HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-12-05 Info PacketCity of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 1, 1995
TO: City Council
FROM: City Madager
RE: Material in Information Packet
Memoranda from the City Manager:
a. Urban Renewal Parcel - A Reminder
b. Receipt of Gifts
c. Annual Paper Contract
d. Miscellaneous
Memoranda from the City Engineer regarding Melrose Avenue Widening
Project - Traffic Signals at West High School Drive.
Memorandum from the Assistant Director of Planning and Community Development 3~
and the City Engineer regarding proposed design of First Avenue reconstruction.
Memorandum from the Director of Planning and Community Development regarding.~
Neighborhood Commercial Zone.
Memoranda from the City Clerk:
a. Council Procedure
b. City Council Work Session of November 20, 1995.
Copy of letter from HyVee Food Stores, Inc., to Dan Dakins regarding the
proposed HyVee Store at First Avenue and Muscatine.
Agenda and minutes for meeting of the Council on Disability Rights and
Education.
Agenda for the November 30; lg95, meeting of the Johnson County Board
Supervisors.
Cony of letter from Hayor to Board of Supervisors re~arding proposed ,~(0~3
fringe area agreement.
Memo from PCD Director regarding Fringe Area Agreement. ~
Agenda for the 12/5/95 Informal meeting of the Board of Supervisors. ..z~
Memo from City H~r., City Clerk and Finance Dir. re~arding Budget .~'"'~{0
Review Schedule.
Memo from ~ouncil Member Pi~ott regarding Doomtown Strategy Group -3(O~7
9O
City of iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
December 1, 1995
City Council
City Manager
Urban Renewal Parcel - A Reminder
Attached is a copy of the resolution concerning ParcJl 64-1a next
to the Holiday Inn. I will schedule this item for a January meeting.
Attachment
RESOLUTION NO.. 94-138
RESOLUTION OF ENDORSEMENT FOR THE CENTERSPACE CONCEPT AND
FOR THE RESERVATION OF URBAN RENEWAL PARCEL. 64-1(A) ~
WHEREAS, on January 31, 1994, Camiros Ltd. presented to the Iowa City City Council a
cultural conference center feasibility study entitled, CenterSpace: A Feasibility Study, and
WHEREAS, the Steering Committee of the CenterSpace project requests the City Council's
consideration of a resolution of endorsement of the CenterSpace concept and for reservation
of Urb0n Renewal Parcel 64-1(a), and
WHEREAS, the mixed use facility proposed in the cultural conference cen~er feasibility study
is an ideal use of the City's last urban renewal parcel, and
WHEREAS, a cultural conference center furthers the cultural, social, and economic well-being
of the communiw.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA, THAT:
1. 'Tl~e'!.o..~a.'i'_Ci_ty Council endo'~se~ the cultural conference center concept as outlined in
2. The Iowa C_Ity City' Council commits, until January 1, 1996, to reserving Urba~
Renewal Parcel 64-1{a) as the appropriate site for a cultural-confer6~'b~'~nteri
Passed and approved this [0ch day of ~av , 1994.
CITY-CLERK
It was moved by E.hhy and seconded by
adopted, and upon roll call there were:
the Resolution be
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
X
X
X
X
--X
X
Baker
Horowitz
Kubby
Lehman
Novick
Pigott
Throgmorton '
ecodev~centersp.ms
City of Iowa City
MEMO'RANDUM
Date: November 29, 1995
To: City Employees
From: City Manager
Re: Receipt of Gifts
Dudng the last several years, Iowa's ethics law has been the subjec~ of much discussion and
debate. With the holiday season approaching, the provision that perhaps has the greatest effect
on local government officials and employees concerns the acceptance of gifts (68B.22). A copy
of this legislation is available in the offices of the City Clerk or the Pumhasing Agent, for your
review.
Basically, a statement of 'Thank you for the gesture, but I prefer not to accept any gifts" should
be satisfactory for a response.
The gift may also be given to a charitable organization; however, it is preferable that the gift go
directly to the recipient charity rather than you. Sharing food gifts with all staff members may be
within the state law. However, if food is received or you are aware of such circumstances, please
encourage the giver to provide the food to the Crisis Center, Domestic Violence Intervention.
Emergency Housing Project or any other community organization which we all know are in need
of food donations.
cc: City Council
City of Iowa City
NIEMORANDUN!
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
November 29, 1995
City Council
City Manager
Annual Paper Contract
Bids were received for annual paper contracts and will result in an overall 30% increase. For
the past three years the City has held paper increases to 3% a year, but a very fluctuating
market will result in the City's paper costs going up over $10,000 this vear. The increase was
anticipated and department budgets were projected to reflect the increase.
The Duplicator contract will cover the Print Shop, copiers, FAX and laser
printers totaling over five million sheets at a cost of approximately $45,500.
The Continuous Paper contract will cover computer printers totaling over a
million sheets costing approximately $7,000.
The use of recycled paper meets 85% of all City paper requirements. Standard paper used in
the Print Shop and satellite copiers is strictly recycled stock. At a minimum, our Division of
Purchasing is writing paper specifications to include 100% recycled waste paper and 20%
post-consumer waste.
Also, all outside printing specifications contain an option for recycled paper and vegetable-
based inks. When available, approximately 90% of all bids totaling $100,000 annually, have
been awarded with recycled paper; these include all checks, water/sewer bills, parking bills,
purchase orders, payroll processing forms, and brochures such as the Recreation Center
program schedules.
b~paper
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 30, 1995
To: City Council
From: City Manager
Re: Miscellaneous
Woolf Avenue Bridge. While we have continued the design work, we have slipped in the
State-wide priority ranking. Evidently thero are other bridges in Iowa in poorer shape than
WooIf Avenue. Hopefully funding can come through in the summer of 1997.
Dubuque Street and Rocky Shore Projects. The ditch maintenance, concrete, grading,
etc. as part of the flood repairs is proceeding very slowly. We are having troubles with
the contractor (Barker's, Inc.) and we will not accept or complete payment to them until
all work is done to our satisfaction. ] have had a few neighbor complaints.
bC4-1CM
N & N Sanitation. We have heard little about any plans for construction of a transfer
station by N&N. I assume they will locate in the County, and we will watch County
agenda to see if anything is pending.
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date:
November 30, 1995
To: Steve Atkins, City Manager
From: Rick Fosse, City Engineer
Re: Mel?ose Avenue Widening Project - Traffic Signals at West High School Drive
Development of construction plans for the Melrose Avenue widening project is nearing completion.
A requirement for using federal funds for the project is that all elements of the project must
comply with applicable federal requirements and standards. One of the federal requirements is
that all traffic control devices installed comply with the stipulations of the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
MUTCD provides minimum warrants for the installation of tralfic signals. None of the MUTCD
warrants for traffic signals are met by current conditions at the West High School drive
intersection with Melrose Avenue. Local Iowa DOT officials have determined that the proposed
improvements to the tempora~j traffic signals at the West High School Drive will not be eligible
for federal funding. Additionally, the entire project will not be funded if the City intends to place
unwarranted traffic signals upon the completion of the paving work. The City's consultant has
experience of the federal government requesting a raturn of all federal funds involved in a paving
project when the city (not Iowa City) installed unwarranted traffic signals upon the completion of
the paving project.
The City has two principal alternatives:
Alternate #1. The City could partition the project so that only the portions of Melrose Avenue
west of the West High School drive would be eligible for federal funding (this would be the
majority of the project) and the easterly portion, including the West High School ddve, would then
be 100% funded by the City.
Alternate #2. The City could choose not to reinstall the temporary signals now in place at the
West High School drive. The improvements to the intersection will include left-turn bays for
stodng vehicles left turning from Melrose Avenue and the sight distance to the west will be
markedly improved upon the completion of the improvements to Melrose Avenue.
if Alternate #1 is selected, the two main disadvantages are: increased cost to the City and a
potential increase in the liability exposure of the City if an accident should occur at the
intersect{on that would be controlled by unwarranted traffic signals.
cc: Chuck Schmadeke
Jim Brachtel
ac~l 1-30 ib
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date:
November 30, 1 995
To: City Council
From: Jeff Davidson, Assistant Director, Planning & Community Development
Rick Fosse, City Engineer
Re;
Justification for Proposed Design of First Avenue reconstruction, D Street to
Muscatine Avenue
We will meet with you at your December 4 work session to present our recommended design for
the reconstruction of First Avenue between D Street and Muscatine Avenue. This is the
reconstruction project being done in conjunction with the new Hy-Vee store on the former site of
Towncrest Trailer Court. As part of the conditional zoning agreement, the developer will be
contributing $30,000 to the First Avenue reconstruction project. The existing pavement width of
33 feet is inadequate for projected traffic conditions with the new Hy-Vee store, primarily due to
the lack of separate lanes for left-turning vehicles.
Our initial intention was to design a reconstruction to a four-lane roadway, with five lanes at the
intersection with Muscatine Avenue. This would add an additional through lane of street capacity
in each direction and maintain the turn lane at the Muscatine Avenue intersection. This would
result in a pavement width of 47 feet, with approximately 59 feet at the intersection with
Muscatine Avenue. This design is predicated on accommodating projected traffic volumes for the
20-30 year life span of the reconstructed pavement.
We have also evaluated an alternative design of two through lanes with a center turn lane, with
a dedicated right turn lane at the intersection with Muscatine Avenue. This design results in a
pavement width of 37 feet, with 48 feet at the intersection. We are now prepared to recommend
this design over the four-lane design for the following reasons:
The alternative design will provide an improvement in traffic service on First Avenue for
existing and short-range future traffic volume conditions.
o
The alternative design requires less right-of-way and may be cheaper to construct due to
less pavement.
The alternative design allows 15 trees within the right-of-way to be saved over the four-
lane design.
4. The alternative design has a lower projected accident rate.
The alternative design is consistent with what may be the only realistic design of the First
Avenue corridor between Muscatine Avenue and Bradford Street. This section of the First
Avenue corridor has been identified by the City Council for reconstruction in FY98 or
2
FY99. Although subject to reprioritization by the City Council, this is a severely capacity-
constrained corridor and we believe you will want to consider reconstruction in the short-
range future. A four-lane design in this section of First Avenue would require additional
right-of-way, the possible relocation of at least three residences, and require the removal
of 11 trees.
The altemative design is consistent with what may be the only realistic design of First
Avenue when it requires reconstruction between D Street and Rochester Avenue.
The negative aspect of the alternative (three-lane) design is that we cannot be assured it will
accommodate future long-range traffic growth in the First Avenue corridor. The alternative design
would establish First Avenue with projected capacity constraints, similar to what Council has
established on Kirkwood Avenue and Summit Street. Although this has the benefit of limiting
traffic volume on First Avenue, it will produce more congested conditions than the four-lane
design, and may lead to cut-through traffic on local streets in adjacent residential neighborhoods.
The three-lane design does, however, provide improvement in traffic capacity over the existing
madway configuration.
We are considering the two alternative designs to be approximately equal with respect to the
impact on pedestrians and bicyclists. Most bicyclists in this corridor will not be comfortable riding
in the street. With either design we will provide an 8' sidewalk on the east side of the street that
bicyclists can use, which we would expect to continue further north and south as additional
segments of First Avenue are reconstructed. Traffic signal accommodations for pedestrians will
be maintained at the intersection of First Avenue and Muscatine Avenue.
Attached are diagrams showing the two alternative designs. Bring any questions you have to the
December 4 work session. We will need concurrence regarding this matter so that we can
proceed with design and stay on track with Iowa DOT's letting schedule. This project will be let
by Iowa DOT because of the use of federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds. Feel
free to give one of us a call if you have any questions prior to the meeting.
CC:
City Manager
Director of Planning & Community Development
Director of Public Works
Attachments
]cco91p~Justdesg.mmo
F 'qTI~'EL'T
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 21, 1995
To: Steve Atkins, City Manager
From: Karin Franklin, Director, Planning & Community Development
Re: Neighborhood Commercial Zone
Concept & Philoso13hv
The concept of a neighborhood commercial zone was first developed in the 1978 Comprehensive
Plan and appears in the zoning ordinance in 1983. Since that time there have been five major
amendments to the zone. Neighborhood commercial zones are intended to be small, low-
intensity commercial areas that primarily serve the needs of the adjacent neighborhoods. These
areas give attention to pedestrian access, consistent with the purpose of the zone; however, use
of the automobile is not ignored. Often neighborhood commercial zones are placed on the edge
of neighborhoods on artedal streets. These locations consider the traffic counts on arterial streets
and therefore the economic viability of the commercial uses. These locations also attempt to
discourage through traffic in the neighborhoods. Scale is very important in a neighborhood
commemial zone. In using this zoning concept, people are often confused by the tension
between trying to keep the zone neighborhood-oriented and the desire of property owners in this
zone to develop larger community-oriented commercial enterprises. This tension is demonstrated
in the ordinance amendments that have occurred since the establishment of a neighborhood
commercial zone.
Zone Amendments
In November 1989 the number of uses that were permitted in the zone was increased and the
option of providing residential uses above commercial uses was removed. In October 1990 a
proposal was submitted to enlarge the maximum size of the zone from 7 acres to 9 acres. This
proposal was denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Apparently it never proceeded to
the City Council.
In June, 1994, in response to requests from Bruce Glasgow and Harry Wolf, a number of changes
were made in the ordinance. Again, additional uses were included in the permitted use section.
Child care was changed from being permitted only as a special exception to a provisional use;
neighborhood super stores were included as a special exception; the size of permitted offices was
increased; residential uses above commercial development were put back in as an option; design
provisions for pedestrian and bicycle access and general building design were included; and the
maximum size of the zone was increased from 7 acres to 10 acres with the provision that a
general development plan needed to be submitted in those cases.
In December of 1994, a restriction was placed on the size of restaurants permittedjn the zone.
Previously restaurants were permitted only as a special exception, with no size limitation. At the
request of Harry Wolf, an amendment to permit restaurants by right was evaluated. The special
exception process had allowed the City, through the staff and the Board of Adjustment, to
evaluate each case for the appropriateness of particular restaurants in neighborhood commemial
zones. The size of the restaurant and traffic circulation would be the main factors in the
evaluation of impact on nearby neighborhoods. With the shift to allowing restaurants by dght, an
appropriate size for restaurants in this zone needed to be included in the Code to maintain the
purpose ofthe neighborhood commercial zone. The appropriate size was researched bythe staff.
Existing restaurants throughout Iowa City were used; the list compiled is attached. The result was
permitting restaurants of 2,500 square feet by right, with larger restaurants still being permitted
only by special exception. This amendment was done at the same time as an amendment which
allowed one bay carwashes to be placed in the zone.
The last amendment was done in May 1995, and pertained to the amount of parking required and
provided within the zone. City Council requested that the staff look at the appropriate amount of
parking for this zone. We undertook a survey of existing zones and how the parking was being
used, finding that in most instances the parking lots were under utilized even at peak times. A
copy of that research is also attached. This parking provision placed a maximum as well as a
minimum on the number of parking spaces that could be provided in the neighborhood
commercial zone.
Overall the ordinance amendments reflect an increase in the types of establishments that may
be permitted in a neighborhood commercial zone. The size and therefore the intensity of the
commercial development has been constrained, consistent with the philosophy behind the zone.
Process
All of the ordinance amendments noted above went through the standard process of notice and
public discussion before the Planning and Zoning Commission and subsequent setting of public
hearing, holding a public hearing and having three readings of the ordinance before the Cit7
Council prior to adoption. Our records indicate that the most recent amendments, that is those
in 1994 and 1995, were adopted without waiving any of the readings.
RESTAURANT:
* Big Mikes Super Subs
Brown Bottle
Brueggefs Bagel Backcry
Burger King
Bushnell's Tumle
Cottage Bakery, Dell, Catering
Easy Place Chinese Restaurant
Fries BBQ & Grill
Givunnis
Godfather's Pizza
Gringo's Mexican Restaurant
Happy Joes Pizza & Ice Cream
Masala Indian Vegetarian Cuisine
* Micky's
Mill Restaurant
Mondo's Sports Care
Panthero's Mexican Grill
* Wok
Bruegger's Bagel Bakery
Carlos O'Kelly's
China Place
Domino's Pi~,8
Ground Round Restaurant & Grill
Hungary Hobo
Kentucky Fried Chicken
McDonalds Restaurant
LOCATION:
Downtown
Riverside
SIZE (Ft Sq.):
1128
6000
2967
2640
3180
3211
1050
approx: 2680
3000- 6000
7320
approx: 3800
2586
1380
1852
6803
3540
3040
1568
2531
6500
3390
1200
5340
3220
2476
4804
* Break Room Bar 8; Grill
Hardee's
* Long John Silver's Seafood Shoppe
Maid-Rite Comer
; Mazzio's Pizza
lat Ave
1500
4396
1768
3000
2717
* Chill & Grill
* Cozy House
* Hamburg Inn No. 2, Inc.
* La Perlira Mexican Care
North End
1300
1340
1690
760
Country Kitohen
Yc, n Ching Restaurant
Highway 6
5311
6192
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-1 Zone
7'//
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 the same as'for other commercial 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 [han 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 tdps.
Commercial off-street parking requirements
Development of property in the Community Commemial, 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 aqd local studies
conducted by JCCOG have shown that trips made to commercial developments have the lowest
non-automobile mode split of all types of tdps, 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 articles 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 commemial zones, it may be appropriate to require less off-street parking in the CN-1 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 particular 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 weeldy 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 commemial uses enables a reduction in trip making by automobile,
and an increase in bicycling and walking.
Welllngtor~, Florida is a new town of ten neighborhoods designed by Andres Duany and
Elizabeth 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 square feet for retail uses and one space per 300 square feet
for office uses.
Belmond, North Carolina, is 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 commemial uses at a rate of one space per 1000
square feet GFA. Wher~ on-street parking is not readily available, additional off-street
spaces are required.
Wide variaticn can exist in parking demand between otherwise similar land uses. The variations
reflect differences in type and densi~ 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 levels 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 oft-street parking requirements based on local parking and
traftic 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.
FOLLOWtNQ I~ ~ ~ ~
~ST DOGUME* NT AVAILABLE
Figur~ 1
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS
SURVEYED FOR PARKING DEMAND
Thur. 12/15
Noon
2:00
Sat. 12/17
10:o0
1:30 p
Mon. 12/19
Noon
2:00 p
5:30 p
Wed, 12121
Noon
2:00 p
Thur. 12/22
Noon
2:00 p
Wed. 1111
Noon
2:00 p
5:30 p
Thur. 1/12
Noon
2:00 p
5:30 p
Sat. 1/14
Noon
2:00 p
5:30 p
J Total
Rochester/1 st Ave.
78 spaces required
81 spaces provided
19 (24%)
32 (41
16 (21%)
24 (31%)
23 (30%1
23 (30%)
24 (31%)
28 (36%)
40 (51%)
24 {31%)
28 (36%)
40 (51%)
30 (39%)
21 (27%)
20 (26%)
35 {45%)
32 {41%)
19 (24%)
18 (23%)
22 (28%)
19 (24%)
537 (33%)
Figure 2
Parking Utilization Survey Results
Percentage of Spaces Required that were Occupied
N. Dodge Hy-Vee
251 spaces required
236 spaces provided
1 st Ave. Towncrest
80 spaces required
59 spaces provided
OSCO Towrlcrast
89 spaces required
98 spaces provided
83 (33%) 18 (23%) 48 (54%)
80 (32%) 20 (25%) 62 (70%)
72 (29%) 11 (14%} 22 (25%)
96 (38%) 21 (26%) 32 (36%)
74 (30%) 17 (21%) 65 (73%) ·
94 (38%) 26 (33%) 62 (70%)
108 (43%) 14 (18%) 57 (64%}
92 (37%) 14 (18%) 63 (71%)
93 (37%} 17 (21%) 58 (65%)
99 (40%) 12 {15%) 66 (74%)
92 (37%) 14 (18%) 63 (71%)
93 (37%) 17 (21%) 58 (65%)
81 (32%) 7 (9%) 41 {46%)
56 (22%) 19 (24%) 46 (52%)
89 (36%) 21 (26%) 23 (26%)
75 (30%) 12 (15%) 41 (46%)
66 (26%) 17 {21%) 43 (48%)
102 (41%) 11 (14%) 50 (56%)
87 (35%) 24 (30%) 33 (37%)
80 (32%) 25 (31%) 36 (41%)
68 (27%} 19 (24%) 14 (16%)
1780 (34%) 336 (20%) 983
N. Dodge/Church St.
109 spaces required
122 spaces provided
57 (52%)
50 (46%)
53 (49%)
54 (50%)
46 (42%)
48 {44%)
57 (52%)
42 (39%)
40 {37%)
48 (44%)
42 (39%)
40 (37%)
45 (41%)
49 (45%)
41 (38%)
42 (39%)
36 {33%)
48 (44%)
56 (51%)
50 {46%)
' 37 (34%)
981 {43%) ]
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 heJp 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 ~n 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 parl
of their patronage from adjacent businesses and offices, and chumhes 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 la~d 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.
$urnmar~
The Zoning Ordinance off-street parking requirements for the CN-1 zone should be
reduced by one-third from the requirements for other commercial zones. This will result
in additional buildable area in each CN-1 zone; however, the overall result will be a
decrease in the amount of paved parking area,
In the CN-1 zone, do not allow more than the required amount of off-street parking to be
provided without requiring action of the Board of Adjustment. This will avoid excessive
amounts of paving.
Flexible parking strategies should be permitted administratively to accommodate the
variance in parking demand from site to site. These should include:
Shared parking arrangements which will reduce the overall paved area in CN-1
zoRea.
Allow developers to land bank areas within CN-1 zones to accommodate future
changes in land use, changes in ownership, and shifts in shared parking demand,
Allow land banking to be required administratively to accommodate a request from
a developer for a reduction in required off-street parking, If the Zoning Enforce-
ment Officer determines at some point in the future the additional parking spaces
are needed, the property owner would be required to construct parking on the land
banked area, A developer not willing to accept a land bank condition would be
required to go through a special exception procedure with the Board of Adjustment
to have the required off-street parking reduced.
jccogtp~parking~oroposal.1
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 30, 1995
TO: City Council
FROM: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk
RE: Council Procedure
Prior to the start of a new year I thought it would be helpful to
send the attached information as background. Please call with any
questions you may have.
CRy of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
To: CRy Council
From: Rule~ Committee
Re: Procedural Aspects of Council Wo~ng
meeting Is tJ~t l~ls Is ¢o~y to ou~miv~ In au~ ~ to stay fcx:u~d e~ the hour
say '1 agree will%,.' ra~ t~an reg~M~g It?
R~$OLUTION NO. 70-35
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CITY COUNCIL STAUDING
COMMIl~'EE ON RILLES
NHER~S, Just as the City of Iowa City has experienced dyn.'uqic growth
in recent years, so have the maBnitude and complexity of the work of the
City Council multiplied, and
~ltERFAS, the City Council recognizes the necessity of establishing a
definite procedural framework within which to dcsl effectively wi~h this
multiplies[ion of work.
NO~ TIIEEEFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF IOI{A CITY, IO!~:
1) Tha~ ~here is hereby established a standlea C~aic~ee on Rules of
the City Co~3cil of Io~a City, Io~a.
2) T~at ~he Committee on Rules shall consis~ of two members of the
City Council appointed by the Ilsyet.
3) That i~ shall be ~ha duty of the Co.mitres cn ~u!es continually
to study all procedural aspects of the work of the City Council and to
submit rape:rs and recommends:lens to the City Council en any procedure;
question referred ~o it by the City Council or regardln3 which the Co;~!ctee
deans City Cemaell action apprapriat~, iscludin~ propo~?~ ~ules of the City
Council.
AYES: N .... ABSEllT:
City Clerk
Peasad a~,d approved thfe __
Brandt
Butheros
Cormell
Hlckerson
White
NAYOR
3rd day of Fehruary, A.D., 1970.
RESOLUTION NO. 94-21
RESOLUTION REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 78°9 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CiTY OF IOWA CITY AND APPROVING A NEW RESOLUTION SETTING
FORTH RULES OF ORDF~ FOR THE CONDUCT OF FORMAL COUNCIL
MEETINGS.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA, that said Council does hereby repeal Resolution No. 78-9 and, in its place, approve
Rules of Order for the Conduct of Formal City Council Meetings as follows:
A. Order of Business
The business of the City Council shall be taken up for consideration in substantially the
following order, except as otherwise ordered by the Mayor or City Council:
2.
3.
4.
5.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Roll Call
Mayor's Proclamations
Consent Calendar
Public Discussion
Planning and Zoning Matters: hearings, recommendations, ordinances and
resolutions
Other Public Hearings
Council Business
City Manager and City Attorney Business
Resolutions
Other Ordinances
Adjournment
B. Content of Consent Calendar
Those items on the Agenda which are considered routine will be listed under the
Consent Calendar and be enacted by one motion, with a roll call vote. If the Mayor,
a Council member or a citizen specifically requests that any of the items be considered
separately, these items will be removed and considered later on the Agenda.
It was moved by Pieoct and seconded by
adopted, and upon roll call there were:
Thrn.~.or~'nn the Resolution be
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Baker
Horowitz
Kubby
Lehman
Novick
Pigott
Throgmorton
Resolution No.. q~_-',)l
Page 2
Passed and approved thle t8ch day of
· 1994.
ATTEST:_~. ~,~
CIT? CLERK
MAYOR ~
Ax,,,..~..~e.d by L'"'--~
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: December 1, 1995
To: Mayor and City Council
From: City Clerk
Re: Council work session, November 20, 1995 - 7:15 p.m. in the Council Chambers
Mayor Horowitz presiding. Council present: Horowitz, Baker, Kubby, Lehman, Novick, Pigott,
Throgmorton. Staff: Atkins, Helling, Woito, Karr, Miklo, Franklin, Nasby, Milkman, Davidson,
Schoon, Yucuis. Council-Elect: Vanderhoef, Thornberry. Planning and Zoning Commission:
George Starr, Jane Jacobsen, Ann Boyberg, Lea Supple. Tapes: #95-131 and ~J5-133, both
sides,
SARATOGA SPRINGS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL (agenda item 4i) Reel 95-131, Side 1
A. Meet with Planninq and Zoninq commission re~larding zoning.
B. Discuss allocation of funds
PCD Director Franklin, Community Development Coordinator Milkman, Planning and
Zoning Commission Member Starr, property owner Charlie Ruppert and developer Bob
Burns presented information.
Franklin explained that if the conditional zoning agreement is not signed prior to Council's
formal meeting, then Council should vote to deny or continue the public headng to
November 27.
In response to Novick, Franklin stated the time constraints are the December 9 purchase
offer deadline and a December I deadline for low-income housing tax credit application.
Starr stated that Planning and Zoning Commission would like to meet with Council if
Council does not agree with the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendations.
City Clerk Karr stated that City staff will need to know by tomorrow if Council decides to
schedule a meeting on the 27th of November to allow for the required 24-hour notice of
the meeting.
CITY STEPS ALLOCATION PRIORITIES (Consent Calendar 4d(6))
Reel 95-131, Side I
Community Development Coordinator Milkman presented information on the CITY STEPS
allocation process.
REVIEW ZONING MATTERS
Reel 95-131, Side 2
Senior Planner Miklo presented the following Planning and Zoning items for discussion.
Ao
Setting a public hearin.q for December 5 on an ordinance amendincl the Zoning Chapter
bv repealinq Title 14, Chapter 6, Article J, Section 1, River Corridor Overlay Zone.
Setting a public hearina for December 5 on an ordinance amending Title 14, Chapter 5,
Buildin.a and Housin.a, Article H, Site Plan Review, to include a reference to the Sensitive
Areas Site Plan.
Setting a public hearing for December 5 on an ordinance amendin.a Title 14, Chapter 5,
Buildin~l and Housinci, Article I, Grading Ordinance, to make it consistent with the
Sensitive Areas Ordinance.
Sett n.q a public hearincl for December 5 on an ordinance amendincl Title 6, Public Health
and Safeb/, Chapter 3, Weed Control, Section 3, Natural Areas, to make it consistent with
the Sensitive Areas Ordinance.
Settin.a a public hearina for December 5 on an ordnance amending the Zoninq Chapter
to change the separati_0n requirements for aboveground storage tanks.
Settin.a a public hearincl for December 5 on an ordinance amending the Zoning Chapter
to clarify the definition of time/temperature si.qns.
Public hearin..a on an ordinance amending the Zonin.a Chapter to allow adult day care,
elder family homes, and elder .aroup homes under certain conditions in Iowa City, and to
chan.ae the definition of elderly.
Ho
Public hearing on an ordinance amendin.g the Zoning Chapter to re(~uire bicycle parkinq
for commercial and multi-family residential development.
Public headnq on an ordinance amendin.q the Zoning Chapter bv conditionally chan.qinq
the use re.aulations of an approximate 5.7 acre tract of land located east of Old Dubu.aue
Road and north of Dodge Street from RS-5, Low Densib/Sin.qle-Familv Residential, to
OPDH-8, Planned Development Housin.a Overlay. (REZ95-0010)
(discussed earlier in meeting)
Ordinance amendin.a the Zoning Chapter bv adopting a Sensitive Areas Ordinance to
re.qulate development on properties containing environmentally sensitive features,
including wetlands, stream corridors, steep slopes, wooded areas, hvddc soils, prairie
remnants and archaeological sites. (Second Consideration)
Resolution for final plat approval of Kennedy's Waterfront Addition, Part Three, a 31.23
acre, 11-lot commercial subdivision located south of Hiclhwav 1 between Gilbert Street and
the Iowa River. (SUB95-0026)
City Attorney Woito stated staff is working on the legal papers for the resolution for final
plat.
Resolution for approval of the preliminary plat of W.B. Development, a 40.30 acre, 8-lot
commercial subdivision located southwest of the Hi.qhway 1/218 nterchan.qe.
(Winebrenner).
COUNCIL AGENDA/TIME
Reel 95-131 Side 2
In response to Kubby, City Manager Atkins stated he will distribute a memo regarding Ed
Cole and his subdivision request on Riverside Drive.
Council time continued after Economic Development Ad Hoc Committee discussion.
3
NEAR SOUTH SIDE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN (Agenda item #7)
Reel 95-131, Side 2
PCD Director Franklin presented information about the Near South Side Redevelopment Plan.
WATER/SEWER RATES (Consent Calendar 4d(2))
Reel 95-131, Side 1
City Manager Atkins, Finance Director Yucuis, and City Attorney Woito presented information
about the proposed water and sewer rate increases, water impact fees and Council meeting
schedule.
Council agreed to set the public headng for December 5 and scheduled the first consideration and
final vote on the water/sewer rates for action by the new council. City Manager Atkins stated he
will provide Council with a memo regarding impact fees update. Finance Director Yucuis stated
he will provide Council with a draft of the low-income policy.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AD HOC COMMITTEE
Reel 95-133, Side 1
Council appointed the following members to the Economic Development Ad Hoc Committee:
Citizens: George Starr, Jeff Cox, Derek Mauer, Cheryl Whitney, Carolyn Gross.
University of Iowa: Mary New
Small Business: Vicki Lensing
Industry: Richard Ferguson
Environmental Groups: Pain Ehrhardt
Economic Development Organizations: Bob Sierk
Labor: William Gerhard
Resource People: Tom Bullington, Katherine Kurth
COUNCIL AGENDA/TIME CONTINUED
Reel 95-133, Side 1
Council member Lehman noted that the Chamber Organizational Dinner scheduled for
December 4, 1995, and questioned changing the work session also scheduled that
evening. Horowitz reported that a Council meeting regarding Fringe Area Agreement
discussion is scheduled that evening. Council agreed to retain the work session for
December 4.
o
(Agenda Items 8 and 9, sale to HACAP) Novick suggested that HACAP be asked to pay
for fire protection. Staff will follow-up.
(Agenda Item 17 - Budgeted position for Sanitary Division) In response to Novick, Arkins
stated staff is initiating the hiring of a new employee for the March recycling program.
Throgmorton thanked City Manager for a memo regarding response to the Press-Citizen
editorial about the properbj taxes, Throgmorton requested that Mayor Horowitz and the
City Manager write an editorial to the Press-Citizen.
o
Throgmorton requested that staff give further consideration to Sam Doyle's request to
display art in public facilities. Kubby stated that she will contact Sam Doyle.
Pigott noted that Council Members received City Attorney Woito's memo regarding the
mobile home landlord-tenant ordinance. Pigott requested that be scheduled for discussion
at a Council work session.
8. Kubby noted that Council Members received a memorandum from City Attorney Woito
4
regarding prevailing wage requirements as it relates the Wastewater Treatment project,
and requested staff look at other options for future projects.
(Agenda Item No. 22. Toy Vel~icles) Kubby noted that she will probably move to defer
action on this item at tomorrow night's Council meeting.
10.
Horowitz noted that she had asked Council Members Karen Kubby and Dean Thornberry
to represent Council at the United Way Joint City/County Human Service Funding
Hearings. In response to Council, City Clerk Karr noted that the Council organizational
meeting is tentatively scheduled for January 4, 1996 at noon.
11.
Mayor Horowitz asked Council Members to refer to the City Managers November 6 memo
regarding pending items for updates.
12.
Mayor Horowitz suggested that the memo from City Engineer Fosse regarding prairie
vegetation along Rohret Road be forwarded to vadous neighborhood associations.
13,
In response to Horowitz, City Clerk Karr stated a Rules Committee Meeting is scheduled
December 4 at 6 p.m. to review the Human Rights Commission bylaws.
14.
Mayor Horowitz stated that she would like Lehman and her to talk with Johnson County
Board of Supervisors representatives regarding Fringe Area Agreement. After discussion
it was agreed Lehman and Horowitz would meet as individuals.
15.
City Clerk Karr noted that Council received an invitation today to attend the Driver's
License Office open house on Tuesday, November 21 from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. to kick off the
issuance of a new driver's license and renewal system.
16.
City Clerk Karr reminded Council of the December 6, 1995 training session in
Williamsburg, Holiday Inn, 5:15-8:15 p.m.
17. City Clerk Karr requested Council Members contact her regarding their holiday schedules.
APPOINTMENTS
Reel 95-133, Side 2
Senior Center Commission - Kenneth Mobily
Meeting adjourned 10:20 p.m.
Hy*Vee Food Stores, Inc. / · ;-~.~: :~*~ i' _~ _' "-'. .
November 27, 1995
Dan Dakins
710 First Avenue S
Iowa City, IA 52245
Re:
Proposed Hy-Vee Food Store
First Avenue and Muscatine
Iowa City, Iowa
Dear Mr. Dakins:
Thank you for taking time to write and express your concerns
regarding our proposed Hy-Vee Food Store at the corner of First
Avenue and Muscatine. I don't recall meeting you personally at the
neighborhood meeting, so I'm not sure whether you were at the
meeting or have had a chance to see the proposed site plan
firsthand.
The placement of our loading dock is dependent upon the interior
layout of the store and elevation of the site. We did take into
consideration the neighbors to the west and placed the loading dock
as far east as we could along the north elevation of our building.
The elevation is such that it will not work to move the loading
dock to the very northeast of the building.
In working with Karen Franklin, we flip-flopped the i~terior of the
store in order to move our Market Square Kitchen and Casual Dining
Area to the southwest corner of our store. That, along with the
extra relief we provided along that western wall, was to provide a
more residential look to better fit the neighborhood. That, in
turn, forced our future expansion to the east side of the building.
If you do not feel the arborvitae planting as a screening for our
loading dock area is adequate, as an alternative, we would be
willing to plant spruce trees along that entire area. Currently,
our site plan reflects approximately 30 feet of green space from
the creek bank to the bike path and another 30 to 35 feet from the
bike path to the beginning of any concrete along the north side of
the building. There is almost 4 acres of green space on this site,
well in excess of any city requirements.
5820 Westown Parkway, West Des Moines, Iowa 50266
Phone (515)267-2800
Dan Dakins'
November 27, 1995
Page 2
Our loading dock is more than 300 feet from the beginning of your
front yard. At that distance, the ambient noise from the street
will mask any sounds from our loading dock area. We can control
the route our trucks take to make deliveries to our store and can
bring them in from the south. To a certain extent, we can even
control the time of day in which deliveries are made.
We will do everything we possibly can to meet your concerns, but we
cannot move the loading dock any further to the east. If you were
not at the neighborhood meeting and haven't had a chance to see our
colored site plan, I would be happy to meet with you at your
convenience.
We strongly believe we are a good addition to the neighborhood and
hope you will be supportive of our project. If you would like to
meet or have any questions, please feel free to call me at
515/267-2861.
Sincerely,
R~Y-VEE FOOD STORES,
David A. Bailie
Real Estate Manager
INC.
ta
Chuck Robertson
Dennis Ausenhus
Karen Franklin
Council on Disabili .ty Rights and Education
5.
6.
7.
MEETING AGENDA
DECEMBER 5, 1995 - 10:00 A.IVI.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CIVIC CENTER - 410 E. WASHINGTON ST.
IOWA CITY, IA 52240
Introductions
Approval of Minutes
Subcommittees/Reports
a. Housing
b. Transportation
c. Public Accommodations
d. Public Relations
Other Reports
Other Business
Next Meeting Agenda - January 2, 1996
Adjourn
CC:
Iowa City City Council
Johnson County Board of Supervisors
mg~t asst~ccm 12.5 .egd
CDRE MISSION STATE~/IENT
The Council on Disability Rights and Education (CDRE) is a non-profit educational
organization dedicated to accessibility, full participation and inclusion of persons with
disabilities.
Our mission is to act as a comprehensive, community-wide educational resource for
promoting disability awareness, to provide technical assistance and to encourage
compliance with disability civil rights legislation.
Our goal is the attainment of community-wide accessibility and the full participation of
persons with disabilities to all facilities and services within our community.
The Council on Oisability Rights and Education
Transportation Sub-Committee
Report
The sub-committee last convened on October 11, at the Iowa
City Transit Building ConFerence room at l:SOp.m.
Present: Linda Carter, Timothy Clancy, Doris Jean SheriFF,
Larry Olson, and Manuch
Oiscussion concerning Ioua City Transit's progress in
implementing schedules in a braille Format uas tabled due to
the National American Transportation ConFerence which took
place this week in Austin, Texas,
*(City transit oFF
visually impaired,
system, to discuss
icials recently met
who are users oF t
the most usable ac
with persons who are
he Fixed route bus
commodations) ·
There was some discussion concerning the significance oF the
varying dates printed on each oF the respective Fixed-route
schedules. These dates reflect when each route wen! into
eFFect, IF any printed schedule should need be updated new
schedules will be printed only when existing supplies are
used,
How will the anticipated cuts in the Federal budget aFFect
the level o¢ service provided by the Fixed-route and para-
transit systems? Iowa City Transit, is expected to maintain
its current level o? service, While Federal cuts uould have
a nominal impact on the level o~ para~transit service
provided by SEATS. Any cuts in the money allocated by the
City, would have a direct impact.
When purchasing Fixed-route buses, boo is the type o~ bus
determined with regard to size? SpeciFications ?or the buses
are written locally. Smaller buses may be more Fuel
e~icient, however, the need For more o9 them would make any
savings negligible. Rider-ship dictates size and provides a
mandate For the purchase o¢ the larger buses.
Brien Haclatchy, From Cambus, o~Fered to serve as the "eyes
and ears," o~ the sub committee during the recent National
rural Transportation meeting in Des Moines,
Council on Disability Rights and Education
MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 1995
Present:
Mace Braverman, Nancy Ostragnai, Keith Ruff, Linda Carter, Loren Schmidt,
Marjorie Hayden Strait, Len Sandlet, Doris Jean Sheriff, John McKinstry, Kevin
Butt, Ethel Madison, Anne Rawland, Heather Shank
Members present introduced themselves. Minutes of the October 3, 1995 meeting were
approved as written.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
Housing: Kevin Butt sent the letter, written by the housing subcommittee, to the
Landowner's Association. included with the letter was a sample of the checklist and
a business reply post card. The post card is to assist the Landowners with
establishing appointments for the audit.
Transportation: Tim Clancy asked the members of the CDRE to refer to the report of
the transportation sub-committee, The report indicates that the city transit officials
recently met with persons who are visually impaired. According to Ms, Linda Carter,
Ron Logsden agreed to put the bus schedule on tape and in braille. The anticipated
time for the completion of the bus schedules is the first of the year.
Mr. Logsden informed Ms. Carter that there is a bill being considered by
representatives in Des Moines which, if passed, will have the effect of taking money
from transportation departments in cities, such as Iowa City. The bill provides for a
greater contribution of transportation funds to Aretrak. Mr. Logsden encourages
individuals who are concerned about revenue for new buses to write to his or her
congressperson.
Public Accommodation: The subcommittee met at Givannis for a pep talk meeting.
Ms. Nancy Ostragnai indicated she called eight businesses. One manager said that he
couldn't understand her and he hung up. Ms. Ostragnai mentioned that the
subcommittee is considering public accommodations that are more difficult than the
places they have previously evaluated for accessibility. Mr. Keith Ruff mentioned that
Great Midwestern had restrooms on the bottom floor and upstairs but no bathroom on
the ground floor. The restaurant is going to look into having a chair lift that will allow
access to the bathrooms.
Public Relations: Marjorie Hayden Strait requested an effort be made by the CDRE as
a whole to recruit members for this subcommittee. She would like the Public Relations
subcommittee to concentrate on publicity for the CDRE so that more people would be
attracted to the group.
CHARTER IV]EIViBERS: Marjorie Hayden Strait mentioned that the list of charter members was
incorrect as some of the individuals listed had not been to meetings for a long time. Ms,
Strait suggested each individual be called and asked whether he or she would be interested
in returning to the group. Mr. Braverman indicated that the bylaws would provide a means
to remove people from the charter member list if attendance was a concern. Ms. Strait
indicated she wanted to take the proactive approach and not a negative approach. Anne
CDRE
November 7, 1995
Page 2
Rawland pointed out there were 30 people on the list of charter members and she has always
witnessed at least three members at the meetings. Therefore, she said, there would be a
quorum if at least three members came to the meetings.
I~YLAWS: Mr. Braverman asked whether any member had an objection to Article I of the
group's bylaws. Ms. Doris Jean Sheriff said Section 2 (b) should be changed to: "Encouraging
and assisting businesses to be accessible to and useable bv persons with disabilities." It was
moved to accept revisions to Article I. Seconded. Article I, as revised, was unanimously
approved.
loren Schmidt moved to adopt Article II as written. Keith Ruff seconded the motion. Article
II unanimously adopted as written,
Anne Rawland moved to adopt Article III of the bylaws as written. Kevin Butt seconded the
motion. Article III was unanimously approved as written.
Dori:s Jean Sheriff moved to adopt Article IV with the following revision to Section 2: "The
Board of Directors shall be composed of 13 members of which at least 5 shall be persons with
disabilities." The motion was seconded by Ruff and unanimously approved.
Doris Jean Sheriff moved to accept as written, Artic e V of the CDRE Bylaws. Loren Schmidt
seconded the motion. Article V was unanimously approved.
Article VI, Section 2, Ist sentence: Ms, Doris Jean Sheriff could not understand why the
'section limiting the authority of the CDRE members to speak on behalf of the organization was
necessary. Mr. Braverman explained that this section does not prohibit individuals from
speaking but the individual cannot speak for the group or on behalf of the group without
getting permission. Ms. Ostragnai stated she was worried about getting the necessary
permission in a short period of time. Ms. Anne Rawland pointed out the portion of the bylaws
whereby special meetings can be called when necessary. Loren Schmidt moved to accept
Article Vl as written. This was seconded by Doris Jean Sheriff and approved unanimously by
the group.
Article VII: Anne Rawland moved to adopt as written Article VII of the bylaws. Doris Jean
Sheriff seconded the motion. Article VII unanimously approved by the CDRE.
Article Vllh Marjorie Hayden Strait moved to approve Article VIII as written. This motion was
seconded by Doris Jean Sheriff and unanimously approved.
Mr. Braverman indicated he would accept a motion to approve the bylaws in their entirety.
It was so moved, seconded and unanimously approved. The bylaws have been adopted.
OLD BUSINESS: There will be an ADA forum on Thursday, November 9, 1995 at 4:00 p.m.
at the IMU, Triangle Ballroom.
NEW BUSINESS: Kevin Burr is asking for CDRE members to prowde him with names of
i~dividuals who should be asked to join a group similar to the CDRE in Linn County. Ms. Strait
offered Mr. Burt the names of three people she believed would be interested.
To: ~0~ C~ CLER~
Feom jo hoge~tv 11-Z9-95 8:45a~ p. Z o~ 3
Johnson
Charles D. Duffy, Chairperson
Joe Bolkcom
Stoph~n P. Lac'ma
Don Schr
Sally Stutsman
BOARD' OF SUPERVISORS
November 30, 1995
FORMAL MEETING
Agenda
1. Call to order 9:00 a.m.
2. Action re: claims
3. Action re: canvass of votes for special Clear Creek Amana Community
School election and the formal minutes of Novembcr 21st.
4. Action re: payroll authorizations
5. 9:00 a.m. - Public Hearing on the following Zoning Application:
a) First and Second consideration of the following Zoning application:
Application Z9529 of David Long, Iowa City, requesting rezoning
of 1.8 acres from A1 Rural to CH Highway Commercial of certain
property described as being in the NE 1/4 of Section 11; Township
78 North; Range 6 West of the 5th P.M. in Johnson County, Iowa
Cfhis property is located on the east side of Sand Road SE,
approxnnately 1/4 of a mile noTth of its intersection with 490th
Street SW in Pleasant Valley Twp.).
913 SoLrrH DUBUQUE ST
P O. BOX 1350 IOWA CITY. IOWA 52244-1350 TEl.' f319) 356-6000
FAX' (319~ 356-6086
To: :IO~A CTTY CLERK
From: jo hoQartv 11-29-95 8:45am p. 3 of' 3
Agenda 11-30-95 Page 2
6 Business from the County Auditor. --
t- - 'PO
_ a) Action re:permits -- ~
b) Action re:reports ~:-' c~
c) Other -~
7. Business from the County Attorney.
a) Discussion/action re: tentative'agreement with AFSCME on wages of
8.E.A.T.S. Training/Maintenance Coordinator position.
b) Report re: other items.
8. Business from the Board of Supervisors.
a) Action re: application for approval as a provider of individual Case
Management and authorize Chairperson to sign.
b) Other
9. Adjourn to informal meeting.
a) Business from Jay Honohan re:
issues.
b) Inquiries and reports from the public.
c) Reports and inquires from the members of the Board of Supervisors.
d) Report from the County Attorney.
e) 5:00 p.m. - Informal Informational Hearing re: FY
budgeffdiscussion.
f) Other
report on Russell/Wolf drainage
97
10. Adjournment.
November 27, 1995
Charles Duffy, Chairperson
Johnson County Board of Supervisors
913 S. Dubuque St.
P.Oo Box 1350
Iowa City, IA 52244-1350
CITY OF I0 I, VA CITY
Re: Proposed Fringe Area Agreement
Dear Charlie and Members of the Board:
Thank you for your response to the proposed changes and amendments to the Iowa
City/Johnson County Fringe Area Agreement, In your letter of November 2, you raised a
series of questions which I will attempt to answer below.
The City has not changed its identified potential growth area. The growth area was
adopted in 1992 and is as it is illustrated on the map showing the fringe area.
The City will extend its infrastructure as development occurs, both within the
corporate limits and as property is annexed. There is no predetermined time frame for
this. This is up to the private property owner. The only project we have slated which
provides for the extension of infrastructure prior to annexation is the major sewer
project in the BDI industrial park area, along Scott Boulevard. We anticipate extending
a trunk line from the Southeast Interceptor, which runs through the Sycamore Farms
area, south of Bon Aire Mobile Home Lodge. The trunk line will extend east and north
to the intersection of Highway 6 and Scott Boulevard and proceed north along the east
side of Scott Boulevard to the railroad tracks, This line will eventually be extended
north of the railroad tracks toward American Legion Road; however, at this time we
are only investing in the trunk line to the tracks. This line will serve the proposed
extension of the industrial park east of Scott Boulevard. The City's policy is to require
annexation prior to connection to the municipal systems.
It seems to me that the County is not precluded now from justifying a request to the
developer to provide infrastructure capable of being connected into the existing system
at such time as the property is annexed.
You question the treatment of commercial and industrial development southwest of
Iowa City in the Highway l/Highway 218 interchange. This provision reflects the
philosophy that urban types of development, such as commercial and industrial, should
take place within a municipality where the necessary services can be provided. Staff
has obtained a copy of your Rural Development Plan from your staff (see attached).
Reference to commercial and industrial development in this area in this plan is not
obvious. We would appreciate clarification of this.
And finally you mention the possibility of a definition section. If this seems to be
necessary, we would not be opposed to that. However, if we can address these
concerns within the text of the agreement, the document may be more readable.
Charles Duffy, Chairperson
Johnson County Board of Supervisors
November 27, 1995
Page 2
Terms referred to in your letter are "short-term" and "long-term." The only reference
I find to "short-term" is in the section addressing Area B in which a reference is made
to annexation being anticipated within the "short~range." This term could be changed
to reference the time frame of the Agreement since we anticipate that these
annexations could take place within ten years. I find no reference to the term "long-
term." We can discuss the inclusion of definitions further if you would like.
Again, thank you for your response. I hope that this information is useful to the Board.
Sincerely yours,
Susan M. Horowitz
Mayor
b~duffy
22~ South Dubuqu~ Street, Iowa City, Iowa li2:2~0
Docornbor 1977
PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT POLICY FOR
RURAL JOHNSON COUNTY
AN INTRODUCTION
A~RIMARY
CONCERN: Impact
of Non-Farm Rural
Development
SPECIAL NOTICE
and Environs
Three Arees
for Policy
FINDINGS:
Feetors Affecting Policy Development
SUGGESTED
APPROACH:
Tailor Pollcleo to Fit
Area Needs
~ .,~',;,~/~,'~,~'";7,,.,.;,7o ....
PAGE2
A Crossroads for
Policy Direction
GENERAL GOAL:
ORDERLY GROWTH
GENERAL GOAL
CRITERIA FOR POUCIES
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT
Criteria
for Policies
SPECIAL NOTICE
TO FARMERS
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
General Development Policies
--"AR[
--- NFLI ~NCE
North County Corridor
iMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
Rural Area
North County Corridor
Municipalities and Their
Environs
FOLLOWlN(~ I,.% ~ ~ ~
BE~ DOC, U~NT AVAILABLE
PAGE4
How Wile Recommended
Policies Be Accomplished?
PROPOSED DEVELOPM£MT POUCY ~=OR RURAL JOHNSON COUNTY
A MINORITY VIEWPOINT
PROPOSED POLICY:
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
MEMORANDUM
November 28, 1995
City Council and City Manager
Karin Franklin, Director, Planning & Community Develop e~.~
Iowa City/Johnson County Fringe Area Policy Agreement
Discussion of the Fringe Area Policy Agreement is scheduled for Council discussion at the work
session of Dec. 4. An agreement has been in force since 1983, has been amended three times,
and has been considered for significant amendment over the last three years. A history of the
agreement is attached, for your information.
Presently, the revised proposal is before the Council on the recommendation of the Iowa City
Planning & Zoning Commission and the County Zoning Commission. The Board of Supervisors
have reviewed and responded to this proposal in a letter dated November 2, 1995. The Mayor
responded to the Supervisors with the attached letter dated November 27, 1995. The enclosed
copy of the proposal is based on the Mamh 24,1995 proposal which was recommended by the
two commissions, shows changes from the Supervisors' November 2 draft relayed in their letter,
and indicates possible changes (in italics) suggested in convemations among the Mayor,
Councilor Lehman, and Supervisors Duffy and Sehr.
Also included in the packet is the "Proposed Development Policy for Rural Johnson County" that
was adopted by the County in 1979 and is still used, Reference to this policy is made in the
preamble to both the existing Fringe Agreement and the Mamh 1995 proposal. This document
came from the Johnson County Regional Planning Commission and was the genesis of the Fringe
Agreement. Note particularly the "General Development Policies" on p.2; "Municipalities and their
Environs" on p.3; and the minority viewpoint on p.4.
Frinqe Aqreement Basics
As a refresher, the "fringe" area is the two-mile area surrounding Iowa City's corporate limits
within which the State has given municipalities the right to review subdivisions of land. This is
a discretionary right to enable cities to "...encourage orderly community development and provide
for the regulation and control of the extension of public improvements, public services, and
utilities..." (Iowa Code, Ch.354). Iowa City has exercised this right by adopting an ordinance
indicating the City will review all plats within this two-mile area. Coralville has done the same
thing.
The importance of this review relates most clearly to the City's interest in those areas where we
anticipate annexation. However, how and if non-farm development occurs in the County in areas
where we do not anticipate annexation is important also. The extent and location of such
development can directly relate to our need to undertake capital improvements. The development
in the North Corridor and the Rapid Creek area and its impact on traffic volumes on Dubuque
Street, N. Dodge Street and Prairie du Chien is a case on point. The demand for services that
will inevitably come as non-farm County development occurs will have a direct impact on City
taxpayers who also pay County taxes.
2
Cities may, in exemising their right of review of plats, require exactly the same standards for
subdivisions in the fringe area as are required for subdivisions in the City. Iowa City has chosen
not to exact such requirements but to tailor the requirements for specific areas of the fringe, in
a 28E (enabling state law chapter) agreement with the County--the Fringe Agreement.
A critical part of the Fdnge Agreement has been an effort to mutually agree on the appropriate
land uses in different parts of the fringe. This is the aspect of the Agreement which the City and
the County have disagreed on the most. By State law, the County has the power to zone
property in the unincorporated parts of the County, including the municipalities' two-mile fringe
areas. Zoning determines the rights property owners have in the use of their land, and if and
where residential development will occur. The zoning of land in the two-mile area is important
to the City but not within the City's control. In our fringe agreement, the City may advise the
County on a rezoning, however the County may then make their own decision. There has been
divergence in the City's and the County's interpretation of the Fringe Agreement, with the County
viewing changes from agricultural use to residential development much more liberally. When
plats come in for the subdivision of the rezoned land, the City has honored the zoning put in place
by the County.
Differences between the Ex st n.q Fringe Aqreement and the March 1995 proposal
1. The number of distinct districts are reduced from nine to three.
Potential for residential development is expanded and focused in Area A (formerly areas
2, 3, & 4) whereas previously it was targeted to areas 2 and 3, the North Corridor area.
The Rapid Creek/Hwy I area is now included for future residential development.
Properties currently zoned RS in other parts of the fringe (Areas B and C) are also
permitted to develop as allowed under the zoning; this is also the case in the existing
agreement.
Cluster development, with limitations on lot size, is promoted wherever residential
development is anticipated,
Very limited residential development, in addition to farmstead splits, is permitted in areas
currently zoned A-1 in Areas B and C. The limitation precludes development of more than
one single-family residence on 40 acres.
The City's growth area is called out as a special area in which subdivisions will be
discouraged prior to annexation by requiring full City standards (installation of sewer and
water lines) with any development. These lines are in addition to any rural systems that
would be needed prior to annexation.
Currently the fringe area of Iowa City is automatically extended with any annexation. In
the March proposal, the extension of the fringe is evaluated with each annexation, in
consultation with the County.
Highliqhts of the Countv's response
The County's November 2 proposal gives the County the authority to determine what land
the City can annex and requires all annexations to be voluntary. Cities, again by State
law, have the right to annex land, either with the consent of the landowner (voluntary) or
without the consent of the landowner (involuntary). Currently, the County through our
fringe agreement and according to State law, has the opportunity to review and comment
on any annexation the City undertakes. As a matter of policy, the City does not do
involuntary annexations. Under the language proposed by the County, the City would give
up certain rights regarding decision-making on annexations. In subsequent conversations,
the County may be willing to delete the reference to the County, however the constraint
regarding voluntary annexation would be left. Keeping that phrase would not be in the
City's best interest; I will show you an example at the meeting.
The deletions under Development Standards are items that were originally introduced by
the County staff, commission, or health department, according to our records.
Generally, there is an attempt to weaken the language regarding cluster development.
These provisions are especially critical in any part of the fringe that is included in the
City's growth area but has merit also in other areas. Reference to the County's cluster
development standards only ensures that open space is provided and that lots are not
less than one acre, a requirement that is necessary for most residential development in
the County based on needed septic fields. The language that had been added in the
Mamh proposal placed a maximum size on lots also, so as to truly attain a cluster. This
provision was deleted in the County's November 2 proposal. There is no maximum lot
size in the County cluster standards.
In Area A, the North Corridor and Rapid Creek/Hwy 1 area, the March proposal included
a density of RS-3 (one dwelling/3 acres) whereas the County proposal allows for RS (one
dwelling/acre) anywhere west of Hwy 1. This is significantly higher development potential.
Also, the RS-3 of the Mamh proposal included the cluster provisions that limited lot size.
The County November 2 proposal excludes this.
In Area B and C, the disincentives for development prior to annexation in the City's growth
area are removed. The remainder of Area B is opened up to RS development, eliminating
the limitations on non-farm development. In Area C, the future land use of land outside
the City's growth area is deleted and not addressed. It appears that commercial and
industrial development is advocated in the County. In conversations with the Mayor and
Councilor Lehman, Supervisors Duffy and Sehr indicated a desire to reassess the density
in Area C and delete the reference to commercial and industrial development.
Extension of the two-mile area upon annexation is eliminated in Area A, modified in Area
B to include approval by the County, and left as is in Area C (done by the City in
consultation with the County). From subsequent conversations, the language of the March
proposal may be reinserted.
The County's response is a significant change from the recommendation of the two commissions
and the work of the subcommittee. I cannot recommend the changes they have made as being
in the short or long term interest of the City. If these changes are to be considered, the amended
agreement will need, at a minimum, to go back to the Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission
since the agreement is part of Iowa City's Comprehensive Plan.
CC:
Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission
Iowa City Attorney
Johnson County Board of Supervisors
Johnson County Zoning Commission
Johnson County Zoning Administrator
Johnson County Attorney
FRINGE AGREEMENT HISTORY
Late 70s--work by Johnson County Regional Planning Commission on development policy for
rural Johnson County. (JCRPC was a group appointed by local governments but did not
necessarily consist of office holders. Reorganized into Johnson County Council of
Governments in 1982 and comprised of elected officials.)
Dec. 1977--Proposed Development Policy for Rural Johnson County
Jan. 1979--Development Policy for Rural Johnson County adopted.
Early 80s--Matrix of land use policies and implementation actions developed for two-mile area
surrounding Iowa City. (State law had given municipalities the responsibility to review
subdivisions within two miles of the city's corporate limits. This responsibility was changed
to a discretionary right in 1990. Iowa City chose to exercise this right and adopted a local
ordinance to that effect in 1990, as did Coralville.)
Land use policies were studied and negotiated through a sub-committee of the City Council
and the Board of Supervisors.
1983--First agreement adopted by both the Council and the Board. Broad statement of policy
that has been interpreted differently by the Councils and Boards over the years. Directed
residential development in the County to Area 3-the North Corridor-as outlined in the Dec.
1977 proposal; did not require any downzoning.
10/15/86; 8125187; 11/19/87--Amendments adopted, as negotiated by the Council/Board sub-
committee. Amdt. #1 opened up Rapid Creek Road area to development for properties with
direct access to Rapid Creek Road. Amdt. #2 eliminated the criteria for direct access to Rapid
Creek Road and opened up any properties east of Hwy 1 for development. Amdt. #3 relates
standards for subdivisions to the potential for annexation. (Ch. 354.9 2."The standards and
conditions applied by a city for review and approval of the subdivision [within 2 miles] shall
be the same standards and conditions used for review and approval of subdivisions within the
city limits or shall be the standards and conditions for review and approval established by
agreement of the city and county pursuant to chapter 28E.")
1/2/92--In response to a request for development approval on the west side of Hwy 1, the
County rezoned the property to RS against the City's recommendation that this would be
contrary to the Fringe Agreement. Prior to submittal of a subdivision plat, the Council/Board
Fringe. Committee met and recommended a change to the Agreement that expanded
development opportunities to the west side of Hwy 1 in the Rapid Creek area. The Iowa City
Planning & Zoning Commission rejected this amendment and the Council and Board agreed
to have joint meetings between the City and the County Zoning Commissions to try to reach
resolution of the development issues in the Rapid Creek Area.
9/17/92--The Chairs of the two Commissions requested authority from the Council and the
Board to convene a committee of representatives of the two Commissions to draft a new
Fringe Agreement that reflected current conditions and concerns.
1/24/94--Proposed agreement presented at joint public hearing of Council and Board. Met
with strong opposition from prope~y owners east of Iowa City who objected to any
downzoning. This proposal had been through hearings at the Commission level and had been
recommended for approval by both the City and County commissions.
11/21/94--Commission Fringe Area Subcommittee reconvened to revise proposal in response
to public hearing in Jan.
Feb. 1995-The Subcommittee presented to the City and County commissions a revised
proposal that eliminated any downzoning, strongly advocated cluster development in areas
slated for development, and clarified some of the language·
Feb./March 1995-The County and City commissions recommended approval of the revised
proposal.
May 1995-At a joint meeting of the Council and the Board, Board members expressed
disagreement with the revised proposal.
8/2/95-Council requested specificity from the Board regarding their disagreement with the
revised proposal·
11/2/95-The Board responded with a rewritten agreement.
12/4/95--Council meeting to discuss the agreement and the Board's response.
November 27, 1995
Charles Duffy, Chairperson
Johnson County Board of Supervisors
913 S. Dubuque St.
P.O. Box 1350
Iowa City, IA 52244-1350
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Re: Proposed Fringe Area Agreement
Dear Charlie and Members of the Board:
Thank you for your response to the proposed changes and amendments to the Iowa
City/Johnson County Fringe Area Agreement. In your letter of November 2, you raised a
series of questions which I will attempt to answer below.
The City has not changed its identified potential growth area. The growth area was
adopted in 1992 and is as it is illustrated on the map showing the fringe area.
The City will extend its infrastructure as development occurs, both within the
corporate limits and as property is annexed. There is no predetermined time frame for
this. This is up to the private property owner. The only project we have slated which
provides for the extension of infrastructure prior to annexation is the major sewer
project in the BDI industrial park area, along Scott Boulevard. We anticipate extending
a trunk line from the Southeast Interceptor, which runs through the Sycamore Farms
area, south of Bon Aire Mobile Home Lodge. The trunk line will extend east and north
to the intersection of Highway 6 and Scott Boulevard and proceed north along the east
side of Scott Boulevard to the railroad tracks. This line will eventually be extended
north of the railroad tracks toward American Legion Road; however, at this time we
are only investing in the trunk line to the tracks. This line will serve the proposed
extension of the industrial park east of Scott Boulevard. The City's policy is to require
annexation prior to connection to the municipal systems.
It seems to me that the County is not precluded now from justifying a request to the
developer to provide infrastructure capable of being connected into the existing system
at such time as the property is annexed,
You question the treatment of commercial and industrial development southwest of
Iowa City in the Highway 1/Highway 218 ~nterchange. This provision reflects the
philosophy that urban types of development, such as commercial and industrial, should
take place within a municipality where the necessary services can be provided. Staff
has obtained a copy of your Rural Development Plan from your staff (see attached).
Reference to commercial and ~ndustrial development in this area ~n this plan is not
obwous. We would appreciate clarification of this.
And finally you mention the possibility of a definition section. ]f this seems to be
necessary, we would not be opposed to that. However, if we can address these
concerns within the text of the agreement, the document may be more readable.
'Charles Duffy, Chairperson
Johnson County Board of Supervisors
November 27, 1995
Page 2
Terms referred to in your letter are "short-term" and "long-term." The only reference
I find to "short-term" is in the section addressing Area B in which a reference is made
to annexation being anticipated within the "short-range." This term could be changed
to reference the time frame of the Agreement since we anticipate that these
annexations could take place within ten years. I find no reference to the term "long-
term." We can discuss the inclusion of definitions further if you would like.
Again, thank you for your response. l hope that this information is useful to the Board.
Sincerely yours,
Susan M. Horowitz
Mayor
bl'tduf f¥
PROPOSED FRINGE AREA POLICY AGREENIENT
BETWEEN JOHNSON COUNTY AND IOWA CITY
WHEREAS, Chapter 354, Code of Iowa (1993) allows the City of Iowa City to establish an
extraterritorial area, known as the fringe area, within two miles of the city boundaries for the
purpose of reviewing and approving subdivisions; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 354 further grants the City the authority to require that subdivisions
within the fringe area adhere to the City's subdivision standards and conditions, unless the
City establishes alternative standards and conditions for review and approval of subdivisions
via a 28E agreement between the City and the County; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 28E of the Code of Iowa (1993) enables two or more local governments
to enter into agreements to cooperate for their mutual advantage; and
WHEREAS, the Development Policy for Rural Johnson County adopted January, 1979, calls
for the preparation and adoption of development plans and agreements between the County
and the City regarding the municipality and its environment; and
WHEREAS, the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan Update adopted in January, 1989, and
amended through March, 1993, outlines the extent of urban development expected within the
next 20 years; and
WHEREAS, it is in the interest of Johnson County and the City of Iowa City to establish
policies for the orderly growth and development within the City's fringe area; and
WHEREAS, Johnson County and the City of Iowa City mutually agree that such policies are
necessary to more effectively and economically provide services for future growth and
development and to protect and preserve the fringe area's natural resources and its
environmentally sensitive features.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. FRINGE AREA DEVELOPIV1ENT POLICIES
The parties accept and agree to the following development policies regarding annexation,
zoning, and subdivision review for the Iowa City fringe area as authorized by Chapter 354,
Code of Iowa (1993).
Purpose:
The Fringe Area Policy Agreement is intended to provide for orderly and efficient development
patterns appropriate to a non-urbanized area, protect and preserve the fringe area's natural
resources and environmentally sensitive features, direct development to areas with physical
characteristics which can accommodate development, and effectively and economically
provide services for future growth and development.
In light of these objectives, the City and the County examined the development capabilities
of the Iowa City fringe area and determined that development within this fringe area is to
occur in accordance with a) the Land Use Plan attached to this Agreement, b) development
standards contained in Section B of this agreement, and c) the fringe area development
policies contained in Section C of this Agreement.
-2-
PROPOSED (11/27/95)
The City and Cour~ty further agree that upon adoption of this agreement, the City will annex
property within the fringe area only with the voluntary cooperation of the land owner and
Johnson County.
A. Land Use Plan
The Land Use Plan, attached to this Agreement as Attachment 1, illustrates the land use
patterns for the'ringe area.
B. Development Standards
The following standards apply to unincorporated development in the fringe area.
Disc,)urage development in areas which conflict with the Johnson County
Comprehensive Plan which considers CSR (Corn Suitability Rating), high water
table, wetlands, floodplain, non-erodible soil, and road suitability.
Pro~mtc development on hard surfaced roads; rely on agrcomcnt= with dcvclopors
to assume thc cost of maintaining and upgrading existing county roads; and
imff3so impact fees or establish special a~socsmont districts to assure that
cdo~uatc infrastructure is in place and is maintained to servo development.
Pr0-{ect the public health by requiring developers to meet or exceed minimum
ee~='.,'vct!c.". standards for water and wastewater systems in all developments
within the Iowa City Fringe Area pursuant to Johnson County Public Health
Department Regulations.
The Johnson County Board of Hoalth'c criteria for Evaluating Watcr Wails in
Proposed Subdivisions in offset at thc time a dcvclopor socks
approval will bc the guiding documcnt in evaluating proposed watcr systems.
All new developments must became part of the Johnson County artcite
Wastcwatcr Managomcnt District and adhere to the City of Iowa City's
Wastcwatcr Treatment and Disposal Systcm Policy.
3~
~c,,mctc Encourage cluster development which preserves large tracts of open
space including environmentally sensitive areas and farm land; results in compact
development which requires less infrastructure and is more efficient for provision
of services.
C. Fringe Area Development Policies
The parties agree to apply the following fringe area development policies.
FRINGE AREA A (FORMERLY AREAS 2, 3 AND 4)
Permit residential development by considering, on a case-by-case basis, proposals to
rezoneland in this area to RS-3(onodwelling unit per thrcoaorcsof lot area) on the east
side of Highway 1 and to RS on the west side of Highway I provided all new
subdivisions conform to are encouraged to comply with the County's requirements
provisions for clustered developments contained in Appendix B. Lots shall not cxcccd
one (1) acre in size ,except where the City and County agree that one (1) acre late do
not provide a cuitablc building site. In such locations, lots up to 1.25 acres in size may
-3-
PROPOSED (11 ~27~95)
bc opprovcd. Development must comply with City Rural Design standards contained
in Appendix A.
If land is annexed within Fringe Area A, the City agrees that it will not automatically
extend its fringe area authority to review and approve all subdivisions which it exercises
pursuant to Iowa Code §354.9 and Title 14, Chapter 7 of the City Code of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa. The City will review the oxtcnsion of its fringc orca as a result of
annexation on a ease by base basis in ooncultation with Johnson County.
FRINGE AREA B (FORMERLY AREAS 5 AND 6)
As set forth in Iowa City's recently adopted growth policy, the City will likely annex land
within one mile of Iowa City to the east and within two miles of Iowa City to the south
in the short-range. It is therefore consistent with the purpose of this agreernent not to
af)f~eve that rural subdivisions within these areas of high annexation potential may be
required to meet urban design standards.
As applioations are rcocivod to develop land oontiguous to and within the growth
limits of the oity, the City will give favorable aeneidoration to the voluntary
annexation of this land and its dovclopmont at an urban density in conformance
with the City's roocntly adopted land use plan for Fringe Are3 B (Attachment 2).
Subdivisions within Iowa City's projected growth area shall conform to urban
design standards contained in Title 14, Chapter 7 of the City Code of Iowa City,
including but not limited to City specifications for streets and roads, sanitary sewer
lines, stormwater management facilities and water lines. Developments which are
approved prior to annexation shall be required to dedicate easements for the
purpose of installing utilities, including but not limited to Iowa City sanitary sewer
and water lines. Upon voluntary annexation to Iowa City, the subdivider/property
owner will be responsible for paying the cost of installation of Iowa City sanitary
sewer and water lines be sorvcd bv a package sanitary scwor treatment plant and
common walls in addition to sanitary sowcr and water c, ystcmo whioh are
construetcd to City standards and oapped.
Subdivisions which are approved prior to annexation shall be required to adhere to
the County's provisions requirements for cluster developments. Lots shall not
exceed one (1) aorc in size, except where the City and County agrcc that one (1}
ac~ lots do not provide a suitablc building site. In such locations, leto up to 1.2§
aorcs in size may be approved.
Prior to annexation, any zoning changes in Iowa City's projected growth area shall
be consistent with the City's recently adopted land use plan for Fringe Area B
(Attachment 1).
On the balance of land in Area B that lies all properties outside Iowa City's
projected growth area, agricultural uses are preferred. This moons that land will
not be rczonod to permit non farm development. However, consideration will be
given to applications for single-family residential (RS)-e,,-R,~-3) development beyond
a farmstead, provided the site is a) a minimum of one acre in size and amaximum
of throe acrcs in sizc, b) part of an A 1 zoned pareel whioh ic a minimum of 40
acres in size, and br~ in conformance with the County's development standards.
A-ma~;imum of one parcel of 1 3 a, ercs in cizc per '10 ~ aerc tract will be razened
-4-
PROPOSED (11/27/95)
to RS or-RS 3 to pcrmit construction of onc single family rosidcntial dwolling
providod it meets ~hc County dcvclopmcnt standards.
o
Upon annexation of land within Fringe Area B, the City agrees that it will not
automatically extend its fringe area authority to review and approve all subdivisions
which it exercises pursuant to Iowa Code §354.9 and Title 14, Chapter 7 of the
City Code of the City of Iowa City, Iowa. The City will review the extension of its
fringe area as a result of annexation on a case-by-base basis in agreement
oc.qs~?,cti$.". with Johnson County.
FRINGE AREA C (FORMERLY AREAS 1, 7 AND 8)
Land in Area C which is presently zoned for residential development, and within
Iowa City's growth area, may develop in conformance with existing zoning,
provided subdivisions shall conform to urban design standards contained in Title
14, Chapter 7 of the City Code of Iowa City, including but not limited to City
specifications for streets and roads, sanitary sewer lines, stormwater management
facilities and water lines. Developments which are approved prior to annexation
shall be required to dedicate easements for the purpose of installing utilities,
including but not limited to Iowa City sanitary sewer and water lines. Upon
voluntary annexation to Iowa City, the subdivider/property owner will be
responsible for paying the cost of installation of Iowa City sanitary sewer and
water lines. be scrvcd bv a pockago sanitary sewor troatmcnt plant and common
wells in addition to sanitary sower and water systems which arc constructed to
City standards and cappod.
Subdivisions which are approved prior to annexation shall be required to adhere to
the County's provisions requiromontc for cluster developments. Lots shall not
axecod OhO (1) acre in size, cxoopt whorc the City and County agrcc that ono (1)
actalots do not prayida a suitable building sitc. In such locations, lots up to 1.25
aorcs in size may bo approved.
As stated in the Johnson County Rural Development Plan, commercial and/or
!ndustrial development will bo encouraged to locate in the interchanges of paved
roads. Commercial and/or il~dustrial development will be discouraged in all other
areas of Fringe Area C.
Upon anncxation to Iowa City, commcrci.~l and/or industrial dcvolopmont is
encouragod in tho portion of Sootion 20 of West Lucas Township that is Iocatcd
in the o.~ct and south quadrants of tho Highway 1 and Highway 218 intcrohangc.
It is thorofaro consistant with the purpose of this agroomcnt not to approvo
commcrcial and/or industrial dovclopmonts within this area prior to annoxation.
As applications are received to develop land contiguous to Iowa City and within
this portion of the City's growth limits, the City will give favorable consideration
to the voluntary annexation of this land and its development for commercial and/or
industrial uses consistent with urban development patterns.
In the portions of Area C which are not within Iowa City's growth area and which
are zoned for non-farm development, development may occur ~' ..... ',, in
conformance with the Johnson County's Zoning Ordinance olustor subdivision
;cquiromonts. Dovolopmont must comply with City Rural Design
-5-
PROPOSED (11/27/95)
J
The land in Area C ourrontly zoned A 1, Rural, will not bc rczonod for non farm
purposes unless:
a)
b)
the land is annexed to Iowa City, or
for re~-idcntial purposes, the site {1) is a minimum of one aerc in size and a
maximum of throe aorcs in size, (2) is part of an A-1 zoned parcel which is
a minimum of 40 acres in size, and (3) conforms with the County's
development standards. A maximum of one parcel of 1 3 aoros in size per
zJ0 ~ acre traot will be rozoncd to RS or RS 3 to permit construction of one
single family residential dwelling provided it moots the County development
ctc,~dcrds.
34~.
Upon annexation of land within Fringe Area C, the City agrees that it will not
automatically extend its fringe area authority to review and approve all subdivisions
which it exercises pursuant to Iowa Code §354.9 and Title 14, Chapter 7 of the
City Code of the City of Iowa City, Iowa. The City will review the extension of its
fringe area as a result of annexation on a case-by-base basis in consultation with
Johnson County.
SECTION II. PROTECTING AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS
Any regulations in the Fringe Area Agreement will not interfere with the Right to Farm, as
contained in the Code of Iowa Chapter 335.2, Farms Exempt; and as noted in the Johnson
County Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 8.2, Protecting Agricultural Operations.
SECTION III. ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES
As a rule, zoning regulation is the county's prerogative if a county has adopted a zoning
ordinance. The City, however, exercises authority over subdivision regulation in a city's fringe
area. Annexation is also primarily under exclusive rule of cities. Each of these activities,
however, affects both jurisdictions and produces a clear need for coordination and joint
administration. To that end, the City of Iowa City and Johnson County agree to the following
procedures for administration of land use regulations.
A. Zoning Re¢lulation:
Zoning regulation for all unincorporated territory will remain under the authority of
the Johnson County Zoning Ordinance and the provisions of Chapter 335, Code
of Iowa (1993), the enabling legislation for the County's zoning powers.
The County will forward each request for rezoning of property within the Fringe
Areas specified in this Agreement to the City for review and comment prior to the
public hearing before the County Zoning Commission. Any zoning change will
conform with the policies identified for the Area in which the property is located.
B. Subdivision Requlation:
Subdivision of land within Iowa City's fri.".gc growth/fringe area will be required
to conform to either City Rural Design Standards or the City Urban Design
Standards in accordance with the policies specified in this Agreement.
o
Persons wishing to subdivide land within the fringe area specified in this
Agreement shall be required to simultaneously file a subdivision application with
-6-
PROPOSED (11/27/95)
both the City and the County. The City and the County shall coordinate the
processing of the application to ensure concurrent review by both the City Planning
and Zoning Commission and the County Zoning Commission.
Subdivisions of land into less than three lots will continue to be regulated by the
Countv,
C. Annexation:
Iowa City will annex territory only in accordance with the policy statements
specified in this Agreement.
The City will, upon receipt, forward applications requesting annexation or
severance (deannexation) of property within the fringe area specified in this
Agreement to the County for review and comment prior to consideration by the
iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission.
SECTION III. AGREEIVIENT REVIEW
Every three (3) years during the term of this Agreement, either the Chair of the Johnson
County Board of Supervisors or the Mayor of the City of iowa City shall initiate review of the
policies of this Agreement by contacting the other party to this Agreement. Both parties to
this Agreement shall consider modifications of this Agreement, as appropriate.
- 7 - PROPOSED (11/27/95)
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE PERIOD
This Agreement shall become effective upon acceptance and execution by the parties, and
shall be in effect until 20035 (21 ¥oars}. This Agreement may be modified and extended by
the written mutual consent of the parties.
SECTION V. RECORDATION
This Agreement shall be filed with the Secretary of the State of Iowa, and with the Johnson
County Recorder in compliance with Chapter 28E, Code of Iowa (1993).
Dated this day of , 1995.
JOHNSON COUNTY
By:
Chairperson, Board of Supervisors
Attest:
County Auditor
Approved by:
County Attorney's Office
Dated this
day of
CITY OF IOWA CITY
,1995.
By:
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Approved by:
City Attorney's Office
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed Land Use Map for the Iowa City Fringe Area.
2. Figure 1: Fringe Area.B (formerly Areas 5 and 6) Land Use Plan.
3. Appendix A: Definition of Standards
4. Appendix B: Cluster Subdivision Regulations
BE~ DOGU~NT AVAILABLE
g , - -,.:~:~., I LAND USE CONCEPT PLAN I ~
Ill "/'~ " '* \\ Figure
.... '-.~-"i -'~.., .'-,' -:.
:" ~
.,. ~ -,:~-""-'?
~ .,.t. ~
26', }~ , ~ I
T b Uj ~ A S ~ '- 25 ~ 30
~-.. ~-~ ~, . ~ .~-~.~
'q.. ... ~ ( ~
"' ( ~ ST ': / ,
· :.. ,. ~ ,~
I ~ z ~' ~ *
~ ' ~6 ~ , -]~- ' " ' ]] ~,!~ '.-. ' "'
,,. ,.:., ~..~.~ ?.~.~'~'~....- ~
,'~,
j~ , z~, ....' ' . . ~ '
"' /~ ' ~-..i '· ' L i] ~'
.. ~
' L " ,,:i ""
~.. I : :. ~ . ',.-.
, , .'.
'" hi " '' '. ~' ,i
· .~ Fringe Area
., Land Use Map 11/95
/' LEGEND
] Residential (RS or R$3)
Agricultural
[] Commercial or IndusTrial
8:1.22: Subdivision Regulations
APPENI
Xo Cluster Subdivisions.
Purpose: This article is intended to permit the development
of cluster subdivisions in which buildings and dwellings are
grouped together. The concept of clustering will provide
for a flexibility in subdivision design to fit the natural
characteristics of the land and will permit more usable open
space, common ground and recreational areas. The provisions
of this article shall not be construed to apply to any other
art.icl. e of chapter 8:1. However, all other articles of
chapter 8:1 apply to cluster subdivisions unless exempted by
this article.
e
Exceptions and Applications: The district requirements may
be varied provided that adequate open space shall be
included to insure that the average land area per family
dwelling shall be equal to or greater than that permitted
for the district in which the development is located.
The following provisions apply:
aa
Open space, common ground, or recreational areas shall
be provided for the use and benefit of the family
dwelling units in the development.
bo All cluster lots must abut or have direct access to
open space, common ground, or recreational areas°
The total land area of the development divided by the
total number of family dwelling units provides an
average land area per family dwelling unit. Total land
area of the development shall include all open space,
common ground, and recreation areas, but shall not
include land set aside for ponds and lakes within the
subdivision, or the traffic surface area of subdivision
roads.
8=1,22~ Subdivision Regulations
[d.
At no time shall approval be grante~ to developments
which include lots containinq less than 50'percent of
the l~t area required~ unless such a delelopment is in
an RS 3 District. Developments in an RS 3 District may
include lots containing less than 50 percent of the
required lot area, but not less than one (1) acre,
provided that such developments utilize a "public
water supply~tem," as defined by Chapter 455B. 171
(19), ~ (1987). All systems are to be
considered public water systems, but when a development
has less than fifteen (15) - service connections or
regularly serves less than twenty-five (25)
individuals, permitting and monitoring will be in
accordance with requirements prescribed by the Johnson
County Board of Health.]z
3. Open Space Covenants= As a condition of approving the
cluster subdivision and permitting exceptions to the
standard subdivision requirements, the subdivider shall
submit with his final plat a Subdivider's agreement
regarding the liability for and maintenance of the open
spacer common ground or recreation areas.
1o Ordinance
10-13-87-Z4
APPENDIX A
Definition of Standards
Citv Urban Desiqn Standards:
Those standards enumerated in Title 14, Chapter 7 of the City Code of Iowa City which the
City imposes on any subdivision within the corporate limits of Iowa City .
Citv Rural Desiqn Standards:
1.0 Streets
1.1
Streets shall be designed for a minimum surface width of 22 feet. Curb and gutter will
not be required.
1.2
The right-of-way for local streets without curb and gutter shall be 60 feet to enable
retrofit of sewer, water, and sidewalk in the future as necessary; otherwise, the right-
of-way for local streets with curb and gutter and storm sewer shall be 50 feet. The
right-of-way for arterial, industrial, and collector streets for the developed area shall
be determined in conjunction with the Planning and Zoning Commission.
1.3 The maximum street grade for local streets shall be 12%.
1.4
The pavement cross section for all pavements will be a 2% parabolic crown. This
cross slope is equivalent to ~A-inch per foot.
1.5
The pavement slab shall be constructed of a 6" rolled stone base and a 22-foot wide
chipseal surface.
1.6 Minimum corner radii shall be 20 feet.
1.7
The minimum ditch grade shall be 1.0%. In addition, it will be necessary to place a
12-inch diameter (minimum) culvert, either reinforced concrete pipe or corrugated
metal pipe, through all drive approaches constructed over a drainage ditch. The exact
size of pipe required will be a function of the area to be drained.
1.8 Drive approaches shall be hard surfaced within the right-of-way.
2.0 Water Distribution System
2.1
Well(s) shall conform to the requirements of the Johnson County Health Department
and the distribution system, if installed, (water main) shall be e~ther ductile cast iron
p~pe (ANSI A21.50 manufactured in accordance with ANSI A21.50) or poly vinyl
chloride pipe (PVC-ASTM D1784, Type 1, Grade 1,200 psi design stress and SDR of
17 or less).
2.2
It shall be the respons~bdity of the Developer's Engineer to establish a fire rating for the
area being developed. Prior to plat approval, there shall be a letter of transmittal from
2
the appropriate Fire Protection District approving spacing, location, number of fire
hydrants, size of mains, pressure, etc.
2.3
Connection to the City of Iowa City Water Distribution System is subject to City
Council consideration based on availability. Generally, annexation is a criterion which
must be met.
3.0 Sanitary Sewer
All methods of sanitation shall conform to the 1989 Johnson County Board of Health Rules
and Regulations Governing On-site Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems and to the
1990 Iowa City Wastewater Treatment and Disposal System Policy.
4.0 Storm Sewers
4.1
With the exception of developments located in the Old Man's Creek watershed, the
City Storm Water Management Ordinance shall apply to new developments located
outside the City limits of Iowa City but within the City's area of extraterritorial
jurisdiction.
4.2
All storm sewers shall conform to revised Section VII (Storm Sewers) of the Design
Standards for Public Works Improvements in Iowa City, Iowa.
4.3
Culverts shall be a minimum of 12 inches in diameter; either reinforced concrete pipe
or corrugated metal pipe (minimum gauge 1 8 and corrugations 2'x½ ", 2~'3"x ~ ", and
3"x1") shall be used. Culverts shall conform to the Standard Soecifications for
Hi(~hwav and Bridqe Construction, Series of 1977. Minimum cover over the top of
culvert shall be six inches.
5.0 Underqround Utilities
5.1
Whenever a subdivision shall be laid out such that a new street is required, telephone
and electric utilities shall be underground. It is not intended that small subdivisions
which would use an existing county road would follow this requirement since overhead
utilities are probably directly adjacent to the property.
BE~t' DOC~ME- NT
PAQE4
How Will Recommended
Policies Be Accomplished?
A MINORITY VIEWPOINT
PROPOSEO POLICY.
EST DOCU T AVAJr -E
PAQE~
iMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
Rural Area
Municipalities and Their Environs
North County Corridor
FOLLOWINC} I~ -,~ '~ '4~
~~ DOC4J~NT AVAK.ABLE
PAGE 2
A Cros~roada for
Policy Dirocfion
GENERAL GOAL:
ORDERLY GROWTH
GENERAL GOAL
CRITERIA FOR POUCIES
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT POUCIES
Criteria
for Policies
SPECIAL NOTICE
TO FARMERS
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
General Development Policies
-- h
I
~ARE'A OF
CORRIDOR
INFLUENCE
I :
North County Corridor
Decomb~r 1077
PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT POLICY FOR
RURAL JOHNSON COUNTY
AN INTRODUCTION
A~:RIIVIAR¥
CONCERN: Impact
of Non-Farm Rural
Development
SPECIAL NOTICE
Three Areas t~
for Policy
· . :. ..~. .'. ..;~. ',..*,'c::~.* *. 'L ·.-': *.. '' ~
FINDINGS:
Factors Affecting Policy Development
SUGGESTED
APPROACH:
Tailor Policies to Rt
Area Needs
;,~:. ~u:,;=~"~.--~'.~,,~ ....
mant. ~, ~ ~
To: IOWA CITY CLERX From: jo hogarty 12-4-95 8:23am p. ~ of Z
Johnson Coun~
lIOWA ~
1
Charles D. Duffy, Chairperson
Joe Bolkcom
Stephen P. Lacina
Don Sehr
Sally Slutsman
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
December 5, 1995
INFORMAL MEETING
1. Call to order 9:00 a.m.
Agenda
2. Review of the formal minutes of November 30th.
3. Business from the Board of Supervisors.
a) Discussion re: review of tentative budget calendar.
b) Reports
c) Other
1994 Health Management Review for Johnson County's Health Insurance
Program/discussion.
Discussion from the public.
Recess.
913 $olYrH DUBUQUE ST.
P.O. BOX 1350 IOWA CITY, IOWA 5224a-1350 TEL: (319) 3566000
FAX: (319) 356-6086
City of Iowa City
- MEMORANDUM
Date: December 4, 1995
To: City Council
From: Steve Atkins, Marian Karr, Don Yucuis
Re: Upcoming Budget Review Schedule
The proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 1997 to Fiscal Year 1999 proposed financial plan should be
distributed to the City Council by Friday, December 15, 1995. Below is the tentative schedule for
review by the City Council:
January6-31
City Council review of Proposed Financial Plan.
February 13 (regular Court- City Council sets public hearing date for February 27.
cil meeting)
February 16
Budget available for public inspection.
February 27 (regular Coun- City Council holds public hearing. City Council approves FY97
cil meeting) budget and FY97, FY98 and F'Y99 Financial Plan.
Mamh 12 (regular Council
meeting)
If necessary, it not approved at the February 27 regular Council
meeting, City Council approves FY97 budget and FY97, FY98,
and FY99 Financial Plan.
March 15
Deadline for filing budget with County/State.
There are specific legal requirements to follow to approve the City budget. The March 15 date
is set by state law. The February 13 and 16th dates fall within the guidelines set by the State of
Iowa Code. The public hearing and adoption of the budget have been traditionally set at regular
City Council meetings. The review process by the City Council needs to be finalized by the end
of January to allow staff time to compile any changes made to the budget and to get it in the
format required by the state.
Traditionally, this City Council has met for approximately 3-4 hours with staff either on Saturdays
or utilizing off Mondays or Tuesdays. Approximately 3-4 meetings have been scheduled to
finalize the budget. In addition, there has been usually one or two meetings set aside to allow
boards and commissions and special needs funding requests to be presented to the City Council.
Utilizing the traditional schedule of meetings (Saturdays and the off Mondays and Tuesdays), the
following dates allow for up to eight meetings with City Council and staff.
Saturday - January 6, 1996
Monday or Tuesday - January 8 or 9, 1996
Saturday - January 13, 1996
Saturday - January 20, 1996
Monday or Tuesday - January 22 or 23, 1996
Saturday - January 27, 1996
These dates are not set in stone and alternative days based on the City Council direction can be
used. We suggest reserving 3-4 dates as soon as possible.
We look forward to your direction on this matter.
December 4, 1995
TO:
City Council
Councilmembers Elect
City Staff
FROM: Bruno Pigott
RE:
Downtown Strategy Group
1 would like to propose that the City Council create a downtown strategy group to help create a
strategic vision for the downtown. As you know, the city has already worked in a number of ways
to improve our downtown and bring businesses to Iowa City. For instance, Council devised a Near
Southside Plan to revitalize the downtown area south of Burlington Street. Additionally, Iowa City
has a task force at work on suggesting improvements to the pedestrian mall downtown.
Furthermore, Council recently agreed to create an ad hoc committee to discuss the kinds of
businesses which should be attracted to Iowa City as well as the kinds of incentives to offer and
under what circumstances they will be offered. These committees form a patchwork--they are ideas
for the whole of Iowa City and parts of the downtown. Yet there is an absence of comprehensive
strategic vision for the downtown itself.
The recent street scape improvements in Coralville as well as the announcement that a new shopping
mall will be built in Coralville has caused some concern and may put some pressure on Iowa City
to develop a strategy for downtown. I think it is an opportunity to explore creative ways to maintain
the downtown as a vital, multifaceted commercial hub.
I would propose that the Council establish a group to take a hard look at our downtown. The group
could explore what both the private sector, the city, and various groups can do to improve
downtown. It could look at both short term and long range steps. The committee could talk about
a variety of issues, from the kinds of businesses which would complement and enhance existing
businesses to the rental rates for businesses to improvements of Iowa Avenue or other parts of
downtown. I would encourage the committee to think both creatively and practically, macro and
micro. Finally, I would hope that the committee would produce some kind of report with
recommendations for the short and long term.
Committee size would be up to the council, but I do have a few names I would encourage the council
to consider serving on such a committee including Tara Cronbaugh, Dick Summerwell, Mark
Ginsberg, Jim Clayton, Bob Sierk, a councilperson, John Murphy, Jean or Victoria Gilpin, the
owner of active endeavors, and others you feel would be interested in participating. 1 would also
like to serve on this committee.
Should you have any questions for me about this proposal, please contact me at 339-1968 or
brunop@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu