The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1995-04-11 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 11th day of April, 1995, in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa; at which hearing the Council will consider: An ordinance conditionally amending the use regulations of approximately 34.21 acres located west of Taft Ave- nue along Court Street extended from RS-5 to CN-1 (6.93 acres), RM-12 (12 acres), and RS-8 (8.14 and 7.14 acres). 2. An ordinance amending City Code Title 14, Chapter 5, Article H, entitled "Site PIsn Review," by adopting design stan- dards for exterior stairwells and exterior corridors on multi-family residential buildings. 3. An ordinance amending City Code Title 14, Chapter 6, entitled "Zoning," Arti- cle N, entitled "Off-Street Parking and Loading," to reduce the amount of off- street parking spaces required and amend the parking area design stan- dards in the CN-1, Neighborhood Com- mercial Zone. 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 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE BY CONDITIONALLY CHANGING THE USE REGULATIONS OF 34.21 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED WEST OF TAFT AVENUE ALONG COURT STREET EXTENDED FROM RS- 5, LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDEN- TIAL, TO CN-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMER- CIAL, RM-12, LOW DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, AND RS-8, MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. WHEREAS, Owner, as legal title holder, has requested the City fezone approximately 34.21 acres of land located west of Taft Avenue along Court Street extended from RS-5, Low Density Single-Family Residential, to CN-1, Neighborhood Commercial (6.92 acres), RM- 12, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (11,9 acres), and RS-8, Medium Density Single- Family Residential (9.13 and 7.18 acres); and WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning will allow the development of a neighborhood commercial center and areas of higher density residential development than the current RS-5 zoning permits; and WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414,5 (1993) pro- vides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting the rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs directly caused by the requested change; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to ensure the integration of the neighborhood commercial center and areas of higher density residential development into the surrounding single-family residential neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to ensure that traffic generated by the proposed development does not overburden the existing street system which is not designed to handle a significant increase in traffic; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to ensure that the potential wetland that has been identified on the site is addressed in a satisfactory man- ner; and WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning is compati- ble with adjacent development and the Com- prehensive Plan for the area, provided that certain conditions are adhered to; and WHEREAS, Owner acknowledges that certain conditions and restrictions are reasonable to ensure appropriate urban development in this area of Iowa City; and WHEREAS, the Owner has agreed to develop this property in accordance with certain terms and conditions to ensure appropriate urban development in this area of Iowa City. Ordinance No. Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, THAT: SECTION I. APPROVAL. Subject to the Condi- tional Zoning Agreement which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, the property described below is conditionally reclassified from its present classification of RS-5, Low Density Single-Family Residential, to CN-1, Neighborhood Commercial, RM-12, Low Density Multi-Family Residential, and RS-8, Medium Density Single-Family Residential: Parcel h RS-5 to CN-I: Beginning at the Northeast Corner of the Northeast Quarter of Section 18, Township 79 North,'Range 5 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian: Thence S00°23'59"E, along the East Line of Said Northeast Quarter, 481.45 feet; Thence S89°41'12"W, 307.67 feet; Thence N00°23'59"W, 310.36 feet; Thence S89°O2'11"W, '392.02; Thence N03°48'18"E, 305.49 feet; Thence Southeasterly 164.10 feet along a 1990.43 foot Radius Curve, concave Northeasterly, whose 164.O5 foot chord bears S88°36'O7"E; Thence N89°O2'11"E, 511.85 feet, to a Point on the East Line of the Southeast Quarter of Section 7, Township 79 North, Range 5 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian; Thence S00°57'49"E, along said East Line, 150.07 feet, to the Point of Begin- ning. Said Tract of land contains 6.92 Acres, more or less, and is subject to easements and restrictions of record. Parcel Ih RS-5 to RM-12. Commencing at the Northeast Corner of the Northeast Quarter of Section 18, Township 79 North, Range 5 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian: Thence N00°57'49"W, along the East Line of the Southeast Quarter of Section 7, Township 79 North, Range 5 West of the Fifth Princi- pal Meridian, 150.07 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence S89°O2'11"W, 511,85 feet; Thence Northwesterly 349.17 feet, on a 1990.43 foot radius curve, concave Northeasterly, whose 348.72 foot chord bears N85°56'17'W; Thence N09o05'14"E, 181.12 feet; Thence N31°48'O4"E, 572.39 feet; Thence NOOoOO'00"W, 53.50 feet: Thence S90oO0'00"E, 517.02 feet, to a point on the East Line of said Southeast Quarter of Section 7; Thence S00°57'49' Ordinance No. Page 3 E, along said East Line 735.01 feet to the Point of Beginning. Said tract of land contains 11.99, acres more or less, and is subject to easements and restrictions of record. Parcel II1:RS-5 to RS-8 (south of CN-1). Commencing atthe Northeast Corner of the Northeast Quarter of Section 18, Township 79 North, Range 5 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian; Thence S00°23'59"E, along the East Line of Said Northeast Quarter, 461.45 feet, to the Point of Beginning; Thence continuing SOO°23'59"E, along said East Line, 215.OO feet; Thence S89°41'12"W, 558.36 feet; Thence S52°08'48"W, 156.O9 feet; Thence Northwesterly, 212.88 feet, along a 834.00 foot Radius Curve, concave Southwesterly, whose 212.30 foot chord hears N45°04'55"W; Thence N52°23'40"W, 43.85 feet; Thence N37°36'20"E, 74.97 feet; Thence Northeasterly, 321.65 feet, along a 545.23 foot Radius Curve, concave North- . westerly, whose 317.00 foot chord bears N20°42'19"E; Thence N03°48'18"E, 83.51 feet; Thence N89°02'11 "E, 392.02 feet; Thence SOO°23'59"E, 310,36 feet; Thence N89°41' 12"E, 307.67 feet, to the Point of Beginning. Said Tract of land contains 7.18 Acres, more or less, and is subject to easements and restrictions of record. Parcel IV: RS-5 to RS-8 (western parcel). Commencing at the Northeast Corner of the Northeast Quarter of Section 18, Township 79 North, Range 5 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian: Thence N89°12'O4"W, along the North line of Said Northeast Quarter, 1660.46 feet, to the Point of Beginning; Thence Southeast- erly, 39.99 feet, along a 600.00 foot radius curve, concave Northeasterly, whose 39.99 foot chord bears S11 o 18'42"E; Thence Southeasterly, 21.56 feet, along a 600.00 foot radius concave Southwesterly, whose foot chord bears S12°11'31"E; Curve, 21.56 Thence S69°18'18"W, 245.36 feet; Thence N89°12'04"W, 659.86 feet; Thence N45°51'32"W, 72.80 feet; Thence N00°29'O8"W, 330.69 feet; Thence N79°41'30"E, 131.39 feet; Thence Northeasterly, 815.44 feet, along a 2886.05 foot radius curve, concave Southeasterly, whose 812.73 foot chord Ordinance No. Page 4 bears N87°47'10"E; Thence S05°52'49"W, 139.75 feet; Thence Southeasterly, 160.O4 feet, along a 600.00 foot radius curve, concave northeasterly, whose 159.56 foot chord bears S01 °45'39"E, to the Point of Begin- ning. Said Tract of land contains 9.13 Acres, more or less, and is subject to easements and restrictions of record. SECTION II. ZONING MAP. Upon final pas- sage, approval and publication of this Ordi- nance as provided by law, the Building Official is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this zoning amendment. SECTION III. CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREE- MENT. Following final passage and approval of this Ordinance, the Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to sign, and the City Clerk to attest, the Conditional Zoning Agreement between the property owners and the City. SECTION IV. CERTIFICATION AND RECORD- ING. After execution, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this Ordinance and the Conditional Zoning Agree- ment for recordation in the Office of the Re- corder, Johnson County, Iowa, all as provided by law. SECTION V. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provi- sions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION VI. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconsti- tutional. SECTION VII. 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 Approved by . ~ "C~'y Attorney's Office /7/,- ~ _ ~, ,~.... CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a Municipal Corporation (hereinafter "City"), and Arlington, L.C., an Iowa General Partnership (hereinafter "Owner"). WHEREAS, Owner, as legal title holder, has requested the City rezone approximately 34.21 acres of land located west of Taft Avenue along Court Street extended from RS-5, Low Density Single-Family Residential, to CN-1, Neighborhood Commercial (6.92 acres), RM-12, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (11.9 acres), and RS-8, Medium Density Single* Family Residential (9.13 and 7.18 acres); and WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning will allow the development of a neighborhood commercial center and areas of higher density residential development than the current RS-5 zoning permits; and WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414,5 (1993) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting the rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs directly caused by the requested change; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to ensure the integration of the neighborhood commercial center and areas of higher density residential development into the surrounding single-family residential neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to ensure that traffic generated by the proposed development does not overburden the existing street system which is not designed to handle a significant increase in traffic; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to ensure that the potential wetland that has been identified on the site is addressed in a satisfactory manner; and WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning is compatible with adjacent development and the Comprehensive Plan for the area, provided that certain conditions are adhered to; and WHEREAS, Owner acknowledges that certain conditions and restrictions are reasonable to ensure appropriate urban development in this area of Iowa City; and WHEREAS, the Owner has agreed to develop this property in accordance with certain terms and conditions to ensure appropriate urban development in this area of Iowa City. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual promises contained herein, the Parties agree as follows: Arlington, L.C., an Iowa General Partnership, is the owner and legal title holder of property located west of Taft Avenue along Court Street extended, which property is more particularly described as follows: 2 RS-5 to CN-I: Beginning at the Northeast Corner of the Northeast Quarter of Section 18, Township 79 North, Range 5 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian: Thence S00°23'59"E, along the East Line of Said Northeast Quarter, 461.45 feet; Thence S89°41'12"W, 307.67 feet; Thence NOO°23'59"W, 310.36 feet; Thence S89°02'11 "W, 392.02; Thence NO3°48'18"E, 305.49 feet; Thence Southeasterly 164.10 feet along a 1990.43 foot Radius Curve, concave Northeasterly, whose 164.05 foot chord bears S88°36'07"E; Thence N89°02'11"E, 511.85 feet, to a Point on the East Line of the Southeast Quarter of Section 7, Township 79 North, Range 5 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian; Thence S00°57'49"E, along said East Line, 150.07 feet, to the Point of Beginning. Said Tract of land contains 6.92 Acres, more or less, and is subject to easements and restrictions of record. RS-5 to RM-12. Commencing at the Northeast Corner of the Northeast Quarter of Section 18, Township 79 North, Range 5 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian: Thence NOO°57'49"W, along the East Line of the Southeast Quarter of Section 7, Township 79 North, Range 5 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, 150.07 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence S89°02'11"W, 511.85 feet; Thence Northwesterly 349.17 feet, on a 1990.43 foot radius curve, concave Northeasterly, whose 348.72 foot chord bears N85°56'17"W; Thence NO9°O5'14"E, 181.12 feet; Thence N31°48'O4"E, 572.39 feet; Thence NOO°OO'OO"W, 5,~.50 feet: Thence S90°00'00"E, 517.02 feet to a point on the East Line of said Southeast Quarter of Section 7; Thence S00°57'49 E, along said East Line 735.01 feet to the Point of Beginning. Said tract of land contains 11.99 acres more or less, and is subject to easements and restrictions of record. RS-5 to RS-8 (south of CN-1) Commencing at the Northeast Corner of the Northeast Quarter of Section 18, Township 79 North, Range 5 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian; Thence S00°23'59"E, along the East Line of Said Northeast Quarter, 461.45 feet, to the Point of Beginning; Thence continuing S00°23'59"E, along said East Line, 215.00 feet; Thence S89°41'12"W, 558.36 feet; Thence S52°08'48"'W, 156.09 feet; Thence Northwesterly, 212.88 feet, along a 834.00 foot Radius Curve, concave Southwesterly, whose 212.30 foot chord bears N45 o 04'55"W; Thence N52°23'40"W, 43.85 feet; Thence N37°36'20"E, 74.97 feet; Thence Northeasterly, 321.65 feet; 'along a 545.23 foot Radius Curve, concave Northwesterly, whose 317.00 foot chord bears N20°42'19"E; Thence NO3°48'18"E, 83.51 feet; Thence N89°O2'11"E, 392.02 feet; Thence S00°23'59"E, 310.36 feet; Thence N89°41 '12"E, 307.67 feet, to the Point of Beginning. Said Tract of land contains 7.18 Acres, more or less, and is subject to easements and restrictions of record. 3 D. RS-5 to RS-8 (western parcel). Commencing at the Northeast Corner of the Northeast Quarter of Section 18. Township 79 North, Range 5 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian: Thence N89° 12'04"W, along the North line of Said Northeast Quarter, 1660.46 feet to the Point of Beginning; Thence Southeasterly 39.99 feet, along a 600.00 foot radius curve, concave Northeasterly, whose 39.99 foot chord bears Sl 1 o 18'42"E; Thence Southeasterly, 21.56 feet, along a 600.00 foot radius curve, concave Southwesterly, whose 21.56 foot chord bears S12°11 '31 "E; Thence S69°18'18"W, 245.36 feet; Thence N89°12'O4"W, 659.86 feet; Thence N45°51'32"W, 72.80 feet; Thence NOO°29'O8"W, 330.69 feet; Thence N79°41 '30"E, 131.39 feet; Thence Northeasterly, 815.44 feet, along a 2886.05 foot radius curve, concave Southeasterly, whose 812.73 foot chord bears N87°47' 10" E; Thence S05 °52'49"W, 139.75 feet; Thence Southeaster- ly, 160.04 feet, along a 600.00 foot radius curve, concave northeasterly, whose 159.56 foot chord bears S01 °45'39"E, to the Point of Beginning. Said Tract of land contains 9.13 Acres, more or less, and is subject to easements and restrictions of record. Owner acknowledges that the City wishes to ensure that development of the subject property is compatible with adjacent properties which are zoned RS-5. Therefore, Owner agrees to certain conditions over and above City regulations in order to ensure that development of the subject property is integrated into the surrounding single- family residential neighborhood, does not overburden the existing street system which is not designed to handle a significant increase in traffic, and does address protection of the possible existence of a wetland on the site. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property from RS-5 to CN-1, RM-12 and RS-8, Owner agrees that development and use of the subject property will conform to all requirements of the CN-1, RM~12 and RS-8 zones, as well as the following additional conditions: Development plans for the CN-1 and RM-12 parcels shall be subject to administrative review and approval by the Director of Planning and Community Development, Court Street shall be extended eastward to the site from its current terminus at Scott Boulevard prior to the development of the subject parcels. Both RS-8 parcels shall be developed as Planned Development Housing Overlay zones, and the eastern RS-8 parcel shall contain an open space similar to the "town square" design shown on the revised concept plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A. If it is determined that jurisdictional wetlands are located on the western RS-8 parcel, Army Corps of Engineers' approval shall be required prior to develop- ment. The Owner acknowledges that certain conditions contained herein are reasonable conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (1993), and that said conditions satisfy public needs which are directly caused by the requested zoning change. 4 The Owner acknowledges that in the event the subject property is transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all redevelopment will conform with the terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement. The Parties acknowledge that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be a covenant running with the land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force and effect as a covenant running with the title to the land unless or until released by record of the City, The Parties fm~her acknowledge that this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind all successors, representatives and assigns of the Parties, Owner acknowledges that nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner from complying with all applicable local, state and federal regulations, The Parties agree that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by reference into the Ordinance rezoning the subject property; and that upon adoption and publication of the Ordinance, this Agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office at City expense. Dated this __ day of , 1995. ARLING' Ga~ Appr v, ed by: City Attorney s Office CITY OF IOWA CITY By Susan M. Horowitz, Mayor Attest Marian K. Karr, City Clerk 5 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. Kerr 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 STATE OF IOWA ) )SS: JOHNSON COUNTY On this day of ,1995, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for ti3e State of Iowa, personally appeared , to me personally known, who being by me duly sworn did say that he is the of East Hill Subdivision, Inc, the Iowa Corporation executing the within and foregoing instrument, that no seal has been procured by the corporation; that said instrument was signed on behalf of the corporation by authority of its Board of Directors; and that as officer acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument to be the voluntary act and deed of the corporation, by it and by him voluntarily executed. EXHIBIT A ,,- Iowa City, "E._ViSED CONCEPT PLAN RS-'8 STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission item: REZ94-0016. Windsor Ridge Rezoning GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Contact person: Requested action: Purpose: Location: Size: Existing land use and zoning: Surrounding land use and zoning: Comprehensive Plan: File date: 45-day limitation period: Prepared by: Scott Kugier Date: February 16, 1995 Windsor Ridge Development Company 1700 First Avenue iowa City, iowa 52240 Gary Watts Phone - 354-6760 Approval of a request to fezone four parcels from RS-5 to CN-1, RM-12, and RS-8. To fezone property within the Windsor Ridge development to allow a neighbor- hood commercial zone and to allow areas of higher density and multi-family housing. On the west side of Taft Avenue, at its future intersection with Court Street, extended. Proposed CN-1 zone: 6.93 acres. Proposed RM-12 zone: 12.0 acres. Proposed RS-8 zone: 7.14 and 8.14 acres. Vacant, RS-5. North - undeveloped; RS (County) East- agricultural; A1 (County) South - residential, undeveloped; RS-5 West- undeveloped, golf course; P, ID-RS, RS (County) Low density single family residential, as contained in the Fringe Area 5 Land Use Concept Plan. October 27, 1994 Waived to February 16, 1995 2 SPECIAL INFORMATION: Public utilities: Adequate City water and sewer servic- es for the Windsor Ridge development are available. All costs associated with providing infrastructure are to be paid by the developer, as required by a Conditional Zoning Agreement dated March 30, 1993, regarding the initial annexation and zoning of the subject property. Public services: The City would provide necessary ser- vices to the area, including police and fire protection. Transportation: The Windsor Ridge development is not being directly served by Iowa City Transit at this time. The nearest bus service is along Court Str~.et at Friend- ship Street, west of Scott Boulevard. Physical characteristics: The site contains rolling terrain with slopes in some areas of ten percent or more. One portion of the proposed RS-8 site is identified on the Sensitive Areas Inventory as being a potential unwooded wetland, and other portions contain hydric soils. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Windsor Ridge Development Company has submitted a request to rezone four parcels of land located near the future intersection of Taft Road and Court Street, extended, from RS-5, Low Density Single Family Residential, to CN-1, Neighborhood Commercial, RM-12, Low Density Multi-Family Residential, and RS-8, Medium Density Single Family Residential. This property was annexed and zoned in October of 1993, for the Windsor Ridge Development. At that time all of Windsor Ridge was rezoned to RS-5. Now, the applicant plans to develop a 6.93 acre parcel as a neighborhood commercial center (to be zoned CN-1 ) arranged around a "town square." This site would be at the southwest corner of the future intersection of Court Street and Taft Road. Multi-family townhouses are proposed on an 12 acre parcel directly north of the proposed neighborhood commercial center, to be zoned RM-12. Two parcels are proposed to be zoned RS-8 and developed as future Planned Development Housing Overlay Zones (OPDH), one located immediately south of the proposed CN-1 zone and fronting on the south edge of the town square (7.14 acres), and one located approximately 1,700 feet west of Taft Road along Court Street, extended (8.14 acres). A total of 34.21 acres is proposed for rezoning. 3 ANALYSIS: The appropriateness of a rezoning request must be evaluated in terms of its consistency with the policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan, its impact on existing and future development in the surrounding area, and on its relationship to the natural features existing on the site. An analysis of the proposed rezoning, evaluated in these terms, follows. CN-1 Neighborhood Commercial Zone Windsor Ridge is located within Fringe Area 5. Although ttle Fringe Area 5 Land Use Concept Plan does not indicate the need for a neighborhood commercial center in this specific location, the Comprehensive Plan does recognize the fact that, "as new residential development occurs, new market areas are created and the viability of additional commercial centers is increased." In addition, the Fringe Area 5 Study states that "as residential development takes place, neighborhood commercial uses should be placed at strategic locations to provide shopping opportunities for the daily needs of the residents." To aid in determining appropriate locations for additional neighborhood commercial centers, the Plan establishes site location criteria to be applied to prospective sites. The criteria deal with the location of the site within a neighborhood, the size and shape of the center, access, site conditions, and competition with other commercial areas. It appears that the proposed location of this neighborhood commercial center meets most of these criteria. This site is located approximately one mile from the nearest CN-1 zone, is less than 7 acres in size, has access directly from two arterial streets, and should be integrated into the surrounding neighborhood through the use of pedestrian walkways and trails. When the applicant submitted an initial concept plan for the property (see attached plan), staff was concerned about the amount of parking shown on the plan and the fact that it seemed to dominate the site. The amount of parking shown at the time was mainly due to the current parking standards, which are the same for all retail uses whether they are located in a regional commercial area (such as Wal-Mart) or in neighborhood commercial centers. As a result, the parking requirements of the CN-1 zone were evaluated and proposed changes are being recommended in a separate staff memorandum. The revised concept plan approximates what would be required if the proposed amendments to the CN-1 parking requirements are adopted. Due to the nature and scale of the businesses that are likely to be found in a neighborhood commercial center, together with the fact that the intent of the CN-1 zone is to provide a pedestrian and bicycle friendly environment, it is staff's opinion that the revised concept plan would be more desirable in this neighborhood than the earlier plan showing more parking. Since the proposed CN-1 zone is to be located within a larger single-family residential area, staff recommends that the approval of this rezoning to CN-1 be conditioned upon an administrative review of the final development plan by the Director of Planning and Community Development. An administrative review will help ensure that the commercial area is well integrated into the fabric of the neighborhood to provide for pedestrian and bicycle access. As discussed below, the Neighborhood Commercial zone is being designed around a "town square". 4 RNI-12 Low Density Nlulti-Family Residential and RS-8 Nledium Density Single-Family Residential Zones. The Land Use Concept Plan for Fringe Area 5 calls for low density single family development in this general location. The current zoning classification of RS-5 is consistent with the Fringe Area 5 Study. However, many of the housing policies established in the Comprehensive Plan suggest diversity in housing types, and encourage decisionmakers to consider the diverse needs of city residents in making residential development decisions. The applicant is proposing townhouse development in the RM-12 area and the RS-8 area to the south of the CN-1 zone, and multi-family structures in the other RS-8 area as a future Planned Develop- ment Housing Overlay Zone (OPDH). While multi-family development is not suggested by the Fringe Area 5 Land Use Concept Plan, these sites are proposed to be located along a planned arterial roadway, and would be consistent with some of the housing policies identified in the Comprehensive Plan. It is possible that some areas within the Windsor Ridge development could be developed as multi-family residential without detracting from the overall single family character of the larger area. Staff recommends that the rezoning to RM-12 be conditioned upon the approval of a more detailed concept plan by the Director of Planning and Community Development prior to application for a building permit. This will help ensure that the proposed RM-1 2 development will be compatible with the surrounding single family neighborhood. The proposed RS-8 zone to the south of the neighborhood commercial area is an integral part of the "traditional" town center being proposed at this location. Having some residential units within the neighborhood center is desirable, and the fairly dense development being proposed witl provide an enclosure for the south side of the town square. The town square itself is included in the proposed RS-8 area. Therefore, staff recommends that the rezoning of this parcel be conditioned upon a future OPDH to ensure that the town square isa part of the final design, and to ensure that this area is integrated into the design of the CN-1 zone. The proposed RS-8 site at the western end of the site contains a potential wetland and areas of hydric soils, according to the Iowa City Sensitive Areas Inventory, Phase 1. Any development in this area should be subject to review by the Army Corps of Engineers. The approval of this rezoning should be conditioned upon review and approval by the Army Corps of Engineers. Staff recommends that an OPDH be required in this area, also, so that the impact on the wetlands, if found, can be avoided or minimized. Street Improvements. Part of the rationale for rezoning each of these parcels is that each site is located along an arterial street - Court Street. However, this arterial has not yet been constructed, and an intervening property not controlled by Windsor Ridge Development Company exists between these sites and the current terminus of Court Street. Therefore, staff recommends that these sites not be developed until such time that Court Street is extended, whether it be at the developer's expense, the City's expense, or a combination of the two. The alternatives available in the interim - Taft Avenue to American Legion Road or Herbert Hoover Highway - are not suitable to serve this scale of development. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that REZ94-0016, a request to rezone four parcels of land located near the future intersection of Taft Road and Court Street, extended, from RS-5 to CN-1, RM-12, and RS-8, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) verification by the Army Corps of Engineers of the existence or lack of wetlands within the western RS-8 parcel; 2) a requirement that both RS-8 parcels be developed as OPDH developments containing structures other than detached single-family dwellings; and that the eastern RS-8 zone contain an open space similar to the "town square" design shown on the revised concept plan; 3) the extension of Court Street into this area prior to any of the subject parcels being developed; and 4) administrative review by the Director of Planning and Community Development prior to development of the CN-1 and RM-12 areas. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map. 2. Previous Concept Plan. 3. Revised Concept Plan. ~rezOOI $.sk 2; Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner Department of Planning and Community Development RS-8 =,~ RM-12-] Iowa CiLy, Iowa REVISED CONCEPT PLAN J 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 11th day of April, 1995, in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa; at which hearing the Council will consider: 1. An ordinance conditionally amending the use regulations of approximately 34.21 acres located west of Taft Ave- nue along Court Street extended from RS~5 to CN-1 (6.93 acres), RM-12 (12 acres), and RS-8 (8.14 and 7.14 (~) acres). An ordinance amending City Code Title 14, Chapter 5, Article H, entitled "Site Plan Review," by adopting design stan- dards for exterior stairwells and exterior corridors on multi-family residential buildings. 3. An ordinance amending City Code Title 14, Chapter 6, entitled "Zoning," Arti- cle N, entitled "Off-Street Parking and Loading," to reduce the amount of off- street parking spaces required and amend the parking area design stan- dards in the CN-1, Neighborhood Com- mercial Zone. 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 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE TITLE 14, CHAPTER 5, ENTITLED "BUILDING AND HOUSING," ARTICLE H, ENTITLED "SITE PLAN REVIEW," BY ADOPTING DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR EXTERIOR STAIRWELLS AND EXTERIOR CORRIDORS ON MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUILDINGS. WHEREAS, the City has established a Site Plan Review procedure in order to review certain improvements of property to ensure orderly and harmonious development; and WHEREAS, development plans for multi- family apartment buildings and commercial buildings with dwelling units located above the ground floor are currently subject to review under said Site Plan Review procedure; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to ensure that exterior stairwells and exterior corridors, when utilized on multi-family apartment buildings and commercial buildings containing dwelling units above the ground floor, are architecturally integrated into the design of the overall build- in. gs; and WHEREAS, the City, in order to ensure the architectural integration of exterior stairwells and exterior corridors into the design of the overall buildings, wishes to adopt design guide- lines to be incorporated into the Site Plan Review procedures. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF iOWA CITY, THAT: SECTION I. AMENDMENT. Chapter 5, entitled "Building and Housing," Article H, entitled "Site Plan Review," Section 5, entitled "Design Standards," of the City Code be hereby amend- ed by adding a new Section 14-5H-5 to read as follows: M. The design of exterior stairwells and exteri- or corridors which provide access to dwell- ing units located above the ground or first floor of a building containing three (3) or more dwetling units or where any number of residential units are located above a com- mercial use, shall be approved by the Direc- tor of Planning and Community Develop- ment with respect to the following guide- lines. Any guideline applying to exterior stairwells shall also apply to exterior lifts. Alternative designs may be approved if the Director of Planning and Community Devel- Ordinance No. Page 2 opment determines that the alternative design meets the intent of assuring that exterior stairwells and corridors are archi- tecturally incorporated into the. overall design of the building, or if a second exit is required on an existing building for the purpose of fire safety. 1. For all dwelling units located above the ground floor, an interior circulation sys- tem, for the purpose of entering and exiting each unit, is preferred over exte- rior stairwells and exterior corridors. preferred (internal circulation) discouraged (external circulation) Where exterior stairwells are utilized, they should be partially enclosed by a building wall(s) similar in materials and design to the exterior walls of the struc- ture. Other than fenestration, said wall(s) should be solid from grade to the roof of the stairwell and should be archi- tecturally integrated into the design of the overall structure through the use of similar materials and style. Fenestration is encouraged, but should not constitute Ordinance No. Page 3 more than fifty percent (50%) of the total surface area of the wall. Exposed, unpainted or unstained lumber should not be utilized unless approved by the Director of Planning and Community Development. At a minimum, a wall should be provided on the side of the stairwell opposite the wall of the struc- ture to which the stairwell is attached. appropriate inappropriate 3. Exterior stairwells and exterior corridors should be covered with a roof similar in design and materials to the roof over the rest of the structure. Said roof should he incorporated into the overall roof plan of the structure. appropriate Ordinance No. Page 4 inappropriate 4. Exterior corridors should not be located on the elevation(s) of the building that faces a street. When exterior corridors are utilized, they should be architectural- ly integrated into the design of the over- all structure. Exposed, unpainted or unstained lumber should not be utilized unless approved by the Director of Plan- ning and Community Development. 5. When exterior stairwells are located on the elevation of a building facing a front yard, special care should be taken to integrate the enclosing wall{s) required iN Subsection 14-SH-SM2 into the fa- cade of the building architecturally. Architectural details such as fenestration and ornamentation utilized on the facade should also be incorporated into the enclosing wall(s) of the stairwell. appropriate inappropriate Ordinance No. Page 5 SECTION II. Rt:PEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provi- sions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconsti- tutional. SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordi- nance shell be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and adopted this MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Approved by, ~'i~ Attorney s Office 5/~ ?_ ~_~-' City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: Re: January 13, 1995 Planuing and Zoning Commission Scott Kugler, Associate Planner Exterior Stairwells and Corridors The following guidelines or standards are proposed to be incorporated into the site plan review ordinance. The standards are intended to regulate the location and design of exterior stairwells and exterior corridors when utilized on multi-family apartment buildlugs or on commercial buildings containing residential dwellings on the upper floors. The proposed standards are a result of a request last year by the Planniug and Zoning Conmlission and City Council to study this issue. The Commission was concerned about the design, appearance, and safety of ant, mber of apartment buildings that have been constructed recently making use of exterior circulation systems. Staff and tile Conmfission initially recommended to the Council that access to individual units be from enclosed lobbies and corridors, thereby prohibiting buildings with exterior corridors and ruultiple level exterior stairwells. When this proposal was presented to the Council the Board of Appeals raised concerns about prohibiting exterior corridors and stairwells. The Board stated that buildings with exterior corridors may be safer from a fire safety perspective. A letter detailing the Boards concerns and other correspondence regarding the previous proposal are attached. As a result of these concerns the City Council asked that staff develop standards that would uot prohibit exterior stairwells and corridors, but would encourage them to be architecturally incorporated into the overall building design and be more attractive. Staff worked with a comanittee of three architects to develop the proposed standards to address these concerns. The proposed standards treat exterior stairwells and corridors differently. While the standards clearly state the preference for an interior circulation system, they provide flexibility and allow exterior stairwells and corridors subject to design and location guidelines. The intent of the proposed standards is to ensure that when exterior circulation systems are utilized they are incorporated into tile design of the overall building rather titan added on as an afterthought after the rest of the structure is designed. If these guidelines are added to the site plan review ordinance, the requirements for submitting a site plan review application will be amended to require the submission of building elevations when exterior stairwells are proposed. The proposed standards for exterior stairwells would require that they be enclosed by at least one solid wall, allowing openings to constitute up to 50 percent of the total surface area of the wall; and be covered with a roof similar in design and materials to the roof over the rest of the structure. The standards also encourage the integration of tile required enclosing wall and roof into the design of the rest of the structure through similar architectural treatments, especially when the stairwell is located on a street facade. Exterior corridors would not be permitted on the street facade of buildings, but would be 2 allowed on side and rear elevations. The proposed guidelines are accompanied by illustrations showing appropriate and inappropriate applications of the guidelines. The proposed standards are also being reviewed by the Design Review Conunittee and the Board of Appeals, so the Conunission should defer a vote on the proposed amendments to February 16, 1995. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the proposed amendments to Title 14, Chapter 5, entitled "Building and Housing," of the City Code revising Article H, entitled "Site Plan Review," to adopt design guidelines for exterior stairwells and exterior corridors on multi-family residential buildings, be approved. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed text to be added to City Code Section 14-5H-5. 2. Correspondence regarding previous proposal to regulate exterior stairwells and corridors. Attachment Robert Miklo, Senior Planner Department of Planning and Community Development ROHRBA(~H CARLSON PC December 27, 1993 ARCHITECTS P.O. Box 2~:38 Iowa Ci~y, IA 5Z~4 Tol. 319-338-~11 FAX 319.338.9872 City Council of Iowa City- Iow~ City Civic Center Iowa City, Iowa 52246' Dear Mayor: I am writing this letter on behalf of the Board of Appeals concerning the proposed Ordinance amending Chapter 36 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, Entitled "ZONING," by amending Section 36-58, Entitled "Off-Street Parking Requirements," aad by Amending Sections 36-11 (G), 36-12(G), 36-13(G) and 36-1Z~(G),-entitled "Special Pro. visions"; Sections 36-17(C)(1) and 36-20(C)(1), entitled "Provisional - Uses"; and Sections 36-19iD)(5) and 36-23(D)(3), entitled "Special Exceptions" to require that access to indi{~idual multi-family dwelling units shall be from enclosed lobbies or corridors, except for Townhouse- style units. Our B9ard Unanimously voted at our December 20,1993 meeting to ask that the. City Counci! either strike the provisions concerning access to dwelling units or schedule-an additional Bublic · Hearing on.these provisions. We understand that a Public Hearing was. held but we were not aware of the these provisions and hence did not attend. We understand that the Home Builders Association of Iowa City was not aware of the scope of these provisions. The Board of Appeals is concerned because individual ~xterior entrances are the safest type of entrances to an apartment, from a Life Safety point of view. Common corridors and lobbies can become filled wi. th smoke or flame that would make exiting hazardous, if not impossible. The indiv. idual entrances also allow firefighters' access to the unit involved in a fire without traversing a smoke filled common space or breaking out of a window. The elimination of this type of apartment unit does not appear to be in the best interest of the future safety and welfare of the City of Iowa Ci{y. The Board of Appeals would also Ilk6 the council to take into consideration two additional aspects of these provisions. Individual exterior entrances provide an additional degree of safety to the occupants because they can see their entrance upon approaching the building. This severely limits the ability of an assailant to hide In an enclosed common space while stalking a victim. Access for occupants with disabilities may best be meet with individual entrances. Every door is a barrier, even if properly designed, to some of our citizens and this requirement will require at least one more barrier be placed in their way. We were not privy of the discussions on why these provisions were · recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission but understand that aesthetic concerns were a portion of the discussion. We agree that attractive streetscapes are desirable but at what cost. We strongly feel that Life Safety aspects must out weigh aesthetic concerns, We are 0or saying that the' only way to achieve safe apartment design is to require exterior entrances but we do not believe that the banning of this intrinsically safe design is appropriate. I would like to add an additional comment as an Architect. I have been involved with over a hundred of Multi-family buildings and thousands of living units in the last twenty years. I ~ppreciate concerns with the aesthetics of some of the buildings in our community with exterior' entrances but fin.d some of the buildings with. interior entrances to be equally disturbing. There are existing I~)ts in this community, zoned, for multi-family usage, that are best suited to a building with exterior' entrances. This style of building can be more economical to fit into a narrower space than a unit with common entrances. This ordinance would either prevent construction or1 some of these. lots, require the combining of multiple lots ihto a larger complex or force the builder to built a less economical building;,If we force the construction of !arger ~:omplexes, those buildings will have a.greater impact on their neighborhood, The construction of less economical units will drive up the-cost of housing even further than ~h'e parking portion of this ordinance. Please do nbt misunderstand me, I support the changes to the parking requirements but we must understand they will increase the co~t of housing, The Board of Appeals appreciates your consideration of our concer~s · and asks that you either set aside'these provisions for future consideration or schedule a Public Hearing during the reading process to allow for discussion. Please do not make the Zoning Ordinance into our voice on aesthetic concerns, if we as a community want to control the aesthetics of multi-family buildings then we should do so with design · review process not by a blanket prohibition on one style of building. Sincerely, · Robert C. Carlson AIA Chair -- Board of Appeals City Council 410 E. Washington Iowa City 52240 824 N. Gilbert Iowa City 52245 15 December 1993 Dear Council Members: We recently read in the newspapers about the proposal to base parking requirements for new construction of multi-family dwell- ings on the number of bedrooms per unit rather than square footage. We strongly support this proposal. Our parking problems on the North Side are well known, due to many factors, and can only get worse if the current equzrements continue. The proposed regula- r tion racognizes more realistically the number of people who actually live in a'building and what their parking needs are. The newspapers also mentioned that a proposal eliminating outside stairways has been made. Bravo! Aside from being dangerous, the motel-model is insensitive to the character of older neighborhoods. These buildings are obvious attempts to cram as many people into a building as possible, maximizing profit. What is particularly insulting about such structures is that there is no front, be- cause there is no front door--the orientation is towards the back, and the parking lot, and the cars. This "design" is just the opposite of how our neighborhhood, and similar neighborhoods, w~e created. I realize that it is the goal of some developers to re-invent our streetscapes so that their buildings make our old houses look out of place. However, since the developers won't take it upon themselves to respect those of us who bought our homes in old neighborhoods because we like them, the City should do what it can by requiring more sensitive designs. We have seen new housing in old areas in other cities that was very respectful of the neighborhood. It can be done. However, until local developers show some imagination and a desire to work with the City and the neighborhood to build better, more attractive and sensitive buildings, we will continue to get very nervous every time one of our old houses is demolished in the name of "progress." Best wishes, Paula Brandt Lowell Brandt XC: Liz Miller Steve van der woude Doug Russell C. JOSEPH HOLLAND Attorney at Law 300 Brewery Square 123 North Linn Street P.O. Box 2820 Iowa City, IA 52244 319-354-0331 FAX 354-O559 March 17, 1994 Mr. Robert Miklo CITY OF IOWA CITY Department of Planning and Program Development 410 East Washingto..n Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Bob: I have been pretty busy over the last few weeks, but I wanted to give you my thoughts about the issue of constructing apartment buildings with only exterior stairways. I initially raised only the question of adequacy of parking based upon square footage versus number of bedrooms. Somewhere along the way the issue of exterior versus interior stairways got grafted into this process. After the initial public hearing on the proposed amendments, I got to thinking more about the question of exterior stairways. My interest was particularly piqued by a letter from a citizen calling this "motel construction.,, Here are my thoughts on the issue. I have three basic objections to exterior talrwells First, I think they are a particularly ugly and cheap looking type of construction. Second, I think they effect the quality of life of the apartment residents. Finally, I think they are a safety hazard. I want to address these in reverse of that order, since I think that is more or less the order of importance. There seems to be a great debate about whether the exterior or interior access is safer. There are really two issues in this. The first is use and maintenance of the decks and their inherent safety. The other issue is personal safety from the acts of other parties. I can think of a number of factors which lead me to believe these exterior stairways are safety hazards. Unlike interior hallways, the exterior stairways collect snow, ice, and other seasonal debris. If this is not promptly removed, it is a safety hazard for persons using those walkways and stairways. Obviously, Mr. Robert Miklo March 17, 1994 Page 2 clearing walks and steps is an issue in any apartment building. However, these stairs and walks add very substantially to the area which must be cleared and to the areas which tenants must travel if the areas are not cleared. It is my observation that many tenants store things on these walkways. This includes bicycles, folding chairs, garbage, grills, kegs left over from parties, and miscellaneous items. In fact, S ' ometlmes clothing is hanging on the rails to dry. These stairs and walkways are uniformly of wood frame construction and are exposed to the elements. As that wood weathers it starts to leave exposed livers in both the railings S ' and underfoot. It-~lso becomes very dry and very flammable, unless faithfully maintained. I think that this type of construction discriminates against the elderly and people with children. In general, stairways can be a problem for the elderly. Exterior stairwells and walkways present even more of a problem. People with children would need to be vigilant as they come and go from their apartments. It is possible for a child to climb the balcony or some other object and fall over the side. I recognize that these apartments are being constructed for the student segment of the market. Nonetheless, the uses could change in the future and quality construction maximizes the type of people who can safely occupy a structure. A final general safety concern is the tendency of residents of these ulldlngs to have parties on these walkways when the weather s nice. These walks were not bui.lt to ~upport the weight ~f large numbers of people. Also, over the alllng, or if the railing is not well built or well r ' ' there is a r~sk that someone will fall maintained, that it will give way and someone will suffer a disastrous fall. All of the foregoing items are of a general safety concern. The common denominator is that they require virtually every day, all day vigilance by the landlord. That is impossible even for landlords w~th the ability and motivation to follow through. The second tenant safety area relates to personal safety. At the public earlng, the comment was made that exterior entryways h ' are safer. I believe that exactly the opposite is true. No apartment building is 100% safe. Even interior hallways have their risks. However, I believe that exterior entries offer less personal security. Mr. Robert Miklo March 17, 1994 Page 3 Obviously, if someone were being stalked, it would be much easier to monitor their comings and goings by watching their apartment door. This is quite easy when that door opens directly to the outside. It is much more difficult to monitor someone,s comings and goings from an interior hallway, particularly if there are dual exits to a building. It is also probably easier to break into an exterior doorway. The walkways tend to be poorly lighted, unless tenants leave their individual unit lights on. A walkway also affords a thief the opportunity to look around and see if anything is going on around them and to make a quick attempt at entry into an apartment. With an interior hallway, a thief never knows if someone across the hall will open their door or if someone will come into the building. In my estimation there is probably less cover for a thief in an interior hallway than in an exterior stairway. Most interior halls and stairs are lighted 24 hours per day. These are hard factors to assess, however, I think there are good reasons to suggest that interior hallways are safer than exterior walkways. The second general area which I find a problem with exterior walkways is in the quality of life. Exposure to the elements is not an nconslderable factor. Each time the door is opened, cold i ' air rushes in in the winter and hot air rushes in in the summer. Many apartments have hot water heating systems, which are very efficient, but which are ill equipped to rebound from a sudden rush of cold air. Similarly, most apartments have a through the wall air conditioner which must service the entire apartment and recover from a blast of hot air in the summer. Interior hallways, by contrast, operate as air locks to prevent such dramatic temperature changes. Those interior hallways also serve as a place for snow or mud or other exterior debris to come off of people's feet, rather than being tracked directly into an apartment from an exterior entry. These exterior walkways also take away people's privacy. A tenant must accept the fact that people are going to be looking in the front window, or the tenant must keep the blinds closed. Years ago I lived in Hawkeye Court which has exterior walkways (although constructed of steel and concrete) and people walking by and looking in the front window, or in the door if it was open for ventilation. The privacy issue becomes even more of a problem if there are parties or other noisy tenants using the walkways. Mr. Robert Miklo March 17, 1994 Page 4 Tenants must leave their apartments for basic services, such as picking up mail or going to the laundry. In apartment buildings with enclosed hallways, the mailboxes are typically located inside and out of the elements, and one does not need to leave the building to get to the laundry room. Frequently the stairways and walkways access the building directly off of the parking lot. This means that the doorways and front windows look out over parked cars and dumpsters, which are sometimes very close to the doorway. In fact, I would suspect that the noise and fumes from the parking lot are sometimes problems with some of the units which open to the exterior. (By contrast, Hawkeye Court Apa~ments all open onto a grass courtyard and are separated from the parking areas.) Finally, I think that these buildings with exterior stairways are by and large an architectural disaster. Obviously, they are an attempt to build at the lowest cost, subject to compliance with Code. Most of them make minimal effort at making the walks and railings and stairs look attractive. We have to remember that these buildings contain peoples, homes. Even though they are tenants they are entitled to at least some modicum of feeling that the property is their home. I did not coin the term "motel construction,,, however, it is certainly very appropriate for many of these buildings. I don,t think there is any one reason which is compelling enough to 11mlnate the open stairwell style of construction, I think there are a lot of reasons to barr this. There are any number of safety factors affecting both residents and visitors to the premises which are reason enough alone to amend our local O ' .rdlnances. Furthermore, the quality of life is certainly an issue. If we don't address the quality of life of tenants, we are creating an underclass segment in our housing market. Finally, I think this style of construction to the aesthetics of our community. Every Zoning Ordinance starts out with a preamble regarding health, safety and beautification. Eliminating this type of construction is an pportunlty to carry those words into action. O ' Mr. Robert Miklo March 17, 1994 Page 5 Those are my thoughts on these issues, I would be happy to discuss them with you further. CJH/nm Very truly you/ .~i~{°11and City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: January 26, 1995 To: From: Tom Scott, Chair Planning and Zoning Commission Laura Hawks, Cha'~ Design Review Committee Re: Exterior Stairwells and Exterior Corridors on Multi-Family Residential Buildings, At its meeting of January 23, 1995, the Design Review Committee voted 9-0, to recommend to the Planning and Zoning Commission approval of the ordinance amending the Site Plan Review Ordinance (Title 14, Chapter 5, Article H) by adopting design guidelines for exterior stairwells and exterior corridors on multi-family residential buildings subject to: 1) labeling the sketch elevations accordingly and 2) expressly stating in the ordinance that the design standards apply to exterior lifts. The Design Review Committee strongly supports the adoption of these guidelines to improve the streetscape in multi-family residential neighborhoods, and applauds the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council's effort to do just that. The Committee only regrets that ' these guidelines were not adopted sooner to prevent the recent proliferation of exterior stairwells and exterior corridors. A representative of the Design Review Committee will attend your February 16, 1995, meeting, to answer any questions you may have. cc: City Council City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: Re: February 16, 1995 .Planning and Zoning Commission Scott Kugler,~ssociate Planner Proposed Design Standards for Exterior Stairwells and Exterior Corridors. A few changes have been made to the proposed standards for exterior stairwells and exterior corridors since the January 19, 1995, meeting, Those changes include the addition of language allowing for second exits on existing buildings for fire safety purposes, to be approved on a case-by-case basis by the Director of Planning as an alternative design, and the inclusion of exterior lifts in the standards, which would be treated ~,he same as exterior stairwells, The first concern was brought up by a building official, and the second by the Design Review Committee, Attached please find a copy of the revised standards reflecting these changes, Staff had previously reported that the Design Review Committee recommended approval of the proposed standards, The Building Board of Appeals, however, recommended denial of the proposed standards at its February 6, 1995, meeting, The main concern of the Board seemed to be over the regulation of aesthetics by the City, A representative from the Board may be at the formal meeting to expand on their recommendation, ATTACHMENT 1, Amended design standards, City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: Re: March 2, 1995 Planning and Zoning Commission Scott Kugler, Associate Planner Revised Design Standards for Exterior Stairwells and Exterior Corridors. The proposed design standards for exterior stairwells and exterior corridors have been revised as suggested by the Commission at its February 16 meeting. Rather than standards or requirements that must be met, they will now serve as guidelines to be used by the Director of Planning and Community Development in reviewing the design of buildings with exterior stairwells and corridors. In each standard, the word "shall" has been changed to "should." The changes will require the review and approval of the Director of Planning and Community Development for all exterior stairwells and corridors on apartment buildings, rather than just those not meeting the specifics of the standards, but should provide more flexibility in the review process. A second issue that was discussed at the February 16 meeting was the application of the guidelines to exposed, unfinished lumber. The discussion was mainly centered on the use of unpainted or unfinished wolmanized lumber; whether or not it should be permitted, and whether or not the provisions of the other guidelines would effectively reduce the visual impact of the unfinished lumber on the appearance of the building. It is staff's opinion that the guidelines should continue to address this issue. There may be cases where the use of an enclosing wall around an exterior stairwell would effectively hide or soften the appearance of the unfinished lumber. However, the enclosing wall provision would not apply to exterior corridors. Also, it is possible that an alternative design could he submitted showing no provisions for an enclosing wall, and making use of unfinished lumber. If unfinished lumber is addressed in the guidelines, it would allow the Director to address this issue in the review process. Staff has proposed some revised language to clarify the intent of this provision: "Exposed, unpainted or unstained lumber should not be utilized unless approved by the Director of Planning and Community Development." ATTACHMENT 1. Revised design standards. Proposed Standards to be added to Section 14-5H-5 DESIGN STANDARDS: M. The design of exterior stairwells and exterior corridors which provide access to dwelling units located above the ground or first floor of a building containing three (3) or more dwelling units or where an,/ number of residential units are located above a commercial use, shall be approved by the Director of Planning and Community Development with respect to the following guidelines. Any guideline applying to exterior stairwells shall also apply to exterior lifts. Alternative designs may be approved if the Director of Planning and Community Development determines that the alternative design meets the intent of assuring that exterior stairwells and corridors are architecturally incorporated into the overall design of the building, or if a second exit is required on an existing building for the purpose of fire safety. 1. For all dwelling units located above the ground floor, an interior circulation system, for the purpose of entering and exiting each unit, is preferred over exterior stairwells and exterior corridors. appropriate (internal circulation) inappropriate (external circulation) 2. Where exterior stairwells are utilized, they should be partially enclosed by a building wall(s) similar in materials and design to the exterior walls of the structure. Other than fenestration, said wall(s) should be solid from grade to the roof of the stairwell and should be architecturally integrated into the design of the overall structure through the use of similar materials and style. Fenestration is encouraged, but should not constitute more than fifty percent of the total surface area of the wall. Exposed, unpainted or unstained lumber should not be utilized unless approved by the Director of Planning and Community Development. At a minimum, a wall should be provided on the side of the stairwell opposite the wall of the structure to which the stairwell is attached. inappropriate 3. Exterior stairwells and exterior corridors should be covered with a roof similar in design and materials to the roof over the rest of the structure. Said roof should be incorporated into the overall roof plan of the structure. appropriate inappropriate 4. Exterior corridors should not be located on the elevation(s) of the building that faces a street. When exterior corridors are utilized, they should be architecturally integrated into the design of the overall structure. Exposed, unpainted or unstained lumber should not be utilized unless approved by the Director of Planning and Community Development. 5. When exterior stairwells are located on the elevation of a building facing a front yard, special care should be taken to integrate the enclosing wall(s) required in Section 14-5H-SM2 into the facade of the building architecturally. Architectural details, fenestration, ornamentation, etc. utilized on the facade should be incorporated into the enclosing wall(s) of the stairwell, as well. appropriate inappropriate 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 1 lth day of April, 1995, in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa; at which hearing the Council will consider: 1. An ordinance conditionally amending the use regulations of approximately 34.21 acres located west of Taft Ave- nue along Court Street extended from RS-5 to CN-1 (6.93 acres}, RM-12 (12 acres), and RS-8 (8.14 and 7.14 ecres}. 2. An ordinance amending City Code Title 14, Chapter 5, Article H, entitled "Site Plan Review," by adopting design stan- dards for exterior stairwells and exterior corridors on multi-family residential buildings. An ordinance amending City Code Title 14, Chapter O, entitled "Zoning," Arti- cle N, entitled "Off-Street Parking and Loading," to reduce the amount of off- street parking spaces required and amend the parking area design stan- dards in the CN-1, Neighborhood Com- mercial Zone, 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 /'1o3 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AME,N. DING CITY CODE TITLE 14, CHAPTER 6, ENTITLED "ZONI ," ARTICLE N, ENTITLED OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADIn' ............ ~, Ju tI~UUCE THE AMOUNT OF OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES REQUIRED AND AIVIEND THE PARKING AREA DESIGN STANDARDS IN THE CN-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONE. WHEREAS, the CN-1, Neighborhood Commercial, zone is intended to allow the development of a retail and personal service commercial center to meet the day-to-day needs of a fully developed residential neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the current parking requirements for the CN-I zone are the same as for any other commercial zoning district, regardless of the location or market area of a proposed use or district; and WHEREAS, the current parking requirements are excessive when applied to the CN-1 zone due to the unique nature of the CN-1 zone, its pedestrian and bicycle orientation, its limited market area, and the relatively small scale of the uses permitted in the CN-1 zone; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to ensure that development within the CN-1 zone is more ~ompatible with surrounding residential areas by reducing the amount of paving within the CN- zone through a reduction in the amount of parking required and through the use of alternative parking arrangements such as shared parking and land banking; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to encourage compact urban development and reduced paving within the CN-1 zone by allowing alternative parking lot design when the strict application of the design standards is not appropriate. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, THAT: SECTION I. AMENDMENT. Chapter 6, entitled "Zoning," Article N, entitled "Off-Street Parking and Loading," Section 1, entitled "Off-Street Parking Requirements" of the City Code are hereby amended as follows: a. Renumbering Section 14-6N-1l as new Section 1 4-6N-1J and amending new Section 14- 6N-1J to read as follows: J. Required Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces: In all zones, except in the CB-1 0 zone unless specifically required, and in the CN-1 zone where the use of land banking is approved as provided in Section 14-6N-11, prior to occupation of a building or com- mencement of a principle use, a minimum number of off-street parking and stacking spaces shall be provided. In the CN-1 zone, in order to avoid excessive amounts of pav- ing, not more than 110% of the required amount of off-street parking may be provided without approval of a special exception by the Board of Adjustment. The minimum number of off-street parking and stacking spaces shall be as follows: b. Creating a new Section 14-6N-11 to read as follows: I. Modification of parking requirements in the CN-1 zone: Due to the unique nature of the CN-1 zone, Sections 14-6N-1B2k, concerning the design of parking lots, and 14-6N-1 J, concerning the minimum parking requirements, may be waived or relaxed as follows by the Director of Planning and Community Development upon the recording in the Johnson County Recorder's Office of a finding that the proposal is determined to further the intent of the CN-1 zone: 1. Shared parking arrangements between individual uses that experience peak usage at differing times of the day may be permitted to reduce the overall paved area; 2. To accommodate future changes in land use, changes in ownership, and shifts in shared parking demand, land banking, or setting aside sufficient land area on-site to provide for the future construction of a parking area, may be approved for up Ordinance No, Page 2 to 30% of the otherwise required parking. If an Enforcement Official determines at some point in the future the additional parking spaces are needed, the property owner will be required to construct parking on the land banked area. A written agreement, properly executed by the owner of the property on which the land banked area is located, assuring the installation of parking within the land banked area by the owner if so ordered by the Enforcement Official, and binding upon their successors and assigns, shall be recorded as a covenant running with the land. 3. The location of parking spaces along drives rather than aisles, as required in Section 14-6N-1B2k, when the location of parking along a drive(s) is determined to be an integral part of the design of the development. c. Deleting "Design Requirements," Subsection 14-6N-1B2k and substituting in lieu thereof the following language; k. If two (2) or more parking areas on a lot are connected by a drive, the parking areas shall be designed so that an aisle connected to more than twelve (12) parking spaces is not used as a drive providing access to another parking area. This requirement may be waived for property in the CN-1 zone as provided in new Section 14-6N-113. d. Repealing Section 14-6N-1J2d and adding a new Section 1 4-6N-1J2d, "Required Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces", to read as follows: Principal Use Zone Number of Spaces d. Banks, savings and loan institutions and credit unions. 1. Where permitted, except CB-5 and CN-1 2. CB-5 3. CN-1 One parking space for each two hundred (200) square feet of floor area. In addition, drive-in establish- ments shall provide six (6) stacking spaces per external teller or customer service window designed for drive-in service but need not exceed eighteen (18) total spaces. One parking space for each one thousand two hundred {1,200) square feet of floor area. One parking space for each three hundred (300) square feet of floor area, In addition, drive-in establish- ments shall provide six {6) stacking spaces per external teller or customer service window designed for drive-in service but need not exceed eighteen (18) total spaces. Ordinance No. Page 3 Principal Use h. Grocery stores and supermarkets. Repealing Section 14-6N- 1J2h and adding a new Section 14-6N- 1J2h, "Required Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces," to read as follows: Zone 1. Where permitted except CB-5, aRd RFBH and CN-1 Number of Spaces One (1) parking space for each one hundred eighty (180) square feet of floor area. 2, CB-5 One parking space for each one thousand two hundred (1,200)squre feet of floor area. 3. RFBH One parking space for each three hundred (300) square feet of floor area, 4. CN-1 One park!rig space for each two hundred (200) square feet of floor area. Repealing Section 14-6N-1J2i and adding a new Section 14-6N-1J2i, "Required Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces," to read as follows: Principal Use Zone Laundry and dry cleaning establish- ments (coin-operat- ed) Where permitted except CB-5, a~i RFBH and CN-1 Number of Spaces One parking space for each two (2) laundry and/or .dry cleaning machines. 2. CB-5 3. RFBH 4. CN-1 One parking space for each one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet of floor area. One parking space for each three hundred (300) square feet of floor area, One parking space for each three {3) laundry and/or dry cleaning machines, Ordinance No. Page 4 g. Repealing Section 14-6N-1J2j and adding a new Section 14-6N-1J2j, "Required Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces," to read as follows: Principal Use Zone j. Laundry and dry cleaning establish- ments and collec- tion stations. Number of Spaces 1. Where permitted except CB-5 and CN-1 One (1) parking space for each three hundred (300) square feet of floor area.) 2. CB-5 3. CN-1 One parking space for each one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet of floor area. One parking space for each four hundred fifty (450) square feet of floor area. Principal Use m, Offices, Repealing Section 14-6N-1J2m and adding a new Section 14-6N-1J2m, "Required Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces," to read as follows: Zone 1. Where permitted except R/O, CB-2, a~d CB-5 and CN- 1 2, RIO and CB-2 3. CB-5 4. CN-1 Number of Spaces One (1) parking space for each two hundred {200) square feet of floor area.) One parking space for each three hundred (300) square feet of floor area to a maximum of twenty-seven {27) spaces. No additional parking shall be required for that area ex- ceeding eight thousand (8,000) square feet. One parking space for each one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet of floor area. One parking space for each three hundred (300) square feet of floor area, Ordinance No. Page 5 Repealing Section 14-6N-1J2n and adding a new Section 14-6N-1J2n, "Required Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces," to read as follows: Principal Use Zone Number of Spaces n. Offices-clinics. 1. Where permitted except CB-5 and CN-1 2, CB-5 3. CN-1 Two (2) parking spaces for each office, examining room and treat- ment room, provided, however there shall not be less than five (5) spaces. One parking space for each one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet of floor area. One and one-half (1-1/2) parking spaces for each office, e)~amining room and treatment room, provided, however, there shall not be less than four (4) spaces. Repealing Section 14-6N-1J2o and adding a new Section 14-6N-1J2o, "Required Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces," to read as follows: Principal Use Zone Personal service business, beauty parlors, barber shops. 1. Where permitted except CB-5 and CN-1 Number of Spaces Two (2) parking spaces for each barber or beauty parlor chair. 2. CB-5 3. CN-1 One parking space for each one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet of floor area. One and one-half {1-1/2) parking spaces for each barber or beauty parlor chair, Repealing Section 14-6N-1J2p and adding a new Section 14-6N-1J2p, "Required Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces," to read as follows: Principal Use Zone 1. Where permitted except CB-5 and CN-1 2. CB-5 Personal service businesses (other than those listed). 3. CN-1 Number of Spaces One (1) parking space for each one hundred fifty (150) square feet of floor area.) One parking space for each one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet of floor area. One (1) parking space for each two hundred twenty-five (225) square feet of floor area. Ordinance No. Page 6 Repealing Section 14-6N-1J2s and adding a new Section 14-6N-1J2s, "Required Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces," to read as follows: Principal Use Zone Number of Spaces 1. Where permitted except CB-5, ~nd RFBH and CN-1 2. CB-5 3. RFBH 4. CN-1 Restaurants and establishments dispensing food or beverages for con- sumption on the premises. One parking space for each one hundred fifty (150) square feet of floor area, or parking spaces equal in number to one-third (1/3) the occu- pant load of the seating area, which- ever is less. One parking space for each one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet of floor area. One parking space for each three hundred (300) square feet of floor area. One parking space for each two hundred twenty-five (225) square feet of floor area, or parking spaces equal in number to one-fourth {1/4) the occupant load of the seating area, whichever is less. m. Repealing Section 14-6N-1J2u and adding a new Section 14-6N-1J2u, "Required Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces," to read as follows: Principal Use Zone Number of Spaces u. Retail stores and 1. Where permitted One (1) parking space for each two shops (other than except CB-5, a~d hundred (200) square feet of retail those listed). RFBH and CN-1 floor area.) 2. CB-5 One parking space for each one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet of floor area. 3. RFBH and ON-1 One parking space for each three hundred (300) square feet of floor area (Ord. 94-3610, 3-8-94). 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. Ordinance No. Page 7 Passed and approved this MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Approved by '"l~'t~ Attorney's Office ppdadn~n~offstp~.otd City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: March 2, 1995 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Scott Kugler, Associate Planner Re: Proposed Amendments to the Parking Requirements with Respect to the CN-1 Zone. Staff's concerns about the amount of parking currently required for uses being established in the CN-1, Neighborhood Commercial, zone were presented in the February 16 meeting packets, and discussed at the February 1 3 informal meeting. At that time, the Commission expressed an interest in reducing the amount of required parking for most uses by one third, and not allowing more than 110% of the required parking to be provided on-site, as recommended by staff. The proposal was based on the unique nature and intent of the CN-1 zone, the limited market area that the CN-1 zone is intended to serve, a review of neighborhood commercial parking requirements of other cities, and on a survey of existing commercial areas within Iowa City with respect to the use of their parking facilities. Attached please find the proposed amendments to the parking regulations necessary to effect these changes. In addition to reducing the required parking by one-third, provisions for relaxing certain parking requirements in the CN-1 zone have also been incorporated into the proposed amendments. Shared parking arrangements would be permitted between uses that experience peak parking demand at differing times of the day. Provisions for the administrative approval of land banking of required parking have also been added. Both of these items should reduce the overall paved area of CN-1 zones. In addition, alternative parking designs allowing parking spaces to be accessed directly off of drives would be permitted if it is determined to be an integral part of the design of the development. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the proposed amendments to City Code Title 14, Chapter 6, Article N, entitled "Off Street Parking and Loading," to reduce the amount of off-street parking spaces required in the CN-1, Neighborhood Commercial zone, be approved. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Ordinance Amendments. b~packreq Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner Department of Planning and Community Development 2 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CN-1 ZONE PARKING REQUIREMENTS Section 14-6N-1B2k shall be amended as follows: k. If two (21 or more parking areas on a lot are connected by a drive, the parking areas shall be designed so that an aisle connected to more than twelve (12) parking spaces is not used as a drive providing access to another parking area. This requirement may be waived for property in the CN-1 zone as provided in Section 14-6N-113. New Section 14-6N-11 shall be added as follows: Modification of parking requirements in the CN-1 zone: Due to the unique nature of the CN-1 zone, Sections 14-6N-1B2k, concerning the design of parking lots, and 14- 6N-1J, concerning the minimum parking requirements, may be waived or relaxed as follows by the Director of Planning and Community Development upon the recording of a finding that the proposal is determined to further the intent of the CN-1 zone: 1. Shared parking arrangements between individual uses that experience peak usage at differing times of the day may be permitted to reduce the overall paved area; 2. To accommodate future changes in land use, changes in ownership, and shifts in shared parking demand, land banking, or setting aside sufficient lend area on-site to provide for the future construction of a parking area, may be approved for up to 30% of the otherwise required parking. If an Enforcement Official determines at some point in tl~e future the additional parking spaces are needed, the property owner will be required to construct parking on the land banked area. A written agreement, properly executed by the owner of the property on which the land banked area is located, assuring the installation of parking within the land banked area by the owner if so ordered by the Enforcement Official, and binding upon their successors and. assigns, shall be recorded as a covenant running with the land. 3. The location of parking spaces along drives rather than aisles, as required in Section 14-6N-1B2k, when the location of parking along a drive]s) is determined to be an integral part of the design of the development. Section 14-6N-11 shall be renumbered as Section 14-6N-1J, and amended, including the attached parking schedules, as follows: I J. Required Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces: In all zones, except in the CB-1 0 zone unless specifically required, and in the CN-1 zone where the use of land banking is approved as provided in Section 14-6N-11, prior to the occupation of a building or commencement of a principal use, a minimum number of off-street parking and stacking spaces shall be provided. In the ON-1 zone, in order to avoid excessive amounts of paving, not more than 110% of the required amount of off-street parking may be provided without the approval of a special exception by the Board of Adjustment. The minimum number of off-street parking and stacking spaces shall be as follows: [See following page for off-street parking schedules] ppdadm~n~parkgreq Principal Use d. Banks, savings and loan institutions and credit unions. h. Grocery stores and supermarkets, i. Laundry and dry cleaning establisl~ments (coin-operated) j. Laundry and dry cleaning establishments and collection stations. m. Offices, Zone 1. Where permitted, except CB-5 and CN-1 3. CN-1 1. Where permitted except C8-5, ~ RFBH and CN-1 4. CN-1 1. Where permitted except CB-5, a~ RFBH and CN-1 4. CN-1 1. Where permitted except CB-5 and CN-1 3. CN-1 1. Where permitted except R/O, CB-2, ~ CB-5 and CN-1 4. CN-1 Number of Spaces One parking space for each two hundred (200) square feet of floor area. In addition, drive-in establishments shall provide six (6) stacking spaces per external teller or customer service window designed for drive-in service but need not exceed eighteen (18) total spaces. One parking space for each three hundred (300) square feet of floor area. In addition, drive-in establishments shall provide six {6) stacking spaces per external teller or customer service window designed for drive-in service but need not exceed eighteen (18) total spaces. One (1) parking space for each one hundred eighty (180) square feet of floor area. One parking space for each two hundred {200) square feet of floor area. One parking space for each two (2) laundry and/or dry cleaning machines. One parking space for each three (3) laundry and/or dry cleaning machines. One (1) parking space for each three hundred (300) square feet of floor area.) One parking space for each four hundred fifty (450) square feet of floor area. One (1) parking space for each two hundred (200) square feet of floor area.) One parking space for each three hundred (300) square feet of floor area. Principal Use n. Offices*clinics. o. Personalservice business, beauty parlors, barber shops. p. Personal service businesses (other than those listed). s. Restaurants and establishments dispensing food or beverages for consumption on the premises. u. Retail stores and shops (other than those listed). ppdadmin\par king.oral Zone 1. Where permitted except CB-5 and CN-1 3. CN-1 1. Where permitted except CB-5 and CN-1 3. CN-1 1. Where permitted except CB-5 and CN~I 3. CN-1 4. CN-1 Where permitted except CB-5, en~ RFBH and CN-1 Where permitted except CB-5, a~l RFBH and CN-1 3, RFBH and CN-1 Number of Spaces Two (2) parking spaces for each office, examining room and treatment room, provided, however there shall not be less than five (5) spaces. One and one-half (1-1/2) parking spaces for each office, examining room anti treatment room, provided, however, there shall not be less than four (4) spaces. Two {2) parking spaces for each barber or beauty parlor chair. One and one-half (1-1/2) parking spaces for each barber or beauty parlor chair. One (1) parking space for each one hundred fifty {150) square feet of floor area.) One (1) parking space for each two hundred twenty-five (225) square feet of floor area, One parking space for each one hundred fifty (150) square feet of floor area, or parking spaces equal in number to one-third {1/3) the occupant load of the seating area, whichever is less. One parking space for each two hundred twenty-five (225) square feet of floor area, or parking spaces equal in number to one-fourth (1/4) the occupant load of the seating area, whichever is less. One (1) parking space for each two hundred (200) square feet of retail floor area.) One parking space for each three hundred (300) square feet of floor area (Oral. 94~3610, 3-8-94). City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: January 6, 1995 To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Jeff Davidson, Assistant Director, Dept. of Planning & Community Development Re: Re-evaluation of the Off-Street Parking Requirements in the CN-I Zone In evaluating the proposed CN-1 (neighborhood commercial) zone adjacent to Windsor Ridge Subdivision, it has been suggested that the City's off-street parking requirements for the CN-1 zone may be excessive. The Zoning Ordinance parking requirement for commercial retail buildings in the CN-1 zone is lhe same as for other commemial zones, one space per 200 square feet of retail floor area. Other specialized commercial uses are called out specifically in the zoning ordinance parking requirements, and the CN-1 zone requirements are the same as the other commercial zones. Because of the paving required, these requirements may result in design of neighborhood commercial centers which is inconsistent with the overall vision for the CN-1 zone as outlined in the iowa City Comprehensive Plan. The developer of the Windsor Ridge CN-1 zone has proposed a neighborhood commercial development of slightly less than 7 acres. The commercial buildings are proposed around a "town square"-type greenspace. With the City's existing off-street parking requirements, the developer is required to provide 260 parking spaces for the single-level retail buildings. If residential units are placed above the shops, this would further increase the required number of off-street parking spaces. The extent of paving required to meet these parking requirements is inconsistent with the intent of the CN-1 zone, to create small commercial centers which respect the scale of residential neighborhoods, and encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel as realistic alternatives to automobile trips. Commercial off-street parking requirements Development of property in the Community Commercial, Intensive Commercial, and Highway Commercial zones has occurred which is almost entirely oriented to the automobile. The City's general retail parking requirement of one space per 200 square feet of retail floor area is sometimes exceeded by the private parking requirements of individual businesses. The ability to provide free, conveniently located off-street parking is a factor of major significance in the potential success of a commercial development. Both national studies and local studies conducted by JCCOG have shown that trips made to commercial developments have the lowest non-automobile mode split of all types of trips, including employment, school, and recreation trips. This is because of the need to travel to multiple locations for shopping trips, and the convenience of the automobile for carrying adicles purchased. One of the specific goals of the neighborhood commercial zone is to decrease automobile travel and increase the number of trips made by walking and bicycling. CN-1 zones are oriented to providing goods and services to the adjacent neighborhood which require frequent purchase with a minimum of travel. These include businesses such as convenience stores, dry cleaners, branch 2 banks, small restaurants, and grocery stores. Businesses which require community-wide patronage are not suitable tenants in the CN-1 zone, and should be located in one of the more intensive commercial zones. Given the difference in orientation between the CN-1 zone and the other commercial zones, it may be appropriate to require less off-street parking in the CN-I zone. Establishing the appropriate off-street parking requirement In general, the requirements for off-street parking established in the zoning ordinance should relate to the demand for parking given a padicular land use. Peak demand should be taken into consideration but should not necessarily be the basis for establishment of a parking requirement. For example, if peak demand for parking in a particular zone occurs only once a year, but 80% of peak demand occurs on a weekly basis, then perhaps the required off-street parking should be based on 80% of peak demand. This determination should take into account the impact on the adjoining area during the peak demand occurrence. There are many guidelines available for setting off-street parking requirements. All attempt to prevent development from occurring with inadequate parking, without requiring an excessive amount of parking. It is generally accepted that a formula should be used which relates the number of parking spaces required to a quantitative measure of land use. Several sources were consulted for examples of off-street parking requirements in areas of neighborhood commercial character. Most were associated with "neotraditional" community development. Neotraditional development involves small scale mixed use design, where the juxtaposition of residential and commercial uses enables a reduction in trip making by automobile, and an increase in bicycling and walking. Wellington, Florida is a new town of ten neighborhoods designed by Andres Duany and Ehzabeth Plater-Zyberk. The off-street parking requirement for commercial development is one space per 300 square feet gross floor area (GFA). At least 75% of the spaces must be provided behind the building. A developer may reduce the required number of parking spaces by demonstrating the possibility of shared parking. Anton Clarence Nelessen, in his book Visions for a New American Dream, suggests a retail off-street parking requirement of one space for the first 1000 square feet of commercial space and one space for each additional 750 square feet. This requirement is based on there being on-street parking spaces to accommodate some of the demand for commercial parking. Total on-street and off-street parking spaces provided should not exceed one space per 450 sc uare feet for retail uses and one space per 300 square feet for office uses. Belmond, North Carolina, ~s a town of 4,600 population that is trying to preserve its traditional small town atmosphere. Belmond requires one off-street parking space per 250 square feet GFA for retail establishments. 3 Manheim, Pennsylvania, a town of 5,000 population, requires one off-street parking space for each 450 square feet of commercial GFA, This requirement assumes on-street parallel or angle parking is available for commercial uses at a rate of one space per 1000 square feet GFA. Where on-street parking is not readily available, additional off-street spaces are required. Wide variation can exist in parking demand be~een othe~ise similar land uses. The variations reflect differences in type and density of development, as well as the availability of alternative modes of transportation. Parking demand can be reduced because of the interrelationship of activities present in an area (shared parking). Parking demand will vary over time as employment trends and car ownership levets change. Because of these factors it is not appropriate for Iowa City to adopt a single national standard for off-street parking in the CN-1 zone. A parking requirement should be determined which is appropriate for Iowa City, and which includes enough flexibility to address variation in parking demand from location to location. An American Planning Association report on off-street parking states: "No one set of standards, with the exception of off-street parking for industrial use, is recommended. The underlying assumptions used in drafting local regulations are often unknown and may not be applicable to other localities. The best approach is to develop off-street parking requirements based on local parking and traffic studies and the characteristics of the various zoning ordinance use districts." Staff has attempted to determine an appropriate off-street parking requirement in the CN-1 zone by examining parking demand in existing neighborhood commercial developments in Iowa City. Figure 1 shows the location of neighborhood commercial developments which were surveyed. The Towncrest-area commercial centers are not in CN-1 zoned areas, but are the type and size of commercial development typically found in the CN-1 zone. In addition to developing an off- street parking requirement based on actual demand, staff has identified several measures to enable some flexibility in the provision of off-street parking in the CN-1 zone. Survey Results Figure 2 shows the results of the commercial parking utilization study. Counts were taken at each parking lot throughout the week and on Saturday at various times of day. The average number of spaces occupied versus the number required was 36%, with the range from 9% to 73%. Winter is a good time of year to conduct a parking utilization study, since it is the time of year with the lowest non-automobile (bicycling, walking) mode split. From the information collected, it appears the off-street parking requirements in the CN-1 zone may be in excess of actual demand by 30 to 50%. Modifying the CN-1 zone general retail parking requirement from one space/200 square feet of retail floor area to one space/300 square feet of retail floor area would have the effect of reducing the required off-street parking by one- third, and bring the requirement more in line with actual parking demand. Similarly, the specialized commercial uses called out separately in the zoning ordinance parking requirements should be reduced by one-third for the CN-1 zone. Flgur~ I COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS SURVEYED FOR PARKING DEMAND O' 0 ~'- ,-,- 00~- §oo o ~§§~o ~0.o.~ ~o~O°~ ~o .... 4 To maintain the integrity of the CN-1 zone, consideration should be given to not allowing developers to provide more than the required amount of off-street parking. In this way paving can be kept to a minimum, and smaller scale businesses established which do not require clientele from beyond the adjacent neighborhood. Flexible parking strategies In each CN-1 zone there will be variations in parking demand, so a single off-street parking requirement will not adequately cover all situations. The traditional means of accommodating variations in parking demand and dealing with specific site characteristics is through action of the Board of Adjustment. It is possible to build flexibility into the zoning ordinance so that adjustments in parking demand can be accommodated administratively, without requiring formal action of the Board of Adjustment. These flexible parking initiatives can help achieve specific land use and traffic management objectives for the CN-1 zone. Shared parking. The concept of shared parking recognizes that different land uses experience peak parking demand at different times of the day, week, and year. This interrelationship can result in parking spaces not occupied by one use accommodating parking demand from another nearby site. The net result is better utilization of a smaller amount of paved surface. Examples of shared parking that could occur in the CN-1 zone include restaurants that get pad of their patronage from adjacent businesses and offices, and churches located near any commercial use that has a weekday peak parking demand. If the design of a CN-1 zone is considered comprehensively, it may be possible to patronize more than one business while utilizing a single parking space. These types of shared parking arrangements exist informally in the central business district. The most important consideration for shared parking is the ability for commercial uses to physically share parking. This precludes parking being reserved for a specific development. Parking supply does not have to be under a single owner to achieve shared parking. Land banking. Land banking can help cities deal with changes in land use that may disrupt shared parking arrangements. For example, a developer may have underestimated peak parking demand. A change in land use may result in higher parking demand. A property may be sold and the new owner insist on reserving half of the parking spaces formerly available for shared parking. With a land bank arrangement an area is set aside which in the future could be used to provide additional parking spaces on the site. The land banked area is landscaped and not permitted to be built on. This can allow a use to be established in the future which has a greater off-street parking requirement than required for the prior use. Approval of a land banking provision can be handled administratively as part of the site plan review process. A developer could volunteer to set aside a land banked area to ensure the future viability of CN-1 zoned property. Or the City could require land banking if a developer requested a reduction in required off-street parking. A developer not willing to accept a land bank condition would be required to go through a special exception procedure with the Board of Adjustment to have the required off-street parking reduced. Summary The Zoning Ordinance off-street parking requirements for the CN-1 zone should be reduced by one-third from the requirements for other commercial zones. This will result in additional buildable area in each CN-1 zone; however, the overall result will be a decrease in the amount of paved parking area. In the ON-1 zone, do not allow more than the required amount of off-street parking to be provided without requiring action of the Board of Adjustment. This will avoid excessive amounts of paving. Flexible parking strategies should be permitted administratively to accommodate the variance in parking demand from site to site. These should include: ao Shared parking arrangements which will reduce the overall paved area in CN-I zones, Allow developers to land bank areas within CN-1 zones to accommodate future changes in land use, changes in ownership, and shifts in shared parking demand. Allow land banking to be required administratively to accommodate a request from a developer for a reduction in required off-street parking. If the Zoning Enfome- ment Officer determines at some point in the future the additional parking spaces are needed, the property owner would be required to construct parking on the land banked area. A developer not willing to accept a land bank condition would be required to go through a special exception procedure with the Board of Adjustment to have the required off-street parking reduced. iccoglp~parking~roposal.1 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 ?th 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 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 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: April 7, 1995 To: Mayor and City Council From: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk Re: Sidewalk Care Committee Meeting On Wednesday, Mamh 29, the sidewalk care committee mconvened at your request. Committee representation was expanded to include the Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Association, and concerned citizens. In addition to myself members present were: Jean Gilpin, Preferred Stock, Chamber Member; Jim Clayton, Soap Opera; John Murphy, Bremers, Downtown Association Member; Mark Ginsberg, M.C. Ginsberg; Linda Woito, City Attorney and Bev Ogren, Asst. City Attorney; Jim Pumfrey, Fire Chief; Ron Boose, Sr. Building Inspector; David Schoon, Economic Development Coordinator; and Sondrae Foal, Licensing Specialist. I. DISCUSSED BUT NO CHANGES TO PROPOSED ORDINANCE RECOMMENDED Concerninq the 8 foot unobstructed sidewalk requirement included in the proposed ordinance. The Committee felt that 8 foot was a minimum and should be maintained. Concerning restrictin~l drink specials in the sidewalk cafe. The City Attorney stated it was possible to restrict drink specials (2 for 1's, 25 cent beers, etc.) in the sidewalk cafe area, and suggested that wording be incorporated in the right-of-way agreement rather than the ordinance. Concerninq requiring alcoholic purchases be limited to sales of food only. The City Attorney and Asst. City Attorney repoded that is possible to require "food plus alcohol" or "no alcohol without food" but questioned what rationale could be posed to support the argument. The matter was referred back to the City Attorney for further research. (See City Attorney memo attached.) Concernin.q the banning of the use of disposables in the sidewalk cafe. The Committee restated the responsibility for establishment to control proper disposal of waste, and expressed concerns regarding potential safety issues of broken glass. The Committee left this matter to the discretion of each individual restaurant. Concerning the issue of utilizing Zone 2 of the City Plaza. It was suggested that Zone 2 of the Plaza be utilized as a sidewalk cafe leaving open all of Zone 1 for pedestrian traffic. The Clerk stated that sales of alcohol must be done in an area contiguous to the establishment. Locating the sidewalk area in Zone 2 would not allow sale of alcohol in those areas. Additional concerns were expressed in the delivery of hot food items through a pedestrian way (from the restaurant to the sidewalk cafe). The City Attorney will confirm the contiguous question at the State liquor level. [The City Attorney has confirmed that Chapter 123 of the Code of Iowa states "....A single licensed premise may consist of multiple rooms, enclosures, areas or places if they are wholly within the confines of a single building or contiguous grounds."] 2 II. CHANGES RECOMMENDED TO THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE Concerning the 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM hours established by the proposed ordinance. The Committee felt the hours were acceptable and stressed set-up and removal of all fixtures must be done during those hours as stated in the ordinance. It was suggested that additional language be included in Section C., page 2, as follows: 5. The sidewalk cafe must operate the same hours as the restaurant kitchen, but no earlier or later than defined in this section. (i.e. If the kitchen closes at 8:00 p.m. the sidewalk cafe must also close.) Concerning lhe definition of restaurant. The Committee agreed to incorporate similar language as contained in the restaurant definition from the Zoning Ordinance into the proposed ordinance definition of restaurant by adding the following: G. Includes a care, cafeteria, coffee shop, delicatessen, ice cream shop, lunchroom, tearoom, dining room, bar, cocktail lounge or tavern. Concerning the useable sidewalk care area. The Committee recommends the addition of the word "street" into page 2, B.2., to better explain the usable area as follows: 2. No tables and chairs shall be placed in street comer areas defined by building lines extended to the street, and no closer than ten feet (10') from an alley. Concerning the notification process. Page 2, E.2., should be amended to require that each application provide the names and addresses of the owners and tenants of three properties on both sides of the establishment. A notice will be posted in the window of the applicant of their intent to establish a sidewalk care. Concerning trash removal. The Committee recommends that page 2, B.4., add the words "or trash receptacles" and read as follows: 4. A sidewalk care may not utilize any public amenities such as benches, seats, tables or trash receptacles. III. RIGHT-OF-WAY AGREEMENT The Committee also addressed issues that should be contained in the right-of-way agreement, rather than the ordinance, and identified them as follows: · Restrictions on drink specials. · No increase in a restaurant's vehicular traffic should occur as a result of set-up or removal of fixtures for a sidewalk care on the City Plaza. · A provision stating the City would mark-off the sidewalk area prior to opening of a sidewalk cafe. o A diagram of the proposed sidewalk care including the area for storage of the equipment. IV. GENERAL There was discussion of general concerns regarding enforcement of this sidewalkl cafe ordinance in light of enforcement problems with existing ordinances in the Plaza. The Olerk will have the Police Chief respond. City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: April 6, 1995 To: Honorable Mayor Susan M. Horowitz & Members of the City Council From:Linda N. Woito, City Attorney ~ -- Beverly Ogren, Assistant City Attorney~.~.~ Re: Sidewalk Cafes- regulation questions Issue: May the City condition the liquor license of a Sidewalk Cafe upon having equal or greater receipts from the sale of food and non- alcoholic beverages than receipts from the sale of alcoholic beverages? May the City require a Sidewalk Cafe to serve alcoholic beverages only when food has been ordered and served? Summary of Conclusions: The City may make liquor licenses subject to conditions, so long as the conditions are not in conflict with state law or the federal Constitution and so long as the Council can articulate some rational basis for placing more stringent regulations on a restaurant outside a building (ie. may serve alcohol only with a food order) in contrast to a restaurant within a building. Background and Analysis: The City may adopt ordinances or regulations governing activities or matters which may affect the retail sale and consumption of beer, wine, and alcoholic liquor and the health, welfare and morals of the community involved unless such ordinances conflict with the Iowa Alcoholic Beverage Control Act. Iowa Code §123.39(6). This delegation of authority has been held to be a proper and valid delegation of state police power, and this authority is not limited only to the issuance or suspension of licenses. Wriqht v. Town of Huxlev, 249 N.W.2d 672, 675 (Iowa 1977). Any ordinance addressing a requirement to sell food with the sale of an alcoholic beverage would have to pass constitutional muster. The ordinance must have a rational relationship to a legitimate government interest. MRM, Inc. v. city of Davenport, 290 N.W.2d 338 (Iowa 1980). It must avoid vagueness and overbreadth. Wriqht v. Town of Huxlev, 249 N.W.2d 672, 675 (Iowa 1977). It must apply equally to those similarly situated. Three K.C.v. Richter, 279 N.W.2d 268 (Iowa 1979). 2 There are no Iowa cases on point. The Minnesota Court of Appeals addressed a food/liquor situation in Berqmann v. City of Melrose, 420 N.W.2d 663 (Minn.App.1988). There, the City Council conditioned Bergmann's liquor license upon the operation of a family restaurant on the premises. Bergmann began operating an off-sale liquor store on the property but did not conduct business as an on-sale bar or restaurant. When warned by the Council that his liquor license would not be renewed unless the restaurant was operating, Bergmann opened the Travelounge Family Restaurant. The restaurant was in operation for a year and a half. At that time the bar, restaurant, and liquor store closed. "Closed for Repairs" was the sign hung in the window. The liquor store was reopened some time later, but the restaurant and bar remained "closed for repairs". The City refused to renew Bergmann's liquor licenses and Bergmann filed suit. Bergmann claimed that conditioning his liquor license on the operation of a family restaurant was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. In addition, placinq the condition on his liquor license but not on other licenses d~nied him equal protection. The Minnesota court found that the City may legitimately condition the liquor license on operating a family restaurant. The record confirmed that the public welfare would be served by having a family restaurant in the City of Melrose since there were no restaurants in town. Conversely, there were already four bars in the City and the Council did not see a need for yet another. Citing Minnesota cases, the court concluded that an establishment serving only liquor is qualitatively different from a restaurant that serves liquor only as an adjunct to food. Berqmann at 667, citing Cf.Anton's, Inc. v. Citv of Minneapolis, 375 N.W.2d 504,507 (Minn App.1985). Thus, it appears that it may be possible, under some circumstances, to condition a liquor license upon the sale of food without violating state law or federal consitutional safeguards. However, the facts in Berqmann differ significantly from ours. It may be difficult to show a legitimate reason for treating businesses differently which serve alcohol outside a building (sidewalk cafe) as opposed to those businesses which serve alcohol two feet away inside the building since it is the same liquor license that allows both activities. However, this is not to say that some rational basis for that distinction might be articulated, but we have not yet heard one. We will be happy to do futher research should some rationale be suggested. CC: City Manager Assistant City Manager City Clerk LEF12, HA'rJPERT & TRA~/' IOWA CITY, IOWA March 31, 1995 Ms. Marian K. Karr City Clerk Civic Center 410 East Washington St. I0wa City, IA 52240-1826 Re: Sidewalk cafes Dear Marian: I write this letter to express my support of the ordinance to permit sidewalk cafes. My approval is of the general concept and I have not made a detailed analysis of the proposed ordinance. I am confident that the ordinance can be adjusted by amendment from time to time to resolve problems that are encountered after its implementation. Implementation of this ordinance will be an important step to continue the unique ambiance of th/~,p~to~siness district. Very t~~ P~h/ip A. Leff v PAL: jmm ~ AMISH QUILTS JAPANESE WOODBLOCK PRINTS ANTIQUE PORCELAIN TRIBAL JEWELRY CHILDREN'S BOOK ILLUSTRATIONS AFRICAN SCULPTURE DORER, ROUAULT, BEARDSLEY HIROSHIGE, UTAMARO, KUNISADA FOLK ART ARCHIBLOCKS W ~-- ~ UPPo~-T ETHNIC TEXTILES NEW GUINEA ART L0070 "']'-~ '~-' ART BOOKS The Barn, COLLECTIONS Alan & Nina Weinstein Art & Fine Objects 2 S{mth Dubuque Iowa City, Iowa 52240 319-351-4700 ~' Old glory / G: 'J,~_ r- 5-2-zq-O -/~,2 ~, April I0, 1995 Dear City Council Members: Mexican G lll I am pleased that the council is considering an ordinance permitting sidewalk cafes. I have been hoping for this for quite some time, and our restaurant will be one of the first to jump in. I do have some concerns about the way in which this is done: 1) I would like to see some sort of design review involved, so that we aren't stuck with people placing two tables outside, enclosed by cinder blocks holding up poles that have rope tied to them. I have seen this happen in other towns. I prefer the wrought iron look (some of you may have seen my pictures from Lawrence, KS); but after speaking with Ron Boose last Friday, I realize this will not happen. I have begun searching for dividers that are nice looking, and I am confident I can find something. My main concern is that restaurants have visually pleasing sidewalk cafes that are truly an attraction, not an afterthought. 2) I would like to see some way to exclude bars from having sidewalk cafes. My fear is that something may occur at a bar that would change the council's view on sidewalk care's, and we would all pay the price. I would rather not go to the expense of buying the furniture and then not have any licenses renewed after one year. I have given the City Clerk's office the ordinance for sidewalk cafes in Lawrence, KS.. This ordinance requires that all restaurants with these cafes have food sales of at least 70% versus 30% liquor sales. 3) As for the fee to operate a sidewalk care, I would like to see it set high enough, so that only those that are truly willing to invest in the idea do so. This "barrier to entry" would keep out the cinder block/rope/pole type cafes. On the other hand, I've estimated that our care will cost us approxi~nately $2,000.00, and hope that the fee level takes this expense into consideration. 4) In the definition of restaurant, it says that the bar and kitchen need to be separate. 1 understand why this is in there, I just want to make sure we are not the unintended victims of this definition. We do not have a "bar", but our beer and frozen margaritas our served at our service counter where we also serve our food. 5) The ordinance also states that an employee must be monitoring the sidewalk care any time liquor is being served. I think the point Imn about to make is pretty obvious and everyone tinderstands it, but I would like to make sure it is clear what is meant by "monitoring". All restaurants will have someone serving food or bussing tables for the cafes to provide the best service possible. But, I do not find it feasible to have someone Panchero's, Inc. o P.O. Box 1786 o Iowa City, IA 52244 · 319-351-4551 Pancherog Mexican Grill standing outside the entire time from 11 am to 10 pm; employees will be coming in and out of the restaurant either ordering or serving food, or cleaning tables. It would not be possible for there to be someone outside at "all times", but it will be possible for someone to be monitoring the area. It would cost approximately $2,000.00 per month to have someone outside at all times, and 6 to 8 additional seats will not cover that expense for any type of restaurant, especially not at slow times. Once again, I am glad to see you considering such a positive thing as sidewalk cafes for Iowa City. If anyone has any questions, please call me at the office at 338-3101 or at home at 337-9695. Sincerely, Rodney L. Anderson Vice President Panehero's, Inc. Panehero's, Inc. · P.O. Box 1786 · Iowa City, IA 52244 · 319-351-4551 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Dated: April 11, 1995 To: From: Re: Linda Newman Woito, City Attorney Beverly 0gren, Assistant City Attorney Detached sidewalk cafes: "licensedpremises for the sale of alcoholic beverages? Issue: May a sidewalk cafe sell alcoholic beverages under the restaurant's liquor license if the sidewalk cafe is not physically connected to the restaurant building? Conclusion: No. Both the Iowa Code and the Administrative Rules are clear, namely that the outdoor area being served must be conrigorous to the licensed premises. Law and Analysis: Iowa Code section 123.3 defines "licensed premises" as .all rooms, enclosures, contiguous areas, or places susceptible of precise description satisfactory to the administrator where alcoholic beverages, wine, or beer is sold or consumed under authority of a liquor control license, wine permit, or beer permit. A single licensed premise may consist of multiple rooms, enclosures, areas or places if they are wholly within the confines of a single building or contiguous grounds. (emphasis added) The Iowa Administrative Code, Section 185-4.13(123) sets out regulations for "outdoor service" of alcoholic beverages: Any license or permittee having e_n outdoor, contiguous, discernible area on the es. me property on which their licensed establishment is located may serve the type of alcoholic liquor or beer permitted by the license or permit in the outdoor area. (emphasis added). Webster's Dictionary defines "contiguous" as "being in actual contact: touching or connected throughout in an unbroken sequence." Thus it appears that a sidewalk cafe must he actually connected to the restaurant building for that restaurant's license to be extended to the sidewalk cafe and thereby to serve alcoholic beverages.