HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-06-15 Public hearingNOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NotiCe is hereby given that the final public
hearing will be held to hear citizen input on
proposed transit route changes by the City
Council of Iowa City, Iowa, at 7:00 p.m. on
the 15~ day of June, 1999, in the Civic Center
Council Chambers, 410 E. Washington Street,
Iowa City, Iowa, or if said meeting is
cancelled, at the next meeting of the City
Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk.
Maps of the proposed route changes are on file
for public examination in the office of the City
Clerk, Civic Center, Iowa City, Iowa until after
the Public Hearing. Copies of the maps are
also on display in all of Iowa City Transit's
buses end at the Iowa City Public Library.
Persons wishing to make their views known
for Council consideration are encouraged to
appear at the above-mentioned time and place.
MARlAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK
June 6, 1999
To t~e i{ayor and Council
City of Iowa City
Civic Center
iowa City, iowa 52240
i~e: Transit Proposals--Route Cnan~es
Gentles:
I have Deer] very pleased with the public discussions
that nave followed tile presentations of tile proposals uy
Transit Departn]ent staff at their informational meeting on
llay 5 an~ the City Council meeting on [4ay 18, and I hope you
are too. Both meetings were well artended; many eood ideas
were expressed.
On the whole, people are interested and concerned about
their transit system. They are proud of it: they appreciate
it. Tile staff are competent and friendly; the equipment is
clean and well ~naintained.
Tile proposals Dy Transit staff in response to your
re~auest for a "reallocation of resources" study indicate a
great aeal of thought naa been given to review of pus routes
and schedules to see if changes could ~e made that wouiu
increase ridership ~itnin the current iDudget. They UiU a
~ooa 3oD of a very ~ifficult assignment, and ti~e people who
atUendeQ ti]ose meetings appreciate that.
Great concern was expressed about the proposal regarUin~
changes in the off-peaK scheduling of pusses on the i4anville
Heights and Towncrest routes. This proposal suggests elixi~i-
nating all service on the E4anvilie route during the daily
periods Detween 9 a.m. an~ 3 p.~n. and increasing the
--Page 2
fre~uency of service on the Towncrest rout~ Uuring those
periods.
Currently pusses run hourly durin9 ti~ese off-peak peri-
ous on all routes. Obviously, this proposal represents a
maDor policy ci]an'~je that should receive most careful consid-
eration Dy the Council, the oody eiecteu to represenu all
citizens.
Staff recommends the chan~e "~o increase riuersnip."
PerhaL~s ti°~ere are more riders on the Towncrest route than
the i. ianviiie route ~urin~ off-peak hours, out it does not
follow that increasin~:j the frequency of runs on 'One Town-
crest route vTiil entice more people to ri~e those extra
pusses.
It seems to :i~e, rather than increase ridershiLD, such a
"re~istriOution of resources" would re~istrioute the sa~i~e
number of ri.aers over more ousses, leavin~ the net ri~ership
unchanged. For example, twenty ri~ers on one ous would
repiace~ ~y jtJa ri~ers on each of two busses.
k~ot quite, oecause ri~ership on tile Manville route wouia
dec[ease to zero.
But we must consider riders as persons, not num,aers.
The ~3reat ma3ority of persons who ride tile uusses durine'
tn~ off-pea}~ hours are elderly, infirm, or poor; some fall
into all three categories. How will these persons cope witn-
ouE the Dusses they have depended on for their primary
of Eransportation? Their choices are to asi~ friends and
nei.~hDors for ri~es, to wal~, or to rely on SEATS.
For persons who use nne Towncrest Ousses~ it is a matter
--Page 3
of "wnici]" Ous sl~ail I take, which bus is most convenient
for file? For the i4anville riGers, it is "Now what Go I ~o?"
Policy mailers are frequently asKe~ to ~aKe "traae-offs;"
to oalance one point of view against another, the interest
of one ~roup a~ainst anot~'~er. I suomit to you that "no ser-
vice" £or one ~3roup against "more convenienu service" for
another is not a fair traOe-off.
Sincerely,
George B. i!iatner
606 Holt Avenue
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing
will be held by the City Council of Iowa City,
Iowa, at 7:00 p.m. on the 15~ day of June,
1999, in the Civic Center Council Chambers,,
410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa, or
if said meeting is cancelled, at the next
meeting of the City Council thereafter as
posted by the City Clerk; at which hearing the -
Council will consider:
1. An ordinance amending Title 14, Chapter
6, Zoning, Article E, Commercial and Business
Zones, Section 2, Neighborhood Commercial
Zone, and Article L, Provisional Uses, Special
Exceptions, and Temporary Uses, to allow
pharmacies to have a drive-through facility in
the Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) zone,
and to adopt location, design, and size criteria
for drive-through facilities associated with
pharmacies and financial institutions in the
CN-1 zone.
Copies of the proposed resolution are on file for
public examination in the office of the City
Clerk, Civic Center, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons
wishing to make their views known for Council
consideration are encouraged to appear at the
above-mentioned time and place.
MARlAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK
Prepared by: John Yapp, Associate Planner, 410 E.
Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5247
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14,
CHAPTER 6, ZONING, ARTICLE E,
COMMERCIAL AND BUSINESS ZONES,
SECTION 2, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
ZONE, AND ARTICLE L, PROVISIONAL USES,
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, AND TEMPORARY
USES, TO ALLOW PHARMACIES TO HAVE A
DRIVE-THROUGH FACILITY IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONE, AND
TO ADOPT LOCATION, DESIGN AND SIZE
CRITERIA FOR DRIVE-THROUGH FACILITIES
ASSOCIATED WITH PHARMACIES AND
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONE.
WHEREAS, the Neighborhood Commercial
(CN-1) zone is intended to provide a
neighborhood-oriented grouping of a grocery store
and small retail and office businesses which are
relatively nuisance-free to surrounding
residences; and
WHEREAS, allowing a drive-through facility
associated with a pharmacy is found not to
increase the total amount of traffic attracted to the
pharmacy and the neighborhood commercial
area; and
WHEREAS, in order to maintain the
pedestrian and neighborhood orientation of CN-1
zones, a maximum of one lane for a pharmacy
drive-through facility and three lanes for a financial
institution drive-through facility should be
permitted; and
WHEREAS, it will serve the public, and
should not take away from the pedestrian and
neighborhood orientation of the CN-1 zone, if
pharmacy drive-through facilities are permitted by
special exception on a case by case basis; and
WHEREAS, special exception criteria
governing the location, design, and size of drive-
through facilities should apply to drive-through
facilities proposed for financial institutions and
pharmacies in the CN-1 zone.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY
THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I. APPROVAL. Chapter 6, entitled
"Zoning," Article E, entitled "Commercial and
Ordinance No.
Page 2
Business Zones," Section 2, entitled
"Neighborhood Commercial Zone" be amended
as follows:
14-6.E-2.D(2) be rescinded, and replaced
with the following:
2. Up to three (3) drive-through lanes
associated with a financial institution, and/or one
(1) drive-through lane associated with a
pharmacy, subject to the requirements of Article L
of this Chapter.
Chapter 6, entitled "Zoning," Article L, entitled
"Provisional Uses, Special Exceptions, and
Temporary Uses," be amended to add the
following: ..
14-6L.-2W. Drive-through facilities associated
with financial institutions and pharmacies in the
Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1)zone.
1. To the extent feasible, the drive-
through lanes and stacking spaces should be
designed to maximize their separation from
pedestrian and vehicular circulation on the site, to
minimize the paved area devoted to vehicular use
and its potential for visually and functionally
restricting the pedestrian orientation of the zone,
and to assure compatibility with neighboring
residential properties. To promote safe pedestrian
access and vehicular circulation on the site, the
Board of Adjustment may require certain
conditions, including, but not limited to the area
devoted to the drive-through facility being
minimized to limit areas of paving, and the drive-
through facility, including the stacking spaces,
being located in conjunction with a loading zone or
a side or rear access drive for the store. The
Board may also require that the facility be
designed or screened to minimize headlights
shining onto residential properties, to limit the
noise associated with the facility, such as
prohibiting the use of loud speaker systems, or
other reasonable conditions to assure the
compatibility of the facility with neighboring
residential properties.
SECTION II. REPEALFR. All ordinances
and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provi-
sions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any
section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be
adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such
adjudication shall not affect the validity of the
Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or
part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconsti-
tutional.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVF DATE. This Ordi-
nance shall be in effect after its final passage,
approval and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of
,1999.
Ordinance No.
Page 3
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
ney s _
ppdadmin~ord~l~vthru.doc
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: Friday, May 14, 1999
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: John Yapp, Associate Planner
Proposed standards for drive-through facilities in the Neighborhood Commercial
Zone
Staff has reviewed the alternative proposed language for drive-through facilities associated
with financial institutions and pharmacies in the CN-1 zone forwarded to us by Mark Brauer
of the Hy-Vee Engineering Department (attached). This language organizes the design
criteria for the drive-through facility into three bulleted items. The language proposed by
staff in the April 30, 1999 memo is in the form of one paragraph, rather than in the form
of bulleted criteria.
Staff prefers the paragraph format because the criteria come across more as general
guidelines rather than criteria. Staff feels the paragraph, general guideline format is more
suitable to the Board of Adjustment, who consider very different types of site designs and
special exceptions on a regular basis. Also, because the drive-through design and location
criteria are meant to be for both drive-through pharmacies and financial institutions, staff
feels the language needs to be kept more general and broad. However, staff is not
opposed to a more structured, bulleted format if the Commission prefers it.
To date, staff has not had any response from any banks or credit unions regarding the
proposed drive-through standards. Staff mailed the proposed amendment to every bank
and credit union in the yellow pages of the Iowa City area phone book.
HY-VEE E~GINEERING DEPT. ~002~_
05/06/99 TEd 13:56 FAX 5152672935
14-6L-1W. Drive-through facilities associated with financial institutions and
pharmacies in the Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) Zone.
1. To the extent feasible, the drive-through lanes and the associated stacking
and circulation space shall be designed to the following crYerie:
Maximize drive-through lane separation from pedestrian and
vehicular cimulation. (Safe pedestrian access and retaining
pedestrian character should be addressed.)
Minimize paved area devoted to drive-through lane use. (Address
vehicular stacking of at least I sewed and 1 waiting vehicle.
Wherever possible, utilize loading zones, and side or rear
locations.)
Ce
Assure compatibility with neighboring residential properties.
(Suggest addressing screening of vehicle lights, building and
canopy lights and requiring use of intercorns in lieu of
loudspeakers .)
The Board of Adjustment shall also evaluate and may require certain conditions
differing from or in addition to these criteria on an individual site basis.
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 30, 1999
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: John Yapp, Associate Planner
Scott Kugler, Associate Planner
Re: Drive-through Facilities in the Neighborhood Commercial Zone
Staff has been evaluating the impact of drive-through facilities for pharmacies and financial
institutions in Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) zones. A drive-through facility would include a
lane, a transaction window or terminal, and stacking area for vehicles. This research is in
response to a request by David Bailie to allow a drive-through facility at the old Hy-Vee at First
Avenue and Rochester Avenue, which has been remodeled as a DrugTown. Although the
original request was to permit drive-through pharmacy facilities, staff also studied the impact of
drive-through facilities for financial institutions, which are currently allowed in the CN-1 zone.
Auto and truck oriented uses in the CN-1 zone are limited due to the desire to keep the uses in
the CN-1 zone to a neighborhood scale and pedestrian oriented. Based on our research, staff
feels that drive-through lanes for pharmacies in CN-1 zones will not increase the amount of
traffic traveling to the commercial area or through the neighborhood. The main issue is whether
the drive-through lane and associated facilities can be designed in a CN-1 zone so as not to
take away from the pedestrian and neighborhood orientation of the CN-1 zone commercial
center. Staff has also studied whether to have similar design criteria for drive-through facilities
for financial institutions. The first part of this memo will deal with permitting drive-through
pharmacies in the CN-1 zone, and the second part will deal with design standards and limiting
the number of drive-through lanes associated with financial institutions in the CN-1 zone.
The intent of the CN-1 zone is "to permit the development of retail sales and personal services
required to meet the day-to-day needs of a fully-developed residential neighborhood. Stores,
businesses, and offices in this zone should be useful to the majority of neighborhood
residences, should be economically supportable by nearby population, and should not draw
community-wide patronage. A grocery store or grocery store/drug store combination is favored
as a principle tenant in a neighborhood commercial zone. In general, the CN-1 zone is intended
for the grouping of a grocery store and small retail businesses and office uses which are
relatively nuisance-free to surrounding residences and which do not detract from the residential
purpose and character of the surrounding neighborhood." The CN-1 zone section in the Zoning
Code contains design provisions which encourage pedestrian access to and within the zone.
2
DRIVE-THROUGH PHARMACIES
Traffic Issues
Staff interviewed pharmacy staff of two local pharmacies that have drive-through facilities,
Pearson's Drug and Hy-Vee Pharmacy. Each pharmacy fills between 90 and 120 prescriptions
per day, with approximately 15% to 20% as drive-through traffic. Each pharmacy staff person
indicated that according to their observations, the majority of persons using the drive-through
are elderly or are mothers with young children. The majority of drive-through traffic is during the
late afternoon/early evening. Slightly more people use the drive-through during poor weather.
Most of the time people call ahead with their prescription and pick it up at the window,
Sometimes, especially when a patient is coming directly from the doctor, they give the
prescription order to the pharmacist at the drive-through window and wait for it to be filled. On
occasions where the prescription will take more than a few minutes and another car is waiting,
the pharmacist may ask the customer to drive around to the end of the line while their order is
being filled. Both Hy-Vee and Pearson's staff said they have not experienced more than two or
three vehicles in line. Most of the day, there are only one or no vehicles at the drive-through
window.
Trip generation figures from the Institute of Traffic Engineer's Trip Generation Manual 6th
Edition indicate that a pharmacy with a drive-through does not necessarily attract any more
traffic in total than a pharmacy without a drive-through window. This supports staff's
observations that a drive-through facility at a pharmacy at a facility is not an attraction for an
"impulse" purchase the way a drive-through at a fast food restaurant is. If someone needs a
prescription at their pharmacy, they need a prescription, whether there is a drive-through facility
there or not. Also, most people and some medical insurance services have certain pharmacies
they patronize and do not switch from pharmacy to pharmacy according to weekly specials.
Staff thinks that a pharmacy drive-through facility is more of a convenience to existing pharmacy
customers, and should not generate significant additional traffic to the CN-1 zone than would be
there otherwise.
Design Issues
From a traffic generation point of view, drive-through pharmacies may be compatible with the
intent of the CN-1 zone, but site design concerns must also be considered. Drive-through
facilities for financial institutions and filling stations and one-bay car washes are already
permitted by special exception in the CN-1 zone. However, allowing more auto-oriented uses in
the CN-1 zone will likely result in more paving, and take away from the pedestrian-oriented
neighborhood commercial area the City is trying to promote. The Comprehensive Plan states
that "a neighborhood commercial area associated with a public square or park can provide a
focal point and gathering place for the neighborhood . . . the design of the neighborhood
commercial center should have a pedestrian orientation with the stores placed close to the
street, but with sufficient open space to allow for outdoor cares and patios or landscaping.
Parking should be located to the rear and sides of the store with additional parking on the
street." The South District Plan and the draft Northeast District Plan encourage a main street or
town square style of design for neighborhood commercial centers (see attached illustrations).
Staff is of the opinion that a drive-through pharmacy facility should not be permitted in a CN-1
zone if it would result in taking away from the ability to place stores close to the street and
provide landscaping or patio areas in front of the stores. If drive-through pharmacies are
permitted, they should be designed so the paving associated with them is incidental to paving in
place for the parking and circulation of vehicles. It would be preferable to place the drive-
through facility to the rear or side of the building, rather than in the front.
If drive-through pharmacies are permitted, staff proposes that they should also be by special
exception and there should be criteria by which to judge the proposed drive-through pharmacy.
These criteria include insuring that drive-through traffic does not conflict with the pedestrian or
vehicular circulation in the area, ensuring adequate stacking space for vehicles, and ensuring
compatibility with the commercial area and surrounding residential area. Staff is proposing to
have general criteria by which the Board of Adjustment will judge any proposed drive-through
pharmacy lanes. These criteria may also be used to judge proposed drive-through lanes
associated with financial institutions.
Staff proposes the following criteria:
Does not conflict with pedestrian or vehicular circulation on the site. The queuing area of
the drive-through facility should not inhibit pedestrian access to the store, vehicular circulation in
the parking lot, or vehicular access to the site. Under this guideline, the queuing area may be
the same area as a loading zone or a side or rear access drive for the store, as long as overall
vehicular and pedestrian circulation is not inhibited.
Adequate stacking space. The drive-through facility needs to have adequate stacking space
for the anticipated area needed for the queuing of vehicles. However, the area devoted to the
drive-through facility should be kept to a minimum in order to minimize paving, area devoted to
automobiles, and the visual impact of the drive-through facility. The Board of Adjustment may
consider a maximum number of stacking spaces to minimize paving associated with the drive-
through facility.
Compatibility with surrounding commercial and residential areas. The design of the drive-
through facility should not inhibit the pedestrian-oriented neighborhood commercial designs
encouraged in the Comprehensive Plan, including the District Plans. The Board of Adjustment
should consider the size, scale, and orientation of the drive-through facility with the design of the
commercial area, and its relationship to the surrounding residential area. Specifically, the site
should be designed so headlights of vehicles are not shining into residential properties, or are
screened from view. The drive-through facility may have an intercom system, but shall not have
a loudspeaker system. The drive-through facility should be located at the rear or side of the
building, unless there is no alternative for existing buildings being retro-fitted.
DRIVE-THROUGH FACIILITIES FOR FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
The CN-1 zone permits the establishment of branch offices of financial institutions to provide for
convenient access to these services for neighborhood residents. The addition of drive-through
lanes associated with financial institutions is permitted in the zone by special exception.
Currently, no limitation on the number of lanes or design criteria are in place. Given the
pedestrian focus of many of the other regulations of this zone, allowing drive-through lanes
seems somewhat contradictory to the intent of the zone. However, financial institutions and
drive-through lanes seem to go hand-in-hand. Staff is not aware of any banks outside of the
downtown area that do not have drive-through facilities. It appears that if branch banks are
desired uses in CN-1 zones, drive-through lanes will need to be permitted in some fashion.
Ideally, within the CN-1 zone pedestrians should be able to easily circulate among the various
businesses located in the zone. Someone living nearby should be able to walk to the
commercial center and easily access each business. Likewise, someone driving to the area
should be able to park and do business at the bank, have lunch, rent a video, and perhaps get
an ice cream cone without having to drive to each business separately. The key to creating this
environment is to provide a pedestrian network that is attractive and that people will perceive as
being safe and comfortable to walk in. With a four, five, or six bay drive-through facility, the
width of the paved area becomes a pedestrian no-mans-land of 50-75 feet. Add the required
stacking spaces behind the drive-through lanes and this becomes a substantial automobile-only
paved area on the site. Staff feels that a limitation on the number of lanes permitted at financial
institution drive-through facilities is needed to help ensure that a pedestrian orientation can be
achieved in the CN-1 zone. In addition, the design criteria listed above within the discussion of
drive-through pharmacies should also apply to financial institution drive-through lanes.
A good example of the impact that a multi-lane drive-through facility can have in the CN-1 zone
is the University of Iowa Community Credit Union (UICCU) site at Walden Square on Mormon
Trek Boulevard. Granted, this facility seems to have become more than a typical branch bank,
and was designed as a stand-alone facility rather than integrated into the overall Walden
Square development. In addition, there is not a clear and inviting pedestrian route between the
UICCU and the retail stores to the north. Although the distance between these two businesses
is rather short, a pedestrian would have to cross a five lane drive-through area, the main access
drive to the development, and a parking lot to get from the bank to the drug store. Even with a
clearly marked pedestrian route, a five-lane drive-through area is a difficult and uninviting
environment for the pedestrian.
Staff feels that permitting no more than three drive-through lanes, which would typically result in
two bank lanes and an ATM lane, is reasonable within a neighborhood commercial zone, and
can be accomplished in a manner that does not inhibit the possibility of creating a pedestrian
oriented environment.
SUMMARY
In conclusion, because they are not likely to increase overall traffic generation, it seems
appropriate to allow drive-through pharmacies in the neighborhood commercial zone. However,
staff has concerns that allowing more drive-through facilities in the neighborhood commercial
zone will make it more difficult to achieve the pedestrian-oriented commercial center
encouraged in the Comprehensive Plan. Spelling out the criteria in the CN-1 zone section will
help staff and the Board of Adjustment consider whether proposed facilities are appropriate.
Staff wants to be clear that allowing a drive-through facility by special exception does not
guarantee that staff will recommend approval of allowing a drive-through pharmacy in every
instance, especially if there are issues with the design and compatibility of the facility being
proposed. Similarly, recommending approval of drive-through pharmacies should not indicate
an acceptance of other drive-through facilities in the CN-1 zone, such as drive-through video
stores, restaurants, or photo services. Staff feels drive-through facilities for pharmacies are
more of a necessity for older, frail, or sick people than other drive-through facilities would be. In
addition, staff is concerned about the current regulations which permit drive-through facilities for
financial institutions, and feels that similar size and design standards would be appropriate for
this use.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that City Code section 14-6E-2D(2) be rescinded, and replaced with the
following:
Up to three (3) drive-through lanes associated with a financial institution, and/or one (1)
drive-through lane associated with a pharmacy, subject to the requirements of Article L of
this Chapter.
Staff recommends that City Code section 14-6L-1 be amended to add the following:
14-6L-1W. Drive-through facilities associated with financial institutions and pharmacies in the
Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) Zone.
To the extent feasible, the drive-through lanes and stacking spaces should be designed to
maximize their separation from pedestrian and vehicular circulation on the site, to minimize
the paved area devoted to vehicular use and its potential for visually and functionally
restricting the pedestrian orientation of the zone, and to assure compatibility with
neighboring residential properties. To promote safe pedestrian access and vehicular
circulation on the site, the Board of Adjustment may require certain conditions, including, but
not limited to the area devoted to the drive-through facility being minimized to limit areas of
paving, and the drive-through facility, including the stacking spaces, being located in
conjunction with a loading zone or a side or rear access drive for the store. The Board may
also require that the facility be designed or screened to minimize headlights shining onto
residential propedies, to limit the noise associated with the facility, such as prohibiting the
use of loudspeaker systems, or other reasonable conditions to assure the compatibility of
the facility with neighboring residential properties.
Approved by:
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Department of Planning and
Community Development
Shared\pcd\jy4-16.doc
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that · public hearing
will be held by the City Council of Iowa City,
Iowa, at 7:00 p.m. on the 15~ day of June,
1999, in the Civic Center Council Chambers,
410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa, or
if said meeting is cancelled, at 1he next
meeting of the. City Council thereafter as
· posted by the City Clerk, at which hearing the
cil will consider: '
n ordinance conditionally changing the
(~ining designation of approximately 7.46
acres from Medium Density Singre-Family
Residential (RS-8) to Planned Development
Housing Overlay (OPDH-8) and the
approval of a preliminary OPDH Ran for 72
residential dwelling units on property
located at the east terminus of Court
Street.
2. An ordinance amending Title 14, Chapter
6, Zoning, Article O, Sign Regulations, by
changing the requirements regarding the
number of freestanding signs on lots with
over 300 feet of frontage.
3. An ordinance vacating a 10-foot wide right-
of-way located along the west line of
property located at 1033 E. Washington
Street.
Copies of the proposed ordinances are on file
for public examination in the office of the City
Clerk, Civic Center, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons
wishing to make their views known for Council
consideration are encouraged to appear at the
above-mentioned time end place.
MARlAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK
Prepared by: Scott Kugler, Assoc. Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5243
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING
CHAPTER BY CONDITIONALLY CHANGING
THE ZONING REGULATIONS OF
APPROXIMATELY 7.93 ACRES LOCATED AT
THE EAST TERMINUS OF COURT STREET
FROM MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL (RS-8), TO PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT HOUSING OVERLAY (OPDH-
8), AND APPROVING A PRELIMINARY OPDH
PLAN FOR 72 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING
UNITS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE
EAST TERMINUS OF COURT STREET.
WHEREAS, the applicant, Arlington, L.C., is
owner and legal title holder of approximately
7.93 acres of property located at the east
terminus of Court Street; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has requested the
rezoning of approximately 7.93 acres from
Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-
8), to Planned Development Housing Overlay
(OPDH-8), and approval of a preliminary OPDH
plan to allow 72 residential dwelling units for
property located at the east terminus of Court
Street; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning
Commission has determined that, with
appropriate conditions ensuring the
establishment of neighborhood infrastructure,
thus providing a secondary means of access to
the property, the proposed rezoning is in
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, and
that the proposed preliminary OPDH plan is in
technical compliance with all applicable
provisions of the City Code; and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (1999)
provides that the City of Iowa City may impose
reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's
rezoning request, over and above existing
regulations, in order to satisfy public needs
directly caused by the requested change; and
WHEREAS, the applicant acknowledges that
certain conditions and restrictions are
reasonable to ensure the establishment of
neighborhood infrastructure and the provision of
a secondary means of access to the property;
and
WHEREAS, the applicant has agreed to use
this property in accordance with the terms and
conditions of a Conditional Zoning Agreement to
Ordinance No.
Page 2
ensure that the above referenced neighborhood
infrastructure and secondary access issues are
addressed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I. APPROVAL. Subject to the
terms and conditions of the Conditional Zoning
Agreement, attached hereto and incorporated
herein, the property described below is hereby
reclassified from its current designation of
Medium Density Single-Family Residential
(RS-8) to Planned Development Housing
Overlay (OPDH-8):
Commencing at the Northwest Corner of the
Northeast Quarter of Section 18, Township
79 North, Range 5 West, of the Fifth
Principal Meridian; Thence N00o29'10"W,
along the West Line of the Southeast
Quarter of Section 7, Township 79 North,
Range 5 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian,
175.16 feet; Thence N79o41'30"E, 50.72
feet, to the Point of Beginning; Thence
continuing N79°41 '30"E, 139.20 feet;
Thence Northeasterly, 746.86 feet, along a
2841.05 foot radius curve, concave
Souteasterly, whose 744.71 foot chord bears
N87o13'22"E, Thence Southeasterly, 39.76
feet, along a 25.00 foot radius curve,
concave Southwesterly, whose 35.70 foot
chord bears S39°41 '12"E; Thence
S05°52'22"W, 67.32 feet; Thence
Southeasterly, 211.96 feet, along a 636.03
foot radius curve, concave Northeasterly ,
whose 210.98 foot chord beam S03o40'27'E;
Thence Southeasterly, 25.52 feet, along a
570.00 foot radius curve, concave
Southwesterly, whose 25.52 foot chord
bears Sllo56'19"E; Thence S69o18'18"W,
214.92 feet; Thence N89o12'04"W, 659.86
feet; Thence N45o51'32"W, 73.10 feet;
Thence N00o26'32"W, 284.81 feet, to the
Point of Beginning. Said Tract of land
contains 7.93 acres, more or less, and is
subject to easements and restrictions of
record.
SECTION II. VARIATIONS. The following
variations from the requirements of the RS-8
zone have been approved as part of the
preliminary OPDH plan:
a. The development of four 18-unit
residential buildings in lieu of the requirement for
single-family detached or duplex residences.
b. A building height of approximately 50 feet
in lieu of the 35 foot limitation of the RS-8 zone.
SECTION III. ZONING MAP. The Building
Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to
change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City,
Ordinance No.
Page 3
Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the
final passage, approval and publication of this
ordinance as provided by law.
SECTION IV. CONDITIONAL ZONING
AGREEMENT. Following final passage and
approval of this Ordinance, the Mayor is hereby
authorized and directed to sign, and the City
Clerk to attest, the Conditional Zoning
Agreement between the property owners,
applicants, and the City.
SECTION V. CERTIFICATION AND
RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of
the Ordinance, and after execution of the
Conditional Zoning Agreement, the City Clerk.js
hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy
of this ordinance and the Conditional Zoning
Agreement and to record the same at the office
of the County Recorder of Johnson County,
Iowa, at the owner's expense, all as provided by
law.
SECTION VI. REPEALER. All ordinances and
parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision
of this ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION VII. SEVERABILITY. If any section,
provision or part of this ordinance shall be
adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such
adjudication shall not affect the validity of the
ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or
part thereof not adjudged invalid or
unconstitutional.
SECTION VIII. EFFECTIVE DATE. This
ordinance shall be in effect after its final
passage, approval and publication, as required
by law.
Passed and approved this day of
,1999.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
pp<ladmiNord/courtst.doc
Prepared by: Scott Kugler, Assoc. Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319/356-5243
CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a Municipal
Corporation (hereinafter "City") and Arlington, L.C., an Iowa Limited Partnership.
WHEREAS, the applicant, Arlington, L.C., is owner and legal title holder of approximately 7.93
acres of property located at the east terminus of Court Street; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has requested the rezoning of approximately 7.93 acres from
Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8), to Planned Development Housing Overlay
(OPDH-8), and approval of a preliminary OPDH plan to allow 72 residential dwelling units for
property located at the east terminus of Court Street; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate
conditions ensuring the establishment of neighborhood infrastructure, thus providing a
secondary means of access to the property, the proposed rezoning is in conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan, and that the proposed preliminary OPDH plan is in technical compliance
with all applicable provisions of the City Code; and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (1999) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose
reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing
regulations, in order to satisfy public needs directly caused by the requested change; and
WHEREAS, the applicant acknowledges that certain conditions and restrictions are
reasonable to ensure the establishment of neighborhood infrastructure and the provision of a
secondary means of access to the property; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has agreed to use this property in accordance with the terms
and conditions of this Conditional Zoning Agreement to ensure that the above referenced
neighborhood infrastructure and secondary access issues are addressed.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual promises contained herein, the Parties agree
as follows:
1. Arlington, L.C., is the property owner and legal title holder of property located at the east
terminus of Court Street, which property is more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Northwest Corner of the Northeast Quarter of Section 18, Township
79 North, Range 5 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian; Thence N00°29'10"W, along the
West Line of the Southeast Quarter of Section 7, Township 79 North, Range 5 West of
the Fifth Principal Meridian, 175.16 feet; Thence N79°41'30"E, 50.72 feet, to the Point of
Beginning; Thence continuing N79°41'30"E, 139.20 feet; Thence Northeasterly, 746.86
feet, along a 2841.05 foot radius curve, concave Southeasterly, whose 744.71 foot
chord bears N87°13'22"E, Thence Southeasterly, 39.76 feet, along a 25.00 foot radius
curve, concave Southwesterly, whose 35.70 foot chord bears S39°41'12"E; Thence
S05°52'22"W, 67.32 feet; Thence Southeasterly, 211.96 feet, along a 636.03 foot radius
2
curve, concave Northeasterly , whose '210.98 foot chord bears S03°40'27"E; Thence
Southeasterly, 25.52 feet, along a 570.00 foot radius curve, concave Southwesterly,
whose 25.52 foot chord bears S11°56'19'E; Thence S69°18'18'W, 214.92 feet; Thence
N89°12'04"W, 659.86 feet; Thence N45°51'32"W, 73.10 feet; Thence N00°26'32"W,
284.81 feet, to the Point of Beginning. Said Tract of land contains 7.93 acres, more or
less, and is subject to easements and restrictions of record.
Applicant acknowledges that the City wishes to ensure completion of the neighborhood
street network, thereby providing a secondary means of access to the property. Further, the
padies acknowledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (1999) provides that the City of Iowa City may
impose reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above
the existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs directly caused by the requested
change. Therefore, Applicant agrees to certain conditions over and above City regulations
as detailed below.
In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property with variations to the
requirements of the underlying zone, the Applicant agrees that development of the subject
property will conform to all other requirements of the Zoning Chapter, as well as the
following condition:
Applicant agrees and acknowledges that a building permit for the final 18-unit residential
building on the subject property shall not be issued by the City until such time as the
existing portion of Arlington Drive, currently located to the south of the subject property
and connecting to American Legion Road, is physically connected to Court Street such
that vehicular traffic can travel from American Legion Road to Court Street unimpeded.
This connection shall include the platting of the right-of-way, construction and paving of
the roadway, completion of sidewalks and any necessary utilities or drainage structures,
and acceptance of the improvements by the City.
The Applicant acknowledges that the condition contained herein are reasonable condition to
impose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (1999), and that said condition satisfies public
needs which are directly caused by the requested zoning change.
The Applicant acknowledges that in the event the subject property is transferred, sold,
redeveloped, or subdivided, all redevelopment will conform with the terms of this Conditional
Zoning Agreement.
6. The Parties acknowledge that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be a
covenant running with the land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force and
effect as a covenant running with the title to the land unless or until released of record by
the City. The Parties further acknowledge that this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of
and bind all successors, representatives and assigns of the Parties.
7. Applicant acknowledges that nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be
construed to relieve the Applicant from complying with all applicable local, state and federal
regulations.
8. The Parties agree that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by
reference into the Ordinance rezoning the subject property; and that upon adoption and
publication of the Ordinance, this Agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County
Recorder's Office at the Applicant's expense.
Dated this day of
,1999.
ARLINGTON, L.C.
By: ;k.,~ '
By a ~~~nd~~~.~
Attest:
CITY OF IOWA CITY
By:
Ernest W. Lehman, Mayor
Marian K. Karr, City Clerk
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this day of 19 before me,
, a Notary Public in and f~>r the State of
Iowa, personally appeared Ernest W. Lehman and Marian K. Karr, to me personally known, and,
who, being by me duly swom, did say that they are the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the
City of Iowa City, Iowa; that the seal affixed to the foregoing instrument is the corporate seal of the
corporation, and that the instrument was signed and sealed on behalf of the corporation, by
authority of its City Council, as contained in (Ordinance) (Resolution) No. passed
by the City Council, on the day of , 19 , and that
Ernest W. Lehman and Madan K. Karr acknowledged the execution of the instrument to be their
voluntary act and deed and the voluntary act and deed of the corporation, by it voluntarily
executed.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
My commission expires:
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this \\A-,,, day of ~ ,-,,,-, e__ , 19 ~c~ , before me, the undersigned, a
Notary Public in and for said County, in said State, personally appeared Gary Watts, to me known
to be the identical persons named in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and
acknowledged that he executed the same as his voluntary act and deed.
ta~~.c' .~r"-~'-\
No ir; and for~te State of Iowa
My commission expires: 1 ~. '5~ ~ ~, .
4
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this \"~,'~"" day of ~ "',~,~__. , 19 ~,%, before me, the undersigned, a
Notary Public in and for said County, in said State, personally appeared John Moreland, to me
known to be the identical persons named in and who executed the within and foregoing
instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same as his voluntary act and deed.
My commission expires:
ppdadmin~agt~:ourtst. doc
Dated this
ARLINGTON, L
By:
Gary Watts
By:
John Moreland
day of
Attest:
,1999.
CITY OF IOWA CITY
/
/
/
/
/
Ernest,,:W. Lehman, Mayor
M~rian K. Karr, City Clerk
By:
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this day of
Iowa, personally appeared Emest W. Lehman
:.,,,.~ 19 before me,
/ , a Notary Public in and f~r the State of
~d Marian K. Karr, to me personally known, and,
who, being by me duly swom, did say that they' the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the
City of Iowa City, Iowa; that the seal affixed tO~'theinstrument is the corporate seal of the
corporation, and that the instrument was gned :1 sealed on behalf of the corporation, by
authority of its City Council, as contained in (Resolution) No. passed
by the City Council, on the day of , 19 , and that
Ernest W. Lehman and Madan K. Karr acknowledged execution of the instrument to be their
voluntary act and deed and the voluntary act and of the corporation, by it voluntarily
executed.
Notary Public in a for the State of Iowa
My commission expir s:
STATE OF IOWA )
JOHNSON COUNTY ~s:
On this day of , 19 before m the undersigned, a
Notary Public in and for said County, in said State, personally apl~eared Ga~' atts to me known
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
My commission expires:
4
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this day of , 19 , before me, the undersigned, a
Notary Public in and for said County, in said State, personally appeared John Moreland, to me
known to be the identical persons named in and who executed the within and foregoing
instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same as his voluntary act and deed.
ppdadmin~agt\courtst,doc
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
My commission expires:
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
April 30, 1999 (for May 6 meeting)
Planning and Zoning Commission
Scott K I ~'
ug er, Associate Planner
REZ99-0006. Windsor Ridge, Part 12.
This item was deferred at the April 15 meeting to allow for additional public discussion of the
proposed rezoning and development plan. In addition, staff noted that there were a few
deficiencies on the preliminary OPDH plan that needed to be addressed. A revised plan has
been submitted to address these items. The submittal of the additional information has also
clarified the modifications to the requirements of the underlying RS-8 zone that are needed for
this application. In addition, the Commission asked staff to look into the possibility of requiring
the extension and connection of Arlington Drive to Court Street prior to the development of any
additional single-family lots within Parts 10 and 11 of Windsor Ridge, which have been
preliminary platted but have not yet been included on a final plat.
Updated Development Plan/Proposed Modifications: Additional information submitted by
the applicant includes elevations and plans for the proposed condominium center and rear
elevations of the proposed 18-unit buildings. Previously, the condominium center was not
included in the parking calculations for the site. If the only individuals using the facility will be
residents of this development, an argument could be made for not providing additional parking
above what is required for the dwelling units. However, even if use of the facility is limited to
those living within Part 12, the building does contain a fairly large meeting room which could
potentially be used for birthday parties, retirement parties, or other types of gatherings in which
people from outside of the development may attend. Based on the size and use of the building
a total of 27 additional parking spaces would be required to serve this building. Staff feels that
it may be reasonable to reduce the required parking for this building to some extent, but that
there should be some parking provided specifically for the use of this building. Parking
requirements cannot be mod~ed through the planned development process, but rather a Board
of Adjustment action is required to reduce parking. The plan shows that all of the required
parking can be provided on the site. However, staff encourages the applicant to seek a special
exception to reduce the parking requirement for this facility a reasonable level by removing the
parking shown along the south side of the southern drive on the property.
The height of the proposed buildings is three stories facing Court Street, but the rear of the
buildings are four stories due to the parking located under the building and the change in grade
on the site. Given the height limitation in the RS-8 zone of 35 feet, it was clear that a waiver of
this requirement would be needed as part of the development plan. However, without a rear
elevation of the building staff was uncertain of the extent of the waiver being requested. Staff
requested that the building height at the rear of the property be provided, as well as building
elevations for the rear of the buildings to illustrate the appearance and materials proposed to be
used. This information has been submitted, which indicates that the overall building height will
be just under 50 feet (rear building elevation attached). Therefore, in addition to the waiver of
the limitation of dwelling types to detached single-family or duplex units, a building height
modification from 35 feet to approximately 50 feet is being requested. Staff feels that this
request is reasonable given the topography on the site, its separation from surrounding single-
family lots, and the aesthetic benefits of parking under the buildings versus large surface lots.
Staff recommends that this waiver or modification be granted. However, it appears that there
may be some opportunity to do some filling along the rear and sides of the building away from
the driveways to help reduce the visual mass of the building as seen from a distance. This
would not lower the height of the building as defined in the Zoning Chapter, which is measured
at the lowest point around the building, but as seen from across the stream corridor it may
appear to be a bit shorter.
Arlington Drive Connection to Court Street: Staff was asked to look into the possibility of
restricting the platting of additional lots within Parts 10 and 11 of Windsor Ridge, which have
already been granted preliminary plat approval, until the connection of Arlington Drive to Court
Street is completed. Staff has some concerns about the legality of this type of restriction on off-
site property in association with this rezoning. Given the secondary access and neighborhood
circulation concerns raised in the April 15 staff report, staff feels that it is reasonable to require
this connection as necessary infrastructure to support the development being proposed in the
current application. However, these concerns do not exist south of Court Street at this time,
and the approved preliminary plat for this area shows the eventual connection of Arlington Drive
to Court Street. No such issues were raised when the preliminary plat was approved. Staff
feels that it would be difficult to justify and defend restrictions on the off-site lots in an effort to
provide notice of these plans and avoid concerns by future owners who may be opposed to the
street extension. The fact that the street connection has already been preliminarily platted and
has been shown on concept plans and preliminary plats for this area since 1993 provides a
strong reason for the City to expect this connection to take place. Additionally, as is the case
with all subdivisions, when the preliminary plats for Parts 10 and 11 of Windsor Ridge are
finalized, the legal papers will address the connection of Arlington Drive to Court Street as a
"public improvement" which must be completed and accepted either before the issuance of the
first building permit for the subdivision, or, if an escrow is deposited, prior to the issuance of the
first occupancy permit for the subdivision.
The configuration of the phases shown on the preliminary plat for this area suggests that the
connection of Arlington Drive will likely occur prior to the development of additional single-family
lots in this area, anyway (see attached preliminary plat for Parts 9-14 of Windsor Ridge). Part 9
has already been final platted, providing for the construction of Arlington Drive from its current
terminus to a point one lot north of Huntington Drive. The area covered by the current
application (Part 12) will have to be final platted prior to development. The final plat for Part 12
will require the construction of Arlington south from Court Street to the south line of Lot 1, Part
12. The applicant will be escrowing for the construction of the street along the frontage of
Outlot J, meaning that the City will have the means to install the roadway if the developer fails
to do so. That leaves a gap of just over 200 feet of the roadway that will not have been
accounted for on a final plat. Lots on both sides of the street in this location are shown as
being within Part 10, and lots within Part 11 along the proposed Cumberland Lane would
require the construction of this portion of the street before they had access to the surrounding
street system. If the applicant were to propose alterations to the proposed phasing of the
subdivision, it would give the City reason to question the changes and perhaps require the
street connection at that time. It appears that there are some existing factors which could limit
the development of addition single-family lots in this area prior to the street connection taking
place, even though it is not wise to restrict the development of these lots as a condition on the
current rezoning application. This, combined with the condition proposed by staff which would
limit the amount of development within Part 12 until the connection takes place, provides
reasonable assurance that this roadway will be established as planned.
Although staff feels that such a condition would not be appropriate associated with the current
application, a request was made for language that could be incorporated into a condition if the
Commission decides to pursue this option. The following are conditions that could be
incorporated into the text of a conditional zoning agreement for this property. Staff
recommends that the first condition be attached to this rezoning if the Commission is inclined to
recommend approval, but staff cannot recommend the inclusion of the second condition.
1. Applicant agrees and understands that a building permit for the final 18-unit residential
building on the subject property will not be issued by the City until such time that the existing
portion of Arlington Drive, located to the south of the subject property and connecting to
American Legion Road, is physically connected to Court Street. This connection shall
include the platting of the right-of-way, construction of the roadway, sidewalks and any
necessary utilities or drainage structures, and acceptance of the improvements by the City.
2. Applicant agrees that no additional building permits shall be issued for single-family
residences on any lots within the Windsor Ridge Subdivision located south of Court Street
until such time that the extension of Arlington Drive, as described above in item 1, is
completed. This provision does not apply to existing lots within the Windsor Ridge
Subdivision, Parts 1 through 9, which have been previously approved for development via
the approval of final plats for these sections.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that REZ99-0006. a request to rezone approximately 7.46 acres from RS-8
to OPDH-8 and a preliminary OPDH-8 plan to allow the construction of 72 residential units on
property located on the south side of Court Street at its eastern terminus, be approved, subject
to a conditional zoning agreement requiring the connection of Arlington Drive, from its current
terminus north to Court Street, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the final 18-unit
building on the property.
ATTACHMENTS:
2.
3.
4.
Preliminary OPDH-8 plan.
Rear Building Elevation.
Preliminary Plat, Windsor Ridge Parts 9 - 14.
Final Plat, Windsor Ridge, Part 9.
Approved by:
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Department of Planning and
Community Development
Sensitive Areas
"" Winds
PLAT PREPARED BY:
MMS CONSULTAN~ INC.
1917 S Gilbert 8t
IONA CWY. iON~ 5~40
Site Plan
Ridge --
~ampian
& Preliminary
Pt 12, Iowa
OWNER a SUBDIVIDE~ OWNER'8 A~RNEY:
ARUNG~N LC, ~uglae Ruppcrt
e/~ Ga~ lst~ 122 S ~nn St
R346 Mo~n T~k BI~ 1o~ City, Iowa
lon CiLy, Ion
Final Plat
tltllinl)sor {~ii)gt - !par[
Iowa City, Iowa
LOT CLFNE SEGMENT TABLE
- ~ ~" i'* I ~ '.~ .~ ,..
:
TO BE D(DICAlr, D FIll PU~IJC USE'
OUTLOT '1 131
128 oc
114 Ii 114-11 114 '-
If/ 138
141
.e _II OIJTI,0T' T
q, ee e
142
" "' '" t~ ~ t '
- . 1
,, ,,s , W",~ ~' ,aII m I Ii Im I'
LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALEI
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: REZ99-0006. Windsor Ridge Part 12
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Contact person:
Requested action:
Purpose:
Location:
Size:
Existing land use and zoning:
Surrounding land use and zoning:
Comprehensive Plan:
Applicable Code requirements:
Prepared by: Scott Kugler
Date: April 15, 1999
Gary Watts
Arlington, UC.
568 Highway 1 West
Iowa City, Iowa 52246
Phone: 354-0581
MMS Consultants
1917 S. Gilbert St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
Phone: 351-8282
Preliminary OSA-8 plan approval.
The approval of a sensitive areas
development plan to allow four 18-unit
residential buildings south of Court
Street at Arlington Drive.
East terminus of Court Street.
16.33 acres (rezoning area totals 7.46
acreS)
Vacant, RS-8 and RS-5
North: Vacant, RM-12;
East: Vacant, RS-5;
South: Vacant, RS-5;
West: Vacant, County RS.
Residential, 2-8 dwelling units per acre.
Comprehensive Plan neighborhood
design policies.
14-6J-2, Planned Development Housing
Overlay Zone; 14-6K-1 Sensitive Areas
Ordinance.
File date:
45-day limitation period:
2
April 1, 1999
May 16, 1999
SITE INFORMATION:
Public Utilities:
Public Services:
Transportation:
Sensitive Areas Ordinance:
City sewer and' water are available.
There is a potential sewer capacity
issue that will have to be resolved at
some point in the future, but will not
impact the development of this
property (see discussion below).
Police and fire protection will be
provided by the City.
The nearest bus route is the Court Hill
route, which passes through the
intersection of Court Street and
Petersen Street, one block west of
Scott Boulevard. This is approximately
Y2 mile west of the subject property.
A wetland is located in the southwest
corner of Lot 1. However, the wetland
is not large enough to be regulated
under the Sensitive Areas Ordinance.
In addition, a stream corridor is located
on Outlot J, and fully hydric soils are
present on both Lot 1 and Outlot J.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Arlington, UC., has submitted an application to rezone approximately 7.46 acres from
Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) to Planned Development Housing Overlay
(OPDH-8), and a preliminary planned development housing overlay (OPDH) plan for Windsor
Ridge, Part 12, located on the south side of Court Street at its eastern terminus. The total
site area for Part 12 is approximately 16.33 acres. The plan illustrates four 18-unit
residential buildings with access to both Court Street and Arlington Drive, a portion of which
would be constructed as part of this development. The City recently extended Court Street
from just east of its intersection with Scott Boulevard to the western property line of the
subject property. The applicant extended the roadway east to its future intersection with
Arlington Drive. This arterial street will provide the necessary access to allow the
development of Part 12 of Windsor Ridge.
The subject property was rezoned to Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) in
1995 subject to a conditional zoning agreement requiring a future OPDH rezoning and
approval of a development plan for the property. A concept plan was submitted at the time,
but due to uncertainties regarding the timing of the extension of Court Street and the
development of the property, a detailed OPDH plan was not submitted for review. The
proposed development plan generally conforms to the concept plan presented in 1995. A
copy of the earlier concept plan is attached.
ANALYSIS:
The decision to allow development on this parcel consistent with the densities permitted
under the RS-8 zone was made in 1995 when this area was rezoned. At that time a concept
plan was submitted which indicated that multi-family buildings were being contemplated for
this site. Given the property's location along an arterial street and in close proximity to a
proposed neighborhood commercial center, it was felt that multi-family development in this
location would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and could be integrated into this
neighborhood successfully. The design details, however, were left for future consideration of
a planned development application at such time that Court Street was extended and a
detailed development plan submitted for review.
Preliminary OPDH Plan for Windsor Ridge, Part 12: The development Plan for Part 12,
located south of Court Street, is in general conformance with the concept plan that was
shown at the time of the initial rezoning from RS-5 to RS-8 in 1995. It depicts four 18-unit
multi-family buildings with access to a frontage drive off of Court Street and a rear drive
which provides access to parking underneath the buildings. The parking in front of the
buildings would likely serve visitors to the site as well as some of the required parking for the
residential units. The 1995 concept plan illustrates five buildings rather than four, but the
general layout of the site is similar.
The proposed development plan contains a few deficiencies that will have to be addressed
prior to the Commission's vote on this item. It is anticipated that these deficiencies will be
corrected prior to the second public discussion of this application by the Commission. Staff
recommends deferral pending the resolution of these deficiencies. Due to the presence of the
stream corridor and fully hydric soils, a sensitive areas site plan and a grading plan are
required. Both plans have been submitted and are under review. They will have to be
approved prior to City Council consideration of this application.
The plan includes an 8-foot wide sidewalk along the south side of Court Street, consistent
with the City's construction of the arterial street to the west of this property. It is
anticipated that this sidewalk would continue at 8 feet in width east to a proposed
neighborhood commercial center and Taft Avenue. In addition, the plan includes an 8-foot
wide sidewalk along the west side of Arlington Drive south to a proposed trail on Outlot J,
which was included on the preliminary plat for Windsor Ridge, Parts 9-14.
Neighborhood Compatibility: The building sites within Part 12 are buffered from adjacent
development parcels by areas of open space to the south and east, public park land to the
west, and fairly deep setbacks along Court Street and Arlington Drive. The property to the
north is zoned RM-12, and staff is currently working with the applicant to develop a concept
plan for that area that addresses the neighborhood design concepts contained in the
Comprehensive Plan, as required by a conditional zoning agreement that was adopted when
this area was rezoned from RS-5 to RM-12. That area will likely contain a mix of housing
types, including some multi-family buildings. The property immediately east of Arlington
Drive was reserved as an outlot on the preliminary plat for Parts 9 -14, to be the site of an
open space with a pond. Staff feels the subject site can accommodate the fairly large
freestanding buildings being proposed with limited effect on future single-family residential
areas in this vicinity.
The building elevations proposed for the 18-unit buildings are attached. The applicant has
indicated that there will be some variation in the architectural details between the buildings.
Given the characteristics of the site, which falls down in elevation from Court Street south to
the stream corridor and then rises again farther south, and the setbacks of 91 feet from
Arlington Drive and between 51 and 135 feet along Court Street, staff feels that the height
and mass of the buildings will not be out of scale with the rest of the neighborhood. Given
the site's location along an arterial street and its isolation from other lower density residential
areas, staff feels that the proposed development plan is compatible with the anticipated
development on surrounding properties.
The plan also contains a condominium center, which would serve as a clubhouse and meeting
room/office space for this development. This type of use is permitted in a planned
development, and could be an amenity for residents of this development as well as
surrounding Windsor Ridge properties. Given its location, which roughly lines up with a
proposed collector street north of Court Street, it has the potential to be a nice focal point
within the neighborhood and a visual terminus to the north-south collector street. No building
elevations have been submitted for this facility, but they should be submitted and reviewed
with the same scrutiny given to the residential buildings. Staff has encouraged the developer
to consider this building as a potential high-profile, landmark building within this portion of the
neighborhood, and to design it accordingly. As little information has been submitted about
this building, staff is unsure of the parking that may be required for this building. Additional
parking may have to be added to the plan to address this use. The elevations and parking
calculations should be submitted and reviewed prior to the Commission's second public
discussion of this item.
Density: Placing 72 dwelling units on this parcel would result in a density of 9.65 dwelling
units per acre. The underlying RS-8 zone permits slightly more than 10 dwelling units per
acre based on the requirement for 4,350 square feet of lot area per dwelling. The proposed
development conforms with the RS-8 zone in terms of density.
Street Access: A total of three access points to Court Street and one to Arlington Drive are
being proposed. Staff typically tries to minimize the number of access points to arterial
streets to the extent practical. Although it may be possible to reduce the number of access
points on the south side of Court Street by one and combine the two western drives in some
way, this would result in more paving on the site and seems unnecessary. The separation
distances between the proposed drives are adequate, and they are well aligned with the
proposed drives being suggested with regard to the concept plan being discussed for the
property to the north of Court Street. In addition, there are only 36 parking spaces located
along the northerly drive. Staff feels that the proposed access points are acceptable.
Secondary Access/Neighborhood Circulation: Court Street is currently a long dead end
street, with all of the property located east of Scott Boulevard being currently served by only
one access. This is a temporary situation in that Court Street is planned to eventually
connect with Taft Avenue, and Arlington Drive and Huntington Road will provide connections
to the south to American Legion Road as future phases of Windsor Ridge are developed. It is
also likely that the street system that eventually develops to the north of Court Street would
provide multiple connections to Lower West Branch Road and beyond. However, in the short
term only one means of access will be available.
Although Court Street is designed as an arterial street, it is currently functioning as a
collector street since it is not yet connected to another arterial street on its eastern end. It is
approximately Y2 mile long from Scott Boulevard to its eastern terminus. In implementing the
secondary access guidelines, staff would treat it as a collector. If no other limiting factors
are present, the guidelines suggest that development could be permitted which generates up
to 2,500 vehicle trips per day relying on the single means of access. This translates to
roughly 350 dwelling units. In this case, the proposed development of 72 dwelling units falls
well within the secondary access guidelines in terms of traffic volume, even when added to
the 65-70 lots already platted near the intersection of Scott Boulevard and Court Street (not
all are currently developed, and some of these lots are zoned RM-12). However, other
conditions such as a hill of over 8% or a stream crossing that could potentially block access
along the single access road are also considered when determining the level of development
permitted in a single-access situation. Court Street does cross a stream on property located
west of Windsor Ridge, but the culvert installed at that location was sized to handle a 100-
year storm, with some room to spare. Unless there is a major blockage of this culvert, it is
not anticipated that a flood event would cross the roadway, blocking access to this area.
According to the as-built drawings for the older section of Court Street, there is also an 8%
slope on the roadway just east of Scott Boulevard, which raises some concerns about
emergency vehicle access to this area. Determining where to draw the line in terms of the
amount of development to allow on a single means of access under these conditions basically
comes down to a judgement call on the part of staff, the Commission, and the City Council.
Another factor to be considered in determining the level of development that should be
permitted at this time is neighborhood circulation. Staff has concerns about the eventual
connection of Court Street to the existing portion of Arlington Drive, which extends north
from American Legion Road. Arlington Drive has been planned since the original preliminary
plat for Windsor Ridge to connect directly to Court Street. Due to the presence of Scott Park
to the west of this property, there are limited opportunities to provide north/south
connections in this area. In fact, Arlington Drive and Huntington Drive, both within
undeveloped portions of Windsor Ridge, are the only streets planned to connect to Court
Street from the south. Staff feels it is important that they both be connected to avoid having
one street carry all of the burden of providing this connection. As we have seen in other
neighborhoods, residents along dead-end streets that are planned to be connected often
oppose their eventual connection after they have become accustomed to living on the dead-
end street. The eventual development of apartments or condominiums at a higher density
along Court Street will likely provide more of a reason not to connect Court Street to
Arlington Drive in the minds of many of those living along Arlington Drive. Therefore, staff
recommends that this street connection be required prior to the full development of Part 12.
It is recommended that the development of three of the four buildings be permitted prior to
this connection being made, but that a building permit not be issued for the final building until
the street is platted, connected and accepted by the City. Staff intends to take a similar
position regarding the development of any additional Windsor Ridge property along Court
Street that may be proposed before the Arlington Drive connection is made.
Sensitive Areas Ordinance: This parcel does contain a wetland, however, it is not regulated
under the Sensitive Areas Ordinance due to its size (.15 acres). Nevertheless, the plans
indicate that the wetland will not be disturbed and a buffer will be retained to the extent
possible (the utility lines shown on the plan have been previously installed). The site does
contain a stream corridor and hydric soils, for which a sensitive areas site plan is required.
The plan identifies the grading limits in this area and notes that silt fencing will be installed
along this line prior to other development activities on the site. Staff also recommends that
construction fencing be required along the grading limits to avoid unnecessary grading or
other disturbance beyond the specified grading limits.
Storm Water Management: This property is served by the existing regional detention basin
located in Scott Park· No on-site storm water management is required.
Neighborhood Open Space: Neighborhood open space requirements for the Windsor Ridge
property located south of Court Street have been satisfied with the reservation of several
large areas of open space, providing a greenway and trail system throughout the
development. Outlot J is also to be dedicated to the City and will become part of that
system. No additional Neighborhood Open Space is required as a result of this development.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that REZ99-0006 be deferred pending resolution of the deficiencies and
discrepancies listed below. Upon resolution of these items, staff recommends that the
request to rezone approximately 7.46 acres from RS-8 to OPDH-8 and a preliminary OPDH-8
plan to allow the construction of 72 residential units on property located on the south side of
Court Street at its eastern terminus, be approved, subject to a conditional zoning agreement
requiring the connection of Arlington Drive, from its current terminus north to Court Street,
prior to the issuance of a building permit for the final 18-unit building on the property.
DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES:
3.
4.
5.
The plan should note that construction fencing will be installed at the grading limits on
the south side of Lot 1, Part 12 prior to any other construction activities taking place
on the property.
Elevations of the condominium center must be provided, as well as information
regarding the use of the building and parking requirements.
The title of the plan should read Sensitive Areas Site Plan, not development plan, and
Preliminary OPDH-8 Plan.
There are a few inconsistencies between the legal description and the dimensions on
the plan.
A few miscellaneous minor errors as identified by Public Works.
ATTACHMENTS:
Location map.
Preliminary OPDH-8 Plan/Sensitive Areas Site Plan.
18-unit building elevations.
1995 concept plan.
Approved by:
2.
3.
4.
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Department of Planning and
Community Development
CITY OF IO~A
CITY
SITE LOCATION: Windsor Ridge Parts 12 & 15SUB99-0004
.... REC~Y~ED'
APR 0 7 1999
~ gnl tfsffipti.n sezmitiu m~s Dele~pz~nt Plan & OP:
"" "'~' "" -' ' Windsor Ridge -- P% 12, Iowa
"'"" ~ ' ' ' '"~':'--"'~""' ~anterbury ~nbominiu~
~,--.M P~T PP~ BY: 0~ k SUBDI~D~ O~E~'S A~EY:
1917 S GII~ St c/~ ~ ~ 1~ S UR~ St
~ ..... · q n c .......
~,~'
-Z- ~
[
"' ' ~ I
,,~
II
;'
May 30, 1999
e,/~/ JUN 0 2 ~999 ,~
CITY MANAGERS OFFICE
Stephen Atkins, City Manager
410 E. Washington St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
Dear Stephen Atkins:
I am writing to express my concern over zoning proposals that are currently being
reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Windsor Ridge Parts 12, 13, and
14 are not healthy considerations for the East Iowa City community since they would
result in increased density and traffic. I am in favor of growth; however, this growth
should only be with construction of single family dwellings. I strongly oppose this plan
if it includes construction of multi-family dwellings. I am asking that you only vote in
favor of proposals that include construction of single family dwellings (not multi-family
dwellings) in the area in question.
If you'd like to reach me to discuss this in greater detail, please feel free to contact me at
341-6265.
Bill Gilmer
4522 Canterbury Ct.
Iowa City, IA 52245
CC: John A. Watson, President
Windsor Ridge Homeowners Association
June7,1999 '~, ~a~ '?'
Members of the Iowa City Council: JUN 1_ 0 1999 a,
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed development of Part 12 of Windsor
Ridge, as I am a home owner on Canterbury Court in Windsor Ridge. My husband and I have
made a substantial investment in a neighborhood of, up until now, single family homes.
The proposed condominiums are massive, intrusive, and in no way will blend with the
surrounding neighborhood, but will indeed tower over it. Along with the size of the buildings, is
the quantity of units: 72. There will, of course, be 72 times as much noise, traffic, and lights. If
Arlington is linked to Court Street adjacent to this site, Arlington will be the logical north-south
route for many of those residents, construction vehicles, and also many others heading toward
1-80. I strongly oppose the continuation of Arlington to Court Street for the aforementioned
reasons.
I would request that, as a member of said neighborhood, I be involved in its planned
development as outlined in the city' s Comprehensive Plan. I believe that the proposed
development of Canterbury "Towers" is not in the best interest of the community of Windsor
Ridge and that the continuation of Arlington to Court Street will become a north-south
thoroughfare through what was once a quiet, single family development.
Sincerely,
4624 Canterbury Ct.
Iowa City, Iowa 52245
City Council
City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240-1826
DEBORA L. LIDDELL
4831 SOUTHCHASE CT.
IOWA CITY, IA 52245
~ ~ne 10, 1999
RE: Application to rezone/Windsor Ridge
Dear Councilors:
Under separate cover you have received correspondence regarding. neighborhood concerns about the above-
mentioned project. The purpose of this letter is to express my specific concerns about the proposed rezoning of Part
12, currently under consideration by this Council.
The massive buildings proposed for this project will result in an imposinq elevation (four stories - atotal heiqht of 50
feet), impacting the neighbors in undesirable ways through increased traffic, increased noise, and increased lights.
I an particularly concerned about the abruptness of this massive building. Buildings designed with lower elevation
would have less impact. Consideration should be given to duplex or four-plex structures with significantly lower
elevation which would not impose.
This project should not be pursued until details are worked out regarding the Neighborhood Commerdal Zone
under consideration for Part 14 (further east on Court Street). On the one hand, Mr. Watts has said that the
purpose of the NCZ is to serve the residents of Windsor Ridge. On the other hand, Mr. Watts has repeatedly been
unwilling to make acommitment on the nature of this commerdal area, saying that it is not feasible to develop until
the multi-family area has been finished. These two statements would appear to be contradictory in nature.
I an concerned that the single family lots on the north edge of Windsor Ridge will no longer be desirable because
they are book-ended by these two large multi-family projects. The long-range effect of these projects may be that
they limit (and may ultimately downgrade) the areas that were always designed as single family.
Taft Avenue and Court Street should be connected prior to further rezoning in this neighborhood. As it is now,
residential-construction trafrK~ travels from the interstate to Taft - down American Legion Road - and then through
the neighborhood via Arlington and Barrington. This situation will only worsen once construction commences
around Court Street. Care must be taken to ensure that construction traffic is not routed through the
neighborhoods.
Finally, I think you can deduce from the minutes of May 20 Planning and Zoning meeting that many of the
neighbors who have built homes and purchased $45,000 - $58,000 lots in this neighborhood have lost
confidence in this developor. There are dozens of examples of why this has occurred - al resulting in a loss of
credibility in his intentions. Examples cited by neighbors include the neglect of public outlots which were
designated active recreational space, the differences in density between concept plans and final plats (see
Sheffield Place as one example), and the implicit or explicit misinformation provided to many homeowners
regarding the future of this area.
The fact that 40 people came to afollow-up meeting with the developer (June 1) is surely evidence of the growing
concerns about this project. We are reliant upon the judgment of the City Council to protect the interests of the citizens
in this community above the financial interests of developors. I urge you to deny this application because this project is
dealy not appropriate for the area and conflicts with what was publicly marketed as Iowa City's 'first planned
community."
Sincerely,
Debora L. Liddell
DEBORA L. LIDDELL
483 1 SOUTHCHASE CT.
IOWA CITY, IA 52245
June 10, 1999
City Council of Iowa City
City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240-1826
RE: Enclosed petition to deny rezoning
Dear Councilors:
Enclosed you will find a copy of a petition for action which will be signed by neighbors and
delivered to you at your upcoming meeting. The focus of the petition is concem over the
proposed rezoning for Parts 12 and 13 of Windsor Ridge development. The purpose of this letter
is to give you advanced notice of the petition for your thoughtful consideration.
If you have read the May 20 minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission, you know that
many neighbors from this area spoke strongly against this application. Neighbors were advised
by the Commission Chair to meet separately with the developers and express our concerns
directly to them. On June 1, approximately 40 people attended a meeting between residents of
the Windsor Ridge/Taft area, Marcia Klingaman, and developers Gary Watts and John Moreland.
That meeting lasted almost three hours and resulted in this request.
In short, there is a wide range of concerns about the neighborhood impact from plans for both the
multi-family projects in Parts 12 and 13, as well as the lack of specificity regarding the proposed
neighborhood commercial zone (Part 14). While Part 14 is not currently under consideration, the
neighbors are very concemed about the ambiguity of the developers' plans for this area and the
subsequent impact of that development on the neighborhoods.
On behalf of the concerned neighbors that will be affected by this development, I urge your
consideration of and action on this important request. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Debora L. Liddell
PETITION FOR ACTION
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
City Council of Iowa City
Planning and Zoning Commission of Iowa City
Neighbors of the Windsor Ridge Area
June 10, 1999
As a resident of the Windsor Ridge development and surrounding neighborhoods, we are
concerned about the proposed developments of Parts 12, 13, and 14. (These plans includes a 72
multi-family-unit development at the end of Arlington, a 28 multi-family-unit development near
the end of Barrington, and an undefined neighborhood commercial development, respectively.)
The general concerns for this development include:
* inadequate buffer between these projects and the existing neighborhood
* increased and invasive lights from the projects
, increased and invasive noise from the projects
, concern for pedestrian safety, particularly children in the existing neighborhood
, increased traffic in the area, especially nonresidential, commercial, and construction traffic
, increased safety issues
, an increase of construction vehicles on Barrington and Arlington which have become primary
construction roadways from Herbert Hoover Highway (via Taft Avenue-American Legion
Road)
* the lack ofa sl~ecific plan for the neighborhood commercial zone (Part 14)
* these projects do not conform to the purposes of the surrounding neighborhood, Windsor
Ridge, a planned community -- in the words of developers "Secluded from the wo~d at large
... a quiet country charm that offers a gorgeous view in a serene, park-like setting" (see
attached ad, June 2, 1999).
Because there are many concerns about how these parts of the subdivision will be
developed, we request the following:
1. The petition to rezone be denied.
2. City staff be directed to meet with residents in the area and the developers to
seek a reasonable approach to developing this area to address the long-term issues
which will affect the quality of life in the surrounding neighborhood. These
issues include, but are not limited to, the appropriateness of the current zoning,
plans for connecting Court Street to Taft Avenue, and for the upgrading of Taf~
Avenue to safely handle an anticipated higher volume of traffic.
Windsor Ridge has repeatedly, and over time, been described by city staff and developers as the
"City' s first totally planned community". The thrust of these concerns and requests is to allow
the residents of this area to be involved in the future planning of their neighborhood.
PETITION FOR ACTION (SEE ATTACHED LETTER)
To deny rezoning of Windsor Ridge Parts 12 & 13
To direct City staff to meet with residents in the area and the developers to seek a reasonable approach to developing this area to
address the long-ten issues which will affect the quality of life in the surrounding neighborhood.
SIGNATURE NAME (Print) ADDRESS PHONE
june 7, 1999
PETITION FOR ACTION (SEE ATTACHED LETTER)
To deny rezoning of Windsor Ridge Parts 12 & 13
To direct City staff to meet with residents in the area and the developers to seek a reasonable approach to developing this area to
address the long-term issues which will affect the quality of life in the surrounding neighborhood.
SIGNATURE
,)
uf
NAME (Print)
c-.
-V-,rt----At-n ~
81~c,'1~ Pi..t, II
ADDRESS
PHONE
PETITION FOR ACTION (SEE ATTACHED LETTER)
To deny rezoning of Windsor Ridge Parts 12 & 13
To direct City staff to meet with ~esidents in the area and the developers to seek a reasonable approach to developing this area to
address the long-term issues which will affect the quality of life in the surrounding neighborhood.
NAME (Print)
ADDRESS
PHONE
3s2-sa o° ,z
5~7- So~/
,_'~ff-'77,//~
PETITION FOR ACTION(SEE ATTACHED LETTER)
To deny rezoning of Windsor Ridge Parts 12 & 13 '
To direct City staff to meet with residents in the area and the d~,velopers to seek a reasonable approach to developing this area to
address the long-term issues which will affect the quality of life in the surrounding neighborhood.
SIGNATURE
NAME (Print)
ADDRESS
PHONE
.~Yl- 3-9..f ~
PETITION FOR ACTION (SEE ATTACHED LETTER)
To deny rezoning of Windsor Ridge Parts 12 & 13
To direct City staff to meet with residents in the area and the developers to seek a reasonable approach to developing this area to
address the long-tenn issues which will affect the quality of life in the surrounding neighborhood.
SIGNATURE NAME (Print) ADDRESS PHONE
PETITION FOR ACTION (SEE ATTACHED LETTER)
To deny rezoning of Windsor Ridge Parts 12 & 13
To direct City staff to meet with residents. in the area and the developers to seek a reasonable approach to developing this area to
address the long-term issues which will affect the quality of life in the surrounding neighborhood.
ADDRESS
SIGNATURE
NAME (Print)
L/~ ~ I ~aufkch a S~ d,
· tl/~V So.,-~c,t,r.,;
4:7-(0c3
PHONE
'%%%
~ ,.%'f- 307?
june 7, 1999
PETITION FOR ACTION (SEE ATTACHED LETTER)
To deny rezoning of Windsor Ridge Parts 12 & 13
To direct City staff to meet with residents in the area and the developers to seek a reasonable approach to developing this area to
address the long-term issues which will affect the quality of life in the surrounding neighborhood.
SIGNAT: ~ENAME (Print) ADDRESS PHONE
Io4~ ~
,~5/--9
~-"-'Z '~'
june 7, 1999
PETITION FOR ACTION (SEE ATTACHED LETTER)
To deny rezoning of Windsor Ridge Parts 12 & 13
To direct City staff to meet with residents in the area and the developers to seek a reasonable approach to developing this area to
address the long-term issues which will affect the quality of life in the surrounding neighborhood.
SIGNATURE NAME (Print) ADDRESS PHONE
gs-F-i,s-Z3
,3s- V* fo z 7
35-tt--Tcot5
7,,~.5' A r / :' ,rl...? Tt"d ri Dr ~ 3 30°-3¢93 [
hb~o ct,~.dle, (-/ 717 - 9~'7.7 I
June 7. 1999
,; .Windsor Ridge
Over 50 acres of green space surround a two acre stocked lake in quiet and serene Windsor Ridge. Two miles of paved
hiking and biking trails connect the private cul de sacs and offer beautiful view that often include deer, geese, pheas-
ants and other wildlife. The strong covenants, landscaping and tree planting program have encouraged top area
builders to create over 110 individually designed custom homes for the Windsor Ridge Community.
Close your eyes and listen. You didn't hear a thing didyour 0r perhaps you PART 9 COMING THIS
, ~ ~ i heard a symphony of rippling watter, ;. gentle br'eeze an~l a bird sweetly S P R IN G
· .. ~:' f.f~!=;: ,~' : """i~' ~ singing. Welcome to Windsor Ridge. '
..... ~, ::.'~'~'~~lill~ Put your family first at Windsor Ridge, allowing them to enjoy the beauty ~ -
, ,.; :,:~.: .=,~'~. :~ - · "q and security this neighborhood offers.
~-, ;~~,q~ ' .~. ....". 0vetsized lots, great access, and a quiet, country charm that offers a gorgeous
· ---"' ' view in a serene, park-like setting. These are the charaderistics that blend
I "" 'I~NI~ together to make Windsor Ridge come alive. These are the characteristics that
,~,4_~..~-/'' ~' I." . you could soon be using to describe your neighborhood to friends and family.
' ':" NED' "
_,,,_ Gary Watts or
~ :!:::~ :~;~;NOWI LEMike Van Dyke
~ ': 351-8811
lt~ether Bu~in~ or B, iI¢Ii,~, Fin(Isor Ei~l~e O~cers ~n ~Fnch~ntin~ Opport,,i~
T/~ ,-~.,1~.,,,,~o~.--~351 '8811T/~ ,.~..,a~-,,,,~o.~_~351 '8811T/~
The following is an excerpt from a staff memorandum to the Planning and Zoning Commission with
respect to a development application for 24 townhouse-style residential units within Windsor Ridge,
Part 13. This parcel was rezoned in 1995 to RS-8, subject to a future planned development
rezoning to ensure general conformance with a concept plan submitted and reviewed at that time.
The concept plan is attached for the Council's reference.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The May 20 staff report regarding this item did not include a full discussion of how this
rezoning and development plan fit within the context of the Comprehensive Plan due to
staff's assumption that the general land use decisions were already made for this property
in 1995 when the parcel was rezoned to RS-8. Based on much of th'~"discussion that
occurred at the May 20 meeting, staff feels a review of the 1995 conkept plan with
respect to the policies and neighborhood design concepts contained in the Comprehensive
Plan would be appropriate.
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed concept plan reviewed and generally endorsed in
1995 does comply with the policies of the current Comprehensive Plan. The Plan clearly
supports the ideas of moderately increasing the overall density of neighborhoods,
incorporating a diversity of housing types within neighborhoods, creating neighborhood
centers as focal points within neighborhoods, reducing vehicular trips throughout Iowa Cit,y
by providing opportunities for neighborhood-scale commercial d~velopment within
neighborhoods, and moderate density housing within and near the neighborhood center!, = "-
Other policies support the process that was followed in this case. ~
Increased Neighborhood Density: It has been well documented in studies throughout the ;.
United States that low-density residential development does not pay for itself in terms of ,,.
taxes collected versus the cost of providing urban services. Low-density sprawl has also
been criticized for its negative impacts on the environment and agricultural areas, as this
type of development consumes large areas of land to house a relatively low number of
people. As a result, communities throughout the Country are adopting policies to
discourage the proliferation of a low-density sprawling development pattern. The
neighborhood design concepts contained in the Comprehensive Plan are Iowa City's
attempt to address these issues City-wide by encouraging a moderate increase in the
overall density of new neighborhoods, while stressing the importance of design in making
this increase acceptable within neighborhoods. These policies do not prohibit or discourage
the establishment of areas of large-lot single-family detached housing. The key is to
integrate these developments into a neighborhood with various types and densities of
housing such that housing opportunities are open for a variety of families and individuals,
and such that the result will be a modest increase in the overall density of a neighborhood.
The City recently extended Court Street from just east of Scott Boulevard to Windsor
Ridge. This project was moved up in the Capital Improvements Program due in part to the
development being proposed within this area of Windsor Ridge, which staff feels is an
obvious step toward meeting the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Would the City have
made this investment if only additional low-density single-family detached housing was
planned for this area? Probably not. Staff feels that the diversity of housing and the
integration of the neighborhood commercial area into the neighborhood were key factors in
the City's decision to extend Court Street at this time.
(See page 22 of the Comprehensive Plan for discussion of more efficient and compact
design)
Neighborhood Commercial Centers: The plan supports the idea of creating several small-
scale neighborhood commercial centers within developing neighborhoods throughout Iowa
City. As noted on page 21 of the Plan,
...a neighborhood commercial area associated with a public square or park can
provide a focal point and gathering place for a neighborhood~ ,,~he businesses within
a neighborhood commercial center should provide shopping oppoFtunities within
convenient walking distance for the residents in the immedia.te area ....
The goal of creating neighborhood commercial centers is not simply for the benefit of
nearby property owners. Successful implementation of this idea could have community-
wide benefits as well. Like most growing communities, traffic issues seem to be at or near
the top of the list in terms of problems or complaints expressed by members of the
community. As new residential development occurs more traffic is generated
(conservatively estimated at 7 - 8 vehicle trips per household per day), resulting in more
traffic on existing streets throughout the community. Some of these involve trips to and
from work or school, to visit relatives or acquaintances, to a restaurant, to recreation or
entertainment facilities, and to shopping areas. The provision of a neighborhood
commercial center within a neighborhood will not eliminate all vehicular trips from nearl~y
residences, but if a percentage of these trips can be captured within individual
neighborhoods throughout the City it can help to address community-wide traffic issues. In
addition, providing a pedestrian-friendly neighborhood commercial zone and a good '~'
pedestrian network within a neighborhood can help to address traffic issues within that
neighborhood. In short, if a family within Windsor Ridge is able to walk or bike along the
neighborhood trail system to a neighborhood commercial center for an ice cream cone and
to rent a video, rather than having to drive to the Towncrest area to do so, it is one small
positive step toward mitigating community-wide and neighborhood traffic problems. It may
not be a huge inconvenience for someone within the neighborhood to make the two-mile
trip to Towncrest as described above, but it is a major issue for those individuals who live
along the streets in between. It is important to keep a community-wide perspective in
mind when considering rezoning and development applications within individual
neighborhoods.
Whether or not a neighborhood commercial center will increase neighborhood traffic is
debatable. The intent of the CN-1 zone, the zone created to allow a neighborhood-scale
commercial development, is to provide areas for businesses that primarily serve the
immediate neighborhood. It is likely that some of the businesses that locate within a
neighborhood commercial area will draw from a wider area, but not to the extent that a
community oriented commercial area will (such as Towncrest or the Highway 6/1 corridor).
Providing good access to the arterial street system should help to ensure that traffic
coming into the neighborhood does not impact local residential streets. In this case, Court
Street will provide the most direct access to the commercial area from most of eastern
Iowa City. Traffic from the neighborhood to the neighborhood commercial center is
presumably not new traffic created by the location of the commercial center, but is traffic
that would otherwise have traveled to another commercial area within the City.
Neighborhood streets would still have been utilized to get to the arterial streets, to then
travel to other commercial destinations. In reality, neighborhood traffic levels likely will
increase to some extent as a result of the location of a neighborhood commercial zone, but
likely not to the degree that may be feared.
There are currently seven CN-1 zones located within Iowa City, and three more are being
recommended in the South District and Northeast District Plans. Some are fully developed,
but most are only partially developed. Because of their nature, the development of these
areas typically lags behind the development of surrounding residential ,uses. Until there is a
neighborhood to serve, it is unlikely that any neighborhood-oriented' b~sinesses will choose
to locate there. It is not reasonable to expect that the final design .and Construction of the
commercial development be addressed in association with the currept application.
(See pages 21,41, 45, 47, and 55 for statements and policies that support the creation of
neighborhood commercial centers within neighborhoods.)
Housing Diversity: The Comprehensive Plan contains a number of policies aimed at
ensuring that our future neighborhoods contain housing for a broad range of families, rather
than creating large homogenous residential areas that exclude families that do not have the
need, the means, or the desire to live in a single-family detached residence. However, the
Plan recognizes that design issues are critical in ensuring that this "mix" is provided sUs, h
that adjacent uses are compatible. Based on input staff has received at various , ~."'
neighborhood planning workshops, information contained in recent planning literature, and'.
in looking at potential traffic impacts associated with various densities of development, it iS
clear that the provision of medium densities is most appropriate along or near arterial
streets. Specific input from the public in neighborhood planning sessions has included a
desire to avoid creating large apartment complexes within single-family neighborhoods, to
ensure that higher density areas have good access to the arterial street system, that
townhouses seem to be more compatible with single-family homes than large apartment
buildings and thus are better as a buffer between single-family and commercial or higher
density areas, and that the areas surrounding neighborhood commercial centers are
appropriate areas for increased density housing.
Not only is the idea of a mix of housing types within neighborhoods an important
component of the Comprehensive Plan, it is also a key component of a neighborhood
commercial center. To be successfully integrated into a residential neighborhood, a
neighborhood commercial center must contain businesses that primarily serve the
immediate neighborhood. This type of business cannot survive without a sufficient
neighborhood population - particularly within a reasonable walking distance. The rezonings
that have occurred along Court Street in this area were supported by staff, in part, because
of their relationship to the future CN-1 zone. Without a neighborhood population sufficient
to support neighborhood oriented businesses, it is likely that businesses drawing from a
broader area will be the only ones interested in locating there. Medium density residential
development around and near a neighborhood commercial center, including the provision of
apartment buildings, townhouses, and apartments above commercial businesses, are all
concepts that are strongly endorsed by the Comprehensive Plan.
It should be noted that the density proposed in this particular case (Part 13) is relatively
low. The gross density proposed by the revised plan is approximately 3.1 units per acre
including the streets, Cardigan Lane, and the park, or about 7.7 when excluding these
areas,
(See pages 21, 45, and 47 for statements regarding housing diversity.)
Planning Process: The process that was used to rezone parcels along Court Street was
questioned by several individuals at the May 20 meeting. They described what appears to
be a "catch 22" situation regarding public involvement in this type of a situation, where
there is no neighborhood participation in the planning of the neighborhood because the
neighborhood has not yet been developed. Yet, how can growth be .~,anned and the
neighborhood design concepts of the Comprehensive Plan successfully implemented if
many of these decisions are not made ahead of time? Staff views.this situation as not
necessarily a "catch 22" situation, but rather a difference in opinion as to how public input
is considered when planning for the development of a neighborhood. In an area where
there is no neighborhood to speak of yet, it is the policies of the Comprehensive Plan,
which were established as a result of a public input process, that help to ensure that the
goals of the community are considered when planning a neighborhood.
"Planning" is essentially making many of the decisions regarding the location of land uses
and infrastructure ahead of time, prior to the development of a neighborhood. The policies
of a community's comprehensive plan and the physical characteristics of the land under
consideration are used as a guide in planning for the development of a neighborhood.
Citizen involvement in the development of Iowa City's Comprehensive Plan came at the
"visioning" stage, in which citizen task forces were established to create the goals and
policies to be incorporated into the Plan, during the public hearings associated with the
adoption of the Plan, and at citizen planning workshops associated with the preparation of""'
district plans. The policies that were adopted as a result of these efforts are used as a
guideline by developers, staff, City boards and commissions, and the Council in making
decisions on items such as the rezonings that occurred within Windsor Ridge over the last
several years. To say that all of these decisions need to wait until the rest of the
neighborhood develops would be essentially non-planning. Given what staff and the
Commission have observed in many other instances where changes are proposed within
developed neighborhoods, this would ensure that few things other than detached single-
family residences are ever constructed. The best the City can do when planning a future
residential neighborhood is work with the developer to ensure that the policies of the
Comprehensive Plan are adhered to in laying out the development. This should result in a
development that is consistent with the goals of the overall community, as expressed in
the plan. It also provides a public record of the potential land uses that could occur within
an area, allowing individuals to make informed decisions when purchasing property. In this
case, staff was concerned about design with relation to the rest of the neighborhood to the
extent that a planned development overlay rezoning was recommended and required by the
Commission and City Council, mainly to ensure that what was illustrated on the concept
plans in 1995 would be adhered to when the property was developed.
One of the reasons for rezoning in 1995 was to get the zoning in place to reflect the
development planned in this area so those buying into the neighborhood would know what
to expect. Homebuyers often check the Comprehensive Plan and the established zoning in
an area before buying a home by calling or stopping at City offices. Generally, establishing
the zoning ahead of time is seen as a positive thing, in that a developer is willing to make
his or her intentions known for a future development area by establishing a public record
through the rezoning process.
(See pages 45 and 47 for statements regarding zoning parcels in advance of development
and/or at the time of annexation)
Summary: In summary, the Plan supports a moderate increase in the overall density of
newly developing residential neighborhoods, the creation of neighborhood commercial
centers, the provision of higher density residential development in, around and near the
neighborhood commercial centers, and the provision of a mix of hou,s.j~g types within
neighborhoods, providing housing opportunities for a broad range of indi'viduals and
families. In addition, the plan advocates zoning parcels in advance 9f development to
ensure that the goal of providing of a variety of housing types is achievable, and so that
the public has an opportunity to make informed decisions when purchasing property within
Iowa City. In staff's opinion, the applicant's plans for the development of property near
Court Street are consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, as was the
process used to obtain the current zoning classifications.
! \
.,.
.... "' ' ....... - ,-,,
~ ..... ~,~_. ::::::::::::::::::::::::: ,,~ ~ ....... ,::.:~:~:.. _~_ ~~.~
.,~_
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing
will be held by the City Council of Iowa City,
Iowa, at 7:00 p.m. on the 15~ day of June,
1999, in the Civic Center Council Chambers,
410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa, or
if said meeting is cancelled, at-the next
meeting of the City Council thereafter as
posted by the City Clerk, at which hearing the
Council will consider:
1. An ordinance conditionally changing the
zoning designation of approximately 7.46
acres from Medium Density Single-Family
Residential (RS-8) to Planned Development
Housing Overlay (OPDH-8) and the
approval of a preliminary OPDH Plan for 72
residential dwelling units on property
located at the east terminus of Court
61,reet·
n ordinance amending Title 14, Chapter
Zoning, Article O, Sign Regulations, by
changing the requirements regarding the
number of freestanding signs on lots with
over 300 feet of frontage.
3. An ordinance vacating a I O-foot wide right-
of-way located along the west line of
property located at 1033 E. Washington
Street.
Copies of the proposed ordinances are on file
for public examination in the office of the City
Clerk, Civic Center, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons
wishing to make their viev~s known for Council
consideration are encouraged to appear at the
above-mentioned time and place.
MARlAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK
Prepared by Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, City of Iowa City, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319/356-6251
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE
SECTION 14-6, "ZONING CHAPTER,"
CONCERNING FREESTANDING SIGNS.
WHEREAS, the sign regulations are
intended to enhance and protect the physical
appearance and safety of the community
while providing a reasonable opportunity for
sign users to display signs without
interference form other signage and to
provide fair and equitable treatment for all
sign users, and
WHEREAS, the current regulations
pertaining to freestanding signs may not
provide for adequate signs for large tracts
with frontage in excess of 300 feet, and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning
Commission has recommended approval of
amendments to the sign regulations to allow
additional freestanding signs for tracts with
frontage in excess of 300 feet.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I. AMENDMENTS. City Code Title
14, Chapter 6, entitled "Zoning Chapter," is
hereby amended as follows:
Article O, entitled "Sign Regulations," is
hereby amended by:
Repealing subsection 14-60-5.D .2 .b.
concerning freestanding sings and
incorporating in lieu thereof a new
subsection 14-60-5.D.2.b as follows:
b. Two (2) freestanding or monument
signs or one freestanding sign and one
monument sign are permitted, provided
frontage along a single lot is not less
than one hundred sixty feet (160'). The
distance between two (2) freestanding
signs shall be no less than one hundred
fifty feet (150') as measured along the
frontage of a single lot.
Ordinance No.
Page 2
Any lot with a frontage in excess of three
hundred feet (300') may have up to
three (3) freestanding signs per
frontage, provided the signs are at least
one hundred fifty feet (150') apart,
measured along the frontage, and there
are no more than four (4) freestanding
signs on any lot. A tract of integrated
lots shall be considered a single lot
consistent with the definition of tract in
this Chapter.
SECTION II. REPEALER: All ordinances and
parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions
of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section,
provision or part of the Ordinance shall be
adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such
adjudication shall not affect the validity of the
Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision
or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconsti-
tutional.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordi-
nance shall be in effect after its final passage,
approval and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this
day of
,1999.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
2ity Att0'r' ~'sA ' Y
ppdadmin\ord\restpark.doc
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 29, 1999
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Karin Franklin, Director, PCD
Re: Sign Ordinance Amendment - Free-Standing Signs
The City Council was recently asked to amend the sign regulations to permit more than two free-
standing signs on large tracts of land with extended or multiple frontages. The Council agreed to
consider such an amendment and directed the staff to make this a priority.
Currently, properties are limited to a maximum of two free-standing signs per lot which are allowed
only when the lot has at least 160' of frontage and the signs are spaced 150' apart. This is permitted
only in the commercial zones of CH-1, CC-2, and C1-1. The substance of the request is the
allowance of more than two free-standing signs when the lot has considerably more frontage than
160' or when there are multiple frontages. The zones where this is permitted is not an issue.
Although very large lots could exist in which this issue would arise, the problem appears to occur
with more frequency when there are two or more lots (often owned by different entities) which are
integrated for traffic circulation, access and parking. These lots are treated by the zoning code as a
single lot under the definition of tract. Because the code only allows two free-standing signs on a
single lot and a tract is to be treated as a lot, the tract of integrated lots is limited to two free-standing
signs even though a free-standing sign would be permitted on each lot if the lots were not part of a
tract. This seems inequitable. As we encourage more integration of commercial properties to control
access and alleviate side friction on our arterial streets, the free-standing sign issue may come up
more frequently.
The sign regulations control the number, size, location and type of signs to alleviate visual clutter
along public streets while allowing sufficient signage for businesses to succeed. Often individual
businesses (retailers especially) will seek to maximize their signage to attract customers. At some
point, the number and size of signs of all the businesses collectively can become so visually
overwhelming, customers cannot find the business they wish to patronize in the sea of signs. The
consequence of this visual clutter becomes one of public safety, not just aesthetics, as drivers try to
sort out the signs.
The question before the Commission is the reasonable and equitable number of free-standing signs
to be permitted on large lots with extensive or multiple frontages such that the intent of the sign
regulations is met while the needs of the businesses are reasonably satisfied.
There are two examples of commercial corridors in Iowa City where the number of free-standing
signs has become an issue for the property owners. They are the K-Mart area on Highway 6 and the
integrated businesses on the west side of Riverside Drive, south of Benton Street. Presented below
is the length of the frontage of a portion of each corridor, the maximum number of signs permitted
assuming the frontage is divided into 160' lots, the maximum number of signs permitted under the
current regulations given existing property lines, and the number of signs permitted if free-standing
signs were permitted at a rate of one for every 150' per lot.
Signs if frontage Current Regs
divided into given existing
Frontage 160' Lots property lines One/150'
Hwy 6:
Keokuk to Broadway
(south side)
1200' 14 6 8
Riverside Drive:
Benton to Hwy 6 (west side)
840' 10 7 5
Westport Plaza 900' 10 2' 6
Menard's Area 1200' 14 2' 8
*Regulated by conditional zoning agreement - would not be changed by this amendment.
On the Highway 6 frontage described, there are three lots, as defined by the Zoning Ordinance.
There are four separately owned parcels. The frontages of the K-Mart/Pepperwood center include
approximately 700 feet on Highway 6, 500 feet on Broadway, and 400 feet on Keokuk Street. This
center is restricted to a total of two free-standing signs. This allowance is currently consumed with
the Video Update sign and the multi-business Pepperwood sign. Existing and potential businesses in
the K-Mart/Pepperwood center would like the option of free-standing signage in addition to the two
currently allowed. At this point, one additional sign is requested on Highway 6 and one on Broadway
(see attached letter from Harry Wolf).
On Riverside Drive, three new businesses are opening south of Flowerama. The integrated lots,
owned by at least three entities, extend from the alley south of Flowemma to the corner of Highway
1. Thus, there is frontage on Riverside Drive and Highway 1. Presently, there are two free-standing
signs on this lot (tract); one on Highway 1 for JoAnn Fabrics and one on Riverside Drive for Fin and
Feather. The Kentucky Fried Chicken store and its sign may also be considered part of this tract. In
pursuing a replacement free-standing sign for one of the new businesses, the property owner found
that a new sign is disallowed because of the existence of the other two free-standing signs on this
tract. In this instance, five businesses (not including Kentucky Fried Chicken) on three separately
owned but integrated lots are permitted a total of two free-standing signs to cover both frontages. On
the other side of Riverside Drive, there are five businesses with five separate free-standing signs.
Proposal: In balancing the desire to reduce signage to reduce visual clutter and yet provide
adequate signage for businesses, an allowance for more signage on large lots or integrated tracts
may be appropriate. The proposal is to allow lots (including integrated lots or tracts) with frontage in
excess of 300' to have a free-standing sign every 150', not to exceed three free-standing signs on
any one frontage or, for lots with multiple frontages, no more than four free-standing signs on the lot.
This allows the property owner(s) the flexibility to determine how the signage will be distributed along
the frontage(s), increases the allowable signage, yet keeps the signage to a reasonable level along
the public right-of-way.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the following language to amend Section 14-60-5.D.2:
b. Two (2) free-standing or monument signs or one free-standing sign and one monument
sign are permitted, provided frontage along a single lot is not less than one hundred sixty
feet (160'). The distance between two (2) flee-standing signs shall be no less than one
hundred fifty feet (150') as measured along the frontage of a single lot.
Any lot with a frontage in excess of three hundred feet (300') may have up to three (3) free-
standing signs per frontage provided the signs are at least one hundred fifty feet (150') apart,
measured along the frontage, and there are no more than four (4) free-standing signs on any
lot. A tract of integrated lots shall be considered a single lot consistent with the definition of
tact in this Chapter.
ppddir~memos%signord.doc
March 3, 1999
Mayor Ernie Lehman and City Co;:neil
City of Iowa City
Civic Center
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 522-40
DEVELOPMENT
755 Mormon Trek Blvd.
P.O. Box 1907
Iowa City, IA 52244-1907
PH: (319) 337-4195
FAX: (319) 337~9823
II
Dear Mayor Lehman,
I recently investigated the..ptions for additional free standing signage in the
Kmart/Pepperwood area. Due to the vacancy created by Best Buy's relocation as well as
the competitive nature of the retail market, the request fi~r signage by my retail tenants
(including Kmart and Eeonoti~ods) haq increased significantly.
Based upon the Zoning Code Interpretation Panel's review of the ordinance
governing signage in the CC2 zon ':., we are currently at the maximum ,'tlltx:ated signage
for the parcel with just 2 free standing signs.
Based upon the tracts significant size (20+ acres), multiple frontage (4), extensive
Highway 6 frontage (750+feet) ar, tl overall developed square fc×~tage (220,000+ s.12) the
allowed signage is proving to be inadequate.
We hercin request an atnendment to the code to increase the allowed signage to
more fairly serve the tenants of the area. Due to the competitive nature of the mark,~t. we
would respectfully request irnmedi,tte attention to our request.
Sincerely,
Vice President
Co: Planning and Zoning Q~mmission
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing
will be held by the City Council of Iowa City,
Iowa, at 7:00 p,m. on the 15~ day of June,
1999, in the Civic Center Council Chambers,
410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa, or
if said meeting is cancelled, at the next
meeting of the City Council thereafter as
posted by the City Clerk, at which hearing the
Council will consider:
1. An ordinance conditionally changing the
zoning designation of approximately 7.46
acres from Medium Density Single-Family
Residential (RS-8) to Planned Development
Housing Overlay (OPDH-8) and the
approval of a preliminary OPDH Plan for 72
residential dwelling units on property
located at the east terminus of Court
Street.
2. An ordinance amending Title 14, Chapter
6, Zoning, Article O, Sign Regulations, by
changing the requirements regarding the
number of freestanding signs on lots with
ver 300 feet of frontage.
~An ordinance vacating a 10-foot wide right-
~of-way located along the west line of
property located at 1033 E. Washington
Street.
Copies of the proposed ordinances are on file
for public examination in the office of the City
Clerk, Civic Center, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons
wishing to make their views known for Council
consideration are encouraged to appear at the
above-mentioned time and place.
MARlAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK
Prepared by: John Yapp, Assoc. Planner, 410 E.-Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5247
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE VACATING A TEN-FOOT
WIDE RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED ALONG
THE WEST PROPERTY LINE AT 1033
EAST WASHINGTON STREET.
WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City has
received a request from James and Chdstine
Waiters to vacate the ten-foot wide right-of-way
located along the west property line of Lot 7,
Koser Brothers Subdivision, also known as 1033
East Washington Street; and
WHEREAS, the subject right--of-way is
undeveloped, and does not contain any public or
private utilities; and
WHEREAS, the City has no plans to ever
develop the right-of-way for an alley or a walkway;
and
WHEREAS, it is in the City's interest to vacate
and dispose of public right-of-way that is not going
to be used for public access.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I. VACATION. The City of Iowa
City hereby vacates the right--of-way legally
described as follows:
The ten-foot wide right-of-way along the 170
foot long west property line of Lot 7, Koser
Brothers Subdivision, an area of 1,700 square feet
more or less.
SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances
and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provi-
sions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any
section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be
adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such
adjudication shall not affect the validity of the
Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or
part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconsti-
tutional.
SECTION IV. CERTIFICATION AND
RECORDING. The City Clerk is hereby
authorized and directed to certify a copy of this
ordinance which shall be recorded by the owner
at the office of the County Recorder of Johnson
County, lows, upon final passage and publication
as provided by law.
Ordinance No.
Page 2
SECTION V. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordi-
nance shall be in effect after its final passage,
approval and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of
,1999.
MAYOR
ATrEST:
CITY CLERK
STAFF REPORT
To: Board of Adjustment
Prepared by: John Yapp, Assc. Planner
Item: VAC99-0002.1033 E. Washington Street Date: May 6, 1999
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
James and Christine Waiters
1033 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Requested action:
Right-of-way vacation
Purpose:
To allow adjacent property owner to
acquire right-of-way and incorporate it
into private property.
Location:
The south side of Washington Street in
between 1033 and 1025 Washington
Street.
Property size:
approximately 1,700 square feet.
Existing land use and zoning:
Medium Density,
Residential, RS-8
Single-Family
Surrounding land use and zoning:
North:
East:
SOuth:
West:
Medium Density, Single-Family
Residential, RS-8
Medium Density, Single-Family
Residential, RS-8
Medium Density, Single-Family
Residential, RS-8
Neighborhood Conservation
Residential, RNC-20
Comprehensive Plan:
2 to 8 dwelling units per acre
File date:
March 19, 1999
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
James and Christine Waiters have applied for the vacation of a ten-foot wide right-of-way
along the west property line of their property at 1033 East Washington Street (Lot 7, Koser
Brothers Subdivision). This ten-foot wide right-of-way was apparently intended to be an alley
when this area was originally platted. The right-of-way has never been developed or used as
an alley, and in fact appears to have been used as yard space by the adjacent residential
properties.
ANALYSIS:
In general release of a street or alley right-of-way should not be recommended when it would
result in 1) detrimental vehicular or pedestrian circulation, 2) interference with the rights of
access to any private property, or 3) if it would inhibit the access of fire or emergency
vehicles, or utility service vehicles.
The ten-foot wide right-of-way proposed for vacation has never been developed as an alley.
Given that the land slopes upward from Washington Street, it would be difficult to construct
an alley within the right-of-way. Given the close proximity of Muscatine Avenue to this ten-
foot wide right-of-way, staff feels it is unnecessary to retain the right-of-way for a walkway
or for any other public access reason. Vacating the right-of-way will not interfere with access
to any private property, nor will it inhibit the access of fire, emergency, or utility service
vehicles.
Staff has notified utility companies of the proposed vacation. It appears there are not any
utilities in the right-of-way.
Staff has notified the owner of the property on the west side of the right-of-way of the
proposed vacation. After a property is vacated it may be sold to adjacent property owners. if
both adjacent property owners are interested in acquiring the vacated area, it has been the
City' s policy to sell half the area to each abutting property owner. In this case each adjacent
property owner would purchase five feet of the ten-foot wide right-of-way along the sides of
their lots. Members of the Hayek family, who own the property on the west side of the right-
of-way, have indicated they are interested in acquiring half of the area being vacated.
Given that the right-of-way has been used as yard space by adjacent properties, and that it
has not been used nor will it likely be needed for public access purposes, it is in the public
interest to vacate the property. After the right-of-way is vacated, it may be purchased by
the adjacent property owners.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that VAC99-0002, a request to vacate the ten-foot wide right-of-way
along the west side of Lot 7 of Koser Brothers Subdivision, be approved.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
ppdadmin~tfrep~99-0002jy.doc
Approved by:
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Department of Planning and
Community Development
RM
12
Q
CD
CITY OF I0~ CITY
IOWA
AVE
WASHINGTON ST
COLLEGE ST
RNC2O-
SITE LOCATION: 1033 E. Washington Street VAC99-0002
,t
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that public hearings
will be held by the City Council of Iowa City,
Iowa, at 7:00 p.m. on the 30'" day of March,
1999, in the Civic Center Council Chambers,
410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa; at
whi hearing the Council will consider:
....
Comprehensive Plan.
2. An ordinance-amending City Code
SubseCtion 14-4B t6 change Board of
Adjustment notice requirements and. to
incorporate Board powers 8nd procedures into
the Zoning Chapter.
3. An ordinance changing the zoning
designation of 2.78 acres located at the
northeast corner of Duck Creek Drive and
Rohret Road from Low Density Single-Family
Residential' (RS-5} to Sensitive Areas
Overlay/Low Density Residential (OSA-5} to
permit a 14-unit residential development.
Copies of the proposed resolution and
ordinances are on file for public examination in
the office of the City Clerk, Civic Center, Iowa
City, Iowa. PersOns wishing to make their
.,
wows known for Council consideration are
encouraged to appear at the above-mentioned
time and place·
MARlAN K. KARR: CITY 'CLERK
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 10, 1999
To: City Council
From: Robert Miklo
Re:
Northeast District Plan
Staff met with representatives of The Home Builders Association on June 3 to discuss the
Northeast District Plan. The Home Builders plan to present to the Council a written proposal for
amendments to the plan.
We have attached a proposed appendix to the plan. The appendix outlines the citizen
participation process for the Northeast District Plan. It includes a list of citizens who
participated. A similar appendix was included in the South District Plan.
We have also attached two articles from the magazine of The National Association of Home
Builders, which discuss the pros and cons of many of the development principles contained in
the Northeast District Plan.
28
APPENDIX A:
citizens Participate in Planning New Neighborhoods In the Northeast Planning District of Iowa City
ln November 1997, the Iowa City urban planning staff formed a team to collect background
information on the Northeast District of Iowa City located south of Interstate 80, general ly east
of First Avenue, and north of Court Street. Major street extensions, regional stormwater management,
and parks and trails planned for the area were noted on base maps. Environmental features, historic
resources, existing land uses and comprehensive plan parameters for developing neighborhoods were
gathered and set forth in text, photographs and maps to be used by people involved in the citizen
planning workshops in March and April 1998.
In connection with the data gathering phase of the Northeast District planning process, staff con-
ducted interviews with major property owners, including ACT officials Dick Ferguson and Joe Pugh,
Citizens working on the Northeast District Plan.
Plum Grove Acres property owner Bruce
Glasgow, a representative of the S m ith estate,
Press Citizen publisher Charles Wanninger,
Samuel and Henrietta Miller, Windsor Ridge
developer Gary Watts, Susan Hamdoff, and
Jerry Lindemann. At these meetings, staff
provided a briefing on the district planning
process and elicited information on the his-
tory of the area and plans these property
owners might have for future development
oftheirproperties.
The staff also conducted informational meet-
ings with members of the Bluffwood Neigh-
borhood Association and the Rochester Hills
Homeowners Association, and discussed
specific aspects of the plan with Iowa City Community School District officials, the State Archeologists'
Office and members of the Iowa City Environmental Technical Advisory Committee. At each meet-
ing, the planning staff gained additional specific information on properties, land uses, environmental
constraints and planning preferences concerning development of new neighborhoods in the North-
east District.
Nearly 1500 invitations to the March 23 and 26, 1998, citizen neighborhood planning workshops
were mai led to property owners in the Northeast District, local developers, environmental interests,
the Homebuilders Association, Chamber of Commerce, neighborhood and homeowner associations,
Iowa City Commissions (Parks & Recreation, Riverfront & Natural Areas, Planning & Zoning), the City
Council and the Johnson County Supervisors. People, who wished to participate in the hands-on
planning workshops at the Lemme Elementary School media center, were asked to call in their reser-
vations. Informational packets were forwarded to people who indicated an interest - whether they
were able to attend the meeting or not. Because there was an overwhelming response to the invita-
tions to the March workshops, staff scheduled a second set of workshops was scheduled for April 6
and 7, 1998.
29
Following an introductory briefing at the initial session of each set of workshops, the participants
divided into planning teams to discuss and map their ideas for neighborhood streets, commercial
areas, parks/trails and housing. The following participants formulated ideas for neighborhood devel-
opment in the Northeast District.
Henrietta Miller
Dorie Forkenbrock
Larry Wilson
Richard Pretorius
G.W. Seifert
Betty Irwin
Katy Carlson
Gary Carlson
Jim Stevens
Robert Stevens
Mrs. Robert Stevens
Jan Locher
Cliff Howe
Sue Hill
Lori Fuller
Mary Anne Berg
David Gosse
Debbie Pretori us
Bennett Brown
David Forkenbrock
Gary Watts
Mark G rover
Madeline Sull ivan
Chris Stephan
Derek Maurer
Dorothy Paul
Jim Throgmorton
Bill Mitchell
Lynn Richman
Janice Prochaska
Merle Trummel
Carlton Blas~
Steve Locher
Charles Ruppert
Marci Lindsay
Pam Ehrhardt
Bob Buchmiller
Tom Ham
Amy Bouska
Patti Santangelo
Jim Spratt
El len Sweet
Jess Irwin
Wes LaMarche
Russ Bennett
Sharon Ham
David Purdy
David Calvert
Kitty Kelly
Juanita Richman
Samuel Miller
Lea Supple
Dianne Kaufman
Lynn Myers
Diana Paulina
Jean Spector
Nancy Ostragnai
Candida Maurer
Louise Larew
Kevin Crawley
Christine Mullen
Courtney Daniels
Charles Eble
Charles Denneny
Richard Larew
Doral Colton
Ann Bovbjerg
Nori Meyers
Del Holland
Janny van Aalderen
Richard Rhodes II
Kevin Boyd
John Beasley
Cam Campbell
Lowell Edmundson
Kathy Janz
Holly Hart
Ben Lewis
Kim Painter
Matt Pol lard
Will iam Forde
Judith Sutherland
Phil Hottel
Dan Johnson-O'Mara
Harriet Johnson-O'Mara
Ann Bossen
At a follow-up meeting on April 23, 1998, team members merged once again to refine the scenarios
presented by staff. Many of the concepts generated by the citizen planning teams were integrated into
the planning document for the Northeast
District. Although the majority of the plan-
ning teams opposed the extension of First
Avenue, the draft plan recommended for
approval by staff and the Planning and Zon-
ing Commission included the extension. In
making its recommendation, the Commis-
sion indicated that First Avenue was
needed for community-wide traffic circu-
lation and to equitably distribute traffic
among neighborhoods.
Citizens working on the Northeast District Plan.
Alleviating Opposition to Development:
An Environmentalisrs Perspective
By Edward T. McMahon
Builders and developers can
follow these suggestions to
reduce public opposition to
new development.
· ] n recent months, newspapers around
the country have reported stories about
homeowners packing public hearings
· to condemn proposed subdivisions and
strip centers near their homes; demon-
strators shouting down a developer who
proposed a new condominium complex;
angry neighbors storming onto a local ten-
nis court to berate a development lawyer;
and even how the Sierra Club has turned
: its attention from saving wilderness areas
:
to fighting local developers.
From Phoenix to Philadelphia, a rising
tide of hostility is engulfing developers,
:
home builders, and their representatives.
· Growth is a major issue for local govern-
ments in every region of the country.
Snarled traffic, crowded schools, and tepid
: house prices have caused one jurisdiction
· after another to crack down on "develop-
: ment." Prince George's County, Maryland,
· has banned new townhouses. Prince
William County, Virginia, has downzoned
half of its land area. Eleven California com-
~ '" :'" '- : ': * ': ,'. :'- ·. * :- 2 - .' ;Y',-- c:,=-~}_.-: ' ~N_ ,_
NmmdRional d~i~ relegates the ~mge to the rear, the side, or a lane ~ the Mck ~ the
pm~rty, elimin~ing the ~on~ard garage that is so ~en dislik~ by prosetire homebuyen.
munities have enacted growth boundaries.
Even progrowth communities such as
Phoenix and Salt Lake City have begun to
question the desirability of more subdivi-
sions.
Why is everybody so angry? Why has
fighting development become a national
pastime? And what, if anything, can builders
do to alleviate public opposition to new de-
velopment?
Developers have not always been held
in such low regard. In fact, throughout his-
tory, some of America's most famous and
revered figures have been developers:
Thomas Jefferson, William Penn, James
Oglethorpe, and Jim Rouse, to name just a
few. The University of Virginia, Savannah's
renowned squares, Charleston's rowhous-
es, Rockefeller Center, Baltimore's Inner
Harbor, the tree-shaded streets of Coral
Gables, Oak Park, and Chevy Chase, and
many more of America's most-beloved and
memorable places did not just spring up on
their own. In recent years, however, "devel-
oper" has become a tainted word. What's
changed?
Anyplace, USA
One change is the character and look of new
development. We live in a country of high-
ly varied history, climate, culture, and ter-
rain. At one time, structures were indica-
tive of the regional vernacular: white
clapboard houses in New England, adobe
in New Mexico, stone or stucco in the Vir-
ginia Piedmont. Today, however, new com-
munities all over America look like they
were assembled from Legos--interchange-
able parts.
Today, if you were suddenly air-dropped
into a subdivision or onto a road outside
almost any American city, you would have
no idea of your whereabouts because every-
thing looks exactly the same. Is it Albany or
Albuquerque? Providence or Pittsburgh?
8 Land Development/Spring-Summer 1999
Richmond or Rochester.~ Who can tell?
People complain about rising taxes, traf-
fic congestion, air pollution, loss of green
space, and other symptoms of sprawl, but
one of the greatest sources of complaint is
that much recent development is uniform-
ly unattractive regardless of community or
region. A civic activist in Orange County,
California, said, "We were in favor of
progress until we saw what it looked like."
Four-fifths of all structures ever con-
structed in America have been built since
the end of World War II, and many people
think a lot of it is junk: minimarts, metal
self-storage sheds, vinyl fast-food franchis-
es, billboards, big-box retailers, particle
board townhouses, super-ramas, mega-
malls, and all the rest.
As a result, many people now believe
that new construction will further detract
from their communities. In his book The
Geography of Nowhere, James Howard Kun-
stler says that people "are convinced the fu-
ture is going to be worse than the past, be-
cause the future has been getting worse
through their lifetime. Growth simply
means more traffic, bigger parking lots, and
buildings bigger and uglier than before."
It is not surprising, then, that many peo-
ple have become NIMBYs (Not In My Back
Yard) or BANANAs (Build Absolutely
Nothing Anywhere Near Anything). NIM-
BYs use their local government to torment
developers with layer upon layer of regula-
tion and bureaucratic hoopla. Eventually,
the regulations make development of any
type so expensive and time-consuming that
growth starts to leapfrog to the next juris-
diction farther out, where the process starts
all over again.
Towns versus Sprawl
Another change that fuels citizen opposi-
tion to growth is how we arrange develop-
ment. For three centuries, America built vil-
lages, towns, and cities with clearly
identified centers and well-defined edges
beyond which lay farms, forests, and coun-
tryside. Since the 1950s, the centrifugal
forces of sprawl have blurred the distinc-
tion between city and countryside, taking
all the elements that once made up human
settlements--homes, schools, shops, offices,
factories, and so forth and flinging them
randomly across the landscape.
As growth sprawls farther and farther
out, our lives become more stressful. Once
we had neighborhood schools and corner
stores. Children could walk or bicycle to
school. Senior citizens had the freedom to
stroll to the library, pharmacy, or barber-
shop. Today, the average family spends 18
percent of its income for a fleet of cars to
navigate between distant housing tracts,
commercial strips, and office complexes lo-
cated along congested and dangerous roads.
Parents spend their weekends chauffeuring
their children to birthday parties, soccer
practice, the mall, and everywhere else. Even
a trip to the convenience store means a ten-
minute drive to a minimart on a highway
flanked by strip developments.
Developers say, "We just build what the
market wants:' And there is no denying that
people like the modern conveniences of to-
day's typical new house. But it is equally un-
deniable that many homebuyers purchase
houses in communities that they know are
Land Development/Spring-Summer 1999 9
A tree conservation program enhances the appeal and value of a development and reduces public
opposition to new construction.
flawed. They buy because of location, the
quality of the local schools, or price, even
though they might prefer houses and com-
munities vas~y different from what builders
and developers currently offer.
Several recent studies conducted for the
home building industry by American Lives,
Inc.la San Francisco-based polling firm
that interviews 80,000 to 100,000 con-
sumers a yearand Inter-Communica-
tions, Inc., illustrate the extent to which
consumer preferences vary from the pre-
vailing development paradigm. Developers
spend large amounts of money building
subdivisions that feature daborate entrance
signs, houses with gaping garages, and ten-
nis courts and golf courses. Consumers,
however, rate natural open space, walking
and bicycle trails, and hidden garages as
more desirable features. Likewise, our sub-
urbs are dominated by strip shopping cen-
ters, but most people say they would pre-
fer town centers with village greens
surrounded by shops, civic buildings, hous-
es of worship, and so forth.
Similarly, when the Gallup Poll organi-
zation asked Americans where they would
most like to live--a city, suburb, small town,
or rural area--a plurality said that, given a
choice, they would prefer a traditional small
town. Their answers bring to mind almost
any small town in America, places such as
Lexington, Virginia; Chestertown, Mary-
land; Gettysburg, Pennsylvania; or Sono-
ma, California. All these communities have
Growth is inevitable,
but the loss of
natural areas and
community character
that so often
accompanies
development is not.
certain elements in common: an identifi-
able edge and a center. They are walkable
and pedestrian-friendly. They offer a mix
of housing, small shops, and civic build-
ings. They are architecturally coherent and
attractive. They are distinguished by street
trees and sidewalks, exude a sense of com-
munity, and reflect regional variation.
Most developers, and, for that matter,
most local governments consider small
towns and beloved urban neighborhoods
as charming anachronisms rather than as
models for how we could or should build
both today and in the future. Downtown
Frederick, Maryland, for example, is fre-
quently touted for its walkability and
charm, but it is .treated as if it were irrele-
vant to planning the future of Frederick
County.
Growth is inevitable, but the loss of nat-
ural areas and community character that
so often accompanies development is not.
The question is not whether our commu-
nities will grow but rather how. The failure
to understand the "how" question is what
causes some people to label all development
as undesirable. The result, of course, is po-
larization and the likely defeat of efforts to
create successful communities. Instead of
debating whether growth will occur, our
communities should be discussing the pat-
terns of development: where we put it, how
we arrange it, and what it looks like. If they
start from this premise, today's builders can
take several steps to alleviate public oppo-
sition to development.
Support Opon~poce Protection Efforts
Recognizing that the accelerating loss of
natural areas and green space continues to
drive antigrowth sentiment, developers
should join forces with civic groups and en-
vironmentalists to support local, regional,
and statewide open-space protection ef-
forts. Indeed, the accelerating loss of nat°
ural areas and green space is one of the ma-
jor reasons that antigrowth sentiment is
growing throughout America. When peo-
ple think that all the land in their commu-
nity is up for grabs, they oppose all devel-
opment everywhere. On the other hand,
when people have some assurance that spe-
cial places will be preserved, they are less
likely to fight development at every turn.
Every jurisdiction needs an open-space
protection plan and the financial resources
to implement that plan. When communi-
ties create a road map delineating the lands
10 Land Development/Spring-Summer 1999
and areas to be preserved, they become
more amenable to accommodating high-
quality development in areas where it is
most appropriate. Likewise, the faster a met-
ropolitan area grows, the more important
it is to establish a network of natural areas
and open spaces that allow people to expe-
rience the natural world and all its beauty.
Just as communities need to upgrade and
expand their grey infrastructure (i.e., roads,
transit lines, sewers, and so forth) so too
communities need to upgrade and expand
their "green" infrastructure (i.e., parks,
greenways, natural areas, and so forth).
Green space can provide a framework
for new development by helping to shape
and direct growth. In fact, development can
even save land. In Montgomery County,
Maryland, a "transfer of development
rights" program has helped preserve over
40,000 acres of farmland, forests, stream
corridors, and scenic viewsheds. The pro-
gram allows builders to buy development
rights from rural landowners and transfer
the rights to areas better served by roads,
sewers, and other types of public infra-
structure.
Save the Trees
Few development-related issues rankle peo-
ple more than the prospect of cutting down
mature trees. When trees flourish on land
slated for development, tree preservation
makes good economic, environmental, and
political sense. Whether a development pro-
posal calls for a new subdivision or other
major project, tree preservation translates
into enhanced property values and a more
pleasant place to live and work. And savvy
developers know that mature trees pre-
served during development add more val-
ue to the individual lot than postconstruc-
tion landscaping.
The forest products industry has long
recognized the negative impact of high-
ly visible clear cuts on the public percep-
tion of the industry. Likewise, builders
who clear cut trees or radically grade a
site to facilitate the construction process
make a huge mistake. NAHB's publica-
tion Building Greener Neighborhoods:
Trees as Part of the Plan is filled with case
studies that demonstrate the lucrative
market of renters and homebuyers who
prefer and will pay more for lots with
trees. Case studies show that developed
lots with trees sell for an average of 20 to
30 percent more than similarly sized lots
without trees and that tree removal can
dramatically lower the value of devel-
opable lots. Tree planning and preserva-
tion can pay off not only on upscale prop-
erties, but it is also economically feasible
on small, inexpensive lots. Conserving
trees enhances the appeal and value of a
development and lessens public opposi-
tion to new construction. Building with
trees should be the rule rather than the
exception.
Land Development/Spring-Summer 1999 11
Stop Building Look-alike Houses
Buyers spurn cookie-cutter subdivisions
and disdain the homogeneous look of many
of today's new houses and communities.
Jim Constantine, whose firm Community
Planning and Research conducts "curb ap-
peal" surveys to discover the types of home
designs preferred by customers, says that
"buyers are increasingly attracted to ver-
nacular and historical house styles that
characterize the immediate area or region."
Visual preference surveys conducted across
the country reveal that the frontyard garage
is the least popular aspect of many new
housing developments. The growing pop-
ularity of neotraditional design has much
to do with the historic styling of new hous-
es. That styling relegates the garage to the
rear, the side, or a lane at the back of the
property. For more information on adapt-
ing vernacular house styles to modern floor
plans and interiors see James W. Wentling's
article "Using Vernacular Architecture in
New Home Design" in the fall 1995 issue of
LAND DEVELOPMENT.
Provide Public Plazas and Places to Walk
Walking is the single most popular form of
outdoor recreation in America, but new
suburbs provide few places to walk and al-
most no focal points---except the mall--
for community gatherings. Research con-
ducted by American Lives, Inc., found that
consumers rank "walking and bicycle paths"
as one of the top features they desire in new
communities. Walking trails and bicycle
paths make possible a wide array of envi-
ronmental, economic, and physical fitness
benefits and reduce community depen-
dence on the automobile--an important
consideration given the role of traffic con-
gestion in the burgeoning slow-growth
movement. Davis, California, for example,
a city of 55,000 people near Sacramento,
boasts 35 miles of bicycle lanes--equiva-
lent to about one-third of the city's 107-
mile street network--and another 36 miles
of separate off-road bicycle paths. The city
requires employers to provide secure bicy-
cle parking and shower facilities. As a re-
suit, more than 20 percent of all trips in
Improving the
character and
arrangement of our
commercial areas
could help mitigate
opposition to new
development.
Davis are bicycle trips. The Davis school
district operates no school buses and pro-
vides little on-site parking for cars; instead,
each school provides a secure, supervised
bicycle rack. Thousands of students cycle
or walk to school. Neighborhoods that al-
low children to walk to school would be
enormously attractive to homebuyers and
would generate more support for the build-
ing industry.
Build Town Centers Not Strip Centers
Several surveys conducted by American
Lives, Inc., and Inter-Communications, Inc.,
to determine the features and amenities that
homebuyers would most like in a new com-
munity revealed an unexpected finding. Re-
spondents said that they preferred "town
centers with a village green surrounded by
shops and civic buildings to commercial
strip malls strung out along major high-
ways." As a result, developers encouraged
by forward-looking local governments and
proponents of the "new urbanism" are start-
ing to build town centers again. Of course,
people want convenient parking, but two-
thirds of survey respondents said that small
stores and a town center are likely to offer
"better services as well as opportunities for
socializing with your neighbors." Schaum-
berg, Illinois; Boca Raton, Florida; and
Rockville, Maryland, are three examples of
communities that have demolished failed
malls in favor of mixed-use town centers.
Surveys indicate that the average citizen is
12 Land Development/Spring-Summer 1999
far more offended by commercial strip de-
velopment than new home construction.
Improving the character and arrangement
of our commercial areas could help miti-
gate opposition to new development.
Cooperate with Environmentalists for
Mutual Benefit
Developers and environmentalists actual-
ly have much in common. What's good for
business can also be good for the environ-
ment. Yet, innovative developers who would
protect the environment often find them-
selves stymied by inflexible regulations. In
fact, many of our communities' planning,
zoning, and subdivision rules are built on
a foundation of distrust. For example, a de-
veloper who asks for a waiver for a depar-
ture from conventional subdivision stan-
dards often meets with suspicion. If,
however, that same developer were to join
forces with a local environmental group,
the local government would be more like-
ly to approve the request.
Street standards provide an instructive
example. Overly wide streets mean more
pavement, more run-off, more tree removal,
and more speeding cars, all of which com-
promise the environment while increasing
development costs. If builders and envi-
ronmentalists would spend less time fight-
ing about their disagreements and more
time searching for common ground, both
would benefit, as would our communities.
Conclusion
Today, a growing number of builders rec-
ognize that there are alternatives to sprawl
and that these alternatives can mean at-
tractive, efficient, profitable, and environ-
mentally sensitive communities that make
the development of cookie-cutter subdivi-
sions a thing of the past. Builders, environ-
mentalists, and regulators need to work in
partnership to encourage innovation and
to support the work of creative, sometimes
even risk-taking developers who design in
harmony with the environment. ·
Edward T. McMahon is a senior associate
with the Conservation Fund in Arlington,
Virginia.
Pros and Cons for Builders Attempting
New Urbanism
A Pulte Home Corporation representative presents
the builder's point of view
By Robert Steuteville
The advantages and
challenges of traditional
neighborhood development
prove that flexibility is key.
Reprinted with permission from New
Urban News (January/February 1999).
P.O. Box 6515, ithaca, NY 14851,
(607) 275-3087.
pulte Home Corporation, the nation's
largest home builder, is in the early
stages of developing Salamanca, a
160-acre traditional neighborhood
development (TND) within Dade
County's urban development boundary, in
West Kendall, Florida. Tim Hernandez, vice
president of land and marketing with Pulte's
south Florida dMsion, took a lead role in
persuading the company to develop its first
TND project, which was designed by Du-
any Plater-Zyberk & Company. "I don't
think it is an exaggeration to say that I put
my career on the line with this project:' ex-
claims Hernandez, who has worked to ac-
quire, design, and develop more than 50
conventional Pulte subdMsions in the last
15 years.
In November 1998, during a presenta-
tion at the "State of the New Urbanism in
Florida" conference sponsored by the Sea-
side Institute in Seaside, Florida, Hernan-
dez explained why builders are wary of the
new urbanism but why they should never-
theless give it a try. Even though he cited
~ ~ditional nel~ developme~ plan ~r Salamanca includes a main strut, a town center,
a~ a to~ square.
more obstacles than enticements to neo-
traditional development, Hernandez con-
duded with a strong endorsement. "If it was
my money, if I had enough money to in-
vest in my own project, I would still do it.
That is really the ultimate test."
Hernandez calls Salamanca "as dose to
a pure TND as anything that has been done.
I'm giving away about 20 percent of the site
for civic uses--schools, meeting halls, parks
galore."
New Orbanism Advantages
Some municipalities, including Dade
County, have enacted ordinances that per-
mit the higher densities associated with the
new urbanism. These jurisdictions recog-
nize that the TND concept is geared to fos-
tering a compact mix of uses that work to-
gether harmoniously. "If you give us three
or four units per acre bonus in a high-cost
land area, that is a great incentive;' Her-
nandez says.
The new urbanism often allows devel-
opers to construct commercial buildings in
areas where such uses might not be other-
wise permitted. That is another strong in-
centive, Hernandez says. In addition, TND
accommodates the "work at home" trend
by accommodating live/work units, acces-
sory units, and a mix of uses, which, Her-
nandez believes, could be a significant mar-
keting tool.
With Salamanca, Pulte received consid-
erable cooperation from Dade County of-
ficials, who wanted to apply the county's
TND ordinance for the first time. Planners
in many jurisdictions are interested in the
new urbanism, and Dade County's experi-
ence can guide developers in communities
around the nation.
Accessory units lead to the "shadow"
density advantage, Hernandez explains. So-
30 Land Development/Spring-Summer 1999
A typical block of homes in
Salamanca features accessory units
and alley~ntry garages.
called granny flats over garages, an impor-
tant part of the new urbanism, add value
to a project, although the exact value has
not been quantified. "In Kendall, a devel-
opment with a large Latin community, the
residents foster strong families, and I think
this (option) is going to be fabulous;' Her-
nandez states. Accessory units also provide
affordable housing opportunities and there-
fore are socially desirable. If local planners
want to encourage accessory units, they
should not count the units in official den-
sity calculations, Hernandez cautions. "If
they are counted, the land seller will think
the builder is entitled to that density, and
the land will cost more."
Because the new urbanism is still rela-
tively rare, it gives builders significant prod-
uct differentiation. "There are 50 or 60 pro-
jects in our submarket going on right now,"
Hernandez remarks. "All are conventional.
So I don't care if some people don't like
TND. Because if they do like it, they will
come to me:'
Finally, Hernandez believes that TND
represents a better product that will trans-
late into a higher-value development. "I feel
comfortable enough to say that TND is the
right thing for us to be doing from a strict-
ly financial standpoint:'
Builder Concems
Builders are creatures of habit and are used
to designing conventional subdivisions,
notes Hernandez. Therefore, suburban
sprawl has powerft~ momentum, particu-
larly given that TND projects cost more to
design. "I spent five times more to design
this project than a conventional project;'
notes Hernandez. TNDs "cost more to de-
velop and build" on a project basis, but not
necessarily on a per unit basis. The con-
ventional development next to Salamanca
does not have curbs and gutters, alleys,
meeting halls, nearly as many parks, or oth-
er civic amenities. "I have to believe that I
have a 10 or 15 percent premium based on
the Dade County TND code;' Hernandez
says. Dade County, however, also allows
four extra units per acre for a TND. Pulte
reduced the density slightly during ap-
proval-to mollify neighbors--but still
gained three extra units per acre. "I am hop-
ing the density will even things out on de-
velopment costs;' comments Hernandez.
Under current Dade County planning
regulations (other localities likely have sim-
ilar policies), TND developers lose three
ways in the creation of parks--what Her-
nandez calls the "triple whammy:' With a
conventional project, the developer dedi-
cates a parcel of land five acres, for ex-
ample-to the community for a park and
receives credit toward impact fees. Although
TNDs typically include several parks de-
signed as neighborhood civic spaces with-
in easy walking distance of homes, they are
larger in aggregate but smaller individual-
ly such that municipalities do not accept
the dedication of parkland. Therefore, the
TND developer gives up more land, must
improve and maintain it (or require a
homeowners' association to do so), and
earns no credit to offset impact fees.
The "fortress America syndrome" is an-
other problem. New urbanism principles
call for nongated communities, which, in
some markets, Hernandez says, can pose a
disadvantage. "If a potential buyer walks
into a competitor's sales office and men-
tions Salamanca, the salesperson will say,
'Oh, you mean that nongated community?
You care about your family, right? Why
would you buy there?' This is going to hap-
pen 100 times a weekend. In Dade Coun-
ty, crime is an issue:'
The development industry is highly spe-
cialized with builders who construct only
industrial, retail, single-family residential,
multifamily residential, office, or other types
of real estate products. TND development
requires a generalist. "It stretched the lim-
its of my intellectual capacity to put this
thing together;' Hemandez offers. "And that
is probably normal for just about anybody
who is trying to do it:'
Buyers like to experience exactly what
they are buying, which leads to (what Her-
nandez calls) the "see it, feel it, touch it"
dilemma. "If a customer walks in and says
'Explain to me what this will look like. I'm
going to make the biggest investment of my
life; what am I going to do? I can't tell them
to walk down the street, because there aren't
any of these projects in Dade County."
When writing the development pro for-
ma, Hernandez faces the dilemma of de-
ciding how many parks and cMc amenities
to build upfront. "If I put in too many, the
carrying cost for this infrastructure is go-
ing to harm the rate of return;' he explains.
"But, on the other hand, if I don't put in
enough, people aren't going to get the con-
cept and it might not sell as well:'
The creation of a fine-grained mix of
land uses means that many types of resi-
dential and commercial buildings will be
built in proximityto one another. Hernan-
dez worries that some buyers will be reluc-
tant to purchase single-family homes near
townhomes, apartments, and stores, thus
undermining the absorption rate--which
will ultimately determine whether PulSe
builds more TNDs.
TND development requires--and of-
fers--great flexibility in terms of building
types and products. "Big builders tend to
be inflexible, and much of the development
in metropolitan areas is by big builders;'
stresses Hernandez. "You have to be pretty
flexible to take advantage of all the things
the TND ordinance has to offer:' Hernan-
dez concludes that even in Dade County, it
takes longer for approval of a TND project.
The situation is far worse in most other lo-
cations. ·
Robert Steuteville is editor/publisher of New
Urban News in Ithaca, New York.
Land Development/Spring-Summer 1999 31
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 7, 1999
To: City Council
From: John Yapp, Associate Planner
Re: Alleys
Some concerns have been raised recently that the introduction of alleys into developments
will unnecessarily increase the amount of pavement, and will consume more land per
housing unit. This is true for a conventional subdivision, such as an RS-5 (Low Density
Single-Family) or RS-8 (Medium Density Single-Family) subdivision with lots ranging from
5,000 to 8,000 square feet or more. Alleys in combination with smaller lots and slightly
narrower streets, however, will result in a comparable amount of pavement and land
consumption per lot, and in some cases less.
Alleys, in combination with narrower lots and streets, can improve the design and function
of a compact neighborhood. When developers or property owners request higher densities,
the use of alleys can provide more flexibility in the site design of the lots and housing units
than would be possible without alleys. Some of the amenities alleys and narrower streets
can provide include:
· A safer and easier street to cross (narrower street with less local traffic).
· A 'common driveway' for rear garage access, in lieu of multiple individual
driveways.
· A rear location for some utilities.
· A more attractive and walkable streetscape, due to some local traffic,
parking, paving, and utilities being placed to the rear.
· The attached photos show how the use of alleys in higher density areas can
greatly improve the attractiveness and livability of a neighborhood.
Table I and the attached diagrams help to illustrate how alleys, in combination with slightly
narrower streets and smaller lots, consume little more or less land than is consumed in a
conventional subdivision. Local examples of housing footprints that could be constructed
on smaller lots include the small single-family homes on Irving Avenue, which are on 27-
foot wide, 2,600-2,900 square foot lots, and the Washington Square condominiums on
Scott Boulevard, which are 18.5-foot wide townhouse units. Zero-lot line units could
easily be constructed on lots 35 feet wide. The most likely land use in figures 1, 2, and 3
would be single-family dwellings; figures 4 and 5 would likely contain small single-family or
zero-lot line dwellings; the lots in figure 6 would contain attached townhouses.
Developments with alleys may be particularly attractive to people who do not want large yards,
and where common open space is provided in the development.
Lot and Street
Design Alternatives
140'
140'
120'
- 120'
~0' ROV~
Figure 1 (RS-5 Lot)
~50' ROW'
Figure 2 (RS-8 Lot)
16'
- 112' -
T T
25'
- 112' -
16'
.~0' ROV~
Figure 3 (RSa-Lot with alley)
F>O' ROV~
Figure 4
16'
- 112' > · 11~
· 25' ·
16' 16'
25'
- 112' -
16'
~0' ROW
Figure
Table I Lot and Street Design Specifications
Lot Width Street
Width
Figure 1 60' 28'
Figure 2 45' 28'
Figure 3 45' 25'
Figure 4 35' 25'
Figure 5 30' 25'
Figure 6 20' 25'
1.
Lot Area Pavement Per
Lot~
8,400 sq. ft. 840 sq. ft.
5,400 630
5,040 922.5 (w/alley)
3,920 717.5 (w/alley)
3,360 615 (w/alley)
2,240 410 (w/alley)
Land
Consumption
9,900 sq. ft.
6,525
6,525
5,075
4,350
2,900
This figure does not include the pavement from individual driveways, which would likely be reduced with an alley access
See addendum for explanation of calculations
ADDENDUM
Pavement per Lot -- Lot Width * (1/2 Street Pavement Width + 1/2 Alley Pavement Width)
Land Consumption = Lot Width * (Lot Depth + 1/2 Street ROW Width + 1/2 Alley Width)
Examples
Figure 2 Pavement per Lot = 45' * (14' + 0') = 630 square feet
Figure 2 Land Consumption = 45' * (120' + 25' + 0') = 6,525 square feet
Figure 3 Pavement per Lot = 45' * (12.5' + 8') = 922.5 square feet
Figure 3 Land Consumption = 45' * (112' + 25' + 8') = 6,525 square feet
For comparison, the lot depth in figure 3 is equal to the lot depth in figure 2 plus 1/2 the width
of the alley. Both lot sizes in figures 2 and 3 would be permitted in the RS-8 (Medium Density
Single-Family) zone. Similarly, the lot depths in figures 3-6 were kept the same for comparison
purposes.
2813 Hickory Trail
Iowa City, IA 52245
May 31, 1999
Mr. Emie Lehman, Mayor
City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Dear Mr. Lehman:
As a resident of the Bluffwood neighborhood in Northeast Iowa City, I am writing in support of
the Northeast District Plan. Having participated in the three workshops in the spring of 1998 and
the one that fall, I saw first-hand an impressive level of compromise and concern for the future of
the community.
When the workshop process began, most of my neighbors saw the district plan as revolving
around a single issue: opposition to extending First Avenue. As the plan took shape, however,
many people became convinced that the Scott Boulevard diagonal extension to Captain Irish
Parkway would carry much of the traffic in the area. Many of my neighbors expressed the view
that if the Scott Boulevard diagonal were built, drainage concerns in the Ralston Creek area were
addressed (the plan calls for a storm water retention basin), and adequate recreation/open space
were provided (currently, there is an 11 acre deficiency), they would support the plan. The city
staff did a fine job of including the elements residents regarded as most needed.
In the workshops, we were assigned to small groups. My group included one of Iowa City' s more
prominent developers, and he played a constructive role. It is unfortunate that at this stage in the
plan adoption process developers are demanding major changes in the plan.
I see Iowa City as being at a crossroads in terms of its development. If traditional processes are
continued and developers lay out low density subdivisions with large private lots, Iowa City will
experience the problems of many other cities, with long commuting trips, serious traffic
congestion, and diminished air quality. If, on the other hand, we share open space and orient
residential lots to enjoy attractive views of this open space, we can manage our spatial expansion
and offer very inviting residential opportunities. This hardly is a radical proposition, given that
other rapidly growing cities tend to be moving in a similar direction.
City Council needs to play a leadership role in guiding Iowa city's development, working with the
city's residents as well as developers. The Northeast District Plan is the product of considerable
effort by many of your constituents. Please be careful not to set aside the progress that we all have
made.
Sincerely,
David J. Forkenbrock
From: Environmental Advocates Board of Directors
City Council
City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
We are writing in regard to the Northeast District plan that you are currently re~'~wing '
Since several of our board members and numerous EA members have been active
participants in the development of the plan, we thought it might be helpful to offer our
comments and suggestions.
We believe the current plan has many merits. It was developed with extensive citizen
input. Many people spent several evenings at the initial workshops and later at Planning
and Zoning meetings offering suggestions. Developers were present at both meetings and
could have presented their ideas at that time.
This plan borrows from the Comprehensive Plan in encouraging development that occurs
with consideration of ecological features, such as protecting natural terrain and future
green spaces. Specific examples include:
-The use of the Conservation Design type of development in the Bluffwood area
and parts of the Hunter Heights section. Development would be clustered on flatter,
higher ground with protection of the surrounding wooded slopes, wetlands, and stream
corridors.
-The use of single-loaded streets and cul-de-sacs to minimize the impact on
surrounding areas
-preserving the 100-year floodplain as a natural corridor
The plan places an emphasis on promoting pedestrian/bicyclist modes of transportation by
creating a network of trails throughout the district. The creation of a central square in the
Lindemann Hills area would encourage people to walk or bicycle to small businesses
surrounding a central park. A possible improvement would be to create trails, bicycle
lanes, etc. so that people could bicycle to ACT and NCS.
The plan also places an emphasis on preserving existing parks and creating new
neighborhood parks. However, we would encourage the Council to create a larger buffer
around Hickory Hill Park and believe that housing density could possibly be increased in
other parts of this area to allow for the larger buffer.
The EA Board believes that housing development and protection of the environment can
occur at the same time. Many other communities have found that the most sought-at~er
developments are those that use many of the above practices. We think this plan can serve
as a guide and encourage the Council to quickly adopt it.
Sincerely,
HOME BUILDERS ASSOCiATiON OF IOWA CITY
P. O . Box 3',396
Iowa City, Iowa 52244
Phone: (319) 351-5333
Fax: (319) 358-2443
E-mail: 75220,3550
@cornpuserve .corn
June 11, 1999
Mayor Ernie Lehman
Iowa City Council Members
City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Dear Mayor and Council:
A meeting was held with city staff, council members and representatives of the Home
Builders Association of Iowa City (HBAIC) on June 3. Karin Franklin suggested that the
HBAIC request that the Iowa City City Council direct the planning staff to amend the
current draft of the Noaheast District Plan based on specific concerns. This letter is to
detail specific recommendations by the HBAIC.
First and foremost, the Association feels that any plan would be incomplete without
language recognizing the role of conventional development practices in meeting the
housing needs of its commur;ity. Conventional developments have a proven market and
serve a valuable need. Nationwide, demand for new housing is between 1.2 and 1.5
million homes per year and conventional developments strive to accommodate this need.
Our Association reviewed comprehensive plan drafts for other communities in the state of
Iowa. In those plans, language was provided allowing equal consideration for compact,
mix-use developments - what I will call "Traditional" development for simplification -
and conventional development. If language supporting conventional design is not
included, future commissioners and councilors will be encouraged to decline
developments other than that which the plan mentions. The HBAIC supports the addition
of language designating traditional development as the preferred type of development and
conventional development as an acceptable alternative. Adding photographs showing
conventional developments will also support this new language.
affiliated with
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS
& HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF IOWA
Visit our Website: www.iowacityhomes.com
Developers in other communities are encouraged to pursue traditional developments
through the use of various incentives; increased density allowances, reduced lot sizes, the
use of tax increment financing, modified street standards, reduced setback requirements,.
expedited review and approval of development plans, and shared infrastructure costs. The
Association feels that detailing available incentives in the Northeast .Plan will aid in
promoting traditional developments.
Finally, we would like to see specific language that indicates that alleys are an OPTION'
and are NOT REQUIRED. While alleys may have certain benefits, they also pose certain
challenges. Prior to approval of developments containing alleys, specific concerns
regarding ownership and maintenance will need to be resolved.
If the true intent of this document is to provide development choices, the addition of our
suggestions would be a step in the right direction. Our growing population will need
homes, and consumer choice will dictate that the large majority continue to be single-
family homes. The overwhelming majority of housing consumers are unwilling to settle
for anything less than a single-family home. In the latest NAHB survey Of consumer
attitudes, 88 percent ofrespondents said they prefer to live in a single-family home. And
they adamantly oppose the idea of living in or near higher-density single-family homes,
townhouses, or multifamily rental apartments. I believe council should consider this
statement when new adopting plans for our community.
To summarize:
· Add language recognizing conventional development as viable choice.
· Include a detailed list of available incentives for traditional design.
· Add photographs illustrating conventional developments
· Add language explicitly stating that alleys are available as an option in some instances,
but are not required.
If you need any additional information regarding our concerns, please contact Cole Chase
at 337-9637.
Sincerely,
Dennis Spencer
President
CC:
Steve Atkins
Karin Franklin
2
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that the City Council of
Iowa City will hold a public hearing on the 2"d
day of June, 1999 at 8:00 a.m. or, if said
meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the
City Council thereafter as posted by the City
Clerk,. in the Council Chambers of the City of
Iowa City, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City,
Iowa, regarding the Council's intent to approve a
pumhase agreement between the City of Iowa
City and Lora M. Alberhasky for Condominium
Unit 1A in the to-be-constructed Iowa Avenue
Multi-Use Parking Facility.
Persons interested in expressing their views
concerning. this matter, either verbally or in
writing, will be given the opportunity to be heard
at the above-mentioned time and place.
MARlAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK
derk~ph6-2.doc
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
June 10, 1999
City Council y~
Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorne
Iowa Avenue Multi-Use Parking Facility - The Cottage
As you know, the City has been negotiating with Lora Alberhasky to purchase the Cottage
property and sell her Unit 1A in the new facility. Because Unit 1A is yet to be constructed, the
City will purchase the Cottage property now and Ms. Alberhasky will purchase Unit 1A when it is
completed. The resolution authorizing acquisition of the property needed for the Iowa Avenue
Multi-Use Parking Facility gives Steve Atkins the authority to sign the agreement for the City's
purchase of Ms. Alberhasky's property. We have negotiated a purchase agreement to buy The
Cottage property for $510,000. This agreement does not require formal City Council approval,
although it is attached hereto for your information. As you will see at Paragraph 23, the
agreement is contingent on Council's approval of the purchase agreement between the City and
Ms. Alberhasky for condominium Unit 1A in the new facility. I anticipate that these two
agreements, with minor modifications, will be signed by your meeting on June 15th.
A resolution approving the agreement for Ms. Alberhasky's purchase of Unit 1A is on your June
15t" agenda. This agreement must be read in conjunction with the City's purchase of the
Cottage property. Agreements made by the City with respect to Unit 1A are integrally related to
the taking of the Cottage property. For example, the agreement for Unit 1A provides
replacement parking for the parking Ms. Alberhasky has at her current location.
The purchase agreement for Unit 1A is fairly self-explanatory. In reviewing it you should focus
on the first two paragraphs defining the real estate and the purchase price, and the "Other
Provisions" at Paragraph 23.
I will not discuss every provision of the purchase agreement here, but will highlight a couple.
You will note in Paragraph 2 that the purchase price of $246,000 for the first floor space is not
the negotiated value of that space. Rather, this amount is the value of $408,000 that the City
and Ms. Alberhasky agreed to minus the relocation expenses the City would have incurred to
provide Ms. Alberhasky with a temporary location to conduct her business. Ms. Alberhasky
chose to forego payment of these relocation expenses in lieu of a lower purchase price. (see
Paragraph 23(b) of the purchase agreement which explains this).
You will also note at Paragraph 23(c) that at Ms. Alberhasky's option the seller will construct and
sell to her the mezzanine with the purchase price for that mezzanine to be the City's cost as
determined by the bid submitted by the contractor to whom the City awards the project. The
mezzanine is currently an alternate in the contract specifications.
The remaining terms of the purchase agreement for Unit 1A are those provisions that I have
previously discussed with you as being appropriate consideration for acquisition of The Cottage,
including replacement of Ms. Alberhasky's current parking.
Iowa Avenue Multi-Use Parking Facility- The CoNage
June 10,1999
Page 2
Please call me if you have any questions.
Attachment
cc: Steve Atkins
Marian Karr
Dale Helling
Jeff Davidson
Joe Fowler
Tom Gelman, Attorney for Lora Alberhasky
eleanorfmem/iowaave5.doc
OFFER TO BUY REAL ESTATE AND ACCEPTANCE
TO: Lora M. Alberhasky, SELLER
1. REAL ESTATE DESCRIPTION. The Buyer offers to buy real estate in
County, Iowa, and legally-described as follows:
The property locally known as 14 S. Linn Street, Iowa City, Iowa. Legal description
to be taken from abstract of title and approved by Buyer's attorney.
JOHNSON
with any easements and appurtenant servient estates, but subject to the following: a. any zoning
and other ordinances; b. any covenants of record; c. any easements of record for public utilities,
roads and highways; and d. (consider: liens, mineral rights; other easements; interests of others.)
designated the Real Estate; provided Buyer, on possession, is permitted to make the following use
of the Real Estate:
multi-use parking facility
2. PRICE. The purchase price shall be 9510,000.00, payable at JOHNSON County, Iowa, as
follows: purchase price to be paid in full upon possession and closing.
REAL ESTATE TAXES.
a. Seller shall pay all real estate taxes that are due and payable as of the date of
possession and constitute a lien against the property, including any unpaid real estate
taxes for any prior years.
b. Seller shall pay their prorated share, based upon the date of possession, of the real
estate taxes for the fiscal year in which possession is given (ending June 30, 1999)
due and payable in the subsequent fiscal year (commencing July 1, 1999).
Buyer shall be given a credit for such proration at closing (unless this agreement is for
an installment contract) based upon the last known actual net real estate taxes
payable according to the public record. However, if such taxes are based upon a
partial assessment of the present property improvements or a changed tax
classification as of the date of possession, such proration shall be based on the
current millage rate, the assessed value, legislative tax rollbacks and real estate tax
exemptions that will actually be applicable as shown by the Assessor's records on the
date of possession.
c. Buyer shall pay all subsequent real estate taxes.
4. SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS.
a. Soilor shall pay all spocial assessments which are a lion on the Real Estate as of the
date of closing.
IF a. IS STRICKEN, then Seller shall pay all installments of special assessments which
are a lien on the Real Estate and, if not paid, would become delinquent during the
calendar year this offer is accepted, and all prior installments thereof.
-2-
c. All other special assessments shall be paid by Buyer.
5. RISK OF LOSS AND INSURANCE. Risk of loss prior to Seller's delivery of possession of
the Real Estate to Buyer shall be as follows:
a. All risk of loss shall remain with Seller until possession of the Real Estate shall be
delivered to Buyer.
IF a. IS STRICKEN, Seller shall maintain ~ of fire, windstorm, and
extended coverage insurance on the Real Estate until possession is given to Buyer and
shall promptly secure endorsements to the appropriate insurance policies naming
Buyer as additional insureds as their interests may appear. Risk of loss from such
insured hazards shall be on Buyer after Seller has performed under this paragraph and
notified Buyer of such performance. Buyer, if it desires, may obtain additional
insurance to cover such risk.
6. CONDITION OF PROPERTY.
The Real Estate shall be preserved in its present condition and delivered intact at the
time possession is delivered to Buyer, provided, however, if 5.a. is stricken and there
is loss or destruction of all or any part of the Real Estate from causes covered by the
insurance maintained by Seller, Buyer agrees to accept such damaged or destroyed
Real Estate together with such insurance proceeds in lieu of the Real Estate in its
present condition and Sellers shall not be required to repair or replace same.
7. ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS.
Seller warrants, to the best of her knowledge and belief that there are no abandoned
wells, solid waste disposal sites, hazardous wastes or substances or underground
storage tanks located on the property, the property does not contain levels of radon
gas, asbestos or urea-formaldehyde foam insulation which require remediation under
current environmental standards, and Sellers have done nothing to contaminate the
Property with hazardous wastes or substances. Seller warrants that the property is
not subject to any local, state, or federal judicial or administrative action, investigation
or order, as the case may be, regarding wells, solid waste disposal sites, hazardous
wastes or substances or underground storage tanks. Seller also shall provide Buyer
with a properly executed GROUNDWATER HAZARD STATEMENT showing no wells,
solid waste disposal sites, hazardous waste or underground storage tanks on the
Property, unless disclosed here:
8. POSSESSION AND CLOSING. Subject to Buyer's approval of title and both parties' timely
performance of all obligations herein, closing shall be held no later than June 30, 1999, and
possession of the Real Estate shall be delivered to Buyer on the date of closing with any
adjustments of rent, insurance, and interest to be made as of the date of transfer of possession.
-3-
9. FIXTURES. All property that integrally belongs to or is part of the Real Estate, whether
attached or detached, such as light fixtures, shades, rods, blinds, awnings, windows, storm doors,
screens, plumbing fixtures, water heaters, water softeners, automatic heating equipment, air
conditioning equipment, wall to wall carpeting, built-in items and electrical service cable, outside
television towers and antenna, fencing, gates and landscaping shall be considered a part of Real
Estate and included in the sale except: (consider: rental items)
outside plants and bushes, 2 chandeliers and 4 hanging light fixtures, 3 long oak bar
countertops, all stained glass, bread shelves. 3 ceiling fans.
10. USE OF PURCHASE PRICE. At time of settlement, funds of the purchase price may be
used to pay taxes and other liens and to acquire outstanding interests, if any, of others.
11. ABSTRACT AND TITLE. Seller, at her expense, shall obtain an abstract of title to the Real
Estate. It shall show merchantable title in Seller in conformity with this agreement, Iowa law and
Title Standards of the Iowa State Bar Association.
12. DEED. Upon payment of the purchase price, Seller shall convey the Real Estate to Buyer
or its assignees, by WARRANTY deed, free and clear of all liens, restrictions, and encumbrances
except as provided in 1 .a. through 1 .d. Any general warranties of title shall extend only to the time
of acceptance of this offer, with special warranties as to acts of Sellers continuing up to time of
delivery of the deed.
13. JOINT TENANCY IN PROCEEDS AND IN REAL ESTATE. If Sellers, immediately preceding
acceptance of this offer, hold title to the Real Estate in joint tenancy with full right of survivorship,
and the joint tenancy is not later destroyed by operation of law or by acts of the Sellers, then the
proceeds of this sale, and any continuing or recaptured rights of Sellers in the Real Estate, shall
belong to Sellers as joint tenants with full rights of survivorship and not as tenants in common; and
Buyer, in the event of the death of either Seller, agrees to pay any balance of the price due Sellers
under this contract to the surviving Seller and to accept a deed from the surviving Seller consistent
with paragraph I 1.
14. JOINDER BY SELLER'S SPOUSE. Seller's spouse, if not a titleholder immediately
preceding acceptance of this offer, executes this contract only for the purpose of relinquishing all
rights of dower, homestead and distributive shares or in compliance with Section 561.13 of the
Iowa Code and agrees to execute the deed or real estate contract for this purpose.
15. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE. Time is of the essence in this contract.
16. REMEDIES OF THE PARTIES.
If Buyer fails to timely perform this contract, Seller may forfeit it as provided in the
Iowa Code, and all payments made shall be forfeited or, at Seller's option, upon thirty
days written notice of intention to accelerate the payment of the entire balance
because of such failure (during which thirty days such failure is not corrected) Seller
may declare the entire balance immediately due and payable. Thereafter this contract
may be foreclosed in equity and the Court may appoint a receiver.
-4-
b. If Seller fails to timely perform this contract, Buyer has the right to have all payments
made returned to it.
Buyer and Seller also are entitled to utilize any and all other remedies or actions at law
or in equity available to them and shall be entitled to obtain judgment for costs and
attorney fees as permitted by law.
17. STATEMENT AS TO LIENS. If Buyer intends to assume or take subject to a lien on the
Real Estate, Seller shall furnish Buyer with a written statement from the holder of such lien,
showing the correct balance due.
18. SUBSEQUENT CONTRACT. Any real estate contract executed in performance of this
contract shall be on a form of the Iowa State Bar Association.
19. APPROVAL OF COURT. If the sale of the Real Estate is subject to Court approval, the
fiduciary shall promptly submit this contract for such approval. If this contract is not so approved,
it shall be void.
20. CONTRACT BINDING ON SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST. This contract shall apply to and
bind the successors in interest of the parties.
21. CONSTRUCTION. Words and phrases shall be construed as in the singular or plural
number, and as masculine, feminine or neuter gender, according to the context.
22. TIME FOR ACCEPTANCE. If this offer is not accepted by Seller on or before
it shall become void and all payments shall be repaid to the Buyer.
23. OTHER PROVISIONS.
a. This sale is made under threat of condemnation.
This purchase agreement is contingent on the City Council's approval of the purchase
agreement attached hereto as Exhibit "A" for the purchase by Lora Alberhasky of
condominium unit 1A in the Iowa Avenue Multi-Use Parking Facility.
-5-
DATED:
Stephen J. Atkins
City Manager, City of Iowa City
Buyer
This offer is accepted
,19
Seller
Spouse
marym\land-acq\ia-ave .rmp\cott-off
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing
will be held by the City Council of Iowa City,
Iowa, at 7:00 p.m. on the 15th day of
June, 1999 in the Civic Center Cou,ncil
Chambers,410 E. Washington Street, Iowa
City, Iowa; at which hearing the Council will
consider:
1. A resolution of intent to convey 2774
Irving Avenue, also described as Lot 61, of
the resubdivision of Lot 51, Walden Hills,
Iowa City, Iowa to a low-income family and
setting a public hearing for June 15, 1999.
Copies of the proposed resolution are on
file for public examination in the office of the
City Clerk, Civic Center, Iowa City, Iowa.
Persons wishing to make their views known
for Council consideration are encouraged to
appear at the above-mentioned time and place.
MARlAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON
PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF
CONTRACT AND ESTIMATED COST
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE
WILLOW CREEK TRAIL PHASE II
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IN THE CITY
OF IOWA CITY, IOWA.
TO ALL TAXPAYERS OF THE CITY OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA, AND TO OTHER PERSONS IN-
TERESTED:
Public notice is hereby given that the City
Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, will
conduct a public hearing on plans, specifica-
tions, form of contract and estimated cost for
the construction of the Willow Creek Trail
Phase II Improvement Project in said City at
7:00 p.m. on the 15th day of June, 1999, said
meeting to be held in the Council Chambers in
the Civic Center in said City, or if said meeting
is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City
Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk.
Said plans, specifications, form of contract
and estimated cost are now on file in the office
of the City Clerk in the Civic Center in Iowa
City, Iowa, and may be inspected by any
persons interested.
Any persons interested may appear at said
meeting of the City Council for the purpose of
making objections to said plans, specifications,
contract or the cost of making said improve-
ment.
This notice is given by order of the City
Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa.
MARlAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK