Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-06-21 Public hearing• `7 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF PUBL C HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 8.10 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, at 7:30 PM on the 21st day of June, 1983, in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center; Iowa City, Iowa. At this hearing the Council will consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.10 which rezones certain properties at 223 S. Riverside Court from RIB to RX Copies of the proposed ordinance are on file for public examination in the office of the City Clerk, Civic Center, Iowa City, Iowa City, Iowa. Thisnotice is given pursuant to Chapter 362.3 of the Code of Iowa, 1981. MA IAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK `` MICRO6ILMED BY IJORM MICROLAB CEDAR RAPIDS•DES�MOINES iaoa STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Karin Franklin Item: Z-8306. 223 South Riverside Date: April 7, 1983 Court GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Richard Ziock 207 Myrtle Avenue #21 Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Requested action: Rezone one lot from R1B to R3A. Purpose: To permit the construction of multi- family residential units. Location: 223 South Riverside Court Size: 10,200 square feet Comprehensive Plan: General commercial/25+ dwelling units/acre (east to west). i I Existing land use and zoning: Single family residential; R113. Surrounding land use and zoning: North - multi -family; R3B. East - single family; R1B. South - railroad tracks; C2. West parking lot for apartment building; R3B. 45 -day limitation period: 4/28/83• is ANALYSIS I The applicant's property lies in a densely developed area north of the CRI&P railroad tracks southwest of the Riverside Drive and Myrtle Avenue intersection. Land uses to the north and east include high density multi family residential and commercial uses; there is one single family house on the adjacent ' property to the east of the applicant's property. Prior owners of 223 South Riverside Court requested the rezoning of this property to R36 in 1981. The staff report, a neighbor's comments, and relevant minutes of the Commission are attached. The request was rejected largely based on the neighbor's comments. The Commission felt that a rezoning should not take place until such time as the issues raised by the neighbor could be ameliorated to her satisfaction. It was noted by the Commission that the property would probably not remain in single family use in the long run and that eventually some solution to problems of access and use compatibility would be necessary. The Update to the Comprehensive Plan shows this area as one of transition from general commercial development along Riverside Drive to high-density multi- family use just west of the commercial area. In part this was to reflect the �zoa' Sj ..._ MICROFILMED BY i� 'JORM MICROLAB y CEDAR 'RANDS -DES -MOINES ,` r f t ■ existing uses of the land. Commercial development has filled in all of the Riverside Drive frontage one lot in depth. Apartment buildings abut the back lot lines of the commercial uses and extend west along Myrtle Avenue. It is consistent with the Update to rezone the applicant's property to high density multi -family use since the lot is west of the commercial development and is bordered by multi -family uses. The impact of the rezoning on the value of surrounding properties should be minimal. It should have no impact on the value of the existing multi -family and commercial properties and it is questionable whether the proposed development would have a measurable influence on the value of the remaining single-family structure to the east, given the density of use existing in the area as a whole. During the previous consideration of rezoning this property, the issue of the private street and the amount of traffic which uses this street was raised. The location of the property and the existing buildings which surround it force any development of this single parcel to use South Riverside Court, a private street, for access. Access from Myrtle directly would require parcel assembly and redevelopment. Also, as stated in the previous staff report, issuance of a building permit for 223 South Riverside Court would require a hearing before the Board of Adjustment for a variance to the frontage requirements, or designation by the City Council of South Riverside Court as an officially i approved place. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends that the property at 223 South Riverside Court be i rezoned from R1B to R3A since this action is consistent with the Comprehensive 1 Plan Update and would not appear to adversely impact surrounding properties. ATTACHMENTS Staff report - dated May 21, 1981. Letter - Hogan, 5/21/81. i Minutes - Planning and Zoning - 5/21/81. � i i Approved by: Do aid S meiser, Director D partme t of Planning and Program Development 11, ( MICROFILMED BY t; iJORM MICROLAB I CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES . J r I STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Item: Z-8103. 223 S. Riverside Court GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Requested action: Purpose: Location: Size: Existing land use and zoning: Surrounding land use and zoning: Comprehensive Plan: Applicable regulations: 45 -day limitation period: SPECIAL INFORMATION Public utilities: Public services: Transportation: Physical characteristics: Prepared by: Marianne Milkman Date: May 21, 1981 Mr. and Mrs. Andrew J. Rocca 223 S. Riverside Court Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Rezoning of one parcel from RIB to R3B. To construct an apartment building (approximately 8 units). 223 S. Riverside Court. 10,500 square feet. Single family and RIB. West - R3B, rooming house and apart- ments. North - R38, apartments. East - RIB, one lot single family residential; C2, one single family residence and commercial. South - CRI&P railroad tracks. Area is designated for a land use density of 16-24 dwelling units per acre. Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. June 8, 1981. Adequate water and sanitary sewer service is available. Police and fire protection is available. Sanitation service is private. Vehicular access if from South Riverside Drive. Parcel is located in the Iowa River watershed and the topography is flat to very gently sloping. -7 4 K i MICROFILMED BY JORM MICRO_ LAB CEDARRAPIDS•DES MOINES /0? 0 0 % ■ ■ 2 ANALYSIS Mr, and Mrs. Rocca's property and the parcel immediately to the east (owned by Murray and Linda Meierhoff), are zoned RIB. Both parcels are occupied by single family structures. There is one additional single family structure on the land immediately east of the Meierhoff property, although most of the parcel of land is occupied by a large commercial building. The two properties zoned RIB are surrounded by an R3B zone to the west and north, a C2 zone to the east and the CRI&P railroad tracks to the south (see attached map). Apart from the three single family homes, land uses consist entirely of apartment complexes and commercial enterprises in the surrounding area. Access to the single family homes and the apartment building is via a private street, South Riverside Court, which is paved with asphalt and in good condition. Since the property is located on a private street, Mr. Rocca will have to apply to the Board of Adjustment for a variance to Section 8.10.3A.48 before he can be issued a building permit. Mr. and Mrs. Rocca have requested a zoning change from RIB to R3B for their property in order to build an 8 -unit apartment complex.• The lot size of this property is approximately 10,500 square feet, which is well above the minimum 5,000 square feet required for an R3A or R3B zone. This lot size would permit 10 multi -family units (with parking for 15 cars) for an R3A zone, or 14 multi- family units (with parking for 21 cars) for an R3B zone. Rezoning of the property to R38 and the construction of an apartment complex in this area would be consistent with the surrounding zoning and land uses. (The only exception would be the Meierhoff property also zoned RIB.) The Iowa City Comprehensive Plan shows the area immediately west of Riverside Drive with a proposed density of 16-24 DU/acre. However, the Planning and Zoning Commission, in discussing the LSRD plan of Dick Ziock, made a preliminary commitment to amend the Comprehensive Plan in this area to 25+ DU/acre. As a result, the proposed zoning map shows RM -44 for the area in question. Since the proposed RM -44 zone is approximately equivalent to the current R3A zone, it would be reasonable to rezone the Rocca property to R3A rather than R3B as requested. An R3A zone would permit the construction of up to ten multi -family units on the property, which will apparently meet the Rocca's needs. Staff recommends that the Commission consider rezoning the only other remaining RIB parcel (owned by the Meierhoffs) at the same time as the Rocca parcel, to provide more consistent zoning in the area. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the rezoning of the Rocca property from RIB to R3A, and amending the Comprehensive Plan to show 25+ DU/acre in the area. Staff also recommends that the Meierhoff property be rezoned from RIB to R3A after notification and discussion with the owner. (j MICROFILMED BY ! +' '..JORM MICROLAB CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES I K 3 STAFF COMMENTS In order to amend the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning and Zoning Commission must hold an official public hearing prior to the adoption of an amendment and a recommendation to the City Council. Such a public hearing can be held on Thursday, June 4, 1981, which will be within the 45 -day limitation period of this application. ATTACHMENTS 1. Applicant's letter to the Commission. 2. Location map. Approved PP Y a d ch D 6r Departme t of Plannin and Pr Development ►Tu.e�-I�o� ��-�"y �.N� gel, d� �1�.�� Hd�«,� nr MICROFILMED BY .JORM MICRO_ LAB CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES J 9 I. 11 Ill.. r d III,, N, -I �A•1 • 2�rr C:l,I w, 13�J m.,.•�. r Jlnai,o{ " - 27u - 1oy :-1-7 /. 12 3:t, ice m I*I �•' g a 11 _' it SY✓-in_• "-I LOCATION � r' 4a•' : N. of I. r I.rot, t'i 40/don = Andrew. J. Roca Z - 8103 ,. e F y �.Kr•: 1 a 1�1, i:amip IJvlt �,(IiS •' Poy,l ni.ay• ° iL 7•fi.9 LI9 AtlAr,50 ILO luo , Iler:.x, r i):• 131 11.'• :k u U 1\alb I'lu„ i. Il.I ,r•; •. 5K7.19 clh•t ztrr. S:r is r,l 4£ J Jacl r.'.Jvll,i4 Lev I-C'v � C, a 717 rr 4v oL_Ive sr• J �!� _ Li - - 7c• 41• t,c• 4' _ nin,,pue.4 Will ewL Ill. Wice 2. "In�an l)o,c•1•brn J t Lon 10 Corn l5•e h Dj 7sL L•ID ia. d• �kin,n;l•Iror (DAA j iJi•�dj/'1' C., 4 rl",i:,b 2n$•'i0: ?. ; ':II ?v1.U0 12 3:t, ice m I*I �•' Eetlkes L Tilts 11 _' it SY✓-in_• "-I LOCATION � MAP = Andrew. J. Roca Z - 8103 ,. e F y r• Poy,l 2 4;41 f I•n•-i •.Y. I'I$1 end Ilq� M Li Il�v 2dn ••.l is !'• J'y 11, 11J•L1,,: a ,•,i, "101•,•1 i'IOr� .,, 'Y � 1 � I . . Ido. 10 OF F,lQu[Irjtto � � �:•• •II Eetlkes L Tilts = Andrew. J. Roca ,. e F y r• 111Jr1ny L, y f - ✓t f L,••rh q• Plc il.r heir ILO luo , S27 IS/. u U 1\alb I'lu„ i. Il.I IJn{Ld 1) �, lu• 1 �•� , la1 <'.. !\ren. (' J 4£ J Jacl r.'.Jvll,i4 Lev I-C'v � 6 a 717 rr 4v ! At'( i' S.:..1. (I..• u J �!� _ Li - - L ' r ' —7 r C& Lon R T1/F-R GTnr nR _- X020o MICROFILMED BY !:JORM MICRO_ LAB j CEDAR RAPIDS•DES 140INES f 'r f N 4-24-81 Tos Planning and Zoning Commision Froms ler. and Mrs. Andrew J. Rocca Res Rezoning in the So. Riverside Ct. area In regard to the rezoning project at 223 So. Riverside Ct. (currently Rl-B). We understand the zoning cannot be changed to R3 -B unless the Comprehensive Plan is asmended. Therefore we are asking the Planning and Zoning Commision to consider ammending the Comprehensive Plan allowing the zoning chance. We feel that this change will make the So. Riverside Ct. area much more consietantly zoned. As it is now, there is an area of land zoned R1 -B, sur- rounded by the Railroad, C-2, and R3 -B. With this in mind you can easily see why we feel that the R1 -B value of our lot is out of place. Thank you,for your help and cooperation. Sincerly, Lr. and Mrs. Andrew J. Rocca An.4 �)tw- 6�1� . "124uGz' it 4. MICROFILMED BY !JORM MICROLAB I'CEDAR RAPIDS•DES�Id01NE5 1aav t May 2I, 1981 Planning and toning Commission Cl ty of Iowa City Dear People; As the owner of 219 South Riverside Court, I am greatly concerned with the proposed zoning changes for 223 South Riverside Court from RIB to R38. I took possession of 219 South Riverside Court on May I, 1981. Before I signed the contract to buy, 1 attempted to ascertain that the area was a stable one. Of course, I could see that the side of the street Opposite 219 South Riverside Court was a densely populated area, but the ambiance of my side of the street was sufficient to counter the noise and congestion from 119, 201, and 207 Myrtle. I talked to Jim McFall, owner of 217 South Riverside Court by telephone in late February and he told me that they had no plans to remove the house on the East side of my proposed home. I knew Jim Girsch, a former tenant of 221 South Riverside Court. He moved out of that house in May of 1980 and I knew that the former owner's daughter and her husband had bought the house and planned to live there. As 221 South Riverside Court was zoned RIB and there were no plans to remove the house from 217 South Riverside, it seemed safe to buy 219 South Riverside Court As an RIB property. My father, who works for Dr. Pepper Company as a $14,000/year quality control inspector and my grandmother, who Is almost 80 years old, helped me to buy 219 South Riverside Court so that I would not have to move any more and would have a stable residence during my last few years of schoolinq. My father's investment money came from money he had saved for his retirement. His reasoning was that I would be finished with school by the time he retired and could then pay him back his investment. As he was laid off from Canada Dry Corporation in 1972, three years before his retirement with Canada Dry would have become fully effective, it Is my belief that his personal savings account is necessary for I,is monetary security in his old age.. Should a large apartment of 20 to 30 units be built right next door to my house, it would seem to necessarily i- decrease the value of my property as a single family dwelling substantially. Rezoning my lot to R3B also will not give me a compensatory increase in Property value sufficient to offset the toss caused by a large apartment next door because my lot is only 55 feet wide and not large enough to be attractive to a developer for building a large apartment building. When I graduate, my total school loan burden will be approximately S18,000 to $20,000. If my father were to lose a substantial amount of money on 219 South Riverside Court, it seems Improbable that I will be able to pay him back that loss. My Inability to pay back will be due to the above mentioned educational loans which must be paid back, with Interest, within ten years and my career desire to be a small town doctor, not the most lucrative of medical professloni. I would be able to pay him back, within 20 years probably, If he suffers a great financialtoss on the 219 South Rivers lde Court house, but I am afraid that he i. might not live twenty years. My other concerns deal with the physical situation of South Riverside Court as a suitable location for a large apartment complex. As you are probably aware, South Riverside Court is a privately owned and privately maintained street, twenty five feet In width. Easements. There are two casementsover my property. One is the easement for the street itself which was granted to the two houses west of my property some- time prior to 1935. At file time this easement was granted, it seems obvious that It was Intended for traffic from two single family dwellings, At the presen• time, that casement Is used substantially by 62 apartment units located at 119,•201, and 207 Myrtle Avenue, 119 Myrtle residents do not have to use South Riverside Court of necessity, but many of the residents whose parking s Paces are closer to South Riverside Court than they are to Myrtle, do use MY street. Residents of both 201 Myrtle (10 2 bedroom units) and 207 Myrtle (30-1 bedroom units) use South Riverside Court exclusively in Inclement weather because their driveways onto Hyrlle Avenue are steep and narrow and Impossible to use In heavy rain or icy conditions. The parkin? for 201 Myrtle and 207 Myrtle is located closer to South Riverside Court than It Is located to Myrtle and so It seems only reasonable to assume that a large proportion of the time the residents use South Riverside Court even when they could access onto Myrtle. /400 Ill,{ I MICROFILMED BY ,kf' '.JORM �VIICROLAB CEDAR RAPIDS -DES 1401NES Planning and Zoning Commission Page 2 The other ca scment over my property appears to be an easement by right of use granted to the property owners of 221 South Riverside Court, the site of the proposed zoning change. They currently use my driveway to access their property. If an apaprtment were to be built on that site, I am concerned that many more cars would be driving within ten feet of the front of my house at a speed sufficient to rattle the windows in the west bedroom of my upstairs. The current traffic over the driveway from 221 South Riverside Court Is already heavy enough on occasion to awaken and/or disturb people within my home. It seems clear to me that when easements to Riverside Drive were granted to the houses up the hill from me, they were never Intended to allow traffic from the 62 apartmen t units already on the street to travel with feet from my front door, much less from another 20-40 units, which, being directly on South Riverside Court with no real frontage on Myrtle would use South Riverside Court almost exclusively. Another concern I have with traffic on South Riverside Court Is the Intersection of South Riverside Court and Riverside Drive. South Riverside drive is 25 feet wide at this Intersection and Riverside Drive has no shoulder at this point. This requires sharp turns onto and off of Riverside Drive if two lanes of traffic are to fit onto South Riverside Court. The difficulty of these turns are compounded by the fact that Riverside Drive traffic is usually moving In excess of the 00 mph speed limit. The safety of this Intersection is further decreased by the limited visibility that a driver who is attempting to turn from Riverside Court onto Riverside Drive has to make that turn. To the south, the railroad embankment hampers the visibility and to the north, a telephone pole, several street signs and a telephone booth limit vision. The ensuing situation is thus: To turn out from South Riverside Court south onto Riverside Drive, the drive must be in the middle of South Riverside Court. This leaves no room for persons to turn onto South Riverside Court, and these drivers either block traffic on Riverside Drive until S. Riverside Court or they turn into the parking lot of either the Hungry Hobo or IlcConnel's Flooring. This results in traffic moving at speeds intended for street travel Intermixing with traffic that is attempting to park or un -park from these businesses. The result is not exactly a safe Intersection. It would seem that the problem would only be worsened by Increasing the traffic over South River- side Court. On Wednesday, May 20, a friend came to pick me up, and the problems arising • were clearly, and frighteningly ii I ustrated to me. We were attempting a left turn onto Riverside Drive, Into the north bound lane. Two cars blocked the middle northbound lane of Riverside Drive because they wanted to turn left onto South Riverside Court. A car was turning right onto South Riverside Court from south bound Riverside Drive, slowly because one cannot turn into a12 foot lane quickly. Cars travelling south and overtaking the car turning right onto South Riverside Court, were swinging out to pass rather than waiting or slowing so the car could complete Its turn. Meanwhile, another car swung Into the parking lot of the Hungry Hobo in order to turn right onto South Riverside Court and almost hit 2 cars. One car was the car turning right legally onto South Riverside Court and the other was a car attempting to exit the parking lot of the Hungry Hobo after having been parked there. It seems unlikely that the problems of persons driving down the middle of South Riverside Court cannot be solved by widening the street because two telephone poles, the north wall of Mc Connell's Flooring and the south wall of 119 Myrtle abut the edges of the street. Another concern I have is with the maintenance of South Riverside Court, especially if the traffic over the street is increased. It Is currently privately maintained with no formal ma lntenance responsibilities. The residents on the street have In the past, just divided the cost based an the value of their property adjoining the street. In Fall of 1979, the street needed to be resurfaced due to a large number of pot holes. Although the residents of 201 Myrtle use South Riverside Court exclusively during bad weather and a great deal during good weather because It Is closer to their parking spaces, the owner of that apartment refused to help pay for the re- surfacing, claiming that his tenants had access to Myrtle. Willi more traffic on South Rivcrsidn Court, this problem will come up more of l,•n. It hardly s..oms lu:l tp, 16„ ..r,.I'll, tm Iln• .nnlh sill.. of the 'rfL .x_.'... •.< <y nutd'....a rz _44j4... ,..CY.ac.Y Gcttl.t'<n.•:, i" Fn Iu:44 pare ) %foo Gi I MICROFILMED BY I 'JORM MACROLAB CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES r Planning and Zoning Commission Page 3 maintain the property value of my home. Not only does a poorly maintained street decrease the value of my property, but it is dangerous. All I need Is to have a pick up truck crash into the front of my home on some Icy night) Another problem with the maintenance of South Riverside Court Is that of snow removal. With its current 25 foot right of way, there is no place to put snow. Jack Shubatt, the other owner of 217 South Riverside Court said that snow from the parking lots of the Myrtle Street apartments can at times be a real problem. An example of this Is that one snowy day when Mr. Shubatt owned my house, the owner of 119 Myrtle had the snow plow start at the north end of his parking lot and push the snow south across the parking lot and right Into the driveway of what is now my house. Needless to say, that much snow made entering and exiting my property a real problem and it took several angry phone calls to convince the owner of 119 Myrtle to send someone to remove the snow from the street and from my driveway. Surface drainage Is also a problem. Jim McFall told me that when the Myrtle Street apartments were built, that both 219 South Riverside Court and 217 South Riverside Court suddenly found their basements flooded anytime there was a heavy rainstorm because the apartments greatly increased the amount of water flowing down South Riverside Court. On city maintained streets, there usually seems to be storm sewer drainage to handle such increased water flow during heavy rains. On South Riverside Court, there is not such drainage and it all goes down the street. Mr. McFall and the owner of 219 South Riverside Court had to hire a lawyer and force the builder of the apartment to build a curb on the south side of the street to prevent the flooding of the basements. Apparently the builder was not willing to build such a curb voluntarily. Currently there Is a curb at the entrance of my driveway and the driveway to 221 South Riverside Court to stem the water flow, should the curb be removed, for example to allow 20-45 cars access to a large apartment building on the south side of South Riverside Court, It seems apparent that there would again be water problems In my basement during heavy rains. More apartments on South Riverside Court, especially on the south side of the street, would seem to Increase traffic flow sufficiently that the city should take over maintenance of the street to Insure the safety of traffic moving on the street. Even if the city did take over the street, the narrowness of the street would still be a problem. I am concerned with both the effect on my property .value and the possible loss of my father's retirement savings, and with the safety of traffic on South Riverside Court. A large apartment building next door, especially if the parking lot were on the downhill side of the building, ie. right next .. to my house, would certainly decrease the livability of my home in terms of noise, light and glare at night, dust, dirt and trash. It would certainly seem that this would also affect my property value in a negative way. It seems to me that evenIf the builder of apartments on the south side of South Riverside Court were to be the owner of one of the Myrtle Street apartment buildings and thus be able to claim access to a city ma lntalned street, the residents would primarily use South Riverside Court rather than drive a block down a narrow driveway to get to Myrtle, and thus the traffic from any new apartment building In the area will Increase the traffic on South Riverside Court. Thank you for listening to my concerns. Since I live on South Riverside Court and plan to continue living on South Riverside Court, I have given a great deal of thought to this matter, and I appreciate the opportunity to share those thoughts with the Commission. Sincerely, Frances A. Hogan 219 South Riverside Court Iowa City, Iowa 52240 /0700 MICROFILMED By :.JORM MICROLAB I CEDAR RAPIDS•DES-MOINES r MtCo.,ntl�j 1uec�. =1-%rrecr �S, �-ryarii h X .y 4A bo •p Garkity J ��DyyX,,,�� -•iahor, awq QWWAsk 719n.. ` bbrick SiA, Ct A.� heu4c Partir� I*; Frt tDl, 205 Myrhlc nr' .MICROFILMED BY ::JORM MICROLAB CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES 0 Z07 Myr+Ic 30 1 Wmom amt5 4a 0 1—f713 rrap .E,* rjil4 aQluatc , but I'oc Clews fk- t6c 6ca1 I coke . I i x �elep{w>u, pDIL I L SID .arra, PDAs J MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY 21, 1981 CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Horton, Jordan, MacDonald, Blum, Jakobsen MEMBERS ABSENT: Seward, Heaney STAFF PRESENT: Milkman, Boothroy, Knight, Tyler, Woito RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL Z-8103. That an application submitted by Andrew Rocca to rezone a lot located at 223 South Riverside Court from RIB to R3B and amend the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan be denied. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION t Chairperson Jakobsen called the meeting to order. i Minutes of May 7, 1981, were approved as circulated. ZONING ITEM Z-8103. Public discussion of an application submitted by Andrew Rocca to rezone a lot located at 223 South Riverside Court from RIB to R3B and amend the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan, 45 -day limitation period: 6/8/81. Jakobsen introduced the discussion by saying that this was a controversial issue, as were all amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Milkman reported that the application was to rezone the Rocca's property. Staff recommended that the parcel immediately to the east, which is owned by Francis Hogan, also be rezoned. She explained that both parcels are occupied by single-family houses and currently zoned RIB. The parcels are surrounded by an R38 zone to the west and north and a C2 zone to the east and a railroad track to the south.. Apart from three single-family houses, land uses consist entirely of apartment complexes, a rooming house and commercial enterprises in the surrounding area. Milkman continued that access to the parcels is via a private street, South Riverside Court. The application is for the purpose of allowing Rocca to build an eight unit rximatel 10,500 sq are feeartment t which lx on the i's abovparcel. a thelminimum 5,000 square feetorequired for R38. Milkman stated that the staff recommends that the Commission consider rezoning the only other remaining R18 parcel (owned by Hogan) at the same MICROFILMED BY .JORM MICROLAB CEDAR RAPIDS•DES-MOINES MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 21, 1981 PAGE 2 time as the Rocca parcel, to provide more consistent zoning in the area. Also, in lieu of the requested zoning, staff recommends a zoning of R3A which would be more consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Francis Hogan, owner of the property to the east of Rocca's parcel, spoke in opposition to the rezoning. Hogan explained that she had purchased the property on May 1, 1981. She stated that she had spoken to the owners of the other single-family residence prior to purchasing the property and had been assured that they had no intentions of changing the use of their property. She stated that she had also checked the Comprehensive Plan and been satisfied that this would not be a zone other than single-family. Hogan added that she would not have purchased the property had she known it might be rezoned to R3B. Hogan stated that she felt a strong obligation to protect the financial investment she had made as the money for the down payment was borrowed from her father's retirement fund. If the property value of the parcel is lowered, the loss would be a hardship for both herself and her father. She noted that her lot was 130 feet by 55 feet and that a lot that small would not bring the $50,000 she had paid for the house. Boothroy responded that he had checked on property values and that it was questionable whether Hogan could redevelop the property under R3B to a point where she could recover her investment. He noted, however, that the situation may well change in a few years. Hogan pointed out that the parcels are located on a private street which poses problems. She stated that the street is only 25 feet wide and already handles a great deal of traffic from the apartment complexes which are located on Myrtle Avenue. She explained that the driveways onto Myrtle are steep and that in the winter traffic is often forced to use the back access from the parking lots and therefore Riverside Court. She stated that the intersectionat Riverside Court and Riverside Drive is extremely dangerous since it is a narrow intersection requiring a sharp turn to the north. To the south, vision is limited because of the railroad tressel. Hogan pointed out that the street was built on an easement over the ` property of the four houses on the south side of the street. She added that confusion existed over the easements. She further pointed out that Roccas gained access to their property through an easement over Hogan's driveway and that she feared with the construction of an apartment complex she would be forced to allow a great deal more traffic to use her drive. Moreover, Hogan continued, the street is maintained by the property owners. In the past the apartment owners have refused to pay for maintenance saying that the apartment residents can use Myrtle, even though in reality they also use Riverside Court heavily. She stated that she feared she would have to carry an unfair portion of street maintenance if the land is rezoned. /aoa (i MICROFILMED BY t� ;JORM MICRO_ LAB CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOIRES J MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 21, 1981 PAGE 3 She also noted that surface water runoff is already a problem because of the construction of the apartment complexes at the top of the hill. She stated that she feared the problem would increase if another apartment complex is constructed. She emphasized that the house she purchased was very well constructed and maintained. She stated that the realtor she had consulted had informed her that the value of her property would be heavily impacted by whatever was constructed on the property adjoining hers. She noted that precedent for attractive well constructed apartment buildings in the immediate area did not exist. She added that there was no way to guarantee what would be built on the property once it was rezoned. She questioned the wisdom of permitting another apartment complex to be built on a street not owned by the City. She asked whether the City would be willing to accept responsibility for the street if the parcels were rezoned. Blum responded that the Council would probably not be willing to assume the street because of the confused easement situation. Blum stated that Hogan's information had changed his opinion about the s rezoning. He stated that he had assumed that the neighbors approved of the rezoning. He felt that this was not an appropriate time to rezone, however, that it was hard to envision the area as a long-term single- family residential neighborhood. He stated that ultimately the area needed to have a long-term solution but that he was reluctant to force rezoning at this time. Boothroy stated that the staff was essentially in 7 agreement with Blum's position. 1 Blum moved and Jordan seconded that the Commission recommended to Council 223Souththat application Riverside Court tfrom ted bRIB ntoeR38 and amend the Io aw Rocca to rezone aoCitycCompreat - hensive Plan be denied. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned. Prepared by Andrea 7y ler Minute Taker Approved by Loren orton Secretary G� HICROFILMED BY I ',JORM MICRO_ LAB RAPi MAR IDs•DEs MOINES J. 4. "J F.,L F,