Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-11-13 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 13th day of November, 2001, in 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 changing the zoning designation from RM-44, High Density Multi- Family Residential, to RM-20, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential, for approximately 1.38 acres of properly located at 1045-1075 W. Benton Street. 2.) An ordinance changing the zoning designation from Medium Density Single Family (RS-8) to Historic Preservation Overlay (RS- 8/OHP) for properties within the Longfellow neighborhood to designate the Longfellow Historic District. 3.) An ordinance changing the zoning designation from Medium Density Single Family (RS-8) to Conservation District Overlay (RS- 8/OCD) for properties within the Longfellow neighborhood to designate the Clark Street Conservation District. 4.) An ordinance changing the zoning designation from Medium Density Single Family (RS-8) to Conservation District Overlay (RS- 8/OCD) for properties within the Longfellow neighborhood to designate the Dearborn Street Conservation District. 5.) An ordinance vacating 11,800 square feet of undeveloped Kirkwood Avenue right-of-way located south of the Church of Christ parking lot at 1320 Kirkwood Avenue. Copies of the proposed ordinances are on file for public examination in the office of the City Clerk, Civic Center, iowa City, Iowa. Persons wishing to make their views known for Council consideration are encouraged to appear at the above-mentioned time and place. MARlAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK Prepared by: John Yapp, Assoc. Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5247 (rez-01-00020) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RF_ZONING 1,38 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM HIGH-DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL, RM44, TO MEDIUM-DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL, RM-20, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1045-1075 WEST BENTON STREET. WHEREAS, the applicant, Judith Klink, has applied for a rezoning of the 1.38 acre property at 1045- 1075 West Benton Street from High-Density Multifamily Residential, RM-44, to Medium-Density Multifamily Residential, RM-20; and WHEREAS, there is no transition between the existing High-Density Multifamily Residential zone and the Low-Density Single Family zone to the west of the subject property; and WHEREAS, the applicant desires a rezoning of the property at 1045-1075 West Benton Street in order to reduce the potential density on the property, thereby providing a step down in zoning between the High-Density Multifamily Residential area to the east and the Low-Density Single Family Residential area to the west; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as appropriate for 16 to 24 units per acre. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. The property described below is hereby reclassified from its current designation of High- Density Multifamily Residential, RM44, to Medium-Density Multifamily Residential, RM-20. A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, THE BOUNDARIES OF WHICH ARE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: AUDITOR'S PARCEL 2001081 COMMENCING AT THE WEST ONE-QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 16, TONSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA; THENCE Sg0°00'00"E, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 18, A DISTANCE OF 1342.56 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE N00°15'00'~V, 318.66 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WEST BENTON STREET; THENCE S89°13'15"E, ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, 191.92 FEET; THENCE S00°09'06W, 315.39 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL "G", AND UNRECORDED PLAT OF SURVEY BY DEAN BERANEK, PROJECT NO. 3550-001, MAY 1993; THENCE N89°35'44"W, 189.89 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 1.38 ACRES AND SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance as provided by law. SECTION III. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and to record the same at the office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, all as provided by law. SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION V. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION VI. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of ,20 Ordinance No, Page 2 MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Approved by City Attomey's Office ppdadrNord/1045-75wbenton,doc To: City Council From: Judith Klink; 1101 Harlocke Street Date: November 13, 2001 I initiated the rezoning application for the Cox property on behalf of myself, my husband, and our neighborhood. I am speaking to you tonight to tell you of recent conversations we have had with one of the developers, Jim Anderson of Westcott Partners. Shortly before the last Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on November 1, he showed us a projected redesign for the property which dealt with many of our objections to the first plan. Because of that, we requested that Planning and Zoning defer their second consideration of the application until their next meeting November 15. If this new plan meets our concerns, we intend to withdraw the rezoning request. A primary objection we had was that one of the proposed three story buildings would be placed directly beside a residence on Harlocke Street. (See the illustration in my correspondence.) It shows how one of the buildings would dominate the landscape, the street and the house which faces Harlocke Street as well as the patio in the back yard (second illustration). Mr. Anderson's designers are working on a plan which effectively divides the southwest unit in two and adds it to the ones close to Benton Street. The present apartments there are going to be removed. There will be a third building in the south east corner which should have less impact on the neighborhood. We are very encouraged with the appearance of this new design and the cooperation of the developers, and we hope we can withdraw our rezoning request after study of the new design is completed and reviewed by the neighborhood. We had our first look at the new design this afternoon. However, there are other problems for our neighborhood which are related to the downzoning, and I want to briefly mention four of them: 1. The problem of incompatible zoning in our neighborhood still exists. There is no step zoning in our area between RM44 and RS5. Step zoning is standard practice in city planning, a fact even emphasized by the staff report on the Cox property. Also, the Comprehensive Plan in this area calls for a "desired density of 16- 24 units per acre." After the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, the rezoning was not initiated by the city. The neighborhood at that time had no idea that rezoning could be initiated by private citizens, so we did not consider doing it ourselves. This lack of follow through has led to much distress in our neighborhood over the years, as you doubtless remember. 2. If Central Planning District Design Standards had been applicable to our residential neighborhood, it would have greatly lessened our problems with the first plan for Benton Villa. We hope the Planning and Zoning Commission and you will move soon to apply these more stringent design standards to neighborhoods on the periphery of the downtown. This is particularly appropriate with the City's present infill policy. 3. One member of the Planning and Zoning Commission suggested that the eight homes in the block north of Harlocke and south of Benton Street apply to upzone their properties in order to financially recuperate expected losses from an oversized apartment building put in their midst. We found this suggestion highly inappropriate for people whose homes may be the major financial investment they make; this suggestion demonstrates a disregard for existing neighborhoods. 4. The City's Good Neighbor Policy needs a second look. We did indeed see the plans for the Cox property before they were submitted to the city, but at that time the developers had already invested a considerable amount of money in planning, and were not amenable to neighbors' suggestions. The conclusion I draw from this last point is that involvement of neighborhoods in planning should be done at a much earlier stage. The developers, we were told, started negotiating with the Coxes in June. This was shortly after the City Council agreed to select the Southwest District for their next major future planning efforts. Thus in our area, we see again that developers slip in just before legislation which might be unfavorable to them is adopted. Our neighborhood saw this earlier when the developers of Forest Ridge on Benton Street added their back buildings just before the Sensitive Areas Ordinance went into effect. These are events which have led us to request a moratorium on building in our area until the Southwest District plan is completed, including time for appropriate rezoning. Robynn Shrader will speak to that item later in the agenda. We are, however, pleased that the developers of the Cox property have chosen to move around some of the buildings, and we look forward to studying their completed design. After it is approved by the city and reflects the changes we have discussed with them, we plan to withdraw our rezoning request. Illustration #2: In the foreground is the back patio of the 1100 Harlocke Street home. Behind is one of the buildings proposed in plan #1. Fortunately, plans are for the building to be ~elocated on the property, and a parking lot to occupy this corner of the lot. Illustration I1: At left is the home at 1100 Hadocke Street; at right is the projected southwest building in the first plan for the Cox property. This drawing shows why the neighborhood completed a petition for a major site plan review and applied for downzoning so that the development would be brought to the city's attention, " DEM~/ALK ·-', L' SI !.'B. 8' TO PROPERTY LINE ,:.','- NO GUTTERS ...~.~, ,. !~!., · · ':~ ----A ., Prepared by: Shelley McCafferty, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5243 (REZ01-00019) AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE FROM MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY (RS-8) TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY (RS-8/OHP) FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE LONGFELLOW HISTORIC DISTRICT WITHIN THE LONGFELLOW NEIGHBORHOOD. WHEREAS, the Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan, contained in the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan, recommends consideration of the designation of historic districts within the Longfellow neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan recommends the preservation of the integrity of historic neighborhoods, the stabilization of neighborhoods, and supports efforts of the Historic Preservation Commission; and WHEREAS, the Iowa City Municipal Code authorizes the Historic Preservation Commission to nominate and the City Council to designate historic districts, where deemed appropriate, as a means of preserving the neighborhood character of traditional Iowa City neighborhoods, or for preserving areas that exemplify unique or distinctive development patterns; and WHEREAS, the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission has completed a study of the Longfellow neighborhoods and has found that portions of this neighborhood retain substantial integrity to meet the criteria for designation as a historic district; and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission feels that designation of the Longfellow Historic District within the Longfellow neighborhood wiil help stabilize property values and encourage reinvestment in older neighborhoods by providing for design review of new construction or alterations of existing buildings to assure compatibility with the existing character of the district, and will encourage the retention of existing contributing structures within the Longfellow neighborhood; and WHEREAS, at its August 9, 2001 public hearing, the Historic Preservation Commission nominated said district for designation as a historic district; and WHEREAS, at its September 20, 2001 rneeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the proposed historic district designation and the District Guidelines for the Longfellow Neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the State Historical Society of Iowa has reviewed the proposed nomination and concurs with the recommendations contained within the historic district report: and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CI~', IOWA: SECTION I. APPROVAL. The Longfellow Historic District, legally described below and illustrated on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby designated as a Historic Preservation Overlay (OHP) Zone and subject to the provisions and guidelines contained within the District Guidelines for the Longfellow Neighborhood, which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference: Beginning at the northwest corner of lot 22, in Kauffman's Addition, Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa, Section II, Township 79 North, Range 6 West; Thence easterly 214.23 feet to the northeast corner of lot 21, Kauffman's Addition; Thence easterly 15 feet to the northwest corner of Oakes First Addition; Thence easterly 360 feet to the northeast corner of lot 22, Oakes First Addition; Thence easterly 20 feet to a point on the east line of the alley between Burlington and Court Streets; Thence northerly 7 feet to a point on the eastern boundary of the 20 foot alley west of Muscatine Avenue between Court and Burlington Streets; Thence easterly 92.2 feet and southerly 35.3 feet to the northwest corner of lot 1, Koser's Subdivision; Thence easterly 145 feet to the western R.O.W. line of Muscatine Avenue; Thence easterly to a point on the centerline of Muscatine Avenue that intersects the projected north boundary line of Koser's' Subdivision; Thence southeasterly to a point where said centerline intersects with the projected centerline of the 20 foot alley between Rundell and Dearborn Streets; Thence southerly along the centerline of said alley to a point where centerline intersects with the projected south boundary line of lot 11, block 9, Rundell Additions; Thence southwesterly to the centerline of tile 16 foot alley between Rundell and Dearborn Streets at the south R.O.W. of Sheridan Avenue; Thence southerly along centerline of said 16 foot alley to where said centerline intersects with the eastward projected south boundary line of lot 2, block 8, Rundell Addition; Thence westerly 133 feet to the southwest corner of said lot 2; Thence northerly 50 feet along the east R.O.W. line of Rundell Street; Thence westerly 60 feet to the west R.O.W. line of Rundell Street; Continuing westerly 125 feet to the southwest corner of lot 18, block 6, Rundell Addition; Continuing westerly 8 feet to the centerline of the 16 foot alley running along the western boundary of the properties frenting the west side of Rundell Street; Thence southerly 75 feet along the centerline of said alley; Thence westerly to the southwest corner of lot 1, block 6, Rundell Addition; Thence northwesterly along the west boundary of said lot 1 to the centerline of Sheridan Avenue; Thence westerly along the centerline of Sheridan Avenue to a point 148 feet east of where said centerline intersects with the projected east boundary line of lot 17, block 2, Reagan's Second Addition; Thence southerJy to the south R.O.W. line of Sheridan Avenue; Continuing southerly 91 feet; Thence westerly 98 feet to a point on the east R.O.W. line of Maggard Street; Thence westerly 25 feet to the centerline of Maggard Street; Thence northerly to a point where said centerline intersects with the projected south boundary line of lot 17, block 2, Reagan's Second Addition; Thence westerly 25 feet to the southeast corner of lot I7, block 2, Reagan's Second Addition; Thence westerly 236.1 feet to the southwest corner of lot 1, block 2, Reagan's Second Addition; Thence westerly 30 feet to the centerline of Roosevelt Street; Thence southerly 60 feet to a point where said centerline intersects with the projected south boundary line of lot 2, block 1, Reagan's Second Addition; Thence westerly 30 feet to the southeast corner of lot 2, block 1 of Reagan's Second Addition; Thence westerly 140 feet to the southwest corner of said lot 2; Thence westerly 10 feet to the centerline of the alley between Roosevelt Street and Clark Street; Thence northerly to a point where said centerline intersects with the projected south boundary line of lot 1, block 3, Reagan's First Addition; Thence westerly 10 feet to the southeast corner of lot 1, block 3 of Reagan's First Addition; Thence westerly 60 feet along the south boundary of said let 1; Thence northerly 220 feet to a point on the north boundary of lot 5, block 2 of Reagan's First Addition; thence easterly 60 feet to the northeast corner of said lot 5; Continuing easterly 10 feet to the centerline of the alley just east of Clark Street, between Sheridan Avenue and Seymour Avenue; Thence northerly 500 feet to the south boundary line of lot 14 of Coldren's Addition; Thence easterly 12 feet to the southeast corner of said lot 14; Thence northerly 156 feet to the northeast corner of lot 15 of Coldren's Addition; Thence easterly 61 feet to a point on the west boundary of the property belonging to Longfellow School; Thence northerly to the northeast corner of lot 37 of Cakes Second Addition; Thence westerly 235 feet to the northwest corner of said lot; Thence westerly 30 feet to the centerline of Clark Street; Thence northerly 9.83 feet along said centerline; Thence westerly 139.17 feet; Thence northerly 168.26 feet to the centerline of Court Street; Thence easterly 23.44 feet along said centerline; Thence northerly 30 feet to the southeast corner of lot 23 of Kauffman's Addition; Thence northerly 162.2 feet to a point on the western boundary of the vacated alley east of Summit Street between Court Street and Burlington Street, in Kauffman's Addition; Thence easterly 15 feet to the point of beginning. SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance as provided by law. SECTION 111. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and to record the same at the office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, all as provided by law. SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION V. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION VI. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of ,2001. MAYOR CITY CLERK Approved by (These guidelines will be included within the Iowa City Histodc Preservation Handbook upon designation of these districts. All five districts in the Longfellow neighborhood share many similar characteristics. The guidelines pertain to districts except where otherwise noted. These guidelines replace, without substantive change, the guidelines already adopted for the Govemor-Luces-Bowery Conservation District.) DISTRICT GUIDELINES FOR THE LONGFELLOW NEIGHBORHOOD (Appendix A) (Single-Family and Duplex Buildings) Including: SUmmit Street Historic District, Longfellow Historic District, Lucas-Governor Street Conservation Distdct, Clark Street Conservation District, and Dearborn Street Conservation District. Site and Scale Guidelines (Additions, New Priman/Structures, and Outbuildincls) Setback, Front: For new primary structures, the building setback from the street should be established based upon the setbacks of existing buildings located adjacent to the proposed building. The setback of the new primary structure should conform with the average of the setbacks of the four nearest primary structures located within the same block and along the same street frontage. The setbacks of existing buildings shall be measured at the first floor wall of the main living area of the building, excluding a covered or enclosed porch. Front porches are prevalent on existing buildings within the districts. New buildings may contain covered front porches that extend into the front yard, provided they are located no closer to the street than any of the other porches along the same street frontage. Building additions should be placed at the rear of a property if possible. Additions at or near the front of an existing building shall be set back at least 18 inches from the front plane of the existing building and shall be differentiated by a change in the roofline or other means. On Summit Street only: The rear wall of the primary structures must not extend deeper than 125 feet from the front street. This restriction preserves the openness of the rear yards. Building Facade: The total surface area of the street elevation of a new primary structure should be no more than 800 square feet. Existing primary structures should not be expanded in such a manner that the total surface area exceeds 800 square feet. For the purposes of enforcing this guideline, the total surface area of the street elevation shall be defined as a figure derived by calculating the surface area of all wall and roof surfaces, including window and door openings, that are visible in an accurate street elevation drawing of the building. On Governor, Bowery, and Court Streets only: The total surface area of the street elevation should be no more than 1200 square feet for a new building or for an existing building including a new addition. On Summit Street only: The total surface area of the street elevation should be no more than 1500 square feet for a new building or for an existing building including a new addition, and not less than 750 square feet for a new building. A-1 Outbuildings: Outbuildings, including garages, should be placed to the rear of the pdmary building whenever possible. Attached garages are discouraged, but if constructed should be set back at least 20 feet from the front plane of the building. In the Summit Street Histodc District only: Attached garages are not allowed. Garages must be located at the rear of the property wherever possible. Garages and other outbuildings should be dearly subordinate in size to the primary structure. Pedestrian Access: A sidewalk shall be provided that connects the entrance door or porch to the public sidewalk. Vehicular Access: Vehicular access should be provided from an alley if available. Driveways leading from the street to garages or parking at the rear of the property should be one-lane in width, but can be widened toward the back of the lot to provide access to multi-stall garages or parking spaces. Parking: Parking spaces are not permitted between the pdmary structure and the street. Parking should be provided behind the pdmary structure on a lot wherever possible. If parking must be located along the side of an existing or new primary structure, it shall be set back from the front plane of the building a minimum of 10 feet and be screened by a decorative fence, landscaping, or a combination of a decorative fence and landscaping, and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. Architectural Guidelines for New Outbuildincls Building Styles: New outbuildings behind contributing'primary structures should reflect the style of the primary structure. New outbuildings behind noncontributing primary structures should reflect historic outbuilding styles in the neighborhood. Garage Doors: Garage doom visible from the street should be simple in design. Smooth or simple panel-type garage doors may be used. Garage door openings should be tdmmed to match other doom and windows in the building. Single-stall garage doors are preferred to double-stall garage doors. Architectural Guidelines for New Primary Structures Building Styles: Architectural style is a defining characteristic for historic and conservation districts. A new primary structure should reflect the historic styles of its neighborhood. Although new construction may adapt and mix some elements of different styles, a single style should dictate the height and mass, rooflines, fenestratien, and overhangs for the new building. Please refer to the section entitled "Architectural Styles in Iowa City" for examples of historic building styles. The architectural styles representative of each district are given below. In the Summit Street Historic District only: A new building should reflect Italianate, Colonial Revival, Queen Anne, Vernacular, Foursquare, or Eclectic style. A-2 In the Lonqfellow Historic District only: A new building should reflect Colonial Revival, Queen Anne, Vernacular, Foursquare, Bungalow, Craftsman, Period Cottage, or Eclectic style. In the Lucas-Govenor Conservation District only: A new building on Governor Street should reflect Italianate, Queen Anne, Vernacular, or Foursquare style. A new structure on Lucas Street should reflect Queen Anne, Vernacular, Foursquare, Bungalow, or Craftsman style. In the Clark Street Conservation Distdct only: A new building should reflect either Colonial Revival, Queen Anne, Vernacular, Foursquare, Bungalow, or CraRsman style. In the Dearborn Street Conservation District only: A new building should reflect Vernacular, Foursquare, Period Cottage, Bungalow, Craftsman, or Eclectic style. Building Height and Mass: New single-family houses or duplexes shall be one, one- and-a-half, or two-stories in height. In the Summit Street Historic District only: New single-family houses shall have two full stories in the principle podion of the building. Rooflines: Rooflines should follow one of the historic building styles identified as appropriate for this district. Dormers: Dormers must be in proportion to the roof's overall size. Cumulatively, they should interrupt the roof plane no more than one third of the length of that roof measured at the eave. They should be no closer than 3 feet to an existing gable end or hip. The face of the dormer should be narrow, rather than wide, and be composed primarily of window area. Dormers in new construction should have roof pitches similar to the pitch of the main roof. Overhangs: New construction should include overhangs appropriate to the historic style guiding the overall design of the building. WindowslFenestration: Window placement on the facade a new building should follow patterns established by contributing structures within the district. Window shape and placement must be consistent with other elements of the building style of the new structure. Long wall spaces without windows are inappropriate. Small decorative windows in the attic level of front gable ends are encouraged. Window trim shall be between three to four inches in width. Shutters are discouraged. In historic districts only: Windows must be double-hung or fixed-sash with an appearance and profile similar to those windows original to the district. Window design should be appropriate to the building style. Doors: Exterior doors on front or side elevations of new single and duplex structures must include half or full lights and/or raised panel construction in keeping with the historic building style of the new structure. Sliding patio doors are uncharacteristic of any of the histodc styles of the neighborhood and should appear only on rear elevations. A-3 In historic districts only: Sliding patio doors may not be used. Other more appropriate door styles that accommodate large glass area are available. Porches and Balconies: Single-story, covered front porches are a key element in the Longfellow neighborhood. New single-family and duplex structures should include a porch typical for the style of the house. Front porches must be roofed and supported with posts or pillars of appropriate dimensions. They may be partially screened or unscreened, but shall not be entirely enclosed with walls and/or windows. Porch flooring should be vertical-grained fir porch flooring. Posts and other accents may be wood or other durable material that accepts paint. Where a spindled railing is used, there must be a top and bottom rail and the spindles must be cantered on the hodzontal rails. If the space below the porch floor and above the grade is greater than 24 inches, the porch must be skirted with lattice or grilles. In conservation districts only: Dimensional lumber may be used, but the gaps between the floorboards should not exceed one-eighth inch. In conservation districts only: Poured concrete floors are permitted within conservation districts provided that the porch floor is not more than 18 inches above grade. In conservation districts only: Porches on rear elevations need not reproduce historic details. Balconies: Balconies that protrude from the walls of buildings without vertical support were not common in the Longfellow neighborhood, and should not be included on the front or sides of buildings. If second-story porches are included, they must be placed above first-story porches or first-floor interior spaces. Wood Substitutes: Substituting a material in place of wood is acceptable only if the substitute matedal retains the appearance and function of the original wood. The substitute material must be durable, accept paint, and be approved by the Histodc Preservation Commission. Siding: Horizontal siding like clapboards or cedar shingles are the preferred cladding materials for new buildings. Wood products for siding include shakes, shingles, and painted horizontal clapboard siding from three to six inches in width. Fibrous cement siding is an acceptable substitute for wood siding. Brick was sometimes used in the Longfellow neighborhood and may be an acceptable siding material where histodc brick buildings are nearby. Synthetic masonry surfaces such as artificial stone are not acceptable. In conservation districts only: Synthetic siding may be used on new structures and on noncontributing structures. A-4 Longfellow Historic District Exhibit A BURLINGTON ST ) Ld · n,' O COURT ST 410 ,~ ~oI ~ ", GRANT CT 4s~t HENRY s2s LONGFELLOW ~ ~ r,~ r~3 ~ SCHOOL ,~o7 Ld6to ~ ~. ~ H ~ 6H ' ~ 614 61~ ~ ~8 __ l ~ CENTER AVE ~ S E YM O U R A V E m m m m m SHERIDAN AVE August 2001 Contributing st~cmre Noncon~ibuang stntcmre ~ Prepared by: Shelley McCafferty, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5243 (REZ01-O0019) AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE FROM MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY (RS-8) TO CONSERVATION DISTRICT OVERLAY (RS-8/OCD) FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE CLARK STREET CONSERVATION DISTRICT WITHIN THE LONGFELLOW NEIGHBORHOOD. WHEREAS, the Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan, contained in the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan, recommends consideration of the designation of conservation and historic districts within the Longfellow neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan recommends the preservation of the integrity of historic neighborhoods, the stabilization of neighborhoods, and supports efforts of the Historic Preservation Commission; and WHEREAS, the Iowa City Municipal Code authorizes the Historic Preservation Commission to nominate and the City Council to designate conservation districts, where deemed appropriate, as a means of preserving the neighborhood character of traditional Iowa City neighborhoods, or for preserving areas that exemplify unique or distinctive development patterns; and WHEREAS. the iowa City Historic Preservation Commission has completed a study of the Longfellow neighborhood and has found that portions of this neighborhood retain substantial integrity to meet the criteria for designation as a conservation district; and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission feels that designation of the Clark Street Conservation District within the Longfellow neighborhood will help stabilize property values and encourage reinvestment in older neighborhoods by providing for design review of new construction or alterations of existing buildings to assure compatibility with the existing character of the district. and will encourage the retention of existing contributing structures within the Longfellow neighborhood; and WHEREAS, at its August 9, 2001 public hearing, the Historic Preservation Commission nominated said properties for designation as a conservation district; and WHEREAS, at its September 20, 2001 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the proposed conservation district designation and the District Guidelines for the Longfellow Neighborhood; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. APPROVAL. The Clark Street Conservation District, legally described below and illustrated on Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby designated as a Conservation District Overlay (OCD) Zone and subject to the guidelines of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook including Appendix A, District Guidelines for the Longfellow Neighborhood hereto attached, incorporated herein by this reference: Beginning at the intersection of the centerlines of Court and Summit Streets; Thence southerly along said centerline 168 feet; Thence easterly 202 feet to the point of beginning; Thence easterly 160.24 feet to a point on the centerline of Clark Street; Thence southerly along said centerline 9.83; Thence easterly 265 feet to the northeast corner of lot 37 of Cakes Second Addition; Thence southerly 654.9 feet to a point on the west boundary of the property belonging to Longfellow School; Thence westerly 61 feet to the northeast corner of lot 15 in Coldren's Addition; Thence southerly 156 feet to the southeast corner of lot 14 in Coldren's Addition; Thence westerly 12 feet to the northeast corner of lot 13 in Coldren's Addition; Thence southerly 500 feet to a point on the centerline of the alley just east of Clark Street between Sheridan Avenue and Seymour Avenue; Thence westerly 10 feet to the northeast corner of lot 5 in Reagan's First Addition; Continuing westerly 60 feet along the north boundary of said lot 5; Thence southerly 220 feet to a point on the north line of lot 2 in Reagan's First Addition; Thence easterly 70 feet to the centerline of the 20 foot alley between Clark and Roosevelt Streets: Thence southerly to a point on said centerline intersecting the westward projected south boundary of lot 2, block 2 in Reagan's Second Addition; Thence easterly 10 feet to the southwest corner of said lot 2; Thence easterly 170 feet to the centerline of Roosevelt Street; Thence northerly 60 feet to a point on said centerline intersecting the projected south boundary of lot 1, block 2 in Reagan's Second Addition; Thence easterly 291.1 feet to the centerline of Maggard Street; Thence southerly along said centerline to the north boundary of the R.O.W. of the Heartland Rail Corporation, also known as Iowa Interstate Railroad; Thence northwesterly along north boundary of said R.O.W. to a point on the intersection of the railroad R.O.W. and the projected centerline of the original 20 foot alley between Summit and Clark Streets, now the projected east boundary of lot 5, block 1 in Reagan's First Addition; Thence northerly 601 feet; Thence easterly 33.5 feet; Thence northerly 200 feet; Thence easterly 11 feet; Thence northerly 60 feet; Thence easterly 20 feet; Thence northerly 211.75 feet to a point on the south boundary of lot 1, block 4 in Summit Hill Addition, which is also the north boundary of the Bowery Street R.O.W.; Thence westerly 61 feet; Thence northerly 200 feet; Thence easterly 35.0 feet; thence northerly 100.48 feet; Thence westerly 26.56 feet; Thence northerly 58.09 feet; Thence easterly 27.63 feet; Thence northerly 58.1 feet; Thence easterly 32.0 feet; Thence northerly 52.5 feet; Thence westerly 2.0 feet; Thence northerly 53.84 feet; Thence westerly 16.6 feet; Thence northerly 80.33 feet; Thence westerly 12.0 feet; Thence northerly 45.0 feet; Thence westerly 2.0 feet; Thence northerly 107.88 feet to the point of beginning. SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance as provided by law. SECTION Ill. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and to record the same at the office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, all as provided by law. SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION V. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION VI. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication. as provided by law. Passed and appreved this __ day of ,2001. MAYOR ATI'EST: CITY CLERK Appreved by Shamd/pcd~histpres/Ic~gfellow/iongfellow ordinance dec (These guidelines will be included within the iowa City Histodc Preservatjon Handbook upon designation of these districts. All five districts in the Longfellow neighborhood share many similar charactedstjcs. The guidelines pertain to all districts except where otherwise noted. These guidelines replace, without substantive change, the guidelines already adopted for the GovemoFLucas-Bowery Conservation District.) DISTRICT GUIDELINES FOR THE LONGFELLOW NEIGHBORHOOD (Appendix A) (Single-Family and Duplex Buildings) Including: Summit Street Historic District, Longfellow Historic District, Lucas-Governor Street Conservation District, Clark Street Conservation District, and Dearborn Street Conservation District. Site and Scale Guidelines (Additions, New Primary Structures, and Outbulldincls) Setback, Front: For new primary structures, the building setback from the street should be established based upon the setbacks of existing buildings located adjacent to the proposed building. The setback of the new primary structure should conform with the average of the setbacks of the four nearest primary structures located within the same block and along the same street frontage. The setbacks of existing buildings shall be measured at the first floor wall of the main living area of the building, excluding a covered or enclosed porch. Front porches are prevalent on existing buildings within the districts. New buildings may contain covered front porches that extend into the front yard, provided they are located no closer to the street than any of the other porches along the same street frontage. Building additions should be placed at the rear of a property if possible. Additions at or near the front of an existing building shall be set back at least 18 inches from the front plane of the existing building and shall be differentiated by a change in the roofline or other means. On Summit Street only: The rear wall of the primary structures must not extend deeper than 125 feet from the front street. This restriction preserves the openness of the rear yards. Building Facade: The total surface area of the street elevation of a new primary structure should be no more than 800 square feet. Existing primary structures should not be expanded in such a manner that the total surface area exceeds 800 square feet. For the purposes of enforcing this guideline, the total surface area of the street elevation shall be defined as a figure derived by calculating the surface area of all wall and roof surfaces, including window and door openings, that are visible in an accurate street elevation drawing of the building. On Governor, Bowery, and Court Streets only: The total surface area of the street elevation should be no more than 1200 square feet for a new building or for an existing building including a new addition. On Summit Street only: The total surface area of the street elevation should be no more than 1500 square feet for a new building or for an existing building including a new addition, and not less than 750 square feet for a new building. A-1 Outbuildings: Outbuildings, including garages, should be placed to the rear of the primary building whenever possible. Attached garages are discouraged, but if constructed should be set back at least 20 feet from the front plane of the building. In the Summit Street Histodc District only: Attached garages are not allowed. Garages must be located at the rear of the property wherever possible. Garages and other outbuildings should be cleady subordinate in size to the pdmary structure. Pedestrian Access: A sidewalk shall be provided that connects the entrance door or porch to the public sidewalk. VehiCular Access: Vehicular access should be provided from an alley if available. Driveways leading from the street to garages or parking at the rear of the property should be one-lane in width, but can be widened toward the back of the lot to provide access to multi-stall garages or parking spaces. Parking: Parking spaces are not permitted between the pdmary structure and the street. Parking should be provided behind the pdmary structure on a lot wherever possible. If parking must be located along the side of an existing or new pdmary structure, it shall be set back from the front plane of the building a minimum of 10 feet and be screened by a decorative fence, landscaping, or a combination of a decorative fence and landscaping, and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. Architectural Guidelines for New Outbuildinqs Building Styles: New outbuildings behind contributing' pdmary structures should reflect the style of the primary structure. New outbuildings behind noncontributing primary structures should reflect histodc outbuilding styles in the neighborhood. Garage Doors: Garage doors visible from the street should be simple in design. Smooth or simple panel-type garage doors may be used. Garage door openings should be trimmed to match other doom and windows in the building. Single-stall garage doom are preferred to double-stall garage doors. Architectural Guidelines for New Primary Structures Building Styles: Architectural style is a defining characteristic for historic and canservation districts. A new primary structure should reflect the historic styles of its neighborhood. Although new construction may adapt and mix some elements of different styles, a single style should dictate the height and mass, rooflines, fenestration, and overhangs for the new building. Please refer to the section entitled "Architectural Styles in Iowa City' for examples of historic building styles. The architectural styles representative of each distdct are given below. In the Summit Street Historic District only: A new building should reflect Italianate, Colonial Revival, Queen Anne, Vernacular, Foursquare, or Eclectic style. A-2 In the Lonqfellow Historic District only: A new building should reflect Colonial Revival, Queen Anne, Vernacular, Foursquare, Bungalow, Craftsman, Period Cottage, or Eclectic style. In the Lucas-Govenor Conservation Distdct only: A new building on Governor Street should reflect Italianate, Queen Anne, Vernacular, or Foursquare style. A new structure on Lucas Street should reflect Queen Anne, Vernacular, Foursquare, Bungalow, or Craftsman style. In the Clark Street Conservation District only: A new building should reflect either Colonial Revival, Queen Anne, Vernacular, Foursquare, Bungalow, or Craftsman style. In the Dearborn Street Conservation District only: A new building should reflect Vernacular, Foursquare, Period Cottage, Bungalow, Craftsman, or Eclectic style. Building Height and Mass: New single-family houses or duplexes shall be one, one- and-a-half, or two-stories in height. In the Summit Street Historic District only: New single-family houses shall have two full stories in the principle podion of the building. Rooflines: Rooflines should follow one of the historic building styles identified as appropriate for this district. Dormers: Dormers must be in proportion to the roof's overall size. Cumulatively, they should interrupt the roof plane no more than one third of the length of that roof measured at the eave. They should be no closer than 3 feet to an existing gable end or hip. The face of the dormer should be narrow, rather than wide, and be composed primarily of window area. Dormers in new construction should have roof pitches similar to the pitch of the main roof. Overhangs: New construction should include overhangs appropriate to the historic style guiding the overall design of the building. Windows/Fenestration: Window placement on the fac,,ade a new building should follow patterns established by contributing structures within the district. Window shape and placement must be consistent with other elements of the building style of the new structure. Long wall spaces without windows are inappropriate. Small decorative windows in the attic level of front gable ends are encouraged. Window trim shall be between three to four inches in width. Shutters are discouraged. In historic districts only: Windows must be double-hung or fixed-sash with an appearance and profile similar to those windows original to the district. Window design should be appropriate to the building style. Doors: Exterior doors on front or side elevations of new single and duplex structures must include half or full lights and/or raised panel construction in keeping with the historic building style of the new structure. Sliding patio doors are uncharacteristic of any of the historic styles of the neighborhood and should appear only on rear elevations. A,-3 In historic districts only: Sliding patio doors may not be used. Other more appropriate door styles that accommodate large glass area are available. Porches and Balconies: Single-story, covered front porches are a key element in the Longfellow neighborhood. New single-family and duplex structures should include a porch typical for the style of the house. Front porches must be roofed and supported with posts or pillars of appropriate dimensions. They may be partially screened or unscreened, but shall not be entirely enclosed with walls and/or windows. Porch flooring should be vertical-grained fir porch flooring. Posts and other accents may be wood or other durable material that accepts paint. Where a spindled railing is used, there must be a top and bottom rail and the spindles must be centered on the horizontal rails. If the spaca below the porch floor and above the grade is greater than 24 inches, the porch must be skirted with lattice or grilles. In conservation districts only: Dimensional lumber may be used, but the gaps between the floorboards should not exceed one-eighth inch. In conservation districts only: Poured concrete floors are permitted within conservation districts provided that the porch floor is not more than 18 inches above grade. In conservation districts only: Porches on rear elevations need not reproduce historic details. Balconies: Balconies that protrude from the walls of buildings without vertical support were not common in the Longfellow neighborhood, and should not be included on the front or sides of buildings. If second-story porches are included, they must be placed above first-story porches or first-floor interior spaces. Wood Substitutes: Substituting a material in place of wood is acceptable only if the substitute material retains the appearance and function of the original wood. The substitute material must be durable, accept paint, and be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. Siding: Horizontal siding like clapboards or cedar shingles are the preferred cladding materials for new buildings. Wood products for siding include shakes, shingles, and painted horizontal clapboard siding from three to six inches in width. Fibrous cement siding is an acceptable substitute for wood siding. Brick was sometimes used in the Longfellow neighborhood and may be an acceptable siding material where historic brick buildings are nearby. Synthetic masonry surfaces such as artificial stone are not acceptable. In conservation districts only: Synthetic siding may be used on new structures and on noncontributing structures. A-4 Clark Street Conservation District Exhibit B COURT ST 'k -- ~ MAPLE ST -- "' I ~ 4~z 42s ~RA~T ¢T ] s~ m HENRY 5~ LONGFELLOW 521 520 __ 531 ~ 528 es SEYMOUR AVE z 7~s ( 7~o ~____O ~__. SH~RIDA ~ ~ s~6 m ~ sis ~ ' ' -.?'--~ __~ ~ - Contr~uting st~re Noncon~ibuang st~cmre ~ Prepared by: Shelley McCafferty, Associate Planner, 410 E, Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5243 (REZ01-00019) AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE FROM MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY (RS-8) TO CONSERVATION DISTRICT OVERLAY (RS-8/OCD) FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE DEARBORN STREET CONSERVATION DISTRICT WITHIN THE LONGFELLOW NEIGHBORHOOD. WHEREAS, the iowa City Historic Preservation Plan, contained in the iowa City Comprehensive Plan, recommends consideration of the designation of conservation and historic districts within the Longfellow neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan recommends the preservation of the integrity of historic neighborhoods, the stabilization of neighborhoods, and supports eftotis of the Historic Preservation Commission; and WHEREAS, the Io~va City Municipal Code authorizes the Historic Preservation Commission to nominate and the City Council to designate conservation districts, where deemed appropriate, as a means of preserving the neighborhood character of traditional Iowa City neighborhoods, or for preserving areas that exemplify unique or distinctive development patterns; and WHEREAS, the iowa City Historic Preservation Commission has completed a study of the Longfellow neighborhood and has found that portions of this neighborhood retain substantial integrity to meet the criteria for designation as a conservation district; and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission feels that designation of the Dearborn Street Conservation District within the Longfellow neighborhood will help stabilize property values and encourage reinvestment in older neighborhoods by providing for design review of new construction or alterations of existing buildings to assure compatibility with the existing character of the district, and will encourage the retention of existing contributing structures within the Longfellow neighborhood; and WHEREAS, at its August 9, 2001 public hearing, the Historic Preservation Commission nominated said properties for designation as a conservation district; and WHEREAS, at its September 20, 2001 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the proposed conservation district designation and the District Guidelines for the Longfellow Neighborhood; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. APPROVAL. The Dearborn Street Conservation District, legally described below and illustrated on Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby designated as a Conservation District Overlay (OCD) Zone and subject to the guidelines of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook including Appendix A, District Guidelines for the Longfellow Neighborhood hereto attached, incorporated herein by this reference: Beginning at the northwest corner of lot 24, block 10, Rundell Addition, Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa, Section Ill, Township 79 North, Range 6 West; Thence 10 feet westerly to the centerline of the 20 foot wide alley between Dearborn and Rundell Street; Thence northerly to the centerline of Muscatine Avenue and the point of beginning; Thence southeasterly along the centerline of Muscatine Avenue to the centerline of Seventh Avenue; Thence southerly to the northern boundary of the RO.W. of the Heartland Rail Corporation, also known as the Iowa Interstate Railroad; Thence northwesterly along said railroad R.O.W. to a point on the intersection of the railroad R.O.W. and the projected centerline of the 16 foot alley west of Rundell Street between the railroad and Sheridan Avenue; Thence northerly along said centerline to the intersection of said centerline and the westward projected southern boundary line of lot 18, block 6 in Rundell Addition; Thence easterly 8 feet to the southwest corner of lot 18, block 6 of Rundell Addition; Thence easterly 185 feet to the southwest corner of lot 1, block 8 of Rundell Addition; Thence southerly to the southwest corner of lot 2, block 8 of Rundell Addition; Thence easterly 125 feet to the southeast corner of said lot 2; Thence easterly 8 feet to a point on the centerline of the 16 foot alley between Rundell and Dearborn Streets south of Sheridan Avenue; Thence northerly 100 feet to the intersection of the centerline of said 16 foot alley and the south R.O.W. line of Sheridan Avenue; Thence northeasterly to the centerline of the 20 foot alley between Rundell and Dearborn Streets at the north RO.W. of Sheridan Avenue; Thence northerly to point of beginning. SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance as provided by law. SECTION Ill. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and to record the same at the office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, all as provided by law. SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION V. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION VI. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this __ day of ,2001. MAYOR ATTEST: CITYCLERK Approved by ,~ /c--P/Z, ~/c2f Dearborn Street Conservation District E~hib. C ' ] ~ I \ GRA__NT CT __ sD \ 7iS ~ 7~ 70~ '~' ____ L~ __ ~Z © 722 717 __ SHERIDAN AVE ' - ~ ~ E 2 ~ ~KSON ST ' I 7~c "' ,. ~ ' "--, ~ (These guidelines will be included within the iowa City Histodc Preservation Handbook upon designation of these districts. All five districts in the Longfellow neighborhood share many similar characteristics. The guidelines pertain to all districts except where otherwise noted. These guidelines replace, without substantive change, the guidelines already adopted for the Governor-Lucas-Bowery Conservation District.) DISTRICT GUIDELINES FOR THE LONGFELLOW NEIGHBORHOOD (Appendix A) (Single-Family and Duplex Buildings) Including: Summit Street Historic District, Longfellow Historic District, Lucas-Governor Street Conservation District, Clark Street Conservation District, and Dearborn Street Conservation District. Site and Scale Guidelines (Additions, New Primary Structures, and Outbuildincls) Setback, Front: For new primary structures, the building setback from the street should be established based upon the setbacks of existing buildings located adjacent to the proposed building. The setback of the new primary structure should conform with the average of the setbacks of the four nearest primary structures located within the same block and along the same street frontage. The setbacks of existing buildings shall be measured at the first floor wall of the main living area of the building, excluding a covered or enclosed porch. Front porches are prevalent on existing buildings within the districts. New buildings may contain covered front porches that extend into the front yard, provided they are located no closer to the street than any of the other porches along the same street frontage. Building additions should be placed at the rear of a property if possible. Additions at or near the front of an existing building shall be set back at least 18 inches from the front plane of the existing building and shall be differentiated by a change in the roofline or other means. On Summit Street only: The rear wall of the primary structures must not extend deeper than 125 feet from the front street. This restriction preserves the openness of the rear yards. Building Facade: The total surface area of the street elevation of a new primary structure should be no more than 800 square feet. Existing primary structures should not be expanded in such a manner that the total surface area exceeds 800 square feet. For the purposes of enforcing this guideline, the total surface area of the street elevation shall be defined as a figure derived by calculating the surface area of all wall and roof surfaces, including window and door openings, that are visible in an accurate street elevation drawing of the building. On Governor, Bowerr, and Court Streets only: The total surface area of the street elevation should be no more than 1200 square feet for a new building or for an existing building including a new addition. On Summit Street only: The total surface area of the street elevation should be no more than 1500 square feet for a new building or for an existing building including a new addition, and not less than 750 square feet for a new building. A-1 Outbuildings: Outbuildings, including garages, should be placed to the rear of the primary building whenever possible. Attached garages are discouraged, but if constructed should be set back at least 20 feet from the front plane of the building. In the Summit Street Histodc District only: Attached garages are not allowed. Garages must be located at the rear of the property wherever possible. Garages and other outbuildings should be clearly subordinate in size to the primary structure. Pedestrian Access: A sidewalk shall be provided that connects the entrance door or porch to the public sidewalk. Vehicular Access: Vehicular access should be provided from an alley if available. Driveways leading from the street to garages or parking at the rear of the property should be one-lane in width, but can be widened toward the back of the lot to provide access to multi-stall garages or parking spaces. Parking: Parking spaces are not permitted between the pdmary structure and the street. Parking should be provided behind the primary structure on a lot wherever possible. If parking must be located along the side of an existing or new primary structure, it shall be set back from the front plane of the building a minimum of 10 feet and be screened by a decorative fence, landscaping, or a combination of a decorative fence and landscaping, and approved by the Historic Preservafion Commission. Architectural Guidelines for New Outbuildings Building Styles: New outbuildings behind contributing primary structures should reflect the style of the primary structure. New outbuildings behind noncontributing primary structures should reflect historic outbuilding styles in the neighborhood. Garage Doors: Garage doors visible from the street should be simple in design. Smooth or simple panel-type garage doors may be used. Garage door openings should be trimmed to match other doors and windows in the building. Single-stall garage doors are preferred to double-stall garage doors. Architectural Guidelines for New Primary Structures Building Styles: Architectural style is a defining characteristic for histodc and conservation districts. A new primary structure should reflect the historic styles of its neighborhood. Although new construction may adapt and mix some elements of different styles, a single style should dictate the height and mass, rooflines, fenestration, and overhangs for the new building. Please refer to the section entitled "Architectural Styles in Iowa City" for examples of historic building styles. The architectural styles representative of each district are given below. In the Summit Street Historic District only: A new building should reflect Italianate, Colonial Revival Queen Anne, Vernacular, Foursquare, or Eclectic style. A-2 In the Lonqfellow Historic District only: A new building should reflect Colonial Revival, Queen Anne, Vernacular, Foursquare, Bungalow, Craftsman, Period Cottage, or Eclectic style. In the Lucas-Govenor Conservation District only: A new building on Governor Street should reflect Italianate, Queen Anne, Vernacular, or Foursquare style. A new structure on Lucas Street should reflect Queen Anne, Vernacular, Foursquare, Bungalow, or Craftsman style. In the Clark Street Conservation District only: A new building should reflect either Colonial Revival, Queen Anne, Vernacular, Foursquare, Bungalow, or Craftsman style. In the Dearborn Street Conservation District only: A new building should reflect Vernacular, Foursquare, Period Cottage, Bungalow, Craftsman, or Eclectic style. Building Height and Mass: New single-family houses or duplexes shall be one, one- and-a-half, or two-stories in height. In the Summit Street Historic District only: New single-family houses shall have two full stories in the principle portion of the building. Rooflines: Rooflines should follow one of the historic building styles identified as appropriate for this district. Dormers: Dormers must be in proportion to the roof's overall size. Cumulatively, they should interrupt the roof plane no more than one third of the length of that roof measured at the eave. They should be no closer than 3 feet to an existing gable end or hip. The face of the dormer should be narrow, rather than wide, and be composed primarily of window area. Dormers in new construction should have roof pitches similar to the pitch of the main roof. Overhangs: New construction should include overhangs appropriate to the historic style guiding the overall design of the building. Windows/Fenestration: Window placement on the fa(;ade a new building should follow patterns established by contributing structures within the district. Window shape and placement must be consistent with other elements of the building style of the new structure. Long wall spaces without windows are inappropriate. Small decorative windows in the attic level of front gable ends are encouraged. Window trim shall be between three to four inches in width. Shutters are discouraged. In historic districts only: Windows must be double-hung or fixed-sash with an appearance and profile similar to those windows original to the district. Window design should be appropriate to the building style. Doors: Exterior doors on front or side elevations of new single and duplex structures must include half or full lights and/or raised panel construction in keeping with the historic building style of the new structure. Sliding patio doors are uncharacteristic of any of the historic styles of the neighborhood and should appear only on rear elevations. A-3 In historic districts only: Sliding patio doors may not be used. Other more appropriate door styles that accommodate large glass area are available. Porches and Balconies: Single-story, covered front porches are a key element in the Longfellow neighborhood. New single-family and duplex structures should include a porch typical for the style of the house. Front porches must be roofed and supported with posts or pillars of appropriate dimensions. They may be partially screened or unscreened, but shall not be entirely enclosed with walls and/or windows. Porch flooring should be vertical-grained fir porch flooring. Posts and other accents may be wood or other durable matedal that accepts paint. Where a spindled railing is used, there must be a top and bottom rail and the spindles must be centered on the horizontal rails. If the space below the porch floor and above the grade is greater than 24 inches, the porch must be skirted with lattice or grilles. In conservation districts only: Dimensional lumber may be used, but the gaps between the floorboards should not exceed one-eighth inch. In conservation districts only: Poured concrete floors are permitted within conservation districts provided that the porch floor is not more than 18 inches above grade. In conservation districts only: Porches on rear elevations need not reproduce historic details. Balconies: Balconies that protrude from the walls of buildings without vertical support were not common in the Longfellow neighborhood, and should not be included on the front or sides of buildings. If second-story porches are included, they must be placed above first-story porches or first-floor interior spaces. Wood Substitutes: Substituting a material in place of wood is acceptable only if the substitute material retains the appearance and function of the original wood. The substitute material must be durable, accept paint, and be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. Siding: Horizontal siding like clapboards or cedar shingles are the preferred cladding materials for new buildings. Wood products for siding include shakes, shingles, and painted horizontal clapboard siding from three to six inches in width. Fibrous cement siding is an acceptable substitute for wood siding. Brick was sometimes used in the Longfellow neighborhood and may be an acceptable siding material where historic brick buildings are nearby. Synthetic masonry surfaces such as artificial stone are not acceptable. In conservation districts only: Synthetic siding may be used on new structures and on noncontributing structures. A-4 Prepared by: John Yapp, Assoc. Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5247 (VAC01-00005) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE VACATING 11,800 SQUARE FEET OF UNDEVELOPED KIRKVVOOD AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED SOUTH OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST PARKING LOT AT 1320 KIP, KW'OOD AVENUE. WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City has received a request from the Church of Christ to vacate undeveloped Kirkwood Avenue right-of-way south of the Church of Christ parking lot at 1320 Kirkwood Avenue; and WHEREAS, the subject right--of-way is undeveloped as a street or alley and does not provide access to any adjacent properties; and WHEREAS, the right-of-way contains Mid-American Energy utilities for which an easement will be obtained; and WHEREAS, it is the City's intent to convey a small portion of the right-of-way to the adjacent Church of Christ property, and to retain the remainder as public open space with a paved trail; and WHEREAS, it is in the City's interest to vacate right-of-way that is not intended to be used for access to adjacent properties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. VACATION. The City of Iowa City hereby vacates the right-of-way legally described as follows: The 35-foot wide Kirkwood Avenue right-of-way located south of Lots 32, 33, 34, and 35 of Hill Crest Price's Addition, and west of the Iowa Interstate Railroad right-of-way. SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provi- sions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or uncensti- tutional. SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of ,20 MAYO R ATTEST: CITY CLERK Approved by o,,,E ' ppdadmin',Drd~1320kirkwood,doc STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: John Yapp, Associate Planner Item: VAC01-00005, corner of Kirkwood Date: September 21, 2001 Avenue and Lower Muscatine Road GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Kirkwood Avenue Church of Christ 1320 Kirkwood Avenue Iowa City, IA 52240 Requested Action: Right-of-way vacation Purpose: To vacate property not used as right-of-way, and to allow adjacent property owner to acquire a small portion of right-of-way not being utilized. Location: East of the corner where Kirkwood Avenue becomes Lower Muscatine Road. Size: Approximately 11,800 square feet Existing Land Use and Zoning: Religious Institution parking area, vacant, RS-5 Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Iowa Interstate Railroad, RS-5 South: Low-Density, Single-Family Residential, RS-5 East: Low-Density, Single-Family Residential, RS-5 West: Low-Density, Single-Family Residential, RS-5 Comprehensive Plan: Residential File Date: September 10, 2001 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The applicant, the Kirkwood Avenue Church of Christ has applied for the vacation of a 17.5-foot wide portion of the 35-foot wide Kirkwood Avenue right-of-way along the south line of its property at 1320 Kirkwood Avenue (Lots 32, 33, 34 of Hill Crest Price's Addition). While the applicant has applied for the vacation of only the strip of right-of-way they wish to acquire, staff feels it is appropriate to vacate the entire 35-foot wide right-of-way not being utilized as a street. The strip proposed to be vacated is a 35-foot wide right-of-way, between 300 to 375 feet in length, between Kirkwood Avenue and the Iowa Interstate Railroad tracks. Staff discovered it was right- of-way when investigating property ownership in the area for the Longfellow-Twain Pedestrian Tunnel project, which is nearing completion. A pedestrian trail will be located within part of the area designated as Kirkwood Avenue right-of-way; staff is proposing to vacate the right-of-way and designate it as public land instead of street right-of-way. Staff recommends conveying a portion of the right-of-way not needed for the pedestrian trail to the neighboring Church. 2 ANALYSIS: There are three general criteria used to determine whether the release of a street or alley right-of- way is not advisable: if such a release would result in 1 ) detrimental vehicular or pedestrian circulation, 2) interference with the rights of access to any private property, or 3) if it would inhibit the access of fire or emergency vehicles, or utility service vehicles. The right-of-way has not been used as a means of access to any property in the area. In fact, the soon-to-be-completed Longfellow-Twain Pedestrian Tunnel linking the neighborhood north of the Iowa Interstate Railway with residential and commercial areas to the south will enhance accessibility between the adjacent neighborhoods. Because all surrounding properties have their frontage along Kirkwood Avenue and Lower Muscatine Road, this vacation will not prove a hindrance to emergency services or utility vehicle access. The Longfellow-Twain Pedestrian Tunnel project is nearing completion. Final landscaping will take place in the spring of 2002. The Kirkwood Avenue Church of Christ helped make the trail a reality when it sold the City Lot 35, a triangular lot that, in addition to supporting the trail and tunnel access, might someday be used as a mini-park. No definite plans for that scenario are in place yet. Staff feels it is more appropriate to designate the trail corridor and Lot 35 as public land rather than street right-of-way. Following the vacation, staff will initiate the rezoning of this property to P, Public. The applicant has asked to purchase a portion of the vacated property not used for the trail corridor in order to accommodate parking that sometimes extends beyond the existing parking lot, which currently borders the north side of the right-of-way. The Church would hard-surface a portion of the area. Staff recommends, and the applicant has agreed, to plant small shrubs such as pink spirea along the south edge of the property to help screen the parking area, and to better demarcate it from the trail corridor. MidAmerican Energy has overhead electric lines within the corridor, and an easement will be created for them. Staff has notified the other utilities of the proposed vacation, and will create any necessary utility easements for them as well. Staff feels it is in the public interest to vacate the area of Kirkwood Avenue right-of-way and rezone it to P, Public, to better indicate it's function as a trail corridor, and to convey the unused portion of the corridor to the neighboring Church property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that VAC01-00005, a request to vacate the Kirkwood Avenue right-of-way east of the Kirkwood Avenue / Lower Muscatine Road intersection, be approved. Staff recommends that if the vacation is approved, a 140-foot by 17.5-foot area of the vacated right-of-way, along the south side of Lots 32, 33, and 34 of Hill Crest Price's Addition, be conveyed to the adjacent property owner, subject to small shrubs being planted along the south property line to screen the Church parking area and to demarcate the trail corridor from the Church property. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location map 2. Auditors parcel plat App roved by: /~z~L J '/'~' Robert Miklo. Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development CITY Ot: IO~:A CITY SITE LOCATION: Kirkwood Avenue VAC01-00005 IOWA CITY, IOWA 19010 -_ , CHURCH OF POINT 0~' BEGINNING ?~ ~, ~DE~LECTRICAL EASEMENT ~ ,/ B / ~x 0~ 'x A T~CTIN NE 114, SWll4, SEC ~4, ~9, R~W/,' P oreto ~ rSURVEY PLAT LEGEND Date of survey 6/2000 tO ~/2001 I hereby certify that th{s [and surveying document was prepared and the related survey work was performed by me of under my direct personal supervision end tho[ I am a duty licensed Land Surveyor under [he ~aws of ~he State o~ Iowa. BOUNDARY DESCRIPTtON FOR AUDITOR PARCEL No. 2001031 A part of Kirkwood Street os recorded in Hill Crest Price's Addition to Iowa City, Iowa Recorded in Book 3, Page 211 in the Recorder Office of dabrisen County, Iowo; Beginning eto set 5/8" rebor on the SW corner of Lot 32 in said Hill Crest Price's Addition; Thence Easterly 140.00 feet along the Southerly line of Lo~s 32. 33 and 34 in said addition to a set 5/8" rebar: Thence SoutheBy at right angle to ~he last course 17.50 feet to set 5/8" robot on the centerline of sa~d Kirkwood Street: Thence Westerly at right angle to the last course 140.00 feet along the said centerline of sold Kirkwood Street ~o a set 5/8" robot; Thence Northerly ot rTght angle to the last course 17,50 feet ~o the Point of Beginning, Said troc~ canteens 2450 square fee~ SHOEMAKER ~ HAALAND PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS ;;, - -' Robert E. GreenweEd, L.S, Date, ': ' ' " RegistroHon No. 9175 ",.,:,',~ ~:..,.-, My license renewQl date is December 51. 2002. 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 23rd day of October, 2001, in HaP/at 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 to rezone approximately 14.07 acres of property from Low Density Single Family Residential, RS-5, and Planned Development Overlay - Low Density Single Family Residential, OPDH-5, to OPDH-5, for property located south of Village Road and north of Wintergreen Drive. 2.) An ordinance changing the zoning designation from RM-20, Medium Density Multi- Family, to RS-8, Medium Density Single Family, for approximately 3.07 acres of property located at 747 W. Benton Street. 3.) An ordinance changing the zoning designation from C1-1, Intensive Commercial, to CC-2, Community Commercial, for approximately 6.15 acres located at Commerce Drive and Liberty Drive. 4.) A. ordh~ance changing the zoning designation from ID-RS, Interim Development Single Family, to SAO-5, Sensitive Areas Overlay Low Density Single-Family, for approximately 24.12 acres located east of Hickonj Trail. 5.) An ordinance amending the OPDH plan for Village Green Part XVIII to permit nine additional residential units on approximately 4.33 acres located west of Scott Boulevard and south of Wellington Drive. Copies of the proposed ordinances are on file for public examination in the office of the City Clerk, Civic Center, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons wishing to make their views known for Council consideration are encouraged to appear at the above-mentioned time and place. MARlAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK Prepared by: Shelley McCaffe~ty, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5243 (REZ01-00015) AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE FROM INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL (CI-1), TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC-2) ON 6.15 ACRES AT COMERCIAL DRIVE AND LIBERTY DRIVE. WHEREAS, the owner of said property has requested the said rezoning to allow the construction of a supermarket; and WHEREAS, the owner of said property has submitted a petition in support of the construction of a supermarket in Scott-Six Industrial Park; and WHEREAS, the CC-2 zone allows for the establishment of a supermarket, along with other designated uses; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds it is in the public interest to rezone the subject property to allow for the construction of a supermarket or for such other uses allowed in the CC-2 zone. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. APPROVAL. The property described below is hereby reclassified from its present classification of Intensive Commercial (C1-1), to Community Commercial (CC-2). Lots 17,18.19, 20, 21 and 22 of Scoff-Six Industrial Park as recorded in Book 38 at Page 137 of the Johnson County, Iowa Recorder's Office. SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage. approval and publication of this ordinance as provided by law. SECTION Ill. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and to record the same at the office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, all as provided by law. SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION V. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION VI. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of ,2001. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: November 7, 2001 From: in, PCD Dire . Re: Requested information r REZ01-00015 ZONING INFORMATION The following is the information you requested regarding the Scott-Six Industrial Park rezoning. This information includes the intent for uses in the Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1), Community Commercial (CC-2), Intensive Commercial (C1-1) and General Industrial (I-1) zones. Included is a list of examples of established zones and the uses allowed in each zone. Neiclhborhood Commercial Zone (CN-1) Intent: The Neighborhood Commercial Zone is intended to permit the development of retail sales and personal services required to meet the day-to-day needs of a fully developed residential neighborhood. Stores, businesses and offices in this zone should be useful to the majority of the neighborhood residents, should be economically suppodable by nearby population, and should not draw community-wide patronage. A grocery store or grocery store/drugstore combination is favored as the principal tenant in a Neighborhood Commercial Zone. In general, the CN-1 zone is intended for the grouping of a grocery store and small retail businesses and office uses which are relatively nuisance-free to surrounding residences and which do not detract from the residential purpose and character of the surrounding neighborhood. The location and development of neighborhood commercial sites should follow the criteria set forth for such sites in the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. Examples: Rochester and First Avenue; Walden Square at Mormon Trek and West Winds Drive; Dodge and Church Street; and Scott Court and Court Street Permitted Uses - by right Barbershops and beauty parlors, laundromats, laundry and dry-cleaning pick-up and delivery service, shoe repair service Copy centers Drugstores, florist shop and variety stores Financial institutions, branch offices Photofinishing services Retail bakeries U.S. postal stations Videotape rental stores Any other retail or personal service use limited to two thousand (2,000) square feet of floor area Provisional Uses-by right Childcare centers Grocery stores less than 30,000 square feet Neighborhood superstores (grocery store which includes departments) less than 40,000 square feet Offices limited to dental practices, general medical practices, insurance agencies, November 7, 2001 Page 2 Chiropractic clinics, real estate agencies, accounting practices, and law offices Restaurants, provided the occupancy load does not exceed 100 Utility substation facilities within existing buildings Special Exceptions-requires Board of Adjustment action Dwelling units above ground floor Up to three drive-through lanes for banks or pharmacies Filling stations Offices that do not have retail trade or maintain stock of goods Religious Institutions Restaurants Schools, specialized private instruction Adult daycare Retail or personal service use greater than two thousand (2,000) square feet Utility substation facilities Community Commercial Zone {60-2) Intent: The Community Commercial Zone is intended to provide for major business districts to serve a significant segment of the total community population. In addition to a variety of retail goods and services, these centers may typically feature a number of large traffic generators requiring access from major thoroughfares. While these centers are usually characterized by indoor operations, certain permitted uses may have limited outdoor activities. Examples: Pepperwood Plaza on Highway 6; Sycamore Mall area including area around Mail Drive and First Avenue, Muscatine and First Avenue; Riverside and Highway 6; and the area south of Highway 1 which includes WaI-Mart, Staples, Cub Foods, and the Gateway Shopping Center. Permitted Uses-by right Business and personal service establishments except drive-in facilities Clubs Food lockers Meeting halls Office uses allowed in the CO-1 zone Retail establishments, including restaurants Theaters Provisional Uses-by right if provisions are met Small animal clinics Adult daycare Childcare center Utility substation facilities within existing buildings Special Exceptions-requires Board of Adjustment action Auto- and truck-oriented uses Cemeteries Commercial recreational uses Dwellings located above or below the ground floor Funeral homes Religious institutions Schools, specialized private instruction Transient housing Utility substation facilities November 7, 2001 Page 3 Intensive Commercial Zone (C1-1) Intent: The Intensive Commercial Zone is intended to provide areas for those sales and service functions and businesses whose operations are typically characterized by outdoor display, storage and/or sale of merchandise, by repair of motor vehicles, by outdoor commercial amusement and recreational activities or by activities or operation conducted in buildings or structures not completely enclosed. Special attention must be directed toward buffering the negative aspects of these uses from any residential use. Examples: Gilbert Court, Highland Court and Highland Avenue; Southgate Avenue, Gilbert Street, and Stevens Drive; Commercial Drive; and Highway 6 and Ruppert Road Permitted Uses-by right Auto-and truck-oriented uses Building contractor facilities Clubs Commercial recreational facilities Computer supply stores Consignment stores Equipment rental agencies Farm implement dealers Food lockers Furniture and carpeting stores Hardware and building supply stores Lumberyards and building establishments and yards Marine equipment and supply Meeting halls Merchandise and product supply center buy not including the retail sale of merchandise on premises Printing and duplicating operations Religious institutions Repair shops Restaurants Wholesale trade and warehouse establishments in the I-1 zone Provisional Uses-by right if provisions are met Funeral homes Kennels and veterinary clinics Retail establishments associated with uses allowed in this zone provided not more than 50% of the total ground floor area shall be devoted to the retail display of merchandise Light manufacturing (under 5,000 square feet) Childcare Utility substation facilities Special Exceptions-requires Board of Adjustment action Adult businesses Cementitious concrete batch/mix plants Dwellings located above the ground floor Group care facilities Schools, specialized private instruction Transient housing Light manufacturing (5,000 - 15,000 square feet) November 7, 2001 Page 4 LOT INFORMATION Lot sizes of CC-2 or CN-I lots to develop or redevelop 1. Mall Drive 3.5 acres 2. Plamor Lanes 1.3 acres 3. Highway 6 near Bon Aire 7 acres 4. Rochester and Scott Boulevard 10 acres 5. Windsor Ridge at Court & Huntington Dr. 6.3 acres The Planning and Zoning Commission and staff believe that the above locations represent opportunities for retail uses including Faraway on the eastside. In reaching our recommendation, we felt that it would be better to revitalize these areas by encouraging their development rather than opening new areas for a retail shopping center. Location of a grocery store on vacant land on Mail Drive or the redevelopment in the Plamor Lanes area on First Avenue would contribute to the community's efforts to revitalize Sycamore Mall. The Highway 6 location near Bon Aire is quite close to the Scott Six Industrial Park, yet has direct access to a large rasidential area. OWENS-BROCK'WAY LOCATION At the last work session there was also a question about the location of the new Owens- Brockway project. Attached is a map of the Scott-Six Industrial Park. The shaded area is Lot 31 and a portion of Lot 30, which is the site for Owens-Brockway. cc: City Manager Planning and Zoning Commission mgdmem/zones.doc ::::~::v}: :; -'i' '~:* *~' }1OMMERCIAL ZONES C (CC-2 & CN-1)ft4 44 ~.s. ,' I; :~~l:~=. ,, , x' ,~' ' '* I, I,., ~ ~t~ ~::::--, ?', ~;~1: ========================= :::~]~?t'. ~m~ )if, ":~: ~' ,m' "~;~e .... ~ ' I~ I~ "' ' :: ::~:::::::::' :; ' :' :=:; '{ V; ~ Proposed CC-2 Location Lot #31 and a portion of Lot {30 SCOTT-SIX INDUSTRIAL PARK OWENS BROCKWAY IOWA CITY PLANT ' / Page 1 of 1 Marian Karr From: John Gillenwater [gillenwater@home.com] Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 5:03 PM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: Fareway Grocery My wife and I have owned homes on the east side of Iowa City since 1976. We support buiding a Fareway Grocery on Scott Boulevard. Thank You, John and Mary Gillenwater 2501 East Court St. Iowa City,lA 52245 10/28/01 NOTICE OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, ON THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF $10,250,000 SEWER REVENUE BONDS OF SAID CITY, AND THE HEARING ON THE ISSUANCE THEREOF PUBLIC NOTICE is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, will hold a public hearing on the 13th day of November, 2001, at 7:00 o'clock P..M., in the Emma J. Harvat Hall, Civic Center, in Iowa City, Iowa, at which meeting the City Council proposes to take additional action for the issuance of $10,250,000 Sewer Revenue Bonds of said City. Said bonds will not constitute general obligations or be payable in any manner by taxation, but will be payable from and secured by the net revenues of the Sanitary Sewer Utility. Said bonds are proposed to be issued for the purpose of paying costs of extending, improving and equipping the sanitary sewer utility of the City. At the above meeting oral or written objections from any resident or property owner of said City to the above action shall be received. After all objections have been received and considered, the Council will at said meeting or at any adjournment thereof, take additional action for the issuance of said bonds or will abandon the proposal to issue said bonds. This notice is given by order of said governing body as provided by Section 384.83 of the City Code of Iowa. Dated this 291h day of October, 2001. Marjan K. Karr City Clerk of Iowa City, Iowa NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT AND ESTIMATED COST FOR THE COURT HILL TRUNK SEWER IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA TO ALL TAXPAYERS OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, AND TO OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS: Public notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, will conduct a public hearing on plans, specifications, form of conU-act and estimated cost for the construction of the Court Hill Tnmk Sewer Improvements Project in said City at 7:00 p.m. on the 13th day of November, 2001, said meeting to be held in the Council Chambers in the Civic Center in said City, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk. Said plans, specifications, form of contract and estimated cost are now on file in the office of the City Clerk in the Civic Center in Iowa City, Iowa, and may be inspected by any interested persons. Any interested persons may appear at said meeting of the City Council for the purpose of making objections to and comments conceming said plans, specifications, contract or the cost of making said improvement. This notice is given by order of the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa and as provided by law. MARlAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK -- TRAIL BID- - A L TERNA TE FRESH FOOD CONCEPTS, INC. 103 E. COLLEGE ST., SUITE 220 IOWA CITY, IA 52240 PH. 319-338-5312 VAX 319-338-3783 November 12, 2001 City Council City of Iowa City 410 East Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 Re: Proposed Ordinance to Prohibit Smoking in Restaurants Dear Councilors: I am writing to you regarding the proposed ordinance to ban smoking in restaurants in Iowa City. By way of background, you should know that Fresh Food Concepts is the management company for five restaurants in the Iowa City area. Four of those establishments (Givanni's, Micky's, Mondo's Downtown and the Bread Garden) are located in the downtown area of Iowa City and one (Mondo's Tomato Pie) is located in Coralville. My wife and I have owned and operated these restaurants dating back to when Micky's opened in downtown Iowa City in 1980. We are not newcomers to this market and we believe we understand the demographics of the restaurant and bar business in Iowa City. First, I would like to say that we believe businesses should be able to mn free from governmental intervention to the extent possible. The free enterprise system is based upon businesses competing openly and freely. Customers then decide when and where they will utilize the products or services offered by various businesses. Until now, smoking has been an issue which the City of Iowa City has left to applicable state laws and to business discretion. As business owners, we have made the business decision to prohibit smoking in three of the five restaurants mentioned above. No smoking is allowed at Givanni's and the Bread Garden in Iowa City nor at Mondo's Tomato Pie in Coralville. Only when there is a greater need in the interest of public health, safety or welfare should the government impose its regulations or standards on businesses. There are good examples of this, such as health department licenses, liquor licenses and building and fire codes. We are fully supportive of such governmental regulation. If the City Council determines that allowing smoking in certain businesses rises to the level of being a public health issue, then it is appropriate for the Council to enact an ordinance in the interest of City Council of Iowa City page 2 November 12, 2001 public health. The harmful effects of cigarette smoke, including passive smoke, are well documented. Even though customers can choose to patronize only businesses which totally ban smoking, workers are often not in a position to make a choice. If smoking is allowed, there is little question that some individuals' health will be negatively impacted. Our concern at this point is that the Council is considering an ordinance which would apply only to eating or drinking establishments which have less than 35% of their revenues from the sale of alcoholic beverages. We cannot understand why the Council would choose to limit its action to only some of the businesses serving food and alcohol. Does the same public health need not exist when the portion of sales which is derived from the sale of alcohol rises above a certain level? If the Council has a legitimate basis to regulate smoking, it must come from the standpoint of public health. If in the interest of public health the door is open for the Council to take action, then the Council must walk the whole way through that door and prohibit smoking in al__l establishments which serve food or alcohol. That is the only way the public health can truly be protected. Another concern we have with the proposed ordinance is the uneven playing field which would be created through the arbitrary percent of sales provision. Presently all restaurants and bars in Iowa City are playing under the same rules relative to smoking. It is important to recognize that the Iowa City market, and the downtown market in particular, is very competitive for bar business. Two of our businesses in the downtown Iowa City market (Mondo's Downtown and Micky' s) compete for this bar business. Those businesses are established restaurants which derive more than 65% of their revenues from the sale of food and nonalcoholic beverages, and as such, under the proposed ordinance would not be able to allow smoking at any time. However, those businesses have a significant bar trade late at night. We believe that not being able to allow smoking at the times we are competing for bar business, while other downtown bars would be able to allow smoking, would create a significant and unfair financial hardship on these businesses. The City should not enact an ordinance which would arbitrarily place a competitive disadvantage on some businesses when there are other alternatives available. The alternative available to the Council is to totally prohibit smoking in any eating or drinking establishment. In that way, all businesses would be operating under the same rules. Finally, the burden of administration should be considered. A partial ban on smoking creates a significant administrative burden. How is the percent of sales to be monitored? How often would sales be reported? Would the numbers reported be reliable? What happens if a business is close to the limit and slips over the line? How is a new business with no sales history to be treated? None of these issues exist with a total ban on smoking. In summary, let me again say that we believe government should not intervene in the regulation of private business unless there is a legitimate public health, safety or welfare need to be addressed. City Council of Iowa City page 3 November 12, 2001 If smoking in public places creates a public health issue, then it is incumbent upon the Council to prohibit smoking in all public eating and drinking establishments to address the health of all members of the public. In addition, this approach would treat all businesses the same thereby not creating an arbitrary and unfair competitive advantage or disadvantage for anyone. Finally, the total ban approach would be administratively feasible. Thank you for your consideration on this difficult issue. Sincerely, JAM/rs ~James A. Mondanaro President Marian Karr From: chariottewalker@webtv.net Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 11:08 AM To: council@iowa-city.org; Lisa-Mollenhauer@iowa-city.org Subject: Objection to the Tobacco ordinance To the whole Council: I cannot be at the meeting tonight. The Governor is in town tonight too. But, I would like to express my objection to the proposed smoking ban. I think the owners should set their own rules on that matter. Until tobacco becomes illegal, and the state quits reaping heavy profits from tobacco taxes, I think the oweners should make their rules on tobacco. The smoking establishments could be required to be well marked on the outside doors, as a concession to the anti-smoking people. The customers can choose whether to enter or not. The establishments who have already made the non-smoking rule de not want any competition edge from those who refuse to do it. Charlotte Walker (a non-smoker) 320 S Dubuque St Iowa City, IA 338-2776 Seniors On Guard http://members.tripod.com/~seniorsonguard/index.html Not your Grandmother's kind of senior citizen group. Marjan Karr From: amy-charles@uiowa.edu Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 12:19 PM Subject: smoking ordinance: pro, 65/35 Hi, all --- I won't be able to make it to tonight's meeting, but I wanted to reiterate my support for a smoking ban in restaurants. I do believe the 65/35 split will make a clear distinction between restaurants and bars; since at this point it doesn't seem realistic to impose a smoking ban in bars, I'd really like to see the city go with an ordinance that will clearly be written for restaurants. I think it'll mean a greater longterm chance of success. Thanks again for your support on this issue. My asthma doctor thanks you too. =) Sincerely, Amy Charles 804 Benton Dr. #32 Iowa City Page 1 of 2 Marian Karr l0 From: Field, R. William [bill-field@uiowa.edu] Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 11:52 AM Subject: Draft Smokin9 Ordinance Importance: High November 13,2001 Dear Council members, As a public health researcher with a focus on lung cancer, I see the results and talk to the afflicted individuals of tobacco smoke daily. Once someone develops lung cancer, almost 60% of those individuals will die within one year and only 14% of the people will live 5 years. Lung cancer is the number one cause of cancer death. Please let me share a personal story with you. I have never smoked in my life, but my parents often took me to restaurants and other social gatherings where there was smoking. As a child, I had frequent ear infections that ultimately led to a 80% hearing loss. The physician I was seeing in the 1960s attributed the hearing loss to ear infections secondary to the allergies to smoke. To improve my hearing, I was given massive doses of radiation to shrink the lymphold tissues in my middle ear. I now suffer from chronic problems related to the radiation exposure and am now at high risk for head and neck cancers. All of this could have been avoided if my parents did not take me to areas where people were smoking. They were ignorant of the facts concerning the effects of cigarette smoking in the 1960s. However, today we can not claim that ignorance as a reason not to protect the children in our community. While I had hoped that such an ordinance would have been passed 10 years ago, I am nevertheless proud to live in a city that is finally taking the initial steps to protect people who live, work and visit our fine city. I am very limited to where I can take my family out to eat in Iowa City. I have tried to go to restaurants that have "non- smoking" sections, but very often at least one of my children will suffer an asthma attack and we will have to leave. I urge the council to agree on and vote for an ordinance tonight that sets the percent of sales in a non biased, impartial way. I truly believe the best percentage would be the one previously used (50%) in Iowa law. There is precedent for this percentage and I think it will be viewed as a logical place to start. Selecting an arbitrary number such as 65% gives the impression that the council is deciding on a percentage that would either include or exclude certain establishments. I also urge you not to pass any exemptions such as a red/light green light. These exemptions are impossible to enforce and the tobacco products linger in the rooms for days. In addition, an exemption based on a separate ventilation may sound good, but it is not technically feasible unless the building do not share any common doors, heating/air condition ducts, etc. If you were to adopt such an exemption who on the city staff could write the specifications for such a system and check to see if it is functioning at those preset limits? In fact, I know of no company that produces air purifying equipment that will say their devices can remove all the tobacco carcinogens. If I can answer any questions in regards to my comments above, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Bill Field R. William Field, M.S, Ph.D. College of Public Health 11/13/01 Page 2 of 2 Department of Epidemiology N222 Oakdale Hall University of Iowa Iowa City, Iowa 52242 319-335-4413 (phone) 319-335-4748 (fax) mailto:bill-field~.uiowa.edu http:flexpertise,cos,comlcgi-binlexp.cgi?id=323385 11/13/01 Page 1 of 1 Marian Karr From: Ted Hofmann [hofmanntedl@qwest. net] Sent: Tuesday, November 13.2001 3:08 PM To: council@iowa-city.org; Lisa-Mollenhauer@iowa-city.org Subject: Tobacco debate I am sending you this email regarding the proposed tobacco ordinance you are deliberating. Whether or not such an ordinance would harm the businesses in question would remain to be seen in the final analysis of such an ordinance, but as I am certain you are aware, there are already a number of dining places throughout the city (and in the surrounding vicinity) that already advertise themselves as a "smoke-free environment," Any business can make that determination for themselves and it is my opinion that the city council is not the place for such decisions. Yes, I am a smoker, and, yes, I do visit those establishments that are smoke-free, but only when I am dining out with friends who object to smoking. When I dine out alone, I choose a place where I am comfortable and can smoke. Likewise, those individuals who do not smoke, can choose a place that is smoke-free. VVhy is it the city council feels they have need or are required to interfere in these matters of choice? Ted Hofmann 411 E Market#104A Iowa City, Iowa 52245 11/13/01 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: November 7, 2001 To: City Council J From: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorne Re: Ordinance regarding smoking in food establishments In accordance with your direction, on your agenda for November 13 is an ordinance to prohibit smoking in food establishments with the exception of those which demonstrate by affidavit that their sales of alcoholic beverages exceed 35% of their gross receipts. 1. Definition of Food Establishment. The ordinance is written in reference to and within the framework of Chapter 142B of the Iowa Code, which generally requires the designation of non-smoking areas in "public places". In a recent opinion the Attorney General determined that a city ordinance enacted to prohibit smoking in any public place, as defined by Iowa Code Section 142B.1(3), would not be inconsistent with or conflict with Iowa Code Chapter 142B, and would not be preempted. The Attorney General's opinion relied heavily on Section 142B.2(2), which states: Smoking areas may be designated by persons having custody or control of public places, except in places in which smokinq is prohibited by the Fire Marshall or by other law, ordinance, or regulation. (emphasis added) Thus, the ordinance is drafted to prohibit designation of smoking areas and smoking in food establishments. As the ordinance is presently drafted, smoking will be prohibited in an establishment that is: 1) a "public place" as defined in Chapter 142B (a copy of the definition is attached hereto); 2) where food is prepared or served for on-premises consumption; and 3) where no affidavit has been filed with the City Clerk demonstrating that the establishment's sales of alcoholic beverages exceed 35% of gross revenues. Under Chapter 142B, "public place" is an "enclosed, indoor area used by the general pubiic...including, but not limited to, all restaurants with a seating capacity greater than fifty,..." I note that CAFE's proposed ordinance modified the definition of public place to include al_l restaurants. The Attorney General's opinion specifically states, however: Note that we are confining this opinion to the ability of a locality to restrict smoking in a "public place" as defined by Section 142B. ~(3). This opinion does not address the ability or inability of a locality to modify the definition of "public place" as established by the General Assembly. A.G. opinion of November 14, 2000 p. 3.fn2 An amendment to the "public place" definition would prevent us from relying directly on the Attorney General's opinion or a favorable result in the Ames lawsuit (Ames' Ordinance, which is currently being litigated, incorporates 142B's definition of public place). In the Ames lawsuit, the court has denied the plaintiffs' request for a temporary November 7, 2001 Page 2 injunction and the plaintiffs have now filed a motion for summary judgment, to which Ames is in the process of responding. 2. Affidavit to obtain exception. As currently drafted, in order to be excepted from this ordinance a food establishment must file an affidavit (a sworn statement) which states the actual percentage of the establishment's sales of alcoholic beverages and that such percentage is based on records maintained in the normal course of business. Requiring that the actual percentage be stated (as opposed to simply stating that alcohol sales are in excess of 35%) provides greater assurance that the establishment has reviewed their actual sales prior to filing the affidavit. The City Clerk informs me that in the past when affidavits were required to allow Sunday sales by liquor licensees, actual percentages of food, alcoholic beverages and non-alcoholic beverages were required on the affidavit. While the affidavit must state that the percentages are based on business records, the records need not be attached to the affidavit. However, the City retains the right to review such records upon request, and failure to provide the records will mean that the exception is no longer available to the establishment. 3. Penalty. In accordance with earlier direction of the Council, the penalty for the smoker is $25, and the penalty for designation of a smoking area or not posting no-smoking signs is the general penalty provided by City Code, which is $100 for first offense, $200 for second offense, and $500 for third and subsequent offenses. In the last several years when State Code increased the allowable penalty for municipal infractions to $500 for the first offense and $750 for subsequent offenses, the City Council chose to increase the general penalty to only $100/5200/5500. A specific penalty within the limits set by State law can be established for any infraction. cc: Steve Atkins Dale Helling Marian Karr R.J. Winkelhake eleanor/mem/smokingord2.doc  Clean Air For Everyone . P.O. Box 308 FI[_.ED ,ow. C,,y. 52244-0308 ,, -I/ 1411:31 Phone: 319-338-1494 Clean Air For Everyone ell) L:L, bPiK IO\A/A CITY, IOWA October 30, 2001 Iowa City Council Members 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Council Members, We are pleased that the City Council has authorized the drafting of a strong, smoke-free restaurant ordinance which will protect both diners and workers 24 hours per day. CAFg, and the community thank you. However, we are disappointed with the change in definition of a restaurant from the accepted 51% of food sales to a level of 65%. This higher percentage will result in fewer smoke-free restaurants. Furthermore, we believe the choice of 65% is too arbitrary. Most people would consider a restaurant as an establishment that receives half or more of its income from food sales on the premises. The selection of 65% fosters the perception that the level was set to include (or exclude) certain restaurants. The level of 51% is well grounded in common sense and existing law, and we urge a retum to that percentage. We are aware you have been approached by restaurant owners who are promoting an ordinance that includes both restaurants and bars. Our polls indicate that the public is overwhelmingly supportive of smoke-free restaurants, but the inclusion of bars does not have widespread support. We do agree that a future public health goal for Iowa City should be to ensure that all public places are smoke free, 24 hours per day, but to attempt to introduce such a policy now would jeopardize the whole ordinance and play directly into the hands of the tobacco industry. In conclusion, CAFg supports the ordinance currently being drafted by the city attomey as long as the definition of a restaurant is set at 51% of food sales. Please feel flee to contact us if you have questions concerning our views on this critical public health ordinance. Sincerely, Beth Ann Ballinger, M.D., FACS Peter D. Wallace, M.D. MS Assistant Professor Vice President, Medical Staff Affairs Vascular Surgery and Surgical Critical Care Mercy Hospital of Iowa City University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics FILED Nancy A Faux-Burhans October 26 2001 6482 Shawnee Run Road Zi]bl 0CI 30 P,H II: 38 Cincinnati, Ohio 45243 Cl'h' IOWA CI'T'¥ IOWA To All City Council Members: As the former owner of Gringo's and presently a building owner in downtown Iowa City I wish to offer some thoughts of concern regarding the nonsmoking ordinance proposed for Iowa City restaurants. I agree that a nonsmoking ordinance would be beneficial for the entire city. I also understand that you are under a great deal of pressure from the CAFI~ group and feel that you must make some sort of move to satisfy their demands. However, I do not agree that this ordinance should cover only those businesses doing 65% food sales and 35% liquor sales. This is discriminatory and does not present an even playing field for those of us who do not actively pursue the bar trade as a means of income. It gives unfair advantage to those bars that operate a kitchen, quite often but indeed not in all cases, to assuage the insurance companies that offer better Dram shop insurance rates if food is provided on their premises. As a downtown restaurant, Gringo's has always strived to remain primarily a restaurant first with a bar and not a bar first with a restaurant. Maintaining a restaurant business in downtown Iowa City has become increasingly difficult with increased competition from Coralville and the negative press the downtown has received since the Stepping Up Program has been in place. Newspaper coverage of the alcohol ordinance has also placed a negative slant on the downtown. Over the years our clientele has become more student oriented as increased competition and the appeal ofonsite parking has lured many people, other than students, to the Coralville area. Students are generally on foot and so are a captive audience for downtown restaurants. Unfortunately, many of these students are smokers and are seeking a place to eat or drink in a quiet atmosphere where they can enjoy a smoke. This ordinance will move them to the primarily bar establishments where they can still get a meal, a drink and have a smoke. This will eliminate a choice for these patrons and give an unfair advantage to the bars. Why not consider an even playing field where all bar/restaurants that are in possesion of a food service license are covered by the nonsmoking ordinance? This would create a healthier atmosphere for all, smokers and nonsmokers alike. It might even solve some of the so called "downtown drinking problems" since smoking is such a close accompaniment to liquor. Or, better still, give the owners the right to choose, isn't that the American way? No one is forcing any customer to walk through the door of a restaurant that allows smoking. There are nonsmoking restaurants available all over town. If this is about providing more dining choices with a healthy atmosphere, then an even playing field will be the answer. It would provide more choices with a healthy atmosphere. I know that the bar owners will cry foul and declare that their clientele will rush to Coralvaille. But don't believe that. If you are downtown on any given night alter 10:30 P.M., you will see that the student population streams in on foot because most of them do not own cars and would be hard-pressed to get to Coralville. Much has been said about the over - population of bars in the down town area. Everyone is crying for more quality and variety downtown. This ordinance could create another hurdle for already struggling restaurants in the downtown area to succeed. Historically, bars takeover these empty buildings. Thanks for listening to my concerns. If you wish to reply, my E-mail address is fauxburhans@aol.com Nancy~A/~.Faux-Burhans From: Field, R. William [bill-field@uiowa.edu] Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 11:19 AM Subject: DULUTH VOTERS APPROVE SMOKE-FREE ORDINANCE AND TOUGHER Council Members, I thought the following information would be of interest. For the public health of Iowa City, I urge you all to move forward with a STRONG smoke-free ordinance. DULUTH VOTERS APPROVE SMOKE-FREE ORDINANCE AND TOUGHER AMENDMENTS Duluth voters on Tuesday sent a decisive message at the polls: Keep the smoke-free ordinance and make if fair for all businesses. Despite a last minute intrusion by Philip Morris, voters approved by a clear margin the smoke-free ordinance (60 percent to 40 percent) and amendments (53 percent to 47 percent). With the amendments, restaurants with bars can no longer allow smoking after 8 p.m. as was allowed under the current ordinance that went into effect Jan. 1, and restaurants are now required to enforce the smoking ban The new smoking ban phases in some measures. Restaurants that currently have exemptions, bowling alleys, pool halls and restaurants that have sealed off smoking sections can allow smoking until April 2003. The new amendments will go into effect Monday. Duluth voters faced two complex questions. No other smoke-free issue that has gone to the ballot has faced such a challenging campaign. The fact that voters clearly approved the ordinance with the tougher amendments is the result of a true grassroots effort by the Twin Ports Youth and Tobacco-Free Coalition. Led by Steve O'Neil, Pat McKone and Kristin Hedges, and with many volunteers, the coalition mounted a truly impressive campaign. But the referendum campaign wasn't the beginning. Long before the city council considered an ordinance, the coalition was out in the community, educating residents and building support for a smoke-free law. The coalition had hundreds of supporters when the issue came before the city council and residents voiced their strong support for a smoke-free ordinance. When local hospitality owners attempted to defeat the law through referendum, the coalition and hundreds more volunteered for the smoke-free campaign. The result was a strong smoke-free law that will protect health and is fair to business. R. William Field, Ph.D. College of Public Health Research Scientist - Department of Epidemiology Adjunct Professor - Department of Occupational and Environmental Health Graduate Faculty - College of Public Health (http://www.public-health.uiowa.edu/) N222 Oakdale Hall University of Iowa Iowa City, Iowa 52242 319-335-4413 (phone) 319-335-4748 (fax) mailto:bill-~eld@uiowa.edu November 5, 2001 Iowa City City Councilors Civic Center Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Councilors, Thank you for moving forward with your work on a smokeflee restaurant ordinance. As you know, smokefree workplaces and public places protect the non-smoker from secondhand smoke, but they also 'denormalize' smoking. The tobacco industry has a vested interest in making sure "accommodations" are provided for smokers. When provided with a smokefree workplace, smokers find it easier to quit. Those who don't quit smoke 2 to 3 fewer cigarettes a day. The tobacco indust~'s bottom line depends on maintaining their customer base and to do that they need the people who are smoking to keep smoking and they need young people to start. They will do anything to protect their profits. This explains why they work so hard to derail cities from passing strong smokefree ordinances. They hid behind front groups, scare local business owners with untrue tales of lost revenue, and threaten cities with lawsuits. I want to share a few statements from the tobacco industry documents made public when they settled with the state of Minnesota. Read for your self some of the devious tactics employed to keep tobacco profits high. 1 applaud you for your service to Iowa City. I am thankful to you for having the courage to run for elected office and taking the time to serve our community. Regards, Eileen L. Fisher 3722 Hummingbird Ln SE Iowa City, IA 52240 ~ '~' ~;~ "t'l 338-1494 Tobacco Industry Tactics The Hospitality Industry and Smoking Regulations "We are reliant on the [hospitality] industry to be out in front fighting on this issu~ " (Philip Morris and the Hospitality Industry. Philip Morris Web Site: http://www. pmdocs.com. Bates Nos. 2045517227/7347, In.d.]) "Our ability to interact effectively with the hospitality industry is critical to our ultimate objective, which is to maintain the ability of our consumers to enjoy our products in public venues such as restaurants, hotels, bowling centers, and shopping nm!ls~ " (Philip Morris, Philip Morris and the Hospitality Industry. Philip Morris Web Site: http://www.pmdocs.com. Bates Nos. 2045517227/7347, [n.d.]) "Financial impact of smoking hans will he tremendous- three to five fewer cigarettes per day per smoker will reduce annual manufacturer profits a billion dollars plus per year." Quoted in:" A Smokers' Alliance: draft, "Philip Morris internal documents. Bates Nos. 2025771934- 2025771937. "Also, the economic arguments often used by the industry to scare off smoking ban activity were no longer working, if indeed they ever did These arguments simply had no credibility with the public, which isn't surprising when you consider that our dire predictions in the past rarely came tru~" David Laufer:Philip Morris (PM). Quoted in: Laufer, D., "Draft 7/8/94 CAC PresentationS4," Philip Morris (PM) Web Site, Bates Nos. 2041183751-2041183790.p.28,July 8, 1994. "One common thread that appears to run through the industry (hospitality), beyond our issue, is the general feeling of over- regulation. They feel ~iched on' by the government ...... We need to tap into this sentiment to make our issue one that the industry is focused on". (*Philip Morris, Philip Morris and the Hospitality Industry. Philip Morris Web Site: http:/www. pmdocs.com. Bates Nos. 204565 1 7337/7347,[n.d.]) The following threating tactics are ~-om Philip Morris' Operation Downunder Conference 1987 Philip Morris web site http://pmdocs.eom Bates Nos. 2021502680. "The problem: how to alter public perception of ETS in terms of perceived risk and annoyanc~ Because we expect this approach to chili anti-smoking rhetoric, the strategy (is) was dubbed "THE BIG CHILL?" Solutions crafted to target public officials/policy makers. "Focus on costless areas of comvromise -~g., "We will accept a no-smoMng ~olicy' bill for elevators if you need to pass something. "... "Can you alter perception without touching on ETS? Ye~ CHILL the rhetoric and bad science by SUING THEM," .... "Sue the Bastards!" "Make it Hurt - The NRA strategy. Let politicians know the down-side of anti a~ by~ identij~ying vulnerable candidates. Bringing forces to bear to cause him/her to lqs~ decteach, then discreetly let other politicans know we have done thlg "