Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-01-21 Ordinance5a Prepared by: Sarah Walz, PCD, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5251 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 15: LAND SUBDIVISIONS TO REMOVE MAXIMUM DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PLACEMENT OF CLUSTERED MAILBOXES IN NEW SUBDIVISIONS AND ADDING GUIDELINES TO ENSURE APPROPRIATE PLACEMENT OF LARGE CONCENTRATIONS OF MAILBOXES. WHEREAS, the Subdivision Regulations currently require that mailbox clusters be located within one block or 600 feet walking distance of the residences they serve; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Post Office has indicated it will no longer support these maximum distance requirements, which may result in larger mailbox clusters; and WHEREAS, there are traffic safety and aesthetic concerns associated with large mailbox clusters that may impact individual properties adjacent to cluster sites; and WHEREAS, the proposed changes to the regulations are intended to provide flexibility to address these concerns on a case -by -case basis based on the design and density of the proposed subdivision; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has 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: Delete paragraphs 15 -3 -10B and C and replace with the following: B. Mailbox clusters serving residential developments shall be conveniently located for residents. Unless otherwise approved by the City, mailbox clusters shall be located in an outlot maintained by the homeowners association. Mailboxes should be located in a manner that provides safe access for residents, e.g. does not require residents to cross heavily trafficked streets. Driveways shall be allowed no closer than twelve feet (12') from the location of a clustered mailbox as measured along the curb line of the fronting street. Mailboxes must be located in a manner that will not violate the city's intersection visibility standards. Locations and design must be approved by the City and the United States postal service. Depending on the size and location of the clustered mailbox, the City may require a vehicular pull over lane built to city specifications. C. Mailbox clusters shall be located on a concrete pad built to city specifications. To provide for pedestrian access, a five foot (6) wide concrete sidewalk shall be provided from the mailbox cluster to the adjacent public street and sidewalk. An accessible route shall be provided according to ADA standards for accessible design. In situations where there are a large number of mailboxes, the cluster site should be designed and located as an attractive and integrated component of the neighborhood (e.g. covering or shade structure, landscaping, setbacks, parking or vehicle access) in order to ensure that it does not detract from properties immediately adjacent to it. The cost of installation, including, but not limited to, box units and concrete pad and sidewalk access shall be borne by the developer, and subsequent maintenance shall be the responsibility of the homeowners association and /or the United States Postal Service. SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Ordinance No. Page 2 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 12014. ATTEST: MAYOR roved by: /2 -3I- 13 City Attorney's Office CITY CLERK 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: Botchway Dickens Dobyns Hayek Mims Payne Throgmorton First Consideration 01/21/2014 Vote for passage: AYES: Dobyns, Hayek, Mims, Payne, Throgmorton, Botchway. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Dickens. Second Consideration _ Vote for passage: Date published Prepared by: Sarah Walz, PCD, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5251 N O ORDINANCE NO. a �. '�g AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 15: LAND SUBDIVISIONS TO REMOVE W*MUPitDISTRE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PLACEMENT OF CLUSTERED MAILBOXES IN NEW �J2�DIVIi610N D ADDING GUIDELINES O ENSURE APPROPRIATE PLACEMENT OF LARGE COVTTIO S OF MAILBOXES. rn 3 WHEREAS, the Subdivis n Regulations currently require that mailbox c/ustebe ted whin one�lock or 600 feet walking distance of a residences they serve; and o WHEREAS, the U.S. Pos Office has indicated it will no longer sse maximum distance requirements, which may result in rger mailbox clusters; and WHEREAS, there are traffic s ety and aesthetic concerns associate mailbox clusters that may impact individual properties adja ent to cluster sites; and WHEREAS, the proposed change to the regulations are intended to ibility to address these concerns on a case -by -case basis base on the design and density of the pbdivision; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zon g Commission has reviewed nce amendment and recommends approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THrkCITY COUNCIL OF TF SECTION I. The Code of Ordinances of the Cqy of Iowa City, Iowa is Delete paragraphs 15 -3 -10B and C and reptgce with the folloVng: B. Mailbox clusters serving residential developmen shall be otherwise approved by the City, mailbox cluster shall homeowners association. Mailboxes should be to tec residents, e.g. does not require residents to cross he i no closer than twelve feet (12') from the location of a c of the fronting street. Mailboxes must be located in m, visibility standards. Locations and design must be ppn service. Depending on the size and location of the lusten over lane built to city specifications. OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: amended as follows: located for residents. Unless Zlocated in an outlot maintained by the a manner that provides safe access for trafficked streets. Driveways shall be allowed :red mailbox as measured along the curb line finer that will not violate the city's intersection I lby the City and the United States postal ilbox, the City may require a vehicular pull C. Mailbox clusters shall be located on a concr a pad built to city s ecifications. To provide for pedestrian access, a five foot (5') wide concrete sidew k shall be provided fro the mailbox cluster to the adjacent public street and sidewalk. An accessib route shall be provide according to ADA standards for accessible design. In situations where th re are a large number of ma boxes, the cluster site should be designed and located as an attractive nd integrated component of the neighborhood (e.g. covering or shade structure, landscaping, setbac parking or vehicle access) in order to ensure that it does not detract from properties immediately djacent to it. The cost of installation, including, but not limited to, box units and concrete pad and dewalk access shall be borne by the developer, and subsequent maintenance shall be the respon ility of the homeowners association and /or the United States Postal Service. SECTION II. REPEALVed II ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repeal SECTION III. SEVt . If a ny 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. Ordinance No. Page 2 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 12014. MAYOR roved by: City Attorney's Office N O r ro F + ! � N �a It �_," ®r, CITY CJ F ICJ WA C I T Y MEMORANDUM Date: December 19, 2013 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Sarah Walz, Associate Planner Re: Discussion of amendments to the section 15 -3 -10 of the Subdivision Regulations removing the maximum distance requirements for the placement of clustered mailboxes in new subdivisions and adding guidelines to ensure appropriate placement of large concentrations of mailboxes. Due to recent changes at the federal level, the U.S. Postal Service has indicated that they will no longer support our distance requirements for clustered mailboxes. Therefore, staff proposes removing these requirements from the subdivision regulations. Though the language could simply be stricken from the regulations, there are traffic and aesthetic concerns associated with large mailbox clusters that deserve consideration. Staff proposes additional language to minimize the potential impacts of large mailbox clusters on adjacent property. The language is intended to provide flexibility to allow arrangements of mailbox clusters in a manner that considers the layout and context of each subdivision. These regulations do not apply to existing neighborhoods. The proposed changes are shown below with proposed new language shown in bold. 15 -3 -10: CLUSTERED MAILBOXES: A. All new residential or commercial developments platted after the effective date of these regulations that receive curbside delivery of mail shall have clustered mailboxes, unless an exception is approved by the United States postal service. The location of mailbox clusters shall be noted on the plat. B. Mailbox clusters serving residential developments shall be conveniently located for residents. To that end, approximately six hURdFed feet (600') walk*Rg distanGe (whiGheveF *6 less) ftwn a-Ry GFiteFia Fnay be approved when theFe aFe not eReugh lots within one blGGk OF Six hURdFed feet ' . Unless otherwise approved by the City, mailbox clusters shall be located in an outlot to be maintained by the homeowners association. Mailboxes should be located in a manner that provides safe access for residents, e.g., does not require residents to cross heavily trafficked streets, etc. Driveways shall be allowed no closer than twelve feet (12) from the location of a clustered mailbox as measured along the curb line of the fronting street. Mailboxes must be located in a manner that will not violate the city's intersection December 13, 2013 Page 2 visibility standards. Locations and design must be approved by the City and the United States postal service. Depending on the size and location of the clustered mailbox, the City may require a vehicular pull over lane built to city specifications. C. Mailbox clusters shall be located on a concrete pad built to city specifications. To provide for pedestrian access, a five foot (5') wide concrete sidewalk shall be provided from the mailbox cluster to the adjacent public street and sidewalk. An accessible route shall be provided according to ADA standards for accessible design. In situations where there are a large number of mailboxes, the cluster site should be designed and located as an attractive and integrated component of the neighborhood (e.g. covering or shade structure, landscaping, setbacks, parking or vehicle access) in order to ensure that it does not detract from properties immediately adjacent to it. The cost of installation, including, but not limited to, box units and concrete pad and sidewalk access shall be borne by the developer, and subsequent maintenance shall be carried out by the United States Postal Service and /or homeowners association. (Ord. 08 -4313, 8 -26 -2008) Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner Department of Planning and Community Development Bob Miklo Subject: FW: Proposed to Mail Box Clusters Attachments: Section 15 -3 -10 Amendmant.pdf From: Glenn Siders [ mai Ito: gsiders @SouthGateCo.com] Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 11:18 AM To: Bob Miklo; Sarah Walz Cc: Geoff Fruin; Jerry Waddilove Subject: Proposed to Mail Box Clusters Bob — I have some comments on the proposed mail box cluster draft the Planning & Zoning Commission will discuss tonight. I have attached a copy of that draft. Because I will not be able to attend the meeting I would ask that you pass my comments /email along to them. My concerns are in Section C. They are as follows: O There are some undefined terms that ultimately do not provide any guidance to staff or developer. One is "a large number of mailboxes ". I have no idea where to begin with determining what that number would be and I am certain that my number would differ from staff. O What guidance is given to determine what an appropriate "design and location as an attractive and integrated component of the neighborhood" would be. I have no idea what YOU have in mind. The purpose of this amendment is a result of the Postal Service telling the developer where they want to place their pickup & delivery of mail. You/we may not always have a choice. O 1 believe the opportunity to landscape, cover, shade will be limited as well as setback. From the perspective of the Postal Service the placement of the clusters will be relatively close to the street and easily accessible. To summarize, the language in this proposal is vague and provides no set standard. It attempts to replace a current location requirement into a design element. What this proposal does due is leave the interpretation and discretion solely in the hands of the staff. They might determine that one would have to build a masonry structure to house and shade the mail boxes amongst other unknown requirements. Glenn Siders, Vice President South ate 755 Mormon Trek Blvd P.O. Box 1907 Iowa City, IA 52244 -1907 Planning and Zoning Commission December 19, 2013 - Formal Page 2 of 7 Christensen said she was concerned about a very large and old tree at the end of Camden Street and wanted to know if it could be spared. Miklo said the City Forester had deemed the tree to be in declining health and did not think it could survive the extension of the street that will run beside it. He said there's a water main that will be in the street that will cause further root damage. Miklo said the City Forester thinks that when the property to the southeast of the tree was developed there was substantial damage to the root system of the tree, and it's been in decline since. Christensen asked if the fence and the trees along it would be removed. Miklo said he will check with the developer before the next Commission meeting. Christensen said she hopes that the two trees she planted on the fence line along her property are not disturbed. She then asked about the timeline for the application process and Miklo explained it to her, stating that if this application is approved construction may start in the spring. Freerks closed public discussion. Eastham moved to defer SUB13 -00024 to the January 2, 2014 meeting. Swygard seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0. Code Item Discussion of amendments to the section 15 -3 -10 of the Subdivision Regulations removing the maximum distance requirements for the placement of clustered mailboxes in new subdivisions and adding guidelines to ensure appropriate placement of large concentrations of mailboxes. Miklo reminded the Commission that the Unite States Postal Service is no longer agreeing to work with the City's current regulation that every lot would have to be within 600 feet or two blocks of a cluster mailbox. He said the USPS has indicated that in order to cut costs they will have to consolidate cluster mailboxes and reduce the number of them, which will make some of them farther than the currently required distance. Miklo said in response to this, the City is proposing to amend the ordinance to remove the 600 foot requirement, which the Post Office won't honor anyway. He said there are concerns, though, that as the clusters are consolidated they will get larger and larger, so staff wants to have language in the ordinance so the City can work with the Postal Service and developers to assure that the larger clusters are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Miklo showed pictures of what is commonly seen, a cluster of 12 -16 boxes within 600 feet of the homes in a subdivision. He showed pictures of what is starting to be seen more often, clusters of more than thirty mailboxes that could increase in number. He said these do become a concern in terms of relating to the adjacent neighborhood and putting a lot of traffic in one location. Eastham asked if there is an issue with having a fire hydrant located in front of a cluster, as is the case in the first illustration that Miklo showed. Miklo said he can check with the Fire Department. Miklo showed examples of larger mailbox clusters in two Iowa City subdivisions that. were Planning and Zoning Commission December 19, 2013 - Formal Page 3 of 7 designed to be compatible with the neighborhood. He also showed examples of how these larger clusters have been designed in other cities using landscaping and shelters. Miklo referred to an email received by Glenn Siders of Southgate Development expressing concern about the vagueness in the proposed ordinance about the number of mailboxes. Miklo said that with the situation at the Post Office changing quite frequently, the City does not want to have a number that will have to be changed often and feels that this is something that can be negotiated with each subdivision early on as the developer, staff, the Post. Office find the best location for the mailboxes and address the issue of large clusters if applicable. Martin asked whose mandate it is for mailbox clusters. Miklo said the Postal Service will not deliver to individual dwellings in newer subdivisions. He said the Postal Service has also indicated that in existing neighborhoods where there is door to door service they may be moving to cluster mailboxes in those neighborhoods. Eastham asked how the ongoing maintenance of the mailbox clusters will be undertaken. Miklo said the draft says it will be the responsibility of the United States Postal Service or the homeowners' association. He said the Postal Service has indicated that if there is a shelter built around the cluster, they will not maintain them, and there would have to be a homeowners' association to maintain them. Miklo said Public Works has a concern about having these in the right -of -way and interfering with utilities or traffic functions, and individual homeowners are not going to want them on their lot, so the solution that the City has been using for the last few years is that whenever there's a subdivision with a mailbox cluster, the developer is required to designate an outlot for it. Freerks asked how this will be dealt with in an older neighborhood. Miklo said there have been no discussions with the City on how that would be implemented. Eastham asked if the City can require the Postal Service to maintain a mailbox cluster. Dilkes said probably not, and the import of the language is that it is not going to be the City that is maintaining them, but it will be up to the developer to figure out who will maintain them. Miklo said in recent subdivisions there have been outlots ,maintained by the homeowners' association that's written into the subdivision agreement that's filed at the time of final plat. Eastham said the problem he has with that is it operates in effect to establish homeowner's associations, and that may not always be desirable. He asked if there are any provisions that require access to the mailbox clusters in terms of curb cuts or wheelchair access. Miklo said it would be required to access public sidewalks and those sidewalks are designed to have access. Thomas said he understands staff's problem with trying to identify a way of providing guidelines since it's so variable, but he is concerned that even the American' with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards aren't clarified. He asked if that is part of the standard discussion that takes place with the design of the mailbox cluster. Miklo said that the public sidewalks that would be provided to the clusters are required to be up to ADA standards. Thomas asked if there will a standard review of the ADA in cases where the mailbox cluster is not immediately accessible from the sidewalk. Miklo said in recent reviews he can't recall a case where the cluster is not immediately adjacent to the public sidewalk. He said that is certainly something they could review at the time they review a subdivision and when preliminary plats come before the Commission; they will be identifying where the outlot is and where the mailbox clusters will go. He said staff was told by the Postal Service that they will provide, after an application is submitted, to -door service for persons with disabilities. Planning and Zoning Commission December 19, 2013 - Formal Page 4 of 7 Freerks opened public discussion. Freerks closed public discussion. Thomas moved to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the section 15- 3-10 of the Subdivision Regulations removing the maximum distance requirements for the placement of clustered mailboxes in new subdivisions and adding guidelines to ensure appropriate placement of large concentrations of mailboxes. Martin seconded the motion. Eastham said he has no problem with either distance or placement requirements, but he is puzzled by the aesthetic requirements. Freerks said when mass and size and scale come into play with anything the Commission deals with, those are items that become important and the Commission needs to take a look at things because that's when things like the tower becomes something that can have a negative impact on the neighborhood, the area and the community. She said it's reasonable to take that on in this case, just as they do in lots of other instances. Freerks said she doesn't think it's just about height and accessibility —it's about the way mass and scale play into an environment, and that's an important item. Martin said she thinks about driving into any area it's all about curb appeal, and she thinks mailbox clusters are hideously ugly. She also said if there's no shelter and if it's pouring rain, it's problematic. She said she agrees with having some verbiage that at least gets that dialogue going so that it's addressed in some way. Freerks said it allows for flexibility and for the best solution and hopefully that saves time and money in the long run. Miklo said in staff's opinion when you have a smaller scale cluster you don't notice it, and it tends to disappear, but as they get larger and larger they start to draw attention to themselves, and in the residential setting staff feels there should be some consideration given to where they are located and how they are designed. He said staff proposed not putting specific standards in the ordinance but leaving it general so that on a case by case basis in the subdivision process it could be approached in a manner appropriate for each subdivision. Martin asked who reviews the design and at what point. Miklo replied that at the preliminary plat stage the Commission would have some review of the design of a large number of mailboxes and would make a recommendation to Council, who would have the final say. Eastham asked if these provisions can require a curb cut for clusters even if there's sidewalk access. Miklo said staff would want to look at that with each subdivision. Freerks reminded the Commission that as with all Code items, it can come back before the Commission if it becomes problematic. Thomas said he can understand Sider's frustration as this is very open- ended. He said on the other hand, one can see in looking at the slides Miklo presented that there are highly variable conditions, and it is difficult to define exactly what standards might be established, so he's Planning and Zoning Commission December 19, 2013 - Formal Page 5 of 7 willing to let the design float until the discussion goes forward. Swygard said she likes the vagueness and thinks it would be very restrictive to start nit - picking about every design element to make it fit into the area. Eastham said he can come around to accepting some kind of requirements for an aesthetic appeal for the larger clusters. He said he doesn't think the expense for the developers or the homeowners would be extremely increased by aesthetic trappings put around the clusters. He said access to the clusters by people with mobility issues is an important thing to consider. Thomas said he's actually more concerned about that issue than the design issue. He said people with physical issues would have trouble reaching the high mailbox units. Swygard says she thinks some of the mailboxes would be too high for shorter people. Thomas said maybe there should be a limit to the height of the clusters. Miklo said because this is the U.S. Postal Service standard, he suspects they put a lot of research into how these clusters are designed, and at least some of the boxes in each cluster are going to be accessible to a person in a wheelchair. Freerks said she thinks it's in everyone's best interests to make sure these are accessible. Swygard asked how the mailboxes are assigned. Theobald suggested that the Postal Service may regulate how they are numbered. Thomas said if there are accessibility and aesthetic issues that do require some refinement he would certainly encourage that as this moves forward. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0. Code Item Distribution of the public review draft of the Riverfront Crossings District Form -based Zoning Code. Miklo distributed copies of the draft Riverfront Crossings District Form -based Zoning Code. He said staff would like the Commission to open public discussion on this January 2. He said it would be good to have a work session immediately before their formal meeting that day. He said staff also has accompanying amendments regarding parking that aren't in the form based code but that will apply to this and other areas of the city that staff hopes to have before the Commission on January 16th. After discussion, the Commission agreed to meet on January 2 and January 13 at 5:30 p.m. for informal meetings. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: December 5, 2013 Eastham moved to approve. Swygard seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0. CITY OF IOWA CITY 1' Ot Z--- �ml', 04 � -To MEMORANDUM Date: January 15, 2014 To: Tom Markus, City Manager From: Geoff Fruin, Assistant to the City Manager Re: Outdoor Service Regulations The City of Iowa City regulates outdoor service areas (OSAs), which are defined in the City Code as follows: An area outside of but immediately adjacent to a building housing a licensed premises, which area has been approved for use for the sale, dispensing or consumption of alcoholic beverages or beer pursuant to the provisions of this title, chapter 123, code of Iowa, as amended, and chapter 150 of the Iowa administrative code, as amended. An outdoor service area shall include any outdoor area where beer or liquor is to be sold, served, carried or consumed by the public and shall be considered as part of the licensed premises. The same federal and state laws and local ordinances which apply to the licensed premises shall also apply to the outdoor service area. The City regulates various aspects of OSAs including location, screening, exits, occupancy limits, noise, advertising and signage, and compliance with applicable building codes. Businesses wanting to utilize an OSA are required to submit an application to the City Council on an annual basis. The existing code contains a location regulation that prohibits OSAs in the CC -2 zone if it is located within 100 feet of a residential zoned property. Currently, OSAs are only permitted within 100 feet of a residential zone in the central business district zones (CB -2, CB -5, and CB -10). Staff has received a request from Blackstone to consider extending the privilege of operating an OSA within 100 feet of a residential zone to the CC -2 zoning classification. After review of the City Code, I believe OSAs can effectively operate in the CC -2 zone within 100 feet of a residential zone with some additional conditions aimed to protect the adjacent residential properties. Those additional conditions include: • The OSA must be associated with a restaurant, as defined in Chapter 4 of the City Code • The OSA must only be operational when food is being served from an on- premise kitchen and it must close to all patrons by 10:00 p.m. or whenever the kitchen is closed, whichever is earlier • The occupancy limit of the OSA must not exceed 30 persons • A lighting plan must be approved by the City Manager, or designee • Any other condition as deemed appropriate if other conflicts have been identified or are to be reasonably expected I believe these restrictions, along with existing amplified noise restrictions can allow for enhanced business opportunities, improve the viability of walkable, neighborhood establishments and appropriately protect adjacent residential properties. It is important to note that businesses in all zones, including CC -2, can operate a minimally regulated private outdoor space so long as alcohol is not being served. In these instances the proposed OSA changes can actually provide additional protections (earlier closing times, amplified noise restrictions, lighting and screening considerations, etc.) to residential properties if the business opts for the OSA designation. i L; Prepared by: Sarah E. Holecek, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52246 (319) 356 -5030 ORDINANCE NO. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 4, "ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ", CHAPTER 3, "OUTDOOR SERVICE AREAS; SEASONAL, FIVE DAY OR FOURTEEN DAY LICENSES AND PERMITS ", SECTION 4 -3 -1, "OUTDOOR SERVICE AREAS" TO AMEND THE LOCATION RESTRICTIONS ON OSA'S IN THE CC -2 ZONE WITH THE ADDITION OF POTENTIAL REGULATORY CONDITIONS WHEREAS, the City regulates various aspects of Outdoor Service Areas ( "OSAs ") (areas with available alcohol on private property) through regulatory provisions concerning location, screening, exits, occupancy, noise, signage and building code; and WHEREAS, the existing regulations prohibit GSA's from locating within 100' of a residential boundary in the CC -2 (Community Commercial) zone, although the same restriction does not apply in the CB -2, CB -5 and CB -10 (central business district) zones; and WHEREAS, an existing business with current usable space for an OSA has asked for a review of the prohibition of OSA's within 100' of a residential zone in the CC -2 zone; and WHEREAS, with the addition of potential regulatory conditions, OSA's may be appropriate in CC -2 zones within 100' of a residential zone, with the added benefit of creating enhanced business opportunities along with improving the viability of walkable neighborhood establishments while appropriately protecting adjacent residential properties; and WHEREAS, the City Manager's Office recommends passage of this ordinance as in the public interest to enhance business opportunities and improve the viability of walkable neighborhood establishments while protecting adjacent residential properties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, THAT: SECTION I. AMENDMENT. Title 4, "Alcoholic Beverages ", Chapter 3, "Outdoor Service Areas; Seasonal, Five Day or Fourteen Day Licenses and Permits ", Section 4 -3 -1, "Outdoor Service Areas ", Section C, "Regulation of Outdoor Service Areas ", subsection 1 "Location Restrictions ", subparagraph "d" is hereby amended by repealing said subparagraph "d" in its entirety and adopting a new subparagraph "d" as follows: a. An outdoor service area shall be permitted in any C (commercial) zone, as provided by title 14 of this code, provided an outdoor service area shall not be permitted if any part thereof lies within one hundred feet (100') of an R (residential) zone except in CC -2, CB- 2, CB -5, and CB -10 zones. If the property is zoned CC -2, an outdoor service area is only allowed within one hundred (100') feet of an R (residential) zone if all of the following conditions are satisfied: 1. The outdoor service area is only allowed if associated with a restaurant, as defined in this Chapter. 2. The outdoor service area shall only be operational while the establishment is serving food from an on- premise kitchen and the outdoor service area must be closed to all patrons by 10 PM or whenever the kitchen is closed, whichever is earlier. 3. The outdoor service area occupancy limit shall not exceed 30 persons. 4. A lighting plan for the outdoor service area must be filed with the application and approved by the City Manager, or designee. The City Council may at any time modify the above conditions or impose additional conditions on a permit for an outdoor service area for a property in the CC -2 zone that is within one hundred (100') feet of an R (residential) zone, if sufficient conflicts with properties in the adjacent R (residential) zone have been identified or are to be reasonably expected. In the event that property within one hundred feet (100') of an established outdoor service area is rezoned to any R (residential) zone classification, such outdoor service area shall be permitted to continue in operation so long as it is continuously authorized as such by the City Council without lapse, suspension or revocation. The City Council may waive operation of this provision to permit continued operation of the outdoor service area in the event of lapse or suspension of the license or permit for the establishment or in the event of lapse or suspension of City Council authorization for the outdoor service area. SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication. Passed and approved this day of 12014. MAYOR App ee ATTEST: CITY CLERK City Attu ney's Office Ordinance No. Page It was moved by and seconded by that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Botchway Dickens Dobyns Hayek Mims Payne Throgmorton First Consideration 01/21/2014 Voteforpassage: AYES: Botchway, Dobyns, Hayek, Mims, Payne, Throgmorton. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Dickens. Second Consideration Vote for passage: Date published ,.® CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: January 7, 2014..1I To: Tom Markus, Q� From: Doug Boothroy, D11� m Stan Laverman, Senior H ing Re: Increasing the civil penal (fine) for Disclosure Form n Services ling to provide a complete Informational Introduction: Neighborhood stabilization remains a strategic plan priority, and controlling occupancy is a core component of that priority. Over - occupancy continues to be a problem in neighborhoods. Although landlords and tenants have been required for over ten years to sign the Informational Disclosure and Acknowledgement Form that specifically states the maximum occupancy of the rental unit, the form is often not completed or not fully completed at time of lease up. (e.g., not all tenants sign it). The current civil penalties fines are $250.00 for first violation, $500.00 for second, and $750.00 for third and subsequent violations. This ordinance will increase the fine to $500.00 for first violation, $750.00 for second, and $1000.00 for third and subsequent violations. History /Background: Housing Inspectors continue to see rental properties being over - occupied. In 2009 the fine for over - occupancy was raised from $250.00 for the first offence to $750.00. While this was a substantial increase, unfortunately some landlords regard it as a cost of doing business. The Informational Disclosure and Acknowledgement Form is required by the Iowa City Housing Code and is required to be completed when leases are signed. In many over - occupancy situations, all tenants have not been required or allowed by landlords to sign the form. Over - occupancy can have many negative impacts on neighborhood stability. Those impacts range from parking pressure from the additional vehicles, extra trash, noise, and the pressure it puts on affordable rents (e.g., a four - bedroom house can command more rent from four individuals than a family or a legal household of three individuals). Discussion of Solutions: Increasing the civil penalty for failing to complete the required Informational Disclosure and Acknowledge Form should serve as notice to tenants and landlords that we continue to regard over - occupancy as a serious offence. As a deterrent to over occupancy, this civil penalty for failure to complete the Information Disclosure and Acknowledgement Form will be coupled with the current fine of $750.00 for first violation and $1000.00 for second and subsequent over - occupancy civil penalties. (i.e. combined fines are $1250.00 for the first offense and $1500.00 for the second offences.) Additionally the combination of the two violations allows staff to use existing provisions of the Iowa City Housing Code to issue reduced -term rental permits to properties found to be over - occupied. A reduced term rental permit calls for yearly inspections for a period of not less than four years, and imposes additional rental permit sanctions (including loss of rental permit) if the property is not maintained in compliance with the Iowa City Housing Code. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the civil penalty for failing to complete an Informational Disclosure and Acknowledgement Form be set at $500.00 for the first violation and $750.00 for the second, and $1000.00 for the third and subsequent violations. 'd- Prepared by: Susan Dulek, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5030 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 1, ENTITLED "ADMINISTRATION," CHAPTER 4, ENTITLED "GENERAL PENALTY," SECTION 2D TO PROVIDE THAT THE CIVIL PENALTY FOR FAILING TO COMPLETE AN INFORMATIONAL DISCLOSURE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT FORM IS $500.00 FOR FIRST VIOLATION, $750.00 FOR SECOND VIOLATION, AND $1,000.00 FOR THIRD AND SUBSEQUENT VIOLATIONS. WHEREAS, over - occupancy of rental units is an issue that negatively impacts the quality and value of neighborhoods; WHEREAS, Section 17 -5 -14 of the City Code requires landlords and tenants to sign an Informational Disclosure and Acknowledgement Form which, in part, states the maximum occupancy of the rental unit; WHEREAS, although landlords and tenants have been required to sign the Informational Disclosure and Acknowledgement Form for over ten years, the form is often not completed or not fully completed (e.g., not all tenants sign it); WHEREAS, the civil penalties presently are $250.00 for first violation, $500.00 for second, and $750.00 for third and subsequent violations; WHEREAS, the civil penalty for over - occupancy is $750.00 for first violation and $1,000 for second and subsequent violations; and WHEREAS, in order to increase compliance with the occupancy standards, it is in the best interest of the City to raise the civil penalty for failing to complete the Informational Disclosure and Acknowledgment form to $500.00 for first violation, $750.00 for second, and $1,000.00 for third and subsequent violations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. AMENDMENTS. 1. Title 1, entitled "Administration," Chapter 4, entitled "General Penalty," Section 2, entitled "Civil Penalties for Municipal Infractions," is amended by adding a new Subsection D3: The civil penalty for violation of section 17 -5 -14 of this code shall be punishable as provided in the following schedule for each day a violation exists or continues: First offense $ 500.00 Second offense $ 750.00 Third and subsequent offense $1,000.00 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 2014 MAYOR FTANaO IN CITY CLERK Approved by City Attorney's Office Ordinance No. Page It was moved by and seconded by that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Botchway Dickens Dobyns Hayek Mims Payne Throgmorton First Consideration 01/21/2014 Voteforpassage: AYES: Dobyns, Hayek, Mims, Payne, Throgmorton, Botchway. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Dickens. Second Consideration _ Vote for passage: Date published