HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-03-07 Public hearingNOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing
will be held by the City Council of Iowa City,
Iowa, at 7:30 p.m. on the 7th day of March,
1995, in the Civic Center Council Chambers,
410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa; at
which hearing the Council will consider:
An ordinance amending the Conditional
Zoning Agreement for 1069 Highway 1
(Westport Plaza) to allow an additional free-
standing pylon sign.
Copies of the proposed ordinance 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 I(. KARR, CITY CLERK
ORDINANCENO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.
89-3418 AND THE ACCOMPANYING CONDI-
TIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT FOR APPROXI-
MATELY 28 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF
HIGHWAY 1 WEST.
WHEREAS, on June 13, 1989, the City
Council approved Ordinance No. 89-3418
(hereafter "Ordinance"), rezoning approximately
28 acres known as Westport Plaza located
south of Highway 1 West from I-1, Industrial,
to CC-2, Community Commercial; and
WHEREAS, said Ordinance authorized execu-
tion of a Conditional Zoning Agreement be-
tween the City of Iowa City and the Joseph
Company, the original developer of Westport
Plaza; and
WHEREAS, condition//5.a. of the Conditional
Zoning Agreement restricted Westport Plaza to
no more than two (2) free-standing signs; and
WHEREAS, condition 10 of the Agreement
specified that the agreement shall be deemed a
covenant running with the land and shall inure
to the benefit of all successors and assignees
of the subject property; and
WHEREAS, General Mills Restaurants, Inc.
has purchased Lot 3 of Westport Plaza; and
'' WHEREAS, General Mills Restaurants, Inc.
has requested that the City Council amend the
Conditional Zoning Agreement to allow the
addition of a third freestanding sign on the
subject property; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the
addition of a third freestanding sign on the
subject property is not counter to the compre-
hensive plan policy of preserving and enhancing
the entranceways to Iowa City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA THAT:
SECTION I. Ordinance Ne. 93-3465 and the
accompanying Conditional Zoning Agreement
are amended by deleting Section 5.a. of the
Agreement and adopting, in lieu thereof, the
following:
a. No more than three (3) freestanding
signs will be permitted on the develop-
ment site known as Westport Plaza.
One of the three permitted freestanding
signs shall be ~11owed on Lot 3 of
Westport Plaza.
Ordinance No.
Page 2
b. The Ordinance and amended Condition-
al Zoning Agreement, after adoption,
shall be recorded in the Johnson Coun-
ty Recorder's Officer at the expense of
General Mills Restaurants, Inc.
SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and
parts of ordinances in conflict with the provi-
sions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any sectior{,
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
ppdadmin~genmiils.ord
AMENDED CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a Municipal
Corporation (hereinafter "City") and General Mills Restaurant, Inc. (hereinafter "Developer").
#
WHEREAS, Developer is legal title holder of Lot 3 of Westport Plaza; and
WHEREAS, on June 13, 1989, the City Council of Iowa City approved Ordinance No. 89-3418
(hereinafter"Ordinance") rezoning approximately 28 acres, known as Westport Plaza from I-1,
Industrial, to CC-2, Community Commercial; and
WHEREAS, said Ordinance authorized execution of a Conditional Zoning Agreement between
the City and the Joseph Company, the original developer of Westport Plaza; and
WHEREAS, condition 5.a. of the Conditional Zoning Agreement restricted Westport Plaza to
no more than two (2) freestanding signs; and
WHEREAS, the City and Developer now wish to amend the Conditional Zoning Agreement to
allow the addition of a third freestanding sign.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City and Developer agree as follows:
The Conditional Zoning Agreement dated June 13, 1989, shall be and is hereby
amended by deleting Section 5.a. of said Agreement and inserting, in lieu thereof, the
following:
No more than three (3) freestanding signs will be permitted on the development
site known as Westport Plaza. One of the three permitted freestanding signs
shall be allowed on Lot 3 of Westport Plaza.
The City and Developer acknowledge that the conditions contained herein are
reasonable conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code Section 414.5 (1993) and
area appropriate conditions required to satisfy public needs directly caused by the
rezoning of this property.
Developer acknowledges that in the event that subject property is transferred, sold,
redeveloped, or subdivided, all development will confirm with all the terms of this
Agreement.
The City and Developer acknowledge that this amended Conditional Zoning Agreement
shall be deemed to be a covenant running with the land and with the title to the land
and shall remain in full force and effect as a covenant with the title to the land, unless
or until release by record by the City.
The City and Developer furlher acknowledge that this Agreement shall inure to the
benefit of and bind all successors, representatives and assignees of the City and the
developer. Nothing in this Agreement in any way alters, amends or modifies the original
Conditional Zoning Agreement except as set forth above.
The City and Developer agree that Developer shall record this amended Conditional
Zoning Agreement in the Johnson County Recorder's Office.
-2-
.Dated this day of , 1995.
GENERAL MILLS RESTAURANT, INC.
CITY OF IOWA CITY
By By
Susan M. Horowitz, Mayor
Attest:
Marian K. Karr, City Clerk
STATE OF IOWA )
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this day of ,1995, before me,
, a Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa, personally appeared Susan M.
Horowitz and Marian K. Karr, to me personally known, and, who, being by me duly sworn, did
say that they are the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City, Iowa; that the
seal affixed to the foregoing instrument is the corporate seal of the corporation, and that the
instrument was signed and sealed on behalf of the corporation, by authority of its City Council,
as contained in Ordinance No. passed by the City Council on the
day of ,19 , and that and Marian K. Karr
acknowledged the execution of the instrument to be their voluntary act and deed and the
voluntary act and deed of the corporation, by it voluntarily executed.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
-3-
STATE OF IOWA
SS:
JOHNSON COUNTY
On this day of , A.D. 19 , before me, the undersign;d,
a Notary Public ~n and for the State of Iowa, personally appeared
and , tome personally known,
who, being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the and
, respectively, of said corporation executing the within and foregoing
instrument to which this is attached, that (no seal has been procured by the said) corporation;
that said instrument was signed {and sealed) on behalf of (the seal affixed thereto is the seal
of said) said corporation by authority of its Board of Directors; and that the said
and as such officers acknowledged the
execution of said instrument to be the voluntary act and deed of said corporation, by it and by
them voluntarily executed.
Notary Public in and for said County and State
ppdadrntn~g enmiils.cz a
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 2, 1995
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Robed Miklo, Senior Planner
Re: REZ95-0002, Westpod Plaza Conditional Zoning Agreement
In June of 1989 the City rezoned the properly which contains Westpod Plaza from I-1, Industrial
to CC2, Community Commercial. The rezoning was subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement
which specified infrastructure improvements and design requirements for the Westport Plaza
Development. The Conditional Zoning Agreement contains restriction allowing only two free
standing signs for the overall Westpod Plaza development. The applicant, Chandler Signs, Inc.
on behalf of its client Red Lobster, is requesting that the Conditional Zoning Agreement be
amended to allow the addition of a third free standing sign (see attached letter dated January
12, 1995).
At the time of the Westpod Plaza rezoning, the shopping center was presented by the applicant
to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council as an integrated shopping center.
The applicant assured the City that the development would not be a typical stdp development
and entered into the Conditional Zoning Agreement to help assure that this would be the case.
At the time of the rezoning a concern on the pad the City was the appearance of the
southwestern entranceway to the city. The Comprehensive Plan contains policies designed to
assure that entranceways to the city are attractive. The Planning and Zoning Commission and
City Council upheld these policies by conditionally rezoning the Westpod Plaza site.
As noted, the Conditional Zoning Agreement restricts the overall shopping center development
to two freestanding signs. This was intended to minimize the amount of visual clutter that would
be created if each business in the development was allowed to have an individual free standing
sign. The two freestanding signs which are permitted can be designed to allow a number of
businesses to be represented on those to signs. In addition to being represented on the two
permitted free standing signs, businesses within the Westpod Plaza development are allowed
additional sign options, including fascia signs on each building, and one of the following types
of signs: monument sign, canopy sign, awning sign or window sign.
Staff believes that the sign options available to each business within the shopping center are
generous and should be sufficient to allow the general public to identify each business.
In addition the two existing free-standing signs can include the applicant's business. To amend
the Conditional Zoning Agreement to allow an additional freestanding sign would be counter
to the policy of encouraging an attractive appearance of this entranceway to the city, and
would be counter to the development plan submitted by the applicant at the time the City
rezoned the property. For this reason staff recommends that the proposed amendment to the
Conditional Zoning Agreement not be approved.
2
In a broader sense, staff is also concerned that the City not make piece meal amendments
counter to the original intent of Conditional Zoning Agreements. In some cases it is possible
that the City would not approve requested rezonings unless the applicant's and property owners
had agreed to the specifics in a Conditional Zoning Agreement. Unless there is compelling
reason to amend a Conditional Zoning Agreement, such as a change in City policy, staff
believes they should be adhered to as closely as possible. Otherwise, the conditional zoning
process would be undermined, as applicants would agree to conditions in order to get favorable
approval of their rezonings, and then would at a later date come in and request that those
conditions be removed.
In this padicular case there appears to be no compelling reason to amend the specifics of the
Westport Plaza Conditional Zoning Agreement. The zoning agreement as it stands allows the
business represented by the applicant a generous allocation for signage. To amend the
Conditional Zoning Agreement to allow additional signage would be counter to the intent of
minimizing the strip commercial appearance of Westport Plaza.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the proposed amendment to the Westport Plaza Conditional Zoning
Agreement be denied.
and Community Development
Attachments:
1. Applicant's Letter
2, Sign Plan
3. Plot Plan
Chandler
Signs
INCORPORATED
January 12, 1995
0es:gners/Manu[acture[s
City of Iowa City
Planning and Community Development
410 East Washington
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Complete Graphic P~rarns
Insla]lalion~Valnt enance
RE:
Red Lobster #759, 1069 Highway 1 West, Westport Pi~,
Iowa City, Iowa, Freestanding Pylon Sign Amendment To
Conditional Zoning Agreement By Chandler Signs
Dear Board Members:
Chandler Signs, Inc.,agents for General Mills Restaurants, Inc.,
owner and operator of the new Red Lobster restaurant to be located
at 1069 Highway 1 West, Westport Plaza, request that the
Conditional Zoning Agreement, Ordinance 89-3418, be amended to
allow this Red Lobster restaurant to have it's own freestanding
pylon sign that meets the City of Iowa City requirements in all
areas, to include treatment, square footage, and overall height.
In order for this new Red Lobster restaurant to have every
opportunity to be of total success, it is extremely important to
properly identify its location to traffic on Highway 1. This site
sets several feet below Highway 1 and needs the height and square
footage of the proposed freestanding display in order to properly
and safely address this high traffic count.
In order to permit the proposed pylon sign, we, Chandler Signs,
Inc. agents for General Mills Restaurants, Inc., request that the
onazt[onal Zoning Agreement be amended to allow an additional
freestanding display.
General Mills Restaurants, Inc., owner and operator of Red Lobster
restaurants throughout the United States and foreign countries has
established an identity known to many. Part of that identity is
their trademark sign display, that of the copy, Red Lobster plus
their very creative and well known "critter". The pylon sign is
in itself, a very important and useful statement that is a part of
this very successful operation.
12106 Vailrant
San Anlonio. Texas 78216
(210) 349-3804
FAX: (210) 349-8724
City of Iowa City
Red Lobster ~759
Page 2
Please note that the developers of this site have agreed to allow
the Red Lobster to have its own freestanding display, subject to
the approvals/permits, by the City of Iowa City. (see copies of
"Agreement to Amend ECR", attached).
The schedule for installation of displays for this Red Lobster
restaurant is 3/27/95. This date is important to us in order to
meet General Mills Restaurants, Inc. installation deadlines. This
Red Lobster restaurant is scheduled to actually open 5/15/95. In
order to meet our deadlines, we (Chandler Signs) would appreciate
your consideration for the amendment and would also appreciate this
consideration to be expedited.
If you should have any questions, concerns, or need additional
information, please contact me immediately.
Respectfully submitted,
William H. Macrum
WHM/pp
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing
will be held by the City Council of Iowa City,
Iowa, at 7:30 p.m. on the 28th day of Febru-
ary, 1995, in the Civic Center Council Cham-
bers, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City,
Iowa; at which hearing the Council will consid-
er:
1. An ordinance conditionally amending the
use regulations of approximately 13.09
acres located at 655 Meadow Street from
RM-12 and RS-5 to RS-8.
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
CRES-
INFORMAT~ON TECHNOLOGIES
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 7:30 p.m. on the 28th day of Febru-
ary, 1995, in the Civic Center Council Cham-
bers, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City,
Iowa; at which hearing the Council will consid-
er:
1. An ordinance conditionally amending the
use regulations of approximately 13.09
acres located at 655 Meadow Street from
RM-12 and R$-5 to RS-8.
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
TO:
PROTEST OF REZONING
HONORASLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
IOWA ClT'(, IOWA
We, Ihe undersigned, being the owners of twenty percent or more of the are;l of the property
Included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of twenty percent or more of the
pmpe~ which Is located within two hundred feel of the exterior boundaries of the property for
which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the mzoning of the following property:
'l~is palilion is signed and acknowledged by each of us wilh the intangon lhat such rezoning
shall not become effective except by the laverable vole of at least three.fourths of all the
members of the council, all in accordance with {}414,5 of the Code of Iowa.
By:
Owne,,(s) ot
Property Address
STATE OF iOWA ) ' ' ............. ,~ J
JOHNSON COUNTY-)
foe? :~ ~--oi n~t~Ya°nld '~tate, 13.'~c/~errer ~-'cJ' '~- ' bet°re 'he' the un~fersi;ned, a N°ta'3/Pu bl'~'nand
ty ~te, ~r~ y appeared ,~<~ T. ~*Y~ [~. and
to me known to be the identical peruone named in grid who
executed ~e ~thin ~d foregoing ins~ment an,; acknowledged ~at ~ey executed the same
~ ~eir vo~unt~ a~ ~d deed.
Sy:
Owner(e) of
Propen',/Address
STATE OF iOWA )
) $a:
JOHN80N COUNTY )
On this __ day of ,19 , Lefore me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and
for said County and Slale, personally appeared and
to me known to be the idenlical persons named in and who
execuled the wilhln and loregoing lnslrumant and acknowledged thai they executed lhe same
ae lheir volunlar/act and deed.
~1olmy Public in and for the State of Iowa
OBJECTION STATEMENT
As ownera of property located within £00 feet of the exterior bounder es of the affected
property, protesting the rezonlng, we have stated object OhS to the specific rezonJng under
consideration -- RM-12, Low Density Mu t-Family Res den tial, and RS-5, Low D~nslty Single-Family
Residential, to RS-P,, Medium Density Single-Family Residestie located at 65~ Meadow Street
(west of Dover Street, north of Muscallne Avenue}. These staled objections are:
STATE OF IOWA )
) $$;
JOHNSON COUNTY )
C
~y blic in and for Ihe Slate ~ Io~
TO:
PROTEST OF FIEZONING
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
IOWA CITY, (OWA
We. Ihe undersigned, being the owners of h'lenty percent or more of t~e area of the prope~
included in the proposed zoning change, or tho owners of twenty percent or more of the
pmpe~y which Is located within two hundred feel of the extedor boundaries of the property for
which the zaning change is proposed, do hereby prolest the rezoning ol the following properly:
'l~is petilion is signed and acknowledged by each ot us with ,,he intention that such rezoning
shall not become elfactive except by [ha favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the
members ot the council, all In accordance with §414.5 o! the Code of Iowa.
Owner(s) o( Property Address
STATE OF IOWA )
)
JOHNSON'C~30NTY") ..........
On Ihis,~7~ay of _~. 19~, before m~he undersigned, a Nota~ Public in and
for said~n~ and State, g~sonally appeared '~Ecn.~ ~.~e~ and
~ ~ to me known to be Ihe identical persons named in a~who
executed the within and (oregoing Instrument a~d ackQow)edged that they executed lite same
as ~alr vomunt~ am ~d deed. .3~/~/,
By:
owner(s) of
Property Address
STATE OF IOWA
JOHNSON COUNTY
On this day of , t 9___, before me. the undersigned, a Nota~/Public in and
tot said County and State, personally appeared and
Io me known to be tile idenlical persons named in and who
executed Ihe wilhin and loregoing insl~ument and acknowledged that they execuled the same
as their voluniao/act and deed.
Nola~/Public in and (or the State of Iowa~
OBJECTION STATEMENT
As owners of property located within 200 feet o.' the exterior bouodarles of tho [:;tacted
pr.o.perty., prot_e.s.tlr~g the rezonlng we have statod ol iectlons to he '.~peclflc rezon~.:g under
cons~oeratlon -- h~M- 12, Low Density Muir-Fatally R~idr~ntlal, and RS-5, Low Density '~1 ::11q-Fam
Residential, to RS-~3, Medium Density Single-Fsmily' I'~.Hdential located st 655 Meadow .'.;treat
(west of Dover ~treet, north ol Muscatlne ,",'venue). These stated obJectlo~: nre:
-i
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this .~_'t"day of F,~--,~,?, 1 g ~,~,, before me, Ihe undersigned, a Nolan/Public in and
for said Co_._unl~ and Slale, personally appeared ~¢ ~, ~ and
to me known to be the iden~l persons n~]ed in ~d who
executed the within and foregoing ins[rumenl and acknowledg~ that ~ey execuled ~e same
as their volunta~ a~ and deed. J.'~ I~B.~
I~1 ~{~/*~ I
TO:
PROTEST OF REZONING
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, being the owners ot twenty percent or more el the area ol the properly
included in the proposed zoning change, or Ihe owners of twenty percent or moro of the
property which is located within two hundred tent ot 'Jle extedor boundaries of the property for
which Ihe zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning el the following property:
This perilion is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the inlanlion Ihal such rezoning
shall nol become effective except by Ihe laverable vote of at least three-fourths of all the
members of the COuncil, all in accordance with §4t4,5 of the Code of Iowa.
~Y: Owner(s) of Property Address ..r.
STATE OF IOWA ) - :~ ' -
) 8a:
JOHNSON 00UNTY--) ....... .:
On Ihis A-~'~day el F~&.,~.,*y, · -' , -'
~ 19 '~, before me, Ihe undersigned, a Notary Public in and
for said County and Slate, Fersonafiy appeared ~ ~, T,~u/,.~r.-' '~'~ and
~ ~' to me known to be the identical persons named in and who
execuled the wilhin and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same
er[sJ o! / Properly Address '
STATE OF IOWA
as:
JOHNSON COUNTY
On Ihis __ day of ., t g , balers me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and
for said County and Slale, personally appeared and
to me known to be Ihe identical persons named in and who
execuled Ihe within and foregoing thsbumant and acknowledged that Ihey execuled the same
as Iheir voluntaP/act and deed,
Nolary Public in and for the Slate of Iowa
OI3JECTION STATEMENT
As owners of property located within 200 feet of the exterior boundaries of the afrotied
property protesting the rezon ncJ, we have stated objections to the specific fezoffing under
consldera tion -- RM-12, Low Density Mult-Femlly Residential, and RS*5, Low Density .~ingl,~.-Family
Residential, to Rg-8, Medium Density Sintile-Family Re."idenfial located at 655 Mesdow :;treet
(west of Dover Street, north of jvl[~scatln3 ,~venue), These stated objections ;Ire:
STATE OF IOWA
JOHNSON COUNTY
0on Ihls ~.~'hday of .--------..~"~7,1975', before me~l le undersigned, a Notary Public in and
r said Counly and State, personally appeared .___~,~.. ~7-, ~-~.~Z,,~- and
~ to me known to be the identical persons named i~ and who
executed Ihe within and Iotagoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed Iha same
as their voluntary act and deed.
· ' State of I~
From:
RE:
Background:
Issues of
Importance:
Of Major
Concern~
The property owners of 20% or more of the area located within 200 ~.e, et of the
exterior boundaries of the affected property. '" '
Nick Chmaruk, Neighborhood Advocate ~
909 Dover Street '
Iowa City, IA 52245 --
Phone: 339~0620 or 339-0280
East Hill Subdivision, Inc, (land developer) application to the Iowa-City Mann ng and
Zoning Oommision to REZONE the field bordered to the south by'Georg~ L, Gay Funeral
Home, to the north by Ralston Creek, to the west by Memory GardenS'Cemetery, and
to the east by Dover Street to be developed as a residential subdivision (proposed
rezoning RM~12 and RS-$ to RS-8 at 655 Meadow Street),
Formal Protest to the rezo~iing of this property.
Dear Neighbor:
The letter you received from the Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission dated
January 11, 4995 stated ~ majority of the 13,09 acre field is currently zoned for
Low Density Multi-Family f' esidences referred to as RM-t2. RM-t2 designates up to
1 ~ living units per acre occupying the property in the form of duplexes, condos, or
apartments, A small area at the north end of the field paralleling Ralston Oreek is
currently zoned for Low Density Single-Family Residences, referred to as RS-5, RS-5
designates up to five living units per acre occupying that property In the form of
single family homes.
The Planning and Zoning Commission staff report of January 6 1995 recommends
the Oommission approve the rezoning application by East Hill Subdivision, Inc,, This
rezoning proposal would change the current RM-t2 and RS-5 zoning to Medium
Density Single-Family Residences referred to as RS-8, RS-8 designates up to eight
living units per acre occupying the whole property, The concept plan by the land
developer shows 36 lots with 72 living units in the form of duplexes occupying this
property if the rezoning is approved by the Planning and Zoning Oommission and
subsequently passed by the City Oouncil,
According to the Commission staff report, if development of this site is to occur,
"the existing (current) RM-~ 2 zoning appears to be inappropriate for this site due to
Its limited access, The Single access to this site is a local street,,,,,,The only point of
access for residential development on this site is at the northeast corner of the site
near the intersection of Meadow Street and Perry Court,,.,the additional traffic that
would be generated If this site is developed would be [travelting] through the
adjacent neighborhoQds -- either along Dover Street or along Friendship Street."
According to the Commission staff report, "The proposed rezoning represents a
decrease in density for most of the property and thus a smaller increase in traffic
than what would result if the property was developed under current zoning," The
report admits current zoning "appears to be inappropriate for this site due to Its
limited access," Therefore, one could conclude that under current zonlng~
development would not occur, The current zoning, RM-12 (Low Density Mult-Family
Residential) went into effect when the new City Zoning Code was adopted in ~9~3,
At that time Memory Oardens~ Inc, was granted a special exception for the
cemetery to expand with cemetery lots within the current proposed development
site,
Even with the proposed rezoning, access and related traffic problems are still of
concern. The staff report continues, "The single access to this site is a local street,
The City's secondary access standards suggest that the traffic volume threshold
for a local street be 500 vehicles per day," With the creation of a 36 lot
subdivision, if rezonlng goes through, 72 living units could ensue resulting in an
average of seven ~vehicular trips per day per unit, Seven vehicular trips per day
per unit X 72 units 504 vehicles per day entering and exiting the subdivision
through a single access point creating considerable additional traffic along Dover,
Friendship, and Meadow Streets, and Perry Oourt. The projected 504 vehicles
entering and exiting the proposed subdivision site per day exceeds the Clty's
Secondary access standard calculation for traffic volume threshold.
~f Male,r,
he bove S04 flgr takes Into ocou. onl s cess o"
Friendship, and Meadow Street8 vnd Perry Court, Dover Street Is densely pc ulated
and there Is considerable curb-side parking on both Dover Street and Friendship
Street, Dover Street to Perry Court to Meadow Street Is used as a high-speed
shortcut, The amount of traffic 18 increasing on all ~our streets especially around peak
drive time8 and will continue to do so as development continues toward Scott Bird,
and Eaqles Supermarket opens, With development of the proposed subdivision, there
would be an Increased number of children walking to and ~rom the already crowded
Lucas School, crossing these streets and this dense area o~ access, All traffic
congestion comes to one point a~ peak drive times before and a~ter school, Specific
sire distances ~rom the curves a~ the access point to the proposed subdivision are
not good. The hilly terrain and almost blind curves on the adjoining local streets
leading to and From the proposed access point to the subdivision pose a safety
hazard,
Action
Request:
Reminder:
For the above reasons, a case can be made that If the rezonlng for the proposed site
ia approved by the Planning and Zoning Commiaeion and eubeequently paeeed by the
City Council, what will result at the point of access.on Dover Street, on Friendship
Streetj on Meadow Street, and on Perry Court will be problems of traffic access,
traffic congestion, traffic concen .ration~ traffic flowj children's safety, and accidents
waiting to happen,
The adjacent neighborhood property owners along Dover Street and Friendship Street
Invite the Planning and Zoning Co~nmissi.)n to take these traffic problem factors Into
consideration before rendering a dEcisi3n whether or not to recommend rezonlng to
the City Council, The one and only access point to the proposed subdivision site will
create traffic problems way beyond the ones that already exist at the present time,
The w,a,y Friendship, Meadow, and Dove. r Stree.ts and Perry Court were planned
origina.ly~ no one could have forecast the trafhc problems that exist currently on
these local streets, The adjacent neighboring street property owners' existing traffic
problems would be exacerbated by rezonlng the proposed subdivision site,
Even though 3~ signatures were obtained from Dover Street residents January ~9,
1995 opposing the fezchins of RM-12 and RS-5 to RS-8 located at 655 Meadow Street~
It is necessary to follow formal protest guidelines, Enclosed please find a Protest of
Rezorflng form _and O..b. jectlon S. tatement form, If you wish to ~rotest the rezoni n
application by , , _ n=
~ast Hill Subdiwslon~ 1,3(.. please complete these forms, Then in the
presence of Notary Public Suzanne S~.reitz, 847 Dover Street (phone 338-3044) sign and
date the 'forms,'-~' take ybur completed forms to Suzanne's house to be notarized on
Tuesday January 24th between 7',00 and 9:00 pro, Friday January 27th between 5:00
and 7:00 pro, or call her for an appointment, There will be NO CHARGE for notarlzing
these forms, For legal reasons~ the City Council will only consider notarized Protests to
Rezoning,
Please do not put off completing an(; having notarlzed these Protest and Objection
forms if you are opposed to the fez )ning. Time is of the essence. February 2nd Is the
next hearing date before the Plannh:g and Zoning Commission, It is crucial to have as
many completed forms as possible for submission on that date,
If you have any Questions regardi ](j this letter please do not hesitate to contact me at
339-0620 or 339'-0280.
Sincerely,
Nick Ohmaruk
909 Dover Street
TO:
PROTEST OF REZONING
HONORABLE MAYOR AND crPf COUNCIL
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, Iha undersigned, being the owners of twenty percent or more of the area el Ihe property
included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of twenty percent or more el the
property which is Iocaled wilhin two hundred feel of the exterior boundaries of the property for
which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning el lhe following property:
This petition is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the intenUon thai such rezoning
shall not become effective except by the laverable vote of at least three-fourths of all the
members of the council, aJI in accordance with §414.5 of the Code of Iowa.
Owner(a) of
Properly Address
STATE OF IOWA )
) es:
JOHNSON COUNTY-) ......
On Ibis .Z?~dey of. JC~4,.,.,,.~! , 19 ~,, before me, Ihe undersigned, a Nota,'y Public in and
for said County and State, personally appeared ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ and
"-- '-'-'" to me known to be the idenlical persons named in and who
execuled the within and foregoing instmmenl and acknowledged that they execuled the same
as their voluntary act and deed. J.,,,~l~jNmcllou,sB. cm,~j
Nola~/Public in and for the Slate of Iowa
By:
Owner(e) of
STATE OF IOWA
JOHNSON COUNTY
Property Address
On this, day of .19 , before me, lhe undersigned, a Notary Publt~',in and
let said County and Slate, personally a~peared -- and
to me known Io be the idenlical persons named in and who
executed the within and foregoing inslrumant and acknowledged that they executed the same
as their voluniao/ act and deed,
Notary Public in and for the 81ate of Iowa
OBJEOTION ST~TE~NT
As owners oF property located within P.00 Feet of the exterior boundaries of the e feared
property, protesting the rezonlng~ we h~tve state(' objections to the specific rezo~dvg under
consideration -- RM~ 12, Low Density Muir~Family Re'.:identlsl, and RS-5, Low Density .qi,~gla-Famlly
Residential, to RS-8, Medium Density Sine I(.-Fsmily I)e.~ide[itlal located at 655 Meade;,: :;treet
(west oF Dover Street, north of Ivluscatlne Avenue). These stated obJec[i,m: are:
Owner{~}-~-£
STATE OF IOWA )
)
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this Z.'T~ay of ~.c~,-,,,,.,.~,, f9 ~5', bolero me, :he undersigned, a Notary Public in and
Ior said County and State, personally appeared ._~_/~, L~_e_ and
to me known to ~ the identical persons named in and who
executed the within and foregoing in:~b,u.m~.~B ~.~l~[ledged that riley executed Ihe same
as their voluntary act and deed. L~I~"~'~
/'m>l
No[aP/Public in and for Ihe State of Iowa "'
From:
RE:
Background:
Issues of
Importance:
The property owners of 20% or more of the area located within 200 feet of the
exterior boundaries of the affected property.
Nick Chmaruk, Neighborhood Advoc,.~te
909 Dover Street
Iowa Olty, IA 52245
Phone: 339-0620 or 339-0280
East Hill Subdivision Inc. (land developer) application to the fowa City Pk:nr.!n~ and
Zon ng Commision to REZONE the field bordered to the south by George L; (~,~/'Funeral
Home, to the north by Ralston Oreck, to the west by Memory Gardb.._ns CS, notary, and
to the east by Dover Street to be developed as a residential sub.di~/Isier~:(proposed
rezoning RM-12 and RS-5 to RS-8 at 655 Meadow Street), -- ---
Formal Protest to the rezoning of this property.
Dear Neighbor:
The letter you received from the iowa City Planning and Zoning Oomml~=i.:,n dated
January 11, t995 stated s majority of the 13,09 acre field is currently zoned for
Low Density Multi-Family Residences referred to as RM-12, RM-12 desk,,lates up to
12 living units per acre occupying the property in the form of duplexes,-condos, or
apartments. A small area at the north end of the field paralleling Ralston Creek is
currently zoned for Low Density Single-Family Residences, referred to a¢, RS-5, RS-5
designates up to five living units per acre occupying that property in the form of
single family homes,
The Planning and Zoning Commission sts~ff report of January 6, 1995 recommends
the Commission approve the rezoning 8pplication by East Hill Subdivision, inc.. This
fezchins proposal would change the current RM-12 and RS-5 zoning to Medium
Density Single-Family Residences referred to as RS-8, RS-8 designates up to eight
living units per acre occupying the whole property, The concept plan by ths land
developer shows 36 lots with 72 livi~tg units in the form of duplexes occupying this
property if the fezchins is approved b;/ the Planning and Zoning OGremiss!on and
subsequently passed by the City Oouncil,
According to the Commission staff report, if development of this site is to occur,
"the existing (current) RM-12 zoning appears to be inappropriate for this site due to
Its limited access, The Single access to this site is a local street,,,,,,The only point of
access for residential development on this site is at the northeast corner o¢ the site
near the intersection of Meadow Stree,'. and Perry Oourt..,..the additional traffic that
would be generated If this site is developed would be (travelling] through the
adjacent neighborhoods -- either e. long Dover Street or along Friendship ~;treet,"
According to the Commission staff repci-t, "The proposed fezchins represents a
decrease in density for most 0f the property and thus a smaller increase in traffic
than what would result if the property was developed under current zonlng," The
report admits current zoning "appears to be inappropriate for this site due to Its
limited access," Therefore, one could conclude that under current zon:ng,
development would not occur, The current zoning, Rlvl-12 (Low Bensity Muir-Family
Residential) went into effect when the new City Zoning Code was adopt3d in 1983,
At that time Memory Gardens, Inc, was granted a special exception for the
cemetery to expand with cemetery lots witllin the current proposed development
site,
Even with the proposed rezoning, access and related traffic problems are still of
concern, The staff report continues, "The single access tO this site is a local street,
The City's secondary access standards suggest that the traffic volum:J threshold
for a local street be 500 vehicles per day," With the creation of a 36 lot
subdivision, If fezchins goes through, 72 living units could ensue resulting In an
average of seven vehicular trips per day per unit, Seven vehicular trip:; per day
per unit X 72 units = 504 vehicles per day entering and exiting the subdivision
through a single access point creating considerable additional traffic along Dover,
Friendship, and Meadow Streets, and Perry Oourt, The projected 504 vehicles
enterlncj and exiting the proposed subdivision site per day exceeds the Clty's
Secondary access standard calculation for traffic volume threshold.
......... ~'1 -'~'~',V ..... '~".'I' ", .... ,,,-,~ au.r~,,SS the existing or a(](]ed trattlC Impact o]3 ui}ver,
)'r~enoanlp~ an{3 Meadow Streets and Perry Court, Dover Street Is densely Fopu.atad
../_and there Is considerable curb-side parking on both Dover Street and Friend,ship
~_ / Street, Dover Street to Perry Court to Meadow Street Is used as a high-speed
shortcut, The amount of traffic Is it:creasing on all four streets especially arounJ peak
drive times and will continue to do ,':o as development continues toward Scott BWd,
and Eagles Supermarket opens, ~:it;] development of the proposed subdMslon, there
would be an Increased number of children walking to and from the already crowded
Lucas School, crossing these streets and this dense area of access, All tra,r,ic
congestion comes to one point at peak drive times before and after school. Specific
site distances from the curve8 at the access point to the proposed subdivi.;ion are
not good, The hilly terrain and aimoat blind c, urves on the adjoining local streets
, leadrag to and from the proposed access poet to the subdivision pose a safety
hazard,
For the above reasons, a case cnn be made that if the r,. ;oiling for the proposed site
is approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and s ~bsequently passed by the
City' Council, what will result at th~ point of access~ on Oo'.'er Street) on Fl'iendahip
Street, on Meadow Street, and on Perry Court will be pro['Isms of traffic access)
traffic congestlon~ traffic concentration, traffic flow, children's safety, and accidents
waltinq to happen,
Action
Request:
The adjacent neighborhood propcrty owners along Dover Street and Friendship Street
Invite the Planning and Zoning Commission to take these traffic problem factors Into
consideration before rendering a decision whether or not to recommend rezon!ng~to~ ~
the City Council, The one and only access point to the proposed subdivision site ~1 ~
create traffic problems way beyond tile ones that already exist at the present time,
The way Friendship, Meadow, and Dover Streets and Perry Court were planned
originally~ no one could have forecest the traffic problems that exist currently on
these local streets, The adjacent r:eighboring street property owners~ existing traffic
problems would be exacerbated by rezoning the proposed subdivision site,
Even though 3 i signatures were obtained from Dover Street residents January 19,
1995 opposing the rezonlng of RM-12 and RS-5 to RS-O located at 655 Meadow Street
it is necessary to follow formal protest guidelines, Enclosed please f nd a Protest of
Rezonincj form and Objection St,atement form, If you wish to protest the rezonlncj
application by East Hill Subdivis~on~ Inc,, please complete these forms, Then In the
presence_ of Notary Public Suzanne Streltz, 847 Dover Street (phone 338-3044) sign and
date the forms, So take your completed forms to Suzanne's house to be notarized on
Tuesday January 24th between 7:00 and 9:00 pro, Friday January 27th between
and 7:00 pro, or call her for an appointment· There will be NO OHARGE for notarlzlng
these forms, For legal reasons~ the City Council will only consider notarized Protests to
Rezoning.
Reminder:
Please do not put off completing and having notarlzed these Protest and Objection
forms If you are opposed to the rezonlng, Time is of the essence, February 2rid Is the
next hearing date before the Planning and Zoning Commission, It Is crucial to have as
many completed forms as possible for submission on that date,
If you have any q~estions regarding this letter please do not hesitate to contact me at
339-0620 or 339 0280,
Sincerely,
Nl~;k chmaruk
90'9 Dover Street
TO:
PROTEST OF REZONING
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
iOWA CITY, iOWA
We, Ihe undersigned, being Ihe owners of Iwenly percent or more el Ihe area o! the properly
included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of twenty percent or more of the
property which is located within two hundred feel el the exterior boundaries of the property [or
which Ihe zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of lbs following proper[y:
This petition is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the intenUon that such rezoning
shall not become effective except by the laverable vote of at least Ihree-fourths of all the
members el the council, all in accordance with §414.5 el the Code of Iowa.
By: '~(t ~,, ,_,_,._'
Owner(s) ol Property Address
STATE OF 10WA )
) ms:
JOHNSON COUNTY. ) ....
On this ~ay of F~,..~,~,.y, f9 ~...<, balers me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and
or said County and Slate, personally appeared ..~ ~ ~ L ~'.~ ~ c/.,.. and
~ ~ Is me known Is be Ihe identical persons named in and who
executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same
as their voluntary act and deed.I..~,.[t1~10~s8 CI~J~Lq(I
I'~': t ~/· ~/-~-.I .-~
Nota~"Publlc-in and for the State of Iowa '
By:
Owner(s) of
Property Address
STATE OF IOWA
JOHNSON COUNTY
On this day of ,1 g. , betore me, the undersigned, a Nola~-j3ubllo=J-.n and
for said Counly and Slate, personally appeared .) and
to me known Io be the identical persons named in aJ'1o~ who
exsculed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same
as their volunlary act and deed.
Notary Public In and lot the Slale ol Iowa
OBJEOTION STATEMENT
As owners of property located within 200 feet of the exterior boundaries of the affected
property protesting the rezonlng, we have stated ob actions to the specglc rezonlng under
consideration -- RM-42, Low Density Muir~Family Res dentlal, and RS-5, Low Density Single-Family
Residential, to RS-B, Medium Density Single-Family Residential located at G55 Meadow Street
(west of Dover Street, north of Muscatlne Avenue). These stated objections are:
STATE OF IOWA
JOHNSON COUNTY
On Ihls ~'~ r~'ay of ~'~'~.'~,~ , 19.?.5. before me, the undersigned, a Nota~/Public in and
for said Coun~ and State, personally appeared ~ ~ and
to me known to be the idenlical persons named in and who
executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same
as Iheir volunta~ a~ ~d deed. I~,1~.~1
I
I I
N~la~'~1ic in and for the Slate ~a
From:
RE:
Background:
I¢sue~ of
Importance:
The property owners of 20% or more of the area located within 200 feet of the
exterior boundaries of the affected property.
Nick Ohmaruk, Neighborhood Advocate
909 Dover Street : ~'
Iowa City, IA 52245
Phone: 339-0620 or 339-0280 --' "
East Hill Subdivision, Inc, (land deve!oper) application to the Iowa City PEnning and
Zoning Commision to REZONE the ['icld bordered to the south by G_eorge_~_, (~ay Funeral
Home, to the north by Ralston Oreck, to the west by Memory (~ardens_~emetary, and
to the east by Dover Street to be developed as a residential subdivision (proposed
rezoning RM-12 and RS-5 to RS~~ at 655 Meadow Street), - --
Formal Protest to the rezoning of this property.
Dear Neighbor:
The letter you received from the iowa City Planninq and Zoning Commission dated
January l ~, t995 stated a majority of the ~3,09 e~cre field is currently zoned for
Low Density Multi-Family Residences referred to as RM-12, RM-t2 designates up to
12 living units per acre occupying the property in the form of duplexes, condos, or
apartments, A small area at the r:orth end of the field paralleling Ralston Creek is
currently zoned for Low Density Single-Family Residences, referred to as RS-5, RS-5
designates up to five living units I:er acre occupying that property in the form of
single family homes,
The Planning and Zoning Commission s' .If report of January 6, 1995 recommends
the Commission approve the rezooing ..:pl!cation by East Hill Subdivision, Inc,, This
rezoning proposal would change the c':rrent RM-~2 and RS-5 zoning to Medium
Density Single-Family Residence,~ referred to as RS-8, RS-O designates up to eight
living units per acre occupying the wi~..:.!e property, The concept plan by the land
developer shows 36 lots with 72 livin j .mits in the form of duplexes occupying this
property if the rezoning is approved L · the Planning and Zoning Con,mission and
subsequently passed by the City Cou~";Jl,
According to the Commission st,.~f¢ re~-..'.),-t, if development of this site is to occur,
"the existing (current) RM-~ 2 zoning ~. L)ears to be inappropriate t~or ~hi~, site due to
Its limited access, The Single access [.; this site is a local street,,,,,,Tha only point of
access for residential developm~t on 'his site is at the northeast ce.'ner of tl~e site
near the intersection of Meadow Stre,:=. and Perry Court,,,,,the sdditicnal traffic that
would be generated if this site i'~ d, ew~',(~ped would be [travelling] thrcugh the
adjacent neighborhoods -- either along Dover Street or along Friendship Street,"
According to the Commission sta~ rel:.. rt, "The proposed rezoning r,: :]resents a
decrease in density for most of tile p;' )party and thus a smaller increase in traffic
than what would result if the property was developed under current zoning," The
report admits current zoning "appears :o be Inappropriate for this site due to Its
limited access." Therefore, one could t' )nclude that under current zoning,
development would not occur. The cL:r.-ent zoning, RM-12 (Low Density Mult-Family
Residential) went into effect when the :.~w City Zoning Code was adcl)t~d in 1983.
At that time Memory Gardens, Inc, we.: :~ranted a special exception t'or the
cemetery to expand with cemetery Iot.~ within the current proposed development
site,
Even with the proposed rezoning, acc. ~s and related traffic problem~ ~r~" still of
concern, The staff report continues, "The single access to this site i~ a local stre~t.
The City's secondary access standar-J.~ suggest that the traffic vok n~ threshold
for a local street be 500 vehicles per day," With the creation of a 3 J Ic~
subdivision, if rezoning goes through, 72 living units could ensue resultl~j in an
average of seven vehicular trips per day per unit, Seven vehicular trip." per day
per unit X 72 units = 504 vehicles per day entering and e~.!ting the subdivision
through a single access point creating considerable additional traffic along Dover,
Friendship, and Meadow Streets, and Perry Oourt, The projected 504 vehicles
entering and exiting the proposed subdivision site per day exceeds the Clty's
Secondary access standard calculation for traffic volume threshold,
he bove 504 fig r takes Into · ccoult onl a tess o th IDa streut withi th~J" .
Fnenashlp~ and Meadow Streets and Per.r' 'Court, Dover Street s dense!y populated
and there Is considerable curb-side parking on both Dover Street and Fnendshlp
Street, Dover Street to Perry Court to .M, 3adow Street Is used as a high-speed
shortcut, The amount of traffic Is incre~;ng on all four streets especially around peak
drive times and will continue to do so ac development continues toward Scott Bivd,
and Eagles Supermarket opens, With devdlopment of the proposed subdivision, there
would be an Increased number of childrc. n walking to and from the already crowded
Lucas School, crossing these street.~ and this dense area of access. All traffic
congestion comes to one point at peak drive times before and after school, Specific
site distances from the curves at the access point to the proposed subdivision are
not good, The hilly terrain and almost blir,d ¢,.'urves on the adjoining local streets
leading to and from the proposed access pmnt to the subdivision pose, a safety
hazard,
For the above reasons, a case can be mede that If the rezoning for the proposed slte
ia approved by the Planning and Zoning C. 3mmiseion and subsequently passed by the
City 0ouncll~ what will result at th3 point ( f accession Dover Street on Friendship
Streets on Meadow Street, and on Perry C curt will be prob eros of traffic access,
traf[Ic congestlon~ traffic concentration, traf;ic flow, children's safety, and accidents
wetting to Fiappen,
Action
Request:
The adjacent neighborhood property owners along Dover Street and Friendship Street
Invite the Planning and Zoning Commission to take these traffic problem factors Into
consideration before rendering a decision whether or not to recommend rezonlng to
the City Council, The one and only access point to the proposed subdivision site will
create traffic problems way beyond the ones that already exist at the present time,
The way Friendship, Meadow and Dover Streets and Perry Court were p a lned
orlgmally~ no one cou d have forecast the traffic prob eros that ex st current y on
these local streets, The adjacent neighboring street propert? owners~ existing traffic
problems would be exacerbated by rezonlng the proposed subdivision site,
Even though 31 signatures were obtained from Dover Street resident.-. !anuary 19,
1995 opposing the rezonlng of RM-12 and RS-5 to RS-8 located at 655 leadow Street~
it is necessary to follow formal protest guidelines, Enclosed please fine ~ Protest of
Rezoning form and Objection Statement form, If you wish to protest th.~ rezoning
application by East Hill SubdivIslon~ Inc,~ please complete these forms, TI,an in the
presence_of Notary Public_Suzanne Streltz, 847 Dover Street (phone 33C-3044) sign and
date the forms, So take your completed forms to Suzanne's house to be notarlzedon
Tuesday January 24th between 7:00 and 9:00 pm~ Friday January 27th between
and 7:00 pro, or call her for an appointment, There will be NO CHARGE for notarlzing
these forms, For legal reasons~ the City Council will only consider notarized Protests to
Rezoning,
Reminder:
Please do not put off completing and having notarized these Protest and Objection
forms If you are opposed to the rezonlng. Time is of the essence, February 2rid Is the
next hearing date before the Planning and Zoning Commission, It Is crucial to have as
many completed forms as possible for submission on that date,
I~you have any questions regarding this letter please do not hesitate to contact me at
339-0620 or 339-0280,
Sincerely,
Nick Chmaruk
909. Dover Street
TO:
PROTEST OF REZONING
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, being the owners of twenty percent or more of the area of the property
included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of twenty percent or more of the
properly which is located within two hundred feet of Ihe exterior boundaries of the property for
which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property:
This petilion is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the intention that such rezonthg
shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least Ihfee-foudhs of all the
members of the council, all in accordance with §414,5 of the Code of Iowa.
Owner(s) of
Property Address
STATE OF IOWA )
)
JOHNSON COUNTY') --
for said Counly and St o'n
to me known to be the identical persons named in and*who
executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same
as their voluntaP/act a~ld deed.
II '~-
By:
Owner(e) of Proporb/Address - J ' ·
STATE OF iOWA ) .: -~
) ss: ':-'. ,.%
JOHNSON COUNTY ) .-.. ~,~
On this day of ,19 , bethre me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and
lot said County and State, pers0nalli, appeared and
Io me known to be the identical persons named in and who
executed the within and foregoing inslmment and acknowledged [hat they executed the same
as Iheir voluntary act and deed,
Nolary Public in and for the Slate of Iowa
OBJEOTION STATEMENT
As owners of property located within 200 feet of the exterior boundaries of the affect,;d
pr.op, erty., prot_e.s.tln. g_ t.he rezonlng, we have stat~::: objections to the spec f c rezonlng under
consmeratlon -- HM~ 1~', LOW Density Mult-F~mt y Ru:;~dentlal, and RS-S, Low Density Single-Family
Residential, to RS-O, Medium Density Sin{.ile-Family P¢!sidential located at 65.5 Meadow Street
(west of Dover Street, north of Musealine Avenue). These stated objections are:
STATE OF IOWA
JOHNSON COUNTY
On this 2-? day of ~',~E,,~. , 19~ ,5~before me, Ihe undersigned, a Notary Public in and
for said Co..._unty an_~.d Slale, personally appeared ~b<*-d' ~/~.-..~_~ and
to me known Io l:3 ihe identical persons named in and who
executed Ihe within and foregoing inslrument and acknowledged thai riley execuled Ihe
as lheir voluntary act and deed.
Nolary PuL, li~ 'm a~nd for lhe Slale of Iowa --
To~
From:
RE:
Background:
Issues of
Importance[
Of Major
Concern',
The property owners of 20% or more ( i the area located within 200 feet of the
exterior boundaries of the affected prcoerty, .--- ':--
Nick Chmaruk, Neighborhood Advocate
909 Dover Street
Iowa City, IA 52245
Phone: 339-0620 or 339-0280
East Hill Subdivision, Inc, (land develope:') application to the Iowa City Planning and
Zoning Oommision to REZONE the field t,.~ dared to the south by George'l~, (3ay Funeral
Home, to the north by Ralston Creek, to the west by Memory Gardens ~'emet'ary, and
to the east by Dover Street to be developed as a residential subdivision (proposed
rezoning RM-12 and RS-5 to RS-t3 at 655 Meadow Street),
Formal Protest to the rezoning of this property.
Dear Neighbor:
The letter you received from the Iowa City Planning and Zon. ing Commission dated
January 11, 1995 stated a majority of the i 3.09 acre field ~s currently zoned for
Low Density Multi-Family Residences referred to as RM-i2, RM-i 2 designates up to
i2 living units per acre occupying the property in the form of duplexes, condos, or
apartments, A small area at the north end of the field paralleling Ralston Creek is
currently zoned for Low Density Single-Family Residences, referred to as RS-5, RS-5
designates up to five living units per acre occupying that property In the form of
single family homes,
The Planning and Zoning Commission staff report of January 6, 1995 recommends
the Oommission approve the rezoning application by East Hill Subdivision, Inc..,, This
rezoning proposal would change the current RM-J2 and RS-5 zoning to Medium
Density Single-Family Residences referred to as RS-G. RS-8 designates up to eight
living units per acre occupying the whole property. The concept plan by the land
developer shows 36 lots with 72 livinq units in the form of duplexes occupying this
property if the rezoning is approved IJy the Planning and Zoning Commission and
subsequently passed by the Oity Oouncil,
According to the Commission staff report, if development of this site is to occur,
"the existing (current) RM-12 zoning appears to be inappropriate for this site due to
Its limited access, The Single access to this site is a local street,,,,,The only point of
access for residential development on this site is at the northeast corner of the site
near the intersection of Meadow Street and Perry Court.,,,,the additional traffic that
would be generated If this site is developed would be [travelling] through the
adjacent neighborhoods -- either along Dover Street or along Friendship Street,"
According to the Commission staff report, "The proposed rezoning represents a
decrease in density for most of the property and thus a smaller increase in traffic
than what would result if the property was developed under current zoning." The
report admits current zoning "appears to be inappropriate for this site due to Its
limited access," Therefore, one could conclude that under current zoning,
development would not occur, The current zoning, RM-12 (Low Density Mult-Family
Residential) went into effect when the new City Zoning Code was adopted in ~9~,3,
At that time Memory Gardens, Inc. was granted a special exception for the
cemetery to expand with cemetery lots within the current proposed development
site,
Even with the proposed rezoning, access and related traffic prcblem.; are still of
concern, The staff report continues, "The single access to this site is a local street,
The City~s secondary access standards suggest that the traffic vo:ume threshold
for a local street be 500 vehicles per day," With the creation cf a 36 lot
subdivision, If rezonlng goes through, 72 living units could ensue resulting In an
average of seven =vehicular trips per day per unit, Seven vehicular trips per day
per unit X 72 units 504 vehicles per day entering and exiting the subdivision
through a single access point creating considerable additional traffic along Dover,
Friendship, and Meadow Streets, and Perry Court, The projected 504 vehicles
entering and exiting the proposed su.bdMslon s~te per day exceeds the Clty's
Secondary access standard calculation for traffic volume threshold,
oncern:
Action
Request~
Reminder:
dThe above 50.4 figure. takes Into.~tc.:ou:lt 3nlv access o th Ioc s,treat v 'th the' '
evelopment site. It claes not aaure. ss in~, e~lsti.,g or algde~tra~lc Impact on Bayer,
Friendships and Meadow Streets a~]d Parr, Court. Dover Street Is densely pc u ated
and there Is considerable curb-side parkilig on both Dover Street and FrlendshPip
Street. Dover Street to Perry Oourt to Msadow Street Is used as a high-speed
shortcut, The amount of traffic Is increasing on all i"our streets especially around peak
drive times and will continue to do so as development continues toward Scott Blvd,
and Eagles Supermarket opens, With development of the proposed eubdlvlslon, there
would be an Increased number o~ children walking to and from the already crowded
Luca~ School, crossing the~e stre,~t:~ and this dense area o~ access, All traffic
congestion comes to one point at peak drive times before and after school. Speci~lc
site distances From the curves at the access point to the proposed subdivision are
not ~ood, Th~ ~111y terrain and almost blir~d curves on the adioinlna local slceets
leading to aria from the proposed access point to the subdivision ~ose a
hazard, P safety
For the above reasons, a case can b.e [nad~ that if the rezoning for the proposed site
ia approved by the Planning and Zoning C~mmiaaion and eubaequently peasad by the
City Oouncils v/hat v/ill result at the.' point ( f acc~c?,on Dover Str~t~ on Friendship
Streets on Meadow Streets and on Perry (' ' ~
.curt wd, be problems of traffic access,
traffic congestion, traffic concentration, t,'affic flow, children's safety, and accidents
waiting to happen,
The adjacent neighborhood property oweere along Dover Street and Frlen.'ship Street
invite. the P. lannlng and Zoning Cornmi..ssion to take these traffic problem faciars Into
cons aeration before rendering a de,Jslor, whether or not to recommend rezonlng to
the City Council, The one and only access point to the proposed subdivisicn site will
create traffic problems way beyond the ;~nes that already exist at the present time,
The way Friendship, Meadow, and Dove:' Streets and Perry Court were plr. nned
originally, no one could have forecast the traffic problems that exist aurrc;]tly on
these local streets, The adjacent neighboring street property owners' existing traffic
problems would be exacerbated by rezoning the proposed subdivision site,
Even though 3 ] signatures were obtained from Dover Street residents January ~9,
1995 opposing the rezonlng of RM-12 and RS-5 to RS-8 located at 655 Meadow Street,
It is necessary to follow formal protest guidelines, Enclosed please Find a Protest of
Rezoning form and Objection Statement fo?, If you wish to protest the rez~ning
application by East Hill Subdivislon~ Inc., pledse complete these forms, Then il. the
presence of Notary Public Suzanne Streitz, 847 Dover Street (phone 338-3044) sign an(
date the'~orms, -So take y~ur completed fc. rms to Suzanne's house to be notarized on
Tuesday January 24th between 7:00 and 9:00 Pros Friday January 27th bet;veen 5:00
and 7',00 pro, or call her for an appointment. There will be NO CHARGE for notarlzing
these forms, For legal reasons~ the City Cuuncil will only consider notarized Protests to
Rezonlng.
Please do not put off completing and having notarized these Protest and Objection
forms If you are opposed to the fezchins, Time is of the essence, February 2rid Is the
next hearing date before the Planning and Zoning Commission, It Is crucial to have as
many completed forms as possible for su~:misslon on that date.
any questions regarding this letter please do not hesitate to contact me at
or 339-0280,
Sincerely,
Nick Chmaruk
909 Dover Street
TO:
FRON:
RE:
DATE:
IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL
NICHOLAS B. CRMARUK AND JO RENE TRABERT-CIfMARUK
909 DOVER STREET
IOiqA CITY, IO~qA 52245
PROTEST REZONING RM-12 & RS-5 TO RS-8 LOCATED AT 655 MEADOW ST.
MARCH 7, 1995
Dear City Council Members:
Maintaining a perspective concerning SAEETY AND TRAFFIC RELATED
PROBLEMS which currently exist for property owners within 200 feet of
the exterior boundary of the applied for rezoning site, I begin with
this quote;
1.01 OBJECTIVES IN SUBDIVISION PLANNING
"The primary objective of subdivision design is to provide maximum
livability, This requires a safe and efficient access and circulation
system, connecting homes, schools, playgrounds, shops, and other
subdivision activities for people living there,"
"Transportation__considerations in subdivision design may be.~c~assified
in two general a~:~as: (a)-the actual layout of the-s~r66tf~-and
pedestrian systems as relate({ lb lan.d~use;-~ (b) the engineering
dimensions for vehicular, pedesti'{~n, and any bicycle facilities, But
neither the street syst/~ nor the individual desig~l"~lement~should be
analyzed separately. They must both be considered in order' to design
a safe ~ind efficient transportation system."
1.02 APPLICATION (excerpted)
"Street design should be based upon detailed traffic analysis, which
more closely approximates design procedures for major streets except
for lower speeds and strong emphasis on access to abutting
properties."
"Special subdivisions exist for which Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
guidelines may only partially apply. These include....cluster
housing. By their nature, such subdivisions do not necessarily fit
into the planning framework of the customary residential areas. The
need for special design criteria, on a case-by-case basis, is
recognized in most juristictions by the planned unit development
concept,"
This quote is from "Recommended Guidelines for Subdivision Streets",
put out by the Institute of Transportation in 1984 regarding Traffic
Considerations in Subdivision Planning and Layout.
At last night's work session of the City Council, I agree
whole-heartedly with the City Attorney's response to a question
whether the City Council has a basis for which to limit the amount of
units allowed on the site due to the lack of secondary access. The
City Attorney responded, "It needs to be articulated in terms of what
the City Council is thinking, what the City Council deems is SAFE. It
is a legislative decision to be made as to SAFETY -- whether the City
Council thinks this is reasonable and wants to apply it to the
GUIDELINE."
This application for rezoning is teaching me a tremendous lesson in
city government. ~¢hat guidelines are laws and what guidelines are
just guidelines. What came out at the work session includes the fact
that the City Council does have the power to limit the number of units
on the site. ,qore importantly, traffic volume guidelines on existing
streets and at the single point of access to the site were enacted
into law in the City's Comprehensive Plan. But secondary access
policy is just a guideline even though it employs traffic volume
guidelines (which are law}.
In the October 12, 1992 memorandum from Jeff Davidson to the Planning
and Zoning Commission, the proposed checklist of criteria for when
secondary access should be required starts off with "(1) Secondary
access shall be required if a proposed development will result in any
portion of the single access road being overburdened with traffic,
"Overburdened" shall be defined as a projected traffic volume which
exceeds the midpoint design volume as designated in the Iowa City
Comprehensive Plan for a local or collector street: Local street --
500 vehicles per day, Collector street -- 2500 vehicles per day,"
The projected traffic volume generated by the 72 units detailed in the
concept plan, using the formula of seven vehicle trips per day per
tinit is 504, It should be clear that that figure classifies 504
entrances and exits through the single access point as "overburdened"
before a shovel bits the ground. I hope the City Council can see how
inte,'twined the law governing traffic volume and the guideline
governing secondary access are in this case before you now.
Taking traffic volume one step further, as the City Attorney said at
last night's work session, "I think Jim (Brachtel?) articulated it as
simply as you can come up with. Stick fairly rigidly to the 1000 trip
limit threshold for a local street and say you are not going to go
beyond it." When I called Jim Brachtel prior to the January 19, 1995
meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission inquiring about traffic
counts on Dover street, I was told none had ever been done. Then on
January 31st, within three days following the major ice storm of the
season, Traffic Engineering had a ONE DAY COUNT. Mr. Brachtel said in
order to get a reliable count, the counters should be operated for a
more lengthy period,
The Iowa Department of Transportation operates permanent traffic
cotinters in many cities in the state. The DOT uses monthly counts to
determine seasonal traffic volume change. The statistics I provided
you with at last week's meeting prove there is between 21-27 %
seasonal change, Not that we can impirically rely on the one day
counts on Dover and Meadow streets as a baseline-January-average just
after an ice storm, but if you adjust the 790 count on Dover street,
as the ultimate low, for an average 24 % seasonal change high, what
you come up with without adding any vehicular trips in or out of the
single point of access to the site is 979. Or by definition, at the
point of being "overburdened" already.
When the kids are out of school in the summer, as a spine/¢onnecter
street, Dover street is a literal zoo. Not to speak of it's hazzards
in the winter with graded curve topography. When residents are home
after peak Plq drive time and before peak A~I drive time, both Dover
street with it's cluster housing and Friendship street are single lane
streets because of lack of off-street parking due to single garages
and single car driveways. Oncoming vehicles have to yield
right-of-way and swerve into any gap bet~veen curb parked cars just to
gel. down Lhe sLreets,
On I. he issue of emergency vehicle access, Fire Chief Jim ?umfrey told
me, "I live over in that area and Friendship street is too narrow for
emergency vehicles and I would widen Friendship street.." City Code
section I-4,2 states, "Where provided for on local residential and
collecLor streets, the parking lane shah be 8 feet in width." And on
Dover and Friendship streets that leaves only one lane traffic from
evening through to morning.
By definition, Friendship street is a collector street. But according
to the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), with proposed
development it would become a blajor street ("having the primary
purpose of carrying through traffic and the secondary purpose of
providing access to abutting property"). Given it's
size/nature/features, Friendship street is not suitable to handle
added traffic burden and neither is Dover street which should be a
local st.feet. I refer to Scott Kugler's statement which appeared in
the P & Z minutes of February 2, 1995. He said, "Dover street is
built Lo local street standards, although it functions as a minor
collector,"
According to ITE, Dover street is already more than a Subcollector
street ("a relatively low volume street that provides access to
residential lots and serves SOI~lE through traffic to lower-order access
streets"), As the only connector/spine street running north/south
from Friendship to Nuscatine avenue between First avenue and Scott
Boulevard, Dover street handles a very significant amount of through
traffic. And when the Eagles supermarket and strip mall go in, Dover
will be used even more.
Do you know what is all tied Logether, cannot be dealt with separately
because they are so intertwined in this issue of developing the site?
There are three. (1) Traffic volume thresholds on existing
abutting/adjacent streets and at the single point of access to the
site. That has to do with the circulation system -- how traffic will
travel and at what capacity in relation to the City's Comprehensive
Plan enacted law. (2) Secondary access otherwise known as safe access
and thereby a safety concern. The guideline relies on traffic volume
thresholds. (3) Rezoning this site means paying very close attention
to the case-by-case "cook book" approach paying careful attention to
the special design criteria that, by their very nature, exist on the
adjacent streets and at the single point of access (which is within
mere feet of a blind, 9.6 % grade hair pin curve).
Planning and Zoning Commission waffled on what criteria can be used to
object and protest this rezoning application. I hope that by now the
issues have been clarified. Let me conclude by sighting once again
the 1981 Iowa Supreme Court case OAKES CONSTRUCTION CO. V. THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA inwhich the Supreme Court upheld the City's position
of the necessity for secondary access to a 44 dwelling unit
subdivision (which is Dover street directly adjacent to the proposed
access point to the rezoning site). Testimony before the Supreme
Court from City staff members outlined the following reasons why a
single means of access to the proposed subdivision would be inadequate
(and I might add these reasons can be upheld as protest objections to
rezoning of this site in question):
1) The ability of the overall street network in the vicinity to
circulate traffic would be inadequate.
2) It would exacerbate existing traffic problems and negatively
impact the adjacent neighborhood.
3) Emergency vehicle access would not be adequate (including single
lane traffic and 10 ton limit on the bridge on Meadow street.
Navigating a fire engine in good weather on Dover street will be
tricky, Otherwise go all the way around to the new bridge going in
next year on Brookside,).
4) Non-local traffic would be added to a street with an elementary
school (Should development occur, Planning and Zoning Commission
discussed putting a traffic light in at Dover and Muscatine and also
at Friendship and First avenue. Traffic is already backed up around
the curve on Dover during AM peak drive time. To circumvent the
congestion, residents of the new subdivision have a straight shot onto
Brookside, then turn south passing Lucas school as children are going
to school to avoid the snarl on Dover for easier access onto
Muscatine.
Everything I have said in this statement is directly the very same
argument the City used to win it's case before the Iowa Supreme Court
requiring Oakes Construction to extend Dover street to Muscatine
avenue. The argument in the case has precedence over this issue of
rezoning application, just that the table has been flipped. I am
using the City's argument and Planning and Zoning staff, who advise
the City Council on this matter, appears to have lost sight of their
mission by MISREPRESENTATION of the facts to the City Council and by
ERROR AND OMMISSION.
I pray the City Council recognizes the obligations and
responsibilities associated with a super majority vote in favor of
granting the rezoning request. By doing so, the City Council would be
going against it's own position it took before the Supreme Court
regarding secondary access and would be in violation of the
Comprehensive Plan traffic volume threshold "Overburdened" law.
Thank you for allowing me this time to state, as neighborhood
advocate,
the position of 65 % of the property owners within 200 feet of the
exterior boundary of the applied for rezoning site.
Sincerely,
Nicholas B. Chmaruk -"
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TO ALL TAXPAYERS OF THE CiTY OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA, AND TO OTHER INTERESTED
PERSONS:
Public notice is hereby given that the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, will conduct a public headng on
the City's FY96 Iowa DOT State Transit
Assistance grant application. The application will
be for approximately $254,294 (3.5319%) in state
transit assistance formula funds to be used for
operating and/or purchasing capital items for
Iowa City Transit during FY96. Said application
will also include a listing of projects to be applied
for in FY96 from the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) Section 5307 (formerly Sec,
9) and/or Section 5309 (formerly Sec. 3)
programs. The FTA Section 5307 program
provides federal funds to be used for the
operating and capital needs of Iowa City Transit.
Section 5309 is a discretionary capital funding
program. Section 5307 and/or Section 5309
projects to be applied for in FY96 include (federal
share):
1. Operating assistance approximately
$260,393.
2. Replace 5 * 40' heavy duty buses -
$1,079,000.
3. Pumhase heavy duty service truck - $32,000.
4. Purchase 13 replacement ddver seats *
$11,440.
5. Purchase 14 replacement electronic
fareboxes - $18,480.
TOTAL FEDERAL FUNDS = $1,401,313
Additional projects may be added before the
public hearing is held.
The public hearing will be held at 7:30 p.m. on
March 7, 1995, in the Council Chambers of the
Iowa City Civic Center, 410 E. Washington
Street, Iowa City.
A preliminary application will be on file March
1, 1995, at the JCCOG Transportation Planning
Division Office, Iowa City Civic Center, 410 E.
Washington Street, Iowa City, and may be
inspected by interested persons. Any questions
or comments regarding the application, the
projects, or the public hearing, should be directed
to Kevin Doyle, JCCOG Assistant Transportation
Planner (319-356-5253).
These projects will not have significant
detrimental environmental effect on the area and
no persons or businesses will be displaced by
these activities. The projects are in conformance
with the JCCOG Transit Plan for the Iowa City
Urbanized Area.
Any interested persons may appear at the
public headrig for the purpose of making
objections or comments. This notice is given by
the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa.
MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK
CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA
jccogtp~y95sta~lOT.nph
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing
will be held by the City Council of Iowa City,
Iowa, at 7:30 p.m. on the 7th day of March,
1995, in the Civic Center Council Chambers,
410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa, in
consideration of an ordinance amending Title 1,
Chapter 9, Section 3, "Election Precincts" of
the City Code, to amend the boundaries of the
voting precincts in Iowa City to include proper-
ties annexed and to exclude properties severed
since 1993.
A copy of the proposed ordinance amend-
ment is on file for public examination in the
Office of the City Clerk, Civic Center, 410 E.
Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons
interested in expressing their views concerning
said item, either verbally or in writing, will be
given the opportunity to be heard at the above-
mentioned time and place.
MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 1, CHAPTER 9,
SECTION 3 , "ELECTION PRECINCTS" OF THE
CITY CODE OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, TO AMEND
THE BOUNDARIES OF THE VOTING
PRECINCTS IN IOWA CITY, IOWA TO INCLUDE
PROPERTIES ANNEXED AND TO EXCLUDE
PROPERTIES SEVERED SINCE 1993.
WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City has an-
nexed territory since August 3, 1993; and
WHEREAS, th~ City of Iowa City has severed
terr. itory since August 3, 1993; and
WHEREAS, the boundaries of voting pre-
cincts within the City of Iowa City have not
been adjusted since August 3, 1993; and
WHEREAS, the annexation and severance of
territory by Iowa City now necessitates the
amendment of voting precinct boundaries to
accurately reflect the same and provide proper
polling places for the city's inhabitants.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I. AMENDMENTS. Title 1, Chapter 9,
Section 3, "Election Precincts" of the City Code
of Iowa City, Iowa, be and the same is hereby
amended by:
A. Adding the following at the end of Section
1-9.3B7:
Precinct Seven (7) shall exclude the fol-
lowing-described property:
Point of beginning at the center of the
Northeast Quarter of Section 1, Town-
ship 79 North, Range 7 West of the 5th
P.M., thence south along the east line
of the west half of the Northeast Quar-
ter of Section 1, Township 79 North,
Range 7 West of the 5th P.M., thence
west along the south line of the west
half of the Northeast Quarter of Section
1, Township 79 North, Range 7 West
of the 5th P.M. to a point where the
southwest corner of the west half of
the Northeast quarter, Township 79
North, Range 7 West of the 5th P.M.
and the Southeast corner of the North-
west Quarter, Township 79 North,
Range 7 West of the 5th P.M. do meet,
thence north along the west line of the
west half of the Northeast Quarter to a
point where the northwest corner of
the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast
Quarter, thence north 404.25 feet,
thence west 308.22 feet, thence north
1677.39 feet to a point on the south
right-of-way line of Heartland Rail
Ordinance 'No.
Page 2
Corp., thence southe. astedy along said
south line of said right-of-way to a
point on the east line of the Northwest
Quarter of the Northeast Quarter,
Township 79 North, Range 7 West of
the 5th P.M., thence south to the point
of beginning.
B. Adding the following at the end of Section
1-9-3B8:
Precinct eight (8) shall also include the
following-described property:
Commencing at the Northeast Corner of
Section 24, Township 79 North, Range
7 West of the 5th Principal Meridian;
Thence S89o48'43"W, on the North
line of said Section 24, a distance of
952.34 feet to the Centerline of a
County Road, also being the Point of
Beginning; Thence S66o54'25"W,
51.72 feet on said Centerline; Thence
S66°36'52"W, 52.57 feet on said
Centerline; Thence S60°03'01"W,
88.13 feet on said Centerline;
S59')32'48"W, 172,96 feet on said
Centerline; Thence S59o20'00"W,
926.42 feet on said Centerline; Thence
S59°20'47"W, 653.90 feet on said
Centerline to the West line of the
Northeast Quarter of said Section 24;
Thence NOO°42'23"W, 973.23 feet on
the West line of the Northeast Quarter
of said Section 24 to the North Quarter
Corner of said Section 24; Thence
N89°48'43"E, 1692.69 feet on the
North line of said Section 24 to the
Point of Beginning. Said tract of land
containing 18.60 acres.
C. Adding the following at the end of Section
· 1-9.3B9:
Precinct Nine (9) shall also include the'fol-
lowing-described property:
A parcel of land located in the E 1/2 of
Section 20, T79N, R6W of the 5th
P.M., Johnson County, Iowa. Said
parcel is described as follows: Com-
mencing at the Center of said Section
20; Thence N89o47'41"E, 1135.60
feet to a point on the southeasterly
Right-of-Way line of State Highway No.
1 and the point of beginning; thence
along said southeasterly right-of-way
S34°49'11"W, 244.80 feet; thence
N40°44'41"W, 414.92 feet to a point
on the northwesterly Right-of-Way line
of State Highway No. 1; thence the
following courses and distances along
Ordinance No.
Page 3
said northwesterly right-of-way:
N76°14'11"E, '198.37 feet;
N40°17'45"E,. 624.68 feet;
N44°O3'52"E, 272.40 feet;
N42°16'52"E, 88,60 feet;
N45°40'22"E, 83.50 feet; thence
S39°09'33"E, 287.13 feet to a point
on the southeasterly Right-of-Way line
of State Highway No. 1; thence the
following courses and distances along
said southeasterly right.of-way:
S44°02'41"W, 389.10 feet;
S47°55'56"W, 292.00 feet;
S31°04'41"W, 140.40 feet;
S40°03'41"W, 180.90 feet to the
point of beginning. Said parcel con-
tains 8,1 acres more or less.
Precinct Nine (9) shall also include the fol-
lowing described property:
Commencing at the center of Section
20, Township 79, Range 6 West of the
5th P.M., thence N 0°25' E 524,1 feet
to the Point of Beginning, thence N
41°O7'30" W 282.4 feet, thence N
35°57' W 726.8 feat, thence S
89050'30" E 212.9 feet, thence S
26033'30" E 277.0 feet, thence S
41 °39' E 177,O feet, thence S
55°52'30" E 193.6 feet, thence S
0°25' W 3.11.8 feet to the Point of
Beginning, Said tract containing 3,07
acres,
Adding the following at the end of Section
1-9-3B12:
Precinct Twelve (12) shall also include the
following-described property: .
The west one-half of the Southeast
Quarter of Section 24 lying south of
Highway 6 and the East 25 feet of the
Southwest Quarter of Section 24 lying
south of Highway 6 and the Northeast
Quarter of Section 25 except the East
660,05 feet thereof, lying south of
Highway 6 and the Northwest Quarter
of Section 25 and the North Half of the
Southwest Quarter of Section 25 and
the Southwest Quarter of the South-
west Quarter of Section 25 and the
East Half of the Southeast Quarter and
the south 16.50 feet of the Southeast
Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of
Section 26 except the 1,15~ Acre
property described in Book 992, Page
820 of the Johnson County Recorder's
records, All in Township 79 North,
- Range 6 West of the Fifth Principal
Ordinance No.
Page 4
Meridian. The above described tract
contains 422.542 acres, more or less.
Precinct Twelve (12) shall also include the
following-described property:
The Northeast Quarter of Section 35,
Township 79 North, Range 6 West, of
the 5th Principal Meridian, Johnson
County, Iowa, which is more particular-
ly described as follows: Beginning at a
Standard Concrete Monument found at
the Southeast Corner of the Northeast
Quarter of Section 35, Township 79
North, Range 6 West of the 5th Princi-
pal Meridian; Thence S88°00'28"W, a
recorded bearing along the South Line
of said Northeast Quarter, 2615.31
feet, to an iron pin found at the South-
west Corner of said Northeast Quarter
of Section 35; Thence NO1 °58'07"W,
2651.36 feet, to an iron pin set;
Thence N87o51'35"E, 2631.59 feet,
to a Standard Concrete Monument
found at the Northeast Corner of said
Northeast Quarter of Section 35;
Thence S01 °37'O5"E, 2658.22 feet, to
the Point of Beginning. Said tract of
land contains 159.89 acres, more or
less, and is subject to easements and
restrictions of record.
Precinct Twelve (12) shall also include the
following-described properw:
The northerly portion of the existing
county road known as Nursery Lane,
acquired in Fee Simple in the name of
The City of Iowa City, for the purpose
of construction of sewer improvements
over and across said land and more
particularly described as follows: Be-
ginning at an iron pin found in the cen-
terline of Nursery Lane, at the
Southeast Corner of the Northwest
Quarter of Section 35, Township 79
North, Range 6 West, of the 5th Princi-
pal Meridian; Thence N88°00'28"E, a
recorded bearing along the North Line
of the Southeast Quarter of said Sec-
tion 35, 100.O9 feet, to s point 100.00
feet normally distant east of the West
Line of said Southeast Quarter; Thence
S00°56'39"E, 16.50 feet; Thence
S88°00'28"W, along a line parallel
with and 16.50 foot normally distant
southerly of tr~e North Line of the
Southwest Quarter of said Section 35,
1753,26 feet, to its intersection with
the centerline of Send Road; Thence
Ordinance No.
Page 5
Eo
northwesterly, 55.49 feet, along said
centerline, on a 1189,77 foot radius
curve, concave southwesterly, whose
55.48 foot chord bears N28°5(Y35"W,
to its intersection with the westerly
projection of the North Right-of-Way
line of said Nursery Lane; Thence
N88°OO'28"E, along said Northerly
Right-of-Way Line, 1678.55 feet, to its
intersection with the East Line of the
Northwest Quarter of said Section 35;
Thence S01°58'07"E, along said East
Line, 33.00 feet, to the Point of Begin-
ning. Said tract of land contains 1.93
acres, more or less, and is subject to
easements and restrictions of record.
Precinct Twelve (12) shall also include the
following-described property:
Commencing at a found concrete mon-
ument at the Northeast Corner of the
Southeast Quarter of Section 35,
Township 79 North, Range 6 West of
the 5th Principal Meridian; Thence
S88°00'28"W (An Assumed 8eating),
along the North Line of said Southeast
Quarter, 1,214.75 feet, to the Point of
Beginning; Thence S02°04'36"E
527.86 feet; Thence N53°35'12"E
36.33 feet; Thence S02°04'36"E
50.00 feet; Thence S53°35'12"W
36.33 feet; Thence S02°04'36"E
41.18 feet; Thence S09°39'32"E
2057.00 feet, to a point on the South
Line of the Southeast Quarter of said
Section 35; Thence S87°57'26"W,
along said South Line, 66.59 feet;
Thence NO9O39'32"W., 2052.54 feet;
Thence NO2°O4'36"W, 0.47 feet;
Thence S38o53'53"W, 45.75 feet;
Thence S02o04'36"W, 50.00 feet;
Thence N38o53'53"E, 45.75 feet;
Thence N02oO4'36"W, 573.051 feet,
to a point on the North Line of said
Southeast Quarter; Thence
N88°00'28"E, along said North Line,
66.00 feet, to the Point of Beginning.
Said tract of land contains 4.12 acres,
more or less, and is subject to ease-
ments and restrictions of Record,
Adding the following at the end of Section
1-9-3B16:
Precinct Sixteen (16) shall also include the
following-described property:
Beginning at the Northeast Corner of
Lot 64, of Scott Boulevard East, Part
Two, in accordance with the Plat there-
Ordinance No.
Page 6
of, Recorded in Plat Book 33, at Page
225, of the Records of the Johnson
County Recorder's Office; Thence
S89°14'45"W, (A RECORDED BEAR-
ING), along the North Line of said Sub-
division, 22.39 feet, to its intersection
with the existing Corporate Limit Line
of the City of Iowa City; Thence
NOO°53'13"W, 110.OO feet along said
Corporate Line; Thence N89°14'45"E,
399.21 feet, to a Point on the Line of
the Exis.ting Fehce; Thence
S00°21'31"E, along said Line of Exist-
ing Fence, 111.00 feet, to its intersec.
tion with the North Line of said Scott
Boulevard East, Part Two; Thence
S89°14'45"W, (A RECORDED
BEARING), along said North Line
375.81 feet, to the Point of Beginning.
Said Tract of Land contains 1.02 Acres,
more or less, and is subject to ease-
ments and restrictions of record.
SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and
parts of ordinances in conflict with the provi-
sions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION Ill. SEVERABILITY. If any section,
provision or part of the Ordinance shall be
adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such
adjudication shall not affect the validity of the
Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision
or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconsti-
tutional.
SECTION IV, EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordi-
nance shall be in full force and effect from and
after its final passage, approval and publication,
as provided by law,
Passed and approved this
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date:
March 1, 1995
To:
From:
Re:
Mayor Horowitz and City Council
David Schoon, Economic Development Coordinator-~'~_~
Ordinance Amending the Boundaries of the Voting Precincts in Iowa City to
Include Properties Annexed and to Exclude Properties Severed Since 1993.
Since the voting precincts were amended in 1993, the City has annexed five areas and
severed one area. Staff recommends that Council adds (or subtracts) the following areas to
(from) the corresponding precincts:
Greer Severance Area (subtract)
Southwest Estates Annexation Area (add)
Highway 1 & Mormon Trek 8[vd, Annexation Area (add)
Sycamore Farms Annexation Area (add)
South Wastewater Treatment Plant Annexation Area (add)
8oyd Annexation Area (add)
Precinct 7
Precinct 8
Precinct 9
Precinct 12
Precinct 1 2
Precinct 1 6
The attached maps show the location of each annexation (severance) area.
Three of these areas require special consideration; they include the two areas being added to
Precinct 12 and the one area being added to Precinct 16. The rational behind adding the one
area to Precinct 16 is that this area is part of House District 46, and that similar 1993
annexation areas located in House District 46 were added to Precinct 16 - even though a
majority of Precinct 16 is located in House District 45. The two annexation areas being added
to Precinct 12 are located in House District 47, while the existing Precinct 12 is entirely
located in House District 46. The Iowa Code requires that each precinct be contained wholly
within an existing legislative district, "except when adherence to this requirement would force
creation of a precinct which includes the places of residence of fewer than fifty qualified
electors" (Iowa Code, Ch. 49.3). Attached is a copy of a letter from the Johnson County
Auditor and Commissioner of Elections certifying that fewer than fifty qualified electors live
in each of the subject areas. Therefore, the Boyd Annexation Area has been made part of
Precinct 16 and the Sycamore Farms Annexation Area and the South Wastewater Treatment
Plant Annexation Area have been made part of Precinct 12.
If you have any questions prior to the March 7th public hearing, please call me at 356-5236.
CC:
M. Kerr
K. Franklin
S. Holecek
A. Hannam, City Clerk, Coralville
f:\...\census\precinct\cc0301 .mem
SEVERANCE
LOCATION MAP
GREER SEVERANCE AND PRECINCT
PRECINCT 7
PRECINCT 8-
SOUTHWEST
ESTATES
ANNEXATION
LOCATION MAP
SOUTHWEST ESTATES ANNEXATION
AND PRECINCT
~Y
\ I / /
IRECINCT 9
LOCATION MAP
HWY. 1 AND MORMON TREK BLVD.
ANNEXATION AREA AND PRECINCT9
Illl
__ILJJ
tl I I1_~,
I Illll~.J
11111111
SOUTH
TREATIV
INASTEWAT =R
ENT PLANT
f .,,,, ..,......~..~' ~' -- '"' '/'
/
/
/
i/
LOCATION MAP
SYCAMORE FARMS AND
I SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
ANNEXATION AREAS AND PRECINCT 12
LLLLLL~
I I
LOCATION MAP
BOYD ANNEXATION AREA AND PRECINCT
BOYD ANNEXATION
Tom Slockett
Johnson County Auditor
Commissioner of Elections
and Voter Registration
eraall slocl(etl 0 blue.wee g.ulow~,edu
David Schoon
Economic Development Coordinator
City of Iowa City
410 E Washington St.
Iowa City IA 52240-1826
Dear Mr. Schoon:
FebmarylS, 1995
I hereby certify that there are less than 50 registered voters in the Sycamore Farms
Annexation Area and the South Wastewater Treatment Plant Annexation Area that are to
be added to Iowa City Precinct 12, and the Boyd Annexation Area that is to be added to
Iowa City Precinct 16 as detailed in the letter from the City of Iowa City dated December
8, 1994.
If you have any questions please give me or Kit Wong a call at 356-6004.
TS/kw
Johnson County Auditor and
Commissioner o£Elections
319-356.,6004
FAX 319-356-6086
913 South Dubuque Street Post Olflce Box 1350
Iowa Ctty, Iowa 52244.1350
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is I~ereby given that a public hearing
will be held by the City Council of iowa City,
Iowa, at 7:30 p.m. on the 7th day of March,
1995, in the Civic Center Council Chambers,
410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa, in
consideration of an ordinance establishing
regulations for sidewalk cafes.
A copy ~)f the proposed ordinance amend-
ment is on file for public examination in the
Office of the City Clerk, Civic Center, 410 E.
Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons
interested in expressing their views concerning
said item, either verbally or in writing, will be
given the opportunity to be heard at the above.
mentioned time and ptace.
MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 2,1995
TO:
FROM:
Mayor and City Council
Marian K. Karr, City Clerk ~"
RE: Sidewalk Cafes
At Council's work session of February 27 a number of questions arose regarding sidewalk cafes.
Staff memos are attached to address those issues.
I followed up with Sr, Building Inspector Ron Boose regarding roll- up awnings or retractable
awnings and was reminded that such awnings are allowed in these areas under the present
Code. The proposed ordinance would not change the present Code concerning those awnings,
Also, please note that the sidewalk care would be viewed as an extension to an establishment
and could require additional changes to meet various Codes, An example would be additional
restrooms.
Staff committee members will be present at the March 7 public hearing.
bc5-1
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 3, 1995
TO: Marian Karr, City Clerk
FROM: Rick Fosse, City Engineer ~r~
RE: Sidewalk Cafes - Minimum Sidewalk Width
Public Works and Engineering have recommended a minimum clear sidewalk width
in the Central Business District of 8 feet. This is a compromise of the 10-foot
minimum width established during the urban renewal process. The 10-foot width
was established based on design recommendations and input from businesses.
Reducing the minimum width to less than 8 feet is a significant variation from the
vision established for the Central Business District.
cc: Chuck Schmadeke
City of iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 1, 1995
To:
From:
City Council
David Schoon, Economic Development Coordinator? ~
Be:
Location of Sidewalk Cafes in the Community
During your recent discussion regarding sidewalk cafes, you requested a map designating the
CB-2, CB-5, and the CB-10 Zones, a list of zones in which restaurants are allowed, and staff's
reasoning behind not allowing sidewalk cafes in all zones that allow restaurants. Attached
is a map designating the location of the CB-2, CB-5 and CB-10 Zones. The attached table
lists those zones in which restaurants are allowed.
As the table indicates, the only zone, other than the CB-2, CB-5, and CB-1Ozones, that does
not require a minimum 20-foot front yard requirement is the R/O Zone. Buildings for
restaurants in the other zones must be located at a minimum of 20 feet from a public
sidewalk. The need to use the public sidewalk for an outdoor seating area does not seem
necessary, as the property owner has the ability to use the front yard for an outdoor seating
area on private property. (Note: The outdoor seating area would need to meet the state or
local law in order to serve alcohol, i.e. screening requirements, locations from residential
zones, etc., unless an exception to the requirements is granted by the City Council.) Given
this fact and the fact that most sidewalks in these other areas of the community are only four
feet wide, it seemed impractical and unnecessary to allow restaurants to have sidewalk cafes
in these zones. Given the facts that 1 ) buildings are built to the property line in the CB-2, CB-
5, and CB-10 Zones, 2) these areas of the community are highly pedestrian-oriented, and 3)
the sidewalks are often wider than four feet in these areas, staff feels that these zones are
the most appropriate location for sidewalks cafes, which are outdoor seating areas located
on public property.
b j/cafes
2
ZONES IN WHICH RESTAURANTS ARE ALLOWED
Zone
Classification
Factory-Built Housing
Residential Zone (RFBH)
Residential/Office Zone
(R/O)
Office Commercial Zone
(C0-1)
Neighborhood Commercial
Zone (CN-1)
Highway Commercial Zone
(CH-1)
Intensive Commercial Zone
(C1-1)
Community Commercial
Zone (CC-2)
Central Business Service
Zone (CB-2)
Central Business Support
Zone (CB-5)
Central Business Zone
(CB-1 O)
Research Development
Park Zone (RDP)
Office & Research Park
Zone (ORP)
b~cafes
Permitted Use/
Provisional Use/
Special Exception
Provisional use
Special exception
Special exception
Special exception
Permitted
Permitted
Permitted
Permitted
Permitted
Permitted
Permitted as an accesso-
ry use to a hotel, motel,
or convention center
Permitted as an accesso-
ry use to a hotel, motel,
or convention center
Minimum
Front
Yard
20 ft.
None
20 ft.
20 ft.
20 ft.
20 ft.
20 ft.
None
None (except first floor
along Burlington
Street, 10 ft.)
None
20 ft.
150 ft.
/' / I.1! .bP:!,, {oF l~ll>l:L~dq~ ~,,~ 2i~i'Tr'~,Frfff71 FFFFI
SIDE .......
WALK CAFES
~ - , ~1_~ L[[ ~ J II
IOWA
I ' ~ ST
I
Z
cOURT
WASHf~tGT
Location
N. Unn C;tr'c-E!:
Linn SI. Cafe (west side)
Pagliai's
Hamburg Inn
Sidewalk Width
Max. Min.
18 '5" 11 '9"
8' 8'
I6'9" 13'
Market 5t~c-~t
La Pertira's (south side)
Old Quik Trip (south side)
Pearson's (north side)
George's (north side)
Pagliai's (north side)
8'6" 8'6"
4' 4'
11'7" 10'
15'8" 15'8"
19'4" 19'4"
Van Burn
Prentiss
The Vine (nodh side)
4' 4'
11'8" 4'
Gilbert St.
Fitzpatrick's (west side)
19'5" 13'5"
Location
Sanctuary (west side)
Sidewalk Width
Max. Min.
7'8" 7'8'l
Linn SL b~-twc~n BuHinqton Er Court
Lepic-Kroeger Realtors (vacant)
(west side)
8'5" 8'5"
c;. Clinton St.
Lind's Printing (west side)
Old Goodyear (west side)
River City Dental (west side)
Mondo's (west side)
9'5" 9'5"
9' 9'
14'9" 14'9"
15' I5'
Collc--qe Strc-e-t
Gringo's (south side)
Vito's (north side)
Union Station (south side)
Swan's (south side)
14'6" 14'6"
16'11" 16'11"
14'6" 14'6"
16'6" 16'6"
Dubuqu6 ~trc~-t
Freshen's Yogurt/Yen Ching Cafe
(east side)
2
23' 23'
Location
Old Rocky Rococco (east side)
Tobacco Bowl (west side)
Sub Shop (west side)
Micky's (west side)
Deadwood (east side)
Sports Column
Side=walk Width
Max. Min.
16' 16'
16' 16'
15' 15'
12'10" 9'6"
17'10" 9'
10'7" 10'7"
Iowa Awnu~
Pizza Hut
Joe's
Clinton
Airliner
20' 17'
20' 14'
16'3" 13'
Washincrton St,
Bo James (north side)
Brown Bottle (south side)
16' 14'8"
16'8" 16'8"
3
CITY OF IOWA CITY
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPAR~MENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Marian Karr, City Clerk i~/~
Michael E. Moran, Superintendent of Recreatio
March 2, 1995
Sidewalk cafe ordinance comm~ents
After discussion with staff concerning the opening time of
sidewalk cafes at ? a.m., we would like to express the
following concerns.
The CBD maintenance staff begins grounds maintenance duties
at 6 a.m., Monday-Friday and on Saturday and Sundays during
the warmer seasons. Our ground maintenance consists of power
vacuuming the pedestrian plaza which takes two employees
approximately three hours from 6-9 a.m. each day.
The areas adjacent to the plaza such as Clinton Street,
Washington Street and Linn Street are power vacuumed after
the pedestrian plaza is finished at 9 a.m. These areas are
cleaned on an "as needed" basis approximately 2-3 times per
week.
Opening sidewalk cafes at 7 a.m. will mean that the grounds
maintenance duties will not be completed prior to their set-
up. The power vacuum will be in operation around the
sidewalk cafes which is a noisy and dusty environment.
However, pushing back the start time, prior to 6 a.m., might
facilitate noise complaints from the Holiday Inn and
apartment dwellers in the plaza area. An 8 a.m. opening
would be better in allowing more time to complete the
necessary ground maintenance in the Central Business
District.
While we are not against the concept of sidewalk cafes in the
Central Business District we want to point out the potential
conflicts that may exist during this time frame.
cc: Sheri Thomas, CBD Supervisor
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3, ENTITLED "OUTDOOR SERVICE AREAS" TITLE 4,
CHAPTER 5, ENTITLED "PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS," TITLE 10, CHAPTER 3, ENTITLED
"COMNIERCIAL USE OF SIDEWALKS," AND TITLE 10, CH/~PTER 5, ENTITLED "CITY PLAZA" TO
ESTABLISH UNIFORfVI REGULATIONS FOR SIDEWALK CAFES.
WHEREAS, the City wishes to encourage the development of sidewalk cafes within the City; and
WHEREAS, separate regulations existed for plaza cafes on City Plaza, and
WHEREAS, additional regulations exmted for sidewalk cafes in commercially zoned areas of the
City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF'IOWA CITY, IOWA:
SECT[ON I. AMENDMENTS.
1. Section 4-3-1D, entitled "Exemptions from Regulations," subsection 2 dealing with Plaza ,Cafes is
hereby repealed.
2. Section 4-5-3, entitled "Consumption or Possession in Public Places and City Buildings," Subsection
A is hereby repealed and adding a new Subsection 4-5-3A as follows:
A. It shall be unlawful for any persons to consume or drink any alcoholic beverages on any public
street, ground, highway, sidewalk or alley in the City. A person shall not use or consume
alcoholic beverages in any public place within the City, except premises covered by a license
or permit, and when applicable a public right-of-way easement agreement.
3. Section 4-5-5, entitled "Open Containers," Subsection B is hereby repealed and adding a new
Subsection 4-5-5B as follows:
B. Possession Prohibited: It shall be unlawful for any person to possess alcoholic beverages in
any open container upon the pubtic streets or alleys, including the sidewalk within the public
right-of-way, and in any public place, except premises covered by a license or permit, and
wh.en applicable a public right-of-way easement agreement.
4. Title 10, Chapter 3, entitled "Commercial Use of Sidewalks" is hereby repealed and adding a new
Title 10, Chapter 3 as follows:
10-3-1: DEFINITIONS: As used in this Chapter, the following definitions shall apply:
PEDESTRIAN: Any person traveling on foot or wheelchair.
PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY: Any public street, alley, roadway, sidewalk, walkway, right-of-way or
public way designed for vehicular, bicycte or pedestrian travel and dedicated to public use.
RESTAURANT: A business whose primary function is the service of food to customers and which
meets the following criteria:
A. Serves hot meals prepared and cooked on the premises for consumption on the premises;
B. Has food service menu from which customers may order;
C. Has an employee whose primary duty is the preparation of food and an employee whose
primary duty is to serve food to customers;
D. Has a kitchen separate from the bar equipped with a microwave oven, stove, griddle, grill or
broiler and a food refrigeration unit with a capacity in excess of twenty (20) cubic feet;
E. Operates the restaurant service during at least sixty percent {60%) of the hours that the
business is open to the public; and
F.Holds itself out to be a restaurant and advertises itself as a restaurant if it advertises.
SIDEWALK: The improved portion of public right-of-way dedicated to and/or intended primarily for
pedestrian use.
SIDEWALK CAFE: An outdoor area located temporarily on a public sidewalk or other public
right-of-way adjacent to, contiguous to or directly in front of a restaurant where food and beverages
are taken for consumption by persons sitting or standing at tables in that area. Permitted sidewalk
cafes must abide by the requirements and limitations as determined by City Council.
10-3-2: USE OF PUBLIC SIDEWALKS RESTRICTED: Use of public sidewalks for any commercial
purpose, including sidewalk cafes, shall be unlawful except as specifically provided herein or as
specifically authorized by this Chapter.
10-3-3: USE FOR SIDEWALK CAFES:
A. Permitted Uses:
1. Sidewalk cafes will be permitted in the public right-of-way only in the CB-2, CB-5 and
CB-10 zones (the downtown and the commercial areas directly north and south of the
downtown).
Ordinance No.
Page 2
2. Sidewalk cafes in the City Plaza will only be permitted in Zone 1, and Zone 2 in conjunc-
tion with Zone 1, as defined in Title 10, Chapter 5 of the City Code, (the ten foot (10')
strip directly abutting the private property lines). Zone 1 extends the length of the City
Plaza along all sides of the Plaza. Zone 2 is the pedestrian lane adjoining Zone 1.
3. The sidewalk cafe area must be contiguous with any side of a building wherein a restau-
rant or food service establishment is located, and shall be referred to as the "sidewalk
care area."
4. The sidewalk cafe, as part of a restaurant, must be licensed by the Department of Public
Health.
B. Usable Sidewalk Cafe Area:
1. A sidewalk cafe area may not extend onto the sidewalk in a manner that will not allow
a minimum of eight feet (8') of unobstCucted sidewalk adjacent to the street for pedestri-
an use, nor extend into Zone 1 and Zone 2 of the City Plaza in a manner that will not
allow a minimum of eight feet (8') of unobstructed Zones 1 and 2 Plaza area remaining
for pedestrian use.
2. No tables and chairs shall be placed in corner areas defined by building lines extended
to the street, and no closer than ten feet (10') from an alley.
3. The area for a sidewalk cafe shall be temporarily delineated by ropes or some other
suitable method which shall be cleady visible to pedestrians, Tables, chairs, and other
items are to be removed at the end of each day's operation, and the sidewalk cafe area
shall be restored to its normal condition as a pedestrian way. No materials shall be stored
on the public right-of-way.
4. A sidewalk care may not utilize any public amenities such as benches, seats, or tables,
C. Days and Hours of Operation:
1. A public right-of-way easement agreement shall be issued in conjunction with yearly
renewals of Alcoholic Beverage Licenses/Permits or one (1) year from the date of issu-
ance for establishments not dispensing alcohol. The initial application may be less than
the one (1) year period to coincide with existing Alcoholic Beverage Licenses/Permits,
and will require full payment.
2,.The sidewalk cafe may be operated and used any time of the year.
3. Sidewalk cafes shall be set-up, operated, and restored to their normal condition, as a
pedestrian way, each day only between the hours of seven o'clock {7:00) A.M. and ten
o'clock (10:00) P.M.
4. Food and beverages must be available for service to patrons in a sidewalk cafe during
all hours of operation.
D, Sound Equipment:.
1. Amplified sound equipment shall not be permitted.
E. Sidewalk Cafe Easement Agreement:
1. Establishments must apply for and obtain a public right-of-way easement agreement from
the City prior to operation. Each applicant shall fi!e an application with the City Clerk, on
forms provided by the City and containing all pertinent information as the City may re-
quire, and shall agree to abide by state and local laws governing use of public right-of-
way. Establishments dispensing any alcoholic beverage must do so under state and local
law. An annual fee for easement agreements shall be established by Council resolution,
and all agreements shall be for one twelve-month period.
2. An application for a sidewalk cafe shall contain, at a minimum, a plot plan, a picture or
illustration of the amenities to be used, the seating capacity, and the method for delin-
eating the sidewalk care. In addition, the apDlication shall provide the name and address
of the owner and tenants of each immediate abutting property. Applications will be
handled by the City Clerk or designee, with the review and approval of any use of the
public right-of*way by the City Council, as prescribed by state and local law, The City
will notify the immediate abutting property owners and tenants, by letter, of the nature
of the application, and the date and time the item will appear on the agenda for approval
by the City Council. If the application is approved by the Council, the City Clerk or
designee will be responsible for the administration of the easement agreement and
collection of fees,
Ordinance No.
Page 3
3. All easement agreements shall be issued by the City Clerk or designee, numbered
consecutively, and a record kept, but only after approval by the City Council as required
by state and local law.
4. Even after City Council approval of a public right-of-way easement agreement, the City
shall retain the right to terminate the easement agreement but only after written notice
of violation has been given and the time to cure the violation has expired. Grounds for
termination of the easement agreement shall include, but not be limited to, repeated
violations of the state and liquor control laws, violations of the easement agreement, and
creating a safety hazard, health hazard andNr public nuisance under state or local law.
Additionally, the City retains the right to terminate the easement agreement and direct
removal of sidewalk cafe operations if, after deliberation, the Counci~ determines there
is a substantial and reasonable need for use of the public right-of-way for a valid public
purpose.
5. The use of public right-of-way permitted in the approved easement agreement shall in
no way interfere with access to public or City utilities located and/or operated within the
City's public right-of-way. In addition, each applicant shall be required to provide a
certificate of insurance satisfactory to the City, and shall agree to hold the City harmless
against any and all liability arising from interruptions, accidents or other actions arising
from the sidewalk care operation or location in the public right-of-way.
6. Sidewalk cafes located in the Urban Renewal Area, Iowa R-14, shall be subject to the
design review process of Title 14, Chapter 4 of this Code.
F. Operation of Sidewalk Cafes:
1. The City retains the right to limit the number of sidewalk cafes in "Permitted Uses" of
this Chapter.
2. Advertising shall not be permitted in the sidewalk cafe area except for the name of the
establishment on chairs, tables, umbrellas or other amenities, as approved by the City.
The amenities used in the sidewalk cafe area shatl be maintained in good condition.
3.No blockage of building entrances or exits shall be permitted in a sidewalk cafe area.
4. Additional restroom capacity may be required to comply with local building and housing
codes.
5. Occupancy limits shall be determined as set forth in Title 14, Chapter 5 of this Code.
No additional parking shall be required for the operation of a sidewalk care.
7. Sidewalk care areas shall be subject to inspection at least annually or at any other time
at the discretion of the City.
8. A sidewalk care serving alcoholic beverages must have an employee monitoring the area
at all times during the hours alcohol is consumed.
9.The sidewalk care shall be responsible for trash removal.
10. The operation of any sidewalk cafe shall be in conformity with all applicable federal,
state, and local laws and regulations.
10-3-4. NUI~BER OF PERMITS; USE LIMITATIONS, EXCLUDING SIDEWALK CAFES: The City
Manager is authorized to issue no more than two (2) permits in any one calendar year to businesses
or business organizations for the temporary use of sidewalks for any commercial purpose in commer-
cially zoned districts2 excluding sidewalk cafes. Such permits shall be limited to the temporary use of
s~dewalks abutting said businesses or business organizations and shall be limited to no more than two
(2) days for any one permit.
10-3-5: PENALTY: Any violation of this Chapter shatl be considered a simple misdemeanor or
Municipal infraction as provided for in Title 1, Chapter 4 of this Code.
5. Title 10, Chapter 5, "City Plaza," Section 10-5-2, entitled "Definitions," is hereby amended by
deleting the definition for "Plaza Care," and adding "Sidewalk Care" as follows:
SIDEWALK CAFE: An outdoor area located temporarily on a public sidewalk or other public
right-of-way adjacent to, contiguous to or directly in front of a restaurant where food and beverag-
es are taken for consumption by persons sitting or standing at tables in that area. Permitted
sidewalk cafes must abide by the requirements and limitations set forth in Title IO.
6. Section 10-5-8A, entitled "Use of City Plaza," subsections 3 and 14 are hereby repealed and
adding new subsections 3 and 14 as follows:
3. Sidewalk care (Zones 1, 2).
Ordinance No.
Page 4
14. Other uses consistent with the purposes stated in Section 10-5-1 of this Chapter may be
permitted if specifically approved by the City Manager or designee. When a mobile or tempo-
rary use is allowed, it is. understood that this authorization does not extend to Zone 1 or Zone
2 areas which are already leased for other purposes, e.g., mobile vending carts may not
approach patrons seated in a sidewalk cafe or outdoor service area.
7. Section 10-5-8C, entitled "Days and Hours of Operation" is hereby repealed and adding a new
Section 10-5-8C as follows:
C. Days and Hours of Operation: Buildings extended onto the City Plaza are to be open at least
during normal retail business hours, Monday through Saturday, throughout the year. Mobile
carts may operate seasonally but must be st least in operation substantially through normal
retail business hours, Monday through Saturday, May 1 to October 1. Other months of
operation may be granted by permit for ambulatory vendors and mobile carts when the
product is related to another season.
8. Section 10-5-9C, entitled "Plaza Cafes" is hereby repealed in its entirety and the Section reserved
for future use.
SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to
be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a
whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and
publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
ved byk,_~, ~,,
ey's Office