HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-10-01 Ordinance10-01-13�
4a
Prepared by: Bailee McClellan, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5230 (REZ13- 00021)
ORDINANCE NO.
REZONING ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY / HIGH DENISTY
SINGLE - FAMILY (OPD /RS -12) PLAN TO ALLOW 13 APARTMENT BUILDINGS WITH 142 MULTI-
FAMILY DWELLINGS AND 6 DUPLEXES WITH 12 DWELLING UNITS ON APPROXIMATELY 19.67
ACRES OF LAND LOCATED SOUTH OF PADDOCK CIRCLE. (REZ13- 00021)
WHEREAS, the applicant, Steve Gordon, has requested a rezoning to amend a Planned Development
(OPD -RS12) Plan allowing 73 manufactured housing units on a property located south of Paddock Circle;
and
WHEREAS, the amended Planned Development Plan would allow 6 duplex units and 13 multi - family
buildings for a total of 154 dwelling units; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan -South District Plan indicates that the subject property is
appropriate for single - family and duplex residential uses; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the proposed rezoning and has
recommended that the application be denied due to lack of adequate public street access and services; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the applicant's request and the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation and has determined that the requested zoning amendment is appropriate;
and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I APPROVAL. The Planned Development Overlay /High Density Single - Family (OPD /RS -12)
Plan of the property described below is hereby amended to allow duplex and multi - family development.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A part of Lot 4 and Lot 6, Saddlebrook Addition Part 2, as recorded in Johnson County Recorder's Office
Book 42, Page 246, and a part of Auditor's Parcel 2004093, as recorded in Johnson County Recorder's
Office Book 48, 161, all lying in the NE % and NW % of Section 25, Township 79 North, Range 6 West of
the 5th P.M., City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa, described as follows:
Beginning at the southwest corner of said Auditor's Parcel 2004093;
Thence North 01* 47' 05" West 117.76 feet along a west line of said Auditor's Parcel 2004093 to the
beginning of a 150.00 foot radius curve concave easterly;
Thence northeasterly through a central angle of 08° 44' 19" an arc distance of 22.88 feet (chord bearing
North 020 35'05" East 22.86 feet) to a point on a west line of said Auditor's Parcel 2004093;
Thence North 06° 57' 14" East 544.62 feet along said west line to a westerly corner of said Auditor's
Parcel 2004093;
Thence North 080 19' 23" East 21.01 feet to the northwest corner of said Auditor's Parcel 2004093;
Thence North 08° 19'23" East 54.24 feet along a west line of Auditor's Parcel 2004092, as recorded in
Johnson County Recorder's Office Book 48, Page 160, to a westerly corner thereof and the beginning of a
1490.00 foot radius curve concave easterly;
Thence northeasterly through a central angle of 01 ° 15' 24" an arc distance of 32.68 feet (chord bearing
North 100 23' 50" East 32.68 feet) to a westerly corner of said Auditor's Parcel 2004092 and the
beginning of a 162.00 foot radius curve concave westerly;
Thence northwesterly through a central angle of 300 15' 00" an arc distance of 85.53 feet (chord bearing
North 05° 51'47" West 84.54 feet) to a westerly corner of said Auditor's Parcel 2004092;
Ordinance No.
Page 2
Thence North 200 56' 30" West 23.84 feet along a westerly line of said Auditor's Parcel 2004092 to a
westerly corner thereof and the beginning of a 25.00 foot radius concave easterly;
Thence northeasterly through a central angle of 74° 49' 56" an arc distance of 32.65 feet (chord bearing
North 160 28' 09" East 30.38 feet) to a westerly corner of said Auditor's Parcel 2004092 and the
beginning of a 126.00 foot radius non - tangent curve concave northwesterly;
Thence southwesterly through a central angle of 380 25'46" an arc distance of 84.51 feet (chord bearing
South 730 05'46" West 82.94 feet);
Thence North 870 41' 21" West 282.80 feet to the beginning of a 512.00 foot radius concave northerly;
Thence northwesterly through a central angle of 06° 51'24" an arc distance of 61.27 feet (chord bearing
North 840 15' 39" West 61.23 feet);
Thence North 80° 50' 27" West 64.45 feet to the northeast corner of Lease Lot 161, Lot 4, Part 2,
Saddlebrook Addition as recorded in Johnson County Recorder's Office Book 3668, Page 105;
Thence South 090 10' 00" West 57.84 feet along the east line of said Lease Lot 161, to the northeast
corner of Lease Lot 160, Lot 4, Part 2, Saddlebrook Addition as recorded in Johnson County Recorder's
Office Book 46, Page 121;
Thence South 090 11' 18" West 11.73 feet along an east line of said Lease Lot 160;
Thence South 000 56' 15" East 186.52 feet along the east line of said Lease Lot 160, the east line of
Lease Lot 159, Lot 4, Part 2, Saddlebrook Addition as recorded in Johnson County Recorder's Office
Book 46, Page 292, and the east line of Lease Lot 158, Lot 4, Part 2, Saddlebrook Addition as recorded in
Johnson County Recorder's Office Book 3469, Page 205, to the southeast corner of said Lease Lot 158,
also being a point on a north line of said Lot 6, Saddlebrook Addition Part 2;
Thence North 83° 02'46" West 185.44 feet along the north line of said Lot 6, Saddlebrook Addition Part
2 to a northerly corner thereof;
Thence North 86° 59'30" West 108.17 feet along a north line of said Lot 6 to a northerly corner thereof;
Thence South 89° 03'45" West 46.39 feet along a north line of said Lot 6 to a northerly corner thereof;
Thence North 850 34'54" West 32.14 feet along a north line of said Lot 6 to a northerly corner thereof;
Thence South 890 03'45" West 95.50 feet along a north line of said Lot 6 to a northerly corner thereof;
Thence North 870 30' 01" West 479.36 feet along a north line of said Lot 6 to the northwesterly corner of
said Lot 6;
Thence South 000 56' 15" East 596.60 feet along the west line of said Lot 6 to the southwesterly corner
of said Lot 6 and the beginning of a non - tangent 1040.00 foot radius curve concave southerly;
Thence northeasterly through a central angle of 340 01' 15" an arc distance of 617.53 feet (chord bearing
North 870 10' 10" East 608.49 feet) along the south side of said Lot 6 to a southerly corner thereof;
Thence South 75° 49' 14" East 509.92 feet along a south line of said Lot 6 to a southerly corner thereof
and the beginning of a 960.00 foot radius curve concave northerly;
Thence southeasterly through a central angle of 150 25' 35" an arc distance of 258.47 feet (chord bearing
South 830 24' 56" East 257.69 feet) along the south side of said Lot 6 to the Point of Beginning,
containing 21.24 Acres, subject to covenants, easements and restrictions of record.
Ordinance No. _
Page 3
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
Appr ved by
'City Attorney's Office V19113
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Item: REZ13 -00021
Overlook at Saddlebrook
GENERAL INFORMATION:
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Sarah Walz, Associate Planner
Date: September 5, 2013
Applicant: Steve Gordon
2871 Heinz Road, Suite B
Iowa City, IA 52240
Requested Action: Re- zoning to amend a Planned Development (OPD-
RS12) Plan and preliminary plat for a portion of Lots
4 and 6 of Saddlebrook Addition, Part 2
Purpose: Allow for development of Multi - Family buildings and
allow development of a 154 dwelling units within the
single - family residential zone.
Location:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning
Comprehensive Plan:
File Date:
45 Day Limitation Period:
SPECIAL INFORMATION:
Public Utilities:
Shire Lane, south of Paddock Circle
19.67 acres
OPD -RS12
North: Manufactured Housing (OPD -RS12)
South:Wetland Conservation (RR1)
East: Undeveloped (OPD -RS12)
West: Undeveloped (RS8)
Duplex and /or small lot single - family
August 7, 2013
September 21, 2013
Sanitary sewer and municipal water service are
available to this property
Public Services: Garbage and recycling will be provided by a private
hauler. Police and fire services will be provided by
the City. The nearest bus stop is at the intersection
of Highway 6 and Heinz Road, where both the Mall
and Lakeside bus routes pass. This is approximately
one half mile from the entrance of the development.
2
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Saddlebrook development was annexed into Iowa City in 1994. The annexation and zoning
of this property were subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) that the applicant would
provide for wetland protection and mitigation, construction of a trail network, dedication or
payment of fees for neighborhood open space, and reserved space for a potential school site.
The subject area was originally zoned Factory-Built Housing Residential (RFBH )—a zoning
designation that no longer exists. In 2005 all RFBH zones were re- designated High Density
Single - Family (RS -12) with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD). The area included in this
proposal was originally platted as part of a larger (77.65 acre) tract. That plat consisted of 285
manufactured housing units with access from a network of private drives connecting to Heinz
Road to the east and a future arterial street (McCollister Boulevard) to the south. [See attachment
3]
To date 146 units of manufactured have been developed in the area surrounding Paddock Circle.
To the east, the plan was amended to change from 67 manufactured housing units to 80 units
provided in a mix of duplex and multi - family buildings along Heinz Road. That amendment
resulted in a net gain of 13 units.[See attachment 4]
The applicant is now proposing an amendment for an area south of Paddock Circle and east of
Shire Lane —an area originally platted for 73 manufactured housing units. The proposal would
allow the development of 6 duplexes, and 13 multi - family buildings for a total of 154 units, to be
located on a 19.67 acre lot (a 110% increase in density).
The applicant has indicated that they have used the "Good Neighbor Policy" and have had
discussions with neighborhood representatives.
ANALYSIS:
The current development plan allows for a 73 -lot manufactured housing park served by a network
of private streets. The applicant proposes to amend the OPD plan to allow for alternative
ownership — condominium —to allow for the development of 6 duplexes and 13 multi - family
buildings (7 ten - plexes and 6 twelve - plexes) for a total of 154 dwelling units. The proposed
duplexes would face onto Paddock Circle (a private drive) with connection to Pinto Lane to the
west and Heinz Road to the east. The multi - family buildings would be served by a new north -south
private street, Shire Drive, which extends south from Paddock Circle. No public streets are
proposed as part of the new development plan.
As stated in the Zoning Code, "The Plan Development Overlay Zone (OPD) is established to
permit flexibility in the use and design of structures and land in situations where conventional
development may be inappropriate and where modification to requirements of the underlying zone
will not be contrary to the intent and purpose of this Title, inconsistent with the Comprehensive
Plan, as amended, or harmful to the surrounding neighborhood.
General Planned Development Approval Criteria
Applications for Planned Developments are reviewed for compliance with the following standards
according to Article 14 -3A of the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance.
1. The density or design of the Planned Development will be compatible with and /or
complementary to adjacent development in terms of land use, building mass and scale, relative
amount of open space, traffic circulation, and general layout.
Density: The existing RS -12 zone is intended to provide for the development of single - family
PCD \Staff Reports \rez13 -00021 saddlebrook staff report.doc
3
dwellings, duplexes, and attached single - family housing units at higher density than in other
single family zones. Because this zone represents a relatively high density for single - family
development, the zoning code indicates that dwellings should be in close proximity to all City
services and facilities, especially parks, schools, and recreational facilities, and that special
attention should be given to site design to ensure the development of quality neighborhoods.
The applicant indicates that the underlying RS -12 zoning would allow 255 units on this
property (19.67 acres X 13 units per acres) while they are proposing only 155 units. This
calculation does not take into account requirements for stormwater management facilities,
street rights -of -way or the need to meet the minimum lot dimension and building setbacks
required in the RS -12 zone. A development that meets these minimum zoning and
subdivision requirements is likely to be similar in density to the currently approved 73
dwelling units. To achieve the density proposed by the applicant Low Density Multi - Family
(RM -12) zoning would be more appropriate than attempting to achieve what is essentially
multi - family development in a single family zone. Such a rezoning would require an
amendment to the South District land use plan and the housing policies of the plan. As
noted elsewhere in this report, staff would not recommend such amendments for an area
that currently has inadequate public infrastructure and services.
Land uses proposed and general layout:
The subject property is located in an area that has no direct access to public streets or services
such as public transit. The current plan for the area allows 73 units of manufactured housing
arranged along a network of private streets with multiple connections to east to Heinz Road,
north to Paddock Circle, and south to a future extension of McCollister Boulevard.
Previous amendments for to the OPD plan on property to the east have eliminated one east -
west street providing connection to Heinz Road. Mustang Lane and the extension of Heinz
Road remain unconstructed. The proposed development provides a single access road (Shire
Lane) running north to Paddock Circle. Until Heinz Road and McCollister Boulevard are
extended, all traffic from this area must rely on a single connection to Paddock Circle, a private
street only 24 feet wide, for access to public streets.
Iowa City's subdivision regulations no longer permit private streets in single - family residential
areas. Requests for private streets in multi - family areas are considered only where
connectivity to adjacent properties is not needed. Residents of the multi - family uses proposed
in this plan would need to traverse two or more private streets before accessing public streets
(Pinto Lane to the west and Heinz Road to the east).
While the applicant is correct that a mixture of land uses may be considered in planned
developments and that a mixture of housing types, including multi - family, is encouraged within
developments, both the subdivision regulations and the Comprehensive Plan call for
appropriate infrastructure to be provided in areas proposed for higher density development.
Staff believes that the existing development in the larger neighborhood reflects the kind
housing diversity envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan, by placing higher density housing at
the edge of the neighborhood on properties with direct access to public collector or arterial
streets. Property along Heinz Road shows this variety with 27 multi - family buildings (some of
which are located in an RM -20 zone) near the intersection with Highway 6. Further south an
approved OPD plan allows duplexes and multi - family buildings along a portion of Heinz Road
that is not yet constructed.
Both the Subdivision Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan call for developments to
contribute to a larger interconnected street pattern to ensure street connectivity between
neighborhoods, multiple travel routes resulting in the diffusion and distribution of traffic,
efficient routes for public and emergency services, and to provide direct and continuous
PCD \Staff Reports \rez13 -00021 saddlebrook staff report.doc
4
vehicular and pedestrian travel routes to neighborhood destinations.
The present plan for the multi - family development creates a single block more than 1,200
feet long (east to west) and more than 800 feet long (north to south) The proposed multi-
family buildings are oriented around two large parking areas, connected by a continuous
drive in excess of 900 feet. This presents some concern with regard to safety for both
vehicles and pedestrian. The long block lengths and reliance in a large parking are with a
single drive are more typical of a commercial center than a residential zone.
The Multi- family Standards in the Zoning Code require buildings to be oriented toward a
public street, private street, or interior courtyard. Parking lots with a perimeter dimension of
greater than 300 feet should be divided into smaller, connected lots in order to slow traffic,
improve pedestrian safety, and reduce the visual impact of large parking areas. The Zoning
Code indicates that parking drives should not be used as aisles —the separation of drives
from aisles is intended to control speeds and facilitate safety. As currently configured, the
parking area does not conform to design standards in the code. This may create an unsafe
environment for drivers and pedestrians.
Mass and Scale: Given the larger issues of density and infrastructure, staff has not analyzed
the design of the buildings, which would be required to meet the multi - family standards in the
Zoning Code.
Traffic Circulation: With respect to the site plan, staff views the long driveway with an excess
of 100 parking stalls as undesirable. This type of arrangement creates a situation in which
traffic for the entire development must funnel past the buildings located near Shire Lane. As
vehicles stack at Shire lane, residents of these buildings must back out into higher volumes
of traffic, which may likely traveling at higher speeds due the length of the drive.
Arrangements with additional internal access points and clusters of buildings are more
desirable from a transportation planning perspective.
2. The development will not overburden existing streets and utilities.
With respect to neighborhood connectivity, the preliminary site plan provides two access
points from the development onto Shire Lane (a private street to be constructed as part of
the development). While Shire Lane will ultimately connect to Heinz Road (via Mustang
Lane), and to a future extension of McCollister Boulevard at its south terminus; neither of
these connections will be constructed in the foreseeable future. This creates a situation in
which the development has only a single means of access (Shire Lane). Staff estimates that
the proposed development could generate in excess of 900 trips per day. This clearly
exceeds the 500 vehicle per day allowance for a single means of access for a local street
and triggers the requirement for a secondary access (15- 3 -2:A1 of the City Code).
The Fire Chief has raised concerns about the ability to provide emergency vehicle service to
the proposed development via the narrow private streets. The streets are 24 feet wide and
the sidewalk is built at the curb with no buffer between the sidewalk and the travel lanes.
To provide the necessary secondary access to the development, staff recommends that, at
a minimum, the connection of Mustang Lane (between Shire Lane and Heinz Road), and the
extension of Heinz Road from its south terminus to Mustang Lane be constructed as public
streets concurrent with the development. Secondary access will ensure that the adjacent
neighborhood is not 'overburdened' with traffic and allows emergency services and City
services, such as transit, to reach the development.
Staff believes that Shire Lane and Mustang Lane should be public streets, constructed to
PCD \Staff Reports \rez13 -00021 saddlebrook staff report.doc
5
City standards. City Code 15 -3 -2:12 notes that in multi - family areas, requests for private
streets can only be made if connectivity to adjacent properties is not necessary — this is not
the case as Shire Lane and Mustang Lane would clearly connect to adjacent properties.
The trails and sidewalks within the development are viewed as positive. The path located
west of Shire Lane should cross the future arterial corridor adjacent to the intersection of
Shire Lane rather than further west as currently shown.
Connections to sidewalks from the street - facing sides of buildings are missing and sidewalks
within the development along parking areas are all shown are all located at the back of the
curb line. Overall the interior pedestrian circulation is less than desirable, given the size and
design of the parking area, which will function as a sort of private street.
3. The development will not adversely affect views, light and air, property values and privacy of
neighboring properties any more that would a conventional development.
Staff believes that the proposed duplex units along Shire Drive complement existing single -
family development in the manufactured housing park and provide an appropriate transition to
higher density development to the east.
While the area proposed for multi - family provides ample green space and separation for most
of the higher density development, staff is concerned that the design of the parking areas may
detract from the lower density housing to the north and future duplex housing to the east of
Shire Lane. As stated above, staff believes the increase of the traffic funneling through the
private streets will create an undesirable and potentially unsafe environment for residents along
Paddock Circle.
4. The combination of land uses and building types and any variation from the underlying zoning
requirements from City Street Standards will be in the public interest, in harmony with the purpose
of this Title, and with other building regulations of the City.
The proposed development would require variations from code requirements to allow a large
number of multi - family units in a single - family zone. The City has approved other OPD plans
where multi - family buildings were used to cluster development away from sensitive areas or to
create large areas of public open space or amenity. However that is not the case with this
proposal. In staff's opinion the purpose of this OPD appears to allow a significant increase in
density and the construction of multi - family buildings in a single family zone without proving a
public benefit. Staff does not believe that these modifications are in the public interest or in
harmony with the Zoning Code or Comprehensive Plan.
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The proposed plan, concentrating 142 multi - family
units in an area with no direct access to public streets and with its sole access provided from a
single private street, runs counter to several principles contained in the housing section of the
South District Plan (New Neighborhoods section, page 6 -7) states:
"The predominantly land use in the South District new Neighborhoods will be detached
single - family residential. However, the neighborhood will also contain areas where low to
medium density multi - family, townhouse and duplex style housing will mix compatibly with
single - family housing. The medium density housing options should be carefully designed
and located to take advantage of major infrastructure investments, such as arterial
streets, and goods and services, which are provided in the neighborhood center."
and
"Use small lot, single - family housing and duplex development to serve as a gradual,
density progression between single - family homes located more centrally in the
PCD \Staff Reports \rez13 -00021 saddlebrook staff report.doc
L
neighborhood and the multi - family or townhouse buildings located near the commercial
center or along arterial streets. "
and
Locate low- to medium- density multi - family housing in the form of townhouses and small
apartment buildings at the edges of the neighborhood along arterial streets, and nearer
the neighborhood commercial center, trails, major open space areas, and institutional
uses, such as a school or religious institutions. Limit the size of individual parcels zoned
for such development, so that the scale of the buildings is compatible with surrounding
uses and the traffic generated from such developments is adequately accommodated.
and
"... Ensure a variety of housing stock and provide controls on scale and density by
providing small multi - family lots of approximately 12,000 to 16,000 square feet for low
density multi - family housing at the intersections of collector and arterial streets. Lots of
this size will assure that the resulting apartment buildings will be no more than 4 to 6 units
per building so that there are not more than 24 units at any one intersection."
The Land Use Goals and Strategies section of the Comprehensive Plan also recognizes the
important relationship between transportation and land use by requiring new neighborhoods to
be designed in a manner that contributes to the larger interconnected street pattern of the city
and that provides for safe, efficient and orderly movement of vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle
traffic. "Blocks should be limited in size and be laid out in a pattern that ensures the connectivity
of streets, provides for efficient provision of public and safety services, and establishes efficient
and logical routes between residences and non - residential destinations and public gathering
places." The proposed development runs counter to the above principle, creating one large
block, more than 800 feet in length along Shire Lane and nearly 1,000 feet along its the east -
west boundary.
Compatibility with neighborhood: The Affordable Housing section in the Comprehensive Plan
encourages a mix of housing with small multi - family buildings incorporated on corner lots
adjacent to arterial streets, and townhouses and duplex units mixed with single - family homes
within a neighborhood. Contrary to the principles of the Comprehensive Plan, the current
proposal essentially would allow a large apartment complex in an area of the city that already
has large concentrations of multi - family housing.
Neighborhood Open Space: At the time of the original Saddlebrook subdivision and the
Conditional Zoning Agreement, the Parks and Recreation Commission determined the amount of
open space required for the entire subdivision to be 6 acres based on the Neighborhood Open
Space Ordinance. At that time approximately 2 acres of neighborhood open space were
proposed along the west side of Lot 6. An additional acre was proposed within the 50 -foot wide
sanitary sewer easement between Lots 5 and 7. The remaining three acres of Neighborhood
Open Space are to be provided along the west boundary of Saddlebrook when that is subdivided,
so that it may be combined with open space required for another tract to west, in order to create a
more substantial open space area. The amount of open space required was based on the density
allowed in the RFBH zoning that was in place at that time. If an OPD plan resulting in an increase
in density is approved for this property, an additional 8,637 square feet of open space will be
required. If this proposal is approved the developer's agreement will need to address this
requirement.
Storm water management: The pond within the proposed development provides stormwater
detention for the existing Saddlebrook Development and was designed to accomidate the
currently approved plan. The facility may require modification to accommodate the proposed
development. The wetland mitigatation plan that is required by the CZA will also need to be
PCD \Staff Reports \rez13 -00021 saddlebrook staff report.doc
7
reviewed to determine if it is sufficient for the proposed changes. If this project proceeds
stormwater calculations and a revised mitigation plan will need to be submitted.
SUMMARY: Staff believes that proposed amendment to the OPD plan does not comply with the
purpose of the Overlay Planned Development. As explained above, it is counter to the
requirements of the underlying zone and inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The applicant has indicated that changes in financing requirements and demand for
manufactured housing make it difficult to develop the remainder of Lot 6 of Saddlebrook
according to the approved plan. In Staff's opinion this is a compelling reason to change the plan
to allow other forms of housing, however it does not justify doubling the permitted density and
creating a concentration of multi - family units in an area that does not have access to public
streets and services.
The existing system of private streets was designed to serve a manufactured housing park —a
type of development where private streets were the norm. As noted above, private streets are
no longer permitted in single - family neighborhoods and are considered for multi - family
development only in situations where access to adjacent property is unnecessary. If the OPD
plan is to change, staff believes that the area should be served by public streets. We would
recommend that Mustang Lane and the portion of Shire Drive south of Mustang Lane, be
redesigned and designated as a public streets and that Heinz Road provide access to the
Mustang Lane for the initial phases of the development. Staff does not believe it is safe or fair
to direct increased traffic through Saddlebrook Lot 4 where home owners leased their lots with
the anticipation that traffic on the private streets would be limited to an additional
73 manufactured housing units (in most cases the residents of Saddlebrook lease their lot, but
own the dwelling unit placed upon the lot).
Staff also believes there is some merit in waiting to approve additional multi - family development
until the future arterial corridor to the south is in place. (This corridor is not currently in the City's
Capital Improvements Plan.) Data collected in 2010 shows that Heinz Road had 2,231 vehicles
per day and is nearing the 2,500 vehicle per day threshold for a single means of access for a
collector street (per City Code). If the new development is approved contingent with the
completion of Mustang Lane and a portion of Heinz Road as discussed, Heinz Road south of
Highway 6 would likely no longer satisfy the secondary access requirements.
If an alternative zoning is to be considered for Saddlebrook, staff would recommend that
apartments be limited to the frontage along McCollister Boulevard (labeled as future parkway
on the plan) and a mix of townhouses and duplex style units or small single family lots for the
remainder of Lot 6. We believe that this would allow for a significant increase in residential
density without requiring a major change to Comprehensive Plan policies for the South
District. Staff would also recommend consideration of multi - family units on the southern portion
of Heinz Road (where duplexes are currently approved) as a way of encouraging the
construction of this portion of the public street network.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the application REZ13- 00021, a rezoning to amend the Overlay Planned
Development— Medium Density Single- Family (OPD /RS -12) zone to allow for the development of
6 duplexes along Paddock Circle and 13 multi - family buildings along a proposed private street
(Shire Lane) be denied.
PCD \Staff Reports \rez13 -00021 saddlebrook staff report.doc
r;3
Moved to above.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. OPD Plan
3. 2003 plat for manufactured housing park
4. Overall view of Saddlebrook development
5. Aerial view of Saddlebrook and surrounding development
6. Materials submitted by the applicant
7. Correspondence
Approved by:
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
PCD \Staff Reports \rez13 -00021 saddlebrook staff report.doc
Q.J
r
d
m
aQ-
P008 zu!aH pool zu!aH lJ
Sioux Avenue SE
<< ,
s ry
2s
O O ` ,1t
CL m` _ co a
`Y
_ d
I ?
- - Q
UDIIOI(�- oll��l_' - -T� - -� �, � O � - � • jjl V 'wd '� � � `�{!?
E S'€' m'�N
2R o err 1.!2;z
R k
� � u $�$ n �`3c o o °-W`
OddIId
m f.
c I
- n I
C=
o
I c a z
ai \\� � �I N o I N N a o �''ya¢ �o� rnu,¢^
91 U
CL
IIJ °m' N g r C N ;E-, o
8sg � g "
ffi83 a� bfr 'g 3ga N s;ga ;xp }g� ffi �a F € ; .g �s$
jf
u $Via
a ttg,gmyy_:� s s aao g- s a aY a &aY
�
551 Bull come clean
$ °
a„ e
z
L
p ex
• 3� Eg Ea L F a g8x 3 "3 Le E' v E
J.
Z }Ped uoi }ippy
,
w
w
galpP�S bo 9 p�� b s�o� d� Bd
w Noa �
>o
M`,
� w�
s
F
' � w
.LL
C
VM01 AM VM01
Q
l
NBe
rc
°$ a NoojgalppeS Je NoolaanO Oq j
a
I
4
aQ-
P008 zu!aH pool zu!aH lJ
Sioux Avenue SE
<< ,
s ry
2s
O O ` ,1t
CL m` _ co a
`Y
_ d
I ?
- - Q
UDIIOI(�- oll��l_' - -T� - -� �, � O � - � • jjl V 'wd '� � � `�{!?
E S'€' m'�N
2R o err 1.!2;z
R k
� � u $�$ n �`3c o o °-W`
OddIId
m f.
c I
- n I
C=
o
I c a z
ai \\� � �I N o I N N a o �''ya¢ �o� rnu,¢^
91 U
CL
IIJ °m' N g r C N ;E-, o
8sg � g "
ffi83 a� bfr 'g 3ga N s;ga ;xp }g� ffi �a F € ; .g �s$
jf
u $Via
a ttg,gmyy_:� s s aao g- s a aY a &aY
�
551 Bull come clean
$ °
a„ e
z
L
p ex
• 3� Eg Ea L F a g8x 3 "3 Le E' v E
J.
L.L
10'
0
US F; 9
loll f. `;
b
0
0
CV
O
I
:i
rr
C
E
t
v
m
Q
The Overlook at Saddlebrook Amended Site Plan Proposal
Reason we are requesting a Modification to our Approved Planned Development Plan
The Underlying Zone does not allow multi- family
The property is currently zoned Planned Development Overlay Zone (OPD) RS -12 and is approved for a 73 lot
manufactured housing park. This zoning was applied by the city to this parcel to meet the requirements of the
new zoning code adopted in 2005. The previous zoning was Residential Factory Built Housing (RFBH).
A Planned Development Overlay is appropriate if it falls into one of 6 categories, number 6 being Alternative
Ownership, further described as a Manufactured Housing Park or a Condominium Development. We are
requesting to amend our approved site plan from one type of Alternative Ownership, Manufactured Housing
Park, to the other, Condominium.
The underlying zone, RS -12, does not allow multi - family uses nor manufactured housing parks. Both uses are
covered by the Planned Development Overlay Zone. Specifically in regards to mufti - family uses the OPD code
states:
Land Uses Allowed: A mixture of land uses are allowed in planned developments that might
not otherwise be allowed with the underlying zoning. Land uses proposed must meet all of the
dimensional and site development standards of the underlying base zone, unless a modification
is specifically approved during the planned development process. The following provisions
provide standards for uses that might not otherwise be allowed in the underlying zone:
1. Uses Allowed On Properties Zoned Residential: A mixture of housing types, including
single- family, two - family, and multi - family dwellings, is encouraged in all residentially
zoned planned developments. To help assure that the various building types are
compatible with one another, similar architectural elements, scale, massing, and materials
should be used and the following standards must be followed: (Ord. 05 -4186, 12 -15 -2005)
(emphasis supplied)
2. Multi - Family And Group Living Uses: If multi - family or group living uses are proposed,
they must comply with the multi - family site development standards set forth in chapter 2,
article B, "Multi - Family Residential Zones ", of this title. When located adjacent to single -
family and duplex structures, multi - family buildings should be of a scale, massing and
architectural style that is compatible with adjacent lower density residential development.
(Ord. 09 -4366, 12 -1 -2009)
We are not requesting to change the zoning of the property. It is currently zoned OPD RS -12 and will continue
to be zoned OPD RS -12. Multi- family dwellings are specifically contemplated by the OPD ordinance. We are
simply looking to improve on the currently approved land use from a manufactured housing park to a low
density multi- family use. There are many reasons this request will improve and enhance this area for the existing
residents of Saddlebrook, the City of Iowa City and the community as a whole which are all outlined in our
detailed Amended Site Plan Proposal. We are not looking to create a new zoning and land use on a vacant
parcel, rather we are looking to improve an existing approved land use and site plan in an established
neighborhood.
The Overlook at Saddlebrook Amended Site Plan Proposal
Statement of Why a Site Plan Amendment is Warranted. A Brief Look Back
History of Saddlebrook: The Early Years
The planning for Saddlebrook began in 1991 when 420 acres of undeveloped land situated on the Southeast border of
Iowa City came under common ownership. Over the next 3 years the owners worked closely with the city on the size of
the annexation, wetland mitigation, concept zoning issues and infrastructure challenges until the annexation was
completed in 1994. During the process, the owners agreed to annex the entire parcel making the current sanitary sewer
treatment site contiguous with the City limits and ultimately allowing the facility to be annexed and built. Over the next
couple of years zoning was established, site plans were created and Saddlebrook Addition Part 1 was approved in October
of 1996.
The Saddlebrook developers have often through the years demonstrated an acceptance and willingness to consider
reasonable suggestions, additions and /or changes to the development plan in order to improve the greater Iowa City
environment. In addition to agreeing to annex the entire 420 acres to facilitate the waste water treatment plant, discussion
regarding wetlands became a big part of the process resulting in approximately 200 acres being set aside in a conservation
easement for the establishment of wetlands and open space for all future generations to enjoy. In 1999 the city purchased
68 acres from the developer that is currently used for the South Sycamore Regional Storm Water Management Facility.
Saddlebrook reserved for the Iowa City School District a large tract of development property for 15 years in the event
Iowa City wanted to expand the school system into the SE side of town. Almost 20 years have passed since Saddlebrook
established a right of way for the construction of McCollister Blvd, which we all trust will become reality one day! In
part due to the delay of McCollister Blvd, and to allow for the orderly expansion of the project, Saddlebrook agreed to add
a secondary access to the property which was completed in 2011.
Continued Growth
In February 2001 Saddlebrook Addition Part 2 was final platted to complete the initial master plan for Saddlebrook. Parts
1 and 2 encompassed a total of 100 acres. Part 2 was a total of 78 acres zoned residential factory built housing (RFBH)
and designed as a manufactured housing park. In 2005 the RFBH zone was changed to a Planned Development Overlay
Zone (OPD RS -12) to accommodate the new city zoning code.
Vision
The original and underlying concept for Saddlebrook was, and continues to be, Community, Value and Lifestyle. Since
the first home was built in 1997, Saddlebrook has become the home to over 500 families. Saddlebrook offers various
types, styles and sizes of homes while providing country club style amenities at an affordable price. Residents enjoy a
clubhouse, library, business center, fitness room, ponds, trails and hundreds of acres of open space all beWifully
landscaped and maintained. All of the homes within Saddlebrook are quality constructed, well i�inC&and offered at
pricing to meet the workforce housing needs of Iowa City residents. i r
-� zr
0 Q_
Why a Site Plan Amendment is Warranted. Looking Forward
The approved site plan for the southern portion of Saddlebrook Addition Part 2 is not viable in today's market
❑ Financing for homeowners looking to purchase a home on leased lots is largely unavailable and unaffordable.
Lenders require large down payments, with non - competitive high interest rates, without traditional long term
fixed rate mortgage financing. Manufactured home ownership is therefore not competitive within the
Saddlebrook concept and for those looking for affordable housing options. Our Site Plan Amendment will
mitigate that circumstance and again provide affordable housing options with value.
❑ There is an oversupply of residential for sale lots, developed and undeveloped, available in Iowa City. According
to a recent market analysis by Cook Appraisal, LLC there are close to 400 single family lots available for sale and
there are hundreds of more lots platted but not yet developed.
❑ We are considering smaller single wide manufactured homes for rent on the approved land lease lots. We have
also considered selling the platted lots to a developer who specializes in rental manufactured homes. However, we
feel there is a better use for the property that will enhance all of the Saddlebrook Community along with the
greater Iowa City /Johnson County community. As mentioned earlier, at the request of the City and to further
expand the Saddlebrook community, the developers recently added a second access to the development which
will facilitate this Plan Amendment and demonstrate our commitment to continue putting together a quality
community development encompassing affordability, value and diversity in its' housing products.
In today's housing market, quality, affordable, well planned, for rent housing is needed and in high demand
❑ According to the Census Bureau, homeownership is down from its peak in 2004 from 69.2% to 66 %. Consumer
confidence in homeownership, tightened loan requirements for homebuyers, reduced job opportunities and
concern about the overall economy are all reasons for this downturn.
❑ According to HUD, nationwide single family housing starts are down 30% from 2008 levels. Based on building
permits from Iowa City, single family housing starts peaked in 2003 at 193 and were down to 80 starts in 2011.
❑ According to a recently completed market analysis by Cook Appraisal, LLC the vacancy rate for apartments in
Iowa City is 1.63°/x, which is an indication of the undersupply of units available. a
E3 ZZ,
❑ Our current rental vacancy rate within the Saddlebrook Community has been under 2 %ffme ILot se years
and we currently have a waiting list for our units. Our tenants tell us that it is hard to f#4 ali yf , affbWZe non-
student housing in Iowa City that offers amenity and flexible lease terms. C-)
`ern A
El .50% of the households in Iowa City earn under $50,000 and 24% are ages 21 -34, two s tRNt hav�
propensity to seek a quality affordable rental community.`•
r
All the pieces are present to continue growing the Saddlebrook Community
❑ Saddlebrook was originally annexed into the City of Iowa City in 1996. It contained 420 total acres and includes
nearly 200 acres of wetland preserve.
❑ Since the first home in Saddlebrook was built over 15 years ago we have developed, sold or rented 536 units,
including 94 rental apartment units and 442 single family, duplex and attached condo owner occupied units.
�1
❑ All homes sold within the Saddlebrook Community were under $200,000 and a vast majority were under
$150,000. All rental apartments within Saddlebrook are affordable to those families making 60% of the area
median income.
❑ We have recently developed in the area 12 acres, containing 71 single family owner occupied lots, and have an
additional 45 acres containing 183 units, platted but not yet developed, of single family owner occupied lots.
❑ Saddlebrook has inventory land of 48 acres not yet platted and zoned RS -8 along with these 20 acres platted for
73 manufactured home lots and zoned OPDH -12.
❑ The Saddlebrook Community has approximately 200 acres set aside as a wetland preserve -along with multiple
acres of green space and amenities within the developed areas including a 4,000 sq. ft. Clubhouse.
❑ The overall current mix of units is 94 apartments, 442 owner occupied units and 183 platted owner occupied
units. Adding 142 additional rental units to the Saddlebrook Community would produce a ratio of 27% rental
apartments and 73% owner occupied homes which is considerably less than the citywide average of
approximately 50% of households occupying rental units.
❑ We provide quality built, well managed, privately owned and financed affordable housing to many within the
Iowa City work force and their families.
❑ A 2- person household in Iowa City at 60% of the area median income can afford rent of $965, a 4- person
household at 60% of the area median income can afford rent of $1,205. Our current 2- bedroom apartments range
in rent from $825 -890 and our 3- bedroom units rent for $975.
❑ The tenants in 55 of our 60 units at the Mane Gate Apartments in Saddlebrook are either graduate students or
work in the Iowa City area. Over a third of our tenants have lived in their apartment home for more than a year,
showing an investment in the Saddlebrook Community.
❑ We feel the Saddlebrook Community must adjust the mix of housing types by adding more qp� ja ity, attractive and
a
affordable rental housing. Lo
❑ Residents interested in the Saddlebrook Community are asking for rental units as evi&ncd byFbur
hWQiic
occupancy and current waiting lists. n -< —"
--{ C-)
r
rn
6';U ---
:.
Benefits to the Iowa City Community
❑ Bring to the market much needed new rental units for working individuals and their families. There will be a
mixture of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units to provide for the needs of diverse family structures.
❑ Privately funded affordable rental workforce housing, defined as non - student housing, is a critical need as stated
in City Steps 2011 -2105. Also stated in City Steps as a barrier to affordable rental workforce housing is the lack
of land zoned for multi - family units. This is an ideal opportunity to meet this critical need.
❑ Provide jobs and a boost to the local economy. According to the National Association of Home Builders model
estimate, this project will bring an immediate impact of $11,000,000 in local income, $1,185,000 in taxes and
other revenue for local governments and 175 jobs.
❑ Additionally, the ongoing annual impact of 142 occupied units, and the occupants paying taxes and otherwise
participating in the local economy year after year, is over $3,160,000 in local income, $560,000 in taxes and other
revenue for local governments and 45 local jobs.
0
❑ The project will add an estimated $11,000,000 to the city tax base and at current rates will pay $215,000 per year
in property taxes.
❑ Most new apartment projects in Iowa City are student focused. There have been few if any larger scale, high
quality with amenities work force rental housing projects built in Iowa City in many years. This is an opportunity
to meet this need.
❑ This is an infill project and will require no investment by the city. All public infrastructure is in place and to the
site.
Benefits of this site for multi - family housing
❑ Current underlying zoning is RS -12. Under this zone 255 attached units would be the allowed maximum density.
Our plan has a total of 154 units.
❑ The property is surrounded on 3 sides by several hundred acres of open space, ponds, wetlands and walking trails.
❑ The site is well buffered from the manufactured housing community to the north by additional green space and
landscaping features.
❑ The site is on the intersection of a planned arterial street and an extra wide collector street.
❑ The site is in the SE part of Iowa City near the Industrial Park and an anticipated commercial growth area and
access to quality housing will be an integral part of the success of this area.
❑ This is an infill site with all city services in place and we are ready to develop a product that is needed and in
demand by the residents of Iowa City.
❑ The site is part of a community that already has many existing amenities in place, including a clubhouse, fitness
room, library, media center, fishing ponds, trails and 200+ acres of green space.
❑ The development will make living at Saddlebrook more affordable for the current residents in that it will reduce
their collective community assessment costs. In addition it will allow us to expand the current amenities available
and enhance the community living experience for all of the Saddlebrook residents.
In summary, we feel the aforementioned Site Plan Amendment will serve the Iowa City Community and the Saddlebrook
Community very well. It will provide needed housing diversity for the men, women and families that work and live in
Iowa City, it will aid the business community in the recruitment and retainage of employees, it will enhance the housing
choices in the Saddlebrook Development and it is a perfect location with easy access yet surrounded by hundreds of acres
of nature. Financially it will provide many jobs to local workers, bring an $11,000,000+ impact to the local economy, and
increase the property taxes on the site by over $200,000 per year. This project as designed is a true win -win for all
involved and we trust the City agrees that this new land use is better for the community than the current 73 manufactured
home sites. We hope that the City, after its review, will agree with the proposed Site Plan Amendment6wid will allow us to
start building multi - family units rather than the manufactured housing in 2014. 4 4,
We appreciate your consideration.
�►
Ew
Evolution
Saddlebrook has evolved over the years to meet the demand of the ever changing housing needs of those that choose to
work and live in Iowa City. We have redesigned some of the original RFBH zoned areas to accommodate luxury
townhomes and condominiums, attached single family housing and a small commercial office center to serve the needs of
the Community. We are pleased that over 500 families, several small local businesses and a place of worship have chosen
Saddlebrook as home, an obvious statement of approval from the public for the Saddlebrook plan. With the recent
completion of secondary access into the development, the next phase of planning has begun.
Housing needs and choices have changed dramatically in Iowa City over the last 20 years. Saddlebrook must meet those
needs and choices while keeping with the original development concept. Therefore, we are proposing a change to the
original Part 2 Site Plan which will be an exciting and beneficial improvement for 20 acres on the Southern edge of the
current development.
Proposed Site Plan Summary
Saddlebrook Addition Part 2 Original Site Plan
Zoning: RFBH; Residential Factory Built Housing
Max Density Allowed:
Approximately 9 units per acre. Note: The Saddlebrook Addition Part 2 manufactured home site
area could have been platted for approximately 702 lots on about 78 acres. Developers chose to
build larger lots to meet the housing demands of that time and designed 285 lots, of which 146
have been developed.
The Overlook at Saddlebrook,
Proposed Site Plan
b
Acres:
19.67 acres of the original 78 acres of Saddlebrook Part 2
Q w
C")
Current Zoning:
OPD RS -12
Current Site Plan:
73 land lease manufactured home sites
a :
Proposed Site Plan:
12 2 -unit attached single family houses and 142 multi - family units
.c-
Max Density Allowed:
13 units per acre
Density:
7.8 units per acre
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
n
The Overlook at Saddlebrook
List of Exterior Building Materials
Vinyl Siding
Masonry per Plan
Aluminum Soffit and Wrap per Plan
Asphalt Shingles
Wood Decks per Plan
Wood or Composite Columns per Plan
Painted Cement Board per Plan
X
0
--�
GO
r--
YC�
y
rn
cox'
o �
i
1013 JUL I I AM I I: 44
CITY CLERK
IOV'JA CITY. IOTA
d
H
FILED
2013 JUL 1 I AM 11: 45
" lhq QA �.
s
•1 t
n �
�v > 111] 1
r
9#'a
CITY CLERK
IOWA CITY, IOWA
Z
O
t=
z
0
z
O
d
J
W
Q
F!C
z
O
F—
Q
w
J
lu
V-
U-
W
J
z
0
Q
W
J
W
Illlllli""""1 Itntnumr
as
all Q01
-2
EEO I
OWN OWN
' : :::
1 al
-- - - - - - -- ---- �I;liii
�riri■ j II
�_
i f! son
al
NUNN lilllllllllll �.---- ,
our i u
....1,;�;,;, all
RVIA
UP
C' ::mi.'l;I;t;l
MOORE t r l l
Marion-
ski ski
MIA VA
■=: I - -�� I III
IIIIIIt
fl
11111111111111 � I «� », �
Inuuuniu ��--��
III
- Illlll ,� KIIHI
US
Man
1��� Sara■ I I
IflliiMmmim� ,iiuiilfii�•i'I'I�i�
Irilll
' VA
ski all
IIIIIIIIIIIII -- � - -��'
0-0 0 I
is :::: ,I,t� S
SOL.-
■ ' swoon r;l;i4 `V,
From: Roberts, Cindy <cindy- roberts @uiowa.edu>
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 3:09 PM
To: PlanningZoningPublic
Subject: Saddlebrook additional development concern -from Cindy Roberts
TO: Planning & Zoning Commission
RE: Steve Gordon's proposal for Saddlebrook development
It came to my attention recently of a developer's proposal to expand the current Saddlebrook area in
southeast Iowa City. I first want to express that I think the current mix of the Saddlebrook development is
a good one —one that was planned out well when it was first developed back in the 90's. However, a plan
that includes 13 more apartment buildings (an additional 142 multi - family units) to this area is a plan that
is only looking at the $$ —not how this will blend in w /the current Saddlebrook neighborhood and the
surrounding southeast neighborhoods. I live in the Grant Wood Neighborhood. Southeast Iowa City
already has one of the highest densities of multi - family units within Iowa City — perhaps the highest.
Some of my concerns are...
*There is no plan for a secondary access road. This will result in substantially increased traffic thru the
Whispering Meadow residential area and Lakeside Drive. Whispering Meadow Drive is not designed for
increased traffic. Lakeside Drive is already a very heavy traffic street that connects Sycamore St to the
eastside Lakeside apartment complexes and runs along Fairmeadows Park, Sycamore Greeway Trail,
Grant Wood Elem School and residential houses. This would definitely be a congestion and safety issue.
*The developer indicated that they have used the "Good Neighbor Policy" and have had discussions with
neighborhood representatives. I do realize the Good Neighbor Policy only requires resident notification for
those who live within 300 ft of the project. I want to emphasize that this development would certainly
affect neighboring residents outside of -the prescribed area —such as residents in the Whispering Meadow
and Lakeside areas.
*We're all aware of the types of issues facing our school district with the need for new elementary
school(s), renovating existing schools, and how redistricting issues need to be addressed. It's crucial that
City officials and our IC School District partner and communicate on any number of topics — especially
housing developments. Part of the City's role is to look very carefully that housing developments are
planned with the thought of how this will affect the neighboring schools. As an example, Grant Wood
Elementary School currently has 7 "portable" buildings outside the regular school building which
translates into 13 different classrooms /offices that are not able to be housed within the building.
There's always a need for affordable housing in our city that continues to grow. City officials speak often
of the need for neighborhood stabilization as it relates to many different topics. This housing proposal
adds substantially to an existing dense concentration of multi - faimly housing in southeast Iowa City. It's
ill- advised for the specific area, the surrounding neighborhoods, and is not in line with the Iowa City's
Comprehensive Plan.
Thank you for listening to my concerns and please do not approve this particular development as it's being
presented at this time.
Cindy Roberts
2034 Grantwood Street
Coordinator, Grantwood Neighborhood Association
Cell: 319 - 330 -6734
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Erik and Carol Winborn
Owners of the condominium located at
2922 Belmont Lane
Iowa City, Iowa
We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments to the Planning and Zoning Commission
concerning Steve Gordon's application to rezone property in the Saddlebrook development to
allow the development of 6 duplexes and 13 multi - family building for a total of 154 units. We
own a condominium located at 2922 Belmont Lane and live in the condominium for part of the
year. The proposed rezoning would adversely impact our neighbors and us. We agree with the
staff report and strongly concur with the staff recommendation that the commission deny Steve
Gordon's application.
Our son, Brett Winborn, purchased the condominium from Triple Crown Condominiums LLC on
August 1, 2004. Steve Gordon signed the warranty deed for AM Management as Triple Crown's
representative. Triple Crown made a number of representations to Brett regarding the character
of the neighborhood and Brett purchased the property with the understanding that the zoning in
the area would not be changed. After Brett and his wife graduated from the University of Iowa,
we purchased the property from him on January 13, 2009. We knew he would not be able to sell
the condominium in a poor real estate market and we wanted to use the condominium during our
frequent visits to Iowa City.
We agree with the staff's comment that it would not be safe or fair to direct increased traffic
through Saddlebrook. When Triple Crown marketed the condominiums, they claimed the area
would be a low- density housing area with safe streets and green areas for children. Increasing the
housing density with the resultant increase in traffic would not be family friendly and would
definitely pose a danger to the children living in our area.
The staff noted in the report that the "applicant has indicated that they have used the `Good
Neighbor Policy' and have had discussions with neighborhood representatives." We disagree
with the applicant's contention. We first learned about the rezoning request by reading about it in
the Cedar Rapids Gazette on September 3`d. No one contacted us, which is especially
disconcerting considering that AM Management manages the property for our Belmont
Townhomes Owner Association. Steve Gordon in his position with AM Management has our
contact information.
We applaud the staff's analysis in their staff report. We urge that the Commission deny the
rezoning request.
Sincerely
Erik and Carol Winborn
9706 Rambling Ridge Ct
Fairfax Station, VA 22039
Phone: 703 - 440 -0015
Sarah Walz
From: Cljewell@aol.com
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 1:37 PM
To: Sarah Walz
Subject: Shire Lane (REZ1 3-0002 1)
Sarah, this is a follow -up email to our phone conversation of 3 days ago. Regarding the zoning of the aforementioned
property, I believe that the city is very amiss in doing the necessary research about Steve Gordon & his "partners ".
First of all, Steve has contended in court just a few months ago that he is an owner of AM Management & The Paddock
LLC, however he has never filed this information with the Secretary of State. Only James Miller's name is on file & by the
way, he Is In hiding. No resident knows of his whereabouts & Steve Gordon will not reveal it. These are violations that
require the companies' business licenses be voided. Supposedly, Steve is a paid employee of AM Management, however
he rarely appears on duty, but rather continues to do land development that your department, others & the city
allow. Shame on youll He demands management payments from the residents at the Paddock, however no services are
being rendered, which is fraud & is in breach of the contract with AM Management & The Paddock, which starts, "We will
make a reasonable effort to....." NO effort is not a reasonable effort. Many residents complain, but it falls on deaf
ears. Rather, he argues & lies, & will intimidate if he doesn't get his way.
The most damaging is the resistance of The Paddock ownership in bestowing lot & home deeds to the purchasers of
homes in the complex. At the very least, we should have received a recorded covenant deed, which is a common
practice across this country. My understanding from a past conversation with Bob Miklo is that the ownership need only
to submit a plan & if it met city requirements, then the homeowners should be given recorded deeds. If the plan did not
meet city requirements (for example, lot sizes were too small), a request to 'grandfather would very probably be accepted,
especially in light of the fact that it was the city which approved the development, issued the permits & then signed -off on
them. Personally, when 1 purchased my home, no mention of a land lease was made until closing & when I hesitated, I
was told that I would be able to purchase my lot at a future date in that the management was finalizing a plan - -- -which
was an overt lie! And the lease I received was not a complete & valid contract. I still have not received a corrected lease
--10 years later!! What has a lack of deeds done to us? Well, without deeds, no financing institution other than Hills Bart
will write a mortgage on these homes & the terms at Hills are very debilitating. The requirement for 20% down & the offer -
of only a 5/1 ARM is not what the purchasing public will accept, especially when conventional mortgages still offer low,
fixed interest rates with a lesser amount down. As well, historically Hills Bank has written their ARMs at an interest rate
higher than a conventional mortgage rate. Given that these homes do not appeal to those who have the income to afford
a higher - priced home, those at the lower ends of income cannot afford the 20% down & few will accept an ARM in a
economic climate where interest rates are rising. Therefore, in order for us to sell our homes, we cannot offer them at the
selling price that they should garner given the market in this area, but must sell them at losses of $30,000 to $60,000. We
cannot afford these losses when so many of us are seniors with fixed or limited incomes who do not have the years ahead
of us to recover these loses. So we desperately try to hang -on or for some, they have simply packed & moved, allowing
the home to fall into foreclosure, which devastates their credit rating. Then when the home goes into foreclosure,
The Paddock & 14111 Management buy them at a very reduced amount & converts them to rental properties, which by &
large have become weed- & debris - infested properties, which in turn depress the values of our homes even more. (Is the
saturation of these rental properties in violation of city code ? ?? I think as much.) This entire scheme to depress our
home values & preclude us from selling our homes in this market is a federal & state restraint of trade - - -a felony. If we
cannot market our homes in the same manner as any other home in this area & cannot garner the same selling price that
a comparable home would bring, we are being economically compromised, & that is unlawful. Furthermore, attorney
Nancy Willis is complicit in this scheme & should be investigated.
Now to make matters worse, a few years ago, Steve presented a single sheet of information stating that a Master
Association was formed with the sole purpose of encumbering every resident in this complex & the adjoining
developments with the task of purchasing the club house. The club house was valued at 3 times its market value
($800,000) which I confirmed with local realtors. No one ever saw an appraisal, no purchase agreement was offered &
no vote was allowed. This is duress. Furthermore, when the residents of The Paddock requested to have an
Association of their own, the only ones allowed to vote were the ones who purchased a 99 -year lease for their lots. All
others were excluded- ---very illegal. And no one was allowed to see the final tally. Steve said that the Vote failed & we
were to take his word for it. From a man who is a perpetual & consummate liar, this is unacceptable. One needs to
understand that the ownership has received enough return from home & lease sales to satisfy the liability of the club
house, however instead the monies were pocketed & the club house liability was extended and more monies borrowed
against it. Steve says this never happened, but will not produce the documentation to support his claim. It did not take
.1�
$800,000 to build that clubhouse. Anyone with half a brain knows or can discern what building & land costs were when it
was constructed & I assure you that it never was an $800,000 project. (Local realtors have contended the same.) With
this additional liability, home buyers have even more reason to turn away from our homes,
tly one needs to recognize the many city violations that are taking place here every day. I have already told you of the
..-ad & debris problem at some home sites as well as around the community mailboxes. There are weeds 3 -, 4- &
even 5 -ft tall in violation of city ordinances. There are homes in disrepair, as well. And has the number of rental units
surpassed what is allowed under city ordinance? The worst problem is the speeding occurring on Paddock Circle & this
isn't a once -in -a -while event. It is every day & has been happening for the better part of 8 years. MANY vehicles are
speeding through here in excess of 40 mph on streets that are narrow with no boulevards separating the street from the
sidewalks & with homes sitting within a few feet of the street. The posted limit is 15 mph on small signs that few can see
& are not illuminated after dark. But mostly, the perpetual speeders just don't care whether they are a threat to safety or
not. Personally, I have stopped FedEx & UPS vans, school buses, residents & visitors cars & maintenance personnel
who were hired by the management/ownershio. I have made calls to businesses & to every member of the school board
multiple times & to residents' homes. Yet the management/ownership refuse to do anything about this & I have been told
on 2 occasions that they can't do anything about it when on the back side, they printed a warning that they would fine,
however I have seen no fine income. This is a violation of public safety & that is a felony! And anyone who will not
make an effort to arrest the problem is complicit in its occurrence, & will be liable if any person is maimed or killed. I have
argued several times that we need stop signs, speed bumps & patrolling, which are strongly resisted. Steve says there
isn't the manpower to patrol, but of course there isn't when he doesn't show up for work & will not mandate that other
employees who are available do some patrolling. However he has a contract that says that he must make a reasonable
effort! He argues that they can't put up stop signs because "other residents are unwilling ", however are they the ones who
are being threatened every day? Actually, I am hesitant to believe that those "other residents" actually exist as so many
with whom I have spoken agree with me. Then there is the reluctance to construct speed bumps with the excuse that the
snow plowers will not be able to remove the snow if there are bumps. Well, if snow can be removed in Minneapolis,
Chicago, New York City & Denver from streets with speed bumps, I am certain it can be done here. And I am certain that
the management/ownership has the funds for signage, speed bump construction & patrolling if they can pay people who
don't appear for work or are unwilling to do the work.
Keep in mind that when you are dealing with Steve Gordon, he is very good at appearing & playing the concerned &
rPcoonsible person, but I assure you that he is a pretentious person who is a constant liar. Nothing he says should be
,pted & he should be thoroughly investigate. As well, the same should be done with the missing James Miller & with
Nancy Willis. No zoning & no permits should be extended without this thorough investigation & certainly the city council,
the city manager & the city attorney should have some responsibility in legally stopping him. I & my neighbors pay taxes
to the city, therefore every department owes us the legal protection!
0 dwth4ojewell
cljewell@aol.com
319/354 -2357
M
Sarah Walz
From:
Cljewell@aol.com
Sent:
Friday, August 30, 2013 2:19 PM
To:
Sarah Walz
Subject:
Postscript Shire Lane
r,
Sarah, I forgot to mention the violations of the city's noise ordinance. With the speeders on Paddock Circle, we have to
also tolerate those with very loud disk players wired into multiple, extremely loud woofers. When such vehicle passes,
usually speeding as well, the noise is so loud, the walls of our homes vibrate & our windows & the dishes in our
cupboards rattle. Often this is happening very early in the morning or very late at night, but surely, it happens around the
clock. Yet, the management/ownership refuse to do anything about this & they are certainly aware of it happening. This
is also illegal!!
, Ath%qJewell
cl iewellO- )aol.com
319/354 -2357
PETITION
To: Iowa City Council Members
City of Iowa City Planning and Zoning Members
From: The residents of The Paddock at Saddlebrook
RE: An application by the Paddock, LLC for a site plan amendment for The Overlook at Saddlebrook
We, residents and homeowners in The Paddock at Saddlebrook, submit the following petition.
We have met with the owner and developer of the land directly to the south of our neighborhood,
known as the Overlook at Saddlebrook and are aware of the application they have presented to amend
the site plan. We have reviewed the proposed vs. the current site plan and are in favor of the proposed
site plan. We feel the proposed site plan will be much more aesthetically pleasing, will be better
maintained, will provide more green space and enhanced amenities for our community and provide a
solid financial base for our neighborhood association for many years to come.
We encourage you to vote in favor of the site plan amendment and appreciate your consideration.
NAMF
ADDRESS / /
pa Liz
- Y-- "CYC l Ls
�2-4(o C.��?�C�
NA E ADDRESS
r
04 - 2 9Z/l Z Cf 1iiv
P o l� Y"Ttowk 57
I 19t
2 0 F c, JO .i e _ _C Gt 52.244
So.?gU
,3 2 �,d
S.z•Zfo
�? �C'Id o G r-GI e-
t` s jav,
Ef
. !f 47
C 7 - �G� . eX
NAME
ADDRESS
;qt)
3 ZeAckn f y
5-224-6
7
PETITION
To: Iowa City Council Members
City of Iowa City Planning and Zoning Members
From: The residents of The Paddock at Saddlebrook
RE: An application by the Paddock, LLC for a site plan amendment for The Overlook at Saddlebrook
We, residents and homeowners in The Paddock at Saddlebrook, submit the following petition.
We have met with the owner and developer of the land directly to the south of our neighborhood,
known as the Overlook at Saddlebrook and are aware of the application they have presented to amend
the site plan. We have reviewed the proposed vs. the current site plan and are in favor of the proposed
site plan. We feel the proposed site plan will be much more aesthetically pleasing, will be better
maintained, will provide more green space and enhanced amenities for our community and provide a
solid financial base for our neighborhood association for many years to come.
We encourage you to vote in favor of the site plan amendment and appreciate your consideration.
NAME
ADDRESS
a3� Q
i� /L ��
NAME ADDRESS
NF�
E I ff mm" I -
AQ
PETITION
To: Iowa City Council Members
City of Iowa City Planning and Zoning Members
From: The residents of The Paddock at Saddlebrook
RE: An application by the Paddock, LLC for a site plan amendment for The Overlook at Saddlebrook
We, residents and homeowners in The Paddock at Saddlebrook, submit the following petition.
We have met with the owner and developer of the land directly to the south of our neighborhood,
known as the Overlook at Saddlebrook and are aware of the application they have presented to amend
the site plan. We have reviewed the proposed vs. the current site plan and are in favor of the proposed
site plan. We feel the proposed site plan will be much more aesthetically pleasing, will be better
maintained, will provide more green space and enhanced amenities for our community and provide a
solid financial base for our neighborhood association for many years to come.
We encourage you to vote in favor of the site plan amendment and appreciate your consideration.
1, M-.11I4
ADDRESS
• t►
1 � 1
ADDRESS
. OY-
A
PETITION
To: Iowa City Council Members
City of Iowa City Planning and Zoning Members
From: The residents of The Paddock at Saddlebrook
RE: An application by the Paddock, LLC for a site plan amendment for The Overlook at Saddlebrook
We, residents and homeowners in The Paddock at Saddlebrook, submit the following petition.
We have met with the owner and developer of the land directly to the south of our neighborhood,
known as the Overlook at Saddlebrook and are aware of the application they have presented to amend
the site plan. We have reviewed the proposed vs. the current site plan and are in favor of the proposed
site plan. We feel the proposed site plan will be much more aesthetically pleasing, will be better
maintained, will provide more green space and enhanced amenities for our community and provide a
solid financial base for our neighborhood association for many years to come.
We encourage you to vote in favor of the site plan amendment and appreciate your consideration.
IkTPI4
ADDRESS
4
2-20 Pu ddork- Clrc .-.e
n t
NAME ADDRESS
pCddac �- c ;r
J daloc - 2��
V i
oc
PETITION
To: Iowa City Council Members
City of Iowa City Planning and Zoning Members
From: The residents of The Paddock at Saddlebrook
RE: An application by the Paddock, LLC for a site plan amendment for The Overlook at Saddlebrook
We, residents and homeowners in The Paddock at Saddlebrook, submit the following petition.
We have met with the owner and developer of the land directly to the south of our neighborhood,
known as the Overlook at Saddlebrook and are aware of the application they have presented to amend
the site plan. We have reviewed the proposed vs. the current site plan and are in favor of the proposed
site plan. We feel the proposed site plan will be much more aesthetically pleasing, will be better
maintained, will provide more green space and enhanced amenities for our community and provide a
solid financial base for our neighborhood association for many years to come.
We encourage you to vote in favor of the site plan amendment and appreciate your consideration.
NAME
\J f�
ADDRESS
la
CV'
NAME
ADDRESS
Iryan I.,�e t,
PETITION
To: Iowa City Council Members
City of Iowa City Planning and Zoning Members
From: The residents of The Paddock at Saddlebrook
RE: An application by the Paddock, LLC for a site plan amendment for The Overlook at Saddlebrook
We, residents and homeowners in The Paddock at Saddlebrook, submit the following petition.
We have met with the owner and developer of the land directly to the south of our neighborhood,
known as the Overlook at Saddlebrook and are aware of the application they have presented to amend
the site plan. We have reviewed the proposed vs. the current site plan and are in favor of the proposed
site plan. We feel the proposed site plan will be much more aesthetically pleasing, will be better
maintained, will provide more green space and enhanced amenities for our community and provide a
solid financial base for our neighborhood association for many years to come.
We encourage you to vote in favor of the site plan amendment and appreciate your consideration.
NAME ADDRESS
5A1, ' M40
I KV %64 a V,
PETITION
To: Iowa City Council Members
City of Iowa City Planning and Zoning Members
From: The residents of The Paddock at Saddlebrook
RE: An application by the Paddock, LLC for a site plan amendment for The Overlook at Saddlebrook
We, residents and homeowners in The Paddock at Saddlebrook, submit the following petition.
We have met with the owner and developer of the land directly to the south of our neighborhood,
known as the Overlook at Saddlebrook and are aware of the application they have presented to amend
the site plan. We have reviewed the proposed vs. the current site plan and are in favor of the proposed
site plan. We feel the proposed site plan will be much more aesthetically pleasing, will be better
maintained, will provide more green space and enhanced amenities for our community and provide a
solid financial base for our neighborhood association for many years to come.
We encourage you to vote in favor of the site plan amendment and appreciate your consideration.
NAME ADDRESS
q- PCB o d a , tk
PETITION
To: Iowa City Council Members
City of Iowa City Planning and Zoning Members
From: The residents of The Paddock at Saddlebrook
RE: An application by the Paddock, LLC for a site plan amendment for The Overlook at Saddlebrook
We, residents and homeowners in The Paddock at Saddlebrook, submit the following petition.
We have met with the owner and developer of the land directly to the south of our neighborhood,
known as the Overlook at Saddlebrook and are aware of the application they have presented to amend
the site plan. We have reviewed the proposed vs. the current site plan and are in favor of the proposed
site plan. We feel the proposed site plan will be much more aesthetically pleasing, will be better
maintained, will provide more green space and enhanced amenities for our community and provide a
solid financial base for our neighborhood association for many years to come.
We encourage you to vote in favor of the site plan amendment and appreciate your consideration.
NAME
1
ADDRESS
(lc,e,1 <,
Marian Karr
From: Kenoyer, Belle V <belle- kenoyer @uiowa.edu>
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 1:00 PM
To: Council
Subject: regarding Saddlebrook developer rezoning proposal
Dear Iowa City Council
I am a resident who lives at 1747 lakeside dr. Recently the Grant Wood Neighborhood Association notified us
of the public hearing slated for October 1 and passed on the corresponding documents from the developer of
Saddlebrook who is requesting a zoning change. As someone who lives RIGHT ON lakeside, I can already attest
to the large amount of traffic, not to mention people who speed well over the posted speed limits, on a
regular basis. As someone who walked my kids to school every day last year, the fact that the cross walks were
routinely ignored by people actually taking their children to Grant Wood Elementary school makes me nervous
to add an additional 900 trips /day on this road. In addition, to increase the population density for this
previously zoned land by 110% makes no sense to me as a means to maintain proper land use. I would like to
ask the council to reject this proposal out right.
Belle Vukovich Kenoyer
This correspondence will become a public record.
Marian Karr
From: Roberts, Cindy <cindy- roberts @uiowa.edu>
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 1:57 PM
To: Council
Subject: Saddlebrook development concern -from Cindy Roberts
TO: Mayor Hayek and City Council
RE: Steve Gordon's proposal for Saddlebrook development
Date: 9/23/13
It came to my attention recently of a developer's proposal to expand the current Saddlebrook area in
southeast Iowa City. I first want to express that I think the current mix of the Saddlebrook development is
a good one —one that was planned well when it was first developed and built in the 1990's. However, the
current expansion plan from the developer includes 13 more apartment buildings (an additional 142
multi - family units) to the area. This plan is looking at the "dollar signs" only and not how this will
blend in w /the current Saddlebrook neighborhood and the surrounding southeast neighborhoods. I live in
the Grant Wood Neighborhood.
Some of my concerns are...
*There is no plan for a suitable secondary access road. This will result in substantially increased traffic
thru the Whispering Meadow /Paddock residential area and Lakeside Drive. The Whispering Meadow area is
not designed for increased traffic and many families with young school -age children live there. Lakeside
Drive is already a very heavy traffic street that connects Sycamore St to the west and the Lakeside
apartment complexes to the east. Lakeside also runs along Fairmeadows Park, Sycamore Greenway Trail,
Grant Wood Elem School and residential houses. This would definitely be a congestion and safety issue.
*The developer indicated that they have used the "Good Neighbor Policy" and have had discussions with
neighborhood representatives. The only neighbors he has discussed this plan with are those within
Saddlebrook. There's been no outreach by this developer to residents outside of the Saddlebrook area. I
realize the Good Neighbor Policy only requires resident notification for those who live within 300 ft of the
project. I want to emphasize that this development would certainly affect neighboring residents outside of
the prescribed area —such as residents in the Whispering Meadow /Pinto Street and Lakeside Drive areas.
It's critical that one realizes this current development plan will affect residents and neighborhoods well
beyond the Saddlebrook area. Let's also keep in mind that southeast Iowa City already has one of the
highest densities of multi - family units within Iowa City — perhaps the highest.
*We're all aware of the types of issues facing our school district with the need for new elementary
school(s), renovating existing schools, and how redistricting issues need to be addressed. It's crucial that
City officials and our IC School District partner and communicate on any number of topics — especially
housing developments. Part of the City's role is to look very carefully that housing developments are
planned with the thought of how this will affect our neighboring schools and neighborhoods. As an
example, Grant Wood Elementary School currently has 7 "portable" buildings outside the regular school
building which translates into 13 different classrooms /offices that are not able to be housed within the
building.
There's always a need for affordable housing in our city that continues to grow. City officials speak often
of the need for neighborhood stabilization as it relates to many different topics. This plan is ill- advised as
it relates to the surrounding neighborhoods and is not in line with the Iowa City's Comprehensive Plan.
Thank you for listening to my concerns and please do not approve this particular development as it's being
presented at this time.
Cindy Roberts
2034 Grantwood Street
Coordinator, Grantwood Neighborhood Association
Cell: 319- 330 -6734
1
Marian Karr
From:
Roberts, Cindy <cindy- roberts @uiowa.edu>
Sent:
Tuesday, September 24, 2013 9:40 AM
To:
Council
Subject:
CR Gazette Article - Saddlebrook rezoning
Attachments:
CR Gazette article - Saddlebrook rezoning request -Sept 2013.docx
Submitting attached CR Gazette article as it relates to the Saddlebrook rezoning request.
Thanks,
Cindy Roberts
Iowa City resident
Article from Cedar Rapids Gazette, Sept 3, 213 by Greg Hennigan
http • / /thegazette.com /2013 /09/03 /city - staff -recom mend -den is I -of -la rge- apartment -com plex -i n- southeast -iowa -city/
City staff recommend denial of large `apartment complex' in southeast Iowa City
Developer wants to put up 19 buildings with 154 total units
IOWA CITY — Iowa City planning staffers are recommending denial of a proposal to build what they say would
essentially be a large apartment complex in southeast Iowa City.
While such a project could have implications on the city's and the Iowa City school district's efforts to address issues
related to the concentration of low- income housing on that side of town, the lack of an adequate street network played
a bigger factor in the city's stance.
"I can honestly tell you it (affordable housing) is actually not a motivation with this project for us," said Jeff Davidson,
Iowa City's director of planning and community development. "We're focused on the infrastructure with this one."
It does play a role in the developer's pitch, however, with Steve Gordon writing in his application to the city that the
154 units he wants to build would bring "much needed new rental units for working individuals and their families."
Gordon is requesting a rezoning to amend the plan for nearly 20 acres in the Saddlebrook subdivision near Heinz Road
south of Highway 6. The land is platted to allow for 73 manufactured housing units, but Gordon instead wants to put
up 19 buildings with 154 total units.
The Planning and Zoning Commission will consider the application at its Sept. 5 meeting.
The area under discussion, south of Paddock Circle, has no direct access to public streets or bus service. Instead, there
would be one private street, which goes through a manufactured housing park and that the city says is narrow and
raised public safety concerns from the Fire Department.
The current plan also calls for a single block more than 1,200 feet long east to west and 800 feet long north to south.
The city estimates traffic would be high enough to trigger a city rule that secondary access be required.
The city eventually plans to extend Heinz Road to the south and McCollister Boulevard to the east and they could
serve the development, but that will not occur in the foreseeable future.
"If there were better street access to this property, we would look at it more seriously," said Bob Miklo, Iowa City's
senior planner.
His department's recommendation to deny also says the project runs counter to the affordable housing section of the
city's comprehensive plan, which calls for a mix of housing with small multi - family buildings on corners next to
arterial streets.
The Saddlebrook proposal "essentially would allow a large apartment complex in an area of the city that already has
large concentrations of multi - family housing," associate planner Sarah Walz wrote in her report to the Planning and
Zoning Commission.
Affordable housing in southeast Iowa City has been a hot topic among city, neighborhood and school district
representatives in recent years. Some people argue there is too high a concentration of low- income housing in the area
and that has negative consequences on the neighborhoods there and the schools.
The Iowa City Council two years ago adopted a model that prevents city- controlled money from going to rental
housing projects that include new construction or property acquisition in areas where there already is a concentration
of low - income housing.
Most of southeast Iowa City is closed to that funding, but the policy does not apply to privately funded housing like the
current Saddlebrook plan, and that land is just outside a restricted area anyway.
The housing issue also has an effect on the Iowa City school district, which has developed a diversity police to achieve
greater socio- economic balance across its schools. The two elementary schools in southeast Iowa City had the highest
poverty rates in the district last school year.
The district also has many schools that are overcrowded and plans to build two new elementary schools in southeastern
and eastern Iowa City.
Schools Superintendent Stephen Murley said the Saddlebrook project would not be a great concern even if it went
forward. The new schools will ease overcrowding and the redrawing of boundaries when the buildings open will
provide a way to balance student demographics, he said.
Gordon did not immediately return phone messages Tuesday. His is the sole name listed the application, but he used
the word "we" in the material and provided the Heinz Road address of AM Management Inc., where he works. The
land is owned by Paddock LLC, which is registered with the Iowa Secretary of State with that same address.
In his application, Gordon wrote that his project will meet a need for rental housing and would add $11 million to the
city's tax base and generate $215,000 a year in property taxes, at current tax rates.
It is rare for staff to recommend denial of a request to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Typically, developers
will modify a project in response to staff concerns or drop it before it gets to the commission, Davidson and Miklo
said.
Marian Karr
From: boboppliger @q.com
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 9:52 AM
To: Council
Subject: saddlebrook development
Dear Council,
I oppose the proposed added development at the south end of Saddlebrok subdivision. It would significantly
increase the traffic on neighborhood streets in the area and Lakeside Dr. which runs past Fair Meadows park
and its splash pad as well as Grant Wood school. This would lead to added congestion on Highway 6.
As a property own in the Triple Crown Condo Association, I can not recommend the relator who developed the
14 units. His management company made excessive charges to the association members until we were able to
take control. We subsequently found structural flaws in the buildings that cost association members upwards of
$1000 each to repair. In a law suit we filed, the developers and his contractor would not accept responsibility
for the needed repairs.
I hope you will support the zone commissions unanimous rejection of the proposal and the wishes of many of us
in the neighborhood.
Thanks,
Bob Oppliger
1928 Delwood Dr.
Iowa City
TO: Mayor Hayek and City Council
RE: Steve Gordon's proposal for Saddlebrook development
Date: 9/25/13
I am writing to express my concern over Steve Gordon's proposal to expand
Saddlebrook by 13 more apartment buildings (an additional 142 multi - family
units).
I live in Saddlebrook Meadows in a home that I purchased through the City of
Iowa City's Single - Family New Construction program. I have a three - year -old
son and am expecting another child in October. Our neighborhood is comprised
of young families, most of whom have children. Saddlebrook Meadows is
intended to be a "pocket neighborhood," with a shared green space for gathering,
as opposed to individual backyards. Unfortunately, the green space has not been
sodded so the only place for our children to play is in our front yards. I am
worried that Gordon's proposal will result in a vast increase in traffic right where
our children play.
I am extremely concerned that Gordon's expansion plan does not include a
suitable secondary access road and that the traffic associated with the almost -
150 new units will be routed directly down my street (Whispering Meadow Drive).
Even before the proposed expansion, I have concerns about the safety of the
children in our neighborhood because there is an ongoing problem with people
traveling at high rates of speed as they use our street to access the modular
homes and apartments in Saddlebrook. I fear that this will only be exacerbated
with the dramatic increase in traffic associated with Gordon's proposed
expansion. I feel very strongly that, without a plan for a suitable secondary
access road, this expansion plan should not be approved, as it will create a
serious safety issue for the children in my neighborhood.
Thank you for listening to my concerns. I request that you not approve this
development as it is being presented at this time.
Megan Schwalm
2834 Whispering Meadow Drive
Cell: 319- 936 -8656
a
SEP 26 2013
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVED
SEPTEMBER 5, — 7:00 PM — FORMAL
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Charlie Eastham, Anne Freerks, Phoebe Martin, Paula Swygard,
Jodie Theobald, John Thomas
MEMBERS ABSENT: Carolyn Dyer
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Bailee McClellan, Sarah Greenwood Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: Steve Gordon, Mike Pugh, Cindy Roberts, Carroll Smith, Dave
Larsen
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
1. The Commission voted 0 -6 to recommend denial of REZ13- 00021, a rezoning to
amend the Planned Overlay / High Density Single Family Zone (OPD /RS -12) to allow
for the development of six duplexes along Paddock Circle and thirteen multifamily
buildings along a proposed private street Shire Lane.
2. The Commission voted 6-0 to recommend that the City send a letter to Johnson
County Board of Adjustment recommending approval of the conditional use permit
for CU13- 00001.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
Rezoning Item
REZ13- 00021: Discussion of an application submitted by Steve Gordon for a rezoning to
amend the Planned Development Overlay / High Density Single - Family (OPD /RS -12) Plan
allowing 73 manufactured housing units on 19.67 -acres of land located south of Paddock
Circle. The proposal under consideration would allow 13 apartment buildings with 142
multi - family dwellings and 6 duplexes with 12 dwelling units along Shire Lane, a private
road extension from Paddock Circle.
Miklo showed the Commission the location of the property and the proposed plan. He showed
the plan of what was approved shortly after this area was annexed into the city. He said the
entire development at that time was zoned Factory Built Housing, a district which was
eliminated in the 2005 rewrite of the Code. In that process this property was changed to High
Density Single Family with a Planned Development Overlay (OPC /RS -12). He showed an aerial
photograph of the development in the context of the larger neighborhood. He showed where
Heinz Road, a public street, ended. He said access to the subject property is via Paddock
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 5, 2013 - Formal
Page 2 of 10
Circle, a private street. He said for Saddlebrook itself, there is a second means of access on
Pinto Lane, a private street that becomes public and goes through the Whispering Meadows
subdivision.
Miklo explained that the proposal is to rezone an area south of Paddock Circle and amend the
Planned Development that's in place that currently allows up to seventy -three additional
manufactured housing units. He said the proposal is to allow six duplexes or twelve units, and
thirteen buildings with 142 apartment units for a total of 156 units. He said that would be a 110
percent increase in the density that's granted by the current plan.
Miklo said the Planned Development allows the City to waive underlying zoning requirements in
terms of lot area, street configurations, and types of housing in a development to allow
clustering or a unique design. He said for that to occur, staff must first look at the criteria in the
Code. He said that in terms of this proposal, staff feels that it's lacking in some of the criteria,
and the overall design is more like an apartment complex that would normally require
multifamily zoning, so they don't feel that this proposal is in compliance with the spirit of Planned
Development process or zone.
Miklo said another concern is that although there is a future arterial street (McCollister
Boulevard) proposed to the south and a collector that will provide access (Heinz Road), much of
that infrastructure is not in place and the arterial street is not foreseen to be built within the next
five or ten years. He said that raises the concern about an increase in density in a place that
relies on private streets that are only twenty -four feet wide. He said the City Transportation
Planners estimate that this development would generate about 900 vehicle trips a day added to
the roughly 2.200 vehicle trips a day that are already generated by the Saddlebrook
Development. He said that raises concerns about increasing density until more of the
infrastructure to serve the general area is provided.
Miklo said there would be one point of access to the apartment buildings, so there would be
fairly large parking lots to drive through to get to the end of the lot. He said staff prefers to break
parking lots into smaller components to better direct traffic.
Miklo said the Planned Development process does allow the City to waive certain requirements
like allowing apartment buildings in what is otherwise a single family zone, but that's usually
done to create a public amenity or open space or where there's a mix of housing units within the
planned development. He said this proposal calls for the vast majority to be apartment buildings
rather than a mix.
Miklo said staff finds that the change in financing requirements for manufactured housing that
makes it harder to finance them does make a compelling reason for considering alternatives for
the development of this property. He said that is not, however, reason enough for more than
doubling density or not considering the lack of infrastructure in this area. He said without that
public access it's difficult to provide City services. He said staff is recommending denial of this
application.
Eastham asked if all the Planned Development requirements have to be met for an approval.
Miklo said they are all things the Commission should consider when they approve a Planned
Development. Eastham asked about public buses and asked if the issue is that they won't
operate on a private street. Miklo said it would be difficult to get a bus to circulate and turn
around. He said the extension of Heinz Avenue and McCollister Boulevard, a public street,
would provide for a public route through this area.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 5, 2013 - Formal
Page 3 of 10
Freerks opened public discussion.
Steve Gordon of AM Management gave a history of Saddlebrook and its evolution. He showed
photographs of the development. He said financing options for manufactured homes on leased
lots have become unaffordable and generally unavailable. He said the original developer's
agreement allowed a total of 416 units in the Saddlebrook Development before secondary
access had to be established. He said that additional land had to be purchased to provide the
secondary access needed when the 416th unit was built. He said that an amendment to the
original developer's agreement, the secondary access requirement, was inadvertently removed.
He said the developer could have proceeded with most of the development without secondary
access, but they chose to honor the intent of the agreement and the wishes of the City and went
ahead and created the secondary access.
Gordon said the infrastructure is in place and Saddlebrook is ready to move to the next phase of
the development. He said the next phase is platted and approved for seventy -three
manufactured homes on land lease lots. He reiterated that acquiring financing for manufactured
homes is difficult now and likely to get worse. He said the only viable option under the current,
approved site plan would be a low cost manufactured home used as a rental.
Gordon said they are seeking to amend their current site plan and build a condominium project
and lease the units as an apartment community. He said non - student work force rental housing
is needed in this area. He listed the reasons why a quality condominium community is superior
to a manufactured home park and why they are seeking the site plan amendment.
Gordon said they held five meetings with residents of The Paddock to get their feedback, and
he has a petition with sixty -five of the owners within The Paddock in support of their site plan
amendment application. He pointed out some highlights of the revised site plan, including trails,
a play area, and green space. He said for over two years they have worked on this project and
have met with the City, staff and current residents and have made significant changes. He said
they have reduced the density of the project and the scale of the buildings and designed the
buildings to look like townhouses and attached houses, among other things. He showed
pictures of the style of the proposed housing.
Gordon pointed out that Bon Aire has 398 units on 58 acres or a density of seven units per acre,
using private streets similar to what's within Saddlebrook. He said if this site plan amendment
were to be approved, Saddlebrook Part II has a density of less than six units per acre, well
within the limits of the Zoning Code or the Comprehensive Plan.
Gordon said the applicants question why private streets are okay for manufactured housing but
not for condominiums and why manufactured housing with a density of seven to nine units per
acre would allow private streets, but a condominium project with less than six units per acre
would not. He said they have already provided secondary access on the east with access to
Heinz Road and Highway 6 and Pinto Lane to Whispering Meadows on the west, as required in
the final plat and the developer's agreement. He said it is not economically feasible at this time
to extend Heinz Road. He said they have not been able to reach a compromise with the City on
this project. He said they are asking the Commission for a different type of residential unit that is
in demand and needed, is aesthetically pleasing, will provide a substantial increase in tax
revenue, will provide a boost to the local economy and is supported by the residents who have
already made an investment in the Saddlebrook community as they look to maintain and
enhance their investment.
Freerks asked if it's possible that the applicants would be interested in this housing type at the
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 5, 2013 - Formal
Page 4 of 10
same density they currently have. Gordon said the economics of that would not make sense as
the land value of a manufactured housing site and a house on that site is more valuable than
the land value per unit of a multifamily type development.
Eastham asked if it's possible to just sell the lots and let people develop their own manufactured
housing. Greenwood Hektoen said there aren't separate, platted lots on the site. Eastham
asked if it could be subdivided.
Miklo said it's possible, but they would have to go through the subdivision process. Gordon said
they just developed and put in a very large subdivision to the west which will take a long time to
sell through. He said they have many, many acres of single family development ground, and the
market will just not absorb that many single family homes.
Eastham asked if Gordon knew of any physical obstacle to having a different street design, one
that might eliminate some of staff's concerns. Gordon said he didn't believe so.
Gordon provided copies of a letter from a tenant explaining the difficulty they had finding quality
non - student housing and the petition from the current residents and a letter from Casey Cook,
an appraiser, summarizing his analysis.
Freerks said she needed to clarify that these leases can't be guaranteed for one kind of renter,
and Gordon agreed.
Mike Pugh, the legal representative for the applicant, said the applicant is here to ask the
Commission to consider an amendment to the existing OPD development site plan. He said
amending an approved OPD plan is to be by ordinance in accordance with the approval
procedures of a Planned Development Overlay rezoning. He said when there are substantive
changes to the plan, which this application presents, this reference speaks to the process of
rezoning only. He said the Code is clear that the substantive requirements of an OPD Plan are
those set forth among the approval criteria in Section 14 -3A-4. He said once approved, the OPD
becomes the substantive part of the rezoning, so references to general principles and broad
concepts of the Comprehensive Plan provide little relevance to the specific approval criteria
found in the OPD ordinance.
Pugh reviewed the specific approval criteria. He said this property is well under the density
limitations under the OPD zone. He said all of the specific approval criteria in the OPD
ordinance have been met with this plan. He said this lot has already been subdivided, so
considerations about infrastructure and street access to this lot were already approved as part
of Saddlebrook Part II subdivision process. He said there was discussion then that the number
of units allowed in this area would be limited to 416 without secondary access. He said the
developer did nothing for almost seven years because of that limitation, then had to spend
millions of dollars purchasing and developing an adjacent property so a private street could be
extended and connect with a public street. He said he doesn't think it's fair or equitable to
burden this developer now and be told that they can't have any more units in part because
McCollister has not been constructed. He claimed that it is the City's cost and responsibility to
build McCollister Boulevard. Pugh said the neighbors are overwhelmingly in support of this
project.
Eastham asked if Pugh thought that the scope of review does not include the current
requirements for interconnected streets. Pugh responded the scope of review is the specific
approval criteria under the Code, and several of those issues are somewhat of a duplication of
what's in the subdivision ordinance. He said that several of the things that are contained in the
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 5, 2013 - Formal
Page 5 of 10
City's Subdivision Code are also articulated in the OPD Ordinance.
Greenwood Hektoen said because there are substantial deviations from the approved OPD
Plan that raise public safety and welfare concerns, the Commission can consider some of the
more general concepts that are espoused in the Zoning Code about traffic circulation.
Freerks said as has happened so many times before when an OPD is changed drastically, the
Commission looks at everything again because it really is a whole new development.
Eastham asked if the allowed density under RS -12 zoning would be 73 or so units on this lot
based on the amount of land that needs to be set aside for storm water management. Miklo said
the estimate is based on taking out the land needed for storm water detention. Eastham said he
thought the Code clearly allowed developers to count the entire lot size, no matter what part of
the lot was actually developable in determining the maximum allowed density. Miklo said it's a
judgment call. He said if the developer can draw plans with streets and individual lots you might
be able to get a few more than seventy units, but nothing close to the 154 being proposed here.
Freerks asked how big the storm water detention area was. Miklo said it was roughly five acres.
Eastham asked if its capacity for this additional development has been calculated yet. Miklo said
it hadn't.
Gordon said the storm water for the entire development has been put into place including the
sixty acres to the west. He said this development could change those calculations.
Miklo said when this land was annexed and zoned, there was a concept plan for an arterial
street, later named McCollister Boulevard, to be built along the southern boundary of the
development. He said there was no timing commitment on the part of the City for that
construction, and that is one of the reasons they put a cap of 416 units until secondary access
was built. He said they knew for the full development of this area there would need to be more
street access than Heinz Road. He said on the original plan, they didn't anticipate secondary
access through the private streets in Saddlebrook itself but from public streets to the east or
south. He said a later amendment to the plan that the applicant sought came through with this
private street connection to what eventually became a public street to the west (Pinto Lane). He
said the concern about secondary access is that these streets were designed for a
manufactured housing park, meaning they are more narrow than normal and not designed for
the volume of traffic that would go through this neighborhood. He said staff feels that the heavier
traffic that would be created by this approval should be going back to a public street.
Cindy Roberts of 2034 Grant Wood Street said she doesn't live in Saddlebrook, but has some
concerns. She said she is impressed with the way Gordon has developed the area. She said a
plan that contains so many units is a plan looking at the dollar signs and not how well this will
blend in with the current Saddlebrook neighborhood and surrounding neighborhoods. She said
there is no plan for a suitable secondary access road, which will result in substantially increased
traffic through the Whispering Meadow residential area and Lakeside Drive. She said neither
Pinto Lane nor Whispering Meadow Drive is designed for increased traffic and would definitely
create congestion and potential safety issues.
Roberts said she thinks the Good Neighbor Policy should encompass a much larger area than it
does now, since this development would certainly affect neighborhoods in the adjacent areas.
She said it's crucial that City officials and Iowa City School District communicate on housing
developments and how schools factor in. She gave an example of the Grant Wood Elementary
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 5, 2013 - Formal
Page 6 of 10
School with seven portable buildings in use, which means that approximately thirteen offices or
classrooms are not able to be housed within that school. She said this development would add
substantially to already concentrated multiple family housing. She said it is ill advised for the
specific area and the surrounding neighborhoods and is not in line with the Comprehensive
Plan.
Carroll Smith of 220 Paddock Circle said he doesn't think that 900 additional trips per day,
which breaks down into one and one -half trips per minutes if they occur over a ten hour period,
sounds like a lot to him. Smith said he participated in getting petitions signed, and he found no
opposition within the neighborhood. He said the neighborhood strongly supports the application
because it will allow continual improvement to Saddlebrook addition, it will maintain property
values, architectural styles, will provide more green space and recreational activities, and will
add to the cultural and diversity factor of the neighborhood.
Smith said that the developer had counted on the extension of McCollister Boulevard and Heinz
Road to continue the development in the way that it was planned, but forces outside his control
have necessitated changes. He asked if the citizens and residents of the Paddock be allowed to
improve their neighborhood and increase or hold the value of their property. He indicated the
number of residents of Saddlebrook in attendance who support this application.
Miklo clarified that it's never been in the City's Capital Improvement Plan to build McCollister
Boulevard in this area. He said staff knew that with a large development that road would
eventually need to be built, and that's why it's on paper. He said that Heinz Road is a collector
street and is the responsibility of the developer.
Freerks closed public discussion.
Eastham moved that this item be deferred until the Commission's next meeting.
Thomas seconded.
Eastham said he's not all that bothered about the building type or the density, but is primarily
concerned about the street design because people living in Paddock Circle and the proposed
development would be better served by a more interconnecting street design. He said he
doesn't know how to address that problem.
Thomas said he is also concerned about the vehicular connectivity. He's concerned how this
development ties into the surrounding network of streets with Paddock Circle being such a
critical component.
Martin said that looking at the street design, it more resembles a long parking lot than a street.
She said she doesn't know if this is the most efficient use of pavement. She said there is
parking along both sides of Heinz Road and at certain times of day it's very congested, and
that's something that concerns her no matter what type of housing goes in here.
Eastham said the first element of the street issue is the internal street design within the
proposed development and the second is the connection of those streets to access.
Freerks said she doesn't see how this happens at this density with the proposed street
structure. She said what they need is something more. She said these streets weren't meant to
take the kind of traffic proposed. She said the Commission could defer it, but she doesn't see
how in two weeks' time they can make those roads happen as well as look at storm water
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 5, 2013 - Formal
Page 7 of 10
calculations, density, the parking doesn't meet code and all the other issues they have to look
at.
Eastham said deferring it gives the developer some time to listen to the Commission's input. He
argued that they have deferred proposals over three or four meetings to give developers more
time to figure out what to do.
Theobald said she feels the application has problems in all four of the general points, and she
doesn't see that changing in two weeks either.
Freerks said she knows a lot of work has been put into this, and it's a nice development as it is
and as it was initially proposed and approved. She said it's an asset to the community. She said
she knows there's a need for work force rental housing, but there's no guarantee that this would
be such housing if the Commission approves the application. She feels thirteen apartment
buildings offers no diversity and alters the dynamic.
Eastham asked what the reaction would be if the developer proposed extending Heinz Road to
some point south to provide access to this development without using the private streets.
Miklo said that's' something the staff discussed with the developer before this was an
application. Eastham asked if the developer has to bear the entire cost of extending Heinz
Road. Miklo explained that Heinz Road is a collector street, and the City doesn't build collector
streets.
Freerks said that only extending the road might not be enough for her. She said she would like
to see more diverse housing.
Eastham said the road would at least give the chance to talk about composition. He said there
are some real benefits in terms of amenities that many people would find attractive.
Thomas said he also has concerns about the internal road circulation. He said there was
reference to pedestrian- oriented street frontage, but he's concerned that the Commission get a
better sense of what that means with the projects that come before them. He said basically what
are linear parking lots double as access roads. with right angle parking and the sidewalks
directly behind the curb, with two feet of the sidewalk lost to the automobiles. He said he
supports the concept and thinks there are some wonderful things that have been incorporated
into this plan with some of the open space elements, but the actual layout of the site with
respect to the street and the parking are major stumbling blocks for him.
A vote was taken and the motion to defer was denied 1 -5 (Eastham in favor).
Thomas moved to approve REZ13- 00021, a rezoning to amend the Planned Overlay / High
Density Single Family Zone (OPD /RS -12) to allow for the development of six duplexes
along Paddock Circle and thirteen multifamily buildings along a proposed private street
Shire Lane.
Swygard seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion was denied 0-6.
Marian Karr
From:
Bob Miklo
Sent:
Thursday, September 26, 2013 10:40 AM
To:
Marian Karr
Subject:
FW: City Council Agenda
From: Steve Gordon [ mailto :sgordon @ammanagement.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 2:40 PM
To: Bob Miklo
Subject: RE: City Council Agenda
Bob, let's say November 12th. that should give us enough time to see if we can come to an agreement to move forward
with the discussion we had last week.
Thanks
Steve
From: Bob Miklo [mailto:Bob -Miklo @iowa- city.org]
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 1:22 PM
To: 'Steve Gordon'
Subject: RE: City Council Agenda
Steve,
I will let the City Clerk know that you want to defer. Do you have a date specific in mind?
From: Steve Gordon [ mailto :sgordon @ammanagement.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 1:05 PM
To: Bob Miklo
Subject: RE: City Council Agenda
Bob, we will want to defer the public hearing at this time. Do I need to be at the meeting to defer it or can it be deferred as per my
request in this email.
Thanks
Steve
11`f q�ll
N
G'
W
CJ
*n 'n
Prepared by: Bailee McClellan, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356- 52 Z13100021�..
:74 ' CT ]]
ORDINANCE NO. : r- _ M
rn
REZONING ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAIE IGIrDENIR
SINGLE - FAMILY (OPD /RS -12) PLAN TO ALLOW 13 APARTMENT BUILDINGS ITH UZ MULTI-
FAMILY DWELLINGS AND 6 DUPLEXES WITH 12'UINELLIN NITS ON APPROXIMA!LY 19.67
ACRES OF LAND LOCATED SOUTH OF PADDOCK CIRCLE. (REZ1 - 00021)
WHEREAS, the applicant, Steve Gordo " requested a rezonin to amend a Planned Development
(OPD -RS12) Plan allowing 73 manufact d housing units on a prope located south of Paddock Circle;
and
WHEREAS, the amended Plann d Development Plan would allc
buildings for a total of 154 dwelling u s; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensi a Plan -South District Plan ind
appropriate for single - family and du lex residential uses; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has review
recommended that the application b denied due to lack of adequate i
WHEREAS, the City Council s reviewed the applicant's r
Commission's recommendation and s determined that the reque
and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED Y THE CITY COUNCIL
SECTION I APPROVAL. The Planne Development Overlay
Plan of the property described below is here amended to allow d
6 duplex units and 13 multi - family
that the subject property is
1 the proposed rezoning and has
lic street access and services; and
est and the Planning and Zoning
I zoning amendment is appropriate;
THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA:
h Density Single- Family (OPD /RS -12)
x and multi - family development.
A part of Lot 4 and Lot 6, Saddlebrook Addition Pa 2, as reco ded in Johnson County Recorder's Office
Book 42, Page 246, and a part of Auditor's Parcel 2 4 093, recorded in Johnson County Recorder's
Office Book 48, 161, all lying in the NE % and NW Y4 o Sect- n 25, Township 79 North, Range 6 West of
the 5th P.M., City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa, de cr ed as follows:
Beginning at the southwest corner of said Auditor's Parce 20Q4093;
Thence North 010 47' 05" West 117.76 feet along a line line of,,said Auditor's Parcel 2004093 to the
beginning of a 150.00 foot radius curve concave east ly; �\1
Thence northeasterly through a central angle of 08/est 4' 19" an arc dis nce of 22.88 feet (chord bearing
North 020 35' 05" East 22.86 feet) to a point on a line of said Aud is Parcel 2004093;
Thence North 06° 57' 14" East 544.62 feet alon said west line to a westerly, corner of said Auditor's
Parcel 2004093;
Thence North 080 19' 23" East 21.01 feet to e northwest corner of said Auditor's `Parcel 2004093;
Thence North 08° 19'23" East 54.24 feet long a west line of Auditor's Parcel 2004092, as recorded in
Johnson County Recorder's Office Book 4 , Page 160, to a westerly corner thereof and the beginning of a
1490.00 foot radius curve concave easterl ;
Thence northeasterly through a central angle of 01' 15' 24" an arc distance of 32.68 feet (chord bearing
North 100 23' 50" East 32.68 feet) to a westerly corner of said Auditor's Parcel 2004092 and the
beginning of a 162.00 foot radius curve concave westerly;
Thence northwesterly through a central angle of 300 15' 00" an arc distance of 85.53 feet (chord bearing
North 050 51'47" West 84.54 feet) to a westerly corner of said Auditor's Parcel 2004092;
Ordinance No.
Page 2
Thence North 200 56' 30" West 23.84 feet along a westerly line of said Auditor's Parcel 2004092 to a
westerly corner thereof and the beginning of a 25.00 foot radius concave easterly;
Thence northeasterly through a central angle of 740 49' 56" an arc distance of 32.65 feet (chord bearing
North 160 28' 09" East 30.38 feet) to a westerly corner of said Auditor's Parcel 2004092 and the
beginning of a 126.00 foot radius non - tangent curve concave northwesterly;
Thence southwesterly through a central angle of 380 25'46" an arc distance of 84.51 feet (chord bearing
South 730 05'46" West 82.94 feet);
Thence North 870 41' 21" West 282.80 feet to the beginning of a 512.00 foot radius concave northerly;
Thence northwesterly through `a central angle of 06° 51' 24" an arc distance of 6 .27 feet (chord bearing
North 84° 15'39" West 61.23 eet);
Thence North 800 50'27" Wes 64.45 feet to the northeast corner of Lease of 161, Lot 4, Part 2,
Saddlebrook Addition as recor d in Johnson County Recorder's Office B k 3668, Page 105;
Thence South 090 10' 00" West 57.84 feet along the east line of said Vase Lot 161, to the northeast
corner of Lease Lot 160, Lot 4, P rt 2, Saddlebrook Addition as recor d in Johnson County Recorder's
Office Book 46, Page 121;
Thence South 090 11' 18" West 11\73 feet along an east line id Lease Lot 160;
Thence South 000 56' 15" East 186.5, feet along the east linA of said Lease Lot 160, the east line of
Lease Lot 159, Lot 4, Part 2, Saddlebr ok Addition as recor din Johnson County Recorder's Office
Book 46, Page 292, and the east line o ease Lot 158, Lo 4, Part 2, Saddlebrook Addition as recorded in
Johnson County Recorder's Office Book 469, Page 20 to the southeast corner of said Lease Lot 158,
also being a point on a north line of said Lit 6, Saddle ook Addition Part 2;
Thence North 830 02'46" West
2 to a northerly corner thereof;
Thence North 860 59'30" West
Thence South 890 03'45" West
Thence North 850 34'54" West
Thence South 890 03'45" West
185.44 feeNalong Oe north line of said Lot 6, Saddlebrook Addition Part
108./talong a north line of said Lot 6 to a northerly corner thereof;
46.3 north line of said Lot 6 to a northerly corner thereof;
32.1a n�rth line of said Lot 6 to a northerl y corner thereof;
95.5 a noh line of said Lot 6 to a northerly corner thereof;
Thence North 870 30' 01/49feet) 7 .36 feet along a north'�ine of said Lot 6 to the northwesterly corner of
said Lot 6;
1, 0 w
Thence South 000 56' 196.60 feet along the west linof said Lot 6 to the early cord
of said Lot 6 and the beanon- tangent 1040.00 foot radius curve concave �erly,
Thence northeasterly thntral angle of 34° 01' 15" an arc c'stance of 617.5 (clued be
North 87° 10' 10" East t) along the south side of said Lot>5 to a southerly= %r tl t�eof;Thence South 75° 49' 19.92 feet along a south line of said Lo%6 to a soutaly corpgr thereof
and the beginning of a 9 radius curve concave northerly; CT'
Thence southeasterly hrough a central angle of 15° 25' 35" an arc distance of 258.47 feet (chord bearing
South 83° 24' 56" E t 257.69 feet) along the south side of said Lot 6 to the Point of Beginning,
containing 21.24 Ares, subject to covenants, easements and restrictions of record.
Ordinance No.
Page 3
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 pa:
City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this
office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, at the owne
SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordine
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION V. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or pa
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the a
section, provision or p IT' thereof not adjudged invalid or unconsti ti
ge and approval of the Ordinance, the
finance and to record the same, at the
expense, all as provided by law.
)s in conflict with the provisions of this
of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
lidity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
SECTION VI. EFtXCTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and
publication, as provided by law. `
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Appr ved by
'City Attorney's Office 1443
r•.a s
C
--
*n-
M
"n
3
$:K
.>c
�
w-
Prepared by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, PCD, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-
' 356- 5240(REZ13 -00019
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE CONDITIONALLY REZONING APPROXIMATELY 1.31 ACRES LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF MELROSE AVENUE AND WESTWINDS DRIVE
FROM LOW DENSITY MULTI - FAMILY (RM -12) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY /LOW
DENSITY MULTI - FAMILY (OPD- RM12). (REZ13- 00019)
WHEREAS, the owner, Willowwind Properties, LLC, has requested a rezoning of property located at
Willow Wind Place and Westwinds Drive from Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12) to Planned Development
Overlay /Low Density Multi - Family (OPD- RM12); and
WHEREAS, the owner proposes to develop Westwinds Second Addition, a 2 -lot residential subdivision
including an existing duplex and a seven unit multi - family building; and,
WHEREAS, the Southwest District Plan indicates that low- density multi - family residential uses are
appropriate for the property; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has the reviewed the proposed rezoning and
determined that it complies with the Comprehensive Plan provided that it meets conditions addressing the
need for restoration of the stormwater detention facility, driveway and parking easements, pedestrian
access, and design review of the building; 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 agrees that the property shall be developed in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto to ensure appropriate development in this
area of the city.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I APPROVAL. Subject to the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto and incorporated
herein, property described below is hereby reclassified from its current zoning designation of RM -12 to
OPD /RM12:
A portion of Lot 3, Westwinds Subdivision, Iowa City, Iowa, according to the recorded plat
thereof, more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Southeast Corner of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of
Section 17, Township 79 North, Range 6 West of the 5th P.M.; thence N00 °13'31 "W, 1875.00 feet
on the centerline of Mormon Trek Boulevard; thence West 524.10 feet to the Southeast Corner of
the Westwinds; thence West 796.65 feet; thence N00 016'31 "W, 529.34 feet to the Point of
beginning; thence N00 °16'31 "W, 186.02 feet; thence N89 010'16 "E, 139.00 feet; thence
S00 °50'44 "E, 139.50 feet; thence N89 °09'16 "E, 19.00 feet; thence S00 °50'44 "E, 48.87 feet;
thence West 159.87 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Also including:
Commencing at the Southeast corner of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of
Section 17, Township 79 North, Range 6 West of the 5th P.M.; thence N00 °13'31 "W 1875.00 feet
on the Centerline of Mormon Trek Boulevard; thence West 524.10 feet to the Southeast corner of
the Westwinds; thence west 796.65 feet; thence N00 °16'1 3 "W, 715.36 feet to the southerly right -
of -way line of Melrose Avenue; thence N89 009'16 "E, 139.00 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence
N89 °09'16 "E, 134.79 feet; thence Southeasterly 31.58 feet along a 20.00 foot radius curve,
concave Southwesterly, whose 28.40 foot chord bears S45 036'49 "E; thence S00 022'55 "E, 57.45
feet along the Westerly right -of -way line of Westwinds Drive; thence Southeasterly 51.17 feet
Ordinance No.
Page 2
along a 775.00 foot radius curve concave Northeasterly whose 51.16 foot chord bears
S02 °16'24 "E; thence SO4 °09'53 "E, 70.86 feet; thence S89 °09'16 "W, 140.70 feet; thence
N00 050'44 "W, 60.00 feet; thence S89 "09'16 "W, 19.00 feet; thence N00 °50'44 "W, 139.50 feet to
the Point of Beginning.
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 12013.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
App oved by
VW'A�
City Attorney's Office -7/R A3
Prepared by: Bailee McClellan, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356 -5230 (REZ13- 00019)
CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation
(hereinafter "City "), Willowwind Properties, LLC (hereinafter "Owner ").
WHEREAS, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 1.31 acres of property
located at Willow Wind Place and Westwinds Drive; and
WHEREAS, the Owner has requested the rezoning of said property from Low Density
Multi- family (RM -12) to Planned Development Overlay /Low Density Multi- family (OPD- RM12);
and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate
conditions regarding restoration and maintenance of the existing storm water detention facility
and vehicular and pedestrian access to the property, the requested zoning is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (2011) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose
reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing
regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and
WHEREAS, the Owner acknowledges that certain conditions and restrictions are
reasonable to ensure the development of the property is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and the need for access to the property and storm water maintenance; and
WHEREAS, the Owner agrees to develop this property in accordance with the terms and
conditions of a Conditional Zoning Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties
agree as follows:
1. Willowwind Properties, LLC is the legal title holder of the property legally described as:
A portion of Lot 3, Westwinds Subdivision, Iowa City, Iowa, according to the recorded plat
thereof, more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Southeast Corner of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of
Section 17, Township 79 North, Range 6 West of the 5th P.M.; thence N00 013'31 "W, 1875.00
feet on the centerline of Mormon Trek Boulevard; thence West 524.10 feet to the Southeast
Corner of the Westwinds; thence West 796.65 feet; thence N00 °16'31 "W, 529.34 feet to the Point
of beginning; thence N00 °16'31 "W, 186.02 feet; thence N89 010'16 "E, 139.00 feet; thence
S00 050'44 "E, 139.50 feet; thence N89 °09'16 "E, 19.00 feet; thence S00 050'44 "E, 48.87 feet;
thence West 159.87 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Also including:
Commencing at the Southeast corner of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of
Section 17, Township 79 North, Range 6 West of the 5th P.M.; thence N00 °13'31 "W 1875.00 feet
on the Centerline of Mormon Trek Boulevard; thence West 524.10 feet to the Southeast corner of
the Westwinds; thence west 796.65 feet; thence N00 016'13 "W, 715.36 feet to the southerly right-
ppdadm /agt /rezl3 -00019 conditional zoning agreement .doc
of -way line of Melrose Avenue; thence N89 °09'16 "E, 139.00 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence
N89 009'16 "E, 134.79 feet; thence Southeasterly 31.58 feet along a 20.00 foot radius curve,
concave Southwesterly, whose 28.40 foot chord bears S45 036'49 "E; thence S00 °22'55 "E, 57.45
feet along the Westerly right -of -way line of Westwinds Drive; thence Southeasterly 51.17 feet
along a 775.00 foot radius curve concave Northeasterly whose 51.16 foot chord bears
S02 016'24 "E; thence SO4 °09'53 "E, 70.86 feet; thence S89 °09'16 "W, 140.70 feet; thence
N00 050'44 "W, 60.00 feet; thence S89 "09'16 "W, 19.00 feet; thence N00 050'44 "W, 139.50 feet to
the Point of Beginning.
2. The Owner acknowledges that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles
of the Comprehensive 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 agrees that
development of the subject property will conform to all other requirements of the zoning
chapter, as well as the following conditions:
a. A plan for maintenance of the stormwater detention facility to be submitted and
approved by the City Engineer with the final plat.
b. Restoration of the existing stormwater detention facility, including removal of brush,
silt and debris as required by and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to
the issuance of any building permit for any work on the subject land
c. An easement agreement for the shared use of the private driveway that provides
vehicular access to the subject properties from Westwinds Drive shall be entered
into prior to or concurrent with the final platting of any portion of the subject land.
d. An easement agreement to allow Lot 3 of Westwinds to use the existing parking
spaces on the proposed Lot 1 and 2 of the Westwinds Second shall be entered
into prior to or concurrent with the final platting of any portion of the subject land.
e. Review and approval of the building design by the Design Review Committee at
the time of site plan review.
f. Provision of a pedestrian access along Willowwind Place to Westwinds Drive at
time of site plan review and installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for any dwelling unit on the subject property.
g. Provision of an accessible pedestrian route from the any building to Melrose
Avenue to be shown on the site plan and installed prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for any dwelling unit on the subject property.
4. The Owner and City acknowledge that the conditions contained herein are reasonable
conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (2011), and that said
conditions satisfy public needs that are caused by the requested zoning change.
5. The Owner and City acknowledge that in the event the subject property is transferred,
sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all development 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.
ppdadm /agt/rez13 -00019 conditional zoning agreement .doc 2
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 acknowledges 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 , 2013.
CITY OF IOWA CITY OWNER
Matthew Hayek, Mayor By:
Attest:
Marian K. Karr, City Clerk By:
Approved by:
City Attorney's Office
CITY OF IOWA CITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2013 by Matthew Hayek
and Marian K. Karr as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
(Stamp or Seal)
Title (and Rank)
ppdadm /agt/rez13 -00019 conditional zoning agreement .doc 3
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this day of A.D. 20 , before me, the undersigned, a Notary
Public in and for the State of Iowa, personally appeared
to me personally known, who being by me duly sworn,
did say that the person is (title) of
and that said instrument was signed on behalf of the
said limited liability company by authority of its managers and the said
acknowledged the execution of said instrument to be the voluntary
act and deed of said limited liability company by it voluntarily executed.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
My commission expires:
ppdadm /agt /rez13 -00019 conditional zoning agreement .doc 4
4c
Prepared by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, PCD, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5240
(REZ13- 00020)
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE CONDITIONALLY REZONING APPROXIMATELY 2.19 ACRES LOCATED NORTH
OF DODGE STREET COURT, EAST OF CONKLIN LANE, AND SOUTH OF DODGE STREET
FROM COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC -2) TO LOW DENSITY MULTIFAMILY (RM -12). (REZ13-
00020)
WHEREAS, the owner, Southgate Development Company, Inc., has requested a rezoning of property
located north of Dodge Street Court, east of Conklin Lane and south of Dodge Street from Community
Commercial (CC -2) to Low Density Multifamily (RM -12); and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan - North District Plan indicates that residential uses are appropriate
for the property if mixed use development is not possible; and,
WHEREAS, the North District Plan indicates that the design of any development on this property should
be compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the proposed rezoning and determined
that it* complies with the Comprehensive Plan provided that it meets conditions addressing the need for
neighborhood compatibility and building and site design, pedestrian access, stormwater drainage, and
improvements to Dodge Street Court; 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 applicant has agreed that the property shall be developed in accordance with the terms
and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto to ensure appropriate development in
this area of the city.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I APPROVAL. Subject to the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto and incorporated
herein, property described below is hereby reclassified from its current zoning designation of CC -2 to RM -12:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A PORTION OF LOT 3, JACOB RICORD'S SUBDIVISION, LYING IN THE
NORTHEAST ONE - QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE - QUARTER OF SECTION
2, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5T" P.M., IOWA CITY,
JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF,
THE BOUNDARIES OF WHICH ARE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
AUDITOR'S PARCEL 2005024
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST ONE -
QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE - QUARTER OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 79
NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IOWA CITY,
JOHNSON COUNTY; IOWA; THENCE S00 °35'41 "W, 526.30 FEET; THENCE
N89 056'46 "E, 45.47 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF A TRACT OF LAND
SHOWN ON AN ACQUISITION PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 3672 AT PAGE 954 IN
THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER AND THE POINT OF
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTHEASTERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF
IOWA STATE HIGHWAY NO. 1; THENCE CONTINUING N89 °56'46 "E, 0.86 FEET TO
Ordinance No.
Page 2
A 1 INCH PIPE ON SAID SOUTHEASTERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE; THENCE
N57 000'09 "E, ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 235.37 FEET;
THENCE N57 013'00 "E, ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE,
125.69 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF LOT 3 OF JACOB
RICORD'S SUBDIVISION, IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA ACCORDING TO
THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 16 AT PAGE 34 IN
THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER; THENCE N88 °04'36 "E,
ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, 72.19 FEET; THENCE S00 °12'49 "W, 334.12 FEET
TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE S89 °59'21 "W,
ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, 81.66 FEET; THENCE N01 °14'32 "E, 10.00 FEET;
THENCE S89 059'21 "W, 324.64 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY
EXTENSION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF A TRACT OF LAND SHOWN ON AN
ACQUISITION PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 3672 AT PAGE 955 IN SAID
RECORDER'S RECORDS; THENCE N00 °42'29 "E, ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY
EXTENDED LINE AND ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, 106.01 FEET TO A POINT ON
SAID SOUTHEASTERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF IOWA STATE HIGHWAY NO. 1;
THENCE N57 002'22 "E, ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 35.72
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 2.19 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT
TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
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 12013.
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 9/17/2013
Voteforpassage: AYES: Dobyns, Hayek, Mims, Payne, Throgmorton, Champion,
Dickens. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration 10101113
Vote for passage: AYES: Dickens, Dobyns, Hayek, Mims, Throgmorton,
Champion. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Payne.
Date published
Prepared by: Bailee McClellan, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356 -5230 (REZ13- 00020)
CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation
(hereinafter "City "), Kobrin Development Company Inc., f /k/a as Southgate Development
Company, Inc. (hereinafter "Owner ").
WHEREAS, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 2.19 acres of property
located north of Dodge Street Court, east of Conklin Lane and south of Dodge Street; and
WHEREAS, the Owner has requested the rezoning of said property from Community
Commercial (CC -2) to Low Density Multifamily (RM -12); and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate
conditions regarding neighborhood compatibility and building and site design, pedestrian access,
stormwater drainage, and improvements to Dodge Street Court, the requested zoning is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (2013) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose
reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing
regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and
WHEREAS, the Owner acknowledges that certain conditions and restrictions are
reasonable to ensure the development of the property is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and the need for compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, the Owner agrees to develop this property in accordance with the terms and
conditions of a Conditional Zoning Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties
agree as follows:
1. Kobrin Development Company Inc. is the legal title holder of the property legally
described as:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A PORTION OF LOT 3, JACOB RICORD'S SUBDIVISION, LYING IN THE
NORTHEAST ONE - QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE - QUARTER OF SECTION
2, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5T" P.M., IOWA CITY, JOHNSON
COUNTY, IOWA ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF, THE
BOUNDARIES OF WHICH ARE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
AUDITOR'S PARCEL 2005024
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST ONE -
QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE - QUARTER OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 79
NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IOWA CITY,
ppdadm/agVrez13-00020 conditional zoning agreemenLdoc
JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA; THENCE S00 035'41 "W, 526.30 FEET; THENCE
N89 °56'46 "E, 45.47 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF A TRACT OF LAND
SHOWN ON AN ACQUISITION PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 3672 AT PAGE 954 IN
THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER AND THE POINT OF
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTHEASTERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF
IOWA STATE HIGHWAY NO. 1; THENCE CONTINUING N89 056'46 "E, 0.86 FEET TO
A 1 INCH PIPE ON SAID SOUTHEASTERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE; THENCE
N57 °00'09 "E, ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 235.37 FEET;
THENCE N57 013'00 "E, ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE,
125.69 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF LOT 3 OF JACOB
RICORD'S SUBDIVISION, IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA ACCORDING TO
THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 16 AT PAGE 34 IN
THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER; THENCE N88 °04'36 "E,
ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, 72.19 FEET; THENCE S00 °12'49 "W, 334.12 FEET
TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE S89 °59'21 "W,
ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, 81.66 FEET; THENCE N01 °14'32 "E, 10.00 FEET;
THENCE S89 059'21 "W, 324.64 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY EXTENSION
OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF A TRACT OF LAND SHOWN ON AN ACQUISITION
PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 3672 AT PAGE 955 IN SAID RECORDER'S RECORDS;
THENCE N00 042'29 "E, ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY EXTENDED LINE AND ALONG
SAID EASTERLY LINE, 106.01 FEET TO A POINT ON SAID SOUTHEASTERLY
RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF IOWA STATE HIGHWAY NO. 1; THENCE N57 °02'22 "E,
ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 35.72 FEET TO THE POINT
OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 2.19 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND
RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
2. The Owner acknowledges that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles
of the Comprehensive Plan and the North district plan. Further, the parties acknowledge
that Iowa Code §414.5 (2013) 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 agree that
development of the subject property will conform to all other requirements of the zoning
chapter, as well as the following conditions:
a. Multi- family Development, other than townhouse style, shall not occur within 80 feet of
Dodge Street Court right -of -way; development within 80 feet of Dodge Street Court
right -of -way will be limited to single family, duplex or townhouse style dwelling units;
b. Approval of a development plan, including a landscaping plan, building designs, and
site plan by the Design Review Committee and the Planning and Zoning Commission,
to ensure compatibility with adjacent residential properties and appropriate
development appearance for an entranceway to the city, shall be required prior to
approval of a building permit;
c. If development on this property has vehicular access to Dodge Street Court, the
developer shall install improvements needed to bring the street up to City standards to
the point of access (driveway location) prior to issuance of a building permit; and
d. Owner shall dedicate sufficient land along the entire property frontage to widen the
Dodge Street Court right -of -way to 50 feet prior to approval of site plan or building
permit.
ppdadnVagt/rez13400020 conditional zoning agreement.doc 2
e. Owner shall install sidewalks along the Conklin Lane and Dodge Street Court
frontages, and provide pedestrian connections from the development to the sidewalk
on Dodge Street prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy;
f. Development on the subject properties shall be designed to drain on -site storm water
away from Dodge Street Court. The City Engineer shall review and approve the
drainage plan prior to approval of a site plan or building permit.
4. The Owner and City acknowledge that the conditions contained herein are reasonable
conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (2013), and that said
conditions satisfy public needs that are caused by the requested zoning change.
5. The Owner and City acknowledge that in the event the subject property is transferred,
sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all redevelopment will conform with the terms of this
Conditional Zoning Agreement.
6. The parties acknowledge that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be
a covenant running with the land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force
and effect as a covenant with title to the land, unless or until released of record by the
City of Iowa City.
The parties further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind
all successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties.
7. The Owner acknowledge(s) 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 Owner's expense.
Dated this day of
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Matthew Hayek, Mayor
Attest:
Marian K. Karr, City Clerk
ppdadnVagt/rez13 -00020 conditional zoning agreement.doc 3
2013.
Kobrin Development Company Inc.
By: 'Jeph T. Braverman, Preside
Approved by:
City Attorney's Office
CITY OF IOWA CITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2013 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)
CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
This instrument was acknowledged before me on St Pte mr3EQ (I , 2013 by Joseph T.
Braverman as President of Kobrin Development Compan Inc.
Not I flc in and for said Co my and State
NO ;V, (Stamp or Seal)
: .0Wa s
ppdadnVagt/rez13-00020 conditional zoning agreement.doc 4
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 26, 2013
To: Tom Markus, City Manager
From: Jeff Davidson, Director of Planning and Community Development
Re: REZ13 -00020 rezoning at Dodge Street, Dodge Street Court and Conklin Lane
At the September 17 City Council meeting a question was raised about staff's reference to and
interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan, North District Plan, as it applies to REZ13 -00020 the
rezoning of property located between Dodge Street and Dodge Street Court, east of Conklin
Lane to Low Density Multifamily Residential (RM -12) (see attached correspondence from Tim
Furman). Mr. Furman contends that the insertion of commas and the omission of the word "the"
from the sentence in the staff report that describes the preferred land uses in this area, is a
misrepresentation of the Comprehensive Plan.
We do not believe that the omission of the word "the" or the addition of commas to the
paragraph change the meaning or intent of the Comprehensive Plan. It is clear that the intent of
the plan is to assure that residential development adjacent to Dodge Street Court be similar to
and compatible with the existing houses and duplexes in the neighborhood. The August 1 staff
report recommends that conditions be placed on the rezoning to assure compatibility.
At the August 1 Planning and Zoning meeting, the issue of neighborhood compatibility was
extensively discussed by the Commission. The Commission received correspondence and
comments from Tim Furman regarding the specific language in the Comprehensive Plan and
regarding the preferred use of the property adjacent to Dodge Street Court being residential
similar to existing residential development in the area. The Commission deferred the application
to their August 15 meeting and asked staff and Southgate Development to consider additional
conditions to help assure that development of the property will be compatible with the
neighborhood.
The applicant agreed to limit the development of the portion of the property that fronts onto Dodge
Street Court to single family, duplex or townhouse style dwellings, essentially the same type of
dwelling units that are allowed in the High Density Single Family (RS -12) zone that is located on
the other side of Dodge Street Court. Further the Conditional Zoning agreement requires
approval of a development plan, including a landscaping plan, building designs, and site plan by
the Design Review Committee and the Planning and Zoning Commission, to ensure compatibility
with adjacent residential properties and appropriate development appearance for an entranceway
to the city, prior to approval of a building permit.
Staff found that with these conditions the proposed RM -12 zoning complies with the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan to assure that residential development on Dodge Street Court is similar to
the existing residential development in the area. The Planning and Zoning Commission
concurred with this finding and recommended by a vote of 6 -1 to approve the rezoning.
Cc: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Planning and Zoning Commission
Marian Karr
From: Timothy Furman <fu rmanti mothy@g mail. com >
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 4:30 PM
To: Council
Subject: Opposition to Southgate North Dodge rezoning
Dear Council Members,
I oppose the rezoning of property at 1425 N. Dodge Street to multi - family use. I believe the rezoning request is
not consistent with the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan and that it will lead to traffic /safety and noise /nuisance
issues in my neighborhood.
The Comprehensive Plan's stated preferred use for the Southgate property is "residential similar to the existing
residential development in the area." All of the existing residential development around the property is detached
single family, attached single family, or duplexes. The rezoning request is not consistent with the Comp. Plan
because of the dissimilarity between the existing residential development and what would be allowed with
multi - family zoning. A three story apartment building is in no way "similar to the existing residential
development in the area ".
After examining the City Staff report recommending approval for the rezoning I noticed that it misrepresents
the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the most relevant sentence cited in the Comprehensive Plan was changed
from how it is actually written.
The report containing the altered Comp. Plan language is found in the agenda for the 8/1 Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting. Here is a link: http: / /www.icizov.orwdocs /auto/boards /8 -1-
2013 PlanningandZoning_Commission A eg nda.pdf. The Staff report starts on page 18 and the altered
Comprehensive Plan language is found on page 19 at the end of the paragraph titled "Compliance with
Comprehensive Plan".
Here is link to the actual Comprehensive Plan language: http: / /www.ic og v.orW ?id =1390. The relevant section
of the Plan is near the bottom of the page and titled "Dodge Street Commercial Area ".
The actual sentence in the Comprehensive Plan reads:
"If it is not possible to achieve a mixed use development adjacent to Dodge Street Court the preferred use is
residential similar to the existing residential development in the area."
The P &Z Staff report version reads:
"If it is not possible to achieve a mixed use development adjacent to Dodge Street Court, the preferred use is
residential, similar to existing residential development in the area."
In the Staff version a comma was inserted after "Dodge Street Court" and in between the words "residential
similar ". The word "the" was omitted from before "existing ". These seemingly deliberate amendments have the
potential to change the interpretation of the sentence from how it is actually written. A lot of time, effort, and
attention was put into drafting the Comprehensive Plan so the editing of its content is unnecessary and
suspicious.
It is my understanding that P &Z Staff does not have the authority to alter the Comprehensive Plan at their own
discretion. However there is clear evidence that Staff changed the Plan in their justification for the Southgate
rezoning approval. This misrepresentation may be unlawful if done intentionally and is at least an act of
negligence that could harm my neighborhood.
I respectfully request that the Council and P &Z Commission reconsider Southgate's rezoning application in
light of the Staff error and interpret the Comprehensive Plan based on how it is actually written. I also
encourage Southgate to seek a medium or high density single family zoning classification for their property.
Sincerely,
Tim Furman
1263 Dodge Street Court
Marian Karr
From: Tracy Barkalow <Tracy @barkalowhomes.com>
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 10:14 AM
To: Council
Cc: Marian Karr
Subject: North Dodge Street & Conklin - Southgate Development Project Next to North Dodge Hy -Vee
Importance: High
Marian-
Can you please read my letter to the Council into the record at the next City Council meeting on this matter? I will not
be able to attend.
Thank you
Tracy Barkalow
Honorable Council Members,
I would really like to voice my objection to the rezoning application for the property that Southgate Development is in
the process of rezoning to RM -12 at the corner of North Dodge Street and Conklin Lane across from the North Dodge Hy-
Vee. I have a couple of serious issues with this rezoning application being approved and permitting apartments to be
built.
1. This is in direct conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. This site is only a couple blocks from our properties at 902 -906 North Dodge Street & 911 North Governor Street
Iowa City.
3. The City of Iowa City — City Council with regards to our property at 911 N Governor Street zoned CO -1 & R3B
took it upon themselves on March 28, 2013 to spot downzone our Commercial property to RS -12 to stop
apartment development against a court order.
4. 911 North Governor Street site is very similar in nature and surroundings to the Southgate Site at North Dodge &
Conklin Lane.
S. Both sites have access to main road Dodge & Governor.
6. Both sites front or are adjacent to existing housing in the RS -12 and other RS zones.
7. An application by Mark Holtkamp for RM -12 zone on the 911 North Governor Property was denied and was the
sole basis for your spot downzoning of all of our properties per the Staff report and was a direct effort to avoid
apartment development per Staff. Yet RM 12 is ok on Southgate Site?
8. 911 North Governor is and has been developed since 1978 and now The City Council took the Commercial
zoning from us and now we have a 12,000 square foot building that is worthless and unusable without getting a
special exception do to that actions of Council. Again action taken by Council not property owners.
9. On 911 North Governor the City Council & Staff & Legal further told us they were downzoning our properties to
prevent apartments from being built and to restrict all development to single family, townhomes and or
duplexes on our site.
10. And last but not least we have a Court Order permitting 11313 zone for apartments to be built on our site that is
still in place today and Southgate does not and you are openly stating that Southgate should be permitted to
build apartments on a Commercial Site and should be permitted to zone it to RM -12 to accomplish 24 or more
apartments plus townhomes yet we cannot do the same thing?
It should be clear to the City Council that Staff and even the Council is not fairly & equally applying the zoning rules and
the Comprehensive Plan to properties in Iowa City. It is time for City Council to hold City Staff & themselves a little
more accountable for equal treatment to properties & more importantly property owners. Again I would strongly urge
the denial of this rezoning application if what you told us is factual and accurate regarding this area and our property it
should be clear that the Southgate property should be evaluated and treated in the same manner as our property at 911
North Governor Street and not be permitted RM -12 zoning. All we are asking for is equal treatment for the citizens of
Iowa City.
I respectfully request that the City Council denies the rezoning application from Southgate Properties for the 2 + acres
more or less located at the corner of North Dodge Street & Conklin Lane in Iowa City across from the North Dodge Hy-
Vee. Again we are only doing this in the interest of equal and fair treatment to all property owners in this area if one
property owner is denied the ability to build apartments or denied the same zoning on a "identical in every material
way" property than all property owners should be denied the ability to obtain that same zoning and the ability to build
apartments. Please apply the rules fairly & equally.
Thank you
A"7 5. Wa`t"+v - CBR
Broker Associate — REALTOR
Commercial & Residential Real Estate
Ambrose & Associates Realtors
25012 th Avenue Ste 150
Coralville, Iowa 52241
Mobile 319 - 631 -3268
Direct: 319 - 354 -8644
Office 319 - 354 -8118
Fax 319 - 354 -0921
Website: www.TracyBarkalow.com
Licensed Broker in the State of Iowa
This e-mail, including attachments, is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510 -2521, is confidential,
and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the sender that you have received the
message in error, and then please delete it. Thank you
"157r- r-
4d
Prepared by: Karen Howard, PCD, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5251
ORDINANCE NO. 13 -4556
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14: ZONING TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL BUILDING HEIGHT
AND FLOOR AREA, ALTERNATIVE GROUND FLOOR TRANSPARENCY AND BUILDING
ARTICULATION STANDARDS, AND LOWER PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPERTIES
ZONED CENTRAL BUSINESS SUPPORT (CB -2) THAT ARE LOCATED IN THE RIVERFRONT
CROSSINGS DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, the adopted Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan acknowledges that the
South Downtown Subdistrict of Riverfront Crossings will be the most urban district outside of
Downtown Iowa City and larger scale buildings are encouraged and anticipated; and
WHEREAS, the Master Plan states that residential and office uses should predominate in the
South Downtown Subdistrict, which will complement and support the Downtown retail core; and
WHEREAS, the current CB -2 Zone is intended for areas peripheral to the Downtown and allows
such uses as drive - through banking facilities that are designed to fit into an urban context; and
WHEREAS, the height and FAR limit, ground level fenestration standards, and building
articulation standards that currently apply in the CB -2 Zone are based on the building scale
anticipated in the more historic mainstreet portions of Downtown Iowa City and the Northside
Marketplace, but are not consistent with the vision for new buildings in the South Downtown
Subdistrict of Riverfront Crossings; and
WHEREAS, to accommodate larger -scale buildings of a more modern design consistent with the
vision in the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, it is in the best interests of the City to allow for
additional building height and floor area, alternative minimum fenestration standards, building
articulation standards, and lower parking requirements for property zoned CB -2 that is located in the
Riverfront Crossings District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this ordinance amendment and
recommends 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 -2C -8, Central Business Site Development Standards, by adding a new
subsection R, as set forth below:
R. Alternative Dimensional and Site Development Standards for CB -2 Properties in the
Riverfront Crossings District
As envisioned in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, properties zoned
CB -2 that are located in the Riverfront Crossings District shall be allowed additional
building height and floor area, and alternative minimum fenestration standards, building
articulation standards, and lower parking requirements as set forth below.
1. Maximum building height: 6 stories, not to exceed 85 ft.
2. Maximum FAR: 5
3. Along any building fagade that faces a primary street, as designated in the adopted
Downtown & Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, 70% of the ground level building facade
must be comprised of transparent windows and doors (with no more than 10% daylight
reduction).
4. Along any building fagade that faces a street that is not designated a primary street in
the adopted Downtown & Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, a minimum of 40% of the
Ordinance No. 13 -4556
Page 2
ground level building facade must be comprised of transparent windows and doors
(with no more than 10% daylight reduction).
5. Alternative building articulation methods may be allowed by Design Review to
accommodate midrise and high rise buildings that have a more contemporary
architectural style, provided the building is designed in a manner that provides a similar
or greater level of visual interest or relief as would be achieved under subsection 14-
2C -8O, Building Articulation. Design Review may consider elements that provide visual
interest or relief, such as variations in building materials, glazing or window patterns;
extensive building transparency that allows for exceptional daylighting of interior spaces
and views into the interior of the building; canopies or awnings; entranceway features;
unique signage, artwork, or other architectural features.
6. Private, off - street parking shall be required at the same ratios as required in the CB -10
Zone, as specified in Table 5A -1.
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 unconsti-
tutional.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage,
approval and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this ist day of October _,2013.
LTA FAV
*.
Approved by:
Z, 't, -/�
City Attorney's OfficeT/
a7 13
ATTEST: ta&4&2sr 5
T
CITY CLERK
Ordinance No. 13-4556
Page 3
It was moved by Mims and seconded by Dickens that the
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
x Champion
x Dickens
x Dobyns
x Hayek
x Mims
x Payne
x Throgmorton
First Consideration 9/17/2013
Vote for passage: AYES: Hayek, Mims, Payne, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens,
Dobyns. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration -
Vote for passage:
Date published 10/10/13
Moved by Mims, seconded by Champion,
considered and voted on for passage
meeting at which it is to be finally
consideration and vote be waived and
passage at this time. AYES: Dobyns,
Dickens. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Payne.
that the rule requiring ordinances to be
at two Council meetings prior to the
passed be suspended, the second
the ordinance be voted upon for final
Hayek, Mims, Throgmorton, Champion,
Y
Marian Karr
From:
Kevin Monson <KMonson @neumannmonson.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, September 18, 2013 8:47 AM
To:
Marian Karr
Subject:
Expedited zoning for MidWestOne Bank
Marian,
MidWestOne Bank hereby respectively requests that the zoning changes approved unanimously by the city
council last evening for the C132 zone in River Crossings be expedited and the 2nd and 3rd votes be collapsed
into one.
Thank you
Kevin
Kevin Monson, AIA, LEED AP
President
NEUMANN MONSON ARCHITECTS
221 East College Street, Suite 303
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
phone: 319- 338 -7878
hqp: / /www.neumannmonson.com/
This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended
recipient, delete this message. You are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this message, or taking any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. Neumann
Monson Architects is a Professional Corporation.
�OTT"
4e
Prepared by: Bailee McClellan, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5243 (REZ11- 00010)
ORDINANCE NO. 13 -4557
ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 13.07 ACRES LOCATED AT 1729 NORTH DUBUQUE
ROAD FROM LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY (RS -5) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY — LOW
DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY (OPD -5). (REZ11 -00010)
WHEREAS, the applicant, Allen Homes, has requested a rezoning of property located at 1729 North
Dubuque Road from Low Density Single Family (RS -5) to Planned Development Overlay — Low Density
Single Family (OPD -5); and
WHEREAS, Allen Homes proposes to use the property to develop The Palisades, a 32 -lot residential
subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the area is appropriate for single - family and duplex
residential uses and open space; and
WHERAS, the subdivision incorporates single - family residential uses and open space in compliance with
the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, sensitive areas, including critical slopes and woodlands, are present on the property; and,
WHEREAS, in order to provide for the connection of Oakes Drive and storm water management on this
property, it is necessary to remove more than 50 percent of the woodlands and grade more than 35 percent
of the critical slopes; and,
WHEREAS, replacement trees will be planted; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has 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 RS -5 to OPD -5:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF DEAN OAKES FIRST ADDITION,
TO IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
RECORDED PLAT THEREOF; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 228.20 FEET, ALONG
THE CENTERLINE OF DUBUQUE ROAD AND AN ARC OF A 303.70 FOOT RADIUS
CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, WHOSE 222.87 FOOT CHORD BEARS
S39 027'42 "W; THENCE S18 001'40 "W, ALONG SAID CENTERLINE, 617.60
FEET; THENCE N87 008144 "W, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF LOT ONE,
DONAHUE SUBDIVISION, TO IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF, 638.60 FEET; THENCE
NO2 °02146 "E, 742.00 FEET; THENCE S89 009105 11E, 944.20 FEET, ALONG
THE SOUTH LINE OF DEAN OAKES THIRD ADDITION, TO IOWA CITY,
JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF
AND THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID DEAN OAKES FIRST ADDITION, TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING CONTAINING 13.07 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, AND IS
SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change the
zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval
and publication of this ordinance by law.
SECTION III. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the
City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and to record the same, at the
office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, at the owner's expense, all as provided by law.
SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance No. 13 -4557
Page 2
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.
. S.
ATTEST: Aa-X4� /1", `�4
CITY CLERK
Appr ved by
City Attorney's Office ��a /�
Ordinance No. 13 -4557
Page 3
It was moved by Dobyns and seconded by Dickens that the
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
x Champion
x Dickens
x Dobyns
x Hayek
x Mims
x Payne
x Throgmorton
First Consideration 9101/2013
Vote for passage: AYES: Dickens, Dobyns, Hayek, Mims, Payne, Champion.
NAYS: Throgmorton. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration 9/17/2013
Voteforpassage: AYES: Champion, Dickens, Dobyns, Hayek, Mims, Payne.
NAYS: Throgmorton. ABSENT: None.
Date published 10/10/13
--fO-.01-13
9
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 1, ENTITLED "PARADES AND PUBLIC ASSEMBLIES," TO
LESSEN THE INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION PROVISIONS AND MAKE THEM
CONSISTENT WITH THE PERMIT FEE REQUIREMENTS.
WHEREAS, Section 10 -8 -1 requires that applicants for parade /public assembly permits provide
insurance if the event is in the street or if equipment and other items are placed on the sidewalk, city
plaza, or in a park;
WHEREAS, events in which less than one block is closed, even if equipment or other items are
placed on the street, and which last under six hours, pose less risk to the City than events that take place
over multiple blocks and that last more than six hours;
WHEREAS, applicants required to pay a permit fed should also be required to have insurance and
indemnify the City; and
WHEREAS, it is in the City's interest to adopt this ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I. AMENDMENTS.
Title 10, entitled "Public Ways and Property," Chapter 1, entitled "Parades and Public Assemblies,"
Section 3, entitled "Application for Permit," is hereby amended by deleting Subsection B13 and B14 and
substituting the following in lieu thereof:
B13. If the parade or public assembly requires equipment, cables, objects, structures, or similar items
to be placed on city plaza, on a sidewalk, or in a park or if it lasts more than six hours or if it is held on a
street and requires the closure of more than one block, the applicant shall agree to pay on behalf of the
city all sums which the city shall be obligated to pay by reason of any liability imposed upon the city for
damages of any kind resulting from use of public property and the public right of way, whether sustained
by any person or persons, caused by accident or otherwise and shall defend at its own expense and on
behalf of the city any claim against the city arising out of the use of public property and the public right of
way. Block means the area on the street in a residential zone between two intersections or between an
intersection and the stub /termination of a street or 500 feet in a nonresidential zone. The indemnification
requirement may be waived if applicant demonstrates inability to indemnify.
B14. If the parade or public assembly requires equipment, cables, objects, structures, or similar items to
be placed on city plaza, on a sidewalk, or in a park or if it lasts more than six hours or if it is held on a
street and requires the closure of more than one block, insurance is required in the reasonable amount
necessary to minimize risk of harm to persons and property based on the nature and size of the event, as
determined by the city's risk manager. Block means the area on the street in a residential zone between
two intersections or between an intersection and the stub /termination of a street or 500 feet in a
nonresidential zone. The speech content of the parade or public assembly shall not be a factor in
determining the amount of insurance. The insurance requirement may be waived if applicant
demonstrates inability to obtain insurance or to pay the cost of insurance.
SECTION 11. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION 111. 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 , 2013.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
A ued
City Attorney
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 10/01/13
Vote for passage: AYES: Payne, Throgmorton, CHampion, Dickens, Dobyns,
Hayek, Mims. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration _
Vote for passage:
Date published
Prepared by: Stefanie Bowers, Human Rights Coord, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356 -5022
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 2 OF THE CITY CODE, ENTITLED "HUMAN
RIGHTS," CHAPTER 3, ENTITLED "DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES," TO EXEMPT
CERTAIN PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS FROM AGE DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS.
WHEREAS, the City Code presently protects individuals of any age in places of public
accommodation;
WHEREAS, such protection currently does not account for developmental differences of persons
based on age, such as a public accommodation that requires all individuals less than 8 years of age who
use the pool to be accompanied by an individual 18 years of age or older due to safety concerns:
WHEREAS, such protection currently does not allow for alcohol establishments to place restrictions
on entry based on age, and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to adopt these amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I. AMENDMENTS.
1. Title 2, entitled "Human Rights," Chapter 3, entitled "Discriminatory Practices," Section 2, entitled
"Public Accommodation; Exceptions," is hereby amended by deleting the last sentence in subsection A.
2. Title 2, entitled "Human Rights," Chapter 3, entitled "Discriminatory Practices," Section 2, entitled
"Public Accommodation; Exceptions," is hereby amended by adding the following new Subsections:
E. It shall not be unlawful for a public accommodation to take any action otherwise prohibited by
this Section where age is a bona fide factor or qualification based on health, safety or developmental
differences between age groups. In order to establish that the exception applies, a place of public
accommodation must show the restriction or policy is necessary to protect the health, safety, or
developmental differences of persons based on age alone. Developmental differences of persons based
on age means the social, emotional, physical and intellectual development of a person based on the
chronological age of a person.
F. Nothing in this section shall prohibit restrictions regarding the consumption of alcoholic
beverages by those under the legal drinking age or the presence of persons under the legal drinking age
in places of public accommodation where alcoholic beverages are served.
G. This section shall not apply to discounts for services or accommodations based upon age.
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
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
2013.
Approve
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 10/01/13
Vote for passage: AYES: Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns, Hayek,
Mims, Payne. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration _
Vote for passage:
Date published
CITY OF IOWA CITY "U'Ul-13 -'
I r 1 10
O
Date: September 24, 2013
To: Tom Markus, City Manager
From: Stefanie Bowers, Human Rights Coordinator Z41P-��
Re: Amendment to Public Accommodation; Exceptions
Introduction:
At its June 18, 2013 & July 15, 2013 meeting the Human Rights Commission approved
amendments to the Human Rights Ordinance. These amendments come as recommendations
to the City Council. The discussion by the Human Rights Commission can be viewed in the
meeting minutes of May 21, 2013 & June 18, 2013.
History/Background:
One of the five areas covered under the Human Rights Ordinance is public accommodation.
Public accommodations are defined as each and every place, establishment or facility of
whatever kind, nature or class that caters or offers services, facilities or goods to the general
public for a fee or charge. City Code 2 -1 -1. Examples of public accommodations are theaters,
concert halls, shopping centers, banks, dry cleaners, libraries, sports arenas, restaurants,
doctor's offices, hotels or pharmacies.
The Human Rights Ordinance prohibits a public accommodation from denying a person the
full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages of any
place of public accommodation based on their age. Age is defined as the chronological age
of a person (any age of a person is protected). City Code 2 -1 -1, 2 -3 -2.
Age has been a protected characteristic in the area of public accommodation in Iowa City for
many years. Iowa City's inclusion of age as a protected characteristic differs from State law.
State law does not prohibit age discrimination in the area of public accommodation. In
addition, most municipal laws do not cover age discrimination in the area of public
accommodation and if it is covered age is defined as anyone who is 18 years of age or older.
Because the current ordinance allows for any age of a person to be covered it does not
recognize and therefore allow for persons to be treated differently due to safety, health or
developmental differences between age groups. There are a number of problematic scenarios
that result due to this, for example, a public accommodation with a policy that requires all
persons less than 8 years of age to be accompanied by a person 18 years of age or older while
using certain equipment would be in violation of the Human Rights Ordinance even though it
is related to a legitimate safety concern. Also, a public accommodation that features materials
for a mature audience would not be able to place prohibitions or limitations on entrance to
protect the developmental differences between, for example, a 5 year old and a 16
year old.1 Further, a public accommodation that serves alcohol that regulates the time and
manner by which individuals under the legal drinking are present on the premises would be
non - compliant under the Human Rights Ordinance.
Recommendation:
To add an exception that allows for restrictions or limited access to services based upon
health, safety, or developmental differences between age groups.
To add an exception that recognizes restrictions pertaining to the 1) consumption of alcoholic
beverages by those under the legal drinking age or 2) the presence of persons under the legal
drinking age in places of public accommodation where alcoholic beverages are served.
I There is one age exception for public accommodation when it is related to discounts for services or accommodations based upon age. Examples
are senior discounts or charging a lower fee for a kid meal than an adult meal.
Minutes
APPROVED
Human Rights Commission
June 18, 2013 — 6 P.M.
Helling Conference Room
Members Present: Harry Olmstead, Orville Townsend Sr., Joe Coulter, Diane Finnerty, Kim
Hanrahan, Dan Tallon, Shams Ghoneim.
Staff Present: Stefanie Bowers, Sue Dulek.
Recommendations to Council: Yes, 3 recommendations.
1) For the City Council to direct the City Manager to more fully implement the recommendation of
the equity report section of the Ad Hoc Diversity Committee, which states that the report format
and composition shall be developed by the City Manager and consultation with the City Council,
the City of Iowa City Human Rights Commission, and any other committees determined by the
City Council, and further that we support that it is the City Manager, his job is to oversee the
implementation of efforts, and we are very pleased that he is requesting and requiring updates on
that. The equity reports are not to assess implementation they are to assess outcomes, and that the
Iowa City Human Rights Commission is very interested in the assessment of the outcomes from
these efforts.
2) The addition of an exception to 2 -3 -2 Public Accommodation; Exceptions- Developmental
Differences between Age Groups.
3) To keep the half fares and the Sunday services for SEATS.
Call to Order:
Vice Chair Olmstead called the meeting to order at 18:05.
Consideration of the Minutes of the May 21, 2013:
Coulter moved to approve minutes, seconded by Hanrahan.Motion passed. 5 -0. (Townsend & Ghoneim
Absent)
Public Comment of Items Not on the Agenda: None.
Amendment to 2 -3 -2 of the Human Rights Ordinance
Commissioners approved to recommend proposed amendment E. Moved by Finnerty, seconded by
Ghoneim. Motion passed 6 -0. (Townsend absent)
Motion to adjourn to 6:30 pm. Moved by Finnerty, seconded by Hanrahan. Motion passed
6 -0. (Townsend absent)
Human Rights Breakfast
The upcoming breakfast is on Thursday, October 24, 2013. Finnerty would like to see the breakfast be re-
energized and brought back to its former status. Finnerty made a motion to form a subcommittee to look
at the revitalization of the Human Rights Breakfast. Moved by Finnerty, seconded by Hanrahan. Motion
passed 5 -0. (Townsend & Coulter absent). Subcommittee will be Hanrahan, Finnerty and Olmstead.
Minutes
Human Rights Commission
May 21, 2013 — 6 P.M.
Emma Harvat Hall
(Revised) APPROVED
Members Present: Harry Olmstead, Orville Townsend Sr., Joe Coulter, Diane Finnerty, Kim
Hanrahan, Dan Tallon.
Members Excused: Shams Ghoneim.
Staff Present: Stefanie Bowers, Sue Dulek.
Recommendations to Council: Yes, but Council action is not needed at this time as further
recommendations are forthcoming relating to the same recommendation. See New Business: Amendment
to 2 -3 -2 below.
Call to Order:
Chair Townsend called the meeting to order at 18:05.
Consideration of the Minutes of the April 16, 2013:
Coulter moved to approve minutes, seconded by Hanrahan.
Motion passed. 5 -0. (FinnertyAbsent)
Public Comment of Items Not on the Aeenda: None.
New Business:
Amendment to 2 -3 -2 of the Human Rights Ordinance
Commissioners approved to recommend proposed amendment G. The Commission will vote on
amendment E at the June meeting. Motion passed. 6 -0. Commissioners would like "developmental
differences" defined before so approving amendment E.
Juneteenth
Commissioners voted to contribute to sponsorship in the amount of $275. Juneteenth is an American
holiday that commemorates the end of slavery.
Old Business:
City of Coralville 4th Fest 2013
Commissioners opted to not participate in the event this year.
Human Rights of Persons Incarcerated
The Commission requested information from the County that breaks down persons incarcerated by age,
gender, race, ethnicity, and disability and immigration status. Olmstead moved to request, seconded by
Coulter. Motion passed 6 -0.
Finnerty would like for the Commission to think about what they will do with the information once it is
received. For consistency Townsend mentioned that the Commission should request what has been asked
for by the Ad Hoc Diversity Committee. Bowers noted that those recommendations have been given to
Marian Karr
From: Stefanie Bowers
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 4:34 PM
To: 'jthrogmo @yahoo.com'
Cc: Eleanor M. Dilkes; Geoff Fruin; Tom Markus; 'Orville Townsend (orville. townsend @q. com)';
Council
Subject: RE: Age - related amendments (Agenda Item 10)
Dear Jim,
Your email to Commission members regarding the proposed changes to the Human Rights Ordinance has been
forwarded to me for a response. A response by me rather than by one or more Commissioners will avoid any
unintended violations of the Open Meetings Act.
There appears to be a misunderstanding based on the characterization of this issue in several local media
outlets.
At the Human Rights Commission's meeting on May 21, 2013, City staff proposed 2 amendments to the
Human Rights Ordinance. Both amendments were in the area of public accommodation based on age.
The first was a substantive change to provide an exception when distinctions based on age are due to health,
safety or the developmental differences between persons of different ages. The second was simply a
recognition of the bar -entry age ordinance based by the City Council in order to make the human rights sections
of the Code consistent with the remainder of the Code.
At the Commission's meeting on May 21, Commissioners voted to make the changes to the Human Rights
Ordinance that would expressly recognize the other State and City laws that place restrictions on persons under
the legal drinking age. At that time, the Commission chose to not approve adding an exception based on health,
safety and developmental differences among persons of different ages because the Commission asked for a
definition to be provided of developmental differences of persons based on age at the June meeting. At the June
meeting, this definition was provided to Commissioners and the Commission approved this exception. Both
exceptions are included in the ordinance before the Council tomorrow night.
I think the confusion is with the recommendation to recognize the restrictions of persons under the legal
drinking age.
The passage of the 21 ordinance (like the earlier passage of the 19 and under ordinance), as well as the State law
that sets the legal drinking age, would make a claim of age discrimination under the Human Rights Ordinance
unviable. The Human Rights Ordinance should have been updated when City Code 4 -5 -8 became law, but no
one thought about the conflicting ordinance at that time. The recommended change to the Human Rights
Ordinance re: the bar -entry age is simply a clarification.
I hope this clarifies the matter if not, please do not hesitate to contact me at 356 -5022.
Sincerely,
Stefanie Bowers
Human Rights Coordinator
Original Message --
Subject: Age - related amendments
From: James Throgmorton <jthrogmogyahoo.com>
To: Diane Finnerty < diane- finnertykuiowa.edu >,Harry Olmstead <HgUO3kaol.com >,Orville Townsend
<orville.townsend@q.com >, Shams Ghoneim <shams.ghoneimkgmail.com >,Joe Coulter
<coulter ioe.d2gmail.com>
CC:
Greetings to all.
I'm looking at the proposed revisions to the Human Rights ordinance, especially the part that allows age- related
restrictions pertaining to the presence of persons under the legal drinking age in places of public accommodation
where alcoholic beverages are served.
Am I right in understanding that you agree this exemption does not violate the rights of people under 21 years of
age?
Will Stephanie or someone from the Commission be present at our meeting tonight?
Jim Throgmorton
Prepared by: Kent Ralston, Acting Traffic Eng. Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5253
ORDINANCE NO.
CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9, ENTITLED "MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC,"
CHAPTER 3, ENTITLED "RULES OF THE ROAD," SECTION 6, ENTITLED "SPEED RESTRICTIONS ",
SUBSECTION C, ENTITLED "SCHOOL SPEED ZONES" TO CREATE A 20 MPH SCHOOL SPEED
ZONE FOR MANN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to define maximum allowable speeds for vehicles on public
streets and highways;
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to limit vehicle speeds near schools to 20 MPH to create a
safer environment for school children;
WHEREAS, City Code Section 9- 3 -6(C) currently defines 20 MPH school speed zones for streets near
elementary schools; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I. AMENDMENTS
1. Title 9, entitled "Motor Vehicles and Traffic," Chapter 3, entitled "Rules of the Road," Section 6,
entitled "Speed Restrictions," Sub - Section C, entitled "School Speed Zones" is hereby amended by
adding the following language:
Name of Street Where Limit Applies
Church Street From N. Van Buren Street to N. Dodge Street
SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION lll. 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 2013.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Appr ed by
City Attorney's Office
Page 1 of 1
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:
Throgmorton.
Second Consideration _
Vote for passage:
Date published
Champion
Dickens
Dobyns
Hayek
Mims
Payne
Throgmorton
10 /01 /1
that the
AYES: Champion, Dickens, Dobyns, Hayek, Mims, Payne,
NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
�I r =fir
; �,41
CITY OF IOWA CITY ��
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 18, 2013
To: City Manager
From: Kent Ralston; Asst. Transportation Planner
Re: School speed limit changes near Mann Elementary School — October 1, 2013 City
Council Meeting.
Introduction:
This proposed ordinance amendment is meant to facilitate the implementation of a 20 mph
school zone speed limit on Church Street near Mann Elementary School.
Background:
The proposed amendment is recommended in light of requests received from the neighborhood
regarding school zone speed limits near Mann school. The current posted school zone speed
limit on Church St adjacent to Mann School is 25 mph — they are 20mph at other schools
elsewhere in town.
Discussion of Solution:
This ordinance amendment establishes a school zone speed limit of 20 miles per hour on
Church Street (between N. Van Buren Street and N. Dodge Street).
Staff also contacted the Iowa DOT and requested that a 20 mph school zone be established on
N. Dodge Street (adjacent to the school), but the DOT denied the request. The DOT cited a
lack of collision history as a main reason for the denial. Iowa DOT would need to approve a
change in speed limit on N. Dodge Street as it is part of the State Highway system (Highway 1).
Recommendation:
Staff recommends adoption of this ordinance amendment at the October 1, 2013 City Council
meeting.
S:\J000G \TRANS \Traffic Studies \Speed Study \School Zone Speed Limit Changes - Jun 12 \Mann Elementary