Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-11-01 Public hearing NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, at 7:00 p.m. on the 5th day of October, 2005, in Emma J. Harvat Hall, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk; at which hearing the Council will consider: An ordinance amending Title 14 entitled "Unified Development Code" by repealing chapters 4, 6 and 9 and replacing them with the new Title 14 Zoning Code, amending portions of chapters 1 and 5, renumbering chapters 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10 and 11, and repealing Chapter 12. A Copy of the proposed ordinance is on file for public examination in the office of the City Clerk, City Hall, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons wishing to make their views known for Council consideration are encouraged to appear at the above- mentioned time and place. MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK / ///7 Prepared by: Mitchel T. Behr, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14 ENTITLED "UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE" BY: REPEALING CHAPTERS 4, 6 AND 9 AND REPLACING THEM WITH THE NEW TITLE 14 ZONING CODE, AMENDING PORTIONS OF CHAPTERS 1 AND 5, RENUMBERING CHAPTERS 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10 AND 11, AND REPEALING CHAPTER 12, WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan provides a vision for future development of Iowa City's neighborhoods, commercial and industrial districts and public spaces; and WHEREAS, the Plan envisions healthy neighborhoods providing an array of housing options for the city's diverse population; preservation of historic neighborhoods and landmarks, attractive and vibrant commercial districts, economically sound industrial districts, preservation of environmental assets and accessible trails, parks and open space; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Code adopted in 1983 does not contain the tools necessary to implement the vision of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, after considerable deliberation and public discussion, the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended approval of a new Zoning Code based on the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to update the Zoning Code to implement the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend other chapters of the Code to be consistent with the proposed Zoning Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. The Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa is hereby amended as follows: A. By repealing Title 14, "Unified Development Code," Chapter 4, Land Control and Development," Chapter 6, "Zoning," and Chapter 9, "Development Fees," and substituting in lieu thereof the "TITLE 14, ZONING CODE" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. B. By renumbering Title 14, Chapter 8, "Airport Zoning," to Title 14, Chapter 6 within the "TITLE 14, ZONING CODE" attached hereto. C. By renumbering and renaming Title 14, Chapter 7, "Land Subdivision." D. By renumbering Title 14, Chapter 1, "Streets, Sidewalks and Public Right of Way" and amending it as follows: 1. Section 14-1A-7 is deleted in its entirety and substituted in lieu thereof is the following: "No person shall construct or cause to be constructed any encroachment into or over the public right of way, except as specifically allowed by City Code. For any such encroachment into or over the public right of way that is specifically allowed by City Code, including signs, buildings, and other structures, a Use of Public Right-Of-Way Agreement must be signed by the property owner and approved by the City as a part of the approval process." 2. Section 14-1B is deleted in its entirety and substituted in lieu thereof is the following: Before any person shall cut any curb on any street in the City, the person shall first obtain an Access Permit from the Department of Public Works, which permit shall be issued only on condition that the curb cutting be done in accordance with the provisions of Article 14-5C of the City Code, Access Management Standards. 3. Section 14-1C-2 is deleted in its entirety and substituted in lieu thereof is the following: Sidewalks must be located within the public right-of-way so that the line of the inner edge of the sidewalk is one foot from the property line. In cases where there is practical difficulty meeting this location standard, the City Engineer may modify the location of a sidewalk. 4. Section 14-1C-3A is deleted in its entirety and substituted in lieu thereof is the following: Sidewalks must be constructed, reconstructed and repaired in accordance with the Iowa City Municipal Design Standards, as amended. 5. Section 14-1C-3C is deleted in its entirety and substituted in lieu thereof is the following: The City Engineer may order the repair, replacement, or reconstruction of a public sidewalk upon written notice and as provided by State Law. Such order and written notice shall constitute issuance of a permit as required in subsection B, above. 6. Section 14-1E-1 is deleted in its entirety. Ordinance No. Page 2 7. Section 14~1E-2 is renumbered to 14-1E-1 and amended by deletion of the definitions for "Sign" and "Signs in Public Places" and substitution in lieu thereof the following definitions: "SIGN: As defined in Article 14-9C, Sign Definitions" and "PUBLIC PLACE: Any public street, way, place, alley, sidewalk, park, square, plaza and City-owned right of way or any other public property owned or controlled by the City and dedicated for public use." 8. Section 14-1E-3 is deleted in its entirety and substituted in lieu thereof as section 14-1E-2 is the following: "RESTRICTIONS: No privately-owned signs shall be placed on or over a public place, except as provided for in Section 14-5B-10 of the City Code." 9. Section 14-1E-4 is deleted in its entirety. E. By renumbering Title 14, Chapter 2, "Public Utilities and City Right of Way." F. By renumbering Title 14, Chapter 3, "City Utilities." G. By renumbering Title 14, Chapter 10, "Standards For Public Works Improvement Projects." H. By renumbering Title 14, Chapter 11, "Penalties." I. By deleting Title 14, Chapter 12, in its entirety. J. By renumbering Title 14, Chapter 5, "Building and Housing" and amending it as follows: 1. Section 14-5H is deleted in its entirety, and substituted in lieu thereof is the "SITE PLAN REVIEW" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION II. ZONING MAP. Upon final passage, approval and publication of this Ordinance, as provided by law, because this ordinance renames "Residential/Office Zone (R/O)" to "Mixed Use Zone (MU)", "Neighborhood Conservation Residential Zone (RNC-12)" to "Neighborhood Stabilization Residential Zone (RNS-12)", "Neighborhood Conservation Residential Zone (RNC-20)" to "Neighborhood Stabilization Residential Zone (RNS-20)", and "Public Zone (P)" to "Neighborhood Public Zone (P-l)" and "Institutional Public Zone (P-2)," the Building Official is hereby authorized and directed to change references on the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, accordingly. ~ SECTION III. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION IV. 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 V. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication. Passed and approved this __ day of ,20 MAYOR Approved by CITY CLERK City Attorney's Office S:/LEGAL/Mitch/B/Zoning Code Rewrite/Ordinance/New Zoning Code Ordinance Prepared by: Mitchel T. Behr, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14 ENTITLED "UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE" BY: REPEALING CHAPTERS 4, 6 AND 9 AND REPLACING THEM WITH THE NEW TITLE 14 ZONING CODE, AMENDING PORTIONS OF CHAPTERS 1 AND 5, RENUMBERING CHAPTERS 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10 AND 11, AND REPEALING/CHAPTER 12. / WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan provides a vision for fJure development of Iowa / c'b~mercial and industrial districts and publi(/spaces; and City's neighborhoods, / WHEREAS, the Pl~g, envisions healthy neighborhoods pr(:/viding an array of housing /.,, options for the city's diverse p~ulation, preservation of historic~eighborhoods and landmarks, attractive and vibrant commercia'l~istricts, economically sound/industrial districts, preservation access~{ / of environmental assets and le trails, parks and ope~space; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Code in 1983 contain the tools necessary to implement the vision of the Com and WHEREAS, after considerable discussion, the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended approval Zoning Code based on the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to u Zoning Code to implement the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend .~r chapters o~he Code to be consistent with the proposed Zoning Code. / NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT OP/DAINED BY THE CiTY CO~JxNCIL OF THE CITY OF SECTION I. The Code of Ordin~l'~ces of the City of Iowa City, Iowa i~hereby amended as follo~ws: -- -- /- 'A. By repealing Title "Unified Development Code,'"' Chapter 4,~nd ContrOl and Development," Ch 6, "Zoning," and Chapter 9, "Development Fees," and substituting in thereof the "TITLE 14, ZONING CODE" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Ordinance No. Page 2 B. By renumbering Title 14, Chapter 8, "Airport Zoning," to Title 14, Chapter 6 within the "TITLE 14, ZONING CODE" attached hereto. C. By renumbering and renaming Title 14, Chapter 7, "Land Subdivision." D. By renumbering Title 14, Chapter 1, "Streets, Sidewalks and Public Right of Way" and amending it as follows: 1. Section 14-1A-7 is deleted in its entirety and in lieu thereof is he following: "No person shall construct or be constructed any hment into or over the public right of except as specifically by City Code. For any such encroach ~nt into or over the public n~ way that is specifically allowed by Ci Code, including signs, and other structures, a Use of Right-Of-Way Agreement must ined by the property owner an~ by the City as a part of the apr process." 2. Section is deleted in its entirety substituted in lieu thereof is the following: any person shall any curb on any street in the City, the persor hall first obtain an Permit from the Department of Public Works, ~ich permit shall issued only on condition that the curb cutting be dot in accordance the provisions of Article 14-5C of the City Code, ~anagemer Standards. 3. Section 14-1C-2 is del( in its and substituted in lieu thereof is the following: .c located within the public right-of-way so that the line of the inner f the sidewalk is one foot from the property line. In cases whel is practical difficulty meeting this location standard, the City ineer may modify the location of a sidewalk. 4. Section 14-1C-3A is and substituted in lieu thereof is the following: constructed, reconstructed and repaired in accordance the City Municipal Design Standards, as amended. 5. Section 14-1C-3C is d in its and substituted in lieu thereof is the following: Th Engineer ma )rder the repair, replacement, or reconstruction of a ~lic sidewalk upon ritten notice and as provided by State Law. Suc Jer and written shall constitute issuance of a permit as re( in subsection B, above. 6. Section 14-1E-1 deleted in its entirety. 7. Section 14-1E-; ~s renumbered to 14-1E-1 and by deletion of the definition,· "Sign" and "Signs in Public 5" and substitution in lieu thereof t following definitions: "$I(~N: As ned in Article 14-9C, Sign ns" and "PUBLIC PLACE: Any public ,~et, way, place, alley, park, square, plaza and City-owned ri, of way or any other pub property owned or controlled by the City dedicated for public 8. Section is deleted in its entirety and substituted eu thereof as .4-1E-2 is the following: "RESTRICTIONS: No signs be placed on or over a public place, except as provided for in 14-5B-10 of the City Code." 9. 14-1E-4 is deleted in its entirety. Ordinance No. Page 3 E. By renumbering Title 14, Chapter 2, "Public Utilities and City Right of Way." F. By Title 14, Chapter 3, "City Utilities." G. By renum ,ring Title 14, Chapter 10, "Standards Fo Public Works Improvement Projects." H. By renumberin 'itle 14, Chapter 11, "Penalties." I. By deleting Title 1 Chapter 12, in its entirety. J. By renumbering 14, Chapter 5, "Building a~ Housing" and amending it as follows: 1. Section deleted in its ~nd substituted in lieu thereof is the "SITE PLAN IEW" attached and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION II. ZONING MAP. Upon final and publication of this Ordinance, as provided by law, because this ordinance redesi Residential/Office Zone (R/O)" to "Mixed Use Zone (MU)", and "Public Zone (P)" to "Nei, rhood Public Zone (P-l)" and "Institutional Public Zone (P-2)," the Building Official is hereby ~orized and directed to change references on the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, ]ly. SECTION III. REPEALER. All ordinances Darts of inances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION IV. SEVERABILITY. If any provision o~part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional such adjudication sh~l not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, p~ ion or part thereof not,adjudged invalid or unconsti- tutional. SECTION V. EFFECTIVE DATE. Ordinance shall be in effe~ after its final passage, approval and publication. Passed and approved this~ of ,20 MAYOR Approved by _ERK City Attorney's Office \ S:ILEGALIMitchlBIZoning Code ig Code Ordinance ZONING CODE text Previously distributed in 9/20/05 Regular City Council Meeting Folder Agenda Item # 4a Electronically under "ordinance" subfolder Pages 1-438 Recommended Draft 9/27/05 Site Plan Review CHAPTER 1. INTENT AND APPLICABILITY It is the purpose of this Title to establish a procedure which will enable the City to review certain proposed improvements of property within the City in order to ensure the orderly and harmonious development of property in a manner that will: A, Promote the most beneficial relation between present and proposed uses of larid; B. Allow development of property commensurate with the present and foreseeable availability and capacity of City facilities and services; The following factors shall be considered in arriving at a conclusion concerning proposed development of property: 1. The projected population of the proposed development or the proposed intensity of use and the effect the proposal will have on the capacity of existing water and sanitary sewer lines to avoid overloading existing systems; 2. Zoning regulations at the time of the proposal; 3. The City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and other specific community plans; 4. The City's plans for future construction and provision for public facilities and services; and 5. The existing and planned City facilities and services for the area which will be affected by the proposed site use. C. Ensure compliance with the City Code, as amended, including applicable zoning regulations, approved subdivision plats, public works standards, and public safety standards; D. Encourage adequate provision of surface and subsurface storm water drainage in order to assure that future development and other properties in the City will not be adversely affected; E. Provide screening of parking, truck loading, solid waste disposal and outdoor storage areas from adjacent properties; F. Provide for orderly, safe, and efficient circulation of traffic in the development and throughout the City; G. Minimize adverse environmental impacts on the developing property. Recommended Draft 9/27/05 A. Site Plan Review Required 1. The standards in this Title are in addition to those required by the Uniform Building Code, as amended, and apply to commercial, industrial, and multi-unit residential development. 2. Site plans must be submitted, reviewed, and approved by the City according to the provisions of this Title prior to the issuance of a building permit for any development on any lot, tract or parcel of land as those terms are defined in Title 14, zoning Code, except as exempted below. B, Exemptions Site Plan Review is not required for the development of one single family dwelling or one two-family dwelling or related accessory structures in any zoning district. However, such uses and structures are not exempt from other applicable provisions of the City Code, including requirements of the Uniform Building Code, as amended. C, Hajor Site Plans Major site plans are required for all of the following types of development: 1. Construction of over 12 units residential development and any additions or alterations to existing development containing over 12 units residential; or 2. Over 10,000 square feet of nonresidential floor area. D, Minor Site Plans Minor site plans are required for all development that does not require a major site plan, except as exempted in subsection B, Exemptions, above. E. Sensitive Areas Development Plan A Sensitive Areas Development Plan may be required for properties containing environmentally sensitive features as set forth in Article 14-5! of the City Code, Sensitive Lands and Features. The requirements and exemptions for regulated sensitive features are set forth in Article 14-5!. Level ! Sensitive Areas Review shall be in accordance with the all procedures and approval processes set forth in Chapter 2 of this Title, except for Section 18-2-2, Submittal Requirements. Submittal requirements for Level ! Sensitive Areas Review are set forth in Article 14-5!, based on the type of regulated feature(s) that exist on the subject properb/. 2 Recommended Draf~ 9/27/05 CHAPTER 2. PROCEDURES AND SUBMI"rrAL REQUI'REMENTS An application for site plan approval for all development shall be submitted to the City and shall meet the following requirements: A. A minimum of two copies of minor site plans and four copies of major site plans containing all required information. B. The required review fee, as established by resolution of the City Council, shall accompany the application for site plan approval. C. Within twenty-four hours of submitting an application for major site plan approval, the applicant shall post notice of intent to develop on the site. The notice to be posted will be provided by the City and shall be posted as directed by the City. A. Minor Site Plan Minor site plans submitted for approval must include information as specified below: Date of preparation and north arrow. 2.A scale no smaller than one inch equals one hundred feet (1" = 100') 3.Legal description or street address of the property. 4. Name and address of the owner of record of the property, the applicant and the person(s) preparing the site plan, and the name and address of the applicant's attorney, if any. S. Property lines with dimensions to the nearest one-tenth of a foot (1/10') and total square footage or acreage of the site. 6. Total number and types of dwelling units proposed, proposed uses for all building, total floor area of each building and any other information which may be necessary to determine the number of off-street parking and loading spaces required by Title 14, Zoning Code. 7. Location and exterior dimensions of all existing and proposed structures or additions, including setback distance from property boundary lines and distance between structures. 8. Location, grade and dimension of all existing and proposed paved surfaces, including parking and loading areas, entrance and exit drives, pedestrian walkways, bicycle storage areas, dividers, curbs, islands and other similar permanent improvements. 9. Location of all existing and proposed outdoor recycling, trash, solid waste, and dumpster areas and methods of screening such areas. :~0. Location and type of all existing and proposed signs. Proposed signs may require a separate sign permit (See Article 14-5B, Sign Regulations). Recommended Draft 9/27/05 11. Plans and proposed methods for the prevention and control of soil erosion for the development. 12. A landscaping plot plan is required indicating all existing trees eight inches or larger in diameter measured at a point six inches above the ground level. In addition, the plot plan must distinguish the existing or proposed trees or landscaping intended to satisfy tree requirements or screening requirements of the City Code (See 14-5A-5I, Landscaping and Tree Requirements within Parking Areas and 14-5E, Landscaping and Tree Standards, and any other applicable screening required according to Title 14, Zoning Code.) 13. Location of the following features of the site: a. Streams and other water bodies, including wetlands; b. Areas subject to flooding from a 100-year event; 14. Location, amount and type of proposed lighting, fences, walls or other screening. 15. A detailed lighting plan and photometrics layout which shows the location, type, height, and intensity of all existing and proposed exterior lighting on the property. The photometrics layout must show the foot-candles generated by all lights on the property and provide the total outdoor light output as measured in initial lumens from all bulbs used in outdoor light fixtures. The lighting plan and photometdcs layout must comply with the standards spedfied in Article 14-5G, Outdoor Lighting Standards. 16. Location and specifications for any existing or proposed aboveground or below- ground storage facilities for any chemical, salts, flammable materials or hazardous materials. 17. Other data and information as may be reasonably required by the Building Official. B. Major Site Plans Submittal information for major site plans must include all the information contained in subsection A of this Section, plus the following additional information: 1. Existing and proposed contours at intervals not to exceed 5 feet provided at least 2 contours are shown. Contours of neighboring properties must be provided when deemed necessary by the City. 2. When deemed necessary by the City, a complete storm water runoff plan, including grades and/or elevations of storm sewer systems, direction of surface flow, detention areas, outlet control structures and devices and storm water calculations (See Article 15-3G, Storm Water Collection, Discharge, and Runoff). 3. Location and size of existing and proposed utilities, including water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, gas, electrical telephone, cable TV, plus all existing or proposed fire hydrants. 4. A typical cross section of all proposed streets, alleys and parking areas showing roadway location, type of curb and gutter, paving and sidewalks to be installed. 5. A complete traffic circulation and parking plan. Recommended Draft 9/27/05 A. The City shall review and approve, review and approve with conditions, or review and deny all site plans submitted under this Title within 21 working days after application, without requiring submission of the plan to the Planning and Zoning Commission. B. Upon submission of a major site plan, the Building Official shall promptly convey a copy of the major site plan to the Department of Public Works and the Department of Planning and Community Development for their review and comments. The Departments of Planning and Community Development, Public Works and Housing and Inspection Services shall review the site plan to determine if the design conforms to the standards set forth in this Article. The Departments of Planning and Community Development and Public Works shall forward their recommendations to the Department of Housing and Inspection Services within ten (10) working days after date of submission of a major site plan to the city. C. For major site plans, the Department of Housing and Inspection Services or those owners of 20 percent or more of the property location within 200 feet of the exterior boundaries of the proposed development site may request a review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The request must be in writing and must be filed with the Building Official within 20 days of submission of the original application or within 20 days of the posting requirements set forth in Section 18-2-1, above, whichever is later. When such a request is received, the Planning and Zoning Commission may review and approve, review and approve with conditions, or review and deny said plan within 20 working days of receipt of the written request for Planning and Zoning Commission review. The Commission's scope of review shall be the same as that of the Building Official and the Department of Housing and Inspection Services. D. Upon site plan approval by the Building Official or the Plan and Zoning Commission, a building permit may be issued. The approval of any site plan shall remain valid for one year after the date of approval. The approved site plan shall be null and void if a building permit has not been issued within one year of the site pan approval or if actual construction has not commenced within eighteen (18) months of the site plan approval. "Actual construction" shall mean that the permanent placement of construction materials has .started and is proceeding without undue delay. Any approved site plan may be amended in accordance with the standards and procedures established herein. However, the Building Official may waive such procedures and fees in the event the Building Official determines that the proposed amendment involves only a minor change in the approved site plan and is in compliance with the site plan review standards. For the purposes of this Section minor changes may include, but are not limited to the following: A. A change to move building walls within the confines of the smallest rectangle that would have enclosed each originally approved building, to relocate building entrances or exits or to shorten building canopies. Recommended Draft 9/27/05 B. ^ chan§e to a more restrictive use, provided there is no change in the amount of off-street parking as originally approved. C. A change in angle of parking or a parking aisle width, provided there is no reduction in the amount of off-street parking as originally approved. D. ' A change in location of the ingress and egress drives of not more than 100 feet, provided such change is approved by the City and is in compliance with the provisions of Article 14- 5C, Access Management Standards. E. A substitution of plant species, provided the substituted species is similar in nature and in screening effects and is otherwise in compliance with City Code requirements. F. A change in type and design of lighting fixture, provided there will be no change in the intensity of light at the property boundary and the proposed fixture is in compliance with the applicable provisions of Article 14-6G, Outdoor Lighting Standards. 13. A change to increase peripheral yards. H. The replacement of paved areas with landscaping, provided adequate parking facilities are retained. Recommended Draft 9/27/05 CHAPTER 3. SITE PLAN DESIGN STANDARDS All site plans submitted for City approval must comply with the following design standards. These standards are the minimum standards necessary to safeguard the public health, safety, aesthetics and general welfare of the City and are necessary to fulfill the intent of the Zoning Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan as amended and other specific community plans. A. Drainage The design of the proposed development shall make adequate provision for surface and subsurface drainage to limit the rate of increased runoff of surface water to adjacent and downstream property so that the proposed development will not substantially and materially increase the natural flow onto adjacent downstream property. B, Utility Connections The design of the proposed development shall make adequate provision for connection to water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, electrical and other public utility lines within the capacity limits of those utility lines. C. Fire Safety The design of the proposed development shall make adequate provision for fire protection and for building placement, acceptable location of flammable materials and other measures to ensure fire safety. D. Erosion and Sedimentation Control The design of the proposed development shall comply with the standards for erosion and sedimentation control established in the City design standards in order to protect adjoining or surrounding property. The development plan shall consider the topography and soils of the site to achieve the lowest potential for erosion. E. Landscape Preservation So far as practical, the landscape shall be preserved in its natural state by minimizing tree and soil removal and by topographic modifications which result in maximum harmony with adjacent areas. Structures and other site improvements shall be located in such a manner that the maximum number of trees are preserved on the site. The development plan shall identify existing trees to be preserved and trees to be removed and shall specify measures to be utilized to protect trees during construction. To the extent reasonably feasible, all wetlands shall be retained in their natural state or consistent with their functions and values or be replaced with a wetland of equal or greater value. F. Vehicle and Pedestrian Circulation The design of vehicle and pedestrian circulation shall be provided for safe and convenient flow of vehicles and movement of pedestrians and shall, to the greatest extent reasonably possible, prevent hazards to adjacent streets or property. The City may limit entrances Recommended Draft 9/27/05 and exits upon adjacent streets in order to prevent congestion on adjacent or surrounding streets and in order to provide for safe and orderly vehicle movement. The City may limit street access according to the provisions of Article 14-5C, Access Hanagement Standards. 6, Outdoor Dumpster Areas Outdoor recycling, trash, solid waste, and dumpster areas shall be in compliance with tho City's solid waste regulations and in compliance with screening requirements contained in Title 14, Zoning Code. (See 14-4C-2Q, Outdoor Dumpster Areas) H, Exterior Lighting Exterior lighting shall relate to the scale and location of the development in order to maintain adequate security while preventing a nuisance or hardship to adjacent properties or streets. All exterior lighting must comply with the provisions of Article 14-5G of the City Code, Outdoor Ughting Standards. I. Screening of Equipment All ground level mechanical and utility equipment shall be screened from public view according to the provisions of Title 14, Zoning Code (See 14-4C-2N, Mechanical Structures). J. Screening of Storage and Loading Areas If allowed, all outdoor storage areas must be located and screened according to the applicable base zone provisions of Title 14, Zoning Code. All outdoor storage areas and loading/unloading service areas with delivery facilities, including bay doors or docks, which face or are visible from residential district and the Iowa River shall be screened to a height of no less than 6 feet and must meet all screening standards specified in Title 14, Zoning, for outdoor storage and loading areas. K. Parking Areas Any parking areas or vehicle storage area designed or intended for use by more than four (4) vehicles located adjacent to any street shall be separated and screened from such street by a curbed, planted area as specified in Title 14, Zoning. L. Sensitive Areas All sensitive areas development plans must comply with the applicable provisions of Article 14-5I of the City Code, Sensitive Lands and Features. M. Compliance with City, State, and Federal Regulations Site plans shall comply with all applicable City, State, and Federal regulations. Recommended Draft 9/27/05 CHAPTER 4. ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES No person shall undertake or carry out any activity or use, including any building demolition, grading, clearing, cutting and filling, excavating or tree removal, for which site plan approval is first required by this Title, nor shall such activity proceed prior to obtaining the necessary permits, including local, County, State and Federal permits. Any violation of this provision is subject to fines and penalties described in this Title for each day of the violation, from the day of discovery of the incident until an approved restoration plan or an approved site plan is granted. A. The purpose of the performance guarantee is to ensure completion of improvements connected with a proposed use as required by this Title, including, but not limited to roadways, lighting, utilities, sidewalks, drainage, fences, screens, wall and landscaping. B. "Performance Guarantee" shall mean a cash deposit, certified check, or irrevocable standby letter of credit in the amount of the estimated cost of the improvements, to be determined by the applicant and verified by the City. C. Upon issuance of a building permit, the City may require a performance guarantee. D. When a performance guarantee is required, there shall also be provided a prescribed period of time within which improvements must be completed. E. Where a performance guarantee is not required upon issuance of a building permit and the improvements cannot be completed prior to occupancy or commencement of a use, the Building Official may issue a temporary certificate of occupancy and require the applicant to deposit a performance guarantee as set forth above. F. Upon satisfactory completion of the improvements for which the performance guarantee is required, as determined by the City, the City shall return the performance guarantee to the applicant. G. In the event that the applicant defaults in making the improvements for which a performance guarantee is required or fails to complete the improvements within the time prescribed by the City, the City shall have the right, but not the obligation, to use the performance guarantee deposited, together with any interest earned thereon, to complete the improvements through contract or otherwise. This includes the specific right to enter upon the subject property to make the improvements. If the performance guarantee is not sufficient to allow the City to complete the improvements for which the guarantee was posted, the applicant shall be required to pay the City the amount by which the cost of completing the improvements exceeds the amount of the performance guarantee deposited. Should the City use the performance guarantee or a portion thereof to complete the required improvements, any amounts remaining after completion shall be applied first to the City's administrative costs in completing the improvements, with any balance remaining being refunded to the applicant. At the time the performance guarantee is deposited, the applicant shall enter into a written agreement with the City, which incorporates the performance guarantee requirements set forth above. Recommended Draft 9/27/05 Any violation of this Title shall be considered a simple misdemeanor or municipal infraction or environment infraction as provided for in Title 1, Chapter 4 of the City Code. l0 Page 1 of 2 Marian Karr From: Tim Weitzel or Wendy Robertson [timwendy@avalon.net] Sa - sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 11:53 AM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: Support the New Zoning Code I am writing in support of the proposed new zoning code. It is time the government of Iowa City and its elected officials listen to us, the people who live here in town. I, like many who live in the older neighborhoods in town, favor the elimination of the CB2 designation and support neighborhood commercial and mixed use commercial areas in their place. I support provisions for historic preservation--a critical element in preserving the character, livability, and real estate value of our older neighborhoods. I support elimination of new duplexes built in the middle of the block in RS-8 and suggest that allowing them on comers still provides for ample affordable housing as called for by the scattered sites housing task force and meets the requests of the Neighborhood Council. I will note that in those neighborhoods that already are dominated by duplex and townhouse development that those areas would most likely become RS-12 or OPDH-8 zones. Other key provisions are a win/win for residents and those with real estate concerns. For instance, housing wil~ be more affordable by setting garages on the alley, not in the front yard--This reduces lot width whi:h increases the number of units per acre and increases the potential profit for developers. Provisions to reduce the number of rooming houses will make areas near to downtown more stable as single family residences, whether owner-occupied or rented property, as those areas are more desirable with fewer overcrowded student housing complexes. Also, a the real estate value of a house is greater for one that is well kept and aesthetically pleasing to an educated eye versus one that is shrink-wrapped against the elements but allowed to decay from the inside out. It also does not take a mathematical genius to realize that most houses in the older parts of town are more affordable than those built in new developments. Sweat equity paid through historically sensitive renovation is a great way to move into a house that would otherwise cost more than you can afford. Developers across the country routinely hurdle these sorts of regulations and dozens of others every day of the week and they do so and still make a profit. If left to their wishes, they would prefer that there be no regulations at all. No one wants a factory or a recycling center next to their back yard. If left only to the open market, those who are less-financially advantage will be forced to live in unhealthy locations. The zoning code is how we determine where things are built and when designed correctly everyone has access to safe and affordable housing at their income level. Albert Einstein said that the significant problems that we face today require a higher level of thinking than that which created those problems. I feel there is no need to reduce our community to some sort of lowest common denominator that allows unregulated development and makes life worse for the people who actually form the fabric of our community. It is often said Iowa City would not exist if it were not for the University. That is partly true; but even the University will find it hard to recruit the best people if the town is not collectively deemed a good place to live. Finally, I have to ask why is it that Council seems so willing to go the extra yard to provide advantages to developers who favor urban sprawl. Every 100 feet of city road requires just that much more in expense in the city budget. But it is us who live in the city core who subsidize those costs for the benefit of the developers-- many of who don't even live in Iowa City! Ask yourself; how is the fair. How can the current system continue into the future and not result in a hum- drum, boring, wide spot of the interstate next to Coralville, Iowa? The future is in your hands. Please consider wisely and vote for the new development code. Tim Weitzel 10/24/2005  11 South Gilbert P.O. Box 3396 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 HBA Phone: (319) 351-5333 Fax: (319) 358-2443 E.mail: hbaofic@cs.com www. iowacityhomes.com HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION Adw~cates for homeownership by promoting standards .for quality and affordablility October 20, 2005 Mr. Emie Lehman Ms. Connie Champion Council Member Council Member 410 East Washington Street 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City, IA 52240 Mr. Bob Elliott Mr. Mike O'Donnell Council Member Council Member 410 East Washington Street 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City, IA 52240 Ms. Regenia Bailey Ms. Dee Vanderhoef Council Member Council Member 410 East Washington Street 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City, IA 52240 Ms. Ross Wilburn Council Member 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Re: Zoning Code Dear City Council Members: Please find enclosed a copy of the Land Development Council's Recommendations to the Iowa City City Council Regarding the proposed Zoning Code. Michael J. Pugh {00281801 .D .J~j~tiated with National Association of tlome Builders & ttome BuiMers Association qf lowa LAND DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE PROPOSED ZONING CODE October 26, 2005 Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 I. Residential Zones .................................................................................................... 3 II. Planned Development Overlay Zone ...................................................................... 6 III Sensitive Areas Ordinance ...................................................................................... 8 IV. Open Space Ordinance ............................................................................................ 13 V. Commercial and Industrial Zones ........................................................................... 16 VI Review and Approval Procedures ........................................................................... 17 VII Comprehensive Plan ............................................................................................... 18 VIII Moratorium ............................................................................................................. 20 IX Grand fathering ........................................................................................................ 23 Addendum 1 Subdivision Cost Comparison Addendum 2 Benefit Cost Analysis Addendum 3 Requested Amendments - Residential Zones Addendum 4 Joint Pretrial Statement Addendum 5 Ruling on Writ of Certiorari Introduction The Land Development Council is an association consisting of members of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association and the Iowa City Area Association of Realtors. The Land Development Council represents a majority of the local professionals in the real estate, development and construction industries. This document outlines the Land Development Council's primary concerns with the proposed zoning code ("Proposed Code") being considered by the Iowa City City Council. As an industry that deals with these laws on a daily basis, we appreciate the opportunity to present our position to the Council and hope that the Council will use us as a resource while reviewing this document and adopting a zoning code that will shape the future of Iowa City. We believe a number of aspects of the Proposed Code will have a significant impact on our industry's ability to provide affordable housing. Iowa City is known to have high housing costs when compared to the rest of the State. Many working class citizens, such as teachers, police officers, nurses and firefighters, struggle to find quality affordable homes. This problem particularly affects first time home buyers and seniors. It is important that Iowa City not adopt regulations that will cause housing to be more expensive than it currently is. The Land Development Council believes that the Proposed Code, in its current form would increase the cost of housing in Iowa City. The Land Development Council, the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association, the Iowa City Area Association of Realtors, as well as the National Home Builders Association and the National Realtors Association have reviewed the Proposed Code and believe that the there is a "New Urbanist" emphasis contained within many of the design criteria of the Code. New Urbanism, a planning trend started in the early 1990s, is characterized by its focus on mixed building types and mixes uses; design character; front porches and the street grid; increased density and fostering a sense of community through design. To make it perfectly clear, the Land Development Council has no objection to the concept of new urbanism development. To the contrary, when~ done by a private developer in response to market demands, rather than man~:,i3ed byy~ local governing body, we believe new urbanism or neo-traditional developme~ be~, Very desirable product for some consumers. However, there is a fimdamental ~[~fF~el'ende:~ between private entlt~es applying their creativity and expertise and assuming th~_~ ci~_~ and business risks of a development endeavor and the imposition of th~(~i~e development in a sweeping fashion across an entire city. en~'ated The proposed Development Code does not meet the three goals 15~ City Staff when presenting the purpose of this re-write: (1) to make the code more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; (2) to identify regulatory barriers to affordable housing; and (3) to make the code more predictable, efficient and user friendly. The Proposed Code is a broad, sweeping document that significantly changes the impact and level of involvement the City has with private development. A number of the proposed revisions have been justified as necessary to create a "sustainable community", "liveable neighborhoods" or "pedestrian friendly walkways." This is another way of saying that the proposed regulations are being imposed to satisfy particular aesthetic preferences. {00278521.DOC} 2 Those proposals do not seriously take into account the effect on affordability, market demands or the nature of private enterprise. Citizens should have the right to build the home of their choice, without constraints resulting from garage placement standards or trim width requirements. Likewise, building and development professionals need the ability to provide those options to their consumers. Zoning laws are intended to promote the "health, safety, morals or general welfare of the community", not to dictate design requirements that may not be desirable for the citizens or economically feasible. The zoning code should accommodate both the diverse market for housing and give developers the flexibility needed to meet those needs. The Proposed Code, as currently drafted, does not accomplish that. Although some City staff and Councilors have indicated that the Proposed Code is not New Urbanism, the Land Development Council is less concerned with labeling the philosophy than discussing the effect it will have - which is to increase the cost of housing, ignore market demands and limit consumer choice. I. Residential Zones A. The Proposed Code increases lot widths in each of the Single Family Zones, thereby increasing the cost to consumers and discouraging affordable housing. One of the most fundamental changes contained in the Proposed Code is an increase in the minimum lot width in the single family residential zones. This change will have a significant impact on affordable housing. The proposed code increases minimum lot widths for most single-family zones by 10 feet. See Table 2A-2: Dimensional Requirements in Single-Family Residential Zones on page 16. This proposal alone will lead to an aggregate increase in the amount of land consumed per home and contribute to urban sprawl. Zoning District Current Lot Widths Proposed Lot Widths RS-5 60 feet 70 feet CD RS-8 45 feet 55 feet ~>© RS-12 45 feet 55 feet The Proposed Code also reduces the minimum front yard setback to-q-5?,]iin a~.l~, residential zones. See also Table 2A-2: Dimensional Requirements in Sing~Z~.ami~ Residential Zones on page 16. This is problematic given that utility ease~nQs ai~ usually located in the first 15' of the front yard. Even if the easement agreeme'hq were 40 permit the owner to plant landscaping and trees in the easement area, it is likely that any trees or landscaping would be destroyed and not repaired in the event maintenance is ever required in the easement area. Although the proposed setback is 15', the garage setback is 25'. Table 2A-2: Dimensional Requirements in Single-Family Residential Zones on page 16. The Land Development Council believes this is an attempt to push garages behind the front of the house. Furthermore, a number of homeowners may not want a home design that allows {00278521.DOC} 3 the garage 10' behind the front fagade of the home, therefore the streetscape is likely to have some houses set back 15' and others set back 25'. We do not believe this Would make an attractive streetscape or one that is commonly found in today's housing market. The Land Development Council believes the Current 20' setback is more desirable and allows developers the choice and flexibility to increase the setback to accommodate larger front yards and the ability for enhanced landscaping. The Land Development Council recommends that the setback be amended to 20' for dwellings and garages. B. Garage standards increase consumer cost and decrease consumer choice. The design standards in Section 14-2A-6 of the Proposed Code require alleys on all lots less than 60 feet unless the garage is set back equal to or behind the front faCade of the house. Further, the garage can be no more than 50% of the length of the front facade of the house. The 50% requirement is particularly burdensome as it will require a house with a 2 car garage to be 20 plus feet wide on the non-garage front facade. This requirement eliminates many popular house plans and encourages larger and more expensive houses if the developer or homebuyer wishes to have a different design. If Council approves the Proposed Code containing these design mandates, it is telling citizens that they enjoy the right to design their home as they see fit, however if they cannot afford to live in a home on larger than a 60' lot, the City will impose certain design requirements that may significantly affect the design of the home tl~ wan~'~,b build. The Land Development Council recommends that Section 14-2A-6 be d~'t~d. C. The "Density Bonuses" provided in the Proposed Co~e significant bonuses when compared to the current code. The Proposed Code also permits a developer to increase the density r~:~i~rojcre2 by reducing minimum lot widths if the developer complies with certain garage-3gtandar~.~. See Section 14-2A-7 on pages 21-23. The Proposed Code refers to this as a "density bonus" however, this bonus is really not much of a bonus when compared to minimum lot widths permitted under the current code. The cost projections provided by City Staff that show this "bonus" to be beneficial and cost efficient compare costs of bUilding with the "density bonus" to the increased lot widths required by the Proposed Code. When the "density bonus" is compared to the minimum lot widths permitted under the current code, the bonus is significantly less beneficial. Attached as Addendum 1 and 2, respectively, are the cost calculations provided by the City Staff and the cost calculations prepared by the Land Development Council. It is important to note that the cost of alleys, one suggested method of meeting the garage design requirements, does not compensate for the additional infrastructure costs resulting from increased lot widths in a RS-5 Or RS-8 zone. If the goal is to create affordable housing, the solution is not to increase lot widths and permit builders to only build what they are able to build under the current code if they comply with design requirements. The Land DeveloPment Council encourages the {00278521.DOC} 4 City to maintain current lot widths and delete all design standards, include garage placement standards. D. The Proposed Code significantly reduces the locations in which zero- lot homes and duplexes can be built, which limits one of our most affordable types of housing. Zero-lot homes and duplexes provide cost-efficient and affordable housing for a number of families in our community. Both of these housing choices are popular options for integrating more affordable housing into the overall development community. The Proposed Code limits zero-lot homes and duplexes to comer lots only in RS-5 and RS-8 zones. See Section 14-4B-4 (A)(2)(b) on page 176. In addition to limiting the areas in which these types of homes can be built, the Proposed Code also adds the following mandatory and costly design requirements to these homes: the main entrance of each unit must face a different street (Section 14-4B-4 (A)(2)(d)(1) on page 177 for RS-5 and RS-8 zones); · the main entry must be demarcated by a covered porch or canopy or a transom and sidelight windows (Section 14-4B-4 (A)(2)(d)(3) on page 177 in the RS-5 and RS-8 zones and Section 14-4B-4 (A)(3)(c)(2) on page 179 in the RS-12 zone); · the same garage standards as discussed in single and multi-family apply in the RS-5 and RS-8 zones (Section 14-4B-4 (A)(2)(e) on page 177); · all windows, doors and roof eaves must be demarcated with 3" trim (Section 14- 4B-4 (A)(2)(f)(1) on page 177 for the RS-5 and RS-8 zones and Section 14-4B-4 (A)(3)(d)(1) on page 179 in the RS- 12 zone); · all roof eaves must project at least 12" from the building wall (Section 14-4B-4 (A)(2)(f)(2) on page 177 and Section 14-4B-4 (A)(3)(d)(2) on page 179 in the RS- 12 zone); and · no unpainted or unstained lumber may be used along any facade visible from a public or private street (Section 14-4B-4 (A)(2)(f)(3) on page 177 and Section 14- 4B-4 (A)(3)(d)(3) on page 179 in the RS-12 zone). Restricting zero-lot and duplex dwellings to comer lots and having each unit face a different street within the RS-5 zones may be feasible. However, zero-lot line homes and duplexes should be permitted on interior lots in the RS-8 zone and the restrictive and unnecessary design mandates should be removed entirely. The RS-12 zone takes a positive step forward by allowing attached and zero-lot housing by right. Unfortunately, that is the only positive change to this particular section. Again, the design mandates in this section are inappropriate and merely add unnecessar~.~e those homes. The additional requirements of added design elements fo~_ or,r( o14 cost to be~ more attached units are also unnecessary, including where and how much bric~g~ ~-* included on the building; standards for the front faCade and manipulation of t'oc~mes~ See Section 14-4B-4 (A)(4) on page 180. -~ ~ -~a For specific recommended amendments to the Proposed Code, please see~ 79 attached Addendum 3. ~ c~-~ {00278521.DOC} 5 II. Planned Development Overlay Zone A. The Planned Development Overlay process should provide the developer and the City with flexibility and the ability to create new and innovative types of development. The purpose of having a Planned Development Overlay (OPD) process in a zoning code is to permit developers and planners to creatively plan developments that do not strictly meet the criteria of the underlying zoning classification. OPD should be used to encourage and approve new and innovative development ideas that meet the needs of Iowa City residents. A Planned Development should be used to permit a developer to preserve natural amenities, efficiently use the topography of the land, facilitate affordable housing or otherwise provide some type of creative or innovative development project. It should never be a requirement for a particular type of development that otherwise meets all of the requirements of the underlying zoning designation. If the City is sincere in wanting to create innovative districts of housing, then it should develop zoning which allows for innovative development, like mixed-use or infill development, by right; not through the OPD rezoning process. B. The Proposed Zoning Code significantly and expands the reach of the Planned Development Overlay process without good cause or any stated justification. Land Development Council believes that the Planned Development Overlay (sometimes referred to as "OPD") process is not a process that encourages collaboration and creativity between the developer and the City. Instead it has become a means for the City staff to require developers to incorporate particular building and design preferences into their developments. The Proposed Code drastically expands the reach of OPD, which will continue this trend, making OPD a much less desirable choice for developers in the future. Section 14-3A-2 of the Proposed Code provides a list of "Categories of Planned Developments," which includes Sensitive Areas Development, Conservation Development, Neo-Traditi0nal Development, Mixed Use Development, Infill Development, Manufactured Housing Parks and Condominium Development. See pages 112-113 of the Proposed Code. It is unclear from this Section whether OPD is merely an option for these types of developments or whether these types of developments are required to use the OPD process. The Land Development Council recommends that the Proposed Code be clarified so that the enumerated "categories of planned development" are options only if there are requested modifications to the underlying zon_i_ng or subdivision requirements, and not require each of those development categori~6~:_to be automatically subject to the OPD process. There is n° justification for forcil~ fl~.se developments that meet the zoning and other code requirements to go through process. {00278521.DOC} 6 C. Planned Development Overlays should not be required any time a development project meets the requirements of the underlying zoning designation and subdivision standards. There is no justification for forcing development projects to go through the OPD process when the developer is not requesting any variances or deviations from the underlying zoning designation or subdivision ordinance. If an Infill Development, Manufactured Housing Park or Condominium Developments meets the requirements of the Zoning Code, what reason does the City have to require it to undergo an OPD process? Mandating a Planned Developer Overlay for these types of developments is a significant change from the Current Code and will have a dramatic effect on development in Iowa City. Section 14-3A-4(K) of the Proposed Code contains standards for developments where a change from the underlying zoning requirements or street standards is requested. This is the only situation in which a Planned Development Overlay Rezoning should be mandated; where the developer is requesting modifications from the underlying zoning requirements or subdivision standards. However, subsection (1)(c)(2) of this section requires the design standards regarding garages that were clearly rejected by City Council during an OPD application reviewed in 2004. See page 119. The Land Development Council recommends that the Council delete this section entirely. In addition, the Land Development Council encourages the City to adopt a policy for Planned Development Overlay zones that only permits the City to address issues caused by the deviations from the zoning code sought by the developer. The OPD regulations should not require anything more stringent than what is required by the underlying zoning classification, except where required to accommodate the changes being requested by the developer. OPD should not be used by the City staff to design an entire development. It should be used to permit a developer to do something innovative and the City's review should be limited to mitigating the effect resulting from the deviations from the underlying zoning requirements or subdivision ordinance. For example, if a developer wishes to use the planned development process to increase the allowed density because a sensitive feature is located on the property, than tl:te_ reviews; should be limited only to the impact that density would have on objectively ~.~entifie~l~ ...... matters such as traffic, dehvery of c~ty services and other measurable criteria. D. Planned Development Overlays should not be required ~) any~ i .... projects containing Level II Sensitive Areas provided the development ~.~08 th_~ requirements of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. The Proposed Code requires a Planned Development Overlay for at-l- developments which contain Level II Sensitive Areas. See Section 14-5I-3(B) on page 316. The Land Development Council recognizes and agrees with the importance and value of preserving sensitive environmental features, however we do not believe the existence of those features should result in the developer being required to go through a Planned Development. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance outlines the additional protections that certain sensitive features require, including mitigation, buffer area requirements and {00278521.DOC} 7 avoidance. If a development meets the requirements of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance and the underlying base zone, there is no justification for requiring an OPD. To do so merely adds an unnecessary and costly layer of review, with the potential of additional requirements imposed by the City having nothing to do with the sensitive features of the site. This change would be consistent with the Duncan Report, which recommended that the City Council consider implementing its Sensitive Areas Ordinance' through administratively reviewable development standards, rather than through the planned development process. E. The residents of Planned Developments should not have the additional burden imposed by the code to pay for amenities the City desires to construct. Section 14-3A~4(J)(1) provides that Planned Developments must dedicate land for public open space, pay a fee in lieu or some combination thereof, as in other zones. This Section goes on to provide, however, that "in the event that the dedicated land will contain amenities, such as trails, that will serve the residents of the proposed development, the City may require such amenities be installed by the developer with the costs shared jointly by the developer and the City based on an estimate of proportional use by the residents of the proposed development." Section 14-3A-4 (J)(1)(b) on page 117. This section places an unnecessary burden on the residents of the subdivision to bear the expense of public improvements that benefit the general public. III. Sensitive Areas Ordinance A. The Proposed Code is a significant departure from the Curg6rrt.!Co~i~ by requiring any land containing Level II Sensitive Areas to be developed~c~rdi~ to the criteria of a Planned Development Overlay Rezoning. Current Code Sensitive Areas Overlay Zoning and Sensitive Areas Development Plan. Section 14-6J, Overlay Zones, of the City Code of Ordinances provides for five types of overlay zones, each for a different specific purpose. Generally, the function of an overlay zone is to provide' flexibility in developing real estate by modifying the underlying development requirements applicable to that zone when consistent with identified public interests. When a Sensitive Areas Development Plan is required, the purpose of the plan is to delineate the protected sensitive areas and associated buffers, and otherwise demonstrate compliance with the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Under the Current Code, the Sensitive Areas Development Plan is to be submitted and approved as part of a Sensitive Areas Overlay COSA') rezoning. Once approved, the Sensitive Areas Development Plan becomes the substantive part of the rezoning and thereafter dictates development requirements that supersede all or at least some portion of the requirements of the underlying zone, by controlling development on real estate that includes protected sensitive areas. Under the Current Code, approval of a Sensitive Areas Development Plan and OSA rezoning is to be by ordinance in accordance with the Planned Development {00278521.DOC} 8 Housing Overlay Zone (OPDH)procedures as specified in Section 14-6J-2D of the City Zoning Ordinance. Subsection 14-6J-1 of the Current Code, provides in part as follows: "The definitions, procedures, requirements and exemptions for the Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone (OSA) are set forth in Article K of this Chapter, entitled Environmental Regulations, Section 14-6K-1, Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Review and approval of a sensitive areas overlay rezoning shall be in accordance with the procedures and regulations governing planned development housing overlay rezonings, as specifie~Jn Subsection 14-6J-2D of this Article." CD This same language is also set out in the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. (~¢'i~4-6~ 1(C)(3)(c)). .-<r · . · ~ ~ ~ As these subsections clearly state, the substantive reqmrements of the~O~k zone .... ' · are set forth among the enwronmental regulations of the Sensitive Areas '~rd~nan~, while the procedures for review and approval of an OSA rezoning are the same as those to be used for an OPDH rezoning. The OPDH rezoning provisions were in existence when the OSA rezoning provisions were adopted. Rather than the City Council providing a whole new set of approval procedures for OSA rezoning, it simply adopted the review and approval procedures already existing for OPDH rezoning. However, it is important to emphasize that only review and approval procedures of the OPDH zone, and not its substantive provisions, are applicable to an OSA rezoning. The OSA zone substantive requirements are specified exclusively within the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Specific design guidelines for Sensitive Areas Development Plans are contained at Section N (14-6K-(N)) of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. The portions of Section N, if any, that are applicable to a particular Sensitive Areas Development Plan depends on the specific environmentally sensitive features of the property as well as the nature and extent of the proposed development activities that may affect those environmentally sensitive features. Specifically, under the Current Code, Section N is only to be used if the applicant wishes to modify the requirements of the underlying zoning district. The Reviewer's Guide to the Proposed Code, Which has been produced 'by City staff, states that "[t]here are very few substantive changes proposed in this draft of the sensitive areas ordinance" and that "most changes...involve moving sections around to make the process more clear, deleting repetitive language, and supplying clarifying language where there has been some confusion in the past." This summary fails to mention the most significant change to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance - that a Level II Sensitive Areas Rezoning is now reviewed under the substantive requirements, or approval criteria, of a Planned Development Overlay. City staff have stated that the changes to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance in the Proposed Code do not change the existing sensitive area overlay zoning procedure. This is untrue. City staff also frequently advise developers that if a development requires a Sensitive Areas Overlay rezoning, the developer is required to comply with the substantive requirements of the OPDH ordinance. This is also not accurate. As outlined above, in a Sensitive Areas Overlay, the approval procedures of OPDH apply, but the substantive approval criteria {00278521.DOC} 9 for the rezoning does not. This was the result in a recent case brought by a developer against the City of Iowa City. In SouthGate Development Company, Inc. vs. The City of Iowa City, Iowa, a developer sued the City of Iowa City, claming that the City's denial of its Sensitive Areas Overlay rezoning was illegal. In that lawsuit, the City of Iowa City stipulated as follows: That §14-6K-1(C)(1)(c) of the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance requires the review and approval of a sensitive areas planned development to be in accordance with the Planned Development Housing Overlay Zone (OPDH) procedures, as specified in §14-6J-2D of the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance. The design standards set forth in §14-6J of the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance (Overlay Zones) are not applicable to a review of all Sensitive Areas Development Plan. See Paragraph 17 of the Joint Pretrial Statement attached hereto as Addendum 4. In that case, the City of Iowa City argued that it could deny the developer's rezoning application based on the "intent" section of the OPDH ordinance. The Court found that the "intent" provisions of the OPDH section of the Code do not "supercede or expand the 'purpose' provisions of [the Sensitive Areas Ordinance]." The Court found that the City's permissible legal review of that Sensitive Areas plan did not include general issues of welfare and public interest as is the case in most rezoning matters. See Ruling on Writ of Certiorari attached hereto as Addendum 5. The Court would not have reached the same result in that case under the Proposed Code. C) Proposed Code .~-:. The Proposed Code is a significant departure from the existing ordinan ~c_~ Proposed Section 14-5I-3(B)(3) provides (see p. 316): '-<1 "A Level II Sensitive Areas Review is considered a type of plan~." development and as such must comply with the approval criteria ~set forth in Article 14-3A, Planned Development Overlay and will be reviewed according to the approval procedures for a Planned Development Overlay Rezoning as set forth in Article 14-8D, Planning and Zoning Commission Approval Procedures." (Emphasis supplied). A Level II Sensitive Areas Review, which requires the approval of a Sensitive Areas Development Plan, is currently approved in accordance with the approval procedures contained within a Planned Development Overlay Rezoning. However, requiring a Level II Sensitive Areas Review to also meet the approval criteria set forth in the Planned Development Overlay is a significant and material departure from the Current Code. The proposed Planned Development Overlay Ordinance also makes specific reference to requiring a Level II Sensitive Areas Review to meet the approval criteria of a Planned Development Overlay. {00278521 .DOC} 1 0 The result of this change is that, in the event that property contains environmentally sensitive features which require a Level II Sensitive Areas review, the applicant will have to meet the objective substantive requirements of.' 1) the underlying zoning designation; 2) the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (see pps. 317 through 330); and 3) the substantive requirements set forth in a Planned Development Overlay (see pps. 113 through 124). This is true even if the applicant has not requested any modifications to the underlying zoning or subdivision requirements. The approval criteria set forth in Article 14-3A, Planned Development Overlay contain several design standards that have nothing to do with protecting environmentally sensitive features. (Please see Proposed Code, pps. 113 through 124). It is the Land Development Council's recommendation that all Sensitive Areas Development be approved in accordance with Article 14-8B, Administrative Approval Procedures. This administrative review of the Sensitive Areas Development Plan would be consistent with a Site Plan or permit review. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance contains very detailed requirements for delineating and protecting sensitive features and should, therefore, be applied as an administrative review, rather than as a rezoning process· An OSA rezoning should only be applicable if a specific development plan also includes elements of a planned development housing overlay, a historic preservation overlay, a conservation overlay or design review overlay, which are frequently not applicable to many developments that have environmentally sensitive features. The design criteria found at Section N of the Current Code, which are only applicable if the applicant wishes to modify the underlying zoning or subdivision requirements, should also remain, or be specifically included within the OPDH desigg guidelines. These are much more specific criteria that are applied in the ~)ntext · protecting environmentally sensitive features, which the OPDH ordinance:-.it6e-'s np~ provide. ."-0 -< r'o .... The City's review of a property containing sensitive features should--b~i':~er .e administrative and not legislative. The City Council's review of a Sensili~&':.,Are~ Development Plan should be substantively an admlmstratxve or quasl-judlc___~ revlet~, similar to the administrative review process by a board Of adjustment. A broa~exerci~ of legislative discretion should not be permissible in the context of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. City councils act in an administrative capacity in carrying out statutes. Oakes Construction Company v. City of Iowa City, 304 N.W.2d 797, 799 (Iowa 1981). The City Council should act in an administrative capacity in carrying out the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. It retains administrative oversight of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance to approve or deny Sensitive Areas Development Plans. Based on this retained administrative oversight, the City should be bound to comply with the provisions of the ordinance, which do not provide the City unlimited discretion to impose additional requirements on an applicant that, although may be contained in the requirements of an OPDH, have nothing to do with protecting environmentally Sensitive features. {00278521.DOC} 1 1 Duncan Associates, the City's own zoning expert consultant, recognized the City Council's review of these matters as substantively administrative. (See Duncan Report pps 38-39). Duncan Associates recommended that the Sensitive Areas Ordinance should be implemented through a "development standards" approach, while retaining the OPDH zone as a voluntary right for developers with unique innovative proposals. "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 ts also ~ ....... ~,i> ~_~ observatton that the extst~ng process tends to result tn tssues betng rai~Q in the overlay rezoning process but are sometimes completely unrelate~b.:7¢ the sites environmental characteristics." (see Duncan ReporL p. 39). There is no broad discretion grated to the City Staff in either the Sensz~eas Ordin~ce or ~14-6J-2D of the Cu~ent Code that should pe~it the consid~ation additional or alternative requirements or st~d~ds other ~an those that ~e applicable ~d ~iculated in the Sensitive ~eas Ordin~ce. Allowing broad legislative oversight ~der the approval criteria 0f ~14-3A-4 of the Proposed Code rather th~ using a "development" st~d~ds approach, has broad implications for developmem in Iowa City. It would be inappropriate for City staff ~d Council members to consider ~y factors other th~ those listed in ~ 14-6K-1 dealing ~th enviromentally sensitive features. OPDH rezoning should only be required when the developer requests modifications to the ~derlining zoning or subdivision regulations. The Council should look to the "manifest objects and purpose" of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, which is to protect enumerated environmentally sensitive features while permitting the owner to use the property at the density of the underlying zone. The City should have no discretion to consider factors other than those listed in the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Allowing broad legislative discretion is not consistent with the purposes of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. There is no need nor basis to rely on broader police power zoning and/or subdivision considerations when no typical issues pertaining to zoning and subdivision are at issue, such as use, density, yard requirements or new public infrastructure. Rather, the City Council has already exercised its legislative discretion in adopting the Sensitive Areas Ordinance as part of the general zoning ordinances for the City. In doing so, the Council fully considered the broader public interest issues and adopted rules and regulations applicable to properties containing identified environmentally sensitive features. Furthermore, a fundamental principal of municipal law is that the City, when exercising its general police power through regulatory ordinances, must be specific and avoid vague and ambiguous regulations. The public must be able to understand the laws that affect them. If City Councilors have broad discretion to impose, at their whim, otherwise unarticulated standards, then citizens will have no reasonable advance understanding of the rules and regulations that may be applicable to property they own or may wish to acquire. {00278521.DOC} 1 2 Allowing the City broad discretion to impose its own development guidelines, from time to time, for specific properties creates an impossible scenario for reasonable notice to the public and invites decisions that are arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to express ordinances. B. The phrase "grove of trees" effectively operates as a new sensitive areas definition under the proposed Code. A "grove of trees" is defined as "10 or more individual trees having a diameter of at least 12 inches, and whose combined canopies cover at least 50 percent of the area encompassed by the trees." Under the Current Code (Section 14-6K-1 (B)), a grove of trees is considered part of the Wooded Area regulations. While areas that qualify as a Wooded Area must submit either a Sensitive Areas Site Plan, apply for a sensitive areas overlay rezoning or both, the current regulations require delineation if the grove of trees is a part of a Woodland Area or if there is a "Woodland Clearing". The Proposed Code subjects "grove of trees" to the same regulations as "Woodlands" which are defined as "[a]ny tract of land with a contiguous wooded area not less than 2 acres and containing not less than 200 forest trees per acre". See Section 14-51-2 (B)(3). Groves of trees, though much smaller than woodlands, would be subject to the same buffer requirements listed in 14-5I-9(C). This is so even though these "groves of trees", as defined in the Code, are arguably of less ecological significance than woodland areas. The Land Development Council believes this is the wrong approach and recommends at the minimum, "grove of trees" remain a part of the definition of"Wooded Areas" and only be subject to review in the event there is a woodland clearing or a woodland area in excess of two (2) areas and containing not less than 200 forest trees per acre. C. The City should defer to federal and state review of wetlands. Given that one of the goals of the Proposed Zoning code is to simplify and streamline the code, the Land Development Council recommends that the Ci~avoid~i~ redundant regulation of jurisdictional wetlands by deferring to state and federally, eency*-~ ~ .... . . :egt~ant~OsnS.. Th~s slmphfies the current code w~thout sacrificing the prote~.onjj IV. Open Space Ordinance A. The City's proposed use of open space fees for Neighborhood l~rks orc~,~ amenities is not a sufficient special benefit to the residents of the development and is therefore illegal under the Homebuilders case. The Neighborhood Open Space Requirement section requires "development, which creates a need for neighborhood open space ("open space impact") to pay a proportionate share of the City's capital improvements to fulfill said open space impact." This section provides a procedure for dedicating land for neighborhood open space or {00278521.DOC} 13 paying a fee in lieu of dedicating land for the City's use in creating open spaces, parks, recreation facilities and greenways/trails. The Land Development Council's primary concerns relate to the fees in lieu of dedication and the manner in which those fees are handled. Section 14-5K-6 regarding "Use of Funds" requires the City to deposit fees in lieu of dedication into a special "neighborhood open space account" designated by the name of the contributing development. This section provides that "all payments will be used to acquire or develop open spaces, parks, recreation facilities and greenways/trails that are located within the Neighborhood Open Space District containing the subject subdivision or planned development and will benefit the residents of the subdivision or planned development for which payment has been made." Although this language is more narrowly drafted than the first proposed version of the Proposed Code, which did not limit the expenditure of funds to the same Neighborhood Open Space District as the development, we still believe that this use is still too broad and does not meet the standard set forth by the Iowa Supreme Court in Home Builders Association of Greater Des Moines v. City of West Des Moines, 644 N.W.2d 339 (Iowa 2002). In Home Builders Association of Greater Des Moines v. City of West Des Moines, the HBA of Des Moines challenged the City of West Des Moines' Neighborhood Park Dedication Fee, used by the City to fund neighborhood parks that were also located in the same park district as the subdivision. In that case, the Iowa Supreme Court found that the fee was an illegal tax. Although the City argued that the fee could be justified under its police power as granting a special benefit on the basis that the fee was spent "solely on neighborhood parks to the benefit of the developers and homebuilders whose activities generate the need for such facilities," the Court found that fees used "solely on neighborhood parks" do not specially benefit neighborhood res~j~nts and are therefore an illegal tax. The Iowa Supreme Court stated: First of all, a neighborhood park is not provided specifically to the CD residents of a development or even the neighborhood in which it is ,-< located. A neighborhood park is available for general public use and benefits the entire community. Therefore if the fee is to be justified under the City's police power as conferring a special benefit, it must provide some benefit to nearby property beyond the mere existence of the park. Therefore it is the Land Development Council's position that this fee is illegal and should not be adopted as drafted. The Land Development Council proposes a requirement that the City use the Open Space Fee within the boundaries of the development or return the fee to the owners of the lots or units within the development. B. The Proposed Code permits the City to keep the fee for too long of a period of time and unfairly requires the residents of the development to request a refund if the City does not use the fees. Section 14-5K-6 gives the City five years from the date the funds are received to use the funds, with the ability to extend that period for another five years if less than 50% {00278521.DOC} 1 4 of the subdivision has been constructed. See page 343. This is too long of a time period. The Land Development Council recommends that this be changed to two years, with the ability to extend it an additional two years if less than 50% of the subdivision has been constructed. Section 14-5K-6(C) requires the property owners of that subdivision to specifically request that the funds be returned if the City does not use the funds within the 5 years permitted. See page 343. The owners must request the refund from the City within 180 days of the expiration of the five years. It is unclear how the owners are supposed to know whether the fees have been used by the City, given that the current draft only requires the City to use the funds within the Neighborhood Open Space District. If the fees are truly placed in a separate account, as the Proposed Code provides, the fees should be automatically refunded to the property owners if the fees are not used as provided in the section. It would be a minimal burden for the City to establish an "expiration date" on the open space account and return unused funds to the property owners at the end of the term provided. Requiring the property owners to request a refund of the fees is a back door attempt to levy a tax or impact fee. The section does not provide what happens if the right to a refund expires; presumably the fee paid goes into the general fund. Allowing the funds to be placed into the City's general fund at the expiration of the City's grace period (whether it be 5 years or 2) results in the "fee in lieu of dedication" being used as an impact fee, which is illegal under Iowa law. Subsection C also specifically requires the developer to "inform all property owners and successors in interest...of the necessity of submitting a written request for a refund." Section 14-5K-6(C) on page 343. Again, we do not believe the property owners should be required to request a refund of the fees, but if the property owners are required to do so, we believe this provision should be deleted. This notification requirement creates liability for the developer and should not be imposed. It is unclear what type of notice the developer is required to give and how exactly to notify "successors in interest". The Subdivider's Agreement should include any necessary information about theCr~fund but the code should not impose an additional requirement on the developer to~ owners and successors in interest. C. The Code should Permit a developer to dedicate open space to City as soon as any required improvements have been completed. The timing of when a developer is permitted to dedicate land to the City an~when the City requires the payment-in-lieu to be paid is inconsistent. The payment in lieu is required to be paid to the City prior to the issuance of the first building permit, however it is not clear whether the developer can convey the dedicated land that quickly. See 14- 5K-4(D) on page 342 for payment of fee and Section 14-5K-3(C) on page 341 for dedication of land. The developer should be permitted to convey the dedicated land as soon as the other public improvements required to be installed have been completed, approved and accepted by the City. Paragraph 3 of Section 14-5K-3(C) on page 341, which outlines when the developer is required to dedicate land to the City, is not worded well. Under the new {00278521.DOC} 1 5 ordinance, it is unclear whether the developer is required to dedicate the real estate: (1) once the final plat has been approved and the public improvements have been installed, approved and accepted; or (2) within 2 years after approval of the final plat; or (3) by the time the City has issued 50 percent of the certificates of occupancy for the subdivision. It is unclear why the section gives the City the discretion as to when it can accept the open space. If the open space has been seeded and graded, and appropriate erosion control has been established, the developer should be permitted to dedicate the real estate along with the public improvements and the City should accept the real estate at the same time as it accepts the public improvements. D. The language in the Code regarding the Developer's obligations to provide ground cover on dedicated open spaces should be objective and not subject to interpretation or the discretion of City officials. Paragraph 6(c) of Section 14-5K-3(B) on pages 340-341, which requires the developer to restore "satisfactory" ground cover and controlling erosion on land to be dedicated, should be clarified. An objective definition should be used, rather than the word "satisfactory" to ensure that the City does not attempt to construe the term "satisfactory" as giving them authority to require landscaping beyond basic ground cover. Requiring developers to not only dedicate a portion of land, but also to grade, seed and make it ready for recreational use exceeds the scope of what the City is permitted to require. ~ ~ V. Commercial and Industrial Zones © A. The proposed 5' build-to line is a burden to business own~_r~a~nd~ results in unsafe developments. '-~ -:- ~_--~ J ~ The Propose Code sets the build-to line at 5' from the front property line and least 65% of the build-to line must contain a building. See Section 14-2C-7(E) on pages 70-71. This means on a 100' wide lot, at least 65' feet of that lot will contain a building that is no more than 5' back from the property line. Given that the first 15' of the front lot is usually reserved for utility easements, it is very likely that utilities will have to be moved in existing developed areas and that utilities will need to be placed in locations other than current industry practices in undeveloped areas. This requirement will also force parking to the rear of the lot, or behind the commercial uses. This would be detrimental to a number of businesses. In most CN-1 zoned projects around Iowa City, the building is on the side or rear of the lot and the parking is located so customers have easy, convenient access to the businesses. The proposed revisions appear to offer a solution to a problem that does not exist. By definition, a CN-1 zone has direct access to an arterial street. The proposed revision therefore puts buildings 5' back from the right of way on the city's busiest streets. This would jeopardize the safety of both vehicles and pedestrians. The Land Development Council recommends removing this provision. {00278521.DOC} 16 VI. Review and Approval A. Mandatory Neighborhood meetings are unnecessary. The Proposed Code requires a mandatory meeting of residents who live within 300 feet of a proposed development under any of the following circumstances: a request for annexation, an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, a rezoning that would change from Single Family Residential to any other zone, a rezoning of five acres or more, any Planned Development Overlay zoning, or any Level II Sensitive Areas Review. Section 14-8A-2 on page 358. This provision requires notice to residents, a meeting of residents, and a follow-up report to the City which must include a copy of the notice sent and a list of persons to whom notice was mailed; a list of persons attending including a count of those who chose not to disclose their identities; a copy of any materials handed out at the meeting; a summary of questions, concerns and discussions at the meeting; and the developer's response to any neighborhood concerns, questions or issues, including identification of any changes made to the proposed project as a result of the meeting. Section 14-8A-2 (D) on page 359. This provision adds an unnecessary, time consuming and costly mandate. Developers can hold neighborhood meetings if they so desire, but they should not be required to under take the process for each of the developments listed in this section. This is particularly true given the additional multiple categories of developments that the Proposed Code includes in a Planned Development Overlay. Iowa Code Chapter 414 establishes the procedures a municipality must follow in zoning or rezoning real property. This Chapter gives citizens the right to receive sufficient public notice and to speak at a public hearing. In addition, Iowa Code ~ction 414.5 adds an additional level of citizen protection against unpopular zoning meas ..~t~y requiring a super-majority vote of Co~cil if the requisite number of neighbor~ a wri~en complaint against the rezoning application. The reporting requirements add ~ecessary cost to a project. In addit~?:ihe proposed amendment does not indicate how the ~ffo~aUon gathered at the nelgh~ff~od meeting ~11 be used. The L~d Development Council is concerned that info~ation gathered at a meeting may be used by the City to impose additional requirements ~d m~e ~ecess~y exactions on the developers, beyond the subst~tive requirements of the City's ordin~ces. Funhe~ore, requiring m~datory neighborhood meetings presumes that neighbors will have concerns or complaints about development, which appe~s to demonstrate a certain level of hostility by the City towed gromh ~d development. Land Development Council strongly encomages the Council to remove t~s proposed requirement. B. There is no justification for requiring mandatory meetings between the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission when there is a disagreement between the two bodies and doing so elevates the Planning and Zoning Commission above its character as a recommending body. { 00278521.DOC } 1 7 The Land Development Council is concerned with the codification of a now existing policy whereby the City Council meets with the Planning and Zoning Commission whenever it appears the Council disagrees with the Commission's recommendation. The Proposed Code would require a meeting between the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission any time an informal Council consensus is contrary to the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission in the following situations: in considering a resolution regarding voluntary annexation or severance of territory (Section 14-8D-l(F)(1) on page 373); in considering a resolution regarding the zoning designation of voluntarily annexed property (Section 14-8D- 1 (F)(2) on page 373); in considering a resolution regarding the involuntary annexation, severance, or zoning designation of property (Section 14-8D-2(E)(4) on page 374); in considering an ordinance regarding text and/or map amendments (Section 14-8D-5(F)(2) on page 378, this includes Design Review Overlay rezoning Section 14-8D-4C on page 377); in considering Planned Development Overlay rezoning (Section 14-8D-7(C)(3)(b) on page 381. The Land Development Council is not opposed to this informal policy, however by elevating this policy to law, it becomes mandatory even in situations where this Council or a future Council decides it is unnecessary. There is no justification for building in this type of unnecessary delay in the approval process. The Land Development Council recommends eliminating this provision from the Proposed Code. C. A simple majority vote of the Planning and Zoning Commission should be sufficient to obtain a favorable recommendation on various zoning matters. The Proposed Code increases a developer's burden to receive a positive recommendation from the Planning & Zoning Commission by requiring a vote of 2/3 of the Planning and Zoning Commission, which may also not be less than 4 votes, for the following actions: an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan (Section 14-8D-3 (F)(1) on page 376); Zoning Map and Text Amendments (Section 14-8D-5 (E)(1) on page 378), Level II Sensitive Areas Review (through the OPD process) and Planned Development Overlay Rezonings (Section 14-8D-7 (C)(2)(b) on page 381). Again, this requirement demonstrates a certain level of hostility to growth and development, without any justification for imposing this higher burden. __ ~.., VII. Comprehensive Plan. ~ © A. The Code revisions contained in the Proposed Code are not~ssarjz to bring the Zoning Code in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan anit~-tual~; work against the goals of the Comprehensive Plan of promoting mor~_~c~pa-~ ~'~'~ subdivisions and eliminating barriers to affordable housing. ~ The Iowa Code requires that cities enact zoning regulations "in accordance with a comprehensive plan." Iowa CODE § 414.3. According to Iowa courts, comprehensive plans serve three main Purposes: 1) they guide city officials in reconciling competing land uses; 2) they control and direct the use and development of property by dividing property into districts based on present and potential uses; and 3) they help make the zoning process more stable and predictable by reducing the risk of arbitrary decisions. {00278521.DOC} 18 Since the process of zoning and controlling land use is fluid, Iowa courts have consistently held that the Iowa Code does not require every zoning act to adhere to the letter of the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan is not a mandate - it is simply a document which provides guidance to city officials as they move forward with planning decisions. Therefore, to say that a particular revision of the zoning code is necessary to bring the code into compliance with the comprehensive plan reveals a misunderstanding of the comprehensive plan's role in the zoning process. The Land Development Council questions the relationship between the Proposed Code and the Comprehensive Plan. On one hand, the Land Development Council has been told that the Proposed Code is necessary to bring the Zoning Code into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Since the Comprehensive Plan provides zoning guidance rather than zoning mandates, it is unclear how the Comprehensive Plan could require any revision to the Zoning Code. On the other hand, many sections in the Proposed Code seem to contradict the Comprehensive Plan. This seems to ignore one of the fundamental purposes of comprehensive plans - to make the zoning process more stable and predictable by reducing the risk of arbitrary decisions. For example, the Proposed Code increases the minimum lot widths in most single family residential zones by ten (10) feet. Larger minimum lots will increase the amount of land consumed per home. This contradicts an explicit goal in the Comprehensive Plan of "provid[ing] housing opportunities for households of all sizes, incomes, ages, and special needs. Iow^ CITY COMPREHENSIVE PL^N 45 (1997). The Comprehensive Plan identifies "encourag[ing] smaller owner-occupied houses on smaller lots" as a housing strategy to help the City achieve this goal. Iowa CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 45 (1997). The goal of promoting more compact subdivisions is closely connected to another goal expressed in the Comprehensive Plan - that of "identitling] and eliminate[ing] barriers to affordable and accessible housing." IOWA CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 45 (1997). According to the Comprehensive Plan: Many recent subdivisions contain only two or three dwelling units per acre. A density of five to seven dwelling units per acre will allow the expense of installing streets 'and sewer and water lines to be spread out among more homebuilders and will make it easier and less expensivec~r the City to provide municipal services. IOWA CITY COMPREHENSIVE 22 (1997) (emphasis added). The Comprehensive PI~ ~her states that: N~ow lots in the range of 30-5Ofeet in width (less for to~ouses) r~lf in more compact development which cons~es less l~d ~d m~it possible to provide public improvements, such as streets, sewers ~d water lines more efficiently. The costs of constructing streets and other public improvements are spread across more properties in more compact developments. Building on smaller lots allows the construction of more {00278521.DOC} 19 moderately-priced housing. IOWA CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 23 (1997) (emphasis added). Increasing the minimum lot width in most residential zones contradicts these two major goals of the Comprehensive Plan. There will be fewer homes per acre and the cost of providing infrastructure in new subdivisions will increase. In addition, the Proposed Code creates an alleged "density bonus", but requires design mandates which will increase the cost of housing for consumers. The result will be a higher cost to consumers and less affordable housing. This in contrary to the City's goal of encouraging and promoting affordable housing. Several provisions in the Proposed Code establish various design standards to be imposed on certain types of new residential construction. These standards would dictate elements of design ranging from the types of permissible building materials to the appropriate width of trim used in certain new dwellings. These types of design standards are not mentioned at all in the Comprehensive Plan, and Land Development Council questions any claim that such design standards can be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. VIII. Moratorium A. The City should not automatically impose a moratorium on development while the City Council considers adopting a new zoning code. Under the United States and Iowa Constitutions, the government may not take private property without justly compensating the owner. One usually thinks of a governmental taking within the context of eminent domain - situations in which government actually takes possession of a citizen s property in order to bulJ~3a roacl~ effect some other public good. However, the government does not necessa~ave4--~p.. physically .... take possession of a citizen s land to constitute a .taking . Overre regulations governing how citizens may or may not use their land can also~tute,._a "taking" and trigger the requirement that the government compensate the larffffo~er ~,r the lost use of the property. See Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. ~592~; Fitzgarrald v. City of Iowa City, 492 N.W.2d 659 (Iowa 1992). The current Zoning Code contains provisions regarding the imposition of a moratorium on development activities while the City Council considers amendments to the zoning ordinance and map "so as to rezone the area of the permit." The Proposed Code imposes a moratorium on development activities for any proposed text or map amendment. Unless the public benefit resulting from the imposition of such a moratorium clearly outweighs the burden imposed on the property owners affected by the restrictions imposed on their land, then the moratorium is unconstitutional unless the landowner is justly compensated for the lost use of his or her land. Additionally, since moratoria represent drastic interferences in a property owner's use of his or her property, they should only be imposed when necessary to address specific concerns. They should not be part of the standard process for amending the Zoning Code text and/or Map, without a stated constitutionally valid justification for each circumstance. The Land {00278521DOC} 20 Development Council believes that neither the moratorium in the Current Code, nor the . proposed moratorium section in the Proposed Code furthers a sufficiently important public interest so as to justify depriving property owners of an economically important interest in their land. The moratorium provision under the Current Code is impermissible because it, through regulation and without a stated purpose, takes private property without compensating the owner. Section 14-6U-6(F) provides, in relevant part, as follows: No building permit ... shall be issued for a period of sixty (60) days after the City Council has set a public hearing on the question of amending the Zoning Ordinance and Map so as to rezone an area if the building or use contemplated by the requested permit would not be permitted in that area under the proposed zoning classification. The Current Code does not expressly state the purpose for the moratorium provision, so the goal the City Council hopes to achieve by issuing a moratorium on development while reviewing map amendments is unclear. A moratorium represents an extreme use of the police power; therefore, courts require a municipality to justify imposing a moratorium with some demonstration of the necessity. Further, the showing of necessity must be related to a major objective of the police power, like the public's health and safety. General water usage problems, sewer system rebuilding, major infrastructure changes, and the need to thoroughly revise a comprehensive plan are examples of sufficient reasons for the issuance of moratoria. However, courts reject moratoria issued in furtherance of lesser objectives, like enhancing tourism or increasing aesthetic appeal. Section 1.4-6U-6(F) does not further a major objective ot~e pol~, power. A moratorium issued simply in anticipation of a zoning map change d~t r~. to the level of necessity or importance so as to justify a moratorium on devel~p~m_-ent_., andr,o -'Fl ..... would be unconstitutional. In addition to being in furtherance of a major police power objective,~ m~g~t ~--~ be a sufficient link between the problem at issue and the moratorium's;~ity c_~ contribute to the solution of that problem. For instance, if a municipalit~issue~_._~ moratorium on the construction of apartment buildings in a Certain location of the city while it considers ways to resolve various water usage problems in the area, the municipality must be able to show that the moratorium will help lead to a resolution of the water problems at issue. In order for a moratorium to be valid, a municipality must be able to demonstrate that the moratorium will result in actual progress towards a major objective of the police power. Courts consistently reject moratoria when the effect of the moratorium at issue does not work towards solving the problem at hand. The requirement of a strong link between the effects of the moratorium and the solution of a problem forces a city to have a specific goal in mind before it issues a moratorium. Section 14-6U-6(F) makes no mention of any goal the City seeks to achieve through a moratorium and does not identify any problem which the moratorium is designed to solve. {00278521.DOC) 2 1 In addition to the fact that § 14-6U-6(F) does not further a material objective of the police power and does not provide a clearly articulated purpose, a moratorium under this section substantially interferes with the investment-backed expectations of property owners. It is therefore, a regulatory taking. B. The Proposed Code significantly expands the situations in which a moratorium is imposed, which would also be unconstitutional in almost all circumstances. The moratorium provision under the Proposed Code is also impermissible, but raises even greater concerns because its scope is much broader than the scope of the provision under the Current Code. Section 14-SD-5-H(1) provides, in relevant part, as follows: When a proposed text or map amendment to this Title would prohibit or be counter to a use.., the setting of a City Council public hearing on the amendment shall suspend the following for 60 days: a. Issuance of a permit or license for the establishment, conversion, or enlargement of any use that would be counter to or prohibited by the existing code or by the proposed amendment; and b. Issuance of a permit or license for any land clearing, grading, construction, demolition, or other development activity that would be counter to or prohibited by the existing code or by the proposed amendment; and c. Any issued permit or license for the establishment, ~_~¢-~ .cp. conversion, or enlargement of any use, or for any land ~> clearing, grading, construction, demolition, or other development activity that would be counter to or prohibited by the proposed amendment, if no substantial part of the permitted or licensed use of development activity has begun. (emphasis added). For the reasons discussed above, this section also raises serious questions of validity because it denies property owners an economically important use of their property without just compensation and without any stated purpose. Additionally, this section is of even more concern because it applies to both text and map changes, whereas the Current Code appears to only apply to map changes. A Zoning Code section providing for the issuance of a development moratorium any time the text of the ZOning Code is amended has grave constitutional limitations. An amendment to the zoning code - especially when a functioning code is in place - does not provide the requisite showing of necessity to justify a moratorium on development. Courts do not require municipalities to demonstrate that a moratorium is the least restrictive alternative, but courts do require municipalities to demonstrate a sufficient link between attainment of a material police power objective and the effects of the moratorium. In this situation, the link between the need for a given zoning text/map {00278521.DOC} 22 amendment and a moratorium on development is not sufficient so as to justify the taking. No moratorium provision in the Zoning Code should apply to merely every text and map change. Any moratorium provision that is contained in the Zoning Code should only be triggered by objective criteria designed to obtain a specific, important public goal. It is unconstitutional for the City to issue a moratorium on development as a standard part of the Zoning Code amendment process, without a showing of necessity and how the development moratorium furthers a material objective in each instance. Therefore, the Land Development Council recommends that Section 14-8D-5 (H)(1) be removed from the Proposed Code. If, as some point in the future, the City finds it necessary to impose a moratorium on development to further a specific and important public objective, then the City should do so by passing a separate ordinance specific to that situation. IX. Grandfathering A. The City should proactively make clear that the proposed zoning code does not affect real estate that has received final plat approval. There is no language in the proposed development code that grandfathers in currents projects. The Land Development Council would like the City to be mindful of the effect the proposed code will have on projects that have already begun construction or that have already received final plat approval. We recommend that the City be proactive and include the following language in the code: This ordinance does not require a change in plans, construction or designated use of any building on which construction was lawfully begun or for which the City has approved a final plat prior to the effective date of this ordinance. {00278521.DOC} 23 Table 1,;Conlventiona!(without alleys)versus traditional (with alleys) subdivision design RS-5 C0mparison..- · I Paving per lot · ' Number ofI Total '," Minimum Average lots IAIley cost Infrastructure Infrastructure Average sale Parcel size ~Alley: lot width ~' lot size ' possible '1 per lot Costs cost per lot price per lot? :. 550x240: '~ .'no" .70 feet · 79x120 14 I $82,940 $5,924 1;580 ~sq ft ..... .: ;.:~. ;yes 50 feet 55x110 · '20 J $11,256 '$108,065 $5,403 1,546 sq ft RS-8 Comparison Minimum Average lots I Alley cost Infrastructure Infrastructure Average sale Parcel size Alley Iotwidth lot size pos;~ble [ per lot Costs cost perlot Paving per lot price per lot? 550x240 no 55 feet 55x120 $82,940 $4,147 1,106 sq ft " yes 40 feet 42x110 26 J $966 $108,065 $4,156 1,189 sq ft ~ RS-12 CompariSon ~ Number of Total ~ c Minimum Average lots Alley cost Infrastructure Infrastructure Average sale ~ Parcel size Alley .Iotwidth lot size P°s2s~ble I per lot Costs cost per lot Paving per lot' price per lot? 550x240 no 55 feet' 55x120 $82,940 $4,147 1,106 sq ft " yes 30 feet 31x110 36 I $698 $108,065 $3,002 859 sq ft "Total Infrastructure Costs" includes costs for street and alley construction, and for sewer and water extension, but'not drivewaYs. Paving per lot is equal to half the width of all streets plus half the width of the alley, multiplied by the width of the lot. It does r not incorporate paving for driveWays. All streets are 28' wide. All'local-streets are 7" thick. Alleys are paved 16' wide and 7" thick. Sanitary sewer extensions are assumed to by 8!'. Water main extensions are assumed to be 6" PVC. Water and sewer extension assumes one line per block. V/¥\Ol ),.L!O Vh\Ol. ~L ~-i'-~, , Paving price was obtained from the average bidding contract data for the state of Iowa, 2003. Local .streets average ~/~z~ ~ ~.-1.I0 $25.69/sq yard. 'Water and sewer'extension prices are averages received frOm an area engineering company. Non- compacted 8" sanitary sewer extensions average $21 per linear foot, while 6" water main extensions average $15/foot. ~r:~l ',~i'~ L~ I. LO0 ~0OZ 550' long block, the costs are $11,550 for sewer and $8,250 for water. Addendum 2 Benefit/Cost Analysis for alley construction in new subdivisions Current code vs. proposed code Comparison 1:RS-5 zone current code without alleys and proposed code with alleys Without Alleys - minimum lot width 60' With Alleys - minimum lot width 50' Overall size = 550x240 = 132,000 sq. ft. = 3+ acres Overall size = 550x240 = 132,000 sq. ft. = 3+ acres 60 60 60 60 60 60 55 60 55 28 120 120 28 55 28 110 20 110 28 Total number of lots possible = 18 Total number of lots possible = 20 Street paving = 28' x (550'+240') = 22,120 sq. ft. Street paving = 28' x (550'+240') = . 22,120 sq. f. Alley paving = 0 Alley paving = 16' x 550' 8,800 sq. ft. To~ ~ ~, 22,120 sq. ft. Total paving = 30,920 sq. ft. Street Cost = 2,458 x $25.69 = $63,140 Street cost = 2,458 x $25.69 = $63,140 22,120sq ft*lsq ycl/gsq ft = 2458 sq yd 22,120sq ff*lsq yd/gsq f~ = 2458 sq yd Alley cost 0 Alley cost = 978 x $25.69 . $25,125 8,8o0sq f~* 1 sq yd/gsq ff = 978 sq yd Sewer construction costs = $11,550 Sewer construction costs = $11,550 Water line extension costs = $8,250 Water lihe extension costs = $8,250 Total infrastructure cost = $82,940 Total irrfi'astmcture cost= . $108,065 ........., ~.~..~::~ -~:~ .... ~ ............ ~:" '~:":~::!i':"~ ii:~~ ' ~'~.~i ...... ~ ..... ~" "*~ ..... ii'~" '~ ....... ~!"ii!i'~i?~! C) (-), c:.~ · Benefit/Cost Analysis for alley construction in new subdivisions Current code vs. proposed code Comparison 2:RS-8 zone current code without alleys and proposed code with alleys Without Alleys - minimum lot width 45' With Alleys - minimum lot width 40' Overall size = 55(~c240 = 132,000 sq. f. = 3+ acres Overall size = 550x240 = 132,000 sq. ff. = 3+ acres 55 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 28 120 120 28 28 110 20 110 28 Total number of lots possible = 24 Total number of lots possible = 26 Street paving = 28' x (550%240') = 22,120 sq. f~. Street paving = 28' x (550'~240') = 22,120 sq. ft. Alley paving = 0 'Alley paving = 16' x 550' 8,800 sq. ft. 30,920 ft. Total paving = 22,120 sq. ff. Total paving = ...... ~ ~:~.~. ~=~!. ~ =~i., S=eet ~st = 2,458 x $25.69 = $63,140 s~eet cost = 2,458 x $25.69 = $63,140 22,120sq ~lsq y~9sq ~ = 2458 sq yd 22,120sq R*lsq yW9sq ~ = 2458 sq yd ~ley co~- 0 ~ley cost = 978 x $25.69 $25,125 8,g00sq R* 1 sq y~9sq R = 978 sq yd Sewer co~ction co~s = = $158,2501,550 Water Sewer linec°~c~°ne~ensionC°StScosts== ~c% ~ 2>o~,--~ Water 1Ne e~nsion co~s - - Benefit/Cost Analysis for alley construction in new subdivisions Current code vs. proposed code - Comparison 3:RS-12 zone current code without alleys and proposed code with alleys Without Alleys ~ minimum lot width 45' With Alleys - minimum lot width 30' Overall size = 550x240 = 132,000 sq. ft. = 3+ acres Overall size = 550x240 = 132,000 sq. ft. = 3+ acres 45 45 45 45 28 120 120 28 30 30 30 30 30 35 28 110 20 110 28 . Total number of lots possible = 24 Total number of lots possible = 36 Street payir~g = 28' x (550'+2407 ~ . 22,120 sq. ff. Street paving = 28' x (550'+240') = 22,120 sq. ft. :Alley paving = 0 Alley paving =. 16' x 550' 8,800.sq. ff, Total pavi~g = . 22,120 sct. ff. Total paving = 30,920 sq. Street. cos~= 2,458 x $25.69= " ·$63,140 ...... street cgSt= 2,458 x'$25.69=- ~ " $63,140' . :. 22,120sq fi*. 1 sq ycl~)sq ff = 245 g sq yd : 22,120sq ff*lsq yOdgsq ff = 2458 sq yd - Alley cost "· ': 0 Alley cost = 978 X $25.69 $25,125 . ~.. :..... _ - - 8,8O0sq ff*lsq yd/9sq ~ = 978 sq yd Sewer construction costs = $11,550 Sewer construction costs = $I 1,550 Water li~e extension costs = $8,250 Water line extension costs = $8,250 Total iz~astructure cost = ' $82,940 Total infrastru&ure cost = $108,065 Addendum 3 Requested amendments to the proposed zoning code Land Development Council October 11, 2005 1. In the 3 main residential zones, RS-5, RS-8 and RS-12 we would recommend to reduce the minimum detached single family lot width by 10', which would be consistent with the current code. RS-5 zone minimum would be reduced from 70' to 60', and the RS-8 and RS-12 zones minimum would be reduced from 55' to 45'. Wider lots clearly increase the cost of those lots and promote sprawl. The duplex and attached single family lot widths would remain as stated in the proposed code. (Page 16, Table 2A-2) 2. In the RS-5 and the RS-8 zones 2-unit attached single family dwellings and duplexes are required to be on comer lots only, each face a different street, the garage be no more than 50% of the front faf adc of the home and the garage be flush with or behind the front faf adc of the home (Pages 176-178, Section 14-4B-4, A2b, A2d(1), A2e: Page 183, ASa, A5c(1), A5e(1), ASe(2)). To design a structure that meets all of these criteria is very difficult and leaves 1 unit without a back yard, as evidenced on page 178, Figure 4B. 1 and page 184, Figure 4B.5. In the RS-5 zone, we need to ask ourselves do we want to allow duplexes in our large lot zone. If we do, to make them practical to build and functional for the homeowner, we would suggest to eliminate the requirements that each unit face a different street and to replace the garage standard with that written in #4 below. The proposed code seems to want to make the RS-8 zone a small lot single family zone and the RS-12 zone the attached housing zone. If this is the case, we would suggest in the RS-8 zone to limit the amount of units that can be attached by using a percentage of total units. We understand the majority of council does not support this idea but it will limit the use of attached housing in this zone but will not make them unpractical to build. 3. In all zones, there are design standards placed on all attached housing (Pages 176-179, Section 14-4B-4, A2d(3), A2e, A2f, A3c(2), A3d: Pages 183-184, A5c(3), A5d, A5e), including the garage standards; the main entrance must be covered by a porch or a transom and sidelight windows; 3" trim is required around all windows, doors and below all roof eaves; roof eaves must project 12" fro~ the b~ing wall and exposed, unpainted or unstained lumber may not be used along any fagade that ~_i~, ri~ble~cz,~om a public or private street. We feel these are purely aesthetic requirements and they shci~e elil:laina~ from the code. 4. We susgest the following garage ~equ~zements: O~ all lots below 60' wide, the total~ o~ay ~'~.ge wall that faces a street may not exceed 60% of the length of the street facing buildingS' ~'~' de.c~is w-~l eliminate 3-car garages on lots less than 60' wide but will allow reasonable 2-car gaffes, wh~h are demanded by today's homeowners, on lots 45'-59' wide. We would request removal of the retirement that the garage door be flush with or set back further than the street facing wall of the home. (Page 19, # 6 and various other sections of the proposed code as mentioned above). 5. If you feel a density bonus is warranted in the large lot single family zone, RS-5, we suggest allowing detached single family lots down to 50' wide. The lots between 50'-59' wide would be bound by the garage requirements in #4 above. (Page 21, Al) 6. In the RS-8 zone, in order to make a density bonus economically feasible, we suggest allowing detached single family lots down to 35' wide if an alley is used as the garage access. (Page 21, A2) 7. We would suggest that if the use of alleys is to become prevalent through the use of the density bonuses in the RS-8 and RS-12 zones, that the city take over the alleys in the same manner they do public streets. Otherwise, we believe the short and long term maintenance requirements will become a burden on the homeowners and that the alleys will become in disrepair over time. The cost of both short and long term alley maintenance that is placed on homeowners may make them less attractive to develop. 8. An additional requirement contained in the proposed code is found on page 278, section B2, titled "minimum spacing between driveways". It requires that there must be at least 6' between curb cuts, which is an added requirement in the proposed code and will eliminate having 2 garages next to each other on an attached unit. We would recommend this be eliminated. Addendum 4 IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR JOHNSON COUNTY S OUTHGATE DEVELOPMENT ) COMPANY, INC., ) LAW NO. Pl~ntiff, ) JOINT ) STATE~NT VS. THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, ) ) Defendant. ) COME NOW Plaintiff, Southgate Development Company, Inc. and Defendant, the City of Iowa City, Iowa, and hereby submit their Joint Pretrial Statement as follows: STIPULATION OF FACTS 1. That this action was brought pursuant to the Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 306, et seq. 2. That Plaintiff Southgate Development Company, Inc. is an Iowa corporation and the owner of 4.01 acres of real property located on Harlocke Street in Iowa (~, Joh~n County, Iowa and legally described as: Lot 25, Weeber's Third Addition to Iowa City, Iowa, ~n accordance with the plat recorded in Plat Book 9, at Page 14, 7< .cp. the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office. hereinafter the "Real Estate" 3. That Defendant is a municipal corporation organized pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 372. That Defendant has the power to hear and decide zoning issues within the city limits of Iowa City, Iowa pursuant to the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance as enabled by the Municipal Zoning Act, Iowa Code Chapter 414. 4. That the Real Estate is currently zoned RM-44, Itigh Density Multi-Family Residential Zone as set forth in § 14-6D-10 of the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance. 5. That Plaintiff proposes to construct three multi-family buildings containing 39 dwelling units on the Real Estate. The current RM-44 zoning for the Real Estate would permit the construction of up to 172 dwelling units based on the area of the Real Estate. 6. That Defendant's Sensitive Areas Ordinance, as set forth in §14-6K-1 of the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance, is applicable to Plaintiff's development on the Real Estate due solely to the presence of "critical" (25-39%) and "protected" (40%) slopes. 7. That pursuant to Defendant's Sensitive Areas Ordinance, a Sensitive Areas Development Plan and sensitive areas overlay rezoning (OSA-44) is required for Plaintiff's development on the Real Estate due to the proposed placement of certain storm water control utilities within those critical and protected slopes. 8. In connection with submittal of its Sensitive Areas Development Plan, Plaintiff did not request any deviation or variance from Defendant's code requirements, standards and guidelines for development in a RM-44 zone. Specifically, Plaintiff did not request any modifications to density requirements; lot area and lot width requirements; street right of way and paving requirements; street design; dimensional requirements; or any other requirements of the underlying RM-44 zone. 9. That Plaintiff's Sensitive Areas Development Plan met the requirements of §14- 6K-i(C)(1)(b) of the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance by delineating protected sensitive areas and associated buffers in the manner of a planned development. 2 10. That Plaintiff's Sensitive Areas Development Plan provided for the placement of an essential utility, namely an underground storm sewer pipe and detention facility, in a protected sensitive area located in the northeast portion of the Real Estate. A storm sewer and detention facility as essential and required utilities, are explicitly and specifically authorized in §14-6K- 1 (E) of the Iowa City Zoning Ordinances as a "permitted use" within a protected sensitive area when certain conditions are met. 11. That the design and proposed construction of a storm sewer pipe and storm water detention facility as shown on Plaintiff's Sensitive Areas Development Plan clearly demonstrated that such permitted use: 1) will not be detrimental to the functioning of sensitive areas or associated buffers; 2) will not pose a public safety hazard; 3) will have minimal impact on the protected sensitive area and associated buffer, 4) will protect against erosion, pollution and habitat disturbance; and 5) will result in minimal amounts of excavation and filling. Plaintiff's Sensitive Areas Development Plan thereby met all conditions for a permitted use within a protected sensitive area as allowed by §14-6K-l(E) of the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance. The City's professional staff responsible for reviewing the Plaintiff's Sensitive Areas Development Plan found full compliance with such conditions, and there was no credible evidence of any non- compliance with such conditions. 12. Plaintiff met the submittal requirements for a Sensitive Areas Dev~o~menrl:'lan~ as set forth in § 14-6K-1 (F)(2) of the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance. 13. That Plaintiff's Sensitive Areas Development Plan was in full coii~liance~a, ith the design standards for regulated slopes as set forth in §14-6K-1(I)(4) of the Iowa City Zoning 3 Ordinance. The City's professional staff respOnsible for review the Plaintiff's Sensitive Areas Development Plan found full compliance and there was no credible evidence of any non- compliance. 14. That the Plaintiff's Sensitive Areas Development Plan showed that the placement of a storm water control facilities within a sensitive area on the Real Estate will not undermine the stability of the protected slope as required by §14-6K-1(I)(2)(c) of the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance. The City's professional staff responsible for review the PlaintifFs Sensitive Areas Development Plan found full compliance and there was no credible evidence of any non- compliance. 15. That Defendant's Department of Planning and Community Development recommended approval of Plaintiff's request to rezone the Real Estate from RM-44, High Density Multi-Family Residential to OSA-44, Overlay Sensitive Areas High Density Multi- Family. 16. That the Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of Plaintiff's rezoning request by a vote of 3 to 2. 17. That §14-6K-1(C)(1)(c) of the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance requires the review and approval of a sensitive areas planned development to be in accordance with the Planned Development Housing Overlay Zone (OPDH) procedures, as specified in § 14-6J-SD of the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance. The design standards set forth in §14-6J of the Iow~_~---~y ~ing Ordinance (Overlay Zones) are not applicable to a review of all Sensitive Areas .c~,eY, elop~ent-- Plan. ~- cn 4 po 18. That §14-6U-6(D) of the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance requires the favorable vote of three-fourths (3/4) of the City Council if owners of twenty percent (20%) or more of the real property located within two hundred (200) feet of an area being rezoned submit a protest petition. Said protest petition was submitted with respect to Plaintiff's application for rezoning, triggering a super majority vote of Defendant's City Council. 19. That Mayor Emie Lehman recused himself from the vote on Plaintiff's application because of a conflict of interest, resulting in the need for at least five (5) affirmative votes (3/4 vote of the six remaining City Councilors) to pass the requested rezoning. 20. That on April 17, 2001, at its regularly scheduled meeting, Defendant heard Plaintiff's request to rezone the Real Estate from RM-44 (High Density multi-family residential) to OSA-44 (Overlay Sensitive Areas High Density Multi-family). That by a vote of 4-2, Defendant's City Council was in favor of Plaintiff's rezoning request. However, for lack of the statutorily required super majority (3/4) vote, Plaintiff's Sensitive Areas Development Plan and request to rezone the Real Estate was denied. 21. That City councilmen Irvin Pfab ("Pfab") and Steven Kanner ("Kanner") were the two dissenting votes with respect to Plaintiff's request for rezoning. 22. Kanner cited the provisions found in §14-6K-l(N)(1) and (2) in voting against Plaintiff's. Sensitive Areas Development Plan and request for rezoning. 23. Pfab's stated reason for voting against Plaintiff's Sensitive Areas Development Plan and request for rezoning was "I believe it is not in the best public interest." .- 24. That the following provisions of Defendant's Sensitive Areas Ordinance are inapplicable with respect to Plaintiff's Sensitive Areas Development Plan and sensitive areas overlay rezoning request: §14-6K-1(C)(2); (D); (a); (H); (J); (K); (L); (M); (0); (P); and (Q). 1~. LEGAL ISSUES 1. Was it legally permissible for Councilman Pfab to vote against Plaintiff's Sensitive Areas Development Plan and request for overlay rezoning for his stated reason that "it is not in the public's best interest."? 2. Was it legally permissible for Councilman Kanner to cite to the design standards of §14-6K-l(N) in voting against Plaintiff's Sensitive Areas Development Plan and request for overlay rezoning? 3. Were any design standards found in §14-6K-l(N) violated or otherwise applicable to Plaintiff's Sensitive Areas Development Plan? 4. Was Plaintiff's Sensitive Areas Development Plan in full compliance with all applicable City Ordinances and, if so, should the plan and rezoning have been approved? 5. Was it the appropriate remedy for the Plaintiff? 6. Does the City Council have any discretion beyond the standards in §14-6K-l(N) to deny approval of Plaintiff's Sensitive Areas Development Plan and request for rezoning? 7. If so, is "abuse of discretion" the proper standard to be employed by the Court in reviewing the zoning decision by the City Council in this case? 6 ~ -- JOINT EXHIBITS 1. May 17, 2000 letter from Julie Tallman to Glenn Siders. 2. Sensitive Areas Development Plan Application. 3. Final Sensitive Areas Development Plan submitted by Plaintiff for Lot 25, Weeber's Third Addition, Iowa City, Iowa. 4. Elevation Plans. 5. February 1, 2001 Staff Report of Robert Miklo, Department of Planning and Community Development to Planning and Zoning Commission. 6. City Staff Memorandum to Planning and Zoning Commission - February 9, 2001. 7. Jeff Davidson's Memorandum to Planning and Zoning Commission - February 9, 2001. 8. Packet submitted to Iowa City Council from Weeber - Harlocke Neighborhood Association - March 15, 2001. 8. Minutes of February 15,2001 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting 9. Bob Miklo's March 15, 2001 Memorandum to City Council. 10. 'Written Transcript from March 19, 2001 City Council work session. 11. Transcript from March 20, 2001 City Council Meeting. 12. Glenn Siders' March 21, 2001 letter to Steve Kanner 13. Ernie Lehman's March 23, 2001 Memorandum to City Council. 7 14. March 29, 2001 Memorandum'from Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney, to City Council. 15. Written Transcript from April 2, 2001 City Council work session. 16. Letter from Joe Holland to Eleanor Dilkes dated April 2, 2001. 17. Transcript from April 16, 2001 City Council work session. 18. Minutes of April 17, 2001 City Council meeting. 19. Complete transcript of the portion of the April 17, 2001 City Council meeting wherein Plaintiffs agenda item was discussed. 20. Video tape of April 17, 2001 City Council meeting. 21 Packet from Weeber Harlocke Neighborhood Association. 22. Neighborhood correspondence. 23. Chapter 14-6K-1 Iowa City Zoning Ordinance Sensitive Areas Ordi~!l~c?~e. 24. Chapter 14-6J-1 and 2(D) Iowa City Zoning Ordinance, Overlay Zcn~i~s (rel~lmt provisions). SETTLEMENT POSSIBILITIES Extensive discussion occurred between the parties regarding a possible setfie, men~or to Plaintiff filing suit. The parties believe there is no reasonable opportunity for ~'~Iemerf~t this- time PHELAN, TUCKER, MULJ By ~-,. ,. ' 8 - Th°rn~s~/flaYman #01742 By Michael J. Pught~14481 ~) 321 E. Market Street P.O. Box 2150 Iowa City, IA 52244 Phone: (319) 354-1104 FAX: (319) 354-6962 E-mail: gelman @ ptmlaw.com E-mail: pugh@ptmlaw.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF HAYEK, HAYEK, BROWN & MORELAND, L.L.P. 1~ Eas~llwd~ansghington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 _ ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT ¢ C3 ~-:i c-~ CERTiFiCATE OF SER¥1C ,E II~llr-~d, a nlemb~ of the ~ar B[ ~ ~y cer~s that a ~uo C~PY Df ~ ~ment wa~ se~ed ~on each ~ paid, and b~ d~g ~d ~to~ in low~ ~Tty, m~ pn the Addendum 5 IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR JOHNSON COUNTY SOUTHGATE DEVELOPMENT ) COMPANY, INC., ) ,. Plaintiff, ) No. CVCV061752 ) "~- :" :'D " VS. --' --' ) RULING ON WRIT %- ¢' > " TIlE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, ) OF CERTIORARI Defendant. ) Trial of the contested Petition for Writ of Certiorari was scheduled for November 27, 2001. The record was certified to the Court by the Iowa City Clerk. Plaintiff Southgate Development Company, Inc.("Southgate") appeared by counsel Thomas Gelman and Michael Pugh. Defendant City of Iowa City ("City") appeared by counsel David Brown, who .was retained following the withdrawal by the City Attorney. The Court heard the statements and arguments of counsel in open court. Additional Memoranda of Law were submitted by both parties the following week. The Court has reviewed the legal authorities, the record submitted and the parties' stipulation of facts. By agreement of the parties, the issues are presented to the Court pursuant to Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure 306, et seq. The Court is limited in its review to the question whether the Iowa City Council ("council"), "exercising judicial functions," exceeded proper jurisdiction or otherwise acted illegally. Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 306. On cemoran, an dlegality is established if the council has no~co~d accordanc~ ordinances, if its decision was not supported by substantial evidence, or if its actions were unreasonable, arbitrary o capricious. Perkins v. Board of Supervisors, IA.Sup.Ct. No. 143/99-~g58. 3 (November 15, 2001), LEXIS 204; Norland v. Worth County Compensation .Board, 323 N.W.2d 251,253 (Iowa 1982).~ Southgate owns property, 4.01 acres, on Harlock Street in Iowa City, which is hereinafter referred to as the "Real Estate." The City's action in dispute is the council's denial of Southgate's request to rezone the Real Estate from RM-44 High Density Multi-Family Residential to OSA-44 Sensitive Area Overlay, High-Density Multi-Family. The rezoning is necessary for the development of Southgate's property because of the presence of "critical" and "protected" slopes triggering the need for a Sensitive Area Overlay Zone. The City Attorney advised the council before its meeting that the rezoning must be approved if Southgate met the applicable use, design and other standards. Neighborhood opposition to the plan was vocal. The parties have agreed on the facts, which the Court adop}'_s:-; The parties agree that Southgate met all conditions requireci-f& a Sensitive Areas Development Plan as set forth in the applicable prOvision~",i of Article K, section 14-6K-1. The City's professional staff foundi:~!! compliance. The City's Planning and Zoning Commission recornrK}~ded approval of Southgate's rezoning request by a vote of 3 to 2. Southgate and the City agree that the procedural approval and review of Southgate's plan are to be done in accordance with the provisions of Article J, subsection 14-6J-2D, which have been met. Southgate and the City further agree that the substantive definitions, procedures, requirements and exemptions to be applied to Southgate's plan are those found in the applicable provisions of Article K, section 14-6K-1, which have been met by Southgate. The City contends, and Southgate disagrees, that subsections 14-6K-1N and 14-6J-2B apply to broaden the scope of the council's review of Southgate's plan. P< .cp. x This is not a de novo review in equity pursuant to Iowa Code section 409.15. See, Oakes C~l:~structio~ Co. v. CiW of Iowa Ciw, 304 N.W.2d 797, '/99 (Iowa 1981). 2 Because of the number of protesting neighbors, the rezoning request required an affirmative vote of 5 out of 6 participating council members. The vote of the council was 4 to 2 in favor. The issue is whether either of the two dissenting votes went beyond the scope of the council's authority or otherwise applied an incorrect standard under the relevant zoning ordinances. The Court is asked to consider the separate reasons given by the two dissenting council members. In both instances, the Court finds that the reasons stated by the council members are inapplicable to the specific plan presented to the council. The Writ of Certiorari is sustained. One dissenting council member stated the following in support of his decision to vote against Southgate's plan: "I respect the opinions that we have had from our City Attorneys and other attorneys representing this case and fm.~. :.~ the testimony that we have heard from neighbors in the area: :-' One thing though that I keep coming back to is the wording~'i~ the Sensitive Areas ordinance I believe in 14-6K-iN. And ~ ~.-~ planned design guidelines talk about use land efficiently ani:t~ '" '~: lly =-~: .'-: preserve environmenta sensitive areas as open space '-'~ - - amenities. Encourage development, which provides for easy access and circulation for pedestrians and bicyclists. Encourage innovative residential developments that contain a variety of housing types and styles. Strive for development solutions that best promote the spirit, intent and purpose of the Sensitive Areas ordinance while permitting development of the prope~ for reasonable beneficial uses And although this develop~ proposed by Southgate has many positive things, the ~n-fill -~-~ -~ development I feel is a worthwhile cause. I find that there ~ other things that do not meet the spirit or the law of the - [-~,~ =,. Sensitive Areas development plan design. And I will be vc~ against this proposal." (Transcript of the April 17, 2001, :z~ meeting, p. 42.) The council member's statement refers to subsection N "Sensitive Areas Development Plan Design Guidelines" of section 14-6K-1. As a matter of statutory construction, the Court finds that Subsection N is 3 applicable to plans which seek "mOdifications of the requirements of the underlying zoning district and subdivision regulations." Section 14-6K-1N(2). It is not applicable to Southgate's plan, which contemplated no deviation or variance from the underlying existing RM-44 zoning.. The plan did entail a much lower density than the RM-44 zoning would have allowed. Southgate's plan proposes 39 dwelling units; the R2v~-44 zone would pen~nit 176 dwelling units. The lower density is consistent with the purpose of the Sensitive A~eas Overlay Zoning, and not inconsistent with the R1M-44 zoning. The second dissenting vote was based on that Council member's belief that Southgate's plan was "not in the best public interest." The City takes the position in Court, contrary to its position before the council, that a zoning decision always encompasses the City's police power to act in the interest of public peace, safety, and general welfare. The City now relies upon the "intent" section of section 14-6J-2B to justify on gep~ral_police pow_e~ tg_r=o.up_ ds denial of an application which meets the applic'~l~le' substm'~ix;e and procectura~ requirements of sections 14-6K.-~ and 14-6Jx2D. The "intent" provisions of Article J, applicable to p.:!~ed~ development overlay zones, do not supersede or expand the "purp~?'?'.' ' provisions of Article K which are specific to sensitive areas. Hillvfe¢ Associates v. Palmer, 456 N.W.2d 909,910 (Iowa 1990). _. -~. -.::~ The City's permissible legal review of Southgate's plan doe~ include general issues of welfare and public interest. Those consid~f~lons ' are included in the specific provisions of the ordinance enacted by the City as part of its legislative function. Stated another way, the Court must presumethe City fulfilled its general responsibilities when it enacted the specific requirements of sensitive area overlays. The Court is bound to uphold the t3rovisions enacted by thel~ ~n~s legisl~t~¥e capacity to £[otect ser/sifi'¢e areas. 'Perkins v. Board of~ ~t~pe~i~0rs, l~.S~u~.dt."i~°-.~ i~4-~i~-~"-~5~;'~'(November 15, 2001), L~S 204; Neuzil v. City of Iowa City, 451 N.W.2d 159, 165 (Iowa 19913_j.~ Actions which abrogate those Valid ordinances by superimposing _~dllion~l and non-specific considerations of the public "interest" are not witl~n the~ discretion of the council members, except to the extent provided for in Iowa Code section 414.5 (2001). 4 Citizens are entitled to rely upon the ordinances as written, without fear that their plans, deemed to meet all of the requirements established by a cOuncil, will then be denied depending on individual whim or favoritism. See., Oakes Const. Co..v. City of Iowa City, 404 N.W.2d 797, 806 (Iowa 1981). ... (C)ouncils must not approve or disapprove on whim (citation omitted), but rather on the facts of each case and on the manifest objects and purposes of the legislation. Oakes Construction Co. v. City of Iowa City, 304 N.W.2d at 806 (citation omitted). Unlike the situation in Oakes, the council here was not presented with a new subdivision, a proposal to develop previously undeveloped land. Rather, the plan here involves some four acres which previously were zoned for high-density development, as is the surrounding property. Past attempts to downzone the Real' Estate had not been approved by the council. Nor did this council consider any specific or pertinent fact in denying the plan, as did the council in Oakes, 304 N.W.2d at 804. The dissenting council members here resorted to generalized and inapplicable bases for their "no" votes. The matter is remanded to the Iowa City Council for further action consistent with this Ruling. tify Clerk to no . ~: ::;. ,~:.? ~ ..- ~d b 2001 7 y fD -- ~-- Dated this / a o ecem er, AMANDA POTTERFIELD, J dg u e Sixth Judicial District of Iowa .... Date: , ) D - l/~ - ~T / Mailed To: Clerks Office Personnel Responsible ' roi' Mailing Document 5 Mayor And City Council City of Iowa city Nov 1st 05 When the zoning dept wanted to change Governor st. to Rs8 The zoning Commission requested a changed toRnc 12. The Zoning commission said Rs8 would grandfather in to many houses and would have an unfair impact on the values ifRM12 was changed Rs8 Now the new code changes all r12 zones to RS8 occupancy and rnc20 to Rncl2 It Grandfathers in almost all the houses on some streets, and decreases value 20% in rnc20 and 25% in Rncl2 and Rml2 zones. The new code downzones all R zones Except Rm44. Rm 44 is not only untouched but is being expanded. The result of this people will be forced out of single family and into Rm44 apartments. The houses loose 25% of there value in R12 zones and 25% of there income ifa new rental permit must be obtained. Also if 5 people want to live together and they are not a family they must live in an apartment. New 5 br apartments can be built but not houses. This says if 5 people live together the city thinks you should only be allowed to live in an apartment? This rezoning is set up to move rental people out of houses and into apartments. If a rezoning is going to happen it should be equal and fair. There is nothing fair about the new code. in effect the new code is down zoning % of the R zones with Rm44 being exempt. This is the densest zone and the city is going to leave it alone while the lesser Zones take a hit. If Rm44 was set to have the occupancy reduced you can bet there would be a team of lawyers here to point out that condemning part of their property or decreasing value is illegal. The same is true of the Cb2 zone If Cb 2 is eliminated all properties should all go to the same new zone this is only fair. The corporate giants should not get CB5 and the small business without the ability to fight a long legal battle get Cbl or another lower zone. Two weeks ago Dr Kammermeyer was chastised for complaining of unfair treatment from the zoning dept. It appears that the only possible purpose of these rezoning and code changes is to lower density at the lower levels where long time taxpaying small businesses will see the some huge losses. And the large business will see no lost value and in many cases will benefit. I would have to agree we are being treated unfairly. Furthermore the discrimination against renters by telling them where they can or cannot live and the devaluation of property are not only unfair but against the law. The sections of the city code reducing density in some of the R zones should be removed so a fair and level rental market can continue. Cb2 should all be changed to the same new zone. Hopefully the long time business owners the landlords and the students can recieve code changes that are fair. Greg J Allen November 1, 2005 Statement to Council John Kammermeyer I continue to be extremely concerned about the potential negative impact the new proposed zoning ordinance will have on health care office development around Mercy Hospital. At my request, Tom Gelman has done a side by side comparison, comparing the present and new proposed regulations for the CO-1 zone. I have high-lighted in yellow the added restrictions imposed on the CO-1 zone if the CO property adjoins a residential zone. These added restrictions, if the CO property adjoins a residential zone, should be removed. Otherwise they will create an added burden and seriously discourage new office development in the CO zone around Mercy. However, my greatest concern is the statement in the new proposed ordinance concerning driveway standards as they apply to the CO-1 zone. I quote, "The City will grant lot access to local or collector streets that are non-residential in nature based on the size of the non-residential development, the type of use, the anticipated traffic, the location, and the surrounding land uses, and the availability of cross access easements, or alley or private rear lane access. Based on those factors, the City will decide the number, location and design of the access points." This statement would allow city staff to deny driveway and parking lot access to a street in front of an office building and force driveway and parking lot access to only be available at the rear through an alley. This was the issue that delayed surgical Services from building their new office building for 2 years. City staff tried to insist that patient parking be in the rear off the alley, but thankfully common sense finally prevailed through the Board of Adjustment and public parking was allowed in front of the office building. The above statement concerning driveway standards as it now stands must be removed from the new proposed zoning ordinance. Any property owner of a lot fronting on a street should be allowed at least one driveway access to that street. Moreover for office buildings, especially medical office buildings, patient parking must be visible from the street and preferably located in front of the building. If the present statement concerning driveway standards, as they relate to the CO-1 zone, stays in the new proposed zoning code, it will almost assuredly kill any new private medical office development in the CO-1 zone around Mercy. No one is going to be willing to buy land and then spend years battling with the city staff concerning placement of the parking lot and driveway access especially if demanded through an alley. CURRENT CO-1 ZONE PROPOSED CO-1 ZO~E '*Permitted" Uses "Principal" Uses Office uses - Any office use except drive-in facilities and Office uses - General office small animal clinics - Medical/dental office ,~ Lots Adjacent to a Residential Zone. Where a lot in a C zone abuts an K zone, a yard at least equal'to Where a side or rear lot line for a lot in a C zone abuts an R zone, the abutting yard required in the R zone shall be provided along a setback at least equal to the required setback in the abutting R the zone boundary 1/ne. zone must be provided along the residential zone boundary. Hospitals which existed onAugust 7, I962 shall be exempt from [No exception for pre 1962 hospitals?] mud may expand without compliance with dimensional requirements. Dimensional Requirements: Dknensional Requirements/Mimmmu Lot Requirements: Minimum lot area None Minimum lot area None Area/dwelling unit 2,725 Minimum lot width None M/nimum lot width None M/n/mum lot frontage None Minimum lot frontage None Minimum yards: Minimum setbacks: Front 10' Front 20' Side None Side None* Rear None Rear None* *Where side or rear lot line abuts an R zone, a setback at least equal to required setback of abutting 1% zone must In ali zones, if side or rear yard is provided where not required, be proxdded. the side or rear yard shall be at least 5' wide. Maximum setbacks: e. ~c{. T~[e~ 2-c_.-2. Front None Maximum building bulk: Building bulk: Height 25' plus Maximum 25: plus Minimum None Lot coYerage None Floor area ratio 1 or 3 FAR 1 or 3 -CURREBITCO'--I-ZOblE ............................................. PROPOSED CO-1 Z-Ot~ ........ ' .... Parking. Parking. Suzface parking lot setback reqtdrements: Frbnt Yard: Front setback - 10' from any front and street-side lot lines. In C and I zones within 50' ofm~ R zone, r~o parking shall be permitted in the ~ont yard. Side Yard: Side and rear setback: No parking spaces, aisles or ch/v-es shat1 be permitted in that 5' from any (non-street side) side or rear lot li.ae. portion of the required side yard which is contiguous to the principal building on the lot. (None required in C zone) Rear Yard: ~)~ Parking, stacking, drives and aisles permitted. A parking area in a C zone shall not be located closer than 5' to Any load/ng area, parking space or aisles locates within 50' ora an R zone boundary, except.., resident/al zone boundary must be set back at least 20' from the firont or street-side lot line. ! ht - z c - ~, O. ~ · Parking and loading areas must be set back at last i0' from any side or rear lot line that abuts a property zoned residential. ~-~. c - co '~-2, In all zones abutt~g an R zone.., drives and aisles shall not be Drives: located closer than 3' to ale/line or an t~. zone boundary urfless Drives extemalto parking areamust be set back at least 3' from the drives or aisles are pitched or curbed and drained to prevent abutting property zoned nom-esidenfial unless drive is pitched or the flow of water onto adjoining property ... curbed; 10' from any abutting property zoned residential. 2 3 ~ ~qjRRE-T~TCOzI-:ZO~E ....................................... PROPOSE]D CO4. Z-ONE ................... Screening requirements: Landscaping and screening: Where parking area is provided on a lot within 50' of an abutting Surface parking, loading area and drives screened ~om view of lot with a residential use which requires 4 or fewer parking public right-of-way to S2 standard; S3 standard from view of any spaces, the portion of the parking area within 50' of the abutting abutting or across the street property zoned residential. lot shall be screened from view within the abutting lot... Where a parking area is provided on a lot within 100' across the street from a lot with a residential use which requires 4 or fewer parldng spaces, the portion of the parldng area within 100' shall be screened from view within the'lot... Minimum parking requirements: Minimum parking requirements: Offices/clinics - 2 spaces for each office, examining room and Medical/dental office - 1.5 spaces for each office, ex~m~nlng treatment room, provided, however, not less than 5. room and treatment room, but no less than 5. ~ Bicyc[~ - 10% o£required automobile. Bicycle - 15% of required automobile, but not less than 4. ~ Whenever a use existing prior to the effective date of this section ? is enlarged less than (50%) in floor area, the addition or enlargement shall comply w/th the parking requirements. If sum total of additions increases floor area by 50% or more, the ?'- ~ uses in original building and all enlargements must comply with ~' parking requirements. ,-4 '~ A use existing pr/or to the effective date hereof, for which the ~ . < current required number ofparldng or stacking spaces is not o provided, may be converted to another use without full compliance 'adth the required number o£p arking or stacking spaces, provided... cO 3 ~ 2 ..... --Cu.RREt¢I?- C 0 :il-ZO~TE ..............................................P-KO t~-0- -~ -D'~ 0--1ZO -N~-- .......... ~ ........ Location and dim~sional standards for driveways.: The City will grant lot access to local or collector streets that are ? non-residential in nature based on the size of the non-residential development~ the type of use, the anticipated trafftc, the location, and the surrounding laud uses, and the ~vailabil]ty of cross access casements, or alley or private rear lane access. Based on those factors, the City will decide thc number, location and design of the access points. ~ 5-c-5'- November 1, 2005 Letter to the Iowa City City Council Dear Councilors: I am sending you this letter as a follow-up and elaboration on my brief comments at the public hearing on October l0th concerning the new proposed zoning ordinance. The proposed new zoning ordinance not only totally modifies the organizational structure of the zoning code but it makes extensive and substantial changes. Because of the comprehensive reorganization these changes are difficult to clearly analyze and compare with the old code. 1 wish to raise the question, "Has a side by side comparison been compiled and made available to show specifically section by section and zone by zone all the new code modifications and changes in comparison to the current code?" Such a side by side comparison seems to me to be the only reasonable and comprehensive way to fully understand the extent and nature of these extensive changes in the new proposed code. I do not see how the council can tully analyze and understand the new proposed code without this type of opportunity to compare the current and proposed codes. Has there been any analysis of what projects were granted building permits in the past, perhaps the past five years, under the current code which would not have been granted building permits under the new proposed code? I think that such an analysis ought to be done to better understand the potential impact of the new proposed ordinance. In addition, has there been any analysis of how many buildings and/or properties in Iowa City will become non-conforming under the new proposed code? This potential non- conformity would have major implications for property owners concerning: 1) rebuilding in the event of partial or full destruction of the building; 2) renovations, modifications or additions to such buildings; 3) availability of insurance and the added cost to property owners to cover the lost value in the event of inability to use the building for the same purpose and/or for additional cost for rebuilding and compliance with the new code requirements. It seems to me that hundreds, if not thousands, of buildings will require increased insurance costs to cover these potential problems and noncompliance. Even under the present code, there is a concern on behalf of some that many residential, commercial and industrial projects have been driven or diverted to other nearby communities. Has there been any analysis of whether or not the proposed new code would reverse this trend or accelerate it? There are real questions as to whether the new code will keep Iowa City competitive for commercial and industrial growth so desperately needed for growing the tax base, or will this new seemingly more complex code further drive residential, commercial and industrial projects at an even faster rate to other communities in the area. Some people have criticized the current code as being too complicated and procedurally too cumbersome. How does the new proposed code address these concerns? It seems to me that the proposed code is actually even more complicated. It appears that there are more matters in the proposed code requiring discretionary review by City Planning staff, City Building Inspection staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council and/or Board of Adjustment. If there is more discretionary review, as there appears to be, has there been any analysis of the additional staff and resources needed to handle this increased level of review? This also raises the question as to whether this comprehensive and total reorganization and rewriting of the zoning code is more appropriate than merely identifying what is "broken" with the present code and then focussing on fixing those matters. Reviewing the present code zone by zone and fixing those areas that appear to be a problem would allow everyone to understand what we are trying to accomplish and where we are going with the changes. This new comprehensive reorganization and rewriting of the entire zoning code makes understanding all of the revisions and changes somewhat overwhelming. I believe that the community focus group results are being overly relied upon. They were not empirically conducted with any representative cross-section of the community and the results were potentially skewed by the questions posed. These groups were largely focused on aesthetic issues without considering economic, competitive and pragmatic factors. It is important that development costs and purchase prices for residential, commercial and industrial projects remain affordable and such projects remain feasible in Iowa City. IT DOES NOT SEEM TO ME THAT THE NEW PROPOSED DESIGN STANDARDS REASONABLY BALANCE AESTHETIC INTERESTS WITH ECONOMIC REALITIES AND THE VALUE OF INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS. Sincerely, John Kammermeyer JK:km NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, at 7:00 p.m. on the 18th day of October, 2005, in Emma J. Harvat Hall, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk; at which hearing the Council will consider: 1. An ordinance rezoning property from Central Business Service (CB-2) zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) zone, Mixed Use (MU) zone and High Density Multi-Family. Residential (RM-44) zone, zone for the areas currently zoned CB-2 located south of Jefferson Street and east of Gilbert Street. (REZ05-00014) 2. An ordinance rezoning property from Central Business Service (CB-2) zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) zone, Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) zone,' Mixed Use (MU) zone, and Public (P) zone for the areas currently zoned CB-2 located south of Davenport Street and north of Jefferson Street. (REZ05-00015) 3. An ordinance rezoning property from Central Business Service (CB-2) zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) zone and Planned High Density Multi-Family Residential (PRM) zone for the areas currently zoned CB-2 located south of Burlington Street and west of Linn Street. (REZ05-00016) 4. An ordinance rezoning property from Residential Factory Built Housing (RFBH) to Planned Development Housing Overlay (OPDH-12) for all properties currently zoned RFBH, including Saddlebrook, Bon- Aire, Hilltop, Baculis, Forrest View, Thatcher Mobile Home Parks and property located at 1705 Prairie Du Chien Road. (REZ05- 00017) 5. An ordinance rezoning property from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to Planned Development Housing Overlay- Medium Density Single-Family (OPDH-8) for lots located on Longfellow Place within the Longfellow Manor Subdivision. (REZ05- 00010) 6. An ordinance rezoning property from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for lots located on Dodge Street Court within the Jacob Ricord's Subdivision. (REZ05-000~J~L\ ]~7. An ordinance a }eZo'ning property from \ (~ Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to~ ~~(.~ located on Catskill Court within the East Hill /, Subdivision. (REZ05-00012) 8~- An o'rdin'ance rezonTfig property from /"~ Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for lots located south and east of Whispering Meadows Drive within the Whispering Meadows Subdivision. (REZ05-00013) ~. An ordinance approving the vacation of portions of Madison Street, south of Prentiss Street, and Des Moines Street. ~'VAG05-00007) Copies of the proposed ordinances and resolutions are on file for public examination in the office of the City G[erk, City Ha[[, Iowa Gity, Iowa. Persons wishing to make their views known for Gouncil consideration are encouraged to appear at the above-mentioned time and place. MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, at 7:00 p.m. on the 4th day of October, 2005, in Emma J. Harvat Hall, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk; at which hearing the Council will consider: 1) A resolution approving the annexation ~ of approximately 51.9 acres located on American Legion Road. 2) An ordinance conditionally rezoning'~ approximately 51.9 acres from County Residential (R) to Low Density-Single// Family Residential (RSo5) for property// located on American Legion Road. Copies of the proposed ordinances and resolutions are on file for public examination in the office of the City Clerk, City Hall, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons wishing to make their views known for Council consideration are encouraged to appear at the above-mentioned time and place. MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK Prepared by: Sunil Terdalkar, PCD, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5243 (REZ05-000018) CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City"), and Arlington Development, Inc. (hereinafter "Applicant") and Fairview, Inc. (hereinafter "Owner"); and WHEREAS, Owner ~s legal title holder of approximately 51.9 acres of property located on the on American Road, south of Highland Woods, and east of Far Horizons subdivision; and WHEREAS, the A the Owner's consent has requested the rezoning of said property from County Residential e (R) to Low-Density Single-Family Residential zone (RS-5); and WHEREAS, the Planning d Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate conditions regarding funding future American Legion Road the timing of the rezoning is appropriate and Iow density single-family :ntial zoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; WHEREAS, Iowa Code {}414.5 ).005) provides tha City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting n applicant's request, over and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy public caused requested change; and WHEREAS, the Owner and Applicant e that certain conditions and restrictions are reasonable to ensure the development contributes to the future reconstruction of American Legion Road; and WHEREAS, Owner and Applicant agree this property in accordance with the terms and conditions of a conditional zoning NOW, THEREFORE, in of the utual promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Fairview, Inc. is the le title holder and gton Development, Inc. is the applicant for a rezoning of the legally described BEGINNING AT SOUTHEAST THE NORTHWEST-FRACTIONAL QUARTER OF ;ECTION EIGHTEEN (18) TOWNSHIP SEVENTY-NINE (79) NORTH, FIVE (5) WEST OF THE '.M,; THENCE WEST 1121 FEET, THENCE 1890 FEET, THENCE EAST ~_1 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 1890 FEET OF BEGINNING. ALSO INNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER THE NORTHWEST FRACTIONAL ~RTER OF SAID SECTION 18, TOWNS 79 NORTH, RANGE 5 WEST OF THE U P.M.; THENCE SOUTH 345 FEET TI CENTER OF THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY KI AS U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 6, TI NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE CEN'I LINE OF SAID PUBLIC NAY TO A POINT WHERE SAID CENTER LINE INTERSECTS THE SOUTH OF THE NORTHWEST FRACTIONAL QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 18, THENCE EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SAID NORTHWEST FRACTIONAL QUARTER OF SECTION 18, 836 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING. ppdadm/agtJfairviewfairviewcza.doc.doc 1 2. Owner and Applicant acknowledge that the City wishes to ensure appropriate residential development that conforms to the principles of the Comprehensive Plan. Further, the parties acknowledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (2005) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above the existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change, including provisions for funding of the adjacent arterial street, access to the property, and subdivision design principles. Therefore Owner and Applicant agree to certain conditions over and above City regulations as detailed below. In considerat on o~the City's rezoning the subject property, Owner and Applicant agree 3. that development ~,f the subject property will conform to all other requirements of the zoning chapter, an~ that the subdivider is required to Contribute toward the cost of American Legion Ro~d improvement (based on the forr~la developed by the Johnson County Council of Governments office), at a rate of $17/15.18 per acre of property (51.9 acres x $1715.18 per'~cre - a total of $ 89,017.8) ,,/at the time of final plat approval. Said funds will be depos~ed with the City of Iowa Ci~ prior to the first occupancy permit being issued for any lot in',~ny final plat on this pr7 ,rty. 4. The Owner, Applicant, and\ acknowledge ~at the conditions contained herein are reasonable conditions to im )se on the Iowa Code §414.5 (2005), and that said conditions satisfy public that are by the requested zoning change. 5. The Owner, Applicant, and e that in the event the subject property is transferred, sold, redevelo all redevelopment will conform with the terms of this Conditional Zoning ment. 6. The parties acknowledge that thi~, ;onditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be a covenant running with the lar d with title to the land, and shall remain in full force and effect as a covenant witl the land, unless or until released of record by the City of Iowa City. / / The parties further ackn .~.ledge that agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind all successors, representatives, and ns of the parties. 7. Applicant acknowl,eages that nothing in his Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to reliege the Owner or from complying with all other applicable local, state, and.~{ederal regulations. 8. The parties ~agree that this Conditional Agreement shall be incorporated by reference in{'o the ordinance rezoning the sub property, and that upon adoption and publication" of the ordinance, this agreement be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office at the Applicant's expense. Dated this ,'" day of April, 2004. CITY OF IOWA CITY Fairview, Inc. Ernest Lehman, Mayor ppdadm/agtJfairviewfairviewcza.doc,doc 2 Attest: Arlington Development, Inc. Marian K. Karr, City Clerk Approved by: City Attorney' Office CITY OF IOWA CITY 'LEDGEMENT: STATE OF IOWA ) ) SS: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this day of , A.D. 20 , before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and for of Iowa, personally appeared Ernest W. Lehman and Marian K. Karr, to me personally who being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, said municipal corporation executing the within and foregoing instrument; that the seal afffi; reto is the seal of said municipal corporation; that said instrument was signed and seah ~alf of said municipal corporation by authority of its City Council; and that the said M~ and Clerk as such officers acknowledged that the execution of said instrument to b he volunta act and deed of said corporation, by it and by them voluntarily executed. Notary Jblic in and for the State of Iowa My expires: FAIRVIEW, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: STATE OF OWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this day of , A.D. 20 ., before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa, personally appeared to me personally known, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the , of said corporation executing the within and foregoing instrument to which this is attached, that said instrument was signed and sealed on behalf of the seal affixed hereto is the seal of said corporation by authority of its Board of Directors; and that the said ppdadm/agt/fairviewfairviewcza,doc.doc 3 as such officers acknowledged the execution of said instrument to be the voluntary act and deed of said corporation, by it and by them voluntarily executed. Notary Public in and for the State )wa My commission expires: ARLINGTON DEV! NT, INC. ACKNOWLEDGI ENT: STATE OF IOWA ) ) SS: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this day of A.D. 20 , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State personally appeared to me personally known, who, by me duly sworn, did say that they are the , of said )ration executing the within and foregoing instrument to which this is attached, that said was signed and sealed on behalf of the seal affixed hereto is the seal of said cor ~uthority of its Board of Directors; and that the said as ~cknowledged the execution of said instrument to be the voluntary act and deed of sa by it and by them voluntarily executed. Public in and for said County and State ppdadm/agt~airviewfairviewcza.doc.doc 4 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the City Council of Iowa City will hold a public hearing on the 1st day of November, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. in the Emma Harvat Hall of the City Hall of the City of Iowa City, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk; regarding the appeal to City Council of the decision of the Historic Preservations Commission regarding the Certificate of Appropriateness to enclose gutters on the residence located at 517 Grant Street, which appeal was filed with the City Clerk on September 28, 2005 by Maria A. Duarte. Persons wishing to make their views known for Council consideration are encouraged to appear at the above-mentioned time and place. MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK