Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-04-03 Ordinance04 -03 -12 6a Prepared by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5240 (REZ12- 00004) ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE DESIGNATING 1.25 -ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 108 MCLEAN STREET AS AN IOWA CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK (REZ12- 00004) WHEREAS, the owner, Parish Apartment LLC, has requested a rezoning of property located at 108 McLean Street to designate the property as an Iowa City Historic Landmark; and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission has reviewed and evaluated the significance of the building located on the property and has determined that it meets the requirements for designation as an Iowa City Historic Landmark; and WHEREAS, at a public hearing on March 9, 2012 the Historic Preservation Commission recommending approval of the subject property as an Iowa City Historic Landmark; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has the reviewed the proposed rezoning to designate the subject property as an Iowa City Historic Landmark: and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission found the proposed designation complies with the Comprehensive Plan policies that encourage the protection of historic properties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I APPROVAL. Property described below is hereby designated as an Iowa City Historic Landmark: Retracement Plat of Survey Lots 10, 11, & 12 in Block 3 and part of Lot 6 Block 4, Manville Heights Addition, Iowa City, Iowa, in accordance with the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 55, at Page 352, in the records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office, containing 1.25 acres, (54,498 square feet), and subject to easements and restrictions of record. SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance 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 All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.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 Approved by era_ 1, City Attorney's Office - :2 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 Mims Payne Throgmorton First Consideration 4/3/2012 Voteforpassage: AYES: Dickens, Dobyns, Hayek, Mims, Throgmorton, Champion. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Payne. Second Consideration _ Vote for passage: Date published MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 9, 2012 EMMA HARVAT HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Ackerson, Esther Baker, Thomas Baldridge, Andrew Litton, David McMahon, Pam Michaud, Ginalie Swaim, Alicia Trimble MEMBERS ABSENT: William Downing, Dana Thomann, Frank Wagner STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Chery Peterson OTHERS PRESENT: John Beasley, Tom Frantz, Jean Walker RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action) None. CALL TO ORDER: Trimble called the meeting to order at 12:00 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: Walker said she is the neighborhood representative for the Melrose Neighborhood Association. She said she sent an e-mail to Miklo to be distributed to Commission members. Miklo responded that the e-mail was sent after the agenda was posted, so his intention was to put it on the next month's agenda so that the Commission would have time to review the material. Walker stated that the Melrose Neighborhood is a very vulnerable neighborhood, right beside the University and Kinnick. She said the University gets squeezed for space and so it starts eyeing the other side of Melrose Avenue. Walker said neighborhood volunteers have done as much as possible to protect the neighborhood. Walker said that in 2004, the neighborhood hired Marlys Svensen, an architectural historian, to look at the neighborhood to determine whether it could be put forward for nomination for the National Register of Historic Places. Walker said Svensen researched the area and then delineated an historic district within the neighborhood. Walker said the neighborhood managed to get the nomination done in nine months. She said this does not protect the neighborhood from the University, but it has been good as a statement that the area is worth preserving. Walker said that the City, in many of its publications, has said that things should be done to help preserve the neighborhood. She said, however, that nothing concrete has been done; the neighbors drafted the National Register nomination. Walker said that on the one hand, there is the University, which wants to encroach, but every time something comes up, the neighborhood addresses it. She said that as well as the University, the neighborhood also needs protection from non - University property owners so that big houses are not demolished. Walker said the first precedent for this was on Myrtle Avenue, where there was a house that was demolished last year and replaced with a multi - family dwelling. She said that particular house was probably beyond saving, but it represented a precedent, and so the neighbors feel that a local designation is needed. Walker said she talked to the Commission over a year ago and brought this up. She said that she has been in this business for a decade or more. Walker said she is exhausted and cannot lead the charge but is coming before the Commission to ask its help in getting the local designation. MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 9, 2012 Trimble said the Commission discussed this at its last meeting and is happy to help. She said the Commission needs the signatures to actually bring the local designation to a vote. Trimble asked if the neighborhood association could discuss this and possibly get signatures. Walker replied that she is the representative of the neighborhood association, but it does not meet regularly. She said the association is updating its database to have e-mail communication with as many property owners as possible. Miklo said that technically, Walker could submit a letter asking that the Commission initiate the historic preservation designation for a local district. Miklo said that would be enough to get the ball rolling. He said the issue with the signatures is that this would be a zoning designation, and if more than 20% of the property owners within the area being designated or within 200 feet of the area object to the designation, then it takes a supermajority, six out of seven City Council members, to designate the area. Miklo said the signatures are not needed to get the ball rolling, but the concern is that there be enough support to take this through City Council. He said that even if there is a petition with 20% opposed, the City Council can still approve this, but the supermajority vote is a bigger challenge. Walker stated that the University owns about 13% of the property and asked if that would constitute one property owner and one vote. Miklo said the percentage is actually based on the land area owned, not the number of owners. He said it is based on the square footage of property. Miklo said that once the objection reaches 20% of the area within 200 feet surrounding the zone or within the proposed zone, that kicks in the supermajority requirement. Walker asked if someone could send her the type of wording that should be sent out to property owners. Miklo replied that he could provide some suggestions, but it would basically read that there is an interest in creating an historic district here and asking for support. Walker said this is the sort of thing that takes hours of her time, and she is already battling things for the neighborhood in other areas. She said that if someone could make it easy by sending her some wording and an outline of what it means to have local designation and what the burden is on the property owners, she would really appreciate it. Miklo said that the letter should come from the neighborhood, but he could provide some examples from other neighborhoods. He said the City has the letter from the North Side Neighborhood in its files, and he could provide the material about what a local district designation entails. DISCUSS LANDMARK DESIGNATION FOR 108 MCLEAN STREET: Peterson said the packet includes a couple of letters regarding the property and two of the National Register documents. She said one document is the site inventory for the house. Peterson said the other document concerns the whole neighborhood. Miklo stated that a landmark designation is actually a zoning designation. He showed a map illustrating the zoning for 108 McLean Street. Miklo said that if a property is designated a landmark, any building permits dealing with the exterior of the property must be reviewed either by staff or the Commission to make sure they meet the guidelines that are based on the Secretary of the Interior Standards. Miklo added that there are also some zoning benefits to having a landmark designation. He said that a landmark designation provides for the possibility of waiving certain zoning requirements in order to encourage the reuse of historic buildings. Miklo said that is one of the reasons the applicant is seeking this status. He said there is a proposal to rehabilitate this building, which was originally constructed as a fraternity house and later converted to the Saint Thomas Moore parish house. MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 9, 2012 Miklo said the proposal today is to convert it to sixteen one - bedroom apartments. He said in order to do that, the property has to comply with certain zoning requirements in terms of parking spaces, driveways, and similar standards. Miklo said that in order to minimize the effect on the historic property itself and also the natural environment around this property, as it is situated on the edge of a steep ravine, the applicant is seeking relief from some of the zoning requirements pertaining to the site standards for parking lots and driveways. Miklo showed a photograph of the property from the front and back, as well as the ravine on the property. Miklo showed the proposed site plan as reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. He said one of the issues with this property is that in order to avoid taking down more trees and paving more of the site, the applicant is seeking relief from the driveway standards. Miklo said that giving this a landmark designation will allow, with the approval of the Historic Preservation Commission and the Board of Adjustment, some relief from those standards. Miklo said the Commission would not only be considering giving the property a landmark status but also considering waiving the standards in terms of the driveway. He said the Planning and Zoning Commission has already approved this concept and the City Council has agreed, but in order to fully approve the plan, it would also require Board of Adjustment approval. Miklo pointed out that the nomination specifically deals with the structure of the house itself. He said there is a bridge on the property that was built in the 1940s that is connected to this site. Miklo said there has been no evaluation of the bridge; it is not known if the bridge is a historic structure; and it is not the intent of this nomination to address the bridge itself. Miklo said there is material in the packet indicating that this house is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and therefore eligible as a local landmark. He said that most of the City's landmarks are also on the National Register. Miklo said it is not required to be on the National Register, but the criteria the City uses for nominating a property are very similar. Miklo said staff is recommending approval of the proposed designation and of the zoning waivers Beasley introduced himself as the attorney for the applicant. He said that he and Frantz represent the applicant and would be happy to answer questions. Frantz said they had taken into consideration all of the current zoning requirements for the adjacent parking. He said there is an existing narrow drive between the oak trees and the building. Frantz said that if they had to widen that out, they would have to take out those oak trees. Beasley said that this is an amazing building. He stated that the group buying the building has worked very diligently to try to balance this beautiful building's outside appearance, trying to maintain as many of those oak trees as they possibly can and trying to maintain the historic nature of this building. Beasley said the reality of it is that they have to be able to make this work financially. He said he believed that the property could have 24 units, but the purchasing group does not want to do that. Beasley said the applicant wants to only have 16 units. He said this is the kind of project that people want to see more of in Iowa City. Beasley said he believes there are applications pending on this property for federal and state historic designations, and that process has already begun. He said that in terms of the working relationship between the City and the applicant to try to maintain the view, the oak trees, and the historic nature of this building, it is a bit refreshing in contrast to some of the recent developments in other neighborhoods. MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 9, 2012 Beasley said that a plan submitted previously showed a driveway with a loop around the building. He said that after discussion with the City, it was decided to have the plan without the loop and building an additional drive on the east side and leaving the old drive where it is. Beasley said that there will be a few parking spots, but it will be fairly minimal. He said he believes there needs to be 16 parking spots, and there are 12 out there now, so that the additional spaces will be fairly minimal to this site. Beasley said the plan has been put together to try to preserve the oak trees. He said that he thought one would have to come down, but the rest of the grove would stay. Beasley said that one of the Planning and Zoning Commission's conditions would get Terry Robinson, the City Forester, involved to help locate and plant a new tree to replace the one to be removed. Beasley said that the Planning and Zoning Commission is excited about this, and he thought City Council is too. He said he hoped the Commission would work with the applicant to make this happen. Baldridge said he is curious about the plan for 16 units and if they would go all the way up to the third floor. Frantz said there is a full basement and three floors. He said there would be four units on each floor. Swaim said that one of the Commission's objectives as stated in the Preservation Plan is to encourage stewardship of fraternity and sorority houses, so that would be in line with this proposal. She added that if all this goes through, it seems that it would be a wonderful thing if there could be some kind of open house after it is done so that the public could see the possibilities with these buildings. Peterson said the applicant is working with the State Historical Society in Des Moines. Frantz confirmed this and said that would make tax credits available. Miklo distributed a copy of the plan on which the proposed new parking is shown. He added that there is a little bit of a widening of the existing driveway for a fire lane, but otherwise the area that he highlighted on the plan is the existing driveway. Miklo said that if relief is not granted through the zoning provisions that apply to historic properties, it would have to be wider, resulting in more tree destruction and changing the character of the site. Michaud asked how wide the driveway is right now. Miklo replied that it is approximately ten feet wide. Michaud said it is not really a two -car width. Miklo said that is why it requires some zoning relief. Miklo said the driveway on the corner will be widened for the new parking spaces. He said this driveway has functioned as it is for some time. Frantz said that where the drive is really narrow, there is a nice line of sight from both the north and the south. MOTION: McMahon moved to approve a landmark designation for 108 McLean Street. Swaim seconded the motion. Trimble said she has been worried about this building for a long time. She said she is relieved that it will be reused and used well. Michaud asked who the development group consists of. Beasley said that the group wants to be called a community investment group. He said the three principals of the entity are Tom "T.J." Frantz, Mike Frantz, and Dr. Thomas Viner and his wife, Elizabeth. The motion carried on a vote of 8 -0. Downing Thomann and Wagner absent. MOTION: Swaim moved to waive the requirements for widening the driveway at 108 McLean Street. Ackerson seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8 -0. Downing Thomann and Wagner absent. MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 9, 2012 DISCUSS COMMISSION PRIORITIES FOR 2012: Trimble said she personally would like the Commission, in light of what has happened on Washington Street, with the destruction of the buildings containing The Red Avocado and Defunct Books, to look more closely at designating more historic districts, especially in the areas adjacent to downtown. She said that would be her priority as a member of the Commission. Swaim said she agreed with that and said she believes there would be support beyond the residents in those neighborhoods. Trimble said now is a good time, when people are still focused on what occurred on Washington Street. Michaud said that Casey Cook is a respected appraiser of over 30 years. She said Cook is championing the commercial landowners. Michaud said his group is coming up with a petition opposing the three zoning amendments for capping household size. Michaud asked what the political situation is regarding the appraisal situation. Miklo said he did not know what a person's motivation was for support or opposition to an ordinance. He said that the City Council needs to hear from both sides on the issue, and that is why a public forum is being held. Miklo said the Planning and Zoning Commission will vote on the amendments on Thursday, and the City Council will consider the issue on March 201h. Michaud said that communicating with the Planning and Zoning Commission and with City Council members is extremely challenging right now. She said that a lot of people no longer have land lines and so their phone numbers are unavailable, and also, a lot of people are gone for spring break. Michaud asked if there is any possibility of designating the mental health center at College and Van Buren Streets as a landmark to give it some protection against demolition. Miklo said The Commission would have to look at the survey of historic properties that was done for the area. He said that, as he recalled, the reason the boundaries were drawn as they were is because the building the Red Avocado was in and the one next to it were determined not to meet the eligibility requirements for historic buildings because of the great extent to which they had been remodeled. Miklo said the third building, the one nearest the corner, was considered a contributing structure. Miklo said he would question whether the mental health building in and of itself rises to landmark status. He said that whether it could be part of a larger district is a possibility. Miklo said that with regard to establishing priorities, given the limited staffing and resources, the Commission needs to be very selective as to those priorities. Miklo said that over the past several months the Commission has basically been processing applications. Regarding the Historic Resource Development Program, Miklo said the City currently does not have money budgeted to match the grant application. He said if there is a worthwhile project the Commission wants to pursue, there could possibly be a budget amendment to do it. Miklo said the Commission has until May to apply for the Historic Research Development Program (HRDP) Grant. Baldridge asked about the Vanderwoude properties on Jefferson and Gilbert Streets. He said that he has heard that VanderWoude is considering selling them; there are four houses on Jefferson and at least one on Gilbert Street. Trimble said that there has been a survey of that area. Miklo added that that area is actually a National Register Historic District on both sides of Jefferson Street from Clinton to Van Buren Street. Michaud said that if the properties are in a district, they could not be demolished. Miklo said they are National Register properties, not in a local district. He said in that case, unless there are federal funds involved, the properties can be demolished. Swaim said these areas are vulnerable, and that could be one place the Commission begins, with a local designation of that area. MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 9, 2012 Miklo said that staff would like to hear more ideas from the Commission and then come back with more information at the next meeting to determine if the Commission wants to go forward. He added that some of these areas will be controversial, and there may be a lot of property owners objecting. Miklo said that to be successful, the Commission will have to work very hard to get community support. Swaim said one key is to do this right the first time. Trimble agreed and said that it is important to show support, because she thinks a lot of these will need a supermajority vote of the City Council to pass. Baldridge said that since the Jefferson Street area is on the National Register, the Commission could start out with that premise — that this area has already been designated at one level. Trimble said that would also be true of the Melrose Neighborhood, which is also in danger of encroachment from the University. Miklo said he thought those were the only two districts that are on the National Register but not locally designated, although there may be a few landmarks that are not both. Miklo said it sounds as though the Commission's highest priority is to pursue local designation for existing National Register properties, which would possibly include the Melrose District and the Jefferson Street Historic District. He said staff will look to see if there are any others and explore that a little more at the next meeting. Miklo said the Commission can initiate a district designation on its own without property owner consent or application. Baldridge asked if there is anything the Commission can do to encourage or recognize the activities of the UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership in rehabbing a lot of North Side homes. Miklo said the Planning and Community Development Department implements the UniverCity program with some funding from the University. He said the City Council has indicated that it is very happy with the program and will seek to continue its funding. Miklo said the initial funding came from an I jobs grant, which was all spent on the first 25 houses. He stated that the goal in the next year is to use local funds to do four or five additional houses. Miklo suggested the program could receive a preservation award. He said another idea would be to mention to City Councilors what a great program this is and that it goes along with City Council and Commission goals of neighborhood stabilization. Swaim said that in terms of the Commission objectives, she thinks this is where the Commission should be putting its effort. Michaud asked about the Mansion on Gilbert and Bowery Streets. Miklo replied that the building is a National Register and local landmark so that it is protected. Peterson read from the Central District Plan of 2008 and the discussion of historic preservation in the Central District. She read about continuing the process of designating Goose Town as a local conservation district. Trimble said she thought that would be a good idea. Peterson read further, "...completing surveys of several neighborhoods to determine the historic quality and district eligibility." She said these included Oak Grove - Kirkwood Avenue Corridor, Lucas Farms Neighborhood, Morningside - City High Neighborhood, and the Rochester Avenue Neighborhood. DISCUSS POTENTIAL PROJECTS FOR HISTORIC RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM: In terms of doing further survey work, Miklo said that the Historic Resource Development Program in the past has funded survey work and National Register nominations. He said it can also be used for physical activities, such as restoring the City Park cabins. Swaim asked if that is what matching funds are needed for. Miklo confirmed this. Swaim asked what the likelihood is of that happening. Miklo suggested the Commission identify one or two projects it wants to apply for, get some cost estimates and see if funding can be found. MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 9, 2012 Trimble said that Melrose just had a survey. Miklo confirmed that the neighborhood paid for a survey of the Melrose Neighborhood and that it has been listed on the National Register. Trimble stated that because the survey was recent, not much would have changed. Miklo agreed that the area should not need more survey work. Trimble asked if more survey work would be needed for the Jefferson Street area. Miklo said he did not think so, as it is already listed on the National Register. Peterson read the list of areas that could be considered for survey work as Oak Grove - Kirkwood Avenue Corridor around Plum Grove, Lucas Farms Neighborhood, the Morningside - City High Neighborhood, and Rochester Avenue. Miklo said that survey work has been done on Goose Town already. Baldridge asked what the boundaries of Goose Town would be. Miklo stated that there was never historically an area that was outlined on a map as Goose Town. He said there was a general area of Dodge Street east to the cemetery and Bloomington up to Brown Street where Czech immigrant families lived, although some of their institutions were west of Dodge Street. Miklo said there was a discussion at one time of where the boundary should be between the North Side and Goose Town, and it was determined as being somewhere between Dodge and Governor Streets. Swaim said she feels that the Morn i ngside/C ity High and Rochester Avenue neighborhoods may be fairly stable. She asked where Oak Grove is located. Miklo said that Oak Grove Park is north of Kirkwood Avenue near the railroad tracks at Dodge. Swaim said the Kirkwood Corridor might be the most critical area. Peterson referred to the Commission's last work plan from 2008. She read from the goals, "to improve communication with property owners, revise the Historic Preservation Guidelines, develop guide maps and walking tours." Trimble said that Friends of Historic Preservation is working on a walking tour for the next parade of historic homes to focus on the Civil War era. She said that since the Salvage Barn is being moved, she has found a lot of old records, including copies of walking tours that someone had done before that could be updated and reused. Peterson continued reading from the work plan, "meet with the Campus Planning Committee to discuss the Historic Preservation Plan and goals for the preservation of the University's historic structures, and apply for grant funding to conduct an architectural /historic survey of Manville Heights." Miklo said that some of these things, including the Manville Heights Survey and the Guidelines revision, have already been accomplished. In terms of the HRDP grant, Miklo said the Commission seems to want to focus on two things: a Kirkwood area survey and preservation of the City Park cabins. Swaim asked, in terms of the cabins, if money is needed from the City. Miklo confirmed that the Parks and Recreation Commission is looking for funding and has been made aware of this opportunity. Miklo said there is not a lot of time to put together a proposal. Swaim said she would prefer to fund a Kirkwood area survey. Trimble asked how immediate the funding need is for the cabins. Miklo said that it is really time to make a decision about letting them go or funding the work. Baldridge said he would like to see something done on the log cabins. Trimble said she feels they are both good priorities but thinks the Kirkwood area will hold on longer than the cabins. Swaim agreed and said that getting support for renovation of the cabins would not be difficult. Miklo said that if the consensus of the Commission is to apply for an HRDP for the cabin restoration, staff will work with the Parks and Recreation Department, which is the custodian of the cabins, and ideally the MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 9, 2012 Parks and Recreation Department would do much of the work in terms of putting the grant application together with support from the Planning Department. Baldridge agreed that the cabins need attention. He said they are the closest thing the City has to the original buildings constructed by the first settlers. REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF: There were no comments. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 9,2012: Miklo said there was a statement regarding the North Side attributed to Ackerson in the minutes, but Ackerson did not make the statement. He asked who made the statement, but Commission members were unsure. MOTION: Ackerson moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's February 9, 2012 meeting, as written. Michaud seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6 -0 (Downing, Litton, McMahon, Thomann, and Wagner absent). Regarding 108 McLean Street, Baldridge said that on the Iowa Site Inventory Form Continuation Sheet, paragraph eight, it refers to the church being built where the Quonset but was, and that is not accurate. He said the Quonset but was at the parking lot, and there was a house that was eventually acquired and razed at the corner of Grove and Riverside, where the church was eventually built. Regarding the inventory site form for the fraternity house, Michaud asked why the survey was done on the fraternity and sorority houses if they are not going to agree to it. Miklo stated that the Manville Heights Survey included the fraternity house. He said one of the suggestions coming out of that survey, as well as the survey on the North Side, was that there is a wealth of Greek architecture in the City, and it would be appropriate to move to protect it. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 1:15 p.m Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte �,�, MIS CITY OF IOWA CITY III M E M 0 RA N D U M Date: March 28, 2012 To: City Council From: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner Re: Definition of Household Protest Petitions Petitions representing 142 properties have been submitted to the City Council protesting the zoning amendment changing the definition of household. A tally of the petitions is located below. The petitions did not meet the minimum 20% area threshold necessary to require a super- majority vote to approve the amendment. A map of the properties represented by the petitions is attached. Zone Acres 20% Protest Total Protest % RM44 176 Acres 35.2 Acres 12.72 Acres 7.23% PRM 46 Acres 9.2 Acres 3.82 Acres 8.30% RNS20 84 Acres 16.8 Acres 10.32 Acres 12.28% RM20 112 Acres 22.4 Acres 0 Acres 0 C01 208 Acres 41.6 Acres .54 Acres 0.25% Marian Karr From: Mike Wright <mike.wright.1107 @gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 9:04 PM To: Council Subject: Unrelated Occupancy Councilmembers, The proposed reduction in occupancy in the high- density zones is going to be one of the most important votes you're going to face. Please vote to lower unrelated occupants to no more than three individuals. The commitment of the current council to work to preserve neighborhoods is admirable, and here's a chance to put it into action. We pride ourselves in Iowa City about doing things well, but we haven't always done well by our core neighborhoods. Allowing the 4 -5 bedroom "unsupervised dorms" is a prime example of something we've done poorly. These party palaces have had a huge negative effect on neighborhoods. Trash, noise, parties, excess traffic, you're familiar with the problems. Now we have an the chance to prevent these neighborhood - wreckers from further invasion. Please take it. Please prove your commitment to neighborhood stabilization. We've heard arguments from landlords about the damage this will do to their balance sheets. These losses are potential. Investing in a property you hope to someday redevelop in order to reap more profits is essentially buying on spec. Things can change. That's the risk of buying on spec, and there is still plenty of money to be made from the Iowa City rental market. Those of us who live in the core neighborhoods are investors as well. We have invested in our homes and in our neighborhoods. I hope you'll choose to support our investment as well. Healthy neighborhoods, near downtown and elsewhere, have a balance of renters and owners living side by side. Such a balance does not include four or five unrelated people in rentals designed for students. I urge you -- implore you -- to vote in favor of the neighborhoods that have received the short end of the stick so many times. Vote to strengthen Iowa City. Vote to lower unrelated occupancy. Thanks so much for your service, and for your consideration. Mike Wright 225 N. Lucas St. 19! March 27, 2012 Editorial ED i .��., ,�` C _ "E'! `F 1. , f it i I recently argued before the Iowa City Council that the various strategies for reducing density in the areas surrounding the central business district will cause significant financial stress on low income people in our community by forcing higher rents. It will erode the property values of several non profits in the area as well as private property owners on the order of 20 to 30 %. It will undermine the City's ability to grow revenues in an environment that is becoming increasingly hostile to development in general and property taxes in particular. I continue to believe that these will be the unintended consequences of what I consider very radical steps to reshape our zoning policies. It is not acceptable for our planning policies and practices to be at cross purposes with our economic development policies, our affordable housing policies and our ability to thrive as a community in partnership with the University. I believe there is a fine distinction between stabilized neighborhoods and fossilized neighborhoods. I live within a block of the University on Oak Park Court. Over the past year the derelict house next door to me which was vacant for over a year was purchased. It was subsequently demolished and replaced with a "duplex" that consisted of four bedrooms on each side, eight bedrooms in all. It is occupied by students who take their dog in when it barks, park where they are supposed to and have never thrown a bottle into the street. Everyone on the block has the property owners' phone number and he has made it clear that we can call him with any complaints. There have been none to date. There is also a duplex across the street with three bedrooms a side built in the 1950's. About 15 years ago a group of student nurses that lived there threw a party that disturbed the neighbors specifically me. I've been there for over 25 years. That was it —one party in 25 years. When the police came things calmed down. I believe the problem is the conflicts between homeowners and student tenants. No homeowner should have to clean up 8 pounds of glass. At the same time all students should not be penalized for the bad behavior of a few. Moreover, we should not develop policies that also penalize property owners, low income tenants and the City's ability to provide for its future. We have ordinances in place that allow us to fine and arrest property owners and tenants for causing disturbances and unruly behavior. I believe this is an enforcement problem and that we can get help from University Security. As a further step, I wonder if citations could be put against the property. I would assure you that within one year there would be a provision in every lease that any fines levied against a property would be payable by the tenants and their damage deposits would act as collateral. If we are unable to adequately enforce the current ordinance to curtail unruly behavior, why do we share the expectation that we can adequately police a policy which allows no more than three unrelated parties in the same unit. March 27, 2012 Page 2 Our current policies have resulted in seriously underutilized properties that create problems for neighborhoods that are unable to evolve. The synagogue, Roosevelt School and the old social services building on Dodge Street are good cases in point. We need a flexible policy that maintains density and property values while facilitating new housing that fits the needs of the community. We also need better enforcement policies that help us live together. I encourage the Iowa City Council to table this issue until the economic consequences are thoroughly understood and the enforcement options have been exhausted. Casey Cook 1 Oak Park Ct, Iowa City, 52246 351 -2044 Education: Undergraduate Study in Economics Masters in Urban and Regional Planning- University of Iowa Served 6 years on the Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission r> 'm t 6e Prepared by: Karen Howard, Associate Planner, 410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, ZONING, ARTICLE 9A, GENERAL DEFINITIONS, CHANGING THE DEFINITION OF "HOUSEHOLD" AS IT APPLIES IN THE RM-44, PRM, RNS -20, RM -20, AND CO -1 ZONES. WHEREAS, "Household Living" is the most prevalent land use within the city, and includes single family dwellings, two- family dwellings (duplexes), and multi - family dwellings (apartments); and WHEREAS, by definition, only one Household may live within a Household Living Use; and WHEREAS, in all single family zones, the low density multi - family zone (RM -12) and all commercial zones, except the commercial office zone (CO -1), a household may consist of a family and up to one unrelated person; or a group of not more than 3 unrelated persons; and WHEREAS, it is only in the high density multi - family zones (RM-44 & PRM) and the medium density multi - family zones (RM -20 & RNS -20) and the commercial office zone (CO -1) that more than 3 unrelated persons may reside within one dwelling unit; and WHEREAS, in the RM -44 and PRM Zones up to 5 unrelated persons may reside within one dwelling unit; and in the RM -20, RNS -20, and CO -1 Zones up to 4 unrelated persons may reside within one dwelling unit; and WHEREAS, the location of the University campus in close proximity to older residential neighborhoods where the aforementioned zoning designations are prevalent, in combination with the aforementioned occupancy standards for unrelated persons in these zones, create an incentive to develop or redevelop property with residential apartments intended primarily for short term residents, primarily university undergraduate students, with less emphasis on providing commercial space or residential dwellings attractive to longer -term residents; and WHEREAS, there is a desire to maintain and support a market for a wide variety of businesses and residents in the downtown to ensure the long term economic health of the downtown and the surrounding residential neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, it is common practice to control maximum occupancy within residential dwellings to prevent overcrowding, to control parking and traffic congestion, to maintain a stable population, and to preserve or foster a certain character within an area; and WHEREAS, the Central District element of the Comprehensive Plan contains a goal to explore ways to make more of the existing and future rental housing in the Central District available to families and other non - student populations in need of affordable housing, e.g. revisiting occupancy rules and housing code provisions to discourage or prevent unmanaged dorm -style apartments; and WHEREAS, amending the definition of "Household" to be consistent across all zoning districts will allow all types of households, including both student and non - student households, to compete in the market for housing in central neighborhoods close to employment opportunities and cultural, educational, and commercial services and amenities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. The Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa is hereby amended as follows: A. Delete the definition of "Household" in Article 14 -9A, General Definitions, and substitute in lieu thereof: HOUSEHOLD: A Household is defined as: Draft Ordinance No. Page 2 • One person; or • 2 or more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption or placement by a governmental or social service agency plus up to 1 unrelated person, occupying a dwelling unit as a single housekeeping organization; or • a group of not more than 3 persons unrelated by blood, marriage, or adoption, occupying a dwelling unit as a single housekeeping organization; or • A group of persons that meet the definition of a Group Household, as defined in this Title. B. Delete subsection 14- 4E -9C, and substitute in lieu thereof: C. The maximum occupancy, as determined by the Building Official based on the applicable regulations effective February 21, 2012, will be applied to: 1) any development activity associated with establishing or constructing a residential use for which a valid permit was issued on or prior to February 21, 2012; or, 2) any residential use for which a valid rental permit was issued prior to (the effective date of this ordinance), the effective date of the current maximum occupancy regulations. For such uses, legal nonconforming rights will be granted for this maximum occupancy. SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication. Passed and approved this day of , 2012. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Approved by City Attorney's Office 3',y 1(2- 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 4/3/2012 that the Voteforpassage: AYES: Dobyns, Hayek, Mims, Throgmorton, Champion. NAYS: Dickens. ABSENT: Payne. _. Second Consideration _ Vote for passage: Date published 6f Prepared by: Karen Howard, Associate Planner, 410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, ZONING, SUBSECTION 14- 2C -8Q, BONUS PROVISIONS, ADDING A FLOOR AREA BONUS FOR CONSTRUCTING CLASS A OFFICE SPACE ON UPPER FLOORS WITHIN A MULTI -STORY BUILDING IN A CENTRAL BUSINESS (CB -10) ZONE. WHEREAS, the Central Business District is intended to be the high density, compact, pedestrian- oriented shopping, office, service and entertainment area in Iowa City; and WHEREAS, there is a desire to maintain and support a market for a wide variety of businesses in the downtown to ensure the long term economic health of the downtown; and WHEREAS, one of the primary economic development goals of the City is to attract businesses that will provide high quality jobs; WHEREAS, construction of Class A office space in the Central Business District will help to attract businesses that provide high quality jobs. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. The Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa is hereby amended as follows: A. Amending Table 2C -4, Bonus Provisions, by adding the following bonus provision that would apply in the CB -10 Zone as indicated below (the remainder of said table shall remain unchanged): Table 2C -4: Bonus Provisions Public Benefit Bonus Allowed CB -10 Zone Provision of Class A office space on floors above the Up to 2 sq. ft. of floor area for every 1 sq. ft. of ground -level floor of the building. To qualify for this Class A office space provided on floors above bonus, only non - residential uses shall be allowed in the ground -level floor of the building. the Class A office space. As defined by the Building Owners and Managers Association Intemational (BOMA), Class A Office Space is space that is of a quality that is attractive for premier office users with rents above average for the area. Class A Office Buildings have high quality standard finishes, state of the art systems, exceptional accessibility and a definite market presence. SECTION III. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provi- sions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION IV. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION V. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication. Passed and approved this day of 2012. Ordinance No. Page 2 ZRV • ATTEST: CITY CLERK Approved by City Attorney's Office /�-�rz 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 3/20/2012 Vote forpassage: AYES: Dobyns, Mims, Payne, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Hayek. Second Consideration 41312012 Voteforpassage: AYES: Dobyns, Hayek, Mims, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Payne. Date published Mb 6g M Prepared by: Karen Howard, Associate Planner, 410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240 ORDINANCE NO. 12 -4472 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, ZONING, ARTICLE 4E, NONCONFORMING SITUATIONS, REGARDING THE REGULATION OF NON - CONFORMING DEVELOPMENT. WHEREAS, the City's zoning code establishes rules that guide the use and development of properties that are legally nonconforming due to a change in the zoning designation of a property or a change in the zoning regulations; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the nonconforming provisions of the zoning code to guide future uses and development in a direction consistent with City policy, to protect the character of an area by reducing the potential negative impacts from nonconforming situations, and over time, to bring development into compliance with the City's regulations while also providing for flexibility and relief from the strict application of zoning provisions so that properties can continue in productive use over time; and WHEREAS, the provisions in Section 14 -4E -8, Nonconforming Development, are intended to provide flexibility and in some cases relief from the current site development standards for nonconforming property as they redevelop, expand, or change uses over time; and WHEREAS, while recent changes to the zoning code brought the City's regulations in line with current accepted practice with regard to commercial site design, including screening and buffering parking areas, outdoor storage areas, and display lots from public sidewalks and neighboring properties, there are many older properties that are noncompliant with these new standards; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to provide more flexibility and relief in certain circumstances from the strict application of new site development standards that would not be feasible or practical or would unduly reduce the ability to use or re -use a property due to topography, location of existing buildings, or other site constraints. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. The Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa is hereby amended as follows: A. Deleting Section 14 -4E -8, Regulation of Nonconforming Development, and substituting in lieu thereof: 14 -4E -8 Regulation of Nonconforming Development 7 A. General Provisions 1. Except as otherwise restricted, prohibited or allowed in this Article, a use or structure located on a lot that contains nonconforming development may be converted to a different use or altered, provided such change in use or alteration does not increase or extend the nonconformity and provided the applicable compliance standards listed in this section are met. 2. Alterations When alterations are made to a building or buildings on a property that contains nonconforming development, and the cost of said alterations is over the threshold Ordinance No. 19-1,1,79 Page 2 values set forth in subparagraph a. below, the site must be brought into conformance with the development standards listed in subparagraph b., up to the cap stated in subparagraph c. The value of the alterations is based on the entire project, not individual building permits. Mandatory improvements for fire, life safety and accessibility do not count toward the thresholds. The stated thresholds are not cumulative. a. Thresholds triggering compliance (1) Alterations with a value 35 percent or greater than the assessed value of all improvements on the site, including sites with multiple tenants in one or more buildings; or (2) Alterations with a value of more than $25,000. b. Standards that must be met Development not in compliance with the development standards listed below must be brought into conformance or be granted a minor modification. Requirements or standards that would not be feasible or practical or would unduly reduce the ability to use or re -use the property due to topography, location of existing buildings, or other site constraints, may be modified or waived by minor modification. The City, at its discretion, may also waive or modify by minor modification any standards that cannot be met due to a conflict with any other requirement of this Title. (1) Screening of existing parking, loading, vehicular use areas, and outdoor storage and display areas along street -side lot lines according to the applicable screening standard. Setback requirements may be modified to address site constraints; (2) Screening of existing parking, loading, vehicular use areas, and outdoor storage and display areas from the Iowa River or from any Parks and Open Space Use, including trails, according to the applicable screening standard. Setback requirements may be modified to address site constraints; (3) Outdoor lighting standards; (4) Bicycle parking requirements; (5) Street and residential tree requirements; (6) Design, layout, landscaping, and tree requirements within parking areas; (7) Pedestrian circulation standards; (8) Screening of existing parking, loading, vehicular use areas, and outdoor storage and display areas along side or rear lot lines. Setback requirements may be modified to address site constraints; (9) Access management standards. C. Cap on the cost of compliance. The standards listed in subparagraph b. must be met for the entire site. However, where the cost of compliance with the standards enumerated in subparagraph b above exceeds 10 percent of the value of the proposed alterations, the site shall be brought into compliance with all site development standards up to this 10 percent cap. It is the responsibility of the applicant to Ordinance No. t_2 -4472 Page 3 document that the cost of the required site development improvements will be greater than 10 percent of the value of the proposed alterations to the building or buildings on the site. If not all site improvements are being made due to the cost exceeding the cap, the extent and location of the site improvements below the cap will be determined by the City and shall generally follow the order of priority listed in subparagraph b, above. However, at the discretion of the City, the order of priorities may be adjusted in response to specific site characteristics and traffic safety concerns in order to maximize the benefits of site improvements for site users, adjacent properties, and the public. 3. Demolished or Destroyed Site When a use is proposed for a property where the principal building(s) have been demolished or destroyed, but that contains nonconforming development, such as parking lot paving, exterior lighting, signage, etc, the property must be brought into compliance with all applicable site development standards as set forth in the base zone and in Chapter 14 -5. 4. New Site Development on sites with Nonconforming Site Development Any new site elements being constructed or established on the site, such as new exterior lighting, new parking areas, new outdoor storage or display areas, new signage, etc, must comply with current applicable standards. 5. Reconstruction or Re- establishment of Site Development Any nonconforming site elements that are being re- constructed or re- established must be brought into compliance with the current applicable standards. However, requirements or standards that would not be feasible or practical or would unduly reduce the ability to use or re -use the property due to topography, location of existing buildings, or other site constraints may be modified or waived by minor modification. The City may also waive or modify by minor modification any standard that cannot be met due to a conflict with any other requirement of this Title. B. Nonconformities with regard to the number of parking and loading spaces 1. If a non - residential use, which is nonconforming with regard to the required number of parking, stacking, or loading spaces, is modified, expanded or enlarged such that there is an increase in the number of required spaces over the existing situation, only the number of spaces relating to the modification, expansion or enlargement need to be provided. These spaces are in addition to any spaces already in existence on the site. 2. If a residential use, which is nonconforming with regard to the required number of parking, stacking, or loading spaces, is changed in any way such that there is an increase in the number of required spaces over the existing situation, the property must be brought into full compliance with the number of spaces required. 3. A use that is nonconforming with regard to the required number of parking, stacking, or loading spaces may be converted to a use in another use category or subgroup without full compliance with the number of parking, stacking, or loading spaces, according to the following rules: a. If the number of required spaces for the converted use is more than what was required for the established use, only the number of spaces beyond what was required for the established use need to be provided. These spaces are in addition to any spaces already in existence on the site. Ordinance No. 12 -4472 Page 4 b. In addition to any additional spaces required in subparagraph a., as many spaces as the lot will accommodate must be provided, up to the number needed to fully comply with the standard. C. Nonconforming Signs It is the intent of these provisions that nonconforming signs be eliminated over time as set forth below: All lawfully established signs that become nonconforming due to a change in zoning or a change in the development regulations are permitted to remain as nonconforming signs. 2. The owner of a nonconforming sign is required to maintain the sign in such a manner as to avoid it becoming a hazardous sign. 3. Other than for routine maintenance, if a nonconforming sign is changed or altered in any way it must be brought into compliance with the provisions of Article 14 -5B, Sign Regulations, with the following exceptions: a. Nonconforming signs that are deemed historic, signs for a historic structure and signs on structures in a Historic Preservation Overlay Zone may qualify for a special exception as described in paragraph 4, below. b. On signs located within 1000 feet of an interstate highway that are legally non- conforming with regard to sign area or height limitations, the existing sign face may be changed or replaced, provided the sign meets all of the following criteria: (1) The sign is located on property that is zoned commercial; (2) The sign is not a hazardous sign, as defined in this Title; and (3) If the sign is located in an area subject to regulation due to its proximity to the Iowa City Municipal Airport, a determination of "no hazard to air navigation" has been received from the FAA. 4. The Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception to allow changes to a nonconforming sign, provided the following conditions are met: a. The sign must be located on a property designated as a Historic Landmark, a property registered on the National Register of Historic Places, or on a property listed as a key or contributing property in a Historic Preservation or Historic Conservation Overlay Zone. b. The sign must fall into one of the following categories: (1) The sign is in keeping with the architectural character of an historic structure and is appropriate to a particular period in the structure's history; or (2) The sign is an integral part of a property's historic identity; or (3) The sign makes a significant artistic or historic contribution to the community or neighborhood in which the sign is located. C. At the time of application for the special exception, changes to the subject sign must be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission through a certificate of appropriateness. If the Board of Adjustment grants a special exception for Ordinance No. 12 -4472 Page 5 the sign, any subsequent changes to the sign do not have to be approved by the Board of Adjustment, but do require a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission. d. If the sign is not maintained according to the provisions of Article 14 -5B, Sign Regulations, and becomes hazardous, the City may request that the Board of Adjustment revoke the special exception. 5. The Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception to allow repair or reconstruction of a nonconforming sign that has been damaged or destroyed by fire, explosion, act of God or by a public enemy if the following approval criteria are met: a. In order to qualify for this exception, the sign must fall into at least one of the following categories: (1) The subject sign is an integral part of the historic identity of a property or use designated as a Historic Landmark, a property registered on the National Register of Historic Places, or of a property listed as a key or contributing property in a Historic District or Conservation District Overlay Zone; or (2) The sign is an integral part of a property's historic identity such that it is generally recognized and associated with a longstanding business or institution and makes a significant artistic, cultural, or nostalgic contribution to the community or neighborhood. b. The sign must be reconstructed as nearly as possible to its historic design or to the design that is generally recognized and associated with the longstanding business or institution such that it continues to make a significant artistic, cultural or nostalgic contribution to the community or neighborhood. C. The sign must be reconstructed such that it is not a hazardous sign. The sign must be located in a manner that complies with Article 14 -5D, Intersection Visibility Standards. The Board may require changes to the sign, to its structure or mounting, or its location in order to improve public safety. If the sign is not maintained according to the provision of Article 14 -5B, Sign Regulations, and becomes hazardous, the City may request that the Board of Adjustment revoke the special exception. d. If the sign is located on a property designated as a Historic Landmark, a property registered on the National Register of Historic Places, or a property listed as a key or contributing property in a Historic District or Conservation District Overlay Zone, the subject sign must be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission and issued a certificate of appropriateness. If the Board of Adjustment grants a special exception for the sign, any subsequent changes to the sign do not have to be approved by the Board of Adjustment, but do require a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission. D. Nonconforming Outdoor Lighting 1. Any existing light fixture that is nonconforming with regard to how the fixture is aimed must be brought immediately into compliance if it is possible to re -aim the existing fixture. Ordinance No. 12_4472 Page 6 2. Upon repair, replacement, or relocation of any luminaire, such luminaire must comply with any applicable requirement that it be fully shielded. B. Deleting Subsection 14 -5E -7A and subsection 14 -5E -8A and renumbering the following subsections accordingly. SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION Ill. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication. Passed and approved this 3rd day of April 2012. MAYOR Approved by ATTEST: CITY CL RK City Attorney's Office ;212qlfz Ordinance No. 12 -4472 Page 7 It was moved by Champion and seconded by Throgmorton that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: _x Champion x Dickens x Dobyns x Hayek x Mims x Payne x Throgmorton First Consideration 3/6/2012 Vote for passage: AYES: Dobyns, Hayek, Mims, Payne, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration 3/20/2012 Voteforpassage: AYES: Dobyns, Mims, Payne, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Hayek. Date published 4/12/2012 sn Prepared by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5240 (REZ11- 0017) ORDINANCE NO. 12 -4473 ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY PLAN, THE PENINSULA NEIGHBORHOOD CODE, AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE PENINSULA NEIGHBORHOOD PHASES 3,4 AND 5 LOCATED ON FOSTER ROAD. (REZ11- 00017) WHEREAS, the applicant, The Peninsula Development Company, has requested amendments to the Planned Development Overlay (OPD) Plan and Sensitive Areas Development Plan for the Peninsula Neighborhood to reconfigure lot lines, street design and mix of single - family, row house and multi - family buildings and amendments to the Peninsula Code to clarify how setbacks for garages are measured, allow for porches that are half width of a house rather than full width, and allow the eating and drinking establishments with Live/Work units on Lot 117; and WHEREAS, the Peninsula Neighborhood OPD Plan allows for the construction of up to 410 dwelling units as established in the Peninsula Neighborhood Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has the reviewed the proposed amendments to the Peninsula OPD Plan Sensitive Areas Development Plan and has recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I APPROVAL. The amended Peninsula Neighborhood OPD Plan and Sensitive Areas Development Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and the Peninsula Neighborhood Code on file in the City Clerk's Office, for the property described below are hereby approved: Phase 3 and 4: Beginning at the Southwest Corner of Outlot "C" of a Replat of Peninsula Neighborhood First Addition in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Plat Book 45, at Page 207 of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office and a Point on the Southeasterly Line of Auditor's Parcel 2001020 in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Plat Book 43 at Page 43 of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence N89 059'01 "W along said Southeasterly Line, 90.40 feet; Thence S60 046'28 "W, along said Southeasterly Line, 1301.43 feet; Thence N40 042'52 "W, 477.83 feet; Thence N25 013'54 "W, 519.90 feet; Thence N64 046'06 "E, 157.06 feet; Thence NO3 °34'52 "W, 95.35 feet, to the Western most corner of Lot 102 of The Peninsula Neighborhood Phase 2A, in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Plat Book 53, at Page. 136 of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence S53 030'11 "E, along the Southerly Line of said The Peninsula Neighborhood Phase 2A, a distance of 188.30 feet; Thence S70 045'54 "E, along said Southerly Line, 56.87 feet; Thence S59 °28'31 "E, along said Southerly Line, 47.52 feet; Thence S89 019'43 "E, along said Southerly Line, 59.10 feet; Thence N73 °05'03 "E, along said Southerly Line 101.10 feet; Thence N64 °46'06 "E, 119.17 feet, to the Southeast Corner of Lot 100 of said The Peninsula Neighborhood Phase 2A, and the Southernmost corner of Lot 54 of The Peninsula Neighborhood Second Addition, in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Plat Book 46, at Page 186 of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence N84 °30'41 "E, along the Southerly Line of said The Peninsula Neighborhood Second Addition, a distance of 106.48 feet; Thence S62 °13'54 "E, along said Southerly Line, 90.96 feet; Thence S64 046'22 "W, along said Southerly Line, 433.45 feet; Thence S25 013'38 "E, along said Southerly Line, 53.00 feet; Thence S25'1 1'37"E, along said Southerly Line, 102.73 feet; Thence S27 004'01 "E, along said Southerly Line, 25.01 feet; Thence S29 °13'54 "E, along said Southerly Line, 8.94 feet; Thence N60 °46'06 "E, along said Southerly Line, 53.00 feet; Thence N29 013'54 "W, along said Southerly Line, 5.23 feet; Thence N64 046'06 "E, along said Southerly Line, 92.24 feet; Thence S72 013'54 "E, along said Southerly Line, 11.70 feet; Thence S29 013'54 "E, along said Southerly Line, 16.27 feet; Thence N60 046'06 "E, along said Southerly Line, 25.00 feet; Thence N29 °13'54 "W, along said Southerly Line, 14.52 feet; Thence N17 046'06 "E, along said Southerly Line, 10.91 feet; Thence N64 046'06 "E, along said Southerly Line, 92.26 feet; Thence S29 °14'40 "E, along said Southerly Line, 8.95 feet; Thence N60 045'20 "E, along said Southerly Line, 53.00 feet; Thence N29 014'40 "W, along said Southerly Line, 5.23 feet; Thence N64 °46'06 "E, along said Southerly Line, 46.35 feet; Thence S62 013'54 "E, along said Southerly Line, Ordinance No. Page 2 98.68 feet; Thence S29 013'54 "E, along said Southerly Line, 21.48 feet; Thence N60 °46'06 "E, along said Southerly Line, 25.00 feet; Thence N60 °45'42 "E, along said Southerly Line, 151.52 feet; Thence N29 014'18 "W, along said Southerly Line, 71.51 feet; Thence N27 046'06 "E, along said Southerly Line, 61.46 feet; Thence S62 013'54 "E, along said Southerly Line, 250.95 feet; Thence Northeasterly, 83.24 feet, along said Southerly Line on a 54.25 foot radius curve, concave Northwesterly, whose 75.31 foot chord bears N73 048'58 "E; Thence N29 043'06 "E, along said Southerly Line, 98.82 feet; Thence N29 °51'49 "E, along said Southerly Line, 52.16 feet; Thence S60 °08'11 "E, along said Southerly Line, 120.00 feet; Thence S59 0 58'21 E, along said Southerly Line, 27.11 feet, to the Southeast Corner of Lot 35 of said The Peninsula Neighborhood Second Addition, and a Point on the Southerly Line of said Replat of Peninsula Neighborhood First Addition; Thence S30 001'39 "W, along said Southerly Line, 17.53 feet; Thence S60 008'11 "E, along said Southerly Line, 191.33 feet; Thence S00 °01'28 "W, along said Southerly Line, 54.60 feet, to the Point of Beginning. Said Tract of Land contains 17.37 Acres, and is subject to easements and restrictions of record. Phase 5: Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 7A of Replat of Peninsula Neighborhood First Addition, Iowa City, Iowa, in accordance with the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 45, at Page 207, in the records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office: and also: Lots 52 and 53 of The Peninsula Neighborhood Second Addition, Iowa City, Iowa, in accordance with the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 46, at Page 186, in the records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office, containing 2.00 acres and is subject to easements and restrictions of record. SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance 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. Passed and approved this 3rd day of April , 2012. .1 O- ATTEST: Ag�) re 7rCJ�fif/ CITY CLERK Approved by C"d L `vrh4- City Attorney's Office 511-3112— §2§|) | \ \ \» }\; !! RI » / :� ,�, LO W � § < \ < o �f0 < 2 M27 < 0 2 § § § ;§ o £ ƒ §)H / \ |\§ � O 0 4 ca � Do ]. � A Z Co \ < } / < ° / ui $ < ( § \ §§ Z «) < < e 2 < K 0 ;p IRE 2 J CI) LO f ; | ;! � ( \ 0 a- ZcO,n / / •,.•. \]M } ) \ ® j! \\ 7 5 a, � $• -� § /� ! �p 1 |A §0 W°© z \�!| I§qd ; k\ }/§ \, |/� Z y / \ ........ ............ iI�II ... i VIII H �pkNkk..n0•�I II���I�rII �ti ©�sl� _ \ z cn < z z I.- a_ a- <M I , a- o< [Z 0 -J LU >- LLJ 0 �L- C) z < -L- < LLJ a,( 3: i < LU z mn LLI < C) z J , � z Lu (j) U) z ug < CL ui i aN ---------------- - - ------- ---- ---- - - --- - --- ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------ ------- ------------------ ---------- ------------------- -------------- --------------------- ----------- --------------- -/z --- ------ �7- �: �00 zo" z w Z CL ........ ............ iI�II ... i VIII H �pkNkk..n0•�I II���I�rII �ti ©�sl� _ \ z cn < z z I.- a_ a- <M I , a- o< [Z 0 -J LU >- LLJ 0 �L- C) z < -L- < LLJ a,( 3: i < LU z mn LLI < C) z J , � z Lu (j) U) z ug < CL ui i aN ---------------- - - ------- ---- ---- - - --- - --- ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------ ------- ------------------ ---------- ------------------- -------------- --------------------- ----------- --------------- -/z --- ------ �7- �: Ordinance No. 12 -4473 Page 3 It was moved by Mims and seconded by Dobyns that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: g Champion x Dickens x Dobyns x Hayek Mims x Payne Throgmorton First Consideration 3/20/2012 Voteforpassage: AYES: Dickens, Dobyns, Mims, Payne, Throgmorton, Champion. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Hayek. Second Consideration -- Vote for passage: Date published 4/12/2012 40yeg bK Dims secondO � Ctamr Jo e o or passage a o oui .)assed be suspended, the second for final passage at this time. JAYS: None. ABSENT: Payne. tic° 'mee ingseprior roq h�elHe�ingnantcwshic�i I issn�odnee�ina�ly consideration and vote be waived and the ordinance be voted upon AYES: Mims, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns, Hayek. g c 7i, a fill. ll 'i9 'i a t Al iia LO zo CL OV U O < WWag A zINaz 2 Q O C �- lL Q D 'O r� gOEU � s l 2S � p a= 'a 00 b � fill i s Q O N Z i a T 0�N� aLJC4a �z zQQj5o��� r 0 W, J � gg� �S WD'^ J O N r � 11. ` Zoo J k Wyk o CL w c c Of m W Q ! aFa F 7, itt j S y SFr 6F 1it � 2 1 m H ` 4FiBB 'i��si i 91�Pft Lu Si ui Q �¢$iB P „S zo CL OV U W < WWag a. zINaz Lu Si ui Q �¢$iB P „S a �1 d I1 �` �♦� y 111 1 �� e� T, 11111 w � 0 111 'IJ i ♦ � iy C- v U 11 7 II C 11 O� O f� A 1 �' i - yr O r� l 2S fill i a �1 d I1 �` �♦� y 111 1 �� e� T, 11111 w � 0 111 'IJ i ♦ � iy C- v U 11 7 II C 11 O� O f� CHARLES T. TRAW RANDALLB. WILLMAN STEVEN E.BALLARD MARK C. DANIELSON TIMOTHY S. GRADY THOMAS E. MAXWELL PATRICK J. FORD THE LAW OFFICES OF LEFF LAW FIRM, L.L.P. 222 SOUTH LINN STREET P.O. BOX 2447 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244 -2447 TELEPHONE: (319) 338 -7551 FACSIMILE: (319) 338 -6902 www.lefflaw.com ARTHUR O. LEFF (1906 -1989) PHILIP A. LEFF (Of Counsel) R. BRUCE HAUPERT (Of Counsel) Writer's email: danielsonolefflaw.com March 20, 2012 Sent via email only:', { council @iowa- city.org`'° Iowa City City Council —! 410 E. Washington Street ` °° °0 1 Iowa City, Iowa 52240 RE: REZ 11- -00017 - Amending the Planned Developmen:Q Overlay Plan and Sensitive Areas Development Plan for the Peninsula Neighborhood Phases 3, 4 and 5 Located on Foster Road Dear Members of the City Council: I represent Peninsula Development Company, L.L.C., the applicant of the above - referenced rezoning matter. I respectfully request that the second and third readings before the Iowa City City Council regarding the above - referenced rezoning request both occur at the City Council meeting scheduled for Tuesday, April 3, 2012. Thank you for your consideration and assistance in this matter. Very truly yours, LEFF LAW FIR .e°L L. P . Y F Mar C. Danielson cc: Iowa City City Attorney's Office 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Mr. Bob Miklo 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 kam /MCD/ Condo / Peninsula /CityCouncilltr032012 II- Prepared by: Brian Boelk, Engineering, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5437 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 3, ENTITLED "FINANCES, TAXATION & FEES," CHAPTER 4, "SCHEDULE OF FEES, RATES, CHARGES, BONDS, FINES, AND PENALTIES," SECTION 6, " STORMWATER UTILITY FEE" AND AMENDING TITLE 16 ENTITLED "PUBLIC WORKS," CHAPTER 3, "CITY UTILITIES," ARTICLE G, "STORM WATER COLLECTION, DISCHARGE AND RUNOFF," SECTION 10(F)(3) TO CHANGE THE RATE OF THE STORMWATER UTILITY FEE. WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapters 384 and 388, Code of Iowa (2011) the City of Iowa City is authorized to establish a stormwater utility and provide for the collection of rates and charges to pay for said utility; and WHEREAS, stormwater utility rates fund the stormwater utility system over time; and WHEREAS, the flat rate for an Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) will increase from $2.50 to $3.00, and the multiplying rate for non - residential properties will increase from $1.00 to $1.25. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. AMENDMENT. Title 3, Chapter 4, Section 6, entitled " Stormwater Utility Fee" is hereby amended by increasing the fee to $3.00. SECTION II. AMENDMENT. Title 16, Chapter 3, Article G, Section 10, Subsection F, entitled "Determination of Storm Water Utility Charge ", Paragraph 3, is hereby amended by substituting one dollar ($1.00) with $1.25. SECTION III. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION IV. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION V. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication. Passed and approved this day of 20 MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK I ved by City Attorney's Office a Y� �Z pweng/ ord /stormwater- feeincreasefyl3.doc 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 Mims Payne Throgmorton First Consideration 3/20/2012 Voteforpassage: AYES: Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns, Mims, Payne. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Hayek. Second Consideration 4/3/2012 Voteforpassage: AYES: Mims, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns, Hayek. NAYS: None. ABSNET: Payne. Date published 10 Prepared by: Susan Dulek, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356 -5030 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE CITY CODE, ENTITLED "USE OF PUBLIC WAYS AND PROPERTY," CHAPTER 3, ENTITLED, "COMMERCIAL USE OF SIDEWALKS," TO ALLOW SIDEWALK CAFES AGREEMENTS TO BE APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY AND TO DECREASE THE ALLEY SETBACK. WHEREAS, the process for approval of sidewalk cafes has become quite routine since the ordinance was adopted in 1995; WHEREAS, it is appropriate for staff to enter into the right of way easement agreements for sidewalk cafes without the need for Council approval; WHEREAS, cafes are currently required to be located no closer than ten feet (10') to an alley; WHEREAS, safety will not be lessened if the setback is decreased to two feet (2') as long as fencing material is less than twenty percent (20 %) solid; and WHEREAS, it is in the City's interest adopt this amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. AMENDMENTS. 1. Title 10, entitled "Use of Public Ways and Property," Chapter 3, entitled "Commercial Use of Sidewalks," Section 1, entitled "Definitions," is amended by deleting the definition of "sidewalk cafe" and adding the following new definition: Sidewalk Caf6. An outdoor area located temporarily on a public right of way, pursuant to an agreement, contiguous with any side of a building wherein a restaurant is located and where food and beverages are taken for consumption by persons sitting or standing at tables in that area. 2. Title 10, entitled "Use of Public Ways and Property," Chapter 3, entitled "Commercial Use of Sidewalks," Section 3, entitled "Use for Sidewalk Cafes," Subsection B, entitled "Usable Sidewalk Cafe Area," is amended by adding the following new sentence at the end of Paragraph 2: However, a caf6 may be located between two feet (2') and ten feet (10) from an alley if the fencing located within ten feet (10) is a type that is less than twenty percent (20 %) solid. 3. Title 10, entitled "Use of Public Ways and Property," Chapter 3, entitled "Commercial Use of Sidewalks," Section 3, entitled "Use for Sidewalk Cafes," Subsection B, entitled "Usable Sidewalk Cafe Area," is amended by deleting the first sentence of Paragraph 5 and substituting the following new sentence in lieu thereof: A sidewalk cafe may encompass or utilize an elevated planter, including a planter that is not directly in front of the establishment to which it is connected, if the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of City Manager, or designee, that the proposed cafe meets the following criteria. 4. Title 10, entitled "Use of Public Ways and Property," Chapter 3, entitled "Commercial Use of Sidewalks," Section 3, entitled "Use for Sidewalk Cafes," Subsection E, entitled "Sidewalk Cafe Easement Agreement," is amended by deleting Paragraphs 2 -4 and substituting the following new Paragraphs 2 and 3 in lieu thereof: E2. The City Manager, or designee, shall either grant or deny the application within thirty (30) days of the application being filed. If the application is granted, the City Manager, or designee, is authorized to enter into a public right of way easement agreement. If the application is denied, the applicant may appeal to the City Council by filing a written appeal with the City Council, and the appeals process shall be the same as provide for mobile vendors in this chapter. E3. Even after execution of a public right of way easement agreement, the City Manager, or designee, shall retain the right to terminate the easement agreement but only after written notice of violation has been given and the time to cure the violation has expired. Grounds for termination of the easement agreement shall include, but not be limited to, repeated violations of the state and liquor control laws, violations of the easement agreement, and creating a safety hazard, health hazard and /or public nuisance under state or local law. Additionally, the City Manager, or designee, retains the right to terminate the easement agreement and direct removal of sidewalk cafe operations if there is a substantial and reasonable need for use of the public right of way for a valid public purpose. The cafe owner has the right to appeal a decision to terminate the agreement to the City Council. The appeals process shall be the same as provided for mobile vendors in this chapter. SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION III. PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION. The violation of any provision of this ordinance is a municipal infraction or a simple misdemeanor. SECTION IV. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of 2012. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Approved 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 Mims Payne Throgmorton First Consideration 4/3/2012 Vote forpassage: AYES: Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns, Hayek, Mims. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Payne. Second Consideration Vote for passage: Date published �9 11 Prepared by: Chris O'Brien, Transportation Services, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5156 ORDINANCE NO. 12 -4474 ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 3, FINANCES TAXATION AND FEES, CHAPTER 4, SCHEDULE OF FEES, RATES, CHARGES, BONDS, FINES, AND PENALTIES, SECTION 7, PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, TO AMEND FEES WHEREAS, Iowa City Code section 3 -4 -7: Public Transportation: sets the Amount of Fee for various Transit matters; and WHEREAS, effective July 1, 2012 Transit operations will no longer be included in the General Fund budget; and WHEREAS, Transit operations wish to attain a goal of user fees covering 30% - 35% of actual operating costs; and WHEREAS, the last transit fee increase was on July 1, 1996; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. AMENDMENTS. TITLE 3, FINANCES TAXATION AND FEES, CHAPTER 4, SCHEDULE OF FEES, RATES, CHARGES, BONDS, FINES, AND PENALTIES, SECTION 7, PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION: is hereby amended by deleting it in its entirety and replacing it as follows: 3-4 -7: PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION: Description of Fee, Charge, Fine or Penalty General fares and rates: 4mount of Fee, Charge, Fine or 2enalty Standard fare, general public _. 1.00 24 hour pass 2.00 Children (K -12) 0.75 Children under 5 years old Free School Field Trip (per person) 0.75 Bus Passes: 31 -Day Pass (Adult, 18 years old and up) 32.00 31-Day-Pass (Youth, K -12) 27.00 31 -Day Pass (Bulk sales) 28.00 31 -Day Pass (Low Income) 27.00 31 -Day Pass (City Employee) Half Price of 31 -Day Pass (Adult) ... ......... .. ......_. ..................... _.__ ................... 10 -Ride Pass I 450 20 -Ride Pass (University of Iowa) 17.00 -- I ............... ... 11- .................................... . ......... _ ........................... University of Iowa Semester Pass (Prorated) ...... . 100.00 Kirkwood Semester Pass (Prorated) 10 0. 00 Youth Semester Pass (K -12, Prorated) ( 100.00 ..__... Ordinance No. 12 -4474 Page 2 _. Special fares: Elderly y persons (off peak only, 60+ years) 0.50 Elderly Low Income (off peak only, pass required) Free Person with Disability (off peak only, pass required) Free Saturday Family Fare (Up to 2 adults and 2 children) 1.00 __..__ ......... ._...._...__ . Bicvcle Lockers: Annual (Prorated) 75.00 .___..... ..... .. .. _._..._.. ..... _.. ._ .... _....... _ .... .. _..... Miscellaneous: Use of City Vehicle and Operator Fully allocated cost per hour __.... . - ._.... _.__ ........... . -_..__ ...._. -_._._ ._..�.. _. - _._....... - �._ _ ............. Bus and Shop .35 ------- ._._.. 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 on July 1, 2012. Passed and approved this 3rd day of April , 2012. AAA2kf A- MAYOR ATTEST: CITY 'CLERK Approved by - � 401 -7 City Attorney's Office Ordinance No. 12 -4474 Page 3 It was moved by Champion and seconded by Dickens Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: x Champion x Dickens x Dobyns x Hayek x Mims Payne x Throgmorton that the First Consideration 3/6/2012 Vote for passage: AYES: Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns, Hayek, Mims, Payne. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration 3/20/2012 Voteforpassage: AYES: Dickens, Dobyns, Mims, Payne, Throgmorton, Champion. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Hayek. Date published 4/12/2012