HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-01-10 OrdinancePrepared by Travis Kraus, Planning Intern, PCD, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5251
(REZ11- 00019)
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 4.3 ACRES LOCATED AT 1920 Prairie du Chien Road
FROM Low Density Single Family Residential (RS -5) TO Rural Residen 1 (RR -1). (REZ11- 00019)
WHEREAS, the applicants, Gregory and Lorie Ginneberge, have re uested a rezoning of property
located at 1920 Prairie du Chien Road (in' luding the property located at 1 80 Prairie du Chien Road) from
Low Density Single Family (RS -5) to Rural sidential(RR -1); and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan in icates that the prop/yreclassified propriate as Public /Private Open
Space; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Com ission has the the proposed rezoning and has
determined that it complies with the Comprehensi plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE C COUNCIL CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I APPROVAL. Property described elow is he from its current zoning
designation of Low Density Single Family (RS -5) to Rur I Resident:
SECTION 34 BEG AT THE SE COR 34 -80 -6; ELY 1 5' Y 337.15' WLY 648.7'SLY 102.98' ELY
391.25' SLY 268.84' ELY 246.38' TO BEG
YODERS SUBDIVISION LOT 7 &.12A ADJOINING O COR EX NLY & WLY 1.97A
SECTION Il. ZONING MAP. The Building Inspecto is her y authorized and directed to change the
zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform t this ame dment upon the final passage, approval
and publication of this ordinance by law.
SECTION III. CERTIFICATION A�
City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to ce
office of the County Recorder of Johnson County,
SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinances
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION V. SEVERABILITY. If any sectio
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication s a
section, provision or part thereof not adjudge inv
SECTION VI. EFFECTIVE DATE. This rdi!
publication, as provided by law.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Approved by
City Attorney's Office
RDI G. Upon pass a and approval of the Ordinance, the
rti a copy of this or nance and to record the same, at the
I a, at the owner's a \ance all as provided by law.
parts of ordinanceflict with the provisions of this
provision or part of t shall be adjudged to be
II not affect the validity Ordinance as a whole or any
alid or unconstitutionallance shall be in effecs final passage, approval and
OR
j F
i
Prepared byTravis Kraus, Planning Intern, PCD, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5251
(REZ11- 00019)
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 4.3 ACRES LOCATED AT 1920 Prairie du Chien Road
FROM Low Density Single Family Residential (RS -5) TO Rural Residential (RR -1). (REZ11- 00019)
WHEREAS, the applicants, Gregory and Lorie Ginneberge, have requested a rezoning of property
located at 1920 Prairie du Chien Road (including the property located at 1880 Prairie du Chien Road) from
Low Density Single Family (RS -5) to Rural Residential(RR -1); and;
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the property is appropriate as Public /Private Open
Space; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has the reviewed the proposed rezoning and has
determined that it complies with the Comprehensive plan. i
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COQNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I APPROVAL'., Property described below, ris hereby reclassified from its current zoning
designation of Low Density Single Family (RS -5) to Rural F, t'esidential(RR -1):
SECTION 34 BEG AT THE SE\,GOR 34 -80 -6; ELY X72.25' NLY 337.15' WLY 6487SLY 102.98' ELY
391.25' SLY 268.84' ELY 246.3&,T0 BEG
YODERS SUBDIVISION LOT 7 &
SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The
zoning map of the City of Iowa City, to
and publication of this ordinance by law.
ADJOINING ON SW COR EX NLY & WILY 1.97A
Iding Ipector is hereby authorized and directed to change the
.to co orm to this amendment upon the final passage, approval
City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed
office of the County Recorder of Johnson C(
SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinan
Ordinance are hereby repealed. 1
SECTION V. SEVERABILITY. If anye
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudica or
section, provision or part thereof not adj gE
SECTION VI. EFFECTIVE DATE. his
publication, as provided by law.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Approved by
City Attorney's Office
RDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the
to/certify a copy of this ordinance and to record the same, at the
ufity ; Iowa, at the owner's expense, all as provided by law.
les and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
ction, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
shall nott'affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
d invalid or unconstitutional.
Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and
'),1
7d
Prepared by Travis Kraus, Planning Intern, PCD, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5251
(REZ11- 00019)
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 4.3 ACRES LOCATED AT 1920 Prairie du Chien Road
FROM Low Density Single Family Residential (RS -5) TO Rural Residential (RR -1). (REZ11- 00019)
WHEREAS, the applicants, Gregory and Lorie Ginneberge, have requested a rezoning of property
located at 1920 Prairie du Chien Road (including the property located at 1880 Prairie du Chien Road) from
Low Density Single Family (RS -5) to Rural Residential(RR -1); and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the property is appropriate as Public /Private Open
Space; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has the reviewed the proposed rezoning and has
determined that it complies with the Comprehensive plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I APPROVAL. Property described below is hereby reclassified from its current zoning
designation of Low Density Single Family (RS -5) to Rural Residential (RR -1):
PARCEL ONE
1920 Prairie Du Chien Road, Iowa City, Iowa, legally described as:
LOT SEVEN (7) IN YODER SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 34,
TOWNSHIP 80 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5T" P.M., ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED
IN PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 408, PLAT RECORDS OF JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, EXCEPTING FROM SAID LOT 7
ALL THAT PART THEREOF CONDEMNED BY THE STATE OF IOWA FOR HIGHWAY PURPOSES, AS SHOWN
BY CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS RECORDED IN BOOK 254, PAGE 79, IN THE OFFICE OF THE
RECORDER OF JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, AND
BEGINNING AT A CONCRETE MONUMENT PURPORTING TO BE THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION
34, TOWNSHIP 80 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5T" P.M.; THENCE S 89 °01'E, 12.25 FEET; THENCE
NO-33'W, 337.15 FEET; THENCE N87 °32'W 648.7 FEET; THENCE S 4 °41'E, 102.98 FEET; THENCE S
78 °23'W, 45 FEET; THENCE 87 °24'E, 436.75 FEET; S 1 °41'W, 268.84 FEET; THENCE S 89 °01'E, 246.38
FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING AND COMPRISING AN AREA OF 2.812 ACRES MORE OR LESS, AND
A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SE % SE % OF SECTION 34, TWP. 80 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE
5T" P.M., JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT
THE SE CORNER OF SAID SECTION 34, THENCE WEST 669.0 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID
SECTION, THENCE NORTHERLY 54.7 FEET ALONG A 573.0 FT. RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE EASTERLY AND
TANGENT TO THE FOLLOWING COURSE, THENCE N 8 °24 %'W 114.3 FT., THENCE EAST 51.4 FEET ALONG
GRANTEE'S SOUTH PROPERTY LINE, THENCE S 5 °03'E 103.0 FEET, THENCE S 76 °34 %'W 45.0 FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 0.12 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
ALL OF THE ABOVE IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, AGREEMENTS, COVENANTS, AND RESTRICTIONS OF
RECORD.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM:
AUDITOR'S PARCEL #2006008 BEING PART OF LOT 7 IN YODER SUBDIVISION AND PART OF LAND
DESCRIBED AS THE WOODBURN PARCEL IN SURVEY RECORDED IN BOOK 8, PAGE 71 IN THE SE % OF
Ordinance No.
Page 2
SECTION 34 AND ALSO BEING PART OF THE SW % OF SECTION 35 ALL IN TOWNSHIP 80 NORTH, RANGE 6
WEST OF THE 5T" P.M., IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA DESCRIBED AS:
BEGINNING ATTHESE CORNER OF SAID SECTION 34; THENCE S 89 °52'38 "W, 246.31 FEET; THENCE N
00 °41'30 "E, 268.87 FEET; THENCE S 86 °22'17 "W, 436.88 FEET TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF
PRAIRIE DU CHIEN ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY N 07 °40'48 "W, 60.15 FEET; THENCE N
86 °22'17 "E 337.52 FEET; THENCE N 06 °06'43 "W, 135.14 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE
OF INTERSTATE 80; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY S 69 °40'13 "E, 86.54 FEET; THENCE S
87 °56'12 "E, 99.64 FEET; THENCE S 88 °26'25 "E, 182.71 FEET; THENCE S 02 °42'55 "E, 80.84 FEET; THENCE
01 °41'11 "E, 336.71 FEET; THENCE S 89 °40'37 "W, 12.46 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID
PARCEL CONTAINS 3.31 ACRES AND IS SUBJECTTO EASEMENTS OF RECORD.
PARCEL TWO
AUDITOR'S PARCEL # 2006008 BEING PART OF LOT 7 IN YODER SUBDIVISION AND PART OF LAND
DESCRIBED AS THE WOODBURN TRACT IN SURVEY RECORDED IN BOOK 8, PAGE 71 IN THE SE 1/4 OF
SECTION 34 AND ALSO BEING PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 35 ALL IN TOWNSHIP 80 NORTH, RANGE
6 WEST OF THE 5TH P.M., IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA DESCRIBED AS:
BEGINNING AT THE SE CORNER OF SAID SECTION 34; THENCE S 89 °52'38" W, 246.31 FEET; THENCE N
00 °41'30" E, 268.87 FEET; THENCE S 86 °22'17" W, 436.88 FEET TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE
OF PRAIRIE DU CHIEN ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY N 07 °40'48" W, 60.15 FEET; THENCE
N 86 °22'17" E, 337.52 FEET; THENCE N 06 °06'43" W, 135.14 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY
LINE OF INTERSTATE 80; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY S 69 °40'13" E, 86.54 FEET; THENCE S
87 °56'12" E, 99.64 FEET; THENCE S 88 °26'25" E, 182.71 FEET; THENCE S 02 °42'55" E, 80.84 FEET;
THENCE S 01 °41'11" E, 336.71 FEET; THENCE S 89 °40'37" W, 12.46 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 3.31 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS 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 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, at the owner's expense, 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.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
A proved by 1
Gfil. rti Y��f•/
City Attorney's Office l'�� ,L
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by _
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Champion
Dickens
Dobyns
Hayek
Mims
Payne
Throgmorton
that the
First Consideration 1/10/2012
Vote for passage: AYES: Hayek, Mims, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns.
NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: Payne.
Second Consideration _
Vote for passage:
Date published
Prepared by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, PCD, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5240
(REZ 11 -00012 )
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE REZONING THE MIDAMERICAN SUBSTATION AND CONDITIONALLY
REZONING APPROXIMATELY .42 -ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 221 N. LINN STREET,
225 N. LINN STREET AND 223 E. BLOOMINGTON STREET FROM NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL STABILIZATION (RNS -12) TO CENTRAL BUSINESS SERVICE (CB -2).
(REZ11- 00012)
WHEREAS, the applicant, Allen Homes, has requested a rezoning of property located at 221 N. Linn
Street, 225 N. Linn Street and 223 E. Bloomington Street and the MidAmerican substation located on the
west side of Linn from Neighborhood Residential Stabilization (RNS -12) to Central Business Service (CB -2);
and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan, Central District Plan, contains policies and a land use plan map to
guide development within the Northside Marketplace and to maintain the main street, mixed use character of
the neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan, Central District Plan, has been amended to indicate that Urban
Commercial development is appropriate on these properties; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has the reviewed the proposed rezoning, determined
that it complies with the Comprehensive Plan and recommends approval of the application provided that it
meets conditions addressing the need for development that will maintain the main street, mixed use
character of the Northside Marketplace; and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (2011) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable
conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to
satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and
WHEREAS, the owners and applicant have agreed that the 221 N. Linn Street, 225 N. Linn Street and
223 E. Bloomington Street properties shall be developed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto to ensure appropriate development in this area of the city.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I APPROVAL. Subject to the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto and incorporated
herein, property described below is hereby reclassified from its current zoning designation of Neighborhood
Residential Stabilization (RNS -12) to Central Business Service (CB -2):
Beginning at the Northeast Corner of Lot 1 of the Original Town of Iowa City, in
accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Book 1, at Page 116, of the Records of the
Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence S00'1 5'52"E, along the East Line of said Lot
1, a distance of 110.74 feet; Thence N89 °56'15 "W, 80.66 feet, to a Point on the East Line
of Lot 2 of said Original Town Of Iowa City; Thence S00 °11'16 "E, along said East Line,
39.80 feet, to the Southeast Corner thereof; Thence N89'56'1 5"W, along the South Line
of said Lot 2, a distance of 40.47 feet; Thence N00 °04'00 "E, 150.79 feet , to a Point on
the North Line of said Lot 1; Thence S89 °48'53 "E, along said North Line, 120.31 feet, to
the Point of Beginning. Said Rezoning Parcel contains 14,981 square feet and is subject
to easements and restrictions of record.
Ordinance No.
Page 2
SECTION II APPROVAL. The following property is hereby reclassified from its current zoning
designation of Neighborhood Residential Stabilization (RNS -12) to Central Business Service (CB -2):
Beginning at the Southeast Corner of Lot 1 of the Original Town of Iowa City, in accordance with the Plat
thereof Recorded in Book 1, at Page 116, of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office;
Thence N89 °56'15 "W, along the South Line of said Lot 1, a distance of 80.71 feet, to the Southwest
Corner of said Lot 1; Thence N001 1'16 "W, along the West Line of said Lot 1, a distance of 39.80 feet;
Thence S89'56'1 5"E, 80.66 feet , to a Point on the East Line of said Lot 1; Thence S00'1 5'52"E, along
said East Line, 39.80 feet, to the Point of Beginning. Said Parcel contains 3,211 square feet and is
subject to easements and restrictions of record.
SECTION III. ZONING MAP. The building official 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 the ordinance as approved by law.
SECTION IV. CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT. The mayor is hereby authorized and directed to
sign, and the City Clerk attest, the Conditional Zoning Agreement between the property owner(s) and the
City, following passage and approval of this Ordinance.
SECTION V. 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 record the same in the
Office of the County Recorder, Johnson County, Iowa, at the Owner's expense, upon the final passage,
approval and publication of this ordinance, as provided by law.
SECTION VI. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION VII. 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 VIII. 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 2011.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
App oved by
City Attorney's Office t� a(
Prepared by: Robert Miklo, PCD, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356 -5251 (REZ11- 00012)
CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made among the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation
(hereinafter "City "), Clarence and Julie Leichty, Jeff Maske, Carlan Miller, and W. O. Bill Terry
(hereinafter "Owners ") and Allen Homes, Inc. (hereinafter "Applicant ").
WHEREAS, Owners are the collective legal title holder of approximately .34 acres of
property located 221 and 225 N. Linn Street and 223 Bloomington Street, Iowa City, Iowa; and
WHEREAS, the Owners and Applicant have requested the rezoning of said properties
from Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS -12) to Central Business Service (CB -2) zone;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate
conditions regarding the mix of residential units and number of bedrooms, the design of the
building, the installation of landscaping and street furniture, and improvement to the alley to
provide access to the parking, and the location of signage on the building, the requested zoning
is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as amended; and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (2011) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose
reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing
regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and
WHEREAS, the Owners and Applicant acknowledge that certain conditions and
restrictions are reasonable to ensure the development of the property is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and the need for compatibility with the Northside Marketplace; and
WHEREAS, the Owners and Applicant agree to develop these properties in accordance with the
terms and conditions of a Conditional Zoning Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties
agree as follows:
1. Clarence and Julie Leichty, Jeff Maske and Carlan Miller, and W.O. Bill Terry are the
collective legal title holders of the real estate legally described as:
Beginning at the Northeast Corner of Lot 1 of the Original Town of Iowa City, in
accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Book 1, at Page 116, of the Records of
the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence S00'1 5'52"E, along the East Line of said
Lot 1, a distance of 110.74 feet; Thence N89056'1 5"W, 80.66 feet, to a Point on the East
Line of Lot 2 of said Original Town Of Iowa City; Thence S00 °11'16 "E, along said East
Line, 39.80 feet, to the Southeast Corner thereof; Thence N89 056'15 "W, along the
South Line of said Lot 2, a distance of 40.47 feet; Thence N00 004'00 "E, 150.79 feet , to
a Point on the North Line of said Lot 1; Thence S89 048'53 "E, along said North Line,
120.31 feet, to the Point of Beginning. Said Rezoning Parcel contains 14,981 square
feet and is subject to easements and restrictions of record.
ppdadm /agt/conditional zoning agreemen- linnbloomingtont.doe
2. The Owners and Applicant acknowledge that the City wishes to ensure conformance to
the principles of the Comprehensive Plan and the Central District Plan. Further, the
parties acknowledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (2011) provides that the City of Iowa City
may impose reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and
above the existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested
change.
3. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owners and Applicant agree
that development of the real estate described above will conform to all other
requirements of the zoning chapter, as well as the following conditions:
a. The development shall be generally consistent with the site plan and building plans
attached and by this reference incorporated herein (collectively, the "Plans "),
particularly with regard building location, orientation and height, fagade design,
building materials and landscaping;
b. The development shall consist of a mix of uses as shown on the Plans including
ground floor commercial, parking below grade and partially within the ground floor,
and dwelling units on the second and third floors;
c. The residential development shall consist of a mix of dwelling units as shown on the
Plans including eight efficiency or one - bedroom apartments, seven two - bedroom
apartments and a maximum of two three - bedroom apartments (if fewer three -
bedroom apartments are built the reduced number of three -room apartments may be
substituted with additional efficiency, one - bedroom or two - bedroom apartments);
d. Exterior signs on the north side of the building will be limited to signs permitted in
residential zones according to Section 14- 5B -8(B) of the Iowa City Code of
Ordinances.
e. The alley shall be improved from the west property line of 223 E. Bloomington to
North Linn Street according to the specifications of the City Engineer prior to the
issuance of an occupancy permit for any new building on this real estate.
f. The N. Linn and E. Bloomington Streets rights -of -way will be improved in a manner
consistent with the North Marketplace streetscape as shown on the Plans.
4. The Owners, Applicant, and City acknowledge that the conditions contained herein are
reasonable conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (2011), and that
said conditions satisfy public needs that are caused by the requested zoning change.
5. The Owners, Applicant and City acknowledge that in the event the subject real estate is
transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all redevelopment will conform with the
terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement.
6. The parties acknowledge that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be
a covenant running with the land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force
and effect as a covenant with title to the land, unless or until released of record by the
City of Iowa City.
The parties further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind
all successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties.
7. The Owners and Applicant acknowledge that nothing in this Conditional Zoning
Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owners or Applicant from complying with all
other applicable local, state, and federal regulations.
ppdadm /agt/conditional zoning agreemen - linnbloomingtont.doc 2
8. The parties agree that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by
reference into the ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and
publication of the ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County
Recorder's Office at the Applicant's expense.
Dated this day of
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Matthew J. Hayek, Mayor
Attest:
Marian K. Karr, City Clerk
Approved by:
� ak-
City Attorney's Office 11 1-30 111
CITY OF IOWA CITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
2011.
ALLEN HOMES, INC., APPLICANT
B:
OWNERS
,i
J
Clarence Leichty
r
Juli ichty
Je e
/C�arlan Miller
.O. Bill7er'fy
This instrument was acknowledged before me on ' 2011 by Matthew J.
Hayek and Marian K. Karr as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
(Stamp or Seal)
Title (and Rank)
ppdadm /agt/conditional zoning agreemen- linnbloomingtont.doc 3
CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
This instrument was acknowledged before me on 2011 by
as pr ' d -i- of Allen Homes, Inc.
Notary Public in and for said County and State
*0W gJAI SONDRAE FORT
(Stamp or Seal) Commission Number 159791
y Commission Expires
go/ R IF Title (and Rank) �uTAaj T4ARtC-
INDIVIDUAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this � � day of I C)? - � , 2011, before me the undersigned, a
Notary Public in and for said County, in said State, personally appeared L)C re -� Ge-
L.G i � `L�� - &:-- , to me known to be the identical persons named in and who executed
the within and forbgoing instrument, and acknowledged that a she /the executed the same as
is her /their voluntary act and deed.
11 1E K. TUTTLE
Col - emission Number 221819
My Corr non E Aires
INDIVIDUAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
My commission expires:
On this a� h day of 2011, before me, the undersigned, a
Notary Public in and for said County, in said State, personally appeared y� p
C-�, , to me known to be the identical personA named in and who executed
the within an going instrument, and acknowledged that (heksheVtheyl executed the same as
hi her their voluntary act and deed.
No ublic in and for the-93ate of Iowa
My commission expires: Jl a
3 `1
INDIVIDUAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
ppdadm /agt/conditional zoning agreemen- linnbloomingtont.doc 4
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this -,x day of 2011, before me, the undersigned, a
Notary Public in and for said County, in said State, personally appeared S SFr P ,
MgS *' to me known to be the identical per one named in and wh-6 executed
the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that ( heshe/theyl executed the same as
his er /their voluntary act and deed.
Notary P lic in and for the State of Iowa
My commission expires: " k 3 � I y
INDIVIDUAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this day of== �^`�-�" 2011, before me, the undersigned, a
Notary Public in and for said County, in said State, personally appeared Cgr\ a.y, �-
Im" \ \-Q.c- , to me known to be the identical persons named in and who executed
the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that a she /the executed the same as
his her /their voluntary act and deed.
Notary in and for the State of Iowa
My commission expires: 'l k3 kb-}
INDIVIDUAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this S' day of �@ r,,5 er- 2011, before me, the undersigned, a
Notary Public in and for said County, in said State, personally appeared W. 0, &\t
-err , to me known to be the identical persons named in and who executed
the withiii and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that h she /the executed the same as
is er /their) voluntary act and deed. \\``
No ublic in and for t e State of Iowa
My commission expires: ,, 13 �'
ppdadm /agt/conditional zoning agreemen- linnbloomingtont.doc 5
UMM STREET
i
i
i
i
OO i
�o
i
O
q Qd i
a a o _
o0
a v 0 a a
m m m m
n n n n
N D
� 3 �
fD ¢ o
v
O n o x
no DZD a ° ��
�� g (n o m �A D o �EJ
O" O.. n
th
o n O D Q o O N c O ro = I ?a ?m
.. Z a o _0 N .��' `0xt [=�J
N4 N Cn
yl ,(yi0 eiw1
Z Z SlV1N32! /S3WOH N311V
N311V 3SS3f
NNI
�GU
t C ,
�u
c a;
LU
-L2
o
x= ,,�_�� ✓;cam_, � � ��'�� �- c,>"�nv�v� � —:rr
u�
C� r : t LI J
�r <� , r (i) Un
z
z
a
a
>io
m
oZ
LO
w! c? a
a w vi
IL,o =w
ui a1<�0
wwg
En
g'' z�o
U
W Z
N
V z0-
ww
ZW0U)
c9zYw
Zw l! z < 0
-�' w a
0 =)IQw
F,U u p Lu
V z L.
Q p �
wIQw�
■ W'
2
w
0: z d°
CO a0OCn
V1'0 (n Q
I—' z
Z a°wL)
Jw(1)Q
Z 0.<
a'allo
� r
V'z N
J — �
0.w a
0 >
ujZM C)
zw
0 ' a a. 0
n
ill
:2.
7i
= C�
a u i
NlO t�N�
C
Y
fill@
Milli
Alla
Z Z 3 'Flip 40H
SlV1N321 /S3WOH N311V
W Q — N311V 3SS3f ry c
wWO 5 1dIDN0D '1S NNII a w a fr
zQU
I I,I II II I a�
I II II jl �� °LLg'
3
c
III
II
>4 vl,43 emol
2 SIVIN38/SMOH N311V
iF-
N311V 3SS3f
o
Z
c"171"), NOD 'iS N N l�
zQu
O
>
C
z
w�a
V1 ,Ao emol
SlV1N38/S3WOH N3l1V
N311V 3SS3f
1 dA,)NUJ J S NV
I
0
a�
HIM
[milli
e &,_1
® 2� samn � a
/ 2 - N311V � �
{, ld]JNO\ // \\/ }
2 U
/
/
o,
DZ
j\
m ,
! /f\E
■:!) §!
G 2a,
!)fig
EJ5
!!!t\»
V1,40 BMOC
Z Slb1N3a /S3WOH N3llN
w Q e w N317Y 3SS3f _ u r
wW
1d��N0
D S NNII
3 .�
z °v
J 33WB NNn
9
—
E
g,I
i
li
I I �
I
I,
12
I
WWF OWF/
Ii
�$o
N V
I
II
I �
I � >
.Y
a..
c
-z
I �
t
n-q
. ..... . .....
III fig,
—TFkm
O
II U
ILT-�
Od
rn
WQ
CD
Cl) I
O
LJ
:S
`d emol
z
SIVIN3"3AOH N371V
N311Y 3GS3r
zQF+Or
fi
'IS NNF
C-)
- - ---- -----
13aHIS NNrl
. ..... . .....
III fig,
—TFkm
O
II U
ILT-�
Od
rn
WQ
CD
Cl) I
O
LJ
Z Z VI 'Alp
Slt/1N3
2! /S3W0H
OH N3llV
p N311Y 3883f c $
$s
1d]0N00 '1S NV
II r`
i
Z
x
r;
A3ELLS NNn
l�z�a
Nil
g
cv
7
QJ
J
C'
Q,o
D
w
D
a Un
�
D
D
D
1
7
4
bilk6
8 �
saa2a
Utr
s�
0 WN��
;;t cocomd
00
mmmo
z. 888 ..
Z
VNV0N
H2.
s
UNN STREET
..
L INN ST. CONCEPT
JESSE ALLEN !. A
ALLEN HOMES /RENTALS
Iowa City, IA
` I Z
I ZI
mmI
--I I
I I
I
I
I I
!
II I
a I
I I
I!
=cn$
I^--1
4I
Prepared by: Travis Kraus, Planning Intern, PCD 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5251
(REZ11- 00009)
ORDINANCE NO. 12 -4461
AN ORDINANCE CONDITIONALLY REZONING APPROXIMATLEY 0.88 ACRES OF PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 2218 ROCHESTER AVENUE, LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS -5)
TO LOW DENSITY MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM -12). (REZ11- 00009)
WHEREAS, the applicant, Apartments Downtown, Inc., has requested a rezoning of property located at
2218 Rochester Avenue from Low Density Single Family Residential (RS -5) to Low Density Multi Family
Residential (RM -12); and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that indicates that the property is appropriate for Low to
Medium Density Multi - Family Residential development; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has the reviewed the proposed rezoning and
determined that it complies with the Comprehensive Plan appropriate vehicle driveway and access, the
addition of a cross access easement, and general conformance with the concept site plan; and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (2011) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable
conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to
satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and
WHEREAS, the owner and applicant has agreed that the property shall be developed in accordance with
the terms and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto to ensure appropriate
development in this area of the city.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I APPROVAL. Subject to the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto and incorporated
herein, property described below is hereby reclassified from its current zoning designation of RS -5 to RM -12:
Auditor's Parcel 2000020, in accordance with Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 43, at Page 320, of
the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office, containing 0.07 Acre,
And Also
Auditor's Parcel 2000079, in accordance with Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 43, at Page 321, of
the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office, containing 0.81 Acres.
SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The building official 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 the ordinance as approved by law.
SECTION III. CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT. The mayor is hereby authorized and directed to
sign, and the City Clerk attest, the Conditional Zoning Agreement between the property owner and the City,
following passage and approval of this Ordinance.
SECTION IV. 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 record the same in the
Office of the County Recorder, Johnson County, Iowa, at the Owner's expense, upon the final passage,
approval and publication of this ordinance, as provided by law.
SECTION V. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION VI. 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 VII. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval
and publication, as provided by law.
Ordinance No. 12 -44
Page 2
Passed and approved this 10thday of January , 20_l2
MAYOR
ATTEST: rCti'
Cl "CLERK
7 Ap roved by
City Attorney's Office ((�1
Ordinance No. 12 -4461
Page 3
It was moved by Mims and seconded by Dickens that the Ordinance
as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
x Champion
x_ Dickens
x— Dobyns
X Hayek
g Mims
Payne X
X Throgmorton
First Consideration 12/6/2011
Vote for passage: AYES: Wilburn, Wright, Bailey, Champion, Dickens, Hayek, Mims.
NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration --------------- --
Vote for passage:
Date published 1/19/2012
Moved by Mims, seconded by Champion, that the rule requiring ordinances to be considered and
voted on for passage at two Council meetings prior to the meeting at which it is to be finally
passed be suspended, the second consideration and vote be waived and the ordinance be voted on
for final passage at this time. AYES: Mims, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns, Hayek.
MAYS:. None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: Payne
Prepared by: Travis Kraus, Planning Intern, PCD, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356 -5251 (REZ11- 00009)
CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation
(hereinafter "City ") and Apartments Downtown, Inc. (hereinafter "Owner ").
WHEREAS, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 0.88 acres of property
located at 2218 Rochester Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Owner has requested the rezoning of said property from Low Density
single Family Residential (RS -5) to Low Density Multi Family Residential (RM -12) zone; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate
conditions regarding appropriate vehicle driveway and access, the addition of a cross access
easement, and general conformance with the concept site plan, the requested zoning is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (2011) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose
reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing
regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and
WHEREAS, the Owner acknowledges that certain conditions and restrictions are
reasonable to ensure the development of the property is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and the need for neighborhood compatibility and traffic safety; and
WHEREAS, the Owner agrees to develop this property in accordance with the terms and
conditions of a Conditional Zoning Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties
agree as follows:
1. Apartments Downtown, Inc. is the legal title holder of the property legally described as:
Auditor's Parcel 2000020, in accordance with Plat thereof Recorded in Plat Book 43, at
Page 320, of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office.
Containing 0.07 Acre.
And Also:
Auditor's Parcel 2000079, in accordance with Plat thereof Recorded in Plat Book 43, at
Page 321, of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office.
Containing 0.81 Acre.
Resultant Rezoning Parcel contains 0.88 Acres, and is subject to easements and
restrictions of record
2. The Owner acknowledges that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles
of the Comprehensive Plan and the Central district plan. Further, the parties
acknowledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (2011) provides that the City of Iowa City may
impose reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and
above the existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested
ppdadm /agt/cza rezt 1- 00009.doc 1
change.
3. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owner agree that
development of the subject property will conform to all other requirements of the zoning
chapter, as well as the following conditions:
a. Vehicular access to the multi - family structure shall be provided via Rochester
Avenue, in a location shown on the attached concept site plan, to mitigate traffic
conflicts at the intersection of Rochester Avenue and First Avenue. No vehicular
access shall be provided from First Avenue;
b. Owner shall grant a 25' wide vehicular access easement for the benefit of the
property locally known as 2208 Rochester Avenue in the location shown on the
attached concept site plan;
c. General compliance with the concept site plan attached hereto and made part of
this agreement by this reference.
4. The Owner and City acknowledge that the conditions contained herein are reasonable
conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (2011), and that said
conditions satisfy public needs that are caused by the requested zoning change.
5. The Owner and City acknowledge that in the event the subject property is transferred,
sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all redevelopment will conform with the terms of this
Conditional Zoning Agreement.
6. The parties acknowledge that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be
a covenant running with the land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force
and effect as a covenant with title to the land, unless or until released of record by the
City of Iowa City.
The parties further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind
all successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties.
7. The Owner acknowledge that nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be
construed to relieve the Owner or Applicant from complying with all other applicable
local, state, and federal regulations.
8. The parties agree that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by
reference into the ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and
publication of the ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County
Recorder's Office at the Applicant's expense.
Dated this - 10 A day of _J_Atqu_bjzy 20 /a
CITY OF IOWA CITY
i
Matthew J. Hayek, Ma
ppdadm /agt/cza rez11- 00009.doc 2
APARTMENTS DOWNTOWN, INC.
O R , , - , n Q 0,1_
y: i~ lark
Attest:
Marian :- Karr, City Clerk
Approved by:
City Attorney's Office
CITY OF IOWA CITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
A
This instrument was acknowledged before me on'A- xtg NgQ IV 201x by Matthew J.
Hayek and Marian K. Karr as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
(Stamp or Seal) o4" s SONDRAE FORT
. Commission Number 15e
My�Commission Expires
Title (and Rank) At,
CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
This instrument was acknowledged before me on � �.tl �7'D, 20111- by
Aia,1ti1e--5 elCC1 °k as &eli�,ner of rdA <9,2 , Inc.
Notary ublic in and for said County and State
(Stamp or Seal)
Title (and Rank)
ppdadm /agf/cza rez11 -00009.doc 3
0
25' wide access easement
- M.
M R =X 4.43'
'—' L= 134.43'
' C TOP OF
FTG =56"
TOP OF
FTG =38"
TOP OF
FTG =32"
20! 2- i
a
1
2 TOP OF
26• 0 va- FTG =26'
3 cn
4
TOP OF
5 E3 FTG =26"
R=749.80'
L= 01'44'35'
W
• TOP OF
FTG =20"
t--a
0 w TOP OF NORTH
o FTG =14"
R =20.00'
L= 19.33'
R =20.00'
A5 L =2.80'
10.62'
AUDITORS
PLAN 3272-P PARCEL
BALK 2000020 & 79
2216 ROCHESTER AVE
0
Is
0
M
O�
M
Y
J
4
3
W
q
TOP OF
FTG =50
TOP OF
FTG =44"
2
TOP OF
FTG =38"
TOP OF
FTG =32"
20! 2- i
a
1
2 TOP OF
26• 0 va- FTG =26'
3 cn
4
TOP OF
5 E3 FTG =26"
R=749.80'
L= 01'44'35'
W
• TOP OF
FTG =20"
t--a
0 w TOP OF NORTH
o FTG =14"
R =20.00'
L= 19.33'
R =20.00'
A5 L =2.80'
10.62'
AUDITORS
PLAN 3272-P PARCEL
BALK 2000020 & 79
2216 ROCHESTER AVE
0
Is
0
M
O�
M
Y
J
4
3
W
q
To: Iowa City Council
City Hall - Harvat Hall
410 East Washington St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
From: James A. Clark
Apartments Downtown
Date: January 6, 2012
Re: Rezoning of 2218 Rochester Avenue, Iowa City, IA
Would you please give both 2nd and P readings at your January 10, 2012 council
meeting regarding the rezoning of the property at 2218 Rochester Avenue?
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
L &
James A. Clark
Apartments Downtown
414 East Market Street
Iowa City, IA 52245
7-V
Prepared by: Travis Kraus, Planning Intern, PCD, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5251 (REZ11-
00016)
ORDINANCE NO. d��
AN ORDINANCE CONDITIONALLY REZONING APPROXIMATLEY 1.15 ACRES OF PROPERTY
LOCATED 911 N. GOVERNOR STREET, FROM COMMERCIAL OFFICE (CO -1) TO LOW DENSITY
MULTI - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM -12). (REZ11- 00016)
WHEREAS, the applicant, Mark Holtkamp, has requested a rezoning of property located 911 N. Governor
St. Iowa City, Iowa, from Commercial Office (CO -1) to Low Density Multi - Family Residential (RM -12); and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan, Central District Plan, indicates that property is appropriate for Low
Density Multi - Family Residential development; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has the reviewed the proposed rezoning and
determined that it complies with the Comprehensive Plan provided that it meets conditions addressing the need
for dedication of right -of -way, installation of sidewalks, appropriate location of driveway, setbacks suitable for
adequate site distance, and sanitary and storm sewer easements; and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (2011) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable
conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to
satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and
WHEREAS, the owner and applicant have agreed that the property shall be developed in accordance with
the terms and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto to ensure appropriate
development in this area of the city.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I APPROVAL. Subject to the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto and incorporated
herein, property described below is hereby reclassified from its current zoning designation of Co -1 to RM -12:
Lots 8, 9 and 10 of Bacon's Subdivision of the south part of Block 1, DA Dewy's addition to Iowa City, IA.
SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The building official 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 the ordinance as approved by law.
SECTION III. CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT. The mayor is hereby authorized and directed to
sign, and the City Clerk attest, the Conditional Zoning Agreement between the property owner(s) and the City,
following passage and approval of this Ordinance.
SECTION IV. 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 record the same in the
Office of the County Recorder, Johnson County, Iowa, at the Owner's expense, upon the final passage,
approval and publication of this ordinance, as provided by law.
SECTION V. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION VI. 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 VII. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and
publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of 20
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Approved by
Ja�, (4� 4V44�
Ci y Attorney's Office ( lb(, It f
Ordinance No. DEFEATED 1/10/2012
Page
It was moved by and seconded by
as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Champion
Dickeiis
ABSTAIN:
that the Ordinance
X Dobyns
g Hayek
g Mims
Payne g
x_ Throgmorton
First Consideration 11/22/2011
Vote for passage: AYES: Dickens, Mims, Wilburn, Bailey. NAYS: Champion, Hayek,
Wright. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration
Vote for passage:
Date published
Prepared by: Travis Kraus, Planning Intern, PCD, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356 -5251 (REZ11-
00016)
CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation
(hereinafter "City "), and AB Investments (hereinafter "Owner "), and Mark Holtkamp (hereinafter
"Applicant ").
WHEREAS, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 1.15 acres of property
located 911 North Governor Street, Iowa City, Iowa; and
WHEREAS, the Owner has requested the rezoning of said property from Commercial
Office (CO -1) zone to Low - Density Multi - Family Residential (RM -12) zone; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate
conditions regarding dedication of right -of -way, installation of sidewalks, appropriate location of
driveway, setbacks suitable for adequate sight distance, and sanitary and storm sewer
easements, the requested zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (2011) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose
reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing
regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and
WHEREAS, the Owner acknowledges that certain conditions and restrictions are
reasonable to ensure the development of the property is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and the need for compatibility with the Central District Plan, traffic safety, infrastructure
improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Owner agrees to develop this property in accordance with the terms and
conditions of a Conditional Zoning Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties
agree as follows:
1. AB Investments LLC is the legal title holder of the property legally described as:
Lot 8, 9 and 10 of Bacons Subdivision of South part of Block 1, DA Dewy's addition to
Iowa City, IA.
2. The Owner acknowledges that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles
of the Comprehensive Plan and the Central district plan. Further, the parties
acknowledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (2011) provides that the City of Iowa City may
impose reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and
above the existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested
change.
3. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owner and Applicant agree
that development of the subject property will conform to all other requirements of the
zoning chapter, as well as the following conditions:
ppdadm /agt/conditional zoning agreement holtkamp edited.doc 1
a. Owner shall dedicate to the City the approximate 593.5 square feet shown as
"proposed right of way" on the Right -of -Way Illustration, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference;
b. Upon redevelopment, a sidewalk shall be installed along the frontage of the subject
property and the two adjacent residential properties to the south to the north property
line of Happy Hollow Park;
c. To assure adequate sight distance, the location of the driveway is subject to the
Johnson County Metropolitan Planning Organization staff approval;
d. The subject property shall be developed in such a manner that the front setback will be
sufficient to provide adequate sight distance for the drive, as determined by the
Johnson County Metropolitan Planning Organization staff;
e. Prior to issuance of any building permit for the subject property, sanitary and storm
sewer easements shall be conveyed to the City.
4. The Owner, Applicant, and City acknowledge that the conditions contained herein are
reasonable conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (2011), and that
said conditions satisfy public needs that are caused by the requested zoning change.
5. The Owner, Applicant, and City acknowledge that in the event the subject property is
transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all redevelopment will conform with the
terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement.
6. The parties acknowledge that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be
a covenant running with the land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force
and effect as a covenant with title to the land, unless or until released of record by the
City of Iowa City.
The parties further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind
all successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties.
7. The Owner and Applicant acknowledge that nothing in this Conditional Zoning
Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner or Applicant from complying with all
other applicable local, state, and federal regulations.
8. The parties agree that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by
reference into the ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and
publication of the ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County
Recorder's Office at the Applicant's expense.
Dated this day of 20_.
CITY OF IOWA CITY MARK HOLTKAMP, APPLICANT
Matthew J. Hayek, Mayor
Attest:
Marian K. Karr, City Clerk
ppdadm(agUconditional zoning agreement holtkamp edited.doc 2
OWNERS AB Investments LLC
(Name, Title)
Approved by:
City Attorney's Office i v/a g- f1
CITY OF IOWA CITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
This instrument was acknowledged before me on
2011 by Matthew J.
Hayek and Marian K. Karr as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
(Stamp or Seal)
Title (and Rank)
INDIVIDUAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this I `� }� day of N C!),3 20 1 k , before me, the undersigned, a
Notary Public in and for said County, in said State, personally appeared (`hark A ,
� r.,, Cp , to me known to be the identical person named in and who executed the
within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same as his voluntary
act and deed.
No lic in and or the S ate of Iowa
My commission expires:
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this 3 `d day of 1VoyEm5Erz A.D. 20 // , before me, the undersigned, a Notary
Public in and for the State of Iowa, personally appeared
ppdadm /agticonditional zoning agreement holtkamp ediled.doc 3
A 1 L J,*- f Cc,,.,,l & &r,-to me personally known, who being by me duly sworn,
did' say that the Pierson is QWAjr- L (title) of
Ag UC- and that said instrument was signed on behalf of the
said limited liabilitbLlvc(ompany by authority of its managers and the said
.g,,,,,k Q1ge* � T3o�acknowledged the execution of said instrument to be the voluntary
act and deed of said limited liability company by it voluntarily executed.
tAJ SONDRAE FORT ky a_
Commission Number 159791 Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
My CO mission Expires ry
low
My commission expires: 317 /o2vA-1-
ppdadm /agt /conditional zoning agreement holtkamp edited.doc 4
Marian Karr 7g
From:
Bob Miklo
Sent:
Friday, December 16, 2011 11:04 AM
To:
Marian Karr
Cc:
Jeff Davidson; Tom Markus; Eleanor M. Dilkes
Subject:
911 N. Governor Street Rezoning
The Planning and Zoning Commission has decided not to meet with the City Council regarding the rezoning at 911 N.
Governor Street (REZ11- 00016). Therefore the Council may proceed with its vote.
Rezoning
REZ11- 00016: CONDITIONALLY REZONING
APPROXIMATLEY 1.15 ACRES OF PROPERTY
LOCATED 911 N. GOVERNOR STREET, FROM
COMMERCIAL OFFICE (CO -1) TO LOW DENSITY
MULTI - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM -12).
RS5
RS12
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Z-1 I
0 N
�v
��slY��tA�iM
101
Hopp y
Hollow
P-.Qrk
RM12
Cemetery
Ookl on d Cem e ter
P1
RONALDS ST—
SITE LOCATION: 911 N, Governor REZii -00015
Historic District * landmark
r CITY OF IOWA CITY
� -` ":ccens%l MEMORANDUM
Date: January 5, 2012
To: City Manager
From: Chief Samuel Hargadine
John Yapp, Transportation Planner
Re: Automated Red Light/Speed Cameras
Background
As communities across the United States seek to improve public safety by reducing traffic
violations, many have implemented photo enforcement programs. Based on direction by City
Council, staff has developed the attached draft enabling ordinance amendment and solicited
proposals from vendors of this technology. The following memorandum summarizes the growing
use of photo enforcement in Iowa, as well as local opportunities for this technology.
Types of photo enforcement
Red Light Running Enforcement - Running a red light is one of the most frequent causes of
collisions at intersections, but enforcement with traditional officer -based techniques is difficult
and potentially dangerous. In response, cities are implementing automated cameras at traffic
signals. The camera takes pictures of vehicles that run red lights, records the time elapsed
since the light turned red and the vehicle's license plate; then a civil fine is issued (not a moving
violation). Red light running is defined as entering the intersection after the traffic signal has
turned red.
Speed Limit Enforcement - Photo radar is an automated camera system used to enforce speed
limits. It includes the camera, an attached radar "gun" and a display that shows the speed of
each passing vehicle. Photo radar is frequently used via an unmarked vehicle that can be
relocated periodically for targeted enforcement. When a speeding vehicle is detected, the photo
radar system takes a picture of the driver and the license plate. The registered owner of the
vehicle then receives a civil fine in the mail.
New Technology Collision Prevention — The combination of photo speed limit and red light
running enforcement technology used simultaneously allows the technology to identify red light
running violators and preemptively prevent cross traffic from receiving a green light. This allows
the violator to clear the intersection and prevents collisions with pedestrians, cyclists, and
motorists. While this technology may cost more to implement, it will reduce the number of red
light running - related issues (collisions and near - collisions), which is the ultimate goal.
Reducing collisions in Iowa
A study by the Center for Transportation Research & Education at Iowa State University found
red light running (RLR) crashes decreased 20% in Davenport and 90% in Council Bluffs where
RLR camera enforcement was used. Moreover, the total crashes decreased at these
intersections (20% and 44% in Davenport and Council Bluffs). Fewer collisions mean fewer
injuries and less property damage.
CADocuments and Settings\mkarr \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files\ Content. 0utlook \110CYGOVedlightrunning.doc
Since 2004, at least six communities in Iowa implemented this technology to improve roadway
safety:
• Clive • Sioux City
• Council Bluffs • Cedar Rapids
• Davenport • Des Moines
Each community that installed an automated enforcement system in Iowa enacted a local,
municipal ordinance — and civil fine schedule — which are allowed by the Code of Iowa, though
they do not supersede adopted traffic laws.
Jurisdictions that utilize traffic enforcement cameras typically impose a period of time where
only warnings are issued. A 30 -day warning period allows for the community to acclimate to the
cameras, the department to acclimate to the process of viewing the violations, and the vendor to
test equipment operations. It should be noted that the vendor will implement the red- light-
running detection system at no cost to the City. If approved, the vendor and the City would
share any revenue generated from the system based on a contract for services.
Potential intersections for photo enforcement
Based on collision history and traffic volumes, the following locations are potential candidates
for RLR camera enforcement in Iowa City:
Table 1• Candidate Intersections for Red Light Running Enforcement
Percent
Ran Traffic Total Ran Traffic Property Minor Major Total
Intersection Signal Crashes Signal Damage Injuries Injuries Injuries
Market /Dubuque 29 96 30% $151,150 2 0 2
Highway 6 / Sycamore 27 119 23% $215,000 7 2 9
Jefferson / Gilbert 19 71 27 %` $171,373 1 0 1
Highway 6 / Boyrum 16 100 16 %' $133,300, 10 2 12
Burlington / Riverside 15 131 11% $75,260 1 0 1
Highway 1 / Orchard 14 67 21 %`' $84,300 1 0 1
Burlington / Gilbert 14 114 12% $66,200 2 0 2
Jefferson / Dubuque 11 62 18% $57,700 0 0 0
Burlington / Madison 9 91 10 %' $41,400 0 2 2
Burlington / Clinton 9 117 8% $41,400 2 0 2
Sub -Total 163 968 17% $1,037,083 26 6 32
Citywide Total 599 12,063 5% $3,472,952 114 15 129
Data source: Iowa Department of Transportation, 2001 -2010
Red light running observations
Staff conducted follow -up observations at intersections with high pedestrian volumes and red
light running violations to answer the question of how many vehicles run red lights. The
following six intersections average seven red - light- running violations during one peak period.
For a given 24 -hour weekday, staff estimates the number of red -light violations at these six
intersections alone total 1,088 violations, or 0.6% of vehicles entering the intersections. Based
on this percentage, an intersection with 50,000 entering vehicles per day would have
approximately 300 red light running vehicles. For comparison, the intersection of Burlington
Street/Madison Street has approximately 54,000 entering vehicles per day.
C: \Documents and Settings\mkarr \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files\ Content. 0utlook \110CYG8D \redlightrunning.doc
Table II: Observed Red Light Running at Selected Intersections
Benefits of photo enforcement
Reduce injuries and property damage — According to the Metropolitan Planning Organization of
Johnson County, red light running collisions in Iowa City caused injuries to thirty -two motorists
and property damage totaling $1,037,083 in the last decade. These negative consequences
could be reduced by red -light running camera technology, as seen in Davenport, Clive, and
Council Bluffs.
Increase community policing - The average officer spends 45 minutes to work a (non -OWI)
vehicle collision. In 2010, Iowa City police officers logged 1,396 hours working 1,861 motor
vehicle collisions citywide. By reducing collisions, officers will be available to devote more time
to community policing and respond to non - vehicular related calls for service.
Camera Enforcement Revenue
Civil fines and late fees deter motorists from violating traffic signals and signage, which other
communities have shown reduce collisions, injuries, and improve efficiency of the road network.
While the main goal of the program is to reduce instances of red light running, the civil fine is
necessary to ensure motorists who run red lights are held accountable.
In contrast to the criminal penalty for running a red light, which is currently one hundred ninety -
five dollars ($195) and also carries license and insurance ramifications, violations of red light
running enforcement programs are civil fines. The fines for violations of photo enforcement
programs elsewhere in Iowa include:
C: \Documents and Settings\mkarr \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files\ Content. Outlook \110CYG8D\redlightrunning.doc
Total
# Ran
Collisions
Intersection
Time of Day
Vehicles
Red
Percent
2009
# Peds
Dubuque
1,009
16
1.6%
4
153
Market
4:15 - 5:45 PM
753
13
1.7%
187
Burlington
7:15 - 8:45 AM
906
5
0.6%
2
27
Dodge
663
9
1.4%
14
Burlington
4:15 - 5:45 PM
1,363
6
0.4%
2
50
Dodge
817
7
0.9%
61
Hwy 6
7:15 - 8:45 AM
2,070
6
0.3%
10
-
Sycamore
542
1
0.2%
6
Jefferson
7:15 - 8:45 AM
200
n/a
n/a
1
198
Clinton
339
5
1.5%
223
Dubuque
7:15 - 8:45 AM
547
4
0.7%
1
55
Jefferson
188
2
1.1%
135
Average per roadway
836
7
0.8%
3.3
92
Total
14,551
87
0.6%
20
1,109
Data source: MPOJC, 2011
Benefits of photo enforcement
Reduce injuries and property damage — According to the Metropolitan Planning Organization of
Johnson County, red light running collisions in Iowa City caused injuries to thirty -two motorists
and property damage totaling $1,037,083 in the last decade. These negative consequences
could be reduced by red -light running camera technology, as seen in Davenport, Clive, and
Council Bluffs.
Increase community policing - The average officer spends 45 minutes to work a (non -OWI)
vehicle collision. In 2010, Iowa City police officers logged 1,396 hours working 1,861 motor
vehicle collisions citywide. By reducing collisions, officers will be available to devote more time
to community policing and respond to non - vehicular related calls for service.
Camera Enforcement Revenue
Civil fines and late fees deter motorists from violating traffic signals and signage, which other
communities have shown reduce collisions, injuries, and improve efficiency of the road network.
While the main goal of the program is to reduce instances of red light running, the civil fine is
necessary to ensure motorists who run red lights are held accountable.
In contrast to the criminal penalty for running a red light, which is currently one hundred ninety -
five dollars ($195) and also carries license and insurance ramifications, violations of red light
running enforcement programs are civil fines. The fines for violations of photo enforcement
programs elsewhere in Iowa include:
C: \Documents and Settings\mkarr \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files\ Content. Outlook \110CYG8D\redlightrunning.doc
City Fine Late Fee
Des Moines $65.00 No late fee — sent to Collections Agency
Davenport $65.00 No late fee — After 3 notices sent to
Collections Agency
Muscatine $100.00 $35
Cedar Rapids $100.00 No late fee — After 60 days sent to City
Treasury- Treasury sends out notices; no
additional fees assessed by Treasury
Council Bluffs $107.25 $35 — then sent to Collections Agency
With funding resources become scarcer, we recommend looking at a technology that has the
real potential of making Iowa City a safer community while freeing up officer time. We are
recommending a $100 fine (consistent with Cedar Rapids and Muscatine) with a $35 late fee.
Recommendation
Both red light running and speeding photo enforcement systems warrant consideration by the
City. In light of the potential to improve public safety with revenue generated by these systems,
as well as reduced personal injuries and property damage, staff recommends moving forward
with red light running and /or speed photo enforcement.
At your January 10 work session, please be prepared to discuss the draft code amendments,
which would allow implementation of red light running and /or speed enforcement cameras. If
approved, our next step would be to solicit a formal agreement with a red light running provider,
and forward a contract to Council for consideration. Feel free to contact us in advance at 356-
5271 or Sam- Hargadine(cDlowa- City.org and John- YappCaD-Iowa- City.org at 356 -5252 with any
questions.
Enclosed: Draft ordinance amending Title 9, entitled, "Motor Vehicles and Traffic"
CC: Kris Ackerson, Metropolitan Planning Organization
Andy Rocca, Fire
CADocuments and Settings\mkarr \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files\ Content. 0utlook \110CYG81D\redlightrunning.doc
D R A F T
Prepared by: Kristopher Ackerson, Asst. Transportation Planner, and Eric Goers, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E.
Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5247 and 319 - 356 -5030, respectively
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9, "MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC ", CHAPTER 1,
"DEFINITIONS, ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF TRAFFIC PROVISIONS ",
SECTION 1, "DEFINITIONS "; AND AMENDING TITLE 9, "MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC ",
TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER 11, AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT, TO ALLOW FOR
RED LIGHT AUTOMATED TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City is vested with home rule authority pursuant to Article III,
Section 38A of the Iowa Constitution and Chapter 364 of the Code of Iowa; and
WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City is located in a high- density traffic area and regularly
experiences traffic incidents related to the failure of motorists to obey duly erected traffic control
devices, exposing its citizens to the dangers of personal injury and property damage; and
WHEREAS, the City is concerned with the violation of State statues concerning traffic signals,
specifically the failure of motorists to stop at red lights and obey 'no turn on red signs;' and
WHEREAS, apprehending motorists who fail to obey traffic control devices through law
enforcement observance, chase, and citation is difficult, dangerous, and expensive and requires
the City to commit additional personnel that would not be necessary with the use of automated
traffic infraction detectors with image capture technologies (i.e., red -light cameras); and
WHEREAS, local governments in different parts of the State of Iowa and nation have
demonstrated that the combination of traffic infraction detectors with traditional traffic law
enforcement methods enhances vehicular and pedestrian safety; and
WHEREAS, automated traffic enforcement laws are authorized both by Iowa home rule and the
Iowa Supreme Court, in City of Davenport v. Seymour, 755 N.W.2d 533 (Iowa 2008), all of
which recognize the rights of municipalities to utilize traffic infraction detectors to regulate
municipal traffic; and
WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City finds that implementation of the enforcement program set forth
in this ordinance will promote, protect, and improve the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens
consistent with the authority of and limitations on the City pursuant to case law, the Constitution
of the State of Iowa, and the Code of Iowa.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I. AMENDMENTS
Title 9, "Motor Vehicles and Traffic ", Chapter 1, "Definitions, Administration and Enforcement of
Traffic Provisions ", Section 1, "Definitions" is amended by adding the following defined terms:
1. AUTOMATED TRAFFIC CITATION: A notice of fine generated in connection with the
automated traffic enforcement system.
2. AUTOMATED TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT CONTRACTOR: The company or entity, if
any, with which the City of Iowa City contracts equipment and /or services in connection
with the Automated Traffic Enforcement System.
C: \Documents and Settings\mkarr \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files\ Content. 0ut1ook \110CYGMredlightrunning.doc
D R A F T
3. AUTOMATED TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM: An electronic system consisting of
a photographic, video, or electronic camera and a vehicle sensor installed to work in
conjunction with an official traffic controller or police department employee to
automatically produce photographs, video or digital images of each vehicle violating a
standard traffic control device or speed restriction.
4. VEHICLE OWNER: The person or entity identified by the Iowa Department of
Transportation, or registered with any other state vehicle registration office, as the
registered owner of a vehicle.
Title 9, "Motor Vehicles and Traffic ", Chapter 11, "Automated Traffic Enforcement" is added as
follows:
1. General. The City of Iowa City, in accordance with its police powers, may deploy, erect
or cause to have erected an automated traffic enforcement system for making video images of
vehicles that fail to obey red light traffic signals at intersections designated by the city manager,
or a designee. The systems may be managed by the private contractor that owns and operates
the requisite equipment with supervisory control vested in the city's police department. Video
images shall be provided to the police department by the contractor for review. The police
department will determine which vehicle owners are in violation of the city's traffic control
ordinances and are to receive a notice of violation for the offense.
2. Vehicle Owner's Civil Liability for Certain Traffic Offenses.
A. The Vehicle Owner shall be liable for a fine if such a vehicle crosses a marked
stop line or the intersection plane at a system location when the traffic signal for that
vehicle's direction is emitting a steady red light or arrow.
B. The violation may be exempted from liability as outlined below in section 5 of this
chapter, and other defenses may be considered in connection with the appeal process.
C. In no event will an Automated Traffic Citation be sent or reported to the Iowa
Department of Transportation or similar department of any other state for the purpose of
being added to the Vehicle Owner's driving record.
3. Notice of Violation; Fine.
A. Notice of the violation will be mailed to the Vehicle Owner for each violation
recorded by an Automated Traffic Enforcement System or traffic control signal
monitoring device. The Automated Traffic Enforcement Contractor shall mail the notice
within 30 days after receiving information about the Vehicle Owner. The notice shall
include the name and address of the Vehicle Owner; the vehicle make, if available and
readily discernable, and registration number; the violation charged; the time; the date;
and the location of the alleged violation; the applicable fine and monetary penalty which
shall be assessed for late payment; information as to the availability of an administrative
hearing in which the notice may be contested on its merits; and that the basis of the
notice is a photographic record obtained by an Automated Traffic Enforcement System.
B. Any violation of section 2 of this chapter shall result in a civil fine issued to the
Vehicle Owner in an amount set by City Council by resolution, payable to the City of
Iowa City.
4. Contesting an Automated Traffic Citation. A Vehicle Owner who has been issued an
Automated Traffic Citation may contest the citation as follows:
CADocuments and Settings\mkarr \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files\ Content. 0utlook \110CYG81D\redlightrunning.doc
D R A F T
A. By submitting, in a form specified by the City, a request for an administrative
hearing to be held at the Iowa City Police Department before an administrative appeals
board (the "Board ") consisting of one or more impartial fact finders. Such a request must
be filed within 30 days of the date on which Notice of the violation is sent to the Vehicle
Owner. After a hearing, the Board may either uphold or dismiss the Automated Traffic
Citation and shall mail its written decision within 10 days after the hearing to the address
provided on the request for hearing. If the citation is upheld, then the Board shall include
in its written decision a date by which the fine must be paid, and on or before that date
the Vehicle Owner shall either pay the fine or submit a request for a judicial hearing
pursuant to section 4(B) of this chapter.
B. By submitting, in a form specified by the City, a request that in lieu of the
Automated Traffic Citation, a municipal infraction citation be issued and filed with the
Small Claims Division of the Iowa District Court in Johnson County. Such a request must
be filed within 30 days from the date on which Notice of the violation is sent to the
Vehicle Owner. Such a request will result in a court order requiring the Vehicle Owner to
file an answer and appearance with the Clerk of Court, as well as setting the matter for
trial before a judge or magistrate. If the Court finds the Vehicle Owner guilty of the
municipal infraction, state mandated court costs will be added to the amount of the fine
imposed by this chapter.
5. Exceptions to Owner Liability. There shall be no liability pursuant to this chapter if:
A. The operator of the vehicle in question was issued a uniform traffic citation for the
violation in question pursuant to Title 9 of the Iowa City Code or Iowa Code Chapter 321
(2011) as amended; or
B. The violation occurred at any time after the vehicle in question or its state
registration plates were reported to a law enforcement agency as having been stolen,
provided, however, the vehicle or its plates had not been recovered by the Vehicle
Owner at the time of the alleged violation; or
C. The vehicle in question was an authorized emergency vehicle; or
D. The officer inspecting the recorded image determines that the vehicle in question
was lawfully participating in a funeral procession; or
E. The officer inspecting the recorded image determines that the vehicle in question
reasonably entered the intersection in order to yield the right -of -way to an emergency
vehicle.
6. Failure to Timely Pay or Appeal. If the recipient of an Automated Traffic Citation does not
either pay the fine by the due date stated in the citation or appeal the citation as provided
herein, late fees may be assessed, as approved by City Council through resolution, and /or a
municipal infraction citation may be filed by the Iowa City Police Department and a fine may be
sought in accordance with Iowa City Code Title 1, Chapter 4, Section 2(B), Violations, Penalties
and Alternative Relief, rather than section 3 above. If the Court finds the Vehicle Owner guilty of
the municipal infraction, State mandated court costs will be added to the amount of the fine
imposed by this section.
SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision
of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of 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.
CADocuments and Settings\mkarr \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files\ Content. 0utlook \110CYG81D\redlightrunning.doc
D R A F T
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be effective upon publication.
Passed and approved this day of 12011.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Approved by
City Attorney's Office
CADocuments and Settings\mkarr \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files\ Content. 0utlook \110CYG81D\redlightrunning.doc
10
Prepared by: Kristopher Ackerson, Asst. Transportation Planner, and Eric Goers, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E.
Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5247, and 319 - 356 -5030 respectively
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9, "MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC ", CHAPTER 1,
"DEFINITIONS, ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF TRAFFIC PROVISIONS ",
SECTION 1, "DEFINITIONS "; AND AMENDING TITLE 9, "MOTOR VEHICLES AND
TRAFFIC ", TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER 11, AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT, TO
ALLOW FOR RED LIGHT AUTOMATED TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City is vested with home rule authority pursuant to Article III,
Section 38A of the Iowa Constitution and Chapter 364 of the Code of Iowa; and
WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City is located in a high- density traffic area and regularly
experiences traffic incidents related to the failure of motorists to obey duly erected traffic control
devices, exposing its citizens to the dangers of personal injury and property damage; and
WHEREAS, the City is concerned with the violation of State statues concerning traffic signals,
specifically the failure of motorists to stop at red lights and obey `no turn on red signs;' and
WHEREAS, apprehending motorists who fail to obey traffic control devices through law
enforcement observance, chase, and citation is difficult, dangerous, and expensive and requires
the City to commit additional personnel that would not be necessary with the use of automated
traffic infraction detectors with image capture technologies (i.e., red -light cameras); and
WHEREAS, local governments in different parts of the State of Iowa and nation have
demonstrated that the combination of traffic infraction detectors with traditional traffic law
enforcement methods enhances vehicular and pedestrian safety; and
WHEREAS, automated traffic enforcement laws are authorized both by Iowa home rule and the
Iowa Supreme Court, in City of Davenport v. Seymour, 755 N.W.2d 533 (Iowa 2008), all of
which recognize the rights of municipalities to utilize traffic infraction detectors to regulate
municipal traffic; and
WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City finds that implementation of the enforcement program set forth
in this ordinance will promote, protect, and improve the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens
consistent with the authority of and limitations on the City pursuant to case law, the Constitution
of the State of Iowa, and the Code of Iowa.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I. AMENDMENTS
Title 9, "Motor Vehicles and Traffic ", Chapter 1, "Definitions, Administration and Enforcement of
Traffic Provisions ", Section 1, "Definitions" is amended by adding the following defined terms:
AUTOMATED TRAFFIC CITATION: A notice of fine generated in connection with the
automated traffic enforcement system.
Page 1 of 4
2. AUTOMATED TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT CONTRACTOR: The company or entity, if
any, with which the City of Iowa City contracts equipment and /or services in connection
with the Automated Traffic Enforcement System.
3. AUTOMATED TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM: An electronic system consisting of
a photographic, video, or electronic camera and a vehicle sensor installed to work in
conjunction with an official traffic controller or police department employee to
automatically produce photographs, video or digital images of each vehicle violating a
standard traffic control device or speed restriction.
4. VEHICLE OWNER: The person or entity identified by the Iowa Department of
Transportation, or registered with any other state vehicle registration office, as the
registered owner of a vehicle.
Title 9, "Motor Vehicles and Traffic ", Chapter 11, "Automated Traffic Enforcement" is added as
follows:
1. General. The City of Iowa City, in accordance with its police powers, may deploy, erect
or cause to have erected an automated traffic enforcement system for making video images of
vehicles that fail to obey red light traffic signals at intersections designated by the city manager,
or a designee. The systems may be managed by the private contractor that owns and operates
the requisite equipment with supervisory control vested in the city's police department. Video
images shall be provided to the police department by the contractor for review. The police
department will determine which vehicle owners are in violation of the city's traffic control
ordinances and are to receive a notice of violation for the offense.
2. Vehicle Owner's Civil Liability for Certain Traffic Offenses.
A. The Vehicle Owner shall be liable for a fine if such a vehicle crosses a marked
stop line or the intersection plane at a system location when the traffic signal for that
vehicle's direction is emitting a steady red light or arrow.
B. The violation may be exempted from liability as outlined below in section 5 of this
chapter, and other defenses may be considered in connection with the appeal process.
C. In no event will an Automated Traffic Citation be sent or reported to the Iowa
Department of Transportation or similar department of any other state for the purpose of
being added to the Vehicle Owner's driving record.
3. Notice of Violation; Fine.
A. Notice of the violation will be mailed to the Vehicle Owner for each violation
recorded by an Automated Traffic Enforcement System or traffic control signal
monitoring device. The Automated Traffic Enforcement Contractor shall mail the notice
within 30 days after receiving information about the Vehicle Owner. The notice shall
include the name and address of the Vehicle Owner; the vehicle make, if available and
readily discernable, and registration number; the violation charged; the time; the date;
and the location of the alleged violation; the applicable fine and monetary penalty which
shall be assessed for late payment; information as to the availability of an administrative
hearing in which the notice may be contested on its merits; and that the basis of the
notice is a photographic record obtained by an Automated Traffic Enforcement System.
Page 2 of 4
B. Any violation of section 2 of this chapter shall result in a civil fine issued to the
Vehicle Owner in an amount set by City Council by resolution, payable to the City of
Iowa City.
4. Contesting an Automated Traffic Citation. A Vehicle Owner who has been issued an
Automated Traffic Citation may contest the citation as follows:
A. By submitting, in a form specified by the City, a request for an administrative
hearing to be held at the Iowa City Police Department before an administrative appeals
board (the "Board ") consisting of one or more impartial fact finders. Such a request must
be filed within 30 days of the date on which Notice of the violation is sent to the Vehicle
Owner. After a hearing, the Board may either uphold or dismiss the Automated Traffic
Citation and shall mail its written decision within 10 days after the hearing to the address
provided on the request for hearing. If the citation is upheld, then the Board shall include
in its written decision a date by which the fine must be paid, and on or before that date
the Vehicle Owner shall either pay the fine or submit a request for a judicial hearing
pursuant to section 4(B) of this chapter.
B. By submitting, in a form specified by the City, a request that in lieu of the
Automated Traffic Citation, a municipal infraction citation be issued and filed with the
Small Claims Division of the Iowa District Court in Johnson County. Such a request must
be filed within 30 days from the date on which Notice of the violation is sent to the
Vehicle Owner. Such a request will result in a court order requiring the Vehicle Owner to
file an answer and appearance with the Clerk of Court, as well as setting the matter for
trial before a judge or magistrate. If the Court finds the Vehicle Owner guilty of the
municipal infraction, state mandated court costs will be added to the amount of the fine
imposed by this chapter.
5. Exceptions to Owner Liability. There shall be no liability pursuant to this chapter if:
A. The operator of the vehicle in question was issued a uniform traffic citation for the
violation in question pursuant to Title 9 of the Iowa City Code or Iowa Code Chapter 321
(2011) as amended; or
B. The violation occurred at any time after the vehicle in question or its state
registration plates were reported to a law enforcement agency as having been stolen,
provided, however, the vehicle or its plates had not been recovered by the Vehicle
Owner at the time of the alleged violation; or
C. The vehicle in question was an authorized emergency vehicle; or
D. The officer inspecting the recorded image determines that the vehicle in question
was lawfully participating in a funeral procession; or
E. The officer inspecting the recorded image determines.that the vehicle in question
reasonably entered the intersection in order to yield the right -of -way to an emergency
vehicle.
Page 3 of 4
6. Failure to Timely Pay or Appeal. If the recipient of an Automated Traffic Citation does
not either pay the fine by the due date stated in the citation or appeal the citation as provided
herein, late fees may be assessed, as approved by City Council through resolution, and /or a
municipal infraction citation may be filed by the Iowa City Police Department and a fine may be
sought in accordance with Iowa City Code Title 1, Chapter 4, Section 2(B), Violations, Penalties
and Alternative Relief, rather than section 3 above. If the Court finds the Vehicle Owner guilty of
the municipal infraction, State mandated court costs will be added to the amount of the fine
imposed by this section.
SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision
of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged
to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as
a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be effective upon publication.
Passed and approved this day of 12011.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Approved by
City Attorney's Office
Page 4 of 4
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by _
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Champion
Dickens
Dobyns
Hayek
Mims
Payne
Throgmorton
that the
First Consideration 1/10/2012
Voteforpassage: AYES: Dobyns, Hayek, Mims, Dickens. NAYS: Payne, Champion,
Throgmorton. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration _
Vote for passage:
Date published
1885 Geode Street
Marion, IA 52302 -5662
December 29, 2011
Mayor and City Council
City Hall
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, 1A 52240
Att'n: City Clerk (for Council Distribution)
Subject: Legality of Traffic Cameras / Unequal Enforcement
I previously submitted the attached copy of letter August 2, 2011.
I am now re- submitting for the benefit of new Council members taking office after the first of the
year.
Sincerely,
Hughes
hes
Gary A. g
r..1
C . = c >
QUA
-- ,
cZ
1885 Geode Street
Marion, IA 52302 -5662
August 2, 2011
Mayor and City Council
Iowa City City Hall
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Att'n: City Clerk (for Council Distribution)
Subject: Legality of Traffic Cameras / Unequal Enforcement
It is my understanding the City of Iowa City is considering the installation of traffic cameras to
automatically issue citations to registered owners of vehicles that violate laws pertaining to speed
and /or stop. I urge the City Council to abandon such intent, as current law providing such
surveillance has an outstanding issue with legality. The issue is not whether camera surveillance
is possible, (as the Iowa Supreme Court has ruled), but rather the manner in which it is
undertaken, which is pending different court challenge. Specifically, traffic cameras that only
record the rear license plate of a vehicle in order to issue a citation violate the equal protection
clause of law, as not all vehicles that travel Iowa roadways are treated equally.
This is because those with an apportioned registration are only issued one license plate for
display disp1gy on the front of their vehicle. Without a rear-facing plate, Lhey will never be cited for a
violation (when only rear plates are photographed).
Apportioned registrations typically apply to semi - trucks but may also include any /all vehicles in
the fleet. Granted, a trailer hauled behind a semi should have a separate registered license plate,
However, that raises issues with who will receive a camera issued citation, as it is not unusual for
independent truckers to pull a trailer owned by someone else. In addition, semis don't always
have a trailer behind them.
Regardless, the emphasis is that apportioned registrations "may also include any /all vehicles in
the fleet ". For example, I have an independent trucker friend who has included his pickup truck,
(note: just a standard / typical pickup), as part of his "fleet ", together with his semi, Because his
pickup legally displays just a single license plate on the front, with no registered license at all on
the rear, he will never be issued a citation for violation by a traffic camera (such as those utilized
in Cedar Rapids).
To validate this, I e- mailed inquiry to the Iowa Department of Transportation. Following is copy
of the reply:
r.W
From: "Mary Guillaume [DOT]" <Mary.Guillaume @dot.iowa.gov> C `
To: Gary Hughes
Cc: "Karen Smith [DOT]" <Karen. Smith @dot.iowa.gov >, "MCS MotorCarrier [DOT]"
<omcs @dot.iowa.gov> C.3
j ` I
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 10:11:23 AM
Subject: Traffic Law - Question
Good Morning,
According to the International Registration Plan (IRP) we are required to issue at least one plate per
Apportionable vehicle to be displayed on the front of the vehicle (See official commentary from the IRP).
110 ONE REGISTRATION PLATE
It Is the purpose of the Plan to Implement the concept of one registration Plate for one Vehicle.
Official Commentary
This Section is not Intended to prevent a member from issuing two matching Plates for an Apportionable
Vehicle and requiring those Plates to be displayed on the front and rear of the vehicle. Rather, the
Section presents as one of the foundations of the Plan the concept that an Apportionable Vehicle
registered under the Plan need not display a registration credential other than that issued by its Base
Jurisdiction.
Iowa is Incompliance when issuing only one plate to be displayed on the front to a truck or truck - tractor
registered through the International Registration Plan (IRP). I have also attached a letter we send to
carriers who request documentation that we issue only one plate to be displayed.
c
If there is anything else I can do for you, please feel free to contact me. y ) rE
Thanks,
�-� C7
Mary Guillaume
Administrative Assistant 11
Office of Motor Carrier
Iowa Department of Transportation
PO BOX 10382, Des Moines, IA 50309
Ph: 515-237-3258 Fax: 515-237-3252
Please note I have attached copy of referenced letter provided by the Iowa DOT, that truckers
may use to substantiate they are legally registered for road use with just a single license plate
displayed on the front of their vehicle ... again, whether semi or any other vehicle of their fleet
that shares an apportioned registration.
This finding of unequal protection will certainly be applied to challenge the law that, under
conventional application of precedence, will result in it being over - turned as unconstitutional on
the basis of it being unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious.
Again, I urge the City Council to either abandon traffic cameras or pursue opinion of legality
from the State Attorney General.
Surveillance suppresses freedom.
Sincerely,
o y a.
Gary A. Hughes
iowa Department of Transportation
Office of Motor Carrier Services Ph: 515- 237.3268
P.O. Box 10382, Des Moines, IA 50306 -0382 Fax: 515- 237 -3225
E -mall: oincs0dot.lowa.gov
Web site: lowadot.gov /mvd/omes
February 23, 2011
To Whom It May Concern:
Iowa only issues one plate to a truck or truck - tractor registered through the
International Registration Plan (IRP).
If you have any questions regarding the display of this plate, please call
515 - 237 -3268.
TH :dgm
Sincerely, ,
Tina Hargis, Director
Office of Motor Carrier Services
Motor Vehicle Division
r.:
C
C::3
Irm
Marian Karr
From: TodayLA09 @aol.com
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 3:29 PM
To: Council
Subject: Red Light Cameras
I live in Los Angeles and red light cameras were abolished a few years ago due to fact that they have become to costly to
enforce. The infractions do not go against your driving record and the only recourse the city had was putting the citations
in collections, in fact towards the end of uninstalling the red lights,
the city of Los Angeles was spending more on the servicing of the red lights then making anything off them.
This scenario has played out in several other states who also decided to uninstall the red light cameras also. Have you
weigh out the cost of hiring server more police officers? Once a ticket is signed by a police officer and issued to a traffic
offender it's more enforceable.
There is no way to go around the federal laws that make these red light cameras enforceable and suggest you reconsider
installing the cameras. Once the citizens of Los Angeles found out that the tickets were enforceable, they simply quit
paying them. I am one of them and I also received a speeding ticket in Cedar Rapids in which I'm not paying also.
Don't spend your money on these cameras.
Gary Clement
-#164
Marian Karr
From: Edward Walters <edwaltersiii @g mail. com>
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 2:05 PM
To: Council
Subject: Against Red Light Cameras
Dear Council Members,
I am strongly against the proposal for red light cameras. We lived near Houston where politicians voted for red
light cameras. There was such an outrage after the installation of the cameras that concerned citizens were
able to get a voter referendum on the ballot. The measure won and red light cameras were removed. I
have never received a red light camera ticket, but I am STRONGLY against the idea. They cause driver stress
and rear end accidents. They will send money otherwise spent in Iowa City to a camera company outside of
Iowa. I also think the cameras violate our civil liberties and are like "big brother" watching over you. If the
cameras are put in place I might campaign to get citizens rallied against the cameras to get them removed.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Ed Walters
110 S. 1st Ave
Iowa City, IA 52245
319- 400 -8570
Marian Karr
From:
Bill Kamery <wh kamery@g mail. corn >
Sent:
Thursday, January 05, 2012 7:27 PM
To:
Council
Subject:
Ref Light Cameras
Attachments:
RedLightPaper.pdf
This correspondence will become a public record.
Attached is a study written by several University of South Florida professors that was published in the Florida
Public Health Review.
It makes several points that you should consider:
1. Red light cameras decrease safety; they do not increase it. Studies that show the opposite are found to be
faulty, biased, or both.
2. More effective ways to actually increase safety at intersections are presented - for example, add a few
seconds to the amber light times.
Thank you
W.H.Kamery
Red Light Running Cameras: Would Crashes, Injuries and Automobile
Insurance Rates Increase If They Are Used in Florida?
Barbara Langland - Orban, Ph.D., MSPH
Etienne E. Pracht, Ph.D.
John T. Large, PhD.
ABSTRACT
Running a red light can cause severe traffic crashes especially when one vehicle runs into the side of another. Red
light cameras photograph violators who are sent traffic tickets by mail. Intuitively, cameras appear to be a good
idea. However, comprehensive studies conclude cameras actually increase crashes and injuries, providing a safety
argument not to install them. Presently, Florida statutes do not permit red light camera evidence to be used as the
sole basis for ticketing drivers for violating the law. Legislation to permit camera citations has been proposed since
the 1990s, but none has passed to date. This paper explains red light running trends in Florida; effective solutions
to reduce red light running; findings from major camera evaluations; examples of flawed evaluations; the
automobile insurance financial interest in cameras; and the increased likelihood of even higher crash and injury
rates if cameras are used in Florida due to the high percent of elderly drivers and passengers. The theory behind
red light cameras as potentially effective is that they rely on deterring red light running primarily through
punishment of a specific driving behavior and secondarily by changing drivers' experience. Because the rigorous
and robust studies conclude that cameras are associated with increased crashes and costs, any economic analysis of
cameras should include these newly generated costs to the public. Indirect costs to the public are usually not
considered in the calculation of total revenues and profits generated from red light cameras. Florida should be
cautious in using traffic safety information from the automobile insurance industry. Insurance financial goals are to
increase their revenues and profits, which do not necessarily include reducing traffic crashes, injuries or fatalities.
Also, public policy should avoid conflicts of interest that enhance revenues for government and private interests at
the risk of public safety.
Florida Public Health Review, 2008; 5: 1 -7
Introduction
Running a red light can cause severe traffic
crashes especially when one vehicle runs into the side
of another (i.e., an angle crash). Red light cameras
photograph violators who are sent traffic tickets by
mail. Intuitively, cameras appear to be a good idea.
However, comprehensive studies conclude cameras
actually increase crashes and injuries, providing a
safety argument not to install them.
The National Motorists Association (NMA)
represents driver interests and opposes cameras. In
addition to concluding cameras do not improve
safety, the NMA is concerned that local governments
will not use effective methods to reduce red light
running when earning money from cameras. For
example, lengthening yellow light timings at traffic
signals is effective in reducing red light running
(NMA, 2008).
Nearly 80% of red light running occurs in the
first second after the light changes (Office of the
Majority Leader [OML], 2001). In addition, high-
speed red light camera technology can identify split -
second technical violations that are not visible to the
human eye. Police in one community concluded that
nearly 90% of infractions at a trial camera were split -
second violations visible only to the camera lens,
which would not result in a ticket from an officer
(theNewspaper.com, 2006). The majority of the red
light running safety issue can be resolved through
inexpensive engineering remedies that address
Florida Public Health Review, 2008; 5:1 -7
http: / /publichealth.usEedu /fph r
infractions in the first second after the light changes.
Inexpensive interventions include lengthening yellow
light timings and /or adding a brief all -red light
interval, which permits traffic to clear the intersection
prior to releasing cross traffic (Federal Highway
Administration and National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration [FHWA/NHTSA], 2003).
Camera fines have raised large amounts of
money for cities and counties. San Diego, California,
collected nearly $30 million in 18 months, with one
camera alone generating almost $7 million. Smaller
cities have also raised millions of dollars annually
from cameras. Some jurisdictions have been accused
of setting shorter yellow light traffic signal timings at
camera intersections in order to increase tickets,
thereby collecting more money from fines.
Insufficient yellow light timings can create a
dilemma zone where the distance is too short to stop,
yet proceeding into the intersection results in running
a red light (OML, 2001). Lending support to this
concern, hundreds of camera citations in San Diego
were dismissed after a judge concluded improper
timings were set by the camera vendor (Fields, 2001).
The primary advocate for cameras is the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS, 2007;
Federal Highway Administration, 2008). As the IIHS
openly admits, they are wholly funded by automobile
insurers. However, their major study, concluding
cameras improve safety ( Retting & Kyrychenko,
2002), has been criticized for research design flaws
and not actually measuring changes in crashes and
injuries at camera intersections (Burkey & Obeng,
2004). While insurers may not set out to increase
crashes and injuries, increases in crashes and injuries
indirectly contribute to automobile insurance's
performance as a growth industry. Increases in
crashes can raise the risk rating of drivers in a
community, which can lead to disproportionately
higher automobile insurance premiums, and,
subsequently, rising profits for insurers.
At present, Florida statutes do not permit red
light camera evidence to be used as the sole basis for
ticketing drivers for violating the law (Crist, 2005).
Legislation to permit camera citations has been
proposed since the 1990s, but none has passed to
date. This paper explains a) red light running trends
in Florida; b) effective solutions to reduce red light
running; c) findings from major camera evaluations;
d) examples of flawed evaluations; e) the automobile
insurance financial interest in cameras; and f) the
increased likelihood of even higher crash and injury
rates if cameras are used in Florida due to the high
percent of elderly drivers and passengers.
Is Red Light Running a Growing Problem in
Florida?
Traffic fatalities due to red light running are not
increasing and have averaged 110 per year since
1998, accounting for less than 4% of Florida's 3,000
annual traffic fatalities. Injuries from red light
running crashes have steadily decreased since 1998,
as have property damage -only crashes from red light
running (Florida Department of Highway Safety and
Motor Vehicles, 2006). More importantly, the injury
rate from red light running crashes has plummeted by
a third in less than a decade, as illustrated in the
graph. The statistics and graph suggest red light
running is declining in Florida in the absence of red
light camera use.
Injuries per 100,000 People from Red Light
Running in Florida: 299 82006
55.00
50.c0
45.00
8 4000
�i 35.00
30.00
25.00
1992 1919 2000 2001 2002 2003 2DO4 2005 2006
What Solutions Are Effective in Reducing Red
Light Running?
Florida Public Health Review, 2008; 5:1 -7
http: //p ublich ealth.usE edu /fph r
Whereas some red light running may be
intentional, particularly in traffic congestion, it can
also be unintentional and due to circumstantial
factors. Contributing environmental factors include
yellow light timings that are set too short at traffic
signals, obstacles that block a driver's view of the
traffic signal, and wet roads. The first recommended
intervention at problem intersections is to conduct an
engineering analysis, which will identify why red
light running occurs. Intersection improvements
should then be made in response to the findings
(FHWA/NHTSA, 2003; Hemenway, 2001). For
example, studies show that new traffic signals can
reduce traffic fatalities by 50 percent, as they can
increase visibility of the signal (TRIP, 2005). The
following engineering countermeasures are
recommended to reduce red light running
(FHWA/NHTSA, 2003):
• Improve signal head visibility by increasing
size or adding signal heads where one signal
head is used for multiple lanes and may be
blocked from view.
• Address east -west roads where sun angles
silhouette the traffic sign head and add back
plates to enhance visibility.
• Set appropriate yellow light time intervals that
allow vehicles to clear the intersection or safely
stop that is consistent with the speed limit, road
grade and intersection width.
• Add a brief all -red light clearance interval to
allow traffic in the intersection to clear prior to
releasing cross traffic.
• Add intersection warning signs or advanced
yellow flashing lights or reduce the approach
speed to the intersection.
• Coordinate traffic signals to optimize traffic
flow, eliminating interruptions.
• Remove on -site parking near intersections to
increase visibility of pedestrians and cross
traffic.
• Repair malfunctioning lights and avoid
unnecessarily long cycle timings.
If a problem persists after intersection re- engineering,
the FHWA and NHTSA (2003) advise the next steps
are an education campaign and traditional police
enforcement.
What Is Known About Cameras and Safety?
Major evaluations were conducted in
Greensboro, North Carolina; Virginia; and the
Canadian province of Ontario. The studies used
multiple years of before - and -after data at camera
intersections and comparison (no camera)
intersections resulting in consistent findings. Camera
intersections were associated with a significant
increase in crashes. Increased rear -end crashes were
a particular problem and may occur as drivers
attempt to stop abruptly in order to avoid a ticket.
The studies also found cameras were associated with
increased injury crashes or crashes with possible
injuries.
The Greensboro evaluation was conducted by the
Urban Transit Institute at the North Carolina
Agricultural & Technical State University using 57
months of data (Burkey & Obeng, 2004). The study
concluded that in many ways "the evidence points
toward the installation of RLCs [red light cameras] as
a detriment to safety." Cameras were associated
with:
A significant increase (40 %) in accident
rates;
A significant increase (40 -50 %) in possible
injury crashes;
No decrease in severe crashes.
The Virginia Transportation Research Council
(Garber, Miller, Abel, Eslambolchi & Korukonda,
2007) analyzed camera programs in five jurisdictions
using seven years of data. The study concluded their
findings "cannot be used to justify the widespread
installation of cameras because they are not
universally effective." They used a comprehensive
statistical method of analysis (i.e., Empirical Bayes)
that found cameras were associated with:
• A significant increase (29 %) in total
crashes;
• A significant increase (20 %) in angle
crashes;
• A significant increase (42 %) in rear -end
crashes, which did not decrease over time;
• A significant increase in injury crashes
(18 %), with the impact on injury severity
reported as "too close to call";
• Increases in crash costs.
A study conducted for the Ministry of
Transportation in Ontario by Synectics
Transportation Consultants (2003) evaluated two
interventions (cameras and stepped -up police
enforcement) in six jurisdictions following a public
information campaign. Camera intersections had a:
• 16% increase in crashes, compared to an 8%
increase at comparison intersections;
• 2% increase in injury or fatal crashes,
compared to 10% and 12% decreases
respectively at stepped -up police
enforcement and comparison intersections.
Florida Public Health Review, 2008; 5:1 -7
http: / /publichealth.usE edu /fph r
Why Do Some Studies Conclude Cameras Reduce
Crashes and Injuries?
All research studies are susceptible to design
flaws, especially observational (i.e. non -
experimental) studies. Some of the major studies
concluding reductions in red light running have
exhibited such design flaws. One of these was
conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety (IIHS) and a second was funded by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Both are
explained below.
In the IIHS study, researchers compared Oxnard,
California, which installed cameras, with three towns
that did not. The first criticism of this study's design
is that camera intersections were not separately
analyzed. Instead, crash and injury counts at
Oxnard's 11 camera intersections were added with all
125 signalized intersections in Oxnard (Retting &
Kyrychenko, 2002). Thus, the study actually
compared differences in crash and injury growth rates
between intersections with and without traffic
signals, and not between signalized intersections with
and without cameras. A further criticism of this study
is that the conclusions drawn from the statistical
analysis were incorrectly reported. When the results
were correctly analyzed for statistical significance, no
change in total crashes could be substantiated
(Burkey & Obeng, 2004; Kyrychenko & Retting,
2004).
The FHWA study (Council, Persaud, Eccles, Lyon
and Griffith, 2005) evaluated seven jurisdictions in
multiple states. The analysis concluded cameras were
associated with decreased angle crashes and injures.
The university professor who co- directed this study
and provided the methodological ideas has also
conducted research for the IIHS (Persaud, 2007;
Persaud, Retting & Lord, 2001; Persaud, Hauer,
Retting, Vallurupalli & Mucsi, 1997). The research
design and reporting concerns are as follows.
The researchers listed 15 geographic areas
with camera programs. However, only seven
areas were selected for the analysis because
the researchers concluded "significant
effects are likely for all crash severities" in
these jurisdictions. The decision to
selectively (non- randomly) choose among
the 15 areas increases the chance of
incorrectly favoring one conclusion over
another (camera effectiveness or
ineffectiveness). Three areas excluded by
the researchers were included in the major
studies from Virginia and Greensboro, North
Carolina, which did not find reductions in
angle crashes.
The researchers called this a "before -and-
after" study, yet it appears they did not
compare crashes and injuries at intersections
before and after cameras were installed.
They did not report using the before period
data in estimating expected crashes for the
after period. Instead, the study made
estimates of expected crashes and injuries
for the period after cameras were installed
using non- camera intersections. Also, counts
of crashes and injuries from the before
period were not reported in the results.
In estimating crashes for the period after
cameras were installed, the analysis
excluded important factors that are known to
affect intersection crashes. Changes
attributed to cameras could actually occur
from these excluded factors, such as
differences in yellow light timings and speed
limits.
Although the Methods section identified six
types of crashes (for example, red light
running crashes), findings were reported for
only angle and rear end crashes. Changes in
crashes and injuries for the other types,
including red light running crashes, and
changes in total crashes and injuries were
not revealed. This also renders the economic
analysis incomplete since it did not include
changes in total crashes and injuries.
Instead of reporting the full results of the
statistical analyses, only an example with
made -up numbers was provided.
Crash and injury counts were not reported
by intersection or jurisdiction. As such, it is
unknown where the favorable experiences
attributed to cameras actually occurred.
Correct reporting of research findings
requires providing sufficient detail to allow
other researchers to validate conclusions. It
is impossible to replicate this study or to re-
analyze the findings.
The public health policy implications are stark.
People who are not trained in research methods are
unlikely to identify methodological flaws. As such,
these studies have been used in decision making. For
example, the FHWA conclusions were presented in a
legislative analysis of a Florida red light camera bill,
along with IIHS research that referenced their Oxnard
study (Florida House of Representatives Staff
Analysis, 2007).
Of particular importance is the comparison of the
research methods performed by the studies that find
at best no benefit due to cameras, or at worst
increased harm, since these studies did not have
similar research design flaws. The studies finding no
Florida Public Health Review, 2008; 5:1 -7
http: / /publichealth.usEedu /fph r
safety benefit to cameras more readily provided
details of their methodology with their appropriate
application. They provide sample data that were
actually analyzed and reported, and not irrelevant and
made -up. These studies correctly take into account
statistical error rates and margins of error of their
findings. Also, they tend not to pick and choose
sample data that support their conclusions, while
discarding data that may potentially dilute desired
findings.
Another potential research design issue is crash data.
Local governments have used changes in violations
or profitability as proof of successful camera
performance instead of using changes in crashes and
injuries. This may occur because local governments
do not have accurate counts of crashes before and
after cameras are installed. For example, Florida law
does not require law enforcement officers to write
crash reports for most property damage -only crashes
(Florida Statutes, 2007). This allows for large
differences in the percent of crashes reported. If all
crashes are not reported, it is not possible to correctly
determine changes in crash rates associated with red
light cameras. An Australian study completed by
Andreassen (1995) concluded cameras offered "no
demonstrated value as an effective countermeasure ",
but also identified concerns about the reliability of
lists of accidents at camera sites. The importance of
having good data was emphasized.
Why Might Insurers Support Cameras If They
Increase Crashes and Costs?
More crashes lead to higher insurance premiums,
leading to higher profits, which in turn lead to
increases in insurance stock prices. In the absence of
crashes, automobile insurance would become
superfluous. This is not to say that automobile
insurers actively seek to increase crashes, but to point
out that an important component of insurance
revenue growth is actual and perceived levels of
"risk." Similarly, the tobacco industry has
emphasized revenue growth by increasing cigarette
sales while downplaying the impact on the public's
health.
With automobile insurance, declining crash rates
imply lower risk. In theory, insurance premiums
should decline with fewer crashes, thereby reducing
insurance revenues. Higher crash rates suggest higher
risk; justifying higher premiums and profits. Due to
the pricing methods used, automobile insurers do not
have a financial incentive to lower crash rates or
perceptions of risk.
Also, automobile insurance companies can profit
if camera tickets are moving violations that add
points to a driver's license. Moving violation tickets
allow insurers to charge higher premiums while
incurring no additional cost. For example, if Florida's
proposed camera legislation from 2005 or 2006 had
passed, camera citations would be moving violations
under the existing red light running statute. Cameras
would have photographed the license plate of a
vehicle violating a red light and then the vehicle
owner would have received a $250 ticket plus 4-
points on their driver's license (Florida House of
Representatives [FHR], 2005; FHR, 2006). Even
when tickets from red light cameras are not moving
violations, an increase in moving violation tickets is
still expected from the increase in crashes.
From 2000 to 2004, Florida moved up five spots
to become the 6`h most expensive state in which to
insure a vehicle. A significant increase in moving
violation tickets occurred from 2000 to 2004; along
with a large increase in automobile insurance
premiums. Statewide, automobile insurance
premiums increased from $8.7 billion in 2000 to
nearly $14 billion in 2004. Automobile insurers paid
73¢ on every premium dollar in 2000, versus 61¢ in
2004. This means the large increase in tickets was
associated with increased insurance revenues and
profits, while Florida's crash rate remained the same
(Florida Statistical Abstract [FSA], 2001; FSA, 2006;
National Association of Insurance Commissioners,
2004).
Are Any Camera Issues Unique to Florida?
Cameras could create an even larger increase in
crashes and injuries in Florida since the state has the
highest percent of elderly population in the U.S. The
elderly have slower average reaction times and may
be less likely to stop abruptly as other drivers do so at
camera intersections. Further, the elderly are at
greater risk for an injury or fatality when a crash
occurs due to anatomic and physiologic changes that
occur with aging and from the common use of blood
thinners that increase the rate of bleeding. In the
lower range of injury severity, the death rate for
elderly patients hospitalized from a motor vehicle
crash is three times higher (4.6 %) than adults under
65 years of age (1.5 %) (Pracht, Langland - Orban,
Orban & Flint, 2007).
In 2001, Florida led the nation with the most
older drivers killed in traffic crashes (268 fatalities), a
70% increase in just 10 years. In addition, Florida
had the most traffic fatalities where an older driver
was involved in the crash (456 fatalities). Among
older drivers, 50% of traffic fatalities occur at
intersections, which is more than twice the rate for
younger drivers. Improved intersection design is
known to reduce errors among older drivers. The
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is a
leader in designing state roads that accommodate
elderly drivers. The state's elder driver program has
designed and re- constructed state highways and
Florida Public Health Review, 2008; 5:1 -7
http: / /publichealth.usE edu /fph r
streets to improve safety for older drivers (TRIP,
2003). In 2006, the FDOT Secretary was asked to
allow cameras on state roads. The Secretary
responded that more research was needed due to the
large increase in rear -end collisions and
recommended engineering solutions (Stutler, 2006).
Conclusions and Recommendations
The theory behind red light cameras as
potentially effective is that they rely on deterring red
light running primarily through punishment of a
specific driving behavior and secondarily by
changing drivers' experience. By definition, the
punishable behavior and resulting potentially harmful
action will already have taken place when a ticket is
issued. In other words, the crash, injury, and
mortality risks do not change immediately, if at all.
In contrast, the engineering solutions described above
produce immediate reductions in red light running
and potential crashes. Thus, even if red light cameras
could be effective in the long run, which is debatable,
they are associated with an added cost, consisting of
fines, crashes and injuries that could have been
avoided by using engineering solutions, which are
effective in both the short term and the long run.
Because the rigorous and robust studies conclude
cameras are associated with increased crashes and
costs, any economic analysis of cameras should
include these newly generated costs to the public.
Indirect costs to the public are usually not considered
in the calculation of total revenues and profits
generated from red light cameras.
Cities and counties should follow the state's lead
and likewise pursue engineering improvements to
enhance intersection safety for all drivers and
passengers. Proven engineering practices and
counter - measures can reduce crashes and injuries due
to red light running, as well as other causes of
intersection crashes. A public health approach to
improved intersection engineering is particularly
needed since 26% of Florida's traffic fatalities occur
at intersections (with and without traffic signals), in
contrast to 18% nationally (NHTSA, 2005). This
means that more than 22% of traffic fatalities in
Florida occur at intersections for reasons other than
red light running, as red light constitutes less than 4%
of total traffic fatalities.
Further, red light cameras are an inefficient
means to raise revenue for local and state
governments and can disadvantage the state's
economy. This occurs from the significant amount of
funds, paid by local drivers, that ultimately accrues to
private in -state and out -of -state special interests from
camera use, rather than fully accruing to local and /or
state governments.
If cameras are used in Florida, a portion of ticket
fines (in essence, royalties) can accrue to the camera
vendors in perpetuity, which are located in other
states and countries. Likewise, the increase in crashes
and probable injuries would result in automobile
insurance rate increases, which could affect all
drivers in a community due to the pricing methods
used by insurers. A portion of the insurance increase
would be returned to certain business interests in the
state; for example, in the form of higher insurance
agency commissions and payments to automobile
repair shops, hospitals, doctors, and rental car
companies. However, a portion of the insurance
increase would accrue to out -of -state interests, such
as automobile parts manufacturers and, more
importantly, to out -of -state insurance corporate
accounts. Thus, red light cameras result in fines and
insurance increases that would transfer disposable
income from Florida drivers to private businesses in
and out of the state, in addition to local and /or state
governments. It is not surprising that out -of -state
special interests, such as camera vendors and the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, advocate for
camera use.
Finally, cities, counties, and the state should be
very cautious in using traffic safety information from
the automobile insurance industry. Insurance
financial goals are to increase their revenues and
profits, which do not necessarily include reducing
traffic crashes, injuries or fatalities. Also, public
policy should avoid conflicts of interest that enhance
revenues for government and private interests at the
risk of public safety.
References
Andreassen, D. (1995, February). A long term
study of red light cameras and accidents (Research
Report ARR 261). Australian Road Research Board
Ltd. Victoria, Australia.
Burkey, M., & Obeng, K. A. (2004, July)
Detailed Investigation of Crash Risk Reduction
Resulting from Red Light Cameras in Small Urban
Areas, Urban Transit Institute. Transportation
Institute. North Carolina Agricultural & Technical
State University (prepared for U.S. Department of
Transportation).
Council, F. M., Persaud, B., Eccles, K., Lyon,
C., & Griffith, M. S. (2005, April). Safety evaluation
of red light cameras. Federal Highway
Administration. Publication No. FHWA- HRT -05-
048.
Crist, C. (2005, July 12) Subject: Traffic, use of
unmanned cameras. Advisory Legal Opinion — AGO
2005 -41. Retrieved February 18, 2008, from the
World Wide Web:
http• / /myfloridalegal.com/ 85256236006EB5El.nsf
/0 /CE01 BE293FCEEA208525703C00720344 ?Open
&Hiahl fight= O,aao,2005 -41.
Florida Public Health Review, 2008; 5:1 -7
http: / /publichealth.usEedu /fphr
Federal Highway Administration. Stop red light
running facts and statistics. Retrieved August 29,
2007, from the World Wide Web:
http://safeiy.tbwa.dot.gov/intersections/redl facts.ht
m.
Federal Highway Administration and National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2003,
March 20) Guidance for using red light cameras.
Washington, DC.
Fields, M. (2001, August 28). Statement before
the California Legislature Senate Committee on
Privacy: Automated enforcement laws. Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety. Retrieved February 18,
2008 from
http://www.iihs.org/laws/testimony/pdf/testimony in
mf 082801.pdf.
Florida Department of Highway Safety and
Motor Vehicles. (2006) Florida traffic crash facts.
Retrieved February 18, 2008, from the World Wide
Web:
http://www.hsmv.state.fl.us/reports/crash facts.html.
Florida House of Representatives. (2005). HB
1439 Red light violations. Retrieved February 18,
2008 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/bilisd
etail aspx ?BillId= 17099 &Sessionld =38.
Florida House of Representatives. (2006). HB
259 Red light violations. Retrieved February 18, 2008
from the World Wide Web:
http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/bilisd
etail aspx ?BillId= 31782 &Sessionld =42.
Florida House of Representatives Staff Analysis.
(2007, April 20) Economic Expansion &
Infrastructure Council. Bill # CS /HB 1247, Uniform
Traffic Control. Retrieved February 18, 2008 from
the World Wide Web:
http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsd
etail asRx ?Billld= 36326 &Sessionld =54.
Florida Statistical Abstract. (2001). Bureau of
Economic and Business Research. University of
Florida. (Table 17.72) Gainesville, FL.
Florida Statistical Abstract. (2006). Bureau of
Economic and Business Research. University of
Florida. (Table 17.72). Gainesville, FL.
Florida Statutes. (2007). Chapter 316 State
Uniform Traffic Control: 316.066 Written reports of
crashes. Retrieved February 18, 2008 from the World
Wide Web:
http://www. leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App in
ode = Display_ Statute &Search Strine= &URL =Ch031
6 /SEC066. H TM &Title=- >2007- >Ch0316-
>Section %20066 #0316.066.
Garber, N. C., Miller, J. S., Abel, R.E.,
Eslambolchi, S., & Korukonda, S. (2007, June). The
impact of red light cameras (photo -red enforcement)
on crashes in Virginia. Virginia Transportation
Research Council Research Report. Retrieved
February 18, 2008 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.virainiadot.org-/vtrc/main/online reports/
pdf /07- r2.pdf.
Hemenway, D. (2001). The public health
approach to motor vehicles, tobacco, and alcohol,
with applications to firearms policy. Journal of
Public Health Policy, 22, 381 -402.
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. (2007,
June). Q&As: Red light cameras. Retrieved
November 17, 2007, from the World Wide Web:
www.iihs.orp,/research/qanda/rlr.html.
Kyrychenko, S. Y., & Retting, R. A. (2004,
November). Review of "A detailed investigation of
crash risk reduction resulting from red light cameras
in small urban areas" by M. Burkey and K. Obeng.
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
National Association of Insurance
Commissioners (NAIC). (2004). State average
expenditures and average premiums for personal
automobile insurance; 2003/2004 Auto Insurance
Database Report.
National Motorists Association. Ticket cameras:
NMA objections to photo enforcement. Retrieved
September 14, 2007, from the World Wide Web:
http://www.motorists.ora/photoenforce/home/altemat
ives -to- red -li eht- cameras /.
NHTSA National Center for Statistics and
Analysis, (2005). Traffic safety facts 2005, U.S.
Department of Transportation.
Office of the Majority Leader. U.S. House of
Representatives (2001, May). The red light running
crisis: Is it intentional?
Persaud B. (2008) Civil Engineering faculty
page. Ryerson University. Retrieved November 17,
2007 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.!yerson.ca/civil/facstaf`f/Faculty/bhagwan
t.html.
Persaud, B. N., Hauer, E. J., Retting, R. A.,
Vallurupalli, R., & Mucsi, K. (1997). Crash
reductions related to traffic signal removal in
Philadelphia. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 29,
803 -810.
Persaud, B. N., Retting, R. A., & Lord, D. (2001)
Safety effect of roundabout conversions in the United
States: Empirical Bayes observational before -after
study. Transportation Research Report, 175, 1 -8.
Pracht, E. E., Langland - Orban, B., Orban, D., &
Flint, L. (2007, June 25). Differentials in triage to
trauma centers and survival rates between elderly
and non - elderly following motor vehicle crashes in
Florida. Presented at Academy Health Annual
Meeting. Orlando, FL.
Retting, R. A., & Kyrychenko, S. Y. (2002)
Reductions in injury crashes associated with red light
camera enforcement in Oxnard, California. American
Journal of Public Health, 92, 1822 -1825.
Florida Public Health Review, 2008; 5:1 -7
http: / /publichealth.ustedu /fphr
Studer, D. J. (2006, March). FDOT: Red -light
cameras need more research. Orlando Sentinel, A23.
Synectics Transportation Consultants. (2003,
December). Final technical report: Evaluation of red
light camera pilot project. Prepared for the Ontario
Ministry of Transportation.
TheNewspaper.com. California: Cops reject red
light camera sales pitch, (2006. November 11)
(excerpt from Photo finish for drivers, San Gabriel
Valley Tribune (CA)) Retrieved February 18, 2008,
from the World Wide Web:
http://thenewspaper.com/news/14/1441.asp.
TRIP: The Road Information Program. (2003,
July). Designing roadways to safely accommodate
the increasingly mobile older driver: A plan to allow
older Americans to maintain their independence.
Retrieved February 18, 2008 from the World Wide
Web:
http://www.tripnet.orsz/OlderDrivers2003Study.PDF.
TRIP: The Road Information Program. (2005,
February). Highway safety fact sheet: How road and
bridge improvements save lives. Retrieved September
26, 2007 from the World Wide Web:
www.tripnet.org/hsfactsheet.htm.
Barbara Langland - Orban (borban(ahsc.usf.edu) is
Associate Professor and Chair, Department of Health
Policy and Management, University of South Florida
College of Public Health, Tampa, FL. Etienne E.
Pracht (epracht@hsc.usfedu) is Associate Professor,
Department of Health Policy and Management,
University of South Florida College of Public Health,
Tampa, FL. John T. Large is Assistant Professor,
Department of Health Policy and Management,
University of South Florida College of Public Health,
Tampa, FL. This paper was submitted to the FPHR
on February 6, 2008, reviewed and revised, and
accepted for publication on March 3, 2008.
Copyright 2008 by the Florida Public Health Review.
Marian Karr
From: Nagel, Alan F <alan -nagel @uiowa.edu>
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2012 8:15 PM
To: Council
Subject: re. traffic cameras
Dear members of the Iowa City City Council:
It is a pleasure to learn that Council is ready to consider using traffic cameras for regulatory purposes.
I have been steadily disheartened by much of the attention in the press to various complaints about the installation of
traffic cameras and the prospect of their being used in more Iowa cities for regulation and punishment of traffic
offenses. Those who complain that it will change their driving habits have, I fear, no rational leg to stand on; our habits
either break the law or they don't. Arguing that camera - evidenced infractions should not raise money, seems no more
reasonable than suggesting that traffic stops should result in no more than a polite caution, certainly not the familiar
fines. Exactly what violation of privacy is entailed by photographic evidence of my driving I fail to grasp.
It is, of course, not an entirely easy decision: certainly civil libertarians - -both ICLU and ACLU of which I am a long -time
supporter and member, and more conservative libertarian citizens alike -- rightly draw attention to the potential for
abuse. But experience to date shows little to support any alarmist responses to such risks.
On the contrary, the press has no shortage in reporting on abuses by the very individuals, specifically police, whom
camera skeptics declare themselves to prefer to the more objective cameras. Anything worth doing can be done badly.
Traffic cameras seem a rather minor threat.
Granted there are questions about just what measure of speeding, what degree of continuing through a changing traffic
light, may be considered an infraction on the evidence of electronic images. These are technical problems to which
reasonable solutions are available.
Driving on frequent occasions through Cedar Rapids on 1 -380, 1 rapidly took some satisfaction and relief in the change of
driving behaviors once camera enforcement began there. Speeding used to be common, even frequently intimidating.
It is a much more civil stretch of highway now.
Traffic light infractions concern me even more than speeding. In the past three years, I have come to assume that a light
changed to green does not mean it is safe to proceed; flying through red lights has become common enough in Iowa City
that it seems to me an objective hazard. Even the reasonable process of levying fines from camera evidence only on
those who are blatantly entering intersections on a red light should, I believe, have real benefits.
(It is true that I may be biased. Not long ago my wife was in a collision with a car that illegally entered a public way, and
immediately crossed back in front of her. The insurance company for better than two weeks after receiving the usual
documents, including the police report, stonewalled our requests for action with a string of weak excuses. After my wife
finally observed on the phone that the ICPD had the entire incident on a squad -car video, the company settled in less
than two hours.)
I look forward to Iowa City coming to the conclusion that a policy of using traffic cameras with due safeguards and an
awareness of potentials for abuse. There is little to be lost, and much to be gained.
Cordially,
Alan Nagel
Iowa City resident and voter since 1969
�f/P
Marian Karr
From: Susan Enzle <senzle @msn.com>
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 4:21 PM
To: Council
Subject: Traffic Cameras
Dear City Council,
I am a long -time resident of Iowa City who works in Cedar Rapids. I would like to comment upon the proposal
before City Council to install traffic cameras in an effort to control speeding vehicles and drivers who run red
lights.
First, I used to have my office in downtown Cedar Rapids on First Avenue. It was hazardous to cross First
Avenue when the pedestrian cross signal came on because it was not uncommon for a vehicle to barrel through
the intersection with a driver who had clear sight of the pedestrian. The rights of a pedestrian and the safety of
crossing First Avenue have improved since traffic cameras were placed on First Avenue.
Second, I have for years driven 1 -380 through Cedar Rapids including the elevated tight turn, which crosses
over the Cedar River in downtown Cedar Rapids. Vehicles routinely drove well above the speed limit (e.g. 55
mph) on I -380, including this turn. It was a frightening driving experience whenever the weather was bad with
wet or icy roads or high winds. It is a much safer drive now that the 55 mph speed limit is enforced.
Third, it is my understanding from what I have read in the Cedar Rapids Gazette that the number of vehicular
accidents and injuries to people have dropped significantly since the traffic cameras were installed. This seems
to me to be a powerful reason for the cameras.
Fourth, when some citizens object to enforcing the legal speed limit with traffic cameras, it is almost always on
the basis of being afraid that they will be ticketed for driving too fast. It is truly ridiculous to have to defend
enforcing the legal speed limit. Would there be a similar outcry if the cities chose not to enforce the drunken
driving laws if someone failed a breathalyzer test? I doubt it.
Fifth, I also have no problem with the cities making money on valid traffic violations. I see earning much -
needed revenue as a collateral benefit to slowing down traffic, preventing vehicles from running red lights,
reducing accidents and saving lives. If people object to the city collecting this money to be used for the general
fund, then I would propose that you consider the following: have the city funnel any fines assessed from traffic
cameras into the roads fund. That could make it more difficult for those opposing these traffic control measures
since the money would go towards improving city roads. It might turn the "lemon" of getting a ticket into
"lemonade ".
I will close by adding that I am a "card- carrying" member of the ICLU /ACLU. I part company with the
ICLU /ACLU with respect to the traffic cameras. Yes, drivers and vehicles are being filmed without cause, but
in my opinion there are much greater threats to our personal privacy than traffic cameras. Furthermore, the
benefits of the cameras with respect to public safety far outweigh the risks to privacy.
In summary, I urge you to vote to support the installation of traffic control cameras at critical intersections in
Iowa City.
Thank you for taking my views into consideration.
Susan Enzle
Marian Karr
From: Matt Hayek
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2012 7:43 PM
To: Marian Karr
Subject: FW: Red light cameras
From: Ryan Denke [ryan.denke @cox.net]
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 8:12 AM
To: Matt Hayek; Rick Dobyns; Michelle Payne; Jim Throgmorton
Subject: Red light cameras
I read that the vote on red light cameras will be on Tuesday. I am disappointed to see that Iowa City is
the latest town to be wined, dined, and dazzled by the photo enforcement industry. I hope you realize that you
are being presented with a big sales presentation under the guise of consulting and the ruse of safety designed to
lead to one result: to ignore the flaws and problems with photo enforcement and lead to a lucrative contract with
the city.
The first thing you should know is that the character of some of the companies who sell photo
enforcement services. Please spend some time and browse the articles posted at FireRedflex.com and
PhotoRadarScam.com. Here you will see cities that are dealing with the repercussions of a bad contracts and the
lawsuits that tend to come with photo enforcement, including multi - million dollar RICO lawsuits, class action
lawsuits, and million - dollar refunds. You will also see dozens of cities across the nation who have ENDED their
camera programs because they did NOT improve safety. LA, Albuquerque, and Houston are 3 large cities that
ended their programs in 2011.
The second thing you should realize is that the council is NOT qualified to make traffic engineering
decisions. If the city has dangerous traffic areas, then PLEASE hire a comprehensive traffic engineering study
by an INDEPENDENT firm to evaluate the TRUE CAUSE of accidents and evaluate ALL solutions. It's not
enough to know that there is red light running and to merely do a count of violations. You need to understand
WHY there is red light running before you can address it. If people are running lights because of sub - optimal
light timing or signal visibility then how will a camera fix that? If the study recommends increased
enforcement, then please evaluate cameras. But as a recent article on the subject states:
"Understanding root causes of red light running crashes (e.g., intentional versus unintentional infractions, driving under
the influence, or traffic signal or intersection defects) is necessary to advance remedies that are specific to the
problem," the report stated. "In contrast, red light camera advocates presume red light running crashes occur from willful
red light running." (http: / /www.thenewspaper.com /news /34/3413. asp)
How does the council know that the red light crashes are the result of WILLFUL red light running and that
cameras will help? Please do not trust the words of a company who just wants to collect fees. Please spend
some time on the Internet and browse the articles — I think it will be an eye opener.
Finally, you should know that photo enforcement is wildly UNPOPULAR and can possibly lead to the
end of your term in office. The consultants will likely tell you that their carefully- engineered surveys show that
photo enforcement is well- supported, but the truth is that there have been over 20 elections nationwide
regarding photo enforcement and photo enforcement has been voted down almost every time. The people do not
want this, please respect your constituent's wishes.
Please educate yourself on this subject before you commit to revenue raising at the expense of the
citizens and visitors of this town. If you have any questions please email roan denkeAcox.net.
3
January 7. 2012
The Honorable Matt Hayek, Mayor
Members of the City Council
City Hall
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240 -1826
Dear Mayor Hayek and Council Members
As you consider the possible installation and use of "red Light" cameras at various intersections in our
community, I respectively suggest the installation of one at the intersection of Foster Road and North
Dubuque Street. Daily, there are frequent violations of the "No Turn on Red" prohibition by drivers
turning from Foster Road onto Dubuque. As you are well aware, Dubuque is a highly traveled road, and
speeds are normally much above the posted speed limits as vehicles approach from the Interstate
highway or are proceeding out of the city. Consequently, the installation of red light cameras at this
intersection would prove an effective way to reduce the possibilities of any major collisions or fatalities
at this intersection.
All the best,
l/
Harvey D. Miller
47 Colwyn Court
Iowa City, IA 52245
CC. Sam H., Chief of Police
11
Prepared by: Marian Karr, City Clerk, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5041
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TO ADOPT THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA, 2012, AKA "CITY CODE."
WHEREAS, Section 380.8 of the Code of Iowa, 2011, requires that at least once every five
years a city shall adopt a code of ordinances; and,
WHEREAS, on April 4, 2006 the City Council adopted the City Code of Iowa City, Iowa;
and,
WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City adds new ordinances and amendments upon passage by
supplementation to the City Code itself; and,
WHEREAS, if a proposed code of ordinances contains only existing ordinances which have
been edited and compiled without substantive changes, the council may adopt such code
without notice of public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, it is now appropriate to adopt a code of compiled and existing ordinances
under the statute, without any substantive changes proposed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I. From and after the date of passage of this Ordinance, the City Code of the
City of Iowa City, Iowa, prepared by Sterling Codifiers, Inc., containing compilation of all
ordinances of a general nature together with the changes made to said ordinances, under the
direction of the governing body of the City, shall be accepted in all courts without question as
the Official Code and Law of the City as enacted by the City Council, and shall hereafter be
referred to as "The City Code ".
SECTION II. It is hereby adopted, as a method of perpetual codification, the loose -leaf type
of binding together with the continuous supplement service, provided by Sterling Codifiers, Inc.,
whereby each newly adopted ordinance of a general and permanent nature amending, altering,
adding or deleting provisions of the official City Code is identified by the proper catchline and is
inserted in the proper place in each of the official copies, a copy of which shall be maintained in
the office of the City Clerk, certified as to correctness and available for inspection at any and all
times that said office is regularly open.
SECTION III. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to change or amend,
by additions or deletions, any part or portion of the City Code, or to insert or delete pages or
portions thereof, or to alter or tamper with the City Code in any manner to cause the law of the
City to be misrepresented.
Ordinance No.
Page 2
SECTION IV. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith, are, to the extent of
such conflict, hereby repealed.
SECTION V. A code of ordinances, containing only the current and existing ordinances
edited and compiled without change in substance, shall be and hereby is adopted as the City
Code, 2012.
Passed and approved this day of , 2011.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Approved b
City Attorney's Office
d erk/ord /citycode.doc
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by _
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Champion
Dickens
Dobyns
Hayek
Mims
Payne
Throgmorton
First Consideration 1
Vote for passage:
Dobyns. NAYS: None.
Second Consideration _
Vote for passage:
Date published
that the
10/2012
AYES: Hayek, Mims, Payne, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens,
ABSENT: None.
kr`
Prepared by: Eric Goers, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5030
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 4, ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, CHAPTER 5, PROHIBITIONS AND
RESTRICTIONS, SECTION 8, PERSONS UNDER THE LEGAL AGE IN LICENSED OR PERMITTED
ESTABLISHMENTS, SUBSECTION B, TO AMEND THE REQUIREMENTS FOR NON -BAR AND
ENTERTAINMENT VENUE EXCEPTIONS.
WHEREAS, the Partnership for Alcohol Safety (PAS) has made a series of proposals to the City for
amending the City's Under 21 ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the PAS proposals are largely geared toward leveling the playing field for bars and non -
bars with liquor licenses and exception certificates; and
WHEREAS, the PAS recommendations come with the a significant amount of support from the bar
community; and
WHEREAS, after the passage of time under the Under 21 ordinance the City has seen the need to
make some minor amendments to improve the ordinance in furtherance of Council intent; and
WHEREAS, mandating that several criteria and standards be set by Council via resolution will allow
for greater Council flexibility speed with which to respond to problems as they develop; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to adopt this amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I. AMENDMENTS.
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 4, ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, CHAPTER 5, PROHIBITIONS
AND RESTRICTIONS, SECTION 8, PERSONS UNDER THE LEGAL AGE IN LICENSED OR
PERMITTED ESTABLISHMENTS, SUBSECTION B, is hereby amended by deleting it in its entirety
and replacing it with the following language:
A. However, the provisions of subsection A of this section shall not apply when: (Ord. 03 -4073, 5 -6-
2003, eff. 8 -1 -2003)
1. The person under the legal age is an employee of the license or permit holder, or performing
a contracted service for the license or permit holder on the premises, and is on the premises
during his or her scheduled work hours.
2. The person under the legal age is accompanied by a parent, guardian, spouse or domestic
partner registered as such under section 2 -6 -3 of this code who is the legal age or older.
(Ord. 03 -4073, 5 -6 -2003, eff. 8 -1 -2003; amd. Ord. 10 -4388, 4 -6 -2010, eff. 6 -1 -2010)
3. The licensee or permittee applies for and qualifies for an exception certificate from the Chief
of Police, or his or her designee, as follows:
a. A licensee or permittee whose primary business purpose is not the sale of alcoholic
beverages, wine or beer may qualify for an exception by filing with the City Clerk a
verified statement from an accountant which establishes that on average over a calendar
year more than fifty percent (50 %) of the licensee's or permittee's gross sales on the
premises are from the sale of goods or services other than alcoholic beverages, wine or
beer. Income from fees charged to gain entry to or remain on the premises, such as
cover charges, as well as drink mixes, or any part of an alcoholic beverage as defined in
chapter 123 of the state code are to be counted as alcohol sales. Any purchases
required to gain entry shall be considered cover charges. Ticket sales for any event
performed on stage in a theater in which the entire audience area is consistent with
traditional theater seating shall be counted as non - alcohol sales. The statement shall
recite the actual percentage of non - alcohol sales, as defined herein, and be based on
records made in the regular course of the licensee's or permittee's business. In order to
qualify for an exception certificate, applicants must possess a trailing twelve (12) month
Possession of Alcohol Under the Legal Age (PAULA) ratio below the allowable limit, as
defined and set by City Council by resolution.
b. In addition to the aforementioned statement, proof of qualification for the exception may
include the business records on which the statement is based, profit and loss
statements, state and federal tax records, applications for dramshop insurance and
audits performed to determine dramshop insurance premiums, and receipts from
vendors for goods purchased, which records shall be made available to the Chief of
Police or designee for review upon request. The Chief of Police or designee may require
an audit of the establishment by an auditor selected by the Chief of Police or designee,
which audit will be performed at the expense of the applicant. In that event, the applicant
must submit a deposit to the City in an amount set by City Council via resolution for the
payment of the audit. At the conclusion of the audit, any additional costs over the
deposit amount must be paid by the applicant before an application will be considered
further. Any surplus funds from the deposit will be promptly returned to the applicant.
Failure to submit the deposit or pay costs of the audit will result in a denial of the
application. The factors the Chief of Police or designee will consider in determining
whether to require an audit will be established by resolution of the City Council, but the
final decision to require an audit will be that of the Chief of Police or designee.
c. If the Chief of Police or designee determines that the licensee has satisfied the above
requirements an exception certificate shall be issued.
d. An exception certificate shall be effective for the duration of the alcoholic liquor control
license, wine or beer permit.
e. A new licensee or permittee, as opposed to one applying for a renewal of an existing
license or permit, whose primary business purpose is not the sale of alcoholic
beverages, wine or beer may obtain a temporary six (6) month exception certificate if the
licensee's or permittee's business plan anticipates sales as required by subsection B3 of
this section and the licensee or permittee submits an affidavit which details the nature of
the new establishment and the anticipated percentage of sales of food and nonalcoholic
beverages. At the end of the six (6) month period the licensee or permittee may obtain
an exception certificate for the remainder of the duration of the license or permit in
accordance with subsections 133a through B3c of this section if sales during the six (6)
month period support an exception, and the licensee or permittee has met the PAULA
ratio requirement referenced in 133a. No more than one (1) temporary exception
certificate may be granted for any location within a three (3) year period. Applicants who
sign an affidavit pursuant to this subparagraph but fail to secure renewal of the exception
certificate following the six (6) month certificate for the subject location may not be
awarded an exception certificate for any other new location within three (3) years of the
granting of the subject six (6) month certificate.
f. To be effective in excepting the licensee or permittee from the prohibition in subsection A
of this section, the exception certificate issued by the Chief of Police or designee must be
posted at every entrance to the licensed or permitted establishment in view of patrons of
the licensed or permitted establishments. In addition, the licensee or permittee must
provide staff of sufficient number and capability to monitor all patrons to prevent
underage possession of alcohol. (Ord. 03 -4073, 5 -6 -2003, eff. 8 -1 -2003)
g. Revocation: Exception certificates may be revoked by the Chief of Police, or designee,
for good cause. Licensees or permittees may appeal a revocation to the City Manager or
designee by filing a written notice of appeal with the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the
mailing, by first class mail, of the revocation decision. Appeals will ordinarily be heard no
later than fourteen (14) days, and in no event later than thirty (30) days, following the
filing of an appeal in the office of the City Clerk. In the event of a revocation, the licensee
may continue to operate with their exception certificate until the ten (10) day appeal
period has passed, or in the event of an appeal to the City Manager or designee, until
after the City Manager or designee has issued his or her ruling on appeal. In the event
the City Manager or designee affirms the revocation, the establishment's exception
certificate will expire seven (7) days from the mailing, by first class mail, of the appeal
decision. Good cause for revocation includes, but is not limited to, the following:
(1) Where a preponderance of the evidence shows that the licensee, permittee, or any
employees or agents thereof, sold, gave, or delivered alcohol to any patron under the
legal drinking age more than once within any five (5) year period; or
(2) Where at the end of any month the venue's trailing twelve (12) month PAULA ratio,
as determined solely by the Chief of Police, rises above the maximum allowed
PAULA ratio, as established by City Council by resolution; or
(3) Where the establishment has failed to cooperate fully with the police department; or
(4) Where continued operation under the exception certificate would be detrimental to
the safety, health, and welfare of the residents of the city.
(5) Revocations shall last twelve (12) months. Following the period of revocation, the
applicant may re -apply for an exception certificate.
4. The person under the legal age is on the premises during a time that the licensee or
permittee has, in accordance with a written notice and plan given in advance to and
approved by the Chief of Police or designee, suspended dispensing alcoholic beverages on
the licensed premises. Said plan must provide a method by which alcoholic beverages will
be out of sight and reach of patrons. If the plan is approved, the Chief of Police or designee
shall issue a certificate approving the event, which certificate shall be posted at every
entrance to the licensed establishment in view of patrons of the licensed or permitted
establishment. It shall be the strict duty of a licensee or permittee permitting such persons
under the legal age onto the licensed premises pursuant to such a plan, and the agents and
employees of the licensee or permittee, to prevent persons under the legal age from
consuming or possessing alcoholic beverages on said premises. (Ord. 03 -4073, 5 -6 -2003,
eff. 8 -1 -2003; amd. Ord. 10 -4388, 4 -6 -2010, eff. 6 -1 -2010)
5. The person under the legal age is a patron of an "authorized entity" which has entered into
an agreement with the city for use of an "authorized site" in a city park; pursuant to
subsection 4 -5 -3D of this chapter. (Ord. 04 -4123, 4 -20 -2004; amd. Ord. 10 -4388, 4 -6 -2010,
eff. 6 -1 -2010)
6. The person under the legal age is on the alcohol free portion of the premises during a time
that the licensee or permittee has, in accordance with a written notice and plan given in
advance to and approved by the Chief of Police or designee, divided the premises into
alcohol free and alcohol permitted sections. Said plan must provide a method by which
alcoholic beverages will be out of sight and reach of underage patrons. If the plan is
approved, the Chief of Police or designee shall issue a certificate approving the event, which
certificate shall be posted at every entrance to the licensed establishment in view of patrons
of the licensed or permitted establishment. It shall be the strict duty of a licensee or permittee
permitting such persons under the legal age onto the licensed premises pursuant to such a
plan, and the agents and employees of the licensee or permittee, to prevent persons under
the legal age from consuming or possessing alcoholic beverages on said premises. In
addition, the following requirements must be met:
a. The physical setup and separation of the alcohol free and alcohol permitted portions of
the establishment must earn prior approval by the director of housing and inspection
services, or designee, for matters of safety and code compliance, including, but not
limited to, occupancy, bathrooms and exits.
b. Both the alcohol free and alcohol permitted portions of the establishment shall include
city code compliant bathrooms.
c. The director of housing and inspection services may, but is not required to, allow those
establishments with a PAULA ratio under that set by City Council by resolution during the
trailing twelve (12) months prior to the event application, to permit patrons of both the
alcohol free and alcohol permitted spaces to share the same bathrooms, as long as the
establishment strictly enforces a rule prohibiting alcoholic beverages in the bathrooms.
For purposes of this section, the PAULA ratio shall be based on the twelve (12) PAULA
reports immediately preceding the licensee's event application, all as calculated by the
Chief of Police, or designee.
d. The alcohol free and alcohol permitted portions of the establishment must be separated
by one hour construction walls and doors, as approved by the director of housing and
inspection services, or designee, or comparable barriers, as approved by the Chief of
Police, or designee.
e. It shall be the strict duty of the licensee to exclude those under legal age from the alcohol
permitted area, and to exclude all alcoholic beverages'from the alcohol free area.
f. All patrons of legal age must be marked with a wristband indicating they are of age. All
patrons under legal age must be marked indicating they are under legal age. (Ord. 10-
4411, 10 -26 -2010)
7. The licensee or permittee applies for, qualifies for, and is granted an entertainment venue
exception certificate:
a. Requirements: In order for an entertainment venue exception certificate to be issued by
the Chief of Police, or designee, the establishment must demonstrate, to the satisfaction
of the Chief of Police, or designee, that all the following requirements have been met:
(1) The venue has hosted and will continue to host shows on at least one hundred fifty
(150) calendar days each year; and
(2) The venue has a permanently installed (not risers) and dedicated performance stage
of at least eight feet by six feet (8'x 6') in dimension, which shall never be used for
any purpose other than by performers during shows; and
(3) The venue must distribute at least fifty percent (50 %) of any fees charged to gain
entry to or remain on the premises, including, but not limited to, cover charges and
ticket sales, from the period of opening until closing, to the show performer(s) within
forty eight (48) hours of the completion of the show; and
(4) The venue subscribes to at least one industry tracking service, such as Pollstar Pro,
or comparable alternative; and
(5) The venue has a PAULA ratio, as determined solely by the Chief of Police or
designee, of no greater than that allowed by City Council, as established by
resolution; and
(6) The venue has permanently installed professional light and sound; and
(7) The venue marks all patrons of legal drinking age with a wristband, and marks all
patrons under legal drinking age with either a wristband of a different color from the
legal age patrons, or permanent marker on the hand; and
(8) The venue provides staff of sufficient number and capability to monitor all patrons at
all shows; and
(9) The venue provides to the Chief of Police, or designee, a report of all upcoming show
dates at least seven (7) days prior to any show; and
(10) The venue provides to the Chief of Police, or designee, reports detailing all
dates on which a show took place, including the name of the performer(s) for each
show, which reports shall be due no later than the ninetieth, one hundred eightieth,
two hundred seventieth, and three hundred sixtieth day following issuance of the
entertainment venue exception certificate; and
(11) The venue employs at least one salaried employee responsible for booking
shows by performers, and promptly provides both the employee name and most
recent salary paystub upon request from the city; and
(12) The venue employs only TIPS certified bartenders and servers on any show
date; and
(13) The venue allows city inspection, at any time and for any reason, of the
venue, professional sound and lighting equipment, and show and performer financial
records, including, but not limited to, show settlement sheets.
b. Duration: Entertainment venue exception certificates shall be valid for one year, or until
expiration of the premises liquor license, whichever is sooner.
c. New Businesses: New businesses may be granted an entertainment venue exception
certificate by satisfying all requirements of subsection B7a of this section, save
subsections B7a(1) and B7a(5) of this section. For establishments previously operating
under the same or substantially similar ownership and /or management, the PAULA ratio
restrictions of subsection B7a(5) of this section apply, and will be utilized in assessing
the establishment's application. For establishments not previously meeting the minimum
show day requirements of subsection B7a(1) of this section, a credible business plan
must be accompanied by a notarized affidavit by the establishment owner (or largest
shareholder) attesting that the establishment will meet all requirements of subsection
137a of this section.
d. Revocation: Entertainment venue exception certificates may be revoked by the Chief of
Police, or designee, for good cause. Venues may appeal a revocation to the City
Manager or designee by filing a written notice of appeal with the City Clerk within ten (10)
days of the mailing, by first class mail, of the revocation decision. Appeals will ordinarily
be heard no later than fourteen (14) days, and in no event later than thirty (30) days,
following the filing of an appeal in the office of the City Clerk. In the event of a revocation,
the venue may continue to operate as an entertainment venue until the ten (10) day
appeal period has passed, or in the event of an appeal to the City Manager, or designee,
until after the City Manager, or designee, has issued his or her ruling on appeal. In the
event the City Manager affirms the revocation, the venue's entertainment venue
exception privileges will cease seven (7) days from the mailing, by first class mail, of the
appeal decision. Good cause for revocation includes, but is not limited to, the following:
(1) Where a preponderance of the evidence shows that the licensee, permittee, or any
employees or agents thereof, sold, gave, or delivered alcohol to any patron under the
legal drinking age more than once within any five (5) year period; or
(2) Where at the end of any month the venue's trailing twelve (12) month PAULA ratio,
as determined solely by the Chief of Police, rises above the maximum allowed
PAULA ratio set by City Council, as established by resolution; or
(3) Where. the venue has failed to cooperate fully with the police department; or
(4) Where the venue has failed to maintain compliance with all requirements of
subsection B7a of this section; or
(5) Where continued operation under the entertainment venue exception certificate
would be detrimental to the safety, health, and welfare of the residents of the city.
(6) Revocations shall last twelve (12) months. Following the period of revocation, the
applicant may re -apply for an exception certificate.
SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of
this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be effective May 1st, 2012.
Passed and approved this day of 2011.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Ap roved by
City Attorney's Office
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by that the Ordinance
as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Champion
Dickens
Dobyns
'Hayek
#dims
Payne
Throgmorton
First Consideration 12/6/2011
Vote for passage: AYES: Bailey, Champion, Dickens, Hayek, Mims, Wilburn, Wright.
NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration 1/10/2012
Voteforpassage: AYES: Mims, Payne--Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns,
Hayek. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Date published
f�
Prepared by: Eric Goers, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5030
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 4, ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, CHAPTERS, PROHIBITIONS AND
RESTRICTIONS, SECTION 8, PERSONS UNDER THE LEGAL AGE IN LICENSED OR PERMITTED
ESTABLISHMENTS, SUBSECTION B, TO AMEND THE REQUIREMENTS FOR NON -BAR AND
ENTERTAINMENT VENUE EXCEPTIONS.
WHEREAS, the Partnership for Alcohol Safety (PAS) has made a series of proposals to the City for
amending the City's Under 21 ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the PAS pro osals are largely geared toward leveling the aying field for bars and non -
bars with liquor licenses and a eption certificates; and
WHEREAS, the PAS recom endations come with the a significant mount of support from the bar
community; and
WHEREAS, after the passage o time under the Under 21 ordina a the City has seen the need to
make some minor amendments to imp ve the ordinance in furtheran of Council intent; and
WHEREAS, mandating that several iteria and standards be s t by Council via resolution will allow
for greater Council flexibility speed with wh h to respond to proble s as they develop; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the ity to adopt this a endment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED THE CITY OUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I. AMENDMENTS.
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 4, ALCOHOLIC ERAGES, CHAPTER 5, PROHIBITIONS
AND RESTRICTIONS, SECTION 8, PERSONS UNDE HE LEGAL AGE IN LICENSED OR
PERMITTED ESTABLISHMENTS, SUBSECTION Bj he by amended by deleting it in its entirety
and replacing it with the following language:
A. However, the provisions of subsection A of'this section sh II not apply when: (Ord. 03 -4073, 5 -6-
2003, eff. 8 -1 -2003) 1
1. The person under the legal age is a employee of the lice a or permit holder, or performing
a contracted service for the license r permit holder on the emises, and is on the premises
during his or her scheduled work urs.
2. The person under the legal ag Is accompanied by a parent, gu dian, spouse or domestic
partner registered as such un er section 2 -6 -3 of this code who is he legal age or older.
(Ord. 03 -4073, 5 -6 -2003, eff 8 -1 -2003; amd. Ord. 10 -4388, 4 -6 -20 0, eff. 6 -1 -2010)
3. The licensee or per mitte applies for and qualifies for an exception ce ificate from the Chief
of Police, or his or her d signee, as follows: \
a. A licensee or per ittee whose primary business purpose is not the she of alcoholic
beverages, wine or beer may qualify for an exception by filing with thetity Clerk a
verified statem nt from an accountant which establishes that on average over a calendar
year more tho fifty percent (50 %) of the licensee's or permittee's gross sales on the
premises ar from the sale of goods or services other than alcoholic beverages, wine or
beer. Inco a from fees charged to gain entry to or remain on the premises, such as
cover cha ges, as well as drink mixes, or any part of an alcoholic beverage as defined in
chapter 123 of the state code are to be counted as alcohol sales. Any purchases
required to gain entry shall be considered cover charges. Ticket sales for any event
performed on stage in a theater in which the entire audience area is consistent with
traditional theater seating shall be counted as non - alcohol sales. The statement shall
recite the actual percentage of non - alcohol sales, as defined herein, and be based on
records made in the regular course of the licensee's or permittee's business. In order to
qualify for an exception certificate, applicants must possess a trailing twelve (12) month
Possession of Alcohol Under the Legal Age (PAULA) ratio below the allowable limit, as
defined and set by City Council by resolution.
b. In addition to the aforementioned statement, proof of qualification for the exception may
include the business records on which the statement is based, profit and loss
statements, state and federal tax records, applications for dramshop insurance and
audits performed to determine dramshop insurance premiums, and receipts from
vendors for goi s purchased, which records shall be made available to the Chief of
Police or design a for review upon request. The Chief of Police or designee may require
an audit of the es t blishment by an auditor selected Igy the Chief of Police or designee,
which audit will be erformed at the expense of the pplicant. In that event, the applicant
must submit a depo it to the City in an amount set/by City Council via resolution for the
payment of the audit. t the conclusion of the au t, any additional costs over the
deposit amount must b6 paid by the applicant be ore an application will be considered
further. Any surplus fun from the deposit will a promptly returned to the applicant.
Failure to submit the dep it or pay costs of th audit will result in a denial of the
application. The factors th Chief of Police o designee will consider in determining
whether to require an audit ill be establish d by resolution of the City Council, but the
final decision to require an a it will be th t of the Chief of Police or designee.
c. If the Chief of Police or designe deter Ines that the licensee has satisfied the above
requirements an exception certifi ate all be issued.
d. An exception certificate shall be a tive for the duration of the alcoholic liquor control
license, wine or beer permit.
e. A new licensee or permittee, as ppos d to one applying for a renewal of an existing
license or permit, whose prima busin ss purpose is not the sale of alcoholic
beverages, wine or beer may tain a to porary six (6) month exception certificate if the
licensee's or permittee's busi ess plan a icipates sales as required by subsection B3 of
this section and the licensee or permittee ubmits an affidavit which details the nature of
the new establishment and a anticipated ercentage of sales of food and nonalcoholic
beverages. At the end of t e six (6) month p riod the licensee or permittee may obtain
an exception certificate f the remainder of t e duration of the license or permit in
accordance with subsec ions 63a through B3 of this section if sales during the six (6)
month period support exception, and the lic nsee or permittee has met the PAULA
ratio requirement refe nced in 133a. No more t an one (1) temporary exception
certificate may be g nted for any location within a three (3) year period. Applicants who
sign an affidavit pur uant to this subparagraph b fail to secure renewal of the exception
certificate followin the six (6) month certificate fo the subject location may not be
awarded an exce tion certificate for any other new ocation within three (3) years of the
granting of the s bject six (6) month certificate.
To be effectiv in excepting the licensee or permitteefrom the prohibition in subsection A
of this sectio , the exception certificate issued by the Chief of Police or designee must be
posted at 94ery entrance to the licensed or permitted establishment in view of patrons of
the licerysbd or permitted establishments. In addition, the licensee or permittee must
provide staff of sufficient number and capability to monitor all patrons to prevent
underage possession of alcohol. (Ord. 03 -4073, 5 -6 -2003, eff. 8 -1 -2003)
g. Revocation: Exception certificates may be revoked by the Chief of Police, or designee,
for good cause. Licensees or permittees may appeal a revocation to the City Manager or
designee by filing a written notice of appeal with the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the
mailing, by first class mail, of the revocation decision. Appeals will ordinarily be heard no
later than fourteen (14) days, and in no event later than thirty (30) days, following the
filing of an appeal in the office of the City Clerk. In the event of a revocation, the licensee
may continue to operate with their exception certificate until the ten (10) day appeal
period has passed, or in the event of an appeal to the City Manager or designee, until
after the City Manager or designee has issued his or her ruling on appeal. In the event
the City Manager or designee affirms the revocation, the establishment's exception
certificate will expire seven (7) days from the mailing, by first class mail, of the appeal
decision. Good cause for revocation includes, but is not limited to, the following:
(1) Where a preponderance of the evidence shows that the licensee, permittee, or any
employees or agents thereof, sold, gave, or delivered alcohol to an patron under the
egal drinking age more than once within any five (5) year period- or
(2) Wh at the end of any month the venue's trailing twelve ) month PAULA ratio,
as det fined solely by the Chief of Police, rises above t e maximum allowed
PAULA r 'o, as established by City Council by resoluf n; or
(3) Where the esta ishment has failed to cooperate f y with the police department; or
(4) Where continued op ation under the excepti certificate would be detrimental to
the safety, health, and Ifare of the reside s of the city.
(5) Revocations shall last twely 12) mon s. Following the period of revocation, the
applicant may re -apply for an cepti n certificate.
4. The person under the legal age is on th mises during a time that the licensee or
permittee has, in accordance with a w ' en n lice and plan given in advance to and
approved by the Chief of Police or signee, s pended dispensing alcoholic beverages on
the licensed premises. Said plan ust provide a ethod by which alcoholic beverages will
be out of sight and reach of pa ns. If the plan is proved, the Chief of Police or designee
shall issue a certificate appr ing the event, which ificate shall be posted at every
entrance to the licens�to d a ablishment in view of patr s of the licensed or permitted
establishment. It shall the strict duty of a licensee or ermittee permitting such persons
under the legal age the licensed premises pursuant such a plan, and the agents and
employees of the ' ensee or permittee, to prevent persons rider the legal age from
consuming or p sessing alcoholic beverages on said premi es. (Ord. 03 -4073, 5 -6 -2003,
eff. 8 -1 -2003 md. Ord. 10 -4388, 4 -6 -2010, eff. 6 -1 -2010)
5. The per n under the legal age is a patron of an "authorized en fty" which has entered into
an ag ement with the city for use of an "authorized site" in a cit park, pursuant to
sub ection 4 -5 -31D of this chapter. (Ord. 04 -4123, 4 -20 -2004; am . Ord. 10 -4388, 4 -6 -2010,
e .6 -1 -2010)
The person under the legal age is on the alcohol free portion of the premises during a time
that the licensee or permittee has, in accordance with a written notice and plan given in
advance to and approved by the Chief of Police or designee, divided the premises into
alcohol free and alcohol permitted sections. Said plan must provide a method by which
alcoholic beverages will be out of sight and reach of underage patrons. If the plan is
approved, the Chief of Police or designee shall issue a certificate approving the event, which
certificate shall be posted at every entrance to the licensed establishment in view of patrons
of the licensed or permitted establishment. It shall be the strict duty of a licensee or permittee
permitting such persons under the legal age onto the licensed premises pursuant to such a
plan, and the agents and employees of the licensee or permittee, to prevent persons under
the legal age from consuming or possessing alcoholic beverages on said premises. In
addition, the following requirements must be met:
a. The physical setup and separation of the alcohol free and alcohol permitted portions of
the establishment must earn prior approval by the director of housing and inspection
services, or designee, for matters of safety and code compliance, including, but not
limited to, occupancy, bathrooms and exits.
b. Both the alcohol free and alcohol permitted portions of the establishment shall include
city code compliant bathrooms.
c. The d' ector of housing and inspection services may, but is not required to, allow those
establis ents with a PAULA ratio under that set by City Council by resolution during the
trailing tw Ive (12) months prior to the event application, to permit patrons of both the
alcohol free nd alcohol permitted spaces to share t same bathrooms, as long as the
establish mentstrictly enforces a rule prohibiting alc olic beverages in the bathrooms.
For purposes o this section, the PAULA ratio shall/be based on the twelve (12) PAULA
reports immediat y preceding the licensee's eve application, all as calculated by the
Chief of Police, or di,psignee.
d. The alcohol free and *ohol permitted portion of the establishment must be separated
by one hour constructiori ails and doors, as pproved by the director of housing and
inspection services, or designee, or compara le barriers, as approved by the Chief of
Police, or designee.
e. It shall be the strict duty of the Xensee to xclude those under legal age from the alcohol
permitted area, and to exclude lcohol' beverages from the alcohol free area.
f. All patrons of legal age must be i
patrons under legal age must be
4411, 10 -26 -2010)
7. The licensee or permittee applies for,
exception certificate:
vith a wristband indicating they are of age. All
indicating they are under legal age. (Ord. 10-
for, and is granted an entertainment venue
a. Requirements: In order for an Otertainment 4nue exception certificate to be issued by
the Chief of Police, or design 9b, the establish nt must demonstrate, to the satisfaction
of the Chief of Police, or des' nee, that all the fo owing requirements have been met:
(1) The venue has hoste and will continue to shows on at least one hundred fifty
(150) calendar days .-, year; and
(2) The venue has a ermanently installed (not risers and dedicated performance stage
of at least eight et by six feet (8'x 6') in dimensio which shall never be used for
any purpose o er than by performers during shows; and
(3) The venue ust distribute at least fifty percent (50 %) o any fees charged to gain
entry to or emain on the premises, including, but not li 'ted to, cover charges and
ticket sa s, from the period of opening until closing, to th show performer(s) within
forty ei t (48) hours of the completion of the show; and
(4) The enue subscribes to at least one industry tracking serviA-, such as Pollstar Pro,
or omparable alternative; and
(5) The venue has a PAULA ratio, as determined solely by the Chief of Police or
designee, of no greater than that allowed by City Council, as established by
resolution; and
(6) The venue has permanently installed professional light and sound; and
(7) The venue marks all patrons of legal drinking age with a wristband, and marks all
patrons under legal drinking age with either a wristband of a different color from the
legal age patrons, or permanent marker on the hand; and
(8) The venue provides staff of sufficient number and capability to monitor all patrons at
all shows; and
(9) The venue provides to the Chief of Police, or designee, a report of all upcoming show
dates at least seven (7) days prior to any show; and
(10) Th venue provides to the Chief of Police, or designee, reports detailing all
dates on wh h a show took place, including the name of the performer(s) for each
show, which r ports shall be due no later than the ninetieth, one hundred eightieth,
two hundred s entieth, and three hundred sixtieth day following issuance of the
entertainment v ue exception certificate; an
(11) The venue mploys at least one sa ried employee responsible for booking
shows by performer and promptly provi s both the employee name and most
recent salary paystub pon request from he city; and
(12) The venue empl s only TIPS ertified bartenders and servers on any show
date; and
(13) The venue allows cii'y insp ction, at any time and for any reason, of the
venue, professional sound a Ii ting equipment, and show and performer financial
records, including, but not limit to, show settlement sheets.
b. Duration: Entertainment venue ex a ion certificates shall be valid for one year, or until
expiration of the premises liquor cense, whichever is sooner.
c. New Businesses: New busine es may a granted an entertainment venue exception
certificate by satisfying all req irements o subsection 137a of this section, save
subsections 67a(1) and 67a ) of this sect n. For establishments previously operating
under the same or substanti Ily similar own ship and /or management, the PAULA ratio
restrictions of subsection B a(5) of this secti apply, and will be utilized in assessing
the establishment's applic tion. For establish nts not previously meeting the minimum
show day requirements o subsection B7a(1) of his section, a credible business plan
must be accompanied b a notarized affidavit by he establishment owner (or largest
shareholder) attesting t t the establishment will eet all requirements of subsection
B7a of this section.
d. Revocati/has ntertai ent venue exception certificat may be revoked by the Chief of
Police, ognee, or good cause. Venues may appe 1 a revocation to the City
Manager sign a by filing a written notice of appeal ith the City Clerk within ten (10)
days of tilin , by first class mail, of the revocation d cision. Appeals will ordinarily
be heard ter han fourteen (14) days, and in no event ter than thirty (30) days,
following ili g of an appeal in the office of the City Cler In the event of a revocation,
the venucontinue to operate as an entertainment ven a until the ten (10) day
appeal phas passed, or in the event of an appeal to the ity Manager, or designee,
until afteCity Manager, or designee, has issued his or herruling on appeal. In the
event the Manager affirms the revocation, the venue's entertainment venue
exceptioileges will cease seven (7) days from the mailing, by first class mail, of the
appeal d , n. Good cause for revocation includes, but is not limited to, the following:
(1) Where a preponderance of the evidence shows that the licensee, permittee, or any
employees or agents thereof, sold, gave, or delivered alcohol to any patron under the
legal drinking age more than once within any five (5) year period; or
(2) Where at the end of any month the venue's trailing twelve (12) month PAULA ratio,
as determined solely by the Chief of Police, rises above the maximum allowed
PAULA ratio set by City Council, as established by resolution; or
(3) Where the venue has failed to cooperate fully with the police department; or
(4) Where the venue has failed to maintain compliance with all requirements of
subsection 137a of this section; or
(5) Wher continued operation under the entertainment venue exception certificate
would b etrimental to the safety, health, a welfare of the residents of the city.
(6) Revocations all last twelve (12) mon s. Following the period of revocation, the
applicant may re pply for an excep ' n certificate.
SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordin �hes a l parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of
this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any se o provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudicatio sha of affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adju ed invali or unconstitutional.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. is Ordinance all be effective on upon publication.
Passed and approved this _� day of
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Approved by
City Attorney's ffice
_, 2011.