Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-10-23 OrdinanceORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE USE REGULATIOINS OF CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED AT 209 MYRTLE AVENUE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. That the property described below is hereby reclassified from its present classification of RS -8 to RM -20, and the boundaries of the RM -20 zone as indicated upon the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, shall be shown to include the property located at 209 Myrtle Avenue. Commencing at the intersection of the centerlines of Myrtle Avenue and Olive Street which point is also the northwest corner of Lot 1 of the Subdivision of Government Lot 3 in Section 16, Township 79 North, Range 6 west of the 5th prin- ciple meridian, thence south 0021' West, 30.0 feet; thence east 176.0 feet to the place of beginning and the northwest corner of Lot A; thence south 0021' west, 265.5 feet to the south line of said Lot 1 as established- by the District Court, Johnson County, Iowa, on December 23, 1913; thence north 89004" east, 64.5,feet, thence north 0021' east, 264.6 feet, thence west 64.5 feet to the place of beginning. SECTION• II. The Building Inspector is here-Fy—TuRrorized 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 publica- tion of this ordinance as provided by law. SECTION. .111: The City Clerk is hereby au or ze and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance to the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, upon final passage and publication as provided by law. SECTION. IV -.—REPEALER. All ordinances an par s o or nances in conflict with the provision of this ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION•• -V:• SEVERABILITY. If any sect on, prov s on or parr of the Ordi- nance 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. _M 6 STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Item: Z-8106. 209 Myrtle Avenue (Amended application) GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Requested action: Purpose: Location: Size: Comprehensive Plan: Existing land use and zoning: Surrounding land use and zoning: Prepared by: Bruce Knight Date: September 6, 1984 Hsi Fan & Shu Ying Hsu 1512 Derwin Drive Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Rezoning of property located at 209 Myrtle Avenue from RS -8 to RM -20. To allow development of multi- family dwellings. 209 Myrtle Avenue 17,124 square feet 25+ dwelling units per acre. Single family residential and RS -8. North - undeveloped and P. East - multi -family residential and RM -44. South - multi -family residential and RM -44. West - single family residential and RS -8. 45 -day limitation period: 12/23/84 BACKGROUND INFORMATION On July 17, 1981, the applicants filed an application for the rezoning of property located at 209 Myrtle Avenue from RIB to R3A. The applicants argued that because of the close proximity of multi -family development to the east and south, the value of their property as a single family dwelling had been destroyed. In a report dated August 6, 1981, staff recommended in favor of the proposed rezoning, along with an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. This amendment was necessary since the proposed rezoning did not conform with the existing Comprehensive Plan. This item was subsequently deferred pending completion of the amendment to the plan. ii' On January 20, 1983, the Commission adopted the Land Use Update, which included an amendment to the land use proposed for this area from 16-24 dwelling units per acre to 25+ dwelling units per acre. On February 3, 1983, the Commission reconsidered the application to rezone 209 Myrtle Avenue. As a result of neighborhood objections, the Commissionsubsequently voted to recommend denial of the proposed rezoning on March 10, 1983. It has always been the City's policy, when the Commission recommends denial of a rezoning application, to forward the item for Council review only at the request of the applicant. In this case, the applicants were aware of this procedure, but were unable to request that the Council review their applica- tion because they were out of the Country. Subsequently, in a letter dated March 29, 1984, the applicant requested Council review of the Commission's action. As a result, at the June 4, 1984 informal City Council meeting, the rezoning of 209 Myrtle Avenue was referred back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for further review. Specifically, the Council requested that the Commission investigate the possible use of a transition zone for this property. On August 10, 1984 an amended application was filed for the property in question, requesting that it be rezoned from RS -8 to RM -20. The proposed rezoning would allow development of multi -family dwellings at a ratio of one unit per 1800 square feet of lot area. The lot contains 17,124 square feet, which would allow nine dwelling units assuming maximum utilization of the permitted density. Attachment R2 illustrates the maximum allowable density under RM -20, RM -12 and RS -12 zoning for comparison purposes. The originally requested zone of R3A is comparable to RM -44 zoning under the new zoning ordinance and would allow multi -family development at a density of one unit per 1000 square feet of lot area (i.e. 17 dwelling units). ANALYSIS In the numerous discussions which have taken place regarding this item, the applicants have repeatedly argued that the construction of multi -family dwellings to the south, and particulary to the east, acted to destroy the value of their property as a single family use. This is probably true. The applicants constructed their home in 1957, at which time both their property and the adjoining property were zoned for single family use. In October, 1966, the land to the east and south was rezoned from RIB to R3B (see attachment 0). As a result, multi -family units were constructed to both the south and east of the applicants' property, with the apartment building to the east located approximately ten feet from the applicants' single family dwelling. In referring this item back to the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council specifically requested that the Commission investigate the use of a transition zone. The 1978 Comprehensive Plan report "Land Use Concepts" states: "Transitional uses between two very dissimilar land uses can be effective in developing and redeveloping areas. An intermediate use which shares some of the characteristics and requirements of two very different uses provides a less abrupt transition from high intensity to low intensity." In this case, a transition between the single family development to the west and the high density multi -family development to the east is desirable. From the perspective of the residents of the single family dwellings located on Olive Street, a buffer is already provided by the current use of the subject property. The result of that buffer, however, is to devalue one property to the benefit of the property to the west. The advantage of rezoning the property at 209 Myrtle Avenue to allow it to function in a transitional capacity is that a reasonable use of the subject property is allowed while at the same time providing a ..less abrupt transition from high intensity to low intensity." Further, because of the grade change between the subject property and the single family dwellings on Olive Street and the orientation of the Olive Street lots (i.e. with their rear lot lines abutting the property in question), a better line for transition exists along the west property line of 209 Myrtle Avenue than along the east property line where the current zoning boundary exists. The next question is whether W-4-20 zoning is the appropriate zone to serve that transitional function. The impact of RM -20 zoning is to provide for development of multi -family dwellings at a lower density than is permitted under the RM -44 zoning to the south and east of this property and, therefore, create a transition in density. This would also be true for RM -12 zoning, which would permit six dwelling units on the lot in question (versus nine dwelling units under RM -20 zoning). The Comprehensive Plan Land Use update, adopted in 1983, recommends residential development of this site at a density of 25+ dwelling units per acre. However, the plan also states that "the maps presented in the Comprehensive Plan outline in a general fashion the location of different land uses; it is the zoning map,... which specifically sets forth the uses and density of use possibly on any particular site. The Comprehen- sive Plan maps will be interpreted with flexibility at the boundaries of the designated uses to allow appropriate transitions between areas." Because the request area represents the boundary between two designated uses (i.e. single family residential and multi -family residential), a transitional zone of either RM -20 or F44-12 would conform with the recommendations of the Compre- hensive Plan. In conclusion, staff finds that RM -20 zoning would fulfill the purpose of creating a transition between the multi -family uses to the east of 209 Myrtle Avenue, and the single-family uses to the west. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the property located at 209 Myrtle Avenue be rezoned from RS -8 to RM -20. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location map. 2. Maximum allowable density. 3. Zoning history of the area. Approved bysi w pna d S hmetser, Director Department of Planning and Program Development A z-gtoCjo MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DENSITY Z-8106. REZONING OF 209 MYRTLE AVENUE BACKGROUND INFORMATION Lot dimensions: 64.5 feet x 265.5 feet Lot area: 17,124 square feet Constraints: The following density calculations assume the utilization of the land area at its maximum permissible density. Since this lot is oddly shaped (deep and narrow), and has some topographic limitations, some difficulties may arise in the actual development of this property which would limit the actual number of units possible. DENSITY CALCULATIONS BY ZONE I. RM -20 (medium density multi -family): Minimum lot area per unit = 1800 square feet per unit. Maximum number of units permitted: 17,124 sq. ft. - 1800 sq. ft. per unit = 9 dwelling units 2. RM -12 (low density multi -family): Minimum lot area per unit (multi -family) = 2725 square feet per unit. Maximum number of dwelling units: 17,124 sq. ft. - 2725 sq. ft. per unit u 6 dwelling units 3. RS -12 (high density single family): Minimum lot area per unit = 3000 square feet per unit. Maximum number of dwelling units permitted: 17,124 sq. ft. - 3000 = 5 dwelling units* ,200f ZONING WSTDRY MYRTLE AVE. IOl(o2 — PARCEL A ZONED RrjA Pn,rzcE t, 8, c, j D ZOWE-0 R l e5 PARCEL C REZOrJED FROM fR►P5 "ro R36 ►9�q - PARCEL- A REZOIJEI) FROM R3ATO 9313 pAReEL B REZONJED FROM RI6 TO R55 hP uCAz lc*3 FIIFD TO REzotJE PARCEL A CZoq M`(RTLp- Mee FROM R16 -To R5k. 200) L E 0 - UT22!)24 1512 Derwen Drive CITY CLERK Iowa City, Iowa 52240 October 22, 1984 Honorable Mayor, City Manager and Members of the City Council 410 East Washington Civic Center Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Ladies and Gentlemen: May we once again take the liberty to present our concern for the rezoning of our property at 209 Myrtle Avenue for your justifiable consider- ation. First, we Would like to express our gratitude to you and your staff of the Department of Planning and Program Development for showing concern in our situation. We appreciate the suggestion of rezoning. our property to'• be a transitional zone as a compromise. However, the rejection of our second application recommended by the Zoning Commission really shocked us. We are very much afraid that discrimination and negligence of human rights might be intensified through special privileges of certain groups for their sarisfac- tion. Our second application, in fact, was revised in an extremely compromis- ing manner. Instead of requesting for the rezoning of RM -44 which was granted to all our adjacent neighbors at their requests, we only applied for a RM -22 permit. We had earnestly hoped that the drastic reduction of building units from the original request will earn an approval to somewhat compensate our great losses. We just cannot understand why the Zoning Commission acted as such towards us. In the first place, 'they should consider the devaluation of a valuable .. property when they rezoned the property to the -east and west sides of our lots. If it is absolutely necessary to develop this area into a high density dwelling for the purpose of solving the local housing probim, we would not complain by all means. But our property is in the same parcel with those of our neighbors granted with multiple apartment complex, and not with those of the west side. Why was our property singled out? Even for a transitional zone was denied and let the valuable land qualified for multiple apartment komplex wasted. If the rejection is because the Commission considered the interest of our neighbors, then why don't they consider ours as well? The Commission members should be aware of the situation of this area. fie value of their property will not be decreased if our lot is rezoned. The property of our northwest is a vacant lot and any type of structure can be built there. The properties to our southwest are adjacent to an RM -44 multiple complex zone which has been rezoned from a RIO, We wonder how could this area has been rezoned while our requeste was denied. ,200`'7 Page 2 October 22, 1984 Our property has been greatly devalued because the south and the east sides adjacent to our 10ts were rezoned. On the east side, a big narrow apartment complex was built less than 10 feet immediately adjacent to our property with a row of air conditioners along our lot cousing a continous nuisance to the people there. On the south side of our property, digging was allowed into our yard for the construction of a multiple complex. This resulted a change of the elevation of this entire area and isolation of our second lot. Thus, our property is iso longer suitable even for a six-plex dwelling. If denial of our application is due to the consideration of the problem of heavy traffic, we wonder why V e commissi on rezoned such a large area around our property? There has been a great number of apartments built next to our home. and the' will be more apartments built because there are still so many lots available there. We do not think that an addition of nine units in a transitional zone would contribute to the traffic problem which already exists. In view of the fact, we have to come to the conclusion that this discrepancy might be due to discrimination which should not be encourged. As'FrOfessors of the University of Iowa and long time residents of Iowa City, we have been attached to the city. We want to see it growing and developing into a model city with modern facilities and traditional good cultures, We respect the administrators of our city and would like to cooperate with the city's policies. Sometimes, even overlook.our•own right for the benefit of the city and its commonity, we are very proud of the great -contributions made by the Planning and Zoning staff. However, we have heard many stories concerned with the Rezoning Commission. We feel our case may reflect all others which need your attention. We appreciate the funds granted by our federal government for the development of Iowa City but we don( thind that it is the federal government intention to create more discriminatory cases. Thank you Sincerely yours, S. � . L. FIS. Shu Ying Li Hsu Hsi Fan Hsu cc: Attorney William Meardon ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 36-63(g), SIGN REGULATIONS OF THE CB -2 ZONE, OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF IOWA CITY, IOWA. MIN Nncis I. PURPOSE. The purpose of this ordinae to amend the zoning ordinance by adding to the list of permitted signs in the CB -2 Zone other types of signs. SECTION II. AMENDMENT. Section 3Zwg of the Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended by adding the following: e. One (1) on -premises advertising marquee sign not to exceed one (1) square foot per lineal foot of building frontage or 50 square feet per sign face shall be permitted for theatre marquees. Said sign shall consist of not more than two (2) faces and may be non -illuminated or internally lighted with non -flashing light source. f. Two (2) on_ premises identification "permanent, painted" window signs not to exceed two (2) square feet per sign shall be permitted per occupant. g. On-site signs in the windows of buildings shall be allowed provided that they do not exceed four (4) -square feet in area, or 25 per cent of the area of the window upon which the sign is affixed, whichever is less. These signs may advertise the name, days and hours of operation, telephone number and other related information about the business being conducted on the premises. These signs may also include information relative to the acceptance of credit cards or bank cards. h: One (1) identification or advertising facia sign not to exceed 65 per cent of -the maximum square footage for facia signs in the CB -2 Zone shall be permitted in those instances where a commercial business shall have frontage on two (2) intersecting streets. This facia sign shall not be located on the same building face as that on which a facia sign, as permitted in subpara- graph a above, is located. i. No more than one (1) of the following signs (1 or 2) shall be permitted: 1. One (1) on -premises identification or advertising monument sign not to exceed one (1) square foot per aoio Page 2 lineal foot of building frontage. Said sign shall not exceed 50 square feet. per sign face and may be internally or externally lighted. 2. One (1) on -premises identification or advertising free-standing sign not to exceed one (1) square foot per lineal foot of building front- age. Said sign shall not exceed 50 square feet per sign face and may be internally or externally lighted. SECTION III. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION IV. SEVERABILITY. If any sec on, provision or part of the Ordi- nance 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 un- constitutional. SECTION V. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordi- nance s a e n e ect after its final passage, approval and publication as required by law. Passed and approved this ATTEST: CITY CLERK Reeehtid i Appnpd sY The. legal Dep " �� n gY ,2 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED REZONING OF CERTAIN PROPERTY AT 1220 AND 1228 THIRD AVENUE FROM RS -5 TO RS -8. Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, at 7:30 p.m. on the 23rd day of October, 1984, in. the Council Chambers in the Civic Center, Iowa City, Iowa; at which hearing the Council will consider the proposed rezoning of certain property located at 1220 and 1228 Third Avenue from RS -5 to RS -8. This. notice is given pursuant to Chapter 414.4 of the Code of Iowa, 1984. MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK �2'O // �ry ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE USE REGULATIONS OF CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1220 AND 1228 THIRD AVENUE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE . CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. That the property described e ab-iw is hereby reclassified from its present classification of RS -5 to RS -8, and the boundaries of the RS -8 zone as indicated upon the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, shall be enlarged to include the property located at 1220 and 1228 Third Avenue: Lots 5 and 6 in Block 12 in east Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa, according to the recorded plat thereof, subject to easements and restrictions of record. SECTION 11. The Building Inspector is ere y aut orized 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 publica- tion of this ordinance as provided by law. SECTION III. The City Clerk is hereby aut or z and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance to the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, upon final passage and publication as provided by law. SECTION IV: REPEALER: All ordinances and par s o ordinances in conflict with .the provision 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 unconstitu- tional; 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 Ordi- nance s a e n effeff--after its final passage, approval and publication as required by law. Passed and approved this ATTEST: MAYOR CITY CLER Received & Approved By The Legal Dopartment To: Planning & Zoning Commission Item: Z-8414. 1228 Third Avenue GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Requested action: Purpose: Location: Size: Comprehensive Plan: Existing land use and zoning: Surrounding land use and zoning: 45 -day limitation period: ANALYSIS STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Bruce Knight Date: August 16, 1984 Ramon' Bonilla 1228 Third Avenue Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Rezoning from R5 to RSB. To permit subdivision of an existing lot into two lots. 1228 Third Avenue 11,250 square feet Residential, 2-8 dwelling units per acre. Single family residential and RS -5. North - single family residential and RS -5 East - duplex and RS -8, South - multi -family residential and RM -12. West - single family residential and RS -5. 9/12/84 The applicant is requesting a rezoning from RS -5 to RS -8 to allow her lot to be split into two lots (see attached letter). RS -8 zoning allows a minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet while RS -5 requires a minimum of 8,000 square feet, and the lot in question is 11,250 square feet. The Comprehensive Plan specifies a residential land use in this area with a density of 2-8 dwelling units per acre. Both the existing RS -5 zoning and RS -8 zoning conform with this designation. The land lying immediately east of the subject property is zoned RS -8 and the land to the south is zoned RM -12. This property was recently rezoned as part of the comprehensive rezoning of the City done in December, 1983. At that time a determination was made that the entire neighborhood should be rezoned based on the existing use of the property (i.e, RS -5 for detached single family dwellings, RS -8 for duplexes and RM -12 for multi -family dwellings). Changes in zoning should occur only 2011 if it can be demonstrated that there are extenuating circumstances or particular reasons which are applicable to individual properties and necessi- tating such changes. The existing land uses in the neighborhood in question consist of duplexes (zoned RS -8), multi -family residential (zoned RM -12) and detached single family dwellings (zoned RS -5). The intent section of the RS -8 zone states that "it is primarily intended that this zone provide for the development of small lot single family dwellings. This zone represents a relatively high density for single family development, thus dwellings in this zone should be in close proximity to all city services and facilities, especially parks, schools and recreational facilities." The property in question is located approximately two blocks from the Southeast Junior High School and Mercer Park complex. Further, it is in a neighborhood with a relatively high density of development as a result of the duplexes to the east, the multi -family development across the street, and the single family dwellings on relatively small lots located in the immediate vicinity of the site. The requested rezoning would conform with both the Comprehensive Plan and the intent section of the RS -8 zoning. It also would result in creating a transitional zone between the multi -family zoning located south of J Street and the RS -5 zoning to the north. However, it appears to staff that it is not appropriate to rezone this property, unless the adjacent lot to the north, which lies between this property and the alley, is also rezoned at the same time. The circumstances involving that property are identical to the property in question and, therefore, similar treatment should be accorded both. Staff recommends that contact be made with the property owner to the north to ascertain his willingness to be rezoned. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the requested rezoning of 1228 Third Avenue from RS -5 to RS -8 be approved only if the property north to the alley is also rezoned in conjunction with this request. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location map. 2. Letter from applicant. Approved by w IT1.11c.ac. , - -- rtment of Planning Program Development 2011 LOU4T 10�J ",NP Z - 6414 020// ZS, /V y. T � d [ M JUL301983 MARIAN K. KARR CITY CLERK (3) yam. c/V- �oM4 ny ,Grfi i', Gind � `TT/J 2�1+, �OF'{7K /�-v�+*-�- �qr� `�JGyn..^9 �oLOU•(!7J .. �y 1 � -La'y` .� Ci' 7W:.t: ivwyv� Wj S, o ys' ,S� •¢f f d,4road .&,We 7K7 '674, ✓V"'^'7 „r.�Jtw o2o// ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 9.1-2 DEFINI- TION OF CITY PLAZA OF THE CODE OF ORDI- NANCES FOR THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA. SECTION I. PURPOSE. The purpose of this amendment is to amend the legal boundaries of City Plaza by deleting a portion of property which is now incorporated in Urban Renewal Parcel 64-1b (hotel) and by adding Urban Renewal Parcel 65-2a to the City Plaza. SECTION II. AMENDMENT. 1. Chapter 9.1-2 Definition of City Plaza contained in the Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, is hereby repealed and substituted in its place is a new legal definition of the boundaries of City Plaza: .City Plaza: That part of City property extending from the northern right-of-way line to the southern right-of-way line of College Street from the eastern right-of-way line of Clinton Street to the western right-of-way line of Linn Street; and extending from the western right-of-way line to the eastern right-of-way line of Dubuque Street from the southern right-of-way line of Washington Street to the southern right-of-way line of College Street. Also, Urban Renewal Parcel 65-2a, described as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of Lot 4, Block 65, of the Original Town of Iowa City, Iowa, according to the recorded plat thereof, thence along the southerly right-of-way line of Washington Street, 60.28 feet; then South 00003'02" W, 110.26 feet; then South 89043'36" West, 59.93 feet to a point on the easterly right-of-way line of Dubuque Street, thence North 00007'39" West, along said easterly right-of-way line, 110.65 feet to the Point of Beginning. SECTION III. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed. .? D/7 Ordinv-,! No. Page L SECTION IV. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordi- nance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a part or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION V. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordi- nance shall e in effect after its final passage, approval and publication as required by law. Passed and approved this MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Received i Approved Ey The legal Ds a art Jo /8 FtJ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HERRING Notice is hereby given that the City Council of Iowa City will hold a public hearing on October 23, 1984, in the Council Chambers, Civic Center, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, on a resolution authorizing reinstatement of the lease for the bus depot property at College and Gilbert streets, allowing Union Bus Depot of Iowa City, Inc. to occupy those premises through November 30, 1988.