covenants on the entire land covered by the CZA requiring more
parking than the City's regulations.
Thereafter, Walmart sold the land to Cub Foods, The restrictions then applied to the land owned
by Cub Foods (Randalis International). Having difficulty with marketing the land, Cub Foods now
requests that the City amend the CZA to permit the Staples' proposed development.
issue
One question raised at your last City Council meeting was whether the private restrictions
essentially nullify the original CZA, or whether the restrictions so substantially change the CZA
so as to constitute either a breach of the contract or an unlawful unilateral recission of the CZA.
The answer to this question is "probably no." Although the higher amount of parking per square
foot ratio makes configuration of usable space on the Westport Plaza area more of a challenge,
City planners believe that the same cohesive, integrated and horizontal facade/continuity can
likely be attained -- even with the higher parking/square foot ratio imposed by the private restric-
tions. The only real change to the CZA by reason of the restrictive covenants is a smaller area
is available for usable square footage for retail buildings than originally contemplated.
Without an expenditure of considerable time and energy to design a mall, City staff cannot say
with a reasonable degree of certainty that the restrictive covenants completely eviscerate the
original CZA. My chances of success before a court of law or equity is slim.
2. QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED AT YOUR TUESDAY, JULY 16, 1996 MEETING
As noted above, the City is presented with a private property dispute, which is now perceived as
an Iowa City barrier to development. This is not the case.
In any event, you have three questions that should be answered at the Tuesday meeting:
2
Does the proposed Staples' development plan "substantially conform to the concep.
tual site plan dated April 20, 1989.., "as stated in the original conditional zoning
agreement?
To answer this question, you should compare Staples' proposed development with the Conceptual
Site Plan. PCD will have that available for your review on Monday, July 15. 1996.
If you find the Staples' proposal is "in substantial conformity" with the April 1989 Conceptual Site
Plan, then you may direct staff to proceed with approval of the Staples' development without
change to the original CZA. However, parliamentary procedure requires some action on the
agenda item; so if you answer this first question in the affirmative, then you may move to defer
indefinitely -- which would essentially be the end of the item.
t
Does the proposed Staples' site conform to the cohesivehess and horizontal conti-
nuity requirement, but does not conform to the Conceptual Site Plan?
tf the answer to this question is "yes," then you should proceed to approve the proposed amend-
ed conditional zoning agreement. This will clarify that Staples should be allowed to build in the
Westport Plaza area.
Does the proposed Staples' site fail completely to conform with the original condi-
tional zoning agreement, both in spirit, intent and letter of the agreement?
If the answer to this question is "yes," then you should defeat the proposed conditional zoning
agreement and suggest that Staples' (or Cub Foods) seek a different design or seek to negotiate
with Walmart on the restrictive covenants.
Please call if you have questions.
cc: City Clerk
City Manager
Assistant City Manager
Karin Franklin, PCD Director
Bob Miklo, Senior Planner
Sarah Holecek, Assistant City Attorney
Staples' Development
City of iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 12, 1996
To: City Council
From: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Re: REZ96-0010 Westpod Plaza
At the July 2nd public hearing Staples presented information regarding their request to amend
the Conditional Zoning Agreement for Westpod Plaza. Not discussed were some of the points
behind staff and Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation that the agreement not be
amended at this time. Staples focused on paragraph 7 which discusses the facades of the retail
center having horizontal continuity. in the context of simply paragraph 7 one could make an
argument that the Staples plan as submitted is in general compliance with the Conditional Zoning
Agreement. However, if the proposal is viewed in context of the overall Agreement, including
paragraph 6, which refers to the conceptual site plan for the overall shopping center, the proposal
as submitted by the applicant does not appear to comply.
When the original rezoning for Westport Plaza was presented to the City, the Joseph Company
indicated that this shopping center design would generally conform to the concept site plan
depicting an "L" shaped shopping center with stores and a sidewalk connection between the two
main anchors (Walmart and Cub Foods). This was the case presented to the Planning and
Zoning Commission and the City Council as a justification for approving a development that would
be an integrated shopping center and not a series of unrelated stores. This was agreed to by all
parties in the Conditional Zoning Agreement and the current owner, Cub Foods (Randali's
International), purchased the property with this condition.
The Staples store itself and the type of business which it is, or the design of its store is not at
issue. What is at issue is that the extra parking being proposed, (358 spaces compared to only
310 spaces required by the City), which Staples has indicated is necessary to comply with the
Walmart imposed restrictive covenants, precludes the possibility that additional retail square
footage will ever connect the proposed Staples and the Walmart store.
Council should be aware that when Planning and Zoning Commission was reviewing this
application they expressed a willingness to work with Staples on a design that would come as
close as possible to meeting the needs of Staples, as well as adhering to the spirit of the original
Conditional Zoning Agreement. The Planning and Zoning Commission requested that the Staples
consent to a deferral so that an alternative plan could be discussed which would address some
of the concerns, including traffic concerns discussed below, that were raised by staff and the
Commission. Staples at that time decline to grant a deterral and the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended unanimously denial due to their dissatisfaction with the plan.
If a determination is made that the originally promised conditions contained in the Conditional
Zoning Agreement should be removed, the plan raises concerns about design for traffic safety
reasons and circulation. The Planning and Zoning Commission and staff are concerned with the
location of the driveway to the additional parking area proposed by Staples. The Commission
indicated a desire to work with Staples to relocate the driveway to a safer location and indicated
2
that the applicant should work with Walmart to use the existing driveway so that an additional
point of access at the corner was not necessary. Again, Staples declined to defer the application
to address this concern. Regardless of the Council's decision pertaining to the Conditional Zoning
Agreement, staff recommends that the traffic circulation and driveway locations of the currant
design be reconfigured to minimize potential traffic conflicts.
Given this background, staff has identified the following alternatives for the Council's consider-
ation:
The Council could leave the Conditional Zoning Agreement as is. This would place the
responsibi!ity for resolving the issue regarding parking with Cub Foods and Walmart, both
of which purchased the property with knowledge of the commitments made in the
Conditional Zoning Agreement. A possible solution for Cub Foods would be to negotiate
with Walmart to amend the private covenants to reduce the parking requirement. This
would allow Staples to build their store and would reserve the space for further
development in compliance with the original agreement with the City.
Council could determine that an integrated, unified shopping center as illustrated in the
original concept plan contained in the Conditional Zoning Agreement was no longer
necessary. This would allow Staples to pave the portion of the site that the concept plan
shows reserved for future retail development. If the Council chooses this alternative, it
would be your practice to meet with the Planning and Zoning Commission to discuss
amendment of the agreement. Staff would recommend in this case that resolution of
traffic cimulation concerns also be addressed.
Council could determine that the Conditional Zoning Agreement should be interpreted in
such a way that the plan submitted by Staples is in compliance with the original concept
plan depicting an open "L" shopping center. Because interpretations of the zoning
ordinance ara generally made by the Board of Adjustment, the Council could consider
directing the Board of Adjustment to review this matter.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANS,
SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT AND
ESTIMATED COST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF WELL HOUSE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
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 plans, specifications, form of
contract and estimated cost for the construction of
the Well House Improvements, in said City at 7:00
P.M. on the 16th day of July, 1996, said meeting to
be held in the Council Chambers in the Civic
Center in said City.
Said plans, specifications, form of contract and
estimated cost are now on file in the office of the
City Clerk in the Civic Center 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