HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-03-20 Info Packet of 3/8 CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET
,~ c~t~, or
/f';I ~;~,%A. March 8, 2001
[ MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
IP1 Meeting Schedule and Tentative Work Session Agendas
IP2 Letter from Mayor to Jan Capaccioli: Alcohol
IP3 Letter from City Manager to Mike Lehman (Chair, JC Board of Supervisors):
Fringe Area Agreement
IP4 Letter from City Manager to Dan Wiedemeier (Iowa DOT Commission): Iowa
Clean Air Attainment Program Funds
IP5 Letter from David Tingwald (Northside Neighborhood Association) to Planning
and Community Development Assistant Director: Criteria for Alley Traffic
Calming Study, Block 73 OT [Planning and Community Development Assistant
response included in Council packet]
IP6 Memorandum from Senior Planner Miklo: Code Review Report Presentation
[Development Code Regulations Analysis included in Council packets only]
IP7 Email from Planner Howard to Mike Arn: Arn Family Input to the North District
Plan
IP8 Special Projects - Photo History (Water Facility Improvements Report #5)
[color version available at Clerk's Office]
IP9 Memorandum from City Manager: Public Intoxication Arrest Report
IP10 Iowa City Police Department Monthly Bar Check Report - February 2001
IP11 Building Permit Information - February 2001
IP12 Memorandum from Dianna Furman: Utility Discount Program Statistics -
Fiscal Year '99 Total, FY'00 and 01 Monthly
IP13 Email from Carol DeProsse to JCNews: Miscellaneous (5)
IP14 Email from Richard Twohy to JCNews: Coretta Scott King at UI
IP15 Email from Brandon Ray to JCNews: Coralville City Council
I o~-o~-o~ I
City Council Meeting Schedule and ~h 7, 200~
Tentative Work Session Agendas
March 19 Monday
6:30p COUNCIL WORK SESSION Counc~ Chambers
March 20 Tuesday
7:00p FORMAL COUNCIL MEETING Council Chambers
J April 2 Monday
6:30p COUNCIL WORK SESSION Council Chambers
April 3 Tuesday
7:00p FORMAL COUNCIL MEETING Council Chambers
April 16 Monday
6:30p COUNCIL WORK SESSION Council Chambers
April 17 Tuesday
7:00p FORMAL COUNCIL MEETING Council Chambers
April 20 Friday
2:15p-3:15p SPECIAL COUNCIL WORK SESSION Council Chambers
Youth Summit
Meeting dates/limes subject to change
FUTURE WORK SESSION ITEMS
Dog Park Sidewalk Cafes
Mormon Trek Extended Alignment Development Code
N. Dodge Street Alcohol
Lenoch & Cjlek Building Occupancy ScheduJing of PCRB Joint Meeting
Senior Center 28E Agreement Linn Street Angle Parking
March 7, 2001
Jan Capaccioli
Substance Abuse Counselor
MECCNHealth Iowa
University of Iowa
4189 WL
Iowa City, IA 52242
Dear Jan:
On behalf of the City Council, I would like to thank you for your comments
regarding alcohol in Iowa City. It appears you've been following this issue
closely.
We appreciate the invitation to visit Health Iowa at Student Health Services.
Individual Council Members may be contacting you to set-up appointments.
Again, thank you for your input.
Sincerely yours,
Ernest'W. Lehman
Mayor
cc: City Council
410 EAST WASHINGTON STREET * IOWA CI1V, IOWA 52240-1826 · (519) 556-5000 * FAX (319) 556-5009
March 2, 2001
Mike Lehman, Chairperson
Johnson County Board of Supervisors
913 S. Dubuque Street, Suite 201
Iowa City, IA 52240-4207
Dear Mike:
Thank you for your letter of February 15, 2001 regarding the Johnson County/Iowa City Fringe
Area Agreement and the plans for the interchange at 1-80 and Herbert Hoover Highway. Copies
were sent to Council. I also have taken the liberty of responding. The City would be happy to
work with the County on resolving what should be the appropriate land use plan for this
interchange. We will await your direction as to how your staff, or any consultants you may hire,
would wish to approach this planning process. We are ready to start consideration of this matter
at your convenience.
I will await notification from you or your staff as to how and when you wish to proceed.
Sincerely,
Stephen J. Atkins
City Manager
cc: City Council
Karin Franklin
tpl-lkfdoc
410 EAST WASHINGTON STREET · IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 1826 · (~19) 356 5000 · FAX (319) 356-5009
March 5, 2001 ~1~ ¢
Mr. Dan Wiedemeier, Chairperson
Iowa Department of Transportation Commission
P.O. Box 928
Burlington, IA 52601
Re: Iowa Clean Air Attainment Program Funds
Dear Dan:
In March 1997, the City of Iowa City was the recipient of a $1.065 million Iowa Clean Air
Attainment Program (ICAAP) grant for a project to relocate the Iowa Interstate-CRANDIC
railroad interchange from south Iowa City to Iowa County. In February 2001, the project was
officially accepted by the Iowa City City Council, and the project has been closed out. By
receiving good bids, the total project cost was reduced to approximately $893,000, of which
80% ($714,000) was paid for with the ICAAP grant. The remainder was paid by the railroads.
I would like to thank you and Iowa DOT for allowing this creative use of ICAAP funds. By
relocating the railroad interchange outside of our urban area, the instances of arterial street
blockages, and the pollutants created by idling vehicles, have been significantly reduced. For
example, prior to this project it was not uncommon for Highway 6 and other area streets to be
blocked by interchanging trains for 10 to 15 minutes during the evening commuting hour.
We are thankful for the cooperation from the Iowa DOT and Iowa Interstate and CRANDIC
railroads in seeing this project through to fulfillment.
Sincerely,
City Manager
cc: Mike Wandro, Iowa DOT Director
Jeff Davidson, JCCOG Executive Director
jw/Itr/sa-w~ederne~.doc
410 EAST WASHINGTON STREET · IOWA CITY. IOWA 52240-1826 · (319j 35¢~-5000 · FAX (319) 356-5009
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION ,,
February 27,2001 : -.
,
). :
Jeff Davidson >
Assistant City Planner
City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear Mr. Davidson:
Re: Criteria for Alley Traffic Calming Study, Block 73 OT
At your suggestion, the Noahside Neighborhood Association has discussed criteria for
the unique situation of conducting a traffic calming study on an alley. The circumstances
of block 73 OT are considerably different from a traffic cahning study of a street. The
twenty-thor width of the right-of-way is encumbered with trash dumpsters, utility poles,
telephone equipmenl, retaining walls, and a building addition, built into the right-of-way.
The clear way is less than 16 t~et.
The alley in question mirrors the steep hill of Brown Street and is diflicult and dangerous
to negotiate in snow and ice. Residences at both ends of the alley are built right up to the
city right-otLway. Traffic passes within a few feet of bedrooms at ground level on both
sides of the alley. Increased traffic volume over the past two years has resulted in
structural damage to one of the historic residences.
The alley was not a through alley when the abutting residences were built. No residences
have been built m block 73 OT since the alley was paved through in the 1950's.
The Northside Neighborhood Association met, 22 February 2001, to discuss
recommendations ti-om its traffic and parking working group.
Jeff' Davidson
page 2
February 27. 2001
The Northside Ncighborhood Association unanimously agreed to recommend the
lbllowing criteria:
· Speed. Speed for street traffic calming is based on 5 m.p.h. over the speed limit,
which is 25 m.p.h. for streets. The threshold is 20% over the speed limit. The
Northside Neighborhood Association recommends a threshold of 12 m.p.h.
for the alley study. This, like the criterion for streets, represents 20% over the
allcy speed of I0 m.p.h.
* Volume. Because 75% of the alley is zoned low density residential. the study
should be based on a formula for low density zoning. In computing that
li~rmula. consideration should be given to only six ol'the eight abutting lots. Two
lots, lots 2 and 7, do not have vehicular access to the alley.
· Input. All property owners within 300 feet were cousidercd lbr input over the
past year when the direction was to close the east halfol'the alley. The Northside
Neighborhood Association wishes to be as inclusive as possible to solicit input
t?om those xvho are affected, as well as those who perceive they are affected. The
Association recommends that all proper~ owners and tenters within 300 feet
continue to provide input into this process. Responses nced to be delineated to
include the l~llowing information:
o Owner occupied ~ Renter~ Absentce landlord ~
o l ligh density ~ Low density ~
The Northside Ncighborhood Association continues to bclievc the solution most woahy
of exploration is that otl~red by the Iowa City Fire Depaamcnt, a tire gate that would
allo~v lhll access t~om both sides of the alley while eliminating through traffic, but allow
emergency vehicles thll access at all times.
David ]'ingwald L ' '~
Coordinator, Northside Neighborhood Association Steering Committee
lBr the Northside Neighborhood Association
814 E. Market St., Apt. D
Iowa City, Ioxva 52245
Telephone: 338 1~
Cc: City Cound
March 7, 2001 ~"~. , ~e_~=~L~'dll~
Mr. David Tingwald, Coordinator ~ C~t~) Ofk~
Northside Neighborhood Association Steering Committee ~ ~
814 E. Market Street, Apt. D
Iowa City, IA 52245
Re: Alley traffic calming study in Block 73, Original Town
Dear David:
Thank you for your le~er of Februa~ 27, 2001. We are still planning to commence our tra~c calming
study in the Block 73 alley in April when we can get our traffic counters down to record tra~c speed and
traffic volume data. Since our meeting in Janua~ at Horace Mann School, I have heard from three
residents and one properly owner on Block 73, and I can tell you that passions appear to range from
strongly opposed to strongly in favor of ena~ing some so~ of traffic calming in the Block 73 alley.
I must have misrepresented my intent in requesting the neighborhood association to give furlher
consideration to traffic calming in the Block 73 alley. Since the tra~c calming program is not intended to
be a program where the City imposes traffic calming on a neighborhood, but rather a program where a
neighborhood is empowered to determine if a majority wish to see traffic calming implemented, what I
was looking for from the neighborhood is what tra~c calming measures you wish to have investigated.
You have indicated that a barricade which could be opened and closed is what the neighborhood
wishes to have evaluated. If there is an~hing else that seems appealing from the list of possibilities,
[et's discuss those.
In order for criteria to be changed in the approved traffic calming program, the neighborhood will need
to ask the City Council to make adjustments for this padicular case. Currently the criteria we use is: the
speed of tra~c will be judged based on 5 mph over the speed limit, which is 15 mph in an alley. We will
need to make a judgment on whether or not an excessive amount of traffic is present in the alley, and
we will do this by comparing our tra~c count to the number and type of propedies with vehicular access
to the alley. The neighborhood suNey will be conducted of each residential dwelling unit on properly
which is contiguous to the alley. The neighborhood association should understand that the reason the
City Council adopted the traffic calming program criteria was to have as objective of a basis as possible
on which to make decisions about traffic calming projeds. Since you have sent a copy of your letter to
the City Council, I am sure they will advise me if there is a majority that wishes to modify any of the
evaluation criteria that I have stated above. They are aware of your request.
If you would like for them to discuss this issue at an upcoming work session, I would be happy to
schedule it. As we get closer to April when our evaluation will begin in earnest, I will be in contact with
you. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Jeff Davidson
Director of Traffic Engineering Planning
cc: City Council
City Manager
Neighborhood Seaices Coordinator
410 EAST WASHINGTON STREEI · IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 1826 · (319) 35(> 5000 · FAX ~319) 356-5009
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 7, 2001
TO: City Council
FROM: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
RE: Code Review Report Presentation
The City has been working with Duncan and Associates on an analysis of
development codes, including zoning, subdivision, site plan and related
regulations. The analysis focused on several issues including identifying
unnecessary regulations that may increase the cost of development; compliance
with state and federal regulations pertaining to zoning and land development
matters; consistency with the City's comprehensive plan; and consistency with
"state-of-the-art" development practices. This report is the first step in
amending or redrafting the development codes to correct deficiencies and to
make the codes more "user friendly".
During the preparation of the report the consultant met with several developers,
homebuilders, realtors, neighborhood representatives and environmentalist as
well as City Staff. Copies of the report have been sent to the Chamber of
Commerce, the Homebuilders Association, representatives of Neighborhood
Associations and individual businesspersons who had met with the consultant.
The Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the report and has
recommended that it be accepted.
Kirk Bishop of Duncan and Associates will be presenting the attached report
to the Council at your informal meeting on March 19. The Council should
consider whether there are any items that are not in the report that you
would like considered when the code amendments are reviewed or whether
there are items in the report, which the majority of the Council does not wish
to pursue. The Council may also wish to identify any elements of the code
that you would like particular attention paid to.
The next step in the process will be the drafting of code amendments. The
consultant and staff will continue to work with citizen groups and the
Planning and Zoning Commission as individual amendments are drafted for
the CounciVs Consideration.
Development Regulations Analysis
Iowa City, Iowa
Prepared by
duncan c~ssocic~tes
March 7, 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
1.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 1
1 .__2 HOUSING AFFORDABILITY AND DEVELOPMENT COSTS 2
1.3 CODE ORGANIZATION AND FORMAT 4
CHAPTER 2 INTRODUCTION 5
2.1 THE PROJECT 5
2-2 CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFECTIVE DEVELOPMENT CODES 5
2.,3 BASIS OF OBSERVATIONS 6
CHAPTER 3 ORGANIZATION AND FORMAT 7
3-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS AND INDEX 7
3-2 HOW-TO GUIDE 7
3`3 PAGE LAYOUT 8
3.,4 MEASUREMENTS 8
3.5 TABLES 9
3.__6 ILLUSTRATIONS 9
3.--7 ORDINANCE ON CD AND INTERNET 10
3.__~ STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION 10
CHAPTER 4 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 14
4.--1 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL 14
4.--2 COMPAGT, DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOODS 15
4.3 STREETS 19
4.__44 COMMUNITY VISION TASK FORGE GOALS 22
CHAPTER 5 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 27
5,-1 INTRODUCTION 27
5-2 AMENDMENTS 27
5.,_~3 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS 27
Development Regulations Analysis March 7, 2001 i
Iowa City, Iowa
CONTENTS
5.--4 SUBDIVISIONS 28
5.--5 SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS 28
5.-5 SITE PLAN REVIEW 28
5.__Z MINOR MODIFICATIONS 28
5.--8 VARIANCES AND APPEALS OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS 29
5.-8 REVIEW AND DECISION-MAKING POWERS 29
5.10 LENGTH OF PROCESS 29
5.11 NOTICES 32
CHAPTER 6 REVIEW OF SELECTED PROVISIONS 33
6__1 ZONING TITLE, PURPOSE AND SCOPE 33
6.__2 DEFINITIONS AND RULES OF CONSTRUCTION 34
6.--3 INTERIM DEVELOPMENT ZONE 36
6.-4 FACTORY-BUILT HOUSING RESIDENTIAL ZONE (RFBH) 36
6.--5 COMMERCIAL AND BUSINESS ZONES 36
6.-8 INDUSTRIAL ZONES (ART. H) 38
6.--7 PUBLIC ZONE (ART. I) 38
6.-8 SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE 38
6.__9 OFF-STREET PARKING 39
6.10 SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS 40
6,11 S~TE PLAN REVIEW 42
6.12 TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES 43
6.13 SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES 43
6.14 GROUP HOMES AND RELATED USES 43
6.15 SIGN REGULATIONS 43
6.16 HISTORIC PRESERVATION/CONSERVATION 44
APPENDIX A I SAMPLE PAGE FORMAT 49
APPENDIX B I SAMPLE USE TABLE 50
APPENDIX C I LOCAL STREET WIDTH 59
APPENDIX D I CORNER LOT DUPLEXES 61
ii March 7, 2001 Development Regulations Analysis
Iowa City, Iowa
CONTENTS
APPENDIX E I GARAGE STANDARDS 63
APPENDIX F I DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESS 69
APPENDIX G I INTERVIEWS 7'1
APPENDIX H I CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL
DESIGN (CPTED) 81
APPENDIX I I TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES 85
APPENDIX J I SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES 91
APPENDIX K I GROUP HOUSING 97
APPENDIX L I SIGN REGULATIONS 101
Development I~egulations Analysis March 7, 2001 iii
Iowa City, Iowa
Executive Summary
This report presents the written findings and recommendations of Duncan
Associates' analysis of Iowa City's current zoning and land development
regulations. It examines:
Areas of conflict between the comprehensive plan and the city's
development code;
n Regulatory and procedural features that may drive-up the cost of housing
and development; and
~ Other possible changes that would make the code more customer-
friendly, predictable, enforceable and efficient.
The report recommends that the city embark on a comprehensive update of
its existing regulations and suggests that the city consider a number of
specific changes, including but not limited to the following.
1.1 Comprehensive Plan Implementation
Chapter 4 of the report examines opportunities for implementation of Iowa
City's comprehensive plan through new or revised land development
regulations. The recommendations call for:
1. broadening the types of uses allowed within the CN-1 district, while
adding additional design standards to ensure an appropriate
neighborhood-oriented scale and pedestrian character (See Section 4.1 );
2. amending the existing CN-1 district to permit (above-ground-floor)
residential uses by-right (See Section 4.1);
3. implementing a consistent policy on street connectivity (See Section
4.3);
4. adopting access management regulations (See Section 4.3);
5. clarifying arterial sidewalk standards (See Section 4.3);
6. requiring installation of arterial roadway buffers for residential
developments at the time of subdivision approval (See Section 4.3);
7. adopting regulations allowing additional flexibility in local street design,
perhaps a menu of local street design options based on defined
conditions (See Section 4.3);
8. investigating approaches that would allow for canopy tree plantings
within the right-of-way (e.g., tree guards, modification of sidewalk
location requirements, right-of-way width standards) (See Section 4.3);
Development Regulations Analysis March 7, 2001 1
Iowa City, Iowa
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
9. implementing Community Vision Task Force Goals through a series of
minor code amendments (See Section 4.4);
10. adding additional nonresidential Interim Development Zones (See
Section 6.3);
11. additional commercial zoning district standards to address build-to lines,
site design and building orientation issues (See Section 6.5);
12. amending the "P" zone to be a neighborhood-oriented zone that allows
a fairly narrow range of "public" uses that are typically located within or
near residential neighborhoods (See Section 6.7)
13. including site development and dimensional standards for the "P" zone,
either limiting development intensity along the lines of a moderate
density residential zone, or requiring that development in the "P" zone
adhere to the standards of the most restrictive adjacent district (See
Section 6.7);
1.2 Housing Affordability and Development Costs
Two of the city's stated objectives in commissioning this study were to
identify (1) regulatory barriers to the provision of affordable housing and (2)
methods to reduce development costs. The city's existing regulations do not
appear to overburden the market's ability to provide affordable housing or
unduly restrict residential and nonresidential development opportunities.
However, one possible barrier to the provision of affordable housing may be
the city's relative lack of vacant land zoned for higher density single-family
and multi-family development, and in Iowa City--as in many communities--
there is often strong resistance to establishing such zoning.
The report offers a variety of suggestions that address housing affordability
and development costs, including:
1. revising the RS-5 zone to allow duplexes and attached single-family units
on corner lots (See sample zoning provision, Appendix D);
2. revising the RS-8 zone to be primarily a small-lot single-family zone, one
that allows duplexes and attached single-family units only on corner lots;
3. retaining the RS-12 district as a district that accommodates a wide range
of single-family and duplex structure types, with consideration given to
provisions that would encourage (or require) some mix of housing types
within new subdivisions;
4. providing additional flexibility for the provision of small accessory
dwelling units in single-family zoning districts;
5. including "by-right" development standards for cluster housing
subdivisions (See Section 4.2);
2 March 7, 2001 Development Regulations Analysis
Iowa City, Iowa
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
6. reducing residential zoning front setback requirements, making greater
use of front setback averaging and updating the setback "encroachment"
provisions (See Section 4.2);
7. coupling reduced front setback standards with new standards for garage
placement and design (See Section 4.2);
8. reducing lot width standards to accommodate more "compact
development" (See Section 4.2);
9. reducing reliance on the planned development process (See Section
5.9);
10. streamlining the development process (although processing time-frames
in Iowa City are within the typical range found in other communities)
and otherwise keeping the time required for development review and
approval to a minimum (See Section 5.10) through such techniques as:
· greater use of objective development standards as opposed to
case-by-case reviews
·centralized permitting
· cross-training staff
· clear standards and criteria
· checklists and flow chaffs
· timeframes for reviews and approvals
· greater use of pre-appl ication conferences
· formalized development review committee (Interdepartmental
review) procedure
· concurrent reviews
· greater use of administrative decision-making
· encouraging the Iowa Legislature to amend the state law
requiring ordinance readings on three separate occasions
· combining second and third ordinance readings on non-
controversial rezonings
· requiring neighborhood meetings on major development
proposals very early in the process
11. implementing the ordinance's "Environmental Regulations" through a
"development standards" approach, while retaining the OPDH zone as a
voluntary route for developers with unique or innovative proposals (See
Section 6.8);
Development Regulations Analysis March 7, 2001 3
Iowa City, Iowa
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.3 Code Organization and Format
A series of modest improvements are proposed that would make the city's
existing land development regulations easier to use and wouJd substantially
improve the ability of casual users to find (and understand) information they
need, such as:
1. a better table of contents, an index and a user's guide;
2. greater use of illustrations, tables and summary charts;
3. better page layout techniques and a reorganization of some key sections
(See Chapter 3);
4. relocating the existing alley and alternative access standards from the
"Sensitive Areas Ordinance" to an area of the ordinance where they
would have broader applicability and revising Sec. 14-6M-2-A-C to
greatly reduce the existing 10-foot garage setback standards on alleys
(See Section 4.2);
5. cleaning-up existing code references to "arterial streets," "primary
arterials" and "secondary arterials" (See Section 4.3);
6. updating the zoning ordinance's use classification system (See Section
6.6);
7. prohibiting most low-intensity "commercial" uses in the I-2 zone (See
Section 6.6);
8. moving many of the residential design guidelines from the
Environmental Regulations article, and relocating them to another
section of the ordinance where they would have broader applicability
(See Section 6.8);
9. adding additional flexibility within the off-street parking section (See
Section 6.9); and
10. eliminating possible (minor) sources of conflict with the City's (Interim)
Municipal Design Standards (See Section 6.10).
The consultant team held a series of individual and small group interview
sessions at the start of the study to gain insight into local land development
issues and concerns. Appendix G presents a summary o~ the comments we
received.
Other appendices to this report present sample ordinance provisions and
examples of proposed regulatory techniques.
4 March 7, 2001 Development Regulations Analysis
Iowa City, Iowa
Introduction
2.1 The Project
The City of Iowa City retained Duncan Associates, a planning and growth
management consulting firm that specializes in the revision of land
development regulations, to evaluate its current zoning and land
development regulations. The city specifically requested that our firm:
,, Perform a review of the city's development regulations and Affordable housing is
identify areas of conflict between comprehensive plan policies and generally defined as
the zoning code, subdivision regulations and other development decent, quality housing
codes; that costs no more than
30 percent of a
· Identify elements of the codes that may be barriers to affordable household's gross
housing; and provide a list of such items and a summary of how monthly income for
they are in conflict with the city's goals; rendmortgage and utility
· Provide suggestions and alternative for how the city might help payments.
reduce development costs that are a result of code requirements;
· Perform a review of the city's development procedures and outline any
steps and/or actions that might improve the process;
· Identify development review procedures that could be reviewed and
approved administratively or in some other way streamlined; and
· Recommend other processes that would allow more efficient and user-
friendly procedures.
This report represents the written findings of our review.
2.2 Characteristics of Effective Development Codes
In identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the city's current code, we
drew on our experience in drafting codes for communities throughout the
U .S. It is important to understand our view of what constitutes an effective
development code. In our experience, modern, effective zoning and land
development codes have several things in common:
· they are based on sound, well-articulated plans;
· they are well-organized and customer-friendly;
· they include review and approval procedures that are efficient and easily
understood;
Development Regulations Analysis March 7, 2001 5
iowa City, Iowa
CHAPTER 2 I INTRODUCTION
2.3 1 BASIS OF OBSERVATIONS
· they shun vague criteria in favor of development standards that are clear,
consistent, and often illustrated;
· they are devoid of redundancies and internal inconsistencies;
· they are formulated with broad-based public input; and
· they are accompanied by adequate administrative and enforcement
capabilities.
2.3 Basis of Observations
Unless otherwise expressly stated, the findings and recommendations
contained in this report are based largely on our independent analysis. By
design, the analysis focuses on what is wrong with the current regulations
rather than what is right. It would be a mistake for readers to interpret that
Iowa City faces an imminent regulatory crisis or that the city's regulations
are not as "good" as other communities. No such judgment is made or
implied here. In fact, we give the city's ordinance relatively high marks on
many of the benchmarks set out in preceding section. On the other hand,
we believe that significant improvements can be made to the code's
organization, format, regulations and procedures. Of course, that is true in
most communities.
No set of regulations is perfect. Regulations, like the plans they are intended
to implement, require periodic revision to keep pace with cultural,
economic and technological changes. That is perhaps the greatest
shortcoming of the existing code. Although it has been updated and
amended on a piecemeal basis, it has been too long since the city embarked
on a comprehensive revision.
Most of the problems identified in this report are not unique to Iowa City.
But there are problems, which if not addressed, will likely lead to increased
frustration on behalf of public officials, citizens, businesses, developers and
staff. The commissioning of this project demonstrates the city's awareness of
these issues.
6 March 7, 2001 Development Regulations Analysis
Iowa City, Iowa
3 Organization and Format
A series of modest improvements would make the city's existing land
development regulations easier to use and would substantially improve the
ability of casual users to find (and understand) information they need. Most
of these improvements rely on straightforward functions of modern word-
processing software, including indexing, improved use of fonts (type styles),
better page layout, and the addition of tables and graphics to help illustrate
zoning and other regulatory concepts. The city's recently adopted multi-
family design guidelines provide an excellent example of the use of graphics
to convey design and regulatory requirements.
Should the city elect to develop an ordinance that includes these and other
document format improvements, it will need to work closely with the code
codification company to ensure that layout and format changes make their
way into the published document.
3.1 Table of Contents and Index
All ordinances and regulatory documents should contain useful tables of
contents and indices. The city's existing zoning ordinance contains a
rudimentary table of contents, although its usefulness is severely limited by
its lack of page number references (something that's not surprising given the
document's general lack of page numbers). The organizational philosophy of
an ordinance should be self-explanatory once a user has received a simple
introduction such as the "how-to" section described below. A well- crafted
index can be extremely useful to the general public and to those who use
the ordinance on a regular basis. An index must be carefully prepared to
ensure that the user is directed to the most important instances of a word or
phrase.
3.2 How-to Guide
Many of our recent ordinances have included a brief section (often located
just inside the front cover) that provides basic information to users on the
organization of the code document. This short preface commonly sets forth
responses to a series of common questions, such as
· If you want to know what zoning rules apply to your property
· If you want to build a structure or establish a particular use
· If you want to change your zoning (rezone)
· If you want to vary from the standards that apply
· If your property is located in an historic or other overlay district
Development Regulations Analysis March 7, 2001 7
Iowa City, Iowa
CHAPTER 3 [ ORGANIZATION AND FORMAT
3.3 I PAGE LAYOUT
3.3 Page Layout
Modern word-processing software allows communities to publish "in-house"
documents that look as professional as those once laboriously typeset at the
printer. Although people have come to expect that zoning ordinances and
land development regulations will be laid out in a boring and uninviting
way, that does not have to be the case. Simple techniques, such as the use
of larger, distinctive typefaces for titles and subtitles, indented text to
indicate the hierarchical level of each paragraph, generous use of white
space, graphics and tables all help to improve the visual presentation of an
ordinance...and ideally its ease-of-use.
Other page layout and "easy-find" features include the careful application of
Chapter ~lame Section Name
/
headers and looters that allow users to easily negotiate their way through the
document (similar to using a dictionary).
3.4 Measurements
In one sense, zoning provisions describing "height" constitute a definition.
On the other hand, such provisions go well beyond the normal dictionary
sense of a definition and explain how to measure height. Vv'e typicaily
recommend including a separate, illustrated "measurements" section in
zoning ordinances. Included in such a section would be an explanation of
the rules for measuring things such as:
8 March 7, 2001 Development Regulations Analysis
Iowa City, Iowa
CHAPTER 3 I ORGANIZATION AND FORMAT
3.5 I TABLES
· Building height At.'~h~dle~'~10nof'~heAdmlnle~.~a~.or,
~r~hlf, a~,ura[ el~m~n'~e ~u~h
· Floor are ratio
· Setback, front
· Setback, rear
· Setback, side
· Lot width
· Lot depth ~'~ ~
~ -- ~xlet[ng
· Lot area
Floor area
Ridge Bidg~
· Sign height Building f ~~
..... ]R'~ DaCkl_' ROOfD8Ck .... ~ ____
·Sign area Height ~ leveC Height
av
· Separation distances curb
between uses Lev~ Flat Mansard Gable Hip Gambrel Level
Roof Roof Roof R f Roof
oo
· Fences height
· Other bulk, density and intensity standards
Such a section should also include a clear explanation of exceptions to the
woI ng
measurement rules, such as permitted encroachments into required setbacks
and features permitted to exceed maximum height limits,
3.5 Tables
We recommend the use of tables to present regulations and standards
wherever possible. There are a variety of "lists" of standards and
requirements in the city's existing zoning ordinance that could be shown in v
tables. Where possible, the city should also use larger "matrix" summaries of
standards such as use regulations and density/dimensional standards.
3.6 Illustrations
Modern page layout and word-processing software make it easy to add
graphic images to a document. This trend has been slow to materialize in
zoning ordinances, where a picture can truly be worth 1,000 words. Many <',ZoningAppe.lt"
people interviewed for this project--staff and public alike--mentioned the "'
need for PR R
additiona illustrations and gra~i~in the city's regulations.
REDUCED TO 5' WITH A
MASONRY FENCE7 Sample Flow Chart
SIDE
OPERTY
·
Develol ' : :' 9
Iowa Ci PATIO ls~' ",,1,('''~K t' ' ~o ' FAR
CHAPTER 3 I ORGANIZATION AND FORMAT
3.7 I ORDINANCE ON CD AND INTERNET
3.7 Ordinance on CD and Internet
The city should ensure that its ordinances are available on CD-ROM and an
easy-to-use Internet format. The existing on-line version of the Iowa City
code falls short of being "user-friendly."
3.8 Structure and Organization
3.8.1 Existing Structure
The existing zoning ordinance is organized as follows:
Art. A. Zoning Title, Purpose and gcope
Art. B. Zoning Definitions
Art. C. Interim Development Zone
Art. D. Residential Zones
Art. E. Commercial and Business Zones
Art. F. Research Development Park; Zone
Art. G. Office and Research Park Zone
Art. H. Industrial Zones
Art. I. Public Zone
Art. J. Overlay Zones
Art. K. Environmental Regulations
Art. L. Provisional Uses, Spec. Exceptions, Temp. Uses
Art. M. Accessory Uses and Buildings
Art. N. Off-Street Parking and Loading
Art. O. Sign Regulations
Art. P. Fences and Hedges
Art. Q. Dimensional Requirements
Art. R. Tree Regulations
Art. S. Performance Standards
Art. T. Nonconforming Uses, Structures and Land
Art. U. Administration and Enforcement
Art. V. Minor Modification Procedures
Art. W. Board of Adjustment Powers and Procedures
10 March 7, 2001 Development Regulations Analysis
Iowa City, Iowa
CHAPTER 3 I ORGANIZATION AND FORMAT
3.8 1 STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION
3.8,2 Recommended Improvements
We believe the ordinance's organizational structure could be
improved in several ways:
1. Development Review and Approval Procedures. From an
organizational and ease-of-use perspective, the existing
regulations would be improved if all of the required land
development review and approval procedures were consolidated
into a single place in the code. At a minimum, this consolidation
should bring together the following procedures:
a. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments,
b. Zoning Map Amendments (Rezonings),
c. Subdivisions
d. Planned Developments,
e. Special Exception Uses,
f. Site Plan Review (not currently a part of zoning
ordinance),
g. Building Permits,
h. Sign Permits,
i. Temporary Uses,
j. Certificates of Occupancy,
k. Minor modifications,
I. Variances, and
m. Appeals of Administrative Decisions
2. Use Regulations. Group all use-related regulations together (e.g.,
principal uses, accessory uses, special use standards (applicable
to provisional uses), and temporary uses.
3. Review and Decision-Making Bodies. include an article (or
section) detailing the powers and duties of all of the entities
involved in the land development review and approval process.
4. Definitions. Consider moving definitions to the back of the
ordinance to serve as a glossary.
5. Overlay and Special Purpose Districts. Group all overlay and
special purpose zoning districts together in one area of the
ordinance.
6. Base Zoning Districts. The regulations of the base (non-
overlay/non-special purpose) zoning districts are currently
organized as follows:
Development Regulations Analysis March 7, 2001 11
Iowa City, Iowa
CHAPTER 3 I ORGANIZATION AND FORMAT
3.8 I STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION
he existing use lists(a) Intent: a general statement regarding each district's
are not arrangedintended use and development character
alphabetically or
' ,b, Pe.mi,,ed U.e.:.,ist of uses .,.owed by-right/subjec, to
compliance with all applicable standards)
ouse.
(c) Provisional Uses: a list of uses allowed in the district
subject to a set of special use-related standards
(d) Special Exceptions: a list of uses that may be approved in
accordance with the Special Exception procedures of Art. L
(e) Dimensional Requirements: a listing of standards governing
lot area, lot width, lot frontage, building setbacks and
building bulk (height, coverage and floor area ratio)
(f) General Provisions: cross-references to other applicable
standards of interest (e.g., parking, signs and fences)
While the existing organization and format of the district regulations
is fairly common, we typically recommend that use and
density/dimensional standards only be presented once in centrally
located tables (as opposed to presenting them on a district-by-district
basis throughout the ordinance). We favor the use of tables to
convey such information because they provide a convenient
summary and comparison of applicable zoning district standards and
help to ensure the use of consistent terminology and regulatory
practices.1 However, some city staff members have indicated a
preference for an organizational style that would reduce the need for
cross-referencing other applicable standards (and the associated
"flipping back-and-forth" between sections of the ordinance).
Such an approach (using zoning districts as the chief organizing
feature for presenting regulations), would theoretically allow
someone to find most of the most important types of information in a
few successive pages of the ordinance Our concern with such an
approach it will tend to create a very "redundant" ordinance, with a
corresponding increase in the size of the document. Through
1 A sample use table, based on the city's existing use regulations, is presented in
Appendix B.
12 March 7, 2001 Development Regulations Analysis
Iowa City, Iowa
CHAPTER 3 I ORGANIZATION AND FORMAT
3.8 1 STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION
computerization and reorganization, however, it may be possible to
create a document that is capable of meeting both objectives.
Development Regulations Analysis March 7, 2001 13
Iowa City, Iowa
Plan Implementation
Zoning and land development regulations represent key implementation
tools for carrying out local comprehensive plans. This chapter identifies
opportunities for implementation of Iowa City's comprehensive plan through
new or revised land development regulations.
4.1 Neighborhood Commercial
Note: See Section 6.5 for discussion of other commercial zoning districts.
According to the plan, neighborhood commercial areas:
"should provide shopping opportunities within conve- ~ [A] neighborhood
nient walking distance for the residents in the commercial area
immediate area, and may include such facilities as a associated with a
post office substation, a day care center, small public square or park
restaurants and a convenience store. The can provide a focal
design...should have a pedestrian orientation, with the point and gathering
stores placed close to the street, but with sufficient open place for a
space to allow for outdoor cares and patios or neighborhood.
landscaping. Parking should be located to the rear and
sides of stores with additional parking on the -Oomprehensive Plan
street...Apartments above businesses can provide
needed housing while increasing the revenue stream for
commercial establishments and enhancing the residential
nature of the area. Townhouses or small apartment houses
surrounding the commercial center can increase the
customer base for the commercial uses and make efficient
use of the services available in the neighborhood center."
The zoning ordinance's neighborhood commercial zoning district--CN-1-
"is intended to permit the development of retail sales and personal services
required to meet the day-to-day needs of a fully developed residential
neighborhood." Although the CN-1 district regulations go a long way
towards accommodating the type of neighborhood commercial
development envisioned by the comprehensive plan, certain revisions
should be considered. In short, these revisions should focus on broadening
the types of uses allowed within the district, while adding additional design
standards to ensure an appropriate neighborhood-oriented scale and
pedestrian character. Through such amendments, the city might encourage
greater use of the CN-1 district, while promoting positive urban features now
found in some older neighborhoods within the city.
The city should consider expanding the list of uses allowed in the CN-1
district to include a much broader range of neighborhood-serving retail and
service uses. The existing ordinance's reliance on narrowly defined use
(business) categories (e.g., copy centers, drugstores, florist shops, and variety
Development Regulations Analysis March 7, 2001
Iowa City, Iowa
CHAPTER 4 [ PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
4.2 I COMPACT, DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOODS
stores) likely makes the CN-1 district unappealing for many commercial
developers.
In revising the CN-1 district, consideration should also be given to:
· eliminating the minimum site area requirement and reducing the
maximum site area limit (currently 10 acres);
· requiring that parking be located to the side or rear of buildings and
screened from view;
· discouraging auto-oriented uses (e.g., car washes and gas pumps),
perhaps regulating them as special exceptions;
· limiting the amount of off-street parking allowed;
· requiring a minimum amount of window areas on exterior walls located
along street lot lines;
· reducing front setback requirements and/or imposing build-to line
req u i rements;
· allowing (by-right) residential units above the ground floor;
· adding new pedestrian connection standards;
· allowing additional height and density when residential units are
included (above the ground floor); and
· discouraging drive-through windows, perhaps requiring special
exception approval.
If the city desires to encourage mixed-use development in its neighborhood
commercial areas, consideration should be given to amending the existing
CN-1 district to permit (above-ground-floor) residential uses by-right and to
encouraging projects in excess of "by-right" floor area limits to include
residential uses. The existing special exception requirement for above-
ground-floor residential is a disincentive for residential uses. Using the
inclusion of residential uses as a criterion in evaluating projects that propose
to exceed "by-right" floor area limits would also serve to encourage a mix of
uses (residential and commercial) in neighborhood commercial districts.
4.2 Compact, Diverse Neighborhoods
4.2.1 Diversity of Housing Types
Iowa City: Beyond 2000 supports the concept of building compact
neighborhoods containing a mix of housing types. According to the
plan, single-family detached houses will continue to be the
predominant neighborhood land use, supplemented with an
appropriate mix of alternative housing types--houses on smaller lots,
townhouses, duplexes, small multi-dwelling structures, and
Development Regulations Analysis March 7, 2001 15
Iowa City, Iowa
CHAPTER 41 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
4.2 I COMPACT, DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOODS
accessory apartments. Limiting the maximum lot size for multi-family
development is recommended as a means of ensuring that apartment
buildings will not adversely affect the character of a neighborhood.
The existing zoning ordinance includes 12 residential zoning
districts, including 5 "single-family" zones (RR-1, RS-5, RS-8, RS-12,
RNC-12); 5 "multi-family" zones (RM-12, RM-20, RNC-20, RM44,
PRM); 1 manufactured housing zone (RFBH) and 1 residential office
zone (R/O). All of the districts follow a conventional zoning model,
with each spelling out the types of uses allowed and establishing
density and dimensional standards, such as lot size, setback and
height requirements.
As is common in
zoning ordinances
Single-Family Zones
developed after the RR-1, Rural Residential
1950s, the city's five RS-5, Low Density Single-Family Residential
single-family zoning RS-8, Medium Density Single-Family Residential
districts reflect a sort RS-12, High Density Single-Family Residential
of "suburban ideal." RNG-12, Neighborhood Gonservation Residential
They are primarily
geared toward accommodating single-family detached, single-family
attached (townhouse) and duplex structures on large to medium-size
lots, with ample yards. The districts also allow such customary uses
as religious institutions, day/child cares and schools.
The density and dimensional standards of the existing single-family
zones (summarized in the following table) are fairly typical of those
seen in other communities, although the RS-8, RS-12, and RNC-12
districts do a better job of accommodating small lot single-family and
duplex/townhouse development than many ordinances we have
reviewed. Perhaps the greatest shortcoming of the existing single-
family zoning district regulations is that they do not adequately
address a number of increasingly common residential development
options, such as small lot single-family (detached) houses, zero lot
line houses and cluster developments (a.k.a. "open space" or
"conservation" developments).
Those wishing to develop these "alternative" housing types under
the existing ordinance have limited options'. develop as planned
development or rezone to a higher density RS or multi-family
district, both of which necessitate more complex development
approval procedures than detached dwelling units in conventional
subdivisions. In order to better implement the comprehensive plan,
the city should consider accommodating these or other residential
development options within its base residential zoning districts.
Specifically, the city may want to consider:
16 March 7, 2001 Development Regulations Analysis
iowa City, Iowa
CHAPTER 4 ] PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
4.2 I COMPACT, DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOODS
· revising the RS-5 zone to allow duplexes and attached single-
family units on corner lots (See sample zoning provision,
Appendix D);
· revising the RS-8 zone to be primarily a small-lot single-family
zone, one that allows duplexes and attached single-family units
only on corner lots;
· retaining the RS-12 district as a district that accommodates a
wide range of single-family and duplex structure types, with
consideration given to provisions that would encourage (or
require) some mix of housing types within new subdivisions;
· allowing more widespread use of small accessory dwelling units
in single-family zoning districts; and
· including "by-right" development standards for cluster housing
subdivisions and other residential development alternatives.
Existing RS District Lot Area Standards
!Standards RR-1 RS-5 RS 8 RS 12 RNC-12
The city's multi-family zones offer a fairly broad range of allowable
densities, although pertaining detached and attached single-family
and adding provisions for cluster units would seem to better suppo~
the pJan's housing diversiW policies, Moreover, new standards will
be required to implement the plan's suggested limits on the scale of
multi-family structures.
Existing RM District Lot Area and Density Standards
i~:j?:* '~i~' ~.~:.9__e_'."_'~'i~)'. Sta~.d.~.Ld. Ij~:M!!2J:"i~'~.!~_~__IJ~:i~:2~IjRM'44]: Pi~MI;
!Lot Area (square feet) .................................
: ~ir;~ie-Family D~'t'~C'F~I"
, SingieL'~amny Atta~h~a1: 3,8601,'~:~6o If "N~IE"~X' I~'
] Duplex I/~~1] 5,ooo
j Multi-Family I 15,000 II 5,000 1{5,0001F
Development I~egulations Analysis March 7, 2001 17
Iowa City, Iowa
CHAPTER 4 I PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
4.2 I COMPACT, DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOODS
!Li~t'~:~:~ 'and' benSity'standa'rd'P~'"'li
:E0t F~0~t~ge(f~ii ...... J"~8~0I, 35 I, 25 I{ 35 I" ~5' .}l
4.2.2 Front Setbacks
The plan recommends reducing front yard setback requirements so
that houses can be placed closer to residential streets. All of the RS
zones now have a minimum front setback requirement o~ 20 (eet.
We concur with the plan's recommendation that "front yard setbacks
of less than 20 feet along local residential streets should be
considered." Such a reduction could be allowed in all instances or
when front porches or other desired building features are provided.
In addition to considering reduced setbacks, the ci~ should also
consider making greater use of front setback averaging and updating
the setback "obstruction" provisions of section 14-6Q-3.
If front setback standards are reduced, new garage setback standards
would need be included to ensure that front ent~ garages are
setback from lot lines and sidewalks. In fact, zoning regulations
aimed at reducing the visual dominance of garages (and driveways)
win become increasingly impo~ant as the ci~ attempts to
accommodate residential development on smaller lots. (See sample
Garage Standards in Appendix E)
Existing ~S Distrial Setback Standards
;Minimum Setbacks
.(feet) RS-5 RS-8 RS-12 RNC-12
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ]"' I'
[1] Five feet for first 2 stories, plus 2 feet for each additional story.
[2] For at least 75 percent of building's length.
[3] Zero lot line units and townhouse units subject to different setbacks.
4.2.3 Lot Width
The comprehensive plan suppo~s a reduction in lot width standards
to accommodate more "compact development [that] consumes less
land and makes it possible to provide public improvements, such as
streets, sewers and water lines more efficiently." ff the city is
interested in accommodating smaller lot (detached) single-family,
townhouse and zero lot development, lot width and frontage
standards will need to be adjusted. As shown in the summary tables
in Section 4.2.~ o~ this report, the narrowest lot width allowed in the
d~'s residential districts is 40 to 4~ feet, which is too wide to
accommodate most all townhouse-s~le development and may be
excessive for some small lot, single-family (detached) development,
pa~icularly when garage access comes from alleys. We concur with
the plan's recommendation that lot width standards should be
18 March 7, 2001 Development Regulations Analysis
Iowa City, Iowa
CHAPTER 4 I PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
4.3 I STREETS
adjusted to better accommodate various building styles. Again,
however, such adjustments should be coupled with new garage
placement regulations and alternative access provisions (See
following section).
4.2.4 Rear Lanes and Alleys
Alternatives to front-loaded garages are recommended in several
places of the comprehensive plan. The plan recommends greater use
of alleys and rear lanes as a means of improving traffic circulation
and improving the appearance of residential streetscapes. It also
supports greater use of shared driveways to reduce the amount of
paving in front yard areas. These ideas are consistent with
development practices in other communities and should be
considered ion Iowa City. If shared driveways are to be allowed or
encouraged, standards will need to be developed and included in
the revised code.
The existing zoning ordinance does contain provisions encouraging
use of alleys. Unfortunately, as with many of the ordinance's more
contemporary provisions, those regulations appear to apply only in
situations covered by the "Sensitive Areas Ordinance." At a
minimum, the city should consider moving those regulations to an
area of the ordinance where they would have broader applicability.
At least two technical changes should also be considered: (I)
revising Sec. 14-6M-2-A-C, which currently requires that (alley-
accessed) garages and carports be set back at least 10 feet from the
alley right-of-way line; and (2) revising the accessory building
coverage standard of Sec. 14-6M-2-A-2-e). These setback and
coverage requirements discourage rear yard garages/the use of alleys
and lead to repeated variance requests.
4.3 Streets
4.3.1 Connectivity
The plan supports use of a modified grid system as a means of (1)
reducing overall traffic congestion; (2) allowing motorists and
pedestrians to use more direct routes to their destinations, thereby
reducing travel distance; and (3) providing easier access for fire and
emergency vehicles.
The city's existing regulations contain virtually no regulations
addressing street connectivity, other than the following indirect
references:
· No dead-end streets and alleys will be permitted except at
subdivision boundaries on undeveloped areas. (Section 14-7C-1 -
A-4)
Development Regulations Analysis March 7, 2001 19
Iowa City, Iowa
CHAPTER 4 I PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
4.3 [ STREETS
· The length of blocks shall be not less than four hundred feet
(400') (comment: why not 300 feet, as is typical of original town
site?) and not more than two thousand feet (2,000'). The width
of the block shall be sufficient to permit two (2) tiers of lots, but
in no case shall the width be less than two hundred twenty feet
(220 '). (Section 14-7C-1 -A-5)
· New subdivisions shall provide for continuation and extension
of arterial, collector and local streets. (Section 14-7C- 1-B)
· . ..Cul-de-sacs shall not exceed 900 feet in length... measured
from the center line of the street from which it commences to
the center of the turnaround. (Section 14-7C-1 -C-2-d)
If the city is serious about implementing a policy of connectivity--
and more and more communities are choosing to do so--new
regulations/guidelines should be added to the code.
4.3.2 Arterial Streets
The plan calls for limiting local street intersections along arterial
streets and prohibiting driveways to individual lots (along arterials).
One of the most important principles of access management and, for
that matter, of road design in general is to ensure sufficient distance
between the driveways and streets that intersect arterial streets so
that the roadway can function properly. Insufficient spacing can have
serious adverse impacts on the safety of drivers and pedestrians, the
efficiency of traffic operations and the value of the property that
abuts the roadway. Adequate spacing will provide drivers sufficient
perception time to identify locations where they might expect
another vehicle or a pedestrian making a conflicting movement.
Proper spacing will also allow more time for necessary deceleration
and lane changes providing smoother, more efficient traffic flow.
Iowa City should consider the adoption of access management
regulations.
The comprehensive plan recommends that eight-foot wide sidewalks
be placed on at least one side of arterial streets. Under the city's
existing policy, the city splits the costs of such sidewalks with the
developer. The city's subdivision regulations require 4-foot wide
concrete sidewalks (Section 14-7C-5). The existing sidewalk
regulations should be revised to expressly state where (along which
streets and how many sides of streets) sidewalks are required.
The comprehensive plan discourages residential lots that back onto
arterial streets and encourages alternatives to fences and walls when
such development patterns are used. The existing regulations require
extra setbacks (40 feet) for residential development along arterials,
but do not discourage low-density residential zoning along arterials.
Rather than require that homeowners employ dense landscaping and
20 March 7, 2001 Development Regulations Analysis
Iowa City, Iowa
CHAPTER 4 1 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
4.3 I STREETS
berms, the city should consider revising the existing regulations to
require installation of such roadway buffers at the time of
subdivision approval. The city may also want to adopt different
standards for urban aderial streets in older developed areas of the
city. Such regulations should recognize that different setbacks am
appropriate along Dubuque Street (near downtown) than in newly
developing areas of the community.
Existing code references to arterial streets, primary arterials and
secondary arterials are inconsistent. They should be revised to
expressly reference "primary" or "secondary" arterials.
4.3.3 Local Streets
The comprehensive plan supports the use of narrower street
standards, suggesting that street widths of 22-26 feet may be
appropriate in many settings. The city's existing local street width
standards require 50 feet of right-of-way and 28 feet of pavement
width, regardless of street length.
The rationale for increased flexibility in the design of local
residential streets is succinctly described in the 1980 publication
Performance Streets. That report reflected a new and substantially
different view of residential street design. It states:
"Whether street standards were intuitively based or
adapted from highway design, what seemed to
have been overlooked was that local residential
streets are part and parcel of the neighborhood they
serve. People live on them. It would seem
desirable, therefore, not solely to move traffic safely
and efficiently, but to see that the needs of people
for a residential neighborhood that is quiet, safe,
pleasant, convenient and sociable are met as well."
In 1990, the National Association of Home Builders, the Urban Land
Institute, and the American Society of Civil Engineers published
another seminal report on the subject of street design, Residential
Streets. It advocates:
· Street designed to minimize traffic volumes and speeds in
residential areas
· Properly scaled streets
· Streets planned to avoid excessive stormwater runoff
· Streets that can serve as meeting places and centers of
community activity
Development Regulations Analysis March 7, 2001 21
Iowa City, Iowa
CHAPTER 4 I PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
4.4 I COMMUNITY VISION TASK FORCE GOALS
The principles set out in both documents are shared by many--
though certainly not all--Iowa City residents. In Iowa City and
elsewhere, street standards have been debated by planners,
engineers, public woks officials, and fire and emergency service
personnel with little agreement regarding appropriate width
standards.
Despite anything approaching a consensus opinion on the subject,
there is a growing movement among communities throughout the
U.S. to reduce required local street widths. The authors of this report
recommend that Iowa City, too, adopt regulations allowing
additional flexibility in local street design, with narrower pavement
widths allowed in some circumstances, based on the intended
function of the street, housing density along the street, traffic levels
or some combination of factors. Sample street width standards are
presented in Appendix C. A menu of local street (section) options
based on defined conditions would provide additional flexibility
while preserving some control over when narrower street sections
could be used.
Sidewalks are recommended along both sides of local streets. While
the code appears to require such sidewalks, it does not contain an
express statement that they are required on both sides of streets. This
requirement should be clearly stated in the revised code.
According to public works and engineering staff, the limited amount
of space between the back of the curb and the sidewalk (6 feet) does
not allow adequate room for canopy trees within the right-of-way.
The city should investigate alternative techniques that would allow
for canopy tree plantings within the right-of-way (e.g., tree guards,
modification of sidewalk location requirements, revised right-of-way
width standards).
4.4 Community Vision Task Force Goals
This section lists those community vision task force goals and policies that
have a direct relationship to the text of the city's land development
regulations. Possible implementation measures (code revisions/additions) are
listed below many of the goals/strategies,
Increase employment opportunities consistent with the available labor force.
· Provide opportunities for the Iowa City work force to live close to
their place of employment.
Possible implementation techniques: mixed-use zoning districts
Improve the environmental and economic health of the community through
the efficient use of resources.
22 March 7, 2001 Development Regulations Analysis
Iowa City, Iowa
CHAPTER 4 I PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
4.4 I COMMUNITY VISION TASK FORCE GOALS
· Encourage commercial activity to take place in existing core areas or
neighborhood commercial centers; discourage the proliferation of
new major commercial areas.
POssible implementation techniques: location criteria for commercial
rezonings; comprehensive plan consistency as approval criteria for rezoning
requests
lilT'Ylifi]ihlT:]illllllhliillt~TIIl[i]l
Maintain the integrity of scenic and historic vistas, control offensive noises,
and promote unobtrusive lighting and signs.
· Reevaluate lighting performance standards for glare.
Possible implementation techniques: Expanded outdoor lighting standards
Pursue identification and preservation of environmentally sensitive areas.
· Discourage or prohibit the planting of invasive exotic plant species
by the City, other public agencies, and property owners.
Possible implementation techniques: prohibited plants section in
landscaping regulations
Provide housing opportunities for households of all sizes, incomes, ages,
and special needs.
· Encourage smaller owner-occupied houses on smaller lots.
Possible implementation techniques:See Section 4.2.1, "Diversity of
Housing Types" (p. 15)
· Institute incentives such as density bonuses, provision of
infrastructure, and reduction of infrastructure requirements for the
development of affordable housing.
Possible implementation techniques: Affordable housing density bonuses in
which some minimum percentage of the total number of dwelling units
within a development is restricted for occupancy at "affordable" levels (as
defined by HUD for the Iowa City area). Such bonuses can be made
available to ownership units as well as rental housing units.
· Support programs that allow senior citizens to stay in their homes
and projects that provide group living options for seniors.
Possible implementation techniques: accessory housing units; shared
housing regulations (Note: in shared housing arrangements two or more
senior citizens share a home or apartment. Zoning amendments are
sometimes required to address household ("family") size limits)
Encourage neighborhoods that support the principle of diversity of housing
types and households, and provide for interaction among neighbors.
· Simplified procedures for mixing housing types.
Possible implementation techniques: See Section 4.2.1, "Diversity of
Housing Types~ (p. 15)
· Encourage amenities such as retail stores, churches, and small
restaurants in neighborhoods.
Development Regulations Analysis March 7, 2001 23
Iowa City, Iowa
CHAPTER 4 I PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
4.4 I COMMUNITY VISION TASK FORCE GOALS
Possible implementation techniques: mixed-use districts; neighborhood
commercial district (See 'Neighborhood Commercial" discussion in Section
4.1 [p 14]).
· Develop smaller lots and morn common open space.
Possible implementation techniques: allow cluster (open space
development) by right in one or morn districts; move cluster deMelopment
provisions to an area of code where they would have broader applicability;
See also Section 4.2.1, "Diversity of Housing Types~ (p, 15)
· investigate "fair share" concept for affordable housing (percentage in
every neighborhood).
Possible implementation techniques: inclusionary housing programs
(requiring a percentage of all units in new housing developments be set
aside as affordable units); density bonuses for affordable housing
Review zoning and annexation of undeveloped areas to plan for the
development of sustainable and livable neighborhoods.
· Zone for neighborhood development in conjunction with
annexation.
Focus commercial development in defined commerciar centers, including
small-scale neighborhood commercial centers.
· Discourage linear strip commercial development that encourages
sprawl.
Possible implementation techniques: location criteria for commercial
rezonings; comprehensive plan consistency as approval criteria for rezoning
requests; See also "Neighborhood Commercial" discussion in Section 4.1 [p
14])
Foster strong community neighborhoods with a mix of housing, churches,
schools, recreation facilities, commercial areas, and historic landmarks.
· Promote a mix of housing styles within neighborhoods, including
compatible infill development through neighborhood conservation
districts and other measures; and zone parcels in advance of
development.
· Implement zoning, which integrates multi-family buildings as
transitions between neighborhood commercial zones and lower
density single family areas.
Possible implementation techniques: See Section 4,2.1, "Diversity of
Housing Types" (p. 15), pedestrian-friendly street designs and reduced front
yard setback provisions
Create and maintain attractive entrances to Iowa City.
· Implement landscaping plans on public and private property to
enhance entranceways to the community.
Possible implementation techniques: Gateway corridor overlay zoning
district; revised landscaping regulations
24 March 7, 2001 Development Regulations Analysis
Iowa City, Iowa
CHAPTER 4 I PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
4.4 1 COMMUNITY VISION TASK FORCE GOALS
Continue to emphasize crime prevention in the mission of the Police
Department.
Possible implementation techniques: CPTED (Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design) (See Appendix H, p. 81 )
Accommodate all modes of transportation on the street system.
· Design arterial streets to accommodate all modes with sidewalks on
both sides.
Possible implementation techniques: Revised (clearer) sidewalk regulations
(See discussion of Arterial Streets in Section 4.3.2 (po 20)
Encourage walking and bicyding.
· Provide adequate bike parking facilities.
Possible implementation techniqueS:Add provisions allowing employers to
provide fewer auto parking spaces i~ exchange for increased number of
bicycle spaces and employee shower facilities.
Development Regulations Analysis March 7, 2001 25
Iowa City, Iowa
Development
5.1 Introduction
For a development code to be effective, it is important that its development
review and approval processes be efficient and that the criteria for reviewing
development proposals be clearly stated and tied to community planning
and development goals.
Efficiency in the development review process is achieved when the
framework for review is not redundant, the procedures and review standards
result in a reasonable degree of certainty, and the review process for each
permit type is streamlined to the greatest degree possible. Streamlining of
review procedures can be accomplished in a number of ways, including:
· Consolidation of permit processes;
· Reduction of review steps
· Greater use of administrative review and decision-making (based on
objective standards and review criteria)
This chapter analyzes Iowa City's existing development review and approval
procedures.
5.2 Amendments
The procedures for zoning ordinance text and map amendments are
consistent with state law and offer little opportunity for additional
streamlining. The city may want to consider consolidating second and third
ordinance readings on "non-controversial" rezonings.
5.3 Planned Developments
The ordinance already allows administrative approval of final PDH plans.
Therefore, little opportunity for streamlining the planned development
approval process exists. However, the authors of this report believe that
Iowa City, like many communities, tends to overuse the planned
development process--sending many otherwise conventional developments
through the planned development process as a means of imposing
additional conditions on development requests. We also recommend that
the city consider implementing its environmental regulations (Sensitive
Areas Ordinance) through administratively approvable development
standards, rather than planned development procedures. (See also Section
6.8 [p.38])
Development Regulations Analysis March 7, 2001 27
Iowa City, Iowa
CHAPTER 5 I DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
5.4 I SUBDIVISIONS
5.4 Subdivisions
The city may have an opportunity to streamline the approval process for
minor subdivisions. The code currently defines a minor plat ("a plat
involving no streets") but does not include an abbreviated minor plat review
procedure. A literal reading of the code suggests that there is one approval
procedure for all subdivision plats: review and approval of preliminary and
final plats by both the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council
Minor plats (containing up to 4 or 5 lots ironring on an existing street, not
involving any new street or road, or extension of community facilities, or the
creation of any public improvements) should also be allowed to by-pass Lhe
preliminary plat stage and move directly to the final plat stage.
We note as positive the city's requirements for sketch plans and
preapplication conferences for subdivisions. Additional detail on the
purpose of the concept plan stage would, however, be useful (e.g., to inform
the applicant of applicable procedures, submittal requirements,
development standards, and other pertinent matters before the applicant
finalizes the proposal
5.5 Special Exceptions
The existing process for review and approval of special exception uses is
consistent with state law; little opportunity exists for additional streamlining.
We recommend keeping the number of special exception uses in the
ordinance to a minimum and relying instead on permitted and provisional
uses wherever possible.
5.6 Site Plan Review
The approval process used for site plans is excellent. It allows most site
plans to be handled administratively, while preserving the opportunity to
send individual site plans to the Planning and Zoning Commission for
approval. The major site plan review process is triggered by all projects
exceeding 10,000 square feet or 12 dwelling units.
5.7 Minor Modifications
The city's minor modification approval process is an excellent example of
streamlining. it sets out a narrow range of regulations that can be modified
by the Building Official without resort to the Board of Adjustment (variance).
The provisions include clear procedures and decision-making criteria
(findings). During the interview process, we heard a suggestion that minor
modifications should be handled by the same staff panel that handles zoning
interpretations. That panel is comprised of the city attorney, the housing and
inspections services director and planning and community development
d i rector.
28 March 7, 2001 Development Regulations Analysis
Iowa City, Iowa
CHAPTER 5 I DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
5.8 I VARIANCES AND APPEALS OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS
,5.8 Variances and Appeals of Administrative
Decisions
The existing processes for review and approval of variances and appeals of
administrative decisions are consistent with state law; little opportunity
exists for additional streamlining.
5.9 Review and Decision-Making Powers
The following table summarizes the roles of the various review and
decision-making bodies involved in the city's development review process.
~ prOCedUre ............... I~"staif"[. "H'p~' 'lr'~'.e;~" I1' i~o~ "1!" 'cc"'I:
I'~'i~gK, lap Amendments
l(Rezonings) ? R[1] R ' I <DM>
I Planned Developments
! Preliminary Plan R R -- <DM>
i Final Plan DM -- -- --
i Preliminary Plat R R -- DM
I Final Plat R R -- DM
['~p~'~i~F~<~e~iic~ uses .... 1F""'N""ll'Ni~i"l[ "'3F<D,> II - I
:-~-~te e,e.~e~s~ <u~jo~) .JL DLJ~-- I' d~'t~]'l~"A IL': '1
, Certificates of ApprOpriateneSS l, ' R I:'DM ["" I, "" I~ ' 'DM" I
/ Minor modifications
f~E~; C ~ I~ - II - IF~f':'l
P~ = Planning and Zoning Commission
BOA = Board of Adjustment
CO= City Council
HPC = Historic Prese~ation Commission
R = Review Body
DM = Decision-Making Body
<> = Hearing
A = Appellate Body
? = Role not expressly stated in code
[1] Review authority in cases involving OCD and OHP zones.
[2] Review of special exceptions for signs on historic structures.
[3] P&Z is decision-making body only upon petition of surrounding property
owners.
5.10 Length of Process
Based on anecdotal evidence, it appears that a standard development review
and approval period in Iowa City is in the range of 90 to 120 days. This
time-frame is well within the typical range found in other communities.
Nonetheless, there are a number of measures used in other communities
Development Regulations Analysis March 7, 2001 29
Iowa City, Iowa
CHAPTER 5 I DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
5.10 I LENGTH OF PROCESS
that could work to improve processing times for land development
approvals, thereby reducing the cost of development. Many of the following
measures are endorsed by the National Association of Homebuilders, the
American Planning Association and other groups:
5.10.1 Cross-Training
Cross-training staff to be familiar with all aspects of the development
review and approval process reduces specialization and thus
enhances everyone's understanding of how various development
standards and issues relate to each other. This improves coordination
and helps expedite the approval process. It also increases the
number of employees who are able to staff the central permitting
desk.
5.10.2 Clear Standards and Criteria
Vague provisions and processes are difficult to administer, interpret
and enforce. Terminology and requirements should be as clear and
specific as possible, with criteria provided as a guide to
implementing more flexible standards. Clear cross-references should
be made to sections and standards that relate to each other. Quick-
reference tables should be used wherever possible. These measures
will benefit both the applicant and those who must administer and
enforce the ordinance.
5,10.3 Checklists and Flow Chaffs
Land development regulations should clearly spell out where to
submit applications, which entities have final approval authority,
and the approval sequence for various types of applications. The role
of each actor in the process (staff, boards, commission, City Council)
should also be clearly explained.
Submittal requirements for various types of applications should be
clearly spelled out and the level of detail in applications should be
based on the type and timing of the requested approval. In short,
detailed design and engineering plans should not be required to be
submitted until the basic concept of the proposal is agreed upon.
5.10.4 Time Frames for Reviews and Approvals
Vague and lengthy review processes and a lack of response or
decision from review and decision-making bodies unnecessarily drag
out the process and add to the cost of development. In some places,
the existing code includes such time-frames (usually in those places
where the state code contains such time-frames); other sections of
the code do not reference a mandatory time-frame for review or
action.
30 March 7, 2001 Development Regulations Analysis
Iowa City, Iowa
CHAPTER 5 I DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
5.10 I LENGTH OF PROCESS
5.10.5 Pre-Application Conferences
Pre-application conferences can be a very effective tool in expediting
the development approval process. Encouraging or requiring
developers to meet informally with staff to present concept or sketch
plans for a project can help address issues and requirements before
expensive technical and engineering work has been conducted.
Iowa City currently makes use of preapplication conferences.
5.10.6 Interdepartmental Review
Interdepartmental review with a designated coordinator
(ombudsman) helps coordinate reviews by multiple departments and
agencies and can serve to eliminate discrepancies in the comments
received from departments. The coordinator should have authority to
make decisions when discrepancies occur. Although the city follows
a general form of this practice for some applications, we recommend
that a development review committee process be formalized.
5.10.7 Concurrent Reviews
Simultaneous reviews allow different steps in an application to be
reviewed together as a package or at least during the same time
frame, reducing the time involved in sequential reviews. Iowa City
currently allows concurrent reviews.
5.10.8 Administrative Decision-Making
Allowing more decisions to be handled administratively by staff,
such as issues that are mostly technical, minor changes to submittals,
and minor approvals will help to speed up the process.
5.10.9 Ordinance Readings
Encourage the Iowa Legislature to amend the state law requiring
ordinance readings on three separate occasions. In general, Iowa has
modernized its laws and given local governments a good deal of
flexibility. Cutting back to two readings would be consistent with
that trend and with practices elsewhere. If a general amendment of
the state statutes is not possible, it may be possible to get an
amendment for zoning ordinances on the grounds that zoning
ordinances have one complete review (planning commission) before
going to council. Until such time as state law is changed, the city
may want to consider consolidating second and third ordinance
readings on "non-controversiaV' rezonings.
5.10.10 Neighborhood Meetings
Many communities are experiencing an increase in public interest in
planning and land use decisions. In response, communities are
striving to improve citizen involvement in these decisions.
Development Regulations Analysis March 7, 2001 31
Iowa City, Iowa
CHAPTER 5 I DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
5.11 I NOT~CES
Unfortunately, there is often an almost exclusive focus on the large
plan or project.
Nearly all new ideas in public participation have come out of
comprehensive plans, community visioning efforts, major
transportation plans, large public works projects and the like. These
big plans and projects are no doubt important to residents, but what
about day-to-day land development decisions.~ Rezonings,
subdivision plats, special exceptions and variances can have as
much impact on the public as the big plans, yet the role of citizen
participation in these decisions has changed little in decades.
Moreover, when looking to improve citizen involvement,
communities have concentrated on new and better tools and
techniques rather than new and better processes and procedures.
Sending hearing notices to more people, making site posters bigger
and buying larger newspaper ads may get the word out to more
people, but such measures do no necessarily improve the quality of
citizen involvement.
We believe that meaningful discussion between applicants and
neighborhoods early in the process (at least in those instances where
public hearings will eventually be held) hold strong potential for
improving citizen involvement opportunities, local decision-making
and developer confidence in the development approval process. For
that reason, the city may want to consider strengthening its citizen
participation program (currently voluntary) to require developer-led
neighborhood meetings in some cases.
5.11 Notices
The code's existing public notice requirements generally track the
requirements of state law. Some interviewees suggested that the city needs
to go beyond statutory requirements and provide more notice to
surrounding residents of proposed land development matters, Among the
techniques suggested were greater notification radius for mailed notice,
better use of posted notice signs and clear display ads in the local
newspaper. These are excellent means of increasing public knowledge of
pending development requests and it is our understanding that the city now
employs most of them, going far beyond statutory requirements by sending
letters and posting signs in all rezoning, subdivision and Board of
Adjustment cases.
32 March 7, 2001 Development Regulations Analysis
Iowa City, Iowa
6 Review of Selected Provisions
This chapter provides a review of selected provisions in the zoning and
subdivision ordinances. While minor technical, organizational and format
revisions would likely be desirable throughout the ordinances, this chapter
focuses primarily on areas of suggested substantive modification.
6.1 Zoning Title, Purpose and Scope
Article A of the existing zoning ordinance contains a number of common,
"boilerplate" provisions.
6,1,1 Purpose
The ordinance's "purpose statement" should be updated to reflect
city goals, especially those related to implementation of and
consistency with the 1997 comprehensive plan.
6.1.2 Interpretation and Application of Provisions
The second sentence of this provision addresses instances of conflict
between zoning ordinance regulations and private covenants and
restrictions--stating that the zoning ordinance is not intended to
"interfere with, abrogate or annul any" [such private restrictions].
Zoning regulations can also come into conflict with other local
ordinances and regulations and with state and federal law.
Consideration should be given to including a broader "conflicting
provisions" clause in the ordinance to clarify which regulations
govern in the case of conflict.
6.1.3 Scope
Most of the provisions of this section are common zoning features.
However, the regulations of paragraphs F and H (addressing the
number of uses/structures allowed per lot and the permitted location
of heliports/helipads) are misplaced.
6.1.4 New or Relocated Provisions
If the city elects to prepare a comprehensive revision of its zoning
and development regulations, consideration should be given to
including the following common provisions in the introductory
article:
Authority: references to Iowa statutory authority for adopting the
regulations.
Applicability and Jurisdiction: an explanation of the scope of the
regulations, both geographically and substantively.
Development Regulations Analysis March 7, 2001 33
Iowa City, Iowa
CHAPTER 6 [ REVIEW OF SELECTED PROVISIONS
6.2 [ DEFINITIONS AND RULES OF CONSTRUCTION
Implementation of and Consistency with Comprehensive Plan:
Provisions clarifying that the regulations have been prepared in
accordance with the city's comprehensive plan and that decisions
made under the code are intended to be consistent with the Plan.
Transitional Provisions: Since any new ordinance will likely include
several changes from existing practice, this section is important as a
means of explaining the rights of development approved under
previous (existing) ordinances. It should also address other
transitional issues, including the status of existing development that
does not comply with new regulations, the status of approved but
unbuilt projects that do not comply with regulations and similar
matters.
Severability: A standard clause stating that if one or more provisions
of the regulations are declared invalid, the remaining provisions will
remain in full force and effect.
Effective Date: Many ordinances include an overall effective date
near the beginning of the ordinance. We also recommend that the
city abandon its use of the convention of referring to ordinance
effective dates and instead insert the actual date. As ordinance
amendments occur it becomes very difficult to track what is meant
by the general phase the "effective date of this ordinance."
6.2 Definitions and Rules of Construction
6,2.1 Rules of Word Construction (14-6A-4)
These are common and appropriate provisions. It should be noted
that existing references to the Standard Industrial Classification
Manual are now outdated, since the SIC system has been replaced
by the North American Industrial Classification System. The city
should consider adding other common "rules of construction" to this
section, including the following
Meanings and Intent
All provisions, terms, phrases and expressions contained in this
Zoning Ordinance shall be construed according to the Purposes set
out in this Ordinance.
Particular and General Provisions
The particular controls the general.
34 March 7, 2001 Development Regulations Analysis
Iowa City, Iowa
CHAPTER 6 I REVIEW OF SELECTED PROVISIONS
6.2 1 DEFINITIONS AND RULES OF CONSTRUCTION
Headings, Illustrations and Text
In case of any difference of meaning or implication between the text
of this Zoning Ordinance and any heading, drawing, table, figure, or
illustration, the text shall control.
Lists and Examples
Unless otherwise specifically indicated, lists of items or examples
that use terms such as "including,, "such as," or similar language are
intended to provide examples; not to be exhaustive lists of all
possibilities.
Unlisted Uses
Uses that are not expressly allowed are prohibited.
Computation of Time
References to days are to City of Iowa City workdays unless
otherwise stated. The time in which an act is to be done shall be
computed by excluding the first day and including the last day. If the
last day is a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday observed by the city, that
day shall be excluded.
References to Other Regulations and Documents
Whenever reference is made to a resolution, ordinance, statute,
regulation, or document, that reference shall be construed as
referring to the most recent edition of such regulation (as amended),
resolution, ordinance, statute, regulation, or document or to the
relevant successor document, unless otherwise expressly stated.
Delegation of Authority
Whenever a provision appears requiring the head of a department or
another officer or employee of the city to perform an act or duty,
that provision shall be construed as authorizing the department
head or officer to delegate that responsibility to others over whom
they have authority.
Technical and Nontechnical Terms
Words and phrases shall be construed according to the common and
approved usage of the language, but technical words and phrases
that may have acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning in law
shall be construed and understood according to such meaning.
Development Regulations Analysis March 7, 2001 35
Iowa City, Iowa
CHAPTER 6 I REVIEW OF SELECTED PROVISIONS
6.3 ] INTERIM DEVELOPMENT ZONE
Public Officials and Agencies
All public officials, bodies, and agencies to which references are
made are those of the City of Iowa City unless otherwise expressly
stated.
Conjunctions
Unless the context clearly suggests the contrary, conjunctions shall
be interpreted as follows: "and" indicates that all connected items,
conditions, provisions, or events apply; and "orx indicates that one
or morn of the connected items, conditions, provisions, or events
may apply.
6.2.2 Definitions (14-6A-4)
Any update should include new and revised definitions.
6.3 Interim Development Zone
At least one interviewee suggested that the city should have additional
nonresidential interim development zones. Such new zones would be a
useful as a means of signaling the city's plans for newly developing areas.
6.4 Factory-Built Housing Residential Zone (RFBH)
It is possible to interpret these regulations as relegating "modular units" to
the RFBH, although we understand that is not the intent. The ordinance
specifically states that manufactured housing units are classified as single-
family dwellings, but it does not contain a similar statement about so-called
"modular units."
Regulations allowing neighborhood-serving nonresidential uses within the
RFBH zone raise the question of why such uses are not allowed as
provisional uses in other "conventional" residential zones.
6.5 Commercial and Business Zones
Besides the CN-1 zone (See Sec. 4.1, p. 14), the existing ordinance contains
seven other commercial zones: an office zone, a highway commercial zone,
an "intensive" commercial zone, a community commercial zone and three
downtown-oriented zones.
Two of the three central business zones--CB-2 and CB-5--serve as service
and support districts for lands on the "edges" of downtown. The CB-2
district, for example, accommodates auto-oriented uses that would be
entirely inappropriate in the downtown core but which have historically
existed at points near downtown. Similarly, the CB-5 zone provides a zone
of transition along the CB-10's southern border. Given the location of the
most CB-2 zoning, the city might want to re-evaluate the maximum height
36 March 7, 2001 Development Regulations Analysis
Iowa City, Iowa
CHAPTER 6 I REVIEW OF SELECTED PROVISIONS
6.5 [ COMMERCIAL AND BUSINESS ZONES
limit (now: 100 feet), since very tall buildings in some areas of the CB-2
zone could be out of scale with surrounding neighborhoods. Additionally,
the city may want to subject auto and truck-oriented uses to additional
scrutiny in the CB-2 zones because of their potential to disrupt the
pedestrian character of central area neighborhoods. Some of the design
provisions (or similar ones) now applicable in the CB-5 zone may also be
appropriate in the EB-2 zone.
The CB-10 zone is the city's true downtown zone. It allows the highest
intensity of development of any of the city's zones and allows uses that
support downtown's historic role. Because of its importance, the CB-10
district may also be deserving a design provisions (similar to those in CB-5)
that support the strong pedestrian-orientation of iowa City's downtown.
The following table provides a summary of the dimensional standards
applicable in all of the commercial and business zoning districts. A review
of these standards reveals that there is very little difference between the non-
CB districts (from a dimensional standards perspective). A review of the use
table in Appendix B, on the other hand, suggests that there is greater range
of difference from an allowed use perspective. Still, there may be an
opportunity to consolidate some of the existing commercial/business
districts.
Additional consolidation of similar (2 zones may be possible. At the same
time, additional district standards may also be needed to address build-to
lines, site design, building orientation and other features that implement
plan goals for pedestrian-oriented, compact development. During the code
update effort, the city should continue to examine possible ways to
consolidate similar zoning districts. Modernization of the code's use
classification system should also be a priority of any code update effort.
r .........'- ........I'co-fiic"-il': CH'-i i'!ci::~J,_CC:~ I:C'e:~IIC'B-~ li CB-~'O I
, ,
ILot Width
(feet)
i,ot Front.ge <feet) II - I~ ' I~ ' iF:" 'F :'I["":~ - I! - I
~tback, <feet)IF""3r"T" qr~'lr~qr'2E"'q! ......q
.:,,.~ideI:-J.,_:-"'L_.:ZI-'I."'-' '1~'-I -
~Re~r "lZ:l'=lL_~LJL :"J',: li -"l':lZ_-.Zj,
'..i.htliee6 ..................Ii"'~g'l"'2s I" '-' _J_._.as ll"""~'g""'lr'3'aa'l'~g"i~]"'l .......-Zl'
~"ui~di"..C0"r.'~°~ll!':"'l' :J: - I - I! :"11':"'1"""""""'1 ....: I
[1] No setbacks required except for first floor of structures along Burlington.
Maximum allowed setback is 12 feet.
[2] Minimum height is 35 feet,
Development Regulations Analysis March 7, 2001 37
Iowa City, Iowa
CHAPTER 6 I REVIEW OF SELECTED PROVISIONS
6.6 ] INDUSTRIAL ZONES (ART. H)
[3] Depending on presence of basement and use of bonuses.
[4] Bonus for pedestrian plazas.
6,6 Industrial Zones (Art. H)
Existing references in the industrial districts to the Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) manual should be revised to reflect the new North
American Industrial Classification System (NAICS).
The list of uses allowed in General Industrial zone seems rather narrow. We
believe the real issue is the ordinance's use classification system in general.
It is better than many we've seen, but it can definitely be improved.
The allowance of any "industrial, commercial, or related use" poses a
potential threat to the purpose of the I-2 zone, which is to provide a
sanctuary for intensive industrial uses and to protect those uses from
encroachment by less intensive uses. The city should consider prohibiting
most low-intensity "commercial" uses in the I-2 zone. Consideration should
also be given to revising the permitted use section of the I-2 zone to be
consistent with the other zones. Currently, the I-2 zone relies on a list of
"prohibited" uses rather than a list of expressly permitted uses.
6.7 Public Zone (Art. 1)
We believe the "P" district has an important purpose (to serve notice to
those owning or buying land in proximity to publicly owned land), but is of
little benefit to the community in its current form. It iacks any development
standards and is too open-ended in terms of the range of uses allowed.
The city should consider amending the "P" zone to be a neighborhood-
oriented zone that allows a fairly narrow range of "public" uses that are
typically located within or near residential neighborhoods. Examples would
include schools, parks, playgrounds, fire stations and the like. More
intensive public uses, such as post offices and equipment storage yards
should be relegated to higher intensity commercial or industrial districts.
Similarly, state and federal offices should be treated just as other offices for
zoning purposes.
In terms of development standards, the "P" zone should either limit
development intensity along the lines of a moderate density residential
zone, or require that development in the "P" zone adhere to the standards of
the most restrictive adjacent district. In any case, the city should adopt
standards for the zone and expressly state in the ordinance that all
development (whether public or private) is subject to the standards of the
ordinance.
6.8 Sensitive Areas Ordinance
The environmental regulations of Chapter 6 are locally referred to as the
"Sensitive Areas Ordinance." These regulations show evidence of Iowa
38 March 7, 2001 Development Regulations Analysis
Iowa City, Iowa
CHAPTER 6 I REVIEW OF SELECTED PROVISIONS
6.9 I OFF-STREET PARKING
City's strong commitment to preservation of sensitive natural resource areas.
We believe, however, that they could be improved. Currently the
environmental regulations are implemented through the Sensitive Areas
Overlay (SAO) zone and the Planned Development Housing Overlay zone
(OPDH). We recommend that consideration be given to implementing the
regulations through a "development standards" approach, while retaining
the OPDH zone as a voluntary route for developers with unique or
innovative proposals.
Under the development standards approach, developers of sites containing
protected resources areas would be subject to site plan review, during
which their plans would be checked administratively for compliance with
the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Those aggrieved by a staff decision on a
sensitive areas site plan would have the right of appeal. Rezoning would
only be required if the underlying zoning did not accommodate the
proposed development or if the developer opted to follow the OPDH route
for its increased "flexibility."
This recommendation stems largely from our belief that the use of objective
development standards will result in a more predictable outcome for all
concerned (developers, neighborhoods, and the city). It is also our
observation that the existing process tends to result in issues being raised
during the overlay rezoning process that are sometimes completely
unrelated to the site's environmental characteristics.
We recommend that the city consider moving many of the residential design
guidelines from the Environmental Regulations article, and relocating them
to another section of the ordinance where they would have broader
applicability.
6.9 Off-Street Parking
The required size of a standard parking space (90 degree) in Iowa City is 9
feet by 18 feet, although up to 50 percent of required parking spaces can be
"compact car" spaces, which can be a small as 8 feet by 15 feet. Although
we caution against over-requiring parking or oversizing of parking lots, we
note that few modern ordinances allow such widespread use of compact
spaces, except in instances where the compact spaces are reserved for low-
turnover uses, such as employee parking.
In general, we believe that additional flexibility may be desirable within the
off-street parking section. Requiring special exception approval for off-site
and shared parking arrangements, for example, may work against the city's
goals regarding pedestrian-orientation and preservation of neighborhood
character and appearance. Allowing off-site parking requests to be handled
administratively, subject to specific standards may be preferable. The city
may also want to allow some additional flexibility with regard to the
location of off-site lots (currently required to be within 300 feet of the
subject use). Finally, some communities have elected to allow large
Development Regulations Analysis March 7, 2001 39
Iowa City, Iowa
CHAPTER 6 J REVIEW OF SELECTED PROVISIONS
6.10I SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
employers to use transportation demand management measures as a
substitute for providing parking spaces.
A review of the number of spaces required for land uses reveals that the
city's standards are generally within the range seen in other communities.
Beyond such relative comparisons, it is impossible to judge the adequacy of
the city's existing numerical requirements, since local parking generation
characteristics are not known. The existing standards am typically based on
floor area and they sometimes vary by zone district, both of which are
positive features. The existing provision allowing land to be set aside in lieu
of constructing spaces is also a good modern regulatory feature.
It was brought to our attention that there is some question about whether
parking area design standards apply to parking provided in excess of
ordinance requirements. This should be clarified, presumably by specifying
that the design standards apply to all off-street parking facilities.
6.10 Subdivision Regulations
Note: Some subdivision-related matters are discussed in other section of this
report (See, for example, Section 4.3 [p. 19] and Section 5.4 [p.28 ]). Other
recommendations about the subdivision regulations follow:
6. f0.1 Consistency with Municipal Design Standards
Our reading of the city code and the design standards manual
suggest that there may be conflicting (or at least inconsistent)
provisions in the two documents. A reference to the existence of the
Municipal Design Standards should also be included in the
subdivision regulations.
6.10.1 Purpose Statement
The purpose statement should be expanded, using language from the
comprehensive plan. A more detailed purpose statement would be
helpful in clarifying to the staff and the public the reasons for the
regulations and would be useful in the event of a legal challenge.
6.10.2 Definitions
The definitions should be reviewed for clarity and accuracy. For
example, a "minor plat" is listed as one "involving no streets," while
the definition of a "major plat" is more specific, mentioning the
extension of existing streets and "selective access drives." More
important is the fact that there are terms used in the subdivision
regulations that are not defined at all, such as "block" and
"crosswalk."
40 March 7, 2001 Development Regulations Analysis
Iowa City, Iowa
CHAPTER 6 ] REVIEW OF SELECTED PROVISIONS
6.10 ~ SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
6.10.3 Exceptions
The section dealing with exceptions is rather broad and vague. If the
city is serious about implementing Comprehensive Pan goals and
policies, it is important to limit the ability to deviate from the
adopted standards. Our experience is that specific standards are
helpful in preventing review and decision-making bodies from
granting unwarranted exceptions that weaken the integrity of the
regulations.
6.10.4 Unusual Plats
The regulations provide for waiving requirements for "unusual
plats." This is an example of a vague provision that should be
modified or removed. We recommend developing more specific
criteria for determining what constitutes an "unusual plat."
Similarly, the section on design standards allows exceptions where
"good platting" would so dictate, or when "a variation would
provide a better street and lot layout." Missing from the ordinance is
a statement about what constitutes good subdivision design.
6.10.5 Decision-Making
The ordinance specifies that "the Commission shall approve or
disapprove the plat .... "Since "the Commission" is a
recommending body (final decisions are made by City Council), this
language should be changed.
6,10.6 Alleys
The design standards discourage alleys in most places. In keeping
with the city's interest in providing smaller lots and a wider variety
of housing types, the city may wish to remove such obstacles.
6.10.2 Block Length and Width
As noted previously, the block length used in the subdivision
regulations is not standard (400 feet instead of 300 feet), and the
requirement that each block be at least 200 feet wide and
accommodate two tiers of lots may discourage creative subdivision
design.
6.10.3 Tables and Charts
This regulations could be made more readable and easier to use by
replacing and/or supplementing some of the text with charts.
Examples include street width requirements and a summary of
required public improvements.
Development Regulations Analysis March 7, 2001 41
Iowa City, Iowa
CHAPTER 6 I REVIEW OF SELECTED PROVISIONS
6.11 I SITE PLAN REVIEW
6.10.4 Open Space Dedication
The ordinance includes clear standards for calculating the amount of
land to be dedicated as open space. However, the provisions for
payments in lieu of dedication are less clear. It may be beneficial to
include standards for the minimum amount of land to be dedicated.
Those subdivisions where the calculation would produce a smaller
amount would be required to pay fees instead.
6.10.7 Terminology
The terminology used in the regulations should be reviewed and
made as specific as possible. Statements that certain things "should
be avoided" or others "should be encouraged" usually are without
legal merit and are difficult to enforce.
6.11 Site Plan Review
6.11.1 Organization
The city's site plan review regulations are codified in the Building
and Housing chapter of Title 14. We believe that their location there
makes the city's development regulations more difficult to
comprehend, particularly for those who are unfamiliar with the Iowa
City system. Our observation is that site plan review is increasingly
viewed as part of the zoning review (land development) process,
rather than the building process. Also most of the design standards of
the site plan article deal with issues of zoning and land
development.
6,11.2 Purpose
The purpose statement of the site plan review regulations is
generally sound, although item "B" of the purpose statement
contains a list of review and approval criteria that should either be
eliminated be relocated to another section of the site plan article.
(Note: the site plan regulations do not include an express statement
regarding the criteria to be used in approving or denying site plans)
6.11.3 Design Standards
The design standards of the site plan review article are a mixture of
general and specific requirements many of which overlap other
sections of the code. We believe that specific design standards
should be relocated to other sections of the city code that deal with
the referenced subject. (e.g., parking area design, landscaping,
screening and street access). By doing so, site plan review can be
thought of as more of a "process," rather than another layer of
standards. The principal review criterion will then become: "does
the proposal comply with all applicable code requirements....~"
42 March 7, 2001 Development Regulations Analysis
Iowa City, Iowa
CHAPTER 6 ~ REVIEW OF SELECTED PROVISIONS
6.12 [ TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES
6.12Telecommunications Devices
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 contained provisions that required
changes in local land-use regulation of satellite dishes and
telecommunications towers used to provide wireless services. Although
Iowa City clearly has updated its code in response to that Act, Appendix I
contains additional suggestions for consideration.
6,13Sexually Oriented Businesses
Many local governments impose additional regulations on sexually oriented
businesses because of concerns about the impacts of such businesses on
other activities in the area, and, in some cases, because of community moral
judgments about the material or activities promoted by the business.
Local governments do not have complete flexibility to regulate sexually
oriented businesses, however. Movies, books, videos, magazines,
newspapers and CD-ROMs are all protected by the First Amendment; that
protection extends even to hard-core material, provided that it is not found
to be "obscene" and thus illegal. The First Amendment also protects live
performances, including dancing, although the Supreme Court has twice
upheld laws essentially banning nude dancing.
To the extent that local land-use regulations burden the First Amendment
rights of individuals who provide sexually oriented media or performances,
those regulations will be subject to "strict scrutiny," essentially eliminating
the "presumption of validity" normally given to local ordinances and shifting
the burden of proof to the local government to show why it should be
allowed to restrict the free-speech rights of certain citizens. Under that
relatively rigorous test, many local regulations of sexually oriented
businesses have been struck down. The practical measure of a local
ordinance under such "strict scrutiny" often comes down to a very practical
question--does the local ordinance allow protected businesses a reasonable
number of sites in the community? Appendix J contains and in-depth review
of the city's existing "adult use" regulations and a series of
recommendations.
6.14Group Homes and Related Uses
The city's current zoning provisions appear to be in compliance with
applicable provisions of state and federal law regarding group homes. For an
in-depth discussion of these issues, see Appendix K.
6.15Sign Regulations
Iowa City's sign regulations should be revised and brought into conformity
with Constitutional principles and guidelines that are defensible under the
Development Regulations Analysis March 7, 2001 43
Iowa City, Iowa
CHAPTER 6 1 REVIEW OF SELECTED PROVISIONS
6.16 I HISTORIC PRESERVATION/CONSERVATION
comprehensive plan--eliminating most content-based distinctions. Appendix
L contains an in-dept review and critique of the existing sign regulations.
6.16 Historic Preservation/Conservation
Section 14-6J-3 of the city's zoning ordinance contains provisions for the
Historic Preservation Overlay (OHP) zone and Section 14-6J-4 contains
provisions for a related Conservation OverPay (OCD) zone.
6.16.'1 Purposes
Each of these sections contains a good statement of purposes,
establishing a sound planning basis for use of the districts.
6.16.2 Procedures for Adoption and Related Report
The procedures for adoption of both zones are set out in §1 4-6J-3.C,
which is somewhat confusing, because the heading on that section
refers only to the OHP zone. The procedures appear to be
appropriate for both and should simply be placed in a section that
clearly relates to both districts. Section 14-6.1-4.C contains additional
substantive requirements to be included in the adoption procedures
for the OCD zone only. These include:
The degree to which the area contains the general character
and appearance of its original period of deveWopment;
The extent to which the area evidences ongoing
maintenance of existing older buildings;
The potential for rehabilitation of existing buildings in the
area;
o The degree to which the area displays traditional
neighborhood character as is evidenced by arch itectural
styles, building scale, building setback; and
n The concerns of residents and property owners in the area.
That same section includes requirements for specific provisions to be
included in the Conservation District Report; although the previous
section requires a report on a proposed historic district, it does not
include the same sort of list of specific substantive requirements.
That list requires that a Conservation District Report:
Include a study of the characteristics of the proposed OCD
Zone, including architectural characteristics, elements of the
streetscape, physical conditions of buildings, age of
44 March 7, 2001 Development Regulations Analysis
Iowa City, Iowa
CHAPTER 6 I REVIEW OF SELECTED PROVISIONS
6.161 HISTORIC PRESERVATION/CONSERVATION
buildings, histor~ of buildings, and property ownership
patterns;
Define the boundaries of the proposed OCD Zone;
Contain guidelines for alteration and rehabilitation of existing
buildings within the OCD Zone;
Contain guidelines for the construction of new buildings
within the OCD Zone;
Identify modifications, if any, to the dimensional
requirements of the underlying zoning district based on the
prevailing character of existing development;
Identify modifications, if any, to the off-street parking
requirements which apply to uses in the underlying zone;
c3 Establish the level of review required for changes of
appearance to buildings within the OCD Zone; and
Q Contain an ordinance implementing the provision of the
specific OCD zone. Establishment of any OCD Zone
requires City Council adoption of Conservation District
ordinances specific to each OCD zone.
All of these are excellent requirements that should be included in
the report for either an OCD or an OHP zone. These two sets of
procedural provisions should be combined, using most of the non-
redundant sections of each, to create one more comprehensive
section that applies to adoption of both OCD and OHP zones; the
purpose of the OCD will result in its application to some non-
historic contexts, and in those cases the referral to the State
Historical Society of Iowa (see §14-6J-3.C.1 .b) should be waived.
In addition, the report should include specific recommendations and
proposed findings (see next section) regarding the particular
historical or other characteristics of the neighborhood, area or site
which should be preserved. If the significance of the area is the
treatment of porches and rooflines, there is no reason for the
Preservation Commission later to interfere with a property owner
who wants to replace windows; on the other hand, in an area where
the Victorian detailing of buildings is significant, it is important for
the Commission to know that as it reviews proposed projects.
6.16.3 Required Findings
The adoption procedures should require that the City Council, on
the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission,
specifically adopt or reject as findings each relevant part of the
proposed report. Because this is a legislative enactment, the City
Council clearly has the discretion to accept part, all or none of a
Development Regulations Analysis March 7, 2001 45
Iowa City, Iowa
CHAPTER 6 ] REVIEW OF SELECTED PROVISIONS
6.16 [ HISTORIC PRESERVATION/CONSERVATION
proposed report. To create a legislative history that can be used in
interpreting the district rules, it is important to have the council
make specific findings. Note that in a historic district "interpretation"
occurs before the Preservation Commission as well as before the
courts; regulations are rarely detailed enough to cover every possible
situation and it is thus very helpful to have a legislative history to
provide a context for interpretation.
6.16.4 Review of Proposals
The provisions for the OCD (§14-6J-4.3) contains an excellent set of
procedures for review of proposals for work on a building or site in
the area. The review process results in the issuance of a Certificate of
Appropriateness, which provides a useful administrative tool to
guide issuance of building and other permits for the site. This
excellent set of provisions should be expanded to apply to work in
historic districts and on historic buildings and sites.
6.16.6 Demolition by Neglect
"Demolition by neglect" is a problem that occasionally arises with
property in a historic district when the subject property owner
objects to preservation regulations. If such an owner is denied a
Certificate of Appropriateness, he or she may simply allow the
affected property to deteriorate, hoping that the city will find that it is
a public safety hazard and must be demolished. Demolition by
neglect provisions are intended to allow intervention by the city
before a structure reaches that stage.
6.16.6 Additions to Violations
It will be important to add to the comprehensive "violations" section
in a new ordinance the following violations:
To conduct work on any historic landmark or any building or
site in the OCD or OHP zones without obtaining a required
Certificate of Appropriateness;
To conduct work on any historic landmark or on any
building or site in the OCD or OHP zones in a way that is
inconsistent with an issued Certificate of Appropriateness;
Q To allow any property under the ownership or control of an
individual to fall into a state that is found to constitute
"demolition by neglect;"
Q To fail to respond within the specified period to any
corrective order of the [enforcement officer] to correct any
situation involving "demolition by neglect."
46 March 7, 2001 Development Regulations Analysis
Iowa City, Iowa
CHAPTER 6 I REVIEW OF SELECTED PROVISIONS
6.16 I HISTORIC PRESERVATION/CONSERVATION
6.16.7 Legal Issues
The courts have been extremely supportive of historic preservation
ordinances in general. There are no obvious deficiencies in the
existing ordinance that would lead to successful legal challenges,
although the current lack of clarity about how the pieces of the two
ordinances fit together could lead to difficulties in enforcing the
ordinance in particular circumstances. With the technical corrections
and reorganization suggested here, the resulting ordinance should be
completely defensible.
Development Regulations Analysis March 7, 2001 47
Iowa City, Iowa
Appendix A J Sample Page Format
(excerpt from Fort Worth, TX Zoning Ordinance)
Lot Area 5,000 square feet minimum (Section 6.501 and 7,106)
Lot Width 50 feet minimum at building line (Section 6.501 and 7.106)
Lot Coverage 50 percent maximum
Front Yard* 20 feet minimum
Rear Yard 5 feet minimum
Side yard
Interior lot 5 feet minimum
Corner lot* * 10 feet minimum adjacent to side street and 5 feet minimum for
interior lot line
Height 35 feet maximum (see Section 6.100)
Setback to side street 5 feet minimum side yard
is a minimum ot 10 setback from interior lot lines Minimum of 5 feet
feet, unless there is a for corner and interior lots to rear and side
pro ected front yard , , property lines
from another property/' "
to the rear /
Setback to front street
is a minimum of 20 feet,
Front Street unless there is a platted
or established front yard
(Al['i~tS a minimum of~0 feet wide) -- - of greater dimension
Notes:
*May be subject to setback averaging (Section 6. I07 D)
**May be subject to projected front yard (Section 6. I O I F)
I"B"
DistriCt, Two Attached Units on a Single Lot
~: MJNI._~UM
>' EAR YARD
~ ~ LOT 1 ~ ~ LOT 2 ~ LOT 3 ~
~ ~10,~ I', '~1 , I
~ ~ 5,000 . ~ ~ ~
Z SO. FT. : ~ ~ ~ 50~ ~XlMUM
~ ~ 5 LOTC~BAGE
~ ~ ~ MINIMUM = ~
~ ~ LOT AREA ' ~1 ~
~ ~ -- __ ~ __',
~ . 50'
PROPERTY LINE
STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY
Deve/opmen~ ~e~ula~ions Analysis March 7, 2001
Iowa City, Iowa
Appendix B I Sample Use Table
(Based on Iowa City's existing use regulations)
USE TABLE Residential Nonresidential
SPecific Use ~ ~ ~) ~) 6 = ~ 0 = . . ,'
~J rJ ~1
KEY: P; Permitted By Right P*= Provisional Uses SE= Special Exception
RESIDENTIAL
P P P P P P P P P
Accessory Apartments
P P
Duplex P P P * P
P P
Duplex, Max 1 Roomer
P P
Duplex, Max 2 Roomers
Dwellings Above Ground Floor of Principal use, Max 3 P P S S S P P P
Roomers E E E
P
Dwellings on Ground Floor
Dwellings, Zero Lot Line
P P P P P P
Bdedy Apartment Housing
S S P P P P
Elderly Congregate Housing E E
P P P P P P P P P P P P
Elderly Family Home
P P P P P P P P P P P P
Elderly Group Homes
S P P
Elderly Life Care Housing E
P P P P P P P P P P P
Family Care Facility P
P P P P
Fraternity/Sorority House
S S S S S S S S
Group Care Fadlity E E E E E E E E
USE TABLE Residential nresidential
KEY: P= Permi~ed By Right P*= Provisional Uses SE= Special Exception
P
Manufactured, Mobile or Modular Home, Max 1 Roomer
Manufactured Housing P
Mobile Home P
P P P P P P P P P P
Model Dwelling Unit
Modular Home P
P
P P P P P
Multi-family
P P
Multi-family, Max 1 Roomers
P P
Multi-family, Max 2 Roomera
P P
Residence For Caretaker For Commercial Use
P P
Residence For Caretaker For Industrial Use
P P P P P P
Roomifig House
Single-Family, A~ached
P P P P P P P p
SingleFamily, De~ched
P P
Singl~Family, De~ched, Max 1 Roomer
P P P P P
Single-Family, De~ched, Max 2 Roomera
P P
P P
Single-Family, Detached, Max 3 Roomera
P P P P P
S S S S S S S S S S S S S
Transient Housing E E E E E E E E E E E E E
P P
Two Family Dwellings. Max 1 Roomer
Two Family Dwellings, Max 3 Roomera P P
USE TABLE Residential >nresidential
Specific Use ~ ~ ~ ~ o m ~ ~
~ 0
KEY: P= Pertained By RigN P*= Pmvisiongl Uses BE= Specisl Excep[ion
II I 1 11 I IIllllll lll
NON~SIDENTI~
P
Accounting Office
S
Adult Businesses E
S S S S S P P P P S P S P P P P S
Adult Day~re E E E E E E E E
S P
Animal Clinic E
Auto/Truck Sales and Se~ice P P S p
E
Bake~ P
S S
Bank or Financial Institution w/Drive-In Facilities E E
Bank or Financial institution/Branch P
P S S
P
Barbed Beauty Shop E E
Bed and Breakfast P P
Building Contractor Facilities P P
Building Supply Store P
Business Se~ice Establishment P P P P
Carpet Store P
S S
Cemen~ Concrete Plants E E
S S S
Cemete~ E E E
Chemical Manufacture P
S S S S S P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P S S
Child Cam Center E E E E E E E
S S S S P P S
P P
Child Care Center, Neighborhood E E E E E
P
Chiropractic Clinics
USE TABLE Residential ~nresidential
u.:~6 .' 6:~'~ 6-,m,kaa:'r.~
SPecific Uae ~ ~ ~, ~, z ~, ~, ~, z ' a s .
KEY: P= Permitted By Right P*= Provisional Uses SE= Special Exception
S S S
Clubs E E E p p p p S S S
E E E
Commercial Recreation Facility p p S S ; S S
E E E E
Commercial Use, General p
S S S
Communication Stations/Studios E E E P
Computer Operations p p
Computer Sales and Supplies p
Consignment Shop p
Convenience Groceries w/o Filling Station
S
Convenience Grocery Store wl Filling Station E
S S
Convention Center Facilities P P P
E E
Copy Centers p p p
Dairy Products, Processing and Packaging p
Data Processing p p
P
Drug Store p
P S S
P
Dry Clean/Laundromat E E
Educational Uses Office p p
Electronic Components, Manufacture, Service and Repair p
Electrotherapeutic, Electromedical and X-ray Apparatus,
Manufacture, Service and Repair P
Engineering, Scientific and Research Laboratory
Equipment, Manufacture, Service and Repair P
Equipment Rental p
Farm Supplies p
Farms p
Financial Office p
S
Fitness Center/Health Spa E
Florist Shops p p p p
USE TABLE Residential iresidential
KEY: P= Psrmi~d By Right P~= Provisional U~8~ SE= Sp~d~l Exception
~ood ~nd Kindred Produ~t~ ~nuf~o~ur~, Proc~ing ~nd p
P~okGging
~ood Locker P P
S S S P S
Funeral Home E E E E
Furniture Store P
S
Gas Station E
General Business O~ce P P
Grain Milling and Processing, Manufacture, Processing and P P
Packaging of ~nsumer Food Products
P
Gravel E~raction
P
Groce~ Stores
Hardware Store P
S S S
Helopo~s/Helostops E E E
Hospi~ls P P
P S S
Hotel/Motel P P P E E
Industrial Offices P P
Industrial Uses, General P
P
Insurance Office
P
Kennel
P
Law Office
P
Light Manufacturing, Less Than 5,000 square feet
S
Light Manufacturing, More Than 5,000 square feet E
Lumbe~ard P
Manufacture Compounding or Assembling of A~icles From p
Prefabricated Materials
USE TABLE Residential ~residential
~6~o v , . -~
Specific Use ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ z ~ 0 o o ~ 0 0 0 ~ 0
KEY: P= Pertained By Right P*= Provisional Uses SE= Special Exception
Marine Equipment and Supply p
Measuring and Controlling Instruments, Manufacturing,
Se~ice and Repair P
Medical O~ce
Medical/dental Supply Stores p p
Meeting Halls p p p p p p p
Merchandise and Product Display Center p p
P
Neighborhood Super Store
P P P P
Nursing Homes P P
Office, Computing and Ac~unting Machines,
Manufacturing, Se~ice and Repair P
Offices p p
Offices/non-retail and no invento~ p p S p p p p p p
Off-Street Pa~ing E
Optical p p
Optical Instruments and Lenses, Manufacture, Se~ice and
Repair P
P P
Other Retail
Pharmaceuti~Is, Manufacture, Se~ice and Repair P
Pharmacy p p
Photofinishing Se~ices p
Photographic Equipment and Supplies, Manufacture,
Se~ice and Repair P
Photographic Studios p p
Plant Nu~e~ p
P
Post Office P
Printing and Publishing Facilities p
Printing Shop p
Professional O~ce p p
USE TABLE Residential iresidential
" 6 m I ~ O 'T, , , " ~
n, ,v
KEY: P= Permitted By Right P*= Provisional Uses SE= Special Exception
Prosthetics P P
Railroad Switching, Storage and Freight Yards P
P
Real Estate Agency
P P P P P P P P P P
Real Estate Sales Center
Recyclable Materials Storage (Outdoor), excluding Tires S
and Appliances E
Recycling Processing Facility P P
P S S S S S S P P P P S P S S S S S
P
Religious Institution E E E E E E E E E E E E
Repair Shop P
Research, Testing and Experimental Laboratories P P P
Restaurant, Carry Out P P P
S P
P P
Restaurant, Less Than 100 Persons E
S S
P P
Restaurant, More Than 100 Persons E E
P
Restaurant, With Drive-In
Restaurant, With Drive-thru
S
Restaurant, Without Drive-In E
P
Restaurant, Without Drive-thru
Retail Facilities For Products Manufactured, Processed S
or Fabricated on Site E
Retail Less Than 2,000 SF P P P P P
S
P P P P
Retail More Than 2,000 SF E
Salvage Yard S
E
S S S S S S S S S
Schools/Generalized Pdvate E E E E E E E E E
Schools/Public
USE TABLE Residential residential
Specific Use IZ <~ u~ ~ 0 m ~' ~; ,- ,_ ,,_ ~N ~ ~
KEY: P= Permitted By Right P*= Provisional Uses SE= Special Exception
S S S S S S S S S S S S
Schools/Specialized Private E E E E E E E E E E E E
Shoe Repair p
P
Storage Facility, Enclosed
S
Storage Facility, For Tires and Appliances, Outdoor E
Surgical, Medical and Dental Instruments, Manufacture,
Service and Repair P
S S P P
Telecommunication Towers E E
Theaters p p p p
P
Travel Agency
P P
Truck Terminal
S S S P S S S S P P
Utility Substations E E E E E E E
P P P P P P P
Utility Substations Within Existing Buildings
Variety Store p
P
Veterinary Hospital
P
Videotape Rental P
P
Warehousing, Storage and Distribution Facilities
P
Wholesale Establishments P P
Appendix C I Local Street Width
The following table presents sample street width standards. These standards
were obtained primarily from the Congress for the New Urbanism, Narrow
Streets Database, compiled by Alan B. Cohen, AIA; with additional research
by Craig Raborn, Duncan Associates.
Parking Parking
Jurisdiction Prohibited Permitted Comment
I sidei2 sides
Phoenix, AZ 28
Santa Rosa, CA 20 26-28 30 20-foot neck downs at
intersections
Palmdale, CA 28
San Jose, CA 30-34 Depending on number of
dwelling units
Novato, CA 24-28 Depending on density
Boulder, CO 30-32 Depending on ADT
Ft. Collins, CO 30
Delaware DOT 21 22-29 Mobility friendly design
Connectivity required
Orlando, FL 22-28 Depending on lot width
Ames, IA 27 37
Manhattan, KS 27
Portland, MA 24
Howard Co., MD 24
Charles Co., MD 24
Birmingham, MI 20 26
Helena, MT 33
Missoula, MT 26-32 Depending on number of
dwelling units
Albuquerque, NM 27-28 27 with roll curb
Santa Fe, NM 34
Eugene, OR 20 21 28-34 Depending on ADT
Forest Grove, OR 24 28-32 Depending on number of
dwelling units
Gresham, OR 20-26
McMinnville, OR 26 26' w/parking both sides
Portland, OR 20 26
Washington 20-24 28
County, OR
Beaverton, OR 28
Tigard,OR 28 32
Tualatin, OR 32
Hillsboro, OR 28-30
Johnson City, OR 22-28 Depending on ADT
College Station, TX 27
Burlington, VT 30
Kirkland, WA 20 24-28 Depending on density
Morgantown, WV 22
Madison, WI 27-28 Depending on density
Development Regulations Analysis March 7, 2001 59
Iowa City, Iowa
Appendix D ( Corner Lot Duplexes
This provision allows new duplexes and attached houses in locations where
their appearance and impact will be compatible with the surrounding
houses. Duplexes and attached houses on corner lots can be designed so
each unit is oriented towards a different street. This gives the structure the
overall appearance of a house when viewed from either street.
1. Qualifying situations. This provision applies to corner lots in the RS
Zones.
2. Density and lot size. One extra dwelling unit is allowed. For
duplexes, the lot must comply with the minimum lot area standard
for new lots in the base zone. For attached houses, the original lot
before division for the attached house project, must comply with the
minimum lot size standard for new lots in the base zone.
3. Entrances. Each unit of the duplex or attached house must have its
address and main entrance oriented towards a separate street
frontage. Conversion of an existing house may provide one main
entrance with internal access to both units.
Note: These provisions should probably also require that access drives
and garages be located on separate street frontages or in the rear yard
area.
Development Regulations Analysis March 7, 2001 61
Iowa City, Iowa
Appendix E I Garage Standards
I Portland, OR Example I
A. Purpose. These standards:
1. Together with the window and main entrance standards,
ensure that there is a physical and visual connection
between the living area of the residence and the street;
2. Ensure that the location and amount of the living area of the
residence, as seen from the street, is more prominent than
the garage;
3. Prevent garages from obscuring the main entrance from the
street and ensure that the main entrance for pedestrians,
rather than automobiles, is the prominent entrance;
4. Provide for a more pleasant pedestrian environment by
preventing garages and vehicle areas from dominating the
views of the neighborhood from the sidewalk; and
5. Enhance public safety by preventing garages from blocking
views of the street from inside the residence.
B. Existing detached garages. A detached garage that is nonconforming
due to its location in a setback, may be rebuilt on its existing
foundation if it was originally constructed legally. An addition may
be made to these types of garages if the addition complies with the
standards of this section, or if the combined size of the existing
foundation and any additions is no larger than 12 feet wide by 18
feet deep. The garage walls may be up to 10 feet high.
C. Side and rear setbacks. In the R7, R5 and R2.5 zones, detached
garages are allowed in the side and/or the rear building setbacks if
all of the following are met.
1. The garage entrance is 40 feet from a front lot line, and if on
a corner lot, 25 feet from a side street lot line;
2. The garage has dimensions which do not exceed 24 feet by
24 feet; and
3. The garage walls are no more than 10 feet high.
D. Length of street-facing garage wall.
Development Regulations Analysis March 7, 2001 63
Iowa City, Iowa
APPENDIX E I GARAGE STANDARDS
1. Where this standard applies. The standard of this paragraph
applies to garages that are accessory to houses, manufactured
homes, and duplexes in the R10 through R2.5 zones. Where
a proposal is for an alteration or addition to existing
development, the standard applies only to the portion being
altered or added. Garages that are accessory to attached
houses, development on flag lots, or development on lots
which slope up or down from the street with an average
slope of 20 percent or more are exempt from this standard.
In addition, subdivisions and PUDs that received preliminary
plan approval between September 9, 1990, and September
9, 1995, are exempt from this standard.
2. Generally. The length of the garage wall facing the street
may be up to 50 percent of the length of the street-facing
building fa~;ade. See Figure 110-8. On corner lots, only one
street-facing garage wall must meet this standard.
Figure 110-8
Length of the street-facing Garage Wall
I
I
i
D V...' E_-L I k GI
GA?,AGE Uiql'F
i
~,7'~, I
i
5Q% ' I
M~jxir:'lum
Io:; I!n~ - -,
............... ........
e k~ e,w~ Z k
~':-~
3. Exception. Where the street-facing fac;ade of the building is
less than 24 feet long, the garage wall facing the street may
be up to 12 feet long if there is one of the following. See
Figure 110-9:
64 March 7, 2001 Development Regulations Analysis
Iowa City, Iowa
APPENDIX E I GARAGE STANDARDS
Interior living area above the garage. The living area
must be set back no more than 4 feet from the street-
facing garage wall; or
A covered balcony above the garage that is:
· At least the same length as the street-facing
garage wal l;
At least 6 feet deep; and
· Accessible from the interior living area of the
dwelling unit.
Figure 110-9
Length of Street-Facing Garage Wall Exception
]bnc, .~ r!:~l
/' ~ Int,2.ria*
i " Ih' ~ ~r~'~
FIR
.......... ' ' '\ 4~t '1
.
' ' j --~, ,?Jarljc wadl
E. Street lot line setbacks.
1. Where this standard applies. The standard of this p~r~raph
applies to ~ara~es that are accessory to houses, attached
houses, manufactured homes, and duplexes in the RIO
through R2.5 zones. Where a proposal is for ~n ~]teration or
additio~ to existing development? the standard applies only
to the pomon bein~ altered or added. Development on fl~g
lots or on lots which slope up or down from the street with
an average slope of 20 percent or more are exempt from this
Developmen[ Regulations Analysis March 7, 2001 65
Iowa City, Iowa
APPENDIX E ~ GARAGE STANDARDS
standard. In addition, subdivisions and PUDs that received
preliminary plan approval between September 9, 1990, and
September 9, 1995, are exempt from this standard.
2. Generally. A garage wall that faces a street may be no closer
to the street lot line than the longest street-facing wall of the
dwelling unit. See Figure 110-10.
Figure 110-10
Street Lot Line Setback
I
i
e,!:-r~l:-- 'F.;-~c:in¢ I
I
~_
E '
3. Exception. A street-facing garage wall may be up to 6 feet in
front of the longest street-facing wall of the dwelling unit, if:
The street-facing garage wall is 40 percent or less of
the length of the building facade; and
There is a porch at the main entrance. The garage
wall may not be closer to the street lot line than the
front of the porch. See Figure 110-11. The porch
must meet the following:
· The porch must be at least 48 square feet in
area and have minimum dimensions of 6 feet
by 6 feet;
The porch must have a solid roof; and
66 March 7, 2001 Development Regulations Analysis
Iowa City, Iowa
APPENDIX E I GARAGE STANDARDS
The roof may not be more than 12 feet above
the floor of the porch.
Figure 110-11
Garage Front Setback Exception
i
I n.p Yo'¢ ,.:NIT
j · M.~i'nJr, · p~rch j url:b
I ~ I
L .......... ~ ..............
Development Regulations Analysis March 7, 2001 67
Iowa City, Iowa
Appendix F I Development Approval Process
Typical Development APlFoval Prom
PROJECT IDEA
F,t'a~ Subi .... Pia~ ) Cludes steps that are common
:~ Fee Ord,n~e~ l~ ~t~c~a', ranges from ~veml ~hs to
Source: Debra Basserr, National Association of Home Builders
Appendix G Jlnterviews
The consultant team herd a series of individual and small group interview
sessions to gain insight into local land development issues and concerns.
Representatives from the following groups were included:
· City staff (City Attorney's Office; Housing and Inspection Services;
Planning and Community Development; Public Works; Engineering)
· Planning and Zoning Commission
· Residential, commercial and industrial development representatives
· Homebuilders
· Real estate agents/brokers
· Architects
· Engineers
· Surveyors
· Real estate appraisers
In all, the team held interview sessions with 25 individuals and
supplemented those face-to-face interview sessions with a written
questionnaire sent to another 15 persons.
This appendix provides a summary of the comments we received during our
interview sessions. They do not represent the opinions or recommendations
of the consultant team and have not been checked for accuracy.
Administration and Enforcement
· It is difficult to track zoning conditions and other conditions imposed
through overlay zoning. As a result, it is difficult for the city to
follow-up on and enforce "ad hod' conditions that are imposed in
the development process.
· The city should require permits for home occupations.
· Single-family and two-family uses are exempt from many standards.
It makes it difficult for enforcement staff to know which standards
apply.
· Industrial performance standards are outdated and unclear. Consider
eliminating. If retained, the regulations need to make clear when an
existing use needs to comply with standards. Also, responsibility for
enforcement of these standards needs to be clarified. Regulations
that are not enforceable should be eliminated.
Development Regulations Analysis March 7, 2001 71
Iowa City, Iowa
APPENDIX G I INTERVIEWS
· Clearer applicability statements are needed in every section of the
code. Such provisions need to clearly state which development is
subject to the referenced standards and which is exempt.
· Escrow provisions need to be updated.
· Interdepartmental communication/coordination needs to be
improved.
· A single point of contact is needed in the development process.
This appendix
provides a Cluster Development
summary of the
comments we · There is little to no market for cluster development housing.
received during
our interview
sessions. They Commercial
do not · There is not enough Neighborhood Commercial zoning.
represent the
opinions or · The zoning ordinance is not flexible enough when it comes to large
recommendatio commercial centers.
ns of the
consultant team · There are too many commercial zones and the standards are too
and have not complex,
been checked
· Some use regulations within commercial districts don't make sense
for accuracy. (e.g., video stores not allowed in "intensive commercial" zone.
· Neighborhood commercial zone is not flexible enough. Some
standards (e.g., operating hour limitations) pose a real constraint to
attracting businesses.
· Neighborhood commercial needs to be "neighborhood-oriented."
· Existing zoning regulations are too suburban. They don't fit older
areas of the community.
Comp Plan
· Some of the newer area plans are too inflexible (e.g., Northeast
District Plan).
· The relationship between district plans and the comprehensive plan
is not clear to some people.
· Neotraditional design is fine, but the city should not require it.
Definitions
· The concept of "abandonment" needs to be clarified.
72 March 7, 2001 Development Regulations Analysis
Iowa City, Iowa
APPENDIX G I INTERVIEWS
· "Family," "Rooming House," and "Roomer." These definitions are
tied into maximum occupancy limit standards. Need additional
clarification.
· "Accessory Building/Use" clarify
· "Building Height." Users shouldn't have to go to two other
definitions to understand how building height is determined.
· Need to define "single housekeeping unit" This appendix
provides a
Dimensional Standards summary of the
comments we
· Existing front setback standards work to preclude porches. received during
our interview
· Minimum lot sizes are often excessive sessions. They
do not
· The ordinance classifies alleys as streets, which causes some
problems for setbacks. represent the
opinions or
· Lot coverage standards in RM-12 and other districts don't work. recommendatio
ns of the
· Lot width for town houses should be narrower in RS-12 and RM-12 consultant team
zones. and have not
· Definition of "building height" vs. "structure height." been checked
for accu racy.
·Permitted obstructions in yards (Sec, 14-6Q-3):
o What's the difference between a "stoop" and a "deck" and
why can a deck extend into a side yard and a stoop can only
extend 2 feet?
o Why can't a bay window extend into the rear or side yard of
a reversed corner lot?
General · Many vague standards in the current ordinance.
· Need clearer standards; improved predictability.
· Developers want a level playing field among Iowa City, Coralvi lle
and the county. It would be in the city's best interests if the county
adopted building codes.
· Regulations need to make clear when standards apply to primary or
secondary or all arterials.
· Use of the phrase "effective date hereof" is confusing.
Development Regulations Analysis March 7, 2001 73
Iowa City, Iowa.
APPENDIX G I INTERVIEWS
· More Illustrations are needed.
· Point system used in the city's new infi ll design guidelines is a good
idea.
· The planning and zoning commission needs to be more sensitive to
neighborhood concerns
· Some newcomers to the process don't understand the important of
the Planning and Zoning Commission informational meeting.
Historic Preservation
This appendix
provides a · Historic district provisions need to address demolition by neglect.
summary of the
comments we Institutional
received during
our interview · Need to revise zoning for religious institutions.
sessions. They
do not
represent the Organization and Format
opinions or · Nearly everyone stressed the importance of devising a customer-
recommendatio friendly format, with many illustrations!
ns of the
consultant team · Interested in enhancing ease-of-use
and have not
been checked · More illustrations are needed.
for accuracy. · Need a cumulative list of actions that may occur through the Special
Exception process? They're now called out throughout the Code but
not available in one place.
· The ordinance could be better organized.
Parking/Access
· It could be more clearly stated that if the total number of spaces on a
lot is greater than 18, any uncovered parking area needs to include
trees.
· Parking regulations for single-family and duplex uses am ambiguous
because so many of the parking regulations do not apply to single
family/duplex.
· Parking regulations need to be more specific: (1) Specified sizes for
parking spaces (Number of spaces is determined but not how big
they are supposed to be.) (2) Number of spaces required for
nonconforming uses is not specified. (3) Number of operable
vehicles parked on property (outside of a garage).
74 March 7, 2001 Development Regulations Analysis
Iowa City, Iowa
APPENDIX G I INTERVIEWS
· The ordinance needs parking space dimensional standards, even for
single-family dwelling units.
· Off-street parking: too much required in some cases; not enough in
others.
· There is a lot of confusion over parking standards for nonconforming
uses. This is because the parking provisions in the ordinance include
the phrase "where permitted."
· Some would like to see parking standards listed with each zoning
district.
·Minimum size of stacking spaces should be included in the parking
chapter.
This appendix
· Should specify the minimum width of the required traffic island (Sec. provides a
14-6N-1B2h). Should specify that the island is to be curbed and summary of the
raised. comments we
received during
our interview
Planned Development sessions. They
· Planned development regulations: the ordnance offers lots of do not
flexibility in the zoning realm, but, at least in practice, there is very represent the
little flexibility when it comes to subdivision design standards (i.e. opinions or
streets) recommendatio
ns of the
· Planned development process is too cumbersome and not flexible consultant team
enough. and have not
been checked
· There is too much focus on design/appearance in planned
developments. for accuracy.
Procedures
· Minor modifications section needs to be expanded to include more
things that can be handled administratively.
· Need an easy route for approval of TN Ds.
· Existing requirement for % vote of city council to overturn P&Z
decision on annexation (zoning) should be eliminated.
· Incomplete and insufficient applications should be sent back to the
applicant not the applicant's agent, or at least the applicant should
be notified of the problem. Not doing so sometimes results in the
applicant being led to believe that staff is "holding things up"
· Accessory building setbacks should be handled as minor
modifications.
Development Regulations Analysis March 7, 2001 75
Iowa City, Iowa.
APPENDIX G l INTERVIEWS
· Consider using the staff panel approach to decision-making on minor
modifications.
· Special exceptions for religious institutions - should provide for
minor additions without need for special exception. Things that will
not increase intensity of use.
· Developers must show building elevations at a very early stage in
the development process...too early.
· State law for subdivision plats is inefficient because it requires that
preliminary plats go both to the planning and zoning commission
and the city council.
· The city currently uses a pre-preliminary (concept plan} process. This
process should be formalized.
· Investigate opportunity for more administrative decision-making.
This appendix · Development approval process takes too long (90-120 days).
provides a
summary of the · The subdivision ordnance needs to make clearer when an "auditors
comments we parcel" procedure can be used.
received during · The ordnance needs to include a formal procedure for "lot line
our interview
sessions. They adjustments"
do not · Entire plan is sometimes re-reviewed when a plan is sent back for a
represent the particular revision. Staff is checking to ensure that revisions were
opinions or made in response to comments and doing an entirely new review
recommendatio where they come up with new things for the applicant to address.
ns of the
consultant team · Ordinance should state that only the property owner or the city
and have not council may initiate rezonings.
been checked
· The existing site plan process is good. Subdivisions should be
for accuracy. handled in the same manner. (Case manager)
· Need opportunity for early meeting with the development review
committee, kind of a preapplication conference.
· Development process doesn't take too long.
Public notices need to be made clearer. The notification radius
needs to be increased.
The informal planning and zoning meetings are where the real
decision-making and analysis occurs. Local experts know how
important the informal meetings are; others may not. Also, people
have to attend multiple meetings because of the informal meeting
process.
76 March 7, 2001 Development Regulations Analysis
Iowa City, Iowa
APPENDIX G I INTERVIEWS
· Decisions need to be made in public forum. Doesn't support
administrative decision-making.
· Neighborhoods receive notices on Friday for the following week's
agenda. Too late.
· Recent changes to notice requirements have been very good.
· The HCDC has very clear decision-making criteria (ranking system
for funding). The P&Z and CC have very unclear, highly
discretionary system for decision-making on zoning (esp OPDH
appl ications).
Public Facilities
· Regulation of schools and other public/quasi-public institutions. The This appendix
city hasn't tried to regulate schools from a use perspective, but they provides a
do try to impose some development standards. summary of the
comments we
· The existing "P" district doesn't have any standards associated with received during
it. our interview
sessions. They
· Public uses need to be subject to the same regulations as private do not
development, to the extent possible. represent the
opinions or
Residential recommendatio
n5 of the
· Assisted living; over-concentration in some neighborhoods; fair consultant team
housing; ADA. and have not
been checked
· There are no occupancy standards for manufactured housing. for accuracy.
· The rooming house formula is very difficult to use and understand.
· Garagescapes, narrow lots, too much paving:
· Garage setbacks are a problem
· Need limit on width of garage opening
· Guest houses and accessory apartments: they now allow for the
disabled and elderly, but not flexible enough. Ordinance needs to
allow garage apartments and guest houses with additional flexibility.
· Fence canyons. how to stop?
· Need to control location of garbage containers in single-family and
duplex.
· Home occupation provisions need to be revised/clarified.
Development Regulations Analysis March 7, 2001 77
Iowa City, Iowa.
APPENDIX G IINTERVIEWS
· Guest houses and accessory apartments - carriage houses and
"granny flats"
· Detached garages don't work in Iowa City, primarily because of
climate and market.
· Community needs more multi-family zoned land.
· Corner lot duplexes should be allowed.
· Buyers do not want detached garages, and they also don't want
houses that are close together.
· All neighborhoods should share in the responsibility for
accommodating affordable and low-income housing.
· Too much concentration of low income and affordable housing in
some neighborhoods.
· Home occupations standards need to be relaxed, especially those
limiting outside employees. This would help foster economic
development in community.
This appendix
provides a Review and Decision-Making 'Bodies
summary of the
comments we · More things should be handled in the same way that they use the
received during zoning interpretation panel, which is comprised of the city attorney,
our interview the housing and inspections services director and planning and
sessions. They community development director, Minor modifications should be
do not handled this way.
represent the
opinions or
recommendatio Sensitive Areas Ordinance
ns of the · The city needs to eliminate or significantly tone down its sensitive
consultant team areas ordinance, especially when it comes to slopes and trees.
and have not
been checked · Standards should be loosened to accommodate infill development.
for accuracy.
· The environmentally sensitive areas ordinance doesn't go far
enough, especially when it comes to floodplains.
· City needs to make greater use of conservation easements.
· City needs an up-to-date environmental inventory
Stormwater Management
· The city needs to use a regional approach to storm water
management.
78 March 7, 2001 Development Regulations Analysis
Iowa City, Iowa
APPENDIX G I INTERVIEWS
Streets
· Need more street standard options, particularly for environmentally
sensitive areas.
· Need additional flexibility and variety of street standards.
· Easements are a big problem when it comes to setbacks and street
and right-of-way standards.
· Need to offer incentives for alleys.
· Some developers are not particularly interested in narrower streets.
·The al Iowance of private streets may represent a "timebomb" for the
community.
· Requirements for cul-de-sac links make no sense.
· City does traffic claming on streets that are only five to ten years old.
The streets should be designed to be calm in the first place.
This appendix
provides a
Use8 summary of the
comments we
· The ordinance needs to make clear that uses not shown as
permitted are prohibited. received during
our interview
· The city's liquor ordinance needs to be reconciled with the zoning sessions. They
ordinance and with state law. The zoning ordinance does not do not
distinguish between a bar and a restaurant. represent the
opinions or
· Too many requirements for special exceptions. More uses should recommendatio
be permitted by-right. ns of the
consultant team
· Special exceptions take too long to be approved, and they nearly and have not
always get approved (just a waste of time and money). been checked
for accuracy.
Zoning Districts
Need new interim development zoning districts. The city has interim zones
for residential and office, but may need additional nonresidential versions.
Development Regulations Analysis March 7, 2001 79
Iowa City, Iowa.
Appendix H I Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design (CPTED)
By Sue Enger, AICP
Design Techniques Reduce Crime Opportunity
Fear of Crime Pushes Families from Older Neighborhoods
The fear of crime sometimes has an impact on a family's choice of where to
live, as well as the quality of their community life. A variety of recent studies
have identified crime as a major factor contributing to neighborhood
decline, and to homeowners' decisions to sell homes and leave older
neighborhoods. A Phoenix, Arizona, study found crime, and the perception
of crime, to be the number one barrier to infill development (development
of vacant land within largely developed areas).
Many middle and upper class families have responded to this perceived
threat by choosing to live in gated communities that restrict access to
authorized individuals only. These gated communities are often located at
some distance from urban areas. Fences, locks, alarm systems and guarded
entrances around homes and communities are typical responses to the
perception of prevalent crime. Although families may feel safe inside their
"secure enclaves,' they also give up enjoyment of public places and other
areas outside of these developments to feel secure. Fear of crime may
discourage people from taking a night course, going jogging alone, or
allowing children to play in a park. Residents of low-income communities,
who cannot afford such expensive fortifications, are left vulnerable.
Crime Prevention Design Offers Low Cost Alternative
Some communities have achieved impressive results through neighborhood
and architectural design techniques that reduce the opportunity for crime
and the need for expensive fortification measures. Effective safety design
guidelines have been developed for use in Canadian cities, such as Toronto,
through the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design approach
promoted by Timothy D. Crowe and through techniques pioneered by
Oscar Newman.
Most of the crime prevention guidelines focus on several basic principles to
reduce crime opportunity. They have a common emphasis on improving an
individual's clear vision of surrounding areas. For instance, increased
pedestrian-level lighting, pedestrian routes that avoid blind corners and
provide escape route choices, use of low fences or see-through landscaping,
and use of building entrances visible from public streets or places will
reduce potential hiding places for criminals. These guidelines also typically
Development Regulations Analysis March 7, 2001 81
Iowa City, Iowa
APPENDIX h I CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN (CPTED)
encourage visibility of activity areas from surrounding residences and uses.
For example, maintaining well-lit activity areas, having first or second story
windows that are not entirely covered by signs, designing front porches that
overlook paths, parking areas, and public areas, and providing a variety of
land uses with 24-hour activity can make it more difficult to commit a crime
without detection.
Mixed use development provides a higher level of activity around the clock
that, in turn, provides more "eyes" to keep watch and to discourage
potential crimes. However, mixed use alone may not assure lower crime. In
some cases, commercial uses in separate buildings in residential areas with
abundant street-side parking, may serve to bring more outsiders into a
neighborhood and increase the opportunity for crime. Mixed use can be
designed to minimize opportunities for unobserved crime. When
commercial establishments primarily serve local residents, the number of
nonresidents entering the neighborhood is reduced. Residents will then be
better able to monitor unusual behavior. Commercial and residential uses
can be integrated and arranged in a manner that facilitates informal
surveillance by neighbors.
Community appearance and upkeep can also signal that neighborhood
residents and businesses are watching and are taking care of their
neighborhood. For instance, prompt repairs, litter pick up, and graffiti
removal are signs of an involved community. In fact, citizens responding to
a city of Phoenix survey ranked graffiti as the number one factor in creating
the perception that an area had a crime problem. Pasco, Washington, has a
particularly effective graffiti abatement program. Pasco has enlisted juvenile
offenders in community service work to remove graffiti within 48 hours.
Design techniques also can be used to clearly delineate the transition
between public and private areas, making it more readily apparent when
someone enters an area where they don't belong. For instance, low walls,
hedges, identification signs, or a change in pavement type can be used to
signal the transition without an unpleasant, fortified appearance. To
stimulate a sense of ownership, the grounds in some public housing projects
have been assigned to individual units rather than leaving them in
ambiguous common areas. In turn, this has resulted in better maintenance
and monitoring of those areas.
Several studies suggest that ease of access to outsiders is among the
strongest predictors of burglaries. Measures that restrict the ease of physical
access into buildings or the neighborhood, making it more difficult to enter
unobserved, have been successful in reducing crime. Street designs that
discourage high speeds and through traffic in neighborhoods can reduce the
opportunity for a fast getaway or make unfamiliar cars more noticeable. Use
of cul-de-sacs has been associated with significantly lower crime rates.
However, use of traffic calming devices (such as narrow streets, on-street
parking, street narrowing at intersections, or traffic circles) may achieve
82 March 7, 2001 Development Regulations Analysis
Iowa City, Iowa
APPENDIX H I CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN
similar results while allowing more convenient vehicular and pedestrian
circulation for residents.
Sarasota Success Story
A pilot Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) program
apparently turned around a Sarasota, Florida, neighborhood in which 68
percent of the businesses had been victims of crime. According to a Sarasota
official involved in setting up the program, crime dropped 40 percent
between 1996 and 1990 when the program was initiated. Citywide crime
rates dropped only 9 percent during the same period. Building permits,
rental rates, and property values also jumped during that time.
Sarasota's program combined high visibility police patrols with changes to
land use codes and development review. A CPTED review, conducted by a
law enforcement officer and a trained planner or building inspector is
required for development plans, conditional rezoning, and special
exceptions. The review focuses on aspects of the building and site design
that might facilitate access or the opportunity for crime. The ordinance
requires that the applicant address concerns raised by the review team, but
gives the applicant the opportunity to propose alternative solutions for
meeting those concerns. The city commissioners then decide whether the
applicant's responses adequately address the review team's concerns.
The zoning ordinance also contains mandatory requirements covering
lighting, landscaping, maintenance, and other standards. For example,
parking lot landscaping must either be of low height (a maximum of 2.5 feet)
or use trees with canopies having a minimum clearance of 5 feet, to
eliminate hiding places. Solid barriers may be used for buffering with a
maximum height of 2.5 feet. All other buffering/fencing treatments cannot
exceed 60 percent opacity unless buffering residential property. All exterior
lighting must be maintained in an operative state. Parking, service, and
pedestrian areas must be well-lighted. The ordinance includes incentives for
balconies and front yard use to increase the "watchful eyes" effect.
Unenclosed balconies can extend into a setback area and are not counted
toward total floor area allowances. Greater heights are allowed for theaters
and third floor residential and hotel/motel uses in business districts, which
increase the around-the-clock activity and discourage after hours crimes.
Nonconforming use provisions were revised to eliminate requirements that
discourage improvements exceeding 10 percent of the assessed valuation.
All Sarasota public projects, whether or not in the pilot area, incorporate
CPTED principles, and businesses receiving city redevelopment funds are
subject to CPTED review.
Sarasota's experience demonstrates that crime prevention design techniques
can achieve results at minimal program costs. Most of these measures can be
incorporated into project design at little or no additional cost to the local
jurisdiction or the project proponent. Crime prevention design may not be
Development Regulations Analysis March 7, 2001 83
Iowa City, Iowa.
APPENDIX h I CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN (CPTED)
able to do the job alone. Other programs, such as community policing and
block watch programs that emphasize working with community residents for
crime prevention, seem to be putting a dent in crime rates in cities like
Seattle. Crime prevention design, in combination with other innovative
programs, can offer considerable "bang for the buck" in the war against
crime.
84 March 7, 2001 Development Regulations Analysis
Iowa City, Iowa
Appendix II Telecommunications Devices
Duncan Associates
Satellite Dishes in Residential Zones
Zoning Ordinance section 14-6M-1 ,B.3 deals with satellite dishes in
residential zones. This provision complies with the
Telecommunications Act of 1996. In fact, the provision actually
treats satellite dishes somewhat more liberally than the Act requires,
and the city may wish to consider revisions addressing the following:
Under the 1996 Act, the city is not required to allow satellite
dishes larger than 1 meter in residential areas at all. The
current provision restricting those dishes essentially to the
backyard, may be a reasonable compromise. However, the
city could consider additional screening requirements or
height limits or even the prohibition on installation of new
dishes larger than 1 meter. Current technology allows
reception of direct satellite signals on a dish of
approximately 19 inches in diameter; thus, larger dishes are
no longer necessary for signal reception.
Although the 1996 Act effectively required that the city
allow installation of dishes of 1 meter or smaller in front
yards or on rooftops, it does not require that the city call
attention to those possible locations in the ordinance. In
addition, there is a public safety provision in the Act and the
implementing regulations. An alternative provision,
addressing both of these concerns, might be worded as
follows:
Satellite receiving devices one meter (1 m) or
smaller in diameter on private property in
residential zones, provided that no such device
may be located in the clear-sight triangle (cross-
reference) or in a location that blocks any required
means of ingress or egress.
The city must also allow l-meter (diameter) or smaller
satellite dishes in historic districts but may subject them to
additional restrictions in such areas. The status of satellite
dishes in the OHP should be made clear.
Satellite Dishes in Nonresidential Zones
Zoning Ordinance section 14-6M-1 .D.2.e deals with satellite dishes
as accessory uses to "commercial and manufacturing" uses.
Development Regulations Analysis March 7, 2001 85
Iowa City, Iowa
APPENDIX I ] TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES
Satellite receiving devices up to 2 meters in size must be allowed in
commercial and industrial zones, but they may be made subject to
screening, setback and other reasonable requirements. Offices,
hotels, bars and convention centers are among the common users of
these larger dishes, which are commonly used for transmitting as
well as receiving signals and for receiving multiple, complex signals.
This provision should be broadened to apply to most or all
nonresidential uses in nonresidential zones. Because satellite
receiving devices should always be accessory uses, this issue should
be addressed in 14-6M.1 .D.2, or its successor, with appropriate
conditions.
Amateur Radio Antennas
Although this may be a waning hobby in the day of cell phones and
the Internet, Federal law still protects amateur radio antennas.
Allowing for tall television towers and ham antennas may be within
the intent of 14-6M-1 .B.3.a., but that is not entirely clear. This
provision could be strengthened by establishing specific height and
setback standards for accessory, noncommercial communications
towers in residential zones.
Telecommunications Towers and Antennas
The key provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 related
to telecommun ications towers provide that local regulation of
telecommunications towers for wireless services:
Shall not discriminate among competing providers;
n Shall "not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting" the
provision of wireless services;
A decision on a "duly filed" (complete) application shall be
made within a "reasonable time;"
n The decision shall be "in writing;"
n The decision shall be supported by "substantial evidence" in the
record;
[] The decision may not be based on the perceived environmental
effects of radiation, an issue that has been addressed and
preempted by the Federal Communications Commission.
Iowa city currently allows "communications towers" as:
ca Accessory uses in the ID zone, "provided their distance from an
R zone is at least equal to the height of the tower;"
86 March 7, 2001 Development Regulations Analysis
Iowa City, Iowa
APPENDIX I I TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES
Accessory uses in the RR-1, RS-5, RS-8, and RFBH zones,
"provided they shall not be located in the area bet~veen the
street and the principal building, within the required side yard or
on the roof of any building"'
Special exceptions in the ORP and RDP zones, "provided towers
shall be located at least as far away from lot lines as their height
above grade;"
r~ Accessory uses in the C zones, provided that "a communication
tower's distance from an R zone shall be at least equal to the
height of the tower."
Provisional uses in the I zones, "provided a tower's distance
from an R zone shall be at least equal to the height of the tower."
The final test of local regulation of telecommunications towers is
essentially performance-based: if there are adequate tower locations
available for multiple providers and clear service throughout the
area, the intent of the Telecommun ications Act has been met.
Without an engineering study of the existing and potential service in
and around Iowa City, it is impossible to evaluate Iowa City's
regulations under that criterion. There are, however, a number of
ways in which the regulations could be improved, increasing both
protection of the public interest and defensibility of the regulations.
Improved regulations should take into account several additional
facts and principles:
Most wireless towers are free-standing uses, not accessory uses;
Wireless towers can be shared by multiple providers;
[] Wireless antennas are distinct from wireless towers and have
been installed on top of water towers, in church steeples and in
other existing locations;
A local discretionary review process that is ultimately subject to
review by federal courts should include clear standards for
review;
[] Standards should be backed by facts, analysis or provisions of
the comprehensive plan;
Local governments have had difficulty in sustaining requirements
that a tower be set back from the property line by the height of
the tower in cases in which the tower applicant has provided
evidence to show that a particular tower is designed to collapse
downwards and not to fall over.
Development Regulations Anal~,sis March 7, 2001 87
Iowa City, Iowa.
APPENDIX I I TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES
Based on those facts and considerations and on our understanding of
the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the implementing regulations
and litigation under it, we recommend the following revisions to the
telecommunications tower provisions of the Iowa City ordinance:
1. Distinguish among three types of towers:
a. Accessory use, business communications towers, used by
construction companies, utility companies and others. These
towers are always accessory uses and always located in
industrial zones. The city can regulate them relatively freely;
b. Broadcast towers for radio and television stations.
Engineering for these towers is complex and the range of
potential sites is often relatively narrow because of potential
conflicts with the signals of other stations in other
communities. The towers may be quite tall and an AM
broadcast station may require an array of towers; thus, the
towers can be fairly intrusive. On the other hand, most
communities want to maximize the availability of broadcast
services. For that reason, it is often desirable to make
broadcast towers "provisional uses" in industrial and some
commercial zones, leaving standards reasonably open-
ended;
c. Wireless service towers, directly protected by the 1996 Act,
subject to the other recommendations that fol low.
2. Add wireless service towers as provisional uses in some
additional zones to create the possibility of installing such towers
in each quadrant of the city without rezoning. At a minimum,
such towers are certainly appropriate in highway oriented
commercial zones and on larger parcels in community
commercial zones. The most serious issue, however, is the
availability of sites and potential coverage of the community.
3. Add a height limit for wireless service towers in each zone; the
height limit must take into consideration the ability of service
providers to cover the community, as well as the city's aesthetic
and safety concerns. Experience with the approval of existing
towers should provide the city with some guidance as to the
industry's height needs.
4. Add standards for the provisional use review of proposed towers,
to include:
a. The current setback by height of tower from each
property line, subject to a provision that the setback may
be reduced where the applicant provides convincing
evidence that the tower design makes such a setback
unnecessary for safety reasons;
88 March 7, 2001 Development Regulations Analysis
Iowa City, Iowa
APPENDIX I ~ TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES
b. Requirements for appropriate buffering or screening from
public ways and adjacent commercial uses;
c. Requirements that the tower be constructed to allow the
installation of antennas from up to five separate providers
and that space on the tower actually be made available at
reasonable market rental rates to other providers;
d. Possible requirements for "stealth towers" in certain
zones;
e. Consider performance-based height standards to relate a
tower to its context in more urban settings
5. Keep the currant setback from residential properties by the
height of the tower, but add findings to the ordinance or,
preferably, to the comprehensive plan, to support that setback
requirement.
6. Add wireless service antennas as a separate use, permitted as an
accessory use, subject to express conditions, in several industrial
and commercial zones. Conditions might include:
a. Installation would be permitted on existing towers;
b. Installation would be permitted within structural
elements of a building, such as a church steeple;
c. Installation would be permitted on rooftops, subject to
the maximum height-limit for buildings in the zone and
subject to a separate height limit to prevent the tower
from extending more than a specified distance above the
top of the building.
d. Wireless service antennas might be made a provisional
use, rather than an accessory use, in some commercial
zones, providing for review against specific standards.
Development Regulations Analysis March 7, 2001 89
Iowa City, Iowa.
Appendix J I Sexually Oriented Businesses
Duncan Associates
Current Regulatory Approach in Iowa City
Iowa City currently lumps all "adult uses" under this broad
definition:
Any amusement or entertainment establishment, bookstore,
massage establishment, motion picture theater, video rental
or sales establishment, or similar use, in which twenty-five
percent (25%) or more of its floor area is customarily not
open to the public generally but only to one or more classes
of the public excluding any minor by reason of age under
chapter 728, Obscenity, Code of Iowa, as amended.
The city then allows all such uses by special exception in the CI
(Intensive Commercial) zone and appears not to allow any of them
in any other location. The code also includes a 500-foot separation
requirement from "schools, parks, or child daycare centers,
residential zones or any other place where numbers of minors
regularly travel or congregate or within 500 feet of any other adult
business."
Land Use Considerations
In our work in other communities, we have identified a number of
distinct land uses within the broad category used in Iowa City. The
broad categories of those include, in ascending order of relative land
use impacts:
Video rental stores and newsstands with controlled access back
rooms containing sexually oriented material (as suggested by the
definition now used by the city);
Video stores, bookstores and newsstands that specialize in hard-
core material;
Sex shops, which mix sex toys and novelties, lingerie, gifts and,
usually, some sexually oriented media;
r~ Establishments offering on-premises entertainment, which might
further be broken down among those with video viewing booths
or arcades, movie theaters and establishments with live
entertainment;
Establishments offering one-on-one encounters between
entertainers and patrons or various forms of physical contact,
including massage studios, "encounter" studios, body painting
studios and nude photography studios.
Development Regulations Analysis March 7, 2001 91
Iowa City, Iowa
APPENDIX J I SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES
The encounter and touching businesses have no First Amendment
protection and can be banned or significantly restricted in most
states.
Although the Supreme Court has upheld laws banning nude
dancing, it has made it clear that sexually oriented motion picture
theaters are protected by the Constitution. Video viewing booths,
sometimes called "arcades" or "peep shows" have been banned in a
number of jurisdictions and create a number of undesirable impacts.
Thus, although all of these fall in one category of establishments
with on-premises entertainment, only the sexually oriented motion
picture theater must be allowed.
Sex shops are not widely defined, but recent studies in other
communities indicate that they are far more objectionable to
neighborhoods than video stores and newsstands with back rooms.
There clearly is a market for sex shops, and some are oriented
primarily toward women, but they need to be restricted from
neighborhood commercial areas.
The current Iowa City ordinance relies on state law to require
operators to control access to a back room. Under the state law,
however, it is only unlawful to "exhibit" certain material to minors,
which is further explained to include allowing minors to "observe"
such material. The law may ultimately be found unconstitutional,
because it arguably requires the major chain bookstores to remove
all of their art books containing nudes and all of their marriage
manuals to a back room where no minor can possibly view them.
On the other hand, the law is sufficiently vague that simply placing
the offending material in a plain wrapper may meet the prohibition
on observation and exhibition. For that reason, the city may decide
to make explicit provision for the placement of large quantities of
sexually oriented material in an access-controlled back room. The 25
percent break-point used by the city is conservative. We have
observed establishments with much larger back rooms that have no
apparent adverse effect on neighborhoods and that raise no concerns
among neighbors; a forthcoming Planning Advisory Service Report
(American Planning Association) will suggest that the break-point
should be in the range of 30 to 50 percent.
Recommended Land-use Classifications
The revised Iowa City ordinance should include these or similar
classifications of businesses that include sexually oriented materials:
1. Book store or other media outlet, making it clear that the
inclusion of up to ten percent of arguably sexually oriented
material will not affect the zoning classification;
92 March 7, 2001 Development Regulations Analysis
Iowa City, Iowa
APPENDIX J I SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES
2. Book store, video store or other media outlet with a back
room, which should be a provisional use allowing the use in
the same locations as other book stores, video stores or
media outlets, subject to the condition that the store meet
specific requirements for access control to the sexually
oriented material;
3. Sex shops;
4. Sexually oriented motion picture theaters;
5. Cabaret or other establishment with live entertainment.
Problem Uses
The city should consider banning or severely restricting the
following:
Massage studios, except those operated under direct medical
supervision or by professionals licensed by the state to engage in
massage therapy and/or body work;
Video arcades or peep shows;
Live entertainment in a booth of any type;
Lingerie modeling;
Encounter studios.
Zoning in General
The city must allow sexually oriented motion picture theaters by
right or subject only to clear standards in some locations. See City of
Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc, 475 U.S. 41,106 S. Ct. 925, 89 L.
Ed. 2d 29 (1986). The current broad criteria in the special exception
section (14-6W-2) of the code (" will not be detrimental to or
endanger the public health, safe~ or general welfare," "will not be
injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property," and "will not
impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of
the surrounding proper~") will not withstand Constitutional scrutiny
as applied to uses protected by the First Amendment.
The case law that has evolved offers similar protection to sexually
oriented book and video stores. There is a case to be made--for
some community that wants to test a law all the way to the U.S.
Supreme Court--that a community that freely allows news stands,
book stores and video stores to have back rooms with hard-core
material need not allow any specialized XXX book or video stores.
The simpler approach at this point, however, is for the city to assume
Development Regulations Analysis March 7, 2001 93
Iowa City, Iowa.
APPENDIX J I SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES
that it must also allow sexually oriented book and video stores in
some locations without a discretionary review.
Sex shops should be allowed because there is a market for them--
but they can be restricted to intensive commercial zones.
As a practical matter, the general preference of the industry is to
locate in highway-oriented commercial zones or other high-traffic,
strip commercial locations, away from adjoining residential uses.
Many communities allow such uses in industrial zones to create
more sites away from residential uses; the industry will accept such
sites where they have reasonable access.
Zoning Uses by Review
To the extent that the city continues to subject such uses to review in
some zoning districts, that review process must have a limited
duration and clear standards. See FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 837
F.2d 1298 (Sth Cir. 1988), modified, 493 U.S. 215, 110 S. Ct. 596,
107 L. Ed. 2d 603 (1990); and Baby Tam & Co., Inc., v. City of Las
Vegas, 199 F.3d 1111 (9th Circ. 2000); and 11126 Baltimore Blvd.
v. Prince George's County, 684 F.2d 884 (D. Md. 1988). Essentially
the ordinance must commit approval authority to make a decision--
not just to hold a hearing--within a specified number of days of
receipt of a complete application; internal reviews, such as zoning
compliance or health department inspections, cannot be used to
delay the process. Clear standards include separation requirements
like those included in the city's current ordinance.
Separation Standards
Them is documentation from two or three different studies that will
support the 500-foot separation requirement now used by the city.
The separation requirement is defensible, however, only if, after
applying it, them are still a reasonable number of sites in the city.
Except in Florida, courts have not established any express standards
as to how many sites or what percentage of the land area ought to be
available, but there should be some. See, generally, City of Renton
v. Playtime Theaters, Inc., 475 U.S. 41,106 S. Ct. 925, 89 L. Ed. 2d
29 (1986); and Topanga Press v. City of Los Angeles, 989 F.2d 1524
(9th Circ. 1993), as amended, celt. den. 511 U.S. 1030, 128 L. Ed.
2d 190, 114 S. Ct. 1537 (1994). We have recommended elsewhere
that, if a local government can identify enough sites that are actually
available for sale or rent that it would increase the number of such
businesses by 20 or 25 percent, the current limitations are
defensible. The courts have actually not required that the city show
that sites can be purchased or leased today--but if the sites are more
theoretical (for example, including undeveloped land or existing
buildings with long-term occupants) then there must be more of
94 March 7, 2001 Development Regulations Analysis
Iowa City, Iowa
APPENDIX J ] SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES
them. Defense of the ordinance may be simpler with a handful of
actually available sites. See, for example, North Avenue Novelties,
Inc. v. City of Chicago, 88 F.3d 441 (7th Cir. 1996).
For these reasons, the city must do an internal study to determine the
availability of sites after applying the current separation requirement.
If the effect of the current separation requirement is to eliminate
most or all potential sites, the city should either reduce the 500-foot
requirement from some uses or eliminate one or more uses from the
list of protected uses. In addition, the catch-all provision regarding
"places where minors generally congregate or travel" will not
withstand Constitutional scrutiny and is likely to place the entire
ordinance at risk. There is a practical consideration to that, also--
intense commercial areas, such as those surrounding shopping malls,
are often good locations for these businesses, separated from
residences--but minors often congregate in malls.
The city should also adjust the measurement standard to deal with
multi-tenant properties--in general, measurements in such situations
should be from the leasehold premises, not from the entire property
(again, using a shopping center as an example).
Additional Comments
The city would encounter significant difficulty in defending the
current adult business provisions in a case in which it denied
approval to an aggressive applicant represented by counsel familiar
with the law in this field. It should consider updating its sexually
oriented business regulations in the relatively near future. This is an
expanding industry and the city could see new applications at almost
any time; one Midwestern city that had no retail businesses falling in
this category for many years saw two "sex shops" open in 1999.
The task is not simply one of amending the ordinance, however.
Ideally, the city should have some sort of local study of existing
sexually oriented businesses to establish a basis for regulation. It
should also--or at least--review studies from other communities
likely to face similar issues. From that, the city should develop a set
of findings to support whatever ordinance amendments it chooses to
make.
Finally, there must be some in-house testing of draft regulations to
ensure that, as applied, they will allow a reasonable number of sites
for sexually oriented businesses.
Development Regulations Analysis March 7, 2001 95
Iowa City, Iowa.
Appendix K I Group Housing
Duncan Associates
Most communities attempt to limit the use of single-family homes as
boarding houses by using a limiting definition of family and allowing only a
single family to occupy a dwelling unit in specified zones. Iowa City has
followed this pattern, at least in part, by adopting a limiting definition of
family:
FAMILY: One person or two (2) or more persons related by blood,
marriage, adoption or placement by a governmental or social service
agency, occupying a dwelling unit as a single housekeeping
organization. A family may also be two (2), but not more than two
(2), persons not related by blood, marriage or adoption.
Presumably the city intends to limit occupancy of a dwelling unit to a
"family" meeting that definition, subject to special provisions in the current
ordinance protecting certain group homes (discussed below) and special
provisions allowing specified numbers of boarders in certain zones.
However, we find no provision in the zoning ordinance expressly restricting
occupancy of a dwelling unit to a "family." Nevertheless, the following
discussion is based on the assumption that the city intends to limit dwelling
units to occupancy by families and other specified groups.
Both federal and state laws provide some protection for certain group living
arrangements. Iowa law specifically protects designated "eider homes" (Iowa
Code §231A.2), "family homes" (Iowa Code §414.22, for those with
"developmental disabilities" or "brain injury"). Family homes, providing care
for up to 8 individuals in the qualifying classes, must be treated as single-
family homes under zoning. Similarly, eider family homes, which appear to
have no occupancy limit under the adopted statute but may have effective
limits under the related licensing law, must also be treated as single-family
homes.
There are two federal laws of concern in this area: the Fair Housing
Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Possible limits under
those acts, however, must be viewed in the context of the Supreme
Court's broad support for zoning, including its decision in, Village of
Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 9, 39 L. Ed. 2d 797, 94 S. Ct. 1536
(1974). In that case, the Supreme Court considered the zoning
regulations of a small Long Island village located near the Stoney
Brook campus of the State University of New York. Residents of the
community, which contained many large, older homes, were
concerned about the actual and possible conversion of those homes
to student fraternity, sorority and boarding houses. Responding to
that concern, the village adopted an ordinance defining family as
any number of persons related by blood or marriage or not more
than two persons unrelated by blood or marriage, and then
Development Regulations Analysis March 7, 2001 97
Iowa City, Iowa
APPENDIX K I GROUP HOUSING
permitting only families to reside in units in the single-family zone.
The Supreme Court upheld the ordinance, using this now-famous
language:
The regimes of boarding houses, fraternity houses, and the
like present urban problems. Morn people occupy a given
space; more cars rather continuously pass by; more cars are
parked; noise travels with crowds. A quiet place where yards
are wide, people few, and motor vehicles restricted are
legitimate guidelines in a land-use project addressed to
family needs. This goal is a permissible one within Betman v.
Parker, supra. The police power is not confined to
elimination of filth, stench, and unhealthy places. It is ample
to lay out zones where family values, youth values, and the
blessings of quiet seclusion and clean air make the area a
sanctuary for people. 416 U.S. at 14.
In Linn County v. City of Hiawatha, 311 N.W.2d 95 (iowa 1981 ),
the Iowa Supreme Court upheld the imposition of a limiting
definition of "family" to keep a group home for children with
disabilities out of a single-family zone. Although both §414.22 of the
Iowa Code and the Americans with Disabilities Act would now
probably be held to invalidate the application of the Hiawatha
zoning to this fact situation, the case remains good law in Iowa,
indicating continued support by the state courts for narrow
definitions of "family" and family limitations in single-family zones.
The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination against
people because of their disabilities. Its application to zoning
situations is somewhat limited, although one of those applications is
clearly to protect group living situations for individuals with
disabilities. At this time, the general construction of "disabilities"
under the Act appears to be consistent with the scope of Iowa Code
§414.22; in other words, if a community complies with state law by
allowing group living situations for individuals with disabilities to be
treated as single-family units, it should effectively be in conformance
with the ADA.
The 1988 amendments to the Fair Housing Act prohibited
discrimination in housing based on "familial status" (42 U.S.C.
§3604(a)), defining "family" as follows:
One or more individuals (who have not attained the age of
18 years) being domiciled with-
(1) a parent or other person having legal custody of
such individual or individuals; or
98 March 7, 2001 Development Regulations Analysis
Iowa City, Iowa
APPENDIX K I GROUP HOUSING
(2) the designee of such parent or other person
having such custody, with the written permission of
such parent or other person. 42 U.S.C. §3602(k).
An exemption for senior housing allows "adults only" housing if all
the residents are at least sixty-two years old or if every unit houses a
person at least fifty-five years old. 42 U.S.C. § 3607
Note that the language protects only families, a legislative
philosophy that is entirely consistent with the Supreme Court's
decision in Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas. Thus, a number of
communities have imposed limits on occupancy by persons not
related by blood or marriage.
The Supreme Court rejected an attempt to strike down such
provisions as applied to group homes in City of Edmonds v. Oxford
House, Inc.' 514 U.S. 725; 115 S. Ct. 1776;; 131 L. Ed. 2d 801
(1995). In Edmonds, the issue was whether the city's zoning
provision defining "family" as "persons related by genetics, adoption
or marriage, or a group of five or fewer [unrelated] persons" came
within the exception from the FHA's scope of "any reasonable local,
State, or Federal restrictions regarding the number of occupants
permitted to occupy a dwelling" (42 U.S.C. § 3607(b)(1)). The Court
held that the exception removed from the FHA's scope only total
occupancy limits, or ceilings on the numbers of occupants, in order
to prevent overcrowding and did not remove prescriptions of the
family-defining kind.
In an interesting case, the federal court in Kansas has construed the
custodial relationship of the state to children adjudicated as in need
of supervision as creating a "familial" relationship under the FHA.
Keys Youth Services v. City of Olathe, 52 F.Supp.2d 1284 (D.C. Kan.
1999), further proceedings at 67 F.Supp.2d 1228 (D.C.Kan. 1999)
and 75 F.Supp.2d 1235 (D.C.Kan. 1999).
The cases cited here simply highlight major principles and issues in
the law governing the regulation of group homes; these citations are
not intended to provide a comprehensive examination of the law in
the field.
Current Iowa City Approach
As noted above, Iowa City's definition of "family" limits it to persons
related by blood or marriage or "not more than two persons' not
related by blood or marriage. If there is a provision in the current
ordinance actually limiting occupancy of a single-family house to a
single family, it is not obvious, although that is apparently the intent.
Development Regulations Analysis March 7, 2001 99
Iowa City, Iowa.
APPENDIX K I GROUP HOUSING
In addition to single-family homes, the city currently allows "family
care facilities," "eider family homes," and "eider group homes" as
provisional uses in the following single-family zoning districts: RR-1,
RS-5, RS-8, RS-12 and RNC-12, as well as in the RM-12, RM-20,
RNC-20, RM-44 and PRM.
Like the state law on family care facilities, the Iowa City provision for
family care facilities expressly excludes "an individual foster care
family home."
1 O0 March 7, 2001 Development Regulations Analysis
Iowa City, Iowa
Appendix L J Sign Regulations
Duncan Associates
5igns can contribute to visual clutter in a community and can distract
drivers, creating potentia~ hazards to public safety. On the other hand, signs
communicate messages and are thus protected by the First Amendment.
Because regulations of advertising signs potentially burden First Amendment
rights, the courts will generally apply a "strict scrutiny" test to sign
ordinances, effectively shifting the burden of proof to a local government to
show why a particular restriction on communication is iustified.
Strengths
One of the great strengths of the existing ordinance is the provision
in §14-60-5 relating permitted sign height to the setback from the
right-of-way. Few local sign ordinances recognize this important
relationship, but the Iowa City ordinance makes this a central feature
of its dimensional regulations.
The special limitations on signs adjacent to residential zones under
§ 14-6-7.C. recognize the importance of context in sign regulations.
The differentiation of illumination standards for signs in residential
areas under §14-60-7.D is similarly significant.
The maximum sign area of wall signs in commercial zones is set out
as a percentage of wall area, again recognizing the importance of
context to the impact of a sign.
The maximum sign area of window signs is limited to a percentage
of the window area, a provision that serves both public safety and
aesthetic purposes.
Similarly, the permitted areas of freestanding signs are related to lot
frontage, with absolute maximums; the provision allowing much
larger signs along high-speed Interstate highways is entirely
appropriate.
Both the sign permit requirements (§14-6)(8) and the licensing
provision for sign installers (§14-60-9) are well-conceived and well-
d rafted.
Master Sign Plan
Some communities require a master (unified) sign plan for multi-
tenant properties or for all nonresidential properties. Typically a
master sign plan sets out specifications for size, location, materials
and colors of signs within a project, achieving internal consistency
among signs and, in most cases, general consistency with other
design elements. Such an approach represents a reasonable
Development Regulations Analysis March 7, 2001 101
Iowa City, Iowa
APPENDIX L I SIGN REGULATIONS
compromise between public design review of signs--a process that
raises serious Constitutional issues and is somewhat risky for a local
government to undertake--and a complete lack of control over sign
design. The typical master sign plan deals with a level of detail that
goes one step beyond the content of the sign regulations in Iowa
City and most other communities. In updating its sign regulations,
Iowa City should consider establishing a requirement for a master
sign plan, at least for multi-tenant properties.
Treatment of Political Signs
The Supreme Court has held squarely that political signs have a
preferred status under the First Amendment and must generally be
treated at least as well as commercial signs. See Ladue v. Gilleo, 512
U.S. 43, 114 S. Ct. 2038, 129 L. Ed. 2d 36 (1994), in which the
Supreme Court ruled against an up-scale St. Louis suburb and for
Mrs. Gilleo, whose "Peace in the Gulf" sign had offended local
sensibilities-and an ordinance that would have allowed a "for sale"
sign of the same size and design in that location.
Residential zones in Iowa City currently permit the following signs,
among others:
, Sign Type [ Maximum Size ! Duration of Display
[ (square feet)
! Re~l'E~t~t~ ......... I; .....8' (4 per sign' :Fa~i .......1i ...............Lj'~l'i'~'iied"'
I C0rqStr'u~ti~n ' 64 (3~> ~FSig~f~C~) .... removed ai issuance
I of C.O.
[ Political (temporary)IF' ..........1,F' .......60 days
Clearly the current ordinance treats real estate signs more favorably than
political signs by allowing them to remain in place for a much longer period
of time and it treats construction signs far better than political signs by
allowing them to be more than 5 times as large and to remain for an
undefined period of time. These regulations would not withstand
Constitutional scrutiny under LaDue, the precedents and authority on which
it relied, and its progeny.
Other Content-based Distinctions
In the past year, federal courts in Ohio and Kansas have struck down
local sign ordinances containing content-based regulations. See
North Olmsted Chamber of Commerce v. City of North Olmsted, 86
F.Supp.2d 755, 768-69 (N.D. Ohio 2000) and Outdoor Systems,
Inc., v. City of Merriam, 67 F.Supp.2d 1258 (D.C. Kan. 1999). This
memo discusses the implications of those cases and a few related
decisions. Although narrowly read, the Kansas case applies only in
Kansas and the Ohio case only in the Northern District of Ohio at
this time, the fact that two federal courts reached very similar
102 March 7, 2001 Development Regulations Analysis
Iowa City, Iowa
APPENDIX L J SIGN REGULATIONS
conclusions in unrelated jurisdictions should indicate to affected
local governments-and others-that these decisions are not outl iers
but logical extensions of the Supreme Court's 1981 decision in
Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453 U.S. 490, 494-95, 101 S.
Ct. 2882, 69 L. Ed. 2d 800 (1981).
There is clear and long-standing authority for the regulation of
advertising signs. Where the regulation focuses on the number of
signs, the height and size of signs, sign lighting, and even such
aesthetic factors as color and style, local sign regulations are easily
defensible and are generally found to have the same presumption of
validity as other local ordinances. Where, however, the regulations
focus on the content of the sign, those regulations raise issues under
the First Amendment. Sign regulations that raise content-based, First
Amendment issues are subject to a higher level of scrutiny in the
courts and may be struck down as unconstitutional. The Supreme
Court first made this principle very clear in Metromedia, Inc. v. City
of San Diego, 453 U.S. 490, 494-95, 101 S. Ct. 2882, 69 L. Ed. 2d
800 (1981 ), and the court reemphasized that position in Ladue v.
Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43, 114 S. Ct. 2038, 129 L. Ed. 2d 36 (1994), in
which the Court ruled against an up-scale St. Louis suburb and for
Mrs. Gilleo, whose "Peace in the Gulf" sign had offended local
sensibilities-and an ordinance that would have allowed a "for sale"
sign of the same size and design in that location. Although the law of
the matter has been clear for years, local governments have widely
ignored the legal principles involved and have continued to
differentiate among signs based on content.
The court in the North Olmsted case found the standards in that
city's sign ordinance to be Constitutionally defective, in part because
they were vague and in part because they relied on the many
content-based distinctions in the ordinance. The criteria in the
ordinance were:
1. The design, size, shape, color, illumination, location and
orientation of the sign in relation to the site and topography,
other structures on the site, adjacent and neighboring land
uses, sites and buildings;
2. The visual impact and influence of the proposed sign in
relation to and in conjunction with signs currently existing or
those reasonably expected to be erected in the vicinity of the
proposed sign location; and
3. The maximum requirements and other regulations of this
Zoning Code governing the use, location, size and character
of signs.
Development Regulations Analysis March 7, 2001 103
Iowa City, Iowa.
APPENDIX L I SIGN REGULATIONS
86 F.Supp.2d at 776-77, citing Ord." 1163.16(d) of North Olmsted.
The court said:
The city's permit system is not content neutral. The sign
ordinance requires the building official to consider the
design, color, orientation, visual impact and influence, as
well as the "regulations of this Zoning Code governing the
use, location, size and character of signs" in deciding
whether or not to issue a permit. As discussed above, the
sign ordinance governing the use, location, size, and
character of signs is riddied with impermissible content-
based distinctions. In deciding whether to issue a permit for
any sign over six square feet in area, the building official
must consider these content-based distinctions as well as
those contained in" 1163.16(d). Thus, the permit scheme is
an illegal system of prior restraint. [citation omitted].
86 F.Supp.2d at 777. The court went on to cite many content-based
restrictions and exemptions as creating Constitutional ly
unacceptable distinctions within the ordinance.
Similarly, the federal court in Kansas examined in some depth
content-based distinctions among other commercial signs. Outdoor
Systems, Inc., v. City of Merriam, 67 F.Supp.2d 1258 (D.C. Kan.
1999). The court cited these reasons:
The [Merriam] ordinance does not specifically prohibit offsite
signs but it states that only certain categories of signs (which
do not include offsite outdoor advertising signs) are
permitted. Sections 6-201 through 6-203 allow the following
signs in all business, industrial and residential districts:
BULLETIN BOARD SIGN: A sign that indicates the
name of an institution or organization on whose
premises it is located and which contains the name of
the institution or organization, the name or names of
persons connected with it and announcement of
persons, events or activities occurring at the
institution. Such signs may also present a greeting or
similar message.
r~ BUSINESS SIGN: A sign which directs attention to a
business or profession conducted or to a commodity
or service sold, offered or manufactured or an
entertainment offered, on the premises where the
sign is located or to which it is affixed.
n CONSTRUCTION SIGN: A temporary sign indicating
the name of architects, engineers, landscape
architects, contractors and similar artisans involved in
104 March 7, 2001 Development Regulations Analysis
Iowa City, Iowa
APPENDIX L I SIGN REGULATIONS
the design and construction of a structure or project,
permitted only during the construction period and
only on the premises on which the construction is
taking place.
IDENTIFICATION SIGN: A sign giving the name and
address of a building, business, development or
establishment. Such signs may be wholly or partly
devoted to a readily recognized symbol.
ca NAME PLATE SIGN: A sign giving the name and/or
address of the owner or occupant of a building or
premises on which it is located and where
applicable, a professional status.
REAL ESTATE SIGN: A sign pertaining to the sale or
lease of the lot or tract of land on which the sign is
located or to the sale or lease of one or more
structures or a portion thereof located thereon.
Sign Ordinance §6-107(A); see id. §§6-201, 6-202, 6-203.
In business and industrial districts, the [Merriam] ordinance
also permits advertising signs, which are defined as follows:
"A sign which directs attention to a business, commodity,
service or entertainment conducted, sold or offered at the
location on which the sign is located or to which it is
affixed." See id. §6-107(A)(1 ).
68 F.Supp.2d at 1260-61.
The court noted that it is "common sense" to find that the City of
Merriam's regulations were content-based. Citing Metromedia, the
court ruled for the sign company and against the city. 67 F.Supp.2d
at 1267.
Like the Ohio court in North Olmsted, the Kansas court found that
the Constitutional defects in the ordinance were so numerous that
the offending provisions simply were not severable. In the Kansas
case, the court went further, awarding the sign company that brought
the suit more than $17,000 in attorneys' fees under '1988 of the
Civil Rights Act. Separate proceeding, reported at Outdoor Systems,
Inc., v. City of Merriam, 2000 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 6639 (D.C. Kansas),
the court awarded the prevailing plaintiff $17,511 in attorneys' fees
and $335 in expenses under §1988 of the Civil Rights Act.
The Iowa City ordinance shares many of these infirmities, offering
special and general ly preferred treatment to:
ca Filling station signs.
Development Regulations Analysis March 7, 2001 105
Iowa City, Iowa.
APPENDIX L I SIGN REGULATIONS
n Identification signs;
Informational window signs ("days and hours of operation,
telephone number, and credit card or bank cards accepted");
Real estate signs;
Development signs;
Directional signs;
[] "Going out of business" signs;
Real estate development signs;
Construction signs; and
Special events signs.
Each of these classifications is content-based and each results in
favored treatment of the sign--allowing a sign that contains such a
message where a sign containing a different message would not be
all owed.
Although not all circuits have decisions striking down entire sign
ordinances on the basis of content-based distinctions, the Kansas and
Ohio decisions flow logically from the Supreme Court's 20-year-old
decision in Metromedia. A local government must simply reflect on
the fact that a content-based distinction will be subject to strict
scrutiny (effectively shifting the burden of proof to the local
government defending the ordinance) to realize that it is difficult to
defend the special treatment of construction signs, "going out of
business" signs and many other sign types when viewed from a
public perspective. As a practical matter, real estate signs are among
the only ones for which a local government can show a public
purpose substantially supporting favored treatment--clearly a
neighborhood benefits from maintaining a high rate of occupancy of
its dwelling units, and clearly signs advertising the availability of
units for sale or lease play a material role in ensuring that vacant
units are occupied again.
General Recommendations
Iowa City's sign regulations should be revised and brought into
conformity with Constitutional principles and guidelines that are
defensible under the comprehensive plan--eliminating most content-
based distinctions.
The deficiencies in the sign regulations can be rectified only in the
context of serious policy discussions. For example, the city will have
to choose between these two policy alternatives:
106 March 7, 2001 Development Regulations Analysis
Iowa City, Iowa
APPENDIX L ~ SIGN REGULATIONS
1. Allowing the proliferation of 64-square-foot political signs; or
2. Eliminating the current special treatment of construction
signs, at least in residential zones.
Similarly, the city will have to choose between:
1. Limiting real estate signs to posting for 60 days; or
2. Removing the time limits on political signs.
Bringing the sign regulations into conformity with Constitutional
principles as interpreted by the courts will raise many other such
questions. Further, in response to the legal analysis suggesting that
the city eliminate some regulatory provisions, constituent groups are
likely to suggest replacement provisions addressing some of the
same issues. The issues and the constituencies involved in sign
regulations are quite different--and quite separate from--those
involved in most other zoning and land-use issues. Although the two
sets of regulations should be integrated in every practicable way,
each has its own political constituency and each has its own
practical concerns--they should be revised separately.
Development Regulations Analysis March 7, 2001 107
Iowa City, Iowa.
Marian Karr
From: Karen Howard
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 4:48 PM
To: 'Mike Arn'; Ernie Lehman; *City Council; Karin Franklin; Karen Howard
Cc: Hobart, Tom
Subject: RE: Arn Family Input to the North District Plan
Thank you for your thoughtful comments regarding the Public Review Draft of the North District Plan. I'm glad
that website access to the plan has been useful to you. The North District Plan is the 4th of 10 district plans to
be undertaken. The Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing tonight, March 1. We will
forward your comments in their entirety to the Commissioners for their consideration.
With regard to your comments, planning staff would like to clarify several issues that you bring up in your letter.
1) Laura Drive/Dubuaue Street - Under "existing conditions" you refer to the Interstate 80/Dubuque Street
interchange and its relationship to the land west of Dubuque Street. We agree that the plan map may give the
impression that Laura Drive is connected in some way to the Interstate and Dubuque Street. This is not the
case. The plan map shows the City's right-of-way for both Laura Drive and Dubuque Street. In this case the
rights-of-way overlap giving the impression that these streets connect. They do not connect, nor are there any
plans to connect Laura Drive to Dubuque Street or change the off-ramp from 1-80 to connect with Laura Drive.
Our graphics specialist is working to make these facts more apparent on the plan map and a revised map will
be forwarded to the Commission for their review.
2) Commercial development along Dubuaue Street - The plan map shows no commercial development along
the Dubuque Street corridor south of the Interstate. At the citizen workshops, a majority indicated a desire to
maintain the character of the Dubuque Street entranceway into Iowa City as residential/open space rather than
allowing commercial development in this area. The plan designates the area directly north of the Interstate
along Dubuque Street as suitable for low-intensity office uses. However, any use that locates in this area
should be developed in a manner that is sensitive to the adjacent water plant site.
3) Trees shown on the plan map - As stated in the introduction to the North District Plan Map section of the
plan, the "trees" shown on the map indicate the general location of existing woodlands. The plan map is a
conceptual map. It would be nearly impossible to show all the existing trees in the North District on this
conceptual map. However, any omission should not be interpreted as a license to remove existing trees. On
the contrary, one of the important principles listed in the plan is to "protect sensitive environmental features."
As in all other parts of the City, proposals for development in the North District must be reviewed and meet all
applicable requirements of the City Code, which may include demonstrating compliance with the Iowa City
Sensitive Areas Ordinance if steep slopes, woodlands, wetlands, or other sensitive features are present on the
site.
4) Environmental stewardship - Staff agrees that forest stewardship is important in the North District. The plan
should encourage "best practices" with regard to protection of the existing natural resources in the North
District. If the Planning Commission so chooses, additional text can be added to the plan to more specifically
address this concern.
5) Intent of the Plan - You express a concern that the North District Plan "will be used to rotely dismiss any
development proposal without consideration of its merits." On the contrary, the North District Plan is intended
to be a general guide for future development. The plan represents the input of more than 100 citizens, like
yourself, that provided valuable input and participated in its development over the last year and a half. The
plan outlines a number of general principles and objectives and includes a conceptual plan map that will be
used as a reference tool when development proposals are submitted to the City. As experience has shown
from the other three district plans previously adopted, these district plans are useful as tools to guide the
Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council as they review new subdivision and rezoning requests,
each of which is reviewed on its own merits.
I hope that our comments help to clarify some issues for you and your family. The Planning Commission is
reviewing the plan at a public hearing tonight. They may, or may not, vote to forward the Plan on to the City
3/1/01
Page 2 of 2
Council at the meeting tonight, depending on the input that they have received and their deliberations. If the
plan is forwarded to the City Council, there will be additional oppodunities for citizen input, either orally or in
writing, as the Council considers the plan for adoption.
..... Original Message .....
From: Mike Arn [mai!to:marn@austin.rr.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 12:10 AM
To: Ernest Lehman; Iowa City Council; Franklin, Karin; Howard, Karen
Cc: Hobart, Tom
Subject: Arn Family Input to the North District Plan
eSafe Protect Gateway (tin) has scanned this mail for viruses,
vandals and
suspicious attachments and has found it to be CLEAN.
File: NDP Draft .doc (48,128 bytes)
Encoding: Base64
Result: Clean.
All,
As stated in the body of the attachment, we could not be physically
present to hear your presentations or give you our input regarding the
North District Plan. Please accept this Word document in lieu of our
presence. We wish to be recorded as having given input and if any of
our interpretations of the Plan and its implementations are in error
please reply. We feel that this document should be read at the planned
March 1, 2001 public hearing unless it has been changed. If so at the
new meeting. Please keep us informed.
Mike Arn
Family Spokesman
3/1/01
City of Iowa City
'1
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
DATE: March 5, 2001
RE: Public Intoxication Arrest Repod
You may recall a few weeks ago I sent a copy of our revised report on public intoxication
arrests to the Chair of the County Board. The purpose of that letter was to give them
some idea as to the circumstances associated with public intoxication arrests.
Having just received the most recent weekly report, I thought this particular week was
one that clearly drives home the point of the need to be vigilant in the public intoxication
arrest as well as police intervention process. Please note the PBT on a number of the
arrests, one in particular(*). In some instances it approaches three times the level at
which a person is considered drunk.
mg~mem/publintox.doc
Public Intoxication Arrest Information
Tuesday 2-20-01 to Monday 2-26-01
DATE 2-20-01 LOCATION 325 E. College OFFICER 40,20 CASE # 101539
DETAILS: Subject given several warnings to leave the property and refused. PBT.220 age, 38.
DATE 2-21-01 LOCATION 10 S. Dubuque OFFICER 3,20 CASE # 101545
DETAILS: Subject observed by officers climbing a downspout then stand on the awning of downtown busthess. PBT. 136
age, 31. Also charged with Obstructing officers.
DATE 2-22-01 LOCATION Que Bar OFFICER 60,33 CASE # 101566
DETAILS: Officers were conducting an investigation inside the bar when a subject approached officers and interfered.
This subject began to argue with officers and was asked to step back and be quiet. The subject refused to do
so. PBT. 164 age, 21.
DATE 2-22-01 LOCATION Airliner Bar OFFICER 20,3,54 CASE # 101567
DETAILS: Officers responded to the bar for a disturbance (fight). Two subjects involved arrested. Subject #1 PBT. 114
age, 26. 2"d subject also charged with assault. PBT. 162 age, 23.
DATE 2-22-01 LOCATION Airliner Bar OFFICER 54,94 CASE # 101569
DETMLS: Subject hanging on the back of another person. Refused PBT. Birthdate 2-21-79, age 22.
DATE 2-22-01 LOCATION 1'lAve. HyVee OFFICER 22,6 CASE # 101581
DETAILS: Officers called to the location for intoxicated female with small child. Female drove to the store with her 11
yr. old daughter. PBT.213, age 42.
DATE 2-24-01 LOCATION Kum & Go - Gilbert OFFICER 58,42 CASE # 101621
& Burlington St.
DETAILS: Subject came into the store and began grabbing items and throwing them on the floor. Subject stated he was
drunk bu refused PBT. Age, 23.
DATE 2-24-01 LOCATION 325 E. College OFFICER 32,41,85 CASE # 101628
DETMLS: Officers called to the location for a fight. Investigation showed that 2 subjects went to wrong apt. looking for a
friend. While speaking to the resident both subjects became violent and began fighting with the resident. I~
subject - PBT.215, age 20. 2"d subject - PBT.20, age 20.
DATE 2-24-01 LOCATION 10 S. Clinton OFFICER 21,49 CASE # 101631
DETAILS: Subject attempted to enter an area closed to the public at Old Capitol Mall. Subject was crying. Officers
transported individual to University ETC where subject caused problems and hospital persormel requested
subject be removed. PBT.263, age 27.
DATE 2-24-0l LOCATION 10 Blk. Iowa Ave. OFFICER 24 CASE # 101465
DETAILS: Subject noticed by officer lying down on the sidewalk all alone. Subject stood up and had difficulty
maintaining his balance. PBT.275 birthdate 2-20-82.
DATE 2-24-01 LOCATION Country Kitchen OFFICER 17 CASE # 101633
Parking Lot
DETAILS: Subject observed urinating in the parking lot. PBT. 10 age, 23.
DATE 2-25-01 LOCATION 700 Burlington St. OFFICER 2,42 CASE # 101681
DETAILS: Citizen report of subject stumbling around. Officer located individual with open container of alcohol and
several other containers inside clothing. Charged with 3ra offense intoxication. Outstanding warrants for
subjects' arrest for previous Failure to Appear Intoxication charges. PBT .188, age 27.
DATE 2-26-01 LOCATION 113 E. Prentiss OFFICER 42,40,88 CASE # 101710
DETAILS: Officers called for two subjects causing a disturbance at the location. 1 $1 subject refused PBT, age 38. Second
subject found with open container and urinating in public. Charged with 3rd and subsequent Intoxication.
PBT. 136 age, 51.
Iowa City Police Department
Monthly Bar Check Report
February 2001
YEAR 2001 Monthly Total Year to Date Totals Arrest/Visit
Business Name A B A B YTD
1 ST AV CLUB 2 =::====~==:=:0 3 i;i;i;i;i;i;i;i;i;0 0.00
AIRLINER 4 0 13 :~ 6 0.46
ALLEY CAT 1 1 5 ~ 1 0.20
ATLAS GRILL 1 I~',~ 0 1 ,,'.-~,~ 0 0.00
BREWERY 0 ~ 0 0 0 0.00
BROTHERS 2 0 9 3 0.33
CARLOS O'KELLYS 0 e 0 0 0 0.00
COLLEGE ST BILLlARD 5 0 9 i~iiii,~iiijiii~,i0 0.00
COLONIAL LANES 0 ~<'~!:::"0 1 ~'~,!ii 0 0.00
DAVES FOXHEAD 0 0 0 ~ 0 0.00
DEADwOOD 0 0 2 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii0 0.00
DIAMOND DAVES 0 ~ 0 0 !~!~!~!i~"~!:~0 0.00
DUBLIN UNDERGROUND 1 0 3 ~ 0 0.00
EAGLES LODGE 0 ....... 0 0 iiiii[i[iii[;%:0 0.00
ELK'S CLUB 0 0 0 0 0.00
FIELDHOUSE 3 9 9 25 0.00
FITZPATRICKS 0 0 0 0 0.00
GA MALONES 3 .~ 5 7 ~:~:~::~"13 1.86
GABES 0 ,>,~,;~ 0 6 e 5 0.83
GEORGES 2 ~ 0 2 0 0.00
GRINCOS 0 ?~:~ 0 0 0 0.00
GRIZZLEYS 0 0 0 ~ 0 0.00
GROUND ROUND 0 0 0 ;~;~;~;~;~;~;~;~;~0 0.00
HAPPY JOES 0 0 0 ~ 0 0.00
HILLTOP TAP 1 ~ 0 1 ~e 0 0.00
JIMMY'S BRICK OVEN 1 ~ 0 1 ~:~ 0 ~ 0.00
JOES PLACE 1 ~ 0 3 0 0.00
KIT~ HAWK 0 e 0 0 ~;;S;;;S;;0 0.00
LOFT 0 ';~? 0 0 e 0 0.00
MABELS 0 0 0 ~ 0 0.00
MARTINIS 1 0 5 ~- 3 0.60
Column A is the number of times a bar is visited specifically checking for underage drinkers.
Column B is the number of people charged with possession under the legal age in each bar. Note this is not the
total number of charges in each bar.
Iowa City Police Department I °13P°~'~; I
Monthly Bar Check Report
February 2001
YEAR 2001 Monthly Total Year to Date Totals Arrest/Visit
Business Name ~A B A _B YTD
1ST AV CLUB 2 ~ 0 3 iiiii/!':~0 0.00
MICKEYS 0 0 2 i 0 0.50
MIKES 0 0 0 0 0.00
MILL 0 0 1 0 0.00
MOOSE LODGE 0 0 0 0 0.00
MORGAN'S 0 0 4 1 0,25
MuMMs o o o o o.oo
ONE EYED JAKES 1 4 6 ~ 14 2.33
OUTER LIMITS 0 0 0 i~i~ 0 0.00
PLAMOR 0 0 0 !:I~:~ 0 0.00
PRESS BOX ~ iiiiiiiiiiiiiii~0 2 !!!i!;:i~!i~i;i0 0.00
Q U E 2 2 6 i:ii~/i=:~::::8 1.33
QUINTINS BAR &DELl 0 0 0 ~ 0 0.00
RT GRUNTS 1 0 2 ::::::::::::::::::0 0.00
SAMS 0 !!!:~!0 0 ~ 0 0.00
SANCTUARY 0 iii.,~0 0 ......... 0 0.00
SERENDIPITY LAUNDRY 0 ~ 0 0 0 0.00
SHAKESPEARES 0 ~'~l'ii0 0 ":::~! 0 0.00
SPORTS COLUMN 3 7 8 22 2.75
TUCKS 0 0 0 0 0.00
UNION 5 5 12 24 2.00
VFW 0 i~ii: 0 0 0 0.00
VINE 0 i?~i;i0 0 ~ 0 0.00
VITOS 3 ;/iiiiii~i,:7 4 8 2.00
WIG AND PEN 1 ~ 0 1 0 0.00
TOTAL 45 40 134 151 1.13
Column A is the number of times a bar is visited specifically checking for underage drinkers.
Column B is the number of people charged with possession under the legal age in each bar. Note this is not the
total number of charges in each bar.
BUILDING PERMIT INFORMATION
February 2001
KEY FOR ABBREVIATIONS
Type of Improvement .'
ADD - Addition
ALT- Alteration
REP - Repair
FND - Foundation Only
NEW- New
OTH- Other type of construction
Type of Use:
RSF - Residential Single Family
RDF - Residential Duplex
RMF - Three or more residential
RAC - Residential Accessory Building
MIX- Mixed
NON- Non-residential
OTH- Other
Pige: 2 City of Iowa City
Date: 3/2/2001 Extraction of Building Permit Data for
To: 2/1/2001
From: 2/28/2001 Census Bureau Report
Type TYpe
Perufit Number Name Address Impr U~ Stories Units Valuation
BLD01-00033 BOYD MURRAY 4005 EL PASO DR ADD RSF 1 0 $6,500
14' X 16' SCREEN PORCH OVER EXISTING WOOD DECK
BLD01-00040 THE PADDOCK LLD 262 MORGAN CT ADD RSF 1 0 $3,800
2 CAR ATTACHED GARAGE ADDITION FOR SFD
Total ADD/RSF permits: 2 Total Valuation: $10,300 i
BLD01-00027 RUSS GERDIN INVESTMENTS 2610 INDEPENDENCE RO,a ALT NON 1 0 $800,000
ALTERATION OF 210,000 SQ FT PORTION OF EXISTING WAREHOUSE INTO MANUFACTURING FACILITY
BLD01-00063 RUSS GERDIN 2570 INDEPENDENCE RD ALT NON 1 0 $147,043
SMOKE AND HEAT VENTING FOR WAREHOUSE
BLD01-00058 SHIVE-HATTERY 2834 NORTHGATE DR ALT NON I 0 $48,000
FINISH BASEMENT OF OFFICE BUILDING
BLD01-00039 LORSON EDWARD L DDS MS 1041 ARTHUR ST ALT NON 0 0 $15,000
RESTROOM REMODEL
BLD01-00001 MCDONALD OPTICAL 16 S CLINTON ST ALT NON 2 0 $7,500
INSTALL TWO EXAMINING ROOMS AND FIRE ESCAPE
BLD01-00066 GERRY AMBROSE 41 HIGHWAY I WEST ALT NON 1 0 $7,500
INTERIOR ALTERATION OF MERCANTILE OCCUPANCY
BLD01-00049 TENENT 110 S LINN ST ALT NON 0 0 $5,000
CONVERT EXISTING OFFICE TO A COFFEE HOUSE.
BLD01-00067 RANDY LARSON 749 MORMON TREK BLVE ALT NON 1 0 $4,000
INTERIOR ALTERATION OF RESTAURANT'
BLD01-00053 IOWA CITY TIRE 521 KIRKWOOD AVE ALT NON 0 0 $0
CHANGE IN USE
Total ALT/NON permits: 9 Total Valuation: $1,034,043
BLD01-00047 KELLY PUTMAN 2025 LITTLE CREEK LN ALT RDF 0 0 $20,000
iNDOOR EXERCISE POOL IN RDF
Total ALT/RDF permits: 1 Total Valuation: $20,000
BLD01-00028 WALLY KOPSA 320 DAVENPORT ST ALT RMF 0 0 $1,200
REPLACE ATTIC WINDOW WITH EGRESS WINDOW
BLD01-00004 AUR 211 CHURCH ST ALT RMF 0 0 $500
INSTALL TWO EGRESS WINDOWS
Total ALT/RMF permits: 2 Total Valuation: $1,700
BLD01-00055 DAVID BEDELL 431 LEE ST ALT RSF 0 0 $27,000
INSTALL WINDOWS IN KITCHEN
BLD01-00054 KEALEY 222 STANWYCK DR ALT RSF 0 0 $5,000
BASEMENT FINISH
BLD01-00052 GEO BEDELL 903 HIGHWOOD ST ALT RSF 0 0 $4,700
FUR OUT STORAGE ROOM/WINDOW REPLACEMENT
Pfige: 3 City of Iowa City
Date: 3/2/2001 Extraction of Building Permit Data for
To: 2/1/2001
From: 2/28/2001 CellSUS Bureau Report
Type Type
Permit Number Name Address Impr U~m Stories Units Valuation
I Total ALT/RSF permits: 3 Total Valuation: $36,700 i
BLD00-00919 ALBERTSONS 2425 MUSCATINE AVE NEW NON 1 0 $1,000,000
S1NGLE STORY TILT UP PRECAST DRUG STORE
Total NEW/NON permits: 1 Total Valuation: $1,000,000
BLD01-00062 HODGE CONST 1729 LOUIS PL NEW RDF 1 2 $203,682
RDF WITH ATTACHED 2 CAR GARAGES
1729-1731 LOUIS PLACE
I Total NEW/RDF permits: 1 Total Valuation $203,682 i
BLD01-00015 OWNER 1229 SHANNON DR NEW RMF 3 30 $1A45,000
3-STORY 30 UNIT ELDERLY HOUSING.
BLD01-00041 BASSWOOD CONSTRUCTORS 1060 SCOTT PARK DRIVE NEW RMF 0 0 $35,000
FOUNDATION FOR 38 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING58.66 X 213
Total NEW/RMF permits: 2 Total Valuation $1,180,000
BLD01-00061 RON & CHRIS AMELON 1072 GOLDENROD DR NEW RSF 1 1 $221,000
SFD WITH ATTACHED 2 CAR GARAGE
BLD01-00050 MARTIN GAFFEY 324 GREEN MOUNTAiN Dt NEW RSF 1 1 $130,518
S.F.D. WITH TWO CAR GARAGE
I Total NEW/RSF permits: 2 Total Valuation $351,518 /
BLD01-00035 MCCOMAS 2920 iNDUSTRIAL PARK R OTH NON 0 0 $10,000
7' FENCE WITH THREE ROWS OF BARB ABOVE ON REAR PROPERTY LINE
Total OTH/NON permits: 1 Total Valuation: $10,000
BLD01-00064 PAUL SWISHER I21 COLLEGE ST REP NON 2 0 $2,994
REROOF WITH MODIFIED BITUMEN
Total REP/NON permits: 1 Total Valuation: $2,994
BLD01-00073 CONTRACTOR 815 *17 CLARK ST REP RDF 2 0 $90,000
REPAIR FIRE DAMAGED STRUCTURE.
Total REP/RDF permits: 1 Total Valuation: $90,000
BLD99-00063 FRANK FLEMING 315 MYRTLE AVE REP RSF 0 0 $1,000
25' RETAINING WALL
Page: 4 City of Iowa City
Date: 3/2/2001 Extraction of Building Permit Data for
To: 2/l/2001
rro~,~: 2/2s/2ool Census Bureau Report
Type Type
Permit Number Name Address Impr U~ Stories Units Valuation
Total REP/RSF permits: 1 Total Valuation: $1,000 ~
GRAND TOTALS: PERMITS: 27 VALUATION: $3,941,937 ~
Date: 1 -Mar-01
To: City Manager and City Council
From: Dianna Furman
Subj: Utility Discount Program Statistics - Fiscal Year' 99 Total, FY' 00 and ' 01 Monthly
Water Sewer
Refuse Total Accounts
Recyling Water Sewer on Discount Water Sewer Refuse Recycling
Month Discounts Discounts Program Discount Tax Discount Discount Discount Discount Total Discounts
FY99
Totals 1522 795 2317 I $8,019.87 $402.18 $8,042.58 $9,702.28 $3,105.90 $29,272.81
FY 00
Jul 120 63 183 614, 19 30.81 615.93 744.57 238.35 2243.85
Aug 124 66 190 754.99 37.95 725.30 738.00 252.00 2508.24
Sept 130 75 205 600.33 30.29 576.72 498.15 170.10 1875.59
Oct 134 75 209 846.57 42.60 809.36 817.94 279.30 2795.77
Nov 137 83 220 893.38 44.89 854.32 836.39 285.60 2914.58
Dec 141 85 226 923.90 46.52 883.20 873.30 298.20 3025.12
Jan 144 89 233 932.03 46,81 891.48 879.45 300.30 3050.07
Feb 143 87 230 1174.20 59.16 1120.21 119617 408.45 3958.19
Mar 152 93 245 738.71 37.21 709.66 596.55 203.70 2285.83
Apr 151 90 241 995.12 50.02 952.08 931.72 318.15 3247.09
May 154 96 250 997.15 50.31 954.04 934.80 319.20 3255.50
Jun 158 95 253 1003.27 50.53 959.89 922.50 315.00 3251.19
Totals 1688 997 2685 $10,473.84 $527.10 $10,052.19 $9,969.54 $3,388.35 $34,411.02
FY 01
Jul 120 61 181' ;856.74 $43.19 $819.13 $876.37 $299.25 $2,894.68
Aug 124 70 194 ;855.68 $42.77 $779.03 $765.67 $261.45 $2,704.60
Sept 139 75 214 ;891.52 $44.65 $811.82 $790.27 $269.85 $2,80811
Oct 138 80 218 ;965.44 $48.39 $879.48 $860.99 $294.00 $3,048.30
Nov 142 81 223 ;987.84 $49.65 $899.98 $857.92 $292.95 $3,088.34
Dec 142 80 222 ;996.80 $50.00 $908.16 $867.15 $296.10 $3,118.21
Jan 143 84 227 ;999.04 $49.91 $910.22 $891.74 $304.50 $3,155.41
Feb 143 84 227 $1,041.60 $52.20 $949.16 $891.75 $304.50 $3,239.21
Totals 1091 615 1525 ~ 7,594.66 380.76 6,956.98 6,801.86 2,322.60 24,056.86
cc: Kevin O'Malley UTILDIS00.XLS3/1/20019:14 AM
*Renewals for discount program completed July 2000
Check out #1 especially ! oa-o8-ol
IP13
Marjan Karr
From: Carol DeProsse [cdeprosse@earthlink.net]
Sent: Friday. March 02, 2001 2:19 PM
To: JCNEWS@yosemite.leepfrogcom
Cc: mary_mascher@legis.state.ia.us; vicki_lensing@legis.state.ia.us; richard_drake@legis.stateia.us;
robert_dvorsky@legis.state.ia.us; joe_bolkcom@legis.state.ia.us; barry_brauns@legis.stateja,us;
ro_foege@legis.state. ia.us; richard_myers@iegis.state.ia.us; Connie_Champion@iowa-city.org;
Ernie_Lehman@iowa-city.org; Ross_Wilburn@iowa-city.org; Dee_Vanderhoef@iowa-city.org;
ipfab@avalon.net; Steve_Atkins@iowa-city.org; jpwhite@co.johnson.ia.us;
cthompso@co,johnson.ia.us; mlehman@co,johnson.ia.us; sstutsma@co.johnson.ia.us;
pharney@co.johnsoniaus; tneuzil@co.iohnson.ia.us; tjneuzil@msn.com
Subject: JCNEWS: Check out #1 especially
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Financial Aid Administrators Join Students to Support Higher
Education Act Reform Efforts as Rep. Frank Introduces Repeal
Measure
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/175.html#heaconference
2. Drug Czar Demoted? Post Still Vacant Amid Hints It Will Lose
Cabinet Rank
http://www.drcnet.orgZwolZ175.html#drugczarRost
3. Thailand: As US Military Moves to Assist in Campaign Against
Burmese Drug Exports, Signs of Fatigue Appear
http;//www.drcnet.org/wol/175!html#thailand
4. "Monitoring the Future" Head Researcher Speaks Out on Drug
Trends, Drug War, Drug Policy
http~Z/www.drcnet.org/wol/175.html#johnston
5. High in the NBA
http;//www.drcnet.org/wolZ175.html#nba
6. DRCNet en Espafiol
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/175.html#drcnetenespanol
7. Reformers On TV
http:~/www.drcnet.org/wol/175.html#onair
8. Reformers on the Radio
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/175~html#ontheradio
9. The Reformer's Calendar
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/174~html#eventcalendar
3/2/01
Search Warrants Page 1 of 1
Marian Karr
From: Carol DeProsse [cdeprosse@earthlink.net]
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 10:26 AM
To: JCNEWS@yosemite.leepfrog.com
Cc: jpwhite@co.johnson.iaus; cthompso@co.johnson.ia.us; mlehman@co.johnson.ia.us;
sstutsma@co.johnson.iaus; pharney@co.johnson.iaus; tneuzil@co.johnson.ia.us;
tjneuzil@msn.com; Connie_Champion@iowa-city.org; Ernie_Lehman@iowa-city.org;
Ross_Wilburn@iowa-city.org; Dee_Vanderhoef@iowa-city.org; ipfab@avalon.net;
Steve_Atkins@iowa-city.org
Subject: JCNEWS: Search Warrants
I stopped in on a trial at the courthouse the other day and in the coume of testimony, an
officer of the Coralville Police Department had this exchange with the defense attorney:
Referring to a search warrant under discussion, "And did you find anything when you
searched the residence?"
"No."
"NO ?"
"It happens frequently on search warrants, you go to find something you believe is there
and it isn't. It has to do with informant reliability."
I would like to know how people view this apparent frequent result of search warrants,
particularly with regard to getting warrants as a result of anonymous tips or garbage
searches.
3/5/01
Bard high while writing sonnets? Page 1 of 3
Marjan Karr
From: Carol DeProsse [cdeprosse@earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 7:35 AM
To: JCNEWS@yosemite.leepfrogcom
Cc: jpwhite@co.johnson.ia.us; cthompso@co.johnson.ia.us; mlehman@co.johnson.ia.us;
sstutsma@co.iohnson.ia.us; pharney@co.iohnson.ia.us; tneuzil@co.iohnson.ia.us;
tineuzil@msn.com; Connie_Champion@iowa-city.org; Ernie_Lehman@iowa-cjty.org;
Ross_Wilbum@iowa-city.org; Dee_Vanderhoef@iowa-city.org; ipfab@avalon.net;
Steve_Atkins@iowa-city.org; mary_mascher@legis.state.iaus; vicki_lensing@legis.state.ia.us;
richard_drake@legis.state.ia.us; robert_dvorsky@legis.state.ia.us; ioe_bolkcom@legis.state.ia.us;
barry_brauns@legis.state.ia.us; ro_foege@legis.state.ia.us; richard_myers@legis.state.ia.us
Subject: JCNEWS: Bard high while writing sonnets?
Did Shakespeare Puff on "Noted Weed"?
nationalgeographic.com
by Shaun Smillie for National Geographic News
March 2, 2001
A study of several 17th-century smoking pipes, including a number fonnd in the garden of
Shakespeare's home in England, has revealed traces of cannabis, according to South African
scientists.
The South African Police Services Forensic Science Laboratory in Pretoria analyzed the stems and
bowls of 24 clay pipes and found traces of tobacco, suggestive evidence of cannabis<and
mysteriously, two of the pipes showed signs of what looks like cocaine.
The results of the study have been published in the South African Journal of Science.
The analysis was made after a South African scientist had a hunch that reference to the "noted weed"
in one of Shakespeares sonnets may have been the bard's way of extolling the effects of carmabis.
Low Concentrations of Cannabis
"There were very low concentrations of cannabis, but the signature was there," said Inspector Tommy
van der Merwe, of the Forensic Science Laboratory.
The low concentrations could be attributed to the fact that cannabis begins to degrade after a short
period of time, according to the scientist.
However, there is no doubt about the traces of cocaine. "The pipes we tested still had dirt in them
which preserved the residues inside the stem and bowl," Van der Merwe said. Contamination was
unlikely. he said. "The readings we got were the same as if it had tested a modern-day crack pipe."
One of the cocaine pipes came from "Harvard House" in Stratford-upon-Avon, the home of the
mother of John Harvard after whom Harvard University was named.
Cocaine is thought to have not been manufactured before 1855, but the drug is derived from the
South American coca leaf which some scientists believe was introduced to Europe in the 16th
century, after the Spanish Conquest of Peru.
3/5/01
Yet another one Page 1 of 1
Marian Karr
From: Carol DeProsse [cdeprosse@earthlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 2:05 PM
To: JCNEWS@yosemite.leepfrog.com
Cc: jpwhite@co.johnson.ia.us; cthompso@co.johnson.ia.us; mlehman@co.johnson.ia.us;
sstutsma@co.johnson.ia.us; phamey@co.johnson.ia.us; tneuzil@co.johnson.ia.us;
tjneuzil@msn.com; Connie_Champion@iowa-city.org; Ernie_Lehman@iowa-city.org;
Ross_Wilburn@iowa-city.org; Dee_Vanderhoef@iowa-city.org; ipfab@avalon.net;
Steve_Atkins@iowa-city.org; mary_mascher@legis.state.ia.us; vicki_lensing@legis.state.ia.us;
richard_drake@legis.state.ia.us; robe~_dvorsky@legis.state.ia.us; joe_bolkcom@legis.state.ia.us;
barry_brauns@legis.state.ia.us; ro_foege@legis.state.iaus; richard_myers@legis.state.ia.us
Subject: JCNEWS: Yet another one
Scene h One day.
A bunch of girls get together at one of their homes when the parents are gone. One of them
brings marijuana. After a while the party breaks up. The parents come home and somehow
the mother finds out (strange smell in the house?), goes ballistic and calls the police.
Scene Ih 11 P.M. the next day.
One of the girls at the party and her parents are home, all fast asleep. The phone rings and
wakes the parents up. The mother answers to hear a voice say, "This is the Iowa City
police." Sense of dread and fear sets in. The officer demands to talk to the girl. The mother
says she is sleeping. The officer insists. The mother wakes the kid up who goes to the
phone and is promptly yelled at by the police officer to such an extent that the pissed off
mother calls a lawyer to protest the way her kid was treated by the police.
Another useless incident caused by our overactive drug police task force in which no
positive result came about, except to have another round of citizens who are really boiled
off at the ICPD. Really helped an already sagging image of the boys in blue.
BTW: The girl is 16.
3/6/01
Vilsack's Policy/Drugs Page 1 of I
Marian Karr
From: Carol DeProsse [cdeprosse@earthlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 4:20 PM
To: JCNEWS@yosemite.leepfrog.com
Cc: jpwhite@co.johnson.ia.us; cthompso@co.johnson.ia.us; mlehman@co.johnson.ia.us;
sstutsma@co.johnson.ia.us; pharney@co.johnson.ia.us; tneuzil@co.johnson.ia.us;
tjneuzil@msn.com; Connie_Champion@iowa-city.org; Ernie_Lehman@iowa-city.org;
Ross_Wilburn@iowa-city.org; Dee_Vanderhoef@iowa-city.org; ipfab@avalon.net;
Steve_Atkins@iowa-city.org; rnary_mascher@legis.state.ia.us; vicki_lensing@legis.state.ia.us;
richard_drake@legis.state.ia.us; robert_dvorsky@legis.state.ia.us; joe_bolkcorn@legis.state.ia.us;
barry_brauns@legis.state.ia.us; ro_foege@legis.state.iaus; richard_myers@legis.state.ia.us
Subject: JCNEWS: Vilsack's Policy/Drugs
I have been reading "lowa's Drug Control Strategy 2001 ", a publication of the Governor's
Office of Drug Control Policy. Frankly, it seems far less onerous than local practice would
have me believe,
For example, under Reduce the Supply of Iltegal Drugs, one finds that the first goal is to
Increase local capacity to identify, investigate, and dismantle clandestine drug laboratories.
In reading on, nowhere do I find that a primary goal is to round up recreational users of pot,
especially adult users. The major focus is on investigating organized interstate crime groups
distributing illegal substances in the state and shutting down methamphetamine labs. There
is a lot of emphasis on providing treatment facilities for abusers of drugs.
The report notes, however, "the prevalence of marijuana as the single illegal drug for which
most offenses are reported by law enforcement. For the period of 1994-1999, more than
four out of every 10 reported arrests for offense of manufacture/distribution of drugs where
the drug type was known involved marijuana. Further, during the same period, more than
seven of every ten reported offenses for possession/use of drugs where the drug type was
known involved marijuana."
The report notes, "Based on the data presented above, it would seem clear that marijuana
remains the drug of choice for the majority of ADULT Iowans that use/abuse illegal drugs.
Further, several of the data indicators point to an increasing use and/or prevalence of this
drug among drug users in Iowa." NO MATTER HOW MANY PEOPLE WE ARREST AND
THROW IN JAIL, PEOPLE KEEP ON SMOKING POT. THERE MUST BE SOME
EXPLANATION. MOST PEOPLE DON'T PARTICULARLY LIKE TO GET ARRESTED AND
TOSSED IN THE POKEY.
Marijuana is at worst, no worse for users than either alcohol or tobacco (both of which have
been or are used by at least several members of the Iowa City City Council.) The only
difference between marijuana and alcohol and tobacco is that marijuana is illegal and the
other two are legal (even though they kill thousands every year, cost the health care
systems billions of dollars every year, and cost the workplace billions of bucks in worker
absenteeism.)
Only hypocrites would smoke and drink, even in moderation, and then turn around and
insist that we enforce laws against recreational users of marijuana.
3/6/01
1103-08-01I
Marian Karr IP14
From: richard [twohy@inav.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 12:27 PM
To: jcnews@yosemite.leepfrog.com; icaa-daily@yahoogroups.com; ic-glbt-events@crglrc.org;
flierman64@AQL.COM
Cc: Iowa City Council and Johnson County Supervisors; cthompso@co.johnson.ia.us;
mlehman@co.johnson.ia.us; sstutsma@co.johnson.ia.us; pharney@co.johnson.ia.us;
tneuzil@co.johnson.ia.us; tjneuzil@msn.com; Connie_Champion@iowa-city,org;
Ernie_Lehman@iowa-city.org; Ross_Wilburn@iowa-city.org; Dee_Vanderhoef@iowa-city.org;
ipfab@avalon.net; Steve_Atkins@iowa-city.org
Subject: JCNEWS: Coretta Scott King at UI
A gentle "heads-up": (3/5/2001)
Today is the 36th year-mark of the sheriff's massacre of human rights
Marchers on the EDMUND PETTUS BRIDGE in Alabama (1965). On that
bloody yet hopeful day, Hartin Luther King, Jr. coralled the Civil
Rights movement into the Conscious, active Conscience of our Country.
His widow, Coretta Scott King, will visit Iowa City tomorrow night.
She'll speak Wednesday at 7 pm -- open to all. Admission is free.
Location: Univ. of Iowa's "IHU" ("student union" building).
Doors open 6pm. Parking w/start getting tight about 6:15.
They have run Out Of main-hall "tickets".
But hey, no problem:
You can still see & hear on big screen in the "Richie" Ballroom (IHU,
2nd Floor).
This info thanks to Iowa-City Councilor Irvin Pfab. He met Saturday
with the IMU "box office" mavens... and says that everyone -- with or
without "tickets" -- may have a chance to meet and speak with her
afterward.
I've seen & heard CSK 4 times in these three decades.
Here's part o~ my personal, inner "take" on Mrs. King:
Nearly 33 years ago, when her husband Dr. King was
assassinated, Coretta King received the grace of SERENITY to accept
the things she can NOT change,
And, on that terrible afternoon, April 5, 1968 -- 2 months
before Bobby Kennedy was murdered in Los Angeles the day of his
Presidential "primary" victory in California -- CORETTA SCOTT KING
began showing all of us the COURAGE to change the things that she CAN.
This month, yet another milestone: She now has logged 12,000
days AND nights of exemplifying -- one day at a time -- THE WISDOM
TO KNOW the DIFFERENCE.
Bring a friend or two (and their kids!!) tomorrow night.
For the younger pups -- and even for us hobbling "seniors" -- it's a
chance to vitalilze, in our inner life purpose, the essential core of
the ~mnerican Dream:
That's right: The inherent dignity and worthiness of ALL
God's ehildren -- including the right to grow, celebrate, and BE who
we are. We are, EACH of us, children of the Universe. We have a
right to be here.
It includes, too, the responsibility and freedom to touch AND to
SHARE those incredible sparks of beauty lurking within EACH of us --
just below the pimples and the fear.
Let Coretta Scott King remind us how.
Richard <twohy~inav.net> *POB 2233'Iowa City 52244
Voice: 319-337-9011 Ce11:621-8339 Fax:319-354-6995
"Our Liberties we prize & Our Rights we will maintain"
(Yup... It says it right there, on the state Flag of Iowa!)
03-08-01 J
Marian Karr IP15
From: Brandon Ray [publius@ARTHUR.AVALONNET]
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 4:58 PM
To: jcnews@yosemite.leepfrog.com
Cc: Jim Fausett; Harry Herwig; John Weihe; Diana Lundell; Dave Jacoby; Jean Schnake; Kelly
Hayworth; Connie_Champion@iowa-city.org; Ernie_Lehman@iowa-city.org;
Ross_Wilburn@iowa-city.org; Dee_Vanderhoef@iowa-city.org; ipfab@avalon.net;
Steve_Atkins@iowa-city.org; jpwhite@co.johnson.iaus; cthompso@co.johnson.ia,us;
mlehman@co.johnson.ia.us; sstutsma@co.johnson.ia.us; pharney@co.johnson.iaus;
tneuzil@co.johnson.ia.us; tjneuzil@msn.com
Subject: Re: JCNEWS: Coralville City Council
So ... anytime a citizen group forms to protest something or other, the
members of the city council are obligated to make themselves available, at
the convenience of the group?
On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Carol DeProsse wrote:
Too arroqant to learn something new of just too busy?
Either one could be right. I don't know the CCC or the City Manager.
Last night there was a 2nd public forum sponsored by SAVE (Stop A Vast
Error). It was held at the Coralville Public Library. Beside notices in all
the papers and on the radio, and personal invites to each, not a single
member of the CCC showed or, nor did the City Manager.
Although it would have been a bit embarrassing, it is a shame that not one
of these officials cared to participate in a discussion about the proposed
1/3 ot a billion dollar Iowa Child Project, of which it is hoped that 50%
will be in the form of taxpayer dollars.
For that matter, except for the Daily Iowan, the press didn't show up
either. Too bad. They would have learned a lot (not that they would
necessarily have reported it.)
1. This proposed deal, involving millions of public dollars, is a shoddy,
behind-the-scenes effort to bolster the image of Kelly Hayworth and
like-minded acquaintances. The process he has led has been shamefully
without informing the public and without any public input. It has also set
Coralville up at a severe disadvantage in terms of its $15-30 million
commitment to the project. And it has been based on a record of
documentation and analysis of the project that amounts to about 1/4" or less
of staoked paper No public entity beside the CCC has endorsed this project.
2. The Iowa CHILD folks are conducting private meetings try to induce folks
to come on board. This includes a private meeting between Iowa Child, the
superintendent and principal of schools of the Clear Creek Amana School
District, and the president of the Board of the CCA School District.
Private meetings when millions of dollars of public money is at stake is a
reprehensible way to conduct the public's business.
3. Ted Townsend and his iowa Child puppets are working internally at the
university of Iowa, allegedly about to offer deals to departments of the
University {"what do you want and how can we help you with it"), either in
exchange for their support or for their silence regarding their opposition
to Iowa Child. They are also working to round up Bob Bowlsby to sign on with
Steve Alford and Hayden Fry in support of iowa Child. Why the support of
these three is more important than informing the public about what it is
going to cost the public is a good question.
4. This project is not unique. There are tens upon tens of them all across
1
the country.
5. More than several of these similar types of projects have been failures,
one within 7 months of opening its doors to the public.
6. The project is not an educational endeavor, but an entertainment
attraction with an educational component thrown in to keep people from being
against it (who can be against children, especially Iowa children?.)
The tape of the meeting will be aired on local channels and copies will be
available next week in the Coralville Public Library and the Iowa City
Public Library.
SAVE now has brochures for distribution.