Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-04-03 Ordinance Prepared by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5240 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF 4.01 ACRES LOCATED EAST OF HARLOCKE STREET FROM HIGH-DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM-44) TO SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY-44 (OSA-44). WHEREAS, Southgate Development has made application for a Sensitive Areas rezoning and approval of the Sensitive Areas Development Plan for 4.01 acres located east of Harlocke Street; and WHEREAS, the property contains steep, critical, and protected slopes; and WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a Sensitive Areas Development Plan which minimizes disturbance of the critical and protected slopes; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the Sensitive Areas Development Plan and found it to be in compliance with the Sensitive Areas Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Sensitive Areas Development Plan also complies with the development regulations of the High-Density Multi-Family (RM-44) zone. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. APPROVAL. The property legally described below is hereby redesignated from its current zoning of RM-44 to OSA-44 and the associated development plan is approved: LOT 25, WEEBER'S THIRD ADDITION TO IOWA Cl'i'~, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 9, AT PAGE 14, OF THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE. SECTION I[. ZONING HAP. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and publication or this ordinance as provided by law. SECTION III. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and to record the same at the office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, all as provided by law. SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION V. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION VI. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of ,2001 MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK ppdadm/ordlharlocke.dcc City of Iowa City 6e MEMORANDUM DATE: March 29, 2001 TO: City Council FROM: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney RE: Rezoning of 4.01 Acres on East Side of Harlocke Street from RM-44 (High- Density, Multi-Family Residential) to OSA-44 (Sensitive Areas Overlay) to Allow 39 Dwelling Units in Three Buildings A. Issue Before the Council. Notwithstanding whether you believe the City's laws which affect this property are right or wrong, if the applicant's plan complies with those laws the rezoning must be approved. This is a sensitive areas rezoning that is required only because of the existence of regulated slopes (City Code Section 14-6K-1(C)(1)). The regulations dealing with regulated slopes are set forth at Section 14-6K-1(I) entitled "Regulated Slopes". Subsection 1 of this section sets forth the purposes of regulating development on and near steep slopes and the remaining subsections are the rules or requirements the City has put in place to effectuate its purposes as stated in subsection 1. The purposes of the ordinance should be used as a guide in interpreting and evaluating the specific requirements but not as an independent basis of denial. The design standards for regulated slopes are set forth at subsection 4. City staff has determined that the development plan meets all of the applicable design standards. Subsection 4(b) prohibits grading outside the construction area (except for driveways and utilities installation) and requires that grading be minimized on steep and critical slopes. In this case, the sensitive areas and buffers are impacted only by the installation of storm water control facilities within a protected slope and buffer. 14-6K-1 (E) sets forth the uses permitted within protected sensitive areas and buffers. Subsection 3 allows the installation of public utilities, including storm water detention facilities, if they are "designed and constructed to minimize their impact upon the protected sensitive areas and associated buffers" and the areas are restored after the work is done. City staff has concluded that the applicant's plan complies with this subsection. As I understand it, the storm water facility is located within the sensitive areas because this is the low part of the property where the storm water is directed. Reference was also made during the public hearing to subsection (1)(c) of Section 14- 6K-I(N) (Sensitive Areas Development Plan Design Guidelines), which states that one of the purposes of the design guidelines is to "encourage development which provides for easy access and circulation for pedestrians and bicycles". This section is not applicable here. The purpose of this section is to provide guidelines for designing developments that deviate from the City's standard code requirements. In this case there are no deviations from any of our underlying codes. As one member of the public noted, zoning is often said to be fluid. In some contexts, this statement would be applicable. It is not applicable here. The statement made refers to the concept that a city council may amend its zoning ordinances at any time it deems circumstances justify such action, if the ordinance is in accordance with the city's comprehensive plan, is enacted in accordance with state and local procedural Rezoning 4.01 Acres on East Side of Harlocke St. March 29, 2001 Page 2 requirements and is not unreasonable or arbitrary. In this case, however, previous councils have foregone the oppodunity to downzone this property, and this council is not now in a position to deny the applicant the right to develop its property in accordance with the City's appIicable zoning ordinances. B. Mavor's Conflict of Interest. In light of the Mayor's recusal of himself from this matter, the supermajority required will be five of the six remaining members of the City Council. In cases of a conflict of interest, "all the members of the council" is calculated without the member abstaining due to a conflict of interest. Section 380.4, Code of Iowa. The Weeber-Harlocke Neighborhood Association has requested that the public hearing be reopened because the Mayor presided at the public hearing. While I do not concur with all the statements made in that letter, I believe the present course of action is for another public hearing to be held with the Mayor Pro Tem presiding. Because the public hearing was closed the Council will need to reset a public hearing for its next meeting on April 17. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions concerning this matter. cc: Stephen J. Atkins, City Manager Marian Karr, City Clerk Dale Helling, Assistant City Manager Karin Franklin, Director, Planning and Community Development Bob Miklo, Senior Planner eleanor/mem/harlockedoc City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: March 15, 2001 To: City Council From: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner Re: R EZ01-0001 During the public hearing on the Sensitive Areas Overlay a councilor asked if Southgate could build anything on the property that would not require storm water management and therefore would not require the storm water facility to be installed in the protected slope area. The answer is no. Typically one single family home or duplex would be exempt from the storm water ordinance. In this case the RM-44 zone does not allow single family homes or duplexes. The least intense building they could build according to zoning would be a 3-unit apartment building, which would require storm water management. If the proper~y was rezoned to something that allowed single family or duplex, they could build only one of these buildings prior to having to file for subdivision approval, which then kicks in the storm water management ordinance. In any event it is not in the City's or neighborhood's interest to have development occur on this site with out managing storm water. That would only increase the drainage problems experienced in the Benton Manor development. Harlocke,delay decision Page 1 of 2 Marian Karr From: Judith Klink [judithklink@home.com] Sent: Friday, January 0`1, '1904 7:'10 AM 1o: council@iowa-city.org; daily-iowan@uiowa.edu; cbaldwin@press-citizen.com; gazedit@fyiowa.com Subject: Hadocke,delay decision Dear Sirs/Mesdames: The identical letter is also sent as an attachment to this eraall. An Open Letter to the Iowa City City Council: The Harlocke-Weeber neighborhood has tried for years to persuade the City Council to develop a comprehensive plan for the roughly 22 acres of land bounded by Route I (across from Walmart), Miller Avenue, Benton Street, and Harlocke Street. Contrary to remarks that have been made about the neighborhood, we are not against development in this area; it is clear that development will occur. However, we would like to see the development in terms of an overall plan, one that takes traffic and other infrastructure problems such as water runoff into account, and is not just piecemeal. There was almost an agreement on a plan in 1984 and again in 1994, but in both cases landowners pulled out of the agreement. Moreover, in contrast to radio remarks made by Mayor Lehman, the area has not been zoned RM44 for sixty years. According to our research thus far, it has been Rlb (1961) and became R3a (RM44) some time later. It is in this context that the proposed development of four acres adjoining Harlocke Street should be understood. A developer bought the land in April 2000, and has been working with city staff for more than nine months to put 39 two-bedroom apartment units on these 4 acres, 2 of which consist of ravines, woods and slopes. We were informed in January, only several weeks before the first hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission about the development. We feel the City Planning department, especially since they know the history of our neighborhood and how we have been so intensely involved in the past, should have let us know much sooner about the proposed development. We have recently learned that the city has a "Good Neighbor Policy" which encourages developers to work with the local neighborhoods. It is too bad that it was not used in this case. What our neighborhood is especially concerned about is future development, What happens when the next four acre tract is proposed? A natural location for it would be at the end of Harlocke. The city staff has already indicated that a street connecting from there to route 1 is impractical. Would Harlocke traffic then increase to 800 cars per day? Such questions indicate the pressing need for comprehensive planning. All of the neighborhoods included in the Neighborhood Council of Iowa City have supported the Weeber Harlocke neighborhood by writing a letter to the City Council requesting that staff "complete the district planning process for the area prior to any further development proposals being considered for the area comprising the South West District." The 8-plexes already in existence on Harlocke are themselves examples of lack of planning in this neighborhood. Please drive to the end of Harlocke. Note that there is a single family dwelling sandwiched between 8-plexes. Such past poor planning should not be repeated. Better planning in the past might also have addressed the water runoff problem which exists on the western side of Harlocke. The current plans for the eastern runoff will result in a ravine being stripped of trees (natural drainage managers) and turned into a storm water management area with a concrete dam. The drain at the bottom of the dam will then carry the water in a pipe through the ground down a 3/29/01 Harlocke,delay decision Page 2 of 2 steep slant to the unattractive Benton Manor storm water manaClemerit facility and then further east to the Forest Ridge storm facility, and finally into a flatter area close to Route '1 which has standing water. lhe effect on the whole area has not boon considered. The 39 apartment proposal should be delayed until there is an overall plan for the entire undeveloped area. Yours truly, Judith Klink ~1 '10'1 Hatlocke Street Iowa City, IA 52246 Daytime phone: 3'19-35'1-4342 3/29/01 Harlocke Development, Resident Objection Page 1 of 1 Madan Karr From: ,Judith Klink [judithklink@home.com] Sent: Friday, January 01, 1904 2:22 AM To: council@iowa-city.org; cbaldwin@press-citizen.com; gazedit@fyiowa.com; daily-iowan@uiowa.edu Subject: Harlocke Development, Resident Objection To the editors/to the City Council: As a thirty-two year homeowner of 923 Harlocke Street, I feel compelled to express my concern over Southgate Corporation's plans to build three apartment buildings (39 two- bedroom units) directly across the street from my single family home. City planners estimate an astounding 500 plus new daily car trips on a 24 foot wide street which is already three feet narrower than a standard street. Parking on one side of the street doesn't work due to the already excessive occupant density. The 900 block of Harlocke Street presently has four eight-plexes, one duplex, and my home. Glenn Siders, the developer's spokesperson, was asked by a member of the City Council how he would address the traffic and safety concerns of the Weeber-Harlocke neighbors. His answer was "1 don~t know if I can address that issue." There is no secondary access road to the development, yet Siders asked the council to nP~ oppose the high density, non-owner occupied building plan. Greed motivated, out of place, high density development is unreasonable. If approved, it will diminish our neighborhood even more. Hard earned home values of dozens of Iowa Citians will be affected. The integrity of our neighborhood, our lives, and the quality of life in Iowa City will diminish thereby lessening the short term benefits of any money the city may make from this mistake. Please reject this rapacious development. Respectfully, Olympia Niederecker 923 Harlocke Street Iowa City, IA 52246 3/28/01 MAR-28-2001 0?:45 MILLER PURCHASING P.01/01 March 26~ 2001 Honorable Mayor and Coun61ors: RE: Hatlocke units. The Ruppen Parcel is directly south of, ~nd shares a 450' borde~ ~th, the proposed u~ts. The Hatlocke and Woebet residents may have drainage problems, but these are unrelated to the parcel in question. This can Ig verified by looking at the topographical map, which shows this parcel slopes f~om its North, East and Wast edges to its interior and then onto the Ruppe~ parcel w the South. How does this developmerit create a greater waffic problem San 39 homes built at the end of any other street in the City?, The streets in the area were built to hemdie the traffic from this parcel. This parcel and the Ruppert parcel w~ both zoned RM-44 or 44 units tgr acre before the liarlocke m~a was developed. About 1985 the City affirmed Harlocke was sufficient to handle much higher traffic when it declared the strent above this parcel excess. That strent ran from Boawn Manor into I-Iarlocke. It is accessed from Benton Manor Drive today but an apartment bujJdinS is now where it would have joined Hs~loeke. It is incorreu-t to say that the area has not be.~n pined. As a c, ommllmty seNice, in sn attempt to work with the pining departmant, over 20 engineering drawings plus topographical maps and Ari.el photographs of the area botwe~m Miller and Harlooke have be~n commjssion©d ar an average cog of $10,000 each over the last 15 years. Recently a nationally known land planner, of Kansas City KS, prepared a datalied analysis of the Rapport parcel, which has two accesses to liighway # 1 deeded fl-om the State of lawn Depm huent of Transportation. Th~se accesses are now farm accesses hat they are the only curb outs to be allowed in this area by the DOT. No area of the City has had such extensive professional evalumion. In 1993 the Council initiated a down zoning adion sgain~t both tllis end the adjacent Ruppert parcel, At the request era Councilor, Southgate development drew up a set of plans that satisfied Mr. Knabe by zoning a portion of the Rupperc parcel RS-5. The Council dropped this rezouing action when a professional appraiser det~ ,,,;ned the Southgate plans resulted ill a $1.5 million involulltax~ l~kinS. At the thzle illere was lie sale of file Rapport pareel contemplated, though Mr. Ruppert and I sat with Mace Braverman of Southgate ut Council menliugs and heard Mr. Knab= say many limes that the developer, presumably Mr. Braverman~ was happy. That rozonmg lasted into late fall of 1994. Owners of both properties end City staff' invested a groat deal of time, effort and expanse. The curr~nt propossl volunt~ly reduces the zoning of ~e 3.9 acres on Harlocke from 44 to l 0 units per acre. Do the right thing Th~s is a ~ood plan, Yours, · Mary Hitchcock ' Ruppert Property Representative 2345 Coo, oh lieuse Dr. Brookfield W] 53045 · TOTAL P.O1 WEEBER-HARLOCKE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION 1101 Weeber Circle Iowa City, Iowa 52246-5169 March 28, 2001 City Council of Iowa City Civic Center Iowa City, IA 52240 Re: Rezoning (REZ01-0001) Dear Iowa City Council Members: On behalf of the Weeber-Harlocke Neighborhood Association and various neighbors and property owners in Benton Manor, Colonial Manor, and Hillsboro Apartments, I respectfully request that the City Council reopen the public hearing on the proposed Harlocke Rezoning (REZ01*0001). I make this request, at the urging of my neighbors, because many felt constrained from speaking during the public hearing on this rezoning. Though many of the neighbors spoke, some did not because they felt compelled to follow the mayor and city attorney's direction that comments to the Council should address only the very narrow legal issue identified and agreed to by the mayor and city attorney. First, we disagree that citizens must limit their comments in Iowa City Council public hearings to the legal issues prescribed by the city attorney and the mayor. Secondly, in light of the mayor's later recusal, though there was no vote that evening, Mr. Lehman may have influenced, or may have appeared to influence, the public hearing by presiding over it at a time when he had a potential conflict of interest. This appears to be substantiated by the fact that Mr. Lehman abruptly cut off the public discussion of the proposed rezoning, even though other neighbors had wanted to speak. Moreover, on at least two occasions during his radio program, within the same time period of Mr. Lehman's potential conflict of interest, the mayor also made negative comments about the Weeber-Harlocke Neighborhood Association, its members, and our views and positions pertaining to the proposed Harlocke rezoning, which may have had an influence on opinions about this issue. We believe, and we trust that you do as well, in the principles adopted in the city charter that state: "the government of Iowa City is a service institution, responsive and accountable to its citizens; that City officials should be accessible to the people and have an affirmative obligation to secure for each person equality of opportunity as well as due process and equal protection of law; that each citizen has a right to obtain fair, equal, and courteous treatment from each city official and employee; and that the City should perform all acts and take all measures necessary and desirable to promote the general health, safety and welfare of its residents, to encourage the participation of its citizens in policy formation and to secure the benefits of 'Home Rule."' March 2& 2001 Given all of these circumstances, we hope that you will support this request and reopen the public hearing. William E. Knabe, Spokesperson Weeber-Harlocke Neighborhood Association Tim & Robynn Shrader 1104 Weeber Circle Iowa City, IA 52246 (319) 466-9006 March 26, 2001 An Open Letter to the Iowa City Council: When my neighbors and I approached the Iowa City Council on March 20th regarding the re-zoning of four acres of property along Harlocke St. for development by Southgate, we assumed a fair and legitimate democratic process to decide this issue. I was frustrated and dismayed to hear the unsolicited comments made by the mayor of Iowa City during his radio show on KXIC last Friday. The mayor berated the neighborhood association for being emotional about the issue and attempting to block the development project at the final hour. Since the mayor has now recused himself from discussion and voting on this issue due to a conflict of interest, I am further frustrated that the process has already been tainted. The mayor made a point during the public hearing on March 20th tO limit the comments of my neighbor Bill Knabe to 5 minutes yet allowed commentary by representatives from Southgate development to well exceed the 5-minute allotment. He attempted to limit public discussion to 'how the proposed development did not meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance', rather than encouraging all citizen input by the dozens of property owners and neighborhood residents that attended the meeting. Public hearings are held to facilitate discussion by city constituents with their elected representatives to be certain that public interests are considered when decisions are made by the city council. They are not restricted or narrowly focused, as the views and interests of a diverse population are usually broad and equally diverse. The voice of the people matters in a democratic process, and if nothing else, the public hearing on this re-zoning issue should be re- opened, and moderated by someone without a conflict of interest. I make no accusations about the mayor's character and believe him to be well-intentioned public servant. However, I take issue with the pre-disposition of the mayor and city staff in favor of Southgate over the citizens of the Weeber-Harlocke neighborhood in this situation. It is already difficult for the average citizen to gain access to information that developers are readily privy to. Developers work with city staff on a regular basis, and foster relationships that give them an obvious advantage over the general public when assistance is needed. I realize that this is how the system works, which is why the opportunity for citizen input is so necessary as a counter balance to developer advantage when issues like this arise. There are protest petitions signed by 23% of the property owners within 200 feet of the property in question, and this requires an extra majority of the council to vote in favor of the development. This protest mechanism is in place in our city code to ensure that a super majority of council agrees that a particular project is in the best interests of the citizens most affected. The mayor and city attorney have asserted that unless Southgate's plan does not meet the requirements of a Sensitive Areas Overlay Zoning ordinance, their application cannot legally be denied. This assumes the underlying zoning, RM44, which allows the density in the proposed development. I believe our neighborhood has sufficiently shown that the density of the development proposed exceeds what our neighborhood infrastructure can support. Zoning is not a right of the property owner, and can be changed at any time in the best interests ofthe surrounding community. I urge the city council to consider the evidence provided by the citizens of the Weeber-Harlocke neighborhood, and give this evidence more weight than the time and money spent by Southgate to develop their plans. Council should act to appropriately zone this property based on its limited road access and neighborhood infrastructure, which is well within the council's power and discretion. I believe the council has an obligation to address this problem from a perspective that considers the entire neighborhood, and not be censored by threats of illegality and an inappropriate narrow framing of the issue. Sincerely, Robynn Shrader Marian Karr From: PjckettCin@aol.com Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 6:36 AM To: council@iowa-city.org c/oMarian Cart; gazedit@fyiowa.com Subject: HarlockeNVeeber Plan City Council Hembets c/o Harian Carr, City Clerk Civic Center 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Ia 52240 I am a property owner in the Harlocke/Weeber neighborhood of 23 years. Hy concern is in SAFT~Y of the Southgate development. I feel no one should build without providing for a secndary access and or outlet. A DEAD-END STREET cannot handle a ladder truck necessary for three story buildings, garbage trucks, and addtional cars. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance also would be disturbed which affects the safety in the integrity of the land. i.e. placment of the drainage pipe. This development plan does not address these isssues of the safety of present and future residents . Therefore, E feel there is a lack of planing of the South Gate Development. The saftety issues should be address before the develoment is allowed to be built. Sincerely, Cynthia Pickett Marjan Karr From: J B [hellojbenson@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 5:40 PM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: BAD IDEA To whom it concerns, i'm writing in regard to the 3 apartment complex proposed for benton hill off of barlocke st. Unfortunately i was out of town and unable to attend the public hearing on Tuesday. I'd like to say that the last thing we need are more apartments in this particular area. The increased traffic would be bad enough, but the added effects on wild life and bird habitat would be even worse. The trees in the area are home to a variety of birds including Chickadees, Gold Finches, Flickers, Red Headed Woodpeckers, Downy Woodpeckers, Juncos, Blue Jays, Cardinals and many others. There are even a pair of owls that roost in the area. Not to mention the other wild life that would be affected. I think the complexes would be a bad deal all around. Sincerely, Jeff Benson 929 Harlocke St. Apt 8 Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com Madan Karr From: E. Fales [efales@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu] Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 3:56 PM To: Council@iowa-city.org Subject: New development on Benton Hill/Harlocke St. Dear Council Members; I live at 1215 Oakcrest St., not far from Harlocke but not directly affected /very much) by the new development being proposed there. I nevertheless believe that further development of the Benton hill area is a very bad idea. I have little knowledge of the legal issues in the present case, but I have lived in this area for 15 years and during that time have observed the exponential growth of traffic on Benton Street due to development here and on the western edge of Iowa City. Traffic on Benton is now so heavy that at certain times of the day, it is virtually impossible to make a safe left-hand turn onto Benton from sidestreets not serviced by a traffic light. The paving on Benton is in disrepair. If development on Benton hill continues, it seems likely that the City will have to widen Benton to 3 or more lanes. I assume the Planning and Zoning Commission considers all these factors, but I can't for the life of me see why we should need more apartment buildings here. Will Iowa City be somehow the better for it? Is it that the city has run out of apartments? Or is it just that the property owner sees the opportunity to make a buck by attracting tenants who would otherwise be able to rent elsewhere? Do the laws under which developments are approved not permit the Council to weigh the impact upon the residents of the Harlocke area against the interests of the developer? Used to be that when I approached Iowa City from the southwest along Rt. 1, the landmark wooded/prairie ambiance of Benton hill greeted me back to the city with a gesture of open natural spaces. At this rate, what we'll have in a few years is an Iowa City "skyline". That's sad. Sincerely, Evan Fales Page 1 of 2 Marian Karr From: BLDeVorel @aol.com Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 8:03 PM To: ernie_lehman@iowa-city.org Cc: irivin_pfab@iowa-city.org; connie_shampion@iowa-city.org; ross_wilburn@iowa-city.org; mike_odonnell@iowa-city.org; dee_vanderhoef@iowa-city.org; stephen_atkins@iowa-city.org; council@iowa-city.org; BLDeVorel@aol.com Subject: Proposed development on Hadcoke Ave I am writing in response to the proposed development on the 4 acre property on Harlocke Ave. As a resident and property owner in this neighborhood, I wish to voice my concern on this issue, as I will be unable to attend the City Council meeting Tuesday evening to voice my opposition. As I am sure you will hear, the residents, both property owners and renters, have grave concerns about this property development. Our main concern is traffic. With this development, increased traffic flow will be a great problem to this already congested neighborhood. Presently, there are times when it is NEARLY impossible to turn onto Benton Street and with the addition of multiple housing units, the increased congestion caused by additional vehicles will only increase this problem. In addition to the increased traffic problem, with the children in this neighborhood this causes an even greater potential hazard to the safety of the neighborhood children. Another reason of concern I have is the effects of the proposed parking for the residents of this development. By covering the steep terrain with pavement, the issue of water drainage arises. As a resident in the Benton Manor Condo Assn., I have grave concerns on how the plan will account for water drainage. Currently, water run-off on this property drains downward toward the 906-910 building and results in a small pooling of water. What will the effects of grading and filling this slope in, causing an even greater slope at the edge of the development, hence causing even a greater drainage problem for the owners of Benton Manor? The developers state the water drainage will also drain into the ravine on the North end of the property and will be contained by a dam and then siphon into the drainage system of the Benton Manor Condo Assn. To construct this dam, the developers will have to destroy some of the natural vegetation and trees in the ravine, diminishing the area for wild life and bird habitat. My final concern is the fact the residents of this neighborhood area have none to little open/green spaces in relation to other neighborhoods in the city. While the Planning and Zoning committee has narrowly approved (3-2) that was revised after February 15 to include a small park/open space area, I feel the City and the Parks and Recreation Commission needs to look into ensuring our neighborhood has the commensurate public space other neighborhoods currently have. One of the suggestions the Planning and Zoning Committee made at one of the initial meetings was to accept a "cash payment" in exchange for the lost open space. As a citizen, property owner and voter, this is ONE option I find unacceptable and reprehensible. Honestly, to accept this option states one thing to the residents of not only this neighborhood, but to all the residents of Iowa City -- the council members care, not about the green space and its environmental impact, nor about the city's residents, but only the almighty dollar - a sad future for this town which will be remembered at election time by the entire west side community. 3/20/01 Page 2 of 2 Please feel free to contact me at any time to discuss my concerns. Sincerely, Brett DeVore 906 Benton Drive, Unit 34 Iowa City, Iowa 52246 341-3494 3/20/01 Dear Council Members, Thank you for your patience Monday night listening to us. I apologize for my emotional outburst. When you challenge the safety of my children, especially in their own neighborhood, I will protect them. As any parent would. I was talking to a neighbor Monday night after the meeting. He said that them should be a paid city official in the city council that represents the neighborhood residents. After I thought about it a while, it occurred to me that all of you are paid city officials who rapresent the residents of Iowa City. We elected you. Mayor Lehman said that he wanted us to report the deficiency of the developers plan. Well, we thought that was what we were doing. The deficiency of their plan is that they are not considering what this will do to the neighborhood regardless if they have followed regulations and the code. That still doesn't make it fight. I thought the purpose of the City Council meeting was to get everyone's view on the proposed plan. If our point of view didn't matter, why do you post signs and send letters notifying the neighbors of the proposed rezoning. And have time allotted for public comment during the City Council meeting. I do want to point out that you have an obligation to the residents of this city. You are to make the decisions based on the best interest of the city and the people of this town. I realize that this issue has been passed to you from previous councils. You have the opportunity to change what should have been changed years ago. Please don't make a mistake that can't be corrected. Melissa Ruhlow 911 Weeber St. Iowa City, IA 60 Jema Ct. Iowa City, IA 52246 March 26, 2001 City Council Members : ' c/o Marian Karr, City Clerk 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 ' Dear City Council: As the owner of a Benton Manor condominium, I have followed with interest the effort to adjust the zoning of 4 acres on the east side of Harlocke St. At issue is whether the proposed plans comply with the sensitive areas ordinance. The City's staff apparently thinks the plans do comply. Yet at last week's City Council meeting, the developer and his attorney spoke of "minimal" intrusion into sensitive areas and protected slopes. Does "minimal" intrusion constitute compliance with the ordinance, or is the legal standard for compliance higher than that? The developer also sidestepped the issue of whether he would allow Amy Bouska of Johnson County Soil and Water Conservation District to visit the site to offer an independent assessment of the plans to deal with water runoff and erosion. If the developer is committed to protecting the area, one would assume he would be glad to have additional experts take a look, either confirming that his plans are good or making suggestions for improvement. The purpose of the sensitive areas ordinance is neither to thwart nor to promote development but to protect our city's environment. "Substantial compliance," "minimal intrusion," and plans that are "good enough to get by" may or may not meet the legal standard of the ordinance, but they surely do not comply with its spirit. In addition, there is much undeveloped land nearby. If the traffic created by this development puts traffic counts on Harlocke near a maximum reasonable level, then how would traffic from future development be accommodated? Plans for this parcel need to be considered in the light of long-term plans for the whole area. Piecemeal planning puts owners of as-yet-undeveloped land in this area at an unfair disadvantage. If this case were clear-cut, the City Council's judgment and oversight would not be needed. But Planning and Zoning was divided on the issue of whether the plan was compliant. Neighbors have serious questions about it. Even the developer is apparently not confident enough in his plans to welcome a site visit by another expert. It is precisely in cases such as this, where reasonable people differ on whether a plan is in compliance and even on the definition of compliance, that additional consideration and thought are needed. Please make sure that the development plans for this parcel (indeed, for all of the larger surrounding area) get some additional, careful study. Sincerely yours, ayle ray Marian Karr From: Robynn Shrader [robynnshrader@mindspring.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 9:47 AM To: Council@iowa-city,org Subject: tonight's meeting Dear Council Members, I am traveling on business, and will not be able to attend tonight's City Council meeting as my flight does not get in early enough. I had wanted to thank you in person for re-opening the public hearing on the Weeber-Harlocke matter, but this note from the road will have to suffice. I very much appreciate your willingness to listen further to our needs and concerns as a neighborhood, and I am very hopeful that there is a resolution to all of this that works for everyone involved. Again, I would have liked to thank you in person tonight. I look forward to seeing you on April 17th. Very truly, Robynn Shrader Robynn Shrader Executive Director National Cooperative Grocers Association Phone/fax: (319) 466-9029 email: robynnshrader@mindspring.com 1104 Weebet Circle Iowa City, IA 52246 Prepared by: John Yapp, PCD, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5247 ORDINANCE NO. 01-3961 ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING CODE ARTICLE "L", PROVISIONAL USES, SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS AND TEMPORARY USES, TO ALLOW ADULT DAYCARE FACILITIES ON STREETS NARROWER THAN 28 FEET WIDE IN COMMERCIAL ZONES. WHEREAS, one of the provisions for an adult daycare facility is that they shall have access to an arterial or collector street with paving wider than 28 feet; and WHEREAS, this provision was put in place primarily for the location of adult daycare facilities in residential zones, to ensure the traffic associated with such facilities stays on the arterial and collector street system; and WHEREAS, the 28 foot wide street requirement is not necessary for streets within commercial zones; and WHEREAS, the interior streets of commercial zones are designed to carry greater volumes of traffic, often with a width of less than 28 feet. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. APPROVAL. City Code Section 14-6L-1Q be amended as follows: Section 14-6L-1Q: In residential zones adult daycare facilities providing care to six or more adults shall have access to arterial or collector streets, or to a street with paving wider than 28 feet. SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of this ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or pad thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION VI. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as required by law. Pass dandapprovedthis 3r__ddayof April ,20 01 adrn, adultdaycare doc ~ Ordinance No. 01-3061 Page 2 It was moved by Wi 1 burn and seconded by Vanderhoef that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll cell there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: X Champion X Kanner X Lehman X O'Donnell X Pfab X Vanderhcef X Wilbum First Consideration 3/20/01 Voteforpassage:AYES: Kanner, Lehman, O'Donnell, Pfab, Vanderhoef, Wilburn, Champion. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration .............. Vote for passage: Date published 4 / 11 / 01 Moved by Wilburn, seconded by Vanderhoef, that the rule requiring ordinances to be considered and voted on for passage at two Council meetings prior to the meeting at which it is to be finally passed be suspended, the second consideration and vote be waived and the ordinanc~be voted upon for final passage at this time. AYES: Vanderhoef, Champion, Lehman, O'Donnell, Pfab, Wilburn. NAYS: Kanner. ABSENT: None. 04-03-01 (319) 339-6162 FAX (319) 339-6164 March 20, 2001 Mayor Emie Lehman and Iowa City Council Civic Center 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Re: Expedited adoption of amendment to the zoning ordinance to permit adult day centers in commercial zones along streets less than 28 feet in width Dear Mayor Lehman and members of the City Council: I am writing on behalf of Pentacrest, Inc. which is a non-profit corporation operating Pathways Adult Day Health Center in Iowa City. We are in the process of purchasing property located on Pepperwood Lane in Iowa City for the relocation of the adult day program. Current zoning regulations require aduh day centers in such commercial zones to access a street at least 28 feet wide. Pepperwood Lane is slightly less than 28 feet in width. It is my understanding that City staff has drafted a proposed zoning code amendment for your consideration which will permit adult day centers in commercial zones along streets less than 28 feet wide. On behalf of Pentacrest, Inc., I request that the City Council proceed with expedited readings of the proposed ordinance so that the ordinance, if adopted, will become effective by April 18, 2001. In our purchase agreement, April 18m is the deadline (contingency) for confirming that an adult day center is a permitted use in connection with the property which we are purchasing. Your expedited approval of the proposed ordinance will be greatly appreciated. Please let me know if you have any questions about this request for expedited adoption of said amendment. Sincerely yours, ofPentacrest Inc DEB: rove cc: Dan Strellner Karin Franklin Preparec'l,b.y: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5030 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF IOWA , IOWA, BY ENACTING NEW SECTIONS NUMBERED 4-2-3, ENTITLED "LO L REVIEW OF APPLICATION/INVEST)GATION OF APPLICANT"; SECTION 4-2-4, TITLED "NOTICE AND HEARING"; AND ,SECTION 4-2-5, ENTITLED "CIVIL PE ~,LTIES"; REVISING SECTION 4-5-4 ENTITLED "REGULATION OF PERSONS DER LEGAL AGE"; ENACTING A NEW SECTION 4-5-6 ENTITLED "SALES TO IN OXICATED PERSONS"; "~)ILMS",ALL OF WHEREAS, underage drinking, binge drinking, and the over consumption of alcohol in Iowa City have a significant and negative impact on the health, welfare d morals of its citizens, and result in increased burdents ?n Iowa. City's criminal justic.e sys!em and s. cial services agenc!es; and with such behaviors and activities; and WHEREAS, State law authorizes the City Cot as the licensing authority to impose administrative penalties for, among other thing the Alcoholic Beverage Control provisions of the Iowa Code and ordinances of the City; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Iowa Cit, hold holders of liquor control licenses, wine, or beer permits accountable and responsible , and effectively complying with all state laws and city ordinances with respect to the selling and alcohol to patrons; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to negative impacts associated with such activity and conduct through accountability, enforceme and penalties; and WHEREAS, such accountability, enforcer ;nt and penalties are in the best interests of the health, welfare and morals of the citizens of Iowa C Iowa for the reasons stated above. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINE YHE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. AMENDMENT. Title 4 City Code, entitled "Alcoholic Beverages" is amended, as follows: I. Adding a new section 4-2-3, "Local Review of Application/Investigation of Applicant" as follows: Section 4-2-3: Local Review >lication/Investigation of Applicant A. It shall be the respo ! of the applicant for a liquor control licenS~e beer permit, or wine permit, or a renewal of an~ , to obtain the appropriate application from t City Clerk. B. Prior to submiss n to the City Council, the application must be submitte to the Iowa City application. It shal the responsibility of the Fire Chief, Building Official, and Health Depadment to inspect the and determine if it complies with all applicable state and local laws, rules, and regulatior Chief of Police and County Attorney shall each make an investigation to determine applicant is of good moral character as defined in Section 123.3(26) of the Iowa Code and the Rules of the Iowa Alcoholic Beverages Division. With regard to renewal applications, that investigation shall include any relevant information about prior operations under the license or permit. Disapproval of the application by any of the above must be in writing and must set fo~h the reasons therefore. Each official reviewing the application must complete the investigation and, if applicable, the memo setting forth the reasons for disapproval within five working days following receipt of the application. II. Adding a new section 4-2-4, entitled "Notice and Hearing" as follows: / The City Council shall I licensee or permittee an opportunity to b eard prior to the imposition of a civil penalty, on or revocation or disapproval of an ap ication for renewal. Not,ce may be g,ve. by perso.a,..°.r;a;,t person of the applicant as listed onti least five days before the hearing. se by first-class mail is effective' on mailing and must be given at least six days before "' / III. Adding a new section 4-2-5, entitled Penalties" as follows,~// Section 4-2-5: Civil Penalties A. Any violation of state law, local or the ru of the Alcoholic Beverages Division by any employee, agent, or servant of a or permi shall be deemed to be the act of the licensee or the permittee and shall subject the licensee or permittee to civil penalties, including suspension or revocation. B. The City Council may suspend a licens~ for a period not to exceed one year, revoke the license or permit, or impose a civil per not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) per violation. Before suspension, revocation o~ of a civil penalty the license or permit holder shall be given written notice and o a hearing in accordance with Section 4-2-4. C. A license or permit issued may be su~ revoked, or a civil penalty may be imposed on the license or permit holder by the City of the following causes: 1 ) Misrepresentation of any material in the such license or permit. 2) Violation of any of the ' ' 123, ; Alcoholic Beverages Control provisions of the Iowa Code. 3) Any change in interest in the bus operated under a Class "A," Class "B," or Class "C" liquor license, or any wine beer permit, which change was not previously reported to a by the City Coun 4) Any event which wou resulted in disqualificatic from receiving a license or permit when originally issu 5) An or transfer of the license or pen 6) The failure or on the part of any licensee or to render any report or remit any taxes due ~pter 123 of the Iowa Code. D. A license issued may be suspended for a not to exceed one year for violation of any or or regulation of the City of Iowa Cil to the purchase, possession, sale, supply, di or giving of alcohol when such ordinance or ulation has no counterpart under State E. liquor license or wine or beer permit is suspended a hearing as a result of violation the licensee, permittee, or the licensee's or permittee's ents or employees, the prem' which were licensed by the license or permit shall not be ~sed for a new applicant suspension has terminated or time of suspension has ela or ninety days have since the commencement of the suspension, whichever occurs firs However, this section prohibit the premises from being relicensed to a new applicant .= the suspension has terminated or before the time of suspension has elapsed or before ninety days have elapsed from the commencement of the suspension, if the premises prior to the time of the suspension have been purchased under contract, and the vendor under that contract had exercised the person's rights under Chapter 656 of the Iowa Code and sold the property to a different person who is not related to the previous licensee or permittee by marriage or within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity and if the previous licensee or permittee does not have a financial interest in the business of the new applicant. 2 F. A criminal conviction is not a prerequisite to a suspension, revocation, or imposition of a civil penalty pursuant to this section. G. If the cause for suspension is a first offense violation of section 123.49, subsection paragraph "h" of the Iowa Code or section 4-5.4(B) of the City Code, the City Council shall impose a civil penalty in the amount of five hundred dollars in lieu of suspension of the license or permit. H The City Council sh~ notify the Alcoholic Beverages Division of any action tak~,runder this section and shall ensee or permit holder of the right to appeal a suspensiQ evocation, or imposition of a civil the Alcoholic Beverages Division. I. If any licensee, wine beer permittee, or employee of a licensee or permittee is convicted of selling, giving, supplying any alcoholic beverage, wine, or beer to any person in violation of section subsection 2, paragraph "h" of the Iowa Code or section 4-5- 4(B) of the City Code, in addition ;s fixed for such violations ~he City Council shall assess a civil penalty as follows: a. Upon a first conviction, Jor control license or wine or beer permit shall not be suspended, but rather, iolator shall be assessed a civi in the amount of $500. Failure to pay the civil penalt zill result in automatic susper of the license or permit for a period of fourteen days. b. Upon a second conviction within ;riod of two years, liquor control license, wine permit, or beer permit shall be sus for a period days and the violator shall also be assessed a civil penalty in the $1,500. c. Upon a third conviction within a : three year violator's liquor control license, wine permit, or beer permit shall be sus for of sixty days and the violator shall also be assessed a civil penalty in the d. Upon a fourth conviction within a period the violators' liquor control license, wine permit, or beer permit shall be revoked IV. Repealing in its entirety section 4-5-4 and in-lieu-thereof a new section 4-5-4, entitled "Regulation of Persons Section 4-5-4: Regulation of Persons Ug~r Legal A. A person or person under legal age..Shall not pt to purchase, or individually or jointly have alcoholic liquor, wine, or beer in their sion or control; except in the case of liquor, wine, or beer given or dispensed to a ~1 age within a private home and with the knowledge, presence, and consent of the parent or ~ardian, for beverage or medicinal purposes or as administered to th.,e'person by either a or dentist for medicinal purposes and except to the extent that a .,l?erson under legal age may die alcoholic beverages, wine, or beer during the regular course?of the persoWs employment by uor control licensee, or wine or beer permittee under this cheer. 1. A person who i under legal age, other than a ~r permittee, who violates this section regarding t purchase of or attempt to purchase olic liquor, wine, or beer, or possessing or ha ' g control of alcoholic liquor, wine, or beer, ~ mits a simple misdemeanor punishable by fine of one hundred dollars for the first of s~second or subsequent offense shal e a simple misdemeanor punishable by a fine :tw hundred dollars and the 'n r, t e ~om. unity service w?rk un.der section 909.3A of the Iowa Code, or an uivalent value to the ~ ent of a person or club holding a liquor license or retail wine or beer permit shall not sell, give, or otherwise supply any alcoholic wine, or beer to any person, knowing or failing to exercise reasonable care to whether the person is under legal age, or permit any person, knowing or failing to exercise reasonable care to ascertain whether the person is under legal age, to consume any alcoholic beverage, wine, or beer. 3 2. Any person who violates this section commits a simple misdemeanor ~unishable as a scheduled violation under section 805.8, subsection 10, paragraph "a" of the Ic 3. A person under legal age shall not misrepresent the person's age the purpose of purchasing or attempting to purchase any alcoholic beverages, wine, or from any licensee or permittee. If any .person under legal age misrepresents the person's ag and the licensee or to d permittee establish that the licensee or permittee made reasonabl~ etermine whether the prospecti purchaser was over legal age, the licensee or is not guilty of selling alcoholic liquor, 'ne, or beer to a person under legal age. V. Adding a new section 4-5-6, entitled "Sales to Intoxicated Persons" s follows: Section 4-5-6: Sales To Intoxicate Persons A person shall not sell, dispense, r give to an intoxicated perso , or one simulating intoxication, any alcoholic liquor, wine, or beer· person who violates this p~ vision shall be guilty of a simple misdemeanor. VI. Adding a new secti mitations on as follows: Section 4-6-7: Limitations On Sales A. It shall be unlawful for a holder of a lic control or wine permit or beer permit, or its employees or agents, to do any of the followin 1. Sell, offer to sell, dispense or serve consumption, two or more servings of any alcoholic liquor, wine, or beer to any one ..rson for the price of one such drink. 2. Sell, offer to sell, dispense or serve rises consumption an unlimited number of servings of alcoholic liq I price. 3. Increase the volume of alcoholic liqu~ wine, in a serving, for on-premises consumption, without proportionally g charged for such serving. 4. Sell, offer to sell, dispense or 've for consumption, more than two (2) servings of any alcoholic liquor or beer at any time to any one person. With respect to alcoholic liquor, beel customarily sold in"guantity, such as pitchers of beer and bottles of wine, the licensee, employee or agent shall not sell, offer to sell, dispense or serve such alcc liquor, wine, or beer unless he or she can verify that the person or persons who will ~nsume such alcoholic liquor, wine, or beer are of legal age. 5. Encourage or permit any or tournament of any ~'nd which involves drinking any alcoholic liquor, wine or the awarding of alcoholic liquo wine, or beer as a prize. 6. Dispense, pour, or oth serve any alcoholic liquor, wine, or bee directly into a person's roh~blt a hold of a I~quor control 1 Including servi or drinks of alcoholic liquor wine or beer as part r motel package which ght accommodations. 2. Providing ~rice for an unlimited or indefinite amount of drinks for private catered events. SECTION II. Violations; Penalty. Violations of this ordinance may be prosecu as a simple misdemeanor or as a municipal inf ac :ion, as provided for in this chapter, or as pro ded for in Title 1, Chapter 4 of this Code, as amendeda.r~ SECTION II. Repealer. All ordinal ~c s an parts of ordinances in conflict ith the provisions of this I !Y. If , provision or part of e Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudil ~n shall not affect e validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof adjudicated inv 'i:t or unconstitutional. SECTION IV EFFECTIVE ATE Th~s ~ce shall Passed and approved this ~ day of ; ,2001. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Andy.( Alcohol Prohibitions.12-15-00 04-03-0'1 8 Prepared by: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5030 / ',. ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE MENDING THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, BY O OF APPLICANT"; SECTION 4-24, ENTITI "NOTICE AND HEARING"; "AND SECTION 4-2-5, ENTITLED "CIVIL PE '; REVISING SECTION 4-5-4 E TLED "REGULATION OF PERSONS UNDER AGE"; ENACTING A NEW S TION 4-5-6 ENTITLED "SALES TO II TO: PERSONS"; H L WHEREAS, underage drinkin e drinking, and the over consul of alcohol in Iowa City have a significant and negative im the health, welfare and mo of its citizens, and result in increased burdens on Iowa City's lstice system and social agencies; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City City Council to and discourage underage drinking, binge drinking, and the over of alcohol and negative externalities associated with such behaviors and activities; and WHEREAS, State law authorizes the Council the licensing authority to impose administrative penalties for, among other things, of ~ .holic Beverage Control provisions of the Iowa Code and ordinances of the City; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Iowa City City to hold holders of liquor control licenses, wine, or beer permits accountable and responsible for nd effectively complying with all state laws and city ordinances with respect to the selling and servir : alcohol to patrons; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to address ve impacts associated with such activity and conduct through accountability, enforcement, and WHEREAS, such accountability, enforcement are in the best interests of the health, welfare and morals of the citizens of Iowa City, stated above. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY -IE CITY IL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. AMENDMENT. Title 4 of the , Code, ~olic Beverages" is amended, as follows; I. Adding a new section 4-2-3, Review ation of Applicant" as follows: Section 4-2-3: Local ,n/Investigation of Applicant A. It shall be the res of the applicant for a liquor control beer permit, or wine permit, or a renewal of any ofl obtain the appropriate apF the City Clerk. B. Prior to submission City Council, the application must be to the Iowa City Fire Chief, the Iowa City of Police, the Iowa City Building Official, andJohnson County Health Department and County Attorney, each of whom will approve disapprove the application. It shall be tr responsibility of the Fire Chief, Building Official, and alth Department to inspect the premise determine if it complies with all applicable state and laws, rules, and regulations. Th~ of Police and County Attorney shall each make an ation to determine if the a is of good moral character as defined in Section 123.3 of the Iowa Code and the Ru of the Iowa Alcoholic Beverages Division. With regard to pplications, that investigatic include any relevant information about prior operations ~ license or permit. Disapl of the application by any of the above must be in writing and must forth the reasons the~ Each official reviewing the application must complete the investigatio'n and, if applicable, the memo setting fodh the reasons for disapproval within five working days following receipt of the application. II. Adding a new section 4-2-4, entitled "Notice and Hearing" as follows: 4-2-4: Hearing: / The Ci1 cil shall provide the licensee or permittee an ~ic~io~d prior to the opportunity to imposition of a suspension or revocation or disapproval of an ap for renewal. Notice may be by personal service or first-class mail directed to the m~'nager or contact least five days before c ~%~2~1 i , il must be given at least six days the hearing. III. Adding a new section entitled "Civil Penalties" as follows: Section 4-2-5: Civil Penalties ,,' A. Any violation of state law, ordinance, or the rules of the ~lcoholic Beverages Division a licensee or permittee shall ~ deemed to be the act of the by any employee, agent, or se~ant licensee or the permittee and shall ~ct the license or permit of, d licensee or permi~ee to civil penalties, including suspension or On. B. The City Council may suspend cense or permit fos not to exceed one year, revoke the license or permit, or impose a ~ penalty not to one thousand dollars ($1,000) per violation. Before suspension, revocation imposition civil penalty the license or permit holder shall be given written notice and c , for a in accordance with Section 4-2-4. C. A license or permit issued may be or a civil penalty may be imposed on the license or permit holder by the City following causes: 1 ) Misrepresentation of any material fact in the :ation for such license or permit. 2) Violation of any of the provisions of Chapter the Alcoholic Beverages Control provisions of the Iowa Code. 3) Any change in the ownership or interest 'ness operated under a Class "A," Class "B," or Class "C" liquor control license or beer permit, which change was not previously repoded to and approved 4) Any event which would have in disq from receiving a license or permit when originally issued. 5) Any sale, hypothecation, or of the license or ~_ ..... 6) The failure or refusal on the any licensee or permit e to render any repod or remit any taxes due under Chapter the Iowa Code. D. A license or permit issue be suspended for a perio not to exceed one year for violation of any ordinance or regu ti, of the City of Iowa City relating t the purchase, possession, sale, supply, dispensing or givi of alcohol when such ordinance or re lation has no counterpa~ under State law. E. When a liquor licens or wine or beer permit is suspended after hearing as a result of violation by the licensee, ermi~ee, or the licensee's or permi~ee's agen s or employees, the premises which were lic sed by the license or permit shall not be relicense for a new applicant until the suspension s terminated or time of suspension has elapsed, or ninety days have elapsed since the co mencement of the suspension, whichever occurs first. Ho vet, this section VU the commencer ~nt of the suspension, if the premises prior to the time of the sus nsion have ~nd related to ' licensee or permittee by marriage or within the third degree of consanguinity if the previous licensee or permi~ee does not have a financia~ interest in the business of the new applicant. 2 F. A criminal conviction is not a prerequisite to a suspension, revocation, or imposition of a civil penalty pursuant to this section. G. If the cause for suspension is a first offense violation of section 123.49, subsection 2, paragraph "b," of the Iowa Code or section 4-5-4(B) of the City Code, the City Council shall i pose a civil penalty ii~the amount of five hundred dollars in lieu of suspension of the license or per it. or imposition penalty to the Alcoholic Beverages Division. / I. If any wine permittee, beer permittee, or employee of a licensee qr permittee is convicted of selling, ng, or otherwise supplying any alcoholic beverage, wine,,/br beer to any person in violation ~n 123.49, subsection 2, paragraph "h" of the Iowa Cod~ or section 4-5- 4(B) of the City Code, in ition to criminal penalties fixed for such violations, the/City Council shall assess a civil penalty / a. Upon a first conviction violator's liquor control license or wine perrr]ft or beer permit shall not be suspended, but :he violator shall be assessed a civil p~(~alty in the amount of $500. Failure to pay the civil Ity will result in automatic suspensio~ of the license or permit for a period of fourteen days. / years, the vio tor's liquor control license, b. Upon a second conviction . period of two ~1 wine permit, or beer permit shall be period of t ays and the violator shall also be assessed a civil penalty in ~unt of $1,500. c. Upon a third conviction within a of three years, th liquor control license, wine permit, or beer permit shall be sus for a period and the violator shall also be assessed a civil penalty in d. Upon a fourth conviction within a period the violators' liquor control license, wine permit, or beer permit shall be revoked IV. Repealing in its entirety section 4-5-4 and g in-lieu-thereof a new section 4-5-4, entitled "Regulation of Persons Under Legal Ag Section 4-5-4: Regulation of Persons Under Le Age ~, A. A person or person under legal age shall nl Jrchase 0~l'.~attempt to purchase, or individually or jointly have alcoholic liquor, wine, or beer in ......or control; except in the case of liquor, wine, or beer given or dispensed to ~ under legal a within a private home and with purposes or as administered to the persor ' it i i t i I beer during the regular course of the I r beer permittee under this chapter. 1. A person who is under al age, other than a licensee or perh0ittee, who violates this section regarding the purcha~ of or attempt to purchase alcoholic li or, wine, or beer, or possessing or having :o~ I/ ilc~ ~hc lic liquor, wine, or beer, commits a irapie misdemeanor punishable by a fine of ~ hundred dollars for the first offense. A se nd or subsequent tt its discretion, order the person who is under legal ge to perform year. The cou~ ~ community se~ice ~ under section 909.3A of the Iowa Code, or an equivale ~ value to the B. 1. gent of a person or club holding a liquor control e or retail wine or beer shall not sell, give, or othe~ise supply any alcoholic beverage, wine, or beer to knowing or failing to exercise reasonable care to asce~ain whether the person is gal age, or permit any person, knowing or failing to exercise reasonable care to person is under legal age, to consume any alcoholic beverage, wine, or beer. 3 2. Any person who violates this section commits a simple misdemeanor punishable as a scheduled violation under section 805.8, subsection 10, paragraph "a" of the Iowa Code. 3. A person under legal age shall not misrepresent the person's age for the purpose of purchasing or a to purchase any alcoholic beverages, wine, or beer from any li~ensee or permittee. person under legal age misrepresents the person's age, and the lice, nsee or permittee that the licensee or permittee made reasonable inquiry to d~termine whether the ve purchaser was over legal age, the licensee or permittee is nq~ guilty of selling alcoholic Ikor beer to a person under legal age. V. Adding a nE entitled "Sales to Intoxicated Persons" as follows: .' Section 4-5-6: Sales Persons / A person shall not sell, dis give to an intoxicated person, or one simulating intoxication, any alcoholic liquor, wine, or beer. who violates this provision shall ~e guilty of a simple misdemeanor. // VI. Adding a new section 4-5-7, entitled dtations on Sales", as follows:// Section 4-6-7: Limitations On Sales i/pe A. It shall be unlawful for a holder of a ntrol license, or w rmit or beer permit, or its employees or agents, to do any of the following: 1. Sell, offer to sell, dispense or serve for on-I ~ises cor two or more servings of any alcoholic liquor, wine, or beer to any one price of one such drink. 2. Sell, offer to sell, dispense or serve for on-premk' consumption an unlimited number of servings of alcoholic liquor, wine, or beer for a fixe ice. 3. Increase the volume of alcoholic liquor, wine, in a serving, for on-premises consumption, without proportionally increasln arged for such serving. 4. Sell, offer to sell, dispense or serve for or more than one serving of any alcoholic liquor, wine, or beer at one time to an ~e person. With respect to alcoholic liquor, beer or wine sold in quantity, as pitchers of beer and bottles of wine, the permittee, lice employee or agent lall not sell, offer to sell, dispense or serve such alcoholic wine, or beer unless Dr she can verify that the person or persons who will consL such alcoholic liq are of legal age. 5. Encourage or permit any gam contest or tournament of any kind ich involves drinking any alcoholic liquor, wine, or Ir the awarding of alcoholic liquor, win , or beer as a prize. 6. Dispense, pour, or othe se serve any alcoholic liquor, wine, or beer dire ly into a persoWs '°"'"' B. Exceptions: Nothing ' subsection A shall be construed to prohibit a holder of a liquor control :::::,::.:.:,.,. e I or u as part of a hotel or motel ackage which incluc overnight accommodations. 2. Providir >rice for an unlimited or indefinite amount of drinks for private catered events. SECTION II. Violations; Penalty. Violations of this ordinance may be prosecuted as a sim ,le misdemeanor or as a municipal infraction, as provided for in this chapter, or as provided for in Chapter 4 of tqis Code, as amended. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the of this Ordinance t repealed. SECTION Ill. RABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinanc be adjudged to be invalid or uncons such adjudication shall not affect the validity Ordinance as a whole or any section, on or part thereof not adjudicated invalid or SECTION IV. This Ordinance shall take effect on, 1, 2001. Passed and approved this __ , of MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK City Attorney's Office Andy OrdO Prepared by: Dianna Furman, Customer Service Mgr., 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5065 ORDINANCE NO. 01-3962 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, "UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE", CHAPTER 3, "CITY UTILITIES" SECTION 14-3A-6, ENTITLED "BILLING AND COLLECTION PROCEDURES; DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS" OF THE CITY CODE TO REVISE THE PROCEDURE FOR CERTIFICATION TO THE COUNTY TREASURER OF LIENS FOR UNPAID WATER, WASTEWATER AND/OR REFUSE AND RECYCLING SERVICES. WHEREAS, the City has a fiscal responsibility to effectively manage the collection of unpaid water, wastewater and/or refuse and recycling services; and WHEREAS, the City processes billings for water, sewer and/or refuse and recycling services within 30 days after the end of the billing period; and WHEREAS, if payment in full is not received within 22 days of the billing date the utility account is deemed delinquent; and WHEREAS, City utility services are discontinued to a service location for unpaid, delinquent active utility accounts; and WHEREAS, City utility services are not discontinued to a service location for unpaid delinquent closed or inactive utility accounts; and WHEREAS, the State Code provides that unpaid water, sewer, and/or solid waste collection charges are a lien upon the property or premises served upon certification to the County Treasurer that the rates or charges are due after written notice of intent to certify the lien is given to the account holder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. AMENDMENT. Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 3A entitled "Billing and Collection Procedures: Delinquent Accounts" is hereby amended by: a. Repealing the subsection B(1) entitled "Imposition of a Lien for Unpaid Services" and substituting the following in lieu thereof: B( 1 ): Except as provided in subparagraph "2" below, rates and charges for City utilities not paid as provided by City ordinance are a lien upon the property or premises served, upon certification by the City Finance Director or designee to the County Treasurer that the rates and charges are due. Said lien shall be collected in the same manner as a proper~y tax, as provided by State law. At least ten (10) days prior to such certification, the City Finance Director, or designee, shall give written notice of intent to certify lien by ordinary mail to the account holder of the delinquent account and, if the account holder is a tenant, to the property owner of record. SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION Ill. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Approved by City Attor~y's~%c~c~' 3-/' c,/ ~ntreas\ord~Jien99ord .doc Ordinance No. 01-3962 Page 2 It was moved by 0' Donnel ] and seconded by Vanderhoef that the Ordinance as mad be adopted, and upon roll call them were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: X Champion X Kanner X Lehman X O'Donnell X Pfab X Vanderhoef X Wilbum First Consideration 3/5/01 Voteforpassage: AYES: Vande~'hoef, Wilburn, Champ'ion, Kanner', Lehman, O'Donnel], Pfab. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration 3/20/01 Voteforpassage: AYES: W'ilburn, Champion, Kanner, Lehman, 0'Donne'l'l,Pfab, Vanderhoef. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Date published 4/11/01 Prepared by: Doug Boothroy, Hsg. & Insp. Services, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5121 ORDINANCE NO. 01-3963 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 6, CHAPTER '1 (NUISANCES) OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY BY ADDING STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES TO CONTROL THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES PARKED, STORED, PLACED, OR KEPT OUTSIDE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. WHEREAS, the regulation of the number and location of parked, stored, placed or kept vehicles in any single-family or duplex residential area is necessary in order to preserve the appearance of neighborhoods as predominantly residential in character; and WHEREAS, the outdoor parking, storing, placing, and keeping of vehicles is not intended to be a primary activity in residential areas and regulating these activities will constitute no more than a minimal intrusion on any residential area; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest to provide monitoring, regulation, and inspection of residential properties to prevent the excessive parking, storing, placing or keeping of vehicles outdoors from becoming nuisances, and creating safety concerns. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. AMENDMENT. Section 6-1-1, "Definitions," is hereby amended to add the new definition of "Vehicle": Vehicle: Any device in, upon or by which a person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway or street, excepting devices moved by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks, and shall include, but not be limited to, motor vehicle, automobile, truck, trailer, motorcycle, tractor, buggy, wagon or any combination thereof, whether or not licensed for the current year. Section 6-1-2.Q, "Vehicles illegally parked on private property" is hereby amended by repealing Subsection Q and substituting in its place the following new Subsection Q: Vehicles illegally parked, stored, placed, or kept on private property: 1. The parking, storing, placing or keeping of vehicles upon private property without the consent of the property owner or responsible party shall not be permitted. 2. No more than six operahie vehicles may be parked, stored, placed, or kept outdoors at any one time on any single-family or duplex residential lot. The total may exceed six vehicles if the number of licensed drivers who reside at the residence or whose driver's license is addressed the same as the residence exceeds four, in which case there shall be one additional vehicle allowed for each driver in excess of four. This subsection shall not apply to temporary guest parking where said guest(s) are lodging at the subject residence. With respect to violations of this subsection in existence on or before May 1, 2001, no action to abate the nuisance shall be taken by the City until May 1, 2002. SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. A~y~,~,proved this 3rd day of Apri 1 ,20 01 ITY CL~E'RK · City Attorney's Office Ordinance No. 01-3963 Page 2 It was moved by Vanderhoef and seconded by 0' Donnel 1 that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll cell there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: X Champion X Kanner X Lehman X O'Donnell X Pfab X Vanderhoef X Wilbum First Consideration 3/5/01 Voteforpassage:AYES: O'Donne]l, Vanderhoef, Champion, Lehman. NAYS: Kanner, Pfab, Wi]burn. ABSENT: None. Se~Snd Consideration 3/20/01 Voteforpassage: AYES: Champion, Lehman, O'Donne]], Vanderhoef. NAYS: Kanner, Pfab, Wilburn. ABSENT: None. Date published 4/11/01 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Atkins, City Man ger "" _ . -----.,, FROM:, , . ,~ i rvices RE: i i ion of the Vehicle At the last Council meeting there was some discussion concerning the number of complaints received by Housing and Inspection Services and whether or not the proposed ordinance was drafted to deal with only one situation. The issue of vehicle storage generates approximately 80+ complaints per year. In general, neighbors are complaining about the location, number, condition, and appearance of vehicles as they impact the livability of their neighborhood. The neighborhood complaints about First Avenue share these concerns and, therefore, the First Avenue issue is not unique in terms of the problems that other neighborhoods have faced. The First Avenue issue has exposed a weakness in the enforcement regulations used to address the problem of vehicle storage. The property owner's vehicles are located out of the required front yard (i.e., first 20 feet), stored on paved areas, and have been determined to be operable vehicles. Notwithstanding the property owner's compliance with existing regulations, the problem continues to exist in the neighborhood. While the genesis of the proposed ordinance is specifically from the First Avenue issue, the problem the proposed ordinance addresses is much broader, i.e. a commercial-like use (i.e. vehicle storage) of a residential property in an area zoned only for residential uses. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. hisadm/rnern/vehicles-1 stave.doc