Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-08-16 Public hearingr - I 3� NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED REZONING OF CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED AT 521 KIRKWOOD AVENUE FROM M1 TO R2. 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 16th day of August, 1983, 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 521 Kirkwood Avenue 1 from M1 to R2.' This notice is given pursuant to Chapter 414.4 of the Code of Iowa, 1983. MAR AN K. KARR, CITY CLERK r i MICROFILMED DY' h �.JORM MICR_OLAB I �l CEDAR RAPIDs•DEs N01NE5 I -man 1 i. r L i i r• STAFF REPORT To: Planning and Zoning Commission Prepared by: Bruce Knight Item: Z-8312. 521 Kirkwood Date: June 16, 1983 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Kirkwood Neighborhood Association Requested action: Rezoning from M1 to R2. Purpose: To restrict development to a duplex use Location: 521 Kirkwood Avenue. Size: 2.4 acres. Comprehensive plan: 8-16 dwelling units per acre. i Existing land use and zoning: North - duplex and MI. F East - single family residential and RIB. s South - light industrial and MI. West - commercial and MI. 45 -day limitation period: 7/8/83 ANALYSIS The Kirkwood Neighborhood Association represents a group of property owners and other interested persons residing in the vicinity of 521 Kirkwood Avenue. It is requesting a downzoning of the 2.4 acre tract located at 521 Kirkwood Avenue from M1 to R2 as an alternative to the property owner's request to rezone this property to R3. The property owner, Larry Rigler, has officially objected to this rezoning in the form of a notarized petition. Conclusions drawn by staff in previous analysis regarding the rezoning of this property (contained in staff reported dated February 3 and May 19, 1983) still r hold true for this application: 1. Rezoning the property in question to R2 conforms to the Comprehensive Plan, which includes this site in an area designated 8-16 dwelling units per V acre. 2. The existing M1 - light industrial zoning on this site is not compatible with qf the single family residential area to the east. 3. A rezoning to R2 would make this property more compatible in regard to uses permitted in the single family area to the east than does the current M1 zoning. 4. The amount of traffic generated by R2 development would not be significantly different from the amount generated by an R3 development. MICROFILMED B't' ,1 'JORM MICROLAB I IL ^CEDAR RAPIDS•bES'1101 M vI 2 However, it would probably be less than that generated by development permitted in an M1 zone. 5. R2 development would preclude any clustering of units and would therefore result in a greater building coverage of the site and, therefore, less open space. In regard to density alone, there is no difference between R2 and R3 zoning, both require 3000 square feet of lot area per unit. However, other differences do exist. One major difference is a perceived visual difference in compatibility between single-family units and duplexes versus multi -family structures. A duplex unit has a greater structural similarity to single-family dwellings than does a larger multi -family structure. Another difference regards the effectiveness of this property in a transitional capacity. The 1978 Comprehensive Plan report "Land Use Concepts" describes this function as follows:" 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. Offices and apartments are often used as transitions between commercial and single-family residential areas." If such a transition is considered desirable, and staff maintains that it is, then R3 zoning would be consistent with that objective. If the property were rezoned R2, less of a transition would exist. Another difference is the cost of developing this property at R2 versus R3. Costs for an R2 development would be higher for several reasons. First, a road would be required to provide frontage for the individual lots required under R2 zoning. Second, construction costs would be greater for several duplex structures than for one or two multi -family structures. Finally, because the units could not be clustered, costs for site preparation (e.g. fill) and utility infrastructure (e.g. sewer, water) would be greater. The neighborhood residents have also raised the concern that permitting multi- family units at this location would result in further encroachment of multi -family units into the existing RIB and R2 zones. Staff finds this occurrence to be highly unlikely because of the differences in circumstances between this property and any other property in the residential areas to the north and east. The property in question is located at the periphery of, and is not closely integrated with, the existing residential areas. It fronts directly upon an arterial street and is located between existing residential development to the north and east, and existing commercial/light industrial development to the south and west. It, therefore, serves in a transitional capacity between uses of differing intensities. Also, the property is currently zoned M1 - light Industrial. The proposed rezoning to multi -family housing is, therefore, a "down zoning" which results in making the possible uses of this property more compatible with the existing residential uses. Any subsequent proposal to rezone other property to a multifamily zone, which is currently zoned R2 or R1B, would be an "up zoning" which would make the possible use of the property less conforming with the lots adjacent to this property. Further, because in such cases there would be nothing which separately identifies it, the rezoning of small lots in surrounding residential areas would probably constitute illegal spot zoning. MICROFILMED BY 'JORM MICROLAB CEDAR RAPIDS•IDES)MOINES- 1r 1 IJ I 0 3 The final question is whether the requested down zoning would result in a "taking" of the property in question without just compensation. Attached is a legal opinion prepared by the City Attorney for the City Council in regards to the College Hill/South Dodge Street rezoning. As is noted in this opinion, the major question is whether the proposed down zoning would be exercised in furtherance of the public safety, health, morals and welfare and whether it would deprive the owner of the substantial use and enjoyment of his property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff does not object to R2 zoning for this property strictly as an alternative to M1 zoning, however, R2 zoning would not serve as effectively as a transitional use and, would therefore, continue to support R3 zoning as a better transitional use. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location map. 2. Petition of objection by the owner. 3. Legal opinion on down zoning. Approved by: y '' D9 al Scl meiser, Director Departmen of Planning and Program Development MICROFILMED BY 'JORM MICROLAB CEDAR RAPIDS.bES'HOINES r i F LECA-rlcsJ M -W z -ODI? �I .MICROFILMED BY 'JORM MICROLAB !! CEDAR AAPIDS-OES-140I11ES r 1 `-1 LECA-rlcsJ M -W z -ODI? �I .MICROFILMED BY 'JORM MICROLAB !! CEDAR AAPIDS-OES-140I11ES r 1 r I k 10: Honorable Mayor and City Council Iowa City, Iowa We, the undersigned, being the owners of twenty percent or irore either of the area of the lots included in such proposed change, or of those bnntdiately adjacent In the rear thereof extending the depth of one lot or not to exceed two hundred feet therefnm, or of those directly opposite thereto, extending the depth of one lot or not to exceed two hundred feet iron the street frontage of such opposite lots do hereby protest the rernning of the following property: We, The undersigned,being amens of 521 Kirkwood do hereby protest the rezoning from M-1 to R2. Ibis petition is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the intention that such rezoning shall not beacm effective except by the'favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the narleers of the council in accordance with 9119.5 o1 the Code of Iowa. By: L Sok n k.l wtiU () OA s s Property Address SPATE OF IOWA ) ss: JOINSON 01iM1Y ) 0n this 1!& day of�,.�„ 1983 before me, the undersigned, a Notary public in and for said County and State, personally appeared and Judy N. Bigler to me known to be the identical persons named n and Who executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same as their voluntary act and deed. r Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Owner a(s) of Property Address STALE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON 071= ) On this day of 1979, before me, the undersigned, a Notary public in sod for said Oounty and State, personally appeared and to cm )mmn to be the identical persons awned in and who executed the within and foregoing instnm=t and acknowledged that they executed the sarin m their voluntary act and deed, 9 l JUN 1 % i Notary Public in an for the State of Iowa MARIAN K. KARR CITY CLERK (3) i MICROFILMED BY I t1'i.JORM MICROLAB I CEDAR RAPIDS•DES-MOIIIES r- J I- t , CITY i CIVIC CERER /1 OF 1 CITY 410 E. WAST IINGION ST. IOWA UY, IOWA 52240 (319) 356-5CXb December 8, 1982 ' Honorable Mayor and Members of Council Civic'Center 410 E. Washington Iowa City, Iowa S2240 Dear Mayor Neuhauser and Members of the Council: Re: College Hill/South Dodge Street Moratorium Area INTRODUCTION The purpose of this opinion is to furnish the Council with a legal analysis of the College Hill/South Dodge neighborhood downzoning. This action will be accomplished by an amendment to the existing Iowa City Zoning Ordinance which specifically rezones these neighborhoods according to a legal description which prescribes the boundaries. In addition, an amendment will be enacted establishing a new zoning classification to be known as the Residential Neighborhood Conservation Zone (RNC -20) and this classification will be applied to a large part of the area. The amendment rezoning these areas is expected to receive your vote for final passage on December 13, 1982, and the RNC -20 classification will be enacted on the same date. The Council is aware that an extraordinary majority will be required for passage of the amendment to the Zoning Code. i'a . DOWNZONING The entire moratorium area has been remapped in such 'a manner as to provide a mix of four zoning classifications: R2, R3, RNC -70, and R3A, There are 310 properties in the area and all but M will be downzoned from I the present R3A classification. ,MICROFILMED BY I.JORM MICROLAB CEDAR RAPIDS•bES-MOINE$',r -- - ---------- now 12 bL•ryur and C°uncil Uccuml,cr 8, JIM 1+;V:c 2 Downzaiing has been defined as a change from a c]assific;rtion to a more restrictive classification from R3A less restrictive to an ItNC-20 classification means that Thus multi -family dcvclopnicnis will reyon m 1800 a change future construction of per unit whereas It3A only requires a e 18 s square feet minim those areas that are being rezoned from 0 square foot minimumum lot area strict construction to to R2 will Similarly, lot areas are present• two-family dwellings in the futurenassvminases re- g minimum LEGAL ASPECTS OF 20IVNZON'ING A cityrs exercise of its zoning validity as a proper exercise of the Powerhasa burden . on the strong presumption of measure is unreasonable the attacks downzonsnwer This means that the r: measure g to Prove that the zoning is valid on its face and itscapriciouso ssiscriminator it must be allowed to stand. Y. If the 738,742• Anderson v. Cit °f is fairly debatable, Y Cedar Ra ics, 168 NW 2d Of course exercised in furtherancerof the to zone is not unlimited. Gran,er v. Board Public safetyIt must be reasonably of Ad•ustment, 241 Iowa 1356 health, morals and welfare, no precise test exists for determining44 MV 2d 399. Unfortunately, restrictions pass muster, exactly whether particular zoning employed in the attempted exercise ase 'lust be stantial relation to the public health the fudged Power "whether the means cludin Police power have aqy real, sub - g the maintenance of property comfort, safety, and Welfare, in - Sioux ity ]11 N14 2d 758 P Perty values." Plaza Rec=ioial Center 763. Zoning is not static and cities may i; to the same limitations which attend originalrezne territory, Court stated in Keller v• subject however, 116, 'TTie Council Bluffs, zoning, As the Iowa Su reme governing body of a muni Bl alit 246 Iowa 202' 207-2r`8 P body ------- it deems circumstances and conditions warranty suchnactionorar�nances a❑ IV 2d 113' ment is valid if the Procedural Y time requirements ns the statutes d such an ed amend - Sign snot of the statute.?' or capricious nor inconsistent with the spirit and dand e - g statute•'r ( The Iowa Supreme Court has recognized that the exercise of police such as zoning or rezoning of the substantia] use and enjoymentof to a "taking" ] power Su ervisors, 21] MP 2d 274,276 (Iowa 1873 g if it deprives the owner J Yment of his property. Phelps V. Board of to refusal to rezone cases. PetIowa v. ) This doctrine has been extended Cit of Decorah, 259 MS 2d 553 (1977), i MICROFILMED BY DORM MICRO_ LAB CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES r fi Mayor and Coune)I nrromber 8, 1982 Pug 3 Whether or not the exercise of zoning authority is so oppressive that it constitutes a taking depends on the circumstances of each case. Woodbury Count SoiI Conservation District v. Ortner, 279 NW'2d 276, 278 (Iowa 1979). Few areas of the law have seemed to be so intractable to legal analysis as this vexing question of when does regulation of private property by downzoning cross the boundary of police power and become, in effect, a taking within the Fifth Amendment for which compensation in the form of damages is required. Property owners who attack zoning changes will probably do so by relying on the due process and takings clauses of the United States and Iowa Constitutions. See U.S. Const. Amends. V XIV; Iowa Const. art. I, Secs. 9, 18. See Woodbury County Soil Conservation District v. Ortner, supra. In that case the Iowa Supreme Court outlined certain principles of constitu- tional adjudication that will be followed in*these cases. Essentially, these are that legislative enactments such as zoning measures will be ac- corded every presumption of validity and will be found to be unconstitutional only upon a showing that such measures clearly infringe on constitutional rights and cnly if every reasonable basis for support is negated. A second principle is that when a taking occurs, compensation must be given in the form of damages; when police power is exercised to control and regulate property for the public good, no compensation need be paid. The point at j which police power regulation becomes so oppressive it amoupts to a taking j depends on the circumstances of each case. The test is whether the collective benefits to the public outweigh the specific restraints on the individual. Factors of importance include the economic impact of the regulation on the individual and particularly, the extent to which the regulation has inter- fered with distinct investment backed expectations. The Iowa zoning cases in which it was claimed that the toning amounted to a taking have dealt with cases in which property owners had made certain expenditures in connection with the use of the land before im22sition of the zoning regulation. In those cases the Iowa Supreme Court has recognized that.a vested property right had been created which cannot be arbitrarily interfered with or taking without just compensation. See Incorporated Town of'Carter Lake, 241 NW 2d at 902, Board of Supervisors v. Tenaske, 250 Iowa 1293, 98 NW 2d827, 829-31; Stoner McCray System v. City of Des Moines, 247 Iowa 1313, 1320-21 78 NW 2d 843, 849-50; Keller v. City of Council Bluffs, 246 Iowa at 212-13, 66 NIV 2d at 119. In each of tliese cases the "vested right" was an "investment backed expectation" which would be totally destroyed by the zoning measure. The theory of vested rights relates only to such rights as an owner of property may possess not to have his property rezoned after he has a building permit and has started his construction or improvement. The rationale of such cases is that lie has incurred obligation or liabilities for the work which he could not escape, and of these costs he would be deprived. -- -- -- -� GNICRDFILBED BY ".JORM MICROLAB j I 'CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES Wiyor and Counci l DecemLcr 8, 1982 I'a1;c 4 by such a rezoning. See Keller v. City of Council Bluffs, supra. Thus, those owners in the area who may have purchased property with the expectation of later development for multi -family housi-ng or who have owned their respective properties for a period of years with the later expectation of selling to a developer or converting it themselves to multi- family housing do not have any vested rights in the property or in present zoning classification of the property. The more fact that a particular property is suitable for multi -family development under the present 113A classification and is downzoned to R2 or R3 does not give rise to a vested rights claim. Another method of attack is to show that downzoning causes a reduction in the value of the property because it is no longer available for multi- family development and that such a reduction in value is a taking. Even when proved, a reduction in value of property is not necessarily a taking. SeePennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 413, 43 S.Ct. 158, 159 (1922) ("Government could hardly go on if to some extent values incident to property could not be diminished without paying for every such change in the general law."). The United States Supreme Court has upheld exercises of police power (zoning) which allegedly resulted in substantially reduced property values. See Village of Euclidy. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365,•47 S.Ct. 114 (75%); Hadacheck v. Sebastain, 239 U.S., 394, 36 S.Ct. 143 (8711%). The I U.S. Supreme Court had a further opportunity to deal with the constitutional issue in Consolidated Rock Products Co. v. Los Angeles, 57 Cal. 2d 515, 370 P. 2d 342 (a California case) in which an appeal from a decision upholding a zoning ordinance which the California Supreme Court had agreed completely destroyed the economic value of the property, the takings issue was squarely presented, but the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for. lack of sub- stantial federal question. The relevant principles were recently reaffirmed in 1979 by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Andrus V. Allard, 100 S.Ct. 318, 326-27, 62 L.Ed. 2d 210, 222-24. This case involved t takings challenge to a Department of the Interior regulation which the Court found had the effect of barring the sale of eagle parts which had been obtained prior to the effective date of the authorizing statute. The Court reiterated the principles which had been announced in prior cases pointing out: 'Govern- ment regulation --by definition --involves the adjustment of rights for the public good. Often this adjustment curtails some potential economic use or economic exploitation of private property. To require compensation in all such circumstances would effectively compel the Government to regulate by purchase." After noting that the regulations did not require the surrender of the artifacts or involve a physical invasion or restraint upon them, and despite which the Court called a "undeniable" fact that the regulations pre- vented the owners from making the most profitablc�.vse of thbir property, the / �0 "r-7 �Z MICROFILMED BY JORM MICROLAB i CEDAR RA PI DS•DES MOINES r 1.1:1yor and Count•i I Deronber 8, 1982 I'h1;c S Court be]() that the prohibition against sale did not create a taking COP1PREIIENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY As you know, zoning regulations must be made in accordance with the comprehensive plan. Section 414.3, Code of Iowa. Courts look to the existence of a comprehensive plan as competent evidence of the reasonable- ness of ]and use regulations. 'Ilie present comprehensive plan designates the area as generally residential in 8-16 and 16-24 dwelling units per acre categories. The updated plan will be amended consistent with RNC -20 density requirements. However, the downzoning appears to be broadly con- sistent with the present plan's stated Land Use Policies, e.g. to re- evaluate zoning districts in neighborhoods where identified conflicts exist. The impetus for those landowners who have sought these changes in all of the Public hearings before the Planning 8 Zoning Commission and the Council has been to stop further neighborhood erosion through apartment building develop- ment. Equally strong has been a concern expressed for neighborhood pre- servation which is also one of the state goals in the present plan. The i design of the RNC -20 zoning classification is, in my view, entirely consistent with these plan policies. I ANALYSIS Based upon the foregoing p C g le a] g principles, 1 submit the following analysis: 1 1. RNC -20 --these properties are mostly located in the area roughly bounded by Johnson Street on the west, I fferson Summit Street on the east, and Bur - Street on the north, lington Street on the south. These are existing inner-city neighborhoods that will be stabilized by this zoning which provides for medium density, multi -family dcvcl:pment yet allows the continuance of existing high-densitl developments already in place. The Planning $ Zoning Commission is of the opinion that this classification is designe3 and intended ' to prevent an increase in high-density, multi-fsmily residences in the bulk of the area, will direct high-density growth to limited areas contiguous to existing high-density uses, will minimize the creation of non -conforming uses, and will generally stabilize the College Hill/South Dodge Street icighborhood. i It is my opinion that this zoning change docs not amount to a taking to the extent that it takes away the only reasonable use of the affected properties. The objectives of the rezoning are consistent with the present comprehensive plan. The stabilization of the area to restrict multi -family development, but yet permit medium density, multi -family dcvilopment would appear to be a reasonable and proper exercise of the zoning power; MICROFILMED BY }4 ;JORM MICROLAB t 1 CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES r ■ N Mayor and (bund I Ilri•rmbur B, 1982 Pale G 2. 113 --mainly both sides of South Dodge Street, the block cast of College Ilill Park on North Dodgq,, and parts of blocks on College Street between Johnson and Luer.s Streets. 'Ibis downzoning is substantial. The present 113A classifi- cation only requires 1000 square feet minimum lo: area per living unit, whereas 113 requires 3000 feet. It thus appears that future multi -family development on South Dodge and the other areas will be very restricted. The R3 downzoning is, in the main, consistent with the single family density existing on a large part of South Dodge Street except for six lots which contain multi -family apartment structures. The rezoning as it applies- to South Dodge Street does not appear to amount to a taking to the extent that the only reasonable use of these properties would be destroyed. Investment potential and return will be severely curtailed, however, the objectives of relieving density and related parking problems will be achAved. These are substantial public benefits which should ter.d to outweigh any hardship to the owner affected by this downzoning in this area. The half block to the south of College Hill Park between Dodge and Jefferson Streets is also designated for R3 classi- fication. This is an existing impacted density area consisting Of rooming houses, apartments, and duplexes. The current density is equivalent to the density permitted in the RNC -20 classification. I believe that the rationale expressed in both Planning & Zoning and Council discussions on this particular half block was that it is desirable to not surrcund. the College Kill Park with medium density zoning in order tc. preserve the ambience of the Park. If this is so, it may be a little more difficult to justify the downzoning on the basis of reasonable- ness given the impacted density of this half block. The south half of the block is designated for RNC -20 classification. 3. 112 --six properties located on Burlington, College and Woodlawn are slated for downzoning to R2 classification. Wo properties are located on Woodlawn and are presently being used consistent with R2 uses. The remainder of Woodlawn is presently zoned R2 and this would be consistent with the character of the neighbor- hood to join these properties to the existing zoning. R2 is the most restrictive of the present downzcning classifications and does restrict future development to two-fam_ly dwellings assuming minimum lot areas of 3000 square feet per unit can be met. _--- Kr MICROFILMED DY l +'1 '.JORM MICROLAB I ,I CEDAR RAPIDS•DES'MOINES I 140W J_ M;lyor and (:u unci 1 Il -umber B, )992 Nig e 7 The two properties located on College Street have duplexes located on them which is consistent with R2 uses. This confirms the already use and the areas directly to the Last are presently zoned R2. The remaining two properties designated for the R2 classifi- cation are located on Burlington Street cast of Summit. Ute corner lot is presently an older home with six living units and will become non -conforming since there appear to be 17,000 square feet available and R2 will require 18,000 square feet • for six units. The next property to the east is currently single family occupancy. The downzoning of these two properties will also place them within the Summit Street nzighborhood i. R2 classification and is consistent. Although the R2 rezoning is the most restrictive, it would appear that the zoning is reasonable and will not amount to a taking to the extent that the only reasonable uses of these properties will be destroyed. The rezoning action appears to be reasonable either as a recognition of preser.•:ly exisnsistent ting use or inclusion within a zoning district that is co with the immediately surrounding zoning. Rezoning and downzoning existing neighborhoods on the scale attempted here may, indeed, give rise to litigation. However, as indicated in this ovalidity, it must pinion, the City's exercise of its zoning power has a strong presumption of cases, haveuattempted toeh laydownsa definitive t of brule sfor tle cleterminationnof what is, and what is not, reasonable. In addition, Section 414.3 of the Iowa Code requires that "such regulation shall be made with reasonable con- sideration, among other things, as to the character of the aria of the district and the peculiar suitability of such areas for particular purposes it The Iowa Supreme Court in F.H. Uelner Precision T B D v. Cit of Dubu uc, 190 he 2d 465, held that rezoning was a proper i.se of zoning to stabilize residential i• NW neighborhoods and to prevent commercial and industrial inroads, Perhaps the r best definition of reasonableness that I have been able to find is in the Illinois case of People ex, rel. Larsen and Co v 2d 676, in which the ICity of hicago , 197 NE ''• "In considering the validity of a given zoning ordinance, each I case must be decided on its own particular facts, with due regard to the character of the neighborhood, the classifica- tion and use of nearby properties, the extent to WFich property values are diminished by the particular restriction, the suit- ; ability of the subject property for the zoned purposes, and the gain to the public as compared to the hardship on the property owner. //0001?$ Y+ )� !MICROFILMEDBY !JORM MICRO_ LAB 1 CEDAR RAPIDS -DES M0114ES r tb J� r - I I Mayor and Counci December 8, 1992 Page 8 711erc has been considerable input from the property owners in the affected areas before both the Planning & Zoning Commission and the City Council at public hearings and informal sessions. The Planning $ Zoning Commission gave the proposed rezoning very dutaiied and careful study, after receiving public input, and have recommended ❑ workable ordinance to the Council. The Council has modified the Planning $ Zoning recommendation in some re- spects, but again this process was arrived at after several deliberations by the Council. As far as due process requirements for opport?inity to object or to make known one's views, I believe these have been amply satisfied. Lengthy staff studies were prepared and presented to both the :Tanning B Zoning Commission and the Council and both bodies appear to have formulated the proposed zoning changes giving reasonable consideration tt, the character of the neighborhoods and their peculiar suitability for parti:ular residential uses and consistency with the comprehensive plan. Very truly yours, Robert W. Jansen City Attorney RWJ:jb -: J iMICROFILMED DY IUORM MICROLAB I �CEDARRAPIDSaDES-MOINES 1 _ JJ 5 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING E NOTI 0 PUBLIC NAR NG TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED REZONING OF LOTS 22-24 AND 64- 71 OF WESTGATE ADDITION LOCATED ON KESWICK DRIVE AND WESTGATE CIRCLE. 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 16th day of August, 1983, in the Council Chambers in the Civic Center, Iowa City, Iowa; at which hearing the Council will consider the proposed rezoning of Lots 22- 24 and 64-71 of. Westgate Addition located on Keswick Drive'�and Westgate Circle. This notice is given pursuant to Chapter 414.4 of the Code of Iowa, 1983. MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK MICRDFILMED BY IJORM MICROLAB CEDAR RAM -DES -MOINES ,� ^ �V Dear Members of the City Council; r_� July 16, 1983 We, the undersigned, wish to join the other neighborhood members already involved in this situation to give our strong support for the application submitted by .Marian Angersola to rezone Lots 22.24 and 64-71 from R3 to R1B. We believe that there should be a balance in the type of housing a neighborhood has, as well as a balance in the degree of density. This balance has long ago been destroyed in our area with a disproportionate number of multiple-famil high density housing. y and Now even presently existing single-family housing is threatened tobe divided into multiple family due to the profit motives of certain inidividube Once er homes this is allowed to occur, this will rapidly escalate to include oth as they are sold and investors rather than families buy them. When we bought our homes, the community,such as it is,was already est4blished and we do not feel it right to allow such serious changes. We do not believe that the profit motives of a few should outweigh the needs of an entire neighborhood. We feel that this rezoning from R3 to R1B is the only protection we have from an already bad situation getting worse. i! 't Y Y; t' These signatures represent all the eight houses in our Westgate Y/ Circle, We unanimously wish this rezoning to RiB to take place. V�& MICROFILMED BY I ,JORM MICROLAB I CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES JI 0 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 8.10.28D REGARDING THE POWERS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. 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 16th day of August, 1983, in the Council Chambers in the Civic Center, Iowa City, Iowa; at which hearing the Council will consider an ordinance Section 8.10.28.D regarding the powers of the Board of Adjustment to add'a specific statement that an appeal to the Board of Adjustment of the issuance of a building permit stays or halts not only further proceedings by the City, but also construction activities by the permittee. Copies of the proposed ordinance are on file for public examination in the Office of the City Clerk, Civic Center, Iowa City, Iowa. This notice is given pursuant to Chapter 414.4 of the Code of Iowa, 1983. MARITfiN K. KARR, CITY"CLEC R l MICROFILMED BY ;? !.JORM MICROLAB r CEDAR RAPIDS -DES MOINES P i •N, 7