HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-01-18 Public hearingMarian Karr
From: Bjanedavis@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2000 6:54 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: I support Mercy Hospital's application
16 January 2000
Message to the Iowa City Council Members
From Betty Jane Davis
3105 Friendship Street
Iowa City, IA 52245-5115
It has been called to my attention that Mercy Hospital has requested a permit
to build a facility on First Avenue near Rochester. I am spending January,
February and March in California, so my information has been by word of
mouth. Email, and Gazette-on-line. From what I have learned, I can see no
reason why Planning and Zoning has turned thumbs down on this proposal. Is
this "Act II" to the many nonsense denials of the request of Midtown Family
Restaurant to build a fine business on the East side?
I realize that the council is about forty-five percent new and inexperienced,
but I hope it agrees with me that those of us on the East side need services
without going across the river to UI Hospitals, or Mercy, both of which are
complicated at best. My former physician, Greg Boozed, has moved to
Coralville, and I wonder if this, with the other businesses gone from Iowa
City, is another piece forming in the pattern.
My request is that you please do something positive to encourage development
of health services and businesses in east Iowa City. I strongly urge
approval of Mercy Hospital's request. You must appreciate the good that
Mercy Hospital has done for this community.
Sincerely yours,
(Betty) Jane Davis
P.S. This is my very first correspondence to Council.
Marian Karr
From: Bjanedavis@aol .com
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2000 7:19 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: Fwd: I support Mercy Hospital's application
I sup~rt Me~y
Hospial'sapp... I apologize for misspelling Dr. aozek's name in my original message. It was
unintentional. I'll blame it on this laptop which often does things like
that. Dr. Bozek is a fine doctor, and a classmate of my son Doug when both
were attending City High.
Jane Davis
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 18th day of
January, 2000, in the Civic Center Council
Chambers, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa
City, Iowa, at which hearing the Council will
l~ensider:
1 An ordinance changing the zoning
signation from Low Density Multi-Family
Residential (RM-12) and Medium Density
Single Family Residential (RS-8) to Planned
Development Housing Overlay (OPDH-
12/11.79 acres) and (OPDH-8/1.47 acres)
and approving a preliminary Planned
Development Housing Overlay Plan for
Windsor Ridge, Part 15, a proposed 98-unit
residential development located north of
Court Street at its eastern terminus.
2. An ordinance changing the zoning
designation from Low Density Single-Family
Residential (RS-5) to Sensitive Areas
Overlay - Low Density Residential (OSA-5)
and approving a preliminary Sensitive Areas
Development Plan for three four-unit
buildings on a 2.72 acre property located
north of Rohret Road, west of Highway 218.
3. An ordinance changing the zoning
designation from Planned High Density
Multi-Family Residential (PRM) to Sensitive
Areas Overlay (OSA-PRM) and approving a
preliminary Sensitive Areas Development
Plan for approximately .28 acres located at
522 S. Dubuque 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
ppdadmin~nph1-18-00.doc
NOTE TO FILE:
The notice of public hearing for the following January 18 agenda items was
published in tU,~gwa City Press-Citizen on January 1 O:
V'~. Public hearing on an ordinance changing the zoning designation
from Low Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-12) and Medium Density
Single Family Residential (RS-8) to Planned Development Housing Overlay
(OPDH-12/11.79 acres) and (OPDH-8/1.47 acres) and approving a
preliminary Planned Development Housing Overlay Plan for Windsor Ridge,
Part 15, a proposed 98-unit residential development located north of Court
Street at its eastern terminus.
B. Public hearing on an ordinance changing the zoning designation
from Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) to Sensitive Areas Overlay
- Low Density Residential (OSA-5) and approving a preliminary Sensitive
Areas Development Plan for three four-unit buildings on a 2.72 acre property
located north of Rohret Road, west of Highway 21 8 (Duck Creek Condos).
C. Public hearing on an ordinance changing the zoning designation
from Planned High Density Multi-Family Residential (PRM) to Sensitive Areas
Overlay (OSA-PRM) and approving a preliminary Sensitive Areas
Development Plan for approximately .28 acres located at 522 S. Dubuque
Street (Clark).
Since the notice was delivered to the P.C. after the deadline it was placed in the
classified section. The notice was not published as a legal publication and will not
be permanently retained in our office as such. Public hearings were held on
January 18.
A public discussion of item A above was also held on February 1.
No proof of publication will be received by this office. Billing will be done
separately as a classified.
Cc: Sarah Holecek, Asst. City Attorney
Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney
Scott Kugler, Planner
Bob Miklo, Senior Planner
01-18-00
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 CHANGING THE ZONING
REGULATIONS OF APPROXIMATELY 13.26
ACRES FROM LOW DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL (RM-12) AND MEDIUM DENSITY
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-8), TO
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING
OVERLAY (OPDH-8/1.47 ACRES AND
OPDH-12/11.79 ACRES), AND APPROVING A
PRELIMINARY OPDH PLAN FOR A 98-UNIT
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE
OF COURT STREET AT ITS EASTERN
TERMINUS.
WHEREAS, the applicant, Arlington, L.C., is
owner and legal title holder of approximately
13.26 acres of property located on the north side
of Court Street at its eastern terminus; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has requested the
rezoning of approximately 13.26 acres from Low
Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-12) and
Medium Density Single-Family Residential
(RS-8), to Planned Development Housing
Overlay (OPDH-8/1.47 acres and
OPDH-12/11.79 acres), and approval of a
preliminary OPDH plan to allow a 98-unit
residential development; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning
Commission has determined that 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.
SECTION I. APPROVAL. The property
described below is hereby rezoned as follows:
a. The following described property is hereby
reclassified from its current designation of RM-
12 to OPDH-12:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF WINDSOR RIDGE - PART
TWELVE, IOWA CITY, IOWA IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECORDED
PLAT THEREOF; THENCE N00°29'01"W,
248.51 FEET; THENCE N22°33'33"E,
676.33 FEET; THENCE S64°22'53"E,
339.35 FEET; THENCE
Ordinance No.
Page 2
NORTHWESTERLY, 76.76 FEET,
ALONG A 120.00 FOOT RADIUS
CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY,
WHOSE 75.46 FOOT CHORD BEARS
N01°20'50"W, THENCE NT0°19'37"W,
60.00 FEET; THENCE
SOUTHEASTERLY 33.11 FEET, ALONG
A 25.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE,
CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, WHOSE
30.74 FOOT CHORD BEARS
N57°36'53"E, THENCE N84°26'38"E,
23.43 FEET; THENCE
NORTHEASTERLY, 62.25 FEET, ALONG
A 125.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE,
CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY, WHOSE
61.61 FOOT CHORD BEARS
N70°10'38"E; THENCE N55°54'39"E,
44.17 FEET; THENCE S00°29'08"E,
775.77 FEET; THENCE
SOUTHWESTERLY, 598.87 FEET,
ALONG A 2926.05 FOOT RADIUS
CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY,
WHOSE 597.83 FOOT CHORD
S85°33'18"W, THENCE S79°41 '30"W,
175.27 FEET, TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING. SAID TRACT OF LAND
CONTAINS 11.79 ACRES, AND IS
SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND
RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
b. The following described property is hereby
reclassified from its current designation of
OPDH-8:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF WINDSOR RIDGE - PART
TWELVE, IOWA CITY, IOWA IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECORDED
PLAT THEREOF; THENCE
N00°29'01 "W, 248.51 FEET TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING. THENCE
CONTINUING N00°29'01 "W, 330.02
FEET; THENCE N22°33'33"E, 317.69
FEET; THENCE N09°30'59"E, 140.38
FEET; THENCE S22°33'33"W, 676.33
FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
SAID TRACT OF LAND CONTAINS 1.47
ACRES, AND IS SUBJECT TO
EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF
RECORD.
SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The Building
Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to
change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City,
Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the
final passage, approval and publication of this
ordinance as provided by law.
SECTION III. CERTIFICATION AND
RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of
the Ordinance, the City Clerk is hereby
authorized and directed to certify a copy of this
Ordinance No.
Page 3
ordinance 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 IV. REPEALER. All ordinances and
parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision
of this ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION V. 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 VI. 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
,20
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLER
ppdadmin/ord/courtst2.doc
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission Prepared by: Scott Kugler
Item: REZ99-0011. Windsor Ridge Part Fifteen Date: November 4, 1999
Manchester and Glen Brook Condominiums
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: Arlington, L.C.
C/o Gary Watts
2346 Mormon Trek Boulevard
Iowa City, Iowa 52246
Phone: 351-8811
Contact person: MMS Consultants
1917 S. Gilbert St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
Phone: 351-8282
Requested action: Preliminary OPDH plan approval and a
rezoning from RM-12 to OPDH-12
Purpose: To allow the development of a 100 unit
residential development
Location: North side of Court Street at its eastern
terminus
Size: 11.79 acres (13.26 acres with
proposed Outlot A, outside of current
RM-12 zone)
Existing land use and zoning: Vacant, RM-12
Surrounding land use and zoning: North: Vacant, RS-8;
East: Vacant, RS-5;
South: Vacant, PDH-8;
West: Agricultural, County RS.
Comprehensive Plan: Northeast District Plan illustrates
potential multi-family development in
this location along Court Street.
Applicable Code requirements: 14-6J-2, Planned Development Housing
Overlay Zone
2
File date: September 30, 1999
45-day limitation period: November 12, 1999
SITE INFORMATION:
Public Utilities: City sewer and water are available to
the site.
Public Services: Police and fire protection will be
provided by the City. Refuse collection
must be provided by a private hauler.
Public Transportation: This site is not yet served by a regular
public transit route. However, this
could change at some point in the
future if warranted.
Sensitive Areas Ordinance: The site does contain a drainage way
along its west property line. However,
this feature is not shown as a blue-line
stream on the USGS map for this area
and thus, by definition, is not a stream
corridor under the Sensitive Areas
Ordinance.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, Arlington, L.C., is requesting a preliminary OPDH plan for Windsor Ridge, Part
Fifteen. This property is located on the north side of Court Street at its eastern terminus. It
has not yet been platted. The proposed plan illustrates a total of 100 dwelling units on
11.79 acres, with four 12-plexes, two 6-unit townhouse buildings, and ten 4-unit townhouse
buildings. Parking is to be provided through a combination of attached and detached garages
and surface parking areas. The applicant has held a neighborhood meeting to discuss this
development with residents of existing portions of the Windsor Ridge subdivision, as
recommended under the City's good neighbor policy.
This parcel was rezoned in 1998 from RS-5, Low Density Single-Family Residential, to RM-
12, Low Density Multi-Family Residential, subject to a conditional zoning agreement requiring
the approval of Planned Development Housing Plan (OPDH Plan) that reflects the
neighborhood design concepts contained in the Comprehensive Plan. At the time the
rezoning was approved, no plans were offered to indicate how the property would be
developed. Both staff and the Commission raised concerns about the rezoning and how well
the resulting development would fit within the neighborhood, and as a result the conditional
zoning agreement was attached to the rezoning approval.
3
ANALYSIS:
The proposed OPDH plan has been revised based on staff review of the plan submitted with
the application. The revised plan is currently being reviewed to ensure that necessary
changes and corrections have been taken care of. Staff recommends deferral at this time
until review of the revised submittal is complete. The November 4 meeting will be the first of
two public discussion sessions regarding this application. The plan must be in order prior to
the Commission's vote on the application, which is likely to occur at the November 18
meeting.
As mentioned above, this property was rezoned to RM-12 in 1998, subject to conformance
with the neighborhood design concepts contained in the Comprehensive Plan, to be approved
through the planed development process. Therefore, the decision to allow a moderate
density development on this parcel has basically been made. The main purpose of this
application is to review the design of the development to ensure conformance with the
neighborhood design concepts, as discussed below. The Plan's conformance with the
requirements of the Zoning Chapter and other City Codes must also be evaluated. These two
issues are discussed below.
Comprehensive Plan: The Neighborhood Design Concepts discussed in the Comprehensive
Plan encourage the development of neighborhoods with neighborhood commercial
opportunities, diverse housing types, more efficient and compact design, interconnected
street systems that provide for all modes of transportation, attractive and pedestrian oriented
streetscapes, and the inclusion of adequate parks, trails, and open spaces. The proposed
preliminary OPDH plan has been reviewed with respect to these items, as per the conditional
zoning agreement. It should be noted, however, that not every parcel can be developed to
provide for all of these amenities. Rather, each proposed development should be evaluated to
determine whether it will contribute toward the creation of an overall neighborhood that has
these qualities, taking into account what already exists within the area.
Neighborhood Commercial: The proposed plan does not contain a neighborhood commercial
center, but one is planned within a short distance to the east along Court Street.
Development of moderate density housing on this parcel will help contribute toward the
viability of this future commercial area by providing a population to support it.
Housing Diversity/Compatibility: The Comprehensive Plan calls for the development of
neighborhoods with diverse housing opportunities, but stresses the importance of quality
design for multi-family developments when integrated into lower density neighborhoods.
Although the parcel immediately to the south has recently been approved for multi-family
residential use, the general character of the overall area is and will likely remain single-family.
Property to the north and south of these parcels is zoned for single-family uses, and the
Northeast District Plan calls for the area surrounding these parcels to be predominantly single-
family in character. Staff feels the proposed plan provides for a good transition from the
larger, higher density buildings at the intersection of Court Street and Camden Road to
adjacent lower density areas. Townhouses that are lower in height and scale are proposed to
the north along Camden Road and along Court Street to the east and west of the 12-unit
buildings.
Building elevations for all of the proposed buildings are attached - indicating proposed building
heights and materials to be used. In general, staff feels that the buildings will contribute
toward the creation of an attractive, pedestrian oriented streetscape along both Camden
Road and Court Street. Photographs and drawings of Building A, to be located along Court
Street and along the east side of Camden Road, are not yet final. The applicant has indicated
that a revised design for this building type will be submitted, but that these illustrations were
provided to give the Commission an idea of what will be proposed. A revised plan, including
a six-unit version of the building, should be provided prior to the November 18 meeting. Two
designs have been proposed for the larger 12-unit buildings at the corners (Building B). The
applicant has indicated that either building, or one of each, could be utilized. Elevation C is a
12-plex building that would be located on both sides of Camden Road, north of the larger
buildings at the intersection. Parking for Buildings B and C would be provided through a
combination of detached garages and small areas of surface parking. Building D is a
townhouse unit that would face Camden Road, with parking provided underneath the building
in garages accessed from the rear of the buildings. The only building with front-loaded
garages would be Building E - ranch-style townhouses accessed from a private drive and
located behind Buildings D. The applicant has provided for a wide landscaped median
between the backs of Buildings D and the fronts of Buildings E. Together with the change in
grade between the two areas, this median should help to provide a more pleasing
environment at the front of these units, as opposed to having these units located in close
proximity to each other.
Arguments for moderate density housing on this parcel have to do with its proximity to the
proposed CN-1 zone to the east, its location on an arterial street, and the Comprehensive
Plan policy of encouraging a diversity or mix of dwelling types and sizes within
neighborhoods. In combination with existing and planned residential development on
adjacent properties, staff feels that the proposed development would contribute toward
creating a neighborhood with the diversity and neighborhood compatibility desired as per the
Comprehensive Plan.
More Efficient and Compact Design: The proposed plan will result in a density of about 8.5
dwelling units per acre. By helping to raise the overall density of the neighborhood slightly,
the proposed development will contribute toward a more efficient and compact development
pattern. While this one parcel will have only a small impact on service delivery and urban
sprawl, if these policies are followed city-wide there could be significant benefits over the
long term.
Interconnected Streets: Because the property located immediately to the east of this parcel
has been reserved as a potential elementary school site, and there is a drainage way located
along the west property line of the site, ensuring the creation of an interconnected street
system here is difficult. The plan does show a stub street connecting from Camden Road
east to an adjacent property at the north end of the site. There are possibilities for additional
street connections to the north such that multiple connections from Camden Road to
properties located both east and west could occur. When the area to the north is planned the
City should ensure that adequate connectivity is provided between these parcels.
Streetscape/Pedestrian Orientation: Efforts have been made to create an attractive
streetscape along Camden Road and Court Street. No garages or parking areas are located
directly adjacent to either street. Instead, landscaping and the fronts of buildings will be
facing the street. This should help to contribute toward creating a walkable neighborhood
that is attractive to the pedestrian as well as the driver. In addition, a proposed open space
and trail along a drainage way on the property is shown on the plan. The extension of a trail
system through this property to the north will provide access to many open space areas for
residents of this general area, including Scott Park, the existing Windsor Ridge trail system,
the proposed town square open space within the neighborhood commercial center, and
Lindemann Square as proposed in the Northeast District Plan.
Staff feels that the proposed development plan is in conformance with the Neighborhood
Design Concepts contained in the Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast District Plan. In
addition, multi-family development in this location is consistent with the future land use
scenario contained in the Northeast District Plan.
Preliminary OPDH Plan:
City Code Items: The proposed preliminary OPDH plan illustrates a total of 100 dwelling
units on 11.79 acres. This falls well within the density limitations of the underlying RM-12
zone. The plan also meets the City's requirements for parking and trees. The Fire
Department has approved the preliminary plan in terms of the location of fire hydrants and
emergency vehicle access and circulation. Storm water management is not required for this
development due to the existence of the Scott Park regional storm water management
facility. It appears that the outstanding items that are still under review have to do with the
proposed grades and locations of retaining walls, the location and provision of easements for
public utilities, and a few corrections that staff requested to clarify information on the plat.
Staff anticipates that these items will be addressed prior to the November 18th meeting.
Variations: According to the information submitted with the application, it appears that no
specific variations from the requirements of the Zoning Chapter will need to be specified as
part of this planned development application. However, the building elevations for Building B,
the larger 12-plexes to be located at each corner of the Court Street/Camden Road
intersection, indicate that the overall height of the proposed buildings will be approaching the
35 feet permitted within the underlying RM-12 zone. Building height is a provision that can
be relaxed through the planned development process. Although the information submitted
indicates that the building will fall within the height limitations, staff encourages the applicant
to check the building height with respect to the proposed grades around the two buildings to
ensure that the building when placed on the site, will not exceed the 35-foot requirement. If
it will, this should be specified as a variation and included in the OPDH application to avoid
the need for a Board of Adjustment application in the future.
Streets: Camden Road is proposed as a north/south collector street that is to begin at Court
Street and would provide access to property located to the north. Also illustrated is a stub
street along the northeastern corner of the zoning parcel that would provide for a connection
to an adjacent property. As mentioned above, opportunities for additional connections to
adjacent properties are somewhat limited in this location. Staff recommends that these
connections occur on the property to the north.
Open Space/Trail: Outlot A has been added to the plan to provide additional open space
along an existing drainage way. This outlot is not currently within the area zoned RM-12,
and staff feels it is not appropriate to expand the zone to include this parcel. When this
property is subdivided, it can be included as an outlot and established as open space at that
time. The plan notes that Outlot A is to be dedicated to the City as open space. When this
property is platted, the issue of Neighborhood Open Space will have to be reviewed by both
the Planning and Zoning and Parks and Recreation Commissions. Decisions regarding
whether or not to accept this parcel and how to handle the Neighborhood Open Space
requirements will have to be made at that time. The City may want to reserve its
Neighborhood Open Space requirements for use in the Lindemann Square area, which is to be
partially located on a portion of this parcel to the north of the current application, but could
consider accepting additional open space if offered. That issue does not have to be decided
at this time since a subdivision of this property will also be required.
The plan illustrates a trail within the outlot which could connect south to Court Street and
north to Lower West Branch Road and potentially beyond, providing a good off-street trail
connection within the area. However, the southern end of the trail as shown on the plan
does not connect to Court Street. Options for this portion of the trail include routing it along
the sanitary sewer easement located along the west line of the property, or having it follow
the drainage way across the adjacent property to the west when it develops. If the latter
approach is taken, it could be some time before the trail connects to Court Street to the
south, depending on when the adjacent property is annexed and developed. Staff
recommends that the trail follow the sanitary sewer easement and be installed along with this
development, or that a temporary southern connection be established between the trail and
the internal circulation system within this development, which could be removed when the
trail is extended in the future.
Sensitive Areas Ordinance: The drainage way located along the western boundary does not
show up as a blue-line stream on the USGS maps for this area, and therefore is not a stream
corridor. There are no other sensitive features located on this property according to the
Sensitive Areas Inventory. Therefore, the Sensitive Areas Ordinance does not apply to this
property.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that REZ99-0011 be deferred pending staff review of the preliminary
OPDH plan to ensure compliance with the technical requirements of the Zoning Chapter.
Upon staff approval of the plan, staff recommends that the request to rezone 11.79 acres
from Low Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-12) to Planned Development Housing Overlay
(OPDH-12) and approval of a preliminary OPDH plan for Windsor Ridge, Part Fifteen, a
proposed 100-unit residential development located north of Court Street at its eastern
terminus, be approved, subject to the connection of the proposed trail on Outlot A south to
Court Street along the proposed sanitary sewer easement located along the west property
line, or the establishment of a temporary connection between the trail and internal circulation
system within the proposed development.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map.
2. Preliminary OPDH Plan (2 sheets).
3. Building Elevations, Buildings "A" - "E"~i
Approved by:
Karin ranklin, Director
lanning and
Community Development
~__ ~ ~.1~ ..........................
SITE LOCATION: Windsor Ridge, Part 15 REZ99-0011
..... Preliminary OPDH-- 12 Plan
~~ Windsor l~idge -- ParL Fifteen, Iowa City, Ia
~~ P~T PR~P~D BY: O~ER & ~UBDI~O~ O~E~ ~E~:
.~ ,~~ MM5 CO~ULTA~ INC. ~RLING~N ~C. ~las Ruppefi
~ ~~ 1917 S Gi]~ ~t ~/o:
:::;:;~:~: :: ~ ion City, [o~
~egal ~srr
........ -
............
~ ..... SCHOOL ~c,~o..,p .o~ ~ sc,~
~.~,~.'- ' s/re
, ~ ....... RESER VA TION
,~ I
~ -~ Windsor Ridge Ps~ 12 .
, , ~, -I
Lot 258 '
,, Preliminary OPDH--12 Plan
~r Ridge -- Part Fifteen, Iowa City,
P~T PR~P~D BY: O~ER & SUBD]~D~ O~ER'S A~EY:
lg17 S Cil~ St e/o: ~ Wat~ 122 S ~nn St
'~~ '~~'~ IOWA C~Y. IOW~ 52240 2~6 Momon T~k B]~ ]o~ City. ]o~
'~m~ '~~ Ion City.
'~. ~ ~-~-
,
~_nt by: MMS CONSULTANTS, INC. 3193518476; 10122/99 3:42PM;Jefi~ #957;PacJe 111
:.,: SUPERIOR CONCRET ~t: 93380153
X~inLsor Ricge Town'~omes
Part 15
I,, · / .
~'-~. ......:-t, i, . ~-.--,--,-~_~
Main Upper
· front elevation ·
· front elevation ·
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 12, 1999 (for November 18 meeting)
To: Ranning and Zoning Commission
From: Scott Kugler, Associate Planner
Re: REZ99-0011 - Windsor Ridge, Part 15 Rezoning from RM-12 and RS-8 to OPDH-
12 and OPDH-8 - Plan Revisions
This item was deferred at the November 4 meeting to allow a second meeting for public
discussion and to allow for revisions to the proposed development plan associated with this
application. The developer indicated that building elevations would be submitted for
"Building A", and side elevations were requested by the Commission for "Building B", the
larger 12-plex buildings proposed for the corners of Court Street and Camden Road.
Attached please find a revised development plan, proposed elevations for Building A in both
a 4-unit and 6-unit configuration, and side and rear elevations for Building B. In addition,
the Commission and applicant discussed the possibility of incorporating the proposed open
space into the development plan to ensure that it becomes a part of the development. The
application has been amended to include the outlot, which is located within the RS-8 zone)
as part of the plan. As a result, this is now a rezoning from Low Density Multi-Family
Residential (RM-12) and Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) to Planned
Development Overlay (OPDH-12 and OPDH-8).
Revised Preliminary OPDH Plan: The revised development plan contains a couple of minor
typographical errors that will have to be corrected before the Commission's vote. None of
the items involve changes to the proposed building and site layout, or any substantial
changes to the notes or site calculations. Staff anticipates that the plan will be ready to be
voted on at the November 18 meeting.
In the November 4 staff report, staff recommended that the proposed trail be extended
south to Court Street along the sanitary sewer easement at the west end of the property
as a condition on the approval of this application. However, due to proposed grading in
this location and the proximity of the adjacent 6-unit building and its rear drive, there will
be a 4:1 slope in this area near the property line. A retaining wall is also proposed to the
west of the building and parking area. To establish a trail here would require a second
retaining wall within the sanitary sewer easement, which is not acceptable to the public
works department, as it would make future maintenance of the sewer line more difficult
and more expensive.
Given this situation, options for dealing with the south end of this trail include pulling the
adjacent building back from the west property line so that a more gentle slope can be
created along the sanitary sewer easement to accommodate the trail, or planning for the
trail to eventually be extended through the Lindemann property to the west of this site.
Each option has its advantages and disadvantages. Pulling the building back from the
property line would likely result in the loss of one or more dwelling units to free up enough
space to alter the slope along the easement. However, it would ensure that the connection
is made and will be available for residents of this area. Planning for the extension of the
trail would mean obtaining an easement for the trail on Outlot A as well as an escrow or
letter of credit for its future construction, and then dealing with the adjacent property
owner to have the easement extended and the trail established down to Court Street as
that property develops. This connection is a bit more logical in that the trail would be
following a natural drainage area that runs through both properties, and would help ensure
that the future development on the Lindemann property has an opportunity to tie into this
trail as well. The applicant is proposing that the second option be pursued, with the trail to
be constructed at some point in the future when it can be connected to Court Street
through the Lindemann property. Staff feels that this option would be acceptable, but
notes that it could be some time before the adjacent property is annexed and developed.
Building Elevations: Staff feels that the 4-unit configuration of Building A will fit well along
Camden Road, and provide a good transition to the smaller-scale residential dwellings that
are expected to the north at some point in the future. The proposed roofline contains some
substantial variations to help to visually break up the length of the building. The 6-unit
variation of this building is less successful in that the center portion of the building is much
longer, giving the building less of a residential scale. This could be addressed by
interrupting this longer section of the building in some way, perhaps by providing a more
substantial dormer in the central bay or by altering the roof plane in this area. Given the
location of the 6-unit buildings within the neighborhood - adjacent to the school site and
future open space areas, and across the street from larger, previously approved buildings -
the scale of these buildings may not be as critical as the 4-unit buildings along Camden
Road, which abut the undeveloped RS-8 area to the north.
The side and rear elevations of Building B indicate that the brick and stucco materials
proposed on the fa.cade will be carried around all four sides of the building. The side
elevations do not answer the question staff raised in the November 4 staff report about the
height of the building. It appears that the building will be taller at the rear due to a change
in grade on the site, but no building height is listed on these elevations. Whether it will
exceed the 35-foot height limit of the RM-12 zone is not known. The applicant will have to
clarify the building height issue before the Commission votes on this application.
Staff continues to recommend approval of the proposed rezoning and development plan, as
noted in the November 4 staff report, subject to the resolution of the trail connection issue
as discussed above.
,. ,-] Preliminary 0PDH--8 & OPDH--12 Plan
2~,pf~,.,,:,~:~;I~::~.,:~:,i~l,~ Windsor Ridge -- Part Fifteen, Iowa City, Ia
.~~ ~ PLAT PREPPED MY: O~ER & SUBDI~DE~ O~ER'8 A~RNEY:
"~F ' ~S CORSULTAN~ INC. ~NG~M LC. Dougla. Ruppe~
~ ~ IOWA Cl~, IOW~ 52240 2~6 Moron T~k BI~ IoM City, Io~
~:~ ~ "~ [o~ City, Ion
LEGEND AND NOTES
-~ ......~- ....~-
~,..-~
by ~,
.....................................................
~ ~: )~Z .........................
_~ Preliminary OPDH--8 & OPDH--12 Plan
sor Ridge -- Part FifLeen, Iowa City, Ia
'~~' '~~ P~T P~P~D BY: O~R I BUBDI~D~ O~RR'~ A~QRNEY:
'~~' '~m~ / 1917 S Oilbe~ St o/~ ~ Wat~ 122 S Linn St
.~~ .~~ IOWA C~. IOW& 5~40 ~6 Moron Trek BI~ Io~ City.
· ~~ 1o, City. [o~
...... -
LEFT ELEVATION
left elevation
-,,-.. ~__ -: ...... =-:.{..
S'F"i '- -
.....
........... ~ ~ ....
i_L - -
riqht elevation,
~-l
l
~-l
l
'7
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 18th day of
January, 2000, in the Civic Center Council
Chambers, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa
City, Iowa, at which hearing the Council will
consider:
1. An ordinance changing the zoning
designation from Low Density Multi-Family
Residential (RM-12) and Medium Density
Single Family Residential (RS-8) to Planned
Development Housing Overlay (OPDH-
12/11.79 acres) and (OPDH-8/1.47 acres)
and approving a preliminary Planned
Development Housing Overlay Plan for
Windsor Ridge, Pad 15, a proposed 98-unit
residential development located north of
urt Street at its eastern terminus.
2.' An ordinance changing the zoning
2~ignation from Low Density Single-Family
Residential (RS-5) to Sensitive Areas
Overlay - Low Density Residential (OSA-5)
and approving a preliminary Sensitive Areas
Development Plan for three four-unit
buildings on a 2.72 acre property located
north of Rohret Road, west of Highway 218.
3. An ordinance changing the zoning
designation from Planned High Density
Multi-Family Residential (PRM) to Sensitive
Areas Overlay (OSA-PRM) and approving a
preliminary Sensitive Areas Development
Plan for approximately .28 acres located at
522 S. Dubuque 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
ppdadmin%nph1-18-O0.doc
NOTE TO FILE:
The notice of public hearing for the following January 18 agenda items was
published in the Iowa City Press-Citizen on January 10:
A. Public hearing on an ordinance changing the zoning designation
from Low Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-12) and Medium Density
Single Family Residential (RS-8) to Planned Development Housing Overlay
(OPDH-12/11.79 acres) and (OPDH-8/1.47 acres) and approving a
preliminary Planned Development Housing Overlay Plan for Windsor Ridge,
Part 15, a proposed 98-unit residential development located north of Court
Street at its eastern terminus.
b,/~. Public hearing on an ordinance changing the zoning designation
from Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) to Sensitive Areas Overlay
- Low Density Residential (OSA-5) and approving a preliminary Sensitive
Areas Development Plan for three four-unit buildings on a 2.72 acre property
located north of Rohret Road, west of Highway 218 (Duck Creek Condos).
C. Public hearing on an ordinance changing the zoning designation
from Planned High Density Multi-Family Residential (PRM) to Sensitive Areas
Overlay (OSA-PRM) and approving a preliminary Sensitive Areas
Development Plan for approximately .28 acres located at 522 S. Dubuque
Street (Clark).
Since the notice was delivered to the P.C. after the deadline it was placed in the
classified section. The notice was not published as a legal publication and will not
be permanently retained in our office as such. Public hearings were held on
January 18.
A public discussion of item A above was also held on February 1.
No proof of publication will be received by this office. Billing will be done
separately as a classified.
Cc: Sarah Holecek, Asst. City Attorney
Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney
Scott Kugler, Planner
Bob Miklo, Senior Planner
01-18-00
Prepared by: Melody Rockwell, Assoc. Planner, City of Iowa City, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319/356-5251
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING
DESIGNATION ON A 2,72 ACRE TRACT
LOCATED AT THE NORTH SIDE OF ROHRET
ROAD AND WEST OF HIGHWAY 218 FROM
LOW DENSITY SINGLE-FAt,4ZLY RESIDEN-
TIAL (RS-5) TO SENSI'rZVE AREAS OVER-
LAY-LOW DENSTrY RESZDEN'I'ZAL (OSA-5)
TO PERMIT TWELVE DWELLING UNITS
AND APPROVING A PRELIMINARY SENSI-
TIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, South Pointe Partners, L.L.P.,
property owner, hereinafter "Applicant," has
applied to rezone a 2.72 acre parcel to OSA-5 to
permit development of the property for a
planned housing development of twelve dwelling
units in three four-unit buildings; and
WHEREAS, the density of the proposed
development does not exceed the density per-
mitted in the underlying RS-5 zoning; and
WHEREAS, the proposed development is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan desig-
nation for this area of two to eight dwelling units
per acre; and
WHEREAS, the proposed design of the pre-
liminary Sensitive Areas Development Plan will
allow for a measure of diversity of housing to be
introduced within the neighborhood in a way
that provides a compatible transition and archi-
tectural integration of multi-family structures
within a single-family residential neighborhood;
and
WHEREAS, the development proposed in the
east portion of the site along Highway 218,
which contains a critical slope, as defined by the
City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance, necessitates a
Sensitive Areas Overlay rezoning and submittal
of a Sensitive Areas Development Plan; and
WHEREAS, the preliminary Sensitive Areas
Development Plan filed by the Applicant in asso-
ciation with the rezoning request, and revised
and resubmitted to the City on November 18,
1999, is agreed to by the Applicant as being
representative of its intentions with respect to
development of the property, and shall serve as
a basis upon which to review final development
plans, grading plans, construction drawings,
legal papers and any other plans or legal docu-
2
ments required by the City regarding the devel-
opment of the property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I. APPROVAL. The property legally
described below is hereby reclassified from its
present classification of RS-5 to O5A-5, and is to
be developed in conformance with the prelimi-
nary Sensitive Areas Development Plan for Duck
Creek Condominiums, which is hereby approved:
Auditor's Parcel 98100: Commencing at the
Southeast Comer of the North One-Half of
the Southeast Quarter of Section 18,
Township 79 North, Range 6 West, of the
Fifth Principal Meridian; Thence
S89°38'11'M/, along the South Line of said
North One-Half, 1262.89 feet, to its inter-
section with the Westerly Right-of-Way Line
of Primary Road 518 (218); Thence
N53°24'51'NV, along said Westerly Right-of-
Way Line, 84.12 feet, to its intersection with
the Northerly Right-of-Way Line of Rohret
Road; Thence S89°34'12'%N, along said
Northerly Right-of-Way Line, 76.20 feet to
the Point of Beginning; Thence continuing
S89°34'12"W, along said Northerly Right-of-
Way Line, 447.56 feet, to a Point on the
Easterly Line of Hunters Run Part Two, in
accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded
in Plat Book 26, at Page 75, Records of
3ohnson County, Iowa; Thence
N00°i6'43'~/V, along said Easterly Line,
474.90 feet, to its intersection with said
Westerly Right-of-Way Line of Primary Road
518 (218); Thence S47°14'52"E, along said
Westerly Right-of-Way Line, 601.66 feet;
Thence 507°16'22"E, 63.62 feet, to the
Point of Beginning, containing 2.72 acres,
and is subject to easements and restrictions
of: record.
SECTION II. ZONING MAP. Upon final pas-
sage, approval and publication of this Ordinance
as provided by law, the Building Official is
hereby authorized and directed to change the
zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to
conform to this zoning change.
SECTION Ill. VARIATIONS: The following
variations from the requirements of the under-
lying RS-5 zone have been approved as part of
the preliminary Sensitive Areas Development
Plan:
A. Three four-unit buildings will be permitted in
a single-family residential zone.
3
B. Tnstead of only one principal structure being
permitted on the lot, twelve dwelling units in
three buildings will be permitted on one lot.
C. The paving width of the private street within
the development will be reduced. The pri-
vate street, Duck Creek Place, is intended
for two-way traffic. :Instead of a twenty-
eight foot wide paved surface, back-of-curb
to back-of-curb (BC-BC), the street shall be
a minimum of twenty feet (203 in width,
and will have a seven-inch deep Portland
Cement Concrete (PCC) surface. Three-inch
integral roll curbs will define the edges of
the paved surface of the street.
SECT:ION TV. CERTTF[CATTON AND RE-
CORDTNG. Upon passage and approval of this
Ordinance, the City Clerk is hereby authorized
and directed to certify a copy of this Ordinance
for recording in the Office of the Recorder,
3ohnson County, :]:owa, at the expense of South
Pointe Partners, L.L.P., all as provided by law.
SECTION V. REPEALER. All ordinances and
parts of ordinances in conflict with the provi-
sions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION VI. SEVERABIIjTY. 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 uncon-
stitutional.
SECTION VII. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordi-
nance shall be in effect after its final passage,
approval and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this __ day of
,2000.
City Clerk
A'I'FEST:
Mayor
Approved y:
city
ppdadm/ord/duc r. oc
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission Prepared by: Melody Rockwell
Item: REZ99-O012. Rohret Road/Duck Date: October 21, 1999
Creek Drive
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant &property owner: Southpointe Partners
755 Mormon Trek Blvd.
Iowa City, IA 52246
Phone: 337-4195
Requested action: Approval of a rezoning from RS-5, Low
Density Single-Family Residential, to
OSA-5, Sensitive Areas Overlay/
Planned Housing Development
Purpose: To permit the construction of 12
condominium units in three buildings on
the 2.78-acre site
Location: Northeast corner of Rohret Road and
Duck Creek Drive intersection
Property size: 2.78 acres
Existing land use and zoning: Vacant; RS-5
Surrounding land use and zoning: North: Highway 218
East: Highway 218
South: Residential; RR-1
West: Residential; RS-5
Comprehensive Plan: Residential, 2-8 dwelling units per acre
Applicable Code requirements: Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone, Planned
Development Housing Overlay Zone
File date: September 30, 1999
45-day limitation period: November 15, 1999
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Last November (1998), Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship (GICHF), requested a rezoning
of the 2.78 acre property located at the northeast corner of Rohret Road and Duck Creek
Drive from Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) to OPDH-5, a low density planned
housing development. Although staff recommended approval, the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended denial of GICHF's plan to develop 14 townhouse dwelling units in
three buildings on the site. The applicant forwarded the rezoning request to the City Council,
but withdrew the application prior to Council consideration of the item. In early May 1999,
GICHF submitted a new application to rezone the 2.78 acre property from RS-5 to OSA-5,
Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone/Low Density Residential. GICHF proposed to construct 14
detached single-family residences (14 separate townhouses) on the site with ten of the
homes facing Rohret Road and four facing Duck Creek Drive. This rezoning request was
never brought forward to the Planning and Zoning Commission, and GICHF formally withdrew
its application from consideration on October 1, 1999.
Now, the Commission is being asked to consider a completely separate rezoning application
that has been submitted by the property owner, Southpointe Partners. This new application
proposes a rezoning of the property from RS-5 to OPDH-5 to allow development of 12
condominium units in three buildings on the site. According to the applicant, the proposed
development would be similar to the Willowbrooke Pointe Condominiums development that is
located at the northeast corner of Benton Street and Mormon Trek Boulevard. This rezoning
is considered a planned housing development, because the residences are clustered on the
site and are not placed within individual lots. However, because the development of the plan,
as now designed, would encroach into a critical slope adjacent to Highway 218, a Sensitive
Areas Overlay rezoning is required. That is why the applicants have modified the rezoning
request from OPDH-5 to OSA-5 and have submitted a Sensitive Areas Development Plan
instead of an OPDH plan.
ANALYSIS:
Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone: The Sensitive Areas Ordinance section of the Zoning
Chapter requires that when critical slopes (between 25% and 39% in steepness) exist on a
site and development activities will encroach on the critical slopes, a Sensitive Areas
Overlay rezoning is required. In this case, a portion of the parking area, and a retaining
wall and its footings are shown on the site plan as making a triangular-shaped
(approximately 120 square foot) cut into the critical slope. Two corners of the garage
structure also appear to encroach slightly into the critical slope. Although no buffer or
setback is required when development activities occur on critical slopes, the code provides
that "grading and excavation shall be minimized on steep and critical slopes." To meet this
provision, the plan indicates the erosion control measures that will be taken during the
development of the site.
Planned Development Housing: A purpose of planned housing developments is to permit
flexibility in the development of land in situations where conventional development may not
be reasonable or appropriate. Modifications to the requirements of the underlying zone that
are made as part of a planned development should be consistent with the neighborhood
planning policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and should result in development that is
compatible with the surrounding residential development. In this instance, the Southpointe
Partners rezoning request proposes modifications to the underlying RS-5 zone to allow more
than one detached single-family dwelling unit per lot with each lot being a minimum of 8,000
square feet in size. With a 2.78-acre site, there would be approximately 10,091 square feet
of lot area per each of the 12 condominium units. This exceeds the 8,000 square foot
minimum lot area per dwelling unit, but provides it all on one lot, instead of 12 individual lots.
Given the location of this property adjacent to a limited access highway and an arterial street,
its size, shape and topography, and the extremely narrow access available along the Duck
Creek Drive frontage, a planned housing development may well be a reasonable alternative to
detached single-family residences on individual lots. The reasonableness of the rezoning
application can be evaluated, at least in part, in terms of its conformance with the housing
and neighborhood development policies of the Comprehensive Plan and whether the proposed
planned housing development is compatible with neighboring residential properties.
The Comprehensive Plan land use map designates low-density residential development of two
- eight dwelling units per acre for this area of the community. The proposed density of
slightly more than four (4.32) dwelling units per acre is consistent with this designation. The
Comprehensive Plan calls for providing housing opportunities throughout Iowa City for
households of all sizes, incomes, ages and special needs, and encourages a mix of housing
types within individual neighborhoods. There are multi-family structures located within the
Southwest Planning District of Iowa City, but few, if any, are located in the neighborhood
west of Highway 218, which to date has been developed exclusively in standard, detached
single-family residential lots. Introducing a measure of diversity in housing within the
neighborhood, as is proposed by Southpointe Partners, would be in keeping with the
Comprehensive Plan policies for providing alternative housing opportunities in a neighborhood
context.
In staff's view, the proposed housing development meets the neighborhood compatibility
standard in that its design creates a relatively smooth transition of housing types between
the Southpointe Partners development and the existing residential development in the Duck
Creek Neighborhood. The plan calls for 12 dwelling units on the site; four condominium units
per each of the three buildings. To achieve an architectural integration of this development
with the surrounding neighborhood, the applicant is proposing to construct multi-family
buildings that have a large house appearance with varied rooflines, exterior detail and building
materials that are compatible with the existing single-family structures along Duck Creek
Drive.
Having the residential structures set back a buffering distance from Rohret Road (80 feet) and
Duck Creek Drive (90 feet) enhances the compatibility of the development. Also, the garages
and driveway paving are proposed to be oriented on the site so they are a less visible aspect
of the development. The lighting of the parking area will be confined to one location on the
interior of the site. The lighting will be downcast and according to the photometric plan
provided by the applicant, direct light from the fixture will be confined well within the
boundaries of the property. The plan also shows extensive landscaping. To improve its
effectiveness and minimize erosion on the critical slope, staff would suggest that the
proposed evergreen screening between the residences and Highway 218 be located back
from the top of the slope instead of on lower portions of the slope.
Infrastructure. Sanitary sewer and water service are available to this site. The existing
public sanitary sewer line along Duck Creek Drive will have to be extended to the south and
onto the property, at which point private service lines can be extended to each of the
buildings. An easement will be needed for the portion of the public sewer line that is to be
located on the subject property. The deficiencies noted by Public Works on the plan have
been resolved, and the Fire Marshal has indicated that the plan provides a good design for
emergency access.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that EXC99-0012, a rezoning of 2.78 acres from RS-5 to OSA-5 for
property located at the northeast corner of the Rohret Road and Duck Creek Drive
intersection be approved.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Application Attachments/Preliminary Sensitive Areas Development Plan
Approved by: ~ ~
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Department of Planning and
Community Development
HUNTERS RUN
PARK
/
CI~ OF IOWA CI~ CORPORATE LIMITS
SITE LOCATION: Duck Creek Condominiums REZ99-001 2
City of Iowa
410 E. Washington
Iowa City, IA 52240
In re: Case number REZ 99-0012 -- preliminary planned area development plan for rezoning
Statement of Intent: We propose to build 3 four unit buildings for a total of 12 units to be sold as
condominiums. These buildings are the same as Willowbrooke Pointe Condominiums located on
the comer of Morman Trek and Benton Street.
Ownership of this approximate 3 acre parcel is South Pointe Partners, L.L.P.
Description of Development: Three 4 unit buildings. The buildings consist of two 2 bedroom
units and two 3 bedroom units. The 3 bedroom units have attached double garages and the 2
bedroom units have attached single car garages each and a unattached single car garage. The
street will be private and the common area will be govemed by a condominium association.
Time Schedule: We intend to start construction in spring of 2000 and be completed by 2001.
South Pointe Partners are requesting this zoning change as the best possible use for this site. This
parcel is fronted with Hwy 218 to the East, Rohret Road to the South and Duck Creek Road to
the West, which limits its use as a single family.
This concept has proven itself successful at Willowbrooke Pointe and the adjoining single family
neighbors on Spencer Drive and Elliott Court are very pleased with the Willowbrooke
Condominium development. The re-sale of the Willowbrooke Pointe units has been good and we
feel there is a definite need in the market for these units.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if additional information is needed or if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Bill Happel
South Pointe Partners
ms
, Duck Creek C ndomlniu
~ i,
" LEGEND AND NDTES
-- ~, z ......
[ ,_ ~ ~CATION M~ NOT TO SCA~
OCT' ~1~ :"~'j ~'~:'~' " ~'~" "
' " ~ ~ ~" ' ~ ~H~iti~ ~ea Development Plan ~'~
..... Original Message .....
From: Melody Rockwell
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2000 12:33 PM
To: Marian Karr
Cc: Bob Miklo
Subject: FW: Duck Creek Condominiums
Marian -- You may want to distribute this to Council.
..... Original Message .....
From: Melody Rockwell
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2000 12:27 PM
To: 'Mike._Kreger@pass-seymour.com'
Subject: RE: Duck Creek Condominiums
>>You are correct. The Sensitive Areas Development Plan recommended for approval by PZ on November 18 is the one
Council will be considering.
>>The public hearing will begin on January 18. On February 1, the public hearing will be continued & the Council will likely
have its first vote on this issue. Generally, there are three Council votes (readings) on a rezoning item. The initial two
votes need to be in favor before the Council can vote to pass & adopt on the third reading. If the Council votes to approve
Duck Creek Condos on February 1, it is likely that the 2nd reading will be on February 15 & the vote to pass & adopt will
take place on March 7. Occasionally, the Council "collapses" the last two-readings. If that happened in this case, the vote
to pass and adopt could occur on February 15. Did I tell you more than you want to know?
>>Also, you will be addressing the Council in a way, because any letters or comments received at the PZ level are
forwarded to the Council along with the staff reports, minutes and the ordinance for the rezoning. But, please feel free to
forward a letter, e-mail or be present in person to voice your opinion for the Council public hearing.
>>Thank you for your continuing interest in this process.
..... Original Message .....
From: Mike_Kreger@pass-seymour.com [mailto:Mike_Kreger@pass-seymour.com]
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2000 8:09 AM
To: melody_rockwell@iowa-city.org
Subject: Duck Creek Condominiums
Melody,
Good Morning!
I received your letter and it appeared to me that nothing has changed in
the condo plan. Is this the formal approval by the council?
As long as it is the same plan as approved by P&Z I am happy it is
progressing and do not need to address council.
Please confirm whether or not my understanding is correct.
Thank you.
Melody Rockwell
To: lihry@fyiowa .infi.net
Subject: RE: Rezoning application: Duck Creek Dr. & Rohret Rd.
Laurie:
The application indicates that there will be three four-unit buildings. Each building will consist of two two-bedroom units
and two three-bedroom units. The three-bedroom units have attached double garages and the two-bedroom units have
attached single car garages and a detached single-car garage. The street will be private and the common area will be
governed by a condominium association.
The application does not address whether or not these condominiums will be for families with children. No target
population is indicated. Further, that is not something the City ordinance addresses; the City can't require that the units be
occupied by families with childre or preclude that possibility. Only when eider housing with reduced parking is proposed is
the exclusion of children (anyone under 55) required. The City does not have the authority either to require that the units
be owner-occupied. The masimum number of non-related persons who could occupy a condominium unit in this zone is
3.
If you have any further questions about the Duck Creek Condominiums application, please don't hesitate to contact me.
Thank you for your interest in this rezoning issue.
..... Original Message .....
From: Laurie Wilson Ihry [mailto:lihry@fyiowa.infi.net]
Sent: Friday, October 08, 1999 11:21 PM
To: melody_rockwell@iowa-city.org
Subject: Rezoning application: Duck Creek Dr. & Rohret Rd.
Melody:
What can you tell me about Southpointe Partners' rezoning request for
the parcel mentioned above? Do you have any information about the
proposed condos, such as are they targeted for a specific population
(such as the GICHF's proposal was) or would they be for sale to anyone?
Thanks in advance for your response.
Laurie Ihry
lihry@fyiowa.infi.net
Melody Rockwell
From: Melody Rockwell
Sent: Monday, October 11, 1999 9:30 AM
To: 'Jacki Brennan'
Subject: RE: Rezoning question
Ms. Brennan:
The application indicates that there will be three four-unit buildings. Each building will consist of two two-bedroom units
and two three-bedroom units. The three-bedroom units have attached double garages and the two bedroom units have
attached single car garages and a detached single-car garage. The street will be private and the common area will be
governed by a condominium association.
The application does not address whether or not these condominiums will be for families with children. Further, that is not
something the City ordinance addresses; the City can't require that the units be occupied by families with children or
preclude that possibility. Only when eider housing with reduced parking is the exclusion of children (anyone under 55)
required. The City does not have authority either to require that the units be owner-occupied. The maximum number of
non-related persons who could occupy a condominium unit in this zone is 3.
If you have any further questions about the Duck Creek Condominiums application, please don't hesitate to contact me.
Thank you for your interest in this rezoning issue.
..... Original Message .....
From: Jacki Brennan [mailto:brennan@avalon.net]
Sent: Friday, October 08, 1999 8:27 AM
To: melody_rockwell@iowa-city.org
Subject: Rezoning question
Ms. Rockwell,
I received a letter in the mail regarding a rezoning application for some
property in my neighborhood. This is from Southpointe Partners to develop
some land at Duck Creek and Rohret Rd. Can you tell me how large, or how
many bedrooms these units will each have and if they are geared towards
families with or without children.
Thank you.
Jacki Brennan
Melody Rockwell
From: Melody Rockwell
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 1999 10:12 AM
To: 'Hill-Jean'
Subject: RE: P and Z meeting
I apoligize that proper notice was not given to you and your neighbors on the Duck Creek Condominiums rezoning
request. I was informed by Tammy Parks, our administrative assistant, at 5:15 p.m. yesterday that she had just
discovered that the October 21 Planning and Zoning Commission agenda that should have mailed out last week was
never sent out. Tammy is calling people on that mailing list today to apologize and inform them of the meeting tonight.
Although the item can't be withdrawn from the agenda once it has been posted and advertized in the newspaper, I will
advise the Commission that insufficient notice was given to neighboring property owners, and recommend that the
Commission extend its hearings on this rezoning request. Tonight, the Commission will defer this item to November 4,
because it always holds a minimum of two public meetings on any rezoning. I will recommend that the Commission
extend its hearings to November 18, and I believe that the Commission will find that it is right and appropriate to do so. I'm
sorry for the inconvenience that this has caused, and will do what I can to make sure there is ample opportunity for public
input on the Duck Creek Condominiums rezoning request.
..... Original Message .....
From: Hill-Jean [mailto:hillj@horus.ophth.uiowa.edu]
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 1999 8:26 AM
To: 'melody_rockwell@iowa-city.org .'
Subject: P and Z meeting
I am on the mailing list for notification of rezoning requests for the
corner of Rohret and Duck Creek Drive on the Planning and Zoning agenda. I,
with other neighbors, found out last night that such a request was on the
agenda. None of us had been notified. The neighbors have several concerns we
would like addressed. Since many of us will not be able to attend on such
short notice, I request a postponment of this discussion until proper
notification is given.
Melody Rockwell
From: Melody Rockwell
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 1999 10:00 AM
To: 'lihry@fyiowa.infi .net'
Subject: RE: Oct. 21 P&Z meeting
Laurie -- I apologize that proper notice was not given to your neighborhood about the upcoming rezoning on Duck Creek
Condominiums. Tammy Parks informed me at 5:15 p.m. yesterday that she had just discovered that the letters with the
October 21 Planning and Zoning Commission agenda had not been sent out to property owners in your neighborhood.
She is calling people today to apologize and to notify them of the meeting tonight. You are right. This is inexcusable. We
cannot pull an item off the agenda that has been advertised in the newspaper and had notices posted, but I will explain to
the Commission tonight that proper notice was not given to the neighborhood about tonight's meeting and recommend that
the PZ hearings on this item be extended. The Commission will defer this item to November 4, because they always have
a minimum of two hearings on rezonings. I will recommend that the Commission also hold a hearing on November 18 on
this item, I am certain that the Commission will agree that it is appropriate and right to extend the public meetings on this
item. [Please note that the meetings before PZ begin at 7:30 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers.] Again, I
apologize for the inconvenience this has caused. I don't blame you for being angry. I will try to rectify the situation so that
there is ample opportunity for public input on the Duck Creek Condominiums rezoning application.
..... Original Message .....
From: Laurie Wilson Ihry [mailto:lihry@fyiowa.infi.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 1999 12:24 AM
To: melody_rockwell@iowa-city.org; tammy_parks@iowa-city.org;
bob_b igel ow@ iowa-city. o rg
Subject: Oct. 21 P&Z meeting
I was very surprised to learn at 9:00 p.m. tonight that the Duck Creek
Condominiums proposal is on tomorrow night's agenda. I learned this at
a meeting between the developer and the neighborhood, The developer
complained that he'd just found out and it created an inconvenience for
him. We were told in Tammy Parks' Oct. 4, 1999 letter that an agenda
would be sent to us when the discussion was scheduled. No one in my
neighborhood received an agenda and one person knew about the meeting
because she happened to call your office this afternoon. This lack
of/late notification i~; unacceptable. There are a number of us who
want to attend the meeting but can't, because we need reasonable notice
to arrange child care, work schedules, travel plans, etc, Therefore,
please take the item off tomorrow's agenda and put it on a future one.
Then, give the developer and those on the mailing list at least 10 - 14
days notice.
What really frustrates me is that this is the fourth time there has been
a rezoning attempt on this parcel while I have lived here and we never
have had more than (at best) a day and a half's notice. At times, we've
received notices after the meetings were held. This conveys the
impression that you really don't want public participation in the
process. Please develop better standards and more realistic
notification processes so that your citizens can participate.
Laurie Wilson Ihry
339-6400 x 6380
Melody Rockwell
To: jean hill
Subject: RE: Duck Creek Condominiums request
Dear Martin & Jean Hill:
I have printed off your e-mail to copy & distribute to the Planning & Zoning Commission tonight. You asked about fire
truck access. The City Fire Marshal has indicated that the plan provides a good design for fire and other emergency
access. Please let me know if you have other questions or if you'd like other comments forwarded to the Planning and
Zoning Commission.
Sincerely, Melody Rockwell
..... Original Message .....
From: jean hill [mailto:jehiil@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu]
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 1999 2:12 PM
To: melody_rockwell@iowa-city.org
Subject: Duck Creek Condominiums request
My husband and I live at 1223 Duck Creek Drive. We will be unable to come
to tonight's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting because of illness. We
would like to express my concern that the new proposal is not unlike the
Fellowship's proposal in that overflow parking would move unto Duck Creek
Drive causing congestion and the plan would not have adequate play space.
Has the concern about a fire truck being able to turn around in the space
been addressed? Although I understand the targeted population for these
condos is retired couples and professional couples, there is nothing to
preclude that children will live there in the future. All of the safety
issues discussed before, about cramming so'many people in so small a space,
would still exist. We urge the Commission:to leave the zoning RS-5.
Martin and Jean Hill
i L
Date: October 28, 1999 ~ Ci/U
To: Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Melody Rockw~Planner
Re: REZ99-0012. Duck Creek Condominiums
Attached for your information are a letter and enclosures that were forwarded to
property owners and others interested in the Duck Creek Condominiums rezoning
request. An agenda for the Commission's informal November 1 meeting, which notes
the date and time of the November 4 formal meeting, has also been mailed in an effort
to provide additional notice of the upcoming Commission meetings on this item.
As indicated at the Commission's October 21 meeting, the neighborhood open space
requirement for the proposed Duck Creek Condominiums development is .06 acre or
2,614 square feet. Staff recommends that fees in lieu of open space be paid by the
developer to provide for improvements in a neighborhood park. This is consistent with
the Parks and Recreation Commission neighborhood open space recommendation for
this property.
At the Commission's request, a photograph of the side of the building that faces Rohret
Road will be provided for your review at the November 1 Commission meeting.
Staff continues to recommend approval of EXC99-0012, a rezoning of 2.72 acres from
RS-5 to OSA-5 and the preliminary Sensitive Areas Development Plan for Duck Creek
Condominiums for property located at the northeast corner of the Rohret Road and Duck
Creek Drive intersection.
410 EAST WASHINGTON STREET * IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240-1826 * (319) 356-5000 * FAX (319) 356-5009
October 26, 1999
Re: REZ99-0012. Duck Creek Condominiums
Dear property owner:
On October 21, the Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission made a decision
to hold a minimum of three public meetings on the Duck Creek Condominiums
rezoning application. In addition, the applicant Southpointe Partners signed a
waiver of the ~,5-day limitation period to November 18 and offered to have
another meeting about the project with the neighborhood. These commitments
were made in recognition that inadequate notice had been provided to
neighboring property owners concerning the October 21 Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting.
The next two public meetings on the
Duck Creek Condominiums rezoning request
w/l/be held
by the
Planning end Zoning Commission
on November 4 and November 1B,
Both meeU~gs will begin at 7;30
The November 4 meeting will be held in the
Civic Center Council Chamber~
4~0 E, Hfashington Street
The November ZB meeting wi// be held at the
Senior Center A~embly Room
2B S, Linn Street
You are invited to attend those meetings and present your views to the
Commission either verbally and/or in written form. If you would like to send
information to the Commission prior to the meetings, please forward it to me one
week in advance of the meetings so that I can copy it in time to mail it to the
Commission members in their meeting packet. Information received a~er the
meeting packet is mailed will be copied and then distributed to the Commission
410 EAST WASHINGTON STREET * IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240-1826 , (319) 356-5000 · FAX (319) 356-5009
2
at the meeting. You can reach me with your comments and questions by calling
me at 356-5251, faxing 356-5009 or e-mailing.' melody_rockwell@iowa-city.org.
At the October 21 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, your neighbor Mike
Kreger asked for written assurance that the plan as proposed would be
implemented if it is approved by the City Council. Enclosed is a page from the
planned housing development section of the City Code tha'C sets forth the
requirement that any "material changes" to the plan must go through the public
approval process as outlined in 14-6U-6: Amendments (also enclosed for your
review).
I_f the Duck Creek Condominiums request is approved, the approval will apply not
only to the rezoning from RS-5 to OSA-5, but also to the Preliminary Sensitive
Areas Development Plan and the building elevations as submitted. This means
that if any substantive changes to this design are proposed in the future by a
current or subsequent owner of the property, an amendment to the plan must be
approved through the public process} as with any rezoning, it will be considered
fully by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council.
Again, please feel free to contact me at any time with your questions or
comments about the Duck Creek Condominiums application.
Sincerely,
Associate Planner
Enc,
14-6J-2 14-6J-2
and the overall character of the harmony with the purposes of this
development. Chapter and other building regulations
of the City, will not adversely affect
(8) Legal description of the nearby properties, and that the park-
planned development. ing requirements of this Chapter oth-
erwise prevailing in the zone have not
c. A fee shall be pa;.cl ~t the time been reduced for residential uses. The
the preliminary PDH plan is submitted report shall identify any reduction in
to the City Clerk in an amount to be parking requirements for nonresiden-
established by resolution of the City tial uses that are proposed for a sen-
Council. sitive areas development plan. (Ord.
96-3756, 12-3-1996)
2. Preliminary PDH Plan Approval:
Approval of a preliminary PDH plan 4. Changes In Approved Preliminary
shall be by ordinance in accordance PDH PLan: Material changes in an
with the procedures set forth in Sec- approved preliminary PDH plan shall
tion 14-6U-6, Amendments, of this be subject to the approval procedures
Chapter. Approval of a rezoning to <, set forth in subsection D2 of this Sec-
OPDH shall constitute approval of the tion. A material change is any change
plan. A preliminary PDH plan shall be in the use or character of the develop-
valid for no more than twenty four (24) ment from the use or uses shown on
months unless specifically provided the preliminary PDH plan and any
otherwise in the ordinance approving dimensional change beyond the rang-
the OPDH zone. If no building permit es specified on the preliminary plan.
has been issued for the development
within the 24-month period, the area 5. Final PDH Plan:
of land to which the OPDH ordinance
applied may be considered by the City a. Applications for approval of the
for rezoning. Preliminary or final PDH final PDH plan shall meet all of the
plans approved prior to the effective requirements of the preliminary PDH
date hereof shall not be subject to this plan as well as the documentation
provision. (1978 Code §36-48; 1994 specifications of the subdivision regu-
Code) lations where applicable.
3. Report Of Plan And Zoning Com- b. A fee shall be paid at the time
mission: Upon completing review of the final plan is submitted to the City
the preliminary PDH plan, the Com- Clerk in an amount to be established
mission shall recommend either ap- by resolution of the City Council.
proval or denial of the plan and shall
make a written report of its findings to . c. For an area of land less than two
the City Council. The report shall (2) acres, the final PDH plan shall
include findings that the variances in also include the following:
setbacks, lot area requirements, build-
ing heights, building types, sizes of (1) Building elevations and floor
buildings and the combination of land plans for all structures.
uses will be in the public interest, in
197
Iowa Cit3,
14-6U-5 14-6U-6
the City Council. The City Council Zoning Commission for its recommen-
shall set the zoning matter for public dation as to the zoning of said lands.
hearing, prescribing the same notice
requirements as for a rezoning appli- 2. Upon receipt of said recommenda-
cation, and shall specify the zoning tion, the City Council shall set the
classification recommended by the zoning classification for a public hear-
Commission. If the City Council ap- i..qg, prescribing the same notice re-
proves the zoning classification rec- quirements as for rezoning application
ommended by the Commission, it and specifying the zoning classifica-
shall be set by ordinance. tion(s) recommended by the Commis-
sion. If the City Council approves the
4. A zoning classification other than zoning classification(s) recommended
that recommended by the Commission by the Commission, it shall adopt an
shall not become effective except by ordinance setting forth the various
the favorable vote of three-fourths (3/,) zoning classifications for said lands.
of the members of the City Council; The City Council may approve a high-
and an application for voluntary an- er or more restrictive classification for
nexation not recommended by the all or any part of the lands to be an-
Plan and Zoning Commission shall not nexed than recommended by the Plan
become effective unless approved by and Zoning Commission. However,
a favorable vote of three-fourths (3/,) prior to approval of any lower or less
of the members of the City Council. restrictive classification, the City
The resolution providing for annex- Council must send the matter back to
ation shall be acted upon by the City the Commission for its recommenda-
Council at the time the City Council tion on the lower classification(s). In
takes action on the zoning classifica- the event the matter is returned te the
tion. Commission subsequent to the public
hearing, a new public hearing shall be.
5. In the event an applicant does not held thereon after the Commission
designate a zoning classification in forwards its report and recommenda-
the application for voluntary annex- tion to the City Council. If the Com-
ation, no public hearing shall be re- mission recommends against the
quired, and the property may be an- lower classification, it shall not be-
nexed and shall be classified in the ID come effective except by a favorable
zone and shall be subject to all provi- vote of three-fourths (3/4) of the mem-
sions of the Zoning Ordinance. bers of the City Council. (1978 Code
§36-90)
B. Involuntary Annexation:
1. Whenever, after public hearing 14-6U-6: AMENDMENTS:
thereon, the City Council shall deter-
mine that involuntary annexation pro- A. Authority: The City Council may, from
ceedings should be undertaken time to time, on its own motion or on
against lands to be annexed, the mat- petition, amend, supplement, change,
ter shall be referred to the Plan and modify or repeal by ordinance the
Iowa City
14-6U-6 14-6U-6
boundaries of zones or regulations or or more of the area of the lots includ-
restrictions herein established. ed in the proposed change or repeal
or by the owners of twenty percent
B. Recommendation and Report of Com- (20%) or more of the property which is
mission: Any proposed amendment, located within two hundred feet (200')
supplement, change, modification or of the exterior boundaries of the prop-
repeal shall first be submit, ted to the' erty for which the change or repeal is
Commission for its recommendations proposed, such amendment, supple-
and report. If the Commission makes ment, change, modification or repeal
no report within forty five (45)days, it shall require the favorable vote of
shall be considered to have made'a three-fourths (3/4) of the members of
report approving the proposed amend- the City Council for passage.
ment, supplement, modification or
change. E. Filing Fee: Before any action shall be
taken as provided in this Section, the
C. Public Hearing: After the recommen~ party or parties proposing or recom-
dation and report of the Commission mending a change in the district or
have been filed, the City Council shall, zone regulation -or district or zone
before enacting any proposed amend- boundaries shall deposit with the City
ment, supplement, change, modifica- Clerk such filing fee, if any, as the
tion or repeal, hold a public hearing in City Council, may from time to time,
relation thereto, giving notice of the establish by resolution for petitions for
time and place of the hearing, which rezoning.
notice shall be published in a newspa-
per having a general circulation' in the F. Effect on Permits and Licenses:
City at least seven (7), but not more ,
than twenty (20) days before the pub- 1. No building permit for the installa-
lic hearing. In no case shall the public tion of any building or structure or'
hearing be held earlier than the next license or permit for the conduct of
regularly scheduled City Council any use shall be issued for a period of
meeting following the published no- sixty (60) days after the City Council
tice. The City Council may set such has set a public hearing on the ques-
public headng either before or after it tion of amending the Zoning Ordi-
submits the proposed amendment, nance and Map so as to rezone an
supplement, change, modification or area if the building or use contemplat-
repeal to the Commission for its rec- ed by the requested permit would not
ommendation or during the period be permitted in that area under the
while the Commission is considering proposed zoning classification. Provid-
such matter. ed if final action by the City Council is
not taken on the question within sixty
D. Protests: If a protest against such (60) days of the time the matter is set
proposal, amendment, supplement, for public hearing, the permit or li-
change, modification or repeal shall cense shall issue. If, within the sixty
be presented, in writing, to the City (60) day period, the City Council shall
Clerk, duly signed and acknowledged enact an ordinance amending the
by the owners of twenty percent (20%) Zoning Ordinance, the provisions of
~owa C~ty
14-6 U -6 14-6 U -7
said Zoning Ordinance, as amended, is not applicable if, previously, said
shall thereafter be in effect. If, within permit has been suspended under the
the sixty (60) day period, the City provisions of this Chapter.
Council shall vote on said question,
and it shall not receive a sufficient 3. No property or area within the City
number of votes for passage, the shall be subject to the suspension
suspension period shall be terminat- provisic. ns of this Chapter unless
ed, and permits shall be issued upon twelve (12) months shall have expired
current zoning regulations. after a previous suspension period,
said twelve (12) month period to com-
2. If a permit for a building or structnre mence with the final day of the sixty
has been issued for a particular area (60) day suspension provided for in
but no substantial part of the con- this Chapter.
struction has been commenced at the
time, if the City Council shall set a G. Initiation of Amendment by Plan and
public hearing on the question of Zoning Commission: The Plan and
amending the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Commission may recommend
Map so as to rezone the area of the to the City Council amendments, sup-
permit, which rezoning would prohibit plements, changes or modifications to
the building or use contemplated by this Chapter or to the boundaries of
the permit, the permit shall stand /,. zones or to the zoning of particular
suspended, and all construction and tracts. If the Commission initiates a
other action shall be suspended for a recommendation to the City Council,
period of sixty (60) days after the said recommendation need not be
setting of the public hearing. Provided, submitted to the Commission for its
however, if final action by the City report but may be set for public hear-
Council is not taken on the question ing forthwith. (1978 Code §36-88)
within sixty (60) days, construction
may be commenced. If, within the
sixty (60) day period, the City Council 14-6U-7: I~E, NA, L,-
shall enact an ordinance amending
the Zoning Ordinance, the provisions
of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, A. or
shall be in effect, and if said provi- :ion
sions prohibit the building, structure or t%hs
use contemplated by the suspended or
permit, said permit shall stand auto- Jilding
matically revoked and terminated. If or premises i or upon
sufficient number of votes for pas- s
terminated, and construction may be i a
commenced under the permit. The 'ngor p~ t 'ses in upon whic such
suspension of work under the provi- ~l~;s, allt ~ '
sions hereof may not be invoked and s
994
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 12, 1999 (for November 18 Commission meeting)
To: Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission
, sociate a her
From: Melody Rockwell As PIn
Re: REZ99-0012. Duck Creek Condominiums
The attached letters were submitted by neighboring property owners, who object to the
Duck Creek Condominiums rezoning/planned development request.
Melody Rockwell
From: Terri Larson [larson@avalon.net]
Sent: Sunday, November 07, 1999 10:19 AM
To: melody.rockwell@iowa-city.org
Subject: Duck Creek Proposal
Dear Melody,
I was unable to attend the P & Z meeting last week, but want to express my
views regarding this issue:
1. Once again we have a similar case brought before F&Z. These drawings
are more harmonious with the rest of the neighborhood. But the same issues
are present again:
a. no transition between single family homes and multi-unit dwellings.
b. density is 12-units vs. 14-units. But it's still too many.
c. appearance of spot zoning. Again, we're jumping too many levels.
And
isn't that the purpose of zoning laws - to make harmonious
transitions that
will have no adverse impact on the surrounding area?
2. I'd also like to reiterate that when people bought and built in this
Hunters Run a~ea, they did not envision a multi-unit dwelling being built on
land zoned RS-5. But when the developer purchased the land, he knew it was
RS-5 zoning. There's a difference here that is important. I acknowledge
this is a very difficult piece of. property. What is the best use of this
land? According to the assessor's records, the land was purchased for
$75,000 (this parcel). The asking price is now $150,000. As we all know,
price will be determined by the market. I haven't seen $75,000 worth of
improvements made to this property. Nor have I seen bare land double in
value around this neighborhood. Lots that were selling for $34,000 a few
years ago may now be around $35,500, but nothing has doubled. While the
developer'can put whatever price they want on the land, that doesn't mean
it's worth that much. It's only worth what the market will bear.
3. Even though I may not be able to attend all the necessary meetings, I
am still concerned about this issue and the precedent it may set. Last
time, during the Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship issue, our
neighborhood was accused of NIMBY. Given the concerns we still have, and
these are expensive for sale units, I hope several members- of the comission
will admit to oWr cpnsistency and not deflect the real issue at hand: this
land should not be rezoned for the purpose of constructing multi-unit
buildings.
Sincerely,
Terri Larson
1321 Goldenrod Drive, Iowa City
November 8, 1999
Pam Ehrhardt
Planning and Zoning Commission
1029 East Court Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Dear Ms. Ehrhardt:
We are writing you to object to the proposed rezoning application for the Duck Creek
Condominiums. This, as you are aware, regards the parcel at the comer of Rohret Road
and Duck Creek Drive. We live close by in the Hunter's Run development on Foxana
Drive, and last wrote you on January 15, 1999, about the same parcel.
We hope that our original letter remains in your records (or the staff records), and that the
discussions of last spring where many of our neighbors spoke are still relatively fresh in
your mind. We were pleased at the Commission's 6-1 vote against rezoning this parcel in
March of 1999. Some of our points are reiterated below, and a few new ones added.
We continue to oppose many of the basic premises contained in recent and previous staff
reports. One of these premises is that this parcel would be difficult to develop as single-
family housing, presumably because of the proximity to the highway and slope of the
land. This assumption is clearly flawed, given that there must be at least 20 homes lining
the east side of Duck Creek already, close to the highway on land just as sloped. There
are also houses all along Rohret Road in our development.
In addition, our quadrant of the city has sustained a great deal of the share of the recent
increase in housing density, both in the Mormon Trek Village development and Walden
Hills--both are located within 0.3 miles from our development. We believe there is
plenty of diversity in housing within this half-mile or so square area. We also don't think
an apology is needed from families like ours that move to a development because it
consists of single family homes. We think such an abrupt transition is completely
inappropriate for this area. Why bother with zoning at all if people choose an area of the
city in which to live and then become surprised to find that its Planning and Zoning
Commission disregard the neighborhood's view of its future in the name of
"development"? We maintain that there is not a sufficient buffer zone to allow a
transition from this proposed development density to the rest of our neighborhood.
There are other specific objections we have that we hope will encourage you to vote "No"
on the proposed rezoning:
1. The Iowa Land Use and Zoning Law, by Allan Vestal, in section 3.21(A) states that a
gradual transition into the existing density of the neighborhood should be a principle that
a community should adhere to. The proposal before you creates a precipitous transition.
It is little consolation that the housing styles and fronts appear more "harmonious" with
the neighborhood, when those of us who moved into Hunters Run within the past 10
years believed we were moving into a development of single family housing.
2. We understand that, at the Planning and Zoning meeting of November 4, 1999, there
was tacit acknowledgement from the developers that the most lucrative return on the land
would be to use it for high-density housing. We believe it is inappropriate to rezone land
in the interests of a single developer or individual, rather than in the best interests of the
community and our neighborhood. Zoning of the land as RS-5 should have been
considered before purchase of the parcel if there was concern about return on investment
for the purchasers.
3. We believe that potential rezoning of this 2.7 acre parcel from RS-5 to OPDH or PDH
within the scope of the Hunters Run development constitutes "spot zoning" in violation
of Iowa law.
4. We stand by our letter of January 15, 1999 which states our objection to the
construction of any type of townhouse or condominium project on this parcel.
We do not object to a land-owner's basic right to develop his or her land. However, we
believe zoning rules and laws exist for situations exactly like this one, where proposed
development and rezoning are inappropriate, and existing residents of a neighborhood are
faced with a density change which are precipitous and out-of-place. We believe this is a
valuable parcel, and could be developed in alternative fashion._ _
It is our sincere hope that you will consider each of our objections carefully and
independently. After doing so, we hope you will opt not to rezone this parcel of land.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Christopher J. Arpey Diana L. Arpey
January 15, 1999
Benjamin Chait
Planning and Zoning Commission
452 N. 7th Avenue
Iowa City, IA 52245
Dear Mr. Chait:
We are 'writing you to strongly object to the proposed rezoning application REZ98-0019.
This, as you are aware, pertains to the parcel at the comer of Rohret Road and Duck
Creek Drive. We live close by in the Hunter's Run development on Foxana Drive.
We oppose many of the basic premises of the staff report dated January 7, 1999. One of
these premises is that this parcel would be difficult to' develop as single-family housing,
presumably because of the proximity to the highway and slope of the land. This
assumption is clearly flawed, given that there must be at least 20 homes lining the east side
of Duck Creek already, close to the highway on land just as sloped.
In addition, our quadrant of the city has sustained a great deal of the share of the recent
increase in housing density, both in the Mormon Trek Village development. and Walden
Hills--both are located within 0.3 miles from our development. We believe there is plenty
of diversity in housing within this half-mile or so square area. We also don't think an
apology is needed from families like ours that move to a development because it consists
of single family homes. We think such an abrupt transition is completely inappropriate for
this area. Why bother with zoning at all if people choose an area of the city in which to
live and then become surprised to find that its Planning and Zoning Commission disregard
the neighborhood's view of its future in the name of"development"? We agree with your
staff report's following comment: "...staff is not convinced that this development will be
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of mass, scale, architectural
details, and integration into the streetscape along Duck Creek Drive." We believe that
minor changes in elevation, building placement on the lot, and other small details in
revising the proposal miss the point: There is not a sufficient buffer zone to allow a
transition from this proposed development density to the rest of our neighborhood.
There are other specific objections we have that we hope will encourage you to vote "No"
on the proposed rezoning:
1. The Iowa Land Use and Zoning Law, by Allan Vestal, in section 3.21(A) states that a
gradual transition into the existing density of the neighborhood should be a principle that a
community should adhere to. The proposal before you creates a precipitous transition.
2. Water retention is not addressed in the proposal. Given the slope of the parcel, there is
a high risk of erosion onto Highway 218, and possible overflow of the storm sewer at the
lowest elevation of Duck Creek Road at Willow Creek which, ~'om watching the basin
area fill after recent storms, appears to be at maximum capacity.
3. The proposed high-density creates a potential traffic and on-stree~ parking problems on
nearby Duck Creek Road. Duck Creek was not designed to accommodate the type of
parking proposed. Additionally, there is no room for emergency vehicle turnaround.
4. The applicant, GICHF, states as pan of its mission, that the wellsbeing of children is
very important. How does the absence of green space account for this? We have two
young children of our own, and wonder where the children living in such units will play,
given the lack of green space and proximity to the highway and Rohret Road. A fee in
lieu of green space seems inappropriate and contradictory.
We do not object to a land-owner's basic right to develop his or her land. However, we
believe zoning rules and laws exist for situations exactly like this one, where proposed
development and rezoning are inappropriate, and existing residents of a neighborhood are
faced with a density change which are precipitous and out-of-place. We believe this is a
valuable parcel, and could be developed in alternative fashion.
Allow us to close by clearly stating that our objections to the project have to do with the
density and lack of transition, and not the mission proposed by the applicant or its goals.
Iowa City sorely lacks this type of housing. Our objections would be identical if the
proposal were for any type oftown-homes or condominiums.
It is our sincere hope that you will consider each of our objections carefully and
independently. At~er doing so, we hope you will opt not to re, zone this parcel of land.
Thank yau fSr your consideration.
Sincerely,
Melody Rockwell
From: Laurie Wilson Ihry [lihry@fyiowa.infi.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 9:34 PM
To: melody_rockwell@iowa-city.org
Subject: Rezoning Issue
Dear Planning & Zoning Committee:
We would like to voice our opposition to the Duck Creek Condominium
rezoning proposal introduced to the Plan~ing & Zoning Commission by
Southpointe Developers.
We have several reasons for feeling this way. Most importantly, its
size, proximity to Hunters Run, and physical isolation from other land
parcels (primarily due to the layout of local roads) make the property a
"virtual" portion of the Hunters Run subdivision. Therefore, any
housing built on this parcel needs to harmonize with the rest of the
development in terms of style, type, size, character, and density.
Furthermore, we worry that adding another street and increasing the
traffic volume at the corner of Duck Creek Drive and Rohret Road will
substantially increase the likelihood for accidents there. As it
approaches Rohret Road, Duck Creek Drive curves to the right and goes up
a hill and over a slight rise, making it impossible for a driver to see
the intersection very far in advance. If a stub road feeds onto Duck
Creek Drive right next to Rohret Road, it will exacerbate this problem
and may lead to serious accidents, both pedestrian and vehicular.
We find the argument that the developers need to build multi family
housing in order to earn their required return specious. While we don't
begrudge them the right to make money, they were speculating when they
bought the land and knew (or should have known) how it was zoned then.
If they couldn't profit from developing it based on the current zoning,
they should have altered their offer accordingly. We believe that it is
in the best long range interests of the city, its residents, and the P&Z
Commission to know that, once a parcel's zoning has been set, it will
not be altered except for compelling reasons. We do not see a
compelling purpose driving this rezoning effort.
Thank you for your consideration,
Robert D. & Laurie Wilson Ihry
1243 Duck Creek Drive
Iowa City IA 52246
(319) 351-3971
LIhry@FYIowa.infi.net
Melody Rockwell
From: Sarah Holecek
Sent: Monday, November 15, 1999 1:55 PM
To: Bob Miklo; Karin Franklin; Melody Rockwell
Subject: Duck Creek Condos: Change in neighbor's assessed value
As you may recall, the neighbor directly to the west of the proposed site for Duck Creek Condos stated at the last formal
PZ that she had protested her valuation with the City Assessor and that the valuation had been lowered, and she stated
that the basis for lowering their assessed value was the application by GICHF for 14 low/moderate income units on the
adjoining property. I did not inquire into the matter with the property owner at the time, or try to clarify the record at the
time, however, having represented the City Assessor for 4+ years, I knew that this could not be the case, as there are a
limited number of statutory bases upon which an assessment may legally be changed, and speculation on a use next door
would not qualify.
I spoke w/Dan Hudson, City Assessor today regarding the above and the facts are as follows:
Yes, the neighbor did protest their assessment, marking as their ground for protest on the form "error in the assessment"
(there are 6 outlined bases for protest on the form) and adding in the explanation section the information about the
proposed 14 unit low income housing project next door. When reviewing the protest, it was discovered that the property
owners' basement was not fully finished, as denoted on the property card; thus, there was an error in the assessment and
the assessment was changed to reflect that error; namely, the inclusion of the value of a fully finished basement when it
was really only partly finished. The fact that GICHF had proposed a 14 unit development next door to the property WAS
NOT and COULD NOT be considered at this juncture. IF AND ONLY IF the proposed development was built and
subsequent to such there were sales of homes in the area which, when used as comparables, indicated a drop in property
values in the area would the assessment be changed to reflect the same ..... SPECULATION is certainly not a basis for
adjusting an assessment.
I will make this explanation on the record on Thursday.
Preliminary Sensitive Area Development Plan
Duck Creek Condominiurns
........... __ IOWA CITY, IOWA _%~~_o
~.~,~.,_,;,~ ,,-'., ~:.,~....,~...: -· .- __-. .: -:.
.,,__,_ .- ......,~,-f-~-,,- ..
-- :
~ i,~Z---z , ..........
-
~G' ~ .....
"""""""' ""-':
:,
TO: Members of Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Bill Happel
Southpointe Partners
IN RE: Response to letters objecting to rezoning by neighbors to Item #REZ99-0012
(Duckcreek and Rohret Road)
DATE: November 17, 1999
TRAFFIC and CHILDREN: In reviewing past traffic projections by traffic engineers, the
conclusion that homes with children will create many more daily vehicle trips per day then
homes without children:
We have previously built 28 units (7 buildings) identical to the proposed plan at Willowbrooke
Pointe approximately nine (9) years ago. In the nine (9) years, we have had only two (2) of the
units occupied with children. The units were occupied with children for only one year in each of
the two units. The reason the units were purchased by families with children was they were new
to Iowa City and purchased the units as interim housing while their new homes were being
constructed. Presently, we have no children living in any of the 28 units at Willowbrooke Pointe.
Our units are occupied by retired single and married couples and working single professionals. I
have lived in a four (4) unit building at Willowbrooke Pointe for the last nine (9) years and for
the entire nine (9) years my building has been occupied by three (3) single professionals and a
married retired couple. We cannot restrict families with children from purchasing these units,
but we have found they are not compatible or desired by families.
As we are bordered by single family homes on two sides, we had neighbors offering some of the
same objections we are now hearing in this rezoning request. Several of the neighbors have
personally voiced their approval of Willowbrooke Pointe Condominiums and that they were
wrong in their fears and objecting to the rezoning.
.t'
PAGE 2
NOVEMBER 17, 1999
This parcel of ground is bordered on three sides by roads which may be the reason there has not
been single family development previously.
Mr. Braverman and I hope you will vote to rezone this parcel for the construction of the three
buildings we propose.
PROTEST OF REZONING
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, being the owners of twenty percent or more of the area of the property
included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of twenty percent or more of the
property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for
which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the foWlowing property:
This petttion le signed and acknowledged by each of us with the intention that such rezonlng
sh~all not become effective except by the favorable vote of at leest three-fourthe of all the
members of the counctl, all In accordance with §4~4.5 of the Oode of Iowa.
By: //'y/Z,_
f( ) Property Address
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this qo day of ~--~v-, 19 c~c~, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and
for said County and State, personally appeared 2. ~.\e \J,c~,.~, and
to me known to be the identical persons named in and who
executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same
as their voluntary act and deed.
By:
Owner(s) of Property Address ,
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this day of ,19. , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and
for said County and State, personally appeared and
to me known to be the identical persons named in and who
executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same
as their voluntary act and deed.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
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 18t~ day of
January, 2000, in the Civic Center Council
Chambers, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa
City, Iowa, at which hearing the Council will
consider:
1. An ordinance changing the zoning
designation from Low Density Multi-Family
Residential (RM-12) and Medium Density
Single Family Residential (RS-8) to Planned
Development Housing Overlay (OPDH-
12/11.79 acres) and (OPDH-8/1.47 acres)
and approving a preliminary Planned
Development Housing Overlay Plan for
Windsor Ridge, Part 15, a proposed 98-unit
residential development located north of
Court Street at its eastern terminus.
2. An ordinance changing the zoning
designation from Low Density Single-Family
Residential (RS-5) to Sensitive Areas
Overlay - Low Density Residential (OSA-5)
and approving a preliminary Sensitive Areas
Development Plan for three four-unit
buildings on a 2.72 acre property located
rth of Rohret Road, west of Highway 218.
.. An ordinance changing the zoning
~rsignation from Planned High Density
Multi-Family Residential (PRM) to Sensitive
Areas Overlay (OSA-PRM) and approving a
preliminary Sensitive Areas Development
Plan for approximately .28 acres located at
522 S. Dubuque 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
ppdadrrin~nph l -18-O0.doc
NOTE TO FILE:
The notice of public hearing for the following J_anuary 18 agenda items was
published in the Iowa City Press-Citizen on January 10:
A. Public hearing on an ordinance changing the zoning designation
from Low Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-12) and Medium Density
Single Family Residential (RS-8) to Planned Development Housing Overlay
(OPDH-12/11.79 acres) and (OPDH-8/1.47 acres) and approving a
preliminary Planned Development Housing Overlay Plan for Windsor Ridge,
Part 15, a proposed 98-unit residential development located north of Court
Street at its eastern terminus.
B. Public hearing on an ordinance changing the zoning designation
from Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) to Sensitive Areas Overlay
- Low Density Residential (OSA-5) and approving a preliminary Sensitive
Areas Development Plan for three four-unit buildings on a 2.72 acre property
located north of Rohret Road, west of Highway 218 (Duck Creek Condos).
V-/C. Public hearing on an ordinance changing the zoning designation
from Planned High Density Multi-Family Residential (PRM) to Sensitive Areas
Overlay (OSA-PRM) and approving a preliminary Sensitive Areas
Development Plan for approximately .28 acres located at 522 S. Dubuque
Street (Clark).
Since the notice was delivered to the P.C. after the deadline it was placed in the
classified section. The notice was not published as a legal publication and will not
be permanently retained in our office as such. Public hearings were held on
January 18.
A public discussion of item A above was also held on February 1.
No proof of publication will be received by this office. Billing will be done
separately as a classified.
Cc: Sarah Holecek, Asst. City Attorney
Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney
Scott Kugler, Planner
Bob Miklo, Senior Planner
Prepared by: Scott Kugler, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5240
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING
CHAPTER BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DESIGNATION FROM PLANNED HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY (PRM) TO
SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY (OSA-PRM) AND
APPROVING A PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE
AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 12,066
SQUARE FEET LOCATED AT 522 S. DUBUQUE
STREET.
WHEREAS, the property owner, AUR
Management (c/o Jeff Clark), has requested a zone
change from PRM to OSA-PRM and approval of a
preliminary sensitive areas development plan for
property located at 522 Dubuque Street; and
WHEREAS, the subject property contains
"altered protected" and "critical" slopes as defined by
the Sensitive Areas Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the proposed preliminary sensitive
areas development plan is in technical compliance
with all applicable provisions of the City Code,
including the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, with the
exception of a requested variation to allow
modification to the required front yard; and
WHEREAS, the requested modification to the
required front yard is consistent with surrounding
properties and the intent of the Sensitive Areas
Ordinance and PRM zone; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning
Commission has reviewed this proposed zone
change and has recommended approval.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I. ZONING AMENDMENT.
Property described below is hereby reclassified from
its present classification of PRM to OSA-PRM:
Lot 6, County Seat Addition to Iowa City, Iowa,
in accordance with the recorded plat thereof.
SECTION II. VARIATION. The following variation
from the requirements of the PRM zone is herein
approved as part of the preliminary sensitive areas
development plan:
A modification of the required 20-foot front yard
to .99 feet for the proposed front porch and to 6 feet
for the proposed building.
SECTION III. ZONING MAP. The Building Official is
hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning
map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa to conform to this
Ordinance No.
Page 2
amendment upon final passage, approval, and
publication of this ordinance as provided by law.
SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinances and
pads of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of
this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION V. SEVERABILITY. If any section,
provision or pad 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 pad thereof not
adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION VI. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordi-
nance shall be in effect after its final passage, approv-
al and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of
,2000.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
ppdadmin\ord%522dub.doc
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission Prepared by: Scott Kugler
Item: REZ99-0013. 522 S. Dubuque Street Date: December 2, 1999
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: Jeff Clark
414 E. Market Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52245
Phone: 331-1914
Contact person: Same
Requested action: Rezoning from PRM, Planned High
Density Multi-Family Residential, to
OSA-PRM, Sensitive Areas Overlay
Purpose: To allow the construction of a 5-unit
apartment building which would
encroach into critical and protected
slopes located on the property.
Location: 522 S. Dubuque Street
Size: 12,066 square feet
Existing land use and zoning: Parking lot, PRM
Surrounding land use and zoning: North: Veterinary Clinic, CB-2;
East: Residential, PRM;
South: Residential, PRM;
West: School Administration Building,
P.
Comprehensive Plan: The general land use plan contained in
the Comprehensive Plan indicates that
this area is appropriate for mixed use
development. The Near South Side
Redevelopment Plan identifies this area
for high density residential
development.
Applicable Code requirements: 14-6K-1, Sensitive Areas Ordinance;
14-6D-11, Planned High Density Multi-
Family Residential Zone (PRM)
2
File date: November 9, 1999
45-day limitation period: December 24, 1999
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, Jeff Clark, is requesting a rezoning from Planned High Density Multi-Family
Residential (PRM) to Sensitive Areas Overlay (OSA-PRM) for property located at 522 S.
Dubuque Street. The applicant wishes to construct a five unit apartment building on the
property, which is permitted within the PRM zone. However, the proposed building would
encroach into areas of critical (20-39%) and protected (40% or more) slopes, requiring that a
sensitive areas development plan and rezoning be reviewed prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
ANALYSIS:
PRM Zone Compliance: The intent of the PRM zone is to provide for the development of high
density multi-family dwellings in centrally located areas that are close to public transportation
and employment and commercial centers. Because of the high density development and high
levels of pedestrian activity expected in this zone, special consideration is to be given to
building and site design, as well as providing a pleasant, safe, and efficient pedestrian
environment. The PRM zone regulations contain a number of design provisions that must be
addressed before a building permit can be issued. Building elevations and a site plan have
been submitted and are under review with respect to these provisions. Within this zone, the
Director of Planning and Community Development is responsible for determining compliance
with these design provisions. Although building elevations are required and have been
provided in association with this application, the Commission's primary role in this case is to
review the application with respect to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. A review of the design
details of the building will occur as provided for in the PRM zone and as discussed above.
Sensitive Areas Ordinance/Development Plan: The intent of the Regulated Slopes section of
the Sensitive Areas Ordinance is to protect the stability of potentially erodible slopes from
development activities and to preserve the scenic character of wooded hillsides. Generally,
protected slopes of over 40% are to be avoided and protected with a buffer at the top and
bottom of the slope, and development within critical slopes of 25-39% is discouraged, but
not prohibited. In this case, the slopes that exist on the property fall under the category of
"altered protected slopes", as they were created by filling and dumping in the past. The
Sensitive Areas Ordinance allows development within altered protected slopes provided that
a professional engineer can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that a development
activity will not undermine the stability of the slope, and the City determines that the
development activities are consistent with the intent of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. The
impact of development activities on the slope is being evaluated by the City Engineer.
In terms of this project's consistency with the intent of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, staff
feels that the ordinance was not intended to protect an area such as this from development.
There is not much value in retaining the hillside in terms of wildlife habitat or scenic beauty,
and it is not a part of a larger green space network in the area. Rather, it is an area that is
somewhat isolated within an urban neighborhood. This hillside was created through filling
and dumping activities that occurred here in the past. A similar encroachment into this
hillside was recently approved under this provision for a new building on Linn Street. The
proposed development activity will result in only a small encroachment into the overall
hillside. In staff's opinion, ensuring the stability of the slope and minimizing erosion should be
the City's primary concerns.
Although staff feels the encroachment of development activities into the sloped area will not
be contrary to the intent of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, it would still be preferable to
minimize the impact of development activities on the sloped area where possible. The
Sensitive Areas Ordinance allows for the reduction of required setbacks where appropriate to
help minimize encroachment into sensitive areas and their buffers. To allow for some
architectural flexibility along the streetscape and to help minimize the proposed building's
encroachment into the hillside at the rear of the lot, staff supports the applicant's request for
a reduction of the front yard to .99 feet for the front porch (which will be about 6 feet from
the sidewalk) and 6 feet for the rest of the building. Such a yard reduction can be granted
through the sensitive areas rezoning process as a modification of the requirements of the
underlying zone. The other buildings on this block have setbacks of O, 4 and 11 feet. In this
location, staff feels that a reduced setback is compatible with the neighborhood and meets
the intent of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance and the City's adopted plans for the Near
Southside.
While staff feels that a reduced setback would be appropriate for the high density, urban,
pedestrian-oriented environment called for in the Near Southside Redeveloprnent Plan and the
Near Southside Design Plan, the design of the fa.cade of the building and streetscape are
critical in making such a reduction fit with the existing and anticipated development in the
surrounding area. Staff has worked with the applicant to refine his design to help ensure that
it will be an attractive building, built of quality materials, and will contribute toward creating a
pleasing pedestrian environment as additional redevelopment occurs within the Near South
Side neighborhood. The addition of the front porch would not only help to create a more
pleasing pedestrian environment in this area, but would also provide a transition from the
public sidewalk to the individual private residences located within the building. It is an
important element in making a reduced setback development work. Some landscaping along
the front of the building, such as evergreen shrubs or a hedge, would help in providing a
pleasant streetscape, as well. The applicant has indicated that he is agreeable to adding
landscaping to the plan in these areas. Staff recommends that the proposed front yard
modification be approved.
The development plan itself has been revised and resubmitted based on many of the design
elements discussed above. The revised plan is being reviewed by staff. Since this is a
rezoning, the Commission is likely to defer consideration of this application until its December
16 meeting. Staff anticipates that any necessary revisions to the preliminary sensitive areas
development plan will be addressed prior to that meeting.
Summary: With an attractively designed building that incorporates a front porch as a
transition between the sidewalk and the individual residences within the building, staff feels
that the proposed development would be a positive step toward achieving the type of
environment envisioned in the Near South Side Redevelopment Plan and Near South Side
Design Plan, while meeting the intent of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance as well. Modifying
the front yard requirement through the sensitive areas rezoning process would not only help
to minimize the disturbance of the hillside at the rear of the property, but also allow for the
creation of a more interesting streetscape by allowing for changes in the front plane of the
building and the addition of a front porch.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that REZ99-O013 be deferred pending staff review and approval of the
proposed preliminary sensitive areas development plan and information indicating that the
stability of the slope will not be undermined by the proposed grading activities. Upon
resolution of these items, staff recommends that the request to rezone approximately 12,066
square feet from PRM to OSA-PRM and a preliminary sensitive areas development plan for
property located at located at 522 S. Dubuque Street be approved, along with the following
modification to the requirements of the underlying PRM zone:
1. A reduction in the front yard from the required 20 feet to .99 feet for the proposed
front porch, and 6 feet for the rest of the building.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location map.
2. Development plan.
3. Building elevations.
Robert MiMo, Senior Hanner
Departmen~ of P~anning and
Community Development
CITY OF IO~A CITY
t,O_ C) f]
~ ~_. Z Z p
< --
~'~ 2 I BURLINGTON S
O COUNTY POST ]
[~ COURTHOUSE OFFICE
'pf/side C P z
SITE LOCATION: 522 S. Dubuque Street REZg9-0013
""':~,_~-'~_rT,~" Preliminary Sensitive Areas Development
~:~~,,, 522 S. Dubuque St.
-2,--~h~ Iowa City, Iowa
:: ~
O 1917 ~H G~E~ ST. e/~ J~ C~
- ~ ~ ~a~s ~ IOWA C~, ]OW~ ~0 414 ~ M~ ~
IOWA C~, IOWA
~ S /t//
-- ~ ~~L_ .j
/
,::
~ ELEVARONS ARE ~ r~
FRONI' IEILEVATION
SCALE: 1/4' = 1]"-0~
NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCUSSION
Notice is hereby given that the City Council
of Iowa City will hold public discussion on the
18~ day of January, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers of 'the City of Iowa City,
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, to consider adoption of the 1999
National Electrical Code with certain
amendments thereto.
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.
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 12, 2000
To: City Council
From: Pat Hansen, Building/Electrical Inspector~.~.
Tim Hennes, Senior Building Inspector---~,L%,.
Re: Changes Contained in the Local Amendments and the 1999 Edition National Electrical
Code.
The ordinance recommended by the Board of Appeals for your consideration contains changes
to the local amendments from past ordinances. Some of the proposed amendments have been
derived from information gathered by staff and board members at code update classes on both
the local and national level. Other proposed amendments are to more specifically clarify the
requirements of the 1999 National Electrical Code. The following is a brief summary of the
proposed amendments and comments used to support the amendments.
1999 National Electrical Code Amendments:
· Article 100 (Locations): Wet Location. Was amended to clarify the dimensions of the area
considered a "wet location" in a bathroom area. "... A zone measured 3 ft. (914mm)
horizontally and 8 ~. (2.44mm) vertically from the rim and or thresholds of all tubs and or
showers will be included."
Comment: This change clarifies the area to be considered as a "wet location" for
acceptable installation and wiring methods.
· Section 110-26 (a) 3 (c) Access and Entrance to Working Space. Was amended to
insure access for maintenance, replacement and removal of all electrical equipment.
"... In all cases an access shall be provided to these areas which is large enough to
accommodate the removal of the largest piece of equipment contained in that area."
Comment: For safety and aesthetic purposes, rooms are being constructed to separate
electrical equipment from the g~eneral public and their employees. Provisions need to be
made to be able to remove and replace the equipment located within, with out extensive
work to the structure and or building.
· Section 110-26 (f) 1 (a) Dedicated Electrical Space. The space above electrical
equipment shall be free of all obstructions, other than those of which are electrically related,
up to a height of 10'.
Comment: Prior to the 1999 edition of the National Electrical Code (1996 edition), this
dimension was .... "to the structural ceiling or 25' which ever is lower". In the 1999 edition
they have reduced the area to 6'or the structural ceiling which ever is lower. The
2
amendment increases this dimension to allow clear access to the power distribution system
for future expansion, without causing damage to the existing structure and or building.
· Section 210-8. Ground-Fault Circuit-lnterrupter Protection for Personnel.
This clarifies the need for GFCI (ground fault circuit interrupter) protection. With any type of
sink or basin area.
Comment: In the 1993 NEC the requirement was that all receptacles within 6' of a basin, to
be GFCI protected. When the changes were made to the 1996 and 1999 editions this
requirement had inadvertently been omitted except for the kitchen sinks and wet bar sinks.
This amendment will add the additional safety feature to all types of sink areas, in
residential occupancies.
· Section 210-11. Branch Circuits Required, (c) Dwelling Units. (3) Bathroom Branch
Circuits. Exception: This amendment will require that at least one lighting outlet source for
a bathroom, using this option, will be available if the circuit would be subject to a ground
fault situation.
Comment: This option is new to the 1999 NEC. The idea is to provide complete GFCI
protection in bathrooms with the use of just 1 GFCI device, instead of having to use multiple
devices. This amendment insures that there will be illumination available in the bathroom in
order to exit safely.
· Section 210-12. Arc-Fault Circuit-lnterrupter Protection. (AFCI) Will not be adopted.
Comment: The introduction of the AFCI breaker is a new device, and the 1999 NEC does
not require the enforcement until January 1, 2002. By putting a date such as this, the NEC
is designating a deadline for the production of a product which has not yet been perfected.
At this point in time there is only one manufacturer that has this product available on the
market. Several manufacturers have introduced the product, then shortly after had to recall
them because of defects. The cost of this "trial and error" product ranges from $75.00 to
$165.00 per item.
· Section 210-52 (a)(2) Wall Space, (c)(2) Island Counter Spaces, (c)(3) Peninsular
Counter Spaces, (d) Bathrooms, (h) Hallways, (I) Water Conditioning Equipment. The
changes made to Island Counter Spaces, Peninsular Counter Spaces, and bathrooms,
eliminates the requirement and or installation of receptacles to be mounted below the
surface of the countertop areas.
Part (h) Hallways was amended to clarify the requirements and locations for receptacles
located in residential occupancies. Part (I) Water Conditioning Equipment, was added to
clarify the need for a receptacle to be installed for Water Softeners and associated
Equipment.
Comment: To allow the installation of receptacles below the countertop area in kitchens,
and in bathrooms, creates a very dangerous situation. Because of these locations, cords to
appliances are exposed over the edge of the countertops. This creates a scenario where
someone can walk by, catch the cord, and pull the appliance off of the counter. Depending
on the type of appliance, and the person catching this cord, the outcome can and has been
very disastrous. By amending the hallway section and adding the water conditioning
section, which clarifies the location of receptacles, this will hopefully eliminate the use of
extension cords, and trip hazards.
Section 210-70 (a)(1) Habitable Rooms. Was amended to clarify the location of the
lighting control for each habitable room.
Comment: Requires that the switch for lighting of each habitable room be located at each
of the main entrances to that room. The travel distance within a dark room is drastically
reduced and in many cases eliminated.
· Section 225-19 (d). Clearances from Buildings (overhead branch circuits), and
Section 230-9 Clearance from Building Openings. Was amended to clarify clearances to
overhead conductors, and where the measurements will be taken from.
Comment: Surfaces that are 6" or wider will be considered a walking and or sitting surface,
and shall be the area that the measurement is taken from when considering the clearances
of overhead conductors.
· Section 230-50. Protection of Open Conductors and Cables Against Damage --
Above Ground, ((a) Service Cables)(Exception). Has been amended to reduce the use of
PVC conduit for the protection of Service Entrance Cables above ground. The exception
allows PVC to be used only to and from the metering equipment and it can not to be
exposed in lengths exceeding 6'.
Comment: This was amended to limit the use of PVC for Service Entrance Cable
protection. The durability of PVC is questionable under exposure of the extreme cold,
summer heat, and the strain of severe weather, that are common to Iowa Cities
geographical location.
· Section 230-79. Rating of Service Disconnecting Means. Has been amended to
specifically set the size of an electrical service required in all single-family dwelling units,
and individual dwelling units located in multi-family dwelling structures.
Comment: Based on the dwellings square footage. Calculations were made to determine
minimum size of the service required. For larger homes, 5000 square feet or more,
calculations revealed, that a 200-amp service in most cases is not sufficient to support the
home or any further expansions, that may occur. An exception was added which, states the
requirements for the size of sub-panel feed for a single dwelling unit located in a Multi-
Family Structure. This allows upgrading of electrical systems in older properties, by sizing
the system according to the loads to be served.
· Section 250-56. Resistance of Made Electrodes. Was amended to clarify the resistance
requirements of the grounding electrode system, and the requirements for which they
needed to be installed to promote electrical safety.
Comment: The 1996 Electrical Code required the installation of one grounding electrode to
supplement the water pipe used as part of the grounding systems. In order to promote
electrical safety, the 1999 Code states, that a second ground rod is required to lower the
resistance of the system to ground. Before any single electrodes will be accepted a test
shall be conducted in order to show that there is 25 ohms or less resistance present.
· Section 250-62. Grounding Electrode Conductor Material.; 250-64. Grounding
Electrode Conductor Installation. Was amended to eliminate the use of Aluminum or
Copper-Clad Aluminum conductors for the grounding electrode system.
Comment: Grounding systems are to be designed to last the life of the electrical system.
Because Aluminum and Copper-clad Aluminum conductors are very susceptible to
corrosion, their durability is questionable, in this type of installation. The exception to 250-64
is to provide physical protection for the terminations of the grounding electrode conductors.
· TABLE 250-66 Sizing of the Grounding Electrode Conductor. Was amended to
eliminate the use of conductors smaller than #4 to be used as a grounding electrode
conductor.
Comment: The use of conductors smaller than #4 cause problems in future expansion of
the services. This would only effect services smaller than 200 amp. (average size for
dwellings). 100 amp services are allowed, but if the consumer opts to upgrade later. This
conductor becomes very difficult to upgrade because of finished areas concealing this
conductor.
· Section 250-104. Bonding of Piping Systems and Exposed Structural Steel.
(b) Metal Gas Piping.
This section is new to the 1999 Edition of the NEC. This section has left doubt as to what
size of conductor that is needed. And exactly where and how this termination was to take
place.
Comment: Based on research, this amendment specifically addresses which table is to be
used when sizing the conductor. The provision to make the connection accessible, allows
the choice of the location of the connection up to the installer.
· Section 300-13 (b) . Mechanical and Electrical Continuity -- Conductors
This was amended to further require all of the conductors within a circuit to be mechanically
continuous (pigtailed), and not to depend on the device to carry any type of current to which
may be imposed on the circuit.
Comment: Since the Code allows individuals to replace devices (receptacles, switches,
etc.) without a permit, there are unknown factors pertaining to the electrical circuit that an
inexperienced individual may not be aware of. By making the continuity of all conductors
continuous, this greatly reduces the risk of injury to the individual.
· Section 310-4. Conductors in Parallel. The 1999 edition of the NEC provides that different
runs of Parallel Feeders to one service may be comprised of different types of conductors.
(size, conductor type, insulation, etc.) The amendment eliminates this option. They must all
be of the same type.
Comment: The problem arises when the terminations of these conductors are not rated the
same. The terminations are based on temperature ratings, load to be served, and conductor
types. Specific terminations are prohibited to be combined in other areas of the code.
· Section 310-15 (b)(6) 120/240-Volt, 3-Wire, Single-Phase Dwelling Services and
Feeders. This section has allowed the Grounded (Neutral) Conductor to be smaller than the
Ungrounded Conductor. In this amendment this reduction is not allowed. The only time it will
be allowed is in Manufactured Cable Assemblies, which have a listing from a testing
Laboratory.
Comment: Because of the ever changing technology, Harmonic currents are being
introduced in residential applications because of Fax machines, Computers, Electronic
Appliances etc. These currents are all seen by the Grounded Conductor, and do not always
affect the Ungrounded Conductors.
· Section 333-21 AC Cable Grounding, Section 333-21 AC Cable Grounding:
Has been amended to require a grounding conductor be installed within the metal sheath of
both types of cables.
Comment: This section allows the outside sheath of these cables to be used as the
grounding conductor for the circuit. This conductor is what facilitates the operation of the
fuse and or breaker. The use of the sheath has been proven to be very hazardous when
used alone. The combination of the sheath and the grounding conductor installed within will
reduce the risk of personal injury or properly damage.
ARTICLE 336 -- Nonmetallic-Sheathed Cable: Types NM, NMC, and NMS,
· Section 336-4 Uses Permitted
This amendment reflects the use of NM Cable (House-wiring) to only be allowed in
residential occupancies only, and up to four floors in multi-family dwelling structures..
Comments: The use of this type of wiring makes the electrical systems very limited. When
used in a commercial building, each time that it is remodeled to make way for further
expansion, or for a different use, it becomes very costly to re-wire. The use of conduits
makes retro-fits, remodels and expansions much easier to perform without much damage to
the building or structure. Conduits also provide more protection for the conductors, and
make the repair of systems much easier.
· Section 350-5. Uses Not Permitted. Flexible Metal Conduit: This amendment eliminates
the use of Flexible Metal Conduit in all wet locations regardless of the type conductors
installed and the method in which it is installed.
Comment: Flexible Metal Conduit, is not watertight, or moisture resistant. The conduit itself
is also easily subject to corrosion. The fittings for this type of wiring method have basically
the same properties, and therefore are not acceptable materials in wet locations.
· Section 362-6. Deflected Insulated Conductors: (Located Electrical Troughs)
This was amended to reflect a recent Addendum published by the NFPA.
6
· Section 370-27 (c). Required locations for Ceiling Fan Rated Boxes.
This requires the installation of ceiling fan rated boxes in all locations used for lighting
outlets except for, Garages, Unfinished Basements, Hallways and Bathrooms.
Comment: In Iowa City an individual is not required to obtain a permit to change a light
fixture to a ceiling fan. Requiring electrical boxes rated for ceiling fan use provides some
assurance that adequate support is provided for the potential installation of ceiling fan
fixtures.
· Section 380-4. Wet Locations., Section 410-4(d) Bathtub and Shower Areas. These
Sections provide requirements for the installation of fixtures and devices when located
within the "Wet Location" of a tub or shower area, as mentioned in earlier amendments to
this code.
Comment: This amendment requires that all electrical devices and fixtures will be protected
by a Ground Fault Circuit Interrupter (GFCI) when located in a "wet location" as mentioned
in an earlier amendment.
· Section 518-4. Wiring Methods (b) Non-rated Construction: Was amended not to allow
the use of NM type cable in Assembly Occupancies as defined as the NEC.
Comment: This Section was changed to the reflect an Amendment to Section 336-4 in an
earlier part of the Code.
· Section 680-12. Disconnecting Means. Section 680-38. Emergency Switch for Spas
and Hot Tubs. This section was amended to clarify the type and operation of disconnecting
means required for spas and hot tubs.
Comment: 680-12 requires that "to disconnect simultaneously, all ungrounded
conductors." This is to assure that safety is maintained, and that all parts of the equipment
are de-energized.
The intent of section 680-38 is to provide an emergency shut off for all spas and or hot tubs
that are available for public. This doesn't apply to privately owned equipment located on
private property.
· Section 800-40 (a)(2) Material. The amendment was made to reflect the type of material
used for the grounding for Communication type systems.
Comment: This was to reflect an amendment made previously to section 250-62 and 250-
64.
· Sec. 14-5C-15. LICENSING STANDARDS: This section was amended to require 3 years of
experience to qualify for licensing as a Journeyman Electrician, and holding that status for 2
years before qualifying to be licensed as a Master Electrician.
Comment: This also mirrors the requirements previously adopted for the plumbing
contractors. Previous to this amendment the requirements were to only have one year of
experience to be a licensed Journeyman and holding that status for 1 year to obtain a Masters
Electrician License.
· Sec. 14-5C-23. Permittee. Has been amended to clarify the requirements in order to be
issued a permit to do electrical work in Iowa City.
Comment: Before a company is issued an Electrical Permit the City must be assured there
will be a Master Electrician available during the normal operating hours of the company to
supervise the electrical work being performed,
hisbldg\mem\councilsum.doc
Amendments to
:[999 National Electrical Code
(~-z~-oo)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 14, CHAPTER 5, ARTICLE C, OF THE IOWA CITY
CODE BY ADOPTING THE 19969 EDITION OF THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, WITH
AMENDMENTS, AS THE IOWA CITY ELECTRICAL CODE, REGULATING THE PRACTICE,
MATERIALS AND FIXTURES USED IN THE INSTALLATION, MAINTENANCE, EXTENSION
AND ALTERATION OF ALL WIRING, FIXTURES, APPLIANCES AND APPURTENANCES IN
CONNECTION WITH VARIOUS ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS; TO PROVIDE FOR THE ISSUANCE
OF PERMITS AND INSPECTION OF ELECTRICAL INSTALLATIONS AND THE COLLECTION
OF FEES; AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS.
Be it enacted by the Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa:
SECTION I. SHORT TITLE. This ordinance shall be known as the Iowa City Electrical Code, or
Electrical Code, and may be so cited.
SECTION II. PURPOSE. The purpose of this ordinance is to adopt the 19969 edition of the
National Electrical Code as prepared and edited by the National Fire Protection Association and to
provide certain amendments thereto, to provide for the protection of the health, welfare, and
safety of the citizens of Iowa City, Iowa; and to provide for its enforcement.
SECTION III. Scope. This ordinance shall apply to and govern electrical work, as defined in the
Electrical Code, including the practice, materials and fixtures used in the installation, maintenance,
extension and alteration of all piping, fixtures, appliances and appurtenances in connection with
any of the following: wiring or piping on public or private electrical systems, within or on any
building or other structure; and the practice and materials used in the installation, maintenance,
extension or alteration of electrical systems, to connect with any point of public or private
structure.
SECTION IV. Adoption of Electrical Code Sections 14-5C1=-1 through 14-5C, b298 of the Code of
Ordinances of the City of Iowa City is hereby repealed and the following new sections 14-5CL--1
through 14-5CL--298 are enacted in lieu thereof.
SEC. 14-51=C-1. CODE-ADOPTED. Subject to the amendments described in Section 14-51=C-
2 below, Chapters 1 through 9 of the 19969 Edition of the National Electrical Code are hereby
adopted, and shall be known as the Iowa City Electrical Code, or the Electrical Code.
SEC. 14-51=C-2. AMENDMENTS.
The electrical code adopted by Section 14-51=C-1 of this chapter is hereby amended as
follows:
Article 100 is amended by deleting the definition of approved and adding the following
definitions:
Approved, as to materials, equipment and method of construction, refers to approval by the
Building Official as the result of an investigation and test conducted by the Building Official, or by
reason of accepted principles or tests by recognized authorities, technical or scientific
organizations.
Article 1 O0 is 3mended by adding the following definitions:
Approved agency is an established and recognized agency regularly engaged in conducting
tests or furnishing inspection services, when the agency has been approved by the Building
Official.
Building Code is the Uniform Building Code promulgated by the International Conference of
Building Officials, as adopted by this jurisdiction.
Building Official is the officer charged with the administration and enforcement of this Code, or a
duly authorized representative, and is the authority having jurisdiction for this code.
Code enforcement agency is the department, division or agency of this jurisdiction charged with
the function of code enforcement and shall be under the administration and operational control of
the Building Official.
Electrical code is the National Electrical Code promulgated by the National Fire Protection
Association, as adopted by this jurisdiction.
Electrical work is all uses, installations, alterations, repairs, removals, replacements,
connections, disconnections and maintenance of all premises wiring systems.
Electrician, apprentice is any person who works under the supervision and guidance of a ~
licensed journeyman or Master Licensed Electrician contractor for the purpose of learning the
electrical trade.
Electrician, journeyman is any properly licensed person who is allowed to perform electrical
work only under the supervision of a licensed master electrician.
Electrician, maintenance is any properly licensed person who is a regular employee of a
manufacturing or industrial establishment or a commercial or residential property management
firm, who does electrical work for that establishment or firm only, and who maintains the existing
electrical equipment within the building or group of buildings.
Electrician, master is any properly licensed person who undertakes or offers to undertake to plan
for, layout, supervise or perform electrical work with or without compensation.
Fire wall is thc same as an area separation wall as used in the Building Code.
Multiple occupancy building is a building having more than one tenant and may be a single or
mixed use group as classified by the Building Code.
Occupancy is the purpose for which a building, or part thereof, is used or is intended to be used.
2}}
Article 100 is amended to read as follows:
Article 100 (Locations): Wet Location. Installations underground or in concrete slabs or
masonry in direct contact with the earth, and locations subject to saturation with water or other
liquids, such as vehicle washing areas, and locations exposed to weather and unprotected. A
zone measured 3 ft. (914mm) horizontally and 8 ft. (2.44mm) vertically from the rim and or
thresholds of all tubs and or showers will be included. This zone is all encompassing and
includes the zone directly over these types of installations.
Section 110-26 (a) 3 (c) Access and Entrance to Working Space. At least one entrance of
sufficient area shall be provided to give access to the working space about electric equipment.
For equipment rated 1200 amperes or more and over 6 ft (1.83 m) wide that contains
overcurrent devices, switching devices, or control devices, there shall be one entrance not less
than 24 in. (610 mm) wide and 6% ft (1.98 m) high at each end of the working space. In all
cases an access shall be provided to these areas which is large enough to accommodate the
removal of the largest piece of equipment contained in that area.
Section 110-26 (f) 1 (a) Dedicated Electrical Space. The space equal to the width and depth
of the equipment and extending from the floor to a height of 6 10 ft (1.83 m) above the
equipment or to the structural ceiling, whichever is lower, shall be dedicated to the electrical
installation. No piping, ducts, or equipment foreign to the electrical installation shall be located
in this zone.
Section 210-8. Ground-Fault Circuit-lnterrupter Protection for Personnel
(a) (7) Wot bar sinks Sinks. Where the receptacles aro installod to sorvo tho countortop
surfacos and are located within 6 ft (1.83 m) of the outside edge of the wet bar sinks, laundry
sinks. mop sinks and or of the like. Receptacle outlets shall not be installed in a face-up position
in the work surfaces or countertops.
Section 210-11. Branch Circuits Required, (c) Dwelling Units. (3) Bathroom Branch
Circuits.
Exception: Where the 20-ampere circuit supplies a single bathroom, outlets for other
equipment within the same bathroom shall be permitted to be supplied in accordance with
Section 210-23(a). Providing there is a minimum of one lighting outlet that is supplied by a
separate circuit other than the bathroom circuit serving that bathroom.
Section 210-12. Arc-Fault Circuit-lnterrupter Protection
(a-)-Dcfinition. An arc-fault drcuit intorruptor is a dovico intondod to provido protoction from tho
offocts of arc faults by rocognizing charactoristics uniquo to arcing and by functioning to do
onorgizo tho circuit whon an arc fault is dotoctod.
~'~ Dwolling Unit Bodrooms. All branch circuits that supply 125-volt, singlo phaso, 15- and
20-amporo rocoptaclo outlots installod in dwolling unit bodrooms shall bo protoctod by an
arc-fault circuit intorruptor(s). This roquiromont shall bocomo offoctivo January 1, 2002.
Shall not be adopted.
Section 210-52 (a)(2) Wall Space. As used in this section, a wall space shall include the
following:
a. Any space 2 ft (610 mm) or more in width (including space measured around corners) and
unbroken along the floor line by doorways, fireplaces, and similar openings
3}}
b. The space occupied by fixed panels in exterior walls, excluding sliding panels
c. The space afforded by fixed room dividers such as freestanding bar-type counters or railings
Exception: Those railings that are serving as a guardrail for hallways, walkways, which are of
the open type railing.
Section 210-52 (c)(2) Island Counter Spaces. At Ioast ono rocoptaclo outlot shall bo installod
at oach island countor spaco with a long dimonsion of 2'1 in. (610 mm) or groator and a short
dimonsion of 12 in. (305 mm) or groator Shall not be adopted as a requirement but will be
allowed per customer request.
Section 210-52 (c)(3) Peninsular Counter Spaces. At least one two duplex receptacle outlets
shall be installed at the wall eash where the peninsular counter space intersects the structural
.wall. with a long dimonsion of 2'! in. (610 mm) or groator and 3 short dimonsion of 12 in. (305
mm) or groator. A peninsular countertop is measured from the connecting edge.
Section 210-52 (d) Bathrooms. In dwelling units, at least one wall receptacle outlet shall be
installed in bathrooms within 36 in. (914 mm) of the outside edge of each basin. The receptacle
outlet shall be located on a wall that is adjacent to the basin location area. and above the rim of
the basin. See Section 210-8(a)(1 ).
Receptacle outlet(s) shall not be installed in a face up position in the work surfaces or
countertops in a bathroom basin location.
Section 210-52 (h) Hallways. In all single and multifamily dwelling units In dwolling units,
hallways of 10 ft (3.05 m) or more in length, or 30 or more square feet, shall have at least one
duplex receptacle outlet installed. For common corridors, hallways. exit accesses of multifamily
dwellings. no point along this hallway shall be further than 15 feet from any one receptacle.
As used in this subsection, the hall length shall be considered the length along the centerline of
the hall without passing through a doorway.
Section 210-52 (I) Water Conditioning Equipment. In dwelling units. a receptacle for the
water conditioning equipment shall be installed. It shall be installed within a 6' zone, and in the
same room, of where the said equipment is normally set.
Section 210-70 (a)(l) Habitable Rooms. At least one wall switch shall be installed controlling
the lighting outletLS..) shall bo installod in every habitable room and bathroom, and conveniently
located within 5 foot of each main entry to that room. The 5 foot measurement shall be
measured from the doors edge.
Section 220-3 (b)(7) Show Windows. Show windows shall be computed in accordance with
either (a) or (b) and the largest computed load shall be used.
Section 225-19 (d). Clearances from Buildings for Conductors of Not Over 600 Volts,
Nominal
(d) Final Spans. Final spans of feeders or branch circuits to a building they supply or from
which they are fed shall be permitted to be attached to the building, but they shall be kept not
less than 3 ~ (914 mm) from windows that are designed to be opened, doors, porches,
balconies, ladders, stairs, fire escapes, or similar locations. Vertical clearance of final spans
above, or within 3 ~ (914 mm) measured horizontally of, platforms, projections, and walking/and
4}}
or sitting surfaces of a nominal 6" board width or wider or any other surface from which they
might be reached shall be maintained in accordance with Section 225-18.
Section 230-9. Clearance from Building Openings. Service conductors installed as open
conductors or multiconductor cable without an overall outer jacket shall have a clearance of not
less than 3 ~ (914 mm) from windows that are designed to be opened, doors, porches,
balconies, ladders, stairs, fire escapes, or similar locations. Vertical clearance of final spans
above, or within 3 ft (914 mm) measured horizontally of, platforms, projections, and walking/and
or sitting surfaces of a nominal 6" board width or wider or any other surface from which they
might be reached shall be maintained in accordance with. Section 230-24(b).
Section 230-50. Protection of Open Conductors and Cables Against Damage -- Above
Ground
Service-entrance conductors installed above ground shall be protected against physical
damage as specified in (a) or (b).
(a) Service Cables. Service cables, where subject to physical damage, shall be protected by
any of the following:
1. Rigid metal conduit
2. Intermediate metal conduit
3. Rigid nonmotallic conduit suitablo for tho location
4. Electrical metallic tubing
5. Other approved means
(c) Other than Service Cable. Individual open conductors and cables other than service cables
shall not be installed within 10 ft (3.05 m) of grade level or where exposed to physical
damage.
Exception: Type MI and Type MC cable shall be permitted within 10 ft (3.05 m) of grade level
where not exposed to physical damage or where protected in accordance with Section 300-
5(d).
Exception: Rigid nonmetallic conduit suitable for the location shall be accepted in exposed
installations in lengths of less than 6 feet total
Section 230-79. Rating of Service Disconnecting Means. The service disconnecting means
shall have a rating not less than the load to be carried, determined in accordance with Article
220. In no case shall the rating be lower than specified in (a), (b), (c), or (d).
(a)One-Circuit Installation. For installations to supply only limited loads of a single branch
circuit, the service disconnecting means shall have a rating of not less than 15 amperes.
(b) Two-Circuit Installations. For installations consisting of not more than two 2-wire branch
circuits, the service disconnecting means shall have a rating of not less than 30 amperes.
{r~) One-Family Dwelling. For a ono family dwolling, tho sorvico disconnocting means shall
h3vo a r3ting of not loss than 100 3mporos, 3 wiro. Shall be sized according to the
following+
(1) RPD-I Service: For a single family dwelling. and single dwelling units located in a
multi-family dwelling structures, which have up to 2500 square feet of finished floor
space or space that could be finished shall have a minimum 100 amp rated
overcurrent protection device. The conductors supplying this service shall be sized
in accordance with Table 310 -16.
5}}
(2) RPD-2 Service: For a single family dwelling. and single dwelling units located in a
multi-family dwelling structures, which have over 2500 t-e-but less than 5000
square feet of finished floor space or space that could be finished shall have a
minimum 200 amp rated overcurrent protection device. The conductors supplying
this service shall be sized in accordance with Table 310-16.
(3) RPD-3 Service: For a single family dwelling of 5000 square feet or more of
finished floor space or space that could be finished shall have a minimum 400 amp
rated overcurrent protection device. The conductors supplying this service shall be
sized in accordance with Table310-15 (b)(6).
(Exception: Single dwelling units located in a multi-family dwelling structure with
provisions for gas fired appliance(s) only (ranges. dryers. and heating) shall have a
minimum of a 60 amp rated main overcurrent protection device. The conductors
supplying this feeder pane/ shall be sized in accordance to (Table 310-16).
Section 250-56. Resistance of Made Electrodes. A single electrode consisting of a rod, pipe,
or plate that does not have a resistance to ground of 25 ohms or less shall be augmented by
one additional electrode of any of the types specified in Sections 250-50 or 250-52. Where
multiple rod, pipe, or plate electrodes are installed to meet the requirements of this section, they
shall not be less than 6 ft (1.83 m) apart.
(Exception: Single ground rod electrodes shall only be accepted if a Grounding Resistance Test
is conducted and the results of the test are filed with the building department prior to inspection
and energizing of the service.)
Section 250-62. Grounding Electrode Conductor Material. The grounding electrode
conductor shall be of copper. -aluminum, or coppor clad aluminum. The material soloctod shall
be resistant to any corrosive condition existing at the installation or shall be suitably protected
against corrosion. The conductor shall be solid or stranded, insulated, covered, or bare.
250-64. Grounding Electrode Conductor Installation. Grounding electrode conductors shall
be installed as specified in (a) through (e).
(-a) Aluminum or Copper-Clad Aluminum Conductors. Insulated or bare aluminum or copper-
clad aluminum grounding conductors shall not be used for any part of the grounding
electrode system. whoro in diroct contact with masonry or tho oarth or whoro subjoct to
corrosivo conditions. Whoro usod outsido, aluminum or coppor clad aluminum grounding
conductors shall not bo installod within 18 in. (457 mm) of tho oarth.
(b) Grounding Electrode Conductor. A grounding electrode conductor or its enclosure shall be
securely fastened to the surface on which it is carried. A No. 4 copper or aluminum, or larger
conductor shall be protected if exposed to severe physical damage. A No. 6 Any grounding
conductor that is free from exposure to physical damage shall be permitted to be run along the
surface of the building construction without metal covering or protection where it is securely
fastened to the construction; otherwise, it shall be in rigid metal conduit, intermediate metal
conduit, rigid nonmetallic conduit, electrical metallic tubing, or cable armor. Grounding
conductors smaller than No. 6 shall be in rigid metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, rigid
nonmetallic conduit, electrical metallic tubing, or cable armor.
Exception: Grounding Electrode Conductors reuted to the exterior of the dwelling or structure
shall not have more than 24" of the conductor exposed above grade. When in an excess of 24"
6}}
one of the following forms of protection will be approved; rigid metal conduit. intermediate
metal conduit. rigid nonmetalfic conduit.
TABLE 250-66
Size of Largest Service-Entrance Size of Grounding Electrode
Conductor or Equivalent Area Electrode Conductor
for Parallel Conductors 1
Copper Aluminum or Copper Aluminum or
Copper Clad Coppot-Clad
Aluminum Aluminum 2
2 or smaller 1/0 or smaller 8 4 6
1 or 1/0 210 or 3/0 6 4 '~
2/0 or 3/0 4/0 or 250 kcmil 4 ,~
Over 3/0 Over 250 kcmil 2 !!0
through 350 through 500
kcmil kcmil
Over 350 kcmil Over 500 kcmil 1/0 3!0
through 600 through 900
kcmil kcmil
Over 600 kcmil Over 900 kcmil 2/0 4/0
through 1100 through 1750
kcmil kcmil
Over 1100 kcmil Over 1750 kcmil 3/0 250 kc, mil
Section 250-104. Bonding of Piping Systems and Exposed Structural Steel.
x(b) Metal Gas Piping. Each aboveground portion of a gas piping system upstream from the
equipment shutoff valve shall be electrically continuous and bonded to the grounding electrode
system. This bonding conductor shall be sized in accordance to Table 250-122 and sized to the
maximum rating of the service disconnect means serving the dwelling unit. The connection shall
remain accessible.
Section 300-13 (b) . Mechanical and Electrical Continuity- Conductors
(b) Device Removal. In multi-wiro branch circuits all general purpose branch circuits, the
continuity of the grounding, grounded, and the ungrounded conductor(s). shall not depend
on device connections such as lampholders, receptacles, etc., where the removal of such
devices would interrupt the continuity.
310-4. Conductors in Parallel. Aluminum, copper-clad aluminum, or copper conductors of size
No. 1/0 and larger, comprising each phase, neutral, or grounded circuit conductor, shall be
permitted to be connected in parallel (electrically joined at both ends to form a single
conductor).
Exception No. 1: As permitted in Section 620-12(a)(1 ).
Exception No. 2: Conductors in sizes smaller than No. 1/0 shall be permitted to be run in
parallel to supply control power to indicating instruments, contactors, relays, solenoids, and
similar control devices provided
a. They are contained within the same raceway or cable,
7}}
b. The ampacity of each individual conductor is sufficient to carry the entire load current shared
by the parallel conductors, and
c. The overcurrent protection is such that the ampacity of each individual conductor will not be
exceeded if one or more of the parallel conductors become inadvertently disconnected.
Exception No. 3: Conductors in sizes smaller than No. 1/0 shall be permitted to be run in
parallel for frequencies of 360 Hz and higher where conditions (a), (b), and (c) of Exception No.
2 are met.
Exception No. 4: Under engineering supervision, grounded neutral conductors in sizes No. 2
and larger shall be permitted to be run in parallel for existing installations.
FPN: Exception No. 4 can be utilized to alleviate overheating of neutral conductors in existing
installations due to high content of triplen harmonic currents.
The paralleled conductors in each phase, neutral, or grounded circuit conductor shall
1. Be the same length,
2. Have the same conductor material,
3. Be the same size in circular mil area,
4. Have the same insulation type,
5. Be terminated in the same manner.
Where run in separate raceways or cables, the raceways or cables shall have the same
physical characteristics. Conductors of one phase, neutral, or grounded circuit conductor shall
not be required to have the same physical characteristics as those of another phase, neutral, or
grounded circuit conductor to achieve balance.
FPN: Differences in inductive reactance and unequal division of current can be minimized by
choice of materials, methods of construction, and orientation of conductors.
Where equipment grounding conductors are used with conductors in parallel, they shall comply
with the requirements of this section except that they shall be sized in accordance with Section
250-122.
Where conductors are used in parallel, space in enclosures shall be given consideration (see
Articles 370 and 373).
Conductors installed in parallel shall comply with the provisions of Section 310-15(b)(2)(a).
Section 310-15 (b)(6) 120/240-Volt, 3-Wire, Single-Phase Dwelling Services and Feeders.
For dwelling units, conductors, as listed in Table 310-15(b)(6), shall be permitted as 120/240-
volt, 3-wire, single-phase service-entrance conductors, service lateral conductors, and feeder
conductors that serve as the main power feeder to a dwelling unit and are installed in raceway
or cable with or without an equipment grounding conductor. For application of this section, the
main power feeder shall be the feeder(s) between the main disconnect and the lighting and
appliance branch-circuit panelboard(s), and the feeder conductors to a dwelling unit shall not be
required to be larger than their service-entrance conductors. The grounded conductor shall not
be permitted to be smaller than the ungrounded conductors, provided the requirements of
Sections 215-2, 220-22, and 230-42 are met.
Exception: Manufactured U.L. Listed Cables. and Listed Cable Assemblies with reduced
grounded conductors shall be acceptable in residential applications only.
8}}
Section 333-21 AC Cable Grounding: Typo AC cablo shall provido an adoquato path for
oquipmont grounding. Type AC Cable shall have an equipment grounding conductor installed
within the sheath of all AC cables to adequately provide a low impedance path to ground to
facilitate the operation of the overcurrent protection device. as required by Section 250-2(d).
Section 333-21 AC Cable Grounding: :Pype-MC cablo shall provido an 3doquato path for
oquipmont grounding. Type MC Cable shall have an equipment grounding conductor installed
within the sheath of all MC cables to adequately provide a low impedance path to ground to
facilitate the operation of the overcurrent protection device as required by Article 250.
ARTICLE 336 -- Nonmetallic-Sheathed Cable: Types NM, NMC, and NMS
Section 336-4 Uses Permitted
Type NM, Type NMC, and Type NMS cables shall be permitted to be used in the following:
1. One- and two-family dwellings
2. Multifamily dwellings and othor structuros, oxcopt constructed of a combustible type
construction. as prohibitod in Soction 336 5
3. Cable trays, where the cables are identified for the use
FPN: See Section 310-10 for temperature limitation of conductors.
Section 336-5. Uses Not Permitted. (a) Types NM, NMC, and NMS. Types NM, NMC, and
NMS cables shall not be used in the following:
1. In any multifamily dwelling or othor structuro oxoooding three four floors above grade
For the purpose of this article, the first floor of a building shall be that floor that has 50 percent
or more of the exterior wall surface area level with or above finished grade. One additional level
that is the first level and not designed for human habitation and used only for vehicle parking,
storage, or similar use shall be permitted.
2. As service-entrance cable
3. In commercial garages having hazardous (classified) locations as provided in Section 511-3
4. In theaters and similar locations, except as provided in Article 518, Places of Assembly
5. In motion picture studios
6. In storage battery rooms
7. In hoistways
8. Embedded in poured cement, concrete, or aggregate
9. In any hazardous (classified) location, except as permitted by Sections 501-4(b), Exception,
502-4(b), Exception, and 504-20
10. Commercial and Industrial Construction
Section 350-5. Uses Not Permitted. Flexible metal conduit shall not be used in the following:
1. In wet locations unloss tho conductors aro approvod for tho spoci~c conditions and tho
installation is such that liquid is not likoly to ontor racoways or onclosuros to which tho
conduit is connoctod.
2. In hoistways, other than as permitted in Section 620-21(a)(1)
3. In storage-battery rooms
4. In any hazardous (classified) location other than as permitted in Sections 501-4(b) and 504-
20
5. Where exposed to materials having a deteriorating effect on the installed conductors, such as
oil or gasoline
9}}
6. Underground or embedded in poured concrete or aggregate
7. Where subject to physical damage
Section 362-6. Deflected Insulated Conductors Where insulated conductors are deflected
within a wireway, either at the ends or where conduits, fittings, or other raceways or cables
enter or leave the wireway, or where the direction of the wireway is deflected greater than 30
degrees, dimensions corresponding to Section 373-6 shall apply. Whore insulated conductors
No. 4 or larger enter a wireway through a raceway or cable, the distance between those
raceway and cable entries shall not be loss than six times the trade diameter of the larger
raceway or cable connector.
Where insulated conductors No. 4 or larger enter a wireway through a raceway or cable, the
distance between raceway and cable entries enclosing the same conductor shall not be less
than six times the trade diameter of the larger raceway or cable connector.
Section 370-27 (c). Boxes at Coiling-Suspended (Paddle) Fan Outlets. Boxes at Coiling
Suspended (Paddle) Fan Outlets. Outlet boxes shall not be used as the solo support for ceiling
suspended (paddle) fans.
Section 370-27 (c). Required locations for Ceiling Fan Rated Boxes.
All boxes used as lighting fixture outlets shall be of the "Ceiling Fan Rated Type". and shall
comply with Article 422-18 (a) and (b).
(Exception: In areas such as Unfinished basements, Closets. Haftways, Garages. and
Bathrooms. Areas listed above shaft not be exempt if a ceiling (paddle) fan(s) are installed in
these areas.)
Section 380-4. Wet Locations. A switch or circuit breaker in a wet location or outside of a
building shall be enclosed in a weatherproof enclosure or cabinet that shall comply with Section
373-2(a). Switches shall not be installed within wet locations in tub or shower spaces unless
installed as part of a listed tub or shower assembly.
Exception: Switches that are protected with a GFCI protected circuit may be installed with
approval. within the tub shower space.
Section 410-4(d) Bathtub and Shower Areas. No parts of cord-connected fixtures, hanging
fixtures, lighting track, pendants, or ceiling-suspended (paddle) fans shall be located within a
zone measured 3 ft (914 mm) horizontally and 8 ~ (2.44 m) vertically from the top of the bathtub
rim or shower stall threshold.
All other types of fixtures located within this area must meet the requirements of (:410-4 (:a)) and
shall be GFCI protected. This zone is all encompassing and includes the zone directly over the
tub or shower stall.
Section 518.4. Wiring Methods (b) Nonrated Construction. Nonmotallic-shoathod cablo,
Type AC and MC cable, electrical nonmetallic tubing, and rigid nonmetallic conduit shall be
permitted to be installed in those buildings or portions thereof that are not required to be of fire-
rated construction by the applicable building code.
Section 680-12. Disconnecting Means. A disconnecting means shall be provided and be
accessible, to disconnect simultaneously. all ungrounded conductors. It shall be located within
sight of. but no closer than from 311 pools, spas, and hot tub equipment, and shall be located at
least 5 ft (1.52 m) from the inside walls of the pool, spa, or hot tub and or of the like type
equipment.
Section 680-38. Emergency Switch for Spas and Hot Tubs. A clearly labeled emergency
shutoff or control switch for the purpose of stopping the motor(s) that provide power to the
recirculation system and jet system shall be installed readily accessible to the users and at least
5 ft (1.52 m) away, adjacent to, and within sight of the spa or hot tub. This requirement shall not
apply to privately owned units located in single-family dwellings and in individually owned
dwelling units of multi-family complex(s).
Section 800-40 (a)(2) Material. The grounding conductor shall be copper either stranded or
solid.. othor corrosion rosistant conductivo matorial,
This conductor shall be identified in accordance per (Article 250-119).
SECTION VI. Additions to the provisions of the National Electdc Code.
Sec. 14-51=C-3. Application to Existing Electrical Systems and Equipment.
(a) Additions, alterations or repairs. Additions, alterations or repairs may be made to an
electrical system and equipment without requiring the existing electrical system and equipment
to comply with all the requirements of this code, provided the addition, alteration or repair
conforms to that required for a new electrical system and equipment, and provided further that
no hazard to life, health or safety will be created by such additions, alterations or repairs.
With approval of the Building Official, prior to the commencement of work, minor
additions, alterations and repairs to an existing electrical system and equipment may be made
in accordance with the law in effect at the time the original installation was made.
(b) Existing Installations. Electrical systems and equipment lawfully in existence at the time of
the adoption of this code may have their use, maintenance, or repair continued if the use,
maintenance or repair is in accordance with the original design and no hazard to life, health, or
property has been created by such electrical system and equipment.
(c) Changes in building occupancy. Electrical systems and equipment which are a part of any
building or structure undergoing a change in use or occupancy, as defined by the building
code, shall comply with the requirements of this code which are applicable to the new use or
occupancy.
(d) Maintenance. All electrical systems and equipment, both existing and new, and all parts
thereof shall be maintained in a proper operating condition in accordance with the original
design and in a safe and hazard-free condition. All devices or safeguards which are required
by this code shall be maintained in conformance with this code. The owner or designated
agent shall be responsible for the maintenance of the electrical system. To determine
compliance with this subsection, the Building Official may require any electrical system to be
re-inspected.
(e) Moved buildings. Electrical systems and equipment which are part of buildings or structures
moved into or within this jurisdiction shall comply with the provisions of this code for new
installations.
Sec. 14-51=0-4. Conflicting provisions.
If different sections of this code specify different materials, methods of construction or other
requirements, the most restrictive section shall control.
Sec. 14-51=C-5. Alternate materials and methods of construction.
The Building Official may approve the use of an alternate material or method of construction if
the proposed design complies with the provisions of this code and the material or method of
construction offered is at least the equivalent of that prescribed in this code in suitability, strength,
effectiveness, fire resistance, durability and safety.
The Building Official shall require sufficient evidence or proof to substantiate any claims
regarding the use of alternates. The Building Official shall record in the files of the code
enforcement agency any decision to approve an alternate material or method of construction.
Sec. 14-51=C-6. Modifications.
The Building Official may grant modifications for individual cases, provided that a special
individual reason makes the strict letter of this code impractical and the modification is in
conformity with the intent and purpose of this code, and that such modification does not lessen
health, life and fire safety requirements. The details of such actions granting modification shall be
recorded and entered in the files of the code enforcement agency.
Sec. 14-51=C-7. Tests.
Whenever there is insufficient evidence of compliance with any of the provisions of this code
or evidence that materials or construction do not conform to the requirements of this code, the
Building Official may require tests as evidence of compliance to be made at no expense to this
jurisdiction.
Test methods shall be as specified by this code or by other recognized test standards. In the
absence of recognized and accepted test methods for the proposed alternate the Building Official
shall determine test procedures.
All tests shall be made by an approved agency. Reports of such tests shall be retained by the
Building Official for the period required for the retention of public records.
Sec. 14-51=C-8. Powers and Duties of Building Official
12}}
(a) General. The Building Official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce all the provisions
of this code. The Building Official may appoint a chief electrical inspector and other related
technical officers and inspectors and other employees as shall be authorized from time to
time.
(b) Right of Entry. Whenever necessary to make an inspection to enforce the provisions of this
code, or whenever the Building Official or an authorized representative has reasonable cause
to believe that there exists in a building or upon a premises a condition or code violation which
makes such building or premises unsafe, dangerous or hazardous, the Building Official or an
authorized representative may enter such building or premises at all reasonable times to
inspect the same or to perform any duty imposed upon the building or premises by such
codes, provided that if such building or premises be occupied, the Building Qffcial shall first
present proper credentials and request entry. If such building or premises is unoccupied, the
Building Official shall first make a reasonable effort to locate the owner or other persons
having charge or control of the building or premises and request entry. If entry be refused, the
Building Official or an authorized representative shall have recourse to eveFy-remedy provided
by law to secure entry.
When the Building Official or an authorized representative shall have first obtained a
proper inspection warrant or other remedy provided by law to secure entry, an owner or
occupant or other persons having charge, care or control of the building or premises shall not
fail or neglect, after proper request is made as herein provided, to promptly permit entry
therein by the Building Official or authorized representative for the purpose of inspection and
examination pursuant to this code.
(c) Stop Orders. When work is being done contrary to the provisions of this code, the Building
Official may order the work stopped by notice in writing served on persons engaged in the
doing or causing such work to be done, and such persons shall immediately stop such work
until authorized by the Building Official to proceed with the work.
(d) Authority to Disconnect Utilities in Emergencies. The Building Official or authorized
representative shall have the authority to disconnect electric power or energy service supplied
to the building, structure or building service equipment therein regulated by this code in case
of emergency where necessary to eliminate an immediate hazard to life or property. The
Building Official shall whenever possible notify the serving utility, the owner and occupant of
the building, structure or electrical system or equipment of the decision to disconnect prior to
taking such action and shall notify the serving utility, owner and occupant of the building,
structure or building equipment, in writing, of the disconnection immediately there after. I
13}}
(e) Authority to Condemn Electrical System and Equipment. If the Building Official
determines that an electrical system or equipment regulated ~ by this code has become
hazardous to life, health or property, the Building Official shall er-e~-issue in writing a notice of
violation. The notice shall state $m~L the description, and the corrective action that needs
to be taken for the such electrical system or equipment on the premises oithor bo romovod
or- to be restored to a safe conditions. whichovor is appropriato. The written notice itself- shall
also fix- state a minimum time limit for compliance. with such ordor. Persons shall not use or
maintain defective electrical system or equipment after receiving notice. This work shall be
done by a licensed electrical contractor, licensed by the City of Iowa City.
If equipment or an installation is to be disconnected the Building Official shall issue a
written notice of such disconnection and reasons therefor to the serving utility, and the owner
and occupants of the building, structure or premises within 24 hours of the order to disconnect.
When an electrical system or equipment is maintained in violation of this code and in
violation of a notice issued pursuant to the provisions of this section, the Building Official shall
institute appropriate action to prevent, restrain, correct or abate the violation.
(f) Connection after Order to Disconnect. Persons shall not make connections from any
energy or power supply nor supply power to an electrical system or equipment which has been
disconnected or ordered to be disconnected by the Building Official or the use of which has
been ordered to be discontinued by the Building Official until the Building Official authorizes
the reconnection and use of the electrical system or equipment.
(g) Liability. The Building Official, or an authorized representative charged with the enforcement
of this code, acting in good faith and without malice in the discharge of duties, shall not
thereby render the Building Official personally liable for any damage that may accrue to
persons or property as a result of an act or by reason of an act or omission in the discharge of
duties.
This code shall not be construed to relieve or lessen the responsibility of a person
owning, operating or controlling any building, structure or building service equipment therein
for any damages to persons or property caused by defects, nor shall the code enforcement
agency or its parent jurisdiction be held as assuming such liability by reason of the inspections
authorized by this code or approvals issued under this code.
(h) Cooperation of Other Officials and Officers. The Building Official may request, and shall
receive so far as is required in the discharge of duties, the assistance and cooperation of other
officials of this jurisdiction.
Sec. 14-51=C-9. Unsafe Electrical Systems or Equipment.
Electrical systems or equipment regulated by this code which are unsafe, or which constitute a
fire hazard, or are otherwise dangerous to human life are, for the purpose of this section, unsafe.
Use of electrical systems or equipment regulated by this code constituting a hazard to safety,
health or public welfare by reason of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, obsolescence, fire
hazard, disaster, damage or abandonment is, for the purpose of this section, an unsafe use.
Unsafe electrical systems or equipment are hereby declared to be public nuisances and shall
be abated by repair, rehabilitation, demolition or removal in accordance with the procedures set
forth in the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings or an alternate procedure as
may be adopted by this jurisdiction. As an alternative, the Building Official or other employee or
official of this jurisdiction as designated by the governing body may institute other appropriate
action to prevent, restrain, correct or abate the violation.
Sec. 14-51=C-10. BOARD OF APPEALS.
A. General. The Board of Appeals shall hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions or
determinations made by the Building Official relative to the application and interpretation of this
code. The Board shall consist of at least five (5) members who are qualified electors of the
city of Iowa City but are not employed by the City. The Board shall include at least one
licensed electrician, one licensed plumber, one member qualified by experience and training to
pass upon matters pertaining to mechanical design, construction and maintenance, one
representative from the Iowa City Homebuilders Association, and at least one building design
professional. All other members shall be qualified by experience and training to pass upon
matters pertaining to building construction and interpretations of the Building Official. If any
electrician on the Board of Appeals is involved in an appeal before the Board, the other
members of the Board shall appoint an alternate qualified electrician who is a qualified elector
of the City of Iowa City to act in his or her stead. The Building Official Sr. Building Inspector
shall be an ex officieal member of, and shall act as secretary to the Board. The members of
the Board of Appeals shall be appointed by the City Council and shall hold office at its
pleasure.
B. Limitations of Authority, The Board of Appeals shall have no authority to waive requirements
of this Code.
Sec. 14-5i=C-11. Violations
It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair,
move, improve, remove, convert or demolish, equip, use or maintain an electrical system or
equipment or cause or permit the same to be done in violation of this code.
Sec. 14-5EC-12. Licenses.
A. No person shall perform unsupervised electrical work, within Iowa City, with or without
compensation unless the person holds a master electrician's license issued by the City except
as permitted by sections 14-5L-25 B and C.
B. No person shall work as a journeyman electrician within the City unless the person holds a
journeyman electrician's license issued by the City.
C. No person shall knowingly employ or permit an unlicensed person to perform electrical work
within Iowa City if the work is required by this Code to be performed by a licensed electrician.
D. There shall be a properly licensed electrician present at all locations and at all times where
electrical work is being performed. At least one licensed electrician shall be present for every
three apprentices or workers. Such licensed electrician must be an employee of the permit
holder.
E. The provisions of this section shall not apply to:
(1) The personnel of the traffic engineering division of the city or persons who work for a
public utility company, telephone or telegraph company, nor to persons performing
electrical work as an integral part of the plant used by such company in rendering its duly
authorized service to the public.
(2) A regular employee of any railroad who does electrical work only as a part of that
employment.
(3) The service or maintenance of heating or air conditioning equipment provided that such
work or maintenance shall only include electrical work on electrical equipment that is part
of such equipment. Such work shall include the connection of heating or air conditioning
equipment to an cxisting individual branch circuitF that contains no other loads.
F. Revocation of License:
1. The administrative authority, with consent of the Board of Appeals, may revoke any
license issued if the license holder shows incompetence or lack of knowledge, if
the license was obtained by fraud or for continual violation of any sections of this
Code.
2. Licenses are not transferable. The lending of any license or the obtaining or
permits thereunder for any other person shall be deemed cause for revocation.
3. Revocation shall occur only after the Administrative Authority has given the
licensee written notice and an opportunity for an administrative hearing before the
Board of Appeals.
G. Reissuance of License After Revocation: If a license is revoked for any reason, another
license shall not be issued for at least twelve (12) months after revocation.
Sec. 14-51=C-13. Applications.
Any person required by this ordinance to possess a license for electrical work shall make
application to the Building Official.
Sec. 14-5L-C-14. Application and Examination Fees.
Fees for persons applying for a license for electrical work shall be established by resolution of
Council, and shall not be refunded.
Sec. 14-51=C-15. LICENSING STANDARDS.
The Administrative Authority shall issue licenses pursuant to the following provisions:
A. A master electrician's license shall be issued to every person who demonstrates satisfactory
completion of ere-two years of experience as a licensed journeyman electrician, and
successfully passes the examination approved by the Board of Appeals. The fee for the
license shall be set by resolution of Council.
B. A journeyman electrician's license shall be issued to every person who demonstrates
satisfactory completion of eRe-three years of experience as an apprentice electrician with an
established electrical company, and successfully passes the examination approved by the
Board of Appeals. The fee for the license shall be set by resolution of Council.
C. Only one license shall be issued to any individual in any license category on the basis of a
single examination.
Sec. 14-51=C-16. RE-EXAMINATIONS.
Any person who fails the journeyman or master electrician's examination may apply for re-
examination at the next regularly scheduled examination.
Sec. 14-5L-C-17. RENEWALS.
A. Every license which has not previously been revoked shall expire on December 31 of each
year. Renewal fees shall be as established by resolution of Council. Any license that has
expired may be reinstated within sixty (60) days after the expiration date upon payment of an
additional ten dollar ($10) reinstatement fee. After the expiration of the sixty (60) day period,
no license shall be renewed except upon reexamination. Notwithstanding the above, upon
application, the Board of Appeals may waive the re-examination requirement for
licenses which are not re-newed within the sixty (60) day period if the licensee provides
evidence that the failure to renew was due to the medical reasons or other
circumstances beyond the control of the licensee.
17}}
B. Code Update Certificate. Prior to receiving any active electrical license, each applicant shall
complete an approved eight hour National Electrical Code update class based on the
changes in the most current edition of the National Electrical Code within one year of its
adoption by the City. A cortificatc documentation of completion must be submitted to the
Building Official to accompany application for renewal.
C. At the time of renewal, each licensee shall identity the company where they are currently
employed.
,,
Sec. 14-51=C-18. Maintenance electrician's certificate; when required.
A maintenance electrician's certificate shall be required of any person employed as a
maintenance electrician as defined by this Code. A maintenance electrician's certificate shall be
issued to any person who shall satisfactorily pass the examination giveFFapproved by the Board.
Any person holding a maintenance electrician's certificate issued by the city prior to passage of
this code shall be issued a renewal of the certificate without taking the examination hereinafter
provided.
The installation of any now or additional electrical equipment of any kind by the holder of a
maintenance electrician's certificate is hereby prohibited.
Soc. 1 '15L 19. Rostrictod oloctrician's lic, onso.
A rcstrictod oloctrician's licaqso shall spocify thc typcs of oloctrical work which m3y bc
pcrformod by thc lioonscc. Tho liconsoc may podotto only tho typc of work spoci~od on thc
liccnso.
Sac. 14-51=C-20 Inactive license.
Any current electrical license may be classified as inactive upon written request of the
licensee. Once so classified, the license holder is permitted to maintain the electrical license as
current but will not be permitted to obtain an electrical permit nor otherwise actively participate in
the electrical trade in Iowa City. The license may be reactivated upon completion of an eight hour
National Electrical Code class on the changes based on the most current edition of the National
Electrical Code and payment of the full license fee for that year. The fee for an inactive license
shall be set by resolution of Council.
Sac. 14-5L-21. Permits.
(a) Permits Required. Except as specified in Subsection (b) of this section, no electrical system
work regulated by this code shall be installed, altered, repaired, replaced or remodeled unless
a separate electrical permit for each building or structure has first been obtained from the
Building Official.
(b) Exempt Work. An electrical permit shall not be required for the following:
1. Portable motors or other portable appliances energized by means of a cord or cable
having an attachment plug end to be connected to an approved receptacle when that
cord or cable is permitted by this code.
2. Repair or replacement of fixed motors, transformers or fixed appreved appliances of the
same type and rating in the same location.
3.Temporary decorative lighting.
4. Repair or replacement of current-carrying parts of any switch, contractor, er-control
device or contact device of the same type and or rating.
5.Roinstallation of attachment plug receptacles, but not the outlets therefor.
Rcpair or r Replacement of any overcurrent device of the required capacity ampacity and
interrupt rating in the same location.
6. Repair or replacement of electrodes or transformers of the same size and capacity for
signs or gas tube systems.
Taping joints.
Removal of electrical wiring.
7. Temporary wiring for experimental purposes in suitable experimental laboratories.
8. The wiring for temporary theater, motion picture or television stage sets.
Electrical wiring, devices, appliances, apparatus or equipment operating at loss than 25 volts
and not capable of supplying more than 50 watts of energy.
Low energy power, control and signal circuits of Classes II and III as doffnod in this code.
A permit shall not be required for the installation, alteration or repair of electrical wiring,
apparatus or equipment or the generation, transmission, distribution or motering of
electrical energy or in the operation of signals or the transmission of intelligence by a
public or private utility in the excrdsc of its function as a serving utility.
Exemption from the permit requirements of this code shall not be deemed to grant
authorization for any work to be done in violation of the provisions of this code or any other laws or
ordinances of this jurisdiction.
Sec. 14-5L-22. Application for Permit.
(a) Application. To obtain a permit, the applicant shall first file a written application on a form
furnished by the code enforcement agency for that purpose. Every such application shall:
1. Identify and describe the work to be covered by the permit for which application is made.
2. Describe the land on which the proposed work is to be done by legal description, street
address or similar description that will readily identify and definitely locate the proposed
building or work.
3. Indicate the use or occupancy for which the proposed work is intended.
4. Provide plans, diagrams, computations and specifications and other data as required in
Subsection (b) of this section.
5. The permittee, or authorized agent, must sign the application.
6. Give such other data and information as may be required by the Building Official.
(b) Submittal Documents. Plans, specifications, engineering calculations, diagrams and other
data shall be submitted in one or more sets with each application for a permit. The Building
Official may require plans, computations and specifications to be prepared and designed by an
engineer or architect licensed by the state to practice as such.
EXCEPTION: The Building Official may waive the submission of plans, calculations, etc.,
if the Building Official finds that the nature of the work applied for is such that review of plans is
not necessary to obtain compliance with this code.
(c) Information on Plans and Specifications. Plans and specifications shall be drawn to scale
upon substantial paper or cloth and shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the location, nature
and extent of the work proposed and show in detail that it will conform to the provisions of this
code and all relevant laws, ordinances, rules and regulations.
Plans for buildings more than two stories in height of other than Groups R, Division 3 and
M Occupancies shall indicate how required structural and fire-restrictive integrity will be
maintained where a penetration will be made for electrical and communication conduits, pipes
and similar systems.
Sec. 14-51=O-23. Permittee.
A=. A. An electrical permit may be issued to any person holding a valid master electrician
license issued by the City of Iowa City, or to any comp3ny which omploys a duly liconsod
mastor oloctrician on a full timo basis. or to any company who employs a duly licensed
Master Electrician on a full time basis who supervises the work of the electricians during the
company's normal business hours.
B.B. A permit may be issued to the owner of an existing owner-occupied single-family I
dwelling, pursuant to a valid certificate of occupancy and used exclusively for residential
purposes, to do any work regulated by this article in connection with said dwelling and
accessory buildings. The owner must personally purchase all material and perform all labor in
2O}}
connection with the permit. All work shall comply with this article. Applicants for a
homeowners permit shall pass the designated exam before a permit may be issued.
C. The hornowners test may be waived in section B of this Article, if the applicant is a duly
licensed electrician in the Iowa City area with a minimum of a Journeyman status.A
pormit may bc issuod to any porson holding a valid rostrictod olootrioian's lisonsc issuod by
tho City of Iowa City only for tho type of work spooifiod on tho lioonsc.
Sec. 14-5L-C-24. Permits Issued.
1. (a-) Issuance. The Building Official shall review the application, plans and specifications, and
other data, filed by an applicant for a permit. Other departments of this jurisdiction may review
the plans to verify compliance with any applicable laws under their jurisdiction. When the
Building Official finds that the work described in an application for a permit and the plans,
specifications and other data filed therewith conform to the requirements of this code and
other pertinent laws and ordinances, and that the fees specified in Section 304 have been
paid, the Building Official shall issue a permit to the applicant.
2. When the Building Official issues a permit, the plans and specifications shall be
endorsed in writing or stamped "APPROVED." Such approved plans and specifications shall
not be changed, modified or altered without authorization from the Building Official, and all
work regulated by this code shall be done in accordance with the approved plans.
3. The Building Official may issue a permit for the construction of part of an electrical
system before the entire plans and specifications for the whole system have been submitted
or approved, provided adequate information and detailed statements have been filed
complying with all pertinent requirements of this code. However, the holders of such permits
shall proceed at their own risk without assurance that the permit for the entire building,
structure or building service will be granted.
(bB) Retention of Plans. One set of approved plans, specifications and computations shall
be retained by the Building Official until final approval of the work is given. One set of
approved plans and specifications shall be returned to the applicant and shall be kept on the
site of the building or work at all times while the work authorized thereby is in progress.
(sC) Validity of Permit. The issuance of a permit or the approval of plans and specifications
shall not be construed to be a permit for, or an approval of, any violation of any of the
provisions of this code, or of any other ordinance of the jurisdiction. Permits presuming to give
authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code or other ordinances of the jurisdiction
shall not be valid.
The issuance of a permit based upon plans, specifications and other data shall not
prevent the Building Official from thereafter requiring the correction of errors in said plans,
specifications and other data, or from preventing building operations being carried on
thereunder when in violation of these codes or of any other ordinances of this jurisdiction.
(~D) Expiration. Every permit issued by the Building Official under the provisions of this code
shall expire by limitation and become null and void, if the building or work authorized by such
permit is not commenced within 180 days from the date of such permit, or if the building or
work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned at any time after the work is
commenced for a period of 180 days. Before such work can be recommenced, a new permit
shall be first obtained, and the fee therefor shall be one half the amount required for a new
permit for such work, provided no changes have been made or will be made in the original
plans and specifications for such work; and provided further that such suspension or
abandonment has not exceeded one year. In order to renew action on a permit after
expiration, the permittee shall pay a new full permit fee.
A permittee holding an unexpired permit may apply for an extension of the time within
which work may be commenced under that permit when the permittee is unable to commence
work within the time required by this section for good and satisfactory reasons. The Building
Official may extend the time for action by the permittee for a period not exceeding 180 days
upon written request by the permittee showing that circumstances beyond the control of the
permittee have prevented action from being taken.
(d) Suspension or Revocation. The Building Official may in writing, suspend or revoke a permit
issued under the provisions of this code if the permit was issued in error or on the basis of
incorrect information supplied, or in violation of any ordinance or regulation of the jurisdiction.
Sec. 14-51=0-25. Insurance.
Before any permit to perform electrical work may be issued, the applicant shall have on file
with the Building Official a copy of a certificate of insurance stating the liability amounts of no less
than three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) property damage and five hundred thousand
dollars ($500,000) bodily injury. The City of Iowa City shall be named as additional insured. The
policy shall also provide for at least ten (10) days notice by the insurer to the City of termination of
the policy by the insured or insurer. Electrical permits issued under Section 8-125B of this
ordinance shall be exempted from this insurance requirement.
Sec. 14-54=C-26. Fees.
(a) Permit Fees. The fee for each electrical permit shall be as set forth by resolution of Council.
(b) Investigation Fees: Work Without a Permit,
22}}
1. Investigation. Whenever any work for which a permit is required by this code has been
commenced without first obtaining said permit, a special investigation shall be made
before a permit may be issued for such work.
2. Fee. An investigation fee, in addition to the permit fee, shall be collected whether or not
a permit is issued. The investigation fee shall be equal to the amount of the permit fee
that would be required by this code if a permit was issued. The payment of such
investigation fee shall not exempt any person from compliance with all other provisions of
this code or from any penalty prescribed by law.
(c) Fee Refunds.
1. The Building Official may authorize the refunding of any fee paid thereunder which was
erroneously paid or collected.
2. The Building Official may authorize the refunding of not more than 80 percent of the
permit fee paid when an application for a permit for which a fee has been paid is
withdrawn or canceled before any work has been done.
The Building Official shall not authorize the refunding of any fee paid except upon written
application filed by the original permittee within 180 days from the date of fee payment.
Sec. 14-51=C-27. Inspections.
(a) General. All electrical systems and equipment for which a permit is required by this code shall
be subject to inspection by the Building Official, and the electrical system shall remain
accessible and exposed for inspection purposes until approved by the Building Official.
It shall be the duty of the permit applicant to cause the electrical system to remain
accessible and exposed for inspection purposes. Neither the Building Official nor the
jurisdiction shall be liable for the expense of removing or replacing any material to permit
inspection. When the installation of an electrical system and equipment is complete, an
additional and final inspection shall be made. Electrical systems and equipment regulated by
this code shall not be connected to the energy source until authorized by the Building Official.
Approval as a result of an inspection shall not be construed to be an approval of a
violation of the provisions of this code or of other ordinances of the jurisdiction.
(b) Inspection Requests. It shall be the duty of the person doing the work authorized by a permit
to notify the Building Official that such work is ready for inspection. The Building Official may
require that every request for inspection be filed at least one working day before such
inspection is desired. Such request may be in writing or by telephone at the option of the
Building Official. It shall be the duty of the person requesting inspections required by this
code to provide access to and means for inspection of such work.
23}}
(c) Operation of Electrical Equipment. The requirements of this section shall not be construed
to prohibit the operetion of any electrical system or equipment installed to replace existing
equipment. The request for inspection of such equipment must have been filed with the
Building Official not more than 48 hours after such replacement work is completed and before
any portion of such electrical system is concealed by any permanent portion of the building.
(d) Other Inspections. In addition to the called inspections required by this code, the Building
Official may make or require other inspections of any work to ascertain compliance with the
provisions of this code and other laws which are enforced by the code enforcement agency.
(e) Reinspections. A re-inspection fee may be assessed for each inspection or re-inspection
when such portion of work for which inspection is called is not complete or when corrections
called for are not made.
This provision is not to be interpreted as requiring re-inspection fees the first time a job is
rejected for failure to comply with the requirements of this code, but as controlling the prectice
of calling for inspections before the job is ready for such inspection or re-inspections.
Re-inspection fees may be assessed when the approved plans are not readily available
to the inspector, for failure to provide access on the date for which inspection is requested, for
not completeing the corrective actions from original inspections, or for deviating from
plans requiring the approval of the Building Official.
To obtain a re-inspection, the applicant shall file an application therefor in writing upon a
form furnished for that purpose, and pay the re-inspection fee as set by resolution of Council.
When re-inspection fees have been assessed, no additional inspection of the work will be
performed until the required fees have been paid.
Sec. 14-51=C-29. Connection Approval.
(a) Energy Connections. An electrical system or equipment regulated by this code for which a
permit is required shall not be connected to a source of energy or power until approved by the
Building Official.
(b) Temporary Connections. The Building Official may authorize the temporary connection of
the electrical system or equipment to the source of energy or power for the purpose of testing
the equipment, or for use under a temporery Certificate of Occupancy.
SECTION VI. REPEALER: All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions
of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION VII. 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
24}}
Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or pad thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitu-
tional.
SECTION VIII. EFFECTIVE DATE: This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage,
approval and publication as required by law.
hisbldg\ord\nec99fnl.doc
2s}}
NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONTINUE A
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND TO
CONTINUE THE ACQUISITION OF
PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR THE SOUTH
SYCAMORE REGIONAL STORMWATER AND
GREENSPACE PROJECT
TO: Greg and Beth Van Dusseldorp
4387 Kountry Lane, SE
Iowa City, IA 52240
William and Ruth Langenberg
3010 Sycamore Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Niffenegger Family Trust
c/o Ross J. Niffenegger, Trustee
and Francis A. Niffenegger, Trustee
2050 Morrison Lane
Suisun, CA 94585
Kathleen Harrington
Stephanie Gatens
Clay Gatens
Maureen Gatens
c/o John Beasley, Attorney
321 East Market Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Under the provisions of House File 476, enacted
by the General Assembly and signed by the
Governor during the 1999 Legislative Session, a
governmental body which proposes to acquire
property rights under power of eminent domain
for a public improvement project is required to
give notice of intent to continue a previously
approved project to all property owners whose
properties may be affected. (See new Sections
6B.2A and 613.213 of the Iowa Code.)
1.DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT;
INTENDED USE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY
WHICH MAY BE ACQUIRED.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to the above-
described property owners that the City Council
of the City of Iowa City will consider the
continuation of a previously approved project to
construct regional stormwater management in
the Snyder Creek basin, wetlands mitigation, and
street parkway from the southside of Mount
Prospect, Part VII, and Lakeside Addition
Subdivisions and south to the Snyder Creek
Bottom Wetlands, which project is known as
South Sycamore Regional Stormwater and
Greenspace Project.
Property rights acquired for the project will be
used for:
2
a. The construction of a drainageway
and roadway embankment.
b. The construction of sanitary sewer
pipe to connect the Kountry Lane
Apartments to the Iowa City Sanitary
Sewer facilities and removal of the
present sewer lagoons which serve
the apartments.
c. The construction of a new driveway
access for the Kountry Lane
Apartments and the Van Dusseldorp
property.
d. The temporary storage of
construction materials and
equipment.
e. The staging of construction
activities.
2. PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS MAY BE
ACQUIRED BY NEGOTIATION OR
CONDEMNATION.
If the City Council votes to continue the above-
described project, the City may need to acquire
property rights for the project improvements.
Property rights may include a temporary
construction easement, a permanent easement,
and/or a fee simple parcel (complete ownership).
Upon review of Johnson County property
records, it appears that properties or portions of
properties owned by the above-identified
persons may have to be acquired for the project
by the methods described above. The City will
attempt to purchase the required property by
good faith negotiations. If negotiations are
unsuccessful, the City will condemn those
property rights which it determines are
necessary for the project. The proposed location
of the above-described public improvement is
shown on documentation which is now on file in
the office of the City Clerk and available for
public viewing.
3. CITY PROCESS TO DECIDE TO
CONTINUE WITH THE PROJECT AND
TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY RIGHTS;
CITY COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED TO
PROCEED WITH PROJECT;
OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC INPUT.
The City of Iowa City approved the above-
referenced project on February 11, 1997, and
authorized the acquisition of property rights that
may be needed for the project. A number of
easements or fee simple parcels still need to be
acquired for the project. In order to acquire the
remaining property rights which may be needed
for the project, the City Council is required to
authorize continuation of the project by Council
resolution. The City has provided funding in its
current budget to acquire property rights for the
project and to construct the project
improvements. Any public comment will be
3
considered in determining whether to continue
acquiring property rights for the project and
whether to continue with the construction of
project improvements.
In making the decision to continue the above-
described project and to continue acquiring
property rights for the project, the City Council is
required to hold a public hearing, giving
persons interested in the project the opportunity
to present their views regarding the project, and
regarding the proposed acquisition of property
rights for the project. The public hearing on the
project will be held during the City Council's
regularly scheduled meeting on the 18a' day
of January, 2000 in the City Council
Chambers, Civic Center, 410 East
Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa,
commencing at 7:00 p.m. or, if cancelled, at
the next meeting of the City Council
thereafter as posted by the City Clerk. In
order to continue the above-described project
and continue the proposed acquisition. of
property rights for the project, the City Council
will be required to again approve the project and
authorize the continued acquisition of private
property rights for the project by Council
resolution. The City Council is scheduled to
consider adoption of a resolution of the City's
intent to continue with the above-described
project following the public hearing.
When an appraisal is required, if the City
Council votes to continue the project, an
appraiser will determine the compensation to be
paid for easements and/or property acquired in
fee simple. The City will offer no less than the
appraised value and will attempt to purchase
only the needed property by good faith
negotiations. If the City is unable to acquire
property rights needed for the project by
negotiation, the City will acquire those property
rights by condemnation.
4. STATUS OF PROJECT PLANNING.
The above-described project was identified for
construction as part of the Capital Improvement
Program approved by the City Council on March
2, 1999, pursuant to Resolution No. 99-72. The
project is currently scheduled for construction in
Fiscal Year 1999-2000. The City Council initially
approved the project and authorized design of
the project on February 11, 1997, pursuant to
Resolution No. 97-48. The City Council
thereafter authorized acquisition of private
property for the project by Resolution No. 98-58,
passed on the 24th day of February 1998.
5. THIS NOTICE IS FOR INFORMATION
ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFER TO
PURCHASE PROPERTY RIGHTS.
The City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa
has not yet determined to continue the above-
described project or to continue acquiring
4
property rights for the project. This Notice does
not constitute an offer to purchase property
rights.
5. STATEMENT OF RIGHTS.
Just as the law grants certain entities the right to
acquire private property, you as the owner of
property have certain rights. You have the right
to:
a. Receive just compensation for the
taking of property. (Iowa Const.,
Article I, § 18)
b. An offer to purchase which may not
be less than the lowest appraisal of
the fair market value of the property.
(Iowa Code §§ 6B.45, 6B.54)
c. Receive a copy of the appraisal, if
an appraisal is required, upon which
the acquiring agency's determination
of just compensation is based not
less than 10 days before being
contacted by the acquiring agency's
acquisition agent. ( Iowa Code
§6B.45)
d. When an appraisal is required, an
opportunity to accompany at least
one appraiser of the acquiring
agency who appraises your
property. (Iowa Code §6B.54)
e. Participate in good faith negotiations
with the acquiring agency before the
acquiring agency begins
condemnation proceedings. (Iowa
Code §6B.3(1 ))
f. If you cannot agree on a purchase
price with the acquiring agency, a
determination of just compensation
by an impartial compensation
commission and the right to appeal
its award to district court. (Iowa
Code §§ 6B.4, 6B.7, and 6B.18)
g. A review by the compensation
commission of the necessity for the
condemnation if your property is
agricultural land being condemned
for industry. (Iowa Code § 6B.4A)
h.' Payment of the agreed upon
purchase price, or if condemned, a
deposit of the Compensation
commission award before you are
required to surrender possession of
the property. (Iowa Code §§ 6B.25
and 6B.54(11 ))
i. Reimbursement for expenses
incidental to transferring title to the
acquiring agency. (Iowa Code §§
6B.33 and 6B.54(10))
j. Reimbursement of certain litigation
expenses: (1) if the award of the
compensation commissioners
exceeds 110 percent of the
acquiring agency's final offer before
condemnation; and (2) if the award
on appeal in court is more than the
compensation commissioner's
award. (Iowa Code §6B.33)
k. At least 90 days written notice to
vacate occupied property. (Iowa
Code § 6B.54(4))
I. Relocation services and payments, if
you are eligible to receive them, and
the right to appeal your eligibility for
and amount of payments. (Iowa
Code §316.9)
The rights set out in this Statement are not
claimed to be a full and complete list or
explanation of an owner's rights under the law.
They are derived from Iowa Code Chapters 6A,
6B and 316. For a more thorough presentation
of an owner's rights, you should refer directly to
the Iowa Code or contact an attorney of your
choice.
Malr~n K. Karr
City Clerk
marym~land-acq~s-sycamr~ntnotic.doc
NOTICE Of PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANS,
SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT
AND ESTIMATED COST FOR
LANDFILL RECYCLING CENTER PROJECT,
PHASE 2
FOR THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA
TO ALL TAXPAYERS OF THE CITY OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA, AND TO OTHER INTERESTED
PERSONS:
Public notice is hereby given that the City
Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, will conduct
a public hearing on plans, specifications, form of
contract and estimated cost for the construction
of the Landfill Recycling Center Project, Phase 2
in said City at 7:00 p.m. on the 18th day of
January 2000, said meeting to be held in the
Council Chambers in the Civic Center in said
City, or if said meeting is canceled, 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 interested persons.
Any interested persons may appear at said
meeting of the City Council for the purpose of
making objections to and comments concerning
said plans, specifications, contract or the cost of
making said improvement.
This notice is given by order of the City Council
of the City of Iowa City, Iowa and as provided by
law.
MARlAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 12, 2000
TO: Rick Fosse, City Engineer
FROM: Daniel Scott, Sr. Civil Engineer
re: Landfill Recycle Center Project
The Landfill Recycle Center Project includes a new site layout, a new scale, a new self-
contained hazardous chemical storage building unit and a new facility building
incorporating a scale office, education center, office space, a product exchange room
and a chemical waste operation area.
The Landfill Recycle Center Project was divided into two phases to allow continuous site
access and operations during the construction process. Phase 1 was bid in the fall of
1999 and included the new scale and self-contained hazardous chemical storage
building unit at a cost of $160,000.
The second phase will consist of the proposed new site layout and facility building.
These improvements are an effort to improve the quality of the current services and
increase the range of services offered at the site. The new facility will encourage
recycling and the responsible disposal of various chemical wastes as well as provide a
space dedicated to the presentation and education of environmental issues. This
$560,000 facility will demonstrate the City's ongoing commitment to environmental
safety.
All of the proposed improvements can be seen on the attached renderings.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON
.-. DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF
· CONTRACT AND ESTIMATED COST FOR
" THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE LANDFILL
"GAS COLLECTION AND CONTROL SYSTEM
PROJECT IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA.
TO ALL TAXPAYERS OF THE CITY OF IOWA
CITY,. IOWA, AND TO OTHER INTERESTED
PERSONS:
Public notice is hereby given that the City
Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, will
conduct a public headng on drawings,
specifications, form of contract and estimated
cost for the construction of the Landfill Gas
Collection and Control System in said City at
7:00 P.M. on the 18th day of January, 2000, said
meeting to be held in the Council Chambers in
the Civic Center in said City.
Said drawings, specifications, form of contract
and estimated cost are now on file in the office
of the City Clerk in the Civic Center in Iowa City,
Iowa, and may be inspected by any interested
persons.
Any interested persons may appear at said
meeting of the City Council for the purpose of
making objections to and comments conceming
said drawings, specifications, contract or the
cost of making said improvement.
This notice is given by order of the City
Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa and as
provided by law.
MARlAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that the City Council
of Iowa City will hold a public hearing on the
18th day of January, at 7:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers of the City of Iowa City,
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 a Resolution of Intent to
Convey a portion of Lot 1, Block 3, Rundell
Addition, consisting of approximately 2,995
square feet located at the southeast corner of
Grant Street and Court Street, to adjacent
property owners William G. Flanagan and
Elizabeth Rose.
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
Annen~forrns~not-ph.doc
November22, 1999
City Attorney's Office
410 E Washington St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
Dear Ms. Holecek:
We are writing to inform you of our intent to bid to purchase a parcel of land that currently belongs to the
City of Iowa City. The parcel is situated adjacent to our residence at 406 Grant Street. It is a rectangular
piece of land, identified as Lot 1, Block 3 Rundell Addition, described in the accompanying appraisal
conducted at our request by MRS Appraisals. The appraisal is dated October 27, 1999, and we received it
on November 9.
The first steps we took in order to determine how we might acquire the property were to talk with Rick Foss
and Bob Miklo. They informed us that there did not seem to be any inherent obstacle to the sale of the
property from the City's standpoint; in particular, the sale involved no vacation of right.of. way by the City.
Our understanding was that it was up to us, as the prospective buyers, to assess the value of the property in
order to make a bid. We chose to employ professional and licensed appraisers to assign a value to the
property, since we had no method of determining a fair offer ourselves.
As indicated in the appraisal, the property in question is a remnant lot, which is to say that it is not
independently buildable, and is thereby of value only to adjacent landowners. The range of values
represented in the enclosed appraisal was established by calculating the value per square foot of other
remnant parcels recently sold by the City to adjacent property holders. Given that the method appears to be
based on applicable precedents, as described in that appraisal, it would seem that this is a sound method of
determination of value.
We have taken a hand in maintaining the city parcel through annual leaf and brush removal, and in clearing
away heavier limbs from the shade trees alter the storms of recent years. We tried unsuccessfully to fight a
large apple tree,that was blown down by the storm two years ago, until we were discouraged by experts.
We participate annually in the Ralston Creek clean-up in the creek area adjacent to the lot. While we
understand that these facts have no direct bearing on the sale of the land, we believe that our efforts attest to
the prospect that the property will be well-maintained. Our interest in the property is in constructing a
driveway with access from Grant Street where parking is in moderately high demand due primarily to nearby
rental properties. The siting of the driveway close-in to our house will not affect the mature trees on the lot.
We plan additional landscaping on the site.
Finally, we understand that by purchasing the property we become responsible for maintenance, including
snow removal from adjacent sidewalks, relieving the City of the expense of such maintenance.
We hereby offer to buy the property for the sum of $525.00, a figure midway within the appraised range.
We hope that we can look forward to a favorable response from the City Council, and we will be happy to
respond to any questions you or they may have.
· ~ 5~Rose
'~/fl~iam G. rlknagan
406 Grant Str~t, Iowa City, IA 52240
(319) 358-7658
APPRAISAL REPORT
Portion of Lot 1, Block 3 Rundell Addition,
Iowa City, Iowa
Approximately 2,995 sqft
PREPARED FOR
William Flanagan
406 Grant Street,
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
PREPARED BY
Hal Kleinsmith
465 Highway #1 West
Suite 200
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
November 3, 1999
Mr. William Flanagan
406 Grant St.
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear Mr. Flanagan
In accordance with your request for an appraisal of a portion of the vacant lot identified
in this property as Lot 1 Block 3 Rundell Addition except for the S42' of W 72' in Iowa
City Iowa. Please find attached a report which contains some of the materials gathered
and considered in preparation of this limited summary appraisal report. It is further
understood that this report may be used in an attempt to purchase the subject site from the
City of Iowa City. The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the current market value of
the fee simple estate.
Please be advised that the site has been inspected, and that all data contained herein
fumished by others is considered to be reliable.
This appraisal report was completed in accordance with the current "Uniform Standards
Board" of the Appraisal Foundation and is referred to as a limited summary appraisal
report.
As of the date of appraisal, October 27, 1999 it is my opinion that the subject property
described in this report has an estimated hypothetical value range of:
$300 to $750
Three Hundred Dollars to Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars
Submitte y,
Hal Kleinsmit~'d
Certified General Real Property Appraiser
Iowa #CG01544
2
Summary of Salient Facts
DATE OF SITE VISIT: November 1, 1999
PROPERTY RIGHTS APPPRAISED: Fee Simple Estate
INDICATED HYPOTHETICAL VALUE RANGE: $300 -$750
PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL: To estimate the "hypothetical" market value of a
portion of a city lot for plottage with an adjoining property.
PROPERTY REPRESENTATION: I was unaccompanied on my inspection of the
subject property.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The entire lot owned by the City of Iowa City is known as: Lot
1, Block 3 in Rundell, Johnson County, Iowa, according to the plat thereof except
commencing a the SW comer thereof, thence east 72', thence north 42', thence west 72'
thence south 42' to the place of beginning. Subject to easements and restrictions of use
and record.
A discussion with Rick Fosse in the Iowa City engineers office indicates the city would
be willing to sell a portion of the parcel 41.6 x 72 running from the north edge of the site
to the street fight of way. This indicated area is 2,995 sqft. No survey has been done.
Measurements are taken from available city assessor and auditor records.
LOCATION: The subject property is located on the east side of Iowa City in a primarily
residential neighborhood. The subject site is at the southeast comer of Grant Street and
Court Street.
TYPE OF PROPERTY: The subject site is a vacant rectangular lot in an older area of
east Iowa City.
LOT SIZE: The hypothetical subject site is rectangular in shape and is approximately
41.6 x 72 or 2,995 sqft. No survey has been done on the subject site. Information is from
available city and county records and believed to be accurate. The area being considered
in this report is not of sufficient size to be used as a building site.
IMPROVEMENTS: The subject site is vacant and there are no improvements.
ZONING: The subject site is Zoned RS-8 Medium Density Single Family Residential.
This area is primarily intended to provide for development of small lot single family
dwellings. Minimal lot area is 5,000 sqft with a minimum width of 45' and frontage of
25' on a public street.
CENSUS TRACT: The subject property is located in Metropolitan area 3500, Map # 19-
103 and the subject tract is 0015.00.
TITLE HOLDER AND HISTORY OF TITLE: The subject site is currently owned by the
City of Iowa City. The subject has been owned by the city since 1978 and there have
been no other recent sales of this site.
EASEMENTS OF RECORD: No noted adverse easements or encroachments that would
affect the subject site value.
FLOOD HAZARD INFORMATION: FEMA flood insurance map # 190171 0010 C
dated June 5, 1985. The subject site is indicated to be located within Zone A & B. Zone
A represents areas of the 100 year flood plain, and Zone B are areas between the 100 year
and 500 year flood plains. A discussion with Rick Fosse of the Iowa City city engineers
office indicates that the majority of the site being appraised is located in the 500 year
flood plain with a small portion along the eastern edge might fall in the 100 year flood
plain. No survey for the subject site has been done, all information about the site is an
estimate from available city plats.
TYPE OF APPRAISAL: This is a limited summary appraisal report and conforms with
current U.S.P.A.P. guidelines.
4
PURPOSE AND FUNCTION OF THE APPRAISAL:
The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the current market value of a hypothetical
vacant parcel located at the southeast comer of Grant St. and Court St. in Iowa City,
Iowa.
The function of the appraisal is intended for use by William Flanagan in proceedings with
the city of Iowa City to buy a portion of a vacant lot adjacent to his property. The client
for this report is William Flanagan.
DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE
The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market
under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller, each acting prudently,
knowledgeably and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this
definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title
from seller to buyer under conditions whereby:
1. buyer and seller are typically motivated;
2. both parties are well informed or well advised, and each acting in what he
considers his own best interest;
3. a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;
4. payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial
arrangements comparable thereto; and;
5. the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected
by special or creative financing or sales concessions* granted by anyone
associated with the sale.
* Adjustments to the comparables must be made for special or creative financing
or sales concessions. No adjustments are necessary for those costs which are
normally paid by the sellers as a result of tradition or law in a market area; these
costs are readily identifiable since the seller pays these costs in virtually all sales
transactions. Special or creative financing adjustments can be made to the
comparable property by comparisons to financing terms offered by a third party
institutional lender that is not already involved in the property or transaction. Any
adjustment should not be calculated on a mechanical dollar for dollar cost of the
financing or concessions by the dollar amount of any adjustment should
approximate the markets reaction to the financing of concession based on the
appraiser's judgment.
ANALYSIS OF THE ASSIGNMENT
I have been asked to determine the value of a proposed vacant parcel located at the comer
of Grant Street and Court Street in Iowa City. This parcel is to be a portion of an existing
lot currently owned by the City of Iowa City. The area being considered in this analysis is
not of sufficient size to be a building site. The highest and best use of the parcel is as
plotrage or assemblage with another adjoining parcel. Because of this factor there is a
very limited market for the subject site.
Plottage as defined in" The Dictionary of Real Estate Apppraisal" second addition.
The increment of value when two or more sites are assembled or created to produce
greater utility.
Assemblage as defined in "The Dictionary of Real Estate Apppraisal" second addition.
The combining of two or more parcels, usually but not necessarily contiguous, into one
ownership or use.
There are very few similar raw land purchases in our area. Occasionally portions of
vacated alleys will be purchased by adjoining landowners. Likewise areas of raw land
will be purchased to made adjoining lots conforming to site size requirements. This is
most often seen in older residential areas where existing sites are small and often don't
conform with current zoning requirements.
Do to the lack of data available raw land sales have been researched and considered in an
attempt to identify a proper adjustment for existing site sales.
Because of limited sales of similar units the final indicated value is somewhat
judgmental. The subject property is a proposed site and the final indicated value is
hypothetical and is subject to survey in a timely fashion.
6
PROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISED
The property fights being appraised are considered to be held in "FEE SIMPLE TITLE",
AS IF VACANT, free and clear of liens and encumbrances except for zoning restfictions,
easements of record, mortgage loans, and any other restfictions as may be noted.
· Subsequent pages are as follows:
Photos of the subject site
Proposed plat of the subject site
7
Photos of the subject site
..... .~:Z' '~, '
"-. . -' ~,~.! ;'.'
r. ,,,. ~ ;
~-"" '~l~i ';
..... ' ......~'~7 ~':":~:~':'~" ....: .....~ - , -..Z.~ ZZ~'" ..........~"
Photos of the subject site
9
:':'' "'~;" ' 32 122' -', 50' 50' 50' 50'
- ~ . .
:::':
;'~" .T..:.-I: · I
, ,-.;~
~ o ~ ~'~:' ~' '~": :'~:~"~'~' "'
b
~ '..'. ~.005" ; 12-004 ' '
:..:. ~,,~;~::%~.:.~.,;.-o07
' ] -008 b
'.
~s 9 -o~
;"" -~'~0 ~8 -01 2 b ~25'
. :,,:~ ~-..;2 ~25' 125' 2
~,,? .... ~- - , ~ -001 =o'
' ~ ;2:-~' ,,r'~.'~:~"' ,;~::~_..._ _-~ ':.-~
~ 001~ '
'
~ ;'~,;,:;~'.~'~;~ ~,~,. ~-.,:~';:.;-:~::~ :~";' :.:~;:~.' -001 - ~ -002 ,:-00(
'~ '~:;, ;?~--~:'~:~'~: ~,,.;;~;,oo5 ~ ~ -~ ~ 5-oo3~s' ~.~'~ ~o,:.-..
'~':"~" '~~"~' ~
......... ~:+~: ;- ....
.~, ~: ~ · ...,; ;~{(:..;
:...
,. . , . ~~.. : 9~ ~F ·
a ~ ,.~' ~a=:.~}..~,. '-oo9 ~ ~ ;~..~ 7 oo ,
, . ;~,
"" 18
· :.~' ~ i~:;.; ~b~;,' .......'
~6.~ ' . . .,,~,:.~,.. ,
SITE DESCRIPTION
The hypothetical subject site is an irregular rectangular shaped parcel that gently slopes
from southwest to northeast. The entire site is estimated to be 41.6 x 72 or 2,995 sq~.
The site is currently vacant except for some mature shade trees. The subject site is located
at the southeast comer of Grant Street and Court Street. The site has frontage along both
of these city maintained public streets.
There are public concrete sidewalks running along the west and north edges of the
proposed site. Ralston Creek is located just east of the proposed site. Areas along Ralston
Creek tend to fall within the 100 year and 500 year flood plain basin. City officials
indicate the majority of the subject site will fall within the 500 year flood plain but a
portion could be in the 100 yr plain. This cannot accurately be determined without a
survey of the proposed parcel. This parcel is not of sufficient size to be a legal building
site.
11
APPROACHESTO VALUE
Three approaches to real estate value have been developed through the experience of
professional appraisers. The order of these approaches may vary depending on the
circumstance.
1. The Cost Approach
2. The Income Approach
3. The Sales Comparison Approach
The Cost Approach to estimates the property value as indicated by the sum of the value
contributed by the land (see land value estimate in Cost Approach section) as though
unimproved and subject improvements, and the value contributed by the improvements.
The Income Approach considers the stream of income which the property is likely to
produce during its economic life, and coverts this income to a value estimate.
The Sales Comparison Approach consists of comparing the subject property with other
properties that have been sold, or are for sale, and would be in direct competition with the
subject.
Whenever possible, all three approaches will be applied in making an estimate of value.
One approach, however, will often be given greater weight than the others, depending
largely on the type of property, the most convincing factual data available, and the
purpose for which the appraisal is made.
Comments on The Approach to Value:
The subject site is vacant land, the only applicable approach is the comparison sales
approach to value. Past vacant sites have been considered in comparison with the subject
site. Because of the lack of data, these comparables will be adjusted for the subjects use
as plottage.
Due to the lack of improvements the Cost Approach is omitted from this analysis. Also
due to the size and type of property there is insufficient rental data to apply the income
approach to value. Due to these factors the Income Approach is also omitted from this
analysis.
12
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH TO VALUE
DEFINITION OF SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
This approach is based on the principle of substitution, which states that a prudent
purchaser would pay no more for real property than the cost of acquiring an equally
desirable substitute on or through the open market.
It assumes the sale of similar or nearly similar properties from which units of comparison.
may be extracted and applied to the property being appraised for an indication of property
value.
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
An effort has been made to identify other sites that have sold as plottage with adjacent
properties. All of these sales were from the City of Iowa City to adjacent property
owners. There are a limited number of these sales and some are commercial sites. An
effort has been made to identify the value difference paid for these sites as compared to
market value ofbuildable sites.
Comparable sales of parcels for plottage to adjacent site owners.
839 S. lst Avenue, Iowa City. This property owner purchased a portion of the right of
way running along the southern edge of their property line. This is a commercial site and
the right of way was purchased for use as handicapped parking. The purchased area is a
12.5' x 75' or 937.5'. The site was purchased for $2,559.38 or $2.73/sqfi. Commercial
land in this area typically sells for $8.00/sqfi. The sale of land for plottage indicates a
value of 34% the indicated market value.
A vacant parcel was purchased by an adjoining land owner at 816 S. Gilbert Street in
Iowa City. This adjoining parcel was made into parking area. This location is a
commercial site with an anticipated land value of $6.00/sqft. This parcel 1,454 sqfi was
purchased for a reported $799 or $.55/sqfi. This sale would indicate that land for plottage
has a value of 10% of the indicated market value.
833 River Street, Iowa City. The property owner recently purchased the adjoining vacant
right of way approximately 8,105 sqft. This site was purchased for a reported $3,000 or
$.37/sqfi. Lot values in this preferred residential area are some of the highest within the
city limits. It is estimated that lots sell approximately $5 .00/sqfi in this area. The sale of
land for plottage would indicate a value of 7% of the indicated market value.
13
Gable Street right of way, in the Mount Pleasant residential addition was purchased from
the city of Iowa City. This vacated street right of way was purchased for use as a
driveway access. The parcel is 50 x 125 or 6,250 sqft. This site was purchased for
$280.03 or .05/sqft. Lots in this subdivision have been selling for approximately $25,000
for and average of 8,500 sqft. The indicated land value is $2.94/sqft. The sale of land for
plottage indicates a value of 2% the indicated market value.
A review of the available sales data indicates that plottage sites sell for 2% to 34% of
market value. Because of the proposed subject parcel size, location and appeal the
estimated value is 10% of indicated market value.
The following comparable residential sites are used to develop a market value of land in
the subject area. These listings and sales represent interior lots on the east side of Iowa
City.
14
Comparable Listings & Land Sales:
Listings:
1923 Morningside Drive, Iowa City is a 50 x 120' site or 6,000 sqfl. This site is currently
listed for $26,900. The price has been reduced and the site has been on the market for
over 1 year. The current listing would indicate a price of $4.48/sqft.
Lot 6 B Street, Iowa City is a 80 x 155' site or 12,400 sqft. This site is currently listed for
$29,500. The listing has been on the market for 67 days. The current listing would
indicate a sales price of $2.38/sqft.
Lot C Yewell Street, Iowa City is an irregular lot 125 x 135 or 16,875 sqft. The site is
listed for $15,000. This listing has been on the market for approximately 189 days~ The
indicted sales price would be $.89/sqft
Sales:
1923 Morningside Drive, which is currently listed was purchased in 1994 for a reported
$19,500 by an adjoining property owner. This site reflects a sales price of $3 .25/sqft.
1831 G Street, Iowa City was sold for a reported $19,500 on 5/1/96. This lot is 80 x 50 or
4,000 sqft. Improvements were demolished from this building site and can be used a
residential site. The indicated sales price is $4.88/sqfl.
In reviewing sales it appears that properties like the subject demand a value significantly
less than parcels that can be complete building sites. The comparables appear to support a
value range of $.90/sqft to $4.90/sqft. This range is broad but not unexpected in light of
the lack of data for this analysis.
In reviewing sales it appears that sites purchased for plottage to adjacent sites demand a
value significantly less than parcels that can be complete building sites. As is indicated
the subject parcel will demand only 10% of the indicated market value of surrounding
lots. The value range indicates $.90 - $4.90/sqft assuming the subject site is 10% of
market value the indicated adjusted value is $. 10 - $.50/sqft.
The subject site is estimated at 2,995 sqft. The subjects indicated value range is:
2,995 x $. 10/sqft = $ 299.50 ($300) to 2,995 x $.50/sqft = $1,497.50 ($1,500).
The indicated value range for the proposed site is $300 to $1,500
15
RECONCILLIATION OF VALUE.
As discussed in the body of this anlaysis there is limited data for use in this report. The
indicated values are very judgemental as well as the adjustment of raw land for plottage
compared to legal building sites. The data in this anlaysis supports a value range of $300
to $1,500.
Because of the size of the subject site and its location the highest and best use of the site
is as plottage with an adjoining property. There is limited demand for the subject parcel
due to lack of possible properties that could use the site as plottage. After considering all
data in the report and the limited demand for the subject site I would expect its value to
fall in the bottom half of the range say $300 to $750.
Indicated Final Value:
$300 to $750
Three Hundred Dollars to Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars
This reported value is hypothetical and is dependent on a survey and subdivision of the
subject site in a timely fashion. This report is a limited appraisal summary report and
Certified General Real Property Appraiser
Certificate # CG01544, expires 6/30/2000
16
STATEMENT OF LIMITING CONDITIONS AND APPRAISERS CERTIFICATION
CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS: The appraiser's certification that
appears in this report is subject to the following:
1. The appraiser (s) assume no responsibility for matters of a legal nature affecting
the property appraised or the title thereto, nor do the appraisers render any opinion
as to the title, which is assumed to be good and marketable. The property is
appraised as though being under responsible ownership.
2. Any sketch in the report may show approximate dimensions and is included to
assist the reader in visualizing the property. The appraisers have made no survey
of the property.
3. The appraiser (s) has examined the available flood maps provided by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (or data sources) and has noted in the appraisal
report whether the subject site is located in an identified special flood hazard area.
Because the appraiser (s) is not a surveyor, makes no guarantees, expressed or
implied, regarding this determination.
4. The appraiser (s) is not required to give testimony or appear in court because of
having made the appraisal with reference to the property in question, unless
arrangements have been made therefore.
5. Any distribution of the valuation in the report between land and improvements
applies only under the existing program of utilization. The separate valuation for
land and buildings must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and
are invalid if so used.
6. The appraiser (s) has noted in the appraisal report any adverse conditions (such as,
needed repairs, depreciation, the presence of hazardous waste, toxic substances,
etc.) observed during the inspection of the subject property or that became aware
during the normal research involved in performing the appraisal. Unless otherwise
stated in the appraisal report, the appraiser (s) has no knowledge of any
environmental conditions (including the presence of hazardous wastes, toxic
substances, etc.) that would render the property more of less valuable and has
assumed that there are no such conditions and makes no guaranties or warranties,
express or implied, regarding the condition of the property. The appraiser will not
be responsible for any such conditions that do exist or for any engineering or
testing that might be required to discover whether such conditions exist. The
appraiser report must not be considered as an environmental assessment of the
property.
17
7. Information, estimates, and opinions furnished to the appraiser, and contained in
the report, were obtained from sources considered reliable and are believed to be
true and correct, however, no responsibility for accuracy of such items furnished
to the appraiser can be assumed by the appraisers.
8. The appraiser (s) will not disclose the contents of the appraisal report except as
provided for in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.
9. The appraiser (s) has based the appraisal report and valuation conclusion for an
appraisal that is subject to satisfactory completion, repairs, or alterations on the
assumption that completion of the improvements will be performed in a
workmanlike manner.
10. The appraiser (s) must provide written consent before the lender/client specified
in the appraisal report can distribute the appraisal report (including conclusions
about the property value, the appraiser's identity and professional designations,
and any references to any professional appraisal organizations or the firm with
which the appraiser is associated) to anyone other than the borrower; the
mortgagee or its successor and assigns; the mortgage insurer; consultants;
professional appraisal organizations; any state or federally approved financial
institution; or any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States or
any state or the District of Columbia. The appraiser's written consent and
approval must also be obtained before the appraisal can be conveyed by anyone to
the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media.
18
APPRAISERS CERTIFICATION
The appraiser (s) certifies and agrees that:
1. I have researched the subject market area and have selected a minimum of three
recent sales of properties most similar and proximate to the subject property for
consideration in the sales comparison analysis and have made a dollar adjustment
when appropriate to reflect that market reaction to those items of significant
variation. If a significant item in a comparable property is superior to, or more
favorable than, the subject property, a negative adjustment was made to reduce
the adjusted sales price of the comparable and, if a significant item in a
comparable property is inferior to, or less favorable than the subject property, a
positive adjustment was made to increase the adjusted sales price of the
comparable
2. I have taken into consideration the factors that have an impact on value in my
development of the estimate of market value in the appraisal report. I have not
knowingly withheld any significant information from the appraisal report and I
believe, to the best of my knowledge, that all statements and information in the
appraisal report are true and correct.
3. I stated in the appraisal report only my own personal, unbiased, and professional
analysis, opinions, and conclusions, which are subject only to the contingent and
limiting conditions specified in this report.
4. I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this
report, and I have no present or prospective personal interest or bias with respect
to the participants in the transaction. I did not base, either partially or completely,
my analysis and/or the estimate of market value in the appraisal report on race,
color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin of either the
prospective owners or occupants of the properties in the vicinity of the subject
property.
5. I have no present or contemplated future interest in the subject property, and
neither my current or future employment nor my compensation for performing
this appraisal is contingent on the appraised value of the property.
6. I was not required to report a predetermined value or direction in value that favors
the cause of the client or any related party, the amount of the value estimate, the
attainment of a specific result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event in order to
receive my compensation and/or employment for performing the appraisal. I did
not base the appraisal report on a requested minimum valuation, a specific
valuation, or the need to approve a specific mortgage loan.
19
7. I performed this appraisal in conformity with the Uniform Standards of
Professional Appraisal Practice that were adopted and promulgated by the
Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation and that were in place as
of the effective date of this appraisal, with the exception of the departure
provision of those Standards, which does not apply. I acknowledge that an
estimate of a reasonable time for exposure in the open market is a condition in the
definition of market value and the estimate developed is consistent with the
marketing time noted in the neighborhood section of this report, unless I have
otherwise stated in the reconciliation section.
8. I have personally inspected interior and exterior areas of the subject property and
the exterior and all properties listed as comparables in the appraisal report. I
further certify that I have noted any apparent or known adverse conditions in the
subject improvements, on the subject site, or on any site within the immediate
vicinity of he subjects property of which I am aware and have made adjustments
for these conditions in my analysis of the property value to the extent that I had
market evidence to support them. I have also commented about the effect of the
adverse conditions on the marketability of the subject property.
9. I personally prepared all conclusions and opinions about the real estate that were
set forth in the appraisal report. If I relied on significant professional assistance
from any individual or individuals in the performances of the appraisal or the
preparation of the appraisal report, I have named such individual (s) and disclosed
the specific tasks performed by them in the reconciliation section of this appraisal
report. I certify that any individual so named is qualified to perform the tasks. I
have not authorized anyone to make a change to any item in the report; therefore,
if an unauthorized change is made to the appraisal report, I will take no
responsibility for it.
Appraiser: e~nsm~
Certified General Real Property Appraiser
Certificate # CG01544, expires 6/30/2000
2O
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 12, 2000
To: City Council
From: Sarah E. Holecek, First Assistant City Attorney~_~~ ""
Re: Disposition of public property and establishing fair market value
As you know from reviewing the agenda, there are a number of items involving the disposition of
public property to adjoining property owners. Given the number of current and recent disposition
items, I wish to briefly review several principles to be kept in mind when determining whether to
convey public property and in establishing the fair market value/price for the sale.
First, it is a well-settled principle of law that the governing body of a municipality holds property "in
trust" for the use and benefit of the public, and thus, such property can be disposed of only in
accordance with the public interest. However, this is generally recognized to mean that land held
by a City may be disposed of when no longer needed for public use. More importantly, as the
"trustee" of public property, the governing body must dispose of such property in good faith, upon
adequate consideration, and upon any reasonable and lawful terms, assuming such disposal is in
the public interest. Generally, the principle requiring "adequate consideration" has been
recognized to mean that a municipality must obtain fair market value for the property to be
conveyed, assuming the transaction does not entail other public benefit (e.g. urban renewal).
Determining "adequate consideration" or fair market value for parcels of public property can be
difficult, particularly when such parcels are irregular "remnants" which are not independently
buildable or viable. For this reason, it is important to consider the specific facts of each situation
when determining the appropriate payment for conveyance of public property. For instance, a
remnant which enhances the adjoining property by adding buildable area, parking or density due
to the additional square footage would certainly have a higher value than a remnant strip which
merely expands yard area.
In several recent and pending conveyances the consideration has been based on the assessed
value of the neighboring property. For instance, in the recent sale of one-half (5') of the vacated
Washington Street right-of-way to Jim Waiters (5' x170'), a total sum of $2,312 was paid for the
850 square foot parcel, based on the assessed value of $2.72 per square foot of the Waiters'
present lot. Currently pending before you is the $2,941 offer of Marjorie Hayek for the other half
of this strip, based on the higher assessed value of her lot due to its commercial (rental) nature.
Currently pending on your agenda is the $525.00 offer of William Flanagan and Elizabeth Rose for
the approximate 2,995 square foot, unencumbered, public parcel located adjacent to their
property at 406 Grant Street ($.17 per square foot). While the proposal is based on an appraisal,
the appraisal's assumption about the greatly reduced value of a remnant as plottage may be
overly aggressive, and it is necessary to note a number of salient facts when assessing the
adequacy of this consideration of the subject parcel.
First, the lot at 406 Grant Street is currently 42' by 72', or 3024 square feet, and as such is
extremely limited in buildable area and use due to its small size. However, attaching the subject
parcel to the existing lot will nearly double the existing lot size and provide sufficient area for the
construction of a garage for the existing house. In this context, the subject property clearly
enhances the existing lot substantially, and may bring into question the adequacy of the
consideration being paid, particularly considering that the purchasers' property is assessed at
approximately $4.00 per square foot and that neighboring "normal sized" lots are assessed at
approximately $3.00 per square foot.
Of course, there may be particular facts which support adjusting a purchase price downward from
the assessed value of neighboring properties. The existence of easements which limit the
buildable area or active use of the property may support a lower valuation. Likewise, topography
may also limit usefulness, though the additional property may support a higher density should the
site be redeveloped.
Lastly, I wish to note that the City Council is not required and/or compelled to convey public
property to private parties at any time, and the decision to do so, and for what consideration, is
clearly within the Council's discretion. Of course, if you are in need of additional information or
discussion concerning any pending disposition items you may defer them.
If you have any questions regarding the above information, please feel free to call me.
cc: Steve Atkins, City Manager
Marian Karr, City Clerk
Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney
Chuck Schmadeke, Director of Public Works
Rick Fosse, City Engineer
Karin Franklin, Director of Planning and Community Development
Marcia Klingaman, Neighborhood Services Coordinator