HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-11-07 Info PacketCf
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 4, 1983
To: Persons wi omments on the Proposed New Zoning Ordinance
From: Don Schm
Re: City Council Discussion of Proposed New Zoning Ordinance
Please be advised that the City Council has scheduled meetings for
November 7 at approximately 8:30 PM (after a special formal
meeting), November 8 from 4:00 PM to 8:00 PM, and for November 14 at
7:30 PM in the Civic Center Council Chambers or the City Manager's
Conference Room.
The City Council will continue their discussion of the list of
issues, comments and questions on the 7th. It is anticipated that
the Council will begin discussion of site specific zoning requests
for changes in zoning on November 14. A memorandum addressing the
site specific requests for changes in zoning will be available for
distribution at the City Clerk's office at noon on the 14th,of
November.
I will keep you advised of any additional meetings or changes in
meetings. If you have any questions in regard to the above subject
matter in the interim, please do not hesitate to contact me at 356-
5230.
tp5/2
cc: City Council
The memorandum addressing the site specific information will be
furnished to the Council in the packet of November 10, 1983.
3177
,�
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 3, 1983
To: City Counc'
From: Don Schm r
Re: Pyramidal vs. on -pyramidal Zoning
The present Zoning Ordinance is of the pyramidal type which simply means that the
uses from the highest or most restrictive zone to the lowest or least restrictive
zone accumulate from zone to zone. The single family dwellings permitted in
single family zones are permitted in two family zones; single family and two
family dwellings are permitted in multi -family zones; single family, two family
and multi -family dwellings are permitted in commercial zones; and single family,
two family and multi -family dwellings and commercial establishments are permitted
in industrial zones.
The new Zoning Ordinance is not designed to allow this accumulation of uses from
the highest zone to the lowest zone. For the most part, residential uses are
restricted to residential zones, commercial uses are restricted to commercial
zones, and industrial uses are restricted to industrial zones. There obviously is
an overlap of uses among the three major categories of land uses, e.g., the
establishment of residential uses is permitted above commercial establishments in
commercial zones.
Why is a change in the design of the ordinance contemplated? There are at least
two major reasons for the change. If any use is permitted in an industrial zone,
then residential, commercial and industrial uses are permitted to co -exist
together. But residential and industrial uses in particular are not compatible
-with each other. The new proposed Zoning Ordinance will reduce the potential for
this incompatibility.
Secondly, and perhaps the most important reason for -the change in the type of
zoning ordinance, is to better implement the City's Comprehensive Plan. The
Comprehensive Plan Map illustrates areas for certain types of land uses. There
are designations for low, medium and high density residential uses; there are
designations for various types of commercial uses; and there are areas designated
for industrial and office and research park development. The zones under the
present ordinance, which permit a heterogeneous mixture of uses in each zone, will
do little to implement the plan. There would be no assurance that land zoned for
industrial use would, in fact, be developed for industrial use if "any use" is
permitted.
Of particular importance to the City, is the need to establish areas for
commercial and industrial development and the assurance that the lands will not be
developed for residential use or a mixture of residential, commercial and
industrial uses. A mixture of land uses tends to inhibit full development of
those areas because of the incompatibility of uses permitted.
bj4/32
i
3/�8'
Li
J
3 -
CITY CSF IOW/\ CITY*
CIVIC CENTER 410 E. WASHINGTON ST. IOWA CITY. IOWA 52240 ("19)356-5000
October 27, 1983
Vernon Beck
3100 W. Lake Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416
Dear Mr. Beck:
This is to acknowledge the receipt by the Department of Housing and
Inspection Services of one set of building plans on
October 24, 1983. Another five sets of complete plans to be sent via
overnight mail delivery are requested to facilitate staff and the
Hotel Steering Committee review.
It is important that you and the other involved parties with this
j project understand that until the Committee has had the chance to
review and to approve or disapprove these plans, no further decisions
should be made which will affect design choices and alternatives.
There obviously have been a number of changes in the hotel design
since the last presentation to the Committee. Some of these changes
are of a major nature: for instance, alteration of the interior
walkway, a diminished glass facade, and the addition of surface
parking on the south entrance combined with reconfiguration of the
i exterior walkway. A written narrative discussing the changes from
the last design iteration and the reasons for these changes should be
presented to the City by no later than November 3 so this material
can be made available in a timely fashion to the Committee.
The City's ability to review these design materials are dependent on
timely delivery of the materials requested in this letter. if they
are not available, the design review process will be delayed.
i
incerely, _
��u'i
David Perret
Hotel Steering Committee
cc: Neal Berlin, City Manager
John Hayek, Legal Counsel
Andrea Hauer, Development Coordinator
Hotel Steering Committee
tp4/2
Mailed via express mail for delivery on October 28, 1983
3iaR9
Li
November 3, 1983
Mr. Neal G. Berlin
City Manager
Civic Center
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
RE: Iowa City Holiday Inn
Dear Neal:
In reviewing the concerns being expressed by Councilor Perret
to the plans and specifications provided by us, I find a
number of points need clarification.
Firstly: We never intended to carpet the pedistrian walkway
through the.hotel. This finish will be determined by the
interior design architect which is employed by CIDCO Management
Company. The portion referring to carpet is in error. We
anticipate a hard surface such as brick or quarry tile in a
shade of brown to complement the mall surface. We will not be
copying the exact texture of the mall due to concerns expressed
by our management company about cleaning problems.
Secondly: We have corrected the door design to reflect the need
for double doors on each side. This was always intended and again
reflects an oversight on our part. It has always been our intent
to open the access of the hotel to the maximum extent possible.
As you may have additional input as the plans are revised in
connection with the renderings, please feel free to call me with
ideas and suggestions.
Mr. Perret was quoted in the newspaper as stating that "The windows
are not recessed." This statement is completely in error.
Vernon Beck & Associates, Inc.
Commercial Financing Commercial Real Estate Development
612/927.5310
3100 West Lake Street • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416
3i3o
Ci
Mr. Neal G. Berlin
November 3, 1983
Page Two
The only design change of substance which has not been cleared
or discussed with the design review committee relates to the
health club which was added to the pool area on the second floor.
We are excited about this change and feel the club will be one
of the finest in Iowa City.
One additional issue involves parking for unloading and
handicapped by the front door. We are flexible but feel that
this need must be accommodated in some manner. When the design
committee is ready, we are prepared to meet and discuss our
mutual concerns.
We feel that the matter has not been handled in a routine way
and has amounted to blatant incorrect statements made to the
press. We have reviewed each of Mr. Perret's comments with
our builder and architect as it relates to our previous
presentations to the Hotel Steering committee.
In view of the fact that Mr. Perret has issued incorrect
ephone
statements to the media rather than picking up
the and advising us orally as to his comments, we request that a
public meeting be scheduled in which our architect, construction
company and myself can review each of his comments. We believe
that the to clarifyedia should be the record relativeed to to this h a matter.
meeting in order
matte
We certainly do not wish our negotiations with the city
officials to continue in the present path with "sensational
media coverage which benefits no one.
Best/r'egards ,
Vernon R. Beck
President
cc: Gary Korte
Al ViJums
3/3a
Ci
City of Iowa City
�m eb r 3,9RANDUM
To: Mayor Neuhauser and the Iowa City City Council
From: Diana Lewis, Chair, Iowa City Riverfront Commission,
Re: River Bank Cleanup
The Iowa City Riverfront Commission proposes a general cleanup of
both banks of the Iowa River from the Burlington Street Dam to the
southern corporate limits. A Mayor's Youth Employment Program crew,
with an on-site supervisor, is available to clear the debris and
dumped material along the river bank. The Parks and Recreation
Department will cooperate in this effort by providing the vehicle
needed to transport the rubbish.
Although debris will not be removed from private property,
riverfront property owners will be informed, in writing, of this
proposal. This project may, all the same, act as an incentive for
riverfront property owners to initiate private cleanup activities.
The cleanup campaign is scheduled to begin the week of November 14,
1983 and expected to be completed by November 23, 1983.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at
337-3653 or Monica Moen, the Department of Planning and Program
Development staff person working with the Riverfront Commission, at
356-5246.
cc: Neal Berlin, City Manager
Don Schmeiser, Director, Department of Planning and
Program Development
Doug Boothroy, Senior Planner, Department of Planning
and Program Development
bc4/8
3/3/
Ci
MINUTES
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY COMMITTEE
OCTOBER 11, 1983
MEMBERS PRESENT: Balmer, Lynch, Hynes, Kafer, Coulter, Cain, Zenge
MEMBERS ABSENT: Kroeze, Rae, Finnegan
STAFF PRESENT: Schmadeke, Farmer Wordelman, Berlin Kimm Dague,
Franklin, Vitosh, Boren
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION AND ACTION TAKEN:
Lynch opened the meeting and invited Neal Berlin to give a summary of
the intent of this Committee. He explained that the overriding concern
of this Committee was to provide the most cost effective program for
wastewater treatment while meeting current treatment standards.
Berlin pointed out that earlier this year Professor Dague was engaged
to conduct an independent review of the treatment plant and Dague
concluded that the plant should be built at the proposed site.
The Committee then approved the preliminary recommendations of the
Dague study at the June 15, meeting. Dague and Kimm then prepared
a detailed report of Dague's proposal for the Committee's final
approval. The report makes specific recommendations as to phasing
and introduces some changes in the construction process relating
to the southeast interceptor sewer. In considering this proposal
the City felt that is was advantageous to look into private construction
and operation of the new plant. Since that time legislation has been
introduced which could adversely affect privatization. Berlin's
recommendations were to proceed to acquire new land and easements
for the construction of the plant and sewers and to begin construction
of the southeast interceptor sewer as soon as possible by borrowing
the money'necessary. The City will continue to look into privatization
as changes occur in legislation.
There were questions from the members of the audience which were answered
by members of the Committee, Dague and Kimm.
A question was raised concerning cost projections within the recommendation
prepared by Kimm and Dague. Lynch made it clear to the Committee and
others present that the understanding would be that all proposals would
be subject to final approval by the City Council.
Kinin then began to review the report. He explained that the proposal
provides for a four phase program, outlines the alternatives already
discussed by the Committee and outlines a method for financing.
Recommendations were also made on how to proceed with construction.
3/3A
J
Ci
J
Wastewater Treatment Facility Committee
October 11, 1983
Page 2
Daguecontinued the review by directing the Committee's attention to
Table 1 of the report. He pointed out that there were four phases
of construction projected to be completed by the year 2001. Included
in this program is a new treatment plant at the downstream site
at a total cost of $24 million. Sewers were projected to cost
$22 million. He made it clear that the new plant at the proposed
site was the best direction to proceed because of the long-term
benefits. The type of treatment recommended for the new plant
was aerobic digestion utilizing biological tower filters. After
Dague's presentation there were more questions from the members
of the Committee and others present.
The discussion continued relating to financing. Various financial
alternatives were discussed as set forth by Kirton & Dague's report.
Kimm assured the commission that each phase was as free standing as
possible. In the event a future Council may decide to halt construction,
the adequate treatment of waste water could continue. Of course, a halt
in the complete program would not fully utilize the outfall sewer between
the old plant and the new plant.
Balmer expressed his confidence in the plan as proposed by Dague & Kimm.
He madea motion that the Committee recommend to Council to purchase
the land necessary to construct the plant, trunklines and sewers, move
ahead with the construction contract, and that the City borrow the
approximately $11 million to begin construction. Zenge seconded the
motion. Balmer stated that all of the recommendations as set out
in Berlin's memo dated October 15, be included by reference as a part
of his motion.
A roll call of the members was taken and *the votes were recorded as follows:
Balmer - Aye; Lynch - Aye; Hynes - Nay; Kafer was not present for the vote,
but expressed to Berlin before leaving that he wished to go on record as
in favor of the proposal. Coulter - Aye; Cain - Aye. Motion carried.
Lynch asked that the minutes be sent to each member of the Committee
for their approval.
The meeting was adjourned.
Minutes prepared by Sherri Patterson, Secretary, Public Works Department.
Complete proceedings of this meeting were recorded on tape.
3�3�.
MINUTES 99
CITY/COUNTY URBAN FRINGE COMMITTEE
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1983 8:00 A. M.
IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY, ROOM B
MEMBERS PRESENT: Donnelly, McDonald, Ockenfels, Erdahl
STAFF PRESENT: Leahy, Te Paske, Franklin
The meeting was called to order at 8:10 a.m. Donnelly moved and Erdahl
seconded approval of the minutes as submitted for September 14, 1983. The
motion passed unanimously.
DISCUSSION OF AREA 1:
Franklin reviewed the discussion before the Iowa City Council regarding
the deannexation of Area 1. She pointed out that the Council was very
interested in the potential development, of those portions of Area 1
within the corporate boundaries, as office research park development.
Beause of this interest, the Council would not be supportive of deannexa-
tion of this area. Franklin stated that the development envisioned
probably would not occur for a number of years.
The area west of the Iowa City corporate limits was then discussed in
terms of how it would develop if the office research park development were
to take place within the city and whether the density of development would
be as single-family residential or as multi -family with condominiums. It
was decided that since. development of an office research park was tenuous
and would probably not occur for some time, that the .fringe policies
regarding this area should look to leaving the area much as it is today.
The consensus of the Committee was to deal with Area 1, defined as that
portion from the western Iowa City corporate boundaries to the two mile
extraterritorial limit, in the same manner as the policy statement for
Area 4. This statement discouraged any further residential development
and encouraged agricultural use as the preferred use with the recognition
that requests for residential development for farm family members should
be accommodated. The Committee also -agreed that this area should be
flagged as one requiring re-evaluation at such time as the office research
park development within the city moved closer to reality.
DISCUSSION OF AREA 9;
The consensus of the Committee was that deannexation of any portion of
this area should follow watershed lines and should take into consideration
the Hunter's Run Subdivision. In addition, it was agreed that deannexa-
tion would be a general policy with no specification as to it being
voluntary or involuntary. It was decided that for those portions of Area
9 which might be severed from the City, land south of Rohret Road should
be included in Area 7 and any land north of Rohret Road should be included
in Area 1 for fringe policy purposes.
1 Erdahl stated that he felt deannexation of the entire area should be
J evaluated if the Hunters Run Subdivision did not develop according to its
3 133
CITY/COUNTY URBAN FRINGE COMMITTEE
OCTOBER 5, 1983
PAGE 2
plans and within the time period specified in the agreement between the
developers of Hunters Run and the City. Franklin pointed out that the
staff had some concerns regarding total deannexation of the area since
certain services had been extended to this area beyond Freeway 218 and
that to sever those services from the City was unwise.
Franklin reviewed the zoning proposed in the 1983 Zoning Ordinance for
Area 9, explaining the rationale for AG and RR1 zoning in terms of how
those zones related to the ability of the City to provide services.
The Committee concurred that the policy relating to Area 9 should
recommend deannexation of portions of Area 9 along watershed lines and
take into consideration the existence of the Hunters Run Subdivision; this
area was also flagged for reevaluation in 1985 when the agreement between
the City and the developers of Hunters Run called for review of the
subdivision.
Erdahl requested that the Committee be given a memo regarding the status
of sewer and water provision to Hunters'Run, the essence of the agreement,
the reasons for delay in the development of the subdivision, and a map of
Area 9 delineating the watershed and the Hunters Run Subdivision.
DISCUSSION OF AREA 10;
Te Paske stated that this area was under the two mile jurisdiction of the
City of Hills, but that Iowa City and the County were obviously affected
by land uses in the area. He reviewed the existing uses along Old 218 and
stated that one could expect some competition for uses. He pointed out
that development in this area will be subject to the Airport Overlay Zone
and that much of the property was within the approach zone. He pointed
out that the City of Hills had stated that they would acquiesce to
anything the Committee decided.
Te Paske stated that the demand for commercial or industrial development
on the west side of 218 could be expected to be the same as that on the
east side. He suggested that if the policy for the west side of 218 were
to be one of don -development, a clear distinction must be made between the
east and west sides of the road in order to justify such a policy. He
questioned whether this was possible since there was very little
difference between the characteristics of the land on both sides of the
road including the lack of ability of the City to provide services.
Erdahl questioned whether the planned commercial district could be used.
Te Paske responded that if the district was in fact legally viable that
this would be an appropriate place to use it. Erdahl questioned the
status of the legal opinion regarding the PCD as contract zoning. Te
Paske responded that an opinion was still being sought from the County.
Attorney's office. Erdahl stated that he hoped that the County Attorney
would look at the planned commercial district with an eye to its legal
implementation, if the district could be legally defensible. He stressed
the fact that a legal opinion was needed quickly.
3133
CITY/COUNTY URBAN FRINGE COMMITTEE
OCTOBER 5, 1983
PAGE 3
Discussion then turned to the need for resolution of the Airport Overlay
Zone within the County. Erdahl requested that staff insure that the
County had every means of technical assistance available to the City at
its disposal. Leahy stated that the County Attorney's office had reviewed
the proposed ordinance for the establishment of a joint City/County
airport zoning commission and that the legal staffs of the City and the
County would be meeting in the near future to resolve any questions
regarding that ordinance. The ordinance could then be passed on to the
respective zoning commissions of the City and the County.
DISCUSSION OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES:
Te Paske stressed the necessity of some procedures to implement the 26E
agreement. He outlined the work that had been done to date stating that
rezonings would be retained within the County jurisdiction, that
rezonings would need to be consistent with the agreement, and that the
City would exercise its review and comment option on any rezoning within
the fringe areas. He stated that the second part of the procedures
regarding subdivision regulations had not been resolved at the staff level
and that there were questions in this area regarding the review process
and statutory ability of a 28E agreement to delegate Zoning Commission
review to any other body. The third part of the procedures reported on
were those regarding annexation; it was pointed out that the City would
retain the ability to annex contiguous areas, that any annexations would
need to be consistent with the 28E agreement and that the County would
exercise a review and comment option on any annexation proceedings.
It was agreed by the Committee that the 28E agreement period should be 21
years, with a review period every three years, and provisions for
amendment to the agreement.
DISCUSSION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSED FRINGE
AREA POLICIES:
Te Paske reviewed a memo which he had sent to the Committee and Board of
Supervisors outlining the Board's discussion on September 19, 1983,
relative to the fringe area policies. Te Paske stated that the Board had
problems with the rezoning implementation strategy for Area 2 in which it
was stated that commercial areas would be rezoned to residential. He
stated that the Board wished to retain some flexibility to respond to
development of the entire area and did not see anything wrong with a
development comprised of multifamily residential and commercial use
which would be integrated through a planned area development procedure.
He stated that a change in the policy statement itself was suggested in
which the statement "commercial development is inappropriate" be revised
to say "large scale commercial development is inappropriate" and that the
implementation measures should indicate a consideration of rezoning to
medium density residential uses providing also for planned area
developments. McDonald and Erdahl were reluctant to make this revision
given the discussion that had taken place previously regarding commercial
development north of I-80 and the reconsideration that had been done by
the City in terms of commercial development south of I-80. Franklin
pointed out that the new language would indicate that there would be no
.3/33
Ci
I
1
CITY/COUNTY URBAN FRINGE COMMITTEE
OCTOBER 5, 1983
PAGE 4
objection to the type of commercial development which had originally been
the subject of discussion for this area, i.e. a convenience store with gas
pumps, and that did not appear to be the intent of the Board. She
suggested that the revision explicitly state the position of the Board in
terms of allowing small commercial establishments within planned
residential developments. The Committee agreed that this might be an
acceptable way to handle the situation.
Te Paske went on to point out that the Board also had problems with the
implementation strategy in Area 7 which called for the rezoning of
portions of Area 7 which are considered to be prime agricultural land or
which are farthest from the City limits. The Board found that the
rezoning of such property to Al rural would be inconsistent with the
policy positions agreed to in other areas. The Board suggested a revised
policy statement:
Continued agricultural use as the preferred use in Area 7. Limited
residential development should be permitted only where County
services can most effectively be provided.
Erdahl stated that he could understand the County's position regarding
these rezonings. Consensus was not reached as to the acceptance of a new
policy statement.
Donnelly stated that generally there were some Board members who were
concerned that the County was gaining nothing by the 28E agreement and was
in fact being asked to give up a lot. Discussion then followed of those
concerns. McDonald stated that he and Erdahl would personally try to
reassure those members of the Board expressing the concerns.
The next meeting of the Committee was scheduled for October 19, 1983.
Meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Minutes submitted by Karin Franklin.
MINUTES
CITY/COUNTY URBAN FRINGE COMMITTEE
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1983 - 8:00 AM
IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY, ROOM 8
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ockenfels, McDonald, Donnelly, Erdahl
STAFF PRESENT: Leahy, Franklin, Te Paske
The meeting was called to order at 8:30 AM. The minutes of October 5, 1983, were
approved unanimously as submitted.
DISCUSSION OF AREA 10
Donnelly questioned the status of the land owned by the Iowa Law School
Foundation and whether it would be preserved as woodlands. Te Paske responded
that he had no current knowledge of the situation. He explained that the Law
School wished to sell the property, but that certain individuals had an interest
in preserving the timber in a forest preserve. He stated that if this property
were preserved, much of the development pressure in Area 10 for commercial
development would be taken off.
Erdahl requested that Te Paske review the statements that he had made at the
previous meeting regarding Area 10. Te Paske did so, again pointing out that it
was very difficult to make distinctions between the potential for development to
the east of old 218 and that to the west. Erdahl stated that one distinction was
that the west side of old 218 was subject to the airport overlay zone, whereas
the property on the east side of old 218 had only a small portion within the
approach zone. Te Paske responded that a planned commercial district with
performance standards could be used to address the problem of commercial
development in the approach zone. He felt that the property of greatest concern
at this point was that which is currently zoned CH directly adjacent to old 218.
He pointed out that under CH zoning certain uses, which were inconsistent with
concerns of the Committee regarding the airport approach zone; could be built at.
this time. Te Paske felt that one approach might be to attempt to convince the
property owners of the CH zoned land to change to a PCD designation, once the
district ordinance was adopted. He went on to point out the extent of the
property within Area 10 which was owned by the Johnson County Fairgrounds.
Erdahl questioned the status of a legal opinion regarding the planned commercial
district. Leahy responded that she had done much of the research work on the
opinion and that a written opinion would be forthcoming within the next two
weeks. She synopsized her research and conclusions, stating that the standards
referred to in the planned commercial district ordinance should be clearly
stated within the ordinance, but that references to the district and standards
in the fringe agreement need not be expanded upon within the agreement.
Erdahl requested an update on the status of the Airport Zoning Commission.
Franklin reported that she had spoken with Assistant City Attorney Richard Boyle
who was of the opinion that the Council and Board were enabled under Chapter 329
of the Iowa Code to proceed with making appointments to a joint City/County
Airport Zoning Commission. Erdahl suggested that the respective bodies go ahead
and make those appointments. Franklin suggested that the City might wish to
make its appointments from the membership of the Planning and Zoning Commission
,3/33
City/County Urban Fr...ge Committee
October 19, 1983
Page 2
and the Airport Zoning Commission; Erdahl agreed. Donnelly questioned whether
it was necessary under the statute to advertise publicly for nominees for
appointment to the Commission. Franklin responded that she would check the
statute. Erdahl stated that he felt the Committee could go ahead and assume
that the airport overlay zone would be adopted by the City and the County and
that the Committee need not address the overlay zone specifically within the
Committee's function.
Te Paske stated that he would like the Committee to express some opinion on a
solution to the problem of the CH zoning along old 218. Erdahl asked what Te
Paske would like to see there. Te Paske responded that he felt it should be
changed to a planned commercial district. The rest of the Committee agreed.
The consensus was that planned commercial district would be an appropriate
designation for those properties adjacent -to old 218 north of the intersection
with Freeway 218 and south of the airport. It was suggested that the remainder
of what had been Area 10 be called Area 11, kept in agricultural use, and conform
to the policies and implementation measures outlined for Areas 4 and 7.
i
Erdahl stated he felt that one of the things which the County could look at as an
advantage gained from the 28E agreement was the planned commercial district. He
saw this as a means for the County to have commercial development in areas where
the City could not provide services, without having the adverse impacts which
could be imposed by commercial development.
Te Paske raised the question of the problem currently before the Board of
Supervisors in Area 8 regarding the rezoning of certain property to CH before
the planned commercial district was enforced. He pointed out that if this
rezoning took place, the land uses in the area could be contrary to the
Committee's policy statement for Area 8 and could effectively negate much of the
work the Committee had done. He pointed out that this rezoning was currently
before the Board and that the planned commercial district would not be out of
the County Zoning Commission until November 14.. Erdahl responded that he felt
very strongly about the district concept and hoped that the Board would not
approve the rezoning request.
DISCUSSION OF THE POLICY AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES FOR AREA 1 AND 9
Franklin reviewed the background material on Area 1, pointing out that the
Policy statement called for a re-evaluation of the policy at such time as the
Clear Creek Investment Company project was more definite. Te-Paske pointed out
that the Board of Supervisors had reviewed the statements on Area 1 and had
agreed with them. The Committee concurred with the policy statement and
implementation measures as stated.
Area 9 was reviewed, particulary within the context of the Hunters Run
Subdivision. The Committee concurred with the policy statement and
implementation measures presented, and delineated the line of deannexation from
Freeway 218, west along Rohret Road to its intersection with the watershed line,
and then following that line north to IWV road. The Committee agreed to meet the
following week and review a draft of a complete 28E agreement.
4W.3
LF
7
City/County Urban Fringe Committee
October 19, 1983
Page 3
Alm*inn + U.9C AAI
Gr
MINUTES OF STAFF MEETING
November 2, 1983
Referrals from the informal Council meeting of October 31 were distributed
to the staff for review and discussion (copy attached).
Items for the agenda for the special meeting of November 7 will include:
Resolution setting public hearing to change the Housing Code to
bring it in line with the Zoning Ordinance.
Second reading of Ordinance regarding number of roomers
Second reading of the Ordinance regarding requirements for master
electrician's license
Second reading of ordinance approving PAD for Ty'n Cae Subdivision,
Part 2
Resolution awarding bids for Rundell, Dearborn and Center Storm Sewer
Improvements
Public hearing on CDBG funds
Resolution approving five-year street construction and reconstruction
program
Resolutions on dispositions of alley right of way near 522 South
Dubuque, alley right of way at Valley and Lincoln Avenues, and
Des Moines Street right of way
Resolution authorizing the execution of an agreement with Hawkeye
Preservation Limited regarding steps for the Bagel Company
The Human Relations Director advised that health assessments are still
being conducted during the next couple of weeks. She encouraged employees
to take advantage of this opportunity.
Prepared by:
L!LL. Ls 'l/q.;
Lorraine Saeger
3 O
Informal Council Meeting
October 31, 1983
SWJE(
Land - Harrison and Linr
Kirkwood - School Proper
Parking Study
Mercy Hospital - vacant
Jefferson Street
Finance Staffing
Historic Preservation Cc
Economic Development Cort
Executive Session - liti
1
L I-
J
CEDAR RAPIDS TELEVISION COMPANY E;"yr:'` -7 J 1983
KCRG=TV9 RADIO IS
-2ND AVENUE AT 5TH STREET SE PHONE: 319.398.8422 TWX: 910-525.1341
CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA 52401
We thought you might be interested in the following Editorial Comment by Edna Herbst,
Vice President of the KCRG Stations and member of the KCRG Editorial Board. This Editorial
was scheduled on both KCRG-TV and KCRG RADIO on Thursday, October 20, 1983.
MORE THAN A FEW OF
YOU HAVE PROBABLY
ASKED, "WHY IN THE
WORLD ARE THE MAYORS
OF CEDAR RAPIDS AND
IOWA CITY IN SWITZER-
LAND, TRYING TO LURE
EUROPEAN FIRMS TO OUR
AREA?"
IF YOU HAVE PAID
ATTENTION LATELY TO
THE BUSINESS NEWS,
YOU UNDERSTAND WHY,
ITEM: JAPAN HAS
POSTED A RECORD SIX-
MONTH TRADE SURPLUS
OF OVER $12 BILLION,
LARGELY DUE TO SALES
OF CARS, COMPUTERS
AND VIDEO RECORDERS
TO OUR COUNTRY,
ITEM: THE U -S
TRADE SURPLUS WITH
COMMUNIST NATIONS HAS
ALL BUT DISAPPEARED,
313.E
Cr
PAGE TWO
FOR THE FIRST HALF
OF THIS YEAR, IT WAS
i
DOWN NEARLY TWO
BILLION FROM '82.
ITEM; OUR TRADE
DEFICIT WITH THE
WORLD AS A WHOLE GREW
TO OVER $7 BILLION
FOR THE MONTH OF
AUGUST ALONE.
(CHANGE CAMERA)
IT'S READILY APPAR-
ENT DRASTIC STEPS•MUST
BE TAKEN TO REDUCE THE
VAST SUMS WE ARE
SPENDING ON FOREIGN
'GOODS. ONE WAY IS TO
ENCOURAGE FOREIGN MANU-
FACTURERS TO PRODUCE
MORE OF THEIR GOODS
IN THIS COUNTRY.
IF THIS CANNOT BE
DONE VOLUNTARILY, THEN
WE SHOULD SERIOUSLY
CONSIDER THE APPROACH
BEING USED BY OTHER
NATIONS. THAT'S A
MANDATE THAT FOREIGN
1
COMPANIES MUST
LOCATE PLANTS IN
THE U.S. IF THEY
WANT TO CONTINUE
DOING BUSINESS HERE.
THAT'S TV 9'S
VIEW, LET US KNOW
YOURS BY WRITING TO
THE KCRG-TV EDITORIAL
BOARD.
3/3S
,J
CITY OF
CNIC CENTER 410 E. WASHINGTON ST
November 7, 1983
Mr. Tom Slockett
Johnson County Auditor
Johnson County Courthouse
417 S. Clinton St.
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
OWA
IOWA CITY. IOWA 52240
CITY
(319) 356-5CCO
Dear Tom:
The purpose of this letter is to summarize our recent discussions and
to reiterate the City's position regarding parking for precinct
polling places in the Central Business District.
It appears that two significant events have occurred in recent years
which dictate that we establish a policy as it relates to these
matters. First, the Recreation Center parking lot, previously used
by precinct poll workers, has been formally purchased by the City and
is entirely metered for parking. Secondly, the Senior Center has
also been designated a polling place. Taking into consideration the
increased demand for parking in the Central Business District, it is
necessary that we establish a policy regarding to what extent the
City will provide parking to accommodate voters and/or poll workers.
The City will continue its previous policy of providing, to the
greatest extent possible, necessary reserved parking for voters near
downtown polling places. This may involve temporary parking
provisions in certain prohibited zones, loading zones, etc. as well
as the hooding of meters to allow for free voter parking. However,
consistent with our policy of not providing special parking
privileges for downtown businesses and facilities and their
employees, including City employees, free parking will not be
provided for poll workers.
We have discussed areas near the Recreation Center and the Senior
Center, including the Dubuque Street parking ramp, where poll
workers might find long-term parking available. In addition, it is
my understanding that it is your intention to reimburse poll workers
for parking costs they might incur. I fully understand that these
costs would be charged back to whomever is responsible for the cost
of that particular election, and further, that in many cases this
will be the City of Iowa City. This practice is totally acceptable
and will allow the City to adhere to its policies in a consistent
manner while not creating a financial disadvantage for the County.
3136
Ci
Mr. Tom Slockett
November 7, 1983
Page 2
If you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter, or if
there are other issues which you wish to discuss, please do not
hesitate to contact me. I do appreciate your cooperation in
resolving this matter.
Sincerely yours,
Dale E. Helling
Assistant City Manager
cc: City Manager
Finance Director
Police Chief
Parking Systems Supervisor
bj/sp
3136
C iF
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 7, 1983
To: City Council ,t
From: Robert W. Jansen, City Attorney �J
Richard J. Boyle, Assistant City Attorney
Re: Some Legal Aspects of the Proposed Zoning Ordinance
A. Validity of Use of Zoning Power to Defer Development
The proposed zoning ordinance contains a zone - General Agricultural
(AG) - in which development will be substantially limited for a
period of years. As noted in Sec. 1-4 of the proposed ordinance
"(a) Intent. It is the intent that this zone provide for the
agricultural use of land within the city, which is most appro-
priately used for crops, orchards and the keeping of farm
animals until such time as the City is able to provide municipal
services and urban development can proceed according to the
1983 Comprehensive Plan Update (which includes the long range
plan)."
The AG zone's restrictions give rise to the question of whether a
City may zone property in such a way that residential or commercial
development is deferred until public services, such as sewers, are
established in the area. There are several facets to the question.
As with all zoning matters, there are the underlying questions of
whether or not the City Council is empowered to act in the particular
manner in which it seeks to act; whether it is following the required
procedural steps; and whether the enactment is consistent with the
underlying legislative (i.e. Iowa Code) enactment. Assuming
affirmative answers to those questions, leads to the matter of
whether the particular zoning measure is reasonable so that it passes
constitutional muster. Since we believe the statutory procedures
(Code Sec. 414.4-414.6) are being followed we will not comment
further on that question.
The Code of Iowa (1983) (the "Code") Section 414.1 provides, in part,
that
"For the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, or the
general welfare of any community... any city is hereby empowered
to regulate and restrict the height, number of stories, and size
of buildings and other structures, the percentage of lot that
may be occupied, the size of yards, courts, and other open
spaces, the density of population, and the location and use of
buildings, structures, and land for trade, industry, residence,
or other purposes."
3/,37
Code Sec. 414.3 (as amended in 1982) provides, in part, as follows:
"The regulations shall be made in accordance with a comprehen-
sive plan and designed to preserve the availability of
agricultural land;... to encourage efficient urban development
patterns; to lessen congestion in the street; to secure safety
from fire, flood, panic, and other dangers; to promote health
and the general welfare; ... and to facilitate the adequte
provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks,
and other public requirements. (Emphasis added)
Such regulations shall be made with reasonable consideration,
among other things, as to the character of the areas of the
district and the peculiar suitability of such areas for
j particular uses, and with a view to conserving the value of
} buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of land
throughout such city."
Taken together; we believe Code Sections 414.1 and 414.3 clearly
authorize or empower municipalities to impose zoning regulations
containing restrictions limiting development such as are found in
the AG zone of the proposed ordinance, and that the restrictions are
consistent with the enabling legislation. The question then, is
whether the restrictions are reasonable.
Zoning is an exercise of the police power (see e.g. Dom V. Sioux
City, 208 Iowa 1273, 227 N.W. 125 (1929);.City of Bloomfield v. Dav s
County Comm. School Dist., 254 Iowa 900, 119 N.W.2d 909 (19-637T.
Further, zoning is not static; existing regulations are always
subject to reasonable revisions (Hermann v. City of Des Moines, 250
Iowa 1281, 97 N.W.2d 893 (1959)). As the Court noted in Keller v.
City of Council Bluffs, 246 Iowa 113, 66 N.W. 2d 113, 116 (1954 T
[T]he governing body of a municipality may amend its zoning
ordinances any time it deems circumstances and conditions
warrant such action, and such an amendment is valid if the
procedural requirements of the statutes are followed and it is
not unreasonable or capricious nor inconsistent with the spirit
and design of the zoning statute."
Cf: Stone v. City of Wilton, 331 N.W.2d 398 (Iowa 1983).
Although each case must be judged on its own merits (e.g., Anderson
v. Jester, 206 Iowa 452, 221 N.W. 354 (1928)), the validity of the
types of restrictions imposed in the AG zone regulations have been
upheld in cases in other jurisdictions, where it was shown that such
restrictions were imposed in good faith, bore a real and substantial
relationship to the public welfare, and were of reasonable duration.
3/37
1. Good faith, implies that the restrictions are being imposed for
valid reasons, such as lack of adequte sewer capacity.
Associated Home Builders v. Livermore, 18 Cal. 3rd 582, 135 Cal.
Rptr. 41, 3 -5 -7F -2—d473 (1976); Golden v. Planning Board of
Ramapo, 30 N.Y.S.2d 359, 334 N75.2d 138, 285 N.E.2d 291
(1972), app. dismd., 409 U.S. 1003, 93 S. Ct. 436, 440, 34 L.
Ed. 2d 294. Cf. Stone v. City of Wilton, supra, 331 N.W.2d at
402. In the case of Iowa City, there is a clearly demonstrated
need for additional sewer capacity, so we would suggest the good
faith test is adequately met. Cf: Iowa City Comprehensive Plan
Update, 1983.
2. Public welfare is a somewhat imprecise concept, but "is
sufficiently broad to encompass the City's desire to grow at an
orderly pace and in a compact manner." Dateline Builders, Inc.
v. gity of Santa Rosa, 194 Cal. Rptr. 258, 2 44 (Ct. App. 1983).
In Iowa, the orderly growth concept is encompassed within the
language of the State enabling legislation stating that zoning
"regulations shall be... designed to—encourage efficient urban
development patterns..." (Code Sec. 414.3)
Further, although its provisions are not applicable to cities,
Chapter 93A of the Code of Iowa (1983) sets forth the State's
policies with respect to land preservation and use, and
expressly states (Sec.93A.1).
"It is the intent of the general assembly and the policy of
the state to provide for the orderly use and development of
land and related natural resources of Iowa for
residential, commercial, industrial, and recreational
purposes..."
3. The final test for the validity of zoning restrictions imposing
severe limitations upon the development of land is whether the
restrictions are of reasonable duration. In Golden v. Plannin
Board of Ramapo, supra, the Court of Appeals of New York
sustained limitations on development which would last for
eighteen years. In that case, the Town of Ramapo showed that it
had adopted a capital budget for the location and sequence of
sewer improvements for a six year period, and a capital program
for additional capital improvements for the twelve years
following the life of the capital budget.
In Iowa City's case, the 1983 Comprehensive Plan Update, which was
approved by the City Council on February 15, 1983, contains a capital
improvements program (CIP) schedule which allows compact and
contiguous growth of the City.
In summary, we believe the City Council clearly has power to enact
the AG zone restrictions, and. that the validity of such restrictions
is supported by both the language of the State zoning enabling act
(Code Chapter 414, esp. Sec. 414.3) as well as the cases cited.
__ 3137
Gi
Board of Adjustment Functions and Powers.
Code sections 414.7-414.19 relate to boards of adjustment. Section
414.7 provides that a zoning ordinance
"shall provide that the board of adjustment may in appropriate
cases and subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards make
special exceptions to the terms of the ordinances [sic] in
harmony with its general purpose and intent and in accordance
with general or specific rules therein contained and provide
that any property owner aggrieved by the action of the council
in the adoption of such regulations and restrictions may
petition the said board of adjustment direct to modify
regulations and restrictions as applied to such property
owners."
Code Section 414.12 lists the powers of the board of adjustment as
follows:
111. To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is
error in any order, requirement, decision, or
determination. made by an administrative official in the
enforcement of this chapter or of any ordinance adopted
pursuant thereto.
2. To hear and decide special exceptions to the terms of the
ordinance upon which such board is required to pass under
such ordinance.
3. To authorize upon appeal in specific cases such variance
from the terms of the ordinance as will not be contrary to
the public interest, where owing to special conditions a
literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance
will result in unnecessary hardship, and so that the
spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and substantial
justice done."
Thus, the powers granted to boards of adjustment by statute are to
(1) interpret the zoning ordinance, (2) decide on requests for
special exceptions, and (3) grant variances. In exercising its
powers the board may "reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may
modify the order, requirement, decision, or determination appealed
from and may make such order, requirement, decision or determination
as ought to be made, and to that end shall have all of the powers of
the officer from whom the appeal is taken." Code Sec. 414.13.
1. Interpretation. The proposed ordinance, as does the current
ordinance, provides a zoning code interpretation panel,
(Proposed Ord. Sec. 1.3.1(2)(2); City Code of Ordinances Sec.
8.10.3.A.84) to interpret the ordinance for purposes of
internal administration. By direction of the City Manager, the
panel, consists of the City Attorney, the Director of Planning
and Program Development, and the Director of Housing and
3W
Inspection Services. In cases in which the panel cannot reach
unanimous decision, the City Manager renders the decision.
However, final administrative authority for interpreting the
ordinance lies in the board of adjustment, which may be asked to
review a zoning code interpretation panel (or city manager)
determination, or to review the propriety of either the grant or
denial of a building permit where such action is based upon the
zoning ordinance.
Special exceptions. The second major power of boards of
adjustment is to hear and decide applications for special
exceptions.
"An 'exception' in a zoning ordinance is one allowable
where facts and circumstances detailed in the ordinance,
as those upon which an exception may be permitted, are
found to exist." Re Deveraux Foundation, 351 Pa. 478, 41
A.2d 744, 746 (1945).
Special "Exceptions are deviations from the generally
authorized use in a zone specifically permitted by the local
legislature when it enacts the zoning ordinance." 1A Antieau,
Municipal Corporation Law, Sec. 7.99, p. 7-144. A special use
is the same thing as a special exception. Buchholz v. Board of
Ad j_ ofBremer County, 199 N.W.2d 73 (Iowa 1972 .
"The fundamental purpose of the special exception or use
is to serve in an ancillary role as an allocator of land
use, and is generally used to accomplish use changes
without formal amendment by the council."CCity of Des
Moines v. Lohner, 168 N.W.2d 779, 784 (Iowa 1969).
Under Chapter 414 of the Code, the legislature has delegated to
the board of adjustment exclusive jurisdiction over special
exceptions. Depue v. City of Clinton, 160 N.W.2d 860 (Iowa
1968).
Thus, the question is not whether the council may, in the zoning
ordinance, allow special exceptions, rather it is whether the
power to grant special exceptions is
"accompanied by sufficient guides or standards to govern
the board's actions. This to the end interested parties
may be able to reasonably determine their rights and they
will not be left to the board's arbitrary discretion."
Chicano, Rock Island & Pacific R.R. Co. v. Liddle, 253 Iowa
402, 112 N. W. 2d 852, 854 1962).
In the proposed ordinance, as authorized by Code Sec. 414.7,
there are numerous special exceptions provisions, all of which
3/37
are subject to either specific requirements (e.g. Sec. 1-
4(d)(1) (p. 19) requiring that communications towers be located
at least as far from property lines as their height above grade)
and/or general requirements (Sec. 1-79(g)(2), pp. 177-178)
which are intended to ensure that the uses permitted as special
exceptions will be compatible with uses of nearby properties.
Further, the board is empowered, where appropriate, to
condition the grant of a special exception upon certain
safeguards (such as installation of fencing or screening) which
can minimize the impact of the proposed use upon surrounding
uses.
The important point to remember about special exceptions is
that an applicant is entitled to establish the use if he/she
demonstrates to the board that the conditions set forth in the
ordinance have been met. "The board of adjustment merely serves
as a factfinder to assure that the requisite conditions are
met." Contemporary Studies Project, Rural Land Use Regulation
in Iowa: An Empirical Analysis of County Board of Adjustment
Practices, 68 Iowa L. Rev. 1083, 1139 (1983) [hereinafter cited
asp C�mporary Studies Project"].*
3. Variances. According to a leading authority on zoning matters
"A variance is the authority granted to the owner of land
to use his property in a manner otherwise violative of the
zoning regulations. The variance waives the strict letter
of the zoning ordinance while at the same time it preserves
the spirit and purpose thereof." 3 Yockley, Zoning Law and
Practice (4th Ed. 1979), Sec. 21-2, p. 264 [hereinafter
cited as Yockley].
Yockley further states (Sec. 21-1, pp. 262-263):
"Perhaps the most troublesome feature of our zoning laws,
especially in practical application, lies in the proper
apprbach to the 'problem of how to handle the many requests
for variances. So many requests reach the zoning boards
for variances not based on any real need that it is
inevitable that many variances are improperly granted
because of the personal financial plight of the applicant
and the failure of protestants to appear before the board.
With the possible exception of 'spot zoning,' nothing can
*Code chapter 358A, relating to county zoning, is essentially identical to
the municipal zoning chapter - 414, Gannett v. Cook, 245 Iowa 750, 61
N.W.2d 703 (1953).
,3/3%
contribute more to the general breakdown of the zoning
system in any municipality than the indiscriminate
practice of granting variances without cause or reason
other than the personal desire of the applicant to receive
some special advantage. This does not mean, however, that
there are not many instances where variances are lawful
and proper under the facts.
* * a x
It has been said that to preserve the validity of the
zoning ordinance in its application to the community in
general, the variance provision of the enabling act
s
functionas an 'escape valve so that when regulations
that apply to all are unnecessarily burdensome to a few
because of certain unique circumstances a means of relief
from the mandates of the ordinance is provided."
Yockley (Sec. 21-1, pp. 262-263) also states
"The true variance is designed to preserve the
constitutionality of zoning legislation. It is invoked to
avoid the confiscatory effect that would follow a literal
enforcement of some term of a zoning ordinance operating
to deprive an owner of all beneficial use of his land."
The same principles apply in Iowa.
"In contrast to a special exception, a variance is an
extraordinary remedy, justified only in 'situations of
'unnecessary hardship.' Contemporary Studies Project,
supra, p. 1140; accord, Deardorf v. Board of Adjustment,
254 Iowa 380, 386, 118 9.W.2d 78, 81—F1962); Buchholz V.
Board of Adjustment, 199 N.W.2d 73, 75 (Iowa 197
"There are two basic types of variances: 'use' variances
which permit uses that are otherwise illegal according to
the zoning ordinance, and 'area' variances - sometimes
referred to as 'bulk' or 'nonuse' variances - which
customarily involve departures from the physical
restrictions imposed by by the ordinance, such as lot
size, height, or setback requirements." Contemporary
Studies Project, supra, p. 1141.
Although there is some overlap between use and area variances,
the Iowa statute does not distinguish between the two (Graziano
v. Board of Adjustment, 323 N.W.2d 233, 236 (Iowa 1982 ,
however, use variances are generally considered to have a more
destructive impact on the zoning ordinance and land use plan
because they allow uses that have been judged by the legislative
body (i.e., the council) to be incompatible with the other uses
in the zoning district.
,3/.37
As noted above, variances may only be granted upon a showing of
"unnecessary hardship." See Iowa Code Sec. 414.12(3). However,
the term unnecessary hardship is not defined in the Iowa
statute, so courts and local authorities have been responsible
for providing meaning to the term. The most widely accepted
definition of the term was articulated in a New York case (Otto
v. Steinhibler, 282 N.Y. 71, 24 N.E.2d 851 (1939)) which sets
forth three tests for showing unnecessary hardship.
1. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return
if used only for a purpose allowed in the zone in which it
is located; and
2. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances and
not to general conditions of the neighborhood, which may
reflect the unreasonableness of the ordinance itself; and
3. The use to be authorized by the variance will not alter the
essential character of the locality.
"The unnecessary hardship test is stated conjunctively;
therefore, the absence of any one element is fatal."
Contemporary Studies Project, supra, p. 1185.
The Iowa Supreme Court adopted the Otto v. Steinhiller test in
Deardorf v. Board of Adjustment, supra; accord, Graziano v.
Board of Adjustment, supra.
Although the Iowa Court has not discussed the exact meaning of
each of the prongs of the so-called "three pronged test" for
showing unnecessary hardship, courts in other states have.
The reasonable return requirement generally means that a
petitioner must show that the property is not suitable for any
permitted use, and such requirement is unrelated to personal
considerations since variances run with the land. The fact that
a property owner is denied a more profitable use is not a lack
of a reasonable return. "Economic hardship will not justify a
variance unless the property is rendered practically useless."
Contemporary Studies Project, supra, p. 1187. Yockley, sec.
21-1.
Unique circumstances means that an owner's property is affected
differently than property of other owners subject to the same
restrictions. If the hardship is common to an entire area, the
appropriate remedy is rezoning, not a variance. "When
variances are issued in cases of common hardship, special
privileges are awarded to a handful of property owners at the
expense of those who are still subject to the restrictive
provisions of the ordinance." Contemporary Studies Project,
supra, pp. 1187-1188. Again, the circumstances of uniqueness
3/3%
must relate to the land and not to the personal circumstances of
the petitioner.
The essential character of the locality requirement is intended
to protect the private interest of neighboring property owners
from the encroachment of incompatible uses, and to protect the
public interests underlying the zoning scheme. For example, a
variance to allow a commercial use in a residential area may
decrease property values, thereby infringing on the rights of
neighbors, and it may also be contrary to the public interest
because it creates dangerous traffic congestion. Contemporary
Studies Project, supra, p. 1189-1190.
With respect to use variances, the proposed ordinance
incorporates the Otto v. Steinhibler/Deardorf criteria into the
variance provisions (Sec. 1-79(g)(3)a-b, p. 179). In addition,
as part of the unnecessary hardship test, the proposal requires
that the hardship not be of the landowner's own making, which is
another way of saying that a hardship which is self-imposed
cannot be considered unnecessary.
Finally, even though the proposed ordinance would allow special
exceptions to the yard and area requirements (see sec. 1-62(b),
p. 153), in an attempt to avoid imposing unduly stringent
requirements on applicants for other than use variances (i.e.,
for area variances), the proposed ordinance substitutes for the
reasonable return requirement a requirement that the applicant
show "practical difficulties in the way of carrying out the
strict letter of this Chapter." The other requirements - not
contrary to the public interest, uniqueness of the property,
and hardship not self-imposed - are still retained.
In a Nebraska case (Alumni Control 8d., Alpha Psi Chapter v.
City of Lincoln, 179 Neb. 194, 137 N.W.2d 800, 802 (1965)Tthe
court said:
"The criteria generally and properly before a board of
appeals on an application for a variance from area
restrictions of a zoning code are: (1) Whether compliance
with the strict letter of the restrictions governing area,
setbacks, frontage, height, bulk, or density would
unreasonably prevent the owner from using the property for
a permitted purpose or would render conformity with such
restrictions unnecessarily burdensome; (2) whether a grant
of the variance applied for would do substantial justice
to the applicant as well as to other property owners in the
district, or whether a lesser relaxation than that applied
for would give substantial relief to the owner of the
property involved and be more consistant with justice to
other property owners; and (3) whether relief can be
granted in such a fashion that the spirit of the ordinance
3137
10
will be observed and public safety and welfare secured. 2
Rathkopf, The Law of Zoning and Planning (3rd Ed.), 45-
28."
The area variance tests are, then, still quite stringent, but do
not present an applicant with the practically insurmountable
task of showing that the property cannot be put to any
reasonable use allowed in the zone. Further, as noted above,
the board of adjustment is authorized to grant a special
exception to modify yard requirements (Prop. Ord. Sec. 1-62(b),
p. 153) so we anticipate few area variance requests.
One other comment should be made, and that regards an objection
to Sec. 1-33 (p. 82) relating to variances from the requirements
of the Floodplain Overlay (OFP) Zone regulations. Iowa Code
(1983) Section 4558.276 requires that floodplain zoning
ordinances be reviewed and approved by the Water, Air and Waste i
Management Commission, and that "Changes or variations from an
approved regulation or ordinance as it relates to flood plain
use aresubject to approval by the commission prior to
adoption." Thus, the OFP regulations merely reflect state law
and are subject to the overriding authority vested in the
commission.
C. Nonconformities
Basically these sections are the same as current ordinance. However,
because of the non -pyramidal nature of the new ordinance, certain
uses permitted now will not beallowed, e.g. the current ordinance
allows detached single family residences in all zones except the CO,
CB, CBS, IP, PC and ORP zones, while the new ordinance allows such
dwellings only in the RR -1, RS -5, RS -8, RS -12, RM -12, RM -20 and RNC -
20 zones. Thus, such use is not permitted in high density
residential, commercial or industrial zones.
The nonconformities section was drafted to exempt existing single
family dwellings from being treated as nonconformities either as to
use or lot or building. That is, such dwellings may continue
umimpeded so long as single family use continues.
Further, the ordinance raises from 50% to 100% of its assessed value
the level or amount of damage which must be sustained before a
nonconformity must be discontinued.
Super -majority voting requirements
The current zoning ordinance (Sec. 8.10.32.8.) in conformity with
State law (Code sec. 414.5), provides that at least three-fourths of
the members of the council are needed to approve any rezoning request
where there is a written protest against such change by the owners of
twenty percent or more either of the area included in such change, or
3/37
11
i
bj/sp
of those immediately adjacent in the rear thereof extending the depth
of one lot or not to exceed two hundred feet therefrom, or of those
directly opposite thereto, extending the depth of one lot or not to
exceed two hundred feet from the street frontage of such opposite
lots.
The current ordinance also requires a three-fourths majority of
council members for approval where the planning and zoning
commission recommends against an amendment.
The proposed ordinance (Sec. 1-76(b)) includes similar "super -
majority" requirements, and also would require a super -majority if
twenty percent or more of adjacent lot owners on either side of an
area proposed to be rezoned protest the rezoning.
3/3�