Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-04-18 Public hearing Publish 4/13 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 t · the 18 h day of April, 2000, an the Civic Center Council Chambers, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa, at which hearing e Council will consider: ~,n ordinance amending ~i~'tle 14, Chapter 5, Building and Housing, Article H, Site Plan Review, by adopting Central Planning District Multi-Family Residential Design Standards and related amendments to Title 14, Chapter 6, Zoning, Article 1, Zoning Title, Purpose and Scope. 2.An ordinance amending Title 14, Chapter 6, Zoning, Article O, Sign Regulations, to allow banner signs in certain commercial zones under some conditions. 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\notices\cc4-18- 2 .doc Prepared by: Scott Kugler, Assoc. Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5243 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER ,5, BUILDING AND HOUSING, ARTICLE H, SITE PLAN REVIEW, BY ADOPTING CENTRAL PLANNING DISTRICT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS. WHEREAS, the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan contains policies aimed at ensuring the long-term viability and stability of residential neighborhoods within Iowa City, including older, established neighborhoods located close to downtown; and WHEREAS, most of the City's older neighborhoods are located within the area defined by the Comprehensive Plan as the Central Planning District; and WHEREAS, many of the neighborhoods within said Central Planning District contain much of their original, single-family architecture and traditional neighborhood character; and WHEREAS, in order to meet market demands for multi-family housing near the University of Iowa, said Central Planning District contains many areas zoned for multi-family development, resulting in the periodic replacement of original residential structures with new multi-family buildings; and WHEREAS, in order to preserve the traditional character and quality of said older neighborhoods, the City desires to ensure that new multi-family buildings constructed within the Central Planning District are compatible in terms of their architecture, scale, and building materials to existing residential structures found within said older neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, in order to achieve the desired level of compatibility and preserve the character of the city's older neighborhoods, the City deems it necessary to adopt and enforce design standards for new multi-family buildings, and alterations to existing buildings resulting in more than three dwelling units, when proposed to be located within said Central Planning District. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. AMENDMENT. Chapter 5, Building and Housing, Article H, Site Plan Review, of the City Code is hereby amended by adding a new section 5N as follows: N. CENTRAL PLANNING DISTRICT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS: Except for properties located within the Planned High Density Multi-Family Residential (PRM) Zone, all site plans submitted for City approval for new multi-family construction containing three or more dwelling or rooming units, or the addition to the exterior of an existing building which results in a total of 3 or more dwelling or rooming units, within the Central Planning District, as defined herein, shall be reviewed for conformance with the following design standards. For the purposes of this section, the Central Planning District shall consist of those properties located within the district boundaries as shown on the map at the end of this subsection N. Properties located within Historic or Conservation Districts shall comply with the requirements of the Historic Preservation Regulations in lieu of these provisions. Implementation of the design standards is necessary: 1 ) to safeguard the public health, safety, aesthetics, and general welfare of the City; 2) to help stabilize neighborhoods within the Central Planning District by protecting property values of existing residences, by ensuring the compatibility of infill development and surrounding properties, and, through design, by enabling new higher density development to coexist with existing lower density development; and 3) to fulfill the intent of the Zoning Chapter, the Comprehensive Plan as amended and other specific community plans. 1. Compliance with the provisions of both Section 3 "Mandatory Compliance Items," and 4 "Design Point Items," below must be demonstrated prior to site plan approval. Evaluation of proposed building plans under this sub-section shall be made by the Staff Design Review Committee (SDRC), which shall issue a written finding of approval prior to site plan approval and the issuance of a building permit. Prior to submitting a request for site plan review, the developer shall participate in a pre-application conference with the SDRC to discuss the application of the design provisions to the subject property. Decisions of the SDRC may be appealed to the Board of Adjustment. Ordinance No. Page 2 2. When the following provisions differ from provisions prescribed by the Zoning Chapter, the following provisions shall apply. 3. Mandatory Compliance Items: Compliance with the following design standards must be demonstrated prior to the issuance of a building permit. a. Setback, Front: The front yard setback shall be consistent with properties on the same frontage. The building setback shall not deviate from the average setback of existing structures on its street frontage by more than 5 feet, and in no case shall a new building be located closer to the street than the existing principal building on its frontage with the shallowest setback. The setbacks of existing buildings shall be measured at the first floor wall of the main living area or commercial floor area of the building, excluding a covered or enclosed porch. If front porches are prevalent on existing structures, the new building may contain a covered front porch that extends into the front yard, provided it is located no closer to the street than the porch on its block with the shallowest setback. Not this Not This This b. Lighting: All exterior lighting, including balcony and porch lighting, shall be carefully placed, downcast and shielded in accordance with subsection 14-5H-5H of this Chapter, as well as Article 15-6S, Performance Standards, subsection B, Illumination Standards. In addition, no exterior light source should be located on poles more than 15 feet high. When lights mounted on buildings are intended to provide site lighting rather than corridor or exit lighting, they shall be mounted no higher than 15 feet. Lights intended to architecturally highlight a building or its features shall use a limited pattern of light that does not extend beyond the wall of the building. ./' l~effector1 \,. , : 'i \ ,, , Poorly Shielded Well Shielded, Well Shielded 15' Maximum Light Fixture Downcast Light Decorative Light Height c. Parking: Parking lots, including detached garages and carports, shall not be located between the principle building and the street. Parking shall be located behind a building, below grade, or under a building, except on corner lots if it is not possible to locate parking as described above, or where the SDRC determines that the parking cannot be located in the rear of or under a building. Ordinance No. Page 3 On corner lots or where rear parking is not possible, parking may be located alongside the building, but not within a required front or side yard and no closer than 10 feet to the sidewalk. Landscaped screening consisting of densely planted evergreen shrubs, a hedge, a combination of evergreen and deciduous shrubs, or a decorative masonry wall in combination with landscaping shall be used to screen the parking from the street. The SDRC may consult with the City Forester to ensure that plant materials selected will do well in their selected locations. lley [II]i11[1'~ : z _' --~i---~ ~ : street May be permitted depending THIS upon site conditions I I~i]]lll~L! ','+.~.i~-~-!-:-i~:' '.:..i! ................... Example of Masonry Wall and NOT THIS Landscaped Screening d. Parking Below Buildings: Where parking is located below a building, any exposed potions of the exterior walls of the parking area visible from a street and extending more than three feet above the ground shall appear to be a component of the facade of the building. The use of similar buildin9 materials, window openings, and providing facade detailin9 similar to the upper levels are examples of how this can be achieved. In no case shall a building have the appearance from the street of being elevated above a parkin9 level, or "on stilts." """"" ':':':':':' i~:. :.'~'::::::.F.~!.~:::.;.::~-a lii~ii!~!~i~i~ ...... ,,, ~--_: .....-,,,- :::.:-~, '-':.-..:~":i.. ........... This Not This Not This Ordinance No. Page 4 e. Garages: Garage doors should not be located on any side of a building facing a street. When located on a side wall or on a rear wall on a corner lot, landscaping, masonry walls, or elements of the building should be used to help screen the garage doors from view from the street. Where it is demonstrated that rear or side access is not possible, front access may be permitted, provided that there shall be no more than one double or two single garage doors per building, not to exceed nine feet or 18 feet in width, respectively, and that the garage door(s): 1 ) occupies no more than 50% of the linear face of the building, 2) is recessed behind the wall of the building, and 3) is a color or tone that does not contrast significantly with the main color of the buildin.q. f. Building Orientation: Orientation of the "front" of the building shall be to the street in a manner similar to existing buildings in the neighborhood, including an entrance door with some architectural emphasis provided on the front of the building. Architectural treatments which emphasize the entrance include, but are not limited to, front porches, transom and sidelight windows, decorative trim and moldings, and/or arches. This Not This Ordinance No. Page 5 g. Pedestrian Access: A sidewalk shall be provided that connects the entrance door or porch to the public sidewalk. - This Not This h. Balconies/Decks: Balconies and decks should be designed so that they are integrated into the overall design of the building. Methods of integrating balconies into the building design may include, but are not limited to, fully or partially recessing them into the facade of the building, placing them under a roof that is integrated into the overall roof plan, utilizing supports that are compatible with the rest of the building in terms of materials and design, and utilizing supports that reach to the ground rather than appended on the exterior of the building. When designed in such a manner, balconies and decks may encroach into the required front yard, provided they are located no closer to the street than any porches on the street frontage. Within the RM-12, RNC-12, RM-20, and RNC-20 zones balconies shall be placed adiacent to the front or rear yard rather than the side yard when the building is located adjacent to a residential use containing fewer than three dwelling units. ~ Not This '~ This This Not This Ordinance No. Page 6 i. Mechanical Equipment/Utility Meters: Outdoor dumpsters, mechanical equipment and meters shall be placed at the rear of the property whenever possible. If this cannot be achieved, they may be located along the side of the building provided that extensive landscaping, a decorative masonry wall, a combination of the two, or another approved material is used to screen these items. In no case shall these items be located along the street side of a building. ,i, J, ,,Yes i= · ~ .L~:!;'.~" ;' :; i'~. ,,, _ Example Of masonry wall and landscaped screening 4. Design Point Items: A total of 30 points from the following design options must be obtained prior to site plan approval. a. Vehicular Access: The use of alley access to the parking area, thus minimizing paving within front yards. This may necessitate the improvement of the public alley in order to provide a suitable access to the site. (3 points) Alley Alley , , I I :' i r I Preferred Discouraged b. Paving Materials: The use of textured paving, such as colored and patterned concrete, exposed aggregate, brick, or cobblestone patterns, to improve the appearance of paved areas and to designate pedestrian walkways. (0-3 points) c. Setback, Side: The provision of a side yard of 10 feet or more in the RM-12, RNC-12, RM-20 and RNC-20 zones. (5 points) Ordinance No. Page 7 d. Porches: The incorporation of a covered front porch or porches of an appropriate size and scale in areas where porches are prevalent on existing structures within the surrounding neighborhood. A front porch helps provide a transition between the public street and the private residential use of the interior of the building, and can help a building fit within an existing neighborhood by adding detail and interest to the facade of the building. Front porches must be covered by a roof that is compatible with the roof over the rest of the structure. The evaluation of a proposed porch shall take into consideration its compatibility with the design of the proposed structure, its "usability", and its compatibility with other porches in the surrounding neighborhood. (0-10 points) e. Building Styles: The incorporation of design elements from existing architectural styles found within the surrounding neighborhood, such as building form, rooflines, window patterns, building materials, entranceways, and architectural detailing, to help a new building fit within the context of an existing neighborhood. Architectural styles typically found within older Iowa City neighborhoods that can be used to help guide the design of a new building include Italianate, Queen Anne, Craftsman, Prairie, Foursquare, Greek Revival, and Tudor. (0-10 points) Ordinance No. Page 8 Italianate ~ Queen Anne Craftsman Tudor Greek Revival 1. holding the height of the eave line down by making the upper floor of a building a "half" story and utilizing dormers to accommodate the use of floor area; B8 B'BB BB . BEt B~B B BB 888 B8 Full three stony building Upper floor as a "half~' stony lowering eave height and visual mass Ordinance No. Page 9 9 2. stepping the height of a taller building down to two stories at ends adjacent to existing buildings that are two-stories or lower in height; 3. providing significant variations in the roofline and front building plane which help to reduce the scale of the building along the streetscape; and g. Building Height: The provision of a building height along the street elevation of 27 feet or less. (5 points) h. Roofline: Incorporation of a roofiine that reflects the predominant roof type, orientation, scale and pitch of existing buildings within the neighborhood. (0-5 points) Ordinance No. Page 10 i. Building Modulation: Varying the street elevation setback such that no continuous wall plane or surface exceeds 35 feet in length, and such that variations between wall planes or surfaces are at least 18 inches in depth. Variations in wall planes should be accompanied by corresponding changes in the roofline or other architectural elements of the building. When building modulation as described above is incorporated into the design of the building, portions of the building may be permitted to proiect into the required front yard by one-half (¼) of the depth of the modulation in the front plane of the building or one foot, whichever is less. (0-5 points) BBt]F BB B B El I <35' I <35' I <35' I --, .D min. 18" 1' max. j. WindowslFenestration: The placement of windows and doors on street elevations that are consistent with the window and door patterns found on other properties in the surrounding neighborhood, and that are of a similar size, scale and proportion to the windows of other buildings in the neighborhood. (0- 7 points) Preferred fenestmtion ~asefl upon existin~ ExistinO nei~hborho~ stru~ums struaums within surmun~in~ nei~hborhoo~ Discouraged - Fenestration patterns not related to existing structures in surrounding neighborhood. Ordinance No. Page 11 The use of trim and moldings that are similar in width and character to surrounding buildings. (0-3 points) Traditional window trim details Utilization of double-hung windows, or windows similar in appearance to double-hung windows. Where other types of windows, such as side-by-side sliding sash, are used, a permanent horizontal muntin can be used to create the appearance of a double-hung window. (0-3 points) Standard Slider window with slider window traditional trim and horizontal muntin k. Architectural Details: The provision of architectural details to add interest to building elevations visible from the public street, including but not limited to the following: Quoins, dentils, cornice moldings, brackets, arches, corner boards, keystones, decorative lintels and sills, soldier courses, belt courses, bay windows and other decorative features as appropriate for the design of the overall building and materials being used. In awarding points under this guideline, the use of these elements shall be reviewed in the context of the overall building design, and not simply based on the provision of these architectural details. (0-10 points) Examples of decorative intels and sills .... dentils and . ~ ~ ! ' brackets '~ ~ :":::::":":::":"::":""":":: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Soldier j j,:,b,:,i i,i,:, i,:,i,i ,i,i,i,,:,,i,i,i,i,i,,:,i,:, ,i course .... ..,....:,.......,. ',. :. :, ~.: .....:;;: /Belt course, corner board Ordinance No. Page 12 I. Building Base/Exposed Foundation: Incorporating a raised foundation or a "base" into the design of a new building. The utilization of a material that differs from the primary exterior building material at the base of the building, such as stone, brick of a different color or size than that used for the overall building, or other durable masonry material, can be used to give the appearance of a raised foundation. (0-2 points) m. Building Materials: The use of quality exterior building materials historically used within Iowa City's older neighborhoods is preferred. 1. Building materials will be evaluated as follows. The diagram provided below may also be consulted to determine potential point ranges for proposed materials or material combinations. Materials l Ran All Masonry 7 to 10 Mostly Masonry with 5 to 10 Wood or Stucco Mostly Wood or Stucco with Masonry All Wood or Stucco Mostly Masonry with Vinyl or Metal Mostly Vinyl or Metal with 0 to 2 Masonry Other Materials or 0 to 5 ' Combinations I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ALL MASONRY: The use of brick, stone, or other masonry product(s) as the exterior finish material for the entire building, with the exception of trim and decorative elements that may consist of alternative but compatible materials. For the purpose of this section, masonry shall not include concrete block or poured concrete materials, except when rusticated concrete block or decorative concrete is used as a base or exposed foundation material. The use of these materials as exterior finish materials can be considered under subsection 2 below. (7-10 points) PREDOMINANTLY MASONRY WITH STUCCO OR WOOD: The use of brick, stone, or other masonry product(s) as the primary exterior building material in combination with the less substantial use of stucco, wood, or fiber cement siding. (5-10 points) PREDOMINANTLY STUCCO OR WOOD WITH MASONRY: The use of brick, stone, or other masonry product(s) as a secondary exterior building material in combination with primary materials consisting of stucco, wood, or fiber cement materials as discussed below. (3-8 points) ALL STUCCO OR WOOD: The use of stucco or other similar material(s) that conveys a stucco appearance, or wood or fiber-cement products that are wood-like in appearance, as the exterior finish material for the entire building. Acceptable wood or fiber-cement products include shakes, shingles, or painted horizontal clapboard siding composed of three (3) to eight (8) inch wide boards. (3-7 points) Ordinance No. Page 13 PREDOMINANTLY MASONRY WITH VINYL OR METAL: The use of brick, stone, or other masonry product(s) as the primary exterior building material in combination with the less substantial use of vinyl or metal lap siding. (3-5 points) PREDOMINANTLY VINYL OR METAL WITH MASONRY: The use of brick, stone, or other masonry product(s) as a secondary exterior building material in combination with primary materials consisting of vinyl or metal lap siding in a clapboard pattern. (0-2 points) 2. Materials or material combinations not listed above may be approved, provided that the materials are determined to be high quality, durable materials that will add interest to the facade of the building and that will be compatible with or similar in appearance to materials found on other buildings within the neighborhood. (0-5) 3. The following guidelines shall be used to evaluate building designs that incorporate more than one exterior finish material: Material changes to the vertical plane of the building should be separated by a belt course, soldier course, or some other trim to provide a transition from one material to the other. :. .. ~ STUCCO "' Stone belt course ~ .............. .. ,. ,.., ~ Masonry :: :;:2;::; ;: :: :; Material changes to the horizontal plane of the building should not occur along flat planes of any street facade of the building, but rather at interior corners or at major reveals. Where a material change from masonry to a different material is proposed at a front corner of the building, the masonry shall be extended onto the secondary facade at least 2 feet. Not This This /, / / / 2' rain. 5. Alternative Designs: Alternative design solutions or exceptions to the mandatory standards will be considered if it is demonstrated by the applicant that strict compliance with a specific standard is not practical, and/or the alternative being proposed will help in achieving a development that is compatible with its surrounding neighborhood or would provide some environmental benefit. Ordinance No. Page 14 SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this __ day of ,20 MAYOR ATTEST: ppdadm/ord/central.doc Pre by: Scott Kugler, Assoc. Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, ORDINANCE NO. AN ;E AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 5, BUILDING AND ARTICLE H, SITE PLAN BY ADOPTING CENTRAL PLANNING DISTRICT.,.~ ILY RESIDENTIAL DESIGN WHEREAS, the City Comprehensive Plan contains policies at ensuring the long-term viability and stability lential neighborhoods within Iowa City, older, established neighborhoods located to downtown; and WHEREAS, most of the ty's older neighborhoods are within the area defined by the Comprehensive Plan as th~ ~tral Planning District; and WHEREAS, many of the hborhoods within said Ce Planning District contain much of their original, single-family architect~nd traditional neighb, character; and WHEREAS, in order to me~ arket demands for y housing near the University of Iowa, said Central Planning District many areas :1 for multi-family development, resulting in the periodic replacement of original resi<~tial structul new multi-family buildings; and WHEREAS, in order to preserve haracter and quality of said older neighborhoods, the City desires to ensure that new s constructed within the Central Planning District are compatible in terms of their architecture, and building materials to existing residential structures found within said older neighborhoods; an~ WHEREAS, in order to achieve the of compatibility and preserve the character of the city's older neighborhoods, the City de adopt and enforce design standards for new multi-family buildings, and alteration,' existing ngs resulting in more than three dwelling units, when proposed to be located within said Plannin< NOW, THEREFORE, BE :.D BY TI ITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. AMEI~ Chapter 5, Building ~ing, Article H, Site Plan Review, of the City Code is hereby amended a new section 5N as fol N. CENTRAL PLAN DISTRICT MULTI-FAMILY ~E~S'~E)ENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS: Except ,o, > submitted for City ap f - I units, or the additiof the exterior of an existing building whi ItS, in a total of 3 or more dwelling or rooming units, wit the Central Planning District, as defined her~ ;~'a]l be reviewed for conformance with the esign standards. For the purposes of this section C, entral Planning District shall consist of ~erties located within the district boundaries as the map at the end of this subsection N located within Historic or Conservation shall comply with the req the Historic Preservation Regulations in lieu of these Implementation of the design star is necessary: 1) to safeguard the public health, safety, ~d general welfare of the City; to help stabilize neighborhoods within the Central Planning District b property values existing residences, by ensuring the compatibility of infill develo nd surrounding pro and, through design, by enabling new higher density development to coexist .=xisting lower den development; and 3) to fulfill the intent of the Zoning Chapter, the Com ve Plan as a~ and other specific community plans. 1. Compliance with the provisions of both Section 3 "Mandatory Compliance Items," an, 'Design Items," below must be demonstrated prior to site plan approval. Evaluation of ~ilding plans under this sub-section shall be made by the Staff Design Review Committee (SDRC), issue a written finding of approval prior to site plan approval and the issuance of a building permit. 'to submitting a request for site plan review, the developer shall participate in a pre-application with the SDRC to discuss the application of the design provisions to the subject property. Decisions SDRC may be appealed to the Board of Adjustment. \- Prepared by: Scott Kugler, Assoc. Planner, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5243 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 6, ZONING, ARTICLE A, ZONING TITLE, PURPOSE AND SCOPE, BY INCORPORATING PROVISIONS TO ALLOW MODIFICATIONS TO THE REQUIRED YARD PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING CHAPTER WHEN IN CONFLICT WITH CITY CODE SECTION 14-5H-5N, CENTRAL PLANNING DISTRICT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS. WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City has determined it necessary to adopt design standards for new multi-family buildings when constructed within the Central Planning District (hereinafter, "design standards"); and WHEREAS, the design standards, to be contained within Title 14, Chapter 5, Building and Housing, Article H, Site Plan Review, rely on characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood, including existing setbacks and the existence of front porches, to help new buildings fit within the fabric of their surrounding neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, in some instances, the design standards require and/or permit development that would not be in strict compliance with or would be contrary to the front yard requirements contained within the Zoning Chapter; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to permit the approval of front yard modifications associated with the enforcement of the design standards by the Staff Design Review Committee, concurrent with the approval of building plans being reviewed under the design standards, in lieu of review and approval of a special exception by the Board of Adjustment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. AMENDMENT. Title 14, Chapter 6, Zoning, Article A, Zoning Title, Purpose and Scope, is hereby amended as follows: a. By amending Section 14-6A-3 as follows: 14-6A-3: INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS: In interpreting and applying the provisions of this Chapter, such provisions shall be held to be the minimum requirements for the promotion of the public safety, health, convenience, order, prosperity and general welfare. This Chapter is not intended to interfere with, abrogate or annul any easements, covenants or other agreements between parties, except if this Chapter imposes a greater restriction, this Chapter shall control. Where provisions of this Chapter are inconsistent with subsection 14-5H-5N, Central Planning District Multi-Family Residential Design Standards, the provisions of 14-5H-5N shall apply. b. By amending Section 14-6A-1C as follows: 14-6Ao4: SCOPE: Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, the use of premises and structures in the City shall be in accordance with the minimum standards hereinafter established: C. Except as may be altered by subsection 14-5H-5N, Central Planning District Multi-Family Residential Design Standards, no structure shall be installed, converted, enlarged, reconstructed or structurally altered, except in conformance with the yard regulations for the zone in which the building is located. SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provi- sions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconsti- tutional. SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this __day of ,20 MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK A~ity At~ rn(~~~~_~~ ppdadmin\ord\animzone.doc City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: March 10, 2000 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Scott Kugler, Associate Planner Re: Revisions to proposed Central Planning District Multi-Family Residential Design Standards Attached please find three revised pages for the proposed Central Planning District Multi- Family Residential Design Standards. Staff recommends that these changes be incorporate into the proposed standards, as described below. Page I has been updated to eliminate an inconsistency within the title of the document. The proposed standards are to be referred to as the CENTRAL PLANNING DISTRICT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS. A change in the first sentence has also been made, eliminating properties located within the Planned High Density Multi-Family Residential (PRM) Zone from review under the standards. The PRM zone already contains design standards, as well its own bonus incentive system to encourage quality design. This issue was discussed by the Apartment Infill Committee, and it was understood that the standards would not apply in this zone. It affects only a few properties, as most of the existing PRM properties are located within the Downtown Planning District. On page 13, the total number of points that can be awarded for Architectural Details has been increased from 7 to 10. This was one of several changes made by the Apartment Infill Committee at its last meeting, but did not get carried through on the document forwarded to the Commission for its March 2 meeting. The total number of points possible as reported in the Committee's report does reflect this change - 88 points are possible, with a minimum of 30 being required for approval. Staff has also proposed alternative text within the Building Modulation standard found on page 11, based on concerns raised at the March 2 meeting. Staff feels the proposed language better reflects the intent of the standard, which is to remove the disincentive for builders to incorporate significant modulation in the front fa.cade of new buildings. By permitting a portion of the building to extend minimally into the required front yard, floor area that otherwise would have been lost within the building can be recovered. Without this trade-off, builders would likely be reluctant to take advantage of the design points offered under Building Modulation. City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: February 25, 2000 (for March 2 meeting) To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Scott Kugler, Associate Planner Re: Proposed Multi-Family Residential Design Standards for Infill Development Within the Central Planning District Over the last several months, staff has worked with an ad-hoc citizen committee, the Apartment Infill Committee, in an effort to develop a set of design standards for new apartment buildings within Iowa City's older residential neighborhoods. The Committee recently completed the development of a set of proposed standards and is forwarding them to the Planning and Zoning Commission for consideration. The standards are to be incorporated into the Site Plan Review ordinance, and implemented at the staff level by the staff Design Review Committee. The attached report from the Committee explains in more detail the reasons behind this effort and the details of the proposal. The proposed standards are a result of a great deal of discussion and debate by the Committee, which consisted of a number of individuals with diverse backgrounds and, to some extent, competing interests. The Committee included members of the development community, apartment owners, an architect, neighborhood residents and members of City commissions. The consensus reached by the Committee represents a good compromise that balances the need for good design and neighborhood compatibility with the flexibility that is needed by developers to design new buildings for lots within our older neighborhoods. The Committee stressed the need for flexibility in the standards and the idea of providing an incentive-based approach to their implementation. Staff feels that the review process being proposed will allow for the standards to be enforced in a consistent manner, while avoiding long delays that may be associated with reviews before a citizen committee - which would be subject to public notice provisions and a specific meeting schedule. As proposed, staff review of the building design could occur concurrently with the site plan and building plan review processes, with the goal of completing the design reviews within the normal review period of about 3 weeks. Staff feels that adoption of the proposed standards would be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan policies that encourage close attention to design details when trying to integrate higher density multi-family buildings within predominantly single-family or lower density areas. As noted in the Committee's report, a close review of site and building design is typical for new developments in outlying areas of the City. Staff feels it is reasonable for residents of older established neighborhoods to expect that the same level of attention be paid to new developments within their areas. Staff recommends approval of the proposed design standards. Related Amendments: As noted above, the standards are proposed to be incorporated into the Site Plan Review Ordinance, which is not a part of the Zoning Chapter. There are a few proposed standards that are not consistent with the specific provisions of the Zoning Chapter. Typically, when two regulations are not consistent, the more stringent of the two applies. However, built into the proposed standards are more appropriate methods of determining the required front yard setback within an older neighborhood, and different requirements for determining what can project into the required yards. These methods involve relying more closely on the conditions present in the surrounding neighborhood. In some cases, this may result in more stringent requirements than those contained in the Zoning Chapter, but in many cases the standards would allow the front yard to be reduced. The Committee has proposed that where there are conflicts between the requirements of the two, the Apartment Infill Standards would take precedence. In order to achieve this, amendments will be needed within the Zoning Chapter as well. The proposed standards to be incorporated into the Site Plan Review Ordinance contain a statement noting that where provisions of the standards differ from those of the Zoning Chapter, the standards shall take precedence. In addition, the following changes should be incorporated into Article 16-6A, "Zoning Title, Purpose and Scope" (changes emphasized in bold type): 14-6A-3: INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS: In interpreting and applying the provisions of this Chapter, such provisions shall be held to be the minimum requirements for the promotion of the public safety, health, convenience, order, prosperity and general welfare. This Chapter is not intended to interfere with, abrogate or annul any easements, covenants or other agreements between parties, except if this Chapter imposes a greater restriction, this Chapter shall control. Where provisions of this Chapter are inconsistent with subsection 14-SH-5N, Neighborhood Compatibility Design Standards for New Multi-Family Construction Within the Central Planning District, the provisions of 14- 5H-5N shall apply. and 14-6A-4: SCOPE: Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, the use of premises and structures in the City shall be in accordance with the minimum standards hereinafter established: A. (height limits) B. (area requirements) C. Except as may be altered by subsection 14-5H-5N, Neighborhood Compatibility Design Standards for New Multi-Family Construction Within the Central Planning District, Nno structure shall be installed, converted, enlarged, reconstructed or structurally altered, except in conformance with the yard regulations for the zone in which the building is located. A copy of the existing text of Article 14-6A is attached for the Commission's review. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the proposed Neighborhood Compatibility Design Standards for New Multi-Family Construction Within the Central Planning District be approved as proposed by the Apartment Infill Committee. Staff recommends that related to the adoption of the above Standards, City Code Article 14-6A be amended such that, where there are inconsistencies between the Zoning Chapter and said Standards, the provisions contained within said Standards shall apply, as detailed within the body of this staff memorandum. ATTACHMENTS: 1. City Code Article 14-6A, Zoning Title, Purpose, and Scope. 2. Apartment Infill Committee Report With Attachments. Approved by~ Franklin, Director f Planning and Community Development 3 14-6A- 1 14-6A-4 CHAPTER 6 ZONING ARTICLE A. ZONING TITLE, PURPOSE AND SCOPE SECTION: F. Facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewage dispos- 14-6A-1: Short Title al, schools, parks and other public 14-6A-2: Purpose requirements. (1978 Code {}36-1) 14-6A-3: Interpretation And Application Of Provisions 14-6A-4: Scope 14-6A-3: INTERPRETATION AND AP- PLICATION OF PROVISIONS: In interpreting and applying the provisions of this Chapter, such provisions shall be 14-6A-1: SHORT TITLE: This Chapter held to be the minimum requirements for shall be known and may be cited the promotion of the public safety, health, and referred to as the City ZONING CHAP- convenience, order, prosperity and general TERor ZONING ORDINANCE. (1978 Code welfare. This Chapter is not intended to {}36-2) interfere with, abrogate or annul any ease- ments, covenants or other agreements between parties, except if this Chapter 14-6A-2: PURPOSE: The purpose of this imposes a greater restriction, this Chapter Chapter shall be to: shall control. (1978 Code {}36-87; amd. 1994 Code) A. Promote the public health, safety, order, convenience, prosperity and general welfare; (1978 Code {}36-1; 14-6A-4: SCOPE: Except as otherwise amd. 1994 Code) provided in this Chapter, the use of premises and structures in the City shall B. Conserve and protect the value of be in accordance with the minimum stan- property throughout the City and to dards hereinafter established: encourage the most appropriate use Of land; A. No structure shall be installed, con- verted, enlarged, reconstructed or C. Lessen congestion in the streets; structurally altered to exceed the height limit established for the zone in D. Prevent the overcrowding of land; which the structure is located. E. Avoid undue concentration of popula- B. No use shall be established nor shall tion; and any structure be installed, converted, enlarged, reconstructed or structurally altered, except in conformity with the 798 Iowa City 14-6A-4 14-6A-4 area regulations for the zone in which G. No use permitted as a special excep- the use or structure is located. tion under this Chapter shall be estab- lished or enlarged except as permitted C. No structure shall be installed, con- by the Board of Adjustment~. verted, enlarged, reconstructed 'or structurally altered, except in confor-~ H. Notwithstanding provisions of this mity with the yard regulations for the Chapter to the contrary, the establish- zone in which the building is located. ment of heliports, helipads and hellstops shall be limited and con- D. No use shall be established or en- trolled as follows2: larged nor shall any structure be in- stalled, converted, enlarged, recon- 1~ Heliports, helipads and hellstops structed or structurally altered, except are permitted by right as principal and in conformity with the off-street park- accessory uses in Heavy Industrial ing regulations for the zone in which (I-2) and Public (P) Zones. the use or structure is located. 2. Heliports, helipads and hellstops E. The yards, parking spaces or lot area are permitted by special exception as required for one structure or use un- principal and accessory uses in Re- der this Chapter cannot be used to search Development Park (RDP), meet the requirements for another Office And Research Park (ORP) and structure or use. General Industrial (I-1) Zones. F. Every use established or structure 3. Heliports, helipads and hellstops installed or structurally altered shall are not permitted in any residential (R) be located on a "lot" as defined in this or commercial (C) zone. Chapter. The number of uses and structures permitted on a lot shall be 4. Except in those zones where spe- as follows: (1978 Code {}36-3) cifically permitted by this Section, heliports, helipads and hellstops shall 1. In RS zones and the RNC-12Zone, not be construed or interpreted as there shall not be more than one prin- being an integral part of any principal cipal use or building per lot, except as use or as being accessory to any permitted through a Board of Adjust- principal use. (1978 Code {}36-3) ment approval of a special exception to establish or expand a religious institution use. There may be more than one accessory use or structure on a lot. (Ord. 98-3838, 7-9-1998) 2. In all other zones, there may be more than one principal use, building and accessory use and structure on a lot. 1. See Chapter 4, Article B of this Title. 2. See also subsection 14-6L-1B of this Chapter. 798 Iowa City City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: February 18, 2000 (for March 2 meeting) To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Apartment Infill Committee: (Benjamin Chait; Jeff Clark; Pam Ehrhardt; Mike Gunn; Ron Johnson; Betty Kelly; Joni Kinsey; Hillary Sale; John Shaw; Larry Svobada) Re: Proposed Multi-Family Residential Design Standards for Infill Development Within the Central Planning District The City Council requested that the Planning and Zoning Commission place on its pending list consideration of adopting design standards to improve the compatibility of new multi-family buildings in older Iowa City neighborhoods. This request came as a result of public criticisms expressed over the construction of two apartment buildings within the College Hill neighborhood (1002 E. College Street, and 621-627 Iowa Avenue). It was generally felt that although both buildings were in general compliance with the Zoning Chapter and Site Plan Review Ordinance, both were insensitive to the surrounding properties in terms of scale and mass, and were incompatible with the architecture of the surrounding neighborhood. In 1998, the Council approved the creation of an ad-hoc "Apartment Infill Committee" to assist staff in developing and refining a set of standards to help ensure that issues of compatibility and design are considered when new buildings are proposed within Iowa City's residential neighborhoods; This Committee is made up of individuals from various backgrounds, including developers, architects, neighborhood residents, and members of the Planning & Zoning and Historic Preservation Commissions. The attached set of standards is being proposed by the Committee to address this issue. While the two recent buildings mentioned above drew much attention from neighborhood groups, the Council and the press, they were not unusually poor examples of infill development within Iowa City's older neighborhoods when compared to other developments that have been approved over the last few decades. Since there are no standards or guidelines requiring some level of design compatibility for new construction within these neighborhoods, some developers have not attempted to address the issue. Although some developers work very hard to make their buildings "fit," the community can only expect what it requires, which is currently nothing in terms of neighborhood compatibility in the design of new apartment buildings. ',~ '. ~ L) ~:~ .... . "! i!" .,. 621-627 Iowa Avenue 1002 E. College Street 1002 E. College Street The general idea of encouraging well designed multi-family residential buildings that are compatible with nearby or surrounding single-family neighborhoods is supported by the Comprehensive Plan, and is a part of the review of almost all multi-family developments that occur in outlying areas of the City. Since most of these outlying sites require rezoning or planned development applications, issues of design and compatibility are typically part of a public review process, even though there is no City ordinance specifically requiring that these issues be addressed. Often when establishing zoning boundaries in newly developing areas, issues such as buffers or transitions between various densities of housing are discussed and made a part of development plans for these areas. Individual property owners in these neighborhoods can be reasonably assured that issues such as neighborhood compatibility and site design will be carefully reviewed and made a part of the decision making process. In addition, many single-family subdivisions in these areas have strict private covenants to ensure that even new single-family residences will meet some minimum level of design quality. Such is not the case for residents of many of our older neighborhoods, who often choose to live in these areas because of the character and charm offered by the traditional architecture that can be found there. Ironically, these areas are the least protected by City ordinances and review processes. For this reason, the proposed standards are designed to be implemented only within the Central Planning District, as defined by the Comprehensive Plan (see attached map). It is hoped that the adoption of the proposed standards will help to raise the minimum level of design quality for new buildings within this district such that new buildings will not detract from the character of these neighborhoods, and to provide some assurance to residents of these areas that building design will be given more scrutiny in the future. Background/History: Controversy and debate surrounding apartment construction within older neighborhoods in Iowa City has occurred for decades. It was an issue as early as 1916, when the Summit Apartment Building was constructed at 228 S. Summit Street over the objections of the surrounding, predominantly single-family residential neighborhood. However, most of the conflicts within the community related to this issue appear to have occurred within the last several decades. For more detailed information on this subject, the Historic Preservation Plan contains a history of this debate in the 1960s, 70s and 80s. As a result of the adoption of a new zoning ordinance by the City in 1962, the subsequent rezoning of most of the older neighborhoods for apartments, and a decision by the University of Iowa to not build additional dormitories, almost every neighborhood within the Central Planning District has seen its share of infill apartment development in recent decades. This development has generated complaints from neighborhood residents, including concerns about the loss of historic buildings, the incompatibility of the architecture of the new buildings with the surrounding neighborhood, inadequate parking, and problems associated with the behavior of Kirkwood Avenue E. College Street S. Summit Street 2 residents of the new buildings, among others. While the City's zoning and development regulations cannot address all of these issues, some ordinance changes have occurred. The adoption of the Historic Preservation Ordinance and strengthening of off-street parking requirements are examples. With the exception of design provisions contained in a few zones, such as the Planned High Density Multi-Family Residential (PRM) zone, however, little has been done to regulate the design of multi- family residential structures. Many portions of Iowa City's older neighborhoods have been down-zoned over time to discourage tear-downs and infill construction, but there are some neighborhoods, such as the Northside, College Hill and Governor/Lucas Street areas, and corridors such as Burlington Street, where multi- family zoning exists in areas that still contain much of their original architecture. It is in these areas where conflicts have arisen over new apartment construction in the last few years. Some neighborhood groups have requested that additional down-zoning studies be conducted. While down-zoning may be appropriate for some neighborhoods, it is clear that multi-family zoning needs to be provided for in some way in areas near the University of Iowa campus. As more down-zoning occurs, additional development pressure is placed on the areas that remain zoned for multi-family development since less overall land is available for apartment construction. While infill apartment construction has been going on for decades, a recent phenomenon has been the construction of dormitory-style apartment buildings, in which each unit contains four or five bedrooms. This methods allows developers to achieve a higher level of occupancy, and thus higher rents from their buildings, even in areas where the density in terms of number of dwelling units is limited. This, coupled with modern building materials of seemingly lower quality and recent examples of poor design quality, have left neighborhood residents with the perception that many developers are interested only in minimizing expenditures and maximizing profits, with no regard given to the neighborhoods within which they work. The general feeling is that unless the City requires at least a minimum level of design, the result will be minimal design efforts on the part of the developers. While this is not the case with all developers, it is clear that there are a few who give little regard to the aesthetic impact of their buildings on the surrounding neighborhood. The Committee feels strongly that there is a need for design compatibility standards within Iowa City's older neighborhoods, and that the City should expect quality design within these areas on behalf of its property owners and residents. Proposed Standards: The proposed standards are designed to provide flexibility to developers in dealing with their specific sites. The standards are divided into two categories - Mandatory Coml~liance Items and Desicln Point Items. The Mandatory Compliance category is just as the name implies - a set of standards that would have to be met on each site. These are items that the Committee and staff feel are essential in designing buildings that fit within these neighborhoods. There is a clause incorporated into the proposal that allows alternatives to the Mandatory Compliance Items if it is demonstrated that strict compliance is not practical, and/or if the alternative meets the intent of achieving a compatible building design or provides some environmental benefit such as preserving significant trees or some other feature on the site. ~ ~: --- ,~.., ..... ! :.~ . . - ....... .. Chicago Chicago Chi~ag~ 3 The Design Point category includes a menu of standards from which a developer can choose to incorporate into the design of a new building. Each guideline within this category is assigned a specific number or range of "design points". From this menu, a minimum of 30 design points would have to be obtained before a building permit could be issued. A total of 88 design points are possible within this category. By allowing the developer to pick and choose from this category, there should be a reasonable assurance that the building will fit within the neighborhood, while allowing flexibility to accommodate varying site conditions or the developer's specific plans for his or her site. Please refer to the attached standards for the specific items covered by the two categories. Proposed Review Process: Implementation of the proposed standards would occur concurrent with the site plan and building plan review of a proposed project, and review would be done by the Staff Design Review Committee. A pre-application submittal or conference is required, as is currently required in the PRM zone. This would allow for some feedback on the design concept of a proposed building prior to the finalization of building plans. Upon submittal of an application for a building permit, plans would be forwarded to the staff committee. The staff committee would ensure that the Mandatory Compliance standards are being met, and would evaluate the plans based on the Design Point standards to ensure that the minimum 30 point threshold is being met. The decision to utilize the staff committee was based on a desire to keep delays associated with this review to a minimum, which would be difficult if the review were handled through a public process before a citizen board or commission, and to avoid a situation where one individual such as the Building Official or the Planning Director was responsible for making some of the judgements necessary to implement the standards. The Staff Design Review Committee was created in 1998 when the citizen Design Review Committee was dissolved, and includes the City Architect, the Senior Building Official, the Senior Planner, the Economic Development Planner, and the Administrative Assistant to the City Manager. As with other staff decisions on planning and zoning issues, an appeal of a decision by the staff committee would go to the Board of Adjustment. Many of the standards will require that the staff committee use its judgment in determining how many points are to be awarded under each guideline. Earlier versions of the standards that were considered by the Apartment Infill Committee utilized a more clear-cut, specific point value for each guideline rather than a range of points. However, it was felt that the objectives of the standards could be better met through the proposed system, even if implementation is more difficult due to the subjectivity that is introduced through the use of point ranges. For instance, should a well-designed porch that incorporates design elements from existing porches found within its surrounding neighborhood receive the same number of points as one that consists only of a roof with simple 4X4 posts? The Committee felt that quality design should be rewarded through the ability of the staff committee to select a value from a range of points possible under any specific guideline. As mentioned above, 30 out of a possible 88 design points must be awarded before a building permit could be issued for a new multi-family building within the Central Planning District. · . r,','.:",: .... ., , - ................ .. .................,., ..._. .......... i ':: : Kentlands, Maryland Toronto Chicago 4 Evaluation: The Committee feels that the development of the proposed standards and process should not end with the adoption of the attached standards, but rather there should be a review of the process after a period of time to evaluate its implementation. It is recommended that the Apartment Infill Committee be retained as an ad-hoc committee for the time being, and that its members be informed of decisions made by the staff committee under the proposed standards. After approximately one year or at such time that there have been several projects reviewed under the standards, the Committee should again convene to discuss the success and/or limitations of the standards and process. At that time, if it was felt by the Committee to be needed, adjustments or changes could be proposed and considered. Summary: The Apartment In~ll Committee feels that standards are needed to ensure that new apartment construction within Iowa City's older neighborhoods meets a minimum design quality and fits within the traditional character found in most of these neighborhoods. The attached standards were developed in an attempt to ensure the compatibility of new apartment buildings within these neighborhoods, while allowing some flexibility on the part of individual developers to choose which standards work best on their specific sites. The Committee favors a system whereby the review is conducted by the Staff Design Review Committee to avoid delays in the review process, and which allows the staff committee some discretion in evaluating proposed building designs based on the quality of the proposal. It is also recommended that an evaluation of the implementation of the standards occur by the Committee at some point after several projects have been reviewed under this process. Peninsula Plan Chicago Village Green RECOMMENDATION: The Apa~ment Infill Commi~ee recommends that the aftached Neighborhood Compatibili~ Design Standards for New Multi-Family Construction Within the Central Planning District be appmved and adopted as wri~en. A~ACHMENTS: 1. Neighborhood Compatibili~ Design Standards br New Multi-Family Construction Within the Central Planning District. 2. Central Planning District Map. 3. June 6, 1996, Citizen Leffer to Ci~ Council. ppdadmin~nemos\lnfilcom.doc 5 CENTRAL PLANNING DISTRICT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS City Code Section 14-5H-5N (proposed)] Draft- 3/10/00 CENTRAL PLANNING DISTRICT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS: Except for properties located within the Planned High Density Multi-Family Residential (PRM) Zone, all site plans submitted for City approval for new multi-family construction containing three or more dwelling or rooming units, or the addition to the exterior of an existing building which results in a total of 3 or more dwelling or rooming units, within the Central Planning District, as defined herein, shall be reviewed for conformance with the following design standards. For the purposes of this section, the Central Planning District shall consist of those properties located within the district boundaries as shown on the map at the end of this subsection N. Properties located within Historic or Conservation Districts shall comply with the requirements of the Historic Preservation Regulations in lieu of these provisions. Implementation of the design standards is necessary: 1) to safeguard the public health, safety, aesthetics, and general welfare of the City; 2) to help stabilize neighborhoods within the Central Planning District by protecting property values of existing residences, by ensuring the compatibility of infill development and surrounding properties, and, through design, by enabling new higher density development to coexist with existing lower density development; and 3) to fulfill the intent of the Zoning Chapter, the Comprehensive Plan as amended and other specific community plans. 1. Compliance with the provisions of both Section 3 "Mandatory Compliance Items," and 4 "Design Point Items," below must be demonstrated prior to site plan approval. Evaluation of proposed building plans under this sub-section shall be made by the Staff Design Review Committee (SDRC), which shall issue a written finding of approval prior to site plan approval and the issuance of a building permit. Prior to submitting a request for site plan review, the developer shall participate in a pre-application conference with the SDRC to discuss the application of the design provisions to the subject property. Decisions of the SDRC may be appealed to the Board of Adjustment. 2. When the following provisions differ from provisions prescribed by the Zoning Chapter, the following provisions shall apply. 3. Mandatory Compliance Items: Compliance with the following design standards must be demonstrated prior to the issuance of a building permit. a. Setback, Front: The front yard setback shall be consistent with properties on the same frontage. The building setback shall not deviate from the average setback of existing structures on its street frontage by more than 5 feet, and in no case shall a new building be located closer to the street than any existing principle building on its frontage. The setbacks of existing buildings shall be measured at the first floor wall of the main living area or commercial floor area of the building, excluding a covered or enclosed porch. If front porches are prevalent on existing structures, the new building may contain a covered front porch that extends into the front yard, provided it is located no closer to the street than any of the other porches on its block. Not this Not This This b. Lighting: All exterior lighting, including balcony and porch lighting, shall be carefully placed, downcast and shielded in accordance with subsection 14- 5H-5H of this Chapter, as well as Article 15-6S, Performance Standards, subsection B, Illumination Standards. In addition, no exterior light source should be located on poles more than 15 feet high. When lights mounted on buildings are intended to provide site lighting rather than corridor or exit lighting, they shall be mounted no higher than 15 feet. Lights intended to architecturally highlight a building or its features shall use a limited pattern of light that does not extend beyond the wall of the building. :i ,, , ---,, ' ' J.x. , . Poorly Shielded Well Shielded, Well Shielded 15' Maximum Light Fixture Downcast Light Decorative Light Height 2 c. Parking: Parking lots, including detached garages and carports, shall not be located between the principle building and the street. Parking shall be located behind a building, below grade, or under a building, except on corner lots if it is not possible to locate parking as described above, or where the SDRC determines that the parking cannot be located in the rear of or under a building. On corner lots or where rear parking is not possible, parking may be located alongside the building, but not within a required front or side yard and no closer than 10 feet to the sidewalk. Landscaped screening consisting of densely planted evergreen shrubs, a hedge, a combination of evergreen and deciduous shrubs, or a decorative masonry wall in combination with landscaping shall be used to screen the parking from the street. The SDRC may consult with the City Forester to ensure that plant materials selected will do well in their selected locations. Street May be permitted depending This upon site conditions str~.~.t Example of Masonry Wall and Landscaped Screening Not This d. Parking Below Buildings: Where parking is located below a building, any exposed portions of the exterior walls of the parking area visible from a street and extending more than three feet above the ground shall appear to be a component of the facade of the building. The use of similar building materials, window openings, and providing facade detailing similar to the upper levels are examples of how this can be achieved. In no case shall a building have the appearance from the street of being elevated above a parking level, or "on stilts." ---, """' :'~"'~ ......'.'" ""'~ _._, ~""'~"'.:: ...........~:?""~' This Not This Not This e. Garages: Garage doors should not be located on any side of a building facing a street. When located on a side wall or on a rear wall on a corner lot, landscaping, masonry walls, or elements of the building should be used to help screen the garage doors from view from the street. Where it is demonstrated that rear or side access is not possible, front access may be permitted, provided that there shall be no more than one double or two single garage doors per building, not to exceed nine feet or 18 feet in width, respectively, and that the garage door(s): 1) occupies no more than 50% of the linear face of the building, 2) is recessed behind the wall of the building, and 3) is a color or tone that does not contrast significantly with the main color of the building. 4 f. Building Orientation: Orientation of the "front" of the building shall be to the street in a manner similar to existing buildings in the neighborhood, including an entrance door with some architectural emphasis provided on the front of the building. Architectural treatments which emphasize the entrance include, but are not limited to, front porches, transom and sidelight windows, decorative trim and moldings, and/or arches. 188 B BBBBE1 This Not This g. Pedestrian Access: A sidewalk shall be provided that connects the entrance door or porch to the public sidewalk. - This Not This h. Balconies/Decks: Balconies and decks should be designed so that they are integrated into the overall design of the building. Methods of integrating balconies into the building design may include, but are not limited to, fully or partially recessing them into the fa.cade of the building, placing them under a roof that is integrated into the overall roof plan, utilizing supports that are compatible with the rest of the building in terms of materials and design, and utilizing supports that reach to the ground rather than appended on the exterior of the building. When designed in such a manner, balconies and decks may encroach into the required front yard, provided they are located no closer to the street than any porches on the street frontage. Within the RM- 12, RNC-12, RM-20, and RNC-20 zones balconies shall be placed adjacent to the front or rear yard rather than the side yard when the building is located adjacent to a residential use containing fewer than three dwelling units. ! Not This This This Not This i. Mechanical Equipment/Utility Meters: Outdoor dumpsters, mechanical equipment and meters shall be placed at the rear of the property whenever possible. If this cannot be achieved, they may be located along the side of the building provided that extensive landscaping, a decorative masonry wall, a combination of the two, or another approved material is used to screen these items. In no case shall these items be located along the street side of a building. : D~ ',i:i:"',:i:::i'.i:i::'.!',:. . No [ ] ' :, - :"?.,'-· ,,? ....· .. -, : '. Example of masonry wall and landscaped screening 4. Design Point Items: A total of 30 points from the following design options must be obtained prior to site plan approval. a. Vehicular Access: The use of alley access to the parking area, thus minimizing paving within front yards. This may necessitate the improvement of the public alley in order to provide a suitable access to the site. (3 points) Alley Alle~ II]l'l]',: _.,;,,,,,_ Preferred Discouraged b. Paving Materials: The use of textured paving, such as colored and patterned concrete, exposed aggregate, brick, or cobblestone patterns, to improve the appearance of paved areas and to designate pedestrian walkways. (0-3 points) c. Setback, Side: The provision of a side yard of 10 feet or more in the RM- 12, RNC-12, RM-20 and RNC-20 zones. (5 points) d. Porches: The incorporation of a covered front porch or porches of an appropriate size and scale in areas where porches are prevalent on existing structures within the surrounding neighborhood. A front porch helps provide a transition between the public street and the private residential use of the interior of the building, and can help a building fit within an existing neighborhood by adding detail and interest to the facade of the building. Front porches must be covered by a roof that is compatible with the roof over the rest of the structure. The evaluation of a proposed porch shall take into consideration its compatibility with the design of the proposed structure, its "usability", and its compatibility with other porches in the surrounding neighborhood. (0-10 points) 8 e. Building Styles: The incorporation of design elements from existing architectural styles found within the surrounding neighborhood, such as building form, rooflines, window patterns, building materials, entranceways, and architectural detailing, to help a new building fit within the context of an existing neighborhood. Architectural styles typically found within older Iowa City neighborhoods that can be used to help guide the design of a new building include Italianate, Queen Anne, Craftsman, Prairie, Foursquare, Greek Revival, and Tudor. (0-10 points) Italianate Queen Anne Craftsman Prairie Foursquare Greek Revival Tudor 9 f. Building Height/Mass: Incorporating measures into the design of a new building that help to reduce its "visual mass" and overall height. Examples include the following: (0-7 points) 1. holding the height of the eave line down by making the upper floor of a building a "half" story and utilizing dormers to accommodate the use of floor area; B8 B'RE] BB B~~BB BB E] B88 Full three story building Upper floor as a "half" story lowering eave height and visual mass. 2. stepping the height of a taller building down to two stories at ends adjacent to existing buildings that are two-stories or lower in height; 3. providing significant variations in the roofline and front building plane which help to reduce the scale of the building along the streetscape; and g. Building Height: The provision of a building height along the street elevation of 27 feet or less. (5 points) 10 h. Roofline: Incorporation of a roofline that reflects the predominant roof type, orientation, scale and pitch of existing buildings within the neighborhood. (0-5 points) i. Building Modulation: Varying the street elevation setback such that no continuous wall plane or surface exceeds 35 feet in length, and such that variations between wall planes or surfaces are at least 18 inches in depth. Variations in wall planes should be accompanied by corresponding changes in the roofline or other architectural elements of the building. When building modulation as described above is incorporated into ~e design of the building, portions of the building may be permitted to project into the required front yard by one-half (I/2) of the depth of the modulation in the front plane of the building or up tc one foot, whichever is less. provided that the average of the setbacks of the various planes of the building is equal to or greater than the required setback as established by this section. (0-5 points) BBB BB8 1Ill~ ,~. ,~lfl 1<35, i <35' ~ <35' I 11 j. Windows/Fenestration: The placement of windows and doors on street elevations that are consistent with the window and door patterns found on other properties in the surrounding neighborhood, and that are of a similar size, scale and proportion to the windows of other buildings in the neighborhood. (0-7 points) Preferred - Fenestration based upon existing Existing neighborhood structures structures within surrounding neighborhood Discouraged - Fenestration patterns not related to existing structures in surrounding neighborhood. The use of trim and moldings that are similar in width and character to surrounding buildings. (0-3 points) Traditional window trim details Utilization of double-hung windows, or windows similar in appearance to double-hung windows. Where other types of windows, such as side-by-side sliding sash, are used, a permanent horizontal muntin can be used to create the appearance of a double-hung window. (0-3 points) Standard slider Slider window with window traditional trim and horizontal muntin 12 k. Architectural Details: The provision of architectural details to add interest to building elevations visible from the public street, including but not limited to the following: Quoins, dentils, cornice moldings, brackets, arches, corner boards, keystones, decorative lintels and sills, soldier courses, belt courses, bay windows and other decorative features as appropriate for the design of the overall building and materials being used. In awarding points under this guideline, the use of these elements shall be reviewed in the context of the overall building design, and not simply based on the provision of these architectural details. (0-10 points)  Examples of Quoins, dentils and brackets ~ - ~ decorative ,, ' ' lintels and sills ~ ':';':';':';'; .; -; .: .: .:.'., :;;; :;I;:;'.; :; ;;;; ;; ;; ;;;;; ~ " Soldier Course I. Building Base/Exposed Foundation: Incorporating a raised foundation or a "base" into the design of a new building. The utilization of a material that differs from the primary exterior building material at the base of the building, such as stone, brick of a different color or size than that used for the overall building, or other durable masonry material, can be used to give the appearance of a raised foundation. (0-2 points) 13 m. Building Materials: The use of quality exterior building materials historically used within Iowa City's older neighborhoods is preferred. 1. Building materials will be evaluated as follows. The diagram provided below may also be consulted to determine potential point ranges for proposed materials or material combinations. Materials Point Range All Masonry 7 to 10 Mostly Masonry with 5 to 10 Wood or Stucco Mostly Wood or 3 to 8 Stucco with Masonry All Wood or Stucco 3 to 7 Mostly Masonry with 3 to 5 Vinyl or Metal Mostly Vinyl or Metal 0 to 2 with Masonry Other Materials or 0 to 5 Combinations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ALL MASONRY: The use of brick, stone, or other masonry product(s) as the exterior finish material for the entire building, with the exception of trim and decorative elements that may consist of alternative but compatible materials. For the purpose of this section, masonry shall not include concrete block or poured concrete materials, except when rusticated concrete block or decorative concrete is used as a base or exposed foundation material. The use of these materials as exterior finish materials can be considered under subsection 2 below. (7-10 points) PREDOMINANTLY MASONRY WITH STUCCO OR WOOD: The use of brick, stone, or other masonry product(s) as the primary exterior building material in combination with the less substantial use of stucco, wood, or fiber cement siding. (5-10 points) PREDOMINANTLY STUCCO OR WOOD WITH MASONRY: The use of brick, stone, or other masonry product(s) as a secondary exterior building material in combination with primary materials consisting of stucco, wood, or fiber cement materials as discussed below. (3-8 points) 14 ALL STUCCO OR WOOD: The use of stucco or other similar material(s) that conveys a stucco appearance, or wood or fiber-cement products that are wood-like in appearance, as the exterior finish material for the entire building. Acceptable wood or fiber-cement products include shakes, shingles, or painted horizontal clapboard siding composed of three (3) to eight (8) inch wide boards. (3-7 points) PREDOMINANTLY MASONRY WITH VINYL OR METAL: The use of brick, stone, or other masonry product(s) as the primary exterior building material in combination with the less substantial use of vinyl or metal lap siding. (3-5 points) PREDOMINANTLY VINYL OR METAL WITH MASONRY: The use of brick, stone, or other masonry product(s) as a secondary exterior building material in combination with primary materials consisting of vinyl or metal lap siding in a clapboard pattern. (0-2 points) 2. Materials or material combinations not listed above may be approved, provided that the materials are determined to be high quality, durable materials that will add interest to the facade of the building and that will be compatible with or similar in appearance to materials found on other buildings within the neighborhood. (0-5) 3. The following guidelines shall be used to evaluate building designs that incorporate more than one exterior finish material: Material changes to the vertical plane of the building should be separated by a belt course, soldier course, or some other trim to provide a transition from one material to the other. :. . Stucco :': "' '-:":-' Stone belt course Material changes to the horizontal plane of the building should not occur along flat planes of any street fa.cade of the building, but rather at interior corners or at major FeveeIs. 15 Where a material change from masonry to a different material is proposed at a front corner of the building, the masonry shall be extended onto the secondary fa,cade at least 2 feet, 2' min, Not This This 5. Alternative Designs: Alternative design solutions or exceptions to the mandatory standards will be considered if it is demonstrated by the applicant that strict compliance with a specific standard is not practical, and/or the alternative being proposed will help in achieving a development that is compatible with its surrounding neighborhood or would provide some environmental benefit. \infalt2.doc 16 CENTRAL PLANNING DISTRICT MUL TI-FAMIL Y ZONES R$ 5 p j ID -RS / :,CC2:"'~ RS8 ~CC2 "- ~ . p S, : h :~ I-1 ~: ~ .... ~ ~ CI 1 j Multi-family zones NOTE: Multi-family construction is permitted in the RNC-12 zone only District boundaries in specific circumstances. "lune 6, 1996 Oear Members of IC City Council, We applaud your decision to discuss the topic of design review for new development at your hne l0 work session. We feel it is an issue in need of serious study and appropriate action. On April 24, a member of the Longfellow Neighborhood Association wrote you a letter suggesting a of steps that might be taken to prevent Further occurrences of demolhioa in older neighborhoods. These measures included a moratorium on demolition in areas which have been surveyed for designation as historic or conservation districts and a speeding up locally of the designation process. The author also suggested that the City require a site and design review process for multi-unit buildings of ten or less units as a way to prevent Further destruction ofthe character of our older neighborhoods. Currently develope~ get around design review requirements by building fewer units but which have four and five bedrooms per unit. We endorse all the above measures, especially the implementation of the design and site review process. The construction of new buildings ought to contribute to neighborhoods rather than jeopardize them. The apartment house that is being built at 1002 College Street clashes in style, size, proportion and Function From every other structure on the block. The owner ignored repeated attempts to have a dialogue with neighbors concerning the building's design. ~'s it a coincidence that From the time plans for this building have been known, Four For sale signs have sprung up in that block of College? We would like to see building requirements based on the number of proposed bedrooms not the number of units. We would like to see a design review process which evaluates new multi-unit structures (including those of ten of less units) in the following categories: .,, -> architectural style with special concern for roof line design ', --> size of doors and windows in relation to the building's proportions + roof, window and door molding + scale and proportion of the new construction in relation to existing properties + choice of building materials + setback requirements of large buildings -:- distance between buildings + use of a professional landscape architect's designs to enhance the building's appearance and to help it blend into the streetscape --:- appropriateness of exterior balconies + off street parking requirements + location and appearance of exterior ramps for the physically challenged + location of utility meters, air-conditioning units and trash dumpslets It is in the best interest of both the city and the neighborhoods to impose such standards for construction as a way to keep the city tn attractive place for everyone to live. Neglect in this area has already destroyed Johnson Street and severely altered the once magnificent appearance of College Street. Unfortunately, the sole guiding principle in multi-unit construction is profit maximization. If the city doesn't require responsible design, it probably won't get responsible design. In the lime 4th radio br0M~t of Talk o/t~ 2Vat~on on National eubli¢ italio, Rie, hard Mo~, the President of the National Historic Trust, pointed out that tourism is ~ major attraction in cities which have had the vision to preserve their historic neighborhoods. As examples he cited New Orleans, Denver and Seattle. FIe further stated that cities which are preserving their uniqueness are experiencing economic benefits from preservation efforts. We ask you to act to pruerve our ¢ity's neighborhoods. We can't get back what has been lost. In your continued study of this issue, we would appreciate an opportunity to address City Council concerning the need f'or design review and the impact the lack of' it has on our neighborhoods. Sincerely, Eleanor Steele, President of Northside Neighborhood inkssociation Pare Ehrhardt, President of Longf'ellow Neighborhood Association FRIENDS OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION P.O. Box 2001, Iowa City, Iowa 52244 Planning and Zoning Commission ~ ' 400 Washington ~ ,: Iowa City, IA 52240 27 February 2000 Dear Commissioners: At the February 23~d meeting of the Board of Friends of Historic Preservation, we voted unanimously to support the proposed multi-family residential design standards for infill development within the Central Planning District. Many of our members live in these neighborhoods and are constantly assaulted with the mistakes of the past, buildings that offer a hostile face to the street and to the neighborhood with their lack of windows or doors, that are surrounded by parking lots, that do not have appropriate setbacks or that have rooflines that emphasize the mass of the structure and that overwhelm the nearby houses. For those of us who live in these neighborhoods, every house demolition is a death. When buildings that replace these houses show no respect for the neighborhood, the pain is made that much worse and makes it harder to attract the diversity of people we want in our neighborhoods. The proposed design standards go a Ion way in addressing the aesthetic concerns we have. It makes the loss of our old ~ouses a little easier to bear if we to that what is know going replace the houses has to be visually respectful of its surroundings. We applaud the work of the Apartment Infill Committee and urge you to support their proposed standards. Thank you. Best wishes, Paula Brandt President, FFIP pobrandt@avalon .net .Melody Rockwell From: Garrett Stewart [g=stewart@uiowa.edu] Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 9:23 AM To: melody_rockwell@iowa-city.org Subject: residential design standards ws-1252" I understand that the Planning Commission will be meeting tonight to consider the newly proposed design standards for residential infill. I certainly hope to make the meeting, but, just in case, I wanted to be on record with my considered response, having now had the chance to examine the plans with some care--and much admiration. Let me first applaud the local initiative in developing these flexible and ingenious guidelines and then go on to urge in the strongest possible terms their immediate approval by the Commission. Instead of being too little too late, as one often fears in such matters, they are, as far as possible, just right and entirely timely. Even at a glance the unpracticed eye can see the weight of construction experience and aesthetic judgment behind these guidelines, which are sane, stylish, and feasible all at once (no mean feat). In makes me proud of Iowa City just to think that such a grass-roots inspiration could bear such professional and impressive fruit. It will make me prouder yet when the inevitable new construction of high-density dwellings will begin to reflect the taste and vision of such lucid standards. Gratefully, Garrett Stewart 419 S. Summit 825 S. 7th Avenue Iowa City, IA 52240 February 25, 2000 Planning & Zoning Commission Civic Center 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission: Bob Miklo presented the report from the Apartment Infill Committee to the Iowa City Neighborhood Council at its last meeting on February 10. We support the proposed Multi-Family Residential Design Standards for Infill Development Within the Central Planning District. It is obvious that much thought has gone into this document. Its basic standards and flexible options make it fair to both neighbors and builders. Even though some builders may balk at this, we do believe that in the long run they will have more pride in the housing they build and in positive impact they will have on the community. Sincerely, Chuck & Margaret Felling ..... Original Message ..... From: Earlene Giglierano [mailto:earlene@zeus.ia.net] Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2000 12:31 PM To: planning_mail~iowa-city.org Subject: support of in-fill plan I was very pleased to find that Iowa City is considering a plan to make new buildings erected in old neighborhoods choose designs that are more consistent with the neighborhoods. Too often the charm of older neighborhoods has been ruined by developers who are only concerned with tearing down existing structures and building ugly 6-plexes (or worse) where lovely older homes once stood. The homeowners who live in these areas need to have some assurance that the historical integrity and the charm of their neighborhoods will not be destroyed by greedy developers. I hope you will support such a plan. · Earlene Giglierano 3/9/00 Publish 4/'13 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 t · the 18 h day of April, 2000, ~n the Civic Center Council Chambers, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa, at which hearing the Council will consider: 1 .An ordinance amending Title 14, Chapter 5, Building and Housing, Article H, Site Plan Review, by adopting Central Planning District Multi-Family Residential Design Standards and related amendments to Title 14, Chapter 6, Zoning, Article 1, Zoning Title, Purpose and {~e. ordinance amending Title 14, Chapter 6, Zoning, Article O, Sign Regulations, to allow banner signs in certajR commercial zones under some conditions. 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\notices\cc4-18- 2.doc Prepared by: John Yapp, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5247 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE TITLE 14, CHAPTER 6, ENTITLED "ZONING," ARTICLE O, ENTITLED "SIGN REGULATIONS," TO ALLOW IDENTIFICATION BANNER SIGNS IN CERTAIN COMMERCIAL ZONES UNDER SOME CONDITIONS. WHEREAS, banner signs in large shopping center parking areas can add color, identity, and a unifying appearance to large parking lots; and WHEREAS, the content of the identification banner sign will be limited to seasonal and non-profit community event messages, and the name of the shopping center and a logo; and WHEREAS, to help ensure the banner signs stay in good condition, the signs are required to be constructed of an all-weather durable material. Permits for the identification banner signs will be given for one (1) year which may be renewed if the banner signs are in good condition or are replaced; and WHEREAS, the size and location of the banner signs will be limited to avoid the sign creating a cluttered appearance; and WHEREAS, requiring a consistent style of sign throughout the shopping center parking lot will help create a unifying appearance. Banner signs will be permitted to have the name of the shopping center, not individual stores. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. APPROVAL. Chapter 6, entitled "Zoning," Article O, entitled "Sign Regulations," be amended as follows: 14-60-2, Definitions, be amended to include the following: IDENTIFICATION BANNER: a sign of canvas, nylon, or other durable material that is permanently affixed to a light pole by structural members on the top and bottom of the sign (or two opposite sides), which identifies a multi-business shopping center. Identification banner signs may contain the name and logo of the shopping center they are used for, and may also contain a seasonal or non-profit community event message. Identification banner signs may not contain advertising or business-related event messages. Ordinance No. Page 2 14-60-5C(2), Provisional signs in the CO-1, CN-1, and R/O zones, be amended to add the following: 14-60-5C(2)(d): Up to two identification banner signs affixed to each shopping center parking area light pole, provided the parking area contains a minimum of 200 parking spaces, each banner sign is no more than three (3) feet wide and six (6) feet tall, each banner sign is consistent in appearance and size, the bottom of the sign is no less than ten (10) feet and the top of the sign is no higher than twenty (20) feet above grade, and the permit for the banner sign is given for no more than one (1) year. The permit will be renewable if the banner signs are in good condition or are replaced with new banner signs. 14-60-5D(2), Provisional signs in the CH-1, CC-2, and C1-1 zones, be amended to add the following: 14-60-5C(2)(e): Up to two identification banner signs affixed to each shopping center parking area light pole, spaced no closer than 80 feet apart, provided the parking area contains a minimum of 200 parking spaces, each banner sign is no more than three (3) feet wide and six (6) feet tall, each banner sign is consistent in appearance and size, the bottom of the sign is no less than ten (10) feet and the top of the sign is no higher than twenty (20) feet above grade, and the permit for the banner sign is given for no more than one (1) year. The permit will be renewable if the banner signs are in good condition or are replaced with new banner signs. SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of ,1999. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK ared by: John Yapp, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 319-356-5247 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE 14, CHAPTER 6, ENTITLED "ZONING," ;LE O, ENTITLED "SIGN REGULATIONS," IDENTIFICATION BANNER SIGNS IN ERTAIN COMMERCIAL ZONES UNDE SOME CONDITIONS. WHEREAS, banner signs in lar shopping center arking areas can add color, and a unifying a ~earance to large parking Io and the content identification banner be limited to and non-profit qity event and the name of the sho center and a and to help banner signs stay in good signs are required to be all-weather durable material. Permits for entification banner signs will be given for one year which may be renewed if the banner signs in good condition or are replaced; and and location of the banner signs wi to avoid the sign creating a ld a consistent style of sign hout the sho parking lot will help a unifying Banner signs will be to have the of the shopping center, individual stores. NOW, THEREFORE, BE I~ ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. APPROVAL. 6, entitled "Zoning," Article O, entitled "Si ulations," be amended as follows: 14-60-2, Definitions, be include the following: IDENTIFICATION BANNER: a sign vas, nylon, or other durable material that is affixed to a light pole by structural members on top and bottom of the sign (or two opposite which / identifies a multi-business shopping ~nter. ; Identification banner signs may contain the and ;/ logo of the shopping center they are used for ~nd 7' may also contain a seasonal or non-profit / event message. Identification banner signs may / contain advertising or business-related messages. Ordinance No. Page 2 14-6Oo5C(2), Provisional signs in the CO-1, CN-1, ~' and R/O zones, be amended to add the following: \ 14-60-5C(2)(d): Up to two identification banner \ signs affixed to each shopping center parking area ' light pole, provided the parking area contains a " minimum of 200 parking spaces, each banner sign is \'~, no more than three (3) feet wide and six (6) feet tall, "",, each banner sign is consistent in appearance and ",.\ size, the bottom of the sign is no less than ten (10) \ feet and the top of the sign is no higher than ~ (20) feet above grade, and the permit for the bann \ sign is given for no more than one (1) year. permit will be renewable if the banner signs in good condition or are replaced with new gns. 4-60-5D(2), Provisional signs in the CC-2, C1-1 zones, be amended to add the 1 O-5C(2)(e): Up to two identi: banner sl to each shopping cer parking area light spaced no closer th~ 80 feet apart, ~e parking area minimum of 200 parking sl each banner n is no more than three (3) wide and six tall, each banner sign is nt in and size, the bottom of the sign is less than (10) feet and the top of the sign is no twenty (20) feet above grade, and the banner sign is given for no more than or year. The permit will be renewable if the ban signs are in good condition or are replaced with n~ ~nner signs. SECTION II. All ordinances and parts of ordinan, ~fiict with the provisions of this Ordinance hereb, lealed. SECTION ILITY. If any section, provision or of the shall be adjudged to be inval or ~1, such adjudication shall not the validity ~e Ordinance as a whole section, >rovision part thereof not adjudg~ invalid or IV. EFFECTIVE Ordinance shall in effect after its final approval and pub ca~o~ as provided by law. /l~ssedand approved this day of ,1999. /////MAYOR /ATTEST: / CITY CLERK /, proved~ City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: March 1, 2000 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: John Yapp, Associate Planner Re: Banner signs In August 1999, the City considered a code amendment to allow banner signs on light poles in large parking areas. In shopping center parking lots, consistent banner signs can add some color and help create a unifying appearance. The proposal to allow banner signs on shopping center light poles was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission with the following criteria last fall: · The banner signs would be permitted in shopping center parking areas of 200 or more spaces. · The banner signs could only identify a multi-business shopping center, not individual businesses. · Each banner sign is no more than three feet wide and six feet tall, and the banner signs must be consistent in appearance and size. · The permit for the banner sign is given for no more than one year. The permit is renewable if the banner signs are in good condition or replaced with new banner signs. The City Council asked that changes to the proposed amendment be considered, including allowing seasonal and non-profit community event messages, more clear spacing requirements, and possibly allowing the signs in large parking areas that serve individual businesses. Spacing requirements: The Council was concerned that there might be too many banner signs if the ordinance did not specify a minimum distance between signs. The table below shows the number of light poles, parking spaces, and the distance between light poles for various commercial properties. While some of the properties in the table would not be able to have banner signs due to their parking lot size, they are a good indication of light pole spacing in large parking lots. Avg. pole Pole distance Property # of poles # of spaces distance range Fareway Foods 14 157 82' 65'-95' Waterfront Hy-Vee 22 704 140' 110'-170' Toyota 25 260 80' 42'- 125' Menards 15 320 100' 95'-125' Walden Square 10 140 90' 48'-120' Gateway One Plaza 12 612 148' 120'-185' The average distance between light poles is in the 80' to 150' range, depending on the property. On individual properties, there may be a wide range of distances between light poles. Staff proposed that banner signs be permitted to be placed no closer than 80' from each other. This will allow many existing light poles to be used, while limiting the potential that new light poles would be erected for the purpose of additional banner signs. Seasonal and non-profit community event messages: Staff sees no problem with allowing seasonal (SPRING HAS SPRUNG) or non-profit event (ARTS IOWA CITY) messages. These types of messages are often found on changeable copy or marquee-style sign. It should be made clear that advertising messages should not be permitted on banner signs. Additional advertising messages throughout the parking lot would only add to overall sign clutter on the commercial property, and could diminish the unifying appearance the banner signs are used for. Single-business parking lots: Some members of the Council also discussed allowing banner signs in parking areas that serve individual businesses. Staff recommends against allowing banner signs for individual businesses, even if they have large parking areas. The main benefit of these banner signs is they help unify a multi-business shopping center through the use of a common theme and colors. Banner signs for individual businesses would not contribute toward a unifying appearance, and may just add to sign clutter. Too many signs and a variety of signs in commercial areas makes all signs less visible and noticeable, and takes away from other features of the property, such as landscaping. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended that Chapter 6, entitled Zoning, Article O, entitled Sign Regulations, be amended to allow identification banner signs in large parking areas as follows (changes from the previous recommendation are shown in bold): 14-60-2, Definitions, be amended to include the definition of an identification banner sign. IDENTIFICATION BANNER: A sign of canvas, nylon, or other durable material that is permanently affixed to a light pole by structural members on the top and bottom of the sign (or two opposite sides), which identifies a multi-business shopping center. Identification banner signs may contain the name and logo of the shopping center they are used for, and may also contain a seasonal or non-profit, community event message. Identification banner signs may not contain advertising or business-related event messages. 14-60-5C(2), Provisional signs in the CO-1, CN-1, and R/O zones, be amended to add the following: 14-60-5C(2)(d): Up to two identification banner signs affixed to each shopping center parking area light pole, spaced no closer than 80 feet apart, provided the parking area contains a minimum of 200 parking spaces, each banner sign is no more than three (3) feet wide and six (6) feet tall, each banner sign is consistent in appearance and size, the bottom of the sign is no less than ten (10) feet and the top of the sign is no higher than twenty (20) feet above grade, and the permit for the banner sign is given for no more than one (1) year. The permit will be renewable if the banner signs are in good condition or replaced with new banner signs. 14-60-5D(2), Provisional signs in the CH-1, CC-2, and C1-1 zones, be amended to add the following: 14-60-5D(2)(e): Up to two identification banner signs affixed to each shopping center parking area light pole, spaced no closer than 80 feet apart, provided the parking area contains a minimum of 200 parking spaces, each banner sign is no more than three (3) feet wide and six (6) feet tall, each banner sign is consistent in appearance and size, the bottom of the sign is no less than ten (10) feet and the top of the sign is no higher than twenty (20) feet above grade, and the permit for the banner sign is given for no more than one (1) year. The permit will be renewable if the banner signs are in good condition or replaced with new banner signs. Approved by: ~,,'~f-f' Robert Miklo, Senior Planner Department of Planning and Community Development City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: July 29, 1999 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: John Yapp, Associate Planner -'~ Re: Banner Signs The developers of Gateway One Plaza, formedy Wardway Plaza, have had banner signs installed on the light poles in the Gateway One Plaza parking lot. Permanent banner signs of this type are not permitted by the sign ordinance. At the request of the Mayor, and because the City uses such banners in the public right-of-way downtown, we have evaluated allowing permanent banner signs in some instances on private property. Banner signs at Gateway One Plaza Banner signs are typically temporary signs used to advertise a special event, such as a grand opening, sidewalk sale, concert, art sale, or similar activities. They can be mounted on a pole, such as in downtown Iowa City, or they can be affixed to a wall. The reason banner signs have been permitted only on a temporary basis is because of their potential to add to the sign 'clutter' that is often associated with commercial areas, and their potential to easily become worn, tattered and degraded in appearance. Most cities prohibit banner signs except on a temporary basis. However, staff feels that banner signs attached to light poles of large shopping center parking lots can add color and a festive appearance. Appropriate location. If banner signs are to be permitted, they should only be permitted in large shopping center parking lots. The benefits of banner signs are where there is room for multiple signs, adding a colorful pattern to what might otherwise be a bland parking lot. Adding banner signs to a smaller parking lot will only clutter the site, detracting from the overall appearance of the commercial area or neighborhood. Parking areas of 200 or more spaces appear to be large enough that banner signs would add color and identity, and help create a unifying appearance. This size of parking lot is based on a review of area parking lots which appear large enough benefit from banner signs. In smaller parking lots, banner signs would likely just add to overall sign clutter. Table I lists the number of parking spaces in some Iowa '~ City commercial parking areas. Such banner signs should be posted only on light poles at an appropriate height, so no additional poles will be constructed just for additional banner signs. Table I: Size of various parking lots Mormon Trek McDonalds 65 spaces Walgreens 78 spaces Walden Square 226 spaces First Avenue Hy Vee 474 spaces Gateway One Plaza 526 spaces Waterfront Drive Hy Vee 708 spaces Appearance & Materials. One concern staff has is with the appearance and materials of banner signs. In order to avoid banner signs being used for advertising sales or prices, their use be limited to an identification sign, allowing only the name of shopping center, and a logo. The signs should not be able to be used for individual stores, only shopping centers. For example, banner signs in Pepperwood Plaza would not be able to have the names of individual stores on the signs. Requiring a consistent style of sign throughout the shopping center will help create a unifying appearance. The signs should be required to be attached to permanent structural members on the top and bottom (or two opposite sides). The signs should be required to be constructed of canvas, nylon, or another similarall-weather durable material (as opposed to heavy paper or cardboard). Because of their potential to become weathered and tattered, a permit should be required for banner signs once a year. This will allow the building official to periodically review the condition of the signs. If the signs are tattered, have holes or other defects, the building official may simply not issue an additional permit unless the signs are replaced. Size. The size of banner signs should be limited to avoid the signs creating a cluttered appearance. The banner signs in downtown Iowa City are 31" x 84". The banner signs within the Civic Center are 36" x 96". The banner signs at Gateway One Plaza are 30" x 60", slightly · smaller than the downtown Iowa City signs. Staff recommends that identification banner signs should be permitted to be no larger than 3 feet wide and 6 feet tall (36" x 72"). While this is a little smaller than the signs being used in downtown Iowa City, it is an appropriate size for multiple signs on a private commercial property. I I, :~1: Downtown Iowa City banner sign STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Chapter 6, entitled "Zoning," Article O, entitled "Sign Regulations," be amended to allow identification banner signs in large parking areas as follows: 14-60-2, Definitions, be amended to include the definition of an identification banner sign. IDENTIFICATION BANNER: A sign of canvas, nylon, or other durable material that is permanently affixed to a light pole by structural members on the top and bottom of the sign (or two opposite sides), which identifies a multi-business shopping center, not an individual business. 14-60-5C(2), Provisional signs in the CO-1, CN-1, and PJO zones, be amended to add the following: 14-60-5C(2)(d): Up to two identification banner signs affixed to each shopping center parking area light pole, provided the parking area contains a minimum of 200 parking spaces, each banner sign is no more than three (3) feet wide and six (6) feet tall, each banner sign is consistent in appearance and size, the bottom of the sign is no less than ten (10) feet and the top of the sign is no higher than twenty (20) feet above grade, and the permit for the banner sign is given for no more than one (1) year. The permit will be renewable if the banner signs are in good condition or replaced with new banner signs. 14-60-5D(2), Provisional signs in the CH-1, CC-2, and C1-1 zones, be amended to add the following: 14-60-5D(2)(e): Up to two identification banner signs affixed to each shopping center parking area light pole, provided the parking area contains a minimum of 200 parking spaces, each banner sign is no more than three (3) feet wide and six (6) feet tall, each banner sign is consistent in appearance and size, the bottom of the sign is no less than ten (10) feet and the top of the sign is no higher than twenty (20) feet above grade, 'and the permit for the banner sign is given for no more than one (1) year. The permit will be renewable if the banner signs are in good condition or replaced with new banner signs. Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner Department of Planning and Community Development 3' 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 April, 2000, in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa, at which hearing the Council will consider: ~a./An ordinance changing the zoning designation from Low Density Multi-Family "l~sidential (RM-12) to Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) for property south of Burlington Street along the 300-600 blocks of Governor Street and a portion of the 800-900 blocks of Bowery Street. b. An ordinance changing the zoning designation from Low Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-12) to Neighborhood Conservation Residential (RNC-12) for property south of Burlington Street along the 300-600 blocks of Lucas Street and a portion of the 700-800 blocks of Bowery 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\notices\council4-18.doc Prepared by: Melody Rockwell, Assoc. Planner, City of Iowa City, Iowa, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5251 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING CHAPTER BY CHANGING THE USE REGULATIONS OF RM-12 ZONED PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF BURLINGTON STREET ALONG THE 300 - 600 BLOCKS OF GOVERNOR STREET AND A PORTION OF THE 800 - 900 BLOCKS OF BOWERY STREET FROM RM-12, LOW DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, TO RS-8, MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WHEREAS, the subject area is currently zoned RM-12, Low Density Multi-Family Residential; and WHEREAS, property owners in the area have requested that the City rezone the subject property to preserve the character and historical integrity of a portion of the neighborhood located south of Burlington Street and adjacent to the Summit Street Histodc Preservation District; and WHEREAS, 75% of the properties in the subject area are developed with single-family homes or duplexes; and WHEREAS. 90% of the structures in the subject area were originally constructed as single-family homes; and WHEREAS, the predominant visual character of the subject area is one of a single-family neighborhood rather than a multi-family neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan calls for the City to strive to preserve the identity and character of the community while guiding the creation of compatible new areas; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan acknowledges that older neighborhoods provide a mix of housing types, including rooming houses, apadments and single-family homes, and that the · .C~ is committed to preserving these diverse older neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the Histodc Preservation Plan, a component of the Comprehensive Plan, recognizes that there are areas in the City where the current zE}ning does not seem to support its goals to protect the character of older neighborhoods, and calls for reviewing and revising underlying zoning classifications for such areas; and WHEREAS, rezoning the subject area to RS-8 will stabilize the area by limiting the establishment of new multi-family residential uses and reducing the consequent potential for demolition of existing residential structures in the area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY Ordinance No. Page 2 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. APPROVAL. The property described below is hereby redassilied from its present dassffication of RM-12, Low Density Multi-Family Residential, to RS-8, Medium Density Single-Family Residential: An area containing Bemjhill's Second Addition, Block 1, Lots 11 - 20; Berryhill's Second Addition, Block 2, Lots 1 - 10; Jemme's Addition, Lots H, I, J (east 31.2 feet), P, Q, R, T, U, V & W (west 41.5 feet); lots encompassed on property bound as follows: commencing at fie northeast comer of Berryhill's Second Addition, Block 1, Lot 20, north 88 feet along the west right-of-way line of Govemor Street, west 160 feet, south 88 feet and east 160 feet to the point of beginning; commencing at the northwest comer of Berryhill's Second Addition, Block 2, Lot 1, north 328 feet, east 80 feet, south 98 feet, east 75 feet, south 220 feet, east 34.25 feet, south eight feet, west 189.25 feet to the point of beginning; and commencing at the southeast comer of Jemme's Addition, Lot H, south 72 feet along the west right-of-way line of Govemor Street, west 150 feet, north seventy-two feet along the east right-of-way line of the north-south alley between Governor Street and Lucas Street and east 150 feet to the point of beginning, all of Iowa City, Iowa. SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance am hereby repealed. SECTION III. 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 part thereef not adjudged invalid or unconsti- tutional. SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordi- nance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of ,2000. MAYOR A'I'I'EST: CITY CLERK Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 2, 2000 Page 13 said the owner couldn't rent such a property. Chait said the rental permitting process requires maintenance to a certain degree to make the property rentable and habitable. Ehrhardt said a lot of communities have an ordinance called 'demolition by neglect'. She said she would like the City to address this issue at some point in the future. Jeff Schabilion, 431 Rundell Street, said the activities of the Planning and Zoning Commission and developers are turned toward new development. He said the City is exercising a desire to have quality residential areas, and investments of millions of dollars to ensure that degree of quality in terms of the Peninsula project, etc., are very much in the forefront. Schabilion said besides that new development, the City already has a tremendously impodant existing resource in its older residential areas. He said these areas, as some buildings come down and redevelopment is possible, should also be held to an idea of quality development and not allowed to deteriorate. Schabilion said what is being .proposed here is very important, because it puts the same realization of value and quality into the older neighborhoods that are being proposed for new neighborhoods. He said it is somewhat ironic that some of the plans for the Peninsula area try to create neighborhoods that he and his neighbors already live in, love, and would like to see preserved. Schabilion said the guidelines are a Very important step towards that. Larry Svoboda, 16 Cherry Lane NE, said he is a member of the infill committee and a developer. He said he basically dislikes government intervention in his business and sometimes feels it is not warranted at all. Svoboda said in this case, he is in favor of this becoming an ordinance. He said he does not feel that pdvate development .has taken its responsibility to task and designed nice buildings. Svoboda said he does not necessarily think it is a profit motive, but may be a lack of education or a position of ignorance of not knowing any better. He said because of some of the buildings that have been built in the past, government intervention is a necessity in this situation. //Svoboda said the regulations, as put together, leave enough leeway for the developer to have a lot of options to exercise in the design of his building. He said the ordinance falls short in one /~,,,\area. Svobeda stated he thought there were two basic problems in the construction of building apartments in older neighborhoods with one being building facade and the other building bulk. He said he is a proponent of better design 'and also a proponent of reducing the size of the buildings in certain neighborhoods where there is low density apartment construction by virtue of the zone, such as an RM-12 or RNC-12 neighborhood. Svoboda said apparently there are egal problems with respect to the building bulk, so that part of it is disappointing to him. He said there is more work to be done in that area, through legal staff perhaps, to try to reduce building %,,~.bulk as well as improve the design of the building. Svoboda said a question was raised as to whether it costs more to do this. He said it would cost a lot more, not a whole lot more, but he thought it was worth it. He said the developer is going to get ~t back ~n the value of the budding, and the commumty will benefit by having a better <' ' ' in place. Svoboda sa:d ihe was in favor of this.' ~ng' buJld~n Supple asked Svoboda if he could put a percentage on what the increase in costs would be. Svoboda said he did not design many buildings. He said he is constructing one now on North Dubuque where basically the front and half the side of the building has bdck on it. Svoboda said the brick is costing $12,000, but he could have sided those same sections for $3,000. He said it is a Cadillac location though, and if you have such a location, you should be prepared to pay the price. Ann Freerks, 443 South Governor Street, said she and her husband are very much in favor of the proposed infill guidelines. She said we need to look ahead at what can be done to maintain Examples of property values and activity in the area: Governor St. and Lucas St. in the rezoning area: 1. Property purchased 12/88 for 71,000, sold 7/96 for 144,000 Has had some rehabing 2. Property purchased 7/87 for 71,000, appraised for 175,000 Has been rehabed 3. Property purchased 1/93 for 77,500, assessed for 107,000 Is currently being rehabed 4. Property purchased 93 for 68,000, sold 3/00 for 115,000 Will be rehabed. 5. Property purchased 91 for 45,000, sold 96 for 85,000 Has been rehabed 600 Blocks of Governor and Lucas St. that is currently zoned RS-8: 1. Property purchased 93 for 75,000, sold 98 for 125,000 Interior was rehabed. 2. Property purchased 91 for 60,000, sold 96 for 77,000, sold again 99 for 93,000 This is a newer property. 3. Property sold 7/99 for 76,000 Some recent activity: 1. Property purchased 9/98 for 75,000 2. Property purchased 7/99 for 76,000 3. Property purchased 11/99 for 115,000 4. Property purchased 7/97 for 89,900 5. Property purchased 7/98 for 110,000 6. Property purchased 7/99 for 142,000 (7 bedroom building) 7. Property purchased 7/95 for 70,500 These properties were purchased for rental properties. Property Values for different development: Information per phone conversation with Casey Cook, owner of Cook Appraisal Information per phone conversation with Kevin Hanick, Realtor If the proposed area is re-zoned, the majority of property values will most likely remain unchanged. Only the properties purchased for future expansion to larger multi-units will most likely not increase as much as if they were allowed to expand. Since this rental area has a low vacancy rate, no rental property should decrease in value. This may also broaden the scope of potential buyers to include owner occupied as well as investment buyers. If the proposed area is re-zoned and made into a Conservation District property values most likely will increase because of the high demand for historical properties and homes in historic districts. No accurate figures can be obtained on how much of an increase because this would be the first Conservation District in Iowa City. A Conservation District would be similar to a Historic District but not as restrictive. For example, vinyl siding would be allowed. In this district only the street view of the building would be regulated. This area has affordable homes that have been well maintained by the majority of property owners (rental and owner occupied). If the proposed area is not re-zoned, large multi-unit apartment buildings (such as the one being built at 534 S. Lucas St.) may be built. To build these larger buildings more than one lot may need to be purchased because most of the lots are only 40 ft. wide. If several of these larger units were built, the property values of the single family homes or duplexes would drop. The property owners of the larger units would most likely see an increase in their values. If the proposed area is not re-zoned and the majority of properties become large multi- unit apartment buildings, any older single family homes or duplexes would most likely decrease in value if they become surrounded by larger buildings. The property values of the larger units would increase greatly and this would not longer be considered a residential neighborhood, but a high volume rental area. Since real estate values can fluctuate depending on style of development or home, size of lot, access to parking, neighbors, etc. only approximations can be made. Conversation with a realtor at Lepic Kreoger. Forgot to ask if I could use her name. She states that there is a growing demand for housing in the Central District. Many families are moving back into the heart of the city because of the character of the homes, size, close to the University and downtown, affordable, and the renovations of many of the older homes. She said there is a lack of these types of homes on the market. Many neighborhoods have already shown increases because of renovations, down-zoning, or being made into historic areas. (example: College St., College Park area, areas in the Northside Neighborhoods). REZOO-0007 LUCAS-BOWERY NUMBER PERCENTAGE Property Uses Rental (some portion rented) 48 86% Non-rental (owner occupied no portion rented 8 14% Structures Single family (one dwelling unit) 32 56% Multi-family (two or more dwelling units) 25 44% GOVERNOR-BOWERY Property Uses Rental (some portion rented) 28 60% Non-rental (owner occupied no portion rented 17 36% Church/Vacant lot 2 4% Structures Single family (one dwelling unit) 30 64% Multi family (two or more dwelling units) 15 32% Church/Vacant lot 2 4 PROPERTIES REQUESTED FOR RNC-12 REZONING (REZ00-O007) M$R 310 Lucas Street Larry & Francis Zuber (LL) - duplex/3 bdrm ~6, 000 sq. ft. 313 Lucas Street H&G Partnership (LL) - 1 sf rental/2 bdrm ~6,600 sq. ft. $314 Lucas Street Lynda Dykstra (LL) - I sirentail1 bdrm? ,4,800 sq. 318 Lucas Street R/chard & Goldene Haendel {LL) - 2 residents - related ,4,800 sq. ft. 319 Lucas Street HGA Properties (LL) - 1 sf rental/2 bdrm ~6,105 sq. ft. MZR 322 Lucas Street Gary & ]die Hodge/Greg Yates (LL) - 3 du/3 bdrm each ~7,740 5q. 324 Lucas Street Greg Yates (LL)- 1 si rentail4 bdrm N~060 sq. ft. I~R 325 Lucas Street HGA Properties (LL) - 4 rooming units ~6,105 sq. ft. ~ 327 Lucas Street 3erry Rogers (LL) - 3 du/3 bdrm each ~8,250 sq. ft. lv~R 329 Lucas Street Enterprise Investment (LL) - duplex/11-bdrm, 13-bdrm ~6,560 sq. ft~ IvlZR ~ north ~330 Lucas Street Dan W/i/is (LL) - 4du/13 bedrooms [l sf/4 bdrm with 3 3-bdrm attached] ~12,800 sq. it. v= west '331 Lucas Street Fran Albrecht (LL) - 6 du/12 bdrm [east: 1 sf/4 bdrm; west: 4 1- bdrm, i 4-bdrm ~9,900 sq. ft. Ni~R ~333 Lucas Street City of Iowa City (LL) - duplex/3 bdrm each ,,,7,900 sq. ft. 401 Lucas Street Bernard ~ Pat Collins (LL) - 1 sf rental/3 bdrm ~7,950 sq. ft. HER 402 Lucas Street Charles & Elizabeth A/berhasky (LL) - duplex/11-bdrm, 13-balm7 -,8, 550 sq. ft. MF'R ~,03 Lucas Street TAS Partners (LL) - 6 rooming units ~9,540 sq. 404 Lucas Street Stanley Burns (LL) - sf renta/ ~8,250 sq. 410 Lucas Street Stanley Burns (00) - 1 si rentall2 bdrm ~7,500 sq. ft. M:PR 411 Lucas Street. Randolph Loan (LL) - 3 du/1 bdrm each ~8,533 sq. ft. 414 Lucas Street ]u//e Hagstrom & Tom Wendt (LL) - 1 sirentail3 bdrm ~6, 750 sq. ft. 415 Lucas Street Clark McFerren (OO) ~8,533 sq. ft. 419 Lucas Street Paul R. Ruppert (OO) ~8,050 sq. ft. lviZR $420 Lucas Street Larry & ]eannette Waters (LL) - 6 du/8 bdrm [2 2-story structures/east.' 2 2-bdrm, west.' 4 1-bdrm ~6~ g75 sq. ft. 42:!. Lucas Street Margaret Frueholz (LL) - duplex/i 3-bdrm, 11-bdrm 2"d floor ~7,245 sq. ft. ,t24 Lucas Street River City Properties (LL) - 9 rooming units · ~~, 77~ 425 Lucas Street Bernard & Pat Collins (LL) - I sf rental/3 bdrm ,--7,245 sq. ft. 430 Lucas Street Steve Char/ton (00) ~i2,000 sq. SO~ Lucas Street R/chard Hll/er (LL) - 1 sT rental/3 bdrm ~12/000 sq. ft. 505 Lucas Street Caralyn & David Wagner (LE) - 1 sf rental/4 bdrm ~6,'N0 sq. ft. 509 Lucas Street Lois &.lames Friday (OO) ~6,a`40 sq. tic. 5J. 1 Lucas Street Hike Homewood (LL) - 1 sf rental/a, bdrm ,~6,4~r0 sq. ft. ~.qt4 Lucas Street Robert Uhlen (LL) - 12 dull2 bdrm N12,000 sq. _f15 Lucas Street D&N Properties (LL)- I sf rental/3 bdrm ,-5,000 sq. ft. 517 Lucas Street Jeff & Susan Hitler (LL) - ::[ sf rental/~, bdrm .~6,4a`O sq. ft. 518 Lucas Street Roslyn Frank (LL) - 6 rooming units ~5,000 sq. 521 Lucas Streel: Jeff & Susan H/liar (LL) - I sf rental/a` bdrm ,-,8,050 sq. ft. S22 Lucas Street Forrest & Perry Dean (LL) - not rental/2 relSted residents ~6,000 sq. ft. 523 Lucas Street: Elizabeth Ockenfels (LL) - duplex/3 bdrm [main floor- 2 bdrm, basement:- ::L bdrm ~6,~,a`0 sq. ft. 525 Lucas Street: Hargarelc Ruddy (OO) ,~6Aa`0 sq. it. ~28 Lucas Street Nation 3acobs (LL) -duplex/5 bdrm [basement- 1 bdrm, upper 3 floors - ~f bdrm] ~5, OOO sq. ft. 529 Lucas Street Duane & Katherine Papke (LL) - 1 sf rental/~ bdrm ~6,6a`0 sq. ft. 533 Lucas Street: 3anet Norin (OO) ~6,4'~,0 sq. ft. 53~ Lucas ~ctreet Gary Hughes (LL) -demolished; ~ du under construction ~12, ~00 sq. it. 537 Lucas Street Hark Norton (OO) - 1 sf rental/3 bdrm ~6/N0 sq. it, 609 Lucas Street Hark 8t Kathryn Collins (LL) - ~- sf rental/a, bdrm 703 Bowery Street Clara Swan (OO) 6 R NFP, *725 Bowery Street Timothy & Willa Dickens (now 3ira Alberhasky) (LL) - 3 du in sf house; du/8 bdrm [rear bldg: 2 2-bdrm, 4 1-bdrm] ~15,400 sq. ft. R MFR 728 Bowed/Street H/I/crest Family Services (LL) - 2 du & 4 rooming units/8 bdrm ~%320sq. ft. R 730 Bowery Street Michael & Kelly McLaughlin (LL) - Z srrental/3 bdrm ~~t, 320 sq. ft. R M:FR 731 Bowery Street Michael & Polly Height (LL) - 3 du/2 1-bdrm, :12-bdrm ~11,800 sq. ft, R ~732 Bowery Street Gary Hughes [LL)- l sfrenta[/~l bdrm .,4,320 sq. ft. R M:FR 801 - 803 Bowery Street Dawn Neppal (LL) - 3 du/2 1-bdrm, 12-bdrm R *805 Bowery Street Dawn Neppel (LL) -- 1 sf rental/4 bdrm; these properties are co~nnected ~11,033 sq. R 802 Sowery Street Mark Reinroe (tt) - l sfrenta//4 bdrm ~5, 200 sq. ft. 0 806 Zowery Street Brenda Chmtner & Wi/IA~m Buckles (00) ~5, 500 sq, ft. R IvIFR 8I 4 Bowery Street Mador/e O'Connel/(00) - 4 du/4 bdrm N4, 400 sq. ft. '815 Bowery Street Martin & Mary Gaffey (LL) - 6 du/2 bdrm each -7,363 sq, fi:, R MFR 03-10-00 Key: * = properties constructed as apartment buildings LL = LANDLORD/NOT OWNER OCCUPIED OO = OWNER OCCUPIED DU = DWELLZNG UNZT BDRM = BEDROOM [ PROPERTIES REQUESTED FOR RS-8 REZON]:NG (REZO0-O007) I Address Property Owner Use Lot Size 13 308 Governor Street Robert 3. HeariW (OO) - sf rental/4 bdrm ~3,040 sq. tic. >contributing historic structure 13 N:P13 310 Governor Street Larry G. Zuber (LL) - duplex ~4,800 sq. ft. 13 312 Governor Street Charles R. Bringle (LL) - sf rental/3 bdrm ~6,045 sq. ft. (approx.) >contributing historic structure 13 NL~13 314 Governor Stree..t Southwick Properties (LL) - sf rental/2 bdrm & 5 rooming units >contri~auting historic structure ,,,6,200 sq. ft. 13 N:~'13 328 Governor Street Thomas M. Beers (LL) - duplex/1 bdrm each ~7,750 sq. ft. >contributing historic structure 13 332 Governor Street 3ohn Shaw (LL) - sf rental ~7,750 sq. ft. >stone cottage~ key historic structure 13 N:~13 333 Governor Street Richard N. Nifler (LL) - sf rental/1 bdrm & 3 rooming units >contributing historic structure ~11,520 sq. ft. 13 336 Governor Street 3ohn Shaw (LL) - sf rental/4 bdrm ~9,538 sq. ft. >contributing historic structure ~, N:F13 ~338 Governor Street Charles Alberhasky (LL) - 12 du/12 bdrm ,,,10,092 sq. ft. 0 347 Governor Street Vance Breen &Susan Moore (00) ~6,825 sq. ft. >contributing historic structure 401 Governor 5treet Vance Breen & Susan Moore - vacant/or ~6,000 sq. ft. R PE'R *404 Governor Street Robert Miller (LL) - 12 du/8 1-bdrm, 4 2-bdrm ~,12,806 sq. ft. O 408 Governor Street Keyin &Barbara White (OO) ~7,600 sq. ft. >contributing historic structure 411 Governor Street ANE Church (00) - religious organization ~6,000 sq. ft. > earliest African-American church in Iowa Cityz key historic structure R lvI:ER 412 Governor Street 3oseph Christnor (OO) - 3 du/11-bdrm, 2 2-bdrm >contributing historic structure ~7,600 sq. ft. 2 R tv~'l~ 4]5 Governor Street Wanda W/Ike/(LL)- duplex/i 2-bdrm, ] 1-bdrm upstairs ~9,750 sq. ft. R 416 Governor Street Sanderfield Proped:ies (LL) - i sf rental/~t bdrm ~iS,)j.00 sq. fit:. >contributing historic structure R Iv~'l~ x<~119 Governnr Street Governor Street Assoc. (LL) - 3 du/townhouses,' 2 3-bdrm, 14-bdrm ~8,250 sq. 0 423 Governor Street U/I/am Fuhrmeister (00) ~5, OOO sq. it. > potential contributing histor/c structure O 426 Governor Street Boris Sfiberberg & 3ulie Campbell (OO] ~7,885 sq. ft. >contributing historic structure 0 427 Governor Street PatBrandt(O0) ~12,000 sq. ft. >contributing historic structure :R 428 Governor Street Greg Allen (LL) - 1 sf rental/4 bdrm ~7,885 sq. ft. >contributing historic structure 0 431 Governo~ Street ]ames Russell (00) ~,5, 000 sq. ft. >contributing historic structure R [v~R 433 Governor Street Harold 3. Peters (?72 - 3 du/2 bdrm each ~6, 000 sq. ft. >contributing historic structure :R 436 Governor Street Mod Pod (LL) - I sf rental/4 bdrm -15,2_00 sq. fit. >contributing historic structure R ~v~R *437 Governor Street Laurence 3. Fuortes (??) - dup/ex/I bdrm each ~5, 000 sq. ft. >contributing historic structure 0 4G1 Governor Street Alice Kelly (00) ~6,000 sq. ft. >contributing historic structure 0 4~t3 Governor Street Brent &Ann Freerks (00) ~6, 300 sq. ft. O 506 Governor Street 3uliet Kaufman (OO) ~7,600 sq. it. O 5:[0 Governor Street Bob &Lorraine Bowans (OO) ~15,200 sq. fit. >Gesberg residence, key historic structure R 517 Governor Street David Stephenson (LL) - 1 sf rental/3 bdrm ~5 700 sq. ft. >contributing historic structure 520 Governor Street Tom Beers 8~ Man/Durfee (LL) - 3 du/11-bdrm in detached structure, 1 2-bdrm, I 3-bdrm upstairs ,,,22,800 sq. fit. >potential contributing historic structure 0 521 Go Fernor Street Henry &Grace P/to (00) ~9, 000 sq. ft. 3 R T4ZlR 527 Governor Street GIEHF (LL) - duplex/12-bdrm, 11-bdrm in basement ~8, 100 sq. ft. 528 Governor Street Tim Starck (00) ~7,980 sq. fit. 0 ~ NZ:P, 529 Governor Street Charles Kent (LL) - 4 du/3 2-bdrm, ~ ::L-bdrm in basement >contributing historic structure ~7,500 sq. ft. O 530 Governdr Street Hartha Greer (OO) -,7,980 sq. ft. >contributing historic structure ~, 601 Governor Street 3ohn Lint (LL) single family - 6 residents ,,,6,684 sq. ft. R M~'R *west '/2 615 Governor Street Charles Heath (LL) - 10 du/8 1-bdrm, 14-bdrm, 12-bdrm >potential contributing historic structure ~10,800 sq. ft. R 817 Bowery Street David ]ackson (OO) - 1 sf rental/4 bdrm ~6,136 sq. tic. R ~20 Eowery Street R/chard & Estyl Breazeale (002 - l sf rental/4 bdrm ,~f, 8~0 sq. ft. 1~ 822 Bowery Street Margaret Shaw (LL) - 1 sirentall/3 bdrm ~8,800 sq. it. 823 Bowery Street Charles & Christine Kapp (OO] ~4,909 sq. O 830 Bowery Street TAS Partners (LL) - 1 sf rental/3 bdrm ~6, 600 sq. 0 904 6owery Street Christine Strimp/e (00) N6. 600 sq. ft. 0 910 Bowery 5, treet Gary & Judith Galluzzo (00) ~9,900 sq. ft. >potential contributing historic structure 0 922 Bower)/5treet David A. Forsyth (00) ~7, 865 sq. ft. 2-story frame Italinate residence; key historic structure DATE /'/~/~ I/we are the property owners of ~ / "'/~'o {~ O ~'~'r' r/~)F' ,.~G"/" Iowa City, Iowa I / we wish to withdraw my ! our protest of the rezoning of the properties located along the 300-600 blocks of South Governor and a portion of 800 - 900 blocks of Bowery from RM-12 to RNC-12. (Rezoning Application REZ00-O007) I/we continue to protest the rezoning of the 300 --600 blocks of South Governor and a portion of the 800 -900 blocks of Bowery from RM-12 to RS-8. I / we wish to withdraw my/our protest the rezoning of properties along the 300 -600 blocks of South Lucas and a portion of the 700 - BOO blocks of Bowery from RM- 12 to RNC-12. (Rezoning Application REZ00-0011 ). Signed: Property Owner L/C_ Property Owner If ~c7 a C tk'p. g~. ,~'d'a~, Notary Public Date: co'. TO: HONOFLABLE MAYOFt AND CITY COUNCIL iOWA arTY, iOWA Zgg'3 t",;~,R -'~ PHI: L~I C[[Y CLERK We, the undersigned, being the owners of twenty percent or mo~)'Ah6~a [QW'/~ 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 ,,':." :: 2',r72: . ,, o, ,, This petition is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all In aocordance with §41 4.5 of the Code of Iowa. Owner(s) of Property Address STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this,~LSq/'tday of ['~(OT'- ,'.I,9 , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public In and for said County and State, personally appeared LoFen ~oc,_-{l, co&_t--. 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 ) .i. ''! ) 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 / I / we are the property owners of ~'2-.-~/~e~2 ~'lt"' Iowa City, Iowa I / we wish to withdraw my / our protest of the rezoning of the prope~ies Ionted along the 300-600 blocks of South Governor and a poRion of 800 - 900 blocks of Bowe~ from RM-12 to RNC-12. (Rezoning Appli~tion REZ00-0007). I/we continue to protest the rezoning of the 300 ~00 blocks of South Governor and a podion of the 800 -900 blocks of Bowe~ from RM-12 to RS-8. I / we continue to protest the rezoning of propedies along the 300 ~00 blocks of South Lugs and a podion of the 700 - 800 blocks of Bowe~ from RM- 12 to RNC-12. (Rezoning Application REZ00- 0011 ). Signed: , ~~~~ Prope~ Owner Prope~ Owner Notary Public ~ _ ~ .--_ . . -, .--_-_-_--_-_.-__ ?_ .... Date: FILED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL 'Z~Bn~ t'~R -'] P~ I: L~'~ IOWA CITY, IOWA CIT'~' CLERk, 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 following property: This petition is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the intentlon that such rezontng shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of ailhthe members of the council, all in accordance with §41 4.5 of the Code of Iowa. '~(~ner(s) of Property Address STATE OF IOWA ) ) SS: JOHNSON COUNTY ) for said ~Cunty and State, personallFEFpeared _,~,'cJ~ A ~ o Bfle,ar r--e4- Je 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. N~~o h~ ,,r,, ,,.~. CLINT J. DOCKENDORF 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 name~ .!n and who executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they execute'~ the same as their voluntary act and deed. -. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa ca STATE OF IOWA CO~TY OF JOHNSON Subscribed and sworn to before me by ~<~.{ { 5~f[~ {~ on this /~ ~1.~ day of ~r;'{ , "E-~- Notary Pu llc in and for Iowa d b P.,o ST oF . zoNiN FILED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA 2(]OO H,~,R - 7 PHI: I~ 7 " ': Y"" 'CtTY"CLE~I~ We, the undersigned, being the owners of twenty percent (Jlfgli/t~:e~,el~Aof the prop included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of twenty percent or more of property which Is located within two hundred feet of the extedor boundaries of the property which the zortlng change Is proposed, do hereby protest the rezonlng of the following propc This petition is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the Intention that such rezor shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all members of the coundl, all In accordance with §414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Owner(s) of .......... ;' ' Properly Address STATE OF IOWA ) ) as: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On thlsLC~'day of f:~ .2~t.P , -1-9 , before me, the underslgned, a Notary Public In for said County and State, personally appeared /Y/;Z~ u~z',~c~r~-F~[¢/ ,At/A- to me known to be the identical persons named In and, executed the within and foregoing Instrument and acknowledged that they executed the s: as their voluntary act and deed. Notary P~fic ~' cf Iowa By: Owner(s) of Property Address .... STATE OF IOWA ) q. ) as: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this __ day of ,19 , before me, the underslgned, a Notary Public In for said County and State, personally appeared to me known to be the Identical persons named In and ~ executed the witlqln and foregoing Instrument and acknowledged that they executed the s~ as their voluntary act and deed. Iowa City, 4/12/~O Dear President Coleman, As you no doubt have been noticing, Iowa City is caughti~iaSt~ middle of a rapid change. This change is most apparent'-~-~down~own, where the traditional businesses are struggling with the impa~t of the Coral Ridge Mall, as well as trying to adjust to the influx of bars where ice cream parlors and shoe stores used to be. Fortunately the Downtown Association and, most recently, the Englert group, have been working to calm and redirect the most disruptive aspects of this development. Now we in the Longfellow Neighborhood Association, a group of locals living less than a dozen blocks east of downtown, write to you hoping to broaden the picture and add to these efforts. We are presently in the process of proposing to the City Council a downzoning of two large city blocks bounded by Burlington, Bowery, Governor and Lucas streets. The area is sided on the west by the extremely densely build apartment complexes on Johnson and Van Buren, and on the east by the historic Summit Street district and the Longfellow Elementary area. Until now the Lucas-Governor blocks have had a characteristic mix of single family houses and multiapartment complexes, some up to a hundred years old, some quite recent, on streets and backyards lined by old trees. We have decided to attempt downzoning in order to preserve this workable and pleasant blend from the increased trend of buying up lots and building them into their maximum capacity with large apartment complexes. We worry that too great an influx of this type of housing, which by its very design encourages only parking and sleeping, quickly leads to irreversible changes in a neighborhood characterized so far by a variety of uses by a variety of people. And this is where the University comes in: it is obvious that the reason why the developers are so eager to buy up and tear down what has existed here for a long time is that the market for student housing has in the last few years become extremely profitable. According to a recent article in the Press-Citizen, most apartments are now rented out before they are even completed. Neither are the prices very affordable, leading to overcrowding which is rampant. With it comes a deluge of cars parked on every accessible inch of potential green space, and overflowing trash containers. The net effect is that even normally civil kids can't really act as neighbors but function, by default, more like an invading army than like part of the community that surrounds them. Much of this can be prevented by better planning or sometimes, as we argue, rezoning, worked out by the Planning and Zoning Commission and, in the last instance, by the City Council. Addressing them is part of the neighborhood associations' ongoing work. But the larger issue needs to be underscored: the University ought to build more student housing to alleviate pressure on the community amidst which it functions (and which consists to a significant degree by its employees). The great feel of Iowa City (according to a national magazine article last year one of the 10 great small cities in the US) is directly linked to its ring of older well-maintained neighborhoods and, a__s crucially, to the people who have preferred the center over the suburbs, maintaining these neighborhoods. A dead downtown encircled by segregated suburban zones (a la Cedar Rapids, for instance) doesn't make for either a great retention or a great recruitment tool. But this seems to us the inevitable outcome if the people who stabilize the city--whether as owners, as landlords or as renters--find themselves squeezed out by the bottom-line driven one-lot-at-a-time development strategy favored in the current overheated rental market. We thus call on the University to translate its long term investment in Iowa City into more thoughtful planning followed by more active student housing construction and rehabilitation. It appears that the Hawkeye married student housing is the next major project the University will be tackling: perhaps it would be possible to call a town meeting at which this and other housing issues are put into a context of a longer-range plan. In the meanwhile, however, it would be helpful if we could find out how the matter of student housing and community relations is thought about by the University in the near future. We are looking forward to hearing back from you. With ~ankS~or you cooperation C~ Cord/ally, .-~ __ ~ Natasa Durovicova ~L~.~< F-3 419 S. Summit ~> c,.~ iowa City, IA 52240 ~' and members of Longfellow Neighborhood Association Board of Directors Jody Gunn Cecile Kuenzli Alfrieta Monagan Pat Schroder Cc: Ann Rhodes, VP for University Relations City Council b E. Lehman C. Champion S. Kanner M. O'Donnell I. Pfab D. Vanderhoef R. Wilburn The Gazette, Sun., April 9, 2000 9A, · = ,----,-· GAZETTE EDITORIALS " Iowa City neighborhoods ::=;': ~ ~.,~ can use some goodwill T'S TOO ~Tg to ~eep ~ucas Street, betwee~ ~ook fo~ s~a~ks to fly at t~e ~pd] 18 ~b]~c ~owe~y and B~d~on, from being t~en ove~ by he~dng. ~ore than g0 percent o[ ~e p~operty owners student housing. ~ut it ma~ not be too late to keep in the area are Fotest~ng the requested rezo~i~g. 8o the street from becoming an apartment complex, and ff the council does approve ~t, it must ~o so by a that w~l] be t~e to~ic o[ ~scuss~on ~t a public supeFm~odty of the members -- a vote of 6-1. ~eadng on ~pdl 18. Berhaps the best thing to come out of t~s whole The current zoning, ~-lg, allows ~t~-famHy D~ocess ~s t~at 't~e c~ty wi~ now look at ol~e~ ~es~dences, w~th a densRy of up to 12 units pe~ acre., , neighborhoods t~roug~out t~e community to deteF Developers a~ Realtors ~ave use~ t~at zoning to m~ne w~ethe~ they ~ave a~p~opdate ~on~ng. ~xing a~vantage. Well ove~ ~a~ the buildings on that rentals, including homes conve~te~ to stretch o[ L~cas Street a~e ~entals. Many ~e o~e~ and apartment bu~id~ngs, wit~ single-fam~y ~es~denc- homes t~at ~ave been converte~ ~nto apartments. es doesn't mean that a ne~ghborhood's characte~ has The homeowners, who want to ~a~nta~n t~e to be lost. P~operty owners can cooperate to save that character o[ the neighborhood, [~e~ t~e ~equest to c~aracte~. They could use Ch~ck 8ka~gstad an~ ~e~one ~ucas to RNC-lg, or residential ne~ghbo~hoo~ Cla~ as an example. conservation. New construction wo~d be ~estdcte~ B~ck in ~9~, Cla~k was getting ~ea~y to b~]~ to single-family ~o~es and duplexes, but existing a~a~tment building at Gilbert Street and ~owery, bufi~ngs coul~ be ~ebu~lt as t~ey a~e ~ something k~tty-co~ne~ from The ~ans~on. Skaugsta~, owne~ should happen to them. The ~ans~on, asked C]a~k to be sensitive to the The ~omeowne~s also file~ a ~equest to ~ezone the neighborhood and incorporate some desi~ elements Da~aHe] stretch o~ 6ove~no~ Street to s~ng~e4amfiy that would ~e]p the new bu~/d~ng fit ~n. Clark residential, wit~ a density oE e~g~t u~its pe~ ac~e. .just that. On a close ~ote, ~-3, the Plan~i~g and goning "~e didn't ha~e to do anything," 8kaugstad says. Commission is ~ecommen~ng t~at the council rezo~e "~t was a goodwill gesture." the ent~e area to RNC-lg. ~red~ctably, landlords a~e ~ ]~tt]e b~t of goo~wfi] can go a long way. unha~Dy. They say that c~ange would bring down ~ope~ty v~ues and ~nc~ease ~ent. Rezon~ng m~g~t ~ec~ease the value of the properties that a~e not owneFoccup~e~; ~t surely wo~ not ~ect owner- occupied ~omes. ~nd R does not force a subse* quent ~ncre~se ~n ~ent. Mixing rentals with ~ market exists fo~ Singlefamily more ~ental some o[ it nea~ ca~us. residences doesn't An a~ua] vacancy mean a neighborhood's study by Cook ~ppra~sal character has to be shows ~acancy ~ates lost. have d~opped to ~eady ~ero ~e~cent throughout ~owa CRy and Co~alvilie. New apartment bufid~gs are completely rented ~ before they a~e comp]ete~. But the Gover~o~/~ucas/Bowery ~eigh~rhood ~s ~ome to seve~ beastly1 old houses we]] worth p~ese~ving. ~t is an attractive, appe~Hng area. RNC-12 ~s wort~ ]ooking at for the neighborhood, to keep ~t from ~ook~ng l~ke Sout~ Dodge Street, t~e c~ty and residents should explore historic neighborhood status, at ]east fo~ ~ove~no~ Street. 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 April, 2000, in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa, at which hearing the Council will consider: a. An ordinance changing the zoning designation from Low Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-12) to Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) for property south of Burlington Street along the 300-600 blocks of Governor Street ~"5~.2n portion of the 800-900 blocks of Bowery Street. ordinance changing the zoning designation from Low Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-'I2)to Neighborhood Conservation Residential (RNC-12)for property south of Burlington Street along the 300-600 blocks of Lucas Street and a portion of the 700-800 blocks of Bowery 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\notices\council4-18.doc Prepared by: Melody Rockwell, Assoc. Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356- ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING CHAPTER BY CHANGING THE USE REGULATIONS OF RM-12 ZONED PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF BURLINGTON STREET ALONG THE 300 - 600 BLOCKS OF LUCAS STREET AND A PORTION OF THE 700 - 800 BLOCKS OF BOWERY STREET FROM RM-12, LOW DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, TO RNC-12, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION RESIDENTIAL WHEREAS, the subject area is currently zoned RM-12, Low Density Multi-Family Residential; and WHEREAS, property owners in the area have requested that the City rezone the subject property to preserve the character and historical integrity of a portion of the neighborhood located south of Burlington Street in an older, near downtown residential neighborhood; and WHEREAS, 70% of the properties in the subject area are developed with single-family homes or duplexes; and WHEREAS, nearly 90% of the structures in the subject area were originally constructed as single-family homes; and WHEREAS, the predominant visual character of the subject area is one of a single-family neighborhood rather than a multi-family neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan calls for the City to strive to preserve the identity and character of the community while guiding the creation of compatible new areas; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan Ordinance No. Page 2 acknowledges that older neighborhoods provide a mix of housing types. including rooming houses, apartments and single- family homes and that the City is committed to preserving these diverse older neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Plan, a component of the Comprehensive Plan, recognizes that there are areas in the City where the current zoning does not seem to support its goals to protect the character of older neighborhoods, and calls for reviewing and revising underlying zoning classifications for such areas; and WHEREAS, rezoning the subject area to RNC-12 will not create additional nonconforming uses, but will stabilize the area by limiting the establishment of new multi-family residential uses and by redudng the consequent potential for demolition of existing residential structures in the area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. APPROVAL. The property described below is hereby reclassified from its present classification of RM-12, Low Density Multi-Family, to RNC-12, Neighborhood Conservation Residential: An area containing Berryhill's Second Addition, Block 1, Lots 1-10; Oak Hill Addition, Lots 1 - 12; Jerome's Addition, Lots J (west 31.2 feet), K, L, M, N & O; lots encompassed on property bound as follows: commencing at the northeast corner of propei'ty located in the southwest quadrant of the Bowery-Lucas Street intersection, west for 185.7 feet along the south right-of-way line of Bowery Street; then south 220 feet along the east right--of-way line of the north-south alley between Lucas and Dodge Streets, then east 70 feet, north 60 feet, east 122.5 feet and north 160 feet to the point of beginning; and commencing at the northwest comer of Berryhill's Addition, Block 1, Lot 1, north 310 feet along the east right-of- way line of Lucas Street, east 120 feet, south 150 feet, east 40 feet, south 159 feet. and west 160 feet to the point of beginning; and commencing at the northeast comer of Oak Hill Addition, Ordinance No. Page 3 Lot 1, north 581.99 feet along the west right-of-way line of Lucas Street, west 164.69 feet, south 581.99 feet along the east right-of-way line of the north s- south alley between Lucas and Dodge Streets and east 161.48 feet to the point of beginning, all of Iowa City, Iowa. SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part df 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 uncensti- tutional. SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this __ day of ,2000 MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: March 31, 2000 (for April 6 Commission meeting) To: Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission From: Melody Rockwell, Associate Planner Re: REZ00-0007. Rezoning Request for Governor/Bowery from RM-12 to RS-8 REZ00-0011. Rezoning Request for Lucas/Bowery from RM-12 to RNC-12 Case Numbers. The rezoning case for Governor/Bowery and Lucas/Bowery was submitted as one application for two separate zoning classifications. Because the requested rezonings have been treated as two separate cases in terms of evaluation, public discussion and protest efforts, each request area has been assigned a separate case number so that it is clear that consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council will be on two separate rezoning requests. This technical change was requested by the City Clerk's office to enable the rezoning requests to be tracked separately and to make sure the protest forms are accurately counted. Density Clarification. At the March 16 Commission meeting, there was information presented on properties being "maxed out" under the RM-12 zone regulations; that is, the residential densities on the lots could not be increased - even if the requested rezoning was not approved. However, some have argued that if the rezoning is approved, properties in the area to be rezoned will be devalued. The attached letter from Greg Allen, 3im Brenneman, Mike McLaughlin and Paul R. Ruppert makes that point, but in staffs view is perhaps overstated. For example, Mr. Allen applied for several building permits to increase the density of his properties in the rezoning area after the rezoning application was filed and prior to the moratorium being established by the City Council on March 2:1. Three of these permits were for rooming houses and were denied under the current RM-:12 zoning requirements. The properties in question did not meet the lot area requirements for rooming houses in the RM-:12 zone. One of the permit applications involved the demolition of an existing single-family residence to construct a duplex, and was denied because the lot had insufficient lot dimensions for a duplex in the RM-:12 zone. One permit application is pending to determine whether sufficient parking can be provided on the site to support an additional bedroom in a single-family house. ]:f the parking can be provided, the permit could be issued as requested under e/therthe RM-:12 or the RNC- 12 zoning, and could be issued during the moratorium, because it meets the requirements of both the existing and proposed zones for the property. Jim Alberhasky, who recently purchased a Bowery Street property with a three-unit house and a six-unit apartment building, checked with the Housing and ]:nspection Services Department to see if he could tear down the house facing Bowery Street to construct a new residential rental building. He was advised that he could not, because he already had nine apartments on a property that under the RM-12 zoning regulations only allows five units. When he stopped by my office, he indicated that the proposed RNC-12 rezoning of his property would probably not make any difference, because under either the RM-12 or the RNC-12 zoning, the properb/could continue to be used at a nonconforming density. Mr. Alberhasky subsequently submitted a formal protest to the proposed rezoning. Many of the properties involved in formal protest of the rezoning as of March 30, 2000, are either currently nonconforming (exceed the density permitted) in the RM-12 zone or have attained the maximum density permitted in the RM-12 zone. As staff has indicated, the RS-8 rezoning request could have an effect on property owners in terms of limiting the number of roomers permitted, but RNC-12 zoning allows what exists to remain in place as continuing uses. The conservation effect of the RNC-12 zone is in not allowing new multi-family dwellings, which creates a disincentive for combining lots and demolishing existing residential structures to create higher density housing. It is intended to be zone that balances the interests of both homeowners and rental housing owners. Based on phone calls received by Housing and Inspection Services staff, there appears to have been misinformation conveyed to property owners in the area, who had been told that if the requested rezonings were approved, their existing rooming houses would not be able to be rented. A point of clarification: existing rooming houses can continue in place with no diminishment of use under RM-12, RNC-12 or RS-8 zoning. Ordinance Amendment: As indicated in the initial staff report on this rezoning, staff feels the ordinance should be amended to permit existing, conforming multi-family uses in the RM-12 zone to be considered conforming uses under RNC-12 zoning, including multi- family residential uses established after 3anuary 1, 1993. Currently under subsection 14-6D-5G, Special Provisions of the RNC-12 zone, all uses or buildings which were conforming to the requirements of the RM-12 zone prior to January 1, 1993, shall be considered conforming under RNC-12 zoning. Staff recommends that subsection 14-6D- 5G1 be amended as follows: G. Special Provisions 1. All uses or buildings which were conforming to the requirements of Section 14- 6D-7 of this Article, Low Dens/ty Mult/-Fam/ly Res/dentia/Zone (RM-12), pdor to January 1, 1993 at the time the property is rezoned to Neighborhood Conservation Residential Zone (RNC-12), shall be considered conforming under this Chapter. Formal Rezoning Protest: Formal protests to a rezoning can require a super-majority vote of the Council when owner of 20% or more of the property within the rezoning area orof the 200-foot area surrounding the area requested for rezoning submit formal protests to the rezoning. For your information, sufficient protests have been submitted to require the super-majority vote of Council members (six of seven) in both the REZ00- 0007, Governor/Bowery RS-8 rezoning request area and the REZ00-0011, Lucas/Bowery 3 RNC-12 rezoning request area. The City Clerk's office has indicated that no persons have been turned away from submitting protest forms. Tn fact, a number of the forms submitted are from owners of property that are outside of both the area to be rezoned and the 200-foot wide surrounding area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that REZ00-0007, a requested rezoning of properties located south of Burlington Street along the 300 to 600 blocks of Governor Street and a portion of the 800 - 900 blocks of Bowery Street from Low Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-12) to Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) not be approved. Staff recommends instead that this property be rezoned from RM-12 to Neighborhood Conservation Residential (RNC-12). Staff recommends that REZ00-0011, a requested rezoning of properties located south of Burlington Street along the 300 - 600 blocks of Lucas Street and a portion of the 700 - 800 blocks of Bowery Street from Low Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-12) to Neighborhood Conservation Residential (RNC-12) be approved. Staff recommends a text amendment of Zoning Chapter subsection 14-6D-5G1 as follows: All uses or buildings which were conforming to the requirements of Section 14-6D-7 of this Article, Low Dens/b/iVulti-Fam//y Resident/a/Zone (RIV-12), prior to January 1, 1993 at the time the property is rezoned to tVeighborhoocl Conservation Residential Zone (RIVC-12), shall be considered conforming under this Chapter. ATTACH M ENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Letter to Property Owners from Greg Allen, Jim Brenneman, Mike McLaughlin, Paul R. Ruppert Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner Department of Planning & Community Development CITY OF IO~VA CITY SITE LOCATION: South of Burlington Street, along Governor/Lucas/Bowerv REZO0-O007 & REZOO-OO].;L Art. Resident and/or Property owner _. The proposed Rezoning will cause devaluation of property and lack of flexibility for both residents and rental owners. Many people have called the city to check how the zoning changes will affect then~. I own houses on Lucas bowcry and governor st. and am very familiar with the RM 12 RNC 12 and RS8 zonings. The Resident or landlord will lose value of a property lost equity borrowing power and usage flexibility. Changing zoning from RM 12 to RNC12 will grandfather in all rentals with current rental permits to be used as is. RNC 12 However allows only 3 roomers per unit in a duplex instead of the current four. This means if you own ahouse that could be a duplexe as is or by adding on your rent in RNC 12 would be decreased by about $600 a month. RNC I2 will not allow your house to be converted to a rooming house. Even if you never have plans to sell your residence. a house be worth about $25,000 Less for every bedroom over three in the new zoning. This area is currently over 80 % rental so value is mostly determined by income. Effect for current residents. Current Rm 12 Zoning. 4bedroom Rent $1200-1300 Value Est. $110-125,000 5bedroom Rent $1500-1600 Value Est. $140-155,000 3 or 4 bedroom that could be duplexes to 4Br -4Br. $180-200,000 More than 5 add $ 300 Per Br. Value add $20-25, 000 Per bedroom New Rncl2 Zone 4bedroom Rent $ 900-950 Value Est. $ 80-9~'I oe~o Only legal for 3 5bedroom Rent $ 900-1000 Value Est. $ 90-105,000 Only legal for 3 3 or 4 bedroom that could be duplexes to 4Br -4Br. $160-175,000 Only legal for 6 More than 5bed room no extra value. Still only legal for three Renters. This area is mostly rental area, It would be a considerable loss to owners and residents to downzone to residential. In the new zoning about 80% of the existing houses would need to be grandfathered in. RM12 is the correct zoning for this area. Rs8 as proposed on govenor st is down two full zones and is even more restrictions. Rs8 would cause some of the houses on gorenor lose huge amounts of their value. To protest this rezoning you must sign the enclosed paper with a notary public. You need to send a protest for each property you own. The required 20% we must meet is done by square ft. if you own more than one lot you should protest for each lot. Each protest sheet covers 2 lots if you need more call me or make copies. You can then return them to me in the envelope included. Time is of the essence as the hearing is March 2. You can fred a notary public at any bank, law office or the city civic center. If you have questions you can call me 545-2001 Hope to hear from you soon. sincerely ReT~ ~~ STAFF REPORT To: Planning &Zoning Commission Prepared by: Melody Rockwell Item: REZ00-0007. Governor, Lucas, Bowery Date: March 16, 2000 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicants &contact persons: Lorraine Huneke-Bowans 510 S. Governor Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Phone: 354-7358 Ann Freerks 443 S. Governor Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Phone: Requested action: Rezoning from Low Density Multi- Family Residential (RM-12) to Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS- 8) for properties located south of Burlington Street along the 300 - 600 Blocks of Governor Street and a portion of the 800 - 900 blocks of Bowery Street; and Rezoning from Low Density Multi- Family Residential (RM- 12) to Neighborhood Conservation Residential (RNC-12) for properties located south of Burlington Street along the 300 - 600 blocks of Lucas Street and a portion of the 700 - 800 blocks of Bowery Street. Purpose: To stabilize the neighborhood by limiting the establishment of new multi-family residential uses Property size: RS-8 rezoning request area: approximately 391,030 square feet or 8.98 acres RNC-12 rezoning request area: approximately 394,109 square feet or 9.05 acres Existing land use and zoning: Primarily residential, one church; RM- 12 Surrounding land use and zoning: North: Residential; RM-12, RNC-20 East: Residential; RS-5, RS-8 South: Residential; RS-8, RM-12 West: Residential; RM-12, RM-44 Comprehensive Plan: Medium density residential development; 8-16 dwelling units per acre File date: February 11, 2000 45-day limitation period: March 27, 2000 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Ann Freerks and Lorraine Huneke-Bowans with the support of the Longfellow Neighborhood Association have requested a rezoning of property that is currently zoned RM-12 (Low Density Multi-Family Residential) to RS-8 (Medium Density Single-Family Residential) and RNC-12 (Neighborhood Conservation Residential). According to the applicants, the requested downzoning of property south of Burlington Street is intended "to preserve the character and historical integrity of this neighborhood." The area currently has a mix of rental and owner-occupied structures as well as a range of residential uses, including single- family residences, duplexes, apartments and rooming houses. The applicants have indicated that they desire to maintain this mix of uses, the affordable housing stock and the diverse population of the neighborhood as it is. Through the rezoning, they hope to reduce the pressure for new construction, which results in older structures being demolished and large, mature trees being removed and replaced by structures that are often perceived as incompatible with the prevailing early 1900s architecture of this area. ANALYSIS: Comprehensive Plan The RS-8 zoning has been requested for properties along the 300 - 600 blocks of Governor Street and a portion of the 800 - 900 blocks of Bowery Street, and the RNC-12 rezoning has been requested for properties along the 300 - 600 blocks of Lucas Street and a portion of the 700 - 800 blocks of Bowery Street. The Comprehensive Plan designates the area being considered for rezoning for residential development at a density of 8 -16 dwelling units per acre. The existing RM-12 zoning and the proposed RS-8 and RNC-12 zoning are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation for this area. The vision statement in the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan calls for the City to "strive to preserve the identity and character of the community while guiding the creation of compatible new areas... to encourage diversity in the population, in housing and in jobs." The Plan also states that older neighborhoods provide a mix of housing types, including rooming houses, apartments and single-family homes; that "the City has made a commitment to preserving these historic neighborhoods." The Plan notes that "a mix of housing types within a neighborhood provides residential opportunities for a wide variety of people, including singles, young families, elderly persons, large families, childless couples, owners and renters." Such a mix of housing types is valued, because it helps realize the precepts of the vision statement, and "when diverse housing sizes are dispersed throughout all neighborhoods, large concentrations of apartments can be avoided." The Comprehensive Plan further calls for "developing neighborhood plans that help ensure the continuation of a balance of housing types in neighborhoods, particularly in the older parts of the city." The Historic Preservation Plan, wkiich is an adopted component of the Comprehensive Plan, recognizes that there are areas in the City where the current zoning does not seem to support its goals to protect the character of older neighborhoods: "Zoning classifications for substantial portions of older neighborhoods are contrary to a policy which would encourage the retention of the older, single-family residence. Downzoning of residential areas completed during the 1980s lessened the impact somewhat, but did not eliminate the possibility of seeing apartment building construction in some sensitive areas." The Historic Preservation Plan calls for reviewing and revising underlying zoning classifications for areas involving historic districts, conservation districts and significant numbers of individual landmarks in order to remove incentives for demolishing historic resources. The majority of the housing stock in the neighborhood consists of single-family homes built between1900 and 1930. Historic preservation surveys of this area noted that although the area does retain a feeling of an earlier period, many of the houses have been altered and do not meet the integrity standards necessary for a historic district. But the surveys also note that this area is deserving of designations as a conservation district "to aid in the preservation of the neighborhood and individual houses of interest." [Survey and Evaluation of the Longfellow Neighborhood, I & II] Four structures are noted as individually significant (Bethel AME Church (1868) 411 S. Governor, Gesbergh residence (1864) 530 S. Governor, Italinate residence at 922 Bowery & stone cottage (1850) 332 Governor) and others as contributing historic structures. This neighborhood, particularly Governor and Bowery Streets, is recognized as a potential buffer between "the spreading new construction (large apartment complexes) to the west and the established neighborhood farther to the east." The survey indicates that there "appears to be interest in these areas in preserving their neighborhoods." The City's Comprehensive Plan also notes that "preservation of the existing housing stock has been a policy of the City and will require continuing efforts." The requested rezonings are intended to maintain the mix of housing types and the existing housing stock in the Governor, Lucas and Bowery area by preventing any further conversion of these properties to apartments, which is possible under the current RM-12 zoning regulations. It will also serve to stabilize the predominantly single-family character of the area. Although many of these houses have been converted to rental housing, the predominantly single-family residential appearance of the area has remained intact. There are 47 properties in the RS-8 rezoning request area along Governor and Bowery Streets. [] Only three of these properties contain structures that were built as apartment buildings. [] One property contains an apartment addition, which was added to a single-family building. Q This means that 43 of the 47 residential properties, or over 90 percent of the properties in the area contain single-family houses. [] In the RNC-12 rezoning request area along Lucas and Bowery Streets, there are 56 properties. [] Only five of the 56 properties contain structures along the street frontage that were clearly constructed as apartment buildings. [] Four properties have apartment additions to the rear of single-family structures. G Nearly 90 percent of the properties along the Lucas and Bowery streetscapes have a 4 predominantly single-family residential appearance. Staff conducted a land use survey to determine what uses currently exist in each rezoning request area and to evaluate the potential effects of the requested rezoning designations for Governor/Bowery (RS-8) and Lucas/Bowery (RNC-12) areas. The staff analysis and recommendations are set forth separately for each of the two rezoning request areas. RS-8 Rezoning Request: Governor/Bowery The survey revealed that although most (62%) of the properties are rental properties, The majority (approximately 75%) of the properties in the Governor/Bowery area contains single-family (64%) or duplex (11%) residential uses, $ Over half (53%) of the houses that are used as single-family residences are owner- occupied, and four of the rental structures are also owner-occupied. $ Approximately 17% of the lots contain multi-family uses. The survey revealed that the number of bedrooms per apartment is relatively low in this area. This may be due in part to apartments being constructed within single-family structures, but even the apartment buildings average only one to two bedrooms per apartment. [] Two lots (4%) contain single-family houses with rooming units (rooming houses). Q This area also contains a religious institution (AME church) and a vacant lot. RS-8 REZONING REQUEST AREA - Governor/Bowery LAND USES Institutional 2% Rental/Owner- Vacant Rooming House Occupied Lot/Church Multi-Family 4% Vacant 9% 4% 17% 2% ~up,e~ :. ~:.'.~}~E:~,. owner- ~j Occupied/Single. 11% i .....,';.-., ',:, ... ,' .....j ..,.,.,~.?i.~ Family ' ~'..~ ,~,.' .~. "" . 36% ~ental ~'~ _ _/~' Single-Family 51% 64% The survey information indicates that the general use of the area is that of a single-family and duplex neighborhood with some apartments. Over 90% of the structures were originally single-family homes, and many of these structures, which contain two or more units, could be converted back to lower density uses. Again, although there is a mix of housing types within the area, the predominant visual character of the area is one of a single-family residential neighborhood rather than a neighborhood of apartment complexes. The existing RM-12 zoning allows multi-family structures on properties that have minimum lot areas of 8,175 square feet and meet the other requirements of the RM-12 zone. Many of the lots in this area are narrow, generally 40 feet or less in width, and the RM-12 zone dimensional requirements specify that the lot width be a minimum of 45 feet for duplexes and 60 feet for apartments. In most cases, it would require the aggregation of two or more lots into one ownership to make possible the further development of apartment structures under the current RM-12 zoning in this area. The RM-12 zoning designation allows redevelopment of property in this area to maximize the permitted density, but would encourage the removal of existing housing stock in the area. The Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) zone that is requested for this area allows single-family homes and duplexes as permitted uses. If the rezoning were approved, the multi-family and rooming house residential uses could continue as "grandfathered" nonconforming uses. They could not be expanded, and new multi-family structures could not be constructed or created through conversions of existing housing stock in the area. [] Eighteen (38%) of the properties containing single-family uses can only be single-family uses under either the RM-12 or the RS-8 zoning regulations. [] Ten (21%) of the properties (two duplexes, two rooming houses and six multi-family residential properties) are already nonconforming under the RM-12 zoning requirements; they either have insufficient lot area or lot width, or are deficient in both respects. These uses would continue as nonconforming uses under the RS-8 zoning. [] Only three (6%) of the properties would become legal, nonconforming uses as a result of being rezoned RS-8: two duplexes and one multi-family structure. [] Approximately ten (21%) of the properties would be required to reduce the number of tenants by one person if the RS-8 zoning were approved. In the RS-8 zone, only one roomer (or three unrelated persons) is permitted to reside in each single-family residence, duplex unit or apartment, while in the RM-12 zone two roomers or four unrelated persons are permitted per unit. The RS-8 zoning does not allow the number of roomers permitted in the RM-12 zone to carry over into the RS-8 zoning. For example, a single- family residence renting to four people could only rent to three, and a building with three apartments renting to twelve people could only rent to nine. It appears that the number of properties affected is around ten, because most of the rental properties have fewer tenants than the maximum currently permitted under the RM-12 zoning regulations. [] It appears that approximately 19 (40%) of the properties could upgrade to higher density residential developments, because they have sufficient lot area and lot width. In the RM- 12 zone, 8 duplexes, 5 tri-plexes, two four-plexes, three five-plexes and 1 eight-plex could potentially be established. Eighteen of these properties currently contain single- family uses, one is a duplex and one is a tri-plex. If the RS-8 zoning is approved, 15 of these properties could be changed from single-family to duplex residences with one roomer permitted per unit instead of two. Twelve of the properties that could have increased residential use above a duplex level in the RM-12 zone, would be restricted to the current level of use (in the case of the tri-plex) or to a duplex expansion at most in the RS-8 zone. This analysis does not contemplate the possibilities if properties were aggregated. [] It should be noted that about two/thirds of the properties with sufficient area and width to increase the level of density on-site also contain historically contributing structures. These structures were designated as such in the Longfellow Neighborhood historic preservation survey in 1998, and include key structures, such as the stone cottage (332 S. Governor), the Gesberg residence (530 S. Governor) and the Italinate house (411 S. Governor). The loss of these structures to increase density on the property would be an irreparable loss of historic resources to the neighborhood and the community at large. The difference the RS-8 zoning would make is that there would be less financial incentive to aggregate these properties and demolish existing housing, because new multi-family uses would not be permitted and new duplexes, single-family housing converted from owner- occupied to rental units and existing rental units would only be allowed three unrelated residents, instead of the four unrelated residents permitted per unit in the RM-12 zone. This would limit the amount of conversions and redevelopment of properties in the area, which would have the stabilizing effect on the neighborhood that is desired by the applicants. Staff feels that rezoning the area RNC-12 would have nearly the same stabilizing effect as an RS-8 rezoning, but would not have as much impact on the existing rental residences. Single-family homes and duplexes would continue to be permitted uses and conforming multi-family uses would continue as legal, conforming uses in the RNC-12 zone. The ability of property owners to retain the current number of roomers may, in fact, provide a financial incentive to maintain these buildings as single-family structures. No new multi-family uses could be established so the potential for redevelopment of existing single-family properties would be nearly as limited as under the RS-8 zoning. However, three more single-family residential properties could become duplexes under the RNC-12 zoning than could do so under the RS-8 zoning, a RNC-12 zoning would not result in any new nonconforming properties and the number of roomers in the RM-12 zone could continue on in the RNC-12 zone with one exception: new duplexes could only have one roomer (three unrelated persons) per unit instead of four. Staff feels it is appropriate in this situation to consider RNC-12 zoning for the Governor/Bowery Streets area. RNC-12 Rezoning Request: Lucas/Bowery The land use survey of the Lucas/Bowery area indicated a higher percentage (82%) of rental properties in this area than on Governor/Bowery, which has 62%. [] However, the clear majority of properties (70%) contain single-family (56%) or duplex (14%) residential uses. Q Approximately one-third of the houses used as single-family residences are owner- occupied, and one of the rental structures is also owner-occupied. Approximately one-third of the properties contain rooming house or multi-family uses; there are four rooming house properties (7%) and thirteen (23%) are properties containing three or more apartments. Overall, the densities are relatively low with the number of bedrooms averaging less than two per apartment. RNC-12 REZONING REQUEST AREA - Lucas/Bowery Streets LAND USES Owner- Multi-Family Occupied/Single. Rental/Owner- 23% Family Occupied 18% 2% Rooming House 7% Duple Single-Family ' ': ''';~' 14% 56% ,.~ "\~-~ Rental 80% The survey information indicates that the general use of the area is that of a single-family and duplex neighborhood with some apartments. Nearly 90% of the structures were originally single-family homes, and many of these structures, which contain two or more units, could be converted back to lower density uses. Again, although there is a mix of housing types within the area, as with the Governor/Bowery area, the predominant visual character of the area is one of a single-family residential neighborhood. Q In fact, 22 (39%) of the structures used as single-family residences could not be converted to a higher density duplex or apartment house due to insufficient lot area and/or lot width under the current RM-12 zoning. [] Sixteen (29%) of the properties are non-conforming now under the RM-12 regulations and would continue as nonconforming under the RNC-12 rezoning. These currently nonconforming properties include 4 (7%) duplexes, 2 (4%) rooming houses, and 10 (18%) apartment buildings. ? [] Under the RNC-12 rezoning, only one property that is currently conforming would become nonconforming. The new four-apartment building currently under construction would not be exempted under the RNC-12 zoning waiver, which provides that uses that are conforming as of 1993 will continue as legal, conforming uses. This four-unit use could continue to operate as a legal, nonconforming use. Staff recommends that a text amendment be made to the Zoning Chapter to allow the intent of the ordinance to prevail; to permit an existing, conforming use to continue as a legal conforming use under RNC-12 zoning. The text amendment could be done at the same time as the requested rezoning, and could specify that this provision would be in effect not as of 1993, but the date the RNC-12 zoning was approved for the property or properties. [] Six properties with conforming uses would continue as legal, conforming uses. [] Eleven properties have sufficient lot width and area to increase the density permitted under the RM-12 zoning regulations; 8 could convert from single-family to duplex, one to a tri-plex and two to a four-plex. Under the RNC-12 zoning, no properties could convert to a tri-plex or four-plex, but all eleven properties could convert to duplexes with a total of three unrelated persons living in each unit, instead of the four unrelated persons permitted under the RM-12 zoning regulations. Again, this analysis does not contemplate possibilities for redevelopment if the properties are aggregated. However, in the RNC-12 zone, a duplex is the most intense residential use permitted by right. Because the lots in this area tend to be narrow and deep, the possibilities for increasing the density to multi-family levels under the RM-12 zoning would be possible primarily through the aggregation of lots and the demolition of existing housing stock. Under the RNC-12 zoning, there would be a disincentive to do so. The RNC-12 zoning would stabilize the area without creating nonconforming situations or excessive economic burdens for current property owners. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Concerning EXCO0-O007, staff acknowledges the merit of the applicants' request to rezone properties located in the RM-12 zone along Governor Street and portions of Bowery Street to RS-8. Because a RNC-12 rezoning will achieve nearly the same level of conservation within the neighborhood without creating nonconforming situations, staff recommends that this area be rezoned from RM-12 to RNC-12 rather than RS-8. Staff recommends that EXCO0-O007, a request to rezone properties located in the RM-12 zone along Lucas Street and portions of Bowery Street to RNC-12 be approved. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location map 2. Land use map 3. Application/attachments 4. Letters/petitions of support 5. Letters/petitions of protest Approved by: ~ ~' Robert Miklo, Senior Planner Dept. of Planning & Community Developmt. ppdadm/stfrep/exc00-0007.doc CITY OF I0~ CITY ~... ~ ~ ~ YMOUR AVE ] ..... _~~ L..' " SHERIDAN AVE .< ~ a ~*1111~11 I' .... ..~' ~~- 2~ z s~ ': . SITE LOCATION: Bordered by Burlin¢on/Bowe~ Streets, Governo~Lucas Streets REZ0O-00O7 Applicant's Statement as to Why Zone Change is Warranted Residents of Governor, Lucus and Bowery Streets request a zoning change. We request to down-zone Governor Street and a small portion of Bowery Street from the current RM-12 to RS-8. We request a zoning change from RM-12 to RNC-12 for Lucus Street and the connecting portions of Bowery Street. The purpose of the zoning change is to preserve the character and historical integrity of this neighborhood. This is needed to maintain the healthy mix of single and multi-family use creating a diverse and rich population. In the Survey and evaluation of the Longfellow Neighborhood prepared for the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission in 1998 by Molly Myers Naumann these portions of Governor and Bowery were recommended to be designated as a conservation district. The survey found the great majority of structures along Governor street to be contributing structures supporting this request. The survey noted that there is interest in these areas in preserving the neighborhood. An earlier survey recommends that Lucas, from Burlington to Bowery, should receive an intensive level survey, with an eye to possible National Register nomination. It goes on to state that there is a sense of time and place about this narrow. tree-lined street that should be preserved. This zoning would be a good tool to assist with this. Residents in this area are currently working with the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission on this proposed Govemor/Lucus Conservation District. The zoning change requested here would compliment and strengthen a conservation district. Other reasons why a zoning change is warranted: · Keep area with historical integrity for owner-occupied as well as rental and preserve the natural character. Residents see the rapid changes occurring and want the preserve the architecture in the neighborhood. · These homes offer affordable housing close to downtown and a much sought after alternative to apartments · Governor Street is joined to and runs parallel with Summit Street Historic District, which is zoned RS-5. Section of Governor from Bowery south is already RS-8. Usage in the proposed rezone are is consistent with area already RS-8. · Govemor/Lucas area is not just ~der a buffer zone for Summit but also a thriving neighborhood · Majority of homes are single family units, many owner-occupied · Conformity would not be an issue for the Lucus Street area rezoning as all would continue to have current use. There would be a small number of non-conforming units on Govemor Street, 3 homes currently have 3 units, 4 structures have 4 or more units · Rezoning would correct the zoning classification to better reflect the current and histor~i~l development and use within this area ~-'~ C') "'~ · Rezoning would stabilize and enhance the value of property ~z~ · This would protect the neighborhood by reducing the pressure for new construction in ,l~,~i~ desirable area with many historically significant buildings .~ -- - · Many people are rehabilitating homes in this neighborhood. This would encourage the continuation of this trend and save this area for future generations to enjoy. Dear resident and/or property owner, This letter is being written to inform you that residents of Governor, Lucas and Bowery Streets will be requesting a zoning change. We propose to fezone Governor Street and a small portion of Bowery Street from the current RM-12 to RS-8. For Lucas Street and the connecting portions of Bowery Street, we propose a zoning change from RM-12 to RNC-12. The purpose of the zoning change is to preserve the character and historical integrity of this neighborhood. This is needed to maintain the healthy mix of single and multi-family use creating a diverse and rich population. The RNC-12 zone has worked successfully in many other Iowa City neighborhoods to help maintain the prevailing character of single houses and duplexes and also maintain the property uses for current multi-unit apartment complexes. The Longfellow Neighborhood Association is planning a meeting for March 1 st at the Longfellow Elementary School, 1130 Seymour, Iowa City, IA. A member of the city staff will be on hand to lead discussion and answer questions about the proposed zoning changes. There will be a half-hour of social time beginning at 6:30 pm, with the meeting beginning at 7:00 in the school art room. Other neighborhood projects will also be discussed. We invite all to attend. Some reasons why a zoning change is warranted: · Keep area with historical integrity for owner-occupied as well as rental and preserve the natural character. Residents see the rapid changes occurring and want to preserve the architecture in the neighborhood. · In the Survey and evaluation of the Longfellow Neighborhood prepared for the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission in 1998 by Molly Myers Naumann these portions of Governor and Bowery were recommended to be designated as a conservation district. The survey found the great majority of structures along Governor street to be contributing structures supporting this request. The survey noted that there is interest in these areas in preserving the neighborhood. An earlier survey recommends that Lucas, from Burlington to Bowery, should receive an intensive level survey, with an eye to possible National Register nomination. It goes on to state that there is a sense of time and place about this narrow, tree-lined street that should be preserved. This zoning would be a good tool to assist with this. Residents in this area are currently working with the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission on this proposed Governor/Lucas Conservation District. The zoning change requested here would compliment and strengthen a conservation district. · These homes offer affordable housing close to downtown and a much sought after alternative to apartments · Governor Street is joined to and runs parallel with Summit Street Historic District, which is zoned RS-5. Section of Governor from Bowery south is already RS-8. These zoning changes would provide a gradual stepping in the zone changes from Dodge to Summit, creating a proper buffer zone. · A zone change from RM-12 to RS-8 would allow Multiple-unit apartment complexes to be grandfathered in, allowing for current uses to continue unless the building is destroyed. The RNC- 12 zone states that all buildings in this zone which conformed with the RM-12 zone as of Jan. 1, 1993 shall be considered conforming (meaning that they are considered legal uses and not prohibited from being rebuilt if destroyed, or expanded provided density in terms of dwellings per acre is not increased). These uses may be tom down and rebuilt, provided the new building does not exceed the present density or the density of the RNC-12 zone, whichever is greater. · Majority of homes maintain single family and duplex characteristics, many are owner-occupied (over) · This would protect the neighborhood by reducing the pressure for new construction in highly desirable area with many historically significant buildings Rezoning would correct the zoning classification to better reflect the current and historical development and use within this area · Rezoning would stabilize and enhance the value of property · People are purchasing and rehabilitating homes in this neighborhood. This would encourage the continuation of this trend and save this area for future generations to enjoy. It is the desire of all involved to work together to maintain the character that makes this neighborhood such a desirable place to live. Please feel free to contact me with specific questions. If I am not able to answer them I will connect you with someone who will. Look for more information about this subject from the city of Iowa City. Sincerely, Ann Freerks President, Longfellow Neighborhood Association Phone: 319-354-8671 03-10-00 Key: * = properties constructed as apartment buildings LL = LANDLORD/NOT OWNER OCCUPIED OO = OWNER OCCUPTED DU =DWELLING UNI'I' BDRM = BEDROOM PROPERTZES REQUESTED FOR RS-8 REZONTNG (REZOO-OOO7) ~ Address Properb/Owner Use Lot Size 308 Governor Street Robert 3. Hearity (OO) - sf rental/4 bdrm ~3,040 sq. ft. >contributing historic structure 310 Governor Street Larry G. Zuber (LL) - duplex ~4,800 sq. ft. 312 Governor Street Charles R. Bringle (LL) - sf rental/3 bdrm ~6,045 sq. ft. (approx.) >contributing historic structure 314 Governor Street Southwick Properties (LL) - sf rental/2 bdrm & 5 rooming units >contributing historic structure ~6,200 sq. ft. 328 Governor Street Thomas NI. Beers (LL) - duplex/1 bdrm each ~7,750 sq. ft. >contributing historic structure 332 Governor Street 3ohn Shaw (LL) - sf rental ~7,750 sq. ft. >stone cottage, key historic structure 333 Governor 5treet Richard N. Miller (LL) - sf rental/1 bdrm & 3 rooming units >contributing historic structure ~11,520 sq. ft. 336 Governor Street 3ohn Shaw (LL) - sf rental/4 bdrm ~9,538 sq. ft. >contributing historic structure *338 Governor Street Charles Alberhasky (LL) - 12 du/12 bdrm ~10,092 sq. ft. 347 Governor Street Vance Breen &Susan Hoore (002 ~~82,~ sq, ft, >contributing historic structure 40Z Governor Street Vance Breen & Susan I~oore - vacant lot ~5,000 sq. 1~. *404 Governor Street Robert Miller (LL) - 12 du/8 1-bdrm, 4 2-bdrm ~12,806 sq. ft. 408 Governor Street Kevin &Barbara White (OO) ~7,600 sq. ft. >contributing historic structure 411 Governor Street AI~E Church (00) - religious organization ~5,000 sq. ft. > earliest African-American church in iowa CiO~ key historic structure 412 Governor Street 3oseph Christner (OO) - 3 du/I 1-bdrm, 2 2-bdrm >contributing historic structure ~7,600 sq. ft. 2 · ¢.~5 Governor Street Wanda Wilker (LL) - duplex/12-bdrm, 11-bdrm upstairs ~9,750 sq. ft. 416 Governor Street Sanderfield Properties (LL) - :Z sf rental/a, bdrm ~15,200 sq. >contributing historic structure ~419 Governor Street Governor Street Assoc. (LL) - 3 du/townhouses; 2 3-bdrm, ~ 4-bdrm ~8,250 sq. ft. ~t23 Governor Street Lilliam Fuhrmeister (00) ~6,000 sq. ft. >potential contributing historic structure 426 Governor Street Boris Silberberg & 3ulie Campbell (OO) ~7,885 sq. ft. >contributing historic structure ~t27 Governor Street Pat Brantit (00) ~~2,000 sq. >contributing historic structure 428 Governor Street Greg Allen (LL) - 1 sf rental/4 bdrm ~7,885 sq. >contributing historic structure 431 Governor Street lames Russell (00) ~6,000 sq. ft. >contributing historic structure 433 Governor Street Harold I. Peters (??) - 3 du/2 bdrm each ~6,000 sq. ft. >contributing historic structure ~,36 Governor Street Nod Pod (LL) - 1 sf rental/a, bdrm ~15,200 sq. ft. >contributing historic structure ~437 Governor Street Laurence l. Fuortes (??) - duplex/1 bdrm each ~6,000 sq. ft. >contributing historic structure 441 Governor Street Alice Kelly (00) ~6,000 sq. ft. >contributing historic structure 443 Governor Street Brent &Ann Freerks (00) ~6,300 sq. ft. 506 Governor Street Juliet Kaufman (OO) ~7,600 sq. ft. 510 Governor Street Bob &Lorraine Bowans (OO) ~15,200 sq. ft. >Gesberg residencef key historic structure 517 Governor Street David Stephenson (LL) - 1 sf rental/3 bdrm ~5, 700 sq. ft. >contributing historic structure 520 Governor Street Tom Beers & MaW Durfee (LL) - 3 du/1 l-bdrm in detached structure, 2-bdrm, I 3-bdrm upstairs ~22,800 sq. ft. >potential contributing historic structure 521 Governor Street Henry &Grace Piro (00) ~9,000 sq. ft. 3 S27 Governor Street GICHF {LL) - duplex/12-bdrm, 11-bdrm in basement ~8~100 sq. ft. 528 Governor Street Tim Starck (OO) ~7,980 sq. ft. 529 Governor Street Charles Kent (LL) - 4 du/3 2-bdrm, 1 l-bdrm in basement >contributing historic structure ~7,500 sq. ft. 530 Governor Street Nlartha Greer (OO) ~7,980 sq. ft. >contributing historic structure 601 Governor Street 3ohn Lint (LL) single family - 6 residents ~6,684 sq. ft. ~kwest '/2 615 Governor Street Charles Heath (LL) - 10 du/8 1-bdrm, :14-bdrm, I 2-bdrm >potential contributing historic structure ~10,800 sq. ft. 817 Bowery Street David 3ackson (OO) - :1 sf rental/4 bdrm ~6,136 sq. ft. 820 Bowery Street R/chard & Estyl Breazea/e (00) - i sf rental/4 bdrm ~,t, 840 sq. It. 822 Bowel/Street klargaret Shaw (LL) - 1 sf renta//3 bdrm ~8,800 sq. It. 823 Bowery Street Charles & Christine Kapp (OO) ~4,909 sq. ft. 830 Bowel/Street TAS Partners (LL) - 1 sf rental/3 bdrm ~6,600 sq. It. 904 Bowel/Street Christine Strimple (00) ~6.600 sq. ft. 910 Bowel/Street Gary &Judith Galluzzo (00) ~g, gO0 sq. It. >potential contributing historic structure 922 Bowel/Street David A. Forsyth (00) ~7,865 sq. It. 2-story frame Italinate residence; key historic structure PROPERTI'ES REQUESTED FOR RNC-12 REZONI'NG (REZ00-0007) 310 Lucas Street Larry & Francis Zuber (LL) - duplex/3 bdrm ~6,000 sq. it. 313 Lucas Street H&G Partnership (LL) - 1 sf rental/2 bdrm ~6,600 sq. ft. ~314 Lucas Street Lynda Dykstra (LL) - 1 sf renta//1 bdrm? ~4,800 sq. it. 318 Lucas Street R/chard & Goldene Haendel (LL) - 2 residents - related ~4,800 sq. it. 319 Lucas Street HGA Properties (LL) - i sf rental/2 bdrm ~6,105 sq. ft. 322 Lucas Street Gary & Julie Hodge/Greg Yates (LL) - 3 du/3 bdrm each ~7, 740 sq. it. 4 324 Lucas Street Greg Yates (LL)- i sf rental/4 bdrm ~5,060 sq. It. 325 Lucas Street HGA Properties (LL) - 4 rooming units ~6,105 sq. ft. 327 Lucas Street 3erry Rogers (LL) - 3 du/3 bdrm each ~8,250 sq. ft. 329 Lucas Street Enterprise Investment (LL) - duplex/1 l-bdrm, 13-bdrm ~6,560 sq. ft. v, nor~ *330 Lucas Street Dan W/l/is (LL) - 4du/13 bedrooms [1 sf/4 bdrm with 3 3-bdrm attached] ~12, 800 sq. ft. ,/2 west ~33:1 Lucas Street Fran Albrecht (LL) - 6 du/12 bdrm [east: I sf/4 bdrm; west: 4 1- bdrm, 14-bdrm ~9,900 sq. ft. 1~333 Lucas Street City of Iowa City (LL) - duplex/3 bdrm each ~7,900 sq. ft. 401 Lucas Street Bernard & Pat Collins (LL) - I sf rental/3 bdrm ~7,950 sq. ft. 402 Lucas Street Charles & Elizabeth Alberhasky (LL) - duplex/11-bdrm, 13-bdrm ~8,550 sq. ft. 403 Lucas Street TAS Partners (LL) - 6 rooming units ~9,540 sq. ft. 404 Lucas Street Stanley Burns (LL) - sf rental ~8,250 sq. ft. 410 Lucas Street Stanley Burns (00) - 1 sf rental/2 bdrm ~7,500 sq. ft. 411 Lucas Street Randolph Loan (LL) - 3 du/1 bdrm each ~8,533 sq. ft. 414 Lucas Street 2ulie Hagstrom & Tom Wendt (LL) - 1 sf rental/3 bdrm ~6, 750 sq. ft. 415 Lucas Street Clark McFerren (OO) ~8,533 sq. ft. 419 Lucas Street Paul R. Ruppert (OO) ~8,050 sq. ft. *420 Lucas Street Larry & 3eannette Waters (LL) - 6 du/8 bdrm [2 2-story structures/east: 2 2-bdrm, west: 4 1-bdrm ~6, 975 sq. ft. 421 Lucas Street Margaret Frueholz (LL) - duplex/i 3-bdrm, i :L-bdrm 2"d floor ~7,245 sq. ft. 424 Lucas Street River City Properties (LL) - 9 rooming units ~5, 775 sq. it. 425 Lucas Street Bernard & Pat Collins (LL) - i sf rental/3 bdrm ~7,245 sq. 430 Lucas Street Steve Char/ton (00) ~12,000 sq. it. 5 504 Lucas Street R/chard Miller (LL) - 1 sf rental/3 bdrm ~12,000 sq. ft. 505 Lucas Street Carolyn & David Wagner (LL) - I sf rental/mr bdrm ~6,4mr0 sq. ft. 509 Lucas Street Lois &James Friday (OO) ~6,440 sq. ft. 511 Lucas Street Mike Homewood (LL) - I sf rental/a, bdrm ~6,aA0 sq. ft. ~51't Lucas Street Robert Uhlen (LL) - 12 dull2 bdrm ~12,000 sq. ft. 526 Lucas Street D&M Properties (LL)- 1 sr rental/3 bdrm ~6,000 sq. ft. 517 Lucas Street Jeff & Susan Miller (LL) - 1 sf rental/a, bdrm ~6,aA0 sq. ft. 518 Lucas Street Roslyn Frank (LL) -6 rooming units ~6,000 sq. ft. 521 Lucas Street Jeff & Susan Miller (LL) - I sf rental/mr bdrm ~8,050 sq. ft. 522 Lucas Street Forrest & Perry Dean (LL) - not rental, 2 related residents ~6,000 sq. 1~. 523 Lucas Street Elizabeth Ockenfels (LL) - duplex/3 bdrm [main floor- 2 bdrm, basement- I bdrm ~6,440 sq. ft. 525 Lucas Street Margaret Ruddy (OO) ~6,440 sq. ft. H28 Lucas Street Mar/on lacobs (LL) - duplex/5 bdrm [basement- l bdrm, upper 3 floors - ,t bdrm] ~6, 000 sq. ft. 529 Lucas Street Duane & Katherine Papke (LL) - 1 sf rental/mr bdrm ~6,6mr0 sq. ft. 533 Lucas Street Janet Norin (OO) ~6,mr40 sq. ft. 534 Lucas Street Gary Hughes (LL) - demolished,' 4 du under construction ~12,600 sq. ft. 537 Lucas Street Mark Norton (OO) - I sf rental/3 bdrm ~6,440 sq. ft. 609 Lucas Street Mark &. Kathryn Collins (LL) - i sf rental/mr bdrm 703 Bowery Street Clara Swan (OO) ~725 Bowery Street Timothy & Willa Dickens (now Jim Alberhasky) (LL) - 3 du in sf house; 6 du/8 bdrm [rear bldg: 2 2-bdrm, 4 1-bdrm] ~15,400 sq. ft. 728 Bow ery Street Hillcrest Family Services (LL) - 2 du & 4 rooming units/8 bdrm ~4,320 sq. ft. 730 Bo~very Street Michael & Kelly McLaughlin (LL) - 1 sf rental/3 bdrm ~4,320 sq. ft. 6 731 Bowery Street Michael & Polly Haight (LL) - 3 du/2 l-bdrm, 12-bdrm ,,,11,800 sq. ft. ~732 Bowery Street Gary Hughes (LL) - 1 sf rental/4 bdrm ~4,320 sq. ft. 801 - 803 Bowery Street Dawn Neppal (LL) - 3 du/2 1-bdrm, I 2-bdrm *805 Bowery Street Dawn Neppel (LL) -- 1 sf rental/4 bdrm; these properties are connected ~11,033 sq. ft. 802 Bow ery Street Mark Reinroe (LL) - 1 sf rental/4 bdrm ~5,200 sq. ft. 806 Bower}, Street Brenda Chr/stner & Will/am Buckles (00) ~5,500 sq. ft. 814 Bow ery Street Madode O~onnell (00) - 4 du/4 bdrm ~4, 400 sq. ft. ~815 Bowery Street Martin & Mary Gaffey (LL) - 6 du/2 bdrm each --7,363 sq. ft. City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: March 16,2000 To: City Council From: Karin Franklin, Director, PC Re: Setting Public hearings for Rezonings on Govemor and Lucas streets On the Council's formal agenda are two items that set public hearings for April 18 on rezoning issues currently before the Planning & Zoning Commission. The rezonings requested are for a change from RM-12 to RS-8 on Governor Street between Burlington and Bowery and for a change from RM-12 to RNC-12 on Lucas Street between Burlington and Bowery. These are rezonings initiated by residents of the area. Setting the public hearing on a rezoning institutes a 60-day moratorium during which no building permit or change of use permit may be issued which does not comply with the proposed zone change. This is to allow a pedod of time for the Commission and the Council to deliberate on the question of the proper zoning without the threat of changes which would run counter to the intent of the proposed rezoning. A letter from the rezoning applicants is in your packet requesting the setting of the public hearing at this time. Although typically a public hearing is set after the Planning & Zoning Commission makes its recommendation, there have been cases when the Council has set the public hearing eady to ensure there are not significant changes made in the area in question before a decision on the zoning question is reached. To date we have received four requests to make changes to properties in this area that would increase the intensity of use of the properties. Cc City Manager Jeff Davidson Bob Miklo March 15, 2000 Dear City Council Members, RE: Request for City Council to set a public hearing on REZO0-O007 for April 18, 2000 Residents of the Longfellow Neighborhood along with the support of our Neighborhood Association have recently requested a rezoning of property in the Governor Street, Lucas Street and Bowery Street area that is currently zoned RM-12 to RS-8 and RNC-12. The intention of this request is to preserve the character and historical integrity of this neighborhood for owner-occupied residences as well as rental units. We desire to maintain this mix of uses, the affordable housing stock close to downtown and the diverse population of the neighborhood as it is. We are concerned about a recent escalation in requests for construction permits and usage changes in the area while this discussion is underway. This push by absentee landlords for increases in density in rental units during the time the rezoning request is being considered underscores the need for the rezoning, and may undermine the integrity of the neighborhood before the rezoning can be fully considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. For this reason, we would like to request that the City Council set a public hearing for this rezoning request for its meeting of April 18, 2000. This will initiate a moratorium on conversions or changes in the levels of density for properties in this area while this issue is under discussion. It is our desire to work together to find balance and maintain the character that makes this neighborhood such a desirable place to live. Thank you for your time and consideration. Ann Freerks City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: March 20, 2000 To: City Council From: Planning & Zoning Commission Re: REZ00-0007. Governor/Lucas/Bowery Rezoning Recommendation to Council: At its March 16 meeting, by a vote of 6-0, the Commission recommended that the City Council establish a public hearing on REZ00-0007, so that the Commission can have time to devote proper attention and hear adequate input from both sides on this issue. The Commission feels concerned that conversions of properties in the area to higher densities not be allowed while this issue is under discussion, and asks that a moratorium be established so the rezoning application can be considered in a timely manner without undue pressure of redevelopment occurring in the interim. Dear Planning and Zoning Commission of Iowa City, I am writing this letter to ask you to waive the forty-five day limitation period from the filing date for the requested rezoning of a portion of Governor, Lucas, and Bowery streets: item EXC00-0007. There has been a great deal of careful thought put into this matter so far and we would like you to have ample time to give it full consideration. ~-- ~:/b~ ,i, ~'~~, Ann Freerks applicant for requested rezoning 443 South Governor Street · · The following materials regarding this item were submilled by neighboring property owners or other interested persons. · Melody Rockwell From: Tammy Parks Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 4:10 PM To: Melody Rockwell Subject: FW: Lucas Street Rezoning Issue ..... Original Message ..... From: Margaret Ruddy [mailto:margaret-ruddy@uiowa.edu] Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 3:20 PM To: Planning_mail@iowa-city.org Subject: Lucas Street Rezoning Issue Margaret Ruddy 525 South Lucas Iowa City, IA 52240 March 8, 2000 I have lived at 525 South Lucas for over 20 years. I purchased my home 15+ years ago after renting for 5. The first time I drove down the 300-500 block of South Lucas I knew this was where I wanted to make my home. It's a quiet neighborhood, close to downtown and the university with little or no traffic, unique houses and the most amazing trees I'd ever seen. For the past 20 years I've watched as the houses on the block were sold as tenant properties, rented out, got a little ragged and then sold again when depreciation was depleted. Usually these next buyers were young, first time home buyers looking for an affordable fixer-upper. After about 5 years of living in and renovating the house they'd put the house up for sale & it would again be purchased as a tenant property. And the cycle would begin anew. The houses on this block are older, built with 'real' building materials and can hold up under this cycle. Across the street from my home, I believe the address is 530 South Lucas, is the large 4-plex apartment complex currently under construction. I watched as the house was demolished and hauled away. Next, all the trees on the property but one, near the curb, were cut down to accommodate this large, square, box-like structure. If this is the pattern to come, Lucas Street will have lost all its charm. There is a trend in most US communities to rebuild neighborhoods by renovating and improving 'existing' housing. Many television programs reflect this growing process. Dream House follows homeowners as they go through the process of renovating and improving their houses. Similar programs, This Old House and Home Again have aired for decades. Is Iowa City the land of plenty where we can waste resources as houses are torn down and the building materials hauled to landfills? I hope the Planning & Zoning Commission will support the request for the RNC12 rezoning from those of us who have made the South Lucas neighborhood our home rather than side with those looking to make a fast buck. Margaret Ruddy March 2, 2000 City of Iowa City Planning and Community Development Department 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Atm: Melody Rockwell Dear Ms. Rockwell: I am writing this letter m support of the requested zoning changes in the Longfellow Neighborhood to be discussed at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting on March 16. I support the request to rezone Governor Street and a small portion of Bowery Street from the current RM-12 to RS-8. For Lucas Street and the connecting portions of Bowery Street, the request is to change the zoning from RM-12 to RNC- 12. These changes are needed to preserve the historical integrity and character of the Longfellow Neighborhood. We love the history and variety in this neighborhood. The proposed zoning changes are needed to maintain the healthy mix of single and multi-family houses, which create the diverse and rich population of this area. We see rapid changes occurring in the neighborhood with the demolition of older homes and development of new apartment buildings. We would like to keep the historical integrity of this gracious old neighborhood for owner-occupied housing as well as rental property which preserves the natural character of the area. A positive trend in parts of the neighborhood is that people are purchasing and rehabilitating houses. The proposed zoning change would stabilize and enhance the value of property, protect the neighborhood by reducing the pressure for new construction in an area with many historical buildings and correct the ~oning classification to better reflect the current and historical development. These positive results of the zoning change would encourage the continuation of the rehab and historical preservation trend and save the area for future generations to enjoy. A 1998 Survey and Evaluation of the Longfellow Neighborhood for the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission recommended that these portions of Governor and Bowery be designated as a conservation district. An earlier survey noted that Lucas from Burlington to Bowery could be considered for National Register nomination. Residents in the area are currently pursuing conservation options and the proposed zoning change would compliment and strengthen these efforts. It is impossible to place a value on the beauty, warmth, history, and diversity of the Longfellow Neighborhood. The lovely tree-lined streets, the Summit Street bridge, the sight of children walking to Longfellow School as they have for generations and the presence neighbors who grew up and still reside here more than 50 years later, all contribute to a unique feeling of community which is becoming increasingly rare. I hope you will consider seriously the requested zoning changes to help maintain the special character of our neighborhood. Fhank you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely, / Sarah M. Richardson 519 South Summit Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Melody Rockwell From: Virginia Blair [gblair@avalon.net] Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 10:35 PM To: melody_rockwell@iowa-city.org Subject: Downzone, please Dear Commission and Council Members, I live on South Governor Street and am writing in support of the move to downzone. I was at the neighborhood meeting where it was decided to support the application with funds from the neighborhood treasury. The general feeling at that meeting was that this is an issue that will have broad support from neighbors whether they live on Governor or Summit, Bowcry or Court. I am also the contact person for the Longfellow Newsletter and can truthfully say that since the zoning application was announced in the newsletter, I have not heard a single complaint from a neighbor. I have heard from the opposition, but I don't consider them neighbors. People who compute "property value" based on resale to developers or on rental of maximum bedroom units are not using the same definition of "property value" that I use. People who buy property and then tear down the existing housing stock cannot convince me that they have my best interests at heart. Please listen to those of us who live here and want to stay here. Let us maintain and rehabilitate the wonderful variety of housing that already exists. It will never be duplicated. It has great value already; as affordable housing with interesting architectural styles and yard and garden space. Please don't calculate property value according to the standards of developers and (some) absentee landlords. Thank you, Ginny Blair 1011 Sheridan Ave.. Iowa City, Iowa 52240 February 17, 2000 To the Planning and Zoning Commission of Iowa City and City Staff: The Longfellow Neighborhood Association met Sunday, February 6, 2000 with 12 members present. The desire to submit an application for rezoning of Governor, Lucas and portions of Bowery street was presented by area residents. Members of the association voiced strong support of the application and voted unanimously to establish a four hundred-dollar Longfellow Defense Fund. This money will be available to neighborhood residents dealing with rezoning and other issues considered to be threats to the integrity of the neighborhood. With two members abstaining, the remaining 10 voted unanimously to provide the money necessary to submit the application request for down- zoning of the Governor, Lucas and portions of Bowery Street area. The association's annual meeting will be held March 1 st. Representatives from the city will be available to explain the rezoning process and answer questions. A letter has been sent to all property owners in the affected neighborhood as notification of the meeting and application process. Respectfully, Jody Gunn LNA Secretary TO: The Planning and Zoning commission of Iowa City Civic Center 410 E. Washington Ave. Iowa City, IA 52240 Regarding: The rezoning of a portion of RM-12 along Governor, Lucas and Bowery streets between Burlington and Bowcry (excluding properties facing Burlington). I have lived in my home at '/5"~Lg' ~. ~OV'~'~OC (address) For approximately ~'~ years. I would like to see the current zoning changed to protect its prevailing character of single houses and duplexes. (RNC-12, Single Family Neighborhood Conservation Zone for Lucas and adjacent portions of Bowery, RS-8, for Governor and adjacent portions of Bowery). I would like to keep the current zoning the way it is; it allows multiple unit apartment buildings to be built. (RM-12 Multi-family zoning). Signature Date ' Ik 0 In the space below I would like to add some additional comments: FRIENDS OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION P.O. Box 2001, Iowa City, Iowa 52244 5 March 2000 I :::' Planning and Zoning Commission 410 E. Washington Iowa City, IA 52245 Dear Commissioners: The Board of Friends of Historic Preservation would like to encourage you to support the rezoning efforts of the Longfellow Neighborhood Association. The part of the neighborhood that they would like to see rezoned is very fragile. The current zoning is putting many of the wonderful old homes that help make this neighborhood special and interesting in danger. As preservationists, we value these houses and what they contribute not only to that neighborhood but to the community as a whole. We also value the flexibility of houses. They can be rented to a group of students or to a family, they can be owner occupied with rooms rented out, they can be duplexed, or they can be purchased by a person or family and lived in as a single family home. If the City truly wants this to be a diverse neighborhood, it needs to exerdse care that the balance necessary for diversity continues to exist. Based on past history, if a house is tom town and replaced with an apartment building, the diversity possibilities that existed with a house are greatly diminished. We realize that some landlords buy properties not because they like the houses, but because they like the development potential of the land under the houses. We do not believe that the people who live in and care deeply about their homes, neighborhood, and school should be given less consideration than developers whose only investment in the neighborhood is financial. For the folks who live there, the investment is not only financial but emotional as well. They are fighting to preserve their houses, their neighborhood, and the diversity of the neighborhood to include non-students as well as students. We urge you to support these dtizens and residents and to help them in their fight. Sincerely, Paula Brandt President, FHP 534 Clark St Iowa City, IA 52240 March 5, 2000 City Planning Staff City of Iowa City Planning and Community Development Dept. 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 To the members of the City Planning Staff: We are writing to voice our support of the proposed rezoning of Governor, Bowcry, and Lucas Streets. We have experienced first-hand what happens when a diverse neighborhood of families, retirees, and students living in older homes changes to one dominated by apartment buildings and the transient population who lives in them. From 1977 to 1988 we owned a duplex in the 900 block of East Washington Street. We watched as old homes were tom down and replaced by multi-unit apartments, completely changing the character of our neighborhood. We were awakened nearly every weekend night by shouted obscenities and fights in our yard. Beer cans and trash littered the lawn in the morning. Although we left Iowa City when we graduated from the University in 1988, we would have moved had we stayed in town--we were concerned that the environment was not particularly safe, or savory, for our two young daughters. We returned to Iowa City in 1991 and last year sold our new home on Iowa City's north side in order to remodel an older, "handyman special" in the Longfellow neighborhood. We've been very pleased with our decision to move back to a place where neighbors chat with one another as they walk by and people take pride in the diversity of the homes and their residents. We know we're not alone in these feelings--because of its desirability, finding a home in the Longfellow neighborhoed wasn't easy. We have lived in and visited numerous other cities in the U.S. where neighborhoods with old homes are protected, valued, and considered a community asset. We've seen the effects of multi-unit complexes on neighborhoods, and we hope that the planning council understands that by supporting the proposed rezoning they are protecting the kind of neighborhood that is in demand, and disappearing, in Iowa City. We have no doubt that other long-term residents would buy and remodel homes in the neighborhood if they felt confident that the view out their back windows wouldn't become one of parking lots and trash blowing through their shrubs. We encourage your support of the zoning changes of Governor, Bowcry, and Lucas Streets. SinCerely: . . / ;~c~9C~ History of South Governor St.: Berryhill 2nd Addition: The original farm house for the Berryhill family was built at 520 S. Governor. Date of occupancy 1861 (information from abstract when Rodney Shutts owned property). The second house was built at 510 S. Governor St. and was the exact reverse of the original house. Date of occupancy 1865 (records from abstract and City Directory) The original occupants of the house at 510 was the Bernard Gosberg Family. Two other houses of similar design area also located here but I have no information on them. The Sheets and Gesberg Construction Company was one of the largest construction companies of the time. This company was started in the late 1850's. They built many of the fine buildings in Iowa City during their time. Some that are still in existence are the Alpha Phi Sorority, Trinity Episcopal Church, St. Patrick's Catholic Church, Samuel Kirkwood house at I 110 Kirkwood, the McCollister-Showers house on Sand Road, several houses on Summit St, and some of the U of I buildings on the Pentacrest. They also started a planing mill and sash and door factory that was in business for 70 years. They built curved stairways, china closets, and special floors. All building work that called for skilled craxtsmanship was done at this mill. Very little construction happened during the 1860's in Iowa City. At least three houses on Governor were built during the Civil War. The houses at 510 & 520 have yellow pine woodwork inside, which was very hard to get during the Civil War. Most of the yellow pine came from Mississippi. Camp Pope was also located in this area. It was a Civil War Training Camp that was established in 1860. It extended from Oakland to Governor St. One of the oldest houses in Iowa City is at 332 S. Governor Street. It was built some time during the 1840-50's. More construction occurred from the mid- 1870' s through 1930. Most of this area was constructed prior to the 1930's. History of So. Lucas St. Lucas St. was named for Gov. Lucas. The road lead to the dirt road known as Kirkwood and the Gov. Lucas home. At one time a bridge existed over the railroad tracks and the street was a dirt road that traveled through what was called "The Woods". "The Woods" was a small forest. The bridge collapsed in 1902 when a head of about 25 cattle tried to cross it. Most of the building occurred from 1920-30's. TO: The Planning and Zoning commission of Iowa City Civic Center 410 E. Washington Ave. Iowa City, IA 52240 Regarding: The rezoning of a portion of RM-12 along Governor, Lucas and Bowcry streets between Burlington and Bowery (excluding properties facing Burlington). I have lived in my home at ] 2.L 2- O 5 Re r ~'c~ ~LF} (address) For approximately ] t~ o,gP~ .~e~tr~'. I would like to see the current zoning changed to protect its prevailing character of single houses and duplexes. (RNC- 12, Single Family Neighborhood Conservation Zone for Lucas and adjacent portions of Bowery, RS-8, for Governor and adjacent portions of Bowery). I would like to keep the current zoning the way it is; it allows multiple unit apartment buildings to be built. (RM-12 Multi-family zoning). Signature Date In the space below I would like to add some additional comments: ,d/t~ ,~.,nl 7 y~.,~ 4~ ,~ re,~,- ,7~ ~//~ TO: The Planning and Zoning commission of Iowa City Civic Center 410 E. Washington Ave. Iowa City, IA 52240 Regarding: The rezoning of a portion of RM-12 along Governor, Lucas and Bowcry streets between Burlington and Bowcry (excluding properties facing Burlington). I have lived in my home at "[3} 5 , (bOY'PC he C (address) For approximately ,,,9 7 years. I would like to see the current zoning changed to protect its prevailing character of single houses and duplexes. (RNC- 12, Single Family Neighborhood Conservation Zone for Lucas and adjacent portions of Bowery, RS-8, for Governor and adjacent portions of Bowery). I would like to keep the current zoning the way it is; it allows multiple unit apartment buildings to be built. (RM-12 Multi-family zoning). Signature 'f7/~ '/{9~d,{ Date ,,2,/,..21/,,9,DOt9 In the space below I would like to add some additional comments: ~ ~c~ ~ c~~ ,~ 2o~,'~ ,'~ ~ ,'~1 ~ ~,'~ ~,,~ TO: The Planning and Zoning commission of Iowa City Civic Center 410 E. Washington Ave. Iowa City, IA 52240 Regarding: The rezoning of a portion of RM-12 along Governor, Lucas and Bowcry streets between Burlington and Bowcry (excluding properties facing Burlington). For approximately c:~-3 years. I would like to see the current zoning changed to protect its prevailing character of single houses and duplexes. (RNC-12, Single Family Neighborhood Conservation Zone for Lucas and adjacent portions of Bowery, RS-8, for Governor and adjacent portions of Bowery). I would like to keep the current zoning the way it is; it allows multiple unit apartment buildings to be built. (RM-12 Multi-family zoning). Date ~jO'/OO In the space below I would like to add some additional comments: yag6 1 oI 1 Melody Rockwell From: Earlene Giglierano [earlene@zeus.ia.net] Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2000 3:31 PM To: melody_rockwell@iowa-city.org Subject: rezoning of Governoer, Bowery, and Lucas I strongly support the rezoning of Governor, Bowery, and Lucas Streets. In fact, I wish that it went even further to include Dodge Street. There are many beautiful older homes in this area that should be protected from absentee landlords who have no interest in the historic integrity of the neighborhoods. They buy up the homes and often tear*them down and build big ugly apartment buildings in their place. I think it is time to stop the raping of our older neighborhoods. As long as the older homes remain, there is a chance that the neighborhoods can recover. But each time we allow developers to build big apartment buildings that stand out like visual sore thumbs, simply to line their pockets with money, we lose a part of our history and a part of what makes Iowa City special. In the 12 years that I have lived in this area, I have watched with sadness as home after home is gobbled up by greedy landlords. They often pack illegal numbers of students into the houses. The litter, noise, and traffic in the neighborhood has increased dramatically. Where are these same landlords when it's time to pick up the trash or to quiet down out-of-control parties at 3 in the morning. It's time to say "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!" Protect our neighborhoods from further destruction. Sincerely, Earlene Giglierano 438 S. Dodge St. 3/6/2000 From: Ruth M Switzer [ersv~t@juno.com] Sent: Friday, March 03, 2000 4:27 PM ITo: scott_kugler@iowa-city,org Subject: Rezoning to RNG-12 646 S. Lucas St. Iowa City, la. 52240 March 3, 2000 Mr. Scott Kugler Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission Mr. Kugler, We ask you to seriously consider extending the RNC-12 rezoning to include the 600 block of South Lucas St.. Various homes have already been demolished and replaced with an apartment and "duplexes" of assorted sizes. We realize some of the previous properties were not in the best of repair, and do not quibble about this. You are surely aware, however, of the numerous police cells for the area on summer, football and basketball weekend. While the parties for the most part are not objectionable, the extreme disregard for others in the neighborhood does .get out of hand. The parking problem is definitely a PROBLEM. Residents on Dodge Street, residents of fraternities, sports fans, and residents of the 500 block of Lucas feel free to park their cars whenever and wherever they choose. A very important factor is that 646 if our home since 1958. It has been on the tax rolls since 1870. The home is in excellent condition. Due to the wind and hail damage we reroofed, from metal to shingles, in 1998, and in 1999 we had our aluminum siding painted (because the roofers skinned it up). We keep the yard picked up and mowed, plant roses and other flowers along with some bushes and an oak tree, shovel the snow, and generally take pride in the appearance of our home. Our neighbors to the south and north are owner occupied, and they have also invested heavily in the appearance of their residences--and they are good neighbors. The home East of us on Governor, is in the process of remodeling (he has done wonders over there!), and the other homes across the way are all kept up. We are a GOOD NEIGHBORHOOD, black, white and foreign citizens together. We do not have a reputation for crime, the old and the young visit or at least say hello, and it is pleasant. We do not need the "ghetto" feeling in this area--and the group led by Mr. Hughes would tend to contribute to such an atmosphere. Changing our neighborhood to RNC-12 would go a very long way in perpetuating the good feeling residents used to have about Iowa City. We cannot attend group meetings as Evert does not hear in such situations, and my ears miss a good deal, hence, this letter. Thank you for considering our views and hopes. Evert E. Switzer Ruth M. Switzer March 7, 2000 City of Iowa City Planning and community Development Department 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Ms. Rockwell: I am writing this letter in support of the requested zoning changes in the Longfellow Neighborhood to be discussed at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting on March 16. I support the request to rezone Governor Street and a small portion of Bowery Street from the current R1VI-12 to RS-8. For Lucas Street and the connecting portions of Bowery Street, the request is to change the zoning from RM-12 to RNC-12. These changes are needed to preserve the historical integrity and character of the Longfellow neighborhood. We love the history, and variety in this neighborhood. The proposed zoning changes are needed to maintain the healthy mix of single and multi-family houses, which create the diverse and rich population of this area. We see rapid changes oceurring in the neighborhood with the demolition of older homes and development of new apartment buildings. We would like to keep the historical integrity of this gracious old neighborhood for owner-occupied housing as well as rental property, which preserves the natural character of the area. A positive trend in parts of the neighborhood is that people are purchasing and rehabilitating houses. The proposed zoning change would stabilize and enhance the value of property, protect the neighborhood by reducing the pressure for new construction in an area with many historical buildings and correct the zoning classification to better reflect the current and historical development. These positive results of the zoning change would encourage the continuation of the rehab and historical preservation trend and save the area for future generations to enjoy. A 1998 Survey and Evaluation of the Longfellow Neighborhood for the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission recommended that these portions of Governor and Bowery be designated as a conservation district. An earlier survey noted that Lucas from Burlington to Bowery be could be considered for National Register nomination. Residents in the area are currently pursuing these conservation options and the proposed zoning change would compliment and strengthen these efforts. It is impossible to place a value on the beauty, warmth, history, and diversity of the Longfellow Neighborhood. The lovely tree-lined streets, the Summit Street bridge, the sight of children walking to Longfellow School as they have for generations and the presence neighbors who grew up and still reside here more than 50 years later, all contribute to a unique feeling of community which is becoming increasingly rare. I hope you will consider seriously the requested zoning changes to help maintain the special character of our neighborhood. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely, Richard & Mara Burke 1173 E Court Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Phone: 341-8346 (Formerly of 530 South Governor Street) TO: The Planning and Zoning Commission of Iowa City Civic Center 410 E. Washington Ave. Iowa City, IA 52240 Regarding: The rezoning of a portion of RM-12 along Governor, Lucas and Bowery streets between Burlington and Bowery (excluding properties facing Burlington). WE, THE RESIDENTS OF AND NEIGHBORS TO THIS DISTRICT WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE CURRENT ZONING OF THESE AREAS TO PROTECT ITS PREVAILING CHARACTER OF SINGLE HOUSES AND DUPLEXES (RNC-12, Single Family Neighborhood Conservation Zone from RM-12 Multi-family for Lucas and portions of Bowery; RS-8, Residential Single-family 8 units/acre for Governor and potions of Bowery). See the attached map for exact locations. Name Address Years at this address .' cevo- g.a ,Tb,:b d/nvefl-e TO: The Planning and Zoning commission of Iowa City Civic Center 410 E. Washington Ave. Iowa City, IA 52240 Regarding: The rezoning of a portion of RM-12 along Governor, Lucas and Bowery streets between Burlington and Bowcry (excluding properties facing Burlington)~ I have lived in my home at 9fl Y d ~ (address) For approximately 3{,, years. V/ I would like to see the current zoning changed to protect its prevailing character of single houses and duplexes. (RNC-12, Single Family Neighborhood Conservation Zone for Lucas and adjacent portions of Bowery, RSo8, for Governor and adjacent portions of Bowery). I would like to keep the current zoning the way it is; it allows multiple unit apartment buildings to be built. (RM-12 Multi-family zoning). Signature .(~,~_~f_.L~e,_; Date ,~--,~q-aq,~c In the space below I would like to add some additional comments: Melody Rockwell From: Don Hemphill [dhemphill@randolphinc.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 2:47 PM To: melody_rockwell@iowa-city.org; "HemphillD"@morphy.ssi.net Subject: support message from L. Greb Dear Planning & Zoning Commission; I would like to express my support to you for the proposal regarding the rezoning of the Lucas and Governor Street areas from RM12 to R58 and for the proposal regarding the rezoning of the Lucas Street area to RNC12. I want to support the integrity of these residential neighborhoods and preserve to individual houses. I support the multi-family design standards being proposed by the apartment INFILL committee. I am a native Iowa Citian who grew up on Summit Street and I spend a significant amount of time in these neighborhoods. I believe they are an invaluable asset to our community and would like to see them protected. Sincerely, L. Greb phone: 309/339-0113 Melody Rockwell From: Jennifer Glass [jennifer-glass@uiowa.edu] Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2000 12:52 PM To: melody_rockwell@iowa-city.org Subject: downzoning Governor, Lucas, Bowery Ms. Rockwell- I'm contacting you to let you know of my strongest support for the downzoning of Governor, Lucas, and Bowery Streets in the Longfellow neighborhood. I am a resident of 1133 E. Court St. and have slowly watched the erosion of historical homes into "motel" type apartment buildings. I have seen no evidence that a housing shortage for college students prompts these conversions. Indeed, I remember reading of the City Council's plan to concentrate new high density developments for students in the area south of downtown which is desperately in need of rehabilitation. And I have watched the opening of several such buildings, and land cleared for several more. Students are not the only ones with affordable housing needs close to downtown. Many city and university employees with families also would like to live closer to their workplaces. I have been very impressed with the money and sweat equity going in to Governor and Bowery from owner-occupants who want affordable housing in a real neighborhood close to schools and work. Longfellow Elementary needs these families to remain a viable neighborhood school, and the neighborhood needs these families to retain the investment of its residents in the care and preservation of this historical neighborhood and its facilities. Please help the near east side and North side retain our neighborhood integrity, and say no to those who want to make as much profit as they can as absentee landlords. Thank you. Jennifer Glass Jennifer Glass, Ph.D. Professor and Chair Department of Sociology University of Iowa W140 Seashore Hall Iowa City, IA 52242 office:319-335-3745 fax: 319-335-2509 Ellen Lewin and Mary L. Goodman 505 Clark Street lowa City, IA 52240 7 March, 2000 City of Iowa City Planning and Community Development Department 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Attn: Melody Rockwell To Whom It May Concern: As residents of the Longfellow neighborhood, we wish to express our strong support for the proposal to rezone Governor Street and portions of Bowery Street from RM-12 to RS-8 and to change zoning on Lucas Street and adjoining portions of Bowery Street from RM-12 to RNC-12. These changes are vital as the neighborhood faces the threat of development that will permanently change its character from a varied residential area into an unrecognizable maze of apartment houses. Longfellow is an area that has considerable historical significance, and it is essential that efforts be undertaken to preserve its unique architectural heritage. The rezoning proposal will enable buildings now used for multiple occupancy to continue to do so, while also encouraging a trend toward the purchase and rehabilitation of older homes. The pressure for high-density new construction would be reduced, and property values would stabilize or increase. Sincerely, Ellen Lewin Mary Lizabeth Goodman Melody Rockwell From: Bebout, Kevin [kevin-bebout@uiowa.edu] Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 1:07 PM To: 'melody_rockwell@iowa-city.org' Subject: REZONING OF GOVERNOR, LUCAS AND BOWERY STREETS Ms. Rockwell: This message is in support of the proposal to rezone residential areas of Governor, Lucas, and Bowery Streets in and near the Longfellow Neighborhood to reduce or better control density in this area. I do not support the ongoing goal of developers to "pave over" the older neighborhoods of Iowa City to create additional "Mansard Monster" apartment complexes where 6 to 12 University students can live in single units (often like farm animals). While the surrounding neighborhood suffers, the landlords who own such properties make big bucks. This isn't my idea of progress, preservation, or common sense. Kevin Bebout 409 Oakland Avenue Iowa City, IA 52240 February 23, 2000 Ms. Melody Rockwell City of Iowa City Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Ms. Rockwell, We are writing to you concerning the zoning discussion for the neighborhood that affects our home at 426 South Governor Street. If there is any message we want to clearly convey in this letter, it is that we take great pride in our home, neighborhood, and in our community. With this said, we wholeheartedly support the rezoning of this area to RS8. There are many reasons for which we feel this rezoning is a good idea. Most importantly, we feel it will help get a hold on the rental property neglect that has been a problem in this area. Many rental properties on our street, including the one directly next to us, have not been responsibly maintained by their respective owners. We can offer several examples of rental property neglect. For example, Greg Allen, who owns the house next door at 428 South Governor has always been a friendly, however, we feel he has neglected some of his responsibilities as a homeowner and a landlord. To begin with, the house currently seems to have six tenants. As nice as they are, and we like them very much, we suspect that this is not legal because the tenants themselves have mentioned the overcrowding to us. It's difficult to believe that the landlord hasn't noticed, since the answering machine for their only phone number lists six names on the message. His property needs upkeep, most notably, a large tree fell during the summer of 1998 and a portion continues to dangle precariously. Another example is when we reported to him that a fish-tank, broken into dangerous shards of glass was sitting on the edge of his property that borders the alley. He showed no concern for the safety of my child or the children who play in the alley. To our knowledge, it is still there. He once told us about his thoughts of turning the front yard of this house into a parking lot. We will never forget that because you can imagine how we felt after having spent both significant time and money landscaping our front yard. We understand that such an action is not permitted, however the idea demonstrates Allen's attitude towards this neighborhood, namely a lack of respect for those homeowners and families who reside in the area under review for rezoning. We can elaborate on other examples but we think the important message here is that he does the very minimum to upkeep his property, and that his only interest in the neighborhood is the degree to which it provides him with a positive cash flow. In fact the letter that he sent around the neighborhood regarding the proposed rezoning only discusses his opinions on the monetary implications of the proposed rezoning. With the zoning as it curren~y stands, owners of rental properties will be able to continue to have total disregard for the issues that are also important to the residents of our neighborhood, such as historical integrity, the pride that comes ~'om single family homes, and the simple idea of preserving a neighborhood and community so that it is a desirable place to live. Lastly, we would like to take a moment to give credit to Ann Freerks who is this year's President of the Longfellow Neighborhood Association. Her effort to educate the neighborhood on this opportunity of rezoning reflects the care and commitment we are looking to preserve. We simply refuse to allow rental property owners the opportunity to continue to add low quality, poo~y maintained rental units to our neighborhood. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or concerns at 466-0471. Thank you for taking the time to read these thoughts. Sincerely, /Sh/ane C. Campbell and Julie N.~bell ~ Lorraine & Bob Bowans 510 S. Governor St. Iowa City, Ia. 52240 Dear Melody Rockwell, We are in favor of the re-zoning of Governor and Lucas St. We have lived in our home on Governor St. for 13 years. We have done some historical research of this area. Some of the homes in this area were built by the Sheetz and Gosberg Construction Company during the mid to late 1800's. This was one of the top construction companies of the time. They built many university buildings, Trinity Episcopal Church, Mary Coldten Home, and the Alpha Phi Sorority. The historical AME Church is also on Governor St. In a survey prepared for the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission in 1998 this portion of Governor St. was recommended to become a Conservation District. We are currently working with the Commission to do this. Lucas St. was the main street leading to Governor Lucas home. This street is on the original land grant given to the Switzer family. Lucas St. was mainly developed during the early 1900's with the architectural styles of four square, craftsman, and Dutch colonial. An earlier survey recommends researching Lucas St. for a National Registry nomination. We have included this in our Conservation District because the area is a high rental area and would have fewer restrictions than a Historic District. We like the blended atmosphere of single family, and smaller rental properties. The neighborhood is a wonderful blend of elderly, young families, students, foreign residents, varied incomes, and life styles. There is a need in Iowa City for rental property that is an alternative to newer large- scale apartment buildings. Many of the renters in our area are long term tenters. Almost all of the tenters in the area are quiet and respectful, which we feel is due to the family atmosphere. We have 2 elementary school age children that attend Longfellow School and are concerned about safety issues should more development occur. Increased traffic, the loss of a safe feeling by being surrounded with larger buildings and more transient neighbors, and less green space are some of the issues of concern. We are also concerned about the future enrollment of our neighborhood school. Many families in the area have young children who will be attending the school. The closing of Henry Sabin School on S. Dubuque St. shows that as large scale apartment complexes move in, enrollment in the elementary schools decreases. Longfellow School is the heart of our neighborhood. I would like to end by saying that I think the City needs to think about having some ordinances on being able to demolish buildings in established residential neighborhoods. PLEASE PASS THE INFILL GUIDE LINESf![!f!f!!!!!!f!f!!!!fTHANK YOU 825 S. 7th Ave. Iowa City, Ia 52240 February 25, 2000 Melody Rockwell Planning Office Civic Center 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, Ia 52240 Dear Ms. Rockwell: We are in support of changing the zoning to RS8 on Lucas and Governor Streets between Burlington and Bowery Streets. We think it is important to preserve the neighborhood character of this area. There are many older homes there that provide affordable housing for families. Rezoning would maintain this area and prevent the eastward spread of apartment building. To allow builders to change Lucas and Governor Streets to another Johnson St. is unacceptable to US. Many additional apartments are now being built in the downtown area. We support the construction of attractive and appropriately styled buildings there. Thank you. Sincerely, Chuck & Margaret Felling Melody Rockwell From: Steven Warner [stevendw@earthlink.net] Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2000 1:21 PM To: melody_rockwell@iowa-city.org Subject: Rezoning of Governor Street, Lucas Street and Bowry Street This letter is in support of the proposed rezoning of Governor Street and a small portion of Bowery Street from the current RM-12 to RS-8. For Lucas Street and the connecting portions of Bowery Street, I support the proposal of a zoning change from RM12 to RNC12. The purpose of the zoning change is to preserve the character and historical integrity of this neighborhood. This is needed to maintain the healthy mix of single and multi-family use creating a diverse and rich population. I am single, have lived on Clark Street for 26 years. In that time, I have seen neighborhoods destroyed by not taking such action (e.g. the brutal destruction of family dwellings on Johnson street). There is a need to maintain what we have. By not preserving the best of our community, we run the risk of not only devaluing property, but reversing the high quality of life we now have in our historic, family-based neighborhoods. I highly support the proposition to rezone that will be proposed by the Longfellow Neighborhood assocation at the March 16 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Please count my voice in this issue. Steven D Warner 816 Clark Street Iowa City IA 52240 (319)354-1255 steven-warner@uiowa.edu Or stevendw@earthlink.net Melody Rockwell From: george lance [george-lance@uiowa.edu] Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2000 5:06 PM To: melody_rockwell@iowa-city.org Subject: Rezoning request We would like to indicate our strong support for the proposed downzoning in the Governor, Lucas and Bowery street area. This general area has already had what we consider to be too much high density development and further degradation of the original character of the neighborhood should be avoided. This not only represents an attempt to preserve the nature of the area, but also to reverse the trend toward overcrowding that is occurring in many of the older neighborhoods. George & Phyllis Lance 609 S. Summit St. To: Members of flie Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission From: Cecile Kuenzli 705 South Summit Street RE: Proposed down-zoning of Lucas and Governor Streets Date: February 24, 2000 I am writing to express both support and enthusiasm for the effort being made by Anne Freerks and Laraine Bowans to down-zone Governor and Lucas Streets. Both of these areas contain homes of an architectural period and style which are reflective of similar styles in the Longfellow Neighborhood. The homes in these areas contribute to defining the historic character of the Longfellow neighborhood 'As a thirty-year resident of Iowa City, twenty-seven of which have been in the Longfellow Neighborhood and as a past president of the Longfellow Neighborhood Association, I am truly alarmed at the rapidity with which our inner city neighborhoods are decaying and losing their character. Developers are purchasing and demolishing properties with historic significance only to replace them with faceless multiplex rental units thereby eviscerating neighborhoods. The Lucas Street and Governor Street areas must not be allowed to go the way of Johnson Street. Both Lucas and Governor fall within the boundaries of the Longfellow Neighborhood Association. Those streets are lined with houses which would be both attractive and affordable for young families single professionals and or retired people who don't need thousands of square feet to conduct their daily lives and for whom the proximity to downtown businesses and to a neighborhood school are appealing. Frequently neighborhood residents hear from realtors who cannot find enough homes to satisfy the demand to buy in the Longfellow Neighborhood. However, the current zoning classification on these streets renders a home-owner's investment in a property there a precarious one at best. One wonders why, with all the apartment construction that has occurred and is occurring in the areas closer in to the downtown area, why one should sacrifice what could be a stable, viable part of the larger old neighborhood of which they are a part. I urge you to act on this request while there is still something worth saving on Governor and Lucas Streets. cc: City Manager Steve Atkins TO: The Planning and Zoning commission of Iowa City Civic Center 410 E. Washington Ave. Iowa City, IA 52240 Regarding: The rezoning of a portion of RM-12 along Governor, Lucas and Bowcry streets between Burlington and Bowcry (excluding properties facing Burlington). I have lived in my home at --(/O 5 ~9 V[~e°~L/d~_.~ 5'tt- (address) For approximately /3 years. I would like to see the current zoning changed to protect its prevailing character of single houses and duplexes. (RNC-12, Single Family Neighborhood Conservation Zone for Lucas and adjacent portions of Bowend, RS-8, for Governor and adjacent portions of Bowend). I would like to keep the current zoning the way it is; it allows multiple unit apartment buildings to be built. (RM-12 Multi-family zoning). Signature/~~- ~,L ~V c'~tgrddz~9'tT~ Date o~ - / '-/-O C9 In the space below I would like to add some additional comments: TO: The Planning and Zoning commission of Iowa City Civic Center 410 E. Washington Ave. Iowa City, IA 52240 Regarding: The rezoning of a portion of RM-12 along Governo.r, Lucas and Bowcry streets between Burlington and Bowcry (excluding properties facing Burlington). I have lived in my home at ti/?9, I f2o t'~~ ~Z.,~' (address) For approximately ~ years. I would like to see the current zoning changed to protect its prevailing character of single houses and duplexes. (RNC-12, Single Family Neighborhood Conservation Zone for Lucas and adjacent portions of Bowery, RS-8, for Governor and adjacent portions of Bowery). I would like to keep the current zoning the way it is; it allows multiple unit apartment buildings to be built. (RM-12 Multi-family zoning). Signature '~" c'c'~'7: c-~ · Date In the space below I would like to add some additional comments: Att. Resident and/or Property owner -.--. The proposed Rezoning will cause devaluation of property and lack of flexibility for both residents and rental owners. Many people have called the city to check how the zoning changes will affect them. I own houses on Lucas bowery and governor st. and am very familiar with the RM 12 RNC 12 and RS8 zonings. The Resident or landlord will lose value of a property lost equity borrowing power and usage flexibility. Changing zoning from RM 12 to RNC12 will grandfather in all rentals with current rental permits to be used as is. RNC12 However allows only 3 roomers per unit in a duplex instead of the current four. This means if you own a house that could be a duplexe as is or by adding on your rent in RNC 12 would be decreased by about $600 a month. RNC 12 will not allow your house to be converted to a rooming house. Even if you never have plans to sell your residence. a house be worth about $25,000 Less for every bedroom over tlu'ee in the new zoning. This area is currently over 80 % rental so value is mostly determined by income. Effect for current residents. Current Rm 12 Zoning. 4bedroom Rent $1200-1300 Value Est. $110-125,000 5bedroom Rent $1500-1600 Value Est. $140-155,000 3 or 4 bedroom that could be duplexes to 4Br -4Br. $180-200,000 More than 5 add $ 300 Per Br. Value add $20-25, 000 Per bedroom New Rncl2 Zone 4bedroom Rent $ 900-950 Value Est. $ 80-95',, c~e~o Only legal for 3 5bedroom Rent $ 900-1000 Value Est. $ 90-105,000 Only legal for 3 3 or 4 bedroom that could be duplexes to 4Br -4Br. $160-175,000 Only legal for 6 More than 5bed room no extra value. Still only legal for three Renters. This area is mostly rental area. It would be a considerable loss to owners and residents to downzone to residential. In the new zoning about 80% of the existing houses would need to be grandfathered in. RM12 is the correct zoning for this area. Rs8 as proposed on govenor st is down two full zones and is even more restrictions. Rs8 would cause some of the houses on govenor lose huge amounts of their value. To protest this rezoning you must sign the enclosed paper with a notary public. You need to send a protest for each property you own. The required 20% we must meet is done by square ~. if you own more than one lot you should protest for each lot. Each protest sheet covers 2 lots if you need more call me or make copies. You can then return them to me in the envelope included. Time is of the essence as the hearing is March 2. You can fred a notary public at any bank, law office or the city civic center. If you have questions you can call me 545-2001 Hope to hear from you soon. sincerely Greg Allen Re~ ~~ Sue Travis & Andrew Robedson 405 S. Summit Street Iowa City, IA 52240-5631 February 27, 2000 Melody Rockwell, Hanner Iowa City Hanning& Zoning Commission 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Ms. Rockwell, We strongly support the proposed zoning changes for Governor, Lucas, and Bowcry Streets. These zoning changes will help preserve the character of the neighborhood, and will maintain the beauty and desirability of Iowa City. Homes in this area are already beginning to be destroyed and replaced by unsightly apartment buildings that are incongruous with the neighborhood. Although this may generate money for the developers (who do not live in the neighborhood), it damages the property value of those of us who live here, and it make Iowa City a less desirable place to live. The proposed rezoning will allow the neighborhood to be preserved, and it will protect the property value of neighbors such as ourselves. It will facilitate the classification of this area as a conservation district, and encourage preservation and rehabilitation of the homes here. We urge Iowa City to rezone this area. Sincerely yours, Postcard received from Iva M. Bader, 724 Clark Street, Iowa City on February 29, 2000 "Please count me among those supporting the rezoning of Governor Street, Lucas Street and a portion of Bowery. Everything should be done to encourage owners who live in a residence in preference to having those who acquire these properties only for profit. The quality of the neighborhood will suffer if this continues. Incidentally, how could permission have been granted for the building practically in the street on the south side of Burlington? Hideous & too bad." :l:va M. Bader Jennifer ooo Reinhardt ~4~ I am writing to express my support for the rezoning, or rather~down zoning, of Governor Street to RS-8. ~o~ We moved to Iowa City six years ago from State College, PA. My husband had s22~ been hired by the UIHC and we expected that we would be here for two years. We 3m. came out here a few months before our move and were so incredibly disappointed ~5 at the lack of housing rental options. We were expecting our first child and I wanted to be in a "neighborhood" environment as I would be an isolated-stay-at- " home-new-mom. During our week-long visit I cried myself to sleep every night. I just could not believe that in a city with so much community pride and preserva- tionist attitude there was nothing but dorm style apartment buildings in town or student rentals. When we found the house to rent at 5 17 South Governor, it was a e-~i~ dream come true! We found ourselves embraced by the Longfellow community. jbr(~ everest. Long-term neighbors bringing gifts of welcome and help with the baby. The radiolofty. Longfellow Mother's group offered support and saved my sanity. My days were edu made .up of long walks with my new daughter to College Green Park, to the library for story time, and the New Pioneer Coop for groceries. We felt safe, supported and have made cherished long-term friendships with our beloved neighbors. The longfellow neighborhood has such a wonderful supportive, nurturing sense of community. It is a haven for families and shows such marvelous involvement with their garden walks, winter caroling, Mother's network, Longfellow elemen- tary, historic Summit Street, and I'm sure many more offerings. My address is no longer Longfellow neighborhood. When it became apparent three years ago that we were going to be here a while we started house shopping and just couldn't find one for sale in Longfellow. I still keep in touch with my neighbors regularly, we think of them almost as family. I am sending this to you to represent an unbiased voice. I no longer live on Governor street. I do not own property in that area. But I am indebted to that community for four wonderful, happy years of walks and memories of Iowa city with my new little baby. Greed should not be a motivating factor in the decision to save such a valuable resource. We need to be careful, look ahead, and realize that the future of Iowa City is not just in the 18 year old student, but also in the families that want to make a life here. This is scary stuff. Big stuff. Stuff we can't undo tomorrow, if we don't make an effort to save the character and integrity of a neighborhood today. Thank you for your attention. And thank you in advance for helping to rezone Governor Street to RS-8. Marcia Klingaman From: Joseph Patrick [joseph-patrick@uiowa.edu] Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 12:04 PM To: marcia_klingaman@iowa-city.org Subject: Down Zoning of S. Govemor and S. Lucas Streets TO: Marcia Klingaman, Neighborhood Services Coordinator Iowa City City Council Members FROM: Joseph Patrick 1190 East Court Street Iowa City, IA 52240 RE: Preserving The Character of An Older Neighborhood or How My Story Becomes Our Story My Story: In 1965 when we moved to Iowa City, our first residence was at 534 South Lucas Street. It was a charming little 19th century house. The original four rooms had been augmented with a modest living room addition on the rear, with a picture window providing a view to its large back yard. We lived there for three years, attending to the house, the garden, and our new family. Our son spent the first year of his life in that house, strolling in the neighborhood, and playing in that backyard. Naturally, we have a fond attachment to those years in general and that house and neighborhood in particular. In fact, we have remained living in the same neighborhood, just five blocks away. Our Story: A month ago I was saddened to see that our first home stood no longer, that its ample lot was being excavated for the construction of a large apartment building. This personal and particularized loss focused my mind on what this one change means, in a broader sense, for the community. The destruction of that small niche of memory not only wipes out the physical link to some chapters in my own life, but it does the same to our neighborhood, our community, and our culture. It is a short sighted mistake to erase, dismiss and destroy the old, the small, and the intimate. The profits for the few are gained by squandering our communal heritage. I enthusiastically support the general concept that new construction which occurs in older neighborhoods should not diminish the architectural integrity and character of the locale. But it is specifically important that these two streets, S. Lucas and So Governor, be protected from further transformation. Down zoning, as proposed, would insure the maintenance of their current architectural, visual, and population diversity. A failure to recognize this need will result in further destruction of the neighborhood, the community, the culture. In short, we would all be the losers. Thank you for your consideration of my point of view. Sincerely, Joseph Patrick TO: The Planning and Zoning commission of Iowa City Civic Center 410 E. Washington Ave. Iowa City, IA 52240 Regarding: The rezoning of a portion of RM-12 along Governor, Lucas and Bowcry streets between Burlington and Bowcry (excluding properties facing Burlington). For approximately _'~ years. I would like to see the current zoning changed to protect its prevailing character of single houses and duplexes. (RNC-12, Single Family Neighborhood Conservation Zone for Lucas and adjacent portions of i owery, RS-8, for Governor and adjacent portions of Bowery). would like to keep the. current zoning the way it is; it allows multiple unit apartment buildings to be built. (RM-12 Multi-family Signawe Date ~ ---- In the space below I would like to add some additional comments: As an owner/occupier of one of said properties included within the proposed rezoning area I ask you to recommend to City Council to keep the current zoning as is. The rezoning proposals have not been well-planned to consider the current use to future use needs of everyone who owns property in the are.~ I mainly oppose the rezoning of the portions of Bowery Street at this time, but will oppose all of it because all the rezoning has been connected to a singular action. I am not against preservation efforts, creating future conservation districts or nominations to State or national level historic registry. However, there is no way the 800 block of Bowery or any of Lucas Street should be considered for these types of designations. The Longfellow Association cites the 1998 survey and earlier neighborhood evaluation, recommending Lucas Street ~'om Burlingten to Bowcry, with "an eye toward possible National Register nomination." This is and unrealistic expectation of this area and an inequitable set of actions toward the homeowners and represents the interests of a narrow few. The impacted properties on Lucas and Bowcry are primarily student rentals. How does this serve as a "buffer zone" to Summit Street? The several reasons listed by the Longfellow Neighborshood Association for rezoning assme that single family, owner occupied residents support this agenda. While I may support some of the agenda, I don't believe rezoning is the way to achieve it. TO: The Planning and Zoning commission of Iowa City Civic Center 410 E. Washington Ave. Iowa City, IA 52240 Regarding: The rezoning of a portion of RM-12 along Governor, Lucas and Bowery streets between Burlington and Bowery (excluding properties facing Burlington). I have lived in my home at b'~ S ~ o .--I-L t- CtLa ~ (address) For approximately o'/t9 years. I would like to see the current zoning changed to protect its prevailing character of single houses and duplexes. (RNC-12, Single Family Neighborhood Conservation Zone for Lucas and adjacent portions of Bowery, RS-8, for Governor and adjacent portions of Bowery). I would like to keep the current zoning the way it is; it allows multiple unit apartment buildings to be built. (RM-12 Multi-family zoning). Date ,e-//5"/b~o c_) In the space below I would like to add some additional comments: The city needs to correct existing problems created by the increase in tenant properties and the construction of multiple-unit apartments in the neighborhood: 1. Enforce trash collection regulations 2. Increase off street parking requirements on all rental properties to "realistic" levels. 3. Return water pressure to a functional level. TO: The Planning and Zoning commission oflowa City Civic Center 410 E. Washington Ave. Iowa City, IA 52240 Regarding: The rezoning of a portion of RM-12 along Governor, Lucas and Bowery streets between Burlington and Bowery (excluding properties facing Burlington). I have lived in my home at ~ I c~ .(>- (5~ (address) For approximately V ~- years. L///Il would like to see the current zoning changed to protect its prevailing character of single houses and duplexes. (RNC-12, Single Family Neighborhood Conservation Zone for Lucas and adjacent portions of Bowery, RS-8, for Governor and adjacent portions of Bowery). I would like to keep the current zoning the way it is; it allows multiple unit apartment buildings to be built. (RM-12 Multi-family zoning). Signatu~,~~~~ Date ~7__~/,Y-- ~)/ In the space below I would like to add some additional comments: TO: The Planning and Zoning commission of Iowa City Civic Center 410 E. Washington Ave. Iowa City, IA 52240 Regarding: The rezoning of a portion of RM-12 along Governor, Lucas and Bowcry streets between Burlington and Bowery (excluding properties facing Burlington). years. I would like to see the current zoning changed to protect its prevailing character of single houses and duplexes. (RNC-12, Single Family Neighborhood Conservation Zone for Lucas and adjacent portions of Bowery, RS-8, for Governor and adjacent portions of Bowery). I would like to keep the current zoning the way it is; it allows multiple unit apartment buildings to be built. (RM-12 Multi-family zoning). Signature Date In the space below I would like to add some additional comments: TO: The Planning and Zoning commission of Iowa City Civic Center 410 E. Washington Ave. Iowa City, IA 52240 Regarding: The rezoning of a portion of RM-12 along Governor, Lucas and Bowcry streets between Burlington and Bowcry (excluding properties facing Burlington). , have lived in my home at 51 '~ ~./."7 t~n/~ (address) For approximately i/~_ years. /I would like to see the current zoning changed to protect its prevailing character of single houses and duplexes. (RNC-12, Single Family Neighborhood Conservation Zone for Lucas and adjacent portions of Bowery, RS-8, for Governor and adjacent portions of Bowery). I would like to keep the current zoning the way it is; it allows multiple unit apartment buildings to be built. (RM-12 Multi-family zoning). Signature Date 2-/ In the space below I would like to add some additional comments: TO: The Planning and Zoning commission of Iowa City Civic Center 410 E. Washington Ave. Iowa City, IA 52240 Regarding: The rezoning of a portion of RM-12 along Governor, Lucas and Bowery streets between Burlington and Bowery (excluding properties facing Burlington). I have lived in my home at 5 l '~' .~'. (.y o,,~ ,rwOf ~ ~ · (address) For approximately t [z- years. I would like to see the current zoning changed to protect its prevailing character of single houses and duplexes. (RNC-12, Single Family Neighborhood Conservation Zone for Lucas and adjacent portions of Bowery, RS-8, for Governor and adjacent portions of Bowery). I would like to keep the current zoning the way it is; it allows multiple unit apartment buildings to be built. (RM-12 Multi-family zoning). Date 'Z-/'Z [/C)(..) In the space below I would like to add some additional comments: TO: The Planning and Zoning commission of Iowa City Civic Center 410 E. Washington Ave. Iowa City, IA 52240 Regarding: The rezoning of a portion of RM-12 along Governor, Lucas and Bowery streets between Burlington and Bowend (excluding properties facing Burlington). ~ have lived in my home at ~3 ?~. ~ 'G,oo. ::~C~~adaress) For approximately ~/~ years. I would like to see the current zoning changed to protect its prevailing character of single houses and duplexes. (RNC-12, Single Family Neighborhood Conservation Zone for Lucas and adjacent portions of Bowery, RS-8, for Governor and adjacent portions of Bowery). I would like to keep the current zoning the way it is; it allows multiple unit apartment buildings to be built. (RM-12 Multi-family zoning). Signature \bv4t~g~2~ A, ~ Date ,,Q--~;d,D- ~ In the space below I would like to add some additional comments: TO: The Planning and Zoning commission of Iowa City Civic Center 410 E. Washington Ave. Iowa City, IA 52240 Regarding: The rezoning of a portion of RM-12 along Governor, Lucas and Bowery streets between Burlington and Bowcry (excluding properties facing Burlington). I have lived in my home at ~ (address) For approximately/~_.2, years. I would like to see the current zoning changed to protect its prevailing character of single houses and duplexes. (RNC-12, Single Family Neighborhood Conservation Zone for Lucas and adjacent portions of Bowery, RS-8, for Governor and adjacent portions of Bowery). '. '~I would like to keep the current zoning the way it is; it allows multiple unit apartment buildings to be built. (RM-12 Multi-family zoning). Date In the space below I would like to add some additional comments: TO: The Planning and Zoning commission of Iowa City Civic Center 410 E. Washington Ave. Iowa City, IA 52240 Regarding: The rezoning of a portion of RM-12 along Governor, Lucas and Bowcry streets between Burlington and Bowcry (excluding properties facing Burlington). I have lived in my home at ~)CKq ~T' ~dW E/~ c~/ (address) For approximately t~,fl. years. I would like to see the current zoning changed to protect its prevailing character of single houses and duplexes. (RNC-12, Single Family Neighborhood Conservation Zone for Lucas and adjacent portions of Bowery, RS-8, for Governor and adjacent portions of Bowery). I would like to keep the current zoning the way it is; it allows multiple unit apartment buildings to be built. (RM-12 Multi-family zonin !. Signature~L-)~ t.~.,~/5~ .,-,~'._ ' ___ Date In the space below I would like to add some additional comments: TO: The Planning and Zoning commission of Iowa City Civic Center 410 E. Washington Ave. Iowa City, IA 52240 Regarding: The rezoning of a portion of RM-12 along Governor, Lucas and Bowcry streets between Burlington and Bowcry (excluding properties facing Burlington). I have lived in my home at 33~ S. ~,:,~tc,r-kov~ ~+. (address) For approximately I/e- years. I would like to see the current zoning changed to protect its prevailing character of single houses and duplexes. (RNC-12, Single Family Neighborhood Conservation Zone for Lucas and adjacent portions of Bowery, RSoS, for Govemor and adjacent portions of Bowery). I would like to keep the current zoning the way it is; it allows multiple unit apartment buildings to be built. (RM-12 Multi-family zoning). Date Inthe space below I would like to add some additional comments: TO: The Planning and Zoning commission of Iowa City Civic Center 410 E. Washington Ave. Iowa City, IA 52240 Regarding: The rezoning of a portion of RM-12 along Governor, Lucas and Bowery streets between Burlington and Bowery (excluding properties facing Burlington). I have lived in my home at ,-~ ~ <E ~('~. 0 0 LFt ~ 4+~ (address) For approximately i/;. years. I would like to see the current zoning changed to protect its prevailing character of single houses and duplexes. (RNC-12, Single Family Neighborhood Conservation Zone for Lucas and adjacent portions of Bowery, RS-8, for Governor and adjacent portions of Bowery). I would like to keep the current zoning the way it is; it allows multiple unit apartment buildings to be built. (RM-12 Multi-family zoning). In the space below I would like to add some additional comments: TO: The Planning and Zoning commission of Iowa City Civic Center 410 E. Washington Ave. Iowa City, IA 52240 Regarding: The rezoning of a portion of RM-12 along Governor, Lucas and Bowcry streets between Burlington and Bowcry (excluding properties facing Burlington). I have lived in my home at '~g ~' ~-,-,~q or- /6-(A t~ { O (address) For approximately ~L years. ~"~I would like to see the current zoning changed to protect its prevailing character of single houses and duplexes. (RNC-12, Single Family Neighborhood Conservation Zone for Lucas and adjacent portions of Bowcry, RS-8, for Governor and adjacent portions of Bowcry). I would like to keep the current zoning the way it is; it allows multiple unit apartment buildings to be built. (RM-12 Multi-family zoning). Date"'7 r' ° /° o In the space below I would like to add some additional comments: TO: The Planning and Zoning commission of Iowa City Civic Center 410 E. Washington Ave. Iowa City, IA 52240 Regarding: The rezoning of a portion of RM-12 along Governor, Lucas and Bowery streets between Burlington and Bowcry (excluding properties facing Burlington). I have lived in my home at Gt~[, S'- Cyl~e~ 5+, (address) For approximately ~7-/4: years. J,-- I would like to see the current zoning changed to protect its prevailing character of single houses and duplexes. (RNC-12, Single Family Neighborhood Conservation Zone for Lucas and adjacent portions of Bowery, RS-8, for Governor and adjacent portions of Bowery). I would like to keep the current zoning the way it is; it allows multiple unit apartment buildings to be built. (RM-12 Multi-family zoning). Signature C/~ (-- ~:~!~j~ Date ?"i ~C~/tn:3 In the space below I would like to add some additional comments: TO: The Planning and Zoning commission of Iowa City Civic Center 410 E. Washington Ave. Iowa City, IA 52240 Regarding: The rezoning of a portion of RM-12 along Governor, Lucas and Bowery streets between Burlington and Bowcry (excluding properties facing Burlington). I have lived in my home at .~ ::3 ~' 5. ~OYGF~tyF :~ I ~ (address) For approximately / years. I would like to see the current zoning changed to protect its prevailing character of single houses and duplexes. (RNC-12, Single Family Neighborhood Conservation Zone for Lucas and adjacent portions of Bowcry, RS-8, for Governor and adjacent portions of Bowcry). I would like to keep the current zoning the way it is; it allows multiple unit apartment buildings to be built. (RM-12 Multi-family zoning). Signature ~f/~{ ~ Date 0 In the space below I would like to add some additional comments: TO: The Planning and Zoning commission of Iowa City Civic Center 410 E. Washington Ave. Iowa City, IA 52240 Regarding: The rezoning of a portion of RM-12 along Governor, Lucas and Bowery streets between Burlington and Bowcry (excluding properties facing Burlington). I have lived in my home at q2Z ~o~ ~' ~ ~ d z" (address) For approximately 2- years. I would like to see the current zoning changed to protect its prevailing character of single houses and duplexes. (RNC-12, Single Family Neighborhood Conservation Zone for Lucas and adjacent portions of Bowery, RS-8, for Governor and adjacent portions of Bowery). I would like to keep the current zoning the way it is; it allows multiple trait apartment buildings to be built. (RM-12 Multi-family zoning). Signature ~ ~ Date ~_~//~//a-~ In the space below I would like to add some additional comments: TO: The Planning and Zoning commission of Iowa City Civic Center 410 E. Washington Ave. Iowa City, IA 52240 Regarding: The rezoning of a portion of RM-12 along Governor, Lucas and Bowcry streets between Burlington and Bowcry (excluding properties facing Burlington). I have lived in my home at L}L{> 5. (_)v-~Ja~r 53r (address) For approximately 7__. 5 years. I would like to see the current zoning changed to protect its prevailing character of single houses and duplexes. (RNC-12, Single Family Neighborhood Conservation Zone for Lucas and adjacent portions of Bowery, RS-8, for Governor and adjacent portions of Bowery). I would like to keep the current zoning the way it is; it allows multiple unit apartment buildings to be built. (RM-12 Multi-family zoning). Signature ~ ~ Date '7~/L° 7°0 In the space below I would like to add some additional comments: TO: The Planning and Zoning commission of Iowa City Civic Center 410 E. Washington Ave. Iowa City, IA 52240 Regarding: The rezoning of a portion of RM-12 along Governor, Lucas and Bowcry streets between Burlington and Bowcry (excluding properties facing Burlington). For approximately i'd/.. years. I would like to see the current zoning changed to protect its prevailing character of single houses and duplexes. (RNC-12, Single Family Neighborhood Conservation Zone for Lucas and adjacent portions of Bowcry, RS-8, for Governor and adjacent portions of Bowery). I would like to keep the current zoning the way it is; it allows multiple unit apartment buildings to be built. (RM-12 Multi-family zoning). Signature Date In the space below I would like to add some additional comments: Melody Rockwell From: Dennis Bricker [bricker@avalon.net] Sent: Saturday, March 11,2000 12:53 PM To: melody_rockwell@iowa-city.org Subject: rezoning proposal Dear Ms. Rockwell, My wife and I have been residents of the Longfellow neighborhood for over twenty-five years, residing at the intersection of Clark and Bowery Streets. We strongly support the proposed rezoning of the Governor/ Bowery streets from RM-12 to RM-8. During the twenty-five years that we have lived here, we have seen many homes in the area rehabilitated, giving this neighbor- hood an attractive character. I fear that without this rezoning, homes in the area will be purchased by speculator-absentee landlords and developers, and demolished to be replaced by large apartment buildings, reducing the value of our property and destroying the charm of the neighborhood. Sincerely, Dennis & Melinda Bricker 542 Clark Street Iowa City, IA 52240 bricker@avalon.net TO: The Planning and Zoning Commission of Iowa City. Civic Center 4 i 0 E. Washington Ave. Iowa City, IA 52240 Regarding: The rezoning of a portion of RM-12 along Governor, Lucas and Bowery streets between Burlington and Bowery (excluding properties facing Burlington). WE, THE RESIDENTS OF AND NEIGHBORS TO THIS DISTRICT WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE CURRENT ZONING OF THESE AREAS TO PROTECT ITS PREVAILING CHARACTER OF SINGLE HOUSES AND DUPLEXES (RNC- 12, Single Family Neighborhood Conservation Zone from RM- 12 Multi-family for Lucas and portions of Bowery; RS-8, Residential Single-family 8 units/acre for Governor and potions of Bowery). See the attached map for exact locations. Name Address Years at this address TO: The Planning and Zoning Commission of Iowa City Civic Center 410 E. Washington Ave. Iowa City, IA 52240 Regarding: The rezoning 0fa portion of RM-12 along Govemor, Lucas and Bowery streets between Burlington and Bowcry (excluding properties facing Burlington). WE, THE RESIDENTS OF AND NEIGHBORS TO THIS DISTRICT WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE CURRENT ZONING OF THESE AREAS TO PROTECT ITS PREVAILING CHARACTER OF SINGLE HOUSES AND DUPLEXES (RNC-12, Single Family Neighborhood Conservation Zone from RM-12 Multi-family for Lucas and portions of Bowery; RS-8, Residential Single-family 8 units/acre for Governor and potions of Bowery). See the attached map for exact locations. I~ = c~l~ ~.-~ ~4k~-¢,~ s~rve~ in s.pp~r~r e~C Name Address Years at this address X~I~ A. ~~ 336 s, 6~. ~ y~ f~ TO: The Planning and Zoning Commission of Iowa City Civic Center 410 E. Washington Ave. Iowa City, IA 52240 Regarding: The rezoning of a portion of RM-12 along Governor, Lucas and Bowcry sweets between Burlington and Bowcry (excluding properties facing Burlington). WE, THE RESIDENTS OF AND NEIGHBORS TO THIS DISTRICT WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE CURRENT ZONING OF THESE AREAS TO PROTECT ITS PREVAILING CHARACTER OF SINGLE HOUSES AND DUPLEXES (RNC- 12, Single Family Neighborhood Conservation Zone from RM- 12 Multi-family for Lucas and portions of Bowcry; RS-8, Residential Single-family 8 units/acre for Governor and potions of Bowcry). See the attached map for exact locations. Name Address Years at this address TO: The Planning and Zoning Commission of Iowa City Civic Center 410 E. Washington Ave. Iowa City, IA 52240 Regarding: The rezoning of a portion of RM-12 along Governor, Lucas and Bowery sweets between Burlington and Bowery (excluding properties facing Burlington). WE, THE RESIDENTS OF AND NEIGHBORS TO THIS DISTRICT WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE CURRENT ZONING OF THESE AREAS TO PROTECT ITS PREVAILING CHARACTER OF SINGLE HOUSES AND DUPLEXES (RNC-12, Single Family Neighborhood Conservation Zone from RM-12 Multi-family for Lucas and portions of Bowery; RS-8, Residential Single-family 8 units/acre for Governor and potions of Bowery). See the attached map for exact locations. Name Address Years at this address ~'/,,,.~/~,/'3 ~'.u,,.,,,>,,,,-~ ~z~. s.' ~'~.,.,.,,-,...~ '-'*~ '  ~/o/1.c ,'~ 13 fl' ~ g' t~ ~,5. d o ,, ~ .~ o r 5'+i ,t ~ TO: The Planning and Zoning Commission of Iowa City F Civic Center 410 E. Washington Ave. ~,~. Iowa City, IA 52240 {61,l~0 ) Regarding: The rezoning of a portion of RM-12 along Governor, Lucas and Bowcry streets between Burlington and Bowcry (excluding properties facing Burlington). WE, THE RESIDENTS OF AND NEIGHBORS TO THIS DISTRICT WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE CURRENT ZONING OF THESE AREAS TO PROTECT ITS PREVAILING CHARACTER OF SINGLE HOUSES AND DUPLEXES (RNC-12, Single Family Neighborhood Conservation Zone from RM-12 Multi-family for Lucas and portions of Bowery; RS-8, Residential Single-family 8 units/acre for Governor and potions of Bowcry). See the attached map for exact locations. Name Address Years at this address c>'/rt L ~C__ ,' r // TO: The Planning and Zoning Commission of Iowa City Civic Center 410 E. Washington Ave. Iowa City, IA 52240 Regarding: The rezoning of a portion of RM-12 along Governor, Lucas and Bowery streets between Burlington and Bowery (excluding properties facing Burlington). WE, THE RESIDENTS OF AND NEIGHBORS TO THIS DISTRICT WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE CURRENT ZONING OF THESE AREAS TO PROTECT ITS PREVAILING CHARACTER OF SINGLE HOUSES AND DUPLEXES (RNC-12, Single Family Neighborhood Conservation Zone from RM-12 Multi-family for Lucas and portions of Bowery; RS-8, Residential Single-family 8 units/acre for Governor and potions of Bowery). See the attached map for exact locations. Name ,' Address Years at this address .... / ,, TO: The Planning and Zoning Commission of Iowa City Civic Center 410 E. Washington Ave. Iowa City, IA 52240 Regarding: The rezoning of a portion of RM-12 along Governor, Lucas and Bowery streets between Burlington and Bowery (excluding properties facing Burlington). WE, THE RESIDENTS OF AND NEIGHBORS TO THIS DISTRICT WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE CURRENT ZONING OF THESE AREAS TO PROTECT ITS PREVAILING CHARACTER OF SINGLE HOUSES AND DUPLEXES (RNC-12, Single Family Neighborhood Conservation Zone from RM-12 Multi-family for Lucas and portions ofBowery; RS-8, Residential Single-family 8 units/acre for Governor and potions of Bowery). See the attached map for exact locations. Name Address Years at this address / fozcq ,d / TO: The Planning and Zoning Commission of Iowa City Civic Center 410 E. Washington Ave. Iowa City, IA 52240 Regarding: The rezoning of a portion of RM-12 along Governor, Lucas and Bowcry streets between Burlington and Bowcry (excluding properties facing Burlington). WE, THE RESIDENTS OF AND NEIGHBORS TO THIS DISTRICT WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE CURRENT ZONING OF THESE AREAS TO PROTECT ITS PREVAILING CHARACTER OF SINGLE HOUSES AND DUPLEXES (RNC-12, Single Family Neighborhood Conservation Zone from RM-12 Multi-family for Lucas and portions of Bowery; RS-8, Residential Single-family 8 units/acre for Governor and potions of Bowery). See the attached map for exact locations. Address Years at this address 7/6 TO: The Planning and Zoning Commission of Iowa City Civic Center 410 E. Washington Ave. Iowa City, IA 52240 Regarding: The rezoning of a portion of RM-12 along Governor, Lucas and Bowcry sweets between Burlington and Bowery (excluding properties facing Burlington). WE, THE RESIDENTS OF AND NEIGHBORS TO THIS DISTRICT WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE CURRENT ZONING OF THESE AREAS TO PROTECT ITS PREVAILING CHARACTER OF SINGLE HOUSES AND DUPLEXES (RNC-12, Single Family Neighborhood Conservation Zone from RM-12 Multi-family for Lucas and portions of Bowcry; RS-8, Residential Single-family 8 units/acre for Governor and potions of Bowery). See the attached map for exact locations. Name Address Years at this address ,z [C' "':: ,,to~ A~,~'~ ,'~ 7 .-~i -/,-i~- c' ~ ,~' ~: TO: The Planning and Zoning Commission of Iowa City Civic Center 410 E. Washington Ave. Iowa City, IA 52240 Regarding: The rezoning of a portion of RM-12 along Governor, Lucas and Bowcry streets between Burlington and Bowcry (excluding properties facing Burlington). WE, THE RESIDENTS OF AND NEIGHBORS TO THIS DISTRICT WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE CURRENT ZONING OF THESE AREAS TO PROTECT ITS PREVAILING CHARACTER OF SINGLE HOUSES AND DUPLEXES (RNC-12, Single Family Neighborhood Conservation Zone from RM-12 Multi-family for Lucas and portions of Bowcry; RS-g, Residential Single-family 8 units/acre for Governor and potions of Bowcry). See the attached map for exact locations. · i' = also Name Address 9. ' ' ' / TO: The Planning and Zoning Commission of Iowa City Civic Center 410 E. Washington Ave. Iowa City, IA 52240 Regarding: The rezoning of a portion of RM-12 along Governor, Lucas and BoweD' streets between Burlington and BoweD' (excluding properties facing Burlington). WE, THE RESIDENTS OF AND NEIGHBORS TO THIS DISTRICT WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE CURRENT ZONING OF THESE AREAS TO PROTECT ITS PREVAILING CHARACTER OF SINGLE HOUSES AND DUPLEXES (RNC-12, Single Family Neighborhood Conservation Zone from RM-12 Multi-family for Lucas and portions of Bowery; RS-8, Residential Single-family 8 units/acre for Governor and potions of Bowery). See the attached map for exact locations. Name Address Years at this address /lor r 1/2-0 TO: The Planning and Zoning Commission of Iowa City Civic Center 410 E. Washington Ave. Iowa City, IA 52240 Regarding: The rezoning of a portion of RM-12 along Governor, Lucas and Bowery streets between Burlington and Bowery (excluding properties facing Burlington). WE, THE RESIDENTS OF AND NEIGHBORS TO THIS DISTRICT WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE CURRENT ZONING OF THESE AREAS TO PROTECT ITS PREVAILING CHARACTER OF SINGLE HOUSES AND DUPLEXES (RNC-12, Single Family Neighborhood Conservation Zone from RM-12 Multi-family for Lucas and portions of Bowery; RS-8, Residential Single-family 8 units/acre for Governor and potions of Bowery). See the attached map for exact locations. Name Address Years at this address ,,,7/,~ s. ~ 5/-d ~ ' TO: The Planning and Zoning Commission oflowa City Civic Center 410 E. Washington Ave. Iowa City, IA 52240 Regarding: The rezoning of a portion of RM-|2 along Governor, Lucas and Bowcry streets between Burlington and Bowcry (excluding properties facing Burlington). WE, THE RESIDENTS OF AND NEIGHBORS TO THIS DISTRICT WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE CURRENT ZONING OF THESE AREAS TO PROTECT ITS PREVAILING CHARACTER OF SINGLE HOUSES AND DUPLEXES (RNC- 12, Single Family Neighborhood Conservation Zone from RM- 12 Multi-family for Lucas and portions of Bowery; RS-8, Residential Single-family 8 units/acre for Governor and potions of Bowery). See the attached map for exact locations. Name Address Years at this address ~,~'¢-"-~ 'A',',-., 5 ~.~.-..,.~ ,,.-,,-:.r o,,,.,,,..._,_ t 'j.-c,,.,,.~- c. ,~..,,,,'T,:,.:.,. "'~L ' CONTRRCTORS TOOL 1LL N0.61~-6bl-6Z~O red zo,~u lo.oi ,Nu.uu~ r.u~ CONTRACTOR'S TOOL P,O. BOX 3'108 · 1423 WATEFIFHON I DRIVE IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244 FAX (3'19) 351-3233 · PHONE (319) 338-'1 '121 IOWA WATS 800-397-3233'~./.2-~,~/~ /t'n~:~'. /blo ~b7 I(!~..-.L ~,-,~6.'..(.;'_ ~.i.- ~.Ty~:~-:.~;~/ay: /~'~;~.,,..-/./'.~,~;,.,~..S/,~,~,,../! 2~,.,,,-..,-.~/ !. ...... , ontPact 1'~(1l ~ ~ AII Melody Rockwell To: ABuss2662@aol .com Cc: Bob Miklo; Marcia Klingaman Subject: RE: Govemor/LucaslBowery Rezoning Request Two women, Ann Freerks & Lorraine Huneke-Bowans, own & live in homes on Governor Street. They were concerned not about the rental properties that exist in the neighborhood, but about a house being demolished and trees removed to build a new four-plex in their neighborhood. That is what prompted the request. Their intention is to stabilize the neighborhood... >>As I understand it, anyone can request a rezoning. You don't have to own the property to do so. This came up in the same neighborhood a few years ago when the Longfellow Neighborhood Association successfully rezoned the ADS site from I-1 (General Industrial) to RS-8 (single-family/duplex). ADS initially objected, then withdrew their objection & sold the property. >>The initial Planning & Zoning Commission consideration of the Govemor/Lucas/Bowery rezoning is scheduled for March 16 at 7:30 P.M. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. P&Z will have a minimum of two meetings on the rezoning. The second meeting will be held on April 6 at 7:30 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. If & when this is forwarded to Council, I can let you know what the schedule will be -- generally, it's five meetings: set a public hearing, have a public hearing & have three readings of the ordinance. >>If you'd like any further information on this rezoning, please let me know. --Melody ..... Original Message ..... From: ABuss2662@aol.com [mailto:ABuss2662@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 9:20 PM To: Melody_Rockwell@iowa-city.org Subject: Re: (no subject) Melody, A number of the property owners I work for/with want to know who's behind the possible rezoning of this area, why it is being looked at now, and how can someone get someone elses property rezoned? I want to know when any and all meetings are going to be scheduled, as the Iowa City Landlords Association members wish to attend and see just what is going on and how this process will effect them and everyone else and where will it end! Thank you for your time. Anna ~lelody Rockwell :tom: Melody Rockwell ~ent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 9:04 AM *o: 'ABuss2662@aol .corn' ~c: Bob Miklo; Marcia Klingaman ~ubject.* RE: Govemor/Lucas/Bowery Rezoning Request ~nna -- 'wo women, Ann Freerks & Lorraine Huneke-Bowans, own & live in homes on Governor Street. They were concerned ;or about the rental properties that exist in the neighborhood, but about a house being demolished and trees removed to ~uild a new four-piex in their neighborhood. That is what prompted the request. Their intention is to stabilize the :eighborhood... · >As ~ understand it, anyone can request a rezoning. You don't have to own the property to do so. This came up in the ame neighborhood a few years ago when the Longfellow Neighborhood Association successfully rezoned the ADS site 'ore I-1 (General Industrial) to RS-8 (single-family/duplex). ADS initially objected, then withdrew their objection & sold the ,roperty. .>The initial Planning & Zoning Commission consideration of the Governor/Lucas/Bowery rezoning is scheduled for 4arch 16 at 7:30 P.M. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. P&Z will have a minimum of two meetings on the rezoning. 'he second meeting will be held on April 6 at 7:30 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. If & when this is forwarded ~ Council, I can let you know what the schedule will be -- generally, it's five meetings: set a public hearing, have a public earing & have three readings of the ordinance, .>if you'd like any further information on this rezoning, please let me know. --Melody :---Original Message ..... rom: ABuss2662@aol.com [mailto:ABuss2662@aol.com] ;ent: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 9:20 PM 'o: Melody_Rockwell@iowa-city.org ;ubject: Re: (no subject) lelody, · number of the property owners I work for/with want to know who's behind the ossible rezoning of this area, why it is being looked at now, and how can ameone get someone elses property rezoned? I want to know when any and all ~eetings are going to be scheduled, as the Iowa City Landlords Association ~embers wish to attend and see just what is going on and how this process ,ill effect them and everyone else and where will it end! hank you for your time. .nna ,no sv F! LED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL 2I)Dt) HAR - 7 PH I: h 7 IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY CLERK We, the undersigned, being the owners of twenty percent or more of t/~)X~a ~'Tt~e [~c~rty 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 following property: This petition is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all in ac.,~rdance with 4 14.5 of the Code of Iowa. 8S7 6~e.,arcr ~ ~ co gozo3 74/~ ,Socr/~ 6cv~n~ ,Z~e,~t- Owner(s) o Property Address l~r,~ze_ ~ tolg/oEoo9 STATE OF COLOEAD0 ) ) ss: DENVER COUNTY ) On this c~Srl~day of Fe,,Lr~n~, 2000; before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, pe appeared ~'o k ~x -S4vo/~ n4.- 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 Colorado March 10, 2000 To: Members of the Planning and Rezoning Commission Re: Rezoning of Gov.(from 300 -600 blocks) and some adjoining areas I have been a property owner at 433 South Governor since 1976, soon after my family moved to this area. The property was a three-plex at the time, and we have maintained it as such since then. We have taken care if it over the years and enjoyed being able to offer tenants an affordable apartment in a pleasant neighborhood that had many private homes intermingled with homes converted to rental units. Since 1976 the city housing options have changed considerably, and at the same time the character of many neighborhoods has deteriorated, due to poor city planning or property owners who don't have an interest in maintaining a tidy, attractive residence. At this point the city has an oversupply of apartment complexes that have no architectural beauty and have rents so high that renters are often forced to double up in rooms only meant for one. Unattractive apartment buildings continue to spread in town and are not creating an atmosphere that encourages families to remain in their neighborhoods. Residential areas that are now assets to Iowa City are becoming filled with a hodgepodge of unimaginative, unattractive buildings. I urge you to follow through with the request to rezone properties in the RM-12 zone along Governor Street/Bowery Street to a RS-8 zoning; also, to rezone along Lucas Street/Bowery Street from RM-12 to RN(~-I 2. Sincerely, 'Ellie Peters Hayes Lorenzen Lawyers PLC James E Hayes Karen A. Lorenzen* March 14, 2000 Ms. Melody Rockwell City of Iowa City Planning and Community Development Department 410 E Washington Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Melody: I am writing to support the proposed rezoning of Governor Street and a part of Bowery Street from the current RM-12 to RS-8. I also support a zoning change for Lucas Street and the connecting portions of Bowery Street from RM-12 to RNC-12. The gateways which serve as entrances and exits for our beautiful town are on a regular basis being made less beautiful rather than more beautiful by replacement of single or multi-unit homes with apartment complexes. The most recent example which came to my mind is on Burlington Street just before it interacts with Summit. Our City government has done much in the recent past to conserve bits and pieces of the most historical city in Iowa. We can do much more to protect and preserve the character and historical identity of neighborhoods throughout Iowa City. The rezoning at issue here is terribly important and I support this action wholeheartedly. Very truly yours, / ame P. Hayes Suite 580 JPH/cac Plaza Centre One 125 S. Dubuque Street Iowa City, IA 52240-5678 Phone: 319 887 3688 Fax: 319 887 3687 jhayes~hlplc.com klorenzen@hlplc.com * Also admitted in Florida Melody Rockwell From: AMonagan@cornell-iowa.edu Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 2:32 PM To: mel ody_roc kwell@ iowa -city. org Subject: Zoning Change Dear Melody, This letter is being written in strongest support of the proposal by the Longfellow Neighborhood Association to rezone Governor Street and a portion of Bowery from RM-12 to RS-8, and to rezone Lucas Street and the connecting portions of Bowery from RM 12 to RNC-12. I have lived in my home since November of 1976. My children were born and raised here. Long before the association was formed, my family and I have be active participants in the neighborhood. We made a point of welcoming new neighbors; we helped with house-sitting, childcare, care of pets and errands; and in 1980 we began visiting neighbors at Christmas to sing and to play instrumental music. I love this neighborhood with its beautiful old homes, majestic trees, and old streets. I love the mixture of young and old people, newcomers and long time residents, single people and families. I love the occupational diversity, the political awareness, and the history, compassion, and dedication. The uniqueness and the character of the neighborhood are threatened by the construction allowed by the old zoning. I sincerely believe that the City of Iowa City should support the zoning changes, thus doing everything in its power to protect and preserve its historic district. Sincerely, Alfrieta Monagan 806 - Clark Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Melody Rockwell From: Natasa Durovicova [g=stewart@uiowa.edu] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 4:33 AM To: melody_rockwell@iowa-city.org Subject: tomorrow's meeting Iowa City 3/15/00 Dear Planning and Zoning Commission members: I write to strongly support a rezoning request of the 300-600 blocks of Governor street and the 800-900 block of Bowery, filed by Lorraine Huneke-Bowans and Ann Freerks, to secure these sections' standing as single-family units. I also hope you will agree to the request to turn the Lucas and Bowery blocks on their map to a Residential Neighborhood Conservation zone. As a homeowner at 419 S. Summit I live with my family across the alley from properties on the 300 block of Governor street, and have, after 7 years, a reasonably good sense of what goes on in the neighborhood. I support the effort to rezone on practical grounds. Although I generally agree that Iowa City has a need for rental properties and affordable multifamily residences, I like most everyone else, don't want to live next to one. The reason is that from the state of the recently built multifamily residences I see in my own neighborhood as well as in much of the extended downtown area and the neighborhoods through which I often walk, it is apparent that developers of rental units make for terrible neighbors. Rather than thinking of their building as a,part of a town block shared with other people who actually spend many years of their lives there, these absentee landlords seem to think of their plot exclusively in terms of maximizing their profit at our expense. Most of the recently built rental buildings virtually bulge out of their lots, making no serious effort to merge into the style of the street; if there is asphalted parking it replaces all older vegetation, not to mention landscaping; as little space as possible is left unbuilt so that anything that spills from a rental property, as it invariably does--dumpsters, trashcans, extra sofas, bikes--intrudes on the common space of sidewalks and roadsides. Security floodlights light up neighbors' bedrooms whether they like it or not. The possibility that a square foot or two of yard space might be left so that the tenants--whether beer-drinkers, sunbathers or little kids--would have somewhere to sit, and melting snow and rain somewhere to soak in, seems inconceivable. Trash abounds and remains uncollected for months. In sum: I am all for rezoning to single-family residential status because there are no other, finer tools for regulating the extremely intrusive, aggressively ugly and grossly inconsiderate character of the rental buildings as they have been creeping into normal residential neighborhoods in the last years. This is not to say that the loud saturday parties and incessant car traffic that often accompanies multi-apartment housing close to campus is of no concern. But it would be misconceived to blame tenants for not always behaving as model citizens when their own place of residence actively discourages such behavior. When the apartment building itself virtually screams "screw you" to the passers-by, it's hardly surprising that a tipsy 20 year old on the front steps on a summer night might get the idea that this is the way to go. Walk up and down in the Burlington/Bowery/van Buren/Johnson quadrant any time of the day, any season of the year, and ask yourselves if you would like to have this be the drift of your neighborhood. There is no doubt that the new in-fill standards for apartment development proposed at your last meeting, if passed, would help to alleviate some of the grievances outlined above. There is just as little doubt that they will not solve the problem, given the disproportion between lot size and resident numbers in the kind of multiplex units we have lately seen spring up. If the City and the Planning commission want to meet less resistance from homeowners and discourage the "not-in-my-back- yard" style of citizenship that makes for so many pitched battles, bad feelings and civic tensions (not to mention wasted time and money), they need FIRST to make changes in the rules for those who consistently make the worst of the current low- regulation management style of this town. Only then can we grow an attitude of common interest among renters, homeowners and landlords if those with the most money in the bank are not allowed to make a mockery of our shared space. And until that occurs, homeowners will rightly fight for any regulation to preserve not just their yards but also their town. Most of us want to stay here rather than moving to sterile (and, incidentally, often totally regulated) private subdivisions in the outlying areas of the county. Many of us love the accessible, diverse and lively character of downtown and want to stick around to help take care of it. We would like our elected representatives to help us by acting in a good that is truly cor0iRon. Sincerely, Natasa Durovicova 419 $. Summit Iowa City, IA 52240 338-5348. t'age t o~ z Melody Rockwell To: Deanna and Derrick Subject: RE: Zone changes on Governor Street Sorry for the confusion. I will try to answer your questions. Feel free to contact me if you have other questions or my answers do not clear up the confusion. 1. Not all of Governor Street is zoned RM-12. Your property may be northernmost RS-8 zoned property on the west side of Governor and there is RS-8 zoning on the properties east of Governor Street up to Bowery Street. On the west side of Governor Street, the RM-12 zone runs north from 615 S. Governor to 333 S. Governor, and on the east of Governor, the RM-12 zone extends north from the north side of Bowery Street to 308 S. Governor. The properties along Burlington Street that are north of the RM-12 zone are zoned RNC-20. 2. Neither the RS-8 zone or the RNC-12 zone permit new apartments -- either through new construction or through conversion of existing structures. Nonconforming uses that currently exist in the RM-12 zone can continue to operate in the RS-8 or the RNC-12 zone, but no new apartments could be established in either the RS-8 zone or the RNC-12 zone. 3. Yes, the RS-8 zone would require a reduction in the number of renters from four to three per unit, but the RNC-12 zone would not. 4. There are no restrictions on the number of related residents in a structure. In rental structures, a "family" can be two unrelated persons. In the RM-12 zone, a family plus two roomers are permitted, which equates to four unrelated persons being permitted as renters per unit. In the RS-8 zone, a family plus one roomer is permitted, which means that up to three unrelated persons can be renters per unit. Again, these restrictions do not apply to families in the "usual" sense -- people who are related by blood, marriage, adoption, etc. 5. With new construction, parking requirements for duplexes are two parking spaces per unit, and for new apartments, the parking is based on the number of bedrooms in the apartment: 1 parking space for efficiency and one-bedroom apartments, 2 parking spaces for two and three bedroom apartments, 3 parking spaces for a four-bedroom apartment and 4 parking spaces for a five-bedroom apartment. This is the new parking regulation for apartments; it used to be determined based on square footage: 1.5 parking spaces for apartments with 800 square feet or less, and 2 parking spaces for apartments that were larger than that -- no matter how many bedrooms they had. Hope this helps! ..... Original Message ..... From: Deanna and Derrick [mailto:dabromeit~rodigy.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 1:54 PM To: melody_Rockwell@iowa-city.org Subject: Zone changes on Governor Street Ms. Rockwell, My name is Derrick Abromeit, and I own a home at 625 S. Governor street, and recieved your letter explaining the proposed zone changes. I am a little confused. I am hoping you can clarify a few things. 1. Is all of Governor Street currently zoned RM-127 2. I think most of my neighbors are worried about having an appartment building go up next door to them. I believe a change to RS-8 would prevent that from happening. Does the RNC-12 also prevent new construction of appartments? 3. If I understand the letter, the RS-8 zone would require landlords to reduce, in some cases, the number of renters-per-unit in existing duplexes, appartments, etc. from 4 to 3, but the RNC-12 does not. Is that correct? 4. Are there also restrictions on the number of residents that ARE related within a unit? 5. Is there a way to require, in new construction, off-street parking equal to the number of 3/15/2000 Page 2 of 2 residents with in the appartmentJduplex? Thank you for your help in this matter. -Derrick Abromeit 3/15/2000 Melody Rockwell From: Garrett Stewart [g=stewart@uiowa.edu] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 4:10 AM To: melody_rockwell@iowa-city.org Subject: rezoning meeting Planning and Zoning Commission City of Iowa City To the Commission: I write in strong support of the rezoning proposal now before you concerning the Governor-Lucas neighborhood just west of Summit Street. As a Summit Street resident who took an active part in the community effort to secure the downzoning of our own street to prevent new multi-family dwellings, I am well aware of the balance of communal versus property-owner rights that need to be negotiated in such deliberations. But the fact remains that our City as a whole benefits from the preservation of its neighborhoods. This applies doubly to the Governor/Lucas/Bowery blocks in question. Though not on the historical register, they do have a real historical character all their own, sprinkled with some true Victorian gems and in general preserving a single-owner neighborhood feel. Not to do what we can as a city, let alone as a local residential affiliation, to preserve this character against the potential encroachments of mostly student multiplexes--at this crucial turning point in the boom years of commercial development in Iowa City--would be to miss a decisive opportunity (even though the action isn't one strictly mandated by federal laws covering historical preservation or the retention of neighborhood integrity). This brings me to the second dimension of this neighborhood, contributing for so long to keeping it free from drastic commercial inroads. These properties are uniqely desirable for middle-class families eager to live within walking distance of downtown and the university--and for one signal reason. We call it the Longfellow neighborhood for good cause. Longfellow is a magnet elementary school in a very special sense. Close to the perimeter of campus- related housing, the presence of the school has helped carve out a a still viable single-family neighborhood when so many others have gone under to high-rent, low-maintenance student housing. In fact, the drift of the whole area has been toward rather than away from single-family units over the last decade. This heartening and all but unprecedented course of local history should, in my view, be seized upon with pride and preserved for future generations. I urge the Planning and Zoning commission to act in a timely and decisive manner in this review--and help keep a hard-won island of neighborhood community from being eroded. The future of Iowa City as a residential area depends on clear-eyed decisions such as this. Yours sincerely, Garrett Stewart 419 S. Summit Melody Rockwell To: Steve Chadton Subject: RE: Lucas St. Steve -- The purpose of the rezoning is to stabilize the neighborhood; to encourage the conversion of single-family homes back to single-family use and to prevent any new apartments/rooming houses from being constructed or created through conversions of existing structures. The current RM-12 zone allows multi-family structures, but the evaluation of lots sizes and widths along Lucas Street indicates that to create new apartments/rooming houses, the existing single-family residences would need to be demolished and two to three lots combined to increase the densities to multi-family levels. It's not likely that Lucas Street would become another S. Johnson Street or S. Van Buren, because the zoning on those streets is RM-44, which allows a much higher density than RM-12. However, the uses on and appearance of Lucas Street could change if the RM-12 zoning remains in place. The Planning and Zoning Commission is holding two public meetings on this issue. One tonight, March 16, and one on April 6. It is anticipated that the City Council will hold its public hearing on this rezoning request on April 18. The first Council vote would be on May 2. Absentee landlords in the area have secured enough protest forms from property owners on Lucas Street to require a super majority vote (six of seven Council members must vote yes in order for the rezoning to be approved). So far, there has been very little support for the rezoning from property owners along Lucas Street. I will forward your letter to the Planning and Zoning Commission as well as the Council. If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact me. ..... Original Message ..... From: Steve Charlton [mailto:scharlton@stickle.com] Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 7:56 AM To: Melody_rockwell@iowa-city.org Subject: Lucas St. Melody, I am the owner/occupant of 430 S. Lucas St. I receive your letter concerning the rezoning of Lucas St. I have several questions concerning the rezoning. My basic question is "Is my street going to become another S. Johnson or S. Van Buren if the rezoning does not take place?" What usually happens to property values when these types of battles take place? . The parking on the street is another issue of great concern. It is already very crowded and overused for its size. If our alley wasn't in such poor condition, it would easier to use our off street parking. When will the vote be taken on this subject? I am very depressed about this situation. With so many rental units on the street, I don't see much of a chance for preserving the street. My home is 110 years old and I and the past two owners have taken great care to preserve my home. I would be sick to my stomach if I am forced into selling my home to the wrecking ball. Please shed any light on this subject that you can. The best way to reach me today is by returning this email. I can also be reached here at work by calling 319-366-5854 or at home by calling 339-8018. Sincerely, Steve Chadton City Planning Department 410 East Washington Iowa City, IA Dear City Planning Department, I am a resident of South Lucas and I am writing in concern of the type of housing development that is taking place in the neighborhood. I live across fi-om a lot in which a new apartment building is underway. It is such a shame being that it is replacing a beautiful house and will block beautiful scenery. This is a very aesthetically pleasing neighborhood as are many in Iowa City. Too many lots have fallen into hands that are only concerned about money and I think this will really hurt Iowa City. It is a very attractive town. One South Johnson block is enough and the addition of more blocks like that would turn people away. I understand it's a student block but town pride comes first. I am a student myself and one thing that attracted me to the University is the town itself including its homes and neighborhoods. I wouldn't give a second thought about attending a University that contained all living quarters like those of South Johnson. I think the people of Iowa City take great pride in their town and I look to you for help in putting a stop to the swarms of ugly, character-lacking apartment buildings that are putting a damper on the neighborhoods and people. Sincerely, Kasey Hutchinson 537 South Lucas Iowa City, IA e.o s FILED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL 2000 HAR - 7 PH I: f4 7 ZOWA crrY, ZOWA Cl'h' CLERK We, the undersigned, being the owners of twenty percent or mog;)~th~'v~ ~ property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of twenty percent or more ofthe 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 following property: This petition is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of ~t least throe-fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with 414. ~ of the Code of Iowa. Owner(s) of Property Address Pc~4t~I ~ 1015'lO?,.dOcl STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss: DENVER COUNTY ) On this ~ day of Fe. br~n~1 ,20C0; before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, perso ly appeared .~ h ~q ,--q-/~F~rr~ 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 Colorado PROTEST OF REZONING _ O :': :> :::! :~ --~ TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA crn,. ~OWA We, the undersigned, being the owners of twenty percent or more of the ar~-a of th~_~oroperty 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 exlerior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: This petition Is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the Intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at leBst three-fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with §414,5 of the Code of Iowa. Owner(e) of Property Address STATE OF IOWA ) ) JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this'D,,,,.k day of W~,-. L,~ . 1~__.._, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared ~,,,~.,.~ L, %,,.._~,~ ..... and -- to me known to be the identical persons named I~nd who executed the wtffiln and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same as their voluntary act and deed. and CSta!e STATE OF IOWA ) sS: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this ;2,~, day of ~-~-~- , ~ , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared ~"~'~,,-,.~ L ~'-~-~..~n~v,,,,~v,, and t------ to me known to be the identical persons named in ar;d who executed the within and foregoing Instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same as their voluntary act and deed. 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 are;~a of th~'~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 rezonlng of the following property: This petition Is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the Intention that such rezonfng shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the ¢oundl, all In accordance with §414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Owner(s) of iZ_,6[[y ~).~r./~7 Property Address STATE OF IOWA ) ) sS: JOHNSON COUNTY ) on thle~L_ day of ~7~'~. ~. before me. the undersl ,e a Notary Public In and s.,d cou,~ and Stat,. p,rsonal~pesred /,~ ~. ~and ,or to me ~own to be~ ,d~t,., persons na;~ed ,n and .ho exe.c~ted the wfthln and foregol?g instrument and acknowfe ed that the/executed the same ~~d for the State of Iowa Owner(s) of Property Address STATE OF IOWA ) ) 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 !h~ same as their voluntary act and deed. Notary Public in and for the State of iowa TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CR'Y COUNCIL 2.~D ~.~ ''~ ~;'~ ~'' b,'] IOWA CITY', iOWA -. We, the undersigned, being the owners of ~wen~, percent or more of the area of the properb, included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of lwenty percent or more of the properw which ia located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the properly for which the zoning change Is proposed, do hereby protest the rezonlng of the following property: members of the council, all In accordance with §414.5 of the Code of Iowa. ' ' "~""e/~ Proper~y Addresa STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this/'2'/~ ~ ' day of }/J'7,c-~ , tO> , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public In and for said County and State, personally appeared G r,o /:~,l/t'/t_ and to me known to be the idL:~htical 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 Property Address STATE OF IOWA ) ) as: 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 namq~. ~n end who executed the within and foregoing Instrument and acknowledged that they execut~<~ the same as their voluntary act and deed. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa C~ P.O ST OP ILED TO~ HONO~BL~ ~AYOR AND ~ COUNCIL ~ -~ ~ ~: ~ ~O~A ~, ~O~A included in the pro~sed zoning change, or the owners of ~en~ percent or more of the prope~ which is Ionted within ~o hundred feet of the e~erlor boundaries of the prope~ for which the zoning change Is proposed, do hereby protest the rezonlng of the following prope~: ~is petition is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the Intention that such rezonlng shall n~ become effe~e except by the favorable vote of at least three-roughs of a'llhthe members of the ~uncll, all In a~rdance with ~414.5 of the Code of Iowa. ' ' Prope~ Address STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COU~ ) On this __ ay of ~ , ~, before me, the undersigned, a Nota~ Public In and for said Coun~ and State, personally appeared ~r~ ~ 11~ and to me known to be the i~en ical pets ns named In and who ~ ~ t o exec~ed the within and foregoing inst~ment and acknowledged that they executed the same as their volunta~ a~ and deed. Nota~ Public In and for the State of Iowa 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 far said County and State, personally appeared and to me known to be the identical persons name~. In and who executed the within and foregoing Instrument and acknowledged that they execute'a th.e same as their voluntary act and deed. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL 2{)~0 FEE) 22 PH 12:0 5 IOWA crry, IOWA CITY CLERK ~OWA CI~ 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 zoriln~ change Is proposed, do hereby protest the rezonlng of the following property: This petition Is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the Intention that such rezonlng shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all In accordance with §414.5 of the Code of Iowa. net( Property Address A ) set JOHNSON COUNTY } On this da of c~ooo ' eL~,'lr y ':~-,do2L~ ,1~ , before me, the und reigned, s Notary Public in end or said County and State, pe~nallyappeared /L~L ~ end f to me known to bet~h; ide~'ons 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 Iow~a' By: Owner(s) of ProperB/Address STATE OF IOWA ) ) 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 end deed. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ~OWA CITY, IOWA WF,, 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 ]]~is petition is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the intention that such rezoning shall qot become effe~lve except by the favorable vote of at least three-roughs of all'the members of the ~uncll, all In a~ordance with ~414.5 of the Code of Iowa. ' ' ~ner(s) of Prope~ Address 5'rATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY )  ~.cO, before the undersigned, a Notary Public In and On this ~ ~ day of , me, Tot said County and sonelF/a~opeared __. 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. 7~:L ,, SHELLEY SQUIER Notary Public in and for the Sta By: o-ner<sl o, P,ope STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss; JOHNSON COUNTY ) on ,hie ;3day of _"~r, ~ e, befor. me, the u.der.,gned, a Notary Pub,it in and for said County and Stat;,p~so~peared and to me known to be the identical persons name~ in and who executed the within and foregoing Instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same as their volunta~ a~ and deed. 7~ 'C "SHELLEY SQUIER ~ ~ ~ Nota~ Public in and for he wa ~;~ PROTEST 01= REZONING FILED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL !009 ti'~,~ IOWA CITY, IOWA Cfi Y CLEFiK OWA C',TK We, the undersigned, being the owners of twenty percenl or mor~' of the area of the property included in the proposed zoning change. or the owners of twent'/percent or more of the property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the Zorling change Is proposed, do hereby protest the rezonlng of the following property: This petition is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the Intention that such rezoning ~ner(s) of Prope~ Address STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) (~1~. ~. ~~to me known to be the identical p~rsons named in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the ~ame as their volunta~ a~ and deed. . NotaW P~ln ]nd~S STATE OF IOWA ) ! , ! · ) SS: JOHNSON COUNTY ) on ,h,s~ day o, ,¢ p..~,, ~. be,o ,h .esl d,a N, ~b,i~ i~ en~ ~~ ~p~Zo me known to be the ldGntical ~ersons named in and who executed th~ wlt~in and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same as their volunta~ ad and deed. Nota~ ~ Fn and'for the State of Iowa PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA W,,e... ~ undersigned, being the owners of twenty percent or more of the area of the property ir~.~R.t~3'ed in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of twenty percent or more of the ,~__,~e~ty which Is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for ~i~J~ the Zorling change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: This petition is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the Intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the ::..'TZ:':" "'" "'0""' "" "' "' 0' "' "0"" nor(s) of Property Address STATE OF IOWA ) ) Ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this ~."'/'/~day of ]C"'E.qR~4/~-I/, ~ , before me. the undersigne . a Notary Public In and for s 'd CoOn State, personally appeared ~,/.~//N-,~- ~, ~ and exre~uted~e within &nd foregoing instrument and acknowledged ihat 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 underslgned, 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 ..OTEST Or .EZONIN FILED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL iOWA CITY, IOWA I ~EI~'.CLEfRK included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of ~en~ percent or more of the prope~ which is located wlthln ~o hundred feet of the e~erlor boundaries of the prope~ for which the Zodtng change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following prope~: ~is petition is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the intention that such rezonZng shall not become e~e~ive except by the favorable vote of at least three-roughs of all the members of the council, all In accordance with ~414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Prope~ Address STATE OF IOWA ) ) JOHNSON COUNTY ) on ,his "day o, be,o,e me. the u,dersign d.a Notary ,u ,io for said Coun~ and State,onally appeared ~ ~h~ 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 volunta~ a~ and deed. Nota~ Pubtic In and for the State of Iowa 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 C~unty 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 P,OTEST Or ~EZO,~,G FILED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL 20~0 Ht.R -7 PH I: IOWA CITY, IOWA we. the u,ders,g.ed. be,.g the owners of ~,enty percent o~q~ g~l~ ~92a of ,~. inc uded In the proposed zoning change, or the owners of ~en~ percent or more of prope~ which i~ located wlthln ~o hundred feet of the e~erlor boundaries of the prope~ lot which the Zoding change is proposed, do hereby prote~t the rezonlng of the following prope~: ~is petition Is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effe~ive except by the favorable vote of at least three-roughs of all the members of the council, all In accordance with ~414.5 of the Code of Iowa. ~ner(~) ~ Addres~ Prope~ STATE OF IOWA ) ) JOHNSON CQU~ ) On this ~y day of ~b, ,~, before me, the undersigned, a Nota~ Public In and for said Coun~ and State, per, onall9 appeared ~.. ~ and to me known to be~identical persons named ~n and who executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the ~ame as their volunta~ a~ and deed. Nota~ Public In and ~or the State ot Iowa ~ner(s} of ~ Prope~ Addres~ STATE OF IOWA ) ) JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this ~ day of ~-, , ~___.._, before me, the under Igned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared ~ \(~-e. ~ 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 CA 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 cf the properb/which Is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zodln~ change Is proposed, do hereby protest the rezonlng of the following property: This petition is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the Intention that such rezonlng shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with §414.5 of the Code of Iowa. STA~ OF IOWA ) ~ ' ~ ~ ) ss: ~:~ ~ ~ ~ ~'~ fo~ ~t~ co~n~ ,n~ state, p;~n~.y ~ppe~e~ ~ ~, ~e~ ~ ' ~ 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 volunta~ a~ and deed. Not~for t~e~f fowa By: OWner(s) of Property Address STATE OF IOWA ) ) SS: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this day of ,19 , before me, the underslgned, a Notary Public tn 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 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL 2D~] I';,A,R - 7 PH I: ~ 6 IOWA CITY, IOWA CFD/' (3L.EFiK IOVV/~ C!~ IOWA We, the undersigned, being ~e owners of ~enw percent or more of the area of the prope~ included In the proposed zoning change, or the owners of ~enW percent or more of the prope~ which Is located wRhln ~o hundred feet of the e~erlor boundaries of the prope~ for which the zoHin~ change Is proposed, do hereby protest the rezontng of the following prope~: ,/' , STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COU~ ) ~r~ ~, Ro ~5 to me known to be the ~en~al persons named in and who exec~ed~e withinand foregoing tn~rument and acknowledged that they executed the same as their volu~a~ a~ and deed. Nota~ Public In ~r the State of Iowa By: Owner(s) of Proper~y 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 PROTEST OF .EZONING F[ LEE) TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA cn'Y, iOWA CITY CLERK IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, being the owners of twenty percent or more of the area of the property included In the proposed zonlng change, or the owners of twenty percent or more of the prope~'y 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 rezonlng of the following property: This petition Is algned and acknowledged by each of us with the Intention that such rezonlng shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, ell In accordance with §414.5 of the Code of lows. Own Property Address STATE OF IOWA ) ) as: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this ~ day of "'-- ~ -- ,1-9--- , before me, the undersigned. a Notary Public In and for said County and State, pe~nal~'~peared ~&,<~.,.~r+ 5, ~,3~,\.~r- end 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 ) ) as: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this day of ,19 , before me, the underslgned, a Notary Public In and for said County and State, personally appeared end 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 ..o~.sT oF .Ezo.,.~FILED '70' HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL 2G~0 I'I?,R -7 PHI: h8 IOWA CITY, IOWA Cll'Y CLERK IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, being the owners of twenty percent or more of the area of the property included in the propcacti 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 proteet the rezoning of the following property: This petition is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the Intention that such rezonlng shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of a'lli'the Z~~rl In acc ante th §414.5 of the Code of Iowa."' " ~.er<sro.' ~ ,rope~,Address STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On ~his2..q'~ day of~"Euc~_.. , t,~'L, ac>o, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public In and for said County and' State, p~.~sonallv appeared [:~..b_CLv'~'Dbh ~, ~___ _ and ....... tO me known to b. the identical p'e%on. ~ed in and who executed the within and foregoing increment and acknowledged thst they executed the ~ame as their volunta~ a~ and deed. ~ AMY O~N ~ota~ ~ in and for the%t:~e of By. . STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On ~his2.._.~t.% day of FEJof,.v.~' , ~ zbco. before me, the u derslgned, a Notary Public in and ,o. said cou.ty a.d state, p~sona, IF;Fpeared n~,~+~ ~, ~ tand to me known to be the identical pers:~ nameFI in and who executed the within and foregoing Instrument and acknowledged that they execOted the same as their voluntary act and deed. ' ' .RO ST OF REZONIN FILED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CiTY COUNCIL 2~ ~?,R - 7 P~t I: 1~ 6 iOWA CITY, iOWA included In ~e proposed zoning change, or the ownera of ~en~ percent or more of the prope~ which i~ located within ~o hundred feet of the e~erlor boundaries of the prope~ ~or which the zodlng change i~ proposed, do hereby protest the rezonlng of the following prope~: ~i8 petition is ~igned and acknowledged by each of u~ with the Intentlon that such rezoning shall not become effe~lve except by the favorable vote of at lee~ three-rough8 of all the members of the ~uncll, ell In accordance with ~414.5 of the Code of Iowa. ~ner(~) of Prope~ Addre~ STATE OF iOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) Z,_,~'~ay of :~~, ~-eOfi re me, the undersign,~ed, a Notary Public in and On this ~ befo for said CoUnty and nally" appeared ~'~,t,A-CAJ~-- ~' I ~ N~ and to me known [o be the identical persons named in and who executed the w~hin and foregoing inst~ment and acknowledged that they executed the same as their volunta~ a~ and deed, Nota~ Public in and for the State ~wa ~ner(s) of Prope~ Address '- STATE OF IOWA ) '. ) ss: JOHNSON COUN'I'Y ) ~ ubhc ~n and for n p and to me known to be the identical persons named in and who executed ~e within and foregoing Instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same as their volunta~ a~ and deed, Nota~ Public in and for the State~lowa P, OT S O, RE O"',N FILED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA 2O0,3~AR :7 P~ 1: '~'l CITY CLERK We, the undersigned, being the owners of twenty percent or moll~'/tJ~h~'~a~E~'~ 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 propen',/for wh n d rot e fog property This petition Is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of 811 the members of the council, all In accordance with {}414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Owner(s) of Property Address STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this,=.'~4L'day of F'~'~r- ,'-1~~c~c~, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public ~n and for said County and State, personally appeared Lorer, ~(,u~'cL 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 voluntaW a~ and deed. Nota~ Public In a~o~e State of Iowa E~F,'r By: Owner(s) of Property Address -' STATE OF IOWA ) 4. ) 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 c~ HONORABLE MAYOR AND CiTY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA CffY CLERK we. the undera.gned. be,rig the owners otperca // gl fl e eree of t.e p.ope included in the propcacti zoning change, or the owners of twenty percent or more of the property which i~ located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the Zodlng change Is proposed, do hereby protest the rezonlng of the following property: This petition ia signed and acknowledged by each of us with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of ell the members of the council, all in accordance with §414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address STATE OF iOWA ) ) as: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this o'/,g~day of J~OO, before me, the undersi ned a otary Pubtic In and for aid County and~nally appeared ~. ~/~ and e~the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same as their voluntary act and deed. · ~";~ ' RE'E;, CARe PERKINS ~,/~.,~,~ 1 ,./ ~,~ Notary Public In and for the State of Iowa By: Owner(s) of Property Address STATE OF IOWA ) i ! ' ) SS: JOHNSON COUN'r'Y ) On this,:~''~ day of ,--t~__, before me, t e undersigned, a Not Public in and for said County and~dnally appeared 7")~7. ~ and to me known to be t~rsons 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 P.o' s'r or .EzoNING FILED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND OITY OOUNOIL iOWA crrY, iOWA 2DI]gFIA,°, -7 CiTY CLEF~I~ We, the undersigned, being the owners of twenty percent <~Z)~(el~lt~,ei~of the property nc uded 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 zoding change Is proposed, do hereby protest the rezontng of the following property: This petition Is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by ~e favorable vote of st least three-roughs of ell the members of the oouficll, all Ifi accordance with §4t 4,5 of the Oode of Iowa. By: Owr~r(s) of "' Property Address STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this,--2~'r~'day of ~[~, , -t-9 , fore me the undersigned, a Notary Public in and be for said County and State, personall~'~peared :/i2;'E~ .jz',~,c4~-5.F~fc-/ and /t,r/~ 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. Nota~'ry P'~ljc in and for the State of Iowa By: Owner(s) of Property Address - ' STATE OF IOWA ) '; ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this __ day of ,19._.__, before me, the underslgned, 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 ' PRotEs~ or R=O.,.G FILED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL 205G t4~R - '/PH I: t~'/ IOWA CITY. IOWA CITY CLERK wa, tha unde.e,gned, be,rig the cw.s.s of ~enty percJ~/h~.~fl~/~e. of t~. ~o~ included in the proposed zoning change. or the ownera of ~en~ percent or more of the prope~ which Is located within ~o hundred feet of the e~erlor boundaries of the prope~ for which the Zodlng change Is proposed, do hereby protest the rezonlng of the following prope~: This petition ts signed and acknowledged by each of'us with the Intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of.the council. all In accordance with §414.5 of the Code of Iowa. By: STATE OF IOWA ) ) as: J(.]HNSON COUNTY ) On this d,~day of --7/~.4..a./ .1~ before me. the undersigned. a Notary Public In and for said County and State. ~eae~onally appeared .~'t~nr~,'l 6/~25:5'/6'~, J~r/t? f and o ~ ~ i~ ~ .:. ~/~. to ms known ,o b. ,~.e lde.,lce. ~e~o~ na~ed fe.d who executed the w~thln ~d foregoing Instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same as their volunta~ a~ and deed. By: Owner(s) of Property Address STATE OF IOWA ) ) as: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this __day of ,1 ~ , before me, the undersigned. a Notary Public In and for said County and State, personally appeared and to me known ~o 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 Iow~ PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA p ~ which is iocated within ~o hundred feet of the e~efior boundaries of the prope~ for ~;the Zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following prope~: ~is petition is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the Intentbn that such rezoning shah not become effe~ive except by the favorable vote of at least three-roughs of aH the members of the co..ncil, aH In accordance with ~414.5 of the Code of Iowa. ~ner(s) of Prope~ Address STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss; JOHNSON COUNTY ) ~ ay of . ~b fore me, the un ersigned, a Notary Public In an said County andersonally appeared ~. ~u, and fOo~ this d ' to me knowZ to be~entical persons name~ in and wn~ executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same as their voluntary act and deed, .3-~'~z~. DUANESWARTZENDRUB~R N~' the State Owner(s) of Property Address STATE OF iOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY ) On ,hie ~ay o, ~,. ~__. be,or~ me. ,~e ride,. Ig~ed.a Notary ~blic ,n end ,o, said oo..nty and SA"~,sona,y appeared ~ ~,~.~ to me known to be the i~tical persons named in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same as their volunta~ a~ and deed. PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, rOWA 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 Zorilng change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: (:D L~',~'o+ 5. z, u ct~S L ~rolixL ', IouJ'~, CLO~[ 6UT'rJ~T~ ~ 77/'0P ~ ~ {:~O/ OUTLOT 2-~ This petition is signed and ackn edged by each of us with the Intention that such rezontng shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with §414.5 of the Code of Iowa. ~ r.-- ,~.__r-~Owner(s) of Property Address ~ S~, OF IOWA ) :~7~ O ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) o. this Z.? day of .boor , before me the undersigned, a Notary p-b.c in and for said County and State, personallg'~"Fpeared ~-.IC.~/Vt:ll~,, 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 Owner(s) of Proper~ Address - ' STATE OF IOWA ) ! . '; , ) S$: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this ~,..C[ day of ~:;,1'1,~, l~,~,before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personallF'~Fpeared l~;c~c',,.~ fY~.:\le..P.. 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 CA FILED PROTEST OF REZONING ZOODH,~R-7 PFI I:t~7 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOwA crrY. IOWA CiTY CLERK IOWA CI~ 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 zoding change Is proposed, do hereby protest the rezonlng of the following property: This petition is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all In accordance with §414,5 of the Code of Iowa. .y: '~".4:Fm, c .n, Lc~-,~- f Property Address STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this / day of/'fi,,~,.z,c..f- ,:le , before the undersigned, i~ Notary Public In and to me I ed in and 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 {owa K~4/~r(s~of ~'ZI S'. bc,/~J; r(s of Property Address STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this ~ day of/)')A.n.~/4- ,'1:; , before me, the underslg,~:l, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared h(~t/., ~ and to me known to be t ic~ 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 or RE:.o.,N FLED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CiTY COUNCIL iOWA CITY, iOWA We, the undersigned, being the owners of twenty percent or r of the property included in the propoeed 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 rezonlng of the following property: This petition is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the Intention that such rezonlng shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all!'the members of the council, all In accordance with §414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Owner(s) of Property Address STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) Or, this ~ day of 222~CL ,~;,~0O , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and .*.or said Cc"'"'Gnty and State, personally appeared __~t..J,~.~(~ ~l~e4-f-~4./e 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. ° '°"' NotaryCP-u~ln an of Iowa 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 name~. in and who executed the within and foregoing Instrument and acknowledged that they executed !h? same as their voluntary act and deed. Notary Public in and for the State of iowa CA IOWA C~, IOWA C~T~ CLERK W~, the undoreigned, being th~ ¢~r8 ~f ~n~ percent or morn of the ar~a of tb~ prope~ prop~ ~l¢h 18 located within ~o hundred f~t of th~ ~rlor boundart~8 which the zodln~ change Is proposed, do hereby protest the rezonlng of the following pmpe~: ~is petition is signed and ~¢knowledged by each of us with the intention that such mzonlng shall not become effe~e except by the favorable vote of at lea~ three-fou~hs of all the merebern of the ~un~l, ~11 In ~ordance with ~414.8 of the Code of Prope~ Addre~ STATE OF IOWA ) ) sS: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this ~ day of ~¢,.krCl-, , l~Ja'°0.__.~°, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public In 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 Owner(s} of Property Ad, dress STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this ~:~ day of I"'(~,FU,- ,1~0 before . , me, the underst ned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared '~k_A-¥h'CCr~ ~_,~/,L)~,S and t known to be the identical persons named In and who ~nrt~r~k C.~..~,,S to me 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 Cc '. e c~ PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CiTY COUNCIL ~--< IOWACn-Y, IOWA ~:/- .c:9. ,~> ~-- We, the undersigned, being the owners of twenty percent or more of the area of the property included In the proposed zontng 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 following property: This petition Is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the lntentlon that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all In accordance with §414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss; JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this IOn day of/~<rC h . ~z~. before .,. the undersigned. a Notary ~.b,lc In and for said County and State, personally appeared ~r' df'.~ ~/g,~'f_~/'D and to me known to be th~'~entical persons named in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same as their voluntary act and deed. Propen'y Address - ' STATE OF IOWA ) '~. ) SS: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this ib.'~'h day Of/'(/(0-F~ A, 1-9ZE~, before m , the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared ~'~81n ~YT.~_/j and to me known to be the i nti~ persons named in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same as their volunta~ a~ and deed. // Nota~ Public in and for the State of Iowa c,.LC,,'. PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA ~-a --"' 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 rezonlng of the following property: This petition is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the intention that such rezoning shell not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of a'll!'the members of the council, all In accordance with §41 4.5 of the Code of Iowa. By: ,~7'/^ ,r//'Z, '7""~~"~-, Owner(s) of Properly Address ' STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) for said County and State, personall~peared ,~ ~:"Tn~ ' and ' to me known to be :teaidentical perso~ed in and who executed the within and foregoing Instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same as their voluntary act and deed. rW~nan~l~ Nora an t o Owner(s) of Property Address STATE OF IOWA ) ) as: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this day of ,19 , before me, the underslgned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared and to me known to be the Identical persons name~ 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 PROTEST OF REZONING ~:~.C~ ~'~ TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CFFY, IOWA we, the undersigned. being the owners of twenty percent or more of t . ea the prcpe , included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of twenty p~cent ~:> more of the property which Is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the Zorting change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: This petition is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three4ourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with §414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Owner(s) of Property Address STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this ~ day of ~v,~,.~ , re-- , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public In and for said 'County and State, personally appeared C,~,~-~ 4. JL}~nr-/-~. and to me known to be the identical persons named% and who executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same as their voluntary act and deed. ~Publi[A~c tn~a~d~the State o"r Iowa By: Owner(s) of Property Address - STATE OF IOWA ) .~. '!. ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On zhis day of ,19_ , before me, ~r~e underSigned, a Notary HuDIIO 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 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ~ ~ 7;3 ...._. IO~NA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, being the owners of twenty percent or more of the area~:~e p~_.perty included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of twenty percent OP moreT:~ 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 following property: This pe i i nd acknowledged by each of us with the intention that such rezonlng shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of a'llt'the members of the council, all In accordance with §414.5 of the Code of Iowa. '" Owner(s) of Propen'~ Address STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ~~o'n~ ' On this L_._~day of me, s bll 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. a~f~o N f Iowa ot 0 ' Owner(s) of Property Address STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this/~ day of ~ ,..,.' . before ,he, tha und r~i ne a Not,, u~.c to me known to be the identical persons nameF~ in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they execute'<~ t'h;e same as their voluntary act and deed. q~ ~ Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the underslgned, being the owners of twenty percent or more of the area oj~he pr.'c9 erty included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of twenty percent or more ~ 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 following property: / This petition is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the intention that such rezonlng shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of ail~'the members of the council, all in accordance with §414.5 of the Code of Iowa. ' ~' Ow f ' Property Address STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ~fr~Ch' . , , before me, t e unders ned a otary Public In and for said County and State, personally appeared ~f .~ and to me known to be the ide ica ons' named in and who instrument and ac nowledged that they executed the same as their voluntary act and deed. ~ No for t te of Iowa Owner(s) of Property Address STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this day of ,19 .... before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public tn and for said County and State, personally appeared and to me known to be the identical persons name~. ,ip and who executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they execute'd !he s~me as their voluntary act and deed. ' Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ~'2----~ IOWACITY, IOWA ~._.~p ~ F" d s property which Is located withtn ~o hundred feet of the e~erlor boundaries of th~rope~ for which the zo~in~ change Is proposed, do hereby protest the rezonlng of the following prope~: t L], ~is petition is signed and acknowie~ed by each of us with the intention that such rezonlng shall not become effete except by the favorable vote of at lea~ three-fou~hs of all the members of the ~undl, all In a~ordance with ~41 4.5 of the Code of Iowa. ~ner(~) of Prope~ Address STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) ' On this ~ day of 7)L~ , ;1,~1~, before me the undersl ned, a Nota.ry Public In and for said County and State, personally ~ppeared ~ :~. d~a,~ 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. 221592 y Ir~ No e of Iowa By: ' .., · , Owner(s) of Property Address '- - STATE OF IOWA ) '~ · ) Sg: 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 c__,F) . /:ROTEST 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 This petition is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the Intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of aiPthe members of the council, all In accordance with §414.5 of the Code of Iowa. ' ' 70,5 Owner(s) of Property Address~ ' t STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this L~Jay of ~ ~ before~underslgned a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared ~ ~ ~. - and to me known to critical persons ~med in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same as their voluntary act and deed. O~ner(s) of Property Address STATE OF IOWA ) ) $s: JOHNSON COUNTY ) to me known to b~ical ~~nd who executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they execute'~l the s~me as their voluntary act and deed. ?clb PROTEST OF REZONING ~ :"' TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA crrY, ~OWA We, the undersigned, being the owners of twenty percent or more of the a~ of th?-'J.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 rezonlng of the following property: This petition is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the intention that such rezonlng shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all In accordance with §414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Owner(s) of Property Address STATE OF IOWA ) ) as: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this ~ay of ~ , ~ , before me. the undersigned, a Notary Public In and for said County and State, personally appeared t/-,,P_L 4. 1'4~--,~ ' "") and to me known to be the ical 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 By: Owner(s) of Property Address STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY ) for said CounW ~d State, personally ap to me kno~ to be the identical persons n~ed in and who exacted ~e within ~d foregoing instrument and acknowledged fiat they executed ~e same as ~eir voluntaW a~ and deed. PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA We, the undersigned, being the owners of twenty percent or more of included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of twenty per o rrl~e of the property which Is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the i:~t~perty for which the zoning change Is proposed, do hereby protest the rezonlng of the following property: is pe s ~ and ckno~v?;dged by each o'~ us wlth the Intentlon lhat such ?ezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all In accordance with §414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Owner(s) of Property Address STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) for s~d Coun~ and S~te, peru to me kno~ to be the Identical pemons named In and who exec~ed ~e ~hin ~d foregoing increment and acknowledged that they executed the same as ~elr volunt~ a~ and deed. Nota~ Public In and for the State of Iowa By: ~ ~er(s) of Prope~ Address STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this ,],5 day of ~3ArCU , ~u~3, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public In and for said County and State, personally, appeared [/V~ CU~-~ ~ T. {rV}<-Lr~ u btZ~b-, and to me known to be the identical persons n~ed in and who executed the within and foregoing Instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same as their voluntary act and deed. PROTEST OF REZONING Cj ~, TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ~":~ '< no -- IOWA CITY, IOWA :"~ © ~ ~' n-1 -'=-' We, the undersigned, being the owners of twenty percent or more of h of.~e prop rty 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 rezonlng of the following property: This petition Is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the Intention that such rezonlng shall not become effectlye except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with §414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Owner(s) of Property Address STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this !..~..'~day of I1,QtT--~ , ~9; , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared i~,¢~1..~-t. A. evv,.~~iv~ and to me known to be the identlcal pers d In and who executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same as their voluntary act and deed. i,~. LAURIE A. CASE I Notary Public In and for the State of Iowa Owner(s) of Property Address STATE OF IOWA ) ) JOHNSON COUNTY ) for s~d Coun~ and State, personally ap to me kno~ to be ~e iden~cal persons ~m~d In and who exec~ed ~e within and foregoing increment and acknowledged that they executed the same as their volun~ a~ and deed. ' ~.~-03-o.~ I Iowa PROTEST OF REZONING ~>-~ -~ '~1 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CiTY COUNCIL ~ C -"' F"' owA cl ', IOWA We, the undersigned, being the owners of twenty percent or more of t area ~ the property ncluded in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of twenty percent or more of tr~e property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for This petition is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all In accordance with §414.5 of the Code of Iowa. By: 3/D 5,.,,.,,q-L, Property Address STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) , On this ~,~k. day of ~/~2,LFCI,-, , 1~..., before me, the underslgned, a Notary Public In and for said County and State, personally appeared t ~r'p;~ G-, ~__u.b~.~ and to me known to be the tde ical persons named in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same as their voluntary act and deed. I. -I Notary Public In and for the State of Iowa Owner(s) o~ - .'- · STATE OF IOWA ) ,; . .i ) SS: JOHNSON COUNTY ) for said Coun~ 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 volunta~ a~ and deed. PROTEST OF REZONING included in ~e pro~ed zoning ch~ge, or prope~ whi~ is I~ted w~ln ~o hundred feet of ~e e~edor boundaries of ~e pmpe~ for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest ~e rezoning of the follo~ng prope~: S. 5 This petition is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with §41 4.5 of the Code of Iowa. Ch sf f ' 1' ~ 5 I1 ~. C'ner( Property Address STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this nq..~'day of Ilq0xc.L. ,1~ , before me the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared ~.~o e~. d_.~ 5.-Fr~!x' 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 PROTEST OF REZONING 7; :'E~ .~: ""T'I TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL :::~ ~OWA cn'Y, ~OWA c~ e We, the undersigned, being the owners of twenty percent or more of the a',~'a of tlT:~ prop rty included in the proposed zontn9 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 following property: This petition is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, CORPORATION STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: COUNTY OF Johnson ) 2000 On this 28 day of March , feE, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa, personally appeared w A Fotsch ao~lx , to me personally known, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that ~y ju~ the Pres i dent , re~ely., of the corporation, executing the foregoing instrument, that (no seal has been procured by) j~t~J(~-"~-~;XtfJ~J~]~t]~--N~i]~fJ~lX'l~ the corporation; that the instrument was signed (]01dcsee~) on behalf of the corporation by authority of its Board of Directors; that W A Fotsch, President , acknowledged the execution of the instrument to be the voluntary act and deed of t corporation by it voluntarily executed. Ray ]2ass Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa ....... · ., ,, ,,= .,t,,,, , m,u lu~go[ng insm.iment and acknowledged that they executed the same as their voluntary act and deed. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa PROTEST OF REZONING --~----' .-. TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL -"": ;:: ~ i"~ 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 following property: Propercy described J.n ]:ova C:L~.y PlarmJ. ng& ~oning Ztem ]~;XCO0-0007, property -is located south o: B~lingt, on S~,ree~, along the 300-600 Bloc]~s of Governor Street; and a portion of the 800-900 Bloc of ]~ery Street, and along t, he 300-600. Blocks of Lucas Sf. ree~, and a portion of the 700-800 of Bove.~i S~,ree~,, as graphJ. cally depic'~ed ~.n ~:he Site :rz~at:i, on map attached hereto, labeZed t~Z, O0-0007. This petWon Is signed and acknowledged by each of us wlth the intentlon that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the coundl, all In accordance with §414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Owfier(s) o~ Property Addtees STATE OF IOWA ) ) as: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this ~ day of '" ,1:1~~, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public In and for said County and ~rsonally appeared !~'oE, ERTJ. ~\eJ,~:iT~' and to me known to be the Identical persons named in and who executed the within and foregolng Instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same as their voluntary. act and deed. By: Owner(s) of Property Address STATE OF IOWA ) ) as: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this .... day of ,19 . before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said ~,ounty and State. personally appeared and to me known to be the identlcal persons named in and who executed the wlthin and foregoing Instrument end acknowledged that they executed the same as their voluntary act and deed. ' ' Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa / PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL C~C) IOWA CITY, IOWA ~ Z°o 'FI We, the undersigned, being the owners of twenty percent or more of the ar'e~ ~ol th_e$p.r p_ _rty.- included in the proposed zoning change or the owners of twenty percel~2Do~- mote o~e property which is located within.two hundr;~d feet of the exterior boundaries the p~perty for which the zoning change Is proposed, do hereby protest the rezonlng of the ~ollowin~roperty: 'COp_L't,y descc~.Bec] ~.n TO~,T-~ C~.~:[r P.l.a.n~.z~g & ~,o~S. ng Tt, em ]5D::C00'000?~ p=o:L:~L"'cy :l.s ].ocat, ed sout, h of ,~,z:].~.z~gt, on St, rear, a].ong t,l'~e 300-600 33.oc]cs of Govez'noc St, ceet, a.ncl a l~OL~c~.On Of the 800-900 ]~:Lock,' ,tZ :Bo,,Te.--7 Stzeet, az~cl a:Loz~g t,l~Le 300-600. :B].ocks of T_.,UCaS Stzee'c a.T~Cl a poz~.o~ of the ?00-800 .f :]~reL'7 St, ceet,, :~s gcapl',.:LcaZ:!.:lr c]ep:Lat, ed..I_~ the S~.'ce T_,OCat,~.On map at, t, ached l~e=et, o, :LaBe].ecl ,g?_,00-000?. This petition Is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the Intention that such rezonlng shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with §41 4.5 of the Code of !owe. By: .-' Owner(s) of I,'/~ ,Property Address STATE OF IOWA ) ) JOHNSON COUNTY ) for said ~ personally appeared ~\~,a { ~o ~- 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. DIANA M. HUFF MY COMMIS$1ON EXPIRES ~Ota ry Public in and for of Iowa By: Owner(s) of Property Address STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this day of ,19 , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Publlc 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 !h ,e same as their voluntary act and deed. Notary Public In and for the State of Iowa co,_ , Rc-B C.R 'r PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CiTY COUNCIL IOWA CFFY, IOWA We, the undersigned, being the owners of twenty percent or more of the area of'~ro~rty included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of twenty percent or(~_~ o~othe property which is located within.two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of th -' roper~for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the fo!lo~v?g property: This petition is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of a'll~"the members of the council, all In accordance with §414.5 of the Code of Iowa. By: ,~~'~..-.--- Ow~r(s) of Property re STATE OF IOWA ) ) SS: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this :.~L~ay of 'r)~o_ v-d.,,, ~°c>_'~,before me, the undersigned, a NotaW Public tn and for said Coun~ and State, personally appeared ~ J~ ~ ~ ,~ and to me known to be the identical ~rsons named in and who' executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same as their volunta~ a~ and deed. ~ /~~w 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 namq~. in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they. execut~'8 the same ,' as their voluntary act and deed. , Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL :>, .~"" IOWA CIT~, IOWA' :'-'~ We, the undersigned, being the owners of twenty percent or more of the a~t of the'property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of twenty percent or more of the property which is located withlntwo hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezonlng of the following property: P~'oL:eI~,Z described in To~ra C:1.~,:y Pla~n,;i. ng& 2~:~ning T~,em ~XC00-0007, Dlopel~c,y iS loca'ced sou~,h of Bu~ling~son S~.~'ee~, aloncj ~,he 300-600 :Bloc]~s of GoveD'~oz' S~,:ee~, and a po~b:l. on of ~,he 800-900 T~.l. ock of ]3o~rer4r S~;zTee~, add along the 300-600 9.1.oc:k.s of T,UCaS Sbz:ee~, and a Dozed. ion of 'che ?00-800 Block of :Bo~rez-y S~.ree~., as graph.QTLca.l.l:y depic;c. ed in ~,he Si~,e Local. ion map a~,~,ached here~:o, labeled 9E~00-0007. This petition is signed'and acknowledged by each of us with the intention that such rezonlng shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with §414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this {~ =/"day of ~ 0 1~ , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public In and for said CoUnty and rsonall~/appeared T')A ~ ~ I L L 15 and to me known to be the identical persons named in and who executed ~e wi~in and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same ~s their volunta~ a~ ~d deed. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES . DECEMBER 3. 2~1 Nota~ Pu~ in and for the State of Iowa ~ner s) of Prope~ Address STATE OF IOWA ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY On this ~'*"Lda of ~ , before me 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. ' ' · CINDY D. WEEB Notary Pu~/~ in and for the State of Iowa '." MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 'o,, DECEMBER 3, 2001 PROTEST OF REZONING ~.~ TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY. IOWA ~-:, ......c.~ "--: W e '~ ::' 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 following property: Z~zropezrt. y desczr:l. bed J.n Zo~ra C:l.t.y Z~Zazm:l.z~g & 2~n:l. ng Z~,em :E'XC00-0007, p~:opez:~.y ~.s ].oca~,ed sou~:h of ]3u~.l.:l. ng~.on S~.zreet, a3.ong ~,he 300-600 ]33.ocks of Gove~"noz: S~Jreet, and a po~.~-on of ~.he 800-900 B3.oc]~ of ]53owe. z'y S~.ree~. ant1 a3.ong ~.]~.e 300-600. ]3Zocks of Z,ucas S~.ree~. and a pozt.:~on of the ?00-800 e3.oc~ of 5overt S~,=ee~.~ as graph.tca3.Z:y' deL~.c~sed j.n ~,he S~.~,e Z~oca~,~.on map a~.~,ached beret. o, ].a]:>ezed Z~62;00-0007. This petition is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the Intention that such rezonlng shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council. all In accordance with {}414.5 of the Code of Iowa. .,.,'.:,." z ct. k ,,25 s. ,., ,:::, "- owner(s) of ..~ Address · Property STATE OF IOWA ) SS: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On thls .~O day of fV~0~c~-, , ~, 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. '.-;. M~/Commission Expires ~ -Id-'O.~ , Not a the By: Owner(s) of Property Address STATE OF IOWA ) ) JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this . day of ,19.. ,, before me, the underslgned. 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 F' PROTEST OF REZONING RLED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ' ~OWA cn'Y, iOWA CITY CLERK 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 extedor boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: This petition is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with §414.5 of the Code of Iowa. By: ~ ~2~. ~ ~65 5, L.-co~s Owner(s) of Property Address STATE OF IOWA ) ) JOHNSON COUNTY ) On . ~ , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared Gp.~,c,i ,.~ A c~2~.9~ ~- and --- to me known to be the i~J~ntlcal 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 By: Owner(s) of Property Address STATE OF IOWA ) ) 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 lns~ument and acknowledged that they executed the same as their voluntary act and deed. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa D PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CiTY COUNCIL ~ 10WA .city, IOWA ~'=t ~ , .... property which is located wlthintwo hundred feet of the exterior bound~scs~0f t~ property for which the .~.o~in~ change is proposed. do hereby protest the rezoning of~e foli~25~ing property: this petition is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council. all in accordance with §41 4.5 of the Code of iowa. , ..................... Owner(s) ~ , LO--~ S- . Property Address ~Cdre.~ , :~H-- STATE OF ~ JeHNSON COUNTY ) On this I(~+Lday of r~0.L ,;>(r ., before me, the underslgned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared r~t~.r/c ,~ ~OJd~.~o and .~L<CL~Ax,r'~t~/_, C.oJ, f ~n<, to me known to be the identical persons named in and who executed t within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same as their voluntary act and deed. JULIA A. ANDERSEN Notmy PubS-Arkansas Public in and for the State of STATE OF-l~t~ ) .-~.~'~5,~nct~ ) ss: JOI INGON .OOUNTY ) an this .Eb._x~ay of ~'"V'L,t EL, ~ , before me, the undersigned a Notary Public in and for said County and etato, personally ~ppoarod rT'~rt~ K"{C- 5 ~)['{~ n ~ and ~..~ n/---. C.-~,-,/~'.t t~ ~ to me known to be the i~lentical Fersons named in and who executed th~ wlthln and foregoing Instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same as their voluntary act and deed. """""""""""'~"~ ~ Seal fT/d.~/'/-tT,5//.,¢ JULIA k. ANDERSEN Notary i:h~k~ - Arkansas WASHINGTON COUNTY My Gommtaak~ ExiNrM C~ 1 co. Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship "~. I$ I~ ~ I1 ~ [ opening the doors of Iowa City k t~PR 1 ~ 2000 1700 South Fkst Avenue Suite 25B CI~ OFFIC[ Iowa Ci~, ~ 52240 (319)358-9212 April 11, 2000 Iowa City City Council Civic Center 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Members of the Council: On behalf of the Board of Trustees of Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship (GICHF), we are writing in support of the application to rezone properties located in the South Governor, South Lucas and Bowery Street neighborhood from Low Density Multi-Family Residential (RM- 12) to Neighborhood Conservation Residential (RNC-12). We have owned a duplex at 527 and 527 ½ South Governor since 1991 that is currently used in our affordable rental housing program. At its meeting last evening, the Trustees discussed the rezoning application and passed a motion to write you to express our support. It is, and has always been, the philosophy of GICHF to scatter our rental units throughout our community. By acquiring scattered site, single family homes and duplexes in well-established neighborhoods, GICHF has been able to increase the stock of appropriate, affordable rental units for families. We have also contributed to neighborhood preservation through extensive rehabilitation of our rental units. The duplex at 527 and 527 ½ South Governor was extensively rehabilitated by GICHF. We have found South Govemor Street and the surrounding neighborhood to be conducive to family living. The mix of housing types and occupants in this neighborhood is also desirable for families in need of affordable housing in close proximity to an elementary school, public transportation and other services. The neighborhood also offers families an altemative to apartment living. We believe that RNC-12 zoning is the best way to preserve the character of this pleasant and unique neighborhood. A community based housing organization, GICHF was begun as a response to the severe shortage of affordable housing in our community by representatives from area religious congregations. The mission of GICHF is to increase access to and availability of affordable housing for low-income people in Johnson County. GICHF currently has fifteen congregations and four Human Services Agencies as permanent members which broadly represents Iowa City. Please vote in favor of the application to rezone the South Governor, South Lucas and Bowery neighborhood. Sincerely, Maryann Dennis Charles Easth~ Executive Director President, Board of Trustees SURVEY AND EVALUATION OF THE LONGFELLOW NEIGHBORHOOD I & II, IOWA CITY, IOWA Prepared for the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commi-~sion H.R.D.P. Grant ~95-036 C.L.G. Grant #19-97.007 Prepared by Molly Myers Namn~nn, Principal Investigator Brian Schultes, Historian November 1996 July 1998 'hired States ~epartment of the Interior ' lational Park Se~ice 4ational Register of Historic Places ontinuation Sheet ~ection number ~ Page I CFN-2~-1116 Architectural & Historical ~csourccs of thc Longfellow NciBhborhood Ar~ iowa City, iowa (Johnson County) Historic ~ntcxt: THE LONGFELLOW NEIGHBORHOOD AREA: c.1860-c.1946 It must be remembered that from the beginning in 1839, Iowa City was a planned community, designed to serve as the capital of the Territory of Iowa. The original plat of the town contained a Capitol Square, various parks and markets, 100 blocks and 31 outlots. The stone capitol building (NRHP) designed by J.F. P, ague became the first state capitol in 1846. By the time the seat of government was moved to Des Moines in 1857, !_o..wa City had also become the home of the State University of Iowa (1855). The history and development of Iowa City are covered in detail in Marlys Svendsen's 1992 Multiple Property Document Historic Resources or Iowa City, Iowa. Jan Nash provided an in-depth study of the College Hill Neighborhood in her 1994 survey and evaluation. The history and development of the area to the southeast of the Original Town are the focus of this Longfellow Survey project. A small portion of the Longfellow Survey area was actually part of the Original Town. Outlot I and the east half of Outlot 29 are located in the far northwest corner of the survey area, bounded by Burlington on the north, Court on the south, Summit on the east, and the alley west of Governor on the west. (Summit Street was the original east city limits and Court was the boundary on the south.) The square shape of these block_~ can be seen on the 1875 map from the Andreas Atlas, reflecting the size and shape of the blocks in the Original Town. However, the 1875 map also shows that a number of additions had been made to the south and east of the Original Town. The area south of Court Street is filled with long narrow blocks. Variations in block size and shape continued throughout the growth of the city. In addition to differences in block size, the size of the lots varied greatly from addition to addition. The majority range from 110' to 180' deep and from 60' to 100' in width. The east side of Summit Street was an exception to this, with the lots extending all the way to Clark Street, 340' to the east. A plat map Jnited States Depa~ment of the Interior ~ational Park Seaice National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section number ~ Page 5 CFN*25~- Archit¢ctu~[ & Historical ~esourccs of ~h¢ Longfellow NeiShborhood Ar~ iowa City, Iowa (Johnson County) from c.]900 shows the various additions and lot sizes within the survey area. These additions include: Summi~ Hill ] 857 Jerome's Addition ] 857 Kauffm~ Addition ] 857 S~rohm's Addition ] 857 Berryhill 2rid Addition ]866 Oakes' [st & 2rid Additions ~87] .... Ee~'s ~st Addition ~894 R¢~an's 2rid Addition ]899 Swisher's ~undell Addition ]908 Coldren's Addition ]909 O~es' 3rd Addition The earliest additions (through Berryhill i~ ]866) were basically located from Summit Street west, whfi¢ the later oaes were from Summit/Clark Street ~st. This northsouth division of the Longfellow area is visible not only on maps, but in the architectural styles and sizes of the houses that line th~ streets. The architecture of this area can be divided into two definite periods of d~v¢lopment: c. 1860-c. ] 9 ]0; and c. c. ] 946. The easiest way [o s~udy this ar~ is chronolo~ically and by streeL startin~ wes~ ¢d~¢ with Governor ~d Bowe~ str~s. Althou6h Court Street was [¢cMically southern city limits of ~he youn~ town, it app~rs t~t Burlington really served as the southern boundary. Development of the ar~ to the south be~ slowly, Stro~'s Nursery was located at the south end of Governor, [hen considered to be aimos~ in country. One of ~he earliest houses in the survey area is located jus~ south of Burlington a~ 332 South Governor. This small one and one-half s~ory stone cot~aee is similar several others recorded in the community which da[~ from the ]840's and '50s (the early NPS Form (646) OM8 Approvel No. I024-001e United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section number z Page 6 0FN-259-1116 Architectural & Historical Resources of the Longfellow Neighborhood Area Iowa City, Iowa (Johnson County) ones being contemporary with the construction of the "Old Capitol"). AlthOugh this house has been altered over the years it is still representative of this early dwelling type. Iowa City's population had grown dramatically following the arrival of the Mississippi & Missouri Railroad (later known as the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific) in 1856, from 1,582 in 1850 to 6,316 in 1860. An L868 bird's eye view of Iowa City shows several houses and buildings between Burlington and the railroad tracks along Van Buren and Johnson streets, and houses along Bowery, but little development farther east along Governor. It was that year however, that the Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church was built on the west side of Governor (411). This is a typical small frame church of the period, being a gable roof rectangle with the entry located on the gable end. While this church is not unusual in its design, it is important due to its early date of construction and as an example of a documented African American congregation. · .,~ ... ~,,/ \ ~~"',,"" ~..~' LEFT: Stone Cottage ~. ;~ ~,,,. :?. ~ ~,,,~' '-~-"? " ~. "-'~...F.~ 332 South Governor ~! .~ .~ ,'.7. .:....:..-....,,,.._ NP$ Form 1G.~O0-i OklB ,,,[~wevel NO. 1024.0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section number ~ Page ? CFN-259-1116 Architectural & Historical Resources of the Longfellow NeighborhoOd Area Iowa City, lowa (Johnson County) ,' ~,. RIGHT: Bethel A.M.E. Church ' ~" ~'XX 411 South Governor ' '~*/:" I .~ ----:__-~ ,,.____ .' -";; .: ....'-_- -.,'. -"'; .'::.~2:;. ;. ": ;":'~...: ! · -~ ,_~-- .-,,,.r-- v.,,,,~ -~- -- Only four residents are listed on Governor south of Burlington in the 1868-69 City Directory: William Haskett, George Patterson, and Fred Renger were all listed as laborers, while K.A. Powell was listed as a carpenter. Renger lived at the corner of Governor and Bowcry while the others were simply listed on the east side of the street. By 1878-79 Mrs. A.M. Blackman was listed on Bowcry at the northwest intersection with Summit. On Governor, Barney Gesberg (owner of Sheets & Gesberg, Bldrs.) was shown on the east side (we know he lived at what is now 510 South Governor), as was a blacksmith by the name of Samuel Huffman. G.W. Chambers (a painter) and Mrs. R.A. Cutler both lived on the west side of the street. None of .the 1868 residents were list:ed. This appears to be NPS Form lO. IOO-a OMB Al;proval No. United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section number g Page 8 CFN-259-1116 Architectural & Historical Resources of the Longfellow Neighborhood Area Iowa City, Iowa (Johnson County) typical of the city directory listings of the period. No addresses were given, and it is impossible to tell if all residents were actually listed. Originally the Gesberg House at 510 was probably the mirror image of the house next door at 520. 520 has been altered over the years, the greatest change being the application of replacement siding. However, the Gesberg House retains the original bracketing, bays, and window moldings. An addition to the rear is not intrusive, but the loss of the original porch is unfortunate. No documentation has been located, but it seems highly likely that Gesberg and Sheets were the builders of both of these houses. Information from the property owners indicates that the house at 510 was built between 1861-64 and that the Gesberg family members were the first occupants. Iowa City's population continued to grow through about 1875, with construction taking place in most of the established neighborhoods. From 1875 to the turn of the century the population declined. As Nash noted, there were several reasons for this, including the economic downturn following the Panic of 1873, and the movement farther west as the railroads were extended. The growth along Governor and Bowery appears to have been steady during this period, with the majority of the residents continuing to be carpenters, blacksmiths, laborers, and even several retired farmers. Two pre-1875 houses with a high level of integrity are located in the 900 block of Bowery: A two stor~ frame Italianate at 922; and the Gothic Revival Price-Swisher House at 917. By 1900 Governor' had added a bookkeeper, a capitalist, and an implement dealer. and by 1910, a period of new construction along the street, the new residents included three professors, a doctor, two managers, and an insurance agent. The make-up of the neighborhood was changing with the new century. This became even more apparent with the 1920 figures, when an attorney was listed on Governor, and Bowcry could boast of a teacher and two managers. · NPS Form ~,O-KX-a OMB ApprOvll No. 102~4,0019 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet E- 9 Section number Page CFN-259-1116 Architectural & Historical Resources of the Longfellow Neighborhood Area Iowa City, Iowa (Johnson County) .... . .,, ..... -:: ~:'.--:. ;.,.~ ..... ....:... ;.:.,} .;- -..:.. ;--,,.~ ';....-: .;, .. :. ~,. --..-- . - , . .. __, . TOP: 5~0 South Governor (The Gesberg Residence) BOTTOM: 520 South Governor ..~ . ~. · ""'" ..t"--": '.: ~ -= - .. m ........ ' _ -,-~ ,".'_;, ','. ,., LONGFELLOW SURVEY AREA SUM HIT STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT PROPOSED LONGFELLOW HISTORIC DISTRICT PROPOSED CONSERVATION DISTRICT 7 NP$ Fofin ID. gO0~ OMB ADprovel No. I0~4.0018 United States Depadment o! the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section number F Page 43 CFN-259-1116 Architectural & Historical Resources of the Longfellow Neighborhood Area Iowa City, Iowa (Johnson County) KNOWN EXAMPLES: Longfellow Neighborhood Area Survey Site # Address Owner: Historicl1995 District Key/Cont/Non 52-010-L001 308 S. Governor Hearity House Conserr C LO02 310 S. Governor Zuber House ' N L003 312 S. Governor Kinney House " C L004 314 S. Governor MAK Enterprises Hse " C L005 328 S. Governor Beers House " C LO06 332 S. Governor Larkin House " C I1)07 333 S. Governor Miller House " C [1)08 336 S. Governor Larkin House " C L009 338 S. Governor Tucker (Apts) " N LO10 347 S. Governor Breen/Moore House " ' C L011 401 S. Governor Breen/Moore House " C LOt2 404 S. Governor Miller (Apts) " N LO13 408 S. Governor White House " C LO14 411 S. Governor AME Church " K LO15 412 S. Governor Chrismer House " C LO16 415 S. Governor Walker House " N L017 416 S. Governor Sandersreid House " C LO18 419 S. Governor Gov. St. Assoc (Apts) " N LOI9 423 S. Governor Fuhrmeister House " C?. LO20 426 S. Governor Sullivan/McClosky Hse " C LO21 427 S. Governor Brandt House " C LO22 428 S. Governor Elkin House " C LO23 431 S. Governor Russell House " C LO24 433 S. Governor Peters House " C L025 436 S. Governor MOD POD Inc (Apts) " C L026 437 S. Governor Fuortes House " C L027 441 S. Governor Kelley House " C LO28 443 S. Governor Freerks House " N LO29 506 S. Governor Kaufmann House " N LO30 510 S. Governor Bowans/Ge. sberg " C L031 517 S. Governor Stephenson House " C L032 520 S. Governor Shutt House " C? LO33 521 S. Governor Piro House " N L034 527 S. Governor ? House " N LO35 528 S. Governor Starek House " N L036 529 S. Governor Kent House " C NlbS ~:otm lO..BOO-e OuB A/~rOv~/NO, IQ;4-O011 (146J United States Department of the Interior National Park Service .: National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section number F Page 44 CFN-25~-1116 Architectural & Historical Resources of the Longfellow Neighborhood Area Iowa City, Iowa (Johnson County) 1037 530 S. Governor Burke House Consent C L038 601 S. Governor Giesly House " N L039 614 S. Governor Thibodeau House " C? 1040 615 S. Governor Heath House " C? L041 616 S. Governor Durrenberger House " C L042 624 S. Governor Johntz House " C 1,043 625 S. Governor Abromeit House " C I_,044 627 S. Governor Vele'z House " C L045 630 S. Governor Carlson (Apts) " N LO46 633 S. Governor Brown House " C I047 635 S. Governor Phipps House " C? LO48 636 S. Governor Gerard House " N L049 638 S. Governor Blackwell/Brooke " C L050 640 S. Governor Foots House " C 1051 641 S. Governor Kuebrick House " C L052 645 S. Governor Henderson House " C 1053 649 S. Governor Jameson House " C? 1054 650 S. Governor Stern House " C 1055 652 S. Governor Balas House " N L056 653 S. Governor Marpie House " N 1057 654 S. Governor Burt/Westvig Hse " C L058 655 S. Governor Caman/Annicella Hse " C? L059 656 S. Governor ? House " N L060 659 S. Governor Marden House " N L061 661 S- Governor Shepherd House " N L062 670 S. Governor AndersonHouse " C? L063 676 S- Governor Lynch House " C L064 304 S. Summit Nolan/Kauffman Summit K L065 305 S. Summit Tau Delta Gamma Summit N L066 314 S. Summit Nolan House Summit C L067 325 S- Summit Henderson House Summit C L068 330 S. Summit Van Gilder House Summit C L069 331 S. Summit Semel House S-remit C L070 Summit/Court Obelisk Summit K L071 404 S. Summit Blanc House Summit C L072 405 S. Summit Rohertson/Travis Hse Summit C L073 406 S. Summit Goodman House Summit C L074 409 S- Summit Harris House Summit C L075 411 S- Summit Sagert House S-remit C L076 410-412 S. Summit Fairall House S-remit K NPS F~;tm 10,900.4 United States Oepartment of the Interior National PBrk Service Nati~nai i:tegisteF ~f Histooric Places Continuatio. n Sheet Section number P- Page 4 Architectural & Historical Resources of the LongfeJlow Neighbo~ Area Iowa City. Iowa (Johnson County) C. 1900 plat map of the Longfellow Survey area showing various additions to Iowa City. 7 OD~"~' I~ ~ 4ucas is ~ne narrowes- o,- ~e has al~ys ~ ~. Wi~ ~ve~or, ~diat~y to ~e ~s~, Lugs develo~ a[~ ~e streets in ~e ~ste ~f o~ ~e s~ey ~. ~le ~e ~e h~es ~ ~ildi~s fr~ ~e 1860s ~ '70s along LuGs, ~e mJor ~velo~t apes ~ ~ve ~ place fr~ c. 1910 ~ c. 1930. ~ough ~is ~ea is sho~ on ~1 ~e e~ly raps, ~d ~e 1868 Birds's ~e View, it ~s not sho~ ~ a S~m mp mtil 1920. By ~at t~ met of ~e ~tm~ion e~lier b~l~ngs m~t rely pri~ily on stylistic characteristics, ~ ~stori~ ev~. A few hous~ c. 1890-1900 wi~ d~a~ve g~le ~ ~ ~rches are fo~ ~ Luc~. ~ of ~e have ~ re~t~ ~ colors t~ic~ of ~e~ ~ri~. hters~sed wi~ ~ese late 19~ c~t~ bus~ ~e d~i~ fr~ ~e first ~t~ of ~s c~t~. ~e mJority of ~e houses on Lucas ~te ~t~ 1 91 A cluster of six houses Just sou~ of B~l~on was selected ~ representtire, ~ ~ inv~ site sheet prepped. ~ese front g~le h~ses wi~ ~rch~ across ~e front, ~e t~ic~ of ~y midge class ho~ f~ ~e first t~ decays of ~s c~t~. A ~ of houses ~ ~e west si~ of ~e 400 block illus~ate ~ ~pul~ early 20~ ~t~ ~i~: ~h ~l~ial ~vi~ its g~rel r~f. ~ere ~e serial exiles of ~s t~ of house in ~e s~ey ~ea, but ~ese t~ ~e repres~tive. ~ inv~to~ site sheet ~s ~en preyed on ~ese ho~es. 57 58 ~_~ Bungalows, Four Squares, and Craftsman houses line bot3~ side of Lucas. Many of these are in unaltered condition. The houses on the west side of Lucas are placed closer together. Though there is no common setback, houses on both sides of the street are fairly close to the sidewalk, allowing for large back yards. The 600 block of Lucas is longer than that of the streets farther west because the railroad tracks run southeast. Many lots in this area were not built on until after WW II, so there is a mixture of turn of the century, early 20th century, post war, and new construction. Lucas, frcm Burlington to Bowcry, should receive an intensive level survey, with an eye to possible NR nnmination. There is a sense of time and place about this narrow, tree lined street that should be preserved. '-,_~/ Like Lucas Street, Governor was one of the last in the sur~ey are to be completely developed, but it also has some very early buildings. Sanborn maps do not show this area until 1920, but it was seen in the 1868 Bird's Eye View, and was shown on all the ~rly maps as well. Frc~ Bowery south, this area was originally Strohm's Nur-~ery, so early buildings would n~t be expected there. A stone cottage in the 300 block has been altered over the years, but still belongs with the group of early stone cottages in Iowa City. An inventory site sheet has been prepared on this c. 1850 house. Another early site has also been selected to have a site sheet prepared. The Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church was constructed in 1868 at its present location. This is a simple wood frame structure, rectangular 4n shape with a gable roof. This church is of historical significance and its continued preservation is important. A third site on S. Governor was also selected to have a site sheet prepared. This is 520 S. Governor, the location of an altered frame I~!lanate house, but more importantly, the site of several unusual works of vernacular design, folk art in the truest sense. The concrete chapel, wishing well, and other objects built by John Kobes should be carefully studied, and perhaps nominated to the NR. Along Governor houses from the early 20th century, Four Squares, and Bungalows, mix with houses from the last decades of the 19th century. There ls an easy blending of styles. There is no common setback, and the space between the houses varies. Sometimes there are 63 two houses to a lot, others 3ust one. The houses on the east side of the street seem to continue the idea of larger lots that is found on Summit Street directly to the east. Trees line the street, and though it is a busy one-way street heading north, it retains a sense of quietude. With Lucas, an intensive level survey should be done of Governor, from Burlington to Bowery, with the idea of establishing NR eligibility. The sense of time and place found on these two streets is very similar to that found in the Summit Street Historic District, its just that the houses along Lucas and Governor are somewhat smaller and not so gr-~nd. HOUSING The majority of the housing in the Longfellow Neighborhood is owner occupied, single family dwellings that are well maintained and modestly sized. Most of the homes were built in the 1900- 1930 period. Summit Street, a designated Historic Preservation area, provides a contrast with its larg:r, stately homes. Throughout the neighborhoed there is a variety of historically significant homes such as the Grant Wood home on Court Street and a concentration of M offit houses. These homes are located in the area of the neighborhoed that is zoned Residential Single Family - 8 (maxhmum of 8 units per acre) as shown on the Land Use Map. Multi-family housing is fairly limited throughout a majority of the neighborhood outside of two areas. The western section (west of Sumrnit Street) ofthe neighborhood has a few bloaks of higher density apartment structures and lar~r homes that have been convened into rooming houses due to their proirnity to the University. This area is zoned M ulti-family Residential - 12 (maximum of 12 units per acre). Them is also a concentration of duplexes and two-3 unit buildings north of Court Street within the RS-8 zoned area These 3 unit buildings would be considered an existing non- conforming use. The neighborhood would not like to see further devdopment of multi-unit rental housing or conversion of single family homes into rental housing but is aware of the resource the existing multi-unit, rental housing provides to the comity. The neighborhood is interested in making this existing rental housing an asset to the neighborhoed by encouraging maintenance and compliance with zoning ordinances. The area along Lucas and Gov~nor is beginning to see a resurgence in single family rental properties becoming owner-occupied and subsequently rehabilitated and improved. The neighborhoed would like to encourage this transition. The Longfellow Neighborhood Association successfully rezoned the 7-acre property located at 1301 Sheridan Aveme from the existing Industrial zone to RS-8 (Residential Single Family - maximum 8 units per acre) in October 1992. This effort was in reaction to the pending sale of the Advmced Drainage System industry occupying the site, The neighborhood was concerned about' continued or possibly more intmse industrial use on the site if sold. The purchaser/developer of the property has sugl~sted a number ofpotmtial residential uses but has yet to provide a final plan for neighborhoed input. An "ADS Subcommittee" has been formed to represent the neighborhood in the devdopment process. (This paragraph will need to be updated to reflect the construction of the duplex structures and elderly group homes on the property.) The general interest of the neighborhood is to retain both the architectural and use diversity of housing types, as well as the affordability while maintaining the well-kept, attractive appearance of the neighborhoed. HO USING MAINTENANCE CHALLENGE: Although the general condition of the homes in the Longfellow Neighborhood appears to be good, there is concern that as the homes age the cost of maintaining them will be a deterrent for the OWnerS. OBJECTIVE: Encourage maintenance and pride in appearance of owner occupied and rental properties. GOALS: 1. Promote participation in Housing Rehabilitation Proti~ams available through the City and the Elderly Services Agency for lower income households. ACTION PLAN Utilize the Neighborhood Newsletter to promote availability of the p rog'ams. Provide infornmtion at Neighborhood Meetings. 2. Promote maintenance and responsible management of existing rental housing ACTION PLAN Promote awareness of possible historic significance of some rental structures through media, presentations, and p articip ation in historic/conservation district devdop ment. Pursue consistent enforcement of zoning ordinance (noise, nuisance, and maintenance) by contacting City when necessary. Work with landlords to encourage maintenance 3. Encourage general neighborhood pride in their homes. ACTION PLAN Establish process to acknowledge owners that take pride in maintaining and enhmcing their property (awerds, yard signs, neighborhood newsletter recognition) Utilize neighborhood newsletter to provide information about home maintenance, resources, and historic significance. NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION CHALLENGE: Altl~ugh the general condition and use of the housing in the neighborhood is acceptable, them is a need to ensure that no further deterioration occurs. The residents of the Governor Street area would like to encourage the continued conversion of rental property to single-family, owner-occupied homes. Maintaining the number and location of existing multi-family buiktings is accepted. Preservation of existing historic areas and buildings as well as conservation of the neighborhoed are priorities. GOALS: 1. Pursue downzoning or establishment of a conservation zone of the existing RM-12 area in the Longfellow Neighborhood boundaries. ACTION PLAN Determine appropriate zone designation for area based on zoning ordinance and input from City staff. Solicit interest from residents and property owners in area Gather broad-based neighborhood support for zone change. Proceed with process through the City Council. 2. Evaluate potential for designation of neighborhood as a Conservation District to ensure stability. ACTION PLAN Educate and promote interest in a conservation district designation for the neighborhoed. Endorse devdopment of Conservation District overlays on Court and Oakland. Gather broad-based neighborhood support for designation of conservation districts. Proceed with official designation assisted by City staff. (Theprocess for establishing a good portion of the LongI~llow neighborhood as an historic district was started in 1996. The completion of this designation is expected to occur in the next year. Mention this process in this section of the neighborhood plan would be appropriate as it relates to the preservation of existing housing.) 3. Continue to be involved with all new devdopment projects and provide input into the City review process as changes in the neighborhood occur. ACTION PLAN Continue to have the ADS subcommittee work with the devdop er of the site at 1301 Sheridan to promote quality devdopment of the site Enstre continued participation in providing input into devdopment activities in the neighborhood as information is provided by City staff. (The destination of a portion of the neighborhood as an historic district will protect those areas by requiring review by the Historic Preservation Commission. The commission would include a representative j~om the Long~llow Historic District) SUGGESTIONSNOT INCLUDED IN REVISIONS *To include the interest of establishing green space in the ADS devdop ment plans. This information is included in the Beautification section of the Neighborhood Plan. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a public headng will be held by the City ,=Council of Iowa City. Iowa. at 7:00 p.m. on the 21 day of March. 2000, in the Civic Center Council Chambers. 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City. Iowa, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk; at which headng the Council'will consider. 1. An ordinance conditionally changing the zoning designation from Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) to Low Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-12) for 0.82 acres of property along the west side of (Benton Court north of Benton StreeL An ordinance amending Title 14, Chapter 6, 'Zoning', to allow wide-base freestanding signs in some commercial zones under certain conditions. Copies of the proposed resolution and ordinances are on file for public examination in the office of the City Clerk, Civic Center, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons wishing to make their views known for Council consideration are encouraged to appear at the above-mentioned time and place. MARlAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK plXta~liW~lht-21.dOC City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: March 30, 2000 From: Kann Frankhn, D~rector, PCD ' '~ d"'/]' Re: Sign Amendments for Wide- e-Standing Signs and Height Requirements The Commission recently recommended approval of amendments to the sign ordinance to allow wide-based free-standing signs. The amendment was considered as a result of a request from a local auto dealer whose franchise provides a wide-based free-standing sign. In addition to having a wide-base, the sign is 25' 9" tall, in excess of the 25' height limitation for most free- standing signs. At the City Council's public hearing regarding this item, representatives from Chezik-Sayers Honda requested that the ordinance amendments include an increase to 26' in the height limitations to accommodate the Honda sign. The Council sent the proposal back to the Planning & Zoning Commission for consideration of this request to increase the allowable sign height to 26'. Free-standing signs have had a height limitation of 25' in Iowa City since the 1970s. (The only exception to this is for signs in the CH-1 zone within ,.1,000'. of an interstate.) This height limitation is based on a balance between the need for businesses to provide visible signage and the aesthetics of the streetscape and the horizon, particularly as signs relate to the height of buildings. The rationale given for allowing 26' high signs is that the Honda Corporate offices designed their signs to be 25' 9". Changing the height limit to accommodate a single designer seems somewhat arbitrary. There is no known standard for car dealership signs in the industry; others may design their signs to be 26'9". In making amendments to our ordinances we try to find some broad rationale for the change that will enable us to approach an issue consistently. There does not appear to be such a broad-based reason rooted in the public interest in this instance. Wide-based free-standing signs are visually more obtrusive than unclad free-standing signs. If one were to consider a height difference between wide-based and typical free-standing signs, one would conclude that the wide-based signs should be shorter, not taller, because they visually occupy more space. Consequently, it does not seem reasonable to amend the ordinance to permit wide-based free-standing signs to be higher than other free-standing signs. The staff cannot reasonably recommend an increase in height based on a rationale that seems arbitrary. However, if the Commission or Council is inclined to recommend approval of the increase in the allowable sign height, we believe it should be done for all free-standing signs city-wide, and not limited to wide-based signs alone. Ls\mern\kf3-28.doc NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARJNG Nollcebhembygivenlhatepublic Council of Iowa CIty'. loam, at 7.1X) p.m. on ~e4"'day ofAp~l, 21X10.1n 410 E. Washington Sireel, Iowa CIty. Amss Ovs~a~ (OSA-P~) fo~ ~ a~ms Iocat~ at th~ Avenue from Md.ean 81reet souffi for a distance of 240 feel c. An ¢x'dinance amending 'l'iEe 14, Chapter 6, Zoning. to allow masonP/wall signs in be General Indusldal (i-1), Heavy Industrial (1-2), Office Research Park (ORP) and Research Development Park (RDP) d. An c~dinance amending Title 14, Ohapter 6, Zoning, Io allow overnight boarding of animals within ~ 8~rlla| clinics in Ihe Commercial Office (OO-1) Zone. Copies of be F'oposed on:linances am on file b' public examinatlc~ In me office of be City Clerk, C~c Center. Iowa City, Iowa. Perso~ wishing to make belr views known for Coundl consideraffi~ are enccxraged lo appear at be above- ppdadmin~noUces%cound144.doc PUBLIC NOTICE On Tuesday, April 18, 2000, at 7:00 p.m.,'the Iowa City City Council will hold a public hearing on the FY01 Annual Action Plan. This is part of Iowa City's 2001-2006 Consolidated Plan (CITY STEPS) for the use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME funds in FY01. The Housing and Community Development Commission has reviewed the FY01 requests for CDBG and HOME funds and has made a recommendation to the Iowa City City Council on the use of those funds. The Housing and Community. Development Commission feels that the objectives and budget listed below will best address the needs, priorities and strategies identified in CITY STEPS. STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES AS SUPPORTED BY CITY STEPS, SUMMARY OF FY01 FUNDING ALLOCATIONS AS RECOMMEND- IOWA CITY'S CONSOLIDATED PLAN FOR HOUSING, JOBS AND ED BY THE HOUSING ,kND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COM- SERVICES FOR LOW-INCOME RESIDENTS. MISSION The Housing and Community'Development Commission reCommen- AFFORDABLE HOUSING dations are based on the receipt of $938,000 in Community · Aggressively pursue federal and state housing assistance pro- Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, $642,000 in HOME grams. . Investment Partnership funds, $120,000 in program income, and . Maintain and expand affordable rental housing stock. $190,000 in carryover funds for a total of $1,890,0 00. · Maintain and develop services to help low-income households locate and retain affordable housing. Recommended . Increase opportunities for entry into homeownership. PrOjeCts Funding Levels · Target specialized programs to include congregate housing d~vel- Micro-enterprise Training: Institute for Social . opment, both rental and owner-occupied. &Economic Development , $10,000 · Maintain and develop services to assist eldedy persons to remain Safety Equipment: DVIP 6,427 in their existing housing. Transit/Accessibility Project: Goodwill Ind. 104,500 . Continue rehabilitation and accessibility efforts. Daycare Expansion: Hannah's Blessing 200,000 Support Services for Transitional Housing: HOMELESS Successful Living 18,000 · , Support emergency shelter rehab/expansion and plans for improv- Nurse Case Management: Free Medical Clinic 21,275 ;ing day shelter opportunities. Furniture Project: Domestic Violence · , Improve transitional housing programs for families, single individu- Intervention Program 13,725 'oals and persons with 'special needs. Aid to Human Service A~encies 105,000 · Assist low-income households in maintaining and retaining their Small Repair Program: Eldedy Services Agency 25,000 ' existing housing to prevent homelessness. Housing Rehabilitation: City of Iowa City 186,623 · Increase understanding of issues surrounding rural homelessness. Transitional Housing Acquisition: Hawkeye Area , Community Action Program 96,450 PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES Facility Rehabilitation: Hillcrest 8,000 · . Provision of dependent care facilities and services. New Construction Rental Housing: · Provision of youth centers, youth services and senior centers. Iowa City IHA II LP 275,000 · Provision of health facilities and services: medical, dental, nutrition. New Construction Transitional Housing: MECCA 325,000 ' preventive care. Transitional Housing Acquisition: Successful Living 200,000 . Improve access to transportation and dependent care for low- Program Administration ~ : income residents. TOTAL $1,890,000 . '. Provision of legal aid, training in living skills, and tenant/landlord ':education or mediation. PROJECTS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING · ' Provision of crime awareness and prevention programs. Cable ~/Office Accessibility - CiW of Iowa City · Continue fair housing activities and human services coordination. Small Enterprise Dev't Project - Extended the Dream Foundation Pedestrian Bridge - Iowa City/Johnson County Senior Center ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Old Bdck Accessibility Project - Old Brick, Foundation ·. Provide employment training, education, and support services. SRO Rehabilitation - Successful Living . ~ Encourage the expansion and retention of business and industry Consumer Credit Counseling Service - Family Services : that pays at least a living wage. After-sChool Employment Transportation - MYEP : New Construction Rental Housing - Iowa City IlIA Ill LP Persons wishing to comment on these proposals may do so at the New Construction Rental Housing - Iowa City IHA IV LP Pt~blicHeadng or by writing to the Office of the City Clerk, Civic Center, Affordable Rental Housing-MDI LP165/Metro Rains Devel. 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52240. SE Quadrant EvaluatioNPlanning - Neighborhood Centers Additional Information Is available for review at the Public Library and the Department of Planning and Community Development. For further information, contact Angela Williems, Steve Long, or Steven Nasby, Department of Planning end Community Dqvelopment, 356-5230. Steve van der Woude 509 Brown Street Iowa City, IA 52245 Dear Mayor and City Council Members, The information on this map was provided by Marcia Klingaman, the City's Neighborhood Planner. At first glance it seems that group homes-transient and transitional housing projects-- are located across the city. Consulting the map, there are concentrations in three areas: the west side in the area of Seville Apartments, the south side in the area south of Highway 6, and in the Northside. On closer investigation it is evident that many of the locations are not group homes for homeless adults or transitional housing for adults being treated for alcohol or drug addiction or on probation. The locations with the range of numbers (2-4 or 3-6) are actually apartments or houses operated by HACAP for families. These units for families are low density and fit in a residential neighborhood. These are not highlighted in color on the map. Most of the locations with the numbors 5 or 6 next to them are group homes operated by Systems Unlimited for youths and adults who have physical or mental disabilities, such as autism. There are several of these homes located south of Highway 6, two in the Northside and the remainder in scattered locations. Two of the larger group homes on the south side, MECCA and Youth Homes, are located in commercial areas--not in a residential neighborhood. The City's map had some oversights. The map did not show the Youth Homes location on N. Johnson Street in the Northside. This is a shelter for teenagers who are having trouble living at home with their parents. The map did not show Successful Living's boarding house on N. Van Buren Street in the Northside. The City apparently does not consider this as transitional housing even though it is listed in Successful Living's application for federal funds as a location where subsidized housing is provided for men. With few exceptions the group homes, which house homeless or persons who are being treated for drug or alcohol addiction or who are on probation, are located in the Northside. The only other area with a large number of such housing units is a commercial area (Mecca - 32 units on Southgate Avenue). At a neighborhood meeting on March 23 Theresa Kopatich said that she plans to close Successful Living's group home on S. Dodge Street if she opens a transitional housing operation on Church Street. This would serve to further concentrate most transitional housing into our neighborhood (Emergency Housing Shelter - 29 units on N. Gilbert Street, Successful Living - 21 units on N. Dubuque, 14 units on N. Van Buren Street and 8 units proposed on Church Street). Many Northside residents are concemed that another transitional housing project will affect the health of the neighborhood. In exchange for the benefit of living in a close-in neighborhood with charming older homes, Northsiders have come to expect that they have to live with negatives such as traffic, noise from loud student parties, and run-down student rental housing. They also feel that the neighborhood is doing its fair share as the location for most of the city's transient and transitional housing. Many feel that the Northside is becoming a tess safe place to raise a family and are concerned that the working and middle class will move out of the neighborhood. At the neighborhood meeting Theresa Kopatich said that only two of her 40 tenants were wanted by police for a violent crime (a ratio of 1 out of 20). That appears to be a high risk for those of us who live in the neighborhood. I feel that It is important for our community to be welcoming to all, but I am concerned that additional transient or transitional group homes will not contribute to maintaining a healthy diversity of housing. As a long-time Northside resident I have witnessed many changes in our neighborhood and fear that it has suffered a great deal from development pressure. I am concerned that it remain a place that is attractive to families as well as students. If the Council chooses to fund Successful Living, please stipulate that the funds will not be used in a residential neighborhood. Steve van der Woude 7 Joan Liffring-Zug Bourret 215 Brown Street Iowa City, Iowa 52245-5801 Dwayne gourret (319) 337-9998 Fax 319-351-6846 e-mail penfield@penfield-press.com April 19, 2000 To Members of the Iowa City Council: We are concerned about the unsafe unfair treatment of the homeless in the residential neighborhood on Gilbert Street, housing at times over 31 people in a 24 hour period in a small two-story frame building-lmilmej with limited yard space. The people take turns sleeping in shifts, depending on whether people work days or nights. This means that more than 31 people may occupy this small building in a 24 hour period without violating the city fire code. At the maximum 93 people could call this address home every 24 hours. Before $215,000 is spent to house seven women and a supervisor at the Church street address, we suggest that funds are needed to improvide and/or provide safe fire-proof housing for all Iowa City homeless and transient people. If this building is funded, certainly there should be restrictions on other uses involving transient, needy people there, density and type of clientel. Iowa City seemingly stands alone in sheltering transients in a residential fire-trap. Other Iowa cities such as Des Moines and Dubuque have missions in downtown non-residential areas. An expandable fire-proof building to accomodate the growing number of transients attracted to Iowa City's generous welfare assistance should be a priority over acquiring marginally safe residences up-dated to meet regulations such as the Church Street house. And perhaps these needs should take precedence over a new public library. Such a fire-proof carefully designed building should be adjacent to the hospitals and other services since about 30% of these people are estimated to be mentally ill or sociopathically unable to be part of the mainsteam population. Successful Living succeeds, accord- ing to their figures, with 30 per cent of their clients gaining employment and other housing. The other 70% leave the program and there is no follow-up. A concern with architectural zoning restrictions is meaningless when such a large group of transients may live in a two-story frame house exempted from many of the zoning restrictions of a historic · district. At the minimum we think there should be long-term planning and fire-proof build- ings for transient people in need, preferably in every neighborhood if they are to be housed in resi- dential areas instead of more central locations. Sincerely, Joan Liffring-Zug Bourret Page 1 of 1 Marjan Karr From: Tom Carroll [tcarroll@iowacity.net] Sent: Monday, April 17, 2000 8:35 PM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: Residential Facility We are gravely concerned about the proposal to add another residential facility to the Northside Neighborhood. We applaud the city's efforts to provide low cost housing alternatives, but we believe that good public policy dictates that these facilities be spread across the city and not be concentrated in any one location. The northside already accomodates two other facilities and the homeless shelter. The fact that other neighborhoods in the city have organized to fight the addition of condominiums, leads us to believe that other neighborhoods have no such facilities. Before the council approves the funds to convert the residence on Church Street, we believe that the council needs to address the question of the inequitable distribution of these residences within the city. We thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Tom and Patrice Carroll 4/17/2000 7 ~,~ DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Medical Center Iowa City, Iowa 52246 April 14, 2000 I PR 1_ ? ,, .... Iowa City Council Civic Center 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 To Whom It May Concern: I would like to take this opportunity to express my support of the effort the Successful Living Program is undertaking to purchase the house at 214 East Church Street. This project would provide low cost housing for individuals who are homeless in a supportive environment. The program director, Theresa Kopatich, is a strong advocate of ending the homeless cycle of individuals and empowering them with the skills needed for self support. As the Iowa City Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) Homeless Veterans Point of Contact (POC), I have collaborated with Theresa many times to assist homeless veterans with transitional housing, employment and case management for access to the VAMC healthcare system. This includes veterans with medical, mental health and substance abuse issues. 'This transitional housing and case management program would provide the above mentioned services to approximately eight homeless individuals as I understand it. This is a smaller number of residents than the previous halfway house program. Thank you for your consideration and support of this important mission to end the cycle of homelessness. Sincerely, MICHAEL J. KRATZ, LISW Iowa City VAMC Homeless POC 507 E. College St. 319-338-7884 4/ll/00 Ciff .... City Council Members 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear members of the City Council: I am writin9 to express my support of Successful Living's endeavor to open another transit±offal liv~ncj~house"in' Iowa-City.. As the H~eless Outreach Soci~._~orkef.for the Mid-Eastern Iowa. Co~nfty ~ental Health Center,' I work'daily with in~vidu~s and families who are homeless; either stayfn9 at a local shelter, with family/friends, or on the streets. ~e despgrately need housin9 options for people who are homeless. Each year I receive-calls from concgrned citizens about people lfvin9 in their cars or stayfn9 under the Gilbert St. bridge. I often have to tell these concerted citizens that there are no other opticS' for individuals-except to' stay in their cars, etc... Successful Livin9 is able to provide more housin9 so that fewer individuals are livin9 in their cars or on the street. ~is would benefit our whole co~nity; Thank you for acceptin9 this letter. If you have any~estions, or need additional fnfo~tion please contact me at 338-7884. Sincerely, Tara Youells Homeless Outreach Social Worker SERVING JOHNSON, CEDAR, 10WA, AND LOUISA COUNTIES Hannah's Blessing Child Care Center 130 Lafayette Street · Iowa City, IA 52244 Phone (319) 356-6468 March 23, 2000 ~L~ M,/I~ ~ 0 ~00~ CITY IIAtVAGEIFS OFFICI Mayor Emie W. Lehman ~ City Council of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Mayor Lehman and City Council Members: Hannah's Blessing Child Care Center is pleased with the Housing and Community Development Commission's recommendation to allocate $200,000.00 toward the acquisition of a facility from which to run a day care. The block grant funds will allow us to keep tuition costs reasonably low, expand the number of available childcare slots, increase the availability of after-school care, and ultimately, to implement evening and weekend services. The critical need for affordable childcare in our community has been well documented in city staff reports, the news media, as well as by advocates for children and families. Our goal is to offer affordable, safe, and quality childcare services to all citizens in the Iowa City and Jotmson County area. We would also like to commend the Planning and Development staff for their helpfulness, and competent guidance throughout the funding process, both this year and last year when we were unable to secure funding. The Commission's recommendation affirms the belief that children are valued, and childcare is a high priority in our community. Our commitment to filling the gap in services is ongoing. Sincerely, Danidle V. Thompson Marian Karr From: lowell brandt [Idbrandt@avalon.net] Sent: Monday, April 17, 2000 5:46 AM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: Successful Living Application An application to receive grant monies through the City of Iowa City for development of a transitional house on the Northside will soon be reviewed by you. The applicant, Successful Living, wishes to place their program at the same location, on Church Street, where Hillcrest Family Services previously operated an adult group housing program. This note is in opposition to that application. The goals of Successful Living are supported by this writer and, I believe, by many in the Northside Neighborhood. Our neighborhood has a long history of supporting group homes and transitional housing so I would hope one would not think we are attempting to be "exclusionary" when, as a neighborhood, we have voiced opposition to the Successful Living application. My concern is primarily with the concentration of transitional housing in one or two pockets of our city. A map showing the locations of supported housing in Iowa City was sent to us by Marcia Klingaman. That map shows a high concentration of this type of housing in the Broadway area. Most of that housing is for 2-4 people. The map also shows that the Northside has the two properties with large population concentrations (the Emergency Housing Shelter and the existing Successful Living property.) What is unique about the Northside locations is that they are "front-end" housing which means that the residents are typically without any available housing and are attempting to develop some stability and resources in order to move in to a more "normal" housing situation. This also implies that this population has a concentration of residents with greater needs and less success in achieving the stability and resources required to live independently. Thank goodness there are programs like Successful Living to work with this population but please also appreciate the challenges that a concentration of this population may bring to a neighborhood. Those of us who live more permanently on the Northside value the diversity of our neighborhood. We are here knowing that we share living space with young and old, people with comfortable means and those without, apartments and single-family homes, transitional housing and fraternities. Maintaining diversity means maintaining a sometimes delicate balance. When high density housing increases, the neighborhood becomes less attractive to those who wish to live in a single-family home. When there is an increase in "front-end" transitional housing, the neighborhood becomes less attractive to those who wish to live in an area perceived to have a relatively low crime rate. Once the neighborhood is viewed as being out of balance with it's diversity, you can lose the neighborhood qualities. This is my concern for the Northside. Please consider the impact of adding to the transitional housing population in our neighborhood. We are not asking to remove the existing housing. I think many of my neighbors would agree that we should all do our fair share to help address the problem of homelessness in our community. The Northside and the Broadway area should not be left alone to do the fair share for the entire City. The Northside has often been cited as the ideal upon which the Peninsula Project has been designed. We would like to continue to be the ideal for many years to come. Please help maintain our current fragile balance of diversity and assist Successful Living in finding an alternative location for this additional project. Marian Karr From: Sarah Buss [sarah-buss@uiowa.edu] Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 12:12 PM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: proposal regarding transition housing To Iowa City Council Members: As Northside residents (416 N. Linn Streeet), we would like to comment on Successful Living's planned use of 214 Church Street for transitional housing. It is our understanding that the house will be for women only, and that it will have no more than eight occupants. We have also been assured that the total number of rooms in the neighborhood designated for emergency and transitional housing will not increase, since the Church Street house will replace a similar house on Dodge Street. Given these facts, we do not object to the Housing and Community Development Commission's proposal. We would, however, like to register our concern about the negative impact any further transitional (and other assisted living) housing will have on our neighborhood's vitality. Marcia Klingaman has provided us with a map indicating where such housing now exists in the city. This map makes it clear that the Northside neighborhood bears a disproportionate burden of the city's transitional and emergency housing. We and many of our neighbors are very proud of our neighborhood's diversity. And we strongly support the efforts that Successful Living is making on behalf of people who are trying to get their lives back together. But further increases in transitional and emergency housing in the Northside area run the serious risk of disrupting the delicate balance of our neighborhood, and in particular, make it less likely that families committed to the success of downtown Iowa City will put down roots in this part of town. The vitality of the Northside neighborhood is of importance in its own right. But it is especially important because it affects the vitality of the City's downtown. If the Council does not already have a long-term plan regarding the location of further assisted living homes, we urge you to formulate one. And we urge, in particular, that there be no further increases in such housing in the Northside Area. Sincerely, Henry Paulson and Sarah Buss Paulson Publish 4/11 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 April, 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, regarding the intent to enter into a purchase agreement with Greg and Beth Van Dusseldorp for the conveyance of .77 acres of property located adjacent to 4387 Kountry Lane, S.E., Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa, and to dispose of the property in accordance therewith. 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. Publish 4/13 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT AND ESTIMATED COST FOR CITY OF IOWA CITY POLICE 2"D FLOOR CONSTRUCTION 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 hearing on plans, specifications, form of contract and estimated cost for the construction of the Police 2nd Floor Construction Project in said City at 7:00 p.m. on the 18th day of April, 2000, said meeting to be held in the Council Chambers in the Civic Center in said City, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk. Said plans, specifications, form of contract and estimated cost are now on file in the office of the City Clerk in the Civic Center in Iowa City, Iowa, and may be inspected by any 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 pweng\nphpolice .doc 9/99 R-1