The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2012-11-13 Ordinance=6d4 Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319- 356 -5240 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY MEDIUM - DENSITY SINGLE - FAMILY (OPD -8) PLAN FOR SADDLEBROOK MEADOWS PART 1 TO ADD A SINGLE -STORY RANCH - STYLE HOUSE PLAN TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED OPD PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT WHISPERING MEADOWS DRIVE AND PINTO LANE. (REZ12- 00022) WHEREAS, the applicant, Saddlebrook Meadows Development, has requested a rezoning to amend the Planned Development Overlay Medium - Density Single - Family (OPD-8) Plan for Saddlebrook Meadows Part 1 to add a single -story ranch -style house plan to the previously approved OPD plan for property located at Whispering Meadows Drive and Pinto Lane; and WHEREAS, the previously approved OPD plan for Saddlebrook Meadows includes three to seven models of single - family homes, all of which have two stories; and WHEREAS, the applicant has requested the option of replacing up to six of the two -story models with one -story dwellings to provide for more affordable units and dwellings on a single floor; and WHEREAS, the approved single - family lots are considerably smaller and narrower than what is typically allowed in the underlying Medium - Density Single - Family (RS -8) zone, and, due to the presence of alleys, the models include a mix of attached and detached garages, which results in less usable yard space than in most newer neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the proposed house models will include full -width front porches that will be a minimum of 8- feet deep to provide for usable outdoor space; and WHEREAS, the previously approved OPD Plan included a variety of house models and required that identical models not be repeated next to each other, a condition that also applies to the revised plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has the reviewed the proposed rezoning and has recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I APPROVAL. The Planned Development Overlay Plan for the property legally described below is hereby amended to allow for the addition of a single -story ranch -style house plan, as shown on the plan attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference: THE SADDLEBROOK MEADOWS PART ONE SUBDIVISION, AS RECORDED IN BOOK 3846, PAGE 747, BY THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA 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 '4� �AQc�) City Attorney's Office /d //T- //,,7 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 11/13/2012 Voteforpassage: AYES: Hayek, Mims, Payne, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration _ Vote for passage: Date published Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5240 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY MEDIUM - DENSITY SINGLE - FAMILY (OPD -8) PLAN FOR SADDLEBROOK MEADOWS PART 1 T ADD A SINGLE -STORY RANCH - STYLE HOUSE PLAN TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED OPD P FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT WHISPERING MEADOWS DRIVE AND PINTO LANE. (REZ12 -00022 WHEREAS, the applicant, Saddlebrook Meadows Development, h s requested a rezoning to amend the Planned Develop ent Overlay Medium - Density Single - Family (OPD - )Plan for Saddlebrook Meadows Part 1 to add asingle -s ry ranch -style house plan to the previously app oved OPD plan for property located at Whispering Meadow rive and Pinto Lane; and WHEREAS, the p viously approved OPD plan for Saddleb ok Meadows includes three to seven models of single - family h es, all of which have two stories; and WHEREAS, the applic t has requested the option of replac' g up to six of the two -story models with one -story dwellings to provide r more affordable units and dwelli gs on a single floor; and WHEREAS, the approved si le- family lots are considerabl smaller and narrower than what is typically allowed in the underlying Medium- nsity Single - Family (RS -8) one, and, due to the presence of alleys, the models include a mix of attached a detached garages, wh' h results in less usable yard space than in most newer neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the proposed house mo Is will include full- idth front porches that will be a minimum of 8- feet deep to provide for usable outdoor spac - and WHEREAS, the previously approved OP Plan incl ed a variety of house models and required that identical models not be repeated next to each of r, a co ition that also applies to the revised plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Comm sio has the reviewed the proposed rezoning and has recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE Cl OUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I APPROVAL. The Planned Develop ent verlay Plan for the property described below be is hereby amended to allow for the addition of a sing) story ra ch -style house plan: THE SADDLEBROOK MEADOWS PART ONV SUBDIVISION, AS RECORDED IN BOOK 3846, PAGE 747, BY THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The Buil ing Inspector is hereby auth rized and directed to change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, /to conform to this amendment \,altlprovided al passage, approval and publication of this ordinance by law. SECTION III. CERTIFICATION AN RECORDING. Upon passage aof the Ordinance, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and dire ted to certify a copy of this ordinancord the same, at the office of the County Recorder of Johns n County, Iowa, at the owner's experovided by law. SECTION IV. REPEALER. All o inances and parts of ordinances in the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION V. SEVERABILITY. any section, provision or part of the Oha be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such a udication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof t adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION VI. EFFECTIVE ATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Approved by ca --- STAFF REPORT To: Planning and Zoning Commission Item: REZ12 -00022 Saddlebrook Meadows GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Contact Person: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: File Date: 45 -Day Limitation Period: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Prepared by: Robert Miklo Date: October 4, 2012 Saddlebrook Meadows Development Inc. 2871 Heinz Road Suite B Iowa City, IA 52240 Steve Gordon Rezoning to amend OPD plan for Saddle Brook Meadows Part 1. To add a one story ranch style model to the approved models for OPD plan. Whispering Meadows Drive and Pinto Lane Approximately 8 acres Residential - OPD -8 North: Residential — RS 12 East: Residential — OPD /RS12 South: Agricultural /undeveloped — RS8 West: Agricultural /undeveloped — RS8 South District Plan — duplex and single family September 12, 2012 October 27, 2012 The Planned Development Overlay Plan for Saddlebrook Meadow Part 1 was approved in 2004. The originally approved plan (copy enclosed) included 18 two -story single - family dwellings on small lots (numbers 22 -26, 33 -37, 39 -43 and 45 -47), 20 zero -lot line dwellings (numbers 1 -20), 3 duplexes (number 21, 38 and 44) and 6 townhouses (numbers 27 -32). The applicant proposes changing up to six of the two -story single family models to single story ranch style houses (drawings enclosed). The other aspects of the plan would not change. The applicant has elected not to use the Good Neighbor Policy. ANALYSIS: K The originally approved OPD plan for Saddlebrook Meadows includes three to seven models of single - family homes. All of the single - family models are two stories. To provide for more affordable units and dwellings on a single floor, the applicant has requested the option of replacing up to six of the two story models with one -story dwellings. The approved single family lots are considerably smaller and narrower than what is typically allowed in the underlying Medium Density Single Family (RS -8) zone. They are also served by alleys with some models including attached garages and others with detached garages. As a result there is less usable yard space than typically found in newer neighborhoods. To address this and to provide for usable outdoor space the proposed house models include full width front porches that will be a minimum of 8 feet deep. The original plan included a variety of house models and requirements that identical models not be repeated next to each other. This condition will be also apply to the revised plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that REZ12 -00022 an amendment to the preliminary Planned Development Overlay (ODP) Plan for Saddlebrook Meadows Part I to allow up to six single story models be approved. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Previously approved plan. 3. Building elevations. C Approved by: w �- Jeff Davidson, Director, Department of Planning and Community Development J silvin z 3ivdj dd00 '"Ali 3 N C z O IPLE CROWN LN II (L U) � N W H G N 1 L� SN�ftE�1 ocr I � T II J�o ONVlsm II 10 NV08019 lfi0 A3NA0VF,� 10 ANOdOIOd ol ,f a I a I 0 30VSS3 10 NVI8V2V 21 O I Il___ -_ I I FID 3SOONVd V 0 3lddV�� [ 10 ZN31 _...._. _.._. i co CL t � w J 3 N �1 -ad 0 TL E Cr L Q) , N T cn z o � a 0 � W 0. G� W N 0 I �--v O 0 V) 0 1-4 L '0� ro� 00 z o li z t till z - 24' f lv&/,kvm>nvm— 620 li Room p u�FWI I wlmmmffiffi�� in 0110,019 u 1 1 t1 �I it N O _ LU J W H z O LL M M W M H it�e� o 0 0 O O z 0 W z 10 CD z� n m O Z _O F- LU J W F- z 0 H NJ L:6e Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5240 (REZ12- 00023) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE CONDITIONALLY REZONING APPROXIMATELY 1.38 ACRES LOCATED AT 1030 WILLIAM STREET FROM COMMERCIAL OFFICE (CO -1) TO MEDIUM - DENSITY MULTI - FAMILY (RM- 20). (REZ12- 00023) WHEREAS, the applicant, 3 Diamond Development, L.L.C., has requested a rezoning of property located at 1030 William Street from Commercial Office (CO -1) to Medium - Density Multi - Family (RM -20); and WHEREAS, the Southeast District Plan encourages redevelopment and reinvestment of the Towncrest area, and specifies that new development in the area should incorporate a diversity of uses, mixed vertically within buildings and horizontally along a network of streets, and include apartment buildings, live -work and residential townhouses to transition from any new development to the detached single - family neighborhood surrounding Towncrest; and WHEREAS, the applicant intends to redevelop this site with apartments designed for and occupied by elders and /or persons with disabilities, a use that is compatible with and complementary to the nearby retail services and medical offices in the area; and WHEREAS, this intended use is a new use for the area, thereby furthering the goal of mixed uses throughout the Towncrest area; and WHEREAS, this redevelopment will set an example to encourage further reinvestment and redevelopment in this area; and WHEREAS, there is a demonstrated need for elderly housing within Iowa City and the Towncrest area, and a conditional zoning agreement will ensure the apartments will be reserved for and occupied by elders and /or persons with disabilities; and WHEREAS, the subject property is within the Towncrest Design Review Overlay District and therefore the final design must be approved by the City's Design Review Committee according to the Towncrest Design Plan Manual; WHEREAS, members of the public and the Planning and Zoning Commission expressed concern over the lack of usable private and semi - private green space for the residents as called for in the Southeast District Plan and therefore recommend as a condition of the rezoning that a landscaping plan illustrating how usable outdoor greenspace will be incorporated into the development be submitted as a component of the developer's application for Design Review; 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 Office Commercial (CO -1) with a Design Review Overlay (ODR) to Medium Density Multi- Family Residential (RM -20) with a Design Review Overlay (ODR): LEGAL DESCRIPTION The west half of Lot 7, Block 3, Towncrest Addition, Iowa City, Iowa ,according to the recorded plat thereof, excepting any portion of said Lot 7 falling within the following described tract of land: Commencing at an iron pin marking the northwest corner of Block 3, Towncrest Addition to Iowa City, Iowa according to the Plat thereof recorded in Book 4, Page 323 Johnson County Recorder's Records; thence on an assumed bearing of south 140.00 feet along the west line of said Block 3 to a P -K nail marking the Point of Beginning; thence continuing south 144.40 feet along the said west line of Block 3 to an iron pin; thence South 90 000'00" East 50.43 feet to an iron pin; thence south 6.00 feet to a P -K nail; thence South 90 000'00" Ordinance No. Page 2 East 95.45 feet to a P -K nail on the west line of the existing building; thence north 6.67 feet along said west building line to the centerline of an east -west common wall; thence South 90 000'00" East 44.63 feet along said common wall centerline and its easterly extension to a P -K nail on the east line of the said west one half of Lot 7; thence North 0 007'20" West 146.92 feet along the east line of said west one half of Lot 7 and its northerly extension of a P -K nail; thence South 89 003'00" West 190.22 feet to the Point of Beginning (1030 William Street). 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 12012. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK App oved by City Attorney's Office �� /,7 /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 11/13/2012 Voteforpassage: AYES: Mims, Payne, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns, Hayek. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration _ Vote for passage: Date published Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356 -5240 (REZ12- 00023) CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City "), and Towncrest Investments, L.P. (hereinafter "Owner "), and 3 Diamond Development, L.L.C. (hereinafter "Applicant "). WHEREAS, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 1.38 acres of property located at 1030 William Street, Iowa City, Iowa; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested the rezoning of said property from Commercial Office (ODR -CO -1) to Medium - Density Multi - Family Residential (ODR- RM -20); and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate conditions ensuring the apartments will be reserved for and occupied by elders and /or persons with disabilities, and ensuring the adequate provision of private and semi - private outdoor spaces as called for in the Southeast District Plan, as determined by staff through the design review process, 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 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 Southeast District Plan; and WHEREAS, the Owner and Applicant agree to develop said 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. Towncrest Investments, L.P. is the legal title holder of the property legally described as: The west half of Lot 7, Block 3, Towncrest Addition, Iowa City, Iowa ,according to the recorded plat thereof, excepting any portion of said Lot 7 falling within the following described tract of land: Commencing at an iron pin marking the northwest corner of Block 3, Towncrest Addition to Iowa City, Iowa according to the Plat thereof recorded in Book 4, Page 323 Johnson County Recorder's Records; thence on an assumed bearing of south 140.00 feet along the west line of said Block 3 to a P -K nail marking the Point of Beginning; thence continuing south 144.40 feet along the said west line of Block 3 to an iron pin; thence South 90 000'00" East 50.43 feet to an iron pin; thence south 6.00 feet to a P -K nail; thence South 90 °00'00" East 95.45 feet to a P -K nail on the west line of the existing building; thence north 6.67 feet along said west building line to the centerline of an east -west common wall; thence South 90 °00'00" East 44.63 feet along said common wall centerline and its easterly extension to a P -K nail on the east line of the said west one half of Lot 7; thence North 0 007'20" West 146.92 feet along the east line of said west one half of Lot 7 and its northerly extension of a P -K nail; thence South 89 °03'00" West 190.22 feet to the Point of Beginning (1030 William Street). 1 of 4 2. The Owner and Applicant acknowledge that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles of the. Comprehensive Plan, specifically the Southeast 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: a. Uses shall be restricted to elder apartment housing, as defined in the Iowa City Code of Ordinances; and b. There shall be no vehicular drive between the building and the southern property line; and c. Private and semi - private outdoor spaces will be provided in accordance with the Southeast District Plan, the size and location of which is to be determined by staff through the design review process. 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 , 2012. CITY OF IOWA CITY Matthew J. Hayek, Mayor 2of4 3 Diamond Development. L.L.C., APPLICANT (Name, Title) Attest: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk Approved by: City Attorney's Office CITY OF IOWA CITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) Towncrest Investments, L.P., OWNER am--e, Tit e)- =-- - -� � This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2012, 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) APPLICANT A�C�KN OWLEDGEMENT: STATE OF ..�b j ) -) ss: pAM COUNTY ) This instrument was acknowledged before me Svh,a r� t o f.. \ [name] ash -1)""- i- P*47name of business]. Notary Pu on IV vv-,-w• 4v.;- I 3� , 2012 by (Stamp or Seal) Title (and Rank) 3 of 4 cW U Lt , ro [title] of said County and State ,42tj JEFF VANATTER W1Commission Number 705313 M Coo , on�Expir0 OWNER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: STATE OF sA ) ) ss: 5� (150L COUNTY ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on l ( - � ' 12 , 2012 by i3 �s1OfaP bDr nname] as [title] of Wn [name of business]. Ncl4y Public in and for said County and State (Stamp or Seal) Title (and Rank) 4 of 4 Phoebe Martin NoterW W, Iowa CmvnM n # 78W7 My 2nm—b#9 Bow— &— AN ORDINANCE CONDITIONALLY REZONING APPROXIMATELY 1.38 ACRES LOCATE131AT 1030 WILLIAM STREET FROM COMMERCIAL OFFICE (CO -1) TO MEDIUM - DENSITY MULTI - FAMILY (RM- 20). (REZ12 -00023) WHEREAS, the applicant, 3 Diamond Development, has requ ted a rezoning of property located at 1030 William Street from Commercial Office (CO -1) to Medium -Dens' Multi - Family (RM -20); and WHEREAS, the Southea District Plan encourages redevelop ent and reinvestment of the Towncrest area, and specifies that new de lopment in the area should incorp rate a diversity of uses, mixed vertically within buildings and horizontally a ng a network of streets, and in lude apartment buildings, live -work and residential townhouses to transition om any new development t the detached single - family neighborhood surrounding Towncrest; and WHEREAS, the proposed elderly a rtment housing is con stent with the Comprehensive Plan goal to encourage residential uses that are devel ed in a manner con Istent with the mixed -use pattern envisioned for the Towncrest Area; and WHEREAS, replacement of an older offi building that i sitting largely vacant with a new, high - quality residential building will set an example that will 'kely encour ge further reinvestment and redevelopment in this area; and WHEREAS, the proposed building will be spe ' ically esigned for the elderly, a population that would benefit from the mix of retail services and medical offs s' the area; and WHEREAS, there is a demonstrated need for elde housing within Iowa City and the Towncrest area, and a conditional zoning agreement will ensure the ap ents will be reserved for and occupied by elders and /or persons with disabilities; and WHEREAS, the subject property is within the T ncres Design Review Overlay District and therefore the final design must be approved by the City's esign Re 'ew Committee according to the Towncrest Design Plan Manual; WHEREAS, members of the public and the P anning and Zo 'ng Commission expressed concern over the lack of usable private and semi - private gre n space for the r sidents as called for in the Southeast District Plan and therefore recommend as a co ition of the rezoning at a landscaping plan illustrating how usable outdoor greenspace will be incorporat into the development a submitted as a component of the developer's application for Design Review; an WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning ommission has the reviewe the proposed rezoning and has recommended approval, subject to a conditi nal zoning agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED Y THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CI OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I APPROVAL. Property described below is hereby reclassif1 from its current zoning designation of Office Commercial (CO 1) with a Design Review Overlay (ODR) to Medium Density Multi - Family Residential (RM -20) with a Des' n Review Overlay(ODR): LEGAL DESCRIPTION better legal description) need a SECTION II. ZONING AP. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map of the City of owa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and publication of this o, dinance 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. � v Zc —i _E: r-J Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 -356-- �"2PE;g.2- 0002.__. ORDINANCE NO. %;"' n AN ORDINANCE CONDITIONALLY REZONING APPROXIMATELY 1.38 ACRES LOCATE131AT 1030 WILLIAM STREET FROM COMMERCIAL OFFICE (CO -1) TO MEDIUM - DENSITY MULTI - FAMILY (RM- 20). (REZ12 -00023) WHEREAS, the applicant, 3 Diamond Development, has requ ted a rezoning of property located at 1030 William Street from Commercial Office (CO -1) to Medium -Dens' Multi - Family (RM -20); and WHEREAS, the Southea District Plan encourages redevelop ent and reinvestment of the Towncrest area, and specifies that new de lopment in the area should incorp rate a diversity of uses, mixed vertically within buildings and horizontally a ng a network of streets, and in lude apartment buildings, live -work and residential townhouses to transition om any new development t the detached single - family neighborhood surrounding Towncrest; and WHEREAS, the proposed elderly a rtment housing is con stent with the Comprehensive Plan goal to encourage residential uses that are devel ed in a manner con Istent with the mixed -use pattern envisioned for the Towncrest Area; and WHEREAS, replacement of an older offi building that i sitting largely vacant with a new, high - quality residential building will set an example that will 'kely encour ge further reinvestment and redevelopment in this area; and WHEREAS, the proposed building will be spe ' ically esigned for the elderly, a population that would benefit from the mix of retail services and medical offs s' the area; and WHEREAS, there is a demonstrated need for elde housing within Iowa City and the Towncrest area, and a conditional zoning agreement will ensure the ap ents will be reserved for and occupied by elders and /or persons with disabilities; and WHEREAS, the subject property is within the T ncres Design Review Overlay District and therefore the final design must be approved by the City's esign Re 'ew Committee according to the Towncrest Design Plan Manual; WHEREAS, members of the public and the P anning and Zo 'ng Commission expressed concern over the lack of usable private and semi - private gre n space for the r sidents as called for in the Southeast District Plan and therefore recommend as a co ition of the rezoning at a landscaping plan illustrating how usable outdoor greenspace will be incorporat into the development a submitted as a component of the developer's application for Design Review; an WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning ommission has the reviewe the proposed rezoning and has recommended approval, subject to a conditi nal zoning agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED Y THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CI OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I APPROVAL. Property described below is hereby reclassif1 from its current zoning designation of Office Commercial (CO 1) with a Design Review Overlay (ODR) to Medium Density Multi - Family Residential (RM -20) with a Des' n Review Overlay(ODR): LEGAL DESCRIPTION better legal description) need a SECTION II. ZONING AP. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map of the City of owa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and publication of this o, dinance 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. Ordinance No. Page 2 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 issage, approval and F), Co STAFF REPORT To: Planning and Zoning Commission Prepared by: Karen Howard Item: REZ12 -00023 Date: October 4, 2012 1030 William Street GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: 3 Diamond Development 7444 Long Avenue Skokie, III., 60077 Contact Person: Ben Porush 847- 677 -7206 ext. 1009 bporush @3diamonddevelopment.com Requested Action: Rezoning from Commercial Office (ODR - CO -1) to Medium Density Multi - Family Residential (ODR- RM -20). Property would remain in the Towncrest Design Review Overlay District. Purpose: To allow for development of elder apartment housing Location: 1030 William Street Size: 1.38 acres Existing Land Use and Zoning: offices; ODR -CO -1 (Commercial Office with a Design Review Overlay) Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: redevelopment site; Design Review Overlay Community Commercial (ODR- CC -2); Medium Density Multi - Family Residential (RM -20) South: detached single family homes; Low - Density Single - Family Residential (RS -5) East: offices and apartments; Design Review Overlay Medium - Density Multi- Family Residential and Commercial Office (ODR -RM -20 & ODR -CO -1) West: bank and offices; Design Review Overlay — Commercial Office Comprehensive Plan: Southeast District Plan, Mixed Use 2 File Date: September 13, 2012 45 -Day Limitation Period: October 28, 2012 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The subject 1.38 -acre property at 1030 William Street is located in the Towncrest Urban Renewal Area and is currently developed as an office building. While the existing building contains a few offices, it is largely vacant and in poor condition. The applicant, 3 Diamond Development, is proposing to redevelop the property by demolishing the existing building and constructing a 41- unit elderly apartment building. Their application states that the "close proximity of medical offices, grocery stores, pharmacies, and single family homes makes this an ideal location for senior housing." The Towncrest Commercial Area, located at the intersection of 1 st Avenue and Muscatine Avenue, was originally developed in the 1960s with an emphasis on medical offices, but has evolved over the years to include a mix of neighborhood - serving commercial uses — a grocery store, pharmacies, banks, gas stations and other small shops. While most of these businesses are thriving, the original office area located south of Muscatine has deteriorated over time due to a lack of reinvestment in the buildings and the infrastructure. Through an extensive planning effort conducted by the City with area businesses and residents, the City adopted a number of new policies and strategies to encourage reinvestment in and redevelopment of Towncrest, including designating Towncrest an urban renewal area, which allows the City to offer economic development assistance to worthy projects, and adopting a Design Plan, which establishes design guidelines for redevelopment. ANALYSIS: Current and proposed zoning The subject property is currently zoned Commercial Office (CO -1) and is within a Design Review Overlay District. The purpose of the CO -1 Zone is to provide specific areas where office functions, compatible businesses, apartments and certain public and semi - public uses may be developed in accordance with the comprehensive plan. This zone often serves as a buffer or transition between residential areas and more intensive commercial or industrial areas. While residential apartments are allowed in the CO -1 Zone, they must be located above ground floor commercial space. The property is also subject to the provisions of the Towncrest Design Review District. The design of any new building constructed in the Design Review District must be approved by the Design Review Committee according to the standards set forth in the Towncrest Design Plan Manual. The applicant has requested that the property be rezoned to Medium Density Multi - Family Residential (RM -20). The purpose of this zone is to provide for multi - family development at a density of approximately 24 units per acre. As stated in the zoning code, "this zone is particularly well suited to locations adjacent to commercial areas and in areas with good access to all City services and facilities." The City also recently adopted a density bonus for elderly housing that would allow up to 25% more units over the base density allowed in the zone if the apartment units meet the standards for this bonus as stated in the zoning code. The applicant's proposal for 41 units of elderly apartment housing is consistent with the stated purpose of the medium density multi - family zone. The Towncrest area is directly adjacent to many businesses that would meet the daily needs for area residents, including groceries, banking services, pharmacies, and doctor's offices. Based on the lot size, RM -20 Zoning would allow 33 3 apartments to be developed. With the elder apartment housing density bonus up to 41 apartments could be built. Typically, a single property cannot be rezoned to a zoning designation that is different than all the immediately surrounding properties (spot zoning), unless the rezoning is consistent with adopted comprehensive plan policies that indicate the area is intended to transition over time to this new zoning pattern. Consistency with the stated comprehensive plan goals for Towncrest are outlined in the following section. Comprehensive Plan The Southeast District Plan, adopted in 2011, encourages reinvestment and redevelopment of the Towncrest area. The Southeast District Plan future land -use scenario map shows 1030 William Street as "mixed use." The plan states that "new development in Towncrest should incorporate a diversity of uses, mixed both vertically within buildings and horizontally along a network of streets. Apartment buildings, live -work and residential townhouses should be used to transition from any new development to the detached single - family neighborhood surrounding Towncrest." Most commercial zones within the City, including the CO -1 Zone allow "vertically" mixed buildings, with commercial on the ground floor and apartments on the floors above. The Towncrest plan also encourages uses to be mixed "horizontally," which means that residential buildings can be located adjacent to commercial buildings and offices along the same street frontage. The long -term goal for Towncrest is to create a new medium - density, mixed -use zone that would allow this type of horizontal mixing of uses. However, since this zone has not yet been created, staff finds that proposals for redevelopment within the Towncrest area that are consistent with this long term goal should be viewed favorably. The Southeast District Plan contains a number of specific goals and objectives for Towncrest to achieve the transformation envisioned in the plan. The goals and objectives particularly relevant to this rezoning are listed below: -Goal 2, Objective b. — Explore zoning changes that will support and encourage mixed -use development throughout the Towncrest Area. The mixed -use development could combine retail, office, and residential uses. *Goal 3: Expand residential uses to the area to support and expand office and commercial uses in the area.. *Goal 3, Objective a. Work to create a unique and diverse style of residential development in the area — focusing on affordable housing for those who currently live in the area and others who desire an urban living alternative to Downtown Iowa City. *Goal 4: Encourage reinvestment and redevelopment. *Goal 4, Objective c. Develop a plan to address the declining condition a negative impressions of the apartment buildings in the area. Staff finds that the proposed elderly apartment housing is consistent with the comprehensive plan goal to encourage residential uses that are developed in a manner consistent with a horizontally mixed -use zoning pattern envisioned for the Towncrest Area. The proposed building will be specifically designed for a population that would benefit from the mix of retail services and medical offices in the area. Replacement of an older office building that is sitting largely vacant with a new high quality residential building will set an example that will likely encourage further reinvestment and redevelopment in this area. However, there was considerable public concern expressed about the condition of some of the apartments in the Towncrest area and that any new apartments be 4 carefully designed to meet the housing needs of the residents and that will be maintained over time as an integral part of the Towncrest area in a manner that is sensitive to the larger residential neighborhood that surrounds Towncrest. Since elderly housing is clearly a need within this community and the Towncrest area, with all its amenities is particularly suited to meet the needs of elderly citizens, staff recommends that the applicant and the City enter into a conditional zoning agreement that will ensure that the apartments be reserved for and occupied by elders and /or persons with disabilities. Compatibility with neighborhood For the various reasons stated above, staff finds that elder apartment housing would be compatible with the neighborhood. However, staff notes that the properties directly to the south of 1030 William Street are small detached single family homes. The conceptual site plan submitted by the applicant illustrates two driveways extending from William Street to a rear parking lot. One of these drives is directly adjacent to the back yards of the single family homes that front on Wayne Avenue. Staff has discussed and the applicant agrees that it would be better if the southernmost drive is eliminated and instead landscaped open space is developed in this area as a means of preserving the privacy and residential character of that abutting backyard space. The gas station property directly to the north of the subject property is also proposed for redevelopment as a new medical office building designed to modern office standards. The street right -of -way along William Street will likely need to be widened to accommodate the desired pedestrian- oriented streetscape with perpendicular on- street parking for this commercial redevelopment. Staff notes that when both of these properties are developed the streetscaping should be coordinated so that the sidewalk location is logical and consistent along the William Street frontage. Summary For the reasons stated above, staff finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Southeast District Plan and the Towncrest Urban Renewal Plan. Redevelopment of this property will likely encourage further reinvestment and redevelopment in Towncrest. The property should be developed in a manner that is consistent with the Towncrest Design Plan and in a manner that will maintain the residential character and privacy of neighboring single family homes. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of REZ12- 00023, a rezoning of an approximately 1.38 -acre property located at 1030 William Street from ODR -CO -1 to ODR- RM -20, subject to a conditional zoning agreement that specifies that the apartments will be reserved for and occupied by elders or persons with disabilities and that no drives or parking will be allowed between the building and the south property line and that this same area should be preserved as landscaped open space. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location map 2. Aerial photo 3. Concept plans for the site and the building Approved by: �/- Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development Fol 1A t LLL F 77-7 , I T1 E 7� r. - LLI LJ UJI LU F- w LU w F- U) AMAN e% %mllli` w SITE AREA: 1.36 ACRES (59,361 SQ.F.T) PROPOSED SITE PLAN n1 BUILDING FOOTPRINT: 15,011 SQ. FT. PARKING: 46 SPACES (2 ACCESSIBLE) 1 '=30'-O' @ 11°X17" LOADING: I SPACE DIAMOND SENIOR APARTMENTS BEHLES+BEHLES architftturainteiiordesignplanning IOWA CITY TOWNCREST W12-11 M x JZ 0 a °m 0� � ��z „ p Z z � d U `- 'AzNpQ OZ p �N °tea ~N�o => > j U 7 = } Wo��wo °dwao f z w ww�za -, F-CmU !9 ^ 0RT or N I N ANN r aD N N N N N N W d Sm �R' W �O(¢¢7 Oy~O�K mz 0,0 m �00 z�U'Qy U' y�wvi�y ~44amzz�- mzaw I k ;..!o Oo as i -L 'n i3mU ZZ E� o ci Q) N N M N r z z m ::, Zmm 7 r N z z vi 00� dwwF- m m Z ftLE dada mmmm 000� 0000 m¢., 0000 OJ Jo z N LL LL LL is s ~ z w J � � N N M m mss. -- i I J 2 W ! Im W m e Hill R 1� C/) W U Z 0 U a O I Z W 5 a a O W W w W, LM E LLI J LLLLCII o xz a, O—N-0. zz d d p F? 2 z :3 D S 22 oo P f? z z n D V) 0 g 0 g 0 0 1001-- LU W Fy 0wz N D ft Ek aaaa 0) U) d 4 1 De x 000 X O0 °? C3 15 N2z m c') LU —J.5 UJ.9 Luj Im . gill W It L) Z 5: 0 0 7 cn Z O cr) From: Laurie Wyatt <lauriewyatt @hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 1:03 PM To: PlanningZoning Public Subject: Concerned about the development of Elderly Care Home on William To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to voice my concerns about the possibility of the rezoning and development of an Elderly Care Home on William Street. I am a homeowner on Wayne Ave and live just around the corner. I am concerned that at some point this would not be used as an elderly care home but would in fact be an apartment building which is an entirely different monster. Is there anything barring this 3 Diamond company from turning this into a multi family complex? Having any apartment building in our direct vicinity would bring down property value and bring up safety concerns because of the transient nature of apartment living. Although I am not able to be at the meeting tomorrow night due to prior obligations, I want to voice my concerns and my lack of trust that this will be of any benefit to our neighborhood. Best, Laurie Wyatt 319 - 512 -8991 Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356 -5240 (REZ12- 00023) CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT THIS AG EEMENT is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City "), and Towncrest Investments, L.P. (hereinafter "Owner "), and 3 Diamond Development, L.L.C. (hereinafter "Applicant "). WHEREAS, Owner is the legal title holder of approximate 1.38 acres of property located at 1030 William St et, Iowa City, Iowa; and WHEREAS, thX Applicant has requested the rezopfng of said property from Commercial Office (ODR -CO -1) to \ning sity Multi - Family Resi ntial (ODR- RM -20); and WHEREAS, thand Zoning Com ' sion has determined that, with appropriate conditions ensuring ths will be reserve or and occupied by elders and /or persons with disabilities, and ensurquate provisio of private and semi - private outdoor spaces as called for in the SouthPlan, as dete ined by staff through the design review process, the requested zoning i 'th the Co prehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, Iowa Code §41t.15\(211) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting an plicant's rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy public nee caused by the requested change; and WHEREAS, the Owner and plican acknowledge that certain conditions and restrictions are reasonable to ensure the deve pment o1\ the property is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the need for compatibility ith the Sou east District Plan; and WHEREAS, the Owner ;4d Applicant agree o develop said property in accordance with the terms and conditions of a Con tional Zoning Agree nt. NOW, THEREFORE, in cora(sideration of the mutual p ises contained herein, the parties agree as follows: \ 1. Towncrest Invesfents, L.P. is the legal title holder of\the property legally described as: The west half of t 7, Block 3, Towncrest Addition, Iowa , Iowa ,according to the recorded plat thereof, excepti any portion of said Lot 7 falling within the fo wing described tract of land: Commencing at an ' on pin marking the northwest corner of Block 3, Towncrest Addition to Iowa City, Iowa according t the Plat thereof recorded in Book 4, Page 32 \ofLot son County Recorder's Records; thence n an assumed bearing of south 140.00 feet along tt line of said Block 3 to a P -K nail markin the Point of Beginning; thence continuing south 144 along the said west line of Block 3 to iron pin; thence South 90 °00'00" East 50.43 feet to n pin; thence south 6.00 feet to a P- nail; thence South 90 000'00" East 95.45 feet to a P on the west line of the existing buil ng; thence north 6.67 feet along said west building line t terline of an east -west common w II; thence South 90 000'00" East 44.63 feet along said n all centerline and its easterly a ension to a P -K nail on the east line of the said west of o Lot 7; thence North 0 007'20" West 146.92 feet along the east line of said west one Lot and its northerly extension of a P -K nail; thence South 89 °03'00" West 190.22 feet toint Beginning (1030 William Street). 1 of 4 2. The Owner and Applicant acknowledge that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles of the Comprehensive Plan, specifically the Southeast District Plan. Further, the parties acknowledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (2011) provides that the City of Iowa City ay impose reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over a above the�xisting regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requesteodhange. 3. In con kderation of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owner and Ap icant agree that develop ent of the subject property will conform to all other require ents of the zoning chapter, a well as the following conditions: a. Uses all be restricted to elder apartment /na ned in the Iowa City Code of Ordin nces; and b. There sh \desi vehicular drive between he southern property line; and c. Private i- private outdoor spaces in accordance with the Southeat Plan, the size and locato be determined by staff through tn review process. 4. The Owner, Applicant, a \Cit that the conditions contained herein are reasonable conditions to i rider Iowa Code §414.5 (2011), and that said conditions satisfy public nby the requested zoning change. 5. The Owner, Applicant, a that in the event the subject property is transferred, sold, redevelol redevelopment will conform with the terms o f this Conditional Zoning Agreeme 6. The parties acknowledge that t s Condltl covenant running with the Ian and with ti effect as a covenant with titl to the land, Iowa City. it Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be a to the land, and shall remain in full force and Jess or until released of record by the City of The parties further ackncyGvledge that this agreemNt shall inure to the benefit of and bind all successors, represents ves, and assigns of the pa es. 7. The Owner and App cant acknowledge that nothing i this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construe to relieve the Owner or Applica from complying with all other applicable local, s te, and federal regulations. 8. The parties a ee that this Conditional Zoning Agreeme t shall be incorporated by reference into the ordinance rezoning the subject property, a d that upon adoption and publication o the ordinance, this agreement shall be recorde in the Johnson County Recorder's ffice at the Applicant's expense. Dated this day of 12012. CITY OF IOW CITY 3 Diamond Development. %L., APPLICANT Matthew J. Hayek, Mayor 2 of 4 (Name, Title) I Attest: Marian K. Kar City Clerk Approved by: rney's Office "00— CITY OF IOWA CITY ACKN WLE STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) This instrument was acknowledged and Marian K. Karr as Mayor and C APPLICANT ACKNOWL STATE OF ) COUNTY ) This instrument w, DGEMENT: MENT: Towncrest Investments, L F.., OWNER (Name, Title) me on , 2012, by Matthew J. Hayek <, respectively, of the City of Iowa City. otary Public in and for the State of Iowa (St p or Seal) Title ( d Rank) acknowledged before me [name] as _ [naghe of business]. Notary Public in and for (Stamp or Seal) Title (and Rank) 3 of 4 2012 by [title] of County and State 4of4 by of Z Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5240 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, ZONING CODE, ARTICLE 4C, ACCESSORY USES AND BUILDINGS, TO ALLOW FOR THE KEEPING OF CHICKENS AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED USES AND TO REFERENCE STANDARDS FOR STRUCTURES FOR THE KEEPING OF CHICKENS. WHEREAS, a large number of Iowa City residents, as evidenced by a petition submitted to City Council on July 10, 2012, have expressed interest in allowing chickens in residential zones; and WHEREAS, the Accessory Uses and Buildings section of the Zoning Code (144C) delineates criteria for specific listed accessory uses and structures, and states that a use or structure can be considered accessory if it meets certain general criteria and is customarily incidental to and commonly associated with a permitted principal use; and WHEREAS, urban chickens are not listed as a specific accessory use and, since they are not customarily incidental to and commonly associated with a detached single - family residence in an urban neighborhood, they cannot be considered a general accessory use; and WHEREAS, an amendment to the Zoning Code is required to list the keeping of chickens a specific permitted accessory use and to allow for structures for the shelter of chickens as an allowed accessory structure; and WHEREAS, additional regulations for the keeping of chickens will be established by the Animal Control provisions of the City Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed this ordinance amendment and recommended approval. 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. Amend Section 14 -4C -2, by adding a new subsection Y as follows: Y. The Keeping of Chickens and Structures for the Shelter of Chickens The keeping of chickens and structures for the shelter of chickens are permitted for detached single - family uses subject to the restrictions and provisions set forth in Title 8, Chapter 4 "Animal Control ", of the City Code of Ordinances. SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of 12012. ATTEST: MAYOR CITY CLERK Approved by: ity Attorney's Office 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 11/13/2012 Vote for passage: AYES: Throgmorton, Champion, Dobyns, Hayek, Mims. NAYS: Payne, Dickens. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration _ Vote for passage: Date published Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5240 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, ZONING CODE, ARTICLE 4C, ACCESSORY USES AND BUILDINGS, TO ALLOW FOR THE KEEPING OF CHICKENS AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED USES AND TO REFERENCE STANDARDS FO ITRUCTURES FOR THE KEEPING OF CHICKENS. / WHEREAS, a large numb of Iowa City residents, as evidence by a petition submitted to City Council on July 10, 2012, have expressed in rest in allowing chickens in reside tial zones; and WHEREAS, the Accessory U s and Buildings section of the oning Code (14 -4C) delineates criteria for specific listed accessory uses and st ctures, and states that a use or structure can be considered accessory if it meets certain general criteria and i customarily incidental to nd commonly associated with a permitted principal use; and WHEREAS, urban chickens are not I ted incidental to and commonly associated with cannot be considered a general accessory us WHEREAS, an amendment to the Zoni permitted accessory use and to allow for s structure; and WHEREAS, additional regulations for the provisions of the City Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning recommended approval. as a specific ac ssory use and, since they are not customarily detached single - amily residence in an urban neighborhood, they and n Code is r uired to list the keeping of chickens a specific tru ures for he shelter of chickens as an allowed accessory chickens will be established by the Animal Control has reviewed this ordinance amendment and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED B THE CITY C UNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. The Code of Ordinances of City of Iowa Ci Iowa is hereby amended as follows: A. Amend Section 14 -4C -2, by addin anew subsection Y as ollows: Y. The Keeping of Chickens a d Structures for the Shelte of Chickens The keeping of chickens an structures for the shelter of ch kens are permitted for detached single - family uses subject to the strictions and provisions set fort in Title 8, Chapter 4 "Animal Control ", of the City Code of Ordin ces. SECTION II. REPEALER. Ordinance are hereby repealed. invalid or unconstitutional, section, provision or part tt publication, as provided by I Passed and approved is ordinances and parts of ordinances L. If any section, provision or part of the Ord' adjudication shall not affect the validity of the not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after day of 2012. with the provisions of this shall be adjudged to be once as a whole or any passage, approval and ATTEST: MAYOR CITY CLERK C) Approved by: City Attorney's Office rloP� Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5240 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, ZONING CODE, ARTICLE 4C, ACCESSORY USES AND BUILDINGS, TO ALLOW FOR THE KEEPING OF CHICKENS AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED USES AND TO REFERENCE STANDARDS FOR STRUCTURES FOR THE KEEPING OF CHICKENS. WHEREAS, a large number of Iowa City residents, as evidenced by a petiti n submitted to City Council on July 10, 2012, have expressed interest in allowing chickens in residential zones; nd WHEREAS, the Accessory Uses and Buildings section of the Zoning C e (14 -4C) delineates criteria for specific listed accessory uses an structures, and states that a use or structu can be considered accessory if it meets certain general criteria a d is customarily incidental to and corn only associated with a permitted principal use; and WHEREAS, urban chickens ar not listed as a specific accessory a and, since they are not customarily incidental to and commonly associat d with a detached single - family r idence in an urban neighborhood, they cannot be considered a general acces ry use; and WHEREAS, an amendment to th Zoning Code is required list the keeping of chickens a specific permitted accessory use and to allow r structures for the sh ter of chickens as an allowed accessory structure; and WHEREAS, additional regulations for t keeping of chick ns will be established by the Animal Control provisions of the City Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning ommission s reviewed this ordinance amendment and recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY TH SECTION I. The Code of Ordinances of the City A. Amend Section 14 -4C -2, by adding a new COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: City, Iowa is hereby amended as follows: Y as follows: Y. The Keeping of Chickens and Structur s fort Shelfler of Chickens The keeping of chickens and structure for the sh r o chickens are permitted for detached single - family uses subject to the restrictions nd provision set forth in Title 8, Chapter 4 "Animal Control ", of the City Code of Ordinances. SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinan s and parts of ordin nces in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudica on shall not affect the validi of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adju ged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall be in effect fter its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of ATTEST: MAYOR Approved by: City Attorney's Office 2012. CITY CLERK r.o C-1) --€ Co '-rn �. CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Jann Ream Date: 8/24/2012 Re: Zoning Code amendment to allow urban chickens in residential zones BACKGROUND Because of the interest expressed by a large number of Iowa City residents to allow chickens in residential zones (petition provided to Iowa City Council on 7/10/2012), City Council has directed staff to draft code amendments for their consideration that would permit this accessory use. The majority of code changes would occur in the Animal Control section of City Code; however, an amendment to the Zoning Code will be necessary as well. The proposed changes to the Animal Control code would provide the detailed requirements for the number of allowed chickens, setbacks for chicken coops and the permitting process. These requirements as currently proposed are: 1) to limit the allowed number of chickens to no more than four hens (no roosters), 2) to limit the use to detached single family dwellings, 3) to delineate a required setback for the coops and 4) to require notification of neighbors and an annual permit. Enforcement and permitting would be handled by Animal Control. The Accessory Uses and Buildings section of the Zoning Code (14-4C) delineates criteria for specific listed accessory uses and structures. It also states that a use or structure can be considered accessory if it meets certain general criteria and is "customarily incidental to and commonly associated with" a permitted principal use. Urban chickens are not listed as a specific accessory use and, since they are not "customarily incidental to and commonly associated with" a detached single family residence, they cannot be considered a general accessory use. 14 -4C -2X — Structures for the Shelter of Household Pets, Horses and Ponies - does not provide specific parameters for chicken coops and, because chickens are defined as livestock in the Zoning Code, they cannot be considered a household pet. Because chickens are not listed as a specific permitted accessory use and because structures for the shelter of chickens (coops) are not specifically delineated, urban chickens are not permitted per the Iowa City Zoning Code. An amendment is required. RECOMMENDATION Because all of the specific code requirements for the keeping of urban chickens will be in the Animal Control section of city code, the amendment to the zoning code can be straightforward with a simple cross reference to the Animal Control code section. Add a paragraph "3." to subsection 14 -4C -2X that states "The keeping of chickens and structures for the shelter of chickens are permitted for detached single subject to the provisions found in Title 8 -4. (Animal Control section of city code). Approved by: /1*aW14�- Robert Miklo Department of Planning & Community Development �9 11/13/2012 , The following is an example of the type of information that will be included in the educational materials provided by the city and produced in partnership with I- CLUCK Keeping Backyard Chickens In Iowa City What steps must I take to keep backyard chickens in Iowa. City limits? Please keep in mind that getting chicks or chickens is the last step in your process. First you need to: 1. Conduct research online and talk to.other chicken keepers to see if chicken keeping is truly for you. Also, learn where you can got vet care and chicken feeding supplies locally. 2. If you decide to move forward, conduct a full evaluation of your yard to determine the best location for a coop. Please refer to the animal control ordinance for specific details on coop design requirements, setbacks and more. And remember- providing both sun and shade are important for the health of your flock. 3. Design a plan for your coop that will satisfy the requirements for space, .placement, and materials (see. 4. Submit your coop plans, application and $100.00 fee to the city (location to be determined). 5. You will be contacted if there are any questions about your application or if your design does not meet requirements. If your plan is approved you will be given the green light to move forward with building your coop. 6. Contact the city when your coop is completed. A site visit will be conducted by Animal Control staff to verify that your coop meets requirements /the proposed plan. Upon passing inspection, only then can you get your flock. I live in a multi family apartment or duplex. Can I keep chickens? No, chickens are only permitted for single - family, detached households. You may not keep chickens in your yard if you live in an apartment, attached condominium or duplex. 1 currently rent a single family home. Can I keep chickens? Yes, but you will need to obtain written permission from the owner or landlord to include with your permit application. I've been keeping chickens illegally. How can I bring my coop/flock into compliance? You will be required to obtain a permit from the city. The application can be submitted with the current conditions of your coop. No chickens or coops will be grandfathered in, so you will need to complete the permitting process and satisfy any unmet requirements. (Perhaps Misha can provide guidance on this.) Which local vets are able to provide care for chickens? (currently being researched) Where can I find chicken feed and chicken supplies? Iowa City and the surrounding area offers a variety of stores which cant' chicken feed and /or necessary supplies. (We can provide a list if city is ok with that) How many chickens can I keep? Are roosters allowed? You may legally keep up to 4 hens. No roosters are allowed. What if one of the baby chicks I get is actually a rooster? Despite ordering all female chicks, you may have a male in your flock. It's best to have a "rooster" contingency plan in place before you get any chickens. For example, ask your family, friends or co- workers who have flocks outside the city if they would be willing to adopt a rooster. Additionally, you could contact a local butcher shop to inquire about having a rooster processed. If you have a rooster and no plan, please don't just let the animal loose. Join the 1 -CLUCK Facebook group for discussing possible remedies with other chicken owners in Iowa City. Additionally, you should do as much as you can to find the rooster a home before turning it over to animal control. What if 1 decide I no longer want chickens ?.. Or what if there are unforeseen circumstances (moving, illness, etc) that require me give up my flock? Again, it is best that you take responsibility to find a home for your flock. You may wish to contact some small local farms or other chicken keepers in the area loin the I -CLUCK Facebook group for networking with other chicken''ownbrs in lowa.City). Only after you have exhausted all options should -you consider turning your animals in to the shelter What should I feed my chickens? What should I avoid feeding them ?. What are good elements of a coopdesign? What are the best ways to provide water for my flock? Where can I locate my chicken coop? The coop must be in the back yard, .`feet from your home, 5 feet from the property line, 25 feet from' any adjacent habitable structure. in the example below, the coop could be located anywhere in the white section of the yard. Where can I learn more about backyard chicken keeping? www.urbanchickens.org www. backyardchickens. com The Iowa City Public Library has a collection of books related to chicken keeping I -CLUCK Facebook Group, an online group of Iowa City-chicken owners More to come... The downside of raising backyard chickens I Deseret News Page 3 of 8 Swan LandscapinE We Design with the Future in Mind. Sign up for your free estimate. Chickens For Sale Learn About Business Needs Online. Ask & Answer Questions Now! a Order Baby Chickens Day old chicks from the hatchery. Small orders okay - order online The downside of raising backyard chickens By Flint Stephens For the Deseret News Published: Friday, June 8 2012 2:00 p.m. MDT Share 0 Like 22 Twitter 0 M • R Pinterest 0 Chickens like to dig and scratch in search for food. In the process, they can tear up gardens and flower beds. Flint Stephens NORM View 5 photos)) Summary Print Font 1 +1 i-1 Leave a comment E With growing interest in keeping backyard chickens, there are plenty of advocates to extol the benefits of having a home flock. No one really mentions the negatives of keeping chickens, yet there are many challenges. An Internet search for information on the cons of raising backyard chickens doesn't yield much useful information. A few articles refer to one or two negatives after listing numerous positives. Many results appear to come from people with limited or no actual experience. When communities are debating the legalization of urban chickens at public meetings, worried residents often voice concerns over things like noise and smell. But many challenges are learned only after one undertakes chicken ownership. Here are some of them: Noise Noisy roosters top the list of problems, and in many areas ordinances prohibit keeping adult male birds. While roosters crow early, loudly and often, http:// www. deseretiiews .com/articlel865557162/The- bad - side -of- raising- backyard- chicke... 11/12/2012 The downside of raising backyard chickens I Deseret News Page 4 of 8 With the growing popularity of hens also make a racket. Chickens squabble all day long; raising urban chickens, no one and plenty of cackling usually accompanies the activity. really talks about the challenges and problems. They can be messy, Admittedly, hens are not as noisy as roosters, but noisy, they create extra work, they understanding neighbors are a plus for anyone who tear up gardens and more. hopes to harvest home - raised eggs. Expense You might also like Store - bought eggs are a bargain when compared to the A comfort food that makes you appreciate the good things in cost of keeping a backyard flock. Setting up a coop with life all the equipment can easily cost a few hundred dollars. Oct. 26, 2012 Then an aspiring chicken rancher must feed and tewse season for Soups' maintain the chicks for five or six months. Only then Oct. 23, 2012 will he be able to start collecting eggs. A stuffed chicken that is elegant but easy According to www.poultrykeeper.com, in the first 18 Oct. 15, 2012 months of its life, an exceptional hen could lay up to 25( eggs. At a price of $2a dozen, that is $42 worth. Multiplied by five chickens, that amounts to about $210 That means it could take three or four years to break even on the initial investment, and that doesn't count labor or continuing costs for feed. Garden damage Chickens are living cultivators and rototillers. That can be a good thing when they are eating bugs and weeds. Unfortunately, chickens can't distinguish between weeds and newly emerging garden vegetables. And if you are lucky enough to raise vegetables or fruit to maturity, chickens believe you have done so for them to consume. If you want to raise chickens and have a nice garden, you'll need to devise a method of protecting the young plants or of keeping the chickens contained. Smell and mess Anyone who has been near a commercial chicken operation has undoubtedly experienced some unpleasant scents. Fortunately, keeping a few chickens at home is not comparable. One benefit of Utah's dry climate is that there is little smell or mess with properly http:// www. deseretnews .comlarticlel865557162I Tbe- bad - side -of- raising- backyard - chicke... 11/12/2012 The downside of raising backyard chickens I Deseret News Page 5 of 8 maintained backyard chickens. Six chickens produce about the same waste as a medium -sized dog. Culling This is a reality every chicken owner must confront. Even when maintaining hens for eggs, there will eventually be old and unproductive hens. Sometimes chickens become injured or sick, and it makes little sense to spend lots of money taking them to a veterinarian. And when one buys baby chicks from a farm store, some turn out to be roosters — even when the signs on the cages promise they are pullets (young females). Killing chickens is not fun. One can give them away, but that just forces someone else to deal with the problem. Another reality is that chickens allowed to roam or range are not very good to eat. Unlike the grocery store birds, free -range chickens have little or no fat. They are also tough — as in chewy. If one hopes to raise birds for the table, they need to be confined and eaten at a young age; otherwise, plan on chicken soup instead of fried chicken. Predators Even in urban areas, chickens attract predators. In Utah, the list includes raccoons, foxes, skunks, mink, weasels, hawks, magpies, dogs and cats. Some are primarily interested in eggs or young chickens. The prospect of eggs or a chicken dinner draws them all. If successful, they will return repeatedly. A sturdy enclosure and regular maintenance are necessary. Constant care Chickens need daily attention. They must have food and fresh water. They need to be let out in the mornings and put away at night. Eggs must be collected daily. Coops must be cleaned regularly (at least a couple times each month). Nesting and bedding materials must be http:// www. deseretnews .comlarticlel865557162IThe- bad - side -of- raising- backyard - chicke... 11/12/2012 The downside of raising backyard chickens I Deseret News Page 6 of 8 provided and changed. Ignoring any of these tasks for even a day or two is irresponsible. There are many benefits to raising chickens and harvesting one's own eggs. Good places to find information include www.poultrykeeper.com, www.backyardpoultry.com or a local farm supply store. But just be aware that avid urban chicken fans tend to understate many of the accompanying challenges. Flint Stephens has raised backyard chickens for more than io years. He is author of "Mormon Parenting Secrets: Time - Tested Methods for Raising Exceptional Children." His blog is www. morm onparen ti ngsecrets. co m. Related Stories A comfort food that makes you appreciate the good things in life 'Tis the season for soups, stews A stuffed chicken that is elegant but easy Share 0 Like 22 Twitter 0 Pinterest 0 0 1 Comments Leave a comment: DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments. — About comments About this http: // www. deseretnews .com /article /865 557162 /The- bad - side -of- raising - backyard - chicke... 11/12/2012 When the Problems Come Home to Roost - NYTimes.com Page 1 of 3 �v/zo%L HOMEPAGE TODAY'SENPER VIDEO MOSTPOPIHAR TIMESTOPICS SYDWIGe; DIgited /Horde Delivery Login Register Now At NtWflOrkeimt$ Seem a NYTmes.mn o, Dining & Wine WORLD U.S. N.Y. /REGION BUSIN65S TECHNOLOGY SCIENCE HEALTH SPORTS OPIMON ARTS SINLE 'TRAVEL JOBS REALESTATE AUTOS FASHIONaSTYLE DWINGa WINE HOMEBGARDEN WEDDINGSICELEBRATIONS TMAGAANE More Articles in Dining 8 Wine n When the Problems Come Home to Roost DBen G K I- , 1, '._'. ....... - Slaron Lane with one of her three chickens in the coop atop her garage in Berkeley, Calif. "I'm discouraged lint I'm determined to figure this 00 ," She said of her flack's mystery ailments. 711ey get diseases with odd names, like pasty butt and the fowl plague. Rats and raccoons appear out of Adchmces m nowhere. Hens suddenly stop laying eggs or never produce them at all. Crowing roosters disturb neighbors. MOST POPm.nR The problems get worse. Unwanted urban chickens are showing up at local animal Shelters. Even in the best of cinvmstances, chickens die at alarming rates. Bay Area Report "At first I named them but now I've stopped because it's just too hard," said Sharon Jones, who started with eight This article is part of our chickens in a coop fashioned from plywood and chicken expanded Bay Area wire in the front yard of her north Berkeley home. She's coverage. down to three. The Bay Area Blog features coverage of public affairs, Ms. Jones, who is close friends with the restaurateur Alice commerce, culture and Waters wanted exceptional eggs, plain and simple. But lifestyles in the region. We her little flock has been plagued with mysterious diseases. inviteyour comments at bayarea @nytimes.com. She has not taken them to the vet because of the high cost, Go to the Bay Area Biog a but she goes to workshops and searches out cures on the Internet. She has even pm garlic down their throats in hopes that the antibacterial qualities of the cloves might help. "I'm discouraged but I'm determined to figure this out," Ms. Jones said. "I still get more than I give." Most Bay Area communities allow at least a few hens, and Sometimes even permit roosters. Some elementary schools and restaurants keep flocks. Web site backvardchickens.com which calls itself the largest community of chicken enthusiasts in the world, started here. Seminal on the proper and humane way to kill chickens are becoming popular. But with increased chicken popularity comes a downside: abandonment In one week earlier this month, eight were available for adoption at the Oakland shelter and five were http://www.nytiines.com/2009/10/23/dining/23sfdine.html?—r—O E- MAILED SLOGGED SEARCHED VIEWED a. MAUREEN DOWD: Romney Is President 2. Tool Kit: How to Devise Passwords That Drive Hackem Away 3. THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN: My President Is Busy 4. PAUL KRUGMAN: Hawks and Hypocrites $. GAIL COLONS: Hillary IC —S Next Move 6. Only Matter. The Science and Act of Listening 7. Construction Site Offers Fleeting Glimpse of the Civil War Past S. Well: The Kugel Challenge q. Opinion: Political Racism in the Age of Obama To. Degrees ofDebL ChdddC'Ms Education, but Pamnts$CTM Crushing Loans Go to Compete List A. "Coming Up Roses" starring Bernadette Peters ALSO IN ARTS• "Liars Autobiography." with Graham Chapman and Monty Python "Lunch'. Donna Kanter's charming documentary about a Hollywood insfitution 11/12/2012 Advertisement By KIM SEVERSON Published: Odober 22, 20M PATRER THE Bay Area is unmatched in its embrace of the urban backyard UNKEDIN chicken trend. But raising chickens, which promises delicious, SIGN IN To E- untainted eggs and instant membership in the local food movement, "TAIL Save $70: Michelin Tires isn't all it's tracked up to be. PRINT Get up to $70 Back on Michelin Tires. Free Ship REPRINTS to Local Installer Enlarge Thlslmage Chickens, it turns out, have issues. SHARE oreawer wmrMmheen DBen G K I- , 1, '._'. ....... - Slaron Lane with one of her three chickens in the coop atop her garage in Berkeley, Calif. "I'm discouraged lint I'm determined to figure this 00 ," She said of her flack's mystery ailments. 711ey get diseases with odd names, like pasty butt and the fowl plague. Rats and raccoons appear out of Adchmces m nowhere. Hens suddenly stop laying eggs or never produce them at all. Crowing roosters disturb neighbors. MOST POPm.nR The problems get worse. Unwanted urban chickens are showing up at local animal Shelters. Even in the best of cinvmstances, chickens die at alarming rates. Bay Area Report "At first I named them but now I've stopped because it's just too hard," said Sharon Jones, who started with eight This article is part of our chickens in a coop fashioned from plywood and chicken expanded Bay Area wire in the front yard of her north Berkeley home. She's coverage. down to three. The Bay Area Blog features coverage of public affairs, Ms. Jones, who is close friends with the restaurateur Alice commerce, culture and Waters wanted exceptional eggs, plain and simple. But lifestyles in the region. We her little flock has been plagued with mysterious diseases. inviteyour comments at bayarea @nytimes.com. She has not taken them to the vet because of the high cost, Go to the Bay Area Biog a but she goes to workshops and searches out cures on the Internet. She has even pm garlic down their throats in hopes that the antibacterial qualities of the cloves might help. "I'm discouraged but I'm determined to figure this out," Ms. Jones said. "I still get more than I give." Most Bay Area communities allow at least a few hens, and Sometimes even permit roosters. Some elementary schools and restaurants keep flocks. Web site backvardchickens.com which calls itself the largest community of chicken enthusiasts in the world, started here. Seminal on the proper and humane way to kill chickens are becoming popular. But with increased chicken popularity comes a downside: abandonment In one week earlier this month, eight were available for adoption at the Oakland shelter and five were http://www.nytiines.com/2009/10/23/dining/23sfdine.html?—r—O E- MAILED SLOGGED SEARCHED VIEWED a. MAUREEN DOWD: Romney Is President 2. Tool Kit: How to Devise Passwords That Drive Hackem Away 3. THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN: My President Is Busy 4. PAUL KRUGMAN: Hawks and Hypocrites $. GAIL COLONS: Hillary IC —S Next Move 6. Only Matter. The Science and Act of Listening 7. Construction Site Offers Fleeting Glimpse of the Civil War Past S. Well: The Kugel Challenge q. Opinion: Political Racism in the Age of Obama To. Degrees ofDebL ChdddC'Ms Education, but Pamnts$CTM Crushing Loans Go to Compete List A. "Coming Up Roses" starring Bernadette Peters ALSO IN ARTS• "Liars Autobiography." with Graham Chapman and Monty Python "Lunch'. Donna Kanter's charming documentary about a Hollywood insfitution 11/12/2012 When the Problems Come Home to Roost - NYTimes.com Page 2 of 3 awaiting homes at the San Francisco shelter. In Berkeley, someone dropped four ny"ee"eom ARTS chickens in the animal control night box with a note from their apologetic owner, said Kate O'Connor, the manager. For some animal rights workers, the backyard chicken trend is as bad as the pot- bellied / \ ®utw�a pig craaz in the 198os or puppy fever set off by the movie "101 Dalmatians." In both cases, 707DVe the pets proved more difficult to care for than many owners suspected. v40 7AS wolm ClAe USE CODE: NYT "It's a fad," said Susie Coston, national shelter director for Farm Sanctuary, which rescues animals and sends them to live on farms in New York and California. "People are going to want it for a while and then not be so interested." Ads by Google whot s this' She said that farm animal rescue groups field about Igo calls a month for birds, most of Are You You Writin�a Book? them involving chickens — especially roasters. Get a tree guide his professional editing S publishing obbons. "We're all inundated right now with roosters," she said. -[hey dump them because they www.lUniverse.com think they are getting hens and they re not" Some chicken owners buy from large hatcheries, which determine the sex of the birds and kill large numbers of baby roosters, because most people want laying hens. But sexing a chicken is an inexact science. Sometimes backyard farmers end up with a rooster, which are illegal in most cities. In Berkeley, which does allow roosters, Steve Frye is in the middle of a cockfight with Ace Dodsworth, who lives about four houses away and tends a flock of hens and roosters that his community household uses for eggs and meat. "I'm not an antichicken guy whatsoever," Mr. Frye said. "It's a noise issue." During the worst of it, Mr. Frye said, the roosters woke him up 13 times in one month. He recently filed a complaint with the city. Mr. Dodsworth believes a crowing rooster is a happy rooster, but he says he does his best to keep his roosters cooped to minimize noise. He has offered Mr. Frye eggs and dinner and said other neighbors don't seem to mind the chickens. Down the street at Kate Klaire's house, there are no roosters. But the elementary school teacher has other problems. She has been through three different flocks in four years. She ticks through a list of all the ways her chickens have died. There was the breakout of Marek's disease. Her dog got to one chicken before some rules of the roost were laid down. She suspects a fox or a coyote carried off several when she was away. More upsetting were the two she found with their necks broken. "I believe they were murdered," she said, pointing to a chain link fence that appeared to have been bent by a human foot. Like many of her fellow Bay Area backyard chicken owners, Ms. Klaire remains determined. The eggs are local, the composting contributions to the garden are significant and the chickens themselves are fascinating. And for her, there has been one more benefit. "Having chickens is a really great way of dealing with loss and death," she said. Kitty Bennett contributed research. A precious version of this article mis- stated the surname of one chicken owner. She is Sharon Jones, not Lane. A version of this amide appeared in print on October 23, 2009, on More Articles in Dining 8 Wine w page A298 of the Ni York edition . http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/dining/23sfdine.html?—r--O 11/12/2012 Marian Karr�� From: Val Donohoe <Donohoe.Val @iccsd.k12.ia.us> Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 8:03 AM To: Council Subject: no urban chickens Please do not vote yes for urban chickens. They are dirty and smelly and I don't want them in my neighborhood. Do you ? ?? I really doubt that any of you would want them next door to your home. Chickens belong on the farm — farmers don't even have them close to their homes. Why do just a few citizens rule in Iowa City? The majority of people in Iowa City do not want this so please vote NO. Valerie Donohoe 1130 Penkridge Dr. Iowa City, IA 52246 This correspondence will become a public record. Marian Karr From: Brian Richman <brian @bd rich man. com> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 3:38 PM To: Council Subject: Chicken - keeping ordinance Mayor and Councilors, I'm writing to you to voice my opposition to the chicken - keeping ordinance you'll be voting on at your meeting this evening. I'm Brian Richman of 20 Ashwood Drive. In addition to being a resident of Iowa City, I served for six years on the City's Housing and Community Development Commission, two of those as Chairman. This is one of those instances where you have proposed legislation endorsed by a vocal and organized minority of citizens which would, in my opinion, be voted down handily by a majority of the electorate if it were actually put to a vote. I've surveyed, informally, nearly three dozen of my friends, colleagues and neighbors plus a few random people around town and found only three who support the Council approving the chicken - raising ordinance. That's obviously not a scientific survey, but the overwhelming opposition, even anecdotally, speaks volumes. There are a number of reasons that proponents of this effort have put forward. None of them are, in my opinion, compelling. Chickens can be pets, but if people want pets, there are already plenty of alternatives out there. Many will argue —as one of you already has in a Press Citizen interview several weeks ago —that dogs and cats are a nuisance. If anything, that is an argument for increasing either regulation or compliance monitoring of pets permitted under existing statutes. It is certainly not an argument for further relaxation of laws restricting pets. Moreover, pets such as dogs and cats do not generally have a negative effect on property values for adjoining residences. I do not believe the same can be said of chickens. I would certainly be hesitant to purchase a house next to a property with a chicken coop. While I certainly don't imagine everyone feels that way, many of the people I spoke to in my survey shared my concerns. I suspect several of you may as well. Chickens provide a good food source, but there are already high - quality, low -cost food eggs out there. Moreover, I don't believe the City has the resources to monitor compliance with the no- slaughter and no- egg - selling provisions of the ordinance. Raising chickens can help children learn about agriculture— something I would like for my children. But again, there are plenty of ways to do that already, including 4H, that don't require you, the Council, to pass a law infringing on the desires of most of the citizenry in order to accomplish the goal. Livestock have been prohibited as pets for decades in Iowa City and virtually every other metropolitan area in the country for decades. The mere fact that you would have to alter decades -old laws in order to permit chickens as pets ought to tell you something. Like many Iowa City residents, I value our state's agricultural heritage. But that doesn't mean I believe it belongs in our backyards. I encourage you to vote 'No' on the ordinances before you this evening. Very sincerely, Brian D. Richman Marian Karr From: shawtamike @q.com Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 10:17 AM To: Council Subject: Chicken vote To all Iowa City Council members: I urge you to vote against allow chickens in Iowa City. I chose to live in the city for city life. If I wanted farm life I would live in the country. I have personal experience with chickens from my grandparents farm and they are messy and smelly. They attract racoons, fox and other wildlife that should not be lured into the city. Our neighborhood already has a slight issue with raccoons and possums and chickens will only make that worse. These animals put our children at risk of disease. There is plenty of farmland for those who wish to raise chickens. They are free to live where chickens are already allowed. Please allow those of us who do not wish to live with chickens to have a place to live. The city is the only place for that now. We should be entitled to own our land with the same zoning that was in place when we bought it, especially since we are in the city limits. I would also like to bring up the disputes that will likely arise from this. When neighbors object to chickens this will undoubtedly cause arguments and ill feelings between neighbors who now get along. I have a neighbor that will undoubtedly want chickens and will not take it well when I object. I should not have my life in turmoil and confrontation because some want to change the rules. There is a home in our edition with chickens now that no one will address. You can not assure us that those who have chickens without following an ordinance will be delt with when they are not being delt with now, when they are illegal. Tami Shaw, CDA, RDA, EFDA Tami Shaw, CDA, RDA, EFDA 1 Marian Karr From: Matthew J. Hayek <mhayek @hhbmlaw.com> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 3:16 PM To: Marian Karr Subject: FW: On Chickens Matthew J. Hayek Hayek, Brown, Moreland & Smith, L.L.P. 120 East Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52240 -3924 319.337.9606 telephone 319.338.7376 facsimile Email: mhavek @hhbmlaw.com Website: www.hhbmiaw.com From: Matt Hayek [mailto:Matt- Hayek @iowa - city.org] Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 10:23 AM To: Matthew J. Hayek Subject: FW: On Chickens From: David Borger Germann [ mailto: david .boraergermannCa)gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 10:11 AM To: Matt Hayek; Rick Dobyns; Susan Mims; Terry Dickens; Michelle Payne; Jim Throgmorton; connie-champion0)iowa- ci .or Subject: On Chickens Dear Iowa City City Council, Please consider approving "urban" chickens. Just yesterday I received an email from the City promoting an educational program about food recycling and reducing food waste (see below). One of the EPA's top recommendations for reducing food waste is to feed it to animals, and chickens can effectively reduce food waste in the Iowa City landfill. I'm certain that you can create good ordinances that allow for chickens but still protect neighborhoods and property. Similarly sized municipalities across the country have adopted comparable measures. Thanks so much for considering, David Borger Germann Iowa City resident THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 15 East Side Recycling Center - Environmental Education Center 2401 Scott Blvd. SE Noon - 1:30 p.m. "Food: Too Good to Waste," a webinar on sustainable food management. Join Iowa City Landfill and Composting staff to discuss the many food waste diversion options available in Iowa City, and learn more about food waste: Americans throw away about one - fourth of all food purchases -- a retail value of $125 billion each year. A family of four can save more than $1,600 a year by making small changes in how they shop, prepare, and store food to prevent food waste Food is one of the largest waste streams in the U.S., yet the least recovered. Learn more about food waste management tools and resources, available to any interested local government or community. The toolkit can be tailored to specific communities. Download it for free at: http: / /www epa gov /osw /conserve/ materials /organics /food /fd- res.htm 404 E. Bloomington Iowa City, Iowa 52245 -2800 IOWA CITY ALLERGY AND ASTHMA CLINIC John Kammermeyer, M.D. Allergist November 12, 2012 TO: City of Iowa City Open Letter to the City Council: Phone (319) 354 -7014 Fax (319) 354 -3196 I am very much concerned that the City is moving ahead concerning the issue of urban chickens without giving full consideration to some of the potential problems. First of all having chicken coops inside the City will tend to attract predators including skunk, raccoon, fox and coyote. All of these predators can carry rabies. It therefore seems to me that if we allow urban chicken coops we are increasing risk of being exposed to a rabid animal for ourselves, our children and our pets. However, an even greater concern on my behalf is a medical one. Dust and debris from a chicken coop is contaminated with a large amount of fungal spores, bacteria, and various chicken proteins. Anyone with a pulmonary problem such as COPD, asthma, or pulmonary fibrosis could have their pulmonary situation flared or aggravated by exposure to the dust and debris from a chicken coop. Moreover, exposure to dust and debris from a chicken coop increases the risk of one developing hypersensitivity pneumonitis, which is an allergic -type of pneumonia seen for instance in pigeon breeders and those with parakeets due to exposure to the droppings and debris from the birds. In addition, anyone who has any degree of immunodeficiency is at increased risk to develop an opportunistic infection if they are exposed to dust or debris from a chicken coop. This could include fungal infections such as histoplasmosis or secondary bacterial or other opportunistic infections. Individuals who would be potentially immunodeficient would include anyone that is on chemo or radiation therapy for cancer, anyone who is on a biologic modifier for autoimmune disease such as rheumatoid arthritis, and anyone who is dealing with an HIV infection. In summary, anyone who has a pulmonary disease such as asthma, COPD, or pulmonary fibrosis, anyone that is under treatment for an HIV infection, anyone who is on chemo or radiation therapy for cancer or anyone that is on a biologic modifier for their autoimmune disease such as rheumatoid arthritis, should not be exposed to an urban chicken coop next door for medical reasons. (Continue on page 2) 1 r-J. u Ca f�-r, I am very much concerned that the City is moving ahead concerning the issue of urban chickens without giving full consideration to some of the potential problems. First of all having chicken coops inside the City will tend to attract predators including skunk, raccoon, fox and coyote. All of these predators can carry rabies. It therefore seems to me that if we allow urban chicken coops we are increasing risk of being exposed to a rabid animal for ourselves, our children and our pets. However, an even greater concern on my behalf is a medical one. Dust and debris from a chicken coop is contaminated with a large amount of fungal spores, bacteria, and various chicken proteins. Anyone with a pulmonary problem such as COPD, asthma, or pulmonary fibrosis could have their pulmonary situation flared or aggravated by exposure to the dust and debris from a chicken coop. Moreover, exposure to dust and debris from a chicken coop increases the risk of one developing hypersensitivity pneumonitis, which is an allergic -type of pneumonia seen for instance in pigeon breeders and those with parakeets due to exposure to the droppings and debris from the birds. In addition, anyone who has any degree of immunodeficiency is at increased risk to develop an opportunistic infection if they are exposed to dust or debris from a chicken coop. This could include fungal infections such as histoplasmosis or secondary bacterial or other opportunistic infections. Individuals who would be potentially immunodeficient would include anyone that is on chemo or radiation therapy for cancer, anyone who is on a biologic modifier for autoimmune disease such as rheumatoid arthritis, and anyone who is dealing with an HIV infection. In summary, anyone who has a pulmonary disease such as asthma, COPD, or pulmonary fibrosis, anyone that is under treatment for an HIV infection, anyone who is on chemo or radiation therapy for cancer or anyone that is on a biologic modifier for their autoimmune disease such as rheumatoid arthritis, should not be exposed to an urban chicken coop next door for medical reasons. (Continue on page 2) 1 City of Iowa City Open Letter to the City Council Page 2 November 12, 2012 I can see some significant problems developing here and I will give you two examples: Say a permit has been granted for an urban chicken coop and originally the next door neighbor did not object. However that neighbor is later diagnosed with cancer and is placed on chemo and/or radiation therapy. They request for medical reasons, and I whole heartedly agree with this, that they should no longer be exposed to an urban chicken coop next door. However the City has already granted that permit. What is the City going to do? Another example would be that a permit has been granted for an urban chicken coop and the house next door is sold and a new neighbor moves in. That new neighbor has an HIV infection and rightly decides that they do not want to be exposed to an urban chicken coop next door. They request that it be removed for medical reasons but the City has already granted a permit for this. What is the City going to do? In summary I think that one needs to look more thoroughly into various health and medical issues here and not rush into granting permits for urban chicken coops in Iowa City. Moreover no one should be forced to have exposure to an urban chicken coop next door against their wishes. JK:kv Sincerely yours, John Kammermeyer, M.D. [1- cD U, s Marian Karr Y From: Daniel and Diane Schweer <daniel.schweer @msn.com> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 9:47 PM To: Council Subject: Backyard chickens This correspondence will become a public record. To the City Council: I oppose allowing chickens within city limits and I urge you to vote "no" on the backyard chicken ordinance up for vote starting Tuesday, Nov. 13th. Chickens belong on farms, not in towns. They aren't clean animals, and if their owners don't care for them or their environment properly (despite there being written regulations to the contrary), then their environment quickly can become unsanitary. Chicken feces smell; wet feed smells; and mold growth that may occur in wet feed smells. I don't want these odors in our city. Also, chickens attract predators and other vermin and we have enough wild animals roaming our neighborhoods as it is. Chickens attract flies, opossums, hawks, weasels, raccoons, coyotes, foxes, and even neighborhood dogs and cats that may get loose. And don't forget the mice and rats that are attracted to the feed. These predators are a nuisance and even can be dangerous. A man I know who owned chickens was bitten by an opossum, and he was forced to bludgeon it to death. Happily, the autopsy completed at Iowa State University on the opossum's brain showed the animal didn't have rabies. Must we needlessly risk wild animal bites in our city? Must we unnecessarily invite more wild animals into our neighborhoods? Allowing chickens into town just invites potential conflict between neighbors. Being a good neighbor takes some effort and communication, but if Neighbor A wants backyard chickens and Neighbor B simply doesn't want these farm animals next door, there really isn't any recourse for Neighbor B the way the proposed neighbor notification regulations are written (if none of the conditions exist to deny a permit). And in regard to the proposed regulations... I don't understand why those pertaining to the permit and neighbor notification processes involve the police department. Why burden the police chief or his designee with these responsibilities? Chickens are animals. Why wouldn't Animal Control handle these responsibilities? Just because other cities allow these farm animals in their city limits does not mean Iowa City has to follow suit. Please vote "no" on the backyard chicken issue. Thank you. Sincerely, Diane Schweer 1140 Spruce St. Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Marian Karr 6 From: Geoffrey Lauer <gmlauer @att.net> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 7:04 PM To: Council Subject: Yes to Chickens please Dear IC Council, I support the option for Iowa Citians to have chickens inside the city limits. Please support a Pro Chicken Ordinance in Iowa City. This is becoming a more and more important issue as the issue of local food grows more important and the issue of food security does the same. Thanks Geoff Lauer < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > <> Geoffrey Lauer 700 Whiting Ave Iowa City, IA 52245 Marian Karr -+ �T From: Bob Elliott <elliottb53 @aol.com> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 10:49 AM To: Council Subject: Chickens in the city? Attachments: Council letter.doc I request that copies of the attached letter be distributed to Mayor Matt Hayek and other members of Iowa City's City Council. Please let me know if there are questions or concerns about this request. Thank you. Bob Elliott 1108 Dover Street Iowa City, IA 52240 319/351 -4056 elliottb53(cDaol.com Bob Elliott 1108 Dover Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52240 November 11, 2012 To Mayor Matt Hayek and other City Council Members: I understand the appropriate commission and city staff have recommended city council discuss allowing Iowa City residents to keep chickens on their property. Did any of chickens -in- the -city proponents ever live on a farm? On any farm that I've lived or worked, the hen house was located away from the farm family home .... for good reasons. A chicken habitat is dirty, smelly, messy, noisy, and represents a significant attraction for predators (guarding the hen house wasn't a myth). I don't want someone next door or even living nearby raising a small flock of chickens. I don't understand people who move to the country and then complain about the smells and sounds of farm country. Similarly, why choose to live in a city and then decide to raise farm animals. If you want to raise chickens, do it in the country. Yes, I know, I was born and lived my first 10 years in Chicago. But my brother and sister and I spent our summers on my mother's parents' farm southeast of Ainsworth. Then when we lost our home in the depression, Johnny and Pat and I lived for more than a year with our grandparents on their farm. After our family relocated to Ainsworth, my brother and I worked on farms in the summers. Discuss it if you must, but please don't seriously consider allowing residents to keep chickens or any other farm animals on their property in our city. Thanks for your consideration. Ood Effiott 3191351 -4056 . elliottb53 @aol.com Marian Karr From: JLMaynardASLA @aol.com Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 8:59 PM To: Council Subject: Raising Chickens within the City Limits November 11, 2012 The Honorable Matt Hayek, Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Iowa City, Iowa 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 RE: Raising Chickens within the City limits Mayor Hayek and Members of the City Council: As you consider the proposed ordinances regarding the raising of chickens within the city limits, you may find the following excerpt from Sherwood Anderson's short story, "The Egg ", to offer some relevant advice: "......and if, in my turn, I am a gloomy man inclined to see the gloomy side of life, I attribute it to the fact that what should have been for me the happy joyous days of childhood were spent on a chicken farm. "One unversed in such matters can have no notion of the many and tragic things that can happen to a chicken. It is born out of an egg, lives for a few weeks as a tiny fluffy thing such as you will see on Easter cards, then becomes hideously naked, eats quantities of corn and meal bought by the sweat of your father's brow, gets diseases called pip, cholera, and other names, stands looking with stupid eyes at the sun, becomes sick and dies. A few hens and now and then a rooster, intended to serve God's mysterious ends, struggle through to maturity. The hens lay eggs out of which come other chickens and the dreadful cycle is thus complete. It is all unbelievably complex. Most philosophers must have been raised on chicken farms. One hopes for so much from a chicken and is so dreadfully disillusioned. Small chickens, just setting out on the journey of life, look so bright and alert and they are in fact so dreadfully stupid. They are so much like people they mix one up in one's judgments of life. If disease does not kill them they wait until your expectations are thoroughly aroused and then walk under the wheels of a wagon - - -to go squashed and dead back to their maker. Vermin infest their youth, and fortunes must be spent for curative powders. In later life I have seen how a literature has been built up on the subject of fortunes to be made out of raising chickens. It is intended to be read by the gods who have just eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It is hopeful literature and declares that much may be done by simple ambitious people who own a few hens. Do not be lead astray by it. It was not written for you. Go hunt for gold on the frozen hills of Alaska, put your faith in the honesty of a politician, believe if you will that the world is daily growing better and that good will triumph over evil, but do not read and believe the literature that is written concerning the hen. It was not written for you." Sincerely yours, Jim L. Maynard 1909 Winston Drive Iowa City, Iowa 52245 Phone: 319-351-4636 E -mail: jlmaynardasla@aol.com CC: Mr. Tom Markus, City Manager 7 Marian Karr From: JLMaynardASLA@aol.com Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 8:52 PM To: Council Subject: Proposed Urban Chicken Policy November 11, 2012 The Honorable Matt Hayek, Mayor And Members of the City Council City of Iowa City, Iowa 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 RE: Raising Chickens within the City Limits Mayor Hayek and Members of the City Council: We are strongly opposed to the proposal to permit the raising of chickens on residential properties within the City Limits of Iowa City and urge you to vote against the proposal. We believe that such would greatly detract from the urban residential atmosphere, appearance and enjoyment of their properties by abutting residents due to potential problems of noise, odor, loose chickens, and the attraction of pests and predators. We already allow too many accessory structures that clutter the residential landscape, obstruct light, air circulation, openness, usable open space and views of natural character of our residential areas. These structures currently include tool and storage sheds, garden and potting sheds, playhouses, play structures and play equipment, dog houses and dog runs, gazebos, swimming pools and pool houses and probably several other kinds. While such structures are supposed to not occupy more than 20 percent of the required rear yard area, many, if not most, can be or are built without a permit unless they obviously exceed 150 square feet in area and/or unless someone complains. Consequently the quality of the residential environment in many neighborhoods is declining as the clutter and obstruction of open space increases. With respect to the proposed Urban Chicken Policy, if it is to be considered, we would raise the following objections and suggest the following changes before it is considered for adoption. Neighbor Notification: Originally it was suggested that if one abutting property owner objected, regardless of reason, the permit would not be issued. We would strongly urge a return to that provision. If such will not be considered, then certainly, if 2/3 or more of the abutting neighbors object for any reasons, the permit should not be issued. Terms of Permit: Should provide that if the keeping of chickens ceases, the Chicken Coop and Chicken Pen shall be removed within a reasonable time, not to exceed 30 to 60 days and the area restored to a residential lawn area. Site Requirements: The required distance of 25 feet for Chicken Coops from any neighboring habitable structure is not adequate. The distance should be at least 40, if not 50 feet and should include equal distance from any outdoor living area, patio, gazebo or swimming pool on abutting properties. Site requirements should also include that water run off from Chicken Pens shall be contained within the property of the owner of the chickens so as not to contaminate children's play areas, outdoor living areas or lawns and gardens of abutting properties. Coop Requirements: There is no maximum size (area) and height specified for a Coop. It is not clear whether the coop and pen is subject to or excluded from the 20 per cent of the required rear yard area occupancy limitation and whether a building permit is required for the construction of a coop and /or the installation of mechanical heating, ventilation and lighting devices. Pen Requirements: The pen should not be permitted to occupy the entire back yard. The perimeter of the pen should be some prescribed distance from all property lines such as 10 or more feet, be some prescribed distance from any habitable structure and outdoor living area on abutting properties and not occupy more than 25 percent of the back yard. As previously stated above, Site Requirements should also include that water run off from Chicken Pens shall be contained within the property of the owner of the chickens so as not to contaminate children's play areas, outdoor living areas or lawns and gardens of abutting properties. We reiterate that we are strongly opposed to the proposal to permit the raising of chickens on residential properties within the City Limits of Iowa City. We urge you to carefully consider the kind and quality of residential environment you wish to encourage throughout our fine city and to vote against this undesirable intrusion into our residential landscapes. Sincerely yours, Jim L. Maynard and Mary Lou Maynard 1909 Winston Drive Iowa City, Iowa 52245 Phone: 319- 351 -4636 E -mail: jlmapnardaslagaol.com CC: Mr. Tom Markus, City Manager Marian Karr From: Paula Swygard <pswygard @gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2012 10:01 PM To: Council; Matt Hayek; Susan Mims; Rick Dobyns; Jim Throgmorton; Michelle Payne Cc: Tom Markus Subject: Urban Chicken Policy Attachments: map - property lines.jpg Members of the Iowa City City Council, I am writing to ask that you take a close look at #5 under the section of the Urban Chicken Policy regarding Site Requirements as you proceed with consideration of passage of the policy before you. My rear lot is shallow and my house is located 29.5 feet from my back property line. The Site Requirements state coops cannot be within 25 feet from any neighboring habitable structure. Under the proposed ordinance, if my neighbor at 403 (see attached map) would like to have a coop, this coop could be placed 5 feet from our abutting back property line. This neighbor behind me has an unusually deep lot, allowing for placement of the coop to the far back of their own lot. A duplex to their east which extends further back from the front property line would also need to be factored in, yet because of the depth of their property, this neighbor would still have space for a coop. Conceivably, their coop could be placed very close to my home, within 35 ft., and would end up being much closer to my home than to their own home. It would basically be in my back yard, or at least feel that way. I am asking that you consider changing #5 under Site Requirements so that a coop cannot be located within 10 ft from any property line. Current Iowa City zoning code, ARTICLE C. ACCESSORY USES AND BUILDINGS, 14 -4C- 2-X, regarding Structure for Shelter of Household Pets, requires that dog runs must be set back at least 10 ft from any rear or side lot line. I believe any animal ordinance regarding chicken coops should uniformly apply this set back requirement as well. Additionally, a minimum of 10 ft. would make the ordinance similar to those of other Iowa cities which allow urban chickens, such as Cedar Rapids and Dubuque, although ideally I would prefer a minimum of 15 -20 ft. from any property line. Thank you for your consideration, Paula Swygard 426 Douglass Street Iowa City, Iowa 52246 ` VIEW y, jit x r l ft pop it a� a tti- 9 t "y .s. }Ian( hap All VL likft t ,e+ a� o, t is hw a Mawr mo�' I < _ v Y��x � �� R k,4.� il7n�° "��1!�'� 3�p`�' �S �li•• "� � ...ry.K4�' +� e. a � i f�; :�.: y ty � �; � *, s ,r' alt +•► r:+es.��. g Mf AL Marian Karr From: Shams Ghoneim <shamsghoneim @mchsi.com> �O Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2012 2:01 PM To: Council Cc: Shams Ghoneim Subject: The Upcoming Urban Chicken Vote This correspondence will become a public record. Dear IC Council Members: As a long time Iowa City resident, my family and I, as well as many in the community are concerned about the recent proposal to allow Chickens in city backyards. The following are some reasons for that concern: 1) Keeping chickens poses a potential health risk. Bird flu and salmonella are the two biggest concerns health experts worry about causing illness to people specially if the chickens are left roaming in the backyards.They frequently carry bacteria that can cause illness to humans. Baby chicks may be especially prone to shed these germs and cause human illness. Young birds are often shipped several times before they reach a permanent home. Shipment and adapting to new locations causes stress on birds and makes them more likely to shed bacteria in their droppings. While anyone can become ill from exposure to these germs, the risk of infection is especially high for children, the elderly, and persons with weakened immune systems; for example, people receiving chemotherapy or who are HIV - infected. Also people with respiratory challenges and allergies can be adversely affected. One of the most important bacteria is Salmonella. There have been several outbreaks of human Salmonella infections resulting from handling baby chicks. htti): / /www.cdc.gov /mmwr /preview /mmwrhtml /mm4914al.htm _Many of the outbreaks involved young children and most occurred in the spring around Easter. Salmonella lives in the intestine of infected chickens, and can be shed in large numbers in the droppings. Once shed, bacteria can spread across the chicken's body as the bird cleans itself and throughout the environment as the chicken walks around. 2) Noise pollution if Roosters are also allowed. Though hens often vocalize after an egg is laid for a few minutes. The noise level during this squawking period has been measured at around 63 decibels, or about the level of two people talking. The department of public health and safety issued an order to, "put your roosters in a light proof coop, or devise apparatus that will hold the rooster's head down so he can't crow" in response to complaints about the noise they were making. If they can't see any light they won't know its morning and won't crow. 3) Potential odor. If backyard coups are not kept spotless and clean. 4) Unwanted predators, pests, and rodents. 5) Allowing backyard hens within city limits may cause a reduction in property values. 6) When it is time to sacrifice the Chicken for food, location,hygiene, and health issues are of concern to all. 7) The close proximity of many homes in town to each other and the lack of fences separating them can lead to other problems. 8) The difficulty for city staff to check or implement any guidelines accompanying such vote to allow Urban chickens. 9)Potential of creating animosity between neighbors when the Urban Chicken owner neglects his/her responsibility forcing a formal complaint to the city. Finally I urge the IC Council before the vote to also protect the rights of neighbors who do not want to have chickens next door to their homes. Thank you for your consideration and time Best regards Shams Ghoneim 2 Marian Karr From: Bill Meredith <bill.meredith @mchsi.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 10:06 AM To: Council Subject: Chickens I have watched the "Mad City" chickens video. I also eat a lot of eggs and have low cholesterol numbers. I believe each citizen should have control of their own food supply. I use gasoline to travel to buy my fresh eggs. If I owned my own chickens I would no longer need to travel for those eggs. I would also have a great source of fertilizer for my garden. I believe allowing chickens within Iowa City limits would improve many back yard environments and also spur some economic activity (chicken food sales and material for coops at the least). Chickens are less dangerous than dogs as stated in the "Mad City" video. I would gladly pay a small fee (tax) to have chickens. If after a year the cost to the city is minimal or nothing then remove the fee. Or keep the fee and fund educational programs for maintaining healthy chicken flocks. I sincerely hope the size of the flocks will allow up to 6 chickens. This will let neighbors share the extra eggs if available. It also allows larger families to produce enough eggs for consumption. Bill Meredith 3209 Friendship Street Iowa City, IA Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5240 (REZ12- 00020) ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 1.1 ACRES LOCATED AT 2225 MORMON TREK BOULEVARD FROM INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL (CI -1) TO COMMUNITY COMMERICAL (CC -2). (REZ12- 00020) WHEREAS, the applicant, Terry Lockridge and Dunn World Trend Financial, has requested a rezoning of the property located at 2225 Mormon Trek Boulevard from Intensive Commercial (CIA) to Community Commercial (CC -2); and WHEREAS, the Southwest District Plan future land -use map indicates the appropriate use for this area as general commercial, which is intended to provide opportunity for a large variety of commercial uses that serve a major segment of the community; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the West Side Park subdivision, and the West Side Park subdivision has evolved from its original plan of being a commercial and light industrial park into an area that contains residential and commercial uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has the reviewed the proposed rezoning and has recommended approval. 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 CIA to CC -2: LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT PART OF LOT 41 OF WEST SIDE PARK DESCRIBED AS AUDITOR'S PARCEL #20001069 IN SURVEY BOOK 43, PAGE 134 IN THE JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA RECORDER'S OFFICE SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance 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 Ap oved by �J City Attorney's Office �� 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 10/23/2012 Vote for passage: AYES: Dickens, Dobyns, Hayek, Mims, Payne, Throgmorton, Champion. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration 11/13/2012 Vote for passage: AYES: Throgmorton, Payne. NAYS: None. Date published Champion, Dickens, Dobyns, Hayek, Mims, ABSENT: None. r CITY OF IOWA CITY MI MEMORANDUM Date: November 7, 2012 To: Tom Markus, City Manag r '`ti From: Douglas Boothroy, Director o s a n ervices Misha Goodman, Animal Services pervisor Re: Allowing the keeping of chickens in sidential neighbor oods The Council will be holding a public hearing on Tuesday, November 13, 2012, on a Zoning Code amendment to allow keeping of chickens as an accessory use to single family detached uses (owner occupied and rental) provided certain performance standards are met in the City's Animal Control ordinance. At the meeting, Council will also be considering an amendment to the Animal Control ordinance to establish a permitting process and performance standards(see attached Urban Chicken Policy) for keeping urban chickens. Passage of the Animal Control ordinance amendment depends on the passage of the amendment to the Zoning Code. Staff recommends adoption of both the zoning and animal control amendments along with approval of the Urban Chicken Policy permitting standards. BACKGROUND On July 10, 2012, the Council received a petition from I -CLUCK (urban chicken advocacy group) that represented a large number of residents requesting the Council allow the keeping of chickens in residential neighborhoods. The zoning code prohibits keeping of chickens in residential areas and needed to be amended. The Animal Control ordinance needed to be amended to establish an urban chicken permitting process and performance standards for the keeping of chickens. The permitting and performance standards (Urban Chicken Policy) ensure accountability, avoid nuisance (e.g., noise, odor, rodents, disease, etc.) and protect a neighbor's right to the enjoyment of their property. Representatives of I -CLUCK and City staff developed the standards found in the Urban Chicken Policy. The Urban Chicken Policy is attached to this memorandum for Council's information and to provide context for the consideration of the Zoning and Animal Control amendments. Council will consider a resolution to adopt the Urban Chicken Policy at the time the Zoning and Animal Control ordinances are given third consideration and passed for approval. RECOMMENDATION If the Council wishes to allow keeping of a limited number of chickens in residential neighborhoods, then, both the Zoning Code and the Animal Control ordinance would need to be amended. In addition, Council will need to approve the Urban Chicken Policy which provides the performance standards and process to approve an Urban Chicken permit to keep chickens. Staff recommends Council amend the City Code to allow keeping of chickens along with approval of the Urban Chicken Policy. DB/ats14028561 URBAN CHICKEN POLICY (Adopted in Resolution No. 12 -_) Definitions 1. Chicken: A member of the subspecies of gallus gallus domesticus, a domesticated chicken. 2. Coop: A cage, enclosure or building used for housing and protecting chickens from weather and predators. 3. Feeder: A device or apparatus for supplying food. 4. Nesting Box: A three -sided box with floor where chickens rest and lay eggs. 5. Pen: An enclosure for chickens which allows freedom of movement but also prevents escape. 6. Roost: A support on which chickens rest. 7. Rooster: A male chicken. Permit Granted /Denied The Police Chief, or designee, shall issue an urban chicken permit if: 1. The property has passed inspection. 2. The fee has been paid. 3. There are no outstanding violations of local, state or federal law on the property. 4. The location, coop, and pen meet all the requirements of this policy. 5. The Police Chief, or designee, finds that there is no reasonable basis to deny the permit as described in the section below entitled "neighbor notification." Neighbor Notification 1. In the application, the applicant must provide written verification that he or she has notified all abutting property owners that an urban chicken permit application is being submitted. An abutting property owner means an owner whose property line abuts the property line of the applicant. 2. The abutting property owners are to be given 10 working days to object in writing to the issuance of a permit. 3. If an objection by a neighboring property owner is filed, the Police Chief, or designee, must determine whether there is a reasonable basis to deny the application. Reasonable basis means a condition specific to the site, such as drainage onto an adjacent property or to the applicant, such as a history of animal control issues (e.g., November 2, 2012 Page 2 barking dogs and failure to license animals) and /or a history of property management issues (e.g., accumulation of junk and debris, tall weeds, and snow removal). Reasonable basis does not mean solely an objection to the presence of chickens. If Police Chief, or designee, grants a permit over the objection, the Police Chief, or designee, must notify the objector in writing, and the objector may submit an appeal in the same manner as set forth for denials and revocations of permits. Terms of Permit The permit shall contain, at a minimum, the following conditions: 1. The permittee shall follow the City Code and state law regarding animal care. 2. The permittee grants the City the right to inspect the coop and pen on demand. 3. The permit is a limited license for the activity and no vested zoning rights arise from the permit being issued. The permit does not run with the land. 4. Private restrictions on the use of the property shall remain enforceable and shall supersede the permit. The private restrictions include, but are not Limited to, deed restrictions, condominium restrictions, neighborhood association bylaws, covenants and restrictions, and rental agreements. A permit issued to a person whose property is subject to private restrictions that prohibit keeping of chickens is void. Site Requirements 1. The property must be a single- family residence. 2. A tenant must obtain the landlord's written permission to install a coop. 3. Coops cannot be within 25 feet from any neighboring habitable structure. 4. Coops cannot be located within 5 feet of the habitable structure on the applicant property. 5. Coops cannot be located within 5 feet of the property line. 6. Coops and pens shall be located only in the back yard. Back yard means "rear yard" as defined in the City Zoning Code. Chicken Requirements 1. No more than four hens are allowed 2. Roosters are prohibited. 3. Chickens must be housed in the coop from dusk until dawn. 4. Slaughtering of a chicken is prohibited. 5. Selling of eggs and chickens is prohibited. 6. Eggs shall be removed within two days of being laid. 7. All feed and other items associated with the keeping of chickens shall be protected in a manner to prevent rodents from gaining access to or coming into contact with them. 8. Adequate food, water, and shelter shall be provided at all times. November 2, 2012 Page 3 9. A chicken that is outside the pen is "at large" in violation of the City Code. Coop Requirements 1. Coops may be mobile, known as "tractors." 2. Coops shall be constructed, repaired, and maintained in a manor to prevent rodents from being harbored underneath or within the walls of the enclosures. 3. Coops shall be built of solid materials such as wood, metal or plastic. 4. Coop floors shall be made of wood or cement set a minimum of 1 foot above ground level with a slight slope toward the door or other opening to prevent puddling. 5. Coops shall have at least one solid door and window that can be opened for ventilation. 6. A minimum of 4 square feet of space shall be provided per bird inside a coop. 7. Bedding shall consist of wood pellets, pine shavings, or similar material shall be provided to reduce odor. Straw may not be used for bedding. 8. Feces shall be removed and disposed of in a sealed, enclosed container at a minimum of once weekly to avoid odor. 9. Coops shall: a. Be maintained to ensure proper sanitation for maintaining the health of the chickens and the keepers. b. Be easy to clean and with good drainage. C. Protect the flock from extreme temperatures and wind. d. Keep out rodents, raptors and other predatory animals. e. Be well ventilated. f. Be free of drafts and maintains a uniform temperature. g. Have a roosting area sufficient in number and size for the chickens present. h. Have one nesting box per chicken. i. Have nests that entice hens to lay indoors. j. Offer plenty of light, both natural and artificial. k. Provide heat in colder temperatures. I. Include sanitary feed and water stations. M. Be constructed in such a manner that allows easy access for adequate cleaning. n. Be built in a well - drained area to prevent standing water. o. Be large enough to house chickens adequately. Pen Requirements 1. There shall be a minimum of 4 square feet of space per chicken. 2. The pen may be the entire back yard. November 2, 2012 Page 4 3. If the pen is the entire backyard, the fence for the backyard must be solid and at least 4 feet in height. If the pen is not the entire backyard, the fence must be at least 4 feet in height and constructed of wood, chicken wire or heavy gauge mesh wire. 4. There must be a well- drained area that allows the chickens to have access to dry ground at all times. 5. Feces shall be removed and disposed of in a sealed, enclosed container at a minimum of once weekly to avoid odor. 6. Fecal matter may be used as fertilizer if turned completely into the soil within once weekly and there is no noxious order. Permit Revocation 1. The Police Chief, or designee, is authorized to revoke a permit whenever: a. The permittee has failed to comply with this policy; b. The permittee has violated the City Code; C. The permittee has misstated any material fact in the application; d. There is a substantial and material variance between the information in the application and the actual facts or those facts which appear reasonably to have occurred; or e. The permittee is operating in violation of the terms and conditions of the permit. 2. A permittee may appeal the revocation in the same manner as appealing the denial of a permit. Fees The fee for the initial permit is $100. The fee to renew the permit is $75. �q 11/13/2012 The following is an example of the type of information that will be included in the educational materials provided by the city and produced in partnership with l- CLUCK. Keeping Backyard Chickens in Iowa City What steps must I take to keep backyard chickens in Iowa. City limits? Please keep in mind that getting chicks or chickens is the last step in your process. First you need to: 1. Conduct research online and talk to.other chicken keepers to see if chicken keeping is truly for you. Also, learn where you can get vet care and chicken feeding supplies locally. 2. If you decide to move forward, conduct a full evaluation of your yard to determine the best location for a coop. Please refer to the animal control ordinance for specific details on coop design requirements, setbacks and more. And remember- providing both sun and shade are important for the health of your flock. 3. Design a plan for your coop that will satisfy the requirements for space, placement, and materials (see. 4. Submit your coop plans, application and $100.00 fee to the city (location to be determined). 5. You will be contacted if there are any questions about your application or if your design does not meet requirements. If your plan is approved you will be given the green light to move forward with building your coop. 6. Contact the city when your coop is completed. A site visit will be conducted by Animal Control staff to verify that your coop meets. requirements /the proposed plan. Upon passing, inspection, only then can you get your flock. live in a multi- family apartment or duplex. Can I keep chickens? No, chickens are only permitted for single - family, detached households. You may not keep chickens in your yard if you live in an apartment, attached condominium or duplex. 1 currently rent a single family home. Can I keep chickens? Yes, but you will need to obtain written permission from the owner or landlord to include with your permit application. I've been keeping chickens illegally. How can I bring my coop /flock into compliance? You will be required to obtain a permit from the city. The application can be submitted with the current conditions of your coop. No chickens or coops will be grandfathered in, so you will need to complete the permitting process and satisfy any unmet requirements. (Perhaps Misha can provide guidance on this.) Which local vets are able to provide care for chickens? (currently being researched) Where can I find chicken feed and chicken supplies? Iowa City and the surrounding area offers a variety of stores which cant' chicken feed and /or necessary supplies. (We can provide a list if city is ok with that) How many chickens can I keep? Are roosters allowed? You may legally keep up to 4 hens. No roosters are allowed. What if one of the baby chicks I get is actually a rooster? Despite ordering all female chicks, you may have a male in your flock. It's best to have a "rooster" contingency plan in place before you get any chickens. For example, ask your family, friends or co- workers who have flocks outside the city if they would be willing to adopt a rooster. Additionally, you could contact a local butcher shop to inquire about having a rooster processed. If you have a rooster and no plan, please don't just let the animal loose: Join the 1-CWCK Facebook group for discussing possible remedies with other chicken owners in Iowa City. Additionally, you should do as much as you can to find the rooster a home before turning it over to animal control. What if 1 decide I no longer want chickensT, Or what if there are unforeseen circumstances (moving, illness, etc) that require me give up my flock? Again, it is best that you take responsibility to find a home for your flock. You may wish to contact some small local' farms or other chicken keepers in'the area Qoin the I -CLUCK Facebook group for networking with other chicken"owners in Iowa.City). Only after you have exhausted all options should -you consider turning your animals in to the shelter. What should I feed my chickens? What should I avoid feeding them ?. What are good elements,of a coop design? What are -the best ways to provide water for my flock? Where can I locate my chicken coop? The coop must be in the back yard, 5'feet from your home, 5 feet from the property line, 25 feet from' any adjacent habitable `structure:'In the example below, the coop 6061d -be located anywhere in the white section of the yard. Garage/ Shed Neighboring Home Where can I learn more about backyard chicken keeping? www.urbanchickens.org www.backyardchickens.com The Iowa City Public Library has a collection of books related to chicken keeping 1 -CLUCK Facebook Group, an online group of Iowa Citychicken owners More to come... The downside of raising backyard chickens I Deseret News Page 3 of 8 Swan LandscapinE We Design with the Future in Mind. Sign up for your free estimate. Chickens For Sale Learn About Business Needs Online. Ask & Answer Questions Now! a Order Baby Chickens Day old chicks from the hatchery. Small orders okay - order online The downside of raising backyard chickens By Flint Stephens For the Deseret News Published: Friday, June 8 2012 2:00 p.m. MDT Share 0 Like 22 Twitter 0 M • R Pinterest 0 Chickens like to dig and scratch in search for food. In the process, they can tear up gardens and flower beds. Flint Stephens NORM View 5 photos)) Summary Print Font 1 +1 i-1 Leave a comment E With growing interest in keeping backyard chickens, there are plenty of advocates to extol the benefits of having a home flock. No one really mentions the negatives of keeping chickens, yet there are many challenges. An Internet search for information on the cons of raising backyard chickens doesn't yield much useful information. A few articles refer to one or two negatives after listing numerous positives. Many results appear to come from people with limited or no actual experience. When communities are debating the legalization of urban chickens at public meetings, worried residents often voice concerns over things like noise and smell. But many challenges are learned only after one undertakes chicken ownership. Here are some of them: Noise Noisy roosters top the list of problems, and in many areas ordinances prohibit keeping adult male birds. While roosters crow early, loudly and often, http:// www. deseretiiews .com/articlel865557162/The- bad - side -of- raising- backyard- chicke... 11/12/2012 The downside of raising backyard chickens I Deseret News Page 4 of 8 With the growing popularity of hens also make a racket. Chickens squabble all day long; raising urban chickens, no one and plenty of cackling usually accompanies the activity. really talks about the challenges and problems. They can be messy, Admittedly, hens are not as noisy as roosters, but noisy, they create extra work, they understanding neighbors are a plus for anyone who tear up gardens and more. hopes to harvest home - raised eggs. Expense You might also like Store - bought eggs are a bargain when compared to the A comfort food that makes you appreciate the good things in cost of keeping a backyard flock. Setting up a coop with life all the equipment can easily cost a few hundred dollars. Oct. 26, 2012 Then an aspiring chicken rancher must feed and tewse season for Soups' maintain the chicks for five or six months. Only then Oct. 23, 2012 will he be able to start collecting eggs. A stuffed chicken that is elegant but easy According to www.poultrykeeper.com, in the first 18 Oct. 15, 2012 months of its life, an exceptional hen could lay up to 25( eggs. At a price of $2a dozen, that is $42 worth. Multiplied by five chickens, that amounts to about $210 That means it could take three or four years to break even on the initial investment, and that doesn't count labor or continuing costs for feed. Garden damage Chickens are living cultivators and rototillers. That can be a good thing when they are eating bugs and weeds. Unfortunately, chickens can't distinguish between weeds and newly emerging garden vegetables. And if you are lucky enough to raise vegetables or fruit to maturity, chickens believe you have done so for them to consume. If you want to raise chickens and have a nice garden, you'll need to devise a method of protecting the young plants or of keeping the chickens contained. Smell and mess Anyone who has been near a commercial chicken operation has undoubtedly experienced some unpleasant scents. Fortunately, keeping a few chickens at home is not comparable. One benefit of Utah's dry climate is that there is little smell or mess with properly http:// www. deseretnews .comlarticlel865557162I Tbe- bad - side -of- raising- backyard - chicke... 11/12/2012 The downside of raising backyard chickens I Deseret News Page 5 of 8 maintained backyard chickens. Six chickens produce about the same waste as a medium -sized dog. Culling This is a reality every chicken owner must confront. Even when maintaining hens for eggs, there will eventually be old and unproductive hens. Sometimes chickens become injured or sick, and it makes little sense to spend lots of money taking them to a veterinarian. And when one buys baby chicks from a farm store, some turn out to be roosters — even when the signs on the cages promise they are pullets (young females). Killing chickens is not fun. One can give them away, but that just forces someone else to deal with the problem. Another reality is that chickens allowed to roam or range are not very good to eat. Unlike the grocery store birds, free -range chickens have little or no fat. They are also tough — as in chewy. If one hopes to raise birds for the table, they need to be confined and eaten at a young age; otherwise, plan on chicken soup instead of fried chicken. Predators Even in urban areas, chickens attract predators. In Utah, the list includes raccoons, foxes, skunks, mink, weasels, hawks, magpies, dogs and cats. Some are primarily interested in eggs or young chickens. The prospect of eggs or a chicken dinner draws them all. If successful, they will return repeatedly. A sturdy enclosure and regular maintenance are necessary. Constant care Chickens need daily attention. They must have food and fresh water. They need to be let out in the mornings and put away at night. Eggs must be collected daily. Coops must be cleaned regularly (at least a couple times each month). Nesting and bedding materials must be http:// www. deseretnews .comlarticlel865557162IThe- bad - side -of- raising- backyard - chicke... 11/12/2012 The downside of raising backyard chickens I Deseret News Page 6 of 8 provided and changed. Ignoring any of these tasks for even a day or two is irresponsible. There are many benefits to raising chickens and harvesting one's own eggs. Good places to find information include www.poultrykeeper.com, www.backyardpoultry.com or a local farm supply store. But just be aware that avid urban chicken fans tend to understate many of the accompanying challenges. Flint Stephens has raised backyard chickens for more than io years. He is author of "Mormon Parenting Secrets: Time - Tested Methods for Raising Exceptional Children." His blog is www. morm onparen ti ngsecrets. co m. Related Stories A comfort food that makes you appreciate the good things in life 'Tis the season for soups, stews A stuffed chicken that is elegant but easy Share 0 Like 22 Twitter 0 Pinterest 0 0 1 Comments Leave a comment: DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments. — About comments About this http: // www. deseretnews .com /article /865 557162 /The- bad - side -of- raising - backyard - chicke... 11/12/2012 When the Problems Come Home to Roost - NYTimes.com Page 1 of 3 �v/zo%L HOMEPAGE TODAY'SENPER VIDEO MOSTPOPIHAR TIMESTOPICS SYDWIGe; DIgited /Horde Delivery Login Register Now At NtWflOrkeimt$ Seem a NYTmes.mn o, Dining & Wine WORLD U.S. N.Y. /REGION BUSIN65S TECHNOLOGY SCIENCE HEALTH SPORTS OPIMON ARTS SINLE 'TRAVEL JOBS REALESTATE AUTOS FASHIONaSTYLE DWINGa WINE HOMEBGARDEN WEDDINGSICELEBRATIONS TMAGAANE More Articles in Dining 8 Wine n When the Problems Come Home to Roost DBen G K I- , 1, '._'. ....... - Slaron Lane with one of her three chickens in the coop atop her garage in Berkeley, Calif. "I'm discouraged lint I'm determined to figure this 00 ," She said of her flack's mystery ailments. 711ey get diseases with odd names, like pasty butt and the fowl plague. Rats and raccoons appear out of Adchmces m nowhere. Hens suddenly stop laying eggs or never produce them at all. Crowing roosters disturb neighbors. MOST POPm.nR The problems get worse. Unwanted urban chickens are showing up at local animal Shelters. Even in the best of cinvmstances, chickens die at alarming rates. Bay Area Report "At first I named them but now I've stopped because it's just too hard," said Sharon Jones, who started with eight This article is part of our chickens in a coop fashioned from plywood and chicken expanded Bay Area wire in the front yard of her north Berkeley home. She's coverage. down to three. The Bay Area Blog features coverage of public affairs, Ms. Jones, who is close friends with the restaurateur Alice commerce, culture and Waters wanted exceptional eggs, plain and simple. But lifestyles in the region. We her little flock has been plagued with mysterious diseases. inviteyour comments at bayarea @nytimes.com. She has not taken them to the vet because of the high cost, Go to the Bay Area Biog a but she goes to workshops and searches out cures on the Internet. She has even pm garlic down their throats in hopes that the antibacterial qualities of the cloves might help. "I'm discouraged but I'm determined to figure this out," Ms. Jones said. "I still get more than I give." Most Bay Area communities allow at least a few hens, and Sometimes even permit roosters. Some elementary schools and restaurants keep flocks. Web site backvardchickens.com which calls itself the largest community of chicken enthusiasts in the world, started here. Seminal on the proper and humane way to kill chickens are becoming popular. But with increased chicken popularity comes a downside: abandonment In one week earlier this month, eight were available for adoption at the Oakland shelter and five were http://www.nytiines.com/2009/10/23/dining/23sfdine.html?—r—O E- MAILED SLOGGED SEARCHED VIEWED a. MAUREEN DOWD: Romney Is President 2. Tool Kit: How to Devise Passwords That Drive Hackem Away 3. THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN: My President Is Busy 4. PAUL KRUGMAN: Hawks and Hypocrites $. GAIL COLONS: Hillary IC —S Next Move 6. Only Matter. The Science and Act of Listening 7. Construction Site Offers Fleeting Glimpse of the Civil War Past S. Well: The Kugel Challenge q. Opinion: Political Racism in the Age of Obama To. Degrees ofDebL ChdddC'Ms Education, but Pamnts$CTM Crushing Loans Go to Compete List A. "Coming Up Roses" starring Bernadette Peters ALSO IN ARTS• "Liars Autobiography." with Graham Chapman and Monty Python "Lunch'. Donna Kanter's charming documentary about a Hollywood insfitution 11/12/2012 Advertisement By KIM SEVERSON Published: Odober 22, 20M PATRER THE Bay Area is unmatched in its embrace of the urban backyard UNKEDIN chicken trend. But raising chickens, which promises delicious, SIGN IN To E- untainted eggs and instant membership in the local food movement, "TAIL Save $70: Michelin Tires isn't all it's tracked up to be. PRINT Get up to $70 Back on Michelin Tires. Free Ship REPRINTS to Local Installer Enlarge Thlslmage Chickens, it turns out, have issues. SHARE oreawer wmrMmheen DBen G K I- , 1, '._'. ....... - Slaron Lane with one of her three chickens in the coop atop her garage in Berkeley, Calif. "I'm discouraged lint I'm determined to figure this 00 ," She said of her flack's mystery ailments. 711ey get diseases with odd names, like pasty butt and the fowl plague. Rats and raccoons appear out of Adchmces m nowhere. Hens suddenly stop laying eggs or never produce them at all. Crowing roosters disturb neighbors. MOST POPm.nR The problems get worse. Unwanted urban chickens are showing up at local animal Shelters. Even in the best of cinvmstances, chickens die at alarming rates. Bay Area Report "At first I named them but now I've stopped because it's just too hard," said Sharon Jones, who started with eight This article is part of our chickens in a coop fashioned from plywood and chicken expanded Bay Area wire in the front yard of her north Berkeley home. She's coverage. down to three. The Bay Area Blog features coverage of public affairs, Ms. Jones, who is close friends with the restaurateur Alice commerce, culture and Waters wanted exceptional eggs, plain and simple. But lifestyles in the region. We her little flock has been plagued with mysterious diseases. inviteyour comments at bayarea @nytimes.com. She has not taken them to the vet because of the high cost, Go to the Bay Area Biog a but she goes to workshops and searches out cures on the Internet. She has even pm garlic down their throats in hopes that the antibacterial qualities of the cloves might help. "I'm discouraged but I'm determined to figure this out," Ms. Jones said. "I still get more than I give." Most Bay Area communities allow at least a few hens, and Sometimes even permit roosters. Some elementary schools and restaurants keep flocks. Web site backvardchickens.com which calls itself the largest community of chicken enthusiasts in the world, started here. Seminal on the proper and humane way to kill chickens are becoming popular. But with increased chicken popularity comes a downside: abandonment In one week earlier this month, eight were available for adoption at the Oakland shelter and five were http://www.nytiines.com/2009/10/23/dining/23sfdine.html?—r—O E- MAILED SLOGGED SEARCHED VIEWED a. MAUREEN DOWD: Romney Is President 2. Tool Kit: How to Devise Passwords That Drive Hackem Away 3. THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN: My President Is Busy 4. PAUL KRUGMAN: Hawks and Hypocrites $. GAIL COLONS: Hillary IC —S Next Move 6. Only Matter. The Science and Act of Listening 7. Construction Site Offers Fleeting Glimpse of the Civil War Past S. Well: The Kugel Challenge q. Opinion: Political Racism in the Age of Obama To. Degrees ofDebL ChdddC'Ms Education, but Pamnts$CTM Crushing Loans Go to Compete List A. "Coming Up Roses" starring Bernadette Peters ALSO IN ARTS• "Liars Autobiography." with Graham Chapman and Monty Python "Lunch'. Donna Kanter's charming documentary about a Hollywood insfitution 11/12/2012 When the Problems Come Home to Roost - NYTimes.com Page 2 of 3 awaiting homes at the San Francisco shelter. In Berkeley, someone dropped four ny"ee"eom ARTS chickens in the animal control night box with a note from their apologetic owner, said Kate O'Connor, the manager. For some animal rights workers, the backyard chicken trend is as bad as the pot- bellied / \ ®utw�a pig craaz in the 198os or puppy fever set off by the movie "101 Dalmatians." In both cases, 707DVe the pets proved more difficult to care for than many owners suspected. v40 7AS wolm ClAe USE CODE: NYT "It's a fad," said Susie Coston, national shelter director for Farm Sanctuary, which rescues animals and sends them to live on farms in New York and California. "People are going to want it for a while and then not be so interested." Ads by Google whot s this' She said that farm animal rescue groups field about Igo calls a month for birds, most of Are You You Writin�a Book? them involving chickens — especially roasters. Get a tree guide his professional editing S publishing obbons. "We're all inundated right now with roosters," she said. -[hey dump them because they www.lUniverse.com think they are getting hens and they re not" Some chicken owners buy from large hatcheries, which determine the sex of the birds and kill large numbers of baby roosters, because most people want laying hens. But sexing a chicken is an inexact science. Sometimes backyard farmers end up with a rooster, which are illegal in most cities. In Berkeley, which does allow roosters, Steve Frye is in the middle of a cockfight with Ace Dodsworth, who lives about four houses away and tends a flock of hens and roosters that his community household uses for eggs and meat. "I'm not an antichicken guy whatsoever," Mr. Frye said. "It's a noise issue." During the worst of it, Mr. Frye said, the roosters woke him up 13 times in one month. He recently filed a complaint with the city. Mr. Dodsworth believes a crowing rooster is a happy rooster, but he says he does his best to keep his roosters cooped to minimize noise. He has offered Mr. Frye eggs and dinner and said other neighbors don't seem to mind the chickens. Down the street at Kate Klaire's house, there are no roosters. But the elementary school teacher has other problems. She has been through three different flocks in four years. She ticks through a list of all the ways her chickens have died. There was the breakout of Marek's disease. Her dog got to one chicken before some rules of the roost were laid down. She suspects a fox or a coyote carried off several when she was away. More upsetting were the two she found with their necks broken. "I believe they were murdered," she said, pointing to a chain link fence that appeared to have been bent by a human foot. Like many of her fellow Bay Area backyard chicken owners, Ms. Klaire remains determined. The eggs are local, the composting contributions to the garden are significant and the chickens themselves are fascinating. And for her, there has been one more benefit. "Having chickens is a really great way of dealing with loss and death," she said. Kitty Bennett contributed research. A precious version of this article mis- stated the surname of one chicken owner. She is Sharon Jones, not Lane. A version of this amide appeared in print on October 23, 2009, on More Articles in Dining 8 Wine w page A298 of the Ni York edition . http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/dining/23sfdine.html?—r--O 11/12/2012 Marian Karr�� From: Val Donohoe <Donohoe.Val @iccsd.k12.ia.us> Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 8:03 AM To: Council Subject: no urban chickens Please do not vote yes for urban chickens. They are dirty and smelly and I don't want them in my neighborhood. Do you ? ?? I really doubt that any of you would want them next door to your home. Chickens belong on the farm — farmers don't even have them close to their homes. Why do just a few citizens rule in Iowa City? The majority of people in Iowa City do not want this so please vote NO. Valerie Donohoe 1130 Penkridge Dr. Iowa City, IA 52246 This correspondence will become a public record. Marian Karr From: Brian Richman <brian @bdrichman.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 3:38 PM To: Council Subject: Chicken - keeping ordinance Mayor and Councilors, I'm writing to you to voice my opposition to the chicken - keeping ordinance you'll be voting on at your meeting this evening. I'm Brian Richman of 20 Ashwood Drive. In addition to being a resident of Iowa City, I served for six years on the City's Housing and Community Development Commission, two of those as Chairman. This is one of those instances where you have proposed legislation endorsed by a vocal and organized minority of citizens which would, in my opinion, be voted down handily by a majority of the electorate if it were actually put to a vote. I've surveyed, informally, nearly three dozen of my friends, colleagues and neighbors plus a few random people around town and found only three who support the Council approving the chicken - raising ordinance. That's obviously not a scientific survey, but the overwhelming opposition, even anecdotally, speaks volumes. There are a number of reasons that proponents of this effort have put forward. None of them are, in my opinion, compelling. Chickens can be pets, but if people want pets, there are already plenty of alternatives out there. Many will argue —as one of you already has in a Press Citizen interview several weeks ago —that dogs and cats are a nuisance. If anything, that is an argument for increasing either regulation or compliance monitoring of pets permitted under existing statutes. It is certainly not an argument for further relaxation of laws restricting pets. Moreover, pets such as dogs and cats do not generally have a negative effect on property values for adjoining residences. I do not believe the same can be said of chickens. I would certainly be hesitant to purchase a house next to a property with a chicken coop. While I certainly don't imagine everyone feels that way, many of the people I spoke to in my survey shared my concerns. I suspect several of you may as well. Chickens provide a good food source, but there are already high - quality, low -cost food eggs out there. Moreover, I don't believe the City has the resources to monitor compliance with the no- slaughter and no- egg - selling provisions of the ordinance. Raising chickens can help children learn about agriculture— something I would like for my children. But again, there are plenty of ways to do that already, including 4H, that don't require you, the Council, to pass a law infringing on the desires of most of the citizenry in order to accomplish the goal. Livestock have been prohibited as pets for decades in Iowa City and virtually every other metropolitan area in the country for decades. The mere fact that you would have to alter decades -old laws in order to permit chickens as pets ought to tell you something. Like many Iowa City residents, I value our state's agricultural heritage. But that doesn't mean I believe it belongs in our backyards. I encourage you to vote 'No' on the ordinances before you this evening. Very sincerely, Brian D. Richman Marian Karr From: shawtamike @q.com Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 10:17 AM To: Council Subject: Chicken vote To all Iowa City Council members: 124�- I urge you to vote against allow chickens in Iowa City. I chose to live in the city for city life. If I wanted farm life I would live in the country. I have personal experience with chickens from my grandparents farm and they are messy and smelly. They attract racoons, fox and other wildlife that should not be lured into the city. Our neighborhood already has a slight issue with raccoons and possums and chickens will only make that worse. These animals put our children at risk of disease. There is plenty of farmland for those who wish to raise chickens. They are free to live where chickens are already allowed. Please allow those of us who do not wish to live with chickens to have a place to live. The city is the only place for that now. We should be entitled to own our land with the same zoning that was in place when we bought it, especially since we are in the city limits. I would also like to bring up the disputes that will likely arise from this. When neighbors object to chickens this will undoubtedly cause arguments and ill feelings between neighbors who now get along. I have a neighbor that will undoubtedly want chickens and will not take it well when I object. I should not have my life in turmoil and confrontation because some want to change the rules. There is a home in our edition with chickens now that no one will address. You can not assure us that those who have chickens without following an ordinance will be delt with when they are not being delt with now, when they are illegal. Tami Shaw, CDA, RDA, EFDA Tami Shaw, CDA, RDA, EFDA Marian Karr From: Matthew J. Hayek <mhayek @hhbmlaw.com> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 3:16 PM To: Marian Karr Subject: FW: On Chickens Matthew J. Hayek Hayek, Brown, Moreland & Smith, L.L.P. 120 East Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52240 -3924 319.337.9606 telephone 319.338.7376 facsimile Email: mhavek @hhbmlaw.com Website: www.hhbmiaw.com From: Matt Hayek [mailto:Matt- Hayek @iowa - city.org] Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 10:23 AM To: Matthew J. Hayek Subject: FW: On Chickens From: David Borger Germann fmailto :david.borgergermann @gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 10:11 AM To: Matt Hayek; Rick Dobyns; Susan Mims; Terry Dickens; Michelle Payne; Jim Throgmorton; connie- championaiowa- ci .or Subject: On Chickens Dear Iowa City City Council, Please consider approving "urban" chickens. Just yesterday I received an email from the City promoting an educational program about food recycling and reducing food waste (see below). One of the EPA's top recommendations for reducing food waste is to feed it to animals, and chickens can effectively reduce food waste in the Iowa City landfill. I'm certain that you can create good ordinances that allow for chickens but still protect neighborhoods and property. Similarly sized municipalities across the country have adopted comparable measures. Thanks so much for considering, David Borger Germann Iowa City resident THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 15 East Side Recycling Center - Environmental Education Center 2401 Scott Blvd. SE Noon - 1:30 p.m. "Food: Too Good to Waste," a webinar on sustainable food management. Join Iowa City Landfill and Composting staff to discuss the many food waste diversion options available in Iowa City, and learn more about food waste: Americans throw away about one - fourth of all food purchases -- a retail value of $125 billion each year. A family of four can save more than $1,600 a year by making small changes in how they shop, prepare, and store food to prevent food waste Food is one of the largest waste streams in the U.S., yet the least recovered. Learn more about food waste management tools and resources, available to any interested local government or community. The toolkit can be tailored to specific communities. Download it for free at: http' / /www epa gov /osw /conserve/ materials /organics /food /fd- res.htm 404 E. Bloomington Iowa City, Iowa 52245 -2800 IOWA CITY ALLERGY AND ASTHMA CLINIC John Kammermeyer, M.D. Allergist November 12, 2012 TO: City of Iowa City Open Letter to the City Council: Phone (319) 354 -7014 Fax (319) 354 -3196 I am very much concerned that the City is moving ahead concerning the issue of urban chickens without giving full consideration to some of the potential problems. First of all having chicken coops inside the City will tend to attract predators including skunk, raccoon, fox and coyote. All of these predators can carry rabies. It therefore seems to me that if we allow urban chicken coops we are increasing risk of being exposed to a rabid animal for ourselves, our children and our pets. However, an even greater concern on my behalf is a medical one. Dust and debris from a chicken coop is contaminated with a large amount of fungal spores, bacteria, and various chicken proteins. Anyone with a pulmonary problem such as COPD, asthma, or pulmonary fibrosis could have their pulmonary situation flared or aggravated by exposure to the dust and debris from a chicken coop. Moreover, exposure to dust and debris from a chicken coop increases the risk of one developing hypersensitivity pneumonitis, which is an allergic -type of pneumonia seen for instance in pigeon breeders and those with parakeets due to exposure to the droppings and debris from the birds. In addition, anyone who has any degree of immunodeficiency is at increased risk to develop an opportunistic infection if they are exposed to dust or debris from a chicken coop. This could include fungal infections such as histoplasmosis or secondary bacterial or other opportunistic infections. Individuals who would be potentially immunodeficient would include anyone that is on chemo or radiation therapy for cancer, anyone who is on a biologic modifier for autoimmune disease such as rheumatoid arthritis, and anyone who is dealing with an HIV infection. In summary, anyone who has a pulmonary disease such as asthma, COPD, or pulmonary fibrosis, anyone that is under treatment for an HIV infection, anyone who is on chemo or radiation therapy for cancer or anyone that is on a biologic modifier for their autoimmune disease such as rheumatoid arthritis, should not be exposed to an urban chicken coop next door for medical reasons. (Continue on page 2) l 0 C:) f -1 I am very much concerned that the City is moving ahead concerning the issue of urban chickens without giving full consideration to some of the potential problems. First of all having chicken coops inside the City will tend to attract predators including skunk, raccoon, fox and coyote. All of these predators can carry rabies. It therefore seems to me that if we allow urban chicken coops we are increasing risk of being exposed to a rabid animal for ourselves, our children and our pets. However, an even greater concern on my behalf is a medical one. Dust and debris from a chicken coop is contaminated with a large amount of fungal spores, bacteria, and various chicken proteins. Anyone with a pulmonary problem such as COPD, asthma, or pulmonary fibrosis could have their pulmonary situation flared or aggravated by exposure to the dust and debris from a chicken coop. Moreover, exposure to dust and debris from a chicken coop increases the risk of one developing hypersensitivity pneumonitis, which is an allergic -type of pneumonia seen for instance in pigeon breeders and those with parakeets due to exposure to the droppings and debris from the birds. In addition, anyone who has any degree of immunodeficiency is at increased risk to develop an opportunistic infection if they are exposed to dust or debris from a chicken coop. This could include fungal infections such as histoplasmosis or secondary bacterial or other opportunistic infections. Individuals who would be potentially immunodeficient would include anyone that is on chemo or radiation therapy for cancer, anyone who is on a biologic modifier for autoimmune disease such as rheumatoid arthritis, and anyone who is dealing with an HIV infection. In summary, anyone who has a pulmonary disease such as asthma, COPD, or pulmonary fibrosis, anyone that is under treatment for an HIV infection, anyone who is on chemo or radiation therapy for cancer or anyone that is on a biologic modifier for their autoimmune disease such as rheumatoid arthritis, should not be exposed to an urban chicken coop next door for medical reasons. (Continue on page 2) l City of Iowa City Open Letter to the City Council Page 2 November 12, 2012 I can see some significant problems developing here and I will give you two examples: Say a permit has been granted for an urban chicken coop and originally the next door neighbor did not object. However that neighbor is later diagnosed with cancer and is placed on chemo and /or radiation therapy. They request for medical reasons, and I whole heartedly agree with this, that they should no longer be exposed to an urban chicken coop next door. However the City has already granted that permit. What is the City going to do? Another example would be that a permit has been granted for an urban chicken coop and the house next door is sold and a new neighbor moves in. That new neighbor has an HIV infection and rightly decides that they do not want to be exposed to an urban chicken coop next door. They request that it be removed for medical reasons but the City has already granted a permit for this. What is the City going to do? In summary I think that one needs to look more thoroughly into various health and medical issues here and not rush into granting permits for urban chicken coops in Iowa City. Moreover no one should be forced to have exposure to an urban chicken coop next door against their wishes. JK:kv Sincerely yours, John Kammermeyer, M.D. ti Ci' e Marian Karr 9/ �-e From: Daniel and Diane Schweer <daniel.schweer @msn.com> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 9:47 PM To: Council Subject: Backyard chickens This correspondence will become a public record. To the City Council: I oppose allowing chickens within city limits and I urge you to vote "no" on the backyard chicken ordinance up for vote starting Tuesday, Nov. 13th. Chickens belong on farms, not in towns. They aren't clean animals, and if their owners don't care for them or their environment properly (despite there being written regulations to the contrary), then their environment quickly can become unsanitary. Chicken feces smell; wet feed smells; and mold growth that may occur in wet feed smells. I don't want these odors in our city. Also, chickens attract predators and other vermin and we have enough wild animals roaming our neighborhoods as it is. Chickens attract flies, opossums, hawks, weasels, raccoons, coyotes, foxes, and even neighborhood dogs and cats that may get loose. And don't forget the mice and rats that are attracted to the feed. These predators are a nuisance and even can be dangerous. A man I know who owned chickens was bitten by an opossum, and he was forced to bludgeon it to death. Happily, the autopsy completed at Iowa State University on the opossum's brain showed the animal didn't have rabies. Must we needlessly risk wild animal bites in our city? Must we unnecessarily invite more wild animals into our neighborhoods? Allowing chickens into town just invites potential conflict between neighbors. Being a good neighbor takes some effort and communication, but if Neighbor A wants backyard chickens and Neighbor B simply doesn't want these farm animals next door, there really isn't any recourse for Neighbor B the way the proposed neighbor notification regulations are written (if none of the conditions exist to deny a permit). And in regard to the proposed regulations... I don't understand why those pertaining to the permit and neighbor notification processes involve the police department. Why burden the police chief or his designee with these responsibilities? Chickens are animals. Why wouldn't Animal Control handle these responsibilities? Just because other cities allow these farm animals in their city limits does not mean Iowa City has to follow suit. Please vote "no" on the backyard chicken issue. Thank you. Sincerely, Diane Schweer 1140 Spruce St. Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Marian Karr From: Geoffrey Lauer <gmlauer @att.net> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 7:04 PM To: Council Subject: Yes to Chickens please Dear IC Council, I support the option for Iowa Citians to have chickens inside the city limits. Please support a Pro Chicken Ordinance in Iowa City. This is becoming a more and more important issue as the issue of local food grows more important and the issue of food security does the same. Thanks Geoff Lauer Geoffrey Lauer 700 Whiting Ave Iowa City, IA 52245 Marian Karr From: Bob Elliott <elliottb53 @aol.com> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 10:49 AM To: Council Subject: Chickens in the city? Attachments: Council letter.doc I request that copies of the attached letter be distributed to Mayor Matt Hayek and other members of Iowa City's City Council. Please let me know if there are questions or concerns about this request. Thank you. Bob Elliott 1108 Dover Street Iowa City, IA 52240 319/351 -4056 elliottb53(a)-aol.com Bob Elliott 1108 Dover Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52240 November 11, 2012 To Mayor Matt Hayek and other City Council Members: I understand the appropriate commission and city staff have recommended city council discuss allowing Iowa City residents to keep chickens on their property. Did any of chickens -in- the -city proponents ever live on a farm? On any farm that I've lived or worked, the hen house was located away from the farm family home .... for good reasons. A chicken habitat is dirty, smelly, messy, noisy, and represents a significant attraction for predators (guarding the hen house wasn't a myth). I don't want someone next door or even living nearby raising a small flock of chickens. I don't understand people who move to the country and then complain about the smells and sounds of farm country. Similarly, why choose to live in a city and then decide to raise farm animals. If you want to raise chickens, do it in the country. Yes, I know, I was born and lived my first 10 years in Chicago. But my brother and sister and I spent our summers on my mother's parents' farm southeast of Ainsworth. Then when we lost our home in the depression, Johnny and Pat and I lived for more than a year with our grandparents on their farm. After our family relocated to Ainsworth, my brother and I worked on farms in the summers. Discuss it if you must, but please don't seriously consider allowing residents to keep chickens or any other farm animals on their property in our city. Thanks for your consideration. Bob ECfiott 3191351 -4056 . e11iottb53 @aoLcom I Marian Karr From: JLMaynardASLA @aol.com Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 8:59 PM To: Council Subject: Raising Chickens within the City Limits November 11, 2012 The Honorable Matt Hayek, Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Iowa City, Iowa 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 RE: Raising Chickens within the City limits Mayor Hayek and Members of the City Council: As you consider the proposed ordinances regarding the raising of chickens within the city limits, you may find the following excerpt from Sherwood Anderson's short story, "The Egg ", to offer some relevant advice: ......and if, in my turn, I am a gloomy man inclined to see the gloomy side of life, I attribute it to the fact that what should have been for me the happy joyous days of childhood were spent on a chicken farm. "One unversed in such matters can have no notion of the many and tragic things that can happen to a chicken. It is born out of an egg, lives for a few weeks as a tiny fluffy thing such as you will see on Easter cards, then becomes hideously naked, eats quantities of corn and meal bought by the sweat of your father's brow, gets diseases called pip, cholera, and other names, stands looking with stupid eyes at the sun, becomes sick and dies. A few hens and now and then a rooster, intended to serve God's mysterious ends, struggle through to maturity. The hens lay eggs out of which come other chickens and the dreadful cycle is thus complete. It is all unbelievably complex. Most philosophers must have been raised on chicken farms. One hopes for so much from a chicken and is so dreadfully disillusioned. Small chickens, just setting out on the j ourney of life, look so bright and alert and they are in fact so dreadfully stupid. They are so much like people they mix one up in one's judgments of life. If disease does not kill them they wait until your expectations are thoroughly aroused and then walk under the wheels of a wagon - - -to go squashed and dead back to their maker. Vermin infest their youth, and fortunes must be spent for curative powders. In later life I have seen how a literature has been built up on the subject of fortunes to be made out of raising chickens. It is intended to be read by the gods who have just eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It is hopeful literature and declares that much may be done by simple ambitious people who own a few hens. Do not be lead astray by it. It was not written for you. Go hunt for gold on the frozen hills of Alaska, put your faith in the honesty of a politician, believe if you will that the world is daily growing better and that good will triumph over evil, but do not read and believe the literature that is written concerning the hen. It was not written for you." Sincerely yours, Jim L. Maynard 1909 Winston Drive Iowa City, Iowa 52245 Phone: 319 -351• -4636 E -mail: jlmaynardasla(cr�aol.com CC: Mr. Tom Markus, City Manager a 9 Marian Karr + From: JLMaynardASLA @aol.com Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 8:52 PM To: Council Subject: Proposed Urban Chicken Policy November 11, 2012 The Honorable Matt Hayek, Mayor And Members of the City Council City of Iowa City, Iowa 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 RE: Raising Chickens within the City Limits Mayor Hayek and Members of the City Council: We are strongly opposed to the proposal to permit the raising of chickens on residential properties within the City Limits of Iowa City and urge you to vote against the proposal. We believe that such would greatly detract from the urban residential atmosphere, appearance and enjoyment of their properties by abutting residents due to potential problems of noise, odor, loose chickens, and the attraction of pests and predators. We already allow too many accessory structures that clutter the residential landscape, obstruct light, air circulation, openness, usable open space and views of natural character of our residential areas. These structures currently include tool and storage sheds, garden and potting sheds, playhouses, play structures and play equipment, dog houses and dog runs, gazebos, swimming pools and pool houses and probably several other kinds. While such structures are supposed to not occupy more than 20 percent of the required rear yard area, many, if not most, can be or are built without a permit unless they obviously exceed 150 square feet in area and/or unless someone complains. Consequently the quality of the residential environment in many neighborhoods is declining as the clutter and obstruction of open space increases. With respect to the proposed Urban Chicken Policy, if it is to be considered, we would raise the following objections and suggest the following changes before it is considered for adoption. Neighbor Notification: Originally it was suggested that if one abutting property owner objected, regardless of reason, the permit would not be issued. We would strongly urge a return to that provision. If such will not be considered, then certainly, if 2/3 or more of the abutting neighbors object for any reasons, the permit should not be issued. Terms of Permit: Should provide that if the keeping of chickens ceases, the Chicken Coop and Chicken Pen shall be removed within a reasonable time, not to exceed 30 to 60 days and the area restored to a residential lawn area. Site Requirements: The required distance of 25 feet for Chicken Coops from any neighboring habitable structure is not adequate. The distance should be at least 40, if not 50 feet and should include equal distance from any outdoor living area, patio, gazebo or swimming pool on abutting properties. Site requirements should also include that water run off from Chicken Pens shall be contained within the property of the owner of the chickens so as not to contaminate children's play areas, outdoor living areas or lawns and gardens of abutting properties. Coop Requirements: There is no maximum size (area) and height specified for a Coop. It is not clear whether the coop and pen is subject to or excluded from the 20 per cent of the required rear yard area occupancy limitation and whether a building permit is required for the construction of a coop and /or the installation of mechanical heating, ventilation and lighting devices. Pen Requirements: The pen should not be permitted to occupy the entire back yard. The perimeter of the pen should be some prescribed distance from all property lines such as 10 or more feet, be some prescribed distance from any habitable structure and outdoor living area on abutting properties and not occupy more than 25 percent of the back yard. As previously stated above, Site Requirements should also include that water run off from Chicken Pens shall be contained within the property of the owner of the chickens so as not to contaminate children's play areas, outdoor living areas or lawns and gardens of abutting properties. We reiterate that we are strongly opposed to the proposal to permit the raising of chickens on residential properties within the City Limits of Iowa City. We urge you to carefully consider the kind and quality of residential environment you wish to encourage throughout our fine city and to vote against this undesirable intrusion into our residential landscapes. Sincerely yours, Jim L. Maynard and Mary Lou Maynard 1909 Winston Drive Iowa City, Iowa 52245 Phone: 319- 351 -4636 E -mail: jlmMardasla@aol.com CC: Mr. Tom Markus, City Manager n Marian Karr From: Paula Swygard <pswygard @gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2012 10:01 PM To: Council; Matt Hayek; Susan Mims; Rick Dobyns; Jim Throgmorton; Michelle Payne Cc: Tom Markus Subject: Urban Chicken Policy Attachments: map - property lines.jpg Members of the Iowa City City Council, I am writing to ask that you take a close look at #5 under the section of the Urban Chicken Policy regarding Site Requirements as you proceed with consideration of passage of the policy before you. My rear lot is shallow and my house is located 29.5 feet from my back property line. The Site Requirements state coops cannot be within 25 feet from any neighboring habitable structure. Under the proposed ordinance, if my neighbor at 403 (see attached map) would like to have a coop, this coop could be placed. 5 feet from our abutting back property line. This neighbor behind me has an unusually deep lot, allowing for placement of the coop to the far back of their own lot. A duplex to their east which extends further back from the front property line would also need to be factored in, yet because of the depth of their property, this neighbor would still have space for a coop. Conceivably, their coop could be placed very close to my home, within 35 ft., and would end up being much closer to my home than to their own home. It would basically be in my back yard, or at least feel that way. I am asking that you consider changing #5 under Site Requirements so that a coop cannot be located within 10 ft from any property line. Current Iowa City zoning code, ARTICLE C. ACCESSORY USES AND BUILDINGS, 14 -4C- 2-X, regarding Structure for Shelter of Household Pets, requires that dog runs must be set back at least 10 ft from any rear or side lot line. I believe any animal ordinance regarding chicken coops should uniformly apply this set back requirement as well. Additionally, a minimum of 10 ft. would make the ordinance similar to those of other Iowa cities which allow urban chickens, such as Cedar Rapids and Dubuque, although ideally I would prefer a minimum of 15 -20 ft. from any property line. Thank you for your consideration, Paula Swygard 426 Douglass Street Iowa City, Iowa .52246 tU �4 ' 1.hLi I CA sr ♦rl L MY ISE a FIT 1940 ..—W MrA 3y ilk. • .3 Marian Karr From: Shams Ghoneim <shamsghoneim @mchsi.com> a° A' Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2012 2:01 PM To: Council Cc: Shams Ghoneim Subject: The Upcoming Urban Chicken Vote This correspondence will become a public record. Dear IC Council Members: As a long time Iowa City resident, my family and I, as well as many in the community are concerned about the recent proposal to allow Chickens in city backyards. The following are some reasons for that concern: 1) Keeping chickens poses a potential health risk. Bird flu and salmonella are the two biggest concerns health experts worry about causing illness to people specially if the chickens are left roaming in the backyards.They frequently carry bacteria that can cause illness to humans. Baby chicks may be especially prone to shed these germs and cause human illness. Young birds are often shipped several times before they reach a permanent home. Shipment and adapting to new locations causes stress on birds and makes them more likely to shed bacteria in their droppings. While anyone can become ill from exposure to these germs, the risk of infection is especially high for children, the elderly, and persons with weakened immune systems; for example, people receiving chemotherapy or who are HIV - infected. Also people with respiratory challenges and allergies can be adversely affected. One of the most important bacteria is Salmonella. There have been several outbreaks of human Salmonella infections resulting from handling baby chicks. http: / /www.cdc.gov /mmwr /preview /mmwrhtml /mm4914al.htm _Many of the outbreaks involved young children and most occurred in the spring around Easter. Salmonella lives in the intestine of infected chickens, and can be shed in large numbers in the droppings. Once shed, bacteria can spread across the chicken's body as the bird cleans itself and throughout the environment as the chicken walks around. 1 2) Noise pollution if Roosters are also allowed. Though hens often vocalize after an egg is laid for a few minutes. The noise level during this squawking period has been measured at around 63 decibels, or about the level of two people talking. The department of public health and safety issued an order to, "put your roosters in a light proof coop, or devise apparatus that will hold the rooster's head down so he can't crow" in response to complaints about the noise they were making. If they can't see any light they won't know its morning and won't crow. 3) Potential odor. If backyard coups are not kept spotless and clean. 4) Unwanted predators, pests, and rodents. 5) Allowing backyard hens within city limits may cause a reduction in property values. 6) When it is time to sacrifice the Chicken for food, location,hygiene, and health issues are of concern to all. 7) The close proximity of many homes in town to each other and the lack of fences separating them can lead to other problems. 8) The difficulty for city staff to check or implement any guidelines accompanying such vote to allow Urban chickens. 9)Potential of creating animosity between neighbors when the Urban Chicken owner neglects his/her responsibility forcing a formal complaint to the city. Finally I urge the IC Council before the vote to also protect the rights of neighbors who do not want to have chickens next door to their homes. Thank you for your consideration and time Best regards Shams Ghoneim F] 7 Marian Karr —4-61 From: Bill Meredith <bill.meredith @mchsi.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 10:06 AM To: Council Subject: Chickens I have watched the "Mad City" chickens video. I also eat a lot of eggs and have low cholesterol numbers. I believe each citizen should have control of their own food supply. I use gasoline to travel to buy my fresh eggs. If I owned my own chickens I would no longer need to travel for those eggs. I would also have a great source of fertilizer for my garden. I believe allowing chickens within Iowa City limits would improve many back yard environments and also spur some economic activity (chicken food sales and material for coops at the least). Chickens are less dangerous than dogs as stated in the "Mad City" video. I would gladly pay a small fee (tax) to have chickens. If after a year the cost to the city is minimal or nothing then remove the fee. Or keep the fee and fund educational programs for maintaining healthy chicken flocks. I sincerely hope the size of the flocks will allow up to 6 chickens. This will let neighbors share the extra eggs if available. It also allows larger families to produce enough eggs for consumption. Bill Meredith 3209 Friendship Street Iowa City, IA Prepared by: Susan Dulek, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319- 356 -5030 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 8, ENTITLED "POLICE REGULATIONS," CHAPTER 4, ENTITLED "ANIMAL CONTROL," TO ESTABLISH A PERMIT PROCESS FOR URBAN CHICKENS. WHEREAS, citizens have requested that the City Code be amended to allow them to keep chickens to produce eggs for personal, not commercial, use; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to establish a permit process for urban chickens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. AMENDMENTS. Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations," Chapter 4, entitled "Animal Control," Section 12, entitled "Permit Required," is hereby amended by adding the following new Subsection F, entitled "Urban Chicken Permits" as follows: 1. No person shall raise, harbor or keep chickens without an urban chicken permit, or other permit, issued by the City. 2. Chicken means a member of the subspecies of gallus gallus domesticus, a domesticated chicken. 3. In order to obtain an urban chicken permit, an applicant must submit a completed application on a form provided by the City accompanied by the permit fee. 4. Within 30 days of submission of the application, the Police Chief, or designee, shall issue the urban chicken permit if the applicant meets the requirements of this provision and the policy adopted by City Council resolution or deny the application. If the application is denied, Police Chief, or designee, shall state the reasons in writing. 5. The urban chicken permit shall be valid for one year and may not be sold, transferred or assigned. 6. The Police Chief, or designee, may revoke an urban chicken permit as provided in the policy adopted by Council resolution. 7. Appeals of the decision to deny or revoke an urban chicken permit are to City Manager, or designee, and must be filed within ten (10) days of the decision. 8. Subsections A -E of Section 8 -4 -12 and Section 8-4 -13 do not apply to this subsection. 9. Additional requirements, including permit fees, shall be adopted by resolution. 10. Violation of this subsection or the terms of the urban chicken permit is punishable by a municipal infraction with a civil penalty of $100 for first violation, $250 for second violation, and $500 for third and subsequent violations. 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 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 City Attorney's Office 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 11/13/2012 Vote for passage: AYES: Hayek, Mims, Throgmorton, Champion, Dobyns. NAYS: Payne, Dickens. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration _ Vote for passage: Date published Ii - CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM '° Date: November 5, 2012 To: Tom Markus, City Manager From: Geoff Fruin, Assistant to the City Manager Re: Dogs in the Pedestrian Mall Introduction: At their October board meeting, the Iowa City Downtown District (ICDD) formally initiated a recommendation to remove the current ban on dogs in the Pedestrian Mall. The primary reason for this request is to better accommodate a growing residential market in the downtown region. Secondly, the removal of the ban would support the Sheraton Hotel and Hotel Vetro, both of which have adopted pet - friendly customer policies. Finally, with a growing residential market the ICDD believes that a more welcoming approach to dogs in the Pedestrian Mall may lead to expanded business opportunities. History /Background: A review of City records indicates that the existing ban on animals in the Pedestrian Mall dates as far back as 1978. Over the years, enforcement of this regulation has been sporadic as the presence of dogs typically does not create an urgent public nuisance. Therefore, it has not been uncommon to see the occasional dog being walked on the Pedestrian Mall. With that said, the Police Department does enforce the violation through verbal warnings or tickets when they happen to observe a violation. In recent years, the City has taken significant steps to increase the diversity of housing stock in and around the downtown region. Examples of such efforts include the development of Plaza Towers and the Park at 201, which is currently under construction on the Pedestrian Mall. It is estimated that over one -third of residents in the Plaza Towers development own dogs. Similar numbers are expected to be realized at the Park at 201 when that building opens and is fully occupied. As other projects, both rental and owner - occupied, are constructed it is expected that many will attempt to meet a demand for pet - friendly units. Finally, the hotel market in downtown has adopted pet - friendly policies and plans for future hotels may include similar guest accommodations. When evaluating housing or hotel options, pet owners not only consider the policies of their building, but also the area surrounding the property. People looking for housing in the urban core are drawn to the downtown scene. However, if these individuals do not find the area pet - friendly it becomes increasingly likely that they will choose to locate in other areas of the community. Because the existing ban dates back to 1978, the City has little direct experience to draw from locally. However, there are a number of other pedestrian orientated commercial districts in the country that have successfully incorporated pet - friendly environments. Examples include Fort Collins, Colorado, the Church Street pedestrian district in Burlington, Vermont, Denver, Colorado's 16th Street Mall and the pedestrian mall in Charlottesville, Virginia. In talking with representatives from these districts the permitting of dogs with carefully crafted restrictions was undoubtedly seen as a positive policy that added to the overall appeal of the commercial district. November 5, 2012 Page 2 Discussion of Solutions: City staff is generally supportive of lifting the ban on dogs in the Pedestrian Mall. However, there are several concerns that should be considered and addressed with both existing and new regulations. First, existing city -wide regulations that govern leash requirements, the immediate disposal of pet waste, aggressive behavior, tethering to public property and animal licensing would be applied to the Pedestrian Mall if the City Council lifts the existing ban. Additional regulations that should be considered include: . • Prohibiting dogs in planters, within 15 feet of the playground surface and in sidewalk cafes. (The Johnson County Health Department currently prohibits non - service animals in food and drink serving establishments, including outdoor seating areas) • Prohibiting dogs from being tethered to private property within the Pedestrian Mall. • Limiting the length of leashes to 6 feet. These regulations will help ensure a clean and safe environment for all downtown patrons. Additionally, staff will work with the ICDD on an education effort to inform pet owners of the regulations and encourage responsible use of the space. The City will also provide pet waste bag dispensing systems and will actively monitor with feedback from the business community the impact, if any, pet waste has on the cleanliness of the district. In 2013, the City and ICDD plan to initiate a streetscape review, which will also include a discussion on pet - friendly streetscape designs and accommodations. Financial Impact: There will be a minimal expense associated with the purchase and installation of pet waste bag dispensing systems. No significant financial impact is anticipated. Recommendation: Staff recommends the approval of the attached ordinance which will allow for dogs on the Pedestrian Mall with certain restrictions as described above. If approved, staff will work with the ICDD to gather feedback on the impact of the changes. If at any time in the future staff feels that additional regulations are needed or if the ban needs to be reinstituted, that recommendation will be forwarded to Council. Cc: Sam Hargadine, Police Misha Goodman, Police Mike Moran, Parks and Recreation Sue Dulek, Legal Prepared by: Susan Dulek, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5030 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 8, ENTITLED "POLICE REGULATIONS," CHAPTER 4, ENTITLED "ANIMAL CONTROL" AND TITLE 10, ENTITLED "PUBLIC WAYS AND PROPERTY," CHAPTER 5, ENTITLED "CITY PLAZA," AND CHAPTER 9, ENTITLED "PARKS AND RECREATION REGULATIONS," TO ALLOW DOGS IN CITY PLAZA, TO PROHIBIT ANIMALS IN SIDEWALK CAFES, AND TO ALLOW DOGS TO BE OFF LEASH IN ALL DOG PARKS. WHEREAS, the Iowa City Downtown District has requested that dogs be allowed on City Plaza with certain restrictions; WHEREAS, City Code section 8-4 -6F prohibits animals in buildings serving foot but not in sidewalk cafes or outdoor service areas; WHEREAS, City Code section 10 -9 -2D allows a dog to be off -leash in Thornberry Off -Leash Dog Park, but the Code has not been amended to include the City's second dog park, Rita's Ranch Dog Park; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to allow dogs on City Plaza with certain restrictions, to prohibit animals from being in sidewalk cafes and outdoor services areas, and to allow dogs to be off leash in all dog parks. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. AMENDMENTS. 1. Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations," Chapter 4, entitled "Animal Control," Section 6, entitled "Prohibitions and Requirements," Subsection D, entitled "Animals at Large Prohibited," Paragraph 1d is hereby amended by deleting it in its entirety and substituting the following new Paragraph 1d: It is a dog in a City dog park that has been issued a use permit. 2. Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations," Chapter 4, entitled "Animal Control," Section 6, entitled "Prohibitions and Requirements," Subsection F, entitled "In Food Establishments," is hereby amended by deleting it in its entirety and substituting the following new Subsection F: In Food Establishments: No animal shall be allowed, taken or permitted on or in any building, store, restaurant, tavern, sidewalk cafe, or outdoor service area where food or food products are sold, prepared or dispensed to humans other than the owners thereof, except for animals properly trained and certified to assist persons with disabilities while such animals are acting in such capacity. 3. Title 10, entitled "Public Ways and Property," Chapter 5, entitled "City Plaza," Section 6, entitled "Animals Restricted," is amended by deleting Section 6 in its entirety and substituting the following new Section 6: No person shall take, accompany or allow any animal into City Plaza with the following exceptions: a) an animal permitted in section 8-4 -12 of this code; b) an animal trained to assist persons with disabilities; c) an animal securely confined within an animal carrier, kennel, cage, or crate and does not create a public nuisance; or d) a dog restrained with a leash no greater than six feet (6') in length and not: (1) within 15 feet of the concrete border of the playground equipment located south of the public library; (2) in a limestone planter; (3) tethered or tied to any object on public or private property; or (4) in a sidewalk cafe. 4. Title 10, entitled "Public Ways and Property," Chapter 9, entitled "Parks and Recreation Regulations," Section 2, entitled "Prohibited Actions in Parks," Subsection D, entitled "Animals," Paragraph 3 is hereby amended by deleting Paragraph 3 in its entirety and substituting the following new Paragraph 3: This provision shall not apply to: a) an animal trained to assist persons with disabilities; b) a person issued a permit as authorized in section 8-4 -12 of this code; or c) a dog in a City dog park that has been issued a use permit. 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 in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of , 2012. ATTEST: CITY CLERK AQ� � City Attorney's Office Ordinance No. Page It was moved by and seconded by ,_ Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: First Consideration Vote for passage Hayek. NAYS: None. Second Consideration _ Vote for passage: Date published Champion Dickens Dobyns Hayek Mims Payne Throgmorton that the 11/13/2012 AYES: Mims, Payne, Throgmorton,Champion, Dickens, Dobyns, ABSENT: Nane. ��,� CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM' Date: November 6, 2012 To: Tom Markus, City Manager to From: Melissa Miller, Revenue Manager x Re: Proposed Utility Deposit Changes Introduction: Effective July 1, 2012, House File 2323 amended Section 384.84 of the Iowa Code for residential rental property when the charges for sewer service, solid waste and storm water are paid directly by the tenant. Charges associated with such services are exempt from lien if the landlord gives written notice to the city utility that the property is a residential rental property and that the tenant is liable for the charges. Prior to 711112, only the charges associated with water services for residential tenant accounts were exempt from lien. History/Background: The City of Iowa City currently charges an $80.00 deposit for tenant utility accounts and a minimum deposit of $80.00 on commercial accounts. Deposits are credited back to the account after 15 months of service without delinquencies or upon termination of the service, whichever comes first. The minimum deposit has been $80.00 since 1997. Discussion of Solutions: The Revenue Division is proposing to increase the minimum deposit and only credit the deposit back to the account once it has been closed. The Revenue Division will continue to closely monitor lien and write off amounts each quarter to determine if future adjustments or changes in collection procedures need to occur. Financial Impact: During the last three fiscal years, the City has liened approximately $11,000 each year for unpaid residential tenant accounts for sewer, solid waste and storm water charges and written off approximately $3500 each year for unpaid residential tenant accounts for water services. Recommendation: The Revenue Division is proposing to increase the tenant and minimum commercial deposit from $80.00 to $120.00 and only credit the deposit to the account once it has been closed. $120.00 is two times the average monthly residential utility bill for water, sewer, solid waste and storm water services. I/ Prepared by: Eric Goers, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5030 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 3, FINANCES TAXATION AND FEES, CHAPTER 4, SCHEDULE OF FEES, RATES, CHARGES, BONDS, FINES, AND PENALTIES, SECTION 3, POTABLE WATER USE AND SERVICE, SECTION 4, WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS USER CHARGES, AND SECTION 5, SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL, TO INCREASE THE DEPOSIT FOR UTILITY ACCOUNTS AND RAISE RECONNECTION AND CARDING FEES TO REFLECT ACTUAL COSTS INCURRED BY THE CITY; AMENDING TITLE 16, PUBLIC WORKS, CHAPTER 3A, CITY UTILITIES — GENERAL PROVISIONS, SECTION 5, ESTABLISHING CITY UTILITY ACCOUNTS; DEPOSITS REQUIRED, TO HOLD DEPOSITS UNTIL ACCOUNTS ARE CLOSED; AND AMENDING TITLE 16, PUBLIC WORKS, CHAPTER 3A, CITY UTILITIES — GENERAL PROVISIONS, SECTION 6, BILLING AND COLLECTION PROCEDURES; DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS, TO ENSURE THE IMPOSITION OF LIENS CONFORMS TO STATE CODE; WHEREAS, the City has previously held some protection from loss upon tenant defaults by the City's opportunity to lien the property in question for most services provided; and WHEREAS, legislative changes to the State Code now result in greater difficulty for the City in liening for any such charges; and WHEREAS, as a result of said legislative change, the City now requires greater protection through utility deposits, which have remained unchanged since 1997; and WHEREAS, residential tenant accounts average $59.92 per month, and staff has historically aimed to set deposits at two months typical use; and WHEREAS, staff believes that raising the deposit for rental accounts from $80 to $120, and holding the deposits until the accounts are closed and paid in full will offer some protection against losses; and WHEREAS, staff wishes to raise the fee for reconnection of disconnected service,' and the posting fee for shutting off water, in order to recoup actual costs incurred by the City to do so. 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 3, POTABLE WATER USE AND SERVICE is hereby amended by changing the "Deposit and delinquency fee for combined city water and /or sanitary sewer and /or solid waste collection accounts" for "Residential tenant accounts" from "80.00" to "120.00'; and for "Commercial account ", deleting the language and replacing it with the following: An amount equal to an average 2 month billing for commercial service for city water and /or sanitary sewer service, or $120.00, whichever is greater. And is further amended by changing the "Reconnection of discontinued service" fee from 135.00" to 145.00" for the "Fee During Normal Working Hours ", and from "$70.00" to "$80.00" for the "Additional Service Fee After Normal Working Hours ", and by changing the "Posting fee for shutting off water in collection procedure" from "35.00" to 145.00" for the "Fee During Normal Working Hours ". TITLE 3, FINANCES TAXATION AND FEES, CHAPTER 4, SCHEDULE OF FEES, RATES, CHARGES, BONDS, FINES, AND PENALTIES, SECTION 4, WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS USER CHARGES is hereby amended by changing the "Deposit and delinquency fee for combined city water and /or sanitary sewer and /or solid waste collection accounts" for "Residential tenant account, per combined residential service for city water and /or sanitary sewer and /or solid waste collection service" from "80.00" to "120.00 ". TITLE 3, FINANCES TAXATION AND FEES, CHAPTER 4, SCHEDULE OF FEES, RATES, CHARGES, BONDS, FINES, AND PENALTIES, SECTION 5, SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL is hereby amended by changing the "Deposit and delinquency fee combined for city water and /or sanitary sewer and /or solid waste collection accounts" for "Residential tenant account, per combined residential service for city water and /or sanitary sewer and /or solid waste collection service" from "80.00" to "120.00 ". TITLE 16, PUBLIC WORKS, CHAPTER 3A, CITY UTILITIES — GENERAL PROVISIONS, SECTION 5, ESTABLISHING CITY UTILITY ACCOUNTS; DEPOSITS REQUIRED is hereby amended by.deleting paragraph "B." in its entirety and replacing it as follows: B. Required deposits shall be held until service is terminated and the account closed. At such time, the amount of the deposit shall be credited to the account or refunded to the account holder if the account is closed and paid in full. TITLE 16, PUBLIC WORKS, CHAPTER 3A, CITY UTILITIES — GENERAL PROVISIONS, SECTION 6, BILLING AND COLLECTION PROCEDURES; DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS, paragraph B.(2) is amended by deleting it in its entirety and replacing it as follows: 2. For residential rental properties where the charges for service are separately metered and paid directly by the tenant and when the utility account is in the current tenant's name, liens of the property shall be pursuant to state code. 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 , 2012. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Approved by City Attorney's Office 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 11/13/2012 Voteforpassage: AYES: Payne, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns, Hayek, Mims. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration _ Vote for passage: Date published A�rx CITY OF IOWA CITY 111212 Ift g1h NOT MEMORANDUM Date: November 8, 2012 To: Tom Markus, City Manager From: Adam Bentley, Administrative Assistant to the City Manager Jann Ream, Code Enforcement Assistant Re: Changes to Mobile Vending Program- Transition of responsibility to the Housing and Inspections Department (HIS) Introduction: City staff has been reviewing changes to the mobile vending program to address concerns related to the application process and enforcement. Background: The mobile vending program has been operated by the City of Iowa City for more than a decade. Within that time period, the program has evolved in scope and the City Manager's Office has been responsible for administrative policy and regulatory enforcement. As the program has evolved and as City functions have evolved, the program's processes and regulatory requirements have encouraged the City Manager's Office to review the nature of the program and how best to serve the program to meet the needs of the City, mobile vendors, the downtown, and patrons. Discussion of Solutions: HIS provides regulatory oversight for a number of programs in the City including the Melrose Street vending operations on Iowa football game days. The expertise and resources of the department are utilized in enforcing policy as well as tracking concerns over time and receiving payments for services among other related tasks. In discussions with HIS, there is agreement amongst staff that responsibility and execution of the program would be well suited within HIS. While initiating this transition, staff from the City Manager's Office and HIS initiated a review of the program to determine how to update the program to better form with practices currently being utilized in HIS and also better serve mobile vendors. Staff is proposing to amend the mobile vending ordinance and electricity fee to reflect program changes. The following changes are proposed: Length of Permit and Approval Criteria Permit shall be issued for a period of 3 years and shall be valid for 3 years providing the vendor meets all requirements, operational policies and pays fees in a timely manner. The change from an annual permit to a 3 -year permit is one of two ordinance changes. The permit may still be revoked using the criteria found in Section 10 -3 -5E of the City Code at any time during the 3 year period. At the end of each 3 year period, all current permit holders will be subject to an open application process. In light of the longer duration of the permit, the administrative rules (a copy of which is attached) will no longer provide that seniority will be a criteria for selection. Criteria for the selection of vendors shall include the following: a. Prior satisfactory operation, including problems, if any, is occurring during past operations. b. The appearance and maintenance of the vending cart. Cart must maintain same appearance for the 3 -years as that submitted at the time of application. November 8, 2012 Page 2 c. Consistent and available hours of operation. While there are no required hours of operation, a mobile vendor who does not have a predictable presence on City Plaza jeopardizes being selected for another 3 -year permit d. For a new applicant who has not previously had a permit for mobile vending, the City will consider past experience in other jurisdictions, a submitted business plan or any other information the applicant feels is pertinent to the application. e. In efforts to retain flexibility for the City, the ordinance will allow the City to terminate the permit upon a 120 -day notice if changes to the program are needed. Ownership Limit The second ordinance change is that no individual or entity may have an ownership interest in more than three vending carts. Application The first open application period will begin January 1, 2013 and all applications must be received by 5:00 PM, January 31, 2013. Subsequently, every three years the application process opens again January 1 st of that year and closes at 5:00 PM on January 31St. Applications for Mobile Vending Permits must be submitted on the form provided by the City that can be obtained from Housing and Inspection Services or on the City web site at icgov.org. Applications received after the January 31St deadline will be kept on file and may be considered in the event a current permittee elects not operate or has his/her permit revoked. However, the City may elect to permit fewer than six (6) vendors to operate and therefore not assign a replacement. Applicants must contact the Johnson County Health Department prior to submission of the City application to review health code compliance requirements. The Health Department is located at 855 S, Dubuque Street, Iowa City. Phone is 319- 356 -6040. Fees and Charges Fees for all permits are established by resolution of the City Council and must be paid promptly and prior to the specified deadlines. No permit holder shall be allowed to operate until the appropriate fee has been paid to the City. Mobile vending permit fee is $1,000 per year and the entire amount must be paid by May 1 of each year of the permit. The use of an electrical hook up must be requested on the application and be approved by the City. The current fee is $15 per month, but collecting monthly fees is not administratively efficient, and staff recommends that the fee be changed to $180.00 per vending year. The agenda includes a resolution changing this fee. It is important to note that City staff held a meeting with on July 24, 2012 with all of the participants of the mobile vending program. The vendors all agreed with the modifications and expressed appreciation for the City's initiative to take the program under review, solicit participant feedback, and ultimately recommend changes to Council. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve the ordinance changes. 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 "PUBLIC WAYS AND PROPERTY," CHAPTER 3, ENTITLED "COMMERCIAL USE OF SIDEWALKS," SECTION 5, ENTITLED, "USE BY MOBILE VENDORS," TO CHANGE THE DURATION OF A MOBILE VENDING PERMIT FROM ONE YEAR TO THREE YEARS AND TO LIMIT THE OWNERSHIP INTEREST TO THREE CARTS. WHEREAS, regulating the use of public right -of -way by commercial businesses ensures the safe movement of pedestrians and fair commercial use of the right -of -way; WHEREAS, section 10 -3 -5 presently provides that the City may issue permits annually for mobile vending in City Plaza; WHEREAS, for ease of administration and to align permits on the same three -year cycle as sidewalk cafes in the street and in planters, the permits for mobile vending should be for three years; WHEREAS, presently three carts are owned in part by one person; and WHEREAS, it is in the City's interest to increase the term of a mobile vending permit to three years and to prohibit a person from having an ownership interest in more than three vending carts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. AMENDMENTS. 1. Title 10, entitled "Public Ways and Property," Chapter 3, entitled "Commercial Use of Sidewalks," Section 5, entitled "Use by Mobile Vendors," is hereby amended by deleting Subsection A, Paragraph 1 b in its entirety and by substituting in its place the following new paragraph: Permits will be issued for three -year periods beginning May 1, 2013 to April 30, 2016. All applications for mobile vendor permits must be received by January 31 of the calendar year for which the three -year permit will be issued. Permits for partial periods may be available as provided in the administrative rules. 2. Title 10, entitled "Public Ways and Property," Chapter 3, entitled "Commercial Use of Sidewalks," Section 5, entitled "Use by Mobile Vendors," is hereby amended by deleting Subsection A, Paragraph 2a in its entirety and by substituting in its place the following new paragraph: No more than six (6) permits shall be issued for each three -year period. All permits shall be issued for city plaza except that up to two (2) permits may be issued for the 100, 200, and 300 blocks of Iowa Avenue. 3. Title 10, entitled "Public Ways and Property," Chapter 3, entitled "Commercial Use of Sidewalks," Section 5, entitled "Use by Mobile Vendors," is hereby amended by adding new Subsection A, Paragraphs 2d and 2e as follows: d. No person may have an ownership interest, as determined by the City, in more than three mobile vending cart operations. e. If the City Council decides to eliminate or reduce the mobile vending permit program, the City may terminate all permits upon 120 -day notice to the permittees. 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 V. 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 � I l --3 - ta City Attorney 1)` 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 11/13/2012 Vote for passage: AYES: Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns, Hayek, Mims, Payne. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration _ Vote for passage: Date published